ESPN/Jon Pessah Article

[slower]

According to this link, it appears that Mr. Pessah is a Maryland grad:

http://www.journalism.umd.edu/newrel/06newrel/povich-symposium06.html

Draw your own conclusions.

[Lulu]

This is the first I've even heard of him. ESPN must have decided they wanted a Duke hating article and THEN decided who ought to write it. Very interesting.

Rather than encourage anyone to respond, though, as suggested on the front page article, I'd suggest to ignore it completely. Getting a response is a better result for ESPN, and if anything comes of it most likely it will be taking the worst collection of comments out of context and using it as fodder against Duke. I saw them discussing this article all week on the air and I'm not even going to read it. I had already determined that Duke hating must sell, but if it means I get to see more televised games, then fine.

[freedevil]

I agree with everything Lulu has said. Well put.

Additionally, if it is true that Pessah is a Terp, I'm certain any commentary he may provide is incredibly thoughtful, illuminating, and nuanced. Insert the "winking" smiley here.

[TillyGalore]

Sometimes no response is better than a response and more telling. Plus a response gives credence to his article. But all that is just my humble opinion.

[Viking Guy]

Additionally, if it is true that Pessah is a Terp, I'm certain any commentary he may provide is incredibly thoughtful, illuminating, and nuanced. Insert the "winking" smiley here.

I was fortunate enough to get to know Jon Pessah during the lacrosse media maelstrom. Your character assassination couldn't be more misplaced. Jon and I shared a number of incredible conversations over the course of several months, and I can tell you that he is one of the most thoughtful journalists I have ever met. I was most impressed with his resistance to the zeitgeist surrounding the early events of the lacrosse affair. At a time when everyone was ready to burn the lacrosse team at the stake, Jon refused to jump to conclusions, and preferred instead to focus on the broader picture. He turned out to be right. I respect him tremendously for that.

Yes, Jon had criticisms of Duke Athletics, but no more or less than he would have of any program in the country. In no way is he a Duke Hater. I think he actually kind of likes the place.

Like you, I am disappointed in both the tone and content of the article, perhaps even more so because I know the author. That being said, I also recognize that the author is not the person who has the final say in the content of a piece. ESPN the Mag has an agenda, and that agenda is to sell ESPN the Mag.

We should consider ourselves fortunate enough to have so much success as to warrant a cover article when we allegedly go into decline. Nobody is writing an article about the decline of, say, St. Johns.

[gvtucker]

I was fortunate enough to get to know Jon Pessah during the lacrosse media maelstrom. Your character assassination couldn't be more misplaced. Jon and I shared a number of incredible conversations over the course of several months, and I can tell you that he is one of the most thoughtful journalists I have ever met. I was most impressed with his resistance to the zeitgeist surrounding the early events of the lacrosse affair. At a time when everyone was ready to burn the lacrosse team at the stake, Jon refused to jump to conclusions, and preferred instead to focus on the broader picture. He turned out to be right. I respect him tremendously for that.

Yes, Jon had criticisms of Duke Athletics, but no more or less than he would have of any program in the country. In no way is he a Duke Hater. I think he actually kind of likes the place.

Like you, I am disappointed in both the tone and content of the article, perhaps even more so because I know the author. That being said, I also recognize that the author is not the person who has the final say in the content of a piece. ESPN the Mag has an agenda, and that agenda is to sell ESPN the Mag.

We should consider ourselves fortunate enough to have so much success as to warrant a cover article when we allegedly go into decline. Nobody is writing an article about the decline of, say, St. Johns.

What Viking Guy said.

IMO, this is a HUGE overreaction by DBR. Does the article reflect negatively about Duke? Yeah. Is it unfair? Yeah. Big whoop. There are going to be articles biased against Duke every now and then. There are ALSO going to be articles biased FOR Duke. You take the good with the bad. Going off on a rail because of one article is silly.

Guess what? Everyone else thinks that ESPN is biased FOR Duke. Are they right? Nah. Ever talk to a Tar Heel about ESPN? They think ESPN hates them, too. Ever talk to someone from the SEC? They think ESPN hates them and is biased in favor of the ACC. Either ESPN is biased against everyone, or perhaps it isn't biased at all, but rather people tend to see the negative stuff and overreact and don't realize that there's plenty of positive stuff, too.

I subscribe to ESPN the Mag because my kids like the magazine. One article isn't all of a sudden going to make me cancel my subscription.

[JasonEvans]

We should consider ourselves fortunate enough to have so much success as to warrant a cover article when we allegedly go into decline. Nobody is writing an article about the decline of, say, St. Johns.

Or UConn or Maryland.

I've said it before elsewhere and will say it again here-- the only school that got major attention for a down year the way we did last season was when Carolina staggered through the 8-20 mess under Doh a few years back. I would also like to point out that Carolina has had seasons like we did last year and NOT gotten any attention for it.

I see all of the articles and the such as proof that Duke is the standard by which college basketball is measured.

And I think angry emails and letters to John Pessah is a waste of time. I can tell you from experience that he is going to be 100% convinced he is right up until the moment when the FACTS (not fan opinions) prove him wrong. When Duke makes the Final 8 or Final Four this season or especially next year, when K lands a stud big-man recruit (wait, he already did that with Singler), when everyone else is writing about how K still is THE leading figure in college basketball -- that is when John Pessah will look back on his column and nervoulsy laugh about how horribly wrong he was.

--Jason "oh, and the notion that there is an anti-Duke conspiracy at ESPN is laughable to those of us in the journalism biz" Evans

[Duvall]

I subscribe to ESPN the Mag because my kids like the magazine. One article isn't all of a sudden going to make me cancel my subscription.

This is shocking. I didn't realize that *anyone* liked ESPN the Magazine.

[ugadevil]

Guess what? Everyone else thinks that ESPN is biased FOR Duke. Are they right? Nah. Ever talk to a Tar Heel about ESPN? They think ESPN hates them, too. Ever talk to someone from the SEC? They think ESPN hates them and is biased in favor of the ACC. Either ESPN is biased against everyone, or perhaps it isn't biased at all, but rather people tend to see the negative stuff and overreact and don't realize that there's plenty of positive stuff, too.


I'd say that I agree entirely with this sentiment. At UGA, everyone says that College Gameday hates us because they won't come here for a big game (it might be true and the fanbase probably deserved it). At Auburn and Tennessee, they think Lee Corso hates them because he never picks their teams to win. For all the people at ESPN that criticize Duke basketball, there is probably just as big a number who have nothing but good things to say. Complain all you want about Mike Patrick and Dick Vitale, but the two men have nothing but the utmost respect and praise for Coach K and the Duke program. There are numerous others who share that same praise on the ESPN network.

As a graduating senior who would love to pursue a career in sports, I have no shame in admitting that I constantly look for openings with ESPN and will continue to do so, regardless of how much over-the-top coverage they give the Cowboys, Red Sox, and Yankees!:D

[gvtucker]

This is shocking. I didn't realize that *anyone* liked ESPN the Magazine.

Yeah, shocking to me, too. But what can I say, at least they're reading.

[Channing]

I agree with a lot of the sentiments in this thread, and often times let "hating" go, while trying not to get hung up on it. But the blurb from the ESPN gift catalog is a bit absurd. There isnt even a facade of journalism there - just blatant, outright disrespect.

[Ima Facultiwyfe]

"I was fortunate enough to get to know Jon Pessah during the lacrosse media maelstrom. Your character assassination couldn't be more misplaced. "

Nice try. :rolleyes: (Bless your heart.) But Pessah's character assassination is the one that couldn't be more misplaced!!!! And I'm not even bothering to bless HIS heart!

Love, Ima

[mr. synellinden]

--Jason "oh, and the notion that there is an anti-Duke conspiracy at ESPN is laughable to those of us in the journalism biz" Evans

OK - perhaps conspiracy is going too far, but how do you feel about the ESPN gift guide item on the front page. That to me seems something you'd expect to see on Inside Carolina, not ESPN. Although, I am starting to view ESPN's "talent" as far less than a good example of journalism.

[gvtucker]

OK - perhaps conspiracy is going too far, but how do you feel about the ESPN gift guide item on the front page. That to me seems something you'd expect to see on Inside Carolina, not ESPN.

I am not all that sure the this really IS an ESPN Gift Guide that is quoted. Sounds more like a spoof to me that DBR is misinterpreting. I sure haven't seen it anywhere. I can't find it on the web anywhere, either.

[Duvall]

I am not all that sure the this really IS an ESPN Gift Guide that is quoted. Sounds more like a spoof to me that DBR is misinterpreting. I sure haven't seen it anywhere. I can't find it on the web anywhere, either.

Here (http://sports.espn.go.com/espn/giftguide/2007/giftguide?category=page2&productId=3120948)

I think it's become pretty clear that espn.com has made an editorial decision that shots at Duke are comedy gold, at least in Page 2 content. I'm just not sure why we should care about this.

[Viking Guy]

OK - perhaps conspiracy is going too far, but how do you feel about the ESPN gift guide item on the front page. That to me seems something you'd expect to see on Inside Carolina, not ESPN. Although, I am starting to view ESPN's "talent" as far less than a good example of journalism.

Dude, the Holiday Gift Guide is a Page 2 article. It's a joke!

DBR is making itself look very foolish by displaying an complete lack of sense of humor in the matter.


PS: the Onion is actually a satire newspaper. It's not real news!

[Patrick Yates]

While I am greatful to anyone who supported the lacrosse players during the witch-hunt, DO NOT assume that everyone who did so is evenhanded or unbiased.

While the more well known, mainstream, media outlets and personalities were handing out pitchforks and torches, virtually all sports writers were urging caution.

Personally, I had several UNC fans, each of whom hates Duke with a passion, express severe doubt about the allegations. I think all serious sports followers, and especially the sports media, have grown accustomed to unfounded allegations heaped on athletes (usually professional, but still) in what ammount to little more than extortion schemes. Groupies, street agents, etc, the media know that there are people who take advantage of young athletes.

Several Duke-Haters, many irrationally so, were of the opinion that there was no real proof, and that this could happen anywhere. I think all the UNC fans had horrifying visions of some evil young women making baseless insinuations about the UNC hoops squad. Every serious sports fan realized that athletes are targets.

So, just because someone was supportive, or even-handed, during the lacrosse troubles does not mean that they do not harbor deep, unwarranted, irrational, unsupported hatred of Duke.

That said, the best way to end this talk is to win. IN MARCH. Given how our squads have underperfomed since 03, and the talent on said rosters, talk of slippage is valid, if not true. But, unlike Jason, I do not think an elite 8 is enough (unless we are on the wrong end of an epic 92esque battle with the eventual NC). I think only a strong FF showing will shut up the critics. And, we need a true low post threat. Singler is amazing, but he is somewhere between Shane and Dunleavy on the true post scale. We don't have to recruit one per se, should Lance or Zoubs develop, that would do just fine.

Remember, reality means very little (excepting a NC); perception is key. And right now the perception is that Duke cannot attract a true low post player. The last successful one entered school 5 years ago. There is not one comming next year, and CURRENTLY we are not involved with any top tier true posts for the rising Jr class.

All the above said, Duke Haters must be quaking in their boots. Recruitniks readily admit that the 08 class is weak. The 09 class is better, but it is not a great class. The 2010 class is stud-rific however. Duke Haters, especially in the media, must have the nightmare, doomsday scenario in their minds. This summer, K could very well lead the USA back to international glory. IF he gets the superstars to play like last summer, we could be in for a summer of blowout, fun to watch games. Games where superstar NBAers actually play together and play D. Games where Kobe, LeBron, et al talk about what an IDEAL coach K is to play for. Games where Kobe, LeBron, and other HS to NBA players talk about how they would've been better prepped for the pros had K been their college coaches. A Gold Medal next summer would let K take his pick out of those classes. Duke could be godly again, and the haters would reall hate that.

Patrick Yates

[SilkyJ]

I had already determined that Duke hating must sell, but if it means I get to see more televised games, then fine.

well put.

jealousy is an ugly color to wear.

[feldspar]

One article isn't all of a sudden going to make me cancel my subscription.

Or turn my sound down.

*snarf*

[Duvall]

However, I think we can all agree that "by staying silent he lost some credibility, and maybe some of his soul" is some terrible, terrible writing.

[mr. synellinden]

Dude, the Holiday Gift Guide is a Page 2 article. It's a joke!

DBR is making itself look very foolish by displaying an complete lack of sense of humor in the matter.


PS: the Onion is actually a satire newspaper. It's not real news!

I am pretty clear on the difference between satire and real news. Page 2 is often more in the satire arena, but this is not one of those instances. This is not a joke and even if it were a joke, it is not an appropriate joke in my opinion.

This is a real product and gift idea: http://sports.espn.go.com/espn/giftguide/2007/giftguide?category=page2&productId=3110764.

So is this - another book. http://sports.espn.go.com/espn/giftguide/2007/giftguide?category=page2&productId=3120949.

While some of the other products are joke-ish (the Irabu poster for example), none of the other nine ideas are harshly critical and vindictive towards an individual sports figure or team. To me, it is clear, even in this little piece (top ten gift ideas) laced with mild humor that ESPN is looking for any opportunity to criticize, make fun of, belittle and "hate on" Duke. And I'm not sure there isn't a collective awareness of it, even if you don't want to call if a "conspiracy."

[TillyGalore]

You need to read the whole thing to understand it's a joke. If you only read the part about Jamie Spatola's book you'll think it is a slam at Duke.

Read the whole thing, it is pretty funny.

[Bostondevil]

Just remember the 'Duke Boy' commercial. Jay Bilas has given an interview that he wasn't told about it in advance. Wonder why?

Think it would have flown if they'd referred to Hubert Davis as 'Heel Boy'?



ESPN, where the E stands for Evil.

[feldspar]

Think it would have flown if they'd referred to Hubert Davis as 'Heel Boy'?

Yeah. But I don't think it would have been as funny.

[mr. synellinden]

You need to read the whole thing to understand it's a joke. If you only read the part about Jamie Spatola's book you'll think it is a slam at Duke.

Read the whole thing, it is pretty funny.

Really? Which other gift ideas are a vindictive slam at anyone? Are the cuff links a joke? What about the itunes gift card? What about the fathead posters? I didn't find the Pro Football Chronicle idea to be so funny. Maybe I really don't understand humor. Is this supposed to be satire?

[gvtucker]

I am pretty clear on the difference between satire and real news. Page 2 is often more in the satire arena, but this is not one of those instances. This is not a joke and even if it were a joke, it is not an appropriate joke in my opinion.

This is a real product and gift idea: http://sports.espn.go.com/espn/giftguide/2007/giftguide?category=page2&productId=3110764.

So is this - another book. http://sports.espn.go.com/espn/giftguide/2007/giftguide?category=page2&productId=3120949.

While some of the other products are joke-ish (the Irabu poster for example), none of the other nine ideas are harshly critical and vindictive towards an individual sports figure or team.

Oh really?

How about this quote?

"Tired of Patriots fans crying about the backlash over this year's spying incident? Or maybe you're a Pats fan who's sick of all the bawling from your team's critics. Here's how you stop the blubbering: Tell them to suck on this."

[Viking Guy]

Really? Which other gift ideas are a vindictive slam at anyone? Are the cuff links a joke? What about the itunes gift card? What about the fathead posters? I didn't find the Pro Football Chronicle idea to be so funny. Maybe I really don't understand humor. Is this supposed to be satire?

The blurb for the Throwback Pats jersey jabs the current Pats for being unlikable overlords.

The blurb for the fathead suggests that having a Cincinnati Bengal in your house is legit cause for calling 911.

