Why Is It?

[1gap2gap]

Everytime a quailified assistent minority coach is being interviewed everbody automaticaly says its just a Rooney Rule pick? I guess my question to those on this board that feel that way--- is it because you don't feel that they are quailfied in the first place to warrent an interview. And if you think that about them, would you hire them anyway? Or is it because they are interviewed and are not picked?

 

If they are not picked does it automaticaly mean that the owner or GM is a racist pig and that is the only reason the Qualified enough to get an interview assistant minority coach--- was brought in to interview in the first place---- was NOT to hire him?

 

 

So I guess everybody who interviews a minority a coach is only doing it because they are a racist. Anybody that hires a minority coach did it because they were forced to--- and they are racist. And anybody that fires a minority coach only hired that coach in the first place to prove to the football world that they were right and that every minority coach is dumb. So they sign him to a million dollor contract a year just to prove their point. I don't think so!

 

I just wanted to make sure I understand the thinking of the people on the board who are upset and think the Rooney Rule is a joke. Personally for me if I'm hiring a coach I hire the one I think can make my franchise a winner and can handle the ups and downs of the position. I interview anybody that is refered to me by the people I know in the business and I don't waste my time or money on token interviews. I suspect that most if not all of the owners and GM's feel the same way.

 

Detroit thought they had thier coach and hired him. I do not believe that makes them racist. Maybe stupid because if they had gone through the process they might not have had to fire the guy. But they are not racist for hiring the guy they thought that they wanted and would do the job.

 

Good teams that are trying to make good decisions will use the process that is in place. And if they do then just maybe then they won't have to fire the coach they hired so quickly.

 

The teams that are not true to the process will be punished by hiring bad coaches and having loosing teams.

 

The Bills are taking their time and it is frustrating but I think and hope that in the long run they will pick the right coach that can turn this team around. I just hope that if they do not pick a minority coach that you guys won't go nuts on this board with the garbage about minority hiring and token Rooney Rule interviews. Believe me it makes no sense to do token interviews. It cost too much money and waste too much time especially for two over 80 year old guys.

[PromoTheRobot]

In this case it's because eveyone knows the Bills already have narrowed down their choice to 2 white guys. If minority candidates are interviewed early, then I think they are legitimate. When they come at the end of the process, especially after the press has "leaked" who a team is most interested in, then it's usually a charade.

 

PTR

[1gap2gap]

In this case it's because eveyone knows the Bills already have narrowed down their choice to 2 white guys.  If minority candidates are interviewed early, then I think they are legitimate.  When they come at the end of the process, especially after the press has "leaked" who a team is most interested in, then it's usually a charade.

 

PTR

576519[/snapback]

 

 

I rest my case. Your everthing I thought you would be.

[Fake-Fat Sunny]

Everytime a quailified assistent minority coach is being interviewed everbody automaticaly says its just a Rooney Rule pick?  I guess my question to those on this board that feel that way--- is it because you don't feel that they are quailfied in the first place to warrent an interview.  And if you think that about them, would you hire them anyway?  Or is it because they are interviewed and are not picked?

 

If they are not picked does it automaticaly mean that the owner or GM is a racist pig and that is the only reason the Qualified enough to get an interview assistant minority coach--- was brought in to interview in the first place---- was NOT to hire him?

So I guess everybody who interviews a minority a coach is only doing it because they are a racist.  Anybody that hires a minority coach did it because they were forced to--- and they are racist.  And anybody that fires a minority coach only hired that coach in the first place to prove to the football world that they were right and that every minority coach is dumb.  So they sign him to a million dollor contract a year just to prove their point.  I don't think so!

 

I just wanted to make sure I understand the thinking of the people on the board who are upset and think the Rooney Rule is a joke.  Personally for me if I'm hiring a coach I hire the one I think can make my franchise a winner and can handle the ups and downs of the position.  I interview anybody that is refered to me by the people I know in the business and I don't waste my time or money on token interviews.  I suspect that most if not all of the owners and GM's feel the same way. 

 

Detroit thought they had thier coach and hired him.  I do not believe that makes them racist.  Maybe stupid because if they had gone through the process they might not have had to fire the guy. But they are not racist for hiring the guy they thought that they wanted and would do the job.

