PDA

View Full Version : Coach K chastises the local media



Mike Corey
01-08-2009, 02:39 PM
Coach K let the local press know what was on his mind last night.

Watch the clip here (http://blogs.newsobserver.com/accnow/coach-k-helps-the-local-press).

Executive summary: Coach K does not believe the local media cares that his team has earned a No. 2 national ranking, and he wants his "group to be celebrated" accordingly.

Madrasdukie
01-08-2009, 02:56 PM
Coach K let the local press know what was on his mind last night.

Watch the clip here (http://blogs.newsobserver.com/accnow/coach-k-helps-the-local-press).

Executive summary: Coach K does not believe the local media cares that his team has earned a No. 2 national ranking, and he wants his "group to be celebrated" accordingly.

I saw this earlier and was thinking that it was a good case in point regarding local media bias. I remember how aggravating it felt to read Al Featherston's report of this bias amongst the journalists during the ACC tournament a couple of years ago.

That said, it did seem a bit unlike K to respond to questions regarding rankings the way he did. It was pretty smooth, though.

CDu
01-08-2009, 03:00 PM
Coach K let the local press know what was on his mind last night.

Watch the clip here (http://blogs.newsobserver.com/accnow/coach-k-helps-the-local-press).

Executive summary: Coach K does not believe the local media cares that his team has earned a No. 2 national ranking, and he wants his "group to be celebrated" accordingly.

Interesting. Coach K has, in the past, laid into his team for believing the hype about their lofty rankings. Interesting to see him saying we're underhyped now.

I've always been a proponent of ignoring the rankings altogether. Who really cares? All that matters is performance on the court. We simply need to go out and win games. Win 13+ games in the ACC and do well in the NCAA tournament - that's how the team is going to be measured. No one will care where we were ranked or how we were celebrated in early January one way or the other.

jv001
01-08-2009, 03:07 PM
Maybe like me Coach K had gotten tired of all the talk about unc going undefeated and being the best ACC team of all time. Most of this talk came from the unc media guys. So I'm not surprised about his comments. Go Duke!

DevilWolf
01-08-2009, 03:17 PM
I can assure you this had nothing to do with K feeling like the team wasn't getting enough attention, or that he was sick of hearing about UNC. That's probably how all of us feel as fans, but there is no chance at all of K being motivated by that.

My thoughts are ...

1) Re-emphasizing the chip on the shoulder approach to his team, or
2) Reminding Duke fans and players alike of his charge to enjoy the season and to celebrate success instead of being numb to it, or feeling relief because of it

OZZIE4DUKE
01-08-2009, 03:19 PM
Interesting. Coach K has, in the past, laid into his team for believing the hype about their lofty rankings. Interesting to see him saying we're underhyped now.


I think it is strategy. He wants our guys to believe they are that good and to play like it. This group hasn't been there before, at least not deservedly. These guys ARE that good, or can be.

watzone
01-08-2009, 03:21 PM
Coach K let the local press know what was on his mind last night.

Watch the clip here (http://blogs.newsobserver.com/accnow/coach-k-helps-the-local-press).

Executive summary: Coach K does not believe the local media cares that his team has earned a No. 2 national ranking, and he wants his "group to be celebrated" accordingly.
I think there is another message to a certain individual who replaced a writer on the Duke beat in the Raleigh paper. Why? Well, there was the Collins situation where that was blown out of proportion by this person in a "scoop" like manner. That in turn helped the story to reach the front page here and the ESPN roll.

With all the good things the team and coach is doing, this seemed to be a big story while the same paper has avoided a worthy story line of Duke rising to number two while the previously viewed unbeatable Tar Heels fell to fourth.

Go back and listen to the tape where K cut off his comment at the very beginning.

The local media has had a notoriously strong lean to a Triangle neighbor, but it has been better in recent years. Anyone remember Ward Clayton? How about the others who have intentionally asked questions designed to make the coach bristle? There is a long list and few of them have lasted.

Like you said, a little respect is in order, but in fairness to the print media, todays environment isn't what it used to be in that writers are falling like flies and papers are merging and cutting back almost every day.

OZZIE4DUKE
01-08-2009, 03:24 PM
I started reading the comments after the article, but I stopped after a couple before I threw up. :eek:

jv001
01-08-2009, 03:24 PM
Coach K has always been good at the mental part of the game when it comes to getting the team up. Maybe he is trying to create the "us against the world" mentality. He really pumped up Lance's two big freethrows last night. Guess he was trying to give LT some added confidence in his freethrow shooting. Go Duke and Coach K.

Troublemaker
01-08-2009, 03:25 PM
Ack. Not a huge deal, but I wish Coach K didn't call out the media there. I understand what he's trying to do. He wants the team to have fun, live in the moment and be proud of what they've accomplished instead of fretting over what they haven't, and to that end, he would like the media to praise the team more. The problem, though, is that (1) his comments won't be received that way at all. He sounds whiny and petty and will be unsuccessful in gaining more praise for his team. In fact, he will likely only be successful in antagonizing the anti-Duke segment of the media even more. (2) IMO, Duke shouldn't care about receiving praise for their ranking. Pick your fights wisely. In a world where people hate Duke, there may come a time when the media needs to be called out for anti-Duke bias, but this was not such a situation, imo. This seems frivolous and he loses a bit of stature for any future non-frivolous complaint. (3) Right or wrong, college basketball teams are judged by what they do in March, and I think the players are well aware of that. Receiving a little bit more praise about their #2 ranking in early January wouldn't have lessened the pressure on them or made them feel more accomplished, I don't think. Overall, this seems to be a rare motivational misstep by Coach K and an error in handling the local media. Again, not a big deal (as of yet). I just hope this clip isn't constantly referenced by the local media all season long and please don't let it make Around the Horn, PTI and Sportscenter.

roywhite
01-08-2009, 03:27 PM
I think there is another message to a certain individual who replaced a writer on the Duke beat in the Raleigh paper. Why? Well, there was the Collins situation where that was blown out of proportion by this person in a "scoop" like manner. That in turn helped the story to reach the front page here and the ESPN roll.

With all the good things the team and coach is doing, this seemed to be a big story while the same paper has avoided a worthy story line of Duke rising to number two while the previously viewed unbeatable Tar Heels fell to fourth.

Go back and listen to the tape where K cut off his comment at the very beginning.

The local media has had a notoriously strong lean to a Triangle neighbor, but it has been better in recent years. Anyone remember Ward Clayton? How about the others who have intentionally asked questions designed to make the coach bristle? There is a long list and few of them have lasted.

Like you said, a little respect is in order, but in fairness to the print media, todays environment isn't what it used to be in that writers are falling like flies and papers are merging and cutting back almost every day.

Makes sense to me, Mark, and thanks for some additional context.

Is there another situation in the country where such a prominent national program and coach is clearly not the favorite of the local media (and local population for that matter)?

Blast away, Coach K.

Indoor66
01-08-2009, 03:36 PM
Ack. Not a huge deal, but I wish Coach K didn't call out the media there. I understand what he's trying to do. He wants the team to have fun, live in the moment and be proud of what they've accomplished instead of fretting over what they haven't, and to that end, he would like the media to praise the team more. The problem, though, is that (1) his comments won't be received that way at all. He sounds whiny and petty and will be unsuccessful in gaining more praise for his team. In fact, he will likely only be successful in antagonizing the anti-Duke segment of the media even more. (2) IMO, Duke shouldn't care about receiving praise for their ranking. Pick your fights wisely. In a world where people hate Duke, there may come a time when the media needs to be called out for anti-Duke bias, but this was not such a situation, imo. This seems frivolous and he loses a bit of stature for any future non-frivolous complaint. (3) Right or wrong, college basketball teams are judged by what they do in March, and I think the players are well aware of that. Receiving a little bit more praise about their #2 ranking in early January wouldn't have lessened the pressure on them or made them feel more accomplished, I don't think. Overall, this seems to be a rare motivational misstep by Coach K and an error in handling the local media. Again, not a big deal (as of yet). I just hope this clip isn't constantly referenced by the local media all season long and please don't let it make Around the Horn, PTI and Sportscenter.

I have to disagree with you here. The local press, in failing to even mention the Duke ranking at 2 is worthy of being called out. The N & O and Durham Herald purport to report local news. It is local news when a team in the Triangle, be it UNC, Duke or State or NCCU receives significant recognition. Being ranked 2nd is significant, especially when they overtook another local team that fell from 1st. IMO it is appropriate for K to call them out. They are quick to call out others for any perceived mistake or slight. Why should the press get a pass on their shortcomings.

jv001
01-08-2009, 03:37 PM
Makes sense to me, Mark, and thanks for some additional context.

Is there another situation in the country where such a prominent national program and coach is clearly not the favorite of the local media (and local population for that matter)?

Blast away, Coach K.

Sure wasn't that way for ole dean. he could do not wrong. Guess most of the journalists had that light blue degree. Go Duke!

Mike Corey
01-08-2009, 03:39 PM
Is there another situation in the country where such a prominent national program and coach is clearly not the favorite of the local media (and local population for that matter)?

http://thenastyboys.files.wordpress.com/2008/07/mikegundy.jpg

~

Joking aside, I think this is classic Coach K.

I think Mark makes some great points, and he's close enough to the situation that I'm sure he's privy to more of what's going on than the rest of us.

But I'd also add that there's a lot of sincerity in Coach K's words, specifically in praising his team publicly, and making sure that the local media and anyone else within earshot knew he was proud of what his team had accomplished thus far. Sure, there's a long way to go, but positive reinforcement--something Coach K has said he would rededicate himself to in the wake of his Olympic experience--is never a bad thing. And that, to me, was precisely what Coach K was up to last night.

Consider that no one is more aware of the (overwhelming) negativity that has surrounded this particular group of Duke players, from the vitriol of opposing fan bases to the schadenfreude of the local press, than Coach K.

