Have black QBs been discriminated against (1 Viewer)

[Liquid Tension]

Don't even get me started.If Akili Smith was white, He would still be the start in Cincinnati.He played at Oregon not a small school.

Maroney=Speed, what you've just written is one of the most insanely idiotic things I have ever seen. At no point in your rambling, incoherent response were you even close to anything that could be considered a rational thought. Everyone in this thread is now dumber for having read your post. I award you no points, and may God have mercy on your soul.

Can someone put Maroney=Speed's comment in their sig for future laughs? It really is insane.

Dude, it was a joke. I guess when you finish last place in you Fantasy League, theres no room for joking.

That is correct...anyone who finished last in their fantasy league should have their posting privileges revoked for one year...

 

[Pots]

There just haven't been that many good black QBs...

 

[Chase Stuart]

You ask if black QBs are being discriminated against, yet you admit that you don't know why if it's happening, that you don't have the data to back it up and anyone's faith in any conclusion you make has to naturally be suspect.

I'm not sure why you say this like it's a negative. Don't we ask questions here all the time? What's Derek Anderson worth? Who is the best rookie RB? Lots of times posters ask such a question, admit they're unsure of the answer, have some theory, but admit that anyone's faith in that conclusion should be suspect? I don't see what the difference is here. Are you saying that when a study produces no conclusion or an ambiguous conclusion that it should be stifled? I strongly disagree with that.To me, it would be no different than if I looked at 40-yard dash times and all RBs and said:Thread title: Are RBs with slow 40-yard dash times discriminated against in the draft?Conclusion 1: From 1970-1990, "slow" RBs produced about how we'd expect them to do. X of them outproduced their draft position, and X of them underproduced relative to their draft position. It seems, on the whole, that GMs didn't bump down or bump up RBs because of bad 40 times.Conclusion 2: However, in 1990, Emmitt Smith was drafted, and he was a "slow" RB that produced really well. Starting in 1992 -- after Emmitt became a superstar -- 15 of the next 20 "slow" RBs to be drafted ended up being busts. It's possible that after Emmitt, GMs started devaluing speed in RBs, saying 'if Emmitt can do it, so can rookie prospect Y." Of course, most of them failed. It's also possible that they failed just by coincidence, as the sample size is small. So it could be the Emmitt factor, randomness, luck, or maybe something else. It's pretty difficult to say, but it's possible that Emmitt changed how GMs drafted.Conclusion 3: From 2000 to now, it seems that RBs are being properly drafted again. It's too early to tell the careers of Tony Hunt and Greg Jones, but a rough look at the RBs taken in the last seven drafts is that by the end of their careers, the group should be properly valued.So are RBs with slow 40-yard dash times discriminated against? It seems that they've been properly valued for the most part, except for a stretch in the '90s that could be related to Emmitt Smith, or just randomness in the data, or something else.Would such a hypothetical post or study be worthless? I would admit that I don't have the data to back up any theory, and you should be naturally suspect of any theory. I still don't know what's wrong with asking the question.

Yet your study fails to address some very basic points about NFL quarterbacks. A) The standard of 1) Number of college starts and 2) Completion percentage in college as measures to help indicate future NFL success is never discussed. B) The era in which you discuss, the early 90s, is notorious for being a QB starved era in the NFL. The quality of NFL quarterbacking ACROSS THE BOARD and the availability of marquee QBs was low during that time. C) You fail to discuss the issue of "heightism" as a discriminating factor for QBs AT ANY LEVEL. Crazy idea, but even if you have a rocket arm but can BARELY SEE OVER YOUR LINEMEN, ODDS ARE YOU AREN'T GOING TO BE A DESIRED QB PROSPECT. Doug Flutie and Jeff Garcia have had their height held against them for years as NFL quarterbacks. So how many college starts did these black QBs you mention have? Completion percentage? How many teams had QB turnover at the starter position during these years? How tall were these black QBs in question?

at the standard of # of college starts + completion percentage. Because some person thinks that's the standard, any study that doesn't address that is invalidated?Your second point might be a valid one. I'd have to think that one over.Your heightism argument is just plain wrong. Doug Flutie and Jeff Garcia weren't drafted highly because they were short. That's factored into draft position. I don't see any reason why I should concern myself over that. You should re-think your position on that one, because you're unwisely trying to double-weight. Height is irrelevant in this case, as is college completion percentage, or number of college starts. Draft status takes all of those things into account.Remember what the question is. It's whether or not the black QBs that have been drafted ended up going lower in the draft than you would expect, based on their eventual NFL production. If he's short, and gonna stink in the NFL because he's short, he's going to be a low round draft pick anyway. Once again, I urge you to answer this question:Think of this in the reverse: let's say you KNEW that in the '90s, black QBs were discriminated against. In this hypothetical world, you spoke to every owner, GM and head coach, and they all said they downgraded QBs by about 20% if they were black. Knowing this information, how would you go about proving your case to someone who didn't speak to every owner, GM and head coach? When you try to answer that, I think you'll end up coming back to what I did. Or maybe you'll come up with something better. I'd be curious to hear that, if that's the case, and I could then run the numbers on your study for you.

