Which of these national championship columns is best?

In tonight's round of "Who wrote it best?" we examine five columns written on the night of the NCAA Division I men's basketball championship game, in which the Kentucky Wildcats faced the Kansas Jayhawks. I selected these five columns because they were the main links on the home pages of ESPN, CBS Sports, Sporting News, Yahoo Sports and Fox Sports. (Sports Illustrated was eliminated from consideration because, for whatever reason, four hours after the game ended, they still had the AP story as their most prominent link.)

Your choices:

• "UK asked for glory; Calipari delivered" by ESPN's Dana O'Neil
• "Davis shows value, dominance even on poor shooting night" by CBS Sports' Jeff Goodman
• "Recognition 'a long time coming' for John Calipari" by Sporting News' Mike DeCourcy
• "Kentucky's John Calipari has built a 21st centry program that's destined for more success" by Yahoo Sports' Dan Wetzel
• "Anthony Davis, Kentucky Wildcats add up to NCAA championship" by Fox Sports' Mark Kriegel

.
I ask that, as you read, you consider the prominence that these stories were given several hours after the game. Does the story match the play? These are five outstanding writers, in my opinion, but were you surprised by any of the choices (for instance, Goodman over Gregg Doyel or Wetzel over Pat Forde)? The first three highlighted their top college basketball writers, the latter two went with national sports columnists who write well on college basketball.

I'll provide my breakdown later. I haven't had a chance to read any of these yet.

 

I'll reserve comment until after Kentucky's title is vacated.

 

I thought O'Neil and Wetzel did it best, probably because they seemed to give the most background or off-the-court stuff you wouldn't find in the gamer.

 

I liked O'Neil best. The opening scene didn't quite hook me, but by the end I grew to appreciate it. Wetzel was good, but something about his seemed vaguely less substantial to me, whatever that means. Kreigel seemed like a different angle, and I kind of enjoyed that, but if you end on four straight quotes they need to be stronger or have more context. But still all strong pieces.

 

Still reading, and I don't know Decourcy's past ... but he has to be the "friend in the media" in the kicker of his story, right? Otherwise, how would he know what was whispered?

And if so, that's a really odd way to end a piece.


Edit: Just finished Wetzel. That lede made me feel dirty. Like REALLY dirty. Don't really know why. Just did.

 

Don't know if this is allowed, but I'd submit this one as at least an equal to those from Dan Wolken at The Daily:
http://www.thedaily.com/page/2012/04/03/040312-sports-bkc-wolken-title-game-1-3/

 

He lost me at the lede. Tubby won it in 1997-98.
1998-99
1999-2000
2000-01
2001-02
2002-03
2003-04
2004-05
2005-06

If this was Nov. 2006, it was eight seasons after winning the title.

 

Wetzel's got my vote, and his lede, like IJAG stated, is scary. The fact that this conniving is going on right under our noses is utterly repulsive.

 

I enjoyed Shelton's column more than any of the above. The right mix of game details and big picture theme ... and his deadline was hours earlier than theirs.

http://www.tampabay.com/sports/basketball/college/kentucky-coach-john-calipari-gets-long-awaited-national-title/1223178

 

I fail to see how Wetzel's piece made people feel dirty unless their understanding of how college sports works stops at old Jack Oakie movie musicals. It was a matter of fact analysis of how Calipari and Kentucky operate, and did a pretty good job pointing out Calipari probably exploits his players LESS than other programs do.
We don't bitch if some suburban kid goes premed. Why complain that some coach is running an effective preNBA program?

 

The fact that Anthony Davis is hugging a licensed agent doesn't make the whole thing seem fishy to you?

 

Wetzel's is good, but he's written 2 or 3 versions of the same thing in the last week. This is the best of that bunch, IMO, but I'm fatigued by the same point of view.