Big Ten voted "cleanest" conference- MSU cited
but when most of the schools in your conference kinda suck at basketball, and spend most of their time recruiting white dudes with 3.5 GPA's who also just happen to be 6'6" and can hit the occasional jump shot, it's pretty easy to be clean. Not really a ton of competition for those guys.
Don't forget gritty, gym rat. Just have the general sense for the game. Smart Kid, "what he lacks up in athleticism, he makes up for with work ethic, brain, and a 'never say die' mentality." Anything I miss?
* "Coach on the floor..."
* "Coach's son..."
Maybe "blue collar," too...
Always diving for loose balls, not afraid to hit the floor. Fundamentally sound, sees the floor really well, unselfish, student of the game.
Student of the game... That is my favorite one, how could I have forgotten that one?
are you describing Zach Novak?
That scrappy guy has a great basketball I.Q. A leader on and off the floor and a consummate team player!
Don’t like the implications of your comment. It is unfortunate for you if you believe the racial composition of the team/ recruits is related to the quality of the program.
I think B10 has a tradition of the best coaches, fans, and conference leadership/management in the country. That is why we have such a good reputation.
Don’t like the implications of your comment. It is unfortunate for you if you believe the racial composition of the team/ recruits is related to the quality of the program.
Seriously, you're going to make racial commentary from that? Okay, fine, lets do this.
My comment specifically stated that a not very good basketball team would spend more time recruiting "white dudes with a 3.5 GPA, who happen to be 6'6" and able to hit the occasional jump shot."
A few facts for you to chew on:
There is a fairly substantial correlation in college basketball between the percentage of black people vs. white people on the team and that team's overall record vs. teams with an opposing racial mix-up.
Students from predominantly black high schools are more likely to pursue sports, including basketball, in college, and also more likely to pursue sports as an avenue for attending college.
Finally, it is a stereotype that black men are better at basketball than white men because in a HUGE percentage of comparison cases, it is true.
The comment I made implied NONE of the following: That white men can't play/be good at basketball; That black men can't earn very high GPA's and be as or more intelligent than their white counterparts; that there are not white men on very good basketball teams and black men on very bad basketball teams.
Therefore, my comments were in no way racist, and in fact, the fact that you think me pointing out things that are verifiable to be 100% true in a humorist fashion is racist in fact would indicate that YOU have a racist mindset.
Every time somebody says there's a difference between black and white, it's not because they're racist, and the fact that you said it is more offensive than anything I said ever could have been.
Do NOT call me racist. I despise that.
If I may, I'd like to interject and point out a couple of things a friend and I talk about when race & athletics come up. Due note, I'm not saying you or anyone else is guilty of this, just an observation I'd like to share, and see if anyone agrees/disagrees.
1. As you hint at, there's a different cultural upbringing to a large extent, between urban, low-income families and middle class suburban families. A lot of times, inner-city or poor folks treat sports as a "means." It's their ticket out of bad living conditions. This idea of "making it out" coupled with the attitude and mental toughness one brings to athletics, can change the way an athlete performs on the field. You're hungrier, because after all, you're taught by the media, or other sources, that the NBA or NFL is your only option. You also use stereotypes to your advantage.
2. Looking at numbers and stereotypes, yes an overwhelming number of NBA players are black. Many people would say "Blacks are better at b-ball than whites." This might be true if you look at NBA rosters. But, unfortunately, people make the next jump... suggesting "blacks are more athletic than whites." This to me, is an unfortunate assertion for many reasons. Further, this leads to intimidation in sports (e.g. stereotype threat; if I'm not using that term correctly, sorry Oscar Ybarra.) whereby white athletes are already defeated because they question their ability to compete against "more athletic" individuals.
3. After #2, we then talk about Soccer and wonder what types of stereotypes there are. Obviously, a lot of successful professional soccer athletes are "white." When you look at France, Spain, Argentina, Italy, Germany etc. Their rosters have a majority of white players. They are successful teams. Do these players not really have that same stereotype in mind? What about European NBA stars? What are there stereotypes?
