(11-18-2015 06:15 PM)MplsBison Wrote:  

(11-18-2015 05:49 PM)Kaplony Wrote:  

(11-18-2015 04:54 PM)MplsBison Wrote:  

(11-18-2015 03:58 PM)adcorbett Wrote:  

(11-18-2015 02:43 PM)MplsBison Wrote:  Of course, the old chicken and the egg:

does the southeast produce more top high school football players per capita than anywhere else because:

i) there's just naturally more football talent in those states

ii) it's just a myth, so all the big schools recruit there, which causes more players from there to be signed by big schools, which in turn makes people think those players must be good or else why would the big schools sign them

??

I'm going with ii.

I think it is I), but there is a caveat to it. I don't; think it is necessarily all "natural," but environmental. In the south, people play football all year around. that breeds a better football player. Literally kids, 6 and 7 year olds, have afterschool care, which consists of 3 hours of football practice, every day, thru middle school, in some areas.
And as such, they all play against each other all year round, so they improve faster. And it is ingrained in the culture. And because of the first two points, coaching and training facilities tend to be better as well, because there is more money at the lower levels to invest.

Plus nearly all of the best athletes play football, whereas in other areas the best athletes may also play basketball (or only play basketball), or baseball, etc. In New Jersey a 6'5 thick kid is an undersized power forward, hoping to play in college. In Georgia, that kid has been playing football his whole life, and is the top rated linebacker or tight end in high school. Just an example. In Pennsylvania, a 6'3 fat kid may not play sports, and may be in the band or something. In Florida, that kid was put on the football field as soon as he could walk, and has been lifting weights since seventh grade, and plays defensive tackle.

I think that's an oversimplification.

But yours is just as valid as mine.


The proof "should be" in the pudding. Ie, if Ohio St wins the national title without any players who grew up playing football in the SE United States, perhaps that means the talent level down there is overrated?

You going to talk Ohio State into not playing Joey Bosa (FL), Michael Hill (SC), Tyquan Lewis (NC), Raekwon McMillan (GA), Jaylen Holmes (VA), and Von Bell (GA)?

So four players from the South. (VA and NC don't count)

Last time I checked NC & VA were in the south so yes they count.

(11-18-2015 11:01 AM)adcorbett Wrote:  

(11-18-2015 12:17 AM)JRsec Wrote:  I have nothing against Missouri, but hands down it is the South Carolina job that is better. The pay is not much different, but you are close to the Augusta National, the Smokey Mountains, Myrtle Beach, Hilton Head, have access to some really nice hunting preserves, a terrific inter-coastal waterway, deep sea fishing (in the Gulf Stream), and are reasonably close to Atlanta, Charlotte, Chattanooga (fishing on the Tennessee river), and if you think you are missing out on Branson you have Dollywood close by.

If you are Steve Spurrier, this makes perfect sense. If you are like many current football coaches, and work pretty close to 24/7, you might as well list the Louvre, Hollywood Hills, and Mt Rushmore as perks, because they are as likely to see those places while working.

I would still say South Carolina is currently the better job. But Missouri may have more potential, as they get more familiar with their SEC surroundings. They did come in and win the SEC East twice in 3 or 4 years, something South Carolina has only done once in 20+ years, and that was with Missouri having a roster mostly recruited while in the Big 12. The question is was that a hindrance or an advantage? Time will tell.

1. Even hard working coaches have families. Where you stick them matters.
2. Missouri won the East because Pinkel was a good coach, Richt played a tougher schedule, and Florida was in Flux while Tennessee was down.
3. I wonder about Mizzou's recruiting going forward as well. Texas was important to them as a connection. It seems to me that having them play A&M every year would be a plus for that hole created by joining the SEC East.
4. Location also matters to the families of the recruits.

(11-18-2015 07:26 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(11-18-2015 11:01 AM)adcorbett Wrote:  

(11-18-2015 12:17 AM)JRsec Wrote:  I have nothing against Missouri, but hands down it is the South Carolina job that is better. The pay is not much different, but you are close to the Augusta National, the Smokey Mountains, Myrtle Beach, Hilton Head, have access to some really nice hunting preserves, a terrific inter-coastal waterway, deep sea fishing (in the Gulf Stream), and are reasonably close to Atlanta, Charlotte, Chattanooga (fishing on the Tennessee river), and if you think you are missing out on Branson you have Dollywood close by.

