The Rules of Pacers Digest

Hello everyone,

Whether your are a long standing forum member or whether you have just registered today, it's a good idea to read and review the rules below so that you have a very good idea of what to expect when you come to Pacers Digest.

A quick note to new members: Your posts will not immediately show up when you make them. An administrator has to approve at least your first post before the forum software will later upgrade your account to the status of a fully-registered member. This usually happens within a couple of hours or so after your post(s) is/are approved, so you may need to be a little patient at first.

Why do we do this? So that it's more difficult for spammers (be they human or robot) to post, and so users who are banned cannot immediately re-register and start dousing people with verbal flames.

Below are the rules of Pacers Digest. After you have read them, you will have a very good sense of where we are coming from, what we expect, what we don't want to see, and how we react to things.

Rule #1

Pacers Digest is intended to be a place to discuss basketball without having to deal with the kinds of behaviors or attitudes that distract people from sticking with the discussion of the topics at hand. These unwanted distractions can come in many forms, and admittedly it can sometimes be tricky to pin down each and every kind that can rear its ugly head, but we feel that the following examples and explanations cover at least a good portion of that ground and should at least give people a pretty good idea of the kinds of things we actively discourage:

"Anyone who __________ is a liar / a fool / an idiot / a blind homer / has their head buried in the sand / a blind hater / doesn't know basketball / doesn't watch the games"

"People with intelligence will agree with me when I say that __________"

"Only stupid people think / believe / do ___________"

"I can't wait to hear something from PosterX when he/she sees that **insert a given incident or current event that will have probably upset or disappointed PosterX here**"

"He/she is just delusional"

"This thread is stupid / worthless / embarrassing"

"I'm going to take a moment to point and / laugh at PosterX / GroupOfPeopleY who thought / believed *insert though/belief here*"

"Remember when PosterX said OldCommentY that no longer looks good? "

In general, if a comment goes from purely on topic to something 'ad hominem' (personal jabs, personal shots, attacks, flames, however you want to call it, towards a person, or a group of people, or a given city/state/country of people), those are most likely going to be found intolerable.

We also dissuade passive aggressive behavior. This can be various things, but common examples include statements that are basically meant to imply someone is either stupid or otherwise incapable of holding a rational conversation. This can include (but is not limited to) laughing at someone's conclusions rather than offering an honest rebuttal, asking people what game they were watching, or another common problem is Poster X will say "that player isn't that bad" and then Poster Y will say something akin to "LOL you think that player is good". We're not going to tolerate those kinds of comments out of respect for the community at large and for the sake of trying to just have an honest conversation.

Now, does the above cover absolutely every single kind of distraction that is unwanted? Probably not, but you should by now have a good idea of the general types of things we will be discouraging. The above examples are meant to give you a good feel for / idea of what we're looking for. If something new or different than the above happens to come along and results in the same problem (that being, any other attitude or behavior that ultimately distracts from actually just discussing the topic at hand, or that is otherwise disrespectful to other posters), we can and we will take action to curb this as well, so please don't take this to mean that if you managed to technically avoid saying something exactly like one of the above examples that you are then somehow off the hook.

That all having been said, our goal is to do so in a generally kind and respectful way, and that doesn't mean the moment we see something we don't like that somebody is going to be suspended or banned, either. It just means that at the very least we will probably say something about it, quite possibly snipping out the distracting parts of the post in question while leaving alone the parts that are actually just discussing the topics, and in the event of a repeating or excessive problem, then we will start issuing infractions to try to further discourage further repeat problems, and if it just never seems to improve, then finally suspensions or bans will come into play. We would prefer it never went that far, and most of the time for most of our posters, it won't ever have to.

A slip up every once and a while is pretty normal, but, again, when it becomes repetitive or excessive, something will be done. Something occasional is probably going to be let go (within reason), but when it starts to become habitual or otherwise a pattern, odds are very good that we will step in.

There's always a small minority that like to push people's buttons and/or test their own boundaries with regards to the administrators, and in the case of someone acting like that, please be aware that this is not a court of law, but a private website run by people who are simply trying to do the right thing as they see it. If we feel that you are a special case that needs to be dealt with in an exceptional way because your behavior isn't explicitly mirroring one of our above examples of what we generally discourage, we can and we will take atypical action to prevent this from continuing if you are not cooperative with us.

Also please be aware that you will not be given a pass simply by claiming that you were 'only joking,' because quite honestly, when someone really is just joking, for one thing most people tend to pick up on the joke, including the person or group that is the target of the joke, and for another thing, in the event where an honest joke gets taken seriously and it upsets or angers someone, the person who is truly 'only joking' will quite commonly go out of his / her way to apologize and will try to mend fences. People who are dishonest about their statements being 'jokes' do not do so, and in turn that becomes a clear sign of what is really going on. It's nothing new.

In any case, quite frankly, the overall quality and health of the entire forum's community is more important than any one troublesome user will ever be, regardless of exactly how a problem is exhibiting itself, and if it comes down to us having to make a choice between you versus the greater health and happiness of the entire community, the community of this forum will win every time.

Lastly, there are also some posters, who are generally great contributors and do not otherwise cause any problems, who sometimes feel it's their place to provoke or to otherwise 'mess with' that small minority of people described in the last paragraph, and while we possibly might understand why you might feel you WANT to do something like that, the truth is we can't actually tolerate that kind of behavior from you any more than we can tolerate the behavior from them. So if we feel that you are trying to provoke those other posters into doing or saying something that will get themselves into trouble, then we will start to view you as a problem as well, because of the same reason as before: The overall health of the forum comes first, and trying to stir the pot with someone like that doesn't help, it just makes it worse. Some will simply disagree with this philosophy, but if so, then so be it because ultimately we have to do what we think is best so long as it's up to us.

If you see a problem that we haven't addressed, the best and most appropriate course for a forum member to take here is to look over to the left of the post in question. See underneath that poster's name, avatar, and other info, down where there's a little triangle with an exclamation point (!) in it? Click that. That allows you to report the post to the admins so we can definitely notice it and give it a look to see what we feel we should do about it. Beyond that, obviously it's human nature sometimes to want to speak up to the poster in question who has bothered you, but we would ask that you try to refrain from doing so because quite often what happens is two or more posters all start going back and forth about the original offending post, and suddenly the entire thread is off topic or otherwise derailed. So while the urge to police it yourself is understandable, it's best to just report it to us and let us handle it. Thank you!

All of the above is going to be subject to a case by case basis, but generally and broadly speaking, this should give everyone a pretty good idea of how things will typically / most often be handled.

Rule #2

If the actions of an administrator inspire you to make a comment, criticism, or express a concern about it, there is a wrong place and a couple of right places to do so.

The wrong place is to do so in the original thread in which the administrator took action. For example, if a post gets an infraction, or a post gets deleted, or a comment within a larger post gets clipped out, in a thread discussing Paul George, the wrong thing to do is to distract from the discussion of Paul George by adding your off topic thoughts on what the administrator did.

The right places to do so are:

A) Start a thread about the specific incident you want to talk about on the Feedback board. This way you are able to express yourself in an area that doesn't throw another thread off topic, and this way others can add their two cents as well if they wish, and additionally if there's something that needs to be said by the administrators, that is where they will respond to it.

B) Send a private message to the administrators, and they can respond to you that way.

If this is done the wrong way, those comments will be deleted, and if it's a repeating problem then it may also receive an infraction as well.

Rule #3

If a poster is bothering you, and an administrator has not or will not deal with that poster to the extent that you would prefer, you have a powerful tool at your disposal, one that has recently been upgraded and is now better than ever: The ability to ignore a user.

When you ignore a user, you will unfortunately still see some hints of their existence (nothing we can do about that), however, it does the following key things:

A) Any post they make will be completely invisible as you scroll through a thread.

B) The new addition to this feature: If someone QUOTES a user you are ignoring, you do not have to read who it was, or what that poster said, unless you go out of your way to click on a link to find out who it is and what they said.

To utilize this feature, from any page on Pacers Digest, scroll to the top of the page, look to the top right where it says 'Settings' and click that. From the settings page, look to the left side of the page where it says 'My Settings', and look down from there until you see 'Edit Ignore List' and click that. From here, it will say 'Add a Member to Your List...' Beneath that, click in the text box to the right of 'User Name', type in or copy & paste the username of the poster you are ignoring, and once their name is in the box, look over to the far right and click the 'Okay' button. All done!

Rule #4

Regarding infractions, currently they carry a value of one point each, and that point will expire in 31 days. If at any point a poster is carrying three points at the same time, that poster will be suspended until the oldest of the three points expires.

Rule #5

When you share or paste content or articles from another website, you must include the URL/link back to where you found it, who wrote it, and what website it's from. Said content will be removed if this doesn't happen.

