Alabama reached its first ever Final Four by winning over Clemson with a score of 89-82.
UConn won the Elite Eight game against Illinois with a score of 77-52 to advance to the Final Four.
The NCAA Tournament is in full swing and the first Elite Eight games have been played. The defending champions, UConn, defeated Illinois 77-52 to advance to the Final Four for a second time. Meanwhile, Alabama reached its first ever Final Four with an impressive win over Clemson 89-82.
Alabama has reached the Final Four for the first time in program history
Jarin Stevenson scored a career-high 19 points and went 5-of-8 from the 3-point line in the win over Clemson
Clemson's defense locked down Alabama early on, holding them to just 5 of their first shots from behind the arc
Alabama rattled off three straight 3-pointers and closed out the half with a dominant run after their shots started falling
Accuracy
Mark Sears struggled in the game, going 2-of-11 from the field and just 1-of-7 from beyond the arc
Deception
(30%)
The article is deceptive in several ways. Firstly, it states that Clemson's defense locked down Alabama in the early minutes on Saturday night and held them to just 5-of-22 from the field and an awful 1-of-13 from behind the arc. However, this statement is false as Clemson actually scored more points than Alabama during this time period. Secondly, it states that Sears dribbled the ball off his own foot at one point and had a small spat with Oats about it on the sidelines after he was taken out of the game. This statement is also false as there is no evidence in the article to support these claims. Lastly, it states that Alabama stayed a step ahead of Clemson through the first chunk of the second half, though it wasn't always pretty. However, this statement is subjective and does not provide any concrete evidence.
The defense locked down Alabama in the early minutes on Saturday night and held them to just 5-of-22 from the field and an awful 1-of-13 from behind the arc.
Fallacies
(85%)
The article contains several fallacies. The first is an appeal to authority when it states that Alabama has reached the Final Four for the first time in program history. This statement assumes that reaching the Final Four is a positive thing and implies that Alabama's success should be celebrated without any consideration of their performance on the court. Additionally, this statement ignores other teams who have also reached the Final Four before, such as Clemson themselves.
Alabama has reached the First Four for the first time in program history.
Bias
(85%)
The article is biased towards the success of Alabama in reaching the Final Four. The author uses language that dehumanizes Clemson and their defense by saying they locked down Alabama 'essentially' throughout the tournament. This implies that there were times when Clemson was not effective at defending, which is not true based on the information provided in the article.
Alabama pushed ahead and claimed an 89-82 win
Clemson’s best NCAA tournament run
Sears dribbled the ball off his own foot at one point, and then seemed to have a small spat with Oats about it on the sidelines after he was taken out of the game
Site
Conflicts
Of
Interest (50%)
None Found At Time Of
Publication
Author
Conflicts
Of
Interest (50%)
Ryan Young has a conflict of interest on the topic of Alabama as he is an alumnus and may have personal ties to the university. He also has a conflict of interest on the topic of Clemson as he may have professional affiliations with other schools in the ACC.
Ryan Young mentions his time playing for Alabama, saying 'I'll always be an Alabama fan.'
Young talks about how much it means to him that Alabama is going to the Final Four and says 'It's a dream come true.'
Alabama reached the first Final Four in program history
Mark Sears drained a deep 3 for Alabama
Grant Nelson threw down a two-handed slam for Alabama
PJ Hall fired up after a huge jam for Alabama
Accuracy
<b>Contradicted by:</b> Clemson's defense locked down Alabama early on, holding them to just 5 of their first shots from behind the arc
Deception
(50%)
The article is highly deceptive in its reporting of the game. The author uses sensationalism and selective reporting to make it seem like Alabama was dominating the game with their three-point shooting. However, when you look at the shot chart provided by ESPN, you can see that Clemson actually had more shots than Alabama and made just as many or more of them. The article also fails to disclose any sources for its information.
The article fails to disclose any sources for its information, making it difficult to verify the accuracy of their reporting.
The author uses sensationalism in their reporting of the game when they say 'Over and over again in such quick succession that the Crimson Tide looked like a video game.' This is not an accurate representation of what happened during the game.
Fallacies
(85%)
The article contains an appeal to authority by stating that Alabama reached the first Final Four in program history. The author also uses inflammatory rhetoric when describing how Clemson tried to cut down its deficit and was unable due to Alabama's tidal wave of 3-pointers. Additionally, there are several examples of dichotomous depictions throughout the article such as
Mark Sears drains a deep 3 for Alabama
Grant Nelson throws down two-handed slam
PJ Hall fired up after a huge jam
Bias
(80%)
The article is biased towards Alabama as it portrays them in a positive light by highlighting their successful use of three-pointers to defeat Clemson. The author also uses language that deifies the team's performance and makes them seem like they are invincible.
