Lobbying for Gill, alum Barkley says Auburn should have hired black coach

[Viva Las Espuelas]

what in the hell is this dude smoking? this may have negated the little bit of respect i held for this man. splash?! buzz?!i guess affirmative action is a one way stream. i'll be contributing to his opponents campaign whenever this jackass decides to run for office.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

Former Auburn and NBA star Charles Barkley ripped his alma mater on Monday, saying the only reason the Tigers did not hire Buffalo's Turner Gill as the school's new football coach is because Gill is black.
Auburn on Saturday hired Iowa State's Gene Chizik, who had a 5-19 record in two seasons with the Cyclones. Chizik was the defensive coordinator at Auburn in 2004, when the Tigers finished 13-0 and ranked No. 2 in the country.
Chizik replaces former Auburn coach Tommy Tuberville, who won 85 games in 10 seasons but was forced to resign earlier this month. "I think race was the No. 1 factor," said Barkley, who played basketball for three seasons at Auburn during the early 1980s. "You can say it's not about race, but you can't compare the two resumes and say [Chizik] deserved the job. Out of all the coaches they interviewed, Chizik probably had the worst resume." Gill, a former Nebraska quarterback, took over one of the country's worst programs at Buffalo three years ago. He guided the Bulls to an 8-5 record and their first MAC championship this season, upsetting previously unbeaten Ball State 42-24 in the Dec. 5 conference championship game.

Auburn needed to think outside the box in its coaching search. But hiring Gene Chizik, 5-19 in two years at Iowa State, isn't the answer, Mark Schlabach writes. Story (http://sports.espn.go.com/ncf/columns/story?columnist=schlabach_mark&id=3769005)

The Bulls won 10 games in their first seven seasons at the Division I-A level. Gill guided Buffalo to 13 victories during the last two seasons combined.
"I'm just very disappointed," Barkley said. "I just thought Turner Gill would be the perfect choice for two reasons: He's a terrific coach and we needed to make a splash. I thought we had to do something spectacular to bring attention to the program. Clearly, if we'd hired a black coach, it would have created a buzz." Barkley, who works as an NBA analyst for Turner Network Television, said he spoke with Gill before Gill interviewed with Auburn officials last week. "We talked about the whole race thing in Alabama," Barkley said. "I told him it's there and it's going to be anywhere you go. I told him you can't not take the job because of racism. He was worried about being nothing more than a token interview. He was concerned about having a white wife. It's just very disappointing to me." Barkley, an 11-time NBA All-Star and two-time Olympic gold medal winner, said he served on Auburn's search committee for a new basketball coach after the 2003-04 season. Barkley said he told Auburn officials he would serve on the committee only if the school was ready to hire a black coach. Barkley said he presented three African-American candidates for consideration: former Indiana coach Mike Davis, then-Virginia Commonwealth coach Jeff Capel and then-UAB coach Mike Anderson. Barkley said all three candidates wanted to coach at Auburn. Instead, the Tigers hired then-Chattanooga coach Jeff Lebo, a white candidate. Lebo has a 61-68 record in his fifth season at Auburn. Barkley said he was removed from Auburn's search committee before Lebo was hired. "Out of all the basketball coaches they interviewed, they picked the only one who hadn't been to the NCAA tournament," Barkley said. There are only four African-American coaches among 119 programs in the NCAA's Football Bowl Subdivision. Illinois offensive coordinator Mike Locksley was hired as New Mexico's coach last week; the others are Gill, Miami's Randy Shannon and Houston's Kevin Sumlin. Two African-American coaches, Washington's Tyrone Willingham and Kansas State's Ron Prince, were fired during the 2008 season, and Mississippi State's Sylvester Croom resigned. Barkley said he wanted Gill to become Auburn's coach because Auburn is a school where an African-American coach could be successful. "My biggest problem with the black coaches is they're not getting jobs and they're getting [expletive] jobs when they are hired," Barkley said. "They're not getting good jobs. They're not getting jobs where they can be successful. That's why I wanted Turner to get the Auburn job. He could win consistently at Auburn. You can't win consistently at New Mexico. You can't win consistently at Kansas State. He could have won at Auburn

[ChumpDumper]

So why do you think Chizik was the better choice?
i guess affirmative action is a one way stream.Most streams are one-way -- but yes, affirmative action works pretty much one way only. I don't know how you think it applies here though.

