Fake-Fat Sunny Posted January 26, 2006 Share Posted January 26, 2006 Bob DiCeasare wrote an interesting columni n the Buffalo News today which can be found at this web link > http://www.buffalonews.com/editorial/20060125/1054393.asp < In the column h summarizes the results achieved by the NFL through use of the Rooney rule which requires teams to interview at least one African-American for HC. The article basically takes the opinion through DiCeasare's cut and quotes from a diversity activist with the Fritz Pollard Alliance that the Rooney rule has suceeded so far in that people of A0A descent are in fact getting inteviews and even multiple interviews which is a vast improvement in folks at least getting a shot compared to days a few short years ago in 2000 when interviews of qualified candidates who happened to be of African-American descent were few and far between. These two site these interviews as not only an improvement over the non-activity which happened before, but site statitistical outcomes that what some refer to as "token interviews has in fact accompanied the % of A-A cooridnators being 30% and also the number of A-A HCs rising from 2 prior to the Rooney Rule to 5 today. DiCeasare is troubled by the number of A-A HCs not rising this year (Oakland still needs to decide and Herm Edwards got a new HC job in KC but since he left an HC job in NY to get it the total number is the same. However, both seem to view what DiDeasare refers to as a "whitewash" of no A-As being hired is a troubling return to form for an NFL where the stats clearly reflected a racial impact in hiring, but seem to advocate a wait and see and do not suggest the NFL take harsher actions (like what I think would be a stupid adoption of a quota but we;ll see what Rev, Jester Jackson has to say when the final hiring is done). The column actually leads off by pointing to the outstanding results that those 5 HCs of A-A decent achieved this year. 3 division championships and Lovie Smith being name Coach of the Year. I think this ironically is a dangerous game as actually the move against the practices which resulted in a racially biased outcome in the past were based on the dumb notion that somehow there was some racial related element to HC skill (idiots like Jimmy the Greek or Al Campanis saying A-As lacked the "necessities" for leadership). I can see why they cite this because it simply is the fact. In addition, because the NFL virtually refused to hire people of A-A descent as HCs or made them wait far longer than their resumes indicated for getting their shot, the A-A candidates out there to be hired are some of the best men for the job like a Dungy or a Marvin Lewis so when the NFL owners finally ignore race and focus on getting Ws of course the initial hires are some of the best candidates out there. Still I liked this column as it cited real numbers rather than irrelevant opinions (for example some folks still foolishly point to the percentage of the A-A population of the US and claim that because the A-A percentage of HC exceeds this number then everything is fair. This irrelevant perspective is foolish because the comparison should not be between the US population and the number of hires but be between the guesstimate of the pool of qualified applicants of A-A descent and the number of HC hires. No one can say for sure what that number of qualified A-A candidates is, but given that the ex-player pool is a source for these qualified applicants (being a retiree is no guarantee one will be a good HC but it is a relevant place to look for qualified applicants) and a najority of the current and recent ex-players are A-A. Also, given that the pool of qualified applicants is also fed by the former co-ordinators (again no guarantee of success, just look at GW and MM) and it is about 30% these are far more relevant #s than the A-A US population % (unless one is a moron than actually believes in quotas). Some folks also make the irrelevant complaint that Asian-Americans like Norm Chow are not considered qualifying interviews under the Rooney rule even though Asians are a discriminated against minority in the US population. Again this point is irrelevant to what the Rooney rule is trying to do. The Rooney rule seeks to remediate clear discrimination against African-Americans which happened in the NFL not discrimination which happened in America. If the Rooney rule was designed to make the NFL HC hires look like America demographically, then not only would it include Norm Chow, but it would be working to get 17 women occupying the 32 NFL HC jobs. The Rooney rule is designed to renediate the discrimination against qualified African-American candidates which forced qualified (and now divsion winning HC) candidates like Tiny Dungy and Marvin Lewis to have to wait far longer than their resumes seem to dictate or their results as KC indicate. It was designed to try to give folks like Lovie Smith an opportunity so that they did not have to go through the same wait that a Dungy or Lewis went through. It is unfortunate that with so many HC jobs open this year that the number of A-A HCs has not gone up one notch. I think there is little proof for individual owners of being guilty of Marge Schott like racism and most likely it is simply the inefficiency (ad stupidity in Matt Millen's case) pf the good ol boy network that has seen NFL team after NFL team pass on hiring an HC eho can almost certainly lead them to more Ws and profits and instead hire an idiot like Marty Morninwheg, flat out ignore the Rooney rule to get Mooch (who ironically after getting fined for patent violation of the rules and paying him a mint had to fire him owing him appx $10 million to sit o his butt) and now he has hired an HC who I guess gets the benefit of the doubt but Marinelli was not even a co-ordinator and he got an HC job (some folks think that the scientific method which Millen uses is to only hire HCs whose last names start with M). At any rate, I think the column is good because it makes some key points which a show that the Rooney rule and programs associated with it have worked to: 1. Get A-A candidates foot in the door to get interviews where previously there was next to none. 2. That given the opportunity of interviews and increased focus by the league on A-A hiring the % of HCs of A-A descent has tripled from 2 to 6 even though it still lags far behind the % of total A-A players and the % of A0A co-ordinators. 3. The outstanding performance of these A-A HCs has really shown the notion recited publicly by some opinion leaders in the sports world that men of A-A heritage lack necessities to be effective leaders was just dumb. 4. That this increase of what some have called "token" interviews has coincided with an increase in hiring of coordinators of A-A descent. 5. That this year's "whitewash" is troubling but it is good to hear some voices of moderation not calling for some draconian stupid approach like quotas but instead are talking more rationally about some positive advancements based on increased opportunity as well as us not getting to a race blind society yet in terms of the results and reversal of numbers caused by past discrimination. I know some folk are locked into the past and ar quick to recite irrelevant measures like conlusions based on US population demographics or which ignore the past un-American discrimination and merely claim we should be race blind today when clearly decison-makers in the Marge mode of racism or the Matt Millen mode of incompetency cannot be be race blind or produce a race-blind result, However, i like the info in this column and wish it was up on TBD. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chilly Posted January 26, 2006 Share Posted January 26, 2006 NOTE: I had to split this into 2 posts, because the quotes broke when it was just one. It was way too freaking long, lol. In the column h summarizes the results achieved by the NFL through use of the Rooney rule which requires teams to interview at least one African-American for HC. The article basically takes the opinion through DiCeasare's cut and quotes from a diversity activist with the Fritz Pollard Alliance that the Rooney rule has suceeded so far in that people of A0A descent are in fact getting inteviews and even multiple interviews which is a vast improvement in folks at least getting a shot compared to days a few short years ago in 2000 when interviews of qualified candidates who happened to be of African-American descent were few and far between. Who was so qualified that didn't get an interview back then? I mean, it really seemed to help this year, people like James Lofton getting interviews and all. These two site these interviews as not only an improvement over the non-activity which happened before, but site statitistical outcomes that what some refer to as "token interviews has in fact accompanied the % of A-A cooridnators being 30% and also the number of A-A HCs rising from 2 prior to the Rooney Rule to 5 today. How, exactly, is interviewing a minority candidate for a HC job going to help people getting coordinator jobs? It seems to me that the head coach would hire the coordinator, not the GM/Owner. After all, its HIS staff. Let's take a look at the AA HCs this year, and the Rooney Rule's effect on them: - Dennis Green - None. He was hired because of the pretty decent job he did in Minnesota. Was looked at as Arizona's savior. - Marvin Lewis - None. Considered an extremely good and hot coaching candidate. - Lovie Smith - None. Also considered an extremely good and hot coaching candidate. - Tony Dungy - None. Hired by Indianapolis because he did a good job with Tampa Bay. - Romeo Crennell - None. Considered an extremely good and hot coaching candidate. - Herman Edwards - None. Hired before the Rooney Rule went into effect. Also, I don't think that you can say that because a black coach wasn't hired that it was due to race. What new black coaches, exactly, can you definitively say were better candidates then white new head coaches? The column actually leads off by pointing to the outstanding results that those 5 HCs of A-A decent achieved this year. 3 division championships and Lovie Smith being name Coach of the Year. I think this ironically is a dangerous game as actually the move against the practices which resulted in a racially biased outcome in the past were based on the dumb notion that somehow there was some racial related element to HC skill (idiots like Jimmy the Greek or Al Campanis saying A-As lacked the "necessities" for leadership). I can see why they cite this because it simply is the fact. In addition, because the NFL virtually refused to hire people of A-A descent as HCs or made them wait far longer than their resumes indicated for getting their shot, the A-A candidates out there to be hired are some of the best men for the job like a Dungy or a Marvin Lewis so when the NFL owners finally ignore race and focus on getting Ws of course the initial hires are some of the best candidates out there. I hate it when people cite this as a reason that more African American candidates should be hired. I can understand using it in a context saying that racial concerns that they are just inferior coaches are outrageous, which it is. However, it is absolutely ridiculous to suggest that just because AA HCs have been good so far, that everyone will be good. Still I liked this column as it cited real numbers rather than irrelevant opinions (for example some folks still foolishly point to the percentage of the A-A population of the US and claim that because the A-A percentage of HC exceeds this number then everything is fair. This irrelevant perspective is foolish because the comparison should not be between the US population and the number of hires but be between the guesstimate of the pool of qualified applicants of A-A descent and the number of HC hires. However much the article uses numbers, it fails to answer one extremely important question, which it seems that all Rooney rule supporters forget: How many coaches have gotten their job from the Rooney rule? Sure, African American head coaches have gone up, but is that a direct result of the Rooney rule or of the NFL catching up with advances in society? ' No one can say for sure what that number of qualified A-A candidates is, but given that the ex-player pool is a source for these qualified applicants (being a retiree is no guarantee one will be a good HC but it is a relevant place to look for qualified applicants) and a najority of the current and recent ex-players are A-A. Also, given that the pool of qualified applicants is also fed by the former co-ordinators (again no guarantee of success, just look at GW and MM) and it is about 30% these are far more relevant #s than the A-A US population % (unless one is a moron than actually believes in quotas). And what, exactly, makes an ex-player qualified to be a coach? Most ex-players have to start as position coaches, then work their way up the ranks. So if the NFL is so racist, wouldn't these coaches not have long resume's to begin with? Some folks also make the irrelevant complaint that Asian-Americans like Norm Chow are not considered qualifying interviews under the Rooney rule even though Asians are a discriminated against minority in the US population. Again this point is irrelevant to what the Rooney rule is trying to do. The Rooney rule seeks to remediate clear discrimination against African-Americans which happened in the NFL not discrimination which happened in America. If the Rooney rule was designed to make the NFL HC hires look like America demographically, then not only would it include Norm Chow, but it would be working to get 17 women occupying the 32 NFL HC jobs. The Rooney rule is designed to renediate the discrimination against qualified African-American candidates which forced qualified (and now divsion winning HC) candidates like Tiny Dungy and Marvin Lewis to have to wait far longer than their resumes seem to dictate or their results as KC indicate. It was designed to try to give folks like Lovie Smith an opportunity so that they did not have to go through the same wait that a Dungy or Lewis went through. Except that the rule hasn't actually had that effect on anyone. Its curious though that you don't think Marvin Lewis was effected by the rule, even though it was in place a year before he was hired, but it was for Lovie Smith. What is the distinction between these two candidates? It is unfortunate that with so many HC jobs open this year that the number of A-A HCs has not gone up one notch. I think there is little proof for individual owners of being guilty of Marge Schott like racism and most likely it is simply the inefficiency (ad stupidity in Matt Millen's case) pf the good ol boy network that has seen NFL team after NFL team pass on hiring an HC eho can almost certainly lead them to more Ws and profits and instead hire an idiot like Marty Morninwheg, flat out ignore the Rooney rule to get Mooch (who ironically after getting fined for patent violation of the rules and paying him a mint had to fire him owing him appx $10 million to sit o his butt) and now he has hired an HC who I guess gets the benefit of the doubt but Marinelli was not even a co-ordinator and he got an HC job (some folks think that the scientific method which Millen uses is to only hire HCs whose last names start with M). Do tell which minority candidate is definitely better then any coach that was hired to be a head coach. At any rate, I think the column is good because it makes some key points which a show that the Rooney rule and programs associated with it have worked to: 1. Get A-A candidates foot in the door to get interviews where previously there was next to none. Its gotten whose foot in the door, exactly? I don't know of one candidate who was hired as a direct result from the rooney rule. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chilly Posted January 26, 2006 Share Posted January 26, 2006 2. That given the opportunity of interviews and increased focus by the league on A-A hiring the % of HCs of A-A descent has tripled from 2 to 6 even though it still lags far behind the % of total A-A players and the % of A0A co-ordinators. Its funny, you seem to contradict yourself here. You have made the following two points in this post: - Ex-players don't automatically translate into good coaches - We shouldn't make a quota ratio for head coaches Yet, you go ahead and suggest that the number of head coaches should be around the % of black players in the NFL. My question is: Why? What does being a player give someone over say being a College or NFL coach for 15 years? By saying this, you are assuming that Ex-players automatically translate into good head coaches. 3. The outstanding performance of these A-A HCs has really shown the notion recited publicly by some opinion leaders in the sports world that men of A-A heritage lack necessities to be effective leaders was just dumb. Of course it has, but what does the Rooney Rule have to do with this? 4. That this increase of what some have called "token" interviews has coincided with an increase in hiring of coordinators of A-A descent. Just because it coincided with an increase in hiring of coordinators of A-A descent, doesn't mean it caused the hiring of more coordinators of A-A descent. The classic example is the ice cream example: In months with strong ice cream sales, violent crime goes up. In months with weak ice cream sales, violent crime goes down. Do Ice Cream sales rates cause Violent Crime rates? 5. That this year's "whitewash" is troubling but it is good to hear some voices of moderation not calling for some draconian stupid approach like quotas but instead are talking more rationally about some positive advancements based on increased opportunity as well as us not getting to a race blind society yet in terms of the results and reversal of numbers caused by past discrimination. I know some folk are locked into the past and ar quick to recite irrelevant measures like conlusions based on US population demographics or which ignore the past un-American discrimination and merely claim we should be race blind today when clearly decison-makers in the Marge mode of racism or the Matt Millen mode of incompetency cannot be be race blind or produce a race-blind result, However, i like the info in this column and wish it was up on TBD. While it IS important that the NFL addresses race concerns, I do not believe for a second that the Rooney Rule is necessary or effective. I also don't think that quotas are the answer. What *would* be effective, imo, is if the NFL required teams to interview minority candidates for positional jobs. This is where good coaches are born, and the NFL would promote minorities in doing so. There is no evidence to support that the Rooney Rule has changed anything with the hiring of head coaches. A better candidate pool would lead to more minority head coaches getting hired. To promote a better candidate pool, you start at where coaches learn the game and get an opportunity to advance - positional jobs. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fake-Fat Sunny Posted January 26, 2006 Author Share Posted January 26, 2006 NOTE: I had to split this into 2 posts, because the quotes broke when it was just one. It was way too freaking long, lol. Who was so qualified that didn't get an interview back then? I mean, it really seemed to help this year, people like James Lofton getting interviews and all. The first question to ask to give you a good answer to your question of what qualified candidates did not get interviews would be to ask you what level of proof of this point do you require to convince you. I ask this because there are some folks who need proof beyong a reasonable doub of this occuring to be convinced. I do not think I can make this showing so if that is what you require I will not even try. I think it is actually quite facile for folks to require this level of proof as it is often used by those who want to argue an ideological point an not to address or understand this real world issue at all. Requiring a level of proof of this point beyond a reasonable doubt is appriopriate in a court of law or to test the government when it tries to sanction an individual for breaking the law. However, it is common in our society to require a lesser burden of proof in other cases which either do not involve the government or simply involve money and not something more important like personal freedom. In this particular case the standard of proof for this point because it does not involve the government at all and the NFL is a private business where both parties (the NFL and NFLPA) already aggree on the common point that the NFL in its hiring practices throughout its history reflected society's bias against people of color (in society it caused little things like slavery way back win and the Jim Crow laws to look at a time when the NFL existed) the standard of proof for most folks is actually a simple look at the broader stats and the existence of a few suspect cases. The stats are seen in a history of the NFL simply not hiring or employing A-As in positions of leadership such as QB until the 90s when this practice became more routine or as HC where the % of A-A HCs still lags well behind the % of A-A forner players no gurantee of HC competence but a substantial pool of qualified candidates or trails significantly the pool of A-A OCs (again no guarantee of quality HC work but again a substantial pool of qualified candidates. The race based statistical variation represents sufficient proof for the NFL. Bob DiCesare and many other media outlets, myself and I think most rational folks. I think based on this sense of reality virtually any of the 6 A-A HCs in todays game are by definition qualified candidates and all of them experienced some delay in thweir finally getting an GC job that quite reasonably can be seen as being answers to your question. For specific examples, Tony Dungy had a resume which probably merited him getting an HC job a couple of years before TB snapped him up. Marvin Lewis provides an even clearer case of a man who was qualified yet he went two off-seasons where in retrospect he should have gotten a job. In fact, the tampering rules which were applied to his case the year the Ravens won it all resulted in him only getting one interview with the Bills and hewas not hired the next year either. If you want to look beyond this pool of 6 folks demonstrably qualified then look at the Art Shell case where he racked up a clear winning record as HC and took several teams to the playoffs. He did not get a second shot and has not been repeatedly interviewed for HC jobs. Can it be demonstrated beyond a reasonable doubt that this happened due to their race? No. However, this is not the vurden of proof required for this provate business to set up the Rooney rule. In fact high levels of proof seem to generally be required by those more interested in making some ideological point rather than dealing with the real world of fairness in the NFL and employee relations in the NFL. If you are willing to be convinced by the same level of proof which has moved the NFL to action and I think most reasonable folks accept then the statistical occurence of an NFL failure to historically and currently employ people of A-A descent in leadership positions is proof enough. These stats are buttressed by the real world experiences of most of the men who are and were A-A HCs. If on the other hand you require some higher level of proof which is inappropriate in this case because it is not the courts and the actor here is a private business and not the government then I am not sure that any level of proof will really convince you so the fact that one is unlikely to be able to array proof of racial discrimination beyond a reasonable doubt or whatever is a waste of time anyway How, exactly, is interviewing a minority candidate for a HC job going to help people getting coordinator jobs? It seems to me that the head coach would hire the coordinator, not the GM/Owner. After all, its HIS staff. Even token interviews can help A-A hiring in several ways: 1. Interviews provide an access point into the good ol boy network. Unfortunately with many jobs it is not what you know but who you know. The interviews allow potential candidates to meet hirers and have significant interaction with folks from other teams which they would not have without the Rooney rule, 2, Even token interviews provide practice. One of the things which folks look for from an HC is for someone who is cool and calm. Almost all of us can remember how scared we were the first time we ever did a job interview. Practice makes perfect and by going through the interview process once A-A candidates can present themselves better the next time. 3. Failing to get an HC job may out you on the radar screen for a co-ordinator position. If a candidate interviews for an HC job and does not get it, but impresses the GM or owner in the interview the next step after the HC hire is to get coordinators, i could be the coach walks in with his team, but it is actually the rare case an HC walks in with his entire team ready to go. His first choices may be under contract elsewhere, the wives of his first choices may not want to move or move their kids out of town and a host of other reasons. In fact, in some cases almost certainlu part of the Jauron interview was Marv and Ralpj letting him know that since 8 of the coaches are under contract to the Bills he is not going to hire or name his staff. The vest teams are TEAMS and the HC will usually have a major say but far from the only say in who gets coordinator Jobs. The co-ords obviously must get a long with the HC but he does not have total control alone. 4. Part of your resume is actually the validation you receive from other NFL teams judging you to be worthy of an interview. Other teams having expressed interest can be a useful tool in getting additional interviews or getting the team you are currently with to value you more. This point that doing interviews helps seem fairly obbious to me. Let's take a look at the AA HCs this year, and the Rooney Rule's effect on them: - Dennis Green - None. He was hired because of the pretty decent job he did in Minnesota. Was looked at as Arizona's savior. - Marvin Lewis - None. Considered an extremely good and hot coaching candidate. - Lovie Smith - None. Also considered an extremely good and hot coaching candidate. - Tony Dungy - None. Hired by Indianapolis because he did a good job with Tampa Bay. - Romeo Crennell - None. Considered an extremely good and hot coaching candidate. - Herman Edwards - None. Hired before the Rooney Rule went into effect. I think you make the mistake here of looking at the Rooney rule too narrowly. First, it and I am refering to more than just the requirement of doing 1 A-A interview. One of the most impressive things to me about this program is that it also calls for a number of A-A internships and other intiatives designed to increase the qualifications of AA HC candidates. All of these men as AAs have benefited from the increased focus on A-A hiring as a good thing to do and something the GMs talk about amongst themselves quite a bit. Onr of the difficult things in any situation where there are a zillion candidates is simply getting noticed and the heightened focus on A-A hiring does that. Second, this is a program about career path and not just one job. At least twp pf the guys on your list were named asst coaches at some point in their careers This position was created and is used more widely due to the Rooney rule changes that allows employees to be meddled with by other teams even when they are under contract if it is for a higher level job. It was a part of both Lewis and Edwards moving up the food chain and switching teams. Third, just as it is difficult to say beyond a reasonable doubt that a job was denied due to race it is difficult to say it was given because of the Rooney rule. Lovie Smith IMHO strikes me as a fellow who would not be an HV today if it were not due to the Rooney rule. Again in terms of what one chooses to believe this goes back to not only standard or proof but also benefit of the doubt. I think it is pretty settled agreement with the NFL that the NFL discriminated against A-As asa routine practice until the CBA sinaled the beginning of the partnership between the NFL and NFLPA. I think Millen and Detroit shut up and took their fine because rather than the NFL needing a showing or proof positive that Detroit had ignored the Rooney rule, it was in fact Detroit which had the burden of proof to demonstrate how they had taken action to meet the goals of increased A-A interviews an hiring/ In the world of idology or philosophy the burden of proof id on those who claim racism. In the real world and the NFL, the burden of proof is on each team to demonstrate diligent and it is to be hoped effective action, You are right my orifinal post was too long do I will try to get back to responding to your responses later. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nick in* england Posted January 26, 2006 Share Posted January 26, 2006 Great set of posts here... But still no new name FFS??? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts