I think Chizik, despite the two crappy seasons at Iowa State, has a better resume.
landing spot. will be interesting to see how he does.
I think Chizik, despite the two crappy seasons at Iowa State, has a better resume.
Is Mississippi State not the deep south? They had a black head coach, and they fired him, because he was bad. Ty Willingham couldn't recruit to ND(!) and just finished 0-12 at a traditionally strong program in a conference full of fairly easy wins. A lot of programs have given black head coaches a chance and they have had a very low success rate. I'll agree with the racism when a school fires a black head coach who is winning football games, but saying that one guy is hired over another because of his race is silly. Teams want to win.
dude, Sylvester Croom was the first black coach in the SEC, ever. It was a huge deal when he was hired. A lot of programs have given black head coaches a chance? ND, Washington (on the same guy), and Mississippi State do not constitute as a lot however. Watching ESPN yesterday, Mark Schalabach said he spoke with 2 SEC coaches who said Turner Gill would not be hired at Auburn for one reason; not that he was black but because his wife is white. That is racist.
I don't know how the process should be changed so that more black coaches in college are given opportunities but just look at the amount of black athletes in the NCAA, particularly football. The amount of black coaches in NCAA football does not fairly reflect the amount of black players on the field. Not even close.
The argument that there are so many black players but not many black coaches is a baseless argument. It takes completely different skills to coach football than it does to play it. There are a number of very unathletic people who are outstanding coaches and great football players who couldn't coach to save their lives.
Every year there is a fuss made because a black coach isn't hired somewhere and the college is blamed for being racist, as if there are no other good reasons the candidate was hired.
Its generally been shown that very few coaches were ever great players. Most were mediocre players with solid work ethics, like RR. This may be because there are a lot more mediocre athletes than there are great ones or it could be that generally the two skill sets are rare to find in the same person. Michigan has one of the few, in its hockey program, but besides Red I can't think of any others really.
Hockey is a little different though. It is less complex than football and is less about X's and O's than it is about teaching skills, which they once h ad.
I can only name a few, but that is because I am young and these players were not of my generation.
Guy Carbenneau (Montreal)
Denis Savard, Chicago
Craig MacTavish, Edmonton
Randy Carlyle, Anaheim
Jacques Lemaire, Minnesota
Probably many others in the minors and college ranks (maybe even the NHL, like i said...)
Terry Crisp, Calgary
Trent Yawney, Chicago
Mike Milbury, Boston
Gerry Cheevers, Boston
Mike Murphy, Toronto
4 of the Sutter brothers
Dave Poulin also coached for Notre Dame, and iirc really helped turn that program around.
I'm going to mention Don Cherry as well. He may have only had a token appearance in the NHL, but what the hell.
Otherwise, Jacques Demers is the only one I can think of offhand that didn't play in the majors or minors. Everyone else I can think of had at least some time in the minors.
I generally agree with your statement of differences, though I wouldn't say hockey is necessarily less complex. The complexity is just less in strategy and more in technique, skill (which you alluded to) and line play.
Andy Murray and Tom Renney never played in the majors or minors, either.
Murray played in the juniors, but I don't count that. I don't know of any playing time Renney got at any level.
babcock? If you count two years in the WHL as the "minors" then you win, otherwise...yea.
The CHL leagues and college hockey are really a different beast. They're more comparable to college football than anything.
I could have sworn that Babcock played in the minors, but I guess not.
But no, I'm not counting the juniors. There might be an argument to include coaches that played in the junior leagues, but I'm using the minors as a brightline cutoff.
A lot of this is based on memory, with some double checking at hockeydb.com, so there could be plenty of coaches that I'm not thinking of that didn't at least play at the minor level. Jacques Demers was the only one I could think of offhand last night.
And just to be clear, I do not mean to suggest that one cannot coach without having played at least in the minors. There just seems to be a helluva lot that did. If I have the time or inclination, I might go through all of the current HC's to see how that works out.
[EDIT: I don't know why I didn't think of it, but I don't believe Bowman ever played in the minors, and he is arguably the best to have ever coached the game.]
Bowman played for Ottawa Junior Canadiens, who were Major Junior. But at the time, major junior were minor league teams and the Canadiens were a farm team for Montreal. So take that how you will.
I thought he coached the Ottawa Junior Canadiens and played for the Montreal Junior Canadiens. Either way, you're right that he played major junior and it was affiliated with Montreal.
The juniors are a complicated animal, because they can be considered both pro (as in they get paid) and amateur. It gets more complicated the further back one goes. Another reason why I used the minors (by which I mean minor pro, and not paid amateur) as the cutoff. But if someone wants to look to take into account the major juniors at any point in time, I have no objection to that.
Michel Therrien (Pittsburgh) played in the AHL.
This is exactly why I laughed at Notre Dame fans who were saying Weis lack of college playing experience was the major flaw in his coaching. It's common in basketball for a coach to have never played in college.
the distribution of football talent in the football coaching population is proportional to the general populace.
It is not a baseless argument. Pretty much every sport, and for that matter every level of football, more closely represents the demographics of the players than D1-A NCAA football. NBA, NCAAB, and the NFL all have significant proportions of black players and coaching ranks that more closely resemble those proportions. And in those leagues, like NCAA Football, the majority of coaches (not everyone, but the majority) are former players, so it makes absolute sense that the coaching ranks should just by statistical probability, reasonably represent the demographics of players from the league.
I will not say that every time a black coach is passed over for a job, it's because of the color of his skin. But if you do not believe that somewhere along the line, the system in NCAA football is broken, either in promotion to head coaching jobs, in the development of grad. assistants, or just the general promotion of black coaches, then you are just blind to reality.
It may be a statistical probability (emphasis on "may"), but you have to remember that you can't commpare the number of minority players TODAY with the number of minority coaches today to make this comparison. You need to compare the number of minority players 20+ years ago to make this comparison.
Maybe the percentage of black players in D1A has increased over the last 30 years, but I would be surprised if it were drastic. Even if you acknowledge that southern major college football was predominately white until the mid 70's (which equates to coaches who are in their mid 50's and older), there were plenty of blacks playing football throughout the country and for historically black schools in the south. Taking all this into account, it's embarrassing that the percentage of black coaches is so far out of line when compared to the percentage of black college football players in the era in which those coaches played.
Do the best students always make the best teachers? Do the best salesman always make the best sales managers? Is the captain of the team always the best player?
I feel like we debunked this argument a while ago.
