not enough black head coaches

[Cringer]

I don't know, this is obviously a very tough subject to get into. I will say that I think there is still some obvious racism in business today, and part of that may be classism (rich vs. poor).

I know that I thought that my own company, or our division atleast, had some racism in it. When there are a large percentage of black truck drivers in the country now, and my company didn't have any for a long time, I thought it was pretty odd. When the only black guy I saw in the office was the janitor, I thought it was pretty odd. Now it is not like that, but there are still very few black people that I know of who drive or work in the main office.

Now they have always had a large number of mexican/hispanic drivers. But they don't have much choice when hiring guys down, and they have to have guys based out of here.

As far as the coaching ranks of football, and the front offices, I am not so sure it is really there much anymore. There may be some, in a couple places, but not enough to hold back all black coaches.

[waltwal]

ok there is no question that the numbers of black coaches at any level is probably very low. but i think the issue is are they being passed over when it comes to advancement.

at the end of the 2005 season about 10% of 1-a schools will be looking to replace their coaches. now there will be a list of coaches that will be considered to succeed those coaches. my guess is that there will be very few qualified minority candidates on that list. whatever the reasons for not having many minority candidates on the list i don't believe that race is a factor.

i don't think it is the responsibility of ad's to seek out minority candidates but i do think that all qualified candidates should be judged on the same basis.

one point tho that i do think works against the black candidate is the issue of firings. i think willingham's case caused a problem for notre dame and i recall williams at michigan state was a problem. personally i think willingham was fired too soon but williams was a bad hire period.

[bob]

Back to Notre Dame - Let's be fair here. They didn't want to hire Willingham in the first place. I think it was a bad hire, but they were trying to hire another coach quickly after the O'Leary mess, and Willingham really wanted to coach there (he called and told them they made the wrong choice after O'Leary was hired).

I don't think race had anything to do with his hiring or firing. They just wanted to win. Unfortunately, he lost by 30+ points more times than during the rest of ND football history.

[bob]

Originally Posted by bob

Unfortunately, he lost by 30+ points more times than during the rest of ND football history.

OK, I can't find if this is accurate or not - I heard it on the radio, but can't find out stats for sure online. So it may or may not be right. However, big losses in his 3 years:

2002 - USC by 31 points
2003 - Michigan by 38, USC by 31, FSU by 37, Syracuse by 26
2004 - Purdue by 25, USC by 31

Not good.

[dawgfan]

Originally Posted by Rizon

# Blacks / Total Population * Average # of blacks interested in football / coaching positions = these aren't the droids you're looking for

And yet blacks make up a majority of the population of football players in college. Given that the vast majority of coaches in a given sport played that sport at a collegiate level, your argument about percentage of the total population falls flat.

[Ben E Lou]

Originally Posted by dawgfan

And yet blacks make up a majority of the population of football players in college. Given that the vast majority of coaches in a given sport played that sport at a collegiate level, your argument about percentage of the total population falls flat.

Of course, he did leave graduation rates out of his equation.

[dawgfan]

Originally Posted by waltwal

ok there is no question that the numbers of black coaches at any level is probably very low. but i think the issue is are they being passed over when it comes to advancement.

Well, duh - one of the primary reasons there aren't more black head coaches is that many black assistant coaches are getting passed-over. If you look at the number of black coaches, the percentage of assistant coaches that are black is low (around 27% IIRC), but much higher than the percentage of coordinators and very much higher than head coaches. What that shows is that blacks are getting more jobs as assistants, but they've yet to find themselves promoted as often.

Originally Posted by waltwal

at the end of the 2005 season about 10% of 1-a schools will be looking to replace their coaches. now there will be a list of coaches that will be considered to succeed those coaches. my guess is that there will be very few qualified minority candidates on that list. whatever the reasons for not having many minority candidates on the list i don't believe that race is a factor.

Why would you guess there will be few qualified minority candidates? And if you don't think race is a factor in these decisions, then why don't you come right out and specify what the factors are? Because if you follow a logical conclusion to this argument, and you rule out racism, then the only othe explanation is that you think blacks aren't as capable as whites of making good coaches. Are you prepared to defend this position?

Originally Posted by waltwal

i don't think it is the responsibility of ad's to seek out minority candidates but i do think that all qualified candidates should be judged on the same basis.

It might seem unfair to impose a requirement on AD's (or GM's in the pros) that they purposely seek out minority candidates to consider in their coaching searches. Then again, it was unfair when minorities simply weren't considered for such positions in past decades due to overt racism. I'm not an advocate of saying there should be strict proportional representation in the coaching ranks for minorities matching the percentage of minority players, but given that only 3 of 117 head coaching positions in Div 1-A college football are filled by blacks, I think it's self-evident that there is still a problem in hiring of minorities.

You're right that all qualified candidates should be judged on the same basis, and I think that's the problem - they're not. Picking qualified candidates in any job can be difficult - you frequently don't have "perfect" candidates that meet all your criteria, and thus you are forced to decide between candidates that have some flaw in their resume. Weighing these plusses and minuses is an inexact science (obviously so, otherwise you wouldn't see as many coaches being fired so quickly). I don't think most (if any) AD's any more are overtly racist. But, familiarity and comfort level play a big factor in hiring. Networking is key in this regard. And while I don't think most (if any) AD's are overtly racist, I strongly suspect that many of them, if you got down to the hard truth, would feel more comfortable with a white head coach than a black one, all other things being equal. I think that with some AD's, for a black coach to be hired as head coach, he has to be clearly the best candidate - if he's considered roughly equal to white candidates, he's not going to get the benefit of the doubt. I think that also applies to head coaches and the decisions they make on who to hire to their staff and more importantly who to promote to coordinator positions.

Originally Posted by waltwal

one point tho that i do think works against the black candidate is the issue of firings. i think willingham's case caused a problem for notre dame and i recall williams at michigan state was a problem. personally i think willingham was fired too soon but williams was a bad hire period.

The issue of political correctness and the fear of generating controversy by hiring and then having to face the possibility of firing a black head coach undoubtably makes some college presidents and AD's nervous and works against black coaching candidates. But, it's a vicious circle - until the percentage of black head coaches improves significantly, it's going to remain a hot-button issue in college football. While I don't think the NBA is perfect in this regard, issues of racism and coaches is not much of an issue at all any more. College football is a long way from this, and thus why this is still such a major topic of discussion.

I think this is an area that is slowly improving - the percentage of black assistant coaches is rising. As SkyDog pointed out, coaching careers are much longer than playing careers, and progress may seem slow due to this fact. While the percentage of black players currently is just under 50%, I don't think you can realistically expect the current percentage of coaches to match. You'd need to go back 10, 20, 30 years ago and look at what the percentage of black players was then to get a more realistic expectation.

As more and more blacks are hired on to coaching staffs, and not just as "token" black assistants for recruiting purposes, eventually more of them will get promoted to coordinator positions, the primary pool for new coaching candidates. Currently, while these numbers are improving, there's still a big gap in percentages of black coordinators vs. black assistants (about 10% vs. about 27% IIRC from previous research on the subject). As these numbers improve though, I think it's inevitable that you'll see more blacks promoted from coordinator positions to head coach positions.

As well, we'll know things are improving when more blacks that have been fired as head coaches get 2nd chances elsewhere. Something to keep in mind about blacks and head coaching opportunities, is usually they are not being hired into ideal positions. There has yet to be a situation where a black head coach inherits a prime coaching opportunity, such as succeeding Tom Osborne at Nebraska, Steve Spurrier at Florida or Nick Saban at LSU. Yes, many white coaches also get hired into poor job situations (one would argue that most coaching openings are poor situations by definition, otherwise why was the previous guy fired). But, I will argue that a black coach has yet to step into a great situation as many whites in the past have. And the problem with this is that, given that blacks often step into bad situations, they often don't succeed and are thus judged as failures and unworthy of a 2nd chance. Ty Willingham is the first black head coach fired at one job to land another head coaching job.

[dawgfan]

Originally Posted by SkyDog

Of course, he did leave graduation rates out of his equation.

True, and this is a problem the black community that rails against coaching inequities needs to address. Still, even if you look at the percentage of black football players from 20 years ago that have a college degree, I'd be willing to bet that it's still a higher percentage than the number of black assitant coaches currently.

[wbatl1]

Originally Posted by dawgfan

True, and this is a problem the black community that rails against coaching inequities needs to address. Still, even if you look at the percentage of black football players from 20 years ago that have a college degree, I'd be willing to bet that it's still a higher percentage than the number of black assitant coaches currently.

Yeah, some might have wanted to do something else than coach football.

