tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6300012139741038635.post8747364419664157255..comments2024-02-16T02:12:08.305-08:00Comments on Fire Jay Mariotti: weekly gregg easterbrook reportLarry Bhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/16141943214237719821noreply@blogger.comBlogger5125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6300012139741038635.post-18835450174806042012007-10-09T14:16:00.000-07:002007-10-09T14:16:00.000-07:00Larry b,I guess your saying Easterbrook is old, wh...Larry b,<BR/><BR/>I guess your saying Easterbrook is old, which I guess means over 40 and doesn't get it concerning art, music, etc nowadays. I'm 32 and I pretty much lost touch with new music, movies and art by the time I was your age because I took too many art, music, movie classes in college. Shakespeare or David Mamet? Count Basie or Kanye West? Bach or Rolling Stones? m.c. eshcer or Mapplethorpe. Denzel Washington or Jamie Foxx Quick, which ones are more talented? Usually the old guys.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6300012139741038635.post-30937337265920065932007-10-05T13:20:00.000-07:002007-10-05T13:20:00.000-07:00anonymous- i'm not sure you're helping his point o...anonymous- i'm not sure you're helping his point or proving mine. early 30's is kind of a nebulous age- do you mean 3ish, or 35ish? because if it's the latter, and you were born in the early 70s and went to high school in the late 80s/early 90s... <BR/><BR/>just saying. you know what i'm saying.<BR/><BR/>(PS- i'm 23, so i may or may not be qualified to comment on this phenomenon.)larry bhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13646537145612677810noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6300012139741038635.post-85437744081893711862007-10-05T12:52:00.000-07:002007-10-05T12:52:00.000-07:00No, he's right, I'm in my early 30's and all the m...No, he's right, I'm in my early 30's and all the music, books, movies, art, etc. do pretty much suck. You don't need musical talent to win an grammy (any rap act) or acting skills to win an oscar (Halle Berry) or art talent to get accolaids (piss Christ anyone?). He's right on about this.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6300012139741038635.post-83426538069858206062007-10-05T06:29:00.000-07:002007-10-05T06:29:00.000-07:00"because they ran up the score"oh jeez...you ever ..."because they ran up the score"<BR/><BR/>oh jeez...you ever consider Florida and Rutgers lost because they weren't all that good (or, at least, multidimensional) to begin with?<BR/><BR/>I DID!Chris Whttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12152452626681072765noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6300012139741038635.post-9916398839201033802007-10-05T02:58:00.000-07:002007-10-05T02:58:00.000-07:00"i'm too tired to do this right now, but i guarant..."i'm too tired to do this right now, but i guarantee if i had fifteen minutes to burn i could find plenty of instances in recent college football history where a team ran up the score at some point in the season, and went on to win multiple "high pressure" games later in the season."<BR/><BR/>See Spurrier, Steve, for reference (probably the coach most famous for running up the score).<BR/><BR/>In Spurrier's FIRST SEASON with the Gators, he demolished hapless Akron 59-0. The next week, the Gators faced a huge test against Auburn, a team that was undefeated at the time.<BR/><BR/>Florida 48, Auburn 7.<BR/><BR/>In fact, almost every team in CFB history that has gone undefeated in a season has taken at least one team to the woodshed. Like Larry said, "plenty of national title winning teams have run up the score on opponents." Pretty much all of them did, at least once. Even the 2002 OSU national championship team that was famous for its numerous close escapes won 51-17 over Kent State, and 50-7 over San Jose State. This is a team that won half its games by a touchdown or less, yet never lost.<BR/><BR/>That whole 'running up the score will catch you at some point' is a gutless statement because of the general difficulty in going undefeated in college football. If a team that runs up the score manages to avoid a loss all season, well, it's not TMQ's fault the bully mentality didn't catch up with them, because they were clearly a superior team. However, if they DO lose (as, generally, at least 115 D-1 teams do once or more a year) it's because they got caught by the circumstances. I'd wager teams that run up the score are MORE likely to win 'big games,' because they're actually GOOD ENOUGH to run up the score in the first place.<BR/><BR/>Who'd you rather take in a big game? Florida, or Duke?Anonymousnoreply@blogger.com