Here we go again. Cue up Charles Barkley

[Vercingetorix]

I was being pretty easy going about all this and stated, clearly, that not only was it just a matter of time before more black coaches took over more positions and agreed that your selection of Shannon at Miami just might be the guy that gets this ball rolling. Having said that:

You've got SEVERE comprehension issues if you believe MSSt has any business being compared to NMSt and Buffalo. For instance, wonder what the pay scale comparison is for the HC of those three schools? If I was trying to compare the MSSt job to, say, TN/FL/LSU/USC then you'd have an argument. I didn't and you don't.

As to your 2nd part I most certainly have not and don't immediately recall anyone in this thread saying a black head coach "can't" do the job at the college level. I will say, quite demonstrably, they as yet have not. Look dude, there used to be a stigma about black QB's. Good black QB's came along and that's pretty much a dead issue.

I'll say again, I can think of NOTHING that will do more damage to this idea of getting quality black coaches in good positions than forcing teams to make bad hires because they had to find somebody black to coach. Let good black coaches succeed and time will take care of the rest.

Mississippi State isn't a comparable job to Buffalo in terms of pay, etc., but in terms of how successful you can be there -- then yeah, it is. (Except that apparently you can actually win at Buffalo.) The only run of real success they've ever was a result of Jackie Sherrill cheating his ass off. As Dan Mullen is about to find out, you can't win in Starkville.

Nobody has ever suggested forcing teams to hire anybody. Even the Rooney Rule (which I think would never work in college because of all the cloak-and-dagger stuff) just compels teams to interview guys. Nobody's seriously talking about forcing anybody to do anything in college; we're still in the "can we all admit that there's a problem?" stage.

 

[hndog609]

Mississippi State isn't a comparable job to Buffalo in terms of pay, etc., but in terms of how successful you can be there -- then yeah, it is. (Except that apparently you can actually win at Buffalo.) The only run of real success they've ever was a result of Jackie Sherrill cheating his ass off. As Dan Mullen is about to find out, you can't win in Starkville.

Nobody has ever suggested forcing teams to hire anybody. Even the Rooney Rule (which I think would never work in college because of all the cloak-and-dagger stuff) just compels teams to interview guys. Nobody's seriously talking about forcing anybody to do anything in college; we're still in the "can we all admit that there's a problem?" stage.

That all seemed much more reasonable but your comparison still confuses me. Answer me this; if MSSt had gone to Turner Gill and offered him the job vacated buy Croom do you think he would have declined since, you know, it'd be basically a lateral move at best? C'mon man, I'm just not buying it and I seriously doubt you'd get much love from many others with that argument.

All I've argued, right from my first post, is that it has not exactly helped things that when given the opportunity at larger venues the black coaches haven't exactly set the world on fire. I go back to the black QB analogy. Success will lead to more success. It is bad mojo when people start getting too militant about trying to "fix" some things. Maybe you aren't one of "those" people but they exist and they can cause more harm than good.

 

[Vercingetorix]

So it's the hillbilly fanbase here in the south and at UT. Nice. If I issued a blanket statement like that against minorities you would come unglued.

When I was a student, every football Saturday I had to deal with guys like Cletus and Elmer from Cocke County throwing beer cans on the sidewalk and pissing in the bushes outside my apartment. A lot of the posters on this site make me think that somehow those guys managed to get the WebTV hooked up in their trailers. And I'm pretty sure neither of those guys is particularly concerned about the low number of black coaches in Division I-A football.

As far as blanket statements go, I'm an East Tennessee native myself, and therefore feel qualified to comment on the dentally challenged section of our fanbase. I spent lot of time growing up waiting behind these losers while they tried to use food stamps to buy beer and cigarettes at Weigel's, after all. I assume you've figured out that there's a huge rhetorical difference between criticizing one's own group and criticizing somebody else's.

 

[orangeaid]

When I was a student, every football Saturday I had to deal with guys like Cletus and Elmer from Cocke County throwing beer cans on the sidewalk and pissing in the bushes outside my apartment. A lot of the posters on this site make me think that somehow those guys managed to get the WebTV hooked up in their trailers. And I'm pretty sure neither of those guys is particularly concerned about the low number of black coaches in Division I-A football.

As far as blanket statements go, I'm an East Tennessee native myself, and therefore feel qualified to comment on the dentally challenged section of our fanbase. I spent lot of time growing up waiting behind these losers while they tried to use food stamps to buy beer and cigarettes at Weigel's, after all. I assume you've figured out that there's a huge rhetorical difference between criticizing one's own group and criticizing somebody else's.

If you don't like someone being disrespectful of a group then you don't need to be doing it either, whether your a member of it or not.

