Root of the problem: New website, same old complaints
Sunday, March 23, 2008
Something us Slate fans have noticed: The site's been teasing articles from The Root, another Washington Post-owned property that's aiming to be a "Slate for black readers."
Of course, this raises the question: Why can't Slate be a Slate for black readers? After all, the magazine's incisive political commentary and snarky cultural coverage should cut across racial lines.
But let's get that sensitive question out of the way--The Root's a noble venture, we acknowledge the benefits of hearing from diverse voices and focusing on different perspectives, blah blah--to focus on our real concern:
Why are black readers getting vintage Slate crappy sports writing?
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Sure, Slate's "Sports Nut" column has grown progressively more interesting, with one writer describing how he convinced Mark Cuban to try "free throw defense," or this week's neat story on Belmont's near-upset of Duke. But when it launched, Slate's sports commentary was insipid and wrong (Bryan Curtis's hatchet-job on Cal Ripken's 2001 retirement comes to mind; so does Malcolm Gladwell's opinion in 2000 that the "toothless" luxury tax was going to allow the Portland Trailblazers and New York Knicks to dominate this decade).
Now appearing on The Root, Martin Johnson's piece--"I Don't Do Brackets, and Here's Why"--inherits this ignoble tradition.
Johnson, who describes himself as a "curmedgeonly" 47-year-old--and who covers the Knicks for the New York Sun--says his "hackles start to rise" when March Madness is praised as America's greatest sporting event. Sure, it's an exciting tournament, he acknowledges. But thanks to NBA early entries and a lack of fundamentals, Johnson grumps, the quality of NCAA play has declined and isn't coming back.
There's some truth to his complaints. Johnson bemoans how last month's Tennessee-Memphis clash--a much-hyped contest between teams ranked no.1 and no.2--was beset with spacing errors and poor free throw shooters. He notes that Kobe and Garnett's migration to the pros has inspired similar defections, depriving the NCAAs of dozens of elite players.
But mostly--like Joey Dorsey from the free throw line--Johnson misses the point.
Yes, the lack of basketball fundamentals is disturbing...but as a central bone of contention, the idea is ancient. For example, players supposedly abandoned boring mid-range shots and skyhooks to ape high-flying Julius "Dr. J" Erving--in the 1970s. Given that it's 2008, complaining that declining fundamentals hurt March Madness is like arguing that the D.H. is ruining the World Series.
If anything, the NCAA tournament highlights fundamentals, by giving ample TV time to less-athletic, veteran-laden teams like Belmont, Butler, and Davidson. The tourney also weeds out teams too-high on hops and too-short on basics; a Connecticut squad laden with future pros was upset by deliberate, defensive-minded San Diego on Friday.
Next, Johnson proclaims that "Crowning a champion is not just about having a good time; it's about rewarding excellence, and if you're lucky enshrining greatness." He then recalls the 1970s and 1980s, name-checking players like Magic Johnson and Hakeem Olajuwon--both of whom declared for the NBA early, we might add--who led their teams to NCAA finals, and invokes schools like UCLA and Indiana, which stockpiled talent on their way to record-breaking seasons.
Sure, there's less star power at the top of college basketball, but blaming this solely on the players is asinine. Traditionally dominant programs don't have as many scholarships--down from 15 to 13--which spreads talent throughout the country. Meanwhile, players are more inclined to pick from a range of schools--like Davidson and Gonzaga--as ESPN's army of networks televises practically every team over the year. And today's champions are still plenty compelling. Because they didn't become NBA stars, we remember Juan Dixon and Mateen Cleaves differently than Magic and Hakeem--but that doesn't diminish how shining their moments were at the time.
Plus, there were plenty of midgets among Johnson's beloved giants. The "survive and advance" N.C. State team of 25 years ago was hardly a team for the ages; ditto for the Villanova champs two years later. Conversely, the past three schools to win the tournament--Florida, North Carolina, and Connecticut--were seeded with future pros, well-coached, and extremely fun to watch as a result.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
What Johnson ignores is that March Madness isn't a year-to-year product, which fans can compare like seasons of The Wire. It's a singular event that always delivers natural, incomparable drama.
It's 300 universities--representing communities coast to coast--first competing in league tournaments for a shot at the crown. It's quick cuts and simultaneous action taking viewers to the most compelling games in progress. It's the thrill of many players' fight to continue their careers. None of this is dependent on fundamentals, on star power, on subjective "greatness." As we've implied--and as other, better riters have said--the leveling-out of college basketball makes for an ever-more compelling tournament, if anything.
In fact, we're curious what Johnson would put forth as the "greatest" sporting event in America if not March Madness.
- The Super Bowl? (An inflated spectacle that often falls short of the hype.)
- The NBA playoffs? (A drawn-out saga that's rife with manufactured storylines.)
- The World Series? (A sleep-inducing bore--and we love baseball.)
But perhaps Johnson just had an off-day (other pieces are good reads). And The Root is pretty new, so it's likely not too-discriminating on submissions--the site's probably hungry for content.
So, Mr. Gates, we'd like to make you an offer...
Let us chip in with NCAA tournament coverage. Or NBA draft previews. Or meta- posts about blogs writing about newspapers that critique blogs. Really, anything to get in on the ground floor of Slate 2.0.
We'll even break our WRG policy on hiding our identities--and more on that this week--to reveal this much: We're not black. (As far as we know; we haven't used The Root's genealogy tool yet.) But we can challenge the conventional wisdom and recycle old stories. And definitely do grumpy.
Which appear to be the major criteria to write about sports for a Washington Post-backed website.
Labels: NCAA tournament, Slate, The Root
posted by Crucifictorious @ 08:47,
,
Evidence mounts: This guy is Goode
Friday, March 21, 2008
It's tough to select your blog's official athlete.
(Truly, try it sometime. It's like a combination of choosing a college or naming your firstborn.
But harder.)
Should he be a recognized star or an emerging prospect, in keeping with your site's identity? Is he known for gritty perseverance or fluid grace, like your writing style?
Heck, should he be a he?
For WRG, we've narrowed it down, via a calculus of factors that can be parsed to these simple requirements:
He has to be Goode. As in, of both ability and stock.
We're not rugby fans--otherwise, we'd celebrate the exceptional Andy Goode; while we have some loyalty to the Terps, tight end Jason Goode avoided our notice last fall, much as he escaped Boston College defensive backs.
Really, from the first moment we saw his play and stat lines, the answer was obvious.
Jeremy Goode, come on down.
A sophomore point guard for Mount Saint Mary's, Goode led his team to the first win in this year's NCAA tournament: Tuesday's play-in victory over Coppin State. However, he initially registered on the WRG official radar back in December, recording a near-triple double in an upset of Loyola, and then winning league player-of-the-week 10 days later.
We love that Goode is cat-quick and apparently "mercurial"; we like less that there's no footage of him online, save a few seconds of dribbling out the clock. He's also exceptional at driving the lane and drawing fouls, with one of the top free throw rates in all of D1 despite his shorter stature.
Courageous, talented, a winner.
All ways I've been described. Oh, and I guess Goode gets that sometimes too. He's an appropriate WRG flag-bearer, especially during the NCAA tournament.
However...
It's been noted before: Sports is a business. And who's to say that another player won't come along to grab our eyes? Or that, with tourney success, Goode will grow too big for WRG and start demanding to be the official athlete of Storming the Floor or the Mid-Majority instead?
So, why lock both sides into something we might regret? Jeremy, let's just say you're one of our few faves, pending official blog athlete arbitration.
But, readers, I guarantee: We'll definitely stick with Goode as long as the Mount survives in the NCAAs. He'll get the consistent, nurturing support our site is known for. On an unrelated note, good luck to the team in their game tonight...what was it, vs. UNC in Raleigh?
Labels: Jeremy Goode, NCAA tournament, official athlete
posted by Anonymous @ 04:14,
,
