Writers of Pro Football Prospectus 2008

printable version

Extra Points

Articles from around the Web



26 Dec 2008

Why Are There So Few Black Coaches in College Football?

Richard Thompson Ford at Slate makes a good case here. Roughly 20 percent of NFL head coaches are black, but only five percent of college head coaches. What's the main difference between the two jobs? The best way for an NFL franchise to make money is to win. The best way for a college football program to make money is to please the boosters. Usually that involves winning, but not necessarily. As Ford notes, "the real problem isn't a specific racist hiring decision but rather a soft, pervasive bigotry among the boosters and alumni who ultimately run the show."

Posted by: Aaron Schatz on 26 Dec 2008

58 comments, Last at 30 Dec 2008, 9:53pm by MC2

Comments

1
by zlionsfan :: Fri, 12/26/2008 - 3:20pm

Well, it does involve winning, but winning isn't the deciding factor when it comes to hiring (obviously, as we've seen from some recent hires), so yeah, I guess it doesn't really involve winning that much.

Then again, I don't donate to my athletic department (yet), so I don't have much room to talk. If I did, then I could have sent a letter saying that I disapprove of the way in which Tiller's replacement was named, and that I would have preferred to see some people actually interviewed for the job, and maybe they would have read the letter for five seconds before dismissing my concerns.

It doesn't say enough when someone with little experience coaches at something like Arkansas State. Heck, even the job that Turner Gill has done at Buffalo is hard to judge. Is he doing well (particularly considering how the level of play in the MAC has increased recently), or only doing well because of his surroundings? Then again, that doesn't seem to matter for other coaches: their lack of success doesn't prevent them from getting good (or really good) coaching jobs.

It must be frustrating for good coordinators to see someone with a losing record (or no record) as a head coach get hired instead of them.

2
by Pete (not verified) :: Fri, 12/26/2008 - 3:22pm

Why was Tubberville let go? I think Auburn (and its fans) is the one suffering as a result of this hire and Buffalo's coach benefits by not going to Auburn under these conditions.

What are the requirements for being a top level player? Running fast is often a key ingredient, which is a trait that is more common among those with more fast-twitch muscles (commonly more prevalent in percentage among blacks), rather than a higher percentage of slow-twitch muscles (more prevalent among whites). How many starting NFL RB or CB are white?

What are the requirements for being a positional coach? Knowing certain techniques and having experience can certainly help, although running a 4.3 40 is probably not a necessity.

What are the requirements for being a head coach? At this point in a career, running is not important. Motivation and tactics are far more important. As the head coach thinking about strategy rather than just tactics is certainly beneficial (think the long-term, like the best chess players or either of the evil Bills). In college, recruiting and alumni relations/donations are a big qualification for the head coach position.

How many successful head coaches (significantly more successful than corresponding white coaches) are in the NFL or College Football? I can only think of one off the top of my head, Tony Dungy (who has worked his entire Indy career with Peyton Manning, the most NFL-ready QB coming out of college, and incredible experience with the coaching staff, including top Offensive Coordinator and Offensive Line coach and LB coach - M&M&M - Moore, Mudd, Murphy see my link for years of experience at Indy).

As black players have made themselves seen as successful more of them have played at the top level (especially compared to the general public and the lower level play at pee-wee or high school). I suggest that if black coaches are significantly more successful that they will be hired in greater numbers.

3
by Danish Denver-Fan :: Fri, 12/26/2008 - 5:26pm

Good point, but is it really valid?

I mean, black coaches have a hard time impressing when they don't get the chance to coach...

It's never, ever hard for a player to get playingtime at some point in his career - good (enough) players seperate themselves as early as pop warner - and certainly in high school. Right?

13
by tuluse :: Sat, 12/27/2008 - 4:42am

How many successful head coaches (significantly more successful than corresponding white coaches) are in the NFL or College Football? I can only think of one off the top of my head, Tony Dungy (who has worked his entire Indy career with Peyton Manning, the most NFL-ready QB coming out of college, and incredible experience with the coaching staff, including top Offensive Coordinator and Offensive Line coach and LB coach - M&M&M - Moore, Mudd, Murphy see my link for years of experience at Indy).

Wow really, Dungy's whole time at Tampa Bay never happened?

Also, I would assert that Lovie Smith is a rather good head coach and Mike Tomlin is looking pretty good in Pittsburgh.

Of course sample sizes are all so small you couldn't draw any meaningful conclusions either way.

43
by sundown (not verified) :: Mon, 12/29/2008 - 2:41pm

To be fair, he didn't say Dungy never coached in Tampa, only that he had Manning for his entire Indy career. But, I fail to see the relevance of the statement, anyway. Manning's being ready for the NFL coming out of college is irrelevant because Dungy wasn't his coach when he was a rookie, and his ability to pick and keep a top staff is a kudo to Dungy, not a mark against him.

