Feinstein & Duke

[Steven43]

Ha! We seem to be at a loss for words. Nice to see Lance is alive and well. And, tentatively, this all sounds good. I'm waiting for Feinstein to weigh in before I know what NOT to think about it.:p

Can someone explain to me what caused the falling out between Duke University and John Feinstein? It is very unusual for one to consistently put down his or her alma mater the way Feinstein does to Duke. Over the years I have appreciated Feinstein's commentary on various subjects, but it has always bothered me that he appears to look for opportunities to knock Duke. Perhaps there is some truth to some of his criticisms; I don't know. Sure, Duke doesn't always do everything exactly the right way, but you could say the same about every university. Yet I am not aware of any other prominent columnists/commentators who consistently slam their alma mater the way Feinstein.

[jimsumner]

Can someone explain to me what caused the falling out between Duke University and John Feinstein? It is very unusual for one to consistently put down his or her alma mater the way Feinstein does to Duke. Over the years I have appreciated Feinstein's commentary on various subjects, but it has always bothered me that he appears to look for opportunities to knock Duke. Perhaps there is some truth to some of his criticisms; I don't know. Sure, Duke doesn't always do everything exactly the right way, but you could say the same about every university. Yet I am not aware of any other prominent columnists/commentators who consistently slam their alma mater the way Feinstein.

Feinstein backed Tom Mickle for the Duke AD job when Tom Butters retired. Duke declined to take his advice and hired Joe Alleva instead.

[cspan37421]

Can someone explain to me what caused the falling out between Duke University and John Feinstein? It is very unusual for one to consistently put down his or her alma mater the way Feinstein does to Duke. Over the years I have appreciated Feinstein's commentary on various subjects, but it has always bothered me that he appears to look for opportunities to knock Duke. Perhaps there is some truth to some of his criticisms; I don't know. Sure, Duke doesn't always do everything exactly the right way, but you could say the same about every university. Yet I am not aware of any other prominent columnists/commentators who consistently slam their alma mater the way Feinstein.

Duke hired Joe Alleva as AD instead of Tom Mickle. He never forgave Duke for it, even though that president is long gone.

"There are few things that would have caused me to turn against Duke and publicly rip it the way I did," Feinstein said. "Very few things."

Source: http://www.roanoke.com/sports/college/wb/wb/xp-62595

Take it from the horse's mouth:

http://www.feinsteinonthebrink.com/index.php?categories=Kevin%20White

Note his parting shot, the byline on his entry, and consider what happened 3 months later. :rolleyes:

[sagegrouse]

It's not so much that everything is resolved, it's that lacking any hard info, there's nothing but baseless speculation or rumors. We tend to discourage both here.

As far as I can tell, there's still no new news, just an acknowledgment that there was a settlement, Duke and the ncaa are still interested, and Lance asserts he did nothing wrong.

-jk

Cspan and Jim Sumner have answered correctly. The coloration is that JF felt that Nan Keohane bent over too far to accommodate K by hiring his paddleball partner, Joe Alleva. Feinstein thought that K's support was more perfunctory and that he would have been OK with Mickle.

At the same time, Feinstein has written, "There are three people I don't want to hear anything negative about: Gary Williams, Mike Krzyzewski, and [golfer] Paul Goydos."

sagegrouse

[Lauderdevil]

Feinstein backed Tom Mickle for the Duke AD job when Tom Butters retired. Duke declined to take his advice and hired Joe Alleva instead.

Feinstein may bend over backward to take his shots at Duke at times nowadays, but he was right about Tom Mickle. Mickle was brilliant, creative, funny, and unpredictable. Duke went with safe and unimaginative. Mickle could have been the most successful AD in the nation -- the Coach K of ADs. In fact, in my view that was the likely scenario. But he could have flopped with a scheme or two that was before its time or off-base (but never unethical; that was never a danger with Mickle). And because he was so colorful, a mistake could have been a doozy.

Duke has built a brand based on excellence, innovation, and flexibility (read the introduction to the Duke Forward campaign (http://dukeforward.duke.edu/overview/from-the-president) to see what I mean). It values the exceptional. I suspect Feinstein's argument was that those brand values should have led Duke to take some risk and gone for something special, rather than choosing the safe and generic.

Most of us would say, it's time to get over it: time to acknowledge that even if you viewed that one decision as violative of Duke's purported values -- even hypocritical -- that enough time and players have moved on to say it's time to stop trying to find every other piece of evidence of hypocrisy on the part of Duke. But Feinstein, like all of us, is entitled to hold his grudge as long as he chooses. He doesn't lose that right just because he has a broader audience for his opinions than the rest of us do.

[BigWayne]

Feinstein may bend over backward to take his shots at Duke at times nowadays, but he was right about Tom Mickle. Mickle was brilliant, creative, funny, and unpredictable. Duke went with safe and unimaginative. Mickle could have been the most successful AD in the nation -- the Coach K of ADs. In fact, in my view that was the likely scenario. But he could have flopped with a scheme or two that was before its time or off-base (but never unethical; that was never a danger with Mickle). And because he was so colorful, a mistake could have been a doozy.

Duke has built a brand based on excellence, innovation, and flexibility (read the introduction to the Duke Forward campaign (http://dukeforward.duke.edu/overview/from-the-president) to see what I mean). It values the exceptional. I suspect Feinstein's argument was that those brand values should have led Duke to take some risk and gone for something special, rather than choosing the safe and generic.

Most of us would say, it's time to get over it: time to acknowledge that even if you viewed that one decision as violative of Duke's purported values -- even hypocritical -- that enough time and players have moved on to say it's time to stop trying to find every other piece of evidence of hypocrisy on the part of Duke. But Feinstein, like all of us, is entitled to hold his grudge as long as he chooses. He doesn't lose that right just because he has a broader audience for his opinions than the rest of us do.

I think you are misinterpreting Feinstein's point. I do not see anywhere that he lays out the choice between Mickle and Alleva as a safe/risky choice. He specifically states he thinks Nan made the choice because she wanted to reduce the stature of athletics at the university. I believe he is correct on that point and I can see why he was upset about it.

[Duvall]

Most of us would say, it's time to get over it: time to acknowledge that even if you viewed that one decision as violative of Duke's purported values -- even hypocritical -- that enough time and players have moved on to say it's time to stop trying to find every other piece of evidence of hypocrisy on the part of Duke. But Feinstein, like all of us, is entitled to hold his grudge as long as he chooses. He doesn't lose that right just because he has a broader audience for his opinions than the rest of us do.

Who said anything about rights? Feinstein is a journalist, or at least he holds himself out as one. That means he has an obligation to his readers to provide them with information, opinions and insights based on his professional analysis, not his personal grudges. Bashing Duke based on the actions of officials that have been gone from the university for the better part of a decade is an act of pettiness unworthy of an adult, let alone an ostensible professional.

[-bdbd]

I think you are misinterpreting Feinstein's point. I do not see anywhere that he lays out the choice between Mickle and Alleva as a safe/risky choice. He specifically states he thinks Nan made the choice because she wanted to reduce the stature of athletics at the university. I believe he is correct on that point and I can see why he was upset about it.

I agree re. Feinstein's framing of the decision. Having heard/seen him speak and write on the matter several times, I've not seen him acknowledge it as Nan deciding between "high-risk/high-reward" versus "safe." But I don't know that the cynical 'lowering athletics' stature at Duke' was clearly her motivation either, or more-so just the rantings of a self-admitted sports fan who saw that as the net outcome of her decision. Someday it might be nice to hear Nan's frank assessment of that decision process. My suspicion is that (1) her background/experience led her to be less-appreciative of the importance of athletics in a major D-1 school environment (in terms of donations and other alumni support, publicity, name-recognition, pride, student body rallying-points, etc.), and (2) the position of President at a major top-5 school like Duke, to which she had only recently ascended, inherently induces a certain amount of conservatism. We'll probably never know exactly what really drove her decision entirely. But I agree and remain hopeful that John will "let it go" and, per his article, return to his one-time stature as one of Duke's great sports media personalities/writers. (said tongue in cheek)

As an aside, and as one who was rooting for the Mickle selection at the time, it isn't entirely certain that she did make the wrong choice. Mickle certainly would have "shaken things up" a bit more than Alleva, and it isn't clear that the LAX scandal/mishandling doesn't occur with Mickle there instead of Alleva. Speaking as a long-time Alleva detractor, to be fair, Joe did have a lot of non-football success at Duke, with a number of national championships in numerous sports, improvements in many facillities, fundraising improvements, etc. As with most things in life, the "what if" game can cut both ways...


Posted by Lauderdevil Feinstein may bend over backward to take his shots at Duke at times nowadays, but he was right about Tom Mickle. Mickle was brilliant, creative, funny, and unpredictable. Duke went with safe and unimaginative. Mickle could have been the most successful AD in the nation -- the Coach K of ADs. In fact, in my view that was the likely scenario. But he could have flopped with a scheme or two that was before its time or off-base (but never unethical; that was never a danger with Mickle). And because he was so colorful, a mistake could have been a doozy. .....Duke has built a brand based on excellence, innovation, and flexibility (read the introduction to the Duke Forward campaign to see what I mean). It values the exceptional. I suspect Feinstein's argument was that those brand values should have led Duke to take some risk and gone for something special, rather than choosing the safe and generic. .....Most of us would say, it's time to get over it: time to acknowledge that even if you viewed that one decision as violative of Duke's purported values -- even hypocritical -- that enough time and players have moved on to say it's time to stop trying to find every other piece of evidence of hypocrisy on the part of Duke. But Feinstein, like all of us, is entitled to hold his grudge as long as he chooses. He doesn't lose that right just because he has a broader audience for his opinions than the rest of us do.


I have to disagree with the last part of Lauderdevil's comment (agree with everything else), and fall in with Duvall here, and say that as a professional journalist we have the right to expect JF to be professional about these assessments and public pronouncements. But, as we all know, that is often easier said than done - he's a FAN too, regardless. I understand that. But I do hope he can put the grudge part on the back burner, and as a journalist be more balanced/fair towards Duke once again. For his sake and for ours...

[roywhite]

As an aside, and as one who was rooting for the Mickle selection at the time, it isn't entirely certain that she did make the wrong choice. Mickle certainly would have "shaken things up" a bit more than Alleva, and it isn't clear that the LAX scandal/mishandling doesn't occur with Mickle there instead of Alleva. Speaking as a long-time Alleva detractor, to be fair, Joe did have a lot of non-football success at Duke, with a number of national championships in numerous sports, improvements in many facillities, fundraising improvements, etc. As with most things in life, the "what if" game can cut both ways...


