Bumblin' B's

[AndOne]

Indeed!

And WILBERT was the first to introduce race into the Lincoln controversy when he included the attachment (http://www.blackathlete.net/artman/publish/
    article_02335.shtml) into one of his early posts.        

Also---as Gregory Sager pointed out in his 12/15 post----

"However, what makes me angry about the use of the race card is its presumptuousness. People who impugn the motives of those who have spoken out against Lincoln's actions against OSUM are making assertions about what lies inside the heads and hearts of the people who are doing the speaking-out -- and unless you know that poster personally, or have observed the poster's mindset over a long period of time, you're simply not qualified to claim that sort of insight into his or her inner being."

Additionally---as Warren Thompson asked in his post yesterday----

"I'll be blunt and likely unpolitic here: is it possible that you saw in these posts what you wanted to see, that you were taking offense when no offense was ever intended? Is it possible that, for whatever reasons, you were actually looking for a [racial] fight? And that no one else was?"

Lastly----as has been pointed out before-----

We learn as kids that when a group of people is gathered the one who shouts
    "Who farted" is usually the one who did it. I think most of us also know that in a
     discussion on any subject, the one who first plays the race card and attempts
     to label the opposition's arguments as racist is usually the one who has the
     biggest problem relating to members of the opposite race, and in fact, is
     probably the most racist of the group.

On top of all this it now comes out, as colincondi reminds us in his above post, that Wilbert has a history of of interjecting race into his arguments.

Therefore----My question to all is----Who has the problem here? 

[TeeDub]

Indeed!

the one who first plays the race card and attempts
     to label the opposition's arguments as racist is usually the one who has the
     biggest problem relating to members of the opposite race, and in fact, is
     probably the most racist of the group.

Therefore----My question to all is----Who has the problem here? 

Referring to someone as the "opposite race" may answer your own question.

[Ralph Turner]

Selected Pool B's (alphabetically)

School/ Conference/ Overall/ Region/ In-region percentage

Aurora  NAthCon   6-1/4-1/ .800
Bethany  Pres AC  8-3/6-2/ .750
Chapman  Ind       6-3/6-3/ .667
Dallas       Ind       6-23/5-23/ .625  UDallas loses tonight to Austin College
LaGrange  GSAC    7-4/3-3/ .500
Lincoln   Ind         5-3/3-2/  .600
MaryvilleTN  GSAC  5-3/5-2/  .714
MSOE        Ind        7-2/6-1/ .857
St Joe's ME    Ind   5-3/5-3/  .625
Waynesburg PresAC 5-2/3-0/  1.000
(MSOE = Milwaukee School of Engineering)

Please review the NCAA Basketball Handbook for the selection criteria.

[AndOne]

Indeed!

the one who first plays the race card and attempts
     to label the opposition's arguments as racist is usually the one who has the
     biggest problem relating to members of the opposite race, and in fact, is
     probably the most racist of the group.

Therefore----My question to all is----Who has the problem here? 

Referring to someone as the "opposite race" may answer your own question.

Geez----Come ON Jordis!

When you are talking about a situation where one person is of one race and the second person is not of the same race what would you call the other person but someone of the opposite race? Would "different" or "another" be more suitable than "opposite"?

You are missing the point--that being not the semantics of one word or another, but rather the concept that the one who first plays the race card is usually the person who has the most problem dealing with members of another race.

[Pat Coleman]

Well, if there are only two races, then "opposite" makes sense. If there are more than two then how is one measured to be opposite?

[AndOne]

Well, if there are only two races, then "opposite" makes sense. If there are more than two then how is one measured to be opposite?

Pat---

As the medium where the example was given was D3Hoops/Posting Up, I had in mind a situation where 2 people are posting back and forth as is often the case here.
As such I used the word "opposite." If there were more than 2 races involved, then  "different" or "another" would have been more accurate descriptions for sure.

At any rate, I think this subject has had more than enough play here, and I'd bet many others agree. I was actually trying to refrain from saying anything more on the subject, but after I was referred to as a liar and/or racist even after honestly explaining exactly what I meant, I felt I had to respond. This could go on forever if we would let it. I for one, don't plan on any further comments on this issue. I hope others share the same feeling. Lets get back to sports related discussion. I'm pretty sure thats why you created the site in the 1st place.

[wilburt]

Wilburt is very good at labeling and jumping to conclusions without knowing someone or without knowing all the facts of a situation...  feel free to check out the GSAC discussion of late May/early June...  He has some really great posts, loves his university deeply, and is obviously an intelligent man, but he does tend to jump to conclusions rather freely when race is the issue... I wish he were a little less cynical about people in general...

Indeed!

the one who first plays the race card and attempts
     to label the opposition's arguments as racist is usually the one who has the
     biggest problem relating to members of the opposite race, and in fact, is
     probably the most racist of the group.

Therefore----My question to all is----Who has the problem here? 

Referring to someone as the "opposite race" may answer your own question.

Geez----Come ON Jordis!

When you are talking about a situation where one person is of one race and the second person is not of the same race what would you call the other person but someone of the opposite race? Would "different" or "another" be more suitable than "opposite"?

You are missing the point--that being not the semantics of one word or another, but rather the concept that the one who first plays the race card is usually the person who has the most problem dealing with members of another race.

Thank you Colincondi, AndOne and Jordis Rocks (BTW Jordis great point) for your respective opinions.  I have been posting on d3hoops for about 3 years (over 800 posts) and I have made mention of this (or as a few have referred to it the race card) only on two or three occasions.  To me that is not "quick to label" nor "jump to conclusions."

Twice was in reference to a comment someone made (ie AndOne and a GSAC poster) and the other was in reference to the actions/comments of a GSAC Athletic Director/Head Coach.  With respect to the two comments, others have agreed with me (albeit reluctantly) that it could have been fairly construed as I took them. 

As for the GSAC Athletic Director/Head Coach, his actions/comments to me were disingenuous given 1) the timing of them and 2) the logic (or lack therof) behind it.* This (along with other things) led me to believe that race was a latent factor behind his and/or their actions.   If race were not an factor in much of the previous GSAC discussion in late May/early June and in this most recent discussion with Lincoln then I would not need to bring it up.   But since it is, and given the defensive nature of the responses of a few of you all, it seems to me that I am correct in my assessment.   

* His hometown newspaper even questioned the wisdom of his and his GSAC colleagues' actions.

[wilburt]

Selected Pool B's (alphabetically)

School/ Conference/ Overall/ Region/ In-region percentage

Aurora  NAthCon   6-1/4-1/ .800
Bethany  Pres AC  8-3/6-2/ .750
Chapman  Ind       6-3/6-3/ .667
Dallas       Ind       6-2/5-2/ .714
LaGrange  GSAC    7-4/3-3/ .500
Lincoln   Ind         5-3/3-2/  .600
MaryvilleTN  GSAC  5-3/5-2/  .714
MSOE        Ind        7-2/6-1/ .857
St Joe's ME    Ind   5-3/5-3/  .625
Waynesburg PresAC 5-2/3-0/  1.000
(MSOE = Milwaukee School of Engineering)

Please review the NCAA Basketball Handbook for the selection criteria.

Wow Ralph.  That seems to be a lot of competition for just 3 Pool B bids.  Somebody won't be happy in February...

[Ryan Scott (Hoops Fan)]

"Somebody" never is.

[sac]

Wow Ralph.  That seems to be a lot of competition for just 3 Pool B bids.  Somebody won't be happy in February...

Usually its the first 3 teams left out of Pool C that are most unhappy.......esp after the Pool B's wipe out in round one by 30.

Refresh my memory.........how many Pool B's have advanced past their first game?

...and I agree with Wilburt that seems like a much larger group to choose from than in years past.......and with much more respectable records.

[Ryan Scott (Hoops Fan)]

Lincoln did quite well as a B last year, losing to the eventual champion by 1 point on the road.

Maryville has also performed well enough to not embarass themselves.

It was a lot worse when there were more B bids, but 3 seems to be the right number to get competitive games.

If I recall, last year it was the C bids from weak regions that did the worst.

[David Collinge]

Usually its the first 3 teams left out of Pool C that are most unhappy.......esp after the Pool B's wipe out in round one by 30.

Refresh my memory.........how many Pool B's have advanced past their first game?

B's in general don't tend to do well, but it's not like they never win.  Maryville (TN) has won games in the tournament for eight years running, including two wins (one over second-ranked Hampden-Sydney) in 2000.

[sac]

I'll add that with the expanded Pool C field I really don't feel I have much of a gripe about the tournament anymore and in particular the Pool B participants.

.......just don't bring up in-region records, what's considered an in-region game and that goofy QOWI.

[Ryan Scott (Hoops Fan)]

They made it a little better this year, Sac including the geographic regions along with the sport specific ones for Men's basketball.

[sac]

For Hope.......

A game vs Mississippi College over 1,000 miles away is in-region for Hope.

A game vs Carthage 220 miles away is NOT.


This is NOT an improvement.

like I said don't bring it up.........