Black coaches/NBA/why is this even an issue?

[Ryan_21]

Do people not realize that 13 out of the 29 head coaches in the NBA are black. Thats 45%. But I guess some people still arent happy with this, so I compiled a list of white coaches that dont know what they are doing and should be gotten rid of in favor of some black coaches who do know what they are doing.

1. Phil Jackson
2. Larry Brown
3. Don Nelson
4. Pat Riley
5. Jerry Sloan
6. Hubie Brown
7. Doug Collins
8. George Karl
9. Gregg Popovich
10. Rick Adelman
11. Rudy Tomjanovich

Like some think, 45% is not enough, so b/c these guys dont really know what they are doing, the NBA should get rid of them and replace them w/ some black coaches that really know what they are doing.

Ryan_21

Great Post Ryan ! you know more than these guys. The only thing I know is that you like to revral you ignorance.

[Clarkmeister]

The NBA is by far the best league when it comes to minority coaching hirings. The NFL has such a racist history that it is no wonder that it is clearly still discriminatory in its hiring practices.

As far as the NBA. No, even at 45% it isn't enough if the available pool of qualified candidates is 80%. Get me to 60% and I think its reasonable.

As far as your list. You provide great examples of the problems.

Don Nelson: Retread

Hubie Brown: 70 yr old retread. You telling me that there are NO black candidates worth hiring over a 70 year old man who has a history of being intolerant and being exactly the type of personality that players today tune out.

Doug Collins. Retread who couldn't even win with Jordan in his prime.

Geroge Karl. Maybe one of the worst 5 coaches in the league. For reference, note USA basketball this year, the Bucks last year, and the Seattle Sonics in their heyday.

Popovich is a joke.

Adelman managed to take the best team in the NBA and lose a game 7 at home.

By comparison, look at the jobs that rookie black head coaches did last year: Bill Cartwright turned the Bulls season around, Doc Rivers has been sensational, Byron Scott and the Nets, enough said, Isaiah and the first place pistons. Hmmmmmmm.

Like I said in the other post. When we start hiring BAD black head coaches like we continually rehire bad white coaches, then you will know we have reached a point of equal opportunity.

As for the NFL, forget about it. Its embarassing.

[Jimbo]

All this ranting and raving about head coaches is mostly irrelevant. The coach influences 10% of the games final outcome or less. Most college coaches and and many high school coaches could take the same players on todays NBA teams and end up with similiar results.

Clarkmeister, why aren't you complaining about minority ownership as well as coaching positions? Personally I think it is unfair that minorities get all the juicy jobs such as pimps, crack dealers, convenience store operators and cabdrivers but I'm not complaining about equal representaion there, even though I am somwewhat jealous.

[B-Man]

As far as the NBA. No, even at 45% it isn't enough if the available pool of qualified candidates is 80%. Get me to 60% and I think its reasonable.

Quotas are wrong, and that is not just me, the Supreme Court has said so.

I think hiring should be done without regard to race. I also think admission to college, law school, etc. should be determined without regard to race. When you start relying on quotas, you run the substantial risk of excluding more qualified candidates because of their race just to satisfy some arbitrary quota that someone made up. Who determines that "the available pool of qualified candidates is 80%"? Who decides that "60%" is "reasonable"?

If this society is ever going to get over race discrimination, quotas and the the way of thinking behind them need to go.

[B-Man]

The forum had made so much progress with the departure of the anti-semite. It is unfortunate that a Southern Cross bearing bigot now feels it necesary to try and convince others that discrimination against blacks is contrived.

[Clarkmeister]

Discrimination exists. Racist hiring practices exist. I'm not demanding a quota, however I am attepting to find some way to quanitfy the extent to which such hiring practices exist in professional sports leagues.

The nice thing about pro sports leagues is that the available pool of coaching candidates is almost entirely comprised of former pro players. It becomes very easy then to surmise with reasonable accuracy that if the NBA is 80% black and has been for some time, that 80% of the available pool of candidates is black. This is VERY different than talking about "real life" situations where such assumptions cannot be made with any degree of certainty, other than the certainty that they are most likely wrong. (i.e. a factory is in a 80% black area......there is NO guarantee that 80% of the QUALIFIED candidates are black. Pro sports being unique, we CAN make that assumption.)

"I think hiring should be done without regard to race"

Of course it should. But when it is painfully obvious that hiring is NOT being done without regard to race, it is very appropriate to point it out and try to find a remedy. The remedy in the case of pro sports franchises is to hold their feet to the fire and examine their interview and hiring processes to ensure that equal opportunity is really being given. In the NFL in is clear that equal opportunity is not being given. You seem to want to ignore the fact that racism exists and that discrimination on a racial basis is illegal. And the Supreme Court backs me up on that one.

