Nepotism, Not Racism, Is the Real Problem in College Football's Hiring Practices

I told Mottram that his piece on Plaxico Bur….I mean, Harris Smith, read a little like a huge rationalization/justification. This piece doesn’t read like a huge rationalization/justification. IT IS ONE.

Maybe Tennessee can parole Reave’s father from his coke and gun bust in Tampa and add him to the coaching pool.  LOL

http://www2.tbo.com/content/2008/aug/04/041709/ex-football-star-reaves-arrested-drug-charges/news-metro/

Networking and nepotism are not the same thing.  Kiffin is most assuredly benefiting from his relationship with Carrol, but dear old Dad probably has little to do with his hiring.

How is an old employer, for whom you did well, helping you get a job some sleazy, underhanded tactic?  Kiffin was rewarded for good work at USC to the tune of friendship with one of the most powerful men in college football.  Good for him.

Also, did it ever occur to you that maybe Lane Kiffin is a good coach because he had one of the best in the NFL to learn from growing up?  It’s far from a rule of thumb, but it’s logical.

I’ll buy this argument when you show me a candidate for defensive coordinator at Tennessee more qualified for the job than Monte Kiffin. Give me a break. Write about something of significance, please.

The nepotism question already came up, because UT has rules against it. Nobody can work directly for a 1-step relative (parent, sibling, in-law, etc). In this case, the assistant coaches don’t actually work FOR the head coach from a technical standpoint. They work for the AD, and so does the head coach. Lane won’t be signing anybody’s checks. I realize this is a technicality.

Anyway, I agree with jegly. Show me a more qualified DC than Monte Kiffin. Also, Reaves is very qualified for the position he’ll be in. The article implies, by callling him "former recruiting coordinator for South Carolina," that Reaves was either out of work, or recently fired. The reality is that he resigned from SC in order to go to UT. He’s a proven coordinator at SC, and if he’s good enough to coach QBs for Spurrier, he’s good enough to coach them anywhere. Because he’s Kiffin’s brother-in-law, we can just assume Kiffin knows they can work well together. Kiffin would be a fool to hire family if he thought they weren’t very good, because his own job will be on the line based on whether he wins or not.

When we talk about nepotism as a problem, we have to ask if the family members being hired are qualified, and look at the bigger picture. How many times have head coaches hired their kin, and kept them on the job, even when they’ve proven ineffective? Didn’t Bobby Bowden fire Jeff?

Nepotism can be debilitating to an organization. Yet in many family owned and operated businesses it is quite successful.

Being a Head Coach for a major college football program makes it much easier to evaluate the effectiveness of the Head Coach and his staff.

W’s and L’s are clearly posted for all to see.

This is not some obscure role, Lane Kiffin will succeed or not in part due to his ability and in part due to the ability of those he hires.

Look at what happened to Tuberville after making a critical hiring error for the OC position.

Even Bobby Bowden’s huge aura couldn’t keep his offspring employed.

Head Coach is not a low visibility position. This writer is trying to manufacture a problem where one may not exist.

Ask FSU Fans if nepotism is a problem or not. Or Penn State fans, who had to wait on Galen Hall to come and revive their offense when Jay Paterno took over the development of their quarterbacks. It’s a problem.

120 D1 schools and nepotism is more of a problem than institutionalized racism. Hmmmm….

Spencer, buddy, unless there is someone in the Tennessee adminstration named "Kiffin,"  then there exists no "nepotism" issue.  It may be the "old boy network" rearing its ugly head, but it is not nepotism – which is favoritism shown to relatives.

