As for demographics: you're not building a team based on the demographics of your region. If that was the case then USC and UCLA would have a Los in front of their name. It would also mean that half of Washington's population is Poly.
Except for you are building a team based off of this in many instances...
What the fuck does that even mean? Are you trying to say college football teams build their roster based on the demographics of their region?
The rosters are highly impacted by demographics within their recruiting footprint, yes. How is this a hot take? Why does Florida's roster not have any Polynesians or Chinese or whatever? Why do the SEC teams have more black players in general?
As many of you seem like the glory hole types I'm gonna assume you know there's an AIDS vaccine or something now. I really wish I had that before reading through all of this.
I'll fucking repeat myself: no one thinks Petersman is racist. People think his recruiting system may be having an unintentional disparate impact. It's a short leap from that to young black men thinking there is discrimination. Perception > reality.
But what is reality? How many black, not Poly/mixed, players did Washington sign in 2019 and 2018? I'm not going to nitpick people's race based on their picture, but feel free to do so. I can tell you the ratio is way off for a typical P-5 team.
The 'OKG is racist' thing wasn't invented in this thread. It's been around for a while, Oregon fans haven't been shy about spreading it and recruits are aware.
But it's a Poly shift! They aren't white and they are the beneficiaries! Except that doesn't fucking matter. Fortune500 companies spend millions each year to make sure their policies, no matter how well intentioned, aren't having a disparate impact on their hiring and promotion strategies. A public university giving out scholarships is under the same obligation.
As for demographics: you're not building a team based on the demographics of your region. If that was the case then USC and UCLA would have a Los in front of their name. It would also mean that half of Washington's population is Poly.
Exactly. I posted the numbers.
But PGOS wants it both ways:
He wants UW to benefit from the Poly Movement.
and
Pretend that doesn't mean less black players.
He just keeps repeating his unsourced assertion that UW's roster makeup is the same as the rest of the conference even though we are all aware there has been a major shift in the last two classes towards Poly players.
As many of you seem like the glory hole types I'm gonna assume you know there's an AIDS vaccine or something now. I really wish I had that before reading through all of this.
I'll fucking repeat myself: no one thinks Petersman is racist. People think his recruiting system may be having an unintentional disparate impact. It's a short leap from that to young black men thinking there is discrimination. Perception > reality.
But what is reality? How many black, not Poly/mixed, players did Washington sign in 2019 and 2018? I'm not going to nitpick people's race based on their picture, but feel free to do so. I can tell you the ratio is way off for a typical P-5 team.
The 'OKG is racist' thing wasn't invented in this thread. It's been around for a while, Oregon fans haven't been shy about spreading it and recruits are aware.
But it's a Poly shift! They aren't white and they are the beneficiaries! Except that doesn't fucking matter. Fortune500 companies spend millions each year to make sure their policies, no matter how well intentioned, aren't having a disparate impact on their hiring and promotion strategies. A public university giving out scholarships is under the same obligation.
As for demographics: you're not building a team based on the demographics of your region. If that was the case then USC and UCLA would have a Los in front of their name. It would also mean that half of Washington's population is Poly.
Exactly. I posted the numbers.
But PGOS wants it both ways:
He wants UW to benefit from the Poly Movement.
and
Pretend that doesn't mean less black players.
He just keeps repeating his unsourced assertion that UW's roster makeup is the same as the rest of the conference even though we are all aware there has been a major shift in the last two classes towards Poly players.
As many of you seem like the glory hole types I'm gonna assume you know there's an AIDS vaccine or something now. I really wish I had that before reading through all of this.
I'll fucking repeat myself: no one thinks Petersman is racist. People think his recruiting system may be having an unintentional disparate impact. It's a short leap from that to young black men thinking there is discrimination. Perception > reality.
But what is reality? How many black, not Poly/mixed, players did Washington sign in 2019 and 2018? I'm not going to nitpick people's race based on their picture, but feel free to do so. I can tell you the ratio is way off for a typical P-5 team.
The 'OKG is racist' thing wasn't invented in this thread. It's been around for a while, Oregon fans haven't been shy about spreading it and recruits are aware.
