Scarbinsky: Chizik's hires don't square with

[TitanTiger 22,249]

Gene Chizik's good hires don't square with Charles Barkley's bad rap of Auburn

Posted by Kevin Scarbinsky -- Birmingham News January 06, 2009 6:35 AM

Boy, is Charles Barkley going to be surprised, once he sobers up.

Gene Chizik has hired five assistant coaches for his first Auburn football staff, and four of them are African-Americans.

If this keeps up, Auburn is going to lose its rep as loveliest village on the plantation.

Chizik's choices mean that Auburn now has more African-American assistant football coaches than any other school in the Southeastern Conference except Ole Miss and Kentucky.

And Chizik still has four spots to fill.

That gives him a chance to move past Rich Brooks, who had four black assistants on his 2008 Kentucky staff, and match or best Houston Nutt, who had five black assistants on his 2008 Mississippi staff.

Not that anyone - outside of the Black Coaches Association, well-meaning knuckleheads at ESPN and various other social commentators - is counting.

In an ideal world, Chizik would get credit for retaining James Willis, the lone holdover from Tommy Tuberville's staff, bringing along Jay Boulware from Iowa State and adding Oklahoma State's Trooper Taylor and Curtis Luper for one reason.

They're good football coaches.

Taylor and Luper, who tutored the receivers and running backs that helped OK State put up huge numbers this season, are especially noteworthy pick-ups for a program whose offensive coaching had become, well, offensive.

But, thanks to Barkley, it's hard to look a new Auburn coach in the face without looking at his race.

Speaking from a deep well of emotion but a shallow pool of fact, Barkley told anyone and everyone with a microphone last month that race was the No. 1 reason that Auburn hired Chizik instead of Turner Gill as head coach.

Will the most outspoken athlete in Auburn history now return to the talk-show circuit to compliment his old school and its new head coach for their commitment to equal opportunity?

Given Barkley's recent arrest on suspicion of DUI, Auburn might prefer that he keep his mouth shut. And keep his distance.

And keep off the road.

Chizik's hires are going to put a serious dent in Auburn's reputation as Aryan Nation's team. Of course, that reputation came from the same kind of narrow-minded thinking critics ascribed to Jay Gogue and Jay Jacobs.

It's difficult to prove or disprove bias, but facts are facts.

Tennessee interviewed Gill but hired Lane Kiffin and his 5-15 career head coaching record with the Oakland Raiders. Syracuse interviewed Gill but hired Doug Marrone, who had never been a head coach.

Yet it was Auburn, which interviewed Gill but hired Chizik and his 5-19 Iowa State record, which took the heat.

Where's the light now?

Could it be that Jacobs hired Chizik, in large part, for the same reason that Chizik has hired his new staff members?

Familiarity breeds comfort.

Willis worked with Chizik at Auburn before. Luper worked with Chizik at Stephen F. Austin, as player and coach, and considers him a mentor.

Taylor spent the last season at Oklahoma State working with Luper, and Taylor knows the SEC after working at Tennessee.

See? It's not just what you know - or what you see when you look in the mirror - but who you know that goes a long way toward getting your foot in the door.

Let's face it.

There may be people behind the scenes at Auburn that don't want a black face out front. That may be true at other programs in this state, this region and throughout this country, too.

But the face out front at Auburn now belongs to a head coach who looks like he's hiring assistants based on the content of their resumes.

You never know how they'll work together until they do, but based on those resumes, Chizik's staff so far looks so good.

http://blog.al.com/kevin-scarbinsky/2009/0...res_dont_s.html

[92AUGRAD 4]

Gene Chizik's good hires don't square with Charles Barkley's bad rap of Auburn

Posted by Kevin Scarbinsky -- Birmingham News January 06, 2009 6:35 AM

Boy, is Charles Barkley going to be surprised, once he sobers up.

Gene Chizik has hired five assistant coaches for his first Auburn football staff, and four of them are African-Americans.

If this keeps up, Auburn is going to lose its rep as loveliest village on the plantation.

Chizik's choices mean that Auburn now has more African-American assistant football coaches than any other school in the Southeastern Conference except Ole Miss and Kentucky.

And Chizik still has four spots to fill.

That gives him a chance to move past Rich Brooks, who had four black assistants on his 2008 Kentucky staff, and match or best Houston Nutt, who had five black assistants on his 2008 Mississippi staff.

