WTKA: Talkin' race, all day
At least yesterday. Nine straight segments of it.
http://wtka.com/index.php?fuseaction=home.podcasts_sel&id=10779
I suppose Michael Taylor is proud of himself for starting this. It's still shocking that the hiring of a POSITION COACH has sparked this much interest and debate.
Of note, Webb kept nervously harping on that he heard Erik Campbell was offered the job as DBs coach, even though I've never heard that anywhere else but on his show. What I noticed in the linked segment above is that when asked if he was offered as much as he makes at Iowa, he indicated no and said "They're paid very well at Iowa." Uhh, why? They don't make Michigan-type revenue there. I thought Brandon was going to make our compensation packages ultra competitive. More hot air from DB?
February 8th, 2011 at 9:59 AM ^
Re your question about Iowa: while they might not have as much revenue as Michigan, they certainly have ponied up for their head coach. Ferentz makes $3.675 million a year, which was easily more than RR made, and 99.9% likely more than Hoke makes (I don't believe that figure has been released yet, but I doubt DB made Hoke the highest paid coach in the Big 10). So it's not a big stretch to believe their assts make more as well.
http://hawkcentral.com/2010/09/02/iowa-football-ferentzs-new-contract-m…
February 8th, 2011 at 10:24 AM ^
if im not mistaken, which i usually am and very well may be, I remember hearing years ago that if Ferentz hit all his bonuses he had the opportunity to make more than any other coach in the NCAA. I'm pretty sure I was living in gainesville at the time so it would have been 05'. He didnt do it that year, even with Tate as his qb
February 8th, 2011 at 10:48 AM ^
Campbell made $188k base this year. I doubt we were willing to pay $200k+ to get him back here.
February 8th, 2011 at 10:00 AM ^
Ugh. I look forward to the day that this isn't such a touchy subject.
February 8th, 2011 at 10:04 AM ^
You have to be pretty dense to think it was the position coach that sparked this thing. It was the last coaching job available and it was yet another old white dude. It's a big deal whether it is shocking to you or not.
February 8th, 2011 at 10:19 AM ^
If race was a deciding factor in the hirings, it's a problem.
What's just as big a problem is noticing that "Hey, there are lots of white guys on that coaching staff!" and deciding to scream RACISM at the top of your lungs.
All kinds of people are much to quick to pull out that argument, and it almost always does more harm than good.
Hoke shouldn't hire black guys just to hire black guys. He also shouldn't hire white guys just because they aren't black. Everyone knows this.
February 8th, 2011 at 10:34 AM ^
I'm concerned that the relative absence of black coaches will harm Michigan on the recruiting trail.
February 8th, 2011 at 10:38 AM ^
when you look at the makeup of the majority of Big Ten staffs and some staffs around the country, UM is not out of step. Of course some schools are better than others, but certain schools known for potential dirty recruiting will not find much luck going down this road
February 8th, 2011 at 11:02 AM ^
Wonder if Dantonio's taking the same heat from MSU fans or former players for installing an old, bald white guy into their open OC position -- a position that became available when Don Treadwell, an African-American, left to become the HC at NNTM.
February 8th, 2011 at 10:52 AM ^
Someone looked at the coaches at other major programs and programs like Alabama and USC only had 2 or 3. Lloyd Carr only had 2 most years. I'd like to think that the recruits can see past the colors of their coaches' skin and would want to play for the best coaches, not the ones who match in skin tone.
February 8th, 2011 at 11:03 AM ^
Ohio State currently has three, as well. Apparently 2.5 is the O/U at which point your team/coach suddenly becomes racist.
February 8th, 2011 at 10:36 AM ^
I think it's a shame that Taylor would besmirch the reputation of a school he supposedly loves by playing the race card. We're talking about a school that is a champion of affirmative action, a school that has a history of placing African-Americans in high profile positions. Unlike most Division I-A programs, Michigan's had a black athletic director. Two of the last three head men's basketball coaches have been African-American. Like BlockM said, if race was a deciding factor, it's a problem ... I just have a hard time believing that it was in this case.
February 8th, 2011 at 12:20 PM ^
How come, every time an African-American brings up race, he is immediately slammed for "playing the race card?"
Without being melodramatic here, it's obvious to anyone who looks that the numbers are "off" when it comes to the ratio of African-American coaches to Caucasian coaches, especially considering that same ratio applied to players. To me, it really comes down to this:
The ratio won't change until African-American parents and players support African-American coaches.
Most head coaches would do anything ethical to succeed. If someone showed almost any coach documented proof that standing on one's head for fifteen minutes on game day showed an increase in performance, that coach would have his kids standing on their heads for fifteen minutes on game day, and the coaching staff would probably join them.
