30 for 30: Survive and Advance

[davekay1971]

I am already hooked on this. I've met Sidney Lowe a couple of times and Dereck Whittenburg once (at Morgan Wooten basketball camp, when I was 12). Great guys. I loved this team. This team was one of my great youthful sports memories. I lived and died with thie team in 1983 when I was 11. First time I saw my mom (an NC State grad) tipsy when State won the national championship. And then, with Coach K's relationship with Jimmy V, this is a story that all Duke fans should know and love as well.

RIP Jimmy V. RIP Lorenzo Charles.

[throatybeard]

I can't believe it has taken them this long to make this one. Hell, it's the first one they should have made.

[throatybeard]

Roy Williams looked even more like Huckleberry Hound thirty years ago.

[FerryFor50]

I wish more coaches had the personality Jimmy V had.

[OldPhiKap]

Man, this brings me back.

Hope our team is watching, suspect they are.

[BlueDevilBrowns]

If Ralph Sampson played today, I think he'd average 35 and 20 in college.

The term "Beast" gets overused now, but, man, he certainly was one.

[gotoguy]

I wish more coaches had the personality Jimmy V had.

Awesome show, amazing clips of Jimmy V, as Dickie V would say...goosebump city

They beat Pepperdine? I went to bed sure they would lose that one. Can't wait.

[throatybeard]

If Ralph Sampson played today, I think he'd average 35 and 20 in college.

The term "Beast" gets overused now, but, man, he certainly was one.

I'm not sure so, given how much more physical the game has become. He may be '7-4", but he was lanky, and now a lot of teams would have a '6-11" guy who is allowed to maul any ballhandler in the lane.

[Wheat/"/"/"]

Does this show bring back memories or what? You young guys/gals missed something special.

The quality of play in the league back in those days was great. So many really good, fundamentally sound players...and a Ralph Sampson sticking around as a senior? Just sick.

Makes me sad to think where the quality of play in the college game is today.

[Chris Randolph]

ESPN does a tremendous job with the 30 for 30 documentaries. And this one is no different. This team is proof that heart, will and determination can help a team to overcome adversity and find a way to win

[simmias]

Crap, here come the waterworks.

[OldPhiKap]

Crap, here come the waterworks.

Hard to avoid.

And I gave V as much #*{+ as anyone when he was playing against us.

Legendary stuff.

[throatybeard]

Crap, here come the waterworks.

Yeah. I can barely sit through it, it's so hard.

They have really used Krzyzewski well in this thing.

We're so ungodly fortunate at Duke. These three guys come into the league all at the same time, and guys like Dean Smith really disrespect them. By the mid-1980s the three were all considered roughly equal up-and-comers, but Valvano ahead of Krzyzewski and Cremins because of the 1983 title. Coach K barely survived 1983, but was looking good by 1984 thru 1986.

Fast forward thirty years. Krzyzewski is widely regarded as the second greatest coach in the history of the game. Poor Valvano has been dead for twenty years and out of basketball for twenty-three. And Cremins is a rather fine coach, with 570 wins, but never really completely fulfilled that early promise in the 1985, 1986, and 1990 seasons.

Also, it's funny to see Clyde Drexler with hair.

I think I like Thurl Bailey best of these guys.

[OldPhiKap]

Interesting to see that Whit was the executive producer.

Forgot that LoCo passed, too.

[roywhite]

That was a great show, really well done and brought back plenty of memories.

Gotta say the main reason the show was so good --- it was just an unbelievable story and it actually happened.

[hurleyfor3]

It's a story that's been told before, but you can't tell it too many times. I don't remember the '83 run, but...

I was in Reynolds for V's 1993 farewell. They played us. I had a high-school friend who attended NCSU, and we snuck each other into each other's games. Game was close until Hurley found Cherokee Parks for a layup in the last minute to put us up four. I feel privileged just to have been a tiny part of it.

It's remarkable how many of these documentaries have touched on Duke in some way.

[moonpie23]

don't know about y'all, but that was tough to watch....

it's striking how much college basketball has affected my life for so many years.....

[chrishoke]

I agree with Throaty about BIG T - there is something about him. I loved him talking about the last hug from V.

Great story, well told. Those were the glory years of the ACC.

Bottom line, that was a special team with a one of a kind coach.

I was living in RALEIGH at the time - pretty cool.

[chrishoke]

By the way, anybody else think that Cozelle McQueen was played in the movie by Leon from Curb Your Enthusiasm?

[Potato]

i wasn't alive during this run but wow what a story. sat and watched it with my parents tonight, it was awesome to see them naming every player and they remembered it like it was yesterday. never realized how insane that run was

[throatybeard]

I'll never forgive my mother for making me to go to bed at halftime of the Houston game.

(I was six and a half).

She did at least have the decency to put a post-it note with the final score on my bedroom door.

[Ima Facultiwyfe]

Missed this. Any links?
Love, Ima

[Potato]

Missed this. Any links?
Love, Ima

coming on again in 9 minutes if you wanna set the dvr. either on espn or espn2.... well i'm pretty sure they said it was coming back on at 12

[hurleyfor3]

I'll never forgive my mother for making me to go to bed at halftime of the Houston game.

