Sometimes, you can’t make this stuff up. As soon as the NCAA Brackets came out, Mr. Whitlock had his panties in a bunch over the selection of Duke as not only a No 1 seed, but the fact that they are in what is perceived as the easiest region.
While I honestly believe Duke deserves the top seed, I also believe they got lucky with an easy region. I already wrote about it here. Yet as we already said on Twitter, Duke wasn’t the first team to catch a break in the tournament selection process and they won’t be the last. But because it’s Duke THIS TIME, the conspiracy theory was going to pop out. Sadly though, you’d expect it from another Maryland blog, not from a respected journalist.
Let’s break Jason Whitlock’s article down.
The experts on CBS and ESPN were not at liberty Sunday night to explain to you why the NCAA Tournament selection committee treated Duke like the No. 1 overall seed rather than Kansas, the nation’s best basketball team.
As Whitlock has reminded us sooooo many times in the past, he’s the only one not afraid to tell it like it is. Damn you, weak liberal mendia!
The explanation is simple: Duke is television ratings gold, and the NCAA is in the process of negotiating a new TV contract for its prized tournament.
CBS, the current rights holder, and ESPN, America’s 24-hour national sports network – along with several other networks – are currently participating in the contract negotiations. It’s a high-stakes affair. CBS paid $6 billion to exclusively broadcast the event for the last 11 years.
In an effort to hoodwink a TV network into again overpaying for the Big Dance, the NCAA is considering expanding the tourney to 96 teams.
So it’s only logical that the selection committee provided the Blue Devils – tournament-chokers for most of the last decade – a relative cakewalk to the Final Four. Duke, the alleged third No. 1 seed, is in the bracket with the weakest No. 2 (Villanova) and No. 3 (Baylor) and No. 4 (Purdue).
So let’s be clear about this. The selection committee, according to Whitlock, without a single shred of proof, made all their decisions based on future television contracts? Yep, it must all be a big conspiracy that only Jason Whitlock has figured out. He so smart.
I can imagine the conversation:
Committee member #1 – Man, I love the Duke Blue Devils, why aren’t they winning it all?
Committee member #2 – I don’t know, it’s crazy. We already force all the refs to give Duke every call.
Committee member #1 – Plus, how much money do we pay Dick Vitale to talk positive about them all the time?
Committee member #2 – Yet they never get to the Final Four anymore. What the hell are we going to do!
Committee member #1 – Jesus, I don’t know! We’re so screwed, we have television contract negotiations coming up and do you realize how much money we’re going to lose if Duke keeps not getting to the Final Four? Quick, someone get me a cigarette!
Committee member #3 – Stop!
Committee member #1 – What?
Committee member #3 – I got it!
Committee member #2 – You got what?
Committee member #3 – I know what we can do. We’ll just put them in the weakest regional. We’ll stick them with teams like Villanova, Baylor and Purdue.
Committee member #1 – That would be a cakewalk.
Committee member #3 – Exactly.
Committee member #2 – They’ll easily make it to the Final Four, we’ll make billions because of it, we’ll save our jobs and I’ll finally be able to afford the high-class hookers.
Committee member #3 – Joy. Joy.
Committee member #1 – But wait…what about Jason Whitlock? Won’t he figure all this out? I mean, it’s so obvious.
Committee member #3 – That fat fool. Come on, he’s too busy jerking off to Mike Lupica columns.
If only this was true.
My question to Jason is, if this is the case, then why hasn’t Duke always been given favorable spots? Why haven’t they’ve always ended up in the “easiest” regions year after year? I can’t recall the last time I heard someone, even the greatest haters, complain about Duke’s seeding. It shouldn’t be that hard for the evil-masterminds of the NCAA selection committee to pull this off. If it’s just about ratings, then ratings should be important every year, no just during negotiations.
I’m going to go out on a limb here and say, maybe just maybe the NCAA Selection committee would actually prefer to have the best product in the Final Four. Now I can’t explain why they did what they did, just like I can’t when we’re talking about previous “easiest regions” and other decisions that made no sense in year’s past.
My point is, if ratings were what really mattered, wouldn’t the committee go OUT of their way to make sure that Ohio State and Evan Turner, the best player in college basketball, got an easy path to the Final Four? Or maybe, if I dare suggest, they decided that a seven-loss team, with a SOS of 49 was worthy of only a two-seed. Now that would be a novel idea.
As for where they’re playing, you can blame that on the stupid system of placing teams. As it was pointed out to me this week, the committee doesn’t “snake” the teams based on their rankings. They do it by location. That’s why Ohio State stays in the Midwest. That’s why the best team in the Big East (excluding Syracuse who couldn’t play a home game) plays in the regional in upstate New York. That’s why two-seed Kansas State stays out west. This is how the committee has been doing it for a while now.
I’m not a fan of it. I believe they should be snaked (i.e. the lowest No 1 seed should be in the same region as the highest No 2 seed), but that’s not how they do it and that’s been going on before this season and long before television contracts became the most important issue (in Whitlock’s mind).
Let’s continue…of course it’s not just ratings, it’s image too, i.e. Duke’s clean image (he also adds in North Carolina).
I know. Around here, we’re quite proud of Kansas’ rich tradition. The Jayhawks produced Dr. Naismith, Wilt Chamberlain and Danny Manning. Kansas owns three NCAA titles. And just about everyone agrees Bill Self is as good a coach as there is.
