Is USC the new UT?

[Samurai Stang]

If you come from a lower income family your dreams are traditionally not those of medical school but of athletics. Also, you have named but a few schools that are good and would be considered upper-class, only adding to the fact that such schools are rarities. This is further added into in that you use the Dallas high schools as an example of how lower income areas do not produce more athletes, yet seek to eliminate what you consider to be the best one from the discussion because it works against your argument.

Throughout time all sports have been dominated by those at the bottom of the economic ladder. There once was a time when Jews dominated basketball, but as their economic status has improved and opportunities have increased this has ceased to be the case today.

So, do the poor, indigenous Ainu dominate sports in Japan?

The Ainu consistently outperform ethnic Japanese in Western sports like Baseball, Soccer, and Track and Field. They are a marginalized community whose opportunities are limited at best.

[Stallion]

As long as Texas APR rating is the best in the Big 12-or even satisfactory this 4 pages of UT bashing does not mean jack. There is a logical reason UT scores so high on APR and so low on Graduation Rates. Once again UT -at least - recruits from essentially the same academic pool as SMU and does not admit real academic questionmarks. In fact UT's FOOTBALL team had a better APR than SMU's Football team. Those are the facts JACK.

http://64.233.167.104/search?q=cache:Yj ... cd=1&gl=us

[perunapower]

If you come from a lower income family your dreams are traditionally not those of medical school but of athletics. Also, you have named but a few schools that are good and would be considered upper-class, only adding to the fact that such schools are rarities. This is further added into in that you use the Dallas high schools as an example of how lower income areas do not produce more athletes, yet seek to eliminate what you consider to be the best one from the discussion because it works against your argument.

Throughout time all sports have been dominated by those at the bottom of the economic ladder. There once was a time when Jews dominated basketball, but as their economic status has improved and opportunities have increased this has ceased to be the case today.

What example do I seek to eliminate because it works against my argument? I just want someone to prove that thugs make better athletes. This isn't about socio-economic status, race, or whatever else someone else may dream up. I want one of the "thugs = better athletes" supporters to come forward with evidence, or even a few examples, and prove this idea. Until then, I fully believe that quality football does not require bad character and bad judgment.

[Samurai Stang]

Thugs tend to come from poor families. Poor kids tend to focus on sports instead of other pursuits at a higher rate than middle class or rich kids. Poor kids are also more likely to become thugs. Thus, the more talented athletes you have, the higher the percentage of thugs will be. Eventually, it becomes 100%, like UT.

If that's the case, someone should tell the Dallas high schools (except Skyline) that they need to be good at football and tell Highland Park, Austin Westlake, The Woodlands, Euless Trinity, etc. that they should suck.

This isn't about socio-economic status, race, or whatever else someone else may dream up.

You said economic status was not an acceptable indicator for an individual's dedication to athletics. You made it about economics. That is what I was responding to, this statement that I am quoting where you state the financial status of a community is not a credible factor in measuring the talent that might come from a community. The statement that you made through the use of examples.

[couch 'em]

What example do I seek to eliminate because it works against my argument? I just want someone to prove that thugs make better athletes. This isn't about socio-economic status, race, or whatever else someone else may dream up. I want one of the "thugs = better athletes" supporters to come forward with evidence, or even a few examples, and prove this idea. Until then, I fully believe that quality football does not require bad character and bad judgment.

You are correct, quality football doesn't require thugs, just like it doesn't require people with blonde hair, nor people from Texas, nor people who speak dutch. But that isn't the point and you know it.

Accepting people with some minor criminal mishaps means you are recruiting from a large talent pool, which means your ability to land talented players has gone up. When you consider that a huge number of dedicated football playing kids come from poor backgrounds, and people with poor backgrounds are more likely to have some minor legal slip-ups, then you are really increasing your potential talent pool and thus your recruiting success.

[perunapower]

Thugs tend to come from poor families. Poor kids tend to focus on sports instead of other pursuits at a higher rate than middle class or rich kids. Poor kids are also more likely to become thugs. Thus, the more talented athletes you have, the higher the percentage of thugs will be. Eventually, it becomes 100%, like UT.