I never said that the best players make the best coaches, I just said the vast, vast majority of coaches have college playing experience, with most having experience at D1 schools. So in your terms. The best students don't always make the best teachers, but you have to have some experience as a student to become a teacher.
"We" didn't debunk the argument that the ratio of black coaches should somewhat resemble the ratio of black players. You made that statement, and I disagree. When the majority of coaches come from specific pool of potential candidates, it's reasonable to expect that the demographics of the coaches somewhat resembles the demographics of the pool of candidates.
Maybe the basis of your argument is that black players = great players and white players = marginal players, and if that's what you believe, I'll never convince you that your viewpoint on the lack of black coaches in NCAAF is wrong.
Saying that the vast, vast majority of coaches have D1 playing experience is wrong, and if you're going to make such a bold statement that your argument hinges on, it's a good idea to back it up with something. Otherwise it looks like something that you just think is true, because I don't think it is.
I don't think all great players are black, take a look at this years Heisman voting. The 3 finalists were white, Graham Harrell was 4th in the voting. In fact, of the Heisman winners this decade, 7 have been white and 2 have been black.
I didn't say that the vast, vast majority were D1 players, I said the vast, vast majority had college playing experience with most having D1 experience. Look at UM's staff, 9 of 10 have college football experience (the only one that doesn't comes from a family of football coaches) and 6 had some level of D1 playing experience. I scanned LSU's coaching staff and found similar results. I don't have coaching stats on my fingertips, but a quicklook survey supports my statement.
It seems to me that you think the Charlie Weis' of the world are common, which is simply not true.
It's not that many of them are like Charlie Weis, but a lot of coaches played D2 and D3 football, which is way more white than D1. Take a look at Hillsdale's or Albion's football roster and you'll see. Lloyd played D2 football at Northern Michigan. Those types are very common among coaches, and when you throw those levels along with NAIA football into the mix, you'll see that college football as a whole is a majority white.
I'm not reading this or the comment above, but I do feel that Charlie Weis is a vast, vast amount of the total MASS of all D-1 Head coaches.
The demographics of the coaches do resemble the demographics of the pool of candidates. Look at the coaching ranks at just about any level of football: the coaches are predominantly middle aged white men. That, and not the players, is the pool of candiates for coaching hires. Why does no one ever stop to ask the simple question of whether the problem actually lies from not enough minorities seeking coaching jobs at the lower levels, which would naturally perpetuate throughout the coaching ranks. Believe it or not people actually, in general, have to be interested in a job before they will apply for it. Sure, it could be racism, but it also just as easily could not. Everyone seems to want to just look at the end result without actually looking to see whether the reality actually supports that conclusion.
Your conclusion would be justified if the only factor that applied was race. It isn't as simple as that.
Of course race isn't the only factor, I never said it was. If that were true, I'd expect the percentage of black coaches and black players to be identical. I don't. I just want people to recognize that the percentage of black head coaches is so far out of line with the percentage of black players for the past 30 years, that race HAS to be at least part of the equation.
This is just naive. I can't believe how many excuses everyone is making. OH, well this is a better sport for X's and O's, oh ND learned their lesson, Oh well this happened here, etc, etc. Do you all actually believe that there isn't any racist undertones in college football? People have also cited that there aren't many good candidates as head coaches right now. That is EXACTLY the point. What steps and measures were taken to allow the black coaches into the coaching ranks as GA's, then position coaches in the first place.
But anyway, I just can't believe so many people here on mgoblog are so naive to this and have come up with a plethora of excuses as to why we haven't seen black head coaches in college football (but have in college bball, nba, nfl, etc.). This should be an educated crowd who isn't blind to an obvious problem. It's not like anyone is blaming you for there not being any black coaches, I just can't believe how many people don't even acknowledge this as an issue.
Instead of bashing the readers of this board as ignorant, as you effectively did in your last paragraph, maybe (just maybe) it is your point of view that is wrong. Afterall, this it is a board made up of some pretty well educated people. It's awfully arrogant of you to take away from that disagreement that you are right and they are wrong.
It isn't arrogant of me to disagree with people. And I didn't bash anyone. I just couldn't people how many of us didn't think that this is not an issue.
I think part of the reasoning for why some people don't think this is an issue to the same extent as others comes from the fact that there are a lot of other reasons that help explain this issue other than racism, but racism is always thrown out there as the be all, end all answer.
Also, you say that this is not an issue in basketball. Just out of curiousity (and this is an honest question), how many NCAA D1 basketball coaches are minorities?
I will put it this way: there are 5 more black head coaches coaching ACC Basketball than in Division 1 football.
Thanks. Like I said, it was an honest question. Does anyone know the total for all of division I though?
i had miss. state in mind when i wrote this. hence i said "at a lot of these schools..." florida doesn't count as the deep south so don't bother mentioning randy shannon. besides those two, who else of note?
Ty Willingham recruited Brady Quinn, Jeff Samardizja, John Carlson, Darius Walker, Tom Zbikowski, etc. In retrospect (after the UW debacle) he may be a bad coach, but there is no doubt that he got the short end of the stick at the time, when he was considered a hotshot coach, whereas Fat Weis reaped the benefits of Willingham's recruits and got a 10 year extension and football genius treatment for losing to USC. Whatever - like turbocool said, Willingham is just one guy
My point was that a lot of them never get a chance in the first place. This is a question (not a rhetorical one) when was the last time Michigan/Ohio State/USC/Alabama/Florida/Oklahoma/Texas etc... have had a black coach? I don't mean this as an attack on these schools (except at places like Auburn/Bama). I was just lamenting the fact that college football is either a bad environment for black coaches or that they don't get a fair chance, which is why the Tony Dungy's of the world exist in the NFL and not in college
Willingham really isn't a bad coach. Taking Stanford to a Rose Bowl is a major feat.
he just doesn't like recruiting
Are there many good black coaches for the Michigan/Ohio State/USC/Alabama/Florida/Oklahoma/Texas type schools to choose from? It seems like the root of the problem is in the development of the coaches. You don't get to be a head coach at a big name school until you've cut your teeth as a head coach of a small school or a AA school or as a coordinator or something. And I'm not sure what you have to do to get those jobs, but I'd assume as you keep following the trend you'll find where the root of the problem is.
how well represented are african americans as grad assistants, coordinators, etc? And is there are a good reason that Ron English hasn't got a head coaching gig yet somewhere?
You nailed it, I think. Well said.
