Yale Daily News

Updated: Wednesday, December 3, 2008 at 1:48pm

Forget NYC and Boston: Root for the home team

  • Print
  • Write Editor
Staff Columnist
Published Thursday, March 6, 2008
New Haven is no man’s land — a misnomer, maybe, but still the best term we have for a city caught in the middle of a heated border dispute.
#1 By rafst (Unregistered User) 2:35am on March 6, 2008

the san andreas thing is brilliant. an excellent parallel, and a compelling article. also just hilarious.

#2 By Jerry Smith, Yale '61 (Unregistered User) 9:25am on March 6, 2008

Another great column by Pete Martin! The only thing missing was any mention of our NY Mets. I was particularly impressed by Pete's research into New Haven sports history. Yale Bowl is a great sports venue. Too bad it is only filled once every other year for Harvard!

#3 By (Anonymous) 1:37pm on March 6, 2008

it was a surprisingly decent article until you went off on the San Andres tangent. Were you trying to be funny, because, if you were, it was a poor attempt since it just looked extremely out of place.

#4 By Boston (Unregistered User) 6:11pm on March 6, 2008

Lets face it: New Haven is just a minor league no-man's land, and always has been.

#5 By (Anonymous) 3:45pm on March 12, 2008

Pete's "research" into New Haven sports history obviously was a quick stop to wikipedia (the content and placement of the note about the first professional championship since the Blades is a dead giveaway). He neglected a much longer history of professional baseball and ignored the West Haven Yankees/A's championships. And yet, those are perhaps the most excusable parts of the column - after all, we can't expect a News columnist to be a fact checker with wikipedia so conveniently few clicks away...

The trouble really starts with the paragraph that labels the NY/BOS rivalry "the greatest acheivement of American sports". How exactly does a rivalry become an acheivement? "Element of American life"? New York State? - I have yet to meet a Yankee fan from Buffalo...anyway, if this was all meant tongue-in-cheek (I really hope so), it missed the mark.

The San Andres commentary is equally misplaced - and so poorly researched/thought out that further comment is really unecessary.

Seriously though, was this meant as satire? So many YDN columnists are so bad at conveying satire, I really wish the ones that were really trying would have a *SATIRE*SATIRE*SATIRE banner at the top to warn us.

Add Comment

You are not logged in. We do allow posting without registration, but we encourage you to register or log in to enjoy full access to our comments features!