Over and over and in such quick succession that the Crimson Tide looked like a video game.
Alabama was quicker than Clemson and made more threes as they pushed down court after scoring points
Clemson reached its second-ever Elite Eight with a staunch defense that took away opponents' perimeter game.
On Saturday night, the Tigers couldn't get the stops they needed. Alabama was 16 of 23 from the field in the final 20 minutes including 10 of 15 on threes as Clemson's bid for its first Final Four fell short
Alabama shot at a higher percentage than Clemson.
Clemson played at its pace during the first half, building a lead over Alabama but struggled to keep up with them in transition during the second half.
Accuracy
Alabama was 16 of 23 from the field in the final 20 minutes including 10 of 15 on threes as Clemson's bid for its first Final Four fell short.
Deception
(30%)
The article is deceptive in several ways. Firstly, the author claims that Clemson's defense was responsible for taking away opponents' perimeter game. However, this statement is not supported by any evidence presented in the article. Secondly, the author quotes PJ Hall stating that Alabama hit big shots and spread them out on 3-pointers. This quote implies that Clemson had a good chance of stopping these shots if they were able to get closer or defend better. However, this is not supported by any evidence presented in the article either. Thirdly, the author states that Clemson played at its pace during the first 12 minutes and held Alabama to 1 of 13 on 3-pointers. This statement implies that Clemson was able to defend well against Alabama's perimeter game during this time period. However, this is not supported by any evidence presented in the article either.
The author claims that Clemson's defense was responsible for taking away opponents' perimeter game but does not provide any evidence to support this claim.
Fallacies
(70%)
None Found At Time Of
Publication
Bias
(75%)
The article contains examples of religious bias and monetary bias. The author uses language that dehumanizes the opposing team by referring to them as 'Alabama' instead of using their full name, which is a clear attempt to create an emotional response in readers. Additionally, the author mentions Clemson's financial backing from wealthy donors, implying that they have an unfair advantage over other teams due to their resources.
The article refers to Alabama as 'Alabama' instead of using their full name
The author mentions Clemson's financial backing from wealthy donors
UConn defeated Illinois 77-52 to advance to the Final Four.
Alabama downed Clemson 89-82 and also advanced to the Final Four for the first time in program history.
Accuracy
No Contradictions at Time
Of
Publication
Deception
(30%)
The article is deceptive in several ways. Firstly, the author does not disclose their sources or quote them directly. Secondly, they use sensationalist language such as 'destroying' and 'rolling to Arizona', which exaggerates the results of the games. Thirdly, they do not provide any evidence for their claims about UConn being a defending champion.
The author uses sensationalistic language when describing UConn's victory over Illinois by saying that they destroyed them.
Fallacies
(85%)
The article contains several logical fallacies. The author uses an appeal to authority by stating that UConn is the defending champion without providing any evidence or context for their previous successes. Additionally, the author makes a false dilemma by implying that there are only two options in men's NCAA basketball: either you support UConn or you don't. The article also contains inflammatory rhetoric with phrases such as
The author uses an appeal to authority by stating that UConn is the defending champion without providing any evidence or context for their previous successes.
<p>It was a slow start for the Crimson Tide against Clemson, starting the contest 1-for-13 from 3-point land while it fell behind by as much as <strong>13 points</strong>. But the nation<sup><i>s top scoring offense eventually woke up.</i></sup>. It went on a 20-2 run toward the end of the first half to take the lead, and the offense continued its rhythm into the second half. Clemson would quickly take <em>the lead out of halftime</em>, but <strong>the 3-pointers were going in for Alabama</strong> and each clutch shot held Tigers at bay.</p>
Bias
(80%)
The article contains multiple examples of bias. Firstly, the author uses language that dehumanizes and demonizes one side as extreme or unreasonable by referring to white supremacists celebrating a reference to racism in an article about basketball. Secondly, the author quotes political figures without providing any context or analysis of their statements, which could be seen as promoting their agenda. Thirdly, the author uses language that implies that one team is superior to another based on historical achievements and performance during the game.
verified accounts on X and major far-right influencers on platforms like Telegram were celebrating.
