Why no minority hirings? (1 Viewer)

[jurb26]

Again, I don't know why. I don't necessarily care either. The reason people throw out the "I don't see many white RBs" argument is because that is clearly a case that people don't care whether there is racial equality. But, for some reason those same people that don't care about RB care about coaches. Or, they're willing to argue that, for whatever reason, blacks are better RBs than whites, but they aren't willing to accept that whites may be better than blacks at something, like coaching. I'm not saying whites are better because they are white. I'm saying I don't know why and I don't care why.

People throw out the "I don't see many white RBs" argument because there is no evidence that white RBs are discriminated against. The fact that blacks dominate many of the athletic positions in some sports is due to culture, not aptitude; blacks in America are more likely to participate in more athletic activities as kids, and their families and friends place a higher value on athletic success. Whites dominate some sports, like hockey, again because of cultural issues. The idea of the oppressed white RB is a straw man, completely irrelevant to the discussion.(Aside; if 90% of the hockey coaches in America and Canada were black, wouldn't you think that was a bit odd?)

Unlike you, I do care why blacks in America are not given leadership positions, and I also have a good idea as to why that is so. Among the reasons are long-standing, ingrained, and fundamentally flawed ideas about aptitude.

Oh the irony.

 

[Andy Dufresne]

I've been waiting for this smilie for a long time.  Now I finally get to use it.

I really think for the most part there is a good discussion going on. Considering it is about race there is really no flaming occurring.

That is true. Nobody wants to be the doorknob that gets the thread locked.I just freaking LOVE that trainwreck smilie, though. I felt compelled to use it.

 

[bagger.]

Neither is going to be a clean indicator. I would say a blended average is probably right. What the exact percentage should be, who knows? I don't know that we're far from it with regard to Head Coaches in the NFL. I know that we are far from it with regard to coordinators in the NFL and head coaches in the NCAAs.

This is exactly my point.The issue isn't the amount of head coaches currently in the NFL, it is the issue of coordinators that are available when coaching turnover occurs. Nobody can fault GMs for hiring white coaches if they are the only ones qualified, but the issue becomes why are there only white coaches that are qualified.

It's because blacks are not moving up to assistant coaching positions.

You are correct as well regarding the NCAA but that's a whole other issue.

 

[dgreen]

Again, I don't know why. I don't necessarily care either. The reason people throw out the "I don't see many white RBs" argument is because that is clearly a case that people don't care whether there is racial equality. But, for some reason those same people that don't care about RB care about coaches. Or, they're willing to argue that, for whatever reason, blacks are better RBs than whites, but they aren't willing to accept that whites may be better than blacks at something, like coaching. I'm not saying whites are better because they are white. I'm saying I don't know why and I don't care why.

You correct me if I'm wrong. Based on your logic, do you think it would be fair to say that:1) blacks, as a group, are better athletes. They have tangible skills that we can witness as being superior to other groups (like the RB example).

2) whites, as a group, are better coaches. They have tangible skills that we can witness as being superior to other groups (the ratio of white coaches in the NFL).

Is this a fair characterization of your argument?

Not really. Yes, blacks appear to be better at certain athletic events. Whites appear to be better at other athletic events (hockey). I'm not saying it is because they are white or black.As for the reason, I've said numerous times that I don't know and I don't care. When I say I don't care, I don' t mean I wouldn't like to know. I would find a study of this pretty interesting. By "I don't care," I mean that I don't think it's a big deal that blacks don't play hockey and whites aren't NFL RBs or even that blacks aren't NFL head coaches or women aren't CEOs of Fortune 500 companies. I don't see that, on its own, as a problem. If a study shows that it is because of racism, then I see a problem. But, I'm open to the possibility that there are many different reasons other than racism. I'm open to it being racism, but that's not my first assumption and I'll take the field if I were to bet on it.

The hockey example is perfect. Whites dominate hockey. Is that because blacks can't ice skate? Are blacks made in such a way that their ankles are insufficient to balance on two thin blades on ice? As far as I know, the answer is no. It's because, for some reason, blacks don't ice skate and play hockey in large numbers, not that they can't. It could be because blacks don't tend to live in hockey towns or that blacks tend to live in poorer urban areas where there are fewer ice rinks and simply grow up caring about 1000 things more than hockey and ice skating. I don't see that as a problem that requires fixing. I simply see it as an interesting tid bit.

 

[coolnerd]

Having that cup of coffee is EXACTLY why they are coaches.  Life is all about networking.  By having a cup of coffee in the NFL they established relationships with people in positions to hire coaching staff.

With the exception of a very small minority, all coaches have played significant college ball and a little NFL ball.

Nobody has argued the point that coaches were good NFL players.  Just that they were in fact players.

And all these overlooked minorities had a cup of coffee, too, and a chance network. So, that cup of coffee is not the reason they are coaches. There is something else. Actual coaching and leadership skills, maybe?

Let's be clear on this; you are suggesting that the reason there are more white coaches is that white ex-players are more likely to have "actual coaching and leadership skills" than black ex-players.

No, that's not what I'm suggesting.

That is the clear implication of your logic. You suggest that the reason people get coaching jobs is because they networked and had the chance, and had "actual coaching and leadership skills." You state that "overlooked minorities" had the networking and the chance. The reality is that the overwhelming majority of coaching jobs in the NCAA and NFL go to whites. So what is your explanation for that, other than that the minorities didn't have "actual coaching and leadership skills"?

The problem arises because of the dispute about which pool of candidates we are to pull from.Are we pulling from society at large?

This makes sense on one level. At birth, everyone has the same capacity for strong leadership and comprehension of the game. People who excel at it would approximate the genetic makeup of society at large.

This approach discounts valuable experience that is/can be learned during the performance of the game.

Are we pulling from the nfl players?

This makes sense at one level as well. Players certainly know the system. They've seen good and bad coaches. They've watched years of film. They understand the game, at least on some level.

