Spencer Haywood Sees a 'Tinge of Slavery' in College Basketball, 'Very Racist'

Donate To GopherHole
BleedGopher

BleedGopher

Well-known member
Joined
Nov 11, 2008
Messages
60,716
Reaction score
15,969
Points
113
per Bleacher Report:

Basketball Hall of Famer Spencer Haywood has spoken out against players' being barred from playing in the NBA until they are 19 years of age and other NCAA-related issues.

In an interview with Sean Deveney of Sporting News, Haywood expressed his belief that the current rules aren't fair to the players:

"If you have 11 blacks on your team and you are, say, in Kentucky, and they're creating all this wealth but not getting paid? It does have a tinge of slavery.

"It is what it is. It is very racist because they're not helping the communities where those kids come from, Chicago and Detroit and so on."

After two seasons of college basketball, Haywood attempted to enter the 1969 NBA draft. Rules prevented underclassmen from playing in the NBA, but Haywood filed an antitrust suit against the NBA that contributed to the rule later getting changed.

Haywood also took issue with the fact college athletes don't get paid despite generating significant revenue for the NCAA:

"They just got a contract from CBS [and TNT], $8.8 billion, and if you are making that, I think you have to share some revenue. You can't expect people to continue to work for nothing on a false hope of, well this is about education, we are getting you an education, we will feed you. It sounds a little like 400 years ago, like slavery. Stay in your hut. Stay in that little house. We’ll give you some food. You do all of the work. All of it. And I am telling you that I will take care of you."

Haywood also noted how college players are forced to sit out a year after transferring, while coaches can leave whenever they choose and are still eligible to coach immediately.

http://bleacherreport.com/articles/...om&utm_medium=referral&utm_campaign=editorial

Go Gophers!!
 

The hyperbole is strong here. Gonna go out on a limb and say voluntarily playing a game and being worshipped for it doesn't quite compare to slavery, but maybe that's just me.
 


Good article:

All players owe Spencer a thanks and some owe him an apology. The NCAA and NBA he dealt with in court.
 

Slavery is too strong but I do find it odd that 8 out of 10 NCAA D1 basketball players are black while 8 out of 10 NCAA D1 basketball coaches are white.
 


Although I understand where the dude is coming from, I don't think the African-American community can have it both ways. In other words, we're still celebrating the integration of the game, as we should. As I was listening to the tournament on the radio the other day, they did a short historical piece on the 1966 Texas Western team playing Kentucky in the championship. It took a lot to gain the unfettered right for blacks to compete in major college basketball, and we shouldn't stop feeling good about that. But to then claim slavery because you've been so successfully integrated into the system - even as admittedly inequitable it is to the athletes - is disingenuous. How are the white and Latino players not also slaves? Are we completely ignoring the value of the college education, which is something hugely beneficial to underprivileged groups?

I'm sorry, this is right up there with the complaint that there were 5 white players on the floor at the same time for the Timberwolves for a few minutes in one game a few years ago.
 

Bad Gopher said:
Although I understand where the dude is coming from, I don't think the African-American community can have it both ways. In other words, we're still celebrating the integration of the game, as we should. As I was listening to the tournament on the radio the other day, they did a short historical piece on the 1966 Texas Western team playing Kentucky in the championship. It took a lot to gain the unfettered right for blacks to compete in major college basketball, and we shouldn't stop feeling good about that. But to then claim slavery because you've been so successfully integrated into the system - even as admittedly inequitable it is to the athletes - is disingenuous. How are the white and Latino players not also slaves? Are we completely ignoring the value of the college education, which is something hugely beneficial to underprivileged groups?

I'm sorry, this is right up there with the complaint that there were 5 white players on the floor at the same time for the Timberwolves for a few minutes in one game a few years ago.
Click to expand...

The game will not be completely integrated until the coaches reflect the same demographic as the players.
 

Winnipegopher said:
The game will not be completely integrated until the coaches reflect the same demographic as the players.
Click to expand...

Or is it, "the game will not be completely integrated until the players reflect the same demographic as the general population"? My opinion -- both sentences are ridiculous, the participation in sports is based on merit.
 




The players all have the choice to play or not. Comparing to slavery is unbelievably ridiculous.

With that said, do I think its fair the amount of money the NCAA or conferences like the B1G are making off these athletes? No, not really.
 

If the talents of these young men are as valuable as some people seem to think then one would think that there would be organizations trying to take advantage of this abundance of money making potential. The NBA's requirement for players to be a year out of H.S. is their own rule, not the NCAA's. Besides, they can only take so many players a year. People are free to start another league that would be a better option for college basketball players. Surely if the players are the ones generating all of this revenue then there would be a market for their services somewhere else. We know that is not likely to happen. No one would care about such a minor league and it would generate little income. The connection that fans have to the colleges and universities is the biggest factor in the popularity of these games. Without that it's just AAU ball for 20 year-olds. The kids take the best option that is open to them. Don't blame college basketball for being the best option for most of them. It's not their responsibility to create or support their own competition.
 


SKOOKM said:
If the talents of these young men are as valuable as some people seem to think then one would think that there would be organizations trying to take advantage of this abundance of money making potential. The NBA's requirement for players to be a year out of H.S. is their own rule, not the NCAA's. Besides, they can only take so many players a year. People are free to start another league that would be a better option for college basketball players. Surely if the players are the ones generating all of this revenue then there would be a market for their services somewhere else. We know that is not likely to happen. No one would care about such a minor league and it would generate little income. The connection that fans have to the colleges and universities is the biggest factor in the popularity of these games. Without that it's just AAU ball for 20 year-olds. The kids take the best option that is open to them. Don't blame college basketball for being the best option for most of them. It's not their responsibility to create or support their own competition.
Click to expand...

Great post, but it's wasted on most of this bunch. I've made the exact same points many times and people still advocate for forcing the NCAA to behave how they want it to behave.
 



dpodoll68 said:
Great post, but it's wasted on most of this bunch. I've made the exact same points many times and people still advocate for forcing the NCAA to behave how they want it to behave.
Click to expand...

You and I are quite aligned on this. However, one has to admit there is a bit of a head start the NCAA is running with here and that has a huge impact on whether or not someone takes a risk of starting some sort of alternative league to compete. I think there is an argument to be had at what is moral and ethical now that the NCAA has grown to this size and has this sort of advantage against all other competitors. The concept of amateurism wasn't created with multi billion dollar contracts being thrown around, thats for certain.

The compensation methods for these players were lucrative when the schools started issuing schollarships in exchange for athletic services. The operating costs have not increased to the level in which their revenues have yet we've only increased the compensation of the labor by allowing them to eat inbetween meals on the schools dime and added the idea of "walking around money". (you could add in the rising cost of tuition as well).

Put it this way, coaching salaries have increased year over year and in the modern era have had a sort of hyperbolic curve to them. Could you say the same to the value of the athlete being paid? Why is that? They don't need to for the reasons you outlined above, but should they?
 

Winnipegopher said:
The game will not be completely integrated until the coaches reflect the same demographic as the players.
Click to expand...

Your thinking is the issue, not the percentage of coaches. You are arbitrarily limiting the pool of potential coaches. It is sloppy stats. I test for population biases professionally, so excuse the smug appearence.

Moreover, it is also an error to think that coaching skills and those learned playing are somehow equivalent. One does not even ever have to play a sport to be a hall of fame coach in that sport. It would help grow love of that game, but do absolutely nothing for coaching development.

Winnipegopher said:
I do find it odd that 8 out of 10 NCAA D1 basketball players are black while 8 out of 10 NCAA D1 basketball coaches are white.
Click to expand...

As a coach and someone that does this quite often, I'd suggest, that the first stat is the largest reason for the 2nd. The more one plays, the less time they spend learning coaching. People that don't make college, are the vast majority of the US coaching population.

Check out the NFL, NBA, MLB..... it is rare to see a star become a coach. It almost unheard of to have a star become a good coach. In the NFL there is Ditka, in the NBA there are 4, in the MLB, basically Paul Molitor has a shot, but I;d challenge to find another couple. Your search will prove my point. The point at which one should turn to coaching to become successful occurrs before college.
 

