PDA

View Full Version : DBR's front page ESPN idea



DevilWolf
11-27-2007, 07:27 AM
I have another great idea. Why don't we ban ESPN from the Duke campus? That way maybe they'll stop talking about Duke completely, and we'll never have to put up with what they say during our games because they'll never be televised.

Or ... we could let the KIDS have fun being on TV for two seconds, and all of us adults could grow a thicker skin. Don't forget what the "E" stands for. They know that getting people all riled up about Duke makes for great drama and great ratings.

happydays1949
11-27-2007, 07:45 AM
Wow, other schools are praying that ESPN pays attention.

ESPN is in the business to make money, and DUKE is money. ESPN helps keep Duke on the front page.

I am going to enjoy Duke basketball, ESPN can't take that away from me.

bluebear
11-27-2007, 07:46 AM
I have another great idea. Why don't we ban ESPN from the Duke campus? That way maybe they'll stop talking about Duke completely, and we'll never have to put up with what they say during our games because they'll never be televised.

Or ... we could let the KIDS have fun being on TV for two seconds, and all of us adults could grow a thicker skin. Don't forget what the "E" stands for. They know that getting people all riled up about Duke makes for great drama and great ratings.

While I agree completely with the sentiments of your last paragraph, I like the DBR front page idea...Even if done in a tongue in cheek way, it would be a funny and creative (though staged) response to ESPN...ESPN is clearly having fun with Duke..why not do the same?

Ima Facultiwyfe
11-27-2007, 07:55 AM
Love it. Love it! Love it!:D
Ima

sandinmyshoes
11-27-2007, 08:04 AM
I think DBR is forgetting that ESPN has done as much or more for Duke as Duke has done for ESPN. Yes there have been some really bad articles or whatever lately, but they are probably just trying to balance out all the positive articles and reports they have done in the past. Even now there is a nice Singler article up on their website.

I do not see how alienating ESPN will help in the least. The DBR idea could be fun if not carried too far. But DBR's general obsession with ESPN is more likely to bear a bitter fruit than anything else. I'm just afraid that too much of a reaction from us will only feed the beast and create more Duke hatred. We'll look like the spoiled brats other fans accuse us of being.

dukelion
11-27-2007, 08:29 AM
I don't think getting into a brawl with Bristol is in our best interests.

As "Sandinmyshoes" mentions above I think DBR forgets how much ESPN has done for Duke.

Allthough ESPN is off the rails a bit lately the Crazies should call them on it with some clever signs and/or chants.

Not sure what exactly but something along the lines of "What tourney did UCONN go to last year" or something to that effect. Basically I'm still disgusted that UCONN was so horrendous last year and the fact that it received ZERO attention from the national media.

jlear
11-27-2007, 08:32 AM
Why would we pay any attention them, because they are critical of our program and school? The more successful you are as a person, business, or sports program the more people are going to be jealous and critical of you. We get our fair share of love from the media and fans. So grow up and ignore it. The best revenge is success! Let’s just be who we are.

All that said, if we just cannot control our hurt feelings then I suggest a bunch of “We love FOX sports signs.”

dukeENG2003
11-27-2007, 08:40 AM
the front page idea is a TERRIBLE one. If you want to protest, do it actively. Standing with our arms crossed will only give them more fuel. There has already been a WRAL article about how the Crazies are weak, and that there are empty seats in Cameron (which is sad, but true). This sort of thing will only lead to more "downfall of Duke" talk. "Look, even the crazies aren't excited anymore" they'll say. As comic book guy from the Simpsons says, "worst idea. . . ever"

The focus of tonight should be the GAME, not who is covering it. . .

throatybeard
11-27-2007, 08:49 AM
Irrespective of whether it's a good idea or not, I find this logistically unworkable:


It would be classic if, rather than that, whenever the camera panned over them, the Crazies just crossed their arms en masse and stared at the camera until it went away. It would be a mild but effective protest.

There isn't "the camera"--there are a bunch of them. It would be easy to diss the single camera guy who walk-pans past the walk-up line. But inside, this would be close to impossible. The TV crew has multiple cameras, and often one is on the kids at all times. So they'd have to stand there, impassive, the whole game.

About 10 years ago, I was poking around in the crow's nest on an off day, and the TV crew had left a list for the announcers of what each camera generally was going to cover. Certain players (Elton, if memory serves) even had an isolation camera on them the whole game. One of the isos was the TV-side Ugrads.

Indoor66
11-27-2007, 08:56 AM
While I agree completely with the sentiments of your last paragraph, I like the DBR front page idea...Even if done in a tongue in cheek way, it would be a funny and creative (though staged) response to ESPN...ESPN is clearly having fun with Duke..why not do the same?

Duke has more to lose than ESPN. They make the decision on what to televise. If we are not good TV then we are not on TV. Doubt that? Why are we on much more than UNC and UNC is considered a better team this year? We are on more that the other teams rated above us - UCLA, Memphis, Kansas, Georgetown, Washington State. Why? Because we provide good TV. Let's not kill the goose - or even lightly strangle it. We have absolutely NOTHING to win and a great deal to lose.

jacone21
11-27-2007, 09:04 AM
Duke has more to lose than ESPN. They make the decision on what to televise. If we are not good TV then we are not on TV. Doubt that? Why are we on much more than UNC and UNC is considered a better team this year? We are on more that the other teams rated above us - UCLA, Memphis, Kansas, Georgetown, Washington State. Why? Because we provide good TV. Let's not kill the goose - or even lightly strangle it. We have absolutely NOTHING to win and a great deal to lose.

Just remember that when tonight, at 9:12, you are watching Georgia Tech and Indiana shoot free throws, and at the bottom of the screen on the Bottom Line presented by Somebody the message is scrolling, "Program Alert: Up Next Duke vs Wisconsin..."

Personally, I think Fox Sports would be more than willing to televise the games if ESPN turned their backs on Duke. And wouldn't it be nice to never see the 30 at 30 update again?

jzp5079
11-27-2007, 09:11 AM
I'm thinking that our ESPN suggested treatment is just not in our best interest...

Indoor66
11-27-2007, 09:12 AM
Just remember that when tonight, at 9:12, you are watching Georgia Tech and Indiana shoot free throws, and at the bottom of the screen on the Bottom Line presented by Somebody the message is scrolling, "Program Alert: Up Next Duke vs Wisconsin..."

Personally, I think Fox Sports would be more than willing to televise the games if ESPN turned their backs on Duke. And wouldn't it be nice to never see the 30 at 30 update again?

Bird in the hand, two in the bush, etc?????

bluebear
11-27-2007, 09:17 AM
Duke has more to lose than ESPN. They make the decision on what to televise. If we are not good TV then we are not on TV. Doubt that? Why are we on much more than UNC and UNC is considered a better team this year? We are on more that the other teams rated above us - UCLA, Memphis, Kansas, Georgetown, Washington State. Why? Because we provide good TV. Let's not kill the goose - or even lightly strangle it. We have absolutely NOTHING to win and a great deal to lose.

I agree completely which is why I think it should be a joke...If done right (though Throaty is probably correct that it's not logistically possible) it would send a subtle message but also be great TV...The crazies should have fun with this..that's what they are expected to do...

gvtucker
11-27-2007, 09:25 AM
Long ago, in a land far, far away, there was a network that was called ESPN, but they didn't have basketball games on 24/7, mostly because they didn't have all that much money. Instead, they broadcast things like Australian Rules Football.

The company that sponsored most of Duke's (and most of the rest of the ACC's) basketball games was Pilot Life. In those strange days, one of the most popular Cameron Crazie chants was "Pilot Life Sucks!" When the camera would pan the students, looking for people to go wild, the students would actually stop cheering from time to time. If someone was particularly enthusiastic in front of the cameras, the rest of the students would start to chant, "Media slut! Media slut!"

That era has come and gone. As throaty notes, with cameras all over the place, DBR's proposal isn't even feasible now. And in an era in which everyone outside the Gothic Wonderland actually thinks that ESPN is biased in FAVOR of Duke, no one else would get the point, anyway.

slower
11-27-2007, 09:40 AM
What if the Crazies come up with some interesting takes on the ESPN acronym? Such as "Entirely Subjective and Prejudicial News" or "Editorially Slanted, Pathetic Network" or "Eradicate Stu from our Proud Nation".

They'd probably have to print an ESPN-friendly blurb on the "front" of the sign and then flip to the real message when the cameras are on them. I think that the Crazies would rise to the occasion heroically and, if the signs are kept in a humorous vein, might just engender a favorable response from the viewing public.

Anybody think this is a possibility? Or will ESPN just quickly cut away? I'd love to hear the on-air "talent" comment on a truly great sign. Anyway, just a thought.

We don't want to boycott ESPN, and probably don't want to piss them off. But if done correctly, could be a great intellectual and PR smackdown.

IF somebody wanted to walk a fine line, they could even go for the self-parody (or whatever you might call it) with "Expecting Selectively Pre-ordained No-calls". Although, I guess that might just reinforce existing stereotypes with the (large) segment of the public that does not recognize/understand/appreciate irony.

sandinmyshoes
11-27-2007, 09:48 AM
I remember when the ACC put in a rule in their contract with Jefferson-Pilot that limited the number of games any one team could have televised compared to the least number of game by any one conference team. In the back rooms it was referred to as the "Carolina rule" because JP was televising so many UNC games and so few of teams like Clemson.

That was at the height of Dean Smith's career and there was a lot of animosity toward the exposure that program was getting. It is forgotten by many that Dick Vitale was as crazy for UNC and Dean Smith early in his television career as he is for Duke and Coach K now. So I think these things go in cycles and we should ride this cycle for as long as we can because there is no guarantees for how long it might last.

JG Nothing
11-27-2007, 09:54 AM
And in an era in which everyone outside the Gothic Wonderland actually thinks that ESPN is biased in FAVOR of Duke, no one else would get the point, anyway.
gvtucker identifies the main problem with protesting against ESPN. Many basketball fans actually think ESPN is biased towards Duke. Protesting makes the Crazies look like whiners who can dish it out, but can't take it. We should either ride the storm out or simply enjoy the attention. Being hated provides a little panache. Nobody hates a loser. If anything, we should celebrate being hated!

Wander
11-27-2007, 09:58 AM
My god DBR... the nicest way I can put this is, stick to giving us updates on former players and stuff like that and leave this kind of thing alone.

Devilsfan
11-27-2007, 10:01 AM
saying Fox Sports is better!!

JG Nothing
11-27-2007, 10:14 AM
What if the Crazies come up with some interesting takes on the ESPN acronym? Such as "Entirely Subjective and Prejudicial News" or "Editorially Slanted, Pathetic Network" or "Eradicate Stu from our Proud Nation".
I appreciate the desire to stick up for Duke. However, casual fans will be puzzled or think we're whiners. Duke haters will laugh at us, roll their eyes, or think we're whiners. Duke fans, at least those who are worried about it, will feel pleased and think the Crazies are clever. I just don't see the payoff. The only positive thing that will happen is Duke fans will feel pleased and think the Crazies are clever. We already do those things anyway.


if the signs are kept in a humorous vein, might just engender a favorable response from the viewing public.
It will only engender a favorable response from people who accept the premise that ESPN is biased against Duke. It might, however, produce even more of a backlash from Duke haters.


