Here's a big question, can a black coach do a better job of making the slow strategy approach appeal to black kids? Obviously Bonerpopper and Lake do the best job of bringing in black kids on the staff, but they also recruit the blackest positions. Are they getting black kids because they're black, or because that's the position they recruit? I'm guessing with Lake it's A and Keif it's B. Would a black coach on the DL or LB do a better job getting Fast Strategy kids to buy into Slow Strategy life? Obviously it would have to be the right black coach, but it seems likely the answer is yes.
The next question is how well do poly coaches sell fast strategy to black kids since we have two on our staff and another poised to be promoted?
Final thought - how the fuck did Huff pull Curne from Texas??? That might have been the recruiting job of the year.
I think curne comes from a fairly nice middle class black family that understand what Pete is selling. If curne was from the hood, then a different story. @Tequilla is the high school curne went to in the hood?
Pretty sure Curne goes to a private school
It's adjacent to the villages which is where some of my managers and vice presidents lived when I worked in big oil. I don't know anything about curne but if he isn't there on scholarship then his family is probably well to do
Remembering my conversations with Metrics Superiority guy about the demographic issue and it’s actually the Big Ten who is going to be the most fucked as black migration has reversed and has started to go back towards the south from the Midwest.
And the rich (SEC) will continue to get richer.
That is one of the reasons why Delaney's main goal in expansion was his footprint. He didn't give a shit about Maryland or Rutgers as universities or athletic programs but they brought tv markets and black people.
I've been predicting the downfall of the Big Ten for 20 years but they've maintained the status quo and maybe even gotten better at the top. Wisconsin went full whitey that has worked well for them.
Remembering my conversations with Metrics Superiority guy about the demographic issue and it’s actually the Big Ten who is going to be the most fucked as black migration has reversed and has started to go back towards the south from the Midwest.
And the rich (SEC) will continue to get richer.
That is one of the reasons why Delaney's main goal in expansion was his footprint. He didn't give a shit about Maryland or Rutgers as universities or athletic programs but they brought tv markets and black people.
I've been predicting the downfall of the Big Ten for 20 years but they've maintained the status quo and maybe even gotten better at the top. Wisconsin went full whitey that has worked well for them.
Big 10 will always be the best league in College Football and we have always been the Big 10 team in the faggoty Pac.
There’s a lot of implications to this and UW ... a lot of good whiskey could be consumed while discussing ...
Long story short though the positions where we struggle to recruit the most are at positions where you are most likely to be looking at “fast” type of individuals
Even Alabama's punter is fast. Probably keeps brass knuckles in his locker.
It's great, I forgot that this board has a token black, a token native, a token asian. I can see how I fit in as a token latino. It's like I was born to do this. Now we just need a poly man so we can be a truly multiethnical board.
I can make some more points about this at a later date, but just think of it like this... you think a Natty winning team would ever have a picture taken that looks like this?
Stanford could.... but really, you could win with a bunch of white dudes only at the D2/D3 level, but even then, it is mostly southern teams which have a lot of black guys.
There’s a lot of implications to this and UW ... a lot of good whiskey could be consumed while discussing ...
Long story short though the positions where we struggle to recruit the most are at positions where you are most likely to be looking at “fast” type of individuals
Even Alabama's punter is fast. Probably keeps brass knuckles in his locker.
Didn't even notice till now that the defender flung coleman off like he was an annoying booger stuck to his finger
@Dennis_DeYoung you forgot the Zulus in Soufffff Africa. Those guys tear shit up.
In sports? I don't follow soccer, so they well could... there are a lot of theories about why West Africans seem to be so dominant in sport, but a) it doesn't seem equally distributed across all Africa and b) there's not really a good handle on it right now, partially because it's so controversial of a topic.
Having read Soccernomics I can actually weigh in on this. South Africa (the country) is a very interestic example because of Apartheid. Obviously it caused the socioeconomic divide to split exactly based on racial differences. Even to this day, rich, middle class and poor are basically the exact same groops as white, mix-raced, and black.
In South Africa, whites dominate rugby, whereas mixed-raced dominate soccer. Rugby is basically the rich people sport for cultural reasons. Soccer is the most popular sport, but is still dominated by mixed-race players, even though it's a smaller portion of the population than white people.
For the record, the population breakdown (according to wikipedia) is this: Black 67%, White 21%, Mixed 9%. So why have mixed-race players dominated South Africa's most popular sport since the fall of Apartheid? The answer is really simple: They're in the sweet spot.
Black people in South Africa often live in abject poverty. They often don't have access to enough food or medicine to develop physically, nor do they have the free time to pursue sports even if they did, in a lot of cases. Plus, y'know, AIDS.
White people on the other hand, live a lot more comfortably. The will have a nice life even if they don't succeed in sports. The few that decide to pursue sports anyway usually end up in Rugby or Cricket. Or legless running (not really).
