Dueling headlines....

[MilfordHusky]

Katie Meier leads USA to Gold Medal

The Voice of Reason!

 

[easttexastrash]

Katie Meier leads USA to Gold Medal

Touché!! You win, Alex. Dispute resolved.

 

[Bestiarius]

You could say the same about the Breanna Stewart

No Choke, I could never do that. But seriously, I didn't intend what I said as a put-down of Mabrey. It was in the spirit of all the homer headlines. All of these kids are the best there is.

 

[doggydaddy]

That's not at all what rjp said. You must have misread his post. He actually said Stewart or Tuck deserved the tourney MVP, not Michaela. He merely pointed out that Michaela's points in the championship game came at a critical juncture when the US team really needed a lift. He never said nor implied that Bre or Morgan padded their stats when the game was basically over. They were both clearly stars.

Sorry, I brought over RJP's words from another board. RJP said specifically that both Stewart and Tuck missed shots and rebounded them and rebounded poor shooting by teammates after the game was out of reach.

You seem like a reasonable person. I'm sure you disagree with that assesment of the gold medal game.

 

[easttexastrash]

They were left in the game pretty far past mop-up time with a couple of seldom used subs sitting on the bench, who finally got put in with about 40 seconds left so that Tuck and Stewart could have a curtain call. The coach made a tacky move by doing that, IMO. This was a USA event, not the final game for two players who are playing their last game.

 

[Phil]

I have no problem at all with a local media outlet highlighting local talent. I don't even begrudge the headline. However, it is comical to read an almost 2000 word article that has not one word about another player on the team. They have a lot to be proud of, and it is no surprise they would emphasize her accomplishments, but when you write an article that long and can't manage to even mention another player's name, you aren't even pretending to be journalists.

 

[Phil]

And how would the US team have fared if you scratched all of Bre's points or Tuck's points?

If we're talking about biased reporting, how about Elliott's 'coverage' of the U18 games. He only mentioned the contributions of UConn players. You could say the same about the Breanna Stewart headline story (cited by pap49 above), which only mentioned the contributions of UConn recruits. I don't believe that Notre Dame's story was any more one-sided. While it clearly extolled the contributions of Michaela, it at least mentioned that she had (anonymous) help, "Mabrey (pronounced MAY-bree) was among the United States' most valuable players, and that was never more apparent than in Sunday's gold-medal game against Brazil, when she collected 14 points, five rebounds and three assists in a 71-47 victory." Michaela had a great tourney. I do not believe she should have been the MVP, as I think Tuck deserved that. And I would have given Bre my second place vote for MVP. But I could certainly make an argument for Michaela being 3rd on my ballot for MVP. She collected more assists than either point guard, and outscored them both. That's pretty good!

The difference is that Elliott wrote a three paragraph 134 word blurb. Ask Elliott to expand his piece by a factor of 15 without mentioning any other players. It wouldn't happen.

Homerism does abound, it is expected, But some manage to turn it into a caricature.

 

[Fightin Choke]

The difference is that Elliott wrote a three paragraph 134 word blurb. Ask Elliott to expand his piece by a factor of 15 without mentioning any other players. It wouldn't happen.

Homerism does abound, it is expected, But some manage to turn it into a caricature.

Are you implying that the Notre Dame press release was a caricature? I would expect that a school's article on their own web site would not be held to the same journalistic standards as a beat writer for a local paper. Elliott's short article mentioned the contributions of all 3 of the UConn players and none of the other players on the team. Furthermore, MoJeff didn't play as well as several other people on the team but she was mentioned anyway. Do you really believe that a longer article from Elliot would have mentioned the contributions of players from other teams?

The Notre Dame article to which you refer spent fewer than third of the words (633) covering the game and tournament. The balanced of the article covered the past contributions of Notre Dame's women's basketball players on the internationals stage followed by a bio for Michaela (1307 words).

 

[Fightin Choke]

Sorry, I brought over RJP's words from another board. RJP said specifically that both Stewart and Tuck missed shots and rebounded them and rebounded poor shooting by teammates after the game was out of reach.

You seem like a reasonable person. I'm sure you disagree with that assesment of the gold medal game.

Well, I cannot read what he posted on the other site, so it would be foolish of me to speak to that. But I will repeat what I said before: I thought Tuck was the MVP of the tournament and Bre would have received my 2nd place vote. I am also fairly confident that Bre would have had my first place MVP vote if she had received more minutes in the tournament. (Oddly, she was absent for vast stretches of the games, a mistake I hope Geno repeats this year when UConn and Notre Dame match up!)

 

[UConnCat]

Are you implying that the Notre Dame press release was a caricature? I would expect that a school's article on their own web site would not be held to the same journalistic standards as a beat writer for a local paper. Elliott's short article mentioned the contributions of all 3 of the UConn players and none of the other players on the team. Furthermore, MoJeff didn't play as well as several other people on the team but she was mentioned anyway. Do you really believe that a longer article from Elliot would have mentioned the contributions of players from other teams?

You're suggesting that Rich shouldn't have mentioned Jefferson because she didn't play as well as others? The point of Rich's blurb in his blog was to provide a brief and timely factual report on the outcome of the game and how each of the UConn recruits performed (i.e., stats). Why would he have ignored Jefferson's stats? That's silly. Rich used the same format when reporting on each of the games except for when he cut and pasted the Q and A's from the USA Basketball site. The only part of the blog that offered an opinion was the headline, i.e., "leading" the team to a win. Again, this was not an article on the game but a brief blurb in his blog with a specific purpose in mind. I do believe that a longer article written by Rich would have talked more about the game itself including the contributions of other players.

Beat writer Jim Fuller wrote a longer piece in his blog on the game and mentioned Mabrey's contributions to the team's win.

 

[doggydaddy]

Well, I cannot read what he posted on the other site, so it would be foolish of me to speak to that. But I will repeat what I said before: I thought Tuck was the MVP of the tournament and Bre would have received my 2nd place vote. I am also fairly confident that Bre would have had my first place MVP vote if she had received more minutes in the tournament. (Oddly, she was absent for vast stretches of the games, a mistake I hope Geno repeats this year when UConn and Notre Dame matchup!)

Well, you certainly can read what I said he posted "RJP said specifically that both Stewart and Tuck missed shots and rebounded them and rebounded poor shooting by teammates after the game was out of reach" and comment on that.

It was outrageous for him to make that statement in my opinion and reeked of sour grapes for the selection of Stewart as MVP and the great comments by reporters about Tuck.