Rooney rule discussion (1 Viewer)

[CalBear]

It makes sense to interview a black guy very early on to satisfy the rule. What if the coach you really targeted is interview #1 and you don't want to let him walk out the room without hiring him because he has another one scheduled the next day with another team? You can't hire him because you didn't interview a black guy yet.

Black coaches do get hired. The rule is working fine. I have yet to hear a way to improve on it. Anyone offering up one?

Yes..Interview and hire whoever you feel is the best candidate regardless of color.

They are never going to go backwards.

So hiring the best candidate for a job regardless of color is going backwards....interesting.

"Hiring the best candidate" and "Hiring who you feel is the best candidate" are not the same thing. There's plenty of science on this.

 

[Arodin]

"Hiring the best candidate" and "Hiring who you feel is the best candidate" are not the same thing. There's plenty of science on this.

Kind of like how "drafting the best player" is not the same thing as "drafting who you feel is the best player?" But we don't need a Rooney Rule for our fantasy rosters...

 

[Chaka]

Seems like no interviewee has gotten an offer after their first interview. It's racism and reverse-racism at the same time.

 

[CalBear]

"Hiring the best candidate" and "Hiring who you feel is the best candidate" are not the same thing. There's plenty of science on this.

Kind of like how "drafting the best player" is not the same thing as "drafting who you feel is the best player?" But we don't need a Rooney Rule for our fantasy rosters...

I'm pretty sure no one (other than you) is disadvantaged by the choices you make for your fantasy roster, while it's very clear that blacks in America have been disadvantaged by discriminatory hiring practices, and remain so to this day. Again, there's plenty of research on this. Unconscious bias is a powerful force, far more powerful than our ability to accurately assess the skills and capabilities of job candidates.

 

[JuniorNB]

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.

I just think if you pay a few hundred million or into the billions for a team you should get to interview whoever you please, after all with that much at stake you would think they don't need a rule to get them to hire who they think is the best person for the job.

no one is forcing or even asking them to hire anyone other than who they think is the best person for the job. The rule hurts absolutely no one. And helps a lot of minorities.

 

[menobrown]

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.

I just think if you pay a few hundred million or into the billions for a team you should get to interview whoever you please, after all with that much at stake you would think they don't need a rule to get them to hire who they think is the best person for the job.

no one is forcing or even asking them to hire anyone other than who they think is the best person for the job. The rule hurts absolutely no one. And helps a lot of minorities

I know the rule and what it does require people to do and don't think it's necessary nor do I buy the premise it's been helfpull to anyone.

 

[ghostguy123]

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.

I just think if you pay a few hundred million or into the billions for a team you should get to interview whoever you please, after all with that much at stake you would think they don't need a rule to get them to hire who they think is the best person for the job.

no one is forcing or even asking them to hire anyone other than who they think is the best person for the job. The rule hurts absolutely no one. And helps a lot of minorities

I know the rule and what it does require people to do and don't think it's necessary nor do I buy the premise it's been helfpull to anyone.

Racist

Nah, it's almost like you are reaching down my throat and pulling out the words I hadn't said yet.

 

[tone1oc]

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.

I just think if you pay a few hundred million or into the billions for a team you should get to interview whoever you please, after all with that much at stake you would think they don't need a rule to get them to hire who they think is the best person for the job.

no one is forcing or even asking them to hire anyone other than who they think is the best person for the job. The rule hurts absolutely no one. And helps a lot of minorities

I know the rule and what it does require people to do and don't think it's necessary nor do I buy the premise it's been helfpull to anyone.

So why are you so upset that NFL teams have to interview a minority again?

 

[slackjawedyokel]

The rule is not necessary. Keeping it active is implicitly saying that teams are racist and would refuse to interview a legit candidate without league provocation. In this era, we have to stop this madness.

For those in support of the rule... Here's a sincere question to see how slippery this slope really is: Is it also necessary to expand this rule to humans with various handicaps and women? Why or why not?

 

[slackjawedyokel]

Also, short and/or overweight people. Oh, and ugly folks too. Mandatory interviews for all!

 

[menobrown]

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.

I just think if you pay a few hundred million or into the billions for a team you should get to interview whoever you please, after all with that much at stake you would think they don't need a rule to get them to hire who they think is the best person for the job.

no one is forcing or even asking them to hire anyone other than who they think is the best person for the job. The rule hurts absolutely no one. And helps a lot of minorities

I know the rule and what it does require people to do and don't think it's necessary nor do I buy the premise it's been helfpull to anyone.

So why are you so upset that NFL teams have to interview a minority again?

I would hardly categorize saying "I've never been a fan" or don't the think the rule is "necessary" as being upset but you go ahead and run with it and feel free to paint me in that picture that works best for you.

 

[Yenrub]

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.

I just think if you pay a few hundred million or into the billions for a team you should get to interview whoever you please, after all with that much at stake you would think they don't need a rule to get them to hire who they think is the best person for the job.

no one is forcing or even asking them to hire anyone other than who they think is the best person for the job. The rule hurts absolutely no one. And helps a lot of minorities

I know the rule and what it does require people to do and don't think it's necessary nor do I buy the premise it's been helfpull to anyone.