And "what if" indeed as Tom had some serious health problems and then died suddenly in 2006.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AXFeqsO-7u4

Here's a very nice tribute to Tom. He was indeed a great guy.

[burnspbesq]

With the benefit of a few years of distance, Alleva's record looks quite a bit better. Consider his last three major hires. Cutcliffe and Danowski were brilliant choices. And while I still think he botched the Goestenkors situation, after a rough beginning McCallie has turned out pretty well.

Alleva also brought in Church and Kimel, who have made their programs (literally in Kimel's case; she has been head coach for the entire 16-year history of Duke women's lax) into perennial championship contenders.

[sagegrouse]

I think you are misinterpreting Feinstein's point. I do not see anywhere that he lays out the choice between Mickle and Alleva as a safe/risky choice. He specifically states he thinks Nan made the choice because she wanted to reduce the stature of athletics at the university. I believe he is correct on that point and I can see why he was upset about it.

I would like to see the reference to JF's view that Nan wanted to "reduce the stature of athletics" at Duke. I am skeptical. First, Nan was almost totally panicked when K threatened to take the Lakers' job -- "I can't imagine anything worse" -- shortly after she arrived. Second, Nan would be failing University Presidency 101 -- keep the alumni happy. Moreover, Duke had already had one bad experience with a President (Knight) who did reduce the stature of football. Third, it is John Feinstein, for heaven's sake, who wants to deemphasize football at Duke and to reduce college athletics everywhere to the stature of athletics in the Patriot League (he wrote two books about it).

sagegrouse

[Duvall]

I would like to see the reference to JF's view that Nan wanted to "reduce the stature of athletics" at Duke. I am skeptical. First, Nan was almost totally panicked when K threatened to take the Lakers' job -- "I can't imagine anything worse" -- shortly after she arrived. Second, Nan would be failing University Presidency 101 -- keep the alumni happy. Moreover, Duke had already had one bad experience with a President (Knight) who did reduce the stature of football. Third, it is John Feinstein, for heaven's sake, who wants to deemphasize football at Duke and to reduce college athletics everywhere to the stature of athletics in the Patriot League (he wrote two books about it).

sagegrouse

Feinstein, from the blog post linked above:

"Keohane didn’t want Mickle because Mickle was too smart. She wanted Alleva because she knew he’d just ride Krzyzewski’s coattails and never bother her with an idea. She thought sports were too important at Duke and Krzyzewski too powerful. She didn’t want sports to get better, she’d have been happy if they got worse."

Unless you're asking *why* Feinstein said this, in which case I have no idea.

[Starter]

Slightly off-topic, but my one interaction with Feinstein was at the 2003 Jordan Capital Classic. I went down to see LeBron, like everyone else. Feinstein was next to me on line to get in, so just to make small talk, I asked him, "So, here to see LeBron?" Without a note of sarcasm -- he was dead serious -- he looked at me and said, "No. I'm here to see every player but LeBron." I mean, you can act like you're above it all, but whatever, you're clearly there to see LeBron. (Other notables, by the way, were Chris Paul, Kris Humphries and the sons of both Patrick Ewing and Darryl Strawberry. LeBron was co-MVP with Shannon Brown.)

Good writer, though. I particularly loved his account of the 1996-97 basketball season, learned a lot about Krzyzewski in particular.

[wilson]

I would like to see the reference to JF's view that Nan wanted to "reduce the stature of athletics" at Duke. I am skeptical. First, Nan was almost totally panicked when K threatened to take the Lakers' job -- "I can't imagine anything worse" -- shortly after she arrived. Second, Nan would be failing University Presidency 101 -- keep the alumni happy. Moreover, Duke had already had one bad experience with a President (Knight) who did reduce the stature of football. Third, it is John Feinstein, for heaven's sake, who wants to deemphasize football at Duke and to reduce college athletics everywhere to the stature of athletics in the Patriot League (he wrote two books about it).

sagegrouseSome of what you say here, most notably your final point regarding Feinstein's oft-repeated stance on football and big-time athletics in general, is spot-on. However, Nan doesn't get a pass here for being panicked when K flirted with the Lakers. She departed from Duke at the end of the 2003-04 school year, and then K had his Lakers dalliance that same summer. So actually it was Brodhead who had to deal with Kupchak's would-be wooing immediately after installation as president.
Put me solidly in the camp who believes that Nan indeed wanted to de-emphasize athletics (not to mention a number of other dimensions of Duke campus life).

[Kedsy]

Slightly off-topic, but my one interaction with Feinstein was at the 2003 Jordan Capital Classic. I went down to see LeBron, like everyone else. Feinstein was next to me on line to get in, so just to make small talk, I asked him, "So, here to see LeBron?" Without a note of sarcasm -- he was dead serious -- he looked at me and said, "No. I'm here to see every player but LeBron." I mean, you can act like you're above it all, but whatever, you're clearly there to see LeBron. (Other notables, by the way, were Chris Paul, Kris Humphries and the sons of both Patrick Ewing and Darryl Strawberry. LeBron was co-MVP with Shannon Brown.)