 

[renesauz]

Chase,

The point of my rant was that we, as a society, are trained to believe that white to black racism exists, but that the reverse rarely (if ever) occurs. We are also trained to believe that there are ZERO differences between races in every arena except medical (thus my referance to sickle cell anemia). Our training had value in the 60's, and still in the 70's, but we have reached the point where such brainwashing has become counter-productive.

By that I mean that the continued insistance that racial discrimination still exists in ALL areas is actually encouraging the re-emergance of such bias in areas it did NOT previously exist. Many white parents are very frustrated right now by the fact that their teenager with identical grades and out of school activities has a MUCH harder time finding scholarships to college then his black counterpart. While these white parents were NOT racially biased before, they can easily become so because of this very real reversal of discriminatory values.

Your study frustrates me because it is an example of somebody loking hard for discrimination in an arena where it is mild, if existant at all. You are LOOKING for a reason to declare an organization racist/discriminatory when there are literraly thousands of better places to look for this discrimination.

The simple truth is that the overwhelming majority of ordinary folks in this country don't want to care about race anymore, but are not always allowed to become color-blind because of continued witch hunts like this (I know that's a severe over-statement, but the idea is the same).

Racism still exists in this country. It will continue to exist until ALL PEOPLE, black and white, become color blind. It will continue to exist until everyone realizes that racial bias is just as common in the other direction now, and they become every bit as intolerant of black on white bias as they are of white on black.

Professional sports 40 years ago helped show us just how backward and screwed up we were. Professional sports today show us just how little most of our people care about color. It's all about winning now.

I respect your opinion, renesauz, but I think you're way off here.One, I don't think society is "trained' to believe that racism exists, and that reverse racism doesn't exist. I'm not sure who you think is doing the training, but I hear lots of white people claim reverse racism (check the FFA sometime), and I don't think people believe racism exists on an institutional level anymore (certainly it's decreased tremendously).

Really? When is the last time you heard a story on the news about a white kid being beaten up because he's white? These things happen Chase, far more often then you realize!!!! The news medias jump all over any evidance of white on black racism, but tend to ignore the opposite.

Two, I have no idea why you think this is an example of someone looking hard for discrimination. What about this study makes you think that? Asking the question isn't looking for discrimination. Do you not think that's it's a legitimate question for a person with more data than you could ever want to check to see if *maybe* black QBs have *ever* been discriminated against? You think that's a loony proposition? Incredibly boring and a waste of time? I'd understand if you did, but I don't see anything about that question that is far out there or looking hard for discrimination. In fact, it seems to me that my study indicates that discrimination by and large hasn't gone on w/r/t players selected in the NFL draft. I get the feeling that lots of people aren't reading my post (which is fine; I'm not John Grisham) but then attacking me for views I never wrote and don't have. That's the part that's annoying.

First, I am fully aware that I over-reacted, and mentioned that in my post. But the very fact that you did this study IMPLIES that you were looking for discrimination, regardless of the actual results of the study (which seem to imply, albeit inconclusively, that such discrimination no longer exists). We all understand that discrimination used to exist...we didn't need a new study to teach us that!

Three, I understand the vast majority of people want to become color blind. I don't think that's very fair or intelligent, but that's a bit outside the scope of my small study. I think being conscious about race and discussing it is and healthy and important part of being a well rounded person. I don't think anyone doubts that there's an enormous amount of unconscious racism that exists today, and the only way you can get people to realize that is to discuss it. But that's just my opinion, and is irrelevant to this study.

It is true that I am somewhat sensitive about this subject, because I have actually seen my (white) children discriminated against by black teachers in a school system that is slightly black predominant. Yet, to suggest that such discrimination against my kids exists because of color earns me the title of racist. My point is that reverse discimination does exist, and we, as a society, tend to turn a blind eye towards that fact. When I see someone studying something as ultimately pointless as your study, it leaves me frustrated, thinking we HAVE MISSED THE BIGGER PICTURE.

In the end, many of us aren't able to become color blind because we aren't allowed to. I agree that we must intelligantly discuss racial issues, but that also means we must be careful of HOW and WHY we bring a racial issue up...and this study is not a good way, because it proves nothing, and ignores far more serious racial problems.

I apologize if I have come across harshly...I have very strong feelings on this subject, and a lot of frustration. I'm frustrated over our inability as a society to move forward, over our insistance on fostering a climate that encourages reverse discrimination instead of fostering a climate intolerant of ANY discrimination. In the end, I would venture to guess that we are very close in that desire, but perhaps disagree on HOW to get there.

 

[Chase Stuart]

Chase,

The point of my rant was that we, as a society, are trained to believe that white to black racism exists, but that the reverse rarely (if ever) occurs. We are also trained to believe that there are ZERO differences between races in every arena except medical (thus my referance to sickle cell anemia). Our training had value in the 60's, and still in the 70's, but we have reached the point where such brainwashing has become counter-productive.