The blurb for the pacifier attacks the Pats once again, calling their fans crybabies.

[mr. synellinden]

Oh really?

How about this quote?

"Tired of Patriots fans crying about the backlash over this year's spying incident? Or maybe you're a Pats fan who's sick of all the bawling from your team's critics. Here's how you stop the blubbering: Tell them to suck on this."

Again, even the one or two that do involve some humor - the Irabu poster being the other one - are not vindictive slams at an individual. There is nothing humorous, satirical or prankish about the Coach K book or what was written.

This is an absolute slam:

"Now, with the Blue Devils reduced to a bunch of undersized, unathletic floppers, Coach K has little to get excited about on the basketball court. Yet he somehow continues to make millions of dollars and remains one of the best known figures in sports. How does he do it? Read his new book, "Beyond Basketball: Coach K's Keywords for Success," to find out how you too can hoodwink people into showering you with lots of money and glory."

And I can't believe anyone would find any humor or satire in that or think it's anyway comparable to a gag-like gift such as a Patriots pacifier. Seriously, I am flabbergasted that so many people here are defending this or finding it humorous.

[feldspar]

Just because you don't find a joke funny doesn't make it not a joke.

I just find it humorous that this thread is a perfect example of the type of thing that people make fun of Duke fans for.

[gvtucker]

Again, even the one or two that do involve some humor - the Irabu poster being the other one - are not vindictive slams at an individual. There is nothing humorous, satirical or prankish about the Coach K book or what was written.

This is an absolute slam:

"Now, with the Blue Devils reduced to a bunch of undersized, unathletic floppers, Coach K has little to get excited about on the basketball court. Yet he somehow continues to make millions of dollars and remains one of the best known figures in sports. How does he do it? Read his new book, "Beyond Basketball: Coach K's Keywords for Success," to find out how you too can hoodwink people into showering you with lots of money and glory."

And I can't believe anyone would find any humor or satire in that or think it's anyway comparable to a gag-like gift such as a Patriots pacifier. Seriously, I am flabbergasted that so many people here are defending this or finding it humorous.

I'm not defending it. I don't find it humorous. I just don't care. At all.

Seeing a bunch of Duke fans get all worked up over really, really minor details in life just plays into the negative stereotype of Duke fans that we, uh, get all worked up over really really minor details.

[gvtucker]

Just because you don't find a joke funny doesn't make it not a joke.

I just find it humorous that this thread is a perfect example of the type of thing that people make fun of Duke fans for.

Dang, you beat me by a minute.

[tux]

Jason,

Re: that signature:

Can you elaborate on how being in the "journalism biz" especially helps one root out media bias? (It just comes across as a fairly pompous line; I'm interested to see if you can write the next sentence to it...)

[Duvall]

Just because you don't find a joke funny doesn't make it not a joke.

Let's make one thing perfectly clear, though - the joke is not funny.

[feldspar]

Let's make one thing perfectly clear, though - the joke is not funny.

To you.

I'm sure a lot of UNC fans are howling at it. Which is fine. To be disgusted by that is...well...pretty funny to me. Which, perhaps, was the point of the joke all along.

[cape cod]

This thread is almost comical in the way it is taking the ESPN gift item so seriously. Talk about walking around with a chip on ones shoulder.

I personally found the sales pitch for several of the gift items to be rather humorous. If we as Duke fans can't laugh at good-natured jabs that are aimed our way, then we need a remedial course in "Why the Real World hates Duke". I suggest you stop taking yourselves so seriously.

[SilkyJ]

The blurb for the fathead suggests that having a Cincinnati Bengal in your house is legit cause for calling 911.


First of all, that's hilarious.



Seeing a bunch of Duke fans get all worked up over really, really minor details in life just plays into the negative stereotype of Duke fans that we, uh, get all worked up over really really minor details.

Call me crazy, but I dont think that's the stereotype people have of us. I think its more along the lines of "rich, arrogant, elitists." I've never heard anyone tell me duke sucks b/c we get angry at little jokes and are sticklers for details.

[Duvall]

To you.

No, I'm pretty sure that the above joke would fail objective standards of humor. It's not offensive, by any means. It's just not funny.

[Channing]

Dude, the Holiday Gift Guide is a Page 2 article. It's a joke!

DBR is making itself look very foolish by displaying an complete lack of sense of humor in the matter.


PS: the Onion is actually a satire newspaper. It's not real news!

thanks for clarifying - I had no idea it was a page two article. I just thought it was something ESPN was putting out.

[mr. synellinden]

First of all, I obviously don't think it is funny in any way. I can see how a UNC or Maryland fan would, but pretty much only those people or another Duke hater - and that is precisely why it is vindictive and offensive to me - (obviously not to others). It seems like it would only be "funny" to people who hate Duke. To anyone else it would seem kind of stupid and harsh - again, I guess this thread proves otherwise, but that fact is what surprises me.

And it's completely out of whack with the other "humorous" gifts/blurbs. I am a Yankee fan and I do see the humor in a Hideki Irabu poster.

The other thing about this is that it must be put in context, which is the obvious fact that there is an anti-Duke thing going on at ESPN and this is a perfect example of how bad it is become - because of all 10, the Coach K item is the only one harshly attacking one individual in a non-humorous way. I think the differentiation shows that anti-Duke sentiment at ESPN, which should bother everyone who is a Duke fan because it has the potential to make a meaningful impact. Where do you think the perception started that Duke doesn't develop big men well? Where do you think the perception started that Duke gets all the calls? Where do you think the perception started that Duke is slipping - THE MEDIA. Does that kind of thing weigh on potential recruits? Perhaps. When I was a senior in high school, I might have been influenced by all the negative things that have been said recently about Duke and Coach K. Does it have an impact on referees who have been aware of the Duke gets all the calls talk during the last six years? Probably not but you never know. I still wonder if Boozer gets the call in 2002 if Billy Packer hadn't spent the last year questioning all the calls in the Duke - Arizona game and the following season.

A one time dig at Coach K - even if not funny and offensive by my standards - fine, but in the context of the ESPN issue, it really bothers me.

[kramerbr]

How about a link to Pessah's article?

[Sir Stealth]

The reaction that people have to someone who went or goes to Duke, and the image that people have built up about the university are not a joke. These views are often directly influenced by the negative feelings that have been drummed up about the basketball program, and it doesn't matter how completely irrational that is because it is reality. Being sensitive about that is not the reason why people hate Duke, just as overcritical microanalysis of depth in a key win on a Duke message board is not the reason why people hate Duke (as someone suggested after the Marquette win). If these were the reasons, it would be a lot less of a problem and certainly not confined to Duke. The Duke hating crap has gotten pretty out of control and it's not sensationalizing it to be p*ssed off about it. Bringing the lax thing into it in order to find some new reason why Coack K supposedly has no soul is a decent example of how being irrational about Duke's basketball program has spilled over into being irrational about Duke in real life -way beyond displeasure about fan heckling, negative effects on recruiting, or unfair officiating backlashes.

[gvtucker]

The reaction that people have to someone who went or goes to Duke, and the image that people have built up about the university are not a joke. These views are often directly influenced by the negative feelings that have been drummed up about the basketball program, and it doesn't matter how completely irrational that is because it is reality. Being sensitive about that is not the reason why people hate Duke, just as overcritical microanalysis of depth in a key win on a Duke message board is not the reason why people hate Duke (as someone suggested after the Marquette win). If these were the reasons, it would be a lot less of a problem and certainly not confined to Duke. The Duke hating crap has gotten pretty out of control and it's not sensationalizing it to be p*ssed off about it. Bringing the lax thing into it in order to find some new reason why Coack K supposedly has no soul is a decent example of how being irrational about Duke's basketball program has spilled over into being irrational about Duke in real life -way beyond displeasure about fan heckling, negative effects on recruiting, or unfair officiating backlashes.

Duke is the most successful basketball program in college basketball. That, way above everything else, is why the hating happens. If you'd like to see the hating stop, the only cure will be a lot of losses for Duke.

I'd just as soon see the hating.

[Chard]

--Jason "oh, and the notion that there is an anti-Duke conspiracy at ESPN is laughable to those of us in the journalism biz" Evans


Jason,

Re: that signature:

Can you elaborate on how being in the "journalism biz" especially helps one root out media bias? (It just comes across as a fairly pompous line; I'm interested to see if you can write the next sentence to it...)

How soon we forget. Anybody remember the story of media members celebration in a press room after the Duke loss to VCU last year? Nah, no bias there.

[throatybeard]

The success is a large part of it, but our collective high-and-mighty routine is also a contributor.

[gvtucker]

The success is a large part of it, but our collective high-and-mighty routine is also a contributor.

While I agree, I'd also note that the high-and-mighty routine is going to inevitably develop with the level of success we've had. It's human nature. (See "Dame, Notre" and "UCLA".)

[DBFAN]

You said all we have to do is start losing and people would stop talking, well we had our fair share of it last year and the end result is that the media talks more negatively than ever before. There are people out there who do not like us and want us to disappear. All of the evidence is there, this is no conspiracy, the sad thing is that no one from Duke seems to stand up about it. It is very frustrating.

[gvtucker]

You said all we have to do is start losing and people would stop talking, well we had our fair share of it last year and the end result is that the media talks more negatively than ever before. There are people out there who do not like us and want us to disappear. All of the evidence is there, this is no conspiracy, the sad thing is that no one from Duke seems to stand up about it. It is very frustrating.

A season in which a team goes 22-11 would only be considered a "fair share" of losing in the world of the spoiled Duke fan.

Are there people that want to see Duke basketball disappear? Sure. Heck, there are thousands of them 8 miles down the road. But guess what? Jason Evans notwithstanding, there are lots of people that took great joy in seeing UNC completely meltdown six years ago. Why did we all take such joy? Mostly because the UNC program has enjoyed a great deal of success.

It isn't a conspiracy for lots of people to want to see the downfall of a powerful sports program. It is just human nature.

[mr. synellinden]

Duke is the most successful basketball program in college basketball. That, way above everything else, is why the hating happens. If you'd like to see the hating stop, the only cure will be a lot of losses for Duke.

I'd just as soon see the hating.

I don't think so. I don't remember Kentucky getting this kind of treatment in the mid 1990s when it was winning two out of three titles and losing in the title game the third year. And I don't recall UNC ever getting this treatment. And although I am not old enough to remember, I don't think UCLA had any of these issues. It's the media - and the media - especially ESPN - has changed a lot in the last 10 years (since Kentucky's run), which just happens to coincide with the development of the internet.

