TDub wrote: ↑Fri May 01, 2020 10:22 am
CrimsonNBlue wrote: ↑Thu Apr 30, 2020 12:26 pm
TraditionKU wrote: ↑Thu Apr 30, 2020 12:02 pm
the division is really along socio-economic lines...those just happen to often align with racial lines
And, it's intellectually dishonest to de-couple it.
Nah. Its borderline to couple it.
So, if i read right (and I generally agree with you CnB) in this thread we have called it borderline racist to want amatuer sports to be amateur, but, its totally normal and "intellectually honest" to couple socio economic lines and racial lines?
My money would've been on the reverse.
It's just a fact, at least in this country, that racial minority groups are disproportionately poor, on government assistance, with lower rates of HS and higher education, etc. To not acknowledge that or ignore its impact is what is intellectually dishonest.
There is a big difference between intent and result. When you have a rule that tends to favor the well-off, the result is it's probably going to disproportionately negatively affect racial minorities, despite the intent. Non-Amateurism examples could be voter ID laws or standardized testing.
The result of pure amateurism is that it makes it less accessible to lower socio-economic classes, hence, racial minorities, like the black athletes that make up most of D-1 rosters. You can see this in D-3 and NAIA ball where the players essentially have to pay money to be able to play--much different demographics. Look further to expensive youth club sports that aren't AAU basketball (which, surprise, AAU hoops teams are able to exist b/c they're funded by shoe companies), and you see even bigger socio-econimic/racial disparity.
If you kick out the CBB players that are there for money, then you kick out a lot of the black players. If the top 150 recruits every year go to the G-League, then CBB gets a lot whiter and the incoming players with wealthier parents.