Jomo/Butch, I am color-blind to it as well. That said, I'd hate to see us miss out on good talent if potentially bad racial perceptions prevent us from pursuing that talent if it's there. I think that's a fair concern.
Good point on Born and Neal but they were both just before Phillips. So this century, we haven't seen it happen. But I'm not sure if it's that white guys are less appreciated as players nowadays or if black players really are that much better as a whole. And is it primarily due to a difference in athleticism? Or is it something else altogether like the athletic white guys choosing to pursue other sports (baseball, football, soccer, golf, wrestling, tennis, etc.) growing up?
I forgot that Richardson left early. Thought about Wes Moore too but even he started as a walk-on. Pretty amazing when you think about it. There have been several foreign white guys come in and play. A few transfers (like Keegan Bell) as well. But very few American-born guys good enough to get the scholarship as a freshman AND stay the entire time. So it's been nearly 20 years or so. I just remembered that Trey Kalina (in Wade's class next year) is white. Maybe he'll be the guy we look back at 20 years from now as the last white scholly kid to stay all 4/5 years. Lol.
Jay, in honor of "Dumb and Dumber To" coming out tomorrow, let's see your Rushmore of "Dumb and Dumber" quotes for the mailbag. Lots of good ones to choose from.
MT, interesting note on the pivot play. Any knowledge on where the Rail Lights played in town? I've never heard of them. This must have been professional basketball long before the NBA was formed.
Interesting note from Murray about the two white players. Nowadays, I doubt any college has two white guys on its team that will be future NBA players. Are black players really that much better than whites (especially the American-born) or is it more of a perception?
When was the last time UTC signed an American-born white kid to a scholarship and who played all 4 years? Do we have to go back to Bryan Richardson more than 10 years ago? As noted yesterday, I don't see the racial disparity as a problem per se; I'm simply curious.
The Dirk and Nash deals look amazingly one-sided after the fact. But when they happened, those guys were young and raw and let's be honest for a second...how many GMs were willing to basically risk their careers by taking a chance on not one, but two unproven white guys in a black-dominated NBA? And the Euro invasion was in the very early stages so not a lot of stock was being put into guys like Dirk yet. To be clear, I see nothing wrong with the racial disparity in the NBA...the best players need to be playing regardless of race. But I think the Mavs' moves more than a decade ago had more risk to them than people think.
If we have to consider off-the-field stuff too, I'd stay Megatron over Moss. Otherwise, it's even.
Seems weird saying this, but I do think Dirk is better than Larry. He's taller, quicker, and has more of a complete game. And his fadeway shot off of one foot is virtually unstoppable. Kind of like Kareem's skyhook and MJ's fade. Now we're talking big-time.
Dirk is probably more finesse, though that's not necessarily a bad thing. But Larry had more grit and a will to win than Dirk does. Either way, I think it's closer than most will give credit for. Larry played on a storied team and in the NBA's biggest rivalry for an entire decade. Dirk is a foreign guy who has flown well under the radar for most of his career. So advantage Larry with the exposure. But Dirk is just as good if not better.
Jomo, good point on the FCS. I'm starting to understand now on the FBS. The NCAA has its own hands tied with the auto bid requirement and also by how big the bowl system became. Maybe splitting the FBS into two divisions would enable the NCAA to get on board with a playoffs system. But it obviously wouldn't be easy. Or the NCAA could choose to kick out the Power 5 altogether. But they would really miss those guys in March.
Billy, good point on the TV deal, but I wouldn't think that'd necessarily mean that the schools could willfully trump the NCAA on how a champion is determined. Yes, the schools could choose to leave or the NCAA could choose to kick them out, but as noted above, it seems like it's best for both parties to stay together and let the Power 5 have some control. Am interested in JG's thoughts on this too in the mailbag.
Jay, also ask Will Wade if he has a goal for how soon the Moc offense scores on each possession. And would he be in favor of the NCAA shortening the shot clock?
Jomo, not necessarily. Some FCS conferences don't even have auto bids to the FCS playoffs. Not sure why that would mean all FBS conferences would need an auto bid too. So again, when/why did the NCAA give up control over the FBS championship to the conferences? Doesn't seem to make sense.
Jomo, so we'd basically have to hope for an upset on the other end of our bracket in order to get a 2nd home game. But that also assumes that we are winning our games too.
I understand the FBS winner is not an "NCAA champ." But my question is why. How/why is the NCAA not involved? If it is up to them, why would they not want to?