Note: I was talking about the hiring of Kiffin as head coach.  If Lane then hires his old man, or his brother-in-law, then you have an issue.

i find it degrading that you compare the racist practices of DivI Atheletic Dept. to the lack of women or senior or other mamals coaching college football. the majority of players in the NCAA are not women nor are they old men nor are they other mamals; they are mostly black men. The fact that very few of them end up in coaching position is a serious issue. lets not kid ourselves; there is a lot of money involved and college football and its a white boyz club. Lane Kiffin was hired partly for his connections but mostly because will help the Vols win games; what is sad is that we are in the state of Tenesse and no african-american coaches were even considered for the gig. We all know that in the US unless there is no imposed hiring quotas, nothing will change. There is alway going to exist a Tony Dungy who transcend race by his sheer magnetism and genius but we cannot count on that to transform the hiring practices in college football.

since racism has been brought up in this article, i would like to tell everyone in sports racism does not only include black americans in sports.  norm chow who was the USC offense coordinator and led them to two national championships was not even closed to getting the arizona or stanford head coaching job.   lane kiffin who was under norm and took over for one yr at USC when norm left and was part of the year where USC was clearly better than Texas but lost due to letting players like reggie bush inexplicably lateral for fun that led to a key turnover in the Nat Championship game.  Lane then got the Raiders head coaching job and the Tenn heading coaching job.   Steve Sarkasian who is the USC offensive coordinator was part of USC teams that lost to vastly inferior teams like UCLA, Stanford, Oregon St in three years, got the Wash head coaching job.

Another form of racism in pro sports was when Yao Ming just came in the league and was made fun by Shaq in a racial chinese accent and nobody cried Shaq for being racist.

The article is primarily about nepotism and the tendency to hire people based on recommendations and not results, but this point needs to be made: there aren’t enough black coaches proportional to the number of black players.

Now, we could take the easy route and say "it’s because ADs are racist," but I think that’s a copout and a shortcut. I think the reasons are economic, and am working on a longer piece about just this. It’s way more compelling to me to find an actual reason rather than just calling ADs as a whole total racists.

Nepotism, though, almost always gets a free pass.

Mr. Hall,

I concede your point that at some institutions nepotism is a problem. I have not seen evidence that it is widespread, rather the 2 institutions you reference (Florida State and Penn State) have the 2 coaches with the longest tenures.

Perhaps their disproportionate political power within their repsective institutions is the source of the problem?

When winning becomes more important than all else problems will arise. It is up to the AD’s and University Presidents to ensure this does not happen.

Anyone who dismisses out of hand widespread institutionalized racism throughout college football is either racist themselves, or they have their head in the sand.

The economic argument is interesting, and I will be interested in reading a more in depth look at it.

Sorry Spenser.  This article isn’t really about nepotism.  It’s your attempt to expose a very deep, profound insight into an ambiguous matter, a la Bill Curry, perhaps.  In the style of Mr. Black describing the 10 worst dressed women of the year.  Ostrich indeed! 

Black players outnumber white players 10 to 1.  Do black high school kids give a diddly squat about nepotism or black college coaches?  No.  They care only about a show case for the NFL.  What other conceivable reason would entice a  4 or 5 star black kid to sign with lily white Catholic Notre Dame?  Instead of Miami, Mississippi State etc.  

If you want a profound insight, take this one as a gift.  High School boys now have total control of college football.  ESPN doesn’t, nor does the NCAA.  Coaches (the younger the better) are our new rock  stars.  And recruiting is their light show and electronic noise makers.  They are hired to RECRUIT (and hopefully win 11 games), and it does not matter if they are black or white or bring an extended family of 35 persons with them.  It certainly doesn’t matter to the high school prima donna’s being wooed.

i definitely agree with you that nepotism and the number of black coaches are not proportional to the number of black players in college footbal.   However, i would like to point out to you that this occurs in the corporate world.  Siblings, relatives, and people who are networked are the ones that usually are hired over the ones that are in the circles for the corporate positions.   The ones who are not in these circles have to have a beyond impressive resume just to be on the same level as a sibling or relative (who is usually subpar to even the minimum requirements).   This is not to say that every case is like this just like every case in college football is not due to nepotism, but it occurs alot.  Whether this is right or wrong, I am not sure.  But in the corporate world it seems to be viewed as ok like in college football.

Also, in the corporate world, most high executives (i.e. CEO, etc) are primarily older white gentlemen while most of the staff below is diversed.  Clearly, the corporate world too is not proportional in terms of high level to staff for diversity.

