>there have been a disporpotionate amount of them that were not given a reasonable amount of time to succeed. No one is saying the owners are racist.

that is exactly what those who point this out are saying. if it's not about race then what's the point of mentioning their race in the first place? sure, no one's come out and boldly suggested that the owners are racist, but that's entirely the implication here when making an argument that minority coaches don't get much of a chance. if this has nothing to do with race then ESPN wouldn't be putting out race bait headlines and tv discussions every time someone thinks a black coach got shafted.

>The NFL itself has said it has a problem with minority hiring.

they're not admitting that there's a problem with racist owners, they're trying to appease the crowd who feel that way hence the Rooney Rule - which by the way is a slap in the face. if a team elects to go with a head coaching hire who happens to be white, that organization is forced to put a black coach through a dog and pony show and waste the time of both parties.

>If you are waiting for a smoking gun that an owner did not hire a black coach because he is black, that is never going to happen.

as a matter of fact, I agree. that's actually part of my rebuttal to those people out there who are quick to cry racism when it's not a black coach who gets hired for a vacant position. we don't have all the facts. all we have are opinions, emotions and assumptions.

>What is fair to say is the system in place does not always allow for minority coaches to get a fair opportunity to be head coaches.

and how exactly do you prove this theory when none of us are present for the interview process? and given the fact that there are plenty of white coaches in NFL history who only got a one year shot, how is this not cherry picking? everything seemingly unfavorable that has happened to a black coach has also happened to a white coach. but if you're only going to focus on the black coaches, then of course it would look fishy.