Is USC the new UT?

[Samurai Stang]

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.

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.

Your theory fails to take into account, naively, why the athletes playing professional sports are not representative of the population as a whole. Mine does. Additionally, my theory does take into account why there are the occasional successful programs from middle class and upper class areas. They are the exception. You try to hide between morals and the idea that America is the same land of opportunity for everyone. While there are many opportunities in America, they are not the same for everyone. One's economic status at the beginning of one's life determines much of their future. Look at the NFL. Look at the NBA. Both leagues are not made up of athletes that grew up in privilege. That is the proof that your idealistic notion is entirely flawed. If all persons of all areas of life have equal dedication to athletics, then we should expect to see the same incredible diversity that is America reflected in the rosters of professional teams. Such diversity is not present. Economic status being of importance explains why it is not.

[perunapower]

Your theory fails to take into account, naively, why the athletes playing professional sports are not representative of the population as a whole. Mine does. Additionally, my theory does take into account why there are the occasional successful programs from middle class and upper class areas. They are the exception. You try to hide between morals and the idea that America is the same land of opportunity for everyone. While there are many opportunities in America, they are not the same for everyone. One's economic status at the beginning of one's life determines much of their future. Look at the NFL. Look at the NBA. Both leagues are not made up of athletes that grew up in privilege. That is the proof that your idealistic notion is entirely flawed.

I know that America isn't fair to all. I realize that opportunities are not equal. It would be stupid to not acknowledge that many athletes come from poorer neighborhoods. But if the poorer neighborhoods are so laden with talent, why isn't that we see poorer neighborhood schools collecting most high school championships? Why is it that there are teams like Euless Trinity, Pflugerville, Highland Park, Southlake Carroll, Allen, The Woodlands, Dallas Jesuit, SA Reagan, Round Rock, Flower Mound Marcus, Hurst Bell, Midland Lee, North Crowley, Colleyville Heritage, etc.? Surely all of these schools can't be exceptions.

I realize that there are poorer schools that are successful in athletics too (SOC in basketball for instance), but quit saying it's limited to or primarily composed of people from poorer neighborhoods. You can find notable alumni for almost all of the schools I've listed above that made professional sports.

[Samurai Stang]

Your theory fails to take into account, naively, why the athletes playing professional sports are not representative of the population as a whole. Mine does. Additionally, my theory does take into account why there are the occasional successful programs from middle class and upper class areas. They are the exception. You try to hide between morals and the idea that America is the same land of opportunity for everyone. While there are many opportunities in America, they are not the same for everyone. One's economic status at the beginning of one's life determines much of their future. Look at the NFL. Look at the NBA. Both leagues are not made up of athletes that grew up in privilege. That is the proof that your idealistic notion is entirely flawed.

I know that America isn't fair to all. I realize that opportunities are not equal. It would be stupid to not acknowledge that many athletes come from poorer neighborhoods. But if the poorer neighborhoods are so laden with talent, why isn't that we see poorer neighborhood schools collecting most high school championships? Why is it that there are teams like Euless Trinity, Pflugerville, Highland Park, Southlake Carroll, Allen, The Woodlands, Dallas Jesuit, SA Reagan, Round Rock, Flower Mound Marcus, Hurst Bell, Midland Lee, North Crowley, Colleyville Heritage, etc.? Surely all of these schools can't be exceptions.

I realize that there are poorer schools that are successful in athletics too (SOC in basketball for instance), but quit saying it's limited to or primarily composed of people from poorer neighborhoods. You can find notable alumni for almost all of the schools I've listed above that made professional sports.

You continue to dance around the question of why professional rosters are not representative of the United States when your theory holds that all persons from all walks of life are on an equal playing field. You can name exceptions in regards to schools and individual players, but the fact remains that sports are dominated by those at the economic bottom. Additionally, your list is flawed. You did name a number of successful schools in athletics, but they are not all the shining examples of upper class athleticism that you would have them be. And next time try not to include a private school in your list, as that brings up an entirely new area of discussion. Explain the lack of diversity in professional sports. Or do you believe professional sports to be as diverse as your country?

[perunapower]

You continue to dance around the question of why professional rosters are not representative of the United States when your theory holds that all persons from all walks of life are on an equal playing field. You can name exceptions in regards to schools and individual players, but the fact remains that sports are dominated by those at the economic bottom. Additionally, your list is flawed. You did name a number of successful schools in athletics, but they are not all the shining examples of upper class athleticism that you would have them be. And next time try not to include a private school in your list, as that brings up an entirely new area of discussion. Explain the lack of diversity in professional sports. Or do you believe professional sports to be as diverse as your country?

No one is dancing around your question. You can't possibly expect me to research the backgrounds of thousands of professional athletes to determine their economic background. There are some athletes, I'd even say a good chunk, that come from poor families who make it big in sports, and those are the stories you hear about when you watch a game. No one wants to hear how Tom Brady attended a private school in San Mateo, California. No one wants to hear about how Jason Witten grew up in a middle-class town in Tennessee. There are countless other examples I could sift through and find players that don't fit your model. At the same time, you have examples like Jerry Rice who grew up a brick mason's son who had to work for his dad while going to school. I think you're overplaying how centered professional sports are on athletes that grew up in poor families.

The economic background of professional athletes is probably because the uneven economic footing of both races, unfortunately, isn't the same. Assuming athletic talent chances are constant, you can take an even sampling of black athletes, who tend to be poorer than their counterparts, and white athletes, who tend to be more well-off, you're going to get a bottom-heavy economic background. This doesn't mean that there is a general rule that poor schools are better at athletics and subsequently rich schools are not. Nor does it mean that rich schools with successful athletics are an exception. Successful athletes can come from any economic background.

Lastly, my list is not flawed. I took historically successful high schools and listed some that did well in this most recent playoff bracket for either boy's basketball or football. I included Jesuit because they compete with public schools. Why would including Jesuit hurt my argument? It is a predominantly upper-class high school with successful athletics.

[Samurai Stang]

So what you are saying is you have no explanation for the way things are and why the NBA and NFL are not entirely representative of the United States. If you are correct and all things are equal it should be the case that not only will ethnic and economic backgrounds correspond to their percentage in the real world, but so must religious beliefs and everything else you can think of. The very fact that the NBA is not 75% white already proves your theory wrong. I assumed I was being rather direct, but perhaps I have not been direct enough. If all things are equal why are professional sports not representative of the diversity found in the United States?

[perunapower]

So what you are saying is you have no explanation for the way things are and why the NBA and NFL are not entirely representative of the United States. If you are correct and all things are equal it should be the case that not only will ethnic and economic backgrounds correspond to their percentage in the real world, but so must religious beliefs and everything else you can think of. The very fact that the NBA is not 75% white already proves your theory wrong. I assumed I was being rather direct, but perhaps I have not been direct enough. If all things are equal why are professional sports not representative of the diversity found in the United States?

Are you serious? I just answered that. I said it's not and offered a reason as to why it isn't. No one argued that it is representative of the United States as a whole. If it was, we'd all be over 6 feet tall and athletically built. No where did I say that it was representative of the United States.

You keep trying to make this about how professional sports aren't representative of United States as a whole, a claim no one is arguing. I merely said that talented athletes are not limited to poor neighborhoods which is evident by the schools I listed a few posts up. If you dispute the fact that BOTH classes have talented players, I suggest you look at the state championship brackets and evaluate who advances, where the schools are located, and who attends them.

Now I'm tired of arguing this point with you. I'm tired of you straying from my original point and trying to construe that point into a totally different direction. If you can't accept that talented athletes come from all different backgrounds, then I'm sorry for you.

[Samurai Stang]

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.

Allow me to refresh your memory. This is your position. You made it clear that you believe athletics crosses ALL boundaries. As such, you were arguing that an equal number of athletes should be expected to come from all areas of life. Also, you were not making an argument that explains why there is the lack of diversity that there is in sports. Saying you made an argument is not the same as actually making one.

[couch 'em]

Nobody is saying that NO talented athletes come from affluent backgrounds and/or that ALL talented athletes come from poverty.

What is being said is that talented, dedicated athletes come disproportionately from lower income backgrounds.

[Stallion]

this is just about as neat-o an argument as the patented "Sleepers sometimes are successful" argument. Pull out the 1 in 20 exceptions just to make everybody feel good so that they can still claim "See these recruiting guys don't know what the hell they are talking about" while ignoring the porportionate probabilities of success the higher a player is rated.

If you put a map of the Top Recruits OR just NCAA Scholarship Football players over a Map of the Top Areas of Minority Population centers then there would be significant similarity between minority population centers and NCAA Division 1A Players whether they be Good Bad or Average. The minority population demographics in fact are the reasons for the emergence of the superiority of Southern College Football.

And as we know Minority athletes have historically scored significantly below non-minorities in academic standardized tests especially in the South and in income distribution. Texas Football has annually documented the dominence of Southern states which produce the most Division 1A Football players and the correlation of those states to the large minority population centers of the South.

[Stallion]

This site has some great maps and charts which correlate NCAA Recruits by State and by population centers.

http://www.mapgameday.com/recruit/

Compare the States of the Industrial Midwest or Big 10 Country:

Ohio 146
Penn 78
Illinois 63
Michigan 60
Indiana 38
Minn 15
Wisconsin 12
Iowa 12

with the Southern States of

Texas 374
Florida 358
Georgia 158
Alabama 95
Louisiana 82
Mississippi 79
Virgina 57
North Carolina 52
South Carolina 48
Tennessee 47

[perunapower]

Allow me to refresh your memory. This is your position. You made it clear that you believe athletics crosses ALL boundaries.

