Hispanics, as the Census form will tell you, can be of any race.
Black head coaches
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: