30 for 30: Survive and Advance

[Fletch]

^^THIS!^^ I remember Valvano as a guy who brought in a lot of questionable character guys (Bailey, Lowe, and Whittenburg were not his guys-- they were Norm Sloan's-- Valvano brought in guys like L. Charles, C. Washburn, C. Corchiani, C. McQueen, etc.) and then got cheating while doing it-- and only got forced out, when he didn't win as much as State fans expected, after getting caught cheating. I remember Valvano's players as being disinterested students (at best), and I certainly didn't get the sense that his players' academic progress was important to Valvano (other than to make sure they stayed eligible for their 4-5 years at State)... but apparently, people cut you a lot of slack, if you're funny (cf.- JFK)... and of course, no one wants to speak ill of the dead, especially someone who died relatively young, so the "God rest his soul" theme also causes people to give Valvano a lot of latitude (again, cf.- JFK)... but in the interest of giving equal time to a much different view of Valvano at NC State:

I must be the only person on this board who was rooting hard for Houston in that game, and was incredibly disappointed when Whittenburg missed that shot (badly), and Charles was just dumb lucky enough to be standing there when/where no one expected the ball to be there. I had the same feeling when Charles put that missed shot back in that I did when Kentucky's Sean Woods banked in a straight-on shot from beyond the free-throw line, to put Kentucky ahead of Duke with 2 seconds to go in 1992-- i.e.-- what a great team Duke had, and how terrible that their tremendous season is going to be spoiled by a ridiculous shot like that-- the better team is not going to win. (Fortunately, Duke still had enough to time-- and a miracle-- to put things right with the world.)

I remember disliking NC State almost as much as UNC... I hated the way Valvano's teams played, and I hated the way he was a non-stop series of gyrations on the sideline, orchestrating every last move of his players, while standing on/in the court-- it was almost as if he didn't even trust his players to so much as set a screen, without him directing their every move. (I interpreted this as Valvano had recruited really dumb players, and then was unable to "coach them up" to the point that they could act on their own, so instead he had to give them constant oversight on every moment of every possession.) I hated the constant intentional fouling-- it ruined the flow and pace of every close game. (I wish they had given a single "bonus" shot plus the ball, to the fouled team; the best compromise ever was the short-lived test rule, where teams had the choice of taking the ball out of bounds, instead of shooting.)

For me, this film (of which I have only watched snippets, so far) continues the ESPN tradition (along with the innumerable re-broadcasts of his now-famous ESPY speech) of whitewashing the Jim Valvano legacy. To me, Valvano was a typical win-at-any-cost basketball coach, not much different in his coaching and recruiting practices than John Calipari (except he never had the bully recruiting pulpit of UK, to help him reel in the most athletically elite recruits in the country, so instead, he recruited lower athletic quality, lower character, lower academic quality players-- and cheated to do it-- and then did the best he could with them). I give him credit for getting a lot out of what he was able to bring in-- but I think he had some serious ethical flaws.

It's obvious from your post that you hate Valvano and no facts will change your mind. So be it.

I'm not sure why you lumped McQueen, Charles, and Corchiani in with Washburn in your first paragraph. Washburn was a bad seed, no doubt, but the others did nothing to deserve being cast in the same light as Washburn.

Yes, it's true that he brought in some players that had no interest in school. He also did a poor job of monitoring their academic progress, especially in the second half of his tenure. He was doing too many things at once (Coach, Athletics Director, showman, etc.) and neglected his primary job of monitoring his kids.

The book leveled dozens of charges at the basketball team from drug use to academic cheating, point shaving to recruiting violations. Ninety nine percent was proven incorrect after multiple investigations by the NCAA, SBI and possibly others. The NCAA cited the players for selling complimentary tickets and shoes. That's it. Coach Valvano was not directly implicated.

No, V was not a Saint. None of us are. Calling him a "cheater" is a stretch IMO.

