Ganging up on the BCA

I too was going to write a post about the BCA's call for a boycott of black players and coaches of USC (South Carolina, not Southern Cal). The problem that I have with the call for a boycott is that this is just a matter of the BCA feeling slighted that they weren't consulted in the process. The BCA doesn't need to be consulted if the school has one candidate in mind and it just so happens that the candidate is white.

Not to turn this into a sports blog, but you see the problem that the BCA's method would turn into if they got their way in baseball. Until Willie Randolph was hired as the manager of the New York Mets, his name would continously appear as a candidate for managerial posts. He would never get hired though, which begs the question of whether he would just be interviewed because the franchise in question needed to fulfill MLB's minority hiring process. I remember the Tigers got into trouble a few years back because they didn't talk to any minorities when they had a position open.

In any case, the problem that I have the system is that it's really inefficient by forcing clubs, whether it's football, baseball, or society in general, to interview candidates even though there's no chance that they'll get the job. The idea works in theory if the candidate is good enough to get the job and wouldn't have an opportunity otherwise. Of course, if the candidate was good enough to start with, then they wouldn't need the leg-up programs supported by groups like the BCA. All it does is give marginal candidates interviews that won't get them anywhere. And as you see in baseball, many times the same candidate is interview but not hired.

I really don't see the BCA's boycott having a real effect on South Carolina's recruiting. Spurrier is enough of a big name couch that I predict he won't have any trouble recruiting talent to come to USC. In the end, the BCA's boycott is just an attempt to draw attention to itself.