There’s nothing that progressive institutions such as The Washington Post can’t blame on preposterous racism.
In a lengthy informational piece the Post presented the argument it is clear that it is clear that the Rooney Rule has failed. The rule obliges NFL teams to conduct interviews with minorities to be head coaches.
There’s no mention of the “End Racism” banners on NFL fields.
The most important result of the study can be found in the just 3 black coaches working on the NFL this season. The Post believes that this is a lack of equity due to the double standard as well as owner prejudice.
Equity is the process of achieving equality in outcomes, not equal opportunities. Even though corporations have taken over HR departments, the shrewd CEO phrases and social media posts from progressive organisations equity is a ridiculous idea that is impossible to achieve and can result in discrimination and prejudice on its own.
Jacksonville, FL September 13:”End” and Racism are painted on the end zone during games between Indianapolis Colts and the Jacksonville Jaguars on the 13th of September 2020 on TIAA Bank Field in Jacksonville, Fl. Photo taken by David Rosenblum/IconSportswire through Getty Images)
However, as is the norm, beyond the promotion of this absurd notion The Post only gives a small portion of the context. They make wild claims with no evidence and misinterprets the notion of causation and correlation.
A single of the most absurd claims is that coaches from black backgrounds have a higher likelihood of being coach interims, this proves that owners are only putting them in positions that could not succeed:
“Black coaches are much more likely to be tapped as interim coaches than for full-time roles, indicating a willingness by owners to entrust their teams to Black leaders only when success is out of reach.”
This is absurd; a deliberately misinterpretation of the facts in that the black representation percentage in assistant coaches increased in the past. This means that there are more chances for black coordinators to be interim head coaches when their boss is fired.
It’s not an the case, but it is supported by data analysis
Take note of how the proportion of black defensive coordinators has increased significantly in recent years? Offensive coordinators have also increased dramatically too.
It’s likely to have resulted in more interim head coaching posts because there’s been many more black assistants available to choose from.
The dramatic increase in defensive coordinators is a sign the fact that coaches of color are more often entrusted with key roles even though head coach percentages haven’t increased in a significant way yet.
Fraudulent claims
The report then makes the argument that coaches who are white tend to get full-time employment after serving as interims:
“Serving in the capacity of an interim coach may lead to an actual full-time job but it’s not a smoother path to follow for Black coaches. Black coaches have served in the role of interim coach fourteen times since 1990 and they were rehired as permanent coaches only three times. Three of them — Romeo Crennel with the Kansas City Chiefs, Leslie Frazier with the Minnesota Vikings and Mike Singletary with the San Francisco 49ers — had at minimum an .500 performance in their interim roles. For White coaches Full-time offers for jobs are not correlated with their record during their time as interim coaches.”
Other than that, temporary head coaches are not often hired on a permanent basis whatever the race.
There’s no information on how many games the interim coaches were able to coach. For instance, if a player had a 2-1 record, that could be considered an above .500 record even though it’s a ridiculously tiny sample. What percentage of coaches in the same race were 1-0 or even 0-1? In those instances, the results could be useless.
These assertions , in conjunction with many bizarre assertions completely invalidate the claim.
Another example is the idea that coaches of color are being directed away from coaching roles in offensive sports:
“The leaguewide push to hire young, offensive-minded coaches with experience coaching quarterbacks also has shut out Black coaches, who for decades largely were steered away from offensive coaching opportunities.”
There’s absolutely no evidence to support the assertion the black coach has been “steered away from offensive coaching opportunities.”
It’s purely speculation, and is based on the Post insisting that it must be accurate to allow”the “point” to be accurate.
Problematic Data
However, the most common assertion is that the percentages of firings vary between white and black head coaches.
The gaps are, however, absurdly tiny and unexplained.
“Since in 1990 Black Full-time Head Coaches have been able to lead teams to an .500 average or better during the course of 78 regular seasons. Nine percent of the instances, the coaches were dismissed following the season. Over the same period, White coaches who met this standard were fired just 4 percent of the times.
Black coaching staff who’ve had at least six wins in a single season have been dismissed twelve percent of the times, as compared with 8 percent White coaches. If they have won minimum nine matches during the course of a year, Black coaches are fired 8 percent of the time. This compares with only 2 percent of White coaches.”
The percentages used are low enough to be unimportant given the sample size of the study.
With 78 seasons of .500 or better 9 percent means that 7 head coaches of black were dismissed after record-setting performances in the last 32 years. There’s no explanation as to the records they had during their careers or what the current trend in the records was prior to their firing, and nothing else. It’s just a correlation without causality and very few details.
Furthermore, because of the small samples, one firing can dramatically alter the results.
However, The Washington Post doesn’t care, because it’s a sign of discrimination based on race.
Rampant speculation
The Post has so many flaws in the analysis, it’s difficult to determine where to begin. However, the Washington Post received what it wanted the media’s attention for non-substantiated claims.
It is possible that owners would rather employ white coaches who have the same qualifications, but this would be a racial and unjust behaviour. It is evident from recent reports that there is a lot of the discrimination against owners of sports teams is a reality.
However, there’s no evidence within this piece to back the assertion, it’s just speculation.
The report also doesn’t consider other backgrounds or racial groups and the number of head coaches there are. There aren’t numerous Hispanic coach, and neither have been many Asian. Why isn’t The Washington Post worried about this?
“Equity” often leads to the false belief that all decisions should be considered as a matter of race.
If you only have an hammer, everything seems like nails.
Even if the nail might be absent from existence.