Howdy, Stranger!

It looks like you're new here. Sign in or register to get started.

Welcome to the Hardcore Husky Forums. Folks who are well-known in Cyberland and not that dumb.

Too White to Win (now enhanced with an evolutionary biology lecture!)

2456711

Comments

  • RhythmicSlappingDawgRhythmicSlappingDawg Member Posts: 1,176
    This is sad. But, it's really informative. Thanks Dennis!
  • RaceBannonRaceBannon Member, Swaye's Wigwam Posts: 105,724 Founders Club
    Don James talked like Petersen when it came to recruiting and then recruited like Barry Switzer to get the difference makers he needed

    Barry Switzer and difference maker are code words for small white guys by the way
  • SwayeSwaye Moderator, Swaye's Wigwam Posts: 41,484 Founders Club

    Swaye said:

    There are two reasons why I think this is an unfortunate recruiting pitch.

    1. You are basically eliminating fast strategy kids from contention (and those are generally going to be what poor kids are).
    2. You deny the awesome benefits of Pete's program to those kids because of their lack of ability to appreciate it on the front end.

    Number 2 above is as salient a point as I've read in awhile. Not trying to suck you off (yes I am) but that is some next level crootin shit. When you can resonate with a dumb drunk injun, you know you are laying shit down right.

    Me and you are fast strategy bros. It’s clear as day you are FS (lulz).

    I’m happy to answer any questions. My real life job has to do with this.
    Stand by for PM. Will take me an hour to write it. I'm easily distracted. Probably another FAST strategy trait or some shit.
  • Ice_HolmvikIce_Holmvik Member Posts: 2,912
    Too white...Too white for love
    Too white...Too white for love
    Oh no, oh no
    Oh no, oh no
    Oh no, oh no
    Living on a jet
    Making love to someone else's dreams
    Say it again
    She puts her leg up
    Well, calls it good luck
    Do you know what I mean?
    Do you remember?
    Well I remember
    Oh no, oh no
    Dream machine
    So damn cool she can turn on the night
    The more she gets
    Well, the more that she needs
    Do you know what I mean?
    Do you remember?
    Well I remember Oh no, oh no
    Too WHITE
    Too WHITE for love
    Too WHITE
    You're too WHITE for love
  • RaceBannonRaceBannon Member, Swaye's Wigwam Posts: 105,724 Founders Club
    Point 2

    People didn't really get all that upset when Lavar Ball said UCLA lost last year because they had too many white guys around Lonzo

    Because deep down we all know its true. It drove me crazy when Duke or NC would beat the Fab 5 or the Runnin Rebels or Georgetown because back then some white guys and white black guys were the formula as boring as it was. Grant Hill got the last laugh.

    Basketball has changed and so has football. Its ok to point out that white people struggle
  • HUSKYFANATICHUSKYFANATIC Member Posts: 1,651

    Swaye said:

    I'll just leave this here.

    Holy fuckall. I had no idea that generally poly>>>black>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>white

    Thanks for posting that. With this knowledge our usual class should look just like this years. Load up on Poly's on either line and at LB (third of the class), load up on blacks at all skill positions and DB (third of the class), grab whites if you have to for QB, WTE and OL (third of the class). BAM. That's the way to do this.
    So, I think we are making progress with Polys, clearly... one thing we don't really have any data on is mixed-race kids. For instance, we seem to be able to recruit players with one white parent (Spiker, Lowe, Gordon), but how are we doing with players who have two garden variety AfAm parents (non African).

    For me, I'm not really making a eugenics argument, but what I'm doing is saying - can we win with a strategy that seems to require one white parent?

    Part of this has to do with the fact that our messaging in recruiting is going to primarily appeal to middle class kids who have had stable environments in childhood.

    THIS IS GOING TO BE AN IMPORTANT POINT SO PAY ATTENTION:
    (here's a seminal paper in this area if you are really curious)

    Humans generally fall into two camps: SLOW STRATEGY and FAST STRATEGY.

    Here are the characteristics of each...


    The reason this matters for recruiting is the following, most recruits are going to be FAST strategy.

    You tend to become FAST strategy (I am) if you had a poor womb environment (I'm adopted, my biological mother was a heroin addict) and unstable environments in early childhood (we were poor and my dad was a raging weirdo). The evolutionary logic goes like this: shit, things are fucked up - I'm going to need to reproduce, better get to puberty fast (this is why chicks at ghetto junior highs have bigger boobs), be impulsive and fuck a lot.

