No More Affirming Bonehead Actions ...

by Nestor on Sep 19, 2007 4:53 AM PDT in Football Comment 26 comments

On a normal game week, by this time we'd start focusing on our next opponent. We'd start looking around to read up on the Washington Huskies, and start gathering notes about their O and D.

But this is not a normal game week. Right now I just cannot muster up any interest in Saturday's game, which, by the way, I think UCLA will win. Based on what I saw from the Huskies against the Buckeyes, I think our guys will end up winning this weekend, which will lead hard core Dorrell cultists to crawl out of their little holes and make proclamations about how their coach showed a lot of character by getting the team to rebound. But anyways, I still cannot get my mind to focus on that game.

I will get back to the only topic that currently matters wrt to UCLA, which is our worthless football coach.

I know many of you will remember this article, but I thought it was worth looking up again. Jason Whitlock of ESPN of all people blew the first whistle on the Thinker:

So why don't I have a good feeling about UCLA hiring Karl Dorrell as its next head football coach?

It's a feel-good story. With the home-run hiring of Division I-A football's fourth African-American head coach, the school that produced Arthur Ashe and Jackie Robinson and employs a Hispanic athletics director just hit for the Jesse Jackson cycle. UCLA might as well be Grambling.

So why am I not shouting from the rooftops, "Free at last! Free at last! Thank Eddie Robinson, I'm free at last"?

I should be overjoyed today. I'm black. I played college football. I'm tired of seeing black assistant coaches passed over for head-coaching opportunities. Why don't I view Dorrell's hiring as a major sign of progress?

Because if Dorrell were white, I would be screaming from the rooftops, "Who the hell is this mother… and when did he become such a hotshot candidate? A 39-year-old, nondescript black NFL receivers coach would've never landed such a good job.

Now the whole article is so damn good that you really need to read the entire thing. But I cannot help posting these last few paras (emphasis mine):

But what really caught my attention and raised my skepticism was the Los Angeles Daily News' account of how and why Dorrell landed the job. Dorrell did absolutely nothing wrong. The newspaper story just made me question exactly what the UCLA athletics department was thinking.

According to the L.A. Daily News, "Dorrell is viewed as young, handsome, fit, energetic, bright and, of course, African-American."

Take out the adjective "fit" and it sounds like I could've been UCLA's new coach. I don't think Larry Coker, Frank Beamer or Ralph Friedgen were ever young and handsome or, of course, African-American.

But the L.A. Daily News quoted a source close to the search as saying, "In today's day and age, having an African-American football coach represent your university has the potential to pay incredible dividends for the university. It's a whole brand new ballgame now."

Michigan State is still waiting to collect on those incredible dividends. What, is Trent Lott proposing legislation for kickbacks to universities with young, handsome, fit, energetic, bright and, of course, African-American head football coaches?

And the L.A. Daily News story wrapped up with this valuable bit of insight: "According to a source close to the search, Dorrell, dressed in a stylish dark suit and white shirt, had an extremely impressive interview" with UCLA's chancellor.

Why not just go out and hire Denzel? He did a great job in "Remember the Titans."

I hope Dorrell can coach football. Because I'm not confident the people he'll be working for know a damn thing about football. They won't be any help. Greg Robinson should've never been a candidate. Mike Riley, the other finalist, shouldn't have been a candidate either. He's never won anywhere and, obviously, judging by the jobs he's turned down, doesn't want the responsibility of being a head coach.

The Bruins return a great deal of talent and are expected to contend for the Pac 10 title next season. I pray Dorrell didn't just step into some ... stuff. Because if he's not ready, if he's unsuccessful at UCLA, black assistant coaches will be hearing his name, not Willingham's, every time a high-profile job becomes available.

Yes, Dorrell was expected to contend for the Pac-10 title in his first season. We all know how that has worked out. Anyways, it is pretty clear what Mr. Whitlock is getting at.

I think questions the new UCLA chancellor, Dan Guerrerro must ask themselves:

What does Dorrell bring to the table even as some sort of novel "social experiment"? What has Dorrell done based on any objective measures to justify continuing this "experiment"?

I am proud of the fact that UCLA is the school of Jackie Robinson.

I am proud of the fact that UCLA is the school of Arthur Ashe.

And as a proud unapologetic progressive I personally believe in the concept of affirmative action for candidates who are truly worthy of such action.

However, there is a key difference between Robinson, Ashe, and Dorrell as the head coach of UCLA football team. Those guys were immortals, who were not only trail blazers but Hall of Famers in their respective sports. Karl Dorrell, in contrast, by any objective standards, is not good at any aspect of being a modern day college football coach. I don't need to repeat the numbers here on BN at this point. You can look them up.

He is a miserable failure who is not even good enough to be a head coach at a lower D-1AA program, let alone at an institution such as UCLA. By keeping him at his job at this point, UCLA is doing more to hurt to the prospects of promising minority (not just African American) coaches, than advancing their causes.

I know folks are worrying about the "political costs" of firing Dorrell. I think if UCLA tells him to hit the road, it will not pay as big of a price in PR relations as folks think.

Given Dorrell's track record at this point, I don't think people will miss the fact how he has failed to live up to the expectations he set for himself and failed to live up to the standards of excellence that set the marker at every other facet of UCLA.

Dorrell hasn't gotten the job done. Period. So he needs to go.

And when UCLA is immersed in the next hiring process, it needs to pay more attention to that person's actual resume and accomplishments on the field, rather than their looks and physical appearance.

We just want someone like Coach Howland (and it doesn't matter what race he is) who can come in and fix our football program.

In other words, we want someone with a proven track record, who can actually coach.

We have had enough of "handsome," "fit," losers like Lavin and Dorrell destroying our money programs.

GO BRUINS.

UPDATE - N: Mandel channels BN on SI.com:

[I]t's pretty evident at this point that Karl Dorrell is never going to lead UCLA to glory (not when his best team to date can't even score a touchdown against 0-2 Utah), but will UCLA be charged with racism if it doesn't give Dorrell the same seven years as white predecessor Bob Toledo? I sure hope not

Word is getting out folks. GO BRUINS.

0 recs | Comment 26 comments

Story-email Email Printer Print

Comments

KD is not totally at fault

The UCLA administration is just as culpable, for offering the buffoon the job in the first place. The KD cult now has only one argument in his favor, that he cleaned up the program. The argument that he is a good coach is obviously too ludicrous to bring up anymore...BUT he cleaned up the program.

OK, I'll grant that. However, cleaning up a program is not some talent unique to KD. I would say that any capable coach could have also cleaned up the program -- if so required by UCLA -- in addition to being a solid football headcoach.

5 years of our precious lifetime have been wasted by the administration's bonehead decision to offer this joker the HC job. KD represents an embarrassing package -- he's a coaching embarrassment and a public-speaking embarrassment.

This affirmative action experiment is a total failure.

by bluegold on Sep 19, 2007 7:01 AM PDT reply actions 0 recs

we were going to reprint that article too

its a great article too ... states why we never wanted him in the first place pretty succinctly.

editor, DumpDorrell.com ... formerly posted as DumpDorrell

by BruinCore on Sep 19, 2007 7:33 AM PDT reply actions 0 recs

Interesting

Isn't it true that, during the Dorrell Era, the number of black students at UCLA have actually decreased (except, I believe, they went up a little bit from last year to this year)?

Let me throw in the usual preamble first: I am very pleased that UCLA was not afraid to hire a minority coach. I would, of course, have preferred that UCLA had checked out the guy's qualifications, but apparently, that factor was overlooked during the hiring process.

Not a rhetorical question: Why would hiring a black coach bring "incredible dividends for the university"? It certainly has not led to increased enrollment of black students at UCLA. I doubt it has had any effect on the team. White coaches everywhere have no problems recruiting and I seriously doubt most high school athletes make the color of the head coach a significant factor when deciding where to go to school.

I must be really missing something here. Aside from being neat and trim, why did UCLA hire this guy? What "dividends" was UCLA supposed to receive based on his race?

I really do not get it and I am not being sarcastic in the slightest.

by Barnes2JJ on Sep 19, 2007 7:49 AM PDT reply actions 0 recs

I'll try to take a stab at that question

Regarding why UCLA hired him.

For what has put us in this place you have to go back further than Dorrell being hired. You have to go back to the "search" itself.

In short, it was inept and incomplete. Three candidates, which were:

Robinson-His track record is very clearly laid out in the article linked. Horrible defenses on the NFL level. Maybe we would get lucky like SC did with Petie, but nothing in his demeanor would suggest he would be a good fit, unlike Carroll who was a rah-rah guy even when coaching in the pros.

Riley-Apparently his main interest in the gig was that his family was still in San Diego, so L.A. would be close by. Perhaps the administation had visions of him timing the 405 to figure out the perfect time to bail campus each day to be with his family. I know I did. Although he did a good job his short time at Oregon St., overall he was a so-so coach wherever he has been.

Dorrell-No track record, but also no baggage. Unlike Robinson and Riley, he speaks with a passion that he wants the gig, because he loves UCLA. Has some NFL experience, so that's good.

Given the extremely limited choice of options, I am not all that surprised they went with Dorrell, as he probably appeared at the time to have the most upside of the three candidates.

by Free the 16 on Sep 19, 2007 9:28 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

Options

I have heard UCLA had more options (and resources) than you think.

I have heard rumors that Mariucci - who was then with the Niners - was interested in the job.

As was Mike Price. And UCLA could have ponied up a million per year, if they went to alums.

DG might not have had political will power because he was focused on getting a new coach for hoops.

The situation could be different this time.

Don't be fooled by what you read from the morons in the MSM. UCLA has the money and coaches around this county would love this gig.

There needs to be some willpower and vision.

The question does DG have that willpower?

by bluestreet on Sep 19, 2007 9:53 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

No question the landscape has changed.

As you mention, the hoops situation was far more dire, so that was the primary focus. Again, I was addressing the mindset at the time, versus how it is now. Does DG have the willpower to alter things this time around?

As for DG, I think there are three major things in his favor:

1-He contacted Mariucci. I think looking back, Dorrell did exactly what he had to do at the end of last year to keep his job, that is finish the regular season 3-0. Another blow out loss to SC and he was gone, I do believe. Why? Again the contacting of Mariucci.

2-He fired Adams as the baseball coach. That guy was so entrenched at UCLA he was like a tenured professor. Dalis never fired him, even though he should have for years. But DG did.

3-Pauley renovation. This has been talked about for years, but is finally moving forward. And thanks to DG.

In short, all these points plus the fact that we are now paying our assistants a decent wage would suggest it is no longer business as usual, at least at the top of the Athletic Department.

I do believe the situation will be different this time around. Unless the perfect candidate comes to our door ala Howland, I think this will be a much more wide reaching search.

by Free the 16 on Sep 19, 2007 10:19 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

Nice comment

I am thinking along the same lines too and its what keeps me hopeful.

by bluestreet on Sep 19, 2007 10:25 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

Very well said

I am left to wonder then if race had anything whatsoever to do with his hiring. As far as I know, 66 is correct in saying that there is no evidence that race played any role.

The selection of Dorrell, from a very short list of unimpressive candidates, seems to have been botched from the start.

This does not excuse Dorrell's performance but UCLA took a wild chance on a guy that was completely untested. In other words, Dorrell was far from a safe bet.

by Barnes2JJ on Sep 19, 2007 9:57 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

Great Post Nestor: Race Is Not the Issue

KD was chosen from the shallow end of a very shallow pool. By the time the decision was made, there was not one candidate with the credentials one would need to predict greatness or success.

For that, I fault the AD and the Chancellor.

Nestor -- I applaud your presentation of the "affirmative action" issue in this post; it is done with precision and clarity.

On BN, I have written at great length about the "race" issues raised in discussions of KD. I will not repeat those posts. However, I want to make some key points from them.

1. It is not clear that KD was an "affirmative action" selection.

Just because he is Black does not mean that his race was the deciding factor in the hire.

"Affirmative Action" means that when ALL THINGS ARE EQUAL a preference is given to a candidate who comes from a "deprived" background. Deprivation can be many things. Race is but one of them. The pool at the time KD was hired was not distinguised. There was no clearcut, "can't miss" candidate.

In that situation, it may well be that KD was hired because he was perceived as being the best candidate in the pool. It is possible that KD looked better without regard for his race. Accoridng to the news stories at the time he was hired, he was an alum, young, articulate (?), had both pro and college coaching experience and wore a nice suit. Odd criteria for choosing a coach? Yes -- and the blame goes to the AD and Chancellor. But, it is not clear that race was the determining factor.

2. Throughout my career as an academic I have heard that students of color were admitted because of "affirmative action" or that faculty of color were hired because of "affirmative action". Often the rumors come from people "close to the admission" or "close to the selection" committee. And, often the rumors are the product of a hidden agenda and not rooted in fact.

These rumors demean all people of color because they create the wide spread impression that the only way people of color can get admitted to professional schools or be hired for teaching positions is "because of their race". That is not true. And, it is unfair to contribute to that line of thinking.

More often than not, they are admitted or hired because they are the BEST candidates in the pool.

3. I, too, am proud that my school is the school of Jackie Robinson, Arthur Ashe and Rafer Johnson. I was at UCLA at the time of the "freedom rides". I am proud that my school sent busloads of white students to the south to help the integration movement.

I was proud and please that my school had hired a Black head football coach.

Proud and pleased but concerned. I did not view KD's hiring as an affirmative action decision. I believe that he was hired because he was the BEST candidate in the pool. But, I was very concerned that after a search we had a pool in which he was the best candidate. He was not qualified for the job -- and neither were the other candidates. The search committee had failed. And, that is the true source of our problem, today.

4. No matter the reason for a hire, any hire, all one is given is an opportunity -- not a guarantee. One has an opportunity to succeed. And, one has an opportunity to fail.

KD has failed and must be replaced.

As I have written, this week, to lower the standard of performance for KD because he is Black is an insult to all people of color, is not consistent with the concept of "affirmative action" and has no place in this discussion.

And, to say there is a higher standard for firing a person of color than there might be for firing a "white" coach is unfounded and dangerous to true equality of opportunity. For, if one cannot fire a Black coach who is failing, one might not want to hire a Black coach to a new position.

It is totally unfair to KD, the Black Coaches Association, DG and the Chancellor to ASSUME that race or some totally inacurrate application of the term "affirmative action" is propping up KD and preserving his job.

There is no reliable evidence that race has played any role in the hiring or retention of KD.

KD should be judged the same way all coaches should be judged -- on his record and on his performance.

Until I see any RELIABLE evidence that this is not what is happening, I will call "bullshit" every time the term "affirmative action" is misapplied or misused.

sjh

PS. As best I can tell, the lizard of westwood was "white". KD's case is strikingly similar to the lizard's. A coach taken from the shallow end of the pool whose failures were tolerated far too long. sl did not keep his job becuse of "affirmative action". He kept his job because we tolerate mediocrity. I believe that is what is allowing KD to remain as head coach. Race has nothing to do with it.

sjh

by Class of 66 on Sep 19, 2007 8:26 AM PDT reply actions 0 recs

My grandfather...

was a professor during the "freedom rides." At his funeral he was eulogzed by a colleague with a story from those days. My grandfather was chairman of the History Department and so some parents called his office furious that faculty and students were going to the South to participate in the demonstrations. His response was: "This is UCLA, we don't just teach history, we make it."

by UCngLA on Sep 19, 2007 9:05 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

Incredible Story!!! You must be very proud!

Would you mind telling us who your grandfather was?

BTW -- UCLA was among the universites that sent the most "freedom riders" to the south.

In my freshman year, I tried to sign up to go. But, I was 17 years old and they wouldn't take me.

(Odd, I wasn't to young to be forced to take ROTC -- but that's another story.)

sjh

by Class of 66 on Sep 19, 2007 9:46 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

I think you may be glossing over the obvious

Take a clone of CTS and make him white - maybe a Tom Ramsey or Cormac Carney - and expand the pool of 3 to a pool of 5. There is no doubt in my mind that my alma mater was more interested in progressive hiring and social engineering than it was in winning football games. Why else would a guy with no qualifications whatsovever have been given the job.

Five years of failure is enough. But let's not make the mistake again. I don't care if the school is so committed to having a black head coach that we will exclude all non-black candidates, but at least get enough candidates so that we have a chance at finding a winner. I am confident that if we acked the BCA for a list of available candidates for a head coaching position that we would get a long list by the end of the day.

