DreamTheaterForums.org Dream Theater Fan Site
General => General Discussion => Topic started by: KevShmev on July 04, 2018, 01:47:02 PM
-
Thought I would give the forum something to chew on before I head out for the 4th...
Colin Cowherd today listed his top 10 America's Teams:
1. Dallas Cowboys
2. LA Lakers
3. NY Yankees
4. Green Bay Packers
5. Pittsburgh Steelers
6. Notre Dame football
7. Chicago Cubs
8. Golden State Warriors
9. Duke basketball
10. NE Patriots
I would not put the Cubs, Warriors or Patriots on there. For a list like this, I would put teams that are legendary over the long haul. The St Louis Cardinals and Boston Celtics have to be on there. I would also put either UNC basketball or an NHL team (can't decided which I would put).
-
Only in America does a blowhard like Cowherd have a job.
Anyway:
1) Too much self-hype. If you have to call yourself America's Team, you aren't
2) Should be toward the top, largely based on history, thanks to Showtime and sustained success
3) Would be my #1. Lots of hatred, but generations of fans who grew up Yankees fans, like my dad, who is a fan to this day, as he grew up in AZ, and then moved to WA, so never had a local team until 1977.
4) Too regional
5) See #5
6) Too irrelevant lately to overcome massive history
7) Eh... can't argue either way
8) Too recent, too bandwagon-y
9) Too much national hatred, probably more than national love
10) See #9
No NHL team is in the top #20.
So basically I just shot down the whole list. Not very productive to the conversation there Cool Chris.
Still pissed that one of my local stations swapped out Rome for Cowherd (I know, I know, one blowhard replaced another...)
-
Of course, I'm biased because I'm a fan of both teams, but I think the Cubs and Steelers belong on the list because of their massive following outside of their markets. Both teams probably have the 2nd largest following in their sports behind the Yankees and Cowboys.
-
5) See #5
No NHL team is in the top #20.
Two fails in one post. ;)
For NHL, I would have to put it as would be the Blackhawks. Though, it's the US, so I almost have to agree with Chris.
-
IDK. The Pens is up there too
-
When I clicked on this thread I was expecting Bill Cowher’s list. :D
-
When I clicked on this thread I was expecting Bill Cowher’s list. :D
You weren't the only one.
Pens .... pffft. They've only been around for 50 or so years. They don't count. That's like saying the Oilers are Canada's team.
-
Tell me how Dallas is America's team really. Fans openly root for them to fail.
It's not they are so good I root for them to fail. It's a, "I hope they blow up" fail.
-
Only in America does a blowhard like Cowherd have a job.
..and a blowhard like KevShmev quotes him. :P :P
-
Of course, I'm biased because I'm a fan of both teams, but I think the Cubs and Steelers belong on the list because of their massive following outside of their markets. Both teams probably have the 2nd largest following in their sports behind the Yankees and Cowboys.
Eh, the Cubs alleged big following is new, after the bandwagon filled up due to them finally winning a World Series. No chance in hell are they are as iconic as the Cardinals.
Only in America does a blowhard like Cowherd have a job.
Call me crazy, but out of all of the talking heads/hot take specialists on ESPN and FS1, he is by far the most tolerable.
Tell me how Dallas is America's team really. Fans openly root for them to fail.
It's not they are so good I root for them to fail. It's a, "I hope they blow up" fail.
Pretty much every team we could put on this list would have many fans rooting for them to fail.
Only in America does a blowhard like Cowherd have a job.
..and a blowhard like KevShmev quotes him. :P :P
(https://img.buzzfeed.com/buzzfeed-static/static/2016-11/14/7/asset/buzzfeed-prod-fastlane03/anigif_sub-buzz-30384-1479126765-2.gif)
-
Of course, I'm biased because I'm a fan of both teams, but I think the Cubs and Steelers belong on the list because of their massive following outside of their markets. Both teams probably have the 2nd largest following in their sports behind the Yankees and Cowboys.
Nah, it was there before the World Series win. They were the "lovable losers" for a great deal of time. I've been watching them since the early 80's, and they've always had a significant fan following when visiting other ball parks. And having seen them play in Cincinatti a few times over the years, most times I've been there there have been more Cubs fans in attendance than Reds fans.
-
Even if that is all true, the Cardinals are still the more iconic franchise.