It does. Athletics allow people from all walks of life to find a common interest and bond. I said that desire for athletics isn't inversely related to affluence. That's why there are athletic programs at most all high schools and colleges. That's why Yale and Southern both have athletic departments.

As such, you were arguing that an equal number of athletes should be expected to come from all areas of life.

Umm... no, I never said that. Nothing even remotely close to that. If you can find something I said that says that, I will quickly apologize. My argument, from the beginning, has been that there is not a direct correlation between thugs and successful programs. Someone else made the assumption that thugs come from poorer neighborhoods. Then, and only then, did I use counterexamples of affluent neighborhoods with successful athletic programs and poorer neighborhoods with terrible athletic programs.

[Samurai Stang]

Allow me to refresh your memory. This is your position. You made it clear that you believe athletics crosses ALL boundaries. As such, you were arguing that an equal number of athletes should be expected to come from all areas of life.

Umm... no, I never said that.

Yes you did. Allow me to help you remember.

I realize that there are poorer schools that are successful in athletics too (SOC in basketball for instance), but quit saying it's limited to or primarily composed of people from poorer neighborhoods.

My argument has always been that athletics is primarily composed of persons from lower incomes. The data confirms that.

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.

You have consistently challenged the notion that financial stability is not important in determining whether or not an individual will choose to pursue athletics. In fact, it would seem as though your argument would suggest more than anything that more affluent individuals are dominating athletics. Now, this is where it gets tricky. In the second quote that I have from you, you state that economics is not a driving factor in athletics. If this were the case, then it should logically follow that there would be an equal number of persons from all economic backgrounds pursuing athletics. If this were the case, then you would expect sports to represent the demographics of America.

You may think you have been arguing another point, but the truth of the matter is that you willingly took up the cause of this neo-Marxist argument in which all individuals are equal in all attributes. That is what you have been arguing for. You have challenged the very fact that athletes can be seen to largely come from a particular economic background.

[Samurai Stang]

Poor kids tend to focus on sports instead of other pursuits at a higher rate than middle class or rich kids.

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.

Another reminder of your position.

[SMUer]

More fodder for the argument:

Since the Ole Southwestern Conference split in 1996, 18 5A/4A high schools have appeared in more than one state championship game:

(#Champ Games), School Name, % Af-Am, Academic Awards, Nat. Academic Rank 2007

(6) Katy 6.6% Af-Am Blue Ribbon School TEA Recognized (4)
(5) Southlake Carroll 2.5% Af-Am Blue Ribbon TEA Exemplary (6), TEA Recognized (3) #12 2007
(5) La Marque 74.2% Af-Am TEA Exemplary
(5) Converse Judson 27.1% Af-Am Blue Ribbon School TEA Recognized
(4) Midland Lee 8.7% Af-Am TEA Recognized
(4) Denton Ryan 14.5% Af-Am TEA Recognized
(4) Bay City 19.7% Af-Am TEA Exemplary
(4) Westlake 0.5% Af-Am Blue Ribbon School, TEA Exemplary (6), TEA Recognized (3) #97 2007
(3) Smithson Valley 1.2% Af-Am TEA Recognized (2)
(3) Euless Trinity 13.0% Af-Am TEA Recognized (3)
(3) Ennis 17.6% Af-Am TEA Recognized (2)
(2) Marshall 39.7% Af-Am
(2) Texas City 20.1% Af-Am TEA Recognized
(2) Stephenville 1.4% Af-Am TEA Recognized (4)
(2) Grapevine 3.5% Af-Am Blue Ribbon School TEA Exemplary (5) TEA Recognized (2) #147 2007
(2) Denison 9.4% Af-Am TEA Exemplary, TEA Recognized
(2) Dallas Highland Park 0.3% Af-Am Blue Ribbon School TEA Exemplary (8 ) TEA Recognized #16 2007
(2) Copperas Cove 27.5% Af-Am TEA Recognized


*2003 AEIS rating not included/not found

Of the 18 4A/5A teams to make multiple appearances in the State finals after 1996, over a third have received national academic excellence blue ribbon awards, including 4 in the eight schools that have appeared +3 times. Every school except Marshall HS has received at least one TX AEIS academic distinction and with the exception of La Marque and Texas City, every school has been recognized as Acceptable or better every single year since 1996.

I just don't think the idea of inner city schools winning state football championships with "thug" players holds much water in Texas. Very few inner city/high black/low income schools have made multiple championship appearances in the past 12 years.

[couch 'em]

Another reminder of your position.

Why continue this argument? He will never consider the origin of pro athletes, because he isn't interested in hearing anything except that SMU can win with all squeaky clean players with strong academics.

I'm sure he also thought Bennett was a nice guy, that we should have had finding a coach "with class" as our #1 priority in the coaching search, and believed that we'd go to a bowl game at the beginning of every year since Copeland was hired.