Also, I pointed out the case with Shaq because I think racism in sports is just not white being racist towards black but other races are being subjected to racism from every other races.

I’ve already spoken on the nepotism issue, so I won’t do that again, accept to say that, technically, the head coach doesn’t actually do the hiring and firing, or sign the checks. The assistants, just like the head coach himself, are hired by, paid by, and answer to, the AD. The AD may hire who the head coach wants, unless he has a clear, justifiable, reason not to (like the guy just isn’t qualified), but that rarely happens. If the hired family member isn’t cutting it, the AD and the head coach know their jobs are at stake, too, so unless they are idiots, they’ll fire him.

Now, about the racism. It’s not college football’s problem. It’s society’s, but that culture is gradually changing. That’s the way it has to be, in order for the change to really work. If you go back a few decades, and look around, you’ll see few, if any, black quarterbacks. There was the ridiculous notion that they weren’t smart enough for that kind of job, and should stay in the ones only requiring strength and speed, while leaving the thinking position to the smarter white guys. That was pure BS. Gradually, that moronic culture has changed, and there are now probably as many black QBs as white (I didn’t fact check that). The change in culture progresses slowly, and one level at a time. It’s the same in every area of society. Right now, we’re talking about the lack of black college football coaches. Not that long ago, blacks couldn’t even go to the same schools! Right now,  football (all levels) is at the level where black coaches are just starting to be accepted, like black QBs 20 years ago. The more success the Tony Dungys have, the better. It will take some more time, but eventually, black coaches will join black quarterbacks.  Someday, hopefully, the time will come when the word "black" isn’t even included when you talk about a coach…just "coach."

I’m…I’m very, very pleasantly surprised. Excellent discussion all the way around, for the most part.

There are always ways against anti-nepotism rules. Georgia did it with sons of both Jm Donnan and Jim Harrick. Look how well that turned out.

The problem is not easily or immediately solved, as there has to be a pipeline of coaches ready to move up:

Collinsworth Says Black College Coaches Would Seal The Deal

I’m not trying to be racist here but there doesn’t need to be anymore black coaches or white for that matter.

At the bottom of the article you wrote that there is a need for black coaches but that’s completely contradictory to what you wrote at the beginning of the article!!! At the beginning it was written that the best person for the job should have it. In fact you are being racist by suggesting that there needs to be more jobs of either skin colour. Because that’s obviously taking away jobs from the other skin colour.

If NCAA fotball has all black or all white coaches WHO CARES as long as the BEST man gets the JOB.

And who really cares if you hire a coach that’s in your family to be honest. If you owned a business would you hire your son or daughter? Even for minimum wage because at minimum wage there is many people and teens specifically looking for jobs. So there probably is someone more qualified for the job.

The majority of the paying fans and the paying boosters are white. The majority of the boards on most universities (excluding Historically Black Colleges who mandate their own exclusion and racism) are white. The majority of the players are black. If you want to use the "majority" argument it cuts both ways.

A clarification needs to be made.  What we are seeing, in the form of nepotism or networking ("good ol boy network") is not our traditional notion of racism.  This kind of racism is overt or intentional – i.e., individuals in positions of power deliberately not hiring someone becuase of their race, gender, sexuality, age, etc.  But this isn’t socially approved anymore…we generally "look down" on "racial bigots."  So, racism has taken on a more insidious, hidden, subtle form: institutionalized racism.  And Hall defines it fairly well: ". . . the practice itself is exclusionary, but not racist in design."  That’s exactly right.  It’s not in the intent where we see racism, it’s in the outcome.  We see this all over the place.  One good example: 8 out of 10 jobs in the U.S. are not advertised, they are filled through networks or "in house."  

So, Hall has some good points  – especially the points about supply and social class differences between white and black athletes - but needs to better understand different and subtle forms of racism.  Simply saying "it’s not racist" is ignoring a significant part of the problem. 

