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?
The correct person to ask here is @WilburHooksHands - he's the keeper of all Houston knowledge.
@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.
This is a good discussion though.
I was going to go all Middlebury for a moment before realizing this was a really good poast.
@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.
If you are mixed race you should be a shoe in for UW. Worked for me.
@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.
If you are mixed race you should be a shoe in for UW. Worked for me.
@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.
If you are mixed race you should be a shoe in for UW. Worked for me.
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.
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.
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.
This is a good discussion though.
It's not even eugenics, it's discussing heritable traits that is increasingly verboten - except when it's not.
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.
This is a good discussion though.
It's not even eugenics, it's discussing heritable traits that is increasingly verboten - except when it's not.
I would say that it is most certainly not INCREASINGLY verboten. It's probably increasingly accepted in science (maybe some PC dickwads on twitter don't like it, WGAF).
However, at issue is that when traits are mostly discussed on the positive side (like athletic ability) there's not so much danger in understanding heritability. However, we should all (IMO) rightly be cautious when we start talking about who is worthy of equal treatment, human, etc.
When we look at heritable traits, it's important to have a firm understanding of what the 'trait' is. Muscle mass, height, etc. is all relatively easily perceived (though we are still developing understanding), measured and understood. However, there is not a single unifying theory of intelligence, social behavior or learning that can guide us in terms of what's being inherited. IQ, EQ, school performance, SATs etc are easily shown to be constructs that are (at the very least) second order. They are groups of ideas for which no one in humanity has hit bedrock on.
To say it in language @Swaye can understand: mental traits (like intelligence) are not like muscles, we cannot directly measure them. No one agrees on them and what they are, are for, etc.
So, looking at 'trait' heritability in cases where we don't fully understand the traits is nonsense.
I am not sure if I should be astounded or offended by all of this. I am really conflicted. But I will admit this is super interesting, and I presume, relevant. This place is so fucking bizarre.
I am not sure if I should be astounded or offended by all of this. I am really conflicted. But I will admit this is super interesting, and I presume, relevant. This place is so fucking bizarre.
Agreed.
I love this board because there are a lot of smart people here that know shit that I don’t. And the board is also great because we are better than other sites where you have to pay for info you can get here (minus Ruth, Ruth is the GOAT).
So this thread is really serious and basically graduate level stuff is being discussed in a sane manner. Meanwhile at Dawgman, they are trying to figure out how to start a fire with sticks and hurling their feces at each other.
I am not sure if I should be astounded or offended by all of this. I am really conflicted. But I will admit this is super interesting, and I presume, relevant. This place is so fucking bizarre.
Agreed.
I love this board because there are a lot of smart people here that know shit that I don’t. And the board is also great because we are better than other sites where you have to pay for info you can get here (minus Ruth, Ruth is the GOAT).
So this thread is really serious and basically graduate level stuff is being discussed in a sane manner. Meanwhile at Dawgman, they are trying to figure out how to start a fire with sticks and hurling their feces at each other.
Anyways, love you all.
Well said. Fucking dipshit doogs. This place has the smartest, most fucked-up individuals anywhere...and I spend a lot of time 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.
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.
Chincredible post. I will say this. No matter the recruiting strategy, UW is not winning several natties. That’s reality. That’s obviously the goal, but it’s never going to happen, and it will get even harder with an expanded playoff which will inevitably happen.
Still, nobody could argue that more fast strategy kids would be beneficial to better football teams.
Shit man this is a tough one. I mean black folks aren't sprinkled with magic fairy dust but it sure looks that way when you watch Bama's roided up team. Maybe we should schedule Grambling or something and kick the shit out of them to level set a bit.
I am not sure if I should be astounded or offended by all of this. I am really conflicted. But I will admit this is super interesting, and I presume, relevant. This place is so fucking bizarre.
Agreed.
I love this board because there are a lot of smart people here that know shit that I don’t. And the board is also great because we are better than other sites where you have to pay for info you can get here (minus Ruth, Ruth is the GOAT).
So this thread is really serious and basically graduate level stuff is being discussed in a sane manner. Meanwhile at Dawgman, they are trying to figure out how to start a fire with sticks and hurling their feces at each other.
Anyways, love you all.
I can't remember the last time I had to highlight, right click, search google for "..." so many times in one sitting.
I am not sure if I should be astounded or offended by all of this. I am really conflicted. But I will admit this is super interesting, and I presume, relevant. This place is so fucking bizarre.
Agreed.
I love this board because there are a lot of smart people here that know shit that I don’t. And the board is also great because we are better than other sites where you have to pay for info you can get here (minus Ruth, Ruth is the GOAT).
So this thread is really serious and basically graduate level stuff is being discussed in a sane manner. Meanwhile at Dawgman, they are trying to figure out how to start a fire with sticks and hurling their feces at each other.
Anyways, love you all.
Would all you fuckos stop plagiarisming my shit? Shit is my bailiwick.
Came to this thread late and was thinking about how it relates to our program.
I think Pete’s philosophy is smart. A methodical approach to finding guys that fit vs throwing out a lot of offers to the best possible talent available (what most schools do). Everyone else has zigged while Pete and UW zagged. UWis not a blue blood school and if we did what most schools did, maybe it wouldn’t maximize what we can do.
The Duke basketball comparison makes sense. It’s changed a little bit in the one and done age, but the notable black players from Duke are mostly middle class slow strategy kids. Jay Williams, Grant Hill, Kyrie Irving, Boozer (Alaska), Trajden Langdon (Alaska).
Then they had a monopoly on the best white players like Laettner, Hurley, Redick, Scheyer, Dunleavy, etc. This is something UW should definitely do and could also help the program. I’m not talking about BBK types either. I’m talking 4 and 5 Star whites who are slow strategy guys.
We can and should do well with Poly’s because they are very family oriented.
The in state prospects from Washington seem to be mostly slow strategy guys. Washington doesn’t have inner city kids like California and the rural areas in the South. It’s mostly middle class kids and fast strategy kids who have played at solid high school programs.
That said, more fast strategy kids seems like it would help. This is where younger, more urban assistant coaches who were fast strategy in their youth would help to sell Pete’s philosophy.
You aren’t getting this kind of shit from doogman or dawgpound. Good chit DDY.
Comments
Just kidding...
However, at issue is that when traits are mostly discussed on the positive side (like athletic ability) there's not so much danger in understanding heritability. However, we should all (IMO) rightly be cautious when we start talking about who is worthy of equal treatment, human, etc.
When we look at heritable traits, it's important to have a firm understanding of what the 'trait' is. Muscle mass, height, etc. is all relatively easily perceived (though we are still developing understanding), measured and understood. However, there is not a single unifying theory of intelligence, social behavior or learning that can guide us in terms of what's being inherited. IQ, EQ, school performance, SATs etc are easily shown to be constructs that are (at the very least) second order. They are groups of ideas for which no one in humanity has hit bedrock on.
To say it in language @Swaye can understand: mental traits (like intelligence) are not like muscles, we cannot directly measure them. No one agrees on them and what they are, are for, etc.
So, looking at 'trait' heritability in cases where we don't fully understand the traits is nonsense.
This, coupled with our common tendency to view out-groups as inhuman and we have some serious reason to be careful.
TLDR: Physical traits are pretty easy to understand. Mental ones aren't.
I love this board because there are a lot of smart people here that know shit that I don’t. And the board is also great because we are better than other sites where you have to pay for info you can get here (minus Ruth, Ruth is the GOAT).
So this thread is really serious and basically graduate level stuff is being discussed in a sane manner. Meanwhile at Dawgman, they are trying to figure out how to start a fire with sticks and hurling their feces at each other.
Anyways, love you all.
P.S. I love you too.
Still, nobody could argue that more fast strategy kids would be beneficial to better football teams.
I think Pete’s philosophy is smart. A methodical approach to finding guys that fit vs throwing out a lot of offers to the best possible talent available (what most schools do). Everyone else has zigged while Pete and UW zagged. UWis not a blue blood school and if we did what most schools did, maybe it wouldn’t maximize what we can do.
The Duke basketball comparison makes sense. It’s changed a little bit in the one and done age, but the notable black players from Duke are mostly middle class slow strategy kids. Jay Williams, Grant Hill, Kyrie Irving, Boozer (Alaska), Trajden Langdon (Alaska).
Then they had a monopoly on the best white players like Laettner, Hurley, Redick, Scheyer, Dunleavy, etc. This is something UW should definitely do and could also help the program. I’m not talking about BBK types either. I’m talking 4 and 5 Star whites who are slow strategy guys.
We can and should do well with Poly’s because they are very family oriented.
The in state prospects from Washington seem to be mostly slow strategy guys. Washington doesn’t have inner city kids like California and the rural areas in the South. It’s mostly middle class kids and fast strategy kids who have played at solid high school programs.
That said, more fast strategy kids seems like it would help. This is where younger, more urban assistant coaches who were fast strategy in their youth would help to sell Pete’s philosophy.
You aren’t getting this kind of shit from doogman or dawgpound. Good chit DDY.