AP Ignorance

I go to ESPN.com to see if there is an article about Tennessee football at the Music City Bowl. Instead I found an interesting article on the spending at colleges on football teams. Ohio State and Alabama each spent over 30 million on their football teams this year. That is a large sum! They spent the article comparing teams spending and I thought the article was quite interesting. Boise State spends less than 10 million/yr on its football program. This is money on weight rooms, hotels, traveling, and other obvious expenses. But that was not what the conclusion of the article was. They built it up as if they were writing an interesting article comparing large SEC/BIG TEN schools to the smaller schools that spend far less. But instead more political crap.

They end the article arguing that priorities are wrong at these colleges that will spend on average $150,000/student-athlete for sports while the tuition of normal students is around $10,000 and that barely pays for their education. The article was talking about the priorities of the programs. What they failed to mention is that the football programs at universities like Tennessee take zero dollars from the education budget. Instead they donate big money to the university (such as the library at Tennessee got over a million this year). Former athletes like Peyton Manning come back and donate money to the school while no tuition money was spent on his football at all.

These football programs bring money into the universities. It is not about priorities. Or if it were I would vote for more of these football programs because it actually helps the education process if the football program makes a surplus and donates money to the education of their students. I'm tired of these political articles that are motivated by controversy even when there is not controversy. It reminds me of the past columns I've written on CEO salaries that people complain about. But if a CEO making a $30,000,000 bonus saves a company $1,000,000,000 over the year. Is that CEO costing the company $30,000,000 or saving the company $970,000,000? Read the past column for more info.

"Sending a messgage??"

Some of the analogies in this post might not strike you as obvious and of the same principle but I do see this throughout our society.

I regard lying as one of the worst things you can do in society. While God looks at all sin as equal because its sin against him, us on earth do no such thing and should not do such. If businesses could break contracts (in essence lie to its customers) there would be no trust in our economy and thus a huge drop in investment will take place, less transactions in the marketplace and the economy will be hurt tremendously with our standard of living falling amidst it all.

However, this idea of using people at "examples" is getting on my nerves about as much as lying does. Bruce Pearl lied to the NCAA. Let me begin by saying that I can not read Pearl's heart and I'd say that he is more upset that he got CAUGHT than he is that he lied. But who am I to truly believe that and make that accusation. But I feel that the NCAA is about to make an "example" out of him and I hope they refrain from doing so.

There is no doubt that discrimination has taken place in our society. By the way there is proof that a true free market eliminates most discrimination in society. There is no doubt that violence is done to people due to them having serious "hatred" in hearts to these people. But should there be separate "hate crime" punishment because some court decided that in your heart you hated that person and we are now going to make "an example of you and punish you harder for being sexist or racist"? I think not. Crime is crime and violence is violence. Punish based on that not based on trying to rid someone of their hatred! This brings subjectivity into the law and that is wrong.

Today we always hear about trying to make an example out of someone to "send a message" to others about making the same mistakes. I can understand that to an extent. That is why they had public stoning and public crucifixions years ago. But this was done based on the writing law and consequences not some opinion of a court or body that decided to make this a "special" situation to send a "message". Bruce Pearl will probably be used as this "example". And don't get me wrong-he violated NCAA rules and then he lied about it. He also corrected that lie shortly after. But if the NCAA punishes Bruce Pearl more harshly than he has already been punished in an effort to "send a message"... then they are just as bad in my view.

I'm tired of our Congress wanting to punish those on Wall Street to "send a message" to other investors or future investors. Let the law be law and the rules be rules. Pearl lied. His integrity is now questioned. He cheated and should be punished. But the rules he broke were minor rules that if he had told the truth would have resulted in little punishment. He lied now should he be punished more? Sure, that is another rule. But lets not get caught up with this "sending a message" idea NCAA. Punish based on the wrong he has done. Take the subjectivity out of the question. I want our laws to be tougher and punishments to be harsher. That is after all what law is suppose to do. But I want it to be objective and each person punished equally for the laws they commit. Why? Because this is not a classroom where you treat everyone differently based on their past. This is law that we are talking about when it comes to our nation and her laws and rules and consequences. And all subjectivity should be taken out.

The NCAA can do as they want their a private enterprise and as a Libertarian I would never want them to be held to the same standard that government should be held to. But I hope they realize that Pearl should be punished based on his wrongdoings... not in a fashion to "send a message" to future rule breakers. The law and the rules and the punishments for such rules should already be written to do this objectively. No subjectivity is or needed nor should it be used.