However, this approach overvalues playing experience. The skillset required to be a player in the NFL than the skillset required to be a successful coach. In addition, it begs the question "why are there more blacks than whites playing in the NFL?" It isn't because they've got superior ability to comprehend the game, lead others, etc or other skills vital to successful coaching. I would argue that that ability is going to be the same. The reason there are more blacks in the NFL than whites is due to physical superiority. The physical ability is not a prerequisite to successful coaching. Many of the gifted athletes in the NFL may not make it as head coaches NOT because they are inferior intellectually to their white counterparts, but because they were superior physically to their white counterparts.

Neither is going to be a clean indicator. I would say a blended average is probably right. What the exact percentage should be, who knows? I don't know that we're far from it with regard to Head Coaches in the NFL. I know that we are far from it with regard to coordinators in the NFL and head coaches in the NCAAs.

Think you are moving towards the right direction in terms of numbers. there is a number somewhere between the general population of the US being around 15% and the number of NFL plyers being around 65% where there is a least a perception the the hiring practices are fair and that hiring a minority (really black) coach is not considered newsworthy. The NBA and NCAA have managed to reach that number and been there for at least a decade if not longer. Heck, a black manager in major baseball is less newsworthy than a headcoach football and that sports has about 10% african-amercian players.

 

[dgreen]

Again, I don't know why. I don't necessarily care either. The reason people throw out the "I don't see many white RBs" argument is because that is clearly a case that people don't care whether there is racial equality. But, for some reason those same people that don't care about RB care about coaches. Or, they're willing to argue that, for whatever reason, blacks are better RBs than whites, but they aren't willing to accept that whites may be better than blacks at something, like coaching. I'm not saying whites are better because they are white. I'm saying I don't know why and I don't care why.

People throw out the "I don't see many white RBs" argument because there is no evidence that white RBs are discriminated against. The fact that blacks dominate many of the athletic positions in some sports is due to culture, not aptitude; blacks in America are more likely to participate in more athletic activities as kids, and their families and friends place a higher value on athletic success. Whites dominate some sports, like hockey, again because of cultural issues. The idea of the oppressed white RB is a straw man, completely irrelevant to the discussion.

This might come as a surprise to you, but we are saying almost the same thing.And, the white RB argument isn't because people think the white RB is being oppressed. It's because they think the black coach isn't being oppressed.

(Aside; if 90% of the hockey coaches in America and Canada were black, wouldn't you think that was a bit odd?)

Odd? Sure. Do something about it? Not necessarily.

 

[coolnerd]

You are correct as well regarding the NCAA but that's a whole other issue.

Yes, boosters with money control that process versus ADs and Presidents with titles and limited authority.

 

[Riffraff]

Just a quick note on coaches in general at that level (head coach):To coach at the head coach level, many colleges hire alumni or other college graduates. They become a representative of the school and local community.Successful college coaches become positional coaches at the NFL level. Eventually, they move up to the head coach position from there.Perhaps, instead of leaving college early (or just going to college to play football), more minorities should get the degree in hand (and a degree useful towards coaching). How many football players graduate with a degree in "communications" but can't articulate or enunciate their sentences? This occurs regardless of the color of their skin.I expect education and image, not just football smarts, plays a part in getting to the top of the coaching food chain. Heck, sometimes image is everything. How many bling bling wearing, goldtoof'd coaches make it to the top?

 

[NattyDread]

Although many in society wish for or believe we exist in a color blind society, the passion exhibited on this thread once again illustrates that we're nowhere near that state. But in this particular discussion on the lack of minority coaching hires this season, I think we're getting distracted from the real issue with all of this talk of racism, prejudice, and comparing blacks and whites in terms of intellect and physical abilities. It's also interesting that a discussion on minority hires and become simply a black vs white discussion.

In my mind the biggest issues are access and opportunity. Those who have access most often have the first crack at opportunity. Jason Wood's comment about the lack of minority hires being partially a generational issue is right on the mark. Who are those surrounding the decision makers, NFL owners and executives? What is the ethnic makeup of their friends and business associates? This is the pool of people that have access, and as long as these pools of people are predominantly white, absent policies like the Rooney rule, I see little chance that the relatively low rate of minorities in coaching positions compared to the percentage of players will change.

This by no means strictly an NFL issue: http://www.cbs.sportsline.com/collegefootball/story/9187594

However, it's interesting to note that the lack of minorities in coaching and management do not appear to be an issue in the NBA.

 

[Idiot Boxer]

I see little chance that the relatively low rate of minorities in coaching positions compared to the percentage of players will change.

With you until here, and this is what much of the debate was about.Policies such as the Rooney rule and affirmative action are set in place to help compensate for actual present imbalances, however, by their very nature, if they are being successful they should cease at some future date when the playing field has been leveled. If we don't have a good idea of when success has been achieved by these policies imbalances will swing in the other direction.

 

[Weiner Dog]

I think the NFL should really adress the lack of white talent at the running back and defensive back positions.

 

[pinequick]

Perhaps, instead of leaving college early (or just going to college to play football), more minorities should get the degree in hand (and a degree useful towards coaching).

Hmmmm, leaving school early is disproportionately a "minority" thing?This is an interesting use of logic. . . or lack thereof.

 

[CalBear]

blacks in America are more likely to participate in more athletic activities as kids, and their families and friends place a higher value on athletic success.

Sorry to jump in mid-argument here (and I'm not necessarily taking sides either way), but what are you basing this on? Just out of curiosity.

See Race, Cultural Capital, and the Educational Effects of Participation in Sports, TMN Elite, DJ Elite, Sociology of Education, vol 75 no. 2, 2002. Black males are 1.6 times as likely as white males to participate in interscholastic football in high school and 2.5 times as likely to participate in interscholastic basketball. When you control for other factors (such as whether the high school has a football team), blacks are 2.54 times more likely than whites to participate in football and 5.68 times more likely to participate in basketball. Culturally disadvantaged black males are much more likely than similarly situated white males, or culturally advantaged black males, to participate in football and basketball.

Overall sports participation is actually about even, whites vs. blacks, but whites are more likely to play baseball, soccer, and other sports which are not perceived as being as athletic.

In that vein, it may also be instructive to read ''White Men Can't Jump'': Evidence for the Perceptual Confirmation of Racial Stereotypes Following a Basketball Game J Stone, ZW Perry, JM Darley, L Green, L Blue - Basic and Applied Social Psychology, 1997, vol 19 no 3.

That study had participants listen to an excerpted radio broadcast of a basketball game, and to follow the contributions of one player. Some participants were told the player was white, and others were told he was black. When asked to evaluate his performance, those who thought he was black rated him as having significantly more athletic ability and contributing more to his team's performance, while those who thought he was white rated him as having more basketball intelligence and hustle.

 

[pinequick]

People throw out the "I don't see many white RBs" argument because there is no evidence that white RBs are discriminated against. The fact that blacks dominate many of the athletic positions in some sports is due to culture, not aptitude; blacks in America are more likely to participate in more athletic activities as kids, and their families and friends place a higher value on athletic success. Whites dominate some sports, like hockey, again because of cultural issues. The idea of the oppressed white RB is a straw man, completely irrelevant to the discussion.

(Aside; if 90% of the hockey coaches in America and Canada were black, wouldn't you think that was a bit odd?)

Unlike you, I do care why blacks in America are not given leadership positions, and I also have a good idea as to why that is so. Among the reasons are long-standing, ingrained, and fundamentally flawed ideas about aptitude.

I'm not sure I buy your argument. Hockey, sure, is cultural. But what about (what I consider to be) the purest of sporting events--running just as fast as you can for 100 yards or so. All kids run, at recess, after school, everywhere. It's not like black kids run around and play, and white kids don't. Who was the last white person who was 100-meter world champion? If there isn't a racial component there, then that's one heck of a coincidence.What I have no patience for is taking something SO much more complicated like the coaching issue and just painting with a broad brush. "Well, there are more white coaches, so they must just be better at it."

That's like saying, "A higher proportion of Jews are lawyers and doctors then other ethnicities, so they must just be better at it."

The coaching issue is a SOCIAL question. It isn't like measuring 40-yard dash times. Hiring decisions are always a "feel" thing--you hire the person you feel the most comfortable with. I'm not naive enough to think that, even subconciously, race couldn't be a part of that calculus.

 

[Slinger]

Perhaps, instead of leaving college early (or just going to college to play football), more minorities should get the degree in hand (and a degree useful towards coaching).

Hmmmm, leaving school early is disproportionately a "minority" thing?This is an interesting use of logic. . . or lack thereof.

He didn't say that as you very well know.

 

[pinequick]

Perhaps, instead of leaving college early (or just going to college to play football), more minorities should get the degree in hand (and a degree useful towards coaching).

Hmmmm, leaving school early is disproportionately a "minority" thing?This is an interesting use of logic. . . or lack thereof.

He didn't say that as you very well know.

Huh? Okay, let's have a look at what he said. . .

Just a quick note on coaches in general at that level (head coach):

To coach at the head coach level, many colleges hire alumni or other college graduates. They become a representative of the school and local community.

Successful college coaches become positional coaches at the NFL level. Eventually, they move up to the head coach position from there.

#1Perhaps, instead of leaving college early (or just going to college to play football), more minorities should get the degree in hand (and a degree useful towards coaching).

How many football players graduate with a degree in "communications" but can't articulate or enunciate their sentences? This occurs regardless of the color of their skin.

#2 I expect education and image, not just football smarts, plays a part in getting to the top of the coaching food chain.

#3 Heck, sometimes image is everything. How many bling bling wearing, goldtoof'd coaches make it to the top?

Since this thread revolves around a variant of "why are there more white hires than minority hires?", I have bolded for you the parts of the post that seem to make value judgement in answer that question.Bold quote #1: In answer to "why are there more white hires than minority hires?", the answer seems to be that "more minorities should get the degree in hand". This seems to imply that this is a minority issue to a greater extent than it is for whites, hence the disparity in race in the coaching ranks.

Bold quote #2: In answer to "why are there more white hires than minority hires?", the answer seems to be that "education and image, not just football smarts, plays a part in getting to the top of the coaching food chain." Following this logic, minorities must to less-educated and have a less-desireable image, right?

Bold quote #3: In answer to "why are there more white hires than minority hires?", the answer seems to be that "image is everything" and that you can't have "bling bling wearing, goldtoof'd coaches". Again, minorities must have a less-desireable image, because they are disproportionately bling bling wearers, or are "goldtoof'd".

He mentions that football players, regardless of color, graduate with worthless degrees. If so, that doesn't explain the disparity of race in coaching--all things equal, if whites and blacks graduate with worthless degrees at equal rates, we should still have more blacks than whites in the coaching ranks.

He didn't say that as you very well know.

As such, I feel quite safe in concluding that that was EXACTLY what he was saying. . . for the reasons noted above.

 

[Idiot Boxer]

blacks in America are more likely to participate in more athletic activities as kids, and their families and friends place a higher value on athletic success.

Sorry to jump in mid-argument here (and I'm not necessarily taking sides either way), but what are you basing this on? Just out of curiosity.

See Race, Cultural Capital, and the Educational Effects of Participation in Sports, TMN Elite, DJ Elite, Sociology of Education, vol 75 no. 2, 2002. Black males are 1.6 times as likely as white males to participate in interscholastic football in high school and 2.5 times as likely to participate in interscholastic basketball. When you control for other factors (such as whether the high school has a football team), blacks are 2.54 times more likely than whites to participate in football and 5.68 times more likely to participate in basketball. Culturally disadvantaged black males are much more likely than similarly situated white males, or culturally advantaged black males, to participate in football and basketball.

Overall sports participation is actually about even, whites vs. blacks, but whites are more likely to play baseball, soccer, and other sports which are not perceived as being as athletic.

In that vein, it may also be instructive to read ''White Men Can't Jump'': Evidence for the Perceptual Confirmation of Racial Stereotypes Following a Basketball Game J Stone, ZW Perry, JM Darley, L Green, L Blue - Basic and Applied Social Psychology, 1997, vol 19 no 3.