So he's stickin' up for them a little bit, even while telling his team behind close doors to stick up for themselves with their actions not their words.

If I'm one of his players, I'm all the more motivated to get to work the next morning.

hurleyfor3
01-08-2009, 03:45 PM
Is there another situation in the country where such a prominent national program and coach is clearly not the favorite of the local media (and local population for that matter)?

Maybe you want only college examples, but the Chicago White Sox come to mind.

pfrduke
01-08-2009, 03:53 PM
Maybe you want only college examples, but the Chicago White Sox come to mind.

I think deep down Guillen has to be a "favorite" of the Chicago media, if only because he gives them such amazing copy.

OZZIE4DUKE
01-08-2009, 03:56 PM
hurleyfor3 (http://www.dukebasketballreport.com/forums/member.php?u=1030) http://www.dukebasketballreport.com/forums/images/statusicon/user_online.gif
Bobby Hurley
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: too flat to hike, and too cold anyway
Posts: 1,409



Congratulations on attaining Bobby Hurley status! Be sure to take a screen shot for your records!

mapei
01-08-2009, 04:03 PM
I have to disagree with you here. The local press, in failing to even mention the Duke ranking at 2 is worthy of being called out. The N & O and Durham Herald purport to report local news. It is local news when a team in the Triangle, be it UNC, Duke or State or NCCU receives significant recognition. Being ranked 2nd is significant, especially when they overtook another local team that fell from 1st. IMO it is appropriate for K to call them out. They are quick to call out others for any perceived mistake or slight. Why should the press get a pass on their shortcomings.

They should not get a pass, and they should be called out. But not by K himself, since that only feeds the negativity. Find a media friend not directly affiliated with Duke and let them do it.

jv001
01-08-2009, 04:06 PM
They should not get a pass, and they should be called out. But not by K himself, since that only feeds the negativity. Find a media friend not directly affiliated with Duke and let them do it.

But who would that friendly media friend be? Can't think of any. Go Duke!

Acymetric
01-08-2009, 04:06 PM
They should not get a pass, and they should be called out. But not by K himself, since that only feeds the negativity. Find a media friend not directly affiliated with Duke and let them do it.

Ok, but where? Since he was specifically targeting local media, who in the local media would you consider a "friend" of Duke?

Edit: Looks like jv001 beat me to the point. But thats exactly the problem.

roywhite
01-08-2009, 04:08 PM
They should not get a pass, and they should be called out. But not by K himself, since that only feeds the negativity. Find a media friend not directly affiliated with Duke and let them do it.

Didn't hear the radio broadcast during his visit, but didn't Mike Tirico launch into an impassioned rant about how ridiculous the anti-Duke sentiment had gotten?

Just my .02, but I think Coach K challenging the local media fairly directly is a pretty effective approach, or more so than through a surrogate.

mapei
01-08-2009, 04:11 PM
I don't know the local media, but if there is literally no one who likes Duke, that seems to me like a problem you don't want to exacerbate. The point should not be to vent, but to produce a good result. My fear is that the result of this particular approach will be more negative than positive. I guess we'll find out.

Added on edit: I agree that the espn crew was great. That's the kind of publicity you want. I just don't think that whining produces it.

Chitowndevil
01-08-2009, 05:10 PM
I was actually expecting something like this from K this season. After the Olympics he was asked how he felt at the end of the gold medal game, happy or relieved. His reply was "ecstatic", in esssence that it was a terrific achievement and the fact that they were 'supposed to win' shouldn't detract from that. I believe he even went on to say something about how Duke had gotten away from that in recent years and allowed the accomplishments of past Duke teams to weigh too heavily on the current squad. So I think this is as much K following through on those comments as it is him chastising the local media.

Devilsfan
01-08-2009, 05:37 PM
That's why I like Coach K so much. He tells it like it is. This team is a group of hard working perhaps overachievers at an overachiever's school in a day and age when we want to have stimulus packages sent to people without earning it. Free money, you don't have to work for it because your government will merely print it and send it to you.

jimsumner
01-08-2009, 07:37 PM
Full disclosure. I was in the room at the time but did not ask the question.

Clearly, K didn't just drift into this. He had lots of facts at his disposal and I'm pretty sure he wasn't just making up stuff off the top of his head. So he said what he wanted to say and wanted to say what he said.

I think he had a couple of objectives. The Herald-Sun has long had had a pronounced light-blue lean. Not every writer, all the time. Al Featherston wrote for the H-S for years and you won't find a more knowledgeable Duke writer. And Mike Potter is more than fair on the women's side. But lots of other H-S writers have tilted the other way.

In some respects, this makes sense. I call it the Demographic Reality that all Duke fans must face. Duke is a small school, whose student body largely comes from outside the state. It is bracketed by two larger schools who draw most of their student bodies from in-state. Do the math.

But when the media openly cheers news of a Duke defeat--as happened after the VCU game two seasons ago--then something is wrong. When ESPN polls fans on which Duke players they most hate--something is wrong. And Duke has been fighting that phenomena much more proactively the last two years and K has made an effort to become more accessible and more media friendly.

Than there's the News and Observer. Until recently, the N&O had a Duke beat writer. Now Duke shares Ken Tysiac with State. Ken used to be the Clemson beat guy for the Charlotte Observer. Ken's a friend of mine and a good writer but Duke cannot be happy with the reduced resources devoted to Duke by the N&O.

I live in Raleigh and have subscribed to the N&O for over 30 years and I'm depressed and more than a little worried by what is happening to that fine newspaper and lots of other fine newspapers. But that's another thread.

But I think K had another point. He's talked several times recently about the burden of success and the weight of history on his team. And I suspect he's talking to the fan base as much as he's talking the media. Just because Duke has been ranked high most of the last quarter-century and just because Mike Krzyzewski has won umpteen gazillion games, doesn't mean that anyone should take this year's team's success for granted. Being ranked number two is new for Kyle Singler and Jon Scheyer and Gerald Henderson and that success should be acknowledged by the media and celebrated by the fan base.

Seems like a reasonable argument to me.

RelativeWays
01-08-2009, 08:12 PM
This is a definite chess move by Coach K to motivate his team when UNC and even WF have been grabbing most of the attention despite the fact that Duke has had a solid start so far. There's a point to this more than Duke getting its time in the spotlight (well positive spotlight). I may be mistaken but I seem to remember Dean Smith making a similar jab at the sports media right before their game against Oklahoma in the round of 32 (which OU was HEAVILY favored to win).

watzone
01-08-2009, 09:06 PM
Mike made a good point to open the discussion, Jim has now added another angle which I agree with. Coach K made a calculated statement that had more than one meaning. IOW, he killed more than two birds with one stone;)

DU82
01-08-2009, 10:07 PM
Than there's the News and Observer. Until recently, the N&O had a Duke beat writer. Now Duke shares Ken Tysiac with State. Ken used to be the Clemson beat guy for the Charlotte Observer. Ken's a friend of mine and a good writer but Duke cannot be happy with the reduced resources devoted to Duke by the N&O.

I live in Raleigh and have subscribed to the N&O for over 30 years and I'm depressed and more than a little worried by what is happening to that fine newspaper and lots of other fine newspapers. But that's another thread.


I noted that in on 12/29's paper, there was an article on UNC women's win over whomever it was (Western Michigan) but no article on our win over Quinnipiac and absolutely no mention. (There might have been a score in the standings small print on the last inside page.) Similar opponents, both at home, but nothing for our women.

dukemsu
01-08-2009, 10:30 PM
I think K clearly was looking to point out the fact that while it's great that Duke is ranked #2, they are ranked ahead of Carolina, at least this week.

The UNC Best Team Ever/Tyler is God stuff has been so prevelant here (in the midwest), I can't imagine how suffocating it would be in the Triangle. The players hear this stuff. If you're not careful, an inferiority complex can set in quickly.

K has a reason for everything he does. There was clearly a motive here, whether it be this or another one.

dukemsu

greybeard
01-09-2009, 12:19 AM
Of course it matters most in March, but when a team is playing well, really, really well, it doesn't matter when in the season that that happens. If you are a fan of the game, much less the team, you celebrate it, you acknowledge it. This team is playing really, really well. Add another really to that, really.

Although I think that this team has its best ball in front of it, if you took them as is right now and plopped them into March, they'd still hurt some people, maybe . . . .

jv001
01-09-2009, 08:23 AM
Of course it matters most in March, but when a team is playing well, really, really well, it doesn't matter when in the season that that happens. If you are a fan of the game, much less the team, you celebrate it, you acknowledge it. This team is playing really, really well. Add another really to that, really.

Although I think that this team has its best ball in front of it, if you took them as is right now and plopped them into March, they'd still hurt some people, maybe . . . .

This team is playing really well on defense and we have players who are improving game by game. If we get the offense to flow smoothly on a consistent basis, we will be a tough out come March. Go Duke!

devildownunder
01-09-2009, 09:04 AM
jimsumner, i think you absolutely nailed it. Particularly glad you mentioned K and the staff's previously stated objective to engage the press more in an attempt to get out Duke's side of the story and fight the hatred tsunami.

jipops
01-09-2009, 09:31 AM
Coach K made a calculated statement that had more than one meaning. IOW, he killed more than two birds with one stone;)

Isn't that always the case?

