No minority head coaches were hired with 8 openings

[PhillyB]

That's not true. All Africans have tropical body plan except northern Berbers who are back migrations. Although horn Africans are a little more elongated but all African have long limbs with short torso. Ever heard people talk about Africans have higher naval button. If an African and non-African of same height stands next to each other you will notice the African type have a higher navel.

the height of the average male in sudan is right at 6' (which some tribes averaging 6'4") conversely the average height of more tropical latitudes like cameroon is 5'7" (fairly standard for the ivory coast and on south.) of course lack of raw data plagues studies like this... it's hard to make comparisons.

where are you getting your information?

[Guest BlueBoy]

one african =/= all africans

african from sudan =/= african from namibia

african from sudan/namibia =/= african from cameroon

african from sudan/namibia/cameroon =/= all african-americans

One thing most sub-saharan Africans have in common is that most share a common mitochondrial DNA(the female side) that is exclusive to Africans. And yes, there are sub-ethnic groups among Africans since it's the least homogenous continent. But you will not find an African with very short legs and long torso. The same way you won't find an African with blonde hair, blue eyes. It's genetically impossible.

We can't ignore genetic plays a role in some of our anatomical differences.

[PhillyB]

One thing most sub-saharan Africans have in common is that most share a common mitochondrial DNA(the female side) that is exclusive to Africans. And yes, there are sub-ethnic groups among Africans since it's the least homogenous continent. But you will not find an African with very short legs and long torso. The same way you won't find an African with blonde hair, blue eyes. It's genetically impossible.

We can't ignore genetic plays a role in some of our anatomical differences.

well of course there are phenotypic variations across the continent, but nobody's arguing that. the question is about how that relates to individuals of african descent in america today, and while there may be a handful of phenotypically "advantaged" individuals it's not the case for the vast majority of them. there are social factors that play a much, much larger role.

[Argus Plexus]

There is genetic variation across all races and within all races, but in my personal experience most of the black people I meet tend to be in good shape. Some are fat, some are skinny, some are tall or short. But a good majority of them, from my personal experience, tend to be at least on the tall side of average, broader than average shoulders, and a more defined musculature. Granted, most of the ones who have better defined muscles work out a lot or are physically active be it in sports or their work. However I have noticed that some have a defined body despite a sedentary lifestyle. However there are lots of white people I have known who play video games compulsively all day and drink mountain dew and they never get fat etc.

I don't know what I'm trying to say. Don't pay attention to my ramblings.

[carpantherfan84]

I don't like people insinuating that the reason Africans 'dominate' sports is because they worked harder due to tough economic background. That is completely untrue. It's just a simpleton reasoning because not all athletes had tough economic background.

As I said before, it's not a racism conversation to acknowledge that people of African decent have 'different' physical structure than non-Africans. We can't just say we're all the same and just move on. We can't just ignore the fact that people from tropical areas have elongated limbs compared to arctic people. Can't ignore that Africans have less body fat and more muscle than non-African(scientifically proven and ackknowledge). We can't ignore that so many black people never work out in their lives but very muscular. We can't ignore that black people are higher jumpers. Jumping ability is not a learned skill it's natural.

Also, there are so many black kids from 12 years old and on that are being recruited early by their local junior high school and high school solely because of their natural physical talent. Those kids are in their infancy and haven't develop any work ethics so you can't say they work hard than non-Africans. I don't know any 12 year old thinking they need to work hard and play sport to get out of their 'condition'. Most of them are just having fun with their friends. The last thing on their mind is their 'condition'.

Let's not be in denial here.

I submit to you,

http://www.insidehighered.com/news/2010/04/16/baker

http://faculty.plattsburgh.edu/richard.robbins/legacy/editors_choice/scientific_racism.htm

http://www.understandingrace.org/home.html

http://www.livinganthropologically.com/2011/12/03/anthropology-on-race/

http://anthropologyreport.com/anthropology-and-race/

I seriously could go on and on. But I doubt you will even seriously read the articles I submitted.

I understand your confusion. I really do. You cant help yourself because of American history and the eugenics movements of the late 19th century. But as a fellow sports fan and Panthers fan, I gotta let you know that your complete and utter lack of knowledge on this subject is frankly embarrassing to us all that are participating in this conversation. If you still feel so strong about it, show me some research done on this subject that enforces your point. I am pretty sure you understand that you cant claim scientific proof from casual observation. If you do even a small amount of research on athletes post Clinton Administration and athletes prior you can see a stark difference in the skin color make up at all levels of competition. Also you can research the current physical stats of professional athletes and compare them to those of the past and you will see very little difference in the numbers put up. The only difference is that prior to the social programs enacted during the 90's there were more African Americans putting up those numbers. Now there is much more diversity but the numbers haven't changed. (Athletes are bigger but that is because of early age supplement and PED use). Prior to the 90's the inner city life was much more prevalent in minorities and those that had the drive and desire to be professional athletes combined with the discipline that comes with escaping poverty did so.

and p.s.

I never once called you or anyone else racist. Maybe you just feel guilty.

[Guest BlueBoy]

the height of the average male in sudan is right at 6' (which some tribes averaging 6'4") conversely the average height of more tropical latitudes like cameroon is 5'7" (fairly standard for the ivory coast and on south.) of course lack of raw data plagues studies like this... it's hard to make comparisons.

where are you getting your information?

Body proportion and height is a completely different thing. The pygmys who live in deep forest area that average about 4'5" in height also have tropical body proportion. Meaning their legs are disproportionately longer than their torso. Have you ever heard the term that black people have a lower sitting height than other non-Africans?

People of African decent tend to have a higher risk of miscarriages since their torso is shorter than other non-Africans their birth canal are shorter so it becomes difficulty to give birth to large babies.

Also, African-Americans originate in western Africa(Ivory Coast region). They're the same people you see in the NFL/NBA/Soccer/etc. They don't average no damn 5'7. But I do agree that the Dinka of South Sudan and other tribes in the horn of africa do tend to be tall.

[TheRumGone]

Really? Please tell me how John Fox, Andy Reid, get jobs after DISASTROUS seasons, but Lovie Smith wins ten games and gets fired with no serious interest?

This is beyond ridiculous. You are so quick to point to skin color rather than a "fit" with the team.

Lovie got fired and wasn't hired because he failed to protect the QB with Oline draft picks, FA. That is the main job of the HC imo. Jay Cutler was abused for the past 3 seasons. The dude is lucky he is still alive.

I like Lovie Smith, I think he is an okay coach. But they needed a change in Chicago. Lovie interviewed for the Eagles job, the Chargers job, the Bills job, and I believe the Cardinals job. All of those franchises have QB troubles. Lovie could not protect the QB. Why would they hire him? Because of his race? No f'ing way. Its because for the past three seasons with a Super Bowl Caliber team he let Jay Cutler get used and abused. He did not bring out the best in his franchise QB who could be elite with protection around him.

If I were to pick between Andy Reid and Lovie Smith, I would pick Andy Reid. I hate John Fox but he is a great Defensive Coach, and that is why that team is a top 5 defense. I just don't see it the way you do I'm sorry. Im not racist. I don't look at people like," That is a black man, that is a hispanic man" I just see a man. And really do not think Owners or GM's look at it that way either. They look for the best "fit," and who will help them win a super bowl. I did not see Lovie Smith helping any of those teams with his track record of protecting QB's. But there will be no changing your mind. I know that.

[Delhommey]

:thumbsd: lol and someone has to bring it up.....lol :sleep: (happens every godamn time)

you realize that you are part of the problem....oh i never saw a black tiger....OMG NO where are white panthers :startle: ......dude no one even notices shiit until people like u bring up unecessary stuff that probably going to cause a flame race war on here. :cigar:

at this time of obama being president(which is the most important job) to an arab american owing the jags....i dont hink its as racist as you think it is. yes it still is racism and will always exist :devil: but america has made great strides on that social matter if you could call it that. :thumbsu:

Unfortunately saying we've make great strides in race relations while referring to a Pakastani American as "Arab" doesn't come close to being the most ironically ignorant post in this thread.

[Delhommey]

This is beyond ridiculous. You are so quick to point to skin color rather than a "fit" with the team.

Lovie got fired and wasn't hired because he failed to protect the QB with Oline draft picks, FA. That is the main job of the HC imo. Jay Cutler was abused for the past 3 seasons. The dude is lucky he is still alive.

I like Lovie Smith, I think he is an okay coach. But they needed a change in Chicago. Lovie interviewed for the Eagles job, the Chargers job, the Bills job, and I believe the Cardinals job. All of those franchises have QB troubles. Lovie could not protect the QB. Why would they hire him? Because of his race? No f'ing way. Its because for the past three seasons with a Super Bowl Caliber team he let Jay Cutler get used and abused. He did not bring out the best in his franchise QB who could be elite with protection around him.

If I were to pick between Andy Reid and Lovie Smith, I would pick Andy Reid. I hate John Fox but he is a great Defensive Coach, and that is why that team is a top 5 defense. I just don't see it the way you do I'm sorry. Im not racist. I don't look at people like," That is a black man, that is a hispanic man" I just see a man. And really do not think Owners or GM's look at it that way either. They look for the best "fit," and who will help them win a super bowl. I did not see Lovie Smith helping any of those teams with his track record of protecting QB's. But there will be no changing your mind. I know that.

Cutler was sacked 38 times this year.

Vick and Foles were sacked a combined 48 times this year.

Other than that, rock solid point.

[TheRumGone]

Cutler was sacked 38 times this year.

Vick and Foles were sacked a combined 48 times this year.

Other than that, rock solid point.

I knew someone would mention that. That Oline was atrocious, but I figure that was an anomoly with all of the injuries that happened that year on the O-line. Which is why I'm fairly certain Reid will draft Joeckel (sp.?) with that number one pick. Because he knows this, Lovie could not figure that out.

[Guest BlueBoy]

the question is about how that relates to individuals of african descent in america today, and while there may be a handful of phenotypically "advantaged" individuals it's not the case for the vast majority of them.

I agree. And it's those with the phenotypically "advantaged" that are playing in the NFL/NBA/Soccer/etc. If you observe Cam Newton, you'll see a guy with very ong legs and short torso. That explains why he is so fast while being so big. Same for Calvin johnson and Randy Most. Kevin Durant is even more of an anomally. And you do not see those physical types among non-Africans.

If it's ok to admit that Africans have dark skin. Caucasians have white skin. A phenotypical trait, it shouldn't be too difficult to admit(although pointless) that Africans have long legs when it's as obvious to us as the skin tone for conversation sake.

And yes. WE ARE ALL THE SAME.

[TheRumGone]

Cutler was sacked 38 times this year.

Vick and Foles were sacked a combined 48 times this year.

Other than that, rock solid point.

http://espn.go.com/blog/nfceast/post/_/id/45403/eagles-offensive-line-is-completely-toast

should have posted this with it.

[Mr. Scot]

Word that the NFL may start requiring two or three minority candidate interviews rather than just one.

Honestly, you can't really fault a team for hiring the guy they really want, whatever his skin color may be.

Are there deserving guys out there who don't have head coaching offers? Yes, but they're not all minorities. That's just what happens when you have a very limited job pool.

Ditto the GM jobs, though on that front I'm actually more mystified than I am on the head coaching side. Specifically because I feel bad for Marc Ross. But on the flipside, I can't really look at any of the GM hires that happened and say "that guy wasn't qualified". They were good hires. Would Ross have been a better hire than any of them? Debatable, but there's none I can see he's clearly superior to at this point.

Still would love to see Ross come to Carolina in an "heir apparent" role, but if that happens, it won't be this offseason.

Speaking of the Panthers, two of the four candidates interviewed for the GM opening were minorities (most qualified guy got the job) and more than one of last year's head coaching candidates was a minority. In fact, one got the job. So while you can point fingers at a lot of teams, the Panthers really aren't one of them.

[Mr. Scot]

I'd add there is one thing that I think bodes well for future minority candidates.

Of the hires made this season, only one head coach was a retread and none of the GMs were.

Teams are looking for new blood rather than recycling the old guard. I think that's a good sign.