2 Black NFL Head Coaches to Superbowl XLI!!!

[DeltAlum]

Originally Posted by macallan25

It was a dumbass statement.

Great argument technique. Says a lot.

Just last month, a minority led consortium was able to buy a major league team -- a soccer team -- which is the first.

There have been other well financed consortiums (consortia?) who attempted to buy teams in the past.

[macallan25]

Originally Posted by DeltAlum

Great argument technique. Says a lot.

Just last month, a minority led consortium was able to buy a major league team -- a soccer team -- which is the first.

There have been other well financed consortiums (consortia?) who attempted to buy teams in the past.

Sorry pops, didn't realize this was a debate tournament.

Who said anything about soccer? Soccer is probobly the least expensive out of any major sports franchise to purchase. You made a statement about how the lack of black owners in the NFL should be looked on as a negative.

[DeltAlum]

Originally Posted by macallan25

Sorry pops, didn't realize this was a debate tournament.

Who said anything about soccer? Soccer is probobly the least expensive out of any major sports franchise to purchase. You made a statement about how the lack of black owners in the NFL should be looked on as a negative.

And I believe it should.

Sonny.

[shinerbock]

I assume you mean the first minority owned soccer team?

[DeltAlum]

Originally Posted by shinerbock

I assume you mean the first minority owned soccer team?

Yes. It happened in soccer a lot faster than in the "major" sports.

Actually, I've met and talked with Bob Johnson and gave him a tour of the old TCI Digital TV Center.

The point, I think, is that major league sports took decades before any real progress was made toward minority ownership.

At least that's my opinion, which I believe history will confirm.

[KSig RC]

Originally Posted by DeltAlum

The point, I think, is that major league sports took decades before any real progress was made toward minority ownership.

At least that's my opinion, which I believe history will confirm.

You're really completely messing up the causation/correlation link here.

The real issue is societal - that a very small percentage of those rich enough to purchase a sports franchise (valued in the hundreds of millions of dollars) are minorities.

It's not that rich white guys are choosing not to sell the teams to rich black guys - I don't think there's any evidence of this at all. This is completely different from coaching opportunities - there is no such monetary barrier.

This means while there are probably still racial issues at play, it's a matter of scale - one is a societal issue of wealth distribution, while the other is much more direct (hiring practices).

It's nonsense to lump them together, which is what shinerbock and Macallan are saying (I think) - it's just not a similar comparison, although it sounds pretty to throw them together. One is simply not the same as the other . . . no matter what your "opinion" may be - that's not an 'out' to lack of logic.

[DSTCHAOS]

Originally Posted by KSig RC

You're really completely messing up the causation/correlation link here.

The real issue is societal - that a very small percentage of those rich enough to purchase a sports franchise (valued in the hundreds of millions of dollars) are minorities.

It's not that rich white guys are choosing not to sell the teams to rich black guys - I don't think there's any evidence of this at all. This is completely different from coaching opportunities - there is no such monetary barrier.

This means while there are probably still racial issues at play, it's a matter of scale - one is a societal issue of wealth distribution, while the other is much more direct (hiring practices).

Right. Wealth distribution and unequal access to opportunities are the biggest factors.

The racial inequality occurs further down the line so that a very small % of minorities get past the glass ceilings and opportunity hoarding, on the part of white males, in order to compete in the franchise game.

This discussion initially was not about team ownership, which is a different beast altogether, but about head coaching. You don't need to discuss the full extent of wealth distribution to discuss head coaching.

Of course if you discuss outliers such as team ownership you will be unable to make a more substantive correlation.

[ForeverRoses]

So to hijack slightly but

DeltAlum- after reading this entire thread, I have to say that I am proud to call you a fellow Ohio University Alum. I might not always agree with you, but you at least try and be respectful of others.
end hijack


As for Tony Dungy, I live in Indianapolis and after seeing the way he handles himself both on and off the football field, I am proud that he is going to be the "face" of the Colts at the SuperBowl. He handled a very difficult situation (the death of his eldest son) in the glare of the spotlight with so much dignity. I don't know much about the Bears coach, but if he is anything like Dungy, the Bears have much to be proud of as well.

[macallan25]

Originally Posted by DeltAlum

And I believe it should.

Sonny.

Explain how it is a negative. Owning sports franchises is about money.....not being black or white.

[KSig RC]

Originally Posted by DeltAlum

Just last month, a minority led consortium was able to buy a major league team -- a soccer team -- which is the first.

This isn't true: Bob Johnson was the actual first minority owner (and sole, at that!) in 2003.

See, the whole thing here, Delt, is that you're speaking in absolutes, and not even in correct ones at that - it's fine to decry the rhetorical strategies of others, but . . . well, you know . . .

[DeltAlum]

See, the whole thing here, Delt, is that you're speaking in absolutes...

Please read the first sentence in the comment below my signature. It's been there for a long time.

Also, although not always, I generally say, "I think," or "In my opinion."

Thanks.