[FromWayDowntown]

Yeah, I don't have a problem with anything Barkley says, particularly becuase it seems that there is a reluctance on the other side of the ledger to see past skin color at Auburn. Anecdotally, it does seem that both this situation (Gill vs. Chizik) and the basketball situation (Capel, Davis, Anderson v. Lebo) suggest that the hiring powers at Auburn are perfectly willing to hire less accomplished white coaches over black coaches with better resumes. It does beg the question about what qualifications Auburn considers in making its hiring choices for these jobs.

[doobs]

1. Charles Barkley is really stupid. He's less than a moron.
2. Auburn is a major football program. To keep everyone happy, they need to win 9-10 games a year. If hiring Chizik was a mistake, the program will feel the pain.

I suppose race could have been a factor. Auburn could have reasoned that their fans would prefer to have a white coach. I doubt it, but I guess it's a possibility. I mean, if the fans were that racist, would Auburn have recruited Jason Campbell to be their QB and team leader?

[FromWayDowntown]

1. Charles Barkley is really stupid. He's less than a moron.
2. Auburn is a major football program. To keep everyone happy, they need to win 9-10 games a year. If hiring Chizik was a mistake, the program will feel the pain.

I suppose race could have been a factor. Auburn could have reasoned that their fans would prefer to have a white coach. I doubt it, but I guess it's a possibility. I mean, if the fans were that racist, would Auburn have recruited Jason Campbell to be their QB and team leader?

That Charles Barkley is generally not a smart man doesn't make him wrong on this issue. If Auburn University is regularly choosing white candidates with inferior credentials to fill major positions over black candidates with equal or better credentials, Barkley's point strikes me as quite valid -- in spite of his general inanity.

[doobs]

That Charles Barkley is generally not a smart man doesn't make him wrong on this issue. If Auburn University is regularly choosing white candidates with inferior credentials to fill major positions over black candidates with equal or better credentials, Barkley's point strikes me as quite valid -- in spite of his general inanity.

His stupidity doesn't make him wrong, but it makes him a less reliable authority on the issue. He's a complete idiot. I'm sure Barkley noticed that Gill is black and Chizik is white, and he decided that racism was at play in the decision. Brilliant.

Chizik has a history at Auburn. He led a fantastic defense in 2004 at Auburn, and a fantastic defense in 2005 at Texas. Auburn is a defense-oriented program. Would I have hired Chizik? Probably not; but I also wouldn't have hired Gill. Can I see a legitimate reason why Auburn would have hired Chizik instead of Gill? YES.

This is the point: we don't know enough to know why Auburn hired Chizik. But Gill's race isn't enough for anyone--even the great Charles Barkley--to make accusations of racism. If you're going to make accusations of racism, you'd better be able to show that Gill is clearly more qualified. He isn't.

[Wild Cobra]

Lobbying for Gill, alum Barkley says Auburn should have hired black coach
The most qualified person should be offered the position first, regardless of color.

To make color an issue is so libtarded.

[FromWayDowntown]

His stupidity doesn't make him wrong, but it makes him a less reliable authority on the issue. He's a complete idiot. I'm sure Barkley noticed that Gill is black and Chizik is white, and he decided that racism was at play in the decision. Brilliant.

Did you read the piece? Barkley's authority here isn't just the refusal to hire Gill -- it's the starting point for his criticism but not the sole argument. In fact, Barkley's comment seems to derive more from his involvment in a prior search for a basketball coach in which not 1, but 3, qualified black candidates were overlooked in favor of a less-qualified white candidate.

I'm sure that Barkley's noticed that on two very recent occasions, Auburn has, in filling high-profile vacancies, hired white coaches who have resumes that are, at best, the equivalent of the resumes boasted by the black coaches who were not offered the job. That's a far cry from getting pissed that this particular black guy lost out on this particular job to this particular white guy.


Chizik has a history at Auburn. He led a fantastic defense in 2004 at Auburn, and a fantastic defense in 2005 at Texas. Auburn is a defense-oriented program.

Agreed on all counts about Chizik. Of course, one major reason that Tuberville -- and in mid-season, his offensive coordinator -- were canned stemmed from a growing lack of offense at Auburn. It's not as if Auburn hasn't expressed concerns about finding offense for its football program -- the university is up the river for many millions of dollars, having fired coaches who couldn't find offense for that football team.


Would I have hired Chizik? Probably not; but I also wouldn't have hired Gill. Can I see a legitimate reason why Auburn would have hired Chizik instead of Gill? YES.

Sure. Again, I don't think this has to do with the question of whether Chizik is a good coach -- he is. The question that Barkley raises is whether Auburn is simply more comfortable hiring white coaches -- whether, all things considered, a tie goes to the white guy? From outward appearances in two relatively recent hirings, there is reason for some to think that might be the case. And is it wrong for Barkley to wonder aloud if that's a bad thing? I don't happen to think so.

I don't think you can argue that Gill is clearly less qualified. He's taken a program that was absolute garbage a few years ago (1-10 in 2005) and made it a conference champion in its league. Meanwhile, in the two years before Chizik took over at Iowa State, the Cyclones were 11-13 and played in a bowl game; since Chizik took over, the Cyclones are 5-19. The situations are different, but it would be difficult to argue that the two guys aren't at least equal.

[FromWayDowntown]

The most qualified person should be offered the position first, regardless of color.

To make color an issue is so libtarded.

And if the most qualified guy isn't hired, then what?

If, in each of several hirings, the most qualified guy is black and yet isn't hired, then what?

[Oh, Gee!!]

If, in each of several hirings, the most qualified guy is black and yet isn't hired, then what?

you'd be a libtard for noticing.

[FromWayDowntown]

you'd be a libtard for noticing.

One thing that I wasn't responsible for noticing: there's apparently a reason that smart people (http://www.spurstalk.com/forums/showpost.php?p=2720179&postcount=59) don't go to see black surgeons.

[Wild Cobra]

And if the most qualified guy isn't hired, then what?

If, in each of several hirings, the most qualified guy is black and yet isn't hired, then what?

IF... that's the case, then questions should be raised. Like did he demand too much money. Can you claim to know all the reasons? The guy hired had a real fine 2004 record, didn't he? Now I don't know the qualities of the teams, but record alone isn't everything.

[Wild Cobra]

One thing that I wasn't responsible for noticing: there's apparently a reason that smart people (http://www.spurstalk.com/forums/showpost.php?p=2720179&postcount=59) don't go to see black surgeons.

What I stated is a real concern of the damage that Affirmative Action has done once it became a quota system.

Thanks for finding that. People should read it again.

I never stated that to be a slam against blacks, or racism. Can you tell me that doesn't happen under affirmative action?

One more thing. Why is voicing real concerns treated so harshly by you? Are we suppose to ignore assumed statistical truths? How many people take the time to know is such a thing is true or not?

[ChumpDumper]

What I stated is a real concern of the damage that Affirmative Action has done once it became a quota system.

Thanks for finding that. People should read it again.Yes. Read it again.

Bask in the sheer stupidity of it.

You act as if the black surgeon never went to class or had to work and pass classes to graduate and become a doctor.

[doobs]

The situations are different, but it would be difficult to argue that the two guys aren't at least equal.

The burden is on Barkley--and you, apparently--to show that Gill was objectively more qualified. Otherwise, if you believe they're equal, you have nothing to complain about. All that matters is that Auburn had some legitimate reason to hire Chizik over Gill. Maybe Chizik was asking for less. Maybe Chizik's defensive philosophy suits what Auburn wants. Maybe Gill's total lack of involvement in Auburn's program was a negative. Maybe Chizik made a more convincing case for his commitment to the program during the interview. Maybe Chizik is a more likable guy.

[Let me just go on the record and say both Chizik and Gill were horrible candidates for the job.]

I understand Barkley's "point." But it's a stupid point. No matter how you characterize it, all he's really going on is the fact that a white guy got the job. Comparing their records at Buffalo and Iowa State is like comparing apples and oranges. I'll repeat: if you're making accusations of racial discrimination, you had better be able to prove that the minority candidate was objectively more qualified than the white candidate.

Heck, UT's already promised its head coaching job to Will Muschamp, without interviewing any minority candidates. Do you think it's because he's a white guy? Why didn't they ask Gill if he was interested? What about Ty Willingham?

This is just absurd.

[FromWayDowntown]

One more thing. Why is voicing real concerns treated so harshly by you? Are we suppose to ignore assumed statistical truths? How many people take the time to know is such a thing is true or not?

What in the hell is an assumed statistical truth? If there are statistics to prove something, it isn't assumed, it seems to me.

I'm not sure that you could find statistics to support an assumption that black surgeons are underqualified and should be viewed with skepticism, though you seem intent on perpetuating that unproven assumption.

Beyond that, I'm not sure what "real concern" I'm treating harshly here. Your nonsense about black surgeons doesn't strike me as a "real concern" of any sort -- since it's little more than the perpetuation of stereotypes -- and my posts in this thread have dealt with the "real concern" about the Charles Barkley's outspoken concerns about hiring practices in Auburn University's athletic department. What am I treating harshly?

[ChumpDumper]

Are we suppose to ignore assumed statistical truths? If they are only assumed, yes -- they should be completely ignored.

[FromWayDowntown]

The burden is on Barkley--and you, apparently--to show that Gill was objectively more qualified. Otherwise, if you believe they're equal, you have nothing to complain about. All that matters is that Auburn had some legitimate reason to hire Chizik over Gill. Maybe Chizik was asking for less. Maybe Chizik's defensive philosophy suits what Auburn wants. Maybe Gill's total lack of involvement in Auburn's program was a negative. Maybe Chizik made a more convincing case for his commitment to the program during the interview. Maybe Chizik is a more likable guy.

While I've couched what I've said before in terms of the Auburn hire specifically, I should clarify that I'm with Barkley on a more general point that has only tangential relationship to this particular hire. I agree generally with Barkley's point that Auburn had an opportunity to hire a very well qualified black coach -- one who is arguably as qualified as the man it chose -- but refused to do so.

Frankly, I don't give a crap about who Auburn hires and this discussion could be about Kansas State or Washington or Texas A&M or Indiana or Hawaii. The identity of the school and the identity of the specific candidates is largely irrelevant to the major point that Barkley raises.

It can't be seriously argued that blacks are horrendously underrepresented in head coaching jobs in major college football -- especially in historically-strong programs in major conferences. Why is that? Could it be that when those situations become available and candidates like Turner Gill interview against candidates like Gene Chizik, there's always some intangible "Well, he's got ties to our program," or "We just found him more likeable," or "He fits the personality of our program better" reason to justify the selection? Of course there is. But that's a fairly self-perpetuating rationalization for overlooking qualified black candidates.

The Auburn aspect of the story is relevant for only 2 reasons that I can see: (1) Barkley is an alumnus of Auburn; and (2) Auburn made a similar decision, with questionable justification, recently with it's basketball team.

Certainly, Chizik isn't a repulsive choice, but, again he's not clearly more qualified than Gill, either. But if the decision concerned hiring Gill or Steve Sarkesian for the Washington job (or between Gill and Mike Sherman for the A&M job) and Gill lost out, the questions about motivation and intrinsic biases would be equally relevant (and probably more troubling).

I just don't believe that black coaches are somehow categorically inferior and incapable of running successful programs at major colleges.


I understand Barkley's "point." But it's a stupid point. No matter how you characterize it, all he's really going on is the fact that a white guy got the job.

And that it's happened twice at Auburn; and that it happens routinely across major college football.


Comparing their records at Buffalo and Iowa State is like comparing apples and oranges.

Taking an historically atrocious program at an obscure university to a conference title in 3 years is quite a bit different than taking a bowl-quality program in a major conference to increasingly low levels of uncompetitiveness. You're right about that.


I'll repeat: if you're making accusations of racial discrimination, you had better be able to prove that the minority candidate was objectively more qualified than the white candidate.

So, the tie goes to the white guy?

[ClingingMars]

The most qualified person should be offered the position first, regardless of color.

To make color an issue is so libtarded.

/thread

-Mars