[Clarkmeister]

Jimbo -

Of course you are right. Since you feel coaching jobs are irrelevant, lets just go ahead and ignore the clearly racist hiring practices of pro and college sports programs.

"Why aren't you complaining about minority ownership"

Well, one reason is that it hasn't been a topic of discussion.

The other is that I can't tell rich blacks how to spend their money. The final is that these teams are either family owned from way back, or corporate owned. The first group isn't selling to blacks (or anyone else for that matter) and the second group I think likes the tax write off they get from annual operating losses, while hiding increased franchise value until a later date.

Anyway, what's the point of that statment? That if they want to hire black coaches, then the blacks can buy their own frahcnises? That's dangerously close to what you seem to be saying.

[Ryan_21]

"When you start relying on quotas, you run the substantial risk of excluding more qualified candidates because of their race just to satisfy some arbitrary quota that someone made up"

Pretty much the same point that I was trying to make below, but I get called a racist???

Only difference in mine and your quote was all I was trying to say was that if blacks/minorities get jobs they arent qualified for b/c of Aff. Action, then why cant whites get jobs as NBA players even if they arent as good?

Why do some people think that this question is racist?

Ryan_21

[B-Man]

You are oversimplifying. Just because 80% of the NBA is black (assuming that is the correct figure), that does NOT mean 80% of the qualified coaching candidates are black.

1. Maybe not all players want to coach. 2. Not all players who want to coach are qualified. 3. Some college coaches who never played in the NBA may be qualified.

There is just no way to quantify all of that. That is why quotas do not work, and, IMO, are bad policy.

Is there racism in society? For sure. Is there racism in the hiring of NBA coaches? I don't know, and I don't think you do, either. Just because Hubie Brown and other "retreads" get jobs, that doesn't make them unqualified. Ray Rhodes and Tony Dungy were both fired and got other jobs, are they retreads, too? I don't think you would say they are... they simply have broken into the same category which was previously only occupied by whites. Some things take time to correct, I think progress is being made. Things are not perfect, but they are getting better.

[B-Man]

Only difference in mine and your quote was all I was trying to say was that if blacks/minorities get jobs they arent qualified for b/c of Aff. Action, then why cant whites get jobs as NBA players even if they arent as good?

I think all (at least all that I can think of) racial preferences are wrong.

You seem to be using the logic that "two wrongs make a right." I think we should just get rid of the first wrong.

[Ryan_21]

"I can't tell rich blacks how to spend their money"

But you can tell rich whites (owners) how to spend theirs?

So what if they want to higher their buddy from the golf course that is engaged to their daughter to coach their team. It happens in all walks of life, its called who you know not what you know.

Now let me ask you a simple question. If you owned a pro sports team and you had to hire a new coach and there were two candidates. One was your best friend in the whole world and you estimate that he has a 65% chance of leading the team to a championship and the other candidate was someone you've never met (race irrelevant) and you estimated that he had a 70% chance of leading the team to a championship. Who would you pick, keep in mind the consequences of loosing your best friend and upsetting yours friends his friends and other people that you socialize with. I think its blatantly obvious that an extra 5% chance of winning a championship is not as important as hurting people you care about.

Ryan_21

[Ryan_21]

"I think we should just get rid of the first wrong."

I agree 100%, either you get rid of it or make it work both ways, its pointless to give, if you dont get, in return.

Ryan_21

[Ryan_21]

Its unfortunate that anonymous posters take cowardly shots at real/registered guests.

Ryan_21

[Jimbo]

Thanks for your response Clarkmeister. An annual tax writeoff from operating losses comes from bottom line profit. I do not believe this is a rational explanation for your adamant discrimination accusations. Nor are your percentage of black players means another measurable percentage of them are qualified to coach theories credible. Now you may very well be correct in your analysis about discrimination but I do not see your arguements as having any rational logic to support your theory. That was my main point of responding to you in the first place.

