First!

Other sites on the net implement a retard filter that replaces any variation of the word "first" in the first post of a thread with something like "I'm a time-wasting ignorant jackass". Any chance we could implement something similar here? I'll write a wordpress plugin if it'll help.

Maybe he just needs to watch a few episodes of Chappelle's show.

re:3
I'm rich biotch!

I'm torn. Clearly the guy has had a hard life/childhood. No question about that in my mind.

However, he's an adult...a "tough childhood" only goes so far and from what I see he is only compounding his tough childhood with one bad decision after another.

At what point do you (the NFL) just say "no mas" and move on?

My guess is Jones is or soon will be on double-secret probation depending on the Vegas incident.

And I can't feel sorry one bit for the Titans...it's not like there wasn't this mountain of evidence of this guy's behavior.

And yes...I know...if he wasn't an NFL player none of these 2nd, 3rd, 4th, etc. extra chances would be given to him. Folks...this isn't the reality that you and I live in...it's the NFL.

New things I learned...

One of the people shot at the night club was a woman ( wow). Got into a fight his first day of highschool. ( not a big deal but shows who he is). Don't mess with him or you " get what you get". ( great publicist). One of his friends is a big time convicted drug dealer ( welcome to life of the rich and famous).

Why does the NFL need a guy that is smoking weed, gambeling on college football, assaulting women, fighting, having drug deals run though his house, and and at night club shootings?

I don't think the guys background is any excuse for his behavior. People have to be responsible for their own actions.

Don't let the NFL turn into the NBA, kick that thug out of the league.

"Why does the NFL need a guy that is smoking weed, gambeling on college football, assaulting women, fighting, having drug deals run though his house, and and at night club shootings?"

Because he's a good player and teams want to win?

Just a thought.

3: Yes, Pac-Man Jones is an example of when keepin' it real goes wrong.

5: When it gets to that point (the NFL stepping in) it's too late. What we need to do as a society is to impress upon these young men at an early age that certain behavior is not appropriate in our culture, and most importantly they will not get a free pass because they are an athlete. There are too many examples of athletes, especially in small southern towns, who never learned the proper way to behave in society because they were allowed to do whatever they wanted and the law or their schools would let them go because they can play football.

Essentially, we need to eliminate the sense of entitlement at an early age, and a lot of this crap would go away.

Just my inflation adjusted $.02.

RE #2

I second dbt's motion. Can we PLEASE get something to discourage the 'First!' posts?

The PacMan Jones story has really been done to death. 'Keeping it real?' What it comes down to is people don't really change all that much. That IS real for him, and it will always be a problem.

Is there someone who thinks that Jones' off-field is not exceptional?

6: Don’t let the NFL turn into the NBA, kick that thug out of the league.

Funny how people can mask their racism by using coded language.

11

Thats got nothing to do with racism. Frankly, you're a racist for reading into it that way. The NFL has just as many blacks as the NBA.

The NBA are just a bunch of thugs. That comes partially from concentrating on street ball players, who generally come from the inner city. Jason Kidd is a thug, and hes white.

You sir, are a racist.

One part of the story that actually makes me have sympathy for Pac-Man is the part about staying around with his childhood friends. How many people, when they suddenly get lots of fame and money, would dump all their current friends and family to hang out with the rest of the celebrities? In a strange way, I think it's admirable, even though it's gone horribly wrong.

This was well-written, and pretty even-handed. Pacman clearly had a hard, hard childhood and that doesn't make for a well-adjusted young man. Nothing in my experience remotely qualifies me to pass judgement on his circumstances.

That said, as an incredibly gifted athlete, he has a chance that is offered to very few, and it's entirely up to him whether to take it or not. So far the signs are not good.

The NBA are just a bunch of thugs.

We totally agree with you.

13.

If you're friends are getting you in trouble, you dump them. Hes not mature enough to see that.

If he keeps this up, his friends are going to either put him in jail, or get him killed. Part of growing up is realizing that sometimes, you need to step away and say "this isnt good for me."

My brother was an absolute terror until 8th grade. In trouble all the time, suspended a bunch, sent to Juvie, etc. He was just a bad kid. He was failing out of school, etc. We pulled him out of public schools, and put him in a good private school. First semester he gets all Bs. Second, its B+s. By his sophomore year, hes pulling straight A's, is the captain of the school wrestling team, and is doing great. He graduates next month from a Tier 1 school with a degree in Electrical Engineering.

All because we pulled him away from his friends. His friends were holding him down. I have no question he'd be in jail at this point had we let him stay in that situation.

Just because you hang around with people, doesnt mean theyre your friends. If these guys were really Pacman's friends, they'd tell him to stay the hell away.

#8

Sophandros, the entitlement culture around gifted sportsmen isn't solely an American problem. Our soccer players are suffering form an acute nasty case of it. Coincidentally, the symptons started to manifest themselves at about the same time the money in soccer exploded.

#13

I agree with the sentiment. In a funny sort of way, what Pacman Jones needs to do at this point is behave even more selfishly than he has already. Loyalty to your friends is a wonderful thing, but at some stage you have to look to yourself.

12: People who can effectively mask the effect that race has on their thinking by using coded language should not be rewarded by being able to call those who call them out on it racist. Race touches nearly everything in this culture. Someone points that out and they are called racist. MLK's "I have a dream" speech was not intended to mean that as long as you don't mention race you are colorblind and have transcended into a post-racial universe. It doesn't work that way.

It's easy for you to sit where you are, insulated from the harsh realities of society, and claim that comments such as yours aren't racially charged. The truth of the matter, however, is that they are. Not saying that you are Chris are racist, but the comments ARE.

Shit, man, the word "thug" has become a code-word for the n-word in recent years. You know that, which is why you tried to claim that Jason Kidd is white (which, BTW, he's not).

I agree that the article was a very well written.

#11, do you agree or disagree that Pacman is a thug? Is his behavior and attitude acceptable?

17: Re: footballers. You mean like Wayne Rooney?

19: Reading comprehension is your friend, Chris.

I've already addressed Jones's behavior and my feelings about it. Feel free to peruse the thread.

You can also read my subsequent posts concerning why I wrote what I wrote in post #11.

Sophandros, I dont knwo shit about basketball.

The issue isnt that theyre black. The issue is the culture of basketball. There are just as many black players in plenty of other sports, but the incidents of Thug-ish behavior is much higher in basketball. Its got nothing to do with race.

#11, 12

Nice race card action.

It's hard to determine whether or not #6 is a "racist" -- does he mean "thug" as in "black ballplayer" or "thug" as in "person who has little respect for the law."

It's perfectly reasonable to say you don't like thugs, and at least until recently this was not a race-specific term. Nevertheless, I think #6's true opinion is based on race and stereotypes -- he asserts that he doesn't want the NFL to turn in the NBA.

If it was about "thuggery" in the lawless sense, then he'd be complaining about the Bengals, too. I'm not sure if anyone around here has analyzed it, but I'd be surprised if football players get into/cause any less trouble than basketball players. I personally don't think the NBA is anymore thug-like in the criminal sense than the NFL, although the numbers may prove me wrong.

So yeah, I think he was talking about the thug image of the NBA, so #11 may well have a point. I don't think #11's assumption is ridiculous, or that he is playing the race card inappropriately.

Thug-ish? Is that like Thuggee? Is Pacman going to rip out some guy's heart while it's still beating?

"So yeah, I think he was talking about the thug image of the NBA, so #11 may well have a point. I don’t think #11’s assumption is ridiculous, or that he is playing the race card inappropriately."

You may think its not ridiculous, but I do. The NBA has its thugish image for a reason, and its got nothing to do with race.

When's the last time an NFL player went up into the stands to assault a fan?

but the incidents of Thug-ish behavior is much higher in basketball.

Are you sure?

'Thug' is a code-word for the n-word? First I've heard of that. My first mental image of a 'thug' is a big, Italian mafia enforcer type.

Maybe I'm just too insulated from the harsh realities of society.

;^P

When’s the last time an NFL player went up into the stands to assault a fan?

Apples and oranges, NFL players don't have that opportunity.

Bring stats, not anecdotes.

When’s the last time an NFL player went up into the stands to assault a fan?

I... don't really think they can.

Instead, they just flip them off from the bench.

22: "Culture of basketball"?

Dude, seriously, you're just masking your language here. I don't think that it's a conscious decision on your part, and I genuinely think that you believe that you're colorblind, but the truth of the matter is that our society (and thus, none of its members) is NOT color blind. Race has been and will likely continue to be an issue in America.

25: When was the last time that said NFL player was hit with a foreign object from a fan in the stands?

It's also funny how baseball players are never called thugs, but there have been incidents of players going into the stands and fighting fans in recent years.

Once again, recently the word "thug" has become a code word for another term. We can't get past this problem until we admit the problem, gents.

#30

I shall contribute to your cause by calling hockey players thugs more often.

Except Jarome Iginla!

Wayne Rooney yes, but there are more egregious examples. Professionally, there are an alarming number of players who are happy to take the money (average Premiership salary $1 million, fully guaranteed), and not perform. See West Ham United this year.

Off the field, lots of 'NFL style' offences: DUI, assault, and a general sense of "Do you know who I am?" Most seriously there seems to be a liking for "Roasting" One girl, two or more players and you can do the rest. All usually filmed on a mobile phone.

It's worth stating that like the NFL, the majority of players are well-adjusted, law-abiding individuals. But some aren't.

"25: When was the last time that said NFL player was hit with a foreign object from a fan in the stands?"

Have you ever been to a football game Sophandros? People throw things onto the field all the time.

Thug isnt code for Nigga. Thug is code for thug. I think the same thing as Ray here, when you say thug, I see big italian guy.

Sophandros, if you want to say that the NBA isnt thuggish, bring stats that say the per player crime/conviction rate is as low as other sports.

Sophandros, if you think people never call baseball players thugs, you need to pull your head out of your ass. I dont think i've ever heard anyone refer to Giambi, or Sheffield as anythign other than a thug.\

"but the truth of the matter is that our society (and thus, none of its members) is NOT color blind"

Thats true about certain segments of society, adn its certainly true about you, someone who wants to turn everythign into an issue of race.

Pacman Jones is a thug. Hes also black. Neither are related.

> The NBA are just a bunch of thugs.

I'm not going to get into the racism debate, but once again, I see no evidence that NBA players are involved in more criminal activity on a percentage basis than are NFL players, and in fact I suspect the opposite is true. It's NFL players commonly filling up the police blotter section of my morning sports notes columns, at least. Why shouldn't the NBA be saying: we don't want to be perceived as the "Pacman Jones/Tank Johnson/Cincinnati Bengals" of sports leagues?

15: John Stockton was a thug, too. Just not off the court. :-P
And I'm with Sophandros - acknowledging racial issues doesn't make you a racist. I feel that the NBA's image is a result of being able to actually see the players as they're playing, and therefore perceiving them on a more personal level. It's not so much an issue or race as it is one of intolerance. When fans are able to see players' tattoos, hair, and fashion (for lack of a better term), they immediately start making judgements based on their own beliefs or style - regardless of whether the player is white or black.
Some people look at players with long hair and think "dirty." Others look at players with tattoos and think "trashy." But when the same fans watch NFL games, they only see jerseys and helmets and can't make judgements about individual players.
Too many people (in the U.S., at least) make snap judgements of a person's character based on superficial similarities - looks, style, etc. - and then end up never even considering that the person they're judging has a lot more to them.
In college, I noticed this a lot. When a new person would come along who dressed a little differently or listened to a different kind of music, some of my friends would immediately say "He's just weird" without ever getting to know the person. That attitude always bugged me; he could be the nicest guy you've ever met, and they'd never know it because they were too blinded by his initial appearance.

#33: Wait, Pacman Jones is black?

When’s the last time an NFL player went up into the stands to assault a fan?

When's the last time that an NBA team had nine players arrested in a single season? Besides Portland? You can't just cherry-pick instances.

32-I think he was just clarifying the soccer-football language speed bump.

I've never heard Giambi or Sheffield referred to as 'thugs'. Must be a Boston thing.