I love the fact that not a word was said when Michigan hired RR. Never a word if it's USC, CAL, TOSU...etc but when it's a southern school, it's racist. Hypocritical.

 

[Vercingetorix]

That all seemed much more reasonable but your comparison still confuses me. Answer me this; if MSSt had gone to Turner Gill and offered him the job vacated buy Croom do you think he would have declined since, you know, it'd be basically a lateral move at best? C'mon man, I'm just not buying it and I seriously doubt you'd get much love from many others with that argument.

If I were Turner Gill, I wouldn't have been any more interested in Mississippi State than he was in Iowa State. It's a graveyard. If he took either one of those jobs, he'd go 4-8 every year and you'd have more people talking about how black guys can't coach.

Your standard done-a-great-job-at-a-crappy-small-school white coach doesn't have to take a job at Duke or Baylor first, does he? Why should Turner Gill, who took over a team that had gone 1-11, 1-11, 2-9, and 1-10 in the previous four years and won his freaking conference in three years? That's a lot more impressive than what, say, Brian Kelly has done, and yet you've heard Kelly's named linked to Tennessee, Notre Dame, etc.

 

[Vercingetorix]

I love the fact that not a word was said when Michigan hired RR. Never a word if it's USC, CAL, TOSU...etc but when it's a southern school, it's racist. Hypocritical.

The difference is that Charles Barkley is an Auburn alumnus, and he spoke out criticizing his alma mater. Whether he's right or not, Barkley's voice carries farther than just about anybody's in American sports.

I don't really think that Barkley was spot-on with his comments about Auburn, mind you, because Chizik wasn't even the most qualified white candidate that they interviewed. But Barkley is a guy to whom people pay attention.

 

[orangeaid]

The difference is that Charles Barkley is an Auburn alumnus, and he spoke out criticizing his alma mater. Whether he's right or not, Barkley's voice carries farther than just about anybody's in American sports.

I don't really think that Barkley was spot-on with his comments about Auburn, mind you, because Chizik wasn't even the most qualified white candidate that they interviewed. But Barkley is a guy to whom people pay attention.

And that goes to a much deeper problem. Barkley can say the most ridiculous thing one can think of and get a pass for it.
For goodness sake he just got busted for DUI with freakin wine coolers and Steve Urkel in the car and people still take him seriously. hmy:
When he, Sharpton, Jackson and all the other race hustlers start screaming, it takes away from the real problems.

 

[gasguy98]

It's not even 80s; it's more like 60s. But consider how old your average country-club, top-level booster is. Those are the people whom Average College AD's job is to keep happy enough to keep writing huge checks. He's probably not racist at all, but he knows that his main constituents are a bunch of 70 year old rich white guys who grew up when black people were servants and marrying a white person was illegal. That's the difference between the NFL and college, as far as minority hiring goes: an NFL team's first priority is to win, while a college athletic director's first priority is to keep a bunch of "rich rednecks" (as Droski called them) happy.

As for Charlie Strong himself, sure. He may be a terrible interview, or whatever. One guy doesn't indicate anything. But the overall numbers -- 120 I-A football coaching jobs, something like 4 black coaches -- indicate there's a problem. I don't think that people are individually making overtly racist hiring decisions, necessarily, but the numbers clearly indicate that there's a bias in the overall system. If I hire the coach whom I sincerely think is best guy for the job, and you hire the best guy for the job too, and so do Jim and Larry and 100 other guys, but all 100 coaches end up being white guys, than it's pretty clear that skin color is a factor somehow.

OK then,
There are 32 starting running backs in the NFL. 0 White,
There must be some sort of a problem, right.
You just keep digging your own grave.

I was thinking of changing my name to Arminius. He did what your chief could not.

 

[gasguy98]

Charlie Strong and Turner Gill are clearly qualified for good I-A coaching jobs.

I fully realize that the hillbilly nature of our fanbase means that 90 percent of you guys could give a crap whether any black man has a job as a coach anywhere. But just because somebody's whining about a situation doesn't mean there's not something wrong going on.

Dang,
You followed many bad statements with perhaps the most obscene one yet. Now we are all hillbillies?
Do you think you can make a statement like that b/c you have a post grad degree? How do you know many of us don't have advanced degrees also?
It is not polite to stare down your nose at others.
Didn't mamma teach you manners?

 

[cd12]

Barkley is a racist! I mean come on the guy is a star! He gets popped for DUI and who is his wingman? Steve freakin Erkel! There are much hipper and more qualified white nerds but who does Barkley roll with? Steve freakin Erkel!

