|UFDC Home||myUFDC Home | Help|
This item has the following downloads:
1 AFRICANAMERICAN COACHES IN COLLEGE FOOTBALL : AN ACC UMULATED DISADVANTAGE By TREVOR BOPP A DISSERTATION PRESENTED TO THE GRADUATE SCHOOL OF THE UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA IN PARTIAL FULFILLMENT OF THE REQUIREMENTS FOR THE DEGREE OF DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA 2010
2 2010 Trevor Bopp
3 To my Mom
4 ACKNOWLEDGMENTS I t hank my committee chair, Dr. Michael Sagas, for all of his support patience, and guidance. I t hank my committee members, Dr. May Kim, Dr. Dale Pracht, and Dr. Matt Walker, for their suggestions and support.
5 TABLE OF CONTENTS page ACKNOWLEDGMENTS ...............................................................................................................4 LIST OF TABLES ...........................................................................................................................7 LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS ..........................................................................................................8 ABSTRACT .....................................................................................................................................9 CHAPTER 1 INTRODUCTION ..................................................................................................................11 The Matthew Effect ................................................................................................................13 Accumulated Disadvantage ....................................................................................................14 Evidence of Accumulated Disadvantage ................................................................................17 An Accumulated Disadvantage in Intercollegiate Athletics ..................................................19 2 AN EXAMINATION O F AFRICAN AMERICAN COACHING REPRESENTATION IN MEN'S NCAA SPORTS: 1996 2008 ................................................................................23 Review of Pertinent Literature ................................................................................................26 Method ....................................................................................................................................31 Data Collection Process ...................................................................................................31 Design and Procedure ......................................................................................................32 Results ....................................................................................................................................33 Discussion ..............................................................................................................................36 3 RACIAL TA SKING AND THE COLLEGE QUARTERBACK: REDEFINING THE STACKING PHENOMENON ...............................................................................................44 Review of Pertinent Literature and Theory ............................................................................46 Centrality .........................................................................................................................46 Outcome Control Hypothesis ..........................................................................................47 Self Segregation and Role Model Theory .......................................................................48 African American s in Coaching ......................................................................................50 Hypotheses ......................................................................................................................51 Methodology ........................................................................................................................... 51 Procedures and Data Collection ......................................................................................51 Data Analysis ...................................................................................................................53 Results ....................................................................................................................................53 Discussion ..............................................................................................................................55
6 4 AN EXAMINATION OF AFRICANAMERICAN NCAA FOOTBALL COACHES: A FIVE YEAR UPDATE ...........................................................................................................60 Review of Pertinent Literature ................................................................................................61 Methodology ...........................................................................................................................64 Data Collection and Analysis ..........................................................................................65 Results .............................................................................................................................66 Discussion ...............................................................................................................................70 Conclusion ..............................................................................................................................74 5 DISCUSSION .........................................................................................................................82 Macro level: Perceptions of African American s in Collegaite Coaching ..............................83 Meso level: African American Student Athletes and Future Coaching Opportunities .........87 Micro lev el: The Career Paths of African American Coaches ...............................................90 Mul tilevel Approach ...............................................................................................................92 6 CONCLUSION, LIMITATIONS, AND FUTURE RESEARCH ..........................................94 LIST OF REFERENCES .............................................................................................................101 BIOGRAPHICAL SKETCH .......................................................................................................107
7 LIST OF TABLES Table page 21 Means and Standard Deviations for AfricanAmerican Coaching Percentages in Mens Sports Across All NCAA Divisions, 19962008 ....................................................41 22 Means and Standard Deviations for African American Coaching Percentages in Football & Mens Basketball Across All NCAA Divisions, 19962008 ...........................42 23 Means and Standard Deviations for Mean African American Coaching Percentages Across the Three NCAA Divisions, 19962008 ................................................................43 31 Racial Differences in the Number of Rush and Pass Attempt s .........................................58 32 Racial Differences in the Percentage of Rush and Pass Attempt s .....................................59 41 Head Coach, Offensive and Defensive Coordinator, and Assistant Coach Cross Tabulations by Race and Time ..........................................................................................77 42 Assistant Coaches Positions Coached by Race and Time .................................................78 43 Assistant Coaches Positions Played by Race and Time .....................................................79 44 Frequencies of Head Coaches by Prior Coaching Position by Time .................................80 45 Frequencies of Head Coaches by Position as a Player by Time ........................................81
8 LIST OF ABBREVIATION S BCA Black Coaches and Administrators FBS Football Bowl Subdivision ISDF Institution Staff and Demographic Form MEP Minority Enhancement Program MOIC Minority Opportunities and Interests Committee NCAA National Collegiate Athletic Association ODI Office of Diversity and Inclusion SEC Southeastern Conferenc e PWI Predominantly White Institution
9 Abstract of Dissertation Presented to the Graduate School of the University of Florida in Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree of Doctor of Philosophy AFRICANAMERICAN COACHES IN COLLEGE FOOTBALL : AN ACCUMULATED DISADVANTAGE By Trevor Bopp August 2010 Chair: Michael Sagas Major: Health and Human Performance At current, the National Collegiate Athletic Associations (NCAA) Division I Football Bowl Subdivision (FBS) has the gre atest number of African American head coaches in its history. Such progress might suggest current racial and ethnic disparities are decreasing. Such is not the case. Social networks and practices steeped in tradition and history continue to influence and i mpact intercollegiate athletics. The accrued prejudices faced by Africans Americans facilitate a racial and ethnic divide among coaching opportunities, resources, and treatment. Three distinct, yet interrelated, manuscripts were written to better understan d this institutional discrimination and its manifestation as an accumulated disadvantage for AfricanAmerican college football coaches. The first manuscript utilized a macro level approach to determine what, if any, changes have taken place within NCAA men s sports concerning the representation of African Americans in head and assistant coaching positions over the last 15 years. The second study took a mesolevel approach to demonstrate how college football decision makers potentially impact the future pros pects of student athletes prior to entry and progression through their coaching career. The third study employed a micro level approach, comparing the current representation of coaches in
10 DI FBS to African American coaching representation in 1990 and 2005. Taken together, these three studies helped to reveal the existence and manifestation of an accumulated disadvantage for African Americans in intercollegiate athletics coaching. The primary findings suggest that there exists an accumulated disadvantage im pacting African American college football coaches, such that their representation on staffs and in leadership roles is negligible. Furthermore, it was revealed that potentially discriminate practices (e.g., racial tasking and homologous reproduction) might continue to prosper in intercollegiate athletics; serving to maintain a hegemonic environment in which African American coaches experience limited opportunities, capital, and resources. However, recent increases in African American coaching representation evoke optimism towards minimizing, and possibly eliminating its racially divergent impact. F indings also reveal the possibility of more accepting attitudes among intercollegiate athletics stakeholders (e.g., administration, alumni, fans, and boosters) reg arding coaches of more diversified races, ethnicities, experiences and backgrounds. Regardless, an accumulated disadvantage remains and potentially hinders the ability of AfricanAmerican football coaches to successfully obtain and retain head coaching pos itions, continuing the underrepresentation of AfricanAmerican college football coaches.
11 CHAPTER 1 INTRODUCTION Sport has long been considered a microcosm of society; a reflection of sociocultural and race relations, demonstrating racial progress in this country (Buffington, 2005; Hawkins, 2002; Loy & Elvogue, 1970; Sack, Singh, & Thiel, 2005; Woodward, 2004). In studying positional and racial segregation in American sport, Loy and Elvogue (1970) declared sport as a means to better help minority groups assimilate into American life. Similarly, McPherson (1976) deemed the acceptance o f African American athletes in sport as a model for th e integration of minorities into other social institutions. However, McPherson (1976) was hesitant to celebrate the complete integration of African American s into sport; instead acknowledging that while African American athletes had found acceptance and ap proval in their work role (athletic position in sport), they continued to face discrimination and a lack of acceptance in the dominant, White society. Over 40 years have passed since recogni zing the prospective ability of sport to serve as a tool and/or mo del for minority assimilation into the dominant culture, yet discriminatory practices and consequent negative outcomes still run rampant in many sports leagues and organizations. Such seems to be the case in intercollegiate athletics, where W hite males hold the majority of leadership and decision making positions (Bracken & DeHass, 2009). For the 2007 08 academic year, 89.1% (950) of National Collegiate Athletic Association (NCAA) director of athletics were White; and of those 950 athletics directors 82% (779) were males. Similarly, males account for 81.8% (872) of all directors of athletics. Lapchick and McMechan ( 2009) report that 91.2% (330) and 83.4% (290) of Division I Football Bowl Subdivision ( FBS ) institution presidents, athletic directors, and faculty athletic representatives were White and male respectively, for the 2009 10 academic year. This trend continues down into the coaching ranks in the revenue generating sports of college football and me ns basketball (Bracken & DeHass,
12 2009). In all of Division I for the 200708 college sport year, 70.3% of the mens basketball head coaches were White, while 56.0% of mens basketbal l assistant coaches were White. Similarly, 85.3% of the head football coa ches were White, while 68.1% of assistant football coaches were White. Overall, 83.7% of head coaches in all of the NCAA mens sports we re White. Research has suggested that the student athletes of a collegiate sport constitute the largest pool of coaching candidates with in that sport (Everhart & Chelladurai, 1998). Given the racial and ethnic make up of the student athletes participating in these sports, it would seem there is a potential glass c eiling effect impacting African American coaches (Cunningham, 2003 ). Despite having more equitable representation in middle and lower administrative and coaching positions, African American s continue to face discrimination in obtaining the paramount leadership positions in intercollegiate athletics. Thus the conjecture that perhaps nowhere is discrimination and oppression more evident than in Division IA intercollegiate athletics (Fink & Pastore, 1999, p. 311) continues to find support. Various explanations and theories have been utilized to help examine the existence and persistence of this phenomenon, yet are limited by their one dimensional approach (Cunningham, 2010). Organizations are comprised of people, production, policies, practi ces, and purpose (Slack, 1997) A singular approach to examining and understanding organizations cannot encompass the numerous ways in which these entities interact, and in turn, impact and are impacted by one another. Therefore, to truly account for the c omplexities inherent within a sport organization, a multilevel (i.e., macro, meso, and micro) approach must be utilized (Cunningham, 2010; Cunningham & Sagas, 2008; Mixon, Jr. & Trevino, 2004). T his paper will utilize a multilevel approach to provide evide nce of an accumulated disadvantage toward
13 African American coaches at the intercollegiate level, and demonstrate its impact on the under representation of African American coaches in college football. The Matthew Effect F or unto every one that hath shall be given, and he shall have abundance: but from him that hath not shall be taken away even that which he hath. Matthew 25:29 (King James Version) The above quoted Bible verse conveys the crude notion that those who have, will continue to have and have gr eatly; while those who are with very little, will continue to be with very little and eventually without. In 1968, Robert Merton applied the message of this verse to the misallocation of recognition and credit amongst scientific scholars. In doing so, he c oined the term the Matthew Effect. The result of which, is a discriminatory practice that over time leads to accrued advantages for those in positions of power and potentially unwarranted impediments to others. Applied to the NCAA Division I mens sports the Matthew Effect could help to explain the under represent ation of African American head coaches. Th e timeless adage suggest s that socially advantaged groups accrue resources to maintain and even augment their status while socially disadvantaged groups struggle for opportunities and access to resources, furthering their subjacent position in society. Merton (1968) dubbed the phra se, the Matthew Effect, to demonstrate the practice in which established scholars were given greater recognition and accolades than their lesser known counterparts who were producing just as credible and equally beneficial work. Presented as an advantageou s practice for those in hegemonic positions, the resultant inequalities can serve to unjustifiably limit opportunities and advancement for those in inferior social or employment positions. Thus, discrimination at the institutionallevel can be largely held accountable for an industry s racial and ethnic inequalities.
14 Such an idea is applicable to college sports in that intercollegiate athletics are dominated by White males. During the 200708 college sport year, 85.3% of Division I head football coaches were White, while 68.1% of assistant football coaches were White. In comparison, 13.0% of Division I head football coaches were African American while 28.6% of assistant football coaches were African American (Bracken & DeHass, 2009). As such, one could mak e a strong case that White males are indeed the most dominant and influential group in college sport. It has been argued in research that the potential existence of institutional discrimination maintains this hegemonic status quo amongst coaches within intercollegiate athletics (Anderson, 1993; Finch, McDowell & Sagas, 2010) Reasons that have been used to explain this phenomenon include homologous reproduction (Cunningham & Sagas, 2005) positional segregation (Sack et al., 2005), access discriminatio n (Cunningham & Sagas, 2005), and treatment discrimination (Sagas & Cunningham, 2004). Should the Matthew Effect be present in college sport, one result c ould be the over representation of White males and the under representation of racioethnic and gender minorities in positions of power (e.g., head coach, athletic director, and conference commissioner) As evidenced from the abovementioned numbers, this is what may be taking place in intercollegiate athletics. However, the divergent consequences of the M a tthew Effect are not instantaneous ; r ather, they a ccrue and are amplified over time. The gradual positive effect s for those in positions of power have come to be known as a cumulative advantage. Contrarily subordinates and those in inferior positions are negatively impacted and face an accumulated d isadvantage. Accumulated Disadvantage Accumulated disadvantage refers to institutional discrimination from the vantage point of those groups and individuals negatively impacted by its consequences. Con versely cumulative
15 advantage refers to institutional discrimination from the vantage point of those groups and individuals who happen to be the beneficiaries of such opposing outcome s The notion of cumulative advantage suggests that individuals in structurally advantageous positions as a result of outstanding role performance accrue certain advantages due to attaining these positions (Clark & Corcoran, 1986, p. 24). While accumulated disadvantage suggests that individuals and groups holding structurally inferi or roles experience limited opportunities and resources as a result of those in structurally advantaged positions attempting to maintain their hegemonic dominance The notion of an accumulated disadvantage has already been discussed in regards to its impa ct on coaching sport; however, this divergent impact of the haves and have nots has similarly been referr ed to in a number of different social settings by a number of different monikers. An accumulation of disaccumulation (Brown & Wellman, 2005) was bestowed upon the racial inequalities that continue in the postcivil rights era in the United States. The phrase cycle of poverty (Piven & Cloward, 1989) has been used when discussing economic disadvantages that may perpetuate poverty by way of political polic ies. Pachec o and Plutzer (2008) have extended the impact of economic disadvantage to social and civic participation (i.e., voter turnout) calling it the civic/political cycle Lastly, W. Arthur Lewiss (1979) noncompeting groups hypothesis has been utilized to help explain how intergroup rivalries struggles for positions of power and influence maintain a hegemonic labor force, whether intentionally or subconsciously (Darity & Mason, 1998). Regardless of the context, the abovementioned words and phrases all draw upon the notion that over time institutional discrimination leads to and is maintained by accrued advantages for those in positions of power and potentially unwarranted impedime nts and
16 disadvantages to others. The principal element of this phenomenon is time. As Brown and Wellman (2005) have pointed out, accumulated disadvantage is a matter of history (p. 190). D ue to a system of law built on discrimination and despite changes to address those concerns, prejudices have become entrenched in our social structure and inequities towards minorities continue. This idea is the very basis of institutional discrimination. That is, i n all aspects of society (e.g., economic, political, edu cational, and cultural) means have been developed by which control and influence over institutional factors (e.g., salaries, employment, resources, opportunities, information, and human and social capital) is maintained (McCrudden, 1982). Similarly, Darity and Mason (1998) have employed the noncompeting groups hypothesis (Lewis, 1979) to demonstrate how authoritative groups obtain positions of power and influence and then use those positions to control further access to others by manipulating job requireme nts and limiting resources and opportunities to meet those requirements; thereby rendering any groups different from those in power (i.e., adversaries) as nonthreats Such actions that were once blatant are now institutionalized in policies and practices, and embedded in the implicit structure of certain industries. W hen examining potential explanations for discrimination as functions of the social and economic system and its historically structured policies, far too often self interested and self motivated individuals are found to be at fault regardless of race or ethnicity (Brown & Wellman, 2005). It can be argued that todays form of cloaked prejudices (e.g., institutional discrimination) fail to account for historical precedence and view inequalities as a result of an individuals efforts in life. Explicating the victim as the cause of discrimination evolves from three assumptions: 1) the existence of racial inequalities cannot be explained solely by the actions of different racial and ethnic groups; 2) differences in the labor market (e.g., income, opportunities,
17 responsibilities) are a result of the individual, since management will reward those who are productive and weed out those with lower merits; and 3) once laws have been implemented, remaining discrepancies are the outcomes from self selected activities of racial and ethnic minorities (Brown & Wellman, 2005). However, ones position in society or industry is not solely determined by the outcome of extraneous accumulated events; t he individual mus t be held partly responsible, even if only in the slightest sense. Defense for this rational e can be found in the theory of self efficacy (Bandura, 1977). Self efficacy theory postulates that ones cognitive choices and resultant actions will be influenced and impacted by perceptions of their surroundings and experiences O ver time, individuals and groups accrue experiences, and social and human capital that impact future choices and behaviors. With regards to accumulated disadvantage, said future choices a nd behaviors are impacted negatively, such that information, opportunities, and resources are limited. The following section demonstrates the practical implications of an accumulated disadvantage, regardless of who is at fault. Evidence of Accumulated Dis advantage The cumulative effect of education impacts various aspects of ones life (e.g., behavioral, socioeconomic status psychological, and biological) and are not mutually exclusive (Mirowsky & Ross, 2005). That is, many education al advantages lead to positive lifestyle choices that augment and influence the abovementioned health factors Conversely, there exists an accumulated disadvantage for individuals with a minimal or lack of education. As such poor education (e.g., lack of knowledge or information) can lead to unhealthy lifestyle choices that negatively influence and compound one another. Such individuals have limited career and economic opportunities; leading to reduced access to health care and healthy living resources,
18 subs equently developing more stress initiators and fewer means to handle said stress (Dupre, 2008). Education has also been proposed to impact an individuals understanding and handling of other life events such as employment troubles, personal loss, economic crises, and health and disease concerns (Mirowsky & Ross, 2005). Within t he labor market, salary occupation, opportunit y and resource disparities ha ve been of particular interest in which to demonstrate how advantages and disadvantages accrue for individuals and groups Explanations for racial and ethnic inequalities have been linked to differences in treatment (i.e., discrimination) and gaps in group productivity linked characteristics (human capital) (Darity & Mason, 1998). This can first be witnessed i n the hiring process, where decisions about a candidate must be made after only several encounters. Employers are most likely receiving only a projected persona from the candidate and might therefore need to infer from group affiliation (e.g., education, r ace or ethnicity, social status) the potential employees abilities (Darity & Mason, 1998). This type of conjecture towards an individuals aptitude and capabilities based on surface level characteristics can lead to a number of differing manifestations of employment discrimination. Other socioeconomic disparities include the unemployment rate and median annual household income (National Urban League, 2010) Near the conclusion of 2009, the rate of unemployment of African American s was 16% (6 percentage poi nts higher than the national average) and the average household income was close to $20,000 less for African American s than Whites Furthermore, Drash (2010) revealed that three quarters of White families are home owners compared to less than half of their African American counterparts, African American s are three times more likely to live in poverty and a meager 5% of privately owned businesses belong to African American s An accumulated disadvantage can even be found in the penal
19 system, where African Am erican s have been reported to be anywhere from 4 6 time s more likely to be incarcerated. Evident in these findings are the negative burdens and accumulated disadvantage s placed on the social mobility of African American s. Gender minorities also face the p otential drawbacks of an accumulated disadvantage. Clark and Corcoran (1986) examined decreases in a womans opportunities and prospects as she progresses through the world of academe. Despite progress in closing the wage gap between men and women in acade me, significant differences in pay differentials remain in some academic segments and comparable women continue to receive lower salaries (Toutkoushian & Conley, 2005). This same accumulated disadvantage works even more negatively against African American female faculty members, particularly at predominantly White institutions (PWIs), where their efforts and knowledge are marginalized to the point of being labeled maids of academe (Harley, 2008). In application of their findings, Clark and Cor coran (1986) m ade this apt generalization regarding women in society: women may not be blocked out entirely, but their progress is limited to a relatively low level of advancement in male dominated occupations and societies (p.25). This sentiment is an ideal summation of the past and current re sistances faced by African American coaches in intercollegiate athletics. An Accumulated Disadvantage in Intercollegiate Athletics With all the attention paid to diversity and inclusion at the intercollegiate level of sport, it w ould appear on the surface that such a racial and ethnic divide is no longer present. However, e vidence of such institutionally discriminate tendencies such as homologous reproduction (Cunningham & Sagas, 2005), positional segregation (Sack et al., 2005) or stacking (Anderson, 1993; Finch et al., 2010; Hawkins, 2002) access discrimination (Cunningham & Sagas, 2005), and treatment discrimination (Sagas & Cunningham, 2004) remain and have been found to often
20 times negatively impact racial and ethnic minori ties. In particular, these prejudiced pra ctices adversely affect African American coaches. Currently, African American s are 7.6 times more likely to be seen as a player than as a head coach in college football, and more than twice as likely to face that sa me bias in college basketball (Cunningham, 2010). Furthermore, African American coaches potentially face other latent impediments adversely impacting them on a n array of varying levels (Cunningham, 2010): career satisfaction (Sagas & Cunningham, 2005), car eer advancement (Anderson, 1993; Finch et al. 2010; Sagas & Cunningham, 2005), career length (Best, 1987; Evans, 1997, Mixon & Trevino, 2004) occupational commitment (Anderson, 1993; Cunningham, Bruening, & Straub, 2006; Cunningham, Sagas, & Ashley, 2001 ), and a lack of human and social capital opportunities ( Sagas & Cunningham 2005). The purpose of this dissertation is to assess the possibility of an accumulated disadvantage toward AfricanAmerican coaches at the intercollegiate level, and demonstrate i ts impact on the under representation of African American coaches in collegiate foot ball. As previously established in an effort to examine and understand organizations, one should take a multilevel approach to account for all interacting facets (Cunningha m, 2010) With regards to sport organizations, the macrolevel factors consist of the political climate within the athletic department and institutionalized policies and practices. The mesolevel refers to potential prejudices and prototype biases amongst decisionmakers. Lastly, the micro level contains coaching expectations, intentions, and perceptions. Thus, to assess the extent to which an accumulated disadvantage may or may not impact the current under representation of African American coaches in college football, three studies will be utilized; each examining the potential manifestation of institutionalized discrimination at the macro meso and microlevel of intercollegiate athletics.
21 The first manuscript takes a macro level approach to determine what, if any, changes have taken place within NCAA mens sports concerning the representation of African American s in head and assistant coaching positions over the last 15 years To accomplish this aim, a series of analyses were conducted on the percentages of African American s in head and assistant coaching positions in all NCAA sports, and in football and mens basketball in particular, spanning the years 1996 2008. The findings from this study are exploratory and designed to establish evidence for the current rationale explaining an accumulated disadvantage. The second study takes a meso level approach to demonstrate how college football decision makers potentially impact the future prospects of student athletes prior to their actual entry into the coaching field. Advancing findings from Anderson ( 1993 ), Hawkins ( 2002), Sack et al. (2005), and Woodward ( 2004) this study sought to determine if positional segregation continues to be preserved at the quarterback position throug h the play of White and AfricanAmerican athletes in the NCAAs Division I FBS. The results of this study suggest that the institutionally discriminate practice of positional segregation has diminished for quarterbacks. However, a new manifestation of pos itional segregation (i.e., racial tasking ) may be taking place that preserves the negative impact of segregation on potential coaches The purpose of the third study is to examine a potential accumulated disadvantage, at the micro level, subsequent to (i.e., their playing days) and during ones coaching career. The study will replicate and update Anderson (1993) and Finch et al.s (2010) studies which examin e the under representation of African American head coaches in DI FBS football during the 1990 and 2005 seasons Examining coaching expectations and intentions by way of playing experience and position currently coached should provide potential insight into the behavior of coaches at the micro level of an organizational system.
22 Taken together, these three studies will help to demonstrate the existence and manifestation of an accumulated disadvantage for African American s in intercollegiate athletics coaching That is, I sought to examine the potential negative effects of institutional discrimination manifested through an accumulated disadvantage, that accrue for African American s as they progress from their playing days and continue into their coaching careers
23 CHAPTER 2 AN EXAMINATION OF AF RICAN AMERICAN COACHING RE PRESENTATION IN MENS NCAA SPORTS: 1996 2008 At the close of the 2010 National Collegiate Athletic Association Football Bowl Subdivision (NCAA FBS, formerly DivisionIA) hiring cy cle, a record number of African American head coaches (1 3) had been named at Division I FBS football programs. Despite this increase in representation, the percentage of African American head football coaches in Division I FBS remains abysmal at 11% (1 3 of 121). Furthermore, the rate at which African American s are hired as head football coaches at the DI FBS level continues to fall short of expectations. Since 1996, only 7% (16 of 221) of head coaching vacancies have been filled with an AfricanAmerican coach (Harrison & Yee, 2009). Even less representation can be found in Divisions II and III (Bracken & DeHass, 2009; DeHass, 2004, 2007). Regardless, strides being made since the inception of the first Black Coaches and Administrators (BCA) Hiring Report Card (HRC) in 2003 cannot be overlooked. Since that time, the NCAA DI FBS has gone from having three African American head coaches, the lowest total in 15 years, to 13 (Keith, 2009). However, the concerns from the BCA lie not in who is ultimately brought in to run the football program, but rather the hiring policies, practices, and process es of the athletic department and search committee (Harrison, 2005). Thus, it is the method by which head football coaches are hired that potentially comes into question. A derivative of this examination by the BCA should also draw attention to the manner by which a ll coaches are hired at the college level. While the under representation of African American head coaches in football is the focus of the BCAs analysis, potential discrimination and the under representation of African American s might be occurring in any number of NCAA mens sports. Unless otherwise notified, all percentages and figures in this manuscript are calculated with the
24 exclusion of historically black colleges and universities, for reasons that are explained in the methods section. In 2009, the BC A released its sixth Hiring Report Card (HRC). The primary objectives of the BCA report card are to encourage accountability and get institutions to look into a more diverse pool of candidates so that the best coach can be chosen, regardless of ethnicity. The BCAs report card examines and grades the search and selection process of institutions over five criteria ( communication, the hiring and search committee, candidates interviewed, time frame, and affirmative action) as they look for new head football coaches. In the foreword of the 200405 HRC, Richard Lapchick validates the BCAs position for an open and objective process suggesting that as institutions begin to adhere to interview and hiring guidelines, the social networks of African American coaches will expand, thereby helping to automatically increase representation among the coaching ranks (Harrison, 2005, p. iv). Executive Director of the BCA Keith Floyd (as cited in Harrison, 2005) further supports this outlook with his petition for minority s tudent athletes to begin considering an institutions inclusion and diversity policies, proposing that as student athletes of color start making decisions to play where they can eventually coach; we will start to see a difference (p. 10). For the past 20 years, there has been demonstrated concerns and discussion in regards to the lack of African American coaches among the member institutions of NCAA football and other administrative positions of power. In 1989, in an effort to provide more opportunitie s for minorities throughout all of intercollegiate athletics, the NCAA implemented the Minority Enhancement Program (MEP) ; a program aimed at increasing the pool of minority candidates through added internships and scholarships. In 1991, the NCAA formed th e Minority Opportunities and Interests Committee (MOIC) to help further enhance educational and career
25 opportunities for women and ethnic minorities in intercollegiate athletics administration and coaching. More recently, under the guidance of the late ex President Myles Brand, the NCAA created the Office of Diversity and Inclusion (ODI) in 2005. At the center of the ODIs mission is the provision of leadership and support to the NCAA as the association progresses in the creation and fostering of diversity and inclusion initiatives (NCAA, 2010a). It makes sense the representation of African American s all throughout intercollegiate athletics would be prone to a rise given the implementation of such programs. How ever, the percentage of African American head coaches has increased only 1.1 percentage points (1.5 percentage points when HBCUs included) in mens sports from 1996 to 2008, whil e the representation of African American athletic department administrators and staff over that same time increased only 0.9 percentage points overall and 1.2 percentage points when HBCUs were included (Bracken & DeHass, 2009). These figures expose the nominal progress being made toward racial equality among intercollegiate coaches and athletic department administrators. Still, other programs have been initiated by the NCAA over the past few years with the goal of improving racial and ethnic minority presence in coaching candidate pools. The NCAA Mens Coaches Academy, launched in 2003, aids minority football coaches in s kill augmentation and social network expansion, while the Future Football Coaches Academy is geared towards the advancement of student athlete s wanting to pursue a career in coaching football (NCAA, 2010b). Since 2005, over half of the AfricanAmerican hea d football coaches hired at the Di vision I FBS and FCS has been participants in the NCAAs diversity and inclusion football programs (NCAA, 2010b). Despite such efforts, the representation of African American s as head football coaches has shown a minimal i ncrease over the last 20 years.
26 Organizations, such as the NCAA and BCA, have taken a firm stance on rectifying the under representation of African American and other minority coaches on intercollegiate coaching staffs. The aforementioned NCAA coaching pr ograms and the BCAs hiring report card are demonstrative of such efforts. The purpose of this study was to determine what, if any, changes have taken place within NCAA mens sports concerning the representation of African American s in head and assistant c oaching positions. To accomplish this aim, I conducted a series of analyses on the percentages of African American s in head and assistant coaching positions in all NCAA sports, and in football and mens basketball in particular, spanning the years 1996 2008. Review of Pertinent Literature Despite the minimal increases of African American s in collegiate coaching posit ions, intercollegiate athletics management and administration are still dominated by White males, and these percentages hardly resemble the diversity of the student athletes ( Bracken & DeHass, 2009; DeHass, 2009). It is apparent from the under representati on of African American s holding head and assistant coaching positions that discrimination likely exists within intercollegiate athletics (Anderson, 1993; Cunningham, 2003; Cunningham & Sagas, 2005; Lovett & Lowry, 1994; Sagas & Cunningham, 2004; Sagas & Cunningham, 2005). Researchers have demonstrated a variety of manners in which this discrimination is manifested. Anderson (1993) suggests the pipeline to a head coaching position traditionally begins with assistant coaches, and since being an assistant coach can lead to becoming a coordinator, which is often a prerequisite for becoming a head coach, ethnicity may function as a negative factor in keeping African American s from entering the head coaching pool. As a result of the lack of African American s curr ently holding head coaching and coordinator positions, future
27 coaches and student athletes may negatively view coaching as a good career path (Cunningham, 2003; Cunningham, Sagas, & Ashley, 2001); thus, further perpetuating the under representation of Afri can American s in the college coaching ranks. Another possible implication associated with ethnicity can be traced back to the positions coaches played in college. Anderson (1993) found a significant correlation between ethnicity of the player and the cent rality (high interaction) of his position. More specifically, results show that White assistant coaches were more than twice as likely to have played a central position ( i.e., quarterback or offensive line); positions played by 45% and 36% of head coaches and coordinators, respectively. Given a coachs ethnicity, coupled with the coaching career path certain play ing positions seem relegated to, it is evident how ethnicity helps sustain the under representation of Af rican American head football coaches. Similarly, Everhart and Chelladurai (1998) posit that the potential candidate pool for a coaching position will prominently be filled with athletes, in this case studentathletes, of that sport. As such, a potential problem exists in intercollegiate athletics. This disconnect can be seen here in the proportion of student athletes to racially similar coaches. In 2007 08, 34.4% of all football student athletes were African American (DeHass, 2009) compared to only 9.8% and 21.9% of AfricanAmerican head an d assistant coaches, respectively (Bracken & DeHass, 2009). Similarly in 2008, 18.5% of all male student athletes were African American (DeHass, 2009), yet only 9.1% of mens teams head coaches were African American (Bracken & DeHass, 2009). In accordance with Everhart and Chelladurais (1998) claim, it is safe to assume the number of coaches in the NCAA should be representative of the number of racially similar student athletes. If these proportions are significantly different, the presence of access discr imination is probable (Cunningham & Sagas, 2005).
28 It can be argued that the dif ferential opportunities African American coaches endure stem from the possible lack of human capital (experience and training) and/or social capital (referent and peer networks ) the coaches possess (Sagas & Cunningham, 2005). An aim of AfricanAmerican college coaches would then seem to be building and expanding upon current social networks. Not only should stronger ties and larger networks lead to greater career outcomes, but t hese aspects of social capital should also grant greater access to information, resources, and influence (Sagas & Cunningham, 2005; Seibert, Kraimer, & Liden, 2001). However, past social networks have hindered this development and have almost certainly had a negative impact on the career advancement, upward mobility, and career aspirations among American ethnic minorities (Anderson, 1993, p.66). The effects of social networking are still present within intercollegiate athletics and profoundly influential in the make up of todays athletic departments (Sagas & Cunningham, 2005). Commonly referred to as the good old boys network, these associations perpetuate the dominance of White males in collegiate leadership and management positions (Heilman, 2001; Lov ett & Lowry, 1994). The results of such anti outgroup networks can be seen in the composition of athletic directors, of which 73.1% are White males compared to 7.0% AfricanAmerican males (Bracken & DeHass, 2009), and other highly regarded positions or pow er such as school presidents and conference commissioners. At the opening of the 200708 academic year, 92.5% of institution presidents, 90.0% of athletic directors (in Division I), and 100% of conference commissioners in the NCAA FBS were White (Lapchick, Little, Lerner, and Mathew, 2009). Another manifestation of discrimination lies in the treatment of employees. Over time, the effects of treatment discrimination may lead to decreases in the number of opportunities for
29 minority coaches, limiting their su ccess in occupying positions of leadership, education/training, mobility, and power (Sagas & Cunningham, 2004). This in turn could impact ones commitment. Cunningham et al. (2001) reveal that a coachs intention to leave (turnover) is inversely associated with his feelings of commitment towards the coaching profession, and that this feeling of commitment is impacted by his professional socialization. Despite the lack of opportunity in entering the coaching field, once a coaching position is received, Afric an American s are given more chances to succeed than their White counterparts (Mixon & Trevino, 2004). Research has found that as an individual moves up the coaching ranks s/he are given the power and authority to present opportunities for advancement to others (e.g., assistant coaches, support staff, interns, etc.), and that those others will be individuals who look and act most like them (Cunningham & Sagas, 2005). Cunningham and Sagas (2005) found support for this prediction as head coaches in their stud y, regardless of ethnicity, were more likely to have racially similar assistant coaches. In applying the concept of race uplift (Perkins, 1983), a s the representation of African American coaches increases, their social networks should integrate with thos e already in place within intercollegiate athletics, leading to mor e opportunities for all African American coaches. If this were to hold true, the development of social capital among African American coaches could result in a positive breakthrough into the predominantly White established social network of coaches. Interestingly, Day and McDonald (2010) found that African American s tend to benefit more from the inclusion of diverse coaches in their social network than do their White counterparts. It is ap parent from previous research that African American s face many hurdles in obtaining and sustaining a presence among intercollegiate coaches and administrators. Cunningham and Sagas (2005) examined the existence of access discrimination on mens
30 basketball coaching staffs, finding that AfricanAmerican and White head coaches were more likely to staff ethnically similar assistant coaches. If true of all NCAA sports, this discrimination can have a profound effect on the already low numbers of African American coaches, particularly in football, where only 9.8% of head coaches are African American (Bracken & DeHass, 2009). Similarly, institutional discrimination as a result of centrality has been addressed as a determinant for the under representation of African American coaches in intercollegiate football (Anderson, 1993). As expressed earlier, given a coachs ethnicity, coupled with the coaching career path certain playing positions seem relegated to; it is evident how ethnicity helps sustain the under represent ation of African American head football coaches. Racial barriers such as these two types of discrimination can lead to low occupational commitment (Cunningham et al., 2001) and vast differences in the social networking and human capital (Sagas & Cunningha m, 2005; Seibert et al., 2001; Lovett & Lowery, 1994) of AfricanAmerican coaches. Further efforts have been committed, although not always with acknowledgement, through the implementation of diversity initiatives devised by the NCAA and athletic conferenc es, as well as at the institutional level at many campuses. However, are these progressive policies and programs effective in advancing African American representation among the coaching ranks? The purpose of the study was to determine what, if any, changes have taken place within NCAA mens sports concerning the representation of African American s in head and assistant coaching positions, with a particular focus on the revenue generating sports of football and mens basketball. The following research ques tions were developed to meet the aims of this study and thus to determine, what, if any, changes have occurred and to what extent these
31 changes indicate a positive or negative shift in the curre nt and future status of AfricanAmerican intercollegiate coach es. Research Question 1 : Has there been a change in the ov erall representation of African American head coaches over the past 12 years within all mens NCAA sports? Research Question 2: Has there been a change in the ov erall representation of African American assistant coaches over the past 12 years within all of mens NCAA sports? Research Question 3 : Do these changes (or lack thereof) vary across the revenue generating sports of football and mens basketball? Research Question 4 : Do these changes (or lack thereof) vary across the three NCAA divisions? Method Data Collection Process The NCAA has been conducting a biennial study concerning the ethnic and gender makeup of athletics personnel demographics at member institutions since the early 1990s (Br acken & DeHass, 2009; DeHass, 2003, 2004, 2007; Stiener, 2000). Data collected for this study begins with the 199596 season, the first in which the NCAA utilized the Institution Staff Demographic Form (ISDF). The ethnicity and gender demographic surveys a re given to all NCAA member institutions to complete and return, with personnel percentages being based on the number of surveys collected. The ISDF asks institutions to provide information on the ethnicity and gender of all athletic department administrat ors, as well as head and assistant coaches (full time, part time, and volunteers). Data are further broken down by overall and divisional percentages, with specific minority figures on African American s, Asians, Hispanics, and Native Americans. The NCAA re port presents percentages of African American coaches and athletics personnel with both the inclusion and exclusion of HBCUs.
32 The racial demographics of HBCU coaching staffs were excluded for two primary reasons. In 2008, coaches at HBCUs represented a large percentage of the African American coaches in all of the NCAAs male sports. Of the 8.8% of Africa nAmerican head coaches in all NCAA mens programs, 40% were employed by HBCUs. Second, there is a greater disparity in these numbers when analyzing fo otball, the focus of this study, as well as the sport currently synonymous with the under representation of African American coaches dilemma. HBCUs account for 68% of the 9.9% of African American head football coaches in the entire NCAA. The research questions guiding this study were based on examining possible changes in the representation of African American s among all NCAA divisions of the coaching profession at the intercollegiate level. Data on the ov erall representation of African American head and assistant coaches among all mens NCAA sports (baseball, basketball, bowling, cross country, fencing, field hockey, football, golf, gymnastics, ice hockey, lacrosse, rifle, rowing, skiing, soccer, swimming, tennis, track [indoor and outdoor], volleybal l, water polo, wrestling, other [sports with a low institutional response rates]) were recorded for six different years covering a t welve year span: 1996, 2000, 2002, 2004, 2006, and 2008. In regards t o the representation of African American head and assis tant coaches in each of the revenue generating sports (football and mens basketball), data was collected for the same six time periods : 1996, 2000, 2002, 2004, 2006, and 2008. Only the overall percentages of head and assistant coaches in 1998 could be fou nd, rendering the data incomplete. Therefore, data for the year 1998 was neither recorded nor examined in this study. Design and Procedure Data were first analyzed through an analysis of variance (ANOVA) testing possible changes amon g the representation of AfricanAmerican coaches for the following coaching
33 positions: head coaches in all NCAA mens sports offered (Research Question 1), assistant coaches in all NCAA mens sports offered (Research Question 2), head football coaches, head men s basketball coaches, assistant football coaches, and assistant mens basketball coaches (Research Question 3). As clarified above, I excluded the racial demographics of HBCU coaching staffs. The years in which data were collected served as the independent variable w hile the percentages of African American coaches in the aforementioned positions acted as the dependent variables in this set of analyses. Percentages of African American coaches of the three NCAA divisions for Research Question 4 were pooled so as to adequately provide standard deviations for proper statistical analysis. Again, the year of 1998 was left out due to incomplete data. A multianalysis of variance (MANOVA) was run in or der to compare possible African American coaching representation differences between the three NCAA divisions. For this analysis, data from the various years were pooled in order to provide adequate means and standard deviations. The years 1996 and 2000 were pooled into time period one, the years 2002 and 2004 into time period two, and the years 2006 and 2008 into time period three. The percentages of African American coaches, both head and assistant, in the revenue generating sports of football and mens basketball were also analyzed with this treatment of the data to a ssess differences between the three NCAA divisions by sport. The time periods and NCAA divisions served as the independent variable, w hile the percentages of African American coaches acted as the dependant variable. Results The first two research questions assessed whether there has been significant change in the overall representation of African American head and assistant coaches within all mens NCAA
34 sanctioned sports from the years 1996 2008. While the findings demonstrate a positive shift in the overal l percentages of African American head and assistant coaches (1.1 and 0.5 percentage points, respectively) across all mens NCAA sports, neither increase was large enough to be supported statistically. Means and standard deviations answering question one a re displayed in Table 21. Results from the ANOVA revealed no significant differences between the six years under study F (5,18) = 0.20, p > .05. Further, no significant percentage differences between the six years were found on overall AfricanAmerican ass istant coaches F (5,18) = 0.06, p >. 05, head football coaches F (5,18) = 0.54, p > .05, assistant football coaches F (5,18) = 0.24, p > .05, head mens basketball coaches F (5,18) = 0.04, p > .05, and assistant mens basketball coaches F (5,18) = 0.15, p > .05, answering question two. Findings from the third research question provide a more indepth examination into possible differences in African American head and assistant coaches among the revenue generating sports of football and mens basketball. Again, a positive shift in the representation of these coaches was found; however, none were large enough to warrant any significance. Means and standard deviations for the percentage of AfricanAmerican head and assistant coaches in football and mens basketba ll are displayed in Table 22. Though not statistically significant, it is of interest to note the overall percentage of African American head coaches in all mens sports in intercollegiate athletics has increased since 1996. These percentage findings are true of the ov erall representation of African American assistant c oaches as well. Overall African American representation of football head coaches and assistant coaches is also slightly on the rise, as are mens basketball head and assistant coaches. Differences in African American coaching representation across the three NCAA divisions were examined in the fourth and final research question. Results revealed significant
35 interactions between time a nd division for overall African American head coaches F (4,12) = 3.60, p = .05, .62 as well as African American head football coaches F (4,12) = 3.82, p < .05, .63. Further statistical results revealed significant main effect differences in the mean percentage of African American s between the three divisi ons for overall head coaches F (2,6) = 51.50, p < .001, .92, overall assistant coaches F (2,6) = 180.73, p < .001, .98, football head coaches F (2,6) = 15.47, p = .001, .78, football assistant coaches F (2,6) = 89.32, p < .001, .95, basketball head coaches F (2,6) = 231.17, p < .001, .98, and basketball assistant coaches F (2,6) = 122.24, p < .001, .96 ( Table 23 ). More specifically, the ov erall representation of African American head coaches in NCAA mens Divisions I (+2.3% ), II (+.1%) and III (+0.9%) sports has risen from 1996 to 2008. Likewise, percentages rose for the overall presence of African American assistant coaches in Divisions I (+2.2%) and II (+2.9%), while Division III stayed the same. Further breaking these cat egories down, it was discovered that African American head and assistant coaching percentages rose for all football categories except Division II head coaches. Similarly, all African American head mens basketball coaching percentages rose except for head coaches at the Division III level. There were only two decreases among the African American coaching categories analyzed: head football coaches at the Division II level ( 0.8%), and mens basketball head coaches at the Division III level ( 2.0%). The ov erall percentage of African American assistant coaches at the Division III level did not change from over the two time periods analyzed. A statistical analysis was not undertaken due to a lack of means and standard deviations. Rather, data were analyzed by manner of visual examination.
36 The largest increase of African American head coaches was seen in Division I with a rise of 2.3%, while 2.9% was the largest increase for assistant coaches, having occurred at the Division II level. The most positive ch anges for football head and assistant coaches occurred in Division III (+1.6%) and Division I (+5.8%), respectively. With regards to basketball, Division I mens basketball showed the greatest rise in both categories with head coaches increasing 5.5% and a ssistant coaches 8.2%. Despite numerous increases in percentages over the past 12 years, several coaching categories saw decreases from 2006 to 2008. Overall African American head coaches decreased in Divisions I ( 0.2%) and III ( 0.1%), while AfricanAm erican football head coaches in Division I ( 1.0%) witnessed a decline. Lastly, representation of AfricanAmerican basketball head coaches decreased in Divisions I ( 2.3%) and III (1.4%). Discussion The findings reveal that while increases in African American head and assistant coaches have taken place within mens NCAA sports, the rate at which representation is rising is minimal. I t appears as though the trend in intercollegiate athletics, in regards to the representation of African American coaches of mens NCAA sports, is very slowly taking on a positive shift. Granted, there have bee n strides made to raise African American coaching percentages, but the limited increases can be somewhat disappointing given the recent attention and concern expressed towards increasing diversity amongst the coaching staffs of NCAA mens sports, particularly football. Another finding of the study revealed that Division I institutions employ significantl y larger percentages of African American coaches than do Divisions II and III. Which bears the question, given the popularity and exposure of Division I athletics, in particular football and
37 mens basketball, could the personnel in these sports be a catalyst for change? Furthermore, it is possi ble that as African American coaching percentages continue to gravitate t owards emulation of the African American population of student athlete s at the Division I level, this shift will be more socially accepted and promoted by all NCAA member institutions. It is hoped that the findi ngs of Anderson (1993) will diminish as diversity found among players at all positions, both central an d peripheral, increases. Finch et al. ( 2010) conducted a 15 year update of Andersons 1993 work and found that while the number of African American assistant coach es has increased, their representation in head coaching and coordinator positions has seen minimal expansion. This would seem to suggest the existence of a glass ceiling (Cunningham, 2003), or other types of institutional discrimination. The in crease of African American representation among assistant coaches in mens basketball and football was greater than the percentages of African American coaches throughout all NCAA mens sports (Bracken & DeHass, 2009). This is a positive sign given that a larger portion of student athletes in these two sports are African American According to Everhart and Chelladurai (1998), diversity among student athletes should present the coaching field with a more diverse candidate pool in future years. As more Africa nAmerican student athlete s and graduate assistants enter the coaching field, the representation among assistant coaches should increase, possibly manifesting itself in the increase of African American head coaches (Anderson, 1993). This claim was not vali dated for football coaches throughout the last 12 years as Finch et al. ( 2010) found evidence suggesting the continuance of institutional discrimination is present in mens NCAA sports. As described earlier, the current social network among head coaches and athletic directors in NCAA football and mens basketball is dominated by White men (Lapchick, 2007;
38 Lovett & Lowry, 1994), possibly reducing opportunities for minority members career advancement. As a likely result of this established network, Africa nAmerican coaches have struggled to find their way into head coaching positions. To possibly eliminate this type of discr imination might require African American head coaches and other minorities to assist in increasing minority coaching representation through the integration of their networks with the White networks ( i.e., good ol d boys club) of athletic departments. The NCAA has conducted the ethnic and gender demographics study for over 15 years. Despite the obvious under representation of African A merican coaches demonstrated in the NCAAs findings (Bracken & DeHass, 2009), the shift in intercollegiate athletics to be more diversified and inclusive has been nominal. However, the positive shifts in African American coaching percentages witnessed in t his study are somewhat encouraging. It is hoped that as the NCAA and member institutions grow more socially aware and concerned with this under representation and minimal increase of African American coaches found in this study, the diversification of coaching staffs, especially at the head coach position, will increase. In the 200809 BCA Hiring Report Card, Dr. Lapchick calls for a civil rights movement, fearing that the onset of new open and objective hiring processes was not resulting in the expectant head coaching opportunities for African American s. Consequently, future legal and social ramifications against the NCAA could be seen. However, it is also the responsibility of the NCAA member institutions to focus on implementing improved hiring practices educating athletic departments on the importance of coaching staff diversity, and fostering positive attitudes and behaviors regarding fair and impartial hiring practices for the future. Therefore, the BCA has been persistent in their continued push for the NCAA to adopt the Eddie Robinson Rule, an interview mandate similar to that of the NFLs Rooney Rule. In fact, the state of Oregon
39 imposed such a rule for its state colleges and universities (Harrison & Yee, 2009). It is hoped that the NCAAs recent acceptance of hiring guidelines will facilitate the results of their commitment to diverse coaching opportunities and representation (Lapchick, 2007). This study sought to determine what, if any, changes have taken place within NCAA mens sports concernin g the representation of African American s in head and assistant coaching positions. The results indicate there have been changes, albeit minimal. Regardless, the increases in African American representation on all levels of the coaching staff indicate a po sitive development. It helps prove that NCAA coaching academies, diversity programs, hiring guidelines, and studies and reports are having an effect on rectifying current coaching inequalities at the intercollegiate level. Despite a record s etting hiring season of African American head coaches, the nominal representation remains emblematic of the social issues existent in NCAA football and other intercollegiate sports. Concerns surrounding the current lack of hiring guidelines in college athletics fuel the push for mandated racial and ethnic minority candidates. Regardless of the individual hired or the intentions behind mandatory minority candidate interviews, there are benefits to be had. One such benefit is a medium by which a minority candidate would be able to present his/her personality, character, and coaching credentials to individuals with whom s/he may not otherwise get to speak. A possible result of these interactions is socia l network expansion. As African American coaches become more entrench ed in the predominantly White social networks governing intercollegiate athletics, concurrently increasing their social capital, the increase of African American representation in head coaching positions should become a natural occurrence (Harrison, 2005; Sagas & Cunningham, 2005). Similarly, as more African American candidates
40 are interviewed and hired, the measures against which coaches are currently compared should diversify and expand, ceasing to perpetuate the coaching profession as a homogenous field.
41 Table 2 1. Means and Standard Deviations for AfricanAmerican Coaching Percentages in Men's Sports Across All NCAA Divisions, 19962008 Years M SD Head Coaches 1996 4.40 1.14 2000 4.40 1.39 2002 4.97 2.02 2004 5.07 2.31 2006 5.30 1.82 2008 5.50 1.61 Total 4.94 1.54 Assistant Coaches 1996 11.70 3.62 2000 11.80 4.25 2002 11.90 5.20 2004 12.77 4.92 2006 12.47 4.66 2008 13.40 4.75 Total 12.34 3.91
42 Table 2 2. Means and Standard Deviation s for African American Coaching P ercentages in Football and Men s Basketball Across All NCAA Divisions, 1996 2008 Years M SD Head Football Coaches 1996 2.80 2.17 2000 1.70 1.08 2002 1.70 1.54 2004 1.37 1.19 2006 2.93 2.76 2008 3.17 1.68 Total 2.28 1.70 Assistant Football Coaches 1996 13.43 4.18 2000 12.30 7.02 2002 14.63 7.27 2004 16.40 7.55 2006 15.87 6.46 2008 17.27 6.65 T otal 14.98 5.83 Head Basketball Coaches 1996 11.33 5.27 2000 13.07 7.54 2002 12.90 8.87 2 004 12.80 9.17 2006 14.23 9.61 2008 13.57 8.62 Total 12.98 7.04 Assistant Basketball Coaches 1996 22.07 8.63 2000 23.13 8.75 2002 22.80 9.63 2004 25.00 10.26 2006 23.93 10.48 2008 28.07 10.70 Total 24.17 8.46
43 Table 2 3 Means and Stand ard Deviations for Mean African American Coaching P ercentages Across the Three NCAA Divisions, 1996 2008 Divisions M SD Overall Head Coaches Division I 6.75 1.08 Division II 4.28 0.82 Division III 3.78 0.39 Total 4.94 1.54 Overall Assistant Coaches Division I 17.27 0.99 Division II 11.47 1.51 Division III 8.33 0.21 Total 12.34 3.9 1 Head Football Coaches Division I 3 .87 7 1.69 Division II 1.20 1.26 Division III 1.77 0.82 Total 2.28 1.70 Head Basketball Coaches Division I 22.20 2.62 Division II 10.03 1.09 Division III 6.72 0.89 Total 12.98 7.04 Assistant Football Coaches Division I 22.03 2.40 Division II 13.40 3.28 Division III 9.52 0.80 Total 14.98 5.83 Assistant Basketball Coaches Division I 34.80 2.93 Division II 21.93 2.52 Division III 15.77 1.45 Total 24.17 8.46
44 CHAPTER 3 RACIAL TASKING AND THE COLLEGE QUARTERBACK: REDEFINING THE STACKING PHENOMENON Before leading his team to a victory in Super Bowl XXII and earning the games Most Valuable Player accolade, Washington Redskins quarterback Doug Williams was presented with a number of race related questions, including Doug, obviously youve been a black quarterback your whole life. When did race begin to matter to people? (Mikkelson & Mikkelson, 2005). In 2003, Rush Limbaugh criticized the media for overrating Philadelphia Eagles quarterback, Donovan McNabb, claiming his praise stems from their ye arning for a successful African American quarterback. More recently, Tennessee Titans quarterback, Vince Young, claimed he will be the next black quarterback to win the Super Bowl. Incidents such as these serve as a reminder that race continues to be a prevalent i ssue in sports and that AfricanAmerican athletes in the most scrutinized of playing positions, the quarterback, still find themselves at the center of racially motivated deliberations. Regardless of their merits, race has seemed to marginalize the efforts an d on field successes of African American quarterbacks; a practice found all too common in the medias portrayal of African American athletes (Dufur & Feinberg, 2009). Such racially driven inquiries and declarations seem to elicit a stigma that is attached to being a Black quarterback; a stigma that is absent from any other athlete playing the pos ition. One of the manners in which racial discrimination is manifested on the field of play is through positional segregation, commonly referred to as stacking. Stacking is the segregation and designation of athletes in to certain positions as a result of a ssumptions made concerning a link between athletic ability and race; leading to the overrepresentation of minorities in some playing positions and the under representation in others (Sack, Singh, & Thiel, 2005). Positional segregation, manifested through t he phenomenon of stacking in sport, seems to have evolved
45 from the errant assumption that African American athletes have naturally superior talents and are more individualistically driven than their White counterparts, who conversely, are mentally superior harder workers, and maintain more of a team attitude (Anshel, 1990; Buffington, 2005). This fallible mind body dualism approach to athletic superiority and mental inferiority, and vice versa, nevertheless endures today through media depictions and treat ment of athletes. Woodward (2004) found that African American amateur athletes were more likely to be described in terms of their physical attributes rather than their mental skills by professional NFL scouts. Similarly, Dufur (1997) exposed the discrepanc y in portrayals of African American and White athletes in advertising. African American athletes were portrayed to owe their successes to an innate physical ability while their White counterparts were portrayed to have earned their achievements through har d work, intelligence, and strong leadership behaviors. In Major League Baseball (MLB), it has been found that African American s are overrepresented in the more peripheral and less interactive positions of outfielders and underrepresented in the more c entral positions of the infield, pitcher, and catcher (Grusky, 1963; see Sack et al., 2005). Similarly, it has been found that Latinos are overrepresented in the central positions of shortstop and second base (Gonzalez, 1996). Country of origin has also be en found to be a key determinant of a MLB players playing position (Sosa & Sagas, 2008). In football, both the National Football League (NFL) and at the intercollegiate level, African American s have historically been relegated to the peripheral positions of running back, wide receiver, and defensive back while being largely ignored for the most central position in all of sport: the quarterback (Anderson, 1993; Finch et al. 2010; Hawkins, 2002; Woodward, 2004). It can be argued that the role of quarterbac k has become more multidimensional; with an emphasis placed more on running the ball than on passing (Buffington, 2005; Hawkins, 2002).
46 Thus, in accordance with the mindbody dualism approach, African American athletes would increasingly occupy the role of quarterback as the need for cognitive aptitude is truncated by physical abilities. This study sought to demonstrate the validity of such contentious convictions and explain if positional segregation continues to be preserved at the quarterback position th rough the play of White and African American athletes in the NCAAs Division I Football Bowl Subdivision (FBS). I also propose a new manifestation of positional segregation; one I have labeled as racial tasking. Review of Pertinent Literature and Theory A number of various theories have been used to examine discrimination in sports. The following theories have been used to frame this study as they address the issues of positional segregation (i.e., stacking) and its resultant inequities. Centrality In h is seminal piece on organizational centrality, Grusky (1963) identified the formal structure of an organization as the environment in which roles and positions are created, concomitant responsibilities are defined, and constituent behaviors are revealed; a ll of which are instrumental aspects of an organizations norms and culture. Roles and expectations within this formal structure can be central or peripheral; the designation of which is determined by (1) spatial location (ones position in relation to oth ers), (2) the nature of the task (independent or dependant), and (3) the frequency of ones interpersonal interactions with others in the organization (Grusky, 1963). Loy and Elvogue (1970) applied this theory to sport demonstrating how positional segregat ion in football and baseball is a function of race and the athletes spatial location to other team members on the field, his level of interaction with other members of the team, and the dependency of the task for which he is responsible. This examination found that
47 African American athletes were scarcely placed in central positions, resulting in a lack of interaction with teammates and coaches. An athletes level of interaction can be influential on his/her development of knowledge and skills relative to the sport. High interactors should be more likely to learn cooperative social skills and develop a strong commitment to the welfare of the organization, while low interactors should be more likely to focus on individualistic rather than team values and tend to be psychologically distant or aloof (Grusky, 1963). This would seem to suggest that as athletes are placed in more peripheral positions, their skills and knowledge are marginalized, their resources limited, and expectations outside of their positional responsibilities are lowered. All of which may hinder their social and human capital (Sagas & Cunningham, 2005), as well as their prospects and aspirations of entering into coaching or other leadership roles. Despite recent increases in the representation of African American players in central positions, specifically quarterback, there is still concern regarding the progress being made towards quelling positional segregation in the sport and its negative antecedents (Buffington, 2005; Finch et al., 2010). Outcome Control Hypothesis Though not as outwardly evident as other racial assumptions, the mindbody dualism approach posits athletes typically have cognitive capabilities in lieu of athletic abilities and vice versa (Buffington, 2005). More specificall y, proponents of this approach have historically held that African American athletes are physically superior to White athletes who, in contrast, have greater mental capacities (see Buffington, 2005). This prejudicial attitude towards White and African Amer ican athletes is manifested in football with the overrepresentation of African American players in peripheral (reactionary) positions and their under representation in central (decision making) positions (Dufur & Feinberg, 2009; Woodward, 2004). Madison and Landers
48 (1976) even suggest that due to existing stereotypes of African American and White athletes abilities in central and peripheral roles, coaches may have a predisposition to encourage players to play certain positions. Previous studies on racial s tereotyping in football have found portrayals of African American players to reference physical characteristics, trustworthiness, and high personal motivation; conversely, descriptions of White players focus more on their reliability, concern for team succ ess, and mental abilities (see Anshel, 1990). For those coaches believing in such a mindbody dynamic of human ability, their motives for stacking players in certain positions may be due to their lack of trust in African American s to make decisions that wi ll lead to a successful outcome: winning. The outcome control hypothesis maintains that it is not the positions centrality in a sport, but rather the positions impact on controlling the outcome of the game, argues Edwards (1973), that determines the r esultant positional segregation between White and African American players (as cited in Johnson & Johnson, 1995). For example, positions of quarterback and kicker have a direct and observable impact on the game, and according to the outcome control hypothe sis would thus demonstrate an under representation of African American s. In relation to stacking and in accordance with the outcome control hypothesis, Johnson & Johnson (1995) conclude that minority athletes performance must be greater than that of their White counterparts. As such, African American athletes placed in positions of control and influence will be expected to outperform their White counterparts lest they can afford decreased opportunities for current and future racially similar athletes. Self Segregation and Role Model Theory Sport and athletic skills are a valued commodity in the African American community, often times inappropriately portrayed as a viable and attainable option for social and economic
49 upward mobility (Edwards, 2000). More so than their White counterparts, African American athletes have been found to idolize and emulate athletes with whom they can identify (Hawkins, 2002; McPherson, 1975). Given that African American athletes have historically been positioned in peripheral play ing roles such as wide receiver and defensive back, the self segregation hypothesis posits that younger African American athletes will view current allstars as role models and gravitate towards playing similar positions. The success and ascendancy of Afri can American role models in these positions at the professional and collegiate levels furthers the notion that such distal positions are the most viable path for a successful career in the sport. This perception impacts the socialization process of young African American athletes resulting in self induced imitative learning that subsequently encourages specific playing positions (McPherson, 1976). Accordingly, African American athletes are denied the development of certain knowledge and skills acquired from playing central, leadership and decision making positions (Evans, 1997). This concern is cyclical in nature and maintains a lack of opportunities for African American athletes to learn valuable skills and knowledge, contributing to the under representati on of African American s in central positions such as quarterback. Furthermore, this under representation negatively impacts the number of visible role models and mentors for current and future players. In a way, the manners in which self segregation and role model theories apply to African American athletes and in sports can be construed as cultural capital. That is, the field of sport offers a set of social norms, attitudes, practices, and values that help to determine if someone is an accepted or rejected member as well as the status level of members (Eitle & Eitle, 2002; Holt, 1998) Thus, success in sports and participation at certain playing positions may be seen as
50 providing greater cultural capital; subsequently, facilitating the play of African Amer ican s in peripheral positions. African American s in Coaching Despite the increase of diverse players occupying the quarterback position, some research suggests is the position itself that is changing and not the attitudes of the coaches and team staff t owards African American players and their decisionmaking abilities (Buffington, 2005; Hawkins, 2002). Speculation is that the increase of African American s playing quarterback is due primarily to fundamental shifts in the sport, requiring that athletes in the position to possess a more reactive skill set rather than cognitive abilities (Buffington, 2005). In his 2002 manuscript examining a thirty three year period of positional segregation patterns of football programs in the National Collegiate Athletic A ssociations (NCAA) Southeastern Conference (SEC), Hawkins seems optimistic, suggesting the more we continue to see African American s in central roles the closer we are to ending positional segregation. It stands to reason that as positional segregation di minishes, African American players will observe increases in their social and human capital, which should in turn augment their representation among the coaching ranks and in leadership roles. As previously mentioned, centrality appears to play an import ant role in the knowledge obtained and skills developed as a football player; knowledge and skills crucial to obtaining a coaching position. Anderson (1993) found that the more central a playing position (i.e., quarterback), as well as a coaching position, the greater chance that player or coach had at becoming a head coach. Despite increases in African American players in central football positions, similar increases are not being found on coaching staffs. In a 15 year update of Andersons (1993) piece on potential institutional discrimination against African America
51 football coaches, Finch et al. ( 2010) found that the efforts of African American players and coaches continue to be marginalized as minimal increases in head coaching representation have occurr ed. Recent findings also suggest that management may continue to hire Whites over African American s for head coaching positions, thereby perpetuating their under representation the leadership positions (Cunningham, Bruening, & Straub, 2006). However, just prior to the completion of the 200910 recruiting period, there were 13 African American head coaches in DI FBS. What remains to be seen is if this egalitarian trend continues or if it is merely a reaction to the pressures from the Black Coaches and Admini strators (BCA). Hypotheses This study will examine a new manifestation of positional segregation through possible racial differences in the number and percentage of passing and rushing attempts for White and African American quarterbacks at the NCAA Division I FBS level. I propose the following hypotheses. Hypothesis 1: Race will have an effect on which plays (i.e., rushing or passing) are carried out by White and African American quarterbacks at the NCAA Division I FBS level, such that African American quarterbacks will have more rushing and less passing attempts than their White counterparts. Hypothesis 2: The percentage of rushing attempts for African American quarterbacks wil l be significantly greater and the percentage of passing attempts significantly lower than the percentages of rushing versus passing attempts of their White counterparts. Methodology Procedures and Data Collection
52 Data from the 2008 intercollegiate foot ball season were collected from each of the 120 institutions playing at the NCAA Division I FBS level. Data were pulled from the athletic departments official team web site. Statistics were collected for each quarterback having lined up in said position f or at least one play during the season. While it is recognized that other players may have lined up at the quarterback position throughout the season, the focus of this study is on the quarterback, and data were collected solely on players listed as such i n the teams official media guide. The variables for which data were collected on each player were as follows: race, pass attempts, passing yards, passing touchdowns, rush attempts, rushing yards, rushing touchdowns, the number of times the player was sacked and the resultant yards lost. Similarly, team data were collected on the following control variables: conference, win loss record, points, touchdowns, time of possession per game, pass attempts, passing yards, passing touchdowns, rush attempts, rushing yards, and rushing touchdowns. Data were collected for all quarterbacks, as listed so in official team media guides, which fielded the position at least once during the 2008 season. This resulted in a total of 324 players. Player bios were then examined t o determine the race of the players. When race could not be visually determined by the primary coder, a second, independent coder was used. Players were categorized as either African American (n=82), White (n=237), or other (n=5). The primary focus of stac king literature regarding the quarterback position centers on African American and White players; therefore, those players designated to the other racial category were not used in the study. This resulted in a total of 319 quarterbacks. Players were furt her eliminated if they had not attempted at least 36 passes or rushes during the season (an average of three pass or rush attempts per game in a regular 12 game season). This resulted in a total of 200 quarterbacks, of which 53 were African American and 147 were White.
53 Data Analysis Data were first analyzed through a multivariate analysis of variance (MANOVA) testing possible differences in the types of plays (i.e., run or pass) executed by African American and White quarterbacks. A second MANOVA was computed to determine any possible percentage differences of Whites and African American s rushing and passing attempts. To determine possible differences in the plays carried out by African American and White quarterbacks as well as any possible percentage di fferences in the rushing and passing attempts made by White and African American quarterbacks, a multivariate analysis of covariance (MANCOVA) was utilized. To account for potential differences in team offenses (e.g., spread, option, west coast ), the quart erbacks team passing attempts, team rushing attempts, and the time of possession per game were all controlled for in the MANCOVA computation. The results of this analysis were used to answer the hypotheses. Results The resultant tally of NCAA DI FBS quar terbacks analyzed in this study was 200, of which 26.5% were African American and 73.5% White. In te sting for possible differences between the plays executed by African American and White quarterbacks, it was found that African American quarterbacks averag ed 72 rush attempts and 204 pass attempts on the season, while White quarterbacks averaged 41 rush attempts on the season and 230 pass attempts ( Table 31). The race of the quarterback was found to significantly impact the number of rushing attempts he had on the season F (1,198) = 20.64, p < race was found to have no significant impact on the number of passing attempts F (1,198) = 1.15, p >
54 Table 32 reports the findings on possible percentage differences in the rushing and passing attempts made White and African American quarterbacks. Significant differences were found between the percentages of rush attempts versus the percentage of pass attempts f or the racially different quarterbacks F (1,198) = 33.52, p < ball only 16.2% ( SD =.14) of the time as opposed to passing the ball 83.8% ( SD = .14) of the time. Conversely, African American quarterbacks ran the ball 31.1% ( SD = .21) of the time compared to passing the ball only 68.9% ( SD = .21) of the time. Differences in the plays carried out by African American and White quarterbacks as well as percentage differences in the rushing and passing attempts executed by White and African American quarterbacks are displayed in Tables 1 and 2, respectively. Controlling for the quarterbacks team passing attempts, team rushing attempts, and the time of possession per game, race was found to significantly impact the quart erbacks number of rushing attempts F ( 1, 195) = 18.20, p < significant impact on the number of passing attempts F ( 1,195) = 0.14, p > Controlling for the aforementioned variables, African American quarterbacks had more rushing attempts ( EMM = 69.09, SE = 5.40) and passed the ball fewer times ( EMM = 217.29, SE = 18.40) than did their White counterparts (for rushing attempt s, EMM = 42.16, SE = 3.23; for passing attempts, EMM = 225.18, SE = 11.00). Likewise, a greater percentage of African American quarterbacks attempts were rushes ( EMM = .29, SE = .02) when compared to White quarterbacks ( EMM = .17, SE = .01). In contrast, a greater percentage of White quarterbacks attempts were passes ( EMM = .83, SE = .01) compared to the African American quarterbacks ( EMM = .71, SE = .02). These differences between the mean percentage of rush attempts versus
55 pass attempts for the racially different quarterbacks was significant F ( 1,195 = 33.86, p < = .15. Discussion The purpose of this study was to ascertain whether or not positional segregation (i.e., stacking) continues at the quarterback position in college football. To determine its existence, the play of White and African American athletes was examined. Analyses of rushing and passing statistics from all quarterbacks during the 2008 NCAA DI FBS season revealed a distinction between the average numb er of pass and rush attempts for racially diverse quarterbacks. Partial s upport for Hypothesis 1 was found as African American quarterbacks rushed the ball a significantly greater number of times than their White counterparts and had fewer pass attempts on average. Hypothesis 2 was also supported as significant differences were found in the percentage of rush vs. pass attempts, with the percentage of rush attempts made by African American s nearly doubling that of White quarterbacks. Conversely, White quarte rbacks passed the ball approximately 15% more often than their African American counterparts. These results may suggest that the possible discriminatory practices found at the quarterback position in the NCAAs DI FBS can be attributed to race. Furthermore, the institutionally discriminant practice of positional segregation has diminished for quarterbacks. However, a new manifestation of positional segregation seems to be occurring through possible racial tasking. The focus of this study was not the playin g positions of racially different athletes, but rather the plays carried out by those in the quarterback position to determine if they coincided with stereotypes concerning the mental and physical abilities of African American and White athletes. It was fo und that African American quarterbacks carry the
56 ball more often while White quarterbacks are more prone to execute passing plays. I propose one possible explanation for this phenomenon can be defined as racial tasking. Similar to outcome control hypothesis (Edwards, 1973) and centrality (Grusky, 1963), I contend that racial tasking in sport is a function of ones prejudice towards a minority athletes capability, both mental and physical, to perform. According to the aforementioned theories, racial stacking occurs to decrease the impact of minorities on the result of a game (outcome control hypothesis) or to remove minorities from vital decision making positions on the field or during play (centrality). Racial tasking on the other hand is a practice in which positional segregation does not occur. Rather, the tasks athletes are asked to perform are dependent upon the athletes race and vary despite holding the same playing position. Thus for quarterbacks, the plays they are asked to carry out (i.e., run or pass) are contingent on their race. Further validating this notion is the racial percentages of quarterbacks in certain statistical categories. Of the quarterbacks with the most rush attempts, 20 (50%) of the top 40 and 8 (40%) of the top 20 were African American Conversely, of the quarterbacks with the most pass attempts, only 7 (17.5%) of the top 40 and 2 (10%) of the top 20 were African American These findings may suggest that coaches still manage, perhaps implicitly, under a discriminatory assertion towards the passing and mental abilities of African American quarterbacks. If play calling is not contingent on the quarterbacks race, one could argue that the ratio of plays called for African American and White quarterba cks in the top 40 of each category would be similar to the ratio of African American and White quarterbacks in the DI FBS. However, this presumption would fail to account for the teams style of play and success, as well as the athletic abilities of the quarterback.
57 Furthermore, this deduction does not account for the expanding offensive expectations at the quarterback position. When examining the overall percentages of rush attempts versus pass attempts (1:5), it is apparent that multidimensional quarterb acks are a part of college football now more than ever. In 2008, of the 65 DI FBS teams in BCS conferences, 32 claimed a quarterback as one of their top three rushers and 19 of those 32 quarterbacks w ere one of their teams top two rushers (Forde, 2009). The increase of African American quarterbacks seems to signify an end to the negative propositions of the outcome control hypothesis and centrality theory. Through the quarterback position, African American s are able to have a more direct impact on the ou tcome of a game as well as play in the most vital of decision making positions. However, the increase in rushing attempts for quarterbacks coinciding with the increase of African American quarterbacks provides fodder to centrality theorists; reinforcing ne gative stereotypes about the mental and physical capabilities of African American s to play the position. As suggested, I contend that a new form of discrimination and positional segregation, racial tasking, may be present in this context. While this assert ion is speculative, additional research on the presence of any bias or prejudice that leads to differential roles and expectations with a sport position is merited. Further, continued examination and understanding of the outcomes of play calling and positi onal segregation in college football is particularly important.
58 Table 3 1. Racial Differences in the Number of Rush and Pass Attempts Pass Attempts Rush Attempts Quarterback Race M SD M SD African American 204.3 133.45 71.5 45.05 White 229.9 153.60 41.3 40.14
59 Table 3 2. Racial Differences in the Percentage of Rush and Pass Attempts % of Pass Attempts % of Rush Attempts Quarterback Race M SD M SD African American 68.9 20.78 31.1 20.78 White 83.8 14.00 16.2 14.00 Note: % = represents the percentage of rush/pass attempts in comparison to the players total attempts per the 2008 season.
60 CHAPTER 4 AN EXAMINATION OF AFRICAN AMERICAN NCAA FOOTBALL COCHES: A FIVE YEAR UPADATE W hen the dust settled at the close of the 2010 FBS hiring cycle for head coaches, an historic 13 African American s were at the helm of programs participating at the elite level of college football: Ron English of Eastern Michigan, Turner Gill of Kansas, Mike Haywood of Miami (Ohio), Mike Locksley of New M exico, Mike London of Virginia, Ruffin McNeil of East Carolina, Larry Porter of Memphis, Joker Phillips of Kentucky, Randy Shannon of Miami, Charlie Strong of Louisville, Kevin Sumlin of Houston, Willie Taggart of Western Kentucky, and DeWayne Walker of New Mexico State (McKindra, 2010). The significant increase to 13 African American head coaches demonstrates a beginning to the positive steps being taken towards equality and an end to potential institutional and access discrimination in intercollegiate foo tball. Based on a previous research suggestion that the candidate pool for a coaching position should be heavily occupied by former athletes of that sport (Everhart & Chelladurai, 1998), it is reasonable to expect the racial composition of football coachi ng staffs to emulate the racial composition of football student athletes. Such is not the case at the elite level of college football. In 2007 08 at the Division I level of football, 46.4% of all student athletes were African American (DeHass, 2009) compar ed to only 5.1% and 23.8% of African American head and assistant coaches, respectively (Bracken & DeHass, 2009). Such racial and ethnic inequalities between the players and coaches of a sport can lead to biased expectations and assumptions regarding partic ipants. This is witnessed in college football where it was found that African American s are 7.6 times more likely to be seen as a player than as a head coach in college football (Cunningham, 2010).
61 The scarcity of African American head coaches and the dissonance between the racial composition of student athletes and coaching staffs as well as other leadership positions, provides validation for inquiries into potential and various forms of discrimination. Positional segregation, or s tacking as it is more commonly referred to in the sports realm, has been researched as one potential cause for discrimination in college sports (Sack, Singh, & Thiel, 2005) ; as have homologous reproduction (Cunningham & Sagas, 2005), access discrimination (Cunningham & Sagas, 2005), and treatment discrimination (Sagas & Cunningham, 2004) to name a few In 1993, Anderson addressed the potential existence of institutional discrimination in college football and its negative outcomes on coaches. Fifteen year s later, Finch et al. (2010) replicated his study to determine if a more equitable racial representation had taken place among college football coaching staffs. Both studies concluded that institutional and access discrimination, attributable partly to coa ching career paths, remains a potential deterrent in achieving a more diverse and equal representation of racial minority coaches. With the significant increase in representation of African American college football coaches in 2010, this stud y seeks to examine the career paths of all DI FBS coaches and compare them to those of the coaches examined in Anderson (1993) and Finch et al.s (2010) studies. Review of Pertinent Literature In any industry or field of work, there exists a path by which most employ ees travel to establish a career or reach the upper echelons of employment. Dependent upon the business conducted within the industry or field of work, that path may be paved through experience, education, apprenticeship, etc. For coaches in the field of s port, this path usually takes one from player to graduate assistant to assistant coach to coordinator and finally head coach. However,
62 the hierarchy of the positions within the coaching staff is usually dependent upon the sport, with football coaches seemi ng to have a longer (e.g., more coaching positions) path to take (Anderson, 1993) The career path of a college football coach usually begins with his playing days which then lead to a graduate assistantship or role as an assistant coach at in all likelihood, the position he played at the college or professional level. He should then progress through the hierarchical coaching ladder to a higher assistant or coordinator role. Eventually, his coaching career path should reach the pinnacle of the coaching ladder as the head coach. Anderson (1993) speculated that this coaching career path may unintentionally work against African American s. It was found from his results that the majority (66.6%) of head coaches in 1990 had played ei ther quarterback or along the offensive line. Similarly, 68.9% of offensive coordinators were listed as having played in either of the two positions. This is an important factor in examining coaching and playing experience for the reason that these highly central positions have historically and primarily been occupied by White athletes. Fifteen years later, Finch et al. (2010) found that the percentage of head coaches having played quarterback or along the offensive line decreased to 45.4%; more specificall y, one third of all head coaches had played quarterback. Thus, the prejudiced practice of stacking remains influential, adversely so for African American s, on the outcomes of players in regards to their coaching careers. Researchers have suggested a bevy of explanations regarding the potential existence of discrimination towards African American coaches in intercollegiate athletics. Cunningham and Sagas (2005) examined the practice of homologous reproduction to explain negative impact s on African American s access into the coaching field finding samerace hiring practices to be prevalent in intercollegiate athletics This remains a cause for concern given that 89.1% (950) of N CAA director of athletics, the decisive figure in the coach hiring
63 process in the 200708 academic year were White (Bracken & DeHass, 2009) This would suggest that the hiring of racially similar head football coaches facilitates the good old boys network, in turn, maintaining the hegemony of White males in collegiate leaders hip and management positions (Heilman, 2001; Lovett & Lowry, 1994). As such, there continues to be a lack of role models with whom African American athletes and coaches can emulate and identify, potentially limiting the intentions of players and assistants to become a head coach ( Hawkins, 2002; Sagas, Cunningham, & Pastore, 2006). Role congruity theory (Eagly & Karau, 2002) has been suggested to convey potential prejudices that exist due to latent stereotyped characteristics of African American coaches th at are incongruent with what individuals perceive to be the attributes necessary to hold a head coaching position; in this case, White. Consequently, racial minority coaches have been found to be viewed as less qualified than their White counterparts for h ead coaching positions (Sartore & Cunningham, 2006). This perceived lack of fit (Burgess & Borgida, 1999) further perpetuates discrimination and unequal coaching opportunities for African American s. Again, African American s are 7.6 times more likely to b e seen as a player than as a head coach in college football (Cunningham, 2010). Research has found that discrepancies in media portrayals of African American athletes and coaches have furthered stigmas and stereotypes that detrimentally impact their coachi ng chances ( Buffington, 2005; Cunningham & Bopp, 2010; Dufur & Feinberg, 2009; Woodward, 2004) The resultant impact of these theories in practice is a lack of human capital, and social capital for African American coaches. More specifically, as African American s a re cast away to the peripheral positions of wide receivers, running backs, and defensive backs, the skills and knowledge they learn and develop are designed to enhance play at said specific positions;
64 positions that historically have not led to head coaching roles (Anderson, 1993; Finch et al., 2010). Similarly, the social networks and capital of coaches and players holding these positions might struggle to extend beyond the boundaries of said positions. Such disparities in human and soci al capital among coaches in college football have been found to lead to lower levels of career success, career satisfaction, and upward mobility (Sagas & Cunningham, 2005). Thus, the social networks and human capital of African American s, impacted negative ly by institutional discrimination, seems to have hindered the career advancement, upward mobility, and career aspirations among American ethnic minorities (Anderson, 1993, p.66). However, with recent support from the NCAA and urges from organizations s uch as the BCA, the representation of African American college football coaches is steadily, albeit slowly, increasing. The purpose of this study is to identify the potential gains made by African American coaches in DI FBS football. A secondary aim of thi s study is to determine in what ways, if any, African American coaches are impacted by the coaching career paths of current head coaches and coordinators. Providing an update to, and expansion of Finch et al.s (2010) 2005 data should help to identify changes in coaching representation of African American s. The following research questions will guide this study towards that aim Research Question 1 : What is the proportion of African American and White head and assistant coaches in DI FBS in 2010, and do the se proportions differ from those published by Finch et al. (2010) and Anderson (1993) ? Research Question 2 : Will White head coaches have more White assistant coaches on their staff than African American head coaches, and conversely, will African American head coaches have more African American assistant coaches on their staff than White head coaches? Methodology
65 Data Collection and Analysis Data on football coaches were collected prior to, during and immediately following the 2010 spring practices of al l DI FBS programs. Detailed biographical information can frequently be found on the profile pages of a football teams official athletic department website. Data w ere collected regarding race, current position coached, and position played in college for al l head and assistant coaches as well as offensive and defensive coordinators Additional data were collected regarding the position coached for all head coaches and offensive and defensive coordinators prior to their obtaining a position at or above the c oordinator level Part time coaches, s trength and conditioning coaches, graduate assistants, directors of football operations, and other football staff members were n ot included in the data collection. Data regarding current coaching positions and the positions played in college were grouped and coded similarly to Finch et al.s (2010) study: quarterback, offensive lineman, running back or wide receiver (including tight end) defensive lineman or linebacker, cornerback or safety, and did not play collegiate football (for the positions played analysis). In addition, kickers, punters, and special team unit members were grouped as special teams. As it was organized in Finch et al.s (2010) study, the data coding was slightly differe nt from Andersons (1 993) study with the combination of defensive lineman and linebacker into the same category. It is possible for coaches to be involved with the tutoring of multiple positions. When coaches were listed as having multiple responsibilities, the position first listed in the coachs bio was coded and used. For example, a coach serving as the quarterbacks and running backs coach was coded into the quarterback category. This was to ensure coaches would only be counted once in the study.
66 The race of the coaches an alyzed was determined by use of his head shot on the athletic department web site. Coaches were coded as White, African America, or Other. A potential drawback of this method is the subjectivity that is involved with coding race by surface level characteri stics. To help strengthen rater reliability of a coachs race, t hree football programs were randomly selected and codified by two independent raters separate from the principle researcher The coding of the coaches was matched 100% by each of the three ra ters, suggesting reliability of the principle investigators coding. If data (i.e., race, current position coached, position played, and prior coaching position) could not be found on a certain coach, he was removed from the particular analysis of the stud y. Furthermore, if the race of a coach could not be determined or if he was not coded as being either White or African American he was removed from the sample. A series of Chi square analyses were utilized to determine potential differences over time in the racial demographics and playing and coaching positions of all current coaches To answer Research Question 1 a Chi square analysis determined potential differences in the current proportion of African American and White head coaches, offensive and defensive coordinators, and assistant coaches compared to those published by Finch et al. (2010) and Anderson (1993) Furthermore, Chi square analyses were run on playing and coaching experience of all assistant coaches and head coaches to determine in possible differences from past time frames. A Chi square analysis was also run the racial makeup of African American and White head coaches coaching staffs to determine if any differences exist. Results All but one football program had their 2010 coaching staffs posted online at the time of dat a collection resulting in an analysis of 119 of the 120 DI FBS teams. The resultant tally of
67 coaches was 1,1 48; of which, 71.3% (n = 818 ) were White and 28.7% (n = 33 0) were African American Coaches coded as other were dropped from the analysis This was not significantly different than the coaching demographics of 2005 where 74.6% (n = 812) of the coaches were White and 25.4% (n = 276) were African American However, the decrease in the gap between African American and White coaches alters the proportion of racial ly diverse coaches to a more expect ant level (Everhart & Chelladurai, 1998). Providing a closer examination into the racial proportion of W hites and African American s in particular coaching positions, significant differences were found for changes in coaching representation among head coaches, defensive coordinators, and assistant coaches ( Table 4 1) With the record number of African Amer ican head coaches at the helm of DI FBS programs, it was no surprise to find significant differences in the coaching representation of African American and White head coaches from 1990 to 2005 to 2010, 2 ( 2, N = 319) = 9.05, p = .01. A significant linear by linear association between the three years was also found, 2 (1, N = 319) = 6.03, p = .01, as African American s represented 11.2% (n = 13) of all head coaches. Likewise, a significant difference, 2 ( 2, N = 326) = 7.21, p < .05 and linear by linear association 2 (1, N = 326) = 6.08, p = .01, were found for defensive coordinators as African American representation increased to 17.2% (n = 22). Similarly, a significant difference, 2 ( 2, N = 2114) = 36.26, p < 000 and linear by linear association 2 (1, N = 2114) = 32.18, p < .000, were found among assistant coaches as African American representation increased to 36.4% (n = 286). Thus, significant positive trends were witnessed among African American coaching repr esentation among the critical positions of head coach and defensive coordinator, as well as among the various assistant coaching positions.
68 Four distinct cross tabulations were used to further analyze potential significant changes amongst assistant coaches. The first two cross tabulations examined potential representation differences in the race of assistant coaches by his coaching position from 2005 to 2010. A significant difference was found for White assistant coaches 2 ( 5, N = 1005) = 46.26, p < .000 but not for African American s 2 ( 5, N = 538) = 10.13, p > .05. The percentage of White assistant coaches decreased or remained the same in each coaching position except for running back and wide receiver coach where the percentage increased from 29.2% (n = 148) in 2005 to 30.9% (n = 154) in 2010. Decreases in the percentage of White assistant coaches were found in the remaining coaching positions: quarterbacks, 10.1% (n = 51) in 2005 to 7.0% (n = 35) in 2010; offensive line, 21.2% (n = 107) in 2005 to 21.2% (n = 106) in 2010; defensive line and linebackers, 25.5 % (n = 129) in 2005 to 22.8% (n = 114) in 2010; and defensive backs and safeties, 14.0% (n = 71) in 2005 to 10.2% (n = 51) in 2010. The greatest decrease among White assi stant coaches was witnessed in their departure from coaching the defensive backs and safeties position. African American assistant coaching percentages increased in only one position, defensive back and safeties coach, 18.7% (n = 47) in 2005 to 24.8% (n = 71) in 2010. Conversely, the percentage for African American s coaching the quarterback, 0.8% (n = 2) in 2005 to 0.7% (n = 2) in 2010; offensive line 2.4% (n = 6) in 2005 to 1.7% (n = 5) in 2010; running back and wide receiver, 45.6% (n = 115) in 2005 to 42.7% (n = 122) in 2010; and defensive line and linebacker, 32.5% (n = 82) in 2005 to 27.6% (n = 79) in 2010. The greatest decrease among African American assistant coaches was witnessed in their departure from coaching the defensive line and linebackers p osition. The addition of the special teams coach potentially skewed the data between the 2005 and 2010 seasons. Complete results from the data
69 analysis of potential representation differences in the race of assistant coaches by their coaching position from 2005 to 2010 can be found on Table 4 2. The next set of cross tabulations examined potential representation differences in the race of the assistant coach by his playing position from 2005 to 2010. Again, t he addition of the special teams coach potentially skewed the data between the 2005 and 2010 seasons. Similar to prior analyses when the playing position of an assistant coach could not be found, he was removed from the study or coded under Did Not Play. Complete results from the data analysis can be found on Table 4 3. No s ignificant differences were found for White, 2 ( 6, N = 965) = 8.26, p > .05, and African American assistant coaches, 2 ( 6, N = 530) = 6.28, p > .05. However, percentage increases in playing positions for Whites were found for running back and wide receiver 12.8% (n = 65) in 2005 to 15.0% (n = 69) in 2010; defensive line and linebacker, 21.5% (n = 109) in 2005 to 21.8% (n = 100) in 2010; and special teams, 0% (n = 0) in 2005 to 0.7% (n = 3) in 2010. Conversely, percentage decreases in playing positions among White assistant coaches were found at the quarterback, 18.6% (n = 94) in 2005 to 18.3% (n = 84) in 2010; offensive line 24.5% (n = 124) in 2005 to 22.7% (n = 104) in 2010; and the defensive back and safety positions, 15.8% (n = 80) in 2005 to 12.4% (n = 57) in 2010. Percentage increases in playing positions for African American s were found for quarterback, 4.4% (n = 11) in 2005 to 8.6% (n = 24) in 2010; offen sive line 3.2% (n = 8) in 2005 to 4.3% (n = 12) in 2010; and defensive back and safeties, 25.0% (n = 63) in 2005 to 25.9% (n = 72) in 2010. Percentage decreases in playing positions for African American s were found for running back and wide receiver, 36.1 % (n = 91 ) in 2005 to 32.0% (n = 89) in 2010; and defensive line and linebackers, 30.6% (n = 77) in 2005 to 27.3% (n = 76) in 2010. The largest
70 increase among the playing positions of African American assistant coaches was at quarterback, where the coaches having played that position m ore than doubled from 11 to 24. The position of head coach was also further analyzed by running cross tabulations on their playing positions as well as the coaching positions they held prior to becoming a coordinator or head co ach. As Finch et al. (2010) discovered, it is common for head coaches to have been an offensive or defensive coordinator prior to becoming a head coach. Therefore, I examined the coaching experience of head coaches prior to obtaining one of those three pos itions (i.e., head coach, offensive coordinator, or defensive coordinator). There were no significant differences found between 2005 and 2010 in the coaching positions head coaches held prior to becoming a coordinator or head coach 2 ( 4, N = 205) = 3.19, p > .05. Complete results can be found on Table 4 4. Similarly, there were no significant differences between the playing positions of head coaches in 2005 and 2010, 2 ( 5, N = 214) = 2.29, p > .05. However, complete results can be seen on Table 4 5. Research Q uestion 2 statistically addressed the potential impact a White or African American head coach might have on the racial makeup of his coaching staff. Significant 2 ( 2, N = 1024) = 7.52, p < 05, such that White head coaches were more likely to have White assistant coaches than African American assistant coaches and vice versa. Nearly sixty nine percent (n = 624) of White head coaches staffs were made up of White assistant coaches, with 28.7% (n = 261) of their staffs being African American African American head coaches had more diverse coaching staffs, with 58.6% (n = 68) of their assistant coaches being White and 40.5% (n = 47) being African American Discussion
71 The overall shift in the representation of African American coaches in DI FBS college football reveals a positive and long awaited trend. Despite a slight decrease in representation at the offensive coordinator position (from 12 to 9), African American coaches showed significant incr eases in two of the three most prominent and influential positions in college football. T he largest, and perhaps most inspiring change occurred at the head coaching position. Where only three programs were under the guise of African American s (2.6%) in 2005, 13 African American men (11.2%) now hold the highest of coaching positions. Likewise, a significant increase was seen in the attainment of defensive coordinator positions; where African American representation rose from 8.1% to 17.2%. Lastly, significant changes occurred among assistant coaches among who there were 34 more African American and 7 less White coaches. These findings alone seem to suggest that African American s are finding greater acceptance and achievements in the college footbal l coaching field. D eeper analyses revealed even more changes in African American representation that suggest further promise for equality in the coaching ranks. Finch et al. (2010) concluded the distribution of African American coaches into non central coaching positions (e.g., running backs and wide receivers) contributed to potential institutional racism, subsequently marginalizing their efforts, abilities, and opportunities. The representation of African American s as running back and wide receiver coac hes has decline d since 2005, falling from 45.8% to 42.7%. However, in the similarly non central coaching position of defensive backs and safeties, African American representation witnessed a steep rise from 2005 (18.7%) to 2010 (24.8%). Concurrently, Afric an American coaches have seen a decline in their representation at the quarterback and offensive line coaching positions 0.1% and 0.7% respectively. Keep in mind that as coaches find themselves in more peripheral positions,
72 their skills and knowledge can be marginalized, their resources limited, and expectations often lowered ( Anderson, 1993; Grusky, 1963; Sack et al., 2005) This can in turn hinder their social and human capital (Sagas & Cunningham, 2005), as well as their aspirations to persist towards head coaching or other leadership roles ( Cunningham, Bruening, & Straub, 2006). Thus, the aforementioned numbers would seemingly give credence to Finch et al.s (2010) claim that African American s continue to be pushed out into more peripheral (i.e., noncentral) coaching positions, and as a result, remain severely underrepresented in the most prestigious and visible of roles. However, a trend favoring the decline in the overrepresentation of African American s in peripheral positions is the coaching history of current head coaches. From 2005 to 2010, a shift in the coaching positions held by head coaches prior to obtaining their leadership role occurred. Historically, head coaches emerged from the Whitedominated coaching positions of quarterback and offensive line. Despite African American s critical under representation in the two coaching positions, half of all head coaches in 2010 previously coached the non central positions of running backs, wide receivers, and defensive backs. Th is trend bodes well for African American s as they currently hold 54.4% of said coaching positions. Similarly, a shift in more positive and accepting attitudes toward head coaches with diverse career backgrounds can be postulated by examining the former playing positions of head coaches Recall that A nderson ( 1993) demonstrated a significant association between a players race and the centrality of his position. More specifically, it was discovered that White assistant coaches were more than twice as likely to have played a central position (quarterback or offensive line); positions played by 66% of the head coaches in 1990. This is a critical association to recognize as the curr ent data reveals a positive trend towards parity in head
73 coaches playing experiences. A 4.6% decrease in head coaches playing quarterback and a 6.5% increase in head coaches having played defensive back (positions traditionally dominated by White and African American s, respectively) was witnessed from 2005 to 2010. Furthermore, 40% of current head coaches played quarterback or along the offensive line, a 5.6% decrease from 2005 and a 26.6% decrease from 1990. Conversely, 37.4% of current head coaches were former running backs, wide receivers, or defensive backs, an increase of 6% fr om 2005 and a 20% increase since 1990. These findings exemplify the continued positive inclination for athletic departments to opt for coaches with diverse playing careers, such as the predominantly African American occupied positions of running back/wide receiver (15.7%) and defensive back (21.7%). This inference is supported in the playing experience of current assistant coaches. In said coaching career pipeline, it appears common practice that rookie coaches instruct the position they played. In the pas t, this practice may have helped to maintain the marginalization of African American coaches. All the same, there has been an increase, 7.6% in 2005 to 12.9% in 2010, of African American s playing the positions (i.e., quarterback and offensive line) from which head coach and coordinator positions are traditionally earned This trend is helping to rectify a concern expressed by Finch et al. (2010). It was determined that the backgrounds of head coaches in 2005 were prevalent with former playing and coa ching experiences that should facilitate the advancement of African American s into prestigious coaching positions, yet there were no significant increases in African American head coaches or offensive and defensive coordinators. Such is not the case from 2005 to 2010. A s already expressed, significant increases were found in the representation of African American s among head coaches and defensive
74 coordinators. Furthermore, 44% of 2010 head coaches and offensive/defensive coordinators were former quarterback s (22%) or defensive backs (22%). As previously discussed, 2010 was a record year for the representation of African American head coaches with 13 men running DI FBS football programs. In 2005, Cunningham and Sagas found support for potential access di scrimination among basketball coaches where African American s were significantly underrepresented on White head coaches coaching staffs. Cunningham (2010) adds that if access discrimination is indeed a contributor to the dearth of African American coaches, then the coaching staffs of Whites and African American s will be racially divergent. Thus, another aim of this study was to determine if such discrimination might exist in college football. It was found that on average, African American s were represented at a ratio of 2:3 on African American head coaches staffs while being represented at a ratio of 3:7 on White head coaches staffs. These findings add support to Cunningham and Sagas (2005) claim that with regards to advantageous social networks, it might be better said who you know who is racially similar (p.157). Despite this sustaining practice of access discrimination, optimism was still provided. In fact, Day and McDonald (2010) found that social networks including high ranking and heterogeneous contacts proved more profitable for the social mobility of African American coaches than their White counterparts. However, as African American coaches have obtained more positions of leadership and influence it has allow ed for a racial upl ift (Perkins, 1983) and a continued decrease in the racial divide among current coaches Should the findings of Day and McDonald (2010) hold true and a racial uplift be taking place, this offers confidence for continuing racial equality among college foot ball coaches. Conclusion
75 1n 1993, Anderson suggested a career pipeline existed in college football (i.e., players becoming assistant coaches, who then become coordinators, capped off as a head coach) that might have negatively impacted minority coaches, and in particular African American s. He deemed this institutionalized discrimination to evolve from the peripheral positions coaches had played while in college; given that the primary playing positions from which coac hes, particularly head coaches, emerged were those dominated by White athletes. Fifteen years later, Finch et al. (2010) argued that intentional treatment and access disc rimination were more so guilty f or the under representation of African American coaches in college football than the institution. Despite the discrimination they found reason for optimism as more parity was being discovered among the playing and coaching backgrounds of coaches, and in particular head coaches. I too find confidence in the numbers, but maintain that institutionalized practices and social networks continue to marginalize African American coaching efforts, particularly at the head coach and coordinator positions. However, the under representation of African American coaches app ears to be dissipating and becoming more equitable. This positive trend towards a more equal racial representation of coaches was found to be continuing in the 2010 DI FBS coaching field. Increases in both the number and proportion of African American co aches took place among head coaches, defensive coordinators, and all assistant coaches. Greater parity was also found in the coaching and playing backgrounds of all coaching categories. Thus, the coaching career paths of current head coaches and coordinators appear to be paving a more equitable path for assistant and future coaches. Thereby, potentially increasing (head) coaching intentions and more positive career opportunities of African American s. While the trends noted in this study suggest positive cha nge is occurring, the existence of both institutional and access discrimination
76 cannot be denied. These forms of biased hiring and promotion practices facilitate and maintain an under representation of African American coaches in DI FBS football. However, with the increase in success and acceptance of coaches with diverse racial, playing, and coaching backgrounds a positive shift towards a balanced racial representation among coaches perseveres.
77 Table 4 1. Head Coach, Offensive and Defensive Coordinator, and Assistant Coach Cross Tabulations by Race and Time Positions Coached Head Coaches Offensive Coordinator Defensive Coordinator Assistant Coaches Race 1990 n = 86 2005 n = 117 2010 n = 116 1990 n = 83 2005 n = 102 2010 n = 119 1990 n = 87 2005 n = 111 2010 n = 128 1990 n = 571 2005 n = 758 2010 n = 785 White 83 (96.5%) 114 (97.4%) 103 (88.8%) 77 (92.8%) 90 (88.2%) 110 (92.4%) 81 (93.1%) 102 (91.9%) 106 (82.8%) 448 (78.5%) 506 (66.8%) 499 (63.6%) Black 3 (3.5%) 3 (2.6%) 13 (11.2%) 6 (7.2%) 12 (11.8%) 9 (7.6%) 6 (6.9%) 9 (8.1%) 22 (17.2%) 123 (21.5%) 252 (33.2%) 286 (36.4%) Notes: Head 2 (2, N = 319) = 9.05, p = .01; Offensive Coordinators: 2 (2, N = 304) = 1.58, p > .05; Defensive Coordinators: 2 (2, N = 326) = 7.21, p < .05; Assistant Coaches: 2 (2, N = 2114) = 36.26, p < .000.
78 Table 4 2. Assistant Coaches Position Coached by Race and Time Assistant Coach Race 1990 2005 2010 Position Coached White (n = 448) Black (n = 123) White (n = 506) Black (n = 252) White (n = 499) Black (n = 286) Quarterbacks 43 9.6% 4 3.3% 51 10.1% 2 0.8% 35 7.0% 2 0.7% Offensive Line 119 26.6% 10 8.1% 107 21.1% 6 2.4% 106 21.2% 5 1.7% Running Backs/ Wide Receiver 75 16.7% 60 48.8% 148 29.2% 115 45.8% 154 30.9% 122 42.7% Defensive Line/ Linebacker 155 34.6% 39 31.7% 129 25.5% 82 32.5% 114 22.8% 79 27.6% Defensive Backs 56 12.5% 10 8.1% 71 14.0% 47 18.7% 51 10.2% 71 24.8% Special Teams N/A N/A N/A N/A 39 7.8% 7 2.4% Note s : White Assistant Coaches : 2 ( 5, N = 1005 ) = 46.26, p < .000; African American Assistant Coaches: 2 ( 5, N = 538 ) = 10.13, p > .05.
79 Table 4 3. Assistant Coaches Position Played by Race and Time Assistant Coach Race 1990 2005 2010 Position Played White (n = 319) Black (n = 105) White (n = 506) Black (n = 252) White (n = 459) Black (n = 278) Did Not Play N/A N/A 34 6.7% 2 0.8% 42 9.2% 5 1.8% Quarterbacks 52 16.3% 8 7.6% 94 18.6% 11 4.4% 84 18.3% 24 8.6% Offensive Line 101 31.7% 11 10.5% 124 24.5.% 8 3.2% 104 22.7% 12 4.3% Running Backs/ Wide Receiver 45 14.1% 32 30.5% 65 12.8% 91 36.1% 69 15.0% 89 32.0% Defensive Line/ Linebacker 80 25.1% 31 29.5% 109 21.5% 77 30.6% 100 21.8% 76 27.3% Defensive Backs 41 12.9% 23 21.6% 80 15.8% 63 25.0% 57 12.4% 72 25.9% Special Teams N/A N/A N/A N/A 3 0.7% 0 0.0% Note s : White 2 (6, N = 965) = 8.26, p > .05; African American Assistant Coaches: 2 (6, N = 530) = 6.28, p > .05.
80 Table 4 4. Frequencies of Head Coaches by Prior Coaching Position by Time Prior Position Coached 2005 (n = 99) 2010 (n = 106) Quarterback 22 22.2% 20 18.9% Offensive Lineman 13 13.1% 10 9.4% Running Back/Receiver 23 23.2% 35 33.0% Defensive Line/Linebacker 26 26.3% 23 21.7% Defensive Back 15 15.2% 18 17.0% Notes: Head 2 (4, N = 205) = 3.19, p > .05
81 Table 4 5. Frequencies of Head Coaches by Position as a Player by Time Former Position Played 1990 (n = 69) 2005 (n = 99) 2010 (n = 115) Did Not Play N/A 4 4.0% 7 6.1% Quarterback 31 44.9% 33 33.3% 33 28.7% Offensive Lineman 15 21.7% 12 12.1% 13 11.3% Running Back/Receiver 6 8.7% 16 16.2% 18 15.7% Defensive Line/Linebacker 11 15.9% 19 19.2% 19 16.5% Defensive Back 6 8.7% 15 15.2% 25 21.7% Special Teams N/A N/A 0 0.0% Notes: Head 2 (5, N = 214) = 2.29, p > .05
82 CHAPTER 5 DISCUSSION The purpose of this dissertation wa s to assess the possible existence of an accumulated disadvantage toward African American coach es at the intercollegiate level; and to specifically demonstrate its potential impact on the under representation of African American coaches in DI FBS football. Given the numerous stakeholders involved in the decision making process at the intercollegiate athletics level, it was deemed appropriate to take a multilevel organizational model approach to reach this aim. Using a multilevel perspective ( Cunningham 2010; Dixon & Cunningham, 2006), three distinct but interrelated studies were conducted each representing a varying level (i.e., macro, meso, and micro) of the organizational system that is college football. Taken together, t he cumulative findings reveal a positive, yet somewhat slow and resistant, shift in opportunities, resources, and capital (i.e., human, social, and cultural) fo r African American coaches. This discussion consist s of the findings from each study and demonstrate s how they contribute to our understanding of African American coaches experiences with accumulated disadvantage at each of the systematic levels. First, I will discuss this potential discrimination from a macro level perspective by examining the changes that have taken place within NCAA mens sports concerning the representation of African American s in head and assistant coaching positions over the last 15 years. This is followed by a meso level approach discussing the potential impact college football decision makers (i.e., coaches) have on the prospects of student athletes prior to and upon their entry into the coaching field. Lastly, I look at the current racial makeup of DI FBS coaching staffs, including the coaches playing and coaching experiences, in order to analyze the possible impact of a n accumulated disadvantage from the micro level
83 pers pective. Again, a multilevel approach allows potential relationships between the numerous contributing variables to be examined, as well as discuss these factors individually and from various level s of analysis (Dixon & Cunningham, 2006) Macro level: Perc eptions of African American s in Collegiate Coaching When examining the representation of African American coaches in intercollegiate athletics, particularly football, it is important to be cognizant of the influential factors that exist outside the athletic department and institution. Cunningham (2010) claimed the most prevailing of these macro level factors to be institutionalized practices, political climate, and stakeholder expectations. Fin dings from Study 1 sugges t that changes in these three factors might be taking a positive shift, albeit slowly, towards the acceptance of African American coaches and away from past discriminant perceptions. While encouraging strides have been made, the limited increases can be so mewhat disappointing given the recent attention and concern expressed towards increasing diversity amongst the coaching staffs of NCAA mens sports, and in particular football. What follows is a closer examination into how the abovementioned factors have been impacted by and will continue to impact African American coaching representation. Institutionalized practices refer to those policies, practices, and procedures that have over time become commonplace in a particular field or industry. T hese activities oftentimes a ct as a means by which control and influence over institutional factors (e.g., salaries, employment, resources, opportunities, information, and human and social capital) is maintained (McCrudden, 1982). It has been argued that with regards to r ace and coaching, such institutionalized activities have created a caste system that sends the message African American s are good enough to play but not to coach (Agyemang & De L orme, 2010, p. 38). It would be difficult to rebuke such a claim given the discrepancy between African American student athletes and coaches. In 2007-
84 08, 34.4% of all football student athletes were African American (DeHass, 2009) compared to only 9.8% and 21.9% of African American head and assistant coaches, respectively (Bracken & DeHass, 2009). Similarly, 18.5% of all male student athletes were African American (DeHass, 2009), yet only 9.1% of mens teams head coaches were African American (Bracken & DeHass, 2009). However, t he increase of African American representation among ass istant coaches in mens basketball and football was greater than the percentages of African American coaches throughout all NCAA mens sports (Bracken & DeHass, 2009). Given the magnitude and breadth of influence these two revenue generating sports garner in intercollegiate athletics, there is hope that institutional discrimination is on the decline. Further support for the existence of institutionalized practices that are potentially discriminant was found when examining coaching representation between dif ferent mens sports. Having already demonstrated the dearth of African American coaches in football, it is important to take a look at Division I basketball, baseball, and outdoor track (Bracken & DeHass, 2009; DeHass, 2009). There is a large discrepancy in basketball, where 28.5% of the head coaches are African American compared to 60.4% of the student athletes. However, in the smaller sports, more equality is witnessed. In baseball, the percentage of African American coaches is actually greater than that of the student athlete s, 5.2% compared to 4.4%. Twenty seven and a half percent of outdoor track student athletes are African American with 19.9% of the outdoor track head coaches being racially similar. Other Division I spor ts such as tennis, golf, and gymnastics show similar percentages of African American representation among head coaches and student athletes. Thus, it can be argued that the acceptance or disregard of African American s as player and/or coach has to some ext ent become institutionalize d in certain college sports. If this is the
85 case, such racial biases and prejudices have most likely evolved over time and become ingrained within intercollegiate athletics by way of common policies, practices, and procedures. Co nsequently, the political climate in intercollegiate athletics has shifted to one that welcomes diversity and inclusiveness. The NCAA and other outside organizations such as the BCA, can be held largely accountable for this optimistic progress. In 1989, t he NCAA implemented the ME P and in 1991, the M OIC ; both designed to enhance educational and career opportunities for women and ethnic minorities in intercollegiate athletics administration and coaching. More recently, the NCAA created the ODI i n 2005 with the hopes of providing more leadership and support in the creation and fostering of diversity and inclusion initiatives (NCAA, 2010a). The BCA grades in sti tutions on their hiring procedures so as to encourage a more diverse pool of candidates and create a more open and objective process (Harrison, 2005, p. iv). Such initiatives are demonstrative of the changing political climate in intercollegiate athletics. Given that Study 1 revealed Division I institutions employ significantly larger percentages o f African American coach es than do Divisions II and III, and given the popularity and exposure of Division I athletics, in particular football and mens basketball, it is conceivable that the personnel in these sports could be a catalyst for social change in the political climate. For this to take place, it is the expectations of stakeholders that must also ad opt more diversified attitude s toward African American coaches. Alumni and boosters are stakeholders/ power brokers who can be very influential by way of power and money (i.e. donations) in the hiring and firing of key athletics personnel ( Agyemang & DeLorme, 2010). A potential concern with the influential power of these groups is the perception that athletic departments must hire people with whom alum ni and boosters can identify (Cunningham, 2010). This could be problematic
86 given that the most recognized and influential college athletic programs are those of predominately White institutions ( PWI ) Of the top 10 most powerful boosters, as ranked by ESPN .com 100% were White and all but one was a male (Fish, 2006) Thus, the impact of said argument might be that institutions and athletic departments looking to appeal to their alumni and boosters will feel pressure to hire White males. Further contributing to the influence of stakeholders on athletic department decision making favoring White coaches over their African American counterparts are the perceptions they might have as to what makes a good head coach. It is possible that stereotyped characteristics of African American coaches contrast with what individuals perceive to be the attributes necessary to hold a head coaching position Consequently, racial minority coaches have been found to be viewed as less qualified than their White counterparts for hea d coaching positions (Sartore & Cunningham, 2006). This perceived lack of fit (Burgess & Borgida, 1999) may influence and facilitate biased opinions on who a head coach should be and how he should represent the institution. Keep in mind that African Amer ican s are 7.6 times more likely to be seen as a player than as a head coach in college football (Cunningham, 2010). The media also contribute to potential discriminatory actions by stakeholders with depictions that might further stigmas and stereotypes reg arding African American coaches ( Buffington, 2005; Cunningham & Bopp, 2010; Dufur & Feinberg, 2009 ; Woodward, 2004) Thus, in part due to outside stakeholders and external factors such as the social and political climate, practices that may hinder accepta nce of African American coaches have possibly become institutionalized. Subsequently, this leads to discrimination and potentially the under representation of African American coaches. However, findings from Study 1 reveal positive changes taking place in the gap between African American coaches and their White
87 counterparts; thus, suggesting promising changes in the attitudes and perceptions of outside stakeholders towards dive rsity and inclusion. M es olevel: African American Student Athletes and Future Coaching Opportunities Findings from Study 2 help to interpret the under representation of African American coaches through the meso level factors of prejudice, discrimination, stereotypes, and organizational culture. Such factors help to facilitate and maintain, by way of decisionmaking policies procedures and structures among athletic department and institution constituents, the dearth of African American coaches in college football (Cunningham, 2010) In particular, Study 2 analyzes the decisions made regarding the play of quarterbacks in DI FBS and demonstrates how such decisions conceivably impact future coaching intentions and qualifications. Thus, both latent and eviden t biases of current coaches were found to potentially impact the human and social capital of student athletes who may intend to enter into coaching following their collegiate career. The following is an explication of how the abovementioned factors possibl y affect future coaching opportunities and intentions of African American s. The purpose of Study 2 was to ascertain whether or not positional segregation (i.e., stacking) continues at the quarterback position in college football. To determine its existence, the play of White and African American athletes was examined. Findings revealed a distinction bet ween the average number of pass and rush attempts for racially diverse quarterbacks. African American quarterbacks rushed the ball a significantly greater number of times than did their White counterparts and had fewer pass attempts on average. Similarly, differences were found in the percentage of rush vs. pass attempts, with the percentage of rush attempts made by African American s nearly doubling that of White quarterbacks. Conversely, White quarterbacks passed the ball approximately 15% more often than their African American counterparts. These results
88 may suggest that the possible discriminatory practices found at the quarterback position in the NCAAs DI FBS can be attributed to race. The institutionally discriminant practice of positional segregation seems to have diminished for White and African American student athletes, particularly at quarterback, as both races of players are found in a variety of playing positions. However, a new manifestation of positional segregation seems to be occurring through possible racial tasking. Again, I focused not on the various playing positions to which racially different athletes were assigned, but rather the plays carried out by those in the quarterback position to determine if they coincided with stereotypes concerning the mental and physical abilities of African American and White athletes. T his practice was defined as racial tasking. R acial tasking in sport is a function of ones prejudice towards a minority athletes capability, both mental and physical, to pe rform. Such prejudicial and discriminant play calling can be the result of a decision makers (i.e., coaches) biased organizational culture and stereotypes. As such, the tasks athletes are asked to perform are dependent upon the athletes race and vary des pite holding the same playing position. This form of treatment discrimination may suggest that coaches still manage, likely implicitly, under a biased assertion towards the passing and mental abilities of African American quarterbacks. The resultant impac t of this potential treatment discrimination is most likely on the human, cultural, and social capital of college quarterbacks; thereby possibly inhibiting future opportunities and resources (i.e., access discrimination) to be head coach The rationale being that 33 (28.7%) of head coaches in 2010 had playing experience at the quarterback position in college. Thus, the skills and knowledge they learned and social networks they developed as players are arguably those valued in a head coach s pedigree. By way of running more than
89 passing, African American s may therefore not be learning the very teachings (e.g., reading defenses, understanding sight lines, calling an audible, clock management, etc.) of the traditional quarterback position. T hat is, African American student athletes may be taught to rely too much on their running abilities in lieu of learning the traditional role of the quarterback. Such experiences and teachings could defensibly be what make those with quarterback coaching an d playing experience such viable head coaching candidate s The organizational culture of college football seems to be one that supports positional segregation and racial tasking, from the coaches on the field to the fans in the stands and the power brok ers of the institutions. The increase of African American quarterbacks as well as their perceived success, would seem to signify an end to the negative stereotypes regarding their playing ability and knowledge. Through the quarterback position, African Am erican s are able to have a more direct impact on the game as well as play in the most vital of decision making positions. This could in turn be facilitating change among the mesolevel constituents (i.e., coaches) harboring negative prejudices and stereoty pes. However, the increase in rushing attempts for quarterbacks coinciding with the increase of African American quarterbacks could also be reinforcing negative stereotypes about the mental and physical capabilities of African American s to play the position; s ubsequently, maintaining the under representation of African American coaches through implicit discrimination. Regardless, potential prejudices, discrimination, stereotypes, and organizational culture of college coaches and athletic department personnel can play a major role in the decisions made both on and off the playing field. It is reasonable to assume such decisions can impact the opportunities, intentions, and abilities of future coaches. Thus, it is critical that
90 student athletes, indepen dent of race, are coached in their respective positions such that current and prospective capital isnt squandered. M icro level: The Career Paths of African American Coaches Lastly, Study 3 was an analysis of the backgrounds and present status of current coaches in the NCAAs DI FBS. According to Cunningham (2010), microlevel factors primarily involve psychological and social psychological aspects of the coaches themselves. In examining the past playing and coaching experiences of coaches, I hoped to draw conclusions regarding potential opportunities, expectations, intentions, and the head coaching career viability of African American s. Specifically, the purpose of Study 3 was to identify potential gains made since 2005 in the coaching representation of African American coaches in DI FBS football. To help provide further analysis of micro level factors, the secondary aim of this study was to determine in what ways, if any, African American coaches are impacted by the coaching career paths of current head coaches and coordinators. Overall, there was found to be a positive shift in the representation of African American coaches, as well as more diversification among the playing and coaching experiences of current coaches. Below is a rationale for the potenti al impact these findings have on the psychological and social psychological factors of African American coaches and players. Greenhaus, Parasuraman, and Wormley (1990) found that compared to their White counterparts, African American managers felt less acceptance, experienced lower levels of career satisfaction, and perceived to have reached a plateau in their careers. These negative outcomes are perhaps the result of disparate treatment (e.g., access and treatment discrimination) within the organization and work environment Such discriminatory behaviors can also be found in the coaching field (Cunningham & Sagas, 2007) and might contribute to the decrease in
91 African American s intentions to enter into the college football coaching field. F indings from this study however, indirectly demonstrate that the potentially negative influence said outcomes might have on psychological and social psychological characteristics of African American coaches could be diminishing. That is, African American coaches are enter ing the college football coaching field at a higher rate than previously recorded as well as receiving more opportunities for career advancement and success (based on representation) The embodiment of this sentiment lies within the most visible and influ ential of coaching positions: t he head coach. In 2005, only three programs were under the guise of African American s (2.6%). At current, five years later, a record 13 African American men (11.2%) have achieved the highest of coaching positions. Similar increases were seen at the defensive coordinator position and among assistant coaches. It can be advocated from these findings, that African American s are finding greater acceptance and achievements in the college football coaching field. Thus, the field could potentially be becoming a more inclusive work environment for racially diverse coaches. Subsequently, a decline in the negative impact on the affective psychological factors contributing to the under representation of African American coaches could be expected T he diversity in playing and coaching backgrounds of current coaches might also lead to a decrease in negative ly impacted psychological and social psychological factors. With the multiplicity of experiences (playing and coaching) from which co aches are being hired, the field appears to be a more viable career path for African American s; thereby minimizing the potentially disparaging impact of racial stacking and tasking, and subsequent marginalization of efforts, abilities, and opportunities. A gain, such negligible treatment can hinder the social and human capital of African American coaches (Sagas & Cunningham, 2005), as well as their aspirations to persist towards head coaching or other leadership roles
92 ( Cunningham, Bruening, & Straub, 2006). However, the hiring of head coaches from diverse playing and coaching backgrounds provides optimism for increased head coaching intentions and expectations of African American s as they continue to hold a majority of the peripheral playing and coaching posi tions from which coaches are now being elevated Head coaches in college football have traditionally emerged from the coordinator positions, which in turn have risen from the assistant coach ranks (Anderson, 1993) In the past, this pipeline has served t o maintain White dominance and influence over the college football landscape. However, 2010 gave reason for optimism for African American s as more parity was being discovered among the playing and coaching backgrounds of coaches, and in particular head coaches. Thus, the coaching career paths of current head coaches and coordinators appear to be paving a more equitable path for current assist ant and future coaches. The resultant impact is the potential increas e of (head) coaching intentions and more positive career opportunities of African American s. It is hoped that the continued increase in success and acceptance of coaches with diverse raci al playing and coaching backgrounds will lead to a more welcoming environment in which head coaching and turnover intentions of African American coaches regresses towards the standard expectations of all coaches, independent of race. Multilevel Approach Taken together, findings from the three previously discussed studies help to explain the under representation of African American coaches in DI FBS ; each representing factors from the interrelated macro meso and microlevels of an athletic department and college football. Again, organizations are comprised of a multitude of people, purposes, policies, and practices that cannot be captured in a single level of analysis (Cunningham, 2010; Slack, 1997). Thus, in order to appreciate the variety of manners in which these entities interact within a sport
93 organization (i.e., intercollegiate athletics), a multilevel (i.e., macro, meso, and micro) approach was utilized The following section discusses the potential impact of the aforementioned factors on an acc umulated disadvantage for African American football coaches.
94 CHAPTER 6 CONCLUSION, LIMITATIONS, AND FUTURE RESEARCH In this dissertation, I sought to examine the potential negative effects of institutional discrimination, manifested through an accumulated disadvantage, that accrue for African American s as they progress from their playing days and continue into their coa ching careers ; as well as to demonstrate its potential impact on the under representation of African American coaches in DI FBS The primary findings suggest that there exists an accumulated disadvantage impacting African American football coaches at the college level, such that their representation on coaching staffs is negligible. Furthermore, it was revealed that potentially discriminate practices (e.g., racial tasking and homologous reproduction) might continue to pr osper in intercollegiate athletics; s erving to maintain a hegemonic environment in which African American coaches experience limited opportunities capital, and resources Despite the persistence of discriminatory practices and attitudes, it was found that progress has been made towards equit able treatment and representation. Findings reveal the possibility of more accept ing attitudes among intercollegiate athletics stakeholders (e.g., administration, alumni, and boosters) regarding coaches of more diversified races, ethnicities, experiences and backgrounds This seem s to bode well for the diversification and inclusion efforts put forth by the NCAA and other intercollegiate athletics constituents. Regardless, an accumulated disadvantage remains and potentially hinders the ability of African Am erican football coaches to successfully obtain and retain head coaching positions. An accumulated disadvantage, as it wa s used in this paper, suggests that individuals and groups holding structurally inferior roles experience limited opportunities and res ources as a result of those in structurally advantaged positions attempting to maintain their hegemonic dominance. That is, African American s intending to coach college football face a number of
95 obstacles and hindrances from the first day they lace up thei r cleats and step onto a football field. As players, they may be the victims of positional segregation (i.e., s tacking) or racial tasking and as coaches they may run into the glass ceiling or fall victim to biased practices such as homologous reproduction; thereby limiting their access to opportunities for increased human, cultural, and social capital as they attempt to ascen d t he coaching ladder As witnessed in this research, the potentially discriminate impact of such disadvantages can impact a current and future African American football coach at various times throughout his career. The breadth of college footballs cultural significance (as well as basketball and athletic departments as a whole) is far reaching; influencing the visibility, goo dwill, and even prestige of an institution (Beyer & Hannah, 2000). Thus, the capacity of sports to create change among macro level constituents and stakeholders residing outside the athletic program is greater than ever. While potentially discriminate institutionalized practices remain, diversification of intercollegiate athletics is taking place and altering the manner in which African American coaches might be viewed. Equal opportunity approaches, such as NCAA initiatives and the BCA s call for inclusive hiring practices are demonstrative of the concern for equality and rectification for past institutionalized prejudices. The subsequent impact of these actions was witnessed in Study 1, where it was found that increases in African American head and assistant coaches have taken place within mens NCAA sports, although at a nominal rate. These findings suggest that the representation of African American coaches of mens NCAA sports is very slowly taking on a positive shift. While the limited increases can be somewhat disappointing changes among Division I programs give reason for optimism given their popularity and extensive exposure. Thus it is hoped that as African American s gain more equal representation th e shift will be more socially accepted and promot ed by all NCAA member
96 institutions and stakeholders Such changes can simultaneously alter the political climate to one of inclusion and diversity, and potentially eliminate the good old boys network. With the dissipation of such biased networks, the curre nt social capital of African American coaches may no longer be a potential impediment in obtaining a coaching position. However, Study 1 was not without its limitations. This study only focused on the percentages of African American head and assistant coaches in football, basketball, and a pooling of all NCAA mens sports Future s tudies should be extended to each of the NCAA mens athletic programs I t would also be valuable to understand what factors contribute to the discrepancy b etween representation at DI and Divisions II and III, possibly continuing into the high school ranks Equally important would be to understand the intentions and motivations of those coaches who forego intercollegiate athletics for coaching positions at the high school level. As an accumulated advantage can begin as early as a coachs playing days, it might be critical to examine ones experiences at that level of play, from both the coach and player perspectives. Even with programs such as the NCAAs MEP, MOIC, and MCA and the BCAs hiring report card promoti ng African American coach ing opportunities and resources representation has been scant and slow to match student athlete percentages. Future research should consider the effect of such programs and whe ther the resources being allocated to these programs might be further enhanced and adapted to fit into or revolutionize the institutionalized practices, expectations and climate of each institution Another plausible outcome from the aforementioned progra ms and policies might be the regression of individual prejudices and stereotypes (meso level factors ), which in turn might increase African American coaches and players access (e.g., opportunities) and resources to obtain better coaching positions. Study 2 examined how this potential evolves during a coachs
97 playing days. The findings revealed that through play s on the field, African American s may no t be enhancing their human capital as well as their White counterparts at the quarterback position. Thus, racial tasking is potentially limiting their prospects for increased access, resources, and opportunities by way of what and how they are learning abo ut the quarterback position. Further research is needed to determine if racial tasking is in fact a conscious discriminatory practice, or just a misunderstood reality of the game. Future research can help to assess this phenomenon. To help determine this, data from multiple years could be analyzed. While a valid and reliable procedure, the proper coding of a player s race may be addressed through another method. Further, there is no way of knowing for certain whether or not the play called in to the quarte rback was originally a pass or run. Lastly, further research is necessary to demonstrate that the potential racial tasking taking place at the college quarterback position contributes directly to the under representation of African American head coaches. T o rectify this hypothesis, it is necessary to examine the playing history of current coaches to determine if there are indeed any discrepancies between racially different coaches backgrounds and the positions for which they are hired. A goal of Study 3 wa s to address this link. Examining the micro level (i.e., social and psychosocial) factors that conceivably contribute to the under representation of African American football coaches, it was determined that coaching backgrounds and playing experience s of DI FBS coaches ha ve become more diverse. Thus, i t can be proposed that African American s are finding greater acceptance and achievements in the college football coaching field subsequently creating a more inclusive work environment for racially diver se coaches. T his can subsequently lead to increased career outcomes and intentions, particularly for African American coaches. As such, the football coaching field appears to be a more viable career path for African American s possibly
98 minimizing the poten tially negative impact of institutionalized and discriminate practices such as racial stacking and tasking. However, the link between playing and coaching experience and obtaining head coaching positions for African American s is a bit clouded. Despite the recent decline in homogeneity of coaching and playing backgrounds, African American s continue to be underrepresented. With the exception of the 2010 head coach hiring cycle, this diversity has resulted in minimum r epresentative gains for African American coaches. Thus, future research will need to continue to observe the diversification of playing and coaching backgrounds with regard to the positions for which coaching positions African American s are hired. Furthermore, research should provide deeper a nalysis into the link between the role of a players centrality and his prospects for a head coaching or coordinator position the most powerful and visible of positions A limitation with this type of study is the question of whether or not there remains a definitive link between playing and coaching position. Future research regarding racial tasking will help to strengthen and explain this link. As with Study 2, a nother limitation is the visual coding of the coaches races. Perhaps a more th o rough method could be established. Lastly, with accumulated disadvantage being an evolving and time sensitive trend, it would behoove future researchers to replicate this study every few years. Examining playing and coaching backgrounds in a trend analysis (e.g., five year updates) would help to determine if this manifestation of institutionalized discrimination is maintained or on the decline. This suggestion also speaks to the overall aim and potential impact of this dissertation. Again, the purpose of this dissertation was to examine the potential negative effects of institutional discrimination, manifested through an accumulated disadvantage, that accrue for African American s and demonstrate its potential contributions to the unde r representation of African American coaches in DI FBS. By studying the macro meso and microlevel factors
99 that can impact the current dearth of African American college football coaches, the causes of the phenomenon become s more lucid and the means by which past inequities are rectified can be ascertained. Institutionalized practices, political climates, organizational cultures, stakeholder biases and stereotypes, and psychosocial and social dynamics are all contributing factors to this accumulated dis advantage. Research must continue to examine the manner in which these factors individually and interrelated, can negatively impact African American coaches and means by which to eliminate or lessen their harmful repercussions. Understanding the proble m can help college sport administrators and individuals to better handle and be aware of the policies, practices, and attitudes that have facilitated and maintained African American coaches marginalized positions throughout their playing and coaching careers However, this is just one step in the process of eliminating an accumulated disadvantage. B eing an evolving and constantly changing phenomenon, the experiences of those individuals and groups negatively impac ted by the institutionalized discrimination must be persistently analyzed and addressed. The current representation of African American football coaches is greater now than at any time in the past. Continued research on this topic will help determine if th is growth will be a persistent trend or an aberration. The recent progress made towards an equal racial representation of coaches in college football is one of encouragement. The more African American coaches are able to obtain and visibly hold positions of power and influence (i.e., head coach and coordinator), the greater the chance to irrevocably alter the perceptions of intercollegiate athletics stakeholders who allow these inequities to prosper. It is my contention that an accumulated disadvantage doe s indeed exist in college sports However, recent increases in African American coaching representation evoke optimism towards minimizing, and possibly eliminating its racially divergent impact It appears that we are merely
100 at the beginning of this equita ble social change in college football. Progressive changes in institutionalized and discriminate practices must continue, stereotypes and prejudices must be addressed and abolished from all constituents with influence on the college game, and coaches and a dministrators must work to maintain the recent progress that has been witnessed. The accumulated disadvantage that African American coaches currently face has evolved over time and history. Thus, it is the present and future in which actions must be taken so as to reverse past inequities. Change is taking place, but only after time will be we able to determine if this positive trend becomes institutionalized and internalized such that African American coaches are provided the same opportunities for success and sustainability.
101 LIST OF REFERENCES Agyemang, K., & DeLorme, J. (2010). Examining the dearth of Black head coaches a t the NCAA Football Bowl Subdivision level: A critical race theory and social dominance theory analysis. Journal of Issues in Intercollegiate Athletics, 3, 3552. Anderson, D. (1993). Cultural diversity on campus: A look at intercollegiate football coach es. Journal of Sport and Social Issues, 17(1), 6166. Anshel, M.H. (1990). Perceptions of Black intercollegiate football players: Implications for the sport psychology consult. The Sport Psychologist, 4, 235248. Best, C. (1987). Experience and career length in professional football: The effect of positional segregation. Sociology of Sport Journal, 4, 410420. Bandura, A. (1977). Self efficacy: Toward a unifying theory of behavioral change. Psychological Review, 84, 191215. Beyer, J.M., & Hannah, D.R. (2000). The cultural significance of athletics in U.S. higher education. Journal of Sport Management, 14, 105 132. Bracken, N.M., & DeHass, D. (2009). Race and gender demographics: 200708 NCAA member institutions personnel report Indianapolis, IN: The National Collegiate Athletic Association. Brown, M.K., & Wellman, D. (2005). Embedding the color line: The accumulation of racial advantage and the disaccumulation of opportunity in post civil rights America. Du Bois Review: Social Science Research on Race, 2:2 187207. Buffington, D. (2005). Contesting race on Sundays: Making meaning out of the rise in the number of Black quarterbacks. Sociology of Sport Journal, 21, 1937. Burgess, D., & Borgida, E. (1999). Who women are, who women should be: Descriptive and prescriptive gender stereotyping in sex discrimination. Psychology, Public Policy, and Law, 5, 665692. Clark, S.M., & Corcoran, M. (1986). Perspectives on the professional socializ ation of women faculty. The Journal of Higher Education, 57, 2043. Cunningham, G.B. (2003). Already aware of the glass ceiling: Race related effects of perceived opportunity on the career choices of college athletes. Journal of African American Studie s, 7, 5771. Cunningham, G.B. (2010). Understanding the under representation of African American coaches: A multilevel perspective. Sport Management Review
102 Cunningham, G.B., & Bopp, T. (2010). Race ideology perpetuated: Media representations of newly hired football coaches. Journal of Sports Media, 5, 120. Cunningham, G.B., & Sagas, M. (2005). Access discrimination in intercollegiate athletics. Journal of Sport & Social Issues 29, 148163. Cunningham, G.B., & Saga s M. (2007). Perceived treatment discrimination among coaches: The influence of race and sport coached. International Journal of Sport Management, 8, 120. Cunningham, G.B., & Sagas, M. (2008). Gender and sex diversity in sport organizations: Introducti on to a special issue. Sex Roles, 58, 3 9. Cunningham, G.B., Bruening, J.E., & Straub, T. (2006). The under representation of African Americans in NCAA Division I A head coaching positions. Journal of Sport Management, 20, 387413. Cunningham, G.B., Sag as, M., & Ashley, F.B. (2001). Occupational commitment and intent to leave the coaching profession: Differences according to race. International Review for the Sociology of Sport, 36, 131148. Darity Jr., W.A., & Mason, P.L. (1998) Evidence on discrimi nation in employment: Codes of color, codes of gender. Journal of Economic Perspectives, 12(2), 63 90. Day, J.C., & McDonald, S. (2010). Not so fast my friend: Social capital and the race disparity in promotions among college football coaches. Sociological Spectrum, 30, 138 158. DeHass, D. (2003). 2001 02 Race demographics of NCAA member institutions athletics personnel Indianapolis, IN: The National Collegiate Athletic Association. DeHass, D. (2004). 2003 04 Race and gender demographics of NCAA member institutions athletics personnel Indianapolis, IN: The National Collegiate Athletic Association. DeHass, D. (2007). 2005 06 Ethnicity and gender demographics of NCAA member institutions athletics pe rsonnel Indianapolis, IN: The National Collegiate Athletic Association. DeHass, D. (2009). 1999 2000200708 NCAA student athlete ethnicity report: Student athlete ethnicity Indianapolis, IN: The National Collegiate Athletic Association. Dixon, M.A., & Cunningham, G.B. (2006). Data aggregation in multilevel analysis: A review of conceptual and statistical issues. Measurement in Physical Education and Exercise Science, 10 85 107. Drash, W. (2010, March). Vicious cycle: Jobless and black in America CNN.com Retrieved from http://www.cnn.com/2010/LIVING/wayoflife/03/24/black.america.study/index.html ?hpt=C1.
103 Dufur, M. (1997). Race logic and Being like Mike: Representations of athletes in advertising, 19851994. Sociological Focus, 30, 345356. Dufur, M., & Feinberg, S.L. (2009). Race and the NFL draft: Views from the auction block. Qualitative Sociology, 32, 5373. Dupre, M.E. (2008). Educational differences in health risks and illness over the life course: A test of cumulative disadvantage theory. Social Science Research, 37 1253 1266. Edwards, H. (1973). Sociology of Sport Homewood, IL: Dorsey. Edwards, H. (2000). Crisis of Black athletes on the eve of the 21st century. Society, 37(3), 9 13. Eitle, T.M. & Eitle, D. (2002). Race, cultural capital, and the educational effects of participation in sport. Sociology of Education, 75, 123146. Evans, Jr., A. S. (1997). Blacks as key functionaries: A study of racial stratification in professional sport. Jour nal of Black Studies, 28, 4359. Everhart, C.B., & Chelladurai, P. (1998). Gender differences in preferences for coaching as an occupation: The role of self efficacy, valence, and perceived barriers. Research Quarterly for Exercise and Sport, 69, 188200. Finch, B., McDowell, J. & Sagas, M. (2010 ). An examination of racial diversity in collegiate football: A 15 year update. Journal for the Study of Sports and Athletes in Education, 4, 4757. Fink, J.S., & Pastore, D.L. (1999). Diversity in sport? Utilizing the business literature to devise a comprehensive framework of diversity initiatives. Quest, 51, 310327. Fish, M. (2006). Most powerful boosters ESPN.com Retrieved May 20, 2010 from http://sports.espn.go.com/ncf/news/story?id=2285986 Forde, P. (2009). Evolution threatening storied positions. ESPN.com. Retrieved August 31, 2009 f rom http://sports.espn.go.com/espn/columns/story?columnist=forde_pat&id=4431152& sport Cat=ncf. Gonzalez, G.L. (1996). The stacking of Latinos in Major League Baseball: A forgotten minority? Journal of Sport and Social Issues, 20, 134160. Grusky, O. (1963). The effects of formal structure on managerial recruitment: A study of baseball organization. Sociometry, 26, 345353. Harley, D.A. (2008). Maids of academe: African American women faculty at predominantly white institutions. Journal of African American Studies, 12, 1936.
104 Harrison, C.K. (2005). The Score: A hiring report card for NCAA Division IA and IAA football head coaching positions in American higher education. Indianapolis, IN: Black Coaches and Administrators. Harrison, C.K., & Yee, S. (2009). Protecting their turf: The head football coach hiring process, and the practices of FBS & FCS colleges and universiti es Indianapolis, IN: Black Coaches and Administrators. Hawkins, B. (2002). Is stacking dead? A case study of the stacking hypothesis at a Southeastern Conference (SEC) football program. International Sports Journal, 6, 146160. Heilman, M.E. (2001). Description and prescription: How gender stereotypes prevent womens ascent up the organizational ladder. Journal of Social Issues, 57, 657674. Holt, D.B. (1998). Does cultural capital structure American consumption? Journal of Consumer Research, 25, 125. Johnson, B.D., & Johnson, N.R. (1995). Stacking and stoppers: A test of the outcome control hypothesis. Sociology of Sport Journal, 12, 105112. Keith, F.A. (2009). Diversity comes to NCAA football coaching ranks. Black Coac hes and Administrators Retrieved December 23, 2009 from http://bcasports.cstv.com/ genrel/122209aaa.html Lapchick, R. (2007). The buck stops here: Assessing diversity among campus and conference leaders for Division IA schools in 200708. Orlando, FL: University of Central Florida, The Institute for Diversity and Ethics in Sport. Lapchick, R., & McMechan, D. (2009). The buck stops here: Assessing diversity among campus and conference leaders for Football Bowl Subdivision (FBS) schools in the 200910 academic year. Orlando, FL: University of Central Florida, The Institute for Diversity and Ethics in Sport. Lapchick, R., Little, E., Lerner, C., & Mathew, R. (2009). The 2008 racial and gender report card: College sport. Orlando, FL: University of Central Florida, The Institute for Diversity and Ethics in Sport. Lewis, W.A. (1979). The dual economy revisited. The Manchester School, 47(3), 211229. Lovett, D.J., & Lowry, C.D. (1994). Good old boys and good old girls clubs: Myth or reality? Journal of Sport Management, 8, 2735. Loy, J.W., & Elvogue, J.F. (1970). Racial segregation in American sport. International Review for the Sociology of Sport, 5, 524. McCrudden, C. (1982). Institutional discrimination. Oxford Journal of Legal Studies, 2, 303367.
105 McKindra, L. (February 24, 2010). Finally, progress: Coaching carousel becomes more multi colored. Black Coaches and Administrators Retrieved from http://bcasports.cstv.com/genrel/022410aaa.html McPherson, B.D. (1976). The Black athlete: An overview and analysis. In D.M. Landers (Ed.) Social problems in athletics (pp.122150). Urbana, IL: University of Illinois Press. Madison, D.R., & Landers, D.M (1976). Racial discrimination in football: A test of the stacking of playing positions hypothesis. In D.M. Landers (Ed.) Social problems in athletics (pp. 151156). Urbana, IL: University of Illinois Press. Merton, R.K. (1968). The Matthew Effect in science: The reward and communication systems of science are considered. Science, 159 56 63. Mikkelson, B., & Mikkelson, D.P. (2005). Quarterback speak. Retrieved June 26, 2009, from http://www.snopes.com/sports/football/williams.asp. Mirowsky, J., & Ross, C.E. (2005). Education, cumulative advantage, and health. Aging International, 30, 2762. Mixon, Jr., F.G., & Trevino, L.J. (2004). How race affects dismissals of college football coaches. Journal of Labor Research, 25, pp. 645656. National Urban League (2010, February ). Is the dream fulfilled? Time, 175(7), S1S14. NCAA (2010a). NCAA diversity and inclusion. Retrieved February 15, 2010 from http://www.ncaa.org/wps/portal/ncaahome?WCM_GLOBAL_CONTEXT=/ncaa/ncaa/ab out+the+ncaa/diversity+and+ inclusion. NCAA (2010b). NCAA football coaches academy. Retrieved February 15, 2010 from http://www.ncaa.org/wps/portal/ncaahome?WCM_GLOBAL_CONTEXT=/ncaa/NCAA/ About+The+NCAA/Diversity+and+Inclusion/Diversity+Programs/Men_s+Coaches+Aca demy/index.html Pacheco, J.S., & Plutzer, E. (2008). Political participation and cumulative disadvantage: The impact of economic and social hardship on young citizens. Journal of Social Issues, 64, 571593. Perkins, L.M. (1983). The impact of the cult of womanhood on the education of black women. Journal of Social Issues, 39(3), 1728. Piven, F.F., & Cloward, R.A. (1989). Why Americans dont vote New York: Pantheon. Sack, A.L., Singh, P., & Thiel, R. (2005). Occupational segregation on the playing field: The case of Major League Baseball. Journal of Sport Management, 19, 300318.
106 Sagas, M., & Cunningham, G.B. (2004). Treatment discrimination in college coaching: Its prevalence and impact on the career success of assistant basketball coaches. International Sports Journal, 8, 7688. Sagas, M., & Cunningham, G.B. (2005). Racial differences in the career success of assistant football coaches: The role of discrimination, human capital, and social capital. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 35, 773797. Sag as, M., Cunningham, G.B., & Pastore, D. (2006). Predicting head coaching intentions of male and female assistant coaches: An application of the theory of planned behavior. Sex Roles, 54, 695705. Sartore, M.L., & Cunningham, G.B. (2006). Stereotypes, rac e, and coaching. Journal of African American Studies, 10, 69 83. Seibert, S.E., Kraimer, M.L., & Liden, R.C. (2001). A social capital theory of career success. Academy of Management Journal, 44, 219237. Slack, T. (1997). Understanding sport organizations: The application of organizational theory Champaign, IL: Human Kinetics. Sosa, J., & Sagas, M. (2008). Country of origin and centrality: A positional segregation analysis of Major League Baseball. International Journal of Sport Management 9, 363378. Stiener, A. (2000). 199900 Race demographics of NCAA member institutions athletics personnel Indianapolis, IN: The National Collegiate Athletic Association. Toutkoushian, R.K., & Conley, V.M. (2005). Progress for women in academe, yet inequities persist: Evidence from NSOPF: 99. Research in Higher Education, 46, 128. Woodward, J.R. (2004). Professional football scouts: An investigation of racial stacking. Sociology of Sport Journal, 21, 356375.
107 BIOGRAPHICAL SKETCH Trevor attended Mary Washington College where he received his BS in psychology in 1994. He earned an MS in business t echnology from Marymount University in 2001 and an MS in e xercise and s port s cience from the University of Florida in 2003. He earned his PhD in s port m anagement from the University of Florida in 2010.