Olympic Final Four

[Guest]

oh i know lots about andrew
rock...maybe even more than you. did you know that rock wasn't even a
400 runner in high school? his primary event was the 300 hurdles, and
he was pretty damn good at them too, i think he was wisconsin's
division III state record holder at 37.5. but check this out. at a
major track school like florida state, to be considered for a
scholarship you have to run 37 flat. you can definitely walk on
with a time that rock had but that's not a scholarship. i bet rock
could've gotten a scholarship to a lesser division I school, but that
may not have done any good. unless that school has some serious track
coaching, you might not really improve. instead, rock went to DIII
powerhouse Wisconsin LaCrosse where he was allowed to change events at
his discretion, got plenty of attention and excellent coaching. in fact
his coach at UW Lax, is now a coach at the UW Madison (Division I). Had
Andrew Rock gotten a scholarship for track, it would've been for the
intermediate hurdles, and there's no way of knowing that his story
would've turned as good as it actually

has.

ypac, you just made my point for me. by your own admission, Rock
had to go to a lower level school to get the opportunity his raw talent
deserved.


somehow, though, you claim his going to Division III UW Lax allowed
him access to better coaches who were more adept at developing his
talent than the (more recognized and certainly more well-paid, i'd
suspect) track coaches at more prestigious universities.


wouldn't you agree that this is a problem? i can't explain it any
more clearer than that. a talented white athlete had to go to a small
school to get an opportunity, plain and simple.


fortunately for Rock who participates in an individual sporting
event, his times on the track couldn't be ignored once he decided to
turn pro. however, in football performances by white athletes at lower
levels of college ball count for exactly nothing (see Danny Woodhead as
a vivid recent example), even if they are physically equal or superior
to their more high-profile collegiate peers. and, as a result, they end
up being ignored or rudely discarded by the NFL.

no. i ididn't make your point for you. and it seems that you ignored
key facts from my post. again, rock wasn't a 400 runner in high school,
and his hurdle time (37.5) would not have gotten him a scholarship at
the top schools. florida state (for example) gives scholarships to kids
that run 37 flat or better (37.00) and allows people with times of
38.20 or better to be walk ons. i'm not making this up. go look it up
on FSU's track website.



i never said that he got "better" coaching, i simply said he got
excellent coaching at UW-Lax. Rock's coach Guthrie, is now coaching at
a Div I school. Going to a prestigious school is not a guarantee
for success. David Klech, an amazing white talent out of California,
had the top 300 hurdles time in the country in 2006. He took a
scholarship to UCLA. he did pretty much nothing his freshman year and
got injured. he's since transfered to Oregon and sat out this year.
this upcoming year might be his year, but nothing is guaranteed.
Klech beat current NCAA 400 hurdles champ Jeshua Anderson when they
were in high school. Anderson went to a smaller school at Waashington
State, but won a national championship as a freshman. it'll be very
interesting to see a healthy Klech go after him. my point in bringing
this up is that it doesn't necessarily matter that you go to a smaller
school, because the big time prestigious school doesn't always work
out.



i'm not talking football b/c everybody here already knows that's moot. my question was about sprinting and track.

 

[celticdb15]

So any predictions on whether there will be another "Chris Kaman" like player in the nba that decides to betray his country and play forsomeone else in the 2012 olympics? All sarcasm of course.

 

[Kaptain]

no. i ididn't make your point for you. and it seems that you ignored
key facts from my post. again, rock wasn't a 400 runner in high school,
and his hurdle time (37.5) would not have gotten him a scholarship at
the top schools. florida state (for example) gives scholarships to kids
that run 37 flat or better (37.00) and allows people with times of
38.20 or better to be walk ons. i'm not making this up. go look it up
on FSU's track website.