20
by Bruce (not verified) :: Sat, 12/27/2008 - 3:12pm

There are going to be more successful white coaches because there are so many more of them. You'll also find the list of crummy white coaches far exceeds the list of crummy black ones.

Below is the list of all the black head cocahes I could think of along with their regular season records. (from www.pro-football-reference.com/coaches/) If you add it up,that's 538-468, and all have had at least one 10 win season except obviously Singletary and Emmitt Thomas. Even if you take away Dungy that's still more wins than losses. I know a lot of you would disagree, but I don't think any of these guys have been terrible, yes including Edwards, Crennel and Shell, who despite all his critics, still has an overall winning record.

I would say as a whole black coaches in the NFL have done pretty well.

Ray Rhodes 37 42 1
Art Shell+ 56 52 0
Herman Edwards 54 73 0
Lovie Smith 45 34 0
Tony Dungy 138 69 0
Romeo Crennel 24 39 0
Marvin Lewis 45 49 1
Dennis Green 113 94 0
Mike Singletary 4 4 0
Mike Tomlin 21 10 0
Emmitt Thomas+ 1 2 0

4
by Danish Denver-Fan :: Fri, 12/26/2008 - 5:32pm

Several thoughts:

Didn't this particular hire go to a former defensive coordinator at the very same school? for a seemingly very good defense?

I know absolutely nothing about college football, but I think this seems reasonable, and in no way something that deserves the "rasism-label". The fact that anyone would give it this label is, to me, a sign that the US has an unsolved issue here.

----

Are all colleges forced to interview at least one black coach? Like the NFL, i mean?

----

What does a historical analyzis say about the number of black coaches in the NFL? I mean, maybe the the 6 (7, including Singletary) black coaches is a flukishly high number? With a sample size of 32, it doesn't take much to go to say 10%, which would narrow the gap to the college level... I mean, if M. Lewis and H. Edwards gets axed (and Singletary doesn't get hired (unlikely)), we're down to 4 - 12,5%

----

Does the author really belive that colleges should hire black coaches, because a white coach "ruling" over black players seems slavory-y? How "Remember the Titans"-y...

----

I don't know why I'm in this conversation - i don't know jack about NCAA ball, I'm white and I'm not even American!

23
by Sophandros (not verified) :: Sat, 12/27/2008 - 9:07pm

Didn't this particular hire go to a former defensive coordinator at the very same school? for a seemingly very good defense?

Yep, but in his opportunity to be a head coach, he went 5-19. Not very good. Also, Aubbies point to the fact that he was the DC on the undefeated team a few years ago, but they gloss over the fact that they fired the head coach from that same undefeated team.

There is no Rooney Rule, and I totally agree with the author because of what I have experienced from following college football in the South and in Texas.

Does the author really belive that colleges should hire black coaches, because a white coach "ruling" over black players seems slavory-y?

I'll just say this: the closest thing to chattel slavery that we have in this country today is major college football and basketball. These schools make a lot of money off of these kids, often not even caring about whether they get educated. Yes, it's similar to slavery in a lot of cases. Now, would having a Black coach change things? I seriously doubt it, because college sports is a business, and the athletes are a commodity.

39
by MC2 :: Mon, 12/29/2008 - 10:50am

"I'll just say this: the closest thing to chattel slavery that we have in this country today is major college football and basketball. These schools make a lot of money off of these kids, often not even caring about whether they get educated. Yes, it's similar to slavery in a lot of cases."

This is one of the most ridiculous claims I've ever heard. I'm all in favor of paying the players, but the claim that not doing so is in any way tantamount to slavery is so absurd, it doesn't even deserve a proper refutation.

44
by sundown (not verified) :: Mon, 12/29/2008 - 2:47pm

No doubt lots of schools don't care if the players graduate, but it's a two-way street. To think these kids are such babes in the woods they don't understand the system is absurd. Jim McMahon's recent comments about his time at BYU sum it up very well: He thought the school used him, but he freely admitted to doing the same with them. (He wanted to play football and not much else, and they were fine with that.) I suspect many players have a similar outlook. Plus there are lots of perks (above and below the table) to being a college star. Oh, and there's always the free education, if you're smart enough to take advantage of it.

5
by Harris :: Fri, 12/26/2008 - 5:38pm

There is no Rooney rule in college. Schools can interview, or not, anyone they want.

We had this debate on EDSBS and someone made an interesting argument: Schools might want to hire a black coach, but nobody wants to fire a black coach. Notre Dame fired Willingham five years ago and they're still getting criticized for it, even though this past season has proved conclusively that Willingham is a terrible coach.

"A little celery is always nice after a good pee."

6
by Danish Denver-Fan :: Fri, 12/26/2008 - 6:11pm

The first seems to be an obvious contibutor to the GAP, and the second to be an obvious contributor to the "white-tilted" SPLIT.

In terms of "racist or not" isn't the Rooney rule racist in reverse? The Rooney rule keeping Haslett from getting his contract because the balck coaches has to be serviced?

Plus, and I'm physically handicapped so I would know, if I'm experiencing discrimination of any kind, I don't wan't advantages - I wan't a level playing field.

14
by Harris :: Sat, 12/27/2008 - 9:24am

The Rooney rule may have saved the Rams from their own stupidity as it's now a lot less likely they'll offer Haslett a contract than it was after he won a few games and made the team look marginally competent.

In any event, how is an interview an unfair advantage? That is leveling the playing field. Moreover, in the immortal words of Rakim, it ain't where ya from it's where ya at. Let a so-called affirmative action hire win a MNC and nobody will give two flips how he got the job.

"A little celery is always nice after a good pee."

18
by Danish Denver-Fan :: Sat, 12/27/2008 - 1:13pm

As i said, I'm totally ignorant when it comes to the Rooney rule, but unless it requires that every team must interview a black AND a white coach, it's an uneven playingfield!

I mean, Ted Cotrell might get tons of interviews, not because he's competent, but because he's a random unemployed black coach.

No matter how you slice it, it's treating two races differently!

And yes, the Rams was saved by it, but that's, of course, not the intention behind the rule. And I think it's safe to say that the Rams wanted to sign him but couldn't because of this weird tilting...

Can the 49'ers, if they want to, sign Singletary to an extension without bringing a white coach in to interview? If not, ignore the above!

28
by Harris :: Sat, 12/27/2008 - 11:27pm

Your position is nonsensical. White coaches are already getting interviews, ergo, there is no reason to mandate that white coaches get interviewed. The Rooney Rule exists because only white coaches were getting interviewed. That the rule treats the races differently simply acknowledges reality.

"A little celery is always nice after a good pee."

17
by Kevin Eleven :: Sat, 12/27/2008 - 12:03pm

That's an excellent point- people cried bloody murder over Willingham's firing. And while some of the people that did so may have been well-intentioned, the reality is that sort of response makes it even more difficult for the next black candidate to get hired.

19
by Matt W (not verified) :: Sat, 12/27/2008 - 2:10pm

People cried bloody murder over Willingham's firing partly because he got fired so soon after he was hired. He was the first ND football coach in a long time to be fired so soon after his hiring. Compare Charlie Weis.

There's a study from the NBA (link in my name) that shows that black coaches are on average fired quicker than white coaches even when you control for won-loss records. I seriously doubt that it's hard to fire black coaches, though perhaps some administrators use that as an excuse not to hire them. That would be racially discriminatory and wrong.

7
by jebmak :: Fri, 12/26/2008 - 6:52pm

I thought that it was an interesting article until it got to page three. The slavery stuff just came out of left field, and made we think, "WTF?" I think that the article would have been better without that seemingly random addendum. Then again, maybe it was seemless and I am just missing something.

10
by Temo :: Fri, 12/26/2008 - 10:18pm

I think it was more of an interesting analogy that the author came up with than anything that supports his point. You're right, it doesn't seem to fit in the article.

8
by Dice (not verified) :: Fri, 12/26/2008 - 8:15pm

Non-issue. The pros keep starting awful black QBs but pick up free agent black running backs over any white tailback. Don't start me on defensive backs. Not all black QBs are awful, and there's lots of awful white QBs, but black ones seem to get more chances. Brock Forsey was told by Lovey Smith that he looked like the equipment manager, not a football player. But Larry Johnson says he plays harder for a black coach(possibly explaining Herm's rep as a motivator). Tony Dungy has mentioned how kids are slotted into position mostly by color, starting at pop warner level.

Of course, acknowledging differences in the races to explain things opens up all sorts of things: if blacks/whites/Asians are better at X, might they not be as good at Y? But that thought can't even be entertained.

11
by Tybalt the Greenish (not verified) :: Fri, 12/26/2008 - 10:58pm

Sorry Dice, I'm confused. Race is an issue (and obvious race-based preference to be deplored) when it's a quarterback, tailback or defensive back? But it's a "non-issue" when it's a head coach? Is that it?

45
by sundown (not verified) :: Mon, 12/29/2008 - 2:54pm

You honestly believe that racial preferences explain why there aren't many white DBs? I invite you to look over the history of the 100 meter dash to see why white guys are so rare in positions where speed is seen to be key.

9
by Temo :: Fri, 12/26/2008 - 10:13pm

See this is why Charles Barkley exists: to make people at least start talking about this stuff. Which ever way you come down on this, it's at least a conversation worth having.

12
by Dice (not verified) :: Sat, 12/27/2008 - 12:14am

@Tybalt: I'm just curious as to why the media bemoans the lack of black coaches, but not the lack of white tailbacks or DBs. So I prefer to treat all race and sports 'issues' as non-issues. After all, Brian Russell not only plays in the NFL, he starts. Herm was sought after by KC. No one can figure out how these things come to pass.

15
by Harris :: Sat, 12/27/2008 - 9:36am

Apples and oranges. Players play because they can play. If player X consistently gains 4 yards per carry or consistently makes bone-crunching tackles, he'll get a job over a player who can't do those things, race be damned. Head coaching hires are made by a single person or small cabal of people based on entirely subjective criteria; there is no combine for head coaches.

"A little celery is always nice after a good pee."

40
by MC2 :: Mon, 12/29/2008 - 10:58am

W-L record is not an "entirely subjective criteria"; if a coach consistently wins, he's more likely to retain his job (or get a new one) than a coach who consistently loses, at least in the NFL. Of course, there are exceptions, but that doesn't mean there's no correlation between winning and get hired (or not getting fired).

46
by sundown (not verified) :: Mon, 12/29/2008 - 3:00pm

Adolf Hitler would have a job if he was a great cover DB. But hiring coaches is different than picking a player. Unless a guy has an extensive coaching record, hiring is done almost totally based on intangibles. It's not like he's going to dazzle the owner with his 40 time or bench press.

16
by Kevin Eleven :: Sat, 12/27/2008 - 10:25am

The writer only briefly touched on the most damning stat: of the 66 BCS teams (major conference teams plus Notre Dame), there is only one team with a black head coach.

It gets better: The Big Ten hasn't had a black coach since 2002. The Big 12 hasn't had one since 2000. The SEC has had exactly one black coach in it's entire history. The Big East has never had a black head coach (Louisville did from 1995 - 1997, but that was before they joined the conference).

I don't know what the solution is, as I'm against ratios and token interviews...but 1 out of 66? The number speaks for itself, and that IS a problem.

47
by sundown (not verified) :: Mon, 12/29/2008 - 3:04pm

One correction to your post: Ron Prince coached Kansas State this season.

48
by sundown (not verified) :: Mon, 12/29/2008 - 3:07pm

One correction to your post: Ron Prince coached Kansas State this season, so your bit about the Big 12 is wrong.

21
by Mike K. (not verified) :: Sat, 12/27/2008 - 3:52pm

I feel like the article touches on the most important part of this issue, but passes on it very quickly. At the bottom of the second page, he talks about the lack of black assistants and coordinators. That right there is your problem. The traditional head coaching path is pretty regimented: grad assistant, ast. position coach, position coach, coordinator, HC. Without getting more black people started on that track, we aren't going to see many black HCs. The thread over at EDSBS touched on it - black players tend to come from low income families and have a harder time than white players moving into the grad assistant positions because the pay is nonexistent and their support system is not as extensive as the one for white players from wealthier backgrounds.

Dice: That's the same tired argument that gets thrown out every time this discussion starts. I'm glad Harris destroyed it; it's a fallacious comparison. Football, except for perhaps the QB position to some degree, is largely a meritocracy. Coaching isn't, at this point. If it were, Turner Gill and Mike Leach would have jobs at big name, big money schools.

zlionsfan: Actually, Gill's work at Buffalo is pretty easy to judge, especially if you've been playing the NCAA video games for any length of time. Go back and look at the old NCAA games. Pretty much since the beginning of those games, Buffalo has been ranked 118 or 119. They are now going to a bowl game. More evidence, admittedly anecdotal: if anyone read the old SMQ, they remember the "Buffalo Line Watch" sections - how many points Buffalo was expected to lose by that week. He had to discontinue it when they became competitive and it wasn't funny anymore. Historically, they're terrible. Now, they're decent. Gill has worked miracles there.

Sorry for the book, folks.

tl;dr: Too few black coaches in long-run coaching track because of socioeconomic circumstances. Football is more of a meritocracy than football coaching. Turner Gill is un-freaking-believable as a coach.

24
by Sophandros (not verified) :: Sat, 12/27/2008 - 9:11pm

Exactly. This will take more time to change unless and until there are more Black assistant coaches. Look at Randy Shannon. He worked his way up. There are many more like him. I'm still waiting for Charlie Strong to get a chance. It will happen because there will be more Black coordinators and the "good old boys" will all eventually die off.

49
by sundown (not verified) :: Mon, 12/29/2008 - 3:20pm

It isn't necessarily just the good old boys who are the problem: It's the people who the decision makers, young and old, are exposed to. Take a look at Lane Kiffen's career, for example. Kiffen's dad gets him a gig and he very quickly becomes a coordinator. Then he somehow finds himself a head coach in the NFL, loses most all his games (horrible situation, to be sure, but still...) and next thing you know he's head coach at a program the caliber of Tennessee. It'd be tough for a black coach to enjoy a rise like that because they simply don't have the family ties and contacts it would take to allow it to happen.

22
by Kevin Eleven :: Sat, 12/27/2008 - 8:19pm

Re: Turner Gill

Remember, Gill finished 8 - 5 at Buffalo this year, which meant he went 7 - 5 during the regular season. On the surface finishing 7 - 5 in the MAC doesn't seem to impressive.

HOWEVER...Buffalo was in the gutter before Gill took over just three years ago.

Just this month Gill put an exclamation point on the job he's done at UB by beating a 12 - 0 Ball State team for the MAC title.

At the end of the day you know that if your program hires Turner Gill, you'll have him until the day Nebraska needs a new coach, and not a day longer. Having said that, if Buffalo has a good season next year, it's safe to assume Gill will have multiple BCS conference jobs to choose from.

Then the number will jump from 1 out of 66 to 2 out of 66.

25
by Mr Shush :: Sat, 12/27/2008 - 10:42pm

Is there also a lower level of NFL-college transition for black coaches than for white? It seems to me that a reasonable number of successful NFL co-ordinators and unsuccessful NFL head coaches, even those whose backgrounds are primarily in the pros and not in college, get college head coaching jobs. My own (NFL) team, the Texans, has lost two offensive co-ordinators to NCAA teams in two seasons. But every example I can think of of a coach who made this type of move is white, and if that anecdotal impression is correct it can't be about the socio-economic status of prospective graduate assistants twenty years ago. Maybe Marvin Lewis or Leslie Frazier or Romeo Crennel will buck the trend this winter, but I doubt it. Nor do I buy that this is likely to be solely a case of soft, subconscious racism. And to forestall any accusations of liberal crusaderism on my part, I am a right-leaning white Brit, who is often inclined to believe that purported cases of institutional racism are about socio-economic factors that correlate with race. I just don't think that's sufficient to explain this case.

26
by Joseph :: Sat, 12/27/2008 - 10:49pm

I didn't read the article, just want to state my 2 cents.

1. Regarding Turner Gill--I believe it was Jason Whitlock who said it (I don't always read or agree with JW)--it was good that he wasn't hired at Auburn because of the situation which he would have come into. Having said that, if NEBRASKA passes on him for their next hire, then race might be a factor. (This would not include him turning down the job--just if they don't give it to him.)

2. Regarding the # of coaches--I agree with Mike K and others who have said this--the lack of coordinators/good position coaches in a part of the problem that isn't brought up as often. Another part is that coaching is not very dependent upon athletic talent, but upon mental ability. AT THE RISK OF BEING LABELED A RACIST, I WOULD LIKE TO MAKE A VERY LARGE AND SWEEPING GENERALIZATION. Whites have higher test scores and less athletic talent. In other words, a guy like Bill Belicheck is extremely successful--not because he could do what Lawrence Taylor does, but because he could TEACH LT to do it. In my opinion, there are few black (football) athletes who are good enough teachers/motivators to be good/great coaches--at least above the positional level. On the other hand, there are a number of white athletes who probably rode the bench, but listened and learned a lot from their coaches and are successful doing it.
Great recent NFL examples: Sean Payton & Jason Garrett

Personally, I was an average football and basketball player in high school. However, I know more and can teach more about both games than I could ever physically accomplish. Why? Partly, because I have a very high IQ (140+), and took some teaching classes in college (although it wasn't my major). My mother and brother are teachers, so I have picked it up little by little from them also.

3. Could another motivator be $$$$$? Good black athlete makes his millions, and decides he wants to give up playing cause his body can't take it. Why should he spend 16 hour days coaching for (compared to his previous salary) peanuts? Decent white athlete (e.g., the aforementioned Payton & Garrett) makes the minimum for a few years, and still needs $ to support the family. Gets into coaching, because it pays decent $ compared to most jobs and they get to continue doing what they love.
A white example--Joe Montana. Wouldn't he be a GREAT QB coach at least? IIRC, he is PAYING!! someone to tutor his son to play QB. (How's that for pressure from the parent?!!) My guess is that he doesn't need the $, doesn't want the hours, and prefers attending his kids' games as a "regular" parent vs. being a coach on the sideline.

Sorry for the long post, but just had to comment.

27
by Harris :: Sat, 12/27/2008 - 11:22pm

Before you posted this, I'm sure you read it and said, "Man, this really makes me sound like a bigot." Well, you were right.

"A little celery is always nice after a good pee."

31
by Kevin Eleven :: Sun, 12/28/2008 - 12:46pm

I respectfully object to posts of this nature.

A question was put out there: why does college football have so few black coaches?

Someone then (more or less) countered by asking why football has so few defensive backs, and why isn't the media asking about this.

As a society, for the most part we're permitted to say "well, blacks are better athletes". On a good day we're allowed to point to look objectively at world records, olympic medals, etc and notice that blacks dominate in anything speed related.