You think that's bad? I was sent to bed in 1980 with the score CCCP 3, USA 2.

[ChicagoCrazy84]

My ONLY issue with this one was I feel like I already knew a lot about the story so aside from the guys getting together to talk and share stories which I thought was cool, I wasn't as into it as some of the other 30 for 30 shows. My Dad was a big fan of Jimmy V and I along the way I just got to know and remember that historic run that team had.

Aside from that which is not Hock's problem at all, it's a great story and it brought some laughs just hearing Jimmy V again.

[throatybeard]

You think that's bad? I was sent to bed in 1980 with the score CCCP 3, USA 2.

I'm waiting for Jim Sumner to tell us someone sent him to bed in the middle of Don Larsen's perfect game in the World Series. Worse, that was in the afternoon, so it was just nap time!

[DukieInKansas]

Thoroughly enjoyed watching this. I had forgotten the games leading up to the shot/pass. My nephew, a senior at Penn State, texted me to see if I was watching it as he thought it was excellent.

Any portion of his ESPY speech makes me cry. I always liked Jimmy V - he loved to play to the crowd when he came to Cameron. Rest in Peace, Jimmy V.

[throatybeard]

Thoroughly enjoyed watching this. I had forgotten the games leading up to the shot/pass. My nephew, a senior at Penn State, texted me to see if I was watching it as he thought it was excellent.

It's a little known fact, however, that she made both her young sons go to bed before the shot/pass. Che vergonga!

[davekay1971]

That was so well done.

Even having gone to Duke and been at Duke for the 1991 and 1992 championships, that NC State team remains my favorite team, and that championship run my favorite experience, in my sports life. Everything in sports is so important when you're an 11 year old fan, like I was when NC State won. Sidney Lowe and Thurl Bailey were my favorite guys on that team, although my mom (NCSU class of 1961) liked Cozell McQueen best because he was a goofball. I don't feel the slightest bit ashamed as a Duke fan to rank that team number one in my heart, as much as I love Duke and cheer for Duke (yes, over State) now, and as much as I loved those Duke teams that played when I was on campus from 1990-1993, and every Duke team since that I've watched religiously.

I honestly don't have much memory of State's Wake Forest game, but I remember the UNC and UVa games well. And I could have named for you every game, and pretty close to every final score, in that NCAA tournament run even before watching the documentary last night. It was incredibly cool, and unbelievable, to live through as a fan cheering for the team. As a kid, it made you feel like anything was possible, and that your team was always going to find a way to come through. Going on to attend Duke and watch our guys come back and beat the unbeatable '91 UNLV team, then, a year later, watch Laettner make The Shot, just confirmed that part of my sports mindset.

Maybe that's the part of my psychology that gets me so torqued when folks post that this or that Duke team has a limit, or can only go so far. That kind of cool rational look at what we should expect our team to do flies in the face of the faith that the 1983 Pack instilled in my 11 year old heart, and the Duke championship teams confirmed 8 and 9 years later. Forget limits, forget what we probably can't do. Until the final buzzer sounds, it's all about what we CAN do.

Watching the guys on that team in the footage from the 1993 reunion, and talking about Valvano now, brought tears to my eyes. Valvano was a special guy who seemed to form a deep bond with just about everyone who knew him. He and the players from that team accomplished something amazing together, so amazing that it's hard to imagine anything quite like it every happening again. The special last night showed so well how much those guys really loved Valvano, and how much it hurt them in 1993 to see him dying, and how much it still hurts them now to think about it.

My wife, who was born in 1983 and went to State, knew the story of that team, but she obviously didn't really know it since she was floating around in her mom's uterus (actually in Raleigh, since her mom lived in Raleigh at that time, come to think of it) during State's run. Curled up with her on the couch last night, after the kids were in bed, watching the game, was a wonderful experience, for both of us. For me, it brought back truly special memories. For her, it made her fall in love with and understand her favorite team's best legend in a way that she never really had before.

Like I said at the start of this long post, that show was really well done.

[77devil]

Does this show bring back memories or what? You young guys/gals missed something special.

The quality of play in the league back in those days was great. So many really good, fundamentally sound players...and a Ralph Sampson sticking around as a senior? Just sick.

Makes me sad to think where the quality of play in the college game is today.

And the difference in the physicality of the game that is permitted today which IMHO significantly detracts from the quality of play.

What I had forgotten about the Cardiac Pack run was how many miraculous comebacks they performed. I'm sure every ACC fan remembers where they were when Lorenzo Charles scored.

The film was a terrific trip down memory lane and a reminder of why March Madness is so much fun.

[throatybeard]

What I had forgotten about the Cardiac Pack run was how many miraculous comebacks they performed. I'm sure every ACC fan remembers where they were when Lorenzo Charles scored.

One of the things I noticed last night was how many front-end 1+1 misses their opponents had. Maybe someone remembers better than I do, but I think in 1983 all non-shooting fouls in the bonus were 1+1. A few years later they introduced the double bonus at something like 13 or 14 fouls, and then later they made the rules as they are today, starting the bonus 7 and the double bonus at 10. I may have this slightly wrong, but anyway, my point is, I wonder if they would have been able to pull off all those comebacks if their opponents had a double bonus starting at the tenth foul. One would have to look at box scores and gameflow charts and stuff.