How bout you save us time and post a link where FSU has that exact standard for everyone - even blacks. I find it hard to believe that a black with Rock's resume would not have been given even one D1 scholarship. I believe a D1 scholarship, not necessarily FSU, was what was orginally said anyway. Nothing from the D1 Wisconsin? Minnesota? Iowa? Nebraska? Hard to believe.

BTW, comparing opportunity at D1 and DIII is not a comparison at all. I've coached a DIII sport and know that D1 not only gets more scholarships they also have more staff money for coaches equipment etc. They also get more alotted time to be coached and trained. Nobody in their right mind who is serious about their sport above anything else would turn down a D1 scholarship to go DIII.

If you don't believe slotting exist is track then what exactly is the color of the sky in your world? Any black athlete in any state in any sport that competes even remotely close to the top of the competition will get a scholarship - just ask any coach in private.

 

[Guest]

no. i ididn't make your point for you. and it seems that you ignored

key facts from my post. again, rock wasn't a 400 runner in high school,

and his hurdle time (37.5) would not have gotten him a scholarship at

the top schools. florida state (for example) gives scholarships to kids

that run 37 flat or better (37.00) and allows people with times of

38.20 or better to be walk ons. i'm not making this up. go look it up

on FSU's track website.

How bout you save us time and post a link where FSU has that exact
standard for everyone - even blacks. I find it hard to believe that a
black with Rock's resume would not have been given even one D1
scholarship. I believe a D1 scholarship, not necessarily FSU, was what
was orginally said anyway. Nothing from the D1 Wisconsin? Minnesota?
Iowa? Nebraska? Hard to believe.



BTW, comparing opportunity at D1 and DIII is not a comparison at
all. I've coached a DIII sport and know that D1 not only gets more
scholarships they also have more staff money for coaches equipment etc.
They also get more alotted time to be coached and trained. Nobody in
their right mind who is serious about their sport above anything else
would turn down a D1 scholarship to go DIII.


If you don't believe slotting exist is track then what exactly is
the color of the sky in your world? Any black athlete in any state in
any sport that competes even remotely close to the top of the
competition will get a scholarship - just ask any coach in
private.

you ask and i shall deliver

http://grfx.cstv.com/photos/schools/fsu/sports/c-track/aut o_pdf/scholarshipstandards.pdf



i brought up florida state because it's a major program and there is
clear data as for what they look for. if i had it for other schools, i
would use that too, but i don't. rock had PRs of 14.5 in the 110
hurdles, 21.8 in the 200, and 37.5 in the 300 hurdles. he says
that he only ran the 400 once and that was around 50.0. Rock estimated
that if he focused on the open 400 in high school he might have ran 48
but not faster (from his mouth not mine). Rock was sort of late
bloomer. He didn't make state in Wisconsin's smallest division until he
was a junior. To get a coach's attention and a scholarship, you have to
be putting down head turning times when you a junior. Rock's senior
year times still fall short of stringent Div I standards. On top of
that, due to title IX, there are not many scholarships available for
track.



what sport and at what Div III school did you coach? because track and
field is a different animal. there might be less times for official
practices, but they are definitely running captain's practices much
earlier than the official starting date. the workouts at those
practices still come from the coach, the only difference is that the
coach is not present. there isn't much equpment needed for track, and
you can't say that rock suffered from coaching or lack thereof. he
didn't enter college as a 45.3 quarter runner, he was developed into
one, and not every coach (not many probably) could have helped make
that transformation. And Guthrie is now a division I coach!!! he didn't
all of sudden become a better coach because he's at a Div I school. it
just goes to show that he was a very talented coach to begin with.



i am a HUGE Andrew Rock fan, largely in part BECAUSE he came fro a
Division III school. but most of the people who look at what Rock
acheived later in his career and lament that he didn't get a
scholarship fail to realize that he just didn't takeoff while in high
school. track is different from other sports. if you run a time, then
your time is your time and it gets you what it gets you.



