Madonna

January 1st, 2017 at 3:59 AM ^

I would have started out by emphasizing, as you later did, that it would be one of several factors, but I don't see why your post is so 'controversial.' Being a non-white minority myself, I read it as just bluntly acknowledging the basic social dynamic we all live in. Firing a black coach who hasn't even been given a chance, in a context of low numbers of minority coaches, as well as other social issues surrounding race, would be close to a PR non-starter, even if wishing to welcome back a popular and successful ex-coach, who suddenly became available, for entirely rational, non-racial reasons.

Mr. Yost

January 1st, 2017 at 9:03 AM ^

It was a stupid fucking post because it has nothing to do with the point.

I don't care about you acknowledging the "basic social dynamic" we live in. I acknowledge it too. It exists. This has nothing to do with it.

Your post is as if the rest of us don't think race plays a factor in decisions in this world? We know it does...but it has nothing to do with THIS example any more than Taggert liking dogs and Chip Kelly being a cat person does.

 

You don't fire ANYONE you just hired because there may be a sexier candidate.

1. It's WAY too expensive.

2. Media relations would be HORRIBLE (don't care if you fired a white guy for a black guy...you'd get destroyed).

3. You've now set a precedent to all of your coaches in your athletics department that if I see someone who's a "sexier" choice at the time, you're done. I don't care if you haven't even been on the job a month.

4. The negative impact on your current student-athletes.

5. Your own job security. This isn't pro sports and you're an owner where it's a business and YOUR team. An AD is NOT an owner...you will quickly get fired if you're hiring coach after coach after coach. Look around a lot of AD are tied to the coaches they hire and often when those most high profile coaches fail...the AD does as well. If Brady Hoke succeeds at Michigan, there is a decent chance Dave Brandon is still your AD at Michigan - flaws and all. It's no surprise that Brandon truly fell when Hoke was officially done.

 

None of those have anything to do with race and each of those have much more of an impact in the fact that you're not going to fire Taggert because he's a black man and Chip Kelly is white. I cannot believe you tried to use THIS example to turn MGoBlog into AP Psych or Race in America 101.

Are there a small number of people who'd play that card? AB-SO-FUCKING-LUTLEY...because some people play the race card every chance they can (in both directions). But that doesn't mean it's actually relevant in this case. You can find a small number of people to support anything.

Mr. Yost

January 2nd, 2017 at 9:52 AM ^

We're talking about ONE situation. Not coaching changes in college football, how stupid are you?

If we're talking about all coaching changes? I 100% agree there should be more black coaches, more black ADs, etc. - I DO think there's a good ol boy network. I do think that it's unfair that some white college coaches get job after job after job (while failing along the way) only to get another job. I do think coaches and admin should look a little more like what's on the field.

...but that's not what we're talking about glewe. Are you that silly that you can't see past what I just said and this instance of Kelly and Taggert? Or are you going to cry about someone who can give a different viewpoint than yours and stand behind it?

...and again, please tell me how I'm white? You don't know me. You've never met me. You've never seen me. There are posters on this board who have. What you just did is a huge problem in this country. And for you to be beating a drum on race and then be kinda of racist - or not racist, but a bigot (there's a difference) - is silly.

You just called me a race based off of very little information. Which means you believe that all people are a certain way because of something I said. That black people can't think a certain way and white people only think a certain way.

That's highly offensive to me. Me? I just give you the middle finger, call you a clown and move on.

glewe

January 3rd, 2017 at 11:40 AM ^

You're doing the most again

The comment SalvatoreQuattro made was pretty innocuous: There would be a shitstorm if they fired a newly hired, first ever Black coach to reinstall a white one, particularly in lefty, millennial Oregon

Saying that comment is "irrelevant" in a thread about why they wouldn't fire Taggart to reinstall Kelly is perfectly stupid

Mr. Yost

January 2nd, 2017 at 9:46 AM ^

HAHAHA

...how do you know I'm white?

 

This isn't about race, in this instance. Many other things in this country are that people bury their heads in the sand about. Not this one. It would be just as wrong if Kelly was black and Taggert were white or are YOU that much of an idiot to see through your "it's all about race" glasses?

 

But again, how do you know I'm white? This should be VERY GOOD.

Madonna

January 1st, 2017 at 2:37 PM ^

I simply disagree, based on knowing first hand how Oregon football is regarded in the state. I can see them making choices we never would as a school. I think Chip Kelly is such an undeniably desirable hire for Oregon under the circumstances that for many people it would seem to justify weathering many of those factors both on an institutional and business level. Since the current coach has obviously had minimal impact and chance to build loyalty among the existing players, point number four is particularly negated in my view. However, if you add in the sensitive racial climate of the past few years, and the possibility of this hoping from a sports page brouhaha to a national news story, focus of sustained protests, etc. then the cost-benefit to Oregon shifts dramatically. You can 'redeem' yourself by winning in football, even for violent crimes, but a taint of perceived racial injustice would linger on a wider level. Thus if the new coach were white and Kelly becomes available, I think there is an appreciably greater chance of a ruthless fire-and-hire, even though that would generate backlash, than under the current dynamic. Thus Salvatore was not off-base in highlighting that, although I personally would have phrased it in a more politick manner.

Mr. Yost

January 2nd, 2017 at 9:54 AM ^

Nah man...there's no need for you and your limited and bigoted point of views on a blog where we have people from everywhere who believe in everything all bonding over one common interest.

Take your misinformed, judgemental, discriminatory self elsewhere.

FauxMo

December 31st, 2016 at 8:49 PM ^

They still have lots of work to do to clean up the quagmire Harbaugh left behind when he ran away after destroying the program. Those poor, poor Yorks... 

Catchafire

December 31st, 2016 at 8:51 PM ^

Several of you on here posting about how this year was horrible and how Habaugh is horrible and how he grades out as a B and all other manner of manure and bull shit squared are probably wishing he goes back to the 49ers.

 

Just stop with all the nonsense.  We went 10-3 in back to back years under our coach.  The man deserves a raise and not your damn ridicule.

BlueInWisconsin

December 31st, 2016 at 9:06 PM ^

He turned a tire fire into 20-6. You might want to go back and familiarize yourself what the predictions were when he was hired for how long it would take him to turn things around. Not a lot of people were predicting the level of success that we've already enjoyed.

I'm really starting to hate about 80% of our fan base. I think a lot of you guys need to see a therapist because relying on 18-20 year old guys on a football team to measure your own self worth clearly isn't working.



Sent from MGoBlog HD for iPhone & iPad