National Collegiate Athletic Association
NCAA News Archive - 2007
« back to 2007 | Back to NCAA News Archive Index
Presidents' Forum - Hiring in athletics - Expect more scrutiny if diversity data don't improve
|
By Myles Brand
NCAA President
NCAA President
Presidents’ Forum
The Presidents’ Forum is a periodic feature in The NCAA News that provides presidents and chancellors the opportunity to present their views on important intercollegiate athletics issues. Previous topics have included the relationship between college presidents and boards of trustees, the division affiliation aspects of NCAA membership, the NCAA’s involvement in social issues and the commercial aspects of college sports. Our topic this time is the hiring process in college sports and the need for patient searches to identify a diverse candidate pool for high-profile positions.
I have been on the record about our record.
I have said on many occasions since my tenure as NCAA president began in January 2003 that intercollegiate athletics has an unflattering record of hiring women and people of color for leadership positions — particularly athletics directors and head coaches of high-profile sports.
I have said it in my State of the Association speeches at NCAA Conventions, I have said it to NCAA committees and I have said it to the press.
Most recently I said it to Congress.
At a February 28 hearing before the House Subcommittee on Commerce, Trade and Consumer Protection, I not only told subcommittee members that the NCAA needed to do better in increasing the number of minorities in leadership positions within college athletics, but I also thanked them for calling attention to the matter.
The bright light appears necessary, since no matter how much or how loudly I or anyone else talks about hiring, the Association’s national office cannot make the hires at member institutions and it cannot mandate who is interviewed. Just as no central authority dictates to American higher education who among all faculty and administrators should be interviewed or hired, colleges and universites will not — and should not — cede to the NCAA the authority to dictate who to interview or hire in athletics.
Most of the attention lately has been on college football, and rightly so. There are but 14 minority head coaches among all football-playing member institutions (excluding historically black colleges and universities). That represents 2.4 percent in a sport in which 55 percent of the student-athletes are African-American. And in the last four years, we have increased the number in the Football Bowl Subdivision (formerly Division I-A) by only two. At that rate, it will take more than 80 years before we reach a percentage that even approximates the number of African-Americans in the general population. Not only is the status quo unacceptable, it is unconscionably wrong.
Some people advocate a “Rooney Rule” for college football, but I am not among them. The Rooney Rule in place in the NFL requires teams filling head coaching vacancies to include a person of color among their interviewed candidates. Teams that do not abide by that rule face a significant fine.
Such a rule will not work for higher education, nor can a specific sport be singled out to operate apart from the institution. More importantly, such a rule is not necessary. With the help of the Black Coaches Association hiring report card, about 30 percent of all final candidates interviewed over the past three years for Division I head coaching positions have been African-American. And 76 percent of all the openings have had at least one minority candidate interviewed. In effect, the report card and the resulting publicity attendant to it has been functionally equivalent to the Rooney Rule.
Despite that progress, however, minorities still aren’t being hired as head coaches in football.
NCAA institutions have made significant progress in basketball. Today, there are more than 80 minority head coaches in Division I, better than 25 percent of all the head coaching positions in the sport. That many not be good enough in a sport in which 63 percent of the participants are African-American, but it is significant progress.
If NCAA schools can make significant progress with the hiring of African-American head basketball coaches, why has the progress been so slow in football?
In my view, we must overcome two additional obstacles. First, we have to mitigate the risk-averse nature of those who make football coaching hires. Like it or not, the pressure to be successful in college football — given the contribution it makes financially to a successful experience for other sports and other student-athletes, given the visibility it brings to a campus from multi-million-viewer television audiences, given the complexity of football operations — raises the stakes for those who make hiring decisions or recommendations in the sport. It is viewed as “safer” to hire an experienced coach even though such a practice closes the door on talented assistants and coordinators, including those who are minorities.
Second, we have to improve the informal networks so that minority coaches are front-of-mind options for hiring decisions. Their names must be advanced along with others when influential consultants are asked the question: “Who can do this job?” We must get top candidates in front of athletics directors and others before the stress of hiring begins.
Those who make recommendations must become as comfortable with African-American football coaching candidates as they are with African-American basketball coaches. (The Rooney Rule, by the way, had nothing to do with developing the current level of diversity in basketball.) Developing a better informal network for minority assistants and coordinators is the next major push we must undertake. Fortunately, several of our leading conferences already are engaged in developing these informal networks. I will be working with Division I athletics directors to provide additional momentum for that effort.
I said all of this to the Congressional subcommittee. I also touted our NCAA coaching academies and our office of diversity and inclusion that have been at the forefront of raising awareness and developing qualified candidates. However, while members of Congress applaud our programs and other efforts, they still want to see results. I predict that if within the next hiring cycle — or at most the next two — there is no substantial change in the hiring practices, Congress will re-enter the debate, and it will probably take steps beyond holding hearings.
Talented coaches are on our campuses in Division I all across America, including coaches of color. We must open the doors to them, and we simply have to hire them for the top jobs.