EDIT

if that link doesn't work. try this one

http://seminoles.cstv.com/auto_pdf/p_hotos/s_chools/fsu/sp orts/c-track/auto_pdf/scholarshipstandards

Edited by: ypac

 

[Kaptain]

Yes, you delivered. Standards are all loosely written. Go to the FSU's current roster and tell me how many hurdlers ran better than 37.5 in high school. I'll save you the time: none. So either FSU doesn't give scholarships or those "standards" can be crumpled up in a little tiny ball and thrown in the trash. Track is no different than any other sport. Blacks will get more scholarships per equal accomplishments.

Concerning the late bloomer excuse, I hardly think that the only Wisconsin athlete to ever win 4 state individual titles as well as set the state record in the 300m hurdle could be a "late bloomer" no matter what he has accomplished in later years.

BTW, next time use the hyperlink so we don't have to cut and paste.

 

[Guest]

Yes, you delivered. Standards are all loosely
written. Go to the FSU's current roster and tell me how many hurdlers
ran better than 37.5 in high school. I'll save you the time: none. So
either FSU doesn't give scholarships or those "standards" can be
crumpled up in a little tiny ball and thrown in the trash. Track is no
different than any other sport. Blacks will get more scholarships per
equal accomplishments.



Concerning the late bloomer excuse, I hardly think that the only
Wisconsin athlete to ever win 4 state individual titles as well as set
the state record in the 300m hurdle could be a "late bloomer" no matter
what he has accomplished in later years.


BTW, next time use the hyperlink so we don't have to cut and paste.

also note that at the bottom of the page that i put a link to, it
clearly states that the men's program only has 12.6 scholarships, how
they are divied up via partials is unknown to me. however, there are
much more than 12 people running scholarship times there.



again with the late bloomer issue. Rock was the state record
holder in the Wisconsin's smallest division. He was 5th on the all time
state list--still a huge accomplishment. Also his senior year
performances would have only netted him one title in wisonsin's top
division his senior year (hurdles). Anyway, as I said Rock didn't make
state (in the smallest division) until his junior year. That year, his
performances were 21'4" in long jump, 16.09 in the 110 hurdles, and
40.21 in the 300 hurdles. you tell me that a coach of a major program is
going to give a scholarship to an athlete with those performances.
That's the type of athlete that a Div III coach has a reasonable chance
of getting Setting a PR slightly short of what usually gets a
scholarship during the spring of your senior year is just too
late.

Edited by: ypac

 

[Guest]

Um, "Olympic Final Four"??? Anyone heard of the forum called "Track"!

 

[Jimmy Chitwood]

also note that at the bottom of the page that i put a link to, it
clearly states that the men's program only has 12.6 scholarships, how
they are divied up via partials is unknown to me. however, there are
much more than 12 people running scholarship times there.

again with the late bloomer issue.  Rock was the state record
holder in the Wisconsin's smallest division. He was 5th on the all time
state list--still a huge accomplishment. Also his senior year
performances would have only netted him one title in wisonsin's top
division his senior year (hurdles). Anyway, as I said Rock didn't make
state (in the smallest division) until his junior year. That year, his
performances were 21'4" in long jump, 16.09 in the 110 hurdles, and
40.21 in the 300 hurdles. you tell me that a coach of a major program is
going to give a scholarship to an athlete with those performances.
That's the type of athlete that a Div III coach has a reasonable chance
of getting Setting a PR slightly short of what usually gets a
scholarship during the spring of your senior year is just too
late. 

ypac, you make some valid points. however, you gloss over a few very important points, as well. the biggest, in my opinion, being that college coaches are supposed to identify athletes with raw talent and "upside." these athletes are the ones that can improve as they get older and their times will get faster. those are two of the main reasons coaches get paid. 1) to identify talent, and 2) to develop that talent.

it is obvious that in the case of Mr. Rock, they did neither... at least no one except the Division III coach who apparently is quite gifted, according to your recitation of his career path. Andrew Rock was obviously a raw talent who hadn't received proper instruction at the high school level, and as such had HUGE upside. coaches should have been raving about his potential rather than ignoring him. or is upside un-important in track? it is the end-all and be-all in other sports...

secondly, you overlook two other contributing factors: 1) slotting occurs in most states. there has been far too much anecdotal evidence to believe otherwise. it is readily apparent, even to someone like me who isn't a track afficianado, that what few white sprinters that actually give track a go at the collegiate/pro levels come from areas where there are no/almost no blacks. why is that?

all-white states typically are more rural and have a much smaller population than more "diverse" states, and as such have a smaller base from which to draw. if white athletes were given an equal opportunity everywhere, wouldn't we see some white sprinters from much more populated regions, say, New York City? i am very curious about that, because it seems that slotting white runners into middle distance (and longer events) takes place whenever blacks participate to any degree regardless of whether the white kid can run with them. they are just assumed to be faster from the get go. even sprinters who end up running in college tell of high school coaches who insisted they run the 800 or the mile rather than letting them run the 100/200/400. this isn't hard to notice.

2) track season in most high schools overlaps with baseball season. almost every fast white kid that i've met plays baseball, and as such not only doesn't have the time to run track but also doesn't see the reward. colleges recruit white baseball players. they don't recruit white sprinters. at least, that is the perceived reality.

and perception has created the reality that blacks are better athletes, at least to most americans.

 

[Alpha Male]

And those blacks who live in inner cities have access to the best facilities. The indoor facility at the NYC Armory is fantastic.There are no such indoor facilities in rural areas.<?:namespace prefix = o ns = "urn:schemas-microsoft-comfficeffice" />

 

[ThatBlackGuy]

And those blacks who live in inner cities have access to the best facilities. The indoor facility at the NYC Armory is fantastic.There are no such indoor facilities in rural areas.</span>

I remember living in san francisco (hunters point) and east oakland as a child. I saw no such facilities as a child. Most of what i saw were jacked up playgrounds, old track and field areas and alot of steel cage courts. I wouldnt call those outstanding inner city facilities, i dont understand how you come to this conclusion but whatever.

 

[Alpha Male]

I'm from the northeast and I run track. The best indoor facilities in the northeast exist in the inner cities, and most black people live there. So by that juxtaposition, more blacks will have access to great indoor facilities than whites. <?:namespace prefix = o ns = "urn:schemas-microsoft-comfficeffice" />


You grew up on the west coast, so with all the warm weather, why would you even need great indoor tracks? You can run track outside all year round.


When I participated in indoor track in high school (I was a thrower back then), all the sprinters and middle distance guys would work out in our basketball gym doing drills. They definitely weren't opening up and couldn't run the same practices as they could when it was warm outside.

 

[ToughJ.Riggins]

But getting back to track. H.S track was mentioned and I would like to add a thought on the issue. Whites are more competitive overall even among the most elite competition in H.S. White high-schoolers occasionally at 200, 110 hurdles, Long Jump, even occasionally 100 meters beat blacks that go on to make the Olympic teams in those events. Blacks still have a "very slight" edge in the aforementioned events, but not by as much. Whites are clearly competitive in H.S with the best of the best.

The blacks get to college and aren't exposed to the same stereotyping that they have little chance to be champion of huge meets at the above mentioned events. Whites suffer from lack of confidence. The blacks that were beat by whites in h.s go on to dominate in college, partially for this reason and also nurturing by the best coaches.

Then enter steroids for the elite black runners who are trying to make it professionally. From my, Steve B. Observer's and others research on how track changed post 1988, it seems that steroids somehow aid blacks because of their physiology to reach their utmost potential for fast twitch muscles through Herculean workout regiments and recovery afterward.

I believe that few if any of the black Americans were cheating "this Olympics" which is why Jamaica dominated and the American times were slower. Usain Bolt is the most gifted sprinter in the world anyway, but still overall Jamaica dominated with ridiculous times across the board. Was Walter Dix's 9.91 clean? believe it or not I am leaning toward yes this year. However, looking at the issue at hand, overall white sprinters have gone downhill since steroids became rampant.