If you are Steve Spurrier, this makes perfect sense. If you are like many current football coaches, and work pretty close to 24/7, you might as well list the Louvre, Hollywood Hills, and Mt Rushmore as perks, because they are as likely to see those places while working.

I would still say South Carolina is currently the better job. But Missouri may have more potential, as they get more familiar with their SEC surroundings. They did come in and win the SEC East twice in 3 or 4 years, something South Carolina has only done once in 20+ years, and that was with Missouri having a roster mostly recruited while in the Big 12. The question is was that a hindrance or an advantage? Time will tell.

1. Even hard working coaches have families. Where you stick them matters.
2. Missouri won the East because Pinkel was a good coach, Richt played a tougher schedule, and Florida was in Flux while Tennessee was down.
3. I wonder about Mizzou's recruiting going forward as well. Texas was important to them as a connection. It seems to me that having them play A&M every year would be a plus for that hole created by joining the SEC East.
4. Location also matters to the families of the recruits.

Sure Tennessee was down and Florida was unstable but Mizzou won the east in 2013 because they beat UGA, and because they also lost to Vandy. UGA could have played the two worst teams in the west and Mizzou still would have won the divison. And in 2014, they both played Arkansas, and Mizzou played at TAMU whereas UGA played Auburn at home. Schedule was hardly a factor.
Other points are valid, though. Mizzou needs to keep up their Texas recruiting to continue to play at a high level.

(11-18-2015 08:02 PM)miztigers55 Wrote:  

(11-18-2015 07:26 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(11-18-2015 11:01 AM)adcorbett Wrote:  

(11-18-2015 12:17 AM)JRsec Wrote:  I have nothing against Missouri, but hands down it is the South Carolina job that is better. The pay is not much different, but you are close to the Augusta National, the Smokey Mountains, Myrtle Beach, Hilton Head, have access to some really nice hunting preserves, a terrific inter-coastal waterway, deep sea fishing (in the Gulf Stream), and are reasonably close to Atlanta, Charlotte, Chattanooga (fishing on the Tennessee river), and if you think you are missing out on Branson you have Dollywood close by.

If you are Steve Spurrier, this makes perfect sense. If you are like many current football coaches, and work pretty close to 24/7, you might as well list the Louvre, Hollywood Hills, and Mt Rushmore as perks, because they are as likely to see those places while working.

I would still say South Carolina is currently the better job. But Missouri may have more potential, as they get more familiar with their SEC surroundings. They did come in and win the SEC East twice in 3 or 4 years, something South Carolina has only done once in 20+ years, and that was with Missouri having a roster mostly recruited while in the Big 12. The question is was that a hindrance or an advantage? Time will tell.

1. Even hard working coaches have families. Where you stick them matters.
2. Missouri won the East because Pinkel was a good coach, Richt played a tougher schedule, and Florida was in Flux while Tennessee was down.
3. I wonder about Mizzou's recruiting going forward as well. Texas was important to them as a connection. It seems to me that having them play A&M every year would be a plus for that hole created by joining the SEC East.
4. Location also matters to the families of the recruits.

Sure Tennessee was down and Florida was unstable but Mizzou won the east in 2013 because they beat UGA, and because UGA also lost to Vandy. UGA could have played the two worst teams in the west and Mizzou still would have won the divison. And in 2014, they both played Arkansas, and Mizzou played at TAMU whereas UGA played Auburn at home. Schedule was hardly a factor.
Other points are valid, though. Mizzou needs to keep up their Texas recruiting to continue to play at a high level.

(11-18-2015 06:31 PM)Kaplony Wrote:  

(11-18-2015 06:15 PM)MplsBison Wrote:  

(11-18-2015 05:49 PM)Kaplony Wrote:  

(11-18-2015 04:54 PM)MplsBison Wrote:  

(11-18-2015 03:58 PM)adcorbett Wrote:  I think it is I), but there is a caveat to it. I don't; think it is necessarily all "natural," but environmental. In the south, people play football all year around. that breeds a better football player. Literally kids, 6 and 7 year olds, have afterschool care, which consists of 3 hours of football practice, every day, thru middle school, in some areas.
And as such, they all play against each other all year round, so they improve faster. And it is ingrained in the culture. And because of the first two points, coaching and training facilities tend to be better as well, because there is more money at the lower levels to invest.