Just look at legends for both teams.
The Cardinals have Stan Musial, Ozzie Smith, Roger Hornsby, Albert Pujols, Bob Gibson, Lou Brock, Enos Slaughter, Red Schoendienst, Dizzy Dean, etc. The list goes on and on.
The Cubs have Ernie Banks and....who else? :lol :lol
It's hard to have legends when you are known for being losers for a solid century.
-
:natalieportman:
-
When I clicked on this thread I was expecting Bill Cowher’s list. :D
You weren't the only one.
Pens .... pffft. They've only been around for 50 or so years. They don't count. That's like saying the Oilers are Canada's team.
Hah, true - but if we are talking American teams - the Pens have consistently had the best TV ratings among American NHL teams over the last several years, so I'd say they'd be up there for American-based teams.
That said - in all honesty, hockey is no where near football, baseball, and basketball in popularity in the US, so I don't think I'd put a hockey team on a top 10 list.
-
Kev, fans root for the great teams to fail. the Cowboys hate is for a whole other reason. :lol
-
I love the Warriors, but they don't belong on that list.
-
Is the America's Team label even relevant on the Cowboys since their fans are still trying desperately ride on the long gone coattails of 20+ year old Superbowl victories?
-
I love the Warriors, but they don't belong on that list.
Yea, they are the talk of the town today, but where were they before? They don't belong.
I don't think an NHL team belongs on this list, there isn't an American team that really fits since hockey fans are pretty regional.
I could see UNC as someone else stated. They transcend college bball, like Duke. Patriots are tough, but I think their sustained success may have gotten them #10. I think Boston Celtics are very close to belonging.
-
Dallas or New York are no. 1. The Lakers don't belong on that list, at least not above the Celts or the Packers. I'd put the Rangers on that list as well; original six, biggest market in the U.S.... I also think the Cubs should be on there as well.
-
I disagree with you on the Lakers on one part Stadler. The Lakers are very well liked and transcend to many other state outside of California.
-
To be honest, I'm not even sure I really understand what the "America's team" label is really supposed to mean. And I'm not sure anyone else is either.
That said, and maybe I'm misunderstanding the "America's team" label (as fuzzy and ultimately meaningless as it is, but nevertheless), but I feel like there should only be one per sport. Rightly or wrongly, the cowboys have been declared the bearers of that name since forever, so with all due respect to the Packers, Steelers, and Pats, take them off the list as well.
I would say the following qualify:
-NFL: Cowboys
-MLB: Probably Yankees? But if someone could make a strong argument for the Cardinals or maybe Cubs, I couldn't argue too strenuously.
-NBA: Lakers or maybe Celtics. Possibly Knicks, but that is probably a stretch and reaches too far back to too narrow a time period.
-NHL: I have no idea.
-College football: Probably Notre Dame?
-College basketball: No clue.
Other sports? Does it even matter? I feel like we're already stretching just to get 6.
-
Colin Cowherd today listed his top 10 America's Teams:
1. Dallas Cowboys
2. LA Lakers
3. NY Yankees
4. Green Bay Packers
5. Pittsburgh Steelers
6. Notre Dame football
7. Chicago Cubs
8. Golden State Warriors
9. Duke basketball
10. NE Patriots
I would not put the Cubs, Warriors or Patriots on there. For a list like this, I would put teams that are legendary over the long haul. The St Louis Cardinals and Boston Celtics have to be on there. I would also put either UNC basketball or an NHL team (can't decided which I would put).
I assume this generally means teams that have large national fan bases. If so, I think 1, 3, 4 and 5 belong on the list. I can't really speak to the Lakers since I live in Socal, so I don't have any sort of national perspective.
ND football used to belong, but I think they've been eclipsed over the last 20+ years (by Alabama and maybe USC (again with not having a national perspective there)).
The Cubs have always had a strong national fanbase -- even before they got good in the last 5 years. However, I think that's too much of a recent thing, and if they don't stay strong over the long haul, it will diminish back to "lovable loser" status. The Red Sox belong on this list over the Cubs.
The Warriors are WAY too recent to be on the list. Once the current spike is over, no one will care about them. Celtics should be on the list.
Duke basketball is fine.
Patriots should be much higher on the list (and the Cowboys should be lower, but still belong).
