Caulton Tudor registered his two cents on the 18 game ACC basketball schedule(two days after it hit the news cycle I might add) and in doing so he gave us a standard treatise about why the coaches do not like it but why it will inevitably happen, etc, etc, etc. However the portion of the article that caught my eye was this:
And winning conference games in the ACC isn’t easy. The perfect example last season was Duke, which lost 11 games overall but only twice to nonconference opponents.
Lose enough ACC conference games and anyone could become the next Matt Doherty or Pete Gillen.
Can I just go ahead, call Tudor out right now and ask that he offer any evidence he has which shows Matt Doherty was asked to resign because of his win-loss record in the ACC?
Doherty was not forced out at UNC for losing too many conference games. Doherty was forced out because he exhibited a serious deficiency in his people skills. Doherty alienated so many people, including current players with his coaching style, that transfer threats began flying around and Dick Baddour asked for Doherty’s resignation. Doherty’s ouster, unlike Pete Gillen’s, had nothing to do with his record.
It seems a bit disingenuous on Tudor’s part to lump Doherty in with Gillen as a someone who lost his job because he did not win enough ACC games when it is well known that was not what happened four years ago.
Tar Heel Fan 
good call-out THF–Caulton should know better (imo, he’s one of the best at his craft), but after all, he does live in Raleigh… gotta throw the Pack fans a bone periodically to stop the drooling…wink!
That is a good point. Throwaway lines like this one do nothing but reinforce those stupid ideas other fan bases throw around which actually have very little truth to them.
The few times I have read Tudor’s articles, I generally liked them. But your objective reading has caught him using wrong evidence to make an argument. Good job THF.
Let me ask you a question unrelated THF, the Phoenix Suns have just had 2 players suspended because of their potential actions on court(leaving the seats). When David Stern was asked if Robert Horry’s actions have shifted this series, he resonded “Amare Stoudemire and Boris Diaw leaving the bench is what shifted the series.” To me that indicates that David Stern’s interest is in the Spurs winning the series. The reason I draw that conclusion is the fact that the series has not shifted yet. The Phoenix Suns won that game and the series is 2-2. There is no evidence that the series has/will shift. Does going ahead and saying that the series has shifted indicate one’s bias towards that team? The only way I see that you could draw the conclusion that the series has shifted is that you know all strings are going to be pulled to ensure that it is against all odds for the Suns to win. Meaning, officiating, possibly.
Thanks
I think Stern may have gaffed by not adding the word “potentially” in there somewhere. Here is the thing. No one can say with absolute certainty, even if SA wins Game 5, that is was because two guys got suspended because you have no way of knowing SA would not have won the game anyway. This small logical conclusion will not stop ESPN and the media in general from making the suspensions the story or acting as though Phoenix is the second coming of the 1990s Bulls should they win despite being down two players.
Now I am more inclined to lambast Stern and the NBA for not dealing with the earlier altercations in the series involving Bruce Bowen. The NBA set the tone early on that it was going to look the other way on certain things. Then after Game 4 they get religion and remember there are rules? That is more fishy to me than what Stern said.
[…] and anyone could become the next Matt Doherty or Pete Gillen.” Here’s what the blogger says in response: Can I just go ahead, call Tudor out right now and ask that he offer any evidence he has which […]
Tudor is professionally jaded and he wears that attitude on purpose. I believe that back at the time of Doherty’s dismissal that Tudor told the same story, that you had to look beyond what the UNC administration was saying for the REAL reason he was being let go and it boiled down to wins and losses. So Tudor has a world view that Big Time athletics programs are all about winning and will lie and tell you stories about academic standards, etc. to maintain their dignity. And he’s right, that happens a lot of the time, but I disagree in this instance, I think the Doherty firing was what Baddour said it was. At least Tudor is consistent.
matt was hired to be the head coach at unc…..pete was a fill in for the “ailing” coach k……different circumstances totally……never heard that pete had a bad temper….this is way off the mark…
W,
Wrong Pete…you are referring to Guadet at Duke, Gillen was the head coach at UVa.