Black coaches

[Ryan_21]

This topic seems to come up on the sports talk/t.v. shows frequently. Atleast once a month I'd guess. It was the topic of discussion on SportsCenter last night. The opinion/whinning that is brought up is that there isnt enough black head coaches in pro/college sports. You all know the story.

Well Im sick of hearing about the same old oppressed black man story.

Why is it always made a big deal of that there arent enough black head coaches, when its blantantly obvious that in the leagues, the players are 80% black.

Its a double standard to say we need more black coaches, but go on without realizing that there are hardly any white players in the leagues.

Take the NBA for example. If you look on the court, there are 5 players per team, 10 overall on the court. In any game you watch you'd be lucky to see 2 white guys out of the 10 on the court.

So why isnt this ever brought up? Is it ok to discriminate against white people? Or is it only ok to bring up cases of discrimination against blacks?

I say so what if their arent enough black coaches, blacks have enough black players to make up for it 3 times over. So the sports experts should either shut up with this crap, or realize the blantantly obvious and start talking about discrimination against whites athletes also.

What do you all think?

Ryan_21

[pudley4]

</font><blockquote><font class="small">In reply to:</font><hr />
Why is it always made a big deal of that there arent enough black head coaches, when its blantantly obvious that in the leagues, the players are 80% black

[/ QUOTE ]

This is precisely why a big deal is being made.

</font><blockquote><font class="small">In reply to:</font><hr />
Is it ok to discriminate against white people?

[/ QUOTE ]

White people are not being discriminated against when it comes to playing in the NBA. There just simply aren't many white players who are good enough to play. Kids have the opportunity to prove their basketball ability starting at a young age. Coaches (mostly) don't care if a player is white or black (or latino, or chinese, etc). If they can play, they play. So starting in high school (or even earlier), any kid has a chance to go out and prove how good a player they are. Once they get to college, regardless of whether they played in high school or not, they can always try to "walk-on". If they prove their ability in college, they'll get a chance to at least try out for some NBA team. There are also lesser leagues and foreign leagues to play in to prove their ability. The key is that in each place, players are always able to show their playing ability through practices, tryouts, exhibition games, etc. The same opportunities are not available to coaches.

There are no "tryouts" for coaches. They can't "walk-on" at a college program and run a couple of practices to show what they can do. They can't go to a summer-league for an NBA team and prove how well they manage game situations. Their only opportunities come directly from an owner (hiring them as a head coach) or from a head coach (hiring them as an assistant). If owners and head coaches interview whites-only, (or only throw in a token interview to a black person) there's no way blacks will get the same opportunities as whites. The differences between making it as an NBA player and as an NBA coach are what cause the discrimination talks.

</font><blockquote><font class="small">In reply to:</font><hr />
I say so what if their arent enough black coaches, blacks have enough black players to make up for it 3 times over.

[/ QUOTE ]

These are 2 completely separate issues.

</font><blockquote><font class="small">In reply to:</font><hr />
So the sports experts should either shut up with this crap, or realize the blantantly obvious and start talking about discrimination against whites athletes also

[/ QUOTE ]

Quick, name the 5 best white players in the NBA. Are any of them even close to as athletic as Kobe, Steve Francis, Tracy McGrady, KG? NO WAY! Who are the most athletic white players in the last 20 years? Dan Majerle, Tom Chambers, Brent Barry - maybe I've forgotten a couple, but these guys are jokes when you compare their athletic ability to the NBA superstars.

[B-Man]

Quick, name the 5 best white players in the NBA. Are any of them even close to as athletic as Kobe, Steve Francis, Tracy McGrady, KG? NO WAY! Who are the most athletic white players in the last 20 years? Dan Majerle, Tom Chambers, Brent Barry - maybe I've forgotten a couple, but these guys are jokes when you compare their athletic ability to the NBA superstars.

When I was a big NBA fan, players (and fans) were not as concerned with athleticism, dunking, and looking good as they are today. What was important was winning. That is what should be important today, but unfortunately it isn't. Today's players seem much more concerned with showing off/looking good than improving their own game, improving their team, and focusing on winning.