Plus nearly all of the best athletes play football, whereas in other areas the best athletes may also play basketball (or only play basketball), or baseball, etc. In New Jersey a 6'5 thick kid is an undersized power forward, hoping to play in college. In Georgia, that kid has been playing football his whole life, and is the top rated linebacker or tight end in high school. Just an example. In Pennsylvania, a 6'3 fat kid may not play sports, and may be in the band or something. In Florida, that kid was put on the football field as soon as he could walk, and has been lifting weights since seventh grade, and plays defensive tackle.

I think that's an oversimplification.

But yours is just as valid as mine.


The proof "should be" in the pudding. Ie, if Ohio St wins the national title without any players who grew up playing football in the SE United States, perhaps that means the talent level down there is overrated?

You going to talk Ohio State into not playing Joey Bosa (FL), Michael Hill (SC), Tyquan Lewis (NC), Raekwon McMillan (GA), Jaylen Holmes (VA), and Von Bell (GA)?

So four players from the South. (VA and NC don't count)

Last time I checked NC & VA were in the south so yes they count.

Lat time I checked they were mid-atlantic. NC you might have an argument, VA no way.

The regions overlap. I think North Carolina, Virginia, Maryland, New York, and New Jersey are all considered Mid-Atlantic. North Carolina and Virginia would also be southern while New York and New Jersey northeast. Maryland would have traditionally been viewed as southern, but has been viewed more northern for quite awhile. It kind of depends on what definitions you want to use.

Regardless, southern talent has definitely gained over the years. It used to be that Ohio talent almost alone would leave Ohio State and Michigan as national powers, give some help to the other Big Ten schools, and make the MAC a stronger regional mid-major. Virtually all of these schools are looking south more even though Ohio still produces talent. A similar story can be told in other states.

(11-18-2015 08:02 PM)miztigers55 Wrote:  

(11-18-2015 07:26 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(11-18-2015 11:01 AM)adcorbett Wrote:  

(11-18-2015 12:17 AM)JRsec Wrote:  I have nothing against Missouri, but hands down it is the South Carolina job that is better. The pay is not much different, but you are close to the Augusta National, the Smokey Mountains, Myrtle Beach, Hilton Head, have access to some really nice hunting preserves, a terrific inter-coastal waterway, deep sea fishing (in the Gulf Stream), and are reasonably close to Atlanta, Charlotte, Chattanooga (fishing on the Tennessee river), and if you think you are missing out on Branson you have Dollywood close by.

If you are Steve Spurrier, this makes perfect sense. If you are like many current football coaches, and work pretty close to 24/7, you might as well list the Louvre, Hollywood Hills, and Mt Rushmore as perks, because they are as likely to see those places while working.

I would still say South Carolina is currently the better job. But Missouri may have more potential, as they get more familiar with their SEC surroundings. They did come in and win the SEC East twice in 3 or 4 years, something South Carolina has only done once in 20+ years, and that was with Missouri having a roster mostly recruited while in the Big 12. The question is was that a hindrance or an advantage? Time will tell.

1. Even hard working coaches have families. Where you stick them matters.
2. Missouri won the East because Pinkel was a good coach, Richt played a tougher schedule, and Florida was in Flux while Tennessee was down.
3. I wonder about Mizzou's recruiting going forward as well. Texas was important to them as a connection. It seems to me that having them play A&M every year would be a plus for that hole created by joining the SEC East.
4. Location also matters to the families of the recruits.

Sure Tennessee was down and Florida was unstable but Mizzou won the east in 2013 because they beat UGA, and because they also lost to Vandy. UGA could have played the two worst teams in the west and Mizzou still would have won the divison. And in 2014, they both played Arkansas, and Mizzou played at TAMU whereas UGA played Auburn at home. Schedule was hardly a factor.
Other points are valid, though. Mizzou needs to keep up their Texas recruiting to continue to play at a high level.

Well that's Georgia. Richt drops one every year he should have won. IMO Missouri two years ago deserved to win the East but Florida and Tennessee both being down at the same time made it easier and two years ago you dominated Georgia. Last year was just plain weird. Georgia shut you out. Then they Richted! It was like nobody wanted the East.

(11-18-2015 09:05 PM)ohio1317 Wrote:  The regions overlap. I think North Carolina, Virginia, Maryland, New York, and New Jersey are all considered Mid-Atlantic. North Carolina and Virginia would also be southern while New York and New Jersey northeast. Maryland would have traditionally been viewed as southern, but has been viewed more northern for quite awhile. It kind of depends on what definitions you want to use.

Regardless, southern talent has definitely gained over the years. It used to be that Ohio talent almost alone would leave Ohio State and Michigan as national powers, give some help to the other Big Ten schools, and make the MAC a stronger regional mid-major. Virtually all of these schools are looking south more even though Ohio still produces talent. A similar story can be told in other states.

North Carolina and Virginia are in the South. South Carolina and Georgia are in the Deep South. I don't know why you would refer to VA and NC as Mid-Atlantic but you are mistaken.

(11-18-2015 10:05 AM)MplsBison Wrote:  

(11-18-2015 12:17 AM)JRsec Wrote:  I have nothing against Missouri, but hands down it is the South Carolina job that is better. The pay is not much different, but you are close to the Augusta National, the Smokey Mountains, Myrtle Beach, Hilton Head, have access to some really nice hunting preserves, a terrific inter-coastal waterway, deep sea fishing (in the Gulf Stream), and are reasonably close to Atlanta, Charlotte, Chattanooga (fishing on the Tennessee river), and if you think you are missing out on Branson you have Dollywood close by. And if so inclined there is always the Beach Music festival at Jekyll Island Georgia.

Now I know that Columbia Missouri sports Shakespeare's Pizza and Kansas City isn't far away, and they have great freshwater fishing, but I'm afraid South Carolina has them beat on things to do.

And finally, South Carolina has better recruiting grounds to work.

When is the head coach of a major P5 program going to have time to do any of that stuff??

He may not have a lot of spare time, but his wife and family will.

We're talking about college football programs, not retirement communities.

He may not have spare time, but his wife & children will have spare time.

(11-18-2015 09:05 PM)ohio1317 Wrote:  The regions overlap. I think North Carolina, Virginia, Maryland, New York, and New Jersey are all considered Mid-Atlantic. North Carolina and Virginia would also be southern while New York and New Jersey northeast. Maryland would have traditionally been viewed as southern, but has been viewed more northern for quite awhile. It kind of depends on what definitions you want to use.

Regardless, southern talent has definitely gained over the years. It used to be that Ohio talent almost alone would leave Ohio State and Michigan as national powers, give some help to the other Big Ten schools, and make the MAC a stronger regional mid-major. Virtually all of these schools are looking south more even though Ohio still produces talent. A similar story can be told in other states.

Well, when I was referring to the South (and Southern players), I mean what is universally recognized as the South, and not "overlapping regions". NC and VA don't count.

In other words, states run by old, white, male Evangelical Protestant Christians, and whose rural counties are demographically dominated by poor, Black decedents of slaves, who get no help from their state.

(11-19-2015 08:18 AM)Rabonchild Wrote:  He may not have spare time, but his wife & children will have spare time.

Right, I'm sure the wife and kids are going deep sea fishing, hunting in the foothills and playing golf at Augusta.

She probably dragged him there by the ear.

(11-19-2015 10:31 AM)MplsBison Wrote:  

(11-18-2015 09:05 PM)ohio1317 Wrote:  The regions overlap. I think North Carolina, Virginia, Maryland, New York, and New Jersey are all considered Mid-Atlantic. North Carolina and Virginia would also be southern while New York and New Jersey northeast. Maryland would have traditionally been viewed as southern, but has been viewed more northern for quite awhile. It kind of depends on what definitions you want to use.

Regardless, southern talent has definitely gained over the years. It used to be that Ohio talent almost alone would leave Ohio State and Michigan as national powers, give some help to the other Big Ten schools, and make the MAC a stronger regional mid-major. Virtually all of these schools are looking south more even though Ohio still produces talent. A similar story can be told in other states.

Well, when I was referring to the South (and Southern players), I mean what is universally recognized as the South, and not "overlapping regions". NC and VA don't count.

In other words, states run by old, white, male Evangelical Protestant Christians, and whose rural counties are demographically dominated by poor, Black decedents of slaves, who get no help from their state.

Birmingham, Atlanta, New Orleans, Miami, and other Southern cities don't meet your criteria? And you ought to try spending some time down here and see how much state help the truly poor get. It may not be what it is in the North, but it is certainly more than you might suspect. The real eye opener is that in many places the poor white on welfare outnumber the African Americans . But, I've been to your Northern cities and the disparity there is pretty stark as well. New York, Detroit/Pontiac, Washington D.C., Chicago, and Philadelphia leap to the forefront of my thoughts.

