2010 Final Four: Anti-Duke Bandwagon Retains Majority of ESPN Columnists

I just finished listening to the ESPN podcast with Andy Katz, Eamonn Brennan, Mark Schlabach, noted Duke hater Dana O'Neil, and King of the Duke haters, Pat Forde.

Not surprisingly (to me anyway), the majority have picked Butler to beat Duke tonight.

Katz gave everyone an out by allowing them to make a "mind" pick and a "heart" pick. As is typical in our culture, people tend to not separate the two, especially O'Neil, who stated sarcastically that "women don't think with their minds, only with their hearts" before picking Butler.

All of them picked Butler with their hearts. Can't blame anyone not affiliated with Duke for picking Butler with their hearts. Butler is a great team with a great story.

All five podcast members took shots at Coach K and Duke for being "corporate" and using the money angle, etc. None acknowledged the fact that Coach K built this program up from nothing in the early 1980s, when Duke was as good of a story as Butler was.

In any event, Katz and Brennan picked Duke with their "minds," while O'Neil, Schlabach, and Forde picked Butler.

Schlabach said Butler would win by double digits but then moderated it to a couple of buckets.

Forde, again, noted Duke hater, said that he was "so entrenched" in doubting Duke and picking against them, why should he change now?

Butler is indeed a fascinating story. But the David vs. Goliath angle is so intellectually bankrupt I have a hard time understanding why people can make it with a straight face.

Consider:

* Duke was ranked No. 9 in the preseason polling. Butler was ranked No. 11.

* Everyone around the world decried Duke's No. 1 seed, saying they were "undeserving"—that at least they should have had West Virginia in their bracket.

* These same columnists have religiously (a term I am specifically using) picked against Duke at every opportunity.

So how does Duke go from being an undeserving No. 1 seed that is routinely doubted to "Goliath?" Simple—in our culture, emotion and want have replaced analysis and impartiality. Everyone wants Butler to win, so Butler is better.

No impartial statistic you can look at would indicate that Butler should win this game. RPI, Ken Pomeroy ratings, and Vegas point spreads all indicate Duke should be about a 2-1 or 3-1 favorite.

Yet that's out the window in the society of American Idol, in a society that doesn't like success. If Butler wins, the "common man" wins—and the "elite" are vanquished.

Luckily, from my perspective, Duke is used to being hated. They know everyone will be rooting against them. I think that would bother many teams, but I don't think it will bother Duke.

If Duke wins, there will always be those who say that the "establishment" gave Duke the win. There are people who believe the refs gave Duke the game against West Virginia—a game Duke won by 21 points.

That kind of "belief" is impervious to impartial analysis, which would tell you that West Virginia had not been called for a foul for the first 10 minutes of the game, and that Duke did not shoot its first free throw until over seven minutes were gone in the second half.

I expect Butler to get the benefit of the calls, as they did against Michigan State. Even so, I believe Duke is playing at a high level right now, so my head tells me that Duke will win.

Luckily for me, I suppose, my heart is in the same place.

Note: Brennan stated that if Duke wins, it proves this is "real life," not the movies. I didn't realize we needed proof of that.