Greg Beaton Column

[duke211]

I think this is a perfect view of a fans perspective.


linky

[Edouble]

Pretty good. I'd give it a "B".

Not sure about this:

"Part of what makes this process so fun is the opportunity to second-guess coaching decisions and criticize players for things that we know deep down we couldn’t do any better ourselves. For example, how many times this season did a fellow Duke fan turn to you and claim they could make more free throws than DeMarcus Nelson or ask why Coach K wasn’t playing Taylor King in the second half?"

It's "fun" to second-guess the coaching? It's "fun" to makes claims that we could do things better than the players, even if we know we can't? That's not why I watch sports, but we all have our different quirks. I do have friends that could definitely shoot free-throws better than Nelson, even in a big game situation (I've seen it). Of course they don't have all of the other abilities that Nelson has to get into the game in the first place. Still, the claim that one could shoot free throws better than Nelson seems like a poor example of excessively bold fan-speak.

[yancem]

Great well written article that makes a strong argument. The problem is that there is a difference between criticizing and tearing someone a new one. I was out of town when Duke lost and had limited access to a computer so I didn't see what was posted that led to the moderators pulling the boards down but I have seen some of the venom that gets spued from time to time and it ain't pretty.

Although I am pretty sure that it was only a handful of posters that were crossing the line, I can understand if the moderators either can't or don't want to spend their Easter weekend reading and retracting angry/hateful posts when they too just felt the heartbreak of their team's season ending. These guys are volunteers, they don't get paid to clean up our mess.

Anyway, my take.

[Channing]

The article 100&#37; misses the point. First off, why is it in poor taste to use an exclamation point for the Aminu incident. It isnt like it was a somber moment. My first reaction when I saw the story was "Holy Cow are you serious?!?!" Plus, if exclamation is so important to Beaton, he should have realized that every "<insert name> update" has an exclamation point, as well as many many other stories, even if they are not all that exciting.

Second, as has been beaten to death, the boards were not shut down because of criticism. They were shut down because people were flying over the handlebars. Beaton is right when he says "being a "good, passionate fan" ... is the ability to step back and be critical when we are disappointed." However, the key is stepping back, and being rationally critical. Not stringing together a bunch of expletives and sticking the word Duke, or the name of a player or coach at the end.

Finally - it wasnt the mods that shut down the board - it was the owners.

[Bluedawg]

I think this is a perfect view of a fans perspective.


http://http://sports.yahoo.com/ncaab/news;_ylt=AhTvAH_TTE74jwpGGyTkbtEj07YF?slug=uwire-commentaryfanscancriticize&prov=uwire&type=lgns

This is more of a critique of DBR instead of an analysis of the season. Haven't we had enough of that?

[greybeard]

Wonder if Greg's Mom is some kind of expert about ball, the type Greg thinks need a voice. Heck, even he didn't listen to her.

Too much time with the USA squad? Really? Where did the new offense come from? Anybody not enjoy that until Henderson lost his mid-range game at least and people stopped having to guard him for a pull up at the foul line?

And, where did "Orange" come from, a trip to Florida? Did Orange not win them several games. When was the last time Duke played a zone like that one?

New assistants? Aren't these the ones that produced the latter stages of the glory years? How many games this year did they come out and rip people a part, deploying differently than in the first half. Must have been magic.

Anybody think that Duke played anywhere near its A game against West Va? That's what I thought. Anyone think UNC wouldn't have gone out just as early if Hansbrough had Henderson's wrist injury?

I'm all for free speech. In Greg's case, you get what you pay for.

[Exiled_Devil]

This kid knows little of what he speaks of in regard to DBR.

His little jab where he says "I would talk about their hypocrisies, but don't have the space" is a way to say "I think they're hypocritical and I don't feel the need to substantiate fully." It's a passive aggressive way of writing, and really not good journalism.

He didn't get why the boards were shut down, he just knew he couldn't express himself on them - or read them, who knows if he is a contributor. His point about criticizing and second guessing is a legitimate one (I too disagree with the idea that second guessing is part of the fun) and could have been addressed without the jab at DBR. They are separate issues, although related.

Three interesting trends from the board shutdown I have noticed:
1. People see DBR as some sort of official Duke institution - it has been around for over 10 years, so for many people it is part of how they know Duke Basketball. They forget that it is a private, unofficial, unaffiliated site.
2. It seems that many Gen-Y'ers feel that the internet is a place where unfettered self-expression is a right. This assessment is based upon the articles coming form the Chronicle and an assumption that some of the posters who had issue with the shut down were current students.
3. Hypocrisy is a regular accusation now-a-days, and I think it is a foolish one when you look at a body of work that has existed for decades and expect people to be unwavering in their points. It also seems to be the highest of critiques in the post-modern, crit-theory world. However, much of it stems upon something like "They used an exclamation point here!". The accusation of hypocrisy can often be superficial, and in this case definitely is.

[freedevil]

Anyone think UNC wouldn't have gone out just as early if Hansbrough had Henderson's wrist injury?

I don't mean to take away from the rest of the goods point you made, greybeard, but I whole-heartedly disagree with this point. Just my opinion, as no one would know the answer until such a thing actually happened.

[Bluedog]

Ok, first of all, in general, I disagree with most of Beaton's argument in regards to DBR. However, I must say that I, too, was struck when DBR used the exclamation point when Wake recruit Aminu was arrested. DBR typically uses exclamation points to highlight positive developments and things we are glad about. Yes, player updates, for example, since it's good to see players are doing well - or just fun to see what they're doing. To me, it made it seem like DBR was happy that a Wake recruit was arrested, and I'm not sure why they'd be happy. Are we really that competitive that we think it's a good thing when an 18-year-old shoots somebody with a BB gun so that he might not be able to play? I'd personally rather have the situation not occur and NCAA athletes keep out of trouble. I guess it's hard to tell emotions and intent from one punctuation mark, but when Redick was arrested for a DUI, was the headline "Redick arrested for DUI!" or "Redick charged with DUI" ? I'd expect the second, more somber approach...Maybe I'm misinterpreting the use of the exclamation point in this instance, but that was just my natural instinct. To me, it didn't seem like a "holy cow! what a shock!" exclamation point, but rather a "yippee!" exclamation point. I don't think we should take pleasure in other schools' recruits/players being arrested, except for maybe UNC and UCon(victs), and only for non-violent arrests

[BCGroup]

This kid knows little of what he speaks of in regard to DBR.

His little jab where he says "I would talk about their hypocrisies, but don't have the space" is a way to say "I think they're hypocritical and I don't feel the need to substantiate fully." It's a passive aggressive way of writing, and really not good journalism.

He didn't get why the boards were shut down, he just knew he couldn't express himself on them - or read them, who knows if he is a contributor. His point about criticizing and second guessing is a legitimate one (I too disagree with the idea that second guessing is part of the fun) and could have been addressed without the jab at DBR. They are separate issues, although related.

Three interesting trends from the board shutdown I have noticed:
1. People see DBR as some sort of official Duke institution - it has been around for over 10 years, so for many people it is part of how they know Duke Basketball. They forget that it is a private, unofficial, unaffiliated site.
2. It seems that many Gen-Y'ers feel that the internet is a place where unfettered self-expression is a right. This assessment is based upon the articles coming form the Chronicle and an assumption that some of the posters who had issue with the shut down were current students.
3. Hypocrisy is a regular accusation now-a-days, and I think it is a foolish one when you look at a body of work that has existed for decades and expect people to be unwavering in their points. It also seems to be the highest of critiques in the post-modern, crit-theory world. However, much of it stems upon something like "They used an exclamation point here!". The accusation of hypocrisy can often be superficial, and in this case definitely is.

Very solid points. I particularly agree with one and two. It's amazing that people assume any site that is positive must be affiliated with the institution. Second, where did people get the idea that you could say anything you want to ...no matter what. Hmm. I feel old. I remember when the outlet for expression was a written (maybe typed on a typewriter) letter to the editor of the local paper. You mailed it in.

[allenmurray]

What Beaton (and a number of DBR posters) can't seem to figure out is that the owners of the site can do whatever they please, and it really isn't his business. This is not a public forum - it is a private forum in which the public is invited to participate if they stay within guidelines set by the owners.

If I invite you into my home, then you are there with my permission. I will offer niceties - a place to sit, a beverage, a view of the TV if Duke is on - but if you light a cigarette in my house (which is not against the law) I will ask you to leave. You have a right to smoke, but you don't have a right to smoke in my home.

[Cavlaw]

I think it's flattering to everyone who posts here that what the DBR does is considered newsworthy.

[freedevil]

What Beaton (and a number of DBR posters) can't seem to figure out is that the owners of the site can do whatever they please, and it really isn't his business. This is not a public forum - it is a private forum in which the public is invited to participate if they stay within guidelines set by the owners.

If I invite you into my home, then you are there with my permission. I will offer niceties - a place to sit, a beverage, a view of the TV if Duke is on - but if you light a cigarette in my house (which is not against the law) I will ask you to leave. You have a right to smoke, but you don't have a right to smoke in my home.

I saw nothing in his article to suggest that DBR does not have the right to do whatever it wants with its own website. I understood him, rightly or wrongly, to be questioning the wisdom of some of its decisions.

[Bluedawg]

What Beaton (and a number of DBR posters) can't seem to figure out is that the owners of the site can do whatever they please, and it really isn't his business. This is not a public forum - it is a private forum in which the public is invited to participate if they stay within guidelines set by the owners.

If I invite you into my home, then you are there with my permission. I will offer niceties - a place to sit, a beverage, a view of the TV if Duke is on - but if you light a cigarette in my house (which is not against the law) I will ask you to leave. You have a right to smoke, but you don't have a right to smoke in my home.

Great analogy.

Mr. Beaton called that article a "perfect view of a fans perspective" where i saw it as a rant against DBR [which shows the power of this forum]

I come on DBR to discuss topics of interest, not to read profanity and attacks against players and coaches, many of which are unwarranted.

[Duvall]

I saw nothing in his article to suggest that DBR does not have the right to do whatever it wants with its own website. I understood him, rightly or wrongly, to be questioning the wisdom of some of its decisions.

Except that he never made that argument. He argued that venting was a natural and legitimate result of fandom, and he criticized DBR for failing to provide an immediate outlet for such venting, but he never bothered to explain why he thought DBR should have providing such an outlet.

[freedevil]

Except that he never made that argument. He argued that venting was a natural and legitimate result of fandom, and he criticized DBR for failing to provide an immediate outlet for such venting, but he never bothered to explain why he thought DBR should have providing such an outlet.

Considering that he's a "lurker" I don't think his argument was that DBR failed to provide him a forum to vent. I understood his argument to be this passage:

"This isn’t about my distaste for the DBR moderators... It is about the notion they expressed, which is that the Duke fans who caused the message board shutdown by being too critical are "fickle and spoiled" and "ignorant and foolish," as they wrote in a column posted on their website the next day."

Now, I got an infraction the night of the Belmont game for calling some coaching decisions - "God awful" - in retrospect, that infraction is deserved. Completely. If DBR's lines about foolish and ignorant were directed at somewhat exaggerated claims like mine, though, than I support Greg's article. HOWEVER, I trust that much, much, much worse things were said, and that people were really saying blatantly ignorant and foolish things.

But if I'm right that this is his bone with DBR, where does he need to explain why DBR has to provide him a forum to vent? (Which it doesn't)

[greybeard]

I don't mean to take away from the rest of the goods point you made, greybeard, but I whole-heartedly disagree with this point. Just my opinion, as no one would know the answer until such a thing actually happened.

We do know how they did with Lawson out. If Hansbrough's offensive proficiency was affected as much as Henderson's, there is no number 1 seed; shots from behind his ear, shots from an extended (sideways) right arm, shots from the foul line on out, fall from the 70-50 percent range to who knows what. Come on freedevil, "whole-heartedly?" Can't mean that.

[Troublemaker]

Considering that he's a "lurker" I don't think his argument was that DBR failed to provide him a forum to vent. I understood his argument to be this passage:

Now, I got an infraction the night of the Belmont game for calling some coaching decisions - "God awful" - in retrospect, that infraction is deserved. Completely. If DBR's lines about foolish and ignorant were directed at somewhat exaggerated claims like mine, though, than I support Greg's article. HOWEVER, I trust that much, much, much worse things were said, and that people were really saying blatantly ignorant and foolish things.

But if I'm right that this is his bone with DBR, where does he need to explain why DBR has to provide him a forum to vent? (Which it doesn't)

Beaton was saying that fans who criticize aren't fickle or ignorant. However, he was attacking a strawman, as criticism is allowed here. He either (a) doesn't understand that criticism is allowed here or (b) is saying that ALL types of criticism, including venting, should be allowed here. If (b), then yes, he DOES need to provide some explanation for why he believes venting should be allowed here.

[Classof06]

What Beaton (and a number of DBR posters) can't seem to figure out is that the owners of the site can do whatever they please, and it really isn't his business. This is not a public forum - it is a private forum in which the public is invited to participate if they stay within guidelines set by the owners.

If I invite you into my home, then you are there with my permission. I will offer niceties - a place to sit, a beverage, a view of the TV if Duke is on - but if you light a cigarette in my house (which is not against the law) I will ask you to leave. You have a right to smoke, but you don't have a right to smoke in my home.

Bingo. I didn't agree with DBR shutting down the boards after the game; I know I personally wasn't making any comments that crossed the line so why should I be punished? I actually agreed with a lot of points made in the article. I do happen to feel that Duke fans (especially on this board) who aren't afraid to criticize the program do get painted as fickle and/or ignorant and that is not right. Being a Duke fan isn't like being part of a socialist state. We can have ideas and boards are here to share those ideas, negative or positive.

That being said, the fact remains that the owners/mods/whoever can do whatever they want with their site. If it bothers someone that much then they can make their own message board.

[freedevil]

We do know how they did with Lawson out. If Hansbrough's offensive proficiency was affected as much as Henderson's, there is no number 1 seed; shots from behind his ear, shots from an extended (sideways) right arm, shots from the foul line on out, fall from the 70-50 percent range to who knows what. Come on freedevil, "whole-heartedly?" Can't mean that.

Yeah, we do know how UNC did when Lawson was not on the floor. There's a huge difference between Gerald's game and Hansbrough's game, and you didn't say "offensive efficiency" declining, you said a wrist injury. I wholeheartedly (yes, I mean that) disagree that a wrist injury to a post-player who does most of his damage in the paint and gets tons of rebounds (albeit one who also has a great mid-range game) would mean no #1 seed for UNC. You can't mean to be comparing a wrist-injury to a wing as you can to a someone who, as we all know, "wills" his way to baskets.