 

Good teams that are trying to make good decisions will use the process that is in place. And if they do then just maybe then they won't have to fire the coach they hired so quickly.

 

The teams that are not true to the process will be punished by hiring bad coaches and having loosing teams.

 

The Bills are taking their time and it is frustrating but I think and hope that in the long run they will pick the right coach that can turn this team around.  I just hope that if they do not pick a minority coach that you guys won't go nuts on this board with the garbage about minority hiring and token Rooney Rule interviews.  Believe me it makes no sense  to do token interviews. It cost too much money and waste too much time especially for two over 80 year old guys. 

576512[/snapback]

 

I think the mistake that most people seem to make (a mistake which is fostered by how out society seems to operate) is to assume that there is ONE (and only 1) reason which is correct for describing folks motivations.

 

I know very little for sure, but the thing which I am pretty certain is correct is:

 

1. Different people have different motivations-

 

Rather than there merely being one central factor that motivates everybody, different folks do what they do for different reasons. Some of these reasons are good (IMHO) and some of these reasons are bad (IMHO) and they run all up an down the scale.

 

Even worse, some folks may share the exact same motivation but do very different things prompted by the same motivation.

 

Folks seem to post as though there is only a right reason and a wrong reason to explain a particular action but it is simply far more nuanced than that. Internet posters in particular (and both doctrinaire Repubs who worship Rush Limbaugh and doctrinaire liberals who worship Rev. Jester Jackson seem to make the false assumption and take the easy way out of assuming and arguing that their opponents are simply at least stupid and probably evil).

 

Folks lose a sense of reality and take the easy way out by not recognizing nuance.

 

2. The other big error that folks seem to make is to assume that there is merely one motivation for others, when actually the reasons and rationales motivating folks are usually complex and what a doctor of my lovely wife (explaining her illness) would describe as multi-factorial.

 

The answer to you question of why is it is that folks generally want to take the easy way out and either fail to realize or grapple with the fact even their opponents share a lot of things in common with them.

 

For me, despite the certainty which this post may imply, I feel that any leg up that I have is not because I know everything (my wife assures me I do not know much at all and thank gosh she is there to fill in my many gaps) but actually the great thing which makes me feel more secure is that I know pretty well what I do not know.

 

Folks like Rev. Pat Robertson and Mayor Ray Nagin for example seem to claim that they know exactly what GOD thinks and why he sends hurricanes to New Orleasns or will send them to PA.

 

I know I really have no firm clue about what GOD thinks and ultimately what really is right in this life and really is wrong.

 

However, the good news for me is that I know when I woke up today (a true necesary victory and if you blow this one it will be a very bad day for you). From this grand start, my job is to take another breath and to try to put one foot in front of the other.

 

In order to do this, I make a lot of assumptions about what in fact is right in this life and what is wrong.

 

However, though I make these assumptions I am not foolish enough to actually believe that what I think is right it totallty correct and what I think is wrong is totally incorrect.

 

 

For me life at its best is about discovery and both Rush Limbaugh and the Jester have many things that I can learn from them about what is right and what is wrong.

 

This general view applies to your specific question about the Rooney Rule in that I think the starting point is one of a declaration of a major flaw in the NFL and its hiring practices. the starting point is the recognition that the status quo of HC hiring is unfair and cannot stand.

 

The difficulty is the question of how you reverse this unfairness without also be unfair to those who benefited from the past inequality.

 

The Rooney rule strikes me as a good attempt to address this bad situation by offering up opportunites for discriminated classes by mandating interviews rather than trying to balance off past unfairness with future unfairness of a quota system.

 

To date, since the Rooney rule and programs were created it seems to have resulted in increased hiring of HCs of A-A descent and the really good news (which may b coincidence but the facts are what they are) significant hirings of A-As have been some of the best HCs measuring by W/L (specifically Marvin Lewis and Lovie Smith have led their teams to far better records than they produced in the past).

 

These results coupled with performances like Tony Dungy getting a second shot was HC of a quality performing team, Herm Edwards though troubled this year with NYJ's QB injuries made the playoffs under him and going back to Art Shell breaking the barrier he was not rehired despite producing a clear winning record and leading his team to the playoffs.

 

The events on the ground have made it impossible for opponents of the Rooney rule to argue that the focus on righting past wrongs and unfairness to A-As has diminished the quality of the HC pool.

 

Instead folks atttack the Rooney rule based on their own really inaccurate or quite false descriptions of the motivations behind it (for example some try to claim that the goals of the program are to and will be achived when the racial demographics of HCs are the same as those of America. This is bad statistics. the Rooney rule does not seek to make A-A HCs equal to the number of A-A's in America (just above 10%) it seeks to move the total number toward the % of players of A-A descent in the league.

 

There is no hard and fast number which is success as the pool of A-A former players is not the same as the pool of qualified A-A candidates for HC.

 

However, it was pretty clear to all the partners who make up pro football (the NFL and NFLPA essentially) that having 2 or 3 of 30 HC's being of A-A descent in no way equalled the pool of viable candidates which the former players provided.

 

The Rooney rule is a real step forward IMHO because it adopted a program based on opportunity (enforced interviews) rather than mechanistically mandated quotas. it also set this program up for success and immediate action for those willing to take advantage of them from the aggrieved group through A-A coaching internships which had the effect of improving the talents of the A-A pool and inserting them into the good ol' boy network which has essentially driven NFL hiring decisions.

 

In general I think the answer to your question as to why folks attack this program are multifactorial.

 

1. Some attack it because they are doctrinaire liberals who are only satisfied by quota systems which do not produce good results at all in my view.

 

2. Some attack it because they are doctrinaire conservatives who are only satisfied by maintaining the status quo regardless of how unfair the results are because in general they benefit from the status quo (privilege for their demographic group though they fail to see it because they simply assume this is normal.

 

3. In general, I think folks are insecure and really a bit frightened by things they lack knowledge of and the fear that if they are disadvantaged at all (or do not get an advantage) they will die or not get something and be unhappy.

 

There of course in my view are different and a million other reasons to answer the question why, but this is my cut on the answer to your question. It may be disagreed with by some (I look foeward to learning from any responses they give) and simply out to sleep others because of my inarticulation or because they are stupid.

 

It takes all kinds in this world and that is part of the reason the world is near from my perspective.

[Draconator]

I would tend to believe that if a African-American, Hispanic, whatever his nation or origin might be, that his qualifications would far outweigh the color of his skin. This rule is nothing more than a Paul Tagliabue over reaction. A few criticised the NFL, and their lack of minority head coaches, and the NFL put in this rule, for nothing more than to appease those speaking out (which again, are in the minority). This embarasses the NFL, and those who are interviewed late in the process.

 

Who here doesn't believe that Lofton went into the interview in Buffalo thinking to himself, "I'm nothing more than a fulfillment to a rule"?

[1gap2gap]

I would tend to believe that if a African-American, Hispanic, whatever his nation or origin might be, that his qualifications would far outweigh the color of his skin.  This rule is nothing more than a Paul Tagliabue over reaction.  A few criticised the NFL, and their lack of minority head coaches, and the NFL put in this rule, for nothing more than to appease those speaking out (which again, are in the minority).  This embarasses the NFL, and those who are interviewed late in the process. 

 

Who here doesn't believe that Lofton went into the interview in Buffalo thinking to himself, "I'm nothing more than a fulfillment to a rule"?

576589[/snapback]

 

I guess the question I have, What makes everbody think that because Lofton is being interviewd that it is for The HC job. I'm sure Lofton was told up front what job he was being interviewed for HC, OC or any other. He has the right to choose if he wants to be included in the interview procees or not.

 

If you are a monority coach and the Bills contact you- you just ask for what position are you interested in interviewing me for. If you do not like the answer or feel it is a token interview then you have the right to say no. It's as simple as that. Maybe just maybe Lofton is being interview for one of the other positions. My qusetion then is it a token interview then?

[1gap2gap]

I think the mistake that most people seem to make (a mistake which is fostered by how out society seems to operate) is to assume that there is ONE (and only 1) reason which is correct for describing folks motivations.

 

I know very little for sure, but the thing which I am pretty certain is correct is:

 

1. Different people have different motivations-

 

Rather than there merely being one central factor that motivates everybody, different folks do what they do for different reasons.  Some of these reasons are good (IMHO) and some of these reasons are bad (IMHO) and they run all up an down the scale.

 

Even worse, some folks may share the exact same motivation but do very different things prompted by the same motivation.

 

Folks seem to post as though there is only a right reason and a wrong reason to explain a particular action but it is simply far more nuanced than that.  Internet posters in particular (and both doctrinaire Repubs who worship Rush Limbaugh and doctrinaire liberals who worship Rev. Jester Jackson seem to make the false assumption and take the easy way out of assuming and arguing that their opponents are simply at least stupid and probably evil).

 

Folks lose a sense of reality and take the easy way out by not recognizing nuance.

 

2. The other big error that folks seem to make is to assume that there is merely one motivation for others, when actually the reasons and rationales motivating folks are usually complex and what a doctor of my lovely wife (explaining her illness) would describe as multi-factorial.

 

The answer to you question of why is it is that folks generally want to take the easy way out and either fail to realize or grapple with the fact even their opponents share a lot of things in common with them.

 

For me, despite the certainty which this post may imply, I feel that any leg up that I have is not because I know everything (my wife assures me I do not know much at all and thank gosh she is there to fill in my many gaps) but actually the great thing which makes me feel more secure is that I know pretty well what I do not know.

 

Folks like Rev. Pat Robertson and Mayor Ray Nagin for example seem to claim that they know exactly what GOD thinks  and why he sends hurricanes to New Orleasns or will send them to PA.

 

I know I really have no firm clue about what GOD thinks and ultimately what really is right in this life and really is wrong.

 

However, the good news for me is that I know when I woke up today (a true necesary victory and if you blow this one it will be a very bad day for you).  From this grand start, my job is to take another breath and to try to put one foot in front of the other.

 

In order to do this, I make a lot of assumptions about what in fact is right in this life and what is wrong.

 

However, though I make these assumptions I am not foolish enough to actually believe that what I think is right it totallty correct  and what I think is wrong is totally incorrect.

For me life at its best is about discovery and both Rush Limbaugh and the Jester have many things that I can learn from them about what is right and what is wrong.

 

This general view applies to your specific question about the Rooney Rule in that I think the starting point is one of a declaration of a major flaw in the NFL and its hiring practices. the starting point is the recognition that the status quo of HC hiring is unfair and cannot stand.

 

The difficulty is the question of how you reverse this unfairness without also be unfair to those who benefited from the past inequality.

 

The Rooney rule strikes me as a good attempt to address this bad situation by offering up opportunites for discriminated classes by mandating interviews rather than trying to balance off past unfairness with future unfairness of a quota system.

 

To date, since the Rooney rule and programs were created it seems to have resulted in increased hiring of HCs of A-A descent and the really good news (which may b coincidence but the facts are what they are) significant hirings of A-As have been some of the best HCs measuring by W/L (specifically Marvin Lewis and Lovie Smith have led their teams to far better records than they produced in the past). 

 

These results coupled with performances like Tony Dungy getting a second shot was HC of a quality performing team, Herm Edwards though troubled this year with NYJ's QB injuries made the playoffs under him and going back to Art Shell breaking the barrier he was not rehired despite producing a clear winning record and leading his team to the playoffs.

 

The events on the ground have made it impossible for opponents of the Rooney rule to argue that the focus on righting past wrongs and unfairness to A-As has diminished the quality of the HC pool.

 

Instead folks atttack the Rooney rule based on their own really inaccurate or quite false descriptions of the motivations behind it (for example some try to claim that the goals of the program are to and will be achived when the racial demographics of HCs are the same as those of America.  This is bad statistics.  the Rooney rule does not seek to make A-A HCs equal to the number of A-A's in America (just above 10%) it seeks to move the total number toward the % of players of A-A descent in the league.

 

There is no hard and fast number which is success as the pool of A-A former players is not the same as the pool of qualified A-A candidates for HC.

 

However, it was pretty clear to all the partners who make up pro football (the NFL and NFLPA essentially) that having 2 or 3 of 30 HC's being of A-A descent in no way equalled the pool of viable candidates which the former players provided.

 

The Rooney rule is a real step forward IMHO because it adopted a program based on opportunity (enforced interviews) rather than mechanistically mandated quotas.  it also set this program up for success and immediate action for those willing to take advantage of them from the aggrieved group through A-A coaching internships which had the effect of improving the talents of the A-A pool and inserting them into the good ol' boy network which has essentially driven NFL hiring decisions.

 

In general I think the answer to your question as to why folks attack this program are multifactorial.

 

1. Some attack it because they are doctrinaire liberals who are only satisfied by quota systems which do not produce good results at all in my view.

 

2. Some attack it because they are doctrinaire conservatives who are only satisfied by maintaining the status quo regardless of how unfair the results are because in general they benefit from the status quo (privilege for their demographic group though they fail to see it because they simply assume this is normal.

 

3. In general, I think folks are insecure and really a bit frightened by things they lack knowledge of and the fear that if they are disadvantaged at all (or do not get an advantage) they will die or not get something and be unhappy.

 

There of course in my view are different and a million other reasons to answer the question why, but this is my cut on the answer to your question.  It may be disagreed with by some (I look foeward to learning from any responses they give) and simply out to sleep others because of my inarticulation or because they are stupid.

 

It takes all kinds in this world and that is part of the reason the world is near from my perspective.

576582[/snapback]

 

A well thought out answer

[Fake-Fat Sunny]

In this case it's because eveyone knows the Bills already have narrowed down their choice to 2 white guys.  If minority candidates are interviewed early, then I think they are legitimate.  When they come at the end of the process, especially after the press has "leaked" who a team is most interested in, then it's usually a charade.

 

PTR

576519[/snapback]

 

The results of the impacts of the Rooney Rule are actually too early to tell for sure in my view, but the intial results look pretty good.

 

1. While the # of HC's of A-A descent is still no where near the size of the pool of likely qualified candidates due in strong part to a majority of the current and recent players being of A-A descent (this is no certaininty of quality but is a significant factor in the number A-As in the hiring pool who are potentially qualified) there has been a significant increase in the number of A-A HCs.

 

It is not hard to improve on there only being a couple of A-A HC' s but the current number (around 6 or so I think) is a notable increase since there are only 32 HC jobs in the world.

 

The results are greatly aided by the most recent hires Marvin Lewis and Lovie Smith producing such good results when one looks at the W/Ls in the recent past and this year of their teams.

 

One can make a credible case of success.

 

2. It is a mistake to view any "token" interviews as being purely a bad thing. True they do not result in the hiring of HC's of A-A descent

 

(the goal of the program rather those who falsely attempt to claim it is designed to create an HC pool which looks like America- while its nice when qualified Asian-Americans like a Norm Chow get the jobs they deserve, the Rooney Rule is designed to balance a recent past NFL history of discrimination against the racial group that composes a majorioty of NFL players. Though hiring a Norm Chow is nice if he is qualified hiring him might make the NFL HC pool look like America but

so would hiring 17 women as HCs and that is not the point of this program).

 

The reason why even "token" interviews are good (though again they are far from perfect) is that they introduce an A-A candidate into the good ol network by which HC hiring is generally done in the real world.

 

In some cases. this actually appears to result in HC hiring. As best as I can tell, Lovie Smith got fasttracked in a way he certainly would not have without the Rooney rule and his getting a foot in the door allowed him to impress the Bear's braintrust and got him a job.

 

While some folks seem to view getting a job this way as being suspect, looking at the support which unquestioned conservative actors like Condi Rice or Colin Powell give to affirmative action programs like the Rooney rule, this is not a problem at all for folks who have seen members of their racial demographic group suffer from years of discrimination.

 

Even a token interview can have the effect of giving a player like James Lofton a foot in the door and he will get a chance to demonstrate to an NFL hirer what he can do. If he chooses to pursue a coaching track and gets a "token" interview as HC of the Bills it will be easier for him to get a "real" interview to be the OC or WR coach elsewhere. If he gets and does well at a position coach or coordinator job then he has the resume to become an HC eventually.

 

So though I see the token interviews as flawed I do not see them as totally bad.

[Fake-Fat Sunny]

I would tend to believe that if a African-American, Hispanic, whatever his nation or origin might be, that his qualifications would far outweigh the color of his skin.  This rule is nothing more than a Paul Tagliabue over reaction.  A few criticised the NFL, and their lack of minority head coaches, and the NFL put in this rule, for nothing more than to appease those speaking out (which again, are in the minority).  This embarasses the NFL, and those who are interviewed late in the process. 

 

Who here doesn't believe that Lofton went into the interview in Buffalo thinking to himself, "I'm nothing more than a fulfillment to a rule"?

576589[/snapback]

 

Unfortunately the recent history of the NFL has simply not been that the quality of your work and character easily outweigh the color of your skin.

 

1. Until the late 80s (actually the early 90s until it became routine) virtually all NFL teams refused to employ players of A-A descent as QBs in this league.

 

It was actually the Bills making use of Marlin Briscoe at QB way back when who broke this barrier but it took the work of James Harris and accomplishments of Doug Williams as SB MVP to show how stupid and against the interest of winning football games this was.

 

By the mid 90s it became routine for their to be A-A QBs and folks like McNair and McNabb have led their teams to SBs from the QB position. However, the history of players of A-A descent being barred from this job is statisitically clear. The sudden change where now it is routine speaks to this past behavior as not being driven by the skills of A-A players to play and do well at QB.

 

2. The recemt past and current number of HCs of A-A descent particularly compared to the likely size of the pool of qualifed HCs candidates who happen to be A-A (this number is built by a majority of recent players being A-A and though being a former player does not mean you will or want to be a good HC, clearly the hiring pool of qualified candidates is larger than the 20% of current HCs who are of A-A descent or the recent days where there were only a couple of A-A HCs prior to the Rooney rule.

 

In general, it appears to me looking from outside that rather than A-A folks looking at getting an interview as happening "just because they are A-A" they look at it the same way that conservative activists like Condi Rice or Colin Powell view affirmative action efforts (which they are on record supporting generally).

 

These "token interviews" get their foot in the door so they can demonstrate what they can do. They are a chance to get into the good ol' boy network which has made unfair hiring decisions in the past based on who you know rather than what you know.

 

The "token" interviews will almost certainly not result in Lofton getting an HC job, but they can put him on a track to build a relationship with an HFL hirer that gets him a position coach or coordinator job.

 

If he does well with these this can be a fast track to an HC job.

 

I think the token interviews help the process and can get folks an opportunity they would not have gotten under past discriminatory MFL hiring processes.

[Draconator]

Unfortunately the recent history of the NFL has simply not been that the quality of your work and character easily outweigh the color of your skin.

 

1. Until the late 80s (actually the early 90s until it became routine) virtually all NFL teams refused to employ players of A-A descent as QBs in this league.

 

It was actually the Bills making use of Marlin Briscoe at QB way back when who broke this barrier but it took the work of James Harris and accomplishments of Doug Williams as SB MVP to show how stupid and against the interest of winning football games this was.

 

By the mid 90s it became routine for their to be A-A QBs and folks like McNair and McNabb have led their teams to SBs from the QB position.  However, the history of players of A-A descent being barred from this job is statisitically clear.  The sudden change where now it is routine speaks to this past behavior as not being driven by the skills of A-A players to play and do well at QB.

 

2. The recemt past and current number of HCs of A-A descent particularly compared to the likely size of the pool of qualifed HCs candidates who happen to be A-A (this number is built by a majority of recent players being A-A and though being a former player does not mean you will or want to be a good HC, clearly the hiring pool of qualified candidates is larger than the 20% of current HCs who are of A-A descent or the recent days where there were only a couple of A-A HCs prior to the Rooney rule.

 

In general, it appears to me looking from outside that rather than A-A folks looking at getting an interview as happening "just because they are A-A" they look at it the same way that conservative activists like Condi Rice or Colin Powell view affirmative action efforts (which they are on record supporting generally).

 

These "token interviews" get their foot in the door so they can demonstrate what they can do.  They are a chance to get into the good ol' boy network which has made unfair hiring decisions in the past based on who you know rather than what you know.

 

The "token" interviews will almost certainly not result in Lofton getting an HC job, but they can put him on a track to build a relationship with an HFL hirer that gets him a position coach or coordinator job.

 

If he does well with these this can be a fast track to an HC job.

 

I think the token interviews help the process and can get folks an opportunity they would not have gotten under past discriminatory MFL hiring processes.

576633[/snapback]

 

This are all very good point. Something I probably should have thought of.

[crazyDingo]

As long as they dont hire the Irish.