Yo, E! (Do you mind if I call you E?)
I'd like to draw your attention to an item on your web page: NY Giants 21, Dallas Cowboys 17. Yeah, shocking as it may seem, the Giants won that game. Go figure. Hey, it surprised me, and I'm a Giants fan!
Still, in light of that item, doesn't it seem odd that 90% of your coverage of the game has been about Dallas? Which is to say, about the loser Cowboys? D'you think you could, I don't know, run some items about the New York Football Giants who, after all, won the game? (And why do we play? That's right, Mr. Edwards, we play to win the game. A gold star for you.)
Just a thought. On the bright side, though, the schadenfreude kick from the wailing and gnashing of teeth in Dallas will keep a spring in my step for the entire day. And seeing Terrell Owens cry on tv has made me slightly more likely to vote for him for President.
- Log in to post comments
C'mon Chad. It's not fair. They lost as a TEAM!!!!!!
Do you think you can take the Pats if you take care of Brett the wonderboy???? (asssuming the Pats take the Chargers..)
Chad - BTW - Could you stop feeding Tom Coughlin lemons soon?
re: Super Bowl - NE 37, GB 34. Favre will throw an interception with under 2:00 min to go in the game.
ps: I know I'd take a couple days with Jesica Simpson over a football game win.
my sympathies, until Indy finally won it all last year, this is what it has been like to be a NE fan for the last several years. my pats had to go perfect before they got equal airtime with those other "storied teams of history." Though I'm sure everyone else is sick of them now...
my pats had to go perfect before they got equal airtime with those other "storied teams of history."
Probably because their three Superbowl wins were by a combined total of nine points, which doesn't exactly scream "dominance." Yeah, they got three SBs in a six year stretch ... but they almost seemed to back into those championships by accident, somehow.
You must not have watched the Fox broadcast of the Seattle / Greenbay dustup. Yes the Hawks got whupped by a much better GB, but the least the announcers could have done was mention who was playing the cheeseheads. And then there was the constant fawning over Lambo? Lambeaux? Lamboo? field. I do like the public ownership scheme they have, and playing in the snow. That's real football.
Domes are for wusses.
This is normal sports analyst behaviour. For the last thirty or more years, the Cowboys have been one of the most popular sports franchises in America. To get ratings, you talk about what a plurality of people want to hear which is the friggin' Cowboys (in the interest of full disclosure, my father grew up near DC, so I am a Redskins and Senators (I refuse to call them the Nationals) fan; my mother grew up near Boston, so I am a Pariots and Red Sox fan (Cowboy and Yankee fans can stop reading now)).
The same thing happens in baseball. The Red Sox won the world series a few years back (I recovered from the heart attack) and yet the national news spent at least 40% of the time talking about the Yankees collapse in the LCS. This year, while the Red Sox cruised to another 4-0 World Series victory, the press focused on what would happen to Joe Torre (who I really admire) and that guy who plays third base.
ESPN exists to make money. Money comes from advertisers. Advertisers pay more to put adds on shows with higher ratings. Talking about the friggin' Cowboys and Yankees generates higher ratings. And rants from people like Mr. Orzel and me.