Kansas fails the squeaky-clean charade.
Larry Brown hired Danny Manning’s dad and left the program on probation. We still don’t know for sure how Darrell Arthur passed 10th-grade algebra. And then there’s that whole thing about Kansas being the favorite team of porn stars.
I’m sorry, Whitlock…but the average college basketball fan doesn’t know anything about Danny Manning’s dad and I’d bet over half the fan base probably doesn’t know that Larry Brown coached Kansas to a National Championship way back in 1988. In fact, Roy Williams is how people remember Kansas.
As for the porn star in the seats…all because you tweeted about it two dozen times, doesn’t mean the rest of the world cares.
Let’s act it out again:
Committee Member #1: Damn that Kansas team is good.
Committee Member #2: Yeah, they’re great in all, but did you hear that an assistant coach got seats for a porn star?
Committee Member #1: No, I didn’t.
Committee Member #2: Well, he did.
Committee Member #1: Okay then, Ohio State as the No 2 seed it is.
Committee Member #2: That will teach Sherron Collins to have more tattoos than Lance Thomas!
Committee Member: #1: I heart Lance Thomas.
Committee Member: #2 Me too.
Of course it’s not just about porn stars and scandals from the eighties:
On a more serious note, Duke (and North Carolina to a lesser degree) score higher on the old “eyeball” test. Fewer tattoos and more white guys.
I just made many of you uncomfortable. Sorry. But it’s a fact.
First, you don’t make anyone uncomfortable. I’ve talked about Duke’s white players many times, long before you ever did. Second, let’s be clear on this. On top of TV ratings and on top of Danny Manning’s father issues, Duke gets an easier draw because they have less tattoos and more white guys?
Should we return to our role play again? Nah, f*ck it.
Does he really believe that the selection committee sat there and decided the one thing they needed to do to compete with the star power of the NBA is to present America with white guys?
Again, let’s be clear, next year when Duke brings in four black guys (Hairston, Irving, Thornton as well as transfer Curry and maybe more) next season, the committee will not make life easier for Duke because, like Jason said, they want more white people and Duke will be too black?
Listen, I have a lot of respect for Whitlock and I’ve enjoyed his columns for years, especially when it comes to race/sports. I don’t think he hates Duke and i don’t think he hates Duke’s players. He’s just being hyperactive. He’s the hometown boy (Big 12 country) pissy that his UK KU boys didn’t just get placed in the Final Four.
If the shoe was on the other foot and Duke was the top team, but Kansas the lesser team with an easier region, I’m sure he’d mention it on twitter, but he certainly wouldn’t have a full article accusing the NCAA of this crap.
Or if I can steal Whitlock’s theory, maybe one could argue that it was Villanova who the committee favors. Think about it, they’ve been struggling, they’re probably not even worthy of a No 2 seed. Yet the committee saw fit to not only award them a two seed, but it placed them in the easiest regional.
Think about it, Duke isn’t any good. Nova crushed the Blue Devils last season. G-Town (another Big East school crushed Duke). It wasn’t even close. How can they place the weakest two seed with the weakest one seed? It has to be a conspiracy. You have a struggling, but talented athletic team that you want back in the Final Four, so let’s put them up against a bunch of slow, nonathletic white guys!
Or maybe I’ll follow Whitlock’s final advice…he says, “But let’s deal with the reality of why Duke was given a favorable draw.”
Yes, Whitlock…let’s deal with the reality. There is no conspiracy. If there is, show me the proof. Don’t just throw up a bunch of dots and beg your audience to connect them for you, just so your point seems plausible like some third-rate Fox News reporter. Even on this meaningless blog, I deal only with facts.
The fact is, Duke caught a break. They weren’t the first team in the tournament to get lucky and they won’t be the last.
Very shady, Whitlock. Actually, you know who this article reminds me of…Mike Lupica.
46 Comments so far
Leave a comment
Can’t say I disagree with much of what you’re saying…but Kentucky is UK. The University of Kansas is KU – yes, we know it’s backwards but Kentucky already had UK so what were we supposed to do?
Comment by Kyle Rohde March 15, 2010 @ 9:20 amHa. Thanks, I always screw those up.
Comment by Rob March 15, 2010 @ 9:21 amYou’re not seriously claiming that Duke deserved the number one overall seed, are you? That’s just a joke to lighten the mood a bit before you get into your rebuttal. Right? RIGHT?!?! Care to explain how a team whose only good out of conference win came against Gonzaga earned a number one seed, period, nevermind the easiest path?
Comment by Sam Wilkinson March 15, 2010 @ 9:25 amLOL! well, this was an interesting blog and I enjoyed it. : ) I will make one correction though… we still call Lawrence, Larryville. That’s because of Larry Brown. It’s as if Roy was never there. : ) We love him despite the two points you make. He was a happy man, happy to be coaching kids again, he was engaging and wow, he loved basketball! Plus, he hired Calipari, Turgeon and Self as assistants… and Bob Hill. When Larry Brown was at KU, everything changed… especially for KU basketball, for the better.
Respectfully, enjoy the tourney. We will, no matter what happens.
Comment by Alexis March 15, 2010 @ 9:25 amAlexis
whitlock is right.
Comment by Kab March 15, 2010 @ 9:37 amSo Sam, tell me what I’m missing? Duke has either the No 1 or No 2 spot in the RPI, depending on what service you trust (ESPN, Ken Pom, Etc.) and has the 4th toughest schedule.