Tax Debate

Federal taxes are suppose to be designed to fund the federal government. They are not suppose to be punishments (sin taxes, etc.), they are not suppose to be designed to redistribute wealth, and they are not suppose to be designed for politicians to play with in order to get some kick back from a lobbyist or a vote from the taxpayer.

Taxes should be designed to finance the Constitutional requirements of our federal government without hamstringing the economy. But the last two or three weeks have been filled with constant discussion and argument on extending the tax cuts for some and not for others. Many liberal politicians and voters as well as non-liberal but economic illiterate American citizens want these tax cuts to be kept for the working and middle class but not for the "rich". This "rich" could range from $250,000 plus to $1 million plus income/year.

The unfortunate thing is that most people do not understand how over taxed our corporations and rich already are today. U.S. Corporations pay the second highest tax rate among all other industrial nations behind Japan. The Rich in America (those making say $300,000/yr and higher) are just 1% of the population but they pay over 30% of all taxes. The top 5% of income earners in America pay over 50% of taxes in our nation. This includes rich individuals but also Small businesses that make enough to be in this tax bracket.

Most probably do not know that. These numbers come from the IRS not some conservative think tank that tries to play with the statistics in order to support a political ideology. These are facts. Lets shortly look at some economic facts:

At higher prices people buy less whether that is goods/services, or if that is a business that hires workers. The more you pay in taxes on investment the less investment you will do because the risk that is offset from the big payout is now less due to the taxation of Dividends and Capital Gains of individual investors. Understand that it is rich people who hire other people. If you work for a "poor" person please write me and let me know. Most employers are "rich" or at least well off. Their taxes being low is what will help employment and help raise the GDP in our nation. Lets remember that.

For you wondering what tax structure I favor. Well I favor either a Flat tax or the "Fair Tax". I favor no taxes on investment and no taxes on corporations or businesses. The reason is that those entities do not pay taxes anyways, they just transfer that onto their customers with higher prices. Either way it is still a cost to that business and those businesses wood invest more without taxes.

Have a great Christmas everyone and lets hope that politicians start thinking with their heads and stop thinking with their hearts. The latter causes them to make terrible decisions that are well intended but have terrible consequences.

Economics Part 3: Prices effectiveness

Prices are affected by two things: Supply and Demand. When the supply of a good is high prices tend to be lower. When supply is low, prices tend to be higher. When our demand for a good is high, prices tend to be high. When our demand for a good is low, the price is also low.

The benefit is that goods are allocated to their most valued uses. When our tastes in goods change from good A to good B, the price of B rises momentarily and thus resources are allocated or moved towards the production of B. This means the good that we want more, is supplied quicker. That is why innovation takes place in capitalist, price-coordinated economies quicker than socialist, government ran economies. Even more important is when supply is affected.

When a natural disaster hits a location, the supply is obviously affected by being destroyed and thus lowered. This then leads to a raising of prices. This rise in price leads producers to want to take advantage of this profit opportunity so they transfer or allocate resources to that area because this is where they are most valued at this time. The first companies to arrive there make generous profits. This is the incentive to arrive so quickly. That is why people arrived in New Orleans within hours of Hurricane Katrina taking place. When more and more companies arrive, the supply rises back up, and with all the competition, prices begin to fall again.

We can see that in a price coordinated economy, goods are effectively moved to their most valued areas. This is why our standard of living is so much better than most of the rest of the world.

Next post will discuss what happens when government puts price controls in place and thus not allow prices to freely function or change.

Economics Part 2: Prices

The most basic and simple principal in all of economics is as follows:


People buy more at lower prices. People buy less at higher prices. Producers produce more at higher prices. Producers produce less at lower prices.


In a market price coordinated economy, prices guide consumers and producers to where goods are most valued. This is the reason that these type of economies have a much higher standard of living than countries that are coordinated by a central planner or some kind of command economy like North Korea, Cuba, or the Soviet Union of the past.

Prices are not a good or bad thing. Prices simply convey information to both consumers and producers. The most important information that prices convey are how scarce resources are. When prices are high that usually means that that resource is very scarce and not a lot to go around. Thus beach front property is highly expensive because there is far more people wanting to live on beach front property than there is room available. Some might complain that this means that only those who are "rich" can afford the most scarce products. To an extent that might be true. But at the same time under non-price coordinated economies the leaders of the country make those decisions. I'd much rather trust markets than some super powerful leader who has the power to tell me what and where and how much of something I can have.

