After dropping the first two games of the NBA Finals at home, the Spurs walked into Madison Square Garden with their season leaning over the edge. One more loss, and this series would have felt almost finished. Not officially, but everybody watching would have known what time it was. Down 3-0 in the Finals is not a hole. That is a grave. San Antonio knew that, and for the first time in this series, they played with the kind of urgency that matched the moment.

The Spurs beat the Knicks 115-111, and that score does not fully explain what happened. This was not just a team sneaking out a win. This was a young team finally standing up in the middle of a loud building, against a confident opponent, with the whole basketball world watching. The Knicks still lead the series 2-1, but the mood changed. San Antonio gave itself life. New York still has control, but now the Knicks have to answer a question they probably did not want to face this soon. What happens if the Spurs have figured something out?

That is what made Game 3 so important. The Spurs did not play perfect basketball. They had stretches where New York pushed them around. They had moments where Madison Square Garden sounded ready to swallow them whole. The Knicks made runs, Jalen Brunson kept applying pressure, and the Garden crowd treated every basket like it was part of a championship parade. That is what the Knicks do. They make the game feel bigger, louder, heavier. They feed off that building, and for a while it looked like San Antonio might crack again.

But this time the Spurs did not go away.

Victor Wembanyama had to be more than a highlight player. He had to be the reason San Antonio still believed. That is a different burden. Everybody knows the talent. Everybody sees the length, the shot blocking, the handles, the range, and the way he can make basketball look unfair. But Finals basketball is not about how good you look in flashes. It is about how much force you can put on a game when the other team has studied you, bumped you, crowded you, and dared your teammates to beat them.

In Game 3, Wembanyama looked more like a franchise player carrying real weight. He was more aggressive. He did not spend the whole night floating around the perimeter trying to be pretty. He forced New York to deal with him. When he got the ball near the basket, the Knicks had problems. When he stretched the floor, they had to make uncomfortable choices. When he protected the rim, he changed possessions even when he did not block the shot. That is the kind of presence San Antonio needs if it is going to make this a real series.

But let us be honest. Wemby alone is not enough.

The Spurs needed other men to show up, and that is what made this win feel different. Stephon Castle gave San Antonio big minutes and big confidence. Young players can look good in the regular season, but the Finals will expose a man quickly. The lights are different. The mistakes are louder. Every possession feels like somebody is judging your whole career. Castle did not look scared of the moment. He played like a young brother who understood that the Spurs needed more than respect. They needed production.

De’Aaron Fox also mattered because San Antonio needs someone who can put pressure on the Knicks defense with speed and control. New York is too physical and too disciplined to let Wembanyama slowly pick them apart every possession. Somebody has to bend the defense. Somebody has to get downhill. Somebody has to create that little bit of panic that opens up everything else. Fox gives the Spurs that element, and when he is decisive, San Antonio looks much harder to guard.

The Knicks will look back at this game and know they let one get away. That does not mean they were terrible. They were not. Brunson still had his moments. New York still played with that grit that got them to this point. They still made San Antonio uncomfortable for long stretches. But the Knicks did not close the door when they had the chance. That is dangerous in the Finals. When you have a team down 2-0 and you are at home with a chance to put them in a 3-0 hole, you cannot let that team breathe.

Now the Spurs are breathing.

That does not mean San Antonio is suddenly the favorite. Let us not get carried away. The Knicks still have the series lead, and they still have the kind of team built for ugly playoff basketball. They defend. They rebound. They trust Brunson late. They have toughness all over the floor. They are not going to panic because of one loss. Tom Thibodeau teams do not usually fall apart emotionally. They may wear down, they may get stubborn, but they are not soft.

Still, Game 3 gave the Spurs something they did not have after Game 2. Belief.

That word gets thrown around too much in sports, but belief matters. When a team loses the first two games at home, doubt starts creeping in. Players may say the right things at the podium, but inside that locker room, everybody knows the truth. They know they wasted home court. They know history is leaning against them. They know the other team smells blood. One win does not erase all of that, but it does quiet the noise. It lets a team say, “We can beat these guys.” Not in theory. Not on paper. They actually did it.

The question now is whether the Spurs can do it again.

Game 4 will decide what this series really is. If the Knicks win Game 4, they go up 3-1, and San Antonio is right back in trouble. A 3-1 Finals deficit is a brutal place to live, especially after losing the first two at home. That would put the Spurs in a position where every mistake feels like the end of the season. But if San Antonio wins Game 4, this becomes a 2-2 series, and all the pressure shifts back to New York. Then Game 5 in San Antonio becomes a monster.

That is why I cannot call this a full comeback yet. I can call it a warning.

The Spurs have the best individual matchup problem in the series because nobody on New York can truly match Wembanyama when he is locked in. They can bother him. They can push him out. They can send help. They can make him work. But they cannot replicate him. That matters. In a long series, the team with the player nobody can solve always has a chance.

But San Antonio still has to grow up fast. Championship basketball asks hard questions. Can you win when your first option is being trapped? Can your role players make shots in hostile buildings? Can your young guys handle foul trouble, bad calls, and a crowd screaming at them? Can your veterans settle the game when it starts getting wild? Can you win two or three different styles of basketball in the same series?

