Why Doesn't the NFL Hire More Black Coaches?
- Thread starter BroodsSexton
- Start date
I would sort of guess 80 percent structural racism and 20 percent intentional racism.
Quibble about the percentages and how to characterize it. Like I'm not sure exactly what flavor of racism led to the Kaepernick stuff. But, yeah, that's my ballpark.
tl;dr -- racism
Kaep is much much easier to explain. He’s not that good so he isn’t worth the headache.
There’s a bit of irony in the Jesters having 3 minority HC in the past 20 years and the owner literally worked as an ambassador in the Trump admin.
I think it is a form of systemic racism. Maybe not overt, maybe not even conscious in some cases. But the position of HC has been so mythologized by fans, media, public, and no doubt owners, that it's perceived to be some sort of combination of quantum physicist and 5 star general. And clearly, depressingly, many white people, owners included, don't think African Americans are quite at that level. It's all I can think of. There certainly seems to be a pretty well populated feeder system of back coordinators and position coaches at both the pro and college level. I don't buy that the candidate pool/network is still too shallow. There's something unspoken, and ugly, holding back too many owners from pulling the trigger on hiring for the top job.
And old white billionaires have generally never followed rules or had any consideration for race or equality in the businesses that made them billionaires. People generally don’t change.
I really don't mean any offense here, but I don't need to be told what's systemic racism, thank you. I was asking a rather particular question.
I took your response as suggesting a difference between the old boys network and racism. I understand now that's probably not what you meant, but that's how I read it at first.
Possibly worth a little more discussion about what you're getting at?
Right before your post someone said it was 80% systemic racism, and then you asked if two components of systemic racism might be the cause. Not sure I get your question if you understood the two things you identified are underpinnings of systemic racism.
That was my takeaway as well. I think @Ralphwiggum was just commenting on the two things being intertwined.
It could probably be it's own thread but among the contributing factors:
1. Nepotism hires
2. Research shows that people are more likely to hire people who remind them of themselves, so the lack of diversity in ownership and senior executives trickles down
3. Black position coaches. Low level coaches are also disproportionately white, and the "feeder" positions (OC, QB coach, ST Coordinator) are even more disproportionately white
4. Owners are old often racist old men, and they see the Head Coach as the face of their franchise and subconcious (or concious) biases often make them see white guys like them as a better "face".
1. Nepotism hires
2. Research shows that people are more likely to hire people who remind them of themselves, so the lack of diversity in ownership and senior executives trickles down
3. Black position coaches. Low level coaches are also disproportionately white, and the "feeder" positions (OC, QB coach, ST Coordinator) are even more disproportionately white
4. Owners are old often racist old men, and they see the Head Coach as the face of their franchise and subconcious (or concious) biases often make them see white guys like them as a better "face".
There is a fundamental difference between an old boys network and nepotism on the one hand, and racism on the other (please don't react yet; read the entire post before reacting). If you are white and own a grocery store, and you're looking to hire a someone to stock the shelves, and either (a) you've got a nephew that needs a job, or (b) your best friend has a kid that needs a job, and you know that person is a good worker, so you just go hire that person, your motivation is to hire someone that you know, that's in your "network". No need to hire some unknown quantity. You've got a person that you have a relationship with, that you know, that you already trust. If that person happens to be white, you're not hiring a person on the basis of race. You're hiring that person based on them being a known quantity, someone in your network already. Particularly, your close network.
It has the effect of systemic racism though, because to the black kid looking for a job, he can't get the job, not because he's not qualified or because he couldn't do the job as well as, or maybe even better than, your nephew or best friend's kid. But because he can't penetrate that network.
It's not racism per se, but it creates a system that is unjust to anyone outside that network. However, it's possible that your nephew is black. Or that your best friend's kid is Hispanic. And so you might hire either of them for the same reason you'd hire your white nephew or white best friend's kid - because you know them and they're in your network, a known quantity to you.
But as long as your network of family and friends is white, and you're looking to hire within that network, then you're going to hire a white person, and that amounts to systemic racism (in this little example). The black kid who isn't in your network doesn't have a chance to break through, so never gets that opportunity for the job. He'd have to be SO FAR above your nephew or best friend's kid in quality for you to eschew your nephew in favor of this African American candidate. So it's an unfair playing field.
So to me, it's not simply that the system is rigged against blacks. It's largely a function of the old boy network, of nepotism, of people wanting to hire known quantities, people within their circle of comfort.