That study had participants listen to an excerpted radio broadcast of a basketball game, and to follow the contributions of one player. Some participants were told the player was white, and others were told he was black. When asked to evaluate his performance, those who thought he was black rated him as having significantly more athletic ability and contributing more to his team's performance, while those who thought he was white rated him as having more basketball intelligence and hustle.

I buy all of this, however are you trying to use this to make the point that there is no physical difference between whites and blacks? Are you essentially saying that if 100 black children and 100 white children with equal socio-economic backgrounds, randomly selected were all given the same access to and amount of training that we would expect exactly the same number of white RBs as black RBs, white QBs as black QBs, white DBs as black DBs, etc? Because I don't buy it.

 

[Idiot Boxer]

Perhaps, instead of leaving college early (or just going to college to play football), more minorities should get the degree in hand (and a degree useful towards coaching).

Hmmmm, leaving school early is disproportionately a "minority" thing?This is an interesting use of logic. . . or lack thereof.

He didn't say that as you very well know.

Huh? Okay, let's have a look at what he said. . .

Just a quick note on coaches in general at that level (head coach):

To coach at the head coach level, many colleges hire alumni or other college graduates. They become a representative of the school and local community.

Successful college coaches become positional coaches at the NFL level. Eventually, they move up to the head coach position from there.

#1Perhaps, instead of leaving college early (or just going to college to play football), more minorities should get the degree in hand (and a degree useful towards coaching).

How many football players graduate with a degree in "communications" but can't articulate or enunciate their sentences? This occurs regardless of the color of their skin.

#2 I expect education and image, not just football smarts, plays a part in getting to the top of the coaching food chain.

#3 Heck, sometimes image is everything. How many bling bling wearing, goldtoof'd coaches make it to the top?

Since this thread revolves around a variant of "why are there more white hires than minority hires?", I have bolded for you the parts of the post that seem to make value judgement in answer that question.Bold quote #1: In answer to "why are there more white hires than minority hires?", the answer seems to be that "more minorities should get the degree in hand". This seems to imply that this is a minority issue to a greater extent than it is for whites, hence the disparity in race in the coaching ranks.

Bold quote #2: In answer to "why are there more white hires than minority hires?", the answer seems to be that "education and image, not just football smarts, plays a part in getting to the top of the coaching food chain." Following this logic, minorities must to less-educated and have a less-desireable image, right?

Bold quote #3: In answer to "why are there more white hires than minority hires?", the answer seems to be that "image is everything" and that you can't have "bling bling wearing, goldtoof'd coaches". Again, minorities must have a less-desireable image, because they are disproportionately bling bling wearers, or are "goldtoof'd".

He mentions that football players, regardless of color, graduate with worthless degrees. If so, that doesn't explain the disparity of race in coaching--all things equal, if whites and blacks graduate with worthless degrees at equal rates, we should still have more blacks than whites in the coaching ranks.

He didn't say that as you very well know.

As such, I feel quite safe in concluding that that was EXACTLY what he was saying. . . for the reasons noted above.

I won't defend his Quote #3, but perhaps a greater percentage of white athletes are getting a degree is not because they are more mentally gifted than blacks, but because black athletes are more prepared for an early jump to the NFL and no one is going to fault them (at that time) for opting for a professional career and the money. (in fact, due to socio-economic factors, I would theorize that it is even more disproportionate).Anybody have the breakdown of white athletes v. black athletes making an early jump to the pros?

 

[Warsteinner]

Perhaps, instead of leaving college early (or just going to college to play football), more minorities should get the degree in hand (and a degree useful towards coaching).

Hmmmm, leaving school early is disproportionately a "minority" thing?This is an interesting use of logic. . . or lack thereof.

I don't have any statistics in front of me, but I wouldn't be surprised if that is accurate.

 

[coolnerd]

Perhaps, instead of leaving college early (or just going to college to play football), more minorities should get the degree in hand (and a degree useful towards coaching).

Hmmmm, leaving school early is disproportionately a "minority" thing?This is an interesting use of logic. . . or lack thereof.

He didn't say that as you very well know.

Huh? Okay, let's have a look at what he said. . .

Just a quick note on coaches in general at that level (head coach):

To coach at the head coach level, many colleges hire alumni or other college graduates. They become a representative of the school and local community.

Successful college coaches become positional coaches at the NFL level. Eventually, they move up to the head coach position from there.

#1Perhaps, instead of leaving college early (or just going to college to play football), more minorities should get the degree in hand (and a degree useful towards coaching).

How many football players graduate with a degree in "communications" but can't articulate or enunciate their sentences? This occurs regardless of the color of their skin.

#2 I expect education and image, not just football smarts, plays a part in getting to the top of the coaching food chain.

#3 Heck, sometimes image is everything. How many bling bling wearing, goldtoof'd coaches make it to the top?

Since this thread revolves around a variant of "why are there more white hires than minority hires?", I have bolded for you the parts of the post that seem to make value judgement in answer that question.Bold quote #1: In answer to "why are there more white hires than minority hires?", the answer seems to be that "more minorities should get the degree in hand". This seems to imply that this is a minority issue to a greater extent than it is for whites, hence the disparity in race in the coaching ranks.

Bold quote #2: In answer to "why are there more white hires than minority hires?", the answer seems to be that "education and image, not just football smarts, plays a part in getting to the top of the coaching food chain." Following this logic, minorities must to less-educated and have a less-desireable image, right?

Bold quote #3: In answer to "why are there more white hires than minority hires?", the answer seems to be that "image is everything" and that you can't have "bling bling wearing, goldtoof'd coaches". Again, minorities must have a less-desireable image, because they are disproportionately bling bling wearers, or are "goldtoof'd".

He mentions that football players, regardless of color, graduate with worthless degrees. If so, that doesn't explain the disparity of race in coaching--all things equal, if whites and blacks graduate with worthless degrees at equal rates, we should still have more blacks than whites in the coaching ranks.

He didn't say that as you very well know.

As such, I feel quite safe in concluding that that was EXACTLY what he was saying. . . for the reasons noted above.