[-bdbd]

Most mainstream folks assume/expect integrity from the media -- news media and also sports media. Most casual observers, who aren't huge b-ball fans like those of us posting here aren't always aware how the "news" is being colored. That is why integrity in the media is so very important -- people depend on and TRUST the media.

So there are impacts if a major or dominant player like ESPN reports, often as "fact," that: (1) Duke gets all of the calls (even as part of their coverage - recall Stew Scott story a couple years ago after the FSU game) even when Duke is getting charged with 2x the fouls called on an opponent and fouling out their entire starting lineup; or that (2) Duke is a rich-kids elitist school with terrible relations with a mostly poor, black city (almost those exact words, again from any number of ESPN LAX stories where they were among the leaders in the anti-Duke stampede over a year ago); (3) ESPN diagramming in-detail (thank you again Mr. Scott) how G. Henderson "MUST" have run all the way across the court with the intent to harm Tyler Hansborough's nose (spot shadow and all); (4) The more recent spate of anti-Duke anti-K rif's posted in ESPN Magaazine.; etc, etc.

Jason - I truly like your generally well-informed and reasoned "let's all put the toches down..." tone on this board - you clearly know your stuff - but I simply don't buy it. The anti-Duke bias (no, not conpiracy) at ESPN, through sheer volume and virility, couldn't be more obvious. I tend not to believe in conspiracy junk, as I think most professionals desperately like to think of themselves first and foremost as just that - professional. But I wonder if there isn't some sort of "groupthink" going on over there, given a critical mass of UCONN and UNC-CH alums/fans, that serves to "shape" the News department's view of the world.

I live in the DC area now. Many MD and UVA and VPI friends used to grumble - usually after a loss to Duke - about Duke getting so many close calls, etc. It was generally a few grumbles and then gone (maybe MORE than just a few if in a large crowd of Terp fans, etc). But nowadays, I so often hear it much more persistently from these same people, who explain/justify the change by saying "even the Post..." or "even ESPN was talking about it..." I also hear this MUCH more from the casual fans who never cared about Duke one way or the other before...

And I agree - somebody at Duke HAS to speak up about it. The same as you confront racial bigotry -- it cannot stand the light of day (or scrutiny).

Just my thoughts. Go Duke!

Regards,

-BDBD :eek:

[feldspar]

The same as you confront racial bigotry -- it cannot stand the light of day (or scrutiny).

Please tell me you're not equating "Duke hating" with racism.

[Indoor66]

I don't think so. I don't remember Kentucky getting this kind of treatment in the mid 1990s when it was winning two out of three titles and losing in the title game the third year. And I don't recall UNC ever getting this treatment. And although I am not old enough to remember, I don't think UCLA had any of these issues. It's the media - and the media - especially ESPN - has changed a lot in the last 10 years (since Kentucky's run), which just happens to coincide with the development of the internet.

UCLA was subject to widespread villification by other fans. UNC never dominated nationally the way Duke has and was never so widely disliked. That said, the difference to day is the internet and 24 hour cycles. Familiarity breeds contempt.

[-bdbd]

Feldspar -
Re Duke-hating and racism. Of course not. (I'm sorry if I implied otherwise.) I was simply saying that neither can stand close (or even not-so-close) scrutiny. So this unprofessional, agenda-based approach by certain media members needs to be confronted and pointed out for what it is. What it is is unprofessional..... or worse.

I would actually like to hear opinions from those on this board working in/with media. Is it past the realm of plausibility that a media outlet could pander to a certain group, such as Duke-bashers, in the interest of ratings and interest? Does it never happen elsewhere?

-BDBD

P.S. I noted, belatedly, a typo in my earlier note. I intended to say, "I wonder if there isn't some sort of "groupthink" going on over there (at ESPN), given a critical mass of UCONN and UNC-CH alums/fans, that serves to "shape" the News department's view of their world."

[throatybeard]

UNC never dominated nationally the way Duke has

I dispute that. They were really dominant from late UCLA empire to 1984.

[throatybeard]

One good thing about the Pessah article was the first section, about Prosser's funeral.

Think about what a survivor K must feel like. Valvano's dead. Prosser's dead. Cremins is in the minor leagues again. Other age contemporaries like Odom have left the conference.

Coach K is the Watcher.

[kramerbr]

What's a guy have to do around here to get a link?

[MChambers]

Kyle Singler named by ESPN as national player of the week:

http://sports.espn.go.com/ncb/notebook?page=notebook/weeklywatch03

Sure, you're thinking this is pro-Duke, what is Chambers complaining about?

See, it's really a thinly-veiled attempt to influence Kyle to go pro next Spring!

Matt

P.S. As Pynchon observed, just because you're paranoid doesn't mean they aren't out to get you.

[SMO]

Please tell me you're not equating "Duke hating" with racism.

My only thought here is that if (a big if) "Duke haters" truly hate those who attend(ed) Duke, root for Duke, like Duke, etc. then there really isn't much difference. The hatred is just as baseless. There probably aren't many that fit that description but I would wager that there are some.

[diesel]

And I thought I was out of a year plus preoccupation with the nightmare of the lacrosse case and could return to my first love of Blue Devil basketball!

But here is Pessah of ESPN attacking Coach K on the lacrosse case because "by staying silent he lost some credibility”? Give me a break! ESPN broadcasted the lies that underlay the Lacrosse Hoax. In his 4/11/2006 piece in ESPN The Magazine, Eric Adelson reported an anonymous source who was “present at the hospital” as indicating that Mangum had bruising on her neck (supporting her story she was strangled), bruises on her face (supporting her story she was beaten) and pelvic injuries (supporting her rape and sodomy stories).

All of these stories have been shown to be lies yet Adelson has never acknowledged he was suckered and never revealed his so-called source. (I’m excluding the possibility that he just made it up!) Nor has ESPN ever issued an apology for their role in thus propagating the Lacrosse Hoax.

Since Pessah is ill-equipped and in the wrong company to write about the lacrosse case, might I suggest something that might be more suitable to his background as a Maryland graduate and basketball writer? Why doesn’t he use his inside knowledge to examine the reasons for and implications of the zero graduation rate for D1 basketball players entering his alma mater in the 1997-2000 period?

[JG Nothing]

But here is Pessah of ESPN attacking Coach K on the lacrosse case because "by staying silent he lost some credibility”? Give me a break!
From Pessah's article: “I’ve never been a fan of nondecisions,” says Tom Butters, the former Duke athletic director, who hired Krzyzewski, then a little-known coach at Army, in 1980. “If you can’t support these boys, who can you support? There are times when you have to put your [rear end] on the line....“Did I anticipate Mike would step forward?” {Butters] says. “Yes, because he has stepped forward so many times on so many issues, and because of the gravity of the situation. I am in no way critical of the way he responded, but I was surprised. He is so powerful, and he is not one to be shy about his views. I would have thought he would anguish in his silence.”

Since Pessah is ill-equipped and in the wrong company to write about the lacrosse case....
http://sports.espn.go.com/ncaa/news/story?id=2491696
http://insider.espn.go.com/ncaa/insider/news/story?id=2563683&action=login&appRedirect=http%3a%2f%2finsider.espn.go.com%2fnca a%2finsider%2fnews%2fstory%3fid%3d2563683

[Bostondevil]

Yeah. But I don't think it would have been as funny.

Whereas I think it would have been hilarious! (Even more hilarious if they'd done it to Stuart Scott.)

[diesel]

We’ve closed the lacrosse board and it was not my intention to reopen it. My point about the Pessah piece was simply that he is in a position to write with authority about the indisputable role ESPN itself played in propagating the lacrosse hoax—as I documented. It seemed to me that such introspection on his part might be more rewarding than impugning the actions of those outside his circle. Charity begins at home, as they say.

And forgive me if I’m not impressed if Pessah’s prior pieces cite as authorities Duke faculty such as Starns and Lubiano. The only time I’ve ever felt ashamed to be a Duke alum was when the lawyers for the three lacrosse accused put forward their motion to have a potential trial moved on the grounds that the jury pool in Durham had been poisoned, in part by the presumption of their guilt in statements by their teachers—the principal such statement being organized by Lubiano.

Some things are going to be hard to forget, although I want to get back to basketball

[Duvall]

It isn't a conspiracy for lots of people to want to see the downfall of a powerful sports program. It is just human nature.

Exactly. There is a great deal of anti-Duke resentment and sentiment out there, and there are quite a few sportswriters and editors that have realized that pandering to that sentiment is a good way to make money. It's not a conspiracy, it's just business.

I don't think that it's worth getting worked up over, partly because it doesn't have any much real world impact, and partly because there isn't much we can do about it. But I don't see any reason not to acknowledge this pattern for what it is.

[JG Nothing]

In the Pessah article, K claims “Being great means being lonely....You are constantly being watched and envied." Scrutiny and hatred come with the territory. If you don't like being scrutinized and hated, then stop being great.

[feldspar]

You know, I re-read Pessah's article this morning while waiting at the car shop and, while I still disagree with many of Pessah's smaller points, I think his overall message from the article has some merit to those examining Duke basketball from the outside.

One of Pessah's main points is that Duke basketball in the Coach K era has been defined by individual players putting aside their individuality for the sake of the team. We saw this time and again as Duke went on its amazing run through the late '80s and early '90s. We saw it again as the Duke resurgence happened in the late '90s and early '00s. It was manifested in a huge way with the '01 championship and the Boozer-Sanders saga.

This is how Coach K has been able to build championships. He gets guys who buy into the "team above all else" mentality.

Pessah's main point, though, is that it is growing increasingly difficult in today's college basketball environment to create that kind of mentality with players. More and more players are jumping earlier and earlier, notwithstanding the new draft-eligibility rules. Duke used to be immune from this, but not anymore. We now have to deal with the Sean Livingstons and Mike Dunleavys and Corey Maggettes - players who were expected to be around at least one year longer than they were, and resulted in glaring holes in our lineups. Then there are the players we didn't get, like the Greg Monroes, the Patrick Pattersons - players who didn't seem to want to subscribe to Coach K's strict "team first, me second" mentality. This opened up even more holes. As Pessah says, it creates a Catch-22 for Coach K. Do you stockpile talent, knowing that they are "one-and-dones" and likely aren't going to buy into your proven system of winning (team first) but provide a year or maybe two of spark and in so doing, essentially become a sell-out, or do you take what you can get in terms of talent who (like Singler) seem willing to buy into the system, and sacrifice top recruits, and as a result, have to work with what you have in terms of a lineup?