You may or may not be correct in your list of the most athletic white players of the last 20 years; regardless, who cares? A player should not be in the NBA because he is athletic, he should be in the NBA because he can help a team win. By listing the most "athletic" white players rather than the best white players, you seem to be falling into the same line of thinking.

There isn't a player in the league today who could carry Larry Bird's jockstrap (well, maybe if the Shaq was healthy, but he isn't... and sure Jordan before he unretired for the 3rd time... other than that, nobody is even close).

Magic Johnson, Kareem, Walt Frazier, Bill Russell, Jerry West, Bill Walton in his prime. the topic was started by a bigot who doesn't want to admit that discrimination exists.
Usually people are bigoted because they lack self esteem. We should pray for him to get better.

[BruceZ]

If one states that whites as a group are more capable of being coaches than blacks, he is accused of being a racist. Interestingly, if one states that blacks as a group make better athletes, he is also accused of being a racist. A few years ago, a well-known sports commentator was fired because he stated that blacks are bigger and stronger due to selective breeding from the days of slavery. Not only were his statements plausible, they were almost certainly correct. If you only select the stongest members of a group and breed them in isolation, of course the offspring will be stronger than random samples, duh. Apparently political correctness means refraining from stating that which should be blatantly obvious to everyone.

[Ryan_21]

"There are no "tryouts" for coaches. They can't "walk-on" at a college program and run a couple of practices to show what they can do, etc, etc"

This is where you are wrong. Its called going to college, getting a degree in physical education, start coaching at the high school level, move up to J.C, then to D1 college and then to assistant in pro's and so forth.

Black people have the same opportunities to prove themselves as coaches as whites have to prove themselves as players. The only difference is, whites dont make a big deal about the lack of players in the pro's, blacks DO make a BIG deal about the lack of coaches.

Ryan_21

[Ryan_21]

"the topic was started by a bigot who doesn't want to admit that discrimination exists."

I hope you are not talking about me. Because the whole point of my post was to prove that discrimination DOES exist, against whites.

Why does everyone cry racism when it is against blacks, but look the other way when it is against whites?

Ryan_21

[Ryan_21]

"Apparently political correctness means refraining from stating that which should be blatantly obvious to everyone."

Thats my point and I dont care if its politically correct or not, but the fact remains that everyone is quick to cry racism when it is against minorities, but at the same time they are quick to look the other way when it is against whites.

Ryan_21

[Clarkmeister]

All I can say is I am shocked by such ignorance from the defender of Tupac.

Where to start? Wow.

Your example of "racism against whites" because of the number of white players on the basketball floor is so ridiculous its laughable. Fortunately, the league is so public that it is not possible to do anything BUT attempt to put the best possible team on the court. Its not racism, its free market forces at work. The leagues are shining examples to the rest of the business community of "the most qualified candidates get the job" when it comes to players.

Now all of a sudden, these black players who comprise 79% of the talent in the NBA aren't managerial material? How is that? The fact of the matter is that to get into coaching at the pro level, the number one qualification that you could have is that you played in the league. It simply defies logic that with 79% of players being black, only 44% would attempt to be coaches. It doesn't need to be exactly reflective, but it does need to be in the same ballpark. Get it to 60% and I think you have reached a point where it is reasonable and believable.

The NFL is, of course, the worst offender and has been so historically. It was less than 20 years ago that we were debating the ridiculous notion that blacks werent "smart enough" to be QB's in the league. It should not be surprising that organizations that held such beliefs so recently, are still acting on them in other ways.

Look at the Black coaches in the NFL. They are all WELL above the average white coach in terms of ability. Dennis Green, Tony Dungee, Ray Rhodes, Herm Edwards, Art Shell. Once I start seeing some black David Shula's get hired, I'll know that we are close to where we should be. But when every black coach who gets hired is very good or excellent as opposed to average, it should be obvious to you that something is seriously wrong.

