Interesting "Rooney Rule" stipulation (1 Viewer)

[fatness]

If people want to make a strong argument against the Rooney Rule, you'd think they'd show some numbers to support their case that it's discriminating against white candidates for head coaching jobs.

Please explain how you can show preference to one group without negatively affecting other groups.

You're not understanding the Rooney Rule. It was put in place to give blacks greater opportunities at front office jobs in the NFL, since the NFL owners were doing a piss-poor job of that. To the extent blacks are hired for these positions, whites are not. So there's necessarily a negative effect whether the Rooney Rule is in place or not. Prior to the rule the effect was negative towards black, currently that effect is negative towards white. There's nothing mysterious about that. Other major sports provided those opportunities on their own; the NFL owners did not and now all teams are saddled with the Rooney Rule. If you want to make the case that the rule isn't needed, make the case using empirical evidence --- numbers that show that things have pretty much opened up and evened up in coaching opportunities. But you can't show that yet.

There's some interesting reading here, and as a matter of fact I think you may have posted this link before in a discussion of the infamous background of our favorite team, the Redskins, and their former owner George Preston Marshall. The stats in it are supposedly provided by the Pro Football Hall of Fame. It says Copyright 2005, so it may be 2 years out of date.

Link

Currently there are six African-American head coaches;

While 67 percent of all players in the NFL are black, there are no African-American owners and one general manager. Ozzie Newsome became the first Black General Manager of an NFL team in 2002. He works in the front office for the Baltimore Ravens.

Today 154 of the 547 assistants (28 percent) are Black. Twelve of those are coordinators, compared with five in 1997.

In a nutshell the numbers showing blacks are getting more opportunities for front office jobs are changing in a postive direction. But they aren't anywhere near reflective of the relative numbers of blacks in the NFL. Once they're relatively close I'd bet the rule won't be needed any more because teams will be demonstrably doing on their own what they should have been doing earlier.

 

[Ice Cream Man]

If you want to make the case that the rule isn't needed, make the case using empirical evidence --- numbers that show that things have pretty much opened up and evened up in coaching opportunities. But you can't show that yet.

Interesting point but it is entirely contingent on you prefacing it all with what you deem is the "right" number of "who" to work in a "certain" job.If 99% of the players in the league were black, does that mean 99% should be coaches?

If 50% of the players in the league were black, does that mean 25% should be coaches?

Should there be a flat 16% black coach rate because that reflects national demographics?

Implicit in your comments, you believe in one of these tenants, or at least a combination thereof.

Not to speak for others, but the people who are disagreeing with you likely feel that these are not appropriate ways of making hiring decisions.

As an entrepreneur, you make choices based on who will give you the best bang for your buck -- once you factor all pecuniary and non-pecuniary aspects of their contribution. It may well be true that white's flock to coaching like they do the QB position because these are positions in which they have a comparative advantage. The socioeconomic (and perhaps biological) advantage that blacks have in football, outside of bringing knowledge about the game, is not an advantage that necessarily carries over to coaching -- which involves motivating others, leadership, strategy and tactics.

Therefore, without any of the three aforementioned social-engineering biases, it seems reasonable, if very unlikely, that a league could have 100% black players and 100% white coaches (perhaps similar to the NBA) purely due to comparative advantage and self-selection.

In other words, any empirical study would have to have a standard upon which the NFL's hiring decisions can be judged. Thus far you have provided none and one could argue there is none.

 

[CalBear]

Therefore, without any of the three aforementioned social-engineering biases, it seems reasonable, if very unlikely, that a league could have 100% black players and 100% white coaches (perhaps similar to the NBA) purely due to comparative advantage and self-selection.

If that were true, then the black coaches who do get jobs in the NFL would fail. But they don't--they seem to pretty much perform on the same level as white coaches, or even higher. In fact, I'm showing the winning percentage for black coaches in history as 56.1% (444-347), which is extremely good as a class. This strongly suggests that blacks of equivalent ability are not given equivalent opportunities. It doesn't suggest that black coaches are necessarily better than white coaches, but it does suggest that you have to be above-average as a black coach to even get a chance.

 

[Das Boot]

Thanks, interesting to know this, I wonder if this will become a trend now.

Not to avoid the Rooney rule, but as a new way of teams assuring continuity.

 

[redman]

If people want to make a strong argument against the Rooney Rule, you'd think they'd show some numbers to support their case that it's discriminating against white candidates for head coaching jobs.

Please explain how you can show preference to one group without negatively affecting other groups.

You're not understanding the Rooney Rule. It was put in place to give blacks greater opportunities at front office jobs in the NFL, since the NFL owners were doing a piss-poor job of that. To the extent blacks are hired for these positions, whites are not. So there's necessarily a negative effect whether the Rooney Rule is in place or not. Prior to the rule the effect was negative towards black, currently that effect is negative towards white. There's nothing mysterious about that. Other major sports provided those opportunities on their own; the NFL owners did not and now all teams are saddled with the Rooney Rule. If you want to make the case that the rule isn't needed, make the case using empirical evidence --- numbers that show that things have pretty much opened up and evened up in coaching opportunities. But you can't show that yet.

There's some interesting reading here, and as a matter of fact I think you may have posted this link before in a discussion of the infamous background of our favorite team, the Redskins, and their former owner George Preston Marshall. The stats in it are supposedly provided by the Pro Football Hall of Fame. It says Copyright 2005, so it may be 2 years out of date.

Link

Currently there are six African-American head coaches;

While 67 percent of all players in the NFL are black, there are no African-American owners and one general manager. Ozzie Newsome became the first Black General Manager of an NFL team in 2002. He works in the front office for the Baltimore Ravens.

Today 154 of the 547 assistants (28 percent) are Black. Twelve of those are coordinators, compared with five in 1997.

In a nutshell the numbers showing blacks are getting more opportunities for front office jobs are changing in a postive direction. But they aren't anywhere near reflective of the relative numbers of blacks in the NFL. Once they're relatively close I'd bet the rule won't be needed any more because teams will be demonstrably doing on their own what they should have been doing earlier.

First of all, I completely understand the Rooney Rule. You and I seem to disagree as to its value and its basis, but the intent is not mysterious. I happen to believe, as I said in so many words above, that it amounts to window dressing, albeit in a very prominent organization, that we pretend is a fix to a far larger American socio-economic problem. You didn't address my comments above (not directed at you but still relevant here in responding to part of your comments):

You're quoting the number of blacks who play NFL football versus the number of whites, and then comparing those numbers to the NFL coaching ranks. How many NFL head coaches are former NFL players? By my count, there are five (four of whom, interestingly enough, are in the AFC South, plus Edwards). When the NFL playing ranks are not the source of your coaches, why would you use the racial makeup of those ranks to determine what the racial makeup of your coaches should be?

The interesting problem for people who are noting post-Rooney Rule "progress" is the old post hoc, ergo propter hoc problem, the logical fallacy of assuming that what comes after the event was caused by the event. The NFL was making progress before the Rooney Rule - there were already black coaches in the league and their numbers were increasing. Why is all of the "progress" post-Rooney Rule attributed to the rule? Can't it just as fairly be said that the Rule has been irrelevant to the hiring of black coaches? If not, who are the black coaches who would not have been hired but for the existence of the Rooney Rule. I've been challenged in this thread to present statistics. Surely the defenders of this rule can point to the black coaches whose head coaching career has been made due to the Rooney Rule, right?

 

[fatness]

You've been asked for numbers and you haven't provided them. You've asked me for numbers and I don't have them.

This is the point where we recognize that we're just talking theory and philosophy, and belief. You believe things will be better without the Rooney Rule now. I believe things will be worse without it now. I can see a time coming where I'll believe it's no longer needed.

We just disagree, and can't prove each other wrong. That's when we shake hands, walk away, and cuss Dan Snyder.

 

[radballs]

I've always been a believer in the best man for the job. Not sure what's ever wrong with that. Any type of affirmative action only exacerbates further discrimination. And why are African Americans the only minority demographic to benefit in these cases?

 

[Das Boot]

I've always been a believer in the best man for the job. Not sure what's ever wrong with that.

And I think that's exactly the philosophy behind the Rooney Rule.

 

[redman]

I've always been a believer in the best man for the job. Not sure what's ever wrong with that.

And I think that's exactly the philosophy behind the Rooney Rule.

Nope, it isn't. The rule simply mandates that at least one minority (probably black) be interviewed by the owner as part of a coaching search. Where does "best" come into play. I know it makes you Rooney Rule advocates feel better to say stuff like this, but this rule is based around race, not "best".

 

[Yenrub]

I've always been a believer in the best man for the job. Not sure what's ever wrong with that. Any type of affirmative action only exacerbates further discrimination. And why are African Americans the only minority demographic to benefit in these cases?

They are not

 

[Yenrub]

I've always been a believer in the best man for the job. Not sure what's ever wrong with that.

And I think that's exactly the philosophy behind the Rooney Rule.

Nope, it isn't. The rule simply mandates that at least one minority (probably black) be interviewed by the owner as part of a coaching search. Where does "best" come into play. I know it makes you Rooney Rule advocates feel better to say stuff like this, but this rule is based around race, not "best".

The rule doesn’t say anything about HIRING a minority.I assume that after a team interviews a group of candidates the team is going to hire who they believe to be the best candidate for their coaching job.

 

[ozark]

Who said, "Life was fair". ?

 

[redman]

I've always been a believer in the best man for the job. Not sure what's ever wrong with that.

And I think that's exactly the philosophy behind the Rooney Rule.

Nope, it isn't. The rule simply mandates that at least one minority (probably black) be interviewed by the owner as part of a coaching search. Where does "best" come into play. I know it makes you Rooney Rule advocates feel better to say stuff like this, but this rule is based around race, not "best".

The rule doesn’t say anything about HIRING a minority.I assume that after a team interviews a group of candidates the team is going to hire who they believe to be the best candidate for their coaching job.

Unless you're contending that the interviewing process has nothing to do with the hiring process, what's the point of your response? It's a distinction without a difference.

 

[Yenrub]

I've always been a believer in the best man for the job. Not sure what's ever wrong with that.

And I think that's exactly the philosophy behind the Rooney Rule.

Nope, it isn't. The rule simply mandates that at least one minority (probably black) be interviewed by the owner as part of a coaching search. Where does "best" come into play. I know it makes you Rooney Rule advocates feel better to say stuff like this, but this rule is based around race, not "best".

The rule doesn’t say anything about HIRING a minority.I assume that after a team interviews a group of candidates the team is going to hire who they believe to be the best candidate for their coaching job.

Unless you're contending that the interviewing process has nothing to do with the hiring process, what's the point of your response? It's a distinction without a difference.

You asked “where does best come into play”Best comes into play at HIRING

Not every assistant coach is cut out to be a head coach but you will never find out who is and who isn’t without taking the time interview them. Well for whatever reason, NFL teams/owners where simply overlooking a large group of talented minority assistant coaches when it came to interviewing for head coaching jobs.

 

[redman]

I've always been a believer in the best man for the job. Not sure what's ever wrong with that.

And I think that's exactly the philosophy behind the Rooney Rule.

Nope, it isn't. The rule simply mandates that at least one minority (probably black) be interviewed by the owner as part of a coaching search. Where does "best" come into play. I know it makes you Rooney Rule advocates feel better to say stuff like this, but this rule is based around race, not "best".

The rule doesn’t say anything about HIRING a minority.I assume that after a team interviews a group of candidates the team is going to hire who they believe to be the best candidate for their coaching job.

Unless you're contending that the interviewing process has nothing to do with the hiring process, what's the point of your response? It's a distinction without a difference.