But it's a Poly shift! They aren't white and they are the beneficiaries! Except that doesn't fucking matter. Fortune500 companies spend millions each year to make sure their policies, no matter how well intentioned, aren't having a disparate impact on their hiring and promotion strategies. A public university giving out scholarships is under the same obligation.
As for demographics: you're not building a team based on the demographics of your region. If that was the case then USC and UCLA would have a Los in front of their name. It would also mean that half of Washington's population is Poly.
Exactly. I posted the numbers.
But PGOS wants it both ways:
He wants UW to benefit from the Poly Movement.
and
Pretend that doesn't mean less black players.
He just keeps repeating his unsourced assertion that UW's roster makeup is the same as the rest of the conference even though we are all aware there has been a major shift in the last two classes towards Poly players.
I don't want it both ways...I want UW to get the best players it can. And we just signed the highest ranked classes in our programs history so something seems to be working.
If you can't see how your take is a bad look for the program I can't help you.
Also, since this issue arose in context of UW's 2020 recruiting, I looked at the top California recruits for 2020:
9 out of top 10 appear to be black.
21 out of top 25 (not counting Ngata.)
UW is out of it already for most of these kids that we thought we had a shot at early- Justin Flowe, Elias Ricks, Kendall Milton, Clark Phillips, etc. Also in Arizona we appear to be out of it with Kelee Ringo but hopefully can pull Bijan Robinson.
We look to be in good shape for some of the WRs but if Junior biffs it on Wilson and McMillan we might get shut out on elite Cali recruits.
Last year we signed 4 of top 25 and 6 of top 29 out of California.
Also, since this issue arose in context of UW's 2020 recruiting, I looked at the top California recruits for 2020:
9 out of top 10 appear to be black.
21 out of top 25 (not counting Ngata.)
UW is out of it already for most of these kids that we thought we had a shot at early- Justin Flowe, Elias Ricks, Kendall Milton, Clark Phillips, etc. Also in Arizona we appear to be out of it with Kelee Ringo but hopefully can pull Bijan Robinson.
We look to be in good shape for some of the WRs but if Junior biffs it on Wilson and McMillan we might get shut out on elite Cali recruits.
Last year we signed 4 of top 25 and 6 of top 29 out of California.
This is potentially a huge problem.
UW only periodically gets top California talents. Usually its USC and UCLA overflow recruits. We have been doing better with Bandes, Spiker, etc.
UW also gets lots of WA State players and Hawaiian players, while cherry picking Utah, Oregon, and Arizona.
It would take too much time to research, but I'm sure there are far more black recruits in the south and east coast, and far more poly recruits out west.
You guys also are the experts on determining what recruits are actually black, so that complicates things further. Is Cam Williams black? Spiker? As others have said no one but the enlightened few really know it seems
As for demographics: you're not building a team based on the demographics of your region. If that was the case then USC and UCLA would have a Los in front of their name. It would also mean that half of Washington's population is Poly.
Except for you are building a team based off of this in many instances...
What the fuck does that even mean? Are you trying to say college football teams build their roster based on the demographics of their region?
The rosters are highly impacted by demographics within their recruiting footprint, yes. How is this a hot take? Why does Florida's roster not have any Polynesians or Chinese or whatever? Why do the SEC teams have more black players in general?
Even if, as you say, it's demographics, that doesn't mean that the Oregon's of the world aren't going to take advantage of the disparity to negatively recruit UW and spread a perception that it's bias.
I personally think it's a fast-strategy/slow-strategy culture difference(which creates a demographic slant) more so than anything else. Pete needs to learn to relate to FS athletes better and we will see him land more FS high talent kids(of which a larger % will probably be black "american"). Just do the fucking cupid shuffle Pete, it's not that big of a fucking deal.
As I have said before, giving some fast-strategy kids the stability of a slow-strategy culture can make all the difference in the world to their lives. It can also take your program to another level to have the best of both of those worlds working together. Think of someone like Marcus Peters who comes into the program and instead of being dropped gets acculturated and has a chance to absorb some slow strategy values. If your culture is established and strong enough it should be able to survive a few personalities like that without significantly deviating from your desired norm.
It's year six. If Petermen hasn't ingrained his culture to such a degree to survive a modicum of additional attitude and fast strategy talent then either fire his ass or be content with some bottom barrel Pac12 Championships and NY6 losses.