Not that anyone - outside of the Black Coaches Association, well-meaning knuckleheads at ESPN and various other social commentators - is counting.

In an ideal world, Chizik would get credit for retaining James Willis, the lone holdover from Tommy Tuberville's staff, bringing along Jay Boulware from Iowa State and adding Oklahoma State's Trooper Taylor and Curtis Luper for one reason.

They're good football coaches.

Taylor and Luper, who tutored the receivers and running backs that helped OK State put up huge numbers this season, are especially noteworthy pick-ups for a program whose offensive coaching had become, well, offensive.

But, thanks to Barkley, it's hard to look a new Auburn coach in the face without looking at his race.

Speaking from a deep well of emotion but a shallow pool of fact, Barkley told anyone and everyone with a microphone last month that race was the No. 1 reason that Auburn hired Chizik instead of Turner Gill as head coach.

Will the most outspoken athlete in Auburn history now return to the talk-show circuit to compliment his old school and its new head coach for their commitment to equal opportunity?

Given Barkley's recent arrest on suspicion of DUI, Auburn might prefer that he keep his mouth shut. And keep his distance.

And keep off the road.

Chizik's hires are going to put a serious dent in Auburn's reputation as Aryan Nation's team. Of course, that reputation came from the same kind of narrow-minded thinking critics ascribed to Jay Gogue and Jay Jacobs.

It's difficult to prove or disprove bias, but facts are facts.

Tennessee interviewed Gill but hired Lane Kiffin and his 5-15 career head coaching record with the Oakland Raiders. Syracuse interviewed Gill but hired Doug Marrone, who had never been a head coach.

Yet it was Auburn, which interviewed Gill but hired Chizik and his 5-19 Iowa State record, which took the heat.

Where's the light now?

Could it be that Jacobs hired Chizik, in large part, for the same reason that Chizik has hired his new staff members?

Familiarity breeds comfort.

Willis worked with Chizik at Auburn before. Luper worked with Chizik at Stephen F. Austin, as player and coach, and considers him a mentor.

Taylor spent the last season at Oklahoma State working with Luper, and Taylor knows the SEC after working at Tennessee.

See? It's not just what you know - or what you see when you look in the mirror - but who you know that goes a long way toward getting your foot in the door.

Let's face it.

There may be people behind the scenes at Auburn that don't want a black face out front. That may be true at other programs in this state, this region and throughout this country, too.

But the face out front at Auburn now belongs to a head coach who looks like he's hiring assistants based on the content of their resumes.

You never know how they'll work together until they do, but based on those resumes, Chizik's staff so far looks so good.

http://blog.al.com/kevin-scarbinsky/2009/0...res_dont_s.html

HELL YEAH. I could insert a Barkley comment here but what would be the point. Everything mentioned above is dead on and hopefully WINS will be the end result. WDE.

[FootballFanatic 4]

All that misses the larger point.

There still isn't a black head coach in a proiminent job at a BCS school.

There are plentiful assistant coaches in the conference who are black.

Not that I agree 100% with Barkley or any of ESPN pundits that admonished 1 team in the whole division for not hiring Turner Gill and ignored the other 7-8 teams with coaching changes.

[The Freak 2,612]

All that misses the larger point.

There still isn't a black head coach in a proiminent job at a BCS school.

There are plentiful assistant coaches in the conference who are black.

Not that I agree 100% with Barkley or any of ESPN pundits that admonished 1 team in the whole division for not hiring Turner Gill and ignored the other 7-8 teams with coaching changes.

Seriously?

First, Miami IS prominent whether or not they haven't been great for a few years.

Second, no team in the country will care (black/white/yellow/red/pink/polka dot) for their HC as long as they think it gives them the best chance to win... (except maybe schools like Georgetown... heh...).

[OldNewby 27]

All that misses the larger point.

There still isn't a black head coach in a proiminent job at a BCS school.

There are plentiful assistant coaches in the conference who are black.

Not that I agree 100% with Barkley or any of ESPN pundits that admonished 1 team in the whole division for not hiring Turner Gill and ignored the other 7-8 teams with coaching changes.

Did you forget Randy Shannon at Miami?

IMO, Trooper Taylor will become a HC at a prominent BCS school within the next five years, if not sooner.

[92AUGRAD 4]

All that misses the larger point.

There still isn't a black head coach in a proiminent job at a BCS school.

There are plentiful assistant coaches in the conference who are black.

