CSNbbs

(05-25-2021 09:16 PM)Rice93 Wrote: [ -> ]

(05-25-2021 08:24 PM)tanqtonic Wrote: [ -> ]

(05-25-2021 07:51 PM)Rice93 Wrote: [ -> ]

(05-25-2021 07:39 PM)tanqtonic Wrote: [ -> ]

(05-25-2021 02:52 PM)Rice93 Wrote: [ -> ]Oh good, guys, Tanq showed up. That pesky discussion we were having that was nearly devoid of antagonism can now devolve into that which we have become accustomed here.

Perhaps if you answered a question or two on the way, as opposed to replying with *your* question, that alleged 'antagonism' above wouldnt be present. Just a wild thought.

Quote:How about all the black people that grew up playing football and perhaps played it in high school and college?

So you think "grew up playing football and perhaps played it in high school and college" is an ironclad pedigree to being an executive in those fields? Again, stop and think about that for a second....

I didn't say that. You implied that all they knew was playing football (running post patterns) and I pointed out that many of the white football executives likely had played football in their younger years. These ex-football players were able to find a path to the executive level. I'm sure that there were black players with similar backgrounds.

Quote:

Quote:Perhaps some of those people might be a good fit?

They might, or they might not. What a wasted non-sequitor of a comment.

You are really going to argue the possibility that there were no reasonable black candidates for these positions. LOL are you serious???

Quote:

Quote:I'm sure there were (and are) plenty of well-educated football players out there.

I actually roomed with football players. And know other 'well educated football players'. I dont think the patent attorney would make a good executive. Nor the orthopedic surgeon. Nor the four or five non-patent attorneys. Nor the money funds manager.

Again, stop and think about what you are typing.

I have thought about it. Hilarious to me (or perhaps sad) that you are planting your flag on the hill of perhaps there were just no qualified black people for these executive positions back then.

I knew (and know) plenty of older and younger Rice football players. Dozens and dozens would make excellent executives.

Quote:

Quote:There are like 20-30 football/basketball players who graduate from Stanford, Harvard, Penn, Rice, UCLA, Michigan, etc. annually. Many of these graduates are black. I imagine you could find somebody with an acceptable skillset from that cohort.

Maybe. I dont know. See above. You seemingly think that all there is to NFL executive is 'one played the game', from what I can gather. Kind of stupid prerequisite, but you can certainly battle for that.

Again.. I never argued for that... see above.

All I see in the above is :

1) grew up playing football
2) perhaps played it in high school and college
3) I'm sure there were (and are) plenty of well-educated football players
4) There are like 20-30 football/basketball players who graduate from Stanford, Harvard, Penn, Rice, UCLA, Michigan

So the entire skillset to you of NFL is 'playing football in high school', playing football, played it in college, and graduate.

Seems to be a rather oblique and amorphous set of skills for being an NFL or NBA executive in your mind.

93: played high school ball; played college ball; went to college. *** **** SIGN THAT GUY UP!

My comment isnt on a 'lack' of skill set, it is more of your comic book level of comprises the skill set for an NFL/NBA executive.

Your threshhold is seemingly any person who played ball and got a degree from a 'good' school is ipso facto qualified to be an NFL or NBA executive.


As to your comments on 'lack of skill set' -- I know a bunch of people who are highly skilled, football players to boot, but I dont think have the 'skill set' to be an NFL executive.

So, please dont put words in my mouth, especially when you warp them so amazingly. I made zero comment or implication at the existence of the skill sets amongst black candidates. I *am* saying, I dont know whom they were, nor if they applied to such organizations.

But apparently you do. Sounds fun. Or you are just trying to backfill the 'requirements' with your own formulation. Honestly, this isnt the first time we have ahd this exact conversation before, dude. Was with head coaching positions where you brought up the story of 'why arent many head coaches/coordinators black when all the players are'. And you went down the same specious argument then as you do now.

I made that comment that there were obviously black people who were qualified for an executive position and that would be interested in such a position.

You came back with "Running a post pattern for 13 years doesnt really give itself to those skillsets by default, as you seemingly imply."

So you were the one that brought up former football players, not me. I'm sure there are plenty of non-athlete folks who could serve in those roles and I also made the point that you would find plenty of former white athletes filling those positions.

So your straw man that I suggested that as long as one plays football then one can be an executive in the NFL is a crummy one.

To the bolded, no, you didnt. You made some relationship between playing football and execs.

Here is your comment, 93: "Let's say it's 1982 and there are little to no black executives in the NBA/NFL despite the majority of players being black "

So, what is the tie? Or did you just attach the phrase "despite the majority of players being black" just for ***** and giggles? The word 'despite' means 'without factoring in', mind you.

Quote:"So your straw man that I suggested that as long as one plays football then one can be an executive in the NFL is a crummy one."

I didnt say that. Please stop making **** up. Please state where I said 'as long'? If 'as long', then every Tom Dick and Harry who put on a helmet could be an exec. So, cut with the false statements there dude. Gets tiresome.

What I am saying, is that your emotional non-sequitor on 'the majority of players' only makes rational sense if *you* think that playing football is a fundamental skill set for being an exec for a team. Otherwise, it is simply emotional garbage tacked on for guilt purposes.

Here is the question from a bit back that was made by OO: What does the player make-up have to do with management?

Still unanswered. All we got was specious comments from 93 saying how we think there are no qualified balck candidates

"Let's say it's 1982 and there are little to no black executives in the NBA/NFL despite the majority of players being black "

We have strayed into a lot of little rabbit trails. We are tying ourselves into knots.

It really is simple.

The one question is this:

Is it OK to do bad things for good reasons, yes or no?

People of religious faith and moral bent have struggled with this for a long time.

