What's new
Fantasy Football - Footballguys Forums

Welcome to Our Forums. Once you've registered and logged in, you're primed to talk football, among other topics, with the sharpest and most experienced fantasy players on the internet.

Rooney rule discussion (1 Viewer)

Arodin said:
Tool said:
Women and people w/ various handicaps are not represented as players in the NFL and none (that i'm aware of) are qualified to be a head coach.
Click to expand...
And no one is talking about how terribly unfair and discriminatory this is, and how every owner is a latent chauvinist.

We need a rule that no team can sign a male player until they give a female player a tryout.
Click to expand...
What about Strawmen? Should we make it mandatory to interview a Strawman?!

 
Last edited by a moderator:
Arodin said:
Tool said:
Women and people w/ various handicaps are not represented as players in the NFL and none (that i'm aware of) are qualified to be a head coach.
Click to expand...
And no one is talking about how terribly unfair and discriminatory this is, and how every owner is a latent chauvinist.

We need a rule that no team can sign a male player until they give a female player a tryout.
Click to expand...
i believe they are eligible to try out at the college level. Since no females have been successful at a lower level I think we can reasonably conclude that they would be unsuccessful in the NFL.

 
zftcg said:
Question for people who oppose the Rooney Rule: Let's say that tomorrow you suddenly became the owner of an NFL team that had a HC or GM opening. What would you do? How would you instruct your staff to structure the hiring process with respect to the RR? Would you want them to just bring you a token candidate so that you could fulfill the requirements, and then proceed with the rest of your search? Would you ignore the requirement and pay a fine as an act of civil disobedience? Would you not say anything, and just assume that at least one minority candidate would make the cut? Would you say, "I may not agree with this rule, but I'll try to figure out a way to do something good with it?"

Not trolling; I'm genuinely curious to hear people's responses.
Click to expand...
I oppose the rule because i do not think it is necessary or effective in this era.To answer you question:

If I inherited the chore of building a franchise tomorrow, it would never cross my mind the color of someone's skin while hunting for staff. Ever.

Systemic racism exists to this day and minorities are certainly at a disadvantage in the workforce for a plethora of reasons. In the NFL where there are 32 teams and millions of closely watching followers, teams would hire by merit more than we are giving them credit for.

The NFL has left the old white QB ideology behind and it did not require a Rooney rule. As society grows and matures, these happen naturally. Give it a chance. Victory of overcoming racism is sweeter and genuine when it's not forced.

 
slackjawedyokel said:
zftcg said:
Question for people who oppose the Rooney Rule: Let's say that tomorrow you suddenly became the owner of an NFL team that had a HC or GM opening. What would you do? How would you instruct your staff to structure the hiring process with respect to the RR? Would you want them to just bring you a token candidate so that you could fulfill the requirements, and then proceed with the rest of your search? Would you ignore the requirement and pay a fine as an act of civil disobedience? Would you not say anything, and just assume that at least one minority candidate would make the cut? Would you say, "I may not agree with this rule, but I'll try to figure out a way to do something good with it?"

Not trolling; I'm genuinely curious to hear people's responses.
Click to expand...
I oppose the rule because i do not think it is necessary or effective in this era.To answer you question:

If I inherited the chore of building a franchise tomorrow, it would never cross my mind the color of someone's skin while hunting for staff. Ever.

Systemic racism exists to this day and minorities are certainly at a disadvantage in the workforce for a plethora of reasons. In the NFL where there are 32 teams and millions of closely watching followers, teams would hire by merit more than we are giving them credit for.

The NFL has left the old white QB ideology behind and it did not require a Rooney rule. As society grows and matures, these happen naturally. Give it a chance. Victory of overcoming racism is sweeter and genuine when it's not forced.
Click to expand...
Yeah, yeah, I get it. You don't even see race. But I wasn't asking for your reasons why you think the Rooney Rule is a bad idea. I already understand that. What I'm asking is what you would do as an NFL owner who is obligated to follow the rule. You can say that race would never cross your mind, but the rule specifically says that it must.

So would you:

a) Honor the letter of the rule by interviewing a token candidate

b) Honor the spirit of the rule and proactively seek out minority candidates

c) Refuse to take race into account, and, if that resulted in no minority candidates, accept your punishment from the commissioner.

If you can think of a fourth option, by all means suggest that, but it seems like you would have to pick one of those three. I guess from your answer you're saying you'd pick c, but I'm not totally clear on that.

 
zftcg said:
slackjawedyokel said:
zftcg said:
Question for people who oppose the Rooney Rule: Let's say that tomorrow you suddenly became the owner of an NFL team that had a HC or GM opening. What would you do? How would you instruct your staff to structure the hiring process with respect to the RR? Would you want them to just bring you a token candidate so that you could fulfill the requirements, and then proceed with the rest of your search? Would you ignore the requirement and pay a fine as an act of civil disobedience? Would you not say anything, and just assume that at least one minority candidate would make the cut? Would you say, "I may not agree with this rule, but I'll try to figure out a way to do something good with it?"

Not trolling; I'm genuinely curious to hear people's responses.
Click to expand...
I oppose the rule because i do not think it is necessary or effective in this era.To answer you question:

If I inherited the chore of building a franchise tomorrow, it would never cross my mind the color of someone's skin while hunting for staff. Ever.

Systemic racism exists to this day and minorities are certainly at a disadvantage in the workforce for a plethora of reasons. In the NFL where there are 32 teams and millions of closely watching followers, teams would hire by merit more than we are giving them credit for.

The NFL has left the old white QB ideology behind and it did not require a Rooney rule. As society grows and matures, these happen naturally. Give it a chance. Victory of overcoming racism is sweeter and genuine when it's not forced.
Click to expand...
Yeah, yeah, I get it. You don't even see race. But I wasn't asking for your reasons why you think the Rooney Rule is a bad idea. I already understand that. What I'm asking is what you would do as an NFL owner who is obligated to follow the rule. You can say that race would never cross your mind, but the rule specifically says that it must.

So would you:

a) Honor the letter of the rule by interviewing a token candidate

b) Honor the spirit of the rule and proactively seek out minority candidates

c) Refuse to take race into account, and, if that resulted in no minority candidates, accept your punishment from the commissioner.

If you can think of a fourth option, by all means suggest that, but it seems like you would have to pick one of those three. I guess from your answer you're saying you'd pick c, but I'm not totally clear on that.
Click to expand...
Fair enough hypothetical. I'd start with C to line up interviews for candidates that fit the needs, and if none are PoC then I'd find a PoC regardless of merit and satisfy the league.

Quite frankly I have no idea what's required to run a franchise so surely that's an overly simplistic summary of the process but that would be my response to the league requirement.

 
Tool said:
Arodin said:
Tool said:
Women and people w/ various handicaps are not represented as players in the NFL and none (that i'm aware of) are qualified to be a head coach.
Click to expand...
And no one is talking about how terribly unfair and discriminatory this is, and how every owner is a latent chauvinist.

We need a rule that no team can sign a male player until they give a female player a tryout.
Click to expand...
i believe they are eligible to try out at the college level. Since no females have been successful at a lower level I think we can reasonably conclude that they would be unsuccessful in the NFL.
Click to expand...
Unless of course systematic discrimination is responsible for their inability to be successful.

There was a time when that was undeniably true for minorities, which is part of what brought us to the Rooney Rule.

 
Arodin said:
Tool said:
Arodin said:
Tool said:
Women and people w/ various handicaps are not represented as players in the NFL and none (that i'm aware of) are qualified to be a head coach.
Click to expand...
And no one is talking about how terribly unfair and discriminatory this is, and how every owner is a latent chauvinist.

We need a rule that no team can sign a male player until they give a female player a tryout.
Click to expand...
i believe they are eligible to try out at the college level. Since no females have been successful at a lower level I think we can reasonably conclude that they would be unsuccessful in the NFL.
Click to expand...
Unless of course systematic discrimination is responsible for their inability to be successful.

There was a time when that was undeniably true for minorities, which is part of what brought us to the Rooney Rule.
Click to expand...
When was that time? What makes you believe that it's changed?

 
tone1oc said:
When was that time? What makes you believe that it's changed?
Click to expand...
1) Before integration, when franchises like the Redskins refused to hire blacks, and considered such policy to be catering to their fan base.

2) The hiring of a number of successful minority candidates by a variety of organizations, to the point that the lack of black coaches is about as much of an issue now as the lack supposed lack of successful black QBs was 20 years ago. (Remember when that was a 'thing'? Is it still?)

 
Arodin said:
tone1oc said:
When was that time? What makes you believe that it's changed?
Click to expand...
1) Before integration, when franchises like the Redskins refused to hire blacks, and considered such policy to be catering to their fan base.

2) The hiring of a number of successful minority candidates by a variety of organizations, to the point that the lack of black coaches is about as much of an issue now as the lack supposed lack of successful black QBs was 20 years ago. (Remember when that was a 'thing'? Is it still?)
Click to expand...
So you agree that Rooney rule is working? Why change it just to appease some fans who have a problem with an organization having to interview minority candidates? There is no real downfall, other than some people's emotions.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
tone1oc said:
Arodin said:
tone1oc said:
When was that time? What makes you believe that it's changed?
Click to expand...
1) Before integration, when franchises like the Redskins refused to hire blacks, and considered such policy to be catering to their fan base.

2) The hiring of a number of successful minority candidates by a variety of organizations, to the point that the lack of black coaches is about as much of an issue now as the lack supposed lack of successful black QBs was 20 years ago. (Remember when that was a 'thing'? Is it still?)
Click to expand...
So you agree that Rooney rule is working? Why change it just to appease some fans who have a problem with an organization having to interview minority candidates? There is no real downfall, other than some people's emotions.
Click to expand...
I agree that minority hiring has improved. I am not convinced that the Rooney Rule had anything to do with the improvement. I doubt, for instance, that Mike Tomlin was only hired by Dan Rooney because of his namesake rule.

Generally, I consider anything that forces people to consider the race of an applicant to be a "downfall" as it leads away from the goal of a society in which color is irrelevant. Thus, there is a hidden downside to having the Rooney rule once its initial purpose has been served.

Do you think that, if we removed the rule, fewer qualified black coaches would get jobs? If not, why have the rule?

 
Arodin said:
tone1oc said:
Arodin said:
tone1oc said:
When was that time? What makes you believe that it's changed?
Click to expand...
1) Before integration, when franchises like the Redskins refused to hire blacks, and considered such policy to be catering to their fan base.

2) The hiring of a number of successful minority candidates by a variety of organizations, to the point that the lack of black coaches is about as much of an issue now as the lack supposed lack of successful black QBs was 20 years ago. (Remember when that was a 'thing'? Is it still?)
Click to expand...
So you agree that Rooney rule is working? Why change it just to appease some fans who have a problem with an organization having to interview minority candidates? There is no real downfall, other than some people's emotions.
Click to expand...
I agree that minority hiring has improved. I am not convinced that the Rooney Rule had anything to do with the improvement. I doubt, for instance, that Mike Tomlin was only hired by Dan Rooney because of his namesake rule.

Generally, I consider anything that forces people to consider the race of an applicant to be a "downfall" as it leads away from the goal of a society in which color is irrelevant. Thus, there is a hidden downside to having the Rooney rule once its initial purpose has been served.

Do you think that, if we removed the rule, fewer qualified black coaches would get jobs? If not, why have the rule?
Click to expand...
Yes.

You are of the mind that diversity was a problem, and that though the improvement correlated with the RR, the rule itself didn't have anything to do with it. If that were true then the forcing of people to consider race hasn't been a downful of a more diverse society. Unless you are contending there would be more minority hires without the rule.

What is the hidden downside? Only downside any of you are articulating is a self imposed distain/anguish/embarrassment/(insert emotion here) of the rule.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
tone1oc said:
Yes.


You are of the mind that diversity was a problem, and that though the improvement correlated with the RR, the rule itself didn't have anything to do with it. If that were true then the forcing of people to consider race hasn't been a downful of a more diverse society. Unless you are contending there would be more minority hires without the rule.

What is the hidden downside? Only downside any of you are articulating is a self imposed distain/anguish/embarrassment/(insert emotion here) of the rule.
Click to expand...
Downsides:

1) Employers are encouraged/forced to consider the race of candidates when scheduling interviews, to make sure that they abide by the rule. Thus, even when we reach (have reached?) a state where 32 teams are willing to consider candidates equally regardless of race, they still have to figure out each applicant's race and insure that they meet a racially-based quota in hiring. I'm surprised you don't see how this keeps the system race-conscious when the goal should be race-independence.

2) When a minority coach is interviewed, there is a tendency to question whether the interview resulted from his being among the preferred candidates for the position, or whether he was only interviewed to "satisfy the rule." Such rules leave an insidious suspicion in the minds of many as to whether these candidates really are as qualified as the candidates of the non-mandated races. Tomlin, for instance, turned out to be a pretty good coach. Without the Rooney rule, people would have looked at his interview and concluded (rightly) that Rooney thought him an excellent and well-qualified candidate. As it is, we had a lot of speculation as to whether he was only interviewed to comply with the rule. This is also a race-based consideration in the evaluation of coaching candidates that I think we'd be better off without, and would not have if teams' interviews were based solely on their own preferences and sense of merit.

 
Arodin said:
tone1oc said:
Yes.


You are of the mind that diversity was a problem, and that though the improvement correlated with the RR, the rule itself didn't have anything to do with it. If that were true then the forcing of people to consider race hasn't been a downful of a more diverse society. Unless you are contending there would be more minority hires without the rule.

What is the hidden downside? Only downside any of you are articulating is a self imposed distain/anguish/embarrassment/(insert emotion here) of the rule.
Click to expand...
Downsides:

1) Employers are encouraged/forced to consider the race of candidates when scheduling interviews, to make sure that they abide by the rule. Thus, even when we reach (have reached?) a state where 32 teams are willing to consider candidates equally regardless of race, they still have to figure out each applicant's race and insure that they meet a racially-based quota in hiring. I'm surprised you don't see how this keeps the system race-conscious when the goal should be race-independence.

2) When a minority coach is interviewed, there is a tendency to question whether the interview resulted from his being among the preferred candidates for the position, or whether he was only interviewed to "satisfy the rule." Such rules leave an insidious suspicion in the minds of many as to whether these candidates really are as qualified as the candidates of the non-mandated races. Tomlin, for instance, turned out to be a pretty good coach. Without the Rooney rule, people would have looked at his interview and concluded (rightly) that Rooney thought him an excellent and well-qualified candidate. As it is, we had a lot of speculation as to whether he was only interviewed to comply with the rule. This is also a race-based consideration in the evaluation of coaching candidates that I think we'd be better off without, and would not have if teams' interviews were based solely on their own preferences and sense of merit.
Click to expand...
None of this is a downfall to anyone other than people who are offended that they have to interview minority candidates. You are essentially saying that the downfall is that you don't like it.

If you are speculating whether a black coach is a well-qualified candidate, then you might be racist.

 
Ministry of Pain said:
Dr. Octopus said:
Ministry of Pain said:
Dezbelief said:
How many minority HCs before the rule and how many since?
Click to expand...
Tony Dungy was the first I think which is why they should stop playing games and put him in the HoF already. He ruled with the Tampa-2 for a long time.

It took until 1996 for the NFL to hire a minority head coach.

In the last 5-7 years there have been a lot.

2003 rule went into place...Marvin Lewis also was already coaching Cinci.
Click to expand...
Tom Flores and Art Shell both coached for the Raiders well before Dungy.
Click to expand...
You're right, my apologies. TY Doc Oct
Click to expand...
Fritz Pollard was the first minority head coach in the NFL.

 
tone1oc said:
Arodin said:
tone1oc said:
Yes.


You are of the mind that diversity was a problem, and that though the improvement correlated with the RR, the rule itself didn't have anything to do with it. If that were true then the forcing of people to consider race hasn't been a downful of a more diverse society. Unless you are contending there would be more minority hires without the rule.