The Spurs answered some of that in Game 3, but not all of it.

The Knicks also have some questions now. Can they keep Wembanyama from controlling the rhythm? Can Brunson keep carrying late-game offense without wearing down? Can New York avoid those empty stretches where the offense gets too predictable? Can they punish San Antonio enough when Wemby is away from the rim? Can they make the Spurs pay for being young?

That is the beauty of this series now. It finally feels alive.

Before Game 3, the Knicks had the clean story. They took both games in San Antonio. They came back to New York with control. Their crowd was ready. Their confidence was high. The Spurs looked like a talented young team that might have arrived one year too early. After Game 3, that story is not gone, but it has competition. Now the Spurs have a story too. Young team gets punched. Young team gets embarrassed at home. Young team walks into the Garden and punches back.

That is how Finals memories are made.

Do I think the Spurs can come back and win this series? Yes, I do. Any team with Wembanyama has a real chance if the series stays close. He is too talented, too different, and too capable of changing a game on both ends. If Castle keeps giving them fearless minutes, if Fox keeps attacking, and if San Antonio’s defense keeps tightening up, the Spurs can absolutely turn this into a seven-game fight.

Do I think they will win the NBA championship? I am not there yet.

Right now, I still lean Knicks because they have the lead, the toughness, the guard play, and the playoff scars. They have been through enough battles to understand that one loss does not change the whole mission. They also still have Brunson, and in the playoffs, having a guard who can create his own shot late is like having a good closer in baseball. It does not guarantee anything, but it lets everybody sleep a little better.

But San Antonio changed the conversation. That is what Game 3 did. The Spurs went from looking like a young team in trouble to looking like a dangerous team with a little blood back in its body. They are not chasing history with empty hope anymore. They have proof.

The Knicks should still feel good. They are up 2-1 in the NBA Finals. Most teams would take that every time. But they should not feel comfortable. Comfort is dangerous when Wembanyama is on the other side. Comfort is dangerous when a young team starts believing. Comfort is dangerous when a series that looked like it was leaning one way suddenly gets complicated.

San Antonio did not win the championship tonight. They did something almost as important.

They made the Knicks look over their shoulder.

Staff Writer; J.G. Lacour

Covering the NBA, NFL, college basketball, college football, and Major League Baseball from a Black man’s perspective. He loves the full world of sports, but the NFL remains his favorite.

Need to contact this bro, feel free to use this email address; JGLacour@ThyBlackMan.com.

It was always about the marketing and promotion of the homosexual agenda.  It was a brilliant move at first glance; but as with all things liberal, the NBA (the men’s league) and liberals took it too far!

Most, if not all of the major sports leagues are controlled and run by radical liberals and David Stern was no exception.

Stern was born in New Jersey and spent all of his life between there and New York City, both being the bastions of liberalism.

Stern became commissioner of the NBA in 1984.  During this time the NBA TV ratings were plummeting,  the NBA had an image problem—it had become too “ghettoized,” and the league had several high-profile drug issues with prominent players.

In other words, the NBA was damaged goods in the eyes of the corporate community, i.e., advertisers and Stern’s immediate mandate was to rehabilitate the NBA’s image.

TV viewership was down, games were broadcast on tape delay, not live like it is today and corporate sponsors made it clear to Stern that they thought the league was “too Black.”

The final assessment by the new NBA commissioner was that they must find a way to make the NBA more appealing to females because their corporate underwriters were very keen on this demographic.

Before Stern could focus on the creation of the WNBA, he had to first clean up all the other issues negatively impacting the NBA.

And guess who was the point person for the creation of the WNBA?  None other than the current commissioner of the NBA, Adam Silver.

Welllll, isn’t that special?

Silver was the executive in charge under Stern for the WNBA’s creation from concept to launch.  Like Stern, Silver comes from an ultra-liberal background.

They both saw the NBA and the WNBA as the perfect vehicles to promote their socialist agenda of “equality,” for “marginalized communities,” especially females!

Of all the professional sports leagues, the NBA is by far the most radically liberal.

During his last few years of being commissioner, David Stern had been putting immense pressure on the WNBA to become profitable or he would shutter the league.

It should come as no surprise that the NBA’s most recent collective bargaining agreement (CBA) from 2023 forced advertisers to include the WNBA or there would be no deal.

While the NBA CBA did not explicitly force WNBA advertisers to include the WNBA, the CBA’s economic and branding effects have strengthened the WNBA’s position as a valuable co-branded partner, making it more common for advertisers to include it in campaigns that span both leagues.

The WNBA recently signed their new CBA deal based on the coercion the NBA used to help them artificially inflate their TV rights and advertising deals with various NBA sponsors.

In its nearly thirty years of existence, the WNBA has never made a profit.  But liberals have a history of tolerating financial loses as the cost of promoting their radical agenda, in this case the homosexual movement.

This radical agenda is why parents en masse refuse to take their children to a WNBA game or watch it on TV.  Most parents refuse to expose their children to this radical agenda.

When Stern became commissioner, he was surrounded by closeted homosexual executives who became emboldened to come out of the closet under Sterns’ leadership.  Under Silver coming out of the closet was put on steroids.

Recent polling data shows that the aggressive promotion of the radical homosexual agenda in sports in particular and society in general is becoming less accepted by the public.

Corporate support for homosexual activities is drying up because this radical agenda is negatively impacting their profits.  How did things work out for Target and Anheuser Busch?

Consistent with liberals being willing to lose money to promote a cause that is antithetical to America it should not be a surprise that the one person who is a God send to the WNBA is being roundly rejected by league officials and its players.

I am speaking about none other than WNBA sensation Caitlin Clark.  Because she is a heterosexual white girl from a two-parent home, has no tattoos and has a boyfriend she has basically been ostracized within the league.

The league and her team, the Indiana Fever refuse to include her in league or team marketing materials even though she is by far the most popular female athlete in the world, not just the U.S.

Clark represents everything that is good about America, but since she is heterosexual, white, and not liberal she is being rejected.

If the WNBA was about basketball and its expansion, Clark would be the face of the league.  But since the league is about pushing a radical political agenda, homosexuality, they are willing to continue to lose money for the foreseeable future.

Even after nearly thirty years of existence, having never earned a profit, and pushing away their fanbase because of their promotion of homosexuality; there continues to be no business case for the WNBA’s continued existence.

Staff Writer; Raynard Jackson

This talented brother is a Pulitzer Award nominated columnist and founder and chairman of Black Americans for a Better Future (BAFBF), a federally registered 527 Super PAC established to get more Blacks involved in the Republican Party. BAFBF focuses on the Black entrepreneur. For more information about BAFBF, visit www.bafbf.org. You can follow Raynard on Twitter; RealRaynardJ; on Gettr: RaynardJackson.

Can also drop him an email at; RaynardJ@ThyBlackMan.com.

But they’re not. FIFA, which oversees the once-every-four-years soccer tournament, is slapping astounding prices on the tickets. No one has to buy them.

This should be very obvious.

That said, some products are priced in ways that understandably bring out villagers with pitchforks. Bread in 18th-century Europe, for example. Rapidly rising prices for the “staff of life” helped foment the French Revolution. The peasants demanded what they deemed a “just price.”

I don’t know what’s the “just price” to sit in one of the 85,500 seats at a stadium in New Jersey. Tickets for the World Cup Final to be held there are being offered in the many thousands.

If someone chooses to pay more than $8,000, the starting price on the SeatGeek page, what’s that to me? The inability to see a World Cup game in person is not my idea, or any sane human’s idea, of deprivation. And, you know, the games will all be on TV.

The rabid passions that explode after soccer games in Europe and Latin America are hard for the average American to understand. A sports columnist for La Stampa, a newspaper in Turin, Italy, once told me that after writing something critical about one of the local team’s star players, he woke up the next morning to find a death threat scrawled on the brick wall facing his apartment window.

Clearly, FIFA (Federation Internationale de Football Association) is treating the 2026 games to be played in 16 North American cities as an opportunity to squeeze the sport’s well-to-do fans, especially in the United States.

The attorneys general of New York and New Jersey have served FIFA with subpoenas, demanding it reveal its sales practices. Are fans being misled? If so, there may be a case. But this seems more a case of FIFA extracting thousands from willing buyers for its tickets. I don’t understand why anyone would pay so much to see a game, but if they want to and can do it, what’s that to me?

Scalpers peddle wildly overpriced tickets to shows, concerts and various sporting events. Even the box offices are charging prices that seem shocking to many. But the seats get filled.

An acquaintance confessed that she and her mate recently paid $1,800 to see Bruce Springsteen rail against today’s political scene. The “intimate” setting was Boston’s 19,000-seat TD Garden (TD as in TD Bank).

“Crazy but worth it,” she said.

Ticket prices are a touchy subject for FIFA. Outside the U.S., soccer has been considered the peoples’ game. And there was a time when the federation exercised more self-control. In 1994, the U.S. Soccer Federation proposed charging $1,000 for a ticket to the final at the Rose Bowl in Pasadena. FIFA put its foot down on what seemed an exorbitant price at the time. It didn’t want to upset the fans, so FIFA claimed.

To keep the fig leaf of “affordability” in place, FIFA this year is issuing 104,000 tickets at the bargain price of $60 each. That sounds like a lot of tickets, but it’s less than 2% of the 6 million to be sold.

The other tickets are being tagged through “dynamic pricing.” That means the price changes according to demand. This is similar to Uber surge pricing, whereby the cost of a ride rises at times when demands for the service are high.

FIFA says it hopes to rake in $11 billion from the upcoming World Cup, with the revenues to be distributed to its 211 member nations. Is that the explanation for high prices? If so, so be it.

Written by Froma Harrop

Official website; https://twitter.com/FromaHarrop

At the beginning of every professional sporting event, it has become an American tradition to stand during the playing of the national anthem. By doing so, it represents a moment of unified respect for our nation that goes beyond race, class, gender, age, political affiliation, and religion. It represents a time before the game when players, coaches, and fans of opposing teams are Americans first, and are joined together as one American team. The national anthem is a few precious minutes where patriotism and unity are established. It establishes an atmosphere of fan camaraderie where MAGA conservatives and die-hard liberals can cheer together for their favorite home team while being free of the political divisions from the outside world. Fans sitting in the stands can be totally unaware of the political persuasions of those around them because political differences are put aside, and support for the home team on the court or field becomes the unifying shared interest of those in attendance. It is a part of the game day experience that can easily be overlooked and taken for granted.

As starting quarterback of the San Francisco 49ers, Colin Kaepernick received backlash on multiple fronts when he used kneeling during the national anthem as a means of silently protesting racial injustice and police brutality. At the time, Joe Lockhart was the executive vice president in charge of communications and government affairs for the NFL. He later became a political analyst for CNN. In a column written in 2020, Lockhart stated, “No teams wanted to sign a player – even one as talented as Kaepernick –whom they saw as controversial, and therefore, bad for business.” Colin Kaepernick was not blackballed from the league because of his lack of skills, injuries, or salary demands. He was ostracized because he became a financial liability. “For many owners, it always came back to the same thing,” Lockhart wrote. “Signing Kaepernick, they thought, was bad for business. An executive from one team that considered signing Kaepernick told me the team projected losing 20% of their season ticket holders if they did. That was a business risk no team was willing to take, whether the owner was a Trump supporter or a bleeding-heart liberal. As bad of an image problem it presented for the league and the game, no owner was willing to put the business at risk over this issue.”

Looking back, I personally believe he should strategically use his platform as an NFL player in speaking out against racial injustice and police brutality, but his method underestimated the fan reaction when he invaded the political safe zone on game day with controversial social issues. It arguably led to Kaepernick losing his promising NFL career, and not being re-signed by any other team in the league. Recently, the New York Giants’ starting quarterback was another NFL player who misjudged a politically sensitive situation by introducing President Trump at a MAGA rally. Jaxson Dart’s decision will not cost him his job and career, but it did result in a backlash from a different perspective: The public backlash came from those defending the Black cause, including one of his New York Giants teammates. Linebacker Abdul Carter initially voiced discomfort with the optics of the event, according to multiple reports. “Some things are bigger than football, and this is one of those things,” Carter told reporters during a press conference. “If he chooses to align himself with a man like President Trump, it’s my responsibility based on what I believe and what I stand on to not only show my teammates that I’m against that, but to show the world.”

Dart, along with other Trump supporters, cannot forget that the majority of players in the NFL are Black. Abdul Carter’s comments refer to the character of a leader. If Dart is accepting the character of an anti-DEI leader, how can he, with any sense of credibility, be the quarterback and leader of a locker room that is predominantly Black? Hopefully, during the private meeting used to repair the fractured locker room, the team will learn that a player in leadership cannot bring racial insensitivity into another version of the NFL safe zone. This is why diversity, equity, and inclusion are always needed to bring racial awareness when needed.

Written by David W. Marshall

Official website; https://davidwmarshallauthor.com/

One may purchase his book, which is titled; God Bless Our Divided America: Unity, Politics and History from a Biblical Perspective.

Instead of another press release criticizing the unlawful actions of certain states, the NAACP would launch a campaign focused on an area in which those states are highly concerned — money, sports, and the talent that the two bring to a state.

The Ruling That Started All of This

The case at issue was Louisiana v. Callais. In April, the Supreme Court’s six-justice conservative majority found that a congressional map drawn up by the legislature to create two majority-black districts for two members of Congress constituted an illegal racial gerrymander. Essentially, the lines were drawn to aid in the creation of districts in which Black voters would have a majority and thus real representation in Congress. But according to the court, that was discriminatory.

Justice Elena Kagan in a scathing dissent noted that her colleagues’ decision effectively renders Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act — the part that protected the interests of minority voters when maps were gerrymandered to silence their votes — into oblivion. This was the core part of the Act that had been used since 1982 to challenge prejudiced mapmaking all over the country. The decision of the six justices was going to allow states for the first time in decades to redraw the lines of their congressional districts without much fear of being challenged in court.

States like Florida, Alabama, Georgia, and South Carolina began redrawing districts within months. Mississippi and Texas followed suit. The maps showed a marked decline in the number of majority-black congressional districts for black voters.

“Out of Bounds”: The NAACP’s Answer

The NAACP responded to the court’s ruling two weeks later with the launch of “Out of Bounds” campaign. Simply stated, the campaign asks that if a state is taking away the political power of Black people, then Black athletes should not help build the wealth of that same state through college athletics.

“Out of Bounds” started with a simple observation from NAACP President, Derrick Johnson. He said Black athletes have built up some of the country’s most profitable college sports programs. The revenue from these programs are pouring into the coffers of the states that are simultaneously stripping away the voting power of their Black citizens. Johnson’s message was clear — until something changes, Black athletes should take their money elsewhere.

The campaign asks Black student-athletes, recruits, alumni and fans to take their support away from public universities in the states of Alabama, Florida, Georgia, Louisiana, Mississippi, South Carolina and Texas. These are the states where almost every school on the list is a member of the Southeastern Conference (SEC), the most profitable college sports operation in the country.

Why Sports? Why Now?

Nothing else has moved fast enough and lawsuits can take years to be heard in a court of law. Elections are held months away. Protests bring attention for a moment and then typically fade away within a matter of days or weeks, without forcing any changes within the state’s legislative bodies. Money, on the other hand, brings a response by morning.

D.L. Hughley recently explained why a boycott would be effective in bringing attention to this cause. He said that if the top athletes in the country stopped going to Tennessee and Louisiana then the university presidents, ESPN executives, and local chambers of commerce would be making phone calls in a short amount of time. The economic pressure of a serious boycott is one of the few things that will prompt action in a short amount of time and that is why this approach is effective than protests alone.

Some notable boycotts in the past have yielded similar results. The NFL moved the 1993 Super Bowl from Arizona after the state refused to recognize a federal holiday for Martin Luther King Jr. day. The NCAA similarly moved several championship events from North Carolina after the state passed the anti-LGBTQ bathroom bill. Both states later reversed the laws in question. The important thing to note here is that the playbook works when institutions have much to lose.

The Congressional Black Caucus Adds Pressure

But the NAACP wasn’t alone in its response to the illegal redistricting. The Congressional Black Caucus sent a letter the day before the “Out of Bounds” campaign launched to the commissioners of the Southeastern Conference and Atlantic Coast conference, and to the president of the NCAA, Charlie Baker.

In a strongly worded message, the Congressional Black Caucus expressed its absolute outrage that the redistricting happening in member states, is being condemned by conference leaders. Unless conference leaders across the country publicly denounce the unconstitutional actions taking place in the states where their member schools reside, the CBC vowed to oppose the SCORE Act currently making its way through Congress. The SCORE Act would allow college athletes to sign contracts with anyone, standardizing athlete rights across the country. Conference leaders would be loathe to see the SCORE Act taken down. Holding that bill hostage was a very serious threat.

The CBC stated in their letter that all institutions who profit from the talent of Black athletes have a responsibility to stand with the Black community when their fundamental rights are being attacked. The silence from the conferences and from the NCAA will not be interpreted as neutrality, but rather, as a choice.

What This Actually Means for the SEC

Black athletes make up a substantial majority of rosters on top teams in both SEC football and basketball. A serious boycott of recruitment to these programs could therefore affect depth charts and scholarship classes within one or two seasons. These changes would affect how a team would fare in comparison to other schools in terms of rankings. Programs that rely so heavily on their ability to land the very best young talents from Georgia, Alabama, and Florida would quickly feel the effect of a boycott.

The counter from some governors such as South Carolina’s was immediate. They claimed that the athletes should not be used as political pawns. The NAACP had framed the campaign in a way that anticipated this response however. Instead of arguing over whether athletes should be used for politics, the question was whether they would choose to be used for their politics or someone else’s.

What’s Actually at Stake

This is not really about football. It’s about what happens to a community that has lost its voice in politics and has turned to find another lever to pull.

The Voting Rights Act of 1965 was signed into law after peaceful marchers were beaten on the Edmund Pettus Bridge in Selma, Alabama while attempting to exercise their right to vote. The law was put into place because the courts and Congress realized that without federal protection, the voting rights of African Americans would be taken away state by state.

That is what is happening today — only instead of fire hoses and beatings, maps and legal briefs are being used to deny citizens their right to vote. Being angry about this is appropriate. The NAACP’s response says: don’t just stay angry — make the anger count. If the institutions won’t protect your vote, make them feel what your absence look like.

Associate Editor; Stanley G. Buford

Feel free to connect with this brother via Twitter; Stanley G. and also facebook; http://www.facebook.com/sgbuford.

Also his email addy is; StanleyG@ThyBlackMan.com.

NFL teams don’t usually keep four quarterbacks on their active roster so it is likely that either Dillon Gabriel or Taylen Green will not be on the active roster for the 2026 Cleveland Browns. Gabriel was a rookie QB last season who was taken ahead of Shedeur Sanders by the Browns during their 2025 NFL Draft class. While Gabriel threw seven touchdowns and only two interceptions during his rookie season, the Browns also only won one game out of the six he started in 2025, making him unlikely to be the starting QB for them in 2026. Taylen Green is a physically gifted rookie QB taken by the Browns in the sixth round. He is considered a raw long-term project that will not likely much if any game action on an NFL field during the 2026 regular season. This means that two former college star QBs, Deshaun Watson and Shedeur Sanders will battle all summer to be the starting QB for the Browns when the season starts.

Deshaun Watson was once considered the long-term starting quarterback for the Houston Texans several years ago. A three-time Pro Bowl selection as an All Star, he led the Texans offense to the playoffs twice in his Houston career. Then, in 2021 things changed for the Texans and Watson forever. He was sued and accused by more than two dozen female massage therapists of sexual harassment and sexual misconduct. He missed the entire 2021 NFL season and was eventually traded to the Cleveland Browns in one of the biggest trades in NFL history and also received a record-breaking contract. However, Watson hasn’t regained his Pro Bowl form since joining the Browns.

His opposition for the starting QB position for the Cleveland Browns is Shedeur Sanders. The son of NFL legend Deion Sanders, Shedeur made a name for himself in college playing for his father at both Jackson State, an HBCU, and Colorado as a productive QB. His drop to the fifth round of the 2025 NFL Draft was arguably the biggest story of the entire 2025 NFL Draft due to his talent being considered greater than that of a mid-round pick but NFL teams seemed concerned by some aspects of Shedeur’s persona and the celebrity spotlight that accompanied him at college due to his father. His dad’s recent public comments about the Browns don’t help fight that perception as many have viewed Shedeur Sanders having a media magnet similar to another former college star QB Tim Tebow. For reasons that have nothing to do with football both Watson and Sanders are known by even some casual sports fans and now will compete to get more spotlight as the Browns starting quarterback for 2026.

Staff Writer; Mark Hines

In 1861, as the second highest ranking official in the Confederate government, he used his position and platform to make very clear his belief in racial superiority and dominance of the White race. He actually called it the “great truth”. His words were validation to those who shared the same shameful beliefs. While the Confederate government lost the war, this belief still remained in the hearts and minds of Confederate sympathizers for decades and centuries. In 2026, Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth is also proving to be a very dangerous man. In his high-ranking position within the Trump administration, Hegseth uses his platform to set governmental policies that are aligned with and consistent with the cultural beliefs of Alexander Stephens.

In his recent commencement address at the U.S. Military Academy at West Point, Hegseth harshly criticized diversity, equity and inclusion programs and blasted former military leadership for prioritizing correctness over combat readiness. He argued that previous “foolish and feckless” military leaders had “embraced the DEI craze and tried to introduce diversity and inclusion studies,” which he blamed for endangering soldiers. Addressing the graduates directly, Hegseth pushed back against the recent cultural shifts within the armed forces, including the removal of Confederate monuments from military grounds.

He told the graduating cadets, “Many of you, even in your short time in uniform, have endured what I called the slow slide of the U.S. Army. You’ve seen standards lowered, you’ve seen an obsession with race and gender, you’ve seen the watering down of discipline, codes weakened, and traditions tossed aside in the name of political correctness, statues taken down, painting placed in the basement”. As people of color, we are not fooled. When we hear Hegseth’s polarizing and misleading remarks, we see and hear Alexander Stephens under the cover. When we see Hegseth defending military bases and monuments that honor Confederate generals who led the rebellion against the Union, we see and hear the rise of the modern-day Confederacy.

Hegseth is correct. As people of color, we want to toss aside the traditions and legacies that support the untrue notion that the “negro is not equal to the white man”. Yes, we are obsessed with race and gender because we want our current and future military leaders to be strong men and women of character and integrity; leaders who treat people of all cultural backgrounds with fairness while giving them the respect they rightfully deserve. This represents the mark of true leadership which should serve as the example for all graduating cadets. And yes, we challenge any reframing of DEI which supports the idea that maintaining diversity and inclusion means the weakening of standards and the lowering combat readiness. The need for a strong pushback will always exist.

There will always be men and women in powerful positions who will be resistant to any form of progressive change, equality for people of color and the rightful sharing of political power. The deep disrespect will never go away. Hegseth is not alone in perpetuating the foundational beliefs of the Confederacy. There needs to be a moral pushback to what is happening under the direction of Donald Trump, Pete Hegseth and Chief Justice John Roberts. Their efforts are organized and strategic. The pushback must be as well.

The “Memphis boycott” refers to the 1968 Memphis Sanitation Strike. Black sanitation workers utilized labor strikes and community boycotts to demand better wages, safe working conditions and union recognition. What stood out with Memphis pushback is how organizers developed the “I AM A MAN” slogan to directly confront the dehumanizing social and economic conditions faced by Black laborers. It was a powerful statement to white individuals during the Jim Crow era who systematically used the term “boy” to address adult Black men. The statement by Blacks demanded that white individuals recognize their adulthood and equality. Rev. James Lawson, a key architect of the strike, galvanized the sanitation workers by stating, “At the heart of racism is the idea that a man is not a man….You are human beings. You are men.”

The NAACP’s new “Out of Bounds” campaign is the latest campaign in response to the Supreme Court’s ruling in Louisiana v. Callais. This pushback calls for Black athletes, families, fans, alumni and consumers to withhold athletic commitments and financial support from public universities in states where Black voting power will be severely eroded. The targeted states include Tennessee, Louisiana, Alabama, Florida, Mississippi, South Carolina, Texas and Georgia. These are states where legislatures are pursing maps to reduce Black political representation and whose flagship programs rely heavily on top-tier Black athletes in football and basketball. Today, top-tier Black athletes can earn substantial income through Name, Image and Likeness (NIL) agreements, with top earners commanding million-dollar deals.

This is a game changer for top high school recruits. If this boycott effort is to have any long-term impact, we have to remind all generations concerning the “why”. Remind them of the words of Alexander Stephens, Pete Hegseth, and Rev. James Lawson. Remind them of the moral reasons behind the “I AM A MAN” slogan. Remind them that in 2026 their friends, family and neighbors are suffering from increased racial hostility on multiple fronts resulting from anti-DEI agendas being carried out. Once the “why” is presented, let their conscience take over.