Now let's move on. Nobody is changing their answer.

(05-25-2021 11:01 PM)tanqtonic Wrote: [ -> ]

(05-25-2021 09:16 PM)Rice93 Wrote: [ -> ]

(05-25-2021 08:24 PM)tanqtonic Wrote: [ -> ]

(05-25-2021 07:51 PM)Rice93 Wrote: [ -> ]

(05-25-2021 07:39 PM)tanqtonic Wrote: [ -> ]Perhaps if you answered a question or two on the way, as opposed to replying with *your* question, that alleged 'antagonism' above wouldnt be present. Just a wild thought.


So you think "grew up playing football and perhaps played it in high school and college" is an ironclad pedigree to being an executive in those fields? Again, stop and think about that for a second....

I didn't say that. You implied that all they knew was playing football (running post patterns) and I pointed out that many of the white football executives likely had played football in their younger years. These ex-football players were able to find a path to the executive level. I'm sure that there were black players with similar backgrounds.

Quote:They might, or they might not. What a wasted non-sequitor of a comment.

You are really going to argue the possibility that there were no reasonable black candidates for these positions. LOL are you serious???

Quote:I actually roomed with football players. And know other 'well educated football players'. I dont think the patent attorney would make a good executive. Nor the orthopedic surgeon. Nor the four or five non-patent attorneys. Nor the money funds manager.

Again, stop and think about what you are typing.

I have thought about it. Hilarious to me (or perhaps sad) that you are planting your flag on the hill of perhaps there were just no qualified black people for these executive positions back then.

I knew (and know) plenty of older and younger Rice football players. Dozens and dozens would make excellent executives.

Quote:Maybe. I dont know. See above. You seemingly think that all there is to NFL executive is 'one played the game', from what I can gather. Kind of stupid prerequisite, but you can certainly battle for that.

Again.. I never argued for that... see above.

All I see in the above is :

1) grew up playing football
2) perhaps played it in high school and college
3) I'm sure there were (and are) plenty of well-educated football players
4) There are like 20-30 football/basketball players who graduate from Stanford, Harvard, Penn, Rice, UCLA, Michigan

So the entire skillset to you of NFL is 'playing football in high school', playing football, played it in college, and graduate.

Seems to be a rather oblique and amorphous set of skills for being an NFL or NBA executive in your mind.

93: played high school ball; played college ball; went to college. *** **** SIGN THAT GUY UP!

My comment isnt on a 'lack' of skill set, it is more of your comic book level of comprises the skill set for an NFL/NBA executive.

Your threshhold is seemingly any person who played ball and got a degree from a 'good' school is ipso facto qualified to be an NFL or NBA executive.


As to your comments on 'lack of skill set' -- I know a bunch of people who are highly skilled, football players to boot, but I dont think have the 'skill set' to be an NFL executive.

So, please dont put words in my mouth, especially when you warp them so amazingly. I made zero comment or implication at the existence of the skill sets amongst black candidates. I *am* saying, I dont know whom they were, nor if they applied to such organizations.

But apparently you do. Sounds fun. Or you are just trying to backfill the 'requirements' with your own formulation. Honestly, this isnt the first time we have ahd this exact conversation before, dude. Was with head coaching positions where you brought up the story of 'why arent many head coaches/coordinators black when all the players are'. And you went down the same specious argument then as you do now.

I made that comment that there were obviously black people who were qualified for an executive position and that would be interested in such a position.

You came back with "Running a post pattern for 13 years doesnt really give itself to those skillsets by default, as you seemingly imply."

So you were the one that brought up former football players, not me. I'm sure there are plenty of non-athlete folks who could serve in those roles and I also made the point that you would find plenty of former white athletes filling those positions.

So your straw man that I suggested that as long as one plays football then one can be an executive in the NFL is a crummy one.

To the bolded, no, you didnt. You made some relationship between playing football and execs.

Here is your comment, 93: "Let's say it's 1982 and there are little to no black executives in the NBA/NFL despite the majority of players being black "

So, what is the tie? Or did you just attach the phrase "despite the majority of players being black" just for ***** and giggles? The word 'despite' means 'without factoring in', mind you.

Quote:"So your straw man that I suggested that as long as one plays football then one can be an executive in the NFL is a crummy one."

I didnt say that. Please stop making **** up. Please state where I said 'as long'? If 'as long', then every Tom Dick and Harry who put on a helmet could be an exec. So, cut with the false statements there dude. Gets tiresome.

What I am saying, is that your emotional non-sequitor on 'the majority of players' only makes rational sense if *you* think that playing football is a fundamental skill set for being an exec for a team. Otherwise, it is simply emotional garbage tacked on for guilt purposes.

Wrong. I'm surprised I have to spell this out.

The fact that the majority of NFL/NBA players are black indicates that black people engage with/are interested in that sport. Therefore common sense leads me to the belief that some black people would be interested in working in that sport (whether they played the sport or not).

If there was a professional curling league I would not be surprised that the executives of that league did not include many black people. I am making the assumption that there are not many black fans or participants of curling but I may be off here and I apologize if this is an incorrect assumption. I'm basing it on bits and pieces of Olympic curling that I have watched.

In addition, many football executives did and do, in fact, have a history of playing football. Let's go to wiki and check out the Houston Texans' division.

Texans- GM played college football at John Carroll U
Titans- GM played college football at Bemidji State U
Colts- GM played college football at U of Wisc
Jaguars- GM played college football at USAFA/SE Missouri St.

I would guess that if you looked at all the GM's the list would be littered with former college football and NFL players. So apparently NFL GM's often have a history of playing college football. Another reason why the fact that the majority of professional (and I'll assume college) football players are black is a relevant point.