Sophandros, as to the "culture of the NBA" there are certain segments of society that the NBA most commonly pulls from. Part of this is the inner city. Violent crime is more common in the inner city. Thus, people from the inner city are more likely to be involved in violent crime.

THats nothing to do with race, and everything to do with Poverty, and crime. Did you know that NBA players, on average, have almost 3 times as many tattoos as the rest of the population?

Do black people have more tattoos? No, NBA players do. Yes, there are black NBA players. THat doesnt mean they have tattoos because theyre black.

Not everything is about race.

"Jason Kidd is a thug, and hes white."

Rich, by that standard, wife-beaters Corey Dillon and Ted Johnson are "thugs".

33: Sophandros, if you want to say that the NBA isnt thuggish, bring stats that say the per player crime/conviction rate is as low as other sports.
Rich, the burden of proof is on you to show that the NBA has a higher rate than other sports. Why should we assume that's the case and make people prove otherwise? Isn't that just like assuming teams "run to win?"
And Sheffield and Giambi aren't referred to as "thugs," exactly. "Cheats?" Sure. "Dicks?" All the time. "Thugs?" Maybe, but I've never heard it.

37.
NBA teams active roster is what, 12 players? The NFL is what, 46?

So 9 NFL players being arrested is about the same rate as 2 NBA players. I'm sure we can find that.

40, Yeah, they are.

41

No, the burden is on you. You're trying to disprove that the NBA is a bunch of thugs, which is a commonly held belief.

Football outsiders disproved that you run to win. The burden was on them. Same situation here.

"I’ve never heard Giambi or Sheffield referred to as ‘thugs’. Must be a Boston thing."

My thoughts exactly. I've heard them referred to as cheaters many times, but never thugs. More proof of the insanity of the Red Sox-Yankees rivalry.

44:

Commonly held by who exactly?

> I’ve never heard Giambi or Sheffield referred to as ‘thugs’. Must be a Boston thing.

No it's not-- he's making that up. All kinds of nasty things around juicing, sure, but "thug" doesn't fit, not even close.

44: Just like the commonly held belief that black players are "more athletic" and that white players are "cerebral" "fan favorites?"
When I get a chance, I'll probably take a look at NFL players arrested vs. NBA players arrested, provided I can find data. I'd be willing to bet that there isn't a signifcant difference in percentages between leagues.

47

I dunno, I heard the word thug used quite a few times when Sheffield hit that fan in right field.

Brett Myers got called a thug all the time last year.

> I dunno, I heard the word thug used quite a few times when Sheffield hit that fan in right field.

What crowd are you hanging with? This certainly didn't happen in the media, or with the average fan. The "fan" hit Sheffield, and Sheffield responded with a push but generally restrained himself. The "fan" then had his season tickets revoked. The only people calling Sheffield a "thug" in this episode were ones with a severe (and perhaps racial) bias.

42-Read my post again and note the phrase You can’t just cherry-pick instances.. That is my real point.
Note that my first sentence directly contradicts my third sentence. This leads to the purpose of the second sentence, which clearly shows that the first sentence might not be serious.
I hate having to explain my jokes (What's that? they're not funny? never mind...)

Everyone's a little bit racist
Sometimes.
Doesn't mean we go
Around committing hate crimes.
Look around and you will find
No one's really color blind.
Maybe it's a fact
We all should face
Everyone makes judgments
Based on race.

http://www.stlyrics.com/lyrics/avenueq/everyonesalittlebitracist.htm

Pat, thanks for #24, 29, and 36. I laughed at all of them :)

Off-topic: Where's the extra point about Gisele Bundchen reportedly being pregnant by you know who?

Are we really gonna discuss this? Really?

No discussion of what the role of a team/agent is in helping players (is that a code word for anything? Can someone post a list of what the code words are? Maybe we can do a post-modern thing where language means what it means to the hearer and its all relative anyway. Oh meta-narratives and stuff!!!!) adjust to the sudden fame/wealth?

No one wants to comment on Bullock (I think that who it was) offering to mentor Jones? Do/should teams do more of this? Can contracts be written to addres this issue?

I thought FO was better than this.

Disclamier: I am a middle class white guy who knows that many of his assumptions harbor racist undertones, and tries really hard not to feed them.

> Brett Myers got called a thug all the time last year.

This one is true, yes. I personally don't have an objection to the word at face value-- matter of fact, if the player has committed a crime, be my guest. But it's just wrong to use it based on "image", with players who have three times more tattoos than the average, etc. I can't see applying it to an entire league, for god's sake, especially when your own favorite has its share of its own criminal problems.

Glenn, calling a black man a thug does not mean you're calling him that because hes black. Its because he hit a fan.

To me atleast, it looked like the fan was grabbing for the ball, which until its in Shef's glove, is legal. Shef swung back at him. Whether or not it was deserved, I expect more from Entertainers that make $10m+ a year to entertain fans.

"But it’s just wrong to use it based on image, with players who have three times more tattoos than the average, etc."

Glenn, I'm not saying that tattoos have anything to do with crime, being a thug, etc. I'm just saying that sometimes groups are composed in ways that select for totally unrelated things.

The NBA primarily pulling players from the inner city leads to certain trends among players. One of these is more tattoos. Another, is higher crime rates.

Since both soccer players and going into the crowd to assault fans have been mentioned, I thought I'd bring up Eric Cantona before anybody else did.

Playing for Manchester United against Crystal Palace at Selhurst Park, Cantona, having been dismissed for violent conduct seconds previously, launched a flying kick at a member of the crowd in the nearest row of seats to the pitch. He was unsuprisingly suspended by the league (for six months - at the time some people argued he should be banned for life, since he had a history of violent outbursts) but there was never any question that his team would cut him - in fact United manager Alex Ferguson worked to persuade him to remain with the club. Different cultural standards, I guess. Oh, and yes, Cantona was called a thug. Repeatedly.

Oh man, I was looking for some study about athletes and crime statistics (IIRC they found that athletes actually were more law-abiding than the population at large - including NBA players) and found this article penned in 2000.

Two players--Rae Carruth of the Carolina Panthers and Ray Lewis of the Baltimore Ravens--were charged with murder in the past year, and more than 20 have been charged with other crimes since the start of last season.

The book "Pros and Cons," written in 1998, contends that 21% of the players in the NFL from 1996 to 1998 had been arrested for serious crimes at some point in their lives. Furthermore, a study by APBnews.com indicated that 13 players on last January's two Super Bowl teams --the St. Louis Rams and Tennessee Titans--previously had been arrested.

"I've been a part of this league for 40 years, and I just can't ever remember so many cases of a criminal nature," says Buffalo Bills owner Ralph Wilson.

Aaargh, link to the article I reference in 61 now in my name.

> To me atleast, it looked like the fan was grabbing for the ball, which until its in Shef’s glove, is legal.

This is well off topic, but no, it's not-- it's a little something called "fan interference". And if you "accidentally" clip a player in the head while doing so, you're going down, which is exactly what happened to the drunken Mr. Chris House, the real "thug" in this incident.

Rich, your statement was "the NBA are just a bunch of thugs". Since most of the players aren't criminals, then you're looking at something else (tattoos or whatever else is associated with black culture) and that speaks for itself. Btw, just exactly where does the black majority in the NFL hail from? Many from the same relative poverty, I'm sure.

"Rich, your statement was “the NBA are just a bunch of thugs�. Since most of the players aren’t criminals, then you’re looking at something else"

No, thats not what it means. Its about attitude.

I can call a group of people thugs, and if only one of 10 has been arrested, the whole group can still be thugs.

Obviously, you're talking off the court, right? Because hockey takes the cake for 'onfield thuggery' (McSorley, Bertuzzi, Perzhegovin, Link Gaetz....).

"This is well off topic, but no, it’s not– it’s a little something called fan interference."

Glen, once the ball has crossed out of the field of play, its no longer fan interference. IE, if the ball is over the field, its fan interference. If its over a seat, a player can still catch it, but no longer has the right to the ball.

Holy crap Rich, your inability to determine who the burden of proof should be on terrifies me.

"Everyone knows they are different, you have to prove to me they are the same" is just plain wrong. The null hypothesis here should be that two unknown quantities are the same or similar, not that they are different.

> I can call a group of people thugs, and if only one of 10 has been arrested, the whole group can still be thugs.

Well, I fail to see any logic in that whatsoever, and moreover I don't know why you wouldn't apply the same "1 in 10" standard to the NFL.

> Holy crap Rich, your inability to determine who the burden of proof should be on terrifies me.

Not to mention that Rich introduced the proposition...

I do remember when NFL players were hit by fans. San Diego Chargers were playing in the damn game and getting pelted by snow balls. The Charger defensive back picked the ball off and was scoring a pick 6 all the while getting slammed by snow and ice balls.

The freaking equiptment manger was knocked out cold by a fans snowball but we didn't see Junior Seau run into the stands and attack the snowball throwers. Fans were jailed and properly prosecuted.

Junior Seau, Leslie O'Neal and the Chargers did't run into the stands and then hide behind " I lived a hard childhood". I don't understand how people can defend what Artest, Jackson and the rest of the Pacers did. The nerd threw freaking WATER at Artest.

I'm not even sure that WATER got onto Ron Artest before he and his teammates ran into the stands and started thowing bows. The guy Stephen Jackson started hitting looked like Bill Gates little brother.

Now what ever happened to those goons? Artest beat his wife ( real tough) and Jackson was firing shots at a night club. Not his boys, HE was firing shots. Oh, but we can't call them thugs, oh no no no, that would be unfair.

Oh, but David Stern is unfair because he wants ALL players to wear a shirt and tie on the sidelines instead of baggy jeans. That seems especially unfair to certain populations.

Pat, thanks for #24, 29, and 36. I laughed at all of them :)

I'm so trying. Racism arguments are absolutely not my thing.

#70: Has anyone else noticed the obvious solution to the NBA's problem? Big walls behind the player's benches/playing field.

Seems to work pretty well for the NFL and NHL.

I'd also like to add that NBA players fight like wimps. Mello with his patent move, the punch and run.

Do you remember the Porter/Green pregame fight?

> Glen, once the ball has crossed out of the field of play, its no longer fan interference.

The ball was rolling along the ground! Sheffield wasn't leaping into the crowd for it, and the fan had his arm well outside of the wall (and really nowhere close to the ball), which is the dividing line. I'm now questioning whether you even saw this play. This clown gave Red Sox fans a bad name, period, not Sheffield.

#70

Oh, but David Stern is unfair because he wants ALL players to wear a shirt and tie on the sidelines instead of baggy jeans. That seems especially unfair to certain populations.

What if your boss made you dress like a gang banger to appeal to the black clientele? Think you might resent that a little bit?

But there are NFL fans on the field. The Redskins used to put up fan bleachers for a fact ( I don't know if they still do), and I don't seem to remember any players attacking those fans.

Chris, pointing out that two very exceptional NBA players are hardcore thugs does not prove that the league is "a bunch" of them. I'm sure I could find two stockbrokers or proctologists that have brutally assaulted people, and that doesn't classify all members of those professions as "thugs."
I also don't know who you're arguing the David Stern/dress code point with. I haven't seen it mentioned at all in this thread and it seems wildly irrelevant, especially when the NFL has a dress code that requires all personnel to wear NFL merchandise when standing on the sideline or giving press conferences.

Re 70:
Yeah, he was so in the wrong that the other guy got two years in jail for trying to run over Stephen Jackson - and partially succeeding. Don't let the facts stand in your way though.

#36 - probably why he's not really a fan favourite.

#60 - But Cantona was a very very very popular thug. He's about the only Man United player past or present that I can stand, because as arrogant as he was he backed it up. Plus he won me some money on a 1-0, Cantona to score bet put on for me by someone else when I was about 12.

He doesn't really compare to Pacman. It'd be more like Chad Johnson karate-kicking someone in the crowd. The Bengals wouldn't cut him, and none of the fans would want them to.

"Funny how people can mask their racism by using coded language."

That's an excellent example of stereotyping. Is it ok for me to stereotype now, or are you and those that have the same sanctimonious sentimentality only justified?

"What we need to do as a society is to impress upon these young men at an early age that certain behavior is not appropriate in our culture,"

So, which culture is that kind of mentality acceptable?

"People who can effectively mask the effect that race has on their thinking by using coded language should not be rewarded by being able to call those who call them out on it racist."

Marcuse would be so proud of you. I'm wondering, did you cut and paste that out of 'Repressive Tolerance'or mearly reword? It's been a while since I've read it, so forgive me for not remembering the exact wording of the passage.

"It’s easy for you to sit where you are, insulated from the harsh realities of society, and claim that comments such as yours aren’t racially charged."

They're only racially charged to those who are overly sensitive to the subject.

"It’s easy for you to sit where you are, insulated from the harsh realities of society, and claim that comments such as yours aren’t racially charged. The truth of the matter, however, is that they are."

And fellas, there it is. Just to recap; It is a known fact of science, with theories that have been proofed and peer reviewed, that Chris' statements and all statements like it are racist. The argument is over, and Sophandros won.

"Well, I fail to see any logic in that whatsoever, and moreover I don’t know why you wouldn’t apply the same 1 in 10 standard to the NFL."
Glenn, I do use the standard in the NFL. The Bengals are a bunch of thugs.

The problem is, the issue is much more widespread in the NBA.

I was wondering which NFL players have been stigmatized due to their off-field problems.

Off-hand I would guess Christian Peters (well, only Bob Kraft really had a problem with him) and that Nebraska running back whose name escapes me but he tried to play in Miami and SF, maybe for Vermeil as well...

Just kind of curious about this and wondering if Jones could be the first ostracized player.

53: I love the Avenue Q reference.

#75 Pay me 10 figures to do a job and I guarantee you there will be no resentment. Hell, I make 5 figures now, and I still don't have any resentment about the dress code at my office. Perhaps I possess a character flaw...

So.... did anyone happen to catch South Park last night?

Guys, the original supposition someone made (sophandros) was that calling the NBA thuggish was based on race.

Both the NBA and NFL are 70+% black. So race isnt the issue here.

BTW, this thread is just aching for Charles the Philly Homer and Brad to jump in and tell everybody about the no politics rule. Yeah, I'm calling them out.

Background: http://tinyurl.com/yu6h9p

> Guys, the original supposition someone made (sophandros) was that calling the NBA thuggish was based on race.

That's a side issue that I'm not terribly interested in. This is your original premise, now restated:

"The problem is, the issue is much more widespread in the NBA."

Prove it.

So we have a bunch of people who aren't racist but who may or may not have made a comment with racist undertones. Yet we all agree the people who made the comment(s) aren't racist and racism is bad... can't we all just get along.

I have a dream that one day the discussion on a football website will turn back to football.

So. Yeah. That Pac(-)Man Jones guy. Great football player. Heard he's got some problems off the field.

86:

Doesn't the fact that the NBA being composed of predominately black members further feed the idea that calling the NBA "Thuggish" call into question issues of race?

Another way to think of it is, if you called, a predominately black area of a city Thuggish, wouldn't that implicate racial issues as well?

Rejected NBA slogan:

"A bunch of white guys sitting around on some benches talking."

Don't hit me! Don't hit me!

I gotta say, I kind of agree with Sophandros. Without calling anyone a racist, I think lots of times 'thug' is used as code; that doesn't invalidate any usage of the word, however. Pacman et al. are thugs--not in the racist sense of the word, in the original sense of the word, as violent, immoral criminals. It seems pretty absurd to me to deny that it can be used in both capacities, however: as racist epithet, and as genuine criticism of standards in the NFL/NBA. There are lots of words like 'thug'; 'boy' is a great example. What are we suppose d to do with these words, ban them? Acknowledge that they can be used in a racist manner? Bring attention to their racist undertones? I don't see how any of that does much good; if Chris, or Rich Conley, or whoever, is secretly a raging bigot, an internet message-board reprimand isn't going to change them.
(copying Brasilbear's disclaimer)
Disclaimer: I am a middle class white guy who knows that many of his assumptions harbor racist undertones, and tries really hard not to feed them.

91

Only if it you were calling them thuggish because of race reasons.

Me calling the Sabin Hill area of Boston thuggish has nothing to do with the fact that its predominately minorities. It has everything to do with the crime rate being about 5 times as high as anywhere else in the city.

Its only racist if the reason its said is becuase of race. Its not. Its because of crime.

Pay me 10 figures to do a job and I guarantee you there will be no resentment. Hell, I make 5 figures now, and I still don’t have any resentment about the dress code at my office.

There's a big difference between selling out for money, and being asked to sell out when you already have money.

#94

As a fellow Bostonian I wish to locate this "Sabin Hill" region so that I may avoid it.

Yet a google search provides no help: http://tinyurl.com/28mro5

Where the hell are you talking about?

With all due respect to the no-politics rule, this discussion topic pretty much invites that... what else (football related) can we say about Pac-Man? Basically Pat's comment: Good player. Off-field problems. I guess there is one thing: does anyone think the Titans will actually release him? If so, will he get another Nate Clements-like contract and with whom?

Jamie T. -

#80 is one of the best posts ever on this here site. Perfectly stated.

You got it, Pat. If FO is posting an article on Pacman Jones' off-field troubles with an editorial comment on "keeping it real", yeah, trouble is bound to follow.

In an effort to derail things:

Anyone else think the Titans really might cut him? Ignoring the "moral" issues, in some sense keeping him on the roster is like keeping an injury-prone player on the roster. You never know when you're going to lose them for multiple weeks right out of the blue.

And it's not like there haven't been a lot of injury-prone players cut, even though they might still have the talent to play.

Let me try to simplify this.
1. Sophandros says 'thug' is a racist codeword.
2. Rich Conley insists he doesn't mean it that way.
What's the problem here? Either you:
1. Believe Sophandros and disbelieve Rich.
2. Believe Sophandros and Rich.
3. Don't believe Sophandros.

I think option 2 is closest to the truth, but that's just me.

Anyone else think the Titans really might cut him?
No. Someone will give the Titans something for him.

Damnit, Rob beat me to it.

I actually think they might release him. He missed one game last year due to off the field issues, and it's looking like that number might continue to increase. "Off the field injury prone" seems like an appropriate description.

96
sorry, Savin hill. Its in dorchester. Its a really nasty area...well, it was 10 years ago, I dont know about now.

#100

I don't think they will cut him any time soon, his on-field skills outweigh the trouble.

If he missed much of a season due to an injury, I think it would be a lot more likely.

Pat,

Jones didn't reveal two arrests last year and that violates the League's Personal Conduct Rules. It also gives the League a pretext for throwing the book at him. Based on this, I imagine that the Titans are hoping that the League will do it for them.

I wouldn't be surprised to see the Titans release him either. The guy seems incredibly self-destructive or incredibly foolish (not to recognize the likely consequences of his behavior). Either way, I'm not sure the Titans want to deal with the inevitable fallout.

Say there, who you calling a thug? Wise guy.

#105: How is this any different? In fact, it's worse, because you know it's likely to reoccur, whereas "injury-prone" is pretty ephemeral.

I think if Jones is suspended for any significant amount of time, the Titans will cut him. He's a good corner, but if he's not on the field, it doesn't matter how good he is.

As for someone else trading for him? I doubt it. I'd imagine that any team that wants him would want a new contract with him to indemnify themselves in case of further issues.

I'd be amazed if the Titans cut him. Great player. I've never seen it where a team's revenue would be hurt by having one or a couple of thugs. I have seen revenues hurt by losing, however. Hence they'll keep him.

Sorry to return to actual football talk. That probably makes me a racist, what with the plight of urban, black youth and the plague outrageous comments like "don't let the NFL turn into the NBA" that keeps us from utopia. Or maybe that comment only means don't let the league and product get derailed and degraded by having its media coverage dominated by stories about deplorable behavior. Nah, that makes too much sense.

The Titans will not cut Pac-Man of their own volition. Either the NFL will make them do it, or the courts will. He's simply too good to cut.

As a Titan fan, I hope he doesn't get cut. I really don't care what Frank Wycheck says on 104.5 in the mornings, or how many pissed off fans call up in the afternoons. The sad fact is, if Pac were to get cut, he would sign with another team in seconds...Yes, I said seconds and most of you know that's true. Why should the Titans have to lose a spectacular player and take a huge cap hit if it's OK for him to play for another team?

The Chargers players were getting hit by snow and ice balls during regulation of play, their equiptment manger was knocked out cold, but they didn't jump into the stands and fight. Those NFL players could do some real damage against the fans too.

#75- I think that comment crossed the line.

I think the NBA's image problems goes deeper than just off the court. Look at the whole "trade me" attitude that players take when they don't get their way.

I'm not a starter anymore, "trade me". I'm not the highest paid guy on the team "trade me". It's not my team "trade me".

Now that isn't a "thug" thing to say, but it's just freaking annoying.

Re 112:
You mean the whole "trade me" attitude that Thomas Jones, Willis McGahee, Lance Briggs, etc. show?

112 You're completely correct.

Yeah, I like the NFL a hell of a lot more than the NBA for a number of reasons, but I'm not going to be dishonest with myself about why. There's plenty of denial involved with the NFL-- about crime, about performance-enhancing drugs, about life-impacting injury. I'll tolerate all of that before pointing fingers elsewhere though.

#75- I think that comment crossed the line.

What offended you, "gang banger" or "black clientele?"

116- Both. When you combine the two.

Macbone- How many players are there in the NBA? How many in the NFL? There is a difference between being on the block and "demanding a trade". Now of course guys have "demanded" trades in the NFL, but the NFL also has 4 times as many starters as the NBA.

The NBA went wrong when you replace the Jordans, Pippers, Ewings, and Olajuwons with the Spreewells, Jacksons, and Artests.

Wake me up when the NFL players start choaking coaches, crying about their coach wanting them to "practice", attacking the fans in the crowd and crying that they get a dress code.

MAYBE some of it has to do with the NBA letting in 18 year olds straight out of highschool, but then again the MLB, soccer, and hockey do the same thing and they don't have those problems.

#117

You're right, it's not exact parallel, but I still think it's a valid comparison.

Simply put, how would you like it if someone told you to dress in a way drastically different from how you want to dress (instead of whatever you want to call the baggy pants look, you have to wear dress clothes) to make you more palatable to a demographic group that you aren't part of?

No one likes being asked to sell out. Hence, complaining. I think it's valid.

Re #85
Alas, I missed it last night. I'll catch tonight's re-run.

I just wanted to thank Aaron for posting a link to think. I thought Garber's piece was very well done. Ever since the Titans first drafted Pacman, Keith Bulluck has been the guy, in a way. You can only help people to the extent they want to be helped, and with Pac, that extent seems to be limited, for reasons reasonable if not altogether wise.

I HIGHLY doubt the Titans would cut Pacman unless he'll actually be incarcerated during the NFL season, i.e. training camp-Week 17/playoffs. He's that good a player, both as a returner and a cornerback. They have enough money available they could cut or trade him, and I think if the right offer came along, he could be traded. He was the #6 pick in the draft two years ago, though, and looks to live up to that kind of value (on the field, between the whistle).

I would be extraordinarly unsurprised to see him be suspended by the NFL for failing to disclose the Georgia arrests, and concur with those who've suggested that's what the Titans are probably hoping for. I really would not want to be Fisher, GM Mike Reinfeldt, or COO Steve Underwood right now. I don't have enough of a read on Bud Adams to know what he'll want to do, though, aside from wishing his team wasn't involved in this mess.

118- I think it was a racist comparison.

How do I feel if somebody makes me dress a way that I don't want to dress at WORK? Well, I either wear the shirt and tie or find employment with a dress code that more matches my preferences.

It's not like an NBA game lasts 8 hours. It's not like you can't wear whatever you want on your own free time. It's a few hour long game and it's regular business attire, not some riddulous dress code.

I don't see how a work dress code is "selling out" or "racist". Everybody has to abide by the same dress code.

A lot of Highschool coaches even make their players wear a shirt and tie on game day. That doesnt mean they aren't "keeping it real".

