Isaac Brown Named Interim Head Coach

[C0|dB|00ded]

1. White people are on average taller, not shorter than Black people
2. Most of the slaves came from agrarian West Africa, not hunter-gatherer dominated Southern Africa
3. If physiology was the only factor in athletics, Black people would dominate high jump just as much as basketball but only 2 Black men and 3 Black women have logged a top 25 attempt

Assumption isn't science, and this board isn't the place for racial stereotypes. One would think that we would remember that our best and brightest example in the NBA is a black player that isn't a big or explosive athlete and his compatriot was a white guy with the same wingspan as Dwayne Wade and a penchant for chase-down blocks. Buying into stereotypes does no one any good and puts egg on all of our faces.

On more relevant topics, I cannot imagine Kennedy even being a candidate for the position and I do think bringing in Ron or at least considering him would bring good will from at least the small-time donors.

1) strawman (height wasn't debated)
2) partial point awarded, but hunting did occur in that region and there was still significant danger from large game and the climate was/is brutal.
3) strawman (never stated it was the only factor, but it is the most important)

The rest of your comment on the subject is political, myopic, and mostly just wrong. But you feel better now after virtue-signaling right? Feels is all that matters in 2020.

Black people on average are quicker/faster; black people on average jump higher; black people on average have longer limb-length ratios. These are not insignificant advantages.

I repeat this because I want you to accept this fact CBB_Fan, and feel okay doing so. Uncomfortable truths are still truths. Living in truth is much better than living in denial. It allows you to make more accurate decisions in life. Gregg Marshall was very aware of these truths.

Princeton, which would be employing some of those "other factors" you mentioned, would reach a concrete conclusion on their relative effectiveness within short order in a game against Kentucky.

[C0|dB|00ded]

1. White people are on average taller, not shorter than Black people
2. Most of the slaves came from agrarian West Africa, not hunter-gatherer dominated Southern Africa
3. If physiology was the only factor in athletics, Black people would dominate high jump just as much as basketball but only 2 Black men and 3 Black women have logged a top 25 attempt

Assumption isn't science, and this board isn't the place for racial stereotypes. One would think that we would remember that our best and brightest example in the NBA is a black player that isn't a big or explosive athlete and his compatriot was a white guy with the same wingspan as Dwayne Wade and a penchant for chase-down blocks. Buying into stereotypes does no one any good and puts egg on all of our faces.

On more relevant topics, I cannot imagine Kennedy even being a candidate for the position and I do think bringing in Ron or at least considering him would bring good will from at least the small-time donors.

P.S. I will bet you massive dinero that had Ron Baker had a normal wing-span ratio, he would have never sniffed the NBA. So Ron's "black" wingspan ratio allowed him to defend the perimeter, block shots, and release shots w/ added advantage.

I think Ron was 6'3 without shoes. Having a nearly 6'9 wingspan was absolutely extraordinary. Most white males have a wingspan close to their height.

[C0|dB|00ded]

Some of the suggestions I'm seeing here are making me more fond of consideration of Griffin. Instant recruiting.ability.

Recruiting is of course the most important metric when evaluating a coach. This is why I said that if Coach Brown started hauling in some Lunkers, I'd give him some extra rope.

[SubGod22]

Boatright will decide the next coach. A new president isn't expected until this summer if memory serves, and a coach will have to be announced at least in April. He will also likely get at least one season with a new president as the new leader would most likely take that year to figure out what needs to be done, if anything, with the athletic department.

[CBB_Fan]

Stereotypes are not the basis of accurate decisions. A person can easily determine who is, and is not, an explosive athlete without a need for a stereotype. And those stereotypes are treated (correctly) with derision because they are closely linked with negative stereotypes that go back to early 20th century euginicists and beyond. This isn't virtue signaling, it is me not wanting to be within a 500 feet restraining order of anything associated with that.

[C0|dB|00ded]

Stereotypes are not the basis of accurate decisions. A person can easily determine who is, and is not, an explosive athlete without a need for a stereotype. And those stereotypes are treated (correctly) with derision because they are closely linked with negative stereotypes that go back to early 20th century euginicists and beyond. This isn't virtue signaling, it is me not wanting to be within a 500 feet restraining order of anything associated with that.

Agreed. Compulsory measurements can be taken of every prospective athlete in America uncovering the hidden gems like Ron Baker. But it's human nature to make processes more efficient. After noticing a statistically significant difference in physical make-up/prowess, a time-constrained recruiter is going to flip to the Georgian dudes w/ RDR's "tiny calves", before he starts booking plane tickets to Iowa. This is just a fact. Everything in life is filtered. It's the intent behind the filtering that causes trouble. I wanna make the best basketball team I can so I'm going to recruit the best athletes; the best athletes are generally black so I'm going to mostly recruit from that group --- but... I'll keep my eye out for white outliers. Perfectly efficient and logical with the information available.

Now if you said I'm going to make the blackest basketball team I can, so I'm only going to recruit black athletes, that would be racially biased. The difference between that statement and my own is that I am using "black guys" interchangeably with superior basketball players. And I am statistically correct. Hence, no racism. Just probabilities.

Class dismissed.

[shock]

Some of the suggestions I'm seeing here are making me more fond of consideration of Griffin. Instant recruiting.ability.

Recruiting is only one very small aspect of coaching. Penny is putting together super teams and is struggling to beat well coached teams with decent athletes because he can’t coach.

[Aargh]

Difference between Penny and Griffin is that Penny coached AAU and HS teams where he had easy access to better talent than he was coaching against. Griffin has 10 years experience as a high level assistant in the NBA. There's a difference.

[shock]

Agreed. Compulsory measurements can be taken of every prospective athlete in America uncovering the hidden gems like Ron Baker. But it's human nature to make processes more efficient. After noticing a statistically significant difference in physical make-up/prowess, a time-constrained recruiter is going to flip to the Georgian dudes w/ RDR's "tiny calves", before he starts booking plane tickets to Iowa. This is just a fact. Everything in life is filtered. It's the intent behind the filtering that causes trouble. I wanna make the best basketball team I can so I'm going to recruit the best athletes; the best athletes are generally black so I'm going to mostly recruit from that group --- but... I'll keep my eye out for white outliers. Perfectly efficient and logical with the information available.

Now if you said I'm going to make the blackest basketball team I can, so I'm only going to recruit black athletes, that would be racially biased. The difference between that statement and my own is that I am using "black guys" interchangeably with superior basketball players. And I am statistically correct. Hence, no racism. Just probabilities.

Class dismissed.

The whole problem with your argument is that the qualifying factor that you are placing everything else under is the color of their skin.

You have acknowledged that the same type of player can be found in white guys yet your qualifier for success is that they first have the right skin pigment.

that, by definition, is ethnic discrimination.

[CBB_Fan]

Again, you are also implying a ton of unnecessary negative things about an entire demographic when you invoke a positive stereotype. Studies have even shown that people exposed to a positive stereotype led to stronger negative beliefs about Black people than even exposure to negative stereotypes. There's just no need for such things, and especially no need to brag about believing them in a public forum.

Let alone the discussion about whether it is the best tactic for recruiting. Obviously we should take advantage of our conference to recruit Houston, Memphis, Cincinnati and other easily accessible hotspots of talent. But we should also be scouring JUCOs in the Jayhawk Conference, getting players from Sunrise, and not dismissing Europeans. One doesn't have to look farther than the #1 team in the land to see that the best recruiting tactic is 'all of the above'. There has been a major development of talent in Europe and even Asia we would be wise to tap into.

[shock]

Difference between Penny and Griffin is that Penny coached AAU and HS teams where he had easy access to better talent than he was coaching against. Griffin has 10 years experience as a high level assistant in the NBA. There's a difference.

Yeah, players at the professional level by and large are responsible for their own development.

[C0|dB|00ded]

Recruiting is only one very small aspect of coaching. Penny is putting together super teams and is struggling to beat well coached teams with decent athletes because he can’t coach.

Stop trolling. Recruiting is literally everything. Rick Pitino is one of the greatest coaches in college basketball history. He currently leads the Iona Gaels. He could take his Gaels and play the Kentucky Wildcats (coached by yours truly), and I would run him out of the gym.

Gregg Marshall himself is Exhibit A) on how one can build a career based on recruiting disparity. That's what he did in the Big South and the MoValley. Once he got to the AAC, his weaknesses became more evident. For him to make the AAC his *****, he needed to be recruiting mostly high-major talent. Not blue-blood level, but more like Virginia. Solid 4-star ballers with NO physical weaknesses that will run through a wall for you. Give Marshall that crop of player and he will thrive in the AAC. I've always said that Marshall in the ACC or B12 would likely not have a fairytale ending.

[ShockerFever]

Not racist at all my friend, merely biological/physical anthropological science.

Mine is a biological statement in the context of physical performance.

Make no mistake, I observed and rejected the argument you are attempting to make before it even formed in your head. I don't get bogged down in PC platitudes or semantics. I remain wrapped in the warm blanket of logic and reason. Everything else is just noise and human weakness to me.

Carry on.

Have you checked out your posts in the other forums? You’re being hypocritical in the worst way possible.

[ShockerFever]

Boatright will decide the next coach. A new president isn't expected until this summer if memory serves, and a coach will have to be announced at least in April. He will also likely get at least one season with a new president as the new leader would most likely take that year to figure out what needs to be done, if anything, with the athletic department.

That’s extremely depressing.

[C0|dB|00ded]

The whole problem with your argument is that the qualifying factor that you are placing everything else under is the color of their skin.

You have acknowledged that the same type of player can be found in white guys yet your qualifier for success is that they first have the right skin pigment.

that, by definition, is ethnic discrimination.

It's only a "qualifying factor" because it's correlation has been proven to be statistically significant.

I don't think I can make this any simpler for you guys but I'll try.

Imagine I have a 100 acre field and I only have a limited number of seeds. I know where the best dirt is, and I know where the bad dirt is. Should I cast some of my seeds in the bad area because there HAS to be some good soil there, or should I put all my limited seeds in the area that I'm assured to yield the most bumper crop?

This is only a mental exercise as the outcome (logic) in the debate is already available to us. Essentially what we are dealing with is someone who is willing to brazenly talk about the elephant in the room because he doesn't bring a filter to this board.

Maybe ask me what I think about profiling in the political section. Efficiency matters and is inevitable.