New resolution that rewards teams who "develop" minority coaches

[Utah John]

The biggest thing holding back the development of minority coaches is that they can't get on the path early in their careers.  There has been a longstanding resistance to have black QB coaches, coaching a white QB.  Sorry for saying that, but it's been true.  QB coaches are usually the guys who move up to offensive coordinators and then HCs. 

 

You might think that with more black QBs in the league, that this problem would sort itself out.  Well, it's not working.  The NFL is trying to get things changed through the most valuable commodity they have: draft picks.

 

There is an unavoidable political consideration driving this, but you can also look at it as basic fairness.  The proportion of black HCs in far below the proportion of black players. 

[DrDawkinstein]

5 minutes ago, SageAgainstTheMachine said:

 

Agreed.  I think financial incentives would be great.  Two third-round draft picks is such a concrete and discretely valued commodity that the NFL is practically inviting immoral usage of the rule.  For example what division rival would EVER hire a minority coach from within the division?

 

Yep.

 

However, I do believe this has far less to do with hiring Head Coaches, and that the NFL's goal here is to encourage minority hiring at the assistant/positional level. And if those hires manage to work their way up to a HC job, great.

 

I do understand the backlash tho. If this rule had been in place, does Miami hire Flores? Would Flores count as being "developed" by New England? What is the criteria there?

 

I'd think the NFL is providing the teams more detail and we are in the dark as lowly fans. But I get the questions and concern.

[Hapless Bills Fan]

2 hours ago, buffaloboyinATL said:

So what happens if you “develop” a minority coach internally and promote them to a Coordinator or Head Coach position? Do you still get the picks?

 

Seems to me that's a legitimate question.

[Hapless Bills Fan]

1 hour ago, Process said:

Why not? It's not just a race issue. Two third rounds picks is significant compensation. We are just going to start handing them out to teams for doing absolutely nothing?

 

Question:

 

How many minority OCs are currently in the league? 

How many minority DCs?

 

If the answer is "not very many", then has a team that's hired a minority OC or DC actually "done absolutely nothing"?

 

The 2 third round pick compensation is a separate issue to me.  I have strong reservations about the chosen means.  But the underlying point is that OC or DC (and to a lower extent ST) are typically the "jumping off points" for candidates who are considered for head coaching jobs, so to see more minority HCs, there needs to be attention given to developing a larger number of qualified candidates.

 

I understand the goal, I just don't like the strategy.

 

 

22 minutes ago, SageAgainstTheMachine said:

Agreed.  I think financial incentives would be great.  Two third-round draft picks is such a concrete and discretely valued commodity that the NFL is practically inviting immoral usage of the rule.  For example what division rival would EVER hire a minority coach from within the division?

 

That is my concern: a well-intended policy whose implementation will have unintended consequences.

[Miyagi-Do Karate]

17 minutes ago, billsfan89 said:

 

I don't think anyone can force a team to fire someone. I think if you want to hire a coach you are going to hire them regardless of whomever might get extra picks. If you think Bieniemy is a genius offensive mind are you really going to not hire him and hire someone lesser because another team is going to get draft picks?

 

I do think the incentives should be adjusted to the team doing the hiring getting extra picks but I don't see this moving the needle too much in either direction.

I guess when I was saying “fire” I meant basically a deal by which KC would agree to some procedural maneuver to let Bieniemy go while not getting the picks (assuming the new team tells Bieniemy that’s the condition).

 

But I think you are right— if a team really wants him, then I guess they’re going to let KC reap that benefit. 
 

in the end, this seems more like a windfall to a KC than some properly crafted incentive. 

[DaggersEOD]

26 minutes ago, DrDawkinstein said:

 

I think you're being a little hyperbolic there. No one in the NFL denies that the coaching candidate circle is a good ol boys club that is very difficult to break into. It's not like teams post Head Coach openings to LinkedIn and Glassdoor. You must already be in the circle to ever get a chance.

 

Like the Rooney Rule, I believe this is an attempt to encourage teams to simply expand that circle, but with rewards instead of punishments. Not to solve some "huge problem of racism".

 

I dont think this solution is a great (or even good) idea with the way it's been laid out so far. But credit them for trying. They can always cut the program if it doesn't work out.

 

 

But is the good ol boys club racist?  That is the question. It’s not about it being difficult to break into. This rule implies that the club is full of racists that must be prodded into not being as racist. 
 

I don’t believe these owners are overtly racist like this.
 

I’d also take a look at the racial breakdown of the country.
 

13% of the country is black

13% of 32 is approx 4

There are 3 (PLEASE correct me if I’m wrong) current black head coaches in the NFL. 

 

It is a little off but not as critical a deficit that would require this strong a program IMO. 

 

If the club is restrictive do something to promote new blood. Don’t call it something else and let the club stay as closed as ever as “efforts” continue to fail.

[uticaclub]

There is nothing more performance based than professional sports. More white guys get into coaching at earlier ages because they realize their future is on the sidelines not the field. There literally hasn't been a white cornerback since Jason Seahorn. I've always felt the best way to get minority coaches is to start minority grad assistant scholarships in college. If you look at the majority of coaches in the NFL that's where they all started.

 

This current proposal is bull####

[DrDawkinstein]

3 minutes ago, DaggersEOD said:

But is the good ol boys club racist?  That is the question. It’s not about it being difficult to break into. This rule implies that the club is full of racists that must be prodded into not being as racist. 
 

I don’t believe these owners are overtly racist like this.
 

I’d also take a look at the racial breakdown of the country.
 

13% of the country is black

13% of 32 is approx 4

There are 3 (PLEASE correct me if I’m wrong) current black head coaches in the NFL. 

 

It is a little off but not as critical a deficit that would require this strong a program IMO. 

 

If the club is restrictive do something to promote new blood. Don’t call it something else and let the club stay as closed as ever as “efforts” continue to fail.

 

What percentage of coaches are former players? What percentage of players are black?

 

But like I said, it isnt to solve some major racism issue. However, unconscious bias is a thing.

[whatdrought]

39 minutes ago, DrDawkinstein said:

 

I think you're being a little hyperbolic there. No one in the NFL denies that the coaching candidate circle is a good ol boys club that is very difficult to break into. It's not like teams post Head Coach openings to LinkedIn and Glassdoor. You must already be in the circle to ever get a chance.

 

Like the Rooney Rule, I believe this is an attempt to encourage teams to simply expand that circle, but with rewards instead of punishments. Not to solve some "huge problem of racism".

 

I dont think this solution is a great (or even good) idea with the way it's been laid out so far. But credit them for trying. They can always cut the program if it doesn't work out.

 

 

 

But it isn't about extending the circle in general, it's about extending it to one class of candidate, and not the other. 

 

The idea of the ol boys club is broken. The market corrects and teams do what they can to innovate or they lose. The Panthers wanted to rebuild and they are already getting very impressive returns on their investment on the college coach, meanwhile the Cowboys are sucking wind cause they hired a "good ol boy." The Cardinals fired their minority coach after one horrible year and took a risk on a white guy from outside the norm and they're within striking distance of the playoffs. 

 

If David Shaw from Stanford wanted an NFL job he'd likely have several to choose from. Don't make it about incentivizing race, make it about incentivizing winning and let teams do the wise thing that leads to wins. 

[DrDawkinstein]

1 minute ago, whatdrought said:

 

But it isn't about extending the circle in general, it's about extending it to one class of candidate, and not the other. 

 

The idea of the ol boys club is broken. The market corrects and teams do what they can to innovate or they lose. The Panthers wanted to rebuild and they are already getting very impressive returns on their investment on the college coach, meanwhile the Cowboys are sucking wind cause they hired a "good ol boy." The Cardinals fired their minority coach after one horrible year and took a risk on a white guy from outside the norm and they're within striking distance of the playoffs. 

 

If David Shaw from Stanford wanted an NFL job he'd likely have several to choose from. Don't make it about incentivizing race, make it about incentivizing winning and let teams do the wise thing that leads to wins. 

 

This isnt about hiring Head Coaches tho. It's about who they are hiring as assistants. And the only circle they can control the expansion of is within the NFL.

 

Disagree with the idea the market corrects itself. Before the Rooney Rule (and even a bit since), we see re-tread after re-tread of LOSER coaches. Losing doesnt get you banished from the NFL.

 

Again, I dont whole-heartedly disagree with you, or agree with this new rule, but I'm not fired up about it either. Two 3rds is ridiculous for how valuable they are. But we'll see how it all plays out.

[Weatherman]

Can’t wait to see how the Pats hedge their bets on this one.  My guess: They will hire a person of color as GM/Coach (4 3rd round picks) and Bilichick will fall in as assistant head coach/ gm.  Fire said coach / gm after the year and hire another one.

[2003Contenders]

6 minutes ago, Hapless Bills Fan said:

That is my concern: a well-intended policy whose implementation will have unintended consequences.

This.

 

The Rooney Rule undoubtedly helped highly qualified but overlooked minorities get a legitimate shot at coaching gigs in the NFL.

 

However, it has also played a role in hurting the very people it was supposed to help.

 

Case in point: turn the clock back to nearly 20 years ago. In Detroit Matt Millen made no secret that his dream was to hire Steve Mariucci to coach the Lions, but Mooch was gainfully employed by the 49ers at that time, so Millen instead hired "Mooch-lite", Marty Mornhenweg. A couple of years later, the 49ers let Mooch go -- so Millen immediately fired Marty and reached out to Mooch. Now, Millen knew that he needed to abide by the Rooney Rule before he could hire Mooch, but there was not a single minority coach who was willing to interview for the job. Why? Everyone knew that the interview would be a waste of time because Millen already knew who he was going to hire -- indeed the vacancy had been CREATED for the sole purpose of hiring Steve Mariucci. Long story short, Millen hired Mooch anyway, and tried to claim that he had "interviewed" Dennis Green (which was really a 5-minute phone call between friends rather than a true job interview). Even though Green backed Millen up, the NFL sanctioned the Lions for not following the spirit of the rule.

 

That said, the Rooney Rule probably played a role in affording interviews to minorities who may not have otherwise been interviewed for open positions. Anthony Lynn is a good example of a guy who may not have truly been in the running for some of the gigs for which he initially interviewed, but the fact that word got around just how impressive he came across in those interviews eventually helped his cause.

[BisonMan]

I'm completely supportive of this policy change. The NFL's revenue model doesn't penalize teams for being poorly coached or managed. Owners generally get the same amount of money whether they are the SB winner or in last place (not controlling for local attendance and sponsorship deals which vary mostly by market size). For example, Dallas is a relatively rich franchise while being very unsuccessful on the field. This is because of straight revenue sharing broadcast networks. Owners look to hire coaches and GMs that they are "comfortable" with, which feeds a insular set of people who "know" people. This results in textbook discrimination. Somebody tell me Adam Gase deserved another HC job after Miami due to his awesome HC performance. You can name a bunch of other example like this. Pegula openly said he felt most comfortable with Rex during that search. Ugh. Now, rattle off a list of black HCs who got multiple jobs after failing. It's pretty tough to find them.

 

The same cannot be said of player performance where the best players generally get the most compensation regardless of race. For example, does anyone believe the Christian McCaffrey isn't going to be one of the highest paid RBs in the NFL regardless of race? Player performance is highly objective. Coaching and GM work isn't. 

 

The real tell is the actual distribution of HCs and GMs in the league. The "pool" of candidates starts with ex-players (college and pro) and coaches (college and pro). The coaching ranks are over-represented by white men at all levels even though black men make up the largest share of ex-players. That doesn't make sense unless there is a innate racial disparity in ability. I've never heard anyone make the claim that black man are less intelligent or capable leaders than white men. The integration of the US Military has shown that thinking to be false.

 

What's truly weird is that it is statistically likely that available black coaching and GM candidates are actually more qualified because they are under-represented in the coaching field. So, under this rule, teams that hire black HCs and GMs will get a double bonus. They likely get a better chance of a top-notch leader but they also get modest draft capital.

 

My 2 cents...and a few more.

5 minutes ago, Weatherman said:

Can’t wait to see how the Pats hedge their bets on this one.  My guess: They will hire a person of color as GM/Coach (4 3rd round picks) and Bilichick will fall in as assistant head coach/ gm.  Fire said coach / gm after the year and hire another one.

Bilichick will claim his sons are black as he promotes them. 😛

[PetermansRedemption]

2 hours ago, vtnatefootball11 said:

 

So I am entirely supportive of the initiative, and its unfortunate but sometimes you do need to give people a little push to do the right thing and force the issue.  More black people should be in NFL HC and GM positions right now, period.  With that said, your point #2 is incredibly valid and may actually deter/frustrate the purpose.  Would like to see the actual language of the rules, but it appears they really did not think this through. Maybe they should reward both the hiring and "developing" team, each get one 3rd round? 

I Moreso think the team who does the hiring should get the picks, rather than the “developing team”. And it should apply to those who develop one internally and promote him to HC. Basically, if they really want to do this right, the team doing the hiring should get the comp picks. Not saying I agree or disagree with the initiative, but it’s idiotic as written. No surprise from the NFL. 

[whatdrought]

7 minutes ago, DrDawkinstein said:

 

This isnt about hiring Head Coaches tho. It's about who they are hiring as assistants. And the only circle they can control the expansion of is within the NFL.

 

Disagree with the idea the market corrects itself. Before the Rooney Rule (and even a bit since), we see re-tread after re-tread of LOSER coaches. Losing doesnt get you banished from the NFL.

 

Again, I dont whole-heartedly disagree with you, or agree with this new rule, but I'm not fired up about it either. Two 3rds is ridiculous for how valuable they are. But we'll see how it all plays out.

 

Right, but the problem is that it's not about creating initiatives for all "out of circle" candidates - just minority ones. 

 

Right, but there are bad coaches of minority and white persuasion. It happens. The new blood argument is fine - but we're seeing that happen because teams want to win. Again, McCarthy and Rhule stand as huge examples to that. Why does race come into that question? 

 

This goes back to where our discussion started - if it's systemic racism, then why is two 3's too much? If this is about minority candidates being passed over because of their skin color, and this rule will help solve it (or the Rooney rule, etc) why not make it first round picks? 

[PetermansRedemption]

22 minutes ago, DaggersEOD said:

But is the good ol boys club racist?  That is the question. It’s not about it being difficult to break into. This rule implies that the club is full of racists that must be prodded into not being as racist. 
 

I don’t believe these owners are overtly racist like this.
 

I’d also take a look at the racial breakdown of the country.
 

13% of the country is black

13% of 32 is approx 4

There are 3 (PLEASE correct me if I’m wrong) current black head coaches in the NFL. 

 

It is a little off but not as critical a deficit that would require this strong a program IMO. 

 

If the club is restrictive do something to promote new blood. Don’t call it something else and let the club stay as closed as ever as “efforts” continue to fail.

This is exactly where my confusion lies. How many minority head coaches does the NFL want? What is the goal? Other than “more”. Like you said, minority head coaching jobs are not that far off of the percentage of the population. 3/32 is 9%. 4/32 would be 12.5%, which is nearly the exact percentage of the population who are African American. 

[DaggersEOD]

27 minutes ago, DrDawkinstein said:

 

What percentage of coaches are former players? What percentage of players are black?

 

But like I said, it isnt to solve some major racism issue. However, unconscious bias is a thing.

They are completely separate career fields with completely different talent pools. 
 

Coaches get to pull from the full population as there are a huge variety of skills/talents that can make a great coach. 
 

NFL athletes are literally the tiniest fraction of the tiniest fraction of the population due to the physical requirements for the position. NFL athletes are probably the best athletes this world has known to this point. Put another way, how many successful coaches have gone on to be successful NFL players?  
 

Just because the player pool has a huge racial imbalance, it doesn’t mean that everything associated with it also has to show that imbalance. 

[Big Turk]

1 hour ago, SageAgainstTheMachine said:

Wowzer.  When I first saw this headline I was prepared to defend it to the teeth, being someone who feels passionately about racial inequality and who thinks that there is inevitable bias in coaching hires when ownership is 100% white.

 

The thing is, attaching DRAFT STRATEGY to this concept is the single best way to muck it up.  

 

I mean exactly...so a team like Miami wants to hire Flores from New England but they don't want a team in their division being handed 2 free draft picks for essentially doing nothing out of the ordinary other than having him as a coach...

 

This has the potential to LESSEN hiring not increase it...teams are not going to want to help good teams even more by handing them extra draft picks especially if they are in their conference

[Ethan in Cleveland]

1 hour ago, whatdrought said:

Equality in opportunity does not = equality in result. 

Show us the minority candidates that have been passed over exclusively because of their race, and because of the racist intent of the hiring executive. 

I understand your point. But the counter argument is the retread white coaches that have repeatedly failed getting multiple chances.  Adam Gase is just the most recent example.  

The solution will come from cultural change not from legislation or policy. 

[PromoTheRobot]

Okay it's a stupid solution. Yet the way the NFL hires means there are few minority coaches. So what's the solution? The Rooney rule was "stupid" too but the number of black head coaches increased because of it.

Edited November 11, 2020 by PromoTheRobot

[boater]

In advance, I feel sorry for any person advanced under this rule. Their career will always be asterisked.

[FarrellsFinest]

As a Black man i think this is weird. This will only have a negative effect ultimately. You cant force teams to hire anyone besides who they want to hire. It is what it is. NFL cares about wins not color.    

[Augie]

It’s 2020, so I’m not surprised anymore.

 

I like the general intent, but the details and possible unintended consequences bother me. A lot. 

[BillsShredder83]

8 hours ago, Process said:

Holy cow is this stupid

 

1. Similar to the rooney rule, is this not racist? We need to reward teams for hiring minorities? Are they not equals? Also lmao at rewarding the teams who "develop" them to be head coaches. A very smart, hard working, black guy who is a great coach gets a head coaching job. Lets give the white coach and gm who "developed" him free draft picks. Yea, because they deserve a lot of credit for making a black guy head coaching material. Black people definitely can't achieve success on their own.

 

2. It could hurt there chances of getting head coaching jobs. If a team is deciding between a white coach from a non conference team and a black coach from a division rival, why would they choose the black coach and give them free draft picks?

 

3. Is this even going to work or change anything? I doubt it. 

 

 

It seems crazy at first but you know, I could see the NFL doing this, especially a coach in division.  Thats a big chip to hand a rival team

[Augie]

28 minutes ago, FarrellsFinest said:

As a Black man i think this is weird. This will only have a negative effect ultimately. You cant force teams to hire anyone besides who they want to hire. It is what it is. NFL cares about wins not color.    

 

Just win, baby! 

 

That’s all people really care about.  Certainly all I care about! (Other than extreme character issues, of course.) 

 

I can see how this could convolute some situations and actually HURT some candidates. What if........say the Broncos wanted to hire Eric Bieniemy as HC? Maybe giving a division team TWO 3rd round picks makes them look in another direction?  How does that help the candidate get a job? It can go both ways. I know the league means well, but....

 

I honestly think teams just want the best guy for the job. I know there is some “who do you know” hiring, but I think we are evolving and  the smart teams go for the guy who helps them win. 

[QLBillsFan]

Yeah this is painful. Welcome to 2020 and it’s only gonna get worse. It is more of a need to get more potential candidates in coaching early. That creates a funnel and over time the best will get hired. Forcing it seems to be a disservice to those who have really earned it. Teams have incentive to win. They will get the best players and coaches regardless of color. 

[TBBills]

9 hours ago, matter2003 said:

 

Would that even count since he already has been a HC?

Yea b.c he obviously needed more time to develop...

[vtnatefootball11]

17 hours ago, PetermansRedemption said:

I Moreso think the team who does the hiring should get the picks, rather than the “developing team”. And it should apply to those who develop one internally and promote him to HC. Basically, if they really want to do this right, the team doing the hiring should get the comp picks. Not saying I agree or disagree with the initiative, but it’s idiotic as written. No surprise from the NFL. 

 

Yeah but that misses the root of the issue, that they aren't enough minorities in stepping stone positions to even be looked at as HC/GM candidates.  That's what this initiative is aimed at.  By awarding two 3rd rounders to teams that "develop" black candidates, the hope is teams will start hiring them more and more in the stepping stone positions (ie. coordinators and assistant GMs).  That's why you can't just award the team that hires the coach, it would happen too infrequently and be ineffective.  I agree the rule is idiotic the way it is by only awarding the development team though, as teams would then almost never hire a black gm/hc if it will give a division or conference rival two 3rd rounders.  That's why I suggested one 3rd rounder to each team.  

[DrDawkinstein]

17 hours ago, whatdrought said:

 

This goes back to where our discussion started - if it's systemic racism, then why is two 3's too much? If this is about minority candidates being passed over because of their skin color, and this rule will help solve it (or the Rooney rule, etc) why not make it first round picks? 

 

Its not systemic racism. Again, you are over-stating the problem. It's about teams not being willing to step out of their comfort zone when hiring assistants, and yes, some unconscious bias (which is much 'lighter" than systemic racism). That's it.

 

That is why I feel two 3s is too much. IMO, it should be something like one 4th or two 7ths. Just a slight nudge in the right direction. Not an all-out bribe.

[whatdrought]

10 minutes ago, DrDawkinstein said:

 

Its not systemic racism. Again, you are over-stating the problem. It's about teams not being willing to step out of their comfort zone when hiring assistants, and yes, some unconscious bias (which is much 'lighter" than systemic racism). That's it.

 

That is why I feel two 3s is too much. IMO, it should be something like one 4th or two 7ths. Just a slight nudge in the right direction. Not an all-out bribe.

But why is it about race? If it’s racist, conscious or unconscious, fix it... if it’s not then don’t make it about race. You can’t have that cake and eat it too. 
 

 

[DrDawkinstein]

3 minutes ago, whatdrought said:

But why is it about race? If it’s racist, conscious or unconscious, fix it... if it’s not then don’t make it about race. You can’t have that cake and eat it too. 
 

 

 

It has been proven that diversity for diversity's sake DOES help and improve organizations. By bringing in perspectives and ideas that would otherwise not be heard.

 

Addressing diversity does not equal addressing racism.

 

This is a much more nuanced issue than you are trying to portray it as. I dont know how else to explain it in the little amount of time I want to spend on it here.

[njbuff]

The NFL is trying too damn hard to show us that they care about anything other than their wallets.

 

Not going to work.

[Hapless Bills Fan]

17 minutes ago, whatdrought said:

But why is it about race? If it’s racist, conscious or unconscious, fix it... if it’s not then don’t make it about race. You can’t have that cake and eat it too.

 

Speaking as someone who has been there done that on both sides....your perception of the right "fix" to the problem is correct and your solution (fix that!) is the best.  The problem is,  how do you fix unconscious biases or get someone to discard them when hiring?  They're called "unconscious" for a reason!!!!

 

A lot of hiring decisions for higher positions really come down to perception, especially in high stress positions.  The Vice President of the division perceives someone as more of a leader, more of a motivator, and someone they're more comfortable working with, so they get promoted to Director then Senior Director.  Then when it comes to promote a Sr Director, there are 20 male Sr Directors to every female Sr Director.

Our perceptions of who has the "right stuff" are inevitably colored by our life experience as well as who we've worked with before.  It takes some conscious action and effort to break that cycle, and "diversity trainings" are well established not to "cut it"

 

It's the same principle as the well-known case where female membership in symphony orchestras suddenly skyrocketed when symphonies started conducting blind auditions, to the point of having the auditioners remove their shoes before entering the room and walk on a carpet.

 

Same thing x20 when coaches are hiring DCs or OCs.  It's a high stress high stakes situation and they want someone they know and feel comfortable with.  Who are they gonna turn to?  People they know and have worked with comfortably before. 

 

IMO handing out draft picks upon hiring is not going to change things (enough) and is likely to have unintended consequences.  One such has already been pointed out - what club wants to hand 2 3rd round picks to a rival by hiring away one of their OCs or DCs?  And even for 2 3rd round picks, a really good OC or DC is so critical to a club's success that the HC must hate to see them go.  Bill Belicheck has been ruthless about holding on to his guys if he can. 

What's really needed, seems to me, is some equivalent process to a "blind audition" where HCs who agree to go through this process when choosing their OCs and DCs or OCs and DCs who agree to go through it while choosing their assistants get a competitive benefit of some kind right then and there.

 

 

 

[whatdrought]

1 hour ago, DrDawkinstein said:

 

It has been proven that diversity for diversity's sake DOES help and improve organizations. By bringing in perspectives and ideas that would otherwise not be heard.

 

Addressing diversity does not equal addressing racism.

 

This is a much more nuanced issue than you are trying to portray it as. I dont know how else to explain it in the little amount of time I want to spend on it here.

Where has that been proven? The Rooney rule was built on the idea of forced, inorganic diversity and it clearly doesn’t work for its intended purposes or else this current rule wouldn’t be necessary. 
 

The problem is starting point:
 

You either believe that teams will do what is necessary to win, including innovation, in which case equality will be king.

 

Or you believe that there is a league wide problem with discrimination - either explicit or implicit (conscious or unconscious) in which case you need action. This is action. The problem is that it won’t work, like the Rooney rule didn’t.
 

So the question becomes, is this problem - this theory of systemic oppression (and they do believe it is systemic because they’re trying to chance the system to address it) of minority candidates actually a problem at all, and if so - how do half measures help anything? 
 

Let me take it past the hypothetical: do you believe minority candidates that are more qualified are passed over because of their race?

 

@Hapless Bills Fan - thanks for your response (not quoting to avoid length) - do you think there are minority candidates who are the best fit being passed over because of bias (conscious or unconscious)? And if this does happen regularly, why not offer teams 1st round picks to fix this? 
 

Doesn’t the argument exist that acknowledging the problem and making it clear that they believe this racism is happening, and then slapping a band aid on it make it much worse?

[DrDawkinstein]

1 hour ago, whatdrought said:

Where has that been proven? The Rooney rule was built on the idea of forced, inorganic diversity and it clearly doesn’t work for its intended purposes or else this current rule wouldn’t be necessary. 
 

 

I cant even get past your first short paragraph, so that's all I'm quoting.

 

There are a TON of stats and studies available that prove the value of diversity and the advantage it gives companies. A quick google gives us a good starting point here, scroll down to the "Diversity Facts and Statistics" section. Companies that promote diversity typically see higher profits, make better decisions, and stay ahead of their industry better. This is not a business secret. Anyone who is in a leadership role or has taken a leadership course already knows this.

 

To the bold: Wrong.

 

Again, again, and once more... this is NOT about hiring HEAD COACHES. The Rooney Rule is about Head Coaches. This is about hiring assistant coaches.

 

Two different rules covering two different things.

 

And the Rooney Rule worked. The data is there. It was established in 2003. By 2006, the percentage of black coaches was up to 22%, from 6% prior to the Rooney Rule.

 

You're looking to address this topic with a sledgehammer, but that's not how it works.

 

Edit: I'm only cutting you off there because I'm trying to get us on the same terms. Right now we arent even in the same library, let alone same book, let alone on the same page. You are talking about "systemic racism and oppression" and that is not what is going on here. Same with what this new initiative is even meant to address. Luckily, we have Hapless around who is taking the time to show those differences in a much better way.

 

Edited November 12, 2020 by DrDawkinstein

[Hapless Bills Fan]

10 minutes ago, whatdrought said:

Let me take it past the hypothetical: do you believe minority candidates that are more qualified are passed over because of their race?

 

@Hapless Bills Fan - thanks for your response (not quoting to avoid length) - do you think there are minority candidates who are the best fit being passed over because of bias (conscious or unconscious)?

 

Let me just take these points, and I'll put some effort in since this seems inclined to be a listening kind of conversation.  

 

I think that what's perceived as the "best fit" is influenced by a number of factors, including the biases of the decision maker.  I think this happens all the time, both in terms of race and of gender - but it's way more subtle than being able to say "because of their race" or "because of their sex".  It's like the story of the women auditioning for symphony orchestras.  The fact is, when auditions went blind, the hiring of women went up.  Why?

In this day and age, I don't believe that audition panels were sitting there saying "well, women just don't play as well" or "we should give the jobs to the men" or anything like that.  It's more like you have a list of your perceived "best fit" that includes, perhaps, a "strong, penetrating sound".  Then in your head is a lifetime of experiences and interactions that unconsciously have you associate "strong, penetrating sound" with males.  (You see what I did there, but hopefully it makes the point)

 

For coaches, part of the "best fit" is "guy I'm going to be able to reach with my directions midway through the season when we're both sleep-deprived and bruised in the ego because we got our butts kicked yesterday"; "guy I'm going to be able to hear without getting defensive when he calls me out on something I'm not doing well".  A lot of that comes down to - "guy I feel comfortable with" "guy I know well"

 

So then we go to - I'm going to bring up a book I read this off season, "NFL Confidential" by "Johnny Anonymous" (believed to be backup OLman David Molk who played for the Iggles).  He describes the guys playing together as brothers, he's sharing an apartment with a black guy on the OL -and yet there are still divisions where all the black players eat at one table and all the white players eat at another, not because they aren't brothers but that's just their comfort level.

 

Have you seen the same thing - maybe in a school cafeteria, or a parents' dinner at school?  It's usually not like there's any sort of explicit racism where the white students wouldn't accept a black student sitting with them, or the black parents would give the "cold shoulder" to a white parent who joined their table.  But they might not be too comfortable with it, either.  A lot of things go into it - shared background, shared comfort-level, shared experiences.  

 

The point is, it's much harder to take on than to say "are there minority candidates who are the best fit being passed over because of bias?".  Bias is part of how we define or perceive what MAKES the best fit.

[BillsShredder83]

1 hour ago, Hapless Bills Fan said:

 

Speaking as someone who has been there done that on both sides....your perception of the right "fix" to the problem is correct and your solution (fix that!) is the best.  The problem is,  how do you fix unconscious biases or get someone to discard them when hiring?  They're called "unconscious" for a reason!!!!

 

A lot of hiring decisions for higher positions really come down to perception, especially in high stress positions.  The Vice President of the division perceives someone as more of a leader, more of a motivator, and someone they're more comfortable working with, so they get promoted to Director then Senior Director.  Then when it comes to promote a Sr Director, there are 20 male Sr Directors to every female Sr Director.

Our perceptions of who has the "right stuff" are inevitably colored by our life experience as well as who we've worked with before.  It takes some conscious action and effort to break that cycle, and "diversity trainings" are well established not to "cut it"

 

It's the same principle as the well-known case where female membership in symphony orchestras suddenly skyrocketed when symphonies started conducting blind auditions, to the point of having the auditioners remove their shoes before entering the room and walk on a carpet.

 

Same thing x20 when coaches are hiring DCs or OCs.  It's a high stress high stakes situation and they want someone they know and feel comfortable with.  Who are they gonna turn to?  People they know and have worked with comfortably before. 

 

IMO handing out draft picks upon hiring is not going to change things (enough) and is likely to have unintended consequences.  One such has already been pointed out - what club wants to hand 2 3rd round picks to a rival by hiring away one of their OCs or DCs?  And even for 2 3rd round picks, a really good OC or DC is so critical to a club's success that the HC must hate to see them go.  Bill Belicheck has been ruthless about holding on to his guys if he can. 

What's really needed, seems to me, is some equivalent process to a "blind audition" where HCs who agree to go through this process when choosing their OCs and DCs or OCs and DCs who agree to go through it while choosing their assistants get a competitive benefit of some kind right then and there.

 

 

 

THIS IS A GREAT POST!!! this id argue is the much more common scenario then just "i dont like blacks".  man great job. youre onto something with the blind audition, just cant imagine how to take someone through that.  if you could get that process done right, it would strengthen teams hiring.

[Hapless Bills Fan]

21 minutes ago, BillsShredder83 said:

THIS IS A GREAT POST!!! this id argue is the much more common scenario then just "i dont like blacks".  man great job. youre onto something with the blind audition, just cant imagine how to take someone through that.  if you could get that process done right, it would strengthen teams hiring.

 

That's a great question: could there be a "blind audition" for coaching assistants?

 

I have some ideas, actually.  But truly, I think you need to start closer to the grass roots.  As I understand it, while they're very different fields, one problem is that coaching assistants often come from the ranks of very smart college players who just don't have the physical skills to make it in the pros.  

 

So they follow the path Sean McDermott took - they become a "graduate assistant" at the college ranks, which pays little to nothing.  Then they may become a low-level coaching or scouting assistant in the pros, which again, pays little to nothing.  Then they work their way up the ranks.  To survive, a lot of these guys are probably getting some "extramural financial aid", maybe not in the form of the family paying them but helping them out with gifts of a functional car, a phone, maybe health insurance or medical bills - or in the form of an employed spouse.  Strangely enough, there's a similar problem in academic science where graduate students pursuing PhDs work for 4-8 years on minimal stipends, and that's something talented minorities without family support just can't afford to do vs. pursuing a real job with real medical insurance and enough $$ to buy a car.  Science, football, shared problems, Go Figure.

 

It seems to me that one precursor to increase the pool of qualified minority candidates for coordinator positions, is to start fellowships for minority graduate assistants and low level coaching and scouting assistants, to help give them a foot in the door and provide them with mentorship. The mentorship would be key, because it helps build that shared experience and shared interests.  Then where they take that "foot" is up to their own legs.

I don't like most "affirmative action" initiatives, not because I don't see the need but because I regard them as too little, too late and not addressing the fundamental underlying problems.

[BillsShredder83]

20 minutes ago, Hapless Bills Fan said:

 

Let me just take these points, and I'll put some effort in since this seems inclined to be a listening kind of conversation.  

 

I think that what's perceived as the "best fit" is influenced by a number of factors, including the biases of the decision maker.  I think this happens all the time, both in terms of race and of gender - but it's way more subtle than being able to say "because of their race" or "because of their sex".  It's like the story of the women auditioning for symphony orchestras.  The fact is, when auditions went blind, the hiring of women went up.  Why?

In this day and age, I don't believe that audition panels were sitting there saying "well, women just don't play as well" or "we should give the jobs to the men" or anything like that.  It's more like you have a list of your perceived "best fit" that includes, perhaps, a "strong, penetrating sound".  Then in your head is a lifetime of experiences and interactions that unconsciously have you associate "strong, penetrating sound" with males.  (You see what I did there, but hopefully it makes the point)

 

For coaches, part of the "best fit" is "guy I'm going to be able to reach with my directions midway through the season when we're both sleep-deprived and bruised in the ego because we got our butts kicked yesterday"; "guy I'm going to be able to hear without getting defensive when he calls me out on something I'm not doing well".  A lot of that comes down to - "guy I feel comfortable with" "guy I know well"

 

So then we go to - I'm going to bring up a book I read this off season, "NFL Confidential" by "Johnny Anonymous" (believed to be backup OLman David Molk who played for the Iggles).  He describes the guys playing together as brothers, he's sharing an apartment with a black guy on the OL -and yet there are still divisions where all the black players eat at one table and all the white players eat at another, not because they aren't brothers but that's just their comfort level.

 

Have you seen the same thing - maybe in a school cafeteria, or a parents' dinner at school?  It's usually not like there's any sort of explicit racism where the white students wouldn't accept a black student sitting with them, or the black parents would give the "cold shoulder" to a white parent who joined their table.  But they might not be too comfortable with it, either.  A lot of things go into it - shared background, shared comfort-level, shared experiences.  

 

The point is, it's much harder to take on than to say "are there minority candidates who are the best fit being passed over because of bias?".  Bias is part of how we define or perceive what MAKES the best fit.

Also great stuff.  Hard to figure out hot to fix it, or even if that experience needs to be fixed.  in the hiring process, yes, it needs work, but the table kind of examples.... is that really wrong or broken? hard to say

[Hapless Bills Fan]

9 minutes ago, BillsShredder83 said:

Also great stuff.  Hard to figure out hot to fix it, or even if that experience needs to be fixed.  in the hiring process, yes, it needs work, but the table kind of examples.... is that really wrong or broken? hard to say

 

Yeah, it's a fair question "is it really wrong or broken"?  I mean, we all choose our friends, the people we feel "akin" with, "click" with, want to spend time with?  What's wrong with that?  And the answer is "nothing, until it feeds into "fate-control decisions" (in the corporate lingo) where you tap people who you feel "akin" to and recognize as people you're comfortable with.   

 

That's where objective standards and "blinding" of interviews is a big help.

 

In an ideal world, we would each push ourselves a bit to broaden our experience and reach out to people who are different, at least to the point where we can understand that "after all, we're all fruit" ("My Big Fat Greek Wedding")