It's time for the Bob Stoops discussion . . .

Discussion in 'Football' started by karras, Jun 10, 2020.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. HawkeyeWalker

    HawkeyeWalker Well-Known Member

    Norvell I'd be very on board with. Sipple doesn't know shit though.
     
  2. SmokeTownHawk

    SmokeTownHawk Well-Known Member

    I wonder if Bob Stoops would come back as AD?
     
    HawkeyeWalker likes this.
  3. HawkeyeWalker

    HawkeyeWalker Well-Known Member

    Also love this idea.
     
    SmokeTownHawk likes this.
  4. Hawkeyes5

    Hawkeyes5 Well-Known Member

    Maybe I am a loyalist but FQ these players who are just coming out! If they were serious about BLM then get in the ghettos and talk about Blacks killing Blacks. Numbers don't lie, people and LEFT WING media does. Do the research ! So until these ex Hawks start talking about those issues, I don't care if Iowa black players play or not! Merrieweather should be suspended immediately. Tails should never wag the dog! EVER
     
  5. karras

    karras Well-Known Member

    We should care if black players take the field . . . blacks are better athletes than whites and the key to winning . . .okay that does sound racist, but in a good way
     
  6. karras

    karras Well-Known Member

    Then we're stuck with Brett Beilema . . . but honestly the current circumstances might prove compelling for Stoops . . . a white knight to the rescue with a team that is loaded with talent . . . plus, this ain't Oklahoma . . . 8 wins and you get a statue and a street named after you. 9 wins and the school gives every one of your relatives a wonderful job for life.
     
  7. NorthKCHawk

    NorthKCHawk Well-Known Member

    I do not know if you are a loyalist, but you are another kind of "ist"
     
    DonGately likes this.
  8. Ree4

    Ree4 Well-Known Member

    This has to be a troll post, I cannot fathom that anyone actually believes this. Hahahaha

    [​IMG]
     
  9. karras

    karras Well-Known Member

    maybe a blessing if the season is cancelled ... the dominoes are starting to fall as other schools go thru what we are going thru ... we lead the way in 69, so it makes sense we would lead the way now ... fyi Ray Nagel was fired the next season ...



    That was college football’s quiet racial revolution. The noisy one took place on northern campuses. At Oregon State in February 1969, a black linebacker named Fred Milton was suspended from the team after an assistant coach spotted him on campus with a moustache and goatee, in violation of the team’s ban on facial hair. Black students on campus responded with a boycott of classes, many of them left the university, and both the football team and the institution struggled for years afterward against a reputation for racial intolerance. Two months later, 16 black players at the University of Iowa boycotted a spring practice and were suspended; seven were reinstated in August. That summer, John Underwood wrote a three-part series for Sports Illustrated titled “The Desperate Coach,” describing the incidents at Oregon State and Iowa, along with dozens of lesser ones in athletic programs throughout the country, as a full-scale assault on coaches’ authority. “In the privacy of their offices,” Underwood wrote, “over breakfast in strange towns, wherever two or three coaches get together, they talk about The Problem.”


    Then came the season itself. At the University of Wyoming, coach Lloyd Eaton suspended a group—what became known as the “Black 14“—that pushed to wear armbands at a home game against BYU to protest the Mormon Church’s racial doctrines. Next, at the University of Washington, Jim Owens suspended four black players for a lack of commitment to him and his program. Finally, at Indiana University, coach John Pont, with considerably more reluctance, suspended 16 black players (eventually reinstating four) after they boycotted a practice.


    In each situation, what were matters of team discipline to the coaches were concerns of fairness or human rights to the players. Fred Milton insisted that his beard and moustache were expressions of black culture. The “Black 14” at Wyoming insisted on their constitutional right to political protest. The complaints of the black players at the other schools involved playing time, treatment by coaches, the absence of black assistants, and the practice of “stacking”—playing black players at only certain positions.




    In all of these cases, boosters and alumni sided overwhelmingly with the coach. Students and faculty were divided, as were the community members who wrote in to their local papers. At Wyoming, the president emphatically supported the coach; elsewhere, athletic and institutional administrators tried to support their coaches publicly while privately seeking a workable compromise that would minimize damage to the institution.


    The protests of black athletes in the late 1960s hit college football at its heart. While white boys like me might still respond to fatherly coaches, racially conscious black athletes were growing less inclined to submit to the paternalism of white father figures. Before the 1960s, black athletes struggled for the chance to be treated like everyone else. By the early 1970s, with 14 or 16 or 22 black players on a single team, they were insisting that their special concerns deserved attention. And in the South, by the early 1980s more than 40 percent of the players in the SEC were black.


    Coaches everywhere had to adjust. They relaxed their rules on personal grooming. They hired black assistants and became more sensitive to the economic and cultural backgrounds of their black recruits, and consequently to the individuality of all the players on the team. In each case the protesters “lost,” but over time they won more personal freedom for all players, black and white alike.


    The racial revolution of 1969 changed college football, but it did not change everything. Partly as a consequence of what happened in the late 1960s, we no longer look to big-time college coaches to be teachers of life lessons. Instead, we pay them millions to win national championships. While coaches lost their cultural authority after 1969, they did not lose their fundamental power over the lives of their “student-athletes.” In January 1973, the NCAA quietly passed legislation replacing the four-year athletic scholarship with a one-year renewable grant. With scholarships guaranteed for only a year, college athletes are accountable first and foremost to their coaches, not their professors. Coaches have the power to demand that their players make a much greater commitment to the game than my generation did. The NCAA limits in-season devotion to football to 20 hours per week, off-season hours to eight, but this mandatory allowance is supplemented by dozens of allegedly “voluntary” hours.




    Because of the one-year scholarship, as well as the millions waiting in the NFL, a reprise of 1969’s protests is unthinkable. But this does not mean that today’s athletes don’t think about protesting. The recent complaints by University of Michigan players that the coaching staff forces them to exceed the NCAA’s practice limits were remarkable in the age when a coach can terminate scholarships at his discretion. The Michigan players spoke out, but anonymously.


    While coaches today earn millions, athletes have not received a “raise” since the 1960s. Instead, athletic departments make increasing demands on their time at the expense of their education, and without giving them any compensation. Another revolution in college football is likely coming—not another racial one but rather a movement for “athletes’ rights.”
     
    Last edited: Jun 12, 2020
  10. westender

    westender Well-Known Member

    Last edited: Jun 12, 2020
  11. Northside Hawk

    Northside Hawk Well-Known Member

    Maybe we would actually beat Wisconsin once in a while with Bert on the job.

    And don't you think he would relish the chance to stick it to Barry regardless of what they say publicly about how they've buried the hatchet?
     
  12. guffus

    guffus Well-Known Member

    Why not Phil Parker?

    If Iowa gets rid of KF, BF and Doyle in a purge, shouldn't Parker get a shot to run the team?
     
Loading...
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.