Where do the players come from?

[dpodoll68]

If you honestly think melanin count has anything to do with how athletic someone is then you are helplessly retarded and need to take some genetics and physiology classes immediately.

If you honestly think that we're truly talking about the color of their skin, and not the underlying characteristics of their inherited traits, then you are "retarded" and need to go back to your Hawkeye board.

On second thought, I don't care either way. Just go back to the Hawkeye board.

 

[Monty519]

Selection bias, dawg.

How so? We're talking about speed and football. He pulled out the most productive runners and catchers, and then showed the NCAA final for 100m. And if you look at any 100m final at the NCAAs and at the professional level, you will find similar numbers in those as well. I can't even remember the last time a white guy made it to a Olympic or World Championship 100m final. I have no clue as to why that happens, but it does, and I don't think it's just societal influences.

 

[Khaliq]

I've shown you plenty of statistics to prove my point.

Show me some to disprove my point.

Find me all these blazingly fast white guys. And while you're at it, find me enough so that they outnumber the black guys by an embarrassingly large factor.

Go ahead. I'm waiting.

Well, the problem is you're not looking at a random sample there. In order to get a true measure of relative athletic ability you'd need similar sample sizes from groups that isolate other variables like economic background, training, geographic area and so on. Then you'd have to have a defined series of tests with standard metrics to determine athletic ability: flexibility tests, 40 yard dash, shuttle drills, high jump, long jump, etc.

When you're looking at a bunch of guys who choose to play football there are more variables at play than just their genetics. There very well could be a number of athletically gifted players of other races who are drawn to other sports or out of sports entirely. Hence the selection bias problem. Looking at that sample is not scientific and does not isolate confounding variables.

e: The performance of those players is also dependent on the players around them, the systems they run and cultural biases tend to push players of different races toward different positions.

 

[Assashian]

this all must be just one big coincidence then...

No but there are several economic and social explanations (some of which have been touched on in this thread!) that offer a significantly more likely answer than "they're just born that way!".

Isn't Minnesota supposed to be a good school? Christ.

 

[dpodoll68]

Well, the problem is you're not looking at a random sample there. In order to get a true measure of relative athletic ability you'd need similar sample sizes from groups that isolate other variables like economic background, training, geographic area and so on. Then you'd have to have a defined series of tests with standard metrics to determine athletic ability: flexibility tests, 40 yard dash, shuttle drills, high jump, long jump, etc.

When you're looking at a bunch of guys who choose to play football there are more variables at play than just their genetics. There very well could be a number of athletically gifted players of other races who are drawn to other sports or out of sports entirely. Hence the selection bias problem. Looking at that sample is not scientific and does not isolate confounding variables.

e: The performance of those players is also dependent on the players around them, the systems they run and cultural biases tend to push players of different races toward different positions.

I read that post as, "I know you're 100% right, and I have absolutely no means whatsoever by which to prove you wrong. Instead, I'm just going to talk in psychobabble jibberish to make myself appear smarter than I am."

 

[Costa Rican Gopher]

I read that post as, "I know you're 100% right, and I have absolutely no means whatsoever by which to prove you wrong. Instead, I'm just going to talk in psychobabble jibberish to make myself appear smarter than I am."

100%

 

[Khaliq]

I read that post as, "I know you're 100% right, and I have absolutely no means whatsoever by which to prove you wrong. Instead, I'm just going to talk in psychobabble jibberish to make myself appear smarter than I am."

And I'll take that as you don't have even an elementary grounding in science so you'll insult me rather than trying to have even a basic discussion on the problems with this sample.

 

[Assashian]

I read that post as, "I know you're 100% right, and I have absolutely no means whatsoever by which to prove you wrong. Instead, I'm just going to talk in psychobabble jibberish to make myself appear smarter than I am."

Just because you are too dumb to understand it doesn't mean it's jibberish you moron.

 

[ruralgopher]

Aren't statistics fun!!!???

 

[dpodoll68]

And I'll take that as you don't have even an elementary grounding in science so you'll insult me rather than trying to have even a basic discussion on the problems with this sample.

Just because you are too dumb to understand it doesn't mean it's jibberish you moron.

You guys are both hilarious. And horribly wrong. But keep trying, though.

The actuality is that I don't have any interest in "arguing" with someone who:

A) Tries to refute statistics that directly correlate to the point of this discussion with socioeconomic opinions which are, at best, tangentially related to the topic;

B) Is completely and entirely missing the point of the topic altogether. (P.S., I may not know much, but I do know one thing. I am much, much smarter than you.)

Is that better for you, Brain Wizards?

 

[Khaliq]

Trampled like Jack Trice.

 

[MaroonandGold]

I think this discussion has veered slightly off-topic. The original point was that it is not surprising that the areas of the country where there are higher populations of African-Americans also have a higher percentage of FBS football players. The reason African-Americans play football in higher numbers is irrelevant. Quite simply, it is a fact that African-Americans make up a disproportionate percentage of college football rosters and therefore areas with higher populations of African-Americans should, by correllation (not causation), have a higher percentage of FBS football players.

As for the point about coaches finding African-Americans for their speed, a random sample of all people is not using a relevant sample. The correct sample would be limited to people who play football because a coach would never recruit someone that doesn't play football, regardless of race. As such, the original assertion, supporting evidence and general knowledge of football leave us with the conclusion that, among football players, African-Americans tend to have superior speed.

 

[Costa Rican Gopher]

I think this discussion has veered slightly off-topic. The original point was that it is not surprising that the areas of the country where there are higher populations of African-Americans also have a higher percentage of FBS football players. The reason African-Americans play football in higher numbers is irrelevant. Quite simply, it is a fact that African-Americans make up a disproportionate percentage of college football rosters and therefore areas with higher populations of African-Americans should, by correllation (not causation), have a higher percentage of FBS football players.

As for the point about coaches finding African-Americans for their speed, a random sample of all people is not using a relevant sample. The correct sample would be limited to people who play football because a coach would never recruit someone that doesn't play football, regardless of race. As such, the original assertion, supporting evidence and general knowledge of football leave us with the conclusion that, among football players, African-Americans tend to have superior speed.

Racist

 

[Assashian]

A) Tries to refute statistics that directly correlate to the point of this discussion with socioeconomic opinions which are, at best, tangentially related to the topic;

Because the statistics you were using were flawed. He was trying to explain why, but you got confused and just responded with anger instead, like a child.

 

[dpodoll68]

Racist

Yeah, how dare you discuss simple facts and use them to support your argument.

I'd rather you go to great (and ridiculous) lengths to explain why reality isn't reality, and furthermore refuse to accept it as such.

 

[RodentRampage]

The problem isn't with the "what" (blacks are disproportionatly represented in D-I and professional atheletics), it's with the "why". There are other factors that need to be considered before we can assume that the difference is only explainable by postulating a genetic difference.

 

[Khaliq]

The problem isn't with the "what" (blacks are disproportionatly represented in D-I and professional atheletics), it's with the "why". There are other factors that need to be considered before we can assume that the difference is only explainable by postulating a genetic difference.

Exactly. Thank you.

 

[Costa Rican Gopher]

The problem isn't with the "what" (blacks are disproportionatly represented in D-I and professional atheletics), it's with the "why". There are other factors that need to be considered before we can assume that the difference is only explainable by postulating a genetic difference.

Incorrect. The "what" is being directly disputed. Read back to the beginning of the thread.

 

[dpodoll68]

Because the statistics you were using were flawed. He was trying to explain why, but you got confused and just responded with anger instead, like a child.

The statistics are flawed? That's rich.

So, we're discussing how, among football players (and, well, the world in general, but that's another topic), blacks are faster than non-blacks.

And, to support my position, I presented cold, hard evidence from rushing and receiving statistics (since, you know, receivers and running backs are the fastest offensive players on the field), and 100 m dash championships (since, you know, the 100 m dash is the purest test of speed on the planet).

And you really call those statistics flawed? Flawed how?

Man, you're even dumber than I thought.

 

[MaroonandGold]

The original assertion was that the places with higher amounts of African-Americans also have the highest amount of FBS players. The "why" is not germane to this argument.

 

[RodentRampage]

Incorrect. The "what" is being directly disputed. Read back to the beginning of the thread.

Who is disputing the fact that African Americans are make up a higher percentage of college and professional athletes than of the population as a whole? What is being disputed is what this means.

 

[RodentRampage]

The original assertion was that the places with higher amounts of African-Americans also have the highest amount of FBS players. The "why" is not germane to this argument.

It may not have started that way, but the "why" seems to have become the bulk of this argument.

 

[KoolAid]

Well didn't this turn into a juicy little debate

 

[Assashian]

The statistics are flawed? That's rich.

So, we're discussing how, among football players (and, well, the world in general, but that's another topic), blacks are faster than non-blacks.

And, to support my position, I presented cold, hard evidence from rushing and receiving statistics (since, you know, receivers and running backs are the fastest offensive players on the field), and 100 m dash championships (since, you know, the 100 m dash is the purest test of speed on the planet).

And you really call those statistics flawed? Flawed how?

Man, you're even dumber than I thought.

Khaliq already covered it well. Why would I make the exact same points if you're just going to dismiss it as gibberish because you are too dumb to understand it?

 

[MaroonandGold]

It ain't rocket science. Look at the demographics in the US of where black people live and that's where the top players come from. i.e. The deep South, as well as the places they migrated to for a better life. See Southern California & the rust belt (Michigan, Ohio, Pennsylvania).

When Midwestern coaches talk about going South to find "speed", it's code for black guys.

Here is the original post.

Part one is the "what".

Part two is that African-American football players are faster than caucasian football players. You can try arguing for the general population, but the fact is that the only relevant sample to use is "All Football Players", not "All People". As such, the evidence presented later is acceptable as proof.

 

[MaroonandGold]

As far as the less-than-topical secondary argument debating whether there is some genetic difference that makes African-Americans faster than Caucasians, I have no idea and won't pretend to have any idea.

 

[Khaliq]

Let me put it to you this way. Has there ever been one scholarly paper published in a peer-reviewed journal that has shown a statistically significant difference in measurable athletic ability between races?

 

[Minni Sota]

wow

and on another thread i was accused of being racist lolololol. when people can not argue with facts they result to name calling.

 

[dpodoll68]

Khaliq already covered it well. Why would I make the exact same points if you're just going to dismiss it as gibberish because you are too dumb to understand it?

As MaroonandGold has already stated so eloquently, you two idiots are having an entirely different discussion.

We are talking about the fact that blacks, in football, are faster than whites.

You two are discussing the why.

As it pertains to that discussion, yes, I can see why the statistics I provided are lacking.

However, I am not participating in that discussion.

I am participating solely in the first.

Is that simple enough for you? Or should I type in smaller words?

And, as I have already stated, I am much, much smarter than you. Therefore, if you can understand it, so can I.

In absolute terms, it is not nonsense. But, in relative terms, i.e. as it pertains to this discussion, it is all irrelative nonsense.

 

[Khaliq]

We are talking about the fact that blacks, in football, are faster than whites.

It's not a fact though. It's entirely an assumption on your part. Were we to take the statistics you presented as evidence of that it would mean that yardage gained would be strictly a function of player speed regardless of the players around him, the system he plays in, his agility, strength of opponent, his ability to break tackles, etc.

So again that is ignoring a number of confounding variables. Yardage is not a good indirect indicator of speed.