These are coaches that said that they thought it was helpful to them

 

[jabarony]

I've gone on a few interviews where I was knew I was not going to take, or be offered, the job. A few were to get the feel for the interviews, but the majority were to just check out other companies/cities (moreso the latter) on their dime.

Maybe these Rooney rule guys want the interview experience or to just visit some relatives in FL?

 

[Tool]

The rule is not necessary. Keeping it active is implicitly saying that teams are racist and would refuse to interview a legit candidate without league provocation. In this era, we have to stop this madness.

For those in support of the rule... Here's a sincere question to see how slippery this slope really is: Is it also necessary to expand this rule to humans with various handicaps and women? Why or why not?

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.

The rule is not perfect but it gives some a shot at getting in the conversation and an opportunity to interview and understand the process - don't really see the harm.

 

[JuniorNB]

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.

I just think if you pay a few hundred million or into the billions for a team you should get to interview whoever you please, after all with that much at stake you would think they don't need a rule to get them to hire who they think is the best person for the job.

no one is forcing or even asking them to hire anyone other than who they think is the best person for the job. The rule hurts absolutely no one. And helps a lot of minorities

I know the rule and what it does require people to do and don't think it's necessary nor do I buy the premise it's been helfpull to anyone.

Who does it hurt? What damage does it do?

 

[Snorkelson]

The nfl is and has been played by predominantly minorities, yet ownership/front office/head coaching jobs were held by mostly white men, so steelers owner art Rooney came up with the idea to interview a minority candidate for these jobs and the owners signed off on it, a progressive move in the right direction at the time. The argument doesn't apply to women or disabled people because they aren't the majority of the employees in the nfl.

No one is reporting that a person is getting interviewed to satisfy the rule. They are, however, reporting that a team may be linked to a certain coach, and that they have interviewed so and so which satisfies the rule. Don't focus too much on semantics like the use of the word embarrassment. Let's not all hold up a banner that says "look how progressive we are! Mission accomplished!" I don't have a problem with the rule, just the way owners are parting themselves on the back for not being so racist in their hiring when it really hasn't changed all that much.

 

[JuniorNB]

The nfl is and has been played by predominantly minorities, yet ownership/front office/head coaching jobs were held by mostly white men, so steelers owner art Rooney came up with the idea to interview a minority candidate for these jobs and the owners signed off on it, a progressive move in the right direction at the time. The argument doesn't apply to women or disabled people because they aren't the majority of the employees in the nfl.

No one is reporting that a person is getting interviewed to satisfy the rule. They are, however, reporting that a team may be linked to a certain coach, and that they have interviewed so and so which satisfies the rule. Don't focus too much on semantics like the use of the word embarrassment. Let's not all hold up a banner that says "look how progressive we are! Mission accomplished!" I don't have a problem with the rule, just the way owners are parting themselves on the back for not being so racist in their hiring when it really hasn't changed all that much.

Do you have examples of these owners patting themselves on the back about not being racist?

 

[Snorkelson]

Nope. The token interviews are good for everyone, no changes needed. Mission accomplished, it now appears they give a dang.

 

[Dr. Octopus]

Nope. The token interviews are good for everyone, no changes needed. Mission accomplished, it now appears they give a dang.

Yeah, although it's been spelled out for you numerous times in this thread, you still don't seem to want to accept what the purpose of the rule actually is and that that specific purpose is actually achieved even if you want to call some of the interviews "token" interviews.

It's ironic that your patronizing the owners for "patting themselves on the back" with token interviews while wasting your time getting on your message board soapbox to take a stand against something that isn't even a problem.

Who are you trying to protect exactly? How would not having this rule be a good thing? Are the "victims" complaining and asking not to be forced to waste their time on token interviews? You do realize that Duce Staley could say "no thanks" when asked to come in for an interview. right?

 

[JuniorNB]

Nope. The token interviews are good for everyone, no changes needed. Mission accomplished, it now appears they give a dang.

Like I said, who is it hurting? Answer is no one. And there have been more black coaches since the rule has been enacted than before. So you're right..mission accomplished.

 

[Snorkelson]

Do we really? Let's see, Bowles, Caldwell, Rivera. Who did I miss? Lovie was there too. How many gm minorities, now that Mayhew is gone? I really have no idea, but I bet it isn't many.

 

[Dinsy Ejotuz]

I'd love to have the opportunity to interview for a higher-level job with any of the top 32 companies in my field -- even if there was currently no job available. If you know what you're doing and present yourself well people remember it. And they talk to each other.

The Rooney Rule is the ultimate networking opportunity -- which is exactly what it was intended to be given the historical lack of a network between NFL owners and black coaches.

 

[JuniorNB]

I'd love to have the opportunity to interview for a higher-level job with any of the top 32 companies in my field -- even if there was currently no job available. If you know what you're doing and present yourself well people remember it. And they talk to each other.

The Rooney Rule is the ultimate networking opportunity -- which is exactly what it was intended to be given the historical lack of a network between NFL owners and black coaches.

exactly. Some people just can't see the big picture. They just can't stand the idea of a rule that was put in place to help minorities.