On the subject, I see more and more black assistants every year, and they grow more important on the teams I watch. However, I still think they need time to develop. I can think of a black coordinator(Marvin Sanders), who was rushed into the coordinator position at Nebraska after a good but not stellar coaching career at small schools, and was then fired with the staff. However, he is doing very well at Carolina, working with a pretty good defesive staff and a defensive head coach. I think he will develop into a terrific coaching candidate, but it will take time and he needed to have experience at all levels.

[dawgfan]

Originally Posted by wbatl1

Yeah, some might have wanted to do something else than coach football.

And whites don't? Let's take this supposition you make and draw a logical conclusion from it - basically you're saying that if there's a disparity in the logical coaching pool and the actual coaches between whites and blacks, it's because more blacks than whites chose to do something other than football? Can you support this theory with any logical arguments as to why this might be true, or are you pulling a response out of your ass with no thought behind it?

[Airhog]

something that hasn't been brought up yet, but is an interesting question. How many black players think about becoming coaches when their career is done? Did more white players decided to go into coaching in say the last 20 years?

[Dutch]

I'll trade you 3 more head coaches and 2 more starting quarterbacks for 25 starting running backs and 50 starting corner backs.

Deal?

[dawgfan]

Originally Posted by Dutch

I'll trade you 3 more head coaches and 2 more starting quarterbacks for 25 starting running backs and 50 starting corner backs.

Deal?

I think it's pretty clear that on the field, meritocracy truly reigns. With the last hurdle of blacks at QB's decisively cleared in the last decade or so, I don't think there's much question that 99% of the coaches out there are color-blind when it comes to who plays, and at what positions.

Given the numbers of minority coaches, I think it's highly debatable that meritocracy reigns supreme in coaching hiring.

[dawgfan]

Originally Posted by Airhog

something that hasn't been brought up yet, but is an interesting question. How many black players think about becoming coaches when their career is done? Did more white players decided to go into coaching in say the last 20 years?

Can you come up with a reasonable, logical theory that would explain why this might be true?

[Dutch]

Originally Posted by dawgfan

I think it's pretty clear that on the field, meritocracy truly reigns. With the last hurdle of blacks at QB's decisively cleared in the last decade or so, I don't think there's much question that 99% of the coaches out there are color-blind when it comes to who plays, and at what positions.

Given the numbers of minority coaches, I think it's highly debatable that meritocracy reigns supreme in coaching hiring.

You haven't ruled out the stigma that "whiteboys can't jump or run"? How do we know if they aren't brought in to camp in an equal proportion? How do we know if they aren't recruited in college in equal proportion?

It's all very un-scientific really. I mean, if a coach is "color-blind" wouldn't it be fair to say the general manager is "color-blind" as well. Or is there something I'm missing that suggests that a general manager "kind of prefers winning" but the coach "really, really wants to win"?

Are you really suggesting that a coach will go out of his way to make sure he has the best team but the general manager is so blinded by hate that they will sacrifice winning seasons to get an average coach instead of an all-world black coach?

I guess it's possible, but I'm not convinced. That's my point.

[dawgfan]

Originally Posted by Dutch

You haven't ruled out the stigma that "whiteboys can't jump or run"? How do we know if they aren't brought in to camp in an equal proportion? How do we know if they aren't recruited in college in equal proportion?

The coaches in college don't have any control over who decides to turn out to play in H.S. If a kid is playing in H.S., the coaches will evaluate them and make a decision on who is worthy of being recruited. Since more blacks than whites get football scholarships, are you arguing that coaches are applying reverse-racism in terms of recruiting? There might be a grain of truth to that - the perception that blacks are better athletes than whites is pretty widely held at this point.

This is a dicey issue actually. Given the huge disparity between the percentage of blacks that constitute football and basketball rosters vs. the overall percentage of the population, it raises some fascinating points - is there a fundamental difference in the races that gives a slight edge to blacks in terms of athletic ability, or is it simply a difference in desire?

Originally Posted by Dutch

It's all very un-scientific really. I mean, if a coach is "color-blind" wouldn't it be fair to say the general manager is "color-blind" as well. Or is there something I'm missing that suggests that a general manager "kind of prefers winning" but the coach "really, really wants to win"?

A good point, but there is reasonable counter to it. The dynamic between a coach and his players is different than an AD (or GM) and his coaches. To put it in crude terms, the players are the cogs to make the machine go, the grunts, while the coaching staff is the management level. In that regard, the racial composition of the cogs or grunts doesn't matter really. While the coaches spend time instructing the players, the people they spend the most time around and the ones on their level are their fellow coaches - these are the guys they have to spend many hours with devising gameplans and coming up with an agreed-upon path to success, and so that comfort level factor looms much higher.

I don't think any AD (or GM) these days knowingly passes over a black head coach he thinks is superior, or head coaches pass over black assistants for coordinator positions that they think are clearly superior. But I do think that given two roughly equal candidates, the black candidate is more often than not going to get passed-over in favor of the white candidate, primarily due to the comfort/familiarity factor.

Originally Posted by Dutch

Are you really suggesting that a coach will go out of his way to make sure he has the best team but the general manager is so blinded by hate that they will sacrifice winning seasons to get an average coach instead of an all-world black coach?

You're exaggerating what I've said. I've not once said that AD's or GM's currently are blinded with hate. I've not once said that an AD or GM would pass over an all-world black coach in favor of an average white coach, at least knowingly. I don't think there is overt racism at work. But that doesn't mean that race isn't playing a major factor in the decisions, even if it's subconscious.

First off, I don't think there are many truly obviously great coaches out there. A guy that may look great at one school or team for a period of time might not look so great at a later date or with another team (see: Mike Holmgren, George Seifert, etc.) I think most coaching candidates out there have some flaws.

What I'm saying is, given that the vast majority of AD's out there are white, it's probable that when they are evaluating coaching cadidates, the factor of comfort level and familiarity means that white candidates are going to get a greater benefit of the doubt than blacks. A black candidate probaby has to be a definite notch above the white candidates to get the job.

Originally Posted by Dutch

I guess it's possible, but I'm not convinced. That's my point.

OK, fair enough. But if you're not convinced race is a factor in the hiring practices in division 1-A college football, how would explain the numbers? If you agree that the majority of the candidates that make up the pool of future college football coaches comes from former college football players, then you have to acknowledge that there's a much higher percentage of whites holding coaching positions than you would expect given the potential candidate pool. Above and beyond that, there are much fewer black coordinators percentage wise than black assistant coaches. Furthermore, there are much fewer black head coaches as a percentage than coordinators. Why? Are you arguing that, for whatever reason, fewer black former football players have chosen/are choosing to enter the coaching ranks? There might be some legitimate reasons why this might be true, but I'd like to hear someone from your viewpoint present them. Are you arguing that somehow blacks simply aren't as likely to make good coaching candidates? Do you have some other explanation?

You don't like the theory I've put forth, fine. What's your theory?

[Rizon]

Can someone explain what Division 1a college football is? I don't watch college sports. Is it just in one area or is it around the country?

[Rizon]

Originally Posted by dawgfan

And yet blacks make up a majority of the population of football players in college. Given that the vast majority of coaches in a given sport played that sport at a collegiate level, your argument about percentage of the total population falls flat.

So we should see more black coaches in say, 10-15 years.
How many black coaches are in this div1a thing now, compared to say 5-10-15-20 years ago?

[Dutch]

Originally Posted by dawgfan

You don't like the theory I've put forth, fine. What's your theory?

My theory is that every team, whether it is college or pro, that wants to win, will recruit/hire players and coaches regardless of skin color.

There is no cookie-cutter rulebook, but I would bet that a vast majority of colleges and pro teams would rate skill first, chemistry/personality second, and skin color off-the-chart last.

Well, except for Grambling.

Is there racism? Absolutely, just like there is racism everywhere. But is it out of control in sports? Does it need to be controlled? I don't think so. Again, I'm not saying I'm right, I agree that what you say could very well be true.

[dawgfan]

Originally Posted by Rizon

Can someone explain what Division 1a college football is? I don't watch college sports. Is it just in one area or is it around the country?

Division 1-A is the highest level of collegiate football. I believe there are currently 117 teams at that level, though I might be off by 2-3 schools. It's not limited by region, it's simply the schools that feel they are able to compete at the highest level of the sport and meet the NCAA minimum standards in terms of attendence. Also, at the divsion 1-A level, schools are allowed to issue more scholarships for football (85) than at lower levels. Given federally mandated gender equity rules (title 9) this means that a school's athletic department better be bringing in enough revenue or the state must be willing to subsidize the program enough to provide enough other sports for women to provide the required level of gender balance to their scholarship output.

[dawgfan]

Originally Posted by Dutch

My theory is that every team, whether it is college or pro, that wants to win, will recruit/hire players and coaches regardless of skin color.

Yes, they all want to win. That doesn't mean there aren factors that are clouding their judgement.

Originally Posted by Dutch

There is no cookie-cutter rulebook, but I would bet that a vast majority of colleges and pro teams would rate skill first, chemistry/personality second, and skin color off-the-chart last.

Well, except for Grambling.

Sure they would. But that doesn't mean that's actually what's happening when they make their decision, unless you're arguing that black coaching candidates are inferior when it comes to skill and personality. And if you are, I'd be curious to hear your defense of that position.

Originally Posted by Dutch

Is there racism? Absolutely, just like there is racism everywhere. But is it out of control in sports? Does it need to be controlled? I don't think so. Again, I'm not saying I'm right, I agree that what you say could very well be true.

That's my point as well. I don't think a requirement should be placed on hiring practices to enforce some level of equity. But, I also think this issue should be on the front burner so long as the numbers are out of whack when it comes to blacks and coaching jobs in college football. As I've said repeatedly, I don't think there is overt racism happening. I think it's rather a case of subconscious factors. I also think things are improving as a whole, as the percentage of black assitant coaches rises. Eventually more of them will get promoted to coordinator positions, and eventually more of those coordinators will get hired as head coaches, and eventually more of those head coaches that are fired will get 2nd (and 3rd) chances to be head coaches elsewhere. I think you'll eventually see more minorities in place as AD's and Presidents as well.

I think that the low numbers we're seeing now are a legacy of the impact of racism in this country, but I do think things are improving. I also think it's fair to keep banging away on this issue until the numbers get a lot better.

[waltwal]

well it is evident from the number and quality of the responses on this subject that this is not a subject that is easily dealt with.

i go back to my original reaction. it is not something to sound off about on national tv when the situation is not understood. people hear something like this and automaticaly assume that there is an issue of racism when there may be other factors at play here.

one point i would disagree with tho is that i think on the whole the few black coaches that have been promoted were given very good jobs. oklahoma, michigan state, ucla, miss st.,northwestern and stanford are on the whole pretty good starting points.

[Raiders Army]

If someone is mulatto, do they count as white or black?

[MalcPow]

Originally Posted by SkyDog

Bingo. On the same note, why is it that we're now starting to see so many black QB's? Doug Williams gave the final validation when he won the Super Bowl in around '88, but also right around that time, Greenville HS in Greenville, GA had *one* white kid on the team, and all white coaches. Guess what position Kevin Hudson played. Yup, QB. I'd be willing to bet that at that time the recreational leagues and junior highs also played a white kid at QB by default. Yeah, NFL coaches were willing to play the best player available at QB, and NFL fans were willing to accept the best player available, but because of the history of racism, there weren't dozens of black QB's just waiting in the wings. Most hadn't been groomed as QB's. But somewhere, around 15-20 years ago I'd suspect, even in rural Southern towns it became acceptable to have a black QB, and now that black kids have grown up with unfettered access to the QB position from park ball to junior high to high school to college, you're seeing more and more who are ready for the pros. The same thing is happening in the coaching ranks, but it is just taking a little longer, primarily, I think, because coaching careers take a little longer to develop than do playing careers.

This is an interesting point as well. I guess the only question is, have black coaches had their Doug Williams yet? I don't mean this as some sort of requirement to open the door for future black coaches, but I agree that Williams legitimized the idea of a black quarterback, probably most importantly for black kids themselves. Maybe this hasn't happened yet for black coaches, does Lewis or Crennel or Dungy or Green or whoever need to win a Super Bowl? It couldn't hurt I guess.

[dawgfan]

Originally Posted by waltwal

one point i would disagree with tho is that i think on the whole the few black coaches that have been promoted were given very good jobs. oklahoma, michigan state, ucla, miss st.,northwestern and stanford are on the whole pretty good starting points.

Oklahoma the previous 2 seasons to John Blake:
6-6
5-5-1

Not a horrible situation, but also not a great one either as Oklahoma was in a downward slide. Blake didn't help the situation, but this wasn't the Oklahoma of Barry Switzer, Bud Wilkinson or Bob Stoops.

Michigan State: Saban left MSU on a high note, so this is probably the best situation of the list. Still, MSU hasn't been consistently successful for a long time, so the fact Williams was fired late in only his 3rd season at 15-17 overall is a bit of a head-scratcher.

UCLA the previous 4 seasons to Karl Dorrell:
4-7
6-6
7-4
8-5

Not bad, but the Bruins were also a ways off from their glory days, a fact compounded by the resurgence of the Trojans. UCLA is a also a school on the cheap that, financially at least, doesn't prioritize football.

Mississippi State the previous 3 seasons to Sylvester Croom:
3-8
3-9
2-10

Do I really need to say any more here?

Northwestern the previous 3 seasons to Dennis Green:
0-10-1
1-10
0-11

Quite possibly the worst division 1-A program at the time.

Stanford the previous 2 seasons to Dennis Green:
5-6
3-6-2

Stanford has had moments of glory, but are usually mediocre. Green took over at a low point as the Cardinal had backslid under Jack Elway.

Stanford the previous 2 seasons to Ty Willingham:
4-7
3-7-1

Again, the Cardinal was backsliding under "the Genius" Bill Walsh following a rare Stanford Pac-10 co-championship.

So, of those jobs listed, I'd rate Michigan State and UCLA as relatively decent situations, Oklahoma and Stanford as mediocre situations, Mississippi State a bad situation and Northwestern an awful situation. None of them was a great situation - no Ron Zook at Florida, Larry Coker at Miami, Frank Solich at Nebraska, John Robinson at USC, etc.

[cuervo72]

Originally Posted by SkyDog

Bingo. On the same note, why is it that we're now starting to see so many black QB's? Doug Williams gave the final validation when he won the Super Bowl in around '88, but also right around that time, Greenville HS in Greenville, GA had *one* white kid on the team, and all white coaches. Guess what position Kevin Hudson played. Yup, QB. I'd be willing to bet that at that time the recreational leagues and junior highs also played a white kid at QB by default.

Probably true. I wonder though, if in some cases the coach had a couple of these guys:

Player A - White Guy, Big Arm, can't do jack otherwise
Player B - Black Guy, Big Arm, runs 4.4 40



I know that's pretty specific, but I could see that happening, and in that case Player A doesn't do you any good anywhere else, but Player B does. Might as well utilize both. Unless you run an option offense...

Side note: here's my HS's QB my senior year. Corny was one darned elusive mofo, saw him spin out of more tackles...oh, he could hurl the ball a good 60 yards too. (I think we might have had one other black kid on the team, and he was like a 5'6" soph).

http://www.columbusdestroyers.com/team/bio.php?id=22

(VPI will like that one)

[Klinglerware]

Interesting stuff on this thread--kudos to everyone for not letting this degenerate.

I tend to agree with those that believe that at this point in time, there is really little overt racism in coaching hiring decisions. But with that being said, minority candidates are currently a bit hamstrung by the nepotism inherent in the incestuous nature of the coaching fraternity. I would presume that this will change over time, as minority coaches gain even more critical mass...

Someone on this thread mentioned the idea that minority coaches consider the NFL more meritocratic than 1-a NCAA football. This is an interesting idea--could it be that there are more people/community/fundraising responsibilities in big-time college football that ADs may be more willing to entrust to a person from the majority community? In the NFL, you can concentrate on the X's and O's, but in college, you also have to recruit players and glad-handle the alumni. This might have hurt Willingham at ND and it has hurt Chow when he is up for 1-A head coaching jobs.

Chow has a reputation for being reserved, but there are others in the profession with similar reputations who have been given the benefit of the doubt. I do wonder if pre-conceived notions do hinder Chow's quest for a 1-a head coaching job, especially when it comes to stereotyping regarding how alumni or recruits may not be able to identify with and relate to Chow, etc.

[dawgfan]

Originally Posted by Klinglerware

Someone on this thread mentioned the idea that minority coaches consider the NFL more meritocratic than 1-a NCAA football. This is an interesting idea--could it be that there are more people/community/fundraising responsibilities in big-time college football that ADs may be more willing to entrust to a person from the majority community? In the NFL, you can concentrate on the X's and O's, but in college, you also have to recruit players and glad-handle the alumni. This might have hurt Willingham at ND and it has hurt Chow when he is up for 1-A head coaching jobs.

Chow has a reputation for being reserved, but there are others in the profession with similar reputations who have been given the benefit of the doubt. I do wonder if pre-conceived notions do hinder Chow's quest for a 1-a head coaching job, especially when it comes to stereotyping regarding how alumni or recruits may not be able to identify with and relate to Chow, etc.