Not that I agree 100% with Barkley or any of ESPN pundits that admonished 1 team in the whole division for not hiring Turner Gill and ignored the other 7-8 teams with coaching changes.

I'm not going to get into a heated argument of the fact that we didn't hire a black coach. The fact is, for whatever reason, Chizik was hired. And if you sit back and look at the assistants (disregarding color of skin), he has so far put together one hell of a coaching/recruiting staff. This so far looks as though JJ made a hire based on ability to coach (at least D), ability to recruit assistants who can coach/recruit and the ability to execute a plan which Chizick appeared to have when he took the job.

Black, white or otherwise is not the issue and until people can get over that, we will never move on as a society. The issue is hiring the best coach which works well w/ the administration, the student body and the alumns (and of course wins championships which is yet TBD).

[rcgroom 0]

All that misses the larger point.

There still isn't a black head coach in a proiminent job at a BCS school.

There are plentiful assistant coaches in the conference who are black.

Not that I agree 100% with Barkley or any of ESPN pundits that admonished 1 team in the whole division for not hiring Turner Gill and ignored the other 7-8 teams with coaching changes.

oh come off it man....

[TitanTiger 22,249]

All that misses the larger point.

There still isn't a black head coach in a proiminent job at a BCS school.

1. Randy Shannon at Miami

2. Ron Prince and Sylvester Croom were at BCS schools but were fired after this season, on the merits (or lack thereof).

3. Tennessee, Syracuse and a few others either didn't interview black coaching prospects for their head coach position or did and still hired the white dude. Only Auburn got raked over the coals for it.

4. There isn't a white tailback starting at a prominent BCS school either. Is this a problem for you?

There are plentiful assistant coaches in the conference who are black.

Actually, not so much, given that Auburn now has more black assistants than all but 3 SEC teams and are only half done with filling slots.

Not that I agree 100% with Barkley or any of ESPN pundits that admonished 1 team in the whole division for not hiring Turner Gill and ignored the other 7-8 teams with coaching changes.

Then why pipe up, because that was what Scarbinsky was talking about...the unfair treatment Auburn got and the fact that it doesn't square with Chizik's hires so far. You're the one that's missing the point.

[FootballFanatic 4]

Im not gonna come off it.

That article is stupid and pointless. You can't argue back at not hiring a black Head coach by parading a line of assistants proudly in front of media pundits.

I am happy with many of the coaching descisions made so far and it has nothing to do with their race.

Tell me how many Assistant coaches make a head coach? I am just wondering. Its a pointless counter to the claim. Giving a bunch of guys lesser jobs to make up for the big job going to a white guy is both a horrible point made by this article and a stupid thing to support as a critic of the negative press Auburns recieved.

I did forget Shannon at Miami. My bad. My point is that no amount of black assistant coaches = a head coaching postion.

My point is that the article is just as stupid as the original press against Auburn. You can't beat claims of racisim at the highest positions in college football by hiring the most black assistants in the SEC. I am also annoyed that the article tries to make it a badge of honor.

Chizik is doing what he should do. Hire the best coaches he can come up with regardless of their race.

Thats the dumbest article I have read since all this crap started.

[rcgroom 0]

Im not gonna come off it.

That article is stupid and pointless. You can't argue back at not hiring a black Head coach by parading a line of assistants proudly in front of media pundits.

I am happy with many of the coaching descisions made so far and it has nothing to do with their race.

Tell me how many Assistant coaches make a head coach? I am just wondering. Its a pointless counter to the claim. Giving a bunch of guys lesser jobs to make up for the big job going to a white guy is both a horrible point made by this article and a stupid thing to support as a critic of the negative press Auburns recieved.

I did forget Shannon at Miami. My bad. My point is that no amount of black assistant coaches = a head coaching postion.

My point is that the article is just as stupid as the original press against Auburn. You can't beat claims of racisim at the highest positions in college football by hiring the most black assistants in the SEC. I am also annoyed that the article tries to make it a badge of honor.

Chizik is doing what he should do. Hire the best coaches he can come up with regardless of their race.

Thats the dumbest article I have read since all this crap started.

The argument of having black coaches is a joke....a black guy interviewed....he didnt get the job...that stuff happens every day in every field....come off it....you think gill should have gotten the job just cause he is black...thats also whack....sure he had a better record....but he doesnt have all the ties that Chizik has....so indeed come off it...its a repetitve argument that is pointless.

[FootballFanatic 4]

Are you just responding or are you going to read?

I don't think Turner Gill should have gotten the job. I don't think Chizik should have gotten the job. I don't think either of them should have gotten the job soley based on their race.

READ MY SIMPLE POINT.

You can not counter criticism of racism at prominent Head coaching jobs by pointing at assistant coaches. Its like someone saying you don't have enough elephants and you point at the large number of ducks you have. They don't match up. The article is stupid for bringing it up.

[TitanTiger 22,249]

Im not gonna come off it.

That article is stupid and pointless. You can't argue back at not hiring a black Head coach by parading a line of assistants proudly in front of media pundits.

Again, you misread the article. He is not arguing about the hiring of black head coaches. That is your insertion into things. He's arguing about Barkley's comments that Auburn is racist and that the only reason they didn't hire Gill over Chizik was race. Please pay attention.

Tell me how many Assistant coaches make a head coach? I am just wondering. Its a pointless counter to the claim. Giving a bunch of guys lesser jobs to make up for the big job going to a white guy is both a horrible point made by this article and a stupid thing to support as a critic of the negative press Auburns recieved.

It would be a pointless counter to the claim you're making about the article, but it's not a pointless counter to the claim that Auburn's decision on Chizik was one where "race was the #1 factor" or that there's a "plantation mentality" there.

My point is that the article is just as stupid as the original press against Auburn. You can't beat claims of racisim at the highest positions in college football by hiring the most black assistants in the SEC. I am also annoyed that the article tries to make it a badge of honor.

He didn't make it a badge of honor. He made three points in this article.

1. Auburn took heat for something unfairly when you consider other schools that either didn't interview any black candidates or interviewed Gill and still hired whitey.

2. Barkley's claims that Auburn's decision was one where it was all about race doesn't square with the other hires Auburn has made.

3. Auburn's hires both at the HC level and the hires the HC has made since demonstrate that familiarity is largely what things are about rather than race.

You know what point wasn't being made in the article? That X number of assistants equal to a head coach position or that everything is peachy in terms of how many BCS schools have black head coaches.

That being said, where do you think head coaches generally come from: spontaneous ex nihilo creation? They come from the rank of assistants. The more black assistants that get hired, the more chance of there being black head coaches. Trooper Taylor was named Assistant Head Coach. If you don't think that helps his resume and gets him a better shot somewhere, you don't know beans.

Chizik is doing what he should do. Hire the best coaches he can come up with regardless of their race.

Thats the dumbest article I have read since all this crap started.

People typically think things that they fail to understand are dumb. You came to this article with a bunch of ready made assumptions and the actual points being made completely buzzed over your head.

[FootballFanatic 4]

Titan, I understood the article. Calling me stupid does not discredit my position.

Why do you bring up unfair claims of racism that centered completely around the Head Coaching position pick and then point out its unfair because the assistant coaches are black.

In its attempt to counter the argument and point out the racial make up of assistants it fails. I also have spoken on the issue of assistant coaches becomeing head coaches so more assistant coaches that are black the more opportunity they have to get the big jobs. Its not like this was a pile of black graduate assistants trying to break through. These were all Assistant coaches for other schools. The move is just a change of outer wear and possibly a title shift here and there.

You are just predisposed to support the article because you were offended by the original claims. I too felt the original claims were unfair and unfounded. I just find this articles foundation to be spurious at best.

It dances around making some points I agree with but counters the real issue of a white head coach by talking about having the most black assistant coaches in the SEC. That still doesn't change the fact that last year the SEC had one black head coach and this year we have 0. The one coach that was shown the door did fail to perform, so I have no problems with his firing.

My stance on the issue is that time will change the College coaching landscape as more talented assistant coaches get jobs and older white coaches retire. I don't think racism was involved in the Auburn choice any more than was in the Tennesee choice. I don't think Black coaches have a right to a job based soley on race but I do believe many haven't gotten the shot to succeed.

That doesn't change anything I think about that article. Its argument falls flat at the core and shouldn't be presented. You can't counter criticism that we didn't hire a black head coach and have a plantation mentality by stating that we hired a bunch of assistants that were black. So far the 2 highest coaching positions at Auburn are still held by white coaches. Head Coach and OC. If they hire a really stellar up and coming DC thats black then I could see them making an effort to point that out, but the article itself is a waste of breath since it does nothing to counter the coaching claims.

They aren't going to hire a new Head Coach so the issue can't be countered and should be left to rest. Let the Coach do his job, succeed and show his value. This article wasn't well thought out.

[PChamp119 96]

Why does everyone feel a black head coach is required at a major school? There were black head coaches at major schools and they got fired. I don't see the big deal.

Everyone uses the fact that most of the players are black. Yes, today they are. What were the numbers 15-20 years ago? Because it takes like 20 years to make it to the big time. Kids are in college until like 21 and most head coaches are at least 40. And even if the numbers were mostly black back then as well, maybe black kids aren't good coaches. Maybe they are just good athletes for the most part. Maybe white people have a better strategic mind. That is not a racist remark against black people. I am not saying it is definitely the way, I am just throwing out ideas.

Schools are not going out and purposely saying no to blacks because they are black. It took a while for black head coaches to make it in every major sport and they will slowly take over college football as well. One day we will have more black head coaches than white head coaches - will we need to start declaring for affirmative action for whites when that time comes?

Maybe we should call for affirmative action for white athletes to be on the field. Hell, if we are going to talk about the head coaches, why not talk about the players as well? Because they aren't getting paid? Well guess what - they are still getting to go to school for free. Is it because blacks are better? Well maybe at this point, today, white coaches are better than blacks.

I agree - maybe Chizik was hired because of his ability to recruit better assistants. What makes you a great head coach is your all around game. Maybe JJ felt Chizik was better at hiring assistants. Maybe Gill needs to be around the game longer or go to other schools to associate himself with better assistants before getting into a big time program.

I just wish everyone would quit with this black vs white crap. The media is making a story to stir stuff up and that is it.

[rcgroom 0]

Why does everyone feel a black head coach is required at a major school? There were black head coaches at major schools and they got fired. I don't see the big deal.

Everyone uses the fact that most of the players are black. Yes, today they are. What were the numbers 15-20 years ago? Because it takes like 20 years to make it to the big time. Kids are in college until like 21 and most head coaches are at least 40. And even if the numbers were mostly black back then as well, maybe black kids aren't good coaches. Maybe they are just good athletes for the most part. Maybe white people have a better strategic mind. That is not a racist remark against black people. I am not saying it is definitely the way, I am just throwing out ideas.

Schools are not going out and purposely saying no to blacks because they are black. It took a while for black head coaches to make it in every major sport and they will slowly take over college football as well. One day we will have more black head coaches than white head coaches - will we need to start declaring for affirmative action for whites when that time comes?

Maybe we should call for affirmative action for white athletes to be on the field. Hell, if we are going to talk about the head coaches, why not talk about the players as well? Because they aren't getting paid? Well guess what - they are still getting to go to school for free. Is it because blacks are better? Well maybe at this point, today, white coaches are better than blacks.

I agree - maybe Chizik was hired because of his ability to recruit better assistants. What makes you a great head coach is your all around game. Maybe JJ felt Chizik was better at hiring assistants. Maybe Gill needs to be around the game longer or go to other schools to associate himself with better assistants before getting into a big time program.

I just wish everyone would quit with this black vs white crap. The media is making a story to stir stuff up and that is it.

wow, PCHAMP and I actually agree on something...

[OldNewby 27]

But the face out front at Auburn now belongs to a head coach who looks like he's hiring assistants based on the content of their resumes.

And, I would add, their character.

[FootballFanatic 4]

Look at the timelines.

Around the 60's black players started making large headways into college football. Add 20-30 years and you start to see more assistant coaches in football. That takes you into the 90's. I think the next 20 years will bring a huge shift in racial dynamics in college football.

Talented head coaches that were teens in the 60's-70's will start to take positions and the new batch of coaches will come up from the 80'-90's. It just takes time for people to make their way through the coaching biz.

I think the problem with the race argument is that its too soon. Patience will allow more coaches that didn't feel held down by racial restrictions to permeate the coaching profession. I thnk the bubble will pop in the next 15 years.

I only care that coaches that will help their schools win get hired.

[WarTiger 4,120]

Titan, I understood the article. Calling me stupid does not discredit my position.

Why do you bring up unfair claims of racism that centered completely around the Head Coaching position pick and then point out its unfair because the assistant coaches are black.

In its attempt to counter the argument and point out the racial make up of assistants it fails. I also have spoken on the issue of assistant coaches becomeing head coaches so more assistant coaches that are black the more opportunity they have to get the big jobs. Its not like this was a pile of black graduate assistants trying to break through. These were all Assistant coaches for other schools. The move is just a change of outer wear and possibly a title shift here and there.

You are just predisposed to support the article because you were offended by the original claims. I too felt the original claims were unfair and unfounded. I just find this articles foundation to be spurious at best.

It dances around making some points I agree with but counters the real issue of a white head coach by talking about having the most black assistant coaches in the SEC. That still doesn't change the fact that last year the SEC had one black head coach and this year we have 0. The one coach that was shown the door did fail to perform, so I have no problems with his firing.

My stance on the issue is that time will change the College coaching landscape as more talented assistant coaches get jobs and older white coaches retire. I don't think racism was involved in the Auburn choice any more than was in the Tennesee choice. I don't think Black coaches have a right to a job based soley on race but I do believe many haven't gotten the shot to succeed.

That doesn't change anything I think about that article. Its argument falls flat at the core and shouldn't be presented. You can't counter criticism that we didn't hire a black head coach and have a plantation mentality by stating that we hired a bunch of assistants that were black. So far the 2 highest coaching positions at Auburn are still held by white coaches. Head Coach and OC. If they hire a really stellar up and coming DC thats black then I could see them making an effort to point that out, but the article itself is a waste of breath since it does nothing to counter the coaching claims.

They aren't going to hire a new Head Coach so the issue can't be countered and should be left to rest. Let the Coach do his job, succeed and show his value. This article wasn't well thought out.

WOW...just.....wow. I think you totally missed the intent of the article all together. You are so hung up on the Head Coaching position that you fail to see the total intent of the article. Titan has already explained it to you, and you still don't get it, so anything anybody else says is a waste of time. So...Why does it matter so much to you that there are few black head coaches in college football? We've seen numerous black head coaches over the last few years, and most, if not, all of them have been fired at some point in their short career. Why does the race card matter to you so much. Clearly the coaches that got their opportunity didn't produce the results those universities expected and thus were shown the door. Could it possibly be that the men interviewing for these head coaching positions that are black, simply aren't qualified to lead a program of the caliber that they are interviewing for? Still, we have other prominent assistant coaches at other programs that constantly get overlooked when teams are searching for a head coach. One name that constantly comes to mind is Charlie Strong, at Florida. I believe he would make an outstanding head coach, but he seems to be overlooked by every program out there looking for a head coach. Why is that? He's arguably one of the top defensive coordinators in the country, and the only move he can make UP in his career is to Head Coach. I know there are other black men out there that may want to lead a high profile program, but until they get TO a high profile program and prove themselves as an assistant, they aren't going to be taken seriously as a head coaching candidate. That's true for most any coach regardless of race. Do you really think a head coach at a Division III program is qualified or ready to jump right to a BCS school program and deal with the pressure and demands of a job of that caliber? I sure don't and it doesn't matter one hill of beans what color their skin is.

[TitanTiger 22,249]

Titan, I understood the article. Calling me stupid does not discredit my position.

Why do you bring up unfair claims of racism that centered completely around the Head Coaching position pick and then point out its unfair because the assistant coaches are black.

Because the claim was specifically that it was about racism. Yet Auburn has made five hires so far for assistants and 4 are black. And the common thread is familiarity with (in order of importance):

Auburn

The SEC

Other Auburn coaches

In other words, race doesn't seem to quite be the factor Barkley says it is. Certainly not the "#1 factor." And especially not when one of them was named Assistant Head Coach.

In its attempt to counter the argument and point out the racial make up of assistants it fails. I also have spoken on the issue of assistant coaches becomeing head coaches so more assistant coaches that are black the more opportunity they have to get the big jobs. Its not like this was a pile of black graduate assistants trying to break through. These were all Assistant coaches for other schools. The move is just a change of outer wear and possibly a title shift here and there.

First, it counter's Barkley's non-factual argument and succeeds. It does not even address the points you've inserted into the discussion.

Second, they were assistants for a school that is further down the coaching prestige ladder moving up. Auburn has much more of a football name and history than OSU and the SEC has a much stronger football reputation and a bigger stage than the Big XII.

You are just predisposed to support the article because you were offended by the original claims. I too felt the original claims were unfair and unfounded. I just find this articles foundation to be spurious at best.

No, the article addresses Barkley's claims that race was the #1 factor and does a good job of demonstrating them to be unfair and unfounded.

It dances around making some points I agree with but counters the real issue of a white head coach by talking about having the most black assistant coaches in the SEC. That still doesn't change the fact that last year the SEC had one black head coach and this year we have 0. The one coach that was shown the door did fail to perform, so I have no problems with his firing.