[Mudge]

I'd actually suggest watching the whole thing, unless you've already, based on what you have seen and based on your personal feelings, decided that you're going to reject any premise of Valvano being a guy that people who knew him well truly loved. The film does a very nice job of two things. First, it allows the players on that 1983 team to recount the step-by-step experience of such a remarkable tournament run. Regardless of whether you like or dislike Valvano, or like or disliked that team, what they did, by not just winning the tournament, but by winning so many games along the way in such a remarkable fashion, was amazing. Secondly, the players give some very heartfelt and moving insights into what Jimmy Valvano meant to them. Is ESPN whitewashing Valvano? Maybe, although I'm not sure I see a clear motivation there, except perhaps to improve support for the V Foundation, in which case I can forgive a little whitewashing. Is Derek Whittenburg focusing only on the good aspects of Valvano? Yes, as most of us tend to do about a loved one who has died. But there's no doubt that Valvano was loved by the guys who took the time to appear in that documentary and talk about him. Thurl Bailey is moved to tears, 10 years later, when he talks about Valvano. That's not faked.

Jimmy Valvano was no saint, and he broke some rules (although the Golenbock book was largely unsubstantiated garbage). But he did three things that the documentary covers nicely: he coached one team to accomplish something extraordinary; he was a true friend to the players on that team and touched their lives in a way that mattered years later; and he turned his death into something meaningful and positive for many, many people. I respect that.

I agree on all this about the film, above... I also agree that he was loved by people who knew him well-- he was, in many ways, the "lovable rascal"... but, I definitely do think that ESPN has decided to (has reason to?) whitewash his defects/flaws... and this film also does this quite well.

[wsb3]

I pulled for State to win more than any non DUKE team i can recall.. One thing I had forgotten.. Fouling on purpose with the score tied.. That was something..

I thought Whit was really good in the show.. I actually just watched it yesterday. It is on demand to watch on Charter..

It seemed to me that after they won that in subsequent years V got so caught up in being a celebrity that maybe he got away from the nuts and bolts of coaching.

Does anyone think they could beat Houston with a shot clock of today? I have to say i don't think so in their case or Nova and their upset of GTown.

[CDu]

I pulled for State to win more than any non DUKE team i can recall.. One thing I had forgotten.. Fouling on purpose with the score tied.. That was something..

I think that was not as the coach intended (they were just in the habit of fouling and the player did it anyway).

Does anyone think they could beat Houston with a shot clock of today? I have to say i don't think so in their case or Nova and their upset of GTown.

The shot clock and the double bonus would have certainly made it more difficult for a heavy underdog to pull such an upset. Of course, the 3pt line would have been to a good shooting team's advantage (like State, unlike Houston).

And while State was a wonderful story, let's not forget that this team did have talent (moreso than Villanova). Bailey scored over 15,000 points in the NBA, averaging between 12 and 20 ppg over his career. Lowe had a solid few years as a backup PG. And while Whittenburg didn't get to the league (he was too small to play SG at the NBA level), he was a terrific scorer at the college level. And Terry Gannon was a terrific shooter as well. And Lorenzo Charles was just a role player on that team, but the next year he averaged 18 and 8 for the Pack.

The injury to Whittenburg and the tough ACC schedule led to a bunch of losses for State. But once Whittenburg came back, they were a really good (and thus probably underseeded relative to talent) team.

Now, it's true that they didn't have the NBA talent as Houston (with Olajuwon and Drexler and token NBA appearances by a couple of others) or UNC (Daugherty, Jordan, Perkins), but they were probably as talented as that UVa team (who was pretty reliant on their one star (Sampson). Per SRS, they were the #12 team in the country, even without Whittenburg for about 1/3 of the season.

Similarly, Villanova (#23 in SRS and with two future pros and double-digit scorers in the starting lineup) was probably a bit underseeded. It was certainly an upset for them to beat Georgetown (just as it was an upset for State to beat Houston). But they lost only 10 games all season, and 5 of them came against Georgetown and St. John's (2 of the top-5 teams in the country).

[wsb3]

I think that was not as the coach intended (they were just in the habit of fouling and the player did it anyway)..

No, not as i viewed the show.. Pretty sure Witt said who does that? Talking about V instructing them to foul with score tied.

[davekay1971]

And while State was a wonderful story, let's not forget that this team did have talent.

This is very true. State's mystique came more from the way they won than any illusion that this was a pack of unknown, no talent kids who overachieved beyond belief. Compared to the goliaths of UNC, Houston, and Louisville, they were certainly not as talented, but they had one legitimate NBA talent and several very good college players. They also had the advantage that Lowe and Whittenburg had played together, at a highly competitive level, for 8 years. Today championship teams are lucky to have a backcourt that has played together 2 or 3 years.

So NC State wasn't an upstart. Heck, less than a decade before, NC State had had the best team in the country, with the best college player possibly of all time, for 2 years running. But the 83 Wolfpack won in such dramatic fashion, again and again.

Sometimes I wonder if some of State "being State" is some kind of cosmic payback to the basketball gods for what was given to Wolfpack nation in 1983. Never in the history of college ball have so many people missed so many free throws for the benefit of so few. A debt has to be paid...

[DU82]

It's obvious from your post that you hate Valvano and no facts will change your mind. So be it.

I'm not sure why you lumped McQueen, Charles, and Corchiani in with Washburn in your first paragraph. Washburn was a bad seed, no doubt, but the others did nothing to deserve being cast in the same light as Washburn.

Yes, it's true that he brought in some players that had no interest in school. He also did a poor job of monitoring their academic progress, especially in the second half of his tenure. He was doing too many things at once (Coach, Athletics Director, showman, etc.) and neglected his primary job of monitoring his kids.

The book leveled dozens of charges at the basketball team from drug use to academic cheating, point shaving to recruiting violations. Ninety nine percent was proven incorrect after multiple investigations by the NCAA, SBI and possibly others. The NCAA cited the players for selling complimentary tickets and shoes. That's it. Coach Valvano was not directly implicated.

No, V was not a Saint. None of us are. Calling him a "cheater" is a stretch IMO.

I disagree with your comment about "Ninety nine percent was proven incorrect". There was a lot of misdirection and accusations coming from inside NC State about book after it was published, concentrating on typos and similar "errata" to paint the entire book as false. The book was written with one primary source (the team manager) who definitely had a grudge. But much of what he said was confirmed by other sources. Much of the stuff in the book were not direct NCAA violations, so sure the NCAA isn't going to concentrate on those. If you have the SBI reports, I'd love to see them (this isn't being sarcastic; I'm asking, since I've not read them.) Regarding the academics, I still haven't found anything that refutes the book's claim that only a handful of players actually graduated (at least at the time.) To point, Sidney Lowe, when he was hired as head coach, didn't have his degree, and had to rush to finish because it was a requirement of the job. He wasn't alone.

What you say "is true" are essentially the topics covered in the book. Valvano was, at best, an absentee coach and AD, more concerned with his own image. Frankly, he was a typical college basketball coach, although with a much better personality that sold well. The Duke bball family was not fond of his antics. It's my impression that it wasn't until he was ill that Coach K really became friends, and 20 years later, much of the questionable qualities of Valvano have been put in the background, preferring to remember how he did live his last year. Certainly for a documentary about the 1983 team, there wasn't much of a reason for anybody, including Coach K, to bring most of the questionable stuff.

On a different point, the "reunion" at Reynolds was more of a living wake (I was there, essentially courtside, for the game.) If it was just a reunion, then Valvano's college coach, Bill Foster, who at the time was an active D1 coach at Northwestern, wouldn't have been there, along with other non-1983 guests. The only question about Valvano attending was his health. Terry Gannon essentially was Valvano's caddy at ABC, filling in when Valvano couldn't actually broadcast, and ABC arranged to broadcast the game so Valvano could be there. It did give the NC State fans and officials, and Valvano, to reconcile before he passed away, which was good to see. One thing about ESPN and the documentary is that they didn't show his full speech, was essentially the same as the one he gave at the ESPYs. I guess that would take away from ESPN constantly promoting it, since it wasn't truly "original" and they wouldn't be able to take credit for it. (That criticism is of ESPN, not Valvano and his speech.)

[cf-62]

I disagree with your comment about "Ninety nine percent was proven incorrect". There was a lot of misdirection and accusations coming from inside NC State about book after it was published, concentrating on typos and similar "errata" to paint the entire book as false. The book was written with one primary source (the team manager) who definitely had a grudge. But much of what he said was confirmed by other sources. Much of the stuff in the book were not direct NCAA violations, so sure the NCAA isn't going to concentrate on those. If you have the SBI reports, I'd love to see them (this isn't being sarcastic; I'm asking, since I've not read them.) Regarding the academics, I still haven't found anything that refutes the book's claim that only a handful of players actually graduated (at least at the time.) To point, Sidney Lowe, when he was hired as head coach, didn't have his degree, and had to rush to finish because it was a requirement of the job. He wasn't alone.

