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

As a minority who went through school on a athletic scholarship i take great offense to all the crying for money, white coaches etc.. These scholarships now are worth nearly half a million dollars. My opportunity gave me everything i have both in experiences, relationships and security. At this point if that chance is not enough then lets go with academic rigor for merit based scholarships. Lets go with true student athletes. That way each individual that wants to get paid for playing can test himself and his chances elsewhere. Like anyone else they have to take on the risk. Even with all the money in college sports most athletic departments are losing money. Administrations are not going to go for pay, against title 9. Spencer should know better than to use the slave word in this instance. Slaves did not get rides to universities, room, board, tuition. cash stipend, training table, nutritionist, travel, apparel. When they start paying them is when i stop supporting 4 programs financially and i will not be the only one. Many athletes are getting into school over students that are far more qualified. As for coaches being white in huge numbers, they are simply more qualified. The minorities that finish school, get a advanced degree and pay dues at small schools get their chance. John Chaney says quit whining , get busy working.
 

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!

Thanks for your insight Rouser. You make good points. I am curious if you would apply your theory/insight to the medical, entertainment, or media industries, all of which are built on people learning the business by providing free or essentially free labor to the industry (some maybe even paying for the privilege of being on call for 48 or 72 hours at a crack). College sports are not the only place where people wanting to do something they love or play the game to get a big payday or most likely a combination thereof. I'm sure someone has done the research, but can you imagine what the cost of medical care would look like if residents and med students were paid a market wage for what they provide to the industry? The issue with athletes is not a slam dunk and has analogies elsewhere. In some ways, I bet the athletes actually do better than med students. At least they are not in debt hundreds of thousands of dollars after they have provided their free labor and received their degrees.

Your point about the problem beginning in youth is well-taken. I have an acquaintance whose grandfather played college football on scholarship. He is idolized by his grandchildren and their friends for having "made it." He brought them back to reality when he told them that he played sports to get an education rather than getting an education to play sports. That truth is way too often reversed now.

For the record, I am not in favor of paying players and never will be. I am much in favor of players sharing in the excess through access to better education, health insurance and protection of their scholarships if it doesn't work out sports wise. While not a socialist, I think there has to be some equity between the haves and have nots, too. The point guard at Loyola should have access to the same benefits as the point guard for Puke.
 

Rouser, your right . They are poisoned by entitlement, summer shoe money and horrific guidance (not all) at the AAU level.
 

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.

I don’t necessarily agree but there is a point in there. It’s not voluntary if they are putting up walls to prevent players from getting paid while they are profiting off said players.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 

If you really think it's slavery then don't sign-up.

Tinge...he said tinge. If they really don’t like players leaving for the NBA then don’t recruit NBA caliber players. If some owners in the NBA don’t like young players then don’t draft them.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 


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.

That’s the fault of black players. Why play for a school you can’t work at? HBC’s have sports programs also.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 

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.

Really dude?[emoji57]


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 

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.

Tinge...the man said tinge.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 

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.

Are you seriously questioning who’s generating the wealth? The NCAA and NBA are acting in cahoots. If there wasn’t rule NBA would draft 10th graders and the College coaches would sign 8th graders. They implement rules to impede players to save themselves.

Pay college coaches like Professors and I’d have no complaints about the money. Have College coaches adhere to the same transfer rules (switching jobs) then I would be cool.

The kids take the best options open to them while teams/leagues collude to limit those options.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 



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.

The NCAA has threatened to limit their involvement with NBA scouts and those scouts access on their campuses. How do you think a Terrell Pryor got suspended in the NFL for having the audacity to sell his own jersey while in COLLEGE?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 

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?

Great points and that doesn’t even take into account the seedier things that happen in college programs to the detriment of players.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 

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.

My man, it’s about OPPORTUNITY. Name one black player that became a coach on the College are Pro Level without ever playing? That opportunity ain’t happening for a brother. The bar is higher.

Star players? You act as if all minority professional athletes are stars? That would be a no.



Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 

Pat Riley, Kevin McHale, Larry Bird, Danny Ainge, Phil Jackson all have what in common?

But he’s been doing it for awhile (coaching). I suppose his bonafides didn’t take into account what you posted. Great point.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 



Are you seriously questioning who’s generating the wealth?

There is absolutely no question who generates the wealth. The name on the front of the jersey is infinitely more important than the name on the back. The schools and teams were all here before any of these coaches and players were born, and the schools and teams will still be here long after every one of these players and coaches are dead and gone.
 

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

Sure but better consider Title 9 and the other nonrevenue sports that have a negative impact on said profits.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 

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.