IF somebody wanted to walk a fine line, they could even go for the self-parody (or whatever you might call it) with "Expecting Selectively Pre-ordained No-calls". Although, I guess that might just reinforce existing stereotypes with the (large) segment of the public that does not recognize/understand/appreciate irony.
Exactly.

slower
11-27-2007, 10:14 AM
Sometimes, it's just better to let sleeping dogs lie.

I'm really torn on the issue of whether to reply to/address the Duke-bashing that goes on (sorry if this belongs in a different thread) or to just ignore it.

As we've seen in recent political campaigns, attempts to rise above character assassination by ignoring it are often unsuccessful. If you hammer home a point (even if it's untrue) often enough without contradiction, it often becomes accepted as the truth.

I got a bad feeling during the Illinois game, when their fans (and coach) were yelling about (seemingly) EVERY call. Unfortunately, I expect this trend to continue, because I think fans will try to capitalize on the current "Duke gets all the calls" climate and wear down the officials to the point where it may affect their calls. And I would also expect the on-air "talent" (and also morons like Doug Gottlieb) to be affected by this.

I know that this shouldn't happen, but that's just human nature. If only somebody (too bad it can't be Bilas, because he would just be viewed as a homer) would explain on-air WHY Duke often has a fouls/free throws advantage. Ah well, one can dream.

slower
11-27-2007, 10:17 AM
I appreciate the desire to stick up for Duke. However, casual fans will be puzzled or think we're whiners. Duke haters will laugh at us, roll their eyes, or think we're whiners. Duke fans, at least those who are worried about it, will feel pleased and think the Crazies are clever. I just don't see the payoff. The only positive thing that will happen is Duke fans will feel pleased and think the Crazies are clever. We already do those things anyway.


It will only engender a favorable response from people who accept the premise that ESPN is biased against Duke. It might, however, produce even more of a backlash from Duke haters.


Exactly.

Yeah, I guess you're right. Too bad, because I'd REALLY like to see that "Eradicate Stu" sign!

Slackerb
11-27-2007, 10:22 AM
My god DBR... the nicest way I can put this is, stick to giving us updates on former players and stuff like that and leave this kind of thing alone.


Agreed. As an "outsider", I enjoy this site because it brings a fairly objective take on the ACC and it provides insight and news on the Duke team. However, when it tries to tackle more edgy content, like politics (see the rape scandal) or other topics (ranting about Dickie V or ESPN) then it is completely out of it's element.

The writers of the updates do have an informed and important opinion on the sports, but they should really stick to what they do best.

captmojo
11-27-2007, 10:32 AM
What Throaty mentioned is correct. My suggestion would combine DBR's front page idea with this.....

At the 10 minute mark of each half, do the crossed arms thing and be just as silent as you were Sunday when Marty went down, for 1 minute. Then, blow the roof off the joint!:eek:

Stray Gator
11-27-2007, 10:38 AM
I don't often disagree with the DBR editorials, but this time I must say I think the suggestion that the Crazies mount some sort of protest against ESPN is ill-advised. As some here have already noted, the vast majority of the viewing audience will not understand the objective of the protest, and as a result the students adopting that posture will simply look disinterested in the game--which only hurts Duke's reputation. ESPN certainly won't be influenced in the way the protesters intend; if the network reacts at all, it will be negatively--i.e., if these Duke people don't want us here, and aren't entertaining to our audience, there are plenty of other programs who will welcome the attention and put on a show for us. And for the few viewers or ESPN execs who might get the point, we come off looking like a whiny, sulking adolescents--an image that, if they really hate Duke, will only bring a smile to their faces because it will fuel the animosity...

Cavlaw
11-27-2007, 10:38 AM
Sometimes, it's just better to let sleeping dogs lie.

I'm really torn on the issue of whether to reply to/address the Duke-bashing that goes on (sorry if this belongs in a different thread) or to just ignore it.

As we've seen in recent political campaigns, attempts to rise above character assassination by ignoring it are often unsuccessful. If you hammer home a point (even if it's untrue) often enough without contradiction, it often becomes accepted as the truth.

I got a bad feeling during the Illinois game, when their fans (and coach) were yelling about (seemingly) EVERY call. Unfortunately, I expect this trend to continue, because I think fans will try to capitalize on the current "Duke gets all the calls" climate and wear down the officials to the point where it may affect their calls. And I would also expect the on-air "talent" (and also morons like Doug Gottlieb) to be affected by this.

I know that this shouldn't happen, but that's just human nature. If only somebody (too bad it can't be Bilas, because he would just be viewed as a homer) would explain on-air WHY Duke often has a fouls/free throws advantage. Ah well, one can dream.
It has been explained on air, numerous times. So has the fact that nearly every highly ranked team enjoys a similar advantage in fouls/free throws over its opponents. Explaining it doesn't change anything, though.

jjasper0729
11-27-2007, 10:43 AM
If only somebody (too bad it can't be Bilas, because he would just be viewed as a homer) would explain on-air WHY Duke often has a fouls/free throws advantage. Ah well, one can dream.

Actually, Bilas HAS done this on a couple of occasions. He has pointed out that the offense Coach runs employs drives to the basket to deliberately draw a foul. He also has talked about how the coaching staff coaches foul situations so that they are on the line as soon as they can be and working on getting a shot while drawing a foul.

Unfortunately, he's one of few that talks about it objectively in this sense and others go off on a rail about Duke favoritism.

Jeffrey
11-27-2007, 10:51 AM
Hi,

Spark a fire under the young and see what happens!

Best regards,
Jeffrey

Mike Corey
11-27-2007, 10:52 AM
I suppose I share DBR's concerns about the various denigrating remarks that have spewed forth from the different arms of the monstrosity that is ESPN. Whether or not they're deleterious is a moot point; whether or not they're intended to "balance out" ESPN's often generous coverage is moot, as well. What's clear is that ESPN is simply being opportunistic: It can stoke the flames of Duke hatred because it pleases the masses, and therefore pleases advertisers.

Screeds like the most recent one in ESPN Mag aren't journalistically worthwhile, but they're not intended to be. (Perhaps that is a problem with all recent journalism, but that's a discussion for another day.)

All that said--and as has been pointed out in this thread--Duke has been opportunistic, as well. The coverage from ESPN has generally been of benefit to the program and to the University.

Those qualifications aside, however, I do think it's fair--necessary, even--for Duke to stick up for itself in certain situations. On the one hand, a commentator for ESPN saying that Duke is "slipping" isn't worthy of anything but individual consternation. Despite the fact that such an assertion isn't rooted in fact, it doesn't equate to a substantive attack. It does provide fodder for columns and message boards, and that's okay--that's what communique permits, a wrestling with ideas, and that serves the mission of the original purveyors of the (intentionally) wrong-headed ideas. And there are plenty of wrong-headed caskets of punditry at ESPN. But that tends to be their schtick. Len Elmore gets to play the role of curmudgeon, arming himself with his Harvard Law degree. Doug Gottleib gets to play the role of pseudo-analyst. Both get to belittle Duke as a referee-grubbing program in the process. It's annoying as hell, but they're commentators. If ESPN wants those kinds of individuals to represent them, so be it. Turning our other cheek to stuff like that seems to be a far better solution that attempting to drown them in e-mails.

However, when ESPN--or any media outlet--uses its power to spread an unfounded conspiracy, Duke is right to step forward and complain. Consider the example of the Duke-Clemson clock fiasco a year ago, when the insinuations were essentially that Duke had cheated, or had paid off the clock managers, or something like that. (After all, this isn't the NBA.) Or consider the attacks on our sociology department, and the student-athletes whose degrees hailed from it, attacks formulated and led by ESPN and ESPN alone. The impugning of individuals, the dissemination of conspiracy, and the unencumbered advancement of both screeds, should not be permitted to stand unchallenged.

The question I'd ask, then, is whether or not a cross-armed silent protest from the Cameron Crazies is a sufficient--or even adequate--response? I have to agree with the majority in this thread and say, unequivocally, "No."

The fans should be concerned with having fun and enjoying themselves at the game, not with doing the serious work of rebutting a monopoly's slander.

Jeffrey
11-27-2007, 11:08 AM
What if the Crazies come up with some interesting takes on the ESPN acronym? Such as "Entirely Subjective and Prejudicial News" or "Editorially Slanted, Pathetic Network" or "Eradicate Stu from our Proud Nation".....

Hi,

What if the Crazies only showed class by holding up signs saying their thoughts & prayers go out to Sean Taylor's family & friends in their time of need?

Best regards,
Jeffrey

mus074
11-27-2007, 11:20 AM
Lets all not even go to the game. Empty stands will really show ESPN who we really are. Even better, lets not watch it on TV or post about it on the boards. I know! Let's cancel the season!!! "Unfair treatment" so we're going home and taking our ball with us!

Come on, guys. Let's at least try not to give credence to all the stereotypes about being spoiled, elitist children of privilege.

Instead, let's hold up signs about specific ESPN personalities/facets we have issues with:

"Pessah => Pisser => yellow journalism"
"ESPN the Fishwrap"
"Jay Bilas > Stuart Scott"

I am sure there are wittier and more informed people than I. But lets apply the normal Duke whimsy to our current situation, a la "welcome honored guests" and "I beg to differ." (Hopefully, there are still a few older guys around who remember those halcyon days.)

slower
11-27-2007, 11:52 AM
Hi,

What if the Crazies only showed class by holding up signs saying their thoughts & prayers go out to Sean Taylor's family & friends in their time of need?

Best regards,
Jeffrey

I understand where you're coming from with this, but in light of all of the deaths and tragedies in the world, I can't imagine why we should single out Sean Taylor. Are you somehow implying that his death is more important than (fill in the blank)? Good lord, I could list MANY things more tragic and important. Not meaning to speak ill of the dead or verge on anti-PC sentiment, but come on.

Patrick Yates
11-27-2007, 12:12 PM
beats the one you don't. I do NOT want Fox Sports to be our primary carrier. News Corp makes a living by pandering to the lowest common denominator. Can you imagine what The Best D##n Sports Show would say about us? Horrible concept.

Also, enough with the paranoia, DBR. This protest is a horrible idea. It only gives creedence to the the haters. Sort of a "the lady doth protest too much" scenario.

There is only one way to shut these tards up. Just Win Baby. Let Duke make a FF run this year or next, and the talk will stop, dead. ESPN is so desperate for content the week prior to the FF that they will pants the columnist publicly in exchange for access.

Face it. ESPN needs programs like Duke. Programs with articulate athletes that moms and dads accross america can point to and say those guys are roll models. Unlike some progams with athletes who are marginally literate, have only a passing familiarity with the English language (and I am not talking about foreign students), or who have police blotters as long as your arm.

It is compelling to take a few shots, especially in down times. That makes it ok to later fawn all over us when we are up.

Negative opinions aren't bad. Zero coverage at all would be bad.

Patrick Yates

feldspar
11-27-2007, 12:38 PM
I don't often disagree with the DBR editorials, but this time I must say I think the suggestion that the Crazies mount some sort of protest against ESPN is ill-advised. As some here have already noted, the vast majority of the viewing audience will not understand the objective of the protest, and as a result the students adopting that posture will simply look disinterested in the game--which only hurts Duke's reputation. ESPN certainly won't be influenced in the way the protesters intend; if the network reacts at all, it will be negatively--i.e., if these Duke people don't want us here, and aren't entertaining to our audience, there are plenty of other programs who will welcome the attention and put on a show for us. And for the few viewers or ESPN execs who might get the point, we come off looking like a whiny, sulking adolescents--an image that, if they really hate Duke, will only bring a smile to their faces because it will fuel the animosity...

