Racism in NBA from "white America"

[EasyEd]

"Years ago Michael Wilbon wrote that even during its height in popularity, southern newspapers tended to go out of their way in limiting coverage of the NBA, including during the post season. Now why is this? Is it because that region of the country doesn't care for pro hoops? Okay. Why not? Was it too black? If you think that suggestion is ridiculous then you don't know the south where for the most part the only type of black athlete they have any use for is one that suits up for a college football team. There are exceptions (NFL players for certain southern teams, college basketball players in areas where college basketball is appreciated, Jordan...who is from a southern state like North Carolina). But the south more than any area of the USA has always been known to be filled with people (and I should not have to explain why) who are more "comfortable" with paying attention to things which are dominated by white icons: country music, baseball (still more white players than any other race), NASCAR, NFL (okay white players don't dominate but the biggest stars --based upon who gets the national commercials and who mostly get the jobs in the studios and the booth after their playing days -- are white quarterbacks). Of course southerners like to explain it that they lean towards sports figures, entertainers, etc that share their "moral values" etc. Fine. Whatever."

No matter how you slice it, MCI, that's a "Southerners are racists" insinuation; and, I am also fed up with that sort of broad brush. You decry what you call racism and race discrimination but you proceed to lump an entire region into your Southerners are racist implication.

[DFW HOYA]

ed said:

"Years ago Michael Wilbon wrote that even during its height in popularity, southern newspapers tended to go out of their way in limiting coverage of the NBA, including during the post season. Now why is this? Is it because that region of the country doesn't care for pro hoops? Okay. Why not?

During the 1980's, the old South (Louisiana to Virginia) had only one NBA franchise, the Atlanta Hawks. Franchises for Charlotte, Orlando, Memphis, etc. were years away. And having lived in NC in two of those years, it was clear the order of coverage:

1. College basketball
2. NASCAR
3. Everything else

I didn't sense a prejudice (and that's the appropriate word, not racism, which has been diluted in the popular culture) against the NBA then inasmuch as it wasn't a part of daily life in the Carolinas. The Tar Heels, on the other hand, were a part of daily life.

[MCIGuy]

I've never seen fans get hurt at a hockey game as a result of players fighting. I did see a fan who payed $1500 for a courtside seat at Madison Square Garden get JR Smith and Nate Robinson thrown onto him while they were trading blows. I've never seen fans scared or hurt when brawls break out in baseball either. There have been a couple of high profile such incidents in the NBA. That's why they're penalized differently, and rightfully so. The fans are right on top of the action and there's nothing stopping players from hurting them. It's not racism.

Oh, this is absurd. You're not even paying attention. As I wrote previously in this thread during one one baseball clash (which I think took place in Oakland) between two teams a player picked up a chair and try to toss it at a rival player. It ended up hitting a female spectator instead and she got stitches. It was well covered on ESPN a few years back when it happened but there was no national outcry. There was no blackeye for the game itself. Can you imagine if a female, particularly a white female, had been hurt like that during some NBA brawl? You would have never heard the end of it.

Goodness the excuses come fast and furious here:

-The basketball players don't wear uniforms so they're more threatening.

-The basketball players are closer to the fans so they're more threatning.

-Its okay when hockey player slug it out. Its part of tradition.

-Because the fans are 100000 feet away in hockey its okay if the guys act like animals and attack one another.

-Arguing with an ump is as traditional as apple pie.

Okay. I get it.

By the way shouldn't some consideration go to the fact that since the fans are right on top of the basketball players that the players as a result can be subject to more abuse and harrassment? And that bball players are more in danger if a hostile crowd turns into an angry mob?

[MCIGuy]

duxnews said:

mciguy said:

Second of all how does 5% of the NBA's population acting like fools lead to fans in general painting the entire league with such a broad brush?

Jeff Benedict investigated NBA players and found that 40 percent of US-born players that he sampled "had been investigated, arrested or convicted of a serious crime." His numbers were much lower for all of the other sports. NBA players cause more trouble than other athletes, there's a reason they seem to get more bad press. When Michael Vick or Pacman or John Rocker acts like an idiot, we hear about them too. Again, not racism.

1) I'd like to see those stats. I wonder if its similiar to the numbers for black males in general. Often an investigation ends up being a pointless affair with the person targeted turning out to have nothing to do with the crime that he was thought to have some part in.

2)Most of the American-born black players come from some of the worst areas of the nation where crime is rampant. And they themselves may have taken part in or committed a crime themselves while growing up. I won't excuse that. But most of those incidents I believe happen before they make it to the NBA. Its not as if all these guys are causing trouble with the law after they amke it to the league. If so it woud be non-stop reports about NBA players getting in trouble with the authorities. But instead what do we get? A few reports each year of NBA players involved in (using your word) "serious" crimes? Please list to me all of these out-of-control NBA payers who have gotte i serious hot water over the last decade. Must be a couple of hundred if 40% are causing trouble, right?

3)No one suggested that athelets in other sports who get in trouble with the law are ignored by the media. Once aagin there seems to be a reading problem with some folks here. My issue is that the NFL, MLB, etc do not have to suffer the same sort of criticism for ugly incidents by their players. You are lying to yourself if you think any sport has a problem with its players offfield antics as the NFL does. The Bengals had more players in trouble than the NBA combined last season. Or at least it seemed that way. If I'm generous I would say at most the amount of criminal behavious exhibited by guys in the NBA and the NFL is equal. And yet the NFL gets off free for the most part. There is a reason folks call it the tefflon league. Nothing sticks. When their players act up the media and fans characterize it as a bunch of bad apples. When its NBA players arrested though somehow those same folks view it as further examples of how the league is populated with thugs.

[MCIGuy]

No matter how you slice it, MCI, that's a "Southerners are racists" insinuation; and, I am also fed up with that sort of broad brush. You decry what you call racism and race discrimination but you proceed to lump an entire region into your Southerners are racist implication.

I disagree. I took an example of a comment by Michael Wilbon about certain coverage in certain regions to point out what I believe to be a larger truth. And in typical fashion Southerners cry "victim" which I suppose they are just as good at doing as black folks. You guys want to go on with some pretense concerning the embrace of black iconic figures by white Southerners then please enjoy your bit of revisionism. I will try to keep myself though in the real world.

The South, in my experience, is a bit more extreme overall because of its unique history. But ultimately its not too much different from the rest of the USA.

There have been plenty of studies in Hollywood concerning the crossover appeal of predominantly black TV shows and movies. No, I'm not talking about a Will Smith or Eddie Murphy flick in which there is a black star amongst a mostly all white cast in a mainstream film that's void of any serious topics or themes. I'm referring to shows or films with a black perspective. Studies as well as box office results and TV ratings tell them that these types of shows or movies, with some known rare exceptions, don't play well in white America and tends to be ignored by white America. Even if the productions were quality ones that were critically acclaimed. David Simon a white male who is the main force behind HBO's "The Wire" (and IMO the best writer in TV) said in interviews last year that white viewers, when they come across a show with mostly black faces, tend to get uncomfortable and will turn the channel. He went on to say that he doesn't think it was racism but that white viewers tend to think the show is "not for them" and will find TV shows with people they can more identify with (the same works for movies as well, particularly serious dramas). There is no debating this. Its why Hollywood tends to not greenlight many dramatic films with a black cast and certainly won’t spend too much on those that they do. They do not see those types of flicks as having broad commercial appeal (and we can throw in new, critically acclaimed works of black fiction too). And they are right about that. Yet we cannot openly admit or accept that such a thing could happen, in a somewhat similar way, with sports as well? What are we? Six year olds with our heads buried in the sand?

I realize that sports are a different animal. In fact one's love for one's team can be so great that the race of the players involved becomes secondary or not important at all. That is in part one reason why black athletes have become overall (and more frequently) bigger national stars than black actors or even black singers or entertainers. Sports more than anything can transcend race. However to do this most effectively I think the love for the team has to be in place or learned first. So if you're a white San Francisco Giants fan who really has no black friends and didn't grow up around black people or don't currently live around too many black people, you can still easily worship the ground a black player like Bonds walks on. However lets considered the type of sports where the love for a team is typically high in virtually all regions in the USA: MLB teams. NFL teams. College teams.

NBA teams don't have that same stature even though it too is a professional league of an American sport that's been around for many, many generations. There are so-called fans who will really get excited bout the league when their teams are good and in the post season. Of course as soon as their team comes up short they may stop paying attention to the league altogether. And of course there were a handful of players who transcended the sport so much that it made even casual fans or non-fans watch the league in record numbers. But outside those situations I think that most people in the country see pro basketball as a "black sport" and feel that, for whatever reason, they can't relate to the players.

Is that racism? Well, I agree with David Simon that it isn't exactly a racist view. I mean come on the thread itself was about racism and had the word included in the title, but it isn't as if all my points is an effort on my part to suggest that all white people are being wannabe cross burners. But also like Simon I do feel in the back of people's minds race does play a factor. It happens with all of us in our everyday lives and I think its silly to suggest sports is somehow immune to such feelings or thought patterns.

[SDHoya]

If no one watches hockey anymore on TV, does that make the US racist against white people? Or Canadians?

And as far as rascism for the NBA, has anyone considered the place of college basketball in the south? While at one time most ACC and SEC teams where all white, now that isn't even close to true. Duke, NC, NC St., Wake, UVA, Kentucky, Arkansas and Miss St are all clearly basketball schools in the south. Additionally, schools like Florida, Tennessee, Vandy, Bama, and LSU have good teams with large followings.

So, if the south can like blacks in college, why can't they like blacks in the NBA? Is it racism? Or maybe its just a terrible product.

[ExcitableBoy]

hifigator said:

One more thing: people keep comparing hockey to basketball. That is just an unfair comparison, regardless of the intent. Hockey is not a native American sport. I am not going to get into a history lesson, but you know what I mean. America, by and large, grows up with football, baseball and basketball. Sure there are some areas which feature hockey, but virtually all areas have the other three. NHL ratings were horrible this season for sure, but much of that blame should fall on the fact that "versus" carried all of the games, rather than ESPN and the occassional game on one of the "big 4" networks. Even cable networks with versus, which used to be the Outdoor Life Channel, didn't exactly draw tons of viewers. The channel also isn't in the 2 most basic and most popular packages for Dish Network or DirecTV. My point is that NHL drawing bad ratings in America doesn't equate to NBA drawing similarly bad ratings.

Lastly, people also keep mentioning the fighting issue of the hockey and comparing it to the NBA. Again that isn't a fair comparison. Fighting is a part of hockey. Similary, managers arguing with an umpire and sometimes getting tossed is a part of baseball. Is it the main focus? No, of course not, but it is a part of baseball, that really has no comparable element in basketball or football. Sure, coaches argue a call here or there, but it isn't the same as in baseball. Accordingly, guys fight in hockey they might get 2 minutes in the penalty box. Guys fight in basketball, they might get a 5 game suspension and $20,000 fine. I apologize for such long posts.

If you aren't willing to compare hockey to basketball because people don't grow up playing hockey, then you open up the door to the soccer comparison. Some huge number (17 million in the U.S. or some such thing) of kids grow up playing soccer, and if growing up with a sport equals viewership, then apparently soccer also has an image problem because its ratings are relatively low.

And the argument that fighting is a part of hockey is pure bs. You have probably never been to a high school hockey game (since its not a native sport), but fighting is not at all a part of the game. The majority of leagues installed game misconduct and automatic 1 game suspensions for fighting. The result? Voila! Virtually no more fighting. Prevalent fighting is an NHL phenomenon

[hifigator]

This is a very good discussion with many valid points being made and coming from almost every perspective imaginable.

easyed, I agree with your summary completely. That criticism of the south with that broad brush in entirely inappropriate and the very effort to try to support such a position is nothing but the very same prejudging and racism which the author is semmingly against.

MCI, I honesly don't have the numbers in front of me so I will accept your suggestion as accurate. You say that NFL and NBA have similar off court/field incidents. Like I said, I don't have the numbers in front of me, but let's presume you are correct.