By that I mean that the continued insistance that racial discrimination still exists in ALL areas is actually encouraging the re-emergance of such bias in areas it did NOT previously exist. Many white parents are very frustrated right now by the fact that their teenager with identical grades and out of school activities has a MUCH harder time finding scholarships to college then his black counterpart. While these white parents were NOT racially biased before, they can easily become so because of this very real reversal of discriminatory values.

Your study frustrates me because it is an example of somebody loking hard for discrimination in an arena where it is mild, if existant at all. You are LOOKING for a reason to declare an organization racist/discriminatory when there are literraly thousands of better places to look for this discrimination.

The simple truth is that the overwhelming majority of ordinary folks in this country don't want to care about race anymore, but are not always allowed to become color-blind because of continued witch hunts like this (I know that's a severe over-statement, but the idea is the same).

Racism still exists in this country. It will continue to exist until ALL PEOPLE, black and white, become color blind. It will continue to exist until everyone realizes that racial bias is just as common in the other direction now, and they become every bit as intolerant of black on white bias as they are of white on black.

Professional sports 40 years ago helped show us just how backward and screwed up we were. Professional sports today show us just how little most of our people care about color. It's all about winning now.

I respect your opinion, renesauz, but I think you're way off here.One, I don't think society is "trained' to believe that racism exists, and that reverse racism doesn't exist. I'm not sure who you think is doing the training, but I hear lots of white people claim reverse racism (check the FFA sometime), and I don't think people believe racism exists on an institutional level anymore (certainly it's decreased tremendously).

Really? When is the last time you heard a story on the news about a white kid being beaten up because he's white? These things happen Chase, far more often then you realize!!!! The news medias jump all over any evidance of white on black racism, but tend to ignore the opposite.

Two, I have no idea why you think this is an example of someone looking hard for discrimination. What about this study makes you think that? Asking the question isn't looking for discrimination. Do you not think that's it's a legitimate question for a person with more data than you could ever want to check to see if *maybe* black QBs have *ever* been discriminated against? You think that's a loony proposition? Incredibly boring and a waste of time? I'd understand if you did, but I don't see anything about that question that is far out there or looking hard for discrimination. In fact, it seems to me that my study indicates that discrimination by and large hasn't gone on w/r/t players selected in the NFL draft. I get the feeling that lots of people aren't reading my post (which is fine; I'm not John Grisham) but then attacking me for views I never wrote and don't have. That's the part that's annoying.

First, I am fully aware that I over-reacted, and mentioned that in my post. But the very fact that you did this study IMPLIES that you were looking for discrimination, regardless of the actual results of the study (which seem to imply, albeit inconclusively, that such discrimination no longer exists). We all understand that discrimination used to exist...we didn't need a new study to teach us that!

Three, I understand the vast majority of people want to become color blind. I don't think that's very fair or intelligent, but that's a bit outside the scope of my small study. I think being conscious about race and discussing it is and healthy and important part of being a well rounded person. I don't think anyone doubts that there's an enormous amount of unconscious racism that exists today, and the only way you can get people to realize that is to discuss it. But that's just my opinion, and is irrelevant to this study.

It is true that I am somewhat sensitive about this subject, because I have actually seen my (white) children discriminated against by black teachers in a school system that is slightly black predominant. Yet, to suggest that such discrimination against my kids exists because of color earns me the title of racist. My point is that reverse discimination does exist, and we, as a society, tend to turn a blind eye towards that fact. When I see someone studying something as ultimately pointless as your study, it leaves me frustrated, thinking we HAVE MISSED THE BIGGER PICTURE.

In the end, many of us aren't able to become color blind because we aren't allowed to. I agree that we must intelligantly discuss racial issues, but that also means we must be careful of HOW and WHY we bring a racial issue up...and this study is not a good way, because it proves nothing, and ignores far more serious racial problems.

I apologize if I have come across harshly...I have very strong feelings on this subject, and a lot of frustration. I'm frustrated over our inability as a society to move forward, over our insistance on fostering a climate that encourages reverse discrimination instead of fostering a climate intolerant of ANY discrimination. In the end, I would venture to guess that we are very close in that desire, but perhaps disagree on HOW to get there.

If you think I was trying to study the effects of race, race bias, race discrimination, and the modern effects of race across all sections of America, you were really, really mistaken. I was writing post about football. If you think anything less than a cross-section of race values in America is not newsworthy, I don't think you're going to enjoy the Shark Pool very often.While I sympathize with any troubles your children have endured, your opinion of how black teachers treat white students in black schools is no more relevant in this thread than one on Darren McFadden's 40-yard dash time. I'm not sure what else there is to say.

I disagree with a lot of your points, but this one in particular:

But the very fact that you did this study IMPLIES that you were looking for discrimination

That makes no sense. If I create a post saying "who is better, Stewart or Mendenhall" would you think that implies that I was looking for reasons to pimp Stewart? I think your sensitivities towards a subject much broader (and a whole lot more important) than my post are coming out and really effecting your view of this post. Just my

 

[AsimoV]

(which is fine; I'm not John Grisham)

Buddy, you're not even Danielle Steele.