The Penguins or Blackhawks are as close as the NHL comes to this list, but the reality is that no NHL team belongs on this list (the Hawks, also an O6 franchise, have a much stronger national appeal than the Rangers).
Even if that is all true, the Cardinals are still the more iconic franchise.
Just look at legends for both teams.
The Cardinals have Stan Musial, Ozzie Smith, Roger Hornsby, Albert Pujols, Bob Gibson, Lou Brock, Enos Slaughter, Red Schoendienst, Dizzy Dean, etc. The list goes on and on.
The Cubs have Ernie Banks and....who else? :lol :lol
It's hard to have legends when you are known for being losers for a solid century.
I disagree that the Cardinals are a more iconic franchise. In terms of baseball, they're on the same level.
Cubs legends? For starters, and since you mentioned them, how about Rogers Hornsby and Dizzy Dean? While both played longer and were better with the Cards, each was a Cub for four seasons, and Hornsby won an MVP with the Cubs. On a more serious note: Andre Dawson, Billy Williams, Grover Cleveland Alexander (also a Cardinal for a few seasons at the end of his career), Ryne Sandberg, Fergie Jenkins, Ron Santo, Hack Wilson, Bruce Sutter, Sammy Sosa, Lee Smith, 3-Finger Brown, Rick Sutcliffe, Cap Anson (they weren't the Cubs yet, but still), Joe Tinker/Johnny Evers/Frank Chance, and Billy Herman. All of those guys are (or, in the case of Smith and Sosa, should be in) in the Hall of Fame and, with the possible exception of Billy Herman, all are well known to baseball fans (at least to the extent that Enos Slaughter and Red Schoendienst are). And I haven't even mentioned active players like Jake Arrieta, Jon Lester, Kris Bryant and Anthony Rizzo. Other than Albert Pujols and Yadier Molina, I can't think of a single current or recent Cardinal on the same level.
Moreover, the Cubs are FAR more of a national team, whereas the Cards are more of a regional team. When the Cubs play at Dodger Stadium, Cubs fans are there in droves, and that has been the case since long before the recent resurgence. Not so much with Cards fans.
-
These things change with the tide, but my only disagreements with the original list would be Golden State and New England.
If there was a Top 20, for quite a while you could have included the Chicago Bulls, Detroit Red Wings, Atlanta Braves, and the Miami Hurricanes, due to all the hats and unis one would see. And Dodger hats still seem to be a popular item.
I'd include the Oakland Raiders in the current Top Ten. Just look around, as well as for all of the fans that show up at their road games. For some odd reason, items that have just the Nike or Under Armour logos would probably make the list now.
-
Even if that is all true, the Cardinals are still the more iconic franchise.
Just look at legends for both teams.
The Cardinals have Stan Musial, Ozzie Smith, Roger Hornsby, Albert Pujols, Bob Gibson, Lou Brock, Enos Slaughter, Red Schoendienst, Dizzy Dean, etc. The list goes on and on.
The Cubs have Ernie Banks and....who else? :lol :lol
It's hard to have legends when you are known for being losers for a solid century.
I disagree that the Cardinals are a more iconic franchise. In terms of baseball, they're on the same level.
Cubs legends? For starters, and since you mentioned them, how about Rogers Hornsby and Dizzy Dean? While both played longer and were better with the Cards, each was a Cub for four seasons, and Hornsby won an MVP with the Cubs. On a more serious note: Andre Dawson, Billy Williams, Grover Cleveland Alexander (also a Cardinal for a few seasons at the end of his career), Ryne Sandberg, Fergie Jenkins, Ron Santo, Hack Wilson, Bruce Sutter, Sammy Sosa, Lee Smith, 3-Finger Brown, Rick Sutcliffe, Cap Anson (they weren't the Cubs yet, but still), Joe Tinker/Johnny Evers/Frank Chance, and Billy Herman. All of those guys are (or, in the case of Smith and Sosa, should be in) in the Hall of Fame and, with the possible exception of Billy Herman, all are well known to baseball fans (at least to the extent that Enos Slaughter and Red Schoendienst are). And I haven't even mentioned active players like Jake Arrieta, Jon Lester, Kris Bryant and Anthony Rizzo. Other than Albert Pujols and Yadier Molina, I can't think of a single current or recent Cardinal on the same level.