 

[ToughJ.Riggins]

First off let me say to Bart that the Deonte Wilder Post is only my "second post" "ever" overpraising a black athlete and it was because of what he did and went through to help his family and other circumstances about the issue. I won't do another thread like that "ever" again if it really ticks people off so much. The other thread "toast to Tiki", is because I am a huge Giant fan and Tiki has spoken up in the media for white athletes at least a few times before (ie. Sehorn, Leonard, teammate Sean Bennett.)

Basically, I just wanted to bring some balance, and balance will draw lurkers and help our influence to help white athletes. I am a die hard for wanting to help white athletes, but come from Canada, where there is much less racial tension and distrust blacks "as individuals" less than virtually any poster on this site. But surly anti-white discrimination bothers me as much as any frequent poster on this site.

 

[Kaptain]

Yes, you delivered. Standards are all loosely
written. Go to the FSU's current roster and tell me how many hurdlers
ran better than 37.5 in high school. I'll save you the time: none. So
either FSU doesn't give scholarships or those "standards" can be
crumpled up in a little tiny ball and thrown in the trash. Track is no
different than any other sport. Blacks will get more scholarships per
equal accomplishments.

Concerning the late bloomer excuse, I hardly think that the only
Wisconsin athlete to ever win 4 state individual titles as well as set
the state record in the 300m hurdle could be a "late bloomer" no matter
what he has accomplished in later years.
BTW, next time use the hyperlink so we don't have to cut and paste.

also note that at the bottom of the page that i put a link to, it
clearly states that the men's program only has 12.6 scholarships, how
they are divied up via partials is unknown to me. however, there are
much more than 12 people running scholarship times there.

again with the late bloomer issue.  Rock was the state record
holder in the Wisconsin's smallest division. He was 5th on the all time
state list--still a huge accomplishment. Also his senior year
performances would have only netted him one title in wisonsin's top
division his senior year (hurdles). Anyway, as I said Rock didn't make
state (in the smallest division) until his junior year. That year, his
performances were 21'4" in long jump, 16.09 in the 110 hurdles, and
40.21 in the 300 hurdles. you tell me that a coach of a major program is
going to give a scholarship to an athlete with those performances.
That's the type of athlete that a Div III coach has a reasonable chance
of getting Setting a PR slightly short of what usually gets a
scholarship during the spring of your senior year is just too
late. 

I disagree with another good castefootballer here. Guests,(now) your arguement absolutely sucks. What you did in before your junior or even senior year in track is totally irrelevant. No college gives a scholarship to fast 7th graders and slow seniors(Well, they might if they are black enough).

Calling Wisconsin DIII the "smallest division" is just another attempt to belittle a Rock's times. Wisconsin has a lot of DIII schools. It's not exactly an urban state. Most records in Wisconsin DIII are close or sometimes even better than higher divisions. For example, the 37.24 record in Wisconsin is just a shade better than Rock's 37.5 and I believe the 37.24 was run indoors. So again, exactly 0 hurdlers on the vaunted FSU team beat Rock's PR (most where over a second slower) and yet Rock couldn't get a scholarship from even one DI college. Not one. Not even a bad DI school.

You say you are a Rock fan. I call BS. Nobody would purposely always see the wrong side of numbers no matter what. Your a troll.

 

[Alpha Male]

ToughJ.Riggins, if whites are competitive in high school, even with all the stereotyping, coupled with late blooming in comparison to blacks, then why do you think whites have a very slight disadvantage in those events? Do you mean that per capita, blacks birth more athletes capable of excelling at those speed eventsthan whites? If so, I'll agree with that statement, but we must not forget the sheer numbers of the white population. Shouldn't we, by the number of us, be able toproduce at least some athletes with the same qualities that make great sprinters in blacks?


