BigBad said:
If Doke goes down with an injury we have capable guys in the frontcourt. If Dotson goes down this team could be a mess. Dotson is our MVP.
Right on there. Dotson is indispensable.
HighEliteMajor
5416 posts
@BeddieKU23 Here's the thing. We better be ready. So let's be ready. I'm all in for a down season in 2020-21 or something not too pretty. I've prepared myself since this time last year when the specter of serious sanctions were a high probability (and that high risk would be obvious to those willing to look at our predicament objectively at that time).
But the important thing, above all, is NOT having more than one season being banned from the tourney. Lose two scholarships, recruiting time limits, Self suspended 15 games, forfeit games DeSousa played in including the FF, one season tourney ban. Fine. But just not two seasons banned from the tourney.
If there is any negotiation that is occurring or being discussed, that should be the focus point. We can deal with one season as a martyr. Two seasons, it's something much different, I think. If it's two seasons, I think it a really high probability Self is gone. We could be looking at a complete change in the nature of our program -- the dreaded above-averageness.
The real question becomes if the NCAA is targeting Self. What might be the bitter pill is if that's the case, Self leaving could lessen sanctions and thus serves the NCAA's goal -- to target the coaches that run the programs that commit violations. Negotiations are about leverage. Self ran this program and this all occurred on his watch. The buck stops solely with him.
@BeddieKU23 Self being up front with recruits — I’m not so sure. In fact, it sounds quite misleading.
Here’s what he told Grant-Foster: “They were totally honest about it,” he said. “Coach Self said he was going to take care of it, and I’m not worried really at all. I just want to hoop.”
Here’s what he told Isaiah Todd:
"(Self) just preached that he would be fine and if anything were to happen, that I would be fine. I honestly think that it could turn around and be a positive. If I was to go there, it would show that I really trust him and that he would obviously trust me."
So everything is fine and Self will take care of it. Maybe some of that B.S. will be convincing.
One thing that Self can sell a PG coming in is that he has a track record of playing two PGs at the same time. Harris and KK -- you're my Mason and DG. Or Chalmers and Robinson. Or TT and EJ.
But why would a recruit sign in Nov. with NCAA penalties looming? Missing the tourney one season? Ok. Two seasons? That's a disaster.
I will be very surprised if anything happens with recruiting. But I hope to be surprised.
@BeddieKU23 I have never seen Garrett as a PG. We can call anyone who is the primary ball handler a PG, but that doesn't mean he's really a PG. I'm fine with him being a back up guy (perhaps 8 min per game at PG), if it's absolutely necessary, but not the starter there.
He's not an adept passer -- adequate, but at best average. Not PG guard-like in his deliver of the ball. He seems like a chest passer to me, a guy who struggles to get angles with different styles of passing to create for teammates, and I have not noted an PG like ability to thread the ball through tight spaces. I just don't think the passing skills that are close to what we would want in a PG.
Importantly, he is very slow with the ball. I've mentioned this before, but he's kind of a tail dribbler. The guy who isn't totally confident facing a defender while dribbling the ball. He turns his body so his back is toward the defender or is angled way too often. I don't see him as careless with the ball, but I see him a relatively (compared to every PG we've had since Self has been here) unskilled with the ball. EJ was the least skilled of our PGs in that regard under Self, and I'd rank EJ's ball handling ahead of Garrett quite easily. But it's not like a Wayne Selden, who had no business with the ball in his hands. Different discussion. I don't believe Garrett would be a turnover machine, I just think he'd just be way too methodical, tight to his body, protective, etc. That's just what I've seen.
If we are playing a slow, methodical game. Defense first. Slower pace. That might be where he'd fit. But even in our low scoring days, Self wanted to get out and run when we could. Our low scoring was a result of the arduous process of working the ball around the perimeter repeatedly, and low three pt rates in those days, not the inability of a PG to push the ball. I question Garrett's ability (based on what I've seen the past two seasons) to push the ball with significant pace, as well as his ability to function, face-up, against PG defenders.
Curious if others see what I see.
@BShark So a serious question for you and I guess anyone. If all the recruits are getting paid, as theorized, how are we still paying recruits (via Adidas or other third parties)? If not, how do we (and other Adidas schools) get any recruits if other shoecos are paying and not Adidas? Or are other shoecos now not paying?
@BeddieKU23 @BShark Might be a good season to be on probation. We could seriously lose Dotson, Moss, Doke, Agbaji, DeSousa and Moss. We know we lose the first two.
@BeddieKU23 Oh my G**, you just said Jeff Graves. One of my favorite all time Jayhawks. You've hit a weak spot. I'm slowly walking back now. I will trust your temperate rationality. I will slide into a wait and see approach and "trust Self" here. Now, let me put on my Foster Grants and hope the best for Grant Foster (sorry, I had to slide that in).
@BeddieKU23 It seems to me that a move like this is just one of desperation. This is the proverbial pig that we can’t really change by putting on some lipstick.
When have we ever done this? Twice? Appleton? Little? Appleton flamed out and Little way underachieved.
This kid didn’t start but five games at a JUCO. None of the “starters” are heading to any big time programs, are they? Central Michigan, Cleveland St.?
If he’s a stud, great. But on its face, as our first commit, it’s a really bad look. Folks talk about “optics” in recruiting. This one ain’t good.
@jayballer73 The guy started five games as a JUCO freshman. It’s just wildly speculative. I don’t get excited about wildly speculative JUCO players.
The good news is Self told him he’s going to fix the NCAA issues. From the kusports.com article below -
As for the looming NCAA allegations against KU, Grant-Foster said he and his family asked about the situation during his visit. What he heard in response from the Kansas coaches put his mind at ease.
“They were totally honest about it,” he said. “Coach Self said he was going to take care of it, and I’m not worried really at all. I just want to hoop.”
More Braun. The guy has a real shot to make an impression when it’s showtime.
I cannot contain my excitement. Maybe the future generic quote -
September/2020 - “I have decided the program was not a good fit for me. I will continue to pursue a future basketball career. I would like to thank the basketball staff at KU. Most importantly, I would like to thank my family who has supported me through this decision.”
The point has not logic. None. It "feels" good, but in reality, it makes no sense. For all the silly examples (selling a poem?), perhaps some thought about this:
What the California law permits is the destruction of college sports.