Similarly, if coaches started having to answer race questions every time they visited an African-American five star, you can bet the ratio would change in a heartbeat. If coaches suddenly started losing five-star recruits to schools with ratios approaching 50-50, African-Americans would suddenly become the "hot" candidates. As long as people of both predominant races in American football continue to sweep in under the rug, though, it will not change.
February 8th, 2011 at 12:53 PM ^
Randy Shannon was able to get great players to Miami, but that didn't keep him from being fired for poor preformance........
February 8th, 2011 at 1:11 PM ^
Actually I think it was Shannon's inability to recruit up to Miami's standards that has left him without a job. Larry Coker and Butch Davis got a lot more talent to come to the U.
February 8th, 2011 at 1:38 PM ^
Shannon brought in top classes every year. He had a top five class in 2008. He just didn't win enough.
February 8th, 2011 at 1:49 PM ^
My point is it's all relative, top 25 classes at FSU, Miami, Michigan, ND, OSU etc., isn't a good class top 5/10 is the expectation. Check out Miami in the draft the last couple of years, it's been about about as bad as Michigan, now go look at the first 5 years of the last decade and compare.
February 8th, 2011 at 2:21 PM ^
According to ESPN he had the #1 class overall in 2008, and #7 in 2009. You really can't do any better than that.
February 8th, 2011 at 2:32 PM ^
To say that Michigan and Miami have recruited equally over the last couple of years is just made up nonsense.
Here are Shannon's classes at Miami:
2007:http://rivals.yahoo.com/footballrecruiting/football/recruiting/commitments/2007/miamifl-11
2008:http://rivals.yahoo.com/footballrecruiting/football/recruiting/commitments/2008/miamifl-11
2009:http://rivals.yahoo.com/footballrecruiting/football/recruiting/commitments/2009/miamifl-11
2010:http://rivals.yahoo.com/footballrecruiting/football/recruiting/commitments/2010/miamifl-11
These classes are much better than ours over the last couple of years, and look very similar to Miami's classes in the early 2000's. To say that Shannon was fired for poor recruiting is a complete fabrication of the truth.
February 8th, 2011 at 3:30 PM ^
and you know that never stops some people. Fabrication, schmabrication...
February 8th, 2011 at 3:57 PM ^
Also, with regard to those who say that we need black coaches in order to be able to recruit, the biggest knock on Ty Willingham was his inability to recruit well. Then he was replaced by a fat white guy that effectively recruited top players from all kinds of backgrounds.
February 8th, 2011 at 1:28 PM ^
Are we as a society really going to overcome our issues with race by making our decisions more race-based? I thought the goal was to reach the point where race becomes irrelevant to our decisions of who to hire or where to attend school. Obviously we are not there yet, but will we be more likely to get there if we consciously play up the importance of race?
Also, if we encourage black parents to make race-based decisions like Kellen Winslow did, should we expect the white parents to do the same? If there was a staff that was 60/40 black coaches, should white kids look elsewhere, since we are accepting the premise that blacks and whites could not possibly relate to one another? Wouldn't that lead to greater segregation and less racial harmony?
Frankly, if Hoke refused to hire a guy who negatively recruited against Michigan, then he should be applauded, regardless of whether or not hiring that guy might have looked good in the team photo.
February 8th, 2011 at 2:56 PM ^
Maybe the reason the average school has 2-3 black assistants and 6-7 white ones is simply that the overall pool of people in the coaching profession is predominantly white. A lot of people seem to be assuming that because 50-60% of college football players are black, the same percentage must be true of the coaching pool. That isn't necessarily true.
February 8th, 2011 at 4:45 PM ^
Saying someone is racist is a serious accusation, if there is some evidence then lets deal with the problem. People say someone is "playing the race card" when the only evidence is a non-minority got the position/promotion/acceptance etc. I don't support racism or favoritism or any other method that judges someone because the color of their skin. Everything should be based on merit, end of story.
February 8th, 2011 at 10:47 AM ^
The whole "IT'S RACISM!!!111!!1" thing is getting extremely irritating.
February 8th, 2011 at 1:09 PM ^
James Earl Jones was another black guy with Michigan ties that didn't get the job. "IT'S RACISM!!!111!!1"
February 8th, 2011 at 10:45 AM ^
Mallory is 41. That is not OLD for a coach, you punk.
February 8th, 2011 at 12:24 PM ^
True, 41 is old in general.
February 8th, 2011 at 12:38 PM ^
In what universe is 41 considered old?
You're telling me that when you turn 40, you're going to start referring to yourself as an "old man" to everyone you meet?!?