Good writer, though. I particularly loved his account of the 1996-97 basketball season, learned a lot about Krzyzewski in particular.

I met Feinstein at the 1991 Final Four and had a couple drinks with him after we won. At that time he was acting so pro-Duke that someone stopped by and suggested that as a journalist he should be more objective. His response: "F**k objectivity! I've been waiting for this for 16 years!"

He seemed like a good guy.

[Olympic Fan]

With the benefit of a few years of distance, Alleva's record looks quite a bit better. Consider his last three major hires. Cutcliffe and Danowski were brilliant choices. And while I still think he botched the Goestenkors situation, after a rough beginning McCallie has turned out pretty well.

Alleva also brought in Church and Kimel, who have made their programs (literally in Kimel's case; she has been head coach for the entire 16-year history of Duke women's lax) into perennial championship contenders.

I don't quite agree with your "look back".

In the first place, Alleva didn't really make the Cutcliffe hire (any more than Dick Baddour hired Butch Davis at UNC). After Alleva botched his two previois hires (replacing Goldsmith with the totally unprepared Carl Franks, then replacing Franks midseason with Ted Roof and extending him -- two moves that turned a struggling Duke football program into the laughing stock of the BCS), certain powerful people on the Board of Trustees forced Alleva to submit his hiring choice to a real selection committee (and not a rubber stamp) that was dominated by Leo Hart and CG Newsome -- two former players who have become very successful. Alleva wanted to hire Karl Dorrell, who had just been fired at UCLA, but Hart and Newcome rejected that hire and forced Alleva to hire Cutcliffe. Coach Cut was fired IN SPITE of Alleva, not because of him.

Alleva's spineless behavior in the Lacrosse hoax was not all his fault -- the real problem was that he merely kowtowed with the misguided administrators above him and didn't have the guts to stand up for what was right (as several people in the athletic department did at the risk of their positions).

Yeah, the Dankowski hire worked out well (although with his son on the Duke team, it might be argued that was a no-brainer) and McCallie has been a good pickup after -- as you say -- he botched the Goestenkors situation, which made McCallie's early years here tougher than they needed to be.

I don't see any need to revise our low opinion of Alleva, he was Duke's equivilent of Dick Baddour -- a minor functionary who was a bookkeeper, not a leader. We are MUCH better off with Kevin White.

As for Feinstein and Mickle ... I do think John has been unprofessional in his reaction to his disappointment over the Alleva hire. But I also think that Mickle would have been an outstanding hire. He was a brilliant and personable man -- he was Gene Corrigan's right-hand man at the ACC during the league's period of greatest success (when the ACC became the most successful and profitable conference in the country ... sad to see the decline under John Swofford, but that's another story). Mickle was a big part of that success. Mickle conceived the original idea for the bowl coalition, which became the forerunner of the BCS -- which was a huge improvement over the previous system. He did it one night in a Greensboro restaurant on a bar napkin.

Of course, if we hire Mickle instead Alleva, we have to find a new AD in 2006. That would have been awkward. But we would have had a brilliant guy for almost a decade ... instead of a hack.

I guess, in thinking about it, I'm almost as bitter as Feinstein.

[sagegrouse]

Some of what you say here, most notably your final point regarding Feinstein's oft-repeated stance on football and big-time athletics in general, is spot-on. However, Nan doesn't get a pass here for being panicked when K flirted with the Lakers. She departed from Duke at the end of the 2003-04 school year, and then K had his Lakers dalliance that same summer. So actually it was Brodhead who had to deal with Kupchak's would-be wooing immediately after installation as president.
Put me solidly in the camp who believes that Nan indeed wanted to de-emphasize athletics (not to mention a number of other dimensions of Duke campus life).

Aha, the story is more complex. Both times Duke has changed presidents, K has been tempted by or entertained outside offers. Maybe I have it mixed up, and it was the Celtics rather than the Lakers back in 1993, but there was the very real possibility that K would leave. Nan not only said, "I can't imagine anything worse than Mike Krzyzewski leaving," but also that, "I can't even think of what would be second." (Quoes from memory :rolleyes:.)

You will note that every time Duke changes presidents K wangles a competitive offer from the NBA and gets a better deal at Duke for him and his family. And it doesn't matter whether it is a coincidence or not. I think the Nan deal made him an assistant to the president and a lifetime job after basketball, as well as enriching the pot.

sagegrouse

[Duvall]

Aha, the story is more complex. Both times Duke has changed presidents, K has been tempted by or entertained outside offers. Maybe I have it mixed up, and it was the Celtics rather than the Lakers back in 1993, but there was the very real possibility that K would leave. Nan not only said, "I can't imagine anything worse than Mike Krzyzewski leaving," but also that, "I can't even think of what would be second." (Quoes from memory :rolleyes:.)

You will note that every time Duke changes presidents K wangles a competitive offer from the NBA and gets a better deal at Duke for him and his family. And it doesn't matter whether it is a coincidence or not. I think the Nan deal made him an assistant to the president and a lifetime job after basketball, as well as enriching the pot.

sagegrouse

Portland Trailblazers, in the summer of 1994. The Celtics job offer was in 1990.

[Mike Corey]

John Feinstein was a role model of mine. He was the sports editor of the Duke Chronicle, and by all accounts, remains the standard bearer for how to have done that job well. He is one of the most widely read sportswriters in America, his opinions are valued by millions, and he is undoubtedly an excellent writer.