And yes, Ron English should soon be a head coach somewhere. But I think college presidents and ADs and regents and boosters and whoever may have influence in these decisions, might look at a Ron English, a fiery coach, an intimidating man who happens to be black, and see a lot of, how shall I word it in business-legalese-PC-bullshit terms, 'institutional risk'? In other words, they don't want a loud, angry black man being the face of the school. Just a thought.
A head coach based on what? Terrible defenses for TWO teams now?
From the Ron English file:
'In 2007 English oversaw an aggressive Michigan defense that entered its bowl game against Florida with the nation's eighth-ranked pass defense and were 13th in pass efficiency defense. The Wolverines were also 22nd in scoring defense and 24th in total defense.
English, 39, was named the Rivals.com National Defensive Coordinator of the Year during his initial season as the defensive signal caller at Michigan in 2006. The defense rated among the nation's best, finishing first against the run, fourth in sacks, seven in third down defense, 10 in total defense and 15th in scoring defense.
The Wolverine defensive secondary collected 36 interceptions during his three seasons overseeing the entire corps and turned four of those picks into touchdowns. In addition, U-M yielded 37 TD passes by the opposition during that time, including an NCAA-leading nine in 2003.
English became the first coach in NCAA history to have two defensive backs earn consensus All-America honors in the same season, since the organization began incorporating both an offensive and defensive team in 1965, as cornerback Marlin Jackson and safety Ernest Shazor earned the recognition following the 2004 season.
English made an immediate impact on the Wolverine secondary during his first season. U-M tied for the national lead in fewest touchdown passes yielded with nine and finished ninth in pass efficiency defense. The secondary collected 13 interceptions and returned two for scores.'
Hasn't Charlie Strong been the DC at Florida for quite a while now? I'm shocked that he hasn't gotten a chance somewhere.
In general, you've hit the nail on the head. NCAA football does a terrible job of developing black coaches at all levels.
Some people, Strong is one I believe, turn down jobs they feel are beneath their credentials.
Two thoughts on Charlie Strong:
(1) We don't know that he's actively looking to leave Florida.
(2) The opening that the media likes to lambaste for not considering Strong is Mississippi State who hired Dan Mullen. Strong would have never been considered for this job, not because he is black, but because Mississippi State wanted a coach with experience coaching offense.
Son, you are just perpetuating a stereotype when you say that "Florida is not the deep south". There are a lot of parts of Florida that are just as "south" as anywhere else in the south.
son? Well, Mr. Beeks, "Florida is not the deep south" in my opinion is one of those stereotypes thats a stereotype for a reason - because its largely true. sure certain areas, most notably the panhandle are representative of the deep south, but thats a small minority of the state. the majority of that state has taken on a different identity over the past century due to various factors like immigration. if you think Miami, Gainseville, Tallahassee and areas nearby are indicative of the "deep south" than I would say that you are wrong.
Actually living in the state you are trying to profess knowledge about I can tell you that you are 100% wrong in your assessment. One can surmise from your comments that you're one of those folks who visits what we call "vacation Florida" and then thinks that they are an expert on Florida. Obviously Gainesville, Miami and Tallahassee are not like the deep south, but then again most of the "deep south" states have urban and academic centers that are not like the rest of the state. Frankly, suggesting that the panhandle is the part of the state that is most apt to be like the "deep south" only proves your ignorance on the subject matter at hand and exemplifies that you have no realization of what exists between the urban and academic centers that you specifically mentioned. I live in central Florida and I can without a doubt say that within a half-hour drive of my house is the deepest of the "deep south". In fact, the "small minority of the state" is that part that is not decidedly like the deep south, and consists of the major coastal population centers (the Gold coast, Tampa-St. Pete-Sarasota, Fort Myers, Jacksonville, etc.) plus Orlando. The fact that you don't know this exactly proves my initial point. Just remember, there is "vacation Florida" and then there is the rest of Florida.
Weak argument by Barkley IMO.
Barkley's right to be pissed about the hire. But he loses credibility when he turns it into a black thing.
Yes, Turner Gill looks like the better candidate. But what about all the other qualified candidates that got rejected that were white? Why does it have to be all about Gill?
Then he talks about how the black coaches don't have a chance to win bc they're hired at lesser schools. I call B.S. If they're a good coach they'll win. Urban Meyer won at Bowling Green, Brian Kelly won at Central Michigan, Dan McCarney won at Iowa State, Paul Johnson won at Navy, etc.
talking about anyone else but gill though. so i'm not sure why it would be about anyone else but gill. i won't even get into that second thing
IMO, Gill and Hoke are about equal in terms of resume... position coaches at (consistently overrated) power schools, turned around abysmal MAC schools. Did Hoke not get a job because of his size?
it's harder to do what gill did at buffalo than to do what hoke did at ball state
I actually think it's a push. Gill essentially built a program from the ground up, yes... but Ball State has never been good and went 1-10 and 0-11 back to back season a few years before Hoke arrived.
ball state was 16-18 the three years before hoke got there
btw seems like Brady Hoke lost a 100 lbs the last time I saw a televised ball state game. he is no longer in the mangino/weis/friedgen club.
and look at turner gill's three years in the mac and compare them to Hoke's - its significantly better. but my argument was not for turner gill, it was for the bigger picture of ncaa head coaches
Gill is 12–13 in conference over 3 years, Hoke is 18-5.
i was talking about each of their FIRST three years. in terms of in-conference gill is 12-13 and hoke is 9-15. overall gill is 15-22 and hoke 10-24
again, the argument is not specifically for Gill.
Ty Willingham set back black coaches everywhere by 10 years.
Edit: And Romeo Crennel.
kind of statement is that? I seriously hope thats a joke.
Look, when you manage to not recruit at ND, then go 0-12 in Washington, you are a bad coach.
If you've watch Romeo Crennel manage the clock, you'd agree he's a terrible coach. He was down 7 with 2 minutes left or something, and he kicked a field goal. Think about this, he STILL NEEDS A TOUCHDOWN to not lose and he kicks a field goal. Not to mention his numerous clock gaffes. The guy sucks hard.
The problem is that when there are so few black head coaches, the failures of one get unfairly applied to them all. Do I think it's fair? No. But does it happen? Yes. It's really a shame, because no one looks at Charlie Weis and says that fat PoS coaches suck, but people will look at Ty Willingham and say all black coaches suck. It's tragic, but true.