And while in the Minnesota, South Dakota, North Dakota and Michigan areas members of my family helped with the social work for the Native Americans that old white, mostly protestant Northerners had disenfranchised in many instances far worse than the South managed to do during Reconstruction and following. It's just that it is so very hard to see what you aren't willing to admit you have done.

Substitute Lutheran and Presbyterian and Episcopalian for Baptist and Methodist and substitute Native Americans for African Americans and the sin is the same. It's the projection of Notherners against the South's racial prejudice that is just so disgusting. It's too bad most Southerners haven't had exposure to the Reservations, segregation, and job discrimination that Native Amercians experience at your hands. I guess the casinos make up for all of that huh? And by the way the last race riots between our two regions were held in Pontiac and Boston, and held over the issue of busing for the purpose of integrating African Americans into predominantly white schools. Hmmm? Most of the country only thought that happened in the South. We have a plethora of sins to answer for and some of them violent, but we never overturned school buses and set them ablaze. The South was integrated from the late 1950's in some states and from the early 1960's until the mid 60's in Deep South. The riots in Pontiac and Boston were in the early 70's when the changes forced in the South came home to roost in the North.

I've lived all over. Asian Americans are discriminated against in the Northwest and into California. Mexican Americans and Hispanics in general in the Southwest and throughout the Southern Midwest, African Americans in the South and up the Eastern Seaboard and Native Americans throughout the Plains and Northern Midwest. Racism is everyone's problem sir. As one book says, "Remove the log from your own eye before you try to remove the speck from that of your brother."

I thought this would be so much more one-sided than it is. Shows how much I know. I vote for South Carolina.

(11-19-2015 10:32 AM)MplsBison Wrote:  

(11-19-2015 08:18 AM)Rabonchild Wrote:  He may not have spare time, but his wife & children will have spare time.

Right, I'm sure the wife and kids are going deep sea fishing, hunting in the foothills and playing golf at Augusta.

She probably dragged him there by the ear.

Hunting, fishing, golf? You're kidding right? You have traveled more than that right?

Women play golf & attend the Masters. I know it's hard for land locked people to believe but at the beach you can play in the water, parasail, tan, fish from the pier, & shop. And hunting? The mountains have scenic water falls, majestic mountains, wild life, & Dollywood near by.

(11-19-2015 05:33 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(11-19-2015 10:31 AM)MplsBison Wrote:  

(11-18-2015 09:05 PM)ohio1317 Wrote:  The regions overlap. I think North Carolina, Virginia, Maryland, New York, and New Jersey are all considered Mid-Atlantic. North Carolina and Virginia would also be southern while New York and New Jersey northeast. Maryland would have traditionally been viewed as southern, but has been viewed more northern for quite awhile. It kind of depends on what definitions you want to use.

Regardless, southern talent has definitely gained over the years. It used to be that Ohio talent almost alone would leave Ohio State and Michigan as national powers, give some help to the other Big Ten schools, and make the MAC a stronger regional mid-major. Virtually all of these schools are looking south more even though Ohio still produces talent. A similar story can be told in other states.

Well, when I was referring to the South (and Southern players), I mean what is universally recognized as the South, and not "overlapping regions". NC and VA don't count.

In other words, states run by old, white, male Evangelical Protestant Christians, and whose rural counties are demographically dominated by poor, Black decedents of slaves, who get no help from their state.

Birmingham, Atlanta, New Orleans, Miami, and other Southern cities don't meet your criteria? And you ought to try spending some time down here and see how much state help the truly poor get. It may not be what it is in the North, but it is certainly more than you might suspect. The real eye opener is that in many places the poor white on welfare outnumber the African Americans . But, I've been to your Northern cities and the disparity there is pretty stark as well. New York, Detroit/Pontiac, Washington D.C., Chicago, and Philadelphia leap to the forefront of my thoughts.

And while in the Minnesota, South Dakota, North Dakota and Michigan areas members of my family helped with the social work for the Native Americans that old white, mostly protestant Northerners had disenfranchised in many instances far worse than the South managed to do during Reconstruction and following. It's just that it is so very hard to see what you aren't willing to admit you have done.

Substitute Lutheran and Presbyterian and Episcopalian for Baptist and Methodist and substitute Native Americans for African Americans and the sin is the same. It's the projection of Notherners against the South's racial prejudice that is just so disgusting. It's too bad most Southerners haven't had exposure to the Reservations, segregation, and job discrimination that Native Amercians experience at your hands. I guess the casinos make up for all of that huh? And by the way the last race riots between our two regions were held in Pontiac and Boston, and held over the issue of busing for the purpose of integrating African Americans into predominantly white schools. Hmmm? Most of the country only thought that happened in the South. We have a plethora of sins to answer for and some of them violent, but we never overturned school buses and set them ablaze. The South was integrated from the late 1950's in some states and from the early 1960's until the mid 60's in Deep South. The riots in Pontiac and Boston were in the early 70's when the changes forced in the South came home to roost in the North.

I've lived all over. Asian Americans are discriminated against in the Northwest and into California. Mexican Americans and Hispanics in general in the Southwest and throughout the Southern Midwest, African Americans in the South and up the Eastern Seaboard and Native Americans throughout the Plains and Northern Midwest. Racism is everyone's problem sir. As one book says, "Remove the log from your own eye before you try to remove the speck from that of your brother."

I think the term is "Deep South" for universally recognized South.

(11-19-2015 07:06 PM)Rabonchild Wrote:  

(11-19-2015 10:32 AM)MplsBison Wrote:  

(11-19-2015 08:18 AM)Rabonchild Wrote:  He may not have spare time, but his wife & children will have spare time.

Right, I'm sure the wife and kids are going deep sea fishing, hunting in the foothills and playing golf at Augusta.

She probably dragged him there by the ear.

Hunting, fishing, golf? You're kidding right? You have traveled more than that right?

Women play golf & attend the Masters. I know it's hard for land locked people to believe but at the beach you can play in the water, parasail, tan, fish from the pier, & shop. And hunting? The mountains have scenic water falls, majestic mountains, wild life, & Dollywood near by.

That's fine. I wasn't suggesting U of SC was devoid of family friendly attractions.

Just like it's also ridiculous to suggest U of MO has none.


JR was talking about things that supposedly would attract a head coach to a school, because of all the time he will be spending on non-football related activities. So that's what I was referencing.

(11-19-2015 05:33 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(11-19-2015 10:31 AM)MplsBison Wrote:  

(11-18-2015 09:05 PM)ohio1317 Wrote:  The regions overlap. I think North Carolina, Virginia, Maryland, New York, and New Jersey are all considered Mid-Atlantic. North Carolina and Virginia would also be southern while New York and New Jersey northeast. Maryland would have traditionally been viewed as southern, but has been viewed more northern for quite awhile. It kind of depends on what definitions you want to use.

Regardless, southern talent has definitely gained over the years. It used to be that Ohio talent almost alone would leave Ohio State and Michigan as national powers, give some help to the other Big Ten schools, and make the MAC a stronger regional mid-major. Virtually all of these schools are looking south more even though Ohio still produces talent. A similar story can be told in other states.

Well, when I was referring to the South (and Southern players), I mean what is universally recognized as the South, and not "overlapping regions". NC and VA don't count.

In other words, states run by old, white, male Evangelical Protestant Christians, and whose rural counties are demographically dominated by poor, Black decedents of slaves, who get no help from their state.

Birmingham, Atlanta, New Orleans, Miami, and other Southern cities don't meet your criteria? And you ought to try spending some time down here and see how much state help the truly poor get. It may not be what it is in the North, but it is certainly more than you might suspect. The real eye opener is that in many places the poor white on welfare outnumber the African Americans . But, I've been to your Northern cities and the disparity there is pretty stark as well. New York, Detroit/Pontiac, Washington D.C., Chicago, and Philadelphia leap to the forefront of my thoughts.

And while in the Minnesota, South Dakota, North Dakota and Michigan areas members of my family helped with the social work for the Native Americans that old white, mostly protestant Northerners had disenfranchised in many instances far worse than the South managed to do during Reconstruction and following. It's just that it is so very hard to see what you aren't willing to admit you have done.

Substitute Lutheran and Presbyterian and Episcopalian for Baptist and Methodist and substitute Native Americans for African Americans and the sin is the same. It's the projection of Notherners against the South's racial prejudice that is just so disgusting. It's too bad most Southerners haven't had exposure to the Reservations, segregation, and job discrimination that Native Amercians experience at your hands. I guess the casinos make up for all of that huh? And by the way the last race riots between our two regions were held in Pontiac and Boston, and held over the issue of busing for the purpose of integrating African Americans into predominantly white schools. Hmmm? Most of the country only thought that happened in the South. We have a plethora of sins to answer for and some of them violent, but we never overturned school buses and set them ablaze. The South was integrated from the late 1950's in some states and from the early 1960's until the mid 60's in Deep South. The riots in Pontiac and Boston were in the early 70's when the changes forced in the South came home to roost in the North.

I've lived all over. Asian Americans are discriminated against in the Northwest and into California. Mexican Americans and Hispanics in general in the Southwest and throughout the Southern Midwest, African Americans in the South and up the Eastern Seaboard and Native Americans throughout the Plains and Northern Midwest. Racism is everyone's problem sir. As one book says, "Remove the log from your own eye before you try to remove the speck from that of your brother."

i) Nice try.

Racism in the south towards black descendants of slaves is several orders of magnitude higher than racism anywhere else in the country towards black descendants of slaves or any other race/ethnicity.

Not even close. And especially in the North towards Native Americans? You wish. There's probably more racism in the South towards your own Native Americans. You did the exact same thing. So please.

In fact, I know in Alabama not too long ago, the sole Casino in the state (on a Native American reservation, in the south central part of the state) came under fire from the white, Evangelical Protestants that run the state. They want badly to shut it down, but thus far have failed.


ii) The term "African-Americans" doesn't work anymore in referencing black descendants of slaves.

Maybe the rest of the country doesn't get it yet, but it's quite apparent in Minneapolis, where first and second generation Somali (and other East African country) immigrants are thriving and outnumber black descendants of slaves here, who suffer from similar problems of poverty and crime as elsewhere in the country.

And they don't look alike at all, except for skin color. And I think (though I don't know) that (local) black descendants of slaves culture largely rejects recent African immigrants as "not apart of us".

I don't know where in Africa most American slaves came from, if it was West, Central or where, but it definitely wasn't East Africa.

Obviously the term "black descendants of slaves" is way too cumbersome and will never work. But I don't know what else to call them. Just "black" doesn't work and just "African American" doesn't work, because recent East African immigrants are both of those.

(11-20-2015 10:10 AM)MplsBison Wrote:  

(11-19-2015 05:33 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(11-19-2015 10:31 AM)MplsBison Wrote:  

(11-18-2015 09:05 PM)ohio1317 Wrote:  The regions overlap. I think North Carolina, Virginia, Maryland, New York, and New Jersey are all considered Mid-Atlantic. North Carolina and Virginia would also be southern while New York and New Jersey northeast. Maryland would have traditionally been viewed as southern, but has been viewed more northern for quite awhile. It kind of depends on what definitions you want to use.

Regardless, southern talent has definitely gained over the years. It used to be that Ohio talent almost alone would leave Ohio State and Michigan as national powers, give some help to the other Big Ten schools, and make the MAC a stronger regional mid-major. Virtually all of these schools are looking south more even though Ohio still produces talent. A similar story can be told in other states.

Well, when I was referring to the South (and Southern players), I mean what is universally recognized as the South, and not "overlapping regions". NC and VA don't count.

In other words, states run by old, white, male Evangelical Protestant Christians, and whose rural counties are demographically dominated by poor, Black decedents of slaves, who get no help from their state.

Birmingham, Atlanta, New Orleans, Miami, and other Southern cities don't meet your criteria? And you ought to try spending some time down here and see how much state help the truly poor get. It may not be what it is in the North, but it is certainly more than you might suspect. The real eye opener is that in many places the poor white on welfare outnumber the African Americans . But, I've been to your Northern cities and the disparity there is pretty stark as well. New York, Detroit/Pontiac, Washington D.C., Chicago, and Philadelphia leap to the forefront of my thoughts.

And while in the Minnesota, South Dakota, North Dakota and Michigan areas members of my family helped with the social work for the Native Americans that old white, mostly protestant Northerners had disenfranchised in many instances far worse than the South managed to do during Reconstruction and following. It's just that it is so very hard to see what you aren't willing to admit you have done.

Substitute Lutheran and Presbyterian and Episcopalian for Baptist and Methodist and substitute Native Americans for African Americans and the sin is the same. It's the projection of Notherners against the South's racial prejudice that is just so disgusting. It's too bad most Southerners haven't had exposure to the Reservations, segregation, and job discrimination that Native Amercians experience at your hands. I guess the casinos make up for all of that huh? And by the way the last race riots between our two regions were held in Pontiac and Boston, and held over the issue of busing for the purpose of integrating African Americans into predominantly white schools. Hmmm? Most of the country only thought that happened in the South. We have a plethora of sins to answer for and some of them violent, but we never overturned school buses and set them ablaze. The South was integrated from the late 1950's in some states and from the early 1960's until the mid 60's in Deep South. The riots in Pontiac and Boston were in the early 70's when the changes forced in the South came home to roost in the North.

I've lived all over. Asian Americans are discriminated against in the Northwest and into California. Mexican Americans and Hispanics in general in the Southwest and throughout the Southern Midwest, African Americans in the South and up the Eastern Seaboard and Native Americans throughout the Plains and Northern Midwest. Racism is everyone's problem sir. As one book says, "Remove the log from your own eye before you try to remove the speck from that of your brother."

i) Nice try.

Racism in the south towards black descendants of slaves is several orders of magnitude higher than racism anywhere else in the country towards black descendants of slaves or any other race/ethnicity.

Not even close. And especially in the North towards Native Americans? You wish. There's probably more racism in the South towards your own Native Americans. You did the exact same thing. So please.

In fact, I know in Alabama not too long ago, the sole Casino in the state (on a Native American reservation, in the south central part of the state) came under fire from the white, Evangelical Protestants that run the state. They want badly to shut it down, but thus far have failed.


ii) The term "African-Americans" doesn't work anymore in referencing black descendants of slaves.

Maybe the rest of the country doesn't get it yet, but it's quite apparent in Minneapolis, where first and second generation Somali (and other East African country) immigrants are thriving and outnumber black descendants of slaves here, who suffer from similar problems of poverty and crime as elsewhere in the country.

And they don't look alike at all, except for skin color. And I think (though I don't know) that (local) black descendants of slaves culture largely rejects recent African immigrants as "not apart of us".

I don't know where in Africa most American slaves came from, if it was West, Central or where, but it definitely wasn't East Africa.

Obviously the term "black descendants of slaves" is way too cumbersome and will never work. But I don't know what else to call them. Just "black" doesn't work and just "African American" doesn't work, because recent East African immigrants are both of those.

You've never been out of the North have you? And you are dead wrong. The Native Americans lived in conditions more deplorable than the vast majority of blacks in the South. And that's not even close. This is the type of crap that Northern bigots spew all of the time. As long as your economic class prevents your having to socialize, go to school with, or live with most minorities then the problem is dealt with by criticizing another region of the country, usually the South, so you can feel as though you are above the kinds of discrimination more overtly attributed and seen elsewhere. Only you are not.

The glass ceiling in the North, and the unmentioned, whispered on the side discrimination is what you practice up there. Those I've know who have experienced in both places say they prefer the upfront racism of the South to the real, but silent and denied kind they find in the North.

I've visited or lived in 47 of the 48 contiguous, 3 provinces in Canada, and have made other travels outside of the U.S.. I spent two decades of my life working non-profit with the impoverished and I can tell you it is everywhere, but nowhere has it come out in the open and been as honestly acknowledged as it is in the South. At least that is the necessary first step in addressing the pervasive issue. Your response is exactly what I expected. We don't have any inner city area down here that compares to Chicago's South side. I guess that didn't happen to the same set of circumstances? You talk about slavery. Undocumented workers are the new version and they are nationwide. Prostitution is another form. So get real. Our problems with race, class, and the quasi enslavement of the marginalized is legion and it is right there in your Twin Cities as surely as it is in Atlanta. Serve in a soup kitchen this holiday season and then tell me otherwise.

Not jumping in on the race discussion...but for a person from Missouri...Virginia sure as heck isn't the south, and I wouldn't call North Carolina the South either.

"The South" to me, and likely others from other Non-southern regions is this...with a few qualifications for each.

Florida- definitely a piece of the South, but its own animal.

Deep South- Alabama, Mississippi,Tennessee, most of Georgia, parts of South Carolina.

Definitely Southern, but a splash of their own culture - Arkansas, Louisiana

Tweeners- Sorta southern, but sorta not- North Carolina, Kentucky.

If they had given the western most portion of North Carolina to South Carolina, to where it borders tennessee, that is probably the most accurate to me.

Texas and Oklahoma are Southwestern...which is different than the South. Virginia, Maryland, and most of North Carolina are the "atlantic coast' or Mid-atlantic as some have said here.