#120

Just keep clinging to that "racist" cry, don't elaborate or anything. Just because there's a race mentioned makes it racist.

If I was a ballplayer making 10 million a year, and the guy who ran the league wanted me to "dress up" to help my "image," I might be offended. Do you remember how some of the LPGA golfers reacted to the suggestion that they dress "sexier" to increase their sport's appeal? Some of them were offended, and they complained.

I think there's a parallel here. Do you agree?

Re 117:
So, care to name the guys in the NBA who demanded a trade? To be honest, I can only remember one - Ron Artest.

In the NFL, I can think of.. oh, every player who has held out. Deion Branch, O-Gun, Thomas Jones, Willis McGahee, Keenan McCardell, and T.O. off the top of my head.

Remember when Antonio Bryant threw his jersey at Parcells? I guess that's not choking so it doesn't count. Everything has to be exactly identical for it to matter.

120.

100% agree. I'd rather wear sweatpants and a hoodie to work, but the boss says I can't. Doesnt mean I"m a sellout.

85: I saw South Park last night. I was disappointed - I thought they could have done a better (and more humorous) job with this issue.

Throwing your Jersey down and leaving the practice field in disguist is different than phsyically assaulting your Head Coach. Parcells picked up the damn Jersey and threw it back and Bryant.

Having millionares dress up to work in professional business atire is insulting and racist? Geez.

#95 So just so I'm clear...following a dress code, if I already have money, makes me a sellout? (How much "money" is "money", BTW. I mean...I have some money saved up and I still don't mind obeying a dress code.)

And just to be clear, if I shill for products I may or may not use and get paid by corporations to do it, that doesn't make me a sellout? Is that also true only if I have money beforehand?

I'm so confused...

#110-111:

So when would the Titans cut Pacman? After a year suspension, perhaps? Or maybe just a four-game suspension, coupled with rumors that he hadn't changed his ways?

Jones isn't the first talented player whose talents could be wasted due to off-the-field issues. The Vikings were clearly right to cut Koren Robinson, for instance, given that he barely managed to play for the Packers the next year.

The question is, how close to the edge will the Titans cut it?

Okay, so you guys win on the dress code issue. What a bunch of punks these NBA players were for complaining about having to put on a jacket and tie! No one really seems to want to step and address the NFL crime issue though (you know, the one that involves this fella Pacman Jones, the subject of the base post).

127

All Valid questions.

Much tougher to answer though, because Pacman is so clearly a better player than K.Robinson.

If Pacman isn't careful, he'll end up having to conform to an even stricter dress code than the NBA's.

Glenn, what the hell are you talking about?

All of us have said Pacman has issues. We were just accosted, because apparantly saying a black man is a thug is racist.

#123, 125, 126

There's two separate issues here. One seems to be the suggestion that highly paid people will put up with more shit (i.e. being told how to dress) because, we, as non-highly-paid people, would take a lot of shit to get that kind of money. But that's not what happened, it's not like Stern offered everyone a 25% raise if they dressed up. It's just a policy change. So Todd, while I'm sure you'd wear just about anything for the right price, that's irrelevant here. The question is, if you had no dress code, and then "the man" told you dress a certain way to make you more appealing, would you resent it?

Secondly, the part of it that is perceived as racist is the "image" part of it. Is it racist? I don't really care, but I'm saying that some players probably see it that way, and if that's how they see it then they aren't "whining" by complaining. Here's how one might see it:

"So David Stern wants to change your image, black ballplayer. He thinks your gangsta style of dress turns off white NBA viewers. And you know it's all about how whitey feels, so you just be a good little colored baller and dress up for whitey so you don't make whitey uncomfortable, just like you always have."

I don't care whether or not this is the right interpretation of Stern's dress code, I'm saying I think some people could interpret it this way, and if they did they have every right to be offended.

Get it? Or am I hopelessly racist because I dare conjecture about how a black twenty-something ballplayer might feel about an old white guy telling him what to do?

have I mentioned I'm like, super hardcore racist? PS pacman jones does bad stuff. What a thug.

127: What 129 said. Pacman's, what, a 1000 times more valuable than Koren? I don't see him getting cut, ever, unless he's convicted of a violent crime... and even then I'd be surprised.

Great players can get away with an awful lot.

#129:

Oddly enough, Pacman Jones on a 1-year suspension is exactly as good as Koren Robinson on a 1-year suspension.

> Glenn, what the hell are you talking about?

I'm talking about you failing to address in any substantive way your original premise (I don't really care about the racial argument):

“The problem is, the issue (i.e. thuggish behavior) is much more widespread in the NBA.�

If we're dishing out stereotypes, then mine is that while NBA players may have more typically embraced the trappings of so-called gangsta culture, NFL players are involved in at least as much if not more actual criminal behavior (see the reference in .62 to "Pros and Cons"). In this area at least I'm more impressed by substance and fact than "image". It's befuddling to me that you can take up this charge against the entire NBA but are willing to gloss over the very same issues in the NFL, league-wide (i.e. not just Pacman Jones, not just the Cincinnati Bengals, etc.).

#134: Keep in mind Koren Robinson had over 1200 yards receiving his second year. We tend to think of him as a scrub now, but he wasn't one before.

Re #135
Yeah, and exactly as good as Josh Evans during his one-year suspension, after which he returned to the team. Short of a criminal conviction/plea requiring incarceration during the football season, I don't think the Titans cut him.

#132 I honestly don't know if I'd resent it. I would hope that I would think through the policy change before speaking to any reporters about it, and conclude that it's not a big deal, and that would be that. Would that actually happen? Who knows. At some point I would conclude that not many people would have any sympathy for me if I complained.

For the third paragraph, I think you can make a lot of changes sound bad if you focus on just the negative aspects. For instance, I might add at the very end "so you can continue to get paid approximately 40 times the median household income."

I don't really know how following a dress code fits with racism. But, hey, if I should be feeling resentful about dress codes, I want to know. Because right now I don't.

#138: Did Evans have a problem after that again? No.

I'm sure the Seahawks released Robinson because they were pretty sure he wouldn't stop. I'm pretty sure the Vikings did too.

If it's going to be a perpetual problem, what's the point of keeping him?

The question is whether or not the Titans think that he'll clean up his act.

132

"The question is, if you had no dress code, and then “the man� told you dress a certain way to make you more appealing, would you resent it?"

Umm, we pretty much all deal with that. The PROs are just being whiney about it.

If you check the link, Evans was suspended for four games during the 1999 season, lost a full year during the 2000 season, and was later given a "lifetime" suspension, later reduced to 10 games, after he signed with the Jets as a free agent (this last isn't fully explained in the link). By the time he reached FA status, the Titans let him go, in part because they were concentrating on their "top" players and trying to keep the pieces together as best they could (the year they lost Evans to FA was the year they drafted Haynesworth in the first round).

Evans was a talented player with problems, and the Titans kept him around to extract what value they could out of him. I expect them to do the same thing with Pacman.

"Oddly enough, Pacman Jones on a 1-year suspension is exactly as good as Koren Robinson on a 1-year suspension."

True, but after that suspension is over, the effectiveness of Pacman Jones becomes much greater than that of Koren Robinson.

I don’t really know how following a dress code fits with racism.

A dress code affects how you look.
How you look is part of your identity.
Your race is also part of your identity.

Thus, a dress code could be interpreted to mean that your identity should be changed for public consumption. If you associate your identity strongly with your race, then you could perceive someone enforcing a dress code as someone who was trying to deprive you of your racial identity.

Note the liberal usage of could in that paragraph.

Re #144
And the way the NBA dress code was interpreted was the players didn't look the way the rich middle-aged white guys who buy the expensive seats and boxes thought they should look.

#141

Has the dress code at your job always existed? Were you aware of it when you started?

If the dress code at your job has changed drastically while you were there, did people complain?

Is it possible to have a dress code that should be complained about, or is any complaint about something that trivial "whiney?"

I don't think it can really be reduced down to a simple calculation such as 'will he do it again'--it involves his value to the team, his cap number, his trade value (i.e. value to other teams), the PR problems he causes for the Titans organization, the likelihood of him missing time, etc. That said, I would be surprised if he missed time during the season, and I would also be surprised if the Titans released him. The least they can do is get a second day pick for him from some team lacking a quality CB (and thats a lot of teams). Hell, the Redskins are dumb enough and looking for one (sorry, obligatory joke).

Huh. I forgot Evans got in trouble again. Been a while.

Evans was a talented player with problems, and the Titans kept him around to extract what value they could out of him. I expect them to do the same thing with Pacman.

Eh... probably. Pacman's got a 5 year contract, and he's halfway through it. If he ends up getting suspended for a year at some point, I'd doubt they resign him. Why would they give guaranteed money to someone they don't know will be able to contribute from week to week?

I could see either happening, honestly.

146, so the NFL changing the color of the socks you can wear is racist? Because thats the same thing.

Yes, my dresscode at work has changed. Nobody thought it was racism, and FWIW, it was disallowing jeans and requiring ties.

A couple of points

# I think the problem with the NBA dress code was that the league was being marketed in hip hop terms. They then tried to have their cake and eat it, when the bad side of this 'hip hop lifestyle' became more apparent.

# People saying "if i had 10 million dollars..I would shape up" etc are way off base. no amount of money can make up for the fact that his dad was shot and his mom was in prison. These are not excuses but it is still insensitive to say you have money now, get over all the bad things that happened to you, and quell that anger and pain that drove you to succeed in the first place. I cannot imagine my life if my mom and dad had not been there when i was young, but I can imagine alot of anger. I can also imagine that it would be very hard to stop being angry and and arrogant(as a defense).

Yea he should ditch his friends, but that is hard to do. As mentioned in the article he can be scared and insular in new situations and his friends to him, are his family.

Anyway i hope he makes it through as I do feel sorry for him. He may have alot of money but that cannot make up for a loving, complete family and good role models at an early age.

What he has to do is try to make himself responsible for his actions rather than his past.

A couple of points

# I think the problem with the NBA dress code was that the league was being marketed in hip hop terms. They then tried to have their cake and eat it, when the bad side of this 'hip hop lifestyle' became more apparent.

# People saying "if i had 10 million dollars..I would shape up" etc are way off base. no amount of money can make up for the fact that his dad was shot and his mom was in prison. These are not excuses but it is still insensitive to say you have money now, get over all the bad things that happened to you, and quell that anger and pain that drove you to succeed in the first place. I cannot imagine my life if my mom and dad had not been there when i was young, but I can imagine alot of anger. I can also imagine that it would be very hard to stop being angry and and arrogant(as a defense).

Yea he should ditch his friends, but that is hard to do. As mentioned in the article he can be scared and insular in new situations and his friends to him, are his family.

Anyway i hope he makes it through as I do feel sorry for him. He may have alot of money but that cannot make up for a loving, complete family and good role models at an early age.

What he has to do is try to make himself responsible for his actions rather than his past.

146, so the NFL changing the color of the socks you can wear is racist? Because thats the same thing.

It's not the same thing. Socks are part of the playing uniform. No one is expressing their identity by wearing a uniform, that's why it's called a uniform.

152 And if your clothes are so important to you, and are your only way of expressing your identity, you need help.

The Dress Code is a uniform.

Ahhh.. that's how you know it's the offseason: we have been threadjacked by a debate on the POTENTIAL RACISM OF SOCK -CHANGING.

Is it racist to suggest to a waitress that she wear more flair?

Re #154
"Potential" racism of sock-policies? I can't be the only one to point out that dress socks, of the sort you wear with formal work clothing, tend to be black and brown, while casual socks, of the sort I wear while not working are white. Gee, no association going on here WHATSOEVER. I mean, how unsubtle can you get?
--Snark off.

If the Titans aren't going to cut Jones, Jeff Fisher (and earlier Titans' GM Mike Reinfeldt) are nonetheless making some suggestive statements:

"The organization feels the need to be able to trust each other, its players, and once that trust is violated on a repeated basis, then one could come to their own conclusions," (Jeff) Fisher said, according to The Tennessean.

I'd rather argue with a hungry pregnant woman than "debate" Rich Conley...