You asked “where do best come into play”Best comes into play at HIRING

Not every assistant coach is cut out to be a head coach but you will never find out who is and who isn’t without taking the time interview them. Well for whatever reason, NFL teams/owners where simply overlooking a large group of talented minority assistant coaches when it came to interviewing for head coaching jobs.

Were they? Again, because I have yet to see anyone respond to this, I'll pose my questions from above:

1) Black and white athletes have equivalent coaching aptitude.

2) Black and white former athletes are equally interested in coaching.

Why are these good assumptions? The reason I ask is because we hear constantly how poor the schools are in predominantly black neighborhoods, and how relatively few black high school students go on to become graduating college students. This is a cultural problem, not a football problem. While football coaching aptitude certainly can (but not necessarily) have something to do with one's playing experience, when you're talking about NFL level football coaching aptitude I think you're at a level where other more academic skills - administrative skills, organizational skills, communications skills, just for starters - are far more emphasized than one's athleticism or even football playing experience. These tend to be things that are gotten or certainly at least assisted by higher education . . . precisely the area where black youngsters are failing to keep up with white youngsters.

You're quoting the number of blacks who play NFL football versus the number of whites, and then comparing those numbers to the NFL coaching ranks. How many NFL head coaches are former NFL players? By my count, there are five (four of whom, interestingly enough, are in the AFC South, plus Edwards). When the NFL playing ranks are not the source of your coaches, why would you use the racial makeup of those ranks to determine what the racial makeup of your coaches should be?

You don't solve an American socio-economic problem by creating an NFL rule that attempts to force or at least achieve a certain (arbitrary) racial makeup on the coaching ranks. That's an asinine concept.

I think more and more black coaches are getting the qualifications and experience necessary to become NFL head coaches before they're ever considered for an interview, Rooney Rule or no. There are large numbers of black coordinators in both the colleges and the pros, and those are the ranks from which you draw your head coaches of the future. That has not happened because of the Rooney Rule, because quite simply that rule is irrelevant to the hiring of coordinators, much less college level coordinators. That they've slapped this Rooney Rule onto what was already a changing situation does not mean that the Rooney Rule is responsible for any, much less all, of those changes.

 

[Yenrub]

I've always been a believer in the best man for the job. Not sure what's ever wrong with that.

And I think that's exactly the philosophy behind the Rooney Rule.

Nope, it isn't. The rule simply mandates that at least one minority (probably black) be interviewed by the owner as part of a coaching search. Where does "best" come into play. I know it makes you Rooney Rule advocates feel better to say stuff like this, but this rule is based around race, not "best".

The rule doesn’t say anything about HIRING a minority.I assume that after a team interviews a group of candidates the team is going to hire who they believe to be the best candidate for their coaching job.

Unless you're contending that the interviewing process has nothing to do with the hiring process, what's the point of your response? It's a distinction without a difference.

You asked “where do best come into play”Best comes into play at HIRING

Not every assistant coach is cut out to be a head coach but you will never find out who is and who isn’t without taking the time interview them. Well for whatever reason, NFL teams/owners where simply overlooking a large group of talented minority assistant coaches when it came to interviewing for head coaching jobs.

Were they? Again, because I have yet to see anyone respond to this, I'll pose my questions from above:

1) Black and white athletes have equivalent coaching aptitude.

2) Black and white former athletes are equally interested in coaching.

Why are these good assumptions? The reason I ask is because we hear constantly how poor the schools are in predominantly black neighborhoods, and how relatively few black high school students go on to become graduating college students. This is a cultural problem, not a football problem. While football coaching aptitude certainly can (but not necessarily) have something to do with one's playing experience, when you're talking about NFL level football coaching aptitude I think you're at a level where other more academic skills - administrative skills, organizational skills, communications skills, just for starters - are far more emphasized than one's athleticism or even football playing experience. These tend to be things that are gotten or certainly at least assisted by higher education . . . precisely the area where black youngsters are failing to keep up with white youngsters.

You're quoting the number of blacks who play NFL football versus the number of whites, and then comparing those numbers to the NFL coaching ranks. How many NFL head coaches are former NFL players? By my count, there are five (four of whom, interestingly enough, are in the AFC South, plus Edwards). When the NFL playing ranks are not the source of your coaches, why would you use the racial makeup of those ranks to determine what the racial makeup of your coaches should be?

You don't solve an American socio-economic problem by creating an NFL rule that attempts to force or at least achieve a certain (arbitrary) racial makeup on the coaching ranks. That's an asinine concept.

I think more and more black coaches are getting the qualifications and experience necessary to become NFL head coaches before they're ever considered for an interview, Rooney Rule or no. There are large numbers of black coordinators in both the colleges and the pros, and those are the ranks from which you draw your head coaches of the future. That has not happened because of the Rooney Rule, because quite simply that rule is irrelevant to the hiring of coordinators, much less college level coordinators. That they've slapped this Rooney Rule onto what was already a changing situation does not mean that the Rooney Rule is responsible for any, much less all, of those changes.

Wow you are throwing a lot out there and I am not sure all of it belongs here. As I understand it the Rooney Rule only pertains to interviews for head coaching positions in the NFL.

While you may be right about there being an American socio economic problem, the NFL isn’t trying to fix America’s “problem”, they are trying to fix the NFL’s version of the “problem”.

Because the Rooney rule only pertains to NFL head coaching positions your statements about “NFL level football coaching aptitude” and “higher education are irrelevant.

When was the last time you saw a person without any coaching experience on any level hired as a NFL head coach? Never! It just doesn’t happen.

The pool from which NFL head coaches are pulled from does not include high school kids, kids struggling with education, or even former players (directly from the playing field to a H/C job). The pool of potential head coaches consists of men who have some experience either coaching in the NFL or coaching in college.

According to an earlier post (not sure how accurate the number are) that pool includes 154 black assistant coaches. My guess is that the majority of that 154 don’t fall into the education bucket you referenced.

 

[redman]

Wow you are throwing a lot out there and I am not sure all of it belongs here.

As I understand it the Rooney Rule only pertains to interviews for head coaching positions in the NFL.

While you may be right about there being an American socio economic problem, the NFL isn’t trying to fix America’s “problem”, they are trying to fix the NFL’s version of the “problem”.

Because the Rooney rule only pertains to NFL head coaching positions your statements about “NFL level football coaching aptitude” and “higher education are irrelevant.

When was the last time you saw a person without any coaching experience on any level hired as a NFL head coach? Never! It just doesn’t happen.

The pool from which NFL head coaches are pulled from does not include high school kids, kids struggling with education, or even former players (directly from the playing field to a H/C job). The pool of potential head coaches consists of men who have some experience either coaching in the NFL or coaching in college.

According to an earlier post (not sure how accurate the number are) that pool includes 154 black assistant coaches. My guess is that the majority of that 154 don’t fall into the education bucket you referenced.

My point is this: the Rooney Rule assumes that the NFL is going to fix a problem that exists in the NFL, when the NFL isn't the cause of the problem in my view at all. In other words historically (and this is important because I think we're at a point where in the NFL this has changed) not enough qualified black coaches were reaching the NFL coordinator ranks because they just plain weren't out there to be hired. I pointed out earlier that the NFL coaching ranks tend not to be filled by former NFL players. Rather, the most common characteristic that I can find shared among all or nearly all NFL head coaches is that they 1) played football in college (and usually not a major college), and 2) they have a college degree.* The second point has been in my view the main problem. There weren't enough former black college players who were getting their college degrees and entering the coaching ranks for a long time; therefore there were few who even could be plausibly considered for a NFL head coaching job.

In short, the NFL historically hasn't been in a position to solve this problem with something like a Rooney Rule, at least not without bringing in unqualified black candidates. Now that the Rooney Rule is in place, the NFL has a multitude of qualified black candidates, and I would contend was already going to be hiring more and more of them as more and more such candidates reached "maturity".

*The 25 2007 head coaches (as of the start of the season) who fit this criteria but who were not also NFL players include:

Belichick

Billick

Cameron

Childress (?- not sure if he played in college)

Coughlin

Crennel

Fox

Gibbs

Gruden

Holmgren

Kiffin

Lewis

Linehan

Mangini

Marinelli (?- not sure if he played in college)

McCarthy

Nolan

Payton

Petrino

Phillips

Reid

Shanahan

Smith

Tomlin

Turner

(I said above I'd counted five NFL head coaches who'd formerly been NFL players; I missed two that I wasn't aware of, Jauron and Whisenhunt)

 

[Das Boot]

I've always been a believer in the best man for the job. Not sure what's ever wrong with that.

And I think that's exactly the philosophy behind the Rooney Rule.

Nope, it isn't. The rule simply mandates that at least one minority (probably black) be interviewed by the owner as part of a coaching search. Where does "best" come into play. I know it makes you Rooney Rule advocates feel better to say stuff like this, but this rule is based around race, not "best".

Yep, actually it is. There are minorities who are well qualified to become head coaches.

The Rooney Rule guarantees that at least some of them will get interviews, and the fact that some of them will turn out to be the best man for the job makes it likely some of them will ultimately be hired.

Because they were the best man for the job.

Which was determined by the franchise in question because the minority candidate had good interviews.

Which happened because of the Rooney Rule.

 

[Howie]

Let's start with three basic assumptions:1) Black and white athletes have equivalent coaching aptitude.There's no evidence that assumption 1 is incorrect, and plenty of scientific and sociological evidence that there is not an aptitude gap between blacks and whites. Black coaches have also been successful in the NFL....The true test of equality, though, is not whether a great black man advances as fast as a great white man; it's whether a black loser hangs around as long as a white loser.

How would you measure "coaching aptitude"? With respect to scientific evidence, have you read "The Bell Curve"?- (if so, how about the aptitude gap when taking Asians into account?)Excellent point regarding the true test of equality amongst coaches with respect to race (or age, or any discriminating feature)!

 

[CalBear]

Let's start with three basic assumptions:1) Black and white athletes have equivalent coaching aptitude.There's no evidence that assumption 1 is incorrect, and plenty of scientific and sociological evidence that there is not an aptitude gap between blacks and whites. Black coaches have also been successful in the NFL....The true test of equality, though, is not whether a great black man advances as fast as a great white man; it's whether a black loser hangs around as long as a white loser.

How would you measure "coaching aptitude"? With respect to scientific evidence, have you read "The Bell Curve"?- (if so, how about the aptitude gap when taking Asians into account?)Excellent point regarding the true test of equality amongst coaches with respect to race (or age, or any discriminating feature)!

The Bell Curve is not scientific evidence of anything--that's why it was published without peer review. If it had been peer-reviewed, it would not have been published, not without first correcting the flawed assumptions and methodological errors it contains.One of the flawed assumptions is that intelligence can be expressed as a single number. Human behavior is more complex than that. Similarly, I don't think there is a single "Coaching Quotient" number which could describe a person's ability to be a coach: "Bill Belichick's CQ is 147, and Norv Turner's is 92." Success in coaching (and in life) is based on too many factors, and a coach who is successful in one situation may not be successful in another, and vice versa. (Belichick, for example, was a failure in Cleveland). However, it is measurable that black coaches have had better success on average than white coaches in the NFL; 56% winning percentage is pretty compelling. I think all the plausible explanations for that achievement gap point to continued bias in coaching selection processes.

 

[redman]

I've always been a believer in the best man for the job. Not sure what's ever wrong with that.

And I think that's exactly the philosophy behind the Rooney Rule.

Nope, it isn't. The rule simply mandates that at least one minority (probably black) be interviewed by the owner as part of a coaching search. Where does "best" come into play. I know it makes you Rooney Rule advocates feel better to say stuff like this, but this rule is based around race, not "best".

Yep, actually it is. There are minorities who are well qualified to become head coaches.

The Rooney Rule guarantees that at least some of them will get interviews, and the fact that some of them will turn out to be the best man for the job makes it likely some of them will ultimately be hired.

Because they were the best man for the job.

Which was determined by the franchise in question because the minority candidate had good interviews.

Which happened because of the Rooney Rule.

Which coaches would not have been hired but for the Rooney Rule?

 

[Howie]

The Bell Curve is not scientific evidence of anything--that's why it was published without peer review. If it had been peer-reviewed, it would not have been published, not without first correcting the flawed assumptions and methodological errors it contains.One of the flawed assumptions is that intelligence can be expressed as a single number. Human behavior is more complex than that. Similarly, I don't think there is a single "Coaching Quotient" number which could describe a person's ability to be a coach: "Bill Belichick's CQ is 147, and Norv Turner's is 92." Success in coaching (and in life) is based on too many factors, and a coach who is successful in one situation may not be successful in another, and vice versa. (Belichick, for example, was a failure in Cleveland). However, it is measurable that black coaches have had better success on average than white coaches in the NFL; 56% winning percentage is pretty compelling. I think all the plausible explanations for that achievement gap point to continued bias in coaching selection processes.

Well, that book, and its associated research, has been "reviewed" extensively since its publishing. While your suggestion of flawed assumptions and methodological errors are shared by a few professors and psychologists, dozens of them endorse the scientific views contained in that book and as such signed an opinion statement titled "Mainstream Science on Intelligence". In addition, the American Psychological Association established a special task force to publish an investigative report on the research and this work ultimately supported the conclusions from the book, save for the claims about racial differences and genetics. The fact is there is a differential between the mean intelligence test scores across different races and these differences do not result from any obvious biases in test construction and administration. What the differences mean and whether there is any relevance can be (and has been) debated ad infinitum, but the IQ numbers are what they are.Interesting stat concerning the black coaches' winning percentage. I wonder if Tony Dungy's W-L numbers were removed, what that percentage would be? I suspect as time goes on, and a larger sample size is generated, there will be a reversion to the mean.BTW, I think your CQ for Norv Turner is a bit high.

 

[PMENFAN]

Seems to be the recent trend. However, I'm not sure if it really means anything: see Gregg Williams in D.C.It's about time the Rooney Rule was eliminated from the rulebook anyway. The dog and pony show is lame and if an owner has their guy already, so be it. If an owner won't hire the best people they'll eventually get what they deserve anyway.

I disagree. It gives coaches interview experience. And, look at the tomlin situation in Pitt last year. the job was Russ Grimms. They interviewed Tomlin and he wowed them and he got the job. I would love to see a day when we don't need this rule, but the reality is that it's needed because of the abundance of ignorance in our society.

 

[redman]

Seems to be the recent trend. However, I'm not sure if it really means anything: see Gregg Williams in D.C.

It's about time the Rooney Rule was eliminated from the rulebook anyway. The dog and pony show is lame and if an owner has their guy already, so be it. If an owner won't hire the best people they'll eventually get what they deserve anyway.

I disagree. It gives coaches interview experience. And, look at the tomlin situation in Pitt last year. the job was Russ Grimms. They interviewed Tomlin and he wowed them and he got the job. I would love to see a day when we don't need this rule, but the reality is that it's needed because of the abundance of ignorance in our society.

So you're claiming to me that the organization whose owner was the source of the rule (and its namesake) needed the Rooney Rule to hire black candidates? BTW, even ignoring that, the Tomlin hire didn't benefit from Rooney Rule "experience" - it was Tomlin's first head coaching interview, so there was no experience to pull upon in that regard.

 

[PMENFAN]

Seems to be the recent trend. However, I'm not sure if it really means anything: see Gregg Williams in D.C.

It's about time the Rooney Rule was eliminated from the rulebook anyway. The dog and pony show is lame and if an owner has their guy already, so be it. If an owner won't hire the best people they'll eventually get what they deserve anyway.

I disagree. It gives coaches interview experience. And, look at the tomlin situation in Pitt last year. the job was Russ Grimms. They interviewed Tomlin and he wowed them and he got the job. I would love to see a day when we don't need this rule, but the reality is that it's needed because of the abundance of ignorance in our society.

So you're claiming to me that the organization whose owner was the source of the rule (and its namesake) needed the Rooney Rule to hire black candidates? BTW, even ignoring that, the Tomlin hire didn't benefit from Rooney Rule "experience" - it was Tomlin's first head coaching interview, so there was no experience to pull upon in that regard.

I can't say for certain that they interview Tomlin without the rule. It was widely believed tha tthe Job was Grimms, and the Tomlin interview was merely to satisfy their own rule. I'm a believer that the rule does more good than harm. Are there sham interviews? You betcha, but they happen in every walk of life. As a candidate, I take what I can learn in the interview and better prepare for the next one. I can easilly extrapolate this to the NFL.

Again, in a league where about 80% of the players are minorities, yet only a handful of the front office positions are manned by minorities, there is systemic racism. Statistics don't lie.

 

[Ice Cream Man]

Again, in a league where about 80% of the players are minorities, yet only a handful of the front office positions are manned by minorities, there is systemic racism. Statistics don't lie.

I don't understand this. Playing and coaching are two completely different jobs requiring completely different aptitudes.By this logic, one could equally argue a league with 80% white coaches shouldn't have just 20% white players. There's discrimination against white players.I still can't believe incredibly wealthy black people need some kind of rule to help them get jobs. It's just ridiculous and insulting.

 

[CalBear]

I still can't believe incredibly wealthy black people need some kind of rule to help them get jobs. It's just ridiculous and insulting.

Why do you think they're incredibly wealthy?

 

[redman]

I still can't believe incredibly wealthy black people need some kind of rule to help them get jobs. It's just ridiculous and insulting.

Why do you think they're incredibly wealthy?

The pay scale for NFL position coaches and especially coordinators puts them well within the top 5% of wage earners in the U.S.

 

[Bri]

Again, in a league where about 80% of the players are minorities, yet only a handful of the front office positions are manned by minorities, there is systemic racism. Statistics don't lie.

Stats don't speak, don't know anything, weren't in interviews etc.The best players often don't make the best coaches and there's probably a stat for that.I remember Dungy discussing the # of "black" assistants as a prob years ago. He was "dead on" right, ya gotta be at a point where you can be promoted or it's unrealistic to even discuss it. There's no issue with that now IMO. Emmitt Thomas, IIRC, was quite outspoken about this as well.Herm, Marvin, Romeo...they worked their way up.No one seems to be a fan of that ST coach becoming the Ravens coach but generally NFL head coaches have worked their way up the coaching ranks. Personally I don't think of race and don't see why you would. Marvin was a terrific DC so was BB and now they're both Head Coaches. That's it, it seems dopey(to put it mildly) to say "black Marvin" was a terrific DC, so was "white BB" and now they're Head Coaches. Who wants to root for a team with an unqualified HC that meets some criteria but isn't very good? I heard one wiseguy on the radio years ago say "Bernard King(former Knick player) should apply to coach the Giants". He was black, had a great repoire with athletes, good influence on them as well. The thing most people didn't understand about "the Rooney rule" was at the time, the number of quality black candidates that had been up the ladder were small. That is what has changed and needed to change. The Rooney rule states nothing for positional coaches and cooridinator hirings, so on the surface it does nothing for them. However, the talk from it, improved everything and has really made things better IMO. Without this understanding, Bernard King is a good candidate.

 

[GregR_2]

Again, in a league where about 80% of the players are minorities, yet only a handful of the front office positions are manned by minorities, there is systemic racism. Statistics don't lie.

I don't understand this. Playing and coaching are two completely different jobs requiring completely different aptitudes.By this logic, one could equally argue a league with 80% white coaches shouldn't have just 20% white players. There's discrimination against white players.

No, you couldn't equally argue it. NFL coaches mostly come from the pool of former college players. NFL and college players pretty much never are hired from the pool of former NFL coaches.

 

[redman]

Oh good, so we are using quotas. I think turning black men into numbers that make us feel good is an excellent way of fighting racism!

Did you bother to read my post? Specifically the part where I said "I don't think we need to target a specific percentage"?

Why mention percentages at all then? Also, why is it more acceptable to be less specific about what the actual goal is? I fail to see how that's a virtue.

1) Black and white athletes have equivalent coaching aptitude.2) Black and white former athletes are equally interested in coaching.

Why are these good assumptions? The reason I ask is because we hear constantly how poor the schools are in predominantly black neighborhoods, and how relatively few black high school students go on to become graduating college students. This is a cultural problem, not a football problem. While football coaching aptitude certainly can (but not necessarily) have something to do with one's playing experience, when you're talking about NFL level football coaching aptitude I think you're at a level where other more academic skills - administrative skills, organizational skills, communications skills, just for starters - are far more emphasized than one's athleticism or even football playing experience. These tend to be things that are gotten or certainly at least assisted by higher education . . . precisely the area where black youngsters are failing to keep up with white youngsters.

You're quoting the number of blacks who play NFL football versus the number of whites, and then comparing those numbers to the NFL coaching ranks. How many NFL head coaches are former NFL players? By my count, there are five (four of whom, interestingly enough, are in the AFC South, plus Edwards). When the NFL playing ranks are not the source of your coaches, why would you use the racial makeup of those ranks to determine what the racial makeup of your coaches should be?

You don't solve an American socio-economic problem by creating an NFL rule that attempts to force or at least achieve a certain (arbitrary) racial makeup on the coaching ranks. That's an asinine concept.

I found a good study documenting what I've been saying here. I'm posting one of the more germane passages below, but all of it supports what I've been saying: that the population that is most used to pull NFL coaches from - former college players who ended up graduating and getting their college degrees - is very much an area in which blacks as opposed to other racial/ethnic groups are not keeping up:

A closer look, however, reveals a much different result. It is crucial to notice that among

students overall, blacks fare much worse in graduation rates with only 36% of African-American

males graduating from college within six years of enrollment. Conversely, American students of

Page 6

6

Asian and Pacific Island descent graduate at a 65% rate, well above the national average. These

two ethnic groups are represented disproportionally on athletic rosters. While blacks make up

only 9.3% of the student body as a whole, they represent 26.8% of male athletes as a whole and

48.8% and 54.3% of football and basketball players, respectively. Asian and Pacific Islander

Americans, on the other hand, who make up 7.3% of the general student population, represent

only 1.5% of all athletes, and no Asian Americans were on scholarship in Basketball during this

time period.

Keep in mind that this study only used data from Division I schools, where I would suspect the proportion of black players is the highest. If you factor in the DII and DIII and NAIA schools, I'm figuring far more of your racial makeup is white as opposed to black, which would provide a greater explanation for the racial disparity found in the NFL coaching ranks.

 

[Ice Cream Man]

No, you couldn't equally argue it. NFL coaches mostly come from the pool of former college players. NFL and college players pretty much never are hired from the pool of former NFL coaches.

:X The point was simply that looking at %'s is a silly way to make judgements as to who you should hire given that there is almost no commonalities in skill sets between the two jobs.

 

[GregR_2]

No, you couldn't equally argue it. NFL coaches mostly come from the pool of former college players. NFL and college players pretty much never are hired from the pool of former NFL coaches.

The point was simply that looking at %'s is a silly way to make judgements as to who you should hire given that there is almost no commonalities in skill sets between the two jobs.

Nothing about the Rooney Rule uses %'s as a judgment as to who a team offers their job opening to.The statement about lack of commonality between football players and football coaches is so ridiculous it isn't even worth touching.

 

[PMENFAN]

Again, in a league where about 80% of the players are minorities, yet only a handful of the front office positions are manned by minorities, there is systemic racism. Statistics don't lie.