Yea i’m tired of some these guys who don’t like that fact that there aren’t enough black coaches. give it time they will get more oppritunity’s it’s just that big time BCS and other level schools are going to more often than not go with the proven canidate over the non-proven. and the proven is a small elite club. plus not enough of these african american coaches have come from the snyder, walsh, carroll, and others coaching family’s wich seem to pump out the most new HC. if you want to see progress make Stoops and caroll hire an exclusivly african american coaching staff then you will see the tide turn in favor of black coaches. once again it’s not racisim it’s just how things tunred out.

It’s both, however  if you want to find Black coaches the NCAA should have started this process 30 years ago when the SEC was still harboring racist attitudes at about 60% of it’s schools and  started looking at the football factories at Tennessee State,Grambling, and Florida A&M for coaching talent. Instead the SEC raided these schools for it’s Black talent and forgot the rich knowledge these coaches had.

It’s not right to make these coaches hire token Black coaches but why are they after the token Black talent?

It’s both, however  if you want to find Black coaches the NCAA should have started this process 30 years ago when the SEC was still harboring racist attitudes at about 60% of it’s schools and  started looking at the football factories at Tennessee State,Grambling, and Florida A&M for coaching talent. Instead the SEC raided these schools for it’s Black talent and forgot the rich knowledge these coaches had.

It’s not right to make these coaches hire token Black coaches but why are they after the token Black talent?

THis is an interesting idea and certainly much more insightful, than the articles stating there are only 3 black coaches therefore everyone is racist, which is an overly simplisitic argument.  Unfortunately, the article is pretty thin on facts of nepotism.  Networking and nepotism are not necessarily the same thing.  The Kiffin example of nepotism is weak at best, as far as I know his father has no connection to Tennessee(I may be wrong about this, since I don’t know much about him)  The best example is the Bowden case were nepotism was a disaster.  Holtz and the other Bowdens are solid examples.  However, overall this is pretty mild, especially when in comparison to the normal job market, where nepotism is rampant.

The

THis is an interesting idea and certainly much more insightful, than the articles stating there are only 3 black coaches therefore everyone is racist, which is an overly simplisitic argument.  Unfortunately, the article is pretty thin on facts of nepotism.  Networking and nepotism are not necessarily the same thing.  The Kiffin example of nepotism is weak at best, as far as I know his father has no connection to Tennessee(I may be wrong about this, since I don’t know much about him)  The best example is the Bowden case were nepotism was a disaster.  Holtz and the other Bowdens are solid examples.  However, overall this is pretty mild, especially when in comparison to the normal job market, where nepotism is rampant.

The truth is that for the most part, college coaching is a high pressure highly visible profession where merit is rewarded and failure is not tolerated for long.  The main reason there aren’t a lot of black coaches is that they haven’t been winning games.(obviously, this can be attributed to a lot of socio-economic conditions)  Bottom line, there is a lot of money involved and when black coaches start winning and making schools money we will see more of them.

Just can’t resist taking a swipe at lily white Catholic Notre Dame can you Lady Vols Lover…I have read your other posts so your anti-ND bias is already documented and tiresome. Notre Dame actually has academic standards…you know the "other" reason athletes go to school. The Admissions Department at Notre Dame could care less what their intent is; they won’t waiver and that is why several high profile athletes were not admitted. Notre Dame has taken a major hit in football no question about it but that is another story in and of itself. Tennessee certainly has as well. Lou did hire his son and Skip has done well. I hope he stays at ECU instead of taking the Syracuse job. As for the snub to black coaches…ND is the poster school for getting hammered for not hiring a black coach soon enough followed by being hammered for firing him. A lose-lose situation. Black coaches need to have the opportunity to interview for the job and the rest is up to them. I don’t see anything wrong with Lane Kippin or any other coach hiring relatives as long as they are not direct reports. Of course that is a technicality but frankly what is wrong with hiring relatives anyway…the bottom line is wins…the coach gets the accolades and the grief. The only downside I can see for the coaches is if you have to fire a relative imagine what those family reunions are like…