Mixed-race people are poor enough to pursue sports as a way out, but not so poor that they don't have food and medicine to physically develop. Pretty much the same as urban black kids in America. That's why they succeed in sports at a very disproportionate rate.
This is obviously very simplified, but it's the essence of it.
@Dennis_DeYoung you forgot the Zulus in Soufffff Africa. Those guys tear shit up.
In sports? I don't follow soccer, so they well could... there are a lot of theories about why West Africans seem to be so dominant in sport, but a) it doesn't seem equally distributed across all Africa and b) there's not really a good handle on it right now, partially because it's so controversial of a topic.
Having read Soccernomics I can actually weigh in on this. South Africa (the country) is a very interestic example because of Apartheid. Obviously it caused the socioeconomic divide to split exactly based on racial differences. Even to this day, rich, middle class and poor are basically the exact same groops as white, mix-raced, and black.
In South Africa, whites dominate rugby, whereas mixed-raced dominate soccer. Rugby is basically the rich people sport for cultural reasons. Soccer is the most popular sport, but is still dominated by mixed-race players, even though it's a smaller portion of the population than white people.
For the record, the population breakdown (according to wikipedia) is this: Black 67%, White 21%, Mixed 9%. So why have mixed-race players dominated South Africa's most popular sport since the fall of Apartheid? The answer is really simple: They're in the sweet spot.
Black people in South Africa often live in abject poverty. They often don't have access to enough food or medicine to develop physically, nor do they have the free time to pursue sports even if they did, in a lot of cases. Plus, y'know, AIDS.
White people on the other hand, live a lot more comfortably. The will have a nice life even if they don't succeed in sports. The few that decide to pursue sports anyway usually end up in Rugby or Cricket. Or legless running (not really).
Mixed-race people are poor enough to pursue sports as a way out, but not so poor that they don't have food and medicine to physically develop. Pretty much the same as urban black kids in America. That's why they succeed in sports at a very disproportionate rate.
This is obviously very simplified, but it's the essence of it.
Good chit. This is definitely the smartest thread of 2018. I'm learning and shit.
@Dennis_DeYoung you forgot the Zulus in Soufffff Africa. Those guys tear shit up.
In sports? I don't follow soccer, so they well could... there are a lot of theories about why West Africans seem to be so dominant in sport, but a) it doesn't seem equally distributed across all Africa and b) there's not really a good handle on it right now, partially because it's so controversial of a topic.
Having read Soccernomics I can actually weigh in on this. South Africa (the country) is a very interestic example because of Apartheid. Obviously it caused the socioeconomic divide to split exactly based on racial differences. Even to this day, rich, middle class and poor are basically the exact same groops as white, mix-raced, and black.
In South Africa, whites dominate rugby, whereas mixed-raced dominate soccer. Rugby is basically the rich people sport for cultural reasons. Soccer is the most popular sport, but is still dominated by mixed-race players, even though it's a smaller portion of the population than white people.
For the record, the population breakdown (according to wikipedia) is this: Black 67%, White 21%, Mixed 9%. So why have mixed-race players dominated South Africa's most popular sport since the fall of Apartheid? The answer is really simple: They're in the sweet spot.
Black people in South Africa often live in abject poverty. They often don't have access to enough food or medicine to develop physically, nor do they have the free time to pursue sports even if they did, in a lot of cases. Plus, y'know, AIDS.
White people on the other hand, live a lot more comfortably. The will have a nice life even if they don't succeed in sports. The few that decide to pursue sports anyway usually end up in Rugby or Cricket. Or legless running (not really).
Mixed-race people are poor enough to pursue sports as a way out, but not so poor that they don't have food and medicine to physically develop. Pretty much the same as urban black kids in America. That's why they succeed in sports at a very disproportionate rate.
This is obviously very simplified, but it's the essence of it.
Good chit. This is definitely the smartest thread of 2018 ever. I'm learning and shit.
@Dennis_DeYoung you forgot the Zulus in Soufffff Africa. Those guys tear shit up.
In sports? I don't follow soccer, so they well could... there are a lot of theories about why West Africans seem to be so dominant in sport, but a) it doesn't seem equally distributed across all Africa and b) there's not really a good handle on it right now, partially because it's so controversial of a topic.
Having read Soccernomics I can actually weigh in on this. South Africa (the country) is a very interestic example because of Apartheid. Obviously it caused the socioeconomic divide to split exactly based on racial differences. Even to this day, rich, middle class and poor are basically the exact same groops as white, mix-raced, and black.
In South Africa, whites dominate rugby, whereas mixed-raced dominate soccer. Rugby is basically the rich people sport for cultural reasons. Soccer is the most popular sport, but is still dominated by mixed-race players, even though it's a smaller portion of the population than white people.