I won't defend his Quote #3, but perhaps a greater percentage of white athletes are getting a degree is not because they are more mentally gifted than blacks, but because black athletes are more prepared for an early jump to the NFL and no one is going to fault them (at that time) for opting for a professional career and the money. (in fact, due to socio-economic factors, I would theorize that it is even more disproportionate).Anybody have the breakdown of white athletes v. black athletes making an early jump to the pros?

If you take total athletes, I believe that baseball players will make even out the pure numbers of athletes who leave early for the pros quite a bit as very few high level baseball prospects play 4 years of college baseball. One thing to do would also be to compare the rates of athletes to the general student population. I believe that people would be surprised to find how close the numbers are.

 

[Peep It Yo!]

What am I missing here?The black population in America is 13.3% of the entire population.5 coaches out of 32 in the NFL are black...a 16% representation.So in terms of the population from a purely statistical standpoint, they are represented fairly.However, the representation of black players in the NFL is far greater than 13.3% which, again from a statistical standpoint, is far out of whack. No one really makes an issue out of that.As many other people here have said, perhaps the coaches being hired are the best regardless of whether they are white, black or purple. Until we as a whole can get past the color issue and make the best decisions based purely on talent, we will never be able to reach our full potential as a people.

 

[-OZ-]

What am I missing here?

The black population in America is 13.3% of the entire population.

5 coaches out of 32 in the NFL are black...a 16% representation.

So in terms of the population from a purely statistical standpoint, they are represented fairly.

However, the representation of black players in the NFL is far greater than 13.3% which, again from a statistical standpoint, is far out of whack. No one really makes an issue out of that.

As many other people here have said, perhaps the coaches being hired are the best regardless of whether they are white, black or purple. Until we as a whole can get past the color issue and make the best decisions based purely on talent, we will never be able to reach our full potential as a people.

Dang good point. Ignoring the rest, IMO this settles the issue.Stop whining already.

 

[CalBear]

Perhaps, instead of leaving college early (or just going to college to play football), more minorities should get the degree in hand (and a degree useful towards coaching).

Hmmmm, leaving school early is disproportionately a "minority" thing?This is an interesting use of logic. . . or lack thereof.

I don't have any statistics in front of me, but I wouldn't be surprised if that is accurate.

Leaving school early for pro ball is, in any case, statistically insignificant. There are something like 2000 NCAA Div 1 football players in each class: something like .5% of those will leave school early. It's even smaller for basketball.

 

[CalBear]

I'm not sure I buy your argument. Hockey, sure, is cultural. But what about (what I consider to be) the purest of sporting events--running just as fast as you can for 100 yards or so. All kids run, at recess, after school, everywhere. It's not like black kids run around and play, and white kids don't. Who was the last white person who was 100-meter world champion? If there isn't a racial component there, then that's one heck of a coincidence.

Who is the last black person to be world bicycle time trial champion? (I'm pretty sure it's never happened).

 

[cstu]

blacks in America are more likely to participate in more athletic activities as kids, and their families and friends place a higher value on athletic success.

Sorry to jump in mid-argument here (and I'm not necessarily taking sides either way), but what are you basing this on? Just out of curiosity.

See Race, Cultural Capital, and the Educational Effects of Participation in Sports, TMN Elite, DJ Elite, Sociology of Education, vol 75 no. 2, 2002. Black males are 1.6 times as likely as white males to participate in interscholastic football in high school and 2.5 times as likely to participate in interscholastic basketball. When you control for other factors (such as whether the high school has a football team), blacks are 2.54 times more likely than whites to participate in football and 5.68 times more likely to participate in basketball. Culturally disadvantaged black males are much more likely than similarly situated white males, or culturally advantaged black males, to participate in football and basketball.

Overall sports participation is actually about even, whites vs. blacks, but whites are more likely to play baseball, soccer, and other sports which are not perceived as being as athletic.

In that vein, it may also be instructive to read ''White Men Can't Jump'': Evidence for the Perceptual Confirmation of Racial Stereotypes Following a Basketball Game J Stone, ZW Perry, JM Darley, L Green, L Blue - Basic and Applied Social Psychology, 1997, vol 19 no 3.

That study had participants listen to an excerpted radio broadcast of a basketball game, and to follow the contributions of one player. Some participants were told the player was white, and others were told he was black. When asked to evaluate his performance, those who thought he was black rated him as having significantly more athletic ability and contributing more to his team's performance, while those who thought he was white rated him as having more basketball intelligence and hustle.

I buy all of this, however are you trying to use this to make the point that there is no physical difference between whites and blacks? Are you essentially saying that if 100 black children and 100 white children with equal socio-economic backgrounds, randomly selected were all given the same access to and amount of training that we would expect exactly the same number of white RBs as black RBs, white QBs as black QBs, white DBs as black DBs, etc? Because I don't buy it.

I don't either. In fact what I think would happen is there there would be a lot of good athletes, black and white, but most of the elite athletes would be black due to genetic differences in speed. Besides positions that are mostly speed based - CB, WR and RB - I would expect roughly equal numbers of black and whites.

 

[pinequick]

I'm not sure I buy your argument.  Hockey, sure, is cultural.  But what about (what I consider to be) the purest of sporting events--running just as fast as you can for 100 yards or so.  All kids run, at recess, after school, everywhere.  It's not like black kids run around and play, and white kids don't.  Who was the last white person who was 100-meter world champion?  If there isn't a racial component there, then that's one heck of a coincidence.

Who is the last black person to be world bicycle time trial champion? (I'm pretty sure it's never happened).

How much money does it cost to buy a competition-style racing bike? My guess is that might have something to do with it. . .What you need to run is shoes. I think there is pretty equal access to those. So I guess I'll pose my initial question again.

"Who was the last white person who was 100-meter world champion? If there isn't a racial component there, then that's one heck of a coincidence."

EDIT: I guess what I'm saying is give me the counter-argument to the 100-meter dash example. Make me buy that there *isn't* a racial component at work. . .