What is the hidden downside? Only downside any of you are articulating is a self imposed distain/anguish/embarrassment/(insert emotion here) of the rule.
Click to expand...
Downsides:

1) Employers are encouraged/forced to consider the race of candidates when scheduling interviews, to make sure that they abide by the rule. Thus, even when we reach (have reached?) a state where 32 teams are willing to consider candidates equally regardless of race, they still have to figure out each applicant's race and insure that they meet a racially-based quota in hiring. I'm surprised you don't see how this keeps the system race-conscious when the goal should be race-independence.

2) When a minority coach is interviewed, there is a tendency to question whether the interview resulted from his being among the preferred candidates for the position, or whether he was only interviewed to "satisfy the rule." Such rules leave an insidious suspicion in the minds of many as to whether these candidates really are as qualified as the candidates of the non-mandated races. Tomlin, for instance, turned out to be a pretty good coach. Without the Rooney rule, people would have looked at his interview and concluded (rightly) that Rooney thought him an excellent and well-qualified candidate. As it is, we had a lot of speculation as to whether he was only interviewed to comply with the rule. This is also a race-based consideration in the evaluation of coaching candidates that I think we'd be better off without, and would not have if teams' interviews were based solely on their own preferences and sense of merit.
Click to expand...
None of this is a downfall to anyone other than people who are offended that they have to interview minority candidates. You are essentially saying that the downfall is that you don't like it.

If you are speculating whether a black coach is a well-qualified candidate, then you might be racist.
Click to expand...
:goodposting:

Reminds me of all the people in 2007 who were saying, "Obama will never get elected because people won't vote for a black candidate." Not them, mind you. They're completely open minded. It's those *other* people ...

To be clear, I'm not saying the people making that argument are racist. What I'm saying is that, if -- as Arodin himself says -- the people who think Tomlin only got the job because of his race are wrong, shouldn't we place the blame on those people, rather than treating it as a perfectly rational response to the Rooney Rule?

Also, while the concern for Tomlin's rep is touching, is there any evidence at all that he or other black head coaches are bothered by it, or that they oppose the Rooney Rule?

 
Arodin said:
tone1oc said:
Arodin said:
tone1oc said:
When was that time? What makes you believe that it's changed?
Click to expand...
1) Before integration, when franchises like the Redskins refused to hire blacks, and considered such policy to be catering to their fan base.

2) The hiring of a number of successful minority candidates by a variety of organizations, to the point that the lack of black coaches is about as much of an issue now as the lack supposed lack of successful black QBs was 20 years ago. (Remember when that was a 'thing'? Is it still?)
Click to expand...
So you agree that Rooney rule is working? Why change it just to appease some fans who have a problem with an organization having to interview minority candidates? There is no real downfall, other than some people's emotions.
Click to expand...
I agree that minority hiring has improved. I am not convinced that the Rooney Rule had anything to do with the improvement. I doubt, for instance, that Mike Tomlin was only hired by Dan Rooney because of his namesake rule.

Generally, I consider anything that forces people to consider the race of an applicant to be a "downfall" as it leads away from the goal of a society in which color is irrelevant. Thus, there is a hidden downside to having the Rooney rule once its initial purpose has been served.

Do you think that, if we removed the rule, fewer qualified black coaches would get jobs? If not, why have the rule?
Click to expand...
What an odd question. It seems pretty axiomatic that people who support the Rooney Rule believe that it helps more qualified minority coaches get jobs. If we didn't think that, why would we support it? That's the whole point of the rule.

 
slackjawedyokel said:
zftcg said:
Question for people who oppose the Rooney Rule: Let's say that tomorrow you suddenly became the owner of an NFL team that had a HC or GM opening. What would you do? How would you instruct your staff to structure the hiring process with respect to the RR? Would you want them to just bring you a token candidate so that you could fulfill the requirements, and then proceed with the rest of your search? Would you ignore the requirement and pay a fine as an act of civil disobedience? Would you not say anything, and just assume that at least one minority candidate would make the cut? Would you say, "I may not agree with this rule, but I'll try to figure out a way to do something good with it?"

Not trolling; I'm genuinely curious to hear people's responses.
Click to expand...
I oppose the rule because i do not think it is necessary or effective in this era.To answer you question:

If I inherited the chore of building a franchise tomorrow, it would never cross my mind the color of someone's skin while hunting for staff. Ever.

Systemic racism exists to this day and minorities are certainly at a disadvantage in the workforce for a plethora of reasons. In the NFL where there are 32 teams and millions of closely watching followers, teams would hire by merit more than we are giving them credit for.

The NFL has left the old white QB ideology behind and it did not require a Rooney rule. As society grows and matures, these happen naturally. Give it a chance. Victory of overcoming racism is sweeter and genuine when it's not forced.
Click to expand...
Wait, you really think that? Seriously? Does that mean you view the 1964 Civil Rights Act as "sour" because the South had to be forced to end segregation, rather than giving it a chance to happen naturally? Would it have been better if we had just waited for Bull Connors' fire hoses to run out of water pressure?

I suspect if you ask the actual victims of racism, they would say that what's "sweet" is the part is where they stop being discriminated against, regardless of how it happens.

 
PFT had an interesting post today:

Lions G.M. Bob Quinn must decide what to do with coach Jim Caldwell, sooner or later. Bet on sooner.

Dave Birkett of the Detroit Free Press reports that Quinn and Caldwell will meet this weekend, during which Caldwell likely will learn his fate.

