He only likes blowouts? He enjoyed the Dallas 1993 victory that he nearly slept through? He wasn't but was rooting against the Broncos because he hated John Elway? And the Patriots MUST blow out the Giants in order to gain respect to go with their three Lombardi trophies (soon to be four)?

This is an odd Sports Nut, indeed!

Slate, please stop writing about sports. Every sports column takes some indefensibly moronic position, like super bowl blowouts are preferable to competitive games. I remember someone in the past arguing that steroids are good for baseball, and another one a while back basically saying Rush Limbaugh was right that Donovan McNabb sucks, and he's only considered good because he's black.

Soccia is nuts. Blow outs are only enjoyed by the actual home town fans of the winning team. I'm a Giants Fan. I enjoyed it when they blew out the Broncos. I was absolutely over the moon when they eeked one out over the Bills.

But when I am watching Super Bowls where both teams are ones I do not usually root for, I want the game to be decided as near to the end of the fourth quarter as possible. Watching someone else's team win in a blowout is like attending someone else's High School reunion.

One of the most exciting Super Bowls I ever watched was the Rams/Titans match up. The Titans had such a Cinderella year, and though they came up a yard short of winning in the final seconds, it was such an exillerating experience. During that last drive, everyone at the party was on there feet, yelling at the TV. Even though they lost, you could not help but love the Titans that year.

Everyone has been counting out the Giants all year, yet they keep surprising everyone. I hope there will be a similar surprise awaiting everyone this Sunday. I just pray the Giants don't come up a yard short.

I have watched every Patriots game that got national coverage this year, and I must say, they are a great team. But I don't want to see a corination on Sunday, but instead a Cinderella Story.

Go Giants!

I agree: I think blowouts are boring. Each person is entitled to his own sensibilities, but Mr. Soccia must be in a very small minority. As they say, there's no accounting for taste.

As for the game itself, I think that the Patriots fans will be far more crushed by a loss than Giants fans would be. That's not because of any lack of enthusiasm by those of us in the Big Apple; it's a simple consequence of the fact that we're less obsessed because New Yorkers have OTHER THINGS TO DO!

Go G-Men.

I don't see how the Patriots can blow out anyone wihtout a great defense. Their defense just isn't that good. They gave up four 80+ yard drives the Jacksonvile in the division round. I am not sure any team has ever done that and still won. They then let San Diago inside the 20 four times in the AFC Championship. Had Ladamian Tomlinson been healthy, San Diago would have scored touchdowns rather than fieldgoals and probably won the game.

All of the teams who have won in blowouts in the Super Bowls in the past, the 1993 Cowboys, the 90 49ers, the 85 Bears, 86 Giants, 87 Redskins, all had great or at least top notch defenses. The Patriots don't have that and never have had that and that is why they haven't blown anyone out in the Super Bowl despite having a tremendous offense.

I have a feeling the Giants are going to win this game. Eventually your luck runs out and everything goes against you. That is why no one has gone 19-0 before, even though teams like the 84 49ers and 85 Bears were good enough to do it. As far as this team being the greatest ever, with that linbacker corps? No way. Joe Montana would have called his shot against that old slow defense.

I agree: Slate, your sports nut columns are just getting worse and worse. They are either absurd, or hagiographies, or both. Blecch. And yeah, what makes a great Super Bowl is a great game with a great storyline. Two of the greatest Super Bowls ever played were definitely NOT the yawners over Denver and the Bills. They were instead Titans-Rams (one yard short!!), and Broncos-Packers (Elway diving for that first down, first AFC team to win in years, wild card team, etc.). Both of them featured a decent amount of scoring, quality play on both sides, and went down to the wire. Now THOSE were Super Bowls. Soccia, I can see the logic of wanting to see a coronation for history. But frankly on the big day we want a good game, not statue-building or legacy burnishing.

This may be the most moronic and stupidly contrarian piece ever on Slate, and that is truly saying something.

I agree completely with Bung. I just checked over that Limbaugh column by Allen Barra in 2003. Hey Allen, would you like to amend your column now? I mean, come on? Do you think the media and fans were being "easy" on McNabb when the Eagles traded Ricky Williams for the rights to sign McNabb? As I recall, everyone and their mother was badmouthing the deal, saying it was a HUGE mistake. Hmmm....how'd that trade work out by the way?

And to compare Brad Johnson to McNabb is ABSOLUTELY ridiculous. Look at their numbers now. Despite the fact that Johnson has played five more years in the NFL, McNabb has more touchdowns (179-165), fewer interceptions (82-120), a better passer rating (86.2-82.8) and more yards per game (217.6-178.2). Also, in 2005 in the six games that McNabb was out, the Eagles were an impressive 2-5. In 2007 when McNabb missed 2 games, the Eagles were 0-2. In 2004 when Brad Johnson started for the Bucs, he was 0-4.

Please don't try the sports stuff if you have NO CLUE what you're talking about.