Bad Gopher said:
Although I understand where the dude is coming from, I don't think the African-American community can have it both ways. In other words, we're still celebrating the integration of the game, as we should. As I was listening to the tournament on the radio the other day, they did a short historical piece on the 1966 Texas Western team playing Kentucky in the championship. It took a lot to gain the unfettered right for blacks to compete in major college basketball, and we shouldn't stop feeling good about that. But to then claim slavery because you've been so successfully integrated into the system - even as admittedly inequitable it is to the athletes - is disingenuous. How are the white and Latino players not also slaves? Are we completely ignoring the value of the college education, which is something hugely beneficial to underprivileged groups?

I'm sorry, this is right up there with the complaint that there were 5 white players on the floor at the same time for the Timberwolves for a few minutes in one game a few years ago.
Click to expand...
...at least you admit it's systemic, bad...
 

atsgopher said:
Your thinking is the issue, not the percentage of coaches. You are arbitrarily limiting the pool of potential coaches. It is sloppy stats. I test for population biases professionally, so excuse the smug appearence.

Moreover, it is also an error to think that coaching skills and those learned playing are somehow equivalent. One does not even ever have to play a sport to be a hall of fame coach in that sport. It would help grow love of that game, but do absolutely nothing for coaching development.



As a coach and someone that does this quite often, I'd suggest, that the first stat is the largest reason for the 2nd. The more one plays, the less time they spend learning coaching. People that don't make college, are the vast majority of the US coaching population.

Check out the NFL, NBA, MLB..... it is rare to see a star become a coach. It almost unheard of to have a star become a good coach. In the NFL there is Ditka, in the NBA there are 4, in the MLB, basically Paul Molitor has a shot, but I;d challenge to find another couple. Your search will prove my point. The point at which one should turn to coaching to become successful occurrs before college.
Click to expand...
Pat Riley, Kevin McHale, Larry Bird, Danny Ainge, Phil Jackson all have what in common?
 



Winasota Gopher said:
You and I are quite aligned on this. However, one has to admit there is a bit of a head start the NCAA is running with here and that has a huge impact on whether or not someone takes a risk of starting some sort of alternative league to compete. I think there is an argument to be had at what is moral and ethical now that the NCAA has grown to this size and has this sort of advantage against all other competitors. The concept of amateurism wasn't created with multi billion dollar contracts being thrown around, thats for certain.

The compensation methods for these players were lucrative when the schools started issuing schollarships in exchange for athletic services. The operating costs have not increased to the level in which their revenues have yet we've only increased the compensation of the labor by allowing them to eat inbetween meals on the schools dime and added the idea of "walking around money". (you could add in the rising cost of tuition as well).

Put it this way, coaching salaries have increased year over year and in the modern era have had a sort of hyperbolic curve to them. Could you say the same to the value of the athlete being paid? Why is that? They don't need to for the reasons you outlined above, but should they?
Click to expand...

Thanks for the post. Again, you're helping make my argument for me. People act like the NCAA, conferences and schools are just making money hand over fist and ignoring the equity of the brands, the facilities, the affiliation of athletic teams with a school. All of those things have been built over decades and won at great expense and sweat. They are also tremendously valuable. Typically, when a market has great barriers to entry, people applaud the organization cornering that market and applaud their foresight and vision. For some reason, with the NCAA, people vilify them and try to force them to change their model, despite the fact that it's by far the best available. And for that reason (that it's by far the best option for 18/19-year-old basketball players and 18-21-year-old football players) - no, I don't think they should be forced to pay the athletes. For one thing, it's an unsustainable model; people only look at the revenues and conveniently ignore the expenses. There are very few athletic departments in the country making money on a net basis. Sure, schools like Texas and Alabama could afford to pay all of their athletes (male and female), but outside of the top 20-25 revenue-producing athletic departments in the country, every other school would have to jack tuition, ticket prices, merchandise, etc. through the roof just to break even in a "pay the athletes" model. The whole notion is just absurd and lacking a consideration of the relevant factors as they actually are - not as people want to pretend that they are.
 

MennoSota said:
Pat Riley, Kevin McHale, Larry Bird, Danny Ainge, Phil Jackson all have what in common?
Click to expand...

Riley - below-average NBA player
McHale - average (at best) NBA coach
Ainge - mediocre-to-decent NBA player (had one All-Star season for a horrible team and a bunch of meh aside from that), below-average NBA coach (not sure why he's even in the discussion)
Jackson - below-average NBA player

The only one that fits the criteria of star player and good coach is Bird, and he coached for a total of 3 seasons with the last being 18 years ago - so good job reinforcing his point for him.
 


dpodoll68 said:
Thanks for the post. Again, you're helping make my argument for me. People act like the NCAA, conferences and schools are just making money hand over fist and ignoring the equity of the brands, the facilities, the affiliation of athletic teams with a school. All of those things have been built over decades and won at great expense and sweat. They are also tremendously valuable. Typically, when a market has great barriers to entry, people applaud the organization cornering that market and applaud their foresight and vision. For some reason, with the NCAA, people vilify them and try to force them to change their model, despite the fact that it's by far the best available. And for that reason (that it's by far the best option for 18/19-year-old basketball players and 18-21-year-old football players) - no, I don't think they should be forced to pay the athletes. For one thing, it's an unsustainable model; people only look at the revenues and conveniently ignore the expenses. There are very few athletic departments in the country making money on a net basis. Sure, schools like Texas and Alabama could afford to pay all of their athletes (male and female), but outside of the top 20-25 revenue-producing athletic departments in the country, every other school would have to jack tuition, ticket prices, merchandise, etc. through the roof just to break even in a "pay the athletes" model. The whole notion is just absurd and lacking a consideration of the relevant factors as they actually are - not as people want to pretend that they are.
Click to expand...

You restated your position, which we agree on but do you have an opinion on whether or not College Basketball ethically should be doing more for the players, especially for Power 5 where there appears to be a lot of money to be thrown at making successful programs?

The concept of applauding companies that corner the market isn't irrelevant it's just curious to use as an example given the method of the NCAA. Their brand is purity, fair, ameaturism, their revenue is much more aligned with professional sports. Many disagree with this contradiction on the message.

I think it's akin to people not approving of companies sourcing product from China sweatshops. It's a great thing to post about, but when it gets down to it, very few of us are shelling out $20 for a white t-shirt when hanes has a 4 pk for $5.
 


dpodoll68 said:
Riley - below-average NBA player
McHale - average (at best) NBA coach
Ainge - mediocre-to-decent NBA player (had one All-Star season for a horrible team and a bunch of meh aside from that), below-average NBA coach (not sure why he's even in the discussion)
Jackson - below-average NBA player

The only one that fits the criteria of star player and good coach is Bird, and he coached for a total of 3 seasons with the last being 18 years ago - so good job reinforcing his point for him.
Click to expand...
Yet...all players who didn't learn to coach rather than play, which is what my post was addressing. Secondarily, all those I mentioned are white. Riley came from a famously racist program at Kentucky under Adolph Rupp and was playing when Texas Western famously defeated them for a national championship.
There are some black coaches who also played, such as Doc Rivers, to be fair.
 

Why do so many people bring up revenue when discussing this topic? Shouldn't we be talking about profit?
 

atsgopher said:
Your thinking is the issue, not the percentage of coaches. You are arbitrarily limiting the pool of potential coaches. It is sloppy stats. I test for population biases professionally, so excuse the smug appearence.

Moreover, it is also an error to think that coaching skills and those learned playing are somehow equivalent. One does not even ever have to play a sport to be a hall of fame coach in that sport. It would help grow love of that game, but do absolutely nothing for coaching development.



As a coach and someone that does this quite often, I'd suggest, that the first stat is the largest reason for the 2nd. The more one plays, the less time they spend learning coaching. People that don't make college, are the vast majority of the US coaching population.

Check out the NFL, NBA, MLB..... it is rare to see a star become a coach. It almost unheard of to have a star become a good coach. In the NFL there is Ditka, in the NBA there are 4, in the MLB, basically Paul Molitor has a shot, but I;d challenge to find another couple. Your search will prove my point. The point at which one should turn to coaching to become successful occurrs before college.
Click to expand...

Is there any evidence that backs this up? About 75% of MLB managers were in the major leagues at one time. Pretty sure there are like 4 NFL coaches who didn't play college football. I get it if we are just talking about stars, but I do not agree that most coaches decide to go the coaching route instead of the playing route before college. That's just not true.

And since this is a discussion about NCAA coaches, you do realize that most universities require that their coaches have a college degree right? I don't know if there is any data available, but I would bet that a majority of college basketball coaches played basketball in college. I'm not saying all were stars or that all played D1, but most of them played in college and didn't decide to go the coaching route until later.
 

atsgopher said:
Your thinking is the issue, not the percentage of coaches. You are arbitrarily limiting the pool of potential coaches. It is sloppy stats. I test for population biases professionally, so excuse the smug appearence.

Moreover, it is also an error to think that coaching skills and those learned playing are somehow equivalent. One does not even ever have to play a sport to be a hall of fame coach in that sport. It would help grow love of that game, but do absolutely nothing for coaching development.



As a coach and someone that does this quite often, I'd suggest, that the first stat is the largest reason for the 2nd. The more one plays, the less time they spend learning coaching. People that don't make college, are the vast majority of the US coaching population.

Check out the NFL, NBA, MLB..... it is rare to see a star become a coach. It almost unheard of to have a star become a good coach. In the NFL there is Ditka, in the NBA there are 4, in the MLB, basically Paul Molitor has a shot, but I;d challenge to find another couple. Your search will prove my point. The point at which one should turn to coaching to become successful occurrs before college.
Click to expand...

Ok I did some research and now think your post may have based on your own bias rather than statistics.

A quick scan of the Big and the NBA tells me that your theory is flawed.

The higher level the basketball, the higher level played by the coaches. A quick scan tells me that roughly half of the NBA coaches played in the NBA and perhaps all played in college. Guys like Tyronn Lue may not have been NBA stars but anyone who gets to the NBA was a star for their previous basketball career. If I understand your logic, the NBA should be coached by people who never played in the NBA and instead studied coaching (the only example of this I can find in my limited search is Greg Gard). While I would agree it is probably hard to predict which NBA players will become NBA coaches, it is clear to me that the odds of being an NBA coach is exponentially higher for former NBA players than for lower level players, even those that devote their life to coaching.

This also appears to be true in the NCAA. Using the Big as an example, it appears to be very rare for a NCAA D-1 coach to have not played college basketball. Of the current Big coaches only 2 did not play college basketball and both have explanations as to how they ended up in their job. Pitino (whose successful coach father did play at UMass) and Greg Gard (who along with likely being very talented as a coach, was also very lucky to get connected to Bo Ryan at a young age). If the Big is representative, the odds of coaching NCAA D-1 is much higher if you played college basketball and quite a bit higher if you played at a high level. 7 of 14 Big coaches (8 if you count elder Pitino’s playing at UMass as the logical start to his coaching career), played D-1 basketball.

All this gets back to my original statement. Why are all 14 Big coaches white? I guarantee you that the 12 Big coaches that played college basketball played with at least 50% African-American team-mates. Why did only white players become coaches? I guess this could be a statistical anomaly for the Big (I don’t think it is) but eventually coaching demographics should reflect the playing demographic.

For what it is worth, here is the Big list.
1. Illinois- Mark Underwood. Played at Kansas State.
2.Indiana- Archie Miller. Played at NC State
3.Iowa- Fran McCaffery. Played at Penn
4.Maryland. mark Turgeon. Played at Kansas.
5.Micihgan. John Beilein. Played at Wheeling (appears to be NAIA but still college).
6.Michigan State. Tom Izzo. Played at Northern Michigan.
7.Minnesota. Richard Pitino. Didn't play in college but did have a coach dad who played at UMass.
8.Nebraska. Tim Miles. Played at Mary.
9. Northwestern. Chris Collins. Played at Duke.
10. Ohio State. Chris Holtmann. Played at Taylor University
11. Penn State. Pat Chambers. Played at Philadelphia University.
12. Purdue. Matt Painter. Played at Purdue
13.Rutgers. Steve Pikiell. Played at UConn.
14. Wisconsin. Greg Gard. Did not play.
 

Winnipegopher said:
Ok I did some research and now think your post may have based on your own bias rather than statistics.

A quick scan of the Big and the NBA tells me that your theory is flawed.

The higher level the basketball, the higher level played by the coaches. A quick scan tells me that roughly half of the NBA coaches played in the NBA and perhaps all played in college. Guys like Tyronn Lue may not have been NBA stars but anyone who gets to the NBA was a star for their previous basketball career. If I understand your logic, the NBA should be coached by people who never played in the NBA and instead studied coaching (the only example of this I can find in my limited search is Greg Gard). While I would agree it is probably hard to predict which NBA players will become NBA coaches, it is clear to me that the odds of being an NBA coach is exponentially higher for former NBA players than for lower level players, even those that devote their life to coaching.

This also appears to be true in the NCAA. Using the Big as an example, it appears to be very rare for a NCAA D-1 coach to have not played college basketball. Of the current Big coaches only 2 did not play college basketball and both have explanations as to how they ended up in their job. Pitino (whose successful coach father did play at UMass) and Greg Gard (who along with likely being very talented as a coach, was also very lucky to get connected to Bo Ryan at a young age). If the Big is representative, the odds of coaching NCAA D-1 is much higher if you played college basketball and quite a bit higher if you played at a high level. 7 of 14 Big coaches (8 if you count elder Pitino’s playing at UMass as the logical start to his coaching career), played D-1 basketball.

All this gets back to my original statement. Why are all 14 Big coaches white? I guarantee you that the 12 Big coaches that played college basketball played with at least 50% African-American team-mates. Why did only white players become coaches? I guess this could be a statistical anomaly for the Big (I don’t think it is) but eventually coaching demographics should reflect the playing demographic.

For what it is worth, here is the Big list.
1. Illinois- Mark Underwood. Played at Kansas State.
2.Indiana- Archie Miller. Played at NC State
3.Iowa- Fran McCaffery. Played at Penn
4.Maryland. mark Turgeon. Played at Kansas.
5.Micihgan. John Beilein. Played at Wheeling (appears to be NAIA but still college).
6.Michigan State. Tom Izzo. Played at Northern Michigan.
7.Minnesota. Richard Pitino. Didn't play in college but did have a coach dad who played at UMass.
8.Nebraska. Tim Miles. Played at Mary.
9. Northwestern. Chris Collins. Played at Duke.
10. Ohio State. Chris Holtmann. Played at Taylor University
11. Penn State. Pat Chambers. Played at Philadelphia University.
12. Purdue. Matt Painter. Played at Purdue
13.Rutgers. Steve Pikiell. Played at UConn.
14. Wisconsin. Greg Gard. Did not play.
Click to expand...

Its an absolutely rediculous argument. I'm surprised you took the length of spelling that out. Richard Pitino is an anomoly having little to no post highschool experience playing hoops.

Even if that had some merit his argument was that stars don't make good bball coaches. But we all know that not everyone is a star, so if 80% of the league is black, 79% is black and not a star with a **** load of experience.
 

Bad Gopher said:
Although I understand where the dude is coming from, I don't think the African-American community can have it both ways. In other words, we're still celebrating the integration of the game, as we should. As I was listening to the tournament on the radio the other day, they did a short historical piece on the 1966 Texas Western team playing Kentucky in the championship. It took a lot to gain the unfettered right for blacks to compete in major college basketball, and we shouldn't stop feeling good about that. But to then claim slavery because you've been so successfully integrated into the system - even as admittedly inequitable it is to the athletes - is disingenuous. How are the white and Latino players not also slaves? Are we completely ignoring the value of the college education, which is something hugely beneficial to underprivileged groups?

I'm sorry, this is right up there with the complaint that there were 5 white players on the floor at the same time for the Timberwolves for a few minutes in one game a few years ago.
Click to expand...

I guess I see his point more than others, which is okay, there are many ways to look at it. The amount of money being made on college hoops (or football) was insignificant before integration, or during the 1966 season you referenced. I do think players are treated a bit like slaves (be them white or black or brown) nowadays, with the NCAA/Coaches making a ton of money while the players are forced to take payments under the table, etc in order to get a piece of the pie. Players are pushed out of programs and recruited for their ability to help make the colleges and NCAA a lot of money. The fact is, more players are black and come from socioeconomic conditions that are not as favorable as many of us had growing up. They are shown NBA lifestyle from an early age and promised the moon by media, scouts, coaches, etc. The players have little in the way of rights and help make others rich (not unlike slavery). This starts in AAU and high school. Its a stretch to make a 1 to 1 comparison to slavery, but to say its like slave labor? I can see why the case is made. College sports today is nothing like it was in the 1960s and I think players from poor backgrounds are taken advantage of, but thats my 2 cents.

That said, I want to see a top recruit go to the Gophers as much as anyone and am find turning a blind eye to the ugly part of the game in the hopes the Gophers win!
 

You must log in or register to reply here.



Top Bottom