    You tend to become SLOW strategy (I am not) if you had a good womb environment (prenatal care, lots of nutrition, not too much stress) and a predictable, stable early childhood environment (enough to eat, etc). The evolutionary logic goes like this: hey, things are good, let's build a palace - I know that takes time, but we have the resources to do it. Everything should be carefully done with an eye toward the future.

    This is generally why white people (in the US) are boring and great innovators in creative endeavors tend to come from disadvantaged back-grounds.

    What this has to do with recruiting is obvious: we are basically optimizing our program to appeal to SLOW STRATEGY kids. This means that telling a FAST STRATEGY kid, 'this is going to be the hardest thing you'll ever do' is probably not going to be a message that resonates.

    There are two reasons why I think this is an unfortunate recruiting pitch.

    1. You are basically eliminating fast strategy kids from contention (and those are generally going to be what poor kids are).
    2. You deny the awesome benefits of Pete's program to those kids because of their lack of ability to appreciate it on the front end.

    Anyway, that's your evolutionary biology lecture for today, but I think one reason we are getting whiter and whiter (most of what we call 'black' kids on our team have non-black parents), is that we are primarily appealing to SLOW STRATEGY kids. There are just WAY more white kids like that and kids like Terrell Bynum who are from middle + classes.

    If you've ever watched the 30 for 30 on the Fab 5 and their criticisms of guys like Grant Hill, this is the essence of that difference (though there are amplifying cultural factors, obviously).

    I just don't think we can win Natties with a program that is tailored to appeal to and serve SLOW STRATEGY kids. I think we need to make some room for getting FAST STRATEGY kids in the program and working with them when they're here. Research shows that FAST strategy kids do exceptionally well in good, supportive environments, by the way.
    Fuck I feel stoopid! I just figured we needed more BBC. Tongans with big dongas. Poly’s With big doly’s. Also, WTE that are bwc.
  • dncdnc Member Posts: 56,722

    dnc said:

    Running through the roster, without knowing life stories and all that on all of our guys, I think the only fast strategy white guy I can think of off the top of my head is... Kaleb McGary.

    https://seattletimes.com/sports/uw-husky-football/uw-lineman-kaleb-mcgary-im-finally-starting-to-see-speckles-of-light-man/

    The only other white guys who might be Fast Strategy on the roster are: Gaines, Sosebee, and Kirkland. With no real background story on those guys it is difficult to tell though. I'll let @Dennis_DeYoung point out if I am wrong here since he is the actual expert.

    McGary's going to Oregon State where he can hunt everyday.

    #FastStrategy
    Exactly why I believe he is fast strategy. Reading the paper it's about budgeting your energy. In the article on McGary it talks about how he was basically a farmer at a young age and hunted at a young age too. He developed quickly and was ready to get to work pronto because he wanted to present himself as a suitable mate to females.

    I THINK I GET IT!
    I wasn't saying you're wrong, just a) making fun of Ecklund b) poonting out that even our token fast strategy white is cracker as fuck.
  • theknowledgetheknowledge Member, Swaye's Wigwam Posts: 4,899 Founders Club
    This is really interesting stuff. Black>White in sports is an easy distinction but having the complete breakdown is pretty sobering. The UW will continue to struggle on the big stage unless we can stack depth with enough Poly, stable black and mixed race slow strategy kids. Our defensive backfield as a whole being case in point. (Thank you Jimmy Lake!) The defensive line should and appears to be getting filled by Poly kids (Finally) as that is our best option for power and depth and the linebackers have been an abject failure in terms of size of athlete until this cycle. We can succeed on the o-line with white, Poly and Latino kids as Huff appears to FUCK. The receivers are being nicely stacked with slow strategy kids that I think will win the all crucial one on one battles and running back absolutely has got to be BLACK. I feel that we can compete and win a title but it will take a special blend of slow strategy talent, depth and a transcendent QB.
    All that said, Jake Browning sucks.
  • YellowSnowYellowSnow Moderator, Swaye's Wigwam Posts: 35,384 Founders Club
    So was Tommy a FAST or SLOW strategery kid?
  • theknowledgetheknowledge Member, Swaye's Wigwam Posts: 4,899 Founders Club
    Tommy quickly ran the race, fucked the model handing him the trophy and has been drinking and "prostgnig" here ever since.

    So was Tommy a FAST or SLOW strategery kid?

Sign In or Register to comment.