Colleges (and NFL) block black coaches from top spots: Commentary

[Gan]

(CNN) -- I was one of the 85,000-plus on hand at Kyle Field in College Station, Texas, the day after Thanksgiving to see my alma mater, Texas A&M, beat our arch-rival, the University of Texas, 38-30.

After that thrilling win, A&M head coach Dennis Franchione tendered his resignation, ending a five-year run that didn't live up to the billing and, especially, his $2 million annual check.

Three days later, Mike Sherman, the offensive coordinator for the Houston Texans and a former Texas A&M assistant coach, was introduced as the new head coach.

But don't think Texas A&M is alone in zeroing in on one candidate in a supposed "national search."

Six hours after resigning from the University of Arkansas after 15 years, Houston Nutt had a new job in the Southeastern Conference as head of Ole Miss. They didn't even bother to announce a search.

What's wrong with this picture? Many of you may say nothing. But for black and other minority coaches in college football (http://topics.cnn.com/topics/college_football), and even the NFL, it's déjà vu: another high-profile head coaching job opens up, and they don't even get a shot to interview for the job.

This continuing exclusion of minority coaches is indicative of Division I-A colleges and universities, which are quick to field black ball players, but on the sidelines, you might as well forget about it.

Of the 119 Division I-A colleges, just six have African-Americans as head coaches. In 2006, it was five; three in 2005; five in 2004; and four in 2003. In 1997, there were eight.

After being unceremoniously dumped by Notre Dame after three years, Tyrone Willingham was hired by the University of Washington. The other black coaches are: Sylvester Croom at Mississippi State (after his alma mater, the University of Alabama, didn't choose him); Turner Gill at the University of Buffalo; Karl Dorrell at UCLA; Randy Shannon at the University of Miami; and Ron Prince at Kansas State.

And when a black head coach does get a shot, you probably can forget it being at a top-tier program or one that is still in relatively good shape.
Even Penn State's Joe Paterno recognized that fact when he advised one of his assistants, Ron Dickerson, not to take the head coaching job at Temple 15 years ago.

"I said, 'Ron, black coaches have got to get good jobs. They can't turn bad jobs around all the time,' " Paterno told AtlanticMirror.com.

But Dickerson didn't listen. He took the job at Temple, a weak football team for years, and now wishes he listened to Joe Pa.

Athletic directors and college presidents will be quick to say that race has nothing to do with it, but the facts are the facts, and race has to be examined when it's this obvious.

Take the case of Norm Chow.
As offensive coordinator for the University of Southern California, he was the mastermind of an explosive team that won back-to-back national championships in four years featuring two Heisman Trophy winners. When he worked at Brigham Young in the 1970s, he tutored future NFL (http://topics.cnn.com/topics/nfl_football) quarterbacks such Jim McMahon, Ty Detmer and future pro football Hall of Famer Steve Young. But when it came time to fill head coaching jobs in college, Chow's phone barely rang. Now he is the offensive coordinator for the Tennessee Titans, and he still doesn't get a nibble.
Did I mention that Chow is Asian-American?

The NFL finally decided to do something about this problem (after it was threatened with a lawsuit by Johnnie Cochran and other attorneys) when it adopted "The Rooney Rule" in 2002, which mandates that each team considering head coaches interview at least one minority candidate. Today, there are six black head coaches in the NFL: Tony Dungy of the Indianapolis Colts; Lovie Smith, Chicago Bears; Romeo Crennell, Cleveland Browns; Marvin Lewis, Cincinnati Bengals; Herm Edwards, Kansas City Chiefs; and Mike Tomlin, Pittsburgh Steelers. That's down one from when Dennis Green led the Arizona Cardinals and Art Shell directed the Oakland Raiders. (Tomlin is in his first year.)

That means that 32 NFL teams have the same number of black coaches as 119 Division I-A programs.

The university athletic directors and college presidents will be quick to say that race has nothing to do with it and that they look for the most qualified person. But we know that not to be the case.

Other barriers exist.
For instance, Texas A&M athletic director Bill Byrne made it clear that he wanted someone with previous head coaching experience. Fine. But because black coaches have been excluded for years, so few have gotten a shot at top assistant jobs on the college and pro levels, which has kept them from becoming head coaches. So by making such a statement, he effectively eliminated nearly every black coach from consideration. And if that is the stipulation by every other AD or college president, we will never see more coaches because so few get the shot in college and the NFL.

Bottom line: the process if flawed and is inherently unfair.
On the football field, if you ran faster, can throw it farther, are more accurate and can hit harder, you get the starting job. That's called an equal playing field. But on the sidelines, the good ol' boys club reigns, and that's a fraternity that keeps many with my skin tone out.

Go right ahead and send me your e-mails complaining about me playing the race card. But you should be asking yourself why universities won't open these "national searches" up to find the best people and allow them to apply. All of them.

Roland S. Martin is a nationally award-winning journalist and CNN contributor. Martin is studying to receive his master's degree in Christian communications at Louisiana Baptist University, and he is the author of "Listening to the Spirit Within: 50 Perspectives on Faith." You can read more of his columns at www.rolandsmartin.com (http://www.rolandsmartin.com/).

The opinions expressed in this commentary are solely those of the writer.

http://www.cnn.com/2007/US/11/27/roland.martin/index.html
__________________________________________________ ___________

Do you agree with the opinion of the article?

If you were to ask me this question 30+ years ago, I would have to agree. Now, I think its more about proven ability to lead a successful program. It all boils down to $$$, not race.

I also disagree with the Rooney Rule, which is pretty much affirmative action. Let the best candidate be selected or let the team/program/school lose out on TV games, scholarship funds, advertising money, etc.

I also think that more than just a winning record determines the best candidate. The candidate has to fit in with the aim/goal of the university. That being said, if a school were to base their selection on nothing but race then they are only acting to the detrement of the school and the students going to school there. Afterall, its a business like any other business. If they're going to sacrifice the bottom line for the good old boy network then they are pretty much insuring that they wont exist for very long.

[Gan]

Fucking forum... this was supposed to be a Poll. :(

[Suppa Hobbit Mage]

I think any for profit organization should be allowed to select their employees with any criteria they see fit. Period.

[Sean of the Thread]

Agreed. Hire whoever the fuck you want based on whatever the fuck you want.

That being said my favorite coach is black.

[Celephais]

http://www.thepeoplescube.com/images/Race_Card.jpg
The good ole race card.
... ETA on Daniel? I think the Rooney Rule is stupid, certainly if a school wanted to be competitive they would consider black candidates, I think the NFL has certainly proven race isn't a deteriment to coaching ability

[Sean of the Thread]

I think it's bullshit. If you know who you want to coach your team before interviewing for the position pull the fucking trigger.

If they hired a black coach without considering anyone else they would be put on a pedestal.

[Sean]

Originally Posted by Gan
I also disagree with the Rooney Rule, which is pretty much affirmative action. Let the best candidate be selected or let the team/program/school lose out on TV games, scholarship funds, advertising money, etc.

I'm not sure if these thoughts were meant to be connected but you don't have to hire a black coach or staff under the rooney rule you only have to interview a minority candidate.

Besides not winning doesn't necessarily mean you miss out on anything. Folks like T. Boone Pickens will make sure of that.

[Gan]

I'm not sure if these thoughts were meant to be connected but you don't have to hire a black coach or staff under the rooney rule you only have to interview a minority candidate.

Besides not winning doesn't necessarily mean you miss out on anything. Folks like T. Boone Pickens will make sure of that.

I did kind of combine hiring with interviewing with that statement. Sean2 stated the same thing more succinctly by just saying that they should interview who they want or if they already know they should just pull the trigger.

If the Rooney Rule is going to be stipulated then it needs to be modified to include female coaches too, oh and to those with disabilities.... (and on and on and on).

With the NFL I believe its within their right as an organization (non federal/state/government) to set up the hiring process as they see fit and if the franchise owners disagree then they can find another organization to play their team in.

For colleges it boils down to public vs. private institutions. Public institutions tend to fall under the purview of the state that they belong to, ergo the laws governing the state would dictate the hiring process for state university employees.

Private universities are another matter, one thats left up to the board of regents/trustees.

[Sean]

Originally Posted by Gan
If the Rooney Rule is going to be stipulated then it needs to be modified to include female coaches too, oh and to those with disabilities.... (and on and on and on).

I'd be okay with that.

[Latrinsorm]

6/32 is greater than the black population % in America. As such, it's pretty irresponsible to include the NFL in this indictment.

[Sean of the Thread]

I'd be okay with that.

I wouldn't.

[Sean]

That doesn't really suprise me given that you already stated you think the Rooney Rule is bullshit.

[Gan]

I wouldn't.

Restating that I disagree with the Rooney Rule [in its entirety], but to play devils advocate and concede its existance, why wouldnt you include other minorities in the selection criteria other than race?

If the Rooney Rule is going to attempt to create a level playing field for a minority group that is perceived to be discrimating against why not include all minority groups instead of just those based on race? Isnt that in it self discriminatory?

[Sean of the Thread]

Based on that I feel it shouldn't exist at all.

[Skeeter]

Who cares if they have to interview 100 people before they hire one. They're going to pick whomever they want anyway.

[Clove]

Fucking forum... this was supposed to be a Poll. :(

I'm sort of curious about Gay, Hispanic, Female and Asian head coaches in college athletics...

[Apathy]

I'm sort of curious about Gay...

Bi curious? ZING

[Clove]

Bi curious? ZING

Nope just gay coaches. Bi coaches are too indecisive.

[Daniel]

[IMG]
... ETA on Daniel?

I couldn't care less. If some guy who has his whole future ahead of him can't get a job at Eastern Alabama University then I'm sure he'll be okay. My issues about minorities in America are almost exclusively centered around basic opportunity.

For example, I don't care if U of M has affirmative action in it's PHD program. (In fact, I've been involved with long ass debates on these boards where I was against affirmitive action)

I care that as a black man I'm more likely to be dead or in jail by the time I am 25 than have graduated from college and everything that contributes to that equation.

[chillmonster]

Everyone who looks at this problem objectively will have to admit that issues not relating to their qualifications are preventing black coaches from getting the opportunity to coach in the college ranks. Contrary to what many seem to believe, it isn't about schools hiring the best candidate and Black men only being the best 5% of the time. It's about barriers to entry that are preventing very qualified black candidates from competing for the jobs and bright young black men from getting the assistant jobs that would prepare them to run a program.

Let's try another example that eliminates race as a factor. Let's say in our Army, 55% of soldiers at rank Second Lieutenant or lower were Christians and 30% were Jewish, but only 5% at Brigadier General or higher were Christians and 90% were Jewish. Would that show that the Christians available just didn't have what it took to advance or that barriers to entry were preventing that advancement? Further, if it were that social barriers unrelated to qualifications were hindering their advancement, would that warrant some effort from the Joint Chiefs to address that obvious problem? The answer is yes.

Now why can't the solution be something like the Rooney rule? It's been proven to work. I'd venture to say that there isn't a single NFL team that would tell you that they were forced to hire an unqualified candidate. The Steelers, however, will be quick to tell you that the man who they considered the best candidate may never have gotten the opportunity if not for the rule. How is that unfair?

[Clove]

Yes, yes but there are many other minority segments in the United States and I'll go on a limb and say they aren't proportionately represented in coaching top-level college athletics. Why is this a question of blacks vs. whites and not minorities in general? Are Hispanics not interested in professional sports careers? Maybe Asians don't make good coaches? Maybe women aren't qualified to train men to be good athletes?

[Daniel X]

Because Blacks are better at sports.

[chillmonster]

Yes, yes but there are many other minority segments in the United States and I'll go on a limb and say they aren't proportionately represented in coaching top-level college athletics. Why is this a question of blacks vs. whites and not minorities in general? Are Hispanics not interested in professional sports careers? Maybe Asians don't make good coaches? Maybe women aren't qualified to train men to be good athletes?

You're missing the argument. The vast majority of coaches are former players because that experience allows them to better relate to their players and gives them an insight into what it takes to be successful in the NCAA. Coaches and ADs look for former players when they're hiring. It really is the natural progression: from being led, learning football, and executing game plans on the field to leading, teaching football, and game planning so the young men under you can be successful.

That having been said: 55% of people with experience playing in college are black men. 5% of coaches in the NCAA are black men. It's because the social networks are preventing them the opportunity to succeed. It's not about forcing people to hire black men. It's about allowing them the opportunity to prove they deserve the job.

[Sean]

Originally Posted by Clove
Yes, yes but there are many other minority segments in the United States and I'll go on a limb and say they aren't proportionately represented in coaching top-level college athletics. Why is this a question of blacks vs. whites and not minorities in general? Are Hispanics not interested in professional sports careers? Maybe Asians don't make good coaches? Maybe women aren't qualified to train men to be good athletes?

More or less what Chillmonster said. As more minorities of other races start playing the game more I think we'll start seeing a more diverse coaching pool as a result. The Rooney Rule isn't really a Black v. White issue it's in place for all minorities in general.

[Gan]

Great students do not necessarily equate to good teachers.

Great workers do not necessarily equate to good managers.

Great atheletes do not necessarily equate to good coaches.

If great leadership came in a bottle, we would have too many chiefs and not enough indians.

Has racism become so subtle and covert that it cant be easily pointed out and addressed? Or is it that its far easier to get that break in life if you just throw out the race card?

[Daniel X]

Has racism become so subtle and covert that it cant be easily pointed out and addressed?

Well, under federal law, if it existed it would need to be subtle and covert.

Honest Question: Do you believe racism ceased to exist in 1965?

If not, how much of it do believe has endured since then?

[chillmonster]

Has racism become so subtle and covert that it cant be easily pointed out and addressed?


Yes, but this isn't subtle and covert at all. Ray Charles can see that this isn't simply a case of their being so few black men with the skills to lead a program. The drop in concentration form the pool of candidates to the pool of coaches is 55% to 5%. If this were the case in the Army example I gave, would that be symptomatic of an institutional problem or a reasonable outcome of a fair system?

And modern racism isn't men in white sheets terrorizing people. It's regular, mostly decent folks (black, white, Asian, or whatever) with prejudices as toxic as believing certain people aren't trustworthy or as subtle and seemingly innocuous as the fact that they feel more comfortable with people who look the same as them. I for one don't care what you believe, but when that manifests in hiring practices, it should be addressed. What's hard to understand is that you guys don't see that it prevents exactly what you guys were arguing for: a playing field where the candidate who has the best qualifications and can best sell themselves gets the job.

[Gan]

Well, under federal law, if it existed it would need to be subtle and covert. Honest Question: Do you believe racism ceased to exist in 1965? LOL no. Nothing ceases to exist. There will always be racism in any form or color, always - it seems to be a prevalent subculture to judge books by their cover.

If not, how much of it do believe has endured since then?
Do I think its mainstream now and still imbedded into professional or academic cultures? No to that too, the risk is too great and the negative payoffs are clearly evident when a person is chosen based on a character trait they have no control over versus being the best person for the job. It exists in some form, but only at a level thats either over-hyped or over emphasized as an excuse for some other type of failure.

Does it exist on the street? Sure, step outside in any community with any culture or race and you'll find an example of it easily enough. Or a perception of it.

[Clove]

More or less what Chillmonster said. As more minorities of other races start playing the game more I think we'll start seeing a more diverse coaching pool as a result. The Rooney Rule isn't really a Black v. White issue it's in place for all minorities in general.

I see. So other minorities aren't as involved in sports at the player level or aren't interested in sports careers. Why is this? Do other minorities have less aptitude (sub-question "blacks are better at sports" stereotype?). Are other minorities more interested in more varied and better opportunities? Do other minorities avoid sports careers/achievements because they don't believe they have opportunities?

You and Chillmonster may as well say "well not enough black people are interested in being (insert profession)... that's why you don't see them." and that point is always warmly received by the African-American community.

[chillmonster]

I see. So other minorities aren't as involved in sports at the player level or aren't interested in sports careers. Why is this? Do other minorities have less aptitude (sub-question "blacks are better at sports" stereotype?). Are other minorities more interested in a more varied better opportunities? Do other minorities avoid sports careers/achievements because they don't believe they have opportunities.

You should re-read my post. It's a measurable discrepancy - a huge discrepancy - from the concentration in the pool of candidates to the concentration in the number of coaches. It's blatantly obvious.


You and Chillmonster may as well say "well not enough black people are interested in being (insert profession)... that's why you don't see them." and that point is always warmly received by the African-American community.

Aside from being completely irrelevant, this is putting words in my mouth. You're also showing your lack of understanding of the point I'm making. I again refer you to my prior posts.

[Clove]

You should re-read my post. It's a measurable discrepancy - a huge discrepancy - from the concentration in the pool of candidates to the concentration in the number of coaches. It's blatantly obvious.



Aside from being completely irrelevant, this is putting words in my mouth. You're also showing your lack of understanding of the point I'm making. I again refer you to my prior posts.

I understand your point. You don't understand mine. If 10% of the country is African American and >40% of sport X is comprised of African American athletes- that's the issue right there. A disproportionate segment of sports is African American. Why is that? What happened to the other minorities? Why are so many blacks concentrated on college sports and not other minorities?

Add into your reasoning as Gan pointed out:

Athlete<>Coach (or therapist, or sports doctor, or equipment designer, or sports writer etc.)

And you have an even more complicated picture. Dodging the question of why do we have so much of one minority in sports to the virtual exclusion of others doesn't change the fact that your issue begins right there. Figuring out why there are SO many athletes is the key in my opinion, not why there aren't more coaches.

[Gan]

I understand your point. You don't understand mine. If 10% of the country is African American and >40% of sport X is comprised of African American athletes- that's the issue right there. A disproportionate segment of sports is African American.

As also earlier stated by Latrin. And obviously overlooked.

6/32 is greater than the black population % in America. As such, it's pretty irresponsible to include the NFL in this indictment.


Why is that? What happened to the other minorities? Why are so many blacks concentrated on college sports and not other minorities?
*to add:
I am guessing that college sports is the transition for most (not all) atheletes from high school to the show. Farm leagues in baseball being the exception. Not every HS athelete is physically capable of playing alongside professional atheletes (NFL/NBA/MLB) who are older, more experienced, and move physically developed than their HS counterpart.

How many rap songs to you see about being a professional bowler or ping pong player? Where's the bling for those sports?



