Mike Wilbon...I think you're wrong | Sharapova's Thigh

Yesterday on PTI, Mike Wilbon and Tony Kornheiser were discussing Oregon's naming of Chip Kelly as the coach-in-waiting at Oregon. When asked what he thought about this seemingly new trend, Wilbon stated that this was a "not-so-thinly veiled" attempt to circumvent having to interview minority candidates.

I think this is crazy to the 10th degree.

Why does this have to be based in race? I mean, I could see how you could classify it as such if you were really, really trying to...and that's obviously what Wilbon was trying to do...but to say that this was done to avoid interviewing minority candidates doesn't make sense.

Look at other assistants who have been named coach-in-waiting. Jimbo Fisher at FSU. Will Muschamp at Texas. Joker Phillips at Kentucky. It's a race-related thing? Joker Phillips is black, for Christ's sake.

Why can't it be considered as being done to keep talented assistants at the school? Will Muschamp was considered for the Clemson job before Dabo Swinney had the interim title pulled off. Is there any doubt that schools like Mississippi State and Auburn would love to have Jimbo Fisher or Joker Phillips? I'd rather have the latter over Steve Spurrier at South Carolina.

My point is this: to say that this is a ploy to avoid having to interview minorities...and a not so thinly veiled ploy at that...is simply attempting to shoehorn race into something that can only be deemed as a racial thing by someone who really, really wants it to be one. See Jackson, Scoop.

That's just my two cents. I'm not so naive to believe that there aren't racial reasons as to some coaches not getting hired at some schools. I'm not. And that's particularly offensive. But this 'coach-in-waiting' system simply doesn't strike me as a race driven ordeal...unless we're ready to proclaim Kentucky at the forefront of social equity.

BallHype: hype it up!Add to RootZoo