Get inside March Madness with SI.com's Luke Winn in the Tourney Blog, a daily journal of college basketball commentary, on-site reporting and reader-driven discussions.
3/09/2007 11:49:00 AM
In the ACC, Unanimous is a Loose Term
Do you want to tell Hansbrough he wasn't an unanimous pick?
We have a scandal on our hands! Well, perhaps not a scandal -- but at least an interesting controversy in the All-ACC voting process.
Three players, Florida State's Al Thornton, UNC's Tyler Hansbrough and Boston College's Jared Dudley, were named "unanimous" first-teamers earlier this week. I use quotes around "unanimous" for a reason: Hansbrough wasn't actually unanimous.
Funny thing is, I can confidently say Hansbrough was not a first-teamer on every ballot. Maybe every ballot but one. But not every ballot. Not mine.
Stevens e-mailed the Atlantic Coast Sports Media Association to investigate if his ballot (one of 106) somehow hadn't been counted, and that was not the case. Hansbrough had received, at max, 105 of the 106 first-team votes. The ACSMA's John Justus wrote back with this explanation:
As has been done in the past with the Board's approval, if a particular player is one or two votes shy of being a unanimous selection, we have designated that player as being a unanimous pick.
And such was the case with Psycho T. A couple of ACC bloggers have already brought it to light, and I tracked down Stevens an hour before the tip of Hansbrough-Thornton (or FSU-UNC, officially) on Friday to find out more.
Stevens said he wrote back to the ACSMA expressing his concern, and showed me the e-mail:
I have to say, "unanimous" is a word that has a pretty specific definition and it's misleading to use it when it isn't true. That -- far moreso than having a vote count or not -- makes me uneasy, and I doubt I would be the only person covering the league to feel that way.
I've gotta side with Patrick on this one. It's too late to repeal the designation, but what's the point of using unanimous when it isn't the case?
Disclaimer: I am a BC fan, not a UNC fan. I believe the scandal should be in Patrick Stevens not voting Psycho-T on the first team. What does he have against him? But all that aside, his selection wasn't unanimous. Shame on the ACC.
Maybe the reason they say it is unanimous is because you have to be a total moron if you are the only one out of 106 people that doesn't think someone (in this case, the best player on the best team) is one of the 5 best players in the ACC. Realizing that you are an idiot or hopelessly biased, they discount your vote.
I agree that it shouldn't be called a unanimous selection, but Stevens should have his head examined. Granted, it is the best conference in the country by far, but there is no reasonable justification for leaving Hansbrough off the first team.
The ACC's stance makes perfect sense to me. Being selected a unanimous pick is a huge honor, and a player should not be denied that honor because one bitter beat writer has his own agenda. Seriously, how could any sane person leave Hansbrough off the first team ballot? Stevens should consider himself lucky IF they let him vote again next year.
What kind of idiot would leave Hansbrough off the first team?
Maybe the ACC decided that other factors beyond basketball dictated Stevens's vote, so they decided to ignore it and hope the whole issue would go away. But Stevens, like that proverbial drunken uncle at the family Christmas party, had to draw attention to himself.
Let me guess-Stevens put Josh McRoberts and Zoubek on his first team instead?
Well, obviously it isn't unanimous by definition. But I think what they're doing is taking the liberty of saying if the player gets 99% of the vote, it's very likely that one percent who didn't vote for them probably shouldn't be voting. Either the writer is clueless, has an ax to grind, or is trying to make some kind of statement. (It happens; we all know it). Personally, I don't care one way or the other, but I also don't think there's anything wrong with it..When you think about it, usually the writer is just desperate for attention, and I don't think the player should be punished for that.
It appears the ACC considers your opinion irrelevant. You helped them justify their feelings. I guess they thought someone who left an SI First Team AA off the All Conference team must be a political commentator and not a sports writer. Be careful, your boss may find out.
If only 1 or 2 voters out of over 100 don't vote a player in, then it's most always a case of personal bias. I consider those votes tainted, like a hanging chad, and it merits being thrown out. Hence I have no problem calling T a unanimous selection.
By definition he wasn't a "unanimous" selection, but when talking about post-season awards and all-conference teams I don't have a problem with what the ACC did IF in fact only 1 of the 106 voters (less than 1%) left him off the first team. If it were 9 of only 10 voters or all of the voters were publicly accountable for their ballots it would be a bigger problem. With 106 people voting, you are giving every beat writer for the opposing teams an opportunity to keep a player from the honor of being a "unanimous" selection for whatever reason they want to with no accountability. I'm not suggesting that all the ACC writers are that petty, but one or two certainly could be.
I agree with above, can someone ask this moron who he voted for? Was it a Terp? Thats the real shame here.Averages what? 18 and 8 and the MAN for one of the best teams in the country was not enough for this guy?
I have no problem with this policy, so long as it has been consistently applied throughout. I liken it to a policy of throwing out the highest and lowest scores (like, for example, a diving competition). It allows players who deserve certain recognition to have that recognition without the impact from outliers (such as Stevens) who clearly just have an axe to grind.
You've have got to be a total MORON not to put Tyler on the First Team. I bet before it is all said and done, the idiot who brought this (in this case....Patrick Stevens) to light would have wished he kept his big stupid mouth shut. Nice going!
I don't think Hansbrough is losing sleep over it either way. His play speaks for itself. It was obvously biased for Stevens to not give Hansbrough the vote. Maybe he would be more impressed with Hansbrough if UNC let him take 20 shots a game and he played 40 minutes a game? To help bring his numbers up. Maybe it would look better if he just fired the ball up everytime he touches it like Durant or in some cases Al Thornton?