[superdave]

You think that's bad? I was sent to bed in 1980 with the score CCCP 3, USA 2.

I was sent to bed a half inning before Bill Buckner became Bill Buckner, then again halfway through Game 7. Blah!

[hurleyfor3]

One of the things I noticed last night was how many front-end 1+1 misses their opponents had. Maybe someone remembers better than I do, but I think in 1983 all non-shooting fouls in the bonus were 1+1. A few years later they introduced the double bonus at something like 13 or 14 fouls, and then later they made the rules as they are today, starting the bonus 7 and the double bonus at 10. I may have this slightly wrong, but anyway, my point is, I wonder if they would have been able to pull off all those comebacks if their opponents had a double bonus starting at the tenth foul. One would have to look at box scores and gameflow charts and stuff.

The three-point line probably would have made those comebacks easier. In the championship game against Houston, a fair number of NCSU's baskets in the second half were from around three-point distance.

The double-bonus rule came a few years after the three-point line. The trailing team can score three at a time, but the leading team can usually only score two at a time (by getting fouled). The double-bonus rule mitigates this discrepancy, not that I believe the rule is perfect as is.

[davekay1971]

I think Jimmy V's extensive use of that strategy in 1983 helped to at least begin discussion for using the double-bonus to keep teams from fouling excessively early to try to come back. I think it was still several years after the Pack's run before the double bonus rules came into existence, but the strategy of fouling to come back when behind became more popular after the Pack's success, and I seem to remember it being employed earlier and earlier until the double bonus rule came into play.

NC State's ACC tournament comebacks were helped by the 3 point shot, but, since the NCAA tournament that year was played without the 3 point shot, the Pepperdine, UNLV, and Houston comebacks were all done 2 points at a time.

Funny to see how far in that 3 point shot was. I bet JJ watched that special last night just drooling at the placement of that line.

[77devil]

I think Jimmy V's extensive use of that strategy in 1983 helped to at least begin discussion for using the double-bonus to keep teams from fouling excessively early to try to come back. I think it was still several years after the Pack's run before the double bonus rules came into existence, but the strategy of fouling to come back when behind became more popular after the Pack's success, and I seem to remember it being employed earlier and earlier until the double bonus rule came into play.

NC State's ACC tournament comebacks were helped by the 3 point shot, but, since the NCAA tournament that year was played without the 3 point shot, the Pepperdine, UNLV, and Houston comebacks were all done 2 points at a time.

Funny to see how far in that 3 point shot was. I bet JJ watched that special last night just drooling at the placement of that line.

Props to Coach Valvano for using what was available at the time. I think the shot clock solves the early fouling issue more effectively than the double bonus and addresses stall ball as well. Without a shot clock, what other options are there but fouling, even in the double bonus, if the team ahead is running a stall and sitting on a 3 possession lead?

[-jk]

I seem to recall a (very short-lived) rule: two shots and the ball in the waning moments of the game. I remember seeing a bad free throw shooter chased up in the stands to avoid getting fouled.

-jk

[DU82]

I believe the two shots for each foul late in the game came in the next year (perhaps a year later), pretty much in response to NC State winning by fouling. A lot of people called it the V rule (or Valvano rule.)

They had to change it, IIRC during the year, because what happened was the worst foul shooter was intentionally fouled (-jk remembering players being chased into the stands is spot on.)

The compromise was that fouls 7-9 were old fashioned 1+1, over 10 were two shots. I still think it's a mistake that first half fouls are two shots after 10, since the biggest problem was always the end of the second half, not the first.

Commenting on another message upthread, I was taking grad classes at NC State in '83, and still have my semester enrollment card (remember those?) from State. I don't remember exactly where I watched the game, unlike the Villanova game two years later (probably the company I kept those two nights!)

Two days after the game, I saw Whit, Lowe and Thurl in the State library. Signing autographs, but in the library. :-)

[OldPhiKap]

Two days after the game, I saw Whit, Lowe and Thurl in the State library. Signing autographs, but in the library. :-)

No doubt, LoCo was there too.

I loved the program, and enjoyed that team. But having been at Duke when V was at State, there was also an -- um, underside -- that existed too. V was a great motivator and innovator, but he was no saint.

[BigWayne]

I seem to recall a (very short-lived) rule: two shots and the ball in the waning moments of the game. I remember seeing a bad free throw shooter chased up in the stands to avoid getting fouled.

-jk
Jim Valvano rule was introduced the next year, but didn't last.

http://fs.ncaa.org/Docs/stats/m_basketball_RB/2012/Rules.pdf

1983-84
•
Two free throws were taken for each common foul committed within the
last two minutes of the second half and the entire overtime period, if the
bonus rule was in eff
ect. (This rule was rescinded one month into the sea-
son.)

[BigWayne]

I believe the two shots for each foul late in the game came in the next year (perhaps a year later), pretty much in response to NC State winning by fouling. A lot of people called it the V rule (or Valvano rule.)

They had to change it, IIRC during the year, because what happened was the worst foul shooter was intentionally fouled (-jk remembering players being chased into the stands is spot on.)

The compromise was that fouls 7-9 were old fashioned 1+1, over 10 were two shots. I still think it's a mistake that first half fouls are two shots after 10, since the biggest problem was always the end of the second half, not the first.

Commenting on another message upthread, I was taking grad classes at NC State in '83, and still have my semester enrollment card (remember those?) from State. I don't remember exactly where I watched the game, unlike the Villanova game two years later (probably the company I kept those two nights!)

Two days after the game, I saw Whit, Lowe and Thurl in the State library. Signing autographs, but in the library. :-)

10 foul rule was in 1990. They also dealt with the problem of fouling 3 point shooters that year.

1990-91
•
Beginning with the team’s 10th personal foul in a half, two free throws
were awarded for each common foul, except player-control fouls.
•
Three free throws were awarded when a shooter was fouled during an
unsuccessful three-point try

[Olympic Fan]

You think that's bad? I was sent to bed in 1980 with the score CCCP 3, USA 2.

Actually, the famous hockey game was played very early (I think a 5 p.m. start). I know it was not shown live ... it was on tape delay in the United States. So even if you did go to beat at the end of the second period, it was long over.

Unfortunately, a jerk called me before the replay and told me the outcome ...

[throatybeard]

Actually, the famous hockey game was played very early (I think a 5 p.m. start). I know it was not shown live ... it was on tape delay in the United States. So even if you did go to beat at the end of the second period, it was long over.

Unfortunately, a jerk called me before the replay and told me the outcome ...

It's a little-known fact that OF's mom sent him to bed minutes before Babe Ruth was thrown out at second base to end the 1926 World Series.

Cardinals fans were elated, but Bill Werber, a senior in high school at the time, was incensed. He later signed with the Yankees.

[Billy Dat]

Like many, I was told to go to bed at halftime of this game. The first NCAA title game I watched in its entirety was Georgetown v Houston the following year.

I thought I knew a lot about this team's march to the title but there was a lot I did not know including:
-I forgot that the game was tied when Charles converted that dunk, in my mind State was always down 1. Do we think State wins if it goes to OT? We have to assume yes, right, based on their experience in such games?
-They faced Virginia in the NCAA Regional Final. That is just crazy.
-That Whittenburg broke his foot during that season
-That Houston went into stall ball in the second half because Hakeem (or Akeem Abdul as he was known then) couldn't breathe
-That Valvano was telling the media they were going to slow it down but told the team, right before the game, that they were going to run.

It's impossible not to be moved to tears during the last 10-15 minutes of the doc. My throat literally hurt from being choked up. The doc made me laugh, cry and think - which means I had a full day.

Speaking of which, and others may disagree, but I wish Hock had stuck the entire ESPYs speech in the doc. I know its 11 minutes long, but I have seen it dozens of times and I was ready to watch it again when it reached that part of the doc. With all of the supporting context that the doc had delivered, it would have been like seeing it for the first time, and imagine what it would have been like for people who didn't know the story? Instead, I watched it right after the doc was over.

[throatybeard]

It's on ESPN2 again. Am I gonna bawl my eyes out again?

Poor Ralph Sampson.

Valvano could have been a standup comic if he wanted to.

[throatybeard]

I want to have Thurl Bailey's babies.

[Mudge]

No doubt, LoCo was there too.

I loved the program, and enjoyed that team. But having been at Duke when V was at State, there was also an -- um, underside -- that existed too. V was a great motivator and innovator, but he was no saint.

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

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

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

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

[Bob Green]

To me, Valvano was a typical win-at-any-cost basketball coach...

I agree, Valvano recruited Chris Washburn - - enough said!

[jipops]

I've watched most of this, brings back a lot of memories. I remember the game where Whittenburg broke his foot after being on fire from 3. I remember getting on the bus to school the next morning feeling crushed for those guys. What is amazing is the amount of talent they went up against and defeated in the path to the ACC and national titles. Akeem seemed invincible.

I'm with Throaty in that Thurl is my favorite of that group.

[pamtar]

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

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

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

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

Maybe you should watch a bit more than "snippets" before ranting your face off about the man/film. Doesn't it bother you, being a Duke fan, that Coach K disagrees with pretty much everything written in your post?

Moving on... Sorry to resurrect this thread two weeks after the fact, but I've been changing diapers constantly since I watched the film. Just wanted to echo the general sentiment that I thoroughly enjoyed it. I was four in 1983 and surprisingly enough my Dad actually gave me coffee in an somewhat successful attempt to keep me awake to watch the game. "You need to see this boy!" He celebrated the Lorenzo dunk by jump-punching a hole in the heart pine ceiling - a hole he refuses to fix to this day.

Years later we attended to farewell game at Reynolds. I was amped to see Duke play (my first time) but when my Dad started crying I realized we were witnessing a special moment that totally surpassed my infatuation with Grant Hill. See, my pops doesn't cry. The only times I've EVER seen him cry were when his mom died, last week when his best friend died, and at that game. When I asked him, "why is everybody crying?" He answered, "because that good man is gonna die." Leveled. To me particularly, that says a lot about Valvano. It also says a lot about the power of college basketball. There is no other sport like it.

[Reilly]

Haven't seen the film yet. I just recently realized that former Duke coach Bill Foster was V's coach at Rutgers.

[Mudge]

Maybe you should watch a bit more than "snippets" before ranting your face off about the man/film. Doesn't it bother you, being a Duke fan, that Coach K disagrees with pretty much everything written in your post?

Moving on... Sorry to resurrect this thread two weeks after the fact, but I've been changing diapers constantly since I watched the film. Just wanted to echo the general sentiment that I thoroughly enjoyed it. I was four in 1983 and surprisingly enough my Dad actually gave me coffee in an somewhat successful attempt to keep me awake to watch the game. "You need to see this boy!" He celebrated the Lorenzo dunk by jump-punching a hole in the heart pine ceiling - a hole he refuses to fix to this day.

Years later we attended to farewell game at Reynolds. I was amped to see Duke play (my first time) but when my Dad started crying I realized we were witnessing a special moment that totally surpassed my infatuation with Grant Hill. See, my pops doesn't cry. The only times I've EVER seen him cry were when his mom died, last week when his best friend died, and at that game. When I asked him, "why is everybody crying?" He answered, "because that good man is gonna die." Leveled. To me particularly, that says a lot about Valvano. It also says a lot about the power of college basketball. There is no other sport like it.

I didn't need to watch the whole documentary, to comment on the events of the film-- unlike you, I was old enough (and there!) to see the events live, to see Valvano operate just feet away from me, and to see that he was just as much of a used car salesman as many of the coaches regularly reviled on this board. I have since watched the first half of the film, and there's nothing in it that changes my view on Valvano.

It also doesn't change my view at all, that Coach K is a loyal friend to Valvano-- that is entirely understandable-- K puts loyalty above almost every other virtue-- he is never going to turn his back on Valvano, or address his faults in public-- and circumstances conspired to make K and Valvano kindred spirits, even though Valvano's ethics were nowhere near to being on par with Coach K's: they were two very young (about the same age) Catholic coaches from poor, ethnic neighborhoods in large northern, urban cities, both coming from smaller, non-basketball powerhouse colleges in the greater NYC area to two basketball tradition-rich schools in the wasp-dominated South, trying to compete with the biggest dog on the block (Dean Smith), and they weren't accepted right away by a lot of people down there-- so of course, with so much in common (both in background and in the adversity of their current situations), they became friends.

Just because Coach K sticks by people who do ethically bad things (Corey Maggette, anyone?), after he has become friends with them, does not mean that they have Coach K's stamp of approval-- I seriously doubt that Coach K approves of a lot of the shady things that Valvano did (and you almost certainly have no idea whether Coach K disagrees with everything I wrote-- seeing as Coach K has never spoken publicly about his feelings about Valvano's well-known transgressions)-- but regardless, Coach K isn't/wasn't going to throw Valvano to the wolves over that stuff- precisely because of Coach K's overriding premium on loyalty. Moreover, it's not as though Coach K is infallible in his judgments about people (Joe Alleva, anyone?), so Coach K being Valvano's friend doesn't exactly equate to the Good Housekeeping Seal of Approval or UL certification.

As for college basketball, while I am a bigger fan of it than other sports, there is no doubt in my mind that many other sports around the world, are every bit as powerfully affecting as college basketball (look at the people who commit suicide over soccer/football outcomes.)

[-jk]

I think several people are confusing saintly behavior with redemption. Lord knows, for most of his career, V was not a saint. A snake oil salesman, perhaps, but not a saint.

V did his best to redeem himself at the end, though, and I think he succeeded in large measure. I imagine that's the Valvano K respected and admired.

-jk

[davekay1971]

I didn't need to watch the whole documentary, to comment on the events of the film-- unlike you, I was old enough (and there!) to see the events live, to see Valvano operate just feet away from me, and to see that he was just as much of a used car salesman as many of the coaches regularly reviled on this board. I have since watched the first half of the film, and there's nothing in it that changes my view on Valvano.

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

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

[Reilly]

... they were two very young (about the same age) Catholic coaches from poor, ethnic neighborhoods in large northern, urban cities, both coming from smaller, non-basketball powerhouse colleges in the greater NYC area to two basketball tradition-rich schools in the wasp-dominated South, trying to compete with the biggest dog on the block (Dean Smith), and they weren't accepted right away by a lot of people down there-- so of course, with so much in common (both in background and in the adversity of their current situations), they became friends. ...

Weren't their family make-ups similar: K has three daughters, and didn't Valvano? I believe when K saw V dying, it was sort of like looking in the mirror, and it affected him deeply.

I think I agree with both sides here: V was a bit of a scoundrel ... also funny and loved his players/family .... We're all a mixed bag to some degree, and it's OK to be charitable and overlook warts, especially for the dead.

One time somebody asked V about how intimidating Cameron was and he brushed it off saying something like "what -- just b/c there's some kid from Jersey behind me calling me a putz? that's intimidating?"

[Dave Duke76]

I agree with Throaty about BIG T - there is something about him. I loved him talking about the last hug from V.

Great story, well told. Those were the glory years of the ACC.

Bottom line, that was a special team with a one of a kind coach.

I was living in RALEIGH at the time - pretty cool.


I am a Duke alum, but was in grad school at NC State in 83. What a time! One thing I remember was after every win there were bonfires on the campus and in the streets (some class room furniture served as kindling).
Since NC State wasn't expected to win any of those games, it felt like a championship win every game. Seems like a different world today.

Oh, and when is 30 for 30 broadcast? I missed this.

[cf-62]

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

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

Word! Mudge, saying things like you were feet away from Jimmy V makes me think you had some inside information from State, and that may be the case. I can tell you from my family's personal relationships with others close to the situation that most (as in 90%+) of what State used to cut their ties and get him to resign was complete BS. There's a reason the team wasn't sure Jimmy V was showing up on the reunion night. State screwed him over, but his love for his team was too much to make him skip. K's statements in the movie, while not eviscerating State like I just did, certainly imply that most of what was leveled at V was inaccurate. I also think the NCAA investigator taking the time to write Coach V and tell him he didn't think it was right, and that if he had a son, he would want Coach V to coach him, says as much as anything else.

[daveyro]

I am a Duke alum, but was in grad school at NC State in 83. What a time! One thing I remember was after every win there were bonfires on the campus and in the streets (some class room furniture served as kindling).
Since NC State wasn't expected to win any of those games, it felt like a championship win every game. Seems like a different world today.

Oh, and when is 30 for 30 broadcast? I missed this.

I was a senior, in the trough between the Bill Foster/Gminski, Dennard, Spanarkal, Banks era and just before Alarie, Bilas, Dawkins and the dominance to follow. Coach K was 11 and 17, if memory serves. Once the Tourney came, everyone that I knew rooted rabidly for State. Their incredible run of close games, and deflected hatred of the Tarholes and UVA are the reasons I think - -but regardless, not being an NCAA team ourselves, we became State fans for the tourney.

[Dave Duke76]

Word! Mudge, saying things like you were feet away from Jimmy V makes me think you had some inside information from State, and that may be the case. I can tell you from my family's personal relationships with others close to the situation that most (as in 90%+) of what State used to cut their ties and get him to resign was complete BS. There's a reason the team wasn't sure Jimmy V was showing up on the reunion night. State screwed him over, but his love for his team was too much to make him skip. K's statements in the movie, while not eviscerating State like I just did, certainly imply that most of what was leveled at V was inaccurate. I also think the NCAA investigator taking the time to write Coach V and tell him he didn't think it was right, and that if he had a son, he would want Coach V to coach him, says as much as anything else.

Found the next airing -
March 30 @ 5:00 P.M. ET Survive and Advance on ESPN 2

Have to record it!

[pamtar]

I didn't need to watch the whole documentary, to comment on the events of the film-- unlike you, I was old enough (and there!) to see the events live, to see Valvano operate just feet away from me, and to see that he was just as much of a used car salesman as many of the coaches regularly reviled on this board. I have since watched the first half of the film, and there's nothing in it that changes my view on Valvano.

It also doesn't change my view at all, that Coach K is a loyal friend to Valvano-- that is entirely understandable-- K puts loyalty above almost every other virtue-- he is never going to turn his back on Valvano, or address his faults in public-- and circumstances conspired to make K and Valvano kindred spirits, even though Valvano's ethics were nowhere near to being on par with Coach K's: they were two very young (about the same age) Catholic coaches from poor, ethnic neighborhoods in large northern, urban cities, both coming from smaller, non-basketball powerhouse colleges in the greater NYC area to two basketball tradition-rich schools in the wasp-dominated South, trying to compete with the biggest dog on the block (Dean Smith), and they weren't accepted right away by a lot of people down there-- so of course, with so much in common (both in background and in the adversity of their current situations), they became friends.

Just because Coach K sticks by people who do ethically bad things (Corey Maggette, anyone?), after he has become friends with them, does not mean that they have Coach K's stamp of approval-- I seriously doubt that Coach K approves of a lot of the shady things that Valvano did (and you almost certainly have no idea whether Coach K disagrees with everything I wrote-- seeing as Coach K has never spoken publicly about his feelings about Valvano's well-known transgressions)-- but regardless, Coach K isn't/wasn't going to throw Valvano to the wolves over that stuff- precisely because of Coach K's overriding premium on loyalty. Moreover, it's not as though Coach K is infallible in his judgments about people (Joe Alleva, anyone?), so Coach K being Valvano's friend doesn't exactly equate to the Good Housekeeping Seal of Approval or UL certification.

As for college basketball, while I am a bigger fan of it than other sports, there is no doubt in my mind that many other sports around the world, are every bit as powerfully affecting as college basketball (look at the people who commit suicide over soccer/football outcomes.)

Good response. Obviously, you have a different perspective on the coaching career of Valvano than myself. Seeing it first hand certainly gives your argument clout. I definitely respect your opinion and honestly cannot claim that your views are false. While I wasn't old enough at the time to properly understand basketball, I was lucky enough to attend a few games in Reynolds while Valvano was still there. I also had to endure my dad's ramblings about the whole mess as my mom would shut him down whenever he brought it up. So, I guess I have a sliver more knowledge of events than you suggested.

In reguards to your second paragraph, I think your point about Coach K sometimes being loyal to a fault is dead-on. However, per the bolded text, in the second half of the movie Coach K states, rather matter-of-factly, that Valvano didn't cheat. He also says that State booting him was wrong.

[jv001]

I think several people are confusing saintly behavior with redemption. Lord knows, for most of his career, V was not a saint. A snake oil salesman, perhaps, but not a saint.

V did his best to redeem himself at the end, though, and I think he succeeded in large measure. I imagine that's the Valvano K respected and admired.

-jk

I believe we all can read John 8:7 before we cast the first stone. GoDuke!

[Fletch]

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

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

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

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


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

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

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

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

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

[Mudge]

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

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

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

[wsb3]

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

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

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

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

[CDu]

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

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


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

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

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

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

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

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

[wsb3]

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

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

[davekay1971]

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

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

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

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

[DU82]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[cf-62]

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

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

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

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

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

[Mudge]

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

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

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

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

[DU82]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[arnie]

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

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

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

[DU82]

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

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

[cf-62]

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

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

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

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

[cf-62]

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

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

[arnie]

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

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

[sagegrouse]

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


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

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

sagegrouse

[AsiaMinor]

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

[Mudge]

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

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

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

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

[oldnavy]

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

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

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

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

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

Happy Easter everyone, and Go DUKE!

[Tom B.]

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

sagegrouse

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

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

http://articles.philly.com/1988-03-31/entertainment/26276828_1_college-basketball-jim-valvano-basketball-players

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

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

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

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


To bring this back on topic....

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

[DU82]

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

sagegrouse

It's my recollection that the amphibious comment was during an interview with Bob Holliday of WRAL in Raleigh. 25+ years later, almost everybody here knows exactly what "amphibious" really means!

[sagegrouse]

It's my recollection that the amphibious comment was during an interview with Bob Holliday of WRAL in Raleigh. 25+ years later, almost everybody here knows exactly what "amphibious" really means!

Yeah, that's probably right, which makes everything I said in my post totally wrong. Kind of average for me. --sagegrouse

[OldPhiKap]

Being replayed tonight at 9:00 est -- if you have not seen it, or forgotten about he miracle run in '83, I highly highly recommend finding the time to watch this.

[throatybeard]

This just re-aired, presumably because it's V week, although I thought that was in the summer.

A couple, um, six observations.

1) I was well aware the ACC used a closer (approx 17.5 ft) three point line in 1983 as a gateway drug, before the national adoption in 1987. What I've never noticed before is that the western venues in the 1983 NCCAT, including that at Weber State (?), had three point lines of varying distance. What's going on here? (Mr Sumner, I'm looking at you).

2) The first couple views, I didn't notice Whit was an executive producer. I did tonight. How about that?

3) I couldn't remember whether this was made before or after Lorenzo Charles' vehicular death. It's after; they have a toast to him at the restaurant. He died at the same age as V.

4) They show V's speech in February at Reynolds in greater detail than they do the ESPY speech. But you can tell it's a study for the ESPY speech. He's already cooking it in his head.

5) I forgot this, but Krzyzewski praises the heck out of him like five times.

6) The academic fraud by people under him for which V was tossed sounds far, far, far less extensive than that at Carolina recently, and yet, he lost his job. Raise your hand if you think Roy Williams is going to lose his job. Yeah, I didn't think so.

[CameronBlue]

6) The academic fraud by people under him for which V was tossed sounds far, far, far less extensive than that at Carolina recently, and yet, he lost his job. Raise your hand if you think Roy Williams is going to lose his job. Yeah, I didn't think so.

I'm probably guilty of over-indulging in sentimentality here; it happens when we remember the lives of our heroes cut tragically short. But goodness I miss V. I had no rooting interest in NC State basketball prior to their run to the title but on the evening of April 4, 1983, there I was, on the Brickyard in Raleigh screaming my lungs out with about 20,000 other idiots, dodging beer showers and the occasional airborne empty. To think how Valvano was vilified upon the release of Golenbock's book by those in pale blue particularly (and probably by a healthy number of Dukies as well)...well let's just say the irony is striking. As the character of noted UNC icons tarnishes by the day, Jimmy V's grows immeasurably with time and IMHO, deservedly so. There's a lesson in courage to be emulated. Of course it's the force of his personality that we miss most and I don't think the league has ever really recovered from his passing. It would be nice if he could come back just one more time to liven things up a bit.

[Mtn.Devil.91.92.01.10.15]

I'm probably guilty of over-indulging in sentimentality here; it happens when we remember the lives of our heroes cut tragically short. But goodness I miss V. I had no rooting interest in NC State basketball prior to their run to the title but on the evening of April 4, 1983, there I was, on the Brickyard in Raleigh screaming my lungs out with about 20,000 other idiots, dodging beer showers and the occasional airborne empty. To think how Valvano was vilified upon the release of Golenbock's book by those in pale blue particularly (and probably by a healthy number of Dukies as well)...well let's just say the irony is striking. As the character of noted UNC icons tarnishes by the day, Jimmy V's grows immeasurably with time and IMHO, deservedly so. There's a lesson in courage to be emulated. Of course it's the force of his personality that we miss most and I don't think the league has ever really recovered from his passing. It would be nice if he could come back just one more time to liven things up a bit.

I was having a similar discussion with my neighbor the other night as well - NCSU under valvano had many... shall we say "issues." It was not quite as straight-forward as the "feel good" story that is replayed on ESPN. Sure, they had an amazing tournament run, and yes the clip of Jimmy V looking for someone to hug is heart-warming. And no one - I mean NO ONE - can deny that his speech at the ESPYs was one of the more moving of our lifetime and that the money raised in his memory was completely unfathomable. But, there is definitely a certain degree of white-washing that has occurred in relation to Jimmy's coaching career. I respect the man's legacy, I have incredible respect for the Foundation, and I have no interest in recounting the NCSU transgressions of the late 80's here for anyone who isn't familiar (the internet will do that for anyone who is interested). I just find it a little odd that basketball fans whose personal recollections don't extend that far have a very sanitized version of who V was.

[OldPhiKap]

6) The academic fraud by people under him for which V was tossed sounds far, far, far less extensive than that at Carolina recently, and yet, he lost his job. Raise your hand if you think Roy Williams is going to lose his job. Yeah, I didn't think so.

The Pack Way > The CRolina Way.

It is a great episode, and for those too young to remember Valvano (or, like me, get fuzzier memory every year) -- the Cardiac Pack it is truly a part of ACC lore. It is stunning how many games they pulled out of nowhere, and how innovative and charismatic V was. There's a whole lot more to him than an ESPY speech, as powerful as it was.

[-jk]

I was having a similar discussion with my neighbor the other night as well - NCSU under valvano had many... shall we say "issues." It was not quite as straight-forward as the "feel good" story that is replayed on ESPN. Sure, they had an amazing tournament run, and yes the clip of Jimmy V looking for someone to hug is heart-warming. And no one - I mean NO ONE - can deny that his speech at the ESPYs was one of the more moving of our lifetime and that the money raised in his memory was completely unfathomable. But, there is definitely a certain degree of white-washing that has occurred in relation to Jimmy's coaching career. I respect the man's legacy, I have incredible respect for the Foundation, and I have no interest in recounting the NCSU transgressions of the late 80's here for anyone who isn't familiar (the internet will do that for anyone who is interested). I just find it a little odd that basketball fans whose personal recollections don't extend that far have a very sanitized version of who V was.

While coaching, V certainly didn't hew to the highest standards. When he was diagnosed with his cancer, though, he did work hard to become a better person. Even without any sanitizing, it makes a good story of redemption. Of course, ESPN hates to dish dirt, so the earlier days don't play so much now.

Does anyone have a link to the old news show (don't recall which) that followed Duke and State players for a day before our game? It painted a clear picture of what life was like with V in the 80's.

-jk

[Mtn.Devil.91.92.01.10.15]

While coaching, V certainly didn't hew to the highest standards. When he was diagnosed with his cancer, though, he did work hard to become a better person. Even without any sanitizing, it makes a good story of redemption. Of course, ESPN hates to dish dirt, so the earlier days don't play so much now.

Does anyone have a link to the old news show (don't recall which) that followed Duke and State players for a day before our game? It painted a clear picture of what life was like with V in the 80's.

-jk

True enough. Hollywood - er.... ESPN sure likes a redemption story. And it's interesting to think that V's redemption extends long after his passing. Perhaps there's hope for all of us!

[tylervinyard]

3) I couldn't remember whether this was made before or after Lorenzo Charles' vehicular death. It's after; they have a toast to him at the restaurant. He died at the same age as V.



I have a funny story about Lorenzo. I was working as a bellman at the Sheraton in downtown Raleigh around 2000-2001, and Lorenzo and one of his friends were staying at the hotel. While I was manning the bellman desk, his friend comes up to me and asks if I know who Lorenzo Charles is. I didn't see who he was with (Charles was pretty quiet and sitting down so I didn't see how large he was and his friend was too short to have been a former D1 player) so I just blurted out, "Isn't he the guy who was partially responsible for the NCSU point-shaving scandal in the mid- to late-80s?" and I was quickly corrected to, "no MAN, he's the guy who slammed the ball home to beat Houston in 1983!". That's the last time I got Charles Shackleford and Lorenzo Charles mixed up.

[Tom B.]

Does anyone have a link to the old news show (don't recall which) that followed Duke and State players for a day before our game? It painted a clear picture of what life was like with V in the 80's.





It was an episode of 48 Hours. I don't have a link to the video, but here's a link to an article about the episode: http://articles.philly.com/1988-03-31/entertainment/26276828_1_college-basketball-jim-valvano-basketball-players.

Edit: I did find this link, which has nine minutes of excerpts from the 48 Hours piece. I can't find the full piece online anywhere. The caption says 1987, but it was really March of 1988. It aired during the NCAA Tournament, the week before the Final Four.

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