An example:

If I copy and paste an article from the Indianapolis Star website, I would post something like this:
Title of the Article
Author's Name
Indianapolis Star

Rule #6

We cannot tolerate illegal videos on Pacers Digest. This means do not share any links to them, do not mention any websites that host them or link to them, do not describe how to find them in any way, and do not ask about them. Posts doing anything of the sort will be removed, the offenders will be contacted privately, and if the problem becomes habitual, you will be suspended, and if it still persists, you will probably be banned.

The legal means of watching or listening to NBA games are NBA League Pass Broadband (for US, or for International; both cost money) and NBA Audio League Pass (which is free). Look for them on

Rule #7

Provocative statements in a signature, or as an avatar, or as the 'tagline' beneath a poster's username (where it says 'Member' or 'Administrator' by default, if it is not altered) are an unwanted distraction that will more than likely be removed on sight. There can be shades of gray to this, but in general this could be something political or religious that is likely going to provoke or upset people, or otherwise something that is mean-spirited at the expense of a poster, a group of people, or a population.

It may or may not go without saying, but this goes for threads and posts as well, particularly when it's not made on the off-topic board (Market Square).

We do make exceptions if we feel the content is both innocuous and unlikely to cause social problems on the forum (such as wishing someone a Merry Christmas or a Happy Easter), and we also also make exceptions if such topics come up with regards to a sports figure (such as the Lance Stephenson situation bringing up discussions of domestic abuse and the law, or when Jason Collins came out as gay and how that lead to some discussion about gay rights).

However, once the discussion seems to be more/mostly about the political issues instead of the sports figure or his specific situation, the thread is usually closed.

Rule #8

We prefer self-restraint and/or modesty when making jokes or off topic comments in a sports discussion thread. They can be fun, but sometimes they derail or distract from a topic, and we don't want to see that happen. If we feel it is a problem, we will either delete or move those posts from the thread.

Rule #9

Generally speaking, we try to be a "PG-13" rated board, and we don't want to see sexual content or similarly suggestive content. Vulgarity is a more muddled issue, though again we prefer things to lean more towards "PG-13" than "R". If we feel things have gone too far, we will step in.

Rule #10

We like small signatures, not big signatures. The bigger the signature, the more likely it is an annoying or distracting signature.

Rule #11

Do not advertise anything without talking about it with the administrators first. This includes advertising with your signature, with your avatar, through private messaging, and/or by making a thread or post.
See more
See less

NFL truth: Hip-hop culture hurting NFL

  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • NFL truth: Hip-hop culture hurting NFL

    Former Warren Central graduate Jason Whitlock drops some bombs in this one. Usually his stuff is pretty iffy, but this one is certainly going to get some attention for the racially controversial subject matter.
    NFL truth: Hip-hop culture hurting NFL

    Jason Whitlock /

    You get one NFL Truth today. Watching Chad Johnson and Larry Johnson undermine their respective head coaches, Marvin Lewis and Herm Edwards, on Sunday gave me a singular focus, forced me to contemplate an uncomfortable truth.

    African-American football players caught up in the rebellion and buffoonery of hip hop culture have given NFL owners and coaches a justifiable reason to whiten their rosters. That will be the legacy left by Chad, Larry and Tank Johnson, Pacman Jones, Terrell Owens, Michael Vick and all the other football bojanglers.

    In terms of opportunity for American-born black athletes, they're going to leave the game in far worse shape than they found it.

    It's already starting to happen. A little-publicized fact is that the Colts and the Patriots — the league's model franchises — are two of the whitest teams in the NFL. If you count rookie receiver Anthony Gonzalez, the Colts opened the season with an NFL-high 24 white players on their 53-man roster. Toss in linebacker Naivote Taulawakeiaho "Freddie" Keiaho and 47 percent of Tony Dungy's defending Super Bowl-champion roster is non-African-American. Bill Belichick's Patriots are nearly as white, boasting a 23-man non-African-American roster, counting linebacker Tiaina "Junior" Seau and backup quarterback Matt Gutierrez.

    For some reason, these facts are being ignored by the mainstream media. Could you imagine what would be written and discussed by the media if the Yankees and the Red Sox were chasing World Series titles with 11 African-Americans on their 25-man rosters (45 percent)?
    We would be inundated with information and analysis on the social significance. Well, trust me, what is happening with the roster of the Patriots and the Colts and with Roger Goodell's disciplinary crackdown are all socially significant.