His scorn for his alma mater would not trouble me but for its delivery--an I-told-you-so current throughout--that has permeated his writings on Duke football, the Duke Administration, and even his beloved Coach K.

I do not question Mr. Feinstein's love of Duke. I question the manner in which he demonstrates it. Comparing President Brodhead's leadership skills to that of an amoeba, for example, no matter the rightness of his view of Joe Alleva, is unprofessional and boorish. But sometimes he writes while he thinks through things. And that is not prudent, and is borderline perilous when you're prone to fits of publishing before thinking.

“I’ve always been fast. I was fast when I was at The Chronicle," he told the paper a few years back. "And I think in writing like I talk, I tend to be opinionated when I talk, so my writing is opinionated. When I was writing straight news in the news section, I had to back off from that. But in sports obviously even when you’re not a columnist, you have more liberty to voice your opinion.”

That can help sell papers and get you on ESPN on Sundays. But it isn't the model of thoughtful sports commentary, IMO, even in this new age of instant response. Opinions are fine; unvarnished ones are better left for lesser writers. Indeed, one of Feinstein's great strengths was long-form sportswriting. No more. When was the last time he wrote a worthwhile book? People like Michael Sokolove, Michael Lewis, and others, have long since overtaken him at the "top of their game."

[blazindw]

John Feinstein was a role model of mine. He was the sports editor of the Duke Chronicle, and by all accounts, remains the standard bearer for how to have done that job well. He is one of the most widely read sportswriters in America, his opinions are valued by millions, and he is undoubtedly an excellent writer.

FWIW, there are many (myself at the forefront) who would add your name to the pantheon of Chronicle sports editors. :)

[Lauderdevil]

Who said anything about rights? Feinstein is a journalist, or at least he holds himself out as one. That means he has an obligation to his readers to provide them with information, opinions and insights based on his professional analysis, not his personal grudges. Bashing Duke based on the actions of officials that have been gone from the university for the better part of a decade is an act of pettiness unworthy of an adult, let alone an ostensible professional.


“I’ve always been fast. I was fast when I was at The Chronicle," he told the paper a few years back. "And I think in writing like I talk, I tend to be opinionated when I talk, so my writing is opinionated. When I was writing straight news in the news section, I had to back off from that. But in sports obviously even when you’re not a columnist, you have more liberty to voice your opinion.”


Feinstein's right here. The suggestion that he must be objective because he's a journalist is kind of off the point. He's a sports journalist, which, let's face it, is different from covering the Fed or U.S. relations with China. We tolerate -- no, we expect -- opinions. "Brady had the best performance of a quarterback this year," "Jeter can't buy a hit the last few games," "the Red Sox are just godawful." Would we really read the sports page if it was all in the form of: "then, Ibanez grounded a ball between short and third, and the winning run scored"? We want writers to say what they think. We might object to Feinstein's opinions, but I think it's nonsense to say it's based on some principle that he shouldn't be voicing them in the newspaper. I'd rather read a guy who's pro-Duke than anti-Duke, but above that I'd rather read a guy (or woman, of course) who has opinions than someone who just reports the facts.

[Mike Corey]

As I noted, I do not begrudge his opinions--nor his negative opinions--but how he delivers them.

It is one thing to disapprove of President Brodhead's leadership, and another to compare it to that of an amoeba and to call him "Mr. Chips."

It is one thing to disagree with the management or direction of Duke football, and another to suggest continously that it abandon the ACC.

It is one thing to be angry that he's been omitted from the "distinguished alumni" list and another to disparage the Duke alum who became a finalist on Survivor--Kelly Bruno, a friend of mine, who has done plenty of good to merit recognition without the scorn of someone out to score a point or two on his blog.

His articulation of his opinions and observations are what made him so darn good for so long. His standards have slipped.

[A-Tex Devil]

Off topic, and my memory may be going foggy here, but working within the athletic department in the mid to late '90s, someone (and I am almost certain it was Jill Mickle, although it could have been Mike Sobb or Mike Cragg saying it in Jill's presence) told me that the Blue Devil mascot's smile (pre-current tough guy devil) was based on Tom Mickle's smile. Even if they were just ribbing me, I liked to think it was true.

Tom was working for the ACC at the time, but I got to meet him as well while a student. Awesome, awesome guy.

[wallyman]

Here's all you need to know about Feinstein and Duke. Because of his self-righteous fury at not getting his man as AD, he jumped on the lacrosse story as a form of
personal vindication, got it spectacularly wrong, never apologized and kept getting it wrong to the end. I lost all respect for him and have tried to ignore him ever since. He's not a standard bearer for anything other than his own ego.


http://durhamwonderland.blogspot.com/2007/06/john-feinstein-and-unbearable-lightness.html

[oldnavy]

Feinstein is a talented writer, what I don't understand is why he took it so personal that Duke didn't do what he wanted and hire Tom Mickle.

John like any of us, has a right to his opinion, but when he puts himself on the same level as a University President and throws a baby fit when he doesn’t get his way, he comes off as a spoiled, petulant child.

If John wants the authority to make such decisions (hiring, firing, etc…) then he should work his way into a job that actually has some responsibility associated with it and stop writing stories for a living.

I guess it is the season, but I am growing tired of “journalists” who believe that their opinion is the news.

[fuse]

As I noted, I do not begrudge his opinions--nor his negative opinions--but how he delivers them.

It is one thing to disapprove of President Brodhead's leadership, and another to compare it to that of an amoeba and to call him "Mr. Chips."

It is one thing to disagree with the management or direction of Duke football, and another to suggest continously that it abandon the ACC.

It is one thing to be angry that he's been omitted from the "distinguished alumni" list and another to disparage the Duke alum who became a finalist on Survivor--Kelly Bruno, a friend of mine, who has done plenty of good to merit recognition without the scorn of someone out to score a point or two on his blog.

His articulation of his opinions and observations are what made him so darn good for so long. His standards have slipped.

There are a lot of things to object to when it comes to Feinstein and his behavior, but I am 100% with Feinstein on his Brodhead assessment. In fact, Feinstein may be too kind in his assessment of Brodhead. Brodhead may be many good things but he is not a leader.

[sagegrouse]

Feinstein is a talented writer, what I don't understand is why he took it so personal that Duke didn't do what he wanted and hire Tom Mickle.

John like any of us, has a right to his opinion, but when he puts himself on the same level as a University President and throws a baby fit when he doesn’t get his way, he comes off as a spoiled, petulant child.

If John wants the authority to make such decisions (hiring, firing, etc…) then he should work his way into a job that actually has some responsibility associated with it and stop writing stories for a living.

I guess it is the season, but I am growing tired of “journalists” who believe that their opinion is the news.

In the range of successful journalists and sports writers, John Feinstein is at the "highly emotional" end of the spectrum. What you see is what you get, both in writing and in conversation or spoken commentary. Yet he seems to have the respect of his colleagues and was close to Brill at Duke. As I posted a few days ago, he thinks the world of both Mike Krzyzewski and Gary Williams.

Feinstein is controversial at many basketball schools. On sports radio in DC a few years back he was a substitute host for a drive time show in the afternoon. As soon as he came on, there was a deluge of calls from Georgetown fans berating him for daring to say bad things about John Thompson (Big Jawn, in this case). I don't know if he is still persona non grata in the State of Indiana, but he sure was after "Season on the Brink," the inside story of Bobby Knight, was published. Kentucky fans also have a grudge against him, because the Wildcats and their various coaches have not been spared criticism.

I have no problem with JF. At the 100th anniversary of the Chronicle a few years ago, John put together and led an interesting panel on sports at Duke. Seth Davis BTW was a no-show. But he also volunteered his opinion that Duke should drop out of the ACC in football and form a more academic conference with the usual suspects (Vandy, Rice, service academies, etc.). He has also spoken at many other Duke events I have attended, and his love for the school is palpable.

John Feinstein is not warm and fuzzy -- or even diplomatic -- and he never will be. If you want warm and fuzzy, there is my classmate Charlie Rose, who is both of those things, but spends little time on Duke matters. OTOH JF has published two of the most successful sports books of all time ("Season" and "A Good Walk Spoiled") and continues to write on many different sports matters. Funny, but his golf commentaries rarely seem to be a lightning rod -- maybe it's just a laid-back sport.

The world is not a simple place, and while I like JF, you have my permission to hate his guts.

sagegrouse

[hurleyfor3]

Feinstein is controversial at many basketball schools. On sports radio in DC a few years back he was a substitute host for a drive time show in the afternoon. As soon as he came on, there was a deluge of calls from Georgetown fans berating him for daring to say bad things about John Thompson (Big Jawn, in this case). I don't know if he is still persona non grata in the State of Indiana, but he sure was after "Season on the Brink," the inside story of Bobby Knight, was published. Kentucky fans also have a grudge against him, because the Wildcats and their various coaches have not been spared criticism.

John Feinstein is not warm and fuzzy -- or even diplomatic -- and he never will be.

I was going to point this out. The difference between him and Billy Packer is mainly one of degree -- if Feinstein is a curmudgeon, at least he's a big-picture curmudgeon. And anyone who is so universally loathed in the state of Kentucky can't be all bad.

[Duvall]

Feinstein's right here. The suggestion that he must be objective because he's a journalist is kind of off the point. He's a sports journalist, which, let's face it, is different from covering the Fed or U.S. relations with China. We tolerate -- no, we expect -- opinions. "Brady had the best performance of a quarterback this year," "Jeter can't buy a hit the last few games," "the Red Sox are just godawful." Would we really read the sports page if it was all in the form of: "then, Ibanez grounded a ball between short and third, and the winning run scored"? We want writers to say what they think. We might object to Feinstein's opinions, but I think it's nonsense to say it's based on some principle that he shouldn't be voicing them in the newspaper. I'd rather read a guy who's pro-Duke than anti-Duke, but above that I'd rather read a guy (or woman, of course) who has opinions than someone who just reports the facts.

But there's a difference between professional opinions and personal grudges - that's the problem. If Feinstein wants to criticize Duke because he thinks Krzyzewski or Cutcliffe is doing a poor job, that's fine. But Feinstein bashing Duke because he didn't like Nan Keohane is about as logical as bashing the Yankees because you don't approve of Casey Stengel. SHE ISN'T THE UNIVERSITY PRESIDENT ANYMORE. Get over it, move on and start acting like an adult.

[Brian913]

It is one thing to disapprove of President Brodhead's leadership, and another to compare it to that of an amoeba and to call him "Mr. Chips."



Off topic Feinstein seriously overestimates Brodhead in this comparison.

[Edouble]

He is one of the most widely read sportswriters in America, his opinions are valued by millions, and he is undoubtedly an excellent writer.

He's OK. It's not like he's Updike or anything. I've read three of his books (they were all Christmas gifts). Honestly, I didn't find his writing to be that much further advanced than my own writing, honed in the English Department at Duke. I'm sure that he is a good to very good reporter. He seems to do a fine job of tracking down all of the information for his books. I don't find the actual writing, however, to be anything special.

I would consider Duke's own Reynolds Price to be in the "excellent writer" category.

[oldnavy]

In the range of successful journalists and sports writers, John Feinstein is at the "highly emotional" end of the spectrum. What you see is what you get, both in writing and in conversation or spoken commentary. Yet he seems to have the respect of his colleagues and was close to Brill at Duke. As I posted a few days ago, he thinks the world of both Mike Krzyzewski and Gary Williams.

Feinstein is controversial at many basketball schools. On sports radio in DC a few years back he was a substitute host for a drive time show in the afternoon. As soon as he came on, there was a deluge of calls from Georgetown fans berating him for daring to say bad things about John Thompson (Big Jawn, in this case). I don't know if he is still persona non grata in the State of Indiana, but he sure was after "Season on the Brink," the inside story of Bobby Knight, was published. Kentucky fans also have a grudge against him, because the Wildcats and their various coaches have not been spared criticism.

I have no problem with JF. At the 100th anniversary of the Chronicle a few years ago, John put together and led an interesting panel on sports at Duke. Seth Davis BTW was a no-show. But he also volunteered his opinion that Duke should drop out of the ACC in football and form a more academic conference with the usual suspects (Vandy, Rice, service academies, etc.). He has also spoken at many other Duke events I have attended, and his love for the school is palpable.

John Feinstein is not warm and fuzzy -- or even diplomatic -- and he never will be. If you want warm and fuzzy, there is my classmate Charlie Rose, who is both of those things, but spends little time on Duke matters. OTOH JF has published two of the most successful sports books of all time ("Season" and "A Good Walk Spoiled") and continues to write on many different sports matters. Funny, but his golf commentaries rarely seem to be a lightning rod -- maybe it's just a laid-back sport.

The world is not a simple place, and while I like JF, you have my permission to hate his guts.

sagegrouse

I don't hate him at all. I actually like his work for the most part. I just think that in this particular situation, he elevated himself to a position that he has no claim to. He is a journalist and can express his opinion and is expected to express his opinion, but he was offended that the University didn't do what he wanted.

His job is not to select AD's, yet he felt that his opinion on the matter was reason enough for the University to select who he wanted. I have no idea if he was right or wrong, but that is not my point. My point is that he stepped out of his pay grade when he felt that he should be the one to chose who the AD at Duke University because he was a noted author and alumnus. Obviously John thought that he had more juice than he does, and he was hurt when he realized that his opinion is just that his opinion, not dogma or marching orders for a University.

I just think he has an extremely high opinion of himself, and like others have said, in life you win some and you lose some, so show a little maturity and get over it.

[Mike Corey]

He's OK. It's not like he's Updike or anything. I've read three of his books (they were all Christmas gifts). Honestly, I didn't find his writing to be that much further advanced than my own writing, honed in the English Department at Duke. I'm sure that he is a good to very good reporter. He seems to do a fine job of tracking down all of the information for his books. I don't find the actual writing, however, to be anything special.

I would consider Duke's own Reynolds Price to be in the "excellent writer" category.

For fear of straying further off-topic, that's fair enough; Reynolds Price was surely an excellent writer (as was Updike). I'd argue that the latter two are perhaps belonging to a higher echelon than "excellent" suggests, but also that fictional writing requires a different skillset and assessment than does sportswriting or reporting generally. There are many that have done both, and well (Hemingway started out as a sportswriter, for example).

I'd already impugned Feinstein plenty as it were, and I don't know his writing well enough to go beyond what I think is a fair assessment in saying that he is indeed an excellent writer of sports. But perhaps this is just semantics. It would make for an interesting thread on the off-topic board to discuss the sportswriters we all most admire as writers. Clearly, Feinstein would not be as high on your list as others. :)

[cspan37421]

He's OK. It's not like he's Updike or anything. I've read three of his books (they were all Christmas gifts). Honestly, I didn't find his writing to be that much further advanced than my own writing, honed in the English Department at Duke. I'm sure that he is a good to very good reporter. He seems to do a fine job of tracking down all of the information for his books. I don't find the actual writing, however, to be anything special.

I would consider Duke's own Reynolds Price to be in the "excellent writer" category.

Feinstein excels in a couple of areas: getting access (is he ever a namedropper!) and collecting little tiles for the mosaic of his story. I find his writing to be no better than a typical sports columnist - namely, not very good, but passable for the genre. But he's no Frank Deford, that's for sure.

The fact that he can be so bombastic and prone to jumping to conclusions further undermines the credibility of his judgment regarding AD selection. I'll take his word for it (and that of others) that Tom Mickle was a fine person, but what's this about Nan and the power structure being afraid of his good ideas? Really? Any evidence for that claim? It's such a tired and empty accusation - that people at the top are afraid of good ideas or innovators, or that they didn't have any good reason to hire someone else. There are a great many considerations to balance when making such an appointment, and unless JF was in the room and aware of all the deliberations, he's going off with inadequate information - something he did in the Lax case, too. That's his move, I guess. And a reason to not take him that seriously.

[Duvall]

I don't see any need to revise our low opinion of Alleva, he was Duke's equivilent of Dick Baddour -- a minor functionary who was a bookkeeper, not a leader. We are MUCH better off with Kevin White.

I criticized Alleva a lot on this board, but I will say this for him - ask Maryland if there are worse things than having a bookkeeper running your athletic department.

[Devil in the Blue Dress]

I criticized Alleva a lot on this board, but I will say this for him - ask Maryland if there are worse things than having a bookkeeper running your athletic department.
In addition to whatever skills and strengths an individual has to do a job, the match with the job is also important. Joe seems to be doing pretty well at LSU.:cool:

[sagegrouse]

Feinstein excels in a couple of areas: getting access (is he ever a namedropper!) and collecting little tiles for the mosaic of his story. I find his writing to be no better than a typical sports columnist - namely, not very good, but passable for the genre. But he's no Frank Deford, that's for sure.

The fact that he can be so bombastic and prone to jumping to conclusions further undermines the credibility of his judgment regarding AD selection. I'll take his word for it (and that of others) that Tom Mickle was a fine person, but what's this about Nan and the power structure being afraid of his good ideas? Really? Any evidence for that claim? It's such a tired and empty accusation - that people at the top are afraid of good ideas or innovators, or that they didn't have any good reason to hire someone else. There are a great many considerations to balance when making such an appointment, and unless JF was in the room and aware of all the deliberations, he's going off with inadequate information - something he did in the Lax case, too. That's his move, I guess. And a reason to not take him that seriously.

Here's some more background:

John was asked to serve on a selection committee to find a new AD post Tom Butters. The committee came up with Mickle. JF evidently thought highly of him, so much so that he brought Mickle to DC and other places to meet Duke alumni and sports fans. That's where I met him.

Nan picked Alleva. Why? Who knows? But K and Alleva played racketball regularly, and it is widely reported that K recommended Alleva for the job. (JF also says that K, at the same time, said he was OK with Mickle being hired.)

Now, Nan selecting Alleva because she reportedly wanted a lower profile for athletics, as JF has been quoted as saying? Give me a break!! I've been in business and government for several decades, and I can never remember when someone got promoted because he or she would do a mediocre job. CEOs want good outcomes, strong subordinates, and someone to hold accountable. University presidents all agree that successful athletics is important to the contentment of the alumni and the level of support for the school. The fact that Nan came from Wellesley doesn't mean that she didn't understand fundamental truths about more athletically inclined schools. So, Sagegrouse comes down on the side of Nan's going with K's pick vs. the selection committee's.

There is an exception to the above: sometimes a weak candidate gets picked for a job because the big boss wants to the job himself or herself and wants someone who will take orders. Whatever her other faults, I do not believe that Nannerl Overholser Keohane wanted to be the closet athletic director at Duke University.

Anyway, JF gave his opinion, and I think he was wrong.

sagegrouse
'Another funny thing -- last December Feinstein campaigned for Maryland to fire Randy Edsall, its first-year head football coach. I don't think he got any heat from Terp fans, many of whom probably agreed with him'

[CrazyNotCrazie]

Feinstein is a very talented writer. If you read several of his books, they start to become a bit formulaic, regardless of the subject matter, and it seems that though he does an excellent job of researching his books, he makes sure that the facts are shaped to fit the story's arc as he best sees fit.

As he has gotten older, he has apparently become a bigger fan of himself and the importance of his opinions. This applies to the Duke AD selection. He is entitled to his opinion and I can understand his being a bit upset that Nan chose otherwise, but I think that his reaction has been childish. As well chronicled as it is about some of the disasters of Alleva's term at Duke, he is also the guy who hired Cutcliffe (after striking out with earlier hires) and Coach McCallie, among others, which would be universally considered to be great hires.

[hq2]

Feinstein is a very talented writer. If you read several of his books, they start to become a bit formulaic, regardless of the subject matter, and it seems that though he does an excellent job of researching his books, he makes sure that the facts are shaped to fit the story's arc as he best sees fit.

As he has gotten older, he has apparently become a bigger fan of himself and the importance of his opinions. This applies to the Duke AD selection. He is entitled to his opinion and I can understand his being a bit upset that Nan chose otherwise, but I think that his reaction has been childish. As well chronicled as it is about some of the disasters of Alleva's term at Duke, he is also the guy who hired Cutcliffe (after striking out with earlier hires) and Coach McCallie, among others, which would be universally considered to be great hires.

Yeah, I think that gets it right. Feinstein has gotten better known, but his writing hasn't really improved much; his first (or was it nearly) first book, "A Season on the Brink" is a classic, but I don't think any of the rest of his books are. He's gotten a more exaggerated sense of his own importance in recent years, and when people do that, they tend to butt into things that aren't their business. He should stick to sports reporting.