The Gipper Posted September 30, 2016 Report Share Posted September 30, 2016 What is the "Redskin Rule" when it comes to Sports and Politics?: In 17 of the last 19 elections, if the Redskins win their last home game before the election, the incumbent party has retained the Presidency. If they lose, the opposition party win the Presidency. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Redskins_Rule The question is, for this year, what will apply: The Redskins last "home game" before this year's election....is actually a game to be held in Wembley Stadium in London on October 30 against the Bengals! They are considered the home team. The last actual game to be played in Washington DC....err, in Landover MD, the Redskins home field, is on October 16 vs. the Eagles. So? Which game should count for the Redskins last home game? How say you all? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Opal312 Posted September 30, 2016 Report Share Posted September 30, 2016 Bengals have a better QB, AJ Green, Better defense and beat the very mediocre Redskins. Their division is very mediocre too. I predict Eagles win that division. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Gipper Posted September 30, 2016 Author Report Share Posted September 30, 2016 Bengals have a better QB, AJ Green, Better defense and beat the very mediocre Redskins. Their division is very mediocre too. I predict Eagles win that division. Uhm well, who do you predict wins the game at Wembley on Oct. 30....and who wins the game Oct. 16 at Fed Ex Field? And for purposes of this discussion...which game counts for the Redskin Rule? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TexasAg1969 Posted September 30, 2016 Report Share Posted September 30, 2016 Uhm well, who do you predict wins the game at Wembley on Oct. 30....and who wins the game Oct. 16 at Fed Ex Field? And for purposes of this discussion...which game counts for the Redskin Rule? London ain't home. Has to be Wash. D.C. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Gipper Posted October 1, 2016 Author Report Share Posted October 1, 2016 London ain't home. Has to be Wash. D.C. I guess if they win one and lose the other, no matter who wins the election it can be said then that the Redskin Rule would still apply. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mjp28 Posted October 1, 2016 Report Share Posted October 1, 2016 I guess if they win one and lose the other, no matter who wins the election it can be said then that the Redskin Rule would still apply. Or maybe call the 2016 POTUS election a big do-over with two new candidates? Just sayin'..... (No such luck right?) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TexasAg1969 Posted October 1, 2016 Report Share Posted October 1, 2016 Or maybe call the 2016 POTUS election a big do-over with two new candidates? Just sayin'..... (No such luck right?) Neither could play for Hue------character issues. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mjp28 Posted October 2, 2016 Report Share Posted October 2, 2016 Neither could play for Hue------character issues. Yeah we could really start a sheet-storm here but I won't do that. Religion/politics/BROWNS football too dangerous for me. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Gipper Posted October 3, 2016 Author Report Share Posted October 3, 2016 Yeah we could really start a sheet-storm here but I won't do that. Religion/politics/BROWNS football too dangerous for me. Actually, this thread was about Redskins football, not Browns football. Trump whining in advance that the election will be rigged? He should see how the referees treat the Browns if he wants to see rigged. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mjp28 Posted October 3, 2016 Report Share Posted October 3, 2016 Actually, this thread was about Redskins football, not Browns football. Trump whining in advance that the election will be rigged? He should see how the referees treat the Browns if he wants to see rigged. Yes but I was referring to the Hue character reference thing.....but I was watching more about Trump and his tax situation off and on all morning on CNBC, basically how to take carry forward losses of nearly $1 billion, legal or shady, eh maybe both but good or bad campaign fuel...I guess that depends on which side you're on. Enough of that here. EOM. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Gipper Posted October 3, 2016 Author Report Share Posted October 3, 2016 Yes but I was referring to the Hue character reference thing.....but I was watching more about Trump and his tax situation off and on all morning on CNBC, basically how to take carry forward losses of nearly $1 billion, legal or shady, eh maybe both but good or bad campaign fuel...I guess that depends on which side you're on. Enough of that here. EOM. I wish I had a billion dollars....and be applauded for losing it all. In the words of the Wicked Witch of the West: What a World, What a World. Trump should have taken that million dollars and started a rival league to the NFL (since they never wanted him as an owner). Oh Wait...he did that...the USFL. (didn't he lose his shirt there too?) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mjp28 Posted October 3, 2016 Report Share Posted October 3, 2016 I wish I had a billion dollars....and be applauded for losing it all. In the words of the Wicked Witch of the West: What a World, What a World. Trump should have taken that million dollars and started a rival league to the NFL (since they never wanted him as an owner). Oh Wait...he did that...the USFL. (didn't he lose his shirt there too?) USFL? On ESPN 30 for 30, to quote DT as it was going down the tubes "small potatoes". Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Gipper Posted October 3, 2016 Author Report Share Posted October 3, 2016 USFL? On ESPN 30 for 30, to quote DT as it was going down the tubes "small potatoes". Primarily because of him. They had successful teams in non-NFL markets at the time to where if they had just stuck it out on the field instead of foolishly just trying to make money for his pocketbook through litigation that they could have quite possibly forced a merger. This included Arizona, Baltimore..(the Colts had left), Jacksonville, Tennessee(Memphis rather than Nashville), Oakland(the Raiders had left). All these cities have NFL franchises today. Other cities that today still do not have NFL teams could easily...in my opinion, support one: San Antonio, Portland, Birmingham, Oklahoma City, possibly Orlando. The bad decisions by this guy also, in my opinion, led to the shitstorm that caused the moves of the Cardinals, Rams, Oilers, and the attempted move of the Browns....and perhaps others. The USFL was a pretty good league with a lot of good players. When it disbanded and its players became subject to what was known as the NFL's "USFL expansion draft", no team likely benefitted more than the Browns: Gerald McNeil, Kevin Mack, Mike Johnson Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mjp28 Posted October 3, 2016 Report Share Posted October 3, 2016 Still on the USFL, I always remember one of the best RBs ever going there over the NFL to the DTrump Generals for a fortune which did upset things, Hershel Walker. Steve Young was promised a fortune with the Gamblers which he never got. And Brian Sipe left the BROWNS and played in the USFL. I did watch the games back then with former Buffalo Bills and Youngstown Ursline graduate Paul McGuire calling games. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.