Black head coaches
Charles Barkley's thoughts on Auburn's hire of Gene Chizik...
"I think race was the No. 1 factor, you can say it's not about race, but you can't compare the two resumes and say [Chizik] deserved the job. Out of all the coaches they interviewed, Chizik probably had the worst resume...I'm just very disappointed...I just thought Turner Gill would be the perfect choice for two reasons: He's a terrific coach and we needed to make a splash. I thought we had to do something spectacular to bring attention to the program. Clearly, if we'd hired a black coach, it would have created a buzz...We talked about the whole race thing in Alabama...I told him it's there and it's going to be anywhere you go. I told him you can't not take the job because of racism. He was worried about being nothing more than a token interview. He was concerned about having a white wife. It's just very disappointing to me."
I agree with those who lament the lack of black head coaches in college football. I don't think forcing schools to interview black coaches is the answer. There is a cultural problem among the men who influence these coaching searches (boosters, etc.). At certain schools, they are the true racists and I can completely imagine Auburn's boosters gathering to chat football and scoffing at the thought of hiring a black coach. The problem is not that they are white. The NFL has rich white people running it and have plenty of respected black coaches (Dungy, Herm, Tomlin, Crennel, Lovie, etc..) It's the elitist, racist, old-school attitude of these people at certain schools. Especially at a lot of these schools in the deep south, I just don't see a short term or an even long term solution.
I really hope that Admiral Martin doesn't have to deal with these scum.
What do you guys think?
December 15th, 2008 at 7:22 PM ^
I think Chizik, despite the two crappy seasons at Iowa State, has a better resume.
December 15th, 2008 at 7:26 PM ^
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.
December 15th, 2008 at 7:37 PM ^
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.
December 15th, 2008 at 9:31 PM ^
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.
December 15th, 2008 at 9:40 PM ^
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.
December 16th, 2008 at 12:48 AM ^
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)
Gretzky, Phoenix
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...)
December 16th, 2008 at 2:49 AM ^
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.
December 16th, 2008 at 3:16 AM ^
Andy Murray and Tom Renney never played in the majors or minors, either.
December 16th, 2008 at 3:28 AM ^
Murray played in the juniors, but I don't count that. I don't know of any playing time Renney got at any level.
December 16th, 2008 at 12:43 PM ^
babcock? If you count two years in the WHL as the "minors" then you win, otherwise...yea.
December 16th, 2008 at 1:04 PM ^
The CHL leagues and college hockey are really a different beast. They're more comparable to college football than anything.
December 16th, 2008 at 2:13 PM ^
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.]
December 16th, 2008 at 2:20 PM ^
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.
December 16th, 2008 at 3:19 PM ^
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.
December 16th, 2008 at 9:03 PM ^
Michel Therrien (Pittsburgh) played in the AHL.
December 16th, 2008 at 12:56 AM ^
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.
December 16th, 2008 at 2:00 AM ^
the distribution of football talent in the football coaching population is proportional to the general populace.
December 16th, 2008 at 12:57 AM ^
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.
December 16th, 2008 at 10:02 AM ^
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.
December 17th, 2008 at 4:11 PM ^
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.
December 17th, 2008 at 4:15 PM ^
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.
December 17th, 2008 at 6:04 PM ^
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.
December 17th, 2008 at 6:26 PM ^
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.
December 17th, 2008 at 10:37 PM ^
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.
December 17th, 2008 at 11:49 PM ^
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.
December 18th, 2008 at 12:20 AM ^
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.
December 17th, 2008 at 7:03 PM ^
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.
December 17th, 2008 at 4:17 PM ^
Your conclusion would be justified if the only factor that applied was race. It isn't as simple as that.
December 17th, 2008 at 6:06 PM ^
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.
December 16th, 2008 at 5:12 AM ^
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.
December 16th, 2008 at 10:06 AM ^
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.
December 16th, 2008 at 10:33 AM ^
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.
December 16th, 2008 at 11:08 AM ^
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?
December 16th, 2008 at 1:09 PM ^
I will put it this way: there are 5 more black head coaches coaching ACC Basketball than in Division 1 football.
December 16th, 2008 at 8:53 PM ^
Thanks. Like I said, it was an honest question. Does anyone know the total for all of division I though?
December 15th, 2008 at 7:55 PM ^
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
December 15th, 2008 at 7:57 PM ^
Willingham really isn't a bad coach. Taking Stanford to a Rose Bowl is a major feat.
December 15th, 2008 at 7:59 PM ^
he just doesn't like recruiting
December 15th, 2008 at 9:28 PM ^
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?
December 15th, 2008 at 10:43 PM ^
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.
December 15th, 2008 at 10:55 PM ^
A head coach based on what? Terrible defenses for TWO teams now?
December 16th, 2008 at 12:13 AM ^
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.'
December 16th, 2008 at 12:45 AM ^
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.
December 16th, 2008 at 12:58 AM ^
Some people, Strong is one I believe, turn down jobs they feel are beneath their credentials.
December 16th, 2008 at 10:08 AM ^
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.
December 15th, 2008 at 11:02 PM ^
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.
December 16th, 2008 at 3:10 AM ^
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.
December 16th, 2008 at 10:18 AM ^
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.
December 15th, 2008 at 7:39 PM ^
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.
December 15th, 2008 at 7:57 PM ^
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