GunnerBill Posted March 10 Share Posted March 10 7 minutes ago, mannc said: The bold is why I believe the policy has never been legally challenged. Who would actually have legal standing to challenge it? Not an easy hurdle to overcome, but the policy is discriminatory on its face. Yea you would need someone actually discriminated against to have standing to challenge it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mannc Posted March 10 Share Posted March 10 1 minute ago, GunnerBill said: Yea you would need someone actually discriminated against to have standing to challenge it. Government agencies like the EEOC could challenge it without having to worry about standing, but that is highly unlikely, for a number of reasons. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HappyDays Posted March 10 Share Posted March 10 (edited) 19 minutes ago, mannc said: The policy is discriminatory on its face: Black coaches are given preferential treatment on the basis of their race...Teams that hire and develop them get rewarded if someone else hires them and that's not the case with white coaches. You have to really squint your eyes to find preferential treatment here. By shifting the reward from the team that hires the black coach to the team that loses them, the NFL has avoided this problem entirely. Quite brilliantly IMO - as evidenced by the fact that some people still grumble about the policy, but no one is shouting from the rooftops. They have protected their own legal interests, and have given minority employees some measure of deference, and have managed to piss off the least amount of people, all while navigating the most contentious political topic this side of abortion. In business terms they have scored a perfect 10. Edited March 10 by HappyDays 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mannc Posted March 10 Share Posted March 10 1 minute ago, HappyDays said: You have to really squint your eyes to find preferential treatment here. By shifting the reward from the team that hires the black coach to the team that loses them, the NFL has avoided this problem entirely. Quite brilliantly IMO - as evidenced by the fact that some people still grumble about the policy, but no one is shouting from the rooftops. They have protected their own legal interests, and have given minority employees some measure of deference, while managing to piss off the least amount of people. In business terms they have scored a perfect 10. I don't agree with the bold part--I think the preferential treatment is explicit and obvious--but I agree that the league has done a good job of threading the needle, both legally and from a PR standpoint. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GunnerBill Posted March 10 Share Posted March 10 1 minute ago, mannc said: Government agencies like the EEOC could challenge it without having to worry about standing, but that is highly unlikely, for a number of reasons. But they would still have to demonstrate that it is actually having a discriminatory effect. And I am not sure how they could. It is not, at the moment, damaging white coaches. It is damaging teams with white coaches and a team is not a legal person so can't be discriminated against on the basis of race. I don't rule out you could get to that point in due course if you have evidence of teams systematically seeking to "game the system" by promoting less experienced and prima facie less suitable black candidates into those pipeline positions I mentioned earlier of more qualified / suitable white counter parts. Of course the Flores law suit alleged that is essentially what happens now with white candidates preferred but that is a very hard fight to win. One person's over promoted newbie is another person's young high flier. Demeco Ryans was promoted quickly. Nobody is arguing he wasn't deserving. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ChronicAndKnuckles Posted March 10 Share Posted March 10 1 hour ago, mannc said: I don't agree with the bold part--I think the preferential treatment is explicit and obvious--but I agree that the league has done a good job of threading the needle, both legally and from a PR standpoint. Teams who draft white corner backs should receive a free 1st round compensation pick. Change my mind 1 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
beebe Posted March 11 Share Posted March 11 The NFL has acknowledged an error in their compensatory pick awarding process. They've now awarded a 3rd rounder. To...the Bengals. https://www.nbcsports.com/nfl/profootballtalk/rumor-mill/news/nfl-revises-2024-compensatory-draft-picks 1 3 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TBBills Fan Posted March 11 Share Posted March 11 2 minutes ago, beebe said: The NFL has acknowledged an error in their compensatory pick awarding process. They've now awarded a 3rd rounder. To...the Bengals. https://www.nbcsports.com/nfl/profootballtalk/rumor-mill/news/nfl-revises-2024-compensatory-draft-picks Mother ***** 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BrooklynBills Posted March 11 Share Posted March 11 On 3/10/2024 at 3:54 PM, HappyDays said: Someone would have to show a measurable negative impact on the hiring of white coaches to prove legal discrimination. I highly doubt any negative impact exists. I think the NFL came up with the most elegant solution they could. It is a fact that a league dominated by black players, and heavily biased towards former players as coaches, was somehow heavily imbalanced in favor of white coaches. The math didn't make sense. Still the NFL couldn't outright reward teams for hiring black coaches and GMs because the optics would have been terrible. So they have begun rewarding teams for developing and supporting their minority coaches for career advancement. To me two 3rd round comp picks is too rich of a reward but the concept makes sense and does not constitute discrimination. The NFL in fact was faced with the prospect of a real discrimination lawsuit if they didn't institute a policy like this. I think part of the reasoning here was also to prevent minority hires from becoming a way to accrue extra draft picks which could easily be something that teams exploited. The main argument that teams/owners typically provided for the disparity in minority coaching hires was experience (either playcalling/coordinating/or at the player personnel level). The best solution isn't to incentivize teams to hire minorities for high level positions. Its to develop minority coaches into qualified candidates. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SydneyBillsFan Posted March 11 Share Posted March 11 Heck, why not just shove it up my arse with no lube Goodell. Or does that get the Pats a comp pick too. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Goin Breakdown Posted March 12 Share Posted March 12 This just seems like hot potato. The team that had the hired minority coach last, gets the credit for developing the coach, disregarding the fact that the coach was probably on many teams moving up the ladder? i always thought it was rewarded to the team that hired the coach. Not the first time I was wrong. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BarleyNY Posted March 18 Share Posted March 18 https://overthecap.com/evaluation-of-the-2024-compensatory-picks-projection For anyone interested, linked is Over The Cap’s self-evaluation of their Compensatory Draft Pick projections. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
schoolhouserock Posted March 18 Share Posted March 18 5 minutes ago, BarleyNY said: https://overthecap.com/evaluation-of-the-2024-compensatory-picks-projection For anyone interested, linked is Over The Cap’s self-evaluation of their Compensatory Draft Pick projections. It is still clear as mud! 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
T master Posted March 20 Share Posted March 20 For a player to leave the Bills to get a huge contract then play just about every single snap for the team he went to all year the Bills got hosed on them getting a 4th round pick for him . Especially seeing as tiger might have some input and being from the area . It seems the Bills almost always get the short end of the stick with this kind of thing ! I wonder what the Pats got in BB's time with them in the same scenario probably a 2nd rounder . 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GunnerBill Posted March 20 Share Posted March 20 On 3/18/2024 at 4:39 PM, schoolhouserock said: It is still clear as mud! Yea he seems to understand how everything else worked out but still be confused on how the 9ers (Jimmy G) and the Bills (Edmunds) didn't get 3rd rounders. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Call_Of_Ktulu Posted March 20 Share Posted March 20 On 3/8/2024 at 3:02 PM, Udubalum07 said: Obviously San Fran has this figured out a lot better than the bills. They have a 3rd, 4th, 5th, and 6th. And a totally stacked team talent wise. Something is just not making sense. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SoonerBillsFan Posted March 20 Share Posted March 20 On 3/10/2024 at 3:26 PM, mannc said: Government agencies like the EEOC could challenge it without having to worry about standing, but that is highly unlikely, for a number of reasons. The EEOC is worthless. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.