Fantasy Football - Footballguys Forums
Snorkelson

Rooney rule discussion

Recommended Posts

5 hours ago, bagger said:

I am sure trump is looking forward to your vote.

Read the subsequent posts. I'm not against the rule existing, I think it's egregious that a lot of teams seems to make a minority first interview and then the usual names come in for their interviews. And if a team is promoting from within I feel it shouldn't be required to interview another person for the job. I get the sarcasm but I was trying to shine some light on this and the media is 5 months behind but it's getting some press now. If I could change the op title to "application of the Rooney rule is an embarrassment" I would. 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On February 4, 2016 at 3:34 PM, menobrown said:

Hate to be a tool and quote myself but that was quicker than I thought:

The NFL is instituting a "Rooney Rule" mandating teams interview women for executive positions.

"We believe in diversity," commissioner Roger Goodell said Thursday. There are vanishingly few women in executive positions around the NFL, though the same is true for every major American sport. It's an admirable initiative from a league that's made a habit of bungling just about everything else.

The idea is great, but if they start making that the first interview to get it out of the way before they bring in some idiot like Stephen Ross it does little. 

Again, I'm not against this rule, but it angers me how teams seem to do an interview to satisfy the rule and it's the first interview most times. The rule itself if nothing else has brought the issue of diversity in nfl coaching to light. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 7/25/2016 at 8:58 PM, Madden Curse said:

Not sure about quotas, but expanding Rooney to cover lower positions like OC/DC and some key positional coaches would be good.  I've never been clear how guys would make good head coaches if they don't already have their feet in the door and manage to develop experience at mid- and senior-level roles.  And I think it's getting a foot in the door and succeeding with one's initial shot that is what will ensure that more diverse head coaches appear in the future.  The Rooney Rule needs to aim a bit lower to hit its higher target.

Yeah, I think the OC/DC underrepresentation may be the biggest sticking point now. But as someone who's generally been supportive of the RR, I also worry about these token interviews, where teams are honoring the letter of the law while violating its spirit. The thing is, it shouldn't be so hard for the NFL to do something about that. This is not a case of the EEOC issuing regulations that affect thousands of small businesses. It's a private club of 32 franchises, all of whom (at least theoretically) have the same overall goal of ensuring the league's long-term success. There's no reason the Commissioner's office can't tell teams to quit it with the token interviews and make an effort to find and interview legit minority candidates.

By the way, there may not be anything to this, but over the past 15 years there have been two times I can remember where an assistant coach seemed to be the hot HC candidate but took longer than expected to get his shot. The first was Marvin Lewis coming off the Ravens' SB win; the second was Ron Rivera coming off the Bears' SB appearance. Both were minorities, and in both cases, the teams that finally took a chance on them ended up getting pretty lucky. I'm not saying it was blatant racism, but I do wonder if there might have been more subtle forces at play, where the minority has to be just that much better to get his chance. (Also, as a Lions fan, I kinda get why Teryl Austin hasn't been hired yet, but I suspect in a few years some other team will be thrilled they had the opportunity to grab him.)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hopefully there will be more and more players making the jump to position coach, position coach to coordinator and so on.  It seems like a good number of position coaches are minorities, but I'm mostly looking at the Steelers so I don't know if it's the same league-wide.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

There are 5 African American coaches out of 32 in the NFL  - about 16% of the league.  African Americans represent about 13% of the American population.  By that standard, African Americans are over-represented, racially.  The only way for this to be seen as a problem is to assume that the best players are the best coaches.  If you make that assumption, given the fact that the majority of the best players are African American, most of the head coaches should be be African American.  I don't really think that assumption is valid however.  It's a different skill set.  In fact, it's a VASTLY different skill set.  It's a skill set that is probably pretty much equally balanced between the races.

I am a Pittsburgh fan, and fairly liberal.  I think culturally, it would be a great idea to give new folks a chance whenever possible.  But the Rooney rule was destined to "fail".  It was never very logical.  Why just African Americans?  Should teams also be required to interview an ethnic minority?  A woman?  A religious minority?  Can you combine a few categories and interview a black, jewish, hispanic female and knock everything out all at once?

The token interviews we have seen is what a rule like this will inevitably lead to.  The Lions were right back in 2003.  They knew who they wanted and everyone else knew who they wanted as well - including all of the minority potential candidates.  So they reached out to minorities for token interviews and unsurprisingly got rejected (and fined).

The league doesn't need a rule.  If it needs anything on the diversity front, it needs a culture shift.

 

Edited by Holy Schneikes

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, Holy Schneikes said:

There are 5 African American coaches out of 32 in the NFL  - about 16% of the league.  African Americans represent about 13% of the American population.  By that standard, African Americans are over-represented, racially.  The only way for this to be seen as a problem is to assume that the best players are the best coaches.  If you make that assumption, given the fact that the majority of the best players are African American, most of the head coaches should be be African American.  I don't really think that assumption is valid however.  It's a different skill set.  In fact, it's a VASTLY different skill set.  It's a skill set that is probably pretty much equally balanced between the races.

I am a Pittsburgh fan, and fairly liberal.  I think culturally, it would be a great idea to give new folks a chance whenever possible.  But the Rooney rule was destined to "fail".  It was never very logical.  Why just African Americans?  Should teams also be required to interview an ethnic minority?  A woman?  A religious minority?  Can you combine a few categories and interview a black, jewish, hispanic female and knock everything out all at once?

The token interviews we have seen is what a rule like this will inevitably lead to.  The Lions were right back in 2003.  They knew who they wanted and everyone else knew who they wanted as well - including all of the minority potential candidates.  So they reached out to minorities for token interviews and unsurprisingly got rejected (and fined).

1. What percentage of coaches are former players? I don't know, but I'm guessing the ratio is pretty high. That suggests that the percentage of AA coaches should be closer to 60% (which is the percentage of AA players). Whether the "best players make the best coaches" is irrelevant. Also, as the ESPN OTL article linked upthread pointed out, the bigger problem is that AA assistant coaches are less likely to be promoted to coordinator roles, which makes it harder for them to be considered for HC. 

2. The RR does not just apply to African Americans. Ron Rivera or Norm Chow count just as much as Teryl Austin or Mike Tomlin.

3. Kind of funny that you say the Lions were right. One of the worst GMs in NFL history rushed to hire a retread coach who turned out to be a total disaster. If they had taken their time and considered a range of different coaches, would it have turned out better? Well, probably not, because they're the Lions. But it couldn't have been much worse.

4. I don't buy that token interviews are inevitable, unless teams are determined to subvert the intent of the law.

5. "We need to change the culture first" sounds like a really good recipe for not actually doing anything.

Edited by zftcg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, zftcg said:

1. What percentage of coaches are former players? I don't know, but I'm guessing the ratio is pretty high. That suggests that the percentage of AA coaches should be closer to 60% (which is the percentage of AA players). Whether the "best players make the best coaches" is irrelevant. Also, as the ESPN OTL article linked upthread pointed out, the bigger problem is that AA assistant coaches are less likely to be promoted to coordinator roles, which makes it harder for them to be considered for HC. 

2. The RR does not just apply to African Americans. Ron Rivera or Norm Chow count just as much as Teryl Austin or Mike Tomlin.

3. Kind of funny that you say the Lions were right. One of the worst GMs in NFL history rushed to hire a retread coach who turned out to be a total disaster. If they had taken their time and considered a range of different coaches, would it have turned out better? Well, probably not, because they're the Lions. But it couldn't have been much worse.

4. I don't buy that token interviews are inevitable, unless teams are determined to subvert the intent of the law.

5. "We need to change the culture first" sounds like a really good recipe for not actually doing anything.

1.  Players at what level?  Pro?  College?  High School?  I think the required skill set to actually perform your job is HIGHLY relevant.  Just because coaches are often former players at some level doesn't really mean they HAVE to be.  Running fast isn't a requirement for being a good coach, but it IS a requirement for being a good NFL player at most positions.  I think the overall percentage of former NFL players in the coaching ranks is dropping (for good reasons).  In 2014, the most recent I saw, it was 19%.  Not really far off from 16%.

2.  You left out the other minorities.  Women are considerably more underrepresented than AAs.  How many Jewish head coaches are there?  Does it matter?  Does mixed race count?  At what percentage?  Do we need to see a family tree?  Do all of the percentages in the playing ranks have to be duplicated in the coaching ranks?

3.  The Lions weren't right about their actual selection.  They were right about the process being broken.  But it's a good point - using the Lions as an example of a team that was right about anything is challenging.... ;)

4.  Proof is in the puddin.  The token interviews are why this thread got started.  I guess that doesn't prove they are inevitable, but the SPIRIT of the rule is not enforceable.  Only the technical details.  So if a team doesn't happen to see a viable minority candidate - Hell even if they are are downright evil racists - they are going to bring someone in just to meet their obligation and move on.  You can't prove whether a team is seriously considering a guy or not.

5.  Doing nothing would be better than doing something that isn't working and doesn't make sense.  The only thing that would "work" would be to require teams to actually hire minorities at some pre-defined ratios - which makes even less sense to me.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It doesn't matter what level. Think of it this way: What percentage of coaches are former football players at any level? Let's say (very conservatively) 75% and the remaining 25% are drawn from the "general population". And let's say (again conservatively) that AAs make up 40% of football players at all levels. Theoretically, that should mean that, if they were represented proportionally, they would make up ~32% (0.75*0.4 + 0.25*0.11).