Also, since this issue arose in context of UW's 2020 recruiting, I looked at the top California recruits for 2020:
9 out of top 10 appear to be black.
21 out of top 25 (not counting Ngata.)
UW is out of it already for most of these kids that we thought we had a shot at early- Justin Flowe, Elias Ricks, Kendall Milton, Clark Phillips, etc. Also in Arizona we appear to be out of it with Kelee Ringo but hopefully can pull Bijan Robinson.
We look to be in good shape for some of the WRs but if Junior biffs it on Wilson and McMillan we might get shut out on elite Cali recruits.
Last year we signed 4 of top 25 and 6 of top 29 out of California.
This is potentially a huge problem.
UW only periodically gets top California talents. Usually its USC and UCLA overflow recruits. We have been doing better with Bandes, Spiker, etc.
UW also gets lots of WA State players and Hawaiian players, while cherry picking Utah, Oregon, and Arizona.
It would take too much time to research, but I'm sure there are far more black recruits in the south and east coast, and far more poly recruits out west.
You guys also are the experts on determining what recruits are actually black, so that complicates things further. Is Cam Williams black? Spiker? As others have said no one but the enlightened few really know it seems
That's a doog statement and a poor excuse and not even true when UW is SERIOUS about football
As many of you seem like the glory hole types I'm gonna assume you know there's an AIDS vaccine or something now. I really wish I had that before reading through all of this.
I'll fucking repeat myself: no one thinks Petersman is racist. People think his recruiting system may be having an unintentional disparate impact. It's a short leap from that to young black men thinking there is discrimination. Perception > reality.
But what is reality? How many black, not Poly/mixed, players did Washington sign in 2019 and 2018? I'm not going to nitpick people's race based on their picture, but feel free to do so. I can tell you the ratio is way off for a typical P-5 team.
The 'OKG is racist' thing wasn't invented in this thread. It's been around for a while, Oregon fans haven't been shy about spreading it and recruits are aware.
But it's a Poly shift! They aren't white and they are the beneficiaries! Except that doesn't fucking matter. Fortune500 companies spend millions each year to make sure their policies, no matter how well intentioned, aren't having a disparate impact on their hiring and promotion strategies. A public university giving out scholarships is under the same obligation.
As for demographics: you're not building a team based on the demographics of your region. If that was the case then USC and UCLA would have a Los in front of their name. It would also mean that half of Washington's population is Poly.
Exactly. I posted the numbers.
But PGOS wants it both ways:
He wants UW to benefit from the Poly Movement.
and
Pretend that doesn't mean less black players.
He just keeps repeating his unsourced assertion that UW's roster makeup is the same as the rest of the conference even though we are all aware there has been a major shift in the last two classes towards Poly players.
I don't want it both ways...I want UW to get the best players it can. And we just signed the highest ranked classes in our programs history so something seems to be working.
If you can't see how your take is a bad look for the program I can't help you.
There are trade offs in life. We are now experiencing a potential downside to our recruiting strategy. That doesn't mean that we need to completely abandon OKG, Built For Life, Poly Movement, etc but maybe lets try to keep improving it.
One of the difficulties I've noticed you seem to have in following recruiting is that it is always forward looking.
We signed an awesome class last year- great. Now what are we doing to maintain that level or improve? Because you better believe our rivals noticed and our coming up with new strategies (see the rumors that started this thread.)
Also, since this issue arose in context of UW's 2020 recruiting, I looked at the top California recruits for 2020:
9 out of top 10 appear to be black.
21 out of top 25 (not counting Ngata.)
UW is out of it already for most of these kids that we thought we had a shot at early- Justin Flowe, Elias Ricks, Kendall Milton, Clark Phillips, etc. Also in Arizona we appear to be out of it with Kelee Ringo but hopefully can pull Bijan Robinson.
We look to be in good shape for some of the WRs but if Junior biffs it on Wilson and McMillan we might get shut out on elite Cali recruits.
Last year we signed 4 of top 25 and 6 of top 29 out of California.
This is potentially a huge problem.
UW only periodically gets top California talents. Usually its USC and UCLA overflow recruits. We have been doing better with Bandes, Spiker, etc.
UW also gets lots of WA State players and Hawaiian players, while cherry picking Utah, Oregon, and Arizona.
