Kansas Crimson

pdub wrote: ↑Thu Apr 30, 2020 10:27 am

CrimsonNBlue wrote: ↑Thu Apr 30, 2020 10:22 am And borders on racist.

God.
So. Dumb.

Think about what you're saying, man: college basketball should be populated with players who are willing to play for free (miss me with the nonsense on that point).

What sorts of people are willing to play for free? Generally, it will be those who can afford to.

Apply some basic demographics to that, and see where you end up.

I'm not accusing you of being racially motivated, but you HAVE to see that a division along racial lines is the result here.

the division is really along socio-economic lines...those just happen to often align with racial lines

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.

The idea that these players will care less due to money is ridiculous...especially since they're already getting money. Even Marcus Garrett drives a Benz.

The idea they're coming to KU solely for some "pure" reason is ridiculous too.

NIL doesn't taint the sport. It is separate of the schools. Win win imo.

Pdub is entitled to his opinion and feelings. It just feels hypocritical. If he were calling for Self and Townsend to be fired for ruining the purity I'd feel like it was more genuine. It is pretty obvious our coaches aren't oblivious to the culture around college basketball.

IllinoisJayhawk wrote: ↑Thu Apr 30, 2020 2:58 pm
Pdub is entitled to his opinion and feelings. It just feels hypocritical. If he were calling for Self and Townsend to be fired for ruining the purity I'd feel like it was more genuine. It is pretty obvious our coaches aren't oblivious to the culture around college basketball.

That would be a far more logical sword to fall on than to imply Dotson no longer cares about the sport because he's in a Fuzzy's Taco Shop commercial eating a burrito.

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.

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.

Ugh. Next thing you know basketball jerseys would be pastel polos with pleated shorts.

I’d rather have the kc phogushers than the buttacream gang.

ousdahl wrote: ↑Fri May 01, 2020 11:38 am Ugh. Next thing you know basketball jerseys would be pastel polos with pleated shorts.

I’d rather have the kc phogushers than the buttacream gang.

All Zach Peterses.

Bro you really elbowed that post in the face!

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.

To be clear - because people's heads sometimes spin out into the stratosphere with performative, victim-y rage of "how dare you call me a racist?????" - being "racist" requires some degree of intent or animus. In no way do I (or, I presume, CnB) attribute that intent/animus to anyone here.

In other words - I'm not calling someone a racist for supporting amateurism.

But, as has been said, it is not possible to look at the on-the-ground results of "pure amateurism" and conclude that it would not be incredibly biased (generally speaking) in favor of rich, white kids, and to the detriment of poor, black kids.

What I'm asking is for people to recognize that bias.

Doubling down on being a prick:

"stratosphere with performative, victim-y rage of "how dare you call me a racist?????"

Get off your high horse.
White male lawyer making 150k+ pleading people to recognize bias.
Get out there and make a difference JFish and CnB - why are you even charging for your services? You should be helping the community, fighting for the oppressed.

Not sure how to say this without being a prick: that reaction is sort of my point.

I'd rather you engage on the issue at hand, which is that the inevitable outcome of "pure amateurism" is that college basketball would become much less diverse.

And I think that's a bad thing, across the board. It's bad for the quality of hoop. It's bad for kids without real shots at the NBA losing out on the chance for an education. It's bad for the viability of the game, and certainly for the relevance of the game to the national sports landscape.

"that reaction is sort of my point."

God, the pretentiousness of you and CnB is sometimes unbearable.

If you don't value the things that college basketball provides, which at its heart should be an education ( regardless of what it is now and that's a big part of what I'm arguing - so i'm not going "miss you" with the "nonsense" ) in basketball and in whatever you decide to become, then the argument is moot.

Getting to go to school completely free, no cost to anyone in your family, is very valuable.
But i'm sure you and CnB have some way of making that comment racist as well.

pdub wrote: ↑Fri May 01, 2020 12:45 pm If you don't value the things that college basketball provides, which at its heart should be an education ( regardless of what it is now and that's a big part of what I'm arguing - so i'm not going "miss you" with the "nonsense" ) in basketball and in whatever you decide to become, then the argument is moot.

Getting to go to school completely free, no cost to anyone in your family, is very valuable.
But i'm sure you and CnB have some way of making that comment racist as well.

It is valuable. But it clearly does not represent full value for the services performed.

So, who will choose to perform their services for less than full value?

Generally, those who can, without it being materially detrimental to them or their families.

Generally, that group is going to look pretty Zach Petersy!

And the game will suffer for that.

how do you pitch the value of an education to your mom when she has bills to pay yesterday?

It would represent full value for the services performed if fewer superstars played in college basketball and played in the NBA and G League, the NCAA found a responsible way of maintaining the organization without worrying so much about profit and took some of the money out of the sport.

"Generally, that group is going to look pretty Zach Petersy!"

And this in itself could be considered pretty racist as well.

pdub wrote: ↑Fri May 01, 2020 12:53 pm It would represent full value for the services performed if fewer superstars played in college basketball and played in the NBA and G League, the NCAA found a responsible way of maintaining the organization without worrying so much about profit and took some of the money out of the sport.

"Generally, that group is going to look pretty Zach Petersy!"

And this in itself could be considered pretty racist as well.

What's funny is you're essentially describing a market. Yes, if you bring the quality of the product way the fuck down, maybe education and room/board would represent full value.

Of course, you do that and you've killed college basketball as something that matters enough to be broadcast, analyzed, talked about, followed, sponsored, etc.