(05-25-2021 11:33 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote: [ -> ]We have strayed into a lot of little rabbit trails. We are tying ourselves into knots.

It really is simple.

The one question is this:

Is it OK to do bad things for good reasons, yes or no?

Yes or no? Really? That's quite a question.

I don't know... killing somebody is generally a bad thing however killing Hitler's German forces is generally considered pretty good. So in this situation I would say yes.

(05-26-2021 12:46 AM)Rice93 Wrote: [ -> ]

(05-25-2021 11:01 PM)tanqtonic Wrote: [ -> ]

(05-25-2021 09:16 PM)Rice93 Wrote: [ -> ]

(05-25-2021 08:24 PM)tanqtonic Wrote: [ -> ]

(05-25-2021 07:51 PM)Rice93 Wrote: [ -> ]I didn't say that. You implied that all they knew was playing football (running post patterns) and I pointed out that many of the white football executives likely had played football in their younger years. These ex-football players were able to find a path to the executive level. I'm sure that there were black players with similar backgrounds.


You are really going to argue the possibility that there were no reasonable black candidates for these positions. LOL are you serious???


I have thought about it. Hilarious to me (or perhaps sad) that you are planting your flag on the hill of perhaps there were just no qualified black people for these executive positions back then.

I knew (and know) plenty of older and younger Rice football players. Dozens and dozens would make excellent executives.


Again.. I never argued for that... see above.

All I see in the above is :

1) grew up playing football
2) perhaps played it in high school and college
3) I'm sure there were (and are) plenty of well-educated football players
4) There are like 20-30 football/basketball players who graduate from Stanford, Harvard, Penn, Rice, UCLA, Michigan

So the entire skillset to you of NFL is 'playing football in high school', playing football, played it in college, and graduate.

Seems to be a rather oblique and amorphous set of skills for being an NFL or NBA executive in your mind.

93: played high school ball; played college ball; went to college. *** **** SIGN THAT GUY UP!

My comment isnt on a 'lack' of skill set, it is more of your comic book level of comprises the skill set for an NFL/NBA executive.

Your threshhold is seemingly any person who played ball and got a degree from a 'good' school is ipso facto qualified to be an NFL or NBA executive.


As to your comments on 'lack of skill set' -- I know a bunch of people who are highly skilled, football players to boot, but I dont think have the 'skill set' to be an NFL executive.

So, please dont put words in my mouth, especially when you warp them so amazingly. I made zero comment or implication at the existence of the skill sets amongst black candidates. I *am* saying, I dont know whom they were, nor if they applied to such organizations.

But apparently you do. Sounds fun. Or you are just trying to backfill the 'requirements' with your own formulation. Honestly, this isnt the first time we have ahd this exact conversation before, dude. Was with head coaching positions where you brought up the story of 'why arent many head coaches/coordinators black when all the players are'. And you went down the same specious argument then as you do now.

I made that comment that there were obviously black people who were qualified for an executive position and that would be interested in such a position.

You came back with "Running a post pattern for 13 years doesnt really give itself to those skillsets by default, as you seemingly imply."

So you were the one that brought up former football players, not me. I'm sure there are plenty of non-athlete folks who could serve in those roles and I also made the point that you would find plenty of former white athletes filling those positions.

So your straw man that I suggested that as long as one plays football then one can be an executive in the NFL is a crummy one.

To the bolded, no, you didnt. You made some relationship between playing football and execs.

Here is your comment, 93: "Let's say it's 1982 and there are little to no black executives in the NBA/NFL despite the majority of players being black "

So, what is the tie? Or did you just attach the phrase "despite the majority of players being black" just for ***** and giggles? The word 'despite' means 'without factoring in', mind you.

Quote:"So your straw man that I suggested that as long as one plays football then one can be an executive in the NFL is a crummy one."

I didnt say that. Please stop making **** up. Please state where I said 'as long'? If 'as long', then every Tom Dick and Harry who put on a helmet could be an exec. So, cut with the false statements there dude. Gets tiresome.

What I am saying, is that your emotional non-sequitor on 'the majority of players' only makes rational sense if *you* think that playing football is a fundamental skill set for being an exec for a team. Otherwise, it is simply emotional garbage tacked on for guilt purposes.

Wrong. I'm surprised I have to spell this out.

The fact that the majority of NFL/NBA players are black indicates that black people engage with/are interested in that sport. Therefore common sense leads me to the belief that some black people would be interested in working in that sport (whether they played the sport or not).

If there was a professional curling league I would not be surprised that the executives of that league did not include many black people. I am making the assumption that there are not many black fans or participants of curling but I may be off here and I apologize if this is an incorrect assumption. I'm basing it on bits and pieces of Olympic curling that I have watched.

In addition, many football executives did and do, in fact, have a history of playing football. Let's go to wiki and check out the Houston Texans' division.

Texans- GM played college football at John Carroll U
Titans- GM played college football at Bemidji State U
Colts- GM played college football at U of Wisc
Jaguars- GM played college football at USAFA/SE Missouri St.

I would guess that if you looked at all the GM's the list would be littered with former college football and NFL players. So apparently NFL GM's often have a history of playing college football. Another reason why the fact that the majority of professional (and I'll assume college) football players are black is a relevant point.

But again, you keep pounding the 'blacks are a majority of the players' all the while screeching about whites in executive positions. Looking at the AFC East, none of the GMs played pro ball. At all.

great, blacks make the majority of players in the NFL. You still havent bothered to tell us how that translates to NFL executive epxerience. Or, why even playing ball in college does the same.

But, that really doesnt keep you from dropping the emoticon bomb about 'black majority players'.

All you seemingly say now is, well, lots of blacks play and follow football. Thus many should have NFL executive experience. But that disconnect really doesnt make it to the front of your vision. SO be it.