But I will never be convinced that CTS was hired for any reason other than the color of his skin, and that's just not right. That's demeaning to CTS, to the school, to the players, to the fans, to actually deserving black candidates.

by Fox 71 on Sep 19, 2007 10:43 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

Don't forget that Carnesales,

whom I like to call Carsalesman, was an Ivy League liberal, and a black HC at UCLA perfectly fit into his agenda.

by bluegold on Sep 19, 2007 10:51 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

Under Your Hypothetical

If you take a "clone" of CTS -- meaning there is no differentiation -- that "all things are equal", affirmative action policy would lead toward the hiring of the "underrepresented" or "deprived" candidate. Affirmative action would affect the hiring decision.

But, there is no place for "affirmative action" in the retention decision.

Affirmative action does not allow less qualified people to get or keep jobs.

Remember, under your hypothetical, there was NO difference between the Black candidate hired and the white candidate not hired.

Your hypothetical facts were not the facts in the real world situation.

I do no think there is any empirical basis to see the KD hiring as a case of social engineering based on race.

The pool was shallow and weak. That's the fault of the Chancellor and the AD. Not one of the candidates (Robinson, Riley, or Price) was clearly more desireable than the other. KD had strong support from the Donahue Mafia. If you recall, it was said that Toledo had alienated and pushed away our past player/ alums and that KD would bring them back into the fold. (It is ironic, indeed, that he ran away from Ken Norton and pushed him to sc.)

I cannot accept the theory that the only way KD got hired was because he was Black. There is absolutely no empirical evidence to support that theory. When you look back at the history of the hire, you see that there were other substantive factors involved in the hire. If you look back, it appeared that Riley was going to get the job. However, it was said that he did not interview well and that KD did; in hind sight, we may wonder how that could be, but that was what was said. And, our ex-player/alums were lobbying very hard for KD, not because he was Black but because he was "one of us".

Fox, I deeply respect you, and I understand that in your gut you feel that this was a racial hire -- and that's fine with me -- but I don't agree.

And, I don't see why race is a part of the current discussion.

The hiring is over.

The firing is imminent.

And, there is absolutely NO EVIDENCE to support an argument that UCLA is under pressure to retain KD because he is Black. People say we fear the Black Coaches Association. There is no evidence, anywhere to support a claim that they would prop up mediocrity by playing the race card.

As I've said before, they, more than anyone, know that if you make it impossible to fire a Black coach you make it more difficult to hire a Black coach.

Let's keep race out of this until there is real evidence that it is an issue.

sjh

by Class of 66 on Sep 19, 2007 11:45 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

And what difference does it make anyway

Who wants to be right or wrong on a question like this? It's bad when this sort of issue gets in the way of things. I wish I had never brought it up, but more than that, I wish I hadn't been put in the position of even having to think about it.

Brother Guerrero probably can't not think about it, so I hope he gets a handle on qualified minority coaches.

Our lives would have been made so much easier if CTS were even moderately competent.

by Fox 71 on Sep 19, 2007 1:38 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

You Are Right

At this stage of the game, the only thing that is important is replacing the poser with someone competent.

I think we all agree that we need to do a real "search" -- something I'm not sure we know how to do.

Sorry to go off on the "race" issue -- it has been something that has triggered me all of my life.

sjh

by Class of 66 on Sep 19, 2007 3:13 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

We are like-minded on the issue

I guess it's the geezer-ness we share.

by Fox 71 on Sep 19, 2007 4:44 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

OUTSTANDING POST, 66.

Thank you for posting it.

I started typing this before I read your post, but I still want to go ahead and say a little something, even though some of it may mirror yours.

Without going into a full-on debate, I will go on the record and say I believe in affirmative action.

To steal a bit of Doonesbury-esque logic, if this is a country where a caucasian/ person of European descent/ multi-generation American/ "white" person of mediocre academic performance and questionable judgment can:

-- get into an Ivy League University because of his father's prior enrollment,

-- obtain oil licenses due to personal and business contacts of his father,

-- pool together resources from family contacts to buy a major league baseball team,

-- ascend to the governorship of a large state thanks to his father's substantial influence in his political party,

-- win the Presidency of the United States after controversial vote-tabulation in a state where his brother is the governor, and

-- appoint powerful political advisers that served with and served for his father in prior adminsitrations...

then we NEED affirmative action in this country.

