RSS
From ESPN:
A report commissioned by the University of North Carolina says school academic advisers steered athletes into sham classes over an 18-year period but does not directly implicate coaches or athletic administrators in the scheme.
The report, released Wednesday, says academic advisers in North Carolina’s athletic department colluded with a manager in the African and Afro-American Studies department for student-athletes to take classes to boost their GPAs and keep them eligible in their respective sports.
Here’s a question I’ve never seen asked: What percentage of African-American Studies professors in the United States have their jobs because white Republican boosters of college football and/or basketball teams demand victories from their alma maters’ administrations?
I don’t know the answer, but it seems like an interesting question. (I’ll leave it up to you to fill in the chain of logic for why this would be so.)
At Rice U., there used to be a jock-only major called Commerce. But, in a bout of post-Sixties idealism, the professors revolted and made Rice get rid of the phony, non-academic Commerce major. During my four years at Rice in the late 1970s, the football team won 7 games and lost 37. Cause and effect?
But what if instead of Commerce, jocks were channelled into, say, African-American Studies? What kind of vicious racist hater would complain about the academic worthiness of African-American Studies?
English
Arabic
Chinese (Simplified)
Dutch
French
German
Hebrew
Hindi
Italian
Japanese
Korean
Persian
Polish
Portuguese
Russian
Spanish
Swedish
Turkish
Vietnamese
In the early eighties my campus newspaper had a blurb from one of the professors complaining about the lack of scholarship in the Afro-Am department: “There is no scholarship over there. Really, the thing is embarrassing.”
Today, that article is an example of what cannot be said anymore.
Ah, the good old days.
RE: Black Athletes and Black Studies/African American Studies,
Sounds plausible. After all, AA Studies is basically just a giant affirmative action program for Black academics.
That's it. While iSteve is right that AfroA Studies is an easy major for dumb jocks, the fact is that there are so many other easy majors that AfroA Studies isn't strictly necessary for that. Examples include Business, Communication, Sociology, Psychology, etc. Find a handful of compliant sports fan profs in any of those departments, and you're good to go. But for an aspiring black assistant prof, there's a real problem inasmuch as the profs in those departments have pretty high standards *for one another*. *That's* where AfroAm Studies' raison d'être really kicks in.
Yet another Tom Wolfe novel. This is part of the plot of Charlotte Simmons. The coach steers the players into courses with professors who are “friends of the program.” In an early scene, they are taking a course in the French department in which no French is spoken. The players called it “Frere Jocko.” When Jojo starts to realize he is being cheated of a real education and wants to take a real class, the coach yells at him.
Africa American studies is a soft course just like every other liberal arts. History, English, etc…are all easy majors.
No, they can be made easy majors because of a deficit of operational measures of competence. Whether or not they are easy depends on the department in question. I've known some pretty caustic and skeptical English professors.
What always amazes me about you Yanks is how the only sports you seem into – basketball and American football – are tedious niche specialisms that seem designed to be played only by Africans. A nation of cuckolds!
Other majors that exist for jocks:
Communications: This seems to be one of the more popular. What used to be taught at a technical school was dressed up with 100 and 200 level liberal arts classes into a respectable major.
Criminal Justice: A four year degree that police departments think is bogus is very popular in the SEC. It used to be cops and prison guards were trained on the job. Now they can get a four year degree, before having to be trained on the job.
Apparel, Housing, and Resource Management: This is one of of my favorites offered by Virginia Tech. The Vick brothers were placed in this department. One of the classes is to attend a fashion show. This is basically home economics with a dose of bling.
Family, Youth and Community Service: Florida puts its jocks in this program. Tim Tebow was placed here. This program teaches kids how to volunteer at a non-profit or church.
Physical Activity and Sports Science: This is where West Virginia puts its young scholars from the football team. It’s a bachelor degree in gym. Heck, they even offer a masters in gym so it must be really hard.
Kinesiology: Texas likes this one. I used to think it was just gym with a fancy name, but I’m told graduates go onto exciting careers in massage therapy. If you like getting a back rub from a 250 pound former linebacker, Texas is the place for you.
You would read all the time when Peyton was at Tennessee how he studied game films for hours on end. No one seemed to ask how he could be anything like a normal college student doing this.
I also once read Peyton went out of his way to mix with the student body.
Any major fielded by the equivalent of a "school of education" (e.g., kinesiology, sports management, youth studies, etc.) is bogus.
The first person at my Alma Mater who ever identified himself to me as a member of the football team was also an African Studies minor, so I’m going to guess the proportion is pretty high.
The head of our debate program detested the football team for a number of reasons, one of which was that he previously had football players amongst his students, back when he taught regular classes. I never got the full story, but he was never a man to suffer fools gladly, so I wondered if perhaps he caught flak from the administration for failing or berating star players.
“What percentage of African-American Studies professors in the United States have their jobs because white Republican boosters of college football and/or basketball teams demand victories from their alma maters’ administrations?”
Likewise Women’s Studies/nunneries for their less marriageable daughters?
I attended a Top Ten college which also did not have athletic majors. The athletes tended to cluster in fields such as political science, which were considered easy. Everybody had to take at least one year of science, which the jocks feared and loathed, of course. They certainly didn’t want to try physics, with all the math and the nerdy physics majors; nor did they want to take chemistry or biology, with all the smart, grade-grubbing pre-meds. Geology was their overwhelming choice, hence it was known as “rocks with the jocks.” Our football team wasn’t very good either, even though they played in a relatively easy conference.
In the Ivy Leagueish universities, Af-Am Studies is definitely a response to 1960s student agitation, and obviously doesn’t do much for football success.
It would be interesting to see the Venn diagram: Afro-Am existing to placate student leftists ; Afro-Am existing to win football games ; is there any overlap?
I recall many years ago the Dartmouth young Republicans made a similar claim against an antagonistic black music appreciation teacher, basically that his class was designed to be an automatic A, GPA padder for black students. I imagine this is pretty much rampant.
P.S. Does this mean Michael Jordan didn’t write his own autobiography?
I think you know the answers to these questions.
Unlike most here, I think that there could be a legit specialization in AA studies on the university level, as part of a legit American history degree. But only a specialization. I studied American history & specialized in US labor history. Something like that. But I actually did have to write ALA style footnoted papers, free of typos. My spidey sense tells me that they don’t have to do that. They just show up and get passed.
And let’s not blame the kids for this mess. It’s supposed adults who created it, perpetuate it, and fund it with their hard-earned $$s.
PS – A truly disinterested (yeah, laugh) scholar on AA studies would come up with things that neither side would like to hear. In another universe, I realize.
They must have someone working overtime scrubbing ESPN’s comments section of anything even hinting at what’s really going on there. Searched for the words “black,” “white,” “affirmative action” and “race/racist/racism” and coming up with nothing.
I recently got a low-cost deal on a one -year subscription to ESPN Magazine. Nothing but PC, black athlete worship, and fluff. I won't be renewing my subscription. Sports Illustrated is much better.
They might be at institutions heavily invested in the income stream from the athletic department, but most schools are not but have victimology programs anyway. It’s a function of the addle-pated social ideology of the faculty, not alumni football buffs.
One mission of African-American studies departments is to provide easy courses for black athletes yet allow them to demonstrate progression toward a degree for NCAA compliance purposes. Football is the real campus moneymaker and AA studies allows schools to keep black players eligible.
OT, Magic Johnson can solve the high-tech diversity gap: Call him
http://www.cnbc.com/id/102114232
I guess the irony is the stogy, white conservative who only cares about money and wins is bigger ally to blacks than the efficiency/merit obsessed liberal
The same thing is alleged to have happened at U. of Washington, if not at the department level, then at least at the class level. From Scoreboard, Baby by Ken Armstrong and Nick Perry:
and a paragraph later:
Then later in the book:
That's the funniest thing I've read in quite some time.
My high school athletics program was a front to keep football players eligible and provide a reason to employee the coaches. They took a weightlifting class before school, a ‘coach’s assistant’ class during the day, then football as their last class. 3 out of 6 classes were guaranteed A’s.
Steve,
You are so often tip of the spear in the War on the War on Noticing. However, in this case I believe that Paul Kersey over at SBPDL has had you beat on this topic by a couple of years.
Please peruse your archives in order to prove me wrong.
But using Black Studies/African American Studies has a sanctuary for the academically challenged seems problematic to me.
What about all the future professional community activists who desperately want Black Studies/African American Studies taken seriously so they can use it as a stepping stone to a comfy sinecure in the BGI or admittance to a better tier law school willing to dabble with the promotion of Critical Legal Theory. Thing Harvard when Obama was there.
I was in college only a few years after you. Indiana University had a mostly lousy to mediocre football teams. But at least we had Lee Corso, of ESPN fame and then Sam Wyche, later Bengals head coach, two decent coaches, fantastic motivators and TV personalities . And of course we had the legendary Bobby Knight as our basketball coach.
In my days, non academic jocks were enrolled in the Communication Studies program. I am sure it was because our coaches were in absolute pain when one of their players appeared in the media and did not come off as at least passably well spoken. Actually, I believe this was in the best interests of many of the players. They most often did graduate with significantly improved communication skills and greatly enhanced employment opportunities.
In some ways using Black Studies/African American Studies as dumping grounds reflects exactly what most Southern Whites actually think about the legitimacy of it as an academic field.
I think African American studies started at our finer Ivy League students as a way to give cover to affirmative action admits. It certainly seems plausible that athletics would have made it much easier for this “field of study” to gain a foothold in state universities, even in the South. Athletics cannot explain women’s or gender studies however.
It may be an offshoot of the stated reason for AA studies, or maybe universities are drinking their own Flavor-Aid. Universities can't say they offer AA studies in order to make college easier for their black students, even though that might be the real motivation. Instead, they have to offer some loftier reason. So if they argue that AA studies is a legitimate and necessary academic discipline, then it would be difficult for them to argue that Women's Studies or Hispanic Studies or Queer Studies are not. Result: Colleges now have a large menu of ethnic/gender/sexual orientation based fields that are academically bogus and provide no benefit to society.
acceptance-rates-at-us-medical-schools-in-2013-reveal-racial-profiling-and-affirmative-discrimination-for-blacks-hispanics/medschool-4
US Medical school acceptance rates
MCAT 24-26
Asian 7.7%
White 9.4%
Hispanic 34.0%
Black 65.8%
MCAT 30-32
Asian 63.1%
White 65.4%
Hispanic 93.4%
Black 94.6%
“Is African-American Studies a Front for Athletic Departments?”
Of course. As is any study with the word ‘sport’ in the description.
Canada has college football along with professional teams, how do the handle eligibility?
Here is the report
http://advancingrefor.staging.wpengine.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/10/UNC-FINAL-REPORT.pdf
They just about kill themselves not mentioning race in there.
Every major D1 school has jock majors. Michigan had the much-maligned General Studies. Many football players at Penn State major in Hospitality Management. Even Stanford does it. Only Ivies lack jock majors.
UNC has an average SAT of 1300 and is bringing in 800 sat scores to play football and basketball. Of course this was going to happen, and happens everywhere.
My best friend from childhood earned his B.A. in General Studies in the Navy. It helped him get promoted to Master Chief Petty Officer and he retired after 23 years active duty.
Air Force officers at the base nearby often major in "Systems Engineering" and MIS at the local university's graduate department. Certainly not worthless, like the athletes' majors they are, nonetheless, not all that rigorous as compared to a real graduate engineering or computer science degree.
African American studies courses is basically the same thing as White privilege conferences. They were both created by left wingers so that they can express how much they hate White people.
Steve, here is the famous UNC athlete essay on Rosa Parks.
On the evening of December Rosa Parks decided that she was going to sit in the white people section on the bus in Montgomery, Alabama. During this time blacks had to give up there seats to whites when more whites got on the bus. Rosa parks refused to give up her seat. Her and the bus driver began to talk and the conversation went like this. “Let me have those front seats” said the driver. She didn’t get up and told the driver that she was tired of giving her seat to white people. “I’m going to have you arrested,” said the driver. “You may do that,” Rosa Parks responded. Two white policemen came in and Rosa Parks asked them “why do you all push us around?” The police officer replied and said “I don’t know, but the law is the law and you’re under arrest.
Read more: http://www.businessinsider.com/unc-athlete-essay-a-minus-2014-10#ixzz3Gz4NDiST
Traditional departments– physics, history, economics, literature, speech, architecture, linguistics– are disciplines.
Anything with “studies” in the title is an indiscipline.
http://www.rasmussen.edu/student-life/blogs/main/athletes-with-college-degrees/
Antawn Jamison
Upon leaving the University of North Carolina after his junior year to enter the NBA draft, Jamison knew that one day he would finish what he had started in the classroom. He quickly returned a year later to complete his degree in African-American studies.
Jerry Stackhouse
Upon entering the 1995 NBA draft after just two years at the University of North Carolina, Stackhouse was 50 credit hours short of earning a degree in African-American studies. During his first four years in the league, he took summer classes to complete the degree in 1999, fulfilling a promise he made to his mom and coach.
Vince Carter
While many people remember him for his high flying dunks in the NBA, you may not know that after leaving the University of North Carolina after his junior year in 1998, he promised his mother that he would return to complete his degree in African-American studies – which he did. He even attended his graduation ceremony on the morning of a playoff game in 2001.
Interesting to look at these lists as well:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_University_of_North_Carolina_at_Chapel_Hill_alumni#Sports
Unfortunately it only lists a college major if the athlete actually graduated. It’d be a better picture if it showed major or even intended major for those who did not graduate.
Why is degree in AA studies any worse or better than English Lit or Sociology? All are equally worthless, especially when taught by Cultural Marxists.
While I mock my college major (Sociology) frequently, at least it required me to take courses in statistics. That's the primary reason I can put food on my table (that, and survey design, but that's pretty intuitive).
I doubt that * studies/English Lit/etc have much in the way of quantitative analysis.Replies: @syonredux
As for "Cultural Marxists" teaching stuff like Milton, well, it is quite annoying at times.On the other hand, I have noticed that the "Cultural Marxists" who teach real subjects (Romantic Lit, Shakespeare, etc) tend to be real scholars. Hence, even when they are in full-on social war mode, they are still aware of things like the aesthetic value of literature.The moronic "lumpen-intelligentsia" types (the ones who confuse PC content with quality) usually confine themselves to things like African American Studies, Caribbean Studies, etc.
* No double-dipping was allowed. E.g, you couldn't count your Medieval to Early Modern as fulfilling your pre-1800 requirement .
What kind of vicious racist hater would complain about the academic worthiness of African-American Studies?
Larry Summers
OT and Sailerbait
More like proving Sailer right (photo ID to vote):
http://dailycaller.com/2014/10/23/maryland-democrats-play-the-race-card-in-latest-mailer/
“What percentage of African-American Studies professors in the United States have their jobs because white Republican boosters of college football and/or basketball teams demand victories from their alma maters’ administrations?”
Interesting question, Steve. One thing to take into account is that the famed 08 USA Today article of NCAA Div 1 BB/FB athletes choosing the same majors or “clustering” together, African-American studies wasn’t named as the most common major.
Among the common majors that athletic guidance counselors steered their charges:
Communications
Sociology
Business
Criminal Justice
Other
Perhaps in 08 the African-American Studies major hadn’t fully been utilized by NCAA athletes for clustering purposes. If the trend continues (and we have to assume that UNC isn’t the only NCAA school guilty of utilizing the AA Studies major), there could come a time where the NCAA white athletes will be corralled into Communications and Sociology and the black athletes into AA Studies.
It doesn’t tend to say very much for Sociology major, does it? One of nurture’s penultimate university majors, the anti-Galton, anti-nurture, ever suspicious of Nicholas Wade’s general big picture ideas regarding DNA basis for race, etc. is at the end of the day, largely a holding place for the NCAA’s “special admit” students.
All this merely helps to emphasize that perhaps its high time that the NCAA drop the sham of “student athlete”. Just pay the (FB/BB) players since they are employees of the university in all but actual name.
The O’Bannon case got it absolutely correct. Players should be compensated. They work for the university and are not really students.
Compare this to the kind of unpaid internship sought after say, at a prestigious magazine or publishing house where, I've heard it complained, the intern is little more than a grunt, fetching coffee and making copies.Replies: @Yojimbo/Zatoichi
Alternative theory: AAS departments are insular, so they have no idea how easy their courses are (compared to the math department next door). Only black students take these courses, and you can’t fail everybody. Repeat for twenty years and you get higher grade inflation than average. Black athletes enter these courses because of ethnic pride, and it doesn’t hurt that it sounds like an easy major.
I’m a white guy who took the intro AAS course for a diversity requirement (or something), and I scored a 100. I was the only white guy in the course, plus one or two homely white chicks (no comment necessary?).
At Duke it was the sociology department…
Couldn’t Rice just have replaced “Commerce” with “Communications”? I’ve always assumed that the latter is offered as a jock major.
Here’s your Black Studies final exam, in it’s entirety.
Q: Whose fault is it?
a) Whitey
b) Whitey
c) The Man
d) Whitey
All answers are correct.
Q: Whose fault is it?
a) Whitey
b) Whity
c) Da Man
d) Witey
The correct answer, a, is worth 100 points. An incorrect answer is only worth 99.5 points.
Extra credit (90 points) is given to those athletes who spell their names correctly.
Steve, you should post a screenshot of this ridiculous one paragraph essay that earned an A minus on a final exam at UNC:
“A UNC Athlete Got An A-Minus In A Fake ‘Paper Class’ With This Ridiculous One-Paragraph Final Essay”
http://www.businessinsider.com/unc-athlete-essay-a-minus-2014-10
K.C. Jones went to Commerce High in SF. Long defunct, but I’m told it was a mostly black school.