 

[Dr. Octopus]

Do we really? Let's see, Bowles, Caldwell, Rivera. Who did I miss? Lovie was there too. How many gm minorities, now that Mayhew is gone? I really have no idea, but I bet it isn't many.

Reggie McKenzie and Jerry Reese at GM.

 

[tone1oc]

Do we really? Let's see, Bowles, Caldwell, Rivera. Who did I miss? Lovie was there too. How many gm minorities, now that Mayhew is gone? I really have no idea, but I bet it isn't many.

Reggie McKenzie and Jerry Reese at GM.

Also Ozzie Newsome, but he was hired year before Rooney rule.

 

[coolnerd]

Do we really? Let's see, Bowles, Caldwell, Rivera. Who did I miss? Lovie was there too. How many gm minorities, now that Mayhew is gone? I really have no idea, but I bet it isn't many.

Reggie McKenzie and Jerry Reese at GM.

Also Ozzie Newsome, but he was hired year before Rooney rule.

rick smith has been with the Texans for almost 10 years

 

[tone1oc]

Do we really? Let's see, Bowles, Caldwell, Rivera. Who did I miss? Lovie was there too. How many gm minorities, now that Mayhew is gone? I really have no idea, but I bet it isn't many.

Reggie McKenzie and Jerry Reese at GM.

Also Ozzie Newsome, but he was hired year before Rooney rule.

rick smith has been with the Texans for almost 10 years

They really need to publicize these black GM's more...

 

[JuniorNB]

Do we really? Let's see, Bowles, Caldwell, Rivera. Who did I miss? Lovie was there too. How many gm minorities, now that Mayhew is gone? I really have no idea, but I bet it isn't many.

Reggie McKenzie and Jerry Reese at GM.

Also Ozzie Newsome, but he was hired year before Rooney rule.

rick smith has been with the Texans for almost 10 years

I blame Smith. What kind of a black name is Rick? It needs to be Jamir or Andre. Something that tells the world that the system is working.

 

[tone1oc]

I honestly had no idea Rick Smith or Jerry Reese was black before this thread and I'm a guy that spends 10s of hours per week digesting NFL information, year round.

 

[coolnerd]

Agree with what Rooney was trying to do, just think it's pretty obvious that it needs some revisiting. It's just so blatant that teams are getting it out if te way early in the search. Whether it's a "company man" (staley) or a guy who deserves a real shot (Austin) or a guy that oversaw the lions front office (really? You want Mayhew?) it seems like these interviews are largely to simply satisfy te rule

I may be recalling this incorrectly but it seems to me that when Mike Tomlin interviewed for the Steelers job, a lot of people thought the Steelers were just going through the motions to satisfy the rule also but then we saw one of the better young minds come to get a job.

If nothing else, it offers exposure that might otherwise go completely overlooked. I get what you're saying and I agree, it DOES look rather silly when seemingly EVERY position that opens up has a minority interviewing with the next 15 minutes of the announcement, yet never gets any hires, but then when it DOES happen (or at least puts a person on the map), it has done part of the job.

I kind of wonder if the guys going through the interview see it one way or the other but everything has to start somewhere and a chance is better than none. A new face & name in the conversation is better than one more stinking round of recycled Shanahans, Wade Phillips, etc. I mean, seriously, how many times can ONE guy (say, Romeo) demonstrate that he is not a good coach, yet end up with 10+ NFL jobs over the course of his often-fired career?

the worse part of the rule is that it confirms an assumption (by some, not even many) that any black coach is only being interviewed because he was black...I remember at least one message board (don't think this one) Lovie smith was considered a Rooney candidate. It was quickly pointed out that Tampa has history of hiring black coaches and that with flaws and all Lovie did coach in a Super Bowl. I mean is Duce Staley a worse candidate than Jim Tomsula was san francisco last year?

Here is an example..again...Tampa bay has a long history of hiring black coaches, and dude is OC with the high scoring Cardinals...

http://profootballtalk.nbcsports.com/2016/01/08/buccaneers-to-interview-harold-goodwin-for-head-coach/

 

[tone1oc]

I'd love to have the opportunity to interview for a higher-level job with any of the top 32 companies in my field -- even if there was currently no job available. If you know what you're doing and present yourself well people remember it. And they talk to each other.

The Rooney Rule is the ultimate networking opportunity -- which is exactly what it was intended to be given the historical lack of a network between NFL owners and black coaches.

This is the best line of the thread, well done.

 

[menobrown]

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.

I just think if you pay a few hundred million or into the billions for a team you should get to interview whoever you please, after all with that much at stake you would think they don't need a rule to get them to hire who they think is the best person for the job.

no one is forcing or even asking them to hire anyone other than who they think is the best person for the job. The rule hurts absolutely no one. And helps a lot of minorities

I know the rule and what it does require people to do and don't think it's necessary nor do I buy the premise it's been helfpull to anyone.

These are coaches that said that they thought it was helpful to them

I'm not so sure.

I find it very difficult to believe the conversation when hiring a coach goes this way.

GM to staff: find us a minority candidate to interview so I can get that out of the way. Don't want any holdups when we get our guy.

Staff: who are you interested in?

