Well done. Maybe I won't feel quite as dirty driving through Ann Arbor now. I've met my first decent and rational Michigan fan.
Well said, Brian.
You know that Drew Sharp and Rob Parker have shared some of Whitlock's characteristics over the years as well.
Racist. Why do you hate America?
Do you think Jason White deserved the Heisman? Do you know much about the negative media coverage of MLK before he was assasinated? Or Muhammed Ali? Why was it again that the Ryder Dup team didn't receive the hatred that the USA team received last year? When you are black and perceptive, you tend to notice these things. Your casual dismissal of everything Whitlock wrote kind of indicates that you don't have the sensativity to these things that you would have in Whitlock's position.
I don't think you are overtly racist, Brian, but I do find your anger about Whitlock odd. Do you disagree that there is a level of racism present in "football men" that isn't present in basketball, evident in the willingness of people in football to hide behind "fear of backlash?" I'm sure that Jason Whitlock would appreciate not being called greedy, an "idiot," an a--hole, etc., too.
Bravo...I'm an ND fan and can't believe I'm complimenting a Wolverine, but that was outstanding.
Father Figure,
this has nothing to do with being black. Jason Whitlock has been offensively idiotic on every topic he's ever written about, and race just comes up because he keeps bringing it up. He has viciously attacked local sports figures everywhere he's gone, white sports figures and black. His attacks are personal and rarely supported by facts.
Whitlock is a horrible writer and a blight on every organization he has ever worked for, and I'd say the same thing if he were white, yellow or brown.
He's an idiot, and Brian (and I and everyone else) absolutely has the right to call him an idiot even when he's talking about race.
If somehow, Weis gets fired down the road, I bet it'll be because he's fat.
Notre Dame has a history of not treating fat coaches fairly.
ny1995, from your lips (or, um, keyboard) to god's ears. i couldn't agree more.
So when Woodson won the Heisman trophy over Peyton manning, did racism stop that year, and then pick up again? Only one player has ever won back to back Heismans, and he was an African American (Archie Griffin). Again, there is ample evidence that leads a rational person to see other factors, besides race, at work (like QB's tend to get the most hype, hence the most heisman votes). Yet it is brought up, out of ocntext, and implied.
Why is Tiger Woods the most compensated sports figure in America? Why did he pick that title up after Michael Jordan? How do oyu explain these things, given your statement about subconscious racism?
There is no doubt that racism still exists. And in college football, there should be a discussion about race and coaching. Too many assistant coaches who are black do not get shots at HC positions. But throwing the charge of racism around in places it does not belong exacerbates the situation
Once again, kudos Brian.
Excellent work, Brian. I took a run at Whitlock myself this morning on my blog.
Father Figure, to answer your Ryder Cup issue, Americans have an expectation of winning the gold medal in a sport that we invented. When NBA players were brought in, the expectation was that the US would win the gold easily for the foreseeable future. The '04 Olympic Team failed to meet that goal, losing to less talented teams that played better together. That team was bound to get ripped, including their white coach.
The Ryder Cup team competes in a sport that was not invented in American and about which Americans don't have an expectation of winning. Plus, golf doesn't involve booing, in my experience, and the fans don't tend to be as emotional.
As to Brian's anger level, I don't want to speak for him...but I will anyway. Charges of racism are taken seriously in public discourse and for Whitlock to throw it around with such limited basis warrants a powerful response. It isn't as if he's criticizing third down playcalling; he's saying that Notre Dame's athletic department is full of racists.
Brian,
First off, I completely disagree with your sentiment on Whitlock, but it's your blog, so go nuts. As for the issue Whitlock had with the Pistons, from the quote, I saw no racism. Just because he's criticizing two white men doesn't mean he's doing so because they're white. As for the MLK/Ali/Cochran quote, you have to admit that's pretty well written (despite how off base it is). Regardless, I don't think anyone writing a blog should be criticizing a professional journalist on their credits when he ends his post as,
"I find him reprehensible. The world would be better off without his column. That's why the anger. Not because I hate black people."
Read that again and try to figure out the two meanings in the last sentence. Maybe Whitlock has some deficiencies in his journalistic skills, but he doesn't drop double entendres like that. Good to know you hate black people.
Oh, and I specifically wrote about your last post in my blog. Why? Because I think you're an idiot.
It's too bad this subject was raised by Whitlock. I actually think it has merit, but I agree that Whitlock's credibility is jeopardized by being an intentional pot-stirrer. He's like Jay Mariotti in that regard.
That said, a caller to ESPN's Dan Patrick show made a great point when the Weis/Willingham topic was discussed.
Patrick was spouting on about how this was not racism, and putting forth many of the same arguments I've read here.
The caller said, 'Okay, I agree with you that this is not racism. Just tell me: When is it racism?'
The caller said that in repeated instances where racism appears to be a factor, Patrick and others beat the drum that it's not racism.
So when is it racism?
Given how Dan Patrick never seems to shut up on any topic, this was the first time I heard him speechless for a few seconds. After a few moments he tried to stammer his way forward but he did so ineffectively.
Whether one agrees with Whitlock or not (and I don't think I do), I think it likely many minorities are tired of the excuses and far willing to believe that perception is reality.
Whitlock aside, I think ND, while not guilty of racism, is completely guilty of fueling racist perceptions.
Weis has done little in 7 games to justify a 10-year contract extension; Willingham, who did more than Weis in 7 games, wasn't offered such an extension. Willingham got canned after 3 years of his 5-year deal, his white predecessor got to coach a full five years with an equal coaching performance.
Again, you can argue well enough that it was not racism, but ND, through its actions, has certainly helped give that charge credibility.
Damn you, Brian. How can I rant "All Wolverine fans are assclown morans" now? Yes, I'm wolverine-ist. And I'm quite conscious of it.
Excellent writing. Good job.
As for the issue Whitlock had with the Pistons, from the quote, I saw no racism. Just because he's criticizing two white men doesn't mean he's doing so because they're white.
The point of that was that Whitlock just says inflammatory stuff for attention. Whitlock's cynical attention grabbing is not exclusively restricted to the purview of race, as anyone who read his work for the AA News could tell you. Read the AJC article.
Oh, and I specifically wrote about your last post in my blog. Why? Because I think you're an idiot.
Congratulations. Want a cookie?
I think ND, while not guilty of racism, is completely guilty of fueling racist perceptions.
jwgonzo--
While I don't completely disagree, I would ask you this:
At what point would it have been okay to give Weis a contract extension?
Would he have to do something that Willingham never did (i.e. win a bowl game)?
And I would argue that a comment like the one in bold is part of why it's so hard to convince execs to hire black football coaches. EVERYTHING that they do that involves the coach is going to be scrutinized, whether they give him a raise, try to drop his pay, fire him, praise him, build him a new office and weight room for the players, or whatever. That's not fair...it's not fair to the school/organization, and it's not fair to the coach.
Brian,
I understand your frustration with Jason Whitlock, but do not understand the intensity of your anger. He, like most of today's media pundits, is being paid to incite the masses. That you would spend such an exceptional amount of time and energy to vilify him seems at best, a waste of time, and at worst, something more sinister. I enjoy your blog immensely and hope in the future that you stay on the topic at hand, i.e. Michigan athletics.
The caller said, 'Okay, I agree with you that this is not racism. Just tell me: When is it racism?'
That certainly is an interesting question worthy of discussion. I don't know the answer to that.
Again, you can argue well enough that it was not racism, but ND, through its actions, has certainly helped give that charge credibility.
I don't buy this, though. If there seem to be clear, nonracial reasons why Willingham was treated differently than Weis and Davie--and I think we've established that there are--than any cry of racism that defies Occam's Razor has to be backed up with evidence. Otherwise it's just grandstanding.
I understand your frustration with Jason Whitlock, but do not understand the intensity of your anger. He, like most of today's media pundits, is being paid to incite the masses.
I think I tried and failed to explain this at the end of the post. Whereas most mouthy, useless pundits are essentially harmless, Whitlock's part of the poisonous state of race relations in America, and he's doing it for money. I don't see how you can read anything but tremendous cyncism, showboating, and ego in his work.
The difference between Whitlock and someone like Paige or Bayless is that some people, for whatever reason, take Whitlock seriously.
it's not racism, it's just stupendously stupid timing. i'm not white. as if that should matter.
I can't speak for Brian, but my hatred of Whitlock is abetted by the fact that he stained the pages of my home town paper (the Ann Arbor News) for too long. I was elated when he left, and to see him now with a national gig is irksome in that it is a confirmation of the fear that the cream doesn't rise to the top, the curdled, sour and unpalatable filth does.
And for the record, I am irrelevantly not white.
"The point of that was that Whitlock just says inflammatory stuff for attention."
And you blasting Whitlock is different... how?
trot,
How long have you been reading Whitlock's stuff? If you don't see a difference between Whitlock's baseless, personal attacks on local sports figures and Brian's pointed attack on the actual words Whitlock has written then you aren't looking for a difference.
As for Davie, Brian, he was "encouraged" to find another offensive coordinator and he did, by firing Jim Colleto and hiring Kevin Rogers. Ty was similarly "encouraged" to replace Bill Diedrick and refused. Credit Ty for his loyalty, but it cost him and Diedrick (who is now volunteering as a QB coach in the CFL) their jobs. If Ty had replaced Diedrick after either 2003 or 2004, there is no doubt in my mind he'd still be our coach.
As for Weis being the highest paid coach in college already, that is certainly debatable among reasonable people. But they should also keep in mind that when Ty signed his initial 6-year contract with ND, it made him the 3rd highest coach behind Spurrier and Stoops. Staring in 2002, for better or worse, ND decided to jump into the college arms race with both feet.
trot,
If you can't see the nonsense of your question it's worthless for anyone to explain it any further to you.
Couldn't agree more with you Brian. This guy is just screaming for attention.
You've done a great job of showing his "track record" on numerous sports topics. What a novel idea, proof, examples, quotes! Not just endless accusations and off-base comments.
You're dead on right.....
Thanks again, Brian.
You're understanding of the mental state of diehard ND fans and alumni is spot on. We are desparate for a winner, and we think we finally have that in Weis and his staff.
That, and an administration that wants him to succeed.
Media trolls like Whitlock, Alan Grant, John Saunders, etc. are just pulling our collective hair, all the while standing by and refusing to look at the actual problems with minority hiring in college football, and why those problems are there.
Notre Dame shouldn't be the focus of that particular discussion.
phil taylor of cnnsi thinks it's just notre dame making foolish decisions, not racism. he is (ir)relevantly black.
http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com...1102/
index.html
Bruce:
At what point would it have been okay to give Weis a contract extension?
Probably at the point where there is actually another team bartering for his services, and not just rumors of such. Why is this even a question? It happens all the time in sports. A team comes along and asks permission to talk to a coach, and his employers gives him a bigger contract. But rarely do you ever see somebody given a fat extension when one uncredited rumor appears in midseason.
If you want a more tangible answer: at the end of the season, then. At least you can properly defend the action at that point because more will be known about how the team finishes out, how strong the competition was. One of the arguments for downgrading Willingham was that his teams finished lousy. If Weis' do the same, ND's actions are going to look that much more foolish.
EVERYTHING that they do that involves the coach is going to be scrutinized, whether they give him a raise, try to drop his pay, fire him, praise him, build him a new office and weight room for the players, or whatever. That's not fair...it's not fair to the school/organization, and it's not fair to the coach.
And the counter to that is what? Keep on not hiring black coaches because their skin color means they're under a microscope?
Sure they'll be scrutinized, but schools and organizations that treat miniority coaches fairly and consistently won't have the problems you describe.
I don't see ANYONE howling about Michigan dismissing Brian Ellerbe because Michigan gave him a fair shake and he proved to be a lousy head coach.
I don't think you intended it that way, but you're suggesting that black coaches should not be hired because they invite more scrutiny. How do we ever move past that if that's always going to be the case? Or do we just accept the status quo -- which would translate into defacto racism?
Brian:
don't buy this, though. If there seem to be clear, nonracial reasons why Willingham was treated differently than Weis and Davie--and I think we've established that there are--than any cry of racism that defies Occam's Razor has to be backed up with evidence. Otherwise it's just grandstanding.
It may be grandstanding to you, but my point is it is that this is not grandstanding to minorities. For African-Americans, perception is too often reality.
You can offer X number of reasons why it's not racism and all might be perfectly valid, but it cannot be refuted that Willingham was shown less deference than his white counterparts with respect to his job. That is why I say ND fueled racist perceptions.
My personal belief is they treated Willingham like yesterday's garbage not because he is black, but because they thought they could get Urban Meyer and were willing to do whatever it took to grab him. It wouldn't have mattered if Willingham was chartreuse, they thought they could trade up and so they acted like a cold calulating
Whoops. That last sequel to War and Peace was by me.
"My personal belief is they treated Willingham like yesterday's garbage not because he is black, but because they thought they could get Urban Meyer and were willing to do whatever it took to grab him."
The man went 5-7 and 6-5 and they fired him. Is there a glorious way to fire someone? Should there have been a 'firing ceremony' full of pomp? Yeah, there was a lunging attempt at Urban Meyer. Willingham was not fired because Urban Meyer was available. He was fired because he went 5-7 and 6-5, because he had just lost to SC by 31 points for the third year in a row, because the recruiting class was looking to be very thin for the second year in a row and because he refused for the second year in a row to replace his offensive coordinator. All of this together with the previous five years under Davie threatened to leave the program in a downward spiral where systemic losing leads to poor recruiting which leads to even worse losing. If ND had performed an official 'Firing Ceremony' in Sacred Heart Basilica' would that have made everything OK?
trot & FF -
I think more people would be willing to listen to the argument that Willingham was fired in part because he was black. Whitlock does his own argument a disservice by conceding that Ty's firing wasn't due to his race.
Instead he is lefgt to argue that it's racist to not make a stupid decision with Ty when ND did with Charlie. Do you understand that argument? Neither Ty nor Charlie deserved a new contract, but the only reason Ty didn't get it was because he's black. No the reason Ty didn't get a 10 year extension is because he didn't deserve it. The reason Charlie did is because he and his agent scared a very desperate and irrational fanbase flush with the excitement of restored relevance.
Please don't drop the "you wouldn't understand racism because you're white" line on me. Yes, I'm white, but I am also intelligent. I am a medical student in the city of Detroit and I see real racism and its effects every day. I understand racism and it sickens me when I see it. I am also disgusted when others cry racism when it doesn't exist in order to draw attention to themselves and be edgy. That's only distracting from the real issues of race in this country.
Scott, being the sensative Detroiter that you claim to be, I'm sure that you realize that using the phrase "cry racism" bristles the hair on the neck of intelligent African Americans the same way the phrase "cry rape" bristles the hair on the back of intelligent women. Thus, I'm sure that was a misprint on your behalf. Look; the glass ceiling and employment discrimination are two of the major "issues of race in this country."
Dam dude!!!! Did jason say something to piss you off. I see your actually using his tactics of doing some research of past articles and making a educated decision, unlike Notre Dame. The fact of the matter is that Jason exposed America's ugly truth. That this is a country that cannot practice equality for all.
The statistics bear the truth of Whitlock stance and that is Ty record was supremely better at this point in his first year compared to Weis against far superior competition. Why are you trying to refute it??
Jason Whitlock article was intelligent and well thought and proved the point that Notre Dame made in regards to the handling of Tyrone Willingham and race in America:
"That certain groups of people in this country always have and always will get the benefit of doubt that other groups simply won't".
I agree and find fault with many of the points elucidated on these posts, which to me is refreshing. I find the evolution of this thread from discussing Whitlock specifically to a discussion of racism at large to be generally fascinating. As a society, we dont' talk enough about the various permutations and expressions of racism in society, espeically in an explicit fashion. It's too bad that, "we the people" don't engage in these dialogues more often without the facilitation of the media to skew our perspectives. At least cyberspace offers somewhat of a repreive, I guess.
I can't believe nobody has brought up the most important question in all of this:
Was Jeff George the pitcher or the catcher?
Hey FF, Kevin White, ND AD, said the reason why he made the extension was recruiting. If you remember, that was my argument yesterday. Just thought you'd like to know and might want to readjust your comments from yesterday
"That has been dictated in part by recruiting, which has a longer cycle than it used to. Though NCAA regulations forbid formal recruiting contacts before the spring of a recruit's junior year in high school, White said the players Notre Dame recruits already have their list of schools in place by then.
