• New here? Register here now for access to all the forums, download game torrents, private messages, polls, Sportsbook, etc. Plus, stay connected and follow BP on Instagram @buckeyeplanet and Facebook.

Colleges Block Black Coaches Out

Jump to latest Follow Reply
plum diamonds buckeye planet
Sort by date Sort by votes
shetuck

shetuck

What do you need water for, Sunshine?
When I came across this opinion piece written by Roland Martin for CNN, I caught myself and refrained from my usual knee-jerk reponse of ignoring the sometimes tiresome topic of race and coaching. So, I read through the piece and gave it some genuine thought.

As much as maybe we'd like to say all this talk is just smoke and there's no problem if we just look at things from the standpoint of merit, etc., I think it's useful to continue to consider it. Agree with him or not, I think it's good that people like Martin don't let us forget that there is a portion of the population that still considers this topic worthy of headlines and discussion.

Colleges block black coaches out ... again

(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, and even the NFL, it's d?j? 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. [cont'd...]
Click to expand...
 
coastalbuck;1009603; said:
How in the hell does he "know" that it isn't the case?
Click to expand...

that's also one part that jumped right out at me. if grad21 would've said it, i'd take his word for it... :biggrin:

seriously, though, this is the type of statement i hear all the time from people who claim to "know" what really goes on, but, for some reason, don't take the next step and show their hand.

his using norm chow as some kind of poster-boy for unfair hiring practices is just plain laughable.
 
Upvote 0
coastalbuck;1009603; said:
How in the hell does he "know" that it isn't the case?
Click to expand...

His explanation seemed to immediately follow that comment:

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.
Click to expand...

If the most qualified candidates are those with previous head coaching experience, then his argument fails. What he really did was veer from the subject of qualification into the subject of fairness, seemingly equating the two in the process.

However, if the most qualified candidate is determined by means other than head coaching experience, he may have a point, he just doesn't discuss it, instead focusing on one example.

This is not to say that, overall, his article is without merit, or that it doesn't make sense that with, for the sake of argument, half of all players being black such a tiny percentage of head coaches are black. Something is clearly amiss. . .
 
Upvote 0
"What's wrong with this picture? Many of you may say nothing. But for black and other minority coaches in college football, and even the NFL, it's d?j? vu: another high-profile head coaching job opens up, and they don't even get a shot to interview for the job."

No one got the opportunity to interview for this job, black or white. If they had interviewed 6 or 7 people all of whom were white this would be an issue. The fact is, they didn't.
 
Upvote 0
fourteenandoh;1009718; said:
"What's wrong with this picture? Many of you may say nothing. But for black and other minority coaches in college football, and even the NFL, it's d?j? vu: another high-profile head coaching job opens up, and they don't even get a shot to interview for the job."

No one got the opportunity to interview for this job, black or white. If they had interviewed 6 or 7 people all of whom were white this would be an issue. The fact is, they didn't.
Click to expand...

i think Martin is trying to use the A&M case as a point to try and explain how it is that black coaches are eliminated from getting a shot simply by virtue of the fact that they don't have prior head-coaching experience. in other words he's implying that the A&M decision shows how this prejudice is institutionalized.
 
Upvote 0
Maybe this belongs in the political forum. Or maybe it will after my comment. But my belief is that racism should not be illegal. If you want to hire white guys only, then fine. Do that. But you're limiting the pool that you're looking at when you're hiring him. For example, let's say there are 20 guys out there who are looking for head coaching positions. 10 are white and 10 are black. If you want to only look at the 10 white guys, and completely ignore the 10 black guys, then my guess is that you're only going to get the best guy for the job about 50% of the time. If athletic directors are going to bring race, creed, gender, nationality, etc. into the decision-making process, the chances increase that they aren't going to get the best guy. And then what? They don't do as well as they could have, and the "best guy" gets a job with a team that didn't look at race, and they do well.
 
Upvote 0
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.
Click to expand...
This seems to go against his earlier Joe Pa reference. Everyone has to start off somewhere. The fact is that few people get a chance to go from a coordinator position to being a HC at a major program. Most people have a hard enough time getting a HC position at smaller programs. The few people that get to make the move from coordinator to HC at a large school, usually do so after working a number of years at a major university, while displaying a large amount of success in that coordinator position.

So it would seem that if someone wants to become a HC, without working a long time as a coordinator, then they will need to do so at a smaller program (such as Temple) regardless of their respective skin colors.
 
Upvote 0
Zurp;1009734; said:
Maybe this belongs in the political forum. Or maybe it will after my comment. But my belief is that racism should not be illegal. If you want to hire white guys only, then fine. Do that. But you're limiting the pool that you're looking at when you're hiring him. For example, let's say there are 20 guys out there who are looking for head coaching positions. 10 are white and 10 are black. If you want to only look at the 10 white guys, and completely ignore the 10 black guys, then my guess is that you're only going to get the best guy for the job about 50% of the time. If athletic directors are going to bring race, creed, gender, nationality, etc. into the decision-making process, the chances increase that they aren't going to get the best guy. And then what? They don't do as well as they could have, and the "best guy" gets a job with a team that didn't look at race, and they do well.
Click to expand...

i didn't put this in the poli forum because i wanted to confine it to college football. putting it on the poli board would immediately broadent he context, and, with this, as with other issues, it's helpful sometimes to look at one particular slice at a time...

having said that, i agree with our point about racism, in general, being "pyrrhic". but, for the stalemate to end, wouldn't it also have to be true that racists would have to become "enlightened" somehow that they're missing out on a large pool of candidates who could be the best guy for the job?
 
Upvote 0
Brutus1;1009805; said:
How must certain prospective NFL coaches feel knowing that they're probably only getting an interview to satisfy the Rooney Rule ?
Click to expand...

Probably pretty darn good when it works out for them:

Tomlin proof NFL's Rooney Rule working - Pittsburgh Tribune-Review

Mike Tomlin is proof the NFL's Rooney Rule is working out exactly like it was intended.


Tomlin was a not-widely-known Tampa Bay Buccaneers assistant coach less than two years ago and was a college assistant as late as 2000. On Monday, the Steelers are expected to introduce Tomlin as only their third coach in 38 years and the first black head coach in their 74-year history.

Tomlin accepted the job Sunday and was negotiating a four-year contract that is expected to pay him about $2.5 million per year, a source close to the Steelers' search told The Associated Press. The deal should be completed Monday.
Click to expand...
miketomlin.jpg
 
Upvote 0
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top