The Rooney Rule (still) isn’t working?

[BarleyNY]

3 hours ago, whatdrought said:

Almost made a thread on this earlier, but wasn’t sure how it would go over. 

 

The flak now is is that the rule isn’t resaulting in many minorities being hired. Technically speaking, something like 20% of the open positions have been filled with a minority candidate this year (Rivera in WSH) which is not all that much lower than the 30% minority makeup of the US. 

 

The problem, and the argument that Stephen A. and others don’t seem to want to engage regarding this, is that you can’t debate the Rooney rule and the lack of minority coaches in a racial vaccum. You have to present actual examples of minority coaches who are more deserving of the position being passed over. That’s kinda hard to do, I think. 

 

 

The problem, in my humble opinion, is that any time you look at anything but qualifications for a job or position, you break the system. This anger about minorities not being respresented has to intrinsically include an accusation that an owners racism is worth more to them than winning. That’s a hard pill to swallow.

IIRC the Rooney Rule was put into place to get minority candidates exposure.  That makes sense.  Many business opportunities - especially those at the top - are predicated on who you know.  If all the top people were white and they mostly knew other white people, then that’s pretty much how stuff would stay.  So every team has to take a look at one minority candidate just to get some exposure to some minorities that would not otherwise get a shot.  I got no problem with that in the environment it was instituted in.
 

To me it does appear as though progress on that front has been made.  I don’t know how much, if any, of it is due to the Rooney Rule but things seem to be getting more racially diverse.

 

I am not sure exactly what some like Stephen A. are looking for though.  A few years back I remember seeing a clip of him complaining about the lack of black coaches and GMs in the NFL. I did the math and the number of black coaches and GMs was right in line with the general US population.  (Note: I don’t know where it stands today.)
 

I wondered what the problem was.  I don’t know for sure, but I think it might have to do with the high percentage of players being black.  I think there’s something inherently distasteful about a bunch of mostly white guys being at the top and in charge (owners, coaches, GMs and, and until recently, QBs) and a bunch of mostly black guys working under them.  That’s an entirely understandable gut reaction, but I think that some (consciously or not) would like to see the racial make up at the top to look like that of the players.  That should not be the goal.  Just because the racial make up of the players is out of proportion with the general population is no reason to force that onto another group. The racial make up at the top is changing and I think that people have to understand that the final result might look a lot more like the racial make up of the general population.  Once it does for a reasonable period of time we shouldn’t really need the Rooney Rule anymore. 

 

[Augie]

8 minutes ago, Doc Brown said:

Three out of 32 head coaches are black.  Less than 10%.  Approximately 13% of population is black and I believe around 70% of NFL players are black. So no, it’s not working and needs to be tweaked or eliminated.

 

Why can’t it be treated as just one tool in the bag? It doesn’t have to FIX the entire problem, but if it helps just a little? I don’t see how it can hurt. Pennstate above says 10% of the population is black, so that’s pretty close. 

 

This will continue to self-correct with time. Just win and you get and keep your job. I’ll have no outrage now, but if the Rooney Rule helps even just a little, I leave it intact for now. 

[1st Ammendment NoMas]

3 hours ago, whatdrought said:

Almost made a thread on this earlier, but wasn’t sure how it would go over. 

 

The flak now is is that the rule isn’t resaulting in many minorities being hired. Technically speaking, something like 20% of the open positions have been filled with a minority candidate this year (Rivera in WSH) which is not all that much lower than the 30% minority makeup of the US. 

 

The problem, and the argument that Stephen A. and others don’t seem to want to engage regarding this, is that you can’t debate the Rooney rule and the lack of minority coaches in a racial vaccum. You have to present actual examples of minority coaches who are more deserving of the position being passed over. That’s kinda hard to do, I think. 

 

 

The problem, in my humble opinion, is that any time you look at anything but qualifications for a job or position, you break the system. This anger about minorities not being respresented has to intrinsically include an accusation that an owners racism is worth more to them than winning. That’s a hard pill to swallow.

I my business it is even worse. 

[whatdrought]

14 minutes ago, BarleyNY said:

IIRC the Rooney Rule was put into place to get minority candidates exposure.  That makes sense.  Many business opportunities - especially those at the top - are predicated on who you know.  If all the top people were white and they mostly knew other white people, then that’s pretty much how stuff would stay.  So every team has to take a look at one minority candidate just to get some exposure to some minorities that would not otherwise get a shot.  I got no problem with that in the environment it was instituted in.
 

To me it does appear as though progress on that front has been made.  I don’t know how much, if any, of it is due to the Rooney Rule but things seem to be getting more racially diverse.

 

I am not sure exactly what some like Stephen A. are looking for though.  A few years back I remember seeing a clip of him complaining about the lack of black coaches and GMs in the NFL. I did the math and the number of black coaches and GMs was right in line with the general US population.  (Note: I don’t know where it stands today.)
 

I wondered what the problem was.  I don’t know for sure, but I think it might have to do with the high percentage of players being black.  I think there’s something inherently distasteful about a bunch of mostly white guys being at the top and in charge (owners, coaches, GMs and, and until recently, QBs) and a bunch of mostly black guys working under them.  That’s an entirely understandable gut reaction, but I think that some (consciously or not) would like to see the racial make up at the top to look like that of the players.  That should not be the goal.  Just because the racial make up of the players is out of proportion with the general population is no reason to force that onto another group. The racial make up at the top is changing and I think that people have to understand that the final result might look a lot more like the racial make up of the general population.  Once it does for a reasonable period of time we shouldn’t really need the Rooney Rule anymore. 

 

 

 

I get the idea behind the rule, and there are some solid points here. I just can't help but go back to "but who?" Several teams have changed hands as of late, and as far as I know those sales were open to everyone regardless of race, class, gender, or creed. In coaching and GM it's still the same situation, what minority candidates are getting passed over for inferior people? Doug Whaley got fired for a white guy, I don't think anyone here would say that was the Pegulas (who didn't hire whaley, If I remember correctly) acting negatively towards Whaley due to his minority status. I have no reason to believe that the owners (perhaps some outliers) are closet racists who go out of their way to avoid hiring minorities. I think, in fact, that most would be glad to hire minorities if it ensured that they'd be the ones listening to Terry Bradshaws stupid jokes on the podium with the Lombardi in their hands. 

 

I guess my bottom line is this: the positions of power should be filled by those most qualified to hold them (and those who have earned them to begin with). Qualifications have nothing to do with racial heritage. If there is a process that ensures that all qualified candidates get an equal chance to via for those positions, great. The Rooney Rule doesn't seem to do that, but that's my take on it. Furthermore, equality of racial make up cannot be the goal. If it was, the NFL should do the Rooney rule 2.0 and take 30% of Owner, GM, and HC jobs at random and assign minorities to those posts. 

 

Right now, my beef with the system is that you end up with minority candidates getting sham interviews, and you end up with men who have earned a chance to be a HC getting attacked in the media because they got the job over a minority candidate. It seems to exacerbate racial tensions, and it helps nobody. 

 

I also fundamentally disagree with any person being granted any opportunity or preeminence over anyone else due to their skin color. Be it whites, blacks, asians, hispanics, etc. When it comes to school admissions, when it comes to jobs, when it comes to anything- look at the individual and their qualifications and leave race out of it. 

Edited January 8, 2020 by whatdrought

[MJS]

1 hour ago, Utah John said:

 

I wonder what would be viewed as success in this regard.  Is there a target number of black HCs that would lead everyone to say all is well?  I think the purpose of the Rooney Rule is to make sure some qualified black coaching candidates at least get into the room and have a shot at impressing the management.  That's all that anyone can really ask for.  

It's been expanded to all minorities now. Which I think it's strange that it wasn't that way to begin with 

[Doc Brown]

46 minutes ago, Augie said:

 

Why can’t it be treated as just one tool in the bag? It doesn’t have to FIX the entire problem, but if it helps just a little? I don’t see how it can hurt. Pennstate above says 10% of the population is black, so that’s pretty close. 

 

This will continue to self-correct with time. Just win and you get and keep your job. I’ll have no outrage now, but if the Rooney Rule helps even just a little, I leave it intact for now. 

I don't like the rule because the rule itself sends the wrong message.  It states that you have to interview a potential head coaching candidate based on their race (not experience, past performance, potential).  It just leads to sham interviews and that causes that candidate (and those who are fans of that candidate) feel used because they happen to be born of a certain race.  Thus exasperating racial tensions.  The NBA has eight black head coaches and they didn't need a Rooney type rule to do it.  The diversity committee should focus on growing the pipeline for people of color to advance up the coaching food chain. 

[GunnerBill]

7 hours ago, OldTimeAFLGuy said:

 

...DEAD ON and nicely done......perhaps a naive observation, but when do we reach a point, if ever, where skin color dictates a candidate's hiring?...and good luck proving the non-hire was race based....some have posted here  regarding no interviews for Frazier......his first shot as HC graduating from coordinator ranks didn't work, as it has for many others regardless of skin color.....secondly, he'll be 61 in April, so does he want the extra rigors of being a HC?.....don't coordinators who gt hired as HC, then fired, revert back to their old coordinator positions and are comfortable with it, regardless of skin color?.....didn't Schwartz get canned as a HC and go back to his DC roots and seemingly comfortable with it?....is the intrview satisfaction probably exploited?.....did Jurrah ever intend to hire Marvin Lewis?...doubtful.....did the Colts ever intend to hire Frazier?...dunno.....at the same time, if Frazier now gets an interview for HC vacancy, is it because of skin color or skill set as a potential HC?......NO ANSWER HERE but demeaning IMO to get an interview for "rule satisfaction"...

 

So Frazier's last interview was with the Colts when McDaniels bailed. The league confirmed to them that as they satisfied the Rooney Rule in their original hiring process they were under no obligation to interview a minority candidate again. Frazier was one of two interviewed he didn't get the job but he can at least have walked away believing he had a shot. 

 

Marvin Lewis I believe had a shot in Dallas. I don't think he was ever their favourite for the job but when you look at the Cowboys process they interviewed two men who had both been among the longest tenured NFL Head Coaches in their prior role. They were looking for experience. I think they were always leaning towards offense but Lewis had a shot. 

 

The problem is with the Perry Fewell interview in Carolina. Yes he was the interim HC but he never had a shot at that job. That was a "satisfy the rule" interview. What the Rooney rule should be doing is making sure the best qualified minority coaches in the next tier down are getting in front of teams pretty much every time there is an opening. Kris Richard is the name that springs to mind. I know the Bills were really impressed when they interviewed him and had McDermott gone elsewhere he would have been the Head Coach here. That was now three years ago. He still hasn't landed one of these jobs.

 

He has the track record. He was the position coach for the Legion of Boom. He is the co-DC in Dallas responsible for their pass defense which in those 3 years since has never ranked worse than 13th in the NFL. The idea of the Rooney Rule was never that Perry Fewell got Head Coach interviews. It was that Kris Richard got interviews. It is that the capable minority candidates are never left off the list. As far as I am aware only the Giants interviewed him this year. I have no truck with the fact that the Giants decided to hire someone else. Or that the Bills preferred McDermott or that when Richard got to the last two in Miami last year the Dolphins went with Flores. The rule was never about forcing teams to hire a guy. It was about forcing teams to interview the capable guys. Not just any minority candidate that happened to wander past. 

 

I find it hard to believe that a candidate with Richard's profile who is a known commodity in interview and has the track record as a position coach and DC that he has but who was white would still be waiting 4 years after first hitting the "interviewable candidate" rank. Maybe they would but if they would I have to believe they would be getting interviewed for practically every job. 

 

The other issue for black and minority guys is the NFL's trend for hiring offense. I believe I am right that there is currently only one minority offensive coordinator in the league. The NFL is happy to let african american men call defense. But it hasn't yet quite come to terms with them calling offense. Of the three current black Head Coaches only Anthony Lynn ever called plays on offense and even then for less than a full season. He never had full OC responsibilities. 

[GunnerBill]

Okay so I have moved to solutionising. The current rule isn't working because teams are interviewing whichever African American coach they have on staff who they have no intention of hiring to fulfil the quota. This means that it isn't the best of the best minority candidates who are getting the interviews... the ones who actually have the resume and the experience to impress owners... it is just whoever is convenient. Is it a surprise more teams are not hiring more minority coaches if they are interviewing Perry Fewell? I'd suggest it is not.

 

So, how about, and this is just off the top of my head so feel free to shoot me down in flames (I came up with it during my morning commute):

 

- the NFL takes on responsibility for creating each year a 12 person shortlist of "primary Head Coaching candidates." That list has to include at least 4 minority candidates. The list is made up entirely of existing NFL staff. So it is essentially the NFL list of the top assistant coaches. Let's say this list is published and disseminated to teams at the start of December.

- Each team with a vacancy is then mandated to interview at least one of the minority candidates on the shortlist to satisfy the Rooney Rule.

- The list would not prevent NFL teams from interviewing and indeed hiring anyone (white or minority) who does not make the shortlist.

- The shortlist would be reviewed by an expert panel each year so just because you were on it last year doesn't mean if you don't get a job you automatically stay on it.

 

The idea being that this would make sure the minority candidates getting in front of teams are the Kris Richards and the Eric Bieniemys and the Robert Salehs not the Perry Fewells of this world or whoever else happens to be hanging about already on the staff.

[HOUSE]

This is going to be a long, long off season...

 304 more miles to go...

I will never make it....

 

Edited January 8, 2020 by HOUSE

[JMF2006]

I have a solution: instead of inviting coaches to interview(BTW the RR now requires 2 minority interviews) why not let coaches apply for the position?

 

So your going to fire your coach ? there should be a minimum 4 week hiring process.

 

Week One  Accept applications from qualified candidates the league could suggest certain minority candidates they feel might have been previously overlooked

 

Week Two Sort through apps and get down to 7 Finalists

 

Week Three the second interviews with the 7

 

Week Four the 3rd and final interviews with the top 3 at end of this week your new coach is announced.

 

Or you could promote one of your minority assistants to HC and forgo the lengthy process.

 

How many teams would choose the latter? 

1 hour ago, GunnerBill said:

Okay so I have moved to solutionising. The current rule isn't working because teams are interviewing whichever African American coach they have on staff who they have no intention of hiring to fulfil the quota. This means that it isn't the best of the best minority candidates who are getting the interviews... the ones who actually have the resume and the experience to impress owners... it is just whoever is convenient. Is it a surprise more teams are not hiring more minority coaches if they are interviewing Perry Fewell? I'd suggest it is not.

 

So, how about, and this is just off the top of my head so feel free to shoot me down in flames (I came up with it during my morning commute):

 

- the NFL takes on responsibility for creating each year a 12 person shortlist of "primary Head Coaching candidates." That list has to include at least 4 minority candidates. The list is made up entirely of existing NFL staff. So it is essentially the NFL list of the top assistant coaches. Let's say this list is published and disseminated to teams at the start of December.

- Each team with a vacancy is then mandated to interview at least one of the minority candidates on the shortlist to satisfy the Rooney Rule.

- The list would not prevent NFL teams from interviewing and indeed hiring anyone (white or minority) who does not make the shortlist.

- The shortlist would be reviewed by an expert panel each year so just because you were on it last year doesn't mean if you don't get a job you automatically stay on it.

 

The idea being that this would make sure the minority candidates getting in front of teams are the Kris Richards and the Eric Bieniemys and the Robert Salehs not the Perry Fewells of this world or whoever else happens to be hanging about already on the staff.

 

I posted my idea then read the post you made I like your ideas.:)

Edited January 8, 2020 by JMF2006

[LB3]

3 hours ago, GunnerBill said:

Okay so I have moved to solutionising. The current rule isn't working because teams are interviewing whichever African American coach they have on staff who they have no intention of hiring to fulfil the quota. This means that it isn't the best of the best minority candidates who are getting the interviews... the ones who actually have the resume and the experience to impress owners... it is just whoever is convenient. Is it a surprise more teams are not hiring more minority coaches if they are interviewing Perry Fewell? I'd suggest it is not.

 

So, how about, and this is just off the top of my head so feel free to shoot me down in flames (I came up with it during my morning commute):

 

- the NFL takes on responsibility for creating each year a 12 person shortlist of "primary Head Coaching candidates." That list has to include at least 4 minority candidates. The list is made up entirely of existing NFL staff. So it is essentially the NFL list of the top assistant coaches. Let's say this list is published and disseminated to teams at the start of December.

- Each team with a vacancy is then mandated to interview at least one of the minority candidates on the shortlist to satisfy the Rooney Rule.

- The list would not prevent NFL teams from interviewing and indeed hiring anyone (white or minority) who does not make the shortlist.

- The shortlist would be reviewed by an expert panel each year so just because you were on it last year doesn't mean if you don't get a job you automatically stay on it.

 

The idea being that this would make sure the minority candidates getting in front of teams are the Kris Richards and the Eric Bieniemys and the Robert Salehs not the Perry Fewells of this world or whoever else happens to be hanging about already on the staff.

Say a GM legitimately doesn't like any of the candidates the NFL put on the list. They interview two outside candidates, one white and one minority. Good outside candidates (not Perry Fewell).

 

If they end up deciding the white coach is the better fit, what should their punishment be for not liking any of the 12 candidates the NFL chose?

 

If they end up deciding the minority coach is the better fit, what should their punishment be for not liking any of the 12 candidates the NFL chose?

Edited January 8, 2020 by LBSeeBallLBGetBall

[row_33]

10 hours ago, Doc Brown said:

Three out of 32 head coaches are black.  Less than 10%.  Approximately 13% of population is black and I believe around 70% of NFL players are black. So, no.  It’s not working and needs to be tweaked or eliminated.

 

not sure how one definitively determines one is black or not

 

or what would make people obsessed with this topic get happy for once

 

[colin]

there are some assumptions on this that have to be questioned.

 

in america of the adult population over say 30, blacks are about 13%, so from that point of view they are perfectly or over represented in coaching and head coaching jobs in the nfl.

 

similarly, there was a lot of talk about blacks being underrepresented at QB, but since something like 1996 they were over represented vs their % of the population at qb in the nfl.

 

the confounding factor in all of this is that blacks are so so so over represented in so many NFL player positions, and are all of CB and nearly all of RB.  

 

so the question to ask is: what is the expectation of "fairness"?  is it that blacks are as over represented at QB as they are at CB, or positions in general, or starting positions in general?  and what about coaching?  are most coaches former players, making us think that the black coaching % should match the very high % of overall players?  or of certain positions?  like, do certain positions of former players represent a higher likelihood or quality of head coaching?  are LBs or QBs or OL or whatever better HC than other positions?  do we have sufficient data to go by?

 

the comment from the article that the rooney rule isn't working suggests the commentator either simply wants more black coaches, or wants them to some higher %.  well, what % is that and what is it based on?

 

 

[C.Biscuit97]

10 hours ago, pennstate10 said:

So, I'm guessing this will be a bit controversial, but here goes. 

 

The US population is, roughly, 60% white, 10 % Latino, 10% black, 10% Asian, 10 % other. 

 

But NFL cornerbacks are 0 % white, almost 100% black. 

 

Should there be a Rooney rule for white cornerbacks?  Where each team has to play at least one white CB in the preseason, give him a chance?

 

or should the best players play, regardless of race or ethnic background?

 

And should that same philosophy be applied to coaches. The best coaches coach, regardless of race etc?

I hope this is a joke because if not, it insanely stupid.  
 

lovie smith got fired after going 10-6.  The Cardinals coach got 1 year with a rookie qb.  Jim Caldwell got fired after going 9-7 and that slob they have now is given a 3rd year after a total of 9 wins in 2 years.  I don’t think it’s necessarily racism but there is a clear problem.  Ozzie Newsome might have been the best GM of the last 15 years.  How many minority GMs are their currently?

 

the NFL is a old boys network.  The same scrub coaches get passed around because they are friends with the right people.  It’s why a guy who has been a bottom 5 OC for his whole NFL career, Daboll, gets a head coaching interview.  So stupid. 

[GunnerBill]

1 hour ago, LBSeeBallLBGetBall said:

Say a GM legitimately doesn't like any of the candidates the NFL put on the list. They interview two outside candidates, one white and one minority. Good outside candidates (not Perry Fewell).

 

If they end up deciding the white coach is the better fit, what should their punishment be for not liking any of the 12 candidates the NFL chose?

 

If they end up deciding the minority coach is the better fit, what should their punishment be for not liking any of the 12 candidates the NFL chose?

 

There wouldn't be any punishment. They are not required to hire someone off the list. They are required to interview one of the minority candidates on the list. If they don't then the punishment would be whatever the punishment is currently for not fulfilling the Rooney rule. I just think the problem with the current rule is it is not doing what it was brought into do which is to make sure good minority candidates were getting in front of decision makers. Instead what it is doing is making sure (in some cases) bad minority candidates get pointless interviews with decision makers and it is not beyond the realm of possibility that those candidates performing badly in those pointless sham interviews could reinforce any unconscious bias that a decision maker already has against minority Head Coaches.

 

Essentially we need a way of making sure that the rule still values talent and not just colour. Not saying my solution is perfect and I doubt the NFL would go there but the current rule is not doing what it set out to do.

6 minutes ago, colin said:

 

the comment from the article that the rooney rule isn't working suggests the commentator either simply wants more black coaches, or wants them to some higher %.  well, what % is that and what is it based on?

 

 

I don't agree that saying the rule isn't working must mean a person wants more black coaches. I don't think the rule is working because it was designed to make sure talented minority coaches got interviews. It isn't doing that at the moment. It is making sure someone who is a minority is interviewed every time even if they are a complete non-starter. That is tokenism which wasn't the policy intention behind the rule change.

[row_33]

13 minutes ago, C.Biscuit97 said:

I hope this is a joke because if not, it insanely stupid.  
 

lovie smith got fired after going 10-6.  The Cardinals coach got 1 year with a rookie qb.  Jim Caldwell got fired after going 9-7 and that slob they have now is given a 3rd year after a total of 9 wins in 2 years.  I don’t think it’s necessarily racism but there is a clear problem.  Ozzie Newsome might have been the best GM of the last 15 years.  How many minority GMs are their currently?

 

the NFL is a old boys network.  The same scrub coaches get passed around because they are friends with the right people.  It’s why a guy who has been a bottom 5 OC for his whole NFL career, Daboll, gets a head coaching interview.  So stupid. 

 

it's a very specialized area of knowledge, you can't post Head Coach for NFL Franchise on a cue card down at the local employment office

 

actually....

 

 

[mjt328]

If we want to eradicate racism in American society, then we need to stop separating and judging each other based on race/skin color.

To me, this seems like common sense.  This is the way I'm raising my children to see the world.

 

But the push for "diversity" is doing the complete opposite.  Especially when an employer is looking to hire someone.

Race and skin color becomes the first thing considered.  It becomes the primary way a potential candidate is classified.

Not by qualifications or experience.  Not work ethic.  Not organizational fit.  But the pigment of their skin.

 

 

[mjt328]

11 hours ago, Doc Brown said:

Three out of 32 head coaches are black.  Less than 10%.  Approximately 13% of population is black and I believe around 70% of NFL players are black. So, no.  It’s not working and needs to be tweaked or eliminated.

 

How many of the 70% of black NFL players have aspirations to coach, versus those of other races?

 

You cannot determine whether the Rooney Rule is achieving its desired results without knowing the demographics of potential candidates.

 

[Augie]

9 hours ago, Doc Brown said:

I don't like the rule because the rule itself sends the wrong message.  It states that you have to interview a potential head coaching candidate based on their race (not experience, past performance, potential).  It just leads to sham interviews and that causes that candidate (and those who are fans of that candidate) feel used because they happen to be born of a certain race.  Thus exasperating racial tensions.  The NBA has eight black head coaches and they didn't need a Rooney type rule to do it.  The diversity committee should focus on growing the pipeline for people of color to advance up the coaching food chain. 

 

I totally get what you’re saying. True “equality” would be best, my preference in all ways. Unfortunately, that doesn’t seem to be the case yet. Some people see this as striving for “fairness”, so I’m OK if they like that. I get both sides of this argument, so I’ll bow out for now. 

[Cripple Creek]

11 hours ago, pennstate10 said:

So, I'm guessing this will be a bit controversial, but here goes. 

 

The US population is, roughly, 60% white, 10 % Latino, 10% black, 10% Asian, 10 % other. 

 

But NFL cornerbacks are 0 % white, almost 100% black. 

 

Should there be a Rooney rule for white cornerbacks?  Where each team has to play at least one white CB in the preseason, give him a chance?

 

or should the best players play, regardless of race or ethnic background?

 

And should that same philosophy be applied to coaches. The best coaches coach, regardless of race etc?

It is fairly easy to tell who is the best at specific positions. It is extremely hard to determine who will make a strong HC.

[C.Biscuit97]

7 minutes ago, Cripple Creek said:

It is fairly easy to tell who is the best at specific positions. It is extremely hard to determine who will make a strong HC.

Exactly. People who post stuff like this are distracting from the bigger point. If an Asian or white guy was good enough, they would be playing cb in the nfl (the Rams actually have a half Asian safety).  Players are meritocracy.  If you good enough, you play.  Coaching hires are completely subjective. Pat Shumur has had 2 head coaching jobs!

 

look at the best qbs now.  Jackson, Wilson, Mahomes, Watson.  There was a time when Warren Moon had to go the cfl to prove himself.  So let’s not pretend like there hasn’t been racist in the nfl.  Again, I think coaching hires are based on the old boys network more than race based.  But statistics in college and nfl show that white men get more of a chance to prove themselves than other minorities.  

[Don Otreply]

This question is a point of social behavior/prevalent attitudes nation wide. It’s called racism. 

As we all know, It was started as a means to be fair to all candidates, and of course it isn’t working, as said up a few posts, the good ole boys club that runs the show is what it is, the rule is mostly employed as lip service, we live in a  country were this sort of thing happens daily, Beuller? Bueller? Anyone? Is that coffee I smell??

 

Go Bills!!!

 

Edited January 8, 2020 by Don Otreply

[badassgixxer05]

All these special rules need to go away. As long as they exist there will always be barriers between us all. 

22 minutes ago, C.Biscuit97 said:

Exactly. People who post stuff like this are distracting from the bigger point. If an Asian or white guy was good enough, they would be playing cb in the nfl (the Rams actually have a half Asian safety).  Players are meritocracy.  If you good enough, you play.  Coaching hires are completely subjective. Pat Shumur has had 2 head coaching jobs!

 

look at the best qbs now.  Jackson, Wilson, Mahomes, Watson.  There was a time when Warren Moon had to go the cfl to prove himself.  So let’s not pretend like there hasn’t been racist in the nfl.  Again, I think coaching hires are based on the old boys network more than race based.  But statistics in college and nfl show that white men get more of a chance to prove themselves than other minorities.  

IDK, i show up to the courts in deleware park and get laughed at most of the time being a white guy. Its hard for a white guy to make it in sports as blacks are viewed as the superior athletes for the most part. 

[Bangarang]

Stephen A is the master of yelling stupid things hoping people will care about his opinion

[C.Biscuit97]

6 minutes ago, badassgixxer05 said:

All these special rules need to go away. As long as they exist there will always be barriers between us all. 

IDK, i show up to the courts in deleware park and get laughed at most of the time being a white guy. Its hard for a white guy to make it in sports as blacks are viewed as the superior athletes for the most part. 

If you can ball, you can ball. Luka Doncic is one of the best players in the NBA.  That’s why sports are great.  But it doesn’t work like that for coaching.  
 

Par Shurmur went 9-23 (28%) in 2 seasons with the Browns.  He got hired and fired by the Giants. Leslie Frazier went 21-32-1 (39.8%) and had one playoff berth with the Vikings.  He has oversaw a top 5 defense the last 2 years.  How many coaching jobs has he been mentioned for?  Why is Daboll getting looks for being a far below average OC his entire nfl career.

 

again, I don’t think it is solely race based but something isn’t adding up. 

[CLTbills]

At the end of the day, you can't tell me that an NFL owner is going to deny the job (or refuse to hire) a coach who is more qualified, and has a better shot at leading their team to a Super Bowl than a less qualified one, simply because of color. 

 

(Almost) every owner in this thing is here to win. That should be (and I think is) the number one driving factor.

[C.Biscuit97]

6 minutes ago, Bangarang said:

Stephen A is the master of yelling stupid things hoping people will care about his opinion

He’s making $10 million/ year so he’s doing something right.  

[Jauronimo]

1 hour ago, colin said:

there are some assumptions on this that have to be questioned.

 

in america of the adult population over say 30, blacks are about 13%, so from that point of view they are perfectly or over represented in coaching and head coaching jobs in the nfl.

 

similarly, there was a lot of talk about blacks being underrepresented at QB, but since something like 1996 they were over represented vs their % of the population at qb in the nfl.

 

the confounding factor in all of this is that blacks are so so so over represented in so many NFL player positions, and are all of CB and nearly all of RB.  

 

so the question to ask is: what is the expectation of "fairness"?  is it that blacks are as over represented at QB as they are at CB, or positions in general, or starting positions in general?  and what about coaching?  are most coaches former players, making us think that the black coaching % should match the very high % of overall players?  or of certain positions?  like, do certain positions of former players represent a higher likelihood or quality of head coaching?  are LBs or QBs or OL or whatever better HC than other positions?  do we have sufficient data to go by?

 

the comment from the article that the rooney rule isn't working suggests the commentator either simply wants more black coaches, or wants them to some higher %.  well, what % is that and what is it based on?

 

 

Show me another profession in the United States where the workforce is overwhelmingly (75%) black/minority and the management and ownership is overwhelmingly white.  

 

Fruit picking in California? 18th and early 19th century agriculture?

Just now, CLTbills said:

At the end of the day, you can't tell me that an NFL owner is going to deny the job (or refuse to hire) a coach who is more qualified, and has a better shot at leading their team to a Super Bowl than a less qualified one, simply because of color. 

 

(Almost) every owner in this thing is here to win. That should be (and I think is) the number one driving factor.

You CAN'T tell me that some NFL owners do NOT think that black coaches are inherently less capable when these are the same guys who thought black QB's were categorically less capable than their counterparts.  

 

Racism and prejudice are not logical.  Common sense arguments do not apply.

[JaCrispy]

15 hours ago, Mr. WEO said:

There is no viable solution to the problems with the Rooney rule because it simply cannot achieve what it seeks to achieve.  

I don’t think the Rooney Rule sought to achieve anything but give OPPORTUNITY to those that weren’t given one...this IS NOT the same thing as guaranteeing employment.

 

Our wonderful system was created to provide as close of a level playing field for people as possible...once you get into the business of forcing people to hire certain races over others, or accepting college applicants over others based on the color of their skin, then our society has gone too far and imho, that is immoral.

[Jauronimo]

4 minutes ago, JaCrispy said:

I don’t think the Rooney Rule sought to achieve anything but give OPPORTUNITY to those that weren’t given one...this IS NOT the same thing as guaranteeing employment.

 

Our wonderful system was created to provide as close of a level playing field for people as possible...once you get into the business of forcing people to hire certain races over others, or accepting college applicants over others based on the color of their skin, then our society has gone too far and imho, that is immoral.

100% correct.  The rule was all about giving opportunity.  Its a bridge measure to help get the league to a point where the notion that minorities not being given a fair crack at coaching, front office, and ownership positions will be looked upon as silly as separate drinking fountains and bathrooms.

[GunnerBill]

9 minutes ago, JaCrispy said:

I don’t think the Rooney Rule sought to achieve anything but give OPPORTUNITY to those that weren’t given one...this IS NOT the same thing as guaranteeing employment.

 

 

Correct. And it isn't working because it isn't giving opportunity to the most talented minority coaches. It is being circumvented by giving fake opportunities to less talented minority coaches. We have to find a way to design that flaw out.

[Gugny]

I don't think a rule is the answer.

 

I think time is.

 

I think, instead of focusing on dumb crap like what players are doing during a song, the sports media should spend more time digging into the hiring statistics/practices of all teams and report on that.

 

Hiring practices will change eventually.  Trying to force it with a rule, to me, is counterproductive.

 

Give it time.  Show the world - and the teams - with real statistics and stories, how practices need to change.  With time, I think they will.

 

[JaCrispy]

1 minute ago, GunnerBill said:

 

Correct. And it isn't working because it isn't giving opportunity to the most talented minority coaches. It is being circumvented by giving fake opportunities to less talented minority coaches. We have to find a way to design that flaw out.

I understand where you’re coming from but I think this might be getting too nit picky...who are we to say what interviews are fake or real?
 

I think we start to cross a fine line once we do that...it’s like a previous poster said, the owner is going to want the best talent for his team...so if the owner chooses not to interview that candidate, then their “punishment “ is that they’re not getting the best talent...I don’t really see a need to put all these artificial designs to “fix” the system...more times than not it works itself out...

[BuffaloBillsGospel]

The problem I have with this whole argument is how does Stephen A. Smith know all the candidates who were interviewed for the Cards HC or other vacancies last season and this season? He just goes on to say they plucked a college HC who had an under .500 win % but don't you select a guy who feels right for your organization? I feel like teams will have their hands forced on this matter pretty soon, to me that's not the way to go about it but I don't know what the right way to go about it is either.

[colin]

32 minutes ago, Jauronimo said:

Show me another profession in the United States where the workforce is overwhelmingly (75%) black/minority and the management and ownership is overwhelmingly white.  

 

Fruit picking in California? 18th and early 19th century agriculture?

You CAN'T tell me that some NFL owners do NOT think that black coaches are inherently less capable when these are the same guys who thought black QB's were categorically less capable than their counterparts.  

 

Racism and prejudice are not logical.  Common sense arguments do not apply.

 

 

looool.  way to address the points liz!

 

let's play your non tedious boomer game!  show me an industry where the workforce gets paid more than the management?

 

 

[wppete]

Marvin Lewis: Can’t tell owners who to hire

 

“You keep beating your head up against the wall, but I would say — and again, this is somebody’s business, this is somebody’s franchise, and nobody’s going to tell them who to hire,” Lewis said during an interview on ESPN Radio. “But if we can just somehow open the process a bit more and provide more opportunity [then more coaches could get hired].”

 

 

[GunnerBill]

16 minutes ago, JaCrispy said:

I understand where you’re coming from but I think this might be getting too nit picky...who are we to say what interviews are fake or real?
 

I think we start to cross a fine line once we do that...it’s like a previous poster said, the owner is going to want the best talent for his team...so if the owner chooses not to interview that candidate, then their “punishment “ is that they’re not getting the best talent...I don’t really see a need to put all these artificial designs to “fix” the system...more times than not it works itself out...

 

I am the opposite of a let the market fix itself guy in all walks of life. I am an interventionist which probably explains why my instinct is not to wait for the market failure to fix itself but to intervene. 

[Jpsredemption]

Every time a white male is hired there is outrage. It’s as simple as that.  

[Jauronimo]

Just now, colin said:

 

 

looool.  way to address the points liz!

 

let's play your non tedious boomer game!  show me an industry where the workforce gets paid more than the management?

 

 

So much irony.  

 

I addressed your terrible point regarding representation.  You went full FleaMoulds (you should never go full FleaMoulds), dodged my points completely, and moved the goal posts to another continent.  

 

I guess if I'm a boomer its time to change your diapers.

[Nextmanup]

16 hours ago, SirAndrew said:

This is going to turn out real well. 

The question and premise of the thread is inherently political and the OP is coming at this from a political perspective.

That's obvious.  I suppose it will be shut down at some point.