Now, do I actually think we should be running these calculations and determining the appropriate proportion down to the third decimal place? Of course not. But I think it's pretty clear that they're underrepresented, and that raises questions as to why, exactly.

And looked at another way, the discrepancy between 68% (AA NFL players) and 16% (coaches) is, in fact, the problem. Surely you're not so naive to think that the NFL is doing all this out of the goodness of their collective hearts. Goodell and the owners recognize that allowing this type of discrepancy to persist hurts relationships with the players -- we all have a good laugh every couple years when some player pops off about how they're "slaves", and I agree those types of comments are ridiculous coming from millionaires, but the anger among players is real. 

Far more importantly, it doesn't play well to an increasingly diverse viewing public. The NFL is on top now, but don't think for a second they're sitting back and assuming that will continue forever. Apart from concussions, one threat to the NFL's dominance is if they're seen as overly stodgy and behind the times. Having a bunch of old white guys leading teams made up of mostly AAs is, to put it bluntly, a bad look.

So whether the RR works or not, I seriously doubt the NFL is going to throw its hands up and say, "Oh well, we tried. Now let's just sit back and wait for things to change on their own."

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, zftcg said:

It doesn't matter what level. Think of it this way: What percentage of coaches are former football players at any level? Let's say (very conservatively) 75% and the remaining 25% are drawn from the "general population". And let's say (again conservatively) that AAs make up 40% of football players at all levels. Theoretically, that should mean that, if they were represented proportionally, they would make up ~32% (0.75*0.4 + 0.25*0.11).

Now, do I actually think we should be running these calculations and determining the appropriate proportion down to the third decimal place? Of course not. But I think it's pretty clear that they're underrepresented, and that raises questions as to why, exactly.

And looked at another way, the discrepancy between 68% (AA NFL players) and 16% (coaches) is, in fact, the problem. Surely you're not so naive to think that the NFL is doing all this out of the goodness of their collective hearts. Goodell and the owners recognize that allowing this type of discrepancy to persist hurts relationships with the players -- we all have a good laugh every couple years when some player pops off about how they're "slaves", and I agree those types of comments are ridiculous coming from millionaires, but the anger among players is real. 

Far more importantly, it doesn't play well to an increasingly diverse viewing public. The NFL is on top now, but don't think for a second they're sitting back and assuming that will continue forever. Apart from concussions, one threat to the NFL's dominance is if they're seen as overly stodgy and behind the times. Having a bunch of old white guys leading teams made up of mostly AAs is, to put it bluntly, a bad look.

So whether the RR works or not, I seriously doubt the NFL is going to throw its hands up and say, "Oh well, we tried. Now let's just sit back and wait for things to change on their own."

We are just coming from very different angles on this.  I don't care if a coach is a former player, because the two occupations have almost NOTHING to do with each other in terms of actual requirements for the job.  Because of that I don't think the ratio of AA players and AA coaches need to be correlated AT ALL.  There is no under-representation.  None of the math you present is relevant to me because I strongly disagree with the underlying premise - that because a certain percentage of players happens to be of one race, the people COACHING those players have to be of the same race (or have the same racial breakdown).  Should the trainers have the same racial breakdown?  Equipment managers?  Sideline reporters?

As for the players, to be blunt about it, I don't much care what they think.  Their anger is not going to get to the point where they decide they don't want their 5M/year paychecks. And I'm not actually convinced they even care about it.  If a coach is good, a player will play hard for him no matter what color he is.  I know some of the general public cares about this "issue", but again -  are they going to stop watching the NFL because the percentage of black coaches dips below 70%?  To me, the current situation really only looks bad if you aren't looking at it very logically.

Let's flip the script for a minute.  Just take pro players and their race out of the equation for the sake or argument.  Now you just assume that the general population is more less equally capable of being an NFL coach.  So you would expect that African Americans would be be represented in the NFL coaching ranks by right around the same percentage as they occur in the overall population - roughly 13%.  But by your logic, that naturally occurring percentage would be increased to 68%.  By what natural ability do you think African American people in general are 5 times better than Caucasians at coaching football?  I can't for the life of me think why that would be.

And again, something you haven't really responded to is how to handle other minorities. There are very few people of Asian descent in the NFL.  Should they be barred from the coaching ranks?  If we are matching ratios, they wouldn't represent one coach out of 32.  Women?  there are no female players, but I'd bet a woman could be a fine coach.  These are the ridiculous natural consequences of assuming the the coaching ranks should have the same percentages as the coaching ranks.  And if equal percentages AREN'T the goal, what is and why?  What is the arbitrary percentage match we should be striving for?

 

 

 

 

 

 

Edited by Holy Schneikes
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 7/25/2016 at 7:12 PM, JetMaxx said:

I would view a job interview as demeaning if the determining quality was my physical traits. Who comes up with this ****?