I don't understand this. Playing and coaching are two completely different jobs requiring completely different aptitudes.By this logic, one could equally argue a league with 80% white coaches shouldn't have just 20% white players. There's discrimination against white players.I still can't believe incredibly wealthy black people need some kind of rule to help them get jobs. It's just ridiculous and insulting.

I agree it's ridiculous and insulting. I'd further add it's pathetic. What different skills does it take to coach than to play? I'm curious here. Do you think any coach was ever a better leader than Mike Singeltary? Do you think many DC's understand scheme better than the average Middle Linebacker? I don't. A head coach does have to have better organizational skills, as they runn the football team, but that's it. Now, a GM, that's a position that requires a completely different skill set. You're a business manager, and the football team is a large part, but hardly the only part of the job.

 

[PMENFAN]

Again, in a league where about 80% of the players are minorities, yet only a handful of the front office positions are manned by minorities, there is systemic racism. Statistics don't lie.

Stats don't speak, don't know anything, weren't in interviews etc.The best players often don't make the best coaches and there's probably a stat for that.I remember Dungy discussing the # of "black" assistants as a prob years ago. He was "dead on" right, ya gotta be at a point where you can be promoted or it's unrealistic to even discuss it. There's no issue with that now IMO. Emmitt Thomas, IIRC, was quite outspoken about this as well.Herm, Marvin, Romeo...they worked their way up.No one seems to be a fan of that ST coach becoming the Ravens coach but generally NFL head coaches have worked their way up the coaching ranks. Personally I don't think of race and don't see why you would. Marvin was a terrific DC so was BB and now they're both Head Coaches. That's it, it seems dopey(to put it mildly) to say "black Marvin" was a terrific DC, so was "white BB" and now they're Head Coaches. Who wants to root for a team with an unqualified HC that meets some criteria but isn't very good? I heard one wiseguy on the radio years ago say "Bernard King(former Knick player) should apply to coach the Giants". He was black, had a great repoire with athletes, good influence on them as well. The thing most people didn't understand about "the Rooney rule" was at the time, the number of quality black candidates that had been up the ladder were small. That is what has changed and needed to change. The Rooney rule states nothing for positional coaches and cooridinator hirings, so on the surface it does nothing for them. However, the talk from it, improved everything and has really made things better IMO. Without this understanding, Bernard King is a good candidate.

I couldn't agree more. Kubs is a good coach, who understands the game, but was not a great player. Conversely, I don't think anybody advocates for LT to be a coach. There are no universals. It takes a certain personality to coach. You cite Romeo. Dude was 60, with about 30 years in the NFL before he got a HC gig. He was well qualified, yet never even got interviewed. the rooney rule doesn't say they have to hire minorities, just interview them. And, we see that it's opened eyes. Someday I'd like to live in a colorblind world, but it's not the case.

 

[redman]

Again, in a league where about 80% of the players are minorities, yet only a handful of the front office positions are manned by minorities, there is systemic racism. Statistics don't lie.

I don't understand this. Playing and coaching are two completely different jobs requiring completely different aptitudes.By this logic, one could equally argue a league with 80% white coaches shouldn't have just 20% white players. There's discrimination against white players.

I still can't believe incredibly wealthy black people need some kind of rule to help them get jobs. It's just ridiculous and insulting.

I agree it's ridiculous and insulting. I'd further add it's pathetic. What different skills does it take to coach than to play? I'm curious here. Do you think any coach was ever a better leader than Mike Singeltary? Do you think many DC's understand scheme better than the average Middle Linebacker? I don't. A head coach does have to have better organizational skills, as they runn the football team, but that's it. Now, a GM, that's a position that requires a completely different skill set. You're a business manager, and the football team is a large part, but hardly the only part of the job.

What different skills does it take to coach versus play? Are you serious? Deion Sanders was among the best CB's to ever play the game. Do you think he'd make a good head coach? I already answered your question above anyway:

While football coaching aptitude certainly can (but not necessarily) have something to do with one's playing experience, when you're talking about NFL level football coaching aptitude I think you're at a level where other more academic skills - administrative skills, organizational skills, communications skills, just for starters - are far more emphasized than one's athleticism or even football playing experience. These tend to be things that are gotten or certainly at least assisted by higher education . . . precisely the area where black youngsters are failing to keep up with white youngsters.

It's not by accident that only seven out of 32 NFL head coaches were former NFL players. The skills don't directly translate. Maybe Singletary is one of the exceptions the way that Dungy or Del Rio or Fisher are, and he has enough of those other critical skills that he can lead an NFL team successfully. Of course, maybe not. The point is though that he definitely would be an exception, as most NFL players are either unwilling or unable to lead NFL teams after their playing days are over.

 

[redman]

No, you couldn't equally argue it. NFL coaches mostly come from the pool of former college players. NFL and college players pretty much never are hired from the pool of former NFL coaches.

The point was simply that looking at %'s is a silly way to make judgements as to who you should hire given that there is almost no commonalities in skill sets between the two jobs.

You and I are arguing the same thing. I started off this whole % discussion by simply asking proponents of the rule at what point we could do away with the rule.

 

[Yenrub]

Oh good, so we are using quotas. I think turning black men into numbers that make us feel good is an excellent way of fighting racism!

Did you bother to read my post? Specifically the part where I said "I don't think we need to target a specific percentage"?

Why mention percentages at all then? Also, why is it more acceptable to be less specific about what the actual goal is? I fail to see how that's a virtue.

1) Black and white athletes have equivalent coaching aptitude.2) Black and white former athletes are equally interested in coaching.

Why are these good assumptions? The reason I ask is because we hear constantly how poor the schools are in predominantly black neighborhoods, and how relatively few black high school students go on to become graduating college students. This is a cultural problem, not a football problem. While football coaching aptitude certainly can (but not necessarily) have something to do with one's playing experience, when you're talking about NFL level football coaching aptitude I think you're at a level where other more academic skills - administrative skills, organizational skills, communications skills, just for starters - are far more emphasized than one's athleticism or even football playing experience. These tend to be things that are gotten or certainly at least assisted by higher education . . . precisely the area where black youngsters are failing to keep up with white youngsters.

You're quoting the number of blacks who play NFL football versus the number of whites, and then comparing those numbers to the NFL coaching ranks. How many NFL head coaches are former NFL players? By my count, there are five (four of whom, interestingly enough, are in the AFC South, plus Edwards). When the NFL playing ranks are not the source of your coaches, why would you use the racial makeup of those ranks to determine what the racial makeup of your coaches should be?

You don't solve an American socio-economic problem by creating an NFL rule that attempts to force or at least achieve a certain (arbitrary) racial makeup on the coaching ranks. That's an asinine concept.

I found a good study documenting what I've been saying here. I'm posting one of the more germane passages below, but all of it supports what I've been saying: that the population that is most used to pull NFL coaches from - former college players who ended up graduating and getting their college degrees - is very much an area in which blacks as opposed to other racial/ethnic groups are not keeping up:

A closer look, however, reveals a much different result. It is crucial to notice that among

students overall, blacks fare much worse in graduation rates with only 36% of African-American

males graduating from college within six years of enrollment. Conversely, American students of

Page 6

6

Asian and Pacific Island descent graduate at a 65% rate, well above the national average. These

two ethnic groups are represented disproportionally on athletic rosters. While blacks make up

only 9.3% of the student body as a whole, they represent 26.8% of male athletes as a whole and

48.8% and 54.3% of football and basketball players, respectively. Asian and Pacific Islander

Americans, on the other hand, who make up 7.3% of the general student population, represent

only 1.5% of all athletes, and no Asian Americans were on scholarship in Basketball during this

time period.

Keep in mind that this study only used data from Division I schools, where I would suspect the proportion of black players is the highest. If you factor in the DII and DIII and NAIA schools, I'm figuring far more of your racial makeup is white as opposed to black, which would provide a greater explanation for the racial disparity found in the NFL coaching ranks.

The study speaks to why there is smaller number of black assistant coaches compared to the number of former black players.The study doesn't speak to why those who have made it to the assistant coaching level have not been given a chance at the head coaching positions.

It doesn't speak to why it took a guy like Romeo Crennel so long to get an INTERVIEW

 

[redman]

Oh good, so we are using quotas. I think turning black men into numbers that make us feel good is an excellent way of fighting racism!

Did you bother to read my post? Specifically the part where I said "I don't think we need to target a specific percentage"?

Why mention percentages at all then? Also, why is it more acceptable to be less specific about what the actual goal is? I fail to see how that's a virtue.

1) Black and white athletes have equivalent coaching aptitude.2) Black and white former athletes are equally interested in coaching.

Why are these good assumptions? The reason I ask is because we hear constantly how poor the schools are in predominantly black neighborhoods, and how relatively few black high school students go on to become graduating college students. This is a cultural problem, not a football problem. While football coaching aptitude certainly can (but not necessarily) have something to do with one's playing experience, when you're talking about NFL level football coaching aptitude I think you're at a level where other more academic skills - administrative skills, organizational skills, communications skills, just for starters - are far more emphasized than one's athleticism or even football playing experience. These tend to be things that are gotten or certainly at least assisted by higher education . . . precisely the area where black youngsters are failing to keep up with white youngsters.

You're quoting the number of blacks who play NFL football versus the number of whites, and then comparing those numbers to the NFL coaching ranks. How many NFL head coaches are former NFL players? By my count, there are five (four of whom, interestingly enough, are in the AFC South, plus Edwards). When the NFL playing ranks are not the source of your coaches, why would you use the racial makeup of those ranks to determine what the racial makeup of your coaches should be?

You don't solve an American socio-economic problem by creating an NFL rule that attempts to force or at least achieve a certain (arbitrary) racial makeup on the coaching ranks. That's an asinine concept.

I found a good study documenting what I've been saying here. I'm posting one of the more germane passages below, but all of it supports what I've been saying: that the population that is most used to pull NFL coaches from - former college players who ended up graduating and getting their college degrees - is very much an area in which blacks as opposed to other racial/ethnic groups are not keeping up:

A closer look, however, reveals a much different result. It is crucial to notice that among

students overall, blacks fare much worse in graduation rates with only 36% of African-American

males graduating from college within six years of enrollment. Conversely, American students of

Page 6

6

Asian and Pacific Island descent graduate at a 65% rate, well above the national average. These

two ethnic groups are represented disproportionally on athletic rosters. While blacks make up

only 9.3% of the student body as a whole, they represent 26.8% of male athletes as a whole and

48.8% and 54.3% of football and basketball players, respectively. Asian and Pacific Islander

Americans, on the other hand, who make up 7.3% of the general student population, represent

only 1.5% of all athletes, and no Asian Americans were on scholarship in Basketball during this

time period.

Keep in mind that this study only used data from Division I schools, where I would suspect the proportion of black players is the highest. If you factor in the DII and DIII and NAIA schools, I'm figuring far more of your racial makeup is white as opposed to black, which would provide a greater explanation for the racial disparity found in the NFL coaching ranks.

The study speaks to why there is smaller number of black assistant coaches compared to the number of former black players.The study doesn't speak to why those who have made it to the assistant coaching level have not been given a chance at the head coaching positions.

It doesn't speak to why it took a guy like Romeo Crennel so long to get an INTERVIEW

It didn't take Dungy or Edwards or Lewis all that long to get hired. I'm not of the opinion that Romeo Crennel is a good example of a long time untapped head coaching talent anyway. I've not been all that impressed with the team since he took over, even after this past year's surprising performance. Moreover, there are any number of long time white assistants who don't get sniffs for head coaching interviews. I don't buy that every black assistant who hasn't been interviewed has been the victim of racism requiring the Rooney Rule to rectify that.