"OKG" is racist according to Oregon
Comments
-
What's the number of black players we need to sign each class to make sure we aren't racist? 50% or is it a fixed number like 12?
-
I also don't give a shit about husky football so a flaming hot take made in ignorance and apathy to derail the conversation is what I'm here for
-
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?RatherBeBrewing said:
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?PostGameOrangeSlices said:
Except for you are building a team based off of this in many instances...RatherBeBrewing said:
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.RatherBeBrewing said: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.
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. -
FewerFremontTroll said:
Exactly. I posted the numbers.RatherBeBrewing said: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.
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. -
FremontTroll said:
Exactly. I posted the numbers.RatherBeBrewing said: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.
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.
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.FremontTroll said: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 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 -
-
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.PostGameOrangeSlices said:
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?RatherBeBrewing said:
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?PostGameOrangeSlices said:
Except for you are building a team based off of this in many instances...RatherBeBrewing said:
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.
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.