What you say "is true" are essentially the topics covered in the book. Valvano was, at best, an absentee coach and AD, more concerned with his own image. Frankly, he was a typical college basketball coach, although with a much better personality that sold well. The Duke bball family was not fond of his antics. It's my impression that it wasn't until he was ill that Coach K really became friends, and 20 years later, much of the questionable qualities of Valvano have been put in the background, preferring to remember how he did live his last year. Certainly for a documentary about the 1983 team, there wasn't much of a reason for anybody, including Coach K, to bring most of the questionable stuff.

On a different point, the "reunion" at Reynolds was more of a living wake (I was there, essentially courtside, for the game.) If it was just a reunion, then Valvano's college coach, Bill Foster, who at the time was an active D1 coach at Northwestern, wouldn't have been there, along with other non-1983 guests. The only question about Valvano attending was his health. Terry Gannon essentially was Valvano's caddy at ABC, filling in when Valvano couldn't actually broadcast, and ABC arranged to broadcast the game so Valvano could be there. It did give the NC State fans and officials, and Valvano, to reconcile before he passed away, which was good to see. One thing about ESPN and the documentary is that they didn't show his full speech, was essentially the same as the one he gave at the ESPYs. I guess that would take away from ESPN constantly promoting it, since it wasn't truly "original" and they wouldn't be able to take credit for it. (That criticism is of ESPN, not Valvano and his speech.)

Since I can't stand when UK fans "re-write" history about old Duke wins, I want to adjust one thing here. Let's be clear about something. State didn't point to typos after publishing. They showed facts that refuted most of what was written, and the publisher flat out dropped Golenbok and the book. So he went back, dropped the serious allegations, and made the book about not graduating. While compared with Duke and UNC, State's graduation rate was abysmal - but compared to the rest of college basketball, that wasn't really news. Memphis, Louisville, Villanova, Georgetown, Illinois, Michigan, Maryland, ... ALL of these schools had worse graduation rates than NC State. Golenbok (for some reason) went out to crucify Valvano, when the publisher realized there was made up stuff throughout the book, they dropped it, so he re-wrote to an educational expose (yawn) and took to a "pay for play" publishing house.

The NCAA investigation found ZERO evidence of the cheating allegations Golenbok had written about, merely the selling of their comp tickets and comped shoes. Shabazz Muhammad took more money than that for his Duke and UNC visits. If the Chris Washburn 470 SAT score isn't sitting in the pages of the N&O, this particular infraction probably doesn't finish Valvano off, but the N&O was gunning for Valvano for years.

[Mudge]

Since I can't stand when UK fans "re-write" history about old Duke wins, I want to adjust one thing here. Let's be clear about something. State didn't point to typos after publishing. They showed facts that refuted most of what was written, and the publisher flat out dropped Golenbok and the book. So he went back, dropped the serious allegations, and made the book about not graduating. While compared with Duke and UNC, State's graduation rate was abysmal - but compared to the rest of college basketball, that wasn't really news. Memphis, Louisville, Villanova, Georgetown, Illinois, Michigan, Maryland, ... ALL of these schools had worse graduation rates than NC State. Golenbok (for some reason) went out to crucify Valvano, when the publisher realized there was made up stuff throughout the book, they dropped it, so he re-wrote to an educational expose (yawn) and took to a "pay for play" publishing house.

The NCAA investigation found ZERO evidence of the cheating allegations Golenbok had written about, merely the selling of their comp tickets and comped shoes. Shabazz Muhammad took more money than that for his Duke and UNC visits. If the Chris Washburn 470 SAT score isn't sitting in the pages of the N&O, this particular infraction probably doesn't finish Valvano off, but the N&O was gunning for Valvano for years.