Though K's comments are 100% valid and credible it's a losing battle. I think the most important thing is that he wants positive reinforcement from the media for his players. This is a media that mostly only seems to respond to anything that might be on the negative side for Duke. But I've lived in the state of NC my entire life and it will always be dominated by a fan and media base tilted towards the lighter shade of blue. Having spent many of my years in Winston-Salem I even witnessed one of the radio stations pull it's broadcast of Wake Forest games (the home town team!!!!) in favor of broadcasting Woody Durham. So it's not just Duke that loses out at times. I wonder if any of the local papers around the state have mentioned what other local team is currently in the top 5?

davekay1971
01-09-2009, 09:35 AM
The UNC Best Team Ever/Tyler is God stuff has been so prevelant here (in the midwest), I can't imagine how suffocating it would be in the Triangle. The players hear this stuff. If you're not careful, an inferiority complex can set in quickly.

dukemsu

It's pretty (expletive) oppressive. According to the local media, there is but one team in North Carolina, and one team only. And Tyler is God. And blowing out College of Charleston is a remarkable accomplishment that deserves unending praise and glory. Fans of Duke and Wake Forest should be ticked about it, and Coach K is absolutely right to call the media out. That snide, immature, don't-dare-point-out-our-faults article by the N&O reporter is about what I'd expect from the local media. Hope the guy rereads it and chuckles while standing in the unemployment line in a couple years.

Huh?
01-09-2009, 09:46 AM
Rankings matter when you get that top seed and less harsh road in the tourney.

greybeard
01-09-2009, 10:18 AM
Of course it matters most in March, but when a team is playing well, really, really well, it doesn't matter when in the season that that happens. If you are a fan of the game, much less the team, you celebrate it, you acknowledge it. This team is playing really, really well. Add another really to that, really.

Although I think that this team has its best ball in front of it, if you took them as is right now and plopped them into March, they'd still hurt some people, maybe . . . .

My point is a little different. Enjoy today. Today, if they held the tournament, according to the polls, you'd be going to the dance with a shot at winning it all. Tomorrow, not to put too gloomy a hue on the whole thing, you might be dead. So why wait for March. I think that some of that might be in K's message.

Works in progress are much more interesting and exciting than finished ones.

I agree about the offense/defense thing, but will not overlook some of the remarkbly terrific offensive play I've seen by everyone to this point. I mean remarkable, for who these guys were just last season. Ah, to be young again, and to have a teacher/leader like K to stimulate learning and progress and to achieve such success along the way. Some things are priceless.

jimsumner
01-09-2009, 10:38 AM
"Fans of Duke and Wake Forest should be ticked about it, and Coach K is absolutely right to call the media out."

FWIW, a substantial portion of the NC State fan base still blames the News and Observer for running out Jim Valvano. The N&O helped make Peter Golenbock the most famous writer on the planet for a few months.

I should point out that today's N&O has a long feature on Jeff Teague, written by veteran writer A.J. Carr. So they are aware of the existence of the Wake program.

77devil
01-09-2009, 11:43 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by greybeard
Of course it matters most in March, but when a team is playing well, really, really well, it doesn't matter when in the season that that happens. If you are a fan of the game, much less the team, you celebrate it, you acknowledge it. This team is playing really, really well. Add another really to that, really.

Although I think that this team has its best ball in front of it, if you took them as is right now and plopped them into March, they'd still hurt some people, maybe . . . .


My point is a little different. Enjoy today. Today, if they held the tournament, according to the polls, you'd be going to the dance with a shot at winning it all. Tomorrow, not to put too gloomy a hue on the whole thing, you might be dead. So why wait for March. I think that some of that might be in K's message.

Works in progress are much more interesting and exciting than finished ones.

I agree about the offense/defense thing, but will not overlook some of the remarkbly terrific offensive play I've seen by everyone to this point. I mean remarkable, for who these guys were just last season. Ah, to be young again, and to have a teacher/leader like K to stimulate learning and progress and to achieve such success along the way. Some things are priceless.

Are you having a conversation with yourself? Does this happen often?

SupaDave
01-09-2009, 12:03 PM
I don't know how many of you remember this from last year but this is another step in the progression of Duke being more pro-active of how we are portrayed in the media. This is something Coach K said he would do and it's obvious he hasn't forgotten.

It is in direct response to all the 'Duke-hate' that we have received in the last few years.

This is why we now have BluePlanet and various other outlets - showing a more personable side of the program and the hard work that goes into it.

jipops
01-09-2009, 12:35 PM
I should point out that today's N&O has a long feature on Jeff Teague, written by veteran writer A.J. Carr. So they are aware of the existence of the Wake program.

...and that might be called progress. However, if Wake was playing someone other than UNC this weekend do you really think that article would be there? Isn't the upcoming showdown the point of it anyways?

jimsumner
01-09-2009, 01:08 PM
http://www.newsobserver.com/sports/story/1360083.html

The UNC game may well be the catalyst for the article. But it is more than just a preview of the game.

roywhite
01-09-2009, 01:24 PM
http://www.newsobserver.com/sports/story/1360083.html

The UNC game may well be the catalyst for the article. But it is more than just a preview of the game.

Are you saying this reflects a more conscious effort by the N&O to highlight programs other than just UNC? That Coach K's remarks perhaps had something to do with this?

heyman25
01-09-2009, 01:25 PM
Luciana Chavez of the news and observer was writing some great Duke basketball stories. She I presume was replaced.

Devilsfan
01-09-2009, 01:33 PM
Do people actually read newspapers anymore? I remember when the New York Times was more than just a rural substitute for pages of the Sears Catalog.

Mike Corey
01-09-2009, 03:31 PM
Do people actually read newspapers anymore? I remember when the New York Times was more than just a rural substitute for pages of the Sears Catalog.

Yes. And the number of people that gets news online very recently eclipsed the number of people that get their news from papers.

greybeard
01-09-2009, 03:36 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by greybeard
Are you having a conversation with yourself? Does this happen often?

Now I'm catching your wit and way with words. The answer? I'm afraid that you know the answer; if not, you will, and whenever it comes it will be way too soon. :o

For the record though, I was intent on replying to this post by IV: This team is playing really well on defense and we have players who are improving game by game. If we get the offense to flow smoothly on a consistent basis, we will be a tough out come March. Go Duke!

jimsumner
01-09-2009, 03:44 PM
RE: newspapers. I think most of us boomers still read newspapers (and magazines). But I think there's a widening generational divide going on here.

My children are 28 and 24 and neither has a newspaper subscription and neither has a land-line. I can't imagine doing without either. A few years ago, we tried to give an N&O subscription to our daughter (the older child) and she told us not to bother; she would never read it. And both of our kids tell us that their contemporaries get their news from cable and internet.

I write more for old-fashioned print publications than internet-based publications and I wonder how many of these magazines are going to be around in five years.

But the biggest problem with newspapers isn't declining readership, it's declining ad revenues, a problem exacerbated by our current economic malaise.

It's pretty grim out there. I know lots of newspaper folks and they are all worried about losing their jobs.

Indoor66
01-09-2009, 04:01 PM
RE: newspapers. I think most of us boomers still read newspapers (and magazines). But I think there's a widening generational divide going on here.

My children are 28 and 24 and neither has a newspaper subscription and neither has a land-line. I can't imagine doing without either. A few years ago, we tried to give an N&O subscription to our daughter (the older child) and she told us not to bother; she would never read it. And both of our kids tell us that their contemporaries get their news from cable and internet.

I write more for old-fashioned print publications than internet-based publications and I wonder how many of these magazines are going to be around in five years.

But the biggest problem with newspapers isn't declining readership, it's declining ad revenues, a problem exacerbated by our current economic malaise.

It's pretty grim out there. I know lots of newspaper folks and they are all worried about losing their jobs.

I am a little older than you but have quit reading newspapers and mags and have turned to the internet for news. IMO the newspapers and news mags left me. Their news articles are, in many instances, opinion pieces and slanted to present an ideological position, either left or right. This became unacceptable to me.

My practice was to always read two news weeklies and two or three daily newspapers for over to 40 years. In the past 10 years I have dwindled down to none of the print source subscriptions and only occasionally seeing a newspaper.

It is very understandable to me that young folks have no land lines and subscribe to no newspapers or mags. I have joined them.

captmojo
01-09-2009, 04:03 PM
But the biggest problem with newspapers isn't declining readership, it's declining ad revenues...

Isn't there the relationship of subscribers:ad rates?

I gave up Sports Illustrated with the advent of ESPN and other 24 hour sports TV programming.

Kimist
01-09-2009, 04:35 PM
The Duke basketball program has to endure not only the regional unc bias ("Tyler IS God" and similar) but also the overall Duke hatred of many folks.

When Duke lost to Michigan on its home court, the cries of "over-rated" or "weak schedule" and the like were everywhere. When BC defeated unc in the dumb dome, it was obviously just a bad night for those heels and probably BC needed an immediate boost into the Top Ten. There has been little response now that Amaker's Harvard team recently trounced BC.:rolleyes:

A friend in Charlotte tells me it is unbelievable how dirty the word "Duke" is in the local media. And for those of you who might not already know, the Charlotte newspaper (Charlotte Observer) and the Raleigh newspaper (News & Observer) are owned by the same organization. They now share writers, photographers, and more.

The video of Coach K discussing the press coverage says a lot. I'm sure he has both a master plan and also just felt like getting his point across regarding the obviously biased reporting and/or adulations coming from the local press.

But, FWIW, it may not be a bad thing for the Devils to be in the background for a while. That makes it even more fulfilling when they move to the front of the pack!

k

jimsumner
01-09-2009, 04:57 PM
"Isn't there the relationship of subscribers:ad rates?"

Certainly the more readers you have, the more you can charge for ads. But my friends at the N&O tell me that their subscriber base has remained steady but their ad revenues have plummeted. The economic environment has hastened that loss but it was underway before the collapse.

Anyone on this board in advertising? I'm curious. Have print ads migrated to TV, radio, internet, direct mail, all of the above, something else? Why are newspaper/magazine ads deemed unproductive? Demographics? Timeliness? Something else?