Myles Brand is president of the NCAA.
The Presidents’ Forum is a periodic feature in The NCAA News that provides presidents and chancellors the opportunity to present their views on important intercollegiate athletics issues. Previous topics have included the relationship between college presidents and boards of trustees, the division affiliation aspects of NCAA membership, the NCAA’s involvement in social issues and the commercial aspects of college sports. Our topic this time is the hiring process in college sports and the need for patient searches to identify a diverse candidate pool for high-profile positions.
I have been on the record about our record.I have said on many occasions since my tenure as NCAA president began in January 2003 that intercollegiate athletics has an unflattering record of hiring women and people of color for leadership positions — particularly athletics directors and head coaches of high-profile sports.
I have said it in my State of the Association speeches at NCAA Conventions, I have said it to NCAA committees and I have said it to the press.
Most recently I said it to Congress.
At a February 28 hearing before the House Subcommittee on Commerce, Trade and Consumer Protection, I not only told subcommittee members that the NCAA needed to do better in increasing the number of minorities in leadership positions within college athletics, but I also thanked them for calling attention to the matter.
The bright light appears necessary, since no matter how much or how loudly I or anyone else talks about hiring, the Association’s national office cannot make the hires at member institutions and it cannot mandate who is interviewed. Just as no central authority dictates to American higher education who among all faculty and administrators should be interviewed or hired, colleges and universites will not — and should not — cede to the NCAA the authority to dictate who to interview or hire in athletics.
Most of the attention lately has been on college football, and rightly so. There are but 14 minority head coaches among all football-playing member institutions (excluding historically black colleges and universities). That represents 2.4 percent in a sport in which 55 percent of the student-athletes are African-American. And in the last four years, we have increased the number in the Football Bowl Subdivision (formerly Division I-A) by only two. At that rate, it will take more than 80 years before we reach a percentage that even approximates the number of African-Americans in the general population. Not only is the status quo unacceptable, it is unconscionably wrong.
Some people advocate a “Rooney Rule” for college football, but I am not among them. The Rooney Rule in place in the NFL requires teams filling head coaching vacancies to include a person of color among their interviewed candidates. Teams that do not abide by that rule face a significant fine.
Such a rule will not work for higher education, nor can a specific sport be singled out to operate apart from the institution. More importantly, such a rule is not necessary. With the help of the Black Coaches Association hiring report card, about 30 percent of all final candidates interviewed over the past three years for Division I head coaching positions have been African-American. And 76 percent of all the openings have had at least one minority candidate interviewed. In effect, the report card and the resulting publicity attendant to it has been functionally equivalent to the Rooney Rule.
Despite that progress, however, minorities still aren’t being hired as head coaches in football.
NCAA institutions have made significant progress in basketball. Today, there are more than 80 minority head coaches in Division I, better than 25 percent of all the head coaching positions in the sport. That many not be good enough in a sport in which 63 percent of the participants are African-American, but it is significant progress.
If NCAA schools can make significant progress with the hiring of African-American head basketball coaches, why has the progress been so slow in football?
In my view, we must overcome two additional obstacles. First, we have to mitigate the risk-averse nature of those who make football coaching hires. Like it or not, the pressure to be successful in college football — given the contribution it makes financially to a successful experience for other sports and other student-athletes, given the visibility it brings to a campus from multi-million-viewer television audiences, given the complexity of football operations — raises the stakes for those who make hiring decisions or recommendations in the sport. It is viewed as “safer” to hire an experienced coach even though such a practice closes the door on talented assistants and coordinators, including those who are minorities.
Second, we have to improve the informal networks so that minority coaches are front-of-mind options for hiring decisions. Their names must be advanced along with others when influential consultants are asked the question: “Who can do this job?” We must get top candidates in front of athletics directors and others before the stress of hiring begins.
Those who make recommendations must become as comfortable with African-American football coaching candidates as they are with African-American basketball coaches. (The Rooney Rule, by the way, had nothing to do with developing the current level of diversity in basketball.) Developing a better informal network for minority assistants and coordinators is the next major push we must undertake. Fortunately, several of our leading conferences already are engaged in developing these informal networks. I will be working with Division I athletics directors to provide additional momentum for that effort.
I said all of this to the Congressional subcommittee. I also touted our NCAA coaching academies and our office of diversity and inclusion that have been at the forefront of raising awareness and developing qualified candidates. However, while members of Congress applaud our programs and other efforts, they still want to see results. I predict that if within the next hiring cycle — or at most the next two — there is no substantial change in the hiring practices, Congress will re-enter the debate, and it will probably take steps beyond holding hearings.
Talented coaches are on our campuses in Division I all across America, including coaches of color. We must open the doors to them, and we simply have to hire them for the top jobs.
Myles Brand is president of the NCAA.
© 2010 The National Collegiate Athletic Association
Terms and Conditions | Privacy Policy