User avatar
Supreme Megalodon
Posts: 61669
Joined: Sat May 16, 2009
Sand$: 32,234.16
Renegade wrote:
Elmagister wrote:I think it's clear that racism is part of the issue. To deny that is silly, at best. I admit to laughing at people who dismiss it outright. I will allow that that colors my thinking. You wanting to find any reason other than that also colors yours.


What proof are you basing this on? Simply pointing out that minority %'s are STILL the minority does not imply racism. It merely shows that the minority is still the minority...

To what end does the race card stop getting played in situations like this? When the minority is now the majority? When 50% of all HCs are non-whites?

When the minority gets the same opportunities as the majority. I don't even know where to start with you on this. To deny that racism isn't an issue in America while hate crimes rise exponentially is ignorant, perhaps willful.

I'll also be happy when white dudes stop crying about the mention of racism and ignore hundreds of years of it by dismissing it as "the race card."
Megalodon
Posts: 15858
Joined: Fri Nov 26, 2004
Sand$: 10,116.96
for the record, im not a white dude, but thanks for the insta-stereotype
User avatar
Supreme Megalodon
Posts: 61669
Joined: Sat May 16, 2009
Sand$: 32,234.16
OarChambo wrote:
Elmagister wrote:I think it's clear that racism is part of the issue. To deny that is silly, at best. I admit to laughing at people who dismiss it outright. I will allow that that colors my thinking. You wanting to find any reason other than that also colors yours.

Here's the thing, I agree that race is part of the issue. We never got to that point because you went fire-eyed from the outset. Nuance. It's evident in most/all issues that create division in this country. The inability of many to rationally discuss them only festers it further. Most answers to problems aren't black or white, pun unintended. They're grey. They're complex. And that's what I sought here. Not to identify any other reason. To identify what else. How it relates. Or doesn't. What's the primary driver. And so on.

I expect any opinion I develop to be an objective and informed one. I wish others held themselves to the same standard. And I will always conflict with them.

I don't agree that I went fire-eyed. I respectfully ask you, again, to go back and look objectively. I repeatedly tried to own the miscommunication and move forward. Even now you're being accusatory rather than trying to have a conversation.
User avatar
Supreme Megalodon
Posts: 61669
Joined: Sat May 16, 2009
Sand$: 32,234.16
Renegade wrote:for the record, im not a white dude, but thanks for the insta-stereotype

Fair enough. My apologies.
User avatar
Supreme Megalodon
Posts: 61669
Joined: Sat May 16, 2009
Sand$: 32,234.16
User avatar
Megalodon
Posts: 12761
Joined: Sat Aug 30, 2008
Sand$: 39,909.86
OarChambo wrote:
theoutlawdekepatton wrote:
OarChambo wrote:The reason there are less black NFL head coach's right now is because there are not many black NFL OC/DC's nor college coach's - that's the pipeline to NFL coaching. I had a follow up to the latter issue before things went off the rails - there's a treasure trove of good information here: https://www.jbhe.com/2016/11/explaining ... -football/. I was taken aback yesterday when I went diving into NFL coordinators though. That disparity was an attention grabber. It's why I said there may be some merit to the Rooney Rule being applied to coordinators. I'd be interested in a deeper dive like that article did at the college level.


Its black peoples own fault for not taking the poop assistant positions and working up (which only has about a 50% correlation with HC positions anyway)?

If person X, regardless of their color/gender/sexual orientation, chooses one of these path's then they have a greater likelihood of developing into a head coach. The GA route is just one of those path's.


That path was decided by who?

I thought America was supposed to be a meritocracy and thats why John Lynch is an NFL GM? Black people choosing a different path doesn't mean they are less worthy or that their achievements should be overlooked.

I really don't think what you are posting is as rational as you think it is.
_______________________________________

Supreme Megalodon
Posts: 57627
Joined: Fri Jul 7, 2006
Sand$: 116,870.12
theoutlawdekepatton wrote:
OarChambo wrote:If person X, regardless of their color/gender/sexual orientation, chooses one of these path's then they have a greater likelihood of developing into a head coach. The GA route is just one of those path's.


That path was decided by who?

I thought America was supposed to be a meritocracy and thats why John Lynch is an NFL GM? Black people choosing a different path doesn't mean they are less worthy or that their achievements should be overlooked.

I really don't think what you are posting is as rational as you think it is.

Nobody decided anything. An objective 3rd party researched the data and that's what the data said. Data doesn't lie, it doesn't have feelings nor bias. What users do with that data, that's a different story.
Great White Shark
Posts: 7474
Joined: Fri Nov 9, 2007
Sand$: 23,697.04
Elmagister wrote:https://www.patheos.com/blogs/progressivesecularhumanist/2018/01/gop-lawmaker-blacks-cant-handle-marijuana-genetics/

2020.


2018...it's even in the url...

And he stepped down the next day and I can't seem to find anything more recent that he resurfaced after that.

Edit: it would appear that he may still be a Kansas State Representative after all.

Shameful take on his part.
Last edited by mikeraphon on Thu 01.09.2020, 15:03, edited 1 time in total.
User avatar
Supreme Megalodon
Posts: 61669
Joined: Sat May 16, 2009
Sand$: 32,234.16
mikeraphon wrote:
Elmagister wrote:https://www.patheos.com/blogs/progressivesecularhumanist/2018/01/gop-lawmaker-blacks-cant-handle-marijuana-genetics/

2020.


2018...it's even in the url...

And he stepped down the next day and I can't seem to find anything more recent that he resurfaced after that.

I will take Mark's words to heart about being more careful.

But the point of me sharing that here is still relevant. Racism even amongst our highest levels hasn't ended or been solved in the last 2 years.
Great White Shark
Posts: 3001
Joined: Thu Sep 11, 2014
Sand$: 6,608.46
Racism!
User avatar
Moderator
Posts: 51118
Joined: Sun Aug 2, 2009
Sand$: 43,802.95
Cadence calls wrote:Racism!


Image
User avatar
Megalodon
Posts: 12761
Joined: Sat Aug 30, 2008
Sand$: 39,909.86
OarChambo wrote:
theoutlawdekepatton wrote:
OarChambo wrote:If person X, regardless of their color/gender/sexual orientation, chooses one of these path's then they have a greater likelihood of developing into a head coach. The GA route is just one of those path's.


That path was decided by who?

I thought America was supposed to be a meritocracy and thats why John Lynch is an NFL GM? Black people choosing a different path doesn't mean they are less worthy or that their achievements should be overlooked.

I really don't think what you are posting is as rational as you think it is.

Nobody decided anything. An objective 3rd party researched the data and that's what the data said. Data doesn't lie, it doesn't have feelings nor bias. What users do with that data, that's a different story.


I don't mean they got together and had a vote and left tangible evidence. I mean 'they' implicitly individually decided black coaches weren't good enough to hire. No matter what channel they took to practice their field (and I suspect there are socio-economic factors as to why there are more white lower level coaches at the college level which is not being considered).

Insistence on reviewing 'data'or empirical evidence completely overlooks the obvious irrationality that is applied to the hiring procedure. It really doesn't take much analysis to determine the root cause of why there are few black coaches and why it is out of sync with the ratio of black playing personnel. And it is nothing to do with the actions and choices of the black coaches themselves. Nor the success or failure of previous black coaches for that matter (as few and far between, and as limited in opportunity they had even when appointed).

As far as the article you cited goes, it seems obvious to me that the data that the article refers to is an effect of the historic pattern of coaching positions in football, not a cause of the result of coaching searches.

Honestly, with that kind of thing, I think there is a danger coming across as a frustrated white guy with a superiority complex.

Especially when there is a never ending set of examples of white guys being appointed to authoritative positions who have 'broken the mould'. And then, in many cases, failed.
Last edited by theoutlawdekepatton on Fri 01.10.2020, 15:11, edited 1 time in total.
_______________________________________

Supreme Megalodon
Posts: 57627
Joined: Fri Jul 7, 2006
Sand$: 116,870.12
theoutlawdekepatton wrote:Insistence on reviewing 'data'or empirical evidence completely overlooks the obvious irrationality that is applied to the hiring procedure. It really doesn't take much analysis to determine the root cause of why there are few black coaches and why it is out of sync with the ratio of black playing personnel. And it is nothing to do with the actions and choices of the black coaches themselves. Nor the success or failure of previous black coaches for that matter (as few and far between, and as limited in opportunity they had even when appointed)

As far as the article you cited goes, it seems obvious to me that the data that the article refers to is an effect of the historic pattern of coaching positions in football, not a cause of the result of coaching searches..

That's exactly what it is.

Data is only one part of any puzzle. My job is data centric, it drives our decision making, but the application of it to our reality is imperative to elicit good decision making. Those on the outside of the hiring process are quite simply not privy to 'the how' when it comes to the actual hiring process. It's why my focus in this case was on the raw data. Since the extent I know of 'the how' is that it varies organization to organization I'm not considering it. I quite simply don't know enough specifics.

The comparison of player personnel vs. the coaching staff though - it is a common one brought up, but I think it is fundamentally flawed. As the article cites a common path to HC is the GA route. A GA will always have an advantage over a player that turns pro that has aspirations on coaching. How much of an advantage depends on how long the player actually plays. But they will always have an advantage from an experience perspective over a player. Additionally, I think it's fair to assume that a high % of GA's have a long term goal of being a HC at some level. I think it's also fair to assume that % of players is lower - probably substantially lower. Players don't play with the intention on becoming a coach. They play because they want to play, to fund schooling, because they're good enough to get paid to play professionally. When their playing days are over they then pursue whatever their long term goals were - whether that's in media, science, public service, thousands of other things, or - coaching. And whatever that % it is substantially lower than GA's.
User avatar
Great White Shark
Posts: 2802
Joined: Fri Sep 19, 2014
Sand$: 249.24
User avatar
Supreme Megalodon
Posts: 61669
Joined: Sat May 16, 2009
Sand$: 32,234.16