For the record, the population breakdown (according to wikipedia) is this: Black 67%, White 21%, Mixed 9%. So why have mixed-race players dominated South Africa's most popular sport since the fall of Apartheid? The answer is really simple: They're in the sweet spot.
Black people in South Africa often live in abject poverty. They often don't have access to enough food or medicine to develop physically, nor do they have the free time to pursue sports even if they did, in a lot of cases. Plus, y'know, AIDS.
White people on the other hand, live a lot more comfortably. The will have a nice life even if they don't succeed in sports. The few that decide to pursue sports anyway usually end up in Rugby or Cricket. Or legless running (not really).
Mixed-race people are poor enough to pursue sports as a way out, but not so poor that they don't have food and medicine to physically develop. Pretty much the same as urban black kids in America. That's why they succeed in sports at a very disproportionate rate.
This is obviously very simplified, but it's the essence of it.
Good chit. This is definitely the smartest thread of 2018. I'm learning and shit.
This is a pretty fascinating concept - in part because the science of it starts to veer toward verboten topics like eugenics and the Bell Curve. But of course, there are both genetic and sociological factors present WRT athletic performance.
I think it is difficult for laypersons to distinguish between the real science and the junk science and to avoid lazy generalizations.
@Dennis_DeYoung you forgot the Zulus in Soufffff Africa. Those guys tear shit up.
In sports? I don't follow soccer, so they well could... there are a lot of theories about why West Africans seem to be so dominant in sport, but a) it doesn't seem equally distributed across all Africa and b) there's not really a good handle on it right now, partially because it's so controversial of a topic.
Having read Soccernomics I can actually weigh in on this. South Africa (the country) is a very interestic example because of Apartheid. Obviously it caused the socioeconomic divide to split exactly based on racial differences. Even to this day, rich, middle class and poor are basically the exact same groops as white, mix-raced, and black.
In South Africa, whites dominate rugby, whereas mixed-raced dominate soccer. Rugby is basically the rich people sport for cultural reasons. Soccer is the most popular sport, but is still dominated by mixed-race players, even though it's a smaller portion of the population than white people.
For the record, the population breakdown (according to wikipedia) is this: Black 67%, White 21%, Mixed 9%. So why have mixed-race players dominated South Africa's most popular sport since the fall of Apartheid? The answer is really simple: They're in the sweet spot.
Black people in South Africa often live in abject poverty. They often don't have access to enough food or medicine to develop physically, nor do they have the free time to pursue sports even if they did, in a lot of cases. Plus, y'know, AIDS.
White people on the other hand, live a lot more comfortably. The will have a nice life even if they don't succeed in sports. The few that decide to pursue sports anyway usually end up in Rugby or Cricket. Or legless running (not really).
Mixed-race people are poor enough to pursue sports as a way out, but not so poor that they don't have food and medicine to physically develop. Pretty much the same as urban black kids in America. That's why they succeed in sports at a very disproportionate rate.
This is obviously very simplified, but it's the essence of it.
I can confirm this. However, my RSA side of the family is very wealthy. They moved to Canada in the late 70s but in SA they were objectively in the middle class. Mixed race families in RSA can really range from wealthy to poor depending on if the father/male is black or white.
So @Dennis_DeYoung since you've identified a potential flaw in Pete's recruiting model, what does the messaging need to look like for the FAST Strategy kids we need and still are likely to fit and benefit from our culture? Get Rich and die or be Built for Life Tryin' ?
Comments
All I've got to say about this thread is compound interest. #teamslow
I've been predicting the downfall of the Big Ten for 20 years but they've maintained the status quo and maybe even gotten better at the top. Wisconsin went full whitey that has worked well for them.
In South Africa, whites dominate rugby, whereas mixed-raced dominate soccer. Rugby is basically the rich people sport for cultural reasons. Soccer is the most popular sport, but is still dominated by mixed-race players, even though it's a smaller portion of the population than white people.
For the record, the population breakdown (according to wikipedia) is this: Black 67%, White 21%, Mixed 9%. So why have mixed-race players dominated South Africa's most popular sport since the fall of Apartheid? The answer is really simple: They're in the sweet spot.
Black people in South Africa often live in abject poverty. They often don't have access to enough food or medicine to develop physically, nor do they have the free time to pursue sports even if they did, in a lot of cases. Plus, y'know, AIDS.
White people on the other hand, live a lot more comfortably. The will have a nice life even if they don't succeed in sports. The few that decide to pursue sports anyway usually end up in Rugby or Cricket. Or legless running (not really).
Mixed-race people are poor enough to pursue sports as a way out, but not so poor that they don't have food and medicine to physically develop. Pretty much the same as urban black kids in America. That's why they succeed in sports at a very disproportionate rate.
This is obviously very simplified, but it's the essence of it.
I think it is difficult for laypersons to distinguish between the real science and the junk science and to avoid lazy generalizations.
This is a good discussion though.
and dieor be Built for Life Tryin' ?