Tell me where the California law prevents Adidas, Nike, UA, NB, etc., from engaging in an all out bidding war for certain CBB and CFB players' "likeness", etc., all in return for attending a particular school? That is, the shoe companies acting on behalf of the programs. The king makers. Or, David Booth? Or whatever bidder decides to be king maker?
Think ... this ... through.
Good grief, great points about blue bloods Indiana and UCLA, and the football programs. The abyss of above-averageness is closer than one might think. Geez, if we wonder about coaching, see KU FB under Magnino. The abyss of above-averageness is closer than one might think.
I said last fall that one significant possibility when the dust settles is that Bill Self is not coaching here. Unfortunately, events have careened us down a path where that is still a real possibility. Self's contract concludes 2021-22. Very easy to buy out a year or two - or to walk away from that for another opportunity.
Some think that the NCAA really wants Self out, which is certainly not out of the question.
We just have no idea where this is going.
With affection of course.
Cliff Clavin for the win!
When your skills are honed in the tough Eastern Kansas League and on the streets of Overland Park, where basketball is a way of life, you're going to be way ahead of other guys.
Who’s the king? Who profits if we go on probation? Who becomes the king if the king is gone? Just a theory.
@approxinfinity On second thought, I think you're right. You raise an interesting point. In reading the California bill, I see no restriction on 1) the amount of money, 2) limiting to certain providers purchasing the likeness, or 3) a quid pro quo (e.g., Adidas paying a kid for his "likeness" but requiring him to attend KU.
So, David Booth, a booster, will pay an athlete $100,000 for his likeness?
Or Adidas will pay an athlete $100,000 to use his name?
One restriction is related to conflicts with university contracts, so an athlete at Kansas couldn't take Nike money.
Can we be grandfathered in?
https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/billTextClient.xhtml?bill_id=201920200SB206 ↗
@mayjay Of course, it won't. There will be rules. Folks always want more. An example -- "Legal" money gets taxed. No one wants to pay taxes. If it's $20,000, it won't be enough. It's human nature. The old adage, "give him an inch, he'll take a mile" was borne from such propositions. It will never end.
bskeet said:
@approxinfinity I don't think the legislation would have much of an impact on the NCAAs claim against Self and KU. The legislation is aimed at allowing the players to profit from their name and likeness. To my knowledge, that's not the issue at the center of the NOA.
Others may know more --- correct me if I misunderstand the the NOA or the legislation's intent.
Also, I've read that the one-and-done rule is under review and at least some folks think it's days are numbered. Not sure if the California legislation is the impetus for that or not.
I agree .. I don't think that the likeness stuff has any relation to the current mess we're in.
pmann said:
I'm from Indiana and I'm currently doing an informative essay on Indianas history with basketball. A lot of interesting insight but after reading everyone's response, I think that you may argue that James was being a suck-up, but none of you have seem to find any information where James complimented another state or school (like Kansas). Now, I've stayed in Kansas City for a few months, and my take away from there was that no one really cared about basketball. So if you feel like you have a stake in the origins of Basketball, you don't. I don't think I've ever heard in my life that Kansas was anything significant in early process of developing basketball. I had never heard of Phog Allen until I read this post, and if we're being real here, who is he compared to John Wooden? Like come on. Don't lie to me. If you ever feel like watching a movie, dont forget to watch "Hoosiers". Reply once you find a movie about Kansas. (Glory Road features Kansas as the championship opponent, but is inaccurate. The oilers played against a team from utah). Have fun dealing with the fact that nobody considers Kansas as a significant piece of basketball history.
I would suggest that you miss the sarcasm in the original post. I don't think anyone here would downplay the state of Indiana's role as a centerpiece of basketball.
It would seem to say a lot about you that you would make a point of finding your way to this site, locating a very old thread, and attempting to denigrate Kansas basketball.
An interesting fact is that the inventor of the game, James Naismith, chose to coach at Kansas and founded our basketball program. It's also odd, that as a purported student of the game, you wouldn't know that Phog Allen was commonly referred to as the "father of basketball coaching." Of course, KU's fieldhouse is named after Allen. I am just a fan of the game, but I know the names and origins of most of the arenas of the top CBB programs. It would seem to be a reasonable base of knowledge if I were an essayist.
You might also not know that that a number of great coaches played basketball at Kansas, including Dean Smith, Adolph Rupp, and Ralph Miller. Each went on to impressive careers, of course, at UNC, UK, and Oregon St. And each of them was coached by the fellow you've never heard of, Phog Allen. Allen also coached the 1952 gold medal winning Olympic team.
Allen, the guy you've never heard of, was in the inaugural class of the Naismith memorial basketball hall of fame.
So get back to your informative essay, cubby. Research abounds. You could note in that essay that no one considers IU or the state of Indiana a significant piece of recent basketball history, but that might not be appropriate. I suggest you stick to the good stuff.
With KU on the brink of NCAA sanctions, possibly even two seasons being banished from the NCAA tournament (see GT getting one season), what would you choose?
Option One: Kansas wins the Big 12, and then wins NCAA championship this season. In April/2020, KU gets handed NCAA penalties, loss of two scholarships for three seasons, vacates 2018 Final Four, vacates wins that DeSousa was involved but also gets a two season ban from the NCAA tourney. Self leaves after the announcement of the sanctions.
Option Two: Kansas wins the Big 12, but suffers an exit from the tourney prior to this season's Final Four. In April/2020, KU gets handed NCAA penalties, loss of two scholarships for three seasons, vacates 2018 Final Four, vacates wins that DeSousa was involved in, but no tournament ban moving forward. Self leaves after the announcement of the sanctions.
So the same sanctions except in Option One, we win the NC this season but get banned from the NCAA tourney for two seasons. Option Two, exit the tourney prior the FF, but no tourney ban. In both options, Self exits after the announcement of the sanctions.
What's your choice? Why?
jayballer73 said:
BShark said:
We wouldn't have a functional basketball team without playing the shoe game so there is that too.
As far as JUCOs go in general I'd take this kid and Mading for sure. Wrap up Gethro and KK Robinson and I think that is about as good a class as we can hope for.
as for me - - like you say because of the way things are - - -I would really like to be able to land Mading - think he pretty solid - -Now I don't want to over due or anything but to think Juco's is a plague - -is just crazy - - lots of really good Juco's and can really help during certain times. ROCK CHALK ALL DAY LONG BABY
Give me some examples of JUCO guys that make solid contributions for blue blood programs or typical top 10 teams ... I just don't see it. You don't have to. I get your point that casting all JUCO guys as low tier isn't reality.