Furthermore, due to beach front property being highly price, most individuals cannot afford this property and thus hotels and rental property is often built there allowing society to have an opportunity to enjoy this property instead of an individual being able to afford it to him or herself.

Prices convey information that resources are very limited but they can also convey the message that this good is readily available. Computer prices have fallen in recent years due to the fact that the resources are readily available and much cheaper than they use to be because of this fact. Without the mechanism of prices, people would buy too much of an extremely scarce resource and prices might not convey the information that this item is now readily available to people that it use to not be available to at an affordable price.

More on prices role next time

Economics Part 1: What, Why, and How

Economics is defined best as: The study of the allocation of scarce resources which have alternative uses.

Simply put, economics studies how we get what we need and want when we get it. During the times of the garden of Eden there was no need of economics. Resources were unlimited. God supplied Adam and Even with anything and everything they needed. There was no reason to economize because there were not costs due to resources being unlimited. There was not work to be done in order to produce their food, water, clothing, etc.. God provided unlimited resources for them.

Today and ever since that time period in history, all resources no matter what that resource is, are scarce. Meaning that the sum of everything we want in life is more than what is available in society. We have unlimited wants but not unlimited resources. This is the idea of scarcity: that resources are limited.

Simply put, economics attempts to teach us the best way or "most efficient" way to spread out or "allocate" limited resources or "scarce resources" to the many different ways those resources can be used or in other words to their "alternative uses".

So that is what and why we have to economize. Allow me to finish part 1 with how we economize.

Most countries throughout history have relied on kings and lords to make decisions of how much to produce of a good and where and when to send it. All matter of production and distribution of resources were left up to the leader of a nation or small state or community. The lord was the leader of the manor in a Feudalistic economy. The dictator and the czar were the decision makers in a Communist nations. During Biblical times, kings were the decision makers. For thousands of years leaders made economic decisions.

Beginning around 1776 the idea that a market or the "invisible hand", as Adam Smith(author of the Wealth of Nations 1776) called it, could guide resources quicker and more efficiently. Meaning, instead of one leader sitting somewhere whether that be in Moscow, Russia or in Washington D.C., a market of prices would be in charge of allocating resources which have alternative uses. A market is made up of consumers and producers who are willing to come into agreements about what they want and what they are willing to give up to get it. And if those choices are left up to those consumers and producers and decisions were based on the costs or prices of making those agreements, then these decisions could be far more efficient since those individuals know far more about their own needs in their own situations than some arbitrary leader in some far away city.

Part 2 coming soon

Economics Series

Now that I am teaching economics full time at Stone Memorial High School, my constant focus on economic principles have motivated me to begin a series on my blog in which I attempt to lay out why I think the way I think. I will attempt to show you why an economic way of thinking is so much different than the way of thinking many of you have been taught. But in reality this blog series will teach you about economics the same way my students are being taught it minus the hour and a half five days a week. This blog will not be as detailed but will teach you the concepts that allow me to think in a way that is usually different from many others, but practical in hindsight.

In the coming days and weeks and even months I will be posting many parts to this series that will be brief and easy to read and will teach any of you who are curious, about economics principles, the reason for economics, and how an economist thinks.

I hope you enjoy

"Radical"

My brother recently preached a message about being "radical". Such a revealing message about truly believing what the Bible says as a true Christian. I would hate to try and compare the importance of that message to a political analogy and therefore I will not. But it got me to thinking about the fact that many people would call me a radical as well due to my political views.

Historically speaking George Washington, James Madison, Alexander Hamilton, John Jay, and the many other founders are discussed and talked about as American Heroes. Founders of our nation that aside from slavery are some of the greatest men the word has ever known. King George called George Washington the Greatest man ever when he did not elevate himself up to dictator after the American Revolution.

These men and myself and many that think like me, believe in the idea of Federalism. The idea that local governments and states should make most of the governing decisions in our lives. They were not pro-democracy as some have suggested. In fact Madison feared Democracy and power to people who could not possible have the knowledge at hand to vote on every issue. They also hated the idea of a strong central government though as well. But they all believed in the formation of a "federalist" type government in which the Central "national" government had very little power outlined in the Constitution. While all other powers would be left to the states and local governments.

Yet today I'm considered a "radical" along with many other men in the world who still view "federalism" as the ideal form of a government system. Glenn Beck and Rush Limbaugh to name two men who favor this. Is it really radical to believe the way that those great founding fathers of ours believed? Is it really radical to believe that the federal government is inefficient in nature and that it should not do things that are not in the constitution such as Social Security, Welfare, Medicare, Regulations on business, marriage issues, education, and the hundreds of other issues that it gets involved with.

If these men are great for starting this wonderful nation. We conservative libertarians can't be too "radical". Right?

My Income

I'm excited to finally be able to settle down in Crossville, TN once again and begin doing what I love doing more than anything- Teach and Coach. I teach economics now and that is the subject that usually disagrees with the establishment thought. Being that I have a degree in the subject I disagree with some of the notions that my fellow colleagues have despite my love of working with them.

It rarely takes too long for the subject of teacher pay to come up when there is a room full of teachers meeting. Sometimes only one teacher is needed. A couple weeks ago I went out with a friend of mine from Knoxville named Brittany. She had a friend that she introduced me to and the first thing he said after meeting me and finding out I was a teacher was something along the lines of "Man, I love you public servants. I am one of the biggest supporters of teachers getting more pay for what they do. Your job is way too important to make so little."

I then told him I make roughly $25/ hour and he looked surprised. But its true. I work roughly 190 days only each year. I understand there is preparation that teachers have to put into their jobs but the same is true of many other professions that work all year. I have so much vacation time during the summer, a week in the spring, a week in the fall, a few weeks during Christmas, and all weekends and other holidays in between. As a first year teacher with only a B.S. I make roughly $25 dollars per hour. This does not include coaching pay (which is far far less)

His last line was that teachers should get more pay because their job is so important. It might be true that developing the minds of the future citizens of our society is more important than some occupations. But pay is not and should not be based on what I or any one other person believes is of great importance. In a free society, pay is based on a market that involves both supply and demand. This is because a "price-coordinated" economy, like ours is when government isn't involved, prices allocate scarce resources which have alternative uses. Put differently prices is what transfers goods to where they are most desired and needed and in some cases in low supply.

As a teacher I have chosen a worthy occupation and career that hundreds of thousands or millions of others have also chosen. Millions cannot choose to become surgeons because most people in America do not have the capability much less the determination and commitment to become a surgeon when more than ten years of training and extensive and high level education is required for such an occupation. Teaching is a somewhat easy degree to earn as it is a Social Science with far easier course work and far fewer years of training required.

We do have a shortage of qualified math and science teachers because within the teaching profession it is a tougher subject to teach and earn a degree in. Thus as an economist I believe those teachers should be paid more than I or a PE teacher where we have a surplus of qualified teachers to work in these areas. If this was ever allowed to happen, we would never have a problem finding math and science teachers. More would choose to earn their degree in those areas where they can earn more pay. That is how the market works. I know most teachers get into the profession for reasons aside from pay. But some teachers choose subject material that is easier than math and science because they know they will be paid the same despite it being easier. So no one can tell me that pay has nothing to do with our motivations. And there is nothing immoral or wrong with this either. That is why American prosperity and other Capitalistic price-coordinated economies have prospered so much. Prices coordinate resources to where they are most needed not where we believe the occupation is morally more important or valuable.

I love my job and my pay is sufficient. Not because I don't value what we teachers do. But because I value our economic system and the prosperity of our nation as a whole. And this prosperity has come about because scarce resources which have alternative uses are allocated more efficiently when goods go where they are in least supply and highest demand, instead of where good intentions might lead those resources.

Tuly Greedy

If you watch the news and listen to politicians you will occasionally and actually with much repetition hear them talk about the "greed" of capitalists such as the banks and wall street investors. It is true that banks and wall street want to make as much money as they possible can. It is also true that we as individuals do as well. We can call this "greed" or we can call it human instinct. But greed is not what led to the housing crisis and thus economic recession. Regulations, government pressured loans, and terrible incentives generated by the promise of bail outs is what led to the bubble and since crash of the housing market leading us into a long and tough recession and now tough times. Recently the unemployment rate dropped to I believe 9.5%. That is good news until you read that it dropped because many people stopped looking for full time jobs and became "discouraged" workers. These individuals are then taken out of the labor market which makes the unemployment statistic improve. Without this statistical jargon, the unemployment would be just over 10%. What can be done?

In reality the quickest and best way to fix the current problems would be to stop the entitlement spending that our federal government does and overhaul the tax code. America has the toughest tax code to understand and the current tax code disincentives investment and expansion. People would be more willing to invest and create businesses if they knew that they could keep most of the money they worked hard to make. But in our system if a person wants to expand their business they must first know they are not just going to benefit a little from doing so but they must benefit enough to pay for the extra taxes, regulations, and oversight, before being willing to invest into that.

Why not overhaul the tax code? I like the Fair Tax which is a national sales tax that would then eliminate all other taxes that businesses and individuals pay. In other words you only pay federal taxes when you buy something and you don't even pay taxes on food at that. You also bring home your entire check from work and the acronym FICA becomes non-existent. This would generate many new businesses and jobs for the American People. There is one large problem with this. This eliminates the need for lobbyists to try and sugar up the politicians to get tax benefits for themselves. Businesses would strive under this fair tax but some businesses would not like this because of the added competition that it would bring. (competition benefits us as consumers though). Politicians benefit with donations to their reelection bids and perks by helping businesses get around certain tax laws. Politicians in other words have much more power under the current complicated tax code. Who is greedy? I say the politicians that refuse to let go of their power despite knowing full well America would benefit.

Happy Independence Day!!

You have made enough money!!

Recently the President of the United States Barack Obama made a resounding statement in which he said: "I do think at a certain point you've made enough money." That statement while appealing to a certain sector of the population, is a rare and scary statement made by a man of such power. In fact it is a dangerous way of thinking. During a time where making money is hard to come by I definitely do not want to encourage those people who employ American Citizens that they should probably stop what they are doing, because "at a certain point you've made enough money."

Big Business owners and CEO's and those who have sold their companies to shareholders are those that the president are referring to. This is amazing to me. If you look back in history of our nation at when people like Gates and Buffett made most of their money, I bet you will find a correlation between that and employment in the United States. It is the richest in America that have ran successful businesses that employ Americans who need to work and work most of their lives until they retire late in life. If these rich Americans quit what they did these middle class Americans would be in major trouble. If these rich smart Americans gave up their jobs and let others do those jobs, those others might not be as good. Decisions that lead to layoffs could be made which will hurt those who are much poorer and working hard for a living on the floor level.

What is sad is that there are a lot of people in America who don't care and don't understand why this statement is dangerous for our nation's economy. Those some Americans probably support many of his anti-business policies. Those same Americans will be hurt by a policy that would have successful people to stop making money. And those same Americans might be so ignorant that they will not be able to look back and connect the dots. But they will love it when our welfare system is expanded even more to help them out.

Rich people, keep making money!

Books to read

I love reading! Now that might not seem crazy to you but to know me growing up it would sound a bit off edge. I never read growing up. I would read a newspaper article about my schools sporting events but rarely anything else. In fact I am embarrassed to say that I rarely read the required reading from high school classes. But now that I am a smarter or more intelligent person, I will let you know that I love reading. Here are some books that you should consider reading if you like or somewhat are interested in where I get many of my ideas and joy of our great country.

For starters lets begin with interesting readings that might contradict ideas we believe to be common sense.

More Liberty Means Less Government- Walter Williams
-This book is one of if not my favorites.
Liberty Versus the Tyranny of Socialism- Walter Williams
-This is much like the first book
-Both these books are a collection of his articles so there are plenty of places to stop reading and pick back up when most convenient.
Economic Facts and Fallacies- Thomas Sowell
-This is a very interesting book by a great writer.


After reading those books which should be interesting reads you might be open and would love to learn a bit about economics. Especially for you young people who are still considering a degree. Economics is needed and a great background for a future lawyers who might want to get into politics at some point.

Basic Economics- Thomas Sowell
Applied Economics-Thomas Sowell

You will learn all you have to know about economics from these two books. You won't be an economist but you will know whether you want to pursue further education. These books also do the best job of explaining a subject that most people believe is very confusing


For you who love history and want to learn more about our history and specifically an overview of our nation. These two books will go through our complete history and be like a survey of American History.

America: The Last Best Hope Volume I and II- William Bennett

For you who love specific history and more details of certain people or events read anything by the author David Macullough

Crazy Ideas

Keep in mind that some crazy ideas did not seem so crazy at one point in our history and some ideas that people had years ago would be deemed to be crazy today. In fact it was crazy to imagine a world without slavery just over 150 years ago. But we know today that with the cheapest of labor the southern states were still worse off than the northern states who mostly did not use slaves. Today we would think it crazy to think the U.S. should bring slavery back.

There is no guaranteed right to vote even though there is an amendment that gives women the right to vote. Early in our history it was crazy to think that women or that men without ownership of land should be allowed to vote. Today many believe it would be crazy to say that some should vote and not others. I don't know about that. Our founding fathers were very scared of the idea of democracy. George Washington, John Adams, and the founder of the Federalist Party, Alexander Hamilton all feared democracy because they doubted the intelligence of all the masses of American people. Of course we know this was the thinking while they were losing power to the Republicans lead by Thomas Jefferson who loved Democracy. But lets think about it today. Should a Middle school basketball coach and substitute teacher's vote count the same as Bill Gates' vote? I would argue probably not. And that is using me as an example much less the hundreds of thousands of drug addicts and alcoholics that can vote. Would it be a crazy idea to limit who can and cannot vote? Just a thought.

Finally, it could be considered crazy to revamp our education system and allow parents to take their children anywhere they want for school. I mean you would have schools doing everything they could to get those kids there and coaches would recruit athletes from other high schools and schools would recruit good students to their school so the school could get more money. It would be like a feeding frenzy! Crazy! And yet that would be much like our colleges today. You know the colleges that are ranked in the top of the world while our secondary education system is not even close to there. Crazy!!!

Are You Serious? Its a Commercial!!

Recently I keep hearing this debate over the controversy of a pro-life commercial that is being produced by Focus on the Family. Tim Tebow and his story of nearly being aborted is the message of the commercial. Only in the United States of hope I don't offend a liberal American is this a story. Yes once again liberal advocacy groups are trying everything they can to not have this commercial shown. Its against my freedom to choose. What freedom to choose? There is nothing in the Constitution about that. There isn't anything in the Constitution about freedom of speech being tampered with either EXCEPT for by congress. The Constitution limits congress' ability to restrict your speech and since the government has absolutely nothing to do with this commercial, only a ignorant historian or Constitutionalists would even bring that up.

CBS can show any commercial they want. I don't remember Focus on the Family coming out and complaining about alcohol commercials. And if A Christian advocacy group did come out about something like that, Outside the Lines and other news sources would not be covering the story. But since liberals feel offended I seriously have to hear about this "controversy".

Sometimes it makes you think that if our nation truly had an open discussion about Abortion that more people might be persuaded to be against it. Maybe these liberals are afraid of that.

Dwight Lewis and Racism

Most of you do not know who Dwight Lewis is and I did not either until 5 minutes ago. He is a writer in The Tennessean newspaper. He recently wrote an article saying that a black person still can not get a job coaching at the University of Tennessee. To be honest it is understandable that people would have these opinions due to the years of government supported racism and prejudice in our country (such as all other countries have experienced at one point). But why can we just not look at the situation itself and put previous feelings aside.

The University of Tennessee has had very few coaches in previous years. Johnny Majors, Philip Fulmer, Lane Kiffin, and now Derek Dooley. Tennessee thus can not be said to have a history of passing over blacks to be their coaches since they have only hired two people outside the Tennessee family in the past 30 some years or more. Most people will say that Mike Hamilton's Athletic Department Director position is on the line with this hiring. Do you think Mike Hamilton cares so little about his job that he would pass over a more highly qualified coach just because he was black when his job is on the line? I would assume he would hire the best possible candidate. Besides reports say he offered Lovie Smith the job. Last time I checked he was black. And he is far more qualified than Derek Dooley or Kippy Brown. But Dooley is more qualified than Brown.

We can accept the fact that Blacks play sports more than whites at the highest of levels. And I have written before about the reasons why. Many blacks pursue individual achievement due to family structures growing up more often than white people. They are not more selfish but they feel better about following individual accomplishment and not depending on others because they have had to do it all their life more often than white people (Divorce Rates, premarital birth rates, etc). Thus they pursue art (music) and basketball/football and they spend far more time working at it. They often play basketball till dark in the playground while whites are playing video games. I don't think the NBA or NFL or NCAA is racist. I think they understand how to run a business and thus recruit the better athletes. More times than not that is a black person. Whites choose occupations more often than not that allow people to work together and pursue occupations that are group oriented such as education, etc. Thus more are prepared to coach. In fact many white people are not as athletic and thus have to use coaching mentalities more often in order to have success against more athletic players. Thus their life prepares them for coaching and they don't even realize it.

Lets stop with the racism thing everytime a white person gets picked over a black person for a coaching job. It might have everything to do with performance and not color. Especially when the decision makers job is on the line. I would assume they would do everything they could to make the right choice.