[Clarkmeister]

The fact of the matter is that 79% of the players in the NBA are black because 79% of the best players in the world happen to be black. Period.

[B-Man]

I don't dispute that (nor was the point of my post to dispute that).

[Clarkmeister]

Jimmy the Greek's statement was horribly ignorant. Right in the same ballpark with Al Campanis. His "theory" of course is wildly incorrect, though your post shows how some people want to belive such drivel. You appear to agree with both of them. Considering the best manager in the "thinking mans sport" of baseball is arguably Dusty Baker, one would think that such bigotry would have been debunked long ago.

[Clarkmeister]

Sorry, that is simply NOT how the vast majority of pro sports coaches get jobs. Please have some semblence of real facts before spouting off.

[Clarkmeister]

Please name me a white player who has been denied a job in the NBA simply because he is white. I hope you see how ridiculous that entire concept is. It can't be discrimination against whites if they aren't being denied jobs simply because of the color of their skin.

[BruceZ]

I don't see that you've given any argument to disprove it. Neither has any other commentator that I've seen. Everyone just wants to dismiss his remarks as being bigoted. They don't even discuss whether he may have actually been right because they don't want to suffer the same fate he did. What do you think, the laws of genetics were somehow suspended for the American blacks? Do you understand how dogs and cats are selectively bred for particular traits, and how those traits become prevalent in a few generations? And what on earth does a single example of a successful coach prove about the overall capability of a group? I'm not arguing the issue of who makes the best coaches BTW.

[pudley4]

The thread originator mentioned "white athletes", which is why I asked the question. Obviously athletic ability isn't the only prerequisite for becoming an NBA player (or superstar) - see John Stockton, Steve Nash, Jason Kidd, etc.

[pudley4]

You can't make the statement that (American) blacks as a group are better athletes because of breeding - it's not true. While they are better athletes in the more explosive sports/events (think basketball or the 100m dash), you have to remember that there are major differences between Western Africans (where most black Americans come from) and Eastern Africans. Due to their genetic makeup, Western Africans (Nigeria) tend to be more explosive than Caucasians, who tend to be more explosive than Eastern Africans (Kenya). However, Eastern Africans tend to be much better in long-distance running events. This has nothing to do with selective breeding by slave owners.

One reason so many people reject these facts is because of the implied statement - "Because they're better suited for this sport/event, it follows that they don't work as hard to succeed at it". Nothing could be further from the truth. The elite among these athletes in all events work much much harder than the vast majority of people do. Their mental toughness and preparation go far beyond what most people are capable of. This is one of the biggest reasons why these people succeed. There are people who were/are more gifted athletically than Michael Jordan was - however, they couldn't touch him mentally, which is why he was successful and they were stuck on the playground.

Now, as to mental differences between these groups, I have yet to find a valid study that shows any difference in mental capabilities among any large groups of people (not including the differences between men and women - which is an altogether different topic).

[BruceZ]

Due to their genetic makeup, Western Africans (Nigeria) tend to be more explosive than Caucasians...This has nothing to do with selective breeding by slave owners.

I agree with the regional differences you mention. It is also true that only the strongest Africans were selected to be slaves, and only the stongest of those were able to survive the harsh conditions on the slaveships. It stands to reason that their offspring would be stronger than the average west African, who in turn was already stronger than the average caucasian. This strength is exhibited in explosive sports such as football, boxing, basketball, and sprinting. I'm not suggesting that the slave owners did any additional breeding to attempt to isolate these traits. I'm only refering to the selective breeding incurred by the selection and isolation of a subset of the population.

[Ryan_21]

Your response exemplifies the type of thinking that I was talking about. Its not ok to discriminate against blacks but it is ok to do it to whites.

You wrote:

"Its not racism, its free market forces at work"

and

"the most qualified candidates get the job"

This is held true when you talk about blacks. I have to agree blacks are better athletes than whites in general, so there should be more in pro sports.

However when those two quotes are used to talk about whites, they do not apply. If you dont beleive me, I have 2 words for you. AFFIRMATIVE ACTION.