I don’t know about you, but I take those numbers into account. They won both the ACC Regular season and confernce championship, something neither K-State and West Virginia (they won only the conference tournament) can say. While Ohio State had a good run at the end and won both regular season and tournament titles, they lost seven games this season and had a SOS of 49.
If anyone has a good argument, I’d say it’s West Virginia. I guess the committee decided that the third place team in the Big East wasn’t as valuable as the No 1 team in the ACC.
If I was on the committee, I’d have Duke 1, but I would have placed West Virginia 2 in the south.
Feel free to argue otherwise, but don’t act like Duke being No 1 is the greatest shocker in tournament history.
Comment by Rob March 15, 2010 @ 9:37 amHey Alexis, good to know. However, that’s local and local is different. Outside the Midwest, little is known about that era, especially with Larry Brown and the Danny Manning father situation.
For the rest of the nation, Larry Brown is the guy who has coahed about 25 NBA teams. As for Manning’s dad, I consider myself a huge college basketball fan, but only learned about that last year.
My point of was, it’s insame for Whitlock to claim that Kansas got stuck with Ohio State simply because the committee doesn’t want them to go to the Final Four because of issues like this.
He sounds like a bitter fan, not a real journatist.
Comment by Rob March 15, 2010 @ 9:46 amThe real reason Whitlock is being moronic is that the committee doesn’t do s-curve seeding, meaning they don’t try to match the strongest 1-seed with the weakest 2-seed. If you look geographically, ‘nova gets hammered worse than the other 2s, since they have to travel the furthest to the regional location. There are also conference restrictions within the 1-4 seeds. They don’t like to have intraconference matches before the elite 8.
Overall, he’s being a homer, which I spose is forgivable, even at the Devils expense. I just hate that he has to try to add to the conspiracy theories.
Comment by cdg March 15, 2010 @ 9:49 amPlease delete my crazy comment. Sorry for the rant…there could be some truth though to Whitlock’s article…crazy as it is…
Comment by Derek March 15, 2010 @ 9:51 amJason just put a clown suit on you by forcing you into complete “homerism”. I don’t think there is an excuse for Duke getting an easy regional except the weaker teams are in the east this year and the midwest is loaded. The committee kept teams as close as they could to encourage fan travel hence Kansas getting the toughest region by far. I’m not a Duke hater, I don’t think a word war with Jason is what you want.
Comment by Darrin Sliffe March 15, 2010 @ 9:51 amHello,
As a longtime fan of Ncaa tourney, I can say clearly that Duke is favored, not only with seedings, but also with yearly ratings. They NEVER fall as much as others when they lose to unrated teams, check the charts, so they wind up with higher seeds. No hyperbole here, check the charts.
And, for someone that gets the highest average yearly recruiting class over the past 10 years, Duke CHOKES a lot, but no one mentions that. Last 8 years havent advanced past sweet 16. Yeah I know, blather on about how good that is, whatever. The real coaches, like UW Huskies Lorenzo Romar, get farther with less. The rest of you Dukies could see that, if you didnt have your noses up Coach K’s crapola hole.
Just a thought, check the charts, and find out who really is the greatest coach in college basketball, it isnt Coach K, not by a longshot.
Comment by Derek Allen March 15, 2010 @ 9:56 amRob,
Duke didn’t beat ANYBODY. That’s your main problem. Congratz on winning the ACC and all, but it was a joke of a league this year. Your second best team was a four seed. The Big East, for comparison’s sake, had a number one seed, two number two seeds, a number three seed, two number six seeds, and a number nine seed. The ACC? A one, a four, a seven, two nines, and a ten. Your only good out of conference victory was against Gonzaga. The rest of your “good” victories came against in conference schools during an off year for the ACC. Quite the accomplishment. To take that lack of substance and suggest that you’re deserving of the number one overall seed is ridiculous.
Comment by Sam Wilkinson March 15, 2010 @ 10:06 amDid you need a complex algorithm to develop all of these strawman arguments or do they just come naturally? It’s amusing to me that this is played as a “rebuttal” to Whitlock… It’s really just a bunch of block quotes followed by “humorous” (I’m guessing intent, rather than measuring impact) asides that don’t even remotely address anything of substance in Whitlock’s original article.
Also, addressing one of the few substantive points you actually made, if the tournament is seeded by region so that teams play relatively close to home, how is it that a team from North Carolina (Dook), is seeded with a team from Pennsylvania (‘Nova), a team from Texas (Baylor), and a team from Indiana (Purdue). Last time I checked, none of those states is in the same region, regardless of how liberally you define a region. So Whitlock’s point about Dook being given a favorable seeding with inferior competition among the remaining high seeds is no less valid than yours. And when you look at the actual seeds and their equivalents in other regions, it’s more accurate.
And then there’s this part:
“I’m sorry, Whitlock…but the average college basketball fan doesn’t know anything about Danny Manning’s dad and I’d bet over half the fan base probably doesn’t know that Larry Brown coached Kansas to a National Championship way back in 1988. In fact, Roy Williams is how people remember Kansas.”
