Miyagi-Do Karate Posted February 5, 2016 Share Posted February 5, 2016 This is not worth getting riled up. They have to interview, not hire. One of my previous companies made me interview more diversity candidates, but at the end of the day I hired the best person. In my industry dominated by white males, I used some diversity recruiters and was able to find the msot qualified persons who were of color or female. I didn't hire them because of gender or race, but merit. The company just forced all the RSM's to cast a larger net. We are not talking about coaches, but the front office. There are more than enough marketing, accounting, finance persons who an NFL team would employ that can be of a variety of backgrounds. Forcing hiring of female coaches would be a mistake given the small pool to hire from. I think this is what the NFL is thinking too. I think it is undeniable that the Rooney rule has worked. Lot of minority candidates have been introduced to the inner circle through the interview process. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hondo in seattle Posted February 5, 2016 Share Posted February 5, 2016 (edited) Didn't see this coming. So far, I don't think the Rooney Rule has been anything but good. I don't see how this extension to the front office to include female candidates can hurt football in any way. Seems like a good thing. I wonder if the motivation was more marketing than fairness. Participation in youth and high school football is declining which threatens perhaps future viewership. If the NFL is losing male viewers, they can compensate by attracting more female viewers. The more women in the NFL as refs, coaches and in FO positions, the more woman viewers the league is likely to attract. Edited February 5, 2016 by hondo in seattle Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
machine gun kelly Posted February 5, 2016 Share Posted February 5, 2016 Interesting take Hondo. It's possible. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chump Change Posted February 5, 2016 Share Posted February 5, 2016 That's just downright archaic. Chromosomes and genetics have absolutely nothing to do with gender. Gender is all about how a person feels deep down at any given moment. Its fluid and ever evolving. Its absolutely barbaric that people like you continue to insist on gender specific names for babies and inflict traditional gender roles on innocent lives who haven't even left the womb. When names could be gender neutral and just serve as a placeholder until a human being has actually had the opportunity to discover their gender identity, why is identity forced upon beings at birth? Why should the presence or lack of a Y chromosome decide a person's entire life from the what color clothes they can wear, to what bathroom they can use, and what order they exit a sinking ship? By the way, the ship that's sinking....its society. Society is sinking because of patriarchal micro aggressors who refuse to accept that gender doesn't fit neatly into your pre-conceived notions. This is a modern day Nuremberg and your whole way of thinking is on trial. Think about that! Its 2016, Tom. Time to get with the program! Wow, I hope this is meant as satire... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NoSaint Posted February 5, 2016 Share Posted February 5, 2016 I think it is undeniable that the Rooney rule has worked. I'm not sure it is undeniably successful, as much as some people believe in these programs more than others and you seem to be in the believer category. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BuffaloBillsMagic1 Posted February 5, 2016 Share Posted February 5, 2016 Where is the Rooney rule for short people? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jauronimo Posted February 5, 2016 Share Posted February 5, 2016 neither does intelligence I can let you slide for whiffing pretty badly on the comprehension but that attempt at a witty jab is just unforgiveable. Wow, I hope this is meant as satire... How far do I have to go before you'll recognize it as such? Check your pulse. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Beerball Posted February 5, 2016 Share Posted February 5, 2016 This is not worth getting riled up. They have to interview, not hire. One of my previous companies made me interview more diversity candidates, but at the end of the day I hired the best person. In my industry dominated by white males, I used some diversity recruiters and was able to find the msot qualified persons who were of color or female. I didn't hire them because of gender or race, but merit. The company just forced all the RSM's to cast a larger net. We are not talking about coaches, but the front office. There are more than enough marketing, accounting, finance persons who an NFL team would employ that can be of a variety of backgrounds. Forcing hiring of female coaches would be a mistake given the small pool to hire from. Why would anyone get "riled up?" There's no downside to this. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Manther Posted February 5, 2016 Share Posted February 5, 2016 Why would anyone get "riled up?" There's no downside to this.I guess the only downside may be potentially wasting teams potential time? If the team perceives it as a waste of time. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RyanC883 Posted February 5, 2016 Share Posted February 5, 2016 This is a totally ridiculous idea that minimizes the qualifications of women who are actually qualified for the job. The women in Arizona played football, and the Bills hire has been working with Rex and Co. for about 7 years and is qualified for the job she got. In the future, any women in one of these positions is going to be viewed by players as a "women-rule" hire and not listened to unless she happened to play football. Totally unfair to the qualified women. And if I'm running a team, I'm hiring the most qualified person, women, man, man who identifies as women, etc. The goal of my team is to win. I doubt this rule accomplishes anything. Why would anyone get "riled up?" There's no downside to this. there is plenty of downside to this. It implies, very strongly, that women are too weak to get these positions themselves. Conversely, qualified women are getting these positions now. It's the NFL's PR-stunt to solving a problem that doesn't exist. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DC Tom Posted February 5, 2016 Share Posted February 5, 2016 This is a totally ridiculous idea that minimizes the qualifications of women who are actually qualified for the job. The women in Arizona played football, and the Bills hire has been working with Rex and Co. for about 7 years and is qualified for the job she got. In the future, any women in one of these positions is going to be viewed by players as a "women-rule" hire and not listened to unless she happened to play football. Totally unfair to the qualified women. And if I'm running a team, I'm hiring the most qualified person, women, man, man who identifies as women, etc. The goal of my team is to win. I doubt this rule accomplishes anything. there is plenty of downside to this. It implies, very strongly, that women are too weak to get these positions themselves. Conversely, qualified women are getting these positions now. It's the NFL's PR-stunt to solving a problem that doesn't exist. You're misunderstanding the rule. It mandates interviewing, not hiring. It provides women a chance to demonstrate they're qualified for the position. Which is not a bad thing. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ronin Posted February 5, 2016 Share Posted February 5, 2016 They only need to keep one handy... LOL Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Beerball Posted February 5, 2016 Share Posted February 5, 2016 I guess the only downside may be potentially wasting teams potential time? If the team perceives it as a waste of time.yup. Which affects the team & fans not at all. Someone will conduct 1 more interview than they would have. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Miyagi-Do Karate Posted February 5, 2016 Share Posted February 5, 2016 I'm not sure it is undeniably successful, as much as some people believe in these programs more than others and you seem to be in the believer category. I think it is successful in accomplishing what I believed was one of its primary goals: give minority candidates increased access to increased HC interviews. Great way to get people's feet in the door, and just chances at positions. The HC world seems like a really small clique; and this seems to have expanded that greatly. A guy like Anthony Lynn is a great example-- I doubt he would get interviews without the Rule, but he hopefully has increased his connections to lay the groundwork in the future after all his interviews. I think it is impossible to say whether the rule alone has increased minority HC candidates; the stats show a significant jump, but probably can't necessarily say it was because of the rule. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Reed83HOF Posted February 5, 2016 Share Posted February 5, 2016 How far do I have to go before you'll recognize it as such? How far are you prepared to go? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Beerball Posted February 5, 2016 Share Posted February 5, 2016 You're misunderstanding the rule. It mandates interviewing, not hiring. It provides women a chance to demonstrate they're qualified for the position. Which is not a bad thing.You have been very accommodating lately, almost "nice." Feeling ok? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DC Tom Posted February 5, 2016 Share Posted February 5, 2016 You have been very accommodating lately, almost "nice." Feeling ok? No, not really, actually. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Beerball Posted February 5, 2016 Share Posted February 5, 2016 No, not really, actually.If it would help, you could call me an idiot. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DC Tom Posted February 5, 2016 Share Posted February 5, 2016 If it would help, you could call me an idiot. Nah. Just not really in the mood. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hapless Bills Fan Posted February 5, 2016 Share Posted February 5, 2016 Total hamfisted policy which ignores gender identity and tries to fit everyone into nice tidy little boxes. What if Russ Brandon identifies as a queer trans woman? In this example, she receives no benefit simply because she has a penis. Similarly, if Kathryn Trask decides to move to management and actually identifies herself as a cis hetero man, then he is benefiting from Goodell's lack of foresight and furthering patriarchal dominance of the NFL. Another member of the good ol' boys club even though he has a vagina. Yet another bungle for the hapless Goodell. One would think that post Jenner people would understand that gender isn't just check box for male or female, but a totally fluid concept subject to rapid and frightening change. I'm really starting to like you :worthy: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts