Actually, Eddy Landreth was probably this week’s Eddy Landreth Award Winner.  But we now despise CBS Sportsline writer Mike Freeman in a similar fashion.  Sometimes you wonder how people ever get a job as a sports journalist, especially with a national forum available to them.  But, Mike Freeman, with all the wit and creativity of a 3 year-old wrote an article bashing Duke for losing to VCU.  Wow, what a novel concept!  Mike, you’re one in a million.  Maybe you should patent that idea, no one else has ever come up with the concept of bashing Duke.

But what we love about guys like Mike Freeman is that these are the same guys who wrote columns on Monday and Tuesday about how Duke did not deserve a 6-seed.  How Duke got that seed based on its name, not on its season results.  And most Duke fans would agree.  But, after writing that type of article, you certainly cannot come back when they lose and talk about how “shocking” it was.  That makes no sense.  (Note: this is the same situation from when writers dogged on Alabama football when it was undefeated 2 years ago, saying the Tide was not a good team, then cited the Tide’s record of that year in defense of why Mike Shula should not be fired.)

Back to Mike Freeman, though.  He has many awesome theories in the piece of garbage he wrote.  One is that Anthony Grant out-coached Krzyzewski because he gave his players links from a chain a few weeks back.  That makes good sense.   Grant also out-coached K by pressing for the entire game, just like he has done for most of the season.  That makes good sense as well.

But here is our favorite selection from Mike Freeman’s work of wonder:

“Duke losing like this should not be completely unexpected. Every dynasty ends. The Green Bay Packers, the Chicago Bulls and the New York Yankees, among others, all evaporated. Now, the Blue Devils dynasty is officially done after suffering its first opening-round loss in over a decade. Goodnight, Dukies. You’re not much better than Rutgers.”

There are so many things wrong with these two sentences that we are not sure where to begin.  First, we love it when writers compare college teams to only professional teams.  In college sports, a coach recruits kids who will stay for 4 years at the most, often less.  In the pros, you pay a guy millions of dollars to stick around for 6-10 years.  The two levels are blatantly different.

Well, we’re not sure that the Packers had a dynasty recently, unless he is talking about back in the 1960s.  The Bulls’ run ended when a guy named Michael Jordan retired.  And yes, the Bulls did make the playoffs last season.  As for the Yankees, they have made the post-season every year since around 1995.  I would say their “dynasty” is still going pretty strong.  I’m sure a team like the Milwaukee Brewers would love to have “failed” like the Yankees have recently.

Duke has made the tournament every year since 1996 and, up to yesterday, had made 9 consecutive Sweet 16 appearances.  We doubt that a first round loss to a team that went 27-6 over the season is exactly ruining any dynasties.

But, Mike, we understand that a person of your intellect does not have the ability to write anything more perceptive that your run-of-the-mill bash Duke article.  At least Eddy Landreth is a UNC homer.  What’s your excuse, Mike?