Lovie Smith, Tony Dungy, Mike Tomlin? I might have given you the benefit of the doubt if you were just talking college, but you decided to throw Romeo Crennel in there. The bad black coaches reflect poorly on themselves and themselves only. The same as bad white coaches. Maybe Ty Willingham set black coaches back in the minds of some specific schools that probably wouldn't have hired a black coach anyway, but saying he set black coaches back 10 years is absolutely ridiculous.
who cares whether hes black or white. Whenever someone hires a coach its because they think they are the best candidate for the job. Not because his white, IMO.
It is naive to think that boosters of SEC schools (read: old, white southerners) are blind to race.
No one said that these people are blind to race, only that it's not nearly as important to them as winning.
And this may get a lot of super liberal types on the board up in arms, but if the football coach is the face of the football programs and represents the boosters and alumni, and if the alumni would prefer that that person not be a black man, isn't it in the athletic department's best interest to abide? AD's rely heavily on their alumni and booster support, it's important to keep them happy, even it may not be the "worldly" thing to do.
Additionally, when a school fires a white coach, everyone assumes he didn't meet expectations. That's what people will think when Weis gets fired. But when Willingham was fired, there was a huge racial uproar calling ND a racist institution for firing their black coach, no matter that he didn't win or recruit very well. I wouldn't blame a University if they felt it a good idea to avoid an uproar of their own.
It's not unreasonable to question if race played a role in Willingham's dismissal. For some reason he was given a much shorter leash than Charlie Weis. Why wasn't he given a 10 year extension after starting 8-0 in 2002? By contrast, Weis' was given a $30-40 million deal after beginning his inaugural campaign 5-2. Given those facts, again, it's worth asking why Willingham got the short end of the stick.
Questioning whether race played a role and blaming racism are different. And I think Wies get's more time because ND learned that they can't keep firing coaches after 3 years or no one will want to come.
And the money happened because ND thought they had found their savior. Their last coaches were so bad that they were desperate to lock someone up. Plus Weis was an ND alum. The circumstances were different, you can't compare them in a vacuum. There are dozens or more reasons for the discrepancy, yet so many people jump right to race, and if you argue against it you're racist.
thats a pathetic spin on the point that me and others are making. no one said that a school is racist whenever they hire a white coach. you seem to be one of these people that look at opinions such as mine and immediately dismiss them as "here these super-liberals go again, if i disagree with this then they're just gonna label me as racist..." You said something along these lines in earlier posts.
I disagree with you but I don't think you're a racist and I am not a liberal just because I live in Ann Arbor. My intention was rational debate on the matter. My claim was that Auburn's hire was influenced by race and that the NCAA's lack of black coaches is a problem. When two SEC coaches tell an ESPN reporter that Turner Gill has no shot at the job because he's married to a white woman, that's not acceptable to me. There is a reason Sly Croom was the first black coach in SEC history.
I never said that all schools in the south are racist, hell we might have racist donors yelling in Bill Martin's ear too, I was saying that its more likely in the south.
You also said that good players made bad coaches (I agree), and used this point to debunk an earlier argument that college football has few black coaches for the number of black players it has. Are you saying that most marginal players are white? Though the majority of D-1 starters are black, that doesn't mean that most marginal players are white. They are black and white.
Also, this is not about Turner Gill. I never said Turner Gill should be Auburn's choice. I just think its wrong that he was probably ruled out because of his race. I obviously can't directly prove this but that brings up the big picture, which is that are there less black coaches than there should be. There is a reason that college football is the only such sport that has this problem.
You say that less black coaches are hired because there is a smaller pool of qualified black coaches. I know. But the reason there is a smaller pool of qualified black coaches because fewer of them get a chance at being coordinaters, etc. I lament this fact. I fault Auburn because I think they ruled out Gill because of his race but I'm not faulting other schools that chose white coaches over black coaches. Its not the responsibility of an AD who has a job opening to improve the pool of black candidates so that he can chose one. I'm saying its the responsibility of unversity communities to not foster environments where white elitist boosters gather behind the scenes with an AD and write a fat check while scoffing at the possibility of hiring a coach because he is black.
woops i meant to place this response after your next post
"Auburn was hardly the only team looking for a coach recently, so either all of those other schools are racist, or maybe Turner Gill isn't quite yet accomplished enough to be a BCS head coach."
but in response to all your points in this thread
I wouldn't harp on the Sly Croom being the first thing too much, the Big 10 has only had 3 black head coaches and two of them were at the same school.
that's a minor detraction from my point. but yea you're right
'... if the football coach is the face of the football programs and represents the boosters and alumni, and if the alumni would prefer that that person not be a black man, isn't it in the athletic department's best interest to abide? AD's rely heavily on their alumni and booster support, it's important to keep them happy, even it may not be the "worldly" thing to do.'
That would be a terrible, terrible reason to deny someone a job. Sometimes leadership needs to come from the top. A lot of Southerners in the 50's and 60's were against black voting rights, but that didn't make it right, and didn't stop LBJ and co. from passing the Voting Rights Act in 1965. Just an example, FWIW
Frankly, you can't look at a coaching search that ends with the answer "Gene Chizik", and claim that it's top priority was winning. Similar to us when the boosters requested Martin hire Ferentz. I'm not saying that either case was necessarily racism, but if your standard is "success", Chizik fails, roundly. Clearly, there were other things more important - like he was relatively cheap, and they were familiar with him.
While I agree that it was a curious hire, this is an SEC school we're talking about. There is no way that winning wasn't a top priority. They must simply think that Chizik's record at ISU is a fluke and that his performance as DC at AU/Texas is more revealing.
It is not in the athletic department's best interest to support their boosters' personal bias and racist attitudes. Moreover, many of these institutions are public universities and engaging in discriminatory hiring practices for any employment position at a public institution is illegal and, as such, very much not in the athletic department's best interest.
I know this might come as a shock, but it helps to have actual proof before you make accusations like that. Just because you THINK it's racist and discriminatory doesn't make it illegal.
"Maybe schools don't hire people because people with influence at those schools don't like black people. That's not 'racism' that's just 'being conscious of race to the extent that black people don't get the same opportunities as whites'. Not sure why you liberals can't see the difference."
"Also, if black people weren't so whiny all the time about this racism hoogabooga, maybe white people would be nicer to them in the first place. Maybe it's not fair that black men don't get offered HC positions, but too fucking bad."
