Hmmm. Anyone notice the differences in the media coverage for the "scandals" at CU and Duke?

As of this posting, pretty much everyone in the MSM is lining up in an attempt to discredit the victims in the Duke Lacrosse case.  The Duke players have been charged with ACTUAL crimes here....even though it seems quite obvious that they are innocent.

What is the general opinion of Colorado Football?  That they use 'sex' to lure recruits to the school and that the football players are rapists.  The media, who jumped all over the recruiting 'scandal,' sure disappeared as soon as it fizzled.

In the Colorado case, instead of assuming the victims were lying, the liberal Boulder/Denver media (heck, even the supposedly conservative Governor) were frothing at the mouth to declare the football players guilty.  But, did you know....

1. The girls at the 'recruiting party' (that wasn't a recruiting party) passed out condoms?
2. The girls played the century club (a shot of beer per minute for 100 minutes).
3. Once CU player, Ron Monteihl, was misidentified by the 'victims'
4. One 'victim' that was 'raped' after a night at the bars described her assailants as 'two big balck men' who 'might be football players.'  Headline news one day, but when both players were exonerated, page D18.
5. In Rick Reilly's idiotic article,  Katie Hneida claims she was raped, but refused to say who, when, or where?  How convenient.
6. Judges have denied appeal after appeal after appeal by the victims
7. Two other victims were anonymous tipline callers.
8. One CU regent, Cindy Carlisle, was married to one of the accusers lawyers - Blaine Kerr. She also employed Regina Cowles, head of Boulder-NOW as her campaign manager.
9. Not one charge was filed in relation to any of these supposed assaults. 

But, still today, CU Football's reputation is sullied. 

Why the different treatment?  Why wasn't the media going after the clear and obvious flaws in the accusers case?