GM: I have no legitimate interest in any of them, I'm just trying to satisfy a rule. Just find me one that meets the rule and looks plausible so we can check that box.

Interview occurs. GM meets with staff/ownership group/possible search committe after meeting:

GM: well damn, that guy was impressive. He fired me up, knew what he was talking about.

Owner: Yes, I thought this interview was a formality but he nailed it. We had no interest in this guy to be the face of my billion dollar franchise until this interview but let's put him at the top of our list.

If you believe conversations similar to this occur when hiring a coach then the Rooney rule is fantastic. If like me you don't think teams actually hire a candidate they had no or limited interest in because he nailed the interview you would view the Rooney rule like I do. Not bad, not terrible, nothing that hurts anyone, but at the same time it feels seems unnecessary and gives off an air of tokenism.

 

[zftcg]

If teams are in fact scheduling token interviews, honoring the letter of the law rather than the spirit, isn't *that* the bigger problem?

Similarly, if people are looking at minority candidates and assuming they only got their opportunity because of the rule, doesn't that say more about those people and their own biases than it does about the Rooney Rule?

I hate this assumption that *of course* people will act in the most cynical way possible, and that's simply to be assumed and worked around. The NFL is a small private club of 32 owners; if they're all on board with the ultimate goal of increasing minority representation, they should act in ways that support that ultimate goal rather than like Marshawn Lynch at Media Day.

For the record, I'm not saying that's what teams are doing. I suspect they are acting to support the underlying goal of the RR (to cite one example, I'd bet that Staley got the Eagles interview because the team wanted to reward a long-time employee by positioning him for a future HC opportunity, even if he wasn't going to get this one). What I'm taking issue with are the people who *think* that's what teams are doing, and whose reaction is to just shrug their shoulders and assume it's a natural response to the rule.

 

[zftcg]

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.

I just think if you pay a few hundred million or into the billions for a team you should get to interview whoever you please, after all with that much at stake you would think they don't need a rule to get them to hire who they think is the best person for the job.

no one is forcing or even asking them to hire anyone other than who they think is the best person for the job. The rule hurts absolutely no one. And helps a lot of minorities

I know the rule and what it does require people to do and don't think it's necessary nor do I buy the premise it's been helfpull to anyone.

These are coaches that said that they thought it was helpful to them

I'm not so sure.

I find it very difficult to believe the conversation when hiring a coach goes this way.

GM to staff: find us a minority candidate to interview so I can get that out of the way. Don't want any holdups when we get our guy.

Staff: who are you interested in?

GM: I have no legitimate interest in any of them, I'm just trying to satisfy a rule. Just find me one that meets the rule and looks plausible so we can check that box.

Interview occurs. GM meets with staff/ownership group/possible search committe after meeting:

GM: well damn, that guy was impressive. He fired me up, knew what he was talking about.

Owner: Yes, I thought this interview was a formality but he nailed it. We had no interest in this guy to be the face of my billion dollar franchise until this interview but let's put him at the top of our list.

If you believe conversations similar to this occur when hiring a coach then the Rooney rule is fantastic. If like me you don't think teams actually hire a candidate they had no or limited interest in because he nailed the interview you would view the Rooney rule like I do. Not bad, not terrible, nothing that hurts anyone, but at the same time it feels seems unnecessary and gives off an air of tokenism.

If I thought conversations like that were occurring, I would say that the league has problems that go far beyond what the Rooney Rule can accomplish.

 

[Dr. Octopus]

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.

I just think if you pay a few hundred million or into the billions for a team you should get to interview whoever you please, after all with that much at stake you would think they don't need a rule to get them to hire who they think is the best person for the job.

no one is forcing or even asking them to hire anyone other than who they think is the best person for the job. The rule hurts absolutely no one. And helps a lot of minorities

I know the rule and what it does require people to do and don't think it's necessary nor do I buy the premise it's been helfpull to anyone.

These are coaches that said that they thought it was helpful to them

I'm not so sure.

I find it very difficult to believe the conversation when hiring a coach goes this way.

GM to staff: find us a minority candidate to interview so I can get that out of the way. Don't want any holdups when we get our guy.

Staff: who are you interested in?

GM: I have no legitimate interest in any of them, I'm just trying to satisfy a rule. Just find me one that meets the rule and looks plausible so we can check that box.

Interview occurs. GM meets with staff/ownership group/possible search committe after meeting:

GM: well damn, that guy was impressive. He fired me up, knew what he was talking about.

Owner: Yes, I thought this interview was a formality but he nailed it. We had no interest in this guy to be the face of my billion dollar franchise until this interview but let's put him at the top of our list.

If you believe conversations similar to this occur when hiring a coach then the Rooney rule is fantastic. If like me you don't think teams actually hire a candidate they had no or limited interest in because he nailed the interview you would view the Rooney rule like I do. Not bad, not terrible, nothing that hurts anyone, but at the same time it feels seems unnecessary and gives off an air of tokenism.

Isn't that pretty much what happened with the team you root for?

 

[Madden Curse]

Nobody can answer the question on why it bothers/embarrases/etc them that this rule is in place.