Great points and it comes back to OPPORTUNITY. Not every demographic is getting the same level of opportunities.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 

There is absolutely no question who generates the wealth. The name on the front of the jersey is infinitely more important than the name on the back. The schools and teams were all here before any of these coaches and players were born, and the schools and teams will still be here long after every one of these players and coaches are dead and gone.

My man; let Notre Dame start lossing games and let’s see how that next NBC contract plays out?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 

My man; let Notre Dame start lossing games and let’s see how that next NBC contract plays out?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

What?

Notre Dame was 4-8 2 years ago.

Under Brian Kelly, they've been in the national championship conversation maybe 2 times? Since 2006 they've had 7 seasons with 5 losses or more. This is probably the worst example you could have thrown out there.

No one is turning on Notre Dame football to watch their lineman maul the other team, they are turning on to watch the Golden Domes because that's what they've done for years.

They've won 5 bowl games since 1993. 5.
 

Several minority coaches have been hired in the Big 10. It is true that more opportunities need to be presented and at the same time more need to be qualified. Very encouraged by the increase in asst. coaches that are minorities.
 

What?

Notre Dame was 4-8 2 years ago.

Under Brian Kelly, they've been in the national championship conversation maybe 2 times? Since 2006 they've had 7 seasons with 5 losses or more. This is probably the worst example you could have thrown out there.

No one is turning on Notre Dame football to watch their lineman maul the other team, they are turning on to watch the Golden Domes because that's what they've done for years.

They've won 5 bowl games since 1993. 5.

My man; Notre Dame signed a 10 year extension in 2013 after a 1 loss season. Also, they are not turning on the TV to watch students attend class. Have Augsburg football team show up for the next 5 seasons wearing Fighting Irish Uniforms and see what the new contract looks like?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 

Several minority coaches have been hired in the Big 10. It is true that more opportunities need to be presented and at the same time more need to be qualified. Very encouraged by the increase in asst. coaches that are minorities.

Personally I believe this is a non issue or if it is an issue it rests squarely at the feet of the folks not getting the jobs. If black players only played for institutions that had a track record of hiring black coaches they could solve the problem fairly quickly. Let Alabama play with what’s left after all the top black players coming out of High school sign with Grambling, Georgia Southern, Texas Tech, Texas, Notre Dame ectera. The SEC would become a joke of a conference real quick.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 

My man; Notre Dame signed a 10 year extension in 2013 after a 1 loss season. Also, they are not turning on the TV to watch students attend class. Have Augsburg football team show up for the next 5 seasons wearing Fighting Irish Uniforms and see what the new contract looks like?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

My dude. Exactly.
 


Sure but better consider Title 9 and the other nonrevenue sports that have a negative impact on said profits.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Either way, profit is the better way to look at it. Using revenue alone is very deceiving.
 


I understand not paying all athletes. Most are not bringing in big profits for their schools. I don't think anyone can give a good reason for why they shouldn't be able to make money off their own brand though. What would be so terrible about Washington making money from his Jelly brand? Don't give me the slippery slope crap of boosters can pay x dollars for autographs and then there's an unfair competitive advantage. We already know these kids are being paid under the table in basketball and football anyway. The kids really making schools money are often coming from underpriviledged backgrounds. It's a joke that they can't be taken out for a meal without worrying about repercussions. What's so bad about a bunch of old white dudes throwing money at kids whose families could really use it? Also, schools make a bunch of extra money from playing in the NCAA tournament. Why can't players on those teams get tiny bonuses from that considering coaches and schools get huge ones? Jersey sales aren't big in college, but why can't players get a small cut from that when their jersey is sold? It's also interesting that the NCAA used to make a ton of money off of their video games and then completely stopped making them once they had to share with the players.
 

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

No, but I can see where I led you astray. I over simplified a complex argument and wasn't precise. Your argument, as originally stated, makes an implied assumption about the coaching population. I was trying to manifest the population is different from how you were using it.

Simply put, I would not expect current demographics of players to reflect the population of those coaching. You happened to make a broader claim that this is racism. I am telling you that this has no bearing on whether there is, or isn't, racism in NCAA basketball coaching positions. Nor does it suggest it. Not even a little. Both populations draw from different pools. The pools do not overlap.

Any talk of stars to coaches was tangential, and meant to address an inherent assumption necessary for your argument. You can ignore it as it has not proven useful to illustrate why.
 

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.

My argument was wholly about the use of statistics and evidence. The other part was simply trying to keep it from being too abstract. I.E. he was using an implied assumption; I was trying to show how that implied assumption is absurd. Obviously I didn't communicate it correctly, as you didnt even repeat it correctly. Your post is actually trying to call out a similar phenomenon. Reference my response to him.
 




Top Bottom