New Series Southern Hoops (Part 1 Rupp) Tonight

[LmdCat]

But failed to give any actual evidence supporting this claim, while ignoring many of the things he did in Lexington which helped to promote integration. (Also what Bolin said was Rupp was a "follower", and to many insinuates that somehow Rupp's views on race somehow changed to be more in line with Lexington society or something. I challenge that on many levels. I don't agree he was a 'follower' and frankly don't know that it's fair to say his views changed significantly from the time he was coaching black players in high school.)

Not to say Rupp was perfect, far from it. There are very likely instances one could point to where he could have and should have done more to challenge the status quo at the time. Beyond that, everyone and anyone in history can be accused to some extent of being a part of the time period and community they live in. It's a hollow criticism as far as I'm concerned.

But if someone like Bolin is going to go out of his way to make a big point of it on TV, it would be helpful if he gave examples of exactly what he's referring to. I just find it odd to go out of your way to claim he was a 'follower' when both his vast professional accomplishments and numerous instances illustrating he wasn't a follower when it came to integration and racial equality issues in Lexington suggest the exact opposite.

This is where you run off the rails because any serious-minded individual knows that Kentucky practiced jim crows laws as much as any other southern state. To pretend otherwise robs you of credibility. There was no more of a reason to expect Rupp to challenge the practices of the state he had recently moved to than for a visitor coming into your house to challenge the way you run things in your house. The denial of the obvious is why this issue remains raw to so many people in and out of the state of Kentucky. Instead of spending so much time marching down denial street defending something that will always be a part of Kentucky's and the nation's past, focus your energy on eliminating whatever amount of racism that still exist and educate those around about the horror of it to ensure it never happens again.

 

[LmdCat]

Thank you, I guess, for thinking much of what I post is spot on.

As for my "zest for defending Rupp as a non-racist", I think you're making some big assumptions here. Frankly, I don't care what someone's opinion of Rupp is. I respect their opinion, as long as they know what they're talking about. I respect your opinion. But what I do challenge is when people make false or questionable claims.

I've been critical of Rupp many times. And I've corrected people on both sides of the argument.

In this case the claim of Rupp simply going along with society is frankly something that could be leveled at anyone to varying degrees. But it's misleading to say that without acknowledging the fact that he was doing many positive things. I'm not claming Rupp was 'non-racist' as much as pointing out in light of the claims being made that he indeed did do many positive things with respect to racial equality in Lexington, which I think is an appropriate response, especially given the focus of this documentary.

I am glad that you recognized the fact that I made some assumption because that is exactly what you keep doing every time you attempt to persuade people that Rupp was race neutral while living in a state where the behavior of racism was very prominent. There was no way that he could have been race neutral, because one could only be part of the solution or part of the problem. The simple fact of doing nothing (looked the other way) made him part of the problem. That didn't just apply to him; it applied to others. It didn't make him or others bad people. He as well as others may have felt like it was unsafe to speak out.

 

[Rideordiewildcat]

Last night I watched part 2 and of course with nothing but speculation and even making points against their own stated facts they threw Rupp under the bus.

I wish they would make a movie on him, I'm surprised they haven't but based in just facts. I know they won't but it would be nice instead of all the muddy speculation they spew over clear facts and statements.

 

[LmdCat]

Last night I watched part 2 and of course with nothing but speculation and even making points against their own stated facts they threw Rupp under the bus.

I wish they would make a movie on him, I'm surprised they haven't but based in just facts. I know they won't but it would be nice instead of all the muddy speculation they spew over clear facts and statements.

Why do you consider it speculation? The fact that part 1 provided proof that Rupp wasn't against playing Blacks since he had one on his high school team prior to coming to UK wasn't good enough? What are you looking for that would satisfy you? Are you expecting him to be shown with a halo around his head?

 

[Rideordiewildcat]

Why do you consider it speculation? The fact that part 1 provided proof that Rupp wasn't against playing Blacks since he had one on his high school team prior to coming to UK was good enough? What are you looking for that would satisfy you? Are you expecting him to be shown with a halo around his head?

No but in part 2 they kept saying things like Rupp wouldn't go out of his way to ensure a parent that he would keep their kid safe and he could of. After talking about some of the positives in part 1 they doubled back on the same topics and painted a mild picture of a racist. If someone, not a UK fan, just watched part 2 I think they come away with the old stereotype of racist. Where as part 1 gave some solid facts that painted a completely different picture. Why give facts and then muddy them up in part 2. Just seemed dumb.

 

[ruppcat]

No but in part 2 they kept saying things like Rupp wouldn't go out of his way to ensure a parent that he would keep their kid safe and he could of. After talking about some of the positives in part 1 they doubled back on the same topics and painted a mild picture of a racist. If someone, not a UK fan, just watched part 2 I think they come away with the old stereotype of racist. Where as part 1 gave some solid facts that painted a completely different picture. Why give facts and then muddy them up in part 2. Just seemed dumb.

Remember....this is espn. Headquarted in Connecticut. A solid liberal deep blue state. A lot of employees who work there are pUKe grads.

Don't think they're not pushing an agenda.

 

[LmdCat]

No but in part 2 they kept saying things like Rupp wouldn't go out of his way to ensure a parent that he would keep their kid safe and he could of. After talking about some of the positives in part 1 they doubled back on the same topics and painted a mild picture of a racist. If someone, not a UK fan, just watched part 2 I think they come away with the old stereotype of racist. Where as part 1 gave some solid facts that painted a completely different picture. Why give facts and then muddy them up in part 2. Just seemed dumb.

If you know anything at all about that period, the fact that someone would be considered a mild racist is good compared to what was acceptable during that period. If you don't think what I am stating is true, take the time to read some of the many books that chronicles that period. Rupp didn't have much of a choice as an outsider to do anything other than what he did. It is obvious that Rupp was limited by the many influencers in that part of the country. If Rupp had welcomed a black player to his team shortly after arriving to Kentucky, his time at Kentucky would have been very short.

 

[LmdCat]

Remember....this is espn. Headquarted in Connecticut. A solid liberal deep blue state. A lot of employees who work there are pUKe grads.

Don't think they're not pushing an agenda.

Instead of complaining about what was reported and tossing out wild accusations, how about doing some real independent research so that you don't have to rely on anything other than the books you have read about that period?

 

[ruppcat]

Instead of complaining about what was reported and tossing out wild accusations, how about doing some real independent research so that you don't have to rely on anything other than the books you have read about that period?

I have. Hence why I posted what I did.

 

[LmdCat]

I have. Hence why I posted what I did.

I am always looking to learn more about the subject. How about sharing what you learned about Rupp and the environment in which he coached in? Also, if you don't mind, provide some of your sources.

 

[UK90]

Not sure I care to watch a show that will likely refer non-stop to Rupp and Kentuckians as racists.

Hope I’m wrong.

C’mon, it’s on the SEC Network and directed toward SEC basketball fans as its target audience. Ain’t no way they’d make that the prevailing theme …if only because that would be a colossally stupid business decision.

I’ve only watched the first episode, but really liked it. It’s mostly about Kentucky (because, let’s be honest, UK is about all SEC basketball was in the early years). I recommend you guys give it a watch.

 

[Cawood86]

If you know anything at all about that period, the fact that someone would be considered a mild racist is good compared to what was acceptable during that period. If you don't think what I am stating is true, take the time to read some of the many books that chronicles that period. Rupp didn't have much of a choice as an outsider to do anything other than what he did. It is obvious that Rupp was limited by the many influencers in that part of the country. If Rupp had welcomed a black player to his team shortly after arriving to Kentucky, his time at Kentucky would have been very short.

You have proof or is that an accusation? You're big on proof. Prove what you just posted.

 

[JPScott]

This is where you run off the rails because any serious-minded individual knows that Kentucky practiced jim crows laws as much as any other southern state. To pretend otherwise robs you of credibility.

Again you make claims of me that I never said. Nowhere did I claim Kentucky didn't practice Jim Crow laws. Maybe stop lying if you want to talk about being taken seriously?

 

[JPScott]

I am glad that you recognized the fact that I made some assumption because that is exactly what you keep doing every time you attempt to persuade people that Rupp was race neutral while living in a state where the behavior of racism was very prominent. There was no way that he could have been race neutral, because one could only be part of the solution or part of the problem. The simple fact of doing nothing (looked the other way) made him part of the problem. That didn't just apply to him; it applied to others. It didn't make him or others bad people. He as well as others may have felt like it was unsafe to speak out.

Again, I never claimed Rupp was 'race neutral', whatever that means. As I've said many times, people can think what they want about Rupp. But whatever they think don't act surprised if someone questions or challenges you on it.

I simply stated facts which illustrate that Rupp did many positive things with regard to race relations and integration in Lexington and around the nation. This includes Rupp working to get the Lafayette and Phoenix hotels (the top hotels in the city at the time) to agree to allow integrated teams to stay there, despite the Jim Crow laws at the time. The fact that this flies in the face of your old theories or even new theory that he was 'race neutral' is maybe something you need to work out in your own mind. Although it's certainly a step better than what you've been claiming about Rupp in the past.

I realize that it's difficult for people to have an open mind and confront their own prejudices and preconceptions in light of actual facts which contradict what they've led themselves to believe for so many years.

But you're showing some progress so I guess that's good.

 

[JPScott]

Why do you consider it speculation? The fact that part 1 provided proof that Rupp wasn't against playing Blacks since he had one on his high school team prior to coming to UK wasn't good enough? What are you looking for that would satisfy you? Are you expecting him to be shown with a halo around his head?

This is like the third or fourth time in this thread you've mentioned that Rupp coached a black player on his high school team. Curious, didn't you know that already or is this something you just learned as part of this documentary? This has been fairly common knowledge for over 30 years.

You seem to be acting like you just learned of this a few days ago.

 

[phyrekat]

Much of what you post on this subject matter is spot-on; however, your zest for defending Rupp as a non-racist causes you to get a bit carried away in his defense. Anyone who knows anything about that period of time in Kentucky/south knows that race relations weren't good at that time. A large percentage of the black population were either sharecroppers or domestics. Sharecropping at the time was only a couple of steps above slavery and domestics were performing jobs such as wet nursing. Jim crow laws prevented blacks from entering many of the local establishments for dining, movies, etc. So, it is unrealistic to suggest that Rupp or anyone else wouldn't have embraced the local customs. I am not suggesting that he was as bad as some of the home grown, but nevertheless when you are in Rome you do as the romans do.

Well, what do you know....
Agenda poster gonna agenda post.

 

[JPScott]

C’mon, it’s on the SEC Network and directed toward SEC basketball fans as its target audience. Ain’t no way they’d make that the prevailing theme …if only because that would be a colossally stupid business decision.

I’ve only watched the first episode, but really liked it. It’s mostly about Kentucky (because, let’s be honest, UK is about all SEC basketball was in the early years). I recommend you guys give it a watch.

You don’t think that the majority of non-UK fans watching SEC Network are more than happy to have Rupp scape-goated over integration, to the virtual exclusion of any other school or coach being closely examined?

Not only does it bring the most successful program in the conference down a peg, but it allows them to avoid confronting some uncomfortable truths about the programs & schools they support.

 

[LmdCat]

Well, what do you know....
Agenda poster gonna agenda post.

What do you know...
Agenda posters are defined as posters who don't agree with your lazy and baseless opinion. I am willing to bet that you haven't spent 2 milliseconds researching any of this but is quick to give out your baseless opinion.

 

[LmdCat]

This is like the third or fourth time in this thread you've mentioned that Rupp coached a black player on his high school team. Curious, didn't you know that already or is this something you just learned as part of this documentary? This has been fairly common knowledge for over 30 years.

You seem to be acting like you just learned of this a few days ago.

There is nothing in my post that suggest when I became aware of who Rupp coached and where. However, I realize that you are attempting to change the discussion because otherwise you have nothing to whine about. As for common knowledge, it is a lot like common sense; it isn't quite so common.

 

[LmdCat]

Again, I never claimed Rupp was 'race neutral', whatever that means. As I've said many times, people can think what they want about Rupp. But whatever they think don't act surprised if someone questions or challenges you on it.

I simply stated facts which illustrate that Rupp did many positive things with regard to race relations and integration in Lexington and around the nation. This includes Rupp working to get the Lafayette and Phoenix hotels (the top hotels in the city at the time) to agree to allow integrated teams to stay there, despite the Jim Crow laws at the time. The fact that this flies in the face of your old theories or even new theory that he was 'race neutral' is maybe something you need to work out in your own mind. Although it's certainly a step better than what you've been claiming about Rupp in the past.

I realize that it's difficult for people to have an open mind and confront their own prejudices and preconceptions in light of actual facts which contradict what they've led themselves to believe for so many years.

But you're showing some progress so I guess that's good.

I have no issues with anyone questioning or challenging me about anything. The process enables one to expand one's knowledge about a subject matter. This is very much unlike you because you have somehow convinced yourself and others that you are an expert about the subject matter. This has caused you to be so closed minded that it isn't worth discussing it with you. I have never claimed anything about Rupp other than he was a product of his time and whether he thought differently than those around him or not, his behavior more often than not fell in line with the environment that he worked in. If not, he wouldn't have remained as coach for very long.

When it comes to Rupp you continue regurgitating the same blah, blah, blah every time there is a discussion about him. You should learn a new trick!

 

[LmdCat]

Again you make claims of me that I never said. Nowhere did I claim Kentucky didn't practice Jim Crow laws. Maybe stop lying if you want to talk about being taken seriously?

Personal attacks are the first sign that someone has run out of anything of substance to post. You should try implementing the advice that you are so quick to give.

 

[JPScott]

There is nothing in my post that suggest when I became aware of who Rupp coached and where.

That’s why I asked.

 

[LmdCat]

That’s why I asked.

I have probably known the history of Rupp for longer than you have been alive. However, "when or where" doesn't change anything about this discussion. Unlike opinions and theories, facts are unaffected by time.

 

[JPScott]

I have probably known the history of Rupp for longer than you have been alive.

Still not answering the question I see. Figures.

 

[LmdCat]

Still not answering the question I see. Figures.

I am not going to allow you to change the discussion because you have run out of anything of substance to say.

 

[JPScott]

Personal attacks are the first sign that someone has run out of anything of substance to post. You should try implementing the advice that you are so quick to give.

Pointing out a lie is not a personal attack.

 

[LmdCat]

Pointing out a lie is not a personal attack.

It is when the person doing it has no bases for doing it other than he doesn't like being challenged. Are you aware that Rupp frequently used the "N word" as well as "coons" when referring to Blacks? I can assure you that no black person believes that those words should be coming out of the mouth of someone who accepts them as their equal.

 

[JPScott]

It is when the person doing it has no bases for doing it other than he doesn't like being challenged.

You claimed I pretended that Kentucky didn’t practice Jim Crow laws when I never did say such a thing. That’s a lie.

 

[LmdCat]

You claimed I pretended that Kentucky didn’t practice Jim Crow laws when I never did. That’s a lie.

Again, you seem to have run out of steam on this subject so now you are attempting to find something to be offended by. I suspect one of the differences between us is that you are posting about a period of time you read about while I lived it and researched it.