 

[hndog609]

Your standard done-a-great-job-at-a-crappy-small-school white coach doesn't have to take a job at Duke or Baylor first, does he? Why should Turner Gill, who took over a team that had gone 1-11, 1-11, 2-9, and 1-10 in the previous four years and won his freaking conference in three years? That's a lot more impressive than what, say, Brian Kelly has done, and yet you've heard Kelly's named linked to Tennessee, Notre Dame, etc.

Not to sound like I'm trying to take anything away from Gill, who I like, but you are once again showing some serious bias in trying to pound square comparisons into round holes. You are seriously comparing Buffalo's schedule and accomplishments with Cincy's? What was the Buff's signature win this year, Ball State? They also lose to 2 directional Michigan schools and Kent State. Cincy beats S FL, W VA and Pitt before heading to the freaking Orange Bowl.

You are NOT doing Gill or any other black coaches any service by trying to invent things to diminish their failures or pump their accomplishments. It not only hurts your credibility but theirs. Let those that are good enough to succeed do so. So far they haven't, at least not at the highest levels of CF.

When you have a few black success stories none of this crap we're talking about now will matter.

 

[hmanvolfan]

Barkley is a racist! I mean come on the guy is a star! He gets popped for DUI and who is his wingman? Steve freakin Erkel! There are much hipper and more qualified white nerds but who does Barkley roll with? Steve freakin Erkel!

Exactly. I don't understand why everybody sits at the feet of the Barkley throne. He's a freakin' clown...

 

[Vercingetorix]

Not to sound like I'm trying to take anything away from Gill, who I like, but you are once again showing some serious bias in trying to pound square comparisons into round holes. You are seriously comparing Buffalo's schedule and accomplishments with Cincy's? What was the Buff's signature win this year, Ball State? They also lose to 2 directional Michigan schools and Kent State. Cincy beats S FL, W VA and Pitt before heading to the freaking Orange Bowl.

Gill took over a program that was easily the worst in Division I-A -- worse than Duke, worse than Rice, worse than anybody -- and won a conference within three years. Kelly took over a program that Mark Dantonio had already built up from nothing into a contender and continued along the arc it was already on. I really like Kelly as a coach -- would have been happy to see him at UT, in fact -- but IMO what Gill did was more impressive. I'd rather hire the guy who built a program from literally nothing than the guy who took over a 7-5 team and took them to 10 wins with somebody else's recruits. Mark Dantonio built that Cincinnati program, not Brian Kelly.

You are NOT doing Gill or any other black coaches any service by trying to invent things to diminish their failures or pump their accomplishments. It not only hurts your credibility but theirs. Let those that are good enough to succeed do so. So far they haven't, at least not at the highest levels of CF.

When you have a few black success stories none of this crap we're talking about now will matter.

I'm not trying to invent accomplishments for anybody. I'm not what you guys would probably call a "bleeding-heart liberal," nor even a proponent of affirmative action. I'm just appalled that so many people seem to think that there isn't a problem here. Every time there's a position in sports that involves a brain, people act as though black men can't handle it, and that "they" have to prove "themselves" before they deserve to get jobs. It's crap.

Mike Tomlin is a success story. Tony Dungy won a Super Bowl, and Lovie Smith was the guy he beat in the Super Bowl. Clearly black men can coach football. What makes people think that they can't handle it in college?

 

[billbattle]

Barkley is a racist! I mean come on the guy is a star! He gets popped for DUI and who is his wingman? Steve freakin Erkel! There are much hipper and more qualified white nerds but who does Barkley roll with? Steve freakin Erkel!

:lolabove:

 

[Vercingetorix]

OK then,
There are 32 starting running backs in the NFL. 0 White,
There must be some sort of a problem, right.
You just keep digging your own grave.

I was thinking of changing my name to Arminius. He did what your chief could not.

Glad to know that you can use Wikipedia. Kudos.

Anyway, being a running back in the NFL is a completely physical job. I don't think that there's anything to suggest that it isn't almost a complete meritocracy, where the best guy gets the job [1]. I don't think there's any more "bias" in that than in the fact that 9 out of the 10 guys in the Olympic 100 finals are always black. It's telling that it's only when actual thinking is involved -- quarterbacking, coaching -- that suddenly black guys have to prove themselves. Everybody trusts black athletes when it's just running and jumping that's involved, but once you have to use your brain and be a leader -- hey hey hey, we can't be too hasty here. Gotta see some success from these guys first.


[1] (Other of course than the occasional case like Jacob Hester where you could maybe argue that he was railroaded into being a fullback because he's white, but really, he was a fullback at LSU even when he was paying tailback)

 

[hndog609]

Glad to know that you can use Wikipedia. Kudos.

Anyway, being a running back in the NFL is a completely physical job. I don't think that there's anything to suggest that it isn't almost a complete meritocracy, where the best guy gets the job [1]. I don't think there's any more "bias" in that than in the fact that 9 out of the 10 guys in the Olympic 100 finals are always black. It's telling that it's only when actual thinking is involved -- quarterbacking, coaching -- that suddenly black guys have to prove themselves. Everybody trusts black athletes when it's just running and jumping that's involved, but once you have to use your brain and be a leader -- hey hey hey, we can't be too hasty here. Gotta see some success from these guys first.


[1] (Other of course than the occasional case like Jacob Hester where you could maybe argue that he was railroaded into being a fullback because he's white, but really, he was a fullback at LSU even when he was paying tailback)

I'm just kinda being playful now (you've got your opinion, that's fine, but we both know you aren't changing it) but isn't your last observation better exemplified by the tendency to label any white WR a "possession" receiver?

 

[Vercingetorix]

Dang,
You followed many bad statements with perhaps the most obscene one yet. Now we are all hillbillies?
Do you think you can make a statement like that b/c you have a post grad degree? How do you know many of us don't have advanced degrees also?
It is not polite to stare down your nose at others.
Didn't mamma teach you manners?

It's not lack of education that annoys me, it's idiocy. Formal education and intelligence have only a tangential relationship. One of the smartest guys I know is a high school dropout who spent time in jail before he was 20; some of the dumbest guys I've ever met have graduate degrees. My problem with the Skoal Bandit crowd isn't that they might not have gone to college; it's that many of them have a worldview that's basically a cartoon.

 

[Vercingetorix]

I'm just kinda being playful now (you've got your opinion, that's fine, but we both know you aren't changing it) but isn't your last observation better exemplified by the tendency to label any white WR a "possession" receiver?

Absolutely that's a better example. Although I'm fairly persuaded that there are enough legitimate physiological differences between black and white athletes in America to account for the fact that almost all pro RBs and WRs are black. The differences are tiny, but in a world where there's supposedly a huge difference between a guy who runs a 4.2 and a 4.5, that's enough to make even the fastest white WRs into "possession" guys.

Racial issues are tough to talk about, but I don't think that means that we can't engage them openly and honestly. But that's what doesn't happen. I have no idea whether Charlie Strong isn't a head coach because he's a terrible interviewer or because he's a black man with a white wife, but when the reaction of 70 percent of VolNation is basically "shut up, black man; if you were any good you'd have a job by now," then it appalls me.

 

[The Dude]

Glad to know that you can use Wikipedia. Kudos.

Anyway, being a running back in the NFL is a completely physical job. I don't think that there's anything to suggest that it isn't almost a complete meritocracy, where the best guy gets the job [1]. I don't think there's any more "bias" in that than in the fact that 9 out of the 10 guys in the Olympic 100 finals are always black. It's telling that it's only when actual thinking is involved -- quarterbacking, coaching -- that suddenly black guys have to prove themselves. Everybody trusts black athletes when it's just running and jumping that's involved, but once you have to use your brain and be a leader -- hey hey hey, we can't be too hasty here. Gotta see some success from these guys first.


[1] (Other of course than the occasional case like Jacob Hester where you could maybe argue that he was railroaded into being a fullback because he's white, but really, he was a fullback at LSU even when he was paying tailback)

Good post and I agree 100%.

 

[gasguy98]

Glad to know that you can use Wikipedia. Kudos.

Man,
I have known the names of Vercingetorix and Arminius since I was a sophomore in high school.

See, there you go making arrogant assumptions again.

I did not want to get into this but I MIGHT have an advanced degree from Syracuse in European History.
I might know more about the Gauls and their attempts at rebellion than you. I might know more about Romans adventures in northern Germany that you. I might have been offered teaching jobs in South Florida. I might have worked with scholars on books that have been sold at Barnes and Noble.

You just don't have a clue

 

[gasguy98]

Glad to know that you can use Wikipedia. Kudos.

Anyway, being a running back in the NFL is a completely physical job.

Yes, it is a physical job but I do hear comments about players "smarts" for finding the hole and such.

Look, I am just going on with you because you called my opinion dumb.

Will you just admit that, while there are some great coaches out there that may be black there are a lot of white coaches that are great too. Lets say that for every highly qualified coach that is black there are 8 that are white. The numbers suggest that there will be considerable more white hires.

Also, While there may be some great black coaches maybe the white guys are even more[I ]qualified.

It is 2009. People that see skin color as some kind of benchmark are simply antiquated in their thinking.
If Charlie Strong or any other minority coach can win championships he will be a head coach someday. It is that simple.[/I]