Unverified Voracity Sees A Grant Hill Effect
Merry Christmas. We get presents this year. I'm an American so my productivity collapses like everyone else's during these couple days—content will be a bit light. Expect Tennessee/CCHA finals previews at least. A game column immediately afterwards is up in the air since I might be in Detroit rooting for Notre Dame. We'll play it by ear.
He's so articulate*. Man… I suggested the Grant Hill NYT op-ed would just confirm the Fab Five's 20-year-old opinions but I had no idea he'd actually drop Latin into it and call Duke a "special family," then tweet that his interminable diploma-waving had been edited for length and that you could find the whole thing on his website. I can't believe we actually hired one of these dips to coach our basketball team, and by "can't believe" I mean "can totally believe."
WLA truth bombs!
“was”. “hated”. “hated”. “felt”. “hated”. “was”. “came”. “went”. “played”. “was”. “had to”. “was”. “resented”. “looked”.
These are the verbs that the four members of the Fab Five use during their description of their feelings towards Duke. What do all these verbs have in common? They are in the past tense. This is an elementary fact of grammar of which you would expect one who mentions his place in the “special” brotherhood of Duke graduates to be aware. Apparently, he is not.
Rose has since clarified to foreigners, people with learning disabilities that prevent them from understanding verb conjugations, and Duke graduates that when he used verbs in the past tense he was talking about the past.
No one thought Grant Hill was a bitch, even the guys who said they thought he was when they were 19, until he wrote his response. Now everyone thinks he's a bitch. Can we get a Grant Hill Effect wikipedia page?
*[514 hits for "grant hill articulate" in the last 24 hours by people who don't know what articulate means but do know he's black. Hill's clunky constructions are reminiscent of a high school term paper even after going through a battery of NYT editors. Look at this:
It was a sad and somewhat pathetic turn of events, therefore, to see friends narrating this interesting documentary about their moment in time and calling me a bitch and worse, calling all black players at Duke “Uncle Toms” and, to some degree, disparaging my parents for their education, work ethic and commitment to each other and to me.
Too many commas. Pointless use of "interesting"—95% of the time a filler word. Awful finger-wagging intro. Too many goddamn commas. This sentence could have been half as long and communicated the same thing**. If this is articulate to you, you need to read more.]
**[That thing, of course: "The Fab Five was right."]
via MZone
Dead coach walking. Bruce Pearl's athletic director said his status was undecided yesterday and it took all of two hours for this to morph into a "he's fired" news-type substance propagated by local radio. This is a perfect opportunity for hindpsychology no matter what happens tomorrow: if Tennessee loses, they have been distracted. If they win, they were motivated to protect their embattled coach.
Since Pearl's job status isn't likely to affect Hopson's jumper his wavering status is more interesting as a window into Tatgate. Tennessee is trying to hang on to Pearl, something that hardly any team facing a serious ethical violation has done before. If they can't do that it could bode poorly for Tressel, who'll get the same charge on his docket of major violations. The NCAA typically levies show-cause penalties when you break bylaw 10.1 ("don't be a liar, coach"), and those are basically a death-knell.
Bolden wavering. Robert Bolden is in at Penn State… for now:
"Nothing is official," he said [Wednesday]. "I'm just here for the spring. I decided to come back. I'm just here. I'm going to work hard and we'll see what happens from there."
That's a sticky spot for PSU. If he sticks around because he "won" the job in spring—for whatever that's worth—his threat to transfer hangs over that decision and a fall benching for McGloin or redshirt freshman Paul Jones seems likely to cause instant hissyfit + transfer. If he doesn't win the job he's out, leaving PSU with walk-on Favre and a guy who wasn't as good as Bolden last year.
Not far enough. Gasaway's annual rule-fixing column is up, and as per usual he is mincingly weak on the tyranny of basketball timeouts:
3. Reduce the number of timeouts. Here's a tip. If the coaches in your sport can call timeout, send their players into action, see what defense the opponent is using, and then call another timeout before anything has even happened, your sport gives its coaches too many timeouts. Let's make a start here by taking away one timeout per game from each team. The earth will continue to spin, I promise, and TV networks fretting about lost commercial time can be accommodated via slightly extended breaks in the action during the remaining timeouts.
Take away one timeout per team? Teams should only have one timeout. Make it count, yo, like they do in hockey, and stop turning the last two minutes of a basketball game into the Odyssey.
Big Ten hockey en route. Rumor has it a Big Ten Hockey conference, already a fait accompli—SUCK ON THAT GRANT HILL—could be announced as early as Monday. Big Ten play would start in 2013 when Penn State moves into its new building. They'd spend a year getting their feet as an independent.
Small schools will complain but Big Ten Hockey is great for the sport. Reasons:
- It opens up spots for expansion that don't exist right now. A variety of schools have come and gone over the past ten years, unable to stick because their only conference option was the constantly shifting, constantly almost evaporating CHA. Creating a Big Ten creates 12 slots in stable conferences for new programs, although half of those would have to be Big Ten schools.
- Twelve schools is too much for a hockey conference anyway. Nonconference schedules are preposterously small when 28 of your 34 games are ticketed for your conference. Getting the Western conferences down to 6, 8, and 10 teams greatly increases available nonconference games, making schedules more varied and ranking systems more reliable.
- Big Ten hockey will increase the profile of college hockey as a whole, helping it as it battles with the OHL for players.
A lot of small school fans are horrified at the prospect but it's not like North Dakota, Denver, and CC are going away. Wisconsin, Michigan, and Minnesota would be hard pressed to recruit any better even with the promise of gorgeous Big Ten Network HD. Big Ten hockey will help the sports profile but not so much that it turns everyone else into mid-majors.
Fears that some of the smaller CCHA programs could be threatened by loss of revenue are more worrying. BG considered dropping its program a couple years back and hockey is an expensive sport. Ferris and Lake State and other places where it's the flagship are probably going to suck it up, but that's not the case everywhere. I certainly hope the Big Ten schools create scheduling agreements that see them regularly visit former conference opponents, and hate the idea of Miami and Notre Dame moving to the WCHA. That would see two perfectly viable conferences turn into one very good conference and CHA 2.0, and we know how CHA 1.0 ended.
Losing schools is bad for everyone since college is in a perpetual war against major junior; college hockey needs to work together to make this transition one that everyone can live with.
Etc.: Michigan has an 0.9 percent chance to make the Final Four. Zack Novak is short. Wojo column on Beilein. Hardaway fluff comes with another spectacularrrrrr Emotions of Tim Hardaway photo. Hockey fluff. Caporusso returns this weekend to the place where he scores.
March 17th, 2011 at 12:57 PM ^
Grant Hill's "defense" leads me to the unlikely conclusion that Christian Laettner is now classier than Grant Hill. Soon "up" will be "down", etc., etc.
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.
March 17th, 2011 at 12:59 PM ^
But Grant Hill used Latin and big words. He's articulate!
To paraphrase Mark Twain: "Better to remain silent and be thought a bitch than to speak out and remove all doubt."
Twain is much too gauche for the household of one Mr. Grant Henry (how is his middle name not Thornton?) Hill
E5. sorry.
why isn't SUCK ON THAT GRANT HILL written in Latin? I'd use an online translator to produce the phrase, but I'm confident people here know Latin and would be horribly offended by the inevitably bad translation.
So yeah, whoever here knows Latin: I'm counting on you to translate the phrase properly.
Combiba in hunc, Grant Hille.
I'm glad such an authoritative takedown of Hill made it to the front page. The notion that Hill's response was articulate was giving me palpitations.
Really, Hill's piece is a rather amazing piece of Bitch Performance Art.
As an African-American and someone that has studied African-American history, you simply cannot use words like "Uncle Tom" and not expect a reaction. The history of that term is long and complicated, and African Americans in this country still have no clarity on what it truly means. So while I understand Brian's views on the matter, I still think that Hill was justified in his response. Mainly because those words are inflammatory. But also because it wasn't as clear as many think that those were views that were held in the past and no longer. And it wasn't just the documentary that adds to the lack of clarity.
I couldn't help but notice a conversation on twitter between Jason Whitlock and one of his followers a few days ago, in which Whitlock pointed out that Jimmy King essentially backed up his views on the definition of the term, and gave no indication that it was all in the past tense. The other guy was making the same point that others (including Brian) have made, that those comments were all past tense. Yet, I would watch the video below and then draw your own conclusion.
As you can see, these comments made recently, coupled with the documentary, suggest that it's not exactly clear whether they still held those beliefs, notwithstanding Rose's insistence that they do not. While I don't think that Rose still holds those beliefs, I do think it's fair for Grant Hill to respond as he did.
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.
This sure has touched a whole lot of nerves. As of midafternoon Thursday, it tops the list of the New York Times 10 most e-mailed articles. (Second is "US Is Urged To Raise Teachers' Status", third is "Scientists Project Path of Radiation Plume".)
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?
I hear slurping.
No fair-minded review of the Bayless interview will leave the viewer believing that Jalen and King were only reporting their beliefs when they were 19 years old. Watch their responses during the video. To be charitable, their views are still "evolving" -- but are still closer today to the views expressed in the documentary than a repudiation of them.
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?
Doesn't recruit urban kids that don't attend prep schools or academies*
Conceded.
No, it is not plainly false. You are picking out one thread from a rambling conversation. They said many things during the Bayless interviews -- sometimes contradicting each other or contradicting their prior statements within a minute or two. The issue is that the sentiments expressed by the Fab 5 during the documentary are clearly not ideas that are part of "the past." They still clearly resonate to some degree today with two of the Fab 5 based on the Bayless interview. The murky part is to discern which parts have been disowned completely, which parts are still held and which parts have evolved to encapsulate their prior beliefs in a new form today. But I am really impressed by your certitude. Maybe if in your next post you say " really plainly false" I'll concede.
maybe you could point to a specific part of the interview, like I did, to bolster your point. Then, you would evidence and not bald assertion.
Bayless asked Rose if Brand and Hill had "Done a dis-service to their black heritage by going to Duke?"
Rose replied "Of course not. They're college kids that wanted to take the best opportunity they could."
I don't know how much clearer he needs to be that his quibble is with Duke's recruiting priorities, and not with the kids who choose to go there.
This damn B-Ball tourney has taken focus away from the spotlight from Cheaty McSweater Vest and I hope for a quick OSU upset so we can get back to hopefully watching Edger Allen Poe's "Pit and the Pendulum", C-bus version.
P.S. Grant Hill, thanks for being hurt the entire time when playing for the Pistons(shitty color scheme era)...Bitch.
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.
...In the last two minutes of a basketball game...or so it would appear.
Take away one timeout per team? Teams should only have one timeout. Make it count, yo, like they do in hockey, and stop turning the last two minutes of a basketball game into the Odyssey.
Call the fouls what they are, too...INTENTIONAL. You want to speed up games, take away the hack-a-shaq strategy. There was a lot of talk this year about high elbows not necessarily being intentional. That's fair enough. But, fouls at the end of a game are--without a doubt--intentional.
So, why aren't they called intentional? Because the penalty is too harsh. No ref wants to see a game decided because they called a last-minute grab worthy of shots AND possession. So, soften the penalty, and give the foulee the choice of taking the free throws OR taking possession and a new shot clock.
If a team is up by 10 with 2 minutes left, they'd take possession every time, and run the clock out. Game over.
I love drinking the fear and anxiety of other programs. It's like nectar to me.
It is nice to know that even the Duke's of the world need to be validated by us.
Trust me, that's not the case.
that the brackets were set up so Michigan would play Duke in the second round at the same time as this whole Fab 5 documentary/controversy was releases? Things that make you go hmmmmmm...
when we knock them off.
Michigan has an 0.9 percent chance to make the Final Four.
The same Meechigan that took Kansas to overtime, lost one-point squeekers to OSU and Wisconsin, and finished with a 9-4 run in the Big Ten?
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.
Duke's no Ohio State.
Can we not assume that the NCAA is fair?
Based purely on the revenue each program generates for college athletics, they won't treat Ohio State football the same way they treat Tennessee men's basketball.
Do you think the Duke faithful will be as articulate on Sunday when UM shocks the Blue Devils in the second round of the tournament? I've met a couple of Dukies in my life, and my guess is that opposing players would argue they've received at least as much vitriol heaped on them as Mr. Hill and his team received from the Fab 5.
seriously, people talk about how classy duke basketball is, but there's probably not a more obnoxious fan base in the country.
would be a bench warmer for Duke? That's obnoxious? I thought they were just assholes.
First of all, Jimmy King looks exactly like Charlie Murphy. When he said he "thought" (past tense) Grant Hill was a bitch, I honestly expected him to recount how the Duke basketball team treated the Fab 5 to pancakes after Duke won those games.
Do I have a point? Not really, except DUKE = BLOUSES.
And Grant Hill? Kinda a bitch, right?
Jimmy King.
Charlie Murphy.
Am I right?
Sorry! But hey, one helluva try.
Probably as good as Hill is at this point in his career.
Since the Fab 5 documentary a lot has been said, and a there's been a lot of critisism. The Grant Hill response to me came off as defensive, so I ask being black what was he defending? Now I would hate for this to be took the wrong way but no matter who you are or where you come from defending oneself or ones ethnicity can be tricky for Hill a very accomplished proud black man it seems to me he has to defend his blackness where Jalen knew and still knows his blackness. The sad thing I think is G Hill didn't really understand why they didn't respect him or his school they didn't understand why they weren't good enough or maybe they did and that's what hurt the most for them (all past tense they actually gave Duke props ) and to me I feel they validated their feelings and emotions at that time in their lives.
It's not hockey. 1 TO for hockey works, it wouldn't for basketball. I wouldn't mind them saying only 1 TO per possession total (so only one TO combined for the two teams). This would increase 5 second to inbound, wouldn't allow a defense to adjust to what play is drawn up, and wouldn't allow a TO off an offensive rebound. But only 1 TO per game would force a lot of games to get out of hand and offer fewer opportunities to sub down the stretch. It would take away a lot of the strategy.
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.
Comments