#153

And if your clothes are so important to you, and are your only way of expressing your identity, you need help.

No one said anything about the "only" way. How about a "valid" way?

Shouldn't you be yelling at some kids to get off your lawn?

149: The NFL uniform code is completely different from the NBA dress code. The uniform code applies to the uniform worn while playing the game. This is primarily intended to keep competition fair (no dressing DBs in opposing colors and giving them receiver numbers), though the NFL has a tendency to go, shall we say, overboard with regulations like acceptable chinstrap and sock colors. The NBA dress code applies to what can be worn during and around games by players not in game uniform.

A change in NFL sock colors does not entertain charges of racism because it is a fairly insubstantial change to a competition-related code. This sort of change would be more akin to the NBA banning tights, which did not produce the sort of uproar that the institution of the dress code did.

Note further that the dress code was explicitly adopted to improve the league's image with its audience, which does happen to be much whiter than the league's makeup. This opens charges of racism; I personally think the issue is more class, as I expect that upper and middle class NBA fans of all races have essentially the same negative impressions of many players.

While I don't know your work situation, I expect that the reason that nobody cried racism is that the changes were not enacted to improve the image of a racially homogeneous profession among a clientele that is predominantly of a different race.

*passes torch to #160 and goes home for the night*

Re #159
But I would've gotten away with it, if it weren't for you drugged-out, high meddling kits and your talking dog with his uber-annoying cousin.

> I’d rather argue with a hungry pregnant woman than “debate� Rich Conley…

Sounds like you speak from experience...

Re: 163

Not exactly but I imagine she'd make more sensible and rational arguments...

I gave up after the NBA dress code vs. NFL socks bit...

Ye Gods, what a train wreck this thread has become.

"The NBA are just a bunch of thugs." Way to over-generalize there, sport. Whether you're racist or not, you're certainly engaging in guilt-by-association and wild prejudice. "...when you say thug, I see big italian guy." And yet I don't see the NBA dominated by big Italian guys anymore. Do you watch the same NBA I do?

"Pacman Jones is a thug. Hes also black. Neither are related." And yet, the words "black" and "thug" are related in this culture by racial connotation and American popular culture. Do you not live in this culture? Are you not aware of the racial relationship that exists between these two words -i.e. have you lived under a (very white) rock for the last decade?

"Violent crime is more common in the inner city." And speaking of codewords - nice Willy Horton gambit there. Could you any more openly invoke Nixon and Reagan's Southern Strategy, associating the NBA (and all its "thuggish" black men) with crime and urban life?

I'll give you a different quote. “It is better to keep your mouth closed and let people think you are a fool than to open it and remove all doubt.� (Mark Twain)

Go away. Get some (professional) help.

When you have a wildly ridiculous (and racist) argument, it's always nice when somebody throws you a bone and allows you to switch playing fields (dress code, which I'd say he's wrong about too). RC has done a great job of not answering post 136.

I'm curious as to how many of the posters here actually follow the NBA on a daily basis. If you did, I doubt you'd be so quick to jump all over Sophrandos for suggesting that race might play a part in the NBA's sad public image (not reality). Easily the worst part of being an NBA fan is knowing that anytime any player gets in the slightest bit of trouble, you will have to hear and read a whole bunch of "the NBA is a bunch of thugs", "there is something wrong with the sociology of the NBA", "the NBA is affiliated with gangsta/hip hop (black) culture" shit while football and baseball get a free pass. Nearly all of which comes from white people who don't follow the sport much, coincidentally enough. When there is a minor fight in an NBA game (Knicks/Nuggets) you know that everyone is going to overreact and act like something terrible has happened. When it happens in baseball, people just laugh, as they should. People like Chris and Rich are perfectly happy to act as though dickheads like Ron Artest and Steven Jackson represent the NBA as a whole, but if you try the same argument with PacMan Jones, Tank Johnson and the Cincinattica Bengals you are told "it's not fair to act like they represent the entire NFL". And yes Rich, asking your majority black athletes to "dress up" to appeal to a majority white fan base certainly has racial overtones as long as you're not in denial.

"The NBA went wrong when you replace the Jordans, Pippers, Ewings, and Olajuwons with the Spreewells, Jacksons, and Artests." This is total bullshit. Do you actually know anything about the NBA or do you just follow it through Bill O'Reilly and Rush Limbaugh? This type of nonsense just leads me to believe that the "problem with the NBA" doesn't lie with the players, but the perceptions of the people in the stands.

This thread is screwy.

Pacman is still just a kid. A damaged kid at that. The titans appear to have been negligent to some extent. To pull a kid from a poor and troubled background and shower him with money is a recipe for disaster. To make it to where he has shows tremendous strength of character i think. I hope this las vegas thing is the catalyst to him seeing the big picture and leaving the antisocial bullsh*t behind.

The saddest thing about all of it is i'm sure the Rich is NOT racist nor does he mean to be. It's just so easy to judge NBA players by what the media feeds us about them.

A good friend (who works in the news biz) put it best when he pointed out that in the last 20 years the demographic that plays in the NBA has lowered in age while the same guys who were covering it in the 80's still is. So you basically have 40-60 year old white guys trying to understand/relate to/report on 18 - 25 year old black guys.

Even with the best of intentions this is a PR disaster waiting to happen.

Re #170. Yeah, pretty much. A lot of the stuff about the NBA I hear and read is so similar that most of it strikes me more as poorly thought out repeatings of the conventional "wisdom" than anything genuinely malicious and/or racist. It's still wrong though.

Luke, I'm going to disagree with you about that. To me, tremendous strength of character would mean getting into none of the trouble in which he's found himself.

He may be displaying character on some occasions, but I don't think it's wrong to expect anyone, even those from very difficult backgrounds, to avoid convictions, especially felonies (although so far it seems he has no felony convictions: the first was bargained down and the second has yet to be tried).

I think praising Pac-Man for staying out of trouble 360 days a year does a disservice to the people who grew up in similar situations and do not find themselves in jail on a regular basis.

Is it difficult to do that for someone with Jones' background? I'd imagine so: I can't say from personal experience, because I'd guess my childhood wasn't quite as bad, and of course we're not likely to read about the millions of kids who grew up like that and didn't have the fortune to end up in a career where their backgrounds would become news material, so we really can't tell how often it occurs.

But I don't think there's anything wrong with wanting it to occur more often, for more kids who grow up like that to grow up to become responsible adults. Not just with Pac-Man, not just with NFL players, not just with men, not just with blacks, not with any individual segment. With anyone who falls into that category.

172: I agree with you, zlionsfan. Yes, I feel bad that Pacman Jones grew up with such disadvantages. And I could even understand if he had certain problems; things like drug use and general lack of professionalism would make sense given his background. However, Pacman has had some very violent trangressions, including some that show complete disrespect towards women. To me, it seems that his behavior is a result of both his poor upbringing (not his fault) and an overall thuggish nature (most definitely his fault).
To put it simply, there are people who act like he does who have had every advantage available to them as a child, so being a complete d-bag isn't necessarily a result of his unfortunate youth.

A 23 year old is not a kid. At 23, I would guess most people on this thread had jobs and paid bills. Jones has a child. That child is a kid. Jones is supposed to be the adult.

I follow you if you're going to make an argument about stunted/poorly guided metal and emotional development, but that is not to say he is a kid.

I wonder how old Zip is. Only in America could a dress code be considered "racist". The rich white players have to wear a jacket and tie just like the rich black players. The rich white players are "denied the ability to express themselves through their clothes" the same that the rich black players are.

I think this thread went from 'strange' to 'spiraling out of control' at about #70.

175: As has been said repeatedly, the dress code is not racist. Many people think the motivation behind the dress code is, and not completely without reason.

IMO if the government would just ban dreadlocks and tattoos the thug problem would go away by itself

I'm pretty sure a dress code could be considered racist in Europe. See Headscarves, France.

179: Thanks, I tried to post that exact point about 10 times but wordpress kept denying me.

137: Beg to differ. Koren basically stunk his entire career. His best season was 26th in DPAR and I think 42d in DVOA (and okay season), but his other seasons weren't even half that good. Bleh.

Enough football. Where the white women at?

Chris, I truelly think you're a kind of troll. Each time you post, it's agressive, you vs the rest of the world because you're right and everybody else is wrong. Frankly, it's boring.
And why ? Why ? Why are you all foccusiong on the fact the guy is black when the whole story is about his childhood and his loyalty to his former friends ? The guy is felling guilty because he earns a lot of money ! Just like the survivor of a car crash asking "why am i still alive when they're all dead?".
He sure needs to cut ties with some of his friends and a good mentor, he needs an analysis and to accept his success. Nothing to do with the fact he's black, white or chinese... Please, speak football.

Oh, and Canto rules !

This was the most awesome extra point discussion ever. Point people forget about the nba dress code, everybody complained BEFORE it had actually been put into place because Stern just made it up like a week before the season started. After that, you haven't heard anybody complain. Much like the switching of game balls, communication was a bigger problem than the actual issue.

#175

I wonder how old Zip is.

If your first entry into a discussion is questioning someone's age, you might want to rethink if you have anything worth saying.

Actually #11 Sophandros brought race into the thread when he played the race card.

this whole nba vs. nfl argument is silly. EVERY big-money professional sport (with the possible exception of golf) has its share of off-field misbehavior. when you mix raging testosterone, a sense of entitlement and lots of money... bad things happen.

I think we need to clarify a distinction between two different kinds of problem behaviour among athletes.

On the one hand, any number of NFL, NBA, Premiership or whatever else players are young, stupid, arrogant and suddenly rich. They get drunk, take recreational drugs, and get in stupid drunken fights while partying, then drive home drunk. This is the Bengals, this is Wayne Rooney, this is John Terry before the shock of the assault charge prompted him to clean his act up. This is what a significant minority of young men would act like if they had the opportunity by dint of wealth and fame. It shouldn't be tolerated but it seems to be inevitable.

Then there is Pac-Man. For anyone who has read The Blind Side, I would speculate that Jones grew up in an environment not too dissimilar to the one Michael Oher did, in which there was seen to be no prospect of ever getting real employment, leaving kids to grow up dreaming of becoming pro sportsmen while gradually accepting that the only realistic way for them to earn a living would be to deal drugs or work for people who did. The issue is not just that his father was killed and his mother did time; it's that that was probably not that out of the ordinary for the area. That's also an environment in which incredibly close interpersonal bonds can be formed. Jones may well know that some of his friends are extremely bad for him, but be unprepared to cut them loose anyway. Intimate association of professional athletes with violent organised crime is a phenomenon much different and largely unrelated to the one I previously described. As far as I know, it's unheard of in the UK. I find it hard to blame the players in question, but it's a very serious problem which they may well be unable to resolve.

Lest anyone think I'm American-bashing, by the way, click the link for an example of a third type of criminality by sportsmen, far less excusable than either of the others, which I have never heard of taking place in America. Tangentally, I am not aware of "thug" being used with racist connotations in the UK, and the first person I think of when I use the term, be the context sporting or otherwise, is the (white) gentleman whose Wiki page is linked.

182- I have a lot of testosterone bra. I was a football player, and I tend to be aggressive.

are we calling nfl and nba players who get in trouble off the court thugs because they're black, and "thug" has become some derogatory code for african-american? does the fact that these people make loads of money and still act like idiots make any difference? if i acted like pac-man, white as i am, i'd be in prison right now. this guy, because of his fame and fortune, can get arrested several times for relatively serious crimes without any serious repercussions. that's the problem i have with sports players, and celebrities in general. when the sports leagues start disciplining their employees, and when those employees stop whining about how they're not making $20 million a year, then i might respect them. for now i'll just enjoy the sport and try to pretend they're not cheaters, thugs, and overpaid babies.

187- I read the Blindside, and I enjoy some of Michael Lewis's other work too like Liars Poker and Moneyball.

But as a man, as an adult, people can't go out and consistantly infringe upon others rights. Look at what Pacmans PR person said, something to the effect of "mess with him and you'll get it"?

Adam Jones is not normal. He's not a normal citizen. People make mistakes. We would all by lying if we said that some of our friends never got DUI's or got into bar fights etc. but 11 times in what, a 3-5 year span? Assaulting women?

