| College Coaching Revelations: Minority Report Bob Loblaw |
 |  |  |  |  |  |  |
Choosing a coach for one of the 2 major revenue sports (football and basketball) is one of the biggest, if not
the biggest assignment a Division I Athletic Director will ever face. The decision to change coaches (unless the
previous one retired) is a huge move, and more importantly, who you hire next can effect your university and
national image for years to come. Indiana University, for example, hired Cam Cameron as their football coach
after Bill Mallory was let go and they are only just now recovering from that decision a decade later as they made
their first bowl game in 14 years. At the same time, Purdue hired Joe Tiller and, while the Boilers have not won a
national title or been #1, they have experienced consistent success and vast improvement from where they were
when he was brought in. Who is hired as coach will effect recruiting success, donations, TV exposure, university
image, and on-field success for years to come. Obviously, if the AD could see into the future he would hire the
Bud Wilkinson or John Wooden equivalent every time. But since they can’t see the future, they have to hire
based on who they think will best serve their university and athletic department while serving as head coach.
Many factors go into this decision, but race should not be one of them. Regardless of skin color, the coach who
can best serve the school is the one that should be hired every time a job is open.
The Black Coaches Association (BCA), often comments negatively anytime a coaching position is open and a
minority candidate is not hired or given top treatment in their eyes. Now, I am all for equality and fairness and I
understand that there are far fewer minority candidates for open jobs. Of course, there are fewer minorities in
the profession (hence the term minority, meaning being less then the majority in a category or something like
that). While it is not totally a bad idea to require a school to interview one minority candidate each time they are
looking for a coach, as the NFL seems to do, it is also often a trivial maneuver. If a school knows who they are
going to hire, then it is a token move that can be seen as insulting to the candidate who is interviewed. Would
you want to be the interviewee who is brought in only to satisfy the minority interview rule, when if the rule was
not in place, they would not have called you? How would that feel? We would need some statistics showing that
schools do hire the candidate that is brought in due to that rule, and who would not otherwise have been on
their list; “oh we would never have interviewed you had it not been for the rule that we had to interview a
minority, but you are clearly the best candidate; you want the job?” I have yet to hear of that happening.
College basketball and football are big-money sports that can transform a university’s image and finances; I
doubt schools are passing on the best coach due to race.
But why aren’t there more minority coaches in College football and basketball? Besides the obvious reason
that there are fewer minority people available in the US (so there will naturally be fewer coaches), there are
other reasons, as the statistics seem to show that the percentage of coaches is less than the population
percentage.
To coach at the college level you need, in almost every case, a college degree along with coaching and
playing experience. Ignoring for a moment the other credentials like recruiting ability, dealing with donors,
organizing a staff, dealing with players and academics, etc, let's focus on the first two: education and
experience. To make things simple let’s follow the flawed, but often true, theory that all coaches are former
college players so that some simple statistics can be dissected, shall we.
Again, the first requirement for becoming a head coach, as George O’Leary learned at Notre Dame, you gotta
have a college degree. And if you do have one, don’t lie about what it is. I would guess that any educational
institution requires at least a Bachelor’s degree to hire a coach who is going to be a faculty leader at their
school. What kind of example would it set to tell the kids they need to graduate when their leader does not have
a degree? In a 2006 NCAA report, 54% of minority scholarship football players in Division I (or whatever they call
it now; to clarify, I mean the best one, the one that is on TV and that is talked about every day) graduated.
Meanwhile 76% of white scholarship athletes got their degree. Now, if I had enough space we could go for days
debating the social, economic, cultural, and political reasons why these numbers are the way they are, but I am a
sportswriter, and an amateur one at that, so I will let the smart people figure that stuff out. The simple point
here is that the fewer graduates there are, the fewer coaching candidates there are going to be from that pool of
players. And as we know, most, if not all, coaches are former players.
The second requirement is experience. Most head coaches start out as assistants or interns or graduate
assistants and work their way up the ranks for years before becoming a head coach. Unless of course they are a
former NBA player and just fall into a job, but we are discussing college here. The stereotypical college head
coach, in most cases, played in college, graduated, then after playing in the pros (or not) became a graduate
assistant while earning their Master’s degree and gaining coaching experience. Those who stick with it then
move up and become an assistant coach, and after years as an assistant (or, like Jim Tressel, as a head coach in
a lower division) they ultimately get a head job in D-1. Obviously the younger you begin this process, the more
likely you are to gain a head job sooner, all other things being equal.
