J.J. the best shooter ... ever? It just doesn't add up

Uh-oh.

Here's how Redick's past three seasons have ended: 1-of-11 on 3s vs. Kansas, 3-for-9 vs. UConn and 3-for-9 vs. Michigan State, for a total of 7-of-29, or 24.1 percent. In three losses. Hence, no NCAA championship rings. For the greatest shooter ever.

Considering Redick's history of late-season struggles, can't we at least wait until his senior season is over before we say it's destined to go down in history alongside Walton in '74, Maravich in '70 and Alcindor in '69? In his past three games, Redick is 6-of-26 (1-of-6 at Georgia Tech, 1-of-6 at Temple and 4-of-14 at Florida State) from beyond the arc. Is this the start of yet another late season swoon? Would the greatest shooter ever go in the tank on an annual basis?

And isn't the greatest shooter ever required to ... you know ... make more than 40 percent of his 3s? OK, that was unfair. Redick has hit more than 40 percent over the course of his career. To be exact, he's a 40.6 percent 3-point shooter, which ranks him 18th on the ACC's career list. On the NCAA list ... well, don't even bother opening that record book, because nobody below 44 percent is on there. But if Redick's the best ever, what is Salim Stoudamire (45.8 percent) or Ray Allen (44.8 percent)?

I understand that shooting percentage isn't the sole determining factor when rating great shooters. Tony Bennett of Wisconsin-Green Bay is the NCAA's all-time leader in that category, but I'm not going to make the case that he's the greatest of all time. The offense you play in, the role you play within that offense, the level of competition you face, the number of shots you take -- all of these need to be taken into consideration. And as we are all constantly reminded, J.J. takes more abuse than any player who ever laced 'em up. No other player has ever been called dirty names. Every opposing team steps on the court with the sole intention of stopping J.J., and nobody else has ever seen a box-and-one. I know. I get it.

But when discussing great shooters, doesn't the rate at which they make shots factor into the equation?

Apparently not, if one of the players being discussed attended Duke. Would any broadcaster or columnist shove Redick's alleged all-time greatness down our throats, day after day after day, if he went to Tennessee or Marquette? I don't think so. You know who probably agrees with me? Tennessee's Chris Lofton (averaging 47.3 percent on 8.3 3-point attempts per game) and Marquette's Steve Novak (averaging 44.8 percent on 8.3 attempts/game). They play in major conferences and their numbers are comparable to Redick's (42.6 percent on 8.9 attempts/game). Funny that you never hear Dick Vitale babbling about Lofton or Novak.

Gregg is entirely correct when he says Redick is hated largely because of the name on the front of his jersey. More than a few college hoops fans would have at least something negative to say about Mother Teresa if she played for Duke.

Oh, sure, she cared for the lepers in Calcutta. That's probably why the refs give her all the calls!

But the media played a significant role in fostering that hatred. Duke is loathed largely because (1) it's enormously successful and (2) broadcasters and columnists never let us forget it. The backlash is inevitable. There's only so much fawning praise the media can dish out before fans decide enough is enough. We're like Tony Soprano choking Chris Moltisanti and screaming, "You pushed me to this! YOU PUSHED ME TO THIS!!!"

Redick believes he's the most hated player in America, and some fans truly do despise him. But I think more of us are just tired of hearing about his magnificence. I'm a UNC alumnus, and I certainly don't hate Redick -- not in the way that I hated Bobby Hurley, Steve Wojciechowski, Dahntay Jones or (God help me) Christian Laettner. For that matter, his sanctimoniousness and his penchant for flopping to draw charges earned Shane Battier more than a little of my disdain.

(By the way, can you believe Battier has been invited to try out for Team USA? Battier hasn't exactly been an Danny Ferry-esque bust, but his NBA career falls somewhere between "nondescript" and "mildly disappointing." Yet he's a stone-cold lock to make this team because Mike Krzyzewski is the coach. Sorry, he's the leader who happens to coach Team USA. But I digress.)

I'm also rational enough not to reflexively dislike every Duke player. I spoke with Elton Brand and Chris Carrawell a few times after games. They were always friendly and highly quotable, without Battier's air of smugness. I would have loved it if they wore a different shade of blue. For that matter, I'd love to have Redick as a Tar Heel (although, as you may recall, UNC did manage to win a national championship without him).

Redick is a tremendous offensive weapon. He doesn't talk smack or even sneer as much as he used to. The worst thing you can really say about the guy is he's a horrible poet, he probably whines a little too much about the abuse he takes, and he was (gasp!) once in a room where other people were smoking pot. (I'm not going to throw stones on that last one.)

But if we're going to start playing the "people only hate him because he plays for Duke" card, let's admit that many others heap an inordinate amount of praise upon him for the exact same reason, and maybe we should all start giving a little love to other deserving players. Like Craig Smith, with those soft, supple hands.