4. Last point, I always found Psych studies that investigated this very phenomenon fascinating.
http://arg.web.arizona.edu/~psych/stone/Golf1.pdf
It's long but interesting. Essentially, if you prime someone insecure about intellect to think that smart people succeed in a minigolf course, they perform significantly worse than if you didn't prime them. (Same deal with athleticism.) Obviously, you know how race fits into this stereotype, and the results rang true. (IIRC)
but one thing, wherein you state that based on NBA rosters, it seems obvious that black men are better at basketball, but that has a lot of basis in the stereotype itself, and isn't necessarily rooted in athleticism, etc.
I totally agree, but, keep in mind that these men ARE in the NBA, so they ARE better at basketball. Not because of athletic ability, which, you'll note I never once stated that they were more athletic, but because of skill, technique, and experience from years and years of practice at all levels.
Black children are more likely to spend time on the basketball court vs. white children, percentage wise, ergo, at high levels, they have more experience, and athleticism being equal, are better basketball players. It's no different than one kid being better at math because as a child, he did math problems while his friends drew pictures. He may not be any more intelligent, but he's been doing it more, for longer.
Edit: I also don't understand why I'm being serially negged for being upset at being called racist when I've never said a racist thing in my life, but... eh. Haters gonna hate.
Yes, I definitely agree. I meant to make it more clear that I think it's bad when people "jump to conclusions." I know you didn't, I just wanted to bring it up. I +1'd you because I don't think you've said anything offensive at all. (At least not anymore so than any other thread. Just kidding.)
We're all racist hicks!
but take a look at Duke. Every year most of their team is white and they constantly spank other "black" schools. Look at Northern Iowa last year. White men are just as good as athletes as blacks. It is not a race issue, it is a culture issue.
"most of the schools in your conference kinda suck at basketball"
This is false. The Big Ten sends as many or more teams to the tourney and is as successful or more successful IN the tourney than any other conference. We've had more different teams in the final four in recent years than any other conference (tied with the Big East--and they have many more teams in their conference).
The notion that the Big Ten "sucks" at basketball is an interesting meme/myth, but it is just that based strictly on competitive outcomes.
the problem the big 10 has is that in basketball, the media says the big 10 isn't good compared to the big east (this year) or the ACC in prior years. they always compare to the best conference at the time. where was the ACC comparison this year?
same goes for football. the big 10 sux because the SEC is better.
despite the recent "struggles" in both sports, i will argue the big 10 has been one of the top 3 conferences during this period. no other conference comes close to the success of the big 10 when combining both sports.
If you look at the rosters of the 2 teams that played in this years NC game they were mostly made up of "white dudes with 3.5 GPA's who also just happen to be 6'6" and can hit the occasional jump shot."
That is a very stupid thing to say. Hopefully you never say something like that again.
To make a joke about Zack Novak?
Okay. I will never make a joke about the Zack Novak's of Michigan Basketball ever again.
That's a pretty absurd characterization of the conference given the talent MSU, OSU, Purdue, Wisconsin & Illinois trot out there, and Illinois did for a decade before they tripped themselves up with texty mcgee.
I will be that guy that is proud of this report. I would rather recruit 6'6" white dudes with 3.5 GPA's that can occasionally hit a jump shot than guys that only go to school for one year or fail out taking underwater basket weaving. The universities main goal is education and research not preparing individuals for the NBA, NFL, MLB, or the NHL. If we have athletes that have the talent for those leagues, then great. However, each athlete that attends the university main goal should be to earn a degree from the university they attend.
I didn't say it was bad. I simply said there's not much cause for violations while recruiting these guys.
Underwater Basket Weaving sounds like a fairly challenging course...
to make really small baskets. And come up for a breath between one basket and the next.
Uh... That's not good.
There are a host of coolers in Columbus that would disagree.
Sadly, shit-filled coolers are probably cleaner than any of Calipari's programs.
The article quotes a coach saying that the reason the B10 is the cleanest is that their "recruiting makes sense" and they recruit mainly from their own footprint. It's not that hard to convince guys like Jared Sullinger, who is from Columbus, to attend OSU. As much as I want to hate Evan Turner, he is actually a great guy if you hear his interviews, and exactly the type of player I want at Michigan. He's not the illegal benefits type. Koufos is from Ohio. Oden and Conley are from Indianapolis, and once Oden chose OSU Conley was his lapdog and following him wherever he went. All of Matta's top recruits have been born and raised in either Ohio or Indiana.
that one year he had at butler some 10 years ago trumps the basketball history of IU and PU? really? how old was oden then? 10?
i, like many others, am waiting for the axe to fall on matta; just like tressel. but we may be waiting awhile, as quickly as the ncaa moves.
but if the coaches don't know about any transgressions, they must not exist. a la pete carroll. ya, right.
Matta stepped into the exact opposite situation as RR. His first year, he had a good young team but they were on probation, and then the next year he returned everyone and ended up with a #2 seed. He then rode the positive momentum of a Big 10 championship to sign the Oden/Conley duo. It's not like he got these guys to commit out of the blue.
I'm not sure why you think Matta is dirty and that there is some impending doom in order. OSU has great bball facilities and has been succesful for the bulk of recruits memories (really starting with Michael Redd). He has put out multiple first rounders including a #1 and a #2 pick. I am OK with Matta recruiting one-and-done kids as long as he brings in a Mark Titus and Evan Turner from time to time. It's not like he is recruiting the #1 kid out of NYC to come to Columbus. I don't think the regionality argument is definitive but you could say Matta has been very lucky to have so much top tier talent in and around his immediate area. He has put 4 first rounders to the NBA all from Big11 states, some of that is recruiting some of that is luck. I highly doubt any of it is "dirty recruiting tactics". What leads you to believe that?
If you are waiting, along with "many others", I suppose you can keep waiting. As another poster mentioned, the compliance office at OSU is a monster that reports an absurd amount of "phone call" type of transgressions, secondary. If you think that the compliance office is that sizable to create some sort of ruse and cover-up of other transgressions, I think you are kidding yourself.
Cue the Pryor Corvette photo...
There's no reason to call the OSU basketball program dirty at the moment other than some sort of bitter resentment. I don't particularly care for OSU in any sport, as I'm sure most of the posters here don't, but calling them dirty is essentially attending the "Danny Hope School of Ethics."
So you're saying teams recruiting atheletes out of their region are more likely to use dirty recruiting tactics? While I agree that even OSU / Matta maybe "cleaner", I don't think the regional recruiting argument holds water.
I think the most likely reason is the Big Ten established, and attempts to maintain a culture of ethical college athletics. Teams have failed on occasion, but overall this is a point of emphasis for the Big Ten.
As a point of reference, look at our own responses to our own allegations. Down here, UNC has not been very transparent on the agentgate investigation. Then there is USC.
In the three Michigan examples recently discussed on this board, basketball, football, and Woodson, the UofM took the lead in investigating the issues transparently with the NCAA. From what I have read in both the basketball and the Woodson case, the University continued to investigate the matter after the NCAA moved on. And in the basketball case, that is the reason we are at risk of longer probation for the football violations - we in effect re-opened the case, drawing it out so that we were still on probation when the football violations occured.
OSU reports more minor violations than any other school. Why, because they have a huge compliance department, and they have decided that transparent reporting and corrective action is better than catastrophic sanctions. (I actually think OSU's compliance model is more progressive than ours.) For example, I'll bet if OSUs QC Staff didn't have the certs to be interdepartmental S&C staff last year, they do now.
(The primary difference between OSU and Michigan being the more proactive montior and reporting approach OSU takes. The interactions between the football staff and the compliance staff at Michigan seems to point to resource issues. We seem to apply more resources after an allegation pops up.)
This is big-time college basketball. No one is clean. There are just differing levels of dirtiness. You can't work the AAU circuit (which Matta and most other coaches do) without compromising yourself somewhat.
Also, I wouldn't assume anyone is "not the illegal benefits type." It's often the players you least suspect who are the biggest rule-breakers. Back when the Fab Five were here, everyone assumed that Chris Webber was a model citizen and Jalen Rose was a renegade. Whoops.
Give credit to John Calipari and Rick Stansbury for the SEC's dirty reputation.
It's good to see the Big Ten do things the right way while still maintaining status as an overall strong conference in terms of competition and talent. Outside of the Big East, it could be argued that the Big Ten is the best basketball conference in America.