(05-25-2021 11:26 PM)tanqtonic Wrote: [ -> ]Here is the question from a bit back that was made by OO: What does the player make-up have to do with management?

Still unanswered. All we got was specious comments from 93 saying how we think there are no qualified balck candidates

"Let's say it's 1982 and there are little to no black executives in the NBA/NFL despite the majority of players being black "

Just so there are some facts being discussed here:

Quote: Approximately 80% of the current NFL General Managers played at least some college football, but that does not mean they were stud players. In fact, only a handful of them played football at a Division I university, and only the 49ers’ John Lynch and the Broncos’ John Elway had serious NFL careers.

https://www.google.com/amp/s/sports.yaho...04493.html

Head coach, as opposed to executive, is a far better example of a position of leadership where being a former player seems to be important. Pretty much every current coach played college football (see graph in article below).

Also, the last point in this article, about former players coaching, is rather interesting.

Quote: So in America’s two major sports where white players are the majority and there are few black players, former players tend to become top coaches. In America’s two major sports where black players are clearly in the majority, former players tend not to become top coaches.

There may be some differences between these sports that we can’t capture here. Perhaps baseball and hockey teams are making a mistake by apparently requiring their head coaches to have played in the league. But it’s hard to avoid the conclusion that owners and team executives in the NBA and the NFL, who are overwhelmingly white, have either consciously or unconsciously devalued coaches who played professionally.

And in some ways, this devaluation of NFL and NBA playing experience frees up owners and executives to hire other white men as coaches, particularly white men within their professional circles.

https://www.google.com/amp/s/fivethirtye...oblem/amp/

(05-26-2021 02:46 AM)tanqtonic Wrote: [ -> ]

(05-26-2021 12:46 AM)Rice93 Wrote: [ -> ]

(05-25-2021 11:01 PM)tanqtonic Wrote: [ -> ]

(05-25-2021 09:16 PM)Rice93 Wrote: [ -> ]

(05-25-2021 08:24 PM)tanqtonic Wrote: [ -> ]All I see in the above is :

1) grew up playing football
2) perhaps played it in high school and college
3) I'm sure there were (and are) plenty of well-educated football players
4) There are like 20-30 football/basketball players who graduate from Stanford, Harvard, Penn, Rice, UCLA, Michigan

So the entire skillset to you of NFL is 'playing football in high school', playing football, played it in college, and graduate.

Seems to be a rather oblique and amorphous set of skills for being an NFL or NBA executive in your mind.

93: played high school ball; played college ball; went to college. *** **** SIGN THAT GUY UP!

My comment isnt on a 'lack' of skill set, it is more of your comic book level of comprises the skill set for an NFL/NBA executive.

Your threshhold is seemingly any person who played ball and got a degree from a 'good' school is ipso facto qualified to be an NFL or NBA executive.


As to your comments on 'lack of skill set' -- I know a bunch of people who are highly skilled, football players to boot, but I dont think have the 'skill set' to be an NFL executive.

So, please dont put words in my mouth, especially when you warp them so amazingly. I made zero comment or implication at the existence of the skill sets amongst black candidates. I *am* saying, I dont know whom they were, nor if they applied to such organizations.

But apparently you do. Sounds fun. Or you are just trying to backfill the 'requirements' with your own formulation. Honestly, this isnt the first time we have ahd this exact conversation before, dude. Was with head coaching positions where you brought up the story of 'why arent many head coaches/coordinators black when all the players are'. And you went down the same specious argument then as you do now.

I made that comment that there were obviously black people who were qualified for an executive position and that would be interested in such a position.

You came back with "Running a post pattern for 13 years doesnt really give itself to those skillsets by default, as you seemingly imply."

So you were the one that brought up former football players, not me. I'm sure there are plenty of non-athlete folks who could serve in those roles and I also made the point that you would find plenty of former white athletes filling those positions.

So your straw man that I suggested that as long as one plays football then one can be an executive in the NFL is a crummy one.

To the bolded, no, you didnt. You made some relationship between playing football and execs.

Here is your comment, 93: "Let's say it's 1982 and there are little to no black executives in the NBA/NFL despite the majority of players being black "

So, what is the tie? Or did you just attach the phrase "despite the majority of players being black" just for ***** and giggles? The word 'despite' means 'without factoring in', mind you.

Quote:"So your straw man that I suggested that as long as one plays football then one can be an executive in the NFL is a crummy one."

I didnt say that. Please stop making **** up. Please state where I said 'as long'? If 'as long', then every Tom Dick and Harry who put on a helmet could be an exec. So, cut with the false statements there dude. Gets tiresome.

What I am saying, is that your emotional non-sequitor on 'the majority of players' only makes rational sense if *you* think that playing football is a fundamental skill set for being an exec for a team. Otherwise, it is simply emotional garbage tacked on for guilt purposes.

Wrong. I'm surprised I have to spell this out.

The fact that the majority of NFL/NBA players are black indicates that black people engage with/are interested in that sport. Therefore common sense leads me to the belief that some black people would be interested in working in that sport (whether they played the sport or not).

If there was a professional curling league I would not be surprised that the executives of that league did not include many black people. I am making the assumption that there are not many black fans or participants of curling but I may be off here and I apologize if this is an incorrect assumption. I'm basing it on bits and pieces of Olympic curling that I have watched.

In addition, many football executives did and do, in fact, have a history of playing football. Let's go to wiki and check out the Houston Texans' division.

Texans- GM played college football at John Carroll U
Titans- GM played college football at Bemidji State U
Colts- GM played college football at U of Wisc
Jaguars- GM played college football at USAFA/SE Missouri St.

I would guess that if you looked at all the GM's the list would be littered with former college football and NFL players. So apparently NFL GM's often have a history of playing college football. Another reason why the fact that the majority of professional (and I'll assume college) football players are black is a relevant point.

But again, you keep pounding the 'blacks are a majority of the players' all the while screeching about whites in executive positions. Looking at the AFC East, none of the GMs played pro ball. At all.

great, blacks make the majority of players in the NFL. You still havent bothered to tell us how that translates to NFL executive epxerience. Or, why even playing ball in college does the same.

What is the % of the general public that played college football? 0.3%? More? Less?
What is the % of NFL GMs that played college football? Apparently it's about 80%.

So I think we can agree that playing college football is often the first step in a pathway towards becoming an NFL GM. Apparently about 50% of college football players are black.

There are plenty of black people therefore who are positioned to enter that pathway. Why do you think they fall off that pathway? They don't have interest? They don't have the education of their white counterparts? Why are their so few black NFL GMs? Why were there zero in the 1980s?

(05-26-2021 08:19 AM)Rice93 Wrote: [ -> ]

(05-26-2021 02:46 AM)tanqtonic Wrote: [ -> ]

(05-26-2021 12:46 AM)Rice93 Wrote: [ -> ]

(05-25-2021 11:01 PM)tanqtonic Wrote: [ -> ]

(05-25-2021 09:16 PM)Rice93 Wrote: [ -> ]I made that comment that there were obviously black people who were qualified for an executive position and that would be interested in such a position.

You came back with "Running a post pattern for 13 years doesnt really give itself to those skillsets by default, as you seemingly imply."

So you were the one that brought up former football players, not me. I'm sure there are plenty of non-athlete folks who could serve in those roles and I also made the point that you would find plenty of former white athletes filling those positions.

So your straw man that I suggested that as long as one plays football then one can be an executive in the NFL is a crummy one.

To the bolded, no, you didnt. You made some relationship between playing football and execs.

Here is your comment, 93: "Let's say it's 1982 and there are little to no black executives in the NBA/NFL despite the majority of players being black "

So, what is the tie? Or did you just attach the phrase "despite the majority of players being black" just for ***** and giggles? The word 'despite' means 'without factoring in', mind you.

Quote:"So your straw man that I suggested that as long as one plays football then one can be an executive in the NFL is a crummy one."

I didnt say that. Please stop making **** up. Please state where I said 'as long'? If 'as long', then every Tom Dick and Harry who put on a helmet could be an exec. So, cut with the false statements there dude. Gets tiresome.

What I am saying, is that your emotional non-sequitor on 'the majority of players' only makes rational sense if *you* think that playing football is a fundamental skill set for being an exec for a team. Otherwise, it is simply emotional garbage tacked on for guilt purposes.

Wrong. I'm surprised I have to spell this out.

The fact that the majority of NFL/NBA players are black indicates that black people engage with/are interested in that sport. Therefore common sense leads me to the belief that some black people would be interested in working in that sport (whether they played the sport or not).

If there was a professional curling league I would not be surprised that the executives of that league did not include many black people. I am making the assumption that there are not many black fans or participants of curling but I may be off here and I apologize if this is an incorrect assumption. I'm basing it on bits and pieces of Olympic curling that I have watched.

In addition, many football executives did and do, in fact, have a history of playing football. Let's go to wiki and check out the Houston Texans' division.

Texans- GM played college football at John Carroll U
Titans- GM played college football at Bemidji State U
Colts- GM played college football at U of Wisc
Jaguars- GM played college football at USAFA/SE Missouri St.

I would guess that if you looked at all the GM's the list would be littered with former college football and NFL players. So apparently NFL GM's often have a history of playing college football. Another reason why the fact that the majority of professional (and I'll assume college) football players are black is a relevant point.

But again, you keep pounding the 'blacks are a majority of the players' all the while screeching about whites in executive positions. Looking at the AFC East, none of the GMs played pro ball. At all.

great, blacks make the majority of players in the NFL. You still havent bothered to tell us how that translates to NFL executive epxerience. Or, why even playing ball in college does the same.

What is the % of the general public that played college football? 0.3%? More? Less?
What is the % of NFL GMs that played college football? Apparently it's about 80%.

So I think we can agree that playing college football is often the first step in a pathway towards becoming an NFL GM. Apparently about 50% of college football players are black.

There are plenty of black people therefore who are positioned to enter that pathway. Why do you think they fall off that pathway? They don't have interest? They don't have the education of their white counterparts? Why are their so few black NFL GMs? Why were there zero in the 1980s?

Because clearly the free market indicated that there were no quality black candidates in the 1980s and no black people interested in being an NFL GM had the chops to do the work.

It couldn't be due to overt or unconscious hiring biases. I mean, who even believes that hiring biases exist?

Someone who played football at some advanced level obviously has some experience that could contribute to success as either a coach or an executive. But that is not the full bag of tricks required for either position. For example, somebody who got a degree in parks and recreation by answering test questions like, "How many points is a 3-point basket worth?" is unlikely to have the requisite business and other skills required to be a competent executive. Someone like the late Courtney Hall would have obviously been qualified had he taken that career path.

(05-26-2021 08:33 AM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote: [ -> ]Someone who played football at some advanced level obviously has some experience that could contribute to success as either a coach or an executive. But that is not the full bag of tricks required for either position. For example, somebody who got a degree in parks and recreation by answering test questions like, "How many points is a 3-point basket worth?" is unlikely to have the requisite business and other skills required to be a competent executive. Someone like the late Courtney Hall would have obviously been qualified had he taken that career path.

Totally agree with this and I never suggested otherwise. My point is that there were and are certainly tons of Courtney Halls out there that could have been picked for some of these positions. And yet they weren't (and still aren't to a great extent).

