PFT: Having 3 NFL African American coaches is shameful

https://profootballtalk.nbcsports.com/2 ... -shameful/

First, I absoutely support the Rooney Rule. Old-boy networks are pervasive and often subconscious, with the white "good-ol-boy" network the most powerful amongst them. Today, I saw part of the Rhule and McCarthy intro interviews. The McCarthy one with him sandwiched between Stephen and Jerrah, pure white good-ol-boyism. But Martin Lewis got at least a chance to interview there. It may have been just to check the box, but he got his face out there.

However, stating that black coaches are being shut out is an overreach. Three of 32 HCs is just under 10 percent. The black US population is 14.8 percent. Relative to population size, they are underrepresented, but by far less than Latinos, Asians and Pacific Islanders. The article implies that there are few black candidates in the pipeline. I have yet to find racial demographics of college/coordinators/position coaches/available legacy coaches, but my eye test puts it at around 10-15 percent.

With the sample size being so small, swings between parity and nonparity can depend on one individual. What 3 in 32 tells me, plus these men's history, is that in fact progress is being made toward proportional hiring wrt black candidates. The trend of bringing recently retired players up through the pipeline will surely continue, and with players being 70 percent black, you'd expect to see more blacks in the pipeline that way.

Some would argue the coaching jobs should reflect player population, but that leads to why there's disproportional overrepresentation of black men among NFL players. Are we implying that blacks tend to be better athletes, better at football, better at certain positions? That there's a racially based reason there are no white CBs, why there are few if any black punters or placekickers? And if so, is this something that anyone believes should be acted upon?

This discussion is so old. If we want "equal rights" as it's most commonly defined nowadays, then NFL teams need to be comprised of 61.3% (or whatever the current national number is for non-Hispanic white people in the U.S.) white players.

Even just saying what I said sounds ridiculous...which is also why it's equally ridiculous when talking about percentages for non-whites.

Personally, I don't give a crap what the racial/ethnic breakdowns of NFL teams are. I want the best possible players at every position, even if that means half of them are blue, green, or polka dot.

RolandDeschain":3bj60glv said:

This discussion is so old. If we want "equal rights" as it's most commonly defined nowadays, then NFL teams need to be comprised of 61.3% (or whatever the current national number is for non-Hispanic white people in the U.S.) white players.

Even just saying what I said sounds ridiculous...which is also why it's equally ridiculous when talking about percentages for non-whites.

Personally, I don't give a crap what the racial/ethnic breakdowns of NFL teams are. I want the best possible players at every position, even if that means half of them are blue, green, or polka dot.

Click to expand...

Misses the points, no?

Hire the best fit for the job...regardless of skin tone. Who is out there that should be hired? Marvin Lewis?

RolandDeschain":3j9abtt1 said:

This discussion is so old. If we want "equal rights" as it's most commonly defined nowadays, then NFL teams need to be comprised of 61.3% (or whatever the current national number is for non-Hispanic white people in the U.S.) white players.

Even just saying what I said sounds ridiculous...which is also why it's equally ridiculous when talking about percentages for non-whites.

Personally, I don't give a crap what the racial/ethnic breakdowns of NFL teams are. I want the best possible players at every position, even if that means half of them are blue, green, or polka dot.

Click to expand...

The thing with this argument is that the perception of "the best:" sometimes includes race, often on a subconscious and very subtle level.

That's why the Rooney Rule is needed. However, I'm not convinced by the PFT article that it has failed.

Cyrus12":1oziy93m said:

Hire the best fit for the job...regardless of skin tone. Who is out there that should be hired? Marvin Lewis?

Click to expand...

A lot of people think Eric Bienemy is getting short changed. Hard to say if it's true cuz he works under Andy Reid who has control over the offense in KC. That's not say Bienemy hasn't learned plenty about being a HC from him though.

The Rooney Rule is stupid in my opinion. Now you have guys like Marvin Lewis that have zero shot of getting a job being brought in just to check off a box. To me it's almost more disrespectful then not getting an interview to begin with. Jerry Jones is going to make Dak Prescott one of the highest paid players and the face of the franchise but racist? Maybe these guys are racist but at the same time if anyone of them beleived Bienemy give them a better shot at a title then a white coach i think there hiring Bienemy.

I've heard this about Bienemy too.

But what I haven't heard is how much Bienemy wants to leave this year. Same with Saleh. I actually think Saleh would rather go later than sooner, build on another year with the 49ers, and build his rep.

