The Rooney Rule (still) isn’t working?

[Jauronimo]

Just now, Jpsredemption said:

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

There are literally riots in the street whenever whitey gets hired.  I have a dream, that one day a white man can get a fair shake in America!!  Until then, we shall overcome!!!

[GoBills808]

8 minutes ago, 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?

 

 

Median NFL player salary: $860,000 

 

Average NFL coach salary: $3.25M

[whatdrought]

7 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.

 

 

This seems like a really interesting idea, but I can't see it working or helping the problem at all... The reason being, we can't trust the NFL to do anything right. And now we want to create a control on the hiring process (whether or not they hire someone from the list). This further creates the issue, imagine that list is disseminated and on it is 4 minority candidates and 12 white candidates. Of the 5 vacancies that off-season, 3 white coaches are hired off the list, 1 white coach is hired from the college rank, and 1 white coach is promoted from within in his own org. Where any of the 5 vacancies filled because of race? Ask the owners- they each hired the man they considered the best fit for their plans for the organization. Ask the media- the owners are racist. We're back at square one. The problem becomes this: Without proving causation, we cannot assume correlation. Without some specific example of a minority coach being passed over for a white coach who is clearly inferior, and the cause being clearly racism, the dog don't hunt. Statistics and averages are well and good until you get to the nitty gritty. This isn't the group of owners legislating that no more than 10% of coaches be minorities. These are individual actors and organizations seeking (presumably) what is best for the future of their team- without a preponderance of evidence that there is nefarious intent, we're spinning our wheels, it would seem. 

 

2 hours 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. 

 

These examples ignore the minutiae of the situations represented (which is really what happens when we start using race as evidence) Smith was deep in his time as Bears HC and had always been good, not great. the year they went 10-6 they started 7-1 and missed the playoffs. It was over there for him. He then went 8-24 in two years with the Bucs, so it's hard to argue that he was a top flight HC at that time. 

 

Wilkes was a disaster in Arizona, and that team has improved decently well since they moved on from him. I don't think there's much of an argument from a football standpoint that that was a miscarriage of justice. 

 

The Caldwell situation is a puzzling one, but I think it's a stretch to assume bad management practices are evidence of racism. The lions are just poorly run right now, much like the Redskins, Bengals, and other teams who have had minority coaches invoked in their organizations. 

 

You can also point to guys like Marvin Lewis, Vance Joseph, and even, I think Anthony Lynn this year as minority coaches that have gotten more than their fair shake of opportunities without producing. I think it has to be seen in context. 

 

I agree that the lack of intellectual diversity is as much of a problem as a lack of racial diversity- teams (specifically owners from previous generations) refuse to innovate and go outside of what they've always done which leaves good candidates on both sides of the color spectrum to be left out of opportunities. 

 

1 hour 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.  

 

They're not subjective though. There has to be some reason for the hire, and while you can argue that some hires make more sense than others, it's really hard to argue that coach x is more qualified than coach y and is getting passed over for his racial identity. Shumur was seen as a hot coaching candidate after his time in Minny, it wasn't a surprise that he got another chance (many didn't put the blame for that Cleavland run on him in the first place). Now, if next year a team has him and Eric Bienemy on their short list and go with Shumur instead, that's cause for pause. 

 

9 minutes ago, BuffaloBillsGospel said:

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.

 

The Cardinals are a really bad example for this situation, i think. They fired their minority coach and replaced him with a huge question mark and they instantly went from a doormat to a marginally competitive team (with a black QB taken 1st overall no less). To me that just shows that Kliff is more qualified and a better coach than Wilkes. I don't see that as an argument for racist intent. 

[colin]

4 minutes ago, GoBills808 said:

Median NFL player salary: $860,000 

 

Average NFL coach salary: $3.25M

 

LOL, wrong.

 

lol you dork.  why not compare average to average?

 

 

also -- is that coach, or head coach?  you know there are quality control coaches, position coaches, etc etc, right?

 

i have you trying to obfuscate to cover up your trash, and your roommate (the other guy from the birdcage movie) saying i'm the one moving the goal posts!

 

 

 

18 minutes ago, Jauronimo said:

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.

 

 

no you didn't you SJW footwasher, you just whined about "the work force" vs "the management" like this is some kind of "of mice and men" dust bowl industry.

 

what % of head coaches should be black and why?  that was the simple question in my post, and you didn't answer it because your weepy fem spot got all hot and bothered so you had to virtue signal.

[y2zipper]

I think player to coach ratio is a faulty way to look at it. Coaches aren't direct player management in the sense that teams just take somebody who's a player and make them a coach like how other professions work sometimes. Also, about two-thirds of the coaches haven't played in NFL down (18 as of last January) and the coaching ranks tend to be more for people who don't make it as players.

 

https://www.google.com/amp/s/theundefeated.com/features/which-top-minority-coaching-candidates-would-be-good-fits-for-nfl-job-openings/amp/

 

There's a little relevant reading on minority candidates according to the undefeated. For those looking for names,

 

George Edwards

Jim Caldwell

Leslie Frazier 

Eric Bieniemy

Ron Rivera

 

Looking at the hiring patterns this year and teams not waiting for playoff eliminations, Beiniemy, Edwards and a few of the mentions from SF in the article aren't going to get looks from anyone except Cleveland because their teams are still playing.

 

The minority guys I'd consider as an armchair GM are probably Rivera, Marvin Lewis and Caldwell. Rivera got a job and Marvin Lewis got consideration from Dallas, a team that decide to go with an experienced coach.

 

I also think the head coach candidate market in general wasn't very good this offseason which is why you saw teams like Jacksonville and Detroit basically decide to keep their guys for another year.

[JaCrispy]

26 minutes ago, GunnerBill said:

 

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. 

I figured...I’m the other way where I feel life isn’t perfect- and will never be...and typically if we artificially try to change an outcome, we usually create the same problem we are trying to fix...The issue in this thread is very similar to affirmative action- where people who claim they want equality are actually discriminating against another race of people to achieve it...Discrimination is bad, no doubt, but two wrongs don’t make a right in my book ?

 

Like I said before, people should be allowed to hire whoever they want...if that means discriminating against the better candidate, so be it...their team will then suffer the consequences...for every action there is a reaction- that’s how the universe works...

Edited January 8, 2020 by JaCrispy

[leh-nerd skin-erd]

44 minutes ago, Jauronimo said:

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.

I think it's pretty amazing that folks choose to look for some sort of Social Justice watershed event in a game with a goal to assert 100% masculine dominance, tactically and physically, played by exceptionally well-compensated individuals who often display narcissistic tendencies and frequently seek out the best personal deal they can find, managed by obsessive-compulsive-coaching staffs on teams owned by billionaires.  On top of that, the jackalopes who run the game can't figure out the rules that they designed with any sort of consistency, and the players are always one play, collision or crumpled bath mat away from a career-ending injury.  Throw in all the *-gates, the questionable moral and legal conduct of some players and coaches.  

 

Someone is always treated unfairly in a coaching hire, someone always considers themselves the next great thing, and someone always loses out to someone else.  Coaching is hard. 

 

I'd be happy if the Rooney rule was rewritten to get some damn officiating equity in a playoff game!

 

FREE THE BUFFALO BILLS!
FREE THE BUFFALO BILLS!
FREE THE BUFFALO BILLS!

 

 

[Mr. WEO]

53 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.

 

It seeks to achieve more minority hires.  As it is, it can't do that (Tomlin aside).  Every team knows who they want as men that they would actually offer a job to.  If it is a minority, then they would interview him anyway.  Otherwise, minority candidates rightly see this not as actual opportunity, but as a checked box---because that's what it is.  It was adopted as a buttress against rumored threatened lawsuits at the time. 

 

It worked, famously (and ironically) for Tomlin because the Rooney's had little experience in HC searches, given that they had only hired 2 in 37 years.  Hasn't worked out that way since.

 

But it is true that you can't force teams to hire a person to run their team who they don't want running their team. 

[jethro_tull]

The rule is being followed but IMHO is disrespectful and patronizing to the coaches being interviewed to fulfill the rule.  The results are not what was expected however.  

[GoBills808]

7 minutes ago, colin said:

 

LOL, wrong.

 

lol you dork.  why not compare average to average?

 

 

also -- is that coach, or head coach?  you know there are quality control coaches, position coaches, etc etc, right?

That is for NFL head coach. The reason you'd take the median income of players is because it's more representative of what an 'average' player actually makes, the pool being much wider and the salary differences much steeper than that of the head coach pool. 

[whatdrought]

36 minutes ago, wppete said:

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].”

 

 

 

So, I got to thinking about this, cause it is a good point that he makes. And I looked at his history with the Bungles. 

 

During his 15 year run, he had minority candidates represented in his top three assistants only about 12% of the time. Another way of looking at it is that he hired 3 minority coaches, to 8 white coaches. 

 

So my question is, did he do this because of their race, or was he simply picking the best possible candidate each time? These are cheap statistics that may not actually mean much in the conversation, but i found it interesting. 

 

 

 

Also, as a random aside - did you know the Bengals have had the same ST coordinator since 2003? That's insane!!

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

1 hour ago, Jauronimo said:

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.

 

15 minutes ago, colin said:

no you didn't you SJW footwasher, you just whined about "the work force" vs "the management" like this is some kind of "of mice and men" dust bowl industry.

 

what % of head coaches should be black and why?  that was the simple question in my post, and you didn't answer it because your weepy fem spot got all hot and bothered so you had to virtue signal.

 

 

Guys, chill out. This thread has been civil while having rational conversations about dissenting opinions and has as of yet, given the mods no reason to shut it down. Don't be the reason that changes. 

Edited January 8, 2020 by whatdrought

[Bangarang]

1 hour ago, C.Biscuit97 said:

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

I’m crazy and can say stupid things. Why am I here doing it for free when I could be making millions like him?

[billsfan89]

15 hours ago, 32ABBA said:

 

Reads nicely, but maybe too nicely.....like made up after the fact to paint the narrative.

 

I think Tomlin is a great coach, and that there are plenty of Black coaches that would be good. 

 

The Steelers were only considering internal candidates before they interviewed Rivera and Tomlin to satisfy the Rooney Rule. The point was that because NFL teams have to satisfy the Rooney Rule they have to do their due diligence on minority coaches and that puts a lot of minority candidates on the radar and opens up some opportunities both short and long term. So I think this notion you have that had the Rooney rule not existed Tomlin would have gotten the job anyway just doesn't vibe with reality that had the Steelers not had to bring in outside canidates for the Rooney Rule they wouldn't have. 

[whatdrought]

17 minutes ago, leh-nerd skin-erd said:

I'd be happy if the Rooney rule was rewritten to get some damn officiating equity in a playoff game!

 

This I can get behind. Call it the "Blind jacka**" rule each ref squad has to have one blind jacka** on the field at all times to kick refs in the head when they make terrible mistakes. It also works because the refs are bound to get along nicely with said blind jacka**** as they have so much in common. 

Edited January 8, 2020 by whatdrought

[colin]

11 minutes ago, GoBills808 said:

That is for NFL head coach. The reason you'd take the median income of players is because it's more representative of what an 'average' player actually makes, the pool being much wider and the salary differences much steeper than that of the head coach pool. 

 

so why would you not take the median of coaches?

 

this is just asinine.  like, the top player on every team makes more than the head coach.  the top several players on ever team makes more than the head coach.  

 

if you take the average player and compare to the average coach (which is not the head coach, but is taken from all of the coaches on the team including guys making like 40k a year) you see the player is way way ahead.

 

honest question:  are you being disingenuous or do you not understand this?

[BuffaloBillsGospel]

32 minutes ago, whatdrought said:

The Cardinals are a really bad example for this situation, i think. They fired their minority coach and replaced him with a huge question mark and they instantly went from a doormat to a marginally competitive team (with a black QB taken 1st overall no less). To me that just shows that Kliff is more qualified and a better coach than Wilkes. I don't see that as an argument for racist intent. 

 

Ok that might be true but you blew off the rest of the point I was trying to make. Unless he knows all of the candidates interviewed and how those interviews came across which he would have no look into any of those then how can you say this rule isn't working?

[Mr. WEO]

A cynic would conclude that the Rooney Rule is working perfectly.

[whatdrought]

10 minutes ago, BuffaloBillsGospel said:

 

Ok that might be true but you blew off the rest of the point I was trying to make. Unless he knows all of the candidates interviewed and how those interviews came across which he would have no look into any of those then how can you say this rule isn't working?

 

My bad, didn't mean to ignore that. 

 

It's a good point and really reveals the issue with the situation. In order to look at, say the Giants, hiring a white coach over a black coach and cry foul, you have to simultaneously accuse the owner/decision maker of racism (be it intentional or unintentional) while also saying that the white coach is less qualified than the black coach. Those are just rabbit holes that are really sketchy to go down, in my opinion. 

 

 

 

26 minutes ago, Bangarang said:

I’m crazy and can say stupid things. Why am I here doing it for free when I could be making millions like him?

 

Do you have a limited, almost non-existent sports background? If so, you may be just the guy ESPN is looking for!

Edited January 8, 2020 by whatdrought

[C.Biscuit97]

46 minutes ago, whatdrought said:

 

 

This seems like a really interesting idea, but I can't see it working or helping the problem at all... The reason being, we can't trust the NFL to do anything right. And now we want to create a control on the hiring process (whether or not they hire someone from the list). This further creates the issue, imagine that list is disseminated and on it is 4 minority candidates and 12 white candidates. Of the 5 vacancies that off-season, 3 white coaches are hired off the list, 1 white coach is hired from the college rank, and 1 white coach is promoted from within in his own org. Where any of the 5 vacancies filled because of race? Ask the owners- they each hired the man they considered the best fit for their plans for the organization. Ask the media- the owners are racist. We're back at square one. The problem becomes this: Without proving causation, we cannot assume correlation. Without some specific example of a minority coach being passed over for a white coach who is clearly inferior, and the cause being clearly racism, the dog don't hunt. Statistics and averages are well and good until you get to the nitty gritty. This isn't the group of owners legislating that no more than 10% of coaches be minorities. These are individual actors and organizations seeking (presumably) what is best for the future of their team- without a preponderance of evidence that there is nefarious intent, we're spinning our wheels, it would seem. 

 

 

These examples ignore the minutiae of the situations represented (which is really what happens when we start using race as evidence) Smith was deep in his time as Bears HC and had always been good, not great. the year they went 10-6 they started 7-1 and missed the playoffs. It was over there for him. He then went 8-24 in two years with the Bucs, so it's hard to argue that he was a top flight HC at that time. 

 

Wilkes was a disaster in Arizona, and that team has improved decently well since they moved on from him. I don't think there's much of an argument from a football standpoint that that was a miscarriage of justice. 

 

The Caldwell situation is a puzzling one, but I think it's a stretch to assume bad management practices are evidence of racism. The lions are just poorly run right now, much like the Redskins, Bengals, and other teams who have had minority coaches invoked in their organizations. 

 

You can also point to guys like Marvin Lewis, Vance Joseph, and even, I think Anthony Lynn this year as minority coaches that have gotten more than their fair shake of opportunities without producing. I think it has to be seen in context. 

 

I agree that the lack of intellectual diversity is as much of a problem as a lack of racial diversity- teams (specifically owners from previous generations) refuse to innovate and go outside of what they've always done which leaves good candidates on both sides of the color spectrum to be left out of opportunities. 

 

 

They're not subjective though. There has to be some reason for the hire, and while you can argue that some hires make more sense than others, it's really hard to argue that coach x is more qualified than coach y and is getting passed over for his racial identity. Shumur was seen as a hot coaching candidate after his time in Minny, it wasn't a surprise that he got another chance (many didn't put the blame for that Cleavland run on him in the first place). Now, if next year a team has him and Eric Bienemy on their short list and go with Shumur instead, that's cause for pause. 

 

 

The Cardinals are a really bad example for this situation, i think. They fired their minority coach and replaced him with a huge question mark and they instantly went from a doormat to a marginally competitive team (with a black QB taken 1st overall no less). To me that just shows that Kliff is more qualified and a better coach than Wilkes. I don't see that as an argument for racist intent. 

Good post and I don’t realize have any real issues without you posted.  It’s a really tricky issue all the way around.  The NFL is awful with its buddy-buddy system.  If you don’t know the right people, you aren’t getting a shot to coach in the league.  It’s a league filled with the sons of previous coaches or guys with the right friends.

 

but I’m not going to pretend I know the solution.  But I still think be given a chance for the interview does matter. As with Tomlin, sometimes you can blow away them in an interview.  But guys just aren’t being given chances. 

[Jauronimo]

50 minutes ago, colin said:

 

LOL, wrong.

 

lol you dork.  why not compare average to average?

 

 

also -- is that coach, or head coach?  you know there are quality control coaches, position coaches, etc etc, right?

 

i have you trying to obfuscate to cover up your trash, and your roommate (the other guy from the birdcage movie) saying i'm the one moving the goal posts!

 

 

 

 

 

no you didn't you SJW footwasher, you just whined about "the work force" vs "the management" like this is some kind of "of mice and men" dust bowl industry.

 

what % of head coaches should be black and why?  that was the simple question in my post, and you didn't answer it because your weepy fem spot got all hot and bothered so you had to virtue signal.

If by whining you mean comparing like population to like population.   You claimed that black coaches are fairly or perhaps over-represented in the NFL while failing to acknowledge the demographic among players.  Are black coaches not closer in percentage to the player demographic due to lack of interest in the sport?  Lack of interest in coaching?  You tell me, in your typically level headed and well reasoned fashion.

 

SJW. weepy fem spot. And I'm the one hot and bothered???  You're melting down, not unlike a unit of snow.    

Edited January 8, 2020 by Jauronimo

[whatdrought]

Just now, C.Biscuit97 said:

Good post and I don’t realize have any real issues without you posted.  It’s a really tricky issue all the way around.  The NFL is awful with its buddy-buddy system.  If you don’t know the right people, you aren’t getting a shot to coach in the league.  It’s a league filled with the sons of previous coaches or guys with the right friends.

 

but I’m not going to pretend I know the solution.  But I still think be given a chance for the interview does matter. As with Tomlin, sometimes you can blow away them in an interview.  But guys just aren’t being given chances. 

 

It's true. Unfortunately most of the world works that way. Whatever our bias' are, we hold onto what's familiar and we don't diversify - not racially, intellectually, culturally, etc. The problem, and maybe my beef with the heart behind the RR, is that very rarely can any form of diversity or innovation be legislated. It has to come from those willing to think outside the box. That has been a nice development with some of the offensive schemes we've seen getting time and attention- there seems to be a willingness to begin the process of innovation, it just needs to continue to grow. 

[formerlyofCtown]

18 hours ago, wppete said:

This is not a political question, this is strictly a Football and NFL question. So please no divisive politics.  We should be able to discuss here.

 

Was watching ESPN and the topic of the "Rooney Rule" came up. Steven A. Smith had some very strong words here in this video. Can someone please explain this rule to me??? Ima a little confused here. From what I understand is that any Head Coaching position that is available/open there has to be at least one minority Interviewed and considered for this position. Seems like this rule was met and adhered to in the signing this week. What exactly is the argument here? Do they now want to Force Owners and Management to Hire Minority Coaches? In essence tell owners who they should hire, pay and lead their team/business? I have never heard anything of this sort in Business 

 

 

 

 

Article from Mike Florio of NBCalso here:

 

The Rooney Rule (still) isn’t working

https://profootballtalk.nbcsports.com/2020/01/07/the-rooney-rule-still-isnt-working/

 

I think it's an outdated rule.  I think NFL teams already have a list in mind and the best man will get the job.

[BuffaloBillsGospel]

Just now, whatdrought said:

 

My bad, didn't mean to ignore that. 

 

It's a good point and really reveals the issue with the situation. In order to look at, say the Giants, hiring a white coach over a black coach and cry foul, you have to simultaneously accuse the owner/decision maker of racism (be it intentional or unintentional) while also saying that the white coach is less qualified than the black coach. Those are just rabbit holes that are really sketchy to go down, in my opinion. 

 

No problem, I only have 1 good point every few months so when I do I have to be heard.

[row_33]

49 minutes ago, jethro_tull said:

The rule is being followed but IMHO is disrespectful and patronizing to the coaches being interviewed to fulfill the rule.  The results are not what was expected however.  

 

 

there's only a few dozen positions on the planet, so it's a buyer's market

 

a feel-good virtue signalling effort can be okay, not sure it has led to a hiring that wasn't intended before interviews began, but hey...

 

 

[billsfan89]

14 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?

 

NFL coaching and NFL players aren't comparable professions. The Rooney Rule doesn't force quotas or impose any undue burden on teams to simply do due diligence in interviewing one minority candidate for a head coaching opening. It doesn't seem even remotely comparable a situation. 

[BuffaloBill963]

18 hours ago, wppete said:

This is not a political question, this is strictly a Football and NFL question. So please no divisive politics.  We should be able to discuss here.

 

Was watching ESPN and the topic of the "Rooney Rule" came up. Steven A. Smith had some very strong words here in this video. Can someone please explain this rule to me??? Ima a little confused here. From what I understand is that any Head Coaching position that is available/open there has to be at least one minority Interviewed and considered for this position. Seems like this rule was met and adhered to in the signing this week. What exactly is the argument here? Do they now want to Force Owners and Management to Hire Minority Coaches? In essence tell owners who they should hire, pay and lead their team/business? I have never heard anything of this sort in Business 

 

 

 

 

Article from Mike Florio of NBCalso here:

 

The Rooney Rule (still) isn’t working

https://profootballtalk.nbcsports.com/2020/01/07/the-rooney-rule-still-isnt-working/

 

The Rooney rule is dumb and unnecessary 

12 minutes ago, billsfan89 said:

 

NFL coaching and NFL players aren't comparable professions. The Rooney Rule doesn't force quotas or impose any undue burden on teams to simply do due diligence in interviewing one minority candidate for a head coaching opening. It doesn't seem even remotely comparable a situation. 

It’s unnecessary and embarrassing tbh

[billsfan89]

9 minutes ago, BuffaloBill963 said:

The Rooney rule is dumb and unnecessary 

It’s unnecessary and embarrassing tbh

 

Why? Are there black/minority coaches with mediocre records getting so many jobs because of the Rooney Rule? Please elaborate. 

[Prickly Pete]

1 hour ago, billsfan89 said:

 

The Steelers were only considering internal candidates before they interviewed Rivera and Tomlin to satisfy the Rooney Rule. The point was that because NFL teams have to satisfy the Rooney Rule they have to do their due diligence on minority coaches and that puts a lot of minority candidates on the radar and opens up some opportunities both short and long term. So I think this notion you have that had the Rooney rule not existed Tomlin would have gotten the job anyway just doesn't vibe with reality that had the Steelers not had to bring in outside canidates for the Rooney Rule they wouldn't have. 

 

Maybe, but that is also the perfect story to enhance the Rooney Rule.

 

How do you KNOW what really happened?

[billsfan89]

Just now, 32ABBA said:

 

Maybe, but that is also the perfect story to enhance the Rooney Rule.

 

How do you KNOW what really happened?

 

The reports at the time stated such. But even if you want to doubt the reports as crafting a narrative after the fact. It falls in line with how the Steelers up until 2007 had always handled their dealings by promoting from within to fill vacancies and the fact that Russ Grimm and Ken Whisenhunt left the Steelers after Tomlin got the job further backs up that they were the intended internal targets. I think given the reporting and the circumstances it is a fair assumption to make. 

[MR8]

The problem is the number of minorities who get the opportunity to be coaches at all levels that then filter upward to become NFL HCs and front office personnel.  Look at the demographics of how many players are minorities versus the number of coaches.  The problem isn't just that the NFL isn't hiring minority HCs, it that the system from high school on up for some reason is white dominated as coaches and front office personnel.  

 

There is a problem, but I am not going to go out on a limb and say 100% it's that NFL owners aren't hiring minorities as HCs.  I think the bigger issue is that there are so few minorities in all coaching and front office positions, especially when compared to how many are playing the game. 

 

I don' t have an answer on solving it, but the problem is deeper than just fewer HCs are minorities... IMHO that's more a symptom of a greater problem.  Though I will say there are ABSOLUTELY minority coaches who deserve a shot as HCs and haven't gotten it.  But we know their resumes, we don't know how they were in interviews etc... there could be viable reasons why they weren't hired to be HCs.  But the pool of minority candidates is SOOOO much smaller, and that's a problem. 

[GunnerBill]

2 hours ago, whatdrought said:

 

 

This seems like a really interesting idea, but I can't see it working or helping the problem at all... The reason being, we can't trust the NFL to do anything right. And now we want to create a control on the hiring process (whether or not they hire someone from the list). This further creates the issue, imagine that list is disseminated and on it is 4 minority candidates and 12 white candidates. Of the 5 vacancies that off-season, 3 white coaches are hired off the list, 1 white coach is hired from the college rank, and 1 white coach is promoted from within in his own org. Where any of the 5 vacancies filled because of race? Ask the owners- they each hired the man they considered the best fit for their plans for the organization. Ask the media- the owners are racist. We're back at square one. The problem becomes this: Without proving causation, we cannot assume correlation. Without some specific example of a minority coach being passed over for a white coach who is clearly inferior, and the cause being clearly racism, the dog don't hunt. Statistics and averages are well and good until you get to the nitty gritty. This isn't the group of owners legislating that no more than 10% of coaches be minorities. These are individual actors and organizations seeking (presumably) what is best for the future of their team- without a preponderance of evidence that there is nefarious intent, we're spinning our wheels, it would seem. 

 

But I am not trying to solve the problem of media perception or trying to up the % of minority hires. That isn't what the Rooney rule tries to do either. The concern when the Rooney was created was there were really capable minority coaches who weren't even getting into the room with decision makers. For a few years the rule worked and that changed. But over the last 4 or 5 years we have actually seen a regression. More and more teams are jumping straight out and interviewing any minority coach who is currently on staff on day 1 or 2 of the coaching search, ticking the box and moving on. I am sure in all those cases that guy they are interviewing is not the right guy to lead their franchise. Meanwhile the likes of Richard and Bieneimy and Saleh are not getting interviews. 

 

I am absolutely with the guys who say NFL Head Coaching interviews should be earned and based on merit rather than on the colour of a person's skin or a person's ethnic background. Absolutely they should be. And the current Rooney rule is acting against that. Perry Fewell gets an interview and the three guys mentioned above (just as examples) don't. That is not a system encouraging merit based opportunity.

 

And as I have said elsewhere.... I am not a "let the market fix itself" guy in pretty much any area of life. I am an interventionist. The rule is presently broken. I want to fix it. I am not wedded to my solution but I want to fix a broken system. If we can't do that then regrettably my second alternative is  to scrap the rule completely. But I do think the original intent behind the rule was noble so my preference is to try and make it work better first of all. 

[GunnerBill]

1 hour ago, JaCrispy said:

I figured...I’m the other way where I feel life isn’t perfect- and will never be...and typically if we artificially try to change an outcome, we usually create the same problem we are trying to fix...The issue in this thread is very similar to affirmative action- where people who claim they want equality are actually discriminating against another race of people to achieve it...Discrimination is bad, no doubt, but two wrongs don’t make a right in my book ?

 

Like I said before, people should be allowed to hire whoever they want...if that means discriminating against the better candidate, so be it...their team will then suffer the consequences...for every action there is a reaction- that’s how the universe works...

 

But you are still talking about hiring. I am not talking about hiring. I am talking about interviewing specifically. 

[CommonCents]

18 hours ago, whatdrought said:

 

That's where I think this really get's disasterous... 

 

Right now there are people who are saying Joe Judge got hired in NY over Eric Bieniemy because of his race. Without substantial evidence and proof of this, how is that not just complete BS? How can you make that accusation without any real factual proof? It's garbage. 

 

 

Another good point, and something I've always wondered... How does a minority candidate not wonder if they're simply the box checker when they get the call for an interview (especially in cases where it's obvious the team has their guy in mind). Seems like the thought would have to exist?... I dunno man. 

Eric Bienemey, has a RB ever become a decent head coach? Or a HC at all?

[whatdrought]

16 minutes ago, GunnerBill said:

 

But I am not trying to solve the problem of media perception or trying to up the % of minority hires. That isn't what the Rooney rule tries to do either. The concern when the Rooney was created was there were really capable minority coaches who weren't even getting into the room with decision makers. For a few years the rule worked and that changed. But over the last 4 or 5 years we have actually seen a regression. More and more teams are jumping straight out and interviewing any minority coach who is currently on staff on day 1 or 2 of the coaching search, ticking the box and moving on. I am sure in all those cases that guy they are interviewing is not the right guy to lead their franchise. Meanwhile the likes of Richard and Bieneimy and Saleh are not getting interviews. 

 

I am absolutely with the guys who say NFL Head Coaching interviews should be earned and based on merit rather than on the colour of a person's skin or a person's ethnic background. Absolutely they should be. And the current Rooney rule is acting against that. Perry Fewell gets an interview and the three guys mentioned above (just as examples) don't. That is not a system encouraging merit based opportunity.

 

And as I have said elsewhere.... I am not a "let the market fix itself" guy in pretty much any area of life. I am an interventionist. The rule is presently broken. I want to fix it. I am not wedded to my solution but I want to fix a broken system. If we can't do that then regrettably my second alternative is  to scrap the rule completely. But I do think the original intent behind the rule was noble so my preference is to try and make it work better first of all. 

 

 

I guess I just don't see any way to fix that... Bieneimy interviewed at least two places I read, Saleh is occupied with the playoffs (and it is known that teams dont like to wait, if possible) and Richard probably got hung up with the issues in Dallas (both in season, and the ***** show since then). But I know you aren't holding them up as the only examples. My issue with it is why do we even look at the skin color either way? For every first time coaching hire there are probably 10-20 other guys who arguably could have been equally good choices - black, white, Hispanic, etc.  The real issue is that only about 3-5 guys get interviewed for each opening, so when a minority gets passed over, they're on a list of about 10 other guys who got passed over as well. For everyone making a big deal about Bieneimy not getting hired, there's a Greg Roman, Brian Daboll, etc. 

 

I disagree about not letting the market fix itself. I think the more we try to fix problems, the more we come up with stuff like the RR the less it works. If team owners want to succeed, they need to go off the beaten path and find something that works. If they're resistant of that, they wont succeed, they'll fail, and the market will correct that. I don't think there's a way to legislate a fixture of this without there being a clear and present example of racism in hiring practices that is preventing minorities from getting jobs. It's worth mentioning, I think, that the two worst run organizations in the League (at least I would argue), the Redskins and Bengals, have had, during their time of incompetence, minority representation in the highest parts of the team (Marvin Lewis in Cin, Doug WIlliams in WSH - off the top of my head) and yet they are seen as the least progressive organizations. I think the reality is (as Biscuit and I were discussing up thread) that race has little to do with the owners not being willing to innovate and hire the best person for the job- or dare I even say, interview more than 4 dudes for the job. 

 

 

 

 

5 minutes ago, CommonCents said:

Eric Bienemey, has a RB ever become a decent head coach? Or a HC at all?

 

I'm not sure, I would assume someone somewhere has... But I don't know. I also don't think position matters all that much in the grand scheme of things as most guys are coaches because their understanding of the game transcended their experience from playing. 

Edited January 8, 2020 by whatdrought

[CommonCents]

3 minutes ago, whatdrought said:

 

 

I guess I just don't see any way to fix that... Bieneimy interviewed at least two places I read, Saleh is occupied with the playoffs (and it is known that teams dont like to wait, if possible) and Richard probably got hung up with the issues in Dallas (both in season, and the ***** show since then). But I know you aren't holding them up as the only examples. My issue with it is why do we even look at the skin color either way? For every first time coaching hire there are probably 10-20 other guys who arguably could have been equally good choices - black, white, Hispanic, etc.  The real issue is that only about 3-5 guys get interviewed for each opening, so when a minority gets passed over, they're on a list of about 10 other guys who got passed over as well. For everyone making a big deal about Bieneimy not getting hired, there's a Greg Roman, Brian Daboll, etc. 

 

I disagree about not letting the market fix itself. I think the more we try to fix problems, the more we come up with stuff like the RR the less it works. If team owners want to succeed, they need to go off the beaten path and find something that works. If they're resistant of that, they wont succeed, they'll fail, and the market will correct that. I don't think there's a way to legislate a fixture of this without there being a clear and present example of racism in hiring practices that is preventing minorities from getting jobs. It's worth mentioning, I think, that the two worst run organizations in the League (at least I would argue), the Redskins and Bengals, have had, during their time of incompetence, minority representation in the highest parts of the team (Marvin Lewis in Cin, Doug WIlliams in WSH - off the top of my head) and yet they are seen as the least progressive organizations. I think the reality is (as Biscuit and I were discussing up thread) that race has little to do with the owners not being willing to innovate and hire the best person for the job- or dare I even say, interview more than 4 dudes for the job. 

 

 

 

 

 

I'm not sure, I would assume someone somewhere has... But I don't know. I also don't think position matters all that much in the grand scheme of things as most guys are coaches because their understanding of the game transcended their experience from playing. 

All I can think of is Anthony Lynn. 

[GunnerBill]

9 minutes ago, whatdrought said:

 

 

I guess I just don't see any way to fix that... Bieneimy interviewed at least two places I read, Saleh is occupied with the playoffs (and it is known that teams dont like to wait, if possible) and Richard probably got hung up with the issues in Dallas (both in season, and the ***** show since then). But I know you aren't holding them up as the only examples. My issue with it is why do we even look at the skin color either way? For every first time coaching hire there are probably 10-20 other guys who arguably could have been equally good choices - black, white, Hispanic, etc.  The real issue is that only about 3-5 guys get interviewed for each opening, so when a minority gets passed over, they're on a list of about 10 other guys who got passed over as well. For everyone making a big deal about Bieneimy not getting hired, there's a Greg Roman, Brian Daboll, etc. 

 

I disagree about not letting the market fix itself. I think the more we try to fix problems, the more we come up with stuff like the RR the less it works. If team owners want to succeed, they need to go off the beaten path and find something that works. If they're resistant of that, they wont succeed, they'll fail, and the market will correct that. I don't think there's a way to legislate a fixture of this without there being a clear and present example of racism in hiring practices that is preventing minorities from getting jobs. It's worth mentioning, I think, that the two worst run organizations in the League (at least I would argue), the Redskins and Bengals, have had, during their time of incompetence, minority representation in the highest parts of the team (Marvin Lewis in Cin, Doug WIlliams in WSH - off the top of my head) and yet they are seen as the least progressive organizations. I think the reality is (as Biscuit and I were discussing up thread) that race has little to do with the owners not being willing to innovate and hire the best person for the job- or dare I even say, interview more than 4 dudes for the job. 

 

 

 

 

 

I'm not sure, I would assume someone somewhere has... But I don't know. I also don't think position matters all that much in the grand scheme of things as most guys are coaches because their understanding of the game transcended their experience from playing. 

 

I don't disagree at all that we need to stop looking at skin colour. Where I disagree is that we just wait and see if time sorts it out. Like I say.... I am the opposite of a trust the market guy. 

[whatdrought]

6 minutes ago, GunnerBill said:

 

I don't disagree at all that we need to stop looking at skin colour. Where I disagree is that we just wait and see if time sorts it out. Like I say.... I am the opposite of a trust the market guy. 

 

 

I get it, and I may definitely be wrong. Just seems like there isn't a way to fix it without making it about skin color. I do like the idea of finding out what we can do at the lower levels to promote coaching to all races, and opening doors to everyone that are truly equal and without bias.

[JaCrispy]

12 minutes ago, GunnerBill said:

 

But you are still talking about hiring. I am not talking about hiring. I am talking about interviewing specifically. 

Well, I’m fine with teams being required to interview minority candidates...but it seems like Steven A Smith and ESPN are not happy about that, and want more to be done...

 

My issue with that view is that now you’re getting into the arena of trying to decipher intent of the people doing the interviewing and hiring- which is a slippery slope that people shouldn’t want to go down...

 

 

[C.Biscuit97]

Just now, whatdrought said:

 

 

I get it, and I may definitely be wrong. Just seems like there isn't a way to fix it without making it about skin color. I do like the idea of finding out what we can do at the lower levels to promote coaching to all races, and opening doors to everyone that are truly equal and without bias.

I think this is a great point. Andy Reid’s former crackhead son is coaching in the nfl.  Todd Haley was a college golfer whose dad worked with the Steelers.  Belichick’s weirdo son.  
 

meanwhile, you guys grinding at lower levels who can’t get a sniff at a nfl job yet the same failures get passed around.  

1 minute ago, JaCrispy said:

Well, I’m fine with teams being required to interview minority candidates...but it seems like Steven A Smith and ESPN are not happy about that, and want more to be done...

 

My issue with that view is that now you’re getting into the arena of trying to decipher intent of the people doing the interviewing and hiring- which is a slippery slope that people shouldn’t want to go down...

 

 

I mean when your sport is something like 70% black and you have like 3% head coaches in the nfl and college, it’s not a good look.  But I don’t know the answer.  Maybe stop giving scrub coaches like Pat Shurmur multiple chances and trying someone new. 

[JaCrispy]

12 minutes ago, GunnerBill said:

 

I don't disagree at all that we need to stop looking at skin colour. Where I disagree is that we just wait and see if time sorts it out. Like I say.... I am the opposite of a trust the market guy. 

It seemed to work with black QBs in the league...they are more prominent than ever before, and there was no affirmative action rule or legislation that made it that way...people just recognized that those QBs are just as successful or more than whites...