That happens (the Burr laugh at the King) in every performance.He writes so well anyway but when his daughter is involved, hell it just goes to another level. Also I'm starting to wonder if we were there the same night they were. The King caused Leslie (Burr) to break and laugh during the Reynolds pamphlet. I can't imagine it happens that often. Thanks for the post DS.
1,500,(after fees) plus or minus 600 depending on where he sat.What do you think he paid for the tickets?
What's more important, that the game be fun to watch? Or that the correct team wins? It's a legitimate question, with no 100% right answer.
In the case of soccer, the tradeoff is not between the flow of the game and making sure the right team wins. I remember suggesting to a buddy of mine who played college soccer that soccer should allow players to substitute into and out of the game. I figured it would increase offense. He explained to me that that's how it works in college soccer and what happens is that you bring on players with fresh legs who run like energizer bunnies and put on enormous pressure. It makes it very hard to sustain a possession with lots of precise passes, so college teams tend to play the long ball (it's also because US Soccer isn't at a high enough level yet). That is also one of the reasons (out of many) why hardcore soccer fans want to see young players go to development academies instead of college.To me it's an interesting cultural phenomenon that soccer is unwilling to sacrifice the (relative) flow of the game to replay despite the fact that replays do show that important calls on fouls and offsides are frequently wrong.
Going rate for weekend balcony is ~800-1000 per (that's the lowest-price you see on SeatGeek). Orchestra, add a few hundred.What do you think he paid for the tickets?
Yeah, that was one of the things I found most amazing about the whole situation. Joe is a parent (and a very insightful one at that), he knew the unfathomable horror those families went through. And yet he defended a man who enabled the abuse of those children.I wish I could just zap the Paterno stuff from my mind. I would enjoy his excellent writing so much more.
Here is the article he is writing about writing in the piece you link.I completely understand why people struggle to let go of Paterno...but I say again, I will read absolutely anything this man writes about his children. Another brilliant piece today, in fact:
http://joeposnanski.com/writing-with-katie/
A "Posterisk"!So...Every great article he writes deserves a Paterno asterisk. Fine. Can we stop bringing it up every 5 posts? We all understand its part of his history at this point.
Those “Dirt Dog” Red Sox. The old “Winning Ugly” White Sox. Those dink-and-dunk Patriots that beat the fancy Rams in the 2002 Super Bowl. Those 70s Flyers. The late-80s Pistons.That is also one of the reasons (out of many) why hardcore soccer fans want to see young players go to development academies instead of college.
Man, he really is the greatest sports columnist of my lifetime.Joe finally got to write his column:
http://sportsworld.nbcsports.com/cleveland-cavs-lebron-nba-championship/
Agree with this. Didn't love the article.Meh, the "letter to my younger self" motif is a cliche. I expected better.
Honestly the Spygate thing didn't bother me in the slightest. He's entitled to his opinion. He's the first sports writer (IIRC Sally Jenkins isn't strictly a sports writer) to come right out and say Tom Brady did absolutely nothing wrong, and to put it that bluntly.Good, except he does the exact same thing he rails against by saying that he believes Spygate was "much worse than we know." Why does he believe this? Does he know more than us? Or did he just buy the narrative without examining facts in the way he talks about the Ortiz drug test?
I agree with this and it annoyed me. Although I did like his take on the Ortiz matter as well and how it reflected opinions that are actually out there by actual people as opposed to the calculated outrage like Shank uses. Overall it was a good column and hope he follows up on it by examining Goodell like his last line suggested.Good, except he does the exact same thing he rails against by saying that he believes Spygate was "much worse than we know." Why does he believe this? Does he know more than us? Or did he just buy the narrative without examining facts in the way he talks about the Ortiz drug test?
It's hypocritical to the extreme.Honestly the Spygate thing didn't bother me in the slightest. He's entitled to his opinion. He's the first sports writer (IIRC Sally Jenkins isn't strictly a sports writer) to come right out and say Tom Brady did absolutely nothing wrong, and to put it that bluntly.
Seriously, man. The guy just wrote a 1000-word piece on how not only is Brady completely innocent, but Ortiz is too.I had the same initial reaction, but it was two paragraphs in an otherwise full-throated defense of New England teams, from a nationally prominent outsider. Say thank you and move on.