The Sweet Sixteen

[ugarte]

Boston Globe article today by Dan Shaughnessy: http://www.boston.com/sports/colleges/mens_basketball/articles/2010/03/24/clinging_to_an_ivy_climber/?page=1

Best line: ...

Worst line: "Had he stayed in Lexington, odds are Calipari would have run him out of the program."

That's the worst line because it ignores that Calipari didn't have a chance because Billy Gillespie ran him out. Coury transferred to Cornell because he wanted a chance to play, not simply because he was a stellar student. God, I hate the fit-this-narrative method that dominates sportswriting so much.

[billhoward]

No matter how big the check, you wouldn't want to sell a script to Hollywood if facts and timelines are that important.

Nothing is over until we decide it is! Was it over when the Germans bombed Pearl Harbor?

[RichH]

And the backlash: http://trueslant.com/matttaibbi/2010/03/24/those-plucky-cornell-kids/

[billhoward]

And the backlash: http://trueslant.com/matttaibbi/2010/03/24/those-plucky-cornell-kids/

Some days you have a column due and nothing to say. This part was mildly amusing:

Normally broadcasters reserve their drooling over white-athlete stereotypes for descriptions of individual players like Wes Welker, Steve Nash, and... well, of Wes Welker. You do get some during NFL draft season, when you hear all the various Mel Kipers talking about fourth- and fifth-round talents who are worth a shot because they are "consistent," "able to take coaching," have "high football intelligence," are "good in the locker room," and "try hard and play through the whistle." (My favorite of these cliches is actually, "Mature; is a coach's son."). The commensurate glowing descriptions of black athletes, of course, are more like, "Flattens the fuck out of guys" or "Will dunk on your face and laugh about it."

[Trotsky]

And the backlash: http://trueslant.com/matttaibbi/2010/03/24/those-plucky-cornell-kids/

As somebody said on another thread, sports journalism is plug and play of a few simplistic cliches (see also, political journalism).  Hopefully nobody cared about the media who backed us mechanically, and now won't give a thought to the media who attack us mechanically.  Next week they'll have moved on to some other inspiration, tragedy or outrage to fill their quota of being paid by the yard.

They just don't matter.

[nr53]

And the backlash: http://trueslant.com/matttaibbi/2010/03/24/those-plucky-cornell-kids/

I honestly don't mind that article at all. It makes a valid point, even though they "won the genetic lottery" or whatever other way you want to say it, anybody who plays sports at a high level has to a) love the game, b) spend a TON of time practicing. The athletes on both sides have put a lot of hard work in to get where they are. That said, I hope we wipe the floor with them ::rock:: LETS GO RED!

[billhoward]

There are times when a column or game story hits it so well. The perfect storm was the Boston teams and Boston sportswriters circa 1976-1990. Rick Reilly in Sports Illustrated most weeks, also (forgot his name) the SI columnist from Marquette. Steve Rushin, maybe.

But yeah, I think the obvious pendulum swing was toward Cornell being different and fresh (and those press conference quips were priceless) so the obvioius pendulum swing back is to find some flaw with Cornell, and then move on past Cornell. I'm waiting for the column that asks why if Cornell is such hot stuff, three people went over the bridge railing. And the pendulum swing will be even faster should Cornell fall by a big margin in whatever game is the final one.

[Greenberg '97]

And the pendulum swing will be even faster should Cornell fall by a big margin in whatever game is the final one.

Actually, I give them a pretty good shot against Northern Iowa.

[ugarte]

And the backlash: http://trueslant.com/matttaibbi/2010/03/24/those-plucky-cornell-kids/

As somebody said on another thread, sports journalism is plug and play of a few simplistic cliches (see also, political journalism).  Hopefully nobody cared about the media who backed us mechanically, and now won't give a thought to the media who attack us mechanically.  Next week they'll have moved on to some other inspiration, tragedy or outrage to fill their quota of being paid by the yard.

They just don't matter.

I actually liked Taibbi's article. Not because it is original - it isn't, except with respect to this game, this week - but because it has to be said. There are a lot of reasons to like Cornell's team but there are a lot of reasons why Cornell's success would become a huge story and not all of them are pretty.

The dominant cliche has been "Cornell's smart plucky kids" and this is a really flawed theme. Not only because Kentucky players work just as hard (if not harder) than Cornell's players on the court but also because it demeans the intelligence of the the Kentucky players. Mark Coury, for example, used to be a Kentucky player. I've been told that John Wall was a diligent student in high school. We know that Dale got a 1300 on his SATs (because Donahue said it in an interview) but how many players got into Cornell because of basketball? Probably not all but certainly some. And, at the same time, Cornell's players are very f'ing good. Wittman and Foote are considered fringe NBA prospects and Dale would be also if he were 6'3" instead of 5'11'.

I don't think it means that all of these sportswriters are racist - latent or otherwise - because "Cornell in the Sweet 16" is a great story. But the easy story everyone is writing has racial undertones and it is about time that somebody noticed.

Edit: DeMarcus Cousins interview. He's no dummy. I saw this and an interview with John Wall. They are giving Cornell plenty of respect. http://www.courier-journal.com/section/videonetwork?bctid=73665304001

[kingpin248]

Dana O'Neil at ESPN.com; this one compares Donahue's success to both Dunphy at Penn and Pete Carril, and ties in CU's unique structure. It includes some quotes from Carril.

And Cornell even made it into the fake news this week:
Study: Announcers Increasingly Able To Believe What They're Seeing

[phillysportsfan]

And the backlash: http://trueslant.com/matttaibbi/2010/03/24/those-plucky-cornell-kids/

As somebody said on another thread, sports journalism is plug and play of a few simplistic cliches (see also, political journalism).  Hopefully nobody cared about the media who backed us mechanically, and now won't give a thought to the media who attack us mechanically.  Next week they'll have moved on to some other inspiration, tragedy or outrage to fill their quota of being paid by the yard.

They just don't matter.

I actually liked Taibbi's article. Not because it is original - it isn't, except with respect to this game, this week - but because it has to be said. There are a lot of reasons to like Cornell's team but there are a lot of reasons why Cornell's success would become a huge story and not all of them are pretty.

The dominant cliche has been "Cornell's smart plucky kids" and this is a really flawed theme. Not only because Kentucky players work just as hard (if not harder) than Cornell's players on the court but also because it demeans the intelligence of the the Kentucky players. Mark Coury, for example, used to be a Kentucky player. I've been told that John Wall was a diligent student in high school. We know that Dale got a 1300 on his SATs (because Donahue said it in an interview) but how many players got into Cornell because of basketball? Probably not all but certainly some. And, at the same time, Cornell's players are very f'ing good. Wittman and Foote are considered fringe NBA prospects and Dale would be also if he were 6'3" instead of 5'11'.

I don't think it means that all of these sportswriters are racist - latent or otherwise - because "Cornell in the Sweet 16" is a great story. But the easy story everyone is writing has racial undertones and it is about time that somebody noticed.

Edit: DeMarcus Cousins interview. He's no dummy. I saw this and an interview with John Wall. They are giving Cornell plenty of respect. http://www.courier-journal.com/section/videonetwork?bctid=73665304001

What do you expect from the media, they are lazy, it is much easier to write an article saying it is the battle of the smart guys vs future NBA players than to actually get interviews with the players and do some research. The other reason is that the media really believes we have no shot so the only way they can generate interest in the game is with all these side stories about Cornell being a bunch of smart players

[dbilmes]

There's also  great two-page photo of the Cornell-Wisconsin game in this week's Sports Illustrated, with Louis Dale outhustling a crowd of players for the ball.
Meanwhile, Cornell has been getting almost as much air time on Mike Francessa's WFAN sports radio show as the Yankees and Mets. Francessa said Cornell would have a decent shot at getting to the Final Four if it didn't have to play Kentucky next.

[YankeeLobo]

And the backlash: http://trueslant.com/matttaibbi/2010/03/24/those-plucky-cornell-kids/

As somebody said on another thread, sports journalism is plug and play of a few simplistic cliches (see also, political journalism).  Hopefully nobody cared about the media who backed us mechanically, and now won't give a thought to the media who attack us mechanically.  Next week they'll have moved on to some other inspiration, tragedy or outrage to fill their quota of being paid by the yard.

They just don't matter.

I actually liked Taibbi's article. Not because it is original - it isn't, except with respect to this game, this week - but because it has to be said. There are a lot of reasons to like Cornell's team but there are a lot of reasons why Cornell's success would become a huge story and not all of them are pretty.

The dominant cliche has been "Cornell's smart plucky kids" and this is a really flawed theme. Not only because Kentucky players work just as hard (if not harder) than Cornell's players on the court but also because it demeans the intelligence of the the Kentucky players. Mark Coury, for example, used to be a Kentucky player. I've been told that John Wall was a diligent student in high school. We know that Dale got a 1300 on his SATs (because Donahue said it in an interview) but how many players got into Cornell because of basketball? Probably not all but certainly some. And, at the same time, Cornell's players are very f'ing good. Wittman and Foote are considered fringe NBA prospects and Dale would be also if he were 6'3" instead of 5'11'.

I don't think it means that all of these sportswriters are racist - latent or otherwise - because "Cornell in the Sweet 16" is a great story. But the easy story everyone is writing has racial undertones and it is about time that somebody noticed.

Edit: DeMarcus Cousins interview. He's no dummy. I saw this and an interview with John Wall. They are giving Cornell plenty of respect. http://www.courier-journal.com/section/videonetwork?bctid=73665304001

What do you expect from the media, they are lazy, it is much easier to write an article saying it is the battle of the smart guys vs future NBA players than to actually get interviews with the players and do some research. The other reason is that the media really believes we have no shot so the only way they can generate interest in the game is with all these side stories about Cornell being a bunch of smart players

I'm not complaining about the extra exposure Cornell is getting as a "bunch of smart kids."  I mean if people believe the basketball players are smart, they probably assume the kids that go for academics are pretty damn smart too.  Anything that will make Cornell more recognizable on a resume is a good thing.

[phillysportsfan]

And the backlash: http://trueslant.com/matttaibbi/2010/03/24/those-plucky-cornell-kids/

As somebody said on another thread, sports journalism is plug and play of a few simplistic cliches (see also, political journalism).  Hopefully nobody cared about the media who backed us mechanically, and now won't give a thought to the media who attack us mechanically.  Next week they'll have moved on to some other inspiration, tragedy or outrage to fill their quota of being paid by the yard.

They just don't matter.

I actually liked Taibbi's article. Not because it is original - it isn't, except with respect to this game, this week - but because it has to be said. There are a lot of reasons to like Cornell's team but there are a lot of reasons why Cornell's success would become a huge story and not all of them are pretty.

The dominant cliche has been "Cornell's smart plucky kids" and this is a really flawed theme. Not only because Kentucky players work just as hard (if not harder) than Cornell's players on the court but also because it demeans the intelligence of the the Kentucky players. Mark Coury, for example, used to be a Kentucky player. I've been told that John Wall was a diligent student in high school. We know that Dale got a 1300 on his SATs (because Donahue said it in an interview) but how many players got into Cornell because of basketball? Probably not all but certainly some. And, at the same time, Cornell's players are very f'ing good. Wittman and Foote are considered fringe NBA prospects and Dale would be also if he were 6'3" instead of 5'11'.

I don't think it means that all of these sportswriters are racist - latent or otherwise - because "Cornell in the Sweet 16" is a great story. But the easy story everyone is writing has racial undertones and it is about time that somebody noticed.

Edit: DeMarcus Cousins interview. He's no dummy. I saw this and an interview with John Wall. They are giving Cornell plenty of respect. http://www.courier-journal.com/section/videonetwork?bctid=73665304001

Maybe UK is just putting on a good show for the media:
http://mbd.scout.com/mb.aspx?s=185&f=2825&t=5775339

Interesting thread on Syracuse board, I know it is just hearsay but it is probably true, makes it all the more sweeter if we can somehow knock off this NBA team

[KeithK]

And the backlash: http://trueslant.com/matttaibbi/2010/03/24/those-plucky-cornell-kids/

As somebody said on another thread, sports journalism is plug and play of a few simplistic cliches (see also, political journalism).  Hopefully nobody cared about the media who backed us mechanically, and now won't give a thought to the media who attack us mechanically.  Next week they'll have moved on to some other inspiration, tragedy or outrage to fill their quota of being paid by the yard.

They just don't matter.

I actually liked Taibbi's article. Not because it is original - it isn't, except with respect to this game, this week - but because it has to be said. There are a lot of reasons to like Cornell's team but there are a lot of reasons why Cornell's success would become a huge story and not all of them are pretty.

The dominant cliche has been "Cornell's smart plucky kids" and this is a really flawed theme. Not only because Kentucky players work just as hard (if not harder) than Cornell's players on the court but also because it demeans the intelligence of the the Kentucky players. Mark Coury, for example, used to be a Kentucky player. I've been told that John Wall was a diligent student in high school. We know that Dale got a 1300 on his SATs (because Donahue said it in an interview) but how many players got into Cornell because of basketball? Probably not all but certainly some. And, at the same time, Cornell's players are very f'ing good. Wittman and Foote are considered fringe NBA prospects and Dale would be also if he were 6'3" instead of 5'11'.

I don't think it means that all of these sportswriters are racist - latent or otherwise - because "Cornell in the Sweet 16" is a great story. But the easy story everyone is writing has racial undertones and it is about time that somebody noticed.

Edit: DeMarcus Cousins interview. He's no dummy. I saw this and an interview with John Wall. They are giving Cornell plenty of respect. http://www.courier-journal.com/section/videonetwork?bctid=73665304001

What do you expect from the media, they are lazy, it is much easier to write an article saying it is the battle of the smart guys vs future NBA players than to actually get interviews with the players and do some research. The other reason is that the media really believes we have no shot so the only way they can generate interest in the game is with all these side stories about Cornell being a bunch of smart players

I'm not complaining about the extra exposure Cornell is getting as a "bunch of smart kids."  I mean if people believe the basketball players are smart, they probably assume the kids that go for academics are pretty damn smart too.  Anything that will make Cornell more recognizable on a resume is a good thing.

Just don't go looking for a job in Kentucky on the off chance that we win tomorrow.