Indeed, this is a big difference between the NFL and big-time college football. In college, the head coach also has to worry about a large cadre of big-money boosters. Much of his non-coaching schedule is taken up by glad-handing these guys and making them feel important and part of the program. This is an additional consideration that AD's have to worry about that GM's don't - while the head coach in the NFL is still the public face of the team, he really only has to please the GM and the owner. In college, he has to please the AD, the school President, and the majority of the big-money boosters. I think this is likely a big reason that the SEC didn't have a black head football coach until Croom was hired in 2004 at Mississippi State.

[AENeuman]

"not enough black head coaches"

How about Gregg Popovich?

opps, my bad, thought this was about society being more "pro-acne"

[wbatl1]

Originally Posted by dawgfan

Oklahoma the previous 2 seasons to John Blake:
6-6
5-5-1

Not a horrible situation, but also not a great one either as Oklahoma was in a downward slide. Blake didn't help the situation, but this wasn't the Oklahoma of Barry Switzer, Bud Wilkinson or Bob Stoops.

Michigan State: Saban left MSU on a high note, so this is probably the best situation of the list. Still, MSU hasn't been consistently successful for a long time, so the fact Williams was fired late in only his 3rd season at 15-17 overall is a bit of a head-scratcher.

UCLA the previous 4 seasons to Karl Dorrell:
4-7
6-6
7-4
8-5

Not bad, but the Bruins were also a ways off from their glory days, a fact compounded by the resurgence of the Trojans. UCLA is a also a school on the cheap that, financially at least, doesn't prioritize football.

Mississippi State the previous 3 seasons to Sylvester Croom:
3-8
3-9
2-10

Do I really need to say any more here?

Northwestern the previous 3 seasons to Dennis Green:
0-10-1
1-10
0-11

Quite possibly the worst division 1-A program at the time.

Stanford the previous 2 seasons to Dennis Green:
5-6
3-6-2

Stanford has had moments of glory, but are usually mediocre. Green took over at a low point as the Cardinal had backslid under Jack Elway.

Stanford the previous 2 seasons to Ty Willingham:
4-7
3-7-1

Again, the Cardinal was backsliding under "the Genius" Bill Walsh following a rare Stanford Pac-10 co-championship.

So, of those jobs listed, I'd rate Michigan State and UCLA as relatively decent situations, Oklahoma and Stanford as mediocre situations, Mississippi State a bad situation and Northwestern an awful situation. None of them was a great situation - no Ron Zook at Florida, Larry Coker at Miami, Frank Solich at Nebraska, John Robinson at USC, etc.

But the very, very large majority of job openings are for schools that are not preforming up to snuff because why fire the coach if the team is performing? The few terrific job openings you mention come from a coach leaving or retiring, and the program ALWAYS looks to an established, good coach. This person almost always has successful head coaching experience, and entered at a school that was not in a terrific position. So, every coach has to enter somewhere, and they almost always enter into a not great or bad situation. The top jobs come from coaches leaving. Also, the blacks have not been getting head jobs until pretty recently, and thus, do not have the experience one of the top programs would look for and consider a job requirement. This should change, though.

[wbatl1]

Originally Posted by dawgfan

And whites don't? Let's take this supposition you make and draw a logical conclusion from it - basically you're saying that if there's a disparity in the logical coaching pool and the actual coaches between whites and blacks, it's because more blacks than whites chose to do something other than football? Can you support this theory with any logical arguments as to why this might be true, or are you pulling a response out of your ass with no thought behind it?

You were using the fact that the number of black football players who have a degree is higher than the number of black coaches to back up your argument. I was just pointing our that this statistic is invaldid, because there is no relationship between degree and coaching. Everyone with a degree does not want to or get to coach. Also, a degree is not necesarily required to coach.

[dawgfan]

Originally Posted by wbatl1

But the very, very large majority of job openings are for schools that are not preforming up to snuff because why fire the coach if the team is performing?

True. There are essentially 3 situations where a head coaching job opens in college:

- The coach is fired/pressured to resign
- The coach leaves for a better job elsewhere
- The coach retires

In the first example, which is probably the most common, you could say that by definition, the job situation must not be that great if the previous guy got fired. The truth is it's not quite that simple - some of those situations are better than others. Anyone taking over Northwestern from the late '70's on through the mid-'80's was taking on a major reconstruction project. Same thing with Oregon State until Mike Riley got them headed in the right direction for Dennis Erickson. Contrast that with the situation Charlie Weis inherited at Notre Dame - that's a much better situation in which to land. Look at the difference in the Washington job between when Rick Neuheisel was hired and when Ty Willingham was hired. In the former, Jim Lambright had done well, but had fallen short of high expectations in the wake of Don James. Neuheisel inherited a fairly good team and a program that was still strong. Contrast that with the situation Ty Willingham inherited - a team coming off their worst season in history, talent levels lower than any time in the last 30 years, a program in major decline. Neuheisel walked into a much better situation than Ty.