Even so, white high school athletes excelling in track, even against precocious black competitors and negative cultural stereotyping, is reason to cheer, have hope, and more importantly, demand color blind recruiting practices. <?:namespace prefix = o ns = "urn:schemas-microsoft-comfficeffice" /><O></O>


Edited by: Alpha Male

 

[ToughJ.Riggins]

What I basically meant is that Walter Dix, now an Olympian and guys like him do sometimes lose at very big state meets in H.S, even in 100 meters to a white kid. Now you go up to the higher level and Dix is the 100 meter bronze medalist with a time of 9.91. There were zero white guys in the 100 meter final for about the 5th Olympics in a row.

The white guys, as few of them as there are, who are running 10.3x and 10.4xs in h.s aren't improving as much as their black counterparts. I think statistically the edge among the elite high-schoolers between black and white in the short sprint events is very, very small favoring blacks. But for the reasons I mentioned, that rare white American that may someday make a 100 meter final is lost. Most of the top white 100 meter guys are European btw. The white man in most American sports is so emasculated.

 

[Bart]

First off let me say to Bart that the Deonte Wilder Post is only my "second post" "ever" overpraising a black athlete and it was because of what he did and went through to help his family and other circumstances about the issue.

Ireally don't feel likeruffling your feathers about this, but you addressed me, so I will answer. You can post whatever you wish, for whatever reasons, but just a point of clarification. You may have started only two threads overpraising blacks, as you say, but you have scores of posts within various threads where yougo out of your way topraise, promote,and defend blacks, which you have every right to do, of course.Just seems a bitoverzealous to me.


Justa few examples:


$130 million Punk!


I think you guys are going a little hard on Vick. He did have some bad drops by his receivers and the Falcons were still in the game until Bree's Hail Mary. Vick was actually passing the ball "somewhat decently" at the beginning of the year, mostly to Crumpler his TE. Also, the Falcons are still in the playoff hunt, and VIck has a good not great careerwinning percentage as a QB, by winning games with his legs not arm. I would put VIck somewhere in the middle of the pack for QB's. He may be a top 15 QB but certainly not a top 10. And I would agree that $130 million in salary is ridiculous for a mediocre QB. You may also remember that the Falcons beat the Packers a few years back at Lambeau in the playoffs. And Favre also had an infamous gesture although I don't think it was to fans yearsback, when he made a throat slice gesture. Vick just lost his cool and nothing more than that, and in the interview he blammed himself as well as his receivers after the New Orleane's game.


An observation on black QB's


Well personally, I think Boller hasn't shown that he will ever blossom into a good QB in this league. And he's had quite a bit of time and never done better than mediocre. I think Troy Smith could be the guy to man down Baltimore's QB job until Flacco is ready late in the season or next year.

Troy is a good game manager. He is a smart player and is "fairly" accurate. Troy lacks size and the "cannon" arm that scouts ideally crave in a QB though. But Troy has solid arm strength and can throw on the run pretty solidly to make up for his 6'0 foot even height.


Black QB's showcased on MNF


I feel the same way about black QBs, if the league stays as it is currently w/ about 5 or 6 black starters at QB and 20% black or less overall it doesn't really bother me. In fact I find Vince Young quite exciting


(snip)


The dude is very clutch as shown by his numerous comebacks including one against my Giants and of course him leading Texas to victory in the Bowl game. If the guy can get his completion percentage close to 60% and get his QB rating into the low to mid 80's he will become a very dangerous QB, because of his clutch play and running skills. Vince seems to know when to hang in the pocket a little longer as opposed to Vick.

 

[ToughJ.Riggins]

Yeah, well all 3 of the examples there were of black QBs, not any other positions. But I have recently changed my tune on the black QBs too b/c I have recently come to see that white QBs are now victims of discrimination. When Scout.com comes out with a list of 6 out of the top 9 2009 H.S QBs black, you know that there is racism against whites at work. And recently drafted black QBs are getting longer to prove themselves.