Ya know, that sounds an awful lot like some kids in Columbus selling their souvenir "gold pants" jewelry-- if fact, it sounds exactly like it-- and I believe that a coach a lot more powerful than Valvano lost his job over that incident... so, even without Valvano's near total disregard for academic progress, let alone academic achievement (as evidenced by the recruitment of people like Washburn, Charles, and McQueen), it seems just about right that he got the sack for what was going on, on his watch there.

P.S.-- But I'm with you on Kentucky fans-- only I just plain can't stand 'em, period.

[DU82]

Since I can't stand when UK fans "re-write" history about old Duke wins, I want to adjust one thing here. Let's be clear about something. State didn't point to typos after publishing. They showed facts that refuted most of what was written, and the publisher flat out dropped Golenbok and the book. So he went back, dropped the serious allegations, and made the book about not graduating. While compared with Duke and UNC, State's graduation rate was abysmal - but compared to the rest of college basketball, that wasn't really news. Memphis, Louisville, Villanova, Georgetown, Illinois, Michigan, Maryland, ... ALL of these schools had worse graduation rates than NC State. Golenbok (for some reason) went out to crucify Valvano, when the publisher realized there was made up stuff throughout the book, they dropped it, so he re-wrote to an educational expose (yawn) and took to a "pay for play" publishing house.

The NCAA investigation found ZERO evidence of the cheating allegations Golenbok had written about, merely the selling of their comp tickets and comped shoes. Shabazz Muhammad took more money than that for his Duke and UNC visits. If the Chris Washburn 470 SAT score isn't sitting in the pages of the N&O, this particular infraction probably doesn't finish Valvano off, but the N&O was gunning for Valvano for years.

Please explain the "Shabazz Muhammad took more money than that for his Duke and UNC visits." Are you implying that the schools paid him in violation of NCAA policies? (I know there's questions about his recruiting, and about his father, but I do not know details beyond that.)

My point about the "typos" is that when the book came out, my opinion was that State was trying to bury the details with minor corrections, implying that since the minor stuff (mostly names) was wrong, the rest was wrong. I thought so then, I think so now. Pretty much the same as my saying that since you spelled the author's name wrong a few times (Golenbock), your entire comment is wrong. THAT'S the primary inside comment/criticism I heard back then coming from the State family. And, I'm talking about the book that was published. Ultimately, it wasn't about NCAA violations, it was about revealing the true man behind the curtain. Fairly comment now with all the information out there in the cloud, but rare at the time. following on the heels of Season on the Brink.

You do bring up a good point that Golenbock's publisher did drop the book, but as you point out the primary reason was that the "major" stuff that was dropped for lack of evidence. With one primary source (and as mentioned, one with an axe to grind) I can understand why a major publisher didn't move on with it. But the book's very similar in style/content to Golenbock's previous sport books.

The main themes of the book about the sleazy nature of college basketball remains. It was one of the first "exposés of college basketball that I recall.

I agree with the Pack fans that the N&O was out to get them under any circumstance. IIRC, they publicized Washburn's 470 SAT, while ignoring a UNC player (Madden?) getting a 460. I can understand the State fans not happy with the N&O not going full out (initially) about the current scandal over in Chapel Hill.

The revisionist part of this to me is how whitewashed and revered Valvano is now. It is true that the good remains, the bad fades away, especially about the dead.

[arnie]

Ya know, that sounds an awful lot like some kids in Columbus selling their souvenir "gold pants" jewelry-- if fact, it sounds exactly like it-- and I believe that a coach a lot more powerful than Valvano lost his job over that incident... so, even without Valvano's near total disregard for academic progress, let alone academic achievement (as evidenced by the recruitment of people like Washburn, Charles, and McQueen), it seems just about right that he got the sack for what was going on, on his watch there.

P.S.-- But I'm with you on Kentucky fans-- only I just plain can't stand 'em, period.

The 24-hour episode onABC was a big embarrassment for state. Duke athletes interviewed about their classes; state players unaware of when their classes were held. Believe it might have been corchiani that came across very poorly.

[DU82]

The 24-hour episode onABC was a big embarrassment for state. Duke athletes interviewed about their classes; state players unaware of when their classes were held. Believe it might have been corchiani that came across very poorly.