With the three recent hires (Judge, McCarthy, Rhule), I wouldn't say those were color blind but more what people wanted.

McCarthy spent a year designing a whole analytics department. It's something Jerrah didn't have and is prioritizing this year. But does McCarthy fit in with the white good-ol-boy that Stephen/Jerrah represent? Very much so

Judge oversaw special teams, thus working with offensive and defensive players he couldn't choose. The Giants clearly don't want power fights with their GM. Does Judge fit in with the white good-ol-boy network, hell yes.

Rhule (I saw his presser) is Mr. Toastmaster. He comes off very charismatic, very team-building, very apt to have a team rally around him. The fact that the locker room was lost was why Rivera had to go. Does he fit into the white good-old-boys, again yes.

I'd say each of these teams chose the candidates they felt would help them with their needs best individually. But was race at least a subconscious factor? It's definitely a possibility.

You just want the coach who will help you win and who the owner most trusts. We should not be hiring people based on race for anything. Best person gets the job period. Race not a factor at all. That's what it should be.

3/32 = 9%. African Americans are 13% of the US population so it's not as far off as you would suggest here. BTW 4/32 teams = 13%. So there you go 1 more hire and it's right on par with the US population as a whole. It's not really as bad as suggested here.

Are 65% of the NFL players white? Do we want affirmative action to even that out? Or are the best players simply chosen and picked? What's your argument here?

Are 65% of the NBA players white? Why not? Do we want affirmative action here to even things out? Or do you just want the best available players on your team?

SanDiego49er":3ghs4oy7 said:

Are 65% of the NFL players white? Do we want affirmative action to even that out? Or are the best players simply chosen and picked? What's your argument here?

Are 65% of the NBA players white? Why not? Do we want affirmative action here to even things out? Or do you just want the best available players on your team?

Click to expand...

Racism can only happen against minorities; duh.

SanDiego49er":9og80psh said:

Are 65% of the NFL players white? Do we want affirmative action to even that out? Or are the best players simply chosen and picked? What's your argument here?

Click to expand...

Sometimes when you leave the status quo, things don't get done under it. Very few people identify with racism, but when it comes down to soft nuances like "team fit," race often is a factor even though no one will admit it. The meritocracy argument has in the past resulted in zero to one black coaches over years, the NFL was facing litigation and bad pub over this, and the Rooney Rule was instituted not to force hires, but to put in a process ensuring that clubs talk to at least one person who's not a white guy.

I remember when there were no black quarterbacks, and the same argument was put forth: It was all about team fit, communication and leadership, and the best guys would always just happen to be white. When the league formally started hewing to the Rooney Rule, this began to change league/societal perceptions so that guys who ended up being the best--Wilson, Watson, Jackson, Mahomes among them--got a chance to prove it. No one qualifies their ascent with that they were affirmative action hires, nor do people question Tomlin and Flores.

Affirmative action for NFL HCs ?? Quotas by race ?? STFU ukeface:

The mere existence of the Rooney Rule is racist itself, and undermines the legitimacy of ANY non-white coach hire. Quite frankly, it's insulting to minority coaching candidates.

You're telling me that in this day and age, and with billions of dollars at stake, that coaching hires are overwhelmingly favoring "white" men because of racism? Then how do you explain the overwhelming percentage of black players, particularly in skill positions?

GTFO with that crap!

Those people who are keeping score based on skin color are the real racists, and THAT is what's shameful here.

Just like everything else in life, the BEST qualified for the position should get it. I don't care if it's a woman, man, and they are black, white, purple or green, if your going to give my team or business an advantage you are hired.

Like the Rooney Rule, AA measures typically don't name a quota. Population metrics are but a metric, a soft guideline.

I see 3 of 32 not as the same as 0/1 out of 32, particularly over several years' time. As more black coaches come up through the pipeline, the Rooney Rule--and the objections around it--will diminish as teams organically include more of them among HC candidates they'd be looking at anyway.

I know diversity hires rankle some, but they can be a useful tool. Of over 1,000 people employed in NFL coaching, the 9ers have the only female coach. There is only one Latino HC, Rivera. Of over 2,000 players, only one is Asian (Yongbyon Koo, PK of the Falcons), and that didn't happen until midseason.

I mean, without the Rooney Rule forcing things, maybe those people don't exist. Maybe people in general would continue thinking it was fine that there were no black quarterbacks--which was the case not long ago. Sometimes, what people think is "best" is colored by race even by the vast majority who are not racist.