Now how to break that down? The Rooney Rule was designed to try to do that. To give minority candidates a foot in the door to at least expose the owners to people outside that network. To introduce them to qualified candidates outside their network. I'd like to find a way to break through this nepotism, this old boy network, a little more, to give people outside that fraternity a chance.
So to me THIS is the issue - not so much that the owners are racist per se. I think they're happy to hire minorities as players and coaches if they think those hires give them the best chance to win. I just think their comfort level is with people in this network, and for now that network is dominated by white people. Gotta break through that somehow.
Probably worth another thread.
I wanted to respond by saying, "yeah, like I said, racism," but I get that's way too snarky. But it does sort of encapsulate my main response here.
I think I have a fundamental disagreement with the sentence above that I put in bold. You actually are hiring a person on the basis of race. Just not intentionally. And actually, I don't even believe that. It's just not entirely intentionally.
There are plenty of known black candidates. The people making hiring decisions are surrounded by black people every day and they have plenty of opportunity to get to know them. Black people still get hired less and fired more quickly. (Check out the stats in the complaint about black coach retention and the records of coaches when fired divided between race.)
Put most simply I don't think the old boys network is even a thing other than as a fig leaf and euphemism for racism.
How long before there’s a warning in this thread to keep discussions about racism in V&N?
@BaseballJones, what you’re describing is disparate impact. If you have a Rooney Rule, and qualified candidates who are black keep getting passed over in favor of white candidates, it’s actionable as discrimination. The irony is that the failure of the Rooney Rule tends is a straw for the camel’s back.
@BaseballJones, what you’re describing is disparate impact. If you have a Rooney Rule, and qualified candidates who are black keep getting passed over in favor of white candidates, it’s actionable as discrimination. The irony is that the failure of the Rooney Rule tends is a straw for the camel’s back.
But the rule is only that minorities have to get interviewed. Not hired. It’s the same as everything else with the NFL. Surface level appearances are the only thing that matters. Just like their stance on domestic violence, the military, etc etc.
I would also add that when people hold out the idea that the league is 70% black as perfect evidence as to why there has to be racism when there is a dearth of black assistant and position coaches. A lot of former players dont want to put in the time for the small amount of dimes to be a coach. It is more time for far less money than being a player. When you read stories about folks breaking in a lot of them started out as the equivalent of interns or being paid a pittance for a ton of work (kind of a like a TA in grad school). You have to want to be a coach and be around the game to an epic degree to want to do that and it often takes you bouncing around in college from place to place too. If you have made it as a player, that doesnt sound too attractive. Also seems fair to say that a lot of these feeder links and networks have historically not had a ton of African Americans coming through those pipelines. I suspect that will/is changing but the change will be a lot slower than people think (at least pre-Flo).
But this could also - could - be a function of systemic racism if those low level coaches are able to take jobs for like $20 or $30K annually because they have money from family or whatever. Not saying this is necessarily the case but it might be in some instances.
I think the Rooney rule was well intentioned and actually the idea behind it is pretty progressive, at least theoretically. In practice it leaves something to be desired. I think the idea was that at the end of the day the NFL is different from everywhere else in the world in that it's the ultimate meritocracy. That in the end the thing that will motivate teams the most more than anything else is the desire to win. And so if you just get coaches access, that's all they need and the cream will rise to the top.
If you'd pitched that idea to me 20 years ago I probably would have said it sounded right and that I supported it. The problem is that it was difficult to foresee how pernicious and ingrained racism actually is and how it works. What its mechanisms are. (Where the fuck is Rev? This hard to explain.) You look at Jerry Jones and you believe that the thing he cares most about in the world is winning a championship. You believe it. Because you know that he thinks that about himself. That he would hire a black coach in a minute if he thought it would give him the best chance at winning the Super Bowl.
But the truth is that he doesn't believe it. While I think he probably doesn't think "those people are inferior" (maybe he does), he is programed to act like a person who believes "those people are inferior," and so he hires Mike McCarthy.
There’s a glass ceiling. Black men are hired as positional coaches in decent numbers but don’t get promoted to coordinator, which is the pool from which most head coaches are drawn.
They were up to eight Black head coaches a few years ago, but it’s a high turnover job, and the pool from which those jobs mostly get backfilled is overwhelmingly white. Those coordinator jobs don’t get much attention, but any long-term solution needs to diversify the pipeline.
Last edited:
Right. But but if you interview qualified candidates and then systematically don’t hire black candidates in favor of white candidates, you’re creating evidence of disparate impact discrimination. That’s why I said it’s ironic. Also like the NFL in so many ways, they created a solution that exacerbated their problem.
Also, Black coaches get fired faster and with better performance than white coaches, and are less likely to get recycled to new jobs
It could - but I think the part I am addressing is that players - regardless of race - are generally going to skip on the whole coaching thing as you end up taking a huge pay cut to work longer hours with very little glamor to work your way up.
I found this old article with a quick search - View: https://bleacherreport.com/articles/869309-top-26-former-nfl-players-turned-coaches
- It shows some big names who were players.
This other one - https://abcnews.go.com/Sports/ranking-playing-careers-32-nfl-head-coaches/story?id=40129746 - focuses on head coaches.
From the article (2016):
Gase - wide receiver in high school
McAdoo - tackle in high school
Chip Kelly - QB and DB UNH
BB - OL and TE Wesleyan (D3)
Rex Ryan - DL Southwestern Oklahoma State (D2)
Mike Zimmer - DB Miami of Ohio
Dirk Koetter - QB IDaho State
Bill Obrien - LB and DE Brown University
Dan Quinn - DL Salisbury (D3)
Gus Bradley - Safety and Punter North Dakota State (D2)
Mike McCarthy -- TE Baker University (D2)
Andy Reid - OL BYU
Chuck Pagano - Safety BYU
John Fox - DB Southwestern College
Hue Jackson - QB at Pacific
Bruce Arians - QB at VT
Marvin Lewis - Linebacker and DE Idaho State
Mike Tomlin - WR William and Mary
Pete Carroll - Safety PAcific
Jim Caldwell - CB Iowa
Jay Gruden - QB World League of American Football and college at Louisville
Mike McCoy - QB in NFL but only on practice squad and college at Utah
Sean Payton - QB in NFL (strike season as replacement) and in college at Eastern Illinois.
Doug Pederson - QB 12 years in NFL as a backup and college at UL Monroe
Gary Kubiak - QB in NFL college at Texas A&M
Jason Garrett - QB NFL and college at Princeton
Jeff Fisher - Safety and PR in NFL and USC in college
Mike Mularkey - TE in NFL and Florida in College
Ron Rivera - LB in NFL and went to Cal
Todd Bowles - Safety in NFL and college at Temple
Jack Del Rio - LB in NFL and college at USC.
Here is a Quora list from 2019. https://www.quora.com/How-many-NFL-head-coaches-have-never-played
The Jim Caldwell story is pretty shocking when you think about it. The Lions won more than 7 games once in the 13 years before he got hired, he had a winning record in three of his four years, and he still got fired. Then they proceed to have fours straight losing seasons in which they win 17 games total. The guy has a career winning percentage of .554, had a winning record in 5 of 7 seasons, and went to a Super Bowl. He also can't get another job.
Meanwhile, Jeff Fisher can have a losing record for five straight seasons before getting fired by the Rams.
Dave Culley getting fired after winning four games in a writeoff season where Vegas set the O/U on team wins to four is also pretty spectacular.
Let’s not pretend that this is the first instance of tanking in recorded history.
Sixers did it for years. Astros did it for years. Difference in football is there are far fewer games so each win and loss means more if your intention is to get the first overall pick.
Where this starts to get messy is with the NFL’s increasing embrace of gambling and partnerships with casinos, Draftkings, etc. You can’t have an owner trying to pay his coach to lose while being in bed with the bookies. That’s bad for everyone involved.
And I believe Romeo led the Browns to their only ever playoff appearance as a reboot until last year’s team made it.
Is there any chance that Brian Flores is taking the first step of a much deeper and organized legal effort to address this issue, and it is an issue?
I don't think frustration with the Rooney Rule or NFL coaching and admin hiring and firing practices having racial inequities is a new thing. I hope this storm has been brewing for years, is well organized, and today was the first shoe to drop.
I'm glad Mel Tucker is getting paid at MSU, he should have been elevated to permanent head coach of the Jaguars, instead there was the milk toast Mike Mularkey era. I get that there was an ownership change for the worse underway, but hell, as the interim in 5 games he matched Urban's win total.
As MMS points out, Jim Caldwell won with the LIONS and was unable to stay employed.
I don't think frustration with the Rooney Rule or NFL coaching and admin hiring and firing practices having racial inequities is a new thing. I hope this storm has been brewing for years, is well organized, and today was the first shoe to drop.
I'm glad Mel Tucker is getting paid at MSU, he should have been elevated to permanent head coach of the Jaguars, instead there was the milk toast Mike Mularkey era. I get that there was an ownership change for the worse underway, but hell, as the interim in 5 games he matched Urban's win total.
As MMS points out, Jim Caldwell won with the LIONS and was unable to stay employed.
@Super Nomario shared this in the other recent thread on this topic.
http://insidethepylon.com/nfl/2019/03/25/towards-a-level-playing-field-the-hiring-and-firing-of-minority-gms/
College football players are 39% Black and 53% non-white. That’s all levels; the numbers are higher if you only look at FBS. As you say, though, a lot of head coaches didn’t play FBS ball — and frankly, if 40% of the NFL’s head coaches were Black, we’re not having this discussion.
35% of assistant coaches are Black. A little less than the talent pool, but not dramatically out of whack. So the numbers don’t bear out the hypothesis that coaches of color aren’t making the sacrifice inherent in entry-level coaching jobs.
https://www.forbes.com/sites/alexreimer/2021/01/22/nfl-teams-egregiously-passing-on-black-head-coaches-shows-rooney-rule-cant-change-biases/
It’s really at the coordinator level where the pool becomes overwhelmingly white, especially on the offensive side of the ball.
Couple that with the incredibly long leash that Matt Millen enjoyed there. GM from 2001-2007 (seven full seasons) with a 31-81 record. 2001 2-14, 2002 3-13, 2003 5-11, 2004 6-10, 2005 5-11, 2006 3-13, 2007 6-9. Roughly a 4-12 average for the seven seasons and in his BEST season he lost 9 games.
No one is clutching pearls.
You make two points. The second one is a good one. I had not considered it.
Your first line of reasoning, the "everyone is doing it" line of reasoning, many men choose to abandon around the time we start shaving.
I disagree with you on that bolded point. If you're hiring your nephew, you're hiring your nephew in this scenario *because he's your nephew*. And I pointed out that if your nephew was black, you'd be hiring your black nephew. Race isn't the grounds for the hiring. The basis for the hiring is the *relationship* between you, not his race.
I think THIS is where lots of people have problems with the whole idea of systemic racism. Because you are attributing to an action a cause that isn't really the cause (in my example anyway, though I'm sure it's the cause of many actions). Racism is the EFFECT, but not the CAUSE.
Now I admit I could be wrong about this entire hypothesis being a large part of the explanation for the disparity in NFL coaching hires. That's why I asked the question of how much does nepotism and "old boy network" come into play here. It might simply be....racism, plain and simple. I don't know. I'm just wondering if racism is more the effect of nepotism and old boy network, or if racism is the cause itself. But even though the outcome may be the same, the causes are two very different things, and so you would need different tools to address those different causes. Just labeling the CAUSE of any disparity "racism" doesn't work and doesn't solve anything. The OUTCOME may be racism, but if the cause is something else, then we need to address THAT cause. Know what I mean?
Anyway, good for Flores and I hope the NFL gets truly exposed here, because whatever the cause, whether my hypothesis is right or wrong, there's a major problem in the league that needs to be fixed somehow. (well, MANY problems, really, this being just one of them)
I am sure there are lots, but that is a much larger conversation. I would imagine one of the best things would be to really focus on minority hiring and coaching development at the college and pro ranks. I do not know enough about existing efforts to comment beyond that, but I was just making the point that most NFL players do not want to coach so simply saying the league is 70% black is not enough to make the case that. That was basically it - whether white or black most players want nothing to do with coaching in any sport. My guess from my own industry is that mentoring and development should focus on the college ranks of developing coaches and probably working to create programs for aspiring assistants in the NFL. Getting folks into positions early - where they can begin the grind will help a lot. It shortcuts the nepotism network or the legacy network etc, but all of it will take time and is far less sexy than say creating say a Rooney rule which while working in some ways doesnt do nearly enough.
There are programs to get developing minority candidates into coaching (Bill Walsh Diversity Coaching Fellowship) and scouting (Nunn-Wootten Scouting Fellowship). They can probably do more, but, y'know, Bill Belichick's gonna hire his own kids (and Mike Lombardi's kid, and Al Groh's kid, etc.). But the other problem is that black coaches get in, they get promoted to positional coach, but they don't get promoted to head coach, offensive coordinator, or quarterback coach. That's why the most recent changes incentivized teams to develop minority coaches / executives, granting draft compensation. I don't know how you get around white owners just being a little more comfortable with a white man being the face of the franchise, though.
I started to write this post last night, but sort of gave up. How this presents a bit of a microcosm study for society at large. I mean, there are a lot of things that are unique about the NFL, but the basic elements are there. And if you're a sports guy in Maine, and can get your head around this story, maybe it helps you start to get your head around the larger structural problems in this society.
Point, sports. 6 points for Flores.
Trying to remember a white coach who got fired after a performance similar to Flores in the last ten years, given where they were and where they ended. Are there comps? I don’t follow it very closely.
Given that most coaches are white there must be some.
Was trying to think of black nfl head coaches who got a second gig after being fired. There aren’t many.
Dungy
Caldwell
Dennis Green
Ray Rhodes
Hue Jackson
Maybe I’m forgetting somebody.
It’s hard enough to get hired, but they have zero margin for error and rarely get a second shot.
To go all the way back to the presser that Ross gave, he said that Flores was fired not for performance, but for relationships and his inability to cooperate within the building and organization. Read that as you will now that we have heard two sides of the story.
Miami leaked info that he was essentially the de facto GM and that he wanted Grier removed, he had conflict and confrontation with his staff and media, and he was difficult to work with. Omar Kelly said on Twitter (paraphrasing) he had never had anyone in his career treat him and members of the media the way Flores did. It was disrespectful.
Flores has now said that he believes he was fired because he wouldn’t agree to tamper or lose games, that’s why he was labeled “difficult” and hasn’t been hired in part due to systemic racism.
I was making the point that aside from all of that, there were still valid football reasons that Flores could/should be on the hot seat, but IMO should have been allowed to continue coaching.
Doug Pederson?
It is different since the firing came off a losing season, but it was his first, and the previous three years were, SB, 9-7 and 9-7.
I’d think most get a longer leash, but seems he clashed with management as well, and unlike many white coaches, has not gotten a second job. Which now makes me ask the question, is he the only white coach that’s won a super bowl, been fired, and been unable to get a second job?
Shell and Crennell, as @jsinger121 mentions. Herm Edwards 2006 in KC. Lovie Smith 2014 in TB. None since Hue 2016 in CLE, the last eight repeat hires have all been white except Ron Rivera.
The proper way to tank is the way the Celtics did it in 1996/1997. The GM formulates a tanking plan and names himself to be the coach. That’s the key, name yourself to your first coaching job. Bury the team and win 15 games in year two.
Then resign and the best coach in America is hired and you win the draft lottery and pick Tim Duncan. Easy as pie.
Edit: a proper pie is actually not that easy.
Didn't Pederson get fired in part because he was obviously tanking games at the end in Philly? Seems like he broke some unwritten rules about just what is acceptable for a team to do in trying to position themselves for the draft.
Yep all fair points. I think those programs need to be greatly enlarged even if its league money going to the teams to do it.
Based on overall record, just Chip Kelly. But there were obvious off-field reasons for his firing.
Mike Munchak might be another guy within striking distance, but you really have to dig for these examples.
I believe the uproar was that he was going to play some backups because their season was over and he wanted to see them in game action and the WFT needed to win that game in order to make the playoffs.
Then you had Jason Kelce like crying during a press conference saying players careers are too short to not try and win every second of every game.
That's not really accurate. He was down 3 in the 4th quarter when he benched his rookie starting QB (exactly who you'd want to get reps) for his 8th year fringe NFL 3rd string QB, who promptly turned it over twice to seal the loss. His players were notably pissed about it, and his fate was basically sealed. There were basically 2 explanations possible...1, he wanted to lose, 2. he wanted to do a scrub on the way out of the league a solid and didn't care if they won or lost. Either way, tough look for a coach of vet-laden team.
Yeah the clash being:
Management: We will pay you $100k to lose. Oh and we want you to tamper with Tom Brady.
Flores: Go F yourself.
Definite clash for sure.
Quick answer: Old rich white guys aren't comfortable with people that don't look like themselves.
All of that is true, but that's only part of it. He and Wentz didn't work well together at all, which didn't help matters. Wentz had regressed to the point where he was unplayable.
There is also the fact that Pederson was mad that Jeff Lurie and Howie Roseman were meddling in the day to day operations, his coaching staff, and not letting him do his job.
View: https://mobile.twitter.com/jeff_mclane/status/1348712883815854082
Still, they had every intention of bringing him back after the season ended.
I think what did him in was the meeting with Jeff Lurie after the season, where they discussed what to do with the coaching staff. Pederson wanted to bring back the same guys and promote his QB coach to OC despite the offense (and Wentz) regressing horribly under him. Lurie pushed back and thought promoting anyone on that offensive staff that won 4 games was a horrible idea.