It was 48 Hours on CBS, they broadcast (or rebroadcast) it during the Final Four that year (1988). Unfortunately, my VHS tape is gone, and had it on the same tape as the semi-final and final (which I wanted to immediately erase!) Corchiani was a freshman that spring. None of the players came out looking good over in Raleigh. In Durham, I remember freshman Greg Koubek not doing well on a test or paper, but said it was his fault, and he needed to do better. Wonder if his high school players have ever watch that!

[cf-62]

It was 48 Hours on CBS, they broadcast (or rebroadcast) it during the Final Four that year (1988). Unfortunately, my VHS tape is gone, and had it on the same tape as the semi-final and final (which I wanted to immediately erase!) Corchiani was a freshman that spring. None of the players came out looking good over in Raleigh. In Durham, I remember freshman Greg Koubek not doing well on a test or paper, but said it was his fault, and he needed to do better. Wonder if his high school players have ever watch that!

A) This is what I mean when I say "compared to Duke," the State statistics look absolutely dreadful.

B) That special, along with the 5 starter press conferences in Dallas ('86) was definitely part of the origins of Duke hate (Duke is so smug, they're so pristine, the media adores them, ...)

C) I remember at the time thinking pretty smugly about our team vs. theirs

[cf-62]

Please explain the "Shabazz Muhammad took more money than that for his Duke and UNC visits." Are you implying that the schools paid him in violation of NCAA policies? (I know there's questions about his recruiting, and about his father, but I do not know details beyond that)

Not at all. In fact, the issue is that these were unofficial visits, meaning the schools CAN'T pay for the trip. You're responsible for your own travel on an unofficial visit. Instead, he had $1600 of travel benefits paid by a family friend who was a financial advisor.

[arnie]

It was 48 Hours on CBS, they broadcast (or rebroadcast) it during the Final Four that year (1988). Unfortunately, my VHS tape is gone, and had it on the same tape as the semi-final and final (which I wanted to immediately erase!) Corchiani was a freshman that spring. None of the players came out looking good over in Raleigh. In Durham, I remember freshman Greg Koubek not doing well on a test or paper, but said it was his fault, and he needed to do better. Wonder if his high school players have ever watch that!

Thanks for the correction - Jack Bauer was not interviewed for the show. State fans I worked with mostly laughed about the interviews - kind of "who cares" they are bball players.

[sagegrouse]

The 24-hour episode onABC was a big embarrassment for state. Duke athletes interviewed about their classes; state players unaware of when their classes were held. Believe it might have been corchiani that came across very poorly.

It was 48 Hours on CBS, they broadcast (or rebroadcast) it during the Final Four that year (1988). Unfortunately, my VHS tape is gone, and had it on the same tape as the semi-final and final (which I wanted to immediately erase!) Corchiani was a freshman that spring. None of the players came out looking good over in Raleigh. In Durham, I remember freshman Greg Koubek not doing well on a test or paper, but said it was his fault, and he needed to do better. Wonder if his high school players have ever watch that!

I recall seeing this at the time it aired. It featured a lead-up to a Duke-State game (won by Duke). IIRC this episode was the source of the "I am amphibious" comment by Charles Shackelford. If true, it is a classic piece of TV sports reporting for that alone.

sagegrouse

[AsiaMinor]

Back to the show.
It was a moving tribute to a man who gave his life to his dream and made basketball - and a lot of young men - better in the process.
It was on demand here in Dallas, and thanks to the posters for bringing it to my attention.
To those who would like to discredit those who are no longer living and can neither defend themselves nor change, look at your own lives
and make sure if your history were told that you are pure.

[Mudge]

Back to the show.
It was a moving tribute to a man who gave his life to his dream and made basketball - and a lot of young men - better in the process.
It was on demand here in Dallas, and thanks to the posters for bringing it to my attention.
To those who would like to discredit those who are no longer living and can neither defend themselves nor change, look at your own lives
and make sure if your history were told that you are pure.

It's certainly tough to beat the "let he among you who is without sin cast the first stone" rejoinder (especially at this time of year), but while I hardly qualify on that count, I'd also point out that (probably) none of us here is benefiting from recurring national broadcasts of a documentary on our life, that glosses over all of the unsavory stuff that we did in our professional career, either (not to mention the annual love-fest that accompanies yearly re-broadcast of the Valvano ESPY speech). A major news organization (ESPN) is using a good bit of its journalistic power to re-write the history of Valvano-- he doesn't need to be here to defend himself, as ESPN (in tandem with Derek Whittenburg) is doing more than well enough at that, for him...

