Articles from around the Web
ON SALE NOW
Click here to buy PDF version.
Click here to buy PDF version
Official Account: @fboutsiders
Scott Kacsmar: @FO_ScottKacsmar
Ben Muth: @FO_WordofMuth
Aaron Schatz: @FO_ASchatz
Vince Verhei: @FO_VVerhei
-- plus --
Bill Connelly: @SBN_BillC
J.J. Cooper: @jjcoop36
Cian Fahey: @Cianaf
Brian Fremeau: @bcfremeau
Tom Gower: @ThomasGower
Rivers McCown: @RiversMcCown
Chad Peltier: @CGPeltier
Matt Waldman: @MattWaldman
Rob Weintraub: @robwein
30 Jan 2010
The headline might be missing a word, but the latest New York Times feature -- on the history of Super Bowl largesse -- is not.
Posted by: Mike Tanier on 30 Jan 2010
11 comments, Last at
31 Jan 2010, 6:11pm by
I mean...First Super Bowl: Packers 35, Chiefs 10.
We can fix these italics. Surely.
Actually, no, we can't, because Mike used italics tags, which aren't allowed in comments.
This is weird. I don't see any italics, and I didn't use any in my post above.
Does anybody else use Google Chrome? I do, and it's, apparently, italics-proof.
Mike used them in the initial post. Someone later apparently fixed it.
Yes, we can. And don't call me Shirley.
(fail at fixing broken italics, disregard)
Overall, I'd be kind of embarrassed to critique something when I didn't know what the hell I was talking about, but then, oh yeah, my NAME is on what I write, isn't it?
The ticket price prevented a sellout, so the first Super Bowl was blacked out within 75 miles of Los Angeles.
Super Bowl I would have been blacked out in Los Angeles even if the game had sold out. All NFL games, sellout or no, were blacked out within 75 miles of the host city until 1973, when the NFL revised its blackout policy. The first Super Bowl televised in the host city was Super Bowl VII.
"The news media do not just cover the Super Bowl, it covers itself covering the Super Bowl, self-referentially glorifying in the excess while gorging on television hours and column inches."
Its like a play within a play with a play or a dude dressed like a dude pretending to be another dude.
Also, "After four decades, hype has become metahype: excessive analysis of excess itself." He's writing about meta-hype! Does that make it meta-meta-hype?
Third order hype, I believe would be the term.
© Football Outsiders, Inc. // Site powered by Stein-Wein // Partner of USA TODAY Sports Digital Properties