As usual, Stray hits the nail on the head, in a much more thoughtful and eloquent way than I ever could.

I echo Stray's comments. This is just foolish thinking, and frankly, makes us look ridiculous.

feldspar
11-27-2007, 12:43 PM
However, when ESPN--or any media outlet--uses its power to spread an unfounded conspiracy, Duke is right to step forward and complain. Consider the example of the Duke-Clemson clock fiasco a year ago, when the insinuations were essentially that Duke had cheated, or had paid off the clock managers, or something like that. (After all, this isn't the NBA.)
I never heard any accusations of cheating on Duke's part from ESPN when it came to the Clemson clock debacle. I just heard a lot about the refs being idiots and Duke taking advantage.

SmartDevil
11-27-2007, 12:58 PM
He who declares war on the media (or some element within it) generally very much regrets the day that "strategy" was adopted.

Jeffrey
11-27-2007, 01:32 PM
I understand where you're coming from with this, but in light of all of the deaths and tragedies in the world, I can't imagine why we should single out Sean Taylor. Are you somehow implying that his death is more important than (fill in the blank)? Good lord, I could list MANY things more tragic and important. Not meaning to speak ill of the dead or verge on anti-PC sentiment, but come on.

Hi,

Well, ESPN does report sports and this will probably be the most tragic death of an athlete today. I haven't watched ESPN in the last few days, but I bet it is one of their main stories today and some classy people are saying classy things. What do you think Coach K would say about Sean's death? Maybe the Crazies should do the same?

Best regards,
Jeffrey

Cameron
11-27-2007, 01:41 PM
My god DBR... the nicest way I can put this is, stick to giving us updates on former players and stuff like that and leave this kind of thing alone.

I agree. ESPN has been just as important to our basketball program as NBC has been to Notre Dame football's over the years. It's a tremendous recruiting tool to have almost ALL of your games on national television, moreso than any other school in the country. Not only is it great for recruiting, but it's wondferul for the fans as well. Fans who live across the country and who would otherwise be unable to watch and support the Blue Devils on a nightly basis if it were not for ESPN.

We all know why ESPN shows us more than any other team. Because most of the nation loves to hate Duke more than they love their own team. But who cares? I get to tape nearly every game because of this corporation, so I'm not going to complain. It's mostly because of ESPN that I have been able to collect such a large library of Duke game tapes. For that, I am forever grateful. (What the hell else would I do with my off-season?:))

So, yeah, I agree with DBR's front page idea. Let's run 'em off. I don't like watching our games, anyway. Too stressful.

But back to reality, please. Burn the idea and let's watch the game tonight. I have some Xanax. And some Klonopin in case of OT. I'll be fine.

77devil
11-27-2007, 01:45 PM
Agreed. As an "outsider", I enjoy this site because it brings a fairly objective take on the ACC and it provides insight and news on the Duke team. However, when it tries to tackle more edgy content, like politics (see the rape scandal) or other topics (ranting about Dickie V or ESPN) then it is completely out of it's element.

The writers of the updates do have an informed and important opinion on the sports, but they should really stick to what they do best.

What rape? As an outsider, you might want to choose your words more carefully.

Genedoc
11-27-2007, 01:47 PM
I don't often disagree with the DBR editorials, but this time I must say I think the suggestion that the Crazies mount some sort of protest against ESPN is ill-advised. As some here have already noted, the vast majority of the viewing audience will not understand the objective of the protest, and as a result the students adopting that posture will simply look disinterested in the game--which only hurts Duke's reputation. ESPN certainly won't be influenced in the way the protesters intend; if the network reacts at all, it will be negatively--i.e., if these Duke people don't want us here, and aren't entertaining to our audience, there are plenty of other programs who will welcome the attention and put on a show for us. And for the few viewers or ESPN execs who might get the point, we come off looking like a whiny, sulking adolescents--an image that, if they really hate Duke, will only bring a smile to their faces because it will fuel the animosity...

As usual, Stray is the voice of reason.

The response advocated on the front page is another step down the path of becoming exactly what we are described as being by those who dislike Duke - a bunch of whiny tools.

slower
11-27-2007, 01:51 PM
Hi,

Well, ESPN does report sports and this will probably be the most tragic death of an athlete today. I haven't watched ESPN in the last few days, but I bet it is one of their main stories today and some classy people are saying classy things. What do you think Coach K would say about Sean's death? Maybe the Crazies should do the same?

Best regards,
Jeffrey

So, they should specifically honor Sean Taylor because it's a big story on ESPN? You have GOT to be kidding me.

blazindw
11-27-2007, 02:01 PM
So, they should specifically honor Sean Taylor because it's a big story on ESPN? You have GOT to be kidding me.

I don't think we should chastise people if they want to pay their respects to Sean Taylor. He went to Miami, a ACC school. He also played for the Redskins, which is the DC team, an area that has hundreds of Duke alums and where many Duke students are from. Just like when any high-profile person passes, I feel it is always proper to show respect and to show that person's family and community that their thoughts are with them, if that is their choice. When Skip Prosser passed away earlier this year, I didn't hear anyone saying that we shouldn't single out Skip Prosser. If someone wants to hold up a sign at the game tonight showing a form of respect to Taylor's family and the U in this difficult time for them, I think it shows a lot of class, and I would hope that everyone here would respect that.

mehmattski
11-27-2007, 02:04 PM
Irrespective of whether it's a good idea or not, I find this logistically unworkable:


Obviously, it is impossible for there to be a response to all ESPN cameras. I think the point is about the panning-fan camera... it's ridiculous when fans go uncharacteristically crazy when there's a camera right in their faces. When I was an undergrad my friends and I in the front row would do exactly what DBR suggests- we stood with our arms crossed and a "game face" on. The camera usually stopped panning when it got to us.

Whether or not it's a statement against ESPN, I think the enthusiasm associated with the crowd-panning camera needs to stop. We're at the game to support the team, not to be a camera-whore.

blazindw
11-27-2007, 02:09 PM
I don't often disagree with the DBR editorials, but this time I must say I think the suggestion that the Crazies mount some sort of protest against ESPN is ill-advised. As some here have already noted, the vast majority of the viewing audience will not understand the objective of the protest, and as a result the students adopting that posture will simply look disinterested in the game--which only hurts Duke's reputation. ESPN certainly won't be influenced in the way the protesters intend; if the network reacts at all, it will be negatively--i.e., if these Duke people don't want us here, and aren't entertaining to our audience, there are plenty of other programs who will welcome the attention and put on a show for us. And for the few viewers or ESPN execs who might get the point, we come off looking like a whiny, sulking adolescents--an image that, if they really hate Duke, will only bring a smile to their faces because it will fuel the animosity...

I also agree. Whether you love or hate ESPN (and believe me, I have my share of both sentiments sometimes), ESPN is the reason why we all can watch almost every single Duke game on TV every single year, no matter where we live. Sure, they have their "We hate Duke" moments, but you know what? They still show us on TV every week. We shouldn't be telling the Crazies to protest against ESPN when their main objective is to do whatever they can (legally) to will our team to victory every night. Who cares what everyone else thinks about our team? The only thing that matters is that we all bleed Duke Blue, and we appreciate our team no matter what, even if no one else does.

So tonight Crazies, do exactly what it is you do best. That is why ESPN, despite their biased, sometimes negative, press, always puts us in primetime. Attending a game in Cameron is the #1 thing to do in any college or university in America. ESPN knows it, America knows it, we know it. So, take pride in the fact that everyone loves to take shots at us...it means we're successful. Trust me, if we were insert-random-state-directional-agricultural university, no one would want anything to do with us. I'll take the haters anyday...I need something to brush off my shoulder ;)

LetItBD08
11-27-2007, 02:20 PM
Hey guys, although I understand where you are coming from, I think the overwhelming majority of students are not concerned about this. Even if it was a clever, foolproof idea, I don't think many students are a) upset enough to even recognize this or b) feel that this would be a good route to take. Of course there are students, myself included, who feel that ESPN has made a mockery of objective reporting in favor of ratings, but I just can't see how Cameron Crazies trying to make a statement that will most likely be glossed over or looked at unfavorably by many around the nation.

We're there for the basketball! We want to watch Duke compete and win basketball games. It sucks that ESPN's standards have slipped, but we're going to play our own game and make them adjust to us. I know, I'm an idealist. Also you never know what you got until it's gone. Duke fans get to watch nearly every Duke game from anywhere in the country. Yes, we need some thick skin sometimes, but damn that would stink if I couldn't watch Duke on TV whenever they play (it spoils me).

Jeffrey
11-27-2007, 02:22 PM
So, they should specifically honor Sean Taylor because it's a big story on ESPN? You have GOT to be kidding me.

Hi,

Ever see ESPN show signage that say things like "Up Next.... Sports Center"?

Regardless, I think that Sean Taylor's death was a horrible and tragic event. Many say that the young man was turning his life around and doing great things. I think showing respect for his family & friends, in their time of need, is a classy thing to do. Obviously, you disagree or feel he was not worthy.

Best regards,
Jeffrey

throatybeard
11-27-2007, 03:14 PM
Obviously, it is impossible for there to be a response to all ESPN cameras. I think the point is about the panning-fan camera... it's ridiculous when fans go uncharacteristically crazy when there's a camera right in their faces. When I was an undergrad my friends and I in the front row would do exactly what DBR suggests- we stood with our arms crossed and a "game face" on. The camera usually stopped panning when it got to us.

Whether or not it's a statement against ESPN, I think the enthusiasm associated with the crowd-panning camera needs to stop. We're at the game to support the team, not to be a camera-whore.

Sure, although that's a separate issue. Your response kind of underscores the disjunct between the signifier and the signified with crowd actions. (Are those kids not cheering because they don't want to be camera whores, or because they're cheesed off at Pesser, or because they didn't see the camera, or because...?)

Take the referee shirt thing we did against Maryland in 2002. It made perfect sense to us, but the network ignored it and the N&O reporter said it made no sense.

merry
11-27-2007, 03:58 PM
My god DBR... the nicest way I can put this is, stick to giving us updates on former players and stuff like that and leave this kind of thing alone.

I agree completely. Maybe this thread should be titled Duke centric paranoia and righteous indignation tsunami.

Jaymf7
11-27-2007, 04:19 PM
[Or whatever you call an attack on a network]

It seems to me the better response is to attack the IDEA that has upset us. I have not read the Passah article, but it appears to babble about Lax then focus on the "decline of Duke". Isn't that the more direct (and fun) subject to attack?

A quiet crowd would be puzzling. Perhaps signs would do the trick. I am no right-brainer, but I'd like to see something like:

TwEnty-two wins
Add Singler, Smith and King
ToP 7 (And Rising Quickly)
DecliNe of Duke???

or something channeling Twain...

[a picture of the blue devil with a bubble box stating, "The reports of my demise have been greatly exaggerated"]

We all agree that the articles we dislike are the result of our enormous success. Why not USE that to emphasize how ridiculous it is to bash Duke because we won only 22 games, made the tournament, and broke our string of 9 straight sweet 16s?

Indoor66
11-27-2007, 04:23 PM
[Or whatever you call an attack on a network]

It seems to me the better response is to attack the IDEA that has upset us. I have not read the Passah article, but it appears to babble about Lax then focus on the "decline of Duke". Isn't that the more direct (and fun) subject to attack?

