Racism and Basketball Recruiting: Reality or Myth?

Donate To GopherHole
T

The Truth

Member
Joined
Dec 16, 2008
Messages
647
Reaction score
0
Points
16
The issues involving Derrick Rose recently, coupled with some article raising this question by Dan Wetzel and Mike DeCoursey, have gotten me interested in this subject: Does racism play a factor in how we view basketball recruits and recruiting in general?


As an example I'd like to digress from the Rose situation and examine this year's top recruit John Wall. Much has been made about Wall, the people surrounding him, the incident of Breaking and Entering and his attendance as a 5th year student to a prep school. Most of the fans and assorted basketball types in North Carolina and beyond will point fingers at Wall's relationship with his AAU coach Brian Clifton. Some of Clifton's comments about Roy Williams and how he "pushed" UNC away from recruiting Wall have even been used as evidence that Wall is a "bad kid" and that Clifton is looking for a payday. This has led to a host of internet related badmouthing of Wall, his character and how this players recruitment is an example of everything wrong with the game itself.

What people fail to mention in the Wall debate is that Brian Clifton, considered by many to be the chief architect of Wall's career up to this point and the point man in his recruitment, is also involved with another highly touted prospect: McDonald's All-American and Duke Commitment Ryan Kelly. Ryan, like Wall, is a highly touted prospect by most every recruiting service (he, unlike Wall, held an offer to UNC) and is what many would deem a "national recruit". Both share a relationship with the aforementioned Clifton and both are the products of the same AAU program. The only read difference between the two? Socio-economic background and race.

Why is that? Is it because the sport is dominated by young black men from poorer backgrounds? Is it too hard to give the benefit of the doubt to a John Wall as opposed to a Ryan Kelly? Does racism affect are views on high school recruiting?
 

in this case its probably because Wall is widely considered the #1 player in the country and was uncomitted for so long that the recruiting hype grew while the other kid has beena solid Duke commit for a while and while highly rated isn't a top 2 or 3 guy
 

The Truth said:
The issues involving Derrick Rose recently, coupled with some article raising this question by Dan Wetzel and Mike DeCoursey, have gotten me interested in this subject: Does racism play a factor in how we view basketball recruits and recruiting in general?


As an example I'd like to digress from the Rose situation and examine this year's top recruit John Wall. Much has been made about Wall, the people surrounding him, the incident of Breaking and Entering and his attendance as a 5th year student to a prep school. Most of the fans and assorted basketball types in North Carolina and beyond will point fingers at Wall's relationship with his AAU coach Brian Clifton. Some of Clifton's comments about Roy Williams and how he "pushed" UNC away from recruiting Wall have even been used as evidence that Wall is a "bad kid" and that Clifton is looking for a payday. This has led to a host of internet related badmouthing of Wall, his character and how this players recruitment is an example of everything wrong with the game itself.

What people fail to mention in the Wall debate is that Brian Clifton, considered by many to be the chief architect of Wall's career up to this point and the point man in his recruitment, is also involved with another highly touted prospect: McDonald's All-American and Duke Commitment Ryan Kelly. Ryan, like Wall, is a highly touted prospect by most every recruiting service (he, unlike Wall, held an offer to UNC) and is what many would deem a "national recruit". Both share a relationship with the aforementioned Clifton and both are the products of the same AAU program. The only read difference between the two? Socio-economic background and race.

Why is that? Is it because the sport is dominated by young black men from poorer backgrounds? Is it too hard to give the benefit of the doubt to a John Wall as opposed to a Ryan Kelly? Does racism affect are views on high school recruiting?
Click to expand...

Racism is a reality in many areas of American culture.
 


oleboy41 said:
in this case its probably because Wall is widely considered the #1 player in the country and was uncomitted for so long that the recruiting hype grew while the other kid has beena solid Duke commit for a while and while highly rated isn't a top 2 or 3 guy
Click to expand...

That's just one example though. Why is it we never see the same sort of outrage that we see in basketball when compared to baseball or hockey or even soccer? Kids turn pro and are drafted in those sports every year but we don't see the same sort of outcry on making them attend or not attend school nor do we see the same number of problems in their processes.

From the Barn said:
Grades and criminal records aren't a difference?
Click to expand...

For the black or minority athlete it seems that difference is magnified. You can't deny the pitfalls for the majority of minority athletes entering D-1 athletics are greater than for their white counterparts.
 


The Truth said:
That's just one example though. Why is it we never see the same sort of outrage that we see in basketball when compared to baseball or hockey or even soccer? Kids turn pro and are drafted in those sports every year but we don't see the same sort of outcry on making them attend or not attend school nor do we see the same number of problems in their processes.



For the black or minority athlete it seems that difference is magnified. You can't deny the pitfalls for the majority of minority athletes entering D-1 athletics are greater than for their white counterparts.
Click to expand...

I definitely agree with you in that there is much more scrutinty on the handful of young black kids that leave school early for the NBA than the dozens of white kids that skip school altogether to bounce around in the minors for a decade or to try their hand at the NHL
 

oleboy41 said:
I definitely agree with you in that there is much more scrutinty on the handful of young black kids that leave school early for the NBA than the dozens of white kids that skip school altogether to bounce around in the minors for a decade or to try their hand at the NHL
Click to expand...

i have to agree here. when you stop and think about it this is very true. unfortunate, but true.
 

Yes but the point missing about the hockey players is that this is the best route to the NHL. Talk to any NHL person and they will flat out tell you they want their draft picks out of college and into the pros. College has a short season with too few games and not as high a calibre.

At least on the Canadian side, many of the kids go back to university once hockey is over. Of course the huge difference between basketball isn't race but class. Your parents have to have money to be a top level hockey player.
 

racism

Doesnt the article start by stating Wall has commited a crime. So your comparing a black recruit with a criminal record to a whire recruit who does not. The same variable would be the handler they both share.

Another issue would be the one and done. It is likely Kelly would not be a one and done player. Wall is very likely to be.
 



oleboy41 said:
I definitely agree with you in that there is much more scrutinty on the handful of young black kids that leave school early for the NBA than the dozens of white kids that skip school altogether to bounce around in the minors for a decade or to try their hand at the NHL
Click to expand...

dozens is undershooting it where baseball is concerned. There are 50 rounds and hundreds of kids taken out of high school. I dont know what the actual percentage is of those that go the pro route instead of school. I know in college baseball(at Minnesota at least) they don't offer very many full ride scholarships. I heard that the last time the U offered a full ride baseball scholarship was when Jesus Mauer was playing HS ball in St. Paul. Maybe it is different down south where baseball brings in more revenue. In college basketball(correct me if I'm wrong) but the scholarships are 100% and not partial schollys. As to the point, yes I agree there is a lot more scrutiny of these athletes leaving for the NBA then the ones leaving for MLB or NHL.
 

The Truth said:
...
What people fail to mention in the Wall debate is that Brian Clifton, considered by many to be the chief architect of Wall's career up to this point and the point man in his recruitment, is also involved with another highly touted prospect: McDonald's All-American and Duke Commitment Ryan Kelly. Ryan, like Wall, is a highly touted prospect by most every recruiting service (he, unlike Wall, held an offer to UNC) and is what many would deem a "national recruit". Both share a relationship with the aforementioned Clifton and both are the products of the same AAU program. The only read difference between the two? Socio-economic background and race.

Why is that? Is it because the sport is dominated by young black men from poorer backgrounds? Is it too hard to give the benefit of the doubt to a John Wall as opposed to a Ryan Kelly? Does racism affect are views on high school recruiting?
Click to expand...
No use calling them filthy names ....

Yes, we’re your friendly, liberal, neighborhood Klu Klux Klan
Ever since we got that lawyer and that public relations man.
“Course we did shoot one reporter, but he was just obscene,
and you can’t call us no filthy names. What does Anglo-Saxon mean?


- '60s folk song from the Chad Mitchell Trio:
 

oleboy41 said:
I definitely agree with you in that there is much more scrutinty on the handful of young black kids that leave school early for the NBA than the dozens of white kids that skip school altogether to bounce around in the minors for a decade or to try their hand at the NHL
Click to expand...

I think it has zippo to do with race. There are hundreds of kids, black and white that skip college for baseball or other sports. The sheer numbers make the individual stories fade to the background. If a black or white soccer player goes directly to the pros- nobody would bat an eyelash. Same in baseball- race being no factor

In basketball you have a very small number of storied players that attempt it. Because of the small numbers, the desire of college fans to have these players at their school and the individual notoriety involved these stories come into focus.

One thing that does happen: People do "profile" everything in their minds. Everybody does it. You think about things in view of how things have happened in the past. So when I hear a basketball player being recruited I have higher expectations about that player if they are black - simply because black players tend to be more athletic than their white counterparts. That doesn't change whether you will root for a player or give a white player a chance to proove themselves it just is where the mind naturally takes you. Similarly we have seen a much greater number of black players have academic issues or other issues than white players. It's just fact- forget the reasons for now. Once again we can't let those issue cloud how we actually treat these players or root for them we simply cannot avoid processing in this manner. People are always going ot view things in view of what they have most commonly experienced.
 

Full Baseball Schollies

MadisonRaisedGopherCrazed said:
dozens is undershooting it where baseball is concerned. There are 50 rounds and hundreds of kids taken out of high school. I dont know what the actual percentage is of those that go the pro route instead of school. I know in college baseball(at Minnesota at least) they don't offer very many full ride scholarships. I heard that the last time the U offered a full ride baseball scholarship was when Jesus Mauer was playing HS ball in St. Paul. Maybe it is different down south where baseball brings in more revenue. In college basketball(correct me if I'm wrong) but the scholarships are 100% and not partial schollys. As to the point, yes I agree there is a lot more scrutiny of these athletes leaving for the NBA then the ones leaving for MLB or NHL.
Click to expand...

With the number of scholarships at 11.7 and the usual squad size of 25-30, it would be stupid to have more than 1 player on full scholarship.
 



Winnipegopher said:
Yes but the point missing about the hockey players is that this is the best route to the NHL. Talk to any NHL person and they will flat out tell you they want their draft picks out of college and into the pros. College has a short season with too few games and not as high a calibre.

At least on the Canadian side, many of the kids go back to university once hockey is over. Of course the huge difference between basketball isn't race but class. Your parents have to have money to be a top level hockey player.
Click to expand...

Remember, Canadian (and some US) 18 year old draftees usually come from one of the 3 Major Jr Leagues (WHL, OHL, or QMJL). They go to camp with the NHL team and if they don't make the team, they are sent back to their Jr. team.
 

march madness said:
Doesnt the article start by stating Wall has commited a crime. So your comparing a black recruit with a criminal record to a whire recruit who does not. The same variable would be the handler they both share.

Another issue would be the one and done. It is likely Kelly would not be a one and done player. Wall is very likely to be.
Click to expand...

John Wall doesn't have a criminal record. He was charged with a criminal act and allowed to enter a diversion program that, if completed, will have the charge expunged from his record.


The point is both players recruitment, despite being spearheaded by the same individual, are viewed differently and the person himself (Clifton) is viewed differently. I haven't seen the same level of bashing towards Clifton is regards to his guidance of Kelly as is the case with his involvement with Wall.
 

They can go back to junior until they are twenty. However, many go back to university once their hockey career is finished. Canadian juniors, at least in the WHL but I think all 3 leagues, get a paid year of tuition and books for every year of junior.

Many of these "washed-out" players even play Canadian University hockey as there are no restrictions based on past earnings. Many Canadian University players are in their mid twenties.

That said Canadian University hockey, while good, gets little attention, maybe 1000 people a game. Moreover former junior players are everywhere and there is little appreciation for being a former Brandon Wheatking.
 

John Wall doesn't have a criminal record. He was charged with a criminal act and allowed to enter a diversion program that, if completed, will have the charge expunged from his record.
Click to expand...

How could something be expunged that didn't originally exist?
 

From the Barn said:
How could something be expunged that didn't originally exist?
Click to expand...

Poor choice of words? The charge gets dropped if he completes his community service and considering the nature of the allegation itself I still think it was "kids being kids" and doing a stupid thing to "impress" a girl.

Of course a bad decision, no matter how minor or trivial it may or may not be, gets a lot more coverage in these cases. And we're all quick to rush to judgement. How many people were eager to label Wall a thug or a criminal when that story broke without investigating it further?
 


From the Barn said:
So he has a criminal record. And what does the other kid have?
Click to expand...

Considering all this began before the B and E incident I'd think it's pretty easy to ignore it as a contributing factor.

How about we examine the case of Josh Heytvelt and former UNC recruit/OKlahoma State player Jameson Curry next. A different set of reactions for the same charge: Felony drug possession.
 

Frankly, although I think it's foolish to think that our society is "color-blind" and that racism has gone the way of polio, I think this discussion is a bit silly. I had the same reaction when I read an article on one of my favorite boxing sites the other day stating that Floyd Mayweather is unpopular because he's "young, pretty, brash, and black". Personally, I think it's because PBF has consistently ducked the best fighters of his generation, while still running his mouth as if he had no worlds left to conquer.

Truth, I think you're forgetting that Heytvelt was roundly mocked for his drug possession. He hasn't been given a pass by any stretch of the imagination. In this case, it's absolutely apples and oranges. So the two kids shared the same coach. It's absolutely meaningless, in my opinion. People didn't like Wall because he took forever to commit, which seemed to indicate that he was hoping to get programs involved in a bidding war. Plus, Wall is a criminal. Whether he went into a diversion program, or what his motives are for engaging in a criminal act are immaterial. Further, and I know you won't like this, Wall's automatically tainted in my mind for signing with Calipari. I know, I know, the Kentucky fans hate hearing this. "He's never been convicted", "it goes on in every program", "he couldn't have had any idea about what was going on", "he's a victim of circumstance", etc, etc. But in my mind, the man is absolutely tainted, and I personally believe that he runs gangster programs. Thus, any recruit that goes to play for Cal is, in my mind, automatically a bit suspicious, justifiably or not. And it has nothing to do with race.

As to your hockey point, it's true that some unsavory things go on with hockey programs as well. It's not as commented upon for the simple reason that hockey is not as popular as basketball in the United States, so it'll never be likely to garner national attention.

There are many people in our country, of every race, who still hold some measure of prejudice in their heart. But to blame the "treatment of John Wall" on racism is silly, in my opinion.
 

jmag21 said:
Truth, I think you're forgetting that Heytvelt was roundly mocked for his drug possession. He hasn't been given a pass by any stretch of the imagination. In this case, it's absolutely apples and oranges. So the two kids shared the same coach. It's absolutely meaningless, in my opinion. People didn't like Wall because he took forever to commit, which seemed to indicate that he was hoping to get programs involved in a bidding war. Plus, Wall is a criminal. Whether he went into a diversion program, or what his motives are for engaging in a criminal act are immaterial. Further, and I know you won't like this, Wall's automatically tainted in my mind for signing with Calipari. I know, I know, the Kentucky fans hate hearing this. "He's never been convicted", "it goes on in every program", "he couldn't have had any idea about what was going on", "he's a victim of circumstance", etc, etc. But in my mind, the man is absolutely tainted, and I personally believe that he runs gangster programs. Thus, any recruit that goes to play for Cal is, in my mind, automatically a bit suspicious, justifiably or not. And it has nothing to do with race.

As to your hockey point, it's true that some unsavory things go on with hockey programs as well. It's not as commented upon for the simple reason that hockey is not as popular as basketball in the United States, so it'll never be likely to garner national attention.

There are many people in our country, of every race, who still hold some measure of prejudice in their heart. But to blame the "treatment of John Wall" on racism is silly, in my opinion.
Click to expand...


Jameson Curry was a poor black kid who grew up on a Tobacco farm in North Carolina. He was a kid born without a pot to piss in or a window to throw it out of. He lost his scholarship to North Carolina, was charged with a major drug offense and the outrage over it was clearly documented. I don't remember many folks clamoring for the second chance that Heytvelt got and openly declaring that he deserved to atone for his mistake. What I do remember is people questioning Eddie Sutton and Oklahoma State for giving Curry that second chance.

I find it offensive that you would automatically link a kid as "tainted" because of his college choice. I don't even know how to address your notion of "gangster programs". What am I supposed to infer by that? That Calipari only recruits criminals? Roy Williams recruited guys like JaRon Rush, who was involved with a convicted crack cocaine dealer and Lester Earl who was being advised and provided with gifts and incentives by a Rap Mogul. What does that say about his reputation? Does Coach K get this stigma when he signs a player accused of rape like he did with Sheldon Williams? How about the so called "good kids" these coaches recruit? Are they automatically tainted? Are Jon Hood or Daniel Orton "gangsters"? Or do they benefit from backgrounds free from the abuses and injustices that others might face. Are they the exceptions and not the rule?

This is just not an issue about John Wall but a case example. Basketball is a sport dominated by African-Americans. Due to issues within our own society these athletes often come from backgrounds that aren't just or fair when compared to their white counterparts. A sports popularity has nothing to do with holding one sport up to a standard that isn't required of others.
 

First, I don't remember much about the Heytvelt/Curry saga. Doubtless it is as you remember it. However, all I remember is that Heytvelt got a lot of well-deserved heat, which is surprising, given that he was not a high-profile player, and played at a school that is traditionally nothing more than a little sister, despite their success in recent years.

Perhaps I need to clarify what I mean by a gangster program. I don't mean a program that contains gangsters, or attracts gangsters. I mean a school that is run by gangsters. In my opinion, Calipari is shady, and has run nothing but gangster programs since he began coaching. I don't see him as being any different than Tark the Shark. The fact that he's stayed one step ahead of the federales is certainly evidence of his good sense, but nothing more, in my opinion.

Further, you're kidding yourself if you don't think a sport's popularity has a lot to do with it. Most of the tour de france competitors got kicked out for drugs a few years ago. It got nowhere near the coverage or condemnation as Barry Bonds did in the US. Why? Because nobody cares about bike racing. Far fewer people care about hockey than basketball. Thus, basketball players will face more scrutiny, because more people care about them and their careers.

Finally, I have to disagree that because some athletes come from tougher backgrounds, that they should be given more of a break. I understand our society has problems. I understand some people are going to have a tougher time of it than others (though in my view, the main factor is socioeconomic status, not race). And I understand that some people have difficulty avoiding the pitfalls of their youth. But understanding and condoning are two different things. If John Wall did something illegal, he should be held accountable. If Jameson Curry did something illegal, he should be held accountable. If Heytveldt did something illegal, he should be held accountable. If I did what these guys had done, I wouldn't have gotten half of the breaks they have, all because they're good on the basketball court, in my opinion. You gotta take the rough with the smooth.
 

You must log in or register to reply here.



Top Bottom