The Grant Hill Effect is Taking Place

Submitted by Zone Read Left on March 18th, 2011 at 1:07 AM

As Brian noted in his post today, when the Fab 5 called Hill a bitch they were speaking in the past tense, but after Hill's article everyone thinks he is a bitch. Well, it looks like "the Grant Hill effect" is starting to take place.

Per Jimmy King's twitter:

"Wall St Journal just asked me how i feel abt grant hill writing an article in NEW YORK TIMES...i got 99 problems and a grant aint one"

http://twitter.com/jimmyking24

Comments

Mitch Cumstein

March 18th, 2011 at 7:01 AM ^

At this point I think the story is done.  I'm also not sure "everyone" thinks Hill is a bitch after the article. I've seen a lot of pieces claiming Hill took the high road.  I think at this point its a non-issue.  Everyone has pretty much said what they want to say.

BlueFish

March 18th, 2011 at 10:11 AM ^

"I've seen a lot of pieces claiming Hill took the high road."

The "high road" would've been to say nothing at all, since the documentary wasn't about Duke or Grant Hill.

Submitting a full-length op/ed in the NY Times (which was apparently shortened) and ending it with "proud we never lost to the Fab Five" isn't really the high road.

treetown

March 18th, 2011 at 11:33 AM ^

As others have noted, Jalen Rose helped to produce the film and had some say in the final cut - I believe he actually has the last word literally. He wanted to emphasize that the Fab Five were in some ways a team which was about MORE than just a good team that won some games and played in the National Championship. There were a social and culture phenomenon. He also had a chip on his shoulder when he was young, and perhaps he still does. Grant Hill from his response shows that he is bothered deeply by what Rose included in the film even if it was all in the past; its effects linger on. Maybe there was some residual bad blood between them from their NBA days which we don't know of, maybe not. But to respond that way, means those years and those words had a lasting effect on him.

Actually Rose should be happen about the controversy - it should help sales of the DVD.

The documentary also shows how far MBB has gone - now one and done and players planning to only play for 1-2 years are quite common especially among the very top players out of HS.

phork

March 18th, 2011 at 9:12 AM ^

A point of contention is that Rose and Hill and the rest had known each other since the age of 13.  Why then did Rose et al  say they thought Hill & Duke were bitches?  I don't have a horse in the race, but it just seems odd to me.

Also the fact that Rose sent Hill a message (via tweet or some other means) apologizing for the segment before it was released.

Bosch

March 18th, 2011 at 9:35 AM ^

of them resenting Hill at the time and then him choosing Duke, which was already perceived to be prim and proper.  If Webber would have went to Duke, they would have said the same about him.

Also, we can't overlook the fact that we were shown what the producers wanted us to see.  There very well could have been more discussion about how their feelings were out of resentment and not actual hatred or how they matured past those feelings, but selective editing can provide a juicier story line.

detrocks

March 18th, 2011 at 10:28 AM ^

I've seen several interesting thoughtful articles on this exchange.  I don't think that there was anything wrong with Rose saying what he said if that's what he felt.   And I think that Hill was certainly within his rights to comment on that.   It's done now, let's move on to today's game.    

MGlobules

March 18th, 2011 at 10:46 AM ^

fashion by the Times, was lame, esp. considering the emphasis the film and players placed on the fact that those were their youthful sentiments. 

But Hill is not, to my mind, the villain of the piece. Nor, to my mind, is it a question of who's ghetto and who's rich. It's a question of Duke, Coach K, reputation, and reality. K is--to get midly political (and politics lurks behind this)--an extremely conservative guy who DOESN'T like the street or kids from it, has pointedly taken kids from intact families and stresses he wants kids who will play, and stay, four years. These things are his prerogative, of course. Michigan and its players DID represent the triumph of something different, something resented and feared in the wider culture; a lot of people didn't like it, including Coach K, who criticized their style of play (he said they weren't a team). 

If K and Duke were all virtuous and stuff, that would be one thing. But the guy is a foul-mouthed, often mean-spirited, extremely thin-skinned person who has sometimes bent the rules himself. Once you dig into the Corey Magette story, it's hard to think that he shouldn't be considered just another slimer. 

Now, a LOT of slimers, as we know, get the faith once they're on top, finance community centers, etc., and urge others to be good Christians. . .

This is not a story of black and white, or good and bad black, either. The UM DOES have a lot to answer for in the wider story--didn't get on top of the Martin issue before or after, profited mightily from it, and blew the aftermath, miserably. But what's getting lost in the shuffle here, I think, is the fact that Duke DID deserve criticism, and was WIDELY resented in the black community (as among lots of other fans); it's not just a matter of Jalen et al's youthful/incorrect judgements. 

The Times isn't "getting the story" here at all; it's letting Duke whitewash a story with many shades of gray. 

ijohnb

March 18th, 2011 at 10:50 AM ^

Grant Hill is not a bitch.  Did he perhaps overreact, yeah, I will give you that.  But Jalen and Jimmy said their peice and he said his.  He was a consistent all star, a loyap pistonian, and happens to still be ballin right now while documentaries are made about when he was in college.  Huge love for the Fab Five and what they did at Michigan, but lets ease off on Grant Hill a little bit.  He has always been a class act and just went a little to professor on everyone.

Besides, Duke will get theirs on Sunday.

M-Dog

March 18th, 2011 at 11:20 AM ^

Everything Jalen said was in the past-tense.  1991 past tense.

The controversy stems from the ludicrous assumption that Jalen is saying those things now and believes them now.

So, what is Jalen actually dong now?  Spending millions of his own money founding a private academic school for poor inner-city kids.  Not a basketball camp.  Not a rap studio.  A private academic school.  You know, like Duke.

His actual actions speak the loudest.  He does not need a lecture from Grant Hill or anybody else.  Get off his ass.

This is a great time for Jalen to tell Duke to call his bluff that they won't accept kids from the other side of the tracks:  Enroll some of the kids from his school. 

Everyone wins.