Race, Supervisorial Change, and Job Outcomes: Employability Resilience in NCAA Division I College Basketball Coaching

Abstract

We examine how race affects the employment status of subordinates following a job change by their immediate supervisors. We test whether racial homophily between a subordinate and a supervisor affects the odds of being let go. We also consider whether a racial match between an incoming head coach and assistant affects whether assistants retain their assistant coaching position. Data for these analyses come from a unique data set that explores what happens to 704 NCAA Division I college basketball assistant coaches after the head coach leaves the school. Logistic regression analyses confirm the benefit of working for a white head coach as this decreases the likelihood of being let go, compared to more positive outcomes such as following the coach to a new school, being internally promoted or retained after the head coach's departure. Furthermore, racial homophily with incoming head coaches insulates subordinates from having to search for new employment by increasing the likelihood of assistants being retained.

Race and Employment: The Historical Case of Head Coaches in College Basketball

“…The preference of Black students for coaches with a similar racial background diminishes the representation gap. These results are in line with those of Savage and Seebruck ( 2016 ), who find that subordinates and supervisors from the same race in intercollegiate athletic departments are more likely to support each other.…”

Uncertainty and Social Influence

“…This uncertainty allows high-status members of the hiring team to have undue influence and lead the team to select their preferred candidate. Given preferences for same-race and same-sex others (Cunningham and Sagas 2005;Gorman 2005;Savage and Seebruck 2016), such candidates may not be best.…”

A shame of inches: Are teams with black head coaches more heavily penalized in Division 1 college football?

“…The extant literature documents the disadvantages and barriers that black coaches face when getting a job or being promoted (Bozeman and Fay 2012; Day and McDonald 2010; Seebruck and Savage 2019) and the additional precarity of work due to racially homophilous networks (Savage and Seebruck 2016) and appointments to teams with a poor record (Cook and Glass 2013). In this article, we hope to shift the focus of the literature and identify mechanisms that operate against black coaches during their tenure as head coaches.…”

“…Initially, racial homophily in the hiring process presents black coaches with a more precarious work environment (Seebruck and Savage 2014). Further, homophily in coaching positions insulates the racially homophilous from being fired (Savage and Seebruck 2016). It follows that black coaching candidates are disadvantaged due to a lack of social capital (Day and McDonald 2010; McDonald and Day 2010).…”

“…While research on race and the sociology of sport has focused on the racial characteristics and expectations of players for on‐field penalization (Eiserloh, Foreman, and Heintz 2020; Hall and Livingston 2012), much less is known of racialized leadership positions such as coaching. When studies do consider racial leadership, the emphasis is typically on the effects of race on hiring and promotion rather than on‐field dynamics (Day 2015; Day and McDonald 2010; Savage and Seebruck, 2015, 2016; Seebruck and Savage 2014, 2019). This article extends previous work by exploring the relationship between the racial characteristics of college football coaches and their team's level of on‐field penalization.…”