Duke Is Gonna Party Like It's 2004

Sunday, September 16, 2007

(posted by OMDQ)

In case you missed it, I'm doing a sort of Reverse Survivor thing over at One More Dying Quail (full credit for the name goes to The Extrapolater) and tracking the college football teams that have yet to win a game in 2007.

Last week, I suggested that Duke had a chance at this year's "title", largely because they had lost 22 games in a row and were facing a harsh conference schedule.

The Blue Devils laughed in the face of that possibility on Saturday, jumping to a 20-7 halftime lead and holding on to beat previously undefeated Northwestern, 20-14. It was their first win against a Division 1-A Bowl Subdivision opponent since November 27, 2004.

Without looking at the updated standings, I have to figure that this throws Reverse Survivor for a major loop - the early frontrunner is off the list, after all, leaving Florida International (0-3, fifteen consecutive losses) as the most likely possibility.

Posted by One More Dying Quail at 2:39 AM

12 Comments:

The site is called "Awful Announcing."

Every weekend, you come on here with with some esoteric, hot-air bullshit that you're writing as if to a diary.

Look at AA, he puts things on here during the week that are fun, interactive, and keeps people interested in his website. You, on the other hand, look like you're working on some resume to a sports publication. Is this a sports blog called "Awful Announcing" or a sports magazine?

I'm sure that one person's comments won't change anything, and I'm sure you and a dozen others will comment enough to drive me off, but I've just got to say it: compare your postings to AA's (you hardly ever have any comments because no one CAN comment), and keep your bullshit ramblings to yourself. Make it more fun and interactive, PLEASE!

Anonymous said...
Sep 16, 2007, 4:50:00 AM  

Off-topic, but after Corso's diatribe against Spurrier and the Gamecocks, will ESPN risk Corso's life in Baton Rouge at the best matchup of the week (LSU-South Carolina)?

Mark said...
Sep 16, 2007, 5:35:00 AM  

Only 5 more wins to bowl eligibility! Blue Devils on the blue field in Boise for New Years Eve!

doneycat said...
Sep 16, 2007, 8:56:00 AM  

when in doubt, TEMPLE.

odessasteps said...
Sep 16, 2007, 11:35:00 AM  

I agree with Anonymous. It's a thinly-veiled plug for his own site, too.

Anonymous said...
Sep 16, 2007, 2:36:00 PM  

Anonymous - I like to write about things that catch my interest. To me, not having a 100 loss team in baseball or the Duke football team ending a 22 game losing streak is good stuff. Maybe if the quality of my writing was better, you would think so too.

I won't compare my posts to AA's. He has built a highly successful web site from the ground up. I'm just along for the ride. There is no comparison.

Sep 16, 2007, 2:36:00 PM  

OMDQ, you're missing the point and debating a straw man. It's not about your writing. It's about staying on topic and how you're not writing about .... awful announcing .... which is the name of the blog and the topic of the vast majority of AA's posts.

Anonymous said...
Sep 16, 2007, 2:38:00 PM  

anonymous - I think it IS about the quality of my writing, in the end. A good writer should be able to capture the interesting aspect of any story and share it in a way that is enjoyable for other people. Obviously, given your comment, I'm not doing that.

I write about a variety of things here because when I started doing the weekend thing, that is what AA told me to do. From the start, he didn't limit me to writing only about announcing.

As for the other anonymous - a "thinly-veiled plug" for my own site? How's that, considering I didn't even link to the post I was talking about? If I'm working on a particular feature at OMDQ, am I not allowed to talk about it here if something relevant comes up on the weekend?

Sep 16, 2007, 2:43:00 PM  

I tried to find that great blog that anonymous writes but to no avail. He(she) just seems to be a prolific blogger, shitting on other people's work.

You are a stain on the blogging community, if you don't like OMDQ's stuff, then don't read it, shithead.

Chip Wesley said...
Sep 16, 2007, 4:05:00 PM  

Only blogger's opinions count, not readers? Thanks for that clarification, Chip.

Anonymous said...
Sep 16, 2007, 5:12:00 PM  

While I do appreciate everyone's comments readers/bloggers/anons and the like, we all need to just get along. OMDQ provides me a great service and I enjoy what he does on the weekend immensely.

Hell, someone last week said I should give the site over to him because I suck. It's all relative...not everybody is going to love everything you do. OMDQ covers baseball and many of the things that I miss during the week.

I think on the whole AA gives you something no other site does. And that's strongly attributed to OMDQ. If you don't like me....read on the weekends, if you don't like him....read on the weekdays, if you don't like either of us...read ESPN.

I love you all,
BP-AA

Sep 16, 2007, 8:35:00 PM  

Opinions count but, there's a difference between commenting to add to the discussion, and simply berating the writer just because you don't like his stuff and then being an asshole that hides behind a shield of anonymity.

Chip Wesley said...
Sep 17, 2007, 11:49:00 AM  

Post a Comment