And yes, I've been a newspaper and magazine junkie since elementary school. We'll see how the new, world order shakes out.

mapei
01-09-2009, 05:08 PM
Their news articles are, in many instances, opinion pieces and slanted to present an ideological position, either left or right. This became unacceptable to me.

You really find the internet media to be less opinionated than the print media?

Me, I still read print newspapers partly because my job demands it and partly for local news and features that I don't get elsewhere. But I like the internet precisely because it is opinionated and I can find the lenses through which I prefer to view the world. Objectivity is a myth.

But, a little closer to being on topic, I completely agree with greybeard that one should enjoy today, not think of everything as an indicator of what will happen "come March." I'll get interested in March in, well, March.

WhiteboardGuy
01-09-2009, 05:11 PM
I have to disagree with you here. The local press, in failing to even mention the Duke ranking at 2 is worthy of being called out. The N & O and Durham Herald purport to report local news. It is local news when a team in the Triangle, be it UNC, Duke or State or NCCU receives significant recognition. Being ranked 2nd is significant, especially when they overtook another local team that fell from 1st. IMO it is appropriate for K to call them out. They are quick to call out others for any perceived mistake or slight. Why should the press get a pass on their shortcomings.

I'm going to have to side with Troublemaker on this one. The role of the local sports section isn't to "celebrate" when Duke does well; that's the job of the fans, and to a lesser extent, the Duke sports information department. The newspaper is allowed to report the news in the manner they see fit--in the N&O's case, that meant publishing a story about the ranking change on their blog, but not in the print edition.

Like Mike Corey said, I think K's remark stems more from his post-Olympics mentality that the program isn't going to to be 'relieved' anymore and will instead be 'exhilarated' by what they accomplish. Nevertheless, the whole thing just seems odd to me because of K's oft-repeated mantra (which he repeats at the beginning of the clip) that he doesn't pay attention to the polls. Why gripe about it when you always say you don't care?

TheRose77
01-09-2009, 05:25 PM
"Isn't there the relationship of subscribers:ad rates?"

Certainly the more readers you have, the more you can charge for ads. But my friends at the N&O tell me that their subscriber base has remained steady but their ad revenues have plummeted. The economic environment has hastened that loss but it was underway before the collapse.

Anyone on this board in advertising? I'm curious. Have print ads migrated to TV, radio, internet, direct mail, all of the above, something else? Why are newspaper/magazine ads deemed unproductive? Demographics? Timeliness? Something else?

And yes, I've been a newspaper and magazine junkie since elementary school. We'll see how the new, world order shakes out.
Newspaper advertising is getting killed in large part because their largest advertisers are local car dealerships and department stores, and we all know how those businesses are faring these days.
I'm not in advertising, but my better half has been in media research for over 30 years, so I pick up this stuff through osmosis. Let's just say the ad business is not good, and the coming year is going to get worse.

Indoor66
01-09-2009, 05:33 PM
You really find the internet media to be less opinionated than the print media?

Absolutely not but I can look at several sites here and around the world and get a more balanced view.

wisteria
01-09-2009, 05:37 PM
I didn't read the thread. I'm just hoping that we don't lose to FSU this Saturday, right after K calls out the media. Somehow I remember that we lost to Wake and Miami right after/around the "coach your own damn team" controversy. I guess I'm too sensitive. I just hope we win on this Saturday.

Indoor66
01-09-2009, 05:38 PM
I'm going to have to side with Troublemaker on this one. The role of the local sports section isn't to "celebrate" when Duke does well; that's the job of the fans, and to a lesser extent, the Duke sports information department. The newspaper is allowed to report the news in the manner they see fit--in the N&O's case, that meant publishing a story about the ranking change on their blog, but not in the print edition.

My disagreement with you is not over the issue of celebration. They, obviously, don't have to celebrate Duke's accomplishments. I do feel that a local/area newspaper has a responsibility to report the news and local news if they purport to do so. Omitting a national story about a local institutions, one of the top 10 (guess) largest employers in the area community and a major University is, IMO, totally inappropriate.

It is the job of the sports section to report sports news in the area.

dukestheheat
01-09-2009, 06:25 PM
Maybe like me Coach K had gotten tired of all the talk about unc going undefeated and being the best ACC team of all time. Most of this talk came from the unc media guys. So I'm not surprised about his comments. Go Duke!

totally.

dth.

devildownunder
01-09-2009, 06:33 PM
Rankings matter when you get that top seed and less harsh road in the tourney.

Rankings in polls don't have anything to do with seeding or who and where you play, thank goodness. This isn't football.

It surprises me how many people have this misconception.

pfrduke
01-09-2009, 07:48 PM
Rankings in polls don't have anything to do with seeding or who and where you play, thank goodness. This isn't football.

It surprises me how many people have this misconception.

At the top, though, the poll ratings and the seedings are usually very consistent. It's not necessarily because the committee looks at the polls (I don't know if they do or not), but I think the season-long exposure of "x is a top 5 team" has some sub-conscious effect.

merry
01-09-2009, 10:07 PM
FWIW, a substantial portion of the NC State fan base still blames the News and Observer for running out Jim Valvano. The N&O helped make Peter Golenbock the most famous writer on the planet for a few months.

I should point out that today's N&O has a long feature on Jeff Teague, written by veteran writer A.J. Carr. So they are aware of the existence of the Wake program.

Also yesterday's N&O Sports section had a huge photo of Zoubek blocking Curry smack in the center of the front page and the headline "Devils swarm Curry, Wildcats". The article on the Heels win over Charleston was a single column to the right with one tiny picture of you-know-who at the bottom of the page. You might say this is because we played a higher profile and nearby team, but I just wanted to make the point that a Duke game or achievement doesn't always get less coverage than a UNC one.

Advice to DaveKay...turn off the sports talk radio, dude. That's what saved my sanity.

To the poster who pointed out that a UNC women's game got coverage whereas a similar Duke women's game did not - were you in the area during the Ivory Latta years? I might live the rest of my life a happy woman if I never have to see another color photo of that little chihuahua pounding her chest and sticking her baby blue mouthguard out of her mouth while she screams.

mapei
01-09-2009, 11:03 PM
Isn't the sorting out of which team (UNC or Duke) is better going to occur on the court? We'll have an opportunity to set the record straight, so why obsess about it now?

roywhite
01-09-2009, 11:46 PM
Isn't the sorting out of which team (UNC or Duke) is better going to occur on the court? We'll have an opportunity to set the record straight, so why obsess about it now?

Because the Duke coaches, players, and local fans do not live in a vacuum. They instead live in the Triangle area where the achievements of their archrival are overplayed and their own achievements are underplayed.

A little respect, recognition, and basic fairness in media coverage seems like a reasonable quest.

diesel
01-10-2009, 07:53 AM
Coach K’s news conference has led to some interesting reflections on the evolution of print media by one of our own, Jim Sumner. He’s a guy I always read avidly, so in this respect since he has a history in the print media, I regret their decline in the abstract. And like heyman 2, I do miss Luciana Chavez. I always looked forward to her coverage of Duke basketball and regret her absence. Where is she now?

But my own relationship to the print media underwent a major transition with the Lacrosse Case. I was so disgusted with the biased coverage of the Washington Post that I dropped a subscription of some 17 years. I had equal contempt for the execrable coverage of the NY Times, which I had previously regarded as the standard for print reporting. I leave to your imagination what I thought of the coverage of the case in the Herald Sun and News &Observer: I consider they contributed in large part to the lacrosse debacle.

But when the scales fell from my eyes I did not abandon the print media. I recalled that a knowledgeable British observer had offered the opinion that the Wall Street Journal was the best US newspaper, and I noted reprints of articles on the lacrosse case that were balanced and insightful. So I switched my subscription to the print media to the WSJ.

I have to report that I have never been happier. The paper gets read assiduously every morning and many articles get emailed to colleagues and friends. Admittedly its college basketball coverage is limited, but I supplement it with DBR so the problem is no biggie.

jimsumner
01-10-2009, 09:30 AM
Lucy is still at the N&O.

She was reassigned to Features.

It was not her idea.

So the N&O has gone from a Duke beat writer who focused almost exclusively on Duke to a shared beat writer, who splits time between Duke and NCSU and general ACC coverage.

UNC still has a beat writer, Robbi Pickeral.

Duke can't be happy with the implied demotion.

dkbaseball
01-10-2009, 09:53 AM
"Isn't there the relationship of subscribers:ad rates?"

Certainly the more readers you have, the more you can charge for ads. But my friends at the N&O tell me that their subscriber base has remained steady but their ad revenues have plummeted. The economic environment has hastened that loss but it was underway before the collapse.

Anyone on this board in advertising? I'm curious. Have print ads migrated to TV, radio, internet, direct mail, all of the above, something else? Why are newspaper/magazine ads deemed unproductive? Demographics? Timeliness? Something else?

And yes, I've been a newspaper and magazine junkie since elementary school. We'll see how the new, world order shakes out.

I think a big part of the problem with declining newspaper ads over the last several years has been the displacement of local merchants by Walmart and the other big box national chains. They already have a national brand and don't feel the need to advertise in local papers. The Mom & Pop main street stores that the big boxes put out of business were invested in the community, not just advertising in newspapers but sponsoring Little League teams and such. Now the retail dollars are shipped off to corporate headquarters. Check out the "downtowns" of most American cities and towns now. They're like ghost towns. All the retail has gone to the big boxes on the suburban fringe.

dkbaseball
01-10-2009, 10:03 AM
Right or wrong, college basketball teams are judged by what they do in March, and I think the players are well aware of that.

I think this is the main reason why this was a misstep by K. He's asking the sportswriters to take a historical perspective, but at the same time asking them to pretend that recent history didn't happen. Duke's MO for several years now has been to come storming out of the gate, in great shape, super-motivated, and just swarming all over people for the first third of a season. Then they stagger in to the finish line in March. Duke has failed to play up to its post-season seeding in 11 of the last 14 years. Of the three where they did, two were losses to UConn in the final four, in one of which Duke was a heavy favorite and in the other they blew an 8-point lead in the last two minutes.

