Minority HC or GM could improve team’s draft position with new proposed resolution

[TigerJ]

19 hours ago, YoloinOhio said:

Bill belichick just rented the movie “Soul Man”

If this passes, is Belichick going to show up at a league meeting wearing blackface and claiming he has an ancestor who was a slave?

[J-GunJoshAllen17]

Bringing social justice to the draft, what could go wrong.

[HomeskillitMoorman]

6 minutes ago, FireChans said:

It’s a board game. Who plays games that are made inherently unfair? 

 

Also, who would be so deluded to think that giving women players of a board game an advantage for a reason wholly unrelated to the fictional game to correct an injustice is a good idea? Should men get an extra turn at the Game of Life because they die at a far more alarming rate in the work related accidents compared to women? 

 

If I was a woman, which I’m not, I would be outright offended that a game with a strictly level playing field, unlike real life, decided to change the rules to give me an unfair advantage. “Sorry you get paid less, but we’ll cheat so you win 12 hour games of  Monopoly more!” 

 

Nice message being sent. The makers of this game should be embarrassed. 

 

Sure, I'm not saying it's the right idea for a game, it's more of the scoffing at the idea that there is or ever has been any kind of gender pay inequity.

 

Lets take a deeper look into the work related accident data. You do realize that so many of those positions were for jobs that women historically were either flat out not allowed to have or weren't able to get because of discrimination, right? The system has silo'd genders into certain positions for an incredibly long time, and we've only made a certain amount of headway to fix that. And that goes both ways, there's still a certain bias against men in traditional women-dominated fields.

 

But I don't know how anyone can possiby argue that men have reaped far more benefits from this than women have. Even after we've evened out the playing field in education...the executive/leadership/highest payig jobs across the board amongst all lines of work are still completely dominated by white males.

 

Unless you're going to say that you just think white males are smarter and more capable than everyone else...how would you not see that as problematic and believe that no steps need to be taken to drive equity?

[Don Otreply]

1 hour ago, teef said:

Could you explain what certain philosophy you’re referring to that you think exists in this board?  It seems to me like you’re just stereotyping everyone on no real basis.  

Maybe, in my experience a substantial minority, pushing fifty percent of folk in the white world I grew up in in western New York tend to lean towards being, shall we say, racially biased. And that has held true in the many places in America I have lived. Next time you see a confederate flag on someone’s automobile or house ask yourself the question...nuthin but luv, just a honest observation. 
 

Go Bills!!!

[FireChans]

3 minutes ago, HomeskillitMoorman said:

 

Sure, I'm not saying it's the right idea for a game, it's more of the scoffing at the idea that there is or ever has been any kind of gender pay inequity.

 

Lets take a deeper look into the work related accident data. You do realize that so many of those positions were for jobs that women historically were either flat out not allowed to have or weren't able to get because of discrimination, right? The system has silo'd genders into certain positions for an incredibly long time, and we've only made a certain amount of headway to fix that. And that goes both ways, there's still a certain bias against men in traditional women-dominated fields.

 

But I don't know how anyone can possiby argue that men have reaped far more benefits from this than women have. Even after we've evened out the playing field in education...the executive/leadership/highest payig jobs across the board amongst all lines of work are still completely dominated by white males.

 

Unless you're going to say that you just think white males are smarter and more capable than everyone else...how would you not see that as problematic and believe that no steps need to be taken to drive equity?

The game is stupid dude. It’s a game. Everyone makes the same amount when they pass go in the original. Giving women players more money when they pass go is really stupid. 

 

The game sucks. Don’t make the NFL into Ms. Monopoly. That would suck too.

[teef]

36 minutes ago, Don Otreply said:

Maybe, in my experience a substantial minority, pushing fifty percent of folk in the white world I grew up in in western New York tend to lean towards being, shall we say, racially biased. And that has held true in the many places in America I have lived. Next time you see a confederate flag on someone’s automobile or house ask yourself the question...nuthin but luv, just a honest observation. 
 

Go Bills!!!

I’m not sure who you guys are associating with, but maybe it’s time for a change.  Does this level of racism exist?   Of course, but if  I thought 50% of the people I associate with lean towards being racist, I’d find another way to live. 
 

even if that was your feeling, do you think it’s ok to imply that everyone else is a racist?  I mean...shouldn’t posters be able to say that they don’t like cam newton and not be called a racist?   That’s reasonable...right?
 

ive lived in wny the majority of my life, and although we all experienced racism, it never been to the level that some of you are making it out to be.  I even come from an old school Italian family, and I can honesty say that race was never brought up.  