If that's the case, someone should tell the Dallas high schools (except Skyline) that they need to be good at football and tell Highland Park, Austin Westlake, The Woodlands, Euless Trinity, etc. that they should suck.

This isn't about socio-economic status, race, or whatever else someone else may dream up.

You said economic status was not an acceptable indicator for an individual's dedication to athletics. You made it about economics. That is what I was responding to, this statement that I am quoting where you state the financial status of a community is not a credible factor in measuring the talent that might come from a community. The statement that you made through the use of examples.

I was responding to couch'em's response which was:

Thugs tend to come from poor families. Poor kids tend to focus on sports instead of other pursuits at a higher rate than middle class or rich kids. Poor kids are also more likely to become thugs. Thus, the more talented athletes you have, the higher the percentage of thugs will be. Eventually, it becomes 100%, like UT.

I was merely challenging the assumption that only poorer neighborhoods have good football teams and that upper and middle class neighborhoods do not.

You are correct, quality football doesn't require thugs, just like it doesn't require people with blonde hair, nor people from Texas, nor people who speak dutch. But that isn't the point and you know it.

Accepting people with some minor criminal mishaps means you are recruiting from a large talent pool, which means your ability to land talented players has gone up. When you consider that a huge number of dedicated football playing kids come from poor backgrounds, and people with poor backgrounds are more likely to have some minor legal slip-ups, then you are really increasing your potential talent pool and thus your recruiting success.

We aren't talking about "minor criminal mishaps". Those aren't thugs. Thugs have major criminal mishaps like armed robbery, felony drug possession, assault with a deadly weapon, beating his girlfriend. A guy who gets caught with a few ounces of pot isn't a thug. A guy who gets an assault charge while defending his buddy at a bar isn't a thug.

If we limit our talent pool by eliminate guys who would 1) probably not be able to play if we kept our current team rules and 2) would cause the university grief in public perception, that's fine with me. Honestly I don't think that's dramatically limiting the talent pool.

Now if we're limiting our talent pool to squeaky clean recruits then we have an issue to discuss. But if you're in support of letting gang members, drug dealers, and burglars on the football team just because they can run, catch, or pass then you have mixed up priorities.

[couch 'em]

Sometimes when people are removed from a bad situation they can reform significantly. If we get some ghetto thugs in here who can play good football, but keep their nose more or less clean while they are here, I'm fine with that.

Again, I dont' want players doing drivebys around campus, but if we get the greatest player ever it might be worth the risk to keep him around and help him improve his life. Or at least stick a chaperone on him to keep him in line for 4 years.

It's about having winning football that generates more positive press than the negative press caused by the players. It's a ratio.

[Samurai Stang]

I was merely challenging the assumption that only poorer neighborhoods have good football teams and that upper and middle class neighborhoods do not.

Yes, and I was proving that while this is not always the case it is traditionally an excellent indicator.

[perunapower]

I was merely challenging the assumption that only poorer neighborhoods have good football teams and that upper and middle class neighborhoods do not.

Yes, and I was demonstrating that while this is not always the case it is traditionally an excellent indicator. Am I correct in that you believe economic status to have no impact on an individual's drive to participate in athletics?

Economic status has little influence on a person's desire for athletics. Athletics should, and does for the most part, cross all socio-economic boundaries, race, and other dividing societal impacts. Athletics is an outlet for all.

Why would economic status be more a driving factor for poorer kids than richer kids? If that's the case, why are there dozens of middle and upper class neighborhoods with successful athletic programs? Don't discount my prior examples as exceptions to the rule.

And couch 'em, I'm not suggesting that SMU give no second chances to deserving people. Second chances should be given out wisely and I thoroughly believe that June Jones knows how to do that, as shown with his record at Hawaii. He chose not to discount the student because of past history, instead he chose to get to know the student personally and then make a decision. I completely agree with that philosophy.

I just don't think that with good football skills comes bad character. We shouldn't sell our soul and forget all morality for good football. But at the same time, we shouldn't be unwilling to look past minor past deeds to see the potential a person might have on and off the field.

[Samurai Stang]

Why would economic status be more a driving factor for poorer kids than richer kids?