It would take too much time to research, but I'm sure there are far more black recruits in the south and east coast, and far more poly recruits out west.
You guys also are the experts on determining what recruits are actually black, so that complicates things further. Is Cam Williams black? Spiker? As others have said no one but the enlightened few really know it seems
That's a doog statement and a poor excuse and not even true when UW is SERIOUS about football
When USC is strong and UCLA has a coach that gives a fuck about recruiting (not chip) it is tough for UW to get top Southern California prospects.
Also, since this issue arose in context of UW's 2020 recruiting, I looked at the top California recruits for 2020:
9 out of top 10 appear to be black.
21 out of top 25 (not counting Ngata.)
UW is out of it already for most of these kids that we thought we had a shot at early- Justin Flowe, Elias Ricks, Kendall Milton, Clark Phillips, etc. Also in Arizona we appear to be out of it with Kelee Ringo but hopefully can pull Bijan Robinson.
We look to be in good shape for some of the WRs but if Junior biffs it on Wilson and McMillan we might get shut out on elite Cali recruits.
Last year we signed 4 of top 25 and 6 of top 29 out of California.
This is potentially a huge problem.
UW only periodically gets top California talents. Usually its USC and UCLA overflow recruits. We have been doing better with Bandes, Spiker, etc.
UW also gets lots of WA State players and Hawaiian players, while cherry picking Utah, Oregon, and Arizona.
It would take too much time to research, but I'm sure there are far more black recruits in the south and east coast, and far more poly recruits out west.
You guys also are the experts on determining what recruits are actually black, so that complicates things further. Is Cam Williams black? Spiker? As others have said no one but the enlightened few really know it seems
I literally just posted the numbers on California recruits- the top recruits are overwhelmingly black.
California is usually around 40% of our recruiting base.
You can't have it both ways- saying we don't usually get top CA recruits so its fine but the 2019 class was amazing so we don't need to change anything.
We need to keep taking it to USC/UCLA, etc in California if we want to maintain or improve our recruiting and get to a national championship.
As for demographics: you're not building a team based on the demographics of your region. If that was the case then USC and UCLA would have a Los in front of their name. It would also mean that half of Washington's population is Poly.
Except for you are building a team based off of this in many instances...
What the fuck does that even mean? Are you trying to say college football teams build their roster based on the demographics of their region?
The rosters are highly impacted by demographics within their recruiting footprint, yes. How is this a hot take? Why does Florida's roster not have any Polynesians or Chinese or whatever? Why do the SEC teams have more black players in general?
Clearly Clemson's recruiting strategy has a disparate impact on white people, even if unintentional. Of course Duke is going to use that fact to negatively recruit Clemson so they can get all the white guys.
As for demographics: you're not building a team based on the demographics of your region. If that was the case then USC and UCLA would have a Los in front of their name. It would also mean that half of Washington's population is Poly.
Except for you are building a team based off of this in many instances...
What the fuck does that even mean? Are you trying to say college football teams build their roster based on the demographics of their region?
The rosters are highly impacted by demographics within their recruiting footprint, yes. How is this a hot take? Why does Florida's roster not have any Polynesians or Chinese or whatever? Why do the SEC teams have more black players in general?
Demographics matter when you're not allowed to venture more than a day's drive from your campus.
The sample size is too small to be very meaningful, but since you mentioned Florida:
Florida white recruits signed 2018+2019: 7
Oregon white recruits signed 2018+2019: 8
Florida population % white: 57%
Oregon population % white: 78%
Washington white recruits signed: 2018+19: 11
Washington population % white: 71%
I'm not going to waste too much time on this, but a quick look shows that SEC scholarship players and Pac-12 scholarship players are demographically similar. In some cases your guess that SEC teams have more black players is wrong - Alabama has signed more white players, at a higher percentage, than Oregon over the past couple of cycles. Alabama is the state with the 6th highest percentage of black people, while Oregon is 41st.
There are going to be regional differences, like the Poly population being in the Pac-12 footprint. Demographics do play a role, especially with walk-ons, but in a world with Hudl and airplanes they aren't a limiting factor.
But I think you're entirely missing the point: it's not just about Washinton's roster make-up. The issue is what people are talking about, accurate or not, and that's not confined to this shit show.
As for demographics: you're not building a team based on the demographics of your region. If that was the case then USC and UCLA would have a Los in front of their name. It would also mean that half of Washington's population is Poly.
Except for you are building a team based off of this in many instances...
What the fuck does that even mean? Are you trying to say college football teams build their roster based on the demographics of their region?
The rosters are highly impacted by demographics within their recruiting footprint, yes. How is this a hot take? Why does Florida's roster not have any Polynesians or Chinese or whatever? Why do the SEC teams have more black players in general?
Clearly Clemson's recruiting strategy has a disparate impact on white people, even if unintentional. Of course Duke is going to use that fact to negatively recruit Clemson so they can get all the white guys.
As for demographics: you're not building a team based on the demographics of your region. If that was the case then USC and UCLA would have a Los in front of their name. It would also mean that half of Washington's population is Poly.
Except for you are building a team based off of this in many instances...
What the fuck does that even mean? Are you trying to say college football teams build their roster based on the demographics of their region?
The rosters are highly impacted by demographics within their recruiting footprint, yes. How is this a hot take? Why does Florida's roster not have any Polynesians or Chinese or whatever? Why do the SEC teams have more black players in general?
Clearly Clemson's recruiting strategy has a disparate impact on white people, even if unintentional. Of course Duke is going to use that fact to negatively recruit Clemson so they can get all the white guys.
As for demographics: you're not building a team based on the demographics of your region. If that was the case then USC and UCLA would have a Los in front of their name. It would also mean that half of Washington's population is Poly.
Except for you are building a team based off of this in many instances...
What the fuck does that even mean? Are you trying to say college football teams build their roster based on the demographics of their region?
The rosters are highly impacted by demographics within their recruiting footprint, yes. How is this a hot take? Why does Florida's roster not have any Polynesians or Chinese or whatever? Why do the SEC teams have more black players in general?
Demographics matter when you're not allowed to venture more than a day's drive from your campus.
The sample size is too small to be very meaningful, but since you mentioned Florida:
Florida white recruits signed 2018+2019: 7
Oregon white recruits signed 2018+2019: 8
Florida population % white: 57%
Oregon population % white: 78%
Washington white recruits signed: 2018+19: 11
Washington population % white: 71%
I'm not going to waste too much time on this, but a quick look shows that SEC scholarship players and Pac-12 scholarship players are demographically similar. In some cases your guess that SEC teams have more black players is wrong - Alabama has signed more white players, at a higher percentage, than Oregon over the past couple of cycles. Alabama is the state with the 6th highest percentage of black people, while Oregon is 41st.
There are going to be regional differences, like the Poly population being in the Pac-12 footprint. Demographics do play a role, especially with walk-ons, but in a world with Hudl and airplanes they aren't a limiting factor.
But I think you're entirely missing the point: it's not just about Washinton's roster make-up. The issue is what people are talking about, accurate or not, and that's not confined to this shit show.
Look at the percentage of black people in wa versus florida...
Also, since this issue arose in context of UW's 2020 recruiting, I looked at the top California recruits for 2020:
9 out of top 10 appear to be black.
21 out of top 25 (not counting Ngata.)
UW is out of it already for most of these kids that we thought we had a shot at early- Justin Flowe, Elias Ricks, Kendall Milton, Clark Phillips, etc. Also in Arizona we appear to be out of it with Kelee Ringo but hopefully can pull Bijan Robinson.
We look to be in good shape for some of the WRs but if Junior biffs it on Wilson and McMillan we might get shut out on elite Cali recruits.
Last year we signed 4 of top 25 and 6 of top 29 out of California.
This is potentially a huge problem.
UW only periodically gets top California talents. Usually its USC and UCLA overflow recruits. We have been doing better with Bandes, Spiker, etc.
UW also gets lots of WA State players and Hawaiian players, while cherry picking Utah, Oregon, and Arizona.
It would take too much time to research, but I'm sure there are far more black recruits in the south and east coast, and far more poly recruits out west.
You guys also are the experts on determining what recruits are actually black, so that complicates things further. Is Cam Williams black? Spiker? As others have said no one but the enlightened few really know it seems
That's a doog statement and a poor excuse and not even true when UW is SERIOUS about football
When USC is strong and UCLA has a coach that gives a fuck about recruiting (not chip) it is tough for UW to get top Southern California prospects.
That is not a doog statement.
Not when W is winning. If they'll go to Eugene they'll go to Seattle.
Comments
But PGOS wants it both ways:
He wants UW to benefit from the Poly Movement.
and
Pretend that doesn't mean less black players.
He just keeps repeating his unsourced assertion that UW's roster makeup is the same as the rest of the conference even though we are all aware there has been a major shift in the last two classes towards Poly players.
I don't want it both ways...I want UW to get the best players it can. And we just signed the highest ranked classes in our programs history so something seems to be working.
If you can't see how your take is a bad look for the program I can't help you.
9 out of top 10 appear to be black.
21 out of top 25 (not counting Ngata.)
UW is out of it already for most of these kids that we thought we had a shot at early- Justin Flowe, Elias Ricks, Kendall Milton, Clark Phillips, etc. Also in Arizona we appear to be out of it with Kelee Ringo but hopefully can pull Bijan Robinson.
We look to be in good shape for some of the WRs but if Junior biffs it on Wilson and McMillan we might get shut out on elite Cali recruits.
Last year we signed 4 of top 25 and 6 of top 29 out of California.
This is potentially a huge problem.
UW also gets lots of WA State players and Hawaiian players, while cherry picking Utah, Oregon, and Arizona.
It would take too much time to research, but I'm sure there are far more black recruits in the south and east coast, and far more poly recruits out west.
You guys also are the experts on determining what recruits are actually black, so that complicates things further. Is Cam Williams black? Spiker? As others have said no one but the enlightened few really know it seems
I personally think it's a fast-strategy/slow-strategy culture difference(which creates a demographic slant) more so than anything else. Pete needs to learn to relate to FS athletes better and we will see him land more FS high talent kids(of which a larger % will probably be black "american"). Just do the fucking cupid shuffle Pete, it's not that big of a fucking deal.
As I have said before, giving some fast-strategy kids the stability of a slow-strategy culture can make all the difference in the world to their lives. It can also take your program to another level to have the best of both of those worlds working together. Think of someone like Marcus Peters who comes into the program and instead of being dropped gets acculturated and has a chance to absorb some slow strategy values. If your culture is established and strong enough it should be able to survive a few personalities like that without significantly deviating from your desired norm.
It's year six. If Petermen hasn't ingrained his culture to such a degree to survive a modicum of additional attitude and fast strategy talent then either fire his ass or be content with some bottom barrel Pac12 Championships and NY6 losses.
One of the difficulties I've noticed you seem to have in following recruiting is that it is always forward looking.
We signed an awesome class last year- great. Now what are we doing to maintain that level or improve? Because you better believe our rivals noticed and our coming up with new strategies (see the rumors that started this thread.)
Its early but 2020 is not off to a great start.
That is not a doog statement.
California is usually around 40% of our recruiting base.
You can't have it both ways- saying we don't usually get top CA recruits so its fine but the 2019 class was amazing so we don't need to change anything.
We need to keep taking it to USC/UCLA, etc in California if we want to maintain or improve our recruiting and get to a national championship.
The sample size is too small to be very meaningful, but since you mentioned Florida:
Florida white recruits signed 2018+2019: 7
Oregon white recruits signed 2018+2019: 8
Florida population % white: 57%
Oregon population % white: 78%
Washington white recruits signed: 2018+19: 11
Washington population % white: 71%
I'm not going to waste too much time on this, but a quick look shows that SEC scholarship players and Pac-12 scholarship players are demographically similar. In some cases your guess that SEC teams have more black players is wrong - Alabama has signed more white players, at a higher percentage, than Oregon over the past couple of cycles. Alabama is the state with the 6th highest percentage of black people, while Oregon is 41st.
There are going to be regional differences, like the Poly population being in the Pac-12 footprint. Demographics do play a role, especially with walk-ons, but in a world with Hudl and airplanes they aren't a limiting factor.
But I think you're entirely missing the point: it's not just about Washinton's roster make-up. The issue is what people are talking about, accurate or not, and that's not confined to this shit show.
3.6% in WA
17% in Florida
26.5% in Alabama
37.5% Mississippi