Basically the ratio of whites to blacks at QB in the NFL should be 67%:13% or about 5.2:1, if you only consider population. But I would lean toward a slightly higher ratio of white to black based on a slight advantage at QB for whites.

Nothing in the above posts really "overpraises" black QBs, I was just trying to provide a fair assessment of a player at the time. BTW, if you picked a more recent post of mine about Vince Young, you would see that I have a lower opinion of him now than before. Vince is now struggling and we are yet to see if he will snap out of it. If Vince were white, he would be on a very short leash right now.

And Bart you forgot to mention, "my more recent post" about Kyle Boller where I did say something of the sort that unless Troy Smith is a real fast learner it makes little sense to switch to him now to fill in a very short gap until Flacco is ready. I changed my mind because of new information about the Ravens indicating they think Flacco might be ready to start as late this season. I think Kyle Boller's peak potential is mediocrity. That is just my opinion. Although Boller wasn't put in ideal circumstances, he has never shown any signs to me that he will improve to above mediocre. Edited by: ToughJ.Riggins

 

[ToughJ.Riggins]

I used to have the tendency to be overly fair to black QBs in my assessment b/c black QBs used to be treated like the current white RB and were underdogs. But it has now come full circle and they are now favored. In my more "recent posts" Bart I have been much more critical of black QBs, especially Tavaris Jackson. Most of those posts you cited other than the Kyle Boller one were "old".

 

[whiteathlete33]

Yes but black quarterbacks are no longer the underdogs. Just look at the percentage of black quarterbacks in college football today. I think someone in hear mentioned 50 percent.

Look at the hype the media gives to black quarterbacks these days. 20 percent of the starting quarterbacks in the NFL are black. I would kill for just one white running back to root for. That's all I ask.

 

[ToughJ.Riggins]

Exactly I've changed my tune on this issue completely. Black QBs are now part of the caste system problem. I used to hope a black Tom Brady would come along to debunk stereotypes, just like I want to see a white Barry Sanders. But black QBs are getting groomed now for a leisurely time period that white QBs aren't so lucky to get. 6 of the top 9 Scout.com 2009 QB recruits are black in a 13% black country.

It's getting ridiculous. Tarvaris Jackson never would have been drafted high or given a chance at QB if white. Vince Young and maybe even Jason Campbell right now would get benched if they don't turn things around real quick in the first few games of this season if white. I never pulled for black QBs in a huge way in the past, I just had a couple I found exciting and wanted to give them credit where it was due in intelligent analysis. I'm now much more excited in seeing the white running QB like Tim Tebow who defies stereotypes.

Edited by: ToughJ.Riggins

 

[white is right]

Yes but black quarterbacks are no longer the underdogs. Just look at the percentage of black quarterbacks in college football today. I think someone in hear mentioned 50 percent.

Look at the hype the media gives to black quarterbacks these days. 20 percent of the starting quarterbacks in the NFL are black. I would kill for just one white running back to root for. That's all I ask.

Black option type qb's have been around since the mid 70's. The difference now is that some of these guys who are hybrid type qb's ie Dixon, Wallace and others are given long looks by the NFL because of their "upside", before they would have been converted or drummed out of the league quickly. I suppose the practice squad has helped the project qb(mostly black), but name me more than a few white project running backs that have been given any opportunities.

 

[Don Wassall]

A lot of white running QBs get little or no opportunity as they don't fit the stereotype. Jared Zabransky and Bruce Gradkowski, to name just two, would have been drafted as highly as Tarvaris Jackson if they were black and given more opportunity. Then there's Eric Crouch and Matt Jones, but let's not even revisit that again. . . One wonders what the NFL will do to screw with Tebow.

 

[jared]

and Dan LeFevour, Jake Locker, Michael Desormeaux, Zac Robinson, etc. etc. etc....