ROONEY RULING COLLEGE FOOTBALL
Oh, so we’re lofty lofty enough to publish in the HuffPo, eh, and do most of it via a blockquote? Myles Brand has taken his lessons in lazy blogging from TBL, and learned them well.
In all fairness, he’s citing the NCAA’s Vice President for Diversity and Inclusion Charlotte Westerhaus, who has a lengthy explanation why there isn’t a Rooney Rule–a rule requiring a team to interview at least one minority candidate–for a position. (And no, Bret Bielema, your claim to be “criminally hung” does not make you a minority, dude.)
Her long, long explanation includes this stat:
Dedicated social change agents and pundits who urge the NCAA to adopt the “Rooney Rule” may be unaware of of another important reality – more candidates of color are being interviewed for head coaching positions than ever before. The fact of the matter is that 27 candidates of color were interviewed for 22 vacancies at the Division I level last fall. These numbers far exceed the number of mandated head coaching interviews of minorities conducted by the NFL.
A useless stat, really. Of the 22 vacancies, only 4 went to minority coaches: Dewayne Walker, Mike Haywood, Mike Locksley, and Ron English. Of the nine post season switches in the NFL, three went to minority candidates. That’s a 33 percent to 18 percent difference in the small sample size of one year, proving nothing statistically but at least showing that Westerhaus’ numbers lean toward fig-leaf territory for this term’s hirings.
We’re not a quota person–let each school embarrass itself, since college football is open and lawless like that–but being economically inclined in terms of explaining things, the lack of minority head coaches relative to the number of minority players at the NCAA level has way more to do with the economic pressures faced by black players in particular, and way less to do with an overt institutionalized racism. GAs make next to nothing, and the post-grad safety net is simply not there as often for black players wanting to get into coaching as it is for white players.
(Note we said: “as often.” You paid off your student loans by working three jobs and scraping the barnacles off boats for extra money with your eyelids. Congratulations on being awesome. You did it all by yourself, right down to the oxygen you brought with you to breathe everyd day, white guy. You’re like John Galt, but with titanium nuts that taste like caramel! You’d care about this compliment/mockery, but others are irrelevant to your circumstances and outcomes, so you really shouldn’t even really be reading this Ayn Rand blows goats she bred by herself from thin air.)










1
domer.mq says:
Would help a lot if more universities actually graduated their minority players too, so that they’d have a degree on their resume to help them build a career.
Damn right I’m looking right at you, Michigan.
June 5th, 2009 at 12:01 pm
2
Tanner says:
The lack of perspective on this is damning. However, I am much more concerned with racial inequality among NHL players. This last bastion of white male cronyism must be eradicated. The lack of diversity speaks to an underlying menace, a seething cauldron of racist hate bred in the icy lakes of Minnesota. This land will not know the name of justice until the NHL employs minority players in a ratio proportionate to the average demographic breakdown of the country with a high degree of statistical significance, as to be scientifically determinate.
June 5th, 2009 at 12:23 pm
3
Hung Lo says:
A useless stat only if you’re talking about actual hiring decisions. If you’re talking about the efficacy of a Rooney Rule on those end hiring decisions, it’s not useless at all. Her point is well made: interviewing isn’t hiring so forced interviews don’t do much to remedy the situation.
June 5th, 2009 at 12:51 pm
4
sevenDs says:
{Reads quitely, awaiting the string of “Aubies is racist” coments from Bama fams}
June 5th, 2009 at 12:52 pm
5
doubthingthomas says:
At the risk of sounding incredibly stupid, insensitive, and making an argument that’s irrelevant and is unrelated as its not apple to apples…..
Is the NCAA also going to institute a rule where its member institutions have to make a scholarship offer to at least one white cornerback in each recruiting class first? The door should swing both ways to some extent, shouldn’t it?
June 5th, 2009 at 12:52 pm
6
sevenDs says:
edit #3 – That would be “comments” and “fans”
I probably should have just read quietly and not commented.