It's hard to explain to someone who hasn't experienced it, but you do feel more included when you see at least one person representing your race or gender.

In some cases, it makes sense not to attempt or rush this. Take biologically female players. NFL (as well as MLB and NHL) rules allow women. However, the NFL is all about size and strength, and the physical aptitudes of men consistently outweigh that of women. Women weigh less. They are shorter. They have fewer fast-twitch muscle fibers, disadvantageous hip placement, less bone density and less lung capacity. Should there come a female candidate who is ridiculously on the edge of the bell curve able to compete in the combine, by all means, give her a chance. But it is fact that there will be very few if any contenders.

The same physical limitations don't apply to coaching. Or to reffing for that matter. Being 200 pounds with 7 percent body fat and a 5.0 or less at the combine isn't a job requirement there. These are mental jobs over-represented by white men when clearly, no reasonable physical claim could be put forth that women or minorities cannot do such a job.

Demographics of the entire country are kind of beside the point when we talk about something like NFL football coaches.

Black people are 13% of the country, but they're 60% of college football players and 70% of NFL players.

So, the question is, what % of NFL coaches at least played college football? For each that has played college football we'd expect .6 black coaches, and we simply don't have ANYWHERE close to that.

Part of this is regular old (INCREDIBLY WELL DOCUMENTED THROUGH AUDIT STUDY AFTER AUDIT STUDY) discrimination in hiring in labor markets, but part of it is also ignorant sorting systems that start in high school or earlier.

Just by way of example, in high school I was coached by a collection of guys who would end up climbing the coaching ranks through college and then to the NFL, and some former NFL players too (e.g Jack Tatum was our defensive coordinator).

What happened starting the first day of my freshman year when we were all just lumps is that all the fat white kids got put on the offensive line (where you had to "think") and all the fat black kids got put on the defensive line (where you had to be a "good athlete") regardless of who was smart or dumb (they didn't even know any of us yet) or a good or bad athlete.

The linebackers were both black and white, but the middle linebacker was ALWAYS white, because that's the "smart" linebacker position, as he's the guy who calls the plays and makes adjustments, and even when a black kid ended up on offensive line, the center was ALWAYS white, because again, that's the "smart" o-line position on the "smart" side of line play.

It was, of course, the same deal at QB, where the blond white guy got put at QB, and the black really good QB got converted to RB in the first couple weeks of freshman ball. By SR. year on varsity the black really good QB was QB again (he really was that much better) but the white QB (who was our BACKUP QB) is the one who got the scholarship to play QB at the next level :lol: :lol: :lol:

Basically what was happening is the few white kids (myself included) on my high school team for no discernible reason beyond race ended up getting mostly slotted into the "Coach on the Field" rolls on the team, and as shouldn't surprise anyone, those "Coach on the Field" guys ended up disproportionately even GOING INTO coaching after their playing careers were over too. From the first week freshman year we were unwittingly being groomed into that trajectory, into thinking of units and play calls and how they go together, rather than just playing.

That all happens YEARS before you get to deciding which coach you're going to hire, but it's NOTHING BUT racial bias too.

SantaClaraHawk":31ciyz7n said:

Like the Rooney Rule, AA measures typically don't name a quota. Population metrics are but a metric, a soft guideline.

I see 3 of 32 not as the same as 0/1 out of 32, particularly over several years' time. As more black coaches come up through the pipeline, the Rooney Rule--and the objections around it--will diminish as teams organically include more of them among HC candidates they'd be looking at anyway.

I know diversity hires rankle some, but they can be a useful tool. Of over 1,000 people employed in NFL coaching, the 9ers have the only female coach. There is only one Latino HC, Rivera. Of over 2,000 players, only one is Asian (Yongbyon Koo, PK of the Falcons), and that didn't happen until midseason.

I mean, without the Rooney Rule forcing things, maybe those people don't exist. Maybe people in general would continue thinking it was fine that there were no black quarterbacks--which was the case not long ago. Sometimes, what people think is "best" is colored by race even by the vast majority who are not racist.

It's hard to explain to someone who hasn't experienced it, but you do feel more included when you see at least one person representing your race or gender.

