Friday, March 16, 2012

Kick Them When They're Down

"Them," in this case, refers of course to the Duke Blue Devils, who, as a number two seed, just went down in flames to the fifteenth-seeded Lehigh Mountain Hawks. However, it is not enough to note that Duke has a pathetically inferior basketball team this year. We must also keep in mind that, if they have souls (and most likely they do not), they are as black as the deepest night. Thus, I feel on hesitation in kicking them when they're down. Indeed, it's what they would do if the roles were reversed, as you can see. 



Despite the awesome, uplifting, glorious fact that we do not have to view the disfigured mugs of the Plumlees, Ryan Kelly, and the rest of Duke's mong brigade until next year's season, we will undoubtedly be subjected to watching Christian Laettner's shot against Kentucky in the 1992 national semi-finals over and over and over. The selective and gratuitous repetition of this episode is a potent reminder that all history is interpretation; subjectivity invariably enters into and colors the recounting of events past. In this case, the NCAA, as well as every major TV network and corporation, for some reason (probably racism) choose to paint Duke as heroic victors, despite their undeniably petty, reprehensible nature, illustrated in the disgraceful act committed by Laettner. So, every time you see the insufferable UPS commercial featuring the hackneyed highlight from this contest, please recall that the game in question also included this lowlight. Furthermore, one could ask why UPS did not simply include a rundown of all Laettner's NBA highlights, which could fit just as easily into a 30 second television commercial, but I suppose that's beside the point. The point is that Duke is utterly terrible in myriad ways.

In any case, congratulations to Lehigh and, on behalf of humanity, I extend our deepest gratitude.

2 comments:

  1. Belly,
    Would you prefer that the 2009 and 2010 championships had been decided as they were, or that Michigan State beat UNC in '09, and Duke lost to Butler in '10?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. You're calling me on a statement I've made a few times, that I get more pleasure from Duke losing than I do from Carolina winning. Well, I'm going to stick to my guns: I would take a Carolina loss to MSU in '09 if it meant a Duke loss to Butler in '10.

      In coming to this conclusion, I considered a number of factors. First, MSU under Tom Izzo is a respectable program that always plays tough in the NCAA tourney; if UNC had happened to come up short in a well-played game on both sides, it would not be a shame. I can accept a tough loss: In fact, I've become accustomed to accepting bad losses as a Philadelphia Eagles fan. On the other hand, it is always incredibly gratifying to see Duke and the flawed basketball philosophy of Coach K(KK) exposed in the face of the media's perpetual fawning, as it was against Lehigh yesterday evening. In the proposed case, the fact that a hypothetical Duke loss in 2010 would have been the first title won by a mid-major school ever is ultimately what makes this deal too tantalizing to pass up. The tables would be turned: Duke would be forever on the losing end of a highlight played every March for the foreseeable future. They could not be selectively cast in their role of victors and unerring guardians of the sport's purity, as they are now, a point noted above. Concurrently, the media's hand would be forced: honest criticism of Duke would be required, lest the commentators be exposed beyond any doubt as hacks and hypocrites. Basically, what I'm saying is that I would sacrifice a Carolina championship for the possibility of deflating forever the unbearably overblown, and in some cases arguably unfounded, sycophancy that the media slobbers all over Duke.

      Delete