    Hip hop athletes are being rejected because they're not good for business and, most important, because they don't contribute to a consistent winning environment. Herm Edwards said it best: You play to win the game.
    I'm sure when we look up 10 years from now and 50 percent — rather than 70 percent — of NFL rosters are African-American, some Al Sharpton wannabe is going to blame the decline on a white-racist plot.

    That bogus charge will ignore our role in our football demise. We are in the process of mishandling the opportunity and freedom earned for us by Jim Brown, Walter Payton, Doug Williams, Mike Singletary, Gale Sayers, Willie Lanier and countless others. And those of us in the media who have rationalized, minimized and racialized every misstep by Vick, Pacman and T.O. have played an equal role in blowing it.

    By failing to confront and annihilate the abhorrent cultural norms we have allowed to grab our youth, we have in the grand American scheme sentenced many of them to hell on earth (incarceration), and in the sports/entertainment world we've left them to define us as unreliable, selfish and buffoonish.

    I take you to Arrowhead Stadium this past Sunday when two competent and respected black head coaches led the Chiefs and the Bengals in battle, and their efforts were periodically sabotaged by Chad and Larry Johnson, the two players Lewis and Edwards have defended the most.

    Football fans are aware of Lewis' love affair with Chad Johnson, the Flavor Flav of the gridiron. Johnson's insistence on conducting a minstrel show during games has long been reluctantly tolerated by Lewis. Johnson, I guess, is just too talented, productive and well-compensated for Lewis to discipline. So Lewis has chosen to enable, going as far as making excuses when Johnson's selfish behavior extended to an alleged locker-room shoving match with coaches (including a swing at Lewis) at halftime of the Bengals' Jan. 8, 2006 playoff loss to the Steelers.

    Coming off an 11-5 regular season and having been crowned the toast of Cincinnati, Lewis responded to that Johnson meltdown by vowing to cut the player who leaked the fight information to the media.

    Since then, the Bengals have been one of the league's biggest disappointments, finishing 8-8 last season and starting 1-4 this season. Injuries have played a significant role in Cincy's troubles, but so has a lack of on- and off-field discipline and focus. Lewis' coddling of Chad Johnson has destroyed the chemistry that made the Bengals a playoff team in 2005.
    On Sunday, with the Bengals trying to rally out of a two-score deficit, Johnson failed to finish a pass route, which contributed to Carson Palmer throwing an interception.

    Not to be outdone, Larry Johnson continued his season-long pattern of immature behavior, spiking the football in frustration with 4 minutes to play and the Chiefs attempting to run out the clock. The Bengals were out of timeouts and the spike stopped the clock, giving Cincy one last chance to make a comeback.

    Johnson, despite receiving a new $45-million contract, has brooded, pouted and complained all season. He spent the off-season promising to be a leader and has spent the first six weeks of the season spreading locker-room cancer. Edwards-coached teams have traditionally been the least-penalized squads in the NFL. This year's Chiefs are one of the most-penalized squads. Nickel back Benny Sapp drew an unsportsmanlike conduct penalty on Sunday, had to be dragged off the field by Donnie Edwards, and was spotted on the sideline arguing with players and coaches.

    Race is not the determining factor when it comes to having a good or bad attitude. Culture is.

    Hip hop is the dominant culture for black youth. In general, music, especially hip hop music, is rebellious for no good reason other than to make money. Rappers and rockers are not trying to fix problems. They create problems for attention.

    That philosophy, attitude and behavior go against everything football coaches stand for. They're in a constant battle to squash rebellion, dissent and second opinions from their players.

    You know why Muhammad Ali is/was an icon? Because he rebelled against something meaningful and because he excelled in an individual sport. His rebellion didn't interfere with winning. Jim Brown, Bill Russell, Kareem Abdul-Jabbar, etc. rebelled with dignity and purpose.

    What we're witnessing today are purposeless, selfish acts of buffoonery. Sensible people have grown tired of it. Football people are recognizing it doesn't contribute to a winning environment.

    Whether calculated or not, the Patriots and the Colts have created settings in which Brady and Manning can lead and feel comfortable. I remember back in the 1980s when some black sports fans accused the Celtics of being racist for having a predominantly-white roster when Larry Bird was the star. No one remembered that Red Auerbach occasionally fielded an all-black starting lineup during Bill Russell's heyday.

    My point is that it makes sense to cater to your stars. And it makes even more sense to fill your roster with players who don't mind being led, even if you sacrifice a little 40-yard dash speed.

    If things don't change quickly, we're going to learn this lesson the hard way.

  • #2
    Re: NFL truth: Hip-hop culture hurting NFL

    Maybe Jason's next article should be about how the Pacers are going away from African-American players.

    As far as I'm concerned if the team is winning it shouldn't matter if the players are black, white, Euro, or Martian.


    • #3
      Re: NFL truth: Hip-hop culture hurting NFL

      Hip hop culture made Larry Johnson spike a football? And Chad Johnson throw fits?

      Please, this is the same garbage I heard when JR Smith got in a car crash in which his friend died. The local columnist here in Denver blamed it on JR Smith trying to be a gangster. What exactly does wanting to be a gangster have to do with you getting in a completely random accident?

      Rap music does not make people get in car crashes, beat up teammates or do drugs. There are systemic reasons for abberant behavior. To claim that someone would hear a song and act wild is insane.

      Would you break the law if Bruce Springsteen told you to?


      • #4
        Re: NFL truth: Hip-hop culture hurting NFL

        Originally posted by King Tuts Tomb View Post
        Would you break the law if Bruce Springsteen told you to?
        yes, without question
        This is the darkest timeline.


        • #5
          Re: NFL truth: Hip-hop culture hurting NFL

          Originally posted by avoidingtheclowns View Post
          yes, without question
          Rock and roll culture is hurting message boards.


          • #6
            Re: NFL truth: Hip-hop culture hurting NFL

            Disco culture caused short shorts.

            “Success is not final, failure is not fatal: it is the courage to continue that counts.” - Winston Churchill

            “If you can't be a good example, then you'll just have to serve as a horrible warning.” - Catherine Aird


            • #7
              Re: NFL truth: Hip-hop culture hurting NFL

              Originally posted by Los Angeles View Post
              Disco culture caused short shorts.

              Who likes short shorts?


              • #8
                Re: NFL truth: Hip-hop culture hurting NFL

                We like short shorts!


                • #9
                  Re: NFL truth: Hip-hop culture hurting NFL

                  The whole article is pretty weak, the argument wasn't even advanced very well, which I think is bollucks anyway.

                  You're always going to have some bad apples in any collection of guys as large as the NFL. There are well over a thousand players in the NFL. If 30 of them get into legal trouble, we're talking about less than 3% of NFL players here.

                  I hope it is kept on the DL on FoxSports that his guy is from Indiana, because he is a friggin embarrassment for the state.


                  • #10
                    Re: NFL truth: Hip-hop culture hurting NFL

                    Originally posted by dcpacersfan View Post
                    I hope it is kept on the DL on FoxSports that his guy is from Indiana, because he is a friggin embarrassment for the state.
                    Even a blind squirell finds a nut every once in a while, and he nailed the whole Ball State/Ronnie Thompson issue.

                    I sort of, kind of, like him cause he promotes BSU athletics (mostly football considering he played here), but he does write some pretty off the wall columns.
                    Just because you're offended, doesn't mean you're right.” ― Ricky Gervais.


                    • #11
                      Re: NFL truth: Hip-hop culture hurting NFL

                      Originally posted by Since86 View Post
                      Even a blind squirell finds a nut every once in a while, and he nailed the whole Ball State/Ronnie Thompson issue.

                      I sort of, kind of, like him cause he promotes BSU athletics (mostly football considering he played here), but he does write some pretty off the wall columns.
                      Ah, Ball State Football, the fans are too few and far between.

                      I have plenty of friends that are seniors at the school, and they said that out of their four years, the team seems to be the best it has ever been this year and the program could improve in the future.


                      • #12
                        Re: NFL truth: Hip-hop culture hurting NFL

                        He does lay out something interesting though - that the Pats and Colts have the most white and non-black players. That's interesting. I think the rest of his argument is poorly structured (i.e. you get white players so that the white QBs feel comfortable but at the same time when you have a guy like Randy Moss come to the Pats, you have to think that Brady loves him and feels perfectly comfortable).


                        • #13
                          Re: NFL truth: Hip-hop culture hurting NFL

                          From the Phillip B.Wilson blog on Dungy's response to the Whitlock story:

                          Dungy's take on Whitlock's story

                          Controversial Kansas City Star columnist Jason Whitlock stirred the pot this week with a column on how today's black NFL athletes of a hip hop culture have prompted successful franchises such as the Colts and New England to "whiten" their rosters.

                          I'm not bringing this up just to get a rise on racial views. It's an issue Whitlock broached and his opinions were not shrugged aside, at least not by Colts coach Tony Dungy, the first black head coach to win a Super Bowl and a man who has always been proud of his African-American heritage.
                          Whitlock wrote that the Colts opened the season with an NFL-high 24 white players on their roster. New England, he wrote, had 23 non-black players. His summation is that these two elite franchises tend to stay away from the hip hop, self-publicizing athletes. Whitlock criticized Cincinnati's Chad Johnson, Kansas City's Larry Johnson, Dallas receiver Terrell Owens, Tennessee's suspended cornerback Adam "Pacman" Jones and suspended Atlanta quarterback Mike Vick as examples of American-born black men who will leave the NFL in worse shape than they found it.

                          Dungy didn't agree with everything Whitlock wrote, but he did agree with some of it. I know from being around Dungy that he has always expected black athletes to set a positive example for youngsters. He hates to see black players get in trouble because for some, be it media or fans, it perpetuates an ugly stereotype.

                          The Colts have always taken pride in drafting character guys. This is not to say other teams don't look for the same. That's why NFL combine athletes are grilled through extensive interviews. Coaches and those who evaluate the talent want to know as much about what is between the ears as what they can do on the field athletically. It's fair to suggest the Colts have had a better track record than most teams in adding character guys to their locker room in recent years.

                          "It struck me as very interesting," Dungy said. "I thought he made some good points, a lot of points I agree with. I didn't necessarily agree with the 'whitening' of the Colts. We don't necessarily look at it in those terms. We do look for a lot of the things he talks about, guys who are dependable and guys who are going to be good teammates and fit in. I don't think that necessarily means anything one way or another (racially).

                          "But I think he made some points about what it takes to win, team players over individual. I just happen to think that can come from anywhere."
                          My Star colleague Mike Chappell followed up with a question about Whitlock's contention that today's hip hop culture athletes are not as committed to team as opposed to individual success.

                          "I think that's what he was saying," Dungy said, "but he specifically pointed at the black hip hop culture. You'd have to ask him if that's what he was saying, but that's (how) it came out. As I said, I think he made some good points. I don't know if you can always broad down racial lines or position lines."

                          Dungy said he was surprised by Whitlock's contention the Colts are 47 percent non-African-American. My colleagues came up with a number that was a bit lower, around 30 percent.

                          "It's not anything we particularly look at," Dungy said of race. "We do look for Colts-type players. I think he hit Colts-type players on the nose the way he described what we're looking for."


                          • #14
                            Re: NFL truth: Hip-hop culture hurting NFL

                            "He hates to see black players get in trouble because for some, be it media or fans, it perpetuates an ugly stereotype."

                            This is it right here.

                            When just one guy "makes it rain on hos", it strengthens a negative stereotype to the point where it is blown up to be a failure of an entire group.

                            Flip it around to the 80's. Back then, guys like Jim McMahon and Brian Bosworth were an eyesore. But since they were white, the "culture" they participated in wasn't under attack, just them as players.

                            Give them black skin, and suddenly the individual is no longer responsible, it's a problem with the way "black people act."

                            Full responsibility should rest on the individual and be based on their actions.
                            “Success is not final, failure is not fatal: it is the courage to continue that counts.” - Winston Churchill

                            “If you can't be a good example, then you'll just have to serve as a horrible warning.” - Catherine Aird


                            • #15
                              Re: NFL truth: Hip-hop culture hurting NFL

                              Interesting article on arrest rate in the NFL:


                              • The overall arrest rate for football players is about half of the general population. In any given year, about one in 45 NFL players -- a little more than one per roster -- gets arrested. The national rate is about one in 23, according to the FBI. [78]
                              • Drunken driving arrests accounted for a third of the arrests. Still, the drunken driving arrest rate is about one in 144 for NFL players -- slightly better than the national rate of one in 135.
                              • Fifty players were responsible for 40 percent of arrests, with multiple DUI and other charges.
                              So NFL has higher percentage of black players and hip hop culture than society at large, but still has lower arrest rates. Could it be that...RAP MUSIC DOESN'T MAKE PEOPLE MISBEHAVE?! Some people just misbehave, they could listen to country and they'd break the law. I think Jason Whitlock might have a hard time with that notion.

                              Remember, this is the same guy that said you shouldn't support the Jena 6 and that Peyton or Eli Manning could never win a Super Bowl because of how they grew up. He's a fool, people only give him the time of day because he's black. If a white guy wrote this garbage he'd be fired immediately.