Fritz Pollard Alliance chairman John Wooten has spoken out in support of Caldwell, via comments suggesting (at a minimum) that Caldwell knew Wootten would be waving the flag for the successor to Jim Schwartz.

He realizes that he needs to get back there because they need to sit down and go through what you need to do in terms of, youve got a new guy now, therefore this guys in charge and therefore you need to sit down with him face to face and go over it, Wooten told Birkett. And hes prepared to do that and he will do that. I think that he knows that he should stand on his record. His record is good enough that theyre moving on forward . . . that he has them on the right track.

Woottens comments raise a separate question. Should a guy who works to ensure diversity in hiring be trying to influence whether teams will keep a given coach? In theory, another minority candidate could be hired to replace Caldwell, making the change a wash when it comes to the question of whether minority coaches are fairly represented in the NFL.

Regardless, a group aimed at influencing hiring decisions arguably shouldnt be trying to influence firing decisions.

The thing that I want to point out is that, yes, I am the chairman of the Fritz Pollard Alliance and it is my job to work for minorities and opportunities for minority inclusion and so forth, Wooten said. But its not even about that. It is about a man who has done the job when he was fighting short-handed with a short stick because of the players, excellent players, being taken away from him, first-round draft choices going out the door.

Those first-round draft choices going out the door (i.e., defensive tackles Ndamukong Suh and Nick Fairley) resulted from the decisions made by former G.M. Martin Mayhew. Regardless of whether and to what extent the absence of Suh and Fairley hurt the team in 2015 (Caldwell has defended the organizations decision in 2014 to pass on defensive tackle Aaron Donald in favor of tight end Eric Ebron), the decision to part ways with Mayhew and to hire Quinn necessarily gives rise to the question of whether Quinn should hire a new coach or keep the one he has inherited.

Quinn may decide to keep Caldwell. Quinn may decide to move on. Either way, Wootens opinions shouldnt matter.
Click to expand...
Seems a bit heavy handed, no?
 
Dezbelief said:
Of course teams are going to satisfy minimum requirements first. What happens if they interview a Chinese gentleman first and decide he's their guy and word leaks before the Rooney Rule is satisfied? That would be a mockery of the rule.
Click to expand...
No because this has happened before. Norm Chow was interviewed. The Rooney Rule was meant for non White men, not Black men. It is viewed as rule for Black men because 90 percent of the non White men in coaching are Black but a Native American could be interviewed for the rule too.

 
trader jake said:
PFT had an interesting post today:

Lions G.M. Bob Quinn must decide what to do with coach Jim Caldwell, sooner or later. Bet on sooner.

Dave Birkett of the Detroit Free Press reports that Quinn and Caldwell will meet this weekend, during which Caldwell likely will learn his fate.

Fritz Pollard Alliance chairman John Wooten has spoken out in support of Caldwell, via comments suggesting (at a minimum) that Caldwell knew Wootten would be waving the flag for the successor to Jim Schwartz.

He realizes that he needs to get back there because they need to sit down and go through what you need to do in terms of, youve got a new guy now, therefore this guys in charge and therefore you need to sit down with him face to face and go over it, Wooten told Birkett. And hes prepared to do that and he will do that. I think that he knows that he should stand on his record. His record is good enough that theyre moving on forward . . . that he has them on the right track.

Woottens comments raise a separate question. Should a guy who works to ensure diversity in hiring be trying to influence whether teams will keep a given coach? In theory, another minority candidate could be hired to replace Caldwell, making the change a wash when it comes to the question of whether minority coaches are fairly represented in the NFL.

Regardless, a group aimed at influencing hiring decisions arguably shouldnt be trying to influence firing decisions.

The thing that I want to point out is that, yes, I am the chairman of the Fritz Pollard Alliance and it is my job to work for minorities and opportunities for minority inclusion and so forth, Wooten said. But its not even about that. It is about a man who has done the job when he was fighting short-handed with a short stick because of the players, excellent players, being taken away from him, first-round draft choices going out the door.

Those first-round draft choices going out the door (i.e., defensive tackles Ndamukong Suh and Nick Fairley) resulted from the decisions made by former G.M. Martin Mayhew. Regardless of whether and to what extent the absence of Suh and Fairley hurt the team in 2015 (Caldwell has defended the organizations decision in 2014 to pass on defensive tackle Aaron Donald in favor of tight end Eric Ebron), the decision to part ways with Mayhew and to hire Quinn necessarily gives rise to the question of whether Quinn should hire a new coach or keep the one he has inherited.

Quinn may decide to keep Caldwell. Quinn may decide to move on. Either way, Wootens opinions shouldnt matter.
Click to expand...
Seems a bit heavy handed, no?
Click to expand...
I'm confused. What do you think is heavy handed? That Wooten offered his opinion? Or are you saying PFT's piece is heavy handed?

 
zftcg said:
slackjawedyokel said:
zftcg said:
Question for people who oppose the Rooney Rule: Let's say that tomorrow you suddenly became the owner of an NFL team that had a HC or GM opening. What would you do? How would you instruct your staff to structure the hiring process with respect to the RR? Would you want them to just bring you a token candidate so that you could fulfill the requirements, and then proceed with the rest of your search? Would you ignore the requirement and pay a fine as an act of civil disobedience? Would you not say anything, and just assume that at least one minority candidate would make the cut? Would you say, "I may not agree with this rule, but I'll try to figure out a way to do something good with it?"