Athlete<>Coach (or therapist, or sports doctor, or equipment designer, or sports writer etc.)
Someone gets it. :)



And you have an even more complicated picture. Dodging the question of why do we have so much of one minority in sports to the virtual exclusion of others doesn't change the fact that your issue begins right there. Figuring out why there are SO many athletes is the key in my opinion, not why there aren't more coaches.

Deserved to be repeated.

[Clove]

How many rap songs to you see about being a professional bowler or ping pong player? Where's the bling for those sports?

Yeah. Maybe the Korean kid goes "I'm as fast as hell but I'll never make it as a receiver. Guess I'll buy a liquor store instead." *ducks and runs*

[chillmonster]

I understand your point. You don't understand mine. If 10% of the country is African American and >40% of sport X is comprised of African American athletes- that's the issue right there. A disproportionate segment of sports is African American. Why is that? What happened to the other minorities? Why are so many blacks concentrated on college sports and not other minorities?

Add into your reasoning as Gan pointed out:

Athlete<>Coach (or therapist, or sports doctor, or equipment designer, or sports writer etc.)

And you have an even more complicated picture.

Let me get this straight. You're saying the problem isn't that people in the pool of candidates aren't getting equal opportunity as much as it's the fact that there are too many black people in the candidate pool? So non-blacks are unfairly discriminated against when choosing college players, and this discrepancy in coaching college conferences' attempt to correct that?

Also, the natural progression is Athlete to coach. It isn't always the path, but it's BY FAR the most common path. The logical candidate pool for college and NFL coaches is college and NFL players. If the drop were 55% to 25%, I could live with someone arguing that it's just that there weren't enough qualified minorities. But a drop from 55% to 5% is not reasonable.

[Gan]

Also, the natural progression is Athlete to coach. It isn't always the path, but it's BY FAR the most common path. The logical candidate pool for college and NFL coaches is college and NFL players. If the drop were 55% to 25%, I could live with someone arguing that it's just that there weren't enough qualified minorities. But a drop from 55% to 5% is not reasonable.

Can you back this up with a source?

And please clarify if you are lumping assistant coaches and head coaches. From the direction of the primary article and this thread, we are discussing head coaches, correct?

[Clove]

Also, the natural progression is Athlete to coach. It isn't always the path, but it's BY FAR the most common path. The logical candidate pool for college and NFL coaches is college and NFL players. If the drop were 55% to 25%, I could live with someone arguing that it's just that there weren't enough qualified minorities. But a drop from 55% to 5% is not reasonable.

I'd like to see something to backup this line of reasoning. Considering there is always a far larger pool of athletes than coaches. My cousin for example used his Miami U football scholarship to get an MBA and start his own business. No interest in coaching at all.

I'm guessing lots of college athletes are trading their skill for the education necessary to pursue unrelated careers, or to pursue sports-related careers other than coaching, or maybe, just maybe pursuing professional athlete careers.

I'm not saying that other minorities are discriminated more than African Americans in sports, I'm saying an excessively large segment of African Amercians are involved in college sports and that MAYBE there's a reason for that and that MAYBE that reason isn't that they all want to be coaching staff.

[Sean of the Thread]

Just a reminder that athlete does not equate coach.

[chillmonster]

Can you back this up with a source?

And please clarify if you are lumping assistant coaches and head coaches. From the direction of the primary article and this thread, we are discussing head coaches, correct?

Last time I checked (a couple of years ago) there are only 5 D1 head coaches who didn't play college football: Mike Leach, Mark Mangino, Charlie Weis, Lou Holtz, and someone else I don't remember. I don't know if there are now more or less, but I do know that Holtz is no longer coaching.

[chillmonster]

I'd like to see something to backup this line of reasoning. Considering there is always a far larger pool of athletes than coaches. My cousin for example used his Miami U football scholarship to get an MBA and start his own business. No interest in coaching at all.

I'm guessing lots of college athletes are trading their skill for the education necessary to pursue unrelated careers, or to pursue sports-related careers other than coaching, or maybe, just maybe pursuing professional athlete careers.

What does that have to do with the issue at hand? Almost ALL of the coaches are former players. Former players are more or less the candidate pool. Your cousin and anyone else who decides to leave football behind after college doesn't change this fact.


I'm not saying that other minorities are discriminated more than African Americans in sports, I'm saying an excessively large segment of African Amercians are involved in college sports and that MAYBE there's a reason for that and that MAYBE that reason isn't that they all want to be coaching staff.

No one said all African Americans go into college sports to become coaches. I'm pretty sure that the vast majority of college players (black, white, and whatever) are playing simply because they like to play football and their skills provided them the opportunity to play. But I still don't see what that has to do with the issue at hand. This argument looks suspiciously like a red herring. Can you make a point to tie it to the discrepancy between players and coaches?

[Sean of the Thread]

Where was the source on former players again? The fact doesn't matter but I'd like to see it none the less.

[Sean]

Originally Posted by Gan
Great atheletes do not necessarily equate to good coaches.

Obviously to make to the the NFL you have to be a world class athlete and to play in college you have to be pretty damn good. But statistics would say you do have to be a player of some degree (college or nfl) in order to coach in the sport. In the modern era how many coaches can you think of that don't have some kind of a football background at either the college level or the pro level? Currently this is the list of NFL head coaches and their experiences as a player:

Current Coaches:
Billick - college player
Jauron - college + nfl player
Lewis - college player
Crennel - college player
Skeletor - college player
Kubiak - college + nfl player
Dungy - college + nfl player
Del Rio - college + nfl player
Edwards - college + nfl player
Cameron - college player
Satan - college player
Mangini - college player
kiffen - college player
tomlin - college player
Turner - college player
Fisher - college + nfl player
Whisenhunt - college + nfl player
Petrino - college player
Fox - college + nfl player
Smith - college player
Phillips - college player
Marinelli - ?
McCarthy - college player
Childress - ?
Payton - college player + arena player + nfl strike player
Coughlin - college player
Reid - college player
Linehan - college + nfl player
Nolan - college player
Holmgren - college player
Gruden - college player
Gibbs - college player

Looking at that list it's pretty clear that most of them did not have NFL level success whether it was due to injury, skill level, desire, etc. but all of them made it to the NFL head coaching arena and all of them, with the exception of 2 that i'm unsure about, played college football as a minimum. I'm not saying that those 32 men are not the best candidates for their jobs because they very well may be (with the exception of Norv Turner who is horrible).

So if you accept having played some level of football beyond high school as a prerequist for coaching and if, for the sake of argument, we assume that a majority of the PLAYERS at the college level and nfl level are minorities (predominantly black) what drives down the number of minority coaching candidates? desire? skill? connections? resources? what? Until you can nail down the reasoning behind that I don't see a problem with assuming that one of the factors may be race combined with opportunity. The Rooney Rule I believe atleast gives all minority groups the opportunity to present a case for why they should be hired. I hope that eventually it becomes obsolete and just thrown out and I also hope it benefits all minorities not just black men.

Just for some clarification though I do not believe any owners who find themselves in the position to hire a new coach approach it saying to themselves "I do NOT want to hire a minority!" nor should they approach it with the mindset of "I going to hire a minority no matter what!"

[Sean of the Thread]

It's still irrelevant to the fact that it does not make one the best candidate.

Pretty plain and simple.

You guys should get off this slope and get back to teh brass tacks of the facts.

[Sean]

I'd like to hear your explanation on how playing the game at either the college of pro level is irrelevant to finding a coaching job given that the overwhelming majority of coaches have that experience. I've already admitted it isn't the single deciding factor nor do i even think it's the primary deciding factor but to gloss it over as a irrelevant is stupid.

[Daniel X]

Do I think its mainstream now and still imbedded into professional or academic cultures? No to that too, the risk is too great and the negative payoffs are clearly evident when a person is chosen based on a character trait they have no control over versus being the best person for the job. It exists in some form, but only at a level thats either over-hyped or over emphasized as an excuse for some other type of failure.

Does it exist on the street? Sure, step outside in any community with any culture or race and you'll find an example of it easily enough. Or a perception of it.

You live in a pretty idealistic world if you think everyone takes off their color blinders when they step into the classroom or the workplace.

I thought you were "conservative"?

That's the thing. You expect people who have the perception that a minority group are "lazy" "stupid" "prone to violence" "have big penises" or "are icky" are going to hire or pick someone when one of the main requirements is not be lazy, not being stupid, or not being prone to violence.

Sounds like you live in a fantasy world.

[Daniel X]

And you have an even more complicated picture. Dodging the question of why do we have so much of one minority in sports to the virtual exclusion of others doesn't change the fact that your issue begins right there. Figuring out why there are SO many athletes is the key in my opinion, not why there aren't more coaches.

Are you contending that whites are excluded from pursuing opportunities in sports?

[Daniel X]

You live in a pretty idealistic world if you think everyone takes off their color blinders when they step into the classroom or the workplace.

I thought you were "conservative"?

That's the thing. You expect people who have the perception that a minority group are "lazy" "stupid" "prone to violence" "have big penises" or "are icky" are going to hire or pick someone when one of the main requirements is not be lazy, not being stupid, or not being prone to violence.

Sounds like you live in a fantasy world.

To add on further.

Your original question was is racism "subtle and covert". By your own admission, it exists but it is too costly to openly practice racism.

That in and of itself implies that racism in America would *have* to be subtle and covert. So, as to not get caught. Unless you think that people are content to let bygones be bygones. Then well, I got a bridge to sell you.