However, I'm just bitter right now with where we are at. As @BeddieKU23 said, we needing to fill roster spots.
We've struggled recruiting anyway. We've continued to play second fiddle for a number of seasons -- supposedly when we, er, Adidas, was paying guys.
BShark said:
We wouldn't have a functional basketball team without playing the shoe game so there is that too.
As far as JUCOs go in general I'd take this kid and Mading for sure. Wrap up Gethro and KK Robinson and I think that is about as good a class as we can hope for.
I go back to my prior point - If we seem to know that shoe companies pay kids (the shoeco game), that it's such common knowledge, then Bill Self knows. Bill Self has clearly and distinctly denied any such knowledge. That would make Bill Self a liar of a quite high degree. Add to it the "integrity" comment by Self and then the "honesty and integrity" comment by Long. It is just reprehensible.
And, as we stand here, we're talking about JUCO kids at KU. Tyrone Appleton is my hero, though, so maybe it's not all bad.
@BeddieKU23 I would suggest, perhaps, that this new necessity is of Bill Self's creation, as this entire scandal and issue sits at his doorstep, in my opinion.
I keep going back to his words last fall -
"As the leader of the Kansas men’s basketball program, I take pride in my role to operate with integrity and within the NCAA rules, which is a fundamental responsibility of being the head basketball coach."
We would not be in this spot if Self followed his stated expectations.
@BeddieKU23 I can't tell you how excited I am at the prospect of snagging JUCO players. I am now experiencing much the same giddiness that a UTSA or Southern Illinois fan must feel upon hearing such news.
Great discussion above.
benshawks08 said:
@HighEliteMajor Ok, so it’s also and mostly black men and really if you think about it they aren’t even worth the trouble. Got it.
And how often are those black men stopped by the police? If police stopped white people at the same rate how many white men would be in prison for low level drug charges?
You want some why questions to work on?
Why in 2019 is there still not equal pay for equal work? Might employers like yourself bare any personal responsibility for that? Nah probably not. I’ve yet to see you take any of that personal responsibility you seem to love so much for anything.
So, it's the fault of the police. Because they are arresting criminals. Another in the playbook.
One thing you and again, others of your ilk ignore -- the necessary level of policing to keep the inner city areas from being the next version of Escape from New York.
Here, in Johnson County, I barely see a police officer. If I have drugs, my likelihood of getting pulled over is very limited. Why? Because we're not engaged in ritualistic violence day in, and day out. But somehow that gets translated into unfairness to blacks.
In the inner city, there has to be a heavy police presence -- if not, the inner city thugs would wreak even more destruction. More police needed, more police deployed, more possible contact with the police, more actual contact with the police, more criminals caught. It's comical, the good folks in the inner city want more police and protection. The good, hard working inner city folks are the ones that suffer most. Check the black on black inner city crime stats. Killing and maiming each other at alarming rates. Undeniable. You lose again.
Every time I debate one of "you", I'm continually shocked by the shallowness of thought on these topics. You say things that I'm sure you and your little leftist buddies chuckle about, and wring your hands, but it's no different than the folks we see presented in the media today -- if you are actually confronted with reality, you have nothing. Ah, nothing but "you're a racist."
I'm done. Good evening. You get the last word.
benshawks08 said:
@HighEliteMajor and is the color of Asians skins closer to that of white people or black people? Were Asians systematically brought to this country as slaves? Asians have certainly faced a good share of racism in this country but by percentages and degrees it is far less than the systematic oppression of black people.
Also, what discussion have I stopped or even attempted to stop? I’ve engaged with questions in almost every post encouraging the conversation. Please at least try to be intellectually honest and engage in good faith conversation.
Thanks for the links to the stats.
Asians have achieved more by race than whites. More.
Pretty funny. Now you say, oh, Asians skin color is closer so, you know ... they're ok. You folks will do/say anything to deflect personal responsibility. Heck, I listened to it for years with the mayor of KC constantly blaming guns for the violence problems in inner city KC. That's intellectual dishonesty. But it's everything except the inner city black thug that shoots the little kid on the patio.
Intellectually honest? You and others of your ilk refuse to think outside of the racist box. I, on the other hand, certain consider that as part of the overall analysis. But in 2019, that is not in the top five of reasons "why."
Intellectually honest? When someone claims racism, and racist rants, that has what is termed a "chilling" effect on debate. No one want wants to be called a racist. It's considered pretty vile. So when you say that one's position is racist that's the effect. Try to figure that out.
benshawks08 said:
@HighEliteMajor We are both talking about our reasons for why. As the lowly school teacher you seem to have so little respect for it might surprise you that I too solve problems every day.
So just so I understand your stance, single black mothers are the biggest problem in our nation. And the reason they are single parents is “black culture.” And this is the driving force of the debate regarding paying ncaa athletes. And none of that has anything to do with racism or white people because “choice.” That about right?
Actually, the inner city culture has fostered a significant lack of responsibility by black men. All you have to do is look at the stats. Killings, assaults, violence are part of the story. Multiple kids with multiple women is another part. Again, we see it every day. A culture of violence and moral deprivation. I'm not giving inner city black women a free pass. Far from it. They are part of the culture.
But it is the women that have a raise the kids. They bear the burden. But the men move on. It is an epidemic in the black community.
And black women don't kill and maim like black men. They are the single most violent and dangerous group in America. Period. Undeniable.
The driving force for paying athletes is the continued, collective weeping for the poor inner city black (male) athlete. The continued blather of how he's treated unfairly. So, because of that perception, everything in college sports has to change. That's what drives the entire discussion, the interest from pro athletes, etc.
In fact, the amount of collective time our society spends dealing with the continued issues of inner city black men could be a singular course offering on "opportunity cost."
benshawks08 said:
Race is the #1 determining factor in predicting success of students in education. There are other factors but race is #1. Look at test scores, graduation rate, degrees earned, anything.
You can draw two conclusions from that data:
The educational system does not serve all students equally based on race.Or
Students who are not white are not as capable of success.
Hint: the second one is racist.
You might ask "why." You don't want to.
You offer only two conclusions, the concept of which is self-serving and nonsensical. The fact that you posed it this ways indicates that you have no interest in the truth. And it's funny, you say you don't want to assign blame but you blame racism. Hmmm.
