Could you be more clueless than this person?

[SF_Express]

I think the New York Post cover is great, but this writer simply doesn't get the joke at all:

http://www.mediaite.com/print/only-the-ny-post-could-get-away-with-this-world-cup-cover/

What's worse, I thought of this for our place yesterday, but then mentally opted out.

 

[YankeeFan]

I think the New York Post cover is great, but this writer simply doesn't get the joke at all:

http://www.mediaite.com/print/only-the-ny-post-could-get-away-with-this-world-cup-cover/

What's worse, I thought of this for our place yesterday, but then mentally opted out.

Post should have used blue font.

 

[DanOregon]

Loved the Bunker Hill reference.

 

[Versatile]

This was one of the finest covers in a while from the Post. This idiot clearly didn't read the story, doesn't understand the game.

 

[Pencil Dick]

This was exactly my first thought on what the headline on that gamer should be.

Good work, Post.

 

[BTExpress]

Our headline said "U.S. Stuns England" . . . then referenced 1-1 tie in the deck.

I don't think it worked. You need the score in the main head to create the implausibility of saying the U.S. "won" or "stunned" England.

Post head worked fine. But hardly a revolutionary (pun intended) idea.

 

[Ben_Hecht]

Being unaware of the broadly-trumpted Harvard/Yale precedent
pretty much bars a writer from the adult table.

 

[SF_Express]

Being unaware of the broadly-trumpted Harvard/Yale precedent
pretty much bars a writer from the adult table.

My thoughts, exactly, and it's obviously why I thought of it yesterday. I figured a 42-year statute of limitations was sufficient.

 

[YankeeFan]

Being unaware of the broadly-trumpted Harvard/Yale precedent
pretty much bars a writer from the adult table.

My thoughts, exactly, and it's obviously why I thought of it yesterday. I figured a 42-year statute of limitations was sufficient.

Is that headline really that famous? Why? Was the result such a shocker?

I figured it was a ridiculous comment for the author to add -- like the Post headline writer was aware of a 42-year-old headline in a college paper.

But if it's as famous as you guys are indicating, I'll stand corrected.

 

[SF_Express]

Being unaware of the broadly-trumpted Harvard/Yale precedent
pretty much bars a writer from the adult table.

Is that headline really that famous? Why? Was the result such a shocker?

I figured it was a ridiculous comment for the author to add -- like the Post headline writer was aware of a 42-year-old headline in a college paper.

But if it's as famous as you guys are indicating, I'll stand corrected.
My thoughts, exactly, and it's obviously why I thought of it yesterday. I figured a 42-year statute of limitations was sufficient.

Well, it's pretty famous in sports and sports writing lore, but the Mediaite writer was probably 15 years from conception or more when it happened.

The NY Post editor? I'm betting he/she knew about it.

Yale was heavily favored. Harvard scored 16 points in 42 seconds to tie 29-29. Harvard Crimson headline was Harvard beats Yale 29-29. A number of "names" were somehow involved with the game. The Yale quarterback, Brian Dowling, was the inspiration for BD in Doonesbury. Etc.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Harvard_Beats_Yale_29-29

 

[Stitch]

Glynnis MacNicol is one of those hipster bloggers who doesn't have a clue on what goes on in real life unless it's on her Twitter feed or shows up on her iPhone.

 

[Ben_Hecht]

Being unaware of the broadly-trumpted Harvard/Yale precedent
pretty much bars a writer from the adult table.

Is that headline really that famous? Why? Was the result such a shocker?

I figured it was a ridiculous comment for the author to add -- like the Post headline writer was aware of a 42-year-old headline in a college paper.

But if it's as famous as you guys are indicating, I'll stand corrected.
My thoughts, exactly, and it's obviously why I thought of it yesterday. I figured a 42-year statute of limitations was sufficient.

Well, it's pretty famous in sports and sports writing lore, but the Mediaite writer was probably 15 years from conception or more when it happened.

The NY Post editor? I'm betting he/she knew about it.



http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Harvard_Beats_Yale_29-29

Without. A. Doubt.

Hey, if you're going to lift, lift something good. The Post did.

 

[SixToe]

Glynnis MacNicol is one of those hipster bloggers who doesn't have a clue on what goes on in real life unless it's on her Twitter feed or shows up on her iPhone.

Which means she doesn't know anything.

 

[HanSenSE]

Glynnis MacNicol is one of those hipster bloggers who doesn't have a clue on what goes on in real life unless it's on her Twitter feed or shows up on her iPhone.

Which means she doesn't know anything.

Like I've been telling folks at the office all week, the Brits had been waiting 234 years for another shot at us ... great cover!

 

[Point of Order]

That cover works well for the NY Post, but not for your average daily.

 

[Blitz]

I like the idea for the spin they used.
Kudos to the Post.

 

[BYH]

Wow. What a moron (the Mediaite dweeb, not Blitz or anyone else here).

 

[gingerbread]

The headline is great, the subhead is wrong.
The U.S. did not play the "British" -- it played England. Unless there were players from Scotland and Wales also on the roster? But no, that sort of team does not exist in the World Cup.
You'd think a newspaper run by a bunch of Aussies would know this. Or maybe the editors figured Yanks were too dumb to understand the difference >:(

 

[dooley_womack1]

I would have thought the Post would have had a picture of the English keeper with the hed WHATTA MORON!

 

[mustangj17]

I was unaware of the Harvard/Yale headline until this thread and even so, my initial reaction was the Post headline is awesome.