[Glenn]

"The nice thing about pro sports leagues is that the available pool of coaching candidates is almost entirely comprised of former pro players. It becomes very easy then to surmise with reasonable accuracy that if the NBA is 80% black and has been for some time, that 80% of the available pool of candidates is black. "

This is completely wrong. Just because you are a player doesn't mean you can coach. There are many factors which unfortunately make less black players able to coach. The socioeconomic and educational background of the players matter. Illiteracy rates, for instance, are significantly higher among blacks. The gap is being closed but for people currently old enough to coach it is a major discrepancy. Now I am not say this is the fault of black people, but it is a fact. White american players are more likely to be educated enough to run a team (going to college doesn't equal educated for athletes, especially 20-30 years ago). I will be called a racist for this, but it is a fact. Look at literacy rates, test scores, etc... Also consider that people from poor econmic backgrouds are more likely to look at sports at their "ticket out" and put more of their emphasis on training for their sport than on education. Currently in this country, there are more poor black people (% wise) than white people. Now this is something that needs to be looked at and fixed. But it needs to be corrected from the bottom up. It is already getting better, but the people old enough to be coaches now grew up in times where this gap was much worse than it is now. The discrepancy exists and the way to correct it is to better educate young people, not to hire old people for jobs they are unqualified for.

It is unfortunate that you are a bigot. Malmuth will let you post this crap because as Mat has stated, "criminals and racists are allowed to post."

[Clarkmeister]

I don't know what kind of shallow friends you have, but mine wouldn't stop talking to me if I didn't hire them.

[Clarkmeister]

Jimbo -

My only point in my response to you is that you don't just go and decide to buy a sports franchise. It's not as easy as going and buying a car.

Common sense should tell you that something is wrong in the NFL. 2 coaches from 32 teams. College football is worse, 4 coaches from 117 teams. And only 12 coordinators from 234 chances.

But it is even worst than that. There were only 23 black interviews total for the 50 open positions in the last 5 years in the NFL. That's right, over half of NFL teams don't even INTERVIEW a single black candidate! I could get into far more detail and post a bunch of links, but I honestly think that its really unnecessary. It should be painfully obvious to any objective person that something is seriously wrong here.

[Clarkmeister]

Exactly. It does take time to progress. However, progress won't ever be made if we ignore the obvious and don't even question the hiring practices of these teams. Note that nowhere in my 8 gazillion posts over these 3 separate threads have I ever advocated actual quotas, but have merely been pointing out what to me is obvious: Something is seriously wrong and the leagues are correct to be examining the issue.

Do you think the leagues are wrong to examine their franchises' hiring practices? How could they be?

[Michael Davis]

It is a shame that you are so prolific.

[Michael Davis]

The difference is that the list of white retreads goes on endlessly, whereas those are the only two examples of black retreads out there. Where is Art Shell? Where is Roch Kotite? The latter got two chances. Anyways, analyzing this by citing specific individuals is worthless, it is the larger numbers that matter here. And the minimal effort given to include obviously highly qualified minority candidates in the interviewing process is appalling.

Citing individual examples is foolish because it leads one to say things like, "Bobby Williams shouldn't have been fired from Michigan State because he is one of the few minority coaches." Well, Mr. Williams should have been fired; he was a terrible coach. The scrutiny placed on Michigan State for this obvious decision indicates a larger problem.

[Ryan_21]

Mr. Anonymous, its unfortunate even with the amount of posts you put up daily, that still, nobody takes anything you post seriously.

Ryan_21

[Ryan_21]

Where do you gather that I was talking about my friends? I have 5 real friends in the world and I surely would die for them b/f I hired some jackass off the streets, and they'd do the same for me.

But back to your statement, well thats good that your friends wouldnt stop talking to you, but you cant deny the fact that it would hurt them, can you? Maybe cause them to hold a small grudge, if they really wanted the job.

Ryan_21

[andyfox]

"I think hiring should be done without regard to race. I also think admission to college, law school, etc. should be determined without regard to race. When you start relying on quotas, you run the substantial risk of excluding more qualified candidates"

This was the ideal as expressed in the Civil Rights advancements of the 1960s. The problem was it only worked in theory. It makes sense, for example, if our population is roughly 50% women, that roughly 50% of the people in law school should be women (and I don't know whether they are or not, just trying to frame an example). If we find that only 20% of the law school attendees are women, despite the fact that 50% of the applicants are women, we might have cause to suspect that the process is not a fair one. We might then use the sex of the applicant as one as one element in the approval process. We shouldn't allow someone unqaulified to attend. But if someone is less qualified, but still qualified, consideration of their sex (or age, or ethnicity) might then be considered as an element of "balancing" the mix of attendees in order to assure against an "off-the-books" bias being used to discrminate.

This, at least as I understand it, is the theory behind affirmative action. A small anecdote to illustrate the point:

Years ago, my wife and I were looking for an apartment and the manager of the building we were looking in said that his was the only building on the block that allowed children. I told him that it was illegal to not rent to families with children. He said he knew that, but trust him, his was the only building on the block that rented to families with children. A few visits to other buildings confirmed his assessment.

So how would we assure that the law was being followed? One way would be to "set aside" a certain percentage of apartments in each building for families with children, as a way of assuring that they weren't beiing discrimnated against, despite the laws on the books that say such discrimination is forbidden.

[B-Man]

We shouldn't allow someone unqaulified to attend. But if someone is less qualified, but still qualified, consideration of their sex (or age, or ethnicity) might then be considered as an element of "balancing" the mix of attendees in order to assure against an "off-the-books" bias being used to discrminate.

You are entitled to your opinion, but I disagree. Why shouldn't schools be admitting the most qualified candidates? If you don't take the best candidates because of race, you are doing exactly what you allegedly want to stamp out--race discrimination. Why do liberals think it is ok to discriminate against whites and men (and especially against white men)?

One way would be to "set aside" a certain percentage of apartments in each building for families with children, as a way of assuring that they weren't beiing discrimnated against, despite the laws on the books that say such discrimination is forbidden.

Sure, punish the law-abiding landlords as well as the law-breakers by forcing them to keep certain apartments open, even if their are no tenants in your target group trying to rent them. That makes a lot of sense.

By the way Andy, I'm disappointed you never responded to my question as to why it would be immoral for you, as a PGA pro, to play at Augusta (where no women are members). I was looking forward to hearing the liberal reasoning for why this private club's actions are immoral (in contrast to Wellesley College, the WNBA, the Girl Scouts, sororities, etc., all of which exclude men but apparently are not considered immoral by liberals).

[andyfox]

1) My reasoning is my own, and shouldn't be used as an example of "liberal" reasoning.

2) Figuring out the most qualified candidate is not an exactd science. Someone might have done well on a test, someone else not as well who's just not a good test-taker. Someone might have done poorly in an interview because their father is ill.

3) Race discrimination can be a subtle thing. We might pass a law, as for example, in the apartent renting anecdote, but discrimination will still be practiced unless we have goals. That is, a color-blind society can be, and often is, a racist society.

4) On the apartment issue, does it make sense that families have trouble finding an apartment because 90% of the landlords are violating the law? We inspect everyone's purse or sacks when they leave work, even though we know 99% won't be stealing. The airports inhibit the freedoms of everyone in order to make things better for all. These are not exact analogies, I know.

5) On the Augusta issue, again, I don't think you should use my reasoning as the "liberal" reasoning. I haven't posted for a few days. White males have had everyone else by the balls in our society for a long time. I try to avoid places that discriminate against women or blacks or jews or children.

[Clarkmeister]

...."or children"

Stay out of those poker rooms then Andy! /forums/images/icons/wink.gif

[B-Man]

1) My reasoning is my own, and shouldn't be used as an example of "liberal" reasoning.

I did not mean to suggest your reasoning was not your own. But it just so happens that your views often comport with the views of other liberals (I hope you are not offended that I am calling you a liberal). Therefore, I don't think it is inaccurate to label it as liberal reasoning.

2) Figuring out the most qualified candidate is not an exactd science. Someone might have done well on a test, someone else not as well who's just not a good test-taker. Someone might have done poorly in an interview because their father is ill.

I agree. But that is no justification to discriminate based on race (which is what affirmative action does).

3) Race discrimination can be a subtle thing. We might pass a law, as for example, in the apartent renting anecdote, but discrimination will still be practiced unless we have goals. That is, a color-blind society can be, and often is, a racist society.

I don't disagree with that in theory.

4) On the apartment issue, does it make sense that families have trouble finding an apartment because 90% of the landlords are violating the law? We inspect everyone's purse or sacks when they leave work, even though we know 99% won't be stealing. The airports inhibit the freedoms of everyone in order to make things better for all. These are not exact analogies, I know.

I don't think those analagies really work, either that or I'm not sure what you are trying to say.

5) On the Augusta issue, again, I don't think you should use my reasoning as the "liberal" reasoning. I haven't posted for a few days. White males have had everyone else by the balls in our society for a long time. I try to avoid places that discriminate against women or blacks or jews or children.

You have every right to avoid places which discriminate against women, blacks, jews or children. I try to do the same. But that doesn't make it immoral for a group of men to want to belong to a golf club which doesn't have women members. If you think that is immoral in and of itself, then how could you think that women-only institutions (like Wellesley college, etc.) are anything but immoral?