From this perspective, it seems kind of bizarre that K would call for his team to be celebrated even before the ACC season has started, let alone the post-season. The anti-Duke bias of local media is a fact of life. All K can do about it is not give them more fodder. Which he may have done here, especially if this team fades down the stretch (though he seems to be making some effort not to peak this bunch too early).

arnie
01-10-2009, 10:13 AM
I think the backlash from K's comments have started. Last night on WRAL-TV, they had interviews with Roy and Lowe on this weekend's games with video of previous game highlights. At the end of the broadcast, the idiot announcer said " and also, Duke plays Florida State on Saturday".

vick
01-10-2009, 10:43 AM
Then they stagger in to the finish line in March. Duke has failed to play up to its post-season seeding in 11 of the last 14 years. Of the three where they did, two were losses to UConn in the final four, in one of which Duke was a heavy favorite and in the other they blew an 8-point lead in the last two minutes.

This is a strange way of looking at teams performing to seed. Obviously in a single-elimination tournament teams that historically get high seeds (like Duke!) are likely to "underperform" relative to seed, as upsets happen--this is why it's called "March Madness" after all. Using just your very arbitrary 14 year cutoff, I went back and counted the number of wins #1 seeds have. I may have mistyped one or two, but I get an average of 3.4 for all #1 seeds, vs. 3.3 for Duke. Don't care whether you lose in the second or third round? Well, #1 seeds make it to the Final Four 45% of the time. Duke? 38% (3 of 8). In other words, if Duke had managed 3 more points against Kentucky in 1998, they would be outperforming the average 1-seed in most meaningful ways. The sample size of lower seeds is small--I'd imagine Duke's done worse than average, but no one really cares that much in my experience (how many people realistically thought the 1997 team was going to win?).

What I would have liked to see Coach K do is chastise the media for the primitive belief that somehow Duke losing to UConn by 1 in 2004 tells us anything meaningful about how the 2009 team will play, but sadly that's not his nature.

dkbaseball
01-10-2009, 10:54 AM
This is a strange way of looking at teams performing to seed. Obviously in a single-elimination tournament teams that historically get high seeds (like Duke!) are likely to "underperform" relative to seed, as upsets happen--this is why it's called "March Madness" after all. Using just your very arbitrary 14 year cutoff, I went back and counted the number of wins #1 seeds have. I may have mistyped one or two, but I get an average of 3.4 for all #1 seeds, vs. 3.3 for Duke. Don't care whether you lose in the second or third round? Well, #1 seeds make it to the Final Four 45% of the time. Duke? 38% (3 of 8). In other words, if Duke had managed 3 more points against Kentucky in 1998, they would be outperforming the average 1-seed in most meaningful ways. The sample size of lower seeds is small--I'd imagine Duke's done worse than average, but no one really cares that much in my experience (how many people realistically thought the 1997 team was going to win?).

Not an arbitrarily chosen cutoff point. I think K changed his approach to coaching after being out in '95, demanding more (and, IMO, less intelligent) effort from his players. If you don't like the playing-to-seed perspective, use the eyeball test. Does anybody think Duke teams in recent years have looked like they were playing as well in March as earlier in the season?

Before being out in '94-95, K was the best post-season coach in the business. He needs to be trying to figure out what, if anything, has changed, rather than lecturing the media about his program's place in history.

vick
01-10-2009, 11:35 AM
Not an arbitrarily chosen cutoff point. I think K changed his approach to coaching after being out in '95, demanding more (and, IMO, less intelligent) effort from his players. If you don't like the playing-to-seed perspective, use the eyeball test. Does anybody think Duke teams in recent years have looked like they were playing as well in March as earlier in the season?

Before being out in '94-95, K was the best post-season coach in the business. He needs to be trying to figure out what, if anything, has changed, rather than lecturing the media about his program's place in history.

I understand, and we'd all rather win the tournament than not. I'm Class of '06, so I really have only a vague understanding of teams from about pre-1997, but I honestly don't think we've dropped off in late-season that much since 1997.

1997: Arguably flameout--wasn't this the year Duke lost in the first round of the ACC, and then lost to Providence?
1998: No real dropoff. Lost to a very good UNC team in ACC final and great Kentucky team in the Elite Eight
1999: No dropoff, rolled through ACC and NCAA Tourney and lost squeaker to a UConn team that only lost 2 games all year. An off-game, but that can't realistically be attributed to "more effort" suddenly becoming a problem in the last game or two.
2000: Won ACC, but early exit from NCAA. A little equivocal, but underclassman-heavy team (more later)
2001: No complaints :)
2002: No real fall-off that I remember, just an off-game in the NCAAs
2003: No fall-off. 5-3 at the conference turn, 11-5 to finish. Won ACC, lost to a better Kansas team
2004: No fall-off. Won ACC, lost heartbreaker to UConn
2005: One could quibble. Started 15-0 but only finished 22-5 in the regular season. On the other hand, won ACC tourney, but then again, lost in Sweet Sixteen. I wouldn't say the team fell off, they just were overrated from early wins and just not that good
2006: I'd say this a fall-off, lost last two ACC games. They still won the ACC tournament though
2007: Definite fall-off, 5-2 in ACC and slumped to 8-8, early ACC exit. Another underclassman-heavy team
2008: Lesser fall-off. Team still finished regular season 8-3, although they lost in the second round of the ACC and NCAA. It's hard to beat UNC and win road games in the conference

So, I'd say you have one very bad year (2007), a couple of lesser ones (2006,2008), and a few of mixed evidence (1997,2000,2005) that I think are most likely just teams that fell to a more realistic level for their talent. I just don't see where you can argue a post-1995 "drop-off" except in the NCAA tournament, and I've already argued why I don't think it's a good argument there either. Also, I believe Duke has done better in the ACC tournament since 1995 than in the great run of Final Fours. So I guess I'm wondering what's more likely: Coach K changed something around 1995 that caused us to systematically drop-off--but somehow this only really becomes apparent in the last game or two of the season --or, the 1986-1994 run involved a fair bit of luck, and most of the real late-season falls are attributable mostly to either teams relying heavily on underclassmen, or teams that simply weren't really that good to begin with.

dkbaseball
01-10-2009, 11:52 AM
I understand, and we'd all rather win the tournament than not. I'm Class of '06, so I really have only a vague understanding of teams from about pre-1997, but I honestly don't think we've dropped off in late-season that much since 1997.

1997: Arguably flameout--wasn't this the year Duke lost in the first round of the ACC, and then lost to Providence?
1998: No real dropoff. Lost to a very good UNC team in ACC final and great Kentucky team in the Elite Eight
1999: No dropoff, rolled through ACC and NCAA Tourney and lost squeaker to a UConn team that only lost 2 games all year. An off-game, but that can't realistically be attributed to "more effort" suddenly becoming a problem in the last game or two.
2000: Won ACC, but early exit from NCAA. A little equivocal, but underclassman-heavy team (more later)
2001: No complaints :)
2002: No real fall-off that I remember, just an off-game in the NCAAs
2003: No fall-off. 5-3 at the conference turn, 11-5 to finish. Won ACC, lost to a better Kansas team
2004: No fall-off. Won ACC, lost heartbreaker to UConn
2005: One could quibble. Started 15-0 but only finished 22-5 in the regular season. On the other hand, won ACC tourney, but then again, lost in Sweet Sixteen. I wouldn't say the team fell off, they just were overrated from early wins and just not that good
2006: I'd say this a fall-off, lost last two ACC games. They still won the ACC tournament though
2007: Definite fall-off, 5-2 in ACC and slumped to 8-8, early ACC exit. Another underclassman-heavy team
2008: Lesser fall-off. Team still finished regular season 8-3, although they lost in the second round of the ACC and NCAA. It's hard to beat UNC and win road games in the conference

So, I'd say you have one very bad year (2007), a couple of lesser ones (2006,2008), and a few of mixed evidence (1997,2000,2005) that I think are most likely just teams that fell to a more realistic level for their talent. I just don't see where you can argue a post-1995 "drop-off" except in the NCAA tournament, and I've already argued why I don't think it's a good argument there either. Also, I believe Duke has done better in the ACC tournament since 1995 than in the great run of Final Fours. So I guess I'm wondering what's more likely: Coach K changed something around 1995 that caused us to systematically drop-off--but somehow this only really becomes apparent in the last game or two of the season --or, the 1986-1994 run involved a fair bit of luck, and most of the real late-season falls are attributable mostly to either teams relying heavily on underclassmen, or teams that simply weren't really that good to begin with.


Just a couple of points before I have to run. Anybody who watched the Maui tournament in Dec. '97, which included Duke and Kentucky, knows that at that point in the season Duke was 15-20 points better than the Kentucky team they eventually lost to, which was not a "great" team. In the '99 final Duke had no legs at the end of the game. People had been calling that the best team ever assembled. The year with "no complaints" was the year K was able to put five NBA starters on the floor. (Has any other college team ever done that, BTW?)

People can read the data however they like. I think K has been doing something different.

Onlyduke
01-10-2009, 12:25 PM
I wish Coach K hadn't made those comments, but I certainly understand why he did. Unfortunately, it just creates fodder for the Carolina crowd and the media.

vick
01-10-2009, 12:26 PM
Just a couple of points before I have to run. Anybody who watched the Maui tournament in Dec. '97, which included Duke and Kentucky, knows that at that point in the season Duke was 15-20 points better than the Kentucky team they eventually lost to, which was not a "great" team. In the '99 final Duke had no legs at the end of the game. People had been calling that the best team ever assembled. The year with "no complaints" was the year K was able to put five NBA starters on the floor. (Has any other college team ever done that, BTW?)

People can read the data however they like. I think K has been doing something different.

I'll break off here, since we're rambling away from the topic, but it sounds like you're relying not on drop-offs over February and March--where you'd expect "tired legs" to manifest themselves--but on single bad games. I think that's an awfully thin reed on which to argue that a Hall of Fame coach should change his methods. I'm reliant on looking up scores since I don't remember games this far back, but if 1988 Duke had lost to #11 seed Rhode Island (they won by 1), 1990 Duke had lost to UConn (we know how they won!), etc., then something important would have changed?

1986-1994: 7 Final Fours, two championships
1998-2006: 3 Final Fours, one championship

And how separated are these eras? If Christian Laettner misses one shot in each of two games, and Jason Williams manages to hit a free throw in another, we're looking at virtually identical performance. Obviously teams are praised for what they accomplish on the floor, but does it really make sense to blame changes in coaching philosophy over an entire year for such tiny differences in results?

Native
01-10-2009, 04:50 PM
I think, bottom line, that the basic problem is that there are more local grads from Crapel Hill and NCSU. Not only have many writers in the local media been through UNC's journalism school, but they also stay in the state. Correct me if I'm wrong, but I was under the impression that many of Duke's graduates are from out of state. Duke really could use a journalism school.

roywhite
01-10-2009, 05:01 PM
I wish Coach K hadn't made those comments, but I certainly understand why he did. Unfortunately, it just creates fodder for the Carolina crowd and the media.

Don't really see how it gets worse. Why stay silent when the team gets the short end of things in its own home area? So K speaks out...good as far as I'm concerned.

Don't know if K intended this or not, but it also makes this somewhat of an "us vs them" motivation for the team and program. That doesn't always work in team sports, but sometimes does. Might give the team some extra juice in March.

4everTerping
01-10-2009, 11:27 PM
If Gary Williams had said something this petty(not beyond the realm of possibility, I might add), there would have been 10 pages of comments about how sad his Terping was.

watzone
01-11-2009, 12:39 AM
If Gary Williams had said something this petty(not beyond the realm of possibility, I might add), there would have been 10 pages of comments about how sad his Terping was.

That's because he's Sir Terpalot.

4everTerping
01-11-2009, 12:54 AM
That is very funny. That should have been my screen name.

freedevil
01-12-2009, 08:45 AM
Don't totally disagree with the front page DBR article today... but that whole jab at Joe Forte and Tyler Hansbrough's moms getting positions they might not otherwise get were it not for UNC seems a little hypocritical in light of the similarity to Duhon's mom's situation...

sagegrouse
01-13-2009, 12:06 AM
WRT the subject article -- Coach K blasting the local media for giving short shrift to his team's accomplishments:

Part of the message was aimed at his team to make the players feel they have something to prove. (I think we've seen this behavior for about 30 years.)

But K is addressing a real problem for Duke in NC. The local press will mirror the readership's opinion of and interest in Duke, and why should we expect to get equal billing with the large state universities?

Consider the following:

a. Only 15% of Duke students come from NC (that's fewer than 1,000 undergrads). Not a lot of parents and students reading NC papers, are there? Moreover, the graduates, in my experience, leave the state and end up in a few large metropolitan areas across the country.

b. A year at Duke is $50,000 and admission standards are frighteningly high. Not too many North Carolinians are thinking of sending their kids to the nearby gothic campus, although Duke does have leadership and academic scholarships aimed at Carolinians.

c. Hardly anyone gets to see the games in person.

d. Until recently, Coach K -- one of the best-known coaches in the US of A -- refused to deal with the local media, leaving that to his assistants. This was an attempt to control his workload not show a bias, but that policy, since changed, surely was a poke in the eye to reporters and columnists. Those folks NEVER forget.

[I]Now exactly why should Duke expect to receive the same coverage as UNC and State?

Does it matter? I think it matters. I am impressed with Coach Cut's strong outreach program across the state on behalf of football. And Duke football has lots of seats to sell at very reasonable prices. I would like to see basketball do more to build local support (and heck, I live in the Rockies).

Having a larger crowd in attendance is important and would be the main reason to get a larger arena. A larger arena may not be financially beneficial to Duke (not as able to ration tickets to the highest contributors), but there is a real positive to having a larger live fan base.

sagegrouse
'My two cents -- change given on request'

Indoor66
01-13-2009, 08:14 AM
WRT the subject article -- Coach K blasting the local media for giving short shrift to his team's accomplishments:

Part of the message was aimed at his team to make the players feel they have something to prove. (I think we've seen this behavior for about 30 years.)

But K is addressing a real problem for Duke in NC. The local press will mirror the readership's opinion of and interest in Duke, and why should we expect to get equal billing with the large state universities?

Consider the following:

a. Only 15% of Duke students come from NC (that's fewer than 1,000 undergrads). Not a lot of parents and students reading NC papers, are there? Moreover, the graduates, in my experience, leave the state and end up in a few large metropolitan areas across the country.

b. A year at Duke is $50,000 and admission standards are frighteningly high. Not too many North Carolinians are thinking of sending their kids to the nearby gothic campus, although Duke does have leadership and academic scholarships aimed at Carolinians.

c. Hardly anyone gets to see the games in person.

d. Until recently, Coach K -- one of the best-known coaches in the US of A -- refused to deal with the local media, leaving that to his assistants. This was an attempt to control his workload not show a bias, but that policy, since changed, surely was a poke in the eye to reporters and columnists. Those folks NEVER forget.

[I]Now exactly why should Duke expect to receive the same coverage as UNC and State?

Does it matter? I think it matters. I am impressed with Coach Cut's strong outreach program across the state on behalf of football. And Duke football has lots of seats to sell at very reasonable prices. I would like to see basketball do more to build local support (and heck, I live in the Rockies).

Having a larger crowd in attendance is important and would be the main reason to get a larger arena. A larger arena may not be financially beneficial to Duke (not as able to ration tickets to the highest contributors), but there is a real positive to having a larger live fan base.

sagegrouse
'My two cents -- change given on request'

From what I heard, the issue wasn't about equality of coverage. The issue was the fact that there was NO mention of the fact that Duke was ranked #3. I think that K was chastising the fact that Duke was ignored, not that the coverage was unequal.

The Sun-Sentinel and Miami Herald had articles about the polls and the movement of the teams in the polls and those papers give very short shift to college basketball. Why should the home town papers ignore the facts.

They don't have to "celebrate" Duke but it is not appropriate to ignore Duke.

dukelifer
01-13-2009, 09:29 AM
I think the backlash from K's comments have started. Last night on WRAL-TV, they had interviews with Roy and Lowe on this weekend's games with video of previous game highlights. At the end of the broadcast, the idiot announcer said " and also, Duke plays Florida State on Saturday".

Local radio is having fun with this- having ceremonial horns sound each time Duke is mentioned- making sure they mention the ranking of Duke. Well it could be worse. You could be the media favorite and 0-2 in the ACC.

Acymetric
01-13-2009, 12:41 PM
From what I heard, the issue wasn't about equality of coverage. The issue was the fact that there was NO mention of the fact that Duke was ranked #3. I think that K was chastising the fact that Duke was ignored, not that the coverage was unequal.

The Sun-Sentinel and Miami Herald had articles about the polls and the movement of the teams in the polls and those papers give very short shift to college basketball. Why should the home town papers ignore the facts.

They don't have to "celebrate" Duke but it is not appropriate to ignore Duke.

Actually, #2 when he made the comments, I believe. Other than that, spot on.

DukeDevilDeb
01-13-2009, 12:56 PM
Full disclosure. I was in the room at the time but did not ask the question.

Clearly, K didn't just drift into this. He had lots of facts at his disposal and I'm pretty sure he wasn't just making up stuff off the top of his head. So he said what he wanted to say and wanted to say what he said.

I think he had a couple of objectives. The Herald-Sun has long had had a pronounced light-blue lean. Not every writer, all the time. Al Featherston wrote for the H-S for years and you won't find a more knowledgeable Duke writer. And Mike Potter is more than fair on the women's side. But lots of other H-S writers have tilted the other way.

In some respects, this makes sense. I call it the Demographic Reality that all Duke fans must face. Duke is a small school, whose student body largely comes from outside the state. It is bracketed by two larger schools who draw most of their student bodies from in-state. Do the math.

But when the media openly cheers news of a Duke defeat--as happened after the VCU game two seasons ago--then something is wrong. When ESPN polls fans on which Duke players they most hate--something is wrong. And Duke has been fighting that phenomena much more proactively the last two years and K has made an effort to become more accessible and more media friendly.

Than there's the News and Observer. Until recently, the N&O had a Duke beat writer. Now Duke shares Ken Tysiac with State. Ken used to be the Clemson beat guy for the Charlotte Observer. Ken's a friend of mine and a good writer but Duke cannot be happy with the reduced resources devoted to Duke by the N&O.

I live in Raleigh and have subscribed to the N&O for over 30 years and I'm depressed and more than a little worried by what is happening to that fine newspaper and lots of other fine newspapers. But that's another thread.

But I think K had another point. He's talked several times recently about the burden of success and the weight of history on his team. And I suspect he's talking to the fan base as much as he's talking the media. Just because Duke has been ranked high most of the last quarter-century and just because Mike Krzyzewski has won umpteen gazillion games, doesn't mean that anyone should take this year's team's success for granted. Being ranked number two is new for Kyle Singler and Jon Scheyer and Gerald Henderson and that success should be acknowledged by the media and celebrated by the fan base.

Seems like a reasonable argument to me.

Great post!
Great coach!
Great team!

Go Devils!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

weezie
01-13-2009, 05:27 PM
Local radio is having fun with this- having ceremonial horns sound each time Duke is mentioned- making sure they mention the ranking of Duke.


Oh that IS good! I do like a nice fanfare when I walk into a room. I think K should insist on playing one when he enters his press conferences, too.

If he's half the great guy I think he is, he's probably laughing and shaking his head at the fickleness of the press corps anyway.

TillyGalore
03-26-2009, 11:15 AM
Was just perusing one of the local media's web site, http://www.wral.com/, and noticed that in their "top stories" section is a story about carolina's game against Gonzaga, tomorrow night. While the story about Duke's game against Villanova is further down the page in the sports section. Further proof that the local media is biased towards carolina. :mad:

On second glance of the main page, the story about the Duke game isn't even showing.

roywhite
03-26-2009, 11:20 AM
Have to say, we are getting decent coverage in Winston-Salem area. Maybe they were geared up to cover Wake in the tournament, and still need to fill space?

http://www2.journalnow.com/content/2009/mar/26/boys-to-men-dukes-players-have-grown-up/

Lenox Rawlings is IMO the best sportswriter in NC.

sagegrouse
03-26-2009, 11:37 AM
Have to say, we are getting decent coverage in Winston-Salem area. Maybe they were geared up to cover Wake in the tournament, and still need to fill space?

http://www2.journalnow.com/content/2009/mar/26/boys-to-men-dukes-players-have-grown-up/

Lenox Rawlings is IMO the best sportswriter in NC.


Just reading the links over the past few years, I would say that Duke basketball AND football get good and fair coverage from the Winston-Salem Journal.

I hate to say anything nice about anyone, but I agree with you WRT Lenox Rawlings.

sagegrouse

CLT Devil
03-26-2009, 12:18 PM
If you think your paper is bad, try reading the Charlotte Observer. The day after we won the ACC Tourney the above the fold story was about Ty Lawson's toe, and on the side there was another article about how the loss to FSU could have been good for the heels. Finally, below the fold was a story about how Duke had won the tourney.

I guess that's what happens when the state journalism school is located where it is.

davekay1971
03-26-2009, 12:23 PM
If you think your paper is bad, try reading the Charlotte Observer. The day after we won the ACC Tourney the above the fold story was about Ty Lawson's toe, and on the side there was another article about how the loss to FSU could have been good for the heels. Finally, below the fold was a story about how Duke had won the tourney.

I guess that's what happens when the state journalism school is located where it is.

Did the Charlotte Observer go bankrupt yet? I've got a bottle of champagne on ice ready to pop the day that rag goes belly-up.

Agree with above comments regarding Mr. Rawlings.

jjasper0729
03-26-2009, 12:30 PM
I concur with regard to Mr. Rawlings. I do like to read his columns

killerleft
03-26-2009, 01:27 PM
I agree wholeheartedly! Lenox Rawlings and The W-S Journal have the most balanced ACC coverage around.

SmartDevil
03-26-2009, 01:44 PM
Great post!
Great coach!
Great team!

Go Devils!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!


Absolutely !


But it would be good to remember that almost nobody has ever won a war against the media. (Unless perhaps one has a unit of tanks at one's disposal. And even then the victory will be temporary.)

Charm and seduction and, privately, subtle flattery/egostroking of the press are a lot more effective.

Biscuit
03-26-2009, 02:31 PM
If you think your paper is bad, try reading the Charlotte Observer. The day after we won the ACC Tourney the above the fold story was about Ty Lawson's toe, and on the side there was another article about how the loss to FSU could have been good for the heels. Finally, below the fold was a story about how Duke had won the tourney.

I guess that's what happens when the state journalism school is located where it is.

In fairness to the Observer, it's not just the UNC journalism school. It's the interests of their readership.

Duke is 2 hours away from Charlotte, and while UNC is as well, it is the flagship state university, while Duke is a smaller private university. I think you'd find the same thing almost anywhere. A Kentucky town two hours from Lexington and Louisville would almost certainly cover the Wildcats over the Cardinals. And who would you expect the Shreveport, Louisiana papers would give more coverage to, LSU or Tulane?

jjasper0729
03-26-2009, 02:45 PM
And who would you expect the Shreveport, Louisiana papers would give more coverage to...

Louisiana-Lafayette?

blueprofessor
03-26-2009, 03:01 PM
In fairness to the Observer, it's not just the UNC journalism school. It's the interests of their readership.

Duke is 2 hours away from Charlotte, and while UNC is as well, it is the flagship state university, while Duke is a smaller private university. I think you'd find the same thing almost anywhere. A Kentucky town two hours from Lexington and Louisville would almost certainly cover the Wildcats over the Cardinals. And who would you expect the Shreveport, Louisiana papers would give more coverage to, LSU or Tulane?

Let's examine "newsworthiness."
Nationally,Duke has been the dominant men's bball program for the last 20 years and usually finishes high in the Directors' Cup standings.It has won the ACC Championship 8 of 11 years---the conference that UNC and NCSt are members. Duke,one of the smallest schools in its NCAA classification, beats UNC in sports regularly despite the latter's financing by taxpayers.
Duke is a top 5-7 school academically,while UNC is around 30th.
The only thing Tulane beats LSU in is academics---Tulane is about 38th and LSU is over 100 in rank.
Duke has the best coach in men's college bball (CNN and Time say best in any sport), who just coached the US to a gold medal.
Duke has charisma, national prestige,a brilliant student body, and great sports teams.Think Harvard as a power in bball, hockey, and crew( and 10 other sports).Pretty newsworthy.
Duke sounds like a school any unbiased media would be covering as assiduously as a tick on a national field trial champion hunting dog.
No comparison.

Best--Blueprof

Biscuit
03-26-2009, 03:39 PM
Let's examine "newsworthiness."
Nationally,Duke has been the dominant men's bball program for the last 20 years and usually finishes high in the Directors' Cup standings.It has won the ACC Championship 8 of 11 years---the conference that UNC and NCSt are members. Duke,one of the smallest schools in its NCAA classification, beats UNC in sports regularly despite the latter's financing by taxpayers.
Duke is a top 5-7 school academically,while UNC is around 30th.
The only thing Tulane beats LSU in is academics---Tulane is about 38th and LSU is over 100 in rank.
Duke has the best coach in men's college bball (CNN and Time say best in any sport), who just coached the US to a gold medal.
Duke has charisma, national prestige,a brilliant student body, and great sports teams.Think Harvard as a power in bball, hockey, and crew( and 10 other sports).Pretty newsworthy.
Duke sounds like a school any unbiased media would be covering as assiduously as a tick on a national field trial champion hunting dog.
No comparison.

Best--Blueprof

All of those things are well and good as far as general newsworthiness goes, but only one of those things is even remotely relevant to the sports page- the excellence of its sports teams.

My point, simply, is that Duke University is two-plus hours from Charlotte by car. That's a long way, well beyond even considering Duke as being of local interest to Charlotte residents. I used the comparisions with other state schools simply to point out that even though UNC is just as far from Charlotte as Duke is, sports media always covers the state's flagship university, because they represent the state to some extent and also because a large portion of their readership has ties to the university. I bet you would find the same exact thing two hours from Lexington, two hours for Lawrence, and so on.

None of that is a slight towards Duke, it's just the facts. It is nice that you are so proud of your alma mater, though.

blueprofessor
03-26-2009, 04:05 PM
All of those things are well and good as far as general newsworthiness goes, but only one of those things is even remotely relevant to the sports page- the excellence of its sports teams.

My point, simply, is that Duke University is two-plus hours from Charlotte by car. That's a long way, well beyond even considering Duke as being of local interest to Charlotte residents.

Biscuit, Jacksonville is 2 1/2 hours from Tallahassee and 1 hour 1/2 from Gainesville. Yet the Jacksonville Times Union is full of FSU and UF coverage. Same for Tampa Tribune and Orlando Sentinel, both 1 hour and 45 mins from Gainesville and 3 hours and 1/2 from Tallahassee.

There is a profound,sometimes anti-Duke, pro-UNC bias in the NC media. Better to admit the obvious.

Best--Blueprofessor:)
P.S. I know you are proud of your school and I only use UNC,which has the dominant coverage in the state, to show why unbiased coverage would feature Duke prominently , academics and K and small size apart, as Duke ranks only a few places behind UNC in the Directors' Cup, while spending a lot less money (that it must raise privately).

Biscuit
03-26-2009, 04:14 PM
Biscuit, Jacksonville is 2 1/2 hours from Tallahassee and 1 hour 1/2 from Gainesville. Yet the Jacksonville Times Union is full of FSU and UF coverage. Same for Tampa Tribune and Orlando Sentinel, both 1 hour and 45 mins from Gainesville and 3 hours and 1/2 from Tallahassee.

There is a profound,sometimes anti-Duke, pro-UNC bias in the NC media. Better to admit the obvious.

Best--Blueprofessor:)
P.S. I know you are proud of your school and I only use UNC,which has the dominant coverage in the state, to show why unbiased coverage would feature Duke prominently , academics and K and small size apart, as Duke ranks only a few places behind UNC in the Directors' Cup, while spending a lot less money (that it must raise privately).

FSU is a huge public institution with an enormous fanbase throughout the state. It's not a good analogy here. Actually, I'm not sure what would be a good analogy. Louisville-UK is close, but Louisville is publicly funded. Vandy-UT or Rice-the other UT are also similar, but Rice and Vandy aren't as good at sports as Duke.

Anyway, my only point was that a pro-UNC media bias, even if it exists, isn't the primary reason for the unbalanced coverage in places like Charlotte or even Raleigh, because you find the same thing all around the country when it comes to large state universities vs. small private universities. Local media is just catering to their readership.