Post #39, I never heard back. Also a post a couple down from there I posted some more thoughts.

Maybe you got me on ignore?

Haha.. no not on ignore. And perhaps I'm being dense but I thought you were for the rule. The only other response was just flipping it around on me asking why i care they care.

I feel it needs a heavy tweaking. .

You had the opinion IIRC that you don't understand why any of us sweat this stuff as a fan...I think I did a good job of explaining why we do care and why it is important. But it's OK if we don't agree Emperor.

I think as a white person I would be not happy if I were brought in as some token interview inside a predominant black organization just to fill a few quotas. No thanks. I'm just trying to see if I can connect with you so you understand how some of us could view the rule and the way it is being carried out or handled.

It's hard for you to imagine this as a white guy, but give it a shot...

In your scenario of a predominately black company needs to hire you to fill a quota, if you were a white man trying to get into this field, and you know these owners have meetings with other company's and talk a lot and reputations spread quickly, you would love the opportunity to get a seat in front of the CEO and president and try to impress him with your knowledge. Even if you are certain you won't get that particular job. Maybe you'll get a lesser job but get your foot in the door. Or maybe the CEO will be golfing with another company's CEO and he tells him what a great business mind you have and how forward thinking some of your ideas are. I'm sure some of these black coaches get interviews knowing the team already knows they are hiring someone else. But I bet they are still excited to be given the chance and are trying like hell to impress the people in that room.

I think this is a good way to think about it. I am sure many of us posting here have had one or more interviews for jobs where we were considered to be longshots to get the jobs. We did the interviews anyway, first to get exposure in the industry (as mentioned above), and second simply to practice - because again, as many of us know, job interviews are something that help you hone your presentation and analytical skills, and simply getting a bit of practice now lets you do better in the future.

On the flip side, having spent a lot of time interviewing people for jobs, I see the value of always including some longshot candidates. Sometimes the people who look best on paper are absolutely horrible in person and simply don't translate into what I want, while some people who look shaky or a bit inexperienced on paper end up wowing the hell out of me and either get the job, or get called back later to interview for a different position that they hadn't even applied for, but which I thought they'd be good for. I've done that for people, and other people have done that for me - sometimes the wildcards win the hand, but you never know until you let them into the game.

I think the Rooney Rule is an imperfect solution to an obvious diversity problem (ie predominantly white coaches leading predominantly black teams), but I don't see who is victimized by its implementation, and I can certainly see the benefits to maintaining it or even expanding it a bit. Personally I'd like to see more minority interviews for lower-level positions. You perfect your craft in the trenches, be that as line coach, positional coach, coordinator, etc.

 

[JuniorNB]

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.

I just think if you pay a few hundred million or into the billions for a team you should get to interview whoever you please, after all with that much at stake you would think they don't need a rule to get them to hire who they think is the best person for the job.

no one is forcing or even asking them to hire anyone other than who they think is the best person for the job. The rule hurts absolutely no one. And helps a lot of minorities

I know the rule and what it does require people to do and don't think it's necessary nor do I buy the premise it's been helfpull to anyone.

These are coaches that said that they thought it was helpful to them

I'm not so sure.

I find it very difficult to believe the conversation when hiring a coach goes this way.

GM to staff: find us a minority candidate to interview so I can get that out of the way. Don't want any holdups when we get our guy.

Staff: who are you interested in?

GM: I have no legitimate interest in any of them, I'm just trying to satisfy a rule. Just find me one that meets the rule and looks plausible so we can check that box.

Interview occurs. GM meets with staff/ownership group/possible search committe after meeting:

GM: well damn, that guy was impressive. He fired me up, knew what he was talking about.

Owner: Yes, I thought this interview was a formality but he nailed it. We had no interest in this guy to be the face of my billion dollar franchise until this interview but let's put him at the top of our list.

If you believe conversations similar to this occur when hiring a coach then the Rooney rule is fantastic. If like me you don't think teams actually hire a candidate they had no or limited interest in because he nailed the interview you would view the Rooney rule like I do. Not bad, not terrible, nothing that hurts anyone, but at the same time it feels seems unnecessary and gives off an air of tokenism.

Not every team gets the guy they aim for. Let's say the Buccanners interview AZ OC Harold Goodwin, mainly to satisfy the Rooney Rule obligation, but their main targets are Tom Coughlin or Adam Gase. After interviewing 5 different candidates, they find out that Gase signs with Miami and Coughlin decides to retire. meanwhile, Goodwin really impressed them during the interview and love the idea of what he could do with Jameis Winston. Viola! A black coach hired as a result of the Rooney Rule. I guarantee you this has happened before and will happen again.

 

[CalBear]

If you believe conversations similar to this occur when hiring a coach then the Rooney rule is fantastic. If like me you don't think teams actually hire a candidate they had no or limited interest in because he nailed the interview you would view the Rooney rule like I do. Not bad, not terrible, nothing that hurts anyone, but at the same time it feels seems unnecessary and gives off an air of tokenism.

There are pretty clearly cases where the Rooney-required interview is nothing more than tokenism. But, I don't think all the cases are that way, and in cases where it causes a team to think about someone who they might not otherwise have considered, and then to seriously consider that person, it probably does something to accomplish its goals.