 

[RogerIndy]

Don't watch part 2 of Southern Hoops then. It wasn't kind to Rupp. About what I predicted and expected of a ESPN-funded series.

I don't think it was too bad. I am concerned that some extremists want to take Rupp's name off the arena, and a fairly balanced presentation like this as opposed to Frank DeFord's crap will help fight that.

 

[RogerIndy]

Again, you seem to have run out of steam on this subject so now you are attempting to find something to be offended by. I suspect one of the differences between us is that you are posting about a period of time you read about while I lived it and researched it.

You claimed I pretended that Kentucky didn’t practice Jim Crow laws when I never did say such a thing. That’s a lie.

Guys-
I like and respect both of you. You seem to have gotten into a disagreement, which I understand, but we all love the Cats. Can we just bury the hatchet?

 

[Rideordiewildcat]

Watched Part 3 last night. The black professor they have been interviewing said they need to change the name of Rupp and cast a dark shadow. But my man Skywalker came on right after and said no they shouldn't that it's part of our history.

They also interviewed Goose who said Rupp had an office after he retired and called him in one day and told him he was so glad he was here.

Funny story from Issel. He had people over and brought Rupp his bourbon and Rupp said due to his health he had to stay away from the hard stuff. Then said so just get me a vodka.

 

[CaptainBoogerBuns]

Watched Part 3 last night. The black professor they have been interviewing said they need to change the name of Rupp and cast a dark shadow. But my man Skywalker came on right after and said no they shouldn't that it's part of our history.

They also interviewed Goose who said Rupp had an office after he retired and called him in one day and told him he was so glad he was here.

Funny story from Issel. He had people over and brought Rupp his bourbon and Rupp said due to his health he had to stay away from the hard stuff. Then said so just get me a vodka.

Alcohol in the office. Those were the REAL Mad Men!!

 

[Cawood86]

Watched Part 3 last night. The black professor they have been interviewing said they need to change the name of Rupp and cast a dark shadow. But my man Skywalker came on right after and said no they shouldn't that it's part of our history.

They also interviewed Goose who said Rupp had an office after he retired and called him in one day and told him he was so glad he was here.

Funny story from Issel. He had people over and brought Rupp his bourbon and Rupp said due to his health he had to stay away from the hard stuff. Then said so just get me a vodka.

Shocking the black professor wanted to change the name. Apparently Brooks took one of his classes.

 

[jameslee32]

The series has kept an open mind about Rupp showing much of what JP has posted in the past while also interviewing his many detractors. Expecting SECN to be banned in FLA any day now. 🤣

 

[JPScott]

For anyone interested, I finally finished my review of Part II on Twitter which loosely covers the 1960s. This episode spent a lot of time on Rupp's failed efforts to recruit black players, and not a lot else about integration other than covering Perry Wallace and Godfrey Dillard, which is an important topic. Here is the link:



Below is the thread unroll for anyone who doesn't have Twitter access or wants to save the entire thread together.

Link to Thread Unroll of Part II Review

 

[kennyskywalker34]

You have proof or is that an accusation? You're big on proof. Prove what you just posted.

He can't. He is a blowhard baby.

 

[bnewt]

Why do you consider it speculation? The fact that part 1 provided proof that Rupp wasn't against playing Blacks since he had one on his high school team prior to coming to UK wasn't good enough? What are you looking for that would satisfy you? Are you expecting him to be shown with a halo around his head?

It is well known that Rupp had a black on his high school team. It wasn't acknowledged because it didn't fit the agenda to smear his reputation.

 

[Rideordiewildcat]

It's look like the next episode next week starts with Pitino arriving in Kentucky.

Remember that commercial where Knight and Thompson are recruiting a kid and then Pitino comes out of the kitchen lol. Man, good times.

 

[JPScott]

Part III of the Series dealt with year 1970-1979 is available.

Link to Companion Piece to Part III of Hoops in the South (1970-79)