For Fox's preseason broadcast of Steelers/Eagles in Pittsburgh last night the network decided to place studio analyst Terry Bradshaw in the booth with the A Team of Joe Buck (still suffering the effects of his vocal cord illness) and Troy Aikman. The result was... interesting, to say the least (I was watching reality TV for most of the night, so can't comment definitively either way... c'mon it's preseason football!).
Some viewers apparently loved the different element TB added. I have to say, if memory serves me correctly, Bradshaw did a Sugar Bowl in the booth with Howie Long when Fox had the college football package and did very well. However, most viewers on Twitter thought TB sounded hammered, senile, or something a bit more disturbing. Whatever the case, people were talking about preseason football and Bradshaw's booth cameo. A sign of things to come... or an elaborate ruse from Fox to distract America from its apathy towards Joe Buck. If so, that didn't seem to work.
As always, these are Real Tweets from Real People...
Even if the data is accurate or not, he is deducting that all kids without parents at home have lack or no discipline. This is something cannot be assumed (for any age, skin color, or even from a different nation). When making arguments, Colin (as well as others, but very he does is very frequently) starts from a single fact and apply it to the universe, or connects dots that may be linked, but that he has no proof of a cause/effect (or that in case they have a causal effect they are not alone). Do kids without a father have less discipline? Maybe yes (that's a common sense answer, right?), why, because kids having both parents have double supervision over them, 4 eyes may be better than 2. Maybe not. Do we have data that can give us an answer? at least I don't, but I'm sure that there are several other factors linked to lack of discipline. And I'm sure that tons of kids who have both parents at home also lack of discipline and good habits.
I think that beyond his beliefs Colin has great common sense (but he tends to abuse of it), great ability to create controversy (see, we all speaking of it is a side effect of it), and with a good approach a very good debater. Do I believe he is right with this one? NO, simply because you cannot imply that no father means no discipline, end of it. Can you tag him as racist, NO, same issue. By speaking of X or Y player who is african american without a father at home or by saying that X percentage of people without "appropiate parenting" you cannot imply he means superiority of any other demographic group.
By saying he is racist you are just making the same mistake he did.
I'll disagree here. Colin is a polarizing figure, yes. But, he's a guy who almost always makes points about societal issues in sports that others will refuse to ignore. His claims here about the upbringing of black children isn't inaccurate, statistically. The metrics he uses are accurate. His editorial about how it effects the player in college, and in the NFL is simply just opinion. It doesn't make him racist. To suggest that Cowherd was implying that he's a "father figure" is a reach. It's a real stretch. Matt Yoder having to say "it doesn't take a Rhodes scholar to figure out that's exactly where Cowherd is..." is just Yoder's way of perpetuating HIS opinion against Cowherd. I listened to the same clip Matt did, and didn't hear any of what he's referencing in this article. If you're going to go after Cowherd, you'll have to bring it a hell of a lot better than that.
@TheMattMac I'll bite.
First, touching on subjects others refuse to doesn't absolve him any.
Second, the "basic metric" Cowherd cites does not appear to be basic at all. Where did you find this statistic, so that you could definitively say Cowherd's use of it was accurate? Upon a cursory Google search, I see the resounding results from a relevant 71% figure actually represents high school drop outs -- presumably accounting for all races -- that come from 'fatherless' homes. One site told me 50% of black boys live without fathers and another says 72% of blacks are born to unwed mothers, but nothing specifically on "no Dad at home." Where is this basic 'no Dad at home,' data for black males that your so sure is correct?
Regardless, 'no Dad at home' doesn't necessarily mean most grow up with no Daddy-figure or disciplinarian to keep them in check, nor does it mean that they even absolutely need one. Cowherd's deduction, laced with stereotype, is what's most inaccurate here and to label it as merely Cowherd's opinion is a cop out from describing what it really is (which @kensing45 sums up quite nicely): at best ignorant and at worst racist.
*"To suggest that Cowherd was implying that he's a "father figure" is a reach. It's a real stretch."*
It's really not a stretch at all. Cowherd explicitly links a Dad with disciplinarian and claims many of the 'fatherless' blacks -- because they don't have Dads -- don't experience discipline until they are in the NFL, a tangent of his spiel about Goodell and his feelings toward black players.
But, if you're not into connecting these dots, then maybe you can help everyone understand what it is Cowherd's trying to get across. You can't suggest someone else's opinion is weak or wrong without providing some basis for your own opinion.
@Detroit4lyfe Let's just assume for a moment that his 71% figure is high, and it's more like 56-ish. (I'm using this article as a rough reference http://mobile.reuters.com/article/idUSN0419185720070614?irpc=932). If you want to condemn him for pulling a statistic higher than our own research provides, that's fine. I can handle that. But this debate regarding the "is he or isn't he" racist is simply semantics. I happen to think he brought up a valid, factual point in connecting the inordinate number of black children raised in single-family households to lack of discipline. Now without turning this into a thesis, your basic cursory search can provide endless examples of the decimation of black communities tied to impoverished living conditions and lack of dual parenting in the home. We could argue on the actual result of fatherless African-American children all day, some surmising that it's of no effect, and others surmising it's of a profound one. I happen to fall into camp that believes that fatherless children more often than not result in leas disciplined ones. If said child is a star football player, one that is highly recruited to college, and one that dominates at high school AND college levels, it's entirely plausible (and proven over and over) that they're never truly disciplined. With the NFL being the only true "equalizer" of talent, many of these star athletes may, for the first time, experience an environment where they no longer rule the roost, and are told what to do with an expectation that it gets done. I don't consider that "father" figure, but I'd agree it's an "authoritative" one.
@TheMattMac That 56% figure includes both black males and females, and you said Cowherd's use of 'basic metrics' was accurate, so I want to know how it's accurate.
To be clear, I think at worst this makes Cowherd a racist, but would agree this probably doesn't make him one. In fact, I don't think this debate really has as much to do with "is he or isn't he" a racist as much as it does with "is he or isn't he" an ignoramus.
Don't listen to his show, so I'm only exposed to Cowherd when he says something offensive. That's regularly though. I quit listening around the time he started comparing himself to non-sports talk hosts, and my guess is he thinks these societal rants reflect that.
It's tough to construe this as anything but at best ignorant and at worst racist. More than likely though it's just calculated trolling.
Maybe when Poynter isn't too busy taking talking points directly from ESPN on the Feldman situation, they can ask them about disciplining someone who actually deserves it. Take this race-baiting clown off the air!