Of course, Asians achieve, educationally, superior to whites in America. Did you know that?
Why not ask why?
It's interesting that poverty is linked to out of wedlock births. https://www.usnews.com/news/newsgram/articles/2013/05/06/census-bureau-links-poverty-with-out-of-wedlock-births ↗
And what do you know, Asians out of wedlock births are around 17.7 %. Way lower that white, hispanics, and blacks. One of a number of sources. https://www.nationalreview.com/corner/latest-statistics-out-wedlock-births-roger-clegg/ ↗
Guess who makes more money than whites? Right. Asians,
https://www.census.gov/content/dam/Census/library/visualizations/2018/demo/p60-263/figure1.pdf ↗
Positing a theory here. Asians have mom and dad in the home. Asians have stricter discipline. Asians' culture fosters achievement. Asians have more humility. Asians are smarter. Asians don't dish out blame for failure.
When I compare, I compare to myself -- to whites.
We should not be scared or afraid to talk about this stuff. We should not be intimidated by folks like @benshawks08 and his ilk. I'm not. They try to intimidate to stop discussion by crying racist, because most folks fear that label. Not me. Truth is more important.
benshawks08 said:
@HighEliteMajor I only “cry racism” when you write racist things. It’s not every answer but it is an answer you refuse to accept. I ask again where you are getting these percentages not as an argumentative tool but as one of curiosity. Just curious about your source.
Poverty, violence, trauma, racism are cycles and systems that continually feed themselves.
And you are definitely right that opportunity is a huge part of the answer. And just like there are percentages and degrees with racism, those same percentages and degrees exist with opportunity. Does everyone have an opportunity? Sure. The same opportunity? As many opportunities? That’s where you and I don’t see eye to eye.
And no I will never turn off my empathy. I’d encourage you to turn yours up a few notches but you are of course free to do and think what you choose.
If you really care about every life, which I truly think is an honest belief you hold, do some research about work being done to help people and consider funding some with that big salary you try so hard to hold onto. Assigning blame doesn’t actually fix anything.
Appreciation to @Crimsonorblue22 and @kjayhawks and all the others for doing the work.
There are multiple sources for the unwed births, below are just a few. I got the 24% in 1960s from the Brookings study.
The big salary you say I try to hold onto is one that I earn. I don't actually earn a "salary." I earn money. What I earn I get (with all the risks and anxiety of running a business including making sure I can pay my employees). You don't worry about that. But I know that you have other worries -- worries nonetheless.
Assigning blame does fix problems. See, you're a schoolteacher. Good for you. I'm not. I am to find solutions to problems, which is critical to my job, and I have ask "why". In fact, that is at the core of our disagreement. In your position, you don't have to ask why. You are in the position of simply helping. In my business, if I don't solve problems, I'm out of work. I have to ask why. To solve this, we have to ask why. I would also offer that in the pursuit of truth, the question of "why" is key to that endeavor.
And thus you can review the statistics on the issue that drives teh "why" in 2019, that you don't seem to appreciate.
https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/77-black-births-to-single-moms-49-for-hispanic-immigrants ↗
https://yaleglobal.yale.edu/content/out-wedlock-births-rise-worldwide ↗
https://www.brookings.edu/research/an-analysis-of-out-of-wedlock-births-in-the-united-states/ ↗
BigBad said:
It's CULTURE not race. A few hundred years from now history books will look back at this time and use it as an example that multiculturalism doesn't work. If you think you are different you are either ignorant or naive. If you think its taught then look at any school cafeteria and see how kids congregate with similar cultures. In school culture is jocks, nerds, artsy types, etc. In real life it's religion, political belief, family background and culture. Cultures will ALWAYS clash.
Exactly. Right on point. The issue I've discussed deals specifically with what is born from the inner city black culture. There are millions of blacks that don't subscribe. There are millions of non-blacks that do. Culture. Jason Whitlock described it as cultural rot.
But that doesn't mean there aren't other cultural issues that are highly problematic. One that is obvious to me is the rural white meth culture here in mid-America. But you don't see near the level of violence, not even close.
@benshawks08 It's easy to cry racist. Simple minded, of course. Easy. The "go to" when facts get in the way. I knew of course when I mentioned my black friend, and I have one, you'd make that comment. I have another that I consider a friend, an architect, but we've not been in contact as our kids went to different high schools. Your simplistic mocking of that portion of my comment truly defines your shallowness on this topic. That's leftist playbook 101.
Oh, emotions are good. They can many time lead to the correct conclusions. But here, your (and others) emotions and feelings drive you away from facts and logic. Your empathy for human suffering, for kids that did nothing to cause their plight, blind you to the "why." You and others are overwhelmed by that.
Your convulsive "racist" claims of course define your approach to the facts. Facts you can't refute. Realities you can't refute.
And in your response to @kjayhawks, don't try this, "oh, it happens with white people" stuff. Of course it does. Everything does. We all know that. White people are thugs too. All races. The worst killers in world history have been white -- Hitler and Stalin. That culture was toxic and horrific.
We're talking here and now in America. And we're talking percentages and degrees. That's what's important. Where is the core of violence, who commits it, and why? That's what we're talking about.
In 1964, 24% of black kids were born out of wedlock. Last stat known, it was 73% for black kids now (and much higher in the inner city). For whites, it's about 28% last I saw. If pointing out that troubling reality, and the horrific conduct that is part of the inner city black culture, is racist by your definition, fine.
If you don't have parents in the home, teaching the proper lessons, what chance does a kid have?
We spend out time wringing our hands over the mass shootings (which are of course horrible too) but we see very little about the inner city carnage? I little kid is shot on his porch and it's on the third page of the paper. Three get shot and because it's drug related, we gloss over it. As a conservative, every life is important to me. Every one. And the constant dismissal of this conduct and violence as back page news, or no news, is just repulsive to me.
Finally, your post above, "racism is undeniable." Correct. That's easy. But it's again percentages and degrees. Now, we're in a much different world and have been for quite a while. There will always be racism. So you always have that to fall back on. Try thinking. Analyzing. Searching for why. Past racism is a part of that answer. I don't deny that, and never have.
But that excuse/rationale is every decreasing and is now far, far outweighed by opportunity. But when the opportunity is not seized, when folks commit crimes and fail, they rely on you (and others like you) for the ever present excuse -- racism. It will always be there for you. Everything with you comes back to racism and that is, by itself, completely illogical.