[Clove]

Can you make a point to tie it to the discrepancy between players and coaches?

God is love. Love is not god. If all coaches are former athletes, it does not follow that all athletes aspire to be coaches. Since this is the case you can't assume that because there is a larger pool of athletes of a given background that there should be a directly proportionate ratio of coaches.

There are many reasons to be an athelete, is it possible that there is a greater focus by African Americans on participating in athletics (for a variety of purposes) than there is on participating in athletic coaching?

The fact that there are so many African Americans in athletics disproportionate with population indicates that there is an agenda or a mechanism going on that should be explored before a discussion on coaching because it MIGHT HAVE AN INFLUENCE ON MOTIVATION. If blacks have a strong motivation to participate in college sports as a means to get a degree for example, then it could mean that sports as a career (which would include coaching) is less of a priority than say a means to another ends.

It isn't a difficult concept.

[Daniel X]

God is love. Love is not god. If all coaches are former athletes, it does not follow that all athletes aspire to be coaches. Since this is the case you can't assume that because there is a larger pool of athletes of a given background that there should be a directly proportionate ratio of coaches.

There are many reasons to be an athelete, is it possible that there is a greater focus by African Americans on participating in athletics (for a variety of purposes) than there is on participating in athletic coaching?

The fact that there are so many African Americans in athletics disproportionate with population indicates that there is an agenda or a mechanism going on that should be explored before a discussion on coaching because it MIGHT HAVE AN INFLUENCE ON MOTIVATION. If blacks have a strong motivation to participate in college sports as a means to get a degree for example, then it could mean that sports as a career (which would include coaching) is less of a priority than say a means to another ends.

It isn't a difficult concept.

Source.

[Gan]

You live in a pretty idealistic world if you think everyone takes off their color blinders when they step into the classroom or the workplace.
No, I live in the professional world (and formerly a healthcare/academic world). I have lived in this world professionally for about 15 years now, and see this issue shrinking at the same ratio as the retirement/exoudous of the older generation who still perscribes to these judgements. (I bolded the part I want you to dwell on.) Furthermore you're still failing to recognize the risk (legally and competetively) that companies adopt if they were to base their recruitment/hiring guidelines on these premises. A truly competetive and successful company will hire the best person for the job, period. And for the other businesses etc. that still abide by the old predjuice business practices, if the legal system doesnt put them under, then the shortening of the talent pool will neuter any chance they have at being successful and competetive.


I thought you were "conservative"?
And yet that label can apply to so many different things that I'm most assuredly not classified as simply 'a conservative'.


That's the thing. You expect people who have the perception that a minority group are "lazy" "stupid" "prone to violence" "have big penises" or "are icky" are going to hire or pick someone when one of the main requirements is not be lazy, not being stupid, or not being prone to violence.
Sounds like you live in a fantasy world.
And what group of people do you affix that assumption to? Be specific with your demographic please. Please keep in mind that I have over 10 years as a hiring manager/director so I'll know when you're talking out of your ass. (Like now for instance)

[Clove]

Source.

Source what?

[Gan]

To add on further.

Your original question was is racism "subtle and covert". By your own admission, it exists but it is too costly to openly practice racism.

That in and of itself implies that racism in America would *have* to be subtle and covert. So, as to not get caught. Unless you think that people are content to let bygones be bygones. Then well, I got a bridge to sell you.

I never said it didnt exist. And yes it is too costly to practice in the open by those who still perscribe to those beliefs. I also know that there is way more racial tolerance today than there was 30 years ago, which should lend to the notion that this belief is not only NOT prevalent but also on its way out with every old predjuice fart we plant six feet under.

The flip side is that if society continues to make exceptions for one race over another then racism will still exist through perpetuation. There will be two sides and inevetably one side will feel slighted and thus the cycle will continue.

By reinforcing things such as affirmative action and the 'rooney rule' you are doing nothing but helping perpetuate the problem. Its not a solution, its not even a stop gap measure *in today's society.

[Sean]

Originally Posted by Clove
The fact that there are so many African Americans in athletics disproportionate with population indicates that there is an agenda or a mechanism going on that should be explored before a discussion on coaching because it MIGHT HAVE AN INFLUENCE ON MOTIVATION. If blacks have a strong motivation to participate in college sports as a means to get a degree for example, then it could mean that sports as a career (which would include coaching) is less of a priority than say a means to another ends.

How can you gauge motivation when you don't have a true interviewing process? Wouldn't minority applications for jobs show that they are infact interested in coaching as a profession?

One of the problem I have right now with the the Rooney Rule system is that you run into circumstances like Detroit where everyone knew they were going to hire Mooch a few years ago so no one wanted to be the lame duck minority to go in for the interview and because of that Detroit was punished.

[Daniel X]

No, I live in the professional world (and formerly a healthcare/academic world). I have lived in this world professionally for about 15 years now, and see this issue shrinking at the same ratio as the retirement/exoudous of the older generation who still perscribes to these judgements. (I bolded the part I want you to dwell on.)




Fair enough.

However, I will argue that racism is still being bred, albeit in a different sense.

Imagine: Imagine that prejudices are weighted by personal experiences, a fair amount of conjecture and some random component. That is, you heard something, or you were taught something growing up.

There's some sort of balance between the two, whereas even if you've heard all your life that black people are stupid, if you meet enough smart black people you won't neccessarily subscribe that believe yourself. Whereas, the random component is simply your personality. You grew up liking everyone, and it doesn't matter what you see or hear.

So, lets say in the past that Racism was so overt and overbearing in America that chances are you thought all black people were stupid. This leads to massive discrimination and thus doesn't allow black people to reach bigger heights.

Now lets say, it's 1965 and racism is effectively abolished as an institution in America.

Everyone rejoices openly, some people still hate privately.

So now, we live in a world where racism does not overtly exist in the system.

At the same time, the average white american is better off than the every black. That is, he has the historical benefit of having parents and grandparents who were not discriminated against. Therefore, he was able to attain anything that was within his natural, god given talents.

At the same time, Blacks, elated at their new freedom begin to creep into the institutions and systems that were denied to them. It's a slow process as things like wealth, educational attainment and social status are direction functions of those of your parents. That is, if your mom graduated from college, it is more likely than you will.

That's all said and good. However, the new generation grows up thinking that there is equality in the system. This implies two things, that the amount of prejudice that exists because of conjecture is indeed going to zero. as you say .


However, these same people may be prone to not appreciating the difficulities previously facing African Americans see these people not attaining the same status, with the same relevant amount of ease as they did.

This leads to an assumption that somehow blacks are worse than whites. Justified or not. Coloring perceptions and creating more prejudice.

I don't think that's entirely too outlandish and I'd suggest that is the case we see in America now. However, it should be noted that this does not imply that racism is *worse* or even a significant detriment to minorities in America. However, I would suggest as the former group slips to zero, and this group continues to rise. There will be a point where it *can* begin to approach the previous levels, for supposedly justified reasons.

Will this happen? I'd say no, but it's something to keep in mind as it may cause racism to be more persistent than you suggest.





Furthermore you're still failing to recognize the risk (legally and competetively) that companies adopt if they were to base their recruitment/hiring guidelines on these premises. A truly competetive and successful company will hire the best person for the job, period. And for the other businesses etc. that still abide by the old predjuice business practices, if the legal system doesnt put them under, then the shortening of the talent pool will neuter any chance they have at being successful and competetive.


I'm not. I agree that it's pretty stupid in today's world to marginalize people based on color.

However, something being stupid has never stopped people from doing it.







And what group of people do you affix that assumption to? Be specific with your demographic please. Please keep in mind that I have over 10 years as a hiring manager/director so I'll know when you're talking out of your ass. (Like now for instance)

I affix it to all people, actually. It's just that the manifestation has different intensities across different contexts.

[Suppa Hobbit Mage]

People that find race in every issue piss me off.

[Clove]

How can you gauge motivation when you don't have a true interviewing process? Wouldn't minority applications for jobs show that they are infact interested in coaching as a profession?


THAT is a valid point. Obviously if most/many coaches are being selected without being interviewed you can't say WHO wants the job. Walk down that line of reasoning and there's an interesting discussion.

My point, however was simply that a large pool of athletes does not assume a large pool of coaches. Not all good athletes are coach potential and not all athletes that COULD be potential coaches want to be.

[Daniel X]

Source what?

Source that there are other factors that cause African Americans to not want to coach.

[Gan]

How can you gauge motivation when you don't have a true interviewing process? Wouldn't minority applications for jobs show that they are infact interested in coaching as a profession?

One of the problem I have right now with the the Rooney Rule system is that you run into circumstances like Detroit where everyone knew they were going to hire Mooch a few years ago so no one wanted to be the lame duck minority to go in for the interview and because of that Detroit was punished.

It would be interesting to see if the NFL has a specific form or procedure for fielding interested candidates, vetting the candidates, and making the final screen for interview. Or does this process vary with each team/owner?

At what point (like in Detroit) do we have to consider that the team might have already explored what it perceives as all the available options (lack of due dilligence in this would imply a Darwin level mistake with regards to the teams competiveness and survivability) and making the selection without going through a formal process?

Should the league mandate that all head coach positions be posted for a period of 12 months and all interested candidates meeting the minimum qualifications be interviewed by the owner(s)? Who would be responsible for setting the minimum requirements (screens)? And is this an efficient means of the team's resources in terms of cost versus benefit?

[Suppa Hobbit Mage]

Source that there are other factors that cause African Americans to not want to coach.

They are all in jail due to racist cocaine laws, therefore cannot apply.

[Daniel X]

I never said it didnt exist. And yes it is too costly to practice in the open by those who still perscribe to those beliefs. I also know that there is way more racial tolerance today than there was 30 years ago, which should lend to the notion that this belief is not only NOT prevalent but also on its way out with every old predjuice fart we plant six feet under.

The flip side is that if society continues to make exceptions for one race over another then racism will still exist through perpetuation. There will be two sides and inevetably one side will feel slighted and thus the cycle will continue.

By reinforcing things such as affirmative action and the 'rooney rule' you are doing nothing but helping perpetuate the problem. Its not a solution, its not even a stop gap measure *in today's society.


I'd agree with you 100% except for the caveat that I included in my previous post.

[Daniel X]

They are all in jail due to racist cocaine laws, therefore cannot apply.

You're still asshurt? Jesus man. Get some vaseline.

[Suppa Hobbit Mage]

You're still asshurt? Jesus man. Get some vaseline.

I have no idea what that means.

[Gan]

Fair enough.

However, I will argue that racism is still being bred, albeit in a different sense.

Imagine: Imagine that prejudices are weighted by personal experiences, a fair amount of conjecture and some random component. That is, you heard something, or you were taught something growing up.

There's some sort of balance between the two, whereas even if you've heard all your life that black people are stupid, if you meet enough smart black people you won't neccessarily subscribe that believe yourself. Whereas, the random component is simply your personality. You grew up liking everyone, and it doesn't matter what you see or hear.

So, lets say in the past that Racism was so overt and overbearing in America that chances are you thought all black people were stupid. This leads to massive discrimination and thus doesn't allow black people to reach bigger heights.

Now lets say, it's 1965 and racism is effectively abolished as an institution in America.

Everyone rejoices openly, some people still hate privately.

So now, we live in a world where racism does not overtly exist in the system.

At the same time, the average white american is better off than the every black. That is, he has the historical benefit of having parents and grandparents who were not discriminated against. Therefore, he was able to attain anything that was within his natural, god given talents.

At the same time, Blacks, elated at their new freedom begin to creep into the institutions and systems that were denied to them. It's a slow process as things like wealth, educational attainment and social status are direction functions of those of your parents. That is, if your mom graduated from college, it is more likely than you will.

That's all said and good. However, the new generation grows up thinking that there is equality in the system. This implies two things, that the amount of prejudice that exists because of conjecture is indeed going to zero. as you say .


However, these same people may be prone to not appreciating the difficulities previously facing African Americans see these people not attaining the same status, with the same relevant amount of ease as they did.

This leads to an assumption that somehow blacks are worse than whites. Justified or not. Coloring perceptions and creating more prejudice.
Now who's living in a fantasy world???

:lol:


I don't think that's entirely too outlandish and I'd suggest that is the case we see in America now. However, it should be noted that this does not imply that racism is *worse* or even a significant detriment to minorities in America. However, I would suggest as the former group slips to zero, and this group continues to rise. There will be a point where it *can* begin to approach the previous levels, for supposedly justified reasons.

Will this happen? I'd say no, but it's something to keep in mind as it may cause racism to be more persistent than you suggest.






I'm not. I agree that it's pretty stupid in today's world to marginalize people based on color.

However, something being stupid has never stopped people from doing it.
I affix it to all people, actually. It's just that the manifestation has different intensities across different contexts.
Allright, you're posts are sounding more and more like Latrin's.

DanielX = Latrinsorm?

[Daniel X]

It means you're still crying like a little girl because I said your defense of Tsin makes you suspect when judging the character of a friend of yours.

[Daniel X]

Now who's living in a fantasy world???

:lol:

Allright, you're posts are sounding more and more like Latrin's.

DanielX = Latrinsorm?

What exactly was fantasy about it?

[Gan]

I'd agree with you 100% except for the caveat that I included in my previous post.

Funny that. Latrin also agreed with this the last time I brought it up.

:whistle:

[Suppa Hobbit Mage]

It means you're still crying like a little girl because I said your defense of Tsin makes you suspect when judging the character of a friend of yours.

LOL. You think I care? I don't, I just like bringing it up when you (assuming you are Daniel) post a hypocritical bullshit post with some holier than thou attitude.

[Daniel X]

Lol @ me being Latrin and SHM qqing over Tsin.

[Suppa Hobbit Mage]

I don't know what qqing is either.

[Daniel X]

Crying like a little girl. Jesus Christ what are you like 74?

[Suppa Hobbit Mage]

Wow, that's ageism. What are you, a black man?

[Clove]

Source that there are other factors that cause African Americans to not want to coach.

I didn't say there ARE other factors. I said that it was possible and put forth a hypothetical example. I did state that there are several reasons why any athlete pursues athletics (beyond any aspirations to becoming a coach) but that's simple common sense.

[Gan]

What exactly was fantasy about it?

The whole fucking post man.

[Daniel X]

I didn't say there ARE other factors. I said that it was possible and put forth a hypothetical example. I did state that there are several reasons why any athlete pursues athletics (beyond any aspirations to becoming a coach) but that's simple common sense.

So in effect. You have added absolutely nothing to the debate.

[Daniel X]

The whole fucking post man.

So you are suggesting that there are no racist people born after 1965?

[Clove]

So in effect. You have added absolutely nothing to the debate.

A little more than you have. I illustrated that there are considerations being ignored and invited others to discuss them.

[Daniel X]

A little more than you did. I illuminated that there are possibilities being ignored and invited others to discuss them.

So, I'm asking you what those possibilities are that would preclude a black man from not wanting to coach. Despite, apparent evidence that they do..

[Daniel X]

Wow, that's ageism. What are you, a black man?

qq

[Clove]

So, I'm asking you what those possibilities are that would preclude a black man from not wanting to coach. Despite, apparent evidence that they do..

I'm sorry, you have a survey of black men (and women) that quantifies African Americans interested in coaching careers?

[Daniel X]

I'm sorry, you have a survey of black men (and women) that quantifies African Americans interested in coaching careers?

No, but you seem to be suggesting that they aren't interested. So do you?

Amazing how that works.

[Suppa Hobbit Mage]

qq

That's pretty much what I thought.

[Gan]

So you are suggesting that there are no racist people born after 1965?

Please go back and reread my previous post. Your short term memory loss is kicking in now.

I'm saying that your fantasy, while existent to some degree in small backwater towns like Jasper, TX, have little or no impact on society outside of those ecospheres. And those inhabitants of those backwater towns, IF they ever make it out of there, usually, USUALLY, learn to coexist with people of different diversities, OR they do not make it and eventually move back. AGAIN, this has very little impact on society as a whole other than it representing a shitstain on the underwear of life in the USA.

[Daniel X]

Please go back and reread my previous post. Your short term memory loss is kicking in now.

I'm saying that your fantasy, while existent to some degree in small backwater towns like Jasper, TX, have little or no impact on society outside of those ecospheres. And those inhabitants of those backwater towns, IF they ever make it out of there, usually, USUALLY, learn to coexist with people of different diversities, OR they do not make it and eventually move back. AGAIN, this has very little impact on society as a whole other than it representing a shitstain on the underwear of life in the USA.

I'm saying that it is existent in other forms\areas as well, and usually manifests itself in the subtle and covert form of racism that you suggested earlier. Which is perpuated for various reasons, which you stated was possible earlier as well.

[Gan]

I'm saying that it is existent in other forms\areas as well, and usually manifests itself in the subtle and covert form of racism that you suggested earlier. Which is perpuated for various reasons, which you stated was possible earlier as well.

You're welcome.

:welcome:

[Clove]

No, but you seem to be suggesting that they aren't interested. So do you?

Amazing how that works.

Not amazing at all. I'm suggesting that you have no foundation for the "apparent evidence" that many black athletes want to be coaches. Without it I'm free to say that just because a lot of African Americans are interested in college sports it does not logically follow that they are primarily interested in career sports and more specifically coaching.

[Daniel X]

Ah yes. So it *was* a red herring. You could have saved everyone a lot of time.

[Sean]

Originally Posted by Clove
Not amazing at all. I'm suggesting that you have no foundation for the "apparent evidence" that many black athletes want to be coaches. Without it I'm free to say that just because a lot of African Americans are interested in college sports it does not logically follow that they are primarily interested in career sports and more specifically coaching.

If minorities didn't feel that they were being excluded to the point of threatening lawsuit there would be no Rooney Rule. I think that shows that at least to some degree theres interest from the minority communities in coaching.

[Clove]

It's not a red herring at all. Simple observation. Some in this thread have stated that because there's a large pool of black athletes there "should be" more black coaches. Why? If you can't quantify what segment of black athletes desire coaching careers then the assumption that because there are lots of black athletes there ought to be lots of black coaches is unfounded.

[Clove]

If minorities didn't feel that they were being excluded to the point of threatening lawsuit there would be no Rooney Rule. I think that shows that at least to some degree theres interest from the minority communities in coaching.

This thread isn't about minorities being excluded. It's about a minority.

