If you haven't guessed by now, I really despise fans who refuse to make objective assessments. This is especially true when the fan in question roots for a perennial contender and/or a squad/player that has every advantage over its contemporaries.
Hey, they are already good and/or beginning every year with an edge over the competition. That should be enough.
Which brings me to an article I ran across accusing Tyrone Willingham of being racist.
I've mentioned before that I graduated from Stanford and was there during the glory days of Willingham's tenure. I've also mentioned that, as a fraternity president, I had to deal with Stanford's Athletic Department because we had issues with the football team.
What I'm trying to convey is that, although I graduated from Stanford, I have no occasion to unreasonably love or defend Willingham (or the football team).
In fact, I found Willingham to be condescending and myopic as well as hypocritically self-righteous. Enough of the football players were brutish meatheads, looking to get drunk and kick some ass (a genuinely unfair proposition considering the physical stature of most Stanford students).
And to be honest, the article's author makes a fantastic observation about Willingham's paucity of African-American coordinators. He points out that coordinator is to head coach as a senator or governor is to the President of the United States: not required but a damn good place to start.
Consequently, to lob accusations of racism based on the lack of African-American head coaches while doing NOTHING at the most effective point to help solve the problem is both condescending and myopic (not to mention stupid and obviously hypocritical).
But then the author puts on his pink Notre Dame hat and ruins everything.
While rightfully blasting Willingham for crying racism while refusing to hire black coordinators, the author points out that Notre Dame deserves praise because it has hired numerous coordinators of color. Anyone see a problem with that?
Why does Willingham get blamed for not hiring while Notre Dame gets credit for hiring?
It's a subtle but significant change. The author blames the coach in one case because it matches his personal bias (which is either love of Notre Dame, hatred towards Tyrone Willingham, and/or hatred towards African-Americans in general, with the latter being the least likely).
Then, he switches the underlying assumption: that coaches control the hiring/firing of coordinators because it allows him to laud the school and stay consistent to his personal bias.
But for some of the years, the coach worked for the school. I understand that the African-American coordinators were hired after Willingham left. However, if Notre Dame gets credit for the hires after Ty left, don't they get blamed for the non-hires while he was there?
If the coach controls the hiring, then the school can receive no blame. If the school controls the hiring, then the coach can receive no blame (the reality is more complicated since both sides always have some influence regardless of who makes the final decision, but you get the point).
It can't be both ways unless Notre Dame changed its hiring policies after Willingham left, which is possible.
18 comments Last one added 8 months ago — Leave a Comment
Steve Hansen 9 months ago
I simply cannot believe there are morons on this planet who are still defending Tyrone Willingham and ridiculing Charles Weis's contract extension. Just read this, moron (are your parents cousins of each other?):
Willingham's Scorched Earth
http://bleacherreport.com/articles/65809-willinghams-scorched-earth-aftermath-of-bad-recruiting-classes-for-uw
Edit Comment Cancel
Steve Hansen 9 months ago
I simply cannot believe that there are stupid people on this planet who are still defending tyrone willingham. Just read this! (by the way, are your parents cousins to each other?)
http://bleacherreport.com/articles/65809-willinghams-scorched-earth-aftermath-of-bad-recruiting-classes-for-uw
Willingham's Scorched Earth
Edit Comment Cancel
Andrew Nuschler 9 months ago
Steve,
I'll reply once as a courtesy. No, my parents are not cousins of each other.
And it's bold to call me a moron while accusing me of ridiculing Weis/defending Willingham considering you do so in a comment to a piece from which the following are direct quotes:
"I found Willingham to be condescending and myopic as well as hypocritically self-righteous. Enough of the football players were brutish meatheads, looking to get drunk and kick some ass (a genuinely unfair proposition considering the physical stature of most Stanford students).
And to be honest, the article's author makes a fantastic observation about Willingham's paucity of African-American coordinators."
"to lob accusations of racism based on the lack of African-American head coaches while doing NOTHING at the most effective point to help solve the problem is both condescending and myopic (not to mention stupid and obviously hypocritical)."
"Obviously, there were many reasons for the disparate treatment of Willingham and Weis (NFL pedigree, Weis is an alumnus, recruiting, scoring-margin, etc.). Race may have been one factor, but clearly not the only one. Or even the most significant."
"I'm not saying the allegations [of racism] were true or even reasonable."
I understand you are safe under the blanket of anonymity, but maybe you should at least read the article rather than luanching an attack based on the title.
But thank you for further proving the article's argument.
Edit Comment Cancel
Jonathan Kitchens 9 months ago
Good objectivity and good points. I'm not really defending the article that you referred to, however I do see things a bit differently. I see it as a long-term concept. Willingham was loved by all the fans at first, believe me I was there and saw the Willingham-mania, where Bill Cosby was doing a show in South Bend and stopped everything when Willingham walked in. That said, you said yourself that Willingham was 21-15, the problem was his wins were front loaded and average. Meaning he won the most right from the chute and only put out average teams on the field every year. Meanwhile behind the scenes the recruiting was busting at the seams.
I think Notre Dame felt that Weis has the better long term upside. None of Ty's teams were ever even close to making SI's cover or worthy of a No.2 ranking. Last season Navy won their bowl game, this season they have beaten Wake Forest.
This year Notre Dame is 4-1 and with a win this weekend could possibly be in the Top 25. Weis also went to two consecutive BCS bowls in his first two years, the only Notre Dame coach to do so and the way he seems to be recruiting and coaching they could be again next year. Anyway, I don't think Ty is racist or anything else, I don't have a vendetta. When Notre Dame fired him, that was that for me and I moved on. I wish everyone else could, but unfortunately that's not the case. Good article, good luck.
Edit Comment Cancel
Andrew Nuschler 9 months ago
Hey man,
Appreciate the feedback. And I think you have valid points all around. I also love the fact that you're a die-hard ND fan who is honest about the situation. If more of your fellow fans were like that, there would be less hate for ND out there. At the very least, I'd have no beef.
Edit Comment Cancel
Lisa Horne 9 months ago
You make sound points. The fireabilty factor isn't something I thought of...it could be valid. But then again, refusing to hire a minority because of the factor is really not right either. If people were hired on merit alone, then the fireablity factor wouldn' come into play.
Really sound article, I don't agree with all of it, but you have a great grasp of the pen! Nicely done!
Edit Comment Cancel
Andrew Nuschler 9 months ago
Thanks very much for the feedback Lisa.
I especially appreciate that you disagree but didn't feel the need to go Steve on me.
Can't expect everyone to agree with me but I don't think it's too much to ask for a degree of decency, which you obviously exceeded by a wide margin.
And I think I'm actually more in your camp with re to fireability. I don't really think that it's a significant factor in college football nor any of the big sports. Firings are always second-guessed for a lot of ridiculous reasons - race is just one of many so executives don't need to worry about it as much.
I meant more in the real-world where firing an African-American, even for cause, can result in long and expensive lawsuits if the African-American is unethical (same chance as with any individual) and finds a sleazy lawyer (sadly not a difficult proposition). For a small business owner, even that slight possibility is too much of a threat b/c it could torpedo your business and livelihood.
I'm not saying I totally support this thinking - my dad and I have had many heated discussion about the very thing. I'm just saying that I'm sympathetic to the problem and the fact that my father complained of it proves (to me) that it is not just a convenient excuse for racists.
But I don't think it really applies to CFB. I should have made that clearer.
Edit Comment Cancel
James Williamson 9 months ago
Very nice. I couldn't grasp all of it b/c I do not know college that well. What I do know is that to say football is racist today is ridiculous.
Whether its at positions on the field or its positions on the staff, it is ridiculous to bring race into it.
If it was really racism and it could be proven then we'd see this in civil court and a lot of lawyers would be opening new bank accounts.
Maybe the guy was just that bad. Or maybe the organization is too impatient. A coach usually changes jobs more often than Kramer changes get-rich quick schemes on Seinfeld.
This guy could take his team to a bowl game every year and lose and people will still say he can't do the job right. The coach is always the scapegoat whether its his fault or not.
Edit Comment Cancel
Andrew Nuschler 9 months ago
Yeah man, I don't know CFB that well either, but I think I stayed safely within my comfort zone.
Thanks for the feedback.
Edit Comment Cancel
Chris S 8 months ago
Andrew, I would like to address the following line:
I understand that the African-American coordinators were hired after Willingham left. However, if Notre Dame gets credit for the hires after Ty left, don't they get blamed for the non-hires while he was there?
Not necessarily. Coaches are representatives of the institution, but they hire their staff’s individually. Ultimately any university approves/disapproves the perspective employee that the head coach proposes; however the coach has to propose African-American candidate. Notre Dame had approved African American assistants in other sports prior, during and since Coach Willingham’s tenure. Conversely Coach Willingham has been to three very different institutions and has not had a African American coordinator, which I believe was the point of the article.
Edit Comment Cancel
Andrew Nuschler 8 months ago
Chris,
Fair enough. Although I'm not sure finding, interviewing, and then selecting African-American coordinators is the same thing as approving them when they are suggested by others. So I think saying TW hasn't hired any AA coordinators while ND has still shows bias on the author's part since using the same word for both actions implies they are performing the same functions. But I understand what you are saying.
Thanks for the constructive feedback.
Andrew
Edit Comment Cancel
john pruessner 8 months ago
Andrew,
The title of the article was, "Is Ty Willingham Racist?" It was NOT "Ty Willingham Is Racist." . . . As you said to Steve above, "maybe you should at least read the article rather than luanching (sic) an attack based on the title . . ." (which YOU apparently did NOT read very carefully).
John
Edit Comment Cancel
Andrew Nuschler 8 months ago
John,
I think it's obvious I read the article carefully b/c I cite direct observations/arguments its author wrote. I believe I compliment a number of them.
I think it's equally obvious that, despite the article's headline, he was implying TW was racist. Not a crazy stretch considering a line like, "[s]o who's racist? The school that hires a minority, or the head coach [TW] who hasn't hired one in seven years?" Or considering that people who always blame race for failure typically are accused of being racist and the author says TW does just that.
But let's say I'm wrong. Fine, I got that single sentence wrong. I cite the TW article numerous times. See any other errors? No, b/c you would have already brought them up.
And anyway, that's not really the point of this article. At all. It's about fans who can't make an objective about their team and how irritating that is to real fans. So that sentence really is irrelevant.
But thanks for the feedback.
Edit Comment Cancel
john pruessner 8 months ago
You shouldn't flatter yourself that there were no "other errors" because my comment was brief and to the point. I didn't care to take the time to bring them up because it was 2AM and I had better things to do.
Edit Comment Cancel
Andrew Nuschler 8 months ago
Thanks for the feedback.
Edit Comment Cancel
Andrew Nuschler 8 months ago
"You had better things to do."
You mean like visit B/R, sign-up an account, and take pot shots at my article? At 2 AM?
So you were just reading cyberspace to kill a little time, stumbled across this article, took such great exception to the errors that you had to sign up an account just to comment, and then decided you had better things to do than point out more than the one "error?"
That you cared enough to sign up and post the comment, but not enough to point out all the other "errors" you noticed?
That's weird.
Again, thanks for the feedback.
Edit Comment Cancel
john pruessner 8 months ago
Like go to bed and get some sleep so that I could help an office full of chronic pain patients today . . . yeah, "that's weird."
Edit Comment Cancel
Andrew Nuschler 8 months ago
What is weird is that you took the time to sign up, criticize one tangential sentence, and then decide you had better things to do than to include the other errors; errors that would presumably weaken the premise of the article and, thus, would be far more problematic.
I respect that you're helping people with their pain and that's obviously more important than this.
Doesn't change the fact that you're wrong about the above i.e. it is very obvious the point of my article is not about TW being racist and I read the article to which you refer very carefully (as I said, I REPEATEDLY pulled items from it and complimented its main premise - that TW shouldn't be saying boo until he starts hiring African-American coordinators).
Edit Comment Cancel
Leave a Comment
You must register to post a comment.