There is something to say for giving somebody a second chance, but an 11th chance? It's riddulous. How many chances do you give the guy?

Do you have to wait until he is the one that phsycially pulls the trigger?

Re 185:
Yeah, we need to give a fair shake to all those bigots and not sterotype them as all being racist. That's where the race card leads.

#170, there's a 25 year old book Bill Simmons had in his last Vegas column describing that phenomena. it's a problem the NBA has... kind of how baseball is stuck with the steroid issue. oh well....

"And yet, the words “black� and “thug� are related in this culture by racial connotation and American popular culture"

NO, NO THEY ARE NOT.

Maybe to you, but the vast majority of american culture does not associate the worth thug with black people. THats my major issue here. Its a term that has absolutely no racial undertones.

189.

"are we calling nfl and nba players who get in trouble off the court thugs because they’re black, and “thug� has become some derogatory code for african-american?"

EXACTLY.

I'm calling pacman a thug because hes a thug, not becuause he's black.

If you can't believe that, you need to take off your race-colored-glasses.

Rich, someone up post asked this but I haven't seen an answer.

You note in almost every post that the NBA is full of thugs.

And yet you also write,"when you say thug, I see big italian guy."

Am I missing something? Has the NBA been overrun with big italian guys and I've just missed it?

I’m calling pacman a thug because hes a thug, not becuause he’s black.

Sigh.

No one is arguing that Pacman isn't a thug, and no one called you a racist for calling Pacman a thug.

Did you forget that you said "The NBA are just a bunch of thugs. " back in #12?

Yeah, that's what people are calling you on.

At this point, I don't give a crap about the race involved, I just want to know if NBA players actually commit more crimes per capita than NFL players.

Do your own due dilligence.

And the whole interest of this site is his readers aren't (weren't) your typical football fan shooting "I'm a big guy full of testoterone, I have a big di##. Let's see who can pee the furthest."
Hopefully, it's just one or two guys here, very active posters, but still limited in number... And there are a lot more posters interesting to read.

"You note in almost every post that the NBA is full of thugs.

And yet you also write,�when you say thug, I see big italian guy.�

Am I missing something? Has the NBA been overrun with big italian guys and I’ve just missed it? "

Because this isnt a race thing, although you seem to insist that it is.

zip, I can't find anything for number for either league as far as crime rates go. Everytime I search, i get 50 pages of shit about the bengals.

One thing that keeps popping up though, which surprised me, is that blacks are involved in significantly more violent crime than any other race, and thats pretty much worldwide, not just in the US.

#200

Yeah, I doubt the answer is out there, at least not on the first few pages of a google search.

I guess that's why I dislike the implication that the NBA has worse behaving players than the NFL, because like most things in the world, the media shoves anecdotal evidence down your throat and never shows you the big picture.

Furthermore, this is FO, which is supposed to be a data-driven football discussion site, not just your average "my team's dick is bigger than your team's" type of place -- so I don't think blanket statements without data like "the NBA is a bunch of thugs" should be allowed to slide.

199 -
You're avoiding the question. Based on your own definition (perception), thugs are big Italian guys.

How does your definition fit with calling NBA players thugs?

Ignore all racial elements (none are implied), I'm just curious if you can put the two concepts together.

I'm really not trying to be snarky or rude. I'm not calling you a racist or saying your arguments are racial.

I really just can't see how these two (thugs - big italian guys (again, this is your definition/perception of thugs): NBA is full of thugs)can co-exist.

> Because this isnt a race thing, although you seem to insist that it is.

I think you only validated the opposing point of view on racial association though when you introduced the "big Italian guy" stereotype for a thug (simply substituting an ethnic one for a racial one-- hey, why didn't you go Irish?). There may have been no original ill intent, but it just may be possible that some language is loaded when applied with such a broad brush, like to an entire sports league that is 90% black. You've since clarified which is great, but it's something to consider at least (as we all have to, in one way or another).

"You’re avoiding the question. Based on your own definition (perception), thugs are big Italian guys.

How does your definition fit with calling NBA players thugs?"

Stop putting words in my mouth. I said I usually picture thugs as big italian guys as a way of showing that the word "Thug" does not have some innate "blackness" to it. Nothing more.

"I think you only validated the opposing point of view on racial association though when you introduced the “big Italian guy� stereotype for a thug"

That point was introduced as a counter point to someone saying that thug was an inherently anti-black term. Which is bullshit.

#200:
One thing that keeps popping up though, which surprised me, is that blacks are involved in significantly more violent crime than any other race, and thats pretty much worldwide, not just in the US.

this is just insanely ignorant. "blacks" are not a single group that can be statistically measured worldwide. you can cherry pick data from the u.s. and brazil to come up with such "facts," but they're meaningless because race isn't something that is measurable like this.

from wikipedia:

Since the 1940s, some evolutionary scientists have rejected the view of race according to which any number of finite lists of essential characteristics could be used to determine a like number of races. For example, the convention of categorizing the human population based on human skin colors has been used, but hair colors, eye colors, nose sizes, lip sizes, and heights have not. The general opinion among the vast majority of social scientists is to reject the notion that common race definitions, or any race definitions pertaining to humans, have any taxonomic rigour and validity[1]. Mainstream scientists have thus argued that race definitions are imprecise, arbitrary, derived from custom, have many exceptions, have many gradations, and that the numbers of races observed vary according to the culture examined. They further maintain that "race" as such is best understood as a social construct, and they prefer to conceptualize and analyze human genotypic and phenotypic variation in terms of populations and clines instead.

"this is just insanely ignorant. “blacks� are not a single group that can be statistically measured worldwide. you can cherry pick data from the u.s. and brazil to come up with such “facts,� but they’re meaningless because race isn’t something that is measurable like this."

Most scientists/anthropologists, etc, would disagree. Just because you can find a wiki link that says some scientists disagree doesnt make it true.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Race_and_crime

The linked article has some thoughts on the subject. I'd never heard of him before today so no recommendation on his work but if you google Richard Lapchick you can find a number of articles about the subject. I haven't been able to find any actual studies with data though.

Dave

re 206

the key word there being some.

206

To argue that race is a completely social construct, and not biological, you'd have to prove that there is nothing that is biologically prevalent across certain races. Sicle cell anemia, and a whole horde of genetic diseases have wildly different incidence rates across certain races.

> That point was introduced as a counter point to someone saying that thug was an inherently anti-black term.

That wasn't precisely my point-- the term isn't inherently racist, so feel free to use it *where it properly fits*. My objection was to the obvious association when used in a stereotype. In the right environment, if I say "the NBA are just a bunch of thugs" or "the north end of Boston (or Southie, whatever) are just a bunch of thugs", either one, I should be expecting a knuckle sandwich in return. And that's not just political correctness around language, it's about common sense, and decency.

"“the north end of Boston (or Southie, whatever)"

I spent a large part of my life in and out of Southie and Dorchester. MOst of that area would be proud of being called a bunch of thugs.

> MOst of that area would be proud of being called a bunch of thugs.

That might be the problem. I'd expect to get my ass kicked for the statement just the same...

I will now leave this thread to find a hungry pregnant woman to argue with...

you're kidding me, right? that wikipedia article (race and crime) doesn't prove a thing, unless you conflate african americans, canadian inuits, indigenous south americans, aboriginal australians and west indian UK immigrants into one group. your views aren't necessarily racist, but they are racialist. do you think there's some kind of gene in their dark skin that makes them all criminals?

Sicle cell anemia, and a whole horde of genetic diseases have wildly different incidence rates across certain races.

Tay-Sachs disease has a higher incidence among those of Jewish decent, but you don't call "Jewish" a separate race.

Sickle-cell anemia has to do with distance from Africa, not race. It just happens that Africa happens to be located on the equator, and skin color is distributed by distance from the equator. The prevalence of sickle-cell anemia in the black population in the US has been dropping constantly. Sickle-cell anemia has a high prevalence in India, even though they're a completely different culture/anthropology than Africans.

Sociologically, race has far more to do with skin color and appearance and partially culture than it does genetics. The "genetics" portion is just an artifact due to the fact that humans couldn't move around as fast as they do now.

#208:

uh, did you read the whole paragraph?

The general opinion among the vast majority of social scientists...

Two hundred and fifteenth! Yes!!!

“...the words “black� and “thug� are related in this culture by racial connotation and American popular culture."

That's your perception.

"Do you not live in this culture? Are you not aware of the racial relationship that exists between these two words -i.e. have you lived under a (very white) rock for the last decade?"

What an incredibly ignorant thing to say I hope that you're the only person here who doesn't understand that there's a whole group of people, all over the world, who pay very little attention to American Pop Culture.

I'm going to take a stab here and say and assume you know virtually nothing about the guy. Do you even know if he owns a TV?

Even if a person is aware of pop culture, some of those refuse, as is their prerogative, to acknowledge the perceived change in a word's definition.

Honestly, some of you are so wrapped up in your own little world that it stupefies me.

". The “genetics� portion is just an artifact due to the fact that humans couldn’t move around as fast as they do now."

Which doesnt make it any less valid. The fact that its due to genetic grouping more than anything else doesnt make it any less valid.

Theres a reason theres more black in professional sports (atleast NBA/NFL) than whites: Theyre genetically predisposed to being bigger/faster/stronger. Genetic race characteristics do exist.

Is that you, Jimmy the Greek? Or is it Al Campanis?

Oh boy.

Can we get another thread now?

What was the name of that Nebraska RB that got multiple chances and IIRC was most recently charged with running over some people after he played a game of pick-up football with them?

Do you think that this past year is more of a cyclical thing? Are there more incidents involving football now or is that just a perception? It seems obvious that it's just perception simply from the quote I got in post #61. However, does this affect the league at all, or is this just a flash in the pan?

Lawrence Phillips.

Riiight.

So, he was talented enough for multiple comebacks - Jones apparently is more talented, or at least that's the impression I get if it seems likely that Jones will still be able to stick with teams while Phillips kept getting cut and signing with CFL teams.

Chris,

Take a freakin hint.

Dogmatic. Troll. Argumentative. You vs. the world.

Just some of the words that have described your posting habits.

As I've said before...the other children at the ESPN message boards miss you...please go back.

Bra.

The fact that its due to genetic grouping more than anything else doesnt make it any less valid.

Yes, it does. A hundred generations from now, black people in America will still look just as black, their culture will probably still be just as black, but sickle cell anemia will be basically at the same level as in Caucasians.

Genetic race characteristics do exist.

No - genetic traits exist. Anyone with a stronger, faster, bigger father has a higher chance to be stronger, faster, or bigger.

Race is pretty much entirely determined by skin color (which is four to six genes) and culture (not genetic at all).

The fact that race shows some genetic prevalences is just due to the fact that, like I said, there hasn't been a ton of interbreeding yet. Give it a few thousand generations, and "races" will still exist, but the genetic traits you're associating to them will not.

You're mixing up correlation and causation.

"Just because you can find a wiki link that says some scientists disagree doesnt make it true."

Jesus...at least his argument has some referencial validity on wikipedia. Your's is. "Bullshit, I'm a opinionated Southie loud-mouth jerk from Boston and I'm freakin correct."

> "that there’s a whole group of people, all over the world, who pay very little attention to American Pop Culture."

Not that I wholly agree with the original statement ("the words “black� and “thug� are related in this culture by racial connotation and American popular culture"), but I think you'd have to acknowledge that this discussion around perception of the NBA with regard to race is highly American culture-centric. And if as you say one just "refuses" to acknowledge changes in meaning of an evolving language, well, you're going to run into all kinds of difficulties-- and not just with this issue.

It doesn't bother me at all that words and language mean different things to different people; that's to be expected. It's more that some apparently won't consider or don't care that a stereotypical statement could possibly be offensive to someone else. I've been in the situation before where I've stepped it in deep, and beyond any personal stubbornness on my part, why would I just assume that the feedback I receive is wrong and refuse to take it under advisement? That seems a totally unnecessary battle to wage, once both parties understand what each means.

Pat, i think most of us pretty much agree with you. the idea of races will still exist. the problem is that human biology is too complicated to divide between white, black, asian, etc. Racial classifications are just shorthand methods of making social distinctions. They can't reveal greater biology-based truths about intelligence, athletic prowess or criminality. That's why his statement about worldwide crime rates by blacks is so irresponsible.

re 215

Yeah and i kept reading beyond the paragraph. 54 percent of cultural anthopologists dont belive that races exist. 16 percent of biologists don't think there are races. I trust the biologists. This is from the same wiki article you were quoting. Recognizing races exist doesn't mean that races are better or worse. And it doesn't mean that a lot of people, or even entire nationalities aren't mixtures. I'm not agreeing that races are more likely to be criminals. I'm just agreeing with the majority of biologists who beleive beased on genetic evidence that races exist.

#218: There's actually a good pair of papers on this here and here, if you're really interested. Basically, the point's simple - there's far, far more genetic diversity in any given race than there is between two races (like, 20 times more).

Any genetic traits you assign to one race now (other than skin color, obviously) are purely temporary. They're correlated, but they're not caused by it.

I’m just agreeing with the majority of biologists who beleive beased on genetic evidence that races exist.

That's because there's no good definition of the word "race".

It's like asking people if God exists. What the word means to each person is something different. It's a stupid question, because without a common frame of reference, it doesn't mean anything.

I can give a definition of "race" that would clearly have a biological and repeatable definition. It just wouldn't correlate with most people's opinion of "race".

You ask me, "does a neutrino exist?" and that, I can answer, because there's a common, unique definition of what a neutrino is.

You know, if you people don't like the discussion, you aren't obligated to read it. I have, mostly because like Zip I was hoping someone would eventually come out with a study on it. I did some poking around on journal databases, but most articles are about how people misperceive that athletes are criminals even though their crime rates are lower than the general population. I guess that alone indicates that the NBA isn't a league of thugs though, doesn't it?

This discussion has gone in many directions, but it is ignorance of history that leads people (in this case, Rich) to believe that race is anything more than a social construction. There was once a time when different social classes were referred to as "races." People only crafted the modern idea of "race" as an explanation for European success during the colonial period. Because there is no such thing as an absolute version of a "race," there is no combination of traits that are absolutely associated with them.

Notice the key phrase from the Wikipedia article: "they prefer to conceptualize and analyze human genotypic and phenotypic variation in terms of populations and clines instead."

So yes, populations that live in malaria-prone regions like equatorial Africa or India are prone to sickle-cell, because it's an adaptation to that disease, not a "racial trait." Black people who are in North America, as Pat has pointed out, are subject to selective pressure against sickle-cell because it only provides disadvantages. With enough generations, will they be a new "race?" The slave population of people in North America had a variety of traits selected for by their human masters, most notably size/strength. Hence many of the "racial" traits you imagine blacks to have would not apply to people in Africa, despite being the same "race" because they have the same skin color.

The point is that so many traits are spread across so many different populations that you cannot attribute anything to any "race" as presently imagined (and they are imagined... hence the comment about the number of "races" varying widely).

For those of you concerned about "thuggery" please focus your ire on the NHL...

...or are there not enough tattoos and cornrows?

Well, Pat managed to write like 5 posts saying what I said before mine got finished, so I'm sorry about the redundancy. Just to agree with Pat, if I was asked "is there such a thing as race," I would answer "yes," even though I doubt that what I mean by that (that society thinks there is, which makes it true in a sense) is the same as most people.

Oh, just to weigh in on the "thug" thing... I don't think it's really debatable that the word has racial associations, even if, as many posters have rightly pointed out, it also has a racially neutral meaning that is most likely what was meant here.
Ever heard of Slim Thug? Bone Thugs 'n Harmony? Thug Life, Thug Motivation, Thug Love? I mean come on. You don't find the same things for synonyms like "criminal" "ruffian" "goon," etc. in rap groups because they aren't associated with black culture. Obviously "thug" is a little more borderline than if someone said "The NBA is full of gangstas" or "homeboys," but it's not as if the term is totally race-neutral.

#232: In fact, I wonder how many distinct "families" there actually are in sports. There are a huge number of related athletes in the NFL, for instance, and so a lot of the "black people are in a lot of sports" might just be a small handful of families who have produced a lot of athletes.

Clearly the "white quarterback" phenomenon is partially biased by this. There are at least, what, 4 second-generation white quarterbacks in the NFL?

"No - genetic traits exist. Anyone with a stronger, faster, bigger father has a higher chance to be stronger, faster, or bigger.

Race is pretty much entirely determined by skin color (which is four to six genes) and culture (not genetic at all).

The fact that race shows some genetic prevalences is just due to the fact that, like I said, there hasn’t been a ton of interbreeding yet. Give it a few thousand generations, and “races� will still exist, but the genetic traits you’re associating to them will not."

Pat, it doesnt matter. The fact is, an average black male has a better chance of having the necessary skills to fit in the NFL. Whether that is because of "blackness" or becuase of geographical seperation is irrelevant. Its still "black people are more likely ot have that skillset"

Its still “black people are more likely ot have that skillset�

No.

The "fact" is this: Someone who has that skillset is more likely to be black. That's a fact, because of the prevalence in the NFL of black athletes.

The statement you made is the inverse (if Q then P) which is not necessarily true.

You're presuming causation.

235: An interesting idea, although I guess we'll never really get extended family information. We can think of about a million examples of related people though... the Barbers, the Mannings, the Simmses, the Clausens, Willy Mays/Barry Bonds, Vince Carter/Tracy McGrady...
Obviously it runs in families, I guess the biggest thing would be finding out if there's an even wider net, like the Mannings are distantly related to the Simms or something.

"Yes, it does. A hundred generations from now, black people in America will still look just as black, their culture will probably still be just as black, but sickle cell anemia will be basically at the same level as in Caucasians."

Right, and I agree that in 100 generations that will be the case.

But its not the case now. The sickle cell gene, and the black skin gene are still essentially linked. The only think that will seperate that is genetic mingling of the races.

Its like saying breathing issues aren't a racial trait of bulldogs, because if you bred them with Labs for 100 generations, the genetic lung issues would be spread evenly across the two races. Right, they would, but we wouldnt be talking about bulldogs and labs anymore.

The point is, whether the collection of traits is race based, or based on geographical seperation, it is silly to ignore that that collection of traits occurs at a high rate in certain populations. Breeding is still less common accross racial lines than it is within races, so theres going to be some pooling of traits.

I really dont see much difference between "he has a high risk of sickle cell anemia because hes black" and "he has a high risk of sickle cell anemia because he belongs to a group that was genetically isolated, and along with having a high rate of incidence of the gene for sickle cell, has a high rate of incidence for the gene for highly pigmented skin"

Theyre functionally the same.

To echo Pat once again, what is actually true is "people who are selectively bred for size and speed over a few centuries are more likely to be NFL-caliber athletes." You also can't say really say "black," you have to use "former slave black," because black immigrants subsequent to slavery don't have the same traits.

"“people who are selectively bred for size and speed over a few centuries are more likely to be NFL-caliber athletes.�"

I completely agree. Now find me a large group of people who have been selectively bred for speed and size, who aren't black.

239: They're close, but they're not the same. It's right to say "black people have a higher incidence of sickle-cell." It's wrong to say "sickle-cell is a black trait."

Your bulldog example is flawed, because we're not saying that black people who breed with white people for 100 generations will not have sickle-cell. Black people breeding ONLY WITH BLACK PEOPLE will eventually lose their sickle cell tendencies, because it is naturally selected against in a non-Malaria-prone country. In other words, "Bulldogs have a higher incidence of breathing problems," but not "breathing problems are a part of being a Bulldog," because other dogs (Pugs, for instance) have the same traits independently. If bulldogs were placed into a situation where their breathing problems were selected against (high elevation, I suppose... actually, maybe anywhere other than human homes) they would lose that trait.

240,

Basically, its not just former slave black. Its anyone who has a single ancestor that is a former slave. Bearing that for the last couple hundred years, mostly blacks have been enslaved, that means mostly blacks. I think the intra-race reproduction is higher than the inter-race, so more of those only a small percentage of those genes/selection have been moved over into other races.

"Black people breeding ONLY WITH BLACK PEOPLE will eventually lose their sickle cell tendencies, because it is naturally selected against in a non-Malaria-prone country"

Well, not really. In most industrialized nations, sickle cell kills well after the reproductive age, so its not really being selected agaisnt.

That being said, my point is that there may be other traits that aren't being selected against within the pool that forms certain races. Sickle cell is just an example.

To ignore that there are genetic predispositions that are prevalent within certain races, and not prevalent in other races is ignorant.

Chris #6:

Why does the NFL need a guy that is smoking weed, gambeling on college football, assaulting women, fighting, having drug deals run though his house, and and at night club shootings?

Well, on the bright side, at least he hasn't impregnated two women he's not married to within 4 months of each other. Let's count our blessings here, no?

1) Can't we all just get along?

2) Omo, did you figure out what "the first level" is pertaining to a running back yet? If you have any more questions, feel free to ask, we have some intelligent people on this site as opposed to your Cbssportsline forumn.

Well, not really. In most industrialized nations, sickle cell kills well after the reproductive age, so its not really being selected agaisnt.

Yes, it is. Hence the reason why sickle-cell anemia has been decreasing in black populations away from Africa.

To ignore that there are genetic predispositions that are prevalent within certain races, and not prevalent in other races is ignorant.

And to argue that the race is the causative factor is just as ignorant. Which is exactly what you're saying when you say "a black person is more likely to be an NFL athlete."

Imagine Archie Manning had 32 boys. They all became starting quarterbacks in the NFL (if you want to mirror reality, suppose Archie had 64 boys). Now, the starting quarterback population in the NFL is 100% white.

But saying "a white person has a higher chance of being a starting quarterback in the NFL than a black person" would be wrong. The original statement ("a starting quarterback in the NFL has a high chance of being white") would be true. The inverse would not.

A white person would have exactly the same (apparent) chance as a black person - zero, unless they're the son of Archie Manning.

Right, they would, but we wouldnt be talking about bulldogs and labs anymore.

Except there is a good definition of "bulldog" that matches up with a genetic subset of "dog".

There is no good definition of "black" which matches up with a genetic subset of "human."

This is the entire point of the two articles linked.

When people start talking about racism, they're talking about a social and skin color construct. Black people with an entirely different set of genetic traits, in a hundred generations (other than skin color), would still be called black.

> And to argue that the race is the causative factor is just as ignorant. Which is exactly what you’re saying when you say “a black person is more likely to be an NFL athlete.�

On a genetic basis, yes. There may indeed be a social/geographic component at work here too. I suppose that's not causative either but if we're talking about large numbers here (as opposed to a specific child born into specific circumstances, as with one of Archie Manning's children) that generality might apply, and you guys would essentially be talking about the same thing.

I completely agree. Now find me a large group of people who have been selectively bred for speed and size, who aren’t black.

So does that mean, in a few more centuries, since they're not being selectively bred for speed and size anymore, black people will no longer be black?

Call Al Sharpton! Black people are on the verge of extinction!

There is no way that genetic predispositions are the reason that black (negro, african-american, descendants of african slaves, etc..) people are unportportionally athletes. Unfortunately for us in the black community, alot of black males in lower socioeconomic situations view drugs/sports as the only way to change their economic profile. The intense competition serves as the filtering mechanism that feeds into the athletic prowess. However, they do this as a detriment to academics until it's too late, because even though they could have done the work at a younger age, they can't now since they haven't used their brains for scholastic (?-sp) purposes in ages.

#251: I think the stat I've heard is that among inner city males of high school age, something like 80% of them believe they'll be professional athletes.

Races are socioeconomic institutions. Their genetic connection is just an artifact.

Pat, I don't know if i agree with the last statement (espically after moving to Phoenix) but i can understand the logic behind it.

"Imagine Archie Manning had 32 boys. They all became starting quarterbacks in the NFL (if you want to mirror reality, suppose Archie had 64 boys)."

Perhaps in 25-30 years all of the starting quarterbacks in the NFL will be sons of Tom Brady or Matt Leinart, and each of them will have a different mother.

254: But just think; the sons of basketball players scrambling around while the sons of models look on in well-groomed admiration. Indeed, the only problem seems to be the stress that would be put on the nation's goat population.

wow, this could set an extra points comments record. I'll have to catch up on this.

And to argue that the race is the causative factor is just as ignorant. Which is exactly what you’re saying when you say “a black person is more likely to be an NFL athlete.�

Pat, I'm going to say this once,. I HAVE NEVER SAID RACE WAS THE CAUSITIVE FACTOR. not fucking once. What I said was that theyre related.

"There is no way that genetic predispositions are the reason that black (negro, african-american, descendants of african slaves, etc..) people are unportportionally athletes. Unfortunately for us in the black community, alot of black males in lower socioeconomic situations view drugs/sports as the only way to change their economic profile."

To use that argument, you have to prove that there is a higher incidence of professional athletes coming from the inner city than from other areas. So you have a study for that, as I havent seen one.'

Do you have a study stating that Poor Black Males perform better athletically than Rich black males? Because that would show the same thing.

#257:

Yes, you did.

That's what (to quote): "Its still “black people are more likely ot have that skillset�" means.

To break it down: the P is "the person is black", Q is "they are more likely (presumedly than average) to have that skillset". You're stating "if P, then Q", when the only evidence you have is "if Q, then P."

Pat, you can stop now. Pretty much everyone else here has figured out how deeply in denial Rich is about his prejudices and stereotypes, and we've all given up. What's the point in trying to argue rationally with an irrational man?

I blame Chris.

Re 261:
We should always blame Chris. And Steven Yang.

'"Its still “black people are more likely ot have that skillset�

No.

The “fact� is this: Someone who has that skillset is more likely to be black. That’s a fact, because of the prevalence in the NFL of black athletes.

The statement you made is the inverse (if Q then P) which is not necessarily true.

You’re presuming causation.'

Actually Pat, I think it takes only a pretty mild assumption about the domain being discussed and an uncontroversial second premise to make Rich's assertion follow logically from yours.

Domain: American males.

1. X has the skillset --> X is more likely to be black
2. X is in the population --> X is more likely to be not black

Entails

3. X is black --> X is more likely to have the skillset

Causation is not mentioned at any stage, only material implication. No counterfactual or causative claim has been made (except the negative one by you, which may well be correct, but which does not contradict Rich).

At least this thread has no Borat, yet.

It's too bad he thinks he has to be true to "the cause." It must be shocking to live in a world where "the cause" doesn't exist, where there isn't a war going on. Little does he know how much he has been brain-washed by this unnecessary war. It could be over for him or he could learn its OK to lay down your arms.

> "Do you have a study stating that Poor Black Males perform better athletically than Rich black males?"

Substituting "middle class and above" for rich, my guess is that's true, consistent with Trevor's observation (I don't think "inner city" means all that much though; poverty spreads well beyond larger cities). No proof, just anecdotal observation.

Furman. German. German. Furman. It's a racist thread. It's racist.

This used to be a football site. Now every other thread someone cries racism and Rich Conley gets into a crazy illogical argument. I thought this was a good article that deserved better than name calling about who was or was not a racist.

#268

It's the off season. Most of this crap goes away at the start of training camp.

I didn't see anyone "cry" racism...I saw someone bring up the obvious fact that race is one of the many factors at play, here. Unfortunately, a lot of people seem to be conflating those two very different things.

I'm sorry, but, I want to dredge up the dress code issue one last time. Full disclosure: I'm a white guy from Montana. Now then, let's turn the tables. Let's say that I'm playing in a sport/league that primarily caters to black people, and, to make me more palatable (less threatening?) to the audience, I was told to follow a dress code that involved bling, baggy pants, and other stereotypes that aren't particularly accurate. (Or, if you want to stick to the "dressing up" angle, a dress code that involved long, flowing African robes and those large-pillbox hats that I do not know the name of, but saw people wear at Coretta King's funeral.)

I don't think I'd feel comfortable in that...in fact, I think it'd feel dishonest, like I was pretending to be somebody I'm not. (And I'd feel the same way wearing a suit, but that's a different subject altogether.) So I think it's very reasonable to say that a dress code can affect identity, and can be used for ugly purposes.

I saw someone say that it's silly to complain about being forced to wear a suit, as it's "normal"...well, normal is a relative thing. I'm sure Pac-Man would think it was silly for people to complain about being forced to wear Jay-Z-inspired clothing, as that's normal for him.

And for the record, I haven't seen the word "thug" used to describe a white person since around 2000. Yesterday, when that hockey fight thing was the top story on ESPN (they led with hockey; I thought I was in the Twilight Zone), a lot of words, but I never heard "thug". Whereas after the jumping-into-the-stands NBA incident, "thug" was used at least once a sentence, IIRC.

Let me preface this by saying I dont care much for dress codes, but that is mostly because in my experience they are NOT uniformly applied.

I see the NBA situation (dress code) as Stern trying to rehab the NBA image, in part, after the Basketbrawl event. Despite the overwhelming popularity of the NBA in some demographics, I wouldnt be surprised if Stern did it because he saw some ticket and merchandise bucks start slipping away, certainly from some other demographics.

I live north of Detroit but was on the road that one evening. I saw the replay numerous times later that night as I am sure most everyone here did.

The repeat version I saw kept focusing on some of the ticketholders / witnesses. One was of a father tightly holding his 6-7 year old daughter, watching the melee.

Boy, I bet THEY go to a lot of NBA games nowadays...

Hockey is STILL popular here, however.

#256: "wow, this could set an extra points comments record."

I doubt it, the record is at least 536, which the Marty firing thread got.

Pacman should spend some time with Edgerrin James, Edge could explain how to continue to hang with the folks he grew up with, How to keep it "real" and how to take charge of your life and invest in making things better where you grew up. Pacman has a choice, Lower himself to those around him or raise those around him.

Since Sophandros is insisting on playing the race card AGAIN let me say that Chris Simon is a thug.

thanks glennw, i didn't restrict it at all to the inner city. Rural areas (like where Farve/McNair are from in Miss.) are just as prone to poverty as inner cities.

So, yesterday Pac-Man walks away after someone threatens him with a knife at a bowling ally. According to police, patrons and staff, Pac did absolutely nothing to warrant the action. He was just minding his own business. I don't know what that has to do with this discussion, I just thought it was an interesting piece of news.

http://www.newschannel5.com/Global/story.asp?S=6209455

re 270: "And for the record, I haven’t seen the word “thug� used to describe a white person since around 2000."

That's odd, because Bill Romanowski only retired in 2003.

Seriously, start following English premiership soccer. You'll see/hear white guys getting called "thug" fairly often.

A few random points about the dress code:

1. Does anyone really believe that there are fans out there who, prior to the implementation of the dress code, said to themselves, "You know, I'd like to go watch the game tonight, but I'd better not - there might be some guys on the sidelines wearing throwback jerseys and gold chains"? If so, I would suggest that these fans are idiots.

2. Does anyone out there really believe that Artest would have been any less likely to go into the stands, if only a couple of his teammates had been standing on the sidelines in suits? Again, I would suggest that anyone who believes this is an idiot.

3. Why do people keep suggesting that "dressing in a professional manner" is synonymous with wearing a suit? For a lawyer or an accountant, maybe. For a professional athlete, no way. If a construction worker showed up at your house to give you an estimate, would you consider him to be "unprofessional" if he wasn't wearing a suit? If you would, I would suggest that you're an idiot.

So, perhaps the NBA dress code wasn't designed to appease racists. Perhaps it was designed to appease idiots.

As a French, this thread is "surrealist".
I just can't believe what I'm reading...
I was taught, I mean not only my parents told me, but our whole education system, teachers - educators - coaches ..., taught me races don't exist. Races were created to justify slavery... We are all men. Period.
Rousseau someone ?

I remember a thread dealing with the stereotypes involving white players (deceptive speed, fan favourite...) and a document entitled "the black are boys and the white are girls". I think it was stating black people produced extreme people (very big / very muscled, very fast / very slow, very strong / very weak) while whites were just more average as a whole.
NFL is a league of big guys, you need extrems there, and as Parcells said, "there aren't enough big guys on Earth to fill NFL's rosters..."

And now, my explanation for the "rich's misconception" :
it's a simple switch between skin color and socio-cultural environment (poverty to call it).
Racism vs economy...

Then again Rousseau was a marxist. And someone's "educational system" sounds a more like marxist propaganda than a true education.

If one doesnt have a brain, it doesnt matter how nice a house they can buy with their huge salary. Merely having money doesnt make someone more moral, as any observer of pro athletes can see.

Just last week some recent lotto winner started the process of getting his clan evicted from their new neighborhood.

"Irrational exuberance", perhaps?

280: Hard to be a Marxist 100 years before Marx was born, no? True that he found flaw with private property, but that's not the same as advocating for communism (which, naturally, did not yet exist).

I confess I don't understand the rest of your post at all, even on a basic level. Money doesn't make you moral? So? Where did that come from? Who is the lottery winner getting evicted? Is this hypothetical?

Rousseau was NOT a Marxist. They didn't even live in the same century. He died 70 years before the Manifesto was published.

Marxism as a philosophy was in effect before Marx wrote it down. He was a product of his upbringing.

Where does one think some philosophies come from...

History, not to mention time, is a wheel. Ideas (and some people) go away, and then they come back. We are all watching old tricks played out on a new stage.

Check link at the name for article. They arent evicted yet. Legal fees should handle that.

There is a publicized case every few years (inferring it happens more than you think) of some lotto winner blowing it all on wine, women, song, or drugs, friends, legal fees. And no, they don't all have dark complexions.

Yes, money doesnt guarantee morals. It also doesnt guarantee being law abiding, or being a good neighbor, or simply not being stupid.

Economic success or luck doesn't automatically guarantee one can handle it and stay out of trouble.

Marxism as a philosophy was in effect before Marx wrote it down. He was a product of his upbringing.

Where does one think some philosophies come from...

History, not to mention time, is a wheel. Ideas (and some people) go away, and then they come back. We are all watching old tricks played out on a new stage.

Check link at the name for article. They arent evicted yet. Legal fees should handle that.

There is a publicized case every few years (inferring it happens more than you think) of some lotto winner blowing it all on wine, women, song, or drugs, friends, legal fees. And no, they don't all have dark complexions.

Yes, money doesnt guarantee morals. It also doesnt guarantee being law abiding, or being a good neighbor, or simply not being stupid.

Economic success or luck doesn't automatically guarantee one can handle it and stay out of trouble.

Last!!

Marxism as a philosophy was in effect before Marx wrote it down. He was a product of the thoughts that became that school by name. The so-called French and Russian revolutions were Marxist and yes also financed by the banking class. And Rousseau can take a fair chunk of credit for the "French" revolution.

Where does one think some philosophies come from...

History, not to mention time, is a wheel. Ideas (and some people) go away, and then they come back. We are all watching old tricks played out on a new stage.

Check link at the name for article. They arent evicted yet. Legal fees should handle that.

There is a publicized case every few years (inferring it happens more than you think) of some lotto winner blowing it all on wine, women, song, or drugs, friends, t&a bars, legal fees. And no, they don't all have dark complexions.

Yes, money doesnt guarantee morals. It also doesnt guarantee being law abiding, or being a good neighbor, or simply not being stupid.

Economic success or luck doesn't automatically guarantee one can handle it and stay out of trouble.

276: It sounds like someone was maybe trying to start something, hoping Pac-Man would lose his temper and the guy could hit the lawsuit lottery. That's something he has to be really careful about - since he has this reputation, he's going to be a target for scam artists hoping to take a punch to win a few million.

283: Wrong, again.

Damn it!!

Sorry DMP. Just for laughs I started reading this trainwreck thread again. Gotta love Rich Conley. "The NBA are just a bunch of thugs. That comes partially from concentrating on street ball players, who generally come from the inner city." Followed up very quickly with "I dont knwo shit about basketball." Yeah, no kidding.

http://nopacman.com/