[Daniel X]

Ahh. I see. You have problems comprehending things. There *are* black people who want to be coaches. The argument was that they may not be "Qualified".

It was then said that one of the major qualifications is being a prior player, because it imparts knowledge of the game.

The issue is that more black coaches are not considered "qualified" despite having a large share of the experiential knowledge of the game.

[Sean]

Originally Posted by Clove
This thread isn't about minorities being excluded. It's about a minority.

Right now it is. Like I said previous I fully expect that to change with the growth of the sport an it's broadened appeal to other minorities.

[Clove]

The issue is that more black coaches are not considered "qualified" despite having a large share of the experiential knowledge of the game.

Really? Who said black coaches aren't qualified for college level coaching, beyond the article sources? The article implies (from the opinion of a couple professional college coaches) that black coaches aren't considered a serious candidates for top tier college programs.

This would be the writers opinion. Obviously you share it- unfortunately it is an opinion (not a fact) and I'm not sure I share it.

[Clove]

Right now it is. Like I said previous I fully expect that to change with the growth of the sport an it's broadened appeal to other minorities.

I also need to point out that at the NFL level everyone participating is pursuing professional sports. This article is about college level coaching. Related but not the same.

[Daniel X]

Really? Who said black coaches aren't qualified for college level coaching, beyond the article sources? The article implies (from the opinion of a couple professional college coaches) that black coaches aren't considered a serious candidates for top tier college programs.

This would be the writers opinion. Obviously you share it- unfortunately it is an opinion (not a fact) and I'm not sure I share it.


:club:

[Clove]

:club:

Awww and I thought you could express yourself better than that.

[Sean]

Originally Posted by Clove
I also need to point out that at the NFL level everyone participating is pursuing professional sports. This article is about college level coaching. Related but not the same.

It uses the NFL as a case study for college and honestly it's a lot easier to discuss 32 teams than 119. The biggest difference being there is no public vs private in the NFL.

Besides if your saying you don't believe it works at the NFL level why even discuss diversity initiatives at the college level?

[Clove]

It uses the NFL as a case study for college and honestly it's a lot easier to discuss 32 teams than 119. The biggest difference being there is no public vs private in the NFL.

Besides if your saying you don't believe it works at the NFL level why even discuss diversity initiatives at the college level?

I think it's a good idea to regulate/standardize hiring practices just as a general principle. I admitted you brought up an excellent point that if there isn't an open interview process for these kind of jobs you don't know WHO you're excluding because your process is closed.

I'm not convinced that there's excessive racism in college coach hiring; but undoubtedly poor hiring practices that's more akin to appointing. In the present situation it's very easy to close off all sorts of good candidates incidentally and for that reason alone a change would be good.

[chillmonster]

No one is saying that there couldn't be other factors that contribute. But such a huge drop without sufficient mitigating factors is proof enough that race is a factor. No one is saying that there is an effort by colleges and universities to keep black candidates out, but because of the social networks in which these people operate black candidates aren't given the opportunity to compete. So what's the problem with the Rooney rule?

What people are failing to understand is this is NOT NOT NOT NOT NOT Affirmative Action. It doesn't unfairly affect anyone and its purpose is to accomplish what everyone here seems to be arguing for: letting the best candidate win the job. I've already given an example where a black candidate wouldn't have gotten the opportunity to interview without the rule, but turned out in the end to be the best candidate for the job. Give me ONE example where this rule prevented the best candidate from getting the job because he was white.

[Suppa Hobbit Mage]

http://www.johnsonpublishing.com/assembled/management.html

[Clove]

http://www.johnsonpublishing.com/assembled/management.html

When did Michael Jackson buy Ebony?

[Suppa Hobbit Mage]

LOL. I have no idea. I just wonder if those who want to make this a raceless world are also petitioning to have Ebony magazine shut down.

[Sean]

Originally Posted by Clove
I think it's a good idea to regulate/standardize hiring practices just as a general principle. I admitted you brought up an excellent point that if there isn't an open interview process for these kind of jobs you don't know WHO you're excluding because your process is closed.

Sorry, I had missed that post. My fault for assuming your stance.


I'm not convinced that there's excessive racism in college coach hiring; but undoubtedly poor hiring practices that's more akin to appointing. In the present situation it's very easy to close off all sorts of good candidates incidentally and for that reason alone a change would be good.

I can get onboard with this line of thought. I really don't think the university athletic directors are out to get minorities or to bar them from joining the club.

[Skeeter]

Ebony is fine but JET has to go.

[Sean]

Originally Posted by SHM
LOL. I have no idea. I just wonder if those who want to make this a raceless world are also petitioning to have Ebony magazine shut down.

Who's petitioning to have anything shut down in this thread?

[Clove]

Who's petitioning to have anything shut down in this thread?

I'd like to see the Dutch shut down...

[Sean]

Originally Posted by Clove
I'd like to see the Dutch shut down...

Don't come to us when you need levee designs anytime soon you son of a bitch.

Then again no one likes New Englanders anymore they've replaced us New York area folks as the most arrogant douches in the country.

[Latrinsorm]

I think that shows that at least to some degree theres interest from the minority communities in coaching.Maybe about 10%? :D

[Clove]

Then again no one likes New Englanders anymore they've replaced us New York area folks as the most arrogant douches in the country.

Come on, there's always New Jersey.

[Gan]

LOL

[Sean]

Originally Posted by Latrinsorm
Maybe about 10%?

I'm glad that the productive part of the conversation is over now that you've decided to reappear and be dense.


Originally Posted by Clove
Come on, there's always New Jersey.

You can't even tell who people from New Jersey enough to hate us are we're either mistaken for New Yorkers (North Jersey) or Philadelphian (South Jersey)

Where as you new englaaandahs ah wicked distinct yo.

[Gan]

paaaaaak ya caaaah at the maaaaaaaket and we'll paaaaaaaateeeee

[Latrinsorm]

I'm glad that the productive part of the conversation is over now that you've decided to reappear and be dense.:heart: :)

[Suppa Hobbit Mage]

Who's petitioning to have anything shut down in this thread?

I didn't say you were petitioning to have anything shut down, did I? I asked if you would also be petitioning to shut down Ebony. I mean, that's racist to the extreme, don't you think?

[Clove]

You can't even tell who people from New Jersey enough to hate us are we're either mistaken for New Yorkers (North Jersey) or Philadelphian (South Jersey)


There is no way you can confuse peeps from Camden and Pennsauken with Philadelphians... to even imply it earns you special sauce in your cheesesteak.

Remember:

What Trenton Makes The World Takes (and What Trenton Uses the World Refuses).

[Clove]

paaaaaak ya caaaah at the maaaaaaaket and we'll paaaaaaaateeeee

Pissah.

One of our computer techs has a hardcore Boston accent. I tease him for being the only person in the building with the Cambridge Edition of Windows (because he has a Staht menu).

[Sean]

There is no way you can confuse peeps from Camden and Pennsauken with Philadelphians... to even imply it earns you special sauce in your cheesesteak.

Remember:

What Trenton Makes The World Takes (and What Trenton Uses the World Refuses).

I'm a north jersey guy ... i don't go down there for cheesesteaks. I'll take my sandwich sans cheesewiz please. Those are the same weirdos who eat scrapple.

[TheEschaton]

Is anyone else under the impression that Clove is basically saying that he thinks black athletes, while possibly having a good knowledge of the game, don't go into coaching not because people aren't willing to hire them, but because black athletes are too lazy, too unintelligent, too unambitious, or maybe too arrogant to fade into the background role of "coach"?

No? Ah well, just checking...

-TheE-

[Clove]

Or maybe they have better things to do (like a lot of other college athletes). My only point has been that just because we see an unusually high number of black athletes doesn't imply that we should expect a high number of black coaches. Period.

[Clove]

Those are the same weirdos who eat scrapple.

The only thing that sucks more than scrapple... is Newark. Blather on about cheeze whiz... until you can top the soft pretzel- you got nothing.

[Gan]

Is anyone else under the impression that Clove is basically saying that he thinks black athletes, while possibly having a good knowledge of the game, don't go into coaching not because people aren't willing to hire them, but because black athletes are too lazy, too unintelligent, too unambitious, or maybe too arrogant to fade into the background role of "coach"?

No? Ah well, just checking...

-TheE-

Is anyone else under the impression that TheE is basically saying that he thinks that black atheletes automatically consider coaching because they are too lazy, too unintelligent, too unambitious to actually consider a second career in another field aside from the NFL and are just content to fade into the background role of "coach"?

This is fun.

[Daniel]

Is anyone under the impression that Gan has his head buried in his ass? No, No one?

Uh well.

That was fun.

[chillmonster]

Or maybe they have better things to do (like a lot of other college athletes). My only point has been that just because we see an unusually high number of black athletes doesn't imply that we should expect a high number of black coaches. Period.

Your reasoning is flawed. It's not the fact that the discrepancy exists as much as it the size of the discrepancy. If 55% of the Lieutenants in the Army are black, you'd expect roughly the same number of Captains, Majors, Colonels, and Generals. Other factors could cause some difference in the numbers, but if blacks constitute over half of the candidate pool for leadership and only 5% of the leadership you'd have to conclude that their race was one of the main factors in determining leadership. In absence of evidence to the contrary, that is the logical conclusion. In other words: if you tell me race is not a factor the numbers say the burden of proof falls on you.

That's not to say that NFL GM's and owners were getting together and eliminating candidates because of race, but black candidates weren't getting the opportunity to succeed. There are two coaches in the NFL right now who wouldn't have gotten the opportunity to compete for jobs without the rule. One of them was in Pittsburgh where the gentleman who instituted the Rooney rule owns the team. I highly doubt he was looking to prevent black coaches from coaching his team, but social networks prevented him from connecting with black candidates. When they started the candidate search, they were so unfamiliar with the qualified black candidates that they had to ask around and come up with a list of people to research before they had a name of someone to interview. Not so coincidentally, this black guy who he had never heard before they drew up the list blew him away in the interview and ended up getting the job.

[Daniel]

We call that affirmative action around here. It's his own fault for not being apart of the social network. Maybe if he worked harder and wasn't so lazy he woulda been able to get the job without a handout.

[Sean of the Thread]

I'd like to hear your explanation on how playing the game at either the college of pro level is irrelevant to finding a coaching job given that the overwhelming majority of coaches have that experience. I've already admitted it isn't the single deciding factor nor do i even think it's the primary deciding factor but to gloss it over as a irrelevant is stupid.

It's absolutely irrelevant based on hiring who the fuck you want based on any criteria that you see fit. I don't give a fuck if they hire Oprah... it doesn't matter who it is.

That's the bottom line.

To not understand this simple fact is stupid.

[Gan]

Is anyone under the impression that Gan has his head buried in his ass? No, No one?

Uh well.

That was fun.

I guess that makes us twins eh?

Yes, that was fun.

[Daniel]

My penis is still bigger.

Even funner.

[Gan]

My penis is still bigger.

Even funner.

Your Epenis perhaps. And self testimony doesnt count.

[chillmonster]

It's absolutely irrelevant based on hiring who the fuck you want based on any criteria that you see fit. I don't give a fuck if they hire Oprah... it doesn't matter who it is.

That's the bottom line.

Even if it means preventing qualified candidates he opportunity to succeed because of race?

[Gan]

Even if it means preventing qualified candidates he opportunity to succeed because of race?

If it can be proven one was discriminated against on the basis of color then that individual has the right to sue and seek relief in federal court under the Civil Rights Act of 1991.

Exactly how many companies would willingly put themselves at risk on the basis of screening applicants or creating barriers to entry for persons of color?

[Sean of the Thread]

Even if it means preventing qualified candidates he opportunity to succeed because of race?

How is it preventing anyone?

[Gan]

How is it preventing anyone?

Here's where they fall back on that old statistics argument.

And you know how fun it is to manipulate statistics.

;)

[TheEschaton]

Nah, we're just saying hiring in the NFL is an old boys network, which, because they weren't involved in it when the NFL was started, black coaches cannot break into without some sort of rule.

-TheE-

[Gan]

Who should impose the rule?

League or government?

[Sean of the Thread]

Nah, we're just saying hiring in the NFL is an old boys network, which, because they weren't involved in it when the NFL was started, black coaches cannot break into without some sort of rule.

-TheE-

I didn't see italics but I know you're not that stupid.

[Clove]

Your reasoning is flawed. It's not the fact that the discrepancy exists as much as it the size of the discrepancy. If 55% of the Lieutenants in the Army are black, you'd expect roughly the same number of Captains, Majors, Colonels, and Generals.

Poor analogy. Career military officers are engaged in a career so the natural progression is to rise up the chain as high as their potential can take them. College sports athletes are not engaged in a career; they may or may not be interested in professional sports, sports related careers, or careers in coaching.

I've repeatedly tried to point out to you that an excess of athletes does not imply there should be an excess of coaches. You keep bringing up the "sharp drop" alright then, where SHOULD the percentage be? If you can't say "it's here when it should be here" then you're just speculating- period "gee that seems high to me" isn't a solid argument. The fact that there ARE so many black college athletes and SO few college coaches might even infer that African Americans are going into college sports for other reasons (than a track to coaching). You'd have to be either incredibly cocky, or incredibly stupid not to notice how competitive it is (with so many athletes and so few coaches) and I don't think African American athletes are over-cocky (shuddap Daniel) or under-intelligent.

That being said, I agreed with Sean- the hiring process in the NFL was too exclusive and is too exclusive at the college level. Present practices have the effect of eliminating qualified candidates before they even have a chance to compete (either deliberately or incidentally) and it should be changed. Rooney's Rule seems to be working for the NFL- maybe it can work for the colleges.

In a nutshell:

I don't see enough argument that there IS or IS NOT deliberate racism in college coach hiring. There IS a bad hiring process (which seems more like elitism than racism to me) that IS hampering their opportunities and hampering other potential coaches from other minority groups, not just African Americans.

[Latrinsorm]

if blacks constitute over half of the candidate pool for leadershipYou keep saying this. What percentage of white athletes want to be coaches after they're done playing? How about Latinos? The "candidate pool" is not comprised of all athletes, and you only have percentages for all black athletes.
In absence of evidence to the contrary, that is the logical conclusion.The absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. Logic has nothing to do with evidence or the lack thereof. The scientific thing to do in the absence of evidence is not insist upon any particular conclusion.

[Sean of the Thread]

Lol pwnt.

[Gan]

You keep saying this. What percentage of white athletes want to be coaches after they're done playing? How about Latinos? The "candidate pool" is not comprised of all athletes, and you only have percentages for all black athletes.The absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. Logic has nothing to do with evidence or the lack thereof. The scientific thing to do in the absence of evidence is not insist upon any particular conclusion.

One should know better than to try to use logic without fear of reprisal from Latrin. Its simply not logical. ;)

[Some Rogue]

One should know better than to try to use logic without fear of reprisal from Latrin. Its simply not logical. ;)

ARE YOU SAYING HE'S A VULCAN????

[Ghostwind]

I'm pretty sure Mike Tomlin NEVER would have had a chance coaching the Steelers w/out the Rooney rule. He never would have been interviewed. There were already 2 coaches on the staff that were being looked at from their own team.

I am against affirmative action, but a simple interview can't hurt.

(I couldn't read the whole thread - if I repeated what others said, sorry.)

Brendan

[Clove]

I am against affirmative action, but a simple interview can't hurt.


x10


ARE YOU SAYING HE'S A VULCAN????

Holy shit I think Some Rogue is on to something!!1!11!

[Some Rogue]

Holy shit I think Some Rogue is on to something!!1!11!


Thou shalt not post illogically on these message boards!


http://i9.photobucket.com/albums/a64/lrenzo2/spock.jpg

[Gan]

LOL

As Arsenio Hall would say... Hmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm.

(I watched the Journey Home: Star Treak IV) last night (I think it was IV) when I couldnt go to sleep. Spock is the man (vulcan).

[chillmonster]

Poor analogy. Career military officers are engaged in a career so the natural progression is to rise up the chain as high as their potential can take them. College sports athletes are not engaged in a career; they may or may not be interested in professional sports, sports related careers, or careers in coaching.

The military analogy works because most soldiers don't plan to be in the military for the rest of their lives. They plan on applying the skills they've acquired to another career or getting an education through benefits provided by their military service and doing something else - just like athletes.


I've repeatedly tried to point out to you that an excess of athletes does not imply there should be an excess of coaches. You keep bringing up the "sharp drop" alright then, where SHOULD the percentage be? ..

That being said, I agreed with Sean- the hiring process in the NFL was too exclusive and is too exclusive at the college level. Present practices have the effect of eliminating qualified candidates before they even have a chance to compete (either deliberately or incidentally) and it should be changed. Rooney's Rule seems to be working for the NFL- maybe it can work for the colleges.

This makes no sense at all. The Rooney Rule addresses RACE. Why would you be in favor of it if that weren't a factor?


I don't see enough argument that there IS or IS NOT deliberate racism in college coach hiring. There IS a bad hiring process (which seems more like elitism than racism to me) that IS hampering their opportunities and hampering other potential coaches from other minority groups, not just African Americans.


You keep saying this. What percentage of white athletes want to be coaches after they're done playing? How about Latinos? The "candidate pool" is not comprised of all athletes, and you only have percentages for all black athletes.The absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. Logic has nothing to do with evidence or the lack thereof. The scientific thing to do in the absence of evidence is not insist upon any particular conclusion.

A discrepancy like the one we pointed out earlier in coaching or in the military would raise flags because in absence of evidence to the contrary a logical assumption is that a similar ratio of players of all races would aspire to be coaches. Some variance in the concentration of all of the groups would be logical, but a drop of 90% in one particular group would raise flags. Period.

You seem to be going out of your way to say this is anything but race. The drop itself is evidence that points to race as a main factor that determines who gets a chance to compete for one of those jobs. Why would it be elitism? These aren't Ivy league grads getting these jobs. These are EX FOOTBALL PLAYERS.

The NFL itself examined the statistics and what was going on and determined that race was preventing qualified candidates from competing for coaching jobs. They decided to institute a rule to fix that problem. From 93-03 there were 4 black coaches hired. Within 2 years of the Rooney rule being instituted 3 more had been hired, with at least one instance where the coach would never have gotten the opportunity if there weren't a rule giving him the chance to compete.

Now, let's review. The NFL examines the evidence, determines there's a problem, forms a hypothesis, comes up with a solution, and watches the problem immediately begin to correct itself. Can we please get our heads out of the sand or can we admit race was a factor in preventing candidates from getting equal opportunity. Why is that so hard?

[Parkbandit]

I'm pretty sure Mike Tomlin NEVER would have had a chance coaching the Steelers w/out the Rooney rule. He never would have been interviewed. There were already 2 coaches on the staff that were being looked at from their own team.


You're pretty sure because.. he's black and therefore had no chance without the Rooney rule.. or are you just pretty sure in your own mind.. without any real hard evidence?

Teams should hire and interview whoever they want to hire and interview. Those hiring and interviewing decisions should be based upon their work and experience.. not on the color of their skin.

[Clove]

The military analogy works because most soldiers don't plan to be in the military for the rest of their lives. They plan on applying the skills they've acquired to another career or getting an education through benefits provided by their military service and doing something else - just like athletes.

This makes no sense at all. The Rooney Rule addresses RACE. Why would you be in favor of it if that weren't a factor?


Being a military officer is more of a career commitment than playing college sports. You'll have to do more to support your argument (and bad choice of analogy) than retort with "Nuh uh!"

I'll say it again and use small words:

Military officer is a career.
College athlete is not a career.

Apples. Oranges.

The Rooney Rule addresses race, but ultimately it merely opens up the hiring process- teams aren't required to hire minorities, they're only required to review minority applications. The process was too closed before which is bad because as I explained before (at least twice) it CAN HAVE THE UNINTENTIONAL EFFECT OF BLOCKING QUALIFIED CANDIDATES (regardless of race).

[Clove]

You seem to be going out of your way to say this is anything but race.

Wrong. We're going out of our way to say your arguments lack any fucking substance.

[Latrinsorm]

You seem to be going out of your way to say this is anything but race.I don't hold a position on it either way... because there's no evidence.
Can we please get our heads out of the sand or can we admit race was a factor in preventing candidates from getting equal opportunity.What you've demonstrated is that people who are interviewed are more likely to be hired. What you have still failed to demonstrate is that race is a factor in interview potential or what precisely the percentage of people who want to coach is black. "Because I don't know him" is not the same reason for not interviewing someone as "because he's black" or "because he's AzN" or "because he's a WOMAN, BABY".

[Sean]

Hooray for the status quo!

[Sean of the Thread]

QQ

[Latrinsorm]

I'm not saying there's anything wrong with the Rooney Rule or bylaws of its ilk. I just don't see the need to invent incoherent arguments for it.

[Clove]

I'm not saying there's anything wrong with the Rooney Rule or bylaws of its ilk. I just don't see the need to invent incoherent arguments for it.

Ed Zachery.

[serra7965]

Let's see...maybe there are a lot of people who don't want to go from star football player to assistant coach of a college team, then the coach of college defensive backs, then an assistant coach in the NFL, then defensive backs coach in NFL, then defensive coordinator for quite a few teams....then finally get a head coaching job.

[Clove]

Let's see...maybe there is a point to my post?

Fixed it.

[Gan]

Let's see...maybe there are a lot of people who don't want to go from star football player to assistant coach of a college team, then the coach of college defensive backs, then an assistant coach in the NFL, then defensive backs coach in NFL, then defensive coordinator for quite a few teams....then finally get a head coaching job.

Yea, God forbid they have to climb the corporate ladder like everyone else. Someone needs to pay attention to their sense of entitlement damnit!

Again, being a good player does not equate to being a good coach/leader. Never has, never will.

:banghead:

[serra7965]

Fixed it.

My point wasn't pointing at you...


That was Dungy's career btw.

[Doughboy]

Who gives a fuck who gets interviewed. If I knew a person was resigning and I wanted that person I'd hire him. Not beat around the bush interviewing the black man, or the asian, or so on and so on. If somebody is available and they're a good fit for your program fucking hire them.

Not to sound racist (even though it probably will come across as such), the reason black coaches don't get hired is because black coaches have failed to produce for the most part. Sure there are a few success stories but nobody wants to pay somebody 2 million bucks a year to stink and make the NCAAP happy. I am not racist, but thats how shit is. Is it wrong, eh probably.

[Latrinsorm]

That's pretty shaky reasoning. Almost all coaches of all races haven't won it all, and any measuring stick beyond that is to some extent subjective (bowl game? above .500? etc.). On top of that, there haven't been many black coaches (FOR WHATEVER REASON, CHILL), so it's very easy to suppose that whatever "success" they have on average is unrepresentative sampling.

[Doughboy]

That's pretty shaky reasoning. Almost all coaches of all races haven't won it all, and any measuring stick beyond that is to some extent subjective (bowl game? above .500? etc.). On top of that, there haven't been many black coaches (FOR WHATEVER REASON, CHILL), so it's very easy to suppose that whatever "success" they have on average is unrepresentative sampling.

I probably should have said "a reason" not "the reason." Sports are about one thing, winning. If a potential coach isn't seen as a winner, or doesn't have a track record of winning then they don't get hired. I'm not saying championship, bowl games, etc etc. What makes a winning coach is indeed subjective. At some schools they could lose every game of the year as long as they beat the rival teams. Other schools only look for bowl games, etc etc.

Hell, there probably is racism in sports today. I certainly wouldn't be surprised one bit. I just see it as a theres not enough black coaches worth interviewing for some of the top coaching jobs. There very well may be some worth taking a look at. I don't follow coaching all that closely. I know that Houston Nutt was a successful coach at a big school and he was quickly picked up by another large program. If I was the AD at the school he's coming into, I'd probably pick a guy with big school experience, winning record, etc etc instead of interviewing some offensive coordinator from another school just because a group of people tells me I have to.

This problem probably started long before any of us were watching football, when racism was still commonly occurring. Thats the most likely reason that you don't have many black coaches shooting for the "big school" jobs.

[Doughboy]

I was also just thinking...This is why I hate the political side of sports.

[Sean]

I'd be interested to hear your argument for Norv Turner as a retread head coach.

[Suppa Hobbit Mage]

What's yours for Herm Edwards?

I do think Herm is respectable but his record is 50-52 I think. Kinda bad.

[Suppa Hobbit Mage]

My point being anyone can nit pick, perhaps Norv (I don't know the guy) has some amazing negotiating skills. Maybe his agent works 5x as hard as someone elses. Maybe he's related, dating the GMs daughter, blah blah blah. 1 Person does not a trend make.

[Sean]

Herm isn't the best coach by any means but I certainly wouldn't put him in a class with Norv Turner. Herms 3 losing vs Norvs 6 (norv also has clearly been a head coach longer) 52-54 vs 63-87 at this rate herm would have to go 11-33 (.250 winning %) over the next 3 seasons to catch up to Norv. Herms also made the playoffs 4x (4:1) more than Norv.

[Sean]

I'm not using Norv to indicate a trend. You're right it could be one of any infinite number of reasons that he keeps getting hired. But if the argument is really that black coaches don't produce results I think you should be prepared to defend the hiring of other coaches who fail to produce yet continue to be hired.

[Suppa Hobbit Mage]

I'm not using Norv to indicate a trend. You're right it could be one of any infinite number of reasons that he keeps getting hired. But if the argument is really that black coaches don't produce results I think you should be prepared to defend the hiring of other coaches who fail to produce yet continue to be hired.

It's not my arguement, but... Why? It's a for profit business. Any for profit business should be able to hire whoever they want. If they don't hire the best, or most productive, or have reasons for not hiring the best, who cares. That kind of networking will only hurt them in the long run.

What if they say "I can't afford THIS black coach" (look at Art Shells record, that dude should cost a premium). Is it ok to say we interviewed a black man, but have decided to hire Norv because we can afford him? It's still a black man "out" of a job.

[Sean]

Does losing = $? If so I guess thats a pretty strong argument against revenue sharing. Jerry Jones should get on this.

[Stunseed]

Art Shell hasn't been serious since Soul Glo was in style. His latest comeback barely made it a season.

[Suppa Hobbit Mage]

Does losing = $? If so I guess thats a pretty strong argument against revenue sharing. Jerry Jones should get on this.

Your sarcasm is lost on me. I'm not sure what point you are trying to make there.

Any for profit organization should hire top performers, with criteria. That criteria may be a salary cap, a moving package, a company car, two tickets to a movie. Whatever. If your organization is for profit, you want to maximize that profit with other caveats -- don't introduce something that will cause a loss in customer satisfaction, or maybe you can stand x points off satisfaction, but you want first time fix to go up. Whatever your business model is, I'm fairly sure it's focused on the bottom line. Why should an organization HAVE to do ANYTHING if it's their (the shareholders, the owners, whoever) organization.

[Sean]

Because no owner in the NFL is a singular entity?

[Sean]

Just a point of clarification I don't have a problem with the Chargers hiring Norv Turner. They followed the rules, interviewed their candidates (including Rex Ryan and Mike Singletary), and in the end selected the coach they felt best fit.

[Daniel]

They passed on Mike Singletary??? What were they thinking??

[Sean of the Thread]

Black coaches don't have the IQ white coaches do.

[Latrinsorm]

Why should an organization HAVE to do ANYTHING if it's their (the shareholders, the owners, whoever) organization.
Because it's been repeatedly demonstrated that we can't rely on organizations to a) do the right thing or b) commit reversable or transient offenses. We subscribe to the rule of law, not the rule of the free market.