I don’t know to properly characterize my reaction to this. As a WVU graduate I find myself greeting this with a smug smile aka a smirk. For years, since the early 1950s, WVU tried to get into the Atlantic Coast Conference as a haven for our athletic teams, but we always rejected as not quite good enough–more truthfully probably not nearly good enough to associate with those Ivy league schools on Tobacco Road. Our last failure ended up with us fleeing to the arms of the Big 12 as its tenth and most recent team.
Now we discover that our academic betters have been cooking the books with bogus classes to maintain their, except for basketball, mediocre athletic programs.
As I said I’m currently smirking. If sanctions are applied I’ll let myself experience a full YEEHAW schadenfreude moment.
And in the highly unlikely that the death penalty is visited upon the Tarheels, I’ll buy a pickup truck, drive to the Smokies, buy a new couch at any one of several furniture factories, return home and set fire to it.
And, yes, I am aware that similar classes no doubt exist at my dear old alma mater, but at least us dumb hillbillies haven’t got caught–yet. Probably comes from hidin’ all those still down in them there hollers.
“Why is degree in AA studies any worse or better than English Lit or Sociology? All are equally worthless, especially when taught by Cultural Marxists.”
While I mock my college major (Sociology) frequently, at least it required me to take courses in statistics. That’s the primary reason I can put food on my table (that, and survey design, but that’s pretty intuitive).
I doubt that * studies/English Lit/etc have much in the way of quantitative analysis.
I took a music class that was mostly football players. It was known as “clapping for credit.”
You are so often tip of the spear in the War on the War on Noticing. However, in this case I believe that Paul Kersey over at SBPDL has had you beat on this topic by a couple of years.
Please peruse your archives in order to prove me wrong.
But using Black Studies/African American Studies has a sanctuary for the academically challenged seems problematic to me.
What about all the future professional community activists who desperately want Black Studies/African American Studies taken seriously so they can use it as a stepping stone to a comfy sinecure in the BGI or admittance to a better tier law school willing to dabble with the promotion of Critical Legal Theory. Thing Harvard when Obama was there.
I was in college only a few years after you. Indiana University had a mostly lousy to mediocre football teams. But at least we had Lee Corso, of ESPN fame and then Sam Wyche, later Bengals head coach, two decent coaches, fantastic motivators and TV personalities . And of course we had the legendary Bobby Knight as our basketball coach.
In my days, non academic jocks were enrolled in the Communication Studies program. I am sure it was because our coaches were in absolute pain when one of their players appeared in the media and did not come off as at least passably well spoken. Actually, I believe this was in the best interests of many of the players. They most often did graduate with significantly improved communication skills and greatly enhanced employment opportunities.
In some ways using Black Studies/African American Studies as dumping grounds reflects exactly what most Southern Whites actually think about the legitimacy of it as an academic field.Replies: @Steve Sailer
If a Communications Major involves a lot of sales training, well, that could prove useful for jocks.
The future of America:
http://digg.com/video/drunk-san-francisco-tour-guide-gives-racist-expletive-laden-tour-of-chinatown
I can’t speak for sociology, but even the most “multiculturally ” minded English major is still going to have to take at least a handful of courses with actual content.For example, when I was an undergrad at Berkeley, a degree in English required that one take a series of standard survey courses (Medieval through Early Modern, Early Modern to present day, etc), a Shakespeare class, and a class that dealt with pre-1800 English Lit*.Naturally, the non-White grievance mongers moaned about having to take stuff written by Dead White Guys like Shakespeare, but they still had to take them.
As for “Cultural Marxists” teaching stuff like Milton, well, it is quite annoying at times.On the other hand, I have noticed that the “Cultural Marxists” who teach real subjects (Romantic Lit, Shakespeare, etc) tend to be real scholars. Hence, even when they are in full-on social war mode, they are still aware of things like the aesthetic value of literature.The moronic “lumpen-intelligentsia” types (the ones who confuse PC content with quality) usually confine themselves to things like African American Studies, Caribbean Studies, etc.
* No double-dipping was allowed. E.g, you couldn’t count your Medieval to Early Modern as fulfilling your pre-1800 requirement .
Hahaha, Superman at number 6 has a similar observation to mine re. popular sports in the USA. This is slightly changing the subject, but I also observe that when the White yoot of America can’t compete with better Black athletes in traditional sport, they just invent a new sport ( any X Games stupid shit ) and declare victory! The corporate money and endorsements follow, and BANG, White boys still get rich! And no bullshit NCAA to satisfy.
History, English, etc…are all easy majors.
No, they can be made easy majors because of a deficit of operational measures of competence. Whether or not they are easy depends on the department in question. I’ve known some pretty caustic and skeptical English professors.
LOL
Were the girls hoping for an Mrs. degree?
This is only the tip of the iceberg: African American “professors” have been dumbing down academia since the advent of affirmative action. Just look at some of the “star” African American professors to get a good idea of what damage is being done to places like Harvard. One doofus by the name of Cornel West was named University professor while at Harvard, an honor supposedly reserved for the cream of the Harvard faculty. You don’t have to be a genius to figure out how Michelle Obama and Eric Holder got their Ivy credentials. In a word, it’s corruption, and universities should stop doling out these sinecures to unqualified blacks and Hispanics.
They both passed the bar exam. Their raw intellect is likely adequate for most intents and purposes. Holder has also prospered in Big Law. The real problem with Holder is social ideology and a deficit of character and professionalism. The problem with Mooch is that she seen her opportunities and she took 'em (aided, in part, perhaps, by some confusion about what constitutes a serious career in the white collar world); her vocational development was truncated by the willingness of institutional administrators to hand her patronage jobs; you can look at the list of her employments over the period running from 1991 to 2008 and have only the foggiest idea of what she was employed to do (though learning that her husband was chairman of a crucial subcommittee in the Illinois legislature while she was in the apparat at the University of Chicago Hospitals might help you).Replies: @Kaz, @Anonymous
While I mock my college major (Sociology) frequently, at least it required me to take courses in statistics. That's the primary reason I can put food on my table (that, and survey design, but that's pretty intuitive).
I doubt that * studies/English Lit/etc have much in the way of quantitative analysis.Replies: @syonredux
Well, I am, of course, biased (PHD in English Lit), but I do think that subjects like Art, History, English Lit, Philosophy, etc, are important. Reading Kant, Hume, Milton, Melville, William James, Plato, Spenser, etc, has enriched my life in incalculable ways. Everything that Man does is not reducible to its cash value.
Steve, talking schools and athletics, a more important issue is the way mandatory Phys. Ed. classes in junior high and high school exist to mask the enormous cost of athletics programs. Without requiring all the kids to take mandatory Phys. Ed., the schools and the state could not justify the cost of athletics fields, locker rooms, gyms, showers, equipment, supplies, coaches, etc. If they made Phys. Ed. an elective, not 10% of the kids would take it.
Its not mandatory at most colleges any more but it was when I went to college in the late 60s, early 70s: two years of mandatory Phys. Ed. and if you couldn’t swim across the pool when you entered college, the first 2 semesters had to be swimming. Why should a college care if someone can swim or not? They don’t care any more.
Mandatory Phys. Ed. is unfair to any kid who doesn’t want to take it and thats most of them. They are being mistreated and they know it. One more thing that makes adolescence tough and makes school an oppressive experience. For what? Phys. Ed. doesn’t go away in secondary schools because big interests want those athletics programs and the only way they can have them is to write off the cost on the entire student body. Probably a lot of campaign contributors making money selling to the schools, too.
They certainly didn’t want to try physics, with all the math and the nerdy physics majors; nor did they want to take chemistry or biology, with all the smart, grade-grubbing pre-meds.
Very few people of any description major in physics or chemistry. Most collegians major in vocational subjects (business, teacher training, and nursing are the mode), with the academic arts and sciences and the fine and performing arts accounting for perhaps 39% of all diplomas awarded. Within that subfraction, the share taking degrees in physics or chemistry is very modest (in the low single digits). I have some data from New Jersey’s state institutions on degrees awarded in some recent years. Psychology and biology are the modal choices among arts and sciences majors, but you’d be hard put to find at any institution with more than 2% of the graduating student body receiving degrees in the physical sciences (and the story is not much different regarding the geological sciences). The liberal arts college I know best (a selective one) awards 3% of its diplomas to students of physical sciences and not much more to students in geo-sciences.
At my alma mater Maryland a lot of athletes are Family Studies majors. A Duke grad told me Sociology is the big jock degree.
Even tiny schools with no real athletics programs have Black Studies programs. There are so many colleges and universities these days, that the standards at smaller schools pretty much have to be lowered to attract students. There should be a place for more affordable, less prestigious, middle-brow local schools, but I think that niche has been destroyed.
I think the most popular game in the U.S. is baseball, which is still mostly played by white guys? Anyway, I don’t know why American colleges don’t field baseball teams. There’s probably some historical reason for it. (Or maybe they do, and we just don’t hear about their exploits.)
Football is the most popular sport, at least in terms of spectatorship.
There is NCAA baseball by the way, and it is predominantly white. It's not particularly popular though for a few reasons that include the fact that the best American players can be drafted at age 18 and don't go to college at all and that foreign prospects -- who make up something like 30 percent of professional baseball players -- don't participate.Replies: @buzz arlett
Communications: This seems to be one of the more popular. What used to be taught at a technical school was dressed up with 100 and 200 level liberal arts classes into a respectable major.
Criminal Justice: A four year degree that police departments think is bogus is very popular in the SEC. It used to be cops and prison guards were trained on the job. Now they can get a four year degree, before having to be trained on the job.
Apparel, Housing, and Resource Management: This is one of of my favorites offered by Virginia Tech. The Vick brothers were placed in this department. One of the classes is to attend a fashion show. This is basically home economics with a dose of bling.
Family, Youth and Community Service: Florida puts its jocks in this program. Tim Tebow was placed here. This program teaches kids how to volunteer at a non-profit or church.
Physical Activity and Sports Science: This is where West Virginia puts its young scholars from the football team. It's a bachelor degree in gym. Heck, they even offer a masters in gym so it must be really hard.
Kinesiology: Texas likes this one. I used to think it was just gym with a fancy name, but I'm told graduates go onto exciting careers in massage therapy. If you like getting a back rub from a 250 pound former linebacker, Texas is the place for you.Replies: @Art Deco, @David In TN, @Anonymous
Other than the athletics majors, they do not ‘exist for jocks’. Most youngsters study vocational programs.
By way of example, I have a cousin who put in a year at the Fashion Institute of Technology. She works for Christie’s auction house. Her brother was a ‘public justice’ major. He’s spent much of his adult life working for commercial companies which act as subcontractors for social services departments. Neither was athletic. I’ve another proximate relation who was a ‘community services major’. She was a social worker for most of her working life, as you might guess (and never the least bit athletic). I had a neighbor in high school who has a communications degree. He works in the advertising business, as you might guess. (He was more a stoner than an athlete, though something of both).
I’m a grad student at a school that ranks in top 3 or 5 on USnews rankings, and have TA’d classes for 2 yrs. The students overall are mediocre with one or two occasional bright ones. One thing I’ve noticed is that the athletes are consistently smarter on average than the other students. The football team is all-white basically by the way, and of course the hockey team is all-white, and these guys have on the whole been more interested in learning and been more open-minded than the other students. They are also the only “conservative” or right-leaning or at least non-PC demographic in the school, which is why they’re resented by everyone else, especially the professors and the grad students, who relentlessly condescend to them and try to get them in all kinds of petty ways. I’m usually not a fan of administrators but in this case it’s the admins (beholden, no doubt, to donors) who often step in to protect athletes who are targeted in all kinds of petty ways.
By the way my experience in this and similar schools has shown me that affirmative action is designed primarily to benefit white girls. The dumbest students I’ve had have been white girls (includes Jewish girls) who have often written at a level approaching illiteracy. I’ve had some nearly-illiterate students incapable of logic and with one or two exceptions all have been white girls. My (very few) black students have not been as bad, and I suspect that they’re there mostly to give cover to mediocre white girls, who, by the way, are also the most aggressively ideological and PC.
You don’t have to be a genius to figure out how Michelle Obama and Eric Holder got their Ivy credentials.
They both passed the bar exam. Their raw intellect is likely adequate for most intents and purposes. Holder has also prospered in Big Law. The real problem with Holder is social ideology and a deficit of character and professionalism. The problem with Mooch is that she seen her opportunities and she took ’em (aided, in part, perhaps, by some confusion about what constitutes a serious career in the white collar world); her vocational development was truncated by the willingness of institutional administrators to hand her patronage jobs; you can look at the list of her employments over the period running from 1991 to 2008 and have only the foggiest idea of what she was employed to do (though learning that her husband was chairman of a crucial subcommittee in the Illinois legislature while she was in the apparat at the University of Chicago Hospitals might help you).
In their current dumbed-down state that is true, but it hasn’t always been so. A rigorous English or history course could assign hundreds of pages of reading per week and require numerous short papers as well as lengthy term papers. In a small seminar setting, it would be difficult to fake doing the required reading, and at a quality institution, the standards for the written work would be high. That’s what college used to be like before it was decided that almost everyone who graduates from high school should seek a degree.
Annual matriculations amount to about 35% of each age cohort and this has not changed much in a generation. Most take arts and sciences courses because convention requires four year degree programs padded with distribution credits. Most are there for vocational study and only 14% of age cohorts enroll in colleges and universities to study academics and the arts.
Frankly majors like African-American studies are a good compromise between the competing factions which make up universities.
Big time athletics boosters and fans of the football team like the fact the best athletes are able to become “student-athletes” at their school. Deans and presidents are certainly okay with the added diversity and graduation rates. Black academics are able to find a stimulating discipline in which they will be professionally unchallenged, and enjoy all the benefits which come with being a tenured professor. Left-wing activists will use these courses to advance the latest radical social theories. And other, more serious disciplines are under less pressure to hire or teach unqualified minorities given this outlet exists.
For all these benefits, what are the negatives? Few in my estimation, at least given the current state of the university. Employers don’t discount someone’s MBA or JD because the person came from a school with a General Studies major anymore than they think an 85 IQ “student-athlete” who was tutored through school is as valuable as the STEM graduate with a 3.8. I suppose what bothers conservatives the most is the further mockery of higher education–a once proud tradition which has been ravaged by the left. There is no need for this idealism when it comes to colleges and universities anymore.
It’s amazingly elitist to assume that college athletes should be average or above average students. Young men with high athletic intelligence like Mike Brown deserve a glimpse of great works like The Faerie Queene as much as anyone else does.
By the way my experience in this and similar schools has shown me that affirmative action is designed primarily to benefit white girls. The dumbest students I've had have been white girls (includes Jewish girls) who have often written at a level approaching illiteracy. I've had some nearly-illiterate students incapable of logic and with one or two exceptions all have been white girls. My (very few) black students have not been as bad, and I suspect that they're there mostly to give cover to mediocre white girls, who, by the way, are also the most aggressively ideological and PC.Replies: @Anonymous
What percentage of the students were taking the courses that you TA’d out of interest rather than as a requirement? I recall that students tended to expend as little effort as possible on required “core” or “general education” courses that fell outside their fields of interest. American higher education would be better served by dropping competitive athletics and general education requirements. Degrees could then be completed within three years as they are in Britain.
Overall the quality of student is mediocre (with some notable exceptions), the athletes are above average usually, and affirmative action seems to have been designed for the most part to give white girls an advantage. I'm talking aggressive stupidity, and aggressive conformism to liberal homilies.
That’s what college used to be like before it was decided that almost everyone who graduates from high school should seek a degree.
Annual matriculations amount to about 35% of each age cohort and this has not changed much in a generation. Most take arts and sciences courses because convention requires four year degree programs padded with distribution credits. Most are there for vocational study and only 14% of age cohorts enroll in colleges and universities to study academics and the arts.
I’m shocked! Why is UNC being singled out? Who did they piss off? I mean, Dexter Manley went to college and he couldn’t read.
The amazing thing to me is despite the fake classes, phony majors, grade inflation etc the players still can’t graduate. Back in 2010, U. of Maryland was found to have the lowest graduation rate of all the teams in the NCAA bball tournament. Quite a feat. Here’s a great quote from ‘Hall of Shame’ coach Gary Williams, defending his players:
“This is wrong, to say that these people aren’t successful,” Williams said. “Do you know Barry Gossett never graduated from the University of Maryland? He never graduated, but nobody ever criticizes Barry Gossett because he gives $12 million or whatever for the football team house. Barry’s a good guy. He’s done a lot of great things for the University of Maryland. Dan Snyder dropped out of Maryland after his freshman year. It’s just the way it works. Bill Gates never
graduated from Harvard.”
Bracketing out distribution credits and preparatory study, you do not need three years worth (90 credit hours) of study for many vocational programs (you do for medicine and certain perimedical occupations, law according to contemporary standards, and architecture). Academic programs and arts programs do not prepare you for any specific sort of employment bar teaching and 90 credit-hours of literary studey to be a high school English teacher is nice but not necessary.
Something like 98% of all scholarship college athletes do not go on to play pro sports. So, beside government jobs, where do these athletes end up working after their college careers are over? Retail? Life insurance sales?
Communications: This seems to be one of the more popular. What used to be taught at a technical school was dressed up with 100 and 200 level liberal arts classes into a respectable major.
Criminal Justice: A four year degree that police departments think is bogus is very popular in the SEC. It used to be cops and prison guards were trained on the job. Now they can get a four year degree, before having to be trained on the job.
Apparel, Housing, and Resource Management: This is one of of my favorites offered by Virginia Tech. The Vick brothers were placed in this department. One of the classes is to attend a fashion show. This is basically home economics with a dose of bling.
Family, Youth and Community Service: Florida puts its jocks in this program. Tim Tebow was placed here. This program teaches kids how to volunteer at a non-profit or church.
Physical Activity and Sports Science: This is where West Virginia puts its young scholars from the football team. It's a bachelor degree in gym. Heck, they even offer a masters in gym so it must be really hard.
Kinesiology: Texas likes this one. I used to think it was just gym with a fancy name, but I'm told graduates go onto exciting careers in massage therapy. If you like getting a back rub from a 250 pound former linebacker, Texas is the place for you.Replies: @Art Deco, @David In TN, @Anonymous
I think Peyton Manning majored in Communications, perhaps on the idea he would go into broadcasting when his career was over.
You would read all the time when Peyton was at Tennessee how he studied game films for hours on end. No one seemed to ask how he could be anything like a normal college student doing this.
I also once read Peyton went out of his way to mix with the student body.
There are success stories too. This guy was both a notoriously difficult professor (for all students, including athletes) and a famously popular one – his lectures were always packed with auditors beyond those officially enrolled, including about half athletes, many African-American. His secret was high expectations, and his theory that athletics required a very disciplined and capable mind. He was extraordinarily adept at getting athletes to invest themselves in his classes with the same enthusiasm and dedication they invested themselves in their sports.
He also had a Sailerite level of impatience with conventional foolery.
On a side note but somewhat related to the whole African-American studies and the cultural norms that undergird it, there is a minor controversy brewing in the Seattle Seahawks locker room between their star QB and the other African-American players.
Apparently they don’t believe that Russell Wilson is “black enough.” This is of course in the same mode as Garry Sheffield about Jeter; the black players re: Jonathan Martin; ESPN commentator over “Cornball Brother” RG3; etc.
Is this a spill over from African-American Studies in general? A criteria used to judge those who are authentically black for the community at large? Because it has been going on for quite a few decades.
They must have someone working overtime scrubbing ESPN’s comments section…
I recently got a low-cost deal on a one -year subscription to ESPN Magazine. Nothing but PC, black athlete worship, and fluff. I won’t be renewing my subscription. Sports Illustrated is much better.
They both passed the bar exam. Their raw intellect is likely adequate for most intents and purposes. Holder has also prospered in Big Law. The real problem with Holder is social ideology and a deficit of character and professionalism. The problem with Mooch is that she seen her opportunities and she took 'em (aided, in part, perhaps, by some confusion about what constitutes a serious career in the white collar world); her vocational development was truncated by the willingness of institutional administrators to hand her patronage jobs; you can look at the list of her employments over the period running from 1991 to 2008 and have only the foggiest idea of what she was employed to do (though learning that her husband was chairman of a crucial subcommittee in the Illinois legislature while she was in the apparat at the University of Chicago Hospitals might help you).Replies: @Kaz, @Anonymous
Michelle Obama passed after failing a half dozen times.
‘Canada has college football along with professional teams, how do the handle eligibility?”
Canadian colleges and universities do not give out sports scholarships.
“I think the most popular game in the U.S. is baseball, which is still mostly played by white guys? Anyway, I don’t know why American colleges don’t field baseball teams. There’s probably some historical reason for it. (Or maybe they do, and we just don’t hear about their exploits.)”
Baseball hasn’t been the most popular sport in the USA for a very long time. NFL took over that spot some time back in the 1960s or 70s I think.
Blacks don’t play baseball as much as they used to, but you’ve also got lots of Latin American and some Asian imports so it’s not exactly a game just played by whites, either.
American colleges and universities do field baseball teams. You don’t hear about it because the big money NCAA sports are football and basketball; all other NCAA sports are pretty much ignored (although the baseball college world series does show up annually on ESPN). Most baseball recruits go through the minor league farm system; MLB does not use the NCAA as its farm league like the NFL and NBA do.
That is not what the point of the post was about. Specifically, the relevant question is: what percentage of athletes at NCAA Div 1 schools (and break it down further, the FB/BB players) would consciously choose to major in STEM related fields?
Less than 2%, if that high. Judging by the USA Today article which breaks down FB/BB’s majors in general and there’s nary a STEM major among ’em of any significant percentage whatsoever.
Again and again. As NCAA Div 1 FB/BB athletes are among the top 1% of total athletes among their age group in the US (just a step below NFL/NBA w/some ones and dones already NBA ready) the real measure of IQ would be to compare this top 1% group with their individual campus’s top 1% of non-athletic students in IQ and that would include STEM; Medicine; Law; etc (e.g. the hard majors not the soft majors).
Example: Ted Williams’s non-athletic peer of his generation, a person to compare him with, would be James Watson of DNA, Double Helix. Both men today are considered to be among the top 1% in their individual field. Which person would tend to have the higher IQ? That’s a fair question.
Then tell us which 1% group, the non-athletic group or the athletic group will tend to have a much higher IQ.
And remember, per FB, they have to take the Wonderlich which would tend to present hard evidence for how they would do vs their true peers, the campus’s top 1% non-athletic students.
I'm pointing out the post was misconceived. Vocational majors are staples of higher education and victimology programs are common as well. They are not signatures of schools invested in sports.Replies: @Yojimbo/Zatoichi, @WhatEvvs
UNC has an average SAT of 1300 and is bringing in 800 sat scores to play football and basketball. Of course this was going to happen, and happens everywhere.Replies: @E. Rekshun
Every major D1 school has jock majors. Michigan had the much-maligned General Studies.
My best friend from childhood earned his B.A. in General Studies in the Navy. It helped him get promoted to Master Chief Petty Officer and he retired after 23 years active duty.
Air Force officers at the base nearby often major in “Systems Engineering” and MIS at the local university’s graduate department. Certainly not worthless, like the athletes’ majors they are, nonetheless, not all that rigorous as compared to a real graduate engineering or computer science degree.
Colleges do have baseball teams.
Football is the most popular sport, at least in terms of spectatorship.
“Pre-math” is one major I saw written under the picture of a star player being introduced to the television audience for a big-time college game. Had to have been a gag.
It’s quite conceivable that many of those departments do exist mainly for athletes. This does not mean that most of the students in them are athletes. If these departments didn’t exist, the non-athletes would just major in the normal humanities departments like English and History and do fine and be just as prepared for their careers as they are majoring in “communications” or whatever. But the athletes would not be able to hack it in the normal traditional departments without completely dumbing them down, so there’s a demand for alternative departments.
Huh? I'm from New York and all the individuals named received their schooling in New York bar one fellow who attended the University of Delaware (as opposed to the State College at Brockport, which also had a communications faculty). Syracuse University is invested in sports. Otherwise, it's not that important to higher education in our part of the country and I have a difficult time believing that football and basketball players are studying in vocational programs meant for the social work apparat and the rag trade. Take it up with the chaps at the University of Alabama.
Baseball is the nation’s pastime, but is dwarfed in popularity by football. I’ve heard that 90 million Americans follow the NFL more than casually.
There is NCAA baseball by the way, and it is predominantly white. It’s not particularly popular though for a few reasons that include the fact that the best American players can be drafted at age 18 and don’t go to college at all and that foreign prospects — who make up something like 30 percent of professional baseball players — don’t participate.
As Glenn Reynolds, would say, “Yes. Next question”.
“If a Communications Major involves a lot of sales training, well, that could prove useful for jocks.”
From what I hear, the starting QB at my alma mater during my time there is now working at a car dealership near the university. I believe he was either a communications or marketing major.
Given the degraded state of higher education, just drop all pretenses of potential NFL and NBA athletes being college material, just let the colleges hire them as employees and put them to play.
QED
I was responding to afreakakong’s comment in which he described his situation at an elite school. I don’t think vocational programs have any place at elite undergraduate colleges. At least in the U.S., medicine and law are not undergraduate programs.
No clue why you think the study of accounting should be beneath 'elite' undergraduates.Replies: @Anonymous
More like proving Sailer right (photo ID to vote):
http://dailycaller.com/2014/10/23/maryland-democrats-play-the-race-card-in-latest-mailer/Replies: @ABN
Democrats are surprisingly brazen about making the argument that blacks are too feckless, apathetic, or incompetent to furnish a photo ID.
Communications
Sociology
Business
Criminal Justice
OtherPerhaps in 08 the African-American Studies major hadn't fully been utilized by NCAA athletes for clustering purposes. If the trend continues (and we have to assume that UNC isn't the only NCAA school guilty of utilizing the AA Studies major), there could come a time where the NCAA white athletes will be corralled into Communications and Sociology and the black athletes into AA Studies.It doesn't tend to say very much for Sociology major, does it? One of nurture's penultimate university majors, the anti-Galton, anti-nurture, ever suspicious of Nicholas Wade's general big picture ideas regarding DNA basis for race, etc. is at the end of the day, largely a holding place for the NCAA's "special admit" students.All this merely helps to emphasize that perhaps its high time that the NCAA drop the sham of "student athlete". Just pay the (FB/BB) players since they are employees of the university in all but actual name.The O'Bannon case got it absolutely correct. Players should be compensated. They work for the university and are not really students.Replies: @Jonathan Silber, @EriK
College athletes have no cause to feel aggrieved at playing for free. Playing for a good college program in basketball or football is the greatest unpaid internship around. The training alone it affords, for the job that the athletes aim at in the pros, is fantastic. And even better are the many opportunities to make connections and build a network of friends and acquaintance among supporters of the program, including boosters and alumni, who, if the athlete should wash out of a job in the pros, are likely to use their influence on his behalf. Add to that the perks of a free education, free room and board, every manner of support and perk and privilege unavailable to the rest of the student body, and the high status accorded a Big Man On Campus. The college athlete has got a good thing going.
Compare this to the kind of unpaid internship sought after say, at a prestigious magazine or publishing house where, I’ve heard it complained, the intern is little more than a grunt, fetching coffee and making copies.
Pay the players. Otherwise, perhaps a players union will soon be in the works. Unpaid workers = sweatshop labor.
Pay them.
Yes please believe I’m being as generous as possible and taking into account that undergrads slack off (I did too); but there aren’t really hard requirements, and in any case the courses I taught weren’t; the subject matter was often interesting, and the jocks took these same courses and didn’t do quite as bad as some of the others. I can also tell the difference between someone who’s blowing it off and who’s half-literate, as so many of the students at these places unfortunately seem to be. Again, I should emphasize that the jocks I did have for students were white. Not doubting what Sailer is saying, but at the schools I’ve been to, the pattern is the opposite.
Overall the quality of student is mediocre (with some notable exceptions), the athletes are above average usually, and affirmative action seems to have been designed for the most part to give white girls an advantage. I’m talking aggressive stupidity, and aggressive conformism to liberal homilies.
Lexis-Nexis says once.
“Playing for a good college program in basketball or football is the greatest unpaid internship around”.
Lets add: Chick magnet. Very important when you’re 18-22.
There is NCAA baseball by the way, and it is predominantly white. It's not particularly popular though for a few reasons that include the fact that the best American players can be drafted at age 18 and don't go to college at all and that foreign prospects -- who make up something like 30 percent of professional baseball players -- don't participate.Replies: @buzz arlett
This is wrong. For some time now, MLB organizations have preferred drafting the college player over the 18 year-old, who is seen to be riskier – college teams play way more games than they used to in the 70’s and 80’s. And college baseball was ignored even before the Caribbean invasion. In 1977 the coach at Cal, former A.L. MVP Jackie Jensen, would walk around Sproul Plaza wearing a sandwich board (“game today!”) to try to drum up interest. Things just got worse when colleges started charging admission to games (1986 at Cal). The reason no one cares about college baseball is probably the aluminum bat. The only real mystery about baseball is why blacks stopped playing. I have to guess it’s purely economic. Lots of kids who needed an out from the ‘hood in the ’70s now have parents making 150k as school administrators or transit supervisors. And money that used to go into municipal parks now goes to pay pensions to those same types of folks.
1. To practice baseball, you need *at least* 100 yards squared of space. If multiple groups of Asian pre-teens could clear 200 feet in distance travelled at bat, HBD tells you that the "stronger" black kids would be able to break windows and dent doors if practicing in a smaller space. And as blacks become even more urbanised, practice spaces shrink in size and availability. However, this doesn't bother blacks too much because of 2...
2. Baseball is expensive (in comparison to baseball and football). Football needs helmets and padding and a jersey, basketball just needs matching shirts, but baseball...
Bats (multiple weights), cleats (more expensive and less overall utility than regular sneakers), uniforms, batting helmets and anywhere between 12-20 replacement balls per game (foul balls, stolen/requisitioned/lost balls, broken balls, etc.), and costs to schedule playing time and space. Replacement bats and balls alone can cost over $100 a game, in comparison to the 1-2 footballs and basketballs needed a season. This, of course, leads directly into 3
3. Baseball, by black standards, has a *pitiful* ROI. *PITIFUL*.
Thanks in major part to the popularity of NCAA football and basketball, there's no end of low-level (local businesses, drug dealers) to elite (former sportsmen, upper management/corporate bigwigs, successful alumni) sponsors, never mind the legions of "superfans" who made household names of Ricky Williams and Lebron James before they graduated high school. Sponsors who are always willing to pony up hundreds of dollars at a time to supply prospective players with "free" gear, just in case one of those kids is the new Kevin Durant or Robert Griffin III. Baseball, outside of the rural communities or more "apple pie" suburbs, doesn't have that current cultural cachet. For a prospective home run hitter (urban), their parents will have to eat a major chunk of the costs. On top of that, I used the words "home run" for a specific reason: the "sexy" part, the "get the girls and impress the guys" part of baseball is the home run, and the average baseball player at any level would be lucky to hit a double digit number of dingers in a season. Football players have long passes and miracle catches and "size" to get the girls, B-ball has the trick shots and no-look passes and dunks, baseball is all about the long ball/laser drive/etc. It should be obvious to anyone with a working penis that one of the most powerful drives for any adolescent male is {potential} access to vagina. "Alphas" may be able to meander through life picking up soft 9's to well-conditioned 6's, but there are a lot of Betas/Sigmas/race-aided/limited "situational Alphas" who see sports "superstardom" as a way to get girls. For some races, all they need to see is a group photo on the backpage of a newspaper. For black women, they require the 100+ yard/game running back, the 5 fancy passes/3 dunks/15+ points a game "point god", the winning hitter, and its far easier to stand out (positively) in football and basketball than in baseball. When the pros come calling, college players have the NFLand NBA on lockdown, but MLB grabs hundreds of Latin American players per season (limiting the amount of available new slots for money-hungry prospects.) Low-level practice squad players in the NFL or NBA can travel with the first-string players and "pretend" to be stars, but minor leaguers get placed in the middle of nowhere (even the Yankees and Mets have to keep their minor league teams on the outskirts of New York City.)
Tl;dr- It's too expensive, too time-consuming and too high-risk for the average black boy to get into baseball, especially in comparison to "a driveway, a ball and a hoop" basketball and "Dude, for peewee football I'll give a quick hundred."
So why did football overtake baseball as the most popular sport? Something to do with suburbanisation?
This was from his middle period from comedian to cynic to
misanthrope.
Football is TV. Baseball is radio. Probably has something to do
with America's love affair with race rioting too.
Our man Ramzan is never off topic.
He’s the Checheniest Chechen of them all!
Dr.(St.)Craig Spencer has brought Ebola to NYC.
She should have been a linebacker. She’s certainly built like one.
Canadian colleges and universities do not give out sports scholarships.
"I think the most popular game in the U.S. is baseball, which is still mostly played by white guys? Anyway, I don’t know why American colleges don’t field baseball teams. There’s probably some historical reason for it. (Or maybe they do, and we just don’t hear about their exploits.)"
Baseball hasn't been the most popular sport in the USA for a very long time. NFL took over that spot some time back in the 1960s or 70s I think.
Blacks don't play baseball as much as they used to, but you've also got lots of Latin American and some Asian imports so it's not exactly a game just played by whites, either.
American colleges and universities do field baseball teams. You don't hear about it because the big money NCAA sports are football and basketball; all other NCAA sports are pretty much ignored (although the baseball college world series does show up annually on ESPN). Most baseball recruits go through the minor league farm system; MLB does not use the NCAA as its farm league like the NFL and NBA do.Replies: @Reg Cæsar
No, the national pastime is watching TV. Football just happens to be the most popular program. Among guys, at least.
Rice’s baseball team averages 3,000 fans per game.
Republican boosters? Folks, this is UNC…the place jesse helms said could be a zoo if a fence was built around it. Chapel hill (aka ‘commie hill’ as it has been called by some from time to time) is basically a republican free zone. The boosters are generally blue dog democrats at best.
I think the more interesting dimension of this is how the report lays all the blame on a lowly secretary and the afam prof is basically just an absentee landlord.
I would warn against confirmation bias and look for something other than the repub boosters meme.
I’ve heard Rice is pretty good at baseball.
Were the girls hoping for an Mrs. degree?Replies: @josh
Not looking that far ahead
Of course. As is any study with the word 'sport' in the description.Replies: @guest007
The university of Michigan almost lost its accreditation for its sports management program because it had originally been designed for jocks. However, anything with management in its name is probably going to require accounting, business math, and economics. Thus, now, most of the athletes at the University of Michigan are general studies majors.
I think the problem is though that nowadays even history isn’t really taught in Afro-American studies. It’s more like a sociology subject designed for Blacks.
No, our world is one in which, ebola has come to NYC, brought to us by a doctor, who crazily ran around town and did stuff like bowl and take the subway. Yes, he returned from West Africa, was not caught, and went to Brooklyn to bowl in some hipster place. Using the subway, and cabs.
Cuomo is now saying, "We now have the situation under control." I don't believe him. That makes me a very nasty person.
I was told a lot of jocks take hotel and restaurant management classes. I also have been told by several professors that at their universities, the Universities REALLY want the jocks to pass classes, and pressure the profs on the issue. They also get a lot of free tutoring and the coaches require them to attend.
So basically, they take a bunch of easy A classes, get free tutoring for those classes with guidance to keep them diligently studying, and STILL they often screw it up. And if they’re really talented at their game, they often will drop out of college and go pro before finishing.
I’d personally like to see the big college sports (football, etc) spin off from the colleges altogether. Create a new level of minor leagues for these guys to go into instead. Its unfair to the students who get there through merit, it also puts them in danger, it really does nothing for the jocks that they couldn’t get in the minor league mentioned. No one is going to give them a job for that 2.0 GPA in Underwater Basketweaving, if they aren’t successful in their sports. It only benefits the college, really, who get to draw in alumni bucks. Depriving them of the money to put a few more diversity administrators (and their staff, offices, etc ) on the payroll seems like a win for everyone (well, everyone except the diversity admins).
Right. There actually is a true, real, history of Africans in America, and I believe that a well-taught history course, with real grades, is demanding. Maybe not physics demanding, but demanding. Not in our world anymore.
No, our world is one in which, ebola has come to NYC, brought to us by a doctor, who crazily ran around town and did stuff like bowl and take the subway. Yes, he returned from West Africa, was not caught, and went to Brooklyn to bowl in some hipster place. Using the subway, and cabs.
Cuomo is now saying, “We now have the situation under control.” I don’t believe him. That makes me a very nasty person.
I think the whole thing is a corporate fix. Call me a conspiracy nut, but Corporate America decided to shove football down America’s throat as the black-white buddy buddy singalong. It’s the only place in America that white & black men work together for a common goal.
Football was free every Sunday, and on Thanksgiving. So people watched. Then Monday Night Football starting in the early 1970s IIRC pushed the NFL even harder, while Baseball simply declined in interest as games when they did go to TV, failed to go to the national networks, but stayed local with local broadcasters (this was before the cable explosion of the late 1980's to early 1990s). So for example the NYT noted today that the most watched World Series was the 1978 Dodgers-Yankees series, with 40 million viewers. By contrast the Superbowl can draw up to 100 million viewers. The World Series now seems to average around 11 million viewers, even ESPN's Monday Night Football (ABC dropped it and it went to sister corporate entity ESPN in the mid 2000s) draws more than that. On cable.
The NFL still makes a big deal of being on free TV. You can watch nationally interesting games on Sunday (including a night game on NBC) and the first seven weeks of the season now on CBS on Thursday, plus of course the Thanksgiving games.
By contrast, Baseball is almost completely absent from national broadcast TV, you have to get a cable or satellite subscription and then there's MLB network. Hockey is similar. And both Baseball and Hockey have fallen prey to easy money from cable netlets like the Dodger's lucrative deal promising something like $100 billion over 15 years or thereabouts, keeping them off free tv. The NBA is somewhat similar.
From a business perspective, the NFL has simply been smarter. Getting its games on free TV, where everyone can watch them, producing a big fanbase nationally, with national advertisers and national money; instead of the regional interest that characterizes basketball, baseball, and hockey.
Yeah, the NBA did a deal, soon to be undone no doubt, with TBS and ESPN for about 2 billion dollars, double what they got the last deal. Meanwhile CBS, and HBO are offering cheap online subscriptions to content for $6 a month to people without cable or satellite. The Dodgers deal is similarly uneconomic, and will be voided out soon because Time-Warner has only 50,000 customers for the Dodgers network.
The NFL, to a lesser extent College Football, remains the only sport regularly televised by free TV and thus with a national following, not a regional one. This is why the NFL's Buffalo Bills sold at profit from the previous buyer, while half the NBA and NHL teams lose money. The Bills are really another national team that plays in Buffalo, not a regional one like say, the Kansas City Royals.Replies: @Yojimbo/Zatoichi, @guest007, @Hacienda
Apparently they don't believe that Russell Wilson is "black enough." This is of course in the same mode as Garry Sheffield about Jeter; the black players re: Jonathan Martin; ESPN commentator over "Cornball Brother" RG3; etc.
Is this a spill over from African-American Studies in general? A criteria used to judge those who are authentically black for the community at large? Because it has been going on for quite a few decades.Replies: @WhatEvvs
It has zero to do with AA studies & everything to do with their upbringing from Day 1. Wilson is a race traitor, married a white girl, etc. (Divorced her?) This is OK when you are winning but when you are losing…..
You’re wrong. Chapel Hill is liberal, but UNC is North Carolina’s flagship state U and it along with NC State is heavily supported in general by the state’s citizens, who tend to be conservative. Duke on the other hand is regarded as a carpetbagger school.
The moderator here speculated she had failed it once and that’s transmogrified into six failures by the spaghetti brains of his acolytes. She was admitted to the bar in 1989, at the age of 25. Unless they gave the examination seven times a year in Illinois (and currently, it is given twice a year in Illinois, as it was in New York in 1989), she did not fail it more than once.
I don’t think vocational programs have any place at elite undergraduate colleges.
No clue why you think the study of accounting should be beneath ‘elite’ undergraduates.
It’s quite conceivable that many of those departments do exist mainly for athletes
Huh? I’m from New York and all the individuals named received their schooling in New York bar one fellow who attended the University of Delaware (as opposed to the State College at Brockport, which also had a communications faculty). Syracuse University is invested in sports. Otherwise, it’s not that important to higher education in our part of the country and I have a difficult time believing that football and basketball players are studying in vocational programs meant for the social work apparat and the rag trade. Take it up with the chaps at the University of Alabama.
No clue why you think the study of accounting should be beneath 'elite' undergraduates.Replies: @Anonymous
Harvard agrees with me. It offers no accounting class for undergraduates, who must travel down Mass Ave. to MIT if they want to take it.
That is not what the point of the post was about.
I’m pointing out the post was misconceived. Vocational majors are staples of higher education and victimology programs are common as well. They are not signatures of schools invested in sports.
Victimology programs have NOT been historically part of Universities official programs offered. They were politically "brought in" under threat (sometimes physical) vs colleges for daring to hold on to traditional "dead white male" Western Civ. at the expense of....victim rights, etc.
I already mentioned way back before about a few score posts ago, that Vocational majors are not comprised of athletes in general. That is not to say that such victimology programs (bogus majors of no legitimate standing whatsoever) will not be a prominent outlet for African-American NCAA athletes in the near future. Per this example of UNC it is already underway.
I also have made the legitimate observation that since NCAA athletes (mainly in FB/BB) are within the top 1% of US athletes (many BB are one and dones and NBA ready) and that therefore the most accurate comparison would be to measure the top 1% of NCAA athletes with the top 1% of non-athletic students.
In other words, compare Jim Brown/Paul Hornung with Steve Jobs/and college dropout Bill Gates.
Which group will tend to likely have the higher IQ?
I think Sailer poses a perfectly reasonable question about whether AA has degenerated into a student athlete racket.
I repeat: AA Studies is a legitimate academic study, in its place (and no, that wasn't a double entendre). Eugene Genovese, John Hope Franklin, etc.: all first rank American history scholars. The study of slavery, the Civil War, Jim Crow - all essential points of US history.
The point is, I doubt many of our "scholar-athletes" are studying true AA History. They are semi-literates, if that, who don't have the skills to hold down a decent vocational job, much less grind through a not very demanding college course.
Ultimately the real losers are the kids, who will be dropped into a cold bath of reality when they are no longer of use to the rich men who are exploiting them.
So yeah, this is a legitimate question.
And your point is?Replies: @Art Deco
Back in the day, Rice had a two time All American tackle named Dick Chapman, a physics major. Also, had a QB named Frank Ryan who played pro ball for the Los Angeles Rams and on the side studied for a PhD (which he got) in mathematics at UCLA. This was in 50s/60s and Rice had good teams.
Ryan actually got his PhD at Rice (Hey Steve), and was a professor here and there for years.
I wonder how he would have done on the Wonderlic?
http://projecteuclid.org/euclid.dmj/1077376527Replies: @Yojimbo/Zatoichi
And you think running around aimlessly in shorts in pursuit of a round ball is manly?
Just finished watching the 1974 UCLA – notre dame BB game on Youtube. Incredible that UCLA let that one get away. Even more incredible was listening to announcers talking about how Walton was going to surpass Jabbar as the greatest ever.
Television.
Compare this to the kind of unpaid internship sought after say, at a prestigious magazine or publishing house where, I've heard it complained, the intern is little more than a grunt, fetching coffee and making copies.Replies: @Yojimbo/Zatoichi
Again, the O’Bannon case ruled in favor of the players. If it stands, it becomes a legal precedent. For the two revenue making sports, football and men’s basketball, drop the pretense and subterfuge. The NCAA system is a sham. Pay the players; they are in fact very valuable revenue makers for the university of which they don’t see a literal penny.
Pay the players. Otherwise, perhaps a players union will soon be in the works. Unpaid workers = sweatshop labor.
Pay them.
You know what’s kind of …sad. The Women’s National Team is playing World Cup qualifiers and Monday just played at RFK Stadium in DC.
Attendance was ca. 6,000. And these are professionals not college students.
Won’t it be fun when NCAA players eventually win the legal right to be paid and the courts rule “just” for the revenue making sports?
Leaves women’s sports (and the other men’s sports) completely out in the cold.
Title IX doesn’t directly address that sort of thing either.
Would be interesting to see how it plays out.
It idea that a school would try to treat male athletes in football and basketball one way and the women's teams another way would quickly be shot down by the attorneys.
Not into sports much. Almost every US college has a baseball team.
You don’t know what you’re talking about. Some weak students manage to get through arts & social sciences programs (with exceptions: no dullards in philosophy), but the top end are pretty smart. I don’t think that’s true of African-American studies.
“If they made Phys. Ed. an elective, not 10% of the kids would take it.”
The problem is that school in the U.S. is all freaking day. You can’t lock kids up and make them sit all day. The more hours the students spend in the building, the more of their needs will have to be addressed. Just for comparison, it is only like the past 10-15 years that German schools have been full day. They used to go to only 1:00 and there was no lunch. Either the kids went home for lunch break or they had a snack and ate when they got home after school. School used to be school. Subjects taught pretty much included whatever your mother couldn’t teach you. Kids don’t need professionals to teach them how to play. They will run around all on their own if you let them.
Accounting is pretty challenging.
If you look at the Forbes 400, Penn often leads in undergrad degrees because they have first rate business majors.
Recent winners of the College baseball player of the year is an impressive list: Anthony Rendon, Stephen Strasburg, David Price, Buster Posey. College baseball is still relevant and a good feeder system of American born players.
Mrs. Obama passed the Illinois bar on her second opportunity. That doesn’t mean she flunked her first opportunity (she may not have taken it). Her husband, in contrast, passed the first chance he had out of HLS.
Obama couldn’t make it at a Wall St. law firm, he doesn’t have the intelligence to work in that area, where quality of argument counts.
His current gig suits him well. He gets fawned over by donors, plays some golf with underlings, and sometimes gives some speeches in which he talks about the central issue of our times: Obama and how awesome he is. The problem is that gig doesn't suit the rest of us very well.
I predict he'll get even more enjoyment out of being ex-president.
Plus, as you can imagine, the demand for competent black lawyers vastly exceeds the supply. If he was even a little bit better than OK, he'd be a rock star. The real problem would be keeping him. Some investment bank or a big client would swoop in and offer much more money than he was making as a lawyer. Or some top tier law school would offer him a good gig.
Maybe he could, maybe he couldn't, but presidential speeches do not require quality of argument. It's more about talking points and sound bites.
However, if you've read something he's written from before he became president that makes you think he doesn't argue well, please share it with us.
The successful major leaguer I knew said that playing for Stanford in the 1980s beat the hell out of playing in the minors, which was mostly long bus rides, poor coaching, poor workout routines, and crummy medical care.
2) At Stanford he was also surrounded by smart guys. In the minors he was surrounded by morons.
I'm pointing out the post was misconceived. Vocational majors are staples of higher education and victimology programs are common as well. They are not signatures of schools invested in sports.Replies: @Yojimbo/Zatoichi, @WhatEvvs
Translation: You refuse to concede that NCAA athletes are not significantly represented among STEM hard sciences; Medicine, Law; and other majors/fields of discipline.
Victimology programs have NOT been historically part of Universities official programs offered. They were politically “brought in” under threat (sometimes physical) vs colleges for daring to hold on to traditional “dead white male” Western Civ. at the expense of….victim rights, etc.
I already mentioned way back before about a few score posts ago, that Vocational majors are not comprised of athletes in general. That is not to say that such victimology programs (bogus majors of no legitimate standing whatsoever) will not be a prominent outlet for African-American NCAA athletes in the near future. Per this example of UNC it is already underway.
I also have made the legitimate observation that since NCAA athletes (mainly in FB/BB) are within the top 1% of US athletes (many BB are one and dones and NBA ready) and that therefore the most accurate comparison would be to measure the top 1% of NCAA athletes with the top 1% of non-athletic students.
In other words, compare Jim Brown/Paul Hornung with Steve Jobs/and college dropout Bill Gates.
Which group will tend to likely have the higher IQ?
Of course, one nice thing about the minors is that you do tend to get paid. Can’t beat that, especially if a college student happens to start a family early in life.
George Carlin had a good bit about why football is America’s sport.
This was from his middle period from comedian to cynic to
misanthrope.
Football is TV. Baseball is radio. Probably has something to do
with America’s love affair with race rioting too.
I think Obama can do good work in short stretches, but he’s naturally a low-energy guy and not very interested in grinding out billable hours, cranking out law review articles, doing scholarship, or writing contracts for 12 hours a day.
His current gig suits him well. He gets fawned over by donors, plays some golf with underlings, and sometimes gives some speeches in which he talks about the central issue of our times: Obama and how awesome he is. The problem is that gig doesn’t suit the rest of us very well.
I predict he’ll get even more enjoyment out of being ex-president.
I'm pointing out the post was misconceived. Vocational majors are staples of higher education and victimology programs are common as well. They are not signatures of schools invested in sports.Replies: @Yojimbo/Zatoichi, @WhatEvvs
The post wasn’t about vocational programs. Read it. I’m not going to cut & paste for you, but clearly since your reading comprehension isn’t the problem, you’re here to show off and not to argue in good faith.
I think Sailer poses a perfectly reasonable question about whether AA has degenerated into a student athlete racket.
I repeat: AA Studies is a legitimate academic study, in its place (and no, that wasn’t a double entendre). Eugene Genovese, John Hope Franklin, etc.: all first rank American history scholars. The study of slavery, the Civil War, Jim Crow – all essential points of US history.
The point is, I doubt many of our “scholar-athletes” are studying true AA History. They are semi-literates, if that, who don’t have the skills to hold down a decent vocational job, much less grind through a not very demanding college course.
Ultimately the real losers are the kids, who will be dropped into a cold bath of reality when they are no longer of use to the rich men who are exploiting them.
So yeah, this is a legitimate question.
And your point is?
I repeat: AA Studies is a legitimate academic study, in its place (and no, that wasn’t a double entendre). Eugene Genovese, John Hope Franklin, etc.: all first rank American history scholars. The study of slavery, the Civil War, Jim Crow – all essential points of US history.
No, history is a legitimate discipline. Black studies aspires to be an interdisciplinary program focused on the black population. Dr. Genovese was a history professor and his department at the University of Rochester had chilly relations with the Frederick Douglas Institute on the River Campus, whose quondam director said the social science departments kept sabotaging her efforts to build a program. Personally, I suspect interdisciplinary anything is likely effort mis-applied. That aside, it's a reasonable inference that black studies (and women's studies) suffered from seminal addlement you're never going to fix and it's not worth it to attempt to do so. Too bad this is behind a pay wall. It's amusing.
http://www.newcriterion.com/articles.cfm/Another-sun-person-heard-from-4817
you’re here to show off and not to argue in good faith.
I get it. You all don't like criticism. Suck it up.Replies: @WhatEvvs
I’ve taken accounting classes and agree that accounting can be challenging, but that’s not the point. We should move away from the idea that college is where one goes to get a job-yielding credential. That is the idea behind the push to send every young American to college no matter how unqualified. Rather, college should be a place where one goes to become educated, and only a relatively small proportion of high school students should expect to attend.
Why? People need to earn a living.Replies: @Steve Sailer
I think Sailer poses a perfectly reasonable question about whether AA has degenerated into a student athlete racket.
I repeat: AA Studies is a legitimate academic study, in its place (and no, that wasn't a double entendre). Eugene Genovese, John Hope Franklin, etc.: all first rank American history scholars. The study of slavery, the Civil War, Jim Crow - all essential points of US history.
The point is, I doubt many of our "scholar-athletes" are studying true AA History. They are semi-literates, if that, who don't have the skills to hold down a decent vocational job, much less grind through a not very demanding college course.
Ultimately the real losers are the kids, who will be dropped into a cold bath of reality when they are no longer of use to the rich men who are exploiting them.
So yeah, this is a legitimate question.
And your point is?Replies: @Art Deco
My point has been stated repeatedly. Black studies programs are instituted as a consequence of the social ideology of schools, not as a dumping ground for student athletes. They may function as a dumping ground for athletes, but they are too pervasive (esp at schools not invested in athletics) to be considered a handmaiden of the athletic department’s interests as a matter of course or to have an institutional existence as a function of the athletic department’s purposes.
I repeat: AA Studies is a legitimate academic study, in its place (and no, that wasn’t a double entendre). Eugene Genovese, John Hope Franklin, etc.: all first rank American history scholars. The study of slavery, the Civil War, Jim Crow – all essential points of US history.
No, history is a legitimate discipline. Black studies aspires to be an interdisciplinary program focused on the black population. Dr. Genovese was a history professor and his department at the University of Rochester had chilly relations with the Frederick Douglas Institute on the River Campus, whose quondam director said the social science departments kept sabotaging her efforts to build a program. Personally, I suspect interdisciplinary anything is likely effort mis-applied. That aside, it’s a reasonable inference that black studies (and women’s studies) suffered from seminal addlement you’re never going to fix and it’s not worth it to attempt to do so. Too bad this is behind a pay wall. It’s amusing.
http://www.newcriterion.com/articles.cfm/Another-sun-person-heard-from-4817
you’re here to show off and not to argue in good faith.
I get it. You all don’t like criticism. Suck it up.