Edited May 16, 2020 by teef

[Woodman19]

The NFL needs to know who their target audience is and I suspect SJW are not the ones coughing up Billions to watch their product.

[HappyDays]

12 hours ago, GunnerBill said:

This has been discussed previously but I think part of the reason things have slid back recently is that teams have more and more looked for offensive minded Head Coaches and there just aren't enough minority coaches getting gigs on the offensive side of the ball. When they do, typically, it is as running back coaches. Not a position that many guys get promoted to OC and HC roles from. Indeed the one black Head Coach who was an offensive guy that springs to mind - Anthony Lynn - was a running backs coach and the most high profile current black OC - Eric Bieniemy - was also a running backs coach.

 

I don't know precisely the numbers but my instinct is that when the Rooney Rule initially took hold a lot of the minority Head Coach hires were defensive guys. Tomlin, Smith, Frazier, Lewis etc. 

 

The NFL still has some way to go in my opinion and I credit them for not sitting on their hands. That said, I am not sure they have identified the exact right policy problem, and as a result this proposal is not the right solution. The problem for me with the Rooney Rule is that teams are interviewing minority candidates.... but not minority candidates that have realistic shots of getting the gig. The "go to" approach now for a lot of teams is interview whatever minority coach you have on staff in the first couple of days, tick that box and then move on. The real, genuine, outstanding minority candidates are not getting enough interviews. Bieniemy interviewed for the Giants job and the Browns job I believe and Robert Saleh interviewed for the Browns. But I think they were the only interview each had.  Not sure Kris Richard had any interviews this year and is currently without a job in the league which is bonkers. To me they are the three most obviously qualified candidates who are not retreads. The other who may well get looks next time around if the Buccs offense flies is Byron Leftwich. 

 

So I think you have to try and tackle getting those guys in front of more decision makers. If they get into the rooms those guys will get hired, because they are credible. Just as Marvin Lewis and Lovie Smith and Mike Tomlin were always going to get hired when they got in front of decision makers.... because they were credible. Lovie and Marv in particular were having trouble getting jobs before the Rooney Rule because they were not getting in the room and I fear we are back there, where the best minority candidates are not getting into the room. So rather than bonuses in draft position to hire a guy who might not be right for the job the NFL needs to tackle why the guys who might be right for the job are not getting enough looks. People should be hired on merit. The Rooney Rule worked early on precisely because it didn't interfere with that principle it supported it. It was about getting the best people into the interviews. But the way teams are applying it now it has stopped having that effect. That is what the NFL should tackle.

 

This is the most cogent response in the thread and it's telling that no one has bothered to respond to it. Richard and Saleh are good examples of guys that would probably have a head coaching job if they had connections. I don't have an argument against that.

 

I guess everyone is in agreement that this specific proposal goes too far so it doesn't really need to be said, but offering a specific competitive advantage is the wrong solution. There is already a competitive advantage in hiring the right candidates. NFL owners and executives are going to make the same awful decisions regardless.

 

A simple tweak to the Rooney rule would be to mandate interviewing at least one minority candidate that hasn't been a member of your own team's staff within the last 3 seasons, or something like that. That would effectively force teams to actually identify the best minority candidate, like a Kris Richard, and get them in the room with NFL executives to make their case. That would eliminate the "checklist" thinking you mention. And I don't think anyone could reasonably disagree with that proposal.

[Bangarang]

Imagine a scenario where Belichick takes a demotion on paper and hires a minority HC and GM only for getting higher draft picks while running things?

[GunnerBill]

14 minutes ago, HappyDays said:

 

This is the most cogent response in the thread and it's telling that no one has bothered to respond to it. Richard and Saleh are good examples of guys that would probably have a head coaching job if they had connections. I don't have an argument against that.

 

I guess everyone is in agreement that this specific proposal goes too far so it doesn't really need to be said, but offering a specific competitive advantage is the wrong solution. There is already a competitive advantage in hiring the right candidates. NFL owners and executives are going to make the same awful decisions regardless.

 

A simple tweak to the Rooney rule would be to mandate interviewing at least one minority candidate that hasn't been a member of your own team's staff within the last 3 seasons, or something like that. That would effectively force teams to actually identify the best minority candidate, like a Kris Richard, and get them in the room with NFL executives to make their case. That would eliminate the "checklist" thinking you mention. And I don't think anyone could reasonably disagree with that proposal.

 

Yep I'd certainly be in favour of giving that a try @HappyDays and see if it works. 

[BigBillsFan]

21 hours ago, whatdrought said:

Congratulations Mr. Black candidate, you’ve got the job and it definitely has nothing to do with us getting a bonus because of your melanin. 

 

RACIST

 

21 hours ago, Happy said:

each candidate should be considered on his abilities, and nothing else.

 

RACIST

 

20 hours ago, KD in CA said:

I'm so old I remember when we aspired to be a 'color-blind' society.

 

RACIST

 

21 hours ago, mjt328 said:

What a blatantly racist idea.

 

RACIST

 

 

/SARCASM

[whatdrought]

4 hours ago, GunnerBill said:

 

Jim Caldwell had been to a Superbowl, so had Lovie. Denny Green and Tony Dungy had been to NFCCGs. My point isn't that black head coaches never get a second shot. It is that as a white Head Coach you can be an utter and dismal failure and still get a second shot. It is as @C.Biscuit97 says.... it isn't about race per se as it is as about the old boys network. Shurmer is well connected. He got a 2nd shot despite being a disaster first time and was, entirely predictably, a disaster 2nd time. 

 

So which minorities deserved a second shot and didn't get it? 

 

Also, are you saying it's not about race, but about whose known versus not?

 

 

2 hours ago, DrDawkinstein said:

 

You dont have to be a sociologist to see it. Just pay attention to any thread that deals with racial topics/Kaep/etc. Or dip your toe into PPP for a few minutes.

 

I'm not making any commentary on anyone's philosophy, but C.Biscuit isnt wrong for saying it exists here at an almost surprising level.

 

 

"I'm not making a comment about people's philosophy, but I'm agreeing that there's a certain philosophy here."

[DrDawkinstein]

2 hours ago, teef said:

It exists everywhere, but what I think you and super woke are doing is letting a vocal few paint a picture of a general group.  I’m just not into someone implying a poster is a racist, then running away with their tails between their legs with no explanation, (not you dr). 

 

It is not the vocal minority on the board. It is what it is. It's been that way here long before yall came over from BBMB. Not calling everyone, or even anyone, racist. But there is a large group here which are less... empathetic than others. And pointing it out is no different than calling states red or blue. Of course not everyone in that state feels that way, but it gives a generally accurate picture.

1 minute ago, whatdrought said:

 

"I'm not making a comment about people's philosophy, but I'm agreeing that there's a certain philosophy here."

 

Right. Not calling them right or wrong or getting into the specifics.

 

Mind you, I didnt go back and read the whole thread when I jumped in to reply to teef on page 10, so maybe my context is off.

 

Dont get too "triggered" by my comment, or whatever you guys call it.

[whatdrought]

3 minutes ago, DrDawkinstein said:

Right. Not calling them right or wrong or getting into the specifics.

 

Mind you, I didnt go back and read the whole thread when I jumped in to reply to teef on page 10, so maybe my context is off.

 

Dont get too "triggered" by my comment, or whatever you guys call it.

 

Well, just like you won't call those who you deem "less empathetic" right or wrong, I won't call anyone who sits with their perceived moral superiority and heightened view of self right or wrong. I'll let their posting do it for them. ?

[Over 29 years of fanhood]

21 hours ago, C.Biscuit97 said:

I wonder how this is going to go on this board. ? it’s a very diverse group here.

 

and yes forcing people to get hired is a problem.  But the lack of diversity at the top levels in the nfl is a serious issue.  And I don’t think it’s racist but rather the buddy buddy system in NFL front offices.  Crappy coaches and executives get passed around because of who they are friends with.  While being a player is a meritocracy, nfl jobs are the opposite of that. 

Maybe there needs to be rules instituted around how many times you can get a coaching job or term limit type of thing to break that buddy system  cycle.
 

With more people flowing through perhaps diversity would be more likely?

 

Also, they are treating it as s demand problem (racism) but is it possible there is a supply issue? (Lack of diversity in the  grooming pipeline) 

[C.Biscuit97]

4 hours ago, teef said:

Could you explain what certain philosophy you’re referring to that you think exists in this board?  It seems to me like you’re just stereotyping everyone on no real basis.  

That this board is at least 80% white (a very low estimate that I would bet money on being higher), male (90%), 40+ (70% but not as confident in that guess, and definitely leans more conservative.  Which is completely fine but obviously the opinions posted here are going to represent that mindset.  And I haven’t followed since yesterday but it was a good and rational discussion but these threads go all the I expect them to go.  
 

imo, it’s like posting this on FoxNews.  I don’t think this solution is the right way to do it but I’m not shocked at all that the majority of posters here don’t think lack of minority nfl leadership positions is a problem.  And again, that’s fine because people tend to think in their own best interests.  Again, JMO (but I’m definitely right ?).

[ColoradoBills]

What about mixed race candidates?

Do they only get to move up half the spots?

[teef]

7 minutes ago, DrDawkinstein said:

 

It is not the vocal minority on the board. It is what it is. It's been that way here long before yall came over from BBMB. Not calling everyone, or even anyone, racist. But there is a large group here which are less... empathetic than others. And pointing it out is no different than calling states red or blue. Of course not everyone in that state feels that way, but it gives a generally accurate picture.

 

i never go into the PPP area, so i'll trust you in that regard.  there's no problem pointing out that it exist.  it does.  when it becomes a problem is when certain people on this board make broad assumptions of someone because of their likes or dislikes about a certain player...especially a black player.  not everyone will dislike a black player because they are black.  

[Ethan in Cleveland]

21 hours ago, formerlyofCtown said:

Maybe time to stop watching after that.  It's probably a good idea to give minorities everything we have and we can just go live in a cave or something.  

 

No offence intended toward anyone but the teams with the worse record get the better pick for a reason.

Not surprised that you're confused C. Biscuit and this topic is not a good idea.  

The racism is strong in this one...

[GunnerBill]

16 minutes ago, whatdrought said:

 

So which minorities deserved a second shot and didn't get it? 

 

Also, are you saying it's not about race, but about whose known versus not?

 

 

My argument is less about black head coaches who deserved a 2nd shot but didn't get one.... it is more about white head coaches who don't getting them and taking opportunities away from others. 

 

The fundamental problem I have with NFL Head Coaching hire is the nepotism and who you know culture. That brings with it a sort of indirect discrimination because it further inbeds those cliques and a lot of black coaches are not in those same groupings. I don't think anyone here thinks that if the best interview an NFL team has is by a black coach they wouldn't hire him. What is an issue is making sure the people who would be capable of being that outstanding candidate get in the room. That is where the rule as currently constituted is failing.  

[teef]

Just now, C.Biscuit97 said:

That this board is at least 80% white (a very low estimate that I would bet money on being higher), male (90%), 40+ (70% but not as confident in that guess, and definitely leans more conservative.  Which is completely fine but obviously the opinions posted here are going to represent that mindset.  And I haven’t followed since yesterday but it was a good and rational discussion but these threads go all the I expect them to go.  
 

imo, it’s like posting this on FoxNews.  I don’t think this solution is the right way to do it but I’m not shocked at all that the majority of posters here don’t think lack of minority nfl leadership positions is a problem.  And again, that’s fine because people tend to think in their own best interests.  Again, JMO (but I’m definitely right ?).

so what?  i agree with you that the majority of board is white, in that age group.  what i don't agree with is that since that's the demographic, it's automatically like the "fox new" crowd.  how do you know a good portion of those older, white posters lean towards the liberal?  i don't.  you don't, so why act so super woke about it.  why strongly imply someone is racist if they don't like cam newton?  hell, you even implied i was a racist once because i can't stand the rochester mayor, who happens to be black.  you knew nothing of my reasoning or politics behind it.  you just boiled it down to...he doesn't like her....she's black...he's obviously racist.  you've done this to many posters here.  i've never known a guy to play the race card so much.

 

on minority leadership positions being a problem?  it's an issue, but i don't know if i'd say a problem.  it's a problem if minorities are being denied jobs because they're minorities, but like you mentioned, i think it's more of old networking.  once you're in the coaching loop, you tend to float around in it.  sometimes even when you're not proven worthy.  as others have mentioned, winning is what matters in the nfl.  if you were a coach, wouldn't you hire whoever you feels gives you the best chance at winning?  i think most owners would.  

 

 

Just now, GunnerBill said:

 

My argument is less about black head coaches who deserved a 2nd shot but didn't get one.... it is more about white head coaches who don't getting them and taking opportunities away from others. 

 

The fundamental problem I have with NFL Head Coaching hire is the nepotism and who you know culture. That brings with it a sort of indirect discrimination because it further inbeds those cliques and a lot of black coaches are not in those same groupings. I don't think anyone here thinks that if the best interview an NFL team has is by a black coach they wouldn't hire him. What is an issue is making sure the people who would be capable of being that outstanding candidate get in the room. That is where the rule as currently constituted is failing.  

this i think is the bigger problem as well.  you certainly see it in business.  guys who were unsuccessful CEOs at one company seem to fall into other CEO positions time an time again.  i'm not so sure that's based strictly on race.

[C.Biscuit97]

5 minutes ago, Over 29 years of fanhood said:

Maybe there needs to be rules instituted around how many times you can get a coaching job or term limit type of thing to break that buddy system  cycle.
 

With more people flowing through perhaps diversity would be more likely?

 

Also, they are treating it as s demand problem (racism) but is it possible there is a supply issue? (Lack of diversity in the  grooming pipeline) 

Good post and I like the idea of limiting the amount of jobs someone can get.  But legally, I don’t think there’s anyway you can do that.  
 

Take Doug Whaley., I know everyone thinks he sucks but in reality, he brought in a lot of talent.  There are a lot of reports that he didn’t get complete control in hiring the coaches.  I know the pegulas liked Whaley but that completely handcuffs a GM and he is forced to work with someone even if they don’t like each other (Whaley-Marrone).  IMO, which I’m sure won’t be popular, I think Whaley could go a really good job if he is given a 2nd opportunity.  But he probably won’t and there are guys like Bruce Allen who just got fired from his 3rd job.  

7 minutes ago, Ethan in Portland said:

The racism is strong in this one...

The sad part is either he/she is proud of it and doesn’t think he/ she is racist. 

 

”if these minorities started getting jobs, I’m done with the NfL!!! Now, go Joe Mixon and Richie Incognito!”

[GunnerBill]

7 minutes ago, teef said:

 

this i think is the bigger problem as well.  you certainly see it in business.  guys who were unsuccessful CEOs at one company seem to fall into other CEO positions time an time again.  i'm not so sure that's based strictly on race.

 

No I don't think it is either, but it imbeds an unfairness in the system that then becomes difficult to design out. 

[C.Biscuit97]

6 minutes ago, teef said:

so what?  i agree with you that the majority of board is white, in that age group.  what i don't agree with is that since that's the demographic, it's automatically like the "fox new" crowd.  how do you know a good portion of those older, white posters lean towards the liberal?  i don't.  you don't, so why act so super woke about it.  why strongly imply someone is racist if they don't like cam newton?  hell, you even implied i was a racist once because i can't stand the rochester mayor, who happens to be black.  you knew nothing of my reasoning or politics behind it.  you just boiled it down to...he doesn't like her....she's black...he's obviously racist.  you've done this to many posters here.  i've never known a guy to play the race card so much.

 

on minority leadership positions being a problem?  it's an issue, but i don't know if i'd say a problem.  it's a problem if minorities are being denied jobs because they're minorities, but like you mentioned, i think it's more of old networking.  once you're in the coaching loop, you tend to float around in it.  sometimes even when you're not proven worthy.  as others have mentioned, winning is what matters in the nfl.  if you were a coach, wouldn't you hire whoever you feels gives you the best chance at winning?  i think most owners would.  

 

 

this i think is the bigger problem as well.  you certainly see it in business.  guys who were unsuccessful CEOs at one company seem to fall into other CEO positions time an time again.  i'm not so sure that's based strictly on race.

Dear lord.  You’re all over the place.  Visit PPP or just see which threads get the most pushbacks here.  How many MVP QBs get as much flack as Jackson and Newton?  
 

do I think the Overwhelming majority of this board is racist?  Absolutely not (there’s one in here that showed themselves).  But I do think it’s going to be hard for a board with this demographic to really support minorities getting opportunities.  And I get why and it doesn’t mean you are a terrible person.  But it’s dumb to pretend like every American is given the same chance to succeed at life. 
 

and dude, when are people going to grow and stop using corny terms like “woke” (it’s woke to want people to have equal rights apparently.  What’s the opposite of that called) or snowflakes (people who use that term are the biggest snowflakes).  

[Jeebus]

If this isn't one of the most blanantly racist ideas I don't know what it.  Boost your draft position solely on the basis of having a minority coach, who cares about qualifications anymore.  I'm all for everyone getting their shot, but may the best man get the job.  Not just getting their shot because it comes with perks and someone better qualified getting shafted.

[C.Biscuit97]

5 minutes ago, GunnerBill said:

 

No I don't think it is either, but it imbeds an unfairness in the system that then becomes difficult to design out. 

Yup.  Do I think there was racism back in the day in the nfl in regards to quarterbacks, head coaches, and GM positions?  Absolutely.  Do I think that is the main problem now?  Absolutely not.  
 

im just stock of scrub coaches like Pat Shurmur or bad GMs like Bruce Allen getting multiple jobs when other People struggle to get one.  

[teef]

Just now, C.Biscuit97 said:

Dear lord.  You’re all over the place.  Visit PPP or just see which threads get the most pushbacks here.  How many MVP QBs get as much flack as Jackson and Newton?  
 

do I think the Overwhelming majority of this board is racist?  Absolutely not (there’s one in here that showed themselves).  But I do think it’s going to be hard for a board with this demographic to really support minorities getting opportunities.  And I get why and it doesn’t mean you are a terrible person.  But it’s dumb to pretend like every American is given the same chance to succeed at life. 
 

and dude, when are people going to grow and stop using corny terms like “woke” (it’s woke to want people to have equal rights apparently.  What’s the opposite of that called) or snowflakes (people who use that term are the biggest snowflakes).  

i'm not all over the place at all.  you just don't or can't answer my questions.  you again are just assuming you know what the board thinks and believes.  if that's you opinion, ok...but why do you feel it's ok to call someone a racist?  you've done it countless times.  instead of actually explaining yourself, you run away and hide.  

 

don't want to hear the term woke?  stop acting the way you do.  you are the exact person that personifies woke.  ultimately you're just another run of the mill white guy who wants everyone to know how down he is.  if you need that to be your thing...go nuts.  no one gets more sensitive about race on this board than you.  

[ColoradoBills]

6 minutes ago, C.Biscuit97 said:

Dear lord.  You’re all over the place.  Visit PPP or just see which threads get the most pushbacks here.  How many MVP QBs get as much flack as Jackson and Newton?  
 

do I think the Overwhelming majority of this board is racist?  Absolutely not (there’s one in here that showed themselves).  But I do think it’s going to be hard for a board with this demographic to really support minorities getting opportunities.  And I get why and it doesn’t mean you are a terrible person.  But it’s dumb to pretend like every American is given the same chance to succeed at life. 
 

and dude, when are people going to grow and stop using corny terms like “woke” (it’s woke to want people to have equal rights apparently.  What’s the opposite of that called) or snowflakes (people who use that term are the biggest snowflakes).  

 

I went to quote your post and "liked" it instead.  It's not that I "don't like" your post just came on to say that wealth/poverty has as much or even more

to do with a persons chances to succeed.  Wealthy white and black kids have an advantage over poor white and black kids.

It's the way of the world.

[QLBillsFan]

The soft bigotry of low expectations. This is not what MLK envisioned! 70 % black players. Well deserved but just like years ago blacks were not slotted to QB. What about white RB’s ? If you want more representation at higher levels you need these 70% or non NFL coaches to pay the dues. Put in the time. It’s like when people say JK should be OC or QB coach. Did he pay his dues and learn the craft of coaching. With the commitment of multiple moves and experiences. It’s an incredibly hard road. The more blacks who do this the more will be those opportunities. Do connections help? Of course but when does this progressive addenda end? This proposal is bad for blacks, overall equality , and the NFL. 

[teef]

Just now, ColoradoBills said:

 

I went to quote your post and "liked" it instead.  It's not that I "don't like" your post just came on to say that wealth/poverty has as much or even more

to do with a persons chances to succeed.  Wealthy white and black kids have an advantage over poor white and black kids.

It's the way of the world.

absolutely.  socioeconomics facts are such a large part of it.  wealth usually means better home life, better education, better medical care, etc. 

[C.Biscuit97]

 

1 hour ago, ColoradoBills said:

 

I went to quote your post and "liked" it instead.  It's not that I "don't like" your post just came on to say that wealth/poverty has as much or even more

to do with a persons chances to succeed.  Wealthy white and black kids have an advantage over poor white and black kids.

It's the way of the world.

I agree 100% with you.  I would totally be fine with a program that provided opportunities for lower socioeconomic economic groups of all races.  
 

 

[Billzgobowlin]

I'm just wondering if they made a rule for every team that has a white RB would start each drive with a 10 yard bonus, if anyone would have a problem with it.  I think if the process is sincere why would you punish teams for picking their best candidate.  I personally don't care if our coach is white, black, red, green or blue but the fact that we get punished because he is white is kind of bogus

[HappyDays]

59 minutes ago, teef said:

this i think is the bigger problem as well.  you certainly see it in business.  guys who were unsuccessful CEOs at one company seem to fall into other CEO positions time an time again.  i'm not so sure that's based strictly on race.

 

No most of it isn't primarily about race. But it does create racial inequality, even indirectly. I saw a video of a black motivational speaker many years ago where he talked about this. He talked about one of his best friends growing up who was white. That friend's father had been a police officer, and his father before him a police officer, and his father before him. Three straight generations of police officers. Being a cop is not a particularly affluent career, they weren't rich by any stretch of the imagination. But the family had longstanding connections in the community. When it came time for his friend to get his first entry level job, it was very easy. Getting that first job opened up other opportunities down the line which eventually turned into a moderately successful life in the middle class.

 

The speaker then talked about his own family's history which stretched back to the days of slavery. His father's father didn't have the right to vote for about half his life. His family had no connections to the community. So when it came time for this speaker to get his first entry level job he had to start from scratch. He had to apply blindly and beat out other people of his own accord. It isn't that the people who hired his friend were racist or anything like that. And he wasn't complaining that he earned his way. He just stated a plain fact that he didn't have those kinds of community connections that are built over generations of family success. Nepotism isn't inherently racist but because of this country's terrible racial history it ultimately appears to be racist.

 

This isn't a 1:1 comparison to a hiring problem in the NFL - as I said earlier in the thread I believe the NFL is as insulated from racial inequality as any institution in America. But there is definitely some level of that even in the NFL. Rex Ryan never gets a single head coaching job, let alone two, if his dad wasn't Buddy Ryan. The NFL is trying to fight that kind of nepotism. This specific proposal is a terrible solution, but the problem they're trying to solve is legitimate.

Edited May 16, 2020 by HappyDays

[Don Otreply]

3 hours ago, teef said:

I’m not sure who you guys are associating with, but maybe it’s time for a change.  Does this level of racism exist?   Of course, but if  I thought 50% of the people I associate with lean towards being racist, I’d find another way to live. 
 

even if that was your feeling, do you think it’s ok to imply that everyone else is a racist?  I mean...shouldn’t posters be able to say that they don’t like cam newton and not be called a racist?   That’s reasonable...right?
 

ive lived in wny the majority of my life, and although we all experienced racism, it never been to the level that some of you are making it out to be.  I even come from an old school Italian family, and I can honesty say that race was never brought up.  

I didn’t say pointy white hat, burning cross stuff, I said lean towards, and yes you can say you don’t like Cam Newton for valid reasons, I’m talking about people’s generational biases that have the result of... excluding people’s opportunities in a unconscious passive fashion that has been normalized,  meaning they don’t even realize they are acting in such a fashion, people do these sorts of things. Call it what you will, I call it racial bias. 

[teef]

Just now, HappyDays said:

 

No most of it isn't primarily about race. But it does create racial inequality, even indirectly. I saw a video of a black motivational speaker many years ago where he talked about this. He talked about one of his best friends growing up who was white. That friend's father had been a police officer, and his father before him a police officer, and his father before him. Three straight generations of police officers. Being a cop is not a particularly affluent career, they weren't rich by any stretch of the imagination. But the family had longstanding connections in the community. When it came time for his friend to get his first entry level job, it was very easy. Getting that first job opened up other opportunities down the line which eventually turned into a moderately successful life in the middle class.

 

The speaker then talked about his own family's history which stretched back to the days of slavery. His father's father didn't have the right to vote for about half his life. His family had no connections to the community. So when it came time for this speaker to get his first entry level job he had to start from scratch. He had to apply blindly and beat out other people of his own accord. It isn't that the people who hired his friends were racist or anything like that. He just didn't have those kinds of community connections that are built over generations of family success. Nepotism isn't inherently racist but because of this country's terrible racial history it ultimately appears to be racist.

 

This isn't a 1:1 comparison to a hiring problem in the NFL - as I said earlier in the thread I believe the NFL is as insulated from racial inequality as any institution in America. But there is definitely some level of that even in the NFL. Rex Ryan never gets a single head coaching job, let alone two, if his dad wasn't Buddy Ryan. The NFL is trying to fight that kind of nepotism. This specific proposal is a terrible solution, but the problem they're trying to solve is legitimate.

i agree.  it's very much a trend that gets established that's hard to break.  using draft picks as bait strikes me as the completely wrong way to accomplish that, as it does others. when it comes to guys like rex ryan, i think some owners see them as "safe bets".  they've been coaches before, they've had some success before, they'll make it work again.  it's more lazy hiring than racially motivated.  it's so weird how that loop of coaches tends to stay intact.  there's been move of a movement over the last few years as younger innovators have been hired, but there's no doubt minority coaches have taken the brunt of a large part of this.

Just now, Don Otreply said:

I didn’t say pointy white hat, burning cross stuff, I said lean towards, and yes you can say you don’t like Cam Newton for valid reasons, I’m talking about people’s generational biases that have the result of... excluding people’s opportunities in a unconscious passive fashion that has been normalized,  meaning they don’t even realize they are acting in such a fashion, people do these sorts of things. Call it what you will, I call it racial bias. 

lol!  i got ya.  again, i grew up in an old school italian family, and although i was really kept away from that stuff, you knew there were some hardcore dislikes when it came to certain cultures.  now...that being said, i still don't think certain people's life experience should give them the right to just assume every white guy that falls in a demographic is a closet racist.  i'm a 42 yr old white professional.  i am not a racist.  i don't say that as a badge of honor...i'm just not.  personality is way more off a turnoff to me that someone's race or background.  i truly believe that the majority of this board functions in that way too.  not everyone, but most people on here strike me as good from out interactions.  going to the ppp may change my mind drastically, but it's just easier to ignore that place.

[QLBillsFan]

And now due to quotas many more minority candidate can be a police officer. That can now be a generational opportunity. But yet that same white candidate who scores higher on the standardized test does not get that opportunity. So that’s what you want ? Agree connections help.

 

But say Fred Jackson wanted to coach. If he did an internship and a couple college positions in 5 years he could be an nfl RB coach. Then OC then HC. You don’t think he has an advantage over a D3 non NFL white guy? It can work both ways. Forcing it is the progressive way and it’s popular but illogical. 

[Mike in Horseheads]

4 minutes ago, QLBillsFan said:

And now due to quotas many more minority candidate can be a police officer. That can now be a generational opportunity. But yet that same white candidate who scores higher on the standardized test does not get that opportunity. So that’s what you want ? Agree connections help.

 

But say Fred Jackson wanted to coach. If he did an internship and a couple college positions in 5 years he could be an nfl RB coach. Then OC then HC. You don’t think he has an advantage over a D3 non NFL white guy? It can work both ways. Forcing it is the progressive way and it’s popular but illogical. 

..Interesting you joined 45 minutes ago and this is the first place you went. Looks like a burner account to me.

[Hapless Bills Fan]

23 hours ago, YoloinOhio said:

 

https://www.nfl.com/news/nfl-to-present-new-resolutions-to-rooney-rule

 

I'd like to tell a story that I think bears on this issue.

 

Years ago, it was noted that symphony orchestra musicians were overwhelmingly white males.   1970s: <5% women. But of course, there was no proof that this was due to any form of racial or sex discrimination.  There were auditions, it was all merit.   There must just not be that many qualified women who actually want to become symphony musicians. (Of course, the auditions featured judges who couldn't help having preconceptions that might influence how they heard the audition....)

 

Nowadays, symphony auditions are literally blinded.  Even in the final audition, where the candidates play for the judges, they play behind a screen and are even asked to remove their shoes and enter the stage on a carpet, to conceal the tell-tale difference in how a woman's shoes sound vs. a man's.  And strangely, the % of women in symphony orchestras has increased to 20-30% by the late 90s, which is quite significant considering that symphonies have a fixed size and long careers where personnel turn over quite slowly.  It seems that when the judges are just listening to the music, they draw different conclusions about who is best.

 

So if the NFL wants to make similar changes, perhaps they could think about how to adopt a similar strategy to this - obviously, they can't do exactly the same thing, but they could consider how to blind various aspects of the search process.

 

 

 

 

 

 

[QLBillsFan]

Not a burner account. Thought it was an interesting topic and chimed in. Hope that is ? 

[Hapless Bills Fan]

9 minutes ago, QLBillsFan said:

Not a burner account. Thought it was an interesting topic and chimed in.