Duke's Gerald Henderson Deserves More Publicity?

Every now and then a sports analyst says something on air that just blows your mind. I'm talking really stupid stuff, the kind of remark that truly makes you question the speaker's sanity. Dick Vitale delivered such a comment during ESPN's "Feast Week," as he revealed a collection of super sophomores, players he believes "flew under the radar" as freshmen and who deserve far more ink over the coming season. One of his designated underrated players: Gerald Henderson of Duke.

Now, granted, Vitale is both legendary and unabashed in his love for Duke Basketball. It is therefore not surprising that at least one Duke player appeared on his list. But what is incredible is that the man would, in any way, suggest that Gerald Henderson "flew under the radar," or that Henderson was somehow short-changed in the publicity department during his freshman year.

The irony here is not the utter lunacy of suggesting that any Duke player could ever be media underrated. Nor is it the fact that this particular player was touted as the next great college impact player before he ever set foot on campus. (Vitale himself wrote multiple columns touting this "special newcomer" while Henderson was still in high school.)

No, the problem here is that Henderson, as one of Vitale's heralded "Diaper Dandies," earned and received coast to coast headlines, commentary, and notoriety for the dirtiest play in college basketball history. Somehow, a mere five games later, Henderson is being portrayed as a quiet, unassuming, underrated player worthy of more positive press. The suggestion is nothing short of a journalistic outrage.

For those who were living under a quarry last season, let's review the relevant history. Duke, despite enjoying its typical stable of highly rated high school All-Americans, struggled through its worst season in twelve years. The Blue Devils entered their regular season finale with arch-rival North Carolina having lost five of their previous nine games. In the closing minute of the game, North Carolina's star center Tyler Hansbrough rebounded his own missed free throw. As he attempted to shoot, a Duke reserve blocked the ball from behind. Gerald Henderson, meanwhile, streaked in from Hansbrough's blind side and, after the shot had been blocked, leaped and swung his elbow into the bridge of Hansbrough's nose, bringing his full body weight down on an unsuspecting, defenseless player with frightening momentum and torque.

Naturally, Hansbrough dropped as if shot. The referees whistled the play dead. Henderson immediately walked back to his team huddle skipping even the pretense of checking on the well being of the player he had just battered. Seconds later, Hansbrough rose from a large puddle of blood, still hemorrhaging profusely from the impact. After reviewing the video replay, the referees confirmed the obvious: that the foul was both flagrant and a combative action. Henderson was tossed from the game. He then ambled off the court, flanked by his assistant coaches, a defiant, unrepentant scowl etched on his arrogant, guilty face.

In the days that followed, Henderson's elbow was the subject of intense media attention and scrutiny. Commentators and journalists were remarkable in their unanimity in condemning the cheap shot. The only notable exception was Billy Packer. One of the game's television analysts, Packer, as is his custom, went off half-cocked in declaring the elbow unintentional. As the replays that followed confirmed the contrary with more and more certainty from various angles, the never say "my mistake" Packer refused to concede. Virtually everywhere else, the media and college basketball world roared over what was clearly a cheap and dangerous elbow. Back in Chapel Hill, subsequent radiographs revealed a fractured nose, which required Hansbrough to play with a mask over the next several games.

As the media outrage continued, Duke's spin machine tried to defend Henderson's flagrant elbow through a variety of poorly coordinated approaches. Henderson offered the following tripe: "I wasn't trying to hurt the kid or anything. It just turned worse than it was." Mike Krzyzewski, never one to shy away from incredulous suggestions, initially implied that the entire incident was UNC's fault for having starters in the game at a point when the outcome was determined. In so doing, Krzyzewski seemed oblivious to the fact that his own starters - at least those who had not fouled out - were also in the game, intentionally fouling to stop the clock at every opportunity. Later, Krzyzewski feigned shock at the notion that Henderson's elbow was intentional. "That's not the way we play," said Krzyzewski with a tone of voice that suggested nothing more needed to be said. To even suggest otherwise was, in Krzyzewski's words, "Crazy."

In later interviews, Krzyzewski actually blasted the NCAA for requiring Henderson to sit out all of one game as punishment for his assault. "Gerald is the victim," said the sanctimonious coach. He actually went so far as to compare Gerald's so called punishment -- having to sit behind the bench during his single game suspension - to the public stockades of colonial times. And don't forget, Coach K is the same guy who made a point of heralding George Mason's head basketball coach Jim Larranaga a year earlier for voluntarily requiring his star guard to sit out more than the minimum suspension for a cheap shot, which seems almost cute when retrospectively compared with Henderson's savage blow.

But I digress. It is easy to become sidetracked on this subject when recalling the incredible hypocrisy that surfaced in Duke's attempts to rationalize.

The point here is that Gerald Henderson has already received barrels of well-deserved ink as a result of his goonish play. His was the most frightening flagrant foul that I have seen in thirty years of following college basketball. The contact and its aftermath were reminiscent of Kermit Washington's brutal punching of Rudy Tomjanovich. If Vitale means to suggest that additional negative press is due this "Super Soph," I wholeheartedly agree. But, somehow, the analyst argues the contrary: that Henderson merits more in the way of favorable publicity. Is Vitale's memory this short or his love for Duke this blind?

No, the only radar under which Gerald Henderson has flown is that of our criminal and civil justice systems. Nearly thirty years ago, Tomjanovich received a $3.2 million judgment for Washington's assault. I only hope that Hansbrough files his suit papers before the statute of limitations runs of Henderson's battery.