June 5th, 2009 at 12:59 pm
7
Mr. Pelican Pants says:
What about just hiring a fat, mulatto, transgendered coach to cover all the bases? Who could be 51% black and 49% white or vice versa, depending on which recruits house the tranny is in? and when it compliments you on drapes, it means it.
June 5th, 2009 at 1:08 pm
8
gurn says:
Nice left-wing screed at the end there, O.
And subtle, too.
June 5th, 2009 at 1:22 pm
9
Soonertruth says:
John Blake is still available…
June 5th, 2009 at 1:31 pm
10
The Tusk says:
sevenDs – Funny you should mention that. Your spelling/typing issues aside, all one need do is Google “Auburn Halloween pictures” and check out the first image that comes up…
Not that I think Auburn students are statistically more inclined to be racist than any other students, it’s just that they’re dumb enough to display it in public and happily pose for the picture.
June 5th, 2009 at 1:56 pm
11
WhiteSpeedReceiver says:
Tanner, anyone is welcome to play hockey. You just have to be stupid enough to want to do it.
/hides stick, skates, and puck.
June 5th, 2009 at 2:07 pm
12
John says:
When Howard Roark was asked what he thought of Orson Swindle, he replied: “But I don’t think of him.”
June 5th, 2009 at 2:52 pm
13
maskedavenger says:
The perplexing thing about ND and graduation rates is that the general population is coming into school with so much more academic ability, say 900-1000 SATs for football players (recognizing there are a couple of outliers with higher numbers) versus 1400-1500 for the general population. And yet both groups graduate at astronomical percentages. Maybe it is possible that ND has found some formula of class size, tutoring, peer pressure, (tougher course entrance requirements?), and other incentives (right to live off campus?) to allow its football players to achieve this result. If so, it sure would be nice of them to share this concoction with other schools.
Here are the four-class numbers for Michigan and ND from the 2008 NCAA graduation report:
Michigan general student body (male): 86%
Michigan general student body (white male): 89%
Michigan general student body (black male): 64%
Michigan football players: 68%
Michigan football players (white): 86%
Michigan football players (black): 50%
ND general student body (male): 95%
ND general student body (white male): 96%
ND general student body (black male): 80%
ND football players: 85%
ND football players (white): 87%
ND football players (black): 83%
Michigan’s gap between white and black athlete graduation rates is not an outlier, as this report on this year’s basketball tourney teams demonstrates: http://www.tidesport.org/Grad%20Rates/2009_Mens_Bball_PR.pdf
A general argument ND folk often make is that Michigan, the same school that fought for race-preferences/affirmative action all the way to the United States Supreme Court, willingly casts aside its black football players. Whatever one thinks of the legal course Michigan has chosen for increasing opportunities to minorities, those cases make it somewhat difficult to argue that Michigan is intentionally callous to the needs of its black students.
I am perfectly willing to have my alma mater schooled as to how to raise graduation rates. Can any ND fan provide details on how their school has been so successful where others have failed? I am looking for more than “elbow grease” or “you have to make a commitment to education” here.
June 5th, 2009 at 3:00 pm
14
El Kabong!!! says:
Jesus jumping on a pogo stick, do we have to have this fucking argument again? I spent hours typing out replies last year to jackasses that thought this was a good idea.
Saban had a great idea to fix this: Let the schools hire more GA’s.
Outside of that, I don’t see any good ideas. But please, don’t bring this shit up again.
I’ll hang around and wait for the inevitable “You’re just a racist!” replies because I think someone should be hired for their qualifications and not for the color of their skin.
I’ll give a cliff notes of last year’s discussion:
There are not many minority candidates, of those that are, many have not had much success as a head coach.
Let’s play devil’s advocate. You are the AD at Orson Swindle Technical Institute and Automotive repair. You have the choice of three candidates. I’ll pick two black candidates (Two that almost everyone bring up) and one white candidate:
Let’s assume that OSTI & AR is the hottest football job in the country. You have your choice of Turner Gill, Charlie Strong, or Urban Meyer.
Who do you hire?
Let’s take it one step further. Let’s take the top 10 coaches in College Football, and you tell me which ones you would hire Turner Gill or Charlie Strong over (No order, just ten coaches):
1) Urban Meyer
Jim Tressel
2) Nick Saban
3) Bob Stoops
4)Mack Brown
5) Pete Carroll
6) Frank Beamer
7) Mark Richt
9) Greg Schiano
10) Mike Leach
Now, I know I left off alot of names, and alot of older coaches. This was a list I compiled fairly quickly.
Have their been problems in the past with black candidates (let’s drop the minority bullshit, as they aren’t clamoring for Native American, Asian, Middle Eastern, Indian, or Hispanic coaches)? Certainly. Will some schools still refuse to hire a black candidate specifically because they are black? Yep. Will forcing them to interview black candidates make a difference? Not a damn bit.
I’m all for equality. But short of requiring schools to hire XX% of black coaches, regardless of what position they occupy.
In my opinion, forcing people to interview minority candidates is worse, because you’ll have a series of retreads get interviewed (such as Ty Willingham, etc.) and the guys that may actually have a chance of getting the job might get overlooked.
June 5th, 2009 at 3:13 pm
15
MaconDawg says:
You’re like John Galt, but with titanium nuts that taste like caramel!
How could you possibly have known that?
Seriously, Orson makes a great point about GA’s. Those positions are the pledgeship of the college coaching fraternity. Paying GA’s a livable wage would likely help a lot more candidates, regardless of race, color, creed or national origin, get a foot in the coaching door rather than going off to hawk mortgages and Nissans for a living.
June 5th, 2009 at 3:51 pm
16
tbone says:
#13
I know you don’t want “commitment to education”, but really, that is all it is. They make graduation, rather than eligibility, the focus of taking classes. You are forced to take a course load that is going to graduate you in 4 years (plus summers). Thats a HUGE difference from most places where that is optional. Obv they have tutors and a support program like every school, and you have to live on campus with the gen populace. Which all helps. And I think the average ND athlete has better SAT scores than you give them credit for, but the main ingredient is expectations. You graduate in 4 years or you end up getting sent home Julius Jones style.
None of this seems great, at least as far as gridiron success goes. This is why ND lineman end up benching less reps than the QB and they seem to have a lot of late round draft picks who actually end up being NFL players when they get the chance to do football nonstop.
There is no magic or cooked books to it.
I’d rather win at football, myself.
June 5th, 2009 at 4:26 pm
17
AERose says:
@14: And what was all that shit about Vietnam? What the fuck does anything have to do with Vietnam!?
June 5th, 2009 at 4:39 pm
18
John Coctostan says:
@14: I’m not trying to get into to it with you, because I generally agree with “someone should be hired for their qualifications and not for the color of their skin.” But you support your argument with an example that’s really a false choice. When your choice is between Turner Gil, Charlie Strong, or Urban Meyer, you take Meyer, sure. But when are coaches with that wide a gulf in achievement going to be considered for the same opening? Never. A more realistic example might be a choice between Turner Gill, Charlie Strong, and Gene Chizik. With that set I’d take Strong, but other people could make different choices and they’d be just as rational. (The choice would be between someone with success as a head coach at a small school, someone who failed as a head coach at a tradiitional doormat but had distinguished himself as a coordinator at a traditional power, and someone with no head coaching experience but who has had great success as a coordinator for a traditional power.)
June 5th, 2009 at 5:04 pm
19
An 'eer with a Beer says:
@15:
Paying GA’s a livable wage would likely help a lot more candidates, regardless of race, color, creed or national origin, get a foot in the coaching door rather than going off to hawk mortgages and Nissans for a living.
So how much should the GAs that handled my physics and chemistry labs be paid for their efforts?
June 5th, 2009 at 7:51 pm
20
SierraSpartan says:
One story does not a description make, but I’ve just got to weigh in here…
My San Jose State Spartans hired such an individual as what the Rooney Rule would theoretically encourage programs to do, this was back in December of 2000. That gentleman had exactly zero HC experience before signing on with SJSU, but one of the main reasons for his hiring was his “perceived” ability to relate better to his players. His name was Fitz Hill, and the very mention of his name in SJSU football circles still makes people shudder with fear.
The result of his hiring was a 14-32 on-the-field record, over four seasons, including 2-8 in his final season. But incompetence on the sidelines was not and is not the hallmark of the Fitz Hill era at SJSU.
You see, this was back in the beginnings of the computation of APR scores, and SJSU’s APR under Fitz Hill were in the high 700’s to low 800’s. And no, that is not a typo – one season SJSU actually had a sub-800 APR score, but this was in the time before APR-based penalties were being assessed. Dick Tomey is, to this day, working wonders to dig SJSU out of the academic hole that Fitz Hill dug for my school.
And oh by the way, Fitz Hill was also the man who recruited Ellis T. Jones to come to SJSU, having signed his letter of intent to attend SJSU in February of 2004. Jones was one of Coach Hill’s last recruits, not to mention probably his most famous one.
Hiring an individual – or even being required to consider him in order to complete one person’s PC tickie box fetish – is an act of criminal stupidity on both the NCAA’s and any university’s part. Hire people who can do the job – but look inside their character, their references, their history, and their abilities, and for the love of all that is the SEC, quit looking at their frakkin’ skin color!
This idea needs to be squashed, smooshed, bended, folded, spindled, and mutilated, then buried and the earth salted after burial sufficient so that even Da Coach O can’t sniff it up, and this should be preferably done in Myles Brand’s back yard.
June 5th, 2009 at 10:45 pm
21
GTSteve says:
Kudos on the Ayn Rand jokes. I can’t stand the Randroid crowd, and they’re usually the loudest people to bemoan how the minorities or whatever are getting nannied into position. Wait, one black coach has ever coached a win in the Super Bowl? And most NFL players throughout all of its history have been black? And while Michael Irvin may have had glitz and money and skill and cocaine, he’s barely qualified to get on TV with his latest aborted attempt at fashion, he’s also even less qualified to be a head coach of a game that he played at the highest level? But there’s nothing systemic that keeps players from becoming coaches in general, is there?
June 6th, 2009 at 10:56 am
22
AERose says:
@20: Just a thought: SJ State probably wouldn’t have hired the guy if they thought he was going to go 14-32, wreck the school’s APR, etc. Hindsight being 20/20 it’s easy to say he was hired for the wrong reasons, but I doubt anyone in the athletic department was thinking to himself “hmmm, I could hire this coach or another coach that could actually win.”
June 6th, 2009 at 4:14 pm
23
MiseanAUFan says:
“…so you really shouldn’t even really be reading this Ayn Rand blows goats she bred by herself from thin air”
When I see the words “thin air” the first thing that comes to mind is the Federal Reserve. Enjoy the adjustment, as the malinvestment continues to pile upon itself!
June 6th, 2009 at 10:13 pm
24
Lawrence says:
There’s a bit of credence to the GA argument, the same thing happens among talent agents. There are fewer African Americans who can afford to go to law school and then head to the mail room as a trainee. However, in college football, you cannot discount the fear of putting a black face to the one sport that is usually the money train for the rest of the athletic department.
The content of the character arguments always amuse me, because they’re myopic readings of King’s words. Like reading the Declaration of Independence and thinking one understands its meaning, by picking out the complaint about Public Records being placed too far from representatives, and thinking that you understand the document. You don’t. One of the key philosophy’s of King was that the nation and institutions owe the African American a debt. Not based on some monetary notion, but the idea that the lack of opportunity has been systematically built into each institution that the institutions have a responsibility to recognize and correct this. Now, some of you will then scream and cry that you don’t want your favorite “Fighting Numnuts” to hire someone simply based on the color of their skin, but you’ll tidily overlook the fact that your sub 4.1 black inner city athlete who comes to play both ways for you, hasn’t picked up a book since his friend dropped one back in the second grade. So let’s stop with the hypocrisy.