According to 2006 research on the Internet, approximately 70% of NFL players and 78% of NBA players were
minorities in that given year. I think we can all agree that there are not very many white guys donning the knee
length hoops shorts since they went away from the short pants of yesteryear. All things being equal, if more of
the minority players are making the pros after college (one of the reasons for the lower graduation rate is likely
that there are more minority players leaving college early so they can get drafted and make money), they are
playing and not gaining coaching experience and moving up the ladder to become a head coach. On the other
hand, you may have a white player who went undrafted and began his climb up the coaching ladder. Now surely
professional playing experience can be another factor in hiring a coach, so there are former pros that may be
more likely to get hired due to their fame or pedigree as a former pro star. However, when hiring a coach, if the
school is looking for a more experienced coach with the background of being an assistant and aide before
becoming a head coach (often allowing that coach to better hire and work with his assistants) they will find many
more non-minority candidates for the reasons noted above. If we use the incorrect, but simpler, formula that all
college coaches are former college players: there are fewer minority candidates to begin with, followed by fewer
minority graduates, followed by more minority players in the pros; on a very simple level, there will be far fewer
qualified minority candidates when a coaching job comes open.
Furthermore, if more minority athletes play in the pros and become rich from it, their motivation to go into
coaching after their playing days are over is lessened by the fact that they are financially secure. Their desire to
begin coaching and “learn the ropes” could be lowered by the fact that they don’t need to earn a salary any more
to live after retiring from playing. As we have seen in the NBA, you don’t even have to be very good to get rich,
so there are more than a few with this “problem.”
Other factors besides race that go into hiring a coach can also determine the number of coaches hired in a
given year. The style of coaching in relation to the school is often a factor. The liberals at Cal-Berkeley are
probably going to shy away from a hard-nosed, Bob Knight/Woody Hayes type of coach. Also, a defensive-
minded, low-scoring mentality in football would not be the best fit on the West cCoast, just like a high flying aerial
attack would not be ideal in the cold Northeast. One of the reasons June Jones made Hawaii all that money this
year was not just because they won all their games, but because of the way they did it. Being a high flying, high
scoring, exciting offense surely helped them move up in the polls during the season with big-time scores that
made people go “wow they won 55-10” and caused more fans to want to see them play. This type of offense
made Jones a good fit for Hawaii, as that exciting style of play surely drew more recruits far from home to go to
school there and got them extra TV exposure. This type of thing is what AD’s look at when trying to find a good
fit for their program, as there is more to the hiring process then records and resumes. The location and social
scene of the University often is a factor in what coach is best suited for them and at no point should race play a
part in that decision. A Bud Kilmer-like disciplinarian can be a good fit for Texas teams but would get run out of
town for being "mean" in a laid-back town. At the same time a “nice guy” like Tony Dungy might find it harder to
gain respect in certain areas, not because of his race, but because of his style. But guess what? There is a
formula for all of this. It has been proven time and time again that whether you fit in or not: if you WIN, they will
keep you, and if you don’t you will go. Is Indiana University a better hirer because it’s last 2 basketball coaches
have been minorities or were they just the right hire at the right time? Wouldn’t it be racist to not hire a white
candidate to comply with some kind of system?
Obviously the issue is more complicated, and this article is in no way meant to be a comprehensive look at the
subject. However, there is more to this then the mentality of “there’s only X number of minority coaches so
something is wrong and every school should hire one next time they need a new coach." Numbers are not the
answer and having a certain number of anything does not fix problems. Are there jobs that have been filled
when a minority candidate was ignored? Probably. But in the end, having a successful football or basketball
program is so important and financially rewarding to a university that to hire, or not hire, a coach based on race
is clearly idiotic. At the same time, when a minority coach is not hired it does not mean a wrong was committed
and the school should be punished or labeled in any way. There are many reasons why a coach is or isn't hired,
but one thing we can agree on is that his or her racial background should never be one of them. We can also
agree that there are probably going to be far fewer minority coaches available for a given job, just based on the
reasons above, and that this is an issue that will be talked about for as long as sports are played.