You proved my point; you are not here to argue in good faith.
"My point has been stated repeatedly..."
It keeps morphing to whatever you want it to be.
"No, history is a legitimate discipline."
I said that in my first comment. I don't think that I have to requote what I said in order to make things easy for you. But since I stand by the point, I'll make it again: AA is good for at least 4 courses, and a major that specializes in it as part of an American history degree is legit. I studied American History, with a specialization in US Labor History.
"Dr. Genovese was a history professor and his department at the University of Rochester had chilly relations with the Frederick Douglas Institute on the River Campus, whose quondam director said the social science departments kept sabotaging her efforts to build a program."
Yeah, OK, fine, yawn. And what is your point, other than to prove that you are a fucking little show-off? I brought up Genovese to make a point about teaching AA history, and you bring up a totally irrelevant bit of academic gossip that had zilch to do with the issue.
Your problem is that you can't deal with a perfectly reasonable question: Do AA programs, at BigAthlete U, function as diploma mills for black students? NOT, are colleges vocational mills for middling white kids, which is what you are saying.
(Parenthetically, I would agree that lots of times, they are, and that we should be talking about this, which Steve does. But that's not his question.)
I get it. You all don’t like criticism. Suck it up.
I get it. I really got under your skin. Suck it yourself.Replies: @Yojimbo/Zatoichi, @Art Deco
We should move away from the idea that college is where one goes to get a job-yielding credential
Why? People need to earn a living.
Why? People need to earn a living.Replies: @Steve Sailer
Learn financial accounting when your brain is young and supple. Learn cost accounting when you are older and wiser.
If you went to a top ten school, then you know that few physics or math majors needed to take intro physics, calc 1 or calc 2 in college!
I don’t think it was a conspiracy, football as black-white buddy buddy, but the people in charge of the media-entertainment industry like it, along certain parameters.
Communications: This seems to be one of the more popular. What used to be taught at a technical school was dressed up with 100 and 200 level liberal arts classes into a respectable major.
Criminal Justice: A four year degree that police departments think is bogus is very popular in the SEC. It used to be cops and prison guards were trained on the job. Now they can get a four year degree, before having to be trained on the job.
Apparel, Housing, and Resource Management: This is one of of my favorites offered by Virginia Tech. The Vick brothers were placed in this department. One of the classes is to attend a fashion show. This is basically home economics with a dose of bling.
Family, Youth and Community Service: Florida puts its jocks in this program. Tim Tebow was placed here. This program teaches kids how to volunteer at a non-profit or church.
Physical Activity and Sports Science: This is where West Virginia puts its young scholars from the football team. It's a bachelor degree in gym. Heck, they even offer a masters in gym so it must be really hard.
Kinesiology: Texas likes this one. I used to think it was just gym with a fancy name, but I'm told graduates go onto exciting careers in massage therapy. If you like getting a back rub from a 250 pound former linebacker, Texas is the place for you.Replies: @Art Deco, @David In TN, @Anonymous
Communications depends on the university. At many, as you write, it has either become a joke or always was a joke. However, at some universities, it’s the descendant of the old rhetoric department, which was one of the classical liberal arts (of course, most iSteve posters don’t value the liberal arts, so this may not make much of a difference to readers), and a bastion of the old latin college model that I would think conservatives would generally support. You’ll read dead white guys like Aristotle in some of these programs and focus on argumentation. Northwestern University, to take one example, sports a national championship debate squad out of its communication studies department, not that one can understand what they are saying given the rate at which information is delivered, and has a respectable communications major. It certainly doesn’t “exist for jocks.”
Any major fielded by the equivalent of a “school of education” (e.g., kinesiology, sports management, youth studies, etc.) is bogus.
Paper Science?
Football prospered as the National Sport because of … TELEVISION. Before that, briefly, it was … BOXING. Yes, NBC and other networks used to carry boxing live on Friday and Saturday nights, in the 1950s, IIRC from reading about it. This was in the black and white days. When color TV came on, so did the NFL, with games on national television, for free. Baseball by contrast was slow to televise games, afraid of eating into attendance revenue and radio contracts.
Football was free every Sunday, and on Thanksgiving. So people watched. Then Monday Night Football starting in the early 1970s IIRC pushed the NFL even harder, while Baseball simply declined in interest as games when they did go to TV, failed to go to the national networks, but stayed local with local broadcasters (this was before the cable explosion of the late 1980’s to early 1990s). So for example the NYT noted today that the most watched World Series was the 1978 Dodgers-Yankees series, with 40 million viewers. By contrast the Superbowl can draw up to 100 million viewers. The World Series now seems to average around 11 million viewers, even ESPN’s Monday Night Football (ABC dropped it and it went to sister corporate entity ESPN in the mid 2000s) draws more than that. On cable.
The NFL still makes a big deal of being on free TV. You can watch nationally interesting games on Sunday (including a night game on NBC) and the first seven weeks of the season now on CBS on Thursday, plus of course the Thanksgiving games.
By contrast, Baseball is almost completely absent from national broadcast TV, you have to get a cable or satellite subscription and then there’s MLB network. Hockey is similar. And both Baseball and Hockey have fallen prey to easy money from cable netlets like the Dodger’s lucrative deal promising something like $100 billion over 15 years or thereabouts, keeping them off free tv. The NBA is somewhat similar.
From a business perspective, the NFL has simply been smarter. Getting its games on free TV, where everyone can watch them, producing a big fanbase nationally, with national advertisers and national money; instead of the regional interest that characterizes basketball, baseball, and hockey.
Yeah, the NBA did a deal, soon to be undone no doubt, with TBS and ESPN for about 2 billion dollars, double what they got the last deal. Meanwhile CBS, and HBO are offering cheap online subscriptions to content for $6 a month to people without cable or satellite. The Dodgers deal is similarly uneconomic, and will be voided out soon because Time-Warner has only 50,000 customers for the Dodgers network.
The NFL, to a lesser extent College Football, remains the only sport regularly televised by free TV and thus with a national following, not a regional one. This is why the NFL’s Buffalo Bills sold at profit from the previous buyer, while half the NBA and NHL teams lose money. The Bills are really another national team that plays in Buffalo, not a regional one like say, the Kansas City Royals.
http://tvbythenumbers.zap2it.com/2014/10/21/monday-cable-ratings-monday-night-football-tops-night-sportscenter-monday-night-raw-love-hip-hop-hollywood-more/317394/
What is amazing is that the ratings for NFL games on CBS on Thursday night are actually less than what The Big Bang Theory was getting in the same time slot. However, if you look at the bleed over Sunday Night ratings for the national Fox or CBS game, it will generally be the highest rated network show for the week.
That's why it's suitable and magnetic as TV mass consumption.
Football was free every Sunday, and on Thanksgiving. So people watched. Then Monday Night Football starting in the early 1970s IIRC pushed the NFL even harder, while Baseball simply declined in interest as games when they did go to TV, failed to go to the national networks, but stayed local with local broadcasters (this was before the cable explosion of the late 1980's to early 1990s). So for example the NYT noted today that the most watched World Series was the 1978 Dodgers-Yankees series, with 40 million viewers. By contrast the Superbowl can draw up to 100 million viewers. The World Series now seems to average around 11 million viewers, even ESPN's Monday Night Football (ABC dropped it and it went to sister corporate entity ESPN in the mid 2000s) draws more than that. On cable.
The NFL still makes a big deal of being on free TV. You can watch nationally interesting games on Sunday (including a night game on NBC) and the first seven weeks of the season now on CBS on Thursday, plus of course the Thanksgiving games.
By contrast, Baseball is almost completely absent from national broadcast TV, you have to get a cable or satellite subscription and then there's MLB network. Hockey is similar. And both Baseball and Hockey have fallen prey to easy money from cable netlets like the Dodger's lucrative deal promising something like $100 billion over 15 years or thereabouts, keeping them off free tv. The NBA is somewhat similar.
From a business perspective, the NFL has simply been smarter. Getting its games on free TV, where everyone can watch them, producing a big fanbase nationally, with national advertisers and national money; instead of the regional interest that characterizes basketball, baseball, and hockey.
Yeah, the NBA did a deal, soon to be undone no doubt, with TBS and ESPN for about 2 billion dollars, double what they got the last deal. Meanwhile CBS, and HBO are offering cheap online subscriptions to content for $6 a month to people without cable or satellite. The Dodgers deal is similarly uneconomic, and will be voided out soon because Time-Warner has only 50,000 customers for the Dodgers network.
The NFL, to a lesser extent College Football, remains the only sport regularly televised by free TV and thus with a national following, not a regional one. This is why the NFL's Buffalo Bills sold at profit from the previous buyer, while half the NBA and NHL teams lose money. The Bills are really another national team that plays in Buffalo, not a regional one like say, the Kansas City Royals.Replies: @Yojimbo/Zatoichi, @guest007, @Hacienda
Now this is one of the best posts today. Free network TV for the NFL also equates to higher local attendance figures for the home games mainly because free TV is virtually a paid advertisement for each of the 32 markets, which tend to make them as one complete entity with 32 different parts. When one team succeeds they all do because they are under the NFL logo which is a national brand. Brilliant.
Whether its old/newer expansions like the Bills, Patriots, Seahawks, or Texans, to historical teams such as the Packers and Steelers, every team has a national following. This is probably similar to English Premier league and European Soccer in general. Wonder if global soccer is on free TV in each of their nations?
Whereas more than half the NBA teams are in the red in local attendance because their games aren’t on free TV nationwide that often. And because of that there are few NBA teams that have a national following like the Steelers, Broncos, Packers, etc.
So it all works together. Free TV constantly promotes the NFL teams as well as the NFL logo nationwide.
Although to be fair, MLB was broadcasting on free TV during the 60s and 70s especially with the Game of the Week and the All Star Game.
The national leagues are not on free TV anymore in England or Germany. You have to watch on Sky TV and pay Murdoch. However most Champions Leagues games featuring the home teams (which is an annual pan-European tournament that features the top ranked national teams from each country) and UEFA cup games (a tournament for the mid-table teams) are broadcast for free, at least in Germany, which probably helps keeps interest up and gives teams like Real Madrid or Chelsea huge fan bases outside their own cities. Champions League probably makes the underpeforming teams even less interesting to the casual viewer, because you will never see them on television without paying for it.
Afreakakong it seems like you work at HYP. As for athletes, ivy athletes in sports like football and hockey average 150-200 points lower on the SAT than other students. Of course, they’re still highly intelligent compared to the average person. And it’s likely they are more conservative and less PC than other ivy students, surveys have shown this. How have you found female athletes to be?
Art Deco,
“You all don’t like criticism.”
Not all.
You’re a useful, and knowledgeable, corrective.
It is odd that people forget that football is not only the most television friendly sport due to the stops between plays where replys can be shown and analyzed but it is the most ESPN SportsCenter Friendly. Most football games come down to a few plays and that makes great highlights on ESPN. A sports like basketball may generate highlights of dunks but the score is still just two points out of 100. It is also easier to follow for the casual fans since there is only one game a week per team. Also, Since most football games occurs on the weekend, it is the friendliest game for suburban dwellers rather than traveling to the urban core on a weekday night to watch baseball.
There was a lawsuit that directly addressed the issue of unequal support for mens and womens sports. A school cannot give more shoes to male basketball players than the women and their travel arrangements for road games has to be the same: same quality of hotel, same type of flight, same number of people per room, etc.
It idea that a school would try to treat male athletes in football and basketball one way and the women’s teams another way would quickly be shot down by the attorneys.
Football was free every Sunday, and on Thanksgiving. So people watched. Then Monday Night Football starting in the early 1970s IIRC pushed the NFL even harder, while Baseball simply declined in interest as games when they did go to TV, failed to go to the national networks, but stayed local with local broadcasters (this was before the cable explosion of the late 1980's to early 1990s). So for example the NYT noted today that the most watched World Series was the 1978 Dodgers-Yankees series, with 40 million viewers. By contrast the Superbowl can draw up to 100 million viewers. The World Series now seems to average around 11 million viewers, even ESPN's Monday Night Football (ABC dropped it and it went to sister corporate entity ESPN in the mid 2000s) draws more than that. On cable.
The NFL still makes a big deal of being on free TV. You can watch nationally interesting games on Sunday (including a night game on NBC) and the first seven weeks of the season now on CBS on Thursday, plus of course the Thanksgiving games.
By contrast, Baseball is almost completely absent from national broadcast TV, you have to get a cable or satellite subscription and then there's MLB network. Hockey is similar. And both Baseball and Hockey have fallen prey to easy money from cable netlets like the Dodger's lucrative deal promising something like $100 billion over 15 years or thereabouts, keeping them off free tv. The NBA is somewhat similar.
From a business perspective, the NFL has simply been smarter. Getting its games on free TV, where everyone can watch them, producing a big fanbase nationally, with national advertisers and national money; instead of the regional interest that characterizes basketball, baseball, and hockey.
Yeah, the NBA did a deal, soon to be undone no doubt, with TBS and ESPN for about 2 billion dollars, double what they got the last deal. Meanwhile CBS, and HBO are offering cheap online subscriptions to content for $6 a month to people without cable or satellite. The Dodgers deal is similarly uneconomic, and will be voided out soon because Time-Warner has only 50,000 customers for the Dodgers network.
The NFL, to a lesser extent College Football, remains the only sport regularly televised by free TV and thus with a national following, not a regional one. This is why the NFL's Buffalo Bills sold at profit from the previous buyer, while half the NBA and NHL teams lose money. The Bills are really another national team that plays in Buffalo, not a regional one like say, the Kansas City Royals.Replies: @Yojimbo/Zatoichi, @guest007, @Hacienda
The rating for the last Monday Night game on ESPN was less than 14 million viewers.
http://tvbythenumbers.zap2it.com/2014/10/21/monday-cable-ratings-monday-night-football-tops-night-sportscenter-monday-night-raw-love-hip-hop-hollywood-more/317394/
What is amazing is that the ratings for NFL games on CBS on Thursday night are actually less than what The Big Bang Theory was getting in the same time slot. However, if you look at the bleed over Sunday Night ratings for the national Fox or CBS game, it will generally be the highest rated network show for the week.
I took a geology course that was mostly football players. It was known as “rocks for jocks”.
We used that term at my school too. Can I asked what school you went too?
I repeat: AA Studies is a legitimate academic study, in its place (and no, that wasn’t a double entendre). Eugene Genovese, John Hope Franklin, etc.: all first rank American history scholars. The study of slavery, the Civil War, Jim Crow – all essential points of US history.
No, history is a legitimate discipline. Black studies aspires to be an interdisciplinary program focused on the black population. Dr. Genovese was a history professor and his department at the University of Rochester had chilly relations with the Frederick Douglas Institute on the River Campus, whose quondam director said the social science departments kept sabotaging her efforts to build a program. Personally, I suspect interdisciplinary anything is likely effort mis-applied. That aside, it's a reasonable inference that black studies (and women's studies) suffered from seminal addlement you're never going to fix and it's not worth it to attempt to do so. Too bad this is behind a pay wall. It's amusing.
http://www.newcriterion.com/articles.cfm/Another-sun-person-heard-from-4817
you’re here to show off and not to argue in good faith.
I get it. You all don't like criticism. Suck it up.Replies: @WhatEvvs
@Quond-Deco
You proved my point; you are not here to argue in good faith.
“My point has been stated repeatedly…”
It keeps morphing to whatever you want it to be.
“No, history is a legitimate discipline.”
I said that in my first comment. I don’t think that I have to requote what I said in order to make things easy for you. But since I stand by the point, I’ll make it again: AA is good for at least 4 courses, and a major that specializes in it as part of an American history degree is legit. I studied American History, with a specialization in US Labor History.
“Dr. Genovese was a history professor and his department at the University of Rochester had chilly relations with the Frederick Douglas Institute on the River Campus, whose quondam director said the social science departments kept sabotaging her efforts to build a program.”
Yeah, OK, fine, yawn. And what is your point, other than to prove that you are a fucking little show-off? I brought up Genovese to make a point about teaching AA history, and you bring up a totally irrelevant bit of academic gossip that had zilch to do with the issue.
Your problem is that you can’t deal with a perfectly reasonable question: Do AA programs, at BigAthlete U, function as diploma mills for black students? NOT, are colleges vocational mills for middling white kids, which is what you are saying.
(Parenthetically, I would agree that lots of times, they are, and that we should be talking about this, which Steve does. But that’s not his question.)
I get it. You all don’t like criticism. Suck it up.
I get it. I really got under your skin. Suck it yourself.
That doesn't mean that the picture won't change over time but currently, no.
Now, a direct question: IF an NCAA or any other major Universities decided to start a White Studies (e.g. Focused on Western European and US History but just on the achievements of white US, etc), how exactly would the academic world react? What would be its reaction?
And that is a fair question.
"Starting now, we will start a White Studies Dept. and teach History with a focus on White Individuals and their contributions to world history, etc."
Again, how would the academic community respond should a university decide to do so?Replies: @WhatEvvs
And I'm pointing out that Genovese's department wanted nothing to do with black studies.
African-American studies serves the purpose of enabling unqualified black students to graduate, regardless of whether they are athletes. The LA Times had an article about a black student at Berkeley:
http://www.latimes.com/local/la-me-c1-cal-freshmen-20130816-dto-htmlstory.html
South L.A. student finds a different world at Cal
“He scrolled down the page and saw the results for College Writing. His teacher said he’d improved slightly, but not enough. She gave him an incomplete. To get a grade he’d have to turn in two more essays, if he came back to school.
His heart raced. He saw that he’d passed a three-unit seminar. He scanned further, his eyes resting finally on a line that said African American Studies 5A. There was his grade.
A-.”
When Liberals envisioned everyone going off to college, they probably didn’t picture the hierarchy of colleges that exists today, but such a result was inevitable. The more you let in, the bigger the gap between the bottom and the top.
I’ve worked at Wall Street firms for years. Obama is more than smart enough for what we do. Look at the size of firms like Skadden, Sullivan & Cromwell, Davis Polk, Cravath — there aren’t enough geniuses on the planet to staff them. Much of the work is just meticulous drudgery — endurance, attention to detail, and a high capacity for boredom count for more than brains. He might not stick because he couldn’t stand it, but not because he couldn’t do it.
Plus, as you can imagine, the demand for competent black lawyers vastly exceeds the supply. If he was even a little bit better than OK, he’d be a rock star. The real problem would be keeping him. Some investment bank or a big client would swoop in and offer much more money than he was making as a lawyer. Or some top tier law school would offer him a good gig.
” he regained his eligibility by taking Swahili over the summer for fifteen credits.”
That’s the funniest thing I’ve read in quite some time.
origami?
How much does it cost to pay 100 professional football players? How much does it cost to change the letters on 100 electronic transcripts of grades?
QED
Sounds plausible. After all, AA Studies is basically just a giant affirmative action program for Black academics.Replies: @International Jew
“Sounds plausible. After all, AA Studies is basically just a giant affirmative action program for Black academics.”
That’s it. While iSteve is right that AfroA Studies is an easy major for dumb jocks, the fact is that there are so many other easy majors that AfroA Studies isn’t strictly necessary for that. Examples include Business, Communication, Sociology, Psychology, etc. Find a handful of compliant sports fan profs in any of those departments, and you’re good to go. But for an aspiring black assistant prof, there’s a real problem inasmuch as the profs in those departments have pretty high standards *for one another*. *That’s* where AfroAm Studies’ raison d’être really kicks in.
I see your point, and have definitely reconsidered what I originally wrote. I guess though, another way to think about it, is whether NCAA baseball would be more popular if the high school phenoms, like Bryce Harper, ARod or Ken Griffey Jr., went played in college instead of signing immediately with their draft teams.
Football was free every Sunday, and on Thanksgiving. So people watched. Then Monday Night Football starting in the early 1970s IIRC pushed the NFL even harder, while Baseball simply declined in interest as games when they did go to TV, failed to go to the national networks, but stayed local with local broadcasters (this was before the cable explosion of the late 1980's to early 1990s). So for example the NYT noted today that the most watched World Series was the 1978 Dodgers-Yankees series, with 40 million viewers. By contrast the Superbowl can draw up to 100 million viewers. The World Series now seems to average around 11 million viewers, even ESPN's Monday Night Football (ABC dropped it and it went to sister corporate entity ESPN in the mid 2000s) draws more than that. On cable.
The NFL still makes a big deal of being on free TV. You can watch nationally interesting games on Sunday (including a night game on NBC) and the first seven weeks of the season now on CBS on Thursday, plus of course the Thanksgiving games.
By contrast, Baseball is almost completely absent from national broadcast TV, you have to get a cable or satellite subscription and then there's MLB network. Hockey is similar. And both Baseball and Hockey have fallen prey to easy money from cable netlets like the Dodger's lucrative deal promising something like $100 billion over 15 years or thereabouts, keeping them off free tv. The NBA is somewhat similar.
From a business perspective, the NFL has simply been smarter. Getting its games on free TV, where everyone can watch them, producing a big fanbase nationally, with national advertisers and national money; instead of the regional interest that characterizes basketball, baseball, and hockey.
Yeah, the NBA did a deal, soon to be undone no doubt, with TBS and ESPN for about 2 billion dollars, double what they got the last deal. Meanwhile CBS, and HBO are offering cheap online subscriptions to content for $6 a month to people without cable or satellite. The Dodgers deal is similarly uneconomic, and will be voided out soon because Time-Warner has only 50,000 customers for the Dodgers network.
The NFL, to a lesser extent College Football, remains the only sport regularly televised by free TV and thus with a national following, not a regional one. This is why the NFL's Buffalo Bills sold at profit from the previous buyer, while half the NBA and NHL teams lose money. The Bills are really another national team that plays in Buffalo, not a regional one like say, the Kansas City Royals.Replies: @Yojimbo/Zatoichi, @guest007, @Hacienda
Football is technically a “sport”. What it actually is is a “controlled race riot”.
That’s why it’s suitable and magnetic as TV mass consumption.
I taught “University One” at a California university for a while. It was basically a class on how to be a college student and almost all of my students were freshmen jocks. Topics covered were STDs, study techniques, career planning, that sort of thing. What amazed me most wasn’t the low IQs. It would be difficult to judge their intelligence based upon this class anyway, because the material didn’t require an ability to grasp abstract concepts. If you studied and memorized some things, you could do well. What amazed me was the complete lack of interest. This was especially true of the black students. The white students weren’t exactly leaping out of their seats with enthusiasm, but they did seem to ask questions and participate more.
I remember on 9/11 I told my class that we could talk about the event instead of the scheduled material, since I had read a lot on terrorism and might be able to answer their questions. Only one question was asked: “Does this mean we get out early today?”
I taught a rape prevention class as part of University One. It wasn’t part of the curriculum, but I thought it to be within the spirit of the what the course designers intended and I wanted the women in the class to be able to make good decisions. During my research I read that some hard core rapists will actually study rape prevention literature in order to refine their techniques, avoid leaving DNA and such, so I made it optional for the men. Not a single one showed up.
Occasionally a topic would catch their interest, however. During the STD class I displayed statistics on who had HIV by race, gender, and income. (This part was not from the text book. It was from my own research.) When I mentioned that black males had HIV at about eight times the rate of white males, one of my black students asked why. I then addressed higher incarceration rates, reluctance to use condoms, (a lot of head nodding from the black girls when I mentioned that) etc. Overall, getting the students to participate was always a struggle.
“I took a geology course that was mostly football players. It was known as “rocks for jocks”.”
We used that term at my school too. Can I asked what school you went too?
“Obama couldn’t make it at a Wall St. law firm, he doesn’t have the intelligence to work in that area, where quality of argument counts.”
Maybe he could, maybe he couldn’t, but presidential speeches do not require quality of argument. It’s more about talking points and sound bites.
However, if you’ve read something he’s written from before he became president that makes you think he doesn’t argue well, please share it with us.
“Athletics cannot explain women’s or gender studies however.”
It may be an offshoot of the stated reason for AA studies, or maybe universities are drinking their own Flavor-Aid. Universities can’t say they offer AA studies in order to make college easier for their black students, even though that might be the real motivation. Instead, they have to offer some loftier reason. So if they argue that AA studies is a legitimate and necessary academic discipline, then it would be difficult for them to argue that Women’s Studies or Hispanic Studies or Queer Studies are not. Result: Colleges now have a large menu of ethnic/gender/sexual orientation based fields that are academically bogus and provide no benefit to society.
You proved my point; you are not here to argue in good faith.
"My point has been stated repeatedly..."
It keeps morphing to whatever you want it to be.
"No, history is a legitimate discipline."
I said that in my first comment. I don't think that I have to requote what I said in order to make things easy for you. But since I stand by the point, I'll make it again: AA is good for at least 4 courses, and a major that specializes in it as part of an American history degree is legit. I studied American History, with a specialization in US Labor History.
"Dr. Genovese was a history professor and his department at the University of Rochester had chilly relations with the Frederick Douglas Institute on the River Campus, whose quondam director said the social science departments kept sabotaging her efforts to build a program."
Yeah, OK, fine, yawn. And what is your point, other than to prove that you are a fucking little show-off? I brought up Genovese to make a point about teaching AA history, and you bring up a totally irrelevant bit of academic gossip that had zilch to do with the issue.
Your problem is that you can't deal with a perfectly reasonable question: Do AA programs, at BigAthlete U, function as diploma mills for black students? NOT, are colleges vocational mills for middling white kids, which is what you are saying.
(Parenthetically, I would agree that lots of times, they are, and that we should be talking about this, which Steve does. But that's not his question.)
I get it. You all don’t like criticism. Suck it up.
I get it. I really got under your skin. Suck it yourself.Replies: @Yojimbo/Zatoichi, @Art Deco
The answer to your question, is NO. As for now, AA classes in NCAA classrooms do NOT serve entirely for BB/FB players. Per the USA Today breakdown of most popular FB/BB athletic majors, African-American Studies is not a very popular major by total numbers.
That doesn’t mean that the picture won’t change over time but currently, no.
Now, a direct question: IF an NCAA or any other major Universities decided to start a White Studies (e.g. Focused on Western European and US History but just on the achievements of white US, etc), how exactly would the academic world react? What would be its reaction?
And that is a fair question.
“Starting now, we will start a White Studies Dept. and teach History with a focus on White Individuals and their contributions to world history, etc.”
Again, how would the academic community respond should a university decide to do so?
Not a fair question. African-American does not equate to White, it equates to European-American. And no, I don't think that there should be special courses in European-American history/culture, because there really is no such thing. It's too broad as to be meaningless, whereas there is such a thing as AA culture/history - it's much more narrow & circumscribed.The answer to your question, is NO.Not my question, the moderator's. As for now, AA classes in NCAA classrooms do NOT serve entirely for BB/FB players.
You're looking at it the wrong way round. The question is, do the majority of BB/FB players use these majors as easy 'clapping for credit' courses to cover their presence in a university?Replies: @Yojimbo/Zatoichi
Communications
Sociology
Business
Criminal Justice
OtherPerhaps in 08 the African-American Studies major hadn't fully been utilized by NCAA athletes for clustering purposes. If the trend continues (and we have to assume that UNC isn't the only NCAA school guilty of utilizing the AA Studies major), there could come a time where the NCAA white athletes will be corralled into Communications and Sociology and the black athletes into AA Studies.It doesn't tend to say very much for Sociology major, does it? One of nurture's penultimate university majors, the anti-Galton, anti-nurture, ever suspicious of Nicholas Wade's general big picture ideas regarding DNA basis for race, etc. is at the end of the day, largely a holding place for the NCAA's "special admit" students.All this merely helps to emphasize that perhaps its high time that the NCAA drop the sham of "student athlete". Just pay the (FB/BB) players since they are employees of the university in all but actual name.The O'Bannon case got it absolutely correct. Players should be compensated. They work for the university and are not really students.Replies: @Jonathan Silber, @EriK
I agree with your post #36
The Cleveland Browns won the 1964 NFL Championship with Frank Ryan at QB. That is infamously the last time a Cleveland team won a championship.
Ryan actually got his PhD at Rice (Hey Steve), and was a professor here and there for years.
I wonder how he would have done on the Wonderlic?
http://projecteuclid.org/euclid.dmj/1077376527
Cleveland's last NFL Title win ('64) is due to two main factors:
1. Lombardi's Packers had an off yr (otherwise known as rebuilding as they came back and won in 65, and then Super Bowls I & II.
2. Cleveland had Jim Brown, one of the NFL's greatest and most dominant all time running backs of the 20th century. You know that Cleveland hasn't been all that ever since when the first and greatest Cleveland Browns player remains right now....Jim Brown. There is still no greater Cleveland player that's been better than Jim Brown by any other measure.
Yeah. He was that great, let's not leave out little facts such as Jim Brown from the equation.
It'd be like saying that the '27 Yankees won primarily because they had Columbia's Lou Gehrig and of course P's George Pipgras, Waite Hoyt, and of course....Mark Koenig.
AND...what other name on the '27 Yanks??Replies: @Jean Cocteausten
Ryan actually got his PhD at Rice (Hey Steve), and was a professor here and there for years.
I wonder how he would have done on the Wonderlic?
http://projecteuclid.org/euclid.dmj/1077376527Replies: @Yojimbo/Zatoichi
Uh, no, that’s not the full story.
Cleveland’s last NFL Title win (’64) is due to two main factors:
1. Lombardi’s Packers had an off yr (otherwise known as rebuilding as they came back and won in 65, and then Super Bowls I & II.
2. Cleveland had Jim Brown, one of the NFL’s greatest and most dominant all time running backs of the 20th century. You know that Cleveland hasn’t been all that ever since when the first and greatest Cleveland Browns player remains right now….Jim Brown. There is still no greater Cleveland player that’s been better than Jim Brown by any other measure.
Yeah. He was that great, let’s not leave out little facts such as Jim Brown from the equation.
It’d be like saying that the ’27 Yankees won primarily because they had Columbia’s Lou Gehrig and of course P’s George Pipgras, Waite Hoyt, and of course….Mark Koenig.
AND…what other name on the ’27 Yanks??
I wouldn't blame the Browns for not coming up with another Jim Brown in lo these fifty years: neither has any other team. After all the Paytons and Sanderses and Simpsons, 104 yards/game and 5.2 yards/carry are records that still stand.Replies: @Yojimbo/Zatoichi
Hi, have a career as a lawyer and academic. Briefly taught at a basketball university powerhouse. The aforesaid school won the final four on several recent occasions (or was a semi finalist if I recall correctly).
During two separate semesters I had a starting member of the basketball team take one of my courses. Both students were African-America.
To be honest, I was a little concerned, because I wondered if they did poorly would I get a call from the dean requesting that I go easy on them or something that. I had no idea what to expect. Impossible to easily ” game” my class, because although I assigned a term paper that another student could ghost the course also entailed two essay exams (a mid-term and final) of three hours in length.
Both students got a very solid B or B+ if I recall correctly and I believe I do. They obviously applied themselves to the material. I always grade blindly and make sure I do not know the name of the student whose paper or exam I am grading.
Pleasantly surprised by the experience, because it defied my admittingly low expectations (of the scholarly abilities of university athletes in general).
I recall that one of them had a young lady (also African- America) who followed him everywhere …my impression was that she was some sort of minder or tutor assigned by the school.
They both passed the bar exam. Their raw intellect is likely adequate for most intents and purposes. Holder has also prospered in Big Law. The real problem with Holder is social ideology and a deficit of character and professionalism. The problem with Mooch is that she seen her opportunities and she took 'em (aided, in part, perhaps, by some confusion about what constitutes a serious career in the white collar world); her vocational development was truncated by the willingness of institutional administrators to hand her patronage jobs; you can look at the list of her employments over the period running from 1991 to 2008 and have only the foggiest idea of what she was employed to do (though learning that her husband was chairman of a crucial subcommittee in the Illinois legislature while she was in the apparat at the University of Chicago Hospitals might help you).Replies: @Kaz, @Anonymous
When I took the Pa. bar in 1974, the pass rate was nearly 99%. That was because not many, if any, blacks has passed the bar in the preceding several years. The solution was to make the bar easier, not to require that people wanting to be lawyers actually study harder. In my opinion, passing the bar at that time was not an indication that a person was qualified to be a lawyer. I don’t know how things have changed since.
Let go of my leg.
That doesn't mean that the picture won't change over time but currently, no.
Now, a direct question: IF an NCAA or any other major Universities decided to start a White Studies (e.g. Focused on Western European and US History but just on the achievements of white US, etc), how exactly would the academic world react? What would be its reaction?
And that is a fair question.
"Starting now, we will start a White Studies Dept. and teach History with a focus on White Individuals and their contributions to world history, etc."
Again, how would the academic community respond should a university decide to do so?Replies: @WhatEvvs
And that is a fair question.
Not a fair question. African-American does not equate to White, it equates to European-American. And no, I don’t think that there should be special courses in European-American history/culture, because there really is no such thing. It’s too broad as to be meaningless, whereas there is such a thing as AA culture/history – it’s much more narrow & circumscribed.
The answer to your question, is NO.
Not my question, the moderator’s.
As for now, AA classes in NCAA classrooms do NOT serve entirely for BB/FB players.
You’re looking at it the wrong way round. The question is, do the majority of BB/FB players use these majors as easy ‘clapping for credit’ courses to cover their presence in a university?
And yes, it is most certainly a fair question; I also tend to believe that you know what the response would be from academia as a whole.
Most certainly there should be specific courses in European and American culture/history because for nearly 2,000 yrs there has ben a distinct culture.
Broad and meaningless? The continent that birthed democracy (sorry HLGates and Cornell West, it wasn't in Africa) along with other technological, government, cultural, societal etc achievements? You'd better rethink that as the facts say differently.
African-American culture is a subset of the American culture at large. It is heavily flavored by Western European (white) culture at large.
Black is also a skin color, just as white. African part is not prominently emphasized in AAStudies. The skin color is paramount and the experiences of blacks as living in America, not Africa.
To state that Europe has no distinct culture as opposed to other continents is not only asinine but ridiculous.
The Founding Fathers and 99% of the 17th, 18th century colonists were European Caucasians. A class taught at many Universities for several decades US History from 1607-1815. Something along those lines. The chief complaint from 60s radicals/black agitators was that that was basically a white studies program since little if anything (at one time) dealt with minorities contribution to US History.
Again, to suggest that African-Americans, a minority in America, have a clear and distinct culture but that white Americans have never ever had any distinct culture in US per se, is entirely inaccurate. Did regional differences exist during this era of US History? Certainly. Just as regional differences existed within black history.
If there is a distinct and unique black AMERICAN history, then so to the converse holds as well. White Americans have definitely contributed to US and have a distinct and unique culture when weighed vs other minorities in US. I'd suggest you take it up with John Derbyshire that whites have never had a distinct culture and unique history in America.
Again, if there is a Black Studies Dept and program, there should also be a White Studies Dept and program. In this modern PC world it is fair and just that every entity is equally represented at colleges everywhere.
Otherwise, abolish such foolish nonsensical and bogus depts entirely and have students attempt to major in STEM and other stronger disciplines (e.g. Medicine; Law; Nursing; Accounting; etc).
All sane faculty members and administrators, staff and students at UNC-CH knew and know about relaxed academic standards for student athletes. The relaxed standards are a known constant. What varies is the reaction to the violations.
Pay the athletes; they are NCAA campus employees and nothing else. The NCAA Tourney makes close to 800 million in revenue and is second only to the Super Bowl in ratings for most watched US sports championship games. The schools are profiting quite well off the players backs.
Time to pay the employees. No, not what the NFL/NBA pay their employees but a reasonable wage, say, 30k per season for the starters and 25k per season per subs. Something along those lines.Replies: @David In TN
Not a fair question. African-American does not equate to White, it equates to European-American. And no, I don't think that there should be special courses in European-American history/culture, because there really is no such thing. It's too broad as to be meaningless, whereas there is such a thing as AA culture/history - it's much more narrow & circumscribed.The answer to your question, is NO.Not my question, the moderator's. As for now, AA classes in NCAA classrooms do NOT serve entirely for BB/FB players.
You're looking at it the wrong way round. The question is, do the majority of BB/FB players use these majors as easy 'clapping for credit' courses to cover their presence in a university?Replies: @Yojimbo/Zatoichi
I am looking at it as the USA Today article made clear: “Clustering” of majors means that FB/BB players most certainly use these relatively easy majors in order to maintain their NCAA eligibility. However, at present, African-American Studies is not a popular (by total numbers) major for FB/BB NCAA players. Perhaps in the future it will be.
And yes, it is most certainly a fair question; I also tend to believe that you know what the response would be from academia as a whole.
Most certainly there should be specific courses in European and American culture/history because for nearly 2,000 yrs there has ben a distinct culture.
Broad and meaningless? The continent that birthed democracy (sorry HLGates and Cornell West, it wasn’t in Africa) along with other technological, government, cultural, societal etc achievements? You’d better rethink that as the facts say differently.
African-American culture is a subset of the American culture at large. It is heavily flavored by Western European (white) culture at large.
Black is also a skin color, just as white. African part is not prominently emphasized in AAStudies. The skin color is paramount and the experiences of blacks as living in America, not Africa.
To state that Europe has no distinct culture as opposed to other continents is not only asinine but ridiculous.
The Founding Fathers and 99% of the 17th, 18th century colonists were European Caucasians. A class taught at many Universities for several decades US History from 1607-1815. Something along those lines. The chief complaint from 60s radicals/black agitators was that that was basically a white studies program since little if anything (at one time) dealt with minorities contribution to US History.
Again, to suggest that African-Americans, a minority in America, have a clear and distinct culture but that white Americans have never ever had any distinct culture in US per se, is entirely inaccurate. Did regional differences exist during this era of US History? Certainly. Just as regional differences existed within black history.
If there is a distinct and unique black AMERICAN history, then so to the converse holds as well. White Americans have definitely contributed to US and have a distinct and unique culture when weighed vs other minorities in US. I’d suggest you take it up with John Derbyshire that whites have never had a distinct culture and unique history in America.
Again, if there is a Black Studies Dept and program, there should also be a White Studies Dept and program. In this modern PC world it is fair and just that every entity is equally represented at colleges everywhere.
Otherwise, abolish such foolish nonsensical and bogus depts entirely and have students attempt to major in STEM and other stronger disciplines (e.g. Medicine; Law; Nursing; Accounting; etc).
Agreed. That’s why the O’Bannon case is important. It can establish legal precedent to abolish the entire concept of “student-athlete”. They are in practice anything but.
Pay the athletes; they are NCAA campus employees and nothing else. The NCAA Tourney makes close to 800 million in revenue and is second only to the Super Bowl in ratings for most watched US sports championship games. The schools are profiting quite well off the players backs.
Time to pay the employees. No, not what the NFL/NBA pay their employees but a reasonable wage, say, 30k per season for the starters and 25k per season per subs. Something along those lines.
Such is the society we live in.Replies: @Yojimbo/Zatoichi, @Art Deco
1) Black Jack?
2) At Stanford he was also surrounded by smart guys. In the minors he was surrounded by morons.
Pay the athletes; they are NCAA campus employees and nothing else. The NCAA Tourney makes close to 800 million in revenue and is second only to the Super Bowl in ratings for most watched US sports championship games. The schools are profiting quite well off the players backs.
Time to pay the employees. No, not what the NFL/NBA pay their employees but a reasonable wage, say, 30k per season for the starters and 25k per season per subs. Something along those lines.Replies: @David In TN
As soon as college basketball and football players were being paid, a blizzard of lawsuits would be filed demanding the same payment for the participants in female sports. It wouldn’t take long for the courts to rule in favor of “women’s sport” receiving “Equal Pay For Equal Work.”
Such is the society we live in.
I do not think the purses in women's golf and women's tennis have been the equal those of the men. This was a complaint of Chris Evert when she was president of some women's tennis association (and considered insufficiently militant by Billie Jean King). This would have been ca. 1975, more than a decade after the most salient parts of employment discrimination law were enacted. Of course, there are particular components of such law peculiarly burdensome for higher education and who knows what our awful judiciary has done with it...
Lolololol!!
I work with a Mexican-American lesbian, ethnic studies major. She and I are natural enemies, she’s the hyena, complete with the hideous laugh, and I am the lioness. She looks like the actor Benicio del Toro. I call her Benicia del Tora, behind her back, of course. She graduated from UC Berkeley and yet, when some of the employees go out to lunch together, is incapable of calculating the tip. How can you graduate from one of the most prestigious universities in the world and not be able to, er, cipher at least a little?
Such is the society we live in.Replies: @Yojimbo/Zatoichi, @Art Deco
Granted, but the rate of pay has to be tied directly to the proportion of profits that each NCAA university earns via that particular sport. As FB/BB tend to make the most for the schools they would receive the largest amount of salaries for their players.
Women’s sports don’t make anything on any NCAA campus. Example: The Bruins play in the Rose Bowl which easily holds about 100k. Why on earth would the UCLA Women’s Soccer team play in the Rose Bowl when they can barely average 1,000 for home games, if that. They should have their own soccer field on campus that holds 5k, that way they’d have a possible chance of filling it.
It wouldn’t take long for the Universities to demonstrate that Title IX only guarantees that women have the same opportunity as men to participate in collegiate sports. It says nothing directly about compensation. This would be the schools’ “out”, so to speak. They could then argue that the women’s sports, while they should receive compensation, should be based on actual attendance figures relative to their gender’s sport. Since attendance figures for Women’s Basketball and Soccer almost approach a respectable return those two sports would receive the higher compensation among women sports in general but those athletes still wouldn’t receive anything near BB/FB compensation.
The other men’s sports in the NCAA also do not turn a profit and so they would receive the same compensation as the women.
Bottom line: BB/FB players would receive the most in way of compensation. Women’s BB/S would receive about two thirds of what the men receive with the rest receiving about 15% of BB/FB. It would all be based on attendance figures for the schools and total profits. That’s actually a quite fair distribution since FB/BB are the only sports that turn a profit.
Today is Saturday: Which NCAA sport is dominant throughout the fall on Saturdays? Women’s Soccer? Tennis, Swimming? The Golf team?
Come come now.
From recruitment to alumni endowment funds, it’s all about the numbers, the figures, the attendance.
If NCAA schools had to rely on women’s sports to support their campus enrollment they’d have gone bankrupt long time ago.
They should be paid, just obviously not at the same rate since the work is NOT equal.
All the schools have to do is show the numbers in attendance and total profits per each sport; once again, the men would win.
Cleveland's last NFL Title win ('64) is due to two main factors:
1. Lombardi's Packers had an off yr (otherwise known as rebuilding as they came back and won in 65, and then Super Bowls I & II.
2. Cleveland had Jim Brown, one of the NFL's greatest and most dominant all time running backs of the 20th century. You know that Cleveland hasn't been all that ever since when the first and greatest Cleveland Browns player remains right now....Jim Brown. There is still no greater Cleveland player that's been better than Jim Brown by any other measure.
Yeah. He was that great, let's not leave out little facts such as Jim Brown from the equation.
It'd be like saying that the '27 Yankees won primarily because they had Columbia's Lou Gehrig and of course P's George Pipgras, Waite Hoyt, and of course....Mark Koenig.
AND...what other name on the '27 Yanks??Replies: @Jean Cocteausten
I was going to ignore this, but the thread is still going. You’ll notice in my post about Frank Ryan I said nothing about whether he was the driving force behind the Browns’ championship, merely that he was their QB, a plain statement of fact. I am fully aware of Jim Brown’s role.
I wouldn’t blame the Browns for not coming up with another Jim Brown in lo these fifty years: neither has any other team. After all the Paytons and Sanderses and Simpsons, 104 yards/game and 5.2 yards/carry are records that still stand.
It starts with the QB. He is the captain of the offense. The reason that the Browns didn't win the NFL Title more often in the 60s was because they didn't have a dominant QB along the lines of Unitas and Starr, both enshrined in Canton. Were it not for #32 they'd have been merely mediocre during that decade.
Jim Brown was special but there have been other great and dominant elite players to play in the NFL since his retirement. For whatever the reasons, Cleveland just simply can't find a way to draft the next great player that will lead them to the promised land.
Or perhaps Johnny Manziel will prove to be the next Jim Brown.Replies: @Reg Cæsar, @David In TN
Who are these unintelligent blacks who have been brainwashed to keep successful black men down?
http://dailycaller.com/2014/10/25/charles-barkley-unintelligent-blacks-brainwashed-to-keep-successful-black-men-down-video/
The issue at my alma mater was basketball and the hockey team, and incoming jocks would sign up for astronomy, thinking it was “just looking at stars and stuff”. The first Astronomy 101 session always included a dozen or so athletes, and they’d last about 15 minutes while the instructor laid out the semester’s work, which usually included a whole host of terms they’d never heard before. Any of them with particularly stout hearts would be driven out when the mathematical projects were brought up.
They found solace in the Sociology Department.
Such is the society we live in.Replies: @Yojimbo/Zatoichi, @Art Deco
It wouldn’t take long for the courts to rule in favor of “women’s sport” receiving “Equal Pay For Equal Work.”
I do not think the purses in women’s golf and women’s tennis have been the equal those of the men. This was a complaint of Chris Evert when she was president of some women’s tennis association (and considered insufficiently militant by Billie Jean King). This would have been ca. 1975, more than a decade after the most salient parts of employment discrimination law were enacted. Of course, there are particular components of such law peculiarly burdensome for higher education and who knows what our awful judiciary has done with it…
When I took the Pa. bar in 1974, the pass rate was nearly 99%.
Let go of my leg.
You proved my point; you are not here to argue in good faith.
"My point has been stated repeatedly..."
It keeps morphing to whatever you want it to be.
"No, history is a legitimate discipline."
I said that in my first comment. I don't think that I have to requote what I said in order to make things easy for you. But since I stand by the point, I'll make it again: AA is good for at least 4 courses, and a major that specializes in it as part of an American history degree is legit. I studied American History, with a specialization in US Labor History.
"Dr. Genovese was a history professor and his department at the University of Rochester had chilly relations with the Frederick Douglas Institute on the River Campus, whose quondam director said the social science departments kept sabotaging her efforts to build a program."
Yeah, OK, fine, yawn. And what is your point, other than to prove that you are a fucking little show-off? I brought up Genovese to make a point about teaching AA history, and you bring up a totally irrelevant bit of academic gossip that had zilch to do with the issue.
Your problem is that you can't deal with a perfectly reasonable question: Do AA programs, at BigAthlete U, function as diploma mills for black students? NOT, are colleges vocational mills for middling white kids, which is what you are saying.
(Parenthetically, I would agree that lots of times, they are, and that we should be talking about this, which Steve does. But that's not his question.)
I get it. You all don’t like criticism. Suck it up.
I get it. I really got under your skin. Suck it yourself.Replies: @Yojimbo/Zatoichi, @Art Deco
I brought up Genovese to make a point about teaching AA history, and you bring up a totally irrelevant bit of academic gossip that had zilch to do with the issue.
And I’m pointing out that Genovese’s department wanted nothing to do with black studies.
Whites complaining about affirmative action, athletic scholarships, gut courses for black jocks etc is hypocritical and ridiculous. No one benefits more from these than whites, more specifically whites of british origin. And on top of that white anglos are by far the biggest beneficiaries of legacy admissions. So quit your silly pathetic whining about blacks getting a small piece of the pie…
The domination of blacks in the most popular college sports like football, basketball and track masks the fact that whites dominate in far more numerous sports: like in swimming, golf, tennis, ice hockey, volleyball, all the winter sports etc. And what easy courses do these white jocks typically major in? european history, sociology, psychology, physical education…..
If entrance to the elite colleges was strictly based on academic merit they would have far fewer whites and far more asians…
The domination of blacks in the most popular college sports like football, basketball and track masks the fact that whites dominate in far more numerous sports: like in swimming, golf, tennis, ice hockey, volleyball, all the winter sports etc. And what easy courses do these white jocks typically major in? european history, sociology, psychology, physical education.....
If entrance to the elite colleges was strictly based on academic merit they would have far fewer whites and far more asians...Replies: @Anonymous
They would also have far fewer African-Americans.
Q: Whose fault is it?
a) Whitey
b) Whitey
c) The Man
d) Whitey
All answers are correct.Replies: @Stan Adams
In response to the scandal, the test is being made significantly harder.
Q: Whose fault is it?
a) Whitey
b) Whity
c) Da Man
d) Witey
The correct answer, a, is worth 100 points. An incorrect answer is only worth 99.5 points.
Extra credit (90 points) is given to those athletes who spell their names correctly.
In raw numbers there would be far fewer non-jewish whites than blacks in the elite colleges.
The geography equivalent of this is “Interpreting Aerial Photographs”. At least our department was honest and steered the naïve away from this trap. Though we did have an undergrad football lineman taking graduate courses, and doing well. The jock curve has its own tails. .
Now that’s a lie. That is a lie. Blacks comprise 13% of the US which is about 5x less than whites in the US. Blacks average 85IQ and non-Jewish whites average 100IQ.
If college admissions were strictly based on merit there simply wouldn’t be enough “talented tenth” to go around for all the elite universities in the numbers that the PC leftists demand and expect.
All we have to do is begin by looking at STEM majors. In total numbers, blacks are about 2% and whites are much much higher.
FACT: Per a few yrs ago, blacks from families averaging $160k per yr whose children took the SAT averaged less than that of children from white families who averaged about $20k per yr. So we know that there are more whites (non-Jewish) that will surpass blacks in total numbers at the right side of Bell Curve.
Do keep trying though.
I like that line “let go my leg”. Think I’ll use it.
Let go my leg, bliss.
My original point had nothing to say about blacks: they would have far fewer whites and far more asians…. Agreed or not?Replies: @Yojimbo/Zatoichi
I wouldn't blame the Browns for not coming up with another Jim Brown in lo these fifty years: neither has any other team. After all the Paytons and Sanderses and Simpsons, 104 yards/game and 5.2 yards/carry are records that still stand.Replies: @Yojimbo/Zatoichi
I would. The Browns haven’t done jack since ’64. Nothing. That speaks to the total incompetence of the organization. Apparently with all those high draft picks over the years they still can’t figure it out.
It starts with the QB. He is the captain of the offense. The reason that the Browns didn’t win the NFL Title more often in the 60s was because they didn’t have a dominant QB along the lines of Unitas and Starr, both enshrined in Canton. Were it not for #32 they’d have been merely mediocre during that decade.
Jim Brown was special but there have been other great and dominant elite players to play in the NFL since his retirement. For whatever the reasons, Cleveland just simply can’t find a way to draft the next great player that will lead them to the promised land.
Or perhaps Johnny Manziel will prove to be the next Jim Brown.
In 1964 the Browns had rookie of the year Paul Warfield to go with Gary Collins at the WR positions. Frank Ryan had an extra year's experience. In short, the Browns were a better balanced team in 1964 than they had ever been during Jim Brown's career.
In 1964, you didn't "make the playoffs," you "won your division," the Eastern Division for the Browns, Western Division for the Colts that year. Baltimore was 12-2 in the West. Green Bay was 8-5-1 (they beat Cleveland 28-21 in a November game) and lost both times to the Colts. The Packers were rebuilding somewhat, replacing players who had grown old.
In those days, the site for the NFL Championship game was rotated year by year. There was no home field advantage from won-loss records. Although, the Browns had the home field for the title game, the Colts were seven point favorites.
The Browns won 27-0. Ryan threw three TD passes to Collins, who was the games' MVP. Brown had 114 yards rushing, 46 on one play that set up the first TD.
Johnny Unitas had only 95 yards passing and zero points.
Although the Browns lost in Green Bay in the 1965 title game and never did beat Lombardi's Packers in regular season games, I think the Browns would have won if the Colts had slipped and the Packers made the 1964 championship game.Replies: @Yojimbo/Zatoichi
It starts with the QB. He is the captain of the offense. The reason that the Browns didn't win the NFL Title more often in the 60s was because they didn't have a dominant QB along the lines of Unitas and Starr, both enshrined in Canton. Were it not for #32 they'd have been merely mediocre during that decade.
Jim Brown was special but there have been other great and dominant elite players to play in the NFL since his retirement. For whatever the reasons, Cleveland just simply can't find a way to draft the next great player that will lead them to the promised land.
Or perhaps Johnny Manziel will prove to be the next Jim Brown.Replies: @Reg Cæsar, @David In TN
Huh? The Cleveland Browns did just what the St Louis Browns did before them: moved to Baltimore and won championships.
I know that Art Modell moved the team in '95 and some would consider that to be the original franchise. It's up for debate to a large extent.
Fact remains, no Cleveland Browns team playing their games out of Cleveland have won anything since '64.
Its like, yes, the Dodgers and the Giants retain their original franchises in large part because they kept their original team names and logos, but when you change your team name and logo, you're consciously making a break with the past, as well as with your team's history. There is a difference and that's why its still open to opinion.
The Baltimore Ravens are a new team with a new history. The new Browns should trace their heritage back to the old Browns. And in fact, they make a conscious effort to do so since they continually invite their star players from yesteryear. Including Jim Brown.
Hmmm, I didn’t phrase my point correctly. What I meant was that if admission to the elite colleges was based strictly on academic merit the decrease in raw numbers would be greater for whites than blacks. Simply because there are far more unqualified (and qualified) whites in elite colleges than blacks. Do you disagree with that?
