Rumor on PFT: Jeff Fisher to coach Cowboys (1 Viewer)

[Marvelous]

This was posted on PFT today. Note that it is reported as a rumor making the it around the NFL, not that it is going to happen.

POSTED 8:30 a.m. EDT; LAST UPDATED 9:45 a.m. EDT, October 24, 2006FISHER BACK TO TEXAS?There is increasing talk/rumor/speculation in league circles that the next coach of the Dallas Cowboys could be current Titans coach Jeff Fisher.As one league source told us late Monday night, one of the rumors making the rounds is that Cowboys owner Jerry Jones has promised Fisher the job once current coach Bill Parcells leaves. There's also talk that Fisher has spoken informally with potential candidates to join him in Dallas.The only potential glitch? The Titans hold a 2007 option on Fisher, whose team has been playing better over the past few weeks.The other potential glitch? The so-called "Rooney Rule," which prevents a team from hiring a head coach without interviewing at least one minority candidate. Jones once took advantage of a loophole to the rule by conducting a phone interview of Dennis Green. Since then, the rule has been modified to require face-to-face interviews.Fisher has been with the Tennessee Titans since they were the Houston Oilers. He has the second-longest tenure among current NFL coaches with the same team, trailing only Bill Cowher of the Steelers.Showing that Fisher can beat the Redskins with inferior talent likely didn't diminish the veteran coach in Jones' eyes, if the rumors are accurate. Likewise, the possible arrival of Fisher in Big D makes the fact that he fell all over himself to apologize after defensive tackle Albert Haynesworth applied the cheese grater to the face of Cowboys center Andre Gurode even more understandable.Stay tuned. We're not reporting it's going to happen. We're just sharing one of the rumors that definitely is working its way through the NFL grapevine.

 

[KnowledgeReignsSupreme]

Better not let it get out that Fisher was promised the job, or Dallas will run afoul of the league minority hire policy.

 

[SuperJohn96]

This would also be tampering...I think...

You can't talk to players or coaches under contract without permission from their teams, can you?

 

[Bankerguy]

In this case...the source is likely one of the Cowboys Message boards I frequent. I remember seeing this topic discussed at length after one of their recent losses.

I think Fisher would be good, however I question the validity of the story.

 

[cstu]

The other potential glitch? The so-called "Rooney Rule," which prevents a team from hiring a head coach without interviewing at least one minority candidate. Jones once took advantage of a loophole to the rule by conducting a phone interview of Dennis Green. Since then, the rule has been modified to require face-to-face interviews.

One of the NFL's worst rules IMO. How does forcing teams to interview people make them more likely to hire them? It's probably prevents more minority hirings than increase them.

 

[Urinal Mint]

I think I started this rumor on this very message board

 

[GregR_2]

The other potential glitch? The so-called "Rooney Rule," which prevents a team from hiring a head coach without interviewing at least one minority candidate. Jones once took advantage of a loophole to the rule by conducting a phone interview of Dennis Green. Since then, the rule has been modified to require face-to-face interviews.

One of the NFL's worst rules IMO. How does forcing teams to interview people make them more likely to hire them? It's probably prevents more minority hirings than increase them.

I think I'd have to disagree with that. I don't think it's much different than getting any other job. The hardest part can be getting let through the door for an interview and a chance to impress.At worst, a team brings in a guy they wouldn't have considered before, and he doesn't impress and the result is no different than if they didn't interview. But the other possibility is they bring the guy in and he impresses. Maybe they consider him for the job where they wouldn't have before. Or maybe word gets out how impressive they were with him and he gets more serious consideration for another job.

 

[GregR_2]

So basically PFT is accusing the Cowboys of tampering.

 

[dickey moe]

I was hoping this would come true as I was listening to Colin Cowherd on the way to work this morning. He was talking about coaches who would probably be available after the season, how Parcells would probably leave football and Fisher would be moving on, and I agree that Fisher would be a great choice. He is a great coach, has great passion for the game, and unfortunately has had to deal with crappy ownership. Fisher would be the kind of kick in the butt the Cowboys franchise desperately needs.

 

[KnowledgeReignsSupreme]

The other potential glitch? The so-called "Rooney Rule," which prevents a team from hiring a head coach without interviewing at least one minority candidate. Jones once took advantage of a loophole to the rule by conducting a phone interview of Dennis Green. Since then, the rule has been modified to require face-to-face interviews.

One of the NFL's worst rules IMO. How does forcing teams to interview people make them more likely to hire them? It's probably prevents more minority hirings than increase them.

I think I'd have to disagree with that. I don't think it's much different than getting any other job. The hardest part can be getting let through the door for an interview and a chance to impress.At worst, a team brings in a guy they wouldn't have considered before, and he doesn't impress and the result is no different than if they didn't interview. But the other possibility is they bring the guy in and he impresses. Maybe they consider him for the job where they wouldn't have before. Or maybe word gets out how impressive they were with him and he gets more serious consideration for another job.

In addition, they now have more interview experience.

 

[Third]

In addition, they now have more interview experience.

We're not talking about a summer job at the Gap. This is head coach of a freakin' NFL franchise...I think most candidates for that type of position have had a few interviews before...at least I hope so.

 

[Billy Ball Thorton]

PFT is a complete JOKE. Why anyone would visit that site is beyond me. I guess if your like to read the National Enquirer It would make sense for entertainment purposes.

 

[KnowledgeReignsSupreme]

In addition, they now have more interview experience.

We're not talking about a summer job at the Gap. This is head coach of a freakin' NFL franchise...I think most candidates for that type of position have had a few interviews before...at least I hope so.

Not what I was talking about.

 

[GregR_2]

In addition, they now have more interview experience.

We're not talking about a summer job at the Gap. This is head coach of a freakin' NFL franchise...I think most candidates for that type of position have had a few interviews before...at least I hope so.

Not what I was talking about.

Been reading Charlie Weis' book (fun read if you're an ND fan, but not a great literary work otherwise), and he was talking about the importance of the interview, making it sound a lot more important than I'd thought. He mentioned a lot of the qualities that a head coach needs like preparation and organization skills, and said a lot of those things are necessary to interview well. He mentioned the lengths he went to with his agent to prepare for his interviews both in the NFL and with ND.I have to agree that the experience could be invaluable, even beyond the fact the prospective coach might get people interested in him that wouldn't have thought to consider him seriously before.

 

[redman]

This would also be tampering...I think...You can't talk to players or coaches under contract without permission from their teams, can you?

Not that that's stopped Jerry before. Wasn't he accused of this with a player he acquired in recent years . . . Eddie George maybe? Or was it Parcells himself?

 

[culdeus]

Denny Green should be around this offseason to be the token black guy interviewed again before he ends up in some talking head booth.

 

[Slingblade]

Not happening.

Even the owner knows it would be stupid to get rid of Fisher.

Who the hell would they replace him with? No one they can bring in can do better than Fisher.

 

[msommer]

Denny Green Art Shell should be around this offseason to be the token black guy interviewed again before he ends up in some talking head booth on the street again.

Fixed

 

[GregR_2]

The Rooney Rule is unfair because when it discusses minority coaches, it really means black. How many times will you see Jesse Jackson demand that Norm Chow get an interview with every single team with an opening to make sure Asians get a fair chance? How about Pete Rodriguez, the highly regarded special teams coach?

That doesn't make sense. It would make sense if the rule said "a coach Jesse Jackson is pushing must be interviewed". But it doesn't, it says a minority candidate. Assuming Norm Chow is a minority (I have no clue as to his ethnicity beyond guessing based on his name), then he would qualify under the rule.So you are saying it isn't fair that the rule doesn't help Norm Chow, but it does help him as much as it helps a black coach.

What the Rooney Rule seems to forget is a basic economic principle - the market corrects itself. If you hire the wrong coach, for any reason, including color, then you will probably lose more games than you win. And there's a correlation between losing games and not maximizing profit. Winning teams sell out their tickets and sell more jerseys. Losing teams don't. If you lose long enough, you will have to replace your coach, which will probably mean implementing a staff overhaul which means changing aspects of the roster to fit a new system. All things that cost money. The Rooney Rule is insulting because it works under the principle that people care more about who is black versus who is winning. Do you really think most teams in the NFL care more about who is black versus who is winning?

Disagree. When you look at the reality, the fact is that the market hasn't corrected itself. I am not someone who goes looking for conspiracies or racism everywhere, but I think any time you can say that 60% of the candidacy for a position is X (where X is a factor that has nothing to do with qualifications) but only some tiny percent of those hired are X, that something is out of whack. And it's been that way for decades and the "market" didn't correct itself until the issue was brought to the public consciousness. It doesn't take overt racism on anyone's part to lead to the kind of situation that existed prior to the rule. It just takes people to have a small amount of prejudice, which I think most everyone has, that they aren't consciously aware of and choosing to overcome. Most people prefer to surround themselves with people like themselves. It isn't until it's pointed out that the net effect has been a pretty obvious discrimination, that people can overcome that. It's great when those in the position to affect things realize it themselves and just overcome it. But when that hasn't happened, kudos to the NFL for doing something about it. And let me add, the NFL isn't nearly as bad in this regard as is college football.

 

[redman]

The Rooney Rule is unfair because when it discusses minority coaches, it really means black. How many times will you see Jesse Jackson demand that Norm Chow get an interview with every single team with an opening to make sure Asians get a fair chance? How about Pete Rodriguez, the highly regarded special teams coach?

That doesn't make sense. It would make sense if the rule said "a coach Jesse Jackson is pushing must be interviewed". But it doesn't, it says a minority candidate. Assuming Norm Chow is a minority (I have no clue as to his ethnicity beyond guessing based on his name), then he would qualify under the rule.So you are saying it isn't fair that the rule doesn't help Norm Chow, but it does help him as much as it helps a black coach.

What the Rooney Rule seems to forget is a basic economic principle - the market corrects itself. If you hire the wrong coach, for any reason, including color, then you will probably lose more games than you win. And there's a correlation between losing games and not maximizing profit. Winning teams sell out their tickets and sell more jerseys. Losing teams don't. If you lose long enough, you will have to replace your coach, which will probably mean implementing a staff overhaul which means changing aspects of the roster to fit a new system. All things that cost money. The Rooney Rule is insulting because it works under the principle that people care more about who is black versus who is winning. Do you really think most teams in the NFL care more about who is black versus who is winning?

Disagree. When you look at the reality, the fact is that the market hasn't corrected itself. I am not someone who goes looking for conspiracies or racism everywhere, but I think any time you can say that 60% of the candidacy for a position is X (where X is a factor that has nothing to do with qualifications) but only some tiny percent of those hired are X, that something is out of whack. And it's been that way for decades and the "market" didn't correct itself until the issue was brought to the public consciousness. It doesn't take overt racism on anyone's part to lead to the kind of situation that existed prior to the rule. It just takes people to have a small amount of prejudice, which I think most everyone has, that they aren't consciously aware of and choosing to overcome. Most people prefer to surround themselves with people like themselves. It isn't until it's pointed out that the net effect has been a pretty obvious discrimination, that people can overcome that. It's great when those in the position to affect things realize it themselves and just overcome it. But when that hasn't happened, kudos to the NFL for doing something about it. And let me add, the NFL isn't nearly as bad in this regard as is college football.

The problem I have with this de facto rule is that it ignores that the cause of this hiring disparity is much more of a social problem than a football problem. Demographically, there are far fewer inner city football players - the vast majority of whom are of course black - who go onto finish their educations and get academically qualified to hold down a leadership position like one a NFL coach holds. The reasons for this are many, but that's the bottom line. Just because you've played football doesn't mean you're qualified to be a head coach. There's a massive amount of organizational and delegational skills necessary there, and a solid educational background certainly helps you master that (although it of course is not essential). This has only gotten to be the case more and more as NFL coaching has turned more and more "professional" in its approach, in terms of breaking down film, specializing skills and coaching more and more, and then organizing how you prepare for each season and each game with all of those components. Thirty five years ago, people were amazed at George Allen for being the first guy to hire a special teams coach. Now each NFL head coach has roughly 20 assistants working for him, making a head coach far more of an administrative position than a true coaching position. The urban setting seems to provide us with a lot of very talented athletes, but I think it does an exceedingly poor job of providing us with a comparable number of talented executives and administrators. Forcing interviews of black candidates doesn't address that core issue.

 

[KnowledgeReignsSupreme]

The Rooney Rule is unfair because when it discusses minority coaches, it really means black. How many times will you see Jesse Jackson demand that Norm Chow get an interview with every single team with an opening to make sure Asians get a fair chance? How about Pete Rodriguez, the highly regarded special teams coach?

That doesn't make sense. It would make sense if the rule said "a coach Jesse Jackson is pushing must be interviewed". But it doesn't, it says a minority candidate. Assuming Norm Chow is a minority (I have no clue as to his ethnicity beyond guessing based on his name), then he would qualify under the rule.So you are saying it isn't fair that the rule doesn't help Norm Chow, but it does help him as much as it helps a black coach.

What the Rooney Rule seems to forget is a basic economic principle - the market corrects itself. If you hire the wrong coach, for any reason, including color, then you will probably lose more games than you win. And there's a correlation between losing games and not maximizing profit. Winning teams sell out their tickets and sell more jerseys. Losing teams don't. If you lose long enough, you will have to replace your coach, which will probably mean implementing a staff overhaul which means changing aspects of the roster to fit a new system. All things that cost money. The Rooney Rule is insulting because it works under the principle that people care more about who is black versus who is winning. Do you really think most teams in the NFL care more about who is black versus who is winning?

Disagree. When you look at the reality, the fact is that the market hasn't corrected itself. I am not someone who goes looking for conspiracies or racism everywhere, but I think any time you can say that 60% of the candidacy for a position is X (where X is a factor that has nothing to do with qualifications) but only some tiny percent of those hired are X, that something is out of whack. And it's been that way for decades and the "market" didn't correct itself until the issue was brought to the public consciousness. It doesn't take overt racism on anyone's part to lead to the kind of situation that existed prior to the rule. It just takes people to have a small amount of prejudice, which I think most everyone has, that they aren't consciously aware of and choosing to overcome. Most people prefer to surround themselves with people like themselves. It isn't until it's pointed out that the net effect has been a pretty obvious discrimination, that people can overcome that. It's great when those in the position to affect things realize it themselves and just overcome it. But when that hasn't happened, kudos to the NFL for doing something about it. And let me add, the NFL isn't nearly as bad in this regard as is college football.

The problem I have with this de facto rule is that it ignores that the cause of this hiring disparity is much more of a social problem than a football problem. Demographically, there are far fewer inner city football players - the vast majority of whom are of course black - who go onto finish their educations and get academically qualified to hold down a leadership position like one a NFL coach holds. The reasons for this are many, but that's the bottom line. Just because you've played football doesn't mean you're qualified to be a head coach. There's a massive amount of organizational and delegational skills necessary there, and a solid educational background certainly helps you master that (although it of course is not essential). This has only gotten to be the case more and more as NFL coaching has turned more and more "professional" in its approach, in terms of breaking down film, specializing skills and coaching more and more, and then organizing how you prepare for each season and each game with all of those components. Thirty five years ago, people were amazed at George Allen for being the first guy to hire a special teams coach. Now each NFL head coach has roughly 20 assistants working for him, making a head coach far more of an administrative position than a true coaching position. The urban setting seems to provide us with a lot of very talented athletes, but I think it does an exceedingly poor job of providing us with a comparable number of talented executives and administrators. Forcing interviews of black candidates doesn't address that core issue.

Whether or not any of that is true, the reality is there were plenty of qualified minority coaches between the NCAA and NFL that were NOT getting interviewed. Now they are.Sure, maybe the pool to choose from is small (reasons for which you address in your post), but quality minority coaches are getting interviews and jobs, when they weren't before.

 

[Futility]

Not happening.Even the owner knows it would be stupid to get rid of Fisher.Who the hell would they replace him with? No one they can bring in can do better than Fisher.

The 2007 options that the Titans hold on Jeff Fisher's contract is that they must pay him the average of the top 5 head coaches in the league or release him from his contract. It's possible.

 

[coolnerd]

So basically PFT is accusing the Cowboys of tampering.

PFT talk has had a couple of articles stating that tampering is a regular course of business in the NFL. The idea is pretty Tigers/Cards like in that most teams won't point the finger because they don't want the NFL snopping around thier individual practices too much.

 

[Dave Stauff]

Disagree. When you look at the reality, the fact is that the market hasn't corrected itself... And it's been that way for decades and the "market" didn't correct itself until the issue was brought to the public consciousness.

Who are the coaches being interviewed as the token requirement to not be in violation of the Rooney Rule? African American coaches. In practical application, what the rule is actually doing, the Rooney Rule is only helping African American coaches. Let's just break down the Rooney Rule for what it really is all about - Interview black people or get fined and start a PR firestorm with your franchise. Does anyone think this is the best way to have the NFL hold black head coaching candidates in high esteem? As for the market correcting itself, it does every season. The average head coach turnover is usually about 20-25 percent of the teams. In a rough year, it could be up to 1/3 of the teams. Teams hire the wrong guy all the time no matter the color. Wrong time. Wrong system. Wrong chemistry with a GM or the teams big star. For all kinds of reasons the market decides that some coaches have to get clipped. If you hire the wrong coach, you lose. You lose prestige, you lose money, you lose fans, you lose a chance at a ring. Eventually you will keep having to hire coaches until you hire the right coach. If a team refuses to hire a guy because of his color and they lose because of it, they are already punished. They are punished because they did not put winning first in the NFL. The NFL is about winning and money. You can break it down a million different ways and it still comes back to those two things. And there is a direct relationship between the two that is undeniable. The Rooney Rule is a joke because it puts neither winning nor money first. You think if there was a midget from a South American jungle that could kick 80 yard field goals, that any team would care about his color? Right now they don't seem to mind people accused of murder, cokeheads, steroid junkies and drunk drivers. Why? Because winning and money comes first. If there was a Martian with three heads who could run excellent drafts where all it's first round picks by that franchise would become ProBowlers guaranteed, do you think anyone cares that the thing has three heads? And what if one day a black man or a black family or a mostly black corporation owns an NFL franchise. What if they decide to hire a coach. What if the best candidate is white? How many people will be up in arms if they decide not to interview any white coaching candidates and just interview black ones? Will there be any outrage? And what if this franchise hires a black coach to prove a point and he's the wrong coach. What then? See because the wrong coach is the wrong coach, it doesn't matter what his color is. And when that day comes, and it will happen, then I will be sitting on my couch and laughing. Because anyone who puts color before winning and money, no matter who they are or where they come from and what color of their skin, then they deserve to lose in the NFL. If Jerry Jones wants Fisher, he wants Fisher. And when he can legally pursue Fisher as a coach for his team, I don't see why Jones has to set up a farce about who he wants just so he and the NFL can look politically correct.

Very well stated and on the money

 

[Marvelous]

So basically PFT is accusing the Cowboys of tampering.

Two comments:1. PFT is reporting that this rumor is making the rounds. They did not claim to start the rumor.2. PFT regularly writes articles showing where tampering appears to have occurred and how the NFL does absolutely nothing about it.

 

[Marvelous]

In addition, they now have more interview experience.

We're not talking about a summer job at the Gap. This is head coach of a freakin' NFL franchise...I think most candidates for that type of position have had a few interviews before...at least I hope so.

Not what I was talking about.

Been reading Charlie Weis' book (fun read if you're an ND fan, but not a great literary work otherwise), and he was talking about the importance of the interview, making it sound a lot more important than I'd thought. He mentioned a lot of the qualities that a head coach needs like preparation and organization skills, and said a lot of those things are necessary to interview well. He mentioned the lengths he went to with his agent to prepare for his interviews both in the NFL and with ND.I have to agree that the experience could be invaluable, even beyond the fact the prospective coach might get people interested in him that wouldn't have thought to consider him seriously before.

From what I have heard, interviewing for an NFL head coaching job is a pretty grueling process. You have to share your vision for the team and how/why it will succeed under you. And later, it gets down to playbooks, who you will hire and why, how you will run practices, practice schedules and philosophy, etc. You have to be prepared and have all this stuff written down and ready to present when you interview. It's not an easy 6-8 hour meeting.

 

[Marvelous]

There are only a very limited number of NFL head coaching jobs, of couse the hiring selection is going to be unfair - to everyone. You could argue Jon Gruden deserved his shot much earlier but no one wanted any coach that young at the time. The system punishes and makes mistakes with EVERYONE.

The Rooney Rule is unfair because when it discusses minority coaches, it really means black. How many times will you see Jesse Jackson demand that Norm Chow get an interview with every single team with an opening to make sure Asians get a fair chance? How about Pete Rodriguez, the highly regarded special teams coach?

What the Rooney Rule seems to forget is a basic economic principle - the market corrects itself. If you hire the wrong coach, for any reason, including color, then you will probably lose more games than you win. And there's a correlation between losing games and not maximizing profit. Winning teams sell out their tickets and sell more jerseys. Losing teams don't. If you lose long enough, you will have to replace your coach, which will probably mean implementing a staff overhaul which means changing aspects of the roster to fit a new system. All things that cost money. The Rooney Rule is insulting because it works under the principle that people care more about who is black versus who is winning. Do you really think most teams in the NFL care more about who is black versus who is winning?

I am generally a free market advocate, but in the NFL, some of these principals don't apply. Some teams believe the way to maximize profit is to skimp on player salaries, coaching staff, and facilities. Then pocket as much of the shared revenue as possible. And with revenue sharing, this approach works. Winning isn't the only way to make money in the NFL.

 

[coolnerd]

There are only a very limited number of NFL head coaching jobs, of couse the hiring selection is going to be unfair - to everyone. You could argue Jon Gruden deserved his shot much earlier but no one wanted any coach that young at the time. The system punishes and makes mistakes with EVERYONE.

The Rooney Rule is unfair because when it discusses minority coaches, it really means black. How many times will you see Jesse Jackson demand that Norm Chow get an interview with every single team with an opening to make sure Asians get a fair chance? How about Pete Rodriguez, the highly regarded special teams coach?

What the Rooney Rule seems to forget is a basic economic principle - the market corrects itself. If you hire the wrong coach, for any reason, including color, then you will probably lose more games than you win. And there's a correlation between losing games and not maximizing profit. Winning teams sell out their tickets and sell more jerseys. Losing teams don't. If you lose long enough, you will have to replace your coach, which will probably mean implementing a staff overhaul which means changing aspects of the roster to fit a new system. All things that cost money. The Rooney Rule is insulting because it works under the principle that people care more about who is black versus who is winning. Do you really think most teams in the NFL care more about who is black versus who is winning?

I am generally a free market advocate, but in the NFL, some of these principals don't apply. Some teams believe the way to maximize profit is to skimp on player salaries, coaching staff, and facilities. Then pocket as much of the shared revenue as possible. And with revenue sharing, this approach works. Winning isn't the only way to make money in the NFL.

The prinicples don't apply to the individual 32 teams because essentially the NFL is the single corporate umbrella for 32 franchisees more similiar to a McDonald's. In terms of the Rooney rule (or any rule for that manner), the NFL is simply telling its "stores" how the hiring process goes within its company. What we are watching as fans is employee movement within a close system, but on a grand public scale.

 

[Wadsworth]

McDonalds has more than 32 jobs avaliable.

And McDonalds, AFAIK, does not fine each franchise $ 200,000 for not interviewing an African American for a job.

The Detriot Lions coughed up 1/5th of a million bucks, which is an outrageous amount of money, to hire Steve Mariucci. Lions kept losing anyway and he had to be replaced. That's lost revenue from poor ticket sales, lost revenue from disinterest from local sponsors and advertisers, lost revenue for individual players hitting free agency, lost revenue for having to pay off the back end of Mariucci's contract while paying another new head coach at the same time, lost revenue from the Fords using a successful sports team to leverage other business opportunities in the local area, lose revenue from concessions and merchandise sales, etc, etc, etc. Whether anyone wants to believe the reality of it or not, hiring Mariucci, the wrong coach for that team, cost the Lions WAY MORE than 200K in the end. Does anyone here really believe the Lions hate black people so much that they would rather lose than win? Because that's what the message of these fines are sending to NFL teams.

The Lions got fined for not interviewing a black guy before hiring the guy they wanted anyway. The fine was considered the punishment. Uh...isn't LOSING punishment enough in the NFL?

Did anyone stop to think that by having some of these token interviews, that good coaches are also being denied a fair chance at a job because a team is only going to interview so many people in a limited time frame to find a coach? Is it fair to a good young coach that he can't get a shot at an interview because Team X has only Y number of interview slots avaliable and an Art Shell is going to take up one of those? The Rooney Rule works under the premise that black coaches are being punished for being black. But the only way the Rooney Rule can attempt to resolve this is by ensuring that some white coaches are punished simply for being white. And while people wrangle with the whole black and white issue of the hiring process, WHAT THE HELL DOES IT HAVE TO DO WITH WINNING FOOTBALL GAMES? If Mr Ed the talking horse could go 16-0, you'd better believe someone would hand him a bag of oats and a custom headset.

The Rooney Rule puts political correctness over winning. That's not just an insult to every NFL franchise, that's an insult to all of us fans as well. Because nothing should ever come before winning.

Jeff Fisher will probably become the hottest coach avaliable in the offseason. It's an insult to Fisher and his accomplishments that any team will have to pretend that any another avaliable coaching option could do a better job, not because of merit, but because of skin color.

The Darwinian argument that winning will determine who gets the head coaching jobs in the long run may have some merit, but how long is the "long run". The league waited for decades for minority coaches to get a decent percentage of head coaching jobs, it didn't happen. If the teams had hired more minority head coaches the rule would never have happened. But for decades every sunday in the fall the NFL teams would dress a large number of black players that were coached almost exclusively by white head coaches. The league determined that it hurt the reputation of the NFL and that it was their responsibility and right to make a rule that at least required teams to interveiw minority coaches. Notice the rule does not say that any individual team had to hire a minority coach, just that they had to interveiw one. You can argue all you want about fairness and political correctness but that's not why the rule came about in the first place. The rule came about because the NFL was embarassed by it poor record of minority hirings and determined that a league wide rule was the best method to address this issue for the good of the league. An organization made a rule that they thought was in their best interest. If Detroit or any other member of the organization chooses to ignore that rule then they will suffer the perscripted punishment. An organization has every right and in fact the duty to make and enforce rules based on their idea of what's best for that organization. That's all the NFL did.

 

[ren hoek]

PFT is a complete JOKE. Why anyone would visit that site is beyond me. I guess if your like to read the National Enquirer It would make sense for entertainment purposes.

I couldn't disagree more. PFT broke the news of the Chad Johnson locker room blow-up in the Bengals play-off loss a few days before the rest of the major media outlets even touched it. This has happened a number of times with PFT not even being credited for breaking the news. He also exposed Len Pasquarelli for being the complete fraud of a journalist that he is. PFT reports strongly substantiated stories as such, and they report "rumors" as rumors. What exactly is wrong with reporting an observation from a league source as a rumor? Mike Florio (PFT's main editor/contributor) used to work for ESPN, so it's not like he's just some ### hat with no background or connections in the NFL. Hell, even when he's wrong he generally points it out and apologizes for it.Not only that, but the likes of Rotoworld and (i believe) AOL Sports have credited PFT for certain stories, and he's been making a ton of appearances on sportstalk radio shows lately, so it's not as if PFT isn't regarded as a legitimate news outlet by this point.I generally don't mind your posts and enjoyed your work in the Bears/Cards thread you made, but this was a really ignorant posting.

 

[blkgolf23]

There are only a very limited number of NFL head coaching jobs, of couse the hiring selection is going to be unfair - to everyone. You could argue Jon Gruden deserved his shot much earlier but no one wanted any coach that young at the time. The system punishes and makes mistakes with EVERYONE.

The Rooney Rule is unfair because when it discusses minority coaches, it really means black. How many times will you see Jesse Jackson demand that Norm Chow get an interview with every single team with an opening to make sure Asians get a fair chance? How about Pete Rodriguez, the highly regarded special teams coach?

What the Rooney Rule seems to forget is a basic economic principle - the market corrects itself. If you hire the wrong coach, for any reason, including color, then you will probably lose more games than you win. And there's a correlation between losing games and not maximizing profit. Winning teams sell out their tickets and sell more jerseys. Losing teams don't. If you lose long enough, you will have to replace your coach, which will probably mean implementing a staff overhaul which means changing aspects of the roster to fit a new system. All things that cost money. The Rooney Rule is insulting because it works under the principle that people care more about who is black versus who is winning. Do you really think most teams in the NFL care more about who is black versus who is winning?

Yes, I think we feel at easy with people who are like us. Like another poster said just getting an interview could help them gt the next job. Look how long it took Marvin Lewis to get a head coaching job. Jack Del Rio (who I love being from the Bay Area and USC) got a job before Lewis. I remember the owner saying he made up his mind after the interview. A lot of people didn't think Del Rio was ready, but after interviewing he got the job. The rule doesn't say you have to hire a minority to coach your team just take to the to interview one.

 

[BigTex]

McDonalds has more than 32 jobs avaliable.

And McDonalds, AFAIK, does not fine each franchise $ 200,000 for not interviewing an African American for a job.

The Detriot Lions coughed up 1/5th of a million bucks, which is an outrageous amount of money, to hire Steve Mariucci. Lions kept losing anyway and he had to be replaced. That's lost revenue from poor ticket sales, lost revenue from disinterest from local sponsors and advertisers, lost revenue for individual players hitting free agency, lost revenue for having to pay off the back end of Mariucci's contract while paying another new head coach at the same time, lost revenue from the Fords using a successful sports team to leverage other business opportunities in the local area, lose revenue from concessions and merchandise sales, etc, etc, etc. Whether anyone wants to believe the reality of it or not, hiring Mariucci, the wrong coach for that team, cost the Lions WAY MORE than 200K in the end. Does anyone here really believe the Lions hate black people so much that they would rather lose than win? Because that's what the message of these fines are sending to NFL teams.

The Lions got fined for not interviewing a black guy before hiring the guy they wanted anyway. The fine was considered the punishment. Uh...isn't LOSING punishment enough in the NFL?

Did anyone stop to think that by having some of these token interviews, that good coaches are also being denied a fair chance at a job because a team is only going to interview so many people in a limited time frame to find a coach? Is it fair to a good young coach that he can't get a shot at an interview because Team X has only Y number of interview slots avaliable and an Art Shell is going to take up one of those? The Rooney Rule works under the premise that black coaches are being punished for being black. But the only way the Rooney Rule can attempt to resolve this is by ensuring that some white coaches are punished simply for being white. And while people wrangle with the whole black and white issue of the hiring process, WHAT THE HELL DOES IT HAVE TO DO WITH WINNING FOOTBALL GAMES? If Mr Ed the talking horse could go 16-0, you'd better believe someone would hand him a bag of oats and a custom headset.

The Rooney Rule puts political correctness over winning. That's not just an insult to every NFL franchise, that's an insult to all of us fans as well. Because nothing should ever come before winning.

Jeff Fisher will probably become the hottest coach avaliable in the offseason. It's an insult to Fisher and his accomplishments that any team will have to pretend that any another avaliable coaching option could do a better job, not because of merit, but because of skin color.

I really can't believe that this was actually thought out, then typed up. Does the rule say minority or does it sayblack? Are hispanic a minority? How about Asians? Are they a minority?

Why does everytime this issue comes up it's: Black coaches, Black, Black, Black.

Please, someone, anyone, show me the rule which state that a Black must be interviewed when a position becomes available.

Threads like this should be deleted.

 

[BigTex]

Disagree. When you look at the reality, the fact is that the market hasn't corrected itself... And it's been that way for decades and the "market" didn't correct itself until the issue was brought to the public consciousness.

Who are the coaches being interviewed as the token requirement to not be in violation of the Rooney Rule? African American coaches.

In practical application, what the rule is actually doing, the Rooney Rule is only helping African American coaches. Let's just break down the Rooney Rule for what it really is all about - Interview black people or get fined and start a PR firestorm with your franchise. Does anyone think this is the best way to have the NFL hold black head coaching candidates in high esteem?

As for the market correcting itself, it does every season. The average head coach turnover is usually about 20-25 percent of the teams. In a rough year, it could be up to 1/3 of the teams. Teams hire the wrong guy all the time no matter the color. Wrong time. Wrong system. Wrong chemistry with a GM or the teams big star. For all kinds of reasons the market decides that some coaches have to get clipped.

If you hire the wrong coach, you lose. You lose prestige, you lose money, you lose fans, you lose a chance at a ring. Eventually you will keep having to hire coaches until you hire the right coach. If a team refuses to hire a guy because of his color and they lose because of it, they are already punished. They are punished because they did not put winning first in the NFL.

The NFL is about winning and money. You can break it down a million different ways and it still comes back to those two things. And there is a direct relationship between the two that is undeniable. The Rooney Rule is a joke because it puts neither winning nor money first. You think if there was a midget from a South American jungle that could kick 80 yard field goals, that any team would care about his color? Right now they don't seem to mind people accused of murder, cokeheads, steroid junkies and drunk drivers. Why? Because winning and money comes first. If there was a Martian with three heads who could run excellent drafts where all it's first round picks by that franchise would become ProBowlers guaranteed, do you think anyone cares that the thing has three heads?

And what if one day a black man or a black family or a mostly black corporation owns an NFL franchise. What if they decide to hire a coach. What if the best candidate is white? How many people will be up in arms if they decide not to interview any white coaching candidates and just interview black ones? Will there be any outrage? And what if this franchise hires a black coach to prove a point and he's the wrong coach. What then? See because the wrong coach is the wrong coach, it doesn't matter what his color is. And when that day comes, and it will happen, then I will be sitting on my couch and laughing. Because anyone who puts color before winning and money, no matter who they are or where they come from and what color of their skin, then they deserve to lose in the NFL.

If Jerry Jones wants Fisher, he wants Fisher. And when he can legally pursue Fisher as a coach for his team, I don't see why Jones has to set up a farce about who he wants just so he and the NFL can look politically correct.

Very well stated and on the money

Actually, very stupid and for off the mark.

 

[GregR_2]

McDonalds has more than 32 jobs avaliable.

And McDonalds, AFAIK, does not fine each franchise $ 200,000 for not interviewing an African American for a job.

The Detriot Lions coughed up 1/5th of a million bucks, which is an outrageous amount of money, to hire Steve Mariucci. Lions kept losing anyway and he had to be replaced. That's lost revenue from poor ticket sales, lost revenue from disinterest from local sponsors and advertisers, lost revenue for individual players hitting free agency, lost revenue for having to pay off the back end of Mariucci's contract while paying another new head coach at the same time, lost revenue from the Fords using a successful sports team to leverage other business opportunities in the local area, lose revenue from concessions and merchandise sales, etc, etc, etc. Whether anyone wants to believe the reality of it or not, hiring Mariucci, the wrong coach for that team, cost the Lions WAY MORE than 200K in the end. Does anyone here really believe the Lions hate black people so much that they would rather lose than win? Because that's what the message of these fines are sending to NFL teams.

The Lions got fined for not interviewing a black guy before hiring the guy they wanted anyway. The fine was considered the punishment. Uh...isn't LOSING punishment enough in the NFL?

Did anyone stop to think that by having some of these token interviews, that good coaches are also being denied a fair chance at a job because a team is only going to interview so many people in a limited time frame to find a coach? Is it fair to a good young coach that he can't get a shot at an interview because Team X has only Y number of interview slots avaliable and an Art Shell is going to take up one of those? The Rooney Rule works under the premise that black coaches are being punished for being black. But the only way the Rooney Rule can attempt to resolve this is by ensuring that some white coaches are punished simply for being white. And while people wrangle with the whole black and white issue of the hiring process, WHAT THE HELL DOES IT HAVE TO DO WITH WINNING FOOTBALL GAMES? If Mr Ed the talking horse could go 16-0, you'd better believe someone would hand him a bag of oats and a custom headset.

The Rooney Rule puts political correctness over winning. That's not just an insult to every NFL franchise, that's an insult to all of us fans as well. Because nothing should ever come before winning.

Jeff Fisher will probably become the hottest coach avaliable in the offseason. It's an insult to Fisher and his accomplishments that any team will have to pretend that any another avaliable coaching option could do a better job, not because of merit, but because of skin color.

The Darwinian argument that winning will determine who gets the head coaching jobs in the long run may have some merit, but how long is the "long run". The league waited for decades for minority coaches to get a decent percentage of head coaching jobs, it didn't happen. If the teams had hired more minority head coaches the rule would never have happened. But for decades every sunday in the fall the NFL teams would dress a large number of black players that were coached almost exclusively by white head coaches. The league determined that it hurt the reputation of the NFL and that it was their responsibility and right to make a rule that at least required teams to interveiw minority coaches. Notice the rule does not say that any individual team had to hire a minority coach, just that they had to interveiw one. You can argue all you want about fairness and political correctness but that's not why the rule came about in the first place. The rule came about because the NFL was embarassed by it poor record of minority hirings and determined that a league wide rule was the best method to address this issue for the good of the league. An organization made a rule that they thought was in their best interest. If Detroit or any other member of the organization chooses to ignore that rule then they will suffer the perscripted punishment. An organization has every right and in fact the duty to make and enforce rules based on their idea of what's best for that organization. That's all the NFL did.

Exactly. This wasn't some case of so do-gooder coming in and thinking "wouldn't it be grand if there was some rule" when there wasn't any reason for it.The people who argue against this particular rule seem to ignore that there was a pretty blatant bias against minority coaches in the actual hirings, compared to not only the percentage of former players who are minority, but the percentage of positional coaches and coordinators who made the jump from player to coach.

The argument "it will correct itself" hadn't happened in the decades this has been going on. Kudos to the NFL for having the balls to realize the actual happenings showed a bias against minority coaches, even if unintentional, and to do something that gives those coaches a fairer opportunity, while still leaving in the team's hands who they actually hire.

 

[redman]

PFT is a complete JOKE. Why anyone would visit that site is beyond me. I guess if your like to read the National Enquirer It would make sense for entertainment purposes.

I couldn't disagree more. PFT broke the news of the Chad Johnson locker room blow-up in the Bengals play-off loss a few days before the rest of the major media outlets even touched it. This has happened a number of times with PFT not even being credited for breaking the news. He also exposed Len Pasquarelli for being the complete fraud of a journalist that he is.

What means this?

 

[Urinal Mint]

PFT is a complete JOKE. Why anyone would visit that site is beyond me. I guess if your like to read the National Enquirer It would make sense for entertainment purposes.

I couldn't disagree more. PFT broke the news of the Chad Johnson locker room blow-up in the Bengals play-off loss a few days before the rest of the major media outlets even touched it. This has happened a number of times with PFT not even being credited for breaking the news. He also exposed Len Pasquarelli for being the complete fraud of a journalist that he is. PFT reports strongly substantiated stories as such, and they report "rumors" as rumors. What exactly is wrong with reporting an observation from a league source as a rumor? Mike Florio (PFT's main editor/contributor) used to work for ESPN, so it's not like he's just some ### hat with no background or connections in the NFL. Hell, even when he's wrong he generally points it out and apologizes for it.Not only that, but the likes of Rotoworld and (i believe) AOL Sports have credited PFT for certain stories, and he's been making a ton of appearances on sportstalk radio shows lately, so it's not as if PFT isn't regarded as a legitimate news outlet by this point.I generally don't mind your posts and enjoyed your work in the Bears/Cards thread you made, but this was a really ignorant posting.

Bottom line, PFT is entertaining as hell. It's People Magazine for football junkies

 

[Urinal Mint]

PFT is a complete JOKE. Why anyone would visit that site is beyond me. I guess if your like to read the National Enquirer It would make sense for entertainment purposes.

I couldn't disagree more. PFT broke the news of the Chad Johnson locker room blow-up in the Bengals play-off loss a few days before the rest of the major media outlets even touched it. This has happened a number of times with PFT not even being credited for breaking the news. He also exposed Len Pasquarelli for being the complete fraud of a journalist that he is.

What means this?

There is a line of stories/quips on PFT indicating that Pasquerelli gets his inside info from a particular NFL player agent, and in turn he will pimp this agent's players (Koren Robinson being one) in his columns.

 

[Marvelous]

PFT is a complete JOKE. Why anyone would visit that site is beyond me. I guess if your like to read the National Enquirer It would make sense for entertainment purposes.

I couldn't disagree more. PFT broke the news of the Chad Johnson locker room blow-up in the Bengals play-off loss a few days before the rest of the major media outlets even touched it. This has happened a number of times with PFT not even being credited for breaking the news. He also exposed Len Pasquarelli for being the complete fraud of a journalist that he is. PFT reports strongly substantiated stories as such, and they report "rumors" as rumors. What exactly is wrong with reporting an observation from a league source as a rumor? Mike Florio (PFT's main editor/contributor) used to work for ESPN, so it's not like he's just some ### hat with no background or connections in the NFL. Hell, even when he's wrong he generally points it out and apologizes for it.Not only that, but the likes of Rotoworld and (i believe) AOL Sports have credited PFT for certain stories, and he's been making a ton of appearances on sportstalk radio shows lately, so it's not as if PFT isn't regarded as a legitimate news outlet by this point.I generally don't mind your posts and enjoyed your work in the Bears/Cards thread you made, but this was a really ignorant posting.

I did not want this thread to be about PFT. The key is to read the articles closely. They do reports, analysis, rumors, and speculation. And PFT is clear on which they are doing, although they will mix them in the same article.In this article:Rumor - Jones promised head coaching job to FisherAnalysis - glitch with Titan's option on Fisher's contractAnalysis - glitch with Rooner ruleSpeculation - Fisher was so apologetic about Haynesworth since he may coach in DallasMy opinion of PFT - There is no better source for getting info and analysis on the CBA, salary cap ramifications, and other details like that. They also cover agents, the choice of agents, and how they are covered in the CBA. I don't really get into this info. PFT also likes to report rumors in the NFL or inside team offices. Quite frankly, since I am not in the NFL, there is really no way to know how factual it is. But some do come true.

 

[ren hoek]

PFT is a complete JOKE. Why anyone would visit that site is beyond me. I guess if your like to read the National Enquirer It would make sense for entertainment purposes.

I couldn't disagree more. PFT broke the news of the Chad Johnson locker room blow-up in the Bengals play-off loss a few days before the rest of the major media outlets even touched it. This has happened a number of times with PFT not even being credited for breaking the news. He also exposed Len Pasquarelli for being the complete fraud of a journalist that he is.

What means this?

Len Pasquarelli is friends/cohorts with agent Joel Segal, and it's believed that he gets a lot of his "insider" information from him. Segal represents Todd Pinkston and Reggie Bush, so I believe Pasquarelli was one of the first ones to break news of a potential hold-out with Reggie Bush. After the Eagles cut Pinkston, Pasquarelli posted a story which ultimately was featured up on the ESPN.com front page in which he did a ball-licking job for Pinkston, saying something along the lines of "Pinkston will be a highly saught-after commodity for many teams" and "he was a victim of the depth chart" or something. But I think most would agree that Todd Pinkston sucks at football, especially given that he was coming off a major injury. Anyway, Pasquarelli's manlove for Segal's clients really showed in this radio clip right here, and for me, the clip served as the point in which Pasquarelli jumped the shark as a credible journalist.

 

[ren hoek]

PFT is a complete JOKE. Why anyone would visit that site is beyond me. I guess if your like to read the National Enquirer It would make sense for entertainment purposes.

I couldn't disagree more. PFT broke the news of the Chad Johnson locker room blow-up in the Bengals play-off loss a few days before the rest of the major media outlets even touched it. This has happened a number of times with PFT not even being credited for breaking the news. He also exposed Len Pasquarelli for being the complete fraud of a journalist that he is. PFT reports strongly substantiated stories as such, and they report "rumors" as rumors. What exactly is wrong with reporting an observation from a league source as a rumor? Mike Florio (PFT's main editor/contributor) used to work for ESPN, so it's not like he's just some ### hat with no background or connections in the NFL. Hell, even when he's wrong he generally points it out and apologizes for it.Not only that, but the likes of Rotoworld and (i believe) AOL Sports have credited PFT for certain stories, and he's been making a ton of appearances on sportstalk radio shows lately, so it's not as if PFT isn't regarded as a legitimate news outlet by this point.I generally don't mind your posts and enjoyed your work in the Bears/Cards thread you made, but this was a really ignorant posting.

Bottom line, PFT is entertaining as hell. It's People Magazine for football junkies

yeah, I generally spend 2-3 hours per week reading the site. a very good read for football fans.

 

[ren hoek]

I did not want this thread to be about PFT.

Sorry, man. I just couldn't keep my dicksuckery for PFT at bay enough to refrain from replying to BBT's post.

 

[Wadsworth]

....If the teams had hired more minority head coaches the rule would never have happened...... But for decades every sunday in the fall the NFL teams would dress a large number of black players that were coached almost exclusively by white head coaches...The rule came about because the NFL was embarassed by it poor record of minority hirings and determined that a league wide rule was the best method to address this issue for the good of the league.

What does any of that have to do with winning football games? Is there any scientific evidence that a minority coach is a guarantee of a winning coach?

Is there any scientific evidence that a white coach with a large number of black players cannot be a winning coach?

There are many rules in the NFL that become hot button issues, many which are discussed on this board

- The Tuck Rule

- Instant Replay

- Overtime

- The Two Point Conversion

- Artificial Crowd Noise

- Tampering

- Holdouts

- Players Contracts Including Signing Bonuses And Cap Implications

- The Salary Cap

- Free Agency As It Pertains To Parity (Some Say Mediocrity) And Unit Cohesion

What do all those issues, the ones regulated by NFL rules have in common. THEY IMPACT WHO WINS OR LOSES FOOTBALL GAMES.

Still no one here has been able to answer the two questions I pose.

1) What Does The Rooney Rule Have To Do With Winning Football Games?

2) What About The Loss Of Opportunity For Qualified Coaches Who Did Not Get An Interview Slot Because It Went To A Token Black Coach Interview?

1) Many NFL rules have nothing to do with winning football games. I have no idea why you keep bringing that up. The NFL has a deal with Reebok where Reebok pays the league a lot of money and certain NFL team employees must where Reebok gear on the sidelines. Mike Nolan wanted to wear suits, other coaches have wanted to wear other gear, but the league made a deal and it's a rule now. If Mike Nolan decides he's going to wear a suit anyways, then he'll face league action just like Detroit did when they decided to not interveiw a minority candidate. Jake Plummer wanted to wear Pat Tillman's number on his uniform as a show of respect after Tillman died in service to this countrry. The NFL has rules about what you can and can't wear and informed Plummer that it would be a violation. These are just two example of many NFL rules that have nothing to do with winning or losing football games. The Rooney Rule is another example, so what? Are you arguing that the NFL can only make rule in regard to action on the field? If so, you are 100% wrong.2) The is no limit to the number of people any team can interveiw. Requiring a team to interveiw one minority candidate in no way limits the chances for non-minority candidates. In fact you could argue that requiring teams to interveiw at all could create chance for all coaches. The original subject of this thread is an example. If the cowboys lose the Tuna and were not required to interveiw a minority candidate they might just hire Fisher without interveiwing anyone. Since they are required to do at least one interveiw because of the Rooney Rule, they might decide to talk to a few coaching prospects which would give a chance to other non-minority coaches that outherwise would not have gotten an interveiw. Am I making a weak argument based on a lot of "maybe" and no proof? Yes I am, but my argument that the Rooney Rule could create chance for non-minority candidates has the same amount of data to back it up that your argument that the Rooney Rule takes opportunity from non-minority candidates... which is of course none. It just two versions of what might be true.

 

[Wadsworth]

....If the teams had hired more minority head coaches the rule would never have happened...... But for decades every sunday in the fall the NFL teams would dress a large number of black players that were coached almost exclusively by white head coaches...The rule came about because the NFL was embarassed by it poor record of minority hirings and determined that a league wide rule was the best method to address this issue for the good of the league.

What does any of that have to do with winning football games? Is there any scientific evidence that a minority coach is a guarantee of a winning coach?

Is there any scientific evidence that a white coach with a large number of black players cannot be a winning coach?

There are many rules in the NFL that become hot button issues, many which are discussed on this board

- The Tuck Rule

- Instant Replay

- Overtime

- The Two Point Conversion

- Artificial Crowd Noise

- Tampering

- Holdouts

- Players Contracts Including Signing Bonuses And Cap Implications

- The Salary Cap

- Free Agency As It Pertains To Parity (Some Say Mediocrity) And Unit Cohesion

What do all those issues, the ones regulated by NFL rules have in common. THEY IMPACT WHO WINS OR LOSES FOOTBALL GAMES.

Still no one here has been able to answer the two questions I pose.

1) What Does The Rooney Rule Have To Do With Winning Football Games?

2) What About The Loss Of Opportunity For Qualified Coaches Who Did Not Get An Interview Slot Because It Went To A Token Black Coach Interview?

1) Many NFL rules have nothing to do with winning football games. I have no idea why you keep bringing that up. The NFL has a deal with Reebok where Reebok pays the league a lot of money and certain NFL team employees must where Reebok gear on the sidelines. Mike Nolan wanted to wear suits, other coaches have wanted to wear other gear, but the league made a deal and it's a rule now. If Mike Nolan decides he's going to wear a suit anyways, then he'll face league action just like Detroit did when they decided to not interveiw a minority candidate. Jake Plummer wanted to wear Pat Tillman's number on his uniform as a show of respect after Tillman died in service to this countrry. The NFL has rules about what you can and can't wear and informed Plummer that it would be a violation. These are just two example of many NFL rules that have nothing to do with winning or losing football games. The Rooney Rule is another example, so what? Are you arguing that the NFL can only make rule in regard to action on the field? If so, you are 100% wrong.2) The is no limit to the number of people any team can interveiw. Requiring a team to interveiw one minority candidate in no way limits the chances for non-minority candidates. In fact you could argue that requiring teams to interveiw at all could create chance for all coaches. The original subject of this thread is an example. If the cowboys lose the Tuna and were not required to interveiw a minority candidate they might just hire Fisher without interveiwing anyone. Since they are required to do at least one interveiw because of the Rooney Rule, they might decide to talk to a few coaching prospects which would give a chance to other non-minority coaches that outherwise would not have gotten an interveiw. Am I making a weak argument based on a lot of "maybe" and no proof? Yes I am, but my argument that the Rooney Rule could create chance for non-minority candidates has the same amount of data to back it up that your argument that the Rooney Rule takes opportunity from non-minority candidates... which is of course none. It just two versions of what might be true.

As far as the National Reveiw article, I'll not waste my time debating points with an author that's not here to respond. But keep in mind that the National Reveiw has an agenda. It describes itself as, "America's premier magazine and web site for reaching Republican/Conservative opinion leaders." Yes, it's a highly respected magazine. But it has a slant and any opinion article coming from the NR is going to be slanted in that direction.

 

[fatness]

This rumor is spawning other rumors. posted on PFT also:

TUG-O-WAR COMING FOR FISHER?

We mentioned in this space on Tuesday rumors that Cowboys owner Jerry Jones has been making overtures toward Titans coach Jeff Fisher as the potential successor to Bill Parcells. We've now been informed by an industry source of talk that Redskins owner Dan Snyder also has his eye on Fisher.

Per the source, the rumor is that Snyder would buy out the provision in the contract of defensive coordinator Gregg Williams that promises him a seven-figure sum if he's not the next head coach, and then go after Fisher -- if, of course, Joe Gibbs doesn't come back for 2007.

Though the interest in the coach of a 1-5 team doesn't mesh with the traditional concept of "hot" coaches getting jobs, Fisher is well respected in league circles. Also, there's a strong case to be made that his team has struggled in recent years not because of Fisher's coaching, but because of poor salary cap management by the front office, which has forced the franchise to release multiple key players. Still, the Titans hold an option on Fisher for 2007, so it's by no means a done deal that he'll be available. If he is, however, it looks like he'll have some suitors.

Quickly denied by a Redskin source, also on PFT:

REDSKINS SOURCE CALLS FISHER RUMOR "NONSENSE"

A Redskins source has responded to the rumor that owner Dan Snyder will pursue Titans coach Jeff Fisher if Joe Gibbs packs it in after the season by calling the rumor "nonsense." Fisher previously has been linked to the potential vacancy with the Cowboys. Redskins defensive coordinator Gregg Williams has a clause in his contract that promises to pay him $1 million if he is not hired as the successor to Gibbs.

We've heard rumors over the past several months, primarily coming from some of our contacts in the world of NASCAR, that Gibbs' wife is pushing him to get out of coaching. When Gibbs returned to the Redskins in 2004, there were rumors that Mrs. Gibbs was in favor of the move because it helped get son Coy out from behind the wheel of vehicles that sometimes crash and burn and into the world of football coaching.

. What is "an industry source of talk" anyway?

 

[Ice Cream Man]

I really can't believe that this was actually thought out, then typed up.

Does the rule say minority or does it sayblack? Are hispanic a minority? How about Asians? Are they a minority?

Why does everytime this issue comes up it's: Black coaches, Black, Black, Black.

Please, someone, anyone, show me the rule which state that a Black must be interviewed when a position becomes available.

Threads like this should be deleted.

It's about blacks because that is the only group that presumably needs help. When you think of minorities being "disadvantaged", you don't think of chinese, vietnamese, east-indians, and so on. Why not? Because they make a lot of money and are successful -- on their own. In fact, Asians have a higher median income than white people. They sure as hell aren't disadvantaged!

By the same token, quotas for minorities in schooling admissions actually hurt Asians because other minorities (ie. blacks) with lower scores get in instead of them.

The only way these stupid laws/rules can get any traction is if they appear to "help" someone. Clearly, Asians don't need any help. But due to political correctness, they have to slap the term "minority" on it so people don't think they are favoring one group over another.

As another poster said, I don't think this rule does anything in the NFL except as a stop-gap PR measure. All it does is raise the costs of hiring decisions and tells minorities -- all of them -- "you're not good enough to be hired based on merit".

 

[Urinal Mint]

The rumor came up again in Chris Mortensen's report on ESPN this morning.

 

[redman]

The rumor came up again in Chris Mortensen's report on ESPN this morning.

Which one? Cowboys? Redskins? I can tell you this: the rumor as to Gibbs is bogus. Gibbs fully intends to be there for five years, which means through 2008. He comes across as "Saint Joe" as they say and looks like a softy, but don't underestimate his determination to win and turn this around. I have no idea whether that turnaround will actually happen, but I do feel very confident that he's not going anywhere.

 

[Urinal Mint]

The Fisher to Dallas rumor. Mortensen made it look like Jones would be willing to move a pick to Tennessee for the rights to Fisher in the event the Titans exercise their 2007 option for Fisher. I would imagine that Fisher secretly wants out of an organization that handles its personnel as poorly as it has in recent years.

The rumor came up again in Chris Mortensen's report on ESPN this morning.

Which one? Cowboys? Redskins? I can tell you this: the rumor as to Gibbs is bogus. Gibbs fully intends to be there for five years, which means through 2008. He comes across as "Saint Joe" as they say and looks like a softy, but don't underestimate his determination to win and turn this around. I have no idea whether that turnaround will actually happen, but I do feel very confident that he's not going anywhere.

 

[redman]

The Fisher to Dallas rumor. Mortensen made it look like Jones would be willing to move a pick to Tennessee for the rights to Fisher in the event the Titans exercise their 2007 option for Fisher. I would imagine that Fisher secretly wants out of an organization that handles its personnel as poorly as it has in recent years.

I have no idea whether Jones is actually attempting to lay the groundwork for that, of course, but the scenario does make some sense overall. OTOH, Parcells is a guy who keeps his own counsel on the issue of retirement - I would be shocked if he has already told JJ that he intends to retire, which means that it's more likely IMHO that either the rumor is bogus/exaggerated, or that JJ is dangerously tampering with another team's coach behind Parcells' back.

 

[BigRed]

Better not let it get out that Fisher was promised the job, or Dallas will run afoul of the league minority hire policy.

ie the race card nazis :shiver:Course they don't have to interview any other white guys.And I bet if they hired a black coach they don't either. GB the Great American Double-Standard alive and well.JJ should just avoid all that and hire away Dungy and let Fischer go to Indy PS I don't think you can do the trading of picks for coaches anymore.