 

[CalBear]

I buy all of this, however are you trying to use this to make the point that there is no physical difference between whites and blacks? Are you essentially saying that if 100 black children and 100 white children with equal socio-economic backgrounds, randomly selected were all given the same access to and amount of training that we would expect exactly the same number of white RBs as black RBs, white QBs as black QBs, white DBs as black DBs, etc? Because I don't buy it.

The study wasn't trying to address physiological differences between black and white athletes. What it addresses is the fact that, if a black and a white athlete perform exactly identically, people will tend to think the black is more athletic and the white is smarter. Which means that if you're going to try to claim that there is a physical difference, you'd better bring some stats to show that you're not just displaying your own bias.

 

[CalBear]

I'm not sure I buy your argument. Hockey, sure, is cultural. But what about (what I consider to be) the purest of sporting events--running just as fast as you can for 100 yards or so. All kids run, at recess, after school, everywhere. It's not like black kids run around and play, and white kids don't. Who was the last white person who was 100-meter world champion? If there isn't a racial component there, then that's one heck of a coincidence.

Who is the last black person to be world bicycle time trial champion? (I'm pretty sure it's never happened).

How much money does it cost to buy a competition-style racing bike? My guess is that might have something to do with it. . .What you need to run is shoes. I think there is pretty equal access to those. So I guess I'll pose my initial question again.

"Who was the last white person who was 100-meter world champion? If there isn't a racial component there, then that's one heck of a coincidence."

EDIT: I guess what I'm saying is give me the counter-argument to the 100-meter dash example. Make me buy that there *isn't* a racial component at work. . .

I think the cost of a training program for Olympic-level track is probably similar to Olympic-level bicycling. You're right that there are obvious reasons why an urban youth would be more likely to participate in the 100-meter-dash than in a bicycle race, or even a marathon, and that's really sufficient explanation for your observation.

 

[cstu]

I'm not sure I buy your argument. Hockey, sure, is cultural. But what about (what I consider to be) the purest of sporting events--running just as fast as you can for 100 yards or so. All kids run, at recess, after school, everywhere. It's not like black kids run around and play, and white kids don't. Who was the last white person who was 100-meter world champion? If there isn't a racial component there, then that's one heck of a coincidence.

Who is the last black person to be world bicycle time trial champion? (I'm pretty sure it's never happened).

How much money does it cost to buy a competition-style racing bike? My guess is that might have something to do with it. . .What you need to run is shoes. I think there is pretty equal access to those. So I guess I'll pose my initial question again.

"Who was the last white person who was 100-meter world champion? If there isn't a racial component there, then that's one heck of a coincidence."

EDIT: I guess what I'm saying is give me the counter-argument to the 100-meter dash example. Make me buy that there *isn't* a racial component at work. . .

From this article::

Sprints

To better understand the complex story behind this dramatic map, let's deconstruct the record book. Remember the last time a non-black set the men's world record in the 100-meter sprint? One has to go back to 1960, when German Armin Hary won the Olympic gold medal in 10.2 seconds. Today, the 100 meter distance is totally monopolized by blacks with West African roots. They are quicker out of the starting blocks and demonstrate blazing speed over short distances. Former "world's fastest human" Donovan Bailey clocked a mind-bending 27 miles per hour at the mid-point of his record-breaking race at the Atlanta Olympics.

There are no sprinters of note from Asia, even with more than 50 percent of the world's population, a Confucian and Tao tradition of discipline, and an authoritarian sports system in place in the most populous country, China. No white sprinter can be found on the list of 100-meter sprinters; the best time by a white, 10 seconds, ranks more than 200th on the all-time list. Dozens of blacks, every one with a West African ancestry, have cracked the 10-second barrier, but no sprinter of any other race. For top black sprinters, it's an every-meet occurrence.

All of the 32 finalists in the last four Olympic men's 100-meter races are of West African descent. The likelihood of that happening based on population numbers alone-blacks from that region, now living around the globe, represent approximately 8 percent of the world's population-is 0.0000000000000000000000000000000001 percent.

Although there are currently no elite 100-meter male runners who are white or Asian, there have been a small handful over the years (as would be expected with a bell curve distribution). In 1979 Italy's Pietro Mennea shattered the 200-meter record with a time of 19.72 seconds, still the best time by a non-African. Although he ran in Mexico City's 7,300 foot altitude and was aided by a tailwind of 90 percent of the allowable limit, Mennea's moment in the sun is invoked as "proof" that whites can run as fast as blacks.

While Mennea's record held for 17 years, it was pulverized twice in 1996 by Michael Johnson, the second time in a stunning 19.32, an improvement of more than 2 percent-an unheard-of breakthrough in sprinting. Mennea remains the only white man among the all-time great 200-meter runners. Intriguingly, like many southern Italians and Spaniards who are standouts in running, Mennea traces part of his own ancestry to sub-Saharan West Africa. The genetic makeup of many North Africans and South Europeans reflects the gene flow that occurred between the two continents.

Another interesting fact:

Whites do not excel at any particular distance and held only 14 percent of the top times, although their best distances are in the middle distances of 800 and 1500 meters, and the marathon.

 

[CalBear]

ctsu: Really, you're missing the point. You could look at similar records for bicycle racing or swimming (another pure speed athletic activity) and you would see the same kinds of disparities, except all the records are held by whites.

 

[cstu]

ctsu: Really, you're missing the point. You could look at similar records for bicycle racing or swimming (another pure speed athletic activity) and you would see the same kinds of disparities, except all the records are held by whites.

I'm not arguing that whites, or people of any other race, can't be better than blacks at some athletic activities. However, there is clear proof that blacks are faster at the elite levels in running - a very important aspect of being successful in the NFL - and one in which there is a very level playing field for people all over the world.

