Fab Five Reaction

I know I'm a week late to the party with regard to the Fab Five documentary that aired on the Boo-Yah Network last Sunday. It turns out however, that being a week late sort of helped guide my reaction to the piece because I got a chance to see the fallout from some of the words that were said in the documentary-in particular the words of Jalen Rose.
The main source of controversy was from this clip of Jalen Rose sharing his thoughts on the Duke basketball program of the early 1990's. Rose states that he felt that the only black players Duke recruited were "Uncle Toms". Teammates Jimmy King, and Ray Jackson echo Rose's disdain for the Duke program at that time, but stop short of claiming any racial bias from Duke. Either way though, Rose caught a lot of heat from people regarding the "Uncle Tom" comment, to the point where Grant Hill decided to write this op-ed piece in the New York Times in which Hill blasts Jalen's choice of words, and pats himself on the back for coming where he came from.

As eloquent, cognizant, and well written as Hill's reaction is, it's clearly misguided and comes off as very childish to me. Grant Hill either doesn't realize, or doesn't care that Jalen Rose was using the past tense when sharing what he thought of Duke at-that-time. If Hill was paying attention he would have heard Rose say he doesn't feel that way now.

Also, if Hill was really interested in a little word called "context" he would have noticed that Rose said he was "jealous" when it came to describing Hill's family and background. Jealousy is just another way of saying there is something that you don't like about yourself, nothing more. To me, all Hill is doing with his grandstanding op-ed piece, is yell at a 18-19 year old kid for things the kid felt 20 years ago. I suppose Grant Hill never said anything or felt anything stupid when he was that age? I know I certainly did. To Jalen Rose's credit, he's not shamed by what he said and still sticks by his feelings at the time along with reiterating that he doesn't feel that way now in this clip. So to Grant Hill I say, "Sticks and Stones lead to career threatening ankle injuries, but words will never hurt me".

As for the rest of the film I thought it was very good. It brought back a lot of memories as I certainly remembered that team quite well. They didn't possess an aura of invincibility like the late 80's/early 90's UNLV teams before them ( no I haven't seen that documentary yet), but they still were a must watch team every time they played. The fact that they were all freshmen, the arrogance they displayed on seemingly every possession, the style they brought to college basketball, and most importantly the fact that they were THIS CLOSE to winning back to back championships are the main reasons why they still resonate 20 years later.

In terms of any negatives there's the obvious Chris Webber Apologist act pulled by Mitch Albom, who apparently thinks Grand Jury's are a bunch of liars for convicting Webber of perjury simply because Albom loaned Webber money for pizza a couple of times. The University itself pulls the "We Didn't Know" act, even though it's obvious they had to know something since they forfeited all their victories and took the banners down when they didn't need to. Webber himself refuses to participate in the documentary, so for as much fun as it is, it still feels incomplete to me.

One fact they point out in the piece that really struck a cord with me had to do with merchandising. They show that Michigan gear never made more money than during the Fab Five Era, and that includes their 1989 championship. It certainly explains why yours truly was guilty of owning a Michigan hat in 1992....

They must have been some basketball team to make that happen...