Again, you are making an argument about a bigger point that neither I nor Scarbinsky was even talking about. This is not about the big overarching concern about black head coaches in general. It's about Auburn and why they specifically have made the coaching hires they chose to make. This is where you keep going off the rails.

That doesn't change anything I think about that article. Its argument falls flat at the core and shouldn't be presented. You can't counter criticism that we didn't hire a black head coach and have a plantation mentality by stating that we hired a bunch of assistants that were black.

Actually, you do counter the criticism about "plantation mentality" and that "race was the #1 factor" by pointing out that not only have we hired 4 of 5 assistants who are black but that it is familiarity that seems to be the biggest factor, not race.

So far the 2 highest coaching positions at Auburn are still held by white coaches. Head Coach and OC. If they hire a really stellar up and coming DC thats black then I could see them making an effort to point that out, but the article itself is a waste of breath since it does nothing to counter the coaching claims.

Either assistants matter or they don't. Make up your mind. Hiring a black DC either counters Barkley's spurious claims or you don't even bring it up.

This article wasn't well thought out.

No, the article is fine. You're arguing against a strawman version that addresses the points YOU think are important rather than the limited scope of what it was written for.

[OldNewby 27]

Jason Whitlock's article discussed here: http://www.aunation.net/forums/index.php?s...c=54797&hl= makes some very good points, imo.

Schools are looking for winners, first and foremost. The pool of talented young coaches is growing more gray every year. It follows that there will be more black HCs in CFB. It will not because of the color of their skin. It will be because of their talent, fire, work ethic, and desire. I look forward to that day.

[JB33 1]

Good grief. I hope those who cursed President Gogue for not speaking out against the obligatory "racist" claims read this. There may not be a more self-perpetuating problem, or a more pointless debate. Auburn's hiring good assistants - who cares what color they are? Would Gene Chizik somehow have been a better HC hire if he was black? At the end of the day, almost*** all that matters is winning - if a coach wins, the school loves him; if he loses, they show him the door. That's how it works, whether the coach is black, white or purple polka-dotted. The sanctimonious rhetoric accomplishes nothing - except maybe selling newspapers and filling up message boards.

***Up yours, Lowder.

[TitanTiger 22,249]

Football Fanatic,

Let me follow up with this: You and I actually agree on several points. I do agree that the dearth of black head coaches on the FBS level is a problem and that schools need to be more willing to give some a shot. In the context of that larger discussion, Auburn's latest head coaching hire would have to be mentioned. It should not be given the inordinate amount of attention nor criticism it was given. It should simply be noted among all the other BCS schools that hired head coaches this year. If they really wanted to be fair, they would point out that unlike several other schools, Auburn actually interviewed two black candidates for the job when many other schools this year and over the last couple of years merely targeted a guy (who was white) and hired him with little to no formal interview process at all.

That said, Barkley's comments went far beyond that discussion and launched into overwrought speculation about Auburn and racism and plantation mentalities and gave a general impression of Auburn that was not accurate. This article merely touches on the larger point you're making but concentrates on this more specific point that Barkley was trying to make and does a damn good job of dismantling it.

This is all I'm arguing. The rest isn't even worth discussing because we already agree on that. There is nothing to debate.

[kingfish 76]

Titan, I understood the article. Calling me stupid does not discredit my position.

Why do you bring up unfair claims of racism that centered completely around the Head Coaching position pick and then point out its unfair because the assistant coaches are black.

Because the claim was specifically that it was about racism. Yet Auburn has made five hires so far for assistants and 4 are black. And the common thread is familiarity with (in order of importance):

Auburn

The SEC

Other Auburn coaches

In other words, race doesn't seem to quite be the factor Barkley says it is. Certainly not the "#1 factor." And especially not when one of them was named Assistant Head Coach.

In its attempt to counter the argument and point out the racial make up of assistants it fails. I also have spoken on the issue of assistant coaches becomeing head coaches so more assistant coaches that are black the more opportunity they have to get the big jobs. Its not like this was a pile of black graduate assistants trying to break through. These were all Assistant coaches for other schools. The move is just a change of outer wear and possibly a title shift here and there.

First, it counter's Barkley's non-factual argument and succeeds. It does not even address the points you've inserted into the discussion.

Second, they were assistants for a school that is further down the coaching prestige ladder moving up. Auburn has much more of a football name and history than OSU and the SEC has a much stronger football reputation and a bigger stage than the Big XII.

