I'd argue that ESPN Classic airs games that aren't really classics...just like I'd argue that there are articles on the ESPN.com news wire aren't really news.
Shouldn't a game have more than one exciting quarter to be deemed a "classic?" Or less than six combined turnovers? Or three missed FGs? I think so, but maybe that's just me.
The fourth quarter was exciting, though, I agree.
Shouldn't a game have more than one exciting quarter to be deemed a "classic?" Or less than six combined turnovers? Or three missed FGs? I think so, but maybe that's just me.
The fourth quarter was exciting, though, I agree.
Agree with your point that a "classic" should be exciting gameplay from start to finish ala Boise State, but many "classics" were just great second halfs and finishes, like Rams vs Titans, Giants/Pats SB, come to think of it there really are no nonbowl or nonplayoff classics in Football that i can think of
hno:Agree with your point that a "classic" should be exciting gameplay from start to finish ala Boise State, but many "classics" were just great second halfs and finishes, like Rams vs Titans, Giants/Pats SB, come to think of it there really are no nonbowl or playoff classics in Football that i can think of
hno:The USC game where Bush pushed Lienert in was a "classic" and the game sucked IMO