The average college basketball fan probably doesn’t know who Myron Piggie is either. That doesn’t make it less of a scandal. Have we really reached the point where we’re catering to what the average fan knows without making any effort to expand their base of knowledge? And if half the fan base doesn’t know that Larry Brown coached Kansas to a title or can’t remember the Jayhawks any further back than Roy’s “Tears of a Clown” days, I guess that’s Whitlock’s fault too, right? No reason why anyone with a wordpress page or a column in a newspaper should mention it… Let’s just focus on the fans who can’t remember life before smart phones and blogs… Heck, why acknowledge that any of the Hall of Fame pro basketball players (or commentators and analysts) had any involvement in hoops before ten years ago? Bob Knight coached Isaiah Thomas at Indiana? Wow, I thought he was just the Knicks’ coach. I had no idea he played for the Pacers. Rick Pitino used to coach at Kentucky? That’s not possible. Somebody would’ve mentioned it, right?
Comment by Aaron Cunningham March 15, 2010 @ 10:08 am[...] 3 (Pitt), 6 (Marquette), 6 (Notre Dame), and 9 (Louisville). If you believe people like Rob at Duke’s Big Balls, that disparity simply doesn’t matter and you really ought to believe that on the strength of [...]
Pingback by Dark Brown Waffles › More, Briefly, About Duke March 15, 2010 @ 10:20 amWhitlock’s argument is very simple – follow the money. It is one of the easiest ways to figure out the reasoning behind decisions that seem off. Everyone is pretty much in agreement that Duke has an easy road to the Final Four.
I am not a Kansas fan or Duke fan but I live in the Midwest and hail from the Northeast. Duke is considered the New York Yankees of college basketball and to the casual college basketball fan they are a much better draw than Kentucky or Kansas. Duke’s players are much more recognizable and known, partly because they do not leave after one year. The NCAA has a vested interested in having a tournament that has the highest ratings possible. Since UNC, UConn, and UCLA are not in the tournament they have to be sure the big draws last as long as possible. That is the crux of Whitlock’s argument/theory.
Watch what time Duke’s games will be televised as well, you will see they will be when ratings will be highest.
Always remember to follow the money…
Comment by BigRedEd97 March 15, 2010 @ 11:05 amYou duke guys are so out of touch. You are the Notre Dame of Basketball.
Comment by Thomas March 15, 2010 @ 11:22 amI have been a Duke fan my entire life. My uncle went to Duke and was a Cameron Crazy. Even I have to agree with Whitlock on this one. Duke obviously got the easiest bracket. In fact, I believe that the last three years (at least the last two) they have been in what was perceived to be the easiest bracket. I don’t think it’s a coincidence. Also, the selection committee really isn’t at liberty to say why they put those teams in with Duke, which is why they haven’t, and won’t.
Comment by Cameron Brock March 15, 2010 @ 11:34 amHey everyone, I appreciate the comments and I’m loving the feedback. I take no pride and hearing from people who just agree with me.
This will have to be the last thing I can say in these comments. Sadly I have a job and have to do some work today. Sad, I know.
First, why would I be afraid to have a war of words with Whitlock? Obviously I’m not. I wrote this and posted it on his twitter.
Am I homer, yes. This is a pro-Duke site, but trust me, I’ve gotten a ton of props from Maryland fans, Kentucky fans and even Carolina fans for be even-handed. I’ve never been afraid to critize Duke and Coach K before. Hell, I voted for Vasquez as POY.
Having said that, because I’m a “homer” does that mean my agrument is completely wrong?
First to Aaron, of course I use humor (at least try to), because there is no way to argue Whitlock’s point because there is no fact. He’s stating a opinion. He has zero proof and zero facts to prove that the committee gave Duke a better situation because of a future TV deal.
It would be like me arguing there is no God to a Christian. How do I prove their is no God, when it only requires a leap of faith to believe in God?
Whitlock, who is also being a homer here, is ranting and speculating. He’s free to do that, but it’s bad journalism. He throws out a conspiracy and then expects me to disprove it. It would be like me say, “Jason Whitlock is full of crap because he LOVES Kansas, hates Duke, secretly hates white people and gives Kansas University has Whitlock in his back pocket, writing positive articles about them and negaive against Duke. Now prove me wrong?
The point I make early, if the shoe was on the other foot and Duke was the higher seed and Kansas got a easier region, do you really believe he would be writing article about it?
Big Red, you say to follow the money. I say so what that Duke (or North Carolina) always get the primetime slot? There is a big difference between putting a team that gets good ratings in the 7pm slot and the committee subverting the integrity of the tournament in an attempt to give on team an advantage over the others.
To Derek, you mention that Duke always gets favorable seeding. When? Has Duke been a No 1 seed a lot this decade? Sure. But when did they not deserve it? Pick one year where they were one of those high seeds and explain to me how they didn’t deserve it? In each of those seasons they had an exstremly high RPI and Duke always has a top-10 SOS.
You go to mention that Duke hasn’t advanced far in the tournament as your only prove that they didn’t deserve high seeds, but that’s nuts.
Not that Duke hasn’t lost early, that’s true. The problem is, that has no barring on the team’s seeding. Are you telling me the committee should look how previous teams have done to determine the seeds? If that’s the case, then Kentucky doesn’t deserve a No 1 spot.
The fact is, when the committee makes their decisions, they look at the full-body of work in THAT season. In almost every season this decade, Duke has won 25+ games (except for one I believe) playing a top-10 schedule.
As for your Coach K “being the best ever,” how is that relevant to anything involving this argument? I don’t bother debating who’s the greatest, I’ll leave that up to the experts and historians. All I know is Coach K has 800+ wins, three national titlss and 11 Final Fours at a small private school with higher academic standards. I guess I should ignore all that and pull my head out of K’s ass.
To Sam. There ya go, you actually sort-of made an agrument. So you say Gonzaga is the only good team that Duke has beat. Okay, that’s your opinion. I also know for a fact that Duke is 13-4 against the top-50 (which leads the nation), West Virginia is 8-4. The point is, we can pick and choose our stats to backup our argument.
Comment by Rob March 15, 2010 @ 11:54 amSorry, one last thing. I’m going to steal this from someone on a different comments section. Good stuff. You can find the chain here.
http://thebiglead.com/index.php/2010/03/15/2010-ncaa-tournament-south-where-rooting-against-duke-will-come-easily-to-all/comment-page-3/#comment-725461
Jay V said:
They (the committee) place just as much importance of geographical and conference balance…so, Nova and West Va were not going to be 2 seed with Syracuse (or a 3 seed with G-Town)…those 4 were getting spread out in 4 regions no matter what. K=-State was not going with Kansas. The ONLY change that could have been made is flip-flop WVa and Nova. Otherwise, that’s reallly the only distro of the 2 seeds that works, and G-Town had to head to the region where Syr, Nova, and WVa wasn’t.
TBL…the committee has never, and will not distribute teams from the same conference in the same region matched as such:
1-2
1-4
2-3
1-3 and 2-4 are acceptable, but unusual (Pitt/Nova last year…were 1-3, this was the Big East had so many high seeds, there was no way around it).
With that mind, it makes distributing teams tougher. If a conference has 4 teams in the top 16, they will, nearly without fail, be distributed across 4 regions.
Comment by Rob March 15, 2010 @ 12:42 pmWhitlock is right and simply wrote what every basketball fan in the country has been saying. Duke should have a cakewalk and their region is weak. The plus side is that they tend to underperform in NCAA recently so they wilspit the bit, most likely. And everyone will be happy.
Comment by Cecil Riggs March 15, 2010 @ 12:51 pmHow? How is Whitlock right? Please show me the proof, the facts that what Whitlock is saying is true? Don’t show me assumptions, don’t express your feelings, I want proof. Whitlock has none.
Again, folks. I’m not debating whether Duke deserves a No 1 seed or not. I’m not debating whether I think W. Virginia should be in the South, while Nova should be in the East with Kentucky. I’m not debating whether Duke is or is not in the easiest breaket. They are. I have no problem with anyone who argues about those things.
The point of Whitlock’s article though wasn’t that the committee once again bouched a decision (something it has done since there ever was a committee), I’m debating the non-factual conspriacy theory that says the committee favors one team over all other, by a man who favors Big 12 teams.
His article stats, the committee risked the integrity of the sport and gave Duke a easier bracket because…
A) They want a new TV deal
B) They run a cleaner program than Kansas (his words, not mine)
C) Less tattoos
D) More white players, even though Kansas second best player is white.
All because you agree with Whitlock and all because you hate Duke doesn’t make anything he is saying actually true.
Can you really tell me this is the first time EVER, in the history of the tournament that the committee didn’t do a perfect job?
Comment by Rob March 15, 2010 @ 1:03 pmThis is the first time in committee history that they did a bad job in picking the regions?
This is the first time a top seed has gotten a tougher bracket? You can honestly say that’s never, ever happened before?
And you can honestly say that this is the first time a lower No 1 seed got put into a easier region? Never before, ever, in the history of the tournament? All seedings in all regions have always been flawless untill today?
Oh buddy…
Did Jason Whitlock write an article with your name, an equal sign, and “ignorant ass” in the title?
I thought you had work to do…
Comment by Aaron Cunningham March 15, 2010 @ 1:21 pmOh Aaron…
No, I have zero to do. It was Jason Whitlock, a journalist, who wrote an article with no facts and no proof, accusing the NCAA Selection Committee of purposely propelling one team over all others, because TV ratings, a clean program, tattooes and whiteness.
That’s the beauty of a conspiracy that is pulled out of ones own ass. I can’t prove it wrong, because there are no facts to dispute.
In the real world, I’m not the one who has to disprove a conspiracy. It’s his job as journalist to prove his theory correct. If he can’t, then it’s a crap-emotional piece by a dsigruntled KU fan.
As a blogger, it is just my job to point out the silly things people write sometimes.
Comment by Rob March 15, 2010 @ 1:29 pmIf Jason Whitlock wrote an article saying the Jews cause 9/11, would it be my job to prove him wrong, or would it be his job to provide evidence?
Comment by Rob March 15, 2010 @ 1:33 pmWell, I guess when you start with an ad hominem in your headline and you write a blog post refuting an opinion based “conspiracy theory” they way you have, you get what you’re paid for…
In the event that you didn’t know, Whitlock linked to your post on Twitter and could only be described as bemused about it… Not sure which of you is driving more links in the other’s direction, but if I had a conspiratorial mind, I’d almost suggest you got together and dreamed up this whole inflated “beef”.
What did you know and when did you know it? Hahahahahaha. (I think I know the answer to both of those questions…)
Comment by Aaron Cunningham March 15, 2010 @ 1:35 pmLol, now that’s a conspircy. I wish I was that smart.
Listen, I’m a big fan of Whitlock. I love reading his stuff on Foxsports.com, all except the Jeff George-man crush. That has gotten a little creepy.
I just think he’s doing in this article what he always bitches about with writer’s like Lupica. He’s got a beef and he’ll say anything, relevant or not, to let the wrold know his opinion.
Comment by Rob March 15, 2010 @ 1:39 pmBTW, when we arrive at
Dook got an “easy” draw on a platter
=
The Jews caused 9/11
that’s when I tap out.
Comment by Aaron Cunningham March 15, 2010 @ 1:45 pmIt was an example of conspiracy theories, Aaron. We all know Mike Lupica caused 9/11.
Good luck.
Comment by Rob March 15, 2010 @ 1:50 pmSo tell me again why Duke has a higher seed than Syracuse. If the committee didn’t want conference foes facing off wouldn’t have been easier to set up Duke-WVU, Syracuse-OSU, Kansas-Nova, Kentucky-KSU. Face it Duke fans, they were given a huge break by the committee.
Comment by Jason March 15, 2010 @ 2:56 pmJason,
I don’t think Rob’s (revised) argument isn’t that Dook wasn’t the beneficiary of the Montreal Screwjob, but rather that it was a total accident/matter of happenstance, and not a “conspiracy” designed to get Dook out of their pattern of choking early and help them advance to the Final Four, thereby increasing ratings and revenue and driving up the bid for the next tourney…
And when you see it all typed out in a run-on sentence that way, doesn’t it seem impossible that a group of people in a locked room with a process totally lacking in transparency would ever have the ability to consider any of those factors and incorporate them into their decision making?
I don’t want to put words into the man’s mouth or anything. And it’s not his job to prove Whitlock wrong. It’s Whitlock’s job to prove Whitlock wrong. Also, Pearl Harbor was an inside job… Or something…
Comment by Aaron Cunningham March 15, 2010 @ 3:08 pmCome on people, are you serious? Do you actually read the articles or decide what you’re going to comment on and skip it.
Where in my piece do you see me arguing that Duke didn’t get lucky.
Where am I defending the committee’s decision? I don’t. In fact, here are my tweets from moments after the regions were announced.
http://twitter.com/bigdukeballs/status/10491615148http://twitter.com/bigdukeballs/status/10494893366http://twitter.com/bigdukeballs/status/10494963824
Duke caught a break. I think they did. I can’t explain why the committee did what they did, I wasn’t there.
The point of this whole blog post was to argue against the idea that committee would take into account a future television contract and the players skin color and Danning Manning’s father when they decided where to put each team. Whitlock is starting a fictional arguement to justify the committee’s action.
If you bothered to actually to do a little searching around this site, all you had to do was go back one post I put up yesterday, where I clearly am miffed by how Duke got put ahead of Syracuse.
Let me quote myself:
“I’m not sure how Duke got pushed ahead of Syracuse. The committee says that it only looks at the full-body of work (i.e. the full season). If that’s the case, then Syracuse, who lost only three times all season in the toughest conference should be ahead of a five-loss Duke team.
Now someone might say that the Orange have lost two-straight, but it shouldn’t matter. Again, the committee says it doesn’t judge teams based on how they did at the end.”
Now do I sound like a guy trying to justify Duke being ahead of Syracuse? I don’t think so. In fact, I point out how the committe is saying one thing and doing another. They don’t judge what’s happened recently, yet they’re punishing Syracuse for losing two in a row.
My point though has always been, this is nothing new to the committee. They’ve been saying one thing and doing another for years and not just with Duke.
My problem isn’t with people disagreeing with Duke’s seeding an/or lack of competition in the region…it’s with the fact that “haters” need to make up conspiracy theories to make themselves feel better about themselves.
Comment by Rob March 15, 2010 @ 3:13 pmRevised? Huh? Where have I changed anything?
Aaron my boy, the man with perfect sentence structure, you’re the one who keeps creating things I say in your post, then arguing against them.
Remind me where I call what the committee did an “total accident.”
Of course, I’m just being naive. Everyone knows the entire NCAA, the refs and ESPN are all in the tank for the Blue Devils.
How can I keep missing something so obvious?
Comment by Rob March 15, 2010 @ 3:18 pmYou can call me “Son” or “Brah” or “Dude”, but we are definitely not boys, as in you’re not mine and I’m not yours. So let’s be clear on that…
As far as the rest of your most recent response, no you didn’t use the words “total accident” nor do you refer to it as “happenstance”. I don’t and have not pretended that you actually said those specific things. What I was doing there was a little literary device we call “paraphrasing by way of hyperbole” (lest you should think I walk around saying “happenstance” all the time, which is of course, poppycock). I challenge anyone to read what you wrote in your initial post (which I’m sad to say I’ve done more than once) and comparing it to your comments here:
http://bigdukeballs.wordpress.com/2010/03/15/jason-whitlock-ignorant-ass/#comment-851
and see anything other than a “revised” argument which, when boiled down is essentially:
“Dook deserved a #1 seed. Or maybe they didn’t. And we can argue that ’til the cows come home. But if Whitlock is going to write that it happened because of a conspiracy, and back up his assertion with arcane historical references that no blogger could possibly care about, I call ‘bullshit’ and the onus is on him to prove that he’s right, since he considers himself a journalist…”
And I hope you accept that summation of your point, because now that I’ve typed it out, as happenstance catches the moonbeam, old chap, I daresay I agree with you!
Comment by Aaron Cunningham March 15, 2010 @ 3:32 pmDon’t call me “Old Chap,” Only we can call ourselves that. I would also prefer you use “happenstance.” It’s a big word and big words impress me.
Again, you’re not making your point. Looking at your link,
I say:
“Again, folks. I’m not debating whether Duke deserves a No 1 seed or not. I’m not debating whether I think W. Virginia should be in the South, while Nova should be in the East with Kentucky. I’m not debating whether Duke is or is not in the easiest breaket. They are. I have no problem with anyone who argues about those things.
Nothing has changed. In my original post, I stated:
“While I honestly believe Duke deserves the top seed, I also believe they got lucky with an easy region.”
I’m two different points. In the original post, I clearly state that I support Duke getting a No 1 seed. I believe their #1 RPI rating, #4 SOS rating and their 13-4 record against the top-50, as well as winning both the regular season and conference championship is cause enough to justify any No 1 seed.
The point I make in the comments section was directly to people who are acting like I wrote this article for the purpose of defending Duke’s seeding/region.
The point was, I have no problems if anyone wants to argue/debate Duke’s seeding. I have no problem if you think my numbers are not a strong argument. I have no problem if people argue that West Virginia has a better resume. That’s the fun of all this.
Just don’t try to create some mytical closed-door conspiracy that says the committee is trying to help Duke.
And the funny fact is, no one has really answered the basic question I keep asking…why is everyone acting like this is the first time a team (Kansas) has been screwed, while another team (Duke) got put in a easier bracket?
Comment by Rob March 15, 2010 @ 3:49 pmMaybe no one is arguing about it because it’s true. Maybe no one is arguing about it because it is true and they see it as another example of Dook getting favorable treatment. Maybe no one is arguing about it because it is true, they see it as an example of Dook getting favorable treatment, and they recognize that while Whitlock’s assertions can’t be proven beyond a shadow of a doubt, very few “conspiracies” can ever be tidily traced back to their source and, as such, appear to the naked eye to be happenstance.
Or perhaps there’s no “no one” to argue any of this because, rather than shouting “Get a room” at you and I, they’ve just discretely stepped out while we were otherwise distracted. And if that’s the case, may I recommend a future post about Dook guards and/or guard combos, so that I can be the only Tar Heel fan in the world to publicly profess my secret forbidden love for Hurley/T. Hill above all others…
Wait, what?
Comment by Aaron Cunningham March 15, 2010 @ 3:58 pmSay, huh? A Tar Heels fan! Jesus, I should have known. But Whitlock argues that the Tar Heels get the same favorable treatment as Duke. You’re in the same boat as me.
I also just realized you’re the first one to actually bring up whether Duke deserves the No 1 seed. I had forgtten. Listen, your arguments for West Virginia getting a No 1 are strong. While I was excited to see Duke at No 1, if the committee had given it to West Virginia, I wouldn’t have been shocked.
PS – my man-crush is on Hansbrough. The man went 4-0 in Cameron. He’s my daddy.
Comment by Rob March 15, 2010 @ 4:09 pmRob, for all the rage and fury, you didn’t really address anything Whitlock said in his column.
Not to put words into his mouth, but Whitlock has maintained for quite some time that, basically, the NBA isn’t as popular as baseball or football because it makes mainstream America uncomfortable to see a bunch of inked-up black dudes with sleeves of tattoos going down their arms. Many NFL players look the same, no doubt, they’re not out there in tanktops like NBA players are.
Thus, he links that line of reasoning to why Duke — who has often led the NCAA in having the most clean cut white guys per capita — has been a ratings draw. For the whitebread masses out there, seeing Duke’s players is not scary.
He then makes the connection that the NCAA wants to beef up their ratings this year as they negotiate a new contract. And if they want to beef up ratings, it makes sense to feature a team that has been a proven ratings winner. The end result is an easier path for Duke.
Is Whitlock right about any of this? Who knows. But despite the long-winded response, you haven’t actually addressed these major points.
You ask, if Whitlock’s theories are true, then why Duke hasn’t always been given an easy pass? Well, the NCAA isn’t always in the process of negotiating a new deal for their TV contract, are they? Sure, they would always like high ratings, but this year high ratings will actually help put a lot more money in their pockets. Your retort to him doesn’t hold up.
You also haven’t said anything to counter his longstanding theory about black guys and their scary tattoos and how it relates. Not that I would actually suggest getting into all that, but still.
It’s a perfectly valid counter-arguement to simply state that this isn’t the first time, nor will it be the last time, that committee has done something screwy. But if you’re going to call Whitlock and “ignorant ass” and go point by point through his column, you should probably address the actual points he made.
Comment by Rocky March 15, 2010 @ 4:46 pmHey Rocky, welcome to the discussion-
I don’t address Whitlock’s “theory.” You’re right, because you can’t. Again, his whole basic argument is that the NCAA Committee cares more about ratings than it does about the integrity of the league.
Since neither of us were in that room, neither of us can present anything as fact. While Whitlock throws out “possible” suggestions as to why the committee would want to “favor” Duke, he doesn’t actually prove this.
Again, if the shoe was on the other foot, would Whitlock write this column? No.
My first reaction was, I’m not that cynical. If I was on the committee, none of those things would be factors. I wouldn’t care about a scandal in the 80′s, I wouldn’t care about skin color and I wouldn’t care about some stupid scandal from the 80′s.
If you want to believe that the committee really is concerned about how many tattoos “x” player has, then there is nothing to talk about. You’re going to believe what you’re going to belive.
Even if I did care about TV ratings, wouldn’t I want to feature the best the league has to over, Collins, Turner, Wall, Wes Johnson. If I want to compete with the NBA, I want to show the world that we too have amazing basketball players.
Yes, the ratings have been down, but do you really believe that the decline has anything to do with too many tattoos, too many black players, too many dirty programs?
The fact is, ratings are down because the best kids don’t stay in college anymore. The best are in the NBA. Could you imagine how popular college basketball would be if players like James played in college, or if Melo stayed? Jesus, the sport would be way bigger than the NBA. The last time I checked, James was black and he has tatoos.
Hell, look at the one game he mentioned. Duke vs. Michigan. The reason the ratings were so high was because of the Fab Five. They were the stars of the league back then.
I’m sorry, you have to be a truly cynical person to believe that the comittee actually sat in that room and came up with a plan that would make Duke the No 1 seed in the easiest region simply to gurantee they’ll go to the Final Four and help ratings.
As for his longstanding tattoo = scared whitey argument, I don’t need to counter it, because it really has nothing to do with anything. However, I will say I don’t agree with it. While we can get into a whole conversation about race in America (I’m a ragging liberal, what do you think I think?), in the end, when it comes to sports, if a player helps your team win, it doesn’t matter how black they are or how many tattoos they have, the fans will love you and watch you. That’s true anywhere, including the deep south.
Comment by Rob March 15, 2010 @ 5:14 pmRob,
It’s amazing too me how easily, supposedly smart people are sucked into straight bull. Don’t waste anymore of your time talking to a bunch of morons who probably believe America executed 9/11, we were never on the moon, so on and so forth. It’s ridiculous to even go back and forth with these people. I’m a Duke fan and have been for a long time, almost none of my friends are Duke fans, and when I ask them why, when it gets down to it, they have no idea except that they win too much. We laugh and agree to disagree and move on. I’m old enough to have a mature debate about Duke’s seeding, teams, NBA alumni, or whatever, and not be emotional about it; others-sadly can not. As an educated african-american man I had respect for Whitlock, but it saddenned me to read his article. I forwarded it to others who feel the same way. Now if he wants to come out and say he was just kidding, that’s cool, but if he’s SERIOUS about the things he wrote, then he should kill himself.
Comment by Howard March 15, 2010 @ 8:36 pmWhitlock is slowly devolving into the Kanye West of sports writers. He really should write for ESPN where they have an undying passion for and commitment to his brand of race-baiting.
Comment by JD March 16, 2010 @ 2:32 pm[...] you had to be happy with the region and the opponents. If you’re not a Duke fan, you can just make up some conspiracy.What ever makes you happy when you touch [...]
Pingback by Sorry, Duke Won’t WIn the National Title « March 17, 2010 @ 12:07 amWhitlock’s rant about tattooless white players is being put next to Bilas bashing Duke: http://bit.ly/dBeQMy
Not exactly a banner day in the national media for the Blue Devils.
Comment by rttx March 17, 2010 @ 2:05 pmI have another “conspiracy” theory. It’s not as sexy or controversial. Could the selection committtee consider the fact that Duke has three senior starters who will graduate with a college degree. Jon, Lance, and Zoubs have played hard and studied hard for four years. Isn’t that what college athletics all about? Is it a sad state of affairs to see college athletics acting as a serving platter for the NBA. Maybe the selection committee isn’t all about greed and avarice, but promoting a program that reflects the true purpose of an athletic scholarship.
Comment by Lisa March 18, 2010 @ 2:42 pmIt is a tournament, the goal is to win 6 games. So let us assume Kansas had the tough draw because of the 2-4 seeds. Well OSU has looked sorry and GTOWN got crushed and the 4 is gone, oh yeah and Kansas is gone. So maybe looking at teams on paper and deciding how tough something is, is just a bad way to fill space before a tournament. It is simple, win 6 games and get a trophy. If those 6 games are against a high school, an ivy league school, an NBA team or God you still have to defend and hit shots. If not, then you go back to Larryville and hang out with all those guys with crazy tats and handguns.
Spelling Duke, DOOK is not clever or funny or really anything other than dumb. If you live near North Carolina and get sick I have a feeling that you hope you can get some help from DOOK’s med department. Effin lames.
Comment by Real Rocky March 22, 2010 @ 3:16 amLate to the party on this one, but I had to make an obvious point to you conspiracy theorists out there. Do you even know the composition of the dark order of the brackets?? Here they are in their full glory:
http://www.bracketography.com/selection-committee/
They include the directors of athletics for UCLA, Kent St., Ohio St, UCONN, and Xavier. And the commissioners of the Big Sky and Big 12 conferences.
Now, do you really believe that this group of people would conspire to give Duke preferential treatment in the tourney? Would all of them (or at least a majority of them) sacrifice their own personal integrity and the interests of their own schools and conferences to give “clean-cut” Duke an easier path to the Final 4?? Come on people…
Comment by Atldukie March 22, 2010 @ 1:29 pm[...] you, that help with the hate. People hate Duke because of people like Jason Whitlock, who throw out B.S. theories about CBS cheating for Duke. It’s kind of ironic, isn’t it? One of the reasons people [...]
Pingback by Reason to Hate the Gregg Doyel Way « April 4, 2010 @ 11:15 pm