This situation hardly parallels the one that Jesus was addressing with his famous quote-- there is an coordinated effort underway (and has been for years) to whitewash Valvano's legacy, and those of us who think this is a seriously misleading accounting of his activities are simply speaking up in a feeble attempt to put the historical record back more in line with what we actually witnessed at the time. We aren't saying that things happened that didn't happen--- we're saying, let's include a more balanced, comprehensive account of what he did... if people (ESPN, Valvano family members, Whittenburg, NC State fans, whomever) want to embark on a deification campaign, be prepared for other people, who saw him much differently, to say "That ain't how it was."

"All that is necessary for evil to prevail is that enough good men do nothing."-- Edmund Burke (?)

[oldnavy]

I didn't really want to like Valvano, but I just couldn't help it. He reminded me of that Uncle we all have that is lovable, but just bad enough to always be in trouble or on the verge of being in trouble.

Of course V wasn't a Saint, but who is?

In this season, this particular weekend in fact, I hope that we all can find it in ourselves to forgive those of "us" who fall a little short of perfection.

I know that I am personally very thankful and humbled by the grace and forgiveness I have received.

So, V made some mistakes, welcome to the human race. Who am I to judge what kind of person he was or became? Personally, I'll leave the judging to the Judge.

Happy Easter everyone, and Go DUKE!

[Tom B.]

I recall seeing this at the time it aired. It featured a lead-up to a Duke-State game (won by Duke). IIRC this episode was the source of the "I am amphibious" comment by Charles Shackelford. If true, it is a classic piece of TV sports reporting for that alone.

sagegrouse

Actually, N.C. State won that game. It was the February 24, 1988 game against State in Reynolds. State actually swept the regular-season series against Duke that year (insert obligatory moment of silence in memory if the double round-robin here), though Duke went on to beat State in the ACC Tournament semifinals (en route to the ACC Championship).

The 48 Hours piece aired in late March, just before the Final Four. Here's an article about it from the Philadelphia Inquirer:

http://articles.philly.com/1988-03-3...etball-players

Here's a YouTube clip with excerpts from the 48 Hours piece. At least, I think this is just excerpts -- it's only nine minutes long, and I recall the original 48 Hours piece being much longer, so I assume this isn't the complete piece. Note that the caption on the YouTube clip is wrong -- the caption says 1987, but it was 1988. At the end, Dan Rather says that Duke is preparing to face Kansas in the Final Four, so it's definitely 1988. (Sigh. To this day, I still don't know how Kevin Strickland's three-pointer rimmed out.)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Z7hyhOI1ji4

As for not casting stones unless you're without sin -- at the risk of getting all PPB, I think that's one of the more frequently misapplied quotes from the Bible. It's become conventional to interpret it as meaning that unless you're perfect (or at least really superior), you can't apply your own practical or moral judgment to another person or his/her acts. Well, if that's what it means, then all of civilization would be pretty much turned on its head. Anybody could do whatever he or she felt like, regardless of the consequences, and nobody could do anything about it. Because everybody is flawed and everybody sins (at least a little bit), nobody would be qualified to tell the wrongdoers that they need to cut it out, or enforce laws against them if they don't.

(As for what I think the proper interpretation is, well, that's a whole different conversation. Suffice it to say that I think the lesson expressed operates on more than one level.)


To bring this back on topic...

I don't think there's anything wrong with recognizing and criticizing Valvano's flaws (and he had them, as everybody does, on some level). But was the 30 for 30 piece lacking or deficient because it didn't go deeply enough into them? I don't really think so, mainly because I went into it with my eyes open. When I watched the show, I wasn't expecting a critical analysis of Valvano's pros and cons as a coach and a human being, nor do I think the show was marketed that way. I was expecting some fun, wistful storytelling about one team's incredible run in one Tournament, and that's primarily what I got. The fact that the piece didn't delve deeply into Valvano's flaws (though, to be fair, it didn't ignore them, either), and the fact that I was aware of his flaws from other sources, didn't reduce my enjoyment of the show.