All over the world persons of lower income see athletics as the means by which they might improve their economic situation. It is seen as an attainable goal. That is why there is more of a driving factor. An individual from the suburbs may have graduate school as a possibility for their future, but for someone that comes from economic depravity this would often be seen as an impossibility. The number of success stories of poor persons that have gone on to become professional athletes is sung far more than that which have gone on to become surgeons. This is why persons that improve their economic status substantially over that of their parents through education can be referred to as anomalies. Those at the economic bottom have always dominated in sports because they understand it as their best opportunity. That is why when you look at the NFL you do not see teams that are representative of the diversity of the population as a whole, but that are largely made up of those who have financial hardships growing up.

[perunapower]

All over the world persons of lower income see athletics as the means by which they might improve their economic situation. It is seen as an attainable goal. That is why there is more of a driving factor. An individual from the suburbs may have graduate school as a possibility for their future, but for someone that comes from economic depravity this would often be seen as an impossibility. The number of success stories of poor persons that have gone on to become professional athletes is sung far more than that which have gone on to become surgeons. This is why persons that improve their economic status substantially over that of their parents through education can be referred to as anomalies. Those at the economic bottom have always dominated in sports because they understand it as their best opportunity. That is why when you look at the NFL you do not see teams that are representative of the diversity of the population as a whole, but that are largely made up of those who have financial hardships growing up.

Your argument is based upon the fact that you believe that higher class students wouldn't try hard at what they happen to be good at (or enjoy) because you believe they have fall back options. There are very few whose family can just pay thousands of dollars in tuition, regardless of poor or suburban, for an undergraduate degree, much less a graduate degree.

Your theory fails to explain why there are upper class neighborhoods with good athletic programs. Athletic success is not, and never will be limited, to a certain economic tier. That's why there are Southlake Carroll's and Miami Northwestern's. There are countless examples and counterexamples of rich and poor schools that are successful and unsuccessful, for whatever combination of reasons, at athletic achievements.

I understand why some may see, naively, that athletics are the only way out of poorer neighborhoods, but someone else may say that becoming a singer, a movie star, a model, or something else is their only to ticket to greater opportunity and a happier life. What kid growing up doesn't want to be a professional football player, basketball player, baseball player, or many other sports under the sun. To limit the aspirations of thousands of youths to just one sector of society and label that as their belief of their only hope of escape is just sad.

[mrydel]

Explain boxing.

[jtstang]

I want one of the "thugs = better athletes" supporters to come forward with evidence, or even a few examples, and prove this idea.

UT could whip SMU tomorrow with nothing but a team full of Travis county parolees. They already know the offense. What better example do you need?

[gostangs]

Unless I missed something - nobody has said you have to be a thug to be a good athlete - or that all thugs are good athletes - you are mixing up the terminology.

What has been advanced - and what is undeniable - is that every TEAM that has experienced a high level of success in division 1 football (say - top 25 just to pick a standard) has a healthy smattering of thugs - and that - like everything else in big time college football - is no accident - it has been well figured out by people smarter then all of us. There is a ton of money at stake.

Therefore - since we are competing vs these TEAMS - in oder for us to advance in the world of college football to that standard we will have to have a smattering of thugs.

Its pretty simple really. And no, I dont have time to conduct a research paper on this since it is obvious to the thinking fan, and this is only a message board where people post opinions.

I predict we will have our share soon under the new regime - and the sooner the better.

[perunapower]

I want one of the "thugs = better athletes" supporters to come forward with evidence, or even a few examples, and prove this idea.

UT could whip SMU tomorrow with nothing but a team full of Travis county parolees. They already know the offense. What better example do you need?

You proved that some better athletes are thugs, not that thugs are better athletes. Just because one statement is true doesn't make it's converse true.

And gostang, I'm not mixing up terminology. Dcpony explicitly said that he felt there is a direct correlation between thugs and talented athletes. If we are to have a "healthy smattering" of thugs, what is the definition of "healthy smattering"? What is the plan to have some accountability for actions? Will our on-field success grow with off-the-field issues or will have off-the-field issues and stick suck? They AREN'T related.