And when it comes to the national media, neither Duke nor UNC have anything to complain about :)

snowdenscold
03-26-2009, 04:14 PM
Biscuit, Jacksonville is 2 1/2 hours from Tallahassee and 1 hour 1/2 from Gainesville. Yet the Jacksonville Times Union is full of FSU and UF coverage. Same for Tampa Tribune and Orlando Sentinel, both 1 hour and 45 mins from Gainesville and 3 hours and 1/2 from Tallahassee.


But FSU is a huge state school... those aren't similar cases.

Duvall
03-26-2009, 04:19 PM
FSU is a huge public institution with an enormous fanbase throughout the state. It's not a good analogy here. Actually, I'm not sure what would be a good analogy. Louisville-UK is close, but Louisville is publicly funded. Vandy-UT or Rice-the other UT are also similar, but Rice and Vandy aren't as good at sports as Duke.

Anyway, my only point was that a pro-UNC media bias, even if it exists, isn't the primary reason for the unbalanced coverage in places like Charlotte or even Raleigh, because you find the same thing all around the country when it comes to large state universities vs. small private universities. Local media is just catering to their readership.


Then I guess a huge public institution like N.C. State must get as much sports coverage as UNC. After all, it too is a flagship state institution, is it not?

Biscuit
03-26-2009, 04:28 PM
Then I guess a huge public institution like N.C. State must get as much sports coverage as UNC. After all, it too is a flagship state institution, is it not?

I was waiting for that one ;)

There's no technical definition for flagship university, but as UNC is older and better-known nationally, I think it's safe to call it the flagship university of the state.

However, if NC State's athletics were on par with UNC in terms of performance, especially in the headline-grabbing sports, I'm sure it would be all over the North Carolina media. Just like Florida State when it was a football power.

Duvall
03-26-2009, 04:32 PM
I was waiting for that one ;)

There's no technical definition for flagship university, but as UNC is older and better-known nationally, I think it's safe to call it the flagship university of the state.

However, if NC State's athletics were on par with UNC in terms of performance, especially in the headline-grabbing sports, I'm sure it would be all over the North Carolina media. Just like Florida State when it was a football power.

So it's okay for UNC to get more attention than a large public institution like NC State because it's been more successful in athletics and better known nationally, and it's okay for UNC to get more attention than an athletically successful and world-famous institution like Duke because it's public, rather than private?

pfrduke
03-26-2009, 04:37 PM
So it's okay for UNC to get more attention than a large public institution like NC State because it's been more successful in athletics and better known nationally, and it's okay for UNC to get more attention than an athletically successful and world-famous institution like Duke because it's public, rather than private?

How convenient.

I think Biscuit hit it on the head earlier upthread when he mentioned readership. Most people in the state of North Carolina are UNC fans. Many more than are State fans, and very many more than are Duke fans. They want to read about UNC. The papers oblige.

FSU and UF, near as I can tell, have a more even split in fan base, hence the more even coverage.

To me, the big surprise would be if Duke consistent drew as much or more media attention in the state of NC as UNC, considering the likely interest of the majority of readers.

blueprofessor
03-26-2009, 04:38 PM
But FSU is a huge state school... those aren't similar cases.

"but only one of those things is even remotely relevant to the sports page- the excellence of its sports teams."( Biscuit),
Duke's coverage should equal, or come close to, UNC's.
Yet, it pales in comparison---and I have not even discussed the pro-UNC slant in much of what is actually written.
And Snow, apart from Biscuit's standard of excellence of sports teams being the catalyst for coverage (which ipso facto should guarantee Duke nearly equal coverage), the UF and FSU references are relevant because distant media cover both in similar amounts---even though FSU is much smaller than UF in numbers of grads over the last 55 years.

Since there appears to be a denying the obvious --that there is a decided pro-UNC coverage by the media in NC--would anyone else state that the general preponderance of NC media (recall the media cheering vs. Duke reported by Bill Brill) is not pro-UNC and anti-Duke?

Best regards--Blueprof:)

pfrduke
03-26-2009, 04:41 PM
FSU is a huge public institution with an enormous fanbase throughout the state. It's not a good analogy here. Actually, I'm not sure what would be a good analogy. Louisville-UK is close, but Louisville is publicly funded. Vandy-UT or Rice-the other UT are also similar, but Rice and Vandy aren't as good at sports as Duke.

I think the closest analogy is UCLA-USC, but even that has differences because a) they split sports (USC has been dominant in football, UCLA in basketball) and b) huge numbers of Trojan alums settle in SoCal, so there's a strong readership interest. Coverage for those programs is relatively equal.

Biscuit
03-26-2009, 04:44 PM
"but only one of those things is even remotely relevant to the sports page- the excellence of its sports teams."( Biscuit),
Duke's coverage should equal, or come close to, UNC's.
Yet, it pales in comparison---and I have not even discussed the pro-UNC slant in much of what is actually written.
And Snow, apart from Biscuit's standard of excellence of sports teams being the catalyst for coverage (which ipso facto should guarantee Duke nearly equal coverage), the UF and FSU references are relevant because distant media cover both in similar amounts---even though FSU is much smaller than UF in numbers of grads over the last 55 years.

Since there appears to be a denying the obvious --that there is a decided pro-UNC coverage by the media in NC--would anyone else state that the general preponderance of NC media (recall the media cheering vs. Duke reported by Bill Brill) is not pro-UNC and anti-Duke?

Best regards--Blueprof:)

With all due respect, you're twisting my words. Excellence in sports wasn't my only standard, it was the only thing I thought was relevant out of a list you had generated.

I'd say performance and local interest are really the two things that drive local media coverage. It just so happens that UNC has both factors in its favor, while Duke and State only have one of those things really working for them each- Ill leave it to you to figure out which is which. ;)

Also, as I said above, both Duke and UNC get more than their fair share of national attention, so I'm not sure how important the sports page of the Charlotte Observer is in the big picture.

blueprofessor
03-26-2009, 04:56 PM
[QUOTE=Biscuit;278065];)

Also, as I said above, both Duke and UNC get more than their fair share of national attention, so I'm not sure how important the sports page of the Charlotte Observer is in the big picture.[/QUOTE
Very important in voting for athletic honors, influencing recruiting and fan loyalties and ,perhaps, officiating, and generating impressions for national media and national consumers.
Look how important John Judas's illicit tampering with the WATimes voter's ballot (Hansbrough 2nd team,not unanimous as a sophomore on all-ACC team) was in creating the falsehood nationally trumpeted that Tyler was a 4-time unanimous 1st-team all-ACC selection.
Best--Blueprof :)

Biscuit
03-26-2009, 05:03 PM
[QUOTE=Biscuit;278065];)

Also, as I said above, both Duke and UNC get more than their fair share of national attention, so I'm not sure how important the sports page of the Charlotte Observer is in the big picture.[/QUOTE
Very important in voting for athletic honors, influencing recruiting and fan loyalties and ,perhaps, officiating, and generating impressions for national media and national consumers.
Look how important John Judas's illicit tampering with the WATimes voter's ballot (Hansbrough 2nd team,not unanimous as a sophomore on all-ACC team) was in creating the falsehood nationally trumpeted that Tyler was a 4-time unanimous 1st-team all-ACC selection.
Best--Blueprof :)

Those are certainly fair points.

However, I don't know how much impact local media really has on that stuff. There are many more important things when it comes to helping with stuff like recruiting and awards, like games on national TV and highlights on Sportscenter and articles in national publications. And there are 342 schools that could arguably have a beef with both UNC and Duke when it comes to that stuff. Not that UNC and Duke haven't earned their coverage, but you get my meaning.

blueprofessor
03-26-2009, 05:42 PM
[QUOTE=blueprofessor;278073]

Those are certainly fair points.

However, I don't know how much impact local media really has on that stuff. There are many more important things when it comes to helping with stuff like recruiting and awards, like games on national TV and highlights on Sportscenter and articles in national publications. And there are 342 schools that could arguably have a beef with both UNC and Duke when it comes to that stuff. Not that UNC and Duke haven't earned their coverage, but you get my meaning.

Biscuit, a good friend is a sports journalist and has covered FL university sports and spent time at the ACC tourney over a decade ago with some ACC writers at dinner; all but one were UNC grads or expressed support for UNC.The common targets were K and Duke and the nerds at Duke and how Smith was the greatest and UNC was the best and a better school academically.
He recounted the story and began checking everything he was told as a newboy as fact.
He said he checked and every "fact" was a falsehood or borderline falsehood and that the mind-sync-think of the group was "creepy."
He said they came across as highly threatened by Duke and K----what you would expect from "true believers" (see Eric Hoffer).

Bill Brill and others have commented on this current journalistic reality.
Now, suppose my friend had been from ESPN or the LA Times--he would have taken an incorrect impression of Duke,K,UNC home.
Yes, local media have a powerful effect on outside media, who may defer to the former's knowledge/impressions.

Best---Blueprofessor:)

Virginian
03-26-2009, 06:25 PM
As a long-time (former) newspaper editor I can tell you that newspapers write about the teams they think their readers want to read about. As an example, my SE corner of Va. is very much farther away from Blacksburg than it is from Charlottesville or the home cities of many Va. teams, but Va. Tech gets HUGE, HUGE coverage non-stop in the local press, whether Tech wins or loses or "deserves" coverage or not. Why? Because a very large proportion of local residents are Va. Tech grads.

Similarly, the Wash. Post covers UVA pretty heavily because so many D.C. area residents (specifically, well-educated newspaper subscribing residents) are UVA grads. Speaking of the Post, it gives a lot of sports coverage to the Baltimore Orioles even though Washington now has its own baseball team. Many Nationals fans are irate that the Post gives equal coverage to both teams, but the Post just points out that it has many readers in the Md. suburbs who remain strong O's fans.

So when it comes to college basketball and local media coverage, it has nothing to do with which team is better or "deserves" coverage. They're trying to sell newspapers. Same with radio and TV stations.