@benshawks08 Please note the distinction. “Inner city black culture.” It has nothing to do with my black neighbor.
Inner city black culture. You know what it is. I know what it is. We all know what it is. You can turn your back on it, cry racism. I don’t give one good d*** what you think about me.
I care about our country. The absolute violence and carnage brought on our country by the inner city black culture is astounding and unmatched. Don’t talk to me about the 1800s or 1930, or whatever. This is today.
Look at Late Night at AFH and the disgusting show put on in the name of our university. All in the name of ATTRACTING the black athlete. We should all be absolutely embarrassed. This is what is needed to gets kids to sign? Disgusting.
I watched suburban kids try to mimic the disgusting culture. Pants hanging halfway down their a** — an inner city black culture invention to glorify the gangster in jail that has no belt and can’t keep his pants up. Just beautiful.
More importantly than that, a culture of drive by shootings, random acts of carnage, roaming gangs — a culture where choosing to grab a gun and kill someone is ingrained. Daily. Not here and there. DAILY.
Among blacks, 73% of births are out of wedlock. In the inner city, much higher. That has steadily increased since the 60s. To me, this is the most important cause of the inner city destruction we see now.
Worse, black dads with multiple children, with multiple women. It’s an epidemic in the inner city black communities. Heck, look at our BB teams. Who’s got a dad? Whose dad is in jail. Whose mom has the same last name as her son? How many half brothers and half sisters?
This is the plague of the inner city black culture — the answer to the “why.”
And racism is the problem. What a joke.
So don’t give me this racism crap. I don’t care what you call it. I call it reality.
When I see a buddy of mine, a black surgeon, actively trying to keep his kids AWAY from the inner city black culture, that is a huge answer for me. When I hear him discuss it, it cements it.
It’s really sick. We see a “mass” shooting, 10 dead, 20 injured. Horrific. But then we IGNORE the carnage of a single night in Chicago, or a weekend in STL, or you name the Inner city (the deep blue voting areas by no coincidence).
Why? Because the ANSWER makes you uncomfortable. You and others like you operate on feelings. Not facts. You want to normalize abhorrent behavior. You’ll blame everything except the personal behavior.
You are the dangerous enabler. Well intentioned. But when there are so many folks that provide excuses, refuse to demand personal responsibility, we have what we see in the inner cities. It’s easier to give things away than make demands.
Are you proud?
benshawks08 said:
@HighEliteMajor @bskeet It's racism. That's the point you both are bouncing around but never actually touching. White people hate talking about racism because they can't win anymore. One of you (@bskeet ) understands at least innately if not explicitly that a big factor in this argument is the race a significant population of the players compared to the race of the significant population of the people in power. And so in your arguments you bring up former instances of racism like slavery.
The other (@HighEliteMajor ) definitely understands the racial element but seeks to remove it completely from the conversation because it's "social justice garbage" and if he pretends race isn't really a factor he can live in his land of logic where humanity is just weak feelings crap.
Anytime someone suggests an idea that might redistribute power from top down, those in power (or at least those that look like those in power) do what they can to maintain that power.Of course college basketball and slavery aren't the same thing. Of course there is more choice for a college athlete today than for a slave in the 1800s or for current slaves today in the american penal system. However the RACISM driving the issue and argument is very much the same. It is impossible to discuss the conflict between a workforce made up primarily of people of color and executives who are primarily white without discussing race. I know it's scary for us whites but we'd be better off it we'd just call it like it is and talk about the stuff we are afraid of.
Some people aren't going to like this comment because it brings "politics" into a sports conversation but sorry, race is one of the biggest issues in sports right now. White sports fans look at black athletes making millions of dollars or getting "free rides" and think those folks should feel lucky, but ignore the white owners and execs making 100s of millions of dollars and maintaining systems that uphold that economic inequity. I'm sure HEM will argue that the owners "earned" those millions by working harder and being smarter. They didn't. They aren't.
Bam. You have said exactly what I've suggested. In my mind, it's all about the poor inner city black kid. That is the core of what has driven this issue.
And I'm sorry, I'm not going to permit my life, my thoughts, my actions, and my concerns to be predicated upon a culture that refuses to help themselves -- more appropriately, a self-destructive culture.
Rahm Emanuel, an Obama democrat, the former mayor of Chicago that saw this inner city "culture" firsthand, said:
“This may not be politically correct,” he said, “but I know the power of what faith and family can do. … Our kids need that structure. … I am asking … that we also don’t shy away from a full discussion about the importance of family and faith helping to develop and nurture character, self-respect, a value system and a moral compass that allows kids to know good from bad and right from wrong.”
He added: “If we’re going to solve this … we’ve got to have a real discussion. … Parts of the conversation cannot be off-limits because it’s not politically comfortable. … We are going to discuss issues that have been taboo in years past because they are part of the solution. … We also have a responsibility to help nurture character. It plays a role. Our kids need that moral structure in their lives. And we cannot be scared to have this conversation.”
Of course, there was anger in response, marching, verbal attacks, etc. Zero ... I mean zero ... mention of personal responsibility from the "other side" of this issue.
I would say that our country would be much better off if we can take what @benshawks08 said, and what Rahm Emanuel said, and honestly address what ails our inner city.
A big hint -- the discussion has nothing to do with blaming inanimate objects.
As I've said over and over, CHOICE.
Look at my bi-line. "What in America is anyone prohibited from doing, earning, or achieving?" This is what America offers in 2019. Undeniable.
As a conservative, I've had it. I've had with the glorification of a bankrupt culture (inner city black culture) and with the continued garbage we deal with day in, and day out. To the core of my beliefs, people that hurt people, commit carnage, destroy lives, and have no morality are enemy. They are the enemy of a civil society. I don't care what they look like. Yet we want to explain away, continually, the repulsive and destructive behavior. It's disgusting.
@bskeet Not bruised, just recognizing the purposefully inflammatory mindset that would use such a comparison. With as much respect as possible, it's just absolute, unequivocal nonsense. AND YOU KNOW IT. Everyone knows it. Nonsensical.
Oh, I noticed the slave Khalil Herbert has left the plantation. I don't see a slave master chasing him down with dogs or whipping him for his CHOICE. That was after he slept in fine quarters, dined on excellent food, strode the plantation that is the KU campus as if he owned the place, and practiced his skills in front of thousands of adoring fans. Again, completely devoid of logic and used solely to inflame.
It's interesting that we never see the counter argument on TV. We see lap dogs. ESPN round tables, or outside the lines, they just fawn over the topic. It's no different than the media that assists left wing politicians by slanting news stories, choosing what to report, manipulating headlines, offering opinion as factual reporting, and lying about sources to serve its larger purpose -- but I digress.
I agree that the NCAA is “taking advantage of” certain CBB and CFB athletes. Top level guys in those two sports are the only ones we could even consider in the discussion. Different than the idea of “exploitation” — but it’s a matter of degree. Part of my reply above was the following. Perhaps you don’t think it addressed your point. I intended to address it. See below from a post above:
@bskeet Low heat. On your statement, “A business model that exploits human beings would be unconstitutional.” And my response, “From your point of view, if this is the reply, then the entire American workforce is exploited.” You equated college athletics to slavery. Again, unfathomable. But if you believe athletes are “exploited” (again, the entire realm of NCAA athletes, not just the Andrew Wiggins’ level), then a look around America and the labor folks do that help other get rich, I think would lead easily to my conclusion. Athletes are pampered in large part, get extra tutoring, great food, nice living arrangements, gear, they get to travel/see the country, built in social life, all why attending college (some view as positive) for free (or in lower sports, a good chunk free if a partial scholarship). Every “worker” is exploited to some degree. It’s the level of exploitation that is legally important. The level of exploitation here is really very minimal compared to what we easily could argue elsewhere. I don’t even think it qualifies because there are so many other choices.
The poor fellow that can only dig ditches, no education, three kids, bills, rent, nothing in the bank account, trying to support a family – and his boss, the excavation company owner, makes him work overtime, limited pay, tough work. Let’s get real.
Kcmatt7 said:
HighEliteMajor said:
As I've pointed out, the NCAA does nothing significant to restrict competition. I mentioned yesterday that they don't engage in monopolistic activity like acquiring other sports entities (or one that could be directly applicable, using threats that they won't rent arena space if arenas rent to other leagues). And they don't have the purpose of "high prices." In fact, their events are very reasonably priced in most every instance. Some even free like lower level events.
They own a monopoly over the schools themselves. They have basically already acquired every single public 4-year university in the country.
The only competition that the NCAA has in the world of College Athletics is the NAIA, and that's made entirely of private institutions. That is it. And the NCAA could buy them tomorrow if they wanted to.
Schools are no longer voluntarily NCAA members. In order to leave, a public institution would have to get approval from their board of regents. Which they never would get.
So the schools have no where to go, and the NCAA can make up whatever rules it wants, fines it wants, strip whatever wins, and the schools have nothing they can do about it.
Their business is derived completely from fans of member institutions, institutions that have nowhere to go. That is exactly what a monopoly is.
Oh, I have not doubt you can argue it's a monopoly. The fact that one entity is the sole party providing a product line is the starting point. But you are correct, my blanket statement about it not being a "monopoly" is strained.
When I say that it's not a monopoly, I mean to focus on the illegality. There are lots of "monopolies" in fact, a single supplier, a single maker of an item -- patents and trademarks create that. So I would grant you the pure "monopoly" idea inside the world of "college" sports if it weren't for the NAIA. Even then, I think defining the sports by "college" is too restrictive to evoke the monopoly idea.
Lots of avenues for "sports" endeavors as I noted.
So my statement about it not being a monopoly would be akin to a drug company. They can compete and make drugs (the sport of basketball), but Merck might have the patent on a specific drug formulation (College BB as an analogy).
Of course, kids at the age of CBB players can play anywhere, not just CBB, so it's a bit looser there (and helpful to my position).
We know there is no law against having a monopoly. It's perfectly legal. There are monopolies everywhere. The antitrust laws are there to promote competition. This was the basis of the recent compensation suit. The NCAA has lost before. My point notes the non-monopolistic characteristics/facts that would defeat the illegality issue. Sometimes there are winners and losers in competition.
What I mean is that we live in an economy that promotes and allows competition. Nothing is restricted here, but more importantly, the NCAA isn't the economic predator. But they do operate a business inside of a contained and restricted bubble.
To that point, why can't anyone compete with the NCAA?
And to your point, the NCAA could easily "buy" the NAIA -- but they haven't.
I also would suggest that each of the schools are individuals, with competing interests, working together. Therein lies the rub, and therein is your best argument. I recognize that good arguments can be made on this item (and my opinion is just that it's not, economically, what the government should be looking to restrict or manage). And that there is clearly some activity that can be scrutinized.
The issue for lawsuits is monopolistic activity, violation of the anti-trust laws. Very little here to see for me overall. And legally, we see very little activity with teeth in that regard.
@rockchalkwyo The comment by @approxinfinity was the point I was making a touch sarcastically ... again, the great benefits many kids get.
@bskeet Low heat. On your statement, "A business model that exploits human beings would be unconstitutional." And my response, "From your point of view, if this is the reply, then the entire American workforce is exploited." You equated college athletics to slavery. Again, unfathomable. But if you believe athletes are "exploited" (again, the entire realm of NCAA athletes, not just the Andrew Wiggins' level), then a look around America and the labor folks do that help other get rich, I think would lead easily to my conclusion. Athletes are pampered in large part, get extra tutoring, great food, nice living arrangements, gear, they get to travel/see the country, built in social life, all why attending college (some view as positive) for free (or in lower sports, a good chunk free if a partial scholarship). Every "worker" is exploited to some degree. It's the level of exploitation that is legally important. The level of exploitation here is really very minimal compared to what we easily could argue elsewhere. I don't even think it qualifies because there are so many other choices.
The poor fellow that can only dig ditches, no education, three kids, bills, rent, nothing in the bank account, trying to support a family -- and his boss, the excavation company owner, makes him work overtime, limited pay, tough work. Let's get real.
I also understand that your slavery comment was not the first dive into that arena and that others have made similar suggestions, such as the "indentured servitude" link you've provided. The term "cartel" is something folks like Jay Bilas have latched onto. Of course, purposefully inflammatory, just like the slavery comments, to make folks think "drug cartel." But a cartel is "an association of manufacturers or suppliers with the purpose of maintaining prices at a high level and restricting competition." That is pretty benign, really. But cartels, in practice, engage in price fixing and they squeeze competition through aggressive and mostly illegal means (like killing and threats). Like the drug cartel.