If you're white, it's very likely that your physical traits have contributed to every job interview you've ever had. Do you find that demeaning?

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 8/8/2016 at 0:01 AM, zftcg said:

Yeah, I think the OC/DC underrepresentation may be the biggest sticking point now. But as someone who's generally been supportive of the RR, I also worry about these token interviews, where teams are honoring the letter of the law while violating its spirit. The thing is, it shouldn't be so hard for the NFL to do something about that. This is not a case of the EEOC issuing regulations that affect thousands of small businesses. It's a private club of 32 franchises, all of whom (at least theoretically) have the same overall goal of ensuring the league's long-term success. There's no reason the Commissioner's office can't tell teams to quit it with the token interviews and make an effort to find and interview legit minority candidates.

By the way, there may not be anything to this, but over the past 15 years there have been two times I can remember where an assistant coach seemed to be the hot HC candidate but took longer than expected to get his shot. The first was Marvin Lewis coming off the Ravens' SB win; the second was Ron Rivera coming off the Bears' SB appearance. Both were minorities, and in both cases, the teams that finally took a chance on them ended up getting pretty lucky. I'm not saying it was blatant racism, but I do wonder if there might have been more subtle forces at play, where the minority has to be just that much better to get his chance. (Also, as a Lions fan, I kinda get why Teryl Austin hasn't been hired yet, but I suspect in a few years some other team will be thrilled they had the opportunity to grab him.)

You can't legislate motives.  It's THAT simple.

That's the biggest hurdle to any sort of ethical/moral legalism.  You can't effectively legislate morality.  You can more efficiently legislate actions and inaction, but you can't really legislate motives and thoughts which drive those actions and inactions.

Racism, in it's manifestation, is always going to occur in the context of some individual's internalized thought process.  It happens when an individual does something or makes some decision for a racist reason.  Did so-and-so not get that job because the interviewer was racist or because the interviewer had a legitimate or at least non-racist motivation to not hire so-and-so?  To know the answer to that, you have to be able to look in a person's soul.  But we can't do that so well.  So we come up with these top-down, broad brush attempts at solutions like the RR which, by their very nature, invariably entangle all transactions, not just those transactions in which racists are involved.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, CalBear said:

If you're white, it's very likely that your physical traits have contributed to every job interview you've ever had. Do you find that demeaning?

I think it's fair to say, in light of this discussion, that "determining quality" and "contributed to" aren't in the realm of comparison, no?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, JetMaxx said:

I think it's fair to say, in light of this discussion, that "determining quality" and "contributed to" aren't in the realm of comparison, no?

There is a large and complex set of societal structures and biases which provide opportunities for white men in preference to other groups. The fact that it's unwritten doesn't make it any less real. And I think most white men do a fine job of believing that their success and privilege is based on innate qualities other than skin color, despite plenty of evidence to the contrary.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Why would anyone "...worry about token interviews"?

Seems like an ill-considered, non-reason to justify opposition to the rule.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13 hours ago, CalBear said:

There is a large and complex set of societal structures and biases which provide opportunities for white men in preference to other groups. The fact that it's unwritten doesn't make it any less real. And I think most white men do a fine job of believing that their success and privilege is based on innate qualities other than skin color, despite plenty of evidence to the contrary.

Thanks for that but it has nothing to do with what I said.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 8/8/2016 at 0:01 AM, zftcg said:
6 hours ago, Chaka said:

Why would anyone "...worry about token interviews"?

Seems like an ill-considered, non-reason to justify opposition to the rule.

First, ask that to the guys that are insulted by believing they are the token interviews.

Second, I don't think it unreasonable for anyone to question why someone must be compelled to do something (anything) against their will.  Can there be justification for this interference with the individual's right to do best with his time and resources as he sees fit?  Certainly.  But whether such interference is justified IS the very heart of the question.  If there is nothing to be gained, even if the motives were altruistic or well-intentioned, then that would certainly swing some (myself included) to think that the the individual's interest in self-autonomy should be respected over such interference or compulsion when it serves no real or tangible purpose other than that it assuages someone else's sense of guilt.  I'm not a big fan of trampling over individual liberty simply because someone wants it to look like they are trying to do something when in reality nothing is being accomplished.  The road to Hell and well-intended pavers and all that...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

LOL at all the high-minded "individual rights" stuff. The NFL is a private club, and if the past few years have taught us anything, it's that the league can do anything it damn well pleases as long as it doesn't infringe on the players' collectively bargained rights. Ask Robert Kraft about whether his "interest in self-autonomy" was respected.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, Dr. Octopus said:

It's not.

But that is the unwritten goal.  If the league achieved 50% Asian coaches and no African American coaches, do you think everyone would be satisfied?  The whole "issue" is based on percentage of African American players vs percentage of African American coaches.  So the rule may say any ethnic minority qualifies, but that isn't the real point or the real goal, whether folks acknowledge that or not.  Can't have it both ways.  If it doesn't relate to racial breakdown among players, mission accomplished - there are a higher than expected number of minority head coaches compared to the general population.  If it does, the only discrepancy is African American coaches.   All the other ethnicities probably round down to zero head coaches.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 8/9/2016 at 3:39 PM, Holy Schneikes said:

We are just coming from very different angles on this.  I don't care if a coach is a former player, because the two occupations have almost NOTHING to do with each other in terms of actual requirements for the job.  Because of that I don't think the ratio of AA players and AA coaches need to be correlated AT ALL.  There is no under-representation.  None of the math you present is relevant to me because I strongly disagree with the underlying premise - that because a certain percentage of players happens to be of one race, the people COACHING those players have to be of the same race (or have the same racial breakdown).  Should the trainers have the same racial breakdown?  Equipment managers?  Sideline reporters?

As for the players, to be blunt about it, I don't much care what they think.  Their anger is not going to get to the point where they decide they don't want their 5M/year paychecks. And I'm not actually convinced they even care about it.  If a coach is good, a player will play hard for him no matter what color he is.  I know some of the general public cares about this "issue", but again -  are they going to stop watching the NFL because the percentage of black coaches dips below 70%?  To me, the current situation really only looks bad if you aren't looking at it very logically.

Let's flip the script for a minute.  Just take pro players and their race out of the equation for the sake or argument.  Now you just assume that the general population is more less equally capable of being an NFL coach.  So you would expect that African Americans would be be represented in the NFL coaching ranks by right around the same percentage as they occur in the overall population - roughly 13%.  But by your logic, that naturally occurring percentage would be increased to 68%.  By what natural ability do you think African American people in general are 5 times better than Caucasians at coaching football?  I can't for the life of me think why that would be.

And again, something you haven't really responded to is how to handle other minorities. There are very few people of Asian descent in the NFL.  Should they be barred from the coaching ranks?  If we are matching ratios, they wouldn't represent one coach out of 32.  Women?  there are no female players, but I'd bet a woman could be a fine coach.  These are the ridiculous natural consequences of assuming the the coaching ranks should have the same percentages as the coaching ranks.  And if equal percentages AREN'T the goal, what is and why?  What is the arbitrary percentage match we should be striving for?

I don't care that you don't care. My point is that the NFL clearly *does* care.

As for how to handle other minorities, I'll be totally honest: I didn't respond to that question because I assumed you were just asking it rhetorically, in an effort to troll RR supporters (kind of like JetMaxx's comment above). But if you really want to know, I'll give you my answer:

Any type of AA program has to make judgments about who to include and who to exclude. Colleges offer it for AAs, Latinos and Native Americans but not Jews or Asians. In that case, it's because those groups are overrepresented at most top schools. I do agree with you that the RR is primarily focused on AAs, and Latinos and Asians are included incidentally, since in practice their numbers are so small as to be irrelevant.

So why is the focus on AAs? I don't think it's to appeal to AA fans, since the number of AAs in the country is relatively small and stable. I suspect ultimately it's to appeal, at least indirectly, to younger fans, who are themselves less likely to be white and who expect to see the country's diversity reflected on their TV sets. Like I said, I don't think any fans out there are calculating percentages, but if the perception is that the coaching ranks are overwhelmingly white, that's a bad look for the league.

You know what the tell is? Last year the league expanded the RR to include women for executive-level positions. Why would they do that? Well, what is one fan segment the NFL is looking to for growth? 

Anyway, there's one other thing I agree with you on: We're clearly talking past each other. I think it's pretty clear from this whole discussion that if you don't like affirmative action, you're not going to support the Rooney Rule. So I'm going to bow out of this discussion and focus on football-related topics. Good luck in your upcoming season!

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I really like that post and I agree with you on many fronts.  The league DOES care or at least wants to appear that it cares, or the rule wouldn't be in place at all.  Some of the fans care as well, and I'm sure some of the players care too.  So a lot of people have strong feelings on this.  I also agree that folks who believe in the RR are likely to believe in affirmative action in general (although I do think there is a significant difference in that collegiate affirmative action tends to be in place because there is significant under-representation of certain segments compared to the general population - that is NOT the case here).

My main issues are that many proponents aren't being honest with themselves about the goals and the reasons behind the rule.  And many of the ones that are honest about them still have trouble defining what the actual goals should be.  You can't solve a problem unless you clearly define what the problem is.

The reason I mention other minorities is simply to try to force proponents to clarify those reasons and goals for themselves and others.

Given the fact that AAs are actually over-represented in the head coaching ranks right now compared to the general population, that clearly isn't a milestone proponents are satisfied with.  The only other alternative is what I have been harping on - that in terms of skin color, percentage-wise coaches should look like the players.  If THAT isn't the goal, what is?  Is there some magic percentage that is acceptable?  If so, what is the basis for it?

So without reasonable answers to the questions above I am forced to assume roughly equal percentages are the real goal.  I have already stated the reasons why I don't think that goal makes sense.  Vastly different required skill sets primarily.  And I haven't heard any real reasons why that SHOULD be the goal.  I just hear that it's a bad look otherwise.  And it brings me back to the other minorities which become problematic.  If the goal is to make the coaches and executives look like the players, why include Latinos and now women?  There certainly isn't a problem there by the assumed guideline.  There are no women players and there are no women head coaches.  There a few Latino players and one Latino head coach.  Asian Americans need not apply.

So which is it?  Do we want coaches to look like players or not?  If so, why?  If not, what is the goal?  When have we solved the problem?

I realize you said you were done with the topic and I respect that, but those are questions I would have for anyone who sees the current situation as a serious problem.

 

 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

ESPN is discussing this issue again.  5 of the 7 black head coaches were fired this year.  They have already jumped to the conclusion that there will be fewer black head coaches to start the 2019 season than there were at the start of 2018. 

The commentators proposed several ideas to try to increase the number of black head coaches. I didn't hear anything proposed that will be a real game changer.  This issue gets brought up yearly and while I personally don't see it as an issue, I understand that it is to some.

I think the job should always go to the best person for the spot. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Max Power said:

I think the job should always go to the best person for the spot. 

Sure. So what do you do about the fact (demonstrated by study after study) that, after controlling for experience and performance, blacks are less likely to get call-backs for interviews, less likely to get jobs when interviewed, and more likely to be fired? 

That is, our employment system does a very poor job of selecting the best person for the spot, unless the best person happens to be a white male.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
16 minutes ago, CalBear said:

Sure. So what do you do about the fact (demonstrated by study after study) that, after controlling for experience and performance, blacks are less likely to get call-backs for interviews, less likely to get jobs when interviewed, and more likely to be fired? 

That is, our employment system does a very poor job of selecting the best person for the spot, unless the best person happens to be a white male.

The thought was to get more black people into management positions.  GMs and such.  I don't know if that really alters the HC landscape. 

I'm not going to sit here and act like I have the answer to this situation.  I just get bothered when the talking heads want to site that 70% of the NFL is black and imply that athletic talent = coaching talent, because it doesn't.  These guys went as far as to suggest that teams be mandated to have a % of black "Staff" or face a penalty.  I don't understand that line of thinking.

 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
28 minutes ago, Max Power said:

The thought was to get more black people into management positions.  GMs and such.  I don't know if that really alters the HC landscape. 

I'm not going to sit here and act like I have the answer to this situation.  I just get bothered when the talking heads want to site that 70% of the NFL is black and imply that athletic talent = coaching talent, because it doesn't.  These guys went as far as to suggest that teams be mandated to have a % of black "Staff" or face a penalty.  I don't understand that line of thinking.

I'm not sure the Rooney Rule is effective. But the problem it's trying to address is real. Blacks are likely to be perceived to be less qualified, even when they're not. In one call-back study (repeated multiple times with similar results), where identical resumes were sent in with white-sounding and black-sounding names, having a white-sounding name was equivalent to eight additional years of experience in terms of your likelihood of getting a call-back.

Another study, based on a radio broadcast of a basketball game, showed that people who were shown a picture of a black player were more likely to rate that player as athletic, and less likely to rate him as smart, given identical data.

I don't think there's a "correct" number or percentage target of blacks in coaching and front office jobs. But the null hypothesis must be that blacks who are interested in such jobs face discrimination, as they do in all other employment realms in the U.S. Then the question becomes, what do you do about it?

Edited by CalBear
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, CalBear said:

I'm not sure the Rooney Rule is effective. But the problem it's trying to address is real. Blacks are likely to be perceived to be less qualified, even when they're not. In one call-back study (repeated multiple times with similar results), where identical resumes were sent in with white-sounding and black-sounding names, having a white-sounding name was equivalent to eight additional years of experience in terms of your likelihood of getting a call-back.

Another study, based on a radio broadcast of a basketball game, showed that people who were shown a picture of a black player were more likely to rate that player as athletic, and less likely to rate him as smart, given identical data.

I don't think there's a "correct" number or percentage target of blacks in coaching and front office jobs. But the null hypothesis must be that blacks who are interested in such jobs face discrimination, as they do in all other employment realms in the U.S. Then the question becomes, what do you do about it?

I dunno, a black guy became President.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Max Power said:

ESPN is discussing this issue again.  5 of the 7 black head coaches were fired this year.  They have already jumped to the conclusion that there will be fewer black head coaches to start the 2019 season than there were at the start of 2018. 

The commentators proposed several ideas to try to increase the number of black head coaches. I didn't hear anything proposed that will be a real game changer.  This issue gets brought up yearly and while I personally don't see it as an issue, I understand that it is to some.

I think the job should always go to the best person for the spot. 

Most qualified wins who cares what color their skin is?! That's the way it should be. You should not get a job just b/c you are black, white brown, etc...

  • Like 1
  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

20 minutes ago, hispeedthinmint said:

Most qualified wins who cares what color their skin is?! That's the way it should be. You should not get a job just b/c you are black, white brown, etc...

It would be great if that were the case. But it's not.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, hispeedthinmint said:

B/c of stupid rules like this. None of this bs helps remove racism, it keeps it going.

Asking again: How would you suggest that we address the well-researched, well-documented problem that blacks face employment discrimination in the U.S.? 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, CalBear said:

Asking again: How would you suggest that we address the well-researched, well-documented problem that blacks face employment discrimination in the U.S.? 

Where did I say I had all the answers? So you think the Rooney Rule is a good thing?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, hispeedthinmint said:

Where did I say I had all the answers? So you think the Rooney Rule is a good thing?

In the post you are replying to, I specifically said, "I'm not sure the Rooney Rule is effective." 

The point I am making is that "just get rid of the rule and hire the best candidate" is very clearly ineffective at addressing the problem of employment discrimination.The Rooney Rule is an attempt to address it. And I think there is no empirical evidence that attempts to address employment discrimination contribute to the problem of employment discrimination.

Again, the null hypothesis must be that employment discrimination exists, and that it will continue unless something is done about it. If one believes (as I do, and as you profess to) that employment discrimination is a bad thing, then something must be done about it.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, CalBear said:

In the post you are replying to, I specifically said, "I'm not sure the Rooney Rule is effective." 

The point I am making is that "just get rid of the rule and hire the best candidate" is very clearly ineffective at addressing the problem of employment discrimination.The Rooney Rule is an attempt to address it. And I think there is no empirical evidence that attempts to address employment discrimination contribute to the problem of employment discrimination.

Again, the null hypothesis must be that employment discrimination exists, and that it will continue unless something is done about it. If one believes (as I do, and as you profess to) that employment discrimination is a bad thing, then something must be done about it.

Who said there is a problem, though?

How many black men interview for NFL HC jobs & get declined each year? Why did they not get it? How many white men were passed on for the same job?

 

Too many facts missing to even know if there is discrimination in this particular instance.

Either way, some bs like the Rooney Rule is not the answer IMO

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

There are a lot of pointless discussions that go on in The Shark Pool, but the annual debate over the Rooney Rule is definitely the most pointless. It's not just that no one ever changes anyone else's mind, it's that it always devolves into a debate over affirmative action in general, even though the Rooney Rule is very deliberately not meant to be a form of AA (it emphasizes increasing equality of opportunity rather than results).

Anyway, like I said, not getting sucked into that debate again. But here's what I will say: A few years ago, I got really annoyed by the constant insinuations that such-and-such minority candidate was only interviewed so the team could satisfy the Rooney Rule (looking at you, Rotoworld blurb writers). I felt it was demeaning to the African American coaches who were interviewing, similar to assuming that a black college student only was admitted due to affirmative action.

But as the NFL continues to demonstrate there are no depths to its cynicism, I find myself wondering the exact same thing. It does always seem like the black guy gets one of the earliest interviews just so the team can check the box. And the Raiders engaged in blatant tokenism last year when it was obvious they were going to hire Gruden. I would have rather seen them either say upfront that they were giving Martin and Johnson interviews in order to give them practice for future opportunities or, as Peter King suggested, just voluntarily paid the fine. Instead they insulted everyone's intelligence and Goodell of course was only too happy to participate in the whitewash (pun definitely intended).

So yeah, maybe there's a debate to be had about whether, in an ideal world, the Rooney Rule could be a spur for more creative thinking, encouraging teams to seek out new candidates rather than just recycling the same old boring retreads. But since we don't live in that world, there doesn't seem to be much point in debating whether it's a good idea. If teams are only going to bother adhering to the letter of the law while blatantly violating the spirit -- and if the NFL is going to let them -- then maybe they should just scrap the whole thing and go back to the drawing board.

  • Like 4
  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
36 minutes ago, hispeedthinmint said:

Who said there is a problem, though?

Every bit of evidence about employment in America, in sports, and in the NFL.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, CalBear said:

Asking again: How would you suggest that we address the well-researched, well-documented problem that blacks face employment discrimination in the U.S.? 

 

18 minutes ago, CalBear said:

Every bit of evidence about employment in America, in sports, and in the NFL.

How can <13% of the population occupy 50% of the jobs? 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The Rooney rule works exactly as intended - to get more minority candidates interviews they might not otherwise get.  They aren't trying to mandate hiring numbers or employment statistics, they are simply trying to provide more opportunities to get your name out there.  As a former hiring manager I went into multiple job searches "knowing" who I was going to hire or promote to the open position.  I ended up with a different candidate every time but one.  And I can't tell you how often I would interview someone and come out so impressed that even though I didn't hire them for that opening I kept their contact info for future opportunities (hired 3 people that way) or to pass them on to colleagues with opportunities (at least 2 more).  THAT is the value in the Rooney rule. 

People complain about "token" interviews - to that I say hogwash.  First of all, if you give me one shot at a job?  I'm going to get it.  I don't care what your plan was going in, I'm going to knock your socks off.  Second, and far more importantly, is the value of getting the interview even if it is a token one.  People with little interview experience can learn a ton about preparation and execution.  And again, the biggest value is that the person might end up impressed and even if you don't get this job, you might get their next one, or get a referral.  You don't get that if you aren't in the chair in the first place.

There is no good answer to employment discrimination practices but the Rooney Rule has a ton of value regardless. 

 

  • Like 5

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Always hard to deal with anything where race is involved.  I've already been told right here.....don't talk race (dealing with McCaffrey).  Now here is this thread, so...?

What gets me is this....

It's what difference does skin color make, then the first time an African American does anything .....he/she is the first......

Google

Doug Williams

Ernie Davis

Hattie McDaneil

Joe Perry

DeFord Bailey

Jackie Robinson

Bobby Mitchell

Jerry Levias

Jack Johnson

 

.......you won't go far until you read how they were the first...............

When Frenchman Christopher LeMaitre ran his sub10.00 100m we had to be reminded he was the first caucasian to accomplish that feat.  Why?

What difference should it make what race anyone is when it comes to anything?  IF....what differences does it make.....is true?

We must be reminded he/she/they were the first whatever to accomplish whatever, why?  Could it be that yes it does matter?

Edited by ZenoRazon

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
49 minutes ago, STEADYMOBBIN 22 said:

How can <13% of the population occupy 50% of the jobs? 

Where did anyone suggest that that was a goal?

Do you think it's OK that two guys with the exact same resume have different employment outcomes because one of them is named Jamal and one is named Greg?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, CalBear said:

Where did anyone suggest that that was a goal?

Do you think it's OK that two guys with the exact same resume have different employment outcomes because one of them is named Jamal and one is named Greg?

Typical liberal logic......when someone disagrees with you they must be a racist.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, Manster said:

Typical liberal logic......when someone disagrees with you they must be a racist.

Uh, I didn't accuse anyone of being a racist. I asked a question. I'll ask the same question of you:

Do you think it's OK that two guys with the exact same resume have different employment outcomes because one of them is named Jamal and one is named Greg?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, CalBear said:

Uh, I didn't accuse anyone of being a racist. I asked a question. I'll ask the same question of you:

Do you think it's OK that two guys with the exact same resume have different employment outcomes because one of them is named Jamal and one is named Greg?

This is a bit misleading. It's not that black sounding names get less call backs than white sounding names; it's that exotic names get called back less than more traditional English names. That includes Asian sounding names, yet that hasn't kept Asians from outperforming the rest of America in measures of success. 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, CalBear said:

Uh, I didn't accuse anyone of being a racist. I asked a question. I'll ask the same question of you:

Do you think it's OK that two guys with the exact same resume have different employment outcomes because one of them is named Jamal and one is named Greg?

Pipe down Francis.....the pendulum has swung the other way in a lot of industries.....I've experienced it first hand in college and in the real world....I get it, my ancestors did horrible things!  I'm just tired of the emotional outbursts about all this crap......in my world you're given jack ####!  You earn it based on hard work.....I'm just tired of the whining and the victim mentality.....there's always going to be some racism....there's always going to be some bullies....grow a pair and get over it

Edited by Manster

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
46 minutes ago, CalBear said:

Where did anyone suggest that that was a goal?

Do you think it's OK that two guys with the exact same resume have different employment outcomes because one of them is named Jamal and one is named Greg?

No. I don’t. 

I also don’t think two students applying for collage with the exact same GPA have different outcomes because one of them is named Greg and one is named Jamal. 

Edited by STEADYMOBBIN 22
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
26 minutes ago, ZenoRazon said:

What is acceptable here when it comes to race?  Ok to deal with real life or have to play pretend?

Yeah, I gave a measured response because it’s easier and I won’t have to spend the rest of the evening defending myself for the actions and thoughts of others. 

Edited by STEADYMOBBIN 22
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.