It's an interesting argument, and one that I think is deserving of some discussion and much observation. Duke's first early jump to the NBA didn't happen until 1999. That puts us at least 5-10 years ahead of any other major college basketball program in terms of having to adjust recruiting, lineups, etc, which means that Coach K is really only in his infancy when it comes to learning about this aspect of college basketball in the "modern era."

In my opinion, we're now rounding out the middle of his learning curve. The next few years, in my opinion, will tell a lot about Coach K's ability to adapt to this new era in Duke basketball. Pessah seems pessimistic about K's ability to adapt well. I, of course, am much more optimistic, but I still feel that his larger arguments are worth examining.

[JG Nothing]

One of Pessah's main points is that Duke basketball in the Coach K era has been defined by individual players putting aside their individuality for the sake of the team. We saw this time and again as Duke went on its amazing run through the late '80s and early '90s. We saw it again as the Duke resurgence happened in the late '90s and early '00s. It was manifested in a huge way with the '01 championship and the Boozer-Sanders saga.

This is how Coach K has been able to build championships. He gets guys who buy into the "team above all else" mentality.

Pessah's main point, though, is that it is growing increasingly difficult in today's college basketball environment to create that kind of mentality with players. More and more players are jumping earlier and earlier, notwithstanding the new draft-eligibility rules. Duke used to be immune from this, but not anymore. We now have to deal with the Sean Livingstons and Mike Dunleavys and Corey Maggettes - players who were expected to be around at least one year longer than they were, and resulted in glaring holes in our lineups. Then there are the players we didn't get, like the Greg Monroes, the Patrick Pattersons - players who didn't seem to want to subscribe to Coach K's strict "team first, me second" mentality. This opened up even more holes. As Pessah says, it creates a Catch-22 for Coach K. Do you stockpile talent, knowing that they are "one-and-dones" and likely aren't going to buy into your proven system of winning (team first) but provide a year or maybe two of spark and in so doing, essentially become a sell-out, or do you take what you can get in terms of talent who (like Singler) seem willing to buy into the system, and sacrifice top recruits, and as a result, have to work with what you have in terms of a lineup?

It's an interesting argument, and one that I think is deserving of some discussion and much observation. Duke's first early jump to the NBA didn't happen until 1999. That puts us at least 5-10 years ahead of any other major college basketball program in terms of having to adjust recruiting, lineups, etc, which means that Coach K is really only in his infancy when it comes to learning about this aspect of college basketball in the "modern era."

In my opinion, we're now rounding out the middle of his learning curve. The next few years, in my opinion, will tell a lot about Coach K's ability to adapt to this new era in Duke basketball. Pessah seems pessimistic about K's ability to adapt well. I, of course, am much more optimistic, but I still feel that his larger arguments are worth examining.

I agree that the topic is worth examining. It probably deserves its own thread.

[Duvall]

Pessah's main point, though, is that it is growing increasingly difficult in today's college basketball environment to create that kind of mentality with players. More and more players are jumping earlier and earlier, notwithstanding the new draft-eligibility rules. Duke used to be immune from this, but not anymore. We now have to deal with the Sean Livingstons and Mike Dunleavys and Corey Maggettes - players who were expected to be around at least one year longer than they were, and resulted in glaring holes in our lineups. Then there are the players we didn't get, like the Greg Monroes, the Patrick Pattersons - players who didn't seem to want to subscribe to Coach K's strict "team first, me second" mentality.

That's a cheap shot. Neither Georgetown nor the Princeton offense seem particularly consistent with a "me-first" attitude.

[throatybeard]

Ah, what ESPN used to be...

http://www.theonion.com/content/news/gin_soaked_craig_kilborn_shows_up

[feldspar]

That's a cheap shot. Neither Georgetown nor the Princeton offense seem particularly consistent with a "me-first" attitude.

It's less about the type of offense run and more about the type of basketball program overall.

[Duvall]

It's less about the type of offense run and more about the type of basketball program overall.

What does that even mean? You're casting aspersions on Greg Monroe and John Thompson III's program without the slightest hint that you know anything about either.

[SDfan]

I have been a fan of Duke basketball for years. When I started following Duke basketball closely, I remember thinking how much positive coverage the program recieves via ESPN. It wasn't until I started reading the posts on this site that I started to think of the possibility that there was some ominous Duke hating conspiracy out there. It's obvious that many posters fall on either side of the coin here. Personally, I think the amount of negative coverage has increased significantly over the past few years. Having said that, I feel the best way to handle this is with a sense of humor, wit and good old fashion caddiness on the part of the fans. This is best handled by the Cameron Crazies. I look forward to seeing some creativity by the Crazies during some future big game broadcasts. I think the time is now to let ESPN know how much Duke fans love ESPN the network for broadcasting Duke basketball to the nation and how much Duke fans love the magazine by writing about the program. I would like to see the Crazies say something with their tongues firmly planted in their cheeks. Cheers.:D

[dukeENG2003]

I know everyone has been piling on ESPN these days, but theres a reason why.

Digger, Clemson doesn't have a player named John Mays. . .

:rolleyes:

[wiscodevil]

Is GWB really one of K's heroes?

It was not nearly as negative as I was led to believe, but did contain some unnecccessary cheap shots and speculation.

The line about how "only the failures stay" at Duke for four years is absurd.