In the second scenario, the job is often a pretty good situation - the coach is leaving for a better job because he's made a name for himself building up the current program. Mike Bellotti succeeding Rich Brooks at Oregon or Bill Doba succeeding Mike Price at Washington State come to mind.

In the third scenario, the job is often a very good situation, though the pressure to live up to the previous guy can be tough (just ask Frank Solich).

Originally Posted by wbatl1

The few terrific job openings you mention come from a coach leaving or retiring, and the program ALWAYS looks to an established, good coach. This person almost always has successful head coaching experience, and entered at a school that was not in a terrific position.

Utter bullshit. Larry Coker. Ron Zook. Jim Lambright. Rick Neuheisel. Tom Osborne. All assistant coaches with no head coaching experience that were hired to replace a very successful coach that retired or took another job. Not once has one of these situations been handed to a black assistant coach. In fact, at Colorado they opted to go with a guy that wasn't even a coordinator in Rick Neuheisel over the guy most surrounding the situation thought deserved the job - Bob Simmons, the assistant head coach (and a black man).

Originally Posted by wbatl1

So, every coach has to enter somewhere, and they almost always enter into a not great or bad situation. The top jobs come from coaches leaving. Also, the blacks have not been getting head jobs until pretty recently, and thus, do not have the experience one of the top programs would look for and consider a job requirement. This should change, though.

As I've proven, previous success as a head coach is frequently not a requirement to land a good coaching job.

[dawgfan]

Originally Posted by wbatl1

You were using the fact that the number of black football players who have a degree is higher than the number of black coaches to back up your argument. I was just pointing our that this statistic is invaldid, because there is no relationship between degree and coaching. Everyone with a degree does not want to or get to coach. Also, a degree is not necesarily required to coach.

You're missing my point. Why is it the percentage of white assistant coaches and head coaches is so much higher than that of former college football players with degrees as compared to blacks?

The only reason I'm including the "with a degree" part is that's a requirement to be a coach at the major college level.

Here's the deal - the vast majority of coaches in college are former collegiate players. Agreed? Since we know that blacks currently make up the largest percentage of players in football, and have been nearly equal to whites for a long time, it's very curious that while the pool would appear to be something like 55% white and 45% black, the numbers are instead about 75% white and 25% black. The question here is why?

Part of the difference might be college degrees. I don't have those numbers, but it may be that a smaller percentage of black players earned their degree than white players, thus increasing the size of the white coaching pool. Would such a difference (if it exists) account for that huge disparity in the actual coach numbers? I have a hard time believing it.

This is what I'm asking - what is causing this big disparity in the logical coaching pool numbers and the actual coach numbers between blacks and whites?

[John Galt]

Originally Posted by dawgfan

I have a hard believing it.

That seems a little inappropriate given the subject matter of this thread.

Otherwise, great post.

[dawgfan]

Originally Posted by John Galt

That seems a little inappropriate given the subject matter of this thread.

Otherwise, great post.

Oops...fixed it.

[Laddin]

What it really comes down to is boosters. Athletic directors knowing they have to attract large amounts of money from boosters hire the safest selection...a white coach perceiving that he will be better able to relate to boosters. Black players that aspire to become coaches can see the barriers in front of them...ie I may not get a fair shake, so I'm not going to bother playing the game.

It takes an unusual person in a position of power to take a chance and give an opportunity with no such hang-ups. (See Al Davis) And when the opportunity comes, there is still reluctance to take it because of the Jackie Robinson syndrome. You are carrying the hopes of an entire race. if you fail, how long will it be until the next opportunity arises for someone else.

[GMO]

Aren't there a disproportionate number of blacks playing football?
Couldn't that be perceived as bias against whites or Asians?

[dawgfan]

Originally Posted by GMO

Aren't there a disproportionate number of blacks playing football?
Couldn't that be perceived as bias against whites or Asians?

An intellectually lazy argument, unless you seriously want to argue that there isn't meritocracy on the football field.