NFL teams have 22 starters, 24 if you include the kickers and an entire 45 man roster. NBA players have 5 starters and a 12-13 man roster. The disparity of numbers would be even greater if you also include developmental squad and injured/unable to perform players. I probably should know this off the top of my head, but I'm not positive, but I will take a stab at it. I think there are 32 NFL teams, with 4 divisions in each conference with 4 teams in each division. I should know the exact number of NBA teams, but in any case it is in the same ballpark. I think there are actually around 30 NBA teams. In any case, let's presume there are the same number of teams. Let's use 32 for illustrative purposes. That would mean that there are 384-416 NBA players, and only 160 NBA starters. Compare that with the NFL and its 1440 players and 768 starters and you can see why even similar off the field incidents would indicate more of a problem.

Secondly, you blanketly dismiss suggestions that others of us have stated. Fighting IS a part of the game in hockey. Feel free to dislike that fact as many have before, but don't deny it. Secondly, I personally didn't think too much of the "intimidation" factor. In other words, you and I agree on that point, although we must be careful to not simply whisk away another's opinion just because we don't think too much of it. Additionally, the black journalist, Jason Whitlock, seemed to think such an argument had merit as well. Again, I question just how much weight such an argument carries, but to blindly dismiss it's validity is unwise.

As for the baseball manager arguing with an umpire, I can only guess you misunderstood. Again, just as fighting is part of the hockey experience and tradition, so is a baseball manager arguing with an umpire and getting tossed a part of baseball lore. As with the previous argument, to blindly deny that fact is flawed.

[hifigator]

excitableboy said:

hifigator said:

One more thing: people keep comparing hockey to basketball. That is just an unfair comparison, regardless of the intent. Hockey is not a native American sport. I am not going to get into a history lesson, but you know what I mean. America, by and large, grows up with football, baseball and basketball. Sure there are some areas which feature hockey, but virtually all areas have the other three. NHL ratings were horrible this season for sure, but much of that blame should fall on the fact that "versus" carried all of the games, rather than ESPN and the occassional game on one of the "big 4" networks. Even cable networks with versus, which used to be the Outdoor Life Channel, didn't exactly draw tons of viewers. The channel also isn't in the 2 most basic and most popular packages for Dish Network or DirecTV. My point is that NHL drawing bad ratings in America doesn't equate to NBA drawing similarly bad ratings.

Lastly, people also keep mentioning the fighting issue of the hockey and comparing it to the NBA. Again that isn't a fair comparison. Fighting is a part of hockey. Similary, managers arguing with an umpire and sometimes getting tossed is a part of baseball. Is it the main focus? No, of course not, but it is a part of baseball, that really has no comparable element in basketball or football. Sure, coaches argue a call here or there, but it isn't the same as in baseball. Accordingly, guys fight in hockey they might get 2 minutes in the penalty box. Guys fight in basketball, they might get a 5 game suspension and $20,000 fine. I apologize for such long posts.

If you aren't willing to compare hockey to basketball because people don't grow up playing hockey, then you open up the door to the soccer comparison. Some huge number (17 million in the U.S. or some such thing) of kids grow up playing soccer, and if growing up with a sport equals viewership, then apparently soccer also has an image problem because its ratings are relatively low.

And the argument that fighting is a part of hockey is pure bs. You have probably never been to a high school hockey game (since its not a native sport), but fighting is not at all a part of the game. The majority of leagues installed game misconduct and automatic 1 game suspensions for fighting. The result? Voila! Virtually no more fighting. Prevalent fighting is an NHL phenomenon

You too make some good points and I need to make some clarifications. First off when I said that hockey isn't a "native" sport, what I meant was that the vast majority of America doesn't grow up playing hockey. Certainly there are exceptions, but such is the case for much of America. Secondly, for whatever reason, we also don't grow up watching hockey. Again, there are plenty of exceptions, but I would wager that in most of America, a significant percentage of the population grow up watching NFL football on Sunday. That is simply "what we do." I know that to be the case in Miami, Atlanta, Jacksonville, Greenville, S.C. and most other cities in America. That phenomenon simply doesn't exist with hockey. If you go to a sports bar anywhere in America on a fall or early winter Sunday afternoon, there WILL BE NFL football game or games on.

However, even during the playoffs, much of those very same bars will not have a hockey game on unless you ask them. It's that simple. I am not trying to imply that one sport is "better" than the other, just that we ARE a football society. As for soccer, I think the large numbers of soccer players are for health and money reasons primarily. I think many young kids are steered towards soccer young kids. As they age, less and less of them stick with it. The fact that the number of participants is so high can probably be tied to those facts. Ironically, I heard yesterday that the #1 sport for major orthopedic injuries is NOT football, but Futbol, followed by basketball. We always hear about the dreaded ACL injury in football, but apparently that is somewhat erroneous. I will try to find out tonight whether those numbers are raw or weighted. I would guess they are raw, and therefore more injuries occur playing soccer and basketball simply because more people play soccer and basketball. I will let you know.

Lastly, as to fighting being part of hockey, you are correct. I meant "NHL Hockey." High schools, colleges and clubs generally frown on it, and punish such actions severely. But MCI's argument was presumed to be an unfair disparity between how fighting is viewed in the NBA and the NHL. He is correct. But that is because fighting is a part of the NHL. Yes, they are trying to tone it down, but let's face it. They will publicly say one thing, but behind closed doors, they want the extra viewership that those occasional outbursts of emotions will bring to the sport just like Nascar publicly wants a safer sport while still understanding that the occasional wrecks bring in at least a few viewers.

[hifigator]

RDF, I didn't forget about you, I just got tied up on a couple of more recent points.

I have actually heard a few people say that Jordan is not the friendly face in front of the camera, and granted I have no first hand experience. The only things I can go on are the stories which I read and the few times I get to see him live or on TV, as well as the statements which he makes publicly. From that admittedly limited exposure, I think he carries himself well. As for the gambling issue, I think that too many people have phobia of gambling. Yes, many people have lost life savings gambling. Many people have had excessive problems with gambling. Did his debts factor into his dad's mysterious death? I have guessed that same thing for years. But I don't think that MJ should be looked down upon because he gambled or because he lost. Did he welch on the bets and if so, how much? Neither of us know. We have both doubtlessly heard some stories but given the secretive nature of all of those involved, our information here is equally unreliable.

Lastly, I will meet you halfway with regards to what you see on the camera isn't what you see off. I agree that is often the case. But it isn't always the case. Every single thing I have heard about Tim Duncan for instance is that he is a class act. I get a bit irritated by his constant expressions every single time he is called for a foul, but from all I know of him off the court, he is a gentleman who carries himself well. He has given his money and time to a number of charitable organizations. He has avoided any off the court improprieies, or at least has avoided getting caught. The point is that he is an example of the generally same demeanor that we see on the court when he is off. If someone knows him personally and can dispute this then I would be willing to listen.

That being said, there is another individual with which I am very familiar. Our old head ball coach, none other than Steven Orr Spurrier was generally regarded as a jerk publicly. Personally I never saw him say things too dramatically out of line. He would say things like "we should beat them, if we play well at all." That is certainly condescending, but honest at least. If there were questionable calls, he would point that out. He would also criticize certain players publicly. All of these are generally not regarded as appropriate actions, but what you see was what you got. Off the field, he was even more of the same. When he was scheduled to speak at a booster club, he let you know by his mannerisms right up front that he viewed such as an obligation and that he really didn't want to be there. He would be in and out immediately, without any handshakes and hobnobbing routinely. One of my sales reps told me a story that he personally saw. Spurrier owns a condo on St. Augustine Beach. Apparently he was out by the pool and as he was leaving an autograph seeker stopped him and asked him to sign his hat. Spurrier declined and said something about not having time. Tony Boselli also owned a condo at the same resort and he stood up and got in coach's way and said something to the effect that "we sign autographs for kids around here." Coach turned around and walked around to the other gate and left without saying a word. I have heard similar type stories of Coach and his general disinterest in you and I.

Ironically, Ron Zook was just the opposite. It's too bad he couldn't coach his way out of a paper bag.

Sorry about the Gator reference, but I think it was appropriate here.