And here I thought Shane Ryan was head scratching

[Billy Dat]

...at least Ryan is a Duke fan. This latest Grantland Duke-gets-eyeballs piece is pretty mean spirited, but I don't quite get why it was written.

Heart of Dukeness - The leadership of Mike Krzyzewski at Duke
http://grantland.com/features/heart-of-dukeness/

[El_Diablo]

I will not be clicking--thanks for the heads up!

[oakvillebluedevil]

I unfortunately clicked on it. Allow me to summarize briefly to hopefully save folks the time and prevent additional clicks:

4 points made in the whole article:

1. He's passionate
2. People hate him
3. He's hard on himself
4. He means what he writes in his books

The very definition of nothing to see here...disappointing from Grantland. I typically like what they put together (though appreciate that may be an unpopular opinion around here :))

[jv001]

Mr. Phillips should take a look at his own writing, before throwing stones at the books Coach K has co-authored. What a meaningless piece of journalism. Beat UNC and GoDuke!

[Edouble]

I unfortunately clicked on it. Allow me to summarize briefly to hopefully save folks the time and prevent additional clicks:

4 points made in the whole article:

1. He's passionate
2. People hate him
3. He's hard on himself
4. He means what he writes in his books

The very definition of nothing to see here...disappointing from Grantland. I typically like what they put together (though appreciate that may be an unpopular opinion around here :))

Thank you for the summary, now I don't have to click either!

Yes, Grantland really sucks.

Thank you!

[luburch]

Was there ever a point to this article? He just kind of rambles and his conclusion (or lack there of) is empty.

[Atlanta Duke]

Was there ever a point to this article? He just kind of rambles and his conclusion (or lack there of) is empty.

The point was this is the time of year interest in college basketball is peaking - if you have been told to write a college basketball column but do not have anything original to share, write a column about Coach K and hope for page hits

Movie studios which are out of ideas make Hangover III - sports columnists who are out of ideas during March share their opinions about Mike Krzyzewski

[brevity]

...at least Ryan is a Duke fan. This latest Grantland Duke-gets-eyeballs piece is pretty mean spirited, but I don't quite get why it was written.

Heart of Dukeness - The leadership of Mike Krzyzewski at Duke
http://grantland.com/features/heart-of-dukeness/

I was reading this article while you were posting this. There's probably a solid idea behind the article, but the execution was a bit mushy. Either the author (Brian Phillips) couldn't fully commit to a takedown piece, or more likely never decided on a tone when he was frantically finishing this to meet a Friday noon deadline.

Phillips doesn't actually make the point, but his use of "Next play" helps illustrate the proper argument that Coach K has a very narrowly defined use of that term, and that everyone else (including DBR) corrupts it. "Next play" was never intended to be a magical reset button that erases consequences, nor a way for Duke fans to plug their ears and pretend not to listen.

Ultimately, any outsider that tries to reveal some truth about Duke basketball is going to succumb to negative urges, whether they come from within or are in anticipation of the widest potential readership. The juxtaposition of "He’s won four national championships. He’s cowritten five terrible books." tells me that some sort of negative last word was desired (5 bad books > 4 good titles). But what a weird thing to criticize. The books are only terrible if you decide that the whole sports coaching genre of books are terrible. (I think I've read two of them. Within that genre, I've probably read a few that are better, and a lot that were worse.)

I think Grantland in general is very readable (a word that necessarily removes podcasts from the equation), in that it places equal value on pop culture and sports, and sometimes delivers an amazing piece on a subject I never knew I needed to read about. That said, I always dread the Duke stuff. It almost never measures up to the rest of their content.

[FerryFor50]

Man, remember the days before the internet? When to get anything published, you had to actually be able to write coherently and make actual points? And not just anyone with a pulse could have their opinions taken seriously?

Those were the good ol' days.

[Duvall]

Man, remember the days before the internet? When to get anything published, you had to actually be able to write coherently and make actual points? And not just anyone with a pulse could have their opinions taken seriously?

"Not really, no."

- Art Chansky

[FerryFor50]

"Not really, no."

- Art Chansky

Yea, but I'd rather have *one* Art Chansky than 5 million anonymous Art Chanskies...

[Des Esseintes]

I respect that a lot of people found the Phillips article irritating, but I had the opposite reaction. To my mind, it's one of the fairest, most intelligent analyses of anti-Duke animosity I have seen in years. The fact that Ivy League grads are the source of much of the "prole" hatred of Duke has driven me crazy for a long time, but never before have I seen it noted in print, much less by a national journalist. Plus, Phillips is genuinely clever and funny, which cannot be said for the Shane Ryans and Andrew Sharps of the site. (Check out his writeups on Rob Ford (http://grantland.com/features/rob-ford-sports-fan/) and an old USMNT soccer photo shoot (http://grantland.com/features/usmnt-new-york-s-magazine-greatest-photo-shoot-history/) for examples.) He indulges in none of the Duke stereotypes, but rather notes them, in a long series, which mostly highlights their ridiculousness. The guy is obviously not grinding an ax. He's looking at a thing in culture.

As for making fun of Coach K's books... look, we have to have a sense of humor about some things. Those aren't good books, and K is a little corporate. We aren't tearing down our coach to admit that. Again, I think when Phillips puts K's rise from nothing to the pinnacle of his industry as context for that corporate-ness, he is showing strong insight and hardly assaulting K's character. K comes off plenty sympathetic, if imperfect, in this portrait, and that's all you can ask of a portrait.

[Duvall]

Yea, but I'd rather have *one* Art Chansky than 5 million anonymous Art Chanskies...

Oh, the Internet is surely terrible. But we shouldn't romanticize the past, either. Is it better to have 5 million biased idiots that are almost completely ignored or five biased idiots with complete control over the media narrative?

[Des Esseintes]

Oh, the Internet is surely terrible. But we shouldn't romanticize the past, either. Is it better to have 5 million biased idiots that are almost completely ignored or five biased idiots with complete control over the media narrative?

Yeah, I think it's pretty incontrovertible that sportswriting has improved massively over the past 15 years. Look no further than the difference in BBWAA voting patterns for baseball's Hall of Fame between the old guard and its newer members. Or in this board. Anyone want to go back to Herald-Sun columnists for your Duke "analysis"? Didn't think so. Hunter S. Thompson's profile of Muhammad Ali is, for example, glorious, and there were some giants that strode the Earth in the old days. But they were far from the norm. I'll take today's often-mediocre options over yesterday's almost relentlessly mediocre gatekeepers.

[superdave]

"Not really, no."

- Art Chansky


Yea, but I'd rather have *one* Art Chansky than 5 million anonymous Art Chanskies...

Watching the Duke-Unc game two weeks ago, the camera showed Coach K standing on the sideline. Behind him about 5-6 rows up looked like Chansky. I immediately felt my skin crawl. Shill.....

[Billy Dat]

I respect that a lot of people found the Phillips article irritating, but I had the opposite reaction. To my mind, it's one of the fairest, most intelligent analyses of anti-Duke animosity I have seen in years. The fact that Ivy League grads are the source of much of the "prole" hatred of Duke has driven me crazy for a long time, but never before have I seen it noted in print, much less by a national journalist. Plus, Phillips is genuinely clever and funny, which cannot be said for the Shane Ryans and Andrew Sharps of the site. (Check out his writeups on Rob Ford (http://grantland.com/features/rob-ford-sports-fan/) and an old USMNT soccer photo shoot (http://grantland.com/features/usmnt-new-york-s-magazine-greatest-photo-shoot-history/) for examples.) He indulges in none of the Duke stereotypes, but rather notes them, in a long series, which mostly highlights their ridiculousness. The guy is obviously not grinding an ax. He's looking at a thing in culture.

As for making fun of Coach K's books... look, we have to have a sense of humor about some things. Those aren't good books, and K is a little corporate. We aren't tearing down our coach to admit that. Again, I think when Phillips puts K's rise from nothing to the pinnacle of his industry as context for that corporate-ness, he is showing strong insight and hardly assaulting K's character. K comes off plenty sympathetic, if imperfect, in this portrait, and that's all you can ask of a portrait.

Des, I can appreciate what you appreciated about the piece, but it still smells like a takedown. Occams razor on why K is the way he is seems to boil down to the fact that he is an uber competitive SOB and coaching sports games are a pretty black and white way to continuously scratch that itch. I can't stand his infatuation with the corporate world or his constant use of business metaphors so I get the skewering of those things. But, do we really think he's driven by fear of failure? That he is still that little plugger from the windy city trying to prove himself right down to his, "republican sith-lord loafers". I think Phillips is one of the Harvard guys who hates, no matter his claims to the opposite - and I like Grantland outside of the critiques that you and others have lobbed at the site (which I often agree with).

[Turk]

I respect that a lot of people found the Phillips article irritating, but I had the opposite reaction. To my mind, it's one of the fairest, most intelligent analyses of anti-Duke animosity I have seen in years. The fact that Ivy League grads are the source of much of the "prole" hatred of Duke has driven me crazy for a long time, but never before have I seen it noted in print, much less by a national journalist. Plus, Phillips is genuinely clever and funny, which cannot be said for the Shane Ryans and Andrew Sharps of the site. (Check out his writeups on Rob Ford (http://grantland.com/features/rob-ford-sports-fan/) and an old USMNT soccer photo shoot (http://grantland.com/features/usmnt-new-york-s-magazine-greatest-photo-shoot-history/) for examples.) He indulges in none of the Duke stereotypes, but rather notes them, in a long series, which mostly highlights their ridiculousness. The guy is obviously not grinding an ax. He's looking at a thing in culture.

As for making fun of Coach K's books... look, we have to have a sense of humor about some things. Those aren't good books, and K is a little corporate. We aren't tearing down our coach to admit that. Again, I think when Phillips puts K's rise from nothing to the pinnacle of his industry as context for that corporate-ness, he is showing strong insight and hardly assaulting K's character. K comes off plenty sympathetic, if imperfect, in this portrait, and that's all you can ask of a portrait.

Very well said, sir. Excellent point about the anti-Duke venom. I remember reading a similar piece or two about Coach Wooden, something like this: "Can you believe this guy? He tells his players how to put on their shoes and socks! He writes poetry to his wife! Check out all these midwestern cornball cliches in that pyramid thing of his! What a bunch of insipid baloney! Why do people buy it?" I bet you could find the same type of article about Dean Smith, too, when he was coaching. I know we've had fun mocking "The Carolina Way" from time to time.

Yes, most "leadership" books written by coaches are drivel. But the intended audience is not known for their literary sophistication and has deep pockets; it's free money, so might as well Cut The Check. Sure, Coach K has five of those books out, but then again, he's been coaching for a long time. So, why do people buy whatever it is Coach K is selling? The only people who matter are the players. And Coach K connects with the players, no matter what level.

Taking it in a different direction, I've coached some youth basketball and have read a few drills / skills / strategy books from coaches (including Wooden). Even when it's their actual area of expertise, those books generally aren't very good either. They're pretty much the same - the fundamentals don't change and they're mostly boring and hard work. The real differentiator of a coach is what happens in the gym, in the locker room or meeting room, or one-on-one in the coaches' office. So to answer Phillps' question, yes, Coach K and all the other greats DO believe it when they talk about communication and trust, and they are able to put a personal touch on what they teach so that there is no doubt it's genuine and real.

[weezie]

Haha, Shane Ryan = Boob.

These articles are like spring garlic in the lawn. Big whoopping deal.

[DBFAN]

I gotta say I got a different reaction. I was pretty blindsided by the part about Mickie, talking about K yelling at himself. I thought the article genuinely tried to set you up with all the negative stereotypes about him, only to point out that he is a human being, who has his own demons to fight. I thought it was especially nice that the writer made a point to explain that he didn't come from wealth and prestige, but was a Chicago kid that worked hard to get here. But I guess that's why we all read, so we can form our own opinion

[Des Esseintes]

Des, I can appreciate what you appreciated about the piece, but it still smells like a takedown. Occams razor on why K is the way he is seems to boil down to the fact that he is an uber competitive SOB and coaching sports games are a pretty black and white way to continuously scratch that itch. I can't stand his infatuation with the corporate world or his constant use of business metaphors so I get the skewering of those things. But, do we really think he's driven by fear of failure? That he is still that little plugger from the windy city trying to prove himself right down to his, "republican sith-lord loafers". I think Phillips is one of the Harvard guys who hates, no matter his claims to the opposite - and I like Grantland outside of the critiques that you and others have lobbed at the site (which I often agree with).

I agree that the fear of failure thing seems incorrect. It just doesn't ring true about K. What I don't see, though, is how that qualifies as a takedown. The recent SI article about Jabari quoted K as saying he can summon rage toward an opponent with the snap of his fingers. The latter, which happens to be true, is potentially far more alarming than the former, which we both agree to be untrue. Moreover, I do think there might be something to K identifying success with business and that that identification owes has origins in a hardscrabble youth. All things considered, for me it had a lot of human insight for a short, funny piece about college basketball.

I think Phillips's piece smells like a takedown because so many takedowns get written, not for what is actually in the text. Nor are hatchet jobs really Phillips' m.o. if you look at the rest of his material.

[Steven43]

2. People hate him
If Coach is so hated why does he sell so many books? Why is he asked to do commercials for major corporations? Why is he able to command large fees for speaking engagements? And finally, why has he been chosen for the third straight time to be the USA national team coach? I don't believe anyone who is widely 'hated' would be able to combine all of those elements.

[Des Esseintes]

If Coach is so hated why does he sell so many books? Why is he asked to do commercials for major corporations? Why is he able to command large fees for speaking engagements? And finally, why has he been chosen for the THIRD straight time to be the USA national team coach? I don't believe anyone that is widely 'hated' would be able to combine all of those elements.

I think that is what Phillips gestures toward when he notes that much of the dislike of Duke comes not from the masses but rather graduates of other elite institutions.

[Billy Dat]

I agree that the fear of failure thing seems incorrect. It just doesn't ring true about K. What I don't see, though, is how that qualifies as a takedown. The recent SI article about Jabari quoted K as saying he can summon rage toward an opponent with the snap of his fingers. The latter, which happens to be true, is potentially far more alarming than the former, which we both agree to be untrue. Moreover, I do think there might be something to K identifying success with business and that that identification owes has origins in a hardscrabble youth. All things considered, for me it had a lot of human insight for a short, funny piece about college basketball.

I think Phillips's piece smells like a takedown because so many takedowns get written, not for what is actually in the text. Nor are hatchet jobs really Phillips' m.o. if you look at the rest of his material.

You make good and fair points. It's funny, I am actually a Simmons fan despite the fact that he openly hates all my favorite teams - Duke, Knicks, Giants, Yankees. Most of that is the Boston thing, the Duke hatred aligns with, I guess, the kind of hatred Phillips discussed because Simmons himself attended one of the toniest prep schools in America - Brunswick in Greenwich, CT.

So, I see a Grantland Duke piece and I was ready for the takedown because I am sure Simmons encourages it. Plus, it seems like ESPN mandates Duke pieces because they know the publicity will follow.

You have made me consider otherwise - I will take the night off and read it again with a clearer mind. Maybe I created this thread just for the sporks?

[CDu]

I also didn't find fault in the tone of the article, though I do feel like it wasn't well written. It didn't slam Coach K but rather pointed out the oddity of the hate and where it comes from. Because very little on the list of reasons for the hate are actually worthy of hatred. So I read all those sentences as a sort of defense of Coach K in a way.

The only "slams" I took from the article were in regards to his books (which are not good) and his quotes (which generally are pretty vanilla). I think those are fair points.

I think this was a case where the author was about 500 words short of tying it all together.

[Duvall]

I think that is what Phillips gestures toward when he notes that much of the dislike of Duke comes not from the masses but rather graduates of other elite institutions.

But Phillips doesn't do much to engage with or unpack the reasoning behind that dislike, so it ends up being just a bill of particulars against Krzyzewski and Duke that isn't very convincing, but also isn't explained or rebutted in any way.

[Des Esseintes]

But Phillips doesn't do much to engage with or unpack the reasoning behind that dislike, so it ends up being just a bill of particulars against Krzyzewski and Duke that isn't very convincing, but also isn't explained or rebutted in any way.


People hate him because his teams read as culturally white in a game marred by institutional racism, and thus suggest that they’ve been rigged to profit from one of sport’s ugliest arbitrages.


People who went to Harvard hate Krzyzewski for not coaching at Kansas State. You can argue whether this has more to do with legitimate egalitarianism or with the fact that Krzyzewski, a Polish Catholic working-class kid from Chicago who scrapped his way through West Point, simply articulates a vision of success alien to the private school experience, Duke or no Duke.

I would say these are his two engagements with what he feels are the reasoning behind the dislike. He could certainly have opened up on both points to the piece's benefit. On the other hand, he may have felt going deeper into them would have leadened what is primarily a comedic piece.

[slower]

I think Phillips's piece smells like a takedown because so many takedowns get written, not for what is actually in the text. Nor are hatchet jobs really Phillips' m.o. if you look at the rest of his material.

The article felt strange, because he really didn't take an obviously strong stand, one way or the other. I almost wish he had, because Phillips can be quite brilliant at times (his pieces on Roger Federer are spectacular).

[CDu]

The article felt strange, because he really didn't take an obviously strong stand, one way or the other. I almost wish he had, because Phillips can be quite brilliant at times (his pieces on Roger Federer are spectacular).

Yeah, that is really my only beef with the article. It failed to make a point. It had hints of several interesting angles, but didn't follow through on any of them. I didn't read it as overly negative or positive toward Coach K. It just didn't go anywhere.

[J_C_Steel]

I agree with those who said it was pointless. It seemed as though Phillips was groping for a conclusion that he could never quite reach.

I do generally enjoy Grantland, however. Jonah Keri is one of the best baseball writers in the business.

[roywhite]

There’s a contradiction in the hatred, too, or at least there is in some of it. On the Internet especially, the rhetoric of Coach K–loathing tends to focus on Duke’s perceived elitism, in all its manifold forms. And yet, in my necessarily limited experience, it’s often not blue-collar dudes who are tweeting this critique. People who went to Harvard hate Krzyzewski for not coaching at Kansas State

They hate Krzyzewski so much they hired Tommy Amaker?

The article was not especially filling, but was a tasty snack, best enjoyed with some good DBR comments.

[-jk]

Yea, but I'd rather have *one* Art Chansky than 5 million anonymous Art Chanskies...

Art "I'm not a unc fan" Chansky? Sports Editor of the Durham Morning Herald and then Publisher of the Four Corners Press?

Yeah. I'll take Al.

-jk

[Troublemaker]

Hmm, maybe this could become a thread to recommend writers/pieces on Grantland.

I knew about Jonah Keri and his baseball colleague Rany Jazayerli already. They write good stats-based baseball columns.

I'm going to check out Brian Phillips some more now because Des and slower seem to think highly of him. In fact, perusing his archive, I remember that I had already read a great piece by him on tennis surfaces (http://grantland.com/features/court-surfaces-golden-age-men-tennis/).

Grantland never struck me as having a deep roster, though. But it's possible I may have overlooked some writers.

For me, the crown jewels of the site are Zach Lowe, the NBA writer, and Andy Greenwald, the TV critic. As a basketball fan that actually prefers the NBA to college, any new Lowe column is to be devoured immediately. Best basketball writer/analyst going. As for Greenwald, I suspect he's just the best writer on Grantland, period. Whenever I finish watching an episode of one of my favorite TV shows, I hop onto Grantland to see if he's written a recap/review. His flowery TV reviews are well-written and add so much to my enjoyment of the episodes I've just watched. I think his review of The Americans Season 1 Finale might be the best single TV critic column I've ever read. I like Greenwald a little bit better than Alan Sepinwall, who is generally considered the best TV critic.

So, anyway, besides Lowe and Greenwald, I always thought you could just take the rest of the Grantland roster and flush them. But perhaps the roster is slightly deeper than I thought.

Whom/what do you guys like?

[slower]

Hmm, maybe this could become a thread to recommend writers/pieces on Grantland.

I knew about Jonah Keri and his baseball colleague Rany Jazayerli already. They write good stats-based baseball columns.

I'm going to check out Brian Phillips some more now because Des and slower seem to think highly of him. In fact, perusing his archive, I remember that I had already read a great piece by him on tennis surfaces (http://grantland.com/features/court-surfaces-golden-age-men-tennis/).

Grantland never struck me as having a deep roster, though. But it's possible I may have overlooked some writers.

For me, the crown jewels of the site are Zach Lowe, the NBA writer, and Andy Greenwald, the TV critic. As a basketball fan that actually prefers the NBA to college, any new Lowe column is to be devoured immediately. Best basketball writer/analyst going. As for Greenwald, I suspect he's just the best writer on Grantland, period. Whenever I finish watching an episode of one of my favorite TV shows, I hop onto Grantland to see if he's written a recap/review. His flowery TV reviews are well-written and add so much to my enjoyment of the episodes I've just watched. I think his review of The Americans Season 1 Finale might be the best single TV critic column I've ever read. I like Greenwald a little bit better than Alan Sepinwall, who is generally considered the best TV critic.

So, anyway, besides Lowe and Greenwald, I always thought you could just take the rest of the Grantland roster and flush them. But perhaps the roster is slightly deeper than I thought.

Whom/what do you guys like?

Greenwald is great, but (Pulitzer-winner) Wesley Morris is equally great writing about film. Chuck Klosterman is always a good read, as is Charles Pierce. Brian Phillips is almost always great (his tennis pieces, as you mentioned, are top-quality - probably the best tennis writing I've read since David Foster Wallace applied his genius to the sport). Jay Caspian Kang and Andrew Sharp are unapologetic Tarheel homers and Holly ANderson isn't much better. Most of the pop culture staff are excellent. Simmons, sadly, is what he is.

[NashvilleDevil]

Greenwald is great, but (Pulitzer-winner) Wesley Morris is equally great writing about film. Chuck Klosterman is always a good read, as is Charles Pierce. Brian Phillips is almost always great (his tennis pieces, as you mentioned, are top-quality - probably the best tennis writing I've read since David Foster Wallace applied his genius to the sport). Jay Caspian Kang and Andrew Sharp are unapologetic Tarheel homers and Holly ANderson isn't much better. Most of the pop culture staff are excellent. Simmons, sadly, is what he is.

For me it's Morris and Greenwald and it's not particularly close.

[Troublemaker]

Looks like I'll have to check out Wesley Morris.

For Greenwald, I said his writing was flowery but it's definitely not flowery. It's more like he bombards you with apt and often entertaining analogies, many of which reference the show.

[hurleyfor3]

Man, remember the days before the internet? When to get anything published, you had to actually be able to write coherently and make actual points?

You must never have read The Chronicle while at Duke.

[Des Esseintes]

Greenwald is great, but (Pulitzer-winner) Wesley Morris is equally great writing about film. Chuck Klosterman is always a good read, as is Charles Pierce. Brian Phillips is almost always great (his tennis pieces, as you mentioned, are top-quality - probably the best tennis writing I've read since David Foster Wallace applied his genius to the sport). Jay Caspian Kang and Andrew Sharp are unapologetic Tarheel homers and Holly ANderson isn't much better. Most of the pop culture staff are excellent. Simmons, sadly, is what he is.

I salute most of this, though I disagree so often with Greenwald and Morris that I discount them a little. (Not that anyone else should; I have esoteric positions, shared by few.) I would add to this list Alex Pappademas, who is always top-notch (his investigative Paul Walker obit (http://grantland.com/hollywood-prospectus/paul-walker-1973-2013/)), and Amos Barshad, who is consistently strong (just a terrific profile (http://grantland.com/features/three-days-rapper-gunplay/) of the rapper Gunplay, even if you don't dig hiphop). Those two are terrific on pop culture, and Pappademas in particular is smarter than almost everyone working when it comes to film. I've said this before, but I am in sync with Troublemaker on Zach Lowe. Best basketball writer working.

[slower]

I salute most of this, though I disagree so often with Greenwald and Morris that I discount them a little. (Not that anyone else should; I have esoteric positions, shared by few.) I would add to this list Alex Pappademas, who is always top-notch (his investigative Paul Walker obit (http://grantland.com/hollywood-prospectus/paul-walker-1973-2013/)), and Amos Barshad, who is consistently strong (just a terrific profile (http://grantland.com/features/three-days-rapper-gunplay/) of the rapper Gunplay, even if you don't dig hiphop). Those two are terrific on pop culture, and Pappademas in particular is smarter than almost everyone working when it comes to film. I've said this before, but I am in sync with Troublemaker on Zach Lowe. Best basketball writer working.

Let me also add that Katie Baker's "Wedded Blitz" pieces are a throwaway guilty pleasure.

[Des Esseintes]

Let me also add that Katie Baker's "Wedded Blitz" pieces are a throwaway guilty pleasure.

*nods* Yeah, those are great. I was really suspicious of Grantland in the beginning, but aside from the cheapness of Simmons's prose and the general dicktardiness of your Sharps and Ryans, it's a solid stable they've assembled over there.

[slower]

*nods* Yeah, those are great. I was really suspicious of Grantland in the beginning, but aside from the cheapness of Simmons's prose and the general dicktardiness of your Sharps and Ryans, it's a solid stable they've assembled over there.

And they are far superior to doddering dinosaurs such as Peter King, Rick Reilly or the unbearable Frank Deford. Even Wilbon and Kornheiser seem archaic in comparison.

[Des Esseintes]

And they are far superior to doddering dinosaurs such as Peter King, Rick Reilly or the unbearable Frank Deford. Even Wilbon and Kornheiser seem archaic in comparison.

Although, it's funny. I don't like Simmons, but I like Grantland. Similarly, King is extremely limited and parochial, but he's hired some great people at the MMQB. So they know good journalism, even when they're not necessarily churning it out themselves. That's worthy of respect.

[Atlanta Duke]

Let me also add that Katie Baker's "Wedded Blitz" pieces are a throwaway guilty pleasure.

I enjoy Katie Baker's contributions to Grantland - her goodbye to the Sochi Olympics article was excellent

http://grantland.com/features/winter-olympics-sochi-canada-hockey/

If Simmons really had it in for elite institutions, as opposed to knowing that trashing Duke basketball is an easy way to draw page hits, I doubt he would have hired a Yale graduate and alum of Goldman Sachs such as Katie Baker

As the line from The Godfather says, Duke bashing is nothing personal - it's strictly business