Ron Edwards column suggests U doesn't treat black coaches well, cites Clem and Tubby

[craw0092]

I grew up in Yankton and I went golfing with Iverson the summer of his transfer. He told me the same thing, he thought Tubby was racist. If you ever watched the games, Iverson was light years ahead of Sampson, even with foul trouble. It doesn't take a genius to watch the games and see how much better he was.

You are saying Tubby was such a terrible coach, that he can't tell the difference between and NBA player and a D1 scrub? wow. There is more to it. He played Hoff because he had no one else, not because he wanted to. But with Iverson and Sampson, he could choose which big man he wanted to play.

 

[MinneStoa]

I grew up in Yankton and I went golfing with Iverson the summer of his transfer. He told me the same thing, he thought Tubby was racist. If you ever watched the games, Iverson was light years ahead of Sampson, even with foul trouble. It doesn't take a genius to watch the games and see how much better he was.

You are saying Tubby was such a terrible coach, that he can't tell the difference between and NBA player and a D1 scrub? wow. There is more to it. He played Hoff because he had no one else, not because he wanted to. But with Iverson and Sampson, he could choose which big man he wanted to play.

I spent a fair amount of time with Colton after his transfer, and he never really had many negative things to say about Tubby. He was always going to be the muscle & defensive presence. Anyone who thinks Colton was anywhere near Ralph (especially in terms of offense) is out of their mind. Colt was a poor man's EE, and thrived on a CSU team that had nobody else to be a leader.

Colton knew his role, and it was never to be an offensive juggernaught. Shoot, even when he was drafted the commentators said "He's good for a few blocks and six fouls per night".

 

[underground629]

I think the original comment is a joke, but this comparison isn't a good one. Mav was absolutely awful at the time. Hoffarber was fine in certain matchups and awful in others. Sampson was better than Iverson a lot of the time, but Sampson had such a longer leash for no good reason. He was invisible half the time. You might as well give Iverson half the game when Sampson is playing horribly. You'll say there's no evidence of this, which is fine, but I think the last name was the reason. When Sampson was awful and Iverson was playing well, Tubby absolutely should've played Iverson more than he did. Also, not sure what you were getting at with the last post. Are you suggesting you have inside info on why Iverson didn't get to play more? Or that he didn't think Tubby was racist? I'm probably just too tired to realize what you meant.

Oh, you mean how he'd rather play Hoffarber (a white man) out of position at PG than play Ahanmisi (a black man) there? What a moronic comment.

P.S. My nephew and Iverson are best friends - race had nothing to do with it. As I suspected, you're talking out of your ass.

 

[underground629]

That comment was in regards to his abilities in the NBA, not college. Think back to Colt at the end of sophomore year. He just needed the right opportunity. If Tubby loved him unconditionally like he loved Ralph, Colt would've had a solid career here.

I spent a fair amount of time with Colton after his transfer, and he never really had many negative things to say about Tubby. He was always going to be the muscle & defensive presence. Anyone who thinks Colton was anywhere near Ralph (especially in terms of offense) is out of their mind. Colt was a poor man's EE, and thrived on a CSU team that had nobody else to be a leader.

Colton knew his role, and it was never to be an offensive juggernaught. Shoot, even when he was drafted the commentators said "He's good for a few blocks and six fouls per night".

 

[bemidjigopher]

I think the original comment is a joke, but this comparison isn't a good one. Mav was absolutely awful at the time. Hoffarber was fine in certain matchups and awful in others. Sampson was better than Iverson a lot of the time, but Sampson had such a longer leash for no good reason. He was invisible half the time. You might as well give Iverson half the game when Sampson is playing horribly. You'll say there's no evidence of this, which is fine, but I think the last name was the reason. When Sampson was awful and Iverson was playing well, Tubby absolutely should've played Iverson more than he did. Also, not sure what you were getting at with the last post. Are you suggesting you have inside info on why Iverson didn't get to play more? Or that he didn't think Tubby was racist? I'm probably just too tired to realize what you meant.

I'll agree with the 2011 team, I never thought Hoff was the problem at the point, it was the ripple that it caused. Rodney at the two, Mbakwe at the wing, Iverson and Sampson inside team was too slow. Hoff was a PG at times in High School

 

[...]

I wonder how many Big Ten basketball coaches have been black in the conference history. I'm guessing it's less than 10. Minnesota has hired two of them.

By my count it's 11 African American (12 if you count that Rutgers will have one when they join the Big Ten next year) and 1 Native American.

Breakdown by school, not counting before they joined the Big Ten:
Illinois: none
Indiana: Miles Davis, Kelvin Sampson (Native American)
Iowa: George Raveling
Maryland: none
Michigan: Brian Ellerbe, Tommy Amaker
Michigan State: none
Minnesota: Clem Haskins, Tubby Smith
Nebraska: none
Northwestern: Ricky Byrdsong
Ohio State: Randy Ayers
Penn State: Jerry Dunn
Purdue: none
Rutgers: Eddie Jordan
Wisconsin: Bill Cofield, Stu Jackson

 

[Maximus]

He played Hoff because he had no one else, not because he wanted to.

In 121 years of Gopher basketball, Hoffarber played more games than any player except for Rodney Williams. Tubby must've hated that.

Jeff Sheppard was Final Four MVP in 1998, Tubby must've hated that.

Scott Padgett also made the All-NCAA Final Four team that year. Tubby must've hated that.

 

[WHB Brewer]

Surprised the guy didn't mention Littlejohn in the list of mistreated black coaches

 

[GophersInIowa]

By my count it's 11 African American (12 if you count that Rutgers will have one when they join the Big Ten next year) and 1 Native American.

Breakdown by school, not counting before they joined the Big Ten:
Illinois: none
Indiana: Miles Davis, Kelvin Sampson (Native American)
Iowa: George Raveling
Maryland: none
Michigan: Brian Ellerbe, Tommy Amaker
Michigan State: none
Minnesota: Clem Haskins, Tubby Smith
Nebraska: none
Northwestern: Ricky Byrdsong
Ohio State: Randy Ayers
Penn State: Jerry Dunn
Purdue: none
Rutgers: Eddie Jordan
Wisconsin: Bill Cofield, Stu Jackson

Thanks for looking into that. I knew it wouldn't be a lot.

 

[WanderingGopher]

By my count it's 11 African American (12 if you count that Rutgers will have one when they join the Big Ten next year) and 1 Native American.

Breakdown by school, not counting before they joined the Big Ten:
Illinois: none
Indiana: Miles Davis, Kelvin Sampson (Native American)
Iowa: George Raveling
Maryland: none
Michigan: Brian Ellerbe, Tommy Amaker
Michigan State: none
Minnesota: Clem Haskins, Tubby Smith
Nebraska: none
Northwestern: Ricky Byrdsong
Ohio State: Randy Ayers
Penn State: Jerry Dunn
Purdue: none
Rutgers: Eddie Jordan
Wisconsin: Bill Cofield, Stu Jackson

So I've lost track, are you racist if you've never had a black coach, or racist if you've hired black coaches but then fired them? Help me Spokesman Recorder, it's all so confusing.

 

[...]

So I've lost track, are you racist if you've never had a black coach, or racist if you've hired black coaches but then fired them? Help me Spokesman Recorder, it's all so confusing.

If I had to guess how Mr. Edwards would answer that, I think he would say yes, you are racist if you've never had a black coach or if you've fired a black coach.

 

[vagopher]

I seem to recall that Tubby said he spoke to Clem before he accepted the Minnesota job. If true, it suggests that Clem didn't believe that Minnesota was culturally a bad environment for a black coach. Personally I deeply regret the academic scandal as I wish Clem was still our coach.

 

[GophersInIowa]

By my count it's 11 African American (12 if you count that Rutgers will have one when they join the Big Ten next year) and 1 Native American.

Breakdown by school, not counting before they joined the Big Ten:
Illinois: none
Indiana: Miles Davis, Kelvin Sampson (Native American) 8 combine seasons
Iowa: George Raveling 3 seasons
Maryland: none
Michigan: Brian Ellerbe, Tommy Amaker 10 combined seasons
Michigan State: none
Minnesota: Clem Haskins, Tubby Smith 19 combined seasons
Nebraska: none
Northwestern: Ricky Byrdsong 4 seasons
Ohio State: Randy Ayers
Penn State: Jerry Dunn 8 seasons
Purdue: none
Rutgers: Eddie Jordan 1 season
Wisconsin: Bill Cofield, Stu Jackson 8 combined seasons

By the way, Minnesota has had a black coach nearly twice as many seasons as any other Big Ten program.

 

[cncmin]

By the way, Minnesota has had a black coach nearly twice as many seasons as any other Big Ten program.

This. The author has some kind of axe to grind, maybe he's the reincarnation of Panth...eh, the geek from Iowa who shall not be named...and thus he's digging to find examples to fit his extremely poorly thought out narrative.

As GII pointed out, the Gopher basketball program (and the University of Minnesota as a whole, administration and student body included) has been extremely receptive to African Americans, at least in my lifetime. Even today under a new "white" coach (can't believe in 2014 we actually must make a distinction like this, but I didn't start this), just look at the current Gopher roster vice that of Wisconsin, the neighboring state school, where there are very few black players.

Go beyond that. I don't go as far back as the old-timers on this board, but wasn't the Gophers' football success in the 60s - unfortunately their last time as a football power - largely due to the playing of excellent black athletes back in the days when that was uncommon?

Given all of the evidence, the University of Minnesota is an extremely poor choice to try to make a narrative out of "racism" against the black coach or athlete in the modern era. I've met people like Edwards; they are not fun people to be around because they live in a very different world than reality. Things like this produce a divide among the non-knowledgeable, whom he is apparently trying to convince, and those of us who can verify the ridiculousness of his piece.

 

[maroonfive]

What about Cheryl Littlejohn? She was not fired because she was black. She was fired because of major rules violations and because of her record. What a run. Here overall record was 29 wins and 81 losses. Her Big Ten record was 7 wins and 57 losses. That is an embarrassing tenure at best.

 

[vagopher]

This. The author has some kind of axe to grind, maybe he's the reincarnation of Panth...eh, the geek from Iowa who shall not be named...and thus he's digging to find examples to fit his extremely poorly thought out narrative.

As GII pointed out, the Gopher basketball program (and the University of Minnesota as a whole, administration and student body included) has been extremely receptive to African Americans, at least in my lifetime. Even today under a new "white" coach (can't believe in 2014 we actually must make a distinction like this, but I didn't start this), just look at the current Gopher roster vice that of Wisconsin, the neighboring state school, where there are very few black players.

Go beyond that. I don't go as far back as the old-timers on this board, but wasn't the Gophers' football success in the 60s - unfortunately their last time as a football power - largely due to the playing of excellent black athletes back in the days when that was uncommon?

Given all of the evidence, the University of Minnesota is an extremely poor choice to try to make a narrative out of "racism" against the black coach or athlete in the modern era. I've met people like Edwards; they are not fun people to be around because they live in a very different world than reality. Things like this produce a divide among the non-knowledgeable, whom he is apparently trying to convince, and those of us who can verify the ridiculousness of his piece.

You're right. I was a student at Minnesota from 1958 until 1962. My junior and senior seasons we went to the Rose Bowl. The 1960 team was named national champion, but lost to Washington in The Rose Bowl 17-7. The next year we returned to the Rose Bowl and beat UCLA 21-3. We went from last in the Big Ten in 1959 to National Champs in 1960.

This was achieved thanks to a reporter/columnist for the Minneapolis Tribune (then an evening daily newspaper that was later combined with the Minneapolis Star to become the Star-Tribune), by the name of Carl Rowan. (I had the privilege of practicing law with his son, Carl Rowan, Jr.). Rowan was a black from Tennessee who received a masters in journalism from the U. He was the one who persuaded a number of black players from Pennsylvania and North Carolina to play for Minnesota. The players included Sandy Stephens, the first black major college quarterback in the country (placed 4th in the Heisman Trophy voting); Carl Eller, who was an All-American and one of the Vikings famous "Purple People Eaters"; and Bobby Lee Bell, who was an all-pro line backer for the Kansas City Chiefs.

In the 1960s, Jim Crow laws still prevailed in the South and few, if any, blacks played for major colleges in either football or basketball. I believe that Minnesota was the school that broke the color barrier in major college sports, and I think we deserve a great deal of credit for doing that. Edwards is just way off base.

 

[Emil]

Of course Mr Edwards has an agenda. His point is that all blacks are victims. Tubby was black. Tubby was fired. Clem was black. Clem was fired. The conclusion of course is that they were fired for being black. As others have noted it is not possible to sell those ideas to anyone with knowledge of the Tubby/Clem situations but Edwards is banking on the ignorance of his readers or more likely is assuming that he is "preaching to the choir".
What is really sad about people like Edwards who insist that all failure by African Americans is due to racism is that it really hurts the black man. Whenever he fails he has a ready made excuse. He is the victim of racism. This deters him from examining the situation to see if there are reasons apart from racism which led to his failure. He therefore is less likely to make the changes or improvements in his behavior which could lead to success.
Yes racism exists. Any one who is truly interested in assisting black youth would be centering their focus on teaching attitudes and techniques which overcome racism and allow the black man to cope and succeed in current society and quite possibly to assist society to change. People like Edwards are more interested in justifying their own shortcomings and providing black youth with an easy excuse for failure than they are in teaching the means to achieve success.

 

[joshvanklomp]

Guess who got the first question at the Marlene Stollings presser, and guess what he asked about?!

 

[oleboy41]

Of course Mr Edwards has an agenda. His point is that all blacks are victims. Tubby was black. Tubby was fired. Clem was black. Clem was fired. The conclusion of course is that they were fired for being black. As others have noted it is not possible to sell those ideas to anyone with knowledge of the Tubby/Clem situations but Edwards is banking on the ignorance of his readers or more likely is assuming that he is "preaching to the choir".
What is really sad about people like Edwards who insist that all failure by African Americans is due to racism is that it really hurts the black man. Whenever he fails he has a ready made excuse. He is the victim of racism. This deters him from examining the situation to see if there are reasons apart from racism which led to his failure. He therefore is less likely to make the changes or improvements in his behavior which could lead to success.
Yes racism exists. Any one who is truly interested in assisting black youth would be centering their focus on teaching attitudes and techniques which overcome racism and allow the black man to cope and succeed in current society and quite possibly to assist society to change. People like Edwards are more interested in justifying their own shortcomings and providing black youth with an easy excuse for failure than they are in teaching the means to achieve success.[/QUOTE]

I was ok with your point up until this part. While obviously most disagree with the author of this article, exposing and calling out racism has been and still is a very effective way of bringing about real change. The Civil Rights Movement wasn't about teaching young black people how to better cope with racism levied against them, it was about confronting that racism and fighting against it. That still happens to this day and is still often effective. Saying that the way to 'help black youth' is simply to teach them how to cope with racism is a woefully shortsighted solution. That's like telling a man that the way to better his marriage is for only his wife to go to counseling

 

[...]

Didn't catch who asked it, but the second question at the Stollings intro press conference was if we interviewed any black coaches for the women's head coaching job.

EDIT: Looks like joshvanklomp beat me to it...so it was Edwards then?

 

[joshvanklomp]

EDIT: Looks like joshvanklomp beat me to it...so it was Edwards then?

I didn't catch the guy's name, but I know it was the same paper.

 

[BleedGopher]

Op-ed on this thread:

Gopher fans’ website doesn’t play fair

It’s unfortunate that many readers on that site totally missed Edwards’ main points: Black coaches, whether in Minnesota or elsewhere, are unfairly held to double standards unlike their White counterparts, and many U of M Black players left the school with bad tastes in their mouths.

It’s also unfortunate that the Hole readers don’t know a columnist’s role, which is to express an opinion, either to inform, enlighten, delight or enrage the reader.

There’s nothing wrong with the Hole followers seeing things only through maroon and gold-colored glasses. But instead of these readers being civil with their counter-arguments, they are insulting and racist. Their profanity-laced rants are childlike and show remedial-level English proficiency.

There is nothing wrong with being passionate about a particular team or school. What bothers me is not what Edwards said, or even if I agree with him or not, but that people respond to him as cowardly word assassins. Edwards proudly uses his name each week in his columns and doesn’t hide behind some nitwit moniker. The person or persons who respond should be man or woman enough to use their real names whether they agree or disagree with him.

That is being fair and balanced. Anything else is totally unacceptable.

http://www.spokesman-recorder.com/2014/04/09/gopher-fans-website-doesnt-play-fair/

Go Gophers!!

 

[Go4]

apparently their "legacy" allows them to, well...i'll refrain from posting what i want to write. from their piece.

The MSR has served this community for 80 years, at least four times longer than the Hole, which I don’t consider journalism but a digital rah-rah site. While some Hole readers complain about our newspaper, about me or Edwards, or about our objectively, clearly they don’t understand or don’t want to understand the legacy and significance of the Black Press, locally or nationally.

 

[MadtownGopher]

LOL

 

[GoodasGold]

Op-ed on this thread:

Gopher fans’ website doesn’t play fair

It’s unfortunate that many readers on that site totally missed Edwards’ main points: Black coaches, whether in Minnesota or elsewhere, are unfairly held to double standards unlike their White counterparts, and many U of M Black players left the school with bad tastes in their mouths.

It’s also unfortunate that the Hole readers don’t know a columnist’s role, which is to express an opinion, either to inform, enlighten, delight or enrage the reader.

There’s nothing wrong with the Hole followers seeing things only through maroon and gold-colored glasses. But instead of these readers being civil with their counter-arguments, they are insulting and racist. Their profanity-laced rants are childlike and show remedial-level English proficiency.

There is nothing wrong with being passionate about a particular team or school. What bothers me is not what Edwards said, or even if I agree with him or not, but that people respond to him as cowardly word assassins. Edwards proudly uses his name each week in his columns and doesn’t hide behind some nitwit moniker. The person or persons who respond should be man or woman enough to use their real names whether they agree or disagree with him.

That is being fair and balanced. Anything else is totally unacceptable.

http://www.spokesman-recorder.com/2014/04/09/gopher-fans-website-doesnt-play-fair/

Go Gophers!!

Thank you for your comments. Your opinions are very important to us. Please leave your name and a telephone number at which you may be reached and a representative will contact you presently.

 

[WanderingGopher]

He has a point in that it's "unfair" his name is out there and ours aren't. But if you write and publish a column deserving of ridicule, then you are probably going to be ridiculed. The column was so devoid of logic and full of misstatements that any informed person would not simply consider our discussion a "difference of opinion."

 

[bleedsmaroonandgold]

"The MSR has served this community for 80 years, at least four times longer than the Hole, which I don’t consider journalism but a digital rah-rah site."

The Hole is a digitial rah-rah site and that is not a bad thing. I write and post on GH, and my only qualification is access to the internet. Him accusing us of not providing "fair and balanced" content is like when Jon Stewart appeared on Crossifire, the hosts accused him of not asking hardball questions of his guests, and Stewart saying something to the effect of "my show comes on after a show about puppets making prank calls, if my watchers are coming to me for real news, we're in trouble". At the end of the day, what this columnist refused to acknowledge was that Edwards made a totally invalid case that the U treated black coaches unfairly (his only evidence was (1) a coach who was responsible for an embarassing academic scandal which tarnished our image, tore banners off the rafters, vacated entire seasons, and left us with years of sanctions and (2) a coach whose record Edwards lied about to make his firing sound unfair. The author of this column didn't even bother to try to argue that Edwards' piece was legitimately argued. It is like when that hack writer came to Souhan's defense and then refused to mention or defend the line in Souhan's piece that got everyone offended in the first place.

 

[The Brain Trust]

other than the fact that Tubby is the only coach in NCAA history (not under NCAA investigation) to be fired after the schools best official post season run in over 30 years the Spokesman article is rubbish.

 

[Winnipegopher]

other than the fact that Tubby is the only coach in NCAA history (not under NCAA investigation) to be fired after the schools best official post season run in over 30 years the Spokesman article is rubbish.

So in your mind, losing in the round of 32 is superior to losing in the elite 8? Care to explain how that is possible?

Hey, you were the one who brought up "more than thirty years."

 

[GoodasGold]

other than the fact that Tubby is the only coach in NCAA history (not under NCAA investigation) to be fired after the schools best official post season run in over 30 years the Spokesman article is rubbish.

you forgot to add the conference late season and tournament successes.