You are just predisposed to support the article because you were offended by the original claims. I too felt the original claims were unfair and unfounded. I just find this articles foundation to be spurious at best.

No, the article addresses Barkley's claims that race was the #1 factor and does a good job of demonstrating them to be unfair and unfounded.

It dances around making some points I agree with but counters the real issue of a white head coach by talking about having the most black assistant coaches in the SEC. That still doesn't change the fact that last year the SEC had one black head coach and this year we have 0. The one coach that was shown the door did fail to perform, so I have no problems with his firing.

Again, you are making an argument about a bigger point that neither I nor Scarbinsky was even talking about. This is not about the big overarching concern about black head coaches in general. It's about Auburn and why they specifically have made the coaching hires they chose to make. This is where you keep going off the rails.

That doesn't change anything I think about that article. Its argument falls flat at the core and shouldn't be presented. You can't counter criticism that we didn't hire a black head coach and have a plantation mentality by stating that we hired a bunch of assistants that were black.

Actually, you do counter the criticism about "plantation mentality" and that "race was the #1 factor" by pointing out that not only have we hired 4 of 5 assistants who are black but that it is familiarity that seems to be the biggest factor, not race.

So far the 2 highest coaching positions at Auburn are still held by white coaches. Head Coach and OC. If they hire a really stellar up and coming DC thats black then I could see them making an effort to point that out, but the article itself is a waste of breath since it does nothing to counter the coaching claims.

Either assistants matter or they don't. Make up your mind. Hiring a black DC either counters Barkley's spurious claims or you don't even bring it up.

This article wasn't well thought out.

No, the article is fine. You're arguing against a strawman version that addresses the points YOU think are important rather than the limited scope of what it was written for.

TT you certainly have much more patience than I do ... I haven't argued with a stump in years.

[Friedchickenman 0]

Do you honestly think Gill would've had a chance in the SEC? Buffalo lost their bowl game giving up over 300 yards...RUSHING against UCONN of all teams. They won their games mostly off of the basis of turnovers and a lucky hail mary, you can win games in the MAC by knowing how to strip the ball or pick it off well but in the SEC you can't count on that. I'm still dumbfounded as to how everyone thinks that Gill deserved the job when he's only had one successful season in one of the easiest conferences to win in America. If we hired him, he would come in, and in 2 years be out after some of the worst seasons in Auburn history and furthermore enforce the stereotype that African Americans can't be head coaches in the SEC.

[FootballFanatic 4]

TT, the only response I have is this.

The initial criticisms Auburn had from both Barkley and the media was that Auburn wouldn't hire black HEAD coaches. My argument isn't a strawman argument. Its a response to the Author's counter that Barkley would be shocked when he sobered up that Auburn hired a bunch of black assistant coaches. Its a non sequitur. The argument initially levied and the response do not interact at all.

The argument against Auburns hire was that we wouldn't put a Black man into the Highest coaching job at our school. Auburns had black assistant coaches for years so that isn't a rational rebuttle of the original argument.

Football Fanatic,

Let me follow up with this: You and I actually agree on several points. I do agree that the dearth of black head coaches on the FBS level is a problem and that schools need to be more willing to give some a shot. In the context of that larger discussion, Auburn's latest head coaching hire would have to be mentioned. It should not be given the inordinate amount of attention nor criticism it was given. It should simply be noted among all the other BCS schools that hired head coaches this year. If they really wanted to be fair, they would point out that unlike several other schools, Auburn actually interviewed two black candidates for the job when many other schools this year and over the last couple of years merely targeted a guy (who was white) and hired him with little to no formal interview process at all.

That said, Barkley's comments went far beyond that discussion and launched into overwrought speculation about Auburn and racism and plantation mentalities and gave a general impression of Auburn that was not accurate. This article merely touches on the larger point you're making but concentrates on this more specific point that Barkley was trying to make and does a damn good job of dismantling it.

This is all I'm arguing. The rest isn't even worth discussing because we already agree on that. There is nothing to debate.

I agree with everything you said except that Barkley's claimwasn't that we wouldn't hire any black people, it was simply that we won't give black men the big job because we are racists. That claim hasn't been refuted outside of the fact that racism is a rediculous claim in general. The first time that claim can be refuted is when Auburn hires a head coach for a sport thats black and that would be ignored since that wouldn't make good shock news headlines.