Because I’m either bored, fascinated by media infighting, or a low-life gossip tabloid scum with nothing better to do than incite bad feelings, I wanted to bring your attention to John Feinstein’s latest item on his blog.

Feinstein was writing about the fact that Scott Van Pelt helped Jordan Williams gather intel on his NBA draft prospects, but before he got into that, Feinstein went through some history.

Van Pelt and I had a disagreement last year because I commented on his behavior while sitting in the stands at a Duke-Maryland game in College Park. He took offense to my saying that, as a public figure, who at times talked about college basketball on TV and radio, he needed to show some decorum, even while sitting in the stands. I wondered how people would react if say, Jay Bilas or I sat in the stands at Cameron Indoor Stadium in Duke gear and yelled at officials during a game.

Scott took offense and called me and we had a good talk and ended up, I think, agreeing to disagree. (He also took a shot a my brother during a speech at Burning Tree last summer since my brother had been the one who told me how Van Pelt behaved. For the record, my brother is close to Gary Williams and was sitting in front of Van Pelt because—like Scott—he’d been given tickets by Gary. Anyway, Scott, did you think someone wouldn’t report your crack back to me? I do have other sources).

So Scott Van Pelt is going ham on John Feinstein’s brother because of something the brother said to Feinstein? Add in two Bundys and two Harpers, and we really could have something special.

Update: Van Pelt responded to Feinstein via an e-mail to The Big Lead:

As much fun as it would be to publicly fire back, I won’t. There is a reason I called him to discuss the Duke game – I had enough professional respect and common courtesy to keep my thoughts on the matter private. Now he chooses to publicly rip me again, but I won’t return fire. I’ll see him @ Congressional maybe? If not, I don’t care enough to bother. Honestly, what’s the point ? You can’t tell the man anything anyway, he’s the arbiter of all things.

That’s not a bad description of Feinstein, huh? This requires a Part III.