clock menu more-arrow no yes

Filed under:

ACC Roundup

Ned Barnett has

a piece on Phil Ford and his lonely struggle. He says a lot of people

wanted him gone, which is probably true, and also says that by overcoming his addiction

he can become a hero again, (or worse, that late 20th century euphemism people
use for people who have screwed up their life, a role model). Not sure about that one. Why is it that

we see reformed addicts as heroes? We hope no one would argue that

overcoming a debilitating addiction requires heroic effort somewhat akin to

Jesus being tempted in the desert, and even the most partisan Duke fan is

pulling for Phil Ford to save his own life. Heroic yes, if he makes it. But a

hero? Here's Merriam-Webster's definition of a hero: 1 a : a mythological or legendary figure often of divine descent endowed with great strength or ability b : an illustrious

warrior c : a man admired for his achievements and noble qualities d : one that shows great courage.

You could argue definition d, but definitions a-c counter-argue the point. They

apply to the young Ford, but not to Ford the adult. Not currently anyway.
It can happen. Malcolm X went to prison and came out a vastly different
man - and then changed yet again at the very end of his life.

Up in Wahoo land, expectations
are burgeoning.
It's going to be fun to watch these guys play. We
didn't get to this yesterday, but
Terrence Morris is getting a lot of praise he richly deserves.
Like
Tim Duncan or Todd Fuller or Bryant Stith, he's a guy the whole conference
should be proud of.