Quote:
Originally Posted by staylor26
Relative to population, 4 would be appropriate.
You’ve already acknowledged that playing and management are two completely different things, so the league being 70% black means nothing.
|
Well, it means nothing to you.
The rest of us realize that:
Quote:
Because it is very hard to believe that out of the enormous, disproportionately black pool of athletes who have played the game, captained their team and had off the charts football IQ the pipeline shouldn’t be way deeper. Or that these guys are overwhelmingly under qualified to run locker rooms they grew up around. That is a qualification that is an enormous resume boost. It doesn’t add up that this wouldn’t translate well to coaching.
So yeah, when the numbers are disproportionately black you don’t expect for the coaching to be overwhelmingly not black.
|
Like Nick Wright said this morning - you wouldn't raise an eyebrow or think there was an issue if 30/32 NHL teams had black NHL coaches - despite the labor force being overwhelmingly white?
Based on your takes here, you'd be screaming from the mountaintops what an injustice it is.
You keep want to focus on a singular instance here and there to make your argument, while ignoring the decades of this happening. (to the point they had to make a ****ing rule about it, and now incentivize teams for grooming black coaches)
But hey, there's a handful of black GM's and one HC - so problem solved in your eyes.