It's America race is ALWAYS a factor. Either there's an intention to exclude by race, an intention to include by race, or implicit bias. And folks who claim stuff is not racial usually say so with a bunch of racialized tropes and giveaways.

I'm not sure I agree with East here, or even know exactly what he meant, but to suggest that race is irrelevant is naive. i.e. Joplin got the HC job because he was a UT alum and legend, a former UT asst and a guy long assumed to one day be a good candidate for the job. Race probably didn't play into his hire much. However, the constant lack of administrative and big money booster support, investment in facilities under his watch, series of year to year contracts, grumbling that he recruited "thugs" and didn't play "the right way", etc... may well have had some racial aspects. Meanwhile, Cross probably was helped in getting the job by the fact that he fit a hot young Black rising coach typecast. Certainly, the AD and search committee did a poor and rushed job of vetting his background which was full of red flags. I will agree with East in that college and pro sports, especially basketball and football, have instituted protocols or policies for broad and inclusive coaching searches specifically because they have a legacy of racial imbalance between the players and the coaches. Now, some schools and teams don't conduct fair searches and make quick internal or network hires, but I believe taking your time to interview a breadth of candidates is good policy. It's how we ended up with TK, who is a successful and ethically strong HC. I'd see that hiring process as the model. And it's probably not a coinsidence that TK, who happens to be White, has always had a staff that largely reflects the racial makeup of the student-athletes (still looking for that great Xs and Os Canadian Afro-Filipino assistant with the Icelandic wife).

(09-18-2021 04:58 AM)pono Wrote:  It's America race is ALWAYS a factor. Either there's an intention to exclude by race, an intention to include by race, or implicit bias. And folks who claim stuff is not racial usually say so with a bunch of racialized tropes and giveaways.

I'm not sure I agree with East here, or even know exactly what he meant,

What exactly I meant is exactly what I said.

You have a group here reflecting the thought of who on staff is to be the next head coach. No thought of an open search. Call it nepotism, call it successionism, it is the root.

The first discussion of replacing a leader of this pay grade should look at the process, not who is next in line.

From responses, I feel a few have their understandings of "racism" twisted with "racial bigotry." It takes no racial bigotry to create and perpetuate racism. It takes a bunch of people saying "we hired the best qualified" who made no attempt to open their minds to what that might be. They check the same boxes they did the hire before and the hire before. They take no risks, they give who they know from their narrow lives, what they want so life is smooth. They hire what they already had, sometimes hoping for status quo and sometimes hoping for something new.

That process excludes.

(09-18-2021 06:16 AM)eastisbest Wrote:  

(09-18-2021 04:58 AM)pono Wrote:  It's America race is ALWAYS a factor. Either there's an intention to exclude by race, an intention to include by race, or implicit bias. And folks who claim stuff is not racial usually say so with a bunch of racialized tropes and giveaways.

I'm not sure I agree with East here, or even know exactly what he meant,

What exactly I meant is exactly what I said.

You have a group here reflecting the thought of who on staff is to be the next head coach. No thought of an open search. Call it nepotism, call it successionism, it is the root.

The first discussion of replacing a leader of this pay grade should look at the process, not who is next in line.

From responses, I feel a few have their understandings of "racism" twisted with "racial bigotry." It takes no racial bigotry to create and perpetuate racism. It takes a bunch of people saying "we hired the best qualified" who made no attempt to open their minds to what that might be. They check the same boxes they did the hire before and the hire before. They take no risks, they give who they know from their narrow lives, what they want so life is smooth. They hire what they already had, sometimes hoping for status quo and sometimes hoping for something new.

That process excludes.

This is where you are wrong. If it was
nepotism, the coaches that were
replaced would have been next inline for the HC
position had they remained.That clearly was not the case. They were not successful nor had the background that would have them considered. Coaches Kool and Kehres have brought significant changes to the program and unique backgrounds that would highly qualify them as outstanding candidates for HC positions in the Mid American Conference. The inside track is knowledge of the program, University, and their relationship with the players.

(09-18-2021 07:27 AM)Boca Rocket Wrote:  

(09-18-2021 06:16 AM)eastisbest Wrote:  

(09-18-2021 04:58 AM)pono Wrote:  It's America race is ALWAYS a factor. Either there's an intention to exclude by race, an intention to include by race, or implicit bias. And folks who claim stuff is not racial usually say so with a bunch of racialized tropes and giveaways.

I'm not sure I agree with East here, or even know exactly what he meant,

What exactly I meant is exactly what I said.

You have a group here reflecting the thought of who on staff is to be the next head coach. No thought of an open search. Call it nepotism, call it successionism, it is the root.

The first discussion of replacing a leader of this pay grade should look at the process, not who is next in line.

From responses, I feel a few have their understandings of "racism" twisted with "racial bigotry." It takes no racial bigotry to create and perpetuate racism. It takes a bunch of people saying "we hired the best qualified" who made no attempt to open their minds to what that might be. They check the same boxes they did the hire before and the hire before. They take no risks, they give who they know from their narrow lives, what they want so life is smooth. They hire what they already had, sometimes hoping for status quo and sometimes hoping for something new.

That process excludes.

This is where you are wrong. If it was
nepotism, the coaches that were
replaced would have been next inline for the HC
position had they remained.That clearly was not the case. They were not successful nor had the background that would have them considered. Coaches Kool and Kehres have brought significant changes to the program and unique backgrounds that would highly qualify them as outstanding candidates for HC positions in the Mid American Conference. The inside track is knowledge of the program, University, and their relationship with the players.

No. There is no "inside track in a legal public hire." Scary that you don't get that. There should be NO presumption that someone on staff is heir apparent. That IS the basis of racism, sexism, you name it ism. MOB would tell you that, I'd bet on it.

I basically agree with everyone’s points. That’s the strange and difficult dichotomy of race. Certainly no search can really be complete due to time and money. That’s the bottom line. Will the next head football coach at UT be black or something other than white, whatever that means, possibly- but I want the best available in a reasonable search. I’d love to see Kulagowski get the job due to his love for UT and experience. Does that make me racist and exclusionary. Unconscious/ implicit bias????? I don’t think so but someone else would likely think otherwise.

Does the above make sense? Such a difficult subject. I don’t want to have every hire analyzed for race. Hire a white guy and it’s biased.. hire a black guy because a box must be checked. I loved Joplin. I was hurt and he was DEEPLY hurt when he was let go. Virtually all my sports hero’s were black when I was a kid. Sports competition and viewership helped break down barriers for me.

I think UT has always been ahead of the curve in race related issues. I want all people to look at our flag and love our country. That comes from fair opportunity. I always felt diminished when I was excluded from simple social cliques. Imagine a life of societal clique exclusion. We can do better but we are also fundamentally good at same time. Not we’ll expressed but I hope you readers get it. Troubling dual vision and view.

On another subject……. Let’s go Rockets!!!!!

(09-18-2021 01:03 PM)eastisbest Wrote:  

(09-18-2021 07:27 AM)Boca Rocket Wrote:  

(09-18-2021 06:16 AM)eastisbest Wrote:  

(09-18-2021 04:58 AM)pono Wrote:  It's America race is ALWAYS a factor. Either there's an intention to exclude by race, an intention to include by race, or implicit bias. And folks who claim stuff is not racial usually say so with a bunch of racialized tropes and giveaways.

I'm not sure I agree with East here, or even know exactly what he meant,

What exactly I meant is exactly what I said.

You have a group here reflecting the thought of who on staff is to be the next head coach. No thought of an open search. Call it nepotism, call it successionism, it is the root.

The first discussion of replacing a leader of this pay grade should look at the process, not who is next in line.

From responses, I feel a few have their understandings of "racism" twisted with "racial bigotry." It takes no racial bigotry to create and perpetuate racism. It takes a bunch of people saying "we hired the best qualified" who made no attempt to open their minds to what that might be. They check the same boxes they did the hire before and the hire before. They take no risks, they give who they know from their narrow lives, what they want so life is smooth. They hire what they already had, sometimes hoping for status quo and sometimes hoping for something new.

That process excludes.

This is where you are wrong. If it was
nepotism, the coaches that were
replaced would have been next inline for the HC
position had they remained.That clearly was not the case. They were not successful nor had the background that would have them considered. Coaches Kool and Kehres have brought significant changes to the program and unique backgrounds that would highly qualify them as outstanding candidates for HC positions in the Mid American Conference. The inside track is knowledge of the program, University, and their relationship with the players.

No. There is no "inside track in a legal public hire." Scary that you don't get that. There should be NO presumption that someone on staff is heir apparent. That IS the basis of racism, sexism, you name it ism. MOB would tell you that, I'd bet on it.

Why not? I'm free to conjecture who might get hired. My guess has no bearing on the actual process. That's where you're confused- the actual process vs what I think. I don't even know if Kool or Kehres are even interested. Personally I haven't talked to MOB since 2009.

(09-18-2021 02:56 PM)Boca Rocket Wrote:  

(09-18-2021 01:03 PM)eastisbest Wrote:  

(09-18-2021 07:27 AM)Boca Rocket Wrote:  

(09-18-2021 06:16 AM)eastisbest Wrote:  

(09-18-2021 04:58 AM)pono Wrote:  It's America race is ALWAYS a factor. Either there's an intention to exclude by race, an intention to include by race, or implicit bias. And folks who claim stuff is not racial usually say so with a bunch of racialized tropes and giveaways.

I'm not sure I agree with East here, or even know exactly what he meant,

What exactly I meant is exactly what I said.

You have a group here reflecting the thought of who on staff is to be the next head coach. No thought of an open search. Call it nepotism, call it successionism, it is the root.

The first discussion of replacing a leader of this pay grade should look at the process, not who is next in line.

From responses, I feel a few have their understandings of "racism" twisted with "racial bigotry." It takes no racial bigotry to create and perpetuate racism. It takes a bunch of people saying "we hired the best qualified" who made no attempt to open their minds to what that might be. They check the same boxes they did the hire before and the hire before. They take no risks, they give who they know from their narrow lives, what they want so life is smooth. They hire what they already had, sometimes hoping for status quo and sometimes hoping for something new.

That process excludes.

This is where you are wrong. If it was
nepotism, the coaches that were
replaced would have been next inline for the HC
position had they remained.That clearly was not the case. They were not successful nor had the background that would have them considered. Coaches Kool and Kehres have brought significant changes to the program and unique backgrounds that would highly qualify them as outstanding candidates for HC positions in the Mid American Conference. The inside track is knowledge of the program, University, and their relationship with the players.

No. There is no "inside track in a legal public hire." Scary that you don't get that. There should be NO presumption that someone on staff is heir apparent. That IS the basis of racism, sexism, you name it ism. MOB would tell you that, I'd bet on it.

Why not? I'm free to conjecture who might get hired.

I didn't realize we were talking about your process. I thought the conversation was about UT's.

(09-18-2021 06:06 PM)eastisbest Wrote:  

(09-18-2021 02:56 PM)Boca Rocket Wrote:  

(09-18-2021 01:03 PM)eastisbest Wrote:  

(09-18-2021 07:27 AM)Boca Rocket Wrote:  

(09-18-2021 06:16 AM)eastisbest Wrote:  What exactly I meant is exactly what I said.

You have a group here reflecting the thought of who on staff is to be the next head coach. No thought of an open search. Call it nepotism, call it successionism, it is the root.

The first discussion of replacing a leader of this pay grade should look at the process, not who is next in line.

From responses, I feel a few have their understandings of "racism" twisted with "racial bigotry." It takes no racial bigotry to create and perpetuate racism. It takes a bunch of people saying "we hired the best qualified" who made no attempt to open their minds to what that might be. They check the same boxes they did the hire before and the hire before. They take no risks, they give who they know from their narrow lives, what they want so life is smooth. They hire what they already had, sometimes hoping for status quo and sometimes hoping for something new.

That process excludes.

This is where you are wrong. If it was
nepotism, the coaches that were
replaced would have been next inline for the HC
position had they remained.That clearly was not the case. They were not successful nor had the background that would have them considered. Coaches Kool and Kehres have brought significant changes to the program and unique backgrounds that would highly qualify them as outstanding candidates for HC positions in the Mid American Conference. The inside track is knowledge of the program, University, and their relationship with the players.

No. There is no "inside track in a legal public hire." Scary that you don't get that. There should be NO presumption that someone on staff is heir apparent. That IS the basis of racism, sexism, you name it ism. MOB would tell you that, I'd bet on it.

Why not? I'm free to conjecture who might get hired.

I didn't realize we were talking about your process. I thought the conversation was about UT's.

I wasn't.

I do see your point. There was a time when the NCAA mandated an interview process. That seems to have faded away to program who already have their inside guys.