(See esp. nos. 57, 59)
I don't understand why this argument is always limited to college football. College football is reflective of the university environment as a whole. There aren't exactly many black professors either. Rather than using the easy cop-out of racism, try actually using some logic and evaluating the other factors that contribute to this result (in both academica and athletics) from interest, to opportunity, to sheer number of applicants. Just because there are a lot of black football players doesn't necessarily mean that there are a lot of aspiring black coaches. Frankly, it seems much more racist to me to consider (and potentially hire) a coach because he is black (as Barkley suggests) when there are other candidates who are equally, if not more qualified. As someone else said, as much of Chizik is a head-scratcher of a hire, he has a better resume than Gill. Hiring Gill over Chizik could easily be seen, if looked at objectively, as the more racist decision.
Racism is an expression of power. Don't give me this whiny, Rush Limbaugh white-people-are-victims bullshit about how hiring a black man can be racist too. Just as the power and influence of white people as a group within our society vastly outweighs that of black people, the "racism" of white preference dwarfs any potential preference shown towards blacks.
Brabbs that's just incorrect. You just redefined what you think racism is, which does not jive with accepted definitions. Racism exists whenever race plays a role in a decision, i.e. where you buy a home, who you choose as friends, or who you hire at any position. It does not matter if this is done negatively or positively, and it does not matter which race is in question. Hiring a coach because he is black is just as racist as hiring a coach just because he isn't. Race is a factor.
The definition (not the practice) of racism has nothing to do with history, nor with power. The opposite of racism is racial equality. Hiring a man because he's black perpetuates the problem, it does not bring us closer to equality.
First, show me the evidence as to what the "accepted definitions" of racism are. You may as well have said 'my definition.'
I don't agree with your distinction between definition and practice, but even assuming your argument, isn't the practice of racism more relevant here than the semantic definition? Even if racism in a vacuum is defined as "any consciousness of race whatsoever" what we are dealing with here is consciousness of race in combination with power - racism in the world, not in abstract theory. Race itself is a construction of history and power - or are you going to tell me that it's a biological absolute?
Furthermore, in earlier posts you admit that the decision to hire Chizik instead of Gill may very well have been the result of racism in practice (differential racial judgment plus agency) - your primary argument seems to have been 'too bad - that's just the way things are.'
I could give you a number of citations, my degree from Michigan is in Sociology and this was drilled into my brain by a number of people.
Just because blacks have been victims of racism more in our country than whites, you simply can't say "a racially motivated decision benefiting a white man is racist, while a racially motivated decision benefiting a black man is not." Maybe you feel the latter is more morally justified, they are equally racist.
I like how you ended your post by simply putting words in my mouth. That's a classy argument, sir. A career in law is certainly in your future.
FROM COMMENT 57:
"[I]f the football coach is the face of the football programs and represents the boosters and alumni, and if the alumni would prefer that that person not be a black man, isn't it in the athletic department's best interest to abide? AD's rely heavily on their alumni and booster support, it's important to keep them happy, even it may not be the 'worldly' thing to do.
"Additionally, when a school fires a white coach, everyone assumes he didn't meet expectations. That's what people will think when Weis gets fired. But when Willingham was fired, there was a huge racial uproar calling ND a racist institution for firing their black coach, no matter that he didn't win or recruit very well. I wouldn't blame a University if they felt it a good idea to avoid an uproar of their own."
Explain to me how the above doesn't say 'Yeah - these decisions might be racist. So what? It's perfectly understandable - hell, racism is the smart way to go here.' Would that paraphrasing be more to your liking, sir?
You're clearly upset by this and I was just looking to play devil's advocate. This is going nowhere, I'd rather stop before someone gets pissed.
Pronunciation: \ˈrā-ˌsi-zəm also -ˌshi-\
1 : a belief that race is the primary determinant of human traits and capacities and that racial differences produce an inherent superiority of a particular race
2 : racial prejudice or discrimination
I never said that "white-people-[are]-victims". Don't put words in my mouth. Every single person of every race can be racist; racism is not limited to one race or another. Any decision based on race, one way or the other, is a racist decision. To say otherwise only perpetuates your subjective and simplistic definition of racism.
I never said that you said white people are victims, I just characterized the (utterly simplistic) idea that every time anything is done based on race, it's racist as part of the 'white people are victims' lexicon. Saying that "any decision based on race, one way or another" is racist implies that racism is something that can equally 'victimize' whites, right? My point is that this is preposterous. In America, where being white tends to automatically bestow privilege and power over minorities deemed non-white (and especially African Americans) it is misleading and disingenuous to call preference for those minorities 'racism' in an equivalent sense to the pervasive effects of institutional white racism.
In another society, racism may certainly be expressed differently. Perhaps, in a theoretical vacuum, the definition of racism as "anything that acknowledges race" would obtain. In the real world, racism and race are inextricably linked to power.
It must really suck to be you.
Strikes and gutters.
Hypothetical: Let's say a white guy is applying for a job. After all the interviews, he is the most qualified candidate. The man in charge of filling this position, who is black, tells the white guy "you are the most qualified candidate, but because I'm black I want to hire a black guy."
Are you suggesting that this wouldn't be racist?
you should read your own posts....you sound like a complete idiot.
I would argue that there is no Division I school harder to field a winning team at than Buffalo. Almost no tradition to speak of. In one of the smallest conferences in the country. The absolute worst weather of any school in D-I. In 2003, just before Gill was hired, Buffalo went 0-11 and lost to....wait for it.....COLGATE.
Flash forward to 2008 and Turner Gill has Buffalo defeating an unbeaten team on national television, winning their conference and going to a bowl game. This is nothing short of a miracle. For Gill to strike out at every coaching vacancy in this cycle is just pathetic, he should've been the first choice for any university with an opening. He was certainly the most qualified of any coach Auburn interviewed. The silver lining is that Auburn will reap what they've sowed over the next few years.
Auburn was hardly the only team looking for a coach recently, so either all of those other schools are racist, or maybe Turner Gill isn't quite yet accomplished enough to be a BCS head coach.
Yes and Lane Kiffin is accomplished enough to be a BCS head coach, nonetheless at a BCS school with loads of tradition and success.
And I'm proud of it!
Viva Senor Rodriguez!
doesn't claim it.
He is of Spanish decent, not Hispanic decent, right? I thought that was the reason he doesn't claim it, because he's of European decent, like pretty much every other "white" person.
Hispanics, as the Census form will tell you, can be of any race.
I think the original poster meant it as a joke. I mean, look at his icon
The word Hispanic literally means "of Spain." It is possible to be Hispanic and white at the same time.
I love our redneck Hispanic coach.
Rich Rod is of Spanish (European) heritage I believe.
(At least i thought I read that somewhere about his granfather or great grandfather being from Spain)
Europeans are still Hispanic. Where did this idea that they're not come from? It's more likely that Rodriguez doesn't self identify as Hispanic because 1) he doesn't speak Spanish and 2) Probably assumes Hispanic = Mexican, given where he grew up.
I think Barkley is a loud mouth, how's that for going out on a limb. He's the type that feels every evil in the world is caused by racism. He's confusing incompetence for racism. I'm sure a large percentage of the white Auburn alumni and fans are equally pissed off with the hiring.
The problem is not necessarily Gill vs. Chizik, but it does point out the discrepancy in college football that is far too wide to be justified by anyone. 4 out of 117. 4 OUT OF 117.
I don't think too may people on this board made any sort of offensive statements (although it's hard to rationalize anything ShockFX said on this strand without thinking he has at least a subconscious distaste for blacks), but rather just incorrect about how things work.
WOLVinLA thinks apparently that coaches are usually less-talented players. I'm not sure why that would be, but assuming he's right there's still a lot more black players riding the pine in college than white ones. The fact of the matter is that almost every Div I football coach played in college. And the percentages are similar for other sports (except maybe basketball, but as you notice they don't have this problem at any level). If being a player supposedly gives you a leg up in getting into coaching, then this doesn't vibe with the numbers.
I think Glen Mason's hot wife misses the point entirely when she asks, "what about all the qualified candidates that were rejected that were white?" Well without getting into the specifics I don't think there were any candidates for that job that were more qualified than Gill (guys like Leach, Johnson, had declined the offer, etc.). For two, the problem is more like, "why is there one qualified black guy for any major head coaching job in the country?" "Then he talks about how the black coaches don't have a chance to win bc they're hired at lesser schools." Actually they're not hired at lesser schools. That's the problem. 4 out of 117, remember (and I'm counting Locksley who just got hired). If 1 out of every 3 black coaches turns a program like Buffalo around, they're working at a pretty high percentage. And that's my point, there has to be more opportunities for black coaches at lower levels (Like Landon said), for them to reach the upper echelons of coaching.
Finally, as to ShockFX's "Willingham set black coaches back __ years." Really, dude? Really? Your take is, give a black guy a shot and we'll evaluate his entire race based on his success. YOU'RE AN IDIOT. Not to mention you apparently think Ron English is a bad defensive coordinator, and that he coached bad defenses at Michigan. Were you born in 2007?
At the end of the day, it comes down to this. Not, why didn't Auburn hire Gill? But, why did San Diego St. hire Hoke over DeWayne Walker? Or, why did Ball State hire a guy who's 2-30-1 as a head coach in Division I-A when they could hire a guy like Ron English? Or, why did fill in major college program here only hire 1 minority graduate assistant in the last 5 years. These are the real issues.
Willingham's record as a coach didn't set black coaches back years, but his and the media's reaction to his firing certainly didn't help.
"Finally, as to ShockFX's "Willingham set black coaches back __ years." Really, dude? Really? Your take is, give a black guy a shot and we'll evaluate his entire race based on his success. YOU'RE AN IDIOT. Not to mention you apparently think Ron English is a bad defensive coordinator, and that he coached bad defenses at Michigan. Were you born in 2007?"
No, that's not my take. I think Ty Willingham is a failure because of himself, not because he was born with more melanin than me. It's, as the commenter above said, the media perception and Ty's reaction that did it. I think that, given what happened when ND fired Ty (which was to try and land Urban Meyer) that other schools don't want the institutional racism charges. I believe it's easier for schools to weather the upfront mild criticism over NOT hiring a black coach than deal with any fallout that might occur. And look, Ty immediately landed in Washington. He took Stanford to a Rose Bowl or something, obviously he can coach, or used to be able to.
Turner Gil will be a fantastic head coach at a top program one day. However, I absolutely think he's doing the right thing in NOT taking the Auburn or ISU jobs. ISU is a perennial loser, and Auburn, why be in the SEC at all if you don't have to be. I'd wager on Turner Gil getting the Illinois job in 2 years when the Zooker is fired. That would be a positive move towards Nebraska for him. Black coaches tend to have failures highlighted more because they get shittier coaching jobs, Kansas State, Miss State, Washington (ok, but Ty blew at ND first), etc.
Finally, as to Ron English, give me a break. That 2006 was loaded defensively and couldn't cover a spread to save their lives. Then he gave up 34 to App State, while anyone watching the game could figure out that stunting was completely and totally stupid when they were just gashing up the middle with their noodle armed QB. His Louisville defense just gave up 10000 points to Rutgers. Maybe, just maybe, he was a sweet position coach, but he's not a good DC, not even close to being a good head coach. Chris Graham on Ted Ginn. Like, seriously.
There are systemic problems with the hiring of qualified minority coaches; however, setting people up to fail isn't exactly a way to break through that.
"Ty Willingham set back black coaches everywhere by 10 years.
Edit: And Romeo Crennel."
And then you come back and say it's just the "media perception" that makes it so? Listen, you're part of the group that spreads this perception. Don't try to backtrack when people call you out - admit that this is YOUR opinion too. Clearly, you wouldn't say "John L. Smith set white coaches everywhere back by 10 years."
"Muslims are terrorists. I mean, the media makes it seems like most of the world's Muslims are either blowing things up or rioting all the time. So yeah, that's why I think Muslims are terrorists. Media's fault."
Spreading what perception? You're drawing a pretty poor comparison between a flippant comment about coaches being set back, which isn't indicative of anything, and muslims are terrorists. Had I said:
"Black people are bad coaches. I mean, the media makes it seems like most of the NCAA's black coaches are either terrible or bad recruiters all the time. So yeah, that's why I think black people are bad coaches. Media's fault."
You might have some basis for whatever it is your talking about.
Look, when you're in the vanguard of anything, when you're wrong you're going to set things back. If people perceive a new thing as not working, REGARDLESS OF IF IT IS OR NOT, they will fight against it. This is my point, that high profile failures do a huge disservice to low profile successes.
You're missing the high level argument here though. I'm saying I think black coaches have been set back because of those 2 coaches. However, since it makes no sense in a vacuum to say that, I point out that the media response can deter schools from going through the institutionalized racism charges ND faced. I never, at any point, used the media to defend my opinion. I never said "my opinion is ok because the media has the same opinion." What I'm saying is that the media plays a huge part in what my opinion is based on. No one cares about how Ron Prince did at KSU, because no one cares about KSU, period.