Moreover, the Cubs are FAR more of a national team, whereas the Cards are more of a regional team. When the Cubs play at Dodger Stadium, Cubs fans are there in droves, and that has been the case since long before the recent resurgence. Not so much with Cards fans.
A lot to unpack here...
The Cards fan base is absolutely not regional. I don't watch baseball like I used to, but there were Cards fans in the stands in seemingly every road game they played since forever. Cardinals fans are everywhere.
Jake Arietta is legend? Based off what, two great seasons? Come on, now.
But you fail to mention Scott Rolen, Jim Edmonds, Chris Carpenter and Adam Wainwright, all of whom have had better MLB careers than any of those active Cubs you mentioned (but not legends).
You are including Dizzy Dean as a Cub? :lol :lol That is not the way it works, otherwise I can call Wayne Gretzky a Blues legend and Michael Jordan a Washington Wizards legend. There is a big difference between being x-team's legend and being a legend that just happened to play for x-team for a while. Albert Pujols is a Cardinals legend, but will not go down as an Angels legend despite playing there for many years now. That is the difference.
The Cardinals have almost twice as many retired numbers as the Cubs (not counting managers or owners).
-
Even if that is all true, the Cardinals are still the more iconic franchise.
Just look at legends for both teams.
The Cardinals have Stan Musial, Ozzie Smith, Roger Hornsby, Albert Pujols, Bob Gibson, Lou Brock, Enos Slaughter, Red Schoendienst, Dizzy Dean, etc. The list goes on and on.
The Cubs have Ernie Banks and....who else? :lol :lol
It's hard to have legends when you are known for being losers for a solid century.
I disagree that the Cardinals are a more iconic franchise. In terms of baseball, they're on the same level.
Cubs legends? For starters, and since you mentioned them, how about Rogers Hornsby and Dizzy Dean? While both played longer and were better with the Cards, each was a Cub for four seasons, and Hornsby won an MVP with the Cubs. On a more serious note: Andre Dawson, Billy Williams, Grover Cleveland Alexander (also a Cardinal for a few seasons at the end of his career), Ryne Sandberg, Fergie Jenkins, Ron Santo, Hack Wilson, Bruce Sutter, Sammy Sosa, Lee Smith, 3-Finger Brown, Rick Sutcliffe, Cap Anson (they weren't the Cubs yet, but still), Joe Tinker/Johnny Evers/Frank Chance, and Billy Herman. All of those guys are (or, in the case of Smith and Sosa, should be in) in the Hall of Fame and, with the possible exception of Billy Herman, all are well known to baseball fans (at least to the extent that Enos Slaughter and Red Schoendienst are). And I haven't even mentioned active players like Jake Arrieta, Jon Lester, Kris Bryant and Anthony Rizzo. Other than Albert Pujols and Yadier Molina, I can't think of a single current or recent Cardinal on the same level.
Moreover, the Cubs are FAR more of a national team, whereas the Cards are more of a regional team. When the Cubs play at Dodger Stadium, Cubs fans are there in droves, and that has been the case since long before the recent resurgence. Not so much with Cards fans.
A lot to unpack here...
The Cards fan base is absolutely not regional. I don't watch baseball like I used to, but there were Cards fans in the stands in seemingly every road game they played since forever. Cardinals fans are everywhere.
Jake Arietta is legend? Based off what, two great seasons? Come on, now.
But you fail to mention Scott Rolen, Jim Edmonds, Chris Carpenter and Adam Wainwright, all of whom have had better MLB careers than any of those active Cubs you mentioned (but not legends).
You are including Dizzy Dean as a Cub? :lol :lol That is not the way it works, otherwise I can call Wayne Gretzky a Blues legend and Michael Jordan a Washington Wizards legend. There is a big difference between being x-team's legend and being a legend that just happened to play for x-team for a while. Albert Pujols is a Cardinals legend, but will not go down as an Angels legend despite playing there for many years now. That is the difference.
The Cardinals have almost twice as many retired numbers as the Cubs (not counting managers or owners).
Bryant/Rizzo >>>> Rolen/Edmonds/Carpenter (assuming Bryant and Rizzo stay on their present career tracks). Why not throw David Freese in there.... Arrieta > Wainwright, but it's closer.
My reference to Hornsby and Dean was obviously facetious (however, as noted, Hornsby did win an MVP as a Cub).
Volume of retired numbers is meaningless. With one exception, the Dodgers only retire numbers of HoF'ers. Does that mean they only had 8 "legends"? The larger point was that suggesting Ernie Banks was the only legendary Cub was just silly.
And Cards fans do NOT travel the way Cubs fans do.
-
I am going to have to assume that you haven't watched the Cardinals play much in the last 10+ years if you really think that Arietta's two great years trump Wainwright's decade of excellence (although he had trouble staying healthy a few years in there).
What they might do in the future is meaningless. We are talking right now, the here and now, and no skill position player on the Cubs can currently touch Rolen or Edmonds. It's not even close.
There is no way to prove which teams travels better, so we can agree to disagree on that.
Edit: I cleaned this post up a little so as not to come off as too combative. :)
-
Broncos suck.
Combative! :lol
-
I don't have a horse in this race, but I was curious so I took a look at this year's attendance figures so far. Cubs are 3rd in the league and St Louis are 23rd in raw per game average. If you switch to stadium capacity then Chicago stays at 3 and the Cards jump to 15th.
-
I don't have a horse in this race, but I was curious so I took a look at this year's attendance figures so far. Cubs are 3rd in the league and St Louis are 23rd in raw per game average. If you switch to stadium capacity then Chicago stays at 3 and the Cards jump to 15th.
That is one you've got to give Cubs fans. They will always show up to get drunk and watch their team, no matter how good or bad they are!
Broncos suck.
Combative! :lol
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TeloDrSKZm8&t=10s
-
:lol
I'd thought you'd use this.
https://youtu.be/vJ4UwE5WNI0
-
That was next in the queue.
-
But of course. If you put it at full volume, you can hear me cursing from section 200. :lol
-
But of course. If you put it at full volume, you can hear me cursing from section 200. :lol
(https://78.media.tumblr.com/d1ce38c7f178d9d450872e55e1c4e71e/tumblr_ok6216yL8l1rzbj5mo1_500.gif)
-
Oh no. I was more like Big Bam Bigelow off the top rope mad.
-
For what it's worth nobody in Dallas has bought into the America's team thing for at least 40 years.
"America's teams" wouldn't be about simple popularity. You're looking at brand notoriety and its geographic coverage. The Cowboys are the team of choice for a huge area including Texas, NM, OK, AR, and Mexico. Hell, half of Houston roots for Dallas. Outside of the US everybody knows who the Dallas Cowboys are, even if it's just because of the cheerleaders or some affiliation with a bit of pop culture. I think this applies to the Lakers, as well. People in Timbuktu know who the Lakers are even if it's just because of the celebrities sitting courtside all the time. The Yankees are similar notable outside of the US, probably due in part to their longevity. They've been winning championships for 115 years in the most notable city in the US.
So based on all of that I agree with the top 3, and don't think they next 7 are meaningful.
I did see some Patriots jerseys in Mexcio, BTW. They're set to supplant the Cowboys as Mexico's team. Los Raiders are also gaining ground.
-
UConn Basketball. Look it up. For about a decade under Calhoun, they had both the largest out-of-state press contingent at games (yes, more than Duke) and one of the largest traveling contingents of any team in the NCAA. Plus, back in...I want to say it's 2000 or so, I was in Zurich, Switzerland, and walking past a sports apparel store, and in the front display window was a complete set of UConn basketball gear. Having the greatest basketball coach in the history of the game (yes, I said that) as their women's coach doesn't hurt either. Just throwing it out there.
-
You are including Dizzy Dean as a Cub? :lol :lol That is not the way it works, otherwise I can call Wayne Gretzky a Blues legend and Michael Jordan a Washington Wizards legend. There is a big difference between being x-team's legend and being a legend that just happened to play for x-team for a while. Albert Pujols is a Cardinals legend, but will not go down as an Angels legend despite playing there for many years now. That is the difference.
So Scott Rolen and Jim Edmonds, both of whom were mentioned immediately above this, are immune to this rule?
The Cardinals have almost twice as many retired numbers as the Cubs (not counting managers or owners).
Retired numbers don't mean anything. Look at the Yankees and their absurd amount of retired numbers. Yes they have a rich history but at least half of those numbers belong to players with good to mediocre stats.
-
Yeah, I don't see the Cardinals making it even close to a list like this... In terms of MLB teams, I'd say the Yankees, Cubs, and Red Soxs make sense. No other MLB team makes sense to be in a top 10 list.
-
You are including Dizzy Dean as a Cub? :lol :lol That is not the way it works, otherwise I can call Wayne Gretzky a Blues legend and Michael Jordan a Washington Wizards legend. There is a big difference between being x-team's legend and being a legend that just happened to play for x-team for a while. Albert Pujols is a Cardinals legend, but will not go down as an Angels legend despite playing there for many years now. That is the difference.
So Scott Rolen and Jim Edmonds, both of whom were mentioned immediately above this, are immune to this rule?
Rolen and (especially) Edmonds has their peak/best years as a St Louis Cardinal.
-
As a Dodgers fan, I had quite enough of Wainwright in the late 2000s/early 2010s, thanks.
If you normalize their stats (because Wainwright has been around longer), Wainwright and Arrieta are relatively comparable.
Edmonds and Rolen played more than half their careers elsewhere, so by your own reasoning, they don't count (and neither is getting into Cooperstown without a ticket, so it doesn't really matter).
Ultimately, the Yankees are the only MLB team that unquestionably makes a "list of America's teams." IMO, the Red Sox and Cubs also do (or are very close). The Cards don't even come close, and that's despite the Cards having won 2 of the last 14 World Series and having lost 2 others in the same time span.
-
If you normalize their stats (because Wainwright has been around longer), Wainwright and Arrieta are relatively comparable.
Not really. Arrieta was a flash in the pan, while Wainwright was a legit number 1 (or 1b) starter in MLB for mostly a decade.
Edmonds and Rolen played more than half their careers elsewhere, so by your own reasoning, they don't count (and neither is getting into Cooperstown without a ticket, so it doesn't really matter).
Their peaks were as Cardinals, which is what I was talking about earlier with the Hornsby, Dean, etc. examples.
Granted, Rolen only played 6 of his 17 seasons in St. Louis, but he won 4 of his 8 Gold Gloves here and appeared in 5 of his 7 All-Star games as a Cardinal.
Edmonds played 8 of his 17 seasons in St. Louis, winning 6 of his 8 Gold Gloves as a Cardinal and appearing in 3 of his 4 All-Star games as a Cardinal.
Neither will make the Hall, but that's only because the baseball writers who vote are idiots (I have said this for years). Rolen and Edmonds were good offensive players and elite defensive players, which rarely gets you in anymore. Had either been an elite offensive player and merely good defensively, they'd be in. Voters rarely care about defense, except in rare cases like Ozzie Smith.
-
And since some had wondered what being a part of an America's Team discussion means, I would say it means being iconic across multiple generations and eras.
Recent media history has skewed various things certain ways, however, since a) baseball and hockey don't get talked about nearly as much as football and basketball nowadays, and b) the biggest major cities will always get talked about the most (NY, LA, Chicago, Boston, etc.).
-
I never thought it was that important. I tend to look domination over a long period of time. Those are the teams I remember.
I will say I've always admired how St. Louis was so playoff steady with a mid range payroll.
-
I think it's more than just "dominance over time", though. There's an intangible that goes into being an "America's Team". Notre Dame; they are an independent school (or were) and had a national TV contract all by their lonesome. They are an "America's Team". it's beyond any one player, it's beyond any one generation, it's beyond any one period in their history.
I'm not saying that it's ONLY this, but these things factor in.
-
That makes sense. It's almost a question of when you walk into any random sports wear store what teams logos are you likely to see?
-
That's not a bad way to look at it, but that could be a generational thing, or even a shiny new car thing. For example, 20 years ago you would have seen Chicago Bulls gear everywhere, but now not so much. Or when the San Jose Sharks first hit the scene, it seemed like people everywhere were wearing Sharks gear because they loved the colors. I remember seeing their gear for sale everywhere here in St. Louis of all places. There're just so many ways to look at it. Makes for a fun little debate. :hat
-
And that's the point; the Bulls are not, in my humble opinion.
My first wife was a widow when I met her. Her husband? Had like four ND sweatshirts, and had the leprechaun tattooed on his arm. That was over 25 years ago, now. My step daughter today has an ND sweatshirt with the leprechaun. Transcends generations, and isn't tied to one player. Yankees are like that. Dallas is like that.