A quiet crowd would be puzzling. Perhaps signs would do the trick. I am no right-brainer, but I'd like to see something like:

TEnty-two wins
Add Singler, Smith and King
ToP 7 (And Rising Quickly)
DecliNe of Duke???

or something channeling Twain...

[a picture of the blue devil with a bubble box stating, "The reports of my demise have been greatly exaggerated"]

We all agree that the articles we dislike are the result of our enormous success. Why not USE that to emphasize how ridiculous it is to bash Duke because we won only 22 games, made the tournament, and broke our string of 9 straight sweet 16s?

I like your thinking. :)

j.j. jones
11-27-2007, 04:23 PM
We're there for the basketball! We want to watch Duke compete and win basketball games. It sucks that ESPN's standards have slipped, but we're going to play our own game and make them adjust to us.

If the Crazies are the "6th Man", then they can't lose focus with peripheral issues while the game is in progress. The primary objective, first and foremost, is to win. And for the fans who are unable to attend the games live, enjoying the games on TV (ESPN et al) is a close second. There is a time and place for addressing gripes with.... whomever. But not during the games. The sweetest revenge to exact against the Duke hating contingent would simply be... to win. Sock it to em. Don't let the hate get to you. Remember, only you can help you. Look in the mirror and say: you're good enough, you're smart enough, and doggone it, people LIKE
you.

LetItBD08
11-27-2007, 04:38 PM
Ha yeah that did come off a little Stuart Smalley-esque.

Atldukie79
11-27-2007, 04:52 PM
On balance, ESPN has been a tremendous positive for Duke.
The extensive exposure and many accolades come with the cost of some negative reporting.
To borrow ( and modify) a phrase, " I don't care what they say about us, just that they are talking about us".

In any event, I certainly don't much care for most of the negative opinions that the various commentators make. But so what? Does it make you care less for Duke? Have we lost our ability to recruit because of them? Are the TV checks still being cashed?

Frankly, the most egregious thing that I recall from ESPN was the poll about the most hated Duke player. If anything deserves a response, this is the one. How about a poster that reflects a Duke student poll:
MOST HATED ESPN COMMENTATORS? XXX YYY ZZZ

OK, my fantasy is over...it would be so out of context that no one would get it.

Lets go make this a great atmosphere and ignore the imbecilic commentary.

rsvman
11-27-2007, 05:12 PM
saying Fox Sports is better!!

But it's not. Not in any universe of which humans are aware.

I agree with everybody else that DBR has gone off the deep end with this suggestion to protest ESPN. Ever heard the old saying "don't bite the hand that feeds you"?

I like the idea of the Blue Devil saying "Reports of my demise have been greatly exaggerated." That's classic.

Oh, and winning is the best revenge. :)

DBFAN
11-27-2007, 05:15 PM
I like the Mark Twain Idea,

I wish that somebody in the student section would do that, that would still be funny enough not to offend anyone at the evil network, I think that may be one of the best ideas I have seen in awhile. Just hope we win other wise it would come back to bite us, if somebody does that and I see it on tv I will laugh my a$% off.

Go Duke

jzp5079
11-27-2007, 06:55 PM
ESPN magazine has had many a writer that has written OPINIONS that get people fired up... get people talking... however poor they are - sometimes that is the reason things get ran. ESPN is an American network and I don't look at it as propaganda as you people contexting it as.

It's simply a poor opinion, and one that as Duke fans we surely agree upon it as so. I suspect there will be many more articles like that to come out of ESPN. Sports are emotional and sometimes it clouds opinions, as it leaks down into most everything it effects. There is no law in journalism that articles have to be "objective" in the same way. I believe our reaction could very well be what his objective was. Let our program keep winning and show people what a crock o.s. that article is. We have NBA stars praising coach K... our recruits won't be effected, unless we blow this up more then it needs to be. Actually we already have gave the article much much much more attention then it deserves.

ugadevil
11-27-2007, 10:04 PM
Face it...Duke's the best there is. Duke fans wake up in the morning and piss excellence. If ya' ain't first, you're last.

StiggyMata
11-27-2007, 11:01 PM
A sign that says, "Watch the game, not the crowd."

mapei
11-27-2007, 11:55 PM
Why? It's fun to watch the crowd. Especially for those of us who can't be there.

greenie227
11-28-2007, 08:09 AM
Hi,

What if the Crazies only showed class by holding up signs saying their thoughts & prayers go out to Sean Taylor's family & friends in their time of need?

Best regards,
Jeffrey

Thank you, Jeffrey, for the best suggestion of the day. I usually like what DBR says conversationally, but I was ticked off by DBR's "shunning the camera" suggestion. It's petty, it's stupid, and it would be hurt the Duke reputation more than anything that's been said by a hater thus far.

As a parent, and a Duke alum, I have to say -- JUST IGNORE ESPN. The haters aren't going to change if the students, or alums, or fans, act like petulant babies.

Jeffrey
11-28-2007, 12:17 PM
Thank you, Jeffrey, for the best suggestion of the day.

Hi,

Thank you! Your compliment is most appreciated.

Best regards,
Jeffrey

blazindw
11-28-2007, 11:44 PM
http://deadspin.com/sports/whaaa%3F/get-this--duke-now-hates-espn-327342.php

The world (or at least the world that reads Deadspin) has caught wind of DBR's "hatred" for ESPN. Just goes to show you how many people are on here that can take everything we say and broadcast it to the world. Just remember to keep it civil and know that what you say can be used against you in the court of public opinion.

billybreen
11-28-2007, 11:55 PM
http://deadspin.com/sports/whaaa%3F/get-this--duke-now-hates-espn-327342.php

The world (or at least the world that reads Deadspin) has caught wind of DBR's "hatred" for ESPN. Just goes to show you how many people are on here that can take everything we say and broadcast it to the world. Just remember to keep it civil and know that what you say can be used against you in the court of public opinion.

Ugh. I must say, I love me some DBR, but I find this a bit embarrassing.

SilkyJ
11-28-2007, 11:55 PM
http://deadspin.com/sports/whaaa%3F/get-this--duke-now-hates-espn-327342.php

The world (or at least the world that reads Deadspin) has caught wind of DBR's "hatred" for ESPN. Just goes to show you how many people are on here that can take everything we say and broadcast it to the world. Just remember to keep it civil and know that what you say can be used against you in the court of public opinion.

deadspin is 10th rate journalism. the front page says not affiliated with duke.

mehmattski
11-29-2007, 12:00 AM
http://deadspin.com/sports/whaaa%3F/get-this--duke-now-hates-espn-327342.php

The world (or at least the world that reads Deadspin) has caught wind of DBR's "hatred" for ESPN. Just goes to show you how many people are on here that can take everything we say and broadcast it to the world. Just remember to keep it civil and know that what you say can be used against you in the court of public opinion.

If by "court of public opinion" you mean a blogger who has no problem admitting his hatred of Duke University, especially the basketball program. Note that Leitch's post included no insinuation of why the Cameron Crazies should be upset at ESPN (ie, for the Mag article and various Page 2 drivel on the website). The connection between ESPN covering Duke Basketball and its revenue stream is a bit nebulous, since it has to go through the advertisers wanting good ratings, and good ratings come from putting popular teams on the air.

In contrast, blogs like Leitch's have revenue streams that come directly from having people click on his site and ads on that site. Therefore, I think that he, even more so than ESPN, has a reason to write inflammatory stuff about teams against whom there is a lot of hatred: Duke, the Yankees, Notre Dame, USC. Their coverage, for example, of the lacrosse case was scathing and draped in accusations that Duke is elitist and the players deserved what they were getting. The posts after the loss to VCU in March were blatantly jubilant.

Leitch, and Deadspin, is the undisputed champion of the sports blogging world, and injects quite a bit of humor into my day. And yet, reading his articles for the New Yorker, he comes off as an irrational hack who refuses to research his articles. It's not surprising in the least that he would sensationalize a headline from DBR and turn it into a forum for Duke bashing by his beloved commentors.

Anyway, your main point, I believe, is that DBR should be a bit more careful, given their perception as the voice of all of Duke fandom. This is typically true, but reading the thread on the specific ESPN article, not true in this case. Nearly all Duke fans should recognize the gift that the 24-hour sports network has given to Duke basketball, and should not be so quick to bite the hand that feeds. On this sentiment, I agree.

feldspar
11-29-2007, 12:32 AM
Aw, jeez. This is just perfect.

VaDukie
11-29-2007, 01:00 AM
Oh no, some random blogger has read our site and is mocking us. What's next, we're all going to sit around and cry about truth about duke?

Who cares. ESPN is pushing anti-Duke drivel and good for the front pagers for pointing it out. People who hate us will never accept any idea that contradicts the belief that everything associated with our program is evil.

Embrace the hatred, it makes the winning sweeter.

Duvall
11-29-2007, 01:11 AM
Ugh. I must say, I love me some DBR, but I find this a bit embarrassing.

Fortunately, it's not all that important. The nice thing about being irrationally hated is that no matter what you do, people will find some way to resent you for it. If DBR hadn't written that post, the haters would have just made something up to justify their contempt.

dukeENG2003
11-29-2007, 08:18 AM
If you read some of the comments, you can see that deadspin is just feeding its readers what they want to see. This is not news, nor is it anything to worry about.

Read some of the comments. Frankly, I'm proud to have as little in common with those type of people as possible.

weezie
11-29-2007, 08:28 AM
If you read some of the comments, you can see that deadspin is just feeding its readers what they want to see. This is not news, nor is it anything to worry about.

Read some of the comments. Frankly, I'm proud to have as little in common with those type of people as possible.


I agree, big deal! So deadspin shows a picture of a six year old child crying, ouch.
Tempest in a teapot.

Exiled_Devil
11-29-2007, 08:29 AM
Ugh. I must say, I love me some DBR, but I find this a bit embarrassing.

You should in no way feel embarrassed about this. As others have said, this is a hack, comedy-sports site that is about as journalistic as gawker.com and wonkette.com - sister sites to deadspin. They are all attitude with some raw data pulled from the web. Amusing at times, but never to be taken seriously.

Exiled

RelativeWays
11-29-2007, 08:37 AM
I love how Tarhole fans conveniently ignore Vitale's incessant praise for their program as well. Wierd how someone who is so "pro Duke" picks UNC to win the championship in 05, 07 and 08 and screams "MICHAELANGELO!" every time Dean Smith is mentioned and endows Huckleberry Hound with neverending praise. Cognitive dissonance perhaps?

slower
11-29-2007, 08:43 AM
If by "court of public opinion" you mean a blogger who has no problem admitting his hatred of Duke University, especially the basketball program. Note that Leitch's post included no insinuation of why the Cameron Crazies should be upset at ESPN (ie, for the Mag article and various Page 2 drivel on the website). The connection between ESPN covering Duke Basketball and its revenue stream is a bit nebulous, since it has to go through the advertisers wanting good ratings, and good ratings come from putting popular teams on the air.

In contrast, blogs like Leitch's have revenue streams that come directly from having people click on his site and ads on that site. Therefore, I think that he, even more so than ESPN, has a reason to write inflammatory stuff about teams against whom there is a lot of hatred: Duke, the Yankees, Notre Dame, USC. Their coverage, for example, of the lacrosse case was scathing and draped in accusations that Duke is elitist and the players deserved what they were getting. The posts after the loss to VCU in March were blatantly jubilant.

Leitch, and Deadspin, is the undisputed champion of the sports blogging world, and injects quite a bit of humor into my day. And yet, reading his articles for the New Yorker, he comes off as an irrational hack who refuses to research his articles. It's not surprising in the least that he would sensationalize a headline from DBR and turn it into a forum for Duke bashing by his beloved commentors.

Anyway, your main point, I believe, is that DBR should be a bit more careful, given their perception as the voice of all of Duke fandom. This is typically true, but reading the thread on the specific ESPN article, not true in this case. Nearly all Duke fans should recognize the gift that the 24-hour sports network has given to Duke basketball, and should not be so quick to bite the hand that feeds. On this sentiment, I agree.


FWIW (probably not much): Will Leitch - Illinois '97

dukestheheat
11-29-2007, 09:05 AM
dukeENG2003-

I agree with you totally on deadspin's 'spin'; duke is THE money maker in college basketball and this year, we are back to help make the money for many people out there, INCLUDING those publications ranked as 10th rate journalism.

dth.

mehmattski
11-29-2007, 09:30 AM
FWIW (probably not much): Will Leitch - Illinois '97

Yeah, he makes his rooting interest clear- and the only time he's ever said anything good about Duke is last week when his team got trounced in Maui.

Also, to be perfectly fair to Leitch, that particular post dw linked to wasn't written by Leitch, it was written by Rick Chandler, the other editor. But the two of them represent that site pretty equally, and with equal disrespect for teams which win a lot.

Jeffrey
11-29-2007, 09:50 AM
Hi,

I like ESPN and watch it frequently! Do the rest of you'll ever watch it? If so, how often?

Best regards,
Jeffrey

feldspar
11-29-2007, 09:57 AM
Oh no, some random blogger has read our site and is mocking us.

I wouldn't exactly call Deadspin "some random blogger."

mehmattski
11-29-2007, 10:03 AM
Hi,

I like ESPN and watch it frequently! Do the rest of you'll ever watch it? If so, how often?

Best regards,
Jeffrey

I pretty much watch only for sporting events. I have no tolerance for Rome/PTI/ATH, and other shows where the point is which sports "journalist" can yell the loudest. I'd rather get my sports news from internet sites with good writers.

As for the dotcom, I subscribe to Insider because that's where all the good stories are... the rest of the site is full of either useless Top 10 lists or second rate comedy. Bill Simmons is the only columnist I care about, and I haven't been reading him much this year either. Their website is also one of the worst for finding statistics (depending on the sport, I'd much rather go to kenpom's old site for or to baseball-reference.com), and Yahoo is much better at tracking live games.

bjornolf
11-29-2007, 10:07 AM
I didn't realize that the troglodytes out there on the web were THAT bad. Did anybody read the posts under that message? Okay, so you hate duke, but some of the stuff they say about the little kid is just brutal. What did he do to deserve that? Like we haven't seen kids on TV wearing the jersey of every team in college sports crying their eyes out. Usually when Duke is spanking their team's I'm a real wanker for saying this.I'm a real wanker for saying this.I'm a real wanker for saying this.I'm a real wanker for saying this.I'm a real wanker for saying this.3$ on the court. Good Lord, people, get a life, or at least a little common decency. :mad:

That's the kind of thing that really starches my potato. I mean, just last year, wasn't there a little kid wearing a UNC jersey crying like that after another kid wearing a Duke jersey took his lunch money and b1#&%-slapped him on national TV? I don't recall anyone making base comments about molesting him.

CatchTheFox
11-29-2007, 10:09 AM
Regardless of whether or not you find deadspin to be legitimate, the comments below the article speak for themselves. There is being playful and then there is being downright disgusting... at least duke haters aren't bashful about showing their true colors.

JG Nothing
11-29-2007, 10:22 AM
You should in no way feel embarrassed about this. As others have said, this is a hack, comedy-sports site that is about as journalistic as gawker.com and wonkette.com - sister sites to deadspin. They are all attitude with some raw data pulled from the web. Amusing at times, but never to be taken seriously.

Exiled
Everything you say about Dead Spin may be true. However, the mockery by Dead Spin is not the problem per se. It is the exposure of the DBR's public whining about ESPN and so called Duke hatred that is embarrassing. Most basketball fans do not think Duke is treated unfairly by the media (and many think quite the opposite).
To the average fan, it looks silly to get all worked up about the article by Pessah and to call for a protest against ESPN. If you actually read the Pessah article, it simply is not that bad. Just because writers or commentators do not sing the praises of Duke does not mean they hate or are out to get Duke. The call for a protest against ESPN makes us sound spoiled given that ESPN broadcasts over half our games and Vitale is its most recognizable talking head.
When the DBR, the public face of Duke basketball fans, starts stridently complaining and threatening retailation against ESPN, it looks extremely childish and petulant to the average fan. Dead Spin, which is apparently widely read, simply exposed the whining to a larger audience.

goodchristian
11-29-2007, 10:31 AM
Sorry but this anti-espn whining is pathetic. ESPN shows every single duke game imaginable, what are you complaining about? You sound like entitled brats.

throatybeard
11-29-2007, 10:35 AM
You sound like entitled brats.

Sounding like entitled brats, that's one of our strengths, yes. You gotta stick with what works for you. :cool:

JG Nothing
11-29-2007, 10:37 AM
I didn't realize that the troglodytes out there on the web were THAT bad. Did anybody read the posts under that message? Okay, so you hate duke, but some of the stuff they say about the little kid is just brutal. What did he do to deserve that? Like we haven't seen kids on TV wearing the jersey of every team in college sports crying their eyes out. Usually when Duke is spanking their team's I'm a real wanker for saying this.I'm a real wanker for saying this.I'm a real wanker for saying this.I'm a real wanker for saying this.I'm a real wanker for saying this.3$ on the court. Good Lord, people, get a life, or at least a little common decency. :mad:

That's the kind of thing that really starches my potato. I mean, just last year, wasn't there a little kid wearing a UNC jersey crying like that after another kid wearing a Duke jersey took his lunch money and b1#&%-slapped him on national TV? I don't recall anyone making base comments about molesting him.
Pot, meet kettle. You go on a tirade about people mocking a crying kid wearing a Duke jersey, then you make fun of a crying kid wearing a UNC jersey. :confused: If you're going to dish it out, then be prepared to take it.

Uncle Drew
11-29-2007, 10:40 AM
Sorry but this anti-espn whining is pathetic. ESPN shows every single duke game imaginable, what are you complaining about? You sound like entitled brats.

"And Jesus said turn the other cheek" :eek: ESPN loves to air Duke games because haters such as yourself will watch and pull against Duke. But at the very next Sportscenter or College Basketball Insider they will bash Duke and if possible point out every close call instead of giving due credit. But in the media, run by UNC grads that also hires UMD grads out the wazzoo they think it's all okay. We see it as ESPN bitting the hand that feeds it. Or at the very least presenting an unbiased viewpoint.

Duvall
11-29-2007, 10:47 AM
I wouldn't exactly call Deadspin "some random blogger."

Why not?

goodchristian
11-29-2007, 10:48 AM
Im not a hater I am a duke fan, but the writers of this site need to get off the meds.

jipops
11-29-2007, 10:51 AM
Im not a hater I am a duke fan, but the writers of this site need to get off the meds.

I think the writers of DBR made a valid point, one that can be backed up with numerous examples. However, they shouldn't expect anyone in the mass media to possibly understand it, or the public in general for that matter. People like to go along with perception, not actual details and fact.

DevilGrad
11-29-2007, 10:55 AM
Why not?

Well, to take a couple of points that come to mind:

(1) It's one of the most heavily trafficked blogs in the sports world and probably generates more page views than a lot of MSM sites.
(2) It has a loyal following among other folks in the industry -- including a lot of people who work at ESPN.
(3) Leitch freelances for the New York Times.

There is no rational way to deny that ESPN has been very, very good to Duke basketball over the years, and that exposure has been instrumental in turning Duke into basically the Notre Dame of college basketball (national recruiting, national fanbase, perennial contender, and generator of strong positive and negative feelings amongst fans). You can't very well expect the media to be all sunshine and roses about the same teams every year, and -- for as much as I've respected J,B,&J's opinions about nearly everything since the "Juliovision" days -- their piece yesterday came across as simply petulant and childish.

Take care,
DG

Uncle Drew
11-29-2007, 10:59 AM
Im not a hater I am a duke fan, but the writers of this site need to get off the meds.

Why do you look at the twig in your brother's eye, but you do not feel the beam in your own eye? Hypocrite, first remove the beam from your own eye, and then you will see how to remove the twig from your brother's eye."

No seriously, if you're a Duke fan say what you want. In my book it's a free country, no one agrees with everyone on here anyway. But be careful when you start using the term "entitled" around here, the actual grads get a little touchy about it. I have to agree with DBR about their ESPN viewpoint though, but perception is well.....in the eyes of the beholder.

This reciting bible verses is kind of cool to refute people. Why don't any Muslims come on here so I can use quotes from the Koran in replies to them?

elvis14
11-29-2007, 11:03 AM
Hi,

I like ESPN and watch it frequently! Do the rest of you'll ever watch it? If so, how often?

Best regards,
Jeffrey

There's a difference between liking or not liking ESPN and pointing out the fact that we don't care too much for their snide and derogatory comments about our basketball program. Does ESPN show lots of Duke games? Yes. Does that mean ESPN and ESPN employees like Duke? No, that means Duke games get high ratings and make ESPN more money than games from other schools. When this is no longer true, ESPN will stop showing so many of our games.

There are lots of programs on ESPN that I like. There's also a lot of stuff that I don't like (Poker is NOT a sport!). Sportscenter has done downhill badly the last couple of years and their coverage of basketball games is ridiculous. Ever watch or go to a game and then get home and see how ESPN covers it? You never get the flow of the game, all you get are the highlight plays, footage of the individual players they want to ride, and anything they can make fun of. As for ESPN dot com....it's not a very good web site any more. I used to read that site before ESPN bought it from someone else many years ago. Every year the crap to coverage ratio has gotten worse on that site. Use Yahoo, Sportsline, CNNSI dot com instead.

snowdenscold
11-29-2007, 11:22 AM
Why do you look at the twig in your brother's eye, but you do not feel the beam in your own eye? Hypocrite, first remove the beam from your own eye, and then you will see how to remove the twig from your brother's eye."

...

This reciting bible verses is kind of cool to refute people. Why don't any Muslims come on here so I can use quotes from the Koran in replies to them?

Careful, Latta. In addition to misquoting the cheek-turning verse above - I would think if anything it emphasizes gc's point. "If someone strikes you on the right cheek, turn to him the other also." Since 'strike' refers to slapping with the back of the hand (i.e. insult), the point is that it's better to be insulted twice than drag the matter into court - since the society had become quite litigious at that point. So if anything, the verse would be telling us to just let this whole issue go.

Of course, that's if you want to attempt to apply this passage to collective entities such as "Duke fandom" and ESPN. You'll have to make that call on your own.

Duvall
11-29-2007, 11:24 AM
Well, to take a couple of points that come to mind:

(1) It's one of the most heavily trafficked blogs in the sports world and probably generates more page views than a lot of MSM sites.
(2) It has a loyal following among other folks in the industry -- including a lot of people who work at ESPN.
(3) Leitch freelances for the New York Times.

It's also a site with a consistently negative and sometimes venomous attitude towards Duke. If DBR hadn't written that article, they just would have found some other reason to bash Duke. Anyone that gets their information about Duke from Deadspin is going to conclude that Duke fans are entitled brats no matter what we do.


There is no rational way to deny that ESPN has been very, very good to Duke basketball over the years, and that exposure has been instrumental in turning Duke into basically the Notre Dame of college basketball (national recruiting, national fanbase, perennial contender, and generator of strong positive and negative feelings amongst fans). You can't very well expect the media to be all sunshine and roses about the same teams every year, and -- for as much as I've respected J,B,&J's opinions about nearly everything since the "Juliovision" days -- their piece yesterday came across as simply petulant and childish.


I don't disagree with this, although I suspect I disagree with DBR more frequently than that. I just don't think it matters all that much.

hurleyfor3
11-29-2007, 11:25 AM
Sounding like entitled brats, that's one of our strengths, yes. You gotta stick with what works for you. :cool:

Sounding like?

Uncle Drew
11-29-2007, 11:28 AM
Careful, Latta. In addition to misquoting the cheek-turning verse above - I would think if anything it emphasizes gc's point. "If someone strikes you on the other cheek, turn to him the other also." Since 'strike' refers to slapping with the back of the hand (i.e. insult), the point is that it's better to be insulted twice than drag the matter into court - since the society had become quite litigious at that point. So if anything, the verse would be telling us to just let this whole issue go.

Of course, that's if you want to attempt to apply this passage to collective entities such as "Duke fandom" and ESPN. You'll have to make that call on your own.

So basically you're saying I should have used the King James version. I thought about quoting it in Aramaic but all the Aramaic I know I learned from Mel Gibson and he was drinking at the time.

snowdenscold
11-29-2007, 11:34 AM
So basically you're saying I should have used the King James version. I thought about quoting it in Aramaic but all the Aramaic I know I learned from Mel Gibson and he was drinking at the time.

I don't know what you're saying. I didn't use KJV. I was just saying you were pretty happy to quote bible verses back at gc, and you put "Jesus said turn the other cheek" in quotation marks - which I remarked on as not actually being the verse - that is all I was saying there (and was just an aside to my main point - a minor quibble you might say)

_Gary
11-29-2007, 11:36 AM
There is no rational way to deny that ESPN has been very, very good to Duke basketball over the years...

You can't very well expect the media to be all sunshine and roses about the same teams every year, and -- for as much as I've respected J,B,&J's opinions about nearly everything since the "Juliovision" days -- their piece yesterday came across as simply petulant and childish.

But aren't you overlooking the obvious point many here are making. ESPN has "been good to Duke" in one way, and only one way (IMHO): They air almost all our games. But why do they do it? Because it makes them money. Period. So when they turn around and air clips on SportsCenter that are designed to perpetuate the myth that "Duke gets all the calls" or when some of their announcers go out of their way to say something like, "Whoa! Looks like Duke got away with one there" you have to expect that some of us are going to be a little annoyed.

No, I don't think anyone comes off looking childish when they simply point out the obvious: there is a over-arching, yet subtle bias in the newsroom portion of ESPN. And as Stray and many others have pointed out, this is worrisome because it could (and already has, in my opinion) create an unconscious problem for refs. They are only human. And when you keep hearing this stuff over and over and over, it can have an effect whether you want it to or not. And unconscious effect.

Dealing with the haters isn't, by itself, something to be upset about. That's going to happen with any successful program. It's only when the media starts being biased that you have to be concerned. Because they are people of "influence", and it's that negative influence that concerns some of us.

I have wished for some time now that we had a national personality (can't be Bilas because he'd be accused of being a homer) that would actually go just a little out of their way to subtly point out in Duke games where Duke isn't getting the calls. Or just to mention that the "Duke makes more free throws than their opponents take" issue applies to all top programs. I know it's been said here or there, but it needs to be said consistently over the course of a season or two if the myth is going to be shattered. And I'd love for someone, during the Final Four this year, to actually comment on Packer's statements from the 2001 game and point out how it has helped perpetuate a very unfair and untruthful myth about Duke. Of course, no one has the guts to do that, so it's pie in the sky. But I'd still love to see someone make it their cause to undo the damage some of the media have done over the past 6 or so years.

Gary

billybreen
11-29-2007, 11:38 AM
So basically you're saying I should have used the King James version. I thought about quoting it in Aramaic but all the Aramaic I know I learned from Mel Gibson and he was drinking at the time.

l0lz. Rad.

Jeffrey
11-29-2007, 11:40 AM
Hi,

I like ESPN and watch it frequently! Do the rest of you'll ever watch it? If so, how often?

Best regards,
Jeffrey


There's a difference between liking or not liking ESPN and pointing out the fact that we don't care too much for their snide and derogatory comments about our basketball program. Does ESPN show lots of Duke games? Yes. Does that mean ESPN and ESPN employees like Duke? No, that means Duke games get high ratings and make ESPN more money than games from other schools. When this is no longer true, ESPN will stop showing so many of our games.

There are lots of programs on ESPN that I like. There's also a lot of stuff that I don't like (Poker is NOT a sport!). Sportscenter has done downhill badly the last couple of years and their coverage of basketball games is ridiculous. Ever watch or go to a game and then get home and see how ESPN covers it? You never get the flow of the game, all you get are the highlight plays, footage of the individual players they want to ride, and anything they can make fun of. As for ESPN dot com....it's not a very good web site any more. I used to read that site before ESPN bought it from someone else many years ago. Every year the crap to coverage ratio has gotten worse on that site. Use Yahoo, Sportsline, CNNSI dot com instead.

Hi,

My point was simple (or at least I meant it to be).... the sooner we stop complaining about ESPN, the sooner this goes away!

You'll are just adding fuel to a fire. I recommend stop adding fuel (speak nicely or not at all), let the fire burnout on its own (stop paying attention to it), and get back to discussing something worthy (Duke hoops).

Best regards,
Jeffrey

Uncle Drew
11-29-2007, 11:42 AM
I don't know what you're saying. I didn't use KJV. I was just saying you were pretty happy to quote bible verses back at gc, and you put "Jesus said turn the other cheek" in quotation marks - which I remarked on as not actually being the verse - that is all I was saying there (and was just an aside to my main point - a minor quibble you might say)

I just thought it ironic to have that name and then call people "brats". My Aramaic point is in translation words have different meanings and phrases take on a slightly different slant. (But your point was on the money and well taken.) Once stated they were a Duke fan I felt they were entitled to state their opinion. But the original statement sounded like it came from a UNC / MD fan or just a Duke hater.

dukeENG2003
11-29-2007, 11:43 AM
People like to go along with perception, not actual details and fact.

Quoted for truth. . .

THIS is why its important to at least point out the ESPN bias, even if it makes us spoiled whiners. DBR has done a solid job of backing up their arguments. The only place they crossed the line, IMO, was citing a page 2 article as a evidence of bias, as page 2 has never even pretended to be serious journalism.

gvtucker
11-29-2007, 11:47 AM
But aren't you overlooking the obvious point many here are making. ESPN has "been good to Duke" in one way, and only one way (IMHO): They air almost all our games. But why do they do it? Because it makes them money. Period. So when they turn around and air clips on SportsCenter that are designed to perpetuate the myth that "Duke gets all the calls" or when some of their announcers go out of their way to say something like, "Whoa! Looks like Duke got away with one there" you have to expect that some of us are going to be a little annoyed.

No, I don't think anyone comes off looking childish when they simply point out the obvious: there is a over-arching, yet subtle bias in the newsroom portion of ESPN. And as Stray and many others have pointed out, this is worrisome because it could (and already has, in my opinion) create an unconscious problem for refs. They are only human. And when you keep hearing this stuff over and over and over, it can have an effect whether you want it to or not. And unconscious effect.

Dealing with the haters isn't, by itself, something to be upset about. That's going to happen with any successful program. It's only when the media starts being biased that you have to be concerned. Because they are people of "influence", and it's that negative influence that concerns some of us.

I have wished for some time now that we had a national personality (can't be Bilas because he'd be accused of being a homer) that would actually go just a little out of their way to subtly point out in Duke games where Duke isn't getting the calls. Or just to mention that the "Duke makes more free throws than their opponents take" issue applies to all top programs. I know it's been said here or there, but it needs to be said consistently over the course of a season or two if the myth is going to be shattered. And I'd love for someone, during the Final Four this year, to actually comment on Packer's statements from the 2001 game and point out how it has helped perpetuate a very unfair and untruthful myth about Duke. Of course, no one has the guts to do that, so it's pie in the sky. But I'd still love to see someone make it their cause to undo the damage some of the media have done over the past 6 or so years.

Gary

Ever listen to Dick Vitale? If you haven't heard of him, he's an announcer at ESPN. In fact, he's their lead basketball announcer. And he extols the virtues of Duke basketball every single time he is on the air.

Heck, just last night, he spent a good 3 or 4 minutes talking about Duke in a very positive manner while the UNC-Ohio State game was going on.

Duke gets plenty of positive publicity from ESPN.

throatybeard
11-29-2007, 11:53 AM
Sounding like?

Good point.

DevilGrad
11-29-2007, 12:19 PM
Ever listen to Dick Vitale? If you haven't heard of him, he's an announcer at ESPN. In fact, he's their lead basketball announcer. And he extols the virtues of Duke basketball every single time he is on the air.

Heck, just last night, he spent a good 3 or 4 minutes talking about Duke in a very positive manner while the UNC-Ohio State game was going on.

Duke gets plenty of positive publicity from ESPN.

Among the biggest complaints of the rest of the world about ESPN's college basketball coverage is that Vitale spends three or four minutes talking about Duke no matter what game he's actually calling.

My complaints on this front are ameliorated because (a) I went to Duke for grad school and (b ) he got off on a tangent during the Wisconsin game and gave a nice shout out to Charlie Coles and my Miami RedHawks. :)

throatybeard
11-29-2007, 12:47 PM
I got 99 problems but ESPN ain't one.

blazindw
11-29-2007, 01:02 PM
I got 99 problems but ESPN ain't one.

If you having cable problems, I feel bad for you son,
I got 99 problems, but Directv ain't one

gvtucker
11-29-2007, 01:10 PM
My bottom line in all this silliness:

One writer at a magazine that has a circulation of less than 2mm plus some silly gift list that is half tongue in cheek is scarcely enough to get all worked up about.

Similarly, one guy at a Duke fan website that gets offended at a couple of people's biases is scarcely enough reason for some blogger to indict all of Duke, and I don't see much reason to get all worked up about that, either.

What I do see as modestly worrisome are the number of people that are in DBR's corner with the whole "ESPN doesn't like us" thing. My guess is that 90% of the non-Duke community thinks the complete opposite. Most probably, not all of them have had lobotomies, and some subset of them don't hate Duke.

-jk
11-29-2007, 01:20 PM
I think Julio's basic premise is that Duke-hating in newsrooms is pervasive and seems to be more than tolerated at ESPN, the World-Wide Leader in Sports Advertising Revenue. OK, the protest was a silly idea; even if successful, it would have been either misunderstood or mischaracterized.

When you're the top dog, an occasional pot-shot is to be expected. How many pot-shots do you take before you conclude it's a broadside? I'm not too worried about the general public's view; some will merely hate us for our success, others because we've beaten their team like a drum for years. (And I certainly don't want to give that up!)

But how does their hating resonate with refs and recruits? That's more worrisome. K concluded that ignoring the haters wasn't working and that Duke needed a more proactive approach. In response, he's been more available to the press this season and they launched Blue Planet.

Is there any response that active, engaged, and passionate fans - whether bloggers or bbs posters - should take beyond ignoring the haters and letting K handle it? Can we present any image that will be characterized as something other than "smug" or "elitist" or "whining" or "crying" and provide even more grist for the haters?

Personally, I think we should respond factually and dispassionately whenever we see numbers games or factual errors. You know the usuals: Duke gets all the calls because Duke hits more free throws than their opponents try. Duke can't develop big men. Duke players don't succeed in the NBA. Beyond that, we should just ignore them and be satisfied (okay, maybe just a bit smug :) ) that they spent their resources attacking us.

-jk

MarineTwinsDad
11-29-2007, 01:24 PM
Another way of looking at this is that whoever decides which games ESPN broadcasts does value Duke basketball, and believes that it is sound economics to put Duke games on as often as possible. Those who write for ESPN apparently have their own prejudices. They could very well feel that Duke doesn't deserve to be broadcast as much, and seek to influence viewers at large by their negativity.

Duvall
11-29-2007, 01:24 PM
Is there any response that active, engaged, and passionate fans - whether bloggers or bbs posters - should take beyond ignoring the haters and letting K handle it? Can we present any image that will be characterized as something other than "smug" or "elitist" or "whining" or "crying" and provide even more grist for the haters?

No. Any response, even a cordial one, will be viewed as whining.


Personally, I think we should respond factually and dispassionately whenever we see numbers games or factual errors. You know the usuals: Duke gets all the calls because Duke hits more free throws than their opponents try. Duke can't develop big men. Duke players don't succeed in the NBA.

I doubt it will help. As jipops noted, perceptions are much more important than reality. All we can do is stop worrying about it.

gvtucker
11-29-2007, 01:39 PM
Personally, I think we should respond factually and dispassionately whenever we see numbers games or factual errors. You know the usuals: Duke gets all the calls because Duke hits more free throws than their opponents try. Duke can't develop big men. Duke players don't succeed in the NBA. Beyond that, we should just ignore them and be satisfied (okay, maybe just a bit smug :) ) that they spent their resources attacking us.
-jk
I'm fine with that.

Note that the current dustup has absolutely nothing to do with anyone presenting factual errors, but rather someone who has just decided to print an article with a negative bias.

phaedrus
11-29-2007, 01:42 PM
Maybe the fact that we are all Duke fans makes us more likely to pay attention to the haters (some of whom work at ESPN) and ignore the members of the media who still pay us A LOT of respect (some of whom also work at ESPN).

And maybe the fact that most people who aren't Duke fans hate Duke basketball makes them more likely to pay attention to the latter group and less to the former.

dw0827
11-29-2007, 02:15 PM
in the past few days, there have been not one but several threads on this board about ESPN and how they don't like us. How unfair they are. How they hate us. And how awful they are. And how misunderstood we are. And how mean they are. And how we hate them because they hate us. And blah blah blah.

Good grief. Listening to all this whining, no wonder why they hate us. We are pathetic.

gvtucker
11-29-2007, 02:22 PM
Maybe the fact that we are all Duke fans makes us more likely to pay attention to the haters (some of whom work at ESPN) and ignore the members of the media who still pay us A LOT of respect (some of whom also work at ESPN).

And maybe the fact that most people who aren't Duke fans hate Duke basketball makes them more likely to pay attention to the latter group and less to the former.

Ding ding ding.

3rd Dukie
11-29-2007, 02:22 PM
If you read some of the comments, you can see that deadspin is just feeding its readers what they want to see. This is not news, nor is it anything to worry about.

Read some of the comments. Frankly, I'm proud to have as little in common with those type of people as possible.

I am with you, ENG. I think we are too sensitive to outside, uninformed, ignorant, irrational hatred. I think this board, in general, has blown the ESPN hatred think way out of proportion. After all, ESPN is not some monstrous monolithic entity working together in some vast conspiracy. Rather, it is a collection of individual sports guys, who, as I said in another post, always seem to think themselves and sports much more important than they really are.

We really might benefit from taking a step back and looking at the bigger picture. This is really not THAT important, and those tiny little people posting on deadspin don't have anything better in their lives. (That'll fire them up!) They are just using Duke as an outlet for an obscenity-laced rant. ENG has it right.

-bdbd
11-29-2007, 03:36 PM
I am with you, ENG. I think we are too sensitive to outside, uninformed, ignorant, irrational hatred. I think this board, in general, has blown the ESPN hatred think way out of proportion. After all, ESPN is not some monstrous monolithic entity working together in some vast conspiracy. Rather, it is a collection of individual sports guys, who, as I said in another post, always seem to think themselves and sports much more important than they really are.

We really might benefit from taking a step back and looking at the bigger picture. This is really not THAT important, and those tiny little people posting on deadspin don't have anything better in their lives. (That'll fire them up!) They are just using Duke as an outlet for an obscenity-laced rant. ENG has it right.

Wow - I read most of that Dedspin Blog and came away saying, "Thank God I'm a Duke fan!" Can you even imagine that level of foul-mouthed, irrational hatred ever being voiced or supported here? !? Good grief. What a total bunch of idiot losers. (one interesting note: In reading through more than a couple dozen posts, I noted that NOT ONE of those miscreants even tried to respond factually to the issues DBR raised about ESPN's misinformation/ pandering campaign. Speaks volumes about their predispositions...:rolleyes:

I agree with ENG, et al -- Confront them (ESPN and other anti-Duke media) with the dispasionate FACTS - facts about foul calls, academic/graduation standards, alums in the pros, the judicial process, accurate reporting vs pandering to haters, etc. I still hope someone at Duke does so in public, but that might be asking too much.

But, MOST importantly, JUST KEEP WINNING!!!

-BDBD

Turtleboy
11-29-2007, 04:31 PM
Heck, just last night, he spent a good 3 or 4 minutes talking about Duke in a very positive manner while the UNC-Ohio State game was going on.If he had only spent that much time talking about Duke during the Wisconsin game. Or even talking about the game, for that matter.

Wander
11-29-2007, 04:35 PM
What I do see as modestly worrisome are the number of people that are in DBR's corner with the whole "ESPN doesn't like us" thing. My guess is that 90% of the non-Duke community thinks the complete opposite. Most probably, not all of them have had lobotomies, and some subset of them don't hate Duke.

I completely agree with this. There are certainly some at ESPN who don't like Duke and I guess they could be more professional about it at times, but the positives far outweigh the negatives. It's certainly nothing to freak out about and the DBR protest idea was the stupidest idea of any kind I've heard in a while.

I'll add that this isn't exclusively a Duke thing, though. There are plenty of Carolina fans who think the refs are against them every game, and there are plenty of Florida fans who think that Florida is the most hated school in the country, despite the media handing them a spot in the national title game last year.

DevilGrad
11-29-2007, 04:44 PM
Wow - I read most of that Dedspin Blog and came away saying, "Thank God I'm a Duke fan!" Can you even imagine that level of foul-mouthed, irrational hatred ever being voiced or supported here? !? Good grief. What a total bunch of idiot losers. (one interesting note: In reading through more than a couple dozen posts, I noted that NOT ONE of those miscreants even tried to respond factually to the issues DBR raised about ESPN's misinformation/ pandering campaign. Speaks volumes about their predispositions...:rolleyes:

You misunderstand the purpose of Deadspin, especially the comments section. Those have nothing to do with facts and everything to do with snarky humor (well, that and dick jokes). It's frequently sophomoric and hipper-than-thou. It's also frequently one of the funnier sports-related sites on the internet -- as long as it's not one of your oxen getting the goring.

For 95% of English-speaking, sports-watching humanity, the phrase "Duke hates ESPN" has more than a little whiff of "man bites dog" to it, and that alone makes the entire dust-up perfect fodder for humor.

alteran
11-29-2007, 04:50 PM
You misunderstand the purpose of Deadspin, especially the comments section. Those have nothing to do with facts and everything to do with snarky humor (well, that and dick jokes). It's frequently sophomoric and hipper-than-thou.

I understand that. Did you read some of the things people said in regards to the crying boy?

Sometimes "hey, it's only a joke," is appropriate. Sometimes, however, it's used as cover for some pretty sick stuff. A lot of the comments were the latter-- completely indefensible.

NovaScotian
11-29-2007, 05:14 PM
Oh no, some random blogger has read our site and is mocking us. What's next, we're all going to sit around and cry about truth about duke?


in all fairness, deadspin is probably the second best blog out there (besides the always hilarious kissing suzy kolber. that said, they did get this one wrong - its not so much espn that we hate, but espn.com, doug gottlieb and that awful awful dick vitale

captmojo
11-29-2007, 05:17 PM
I feel kind of dirty after reading some of those replies on the link. Really shows the difference between discourse here and there. I'm going to judge it for what it's worth, considering the company they keep. Shouldn't we all?

Second, I am a Duke fan and have been since I could pronounce Duke. I make no apology for being one and I make no apology for being a willing partner to any protest due to a slight based on an untruth.

Third, it's a two way street folks. They want to broadcast Duke as bad as Duke wants to be broadcast. Is it really wise for the network to fire the first shot? I think, when all is said and done, the management on both sides will have a good laugh over this and life will continue as usual.

bjornolf
11-29-2007, 06:39 PM
Pot, meet kettle. You go on a tirade about people mocking a crying kid wearing a Duke jersey, then you make fun of a crying kid wearing a UNC jersey. :confused: If you're going to dish it out, then be prepared to take it.

Boy do I feel sheepish. Did nobody get that I was jokingly referring to Hansbrough and Henderson last season? The responder's emoticon led me to believe that he/she did not. Also, two little points:

1. I do NOT pick on little kids for the jerseys they wear or for crying at games. As a 7-10 year old Redskins fan growing up in San Antonio, I got my butt KICKED by older kids EVERY day for three years. Believe me, I do NOT pick on kids for the jerseys they wear. That being said, I don't have a big problem with people poking a little fun at a kid wearing a jersey and crying at a game. I just don't believe in it myself.

2. HOWEVER, even if what I had said WAS about a little kid, poking a little fun is miles away from MULTIPLE violent, pedophilic tirades involving incest and rape of a child.

So, I'm sorry for the misunderstanding, but I'm not really going to apologize for what I said.

JG Nothing
11-29-2007, 07:37 PM
Boy do I feel sheepish. Did nobody get that I was jokingly referring to Hansbrough and Henderson last season? The responder's emoticon led me to believe that he/she did not....So, I'm sorry for the misunderstanding, but I'm not really going to apologize for what I said.
You feel sheepish? I am red in the face.:o That went right over my head! My apologizes for not catching on. :D

jipops
11-29-2007, 10:59 PM
My bottom line in all this silliness:

One writer at a magazine that has a circulation of less than 2mm plus some silly gift list that is half tongue in cheek is scarcely enough to get all worked up about.

Similarly, one guy at a Duke fan website that gets offended at a couple of people's biases is scarcely enough reason for some blogger to indict all of Duke, and I don't see much reason to get all worked up about that, either.

What I do see as modestly worrisome are the number of people that are in DBR's corner with the whole "ESPN doesn't like us" thing. My guess is that 90% of the non-Duke community thinks the complete opposite. Most probably, not all of them have had lobotomies, and some subset of them don't hate Duke.

Wow, where do you live? And "a couple people's biases"? Apparently you missed the story about the media room in Lawrence Joel erupting in joy during Duke's loss to VCU in the tournament. Apparently it was so loud the rest of the coliseum could here it while a game was going on. Or how about the "most Hated Dukies list" espn posted earlier this year? Don't recall seeing any other team's players on a list like that. Do you actually wear a Duke shirt to a bar during a Duke game and NOT expect to hear something from somebody? Lots of stuff has piled like this since the beginning of the decade and since blogs and message boards have become the mainstream.

There may be no good way to combat this type of stuff probably because it's not even worth fighting. Does it really even matter what anyone else thinks? I don't disagree with anything DBR stated but I don't think doing it in this forum will make anyone actually understand. It's going to come across as whining no matter how valid the point.

In today's sports culture, holding a sports discussion in a negative context is far more sustaining that giving it positive context. So since Duke's program has been so sustained at a high level over the past two decades, it's much more en-vogue to blog, post, write, or broadcast negativity about the subject of Duke basketball. As a result, perceptions are molded to provide for negative discussion.

RelativeWays
11-30-2007, 08:20 AM
To be fair, I don't see a lot of Duke bias aired on the ESPN networks, which may be why people don't understand the complaints. Most of what I would interpret as "anti Duke" seems to come from ESPN.com or ESPN the magazine, not so much from the actual TV portion. I know people have said Stuart Scott downs Duke at very opportunity, but I've never seen it (not saying it doesn't happen). Same with Hubert Davis, but Hubert has always come across pretty balanced to me, I've never seen any overt bias in his commentary. Now I know Jim Rome hates Duke, but he's a d!ck and tends to hate a lot of things. I've never seen Wilbon or Kornheiser have any Duke bias, they were one of the few who at least questioned the Duke lacrosse case allegations when that all came out. Digger seems to hate Duke, but that seems to be his own prerogative. In any event, there seems to be less "anti Duke bias" in what ESPN airs as opposed to their other news outlets, or maybe I'm just not paying that much attention.

alteran
11-30-2007, 09:16 AM
To be fair, I don't see a lot of Duke bias aired on the ESPN networks, which may be why people don't understand the complaints. Most of what I would interpret as "anti Duke" seems to come from ESPN.com or ESPN the magazine, not so much from the actual TV portion. I know people have said Stuart Scott downs Duke at very opportunity, but I've never seen it (not saying it doesn't happen). Same with Hubert Davis, but Hubert has always come across pretty balanced to me, I've never seen any overt bias in his commentary. Now I know Jim Rome hates Duke, but he's a d!ck and tends to hate a lot of things. I've never seen Wilbon or Kornheiser have any Duke bias, they were one of the few who at least questioned the Duke lacrosse case allegations when that all came out. Digger seems to hate Duke, but that seems to be his own prerogative. In any event, there seems to be less "anti Duke bias" in what ESPN airs as opposed to their other news outlets, or maybe I'm just not paying that much attention.

I agree with your assessment of Stuart Scott. He's a tool, but he's a pro-UNC tool, not an anti-Duke tool. Anyone that has a problem with Hubert Davis needs to have their head examined repeatedly. In fact, every time he shares screen time with Bilas helps Duke, IMHO, because their banter is nothing but good-natured, exactly what people think a rivalry should be like.

That being said, there's tons of guys at ESPN that have overwhelming Duke "issues"-- among them Digger Phelps, Curry Smirkpatrick, and Len Wailmore.

A number of sections of ESPN.com and ESPN the Rag are consistently nasty towards Duke in ways that they aren't nasty to anyone else-- INCLUDING the Yankees and Notre Dame. I'm thin-skinned and I let it get to me a bit, but much of this nonsense is just spiteful but does no real damage. Sure, it feeds the Duke hysteria, but nothing's going to stop that freight train, and if I was wise I would completely let the cheap shots go.

But there's one thing ESPN does that I DO think matters: increasingly, ESPN commentators seem to feel the need to weigh the accuracy of every single call in Duke games.

So far this season, I don't think they've acted like Duke is the beneficiary of a conspiracy, but by discussing it casually on an ostensibly professional network, they are lending credence to what should be considered internet lunacy. I think this is actually doing a lot of damage, and I think it is affecting calls.

Now, I have three preschoolers and pretty much only watch Duke games these days. If ESPN is doing this with all their games, I withdraw my complaint and cede the field to the pro-ESPN/anti-Duke-paranoia crowd. But if ESPN is only doing this in Duke games, they are doing a lot of damage to Duke (and only to Duke) basketball. Yes, I will take that personally, even though I'd live longer if I didn't.

As my grandmother used to say-- just because you're paranoid doesn't mean they aren't out to get you.

billybreen
11-30-2007, 09:53 AM
But there's one thing ESPN does that I DO think matters: increasingly, ESPN commentators seem to feel the need to weigh the accuracy of every single call in Duke games.

So far this season, I don't think they've acted like Duke is the beneficiary of a conspiracy, but by discussing it casually on an ostensibly professional network, they are lending credence to what should be considered internet lunacy. I think this is actually doing a lot of damage, and I think it is affecting calls.

Now, I have three preschoolers and pretty much only watch Duke games these days. If ESPN is doing this with all their games, I withdraw my complaint and cede the field to the pro-ESPN/anti-Duke-paranoia crowd. But if ESPN is only doing this in Duke games, they are doing a lot of damage to Duke (and only to Duke) basketball. Yes, I will take that personally, even though I'd live longer if I didn't.

As my grandmother used to say-- just because you're paranoid doesn't mean they aren't out to get you.

As far as I can remember, every commentator for every sport does this.

alteran
11-30-2007, 10:24 AM
As far as I can remember, every commentator for every sport does this.

I'm not talking about rare, isolated calls. I'm not talking about occasionally saying something elliptical like, "gutsy call," (PC for "bad call"). I'm talking about systemic analysis of a significant number of calls in the game, (and the implication that they may or may not favor a specific team).

If you're saying that's typical of non-Duke coverage now, I am greatly relieved, and will have to move on to my next conspiracy.

CMS2478
11-30-2007, 10:27 AM
I get so tired of hearing about "bad calls" in every sport with every team. It seems that if you lose it was the refs fault. If you win, it would have been a blowout if it had not been for the refs. Your rival team would lose SO MANY GAMES if not for getting ALL THE CALLS. Give me a break!!!:rolleyes: When does it ever end???

captmojo
11-30-2007, 10:41 AM
Usually the networks, all of them, will go to special pains not to replay questionable calls by officials due to the feeling that they don't want to "upstage" the referees or make them look bad. It however seems, in the case of Duke games, they do replay an inordinate amount of referee decisions. I will have to pay closer attention. It could only be my perception rather than fact.

After all the above was said, I must express my opinion that the officials, in 99.99% of all games, do not present a reason for the outcome of a contest. Even due to a call in the last minute that may seem questionable, the team on the wrong end of said call had 39 other minutes to have done what was needed to win.

bjornolf
11-30-2007, 11:05 AM
You feel sheepish? I am red in the face.:o That went right over my head! My apologizes for not catching on. :D

you know what? I just reread the thread and what I originally wrote, and I must admit that my original post didn't make much sense. I'd just been reading the threads about Henderson and Hansbrough and I guess I was subconciously linking the two threads. So, I apologize for not being more clear in my joke. ;)

However, that being said, I was just trying to illustrate my point about kids in other college's jerseys crying. I don't believe I was even really poking fun, just pointing out that he was crying. Maybe it was the mention of a b*^^*-slap and taking lunch money that got your dander up? Given the intended context of Henderson accidentally beating down Hansbrough, yes I was poking a little fun at Tyler.

Anyway, all things being equal, whether or not I was referring to Tyler or an actual little kid, can you agree with me that there is a HUGE difference between laughing a little and making multiple pointed comments involving sex acts performed on a child by everyone from his father to the Duke coaching staff to Dickie V? That just sickens me. Is it even legal to say things like that about a kid? In my prudish mind, it equates to written child pornography. I guess getting older and having kids has changed me, but I don't think I would have ever said anything like that about anyone, especially a child, even when I was younger. To me, it takes a TOTAL lack of common decency to say things like that. The comments managed to encompass homophobia, pediphilia and incest in about 3 inches of screen space. That's impressive in a sociopathic way. I guess that was what I was really going for.

billybreen
11-30-2007, 11:19 AM
I'm not talking about rare, isolated calls. I'm not talking about occasionally saying something elliptical like, "gutsy call," (PC for "bad call"). I'm talking about systemic analysis of a significant number of calls in the game, (and the implication that they may or may not favor a specific team).

If you're saying that's typical of non-Duke coverage now, I am greatly relieved, and will have to move on to my next conspiracy.

I'm pretty sure it is, but I am certainly open to correction. I watch a fair bit of sports, and I don't notice the call scrutiny in Duke games being higher than elsewhere. Actually, I think it's the highest in the NFL where there is so much dead air to fill between plays that the announcers discuss every call in great detail.

captmojo
11-30-2007, 11:26 AM
I'm pretty sure it is, but I am certainly open to correction. I watch a fair bit of sports, and I don't notice the call scrutiny in Duke games being higher than elsewhere. Actually, I think it's the highest in the NFL where there is so much dead air to fill between plays that the announcers discuss every call in great detail.

Maybe so. I think Gutsy call might should go up on another thread.:cool:

dukeENG2003
11-30-2007, 11:54 AM
I'm pretty sure it is, but I am certainly open to correction. I watch a fair bit of sports, and I don't notice the call scrutiny in Duke games being higher than elsewhere. Actually, I think it's the highest in the NFL where there is so much dead air to fill between plays that the announcers discuss every call in great detail.

Agreed, and it kinda agravates me, b/c the NFL is probably the best officiate sport of any I watch.

Chicago 1995
11-30-2007, 05:08 PM
Or at least Chicago attention

Dan Bernstein and Terry Boers -- who mock just about everything -- picked up on this on WSCR 670 here in Chicago yesterday, and, I think rightfully, mocked it.

Bernstein is an alum, albeit not a cheerleader. He pointed out all ESPN has done for the program, and how much of the growth of the national nature of the Duke brand to ESPN. Because of that, the concept of an organized protest or even the outcry that the DBR's brought up seemed laughable to Bernstein and Boers both.

Whether or not there is some merit to our criticisms of ESPN, it doesn't really matter. The idea here is making the Duke fan base as a whole look pretty silly.

HK Dukie
11-30-2007, 05:40 PM
My advice: just ignore the "national" attention. Why should we care? The DBR team is taking their own stand and that's great. I'm sure they are passionate about their arguement and thus they should press the issue. But that doesn't mean that we should give a hoot about any backlash against DBR's backlash.

The only thing you can control in this world is your own actions. If you try to control the responses, or waste too much time thinking about interpretations of how other people will view what you (or a group like DBR you respect) say then you are going to go nuts. DBR did the right thing because they believe in what they are saying, backlash be damned.

The rest of the world is gonna hate us no matter what. Maybe they hate us more, maybe less as a result of DBR's actions. They hate us because the team we cheer for is almost always better than theirs. They should be the one's stressing about what can be done to improve their team. We should be enjoying the ride with an awesome coach, staff, players, arena, websites, and fans.

So to sum up....say what you believe and political correctness be damned.

P.S. Anyone else not stressing so much about fouls this year given the team goes 11 deep? Even when our best players get BS fouls, it really doesn't make that much diff except for the auto 2 foulshots. The real issue is when your star has to sit down. But this year, everyone is good.

RelativeWays
11-30-2007, 08:06 PM
I've always thought Len Elmore was a pretty good commentator. Sure, he's a Maryland guy, but he always seems to call every game with the same even keel. If he has a Duke bias, he doesn't seem to push it much.