When there are not enough minorities in workplaces/colleges, society has to specially add them in to meat the status quo, even if they are not as qualified as other candidates (whites).

But, when there arent enough whites in workplaces (i.e. pro sports) then its perfectly acceptable to fall back on the "they arent as athletic as blacks" excuse.

Ryan_21

[Clarkmeister]

Please point out where I said it is OK do discriminate against whites.

I didn't.

Reading the rest of your post, you seem to be recanting your earlier statement that it is racist that more whites aren't in the NBA. Glad to see you come to your senses.

As for the rest of your post. I'll try to make this very clear. Whites are not discriminated against in Pro Sports leagues because the of free market and the best qualified candidates having ample opportunity to earn their way onto the team.

The same cannot be said about blacks with regard to coaching. Your incorrect statement about where the coaching pool in pro sports comes from shows how you are confused on this. The pool of talent for pro coaching jobs for the most part comes directly from retired pro athletes. If the pool of available qualified talent (retired pro athletes) is X% minority, and the coaches getting hired are .20X, then it should be painfully apparent that in this case discrimination IS going on.

The same people who own teams and make decisions in the NFL today are the same people who made decisions less than 20 years ago that blacks weren't smart enough to be QB's. Why would you think they would suddenly change when it comes to hiring coaches? Common sense tells you that they would be even slower to hire coaches than they were to hire QB's. The proof is in the hirings.

Whites get a fair shot to become pro athletes. Blacks to not get a fair shot to become head coaches. Why is that difficult to understand?

[Dynasty]

...blacks are bigger and stronger due to selective breeding from the days of slavery...his statements...were almost certainly correct

I tried real hard but still can't remember hearing a more ignorant statment.

Blacks were not selectively bred during the days of slavery. Black women were routinely raped and whored out to anybody with the money. They were used as sexual toys. There were so many black women who had illegitimate children with white men that the whole theory collapses on that fact alone. A significant majority of the descendents of slaves have "white blood" running in their veins. That's not a sign of selective breeding.

How/why would the same guy respond to his own post 10 times.

Clarkmeister/ryan 21 you guy need a job

Lord, please help this poor soul to realize what the definition of discrimination is. He apparently /forums/images/icons/wink.gif lacks the mental faculties to comprehend the subject.
Amen.

[Ryan_21]

We are not the same guy, retard.

Ryan_21

[Ryan_21]

"Whites are not discriminated against in Pro Sports leagues because the of free market and the best qualified candidates having ample opportunity to earn their way onto the team."

Yeah, ok, great, Im fine with that. However, Im not fine with the fact that this statement doesnt hold true in the real world involving real jobs.

My problem is with the fact that due to affirmative action blacks/minorities are givin jobs to meet a status quo even if they are less qualified than others (whites). And this is acceptable to people in our society.

However, when it is turned around by someone like me saying that there should be more whites in pro sports, even if they are less qualified, it is not accepted, when it is the exact same thing. How does that make since?

Ryan_21

[Ryan_21]

"Lord, please help this poor soul to realize what the definition of discrimination is. He apparently lacks the mental faculties to comprehend the subject."

Blacks/minorities are given jobs (affirmative action) even if they are less qualified than others just because of there race. As in the example of the NBA players, whites ARE NOT. That is discrimination. What dont you understand?

Ryan_21

[IrishHand]

It makes me laff that he's completely recanted his original arguments regarding racism in sports in favor of more defensible anti-affirmative action arguments.

Irish

PS. Anonymous posters are cowards and should find something better to do with their time (registering would be a good start, ortherwise therapy).

[Ryan_21]

"It makes me laff that he's completely recanted his original arguments regarding racism in sports in favor of more defensible anti-affirmative action arguments."

I honestly dont see how you come to that conclusion? The whole post talked about how there werent enough whites in pro sports and nothing is ever said about it, but when it comes to blacks (coaching) its a big deal. So what are you talking about, I havent recanted anything.

Ryan_21

[BruceZ]

Of course this fact does nothing to invalidate the statement. So blacks have some "white blood" in them, so what? Whites have almost all white blood in them. Most of gene's in the black gene pool come come from black slaves (or else they would be white if you understand how racial markers are determined).

See my later post above about what I mean by selective breeding; I'm not saying the slave traders bred the slaves. If that's what the Greek meant, then I would agree this is probably wrong.

[Clarkmeister]

Actually, the idea that in 10 generations of slavery you could breed any appreciable increase in physical ability is laughable. This is even assuming that slave owners were actually attempting to "breed them for improvement" which is debatable at best.

Thoroughbred racehorses are bred SPECIFICALLY to be faster and more athletic. And in a hundred generations the fastest horses today aren't conclusively faster than horses 40, 60 or 80 years ago. The concept that in a mere 10 generations of breeding "the hardiest slaves who survived the trade ships" one could create a superior athletic breed that had such incredible traits that they still exist another 10 generations AFTER freedom is ridiculous.

For you to prove your point, you would have to show that American blacks today are distinctly superior to their counterparts still in Africa, something that I highly doubt could be done. And even a slight difference between the two groups is more likely to be attributed to 100 years of vastly superior diet and medicine than to "breeding patterns" from between 350-150 years ago.

[Clarkmeister]

"I honestly don't see how you come to that conclusion"

I do. Your initial post claimed that it was racist that more whites weren't in the NBA. You later admitted that the true reason was that the ones who tried and failed weren't good enough.

Then you argued that it was silly to suggest that racism was involved in the hiring of black coaches in all sports, and used a fallacious premise about how coaches get hired to "prove" your point.

So now you have steered your aguement away from black coaches in pro sports into the more nebulous arguement of "affirmative action in the USA". Something which is really a completely different topic than the one you started.

To recap:

Your initial post made two points.
1. White players are the victims of racism in the NBA.
2. There is no discrimination against black coaching candidates in pro sports.

You have recanted on point #1, and I think that I have successfully disproven point #2 in this thread.

Affirmative action as a policy in this country is a different topic altogether.

[Ryan_21]

"White players are the victims of racism in the NBA"

I have not recanted this. Just b/c I said blacks are better athletes does not mean I recanted this statement. If anything it makes it truer, b/c of affirmative action.


If blacks can get jobs they arent qualified for, why cant whites play in the NBA even if they arent as good? Its clearly the same thing.

Ryan_21

[BruceZ]

Again, I'm not saying slaveowner's bred the slaves. On the other hand, of course the offspring of a fast racehorse will have a higher than average chance of being fast. This is why vast sums are paid for horses of good pedigree. For the same reason, of course the decendants of the strongest African blacks will be stronger than the decendants of the average blacks who were left behind. That difference will survive until today; the gene's didn't go anywhere.

[MCS]

Hey Ryan, since you want to harp on affirmative action, here's a news flash: white women are the primary beneficiaries.

An owner is going to acquire the players AND coaches that give his team the best chance to win. It is in his best interest to do so. If he was truly racist, he would have a roster of 12 Greg Ostertags.

[IrishHand]

Owners don't hire coaches - team presidents and/or general mangers do, and the majority of the time, those hirings are made on the basis of friendship and familiarity, with things like competence or coaching skill farther down the list.

you've taken up pages of space about a topic most don't care about, you've repeated and then contradicted yourself numerous times and for what. Who cares /

[Ryan_21]

If thats the case, then why do you post at all Jerry? Nobody cares.

Ryan_21

P.S. This is obviously one of the biggest threads the Other Topics boards has ever seen.

[Michael Davis]

It is in no way the same thing. It has been clearly established that the job of NBA player is given to the person who most merits the position. This is simply not the case for most jobs, thus the existence of affirmative action to bring the playing field closer to even.

Mike

"This is one of the biggest threads the board has ever seen", lets see, there has been 39 posts, over half of which are from Ryan 21 and Clarkmeister - your right its really captured the board's attention.