The SI Jinx (No!)
Bob Heinly
>It is well documented how the dreaded SI jinx affected the outcome of many
>sports events especially football. Of all NFL teams, the cowboys seem to be
>immune to the jinx. The latest attempt by SI to jinx the cowboys failed and
>the Boys went on and won the SB again. Now, I know that most of you guys know
>about this attempt but I am sure that many of you don't remember that SI tried
>to do the same thing last year and failed. I am talking about the SI issue
>when they had the swarming Cowboys D on the cover during 1992 playoffs. This
>proves that the Cowboys are immune to the SI jinx.
This cover shot of the swarming defense was not during the playoffs but the
week before Dallas lost to the Rams. So I guess you could say that the jinx
did work that one time. Emmitt, if I mremember correctly was on the cover
of SI during the playoffs. It didn't work that time. I am in agreement
that the Cowboys seem to be immune.
>So, can anyone explain that?
>Let me try. The Cowboys are a new breed. As we all know, new breeds tend to
>have better immune systems than older ones as a result of the evolution
>process. It is also known that newer breeds tend to dominate older breeds
>which the cowboys have demonstrated in the past two years ;-). The other 27
>species in the NFL just need to evolve in a hurry otherwise they might face
>extinction (sp?) like the dinasours.
>Go Cowboys...... Threepeat in 94........
>Malik.....
>P.S. you could say the Bills are lucky they weren't on the last SI cover :)
I believe the reason for the jinx not working is Coach Jimmy Johnson. He
appears to be one of the great preparation and motiviation coaches of the
time. May he always stay in Dallas. But if he does go to Jacksonville I
guess I can root for them as well as the Cowboys as long as he is coaching.
Go For Five in Ninety-Five. Go Boys
Bob H
ABDULMALIK A. ALHUSSEINI
sports events especially football. Of all NFL teams, the cowboys seem to be
immune to the jinx. The latest attempt by SI to jinx the cowboys failed and
the Boys went on and won the SB again. Now, I know that most of you guys know
about this attempt but I am sure that many of you don't remember that SI tried
to do the same thing last year and failed. I am talking about the SI issue
when they had the swarming Cowboys D on the cover during 1992 playoffs. This
proves that the Cowboys are immune to the SI jinx.
So, can anyone explain that?
Leonard J. Augustine, Jr.
SI will jump on a story when it is still a story. So, for instance,
if the Mets were to start out this season at 15-0, SI would put them
on the cover, because it would be a surprise AND, here's the important
part, an interesting and timely story. Once the Mets lost 3 games, it
would not be nearly as interesting.
Another example:
If Joe Montana is in the playoffs with the KC Chiefs and leads them
to a comeback victory, SI can sell a lot of magazines by putting his
picture on the cover. If they wait a week and Kansas City loses and
then they put Joe Montana on the cover, they won't sell very many
magazines. So if they think that KC is about to lose to the Bills,
they damn well better put him on the cover before they lose the
opportunity to sell magazines. Money makes the world go 'round.
So whenever Sports Illustrated think that a team or player has
peaked and is about to lose, they will put that team or that player
on the cover while they/he are still a story that can sell magazines.
Does everybody understand now?
"Greed is good." - from Wall Street.
P.S. Putting the Bills on the cover would not have sold many magazines
before the Super Bowl, because nobody thought they would win anyway. So
they put the Cowboys on the cover. Then if the Bills had won, they could
have put them on the cover, because THAT would have been a magazine-
selling story.
---
Lenny Augustine (le...@aic.lockheed.com)
(Clever ASCII art withheld until I have company time to work on it.)
ch...@slug.ssc.gov
>Another example:
>
>If Joe Montana is in the playoffs with the KC Chiefs and leads them
>to a comeback victory, SI can sell a lot of magazines by putting his
>picture on the cover. If they wait a week and Kansas City loses and
>then they put Joe Montana on the cover, they won't sell very many
>magazines. So if they think that KC is about to lose to the Bills,
>they damn well better put him on the cover before they lose the
>opportunity to sell magazines. Money makes the world go 'round.
>So whenever Sports Illustrated think that a team or player has
>peaked and is about to lose, they will put that team or that player
>on the cover while they/he are still a story that can sell magazines.
>Does everybody understand now?
>
>"Greed is good." - from Wall Street.
>
>P.S. Putting the Bills on the cover would not have sold many magazines
>before the Super Bowl, because nobody thought they would win anyway. So
>they put the Cowboys on the cover. Then if the Bills had won, they could
>have put them on the cover, because THAT would have been a magazine-
>selling story.
>
I don't think SI ever tries to think who will win next week or that.
I think they do business with what they think "what is hot now!".
The Monota cover was done because it was real hot that week.
Emmit over was done because he was hot in the 49ers game.
That is that simple.
BTW, do you think they put Don Shula on the cover and expected him to lose
5 in a row not even making the playoffs? The reason is: He was hot at that
time simply because he won the most winning coach contest.
At least we both agree there is no such thing called SI jinx; it is just
for fun, nobody is really believing in it.
Ivan