1924 Helms Banner Debunked

[airowe]

http://www.fayobserver.com/Articles/2009/12/26/959868


But wait a second. Hasn't UNC only won five NCAA championships? Yes.

And yet the Tar Heels display six national championship banners? Indeed.

What gives?

The banners are all uniform in size and appearance, commemorating titles from 1924, 1957, 1982, 1993, 2005 and now 2009.

But as the old Sesame Street jingle goes, "One of these things is not like the others." And so here in a college basketball crazed state where rivals nitpick each other's triumphs like Simon Cowell critiquing the pitch in Kelly Clarkson's voice, we have the topic for one of the more contentious and longest running debates on Tobacco Road.

That banner to the far left: does it belong? North Carolina's 1924 national championship: legitimate or not?

[Duvall]

Always good to see Featherston rip into that silly bit of hubris from the UOP.

[Wheat/"/"/"]

And this relates to Duke basketball how? Duke was 19-6 that year, the Heels were undefeated...

Mods, please delete this thread:rolleyes:

:eek: :D ;)

[camion]

We are deeply touched by your concern and thank you for your guidance. :o

[billy]

Bomani Jones comes across as a voice of reason in this article. Amazing!

[JBDuke]

And this relates to Duke basketball how? Duke was 19-6 that year, the Heels were undefeated...

Mods, please delete this thread:rolleyes:

:eek: :D ;)

Our archrivals make fools of themselves, and someone in the North Carolina media actually calls them on it. Delete it? I'm thinking we need to make this thread a "sticky"...

[airowe]

You guys let Wheat derail this thread pretty freakin easily. A perfect opportunity to laugh at the insecurity of Tarhole Nation and you guys want to bicker about Wheat?

Congrats, Wheat.

[Duvall]

You guys let Wheat derail this thread pretty freakin easily.

Good call.

http://i6.photobucket.com/albums/y241/Revisited/3rdplaceNIT.jpg

[sagegrouse]

The 1924 Helms foundation banner and the recent ejection of a Presbyterian fan by Roy are gifts that keep on giving. I hope UNC keeps the banner up forever. What a laugh!

Did you read the Weiderer article? Our man Featherstone pointed out that southern basketball was inferior to the East and Midwest back in that period. For example, UNC played 10 teams from north of the Mason-Dixon line during the 1920's and had a perfect record: 0-10. Therefore, trumpeting as "best in the nation" a team with a 26-0 record that played no one outside the South is a compete joke.

Let the banner hang forever as a monument to overweening ambition and pomposity.

sagegrouse
'Darn. Now Wheat will never take me fishing'

[JBDuke]

I had to delete a number of posts in this thread, which was taking a nasty little turn.

A couple of points:

1. It is not the job of posters on this board to attempt to moderate it themselves - that what the mods are for. If you believe that a post does not comply with our posting guidelines or otherwise requires moderator action, please use the "Report Post" feature (the little red-bordered triangle with an exclamation point in the middle of it that you'll find at the top right corner of every post). When you report a post, all of the mods get an email with your text describing why you're reporting it, so we can act appropriately if needed.

2. Friendly jabs from well-known Heel fans that post here, like Wheat, should be taken in the spirit with which they are intended. Wheat has been here many years and knows that this is a Duke fan site. If you didn't get that he was trying to be funny with his text, the multiple emoticons that he included should have been a clue.

3. There is no justification for being uncivil. If you find Wheat's occasional little barbs to be a problem, then maybe you're the one with the problem. Have a thicker skin. If you grow tired of Wheat's posts (or any other poster's posts, for that matter), I suggest you not read them. (Wow, what a concept!) I believe I can speak for all the moderators here that there's nothing in violation of DBR's guidelines in Wheat's original post in this thread. Friendly banter should be tolerated, and even encouraged, as long as it stays friendly. Wheat and other Carolina fans that have established themselves here know they need to tread softly when being critical of Duke or Duke fans. Generally, they do a good job of this and therefore being good neighbors. The rest of us should give them the benefit of the doubt.

[Wheat/"/"/"]

... I hope you can find your way back to a more topical and amiable tone of discussion.

Me too. And everyone else.

So back on topic then...here's how I understand it.

For 1912 thru 1937, the Helms foundation named a national champion on opinion without a national tournament to decide things. From '38 thru '82 the Helms foundation continued to name a national champion, still on opinion, but with the benefit of a NIT, NCAA or both tourneys to guide their decision.

The first true national tourney was the NIT Tournament held in 1938.

Anyways, so there was no NCAA, NIT tournament prior to 1938 to definatively determine a national champion.

Prior to 1938. much like polls over the years deciding football national champions which are still recognized, it was all opinion about who was national champion. It's just the way it was.

In fact, UNC's recognition of the '24 title is challenged by Butler, a team also named the '24 Champion, but by the AAU, another respected foundation at the time. So the bottom line is nobody really knows who was the best team that year because there was no tournament to prove it.

The Helms Foundation was very respected in the sports world, and they did not pass out titles haphazardly. The '24 title is what it is, a respected award but a title of opinion from a respected foundation. Similar to a football Heisman in my mind.

Some teams do not recognize their Helms/AAU titles prior to 1939 and the NCAA tournament. Some do.

I personally don't think it should carry the same weight as the NCAA titles, earned through a tournament, but I have no problem with it being used as recognition for a sustained history of basketball excellence, which is what I think UNC primarily does with it.

[airowe]

I personally don't think it should carry the same weight as the NCAA titles, earned through a tournament, but I have no problem with it being used as recognition for a sustained history of basketball excellence, which is what I think UNC primarily does with it.

