OutKick⁠97%

Iowa Stuns Florida Late After Golden, McCollum Get Into Sideline Spat Over Double Technical ⁠61%

By Dan Zaksheske⁠0%

3/23/2026, 1:10:02 AM

BS Summary: This article contains 8 faulty reasoning types, including Hasty Generalization, Indoctrination, and Confirmation Bias, with Biased Writer Voice as the most egregious example at 44.2% saturation with 204 hits. Analysis detected 400 faulty-reasoning hits from 462 analyzed words, generating a BS Score of 56.8% and a BS Rank of ⁠61% (8,360 of 21,197 articles). This article is worse (more manipulative) than 60.60% of the article peer group.

There are a TON of classic rivalries in college basketball: Duke vs. 
North Carolina, Kentucky vs. 
Louisville, Indiana vs. 
Purdue, Michigan vs. 
Michigan State and many more. 
But what if I told you there is a budding rivalry that you didn't know you needed? 
Well, during their Round of 32 matchup, Florida head coach Todd Golden and Iowa head coach Ben McCollum got INTO it on the sidelines during a timeout. 
At the 8:34 mark in the first half, with 9th-seeded Iowa leading No. 1-seeded Florida 19-13, Hawkeyes forward Alvaro Folgueiras and Gators forward Alex Condon exchanged "pleasantries" while wrestling (hard) for a rebound that drew matching technical fouls on both players. 
It appeared that Folgueiras tried to throw a punch during the skirmish, but it looked like he was trying to punch the ball and didn't seem to contact Condon. 
Still, tempers flared, and the emotions spilled onto the benches. 
Golden didn't like the double-technical call, to say the least. 
He clearly felt that Folgueiras attempting to throw a punch should have elicited an additional penalty for Iowa. 
It's unclear when or why Golden and McCollum ended up getting into a verbal altercation, but it happened shortly after the Folgueiras-Condon wrestling match. 
"I don’t know. 
They were just going for the ball," McCollum said during an in-game interview. 
"Then, everybody got all sensitive. 
Then, their people got sensitive. 
We’re just trying to play ball. 
It’s whatever. 
We’ll compete. 
We’ll fight. 
We’ll see what happens." 
Look, I'm going to be real with everyone. 
This is awesome. 
College basketball needs more of this fire and seeing coaches scream at each other is part of what March Madness is all about. 
Emotions are high, every game is win-or-go-home and no one wants to lose. 
The fascinating part is that the biggest sideline blowup came between McCollum and Golden because, to my knowledge, there's no previous connection between the two. 
Iowa and Florida isn't a traditional rivalry, obviously, with the teams competing in different conferences. 
Prior to Iowa, McCollum coached at Drake and Northwest Missouri State (Division II). 
Golden spent six years in San Francisco before going to Florida in 2022. 
It appears that the two started a rivalry out of whole cloth right there on the floor in Tampa during an emotional and hotly contested Round of 32 matchup in the NCAA Tournament. 
That's exactly how the best rivalries start, by the way. 
UPDATE: Alvaro Folgueiras, Ben McCollum and the Iowa Hawkeyes got the last laugh as Folgueiras hit a go-ahead three-pointer with under 5 seconds left to send the Hawkeyes into the Sweet 16. 
With Florida now out, there will be a new champion in college basketball this season. 
Article reasoning-pattern comparisonThis article: 6.9%Dan Zaksheske: 6.1%Outkick: 8.8%Confirmation Bias6.9%This article: 0.0%Dan Zaksheske: 0.8%Outkick: 1.9%Anchoring Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Dan Zaksheske: 2.0%Outkick: 5.3%Availability Heuristic0.0%This article: 0.0%Dan Zaksheske: 1.0%Outkick: 2.0%Representativeness Heuristic0.0%This article: 0.0%Dan Zaksheske: 0.5%Outkick: 1.9%Hindsight Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Dan Zaksheske: 2.2%Outkick: 6.1%Overconfidence Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Dan Zaksheske: 8.6%Outkick: 12.5%Framing Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Dan Zaksheske: 0.2%Outkick: 1.0%Loss Aversion0.0%This article: 0.0%Dan Zaksheske: 1.0%Outkick: 1.3%Status Quo Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Dan Zaksheske: 0.1%Outkick: 0.2%Sunk Cost Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Dan Zaksheske: 0.6%Outkick: 4.4%Optimism Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Dan Zaksheske: 1.1%Outkick: 2.5%Pessimism Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Dan Zaksheske: 7.8%Outkick: 12.8%Negativity Bias0.0%This article: 4.1%Dan Zaksheske: 2.9%Outkick: 3.2%Self-Serving Bias4.1%This article: 0.0%Dan Zaksheske: 3.5%Outkick: 3.2%Fundamental Attribution Error0.0%This article: 0.0%Dan Zaksheske: 0.2%Outkick: 0.6%Actor-Observer Bias0.0%This article: 3.5%Dan Zaksheske: 3.0%Outkick: 5.1%In-Group Bias3.5%This article: 0.0%Dan Zaksheske: 3.6%Outkick: 2.8%Out-Group Homogeneity Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Dan Zaksheske: 3.4%Outkick: 5.2%Halo Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Dan Zaksheske: 0.7%Outkick: 1.3%Horn Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Dan Zaksheske: 0.0%Outkick: 0.1%Dunning-Kruger Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Dan Zaksheske: 0.7%Outkick: 3.4%Recency Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Dan Zaksheske: 0.4%Outkick: 0.5%Primacy Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Dan Zaksheske: 0.1%Outkick: 0.4%Blind-Spot Bias0.0%This article: 2.2%Dan Zaksheske: 5.7%Outkick: 4.0%Ad Hominem2.2%This article: 0.0%Dan Zaksheske: 2.7%Outkick: 2.0%Straw Man0.0%This article: 0.0%Dan Zaksheske: 3.0%Outkick: 3.6%Appeal to Authority0.0%This article: 0.0%Dan Zaksheske: 2.3%Outkick: 2.3%False Dilemma0.0%This article: 0.0%Dan Zaksheske: 0.7%Outkick: 1.1%Slippery Slope0.0%This article: 0.0%Dan Zaksheske: 0.1%Outkick: 0.3%Circular Reasoning0.0%This article: 14.3%Dan Zaksheske: 7.7%Outkick: 11.5%Hasty Generalization14.3%This article: 0.0%Dan Zaksheske: 0.8%Outkick: 1.2%Red Herring0.0%This article: 0.0%Dan Zaksheske: 0.5%Outkick: 2.4%Bandwagon0.0%This article: 0.6%Dan Zaksheske: 4.3%Outkick: 10.0%Appeal to Emotion0.6%This article: 0.0%Dan Zaksheske: 1.8%Outkick: 1.7%Begging the Question0.0%This article: 0.0%Dan Zaksheske: 2.0%Outkick: 2.9%Post Hoc (False Cause)0.0%This article: 0.0%Dan Zaksheske: 0.5%Outkick: 0.3%Tu Quoque0.0%This article: 0.0%Dan Zaksheske: 0.9%Outkick: 0.5%Burden of Proof0.0%This article: 0.0%Dan Zaksheske: 0.3%Outkick: 0.3%Appeal to Nature0.0%This article: 0.0%Dan Zaksheske: 0.2%Outkick: 0.3%Composition/Division0.0%This article: 0.0%Dan Zaksheske: 1.5%Outkick: 4.3%Anecdotal0.0%This article: 0.0%Dan Zaksheske: 0.2%Outkick: 0.4%No True Scotsman0.0%This article: 0.0%Dan Zaksheske: 1.4%Outkick: 1.8%Ambiguity (Equivocation)0.0%This article: 0.0%Dan Zaksheske: 0.0%Outkick: 0.0%Gambler’s Fallacy0.0%This article: 0.0%Dan Zaksheske: 0.0%Outkick: 0.2%Middle Ground0.0%This article: 0.0%Dan Zaksheske: 0.2%Outkick: 0.7%Personal Incredulity0.0%This article: 0.0%Dan Zaksheske: 0.2%Outkick: 1.0%Special Pleading0.0%This article: 0.0%Dan Zaksheske: 0.9%Outkick: 0.7%Genetic Fallacy0.0%This article: 0.0%Dan Zaksheske: 2.3%Outkick: 2.1%Unattributed Quote0.0%This article: 0.0%Dan Zaksheske: 1.5%Outkick: 0.9%Quote-first Misdirection0.0%This article: 44.2%Dan Zaksheske: 18.2%Outkick: 18.0%Biased Writer Voice44.2%This article: 10.8%Dan Zaksheske: 2.2%Outkick: 2.4%Indoctrination10.8%This article: 0.0%Dan Zaksheske: 0.1%Outkick: 0.2%Politically Left Leaning Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Dan Zaksheske: 5.1%Outkick: 2.3%Politically Right Leaning Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Dan Zaksheske: 1.1%Outkick: 0.9%Attempt to Sell a Product or S…0.0%

462 words analyzed.

Speakers

1speaker9.1%attributed speech420writer words
Voice mapSelect a segment to jump to its words
Writer's voice • 14 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 12 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 4 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 3 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 3 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 5 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 17 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 27 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 41 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 29 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 10 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 10 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 18 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 24 words • 0.0% coverageBen McCollum • 3 words • 0.0% coverageBen McCollum • 13 words • 0.0% coverageBen McCollum • 5 words • 0.0% coverageBen McCollum • 5 words • 0.0% coverageBen McCollum • 6 words • 0.0% coverageBen McCollum • 2 words • 0.0% coverageBen McCollum • 2 words • 0.0% coverageBen McCollum • 2 words • 0.0% coverageBen McCollum • 4 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 8 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 3 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 23 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 13 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 25 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 15 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 13 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 13 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 33 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 10 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 32 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 15 words • 0.0% coverage
Selected voice

Ben McCollum

69%flagged-word coverage
42 attributed words100% of attributed speech49% writer coverage
0%25.0%50.0%Biased Writer Voice-48.6 ptsWriter: 48.6%Ben McCollum: 0.0%0.0%Indoctrination-11.9 ptsWriter: 11.9%Ben McCollum: 0.0%0.0%

Attribution is sentence-level. Pattern percentages are calculated only from words assigned to that voice.

Loading…
Loading…
Loading…

Analysis

Hover over highlighted words in the article to view the associated bias or fallacy analysis.