More Quick Shots with Robert & Nathan


First subject – Jim Rome has a new show, is two shows two shows too many?!

NF: Rome is burning… me up!

RJ: Me too! There’s an ad spot for the Jim Rome show that has Rome encouraging new listeners to “keep listening” and that “they won’t like it at first” but they will grow to appreciate it. Poor marketing strategies aside, he’s right about one thing. I don’t like his show. Here’s my take…

Rome is a self-important hippopotamus. He always condemns the “clones” or callers for rehashing outdated, unfunny jokes in their e-mails, reads them on the air, chastises them for writing it, then reads another. And another. Furthermore, and try to follow me here, Rome is the original clone. It’s his material they’re copying, and I use the term “material” loosely, so bashing their takes is bashing his own. While we’re on the subject, his shtick is more tired than my friend, Fat Dave, after a game of one on one… in video basketball (that kid is fat). How many times can one man use the word “epic” before he buys a thesaurus? And just say “Ass!” instead of drawing it out real low every time like you’re slipping it past the censors. Classic!

NF: Have you noticed his radio “style”, or as they call it in the industry, “personality”, is to repeat everything 3 times but with slightly different inflections each time? It would seem in a medium compromised only of talking that repeating yourself would be an especially poor approach.

RJ: I’ve noticed he does a similar thing with guests when he asks them a question based on a question somebody else already asked. So and so, you made a great point the other day when you said…Can you elaborate on that? Then he stops to repeat to the audience what the guest just said. That is a great point from a solid jungle guy; he said that Shaq is the key to this series. Impressive!

NF: In what I can only assume is an attempt to be clever, he gives virtually everyone a nickname, like “J-Dub” or “Gracie”, unless that person already is known by their nickname. In that case he calls them by their given name, as in Orenthal. Also, very clever.

RJ: What burns me most of all about Rome, is that he was for the most part correct. I listen everyday. I hate him, yet I listen. I don’t listen because of Rome. I listen despite him. I know that he will have quality guests. I know that intelligent callers will get through, even if they do follow the same clone outline… Thanks for the vine… blah blah… epic… blah blah… Asssssss… blah blah… War (insert town here) tour stop. I know that despite Jim’s efforts to make me think otherwise, they make the show, not him. What I don’t know is what “war” means. Heroic!

NF: I guess that’s where we differ, because I don’t listen because of Rome. Period. The fact his opinions or callers are right is pointless because modern sports issues are so easy to figure out, anyway. The only reason they are “dilemmas” in the first place is because most of the people talking about them, sports talk show hosts, are idiots. This becomes apparent whenever their sports talk veers elsewhere, like politics, and they’re ability to employ logic , or even common sense, in an argument is zero.

RJ: Maybe you’re the zero.

NF: Maybe you should bang your monkey.



RJ: …I’m sorry.

NF: Me too.


Next subject – college coaches that quit and leave students with the bill!

RJ: With the last of the major dominos falling in the college coaching carousal, I feel I can finally discuss frankly the hoopla over Roy Williams and whether or not college players should be able to switch schools without sitting out a year like the coaches.

The argument against the players is that they sign with the institution, not the coach. But the coach clearly makes the institution, not the other way around. For 30 plus years the University of North Carolina was the cream of the crop under Dean smith and Bill Guthridge. Then, in only two years under Matt Dougherty, they became the crap of the cream or something. That, of course, led to his firing and William’s hiring. It was Dougherty that alienated his players and hurt recruiting, not the institution. If a coach can be held responsible for harming the schools chances of recruiting players, and keeping the ones they have, than he can certainly be given the credit for luring new ones.

NF: Interesting, but I would like an analogy…

RJ: To put it in a non-basketball sense, let’s use Harvard as an example. Harvard is widely regarded as having one of, if not the best, in the nation. What makes it so respected? Not the weather, the buildings, the desks, the classrooms, the libraries, the books, or the toilets. It’s the professors, like old Professor Elliot. They are the ones with the great minds, the great understanding, and the great ability to teach. If the entire faculty decided to re-employ themselves at Creighton or even a Jersey community college, prospective doctors and litigators and scientists would flock there able to continue their educations uninterrupted.

NF: Really? I think students understand the reputation of a school on a resume means more than the professors. Over time, I suppose…

RJ: Basketball is the same way – nice practice gyms don’t garner recruits, great coaches do. Players want coaches who can help them achieve their basketball goals of shoe sponsorship. Yet, they can’t follow their coaches to other schools because sitting out a year might as well be an expulsion. They aren’t going to pass any classes without the team “tutors” and they need that degree to get a job in the real world.

NF: That seems pretty condescending. Getting is a degree is overrated, anyway. I mean, I got one but I couldn’t get a real job.

RJ: Maybe that’s because you don’t have real degree. Media Arts, what the hell is that?

NF: At least I have a degree. Oh, wait, you did graduate from The Bartending Academy. How’s that working out?

RJ: I hate you.

NF: I hate you.



RJ: Wait, I’m sorry, I love you.

NF: Yeah, me too.


You guys are so gay.