In some cases, it makes sense not to attempt or rush this. Take biologically female players. NFL (as well as MLB and NHL) rules allow women. However, the NFL is all about size and strength, and the physical aptitudes of men consistently outweigh that of women. Women weigh less. They are shorter. They have fewer fast-twitch muscle fibers, disadvantageous hip placement, less bone density and less lung capacity. Should there come a female candidate who is ridiculously on the edge of the bell curve able to compete in the combine, by all means, give her a chance. But it is fact that there will be very few if any contenders.

Click to expand...

The big question is, why does there NEED to be diversity in every aspect of life? What I see as a push for diversity really seems to be all about having less "straight white men" around. Let me pose a 2 part question:

1. Why is there no outrage or push to get more white players into the league?

2. If the league's front office and coaching positions were predominantly black (or any other minority group you wish you compartmentalize), would there be push for diversity?

SantaClaraHawk":2tw90zmh said:

The same physical limitations don't apply to coaching. Or to reffing for that matter. Being 200 pounds with 7 percent body fat and a 5.0 or less at the combine isn't a job requirement there. These are mental jobs over-represented by white men when clearly, no reasonable physical claim could be put forth that women or minorities cannot do such a job.

Click to expand...

What makes you (and a lot of others) so certain of this? Why is it so easily assumed that all human beings posses the same level and type of mental ability, and that those differences cannot be grouped by gender, race, cultural background, etc?

Mindsink":2t171fxw said:

The big question is, why does there NEED to be diversity in every aspect of life?

Click to expand...

There does not NEED to be diversity in every aspect of life.

It's just that at the end of the day you live in a society in which EQUALITY OF OPPORTUNITY is a central if entirely unrealized stated value.

So, if you want to argue that equality of opportunity is overrated and doesn't matter, by all means you just should just come out and say that, but if you do think it matters you're just muddying the waters.

Re your question about players being majority black and if this is unfair to white people, no, as we have explanations for that.

A lot of that is selection effects, in that historically that sports -- once you get over the hurdle of a racial group being ALLOWED to participate in the sport which has happened in many of our parents' and all of our grandparents' lifetimes -- has been *less* discriminatory in their hiring practices than other occupations, likely because unlike practically all other occupations ability is much more easily measurable. What this means is that those who face discrimination in the labor market self-sort into attempted career tracks in which they'll face less discrimination because they, like everyone else, behave somewhat rationally and aren't just dumb.

Some recent research has even been showing that at the high school and college levels black athletes are even *trying harder* than there white counterparts (with the hypothesis being that they know they face greater discrimination on the labor market if they don't make it as athletes), which also explains why they're more likely to make it to the next level.

Mindsink":20x9z9rr said:

What makes you (and a lot of others) so certain of this? Why is it so easily assumed that all human beings posses the same level and type of mental ability, and that those differences cannot be grouped by gender, race, cultural background, etc?

Click to expand...

Because this hypothesis was studied to death for well over a half a century by the best and brightest minds across generations and has been thoroughly debunked every which way from Sunday by scholarship across both the natural and social sciences.

TWO QUICK EXAMPLES:

1) Many Western European white people are more genetically similar to African black people and Aboriginal Australian people than they are to Eastern European white people because of the relative absence of Neanderthal DNA across these three groups. Central American native people also end up oftentimes being more genetically similar to Scandinavians than they are to South and North American native populations for the same reason.

It's but one small example of the general truth that there is more genetic variation within racial groups than between racial groups, meaning the genetic side of the Race/Genetics argument doesn't make a lick of sense.

Long story short, genetic arguments about race and ability don't make any sense from the perspective of genetics.

2) The racial classification system you'd use to even try to make the argument is both historically and geographically contingent on the time and place in which you're making the argument. If you happened to be living in Brazil all the people you think of as white people would not be a racial group, and all the people you think of as black people would be split across different racial groups too. In South Africa the majority of people that you think of as black people in the U.S. are not legally or socially classified as black people. That you even think Asian is a racial group is something that has happened in the last 50 years in the United States. It's the same deal with Hispanic which is still kind of a racial group but not really, and with Middle Eastern, which seems to have started to become a racial group in the United States in the last twenty years or so.

This means that the race side of the Race/Genetics argument is also a hot ass mess.

There's common agreement on the junk of this argument across both the natural and social sciences not because it's "impolite" to suggest that the argument is untrue, but because people HAVE ACTUALLY SPENT A LONG, LONG TIME STUDYING THIS and the argument is just gobbledygook junk nonsense that doesn't make any sense across every field of study that used to waste their time studying it.