How many times has ESPN made Romeo Crennel out to be a complete idiot? A lot. However, he was the DC under Belicheck, and a damned good one apparently. If you'd feel better if I said, "ESPN highlighting Romeo Crennel's failures and ignoring his successes set back black coaches by 10 years" then I can say that, but it's more or less the same thing.
The problem is that you keep extrapolating an indictment on black coaches everywhere from the isolated examples you use. I have seen no evidence of ESPN (or any other media outlet) using Crennel as a test case for all black coaches - correct me if you've seen otherwise. Also, the issue of whether Willingham was fired due to racism is different than that of whether his success or failure was a referendum on the ability of black people to coach football. Maybe you don't personally believe that the failure of one coach reflects upon the potential failure of those who share similar melanin content, but your comment endorsed that view.
Finally, I'll apologize for the imprecise analogy. A better one would have been 'The media keeps talking about how Al Qaeda are Islamic terrorists. Khalid Sheikh Muhammad has set Muslims back 10 years.' In making that linkage, you would be tacitly endorsing the view that the failures of Muhammad (not that Muhammad) are representative of the broader group.
Sorry if my comment endorsed that view then.
Things not racially charged that I view as similar.
Alex Smith set back Tebow's draft position. (Note, it shouldn't, they are different people, but even if Tebow is 99% to succeed, and then fails, people will pile on with: "Alex Smith failed so you should have known better".)
In lieu of more examples I'll just site when people attempt to identify correlation and causation in things that while not totally independent, are only similar at a superficial level, then make decisions on past precedents that don't necessarily hold true.
Of course, even if misleading, any extrapolation from Smith to Tebow would be based on traits that are relevant to their performance - presumably, that both are mobile quarterbacks who played in Urban Meyer's offense. What are the relevant traits that we know Gill, Crennel, and Willingham to share?
High melanin content coaches that were successful but aren't any more? I don't really know, this started with a flippant comment I made without giving it much thought. I think we're on the same page anyway, new topic time.
Actually there are 119 teams with Western Kentucky bumping the total to 120 in the near future. That being said if there were 15 black head coaches to match their percentage of the population in America would that solve everything. If the total were greater then 15 would that be a sign of an unfair advantage to minorities. The answer to both is no because focusing on race over qualifications is a mistake. The argument over the percent of black players vs coaches also fails. Do all those players want to be coaches? Do all the white players want to be coaches?
Keep in mind how small a number 119 is. A head coaching job is extremely rare for anyone. I'm sure plenty of candidates from all races will never get the chance they want. Looking at the percentages again more whites mean more whites not getting head coaching jobs. If rich boosters are truly committed to keeping the Aryan coaching bloodline pure at the risk of their demise let them fail.
If I were an Auburn fan I would be pissed and would have wanted Gill too. In fact all of the hires at big programs seem desperate or at least strange on some level. If these coaches truly are less qualified then minority candidates the programs hiring them will suffer as they should. If they end up being successful who will complain. If Auburn wins a national title under Chizik will Barkley be against it, mind you I don't think that will happen.
The reason why there aren't many black head coaches is because there aren't many high ranking and accomplished black assistants. How many guys out there have been repeatedly passed over for a shot? Charlie Strong maybe? His record is sort of mixed if you ask me. Ron English? He might get a shot but so far, he looks like another Jim Hermann to me. Calvin McGee? His offenses have been successful in the past, but how much credit should he get? I'm sure that there are some others that I don't know about, but I am not aware of any hot candidates or slam dunks.
There are white coaches whose long tenures as assistants make less sense to me. Tom Bradley? Based on what he has done with Penn State's defense over the past five years, why is this guy not a candidate anywhere? Bud Foster? Probably the best DC in the country this decade. Why hasn't he been hired by somebody yet? How long did Bo Pelini take to get a head coaching job? Maybe these guys just suck at interviewing or maybe some of them just don't want a head coaching job. I don't know.
You have to remember that some coaches are not candidates anywhere because they don't want to be. My friends in my Penn State circle have held a long-held belief that Bradley will replace JoePa.
A couple of other things to consider:
(1) Not every coordinator or assistant makes a good head coach. Some of them may realize that they don't have the tools or desire to be a head coach and don't pursue head coach positions; something we may never hear anything about.
(2) Not every coordinator or assistant wants to be a head coach.
Here is another interesting perspective on this issue. It is from the field of sports journalism and makes several good points that are transferrable over to coaching.
even if it is a few years old. He is a talented writer, even if I don't agree with him all of the time.
Hiring Gene Chizik was a huge mistake. Granted, he was coaching at Iowa State, which would need a Rutgers or Wake Forest magnitude makeover, but he has shown no progress yet, whether he really is a good coach or not. He has no credentials. It's just a poor choice resulting from a lazy attempt to keep it within the Auburn family, especially when you have to go up against Nick friggin Saban over in Tuscaloosa. John Cooper was at least able to recruit and win a lot of the non-rivalry games.
So Turner Gill seems to be a great coach in the making, as he is really turning around Buffalo. But what ties does he have to Alabama, or the South for that matter? At least Chizik has recruiting ties to the area. Turner Gill might be an excellent candidate and is most likely a better choice than Chizik, but that doesn't mean that he was passed just because of race. What if there were white candidates who are more qualified than Chizik but didn't get the job? Barkley did not have to use the race card, and he owes Turner Gill an apology for dragging him into his own conflict with the university. (OTOH, this is publicity for Turner Gill, but is it good or bad publicity?)
If there is anyone to point a finger at, it's Syracuse. Gill is a great candidate who is familiar with the area, and Syracuse, in its persisting infinite stupidity, went ahead and hired another NFL coordinator, Morrone. In 25 years when RR retires after winning 10 national championships at Michigan, Syracuse will help out UM by passing on Mike Hart after it fires Greg Robinson Jr following another 1-11 season.
The big point is this:
If we boil this down to "Chizik vs. Gill", we can poke hole in Gill, as a specific human being pretty easily. He has one winning record (which was aided by a flukey turnover margin) and, prior to last year, his resume would have paled to Chizik's. Fine.
But when you draw the lens out, and look at 120 D-I teams, that have a single (I think?) black head coach, that's a sign that something is fucked up. I don't see how you can argue around that.
For reasons I'm still trying to fathom, last night I found myself watching the college football show on the NFL Network. Two of the analysts, Terry Donohue and some guy named Mike Mayock, made an excellent point re: Gill and Auburn. It's not a good fit: Gill is not from the south, has never been associated with the SEC, has no recruiting ties, etc. Gill has said as much himself.
