I can tell it’s going to be a prolific day at the keyboard today…Anyway, just another Shanoff rip to start the week. Here’s his latest:
“I’ll say it: Fire Phil Fulmer, whose best years with UT are obviously behind him. The Vols failed to end the season bowl eligible. They’re the new Vandy!”
I am NO fan of Phil Fulmer. He’s a fat, stupid idiot and he’s a tattling nanny for ratting out fellow SEC schools to save his own hide. There’s a special place in hell for guys like him. But what the hell is Shanoff talking about here? Why would Fulmer deserve to be fired for a losing season? Even if he loses next week to end the year at 4-7, his career record at Tennessee would still be 127-38 (.769) in 14 seasons, including an undefeated national championship season in 1998. How are his best years behind him when he’s had no losing seasons before this year? What amazes me even more is that in the same column, Shanoff writes:
“This season was the best coaching job of Joe Paterno’s career (and, yes, that takes into account his two national-title seasons). Factoring in his age, all the offseason criticism, the youth of his team and the competitiveness of the Big Ten, for him to go 10-1 is astounding.”
Now I’m not saying that the Big Ten wasn’t competitive (it was) or that it wasn’t impressive for PSU to go 10-1 (it was) but age and off-season criticism have nothing to do with how Paterno coached this year. Paterno did what he did. I don’t think he did a better or worse job this year than in his national title years. He did better than the last two years, that’s for sure, but what’s that really saying?
The astounding thing, in the Fulmer context, is that Shanoff would call for Fulmer to be fired after one bad season but stumbles all over his two left feet to kiss Paterno’s ass. Paterno should’ve been pushed to retire three years ago. He wasn’t and that’s fine but how can Shanoff call for Fulmer’s head when Fulmer’s been more successful than Paterno over the last 14 seasons? Fulmer matched Patero's wins, has more national titles and bowl appearances and played in just as competitive (if not more so in at least half of those seasons) a conference.
I guess I just don’t understand why Shanoff thinks Fulmer should be fired. It just makes no sense. The only person that should be fired is Shanoff himself. I don’t blame him for being so stupid, though. I blame ESPN for not recognizing his stupidity. How can they give him a forum to write? He barely knows sports on a simple, casual-fan level. His dad must be really rich or his mom must be really hot (think how Forrest Gump got into elementary school…) because this complete idiot didn’t belong at Harvard.
“I’ll say it: Fire Phil Fulmer, whose best years with UT are obviously behind him. The Vols failed to end the season bowl eligible. They’re the new Vandy!”
I am NO fan of Phil Fulmer. He’s a fat, stupid idiot and he’s a tattling nanny for ratting out fellow SEC schools to save his own hide. There’s a special place in hell for guys like him. But what the hell is Shanoff talking about here? Why would Fulmer deserve to be fired for a losing season? Even if he loses next week to end the year at 4-7, his career record at Tennessee would still be 127-38 (.769) in 14 seasons, including an undefeated national championship season in 1998. How are his best years behind him when he’s had no losing seasons before this year? What amazes me even more is that in the same column, Shanoff writes:
“This season was the best coaching job of Joe Paterno’s career (and, yes, that takes into account his two national-title seasons). Factoring in his age, all the offseason criticism, the youth of his team and the competitiveness of the Big Ten, for him to go 10-1 is astounding.”
Now I’m not saying that the Big Ten wasn’t competitive (it was) or that it wasn’t impressive for PSU to go 10-1 (it was) but age and off-season criticism have nothing to do with how Paterno coached this year. Paterno did what he did. I don’t think he did a better or worse job this year than in his national title years. He did better than the last two years, that’s for sure, but what’s that really saying?
The astounding thing, in the Fulmer context, is that Shanoff would call for Fulmer to be fired after one bad season but stumbles all over his two left feet to kiss Paterno’s ass. Paterno should’ve been pushed to retire three years ago. He wasn’t and that’s fine but how can Shanoff call for Fulmer’s head when Fulmer’s been more successful than Paterno over the last 14 seasons? Fulmer matched Patero's wins, has more national titles and bowl appearances and played in just as competitive (if not more so in at least half of those seasons) a conference.
I guess I just don’t understand why Shanoff thinks Fulmer should be fired. It just makes no sense. The only person that should be fired is Shanoff himself. I don’t blame him for being so stupid, though. I blame ESPN for not recognizing his stupidity. How can they give him a forum to write? He barely knows sports on a simple, casual-fan level. His dad must be really rich or his mom must be really hot (think how Forrest Gump got into elementary school…) because this complete idiot didn’t belong at Harvard.
* * * * *
Contributor's note #1: I know full well that Shanoff writes sensational fluff pieces just to get publicity and to drive his own Q-rating on the ESPN.com site. I just like ripping on him for sport. I don't actually care that much about him, I just really like to write and it's easier if I get worked up, even under false pretenses. So, Shanoff, since I know you read this, don't fucking flatter yourself piss-boy; you're not under my skin. I'm just the type of sadistic bully that picks on an easy target.
Contributor's note #2: An articulate criticism from blogsite Promohthree (http://www.promohthree.com/):
"Speaking of Shanoff, “The Daily Quickie” has to be the most frustrating read of my day. Great format for a daily column, but an awful guy behind the wheel. I’ve never seen a guy so desperately try to generate catchphrases and buzz words despite failing each and every time. Shanoff has been one of the more persistent promoters of what bothers me the most about ESPN these days: “the ESPN era.” It’s not a terrible idea. In fact, they may very well be right. But don’t viewers decide this sort of thing? I don’t hear anyone else referring to the ESPN Era."
No comments:
Post a Comment