The opportunity to be interviewed is a definite need. If we are to believe that humans are driven by their own self interests, then putting a superior black candidate in a room with mediocre white candidates just might turn out well for the black candidate, after the mediocre white candidate crashes and burns (looking at you, Gene). But they have to be in the ballgame. Because at the end of the day, the goal for black candidates isn’t that they always be superior than to white coaching candidates. The goal is that there are so many employed, that they’re safe to be just as mediocre as the stable of white college coaches in the ranks today.
June 7th, 2009 at 10:16 am
25
SierraSpartan says:
@22
Unfortunately, what you described is almost precisely the case. The Spartans at that time had in place a coach, Dave Baldwin, who had the team plus-500 for two of his three seasons, and had beaten Stanford in the season in the 1999 season, when the Cardinal went to the Rose Bowl. Based on this record, he asked for a contract extension – and was rejected.
The president of the university at that time publicly stated a desire for a head coach of a certain ethnicity, so as to foster an expansion of “diversity” in the college football ranks. When Hill was announced as the new coach, the collective question around South Campus was, “who the (deleted) is this (deleted) guy?” It turned out that this (deleted) guy was far more interested in giving questionable academic performers “an opportunity”, and FAR more interested in laying out hundreds of thousands of dollars to fly marching bands from the HBCU’s (Grambling, Morgan State) out to San Jose, than in actually spending that money to build the foundation of the program.
Long story short, the man was all P-R, no X-and-O. This was plain for most people to see by the end of his second season, but the Powers That Be were afraid to can him because of the fear of being labeled with the “R” word – which is precisely what happened when Hill did get deservedly canned after his fourth season.
My point is that whenever you make somebody a hire to make a point, the most likely result is that you will usually get stabbed in your stabby places with that particular point.
June 7th, 2009 at 10:58 am
26
gtne91 says:
@24
“The opportunity to be interviewed is a definite need. If we are to believe that humans are driven by their own self interests, then putting a superior black candidate in a room with mediocre white candidates just might turn out well for the black candidate, after the mediocre white candidate crashes and burns (looking at you, Gene).”
But is the point of the quote in the original story(27 for 22 jobs) that they are being interviewed. I agree with the
part of your post that I quoted, but a Rooney Rule isnt necessary because it is already happening. Gill or
Strong may not have got the Auburn job, but as is always explained, the point of the Rooney Rule is to get their
name out for other jobs, not necessarily the first one interviewed for. In there case, since there name comes
up for nearly every job opening, it is already working without the rule.
June 7th, 2009 at 11:31 am
27
Lawrence says:
@26
True, their names are coming up without the rule. However, this is the go slow method of change. The collective institutions that comprise the NCAA have demonstrated without a doubt that this go slow method doesn’t produce more black head coaches. By taking instituting a Rooney Rule, you force the issue. Each organization suddenly has a form of a show cause reason to why they don’t hire a black coach if everything is equal. In other words, institutions will have to be accountable for their decisions. It’s not good enough to say that merit is the great equalizer, because it isn’t especially when black coaches aren’t allowed the opportunity to show merit. For example, can anyone with a straight face say that when it comes to college football, Lane Kiffin is more deserving of a top D-1 job than Charlie Strong? If you stack the resumes side by side, there’s no comparison.
The main reason the United States exists is because of revolution, and every major advancement for rights, whether in the general society or the sporting realm, occurred not because one waited for the benevolence of the people creating the obstacle to become progressive, but by thoughtful people taking daring steps to make change happen. The Rooney Rule is one tiny step in that direction.
June 7th, 2009 at 1:47 pm
28
King Joey says:
24: “Because at the end of the day, the goal for black candidates isn’t that they always be superior than to white coaching candidates.”
Right. Because handing the power to demand hiring regardless of qualifications would never appeal to black candidates, right? I mean, only the hopelessly morally bankrupt, eternally corrupt, and inevitably misbegotten white people would ever stoop to something that low, right?
Here’s the big problem with this whole lament. The argument is consistently expressed in terms of one ratio: that of the low percentage of black coaches to the high percentage of black players. The problem there is that it ignores the stark contrast of the high percentage of black players to the low percentage of black population. An 80-20 ratio of black to white players in a society with a 20-80 ratio of black population? But that creates no outrage because there is a perception that the disproportionate representation is not due to disparities in opportunity, but rather a disparity in innate ability. But those same minds that accept that blythely are incapable of extending the rational further. In other words, they are perfectly willing to say that whites just suck at football, but absolutely balk at the notion that blacks just might suck at coaching. And for ever Herm Edwards or Lovie Smith they throw out in response, there is a Matt Jones or Tim Dwight that can be raised in answer. But the white guys are simply “exceptions”, whereas Smith and Edwards are deemed absolute proof that there cannot possibly be any inherent difference between the racial inclinations to be qualified as head coaches.
Is there such a difference? I have no idea. But I do know that until at least the possibility is contemplated, it is absolutely impossible for anyone pushing these reforms to legitimately claim “racial equality” as their goal. If they are accepting that equal opportunity can legitimately lead to unequal results on the rosters, they MUST be open and accepting of the possibility that equal opportunity can legitimately lead to unequal results on the coaching staff. And as soon as they make their argument based on player to coach racial ratios, they completely deny that possibility.
June 7th, 2009 at 2:23 pm
29
King Joey says:
27: not to pick on you, friend, but this is just silly:
“It’s not good enough to say that merit is the great equalizer, because it isn’t especially when black coaches aren’t allowed the opportunity to show merit. For example, can anyone with a straight face say that when it comes to college football, Lane Kiffin is more deserving of a top D-1 job than Charlie Strong? If you stack the resumes side by side, there’s no comparison.”
How does that suggest racism? That can only suggest racism if you honestly believe that Charlie Strong (or other minority candidates) were the ONLY ones vastly more qualified than Kiffin. Stupid, incomprehensible and unsupportable coaching hires are made all the time, leaving far more qualified WHITE applicants shut out in favor of intellectual midgets. Steve Spurrier was once passed over for a head coaching position for MIKE ARCHER!
Tennessee’s hiring of Lane Kiffin instead of Charlie Strong is not evidence of racism. Stupiditiy, most likely; poor judgment, almost certainly. But saying it must be racism makes no more sense than saying Mike Archer’s hiring was made on the basis of anti-visorism.
There are myriad forms and myriad examples of stupidity and poor judment. Only a very small proportion of them are the product of racism. Ignorance of this reality is one of the gravest threats to legitimate progress in race relations in this country.
June 7th, 2009 at 2:30 pm
30
Lawrence says:
@28
Your argument about consistently tying black coaches representation to the ratio of black players is pretty weak. You see, throughout this country, thousands of high school players of every color,national origin and religious background, are evaluated on a pretty much standard basis. How fast do you run? How high do you jump? etc. In other words, thousands of slots are available to these players on teams of varying levels of college football. Only when institutions like the SEC, Big Eight, and ACC created artificial barriers that you could then point and say, there is a concerted effort to give white players an unequal advantage, by not opening competition for scholarships by banning black players. Can you point to any NCAA institution that restricts scholarships to only black or white players?
And I dismiss your argument that African American athletic ability is innate. That’s a classic racist/racialist strategy that has justified the exclusion of African Americans for generations. The black running back has “innate” ability, while the quarterback position is a “thinking” position, so for generations, the quarterback position was kept white. The black defensive end position is an “innate” position, while the middle linebacker is a thinking position, so for generations, blacks weren’t allowed to play it.
The same goes for coaching. The reasoning is that coordinator positions is an “innate” position, while the head coaching position requires abilities that black coaches don’t have. That’s dangerous territory.
More later. I’m watching the Lakers.
June 7th, 2009 at 9:11 pm
31
King Joey says:
@30
Sorry, but you can’t have it both ways. First you say:
“You see, throughout this country, thousands of high school players of every color,national origin and religious background, are evaluated on a pretty much standard basis. How fast do you run? How high do you jump? etc.”
Then you say:
“And I dismiss your argument that African American athletic ability is innate.”
Either the competition for spots is open and legitimate, or it’s not. And if it is, then the only way a group can enjoy success significantly disproportianate to its population proportion is by virtue of a general innate advantage. This is not an argument, this is simple statistical reality. Random selections over a large sample cannot vary significantly from a proportional representation of the population. And the only way for a selection not to be random is by some factor guiding it in favor of some selections and/or against some other selections. So the disproportionate representation of african americans in football is either the result of an innate superiority in certain athletic talents or it is the result of a systemic racial bias against non-african american athletes.
Only by first accepting the reality of population groups can we begin to successfully teach the message of not caring what the “standard” or “general inclination” is of any characteristic of any population group, and simply judging the individuals based on their individual abilities. It is inevitable that for any selected criterion: strength, speed, spatial awareness, perception, empathy, longevity, etc.; populations as physiologically diverse as human racial groups COULD show a significant variance. The refusal to accept that reality only in regards to certain criteria (e.g., intelligence) is a symptom of the fundamental hypocrisy stalling progress on race (and gender, btw) relations in our society. There is a constant refrain being sounded that individuals should only be judged as individuals, and yet there is this absolute intolerance of any inquiry into the statistical distribution of certain characteristics. That intolerance sends the clear and unmistakable message that such inquiries cannot be allowed because if one group is found to be “lesser” in intellect, then that means all individuals of that group must be of similar “lesser” intellect. No one who truly accepts the notion of individuals being judged as individuals could legitimately support that intolerance and would never oppose such legitimate inquiry, just as they would never oppose inquiries into medically-related differences or object to the disproportionate representation of one group over another on the football field, hockey rink, baseball diamond or basketball court. Accepting one and blindly refusing the other sends a message and a lesson of hypocrisy and intolerance to each succeeding generation, with the inevitable result being that thirty years from now two people of the next generation will still be having this same conversation just as thirty years ago the generation before was having it.
June 8th, 2009 at 9:42 am
32
oaklandbear says:
@31
I believe you and @30 are having a false debate regarding “thousands of high school players of every color,national origin and religious background, are evaluated on a pretty much standard basis.”
Black players used to make up a much larger share of MLB but now are giving way to Hispanic and white players. Is this because black players have begun to lose the ‘innate’ ability that makes them superior baseball players?
A far stronger case (IMO) is increasing lack of opportunity to play baseball (especially in the inner city) is reducing the pool of eligible black baseball players and so you see a corresponding drop in percentage of black prof. baseball players.
The opposite is true in football and basketball where you have seen increasing number of black athletes playing those sports at younger levels (in part due to lower costs) and thus have a larger pool to pick from.
I believe #30 is incorrect in believing that all races etc are evaluated on a standard basis for sports (numbers, % of pop. participating, opportunity and perceived opportunity argue against this). I believe #31 is incorrect because we have not seen any scientific evidence to support the ‘innate’ argument and some arguments against it have been made here.
June 8th, 2009 at 12:09 pm
33
King Joey says:
@31
Football costs less than Baseball? I could see your argument, perhaps, if it were framed in terms of Football’s greater ability to recoup investment costs through revenues (ticket sales, concessions, merchandising, etc.). But I am very skeptical of your claim that football costs less than baseball, considering the equipment costs, travel expenses, insurance, etc.
But the real question is, are there physiological differences between the races or aren’t there? If there are, then it is statistically inconceivable that perfectly equal opportunities would result in success in perfect correlation to population proportions. Equality of outcome would be — statistically speaking — clear and convincing proof of INequality of opportunity.
But beyond even that, why does it matter? Why is it so important that we remain so intolerant and close minded to this particular measure of variance among these particular population groups? We know there are variances among population groups: people with high SAT scores — as a group — tend to have more academic potential; people who make their high school football team — as a group — tend to have better success at the college level. But there are Ph.D.’s who had low SAT scores and All-Americans who didn’t make their high school team. So why can’t we accept the possibility of variance when it comes to some particular population groups and the potential for some particular endeavors?
June 10th, 2009 at 3:38 pm