 

[Tenderknee]

A few decades back, it would have been rediculous to ask the question, "Why aren't there more female Police Chiefs, Fire Chiefs, Admirals, and Generals?" There were no rules requiring a female to be interviewed every time a chief or top officer position opened up a few decades ago either. The reason why is that there were no satisfactory candidates to fill those positions that were female. None were experienced and had gone through the ranks.Same thing with coaches. Many have pointed out that there might not be a plethora of minority assistant coaches, or coordinators. Shouldn't the regulations and rules be aimed a little lower, and elevated after there is equity at that lower level? I think the Rooney Rule has missed a step, and it will only hurt the cause, by slowing the momentum through forcing these unqualified candidates onto the ownership.If you really want to see a balance of opportunities for the various ethnicities, require the owners to have a better mixture of ethnicities. Require that teams be offered to owners or groups that are controlled by the minorities. I don't see Oprah buying a team, but I see all of the rich internet white guys. Why doesn't Michael Jordan just outright gain control of a franchise and make it predominantly black? Is there some barried there? There are more than enough rich minorities to buy the franchises, but they don't. They are busy buying non-sport related companies. Sports will not become a reflection of society until there is ethnic balance in team ownership, but who really cares about the coaches? I want to see the best athletes. That is what sports is about. I do not see how white ownership of a team has ever held down a minority in the 90's or 2000's.What is the big deal with the emphasis on NFL head coaches?

 

[Wadsworth]

How many starting black centers are there in the NFL?

Don't kid yourelf into thinking that race plays not part in sports. And yes, it works both ways. My high school football team was horrible. My best friend on the team was a white back up RB. In 3 varisity years he averaged almost 9 years a carry on a total of less than 80 carries. 5 differint black guys started in front of him in that time and none averaged better than 5 per carry. In the one game he got 10 carry after an injury to the starter he got 117 yards. The next week he was back up again and the third string guy was starting. He was an A/B student with no bad behavior. And yes, the coach was white. He walked on at a small college and found himself in a similar situation for 4 years. Interestingly enough, he's now the head coach of the football team at our high school.

So I do have some history with the white RB issue. But was the white coach a racist? Our a victim to the same cultural bias which CalBear pointed to in the White Men Can't Jump paper? How many starting black centers are there in the NFL? Yes, things are getting better. But we have miles to go before we sleep.

 

[CalBear]

ctsu: Really, you're missing the point. You could look at similar records for bicycle racing or swimming (another pure speed athletic activity) and you would see the same kinds of disparities, except all the records are held by whites.

I'm not arguing that whites, or people of any other race, can't be better than blacks at some athletic activities. However, there is clear proof that blacks are faster at the elite levels in running - a very important aspect of being successful in the NFL - and one in which there is a very level playing field for people all over the world.

Blacks perform better. That doesn't mean they are better. That is, you can't simply observe the results of Olympic-level events and deduce from them that a particular ethnic group (or nation, for that matter) is inherently stronger at a particular event. There are too many factors, primary ones being culture and opportunity. (I'm pretty sure the Swiss bobsled team will remain better than the Jamaicans for some time to come). I don't believe that whites as a group are inherently faster bicyclists and swimmers any more than I believe that blacks as a group are inherently faster sprinters. Elite athletes are individuals.

 

[Csonka4life]

Wadsworth did the starting running backs ever do anything at the college level? I mean if a guy is good enough to make a college team he should start on all high school teams unless the starter is a future NFLer........

 

[CalBear]

Same thing with coaches. Many have pointed out that there might not be a plethora of minority assistant coaches, or coordinators. Shouldn't the regulations and rules be aimed a little lower, and elevated after there is equity at that lower level? I think the Rooney Rule has missed a step, and it will only hurt the cause, by slowing the momentum through forcing these unqualified candidates onto the ownership.

I agree that the problem goes far deeper than head coaching in football, but I don't think you can show any examples of the Rooney Rule forcing through any unqualified candidates. Three recently-hired black head coaches were the top three vote-getters for Coach of the Year this year.

 

[Tenderknee]

CalBear, I agree that there are a bunch of qualified minority head coaches out there, and a few got their chances just recently to show their leadership. But after them, the well gets depleted very fast if you don't maintain that pipeline to the rest of the minority talent. If the Rooney Rule started lower, i.e. the assistant coaches and coordinators, you might see a much better representation of minorities in the head coaching intervie process even without the Rooney Rule.

 

[Wadsworth]

Wadsworth did the starting running backs ever do anything at the college level? I mean if a guy is good enough to make a college team he should start on all high school teams unless the starter is a future NFLer........

Like I said, our team was awful. We had 3 guys from my class play small college ball. The friend I mentioned and two guys got rides to small schools. None of the RBs played on the next level of football, although one got a ride to play basketball at a divison I school. We had a very good basketball team, won state AAA my sophmore year, and it was in North Carolina where B-ball is king. But all the guys that started in front of him stunk, except for the basketball player, who was okay but fumbled every third play.

 

[cstu]

ctsu: Really, you're missing the point. You could look at similar records for bicycle racing or swimming (another pure speed athletic activity) and you would see the same kinds of disparities, except all the records are held by whites.

I'm not arguing that whites, or people of any other race, can't be better than blacks at some athletic activities. However, there is clear proof that blacks are faster at the elite levels in running - a very important aspect of being successful in the NFL - and one in which there is a very level playing field for people all over the world.

Blacks perform better. That doesn't mean they are better. That is, you can't simply observe the results of Olympic-level events and deduce from them that a particular ethnic group (or nation, for that matter) is inherently stronger at a particular event. There are too many factors, primary ones being culture and opportunity. (I'm pretty sure the Swiss bobsled team will remain better than the Jamaicans for some time to come). I don't believe that whites as a group are inherently faster bicyclists and swimmers any more than I believe that blacks as a group are inherently faster sprinters. Elite athletes are individuals.

As a group, no, but athletics are not a group competition. It's the elite of the elite, and it doesn't surprise me at all that through millions of years of evolution that a certain group of people would develop traits that help them do certain activities well. I don't think it's a knock on other races if one race produces a few elite athletes that dominate a sport.

 

[Csonka4life]

They have done studies on black junior high students and white junior high students and black students have consistently out performed white students in agility,shuttle drills and sprint times. Now that doesn't mean that an elite white student can't be the fastest in these times but the mathematically likelyhood of it is remote. The same thing about strength tests it's reverse. Infact at the combines all of the rep records for positions are just about held by caucasians(including hispanics of predominately caucasian ancestry).

 

[CalBear]

As a group, no, but athletics are not a group competition. It's the elite of the elite, and it doesn't surprise me at all that through millions of years of evolution that a certain group of people would develop traits that help them do certain activities well. I don't think it's a knock on other races if one race produces a few elite athletes that dominate a sport.

Before 1980, you would have had a large amount of observational data to conclude that Americans as a group were slow at bicycling, but obviously that conclusion would have been borne out by the realities of the next 25 years (10 Tour de France victories).

 

[cstu]

To get back on topic, I think we see as many qualified candidates as there really are. Working your way up through the coaches ranks is a long process and for many years minorities wouldn't even go into it since they couldn't see themselves getting a chance as a head coach. Coaching on the lower levels requires long hours and is paid very little, what keeps many coaches staying in it besides the love of the game is that they may someday be a head coach.Now that the door has been opened, I think you'll see more minorities getting into coaching and over the next couple decades there will be more minority coaches in the NFL.

 

[Riffraff]

Education:Leaving school early doesn't always mean going pro. Only a few college kids even get the opportunity to be drafted or signed as undrafted. Leaving school early can also mean dropping out. As explained previously, head coaches are generally alumni of a college. This means head coaches at all levels (high school, college, and professional) generally complete their education. Completing an education means you can attain a long term goal. Somtimes that's all a boss needs to know about a candidate.. someone who doesn't quit on them.Sports open doors to education (and vice versa)... take advantage of the open door, whichever way the door swings for you.----------------------------Image and opportunity:"Looking good" means different things to different generations, socio-economic status, and field of career.It's acceptable to "look good" by wearing bling bling, tatoos, flashy clothes, and unique piercings or hairstyles... when you are young and impressionable. You're still trying to figure out who you are as a person.It's not as acceptable to look that way when representing something other than yourself... aka, the corporation you work for. To become a head coach, you must look and act the part. Give up something of yourself to do the job you want to do. To influence the output of others, one generally has figured out who they are as a person.Since the majority of all NFL owners are from an older generation, a potential candidate would more likely dress, talk, and act in accordance with their potential boss. This assumes the candidate has had exposure to these preferences of the elders.The majority of minorities tend to come from the less fortunate regions of the population. What is a minority anyways? A white person could be a minority in an inner city, it's all relative. If someone did a study on the head coaches of the NFL, they might learn that they too were minorities. Of course, one would have to discount color of skin to do the study.. so I guess that's out of the question around here. Those that can rise above thier beginnings and change to reflect the values of their bosses, are more likely get the jobs.Why is it more likely that a white candidate will do these things compared to a minority candidate? Who knows? Perhaps it's the image of selling out, turning your back on where you came from, a common upbringing, or maybe they just want to get that job more and are willing to do what is needed. I don't know.If you give your parents peace of mind, you are considered a good child.If you give the teacher what they are looking for, you get good grades.If you perform up to the boss' standards, you get promoted.It's all about giving others what they seek.It's all one and the same that we're all taught since we were infants.

 

[Yenrub]

I'm not sure I buy your argument.  Hockey, sure, is cultural.  But what about (what I consider to be) the purest of sporting events--running just as fast as you can for 100 yards or so.  All kids run, at recess, after school, everywhere.  It's not like black kids run around and play, and white kids don't.  Who was the last white person who was 100-meter world champion?  If there isn't a racial component there, then that's one heck of a coincidence.

Who is the last black person to be world bicycle time trial champion? (I'm pretty sure it's never happened).

Nelson Vail MAY have done it. I remember him from one of the olympic teams.

 

[Da Guru]

They has an ESPN town meeting on this. Black players do not respect black coachs as much as white coachs for whatever reason. A number of black people spoke on this topic.

 

[Maurile Tremblay]

What are your qualifications?

I'll admit I'm not qualitfied to decide on a HC. Give me a choice between Joe Gibbs and Marty Morningwheg and I'll be confident in my choice, but that's about it.

Gibbs?

 

[Maurile Tremblay]

What am I missing here?The black population in America is 13.3% of the entire population.5 coaches out of 32 in the NFL are black...a 16% representation.

I think you're missing the same thing that many your opponents on this issue are missing. Percentages don't matter.As somebody early in the thread pointed out, what matters is whether individual minority coaches are getting an unfair shake. Are they? I don't know, but I'm willing to listen to evidence either way if anybody has some.Who are the minority candidates who should be head coaches but aren't?

 

[pinequick]

I think the cost of a training program for Olympic-level track is probably similar to Olympic-level bicycling. You're right that there are obvious reasons why an urban youth would be more likely to participate in the 100-meter-dash than in a bicycle race, or even a marathon, and that's really sufficient explanation for your observation.

If I'm understanding you correctly, you're saying that a good number of whites could compete at the world-class level in sprinting if they would just *do* it. I would disagree with that.You've given a good reason above why blacks would spend more of their time running (rather than cycling, maybe). But, if whites are just as gifted of athletes, what is your argument for why whites all turn their backs on sprinting? I don't see that connection at all. . .

 

[Blitzkrieg88]

For the first time in history science promises a glimpse of how the world's different populations—popularly called races—have evolved. Think of genes as the frame of a house: they determine the shape and set limits, but much of the important stuff gets added over time. Complex phenomena such as intelligence, sociability, and creativity are difficult to dissect without resorting to huge generalizations. Success will always remain a mysterious brew. But we are certainly closer than ever to unraveling the enigmatic forces, biological and social, that shape great athletes, gifted musicians, or top scholars. Within the performance range in which most of us fall, the environment may be critical. But when we talk about people such as Einstein and Mozart—or Mark McGwire, Jim Brown, and Péle—genes count a lot.

Good article - http://www.nytimes.com/books/first/e/entine-taboo.html

 

[cstu]

They has an ESPN town meeting on this. Black players do not respect black coachs as much as white coachs for whatever reason.

A number of black people spoke on this topic.

Do you think it would work the same way with black coaches where the majority of players are white, say in hockey?