February 8th, 2011 at 2:06 PM ^
Well, I don't refer to myself as a young man when I meet people now, so I guess not. :-)
3 downvotes, hmm. I didn't realize old people can't take a joke.
February 8th, 2011 at 10:37 AM ^
how is this a big deal? He didn't hire a third black guy for an undisclosed reason and instead went with a white guy. If the inverse happened, would you have the same outrage?
February 8th, 2011 at 10:43 AM ^
Who said I was outraged?
February 8th, 2011 at 10:47 AM ^
You said it was a "big deal" that the last coaching position was filled by "another old white guy."
Nevermind that you didn't even have your facts right on that.
February 8th, 2011 at 12:34 PM ^
It's funny how all of your opinions are skewed because you're unwilling to give up the whole "I was ANGRY about the coaching change!!11!!!!!" schtick.
Give it the fuck up already.
February 8th, 2011 at 10:09 AM ^
Also:
DB is pprobably paying the market rate for a coach that was on literally nobodies short list which is probably quite low. I mean "he never even talked about money *insert DB weird dumb-ass face here*" If I am not mistaken that was DBs most highly regarded qualifying factor when hiring Hoke. He and his staff are probably paid fairly low and to be honest I would hope so. If he was a coach everyone wanted then he would demand a higher salary.
February 8th, 2011 at 12:37 PM ^
February 8th, 2011 at 10:10 AM ^
A touchy subject, but I am glad they addressed it. The subject is much bigger than Michigan football. I just hope MT knows something more than just putting this out there because his friend didn't get the job.
I think the funniest caller was JJ(think that was his name). He said - what are we going to have next, do we need some Asian coaches, Indian coaches and Chinese coaches.
My first thought was aren't both countries part of Asia.
February 8th, 2011 at 10:19 AM ^
Yes, but the people look different, so you should think of them as separate.
/s
February 8th, 2011 at 10:12 AM ^
I'm disappointed in Sam Webb and his mild rant, how he says there is no excuse for not having more Black coordinators. Should we then also have a quota on White WRs ?
February 8th, 2011 at 11:30 AM ^
make 50 cents for every dollar white men do, and where--in the current recession/depression--people of color are sliding back into poverty at twice the rate of whites. So--yeah--giving a shit under those circumstances, in a world where a far higher percentage of the players are black, makes sense. Acting completely oblivious to this is--in a word insulting.
And what people around here don't seem to get, repeating numbnutz stuff like "well then, why don't they recruit white wide receivers," is that perceptions matter, no matter WTF people who react in small minded ways think. If word goes around that black people aren't getting a fair shake (true or untrue) at Michigan, it hurts the program and in turn hurts a school that has worked hard to do the opposite.
The fact that nine people plussed the wide receiver comment is, I pray, only a sign that it's mostly just the superannuated retired old white duffers that are trolling the nets in the a.m.s.
This blog really has jumped the shark--the readership no longer reflects the views of its founder. Wish Brian would just leave it to some of you clowns and go set up shop anew at a different address.
February 8th, 2011 at 11:48 AM ^
"in a world where black men make 50 cents for every dollar white men do"
Not sure where you got this stat? Can you clarify. I mean, you use "men" which to me means a sum. There are a lot less black men in the "world" than white men. So you're saying that the summed earning of all black men in the world is half of all white men in the world? That would mean per man, black men are getting paid more. This is not true. Perhaps you mean that per man each black man gets paid half of what each white man does? If that is the case, what do you qualify as a black man and a white man in the "world"? Are Australians white? How about Russians? Are you just talking about the USA? If so, why use the word "world"? Is this just a stat taken from a census? Are the men performing the same job and getting paid different wages? Are you suggesting that one job on a college football team will change this stat? Or should we intentionally try to hire black men to skew this stat toward an equal ratio? I just fail to see the point of bringing up this stat, and what the stat itself really means.
February 8th, 2011 at 12:39 PM ^
I got crushed for asking the question before Montgomery got hired because I figured it would be an issue. This is why Brian has a no-politics rule people just get a little too emotional. But if you want a good index of employment related racism, the unemployment rate is a pretty good start, it's about 8/16 (white/black) right now and the difference in those numbers holds pretty well even when you control for education level, experience and geographical location. You could argue maybe there's a difference in culture when it comes to accepting lower wages or how hard you look for a job. I personally wouldn't make that leap but even if you did the experience and education levels should control that out. I think it's counterproductive to care about particular positions, there is so much that goes into a hire that we just don't know. But I do think it's ok to ask the questions of ourselves, particularly if we are in the position to hire/fire people do we have a certain comfort level with our own race that seeps into our decisions subconsciously.