Written by David W. Marshall

Official website; https://davidwmarshallauthor.com/

One may purchase his book, which is titled; God Bless Our Divided America: Unity, Politics and History from a Biblical Perspective.

The era of the Greatest Generation, the Silent Generation, and the Baby Boom Generation, each distinguished by a significant record of sacrifice, has concluded. Currently, society must adapt to the eras of Generation X, the Millennials, and Generation Z. These generations are often perceived as possessing numerous suggestions and solutions to various problems, challenges, and situations. Yet, they have contributed comparatively less in terms of sacrifice for their community. Is it to attribute the limited sacrifices of Generation X, Millennials, and Generation Z regarding the Black community to their own shortcomings when contrasted with previous generations? The straightforward answer is no.  The true origin of the decline in sacrifices dates to the 1960s, a period when African Americans actively campaigned for their civil rights. During the Nashville student movement in 1960, university students organized boycotts and sit-ins, as in numerous instances, adults gradually withdrew from such efforts.

W. Clement Stone stated, “You are a product of your environment.” During and after the civil rights era, did the adults in Black America adequately teach and exemplify for Black youth how to advocate and sacrifice for the Black community without resorting to a mindset of flight due to perceived high costs, according to some adults’ opinions? Some would argue that the answer is no. In the 1960s, the Baby Boom generation took the lead. Meanwhile, some of their parents and other members of the Silent Generation retreated when the stakes became too high, which indirectly influenced and guided many within the Baby Boom generation to adopt this course of action and belief. This attitude was ultimately passed down to their children and grandchildren, comprising Generation X, the Millennials, and Generation Z.

I do not intend to demean or criticize our ancestors or our Elders of today, as I believe they endeavored to the best of their abilities in most matters. During our struggle for civil rights, many progressive Black Americans opted to leave, and in some instances, to entirely abandon the Black community, the Black church, the inner city, and most cultural aspects associated with Black people, in pursuit of access and acceptance into suburban America. Over the years, White flight has remained a predominant concern because it has significantly and adversely affected most urban centers across the United States, particularly in predominantly Black neighborhoods. Nevertheless, most Black Americans or Americans in general seldom take the time to examine the profound void created by Black flight, as they prioritize suburban living, suburban education for their children, and real estate investments with the potential to appreciate considerably within their lifetimes. While I strongly believe that Black Americans should have the freedom to reside wherever their financial means permit, such liberties should not be at the expense of the broader Black community. As Black Americans, we ought to consistently strive to maintain a connection with and be associated with our brothers and sisters. In the words of Donny Hathaway, always remember “he ain’t heavy, he is my brother.”

The opportunity to assume leadership or serve as the central figure in a movement appears infrequent for young Black men, both within and beyond the Black community. Many contend that Black men across all age groups tend to avoid leadership positions, are often perceived as lacking discipline, and are considered less capable of leading. Additionally, they are frequently regarded as less vocal and less prepared than their young Black female counterparts. Whether consciously acknowledged or not, the NAACP’s appeal for Black student-athletes to boycott predominantly white institutions (PWIs) predominantly serves as a call for young Black males to assume leadership roles, given that men’s football and basketball generate most of the revenue at most collegiate institutions, thereby subsidizing all other men’s and women’s sports. By stating the facts, I am not attempting to exacerbate the ongoing gender conflict that perpetually divides the Black community. I merely wish to emphasize that young Black men continue to possess a vital role in leading within our community. Are our young Black men currently adequately prepared and capable of assuming leadership positions? My response is in the affirmative.

I must acknowledge that, in my lifetime, I served as a proud member of the NAACP. However, regrettably, not all relationships are built to last. The NAACP’s appeal to young Black student-athletes can be likened to politicians’ visits to our community every two to four years without establishing a formal relationship. Often, they remain largely unfamiliar and absent from the daily lives of our younger generations, possibly due to the black flight phenomenon and the diminished importance of community membership. While I understand the NAACP’s invitation to channel our athletic talents elsewhere, their statement inadvertently diminishes us to mere athletes, overshadowing our intellectual capacities. The NAACP might have better served its purpose by advocating for a boycott of all PWIs in the states where voter redistricting is underway, involving students, student-athletes, professors, and Black professional athletes alike.

If we aspire for our young Black sons and daughters to embody selflessness and perfection in their sacrifice for the Black community, it is imperative that older Black adults assume leadership roles and demonstrate to youth what genuine sacrifice and commitment to the community entail, both in words and in action. Adults should never ask or direct youth away from their dreams without first exhausting all possibilities with them for how we can help them achieve them.

Affirmation:

I pursue my dreams with urgency and purpose, knowing my actions today shape my community tomorrow.

Quote to live by:
“Dream big—but don’t let your dreams linger too long, because your sacrifice will always outlive your vision.”

Affirmation:

I am not just talented, I am intellect, leadership, and legacy in motion.

Quote to live by:
“I am more than what I produce; I am a thinker, a leader, and a force capable of changing the direction of my community.”

Affirmation:

I honor my community by staying connected, giving back, and lifting others as I rise.

Quote to live by:
“Success means nothing if it costs connection, never forget, he ain’t heavy, he is my brother.”

Staff Writer; Jamie Seals

May also connect with this brother on Twitter; mychocolatemind.

Also drop an email at; JSeals@ThyBlackMan.com.

A recent study at Harvard University displayed how the suicide rates of ex-NFL players was higher than the suicide rates of ex-NBA and ex-MLB players. The study examined death records of retired NFL, Major League Baseball and National Basketball Association players starting in 1979. While suicide rates were similar across all three leagues prior to 2011, from 2011 to 2019 former NFL players died by suicide at a rate 2.6 times higher than their MLB and NBA counterparts. Earlier this year, former NFL wide receiver Rondale Moore died at the young age of 25 years old by an apparent self-inflicted gunshot wound. Moore was a former college star at Purdue who was attempting to get back into the NFL after missing the 2024 and 2025 NFL seasons after suffering season-ending injuries in preseason.

Although there are more players on an NFL team roster compared to NBA and MLB, the challenge of NFL with less guaranteed money and the constant player movement of NFL players being released due to injury makes the chances of making an NFL team a tough proposition along with the physical toll of the game of football. The relative lack of financial security of the NFL compared to NBA and MLB can also play out financially for ex-NFL players as displayed in the saddening story of Kevin Johnson.

Kevin Johnson was a fourth-round pick of the New England Patriots in 1993, and he had significant financial difficulty after his NFL career ended. According to his friends, Johnson had various health issues post playing career that led him to become homeless. Earlier this year, Kevin Johnson was found unconscious at a homeless encampment in Los Angeles and he died from “blunt head trauma and stab wounds,” the Los Angeles County Medical Examiner said. He was just 55 years old.

It is eye-opening that a former NFL player would become homeless but those situations happen more often than the public understands. Once a person is officially a professional athlete, they often financially take care of many family members and friends who helped them arrive to that point over the course of their lives. While the money that NFL players make is higher than that of the general public, it is not infinite and it is difficult for some professional athletes to say “no” to the people who knew them before their fame and fortune. For NFL players, the health issues that come after playing football also pop up and those medical bills can accumulate significantly which can be detrimental to them and their post playing lives.

Staff Writer; Mark Hines

I am a graduate of several schools popular for their sports teams.  Among them UCLA when Kareem Abdul-Jabbar was there; and the University of Southern California when O.J. Simpson was there. I didn’t graduate from the University of Michigan, but I did study there and follow football. However, I attended and graduated from Grambling University in Louisiana, and Grambling wasn’t as big as those schools, but in my heart, Grambling was always the greatest when it came to sports.

You see, Grambling had not only the great band, the great speech and dramatic arts department, the great basketball team and baseball team, but Grambling had the best coach anybody could ever wish for–young men and young women. Obviously, I’m remembering the one and only great Eddie Robinson who began working at Grambling before I was born and remained for 57 years. Despite our age difference, he became one of my best friends and advisors.

Coach Robinson inspired so many young people–especially young men to be their best in sports. Among them are many others, such as Doug Williams, Tank Younger, Everson Walls, James “Shack” Harris, Trumaine Johnson, Larry Wright, Willis Reed, Rich Johnson, Aaron James, Bob Hopkins, Fred Hilton, Charlie Hardnett, Rex Tippitt and so many more, who became friends and one of them who introduced me to professional football was the late Willie Davis.

As I watched the recent NFL Draft, I thought of all the young men who now have great opportunities before them–especially young Black men.  As their names were called because they were the greatest in their chosen sport, most of their families and friends were there to rejoice about the great opportunity with which they were being presented.

If Coach Robinson were there with them, along with the opportunity for which they were selected, he would have told them about the great responsibility before them. Everybody can’t be the greatest educator, the greatest doctor, the greatest lawyer, but their talents have already shown they can be the greatest in their chosen profession, and their responsibilities are no less as an athlete than those in other professions. Especially young men who have not yet succeeded in anything because of a lack of opportunity can and do look up to successful athletes!

I pray that the happiness, the glee, the great and determined attitude and the emotion I saw in the draft will remain with them as they make us proud and inspire and help other young people in sports to follow in their footsteps.

Bud Clark, from my hometown in Alexandria, Louisiana was just drafted by the Seattle Seahawks and I have the same hope for success for him. At the close of this article, I was still waiting and pulling for Jacobian Guillory, also from my hometown in Louisiana, will be successfully drafted.

With Mother’s Day coming up soon, I want to congratulate all the Black women who were right there with their sons cheering them on from day one. I don’t disregard the fathers who were there, too, or who for whatever reason were not there at the Draft, but I now understand when young men do well in any sport, at the end, they shout out, “Hey Mom” or send a loving signal to her. I congratulate all the Moms who sacrificed so often alone to get their sons to where they are now, and it’s on these young men to make Mom, Dad and the family proud during their career in the National Football League! I will tell them what else I wish for them when I see them at the dugout after a game!

Written By Dr. E. Faye Williams

Official website; https://x.com/DrEFayeWilliams