They start 3 white guys.
I wonder if maybe race doesn’t indicate if a person is good at basketball.
I wonder if maybe race doesn’t indicate if a person is good at basketball.
How Can Clemson Be in Sweet 16?
- Thread starter markfromj
- Start date
Brownell was inquiring about the Iowa job when Fran got hired.
Now do the other 15 schools.
Barta, the gift that keeps on giving.
But one team with three out of five starters white should give those of you that think “we need more black guys” pause, right?
Like maybe race is not the determining factor, but rather talent, for who is good?
No, 1/16 does not give me pause.
Keep in mind, the US population is 75% white, 13% black. Do you need any additional help understanding how unusual it is to have so many white players on the Iowa roster? Yes, the state’s demographics comes into play. But then we take a peek over to Ames…..
You just have a hard time understanding mathematical concepts of probablities and distributions.
You’re talking to someone who said white guys are better at cornerback than black guys.
That’s your evidence? Lol.
FTR, UConn starts three white guys too.
Do the rest of the data set for the Sweet 16 then get back to us. Also, check out the Rivals 2024 top 100 rankings. If 25% are white, I will never post on the basketball board again.
I thought we had already covered this, mark. You conceded the point.
Why are you reverting back to this silliness?
And another guy on this board thinks Bob Cousy would tear up the NBA today if referees didn’t favor black players.
Yes, there really are people out there that ****ing stupid.
Clemson seems to play their game no matter what is coming after them thats great coaching
They also don't have Fran coaching them.... It seems that is the difference.
Nope. Got that.
But recruiting is not blind to talent, nor should it be driven only by (or at all by) race.
I’ve kind of followed how Clemson has done because of that. He was talking to Iowa AAU coaches about the Iowa job.
No. I conceded the point that having more black players might allow us to recruit the top black players (“play with at least some people who look like me”).
I never conceded that “black players are better than white players”.
I think if you are going to talk white guys playing good bball I think there is another rational connection here. Coach K found them and taught them how to play defense; Jay Bilas, another white guy who played with Bilas, was it Giminski, Billy Hurley iirc, and Knight was Coach K's head coach and he preached defense. If you get quick athletic players who also have bball skills then they can be very good players.
Barkley just said credit to Dabo Sweeney for the win Lol does he smoke pot?
You’re splitting hairs.
There is no inherent, biological trait in melanin that makes someone better at basketball. True.
However, at this time in human evolution, the best basketball players tend to be black. That is based on data. Does that mean white people can’t be good at basketball? No. It just means when it comes to the cream of the crop, like a list of top 100 players, maybe 10% are white.
When it comes to the NBA All Stars, that percentage drops even more.
Your counter arguments are distinctions without real differences. Or, they’re anecdotal, like Clemson having three white guys in the starting lineup.
Why do you insist on dying on this hill?
I think trying to reduce racism is a very worthy hill to die on.
Clemson coach is my new favorite Coach. He called out the BIG 12 before the tourney started for manipulating the NET with non-con. schedules. I wondered about that statement as it was pretty bold before he even played any games in the tourney. Clemson backed it up with a win over 3 seeded Baylor who had a NET ranking of 15.
Rather lengthy but check out some numbers:
Houston. NET rank of #1. 13-0 in non-league. Best non-con. win was Tex. A&M. Played a long list of nobodies. End up a 1 seed.
ISU. NET rank of #6. 11-2 non con. record. Best non league win, VCU or Iowa?. Losses to the Best two teams they played in Non League, Va, Tech (19-15) and Tex. A&M. Both on neutral courts. End up a two seed.
BYU: NET ranking of 12: 12-1 non con. Best win San Diego St. Loss was to NIT Utah. End up a six seed. Lost to 11 seed in first round.
Baylor: NET ranking of 15. Actually played a decent non-league schedule with wins over Aub. and Florida and losses to Michigan St. by 24 and Duke by 8. #3 seed n tourney. Lost to 6 seed Clemson.
Kansas: NET ranking of 19. Good wins over. Kentucky, Tenn. and UCONN. Loss to Marquette. Probably only valid NET ranking of all the Big 12 teams in the tourney. Injuries derailed.
Texax Tech: NET ranking of 28. 11-2 non league. Best win was over UNI. Losses to Villanova and Butler. Neither of those teams were NCAA tourney teams. 6 seed in tourney. Lost to 11 seed in NCAA tourney.
Texas:: NET rank of 30: 11-2 non league. Losses to UCONN by 10 and Marquette by 21. Best non league win was 17-16 LSU. 7 seed in tourney.
TCU: NET ranking of42: 13-2 non league. Best win. Hard to tell but probably 14-18, ASU. Losses to Clemson and Nevada. 9 seed on tourney.
Big 12 is 7-7 in tourney so far. 0-1 in NIT.
No Big 12 team has won a tourney game against a better seeded team.
6 Big 12 teams have lost to teams seeded worse.
The lowly Big 10 is 7-4 in the tourney with Purdue going today. BIG has 3 wins against teams seeded better.
NCAA better figure out a valid ranking system because the Clemson coach was dead on with his statement.
Houston better win today or the league humiliation will be complete.
Last edited:
Has to be tough for him with his low I.Q. Also the fact that Alabama will probably be in the final 4, while the team he picked to win it all (Auburn) Lost in the first game to fricking Yale. Chuck better stick to Politics. Seems to be an expert there. (sarcasm)
This entire thread is sad. Players are players, I wish peoole would look at the game for what it is. In my opinion, Clemson played better derense, were better coached and shot better. Congrats to Clemson, I thought Zona would run them out of the gym.
Not sure why Arizona didn't pound it inside. Late in the game when they did, they scored every time. Love was a bust, got paid between $500K and $1M and couldn't hit the broad side of a barn. I love seeing that, ha.
Not sure why Arizona didn't pound it inside. Late in the game when they did, they scored every time. Love was a bust, got paid between $500K and $1M and couldn't hit the broad side of a barn. I love seeing that, ha.
How are you trying to reduce racism with your post?