That being said, I hope people do not believe affirmative action is to blame for the mediocre performance of our football team. To say so would be a disservice to many who got admitted into UCLA and other academic institutions, not to mention various industries and government positions, with assistance from affirmative action and diversity/ minority access programs.

Race and diversity can be rightfully considered in the hiring of a collegiate coach, but again, it should not be a susbtitute for either (a) proven performance, or (b) potential performance.

IF KD was hired SOLELY, 100 PERCENT because of his race, then I think we would have a problem.

IF, however, KD was hired based on some combination of his NCAA assistant experience, his NFL experience, his interview, his recommendations/ references, his prior experience as a UCLA player, AND his race... does that mean affirmative action as a whole is wrong?

I agree with N and practically everyone in BN in that we should hire the best person for the job.

I am hopeful that the AD's office will not unreasonably emphasize the benefits gained from racial diversity, UCLA alumni status, and youth over those gained from coaching ability, strategic knowledge, and proven NCAA performance as a head coach.

I am simply concerned that dismissing KD's hire as a failed "affirmative action experiment" discredits those who have been given opportunity by virtue of diversity practices, and limits us from "outside-the-box" thinking down the line.

OK, enough from me and my soapbox.

WHY NOT US? WHY NOT NOW?

by Meriones on Sep 19, 2007 11:37 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

KD and Affirmative Action

God how I hope we can move beyond the social engineering perceptions (or actual facts) and just find the right person, qualified, winning coach regardless of whether he is white, black, asian, etc. I want wins and consistency. The job is too big and challenging to not have the best qualified person in it, period!!
Bill

BillSouthBay

by Mensgym on Sep 19, 2007 9:56 AM PDT reply actions 0 recs

We Need to Learn How to Search

From what I understand, the Howland hire is not proof that we know how to "search".

He wanted the job. I'm not sure we had to work very hard to get him.

Based upon our track record in other searches, I wonder what we would have ended up with if we really had to go out and "recruit" a coach.

We have not actively recruited a football coach in how many years? Since Vermiel?

sjh

by Class of 66 on Sep 19, 2007 10:36 AM PDT reply actions 0 recs

It is a fact

That there simply aren't enough black coaches in Div I college football. The only way to change this is to give black assistant coaches opportunities to be a head coach. After a coach is hired, he or she should be judged solely on his or her job performance. This is where the race issues end. If Dorrell was being held to a different standard than a white coach, then I would agree that race is an issue. But if you look at the numbers, white coaches at UCLA have been fired when they have performed better than Dorrell. I love the fact that UCLA is giving people of different ethnic backgrounds opportunities like this, but I have to agree with Nestor. Dorrel just is doing a terrible job, and he should be let go for that reason alone.

by joeb on Sep 19, 2007 10:50 AM PDT reply actions 0 recs

Still

its ridiculous to think that there wasn't one other Black coach in 2002 that was more qualified than Dorrell.

by BruinFan1 on Sep 19, 2007 11:10 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

While it is true there were other black coaches

out there, remember that KD had been a popular and decent Bruin receiver in the '80s and. That fact also played a part in his hire - his connection to the school as a former player and hes eagerness to coach the team for which he had played made for great PR. The story just hasn't had a happy conclusion yet - if ever.

by bruinhawk on Sep 19, 2007 1:45 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

Painfully obvious...

that this experiment has been a miserable failure. Dorrell is incapable of leading our program in the right direction with any sense of competitiveness/consistency.

The root of the problem, however, is the AD/Chancellor. This experiment should have never happened in the first place, so in that regard, Karl Dorrell is nothing more than an easy target for criticism. Really, he was set up for failure from the get-go, walking into a relatively tumultuous situation without the tools needed to succeed. For that, I place the blame squarely on those who hired him.

by norcalbruin95 on Sep 19, 2007 11:15 AM PDT reply actions 0 recs

"Dive into the Abyss"

Came across this classic article again. 3 1/2 years later, and every word of the article still holds true...

by norcalbruin95 on Sep 19, 2007 11:22 AM PDT reply actions 0 recs

My race, your race, his race, our race

I don't care. I understand that African-Americans, Latinos, etc., all have legitimate axes to grind. Fine, grind away. But all I want is a really good football coach. We do not have one. That is the only concern that should be addressed.

by Oldguy on Sep 19, 2007 12:35 PM PDT reply actions 0 recs