My synopsis is:

• Whether the Rooney Rule accomplishes its goals is not entirely clear. In my personal opinion, it's probably better than nothing.
• Whether the NFL is morally or ethically responsible for addressing issues of structural racism is open to debate. In my personal opinion, they should do what they can.
• But, whether structural racism exists is not open to debate. It's clear that blacks are disadvantaged in employment processes in America, in the NFL, and in the other major sports. So anyone who wants to assert that there's no problem to address needs to come up with some strong evidence for that position.

 

[menobrown]

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.

I just think if you pay a few hundred million or into the billions for a team you should get to interview whoever you please, after all with that much at stake you would think they don't need a rule to get them to hire who they think is the best person for the job.

no one is forcing or even asking them to hire anyone other than who they think is the best person for the job. The rule hurts absolutely no one. And helps a lot of minorities

I know the rule and what it does require people to do and don't think it's necessary nor do I buy the premise it's been helfpull to anyone.

These are coaches that said that they thought it was helpful to them

I'm not so sure.

I find it very difficult to believe the conversation when hiring a coach goes this way.

GM to staff: find us a minority candidate to interview so I can get that out of the way. Don't want any holdups when we get our guy.

Staff: who are you interested in?

GM: I have no legitimate interest in any of them, I'm just trying to satisfy a rule. Just find me one that meets the rule and looks plausible so we can check that box.

Interview occurs. GM meets with staff/ownership group/possible search committe after meeting:

GM: well damn, that guy was impressive. He fired me up, knew what he was talking about.

Owner: Yes, I thought this interview was a formality but he nailed it. We had no interest in this guy to be the face of my billion dollar franchise until this interview but let's put him at the top of our list.

If you believe conversations similar to this occur when hiring a coach then the Rooney rule is fantastic. If like me you don't think teams actually hire a candidate they had no or limited interest in because he nailed the interview you would view the Rooney rule like I do. Not bad, not terrible, nothing that hurts anyone, but at the same time it feels seems unnecessary and gives off an air of tokenism.

Isn't that pretty much what happened with the team you root for?

No, that's just the narrative people ran with because Tomlin fit the profile, was unknown to most casual fans and the team who hired him made the rule.

Mike Tomlin did not get interviewed to satisfy a rule. He got interviewed because he was a serious candidate for the job. The team interviewing him had a history of locating young fairly unknown coordinators with a defensive background and no prior NFL head coaching experience. Mike Tomlin was exactly the kind of candidate they were looking to hire just like Cowher and Knoll before him.

That's my point. Tomlin and any minority coach that were ultimately hired were people the teams had legit interest in hiring. Thus no Rooney rule was needed in order for the interview to happen. On the other hand there are teams who interview a minority just to satisfy the rule. I do not believe those interviews lead to head coaching offers.

 

[Dr. Octopus]

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.

I just think if you pay a few hundred million or into the billions for a team you should get to interview whoever you please, after all with that much at stake you would think they don't need a rule to get them to hire who they think is the best person for the job.

no one is forcing or even asking them to hire anyone other than who they think is the best person for the job. The rule hurts absolutely no one. And helps a lot of minorities

I know the rule and what it does require people to do and don't think it's necessary nor do I buy the premise it's been helfpull to anyone.

These are coaches that said that they thought it was helpful to them

I'm not so sure.

I find it very difficult to believe the conversation when hiring a coach goes this way.

GM to staff: find us a minority candidate to interview so I can get that out of the way. Don't want any holdups when we get our guy.

Staff: who are you interested in?

GM: I have no legitimate interest in any of them, I'm just trying to satisfy a rule. Just find me one that meets the rule and looks plausible so we can check that box.

Interview occurs. GM meets with staff/ownership group/possible search committe after meeting:

GM: well damn, that guy was impressive. He fired me up, knew what he was talking about.

Owner: Yes, I thought this interview was a formality but he nailed it. We had no interest in this guy to be the face of my billion dollar franchise until this interview but let's put him at the top of our list.

If you believe conversations similar to this occur when hiring a coach then the Rooney rule is fantastic. If like me you don't think teams actually hire a candidate they had no or limited interest in because he nailed the interview you would view the Rooney rule like I do. Not bad, not terrible, nothing that hurts anyone, but at the same time it feels seems unnecessary and gives off an air of tokenism.

Isn't that pretty much what happened with the team you root for?

No, that's just the narrative people ran with because Tomlin fit the profile, was unknown to most casual fans and the team who hired him made the rule.

Mike Tomlin did not get interviewed to satisfy a rule. He got interviewed because he was a serious candidate for the job. The team interviewing him had a history of locating young fairly unknown coordinators with a defensive background and no prior NFL head coaching experience. Mike Tomlin was exactly the kind of candidate they were looking to hire just like Cowher and Knoll before him.

That's my point. Tomlin and any minority coach that were ultimately hired were people the teams had legit interest in hiring. Thus no Rooney rule was needed in order for the interview to happen. On the other hand there are teams who interview a minority just to satisfy the rule. I do not believe those interviews lead to head coaching offers.

They had two guys already on their staff that were considered favorites for the job though, Whisenhutt and Grimm.

 

[menobrown]

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.

I just think if you pay a few hundred million or into the billions for a team you should get to interview whoever you please, after all with that much at stake you would think they don't need a rule to get them to hire who they think is the best person for the job.

no one is forcing or even asking them to hire anyone other than who they think is the best person for the job. The rule hurts absolutely no one. And helps a lot of minorities

I know the rule and what it does require people to do and don't think it's necessary nor do I buy the premise it's been helfpull to anyone.

These are coaches that said that they thought it was helpful to them

I'm not so sure.

I find it very difficult to believe the conversation when hiring a coach goes this way.

GM to staff: find us a minority candidate to interview so I can get that out of the way. Don't want any holdups when we get our guy.

Staff: who are you interested in?

GM: I have no legitimate interest in any of them, I'm just trying to satisfy a rule. Just find me one that meets the rule and looks plausible so we can check that box.

Interview occurs. GM meets with staff/ownership group/possible search committe after meeting:

GM: well damn, that guy was impressive. He fired me up, knew what he was talking about.

Owner: Yes, I thought this interview was a formality but he nailed it. We had no interest in this guy to be the face of my billion dollar franchise until this interview but let's put him at the top of our list.

If you believe conversations similar to this occur when hiring a coach then the Rooney rule is fantastic. If like me you don't think teams actually hire a candidate they had no or limited interest in because he nailed the interview you would view the Rooney rule like I do. Not bad, not terrible, nothing that hurts anyone, but at the same time it feels seems unnecessary and gives off an air of tokenism.

Isn't that pretty much what happened with the team you root for?

No, that's just the narrative people ran with because Tomlin fit the profile, was unknown to most casual fans and the team who hired him made the rule.

Mike Tomlin did not get interviewed to satisfy a rule. He got interviewed because he was a serious candidate for the job. The team interviewing him had a history of locating young fairly unknown coordinators with a defensive background and no prior NFL head coaching experience. Mike Tomlin was exactly the kind of candidate they were looking to hire just like Cowher and Knoll before him.

That's my point. Tomlin and any minority coach that were ultimately hired were people the teams had legit interest in hiring. Thus no Rooney rule was needed in order for the interview to happen. On the other hand there are teams who interview a minority just to satisfy the rule. I do not believe those interviews lead to head coaching offers.

They had two guys already on their staff that were considered favorites for the job though, Whisenhutt and Grimm.

What side of the ball do those two guys coach?

Just because those two considered themselves favorites does not make it so.

 

[zftcg]

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.

I just think if you pay a few hundred million or into the billions for a team you should get to interview whoever you please, after all with that much at stake you would think they don't need a rule to get them to hire who they think is the best person for the job.

no one is forcing or even asking them to hire anyone other than who they think is the best person for the job. The rule hurts absolutely no one. And helps a lot of minorities

I know the rule and what it does require people to do and don't think it's necessary nor do I buy the premise it's been helfpull to anyone.

These are coaches that said that they thought it was helpful to them

I'm not so sure.

I find it very difficult to believe the conversation when hiring a coach goes this way.

GM to staff: find us a minority candidate to interview so I can get that out of the way. Don't want any holdups when we get our guy.

Staff: who are you interested in?

GM: I have no legitimate interest in any of them, I'm just trying to satisfy a rule. Just find me one that meets the rule and looks plausible so we can check that box.

Interview occurs. GM meets with staff/ownership group/possible search committe after meeting:

GM: well damn, that guy was impressive. He fired me up, knew what he was talking about.

Owner: Yes, I thought this interview was a formality but he nailed it. We had no interest in this guy to be the face of my billion dollar franchise until this interview but let's put him at the top of our list.

If you believe conversations similar to this occur when hiring a coach then the Rooney rule is fantastic. If like me you don't think teams actually hire a candidate they had no or limited interest in because he nailed the interview you would view the Rooney rule like I do. Not bad, not terrible, nothing that hurts anyone, but at the same time it feels seems unnecessary and gives off an air of tokenism.

If I thought conversations like that were occurring, I would say that the league has problems that go far beyond what the Rooney Rule can accomplish.

Just to double back on this, if you think that NFL front offices are filled with George Preston Marshall-style racists -- or even just cynics -- then the Rooney Rule is clearly insufficient, since you can't force anyone to do anything they don't want to do. Meanwhile, if you think that NFL hiring practices are purely colorblind meritocracies, then the RR is unnecessary.

But if you think that -- as social scientists have proven in other industries -- minority representation in NFL HC/GM jobs is held artificially low by unconscious biases and structural impediments that prevent minorities from even being considered for these roles, then the RR seems to be a fairly reasonable "nudge" that can lead to better outcomes without imposing significant costs on anyone.

 

[Buffaloes]

Do we really? Let's see, Bowles, Caldwell, Rivera. Who did I miss? Lovie was there too. How many gm minorities, now that Mayhew is gone? I really have no idea, but I bet it isn't many.

Leslie Frazier, who MOP centered pretty much an identical thread as this saying he was just being strung about to satisfy the Rooney Rule. And then after a number of interviews, he was interviewed and hired as a HC. Rahim Moore seemed to benefit from running the Ronney Rule gamut as well as he was hired, iirc, under similar circumstances as Frazier.

 

[Ditka Butkus]

Nobody can answer the question on why it bothers/embarrases/etc them that this rule is in place.

Post #39, I never heard back. Also a post a couple down from there I posted some more thoughts.

Maybe you got me on ignore?

Haha.. no not on ignore. And perhaps I'm being dense but I thought you were for the rule. The only other response was just flipping it around on me asking why i care they care.

I feel it needs a heavy tweaking. .

You had the opinion IIRC that you don't understand why any of us sweat this stuff as a fan...I think I did a good job of explaining why we do care and why it is important. But it's OK if we don't agree Emperor.

I think as a white person I would be not happy if I were brought in as some token interview inside a predominant black organization just to fill a few quotas. No thanks. I'm just trying to see if I can connect with you so you understand how some of us could view the rule and the way it is being carried out or handled.

Reminds me of that episode of All In The Family when Archie's club ("King of Queens"...I think) were required to have a black guy and a Jew and Archie invited Solomon Jackson who was both.... those were the days.

 

[zftcg]

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.

 

[zftcg]

It does the complete opposite of what it is intended. It does not make black or latino coaches more likely candidates qualified or not, it would almost be embarrassing to be the "token" black guy being interviewed to circumvent a rule knowing they may not seriously consider them.

What happens if every black coach denies an interview, I would like to see the fallout from that if they all took a stand against the mockery the league makes of them.

The league again trying to get it right but did it all wrong.

I seem to recall that did happen back when the Lions hired Steve Mariucci, which I believe was the only time a team has been fined for violating the RR. Millen was ready to hire Mooch, and then hastily tried to schedule some interviews with minority candidates to cover himself. The candidates knew what was going on and declined.

Which kind of disproves your point. If minority candidates are fully capable of recognizing instances of blatant tokenism, maybe the reason they don't decline more interviews is because they don't see themselves as tokens in those cases.

 

[Yenrub]

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.

I just think if you pay a few hundred million or into the billions for a team you should get to interview whoever you please, after all with that much at stake you would think they don't need a rule to get them to hire who they think is the best person for the job.

no one is forcing or even asking them to hire anyone other than who they think is the best person for the job. The rule hurts absolutely no one. And helps a lot of minorities

I know the rule and what it does require people to do and don't think it's necessary nor do I buy the premise it's been helfpull to anyone.

These are coaches that said that they thought it was helpful to them

I'm not so sure.

I find it very difficult to believe the conversation when hiring a coach goes this way.

GM to staff: find us a minority candidate to interview so I can get that out of the way. Don't want any holdups when we get our guy.

Staff: who are you interested in?

GM: I have no legitimate interest in any of them, I'm just trying to satisfy a rule. Just find me one that meets the rule and looks plausible so we can check that box.

Interview occurs. GM meets with staff/ownership group/possible search committe after meeting:

GM: well damn, that guy was impressive. He fired me up, knew what he was talking about.

Owner: Yes, I thought this interview was a formality but he nailed it. We had no interest in this guy to be the face of my billion dollar franchise until this interview but let's put him at the top of our list.

If you believe conversations similar to this occur when hiring a coach then the Rooney rule is fantastic. If like me you don't think teams actually hire a candidate they had no or limited interest in because he nailed the interview you would view the Rooney rule like I do. Not bad, not terrible, nothing that hurts anyone, but at the same time it feels seems unnecessary and gives off an air of tokenism.

Isn't that pretty much what happened with the team you root for?

No, that's just the narrative people ran with because Tomlin fit the profile, was unknown to most casual fans and the team who hired him made the rule.

Mike Tomlin did not get interviewed to satisfy a rule. He got interviewed because he was a serious candidate for the job. The team interviewing him had a history of locating young fairly unknown coordinators with a defensive background and no prior NFL head coaching experience. Mike Tomlin was exactly the kind of candidate they were looking to hire just like Cowher and Knoll before him.

That's my point. Tomlin and any minority coach that were ultimately hired were people the teams had legit interest in hiring. Thus no Rooney rule was needed in order for the interview to happen. On the other hand there are teams who interview a minority just to satisfy the rule. I do not believe those interviews lead to head coaching offers.

The person doesn’t have to be hired the 1st time around for the rule/interview to be helpful to that person. Many guys don’t get a head coaching job the 1st (or even 2nd ) time around, however going through the interview process helps them prepare for the next time an opportunity presents itself.

 

[Chaka]

I honestly had no idea Rick Smith or Jerry Reese was black before this thread and I'm a guy that spends 10s of hours per week digesting NFL information, year round.

Apparently not digesting Hard Knocks.

 

[tone1oc]

I honestly had no idea Rick Smith or Jerry Reese was black before this thread and I'm a guy that spends 10s of hours per week digesting NFL information, year round.

Apparently not digesting Hard Knocks.

I've really only watched a few of the early ones.. Bengals/Ravens IIRC.. I also remember watching some of Jets when DRC couldn't name off all of his kids' names.

 

[Arodin]

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.

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.