Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
99% of Athletic Directors are White. They hire coaches
99% of Coaches are White. Why are we surprised?
I agree. We ought not be surprised. But what makes it worse is that there are way too many alumni, boosters, sports journalists, and fans who accept this kind of lockout.
College football would benefit from a Rooney Rule. But I'd go even further. I'd look into whether or not college football programs are violating Title VII or Title IX laws. And I'd also put a little pressure on Black high school athletes to be aware that the college that is trying to recruit them as a player, would probably never hire them as their head coach.
It's a shame to have to get all political, because sports is supposed to be one of the last best hopes for true and equal access to opportunity.
uhh, no. I was simply responding to the other comment that said the best fit should get the job and the race deal is a bunch of bull.
I appreciate the fact that you agree with the "best fit" conclusion, and that race is absolutely not an issue ("bull", etc). But I was asking you to clarify your position, if you don't mind.
If you do believe that prospective D-1 Black head coaches possess all the qualities that a head coach should possess, why do suppose that there only 4 of them (out of 119)?
If you do believe that prospective D-1 Black head coaches possess all the qualities that a head coach should possess, why do suppose that there only 4 of them (out of 119)?
Purely coincidence, probably based on the fact that they don't have a connection to the school they're interviewing at.
Gill didn't deserve the Auburn job...yet. (although to be fair, neither did Chizik, although he had a connection there).
Purely coincidence, probably based on the fact that they don't have a connection to the school they're interviewing at.
Gill didn't deserve the Auburn job...yet. (although to be fair, neither did Chizik, although he had a connection there).
Hmmm. Definitely a coincidence, but pure conjecture as to why.
As far as connections go, they're far down on the priority list of practicality. That's why Tennessee picked up Lane Kiffin. It's why Pete Carroll had no "connections" to USC, but still got the job (btw, I love Pete Carroll -- best coach in the game, in my opinion).
But I see where you're coming from, so we can just agree to disagree.
Hmmm. Definitely a coincidence, but pure conjecture as to why.
As far as connections go, they're far down on the priority list of practicality. That's why Tennessee picked up Lane Kiffin. It's why Pete Carroll had no "connections" to USC, but still got the job (btw, I love Pete Carroll -- best coach in the game, in my opinion).
But I see where you're coming from, so we can just agree to disagree.
Well, Chizik was the defensive coordinator at Auburn during its 2004 season, when it went undefeated and led the country in scoring defense. The next year, Chizik went to Texas and led their defense as the Longhorns had an undefeated championship season, which meant that his defenses went 33-34 games without a defeat. Then he took the slot at Iowa State, which was a terrible career move. But, it's not like Auburn went into the men's department at Sears, grabbed a salesman by the collar and said, "Hey, wanna coach football?" He knows the program, already knows a lot of the players on the team, knows the recruiting trail in the region, and has impressive coaching credentials despite the no-win situation he was in at Ames.
Turner Gill actually came pretty close to landing the Auburn job, even the frontrunner by most reports. However, the main concern was if he insisted on bringing his staff with him from Buffalo, rather than conducting a more wide-ranging search for the best assistants possible. He was adamant on that point, at which point negotiations fell apart. I would also point out that a couple of former black Auburn players sat on the interviewing committee, so it wasn't exactly a bunch of good ole boys granting an interview to the token.
However, to your point, Syracuse interviewed Turner Gill and didn't hire him, and probably had a more compelling reason to do so, including knowledge of the area for recruiting, etc. etc. How come nobody singles out Syracuse as racist? In fact, there were a lot of college coaches fired this year. How come none of them were singled out, either?
The question shouldn't really be about the sheer numbers hired. It would be a more accurate assessment to look at the number of qualified applicants by race and then examine the percentage of those qualified applicants hired by race. I have heard from someone that was on a search committee that schools are interested in hiring people that have graduated and with a preference for a master's degree in some cases. Given the low percentage of minority athletes that graduate (really all athletes, but the numbers are lower for minority and low income athletes), the number that are qualified and go on to apply may not be that high. When you then add in a preference for people with a tie to a particular school, the picture may look a little different. I'm not saying that there is no racism, and there is certainly cronyism, but I'm not sure the situation is as bad as the sheer numbers indicate.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