"If it's rumored likely that somebody is not going to be here, that puts you in a negative position," he said."
Look; the glass ceiling and employment discrimination are two of the major "issues of race in this country."
With all due respect, FF, I think they are also (if not more so) issues of GENDER. Women get paid 85 cents to the dollar when compared to men for doing the same work. The term "glass ceiling" is also used more in reference to women than it is to a particular racial group.
Just an objection to your terms is all; the problem you described is all too real. :-(
I honestly don't care much for what Jason Whitlock writes. I definitely don't think Ty's firing was because some old white guys were saying, "get him out of here, he's black; he can't coach". But you know what... Notre Dame left themselves open to that angle the moment they decided to treat a black coach differently from his predecessors. So people will assume that.
As for racism itself. Going to school in a diverse environment such as the University of Michigan... I can tell you, I heard enough white guys use "N****s" when talking about a black person in derogatory manner numerous times (when the black people weren't around). I heard "black people can't play QB, they aren't smart enough" numerous times. I heard plenty of racist remarks. And no this wasn't UofM 1970, this is UofM 2004. And this isn't some redneck who grew up on some farm... these are guys from Grosse Pointe, Chicago, New York, whose parents are doctors and lawyers etc. So believe it or not racism exists, and its alot more prevalent than people would like to believe. And this is not to say there aren't racist people in other races, because it does very much so.
FF -
My point is that to claim racism exists when a university fails to behave stupidly (sign a coach to a 10 year contract 7 games into his HC career) waters down the very real claims of racism that do exist in this society (equal access to education, health care, and employment). This was not an issue of a black man being deprived equal access. This was an issue of a white man and his agent bilking a university and its fans.
It isn't racism because Ty acted with dignity and class when Charlie and his agent were looking to get while the getting was good. As I've said in the past, I am sure that Ty's race was an issue with some of the ND backers, but to claim it was racist that Ty didn't get the same idiotic deal that Charlie got is offensive to the real racial inequalities that exist.
ND panicked and over reacted, maybe it'll work out for them. From a college football standpoint, I think it was a bad move - regardless of the race of the coach that benefits. Coming from that mindset, you won't be able to convince me that ANYONE should have gotten that deal. It's a bad deal.
Additionally, as a white man the terms "racist" and "sexist" are particularly offensive to me. I know that my appearance carries with it some baggage when I talk to people of differing backgrounds based on their dealings with racist and sexist individuals. I know what's in my heart. I know the attitude with which I approach people. For someone to assume I am racist based solely on my skin color is incredibly hurtful to me and quite frankly a little racist.
Whitlock is what he is. When I lived near KC, I listened to him on the radio a lot, and he's a professional Grinch. He happens to be very good at it, too.
The real question I have is this: Is what Charlie Weis has done any more impressive than what Karl Dorrell has done, even though Dorrell has had a couple more years? I say no. But nobody's calling Dorrell a genius.
Dr. Scott, where were you called racist? I explicitly mentioned that you were a sensative Detroit Doctor, and I pointed out an obvious misprint on your behalf. It seems like the Whitlock bashers are obscuring the fact that the primary claim that Whitlock inderectly touches on is that differing perceptions of Weis' and Willingham's ability are not the products of pure objective minds. Those perceptions are often clouded by subtle, subconscious prejudices, stereotypes, and conjectures. We view the world through a prism. Whitlock acknolweged that in his ESPN chat. When you accept that, you can attempt to combat those perceptions through intentional thought. Hence, it's extremely important to combat and correct people like Fisher DeBerry; he wasn't being racist, but what he said exacerbates racist perceptions. Thinking that Weis is the second coming of Fritz Chrysler isn't racist; but it is the product of racism.
FF 4 logik prez!
FF -
I think it's much simpler than that. Weis has given ND some success which had become all too foreign to them. They were starting to like it. Then they got scared into thinking that the guy that brought that success was leaving. They panicked and made a bad decision.
As a Cincinnati Bengals fan, I get that. I don't want Marvin Lewis going anywhere anytime soon. The man has done the seemingly impossible and made my Bengals relevant again. Give him whatever it takes to keep him happy. Unfortunately, the words "long term contract" and "NFL" don't really go together.
ND fans were in love with Ty that first year. He was able to get the same players Davie had to play with effort. That's something Davie had been unable to do. Willingham never pressed the issue of his employment, however, so we will never know if he would have received the same kind of ridiculous renegotiation that Charlie did. I do feel pretty good in saying that if you had told an ND fan Ty was going to the NFL 8 games into his coaching career, that fan would have said something along the lines of, "Dear God No - We need him here!"
I used the "cry racism" phrase in the manner of "cry wolf" - shouting out false fear inducing claims in order to get attention.
I've heard Whitlock comment on DeBerry, and I don't think he's totally wrong in what he says.
But why hasn't anyone asked white people if THEY'RE offended by DeBerry basically saying that white people can't play football and aren't athletic?
Maisel commented on the article today in a logical manner. Basically the whole thing was not about losing Weis to the NFL. There never was that worry with Willingham and hence no motive to sign him to an extension. Everyone is missing that difference between the two coaches. Those who say that is racist probably don't know college football and the impact that a rumor of a coach going to the NFL has on recruiting. Whitlock basically does not know that much about major college recruiting. He played at a small college, Ball St, a while ago and recruiting has changed and is escpecially different at big football schools. As to what would be racist, racist would be if Weis sucked, i.e. had a similar record against similar quality opponents and recruited the same quality of players as Willingham and ND stuck with him through the remainder of his contract.
Hey, hey. We all know... White Men Can't Jump.
Bob, you could say Notre Dame opened themselves to that possiblity, of being perceived as racist, the moment they HIRED Willingham... I mean, gee, if he wasn't doing as well as they would've liked, they must have known they'd fire him if they felt they had to, or if the alumni were screaming about losing enough. So it was pretty brave of them to hire him in the first place, in a way.
And people were saying that black men couldn't play quarterback? At U of M? In 2004? Seriously? That's not even racist anymore... that's gone beyond racist and into the realm of sheer idiocy when it comes to football. That's a Michigan fan who didn't watch the Rose Bowl and what Vince Young did to us, or who has never seen the Eagles play... or the Vikings (when they had Moss, anyhow). That's someone who has never seen the heart of Byron Leftwich or the smarts of Donovan McNabb. I mean... wow. The simple lack of football understanding inherent there almost shocks me as much as the racism.
(PS: Theo Epstein was driven out of Boston because he's Jewish. I'm Jewish, man, I'm sensitive to these things. I should know. :P You want 'racism', have a look at the percentage of Jewish kids in colleges. Then have a look at how many are on the football teams.)
Boston Fan...
I simply am saying this: Firing Willingham in a different manner than what they had done with their predesessors would leave themselves open to it.
I honestly don't think the administration themselves were thinking in a racist manner... some of the Alumni boosters might have... but the administration did what they had to to improve their team.
Was it fair? I can't say... as a Michigan fan, we call for Lloyd's head over 3 losses, and look at Solich and Zook... so I'd say it is about as fair a deal as you get in college football in a big program. The thing that opened them up to racism criticisms is treating him differently than his predesessors.
I think people writing articles about Notre Dame being racist is stupid and short sighted... and in the end... as some people have said: bad for hiring black coaches. But the media loves the "now" hype... hence they jumped all over this.
Frankly... the issue of racism isn't in Willingham getting fired, but the fact that there are 3 total Black head coaches in college football. Are black coachs not competent enough to coach a football team? Why are there 3 out of 119? All I can say is in the NFL... you have 32 teams... with 5 minority head coachs... Denny Green, Lovie Smith, Tony Dungy, Herm Edwards, and Marvin Lewis.
So tomorrow if say, Denny Green got fired for underperforming, their wouldn't be such a big race issue. Why? Because their are more minority head coachs. Thats why this Willingham issue is a race issue. Thats why Sylvestor Croom was such a big race issue. Maybe if college football have that diversity, people wouldn't care as much. You are honestly telling me that Norm Chow would be a worse head coach than Bill Callahan? Give me a break.
Commenting by HaloScan