(05-25-2021 02:52 PM)Rice93 Wrote: [ -> ]There are like 20-30 football/basketball players who graduate from Stanford, Harvard, Penn, Rice, UCLA, Michigan, etc. annually. Many of these graduates are black. I imagine you could find somebody with an acceptable skillset from that cohort.

Sure.

And many industries recruit (and or otherwise appeal) to these cohorts... not just athletics administration. Rice only fairly recently added degrees that directly relate to that profession. Consider how many graduate athletes there have been (of any race) who HAVEN'T gone into athletics?? Why would one expect that black graduates would be any more likely to go into athletics administration?

The SOLUTION by the left is actually the PROBLEM in this sort of analysis.

Rice (and every other highly selective University) has a difficult time reflecting the representation of specific minorities within the population, despite making all sorts of adjustments to reflect racial bias within testing and educational opportunities PRECISELY BECAUSE there are 'HBCUs" as well as 'inner city' universities (close to home) where those minorities are over-represented. They make choices to attend those schools... they are not 'forced' to go there... and by going there, by simple math, leaves the remaining population under-represented... Said differently... If the Rice population is 50% male and you open one all-male dorm, that means the remaining dorms will be under-represented with males.

So.... because there are other, often better positions.... ones where a black athlete might feel valued for his intelligence rather than simply his athletics... Like Drs, Lawyers and finance people... PLUS the opportunity to instead start or join a 'black targeted' firm (like a minority owned finance firm or law firm that is attracted to government set-asides for minority owned businesses or BET or FUBU) not to mention all of the companies and industries that are recruiting these same people (education and police come to mind where some communities will or want to be SIGNIFICANTLY 'over' the population's average, sometimes because of these set-asides) it should come as no surprise that some industries or companies are going to be under-represented.

I'd also expect that blacks are grossly under-represented in farming and ranching, MAYBE because of the lingering impact of racism... not that it still exists per se, but because it DID, so generations of minorities have moved away from those industries.

How would you make a black man want to be a farmer? Give him 40 acres and a Deere? Can we imagine that some black people might be grossly offended by that?

The point being that even if you eliminate racism... there will always be lingering impacts... but not all of them NEED to be corrected. We need to correct things like educational opportunities, home ownership opportunities etc... what we don't need to correct is things like making sure that every industry has proportional representation because it can't happen... because people have choices.

The simple fact that minorities are (based on population) over-represented as players all but portends that they will be under-represented somewhere else. If you play for 10 years, those are 10 years where you aren't interning or 'learning the other side of the business' that someone else is... So is a guy who has been playing for 10 years and coaching (or working as an executive) for one in the same position as someone who played for one year and has been coaching (or working as an executive) for 10? Sure, the experience as a player CAN be an asset and you CAN certainly learn things without doing them for a paycheck... but surely we all accept that this is an exception rather than a rule?? That the RULE is that the guy with 10 years experience at something is going to be better at it/more qualified than the person with only one. ABSOLUTELY, there are going to be qualified applicants... but there will also be times when 'your position' is not as attractive as others... and the most qualified and most in demand applicants aren't going to want to come.

An example is when the Texans interviewed but did not hire Eric Bienemy. MAYBE Eric didn't want the Texan's job?? MAYBE he's holding out (just as great players do) for a few specific teams or situations?? Specifically BECAUSE he is in tremendous demand and can NAME his destination... and perhaps that position isn't yet open?? So do the Texans select a less qualified minority candidate?? Or do they take a MORE qualified (not more than Eric, but more than the remaining competing minority candidates) WHITE candidate?

I feel like (and may be wrong, but it seems consistent) the left has this idea about jobs like 'these are the qualifications... if you meet them, you are 'qualified''... and everyone above that line is 'equal'. That's not how it is when you have 10 applicants and one job. There are MINIMUM qualifications, but there are also other considerations... and race (based on political ramifications in a 'highly visible' industry), or at least the way you might relate better to players based on common perspectives, including but not exclusively race.

(05-26-2021 12:49 AM)Rice93 Wrote: [ -> ]

(05-25-2021 11:33 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote: [ -> ]We have strayed into a lot of little rabbit trails. We are tying ourselves into knots.

It really is simple.

The one question is this:

Is it OK to do bad things for good reasons, yes or no?

Yes or no? Really? That's quite a question.

I don't know... killing somebody is generally a bad thing however killing Hitler's German forces is generally considered pretty good. So in this situation I would say yes.

Somewhere, way back there, I said that there was a certain group of people who would answer "it depends", and SHAZAM!, here you are.

So it would be OK to steal money from one's employer if the money was used to feed orphans?

When you can qualify every bad act with with "but it was for a good cause" you can literally justify every bad act.

So, now give me a yes or no to this question: It is OK to be racist if it is in service to offsetting past racism. Never mind, we know your answer is "yes", racism is OK if used for that purpose.

My next question is how do you eradicate racism if you sponsor it and enact it into law? NOT a yes/no question.

Now, before Lad whines about Godwin's Law, you brought up Hitler. Now Hitler did bad things, we all agree. But he did them for what he considered a good cause - to save Germany. Did that make them OK?

When the US interned Japanese-Americans in WW II, it was for a good reason - the safety of the country. Did that make internment OK?


Definitely, it(the original generic question) is a thorny question, one that is easily dodged by "It depends".

Now I have said nobody is going to change anybody's mind. I'm OK with doing right, and you are OK with doing wrong for the right reasons. Let's let it go.

(05-26-2021 08:42 AM)Rice93 Wrote: [ -> ]

(05-26-2021 08:33 AM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote: [ -> ]Someone who played football at some advanced level obviously has some experience that could contribute to success as either a coach or an executive. But that is not the full bag of tricks required for either position. For example, somebody who got a degree in parks and recreation by answering test questions like, "How many points is a 3-point basket worth?" is unlikely to have the requisite business and other skills required to be a competent executive. Someone like the late Courtney Hall would have obviously been qualified had he taken that career path.

Totally agree with this and I never suggested otherwise. My point is that there were and are certainly tons of Courtney Halls out there that could have been picked for some of these positions. And yet they weren't (and still aren't to a great extent).

I think this question is based on the myth of proportionality, that is, if X% of a league's players are black, then X% of its executives (concessionaires, cheerleaders, whatever) should be the same percentage.

This ignores the very thing 93 has been harping on - historical racism. I don't anybody has retired as a player one day and became a GM the next. People have had to "pay their dues", working in lower level positions, learning the craft, and succeeding in their work. In 1982, there was a paucity of such black people - it was growing, but few had made it to the level of experience to be considered. 93 wants them to have been hired solely for their race and playing experience.

But as Dylan said, the times they are a-changin'. They have been changing for a long time, and will continue to change. The pool of eligible candidates for top executive positions now includes a wider variety of people than in 1982. This is the natural evolution of things - just some people think it needs a nudge to hurry it up, a nudge called AA.

BTW, historically, great athletes make poor coaches and poor executives. Clyde Drexler and Ted Williams come to mind. Sure there are a few exceptions, as there is to almost everything, but generally great players that things came easily to cannot teach others how to do what they did. The ones who struggled seem to make better coaches, and those who prepared for a business career make better execs. Hard to prepare for a business career when you make $40,000,000/year. I don't think Lebron will ever be a coach or exec, much less a good one.

(05-26-2021 09:07 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote: [ -> ]

(05-26-2021 12:49 AM)Rice93 Wrote: [ -> ]

(05-25-2021 11:33 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote: [ -> ]We have strayed into a lot of little rabbit trails. We are tying ourselves into knots.

It really is simple.

The one question is this:

Is it OK to do bad things for good reasons, yes or no?

Yes or no? Really? That's quite a question.

I don't know... killing somebody is generally a bad thing however killing Hitler's German forces is generally considered pretty good. So in this situation I would say yes.

Somewhere, way back there, I said that there was a certain group of people who would answer "it depends", and SHAZAM!, here you are.

Wait... so you are good with saying an emphatic "No" to your own question? Where do you fall on my killing Nazi soldier example? That was the wrong thing to do?

Quote:So it would be OK to steal money from one's employer if the money was used to feed orphans?

No.

Quote:When you can qualify every bad act with with "but it was for a good cause" you can literally justify every bad act.

So it never depends for you?

Quote:So, now give me a yes or no to this question: It is OK to be racist if it is in service to offsetting past racism. Never mind, we know your answer is "yes", racism is OK if used for that purpose.

Of course it depends. If your are using the definition of racist where you consider affirmative action to be "racist" then sure. If you are using the term like "the belief that different races possess distinct characteristics, abilities, or qualities, especially so as to distinguish them as inferior or superior to one another." then no.

Quote:My next question is how do you eradicate racism if you sponsor it and enact it into law? NOT a yes/no question.

See above. How are you defining "racism"?

Quote:Now, before Lad whines about Godwin's Law, you brought up Hitler. Now Hitler did bad things, we all agree. But he did them for what he considered a good cause - to save Germany. Did that make them OK?

No. Trying to exterminate Jews is not OK. Thank you for coming to my TED talk.

Quote:When the US interned Japanese-Americans in WW II, it was for a good reason - the safety of the country. Did that make internment OK?

No.

(05-26-2021 09:28 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote: [ -> ]

(05-26-2021 08:42 AM)Rice93 Wrote: [ -> ]

(05-26-2021 08:33 AM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote: [ -> ]Someone who played football at some advanced level obviously has some experience that could contribute to success as either a coach or an executive. But that is not the full bag of tricks required for either position. For example, somebody who got a degree in parks and recreation by answering test questions like, "How many points is a 3-point basket worth?" is unlikely to have the requisite business and other skills required to be a competent executive. Someone like the late Courtney Hall would have obviously been qualified had he taken that career path.

Totally agree with this and I never suggested otherwise. My point is that there were and are certainly tons of Courtney Halls out there that could have been picked for some of these positions. And yet they weren't (and still aren't to a great extent).

I think this question is based on the myth of proportionality, that is, if X% of a league's players are black, then X% of its executives (concessionaires, cheerleaders, whatever) should be the same percentage.

This ignores the very thing 93 has been harping on - historical racism. I don't anybody has retired as a player one day and became a GM the next. People have had to "pay their dues", working in lower level positions, learning the craft, and succeeding in their work. In 1982, there was a paucity of such black people - it was growing, but few had made it to the level of experience to be considered. 93 wants them to have been hired solely for their race and playing experience.

Do you even read what I write? My goodness. Epic mischaracterization of my position.

(05-26-2021 09:29 AM)Rice93 Wrote: [ -> ]

(05-26-2021 09:07 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote: [ -> ]

(05-26-2021 12:49 AM)Rice93 Wrote: [ -> ]

(05-25-2021 11:33 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote: [ -> ]We have strayed into a lot of little rabbit trails. We are tying ourselves into knots.

It really is simple.

The one question is this:

Is it OK to do bad things for good reasons, yes or no?

Yes or no? Really? That's quite a question.

I don't know... killing somebody is generally a bad thing however killing Hitler's German forces is generally considered pretty good. So in this situation I would say yes.

Somewhere, way back there, I said that there was a certain group of people who would answer "it depends", and SHAZAM!, here you are.

Wait... so you are good with saying an emphatic "No" to your own question? Where do you fall on my killing Nazi soldier example? That was the wrong thing to do?

Even in the Bible, where it says "Thou shalt not kill, there are lots of battles between armies. I don't consider every killing to be a sin, as I have made clear in the abortion discussions, where I define abortions as falling under the umbrella of legitimate killings". I certainly think that a police killing a gunman who is threatening other lives is OK, even if the gunman is black. I think back to a sermon I heard in my youth where the preacher said the proper translation for the Commandment was Thou shat not murder. Killing enemy soldiers in wartime is not considered murder; killing POWS is. I would not condone the killing of POWs even if there is a "good" reason.

Quote:So it would be OK to steal money from one's employer if the money was used to feed orphans?

No.

Quote:When you can qualify every bad act with with "but it was for a good cause" you can literally justify every bad act.

So it never depends for you?

Quote:So, now give me a yes or no to this question: It is OK to be racist if it is in service to offsetting past racism. Never mind, we know your answer is "yes", racism is OK if used for that purpose.

Of course it depends. If your are using the definition of racist where you consider affirmative action to be "racist" then sure. If you are using the term like "the belief that different races possess distinct characteristics, abilities, or qualities, especially so as to distinguish them as inferior or superior to one another." then no.

I have already told you my definition of racism - in fact it was the genesis of this discussion. But per your definition - do you think blacks have better athletic abilities, such as to distinguish them as superior to whites, Asians, or Hispanics/

Quote:My next question is how do you eradicate racism if you sponsor it and enact it into law? NOT a yes/no question.

See above. How are you defining "racism"?

Again, I have given you that several times. If you need it repeated, just say so.

Quote:Now, before Lad whines about Godwin's Law, you brought up Hitler. Now Hitler did bad things, we all agree. But he did them for what he considered a good cause - to save Germany. Did that make them OK?

No. Trying to exterminate Jews is not OK. Thank you for coming to my TED talk.

But it was for a good reason...

Quote:When the US interned Japanese-Americans in WW II, it was for a good reason - the safety of the country. Did that make internment OK?

No.

But it was for a good reason...

You seem to be able to distinguish good racism from bad racism. What are the criteria you use?

(05-26-2021 09:31 AM)Rice93 Wrote: [ -> ]

(05-26-2021 09:28 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote: [ -> ]

(05-26-2021 08:42 AM)Rice93 Wrote: [ -> ]

(05-26-2021 08:33 AM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote: [ -> ]Someone who played football at some advanced level obviously has some experience that could contribute to success as either a coach or an executive. But that is not the full bag of tricks required for either position. For example, somebody who got a degree in parks and recreation by answering test questions like, "How many points is a 3-point basket worth?" is unlikely to have the requisite business and other skills required to be a competent executive. Someone like the late Courtney Hall would have obviously been qualified had he taken that career path.

Totally agree with this and I never suggested otherwise. My point is that there were and are certainly tons of Courtney Halls out there that could have been picked for some of these positions. And yet they weren't (and still aren't to a great extent).

I think this question is based on the myth of proportionality, that is, if X% of a league's players are black, then X% of its executives (concessionaires, cheerleaders, whatever) should be the same percentage.

This ignores the very thing 93 has been harping on - historical racism. I don't anybody has retired as a player one day and became a GM the next. People have had to "pay their dues", working in lower level positions, learning the craft, and succeeding in their work. In 1982, there was a paucity of such black people - it was growing, but few had made it to the level of experience to be considered. 93 wants them to have been hired solely for their race and playing experience.

Do you even read what I write? My goodness. Epic mischaracterization of my position.

I know the feeling.

So eliminate the last sentence. Now comment on the rest of the post.

(05-26-2021 08:42 AM)Rice93 Wrote: [ -> ]My point is that there were and are certainly tons of Courtney Halls out there that could have been picked for some of these positions.

Actually, there weren't. Courtney was much more the exception than the rule. You had guys playing in the NFL who had not learned how to read and write, despite spending 4 years at a university. The crip majors employed by many of the P5 universities to keep athletes in school and eligible prepared them for exactly no productive endeavours in a market economy.

(05-26-2021 09:45 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote: [ -> ]

(05-26-2021 09:29 AM)Rice93 Wrote: [ -> ]

(05-26-2021 09:07 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote: [ -> ]

(05-26-2021 12:49 AM)Rice93 Wrote: [ -> ][quote='OptimisticOwl' pid='17438824' dateline='1622003614']
We have strayed into a lot of little rabbit trails. We are tying ourselves into knots.

It really is simple.

The one question is this:

Is it OK to do bad things for good reasons, yes or no?

Yes or no? Really? That's quite a question.

I don't know... killing somebody is generally a bad thing however killing Hitler's German forces is generally considered pretty good. So in this situation I would say yes.

Somewhere, way back there, I said that there was a certain group of people who would answer "it depends", and SHAZAM!, here you are.

Wait... so you are good with saying an emphatic "No" to your own question? Where do you fall on my killing Nazi soldier example? That was the wrong thing to do?

Even in the Bible, where it says "Thou shalt not kill, there are lots of battles between armies. I don't consider every killing to be a sin, as I have made clear in the abortion discussions, where I define abortions as falling under the umbrella of legitimate killings". I certainly think that a police killing a gunman who is threatening other lives is OK, even if the gunman is black. I think back to a sermon I heard in my youth where the preacher said the proper translation for the Commandment was Thou shat not murder. Killing enemy soldiers in wartime is not considered murder; killing POWS is. I would not condone the killing of POWs even if there is a "good" reason.

Some killing is OK is some situations but it's not OK in some situations? Like it's a judgement call depending on the circumstances?