However there was a job opening for which Gill was seemingly ideally qualified: Syracuse. Same recruiting territory, similar rebuilding opportunity. And, as far as I know, he didn't even get an interview, a call, or anything. Now, Syracuse hiring Doug Marrone, an alum with an accomplished coaching background, makes perfect sense. But Syracuse should be held to the same scrutiny as Auburn, no?
Check that, I just read Mr. Waymen's post. He beat me to it. Kudos
I completely agree. The media double standard is disgusting on this one. Just because Auburn is in the south their decision just must be racist. Meanwhile, Syracuse gets a pass. Absolute B.S.
Just looking at staffs of major programs, there are, aside from Charlie Strong, Corwin Brown, and Calvin Macgee, no black coordinators (though there are a number of position coaches). This probably disqualifies any of them being considered from a BCS school head coaching job (though not, as Turner Gill has shown, a smaller school's head job).
So the questions is: why so few at those levels? It's hard to get black head coaches when there are no black coordinators. Does their presence in the position coach level indicate that we'll start seeing more and more coodinators, and thus, more coaches?
As I asked in another post, why do people persist in limiting this question to only football, or even athletics for that matter? This exact same question could, and should, be raised regarding higher education as a whole.
Genuine question: are black people under-represented in higher education in general? As in - in the student population?
I suppose that depends on what you mean by "under-represented" when speaking about students. Specifically what I was getting at in my quetion though was at the administrative and professor level.
Yes, especially in the more prestigious schools. For an example close to home, the state of Michigan is 14% black, but U-M's student body has never been more than 9% black, even during the affirmative action days. (The proportion of black students is now about 7%.) At MSU, too, I don't think the percentage of black students has ever hit double-digits.
I've got it...
Black people are such phenomenal athletes, they never bother to coach. Coaching is for wash-ups who have short or unexceptional athletic careers.
Eh? Eh? Pretty good, I think!
Of the three black head football coaches in NCAAF the coastal cities of Miami, Buffalo, and Houston are represented. Looks more like there is a 'problem' in the central US. It seems as though if you're attached to water then that's the only chance to be a black head football coach... And please do not exclude Florida from being in the 'deep south'. If you have ever been there you would know that there is as much hatred there as the stereotypical AL,AR,LA and MS, etc states.
Here's an article from Terry Bowden from 2005, that hits on percentages of athletes to assistant coaches and head coaches.
It's interesting to see that one of the points that Bowden makes in that article is this:
"Finally, head coaches must do everything they can to identify and encourage promising young black athletes to become coaches. They must convince these athletes that coaching is a noble, worthy profession and that, when the time comes, they will give them an opportunity to coach."
Which proves the point almost perfectly that one of the reasons why there aren't more black coaches is that not enough black people are going into coaching by choice.
Buffalo is a coastal city? I mean, it's on Lake Erie. Does that make Cleveland, Chicago and Green Bay coastal cities too?
Come on now, who hasn't enjoyed the sunny, sandy beaches of Cleveland and Buffalo? You're missing out!
What an interesting thread....i just read all of it....and I am stoked to learn that living here in Toledo, I am in a coastal town. Sweet.
1.) Barkley is pissed. One thing driving him is the fact that when Auburn hired their last HC in hoops, they asked Charles for advice. He gave them names of three black coaches who had qualified teams in the tourney in their career. Instead, they hired Jeff Lebo, who, iirc, has never taken a team to the NCAAa and the hoops teams still remains mired in mediocrity. Charles is still bitter about that, and he does not let grugdes go. This is not a defense of CB, but just some more background on where he's coming from.
2.) Turner Gill is the man. Anyone who thinks Chizik's resume or Bardy Hoke's resume is better is misreading those resumes. I've followed his career ever since he was a player....whats shocking is that I am not shocked that he turned Buffalo around. UB made a great hire, and the school that eventually does get Gill will be making a great hire. In the five years prior to hiring Tuner Gill, UB won a total of 5 league games and nine games overall. In Year 2 at UB, Gill went 5-3 in the MAC. In Year 3, he won the conference title. Dude can flat out coach. I look forward to him winning big at a BCS school soon....maybe LSU after they can Miles next year; or Nebraska once they tire of 7-5 records under Pellini; or even UM if the RichRod experiment never gets off the ground.
3.) A little more background on Gill.....he turned down a lot of offers (not necessarily as HC, though) during his long stint as top assistant at Nebraska. That certainly held his career back as a HC. I think people above had been saying the same thing about Strong. Also, I have won a ton of cash on UB the last two seasons. Much like I did with Johnson at Navy.....i was shocked people thought that dude could not coach at a real school.....look what he did at GT this year....Gill will have that type of immediate success wherever his next gig is.
4.) However, I will defend Chizik. If this hire is made two years ago nobody gives a rip. Auburn folks are jumping off the ledge because of his ISU record. Yet, if any school had hired him after the 2006 season, they would doing parades for him....he was the hot assistant back then. It will be interesting to see what one of the best coordinators of this generation does now that he's at a place where you can win, right away....unlike ISU, which takes a full recruiting cycle before you can really start making any inroads into winning.
4.) I believe in the Rooney Rule. CFB needs something like that. And, it should go a step farther. Rather than just mandating a minority coach gets an interview, it should also say each team has to interview X amount of people in general, irrespective of race.....i think this would work better in the NFL to get young blood in the coaching ranks and maybe force the Lions to do a legit coaching search for a change.
My post had more to do with the overall black coaching trend, rather than Gill v. Chizik.
I will, however, correct you on Turner Gill, who grew up in the Dallas/Fort Worth area and spent two years as position coach in Texas schools. Not exactly the South, but it's not like he just knows Nebraska. If Mike Leach had flown the coop to Auburn, I will guarantee you Texas Tech would have hired Gill.
Besides, at this point are you really going to tell me that a coach has to be "familiar" with an area to recruit well. See: Brewster, Tim; Miles, Les; Saban, Nick (circa LSU). I can point out to you an equal number of hometown boys that have not done so well on the turf they know.
.....anyone is still reading this thread, check this piece out.....its by Whitlock. I know most people hate him, but I have always been a fan....even when I disagree.
Overall this is a good column, but I disagree with his assesment that Gill is not ready for a bigtime job.....the dude can coach....but I do agree, he might as well wait for the right fit. Enjoy: