Link
"An analysis by The Associated Press found Black coaches holding 59.4% of assistant roles in the top six basketball leagues – the Atlantic Coast, Big 12, Big East, Big Ten, Pac-12, and Southeastern conferences – for the 2022-23 season. Yet the rate for Black coaches holding the top jobs was 29.9% compared with white coaches (64.9%)"
This blows a hole in the talent pool theory, assuming the assistant coach pool is the most common rung before head coach.
The AP's statistical analysis is too simplistic to draw any conclusions. There are implied assumptions that are clearly incorrect. I think there is a generic issue at heart, as well as, some ones specific to this issue.
Generically
I think one reason is likely due to the Legal community introducing the horrid idea (statistically horrid, I Legal portion is completely separate) of "Disparate Impact." So much bad statistical analysis has its ideas at its heart when discussing racial issues.
The problem created by its invalid statistical concepts are applied which leads to problems properly identifying what the problem actually is, or maybe more aptly, where the problem lies. It follows that if one cannot define a problem, they cannot solve said problem. People that are motivated to solve said problems are inclined to latch onto it emotionally and then not think it through.
Specifically
The AP is not considering Lag time. head coaches don't start out as young men. It is almost never below 40. Heck, even assistants usually are breaking in at a little more advanced age. They cut there Chops at High schools and elsewhere. Moreover, head coaches last a very long time. There are not many P4 opportunities.
Additionally, There is an assumption in society that coaches should reflect the league they coach in instead of the actual population that coaches are made from. This is a problematic fallacy. It should reflect the entire population that are interested in coaching that specific sport. The introduction of women as male professional sport coaches should blow that assumption up. It hasn't yet.
You don't learn to coach by playing a sport. You almost learn nothing about coaching, by just playing. You can.
You can learn it by watching what good coaches do up close. However, you actually have to watch and analyze it from that perspective, instead of from the perspective of learning the game. Coaching X and Os is usually book study. Learning teaching, adapting, ,motivating, psychology, systems thinking, are not done while playing in game. That's probably why the bench warmers are often better suited than stars. Then you have to learn its application. There is more, that is beyond the scope of a post.
Once again just so its not confusing I am not stating one cannot learn some coaching from playing a sport at a high level. That is not true. One can learn a lot. I am getting at that coaching is a discipline all unto itself - it must be practiced. It must be learned specifically.
An illustrative anecdote comes from John Wooden. I read something he wrote where he attributes how he learned to become a great basketball coach not from coaching basketball at all. He learned it from the single year he coached baseball. As a baseball coach myself, I think (Hypothesizing from his other stuff) he took mental toughness elements that are inherently necessary to even be competitive in baseball, and brought them to basketball. They work even better there (and are mimicked by Izzo,, Daddy Pitino, Wooden, Spoelestra, and others).