As I've pointed out, the NCAA does nothing significant to restrict competition. I mentioned yesterday that they don't engage in monopolistic activity like acquiring other sports entities (or one that could be directly applicable, using threats that they won't rent arena space if arenas rent to other leagues). And they don't have the purpose of "high prices." In fact, their events are very reasonably priced in most every instance. Some even free like lower level events.
This type of usage of cartel is laughable, but it fits the script of certain folks that attempt to demonize as part of their argument. "What can we say that will grab attention and paint the other side as evil?" But it has no real basis in fact.
You suggest I don't have an open mind. I'd suggest that at every turn, I've refuted quite directly most every point on the topic. I'm not saying that I'm absolutely right. But I'd say that I've chinked the armor of you and others' arguments pretty significantly.
I'd offer that the reaction to support the compensation of players, whatever form (likeness, etc.) that run contrary to the NCAA rules, is driven by feelings of unfairness (in large part). When feelings enter the picture, folks throw out "slavery" in opinion. Something, again, inflammatory and plainly inapplicable.
I will also offer that the NCAA did not prohibit any possible player or family from consulting a lawyer prior to accepting/signing the Letter of Intent. The lawyer's little statement ignores again the choice to enter the organization and play by that organization's rules. There is an entire, big world outside of NCAA sports wherein you don't have rules that govern you -- like this crazy idea of paying for your own college expenses. This attorney throws out all this blather, but the reality is that the NCAA still stands.
approxinfinity said:
@wissox Common misconception. Their athletes have different academic standards.
What, you’re telling me that athletes get preferred treatment to get into an elite academic institution that they otherwise would have no chance at gaining entry, just because they get an athletic scholarship?
Hmmm.
Self when we signed him. Really saw him as a scorer. Too bad he left.
“Issac, who we all call Mackey, can play point but he’s a combo guard who can score,” Self said of the No. 109-ranked player in the Class of 2019 by Rivals.com. “When you watch him, you are so impressed with his range, quickness and explosiveness and his ability to elevate on his shot. We see him as a guy that can come in and obviously give us depth on perimeter shooting. He is a guy that can just score the ball. We haven’t had too many here like that, a natural scorer. He’s a combo guard that can jump up and make a shot wherever he is on the court.”
@FarmerJayhawk Should be paid based on a poll is in a different universe vs. exerting one's leverage, walking out. Funny, really. A poll to ask if someone should be paid. "Question - do you want free money? Yes or no?" I say yes. Heck, how do 29% say no? Sounds like some campaigns right now -- free money. But the deal the athletes get is too good. The players can demand whatever they want. But a "work stoppage" makes no sense economically for the masses of athletes. So it hasn't. All to my points.
But great point on federal legislation. If Congress sees this as important, federally, I support that approach. I may disagree with the legislation, but as far as process, I think you've ID'd the much better approach than piece-meal state-by-state. Normally, I like state's deciding their own issues but this is a national deal.
@bskeet @Kcmatt7 Ok, well it's clearly not a monopoly. You do see the NBA, MLB, and NFL. You've seen the d-league, the g-league, AAF, XFL, USFL, minor league baseball, independent league ball. There are thousands of stadiums and arenas in the country. The NCAA does NOTHING to stamp out competition. They don't acquire businesses. I'm sorry, again, it might sound good when it's said, but when you examine it, not so much.
@benshawks08 To that issue, I think the following link helps explain where the NCAA money goes.
benshawks08 said:
It's weird because I do basically agree with you that the colleges themselves add value to these talented kids. I also agree that we love college basketball and would like it to continue. It just seems to me that there is some room for change without tearing the whole thing down. Just like with our Constitution. Amendments and new laws can always change the workings of government. That doesn't mean government no longer exists.
Systems are never perfect and tinkering with different elements has the potential to make things better for everybody. When tinkering some good questions to ask are, who created the system? Who is it working for? Who is it not working for? Or for the more business minded, What are the strengths, weaknesses, opportunities, and threats?
The real issue is that this change will not benefit EVERYBODY. It will benefit the majority of the labor but has potential to cut profits for the organization as a whole and therefore executives may actually make less money. A "non-profit" organization the brings in over $1 billion in revenue should have constant conversations on the allocation of those funds and how best to use those funds to serve the public. Decisions CANNOT be made with respect to profit or the organization no longer fits the definition of "non-profit."
Just going to end with the point the the existence of choice does not equate to freedom. It is also odd to me how vehemently you defend the rights of a system/corporation over the well being of people.
I love the direction you are going here. Attacking this from the non-profit angle is a solid approach, in my opinion. And "the existence of choice does not equate to freedom" statement is clearly correct -- would you like a heart attack or cancer? Agreed.
But here, of course, it's a much different realm. Here there is absolute freedom. Pure and unabashed. If the relative benefit of the college scholarship is higher for some, which it certainly is, well, that demonstrates its incredible value.
Regarding my defense of system/corporations, I defend liberty in my position. I would love to see the players unite for the change they may want, to boycott/refuse to play, to exercise their power. The fact is, though, the players are happy. They know they have a good deal -- Andrew Wiggins? Maybe the deal isn't great for him. The rest of our 2013-14 roster, it was terrific. It's outside forces that are the complainers.
I also love competition. Would love to see a league challenge and take players away from the NCAA if it were sustainable. It's really not, which leads me in part to my view on this.
Corporations should be able to make their own internal rules. Period. There are some limited exceptions under the law that corporations must adhere to. And there are boundaries on their power -- monopolies, anti-trust. All generally good with me for this discussion.
That fact is the NCAA does a huge and immense amount of good for the incredibly high majority of athletes, and the money it generates helps the general student population as well.
bskeet said:
I'm no expert on the pros and cons of allowing students to profit from their image and likeness, but one of the more compelling arguments I've heard is that every citizen has this right, and that the NCAA's rule is stripping a group of people from this basic right.
I've heard two very impassioned arguments about how this will 1) transform women athletes and bring much greater notoriety to them, and 2) destroy women's athletics and undo title IX.. Essentially completely opposite projections on the impact. My conclusion: No one can predict what the benefits and consequences of this will really be.
My other conclusion as to why the NCAA is really fighting this: Status quo and the ability to better control what is known.
I'm sorry, just saw this. Follow here -- you're right, we have the right to profit from our likeness. This is agreed. But you can agree to sign away your rights to profit from any number of activities. You can accept benefits with conditions, and that condition can include your likeness.
You could take a job today that prohibits me from doing a whole range of things based on your agreement. The employer could say you will not buy and sell houses on the side. The employer could say you will not sell photos of yourself. Take this job and you can't do these things. Whatever. There is a very small list of exceptions.
I seriously do not know how this stuff doesn't register.
Kcmatt7 said:
bskeet said:
Slavery was a good business model too.
A business model that exploits human beings would be unconstitutional.
I think that may be the case with the NCAA. That's a good reason to change the rules.
Of course, it could take a very long time for this to run through the courts and for the courts to determine for or against that fact.
Don't forget the early 1900s. Imagine where this country would be without all of that "Social Justice Garbage."
I mean, what a bunch of f-ing p*ssies. Didn't they know retirement is for the dead? Which, conveniently, came earlier back then because of all of the health care that didn't exist and the sick days you didn't get. At least 16 hour days led to major profits. Well, until the 1930s. But that obviously wasn't because they let businesses do whatever they want and the economy collapsed under it's own weight and the majority of the workforce was left unprotected and literally out on the streets.
We only had to enact major worker's rights, pass enormous oversight legislation, develop the largest social program to date and partake in a war that saw 80M fatalities to come out of it. Really not a big deal. Certainly no lesson to be learned in any of that. No siree.
Which has nothing to do with the here and now -- 2019. Not as silly of an analogy as the slavery tripe, but close.
I am all in and support the players uniting to change their conditions. To exercise their power and leverage. To refuse to play. To make demands. Now, I may disagree with their position, meaning the logic, etc. But I would completely support the exercise of that leverage/power. It's why I support players' right to hold out in pro sports. Or unions walking off the job. I may disagree with their flawed logic in some cases, but it's their individual choice. It's why I love the fact that Darius Bazely skipped college and signed with New Balance. It's why I love that the recruit we were targeting went to play in Australia.
That tough word, CHOICE.
However, the economics of all of this doesn't make that approach reasonable -- as your example clearly did from decade's past. But the players can band together, walk out, and exercise their power. Make the CHOICE to refuse to play. Not seeing that.
What we see are the external forces at play. Politics.
This issue is motivated by the social justice garbage. "Social justice" is much different now, than in the 1860s, 1930s, or 1960s. This is mostly about political power and really has nothing to do with the NCAA players (all sports, all skill levels).
bskeet said:
Slavery was a good business model too.
A business model that exploits human beings would be unconstitutional.
I think that may be the case with the NCAA. That's a good reason to change the rules.
Of course, it could take a very long time for this to run through the courts and for the courts to determine for or against that fact.
I'm sorry, but that is perhaps the most inflammatory and illogical comparison you could make. Straight from the NBA player handbook -- at least you were able to do it in a complete sentence with enunciation of each word. It's the type of stuff that makes your position look all that more ridiculous and makes my arguments look better.
From your point of view, if this is the reply, then the entire American workforce is exploited.
Of course, the inconvenient fact that your statement ignores is the matter of CHOICE. But you and many others that tend to occupy one side of the political isle avoid that truth.
@FarmerJayhawk Who's asking for the raise? That question really defines this discussion. I see no protests, I see no mass of athletes asking for a raise, I see nothing like that. What I hear and see is a politically driven agenda that is based on the false narrative of the inner city black athlete being exploited. That's what's driving this entire thing.
And don't mistake the market. The "market" is not internal, or inside the NCAA. It's outside the NCAA. It's an entirely free market outside the NCAA. Anyone can compete for the players' services. You, me, anyone. When you intrude inside the NCAA, telling a business association what they can and can't do, it's more Marx.
mayjay said:
HEM is right. The schools own the NCAA and the NCAA, by virtue of the powers conferred upon it by its members, gets to make the rules. You want to be a member, you are subject to their rules. If you want to play for a member, you do so within the structure established under the rules.
But, HEM is also wrong. Rules can be changed. And many organizations have changed lots of their rules both by internal choice and in response to external pressure.
People and other institutions affected by the rules are pressuring the NCAA to change its rules. So far as I know, the NCAA has the right to consider the ideas being presented, and the right to change to meet the broader circumstances at play.
There is literally nothing written on a couple of stone tablets handed down as holy writ requiring the current system. The revered Rules of our favorite sport were handed down by Dr. Naismith. But good lord, if those rules hadn't changed and adapted to new ideas, not one person in the country would ever watch or care about basketball.
All organizations change, adapt, and evolve, or they fail. Some die out anyway. That happens in business and in life.
@mayjay Regarding the "wrong" reference, I think you've use a red herring to simply make your point. I, of course, have never said that an organization's rules couldn't be changed. I've said they shouldn't be changed.
We all agree that the NCAA can change its rules and there is nothing in stone.
The most important reason not to change -- the why not -- is because the schools, the owners, do not want to change. But an equally important reason "why not" to change is because it makes no sense, business-wise, to change.
The business model works. Athletes to fill the spots are plentiful, if certain athletes don't want to participate other fill their spots (the irrefutable "interchangeable" argument), there is no mass walkout by the athletes, athletes (all scholarship athletes) by a large, large majority (say, 95% as a guess) are happy with their arrangement, those athletes are getting a free education which lasts a lifetime, the high level athletes have a massive stage to increase their marketability and draft status, and the business makes millions of dollars.
That's the truth of the business end. And it is undeniable. But that doesn't matter. It's just ignored. Or lied about.
The sole reason that change might occur is because of political pressure based on the social justice garbage. Garbage that creates false narratives, focuses on a select few athletes, and ignores why the NCAA even exists. Quite simply, it's a political perspective that hates business, hates owners, and hates the idea that a business can control it's own rules (i.e., tell a worker what the worker can and can't do). That is what is driving this.
Part of what drives that is constant reaction to the alleged plight of the inner city black athlete who doesn't have pizza money. And, of course, we should all change everything so that athlete can make $2,000 in a local car commercial? I say "black" athlete because -- the real truth -- that's all this is. This entire cause celeb is because of the perception and false narrative that the inner city black athlete is somehow being taken advantage of.
When the truth is, the athletic scholarship, by itself, may be the single greatest benefit that athlete has ever received -- one that will change his/her life forever (white, black, or anywhere in between). The individual, the athlete, gets much more individually than the school gains from that individual (because that individual can be replaced by another). But to the individual that fills the spot, the scholarship is of exponential worth.
That's what is lost. Not lost so much as purposefully ignored.