the biggest assignment a Division I Athletic Director will ever face. The decision to change coaches (unless the
previous one retired) is a huge move, and more importantly, who you hire next can effect your university and
national image for years to come. Indiana University, for example, hired Cam Cameron as their football coach
after Bill Mallory was let go and they are only just now recovering from that decision a decade later as they made
their first bowl game in 14 years. At the same time, Purdue hired Joe Tiller and, while the Boilers have not won a
national title or been #1, they have experienced consistent success and vast improvement from where they were
when he was brought in. Who is hired as coach will effect recruiting success, donations, TV exposure, university
image, and on-field success for years to come. Obviously, if the AD could see into the future he would hire the
Bud Wilkinson or John Wooden equivalent every time. But since they can’t see the future, they have to hire
based on who they think will best serve their university and athletic department while serving as head coach.
Many factors go into this decision, but race should not be one of them. Regardless of skin color, the coach who
can best serve the school is the one that should be hired every time a job is open.
The Black Coaches Association (BCA), often comments negatively anytime a coaching position is open and a
minority candidate is not hired or given top treatment in their eyes. Now, I am all for equality and fairness and I
understand that there are far fewer minority candidates for open jobs. Of course, there are fewer minorities in
the profession (hence the term minority, meaning being less then the majority in a category or something like
that). While it is not totally a bad idea to require a school to interview one minority candidate each time they are
looking for a coach, as the NFL seems to do, it is also often a trivial maneuver. If a school knows who they are
going to hire, then it is a token move that can be seen as insulting to the candidate who is interviewed. Would
you want to be the interviewee who is brought in only to satisfy the minority interview rule, when if the rule was
not in place, they would not have called you? How would that feel? We would need some statistics showing that
schools do hire the candidate that is brought in due to that rule, and who would not otherwise have been on
their list; “oh we would never have interviewed you had it not been for the rule that we had to interview a
minority, but you are clearly the best candidate; you want the job?” I have yet to hear of that happening.
College basketball and football are big-money sports that can transform a university’s image and finances; I
doubt schools are passing on the best coach due to race.
But why aren’t there more minority coaches in College football and basketball? Besides the obvious reason
that there are fewer minority people available in the US (so there will naturally be fewer coaches), there are
other reasons, as the statistics seem to show that the percentage of coaches is less than the population
percentage.
To coach at the college level you need, in almost every case, a college degree along with coaching and
playing experience. Ignoring for a moment the other credentials like recruiting ability, dealing with donors,
organizing a staff, dealing with players and academics, etc, let's focus on the first two: education and
experience. To make things simple let’s follow the flawed, but often true, theory that all coaches are former
college players so that some simple statistics can be dissected, shall we.
Again, the first requirement for becoming a head coach, as George O’Leary learned at Notre Dame, you gotta
have a college degree. And if you do have one, don’t lie about what it is. I would guess that any educational
institution requires at least a Bachelor’s degree to hire a coach who is going to be a faculty leader at their
school. What kind of example would it set to tell the kids they need to graduate when their leader does not have
a degree? In a 2006 NCAA report, 54% of minority scholarship football players in Division I (or whatever they call
it now; to clarify, I mean the best one, the one that is on TV and that is talked about every day) graduated.
Meanwhile 76% of white scholarship athletes got their degree. Now, if I had enough space we could go for days
debating the social, economic, cultural, and political reasons why these numbers are the way they are, but I am a
sportswriter, and an amateur one at that, so I will let the smart people figure that stuff out. The simple point
here is that the fewer graduates there are, the fewer coaching candidates there are going to be from that pool of
players. And as we know, most, if not all, coaches are former players.
The second requirement is experience. Most head coaches start out as assistants or interns or graduate
assistants and work their way up the ranks for years before becoming a head coach. Unless of course they are a
former NBA player and just fall into a job, but we are discussing college here. The stereotypical college head
coach, in most cases, played in college, graduated, then after playing in the pros (or not) became a graduate
assistant while earning their Master’s degree and gaining coaching experience. Those who stick with it then
move up and become an assistant coach, and after years as an assistant (or, like Jim Tressel, as a head coach in
a lower division) they ultimately get a head job in D-1. Obviously the younger you begin this process, the more
likely you are to gain a head job sooner, all other things being equal.
According to 2006 research on the Internet, approximately 70% of NFL players and 78% of NBA players were
minorities in that given year. I think we can all agree that there are not very many white guys donning the knee
length hoops shorts since they went away from the short pants of yesteryear. All things being equal, if more of
the minority players are making the pros after college (one of the reasons for the lower graduation rate is likely
that there are more minority players leaving college early so they can get drafted and make money), they are
playing and not gaining coaching experience and moving up the ladder to become a head coach. On the other
hand, you may have a white player who went undrafted and began his climb up the coaching ladder. Now surely
professional playing experience can be another factor in hiring a coach, so there are former pros that may be
more likely to get hired due to their fame or pedigree as a former pro star. However, when hiring a coach, if the
school is looking for a more experienced coach with the background of being an assistant and aide before
becoming a head coach (often allowing that coach to better hire and work with his assistants) they will find many
more non-minority candidates for the reasons noted above. If we use the incorrect, but simpler, formula that all
college coaches are former college players: there are fewer minority candidates to begin with, followed by fewer
minority graduates, followed by more minority players in the pros; on a very simple level, there will be far fewer
qualified minority candidates when a coaching job comes open.
Furthermore, if more minority athletes play in the pros and become rich from it, their motivation to go into
coaching after their playing days are over is lessened by the fact that they are financially secure. Their desire to
begin coaching and “learn the ropes” could be lowered by the fact that they don’t need to earn a salary any more
to live after retiring from playing. As we have seen in the NBA, you don’t even have to be very good to get rich,
so there are more than a few with this “problem.”
Other factors besides race that go into hiring a coach can also determine the number of coaches hired in a
given year. The style of coaching in relation to the school is often a factor. The liberals at Cal-Berkeley are
probably going to shy away from a hard-nosed, Bob Knight/Woody Hayes type of coach. Also, a defensive-
minded, low-scoring mentality in football would not be the best fit on the West cCoast, just like a high flying aerial
attack would not be ideal in the cold Northeast. One of the reasons June Jones made Hawaii all that money this
year was not just because they won all their games, but because of the way they did it. Being a high flying, high
scoring, exciting offense surely helped them move up in the polls during the season with big-time scores that
made people go “wow they won 55-10” and caused more fans to want to see them play. This type of offense
made Jones a good fit for Hawaii, as that exciting style of play surely drew more recruits far from home to go to
school there and got them extra TV exposure. This type of thing is what AD’s look at when trying to find a good
fit for their program, as there is more to the hiring process then records and resumes. The location and social
scene of the University often is a factor in what coach is best suited for them and at no point should race play a
part in that decision. A Bud Kilmer-like disciplinarian can be a good fit for Texas teams but would get run out of
town for being "mean" in a laid-back town. At the same time a “nice guy” like Tony Dungy might find it harder to
gain respect in certain areas, not because of his race, but because of his style. But guess what? There is a
formula for all of this. It has been proven time and time again that whether you fit in or not: if you WIN, they will
keep you, and if you don’t you will go. Is Indiana University a better hirer because it’s last 2 basketball coaches
have been minorities or were they just the right hire at the right time? Wouldn’t it be racist to not hire a white
candidate to comply with some kind of system?
Obviously the issue is more complicated, and this article is in no way meant to be a comprehensive look at the
subject. However, there is more to this then the mentality of “there’s only X number of minority coaches so
something is wrong and every school should hire one next time they need a new coach." Numbers are not the
answer and having a certain number of anything does not fix problems. Are there jobs that have been filled
when a minority candidate was ignored? Probably. But in the end, having a successful football or basketball
program is so important and financially rewarding to a university that to hire, or not hire, a coach based on race
is clearly idiotic. At the same time, when a minority coach is not hired it does not mean a wrong was committed
and the school should be punished or labeled in any way. There are many reasons why a coach is or isn't hired,
but one thing we can agree on is that his or her racial background should never be one of them. We can also
agree that there are probably going to be far fewer minority coaches available for a given job, just based on the
reasons above, and that this is an issue that will be talked about for as long as sports are played.
 |