Nigel Hayes
- Thread starter Feace
- Start date
what I wrote and was ready to post (before removal) that certainly should not be objectionable is the following:
I don't think there is anything positive to come out of this on an internet where lots of miscommunication is available. FWIW, one can read about Patrick Ewing to see many things he was called. There wasn't twitter back then to see how he responded and anything else would be speculation. http://www.nydailynews.com/archives...atrick-ewing-somaybe-s-aloof-article-1.936459. I assume you also realize that many white people voted for Obama, not just once, but twice. Perhaps the Obama comparison had more to do with politics than racism based upon real historical evidence rather than speculation? Evidence is more important than speculation don't you think...not that you couldn't be right, just that it is not as heavily supported ? I don't know, but it seems reasonable that it could be politics? Racism is wrong, that is not debatable...even if sometimes the lines of demarcation are very blurred.
Having been exposed to Cultural Marxism for a few decades, understanding the potential issues with DIF (differential Item Functioning) relative to standardized testing and yet having family members involved with promoting MLK day in the VERY EARLY days, I don't now or have ever viewed the Confederate Flag as racist. Reasonable people can disagree on this and not be racist. Certainly slavery was intertwined in the war. The money the south got from cotton primarily as a result of slavery was huge and a key reason why the north wanted control of the water. North Carolina which fought for the north had almost a third of the population that was slaves. The south had similar populations of slavery and smaller household percentages that actually had slaves. Lincoln himself stated it was about preserving the union rather than slavery. Course that doesn't mean it wasn't in the background either. Still, the north was very reluctant to get into the war and after having a rather length conversation with one of the head guides at Gettysburg trying to figure out "why" the north entered the war, it was his opinion that the firing on Fort Sumter was taken as an act of war directly against the north and that was a rallying cry for the north. Actually, it was not until after Antietam that Lincoln issued the Emancipation Proclamation that no doubt would also boost his regiments with soldiers to preserve the Union. Had the north not flanked the "sunken road" at Antietam where the confederates were lying and the south won Antietam which is the single bloodiest battle in the USA history who knows how the USA would be today. Course some could suggest the friendly fire upon Stonewall as a huge turning point as well. Whatever, the north would win a lengthy battle and Lee knew it...giving rise to the Gettysburg battle and the disaster to the south. I've been to the holocaust museum a few times and if I go to Germany this summer I would like to see Auschwitz which is 5 1/2 hours away from where I know I will spend a few days. None of this is to viewed in delight and all as a reminder of evil that humanity is capable. Thank God they are preserved somewhat so that future generations can have meaningful dialog and learn things as opposed to being politically correct and dumbing down future generations. See the Language Police by Diane Ravitch. Amazon product ASIN 0965496368 snip...snip " Diane Ravitch's The Language Police shines a light on a dark secret in k-12 education, namely the scandalous undermining of content standards in k-12 textbooks due to a collusion between textbook publishers and censors aimed at shielding children from anything that even remotely could be considered harmful or offensive to potential educational consumers." I'm sure we all see this daily.
I certainly oppose racial slurs and various connotations cast towards anyone, as it is quite simply wrong. Life would be better for all, if people just treated people how they wanted to be treated, but that too is too hard to grasp. All that said, I don't think a positive picture of Nigel was painted and I recall times I was paddled in school many years ago for retaliating. Racism is wrong rather it is Nigel or others. I do not intend to get pulled into a dialog that is impossible to end well with text absent proper context. Quite simply I would not want to see racism in Mackey as it would be embarrassing, but don't share your view on Obama as a race issue...and don't share the "flag" as a race issue...but that doesn't mean you are wrong and I am right. Reasonable people can have different opinions and NOT be racist.
I don't know about whatever racial issues surround him but as far as him whining about getting paid I couldn't disagree more with that. These players aren't nearly the attraction they think they are. The system makes money because the fans follow the brands. My guess is that very few people watch Wisconsin because Nigel Hayes goes there. They watch him because he represents the Wisconsin brand. It's not as if he were to go play at Madison Community College that the sellout crowds at Kohl Center would migrate over to watch him or there would be significant demand for his games to be televised. They are SO replaceable in this system. That's why people watch college basketball and not NBA Developmental League basketball even though that league has better players. I lay this out every single time this comes up and I've never heard anyone come close to refuting it.
This could be said about 99.9% of professional athletes as well.
Very few athletes transcend the brand of the team or league, regardless of the level being played.
Nigel Hayes was free to turn pro after each of the last 3 seasons. He chose not to.
You think a majority of nba players are followed as athletes? Really? I can maybe name one or two major players on each team.
Furthermore if a major player moves very few fans will follow that player to the new team.
Jordan, Lebron, and maybe the top 2-3% of current players have that type of following. But an overwhelming number of nba athletes are only followed because they play on a fans favorite team.
I have more sympathy for superstar football players, as they CANNOT turn pro for 3 years out of high school, AND face a much higher risk of injury.
Basketball players can go play overseas for money straight out of high school if they're good enough. Hayes wasn't.
You can use the top 2-3% argument about college athletes too though. There's so much debate about paying college athletes - when a SMALL sliver are doing anything regarding professional sports. Most players are doing it for fun at the end of the day and they get a lot of benefits along the way.
I dont disagree with that, and im not even sure im for paying college players at all.
I just think you can say that the personal brand of your average nba player is worth the same as the personal brand of the average college player. Which is essentially little. Most professional athletes are followed for the same reason college players are... they represent the team brand of a fans favorite team.
I know many people who follow specific players in the pros. That's why the Miami Heat were so popular for awhile and now nobody cares. Personally I care about the NBA only to the extent that players from Purdue are playing in it.
Listen I think Caleb Swanigan is fantastic. I'd still have watched every Purdue game this season if he were at MSU though and I wouldn't have tuned in to watch MSU any more than I have. Whether it's Big Dog, the Baby Boilers, or Caleb Swanigan the names continue to change. I will always be a Purdue fan and watch regardless though. If I've continued to watch the football team these past few years I don't think I'm getting shaken off the basketball program by one player here or there.
Yeah, of course. How many heat fans are there now compared to a few years ago? The fact that you can name the major players for the teams proves my point; you know 40% of the starting players of all the teams. Obviously there are base fans that will always follow a team but there's a reason the term "franchise player" exists.
Just to clarify a common misconception....
College players ARE paid. On top of their scholarship/room/board/books/clothing, they are given a stipend that the NCAA calls "cost of attendance" stipend. This amounts to over a $1 million cost to Purdue. Most athletes receive between $3,000-$5,000 cash each year on top of all of their other costs that are covered with their scholarships (tuition, housing, meals, books, etc.). So basically they are paid on top of all of the living expenses already covered. The concept that athletes are hurting and being taken advantage of...meh. I found it funny at ESPN Gameday that Nigel Hayes was at complaining about being a poor student - he showed up in pristine Wisconsin Nike-issued clothes and shoes.
This really started to blossom with David Stern (as NBA Commissioner) leveraging Magic and Bird.....then Jordan to move it to a "star-driven" league. A great marketing move, which carried over to Shaq, Kobe, Wade, Garnett......then taken to new levels with LeBron James and now also Durant, etc. You couple that with how free agency and the salary cap has been continually shaped....and there you are. It also is more amplified with basketball because there are a limited number of players on a roster.
The sky-rocketing $$$$ from media rights and licensing has also changed the perspective for some owners. I still follow somewhat, but I don't nearly enjoy the NBA game as much as I did 30+ years ago.
Similar threads
