Unverified Voracity Sees A Grant Hill Effect

This a thousand times....Kind of interesting how things work out.

Also I'm still waiting for the Italian tourism board to write the NYT a scathing criticism of Jalen's comments about visiting Italy, I mean he said some negative things about his trip 20 years ago, but didn't explictly say if he still holds those beliefs today.

Both Jalen Rose and Grant Hill played in the NBA for a long time. Their paths crossed and there maybe more to this whole thing than just what was said and felt years ago.

Jalen Rose was a producer on the film and the way it was edited, he got the final word. That yes, the Fab Fiver actually never won the National Championship and they had plenty of warts and reasons for people to criticize them, but they were also part of a unique moment in sports history where sports and popular culture blended together. His quip about no one remembering (except I suppose for die hard BBall junkies) who played on what championship team, but a lot of casual fans know who the Fab Fiver were, shows he knows that is the key point about the Fab Five.

Bobby Hurley and Christian Laettner when asked about the documentary didn't seem to take it as personally so perhaps there is more behind the scenes between Hill and Rose than is widely known.

Finally, the documentary is interesting it that it shows the glue that brought them together and sort held them initially was Juwann Howard and not Chris Webber or Rose. Sort of like the insight that among the 1960's Rat Pack, Sinatra admired Dean Martin - he wanted to hang out with Dino, and not the other way around unlike Joey Bishop, Peter Lawford and Sammy Davis Jr who definitely were there because of Frank.

Twain is much too gauche for the household of one Mr. Grant Henry (how is his middle name not Thornton?) Hill

Combiba in hunc, Grant Hille.

I agree with you somewhat that Rose/King have not distanced themselves as much from the comments as some would like, but at the same time they are in a tricky situation.  They probably still do believe that their feelings when they were 17- and 18-year-olds are still valid when viewed through the prism of their youth.  In other words, they can't completely disassociate themselves from the way they felt because that was who they were, and that edge made them the players/men they are today.  

I'll openly acknowledge that I have no real-world experience to draw on - I'm a white guy who grew up in the Detroit suburbs.  At the same time, while I get how inflammatory those words can be, it is hard to ignore the fact that there is some truth to the chracterization of Duke as an elitist institution that has a very specific view of its "acceptable" minority athletes and players that differ from that archetype are either not recruited or are shunned once they leave.  Elton Brand surely does not speak highly of his time at Duke, and you rarely see or hear former Dukies like Corey Magette or Carlos Boozer speak of their alma mater in glowing terms.

In the end, I think this is an issue exacerbated by a bored and hungry media that wanted to make a mountain out of a molehill.  I am fine with Hill taking offense to what Rose said, and I am fine with Rose holding those beliefs.  We are ultimately talking about millionaires yelling at other millionaires about comments and beliefs from years ago, and even if there are vestiges of that vitriol today between the men, so be it. 

Great comment. I think Hill's response would have been much more palatable had he said something like: "I understand that the feelings expressed by Jalen et al. are likely the product of youthful inexperience, and that they almost certainly do not hold those beliefs today. Nevertheless, the Uncle Tom accusation is a serious one, and though it is in the past, I feel compelled to respond by saying..."

Then, the conversation could be steered to one of many things other than the petulant, pretentious drivel issued from Hill's keyboard.

quod erat demonstrandum and stuff.

but when you couple it with Jalen's comments it seems like they're saying:

a) Then: Duke recruited a certain type of player.  Now: Same

b) Then: Jalen (and Jimmy) perceived these type of players as 'uncle toms'.  Now: Jalen respects the Duke program and the players.

I think it's very clear.

The final question is Bayless asking them if they feel if Hill and Elton Brand did their black heritage a disservive by going to Duke.

Rose's response:

"Of course not."

The one thing they did NOT back down from was the assertion that, essentially, Duke wouldn't recruit kids like them.

As for their words not being in the past, all you need to do is listen to the words. The verbs are all past tense. Thus - speaking of the past.

I don't necessarily agree with you, but you raise a fair point.  Even assuming a reaction was justified, his reaction was poorly executed.

I understand what you are saying about the words, Uncle Tom.  In my opinion Hill has probably kept a lot of those thoughts bottled up for many years.  Jalen's opinion was/is not something Hill hadn't heard before.  It's right up there (in terms of frequency, not sting) with his lack of "swag" and "street cred" and whatever else makes someone real to those handing out degrees in authenticity.

I don't like Grant Hill particularly.  I think he screwed Dumars when he bolted for Orlando (though made to pay in years of bad karma).  But this opinion piece doesn't even register.  And so what, he loves his school and is proud of his accomplishments?  Would we hold that against a Michigan grad if he had something similar?

That's plainly false.

What they said in the Bayless interview is that they still stand by the assertion that Duke would not have recruited "kids like them" - the "Uncle Tom" issue wasn't even addressed.

And how is it even possible to quibble that Duke wouldn't recruit "kids like them" when...Duke didn't recruit them.

Their "critique", to call it that, has moved from blaming the players who attend Duke to centering on Coach K - that he doesn't recruit urban kids...which is a fact so written in stone it's pointless to even argue. He doesn't recruit urban kids.

So what's the issue?

Check out the tats on the OSU basketball team, though!!!

grant hill was not a good player with the pistons, he was a GREAT player.  rookie of the year, then 1st or 2nd-team all-pro each of the following five seasons in detroit.  he was about 75% of the way to the hall of fame when he got hurt.

I'm going to say that Hill's NY Times piece made him a bitch for the first time, in my eyes.  How can you complain about his time in Detroit.  If anything, he played hurt through the playoffs of what I believe was his last season at a cost to his career.  Detroit got everything the could ask for out of HIll, and more.

Hill was GREAT in Detroit, and I would kill for more players like him in the game now. He may not be as thin-skinned about the doc, but don't disparage the man for his career.

P.S. Grant Hill, thanks for being hurt the entire time when playing for the Pistons(shitty color scheme era)...Bitch.

You've got it backwards.  Hill was healthy when he played in Detroit.  It was in Orlando that he was never healthy.

It is nice to know that even the Duke's of the world need to be validated by us.

when we knock them off.

that has not been able to beat any upper echelon team despite about 7 opportunties, including  games in Ann Arbor, would (probably) have to beat 3 of them consecutively, including Duke (in North Carolina).  1% seems optimistic.

seriously, people talk about how classy duke basketball is, but there's probably not a more obnoxious fan base in the country.

Jimmy King.

Charlie Murphy.

Am I right?

Probably as good as Hill is at this point in his career.

I would like to see a limit in the last 2-5 minutes, or my favorite, allow a time out to stop the clock, but make play continue immediately without the usual 30-60 second break.  There have been too many games that were great for 35-38 minutes and then deteriorated into an endless start-stop-start-stop chopped up mess.  It destroys the tempo and the excitement.