In reply to: ND should have the best coaches it can get. posted by cujays96
Malloy was open about wanting to hire Ty and White went with O'Leary. Malloy was conscious of making a statement and he liked Ty's image. He made that known in the SI cover story after the MSU game in 2002.
Yes, there is always an inclination to go after people who really want you. That explains O'Leary. It in part explains why people are likely to give Mullen the benefit of the doubt since due to his time at ND they have heard that he is high on ND for a future job. But there's nothing about whiteness per se that gave O'Leary an advantage. He was a superior candidate than Ty. And I can't think of a black candidate at the time who would've been arguably superior.
It wasn't common knowledge -- that's made up. Willingham had a credible coaching history, regardless of whether he was the best man for the job (he wasn't). ND does not have a history of hiring the best man available. Hiring Ty was consistent with that history.
But debating Ty's hiring was not the point of my question, which you have not addressed yet.
In 7 seasons he had 9 wins once and 8 wins once....7 twice......5 twice and 3 once. To me that is a perfectly Medicare/average/not impressive coaching record. I wasn't a fan of the O'Leary hire either based on his recorded at GT.
I don't know what you mean by credible...trustworthy, believable? Sure, but any athletic director who hires a head coach and calls them a credible and trustworthy head coach is a loser. They damn well better all be credible. The AD should be hiring a winner.
To your main point, I don't want to hire anyone based purely on race. I want the best coach out there. Is your assumption that by not hiring a black coach , Notre Dame is exhibiting racism? Is it simply based on your comment that most players are black any any other race cannot possibly understand how to coach them? Let's focus on winning and let those other chips fall.
for years, taken it to one Rose Bowl (something a number of PAC and Big10 schools have not done in my long life time), and had much more on his resume' than Faust and Davie, his immediate predecessors. And I know he lost a bunch of games too at a school that did not value football success much back then. I was not advocating he was the guy we should have hired but the suggestion that he did not have the resume' for the job does not square with ND's hiring history.
As to your other questions, please see my response to Ty Webb.
Ty's Rose Bowl team lost by 52 points to Texas. 52. Lost to a 3-7 San Jose St team. 3-7. It beat no ranked teams. The teams ranked at the time it beat in weeks 3 and 4 finished 6-6 and 4-7. The only ranked team in the conference (Oregon), it missed in its 8 game conference schedule. That team, which finished 8-4, is likely the worst Rose Bowl representative in PAC 10 history.
His resume didn't square with the successful coaches ND had hired.
So saying he had a better resume than Faust or Davie is a fairly meaningless point. His resume, when stacked up against Devine or Holtz or Ara, was a far cry short. Hence, why a lot of people at the time said it was a poor hire. And they were right.
the medium. My resume' point was in response to another post that suggested race was the reason for hiring Willingham. ND hired Faust and Davie, two guys with much weaker credentials than Ty and they failed. So if Ty's resume' was stronger, why assume he was hired due to race? And he wasn't even the first choice. I realize that was not your point.
Any racial thoughts into that hire. Quotas and racial thoughts were not part of FR. Joyce's thought process back then. He looked at Faust as being a good coach and a very nice man. Faust is and was a very nice man.
Davie was probably more of a "hire the next guy in line after firing Holtz" thing. They just got tired of Holtz and wanted him gone. Davie looked the part. It was a poor hire, just like Faust, O'Leary, Willinghan, Weis and Kelly were poor hires.
Unless you mean that his resume was accurate.
Near the end of 2000, Willingham was 33-33-1 at Stanford, in a very weak Pac-10, having been outscored by 98 points in those games. He had never been a coordinator.
Then he went on a decent winning streak, going 11-2 in the next 13 games. However, only three of those wins were over teams with winning records.
If he had not upset Oregon that year (with Joey Harrington), I doubt he would have been on anyone's list.
I just didn't give you the answer you wanted to hear. Yes, I agree that O'Leary had an advantage in his favor. But it wasn't whiteness. It's Irish Catholicity. And a propensity to like ND. ND is deathly afraid to hire someone who isn't committed to admissions and administrative goals because they're afraid of having a coach perceived to be bigger than the program.
You largely ignored my post. It was fairly common at the time. Malloy was very race conscious. As anyone who had him guest lecture in a business course knew when I was in school, Malloy knows black people and has many black friends. Just ask him. He'll be excited to talk about it. His comments to SI in 2002 indicated that ND's role in setting an example were strong motivators in Ty's hiring. These facts were common to those who closely followed the university, may be a better way to put it.
I didn't address your original question because I responded to your follow up post, not your original post. Generally one is not expected to address all possible issues raised by a poster. I'm sure others will sufficiently address your main question. But my answer is no. It should not be a consideration at all. They should hire whomever is the best person for the job. And if "he'll be great at connecting to recruits because he's black" is a strong reason in one's favor, that's likely wishful thinking that is hiding shortcomings. Ty was ND's worst recruiter of all time in addition to being a terrible coach. It was also a primary motivation for hiring Corwin Brown when he had never been a coordinator before--a position he was effectively relieved of within two years.
And as said above, ND should hire the very best coach it can, regardless of skin color. If that guy is white, African American, Asian, whatever, it doesn't matter. Hire the best guy possible.
When you allow the color of one's skin to be a criteria in your coaching search you end up with Willingham (and yes, the color of his skin was a factor - note, I did not say the biggest factor - in his hiring if you understand the Monk directives in the face of the O'Leary firing).
question in my original post and interpreted it (as did two others) as an advocacy statement for affirmative action, which it is not. Is that due to a knee-jerk reaction on your part to any discussion of race in hiring decisions? The comments of "best man" available presume (without articulating) a single definition of "best". Best teacher? Best recruiter? Best project manager? Best tactician? Best employer? Best representative of the school?
Many on this board have bemoaned the impact of ND's academic restrictions on recruiting. Is it not reasonable to have a conversation about whether, as a purely practical matter related to on-field success, a competent African American head coach might attract more black athletes who are also good students? I'm not saying that would happen, but why not add it to the discussion? If you throw out the outliers (the very best and very worst head coaches), I wonder whether it makes a difference in recruiting.
I do believe this much: If an institution or organization has a segregated past, and still lives with the impact of that history, it is not enough to say "Now, we are an equal opportunity school/club/employer." I think you have to promote among the communities you used to exclude.
When you ask if ND should make more of an effort to recruit African Americans to the head coaching spot?
There's nothing knee jerk about the response that ND should make an effort to recruit the very best coaches to the head coaching spot, regardless of color.
It's very smart, simple concept.
have an answer to my main question -- has ND ever had an African American head coach in any varsity sport other than Willingham? If not, isn't that a bit odd? Especially given the main face of football and basketball athletes in major colleges today? And how are you defining "best"? The ability to recruit and relate are always big factors.
It appears to me you interpreted my original questions the way you wanted, or at least you burdened my questions with presumptions.
Hire the best coach you possible can regardless of skin color.
And I define best as a coach who has a track record of outstanding performance at high levels in college or pro athletics. That's why the names Nick Saban, Urban Meyer, Bob Stoops are being thrown around this board as opposed to say Charlie Strong or Kevin Sumlin. No offense to Strong and Sumlin, probably the two most recognizable African American college head coaches, but neither has achieved anything close to what Saban, Meyer and Stoops have accomplished.
What appears to be happening here is that you just don't like the answers people are giving you, not that people are interpreting your questions a certain way or making presumptions.
Should ND recruit African American coaches for their head coaching spots? Absolutely. As long as those African American coaches have shown a strong track record of success. Not, for example, because as African Americans, they might relate to African American players better and recruit them better (which is probably a fallacy to begin with).
although you still presume too much about my thinking. Because we have so many posts on hiring the next guy, it seems a reasonable time to take a look at all possible deficits in our hiring practices to date that may burden the next search. My original question was intended in part to explore whether ND, as an institution, has a perception problem on the one hand, and too narrow a focus on the other. If indeed the university has never hired an African American head coach in any sport except Willingham, who was not even the first choice, why does asking if there's an issue here incite such a strong reaction? It seems a reasonable question to me.
This thread is too far down the board now so I will refrain from further comments with you -- and I do appreciate your comments.
posed the question assumes that hiring a minority is some sort of panacea.
You've been hammered over the head with this point and it has yet to sink in.
As I explained above, making race a proxy for recruiting prowess, is how you inflate the ability of lesser qualified coaches. It's wishful thinking that is tilting at windmills. Ty was a terrible recruiter. Corwin Brown seemed to be an okay recruiter but he wasn't prepared to actually coordinate a defense. That hire doomed Weis's career.
You hire ability to win based on demonstrated ability to win. Especially at ND when bad seasons still generally pull in top 10 classes.