Therein lies the problem. By redesigning the banner, changing the size and lettering to match the other National Championship Banners (just after Duke's title in 2001) UNC has used the banner to show another "championship" although it was awarded years after the fact and not won in the same tournament fashion as the others. I knew you agreed with the article and just wanted to change the subject. ;)

[hughgs]

For 1912 thru 1937, the Helms foundation named a national champion on opinion without a national tournament to decide things.

The Helms Foundation was very respected in the sports world, and they did not pass out titles haphazardly. The '24 title is what it is, a respected award but a title of opinion from a respected foundation. Similar to a football Heisman in my mind.

A couple of major points. First, the Helms foundation wasn't founded until 1936 (per Wikipedia). So their "champions" weren't even selected based on how the experts felt they did on the year they played basketball. So, the 1924 Helms champion wasn't selected until 1936, at the earliest. That, in itself should question the validity of their champions prior to 1936.

Second, since the Helms champions were selected retroactively it seems a rather poor analogy to the Heisman. The Heisman is the "best" player that year. The Helms champion in 1924 wasn't selected until after 1935. So, I don't see the similarity between the Heisman with the Helms.

[Wheat/"/"/"]

Therein lies the problem. By redesigning the banner, changing the size and lettering to match the other National Championship Banners (just after Duke's title in 2001) UNC has used the banner to show another "championship" although it was awarded years after the fact and not won in the same tournament fashion as the others. I knew you agreed with the article and just wanted to change the subject. ;)

Ah, but it was a national championship, none the less. One of two awarded for that year by the only system that was in place in that era.

Featherston and everyone else,(including me), is free to have an opinion regarding the weight it should be given because there was no "play off", but the fact is it was a respected national championship award and the institution is not demeaned in any way by acknowledging it with the other national championship banners.

IMO, This arguement is only good for rivalry discussion during the break, as I'm sure the writer and Featherstone intended. They always need content.

I'd be curious to know whether Duke would have recognized a title during that era, but we'll never know since Duke teams were never in the hunt ;):eek::)

Note- Thanks Mods for continuing to keep the DBR board interesting, fair and entertaining. This board usually proves that rivalries can be fun, even spunky, without being mean spirited, and the best rivalry in sports needs a playground like this.

[Wheat/"/"/"]

A couple of major points. First, the Helms foundation wasn't founded until 1936 (per Wikipedia). So their "champions" weren't even selected based on how the experts felt they did on the year they played basketball. So, the 1924 Helms champion wasn't selected until 1936, at the earliest. That, in itself should question the validity of their champions prior to 1936.

Second, since the Helms champions were selected retroactively it seems a rather poor analogy to the Heisman. The Heisman is the "best" player that year. The Helms champion in 1924 wasn't selected until after 1935. So, I don't see the similarity between the Heisman with the Helms.

The Heisman award is from a foundation based on opinion, just like the Helms recognition was. The Heisman has been a highly respected award in this era. So was the Helms award in its era. If the Heisman says a player is the best, then the Helms Foundation saying a team was the best...there is merit there.
That was my analogy.

Like Kirschner said, it's a national championship, and the team that earned it should be recognized.

And yea, they went back and awarded the title retroactively. But, they still were choosing the team they felt was best for that year. I have to assume such a respected foundation did some serious consideration. UNC was undefeated after all, 26-0. It's not like they were 18-6. and some fly by night group crowned them.

They,(Helms), were the only institution along with the AAU trying to establish national titles in hoops at the time.

[hughgs]

And yea, they went back and awarded the title retroactively. But, they still were choosing the team they felt was best for that year. I have to assume such a respected foundation did some serious consideration. UNC was undefeated after all, 26-0. It's not like they were 18-6. and some fly by night group crowned them.

I agree that it's simply opinion, but your above statement is why I don't think you can equate the two. Anytime you have to go back in time and make "best of" awards you're bound to come to different conclusions than if you made the award during the same year.

If I remember correctly at the turn of the century they did a poll of the best athletes of the century and Jim Thorpe came in somewhere around 5 or so, behind a number of athletes from his era. But, they did a similar poll around 1950 and Jim Thorpe was considered the best athlete of the first half century. Clearly, Thorpe's athletic performances didn't change in comparison to his contemporaries but somehow he got worse. Memory is a faulty mechanism, and to imply that "best of" awards that are based on recent performances (Heisman) are equivalent to "best of" awards that are based on memory (pre-35 Helms) does a disservice to the other teams.

As to your contention that the Helms Foundation did some serious consideration I don't think you'll find many experts who agree with you. Here's Al Featherston's take on the subject (it's close to the end)

http://www.dukebasketballreport.com/articles/?p=19923

[Duvall]

In fact, UNC's recognition of the '24 title is challenged by Butler, a team also named the '24 Champion, but by the AAU, another respected foundation at the time. So the bottom line is nobody really knows who was the best team that year because there was no tournament to prove it.

This is, of course, not actually true. Butler was named the 1924 champion by the AAU, after winning the 1924 AAU tournament - a national tournament in which the Bulldogs played teams from all over the country. (Something the White Phantoms of NCU were, for whatever reason, loathe to do during this period.)


The Helms Foundation was very respected in the sports world, and they did not pass out titles haphazardly.

As Al Featherston has repeatedly explained, there's little evidence that this was actually the case. Indeed, the only evidence that the Helms titles were respected at all seems to come from the handful of recipients that are willing to claim the honor.


I personally don't think it should carry the same weight as the NCAA titles, earned through a tournament, but I have no problem with it being used as recognition for a sustained history of basketball excellence, which is what I think UNC primarily does with it.

I can only assume that this means that you agree that Butler has the stronger claim to a 1924 title. Consensus at last!

[SeattleIrish]

Wheat:

I assume you did not read the article, or have chosen your words to carefully skew the jist of the article.

It sure sounds good to say, ...the Helms foundation named a national champion...", but as the article points out, and other articles have pointed out, this was one guy, absent any recognized criteria, naming a champion decades after the fact. The article does note many reasons for doubting UNC was the best team in the nation in 1924, not playing a single team outside of the region.

And the some-teams-recognize-the-Helms-and-some-don't argument also fails the sniff test. In fact, only ONE other team, Kansas, chooses to prominantly display the Helms banner with other Nat. Championships. Every other team that was chosen, decades later, by that one guy, chooses to appropriately downplay the point.

It's certainly a nice recognition to have, but it's the epitomy of guilding the lilly for UNC.

s.i.


Me too. And everyone else.

So back on topic then...here's how I understand it.

For 1912 thru 1937, the Helms foundation named a national champion on opinion without a national tournament to decide things. From '38 thru '82 the Helms foundation continued to name a national champion, still on opinion, but with the benefit of a NIT, NCAA or both tourneys to guide their decision.

The first true national tourney was the NIT Tournament held in 1938.

Anyways, so there was no NCAA, NIT tournament prior to 1938 to definatively determine a national champion.

Prior to 1938. much like polls over the years deciding football national champions which are still recognized, it was all opinion about who was national champion. It's just the way it was.

In fact, UNC's recognition of the '24 title is challenged by Butler, a team also named the '24 Champion, but by the AAU, another respected foundation at the time. So the bottom line is nobody really knows who was the best team that year because there was no tournament to prove it.

The Helms Foundation was very respected in the sports world, and they did not pass out titles haphazardly. The '24 title is what it is, a respected award but a title of opinion from a respected foundation. Similar to a football Heisman in my mind.

Some teams do not recognize their Helms/AAU titles prior to 1939 and the NCAA tournament. Some do.

I personally don't think it should carry the same weight as the NCAA titles, earned through a tournament, but I have no problem with it being used as recognition for a sustained history of basketball excellence, which is what I think UNC primarily does with it.

[Duvall]

They,(Helms), were the only institution along with the AAU trying to establish national titles in hoops at the time.

Let's be clear. In 1924, the AAU was the only institution trying to determine the best basketball team in the country, and they did so through a tournament that was won by a college basketball team that was not North Carolina. Two decades later, when North Carolina was awarded its Helms honor, the NCAA and NIT had also gotten into the business of awarding national titles. Unlike the Helms people, those institutions wisely chose to limit themselves to giving trophies to teams that were actually playing at the time.

[Jim3k]

There's got to be a skit here for the Crazies. "Welcome White Phantoms!"

First submission:

The cheerleaders and the Blue Devil welcome "TylerJordanBluthWorthyBlahBlahHam" wearing a White Phantom uniform to accept the 1924 Helms award. It is wrapped in a Helms Bakery bread wrapper. And when the recipient opens the wrapper, he finds a large blue loaf of bread which says National Champion NCU White Phantoms 1924. As he accepts it with a gracious smile, the loaf's end flops down and out pops a flag which reads "FAKE." (And the Devil gleefully and evilly laughs from his cloud of smoke.)

It would burn about 6 or 7 minutes of a halftime if done properly.

Please follow up with other skit ideas.

[Wheat/"/"/"]

Forgive me if I don't put a lot of stock in anything Featherstone writes. All he has is an opinion too. We all know the side of the rivalry fence he sits on.

This is really not a big issue for me, but I tried.

I've only got one bullet left this morning...Tyler Hansbrough! (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CBJm-UorQu0):)

[Jarhead]

Forgive me if I don't put a lot of stock in anything Featherstone writes. All he has is an opinion too. We all know the side of the rivalry fence he sits on.

This is really not a big issue for me, but I tried.

I've only got one bullet left this morning...Tyler Hansbrough! (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CBJm-UorQu0):)

Don't drop things now, Wheat. I need to comment. Consider the reality that if MacDonald's of San Diego can declare a MacDonald's All-American team, then the Helms Bakery of Culver City can also declare a Helms Bakery (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Helms_Bakery) championship. Yeah, they can even do it retroactively, if they wish. But be honest about it. There's no more justification for hanging that banner up there with the rest of the laundry than there is for putting up banners for all of those MacDonald's All-American players that both Duke and UNC have recruited.
I love run on sentences.:D

[hughgs]

Forgive me if I don't put a lot of stock in anything Featherstone writes. All he has is an opinion too. We all know the side of the rivalry fence he sits on.

This is really not a big issue for me, but I tried.

I've only got one bullet left this morning...Tyler Hansbrough! (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CBJm-UorQu0):)

It's not a problem if you don't put a lot of stock in what Featherston writes. But, you can't simply dismiss him simply because he writes his opinion. It's not like Featherston simply writes an opinion without putting down some facts to back them up. If he did that I would agree that there's no reason to believe him. But, he has a number of facts in the article and if you can't debunk what he says then you haven't really defended your position.

I'm the wrong guy to shoot the Hansborough bullet at :). I've always liked the guy. Hated that he played for UNC but can't him for playing for UNC.

[oldnavy]

I have had a lot of fun with a tarhole friend of mine with this over the past few years. I think that it is funny that the only two schools that hang the banner are Kansas and UNC. Not sure if there is a connection there or not, just saying... but the truly interesting thing about this to me is like Airowe said, they didn't hang it until right around Duke won it's third title and they only had the three titles....

Not a huge deal, but fun to discuss while there is a break in the action.

[airowe]

I have had a lot of fun with a tarhole friend of mine with this over the past few years. I think that it is funny that the only two schools that hang the banner are Kansas and UNC. Not sure if there is a connection there or not, just saying... but the truly interesting thing about this to me is like Airowe said, they didn't hang it until right around Duke won it's third title and they only had the three titles....

Not a huge deal, but fun to discuss while there is a break in the action.

For the record, the banner has always been hung in the Dome, but the lettering and design of the banner was changed sometime in the 2000s to make it more resemble the National Championship banners.

[killerleft]

Shouldn't the logo on that '24 banner have a pie on it?:)

[oldnavy]

For the record, the banner has always been hung in the Dome, but the lettering and design of the banner was changed sometime in the 2000s to make it more resemble the National Championship banners.

Was it hung beside the other NC banners before the change in appearance? I was under the impression that it was hung in a more obscure place, but I could be mistaken. I apologize for the error.

[Jim3k]

Shouldn't the logo on that '24 banner have a pie on it?:)

Since it's in the Dean Dome, known for its whine and cheese, I think a crumpet would be appropriate, but a pie for the historic accuracy, though they could go with a Danish, given the fact that Helms delivered.

[devildeac]

Forgive me if I don't put a lot of stock in anything Featherstone writes. All he has is an opinion too. We all know the side of the rivalry fence he sits on.

This is really not a big issue for me, but I tried.

I've only got one bullet left this morning...Tyler Hansbrough! (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CBJm-UorQu0):)

And I suppose Blythe and Chansky are among your favorite pusillanimous purveyors of pasty blue propaganda that has appeared in print over the last decade or two:rolleyes:. Worthy of Pulitzer prize punditry perhaps? :rolleyes:

[El_Diablo]

Worthy of Pulitzer prize punditry perhaps? :rolleyes:

Maybe it will be awarded in a couple decades...;)

[airowe]

Was it hung beside the other NC banners before the change in appearance? I was under the impression that it was hung in a more obscure place, but I could be mistaken. I apologize for the error.

I try not to spend a whole lot of time in that library, but from what I've been told, it was not hung from the rafters, and not displayed prominently. I guess it was tacked to one of the corners and never had the words "National Champions" on it until the 2000s.

[hurleyfor3]

I try not to spend a whole lot of time in that library, but from what I've been told, it was not hung from the rafters, and not displayed prominently. I guess it was tacked to one of the corners and never had the words "National Champions" on it until the 2000s.

As I recall, the old banner read:

1924
HELMS FOUNDATION
1

It was the same size as the other "annual" banners, used the same block-lettering typeface, etc.

[oldnavy]

The Helms's award or banner is essentially the same as ending the season as number 1 in the AP poll is it not? Maybe even less so since it was "voted" on 20 years after the season. If you follow UNC logic, wouldn't you want to elevate your final #1 rankings in the polls to mid-stadium, center prominence?

[slower]

And I suppose Blythe and Chansky are among your favorite pusillanimous purveyors of pasty blue propaganda that has appeared in print over the last decade or two:rolleyes:. Worthy of Pulitzer prize punditry perhaps? :rolleyes:

Chansky was signing books at Barnes and Noble the weekend before Christmas. Nobody was asking for their book to be signed. He was on his cellphone most of the time. As I walked by him, it sounded like he was making plans on how to get out of there. :D

As a misguided youth, I used to go to Four Corners in Chapel Hill, and I got sick of them playing the tape of the '82 championship game EVERY freaking night. One night, one of my friends brought in a remote control hidden under his coat. He kept changing the channel on their big-screen TV, and we laughed our a**es off as the lummoxes that worked there tried to figure out what was going on.

Is it just me, or is Wheat showing definite Roy-Bag tendencies? I mean, he expends so much energy defending the 'Holes (and some of the mods bend over backwards to always protect his precious feelings) and he always adds the cute little icons so we'll all know that he's "kidding", but sometimes it almost seems there's a Roy-like attitude boiling below the surface.

Oh wait - I forgot - ;) (just kidding)

[davekay1971]

IIRC (and I may be wrong), UNC proudly hung the 1924 National Helms Award Championship Banner Thingy AFTER Duke had won the 2001 National Championship (tying, alas, only for a short time, UNC's national championship total). It was patently obvious that UNC was elevating the Helms Award to something it was not in an attempt to maintain the appearance of superiority over their rival. Now that Ol' Roy has brought two more legitimate National Championships to Chapel Hill, I respectfully submit that the UNC Athletic Dept can now carefully wrap up the 1924 banner and put it back in the closet. But keep it safe, in the event that Coach K wins two more national championships before Roy wins another...

[davekay1971]

Sorry to post twice in a row, but my 14 month old daughter had more important things to do than let me finish me earlier thought...

Just a couple more things.

Wheat, if you haven't read Featherston's "Tobacco Road", do yourself a favor and do it. You're obviously a big ACC hoops fan, and the book is a well written, unbiased, and informative look at the history of the Big Four.

As for Kirschner's attempt to equate the Helms Award to the AP and UPI National Champtionship awards given in football before the BCS, that's a patently false equivalence. First of all, the way the Helms Award was given bears no resemblance to the (admittedly flawed) AP and UPI awards. One guy, without obvious expertise, vs. a panel of professional sportswriters or a panel of coaches. Retroactively given, as opposed to given at the end of the season. In addition, Featherston's point about whether UNC was really the best in the nation is really good. Southern basketball, at that time, wasn't what it is today. It wasn't until Everett Case brought down talent from Indiana and Frank McGuire recruited his talent from New York that North Carolina basketball started to become force that it is today. Therefore it makes no sense to compare a declaration that the 1924 UNC team was best in the nation that year to an AP or UPI national championship declaration in football in the 1980s or 1990s. The closer comparison would be if someone declared an undefeated team from a minor conference the best in the nation when that team had played no games against major conference opponents in that year. The minor conference team could be the best in the nation, but no one would accept them as national champions for the simple and legitimate reason that their undefeated season didn't do enough to prove that they were better than the best major conference teams.

Between his comments on this and on the Roy vs. Blue Hose debacle, Kirschner is showing a real talent for half-truths, misrepresentations, and spin. He should consider a job in Washington...

[allenmurray]

Forgive me if I don't put a lot of stock in anything Featherstone writes. All he has is an opinion too. We all know the side of the rivalry fence he sits on.

. . . you insulted Al Featherston twice.

All he has is an opinion too. Are you serious? If you made a post about fishing, and someone said, "All Wheat has is an opinion", that would be wrong. Why? Because you are recognized as a leader in your field, who devotes hours of study, practice, and resources to your profession. It would be an incredibly unfair thing for someone to say about you. Yet that is what you have done to Al Featherston. Not all opinions are created equally, and the idea that they are is just silly. Al is not some blogger - he is well regarded as an expert journalist and one of the leaders in covering not just Duke, but the entire ACC. Opinions given by people who are leaders in their field carry weight. Al does painstaking research before each long-form piece of journalism. He has decades of experience in his field. He writes for regional, state, and national publications. He is recognized as being "one of the best" at what he does. He has strong relationships with coaches, athletic staffs, and SIDs, not just at one school, but at many. Al has far more than just an opinion. He has an opinion based on decades as a leader in his field. So, you insulted his professional body of work, just as if someone said that all "Wheat has is a fishing rod".

Then you go on to question his ethics and integrity as a journalist. "We all know the side of the rivalry fence he sits on". Do you think that impacts his ability to remain an objective and professional journalist? If so, please provide evidence of such. If not, why did you bring it up? If you are going to imply that Featherston's journalistic objectivity and ethics are lacking, and that he is unable to report with accuracy and objectivity because he "roots for Duke", you should really back that up. Otherwise what you are doing is smearing the professional ethics of a well respected journalist.

Al Featherston deserves better on this board than that. The fact that no moderator (especially those with feet frimly planted in journalism and sports journalism respectively - hello JasonEvans and Jumbo - where are you?) called you on this surprises me. The fact that the owners of the site said nothing and allowed this to stand saddens me. Al Featherston's posts are among the very best things ever posted on DBR. Civility seems to be a point of emphasis lately, but what about loyalty and friendship - do they mean nothing?

The fact that long-time posters, moderators, and owners alike sat by while you insulted both the professional body of work and the ethics of Al Featherston is a dark day for DBR.

[77devil]

. . . you insulted Al Featherston twice.

All he has is an opinion too. Are you serious? If you made a post about fishing, and someone said, "All Wheat has is an opinion", that would be wrong. Why? Because you are recognized as a leader in your field, who devotes hours of study, practice, and resources to your profession. It would be an incredibly unfair thing for someone to say about you. Yet that is what you have done to Al Featherston. Not all opinions are created equally, and the idea that they are is just silly. Al is not some blogger - he is well regarded as an expert journalist and one of the leaders in covering not just Duke, but the entire ACC. Opinions given by people who are leaders in their field carry weight. Al does painstaking research before each long-form piece of journalism. He has decades of experience in his field. He writes for regional, state, and national publications. He is recognized as being "one of the best" at what he does. He has strong relationships with coaches, athletic staffs, and SIDs, not just at one school, but at many. Al has far more than just an opinion. He has an opinion based on decades as a leader in his field. So, you insulted his professional body of work, just as if someone said that all "Wheat has is a fishing rod".

Then you go on to question his ethics and integrity as a journalist. "We all know the side of the rivalry fence he sits on". Do you think that impacts his ability to remain an objective and professional journalist? If so, please provide evidence of such. If not, why did you bring it up? If you are going to imply that Featherston's journalistic objectivity and ethics are lacking, and that he is unable to report with accuracy and objectivity because he "roots for Duke", you should really back that up. Otherwise what you are doing is smearing the professional ethics of a well respected journalist.

Al Featherston deserves better on this board than that. The fact that no moderator (especially those with feet frimly planted in journalism and sports journalism respectively - hello JasonEvans and Jumbo - where are you?) called you on this surprises me. The fact that the owners of the site said nothing and allowed this to stand saddens me. Al Featherston's posts are among the very best things ever posted on DBR. Civility seems to be a point of emphasis lately, but what about loyalty and friendship - do they mean nothing?

The fact that long-time posters, moderators, and owners alike sat by while you insulted both the professional body of work and the ethics of Al Featherston is a dark day for DBR.


Well stated. Maybe he was given the benefit of the doubt and not taken seriously in this instance. I sense the boards are losing some of the energy and interest, particularly among many posters who have been around for awhile. I know in my own case that I started to repond but decided not to bother. Shame on me.

[JStuart]

I also agree with Allen and Hurleyfer3; Wheat is a reasonable guy, but he went over the line in his comments about Big Al. Other than Bill Brill, I am unaware of another print journalist with a Duke degree, and, with the unending numbers of UNC J-school grads writing and voting about ACC basketball, how Wheat can imply that Al is biased is beyond me, and out of character for Wheat, I think.
The day the Herald-Sun fired Al Featherston was the day I cancelled my subscription, and I had been a lifelong reader. Art Chansky was perhaps the worst sportswriter I've experienced, second only to Frank Dascenso (?sp) who wasn't UNC-biased, just horrible. Bill Blythe freely admits his UNC bias, and writes well. Al Featherston is simply the finest ACC basketball writer and knowledge base around. Just give it up on this one, Wheat.
JStuart
PS, Happy New Year, y'all

[msdukie]

I also agree with Allen and Hurleyfer3; Wheat is a reasonable guy, but he went over the line in his comments about Big Al. Other than Bill Brill, I am unaware of another print journalist with a Duke degree, and, with the unending numbers of UNC J-school grads writing and voting about ACC basketball, how Wheat can imply that Al is biased is beyond me, and out of character for Wheat, I think.
The day the Herald-Sun fired Al Featherston was the day I cancelled my subscription, and I had been a lifelong reader. Art Chansky was perhaps the worst sportswriter I've experienced, second only to Frank Dascenso (?sp) who wasn't UNC-biased, just horrible. Bill Blythe freely admits his UNC bias, and writes well. Al Featherston is simply the finest ACC basketball writer and knowledge base around. Just give it up on this one, Wheat.
JStuart
PS, Happy New Year, y'all

Barry Jacobs and Jim Sumner also went to Duke, but we are still VERY MUCH in the minority.

[Wheat/"/"/"]

Just give it up on this one, Wheat.


I tried. (Too stubborn:) )

This issue is pretty dumb, imo. Not sure how I let myself get caught up in it when I really think it's just a bunch of rivalry gotcha stuff.

To recap- here's what I think. And it's my last post on the topic.

The Helms title is not equvilant to the NCAA titles. Everybody agrees on that.

It was one of only two titles bestowed on teams from that era, by the only system in place, as imperfect as it may have been. I have no problem with UNC recognizing the '24 team as the national champions of that day, just as I would have no problem with Butler recognizing its team as the '24 national champs (if they do, I have no idea).

The banners are hung together, but I've never seen anyone at UNC claim it was the equivilant of an NCAA title. I've only seen others try to claim UNC is trying to make the Helms title the equivalant of an NCAA title...which is opinion.

On Featherston...I probably overstated my opinion when I wrote..."Forgive me if I don't put a lot of stock in anything Featherstone writes. All he has is an opinion too. We all know the side of the rivalry fence he sits on".

It was a quick post that morning and was not intended to be some direct attack on his integrity. He writes some good stuff at times, but my point was he generally writes from the Duke prespective, and that's OK. Everybody has bias when dealing with perspective.
If you guys don't see that, then we will have to agree to disagree. But in this case, I made a mistake, he didn't even write what I was commenting on, I was refering to his quotes in the article which was written by Dan Weiderer.

I do not think Al's a bad guy, I don't challenge his ethics.

Here's what was said in the article....

"Instead, Featherston believes, it was Schroeder, who retroactively selected each of the national champions from 1901-1938 - with UNC's title being announced in 1942.

"Solely, singly, with no advice from anybody," Featherston said. "If anyone ever finds the basketball expert who supposedly sat in on this panel, I'd love to know. Because there has never been any documented evidence that that was the case."

Furthermore, Featherston also believes it's silly that the 1924 championship was awarded 18 years after the last game of that season was played. And the idea that such a championship is still given top billing at Carolina just doesn't sit right with him.
"To me, hanging this banner and treating it like it's a national championship is like Donald Trump wearing a zirconian tie clasp to try to show how rich he is," Featherston said. "North Carolina has so much prestige in its history that outclasses just about everybody else in college basketball, it seems odd that they continue to inflate this."

Read all that again and judge the tone...detect a little bias there in his opinion? And it was all opinion.

...and I will add that there is no documented evidence that there was no panel, where many seem to believe there was. I personally have no clue. And neither does Al. He has an opinion there was none, but he has no evidence there was not a panel. Al knows that this was a period of hoops infancy and there are sparse records of eveything

And I don't think UNC is inflating anything. They are simply recognizing a national championship award from back in the day.

My take was the tone of this statement above certainly shows a bias, in those quotes from him, again feel free to disagree.

Again Here's Kirschner's opinion, which I can live with...

"It doesn't bother us that people criticize it. Joe Fan on the street, other schools that don't have one, people can have their opinions. But I don't know that any of those opinions can be more right than the Helms Foundation opinion was. And I don't mean to sound flip when I say this, but people who question that championship or how we promote it really should worry about bigger things in life. At North Carolina, it's a national championship recognized by a legitimate, national organization. We're not going to stop celebrating it. And those who don't like it, shouldn't waste too much more energy with it. Period. The end."

My new years resolution was to not get caught up in these type of threads. It's a no win deal for me here. Note I have not entered threads like "Duke Flops". That would be a no win deal too, no matter what I say, so I have avoided it. I really don't want to be so contensious around here all the time.

I would rather get back to discussing how Duke is going to stop UNC inside, and how UNC is going to stop Duke outside. Who's playing well and who's not. I like to see the rivalry settled on the court, at least until the next game. We know it will never get settled on a message board.

Have fun continuing this thread if you guys feel the need, but don't hold it against me that I'm over this topic.

[Duvall]

The Helms title is not equvilant to the NCAA titles. Everybody agrees on that.

It was one of only two titles bestowed on teams from that era, by the only system in place, as imperfect as it may have been.

Repetition is not rhetoric. The Helms awards were not "in place" in 1924 by any stretch of the imagination, and there is not one shred of evidence to indicate that any "system" was used to award them. You can't change those facts by ignoring them, or by dismissing them as "biased opinions."


The banners are hung together, but I've never seen anyone at UNC claim it was the equivilant of an NCAA title. I've only seen others try to claim UNC is trying to make the Helms title the equivalant of an NCAA title...which is opinion.

Oh, really?

http://img80.imageshack.us/img80/3908/helmsjoke.jpg

[slower]

Again Here's Kirschner's opinion, which I can live with...

"It doesn't bother us that people criticize it. Joe Fan on the street, other schools that don't have one, people can have their opinions. But I don't know that any of those opinions can be more right than the Helms Foundation opinion was. And I don't mean to sound flip when I say this, but people who question that championship or how we promote it really should worry about bigger things in life. At North Carolina, it's a national championship recognized by a legitimate, national organization. We're not going to stop celebrating it. And those who don't like it, shouldn't waste too much more energy with it. Period. The end."

My new years resolution was to not get caught up in these type of threads. It's a no win deal for me here. Note I have not entered threads like "Duke Flops". That would be a no win deal too, no matter what I say, so I have avoided it. I really don't want to be so contensious around here all the time.

I would rather get back to discussing how Duke is going to stop UNC inside, and how UNC is going to stop Duke outside. Who's playing well and who's not. I like to see the rivalry settled on the court, at least until the next game. We know it will never get settled on a message board.

Have fun continuing this thread if you guys feel the need, but don't hold it against me that I'm over this topic.

Good Lord, man, if you're over it, then BE OVER IT, once and for all!! You're like the guy who has to have the last word in an argument, even if it's just to say "Oh, yeah?"

As to Kirshner's opinion (which you "can live with"), OF COURSE you can live with it, because it sounds exactly like the kind of d-bag statement Roy would make. These guys are all cut from the same cloth, apparently.

Oh, wait - I forgot - ;)

[JDev]

I don't know how you can say that UNC doesn't treat the Helms banner the same way they do their NCAA championships. When they count their NC's, that one is added to the list. It hangs in the Dean Dome right beside the NCAA ones, and in the same format, as if it were one of them. There is no distinction between them. What is the logic in saying it is held in a different esteem? I don't see any evidence that it is.

I think it is very hard to agrue that an essentially fictitious NC, awarded almost 20 years later with no rhyme or reason, belongs in the same conversation as the ones that were earned via the NCAA Tournament. To me, that is just a really tough sell.

[DukePA]

GTHC

[devildeac]

Repetition is not rhetoric. The Helms awards were not "in place" in 1924 by any stretch of the imagination, and there is not one shred of evidence to indicate that any "system" was used to award them. You can't change those facts by ignoring them, or by dismissing them as "biased opinions."



Oh, really?

http://img80.imageshack.us/img80/3908/helmsjoke.jpg

Busted.:D

I believe even their dimwit SID has claimed it as a N.C.

[El_Diablo]

The banners are hung together, but I've never seen anyone at UNC claim it was the equivilant of an NCAA title. I've only seen others try to claim UNC is trying to make the Helms title the equivalant of an NCAA title...which is opinion.

Wheat,

Are you serious?!?!? Check out the official UNC media guide this year. I'll post a couple screen shots.

http://photos-b.ak.fbcdn.net/hphotos-ak-snc3/hs158.snc3/18556_106671382678701_100000075195725_176815_60476 10_n.jpg

http://photos-d.ak.fbcdn.net/hphotos-ak-snc3/hs158.snc3/18556_106671386012034_100000075195725_176816_59429 7_n.jpg

Why are you denying that your school treats 1924 as a national title? It clearly does. I know you don't want to respond to this thread any more, but can you please explain to me how this is not the case with the media guide?

[airowe]

Wheat,

Are you serious?!?!? Check out the official UNC media guide this year. I'll post a couple screen shots.

http://photos-b.ak.fbcdn.net/hphotos-ak-snc3/hs158.snc3/18556_106671382678701_100000075195725_176815_60476 10_n.jpg

http://photos-d.ak.fbcdn.net/hphotos-ak-snc3/hs158.snc3/18556_106671386012034_100000075195725_176816_59429 7_n.jpg

Why are you denying that your school treats 1924 as a national title? It clearly does. I know you don't want to respond to this thread any more, but can you please explain to me how this is not the case with the media guide?

:D:D

[camion]

I think the photo is pretty clear. It shows that the NCAA recognizes a championship in 1957 while only UNC recognizes one from 1924. :rolleyes:

http://img80.imageshack.us/img80/3908/helmsjoke.jpg

[Duvall]

I'm not denying, never have, that UNC treats the Helms title as a national title, it is a national title for that era, just not one you guys want to recognize.

As has been explained many times, apparently to no avail, the Helms award was not a national title for that era, for the simple reason that it did not exist during that era.


I'm denying, and have been denying, that they treat it as the equivilant of the NCAA titles, which the media guide photo above proves...along with the '24 banner which has no mention of the NCAA on it.

Note the moving goalposts here. No one has claimed that UNC has claimed that the Helms award is an NCAA title - that would be fraud, and too absurd even for Steve Kirschner. The fact that the Helms award banner - a banner clearly marked with the words "NATIONAL CHAMPIONS" in foot-high letters, identical to the banners for UNC's five NCAA championships - does not contain the NCAA logo is completely irrelevant.

That said, let me get this straight. Your argument is that your claim (http://www.dukebasketballreport.com/forums/showpost.php?p=346429&postcount=41) that "never seen anyone at UNC claim it was the equivilant of an NCAA title" is supported by the fact that UNC only claims the Helms award as one of six national championships, without any distinctions, most of the time?

That's not much of an argument.

[El_Diablo]

Please note that the bottom photo references "NCAA Championships" both above and below the photo of the 1924 White Phantoms.

I don't see any mention in the media guide of the "Well, it was an honor, and the only one that existed at the time--I mean, decades later--so it's not the same as the five other titles, and we therefore don't really claim this an equivalent" argument. It just references 6 titles. And it surrounds them with the words "NCAA Championships."

[diveonthefloor]

This thread is both entertaining and hysterical!

LMAO!!!

[killerleft]

Once upon a time a bakery company's execs decided to get some easy publicity.

"Let's make up some national titles that never were", they said. "Butler already won a basketball tournament to decide a winner in 1924, so they're out as OUR champion."

"Hey, let's look at some won-loss records for teams in 1924! Looky here, the White Phantoms didn't lose a game. What school is that?"

By and by, they found out the school was UNC. They liked the fact that White Phantoms sounded kinda like White Bread. And white bread was made outta Wheat!

"Ding-ding-ding!" Right then and there, that bakery company knew they had a winner! If this sounds illogical and arbitrary, and it surely does, so what? What were these execs to do, go back and look at the films of games? Nope, very little evidence in that era. Truthfully, Wheat was as good a reason as any for deciding a "national title".

And that, my lad, is just one reason among many why Duke fans can go to bed snickering at White Phantoms and Tar Heels. Tomorrow night we'll giggle at The Schnozz. He coached his team to a 0-7 deficit at the half - of a basketball game!

[DukePA]

Once upon a time a bakery company's execs decided to get some easy publicity.

"Let's make up some national titles that never were", they said. "Butler already won a basketball tournament to decide a winner in 1924, so they're out as OUR champion."

"Hey, let's look at some won-loss records for teams in 1924! Looky here, the White Phantoms didn't lose a game. What school is that?"

By and by, they found out the school was UNC. They liked the fact that White Phantoms sounded kinda like White Bread. And white bread was made outta Wheat!

"Ding-ding-ding!" Right then and there, that bakery company knew they had a winner! If this sounds illogical and arbitrary, and it surely does, so what? What were these execs to do, go back and look at the films of games? Nope, very little evidence in that era. Truthfully, Wheat was as good a reason as any for deciding a "national title".

And that, my lad, is just one reason among many why Duke fans can go to bed snickering at White Phantoms and Tar Heels. Tomorrow night we'll giggle at The Schnozz. He coached his team to a 0-7 deficit at the half - of a basketball game!

POTY!!!!

[devildeac]

Once upon a time a bakery company's execs decided to get some easy publicity.

"Let's make up some national titles that never were", they said. "Butler already won a basketball tournament to decide a winner in 1924, so they're out as OUR champion."

"Hey, let's look at some won-loss records for teams in 1924! Looky here, the White Phantoms didn't lose a game. What school is that?"

By and by, they found out the school was UNC. They liked the fact that White Phantoms sounded kinda like White Bread. And white bread was made outta Wheat!

"Ding-ding-ding!" Right then and there, that bakery company knew they had a winner! If this sounds illogical and arbitrary, and it surely does, so what? What were these execs to do, go back and look at the films of games? Nope, very little evidence in that era. Truthfully, Wheat was as good a reason as any for deciding a "national title".

And that, my lad, is just one reason among many why Duke fans can go to bed snickering at White Phantoms and Tar Heels. Tomorrow night we'll giggle at The Schnozz. He coached his team to a 0-7 deficit at the half - of a basketball game!

Just when I thought that this thread could not get any more amusing/entertaining.

LMAO.

[Wheat/"/"/"]

Please note that the bottom photo references "NCAA Championships" both above and below the photo of the 1924 White Phantoms.
...It just references 6 titles. And it surrounds them with the words "NCAA Championships."

Hmmmm....I see a simple wrap around graphic that alternates "NCAA Championships" with "Carolina Basketball".

Surely you can see the obvious Carolina Basketball part of the graphic wrap is meant to correlate with the Helms Championship...and the NCAA Championship part is meant for the NCAA titles....I mean, surely you can.

The highlighting of "NCAA Championships" in the wrap must be purely coincidence.

And I know...I know...don't call me surely:D

Diveonthefloor...agreed it's pretty funny stuff. I hope you, and everyone else, can see why I entertain myself here jousting with my Duke friends. It's all good with me.

[Wheat/"/"/"]

... And white bread was made outta Wheat!

"Ding-ding-ding!" Right then and there, that bakery company knew they had a winner! If this sounds illogical and arbitrary, and it surely does, so what? What were these execs to do, go back and look at the films of games? Nope, very little evidence in that era. Truthfully, Wheat was as good a reason as any for deciding a "national title".


AWOG!...as BudWom used to say.../"/"/"

One of you old timers might need to explain that one.

[BluBones]

This thread seems to be going nowhere but Uglytown. The issue is closed.