February 8th, 2011 at 12:15 PM ^
February 8th, 2011 at 12:16 PM ^
TP;TMU;DR
February 8th, 2011 at 11:34 PM ^
"This blog really has jumped the shark--the readership no longer reflects the views of its founder. Wish Brian would just leave it to some of you clowns and go set up shop anew at a different address."
In other words, you value diversity -- just so long as everyone else agrees exactly with what Brian and, by extension, you think.
February 8th, 2011 at 11:37 AM ^
This is the kind of comment that creates acrimony in discussions of race in the workplace.
It is a fact that African-Americans are grossly underrepresented as head coaches and coordinators in college football.
Pointing out the problem and advocating for correction is not the same thing as calling for a quota.
February 8th, 2011 at 2:03 PM ^
You're right.
I'm sick of underrepresentation at ever level of everything.
Starting with college football and according to the U.S. 2010 Census I want:
Teams and staffs to be made up of 50.3% females and 49.7% males.
Teams and staffs will be 65% White, 15% Hispanic, 12.4% Black, 4.9% of "some other race", 4.5% Asian, 2.4% of people of two or more races, 0.8% American Indian or Alaskan Native and 0.15% Native Hawaiian or other Pacific Islander.
This is the only fair way to make sure that everyone is equally represented in this country. Hopefully college football adopts my plan and it spreads to every private and public sector of our great nation.
February 8th, 2011 at 2:36 PM ^
The primary qualification for coaching football at a high level is playing football at a high level.
College football has been integrated everywhere around the country for 40 years. Since then, African-Americans have made up a large percentage of the roster of every college football team. And professional teams. There are many African-American position coaches. Yet something like 2% of all head coaches are African-Americans.
There's a very large pool of qualified head coaching candidates who are African-American. Yet only 2-3% of all the head coaches are African-American.
Saying that such a gross underrepresentation is wrong is not the same thing as saying that the coaching population should reflect census statistics for the general population.
You can't use flawed logic to make an issue disappear, just because it makes you uncomfortable.
February 8th, 2011 at 3:52 PM ^
"The primary qualification for coaching football at a high level is playing football at a high level."
Really? The highest level of coaching is the NFL correct? Here, maybe this will make you rethink your statement: http://joeposnanski.si.com/2010/10/16/top-32-nfl-coaches-as-players/
As you can see 5 coaches played football in the NFL. So that means 27 of the 32 highest level coaches did not play football at the highest level. A further 9 coaches played football at D1-A schools. So that means that 18 NFL coaches did not play football at the highest level or the second highest level. So perhaps being a former "high level" player isn't the biggest requirement in being a head coach.
Also, you are absolutely wrong that 2% of head coaches are black.
At the NFL level, 21.8% of head coaches are black. (7 of 32).
At the CFB D1-A level, 10.8% of head coaches are black. (13 of 120).
Why is this? Because black coaches in the NFL have done a quality job. So far, there have been no Mike Tomlins or Tony Dungys or Raheem Morris' at the college level. In fact most black college coaches have flamed out much like Mike Singletary did at the NFL level. The ones who have succeeded - such as Tyrone Willingham at Stanford - have found traction at other schools. But for the most part, black coaches have failed as a whole in college football. Randy Shannon, Sylvester Croom, Bobby Williams, Willingham, Ron Prince, Karl Dorrell had little or no success at their big gigs. They were fired just like their white counterparts would have been - RR, Weiss, Callahan, Tubberville - for underperforming.
For instance, take Dorrell and Croom. If they had built successful teams at UCLA and MSU, it it highly likely they would have moved up the ladder to bigger jobs. They would have gained stature in the coaching profession. They would have taken jobs at bigger schools and regardless of success or failure, would have coached onward or for another team (i.e. Willingham failing at ND, but being hired almost immediately by Washington). This keeps them in the mix for coaching jobs and increases the likelihood of a greater number of black coaches.
If you start to see black coaches succeeding at the college level, you will see more black coaches. Not because ADs and Presidents will say "Oh so African Americans CAN coach", but because there will be a foundation of black coaches to build upon. What stopped Randy Shannon from building a powerhouse at Miami, from being their Tressel or Brown or Stoops? It wasn't him being black, it was him not meeting expectations. Why was Rich Rodriguez fired from Michigan after 3 seasons? It wasn't because he was black now was it, it was because he didn't meet expectations.
If you want more black coaches in college football, black coaches need to succeed. Thus far, as individuals, none of them have done so on a consistent basis. Therefore, the collective number of black coaches remains low.
There is no argument against success.