Not trolling; I'm genuinely curious to hear people's responses.
Click to expand...
I oppose the rule because i do not think it is necessary or effective in this era.To answer you question:

If I inherited the chore of building a franchise tomorrow, it would never cross my mind the color of someone's skin while hunting for staff. Ever.

Systemic racism exists to this day and minorities are certainly at a disadvantage in the workforce for a plethora of reasons. In the NFL where there are 32 teams and millions of closely watching followers, teams would hire by merit more than we are giving them credit for.

The NFL has left the old white QB ideology behind and it did not require a Rooney rule. As society grows and matures, these happen naturally. Give it a chance. Victory of overcoming racism is sweeter and genuine when it's not forced.
Click to expand...
Wait, you really think that? Seriously? Does that mean you view the 1964 Civil Rights Act as "sour" because the South had to be forced to end segregation, rather than giving it a chance to happen naturally? Would it have been better if we had just waited for Bull Connors' fire hoses to run out of water pressure?

I suspect if you ask the actual victims of racism, they would say that what's "sweet" is the part is where they stop being discriminated against, regardless of how it happens.
Click to expand...
That translation is not what I meant. Of course action is better than inaction, but when society is ready to do what is right without provocation, the resulting equality is preferred to something that is forced. My point in referring to the QB position is that PoC are not at a disadvantage today in that role, and I think that coaches would be treated the same way.

To further this a bit, I'd rather the Vikings choose Bridgwater on merit than filling a quota on number of PoC with a tryout. I hope that makes sense. If there were no black QBs in the league, we'd be discussing ways to change that. It's no longer an issue and maybe I'm too optimistic, but I can see franchises hiring staff the same way. I admit it may be too lesse faire to let teams choose coaches on their own, but I think smart teams hiring highly qualified coaches regardless of skin color is fully attainable in this age.

 
This seems relevant to our discussion:

According to new research from professors at Georgetown, George Washington, Emory and Iowa State University, white position coaches and assistants in the NFL are more than twice as likely to be promoted to coordinator than their black counterparts, regardless of their performance, experience or coaching background. One of the study's co-authors, Christopher I. Rider, says he was surprised by the magnitude of the "white coach effect" among aspiring coordinators, who aren't subject to the Rooney Rule. "Just focusing at the top is unlikely to effect much change," says Rider, an assistant professor at Georgetown.
Click to expand...


 
Last edited by a moderator:
menobrown said:
Never been a fan of the Rooney rule but I expect it to get worse, not better. Basically like this increasingly PC world we live in. I fully expect in next few years we hear gripes from women's groups that the misogynistic NFL won't consider them for jobs other than interns.
Click to expand...
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.
 
menobrown said:
menobrown said:
Never been a fan of the Rooney rule but I expect it to get worse, not better. Basically like this increasingly PC world we live in. I fully expect in next few years we hear gripes from women's groups that the misogynistic NFL won't consider them for jobs other than interns.
Click to expand...
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.
Click to expand...
I hadn't seen or heard about women's groups making executive-level opportunities a major issue for the NFL. This seems like the NFL getting ahead of the curve for a change. I think this is a good initiative.

 
Madden Curse said:
menobrown said:
menobrown said:
Never been a fan of the Rooney rule but I expect it to get worse, not better. Basically like this increasingly PC world we live in. I fully expect in next few years we hear gripes from women's groups that the misogynistic NFL won't consider them for jobs other than interns.
Click to expand...
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.
Click to expand...
I hadn't seen or heard about women's groups making executive-level opportunities a major issue for the NFL. This seems like the NFL getting ahead of the curve for a change. I think this is a good initiative.
Click to expand...
Total guess, but I bet this version is less about the teams' behavior and more about getting female candidates to put themselves forward and think of working in a front office as a realistic future career opportunity. If they think they have a chance of getting interviewed, more women are likely to apply.

(And yes, it's also probably a PR-motivated move. The NFL knows it needs to bring in more female fans if it wants to continue growing.)

 
Heard Ron Rivera say in an interview about a week ago- not exact quote but something like this- "some people want to make a big deal that I'm a minority coach- i just want to be known as a coach."

My point in the op is more disdain for the "seemingly" token interviews than for the rule itself. After watching the hiring cycle this year I'm not sure I feel any different. Go through pfts coaching changes timeline and peruse the interviews.

Hue Jackson got a lot of looks but picked Cleveland?

 
The pool of candidates isn't there. There aren't many awesome african american assistants in the NFL nor college coaches

http://www.cbssports.com/college-football/news/as-black-hires-decline-college-football-needs-but-cant-adopt-a-rooney-rule/

There were 17 black head coaches entering the 2011 season. There were 13 in 2015. There will be 12 in 2016.

The success of African American coaches in the NFL is nice, maybe better than average. Half? 40%? Make the superbowl? Higher if you discard Browns coaches for being....Browns coaches.

Most pro athletes can not quit and become top coaches. The low percent that do give off this perception that everyone can. I think this is where african american coaching development is stalled. There's a ton of former players that will become coordinators and position coaches but they either do "OK" or not well at that role. They need to thrive and make a team want to promote them.

There was an article about failing in the NFL and/or having a brief NFL career and how that was (oddly) a better indicator of future coaching success. I don't remember where I saw it, but you can think of current coaches and guess the article just fine. 

There's been a slew of articles in papers by me how former Texas Tech players have been flooding the college coaching ranks (as assistants) lately. This seems like something to me. They had a well known high flying offense and didn't go on to have great success as players. That could fit the mold presented. 

Chip Kelly bugs me. He had 3? 2? years of success and "took the NFL by storm" with his offense, techniques, and trades. This didn't lead to an influx of college coaches. He got "beat up" last year and did land the San Fran job, but in a copy cat environment like the NFL, I'm surprised there wasn't a few college coaches added. Titans were looking for a coach (supposedly) and the most vital part (arguably) was that he groom Mariota to be the stud the franchise believes he can become. They didn't even interview Helfrich, his Oregon OC and coach that has been real successful in a short time. 

He played for Rick Brooks and then as a coach he was part of that Boise St team that got a lot of press too. From wiki-  Dirk Koetter would later praise Helfrich for his coaching abilities, "He can do it all in his head. He doesn't have to draw the pictures on the board (…) not many people can do that. He sees the game through the quarterback's eyes. We all have ideas, but if your quarterback can't execute those ideas, they are lines on a paper. Mark is as smart a football guy as I know."

I'm not saying he had to be the Titans coach, but he should have been interviewed. 

He's white, but this road to the NFL needs to be opened again too, for any race. The african americans need to do well at the college level and the NFL needs to be a next step. Helfrich can open that up.

There's better college coaches. Stoops is always rumored. It's just Helfrich-Mariota seems like the perfect angle.  It doesn't matter what college coach, just get that path open again for others to take advantage of.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
Bri said:
Chip Kelly bugs me. He had 3? 2? years of success and "took the NFL by storm" with his offense, techniques, and trades. This didn't lead to an influx of college coaches. He got "beat up" last year and did land the San Fran job, but in a copy cat environment like the NFL, I'm surprised there wasn't a few college coaches added. Titans were looking for a coach (supposedly) and the most vital part (arguably) was that he groom Mariota to be the stud the franchise believes he can become. They didn't even interview Helfrich, his Oregon OC and coach that has been real successful in a short time. 
Click to expand...
Kelly did take the NFL by storm at first, but had no ability to adapt or work with people, which is why he failed.  He kind of reinforced some of the stereotypes about college coaches being more simplistic and dictatorial (and not needing to change either of these, because of the system in college).  It doesn't surprise me that he didn't lead to a run of college hires, especially because he also was smarter and more innovative than the others, so it's not like there are that many other guys with his intelligence.  And his trades (and personnel moves in general) were terrible and he really had about 1.5 years of success. 

 
Long Ball Larry said:
Kelly did take the NFL by storm at first, but had no ability to adapt or work with people, which is why he failed.  He kind of reinforced some of the stereotypes about college coaches being more simplistic and dictatorial (and not needing to change either of these, because of the system in college).  It doesn't surprise me that he didn't lead to a run of college hires, especially because he also was smarter and more innovative than the others, so it's not like there are that many other guys with his intelligence.  And his trades (and personnel moves in general) were terrible and he really had about 1.5 years of success. 
Click to expand...
There are a ton of Super Bowl winning coaches that are egotistical and control freaks and a bit wacky. They're not "built" to lose gracefully and part of their success is digging into every minute detail.

I think Jeff Fisher is a very well spoken people person. He hasn't won a lot the last so many years. The Browns have had some nice friendly coaches.

Even if I agree with you 100%, I still don't like the alternative better. Hey let's see if the fourth time is the charm for Mularkey! Whisenhunt had terrible offenses in TEN and did horrible with the first back taken running behind a bad O-line, yet San Diego was excited to get him back?

 
Faust said:
Coaches echo Tony Dungy's comments about the good but flawed Rooney Rule
Click to expand...
I guess the teeth gnashing over the lack of results is somewhat humorous.

You invent a rule that requires interviews but not hires, and then years later lament the fact that the rule hasn't really done anything and therefore must be "altered" to accomplish the stated goal.  So can someone tell me how it can be altered to attain the stated goal?

I mean, WTF did anyone expect?  Did they think that racists are going to see the light and hire minorities because an interview miraculously changed their minds?  Or did they think that non-racists won't just check the RR box and then go hire the guy they want?

For the RR to work as intended, you have to believe that there were 1) minority candidates that were clearly better qualified than white candidates that 2) would get interviews they wouldn't otherwise get and that 3) the interviewer would only have such a slight touch of racism so as to not realize it so that he/she could have a revelation during the interview and be persuaded to give the minority candidate a chance.  

Tomlin was the perfect storm.  But there are 32 NFL head coaching jobs in the world.  We really think you can apply a statistical analysis to that small a number to claim with any credibility that we understand the dynamics involved in that kind of hiring decision sufficient to second-guess it?

So back to my question about what to do now.  If you've required interviews and that hasn't hasn't helped, what else is there to do if you believe the goal (more minority hiring) is worthy of more rule writing?  Quotas.  There, I said it.  That's all you can do.  Or get the owners and GM's out of it and let some blue ribbon committee of vetted non-racists do the hiring for all these teams.  And if there is a perception in the league, even among minority candidates themselves, that there is only token compliance, how would a quota change that?  I guess a token hire and subsequent firing one season later is less insulting than a token interview?

I realize it isn't a popular solution, but is there a practical solution other than just letting old racist people die off or retire?

 
JamesTheScot said:
I guess the teeth gnashing over the lack of results is somewhat humorous.

You invent a rule that requires interviews but not hires, and then years later lament the fact that the rule hasn't really done anything and therefore must be "altered" to accomplish the stated goal.  So can someone tell me how it can be altered to attain the stated goal?

I mean, WTF did anyone expect?  Did they think that racists are going to see the light and hire minorities because an interview miraculously changed their minds?  Or did they think that non-racists won't just check the RR box and then go hire the guy they want?

For the RR to work as intended, you have to believe that there were 1) minority candidates that were clearly better qualified than white candidates that 2) would get interviews they wouldn't otherwise get and that 3) the interviewer would only have such a slight touch of racism so as to not realize it so that he/she could have a revelation during the interview and be persuaded to give the minority candidate a chance.  

Tomlin was the perfect storm.  But there are 32 NFL head coaching jobs in the world.  We really think you can apply a statistical analysis to that small a number to claim with any credibility that we understand the dynamics involved in that kind of hiring decision sufficient to second-guess it?

So back to my question about what to do now.  If you've required interviews and that hasn't hasn't helped, what else is there to do if you believe the goal (more minority hiring) is worthy of more rule writing?  Quotas.  There, I said it.  That's all you can do.  Or get the owners and GM's out of it and let some blue ribbon committee of vetted non-racists do the hiring for all these teams.  And if there is a perception in the league, even among minority candidates themselves, that there is only token compliance, how would a quota change that?  I guess a token hire and subsequent firing one season later is less insulting than a token interview?

I realize it isn't a popular solution, but is there a practical solution other than just letting old racist people die off or retire?
Click to expand...
I'm not going to touch the racist angle. I don't agree with it and don't wish to debate it.

As for a "token" coach. I mentioned Derrick Mason losing at Vanderbilt for a couple years now and the Titans would possibly/probably have an opening in 2017. I'd be fine with him for a year. I think it is possible that a former player turned coach isn't very good at recruiting so he can't win in college; and maybe he's great at motivating and Xs and Os just not the recruiting that is so vital to any program. I don't know what Mason's deal is, just mentioning that. If he were to coach there'd be professionalism and accountability and an offense that seems like an NFL offense and ...they've done worse.

My fear is the love for him and his exit. I hope the love is still there, he should be appreciated.

I often like OL coaches turned head coaches as a stepping stone. Somewhat of an unpopular notion, but generally their classic view of accountability is what a ton of bad NFL franchises need. What I usually don't agree with is cleaning house a 2nd time after they do. They fill a team up with hustlers, get fired, then the new coach wants to add "his guys." I react like "you don't like hustlers? hard working types?"

Chargers have been bad lately. Let's suppose Antonio retires after 2016. Would a chargers fan really mind if he were coach for a year?

I'll go one step further. Let's suppose some african american businessman that is a diehard fan of a team- I'd be fine with that too. Maybe he has to prove he was a fan since he was a little kid by showing a pic of him in a jersey or somesuch. Fans of bad teams oh so often agree on what players need to go and what the team needs to do. Fans of good teams disagree but with bad teams it's generally obvious. He doesn't need to coach, geesh many NFL coaches are managers not even Xs and Os guys during the season anyway. I could probably sit back and enjoy "some random fan" as coach for a year. If I go to the Titans a couple years ago. They need a line and a QB and some players that produce. If some random fan selects player X in the draft because he's rated highest as a lineman....OK. Top rated QB? OK. Wants to kick Hunter to the curb for not producing? OK See I'm telling ya, fans of bad teams often agree on what needs to happen

 
JamesTheScot said:
So back to my question about what to do now.  If you've required interviews and that hasn't hasn't helped, what else is there to do if you believe the goal (more minority hiring) is worthy of more rule writing?  Quotas.  There, I said it.  That's all you can do.  Or get the owners and GM's out of it and let some blue ribbon committee of vetted non-racists do the hiring for all these teams.  And if there is a perception in the league, even among minority candidates themselves, that there is only token compliance, how would a quota change that?  I guess a token hire and subsequent firing one season later is less insulting than a token interview?

I realize it isn't a popular solution, but is there a practical solution other than just letting old racist people die off or retire?
Click to expand...
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.

 
JetMaxx said:
I would view a job interview as demeaning if the determining quality was my physical traits. Who comes up with this ****?
Click to expand...
So you are saying that white people in America feel demeaned in virtually every job interview they have ever had and every promotion they have received?

And that white males should feel even more demeaned in virtually every job interview they have ever had and every promotion they have received?

And that white males over 6 feet tall should feel the most demeaned of all?

Must be rough for the white people.

 
The Rooney Rule, and all forms of affirmative action are flawed without question but the fact is that the systems those programs are trying to address are most certainly not always, heck probably not even often, merit based.

 
Just because you are a gifted student doesn't mean that you are a top notch teacher, leader and organizer. Add into it long hours, little job security. Then splash in that a gifted NFL player typically makes oodles more than assistant coaches - and after their playing days are over can still get endorsement deals for awhile. This I believe is why not more top athletes become coaches after they retire.

Look at Peyton Manning. He's pretty much been his own OC for awhile for two different teams. Do we really expect him to put his millions in the bank and go work very hard for another ten, twenty years for a shot at a HC job? Or is it more likely that he goes the John Elway route (or even becomes part owner of a team)?

 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

ignatiusjreilly
The NFL stinks at hiring
Replies
40
Views
934
Long Ball Larry
Long Ball Larry
T
travdogg's favorite values as of 7/21
Replies
44
Views
2K
Deamon
Deamon
T
My final 2022 mock draft, 3 rounds
2
Replies
56
Views
3K
travdogg
T

Users who are viewing this thread

Total: 2 (members: 0, guests: 2)
Top