But can we ask if whites are possibly better suited for certain things, and explore the possible reasons? Hell friggin' no, because that would be the act of a racist. Reggie White, who happened to be black and is also someone that did more for his fellow man on his short time on earth that the average person would in a hundred lifetimes, tried that once and was demonized for it.

Thus, when the question "Why Are There So Few Black Coaches in College Football?" is asked, the answer is "sorry, but we can't talk about it".

50
by sundown (not verified) :: Mon, 12/29/2008 - 3:35pm

You're missing the main point: It's not that everyone has decided blacks can't coach because their records have been so poor across the board; it's that they never get hired in the first place. In fact, as somebody posted above, the limited numbers suggest blacks do a pretty decent job as head coaches. Yet, they still struggle to get hired. And you have to look long and hard to find a black equivalent to somebody like Norv Turner, who keeps disappointing as a head coach yet still manages to get hired over and over again.

55
by MJK :: Tue, 12/30/2008 - 2:41pm

I agree with Kevin.

If you're going to have a discussion like this, you can't pile on people that bring up a point that logically might follow but is politically incorrect.

If a politically incorrect idea is suggested by some evidence, like the fact that whites on average have higher IQ scores than blacks, then it SHOULD be raised and discussed. Otherwise, people who are racist/bigoted will jsut say to themselves "well, the real answer is obvious, but no one's bringing it up because it's politically incorrect. Issue resolved". Only by open discussion can such ideas be addressed and possible causes be evaluated. And there may be many possible causes other than racial differences. Remember, correlation does not equal causation. In the above example, it is true that whites have, on average, higher IQ scores than blacks (and asians have higher IQ's than whites), but there are many plausible reasons for this, none of which are "whites are racially superior to blacks". We know that IQ scores tend to be strongly affected by socio-economic backgrounds--folks that have gone to good schools, read a lot of books, and had a certain amount of leisure time score higher than folks that went to bad schools, lived in high-crime neighborhoods, and had to work instead of staying home and reading--and we know that race and socio-economic backgrounds are currently correlated, so obviously we would expect whites to score better.

However, an observed correlation can BE causation for something else. In this case, it's entirely possible that because whites score higher, on average, in IQ tests that they're preceived by boosters and athletic department heads to be more likely to succeed as head coaches. So in this hypothetical logical train, socio-economic conditions, which happen to be correlated with race for historical reasons, could cause a racial divide for college coaches.

But don't pile on people for bringing something up. The key of to an intelligent discussion (or society) is discussing everything openly, even if it makes you uncomfortable and even if it is contrary to the prevailing public opinion.

33
by bob (not verified) :: Sun, 12/28/2008 - 5:28pm

Off topic: Do you type this in every time or is there some sort of signature function? Either way, this unfunny quote repeated like 12 times in this thread is painful to read. Is it really necessary to be the only person on these forums who does this?

36
by Harris :: Mon, 12/29/2008 - 2:09am

1) It's a signature
2) I'm not the only one who does it
3) That you find it annoying is reason enough to keep doing it

"A little celery is always nice after a good pee."

51
by sundown (not verified) :: Mon, 12/29/2008 - 3:40pm

At least if you were the only one doing it I could give you credit for originality. Now even that is gone.

And you realize it severely hurts your posts, don't you? Your posts are pretty well put together, but then you get to this strange thing at the end that has absolutely nothing to do with the topic. Most people likely say WTF? and write off the rest of what you said because of it.

30
by Aleph J. Null :: Sun, 12/28/2008 - 12:53am

So, to summarize, you think that black players on benches can't listen and learn from coaches, can't teach, are usually qualified for nothing above positional coaching, and are less intelligent since test scores indicate so much, and that you're a "teacher" because you "took some teaching classes in college" and have teachers for relatives?

Yikes.

"On the other hand, there are a number of white athletes who probably rode the bench, but listened and learned a lot from their coaches and are successful doing it."

I might suggest that there are a number of athletes who probably rode the bench and listened and learned a lot from their coaches.

53
by sundown (not verified) :: Mon, 12/29/2008 - 5:47pm

"A white example--Joe Montana. Wouldn't he be a GREAT QB coach at least?"

Just a few sentences earlier you were bragging about how with your high IQ you could teach way better than you played. But, suddenly you backtrack to saying that great players automatically equate to great coaches? I'd think that with a 140 IQ you'd be able to catch such obvious contradictions in your argument...

29
by socctty (not verified) :: Sat, 12/27/2008 - 11:29pm

Not sure if this point has been made, but I'll bring it up anyway: I heard Scott Van Pelt talking to Charles Barkley about this, and Van Pelt made the point that these same boosters are involved in the hiring of the black basketball coaches, of which the ACC has more than all of Div 1-A NCAA football. Why the disparity between sports?

32
by Mike K. (not verified) :: Sun, 12/28/2008 - 5:14pm

Kevin Eleven: That kind of post gets that kind of response because it's been established pretty thoroughly through scientific studies that there's no racial "intelligence gap" when you control for background and circumstances. The suggestion that white athletes are just smarter has been debunked. We're not talking about it for the same reason that, if we were to discuss geography, we wouldn't discuss the Flat Earth hypotheses.

Mr Shush: Actually, even coming from a generally liberal position, I feel like it's not direct racism as much as it is unconscious. Especially given how completely unacceptable overt racism is in the public sphere these days, teams can't afford that. It's more that the coaching network is quite strongly established in favor of white coaches that are already in the network and it's going to take a lot of work for black coaches to break into that.

socctty: A few potential reasons: football's more conservative, because its usually the bigger money sport, so it's safer to go with retreads than with new coaches. The turnover rate for basketball coaches is higher and that's generally acceptable; athletes can compete as freshmen, so there isn't the "Wait for his guys" argument that exists in football. Boosters are more comfortable handing the reins over to black coaches in a traditionally "black" sport, whereas football was a "white" sport for much longer than basketball, especially in some parts of the country. Those are some reasons that immediately spring to mind. I'm sure some people have looked into this in some depth.

34
by Kevin Eleven :: Sun, 12/28/2008 - 6:48pm

Mike K: I NEVER said there was an intelligence gap between blacks and whites, nor do I harbor that opinion. You owe me an apology for insinuating that I would suggest such a thing.

I invite you to read everything I've posted on this thread. I have not only stated that there is a problem, but that the problem is more acute that even the author of the article realizes.

On another thread I stated that Auburn totally screwed up by not hiring Turner Gill. I also think it's a tad suspect that no team has made Charlie Strong their head coach.

Frankly, you seem like a person that's a bit trigger happy when it comes to labeling another person as a racist. I'm not saying that to insult you, and I sincerely hope you give the matter some thought.

35
by Clemson matt (not verified) :: Sun, 12/28/2008 - 11:04pm

I enjoy reading the comments, but rarely reply.

Alot of people have made some good comments.

There is definitely a problem, but calling it racism, slavery, or blaming the system is jumping the gun.

There is a culture issue on the black side. All you have to do is hear someone black complaining the Obama's and the Huxtables are too "white".

They themselves focus on athleticism over intelligence, even though intelligence wise they have equivilent raw materials. Black kids look to be the next "Pookie" or Vince Young. Not Warren Moon. Aside from maybe Chris Leak. Saw him play at Independence and was amazed. I would think the way he was used at Florida was an issue, but Tebow's white, and is used the same way.

As a former teacher, it still pisses me off how many smart black kids passed on college.

There's an attitude about the system, or having to "act white" to succeed.

It has little to do with the boosters. The boosters for BB and FB have the same background, so why would one be different? As a Clemson grad, I was ecstatic about Oliver Purnell, but there's not a college black football coach out there I would want. (Mike Tomlin I would love.) Sam Mills would have been a great college coach. Made his career off of his intelligence and great fundamentals.

To add some anecdotal evidence to the comment there are fewer grad assistants, we saw that with RayRay Mcrathelby. After some issues, his FB scholarship was dropped, but was offered a Grad asst. scholarship. Instead of taking it, he transferred to a IAA school so he could play. Bobby Hutchinson, a white guy in the same position, took a Grad Asst position depite the fact he would have been a clear starter at a IAA school.

I think there's a view of blacks among whites as semiliterate jocks, but, it seems to me blacks see themselves that way (and some think it desirable), and have a tendency to live up to their own self image.

On blacks as being more athletic...faster on average maybe. Strength and especially power give me a Russian, Samoan, or cow wrestling Minnesotan. Check out your local O-line. And FB.

37
by Jack Russell (not verified) :: Mon, 12/29/2008 - 7:56am

I would have to do a study but i really doubt much racism is involved. If you look at the complexion of the players .. the NFL clearly has a larger percentage of black players than the college ranks. Racism? No. Its simply a bell curve analysis. There are far more whites among all football players than blacks. While blacks play at a higher level.

Since one of the places one draws coaches from is the rank of players. One would expect more black coaches in pro because there are more pro's who are black.

Furthermore, to expect the percentage of coaches to match the percentage of participants is not logical. The two endeavors require totally different skill sets.

Not all differences in race is racism. Why are blacks from Kenya great long distance runners and blacks from Jamaica great sprinters? There are genetic difference among the races and even within races.

bottom line don't be so damn focused on race .. if we can have a black president .. anything is possible. All this moaning and groaning about racism and inequality does us no good.

Is it any wonder that the first black president wasn't brought up in the black greivance / civil rights environment? No Barack Obama was never told by his parents / grand parents that he couldn't do this or that because of racism. And of course they were right.

Bottom line .. not every disparity between the races is racism.

dave

38
by ChiTown11111 (not verified) :: Mon, 12/29/2008 - 8:09am

I'm going to go somewhat out on a limb and say this: The best athletes often make the worst coaches. I also think that white families seem more supportive of their kid being a walk on for a football team than black families.

A successful coach who was a good player like Dungy is hard to come by, and Dungy was more work ethic than talent on the field anyway. Its hard to teach something that comes easy to you(I can do chemistry with my eyes closed but couldn't teach anyone how to solve an actual chemistry problem).

I know at my school there are alot more non-scholarship white football players than black ones, even with more black players on the team as a whole.

41
by Will :: Mon, 12/29/2008 - 12:32pm

Why are there so few Asian coaches at any level of any major professional/college sport? Why is Norm Chow always a highly sought after Offensive Coordinator, but never a highly sought after Head Coach?

It's not just a black/white thing.

Will

42
by turtle553 (not verified) :: Mon, 12/29/2008 - 1:54pm

Does anyone else think there would be an issue with black coaches trying to recruit in some of the white small towns where racism is a little more prevalent? Parents like that may not want their kids to play for a black coach.

Sad as it may be.

52
by sundown (not verified) :: Mon, 12/29/2008 - 3:46pm

Given that the majority of college players are black (including a huge majority of skill positions), I think that argument falls apart. But, that argument would only come into play if blacks were constantly failing as head coaches, instead of never getting hired in the first place. If I won't hire you because I perceive something is going to be a problem with nothing to back that up, the problem isn't with you.

54
by ChiTown11111 (not verified) :: Tue, 12/30/2008 - 6:19am

While racism is almost certainly present, you are ignoring the fact that most coaches were not talented skill players. They were often untalented linemen who had to struggle just to make the practice squad. That's why they know the game so much more than the wide receiver who could jump to a $10 million dollar salary every year.

Who would you rather hire as your coach? Randy Moss or Wes Welker? The answer is probably Welker because he actually has to run good routes to get open, not just burn it down the sideline and jump 20 feet in the air.

58
by MC2 :: Tue, 12/30/2008 - 9:53pm

Actually, Belichick said shortly after the Patriots acquired Moss that Moss had the best understanding of the game of any WR that he had ever encountered. I remember it well, because it conflicted so much with the conventional wisdom that Moss was just a freak of nature who excelled on the basis of nothing more than raw physical talent.

Of course, that doesn't mean your general point isn't valid. But that particular example isn't a very good one.

56
by MJK :: Tue, 12/30/2008 - 2:52pm

Could it just be as simple as "it hasn't been long enough?"

Coaching, like many things, is a "who you know" network, and it takes time to work up through the ranks. Figure the average head coach is ~45 right now--he would have been in his early 20's, the age you are when you start getting tied in as an adult to "who you know" in the mid 1980's. At that time, the important connections to make would be with the guys about ten years older, who whould have grown up in the late 60's and the 70's, when racisim was far more rampant and accepted. So maybe the young black men that might be our head coaches now just weren't making the right connections because the old white men that were in charge when they were starting their careers out WERE racist.

I suspect the longer we go, the more black college head coaches we will see, ESPECIALLY if we as a society begin to be successful at addressing the socio-economic conditions that tend to oppress minority races and that are the core source of the racial divide (whether we will succeed at this or just pile on more ineffective quotas and race-ratios remains to be seen, of course).

57
by Chris (not verified) :: Tue, 12/30/2008 - 9:26pm

I was listening to this topic on ESPN radio and I was proud that Mel Kiper didn't just tout the same old " yes, I am outraged we need more black head coaches". Kiper said the best man deserves the job. Do you want to name all those black offensive coordinators that deserve head coaching jobs? I find it interesting that most of the black coaches come from the defensive ranks.

Why is the race of the 32 NFL head coaches an issue anyway? Would it really make you feel better if the Lions/Bronocs/Jets hired Ty Willingham, Art Shell and Denny Green?

Why are so many people outraged with the low percentage of black head coaches, but they are perfectly fine with having zero hispanic/asian head coaches?

Having " not enough black coaches" is a "problem", having " not enough" black quaterbacks is a "problem", but having zero white cornerbacks is "fine"?

So should we all be cheering for black head coaches and white cornerbacks for the sake of equality? Is that the "right" thing?

Post new comment

The content of this field is kept private and will not be shown publicly.
  • Web page addresses and e-mail addresses turn into links automatically.
  • Allowed HTML tags: <a> <em> <strong> <cite> <code> <ul> <ol> <li> <dl> <dt> <dd>
  • Lines and paragraphs break automatically.

More information about formatting options

CAPTCHA
To skip this, please log in.