My original point had nothing to say about blacks: they would have far fewer whites and far more asians…. Agreed or not?
It starts with the QB. He is the captain of the offense. The reason that the Browns didn't win the NFL Title more often in the 60s was because they didn't have a dominant QB along the lines of Unitas and Starr, both enshrined in Canton. Were it not for #32 they'd have been merely mediocre during that decade.
Jim Brown was special but there have been other great and dominant elite players to play in the NFL since his retirement. For whatever the reasons, Cleveland just simply can't find a way to draft the next great player that will lead them to the promised land.
Or perhaps Johnny Manziel will prove to be the next Jim Brown.Replies: @Reg Cæsar, @David In TN
In 1964, Jim Brown gained over 400 yards less than 1963 (1446 from 1863). Their regular season won-loss record in 1964 was 10-3-1. In 1963 it was 10-4.
In 1964 the Browns had rookie of the year Paul Warfield to go with Gary Collins at the WR positions. Frank Ryan had an extra year’s experience. In short, the Browns were a better balanced team in 1964 than they had ever been during Jim Brown’s career.
In 1964, you didn’t “make the playoffs,” you “won your division,” the Eastern Division for the Browns, Western Division for the Colts that year. Baltimore was 12-2 in the West. Green Bay was 8-5-1 (they beat Cleveland 28-21 in a November game) and lost both times to the Colts. The Packers were rebuilding somewhat, replacing players who had grown old.
In those days, the site for the NFL Championship game was rotated year by year. There was no home field advantage from won-loss records. Although, the Browns had the home field for the title game, the Colts were seven point favorites.
The Browns won 27-0. Ryan threw three TD passes to Collins, who was the games’ MVP. Brown had 114 yards rushing, 46 on one play that set up the first TD.
Johnny Unitas had only 95 yards passing and zero points.
Although the Browns lost in Green Bay in the 1965 title game and never did beat Lombardi’s Packers in regular season games, I think the Browns would have won if the Colts had slipped and the Packers made the 1964 championship game.
To borrow another sports phrase, Jim Brown was the straw that stirred the drink. He was Cleveland's greatest player, bar none. He "only" had 1446 yrds and remember, in those days the NFL played a 14 game schedule so it wasn't a total loss.
The Packers won the NFL Title Game over YA Tittle, Sam Huff, Frank Gifford etc NY Giants in 61-62 and then went awol on winning the division in 63-64. In 63 George Hallas' Bears won the division and beat the Giants in the NFL Title Game.
For Lombardi, 64 was clearly a rebuilding year as they came back strong to win their three consecutive NFL games in 65, 66, 67 and capped it off by winning the first two Super Bowls.
Come on bitches ; Your Rights as Felon and Understanding Social Services are legitimate majors in the USA today . Much more so than some BS like engineering or physics. And as Homer says :”who needs English I’m not going to England”.
In 1964 the Browns had rookie of the year Paul Warfield to go with Gary Collins at the WR positions. Frank Ryan had an extra year's experience. In short, the Browns were a better balanced team in 1964 than they had ever been during Jim Brown's career.
In 1964, you didn't "make the playoffs," you "won your division," the Eastern Division for the Browns, Western Division for the Colts that year. Baltimore was 12-2 in the West. Green Bay was 8-5-1 (they beat Cleveland 28-21 in a November game) and lost both times to the Colts. The Packers were rebuilding somewhat, replacing players who had grown old.
In those days, the site for the NFL Championship game was rotated year by year. There was no home field advantage from won-loss records. Although, the Browns had the home field for the title game, the Colts were seven point favorites.
The Browns won 27-0. Ryan threw three TD passes to Collins, who was the games' MVP. Brown had 114 yards rushing, 46 on one play that set up the first TD.
Johnny Unitas had only 95 yards passing and zero points.
Although the Browns lost in Green Bay in the 1965 title game and never did beat Lombardi's Packers in regular season games, I think the Browns would have won if the Colts had slipped and the Packers made the 1964 championship game.Replies: @Yojimbo/Zatoichi
And THAT was the main reason for the Browns’ ’64 win. Unitas was held to only 95 yrds passing.
To borrow another sports phrase, Jim Brown was the straw that stirred the drink. He was Cleveland’s greatest player, bar none. He “only” had 1446 yrds and remember, in those days the NFL played a 14 game schedule so it wasn’t a total loss.
The Packers won the NFL Title Game over YA Tittle, Sam Huff, Frank Gifford etc NY Giants in 61-62 and then went awol on winning the division in 63-64. In 63 George Hallas’ Bears won the division and beat the Giants in the NFL Title Game.
For Lombardi, 64 was clearly a rebuilding year as they came back strong to win their three consecutive NFL games in 65, 66, 67 and capped it off by winning the first two Super Bowls.
And that’s a matter of opinion. The Cleveland Browns also trace their heritage to the NEW Cleveland Browns, which haven’t won jack since ’64.
I know that Art Modell moved the team in ’95 and some would consider that to be the original franchise. It’s up for debate to a large extent.
Fact remains, no Cleveland Browns team playing their games out of Cleveland have won anything since ’64.
Its like, yes, the Dodgers and the Giants retain their original franchises in large part because they kept their original team names and logos, but when you change your team name and logo, you’re consciously making a break with the past, as well as with your team’s history. There is a difference and that’s why its still open to opinion.
The Baltimore Ravens are a new team with a new history. The new Browns should trace their heritage back to the old Browns. And in fact, they make a conscious effort to do so since they continually invite their star players from yesteryear. Including Jim Brown.
My original point had nothing to say about blacks: they would have far fewer whites and far more asians…. Agreed or not?Replies: @Yojimbo/Zatoichi
No, you certainly didn’t phrase your point well at all whatsoever. Perhaps the decrease would be greater for whites BUT it would be EVEN GREATER as a total percentage for blacks.
No. I don’t agree with the statement that at US Elite Universities, there are more unqualified whites than blacks. For one major reason: The elephant in the room….Affirmative Action quotas in admissions which tend to exist for nearly every school in US except for those in CA.
See, if blacks average about 5-10% at Ivies, Stanford, UCLA, Duke, Rice, Northwestern, MIT, Cal, etc (and in some of those schools they don’t even average 5%, if we are honest enough to face the facts, btw) AND the admissions process were to go to strictly merit basis WITH NO AFFIRMATIVE ACTION PERMITTED WHATSOEVER….uh, that would definitely hurt blacks more.
Instead of 5-10% (if that high in some schools) at present, you’d have 1-3% total of blacks on the campus while you’d still have ca. 55% whites. If we add Jewish Americans in, the total would go well over 70% with Asians getting about 30% depending on the individual elite University. This would tend to be higher in some schools while lower in others. But the total white share would hold constant.
If anything, blacks should thank their lucky stars that Affirmative Action hasn’t been partially dismantled as it has in CA. Imagine if the rest of US universities decided to throw out AA regarding admissions.
And all we have to ask is: WHICH group does Affirmative Action re: University Admissions tend to help in raw numbers, blacks or whites? Which group benefits from AA policies, blacks or whites?
I also do NOT agree with the second point, that we’d have far fewer whites per se. We would have more Asians, but not uniformly throughout every single elite campus. Many campuses absolutely. All of them? No. For the time being, whites would still outnumber Asians as they do now but in the future who knows and who can say for certain? It could very well change.
In other words, yes both groups will see a decrease in total numbers but since blacks aren’t all that academically their percentage will be nearly nonexistent and certainly not of any relevant percentage that’s noticeable on campus (ca. 2% or less IF we throw out Affirmative Action admission policies that directly and only help blacks).
Bottom line: Only one group attending elite universities are there in part because of Affirmative Action policies in admissions. HINT: It isn’t whites.
But if the future won’t be as kind to whites at elite campuses then you will also concede that it will be even worse for blacks. Especially when the talented tenth will be represented by the likes of Rachel Jeantel.
1. Many or most blacks admitted to upper tier private universities would instead attend lower tier private universities, "public ivies", and upper tier private colleges.
2. Many or most blacks admitted to lower tier private universities, "public ivies", and upper tier private colleges would attend common and garden state universities.
3. Many or most blacks admitted to common and garden state universities would attend instead state colleges or lower tier private colleges.
4. Many or most blacks admitted to lower tier private colleges and state colleges would attend community college and technical school instead.
Some disappointments, but no social disaster. The people most upset would be employees of the diversity apparat followed by educational administration in general followed by faculty.Replies: @Yojimbo/Zatoichi
You should compare the percentage of whites in the Ivies to their percentage at say Caltech (big difference) to get an idea about the huge decrease in the number of whites enrolled in the Ivies if their admissions policies were changed to a strict academic meritocracy.The decrease in the number of white students would be far greater than the decrease in black and hispanic students combined.
On a lighter note: Ben Roethlisberger threw for 522 yards today! The first NFL QB in history to have more than one game of 500+ passing yards in a game.
And they won as well, which is always nice. So they had that going for them.
Per his second 500 passing yards game, I think Ben’s Wonderlich score came in handy today.
Except for when Roethlisberger decided to run on the last play of the game and got about five points taken off his Wonderlic score by a frustrated defense.
I thought a turnover was coming but quickly remembered that Pgh was up 51-34 by that point, whew! And all he needed was one more six yard pass completion and he would have leap frogged into 2nd place on the all time list right behind Norm Van Brocklin’s 553yards.
Congratulations to Madison Bumgarner’s complete game win. It certainly impressed Joe Buck and whenever Joe’s impressed, well then that must mean something.
And he threw 116 pitches. My goodness, will his arm fall over tomorrow from all that pitching? Will he develop arthritis by next week?
After all complete games of 116 whole pitches simply isn’t done anymore. Who does he think he is? And he has actually tossed more than one complete game during this postseason.
Bill James and Billy Beane are not going to be happy about this. Suppose pitching complete games becomes more commonplace? Doesn’t Bumgarner know that he’s not supposed to pitch the whole game all by himself?
I don’t think Bill James will like this.
The only real mystery about baseball is why blacks stopped playing. I have to guess it’s purely economic. Lots of kids who needed an out from the ‘hood in the ’70s now have parents making 150k as school administrators or transit supervisors.
Baseball is one of those sports that youngsters play under the watchful tutelage of a father over the length of a childhood. It requires long-term honing of skills.
Blacks in the USA don’t have a father in the household to drive the kid’s development in baseball.
If anything, blacks should thank their lucky stars that Affirmative Action hasn’t been partially dismantled as it has in CA. Imagine if the rest of US universities decided to throw out AA regarding admissions.
1. Many or most blacks admitted to upper tier private universities would instead attend lower tier private universities, “public ivies”, and upper tier private colleges.
2. Many or most blacks admitted to lower tier private universities, “public ivies”, and upper tier private colleges would attend common and garden state universities.
3. Many or most blacks admitted to common and garden state universities would attend instead state colleges or lower tier private colleges.
4. Many or most blacks admitted to lower tier private colleges and state colleges would attend community college and technical school instead.
Some disappointments, but no social disaster. The people most upset would be employees of the diversity apparat followed by educational administration in general followed by faculty.
Occam’s razor, once again. Blacks don’t play baseball for three reasons: costly equipment, lack of space and lower ROI than other sports.
1. To practice baseball, you need *at least* 100 yards squared of space. If multiple groups of Asian pre-teens could clear 200 feet in distance travelled at bat, HBD tells you that the “stronger” black kids would be able to break windows and dent doors if practicing in a smaller space. And as blacks become even more urbanised, practice spaces shrink in size and availability. However, this doesn’t bother blacks too much because of 2…
2. Baseball is expensive (in comparison to baseball and football). Football needs helmets and padding and a jersey, basketball just needs matching shirts, but baseball…
Bats (multiple weights), cleats (more expensive and less overall utility than regular sneakers), uniforms, batting helmets and anywhere between 12-20 replacement balls per game (foul balls, stolen/requisitioned/lost balls, broken balls, etc.), and costs to schedule playing time and space. Replacement bats and balls alone can cost over $100 a game, in comparison to the 1-2 footballs and basketballs needed a season. This, of course, leads directly into 3
3. Baseball, by black standards, has a *pitiful* ROI. *PITIFUL*.
Thanks in major part to the popularity of NCAA football and basketball, there’s no end of low-level (local businesses, drug dealers) to elite (former sportsmen, upper management/corporate bigwigs, successful alumni) sponsors, never mind the legions of “superfans” who made household names of Ricky Williams and Lebron James before they graduated high school. Sponsors who are always willing to pony up hundreds of dollars at a time to supply prospective players with “free” gear, just in case one of those kids is the new Kevin Durant or Robert Griffin III. Baseball, outside of the rural communities or more “apple pie” suburbs, doesn’t have that current cultural cachet. For a prospective home run hitter (urban), their parents will have to eat a major chunk of the costs. On top of that, I used the words “home run” for a specific reason: the “sexy” part, the “get the girls and impress the guys” part of baseball is the home run, and the average baseball player at any level would be lucky to hit a double digit number of dingers in a season. Football players have long passes and miracle catches and “size” to get the girls, B-ball has the trick shots and no-look passes and dunks, baseball is all about the long ball/laser drive/etc. It should be obvious to anyone with a working penis that one of the most powerful drives for any adolescent male is {potential} access to vagina. “Alphas” may be able to meander through life picking up soft 9’s to well-conditioned 6’s, but there are a lot of Betas/Sigmas/race-aided/limited “situational Alphas” who see sports “superstardom” as a way to get girls. For some races, all they need to see is a group photo on the backpage of a newspaper. For black women, they require the 100+ yard/game running back, the 5 fancy passes/3 dunks/15+ points a game “point god”, the winning hitter, and its far easier to stand out (positively) in football and basketball than in baseball. When the pros come calling, college players have the NFLand NBA on lockdown, but MLB grabs hundreds of Latin American players per season (limiting the amount of available new slots for money-hungry prospects.) Low-level practice squad players in the NFL or NBA can travel with the first-string players and “pretend” to be stars, but minor leaguers get placed in the middle of nowhere (even the Yankees and Mets have to keep their minor league teams on the outskirts of New York City.)
Tl;dr- It’s too expensive, too time-consuming and too high-risk for the average black boy to get into baseball, especially in comparison to “a driveway, a ball and a hoop” basketball and “Dude, for peewee football I’ll give a quick hundred.”
At my school, “Rocks for Jocks” was Geo 1, “Moons for Goons” was Geo 5, and “Motions in the Oceans” was Geo 7. I took Geo 2.
1. Many or most blacks admitted to upper tier private universities would instead attend lower tier private universities, "public ivies", and upper tier private colleges.
2. Many or most blacks admitted to lower tier private universities, "public ivies", and upper tier private colleges would attend common and garden state universities.
3. Many or most blacks admitted to common and garden state universities would attend instead state colleges or lower tier private colleges.
4. Many or most blacks admitted to lower tier private colleges and state colleges would attend community college and technical school instead.
Some disappointments, but no social disaster. The people most upset would be employees of the diversity apparat followed by educational administration in general followed by faculty.Replies: @Yojimbo/Zatoichi
Again, per total black admissions: IF you totally eliminate Affirmative Actions in admissions this would severely reduce the total number of black students at all US universities across the board. At the top schools you’d have low single digit percentages as well as total numbers of blacks at elite Universities.
And the Federal Government knows it. So your point about only diversity employees being upset is not accurate whatsoever. When the Federal Government gets upset, uh, people tend to know about it because they make their displeasure quite public.
This year there was a book published regarding how Affirmative Actions directly impacted the total number of black students at UCLA, a high second tier if not a low first level tier university. With no AA allowed officially, the school attempted many questionable procedures in an attempt to get more blacks on campus. If you excluse the 10 or so BB Bruins as well as the 40 FB Bruins with about another 50 for women’s sports and the track team….that’s only a little more than 100 students.
100 black students on UCLA campus (several of which are special admits, btw) on a campus, perhaps along with another 400 students that are among the talented tenth and you have around 500 black students at UCLA. Five hundred, out of a campus that is around 25-30,000 students.
And you basically just said that if Affirmative Action policies were entirely removed then there would not have any direct impact on black admissions; as with UCLA this isn’t the case so you’d better reconsider. If UCLA was having trouble recruiting legitimate black students for their campus the same can easily be said for blacks at the Ivies and the others.
FACT: At the Ivies there are more Asians in total number and percentage of the campus total than there are blacks, even at the Ivies Affirmative Action policies help increase the total number of blacks on campus.
Actually, AA policies help blacks at…pretty much every single US University. Every single one.
Remember, if the Federal Government doesn’t have a problem with eliminating AA policies for blacks in university admissions, then how come they fought the Michigan law that banned AA policies for so long? If it’s not really a major impact on black admissions then it wouldn’t be a big deal if AA policies in university admissions were eliminated entirely.
That is exactly the point I was trying to make. I was talking about decrease in raw numbers not decrease in percentages. Clearly you are not thinking rationally.
What are legacy admissions if not affirmative action policies favoring WASPs? Why aren’t you whining about that? Double standards?
You should compare the percentage of whites in the Ivies to their percentage at say Caltech (big difference) to get an idea about the huge decrease in the number of whites enrolled in the Ivies if their admissions policies were changed to a strict academic meritocracy.The decrease in the number of white students would be far greater than the decrease in black and hispanic students combined.
I think this thread has a lot of sock puppets talking to each other. Not that there’s anything wrong with that.
Former TNR stalwart Gregg Easterbrook has a review of Cheated: The UNC Scandal, the Education of Athletes, and the Future of Big-Time College Sports by Jay Smith and Mary Willingham in last Saturday’s WSJ.
Smith and Willingham worked at UNC Chapel Hill, and were participants in its tutoring and counseling programs for student athletes in revenue sports.
Easterbrook’s review shows why the book’s titled “Cheated,” rather than “Surprised.” Example: