Thoughts on the Rooney rule and Leslier Frazier (1 Viewer)

[belljr]

Just wanted to get a feeling on peoples opinions.

Jerry Jones inquired about if he needed to follow the Rooney rule if he wanted to hire Jason Garrett permanetly. He was told he still has to interview a "minority". Many people say it's still a good experience for coaches to go through the process, even if they know they are not getting the job. I'm sure it can be.

However, Leslie Frazier is now an interim coach and Minnesota does not have to interview anyone else if they do not want too. Should they have to interview a "non minority"?

I believe the best person should get the job regardless and think it's a shame that a rule had to be put in place for doors to be opened. That being said.

Do you think it should be followed both ways?

 

[mr roboto]

Just wanted to get a feeling on peoples opinions.Jerry Jones inquired about if he needed to follow the Rooney rule if he wanted to hire Jason Garrett permanetly. He was told he still has to interview a "minority". Many people say it's still a good experience for coaches to go through the process, even if they know they are not getting the job. I'm sure it can be.However, Leslie Frazier is now an interim coach and Minnesota does not have to interview anyone else if they do not want too. Should they have to interview a "non minority"?I believe the best person should get the job regardless and think it's a shame that a rule had to be put in place for doors to be opened. That being said.Do you think it should be followed both ways?

Short answer: no.Longer answer: maybe.In a perfect, free-market world, employers would hire the best guy for the job (or gal, not that that gonna happen).We do not live in that world. IF the successor is not already in the organization, then it's not a problem. But in the Fraizer/Garrett scenario, assuming they would both be hired next year by their respective teams, I think they should not have to interview anyone else. They have already been chosen within the organization for the job.Question for FBG's in larger companies (I run my own business so I don't know corporate culture well). If a mid-level manager has been groomed for several years for a higher-level position (director, VP etc.) and the person ahead of him/her retires or quits, do they open up a hiring process or does the one being groomed for the job step in? (assuming the one being groomed is ready and that's who they want to hire)

 

[Ghost Rider]

The rule is a good idea in theory, but the way it is executed is stupid and discriminatory.

 

[Ministry of Pain]

The rule is a good idea in theory, but the way it is executed is stupid and discriminatory.

I agree with the 2nd part but I'm not sure I like the whole idea to begin with.

 

[VaTerp]

Just wanted to get a feeling on peoples opinions.

Jerry Jones inquired about if he needed to follow the Rooney rule if he wanted to hire Jason Garrett permanetly. He was told he still has to interview a "minority". Many people say it's still a good experience for coaches to go through the process, even if they know they are not getting the job. I'm sure it can be.

However, Leslie Frazier is now an interim coach and Minnesota does not have to interview anyone else if they do not want too. Should they have to interview a "non minority"?

I believe the best person should get the job regardless and think it's a shame that a rule had to be put in place for doors to be opened. That being said.

Do you think it should be followed both ways?

No.The rule was put in place because historically, minorities had recieved disporportionately few opportunities to interview for head coaching vacancies. The same cannot be said for "non-minority" coaches so there is no need to require an interview for members of a group that has had no problems with underrepresentation in the profession.

That said, I agree with others that the application of the rule is less than ideal for a variety of reasons. But it is what it is.

 

[Andy Dufresne]

The Rooney Rule (and affirmative action in general*) is silly in this day and age and should be dumped.

If you want to put yourself at a competitive disadvantage by discriminating against qualified applicants based on the color of their skin (and risk decreased performance from other current employees), knock yourself out.

*FFA here we come!

 

[mr roboto]

Just wanted to get a feeling on peoples opinions.

Jerry Jones inquired about if he needed to follow the Rooney rule if he wanted to hire Jason Garrett permanetly. He was told he still has to interview a "minority". Many people say it's still a good experience for coaches to go through the process, even if they know they are not getting the job. I'm sure it can be.

However, Leslie Frazier is now an interim coach and Minnesota does not have to interview anyone else if they do not want too. Should they have to interview a "non minority"?

I believe the best person should get the job regardless and think it's a shame that a rule had to be put in place for doors to be opened. That being said.

Do you think it should be followed both ways?

No.The rule was put in place because historically, minorities had recieved disporportionately few opportunities to interview for head coaching vacancies. The same cannot be said for "non-minority" coaches so there is no need to require an interview for members of a group that has had no problems with underrepresentation in the profession.

That said, I agree with others that the application of the rule is less than ideal for a variety of reasons. But it is what it is.

Interesting question (hopefully)If the rule like this one is put in place because of clear discrimination (or laws like quotas for hiring, affirmative action etc.) when would these policies be repealed. If the conditions change and it can be demonstrated that discrimination does not exist in hiring/interviewing/entrance into schools, then would the laws or policies be taken off the books? How could you demonstrate that the conditions upon which the rules were based no longer exist?

ETA: Dufrense is prob. right. Time to move!

 

[Da Guru]

The Rooney Rule (and affirmative action in general*) is silly in this day and age and should be dumped.If you want to put yourself at a competitive disadvantage by discriminating against qualified applicants based on the color of their skin (and risk decreased performance from other current employees), knock yourself out.*FFA here we come!

The rule brought about awareness. Now it seems the rule is slowly fading away as it should. As in any business teams will hire who they want to run there team, be it Leslie Frazier or Jason Garrett.

 

[Da Guru]

The Rooney Rule (and affirmative action in general*) is silly in this day and age and should be dumped.If you want to put yourself at a competitive disadvantage by discriminating against qualified applicants based on the color of their skin (and risk decreased performance from other current employees), knock yourself out.*FFA here we come!

The rule brought about awareness. Now it seems the rule is slowly fading away as it should. As in any business teams will hire who they want to run there team, be it Leslie Frazier or Jason Garrett.

 

[RedskinsFan]

Just wanted to get a feeling on peoples opinions.

Jerry Jones inquired about if he needed to follow the Rooney rule if he wanted to hire Jason Garrett permanetly. He was told he still has to interview a "minority". Many people say it's still a good experience for coaches to go through the process, even if they know they are not getting the job. I'm sure it can be.

However, Leslie Frazier is now an interim coach and Minnesota does not have to interview anyone else if they do not want too. Should they have to interview a "non minority"?

I believe the best person should get the job regardless and think it's a shame that a rule had to be put in place for doors to be opened. That being said.

Do you think it should be followed both ways?

No.The rule was put in place because historically, minorities had recieved disporportionately few opportunities to interview for head coaching vacancies. The same cannot be said for "non-minority" coaches so there is no need to require an interview for members of a group that has had no problems with underrepresentation in the profession.

That said, I agree with others that the application of the rule is less than ideal for a variety of reasons. But it is what it is.

I agree with you that there was a point for the rule to exist years ago but today it's unneeded and makes the NFL as a whole look bad today. It lived its usefulness, now it needs to go away. When you think about it 30 years ago people questioned the ability for a black head coach to win the Superbowl yet that idea today seems absurd. that is the clearest sign to me this outlived it's usefulness. Also how good this is for the candidates that knowingly are not going to get the job they are applying for should be questioned. It seems this list of people is short and they never get picked up for coaching position and likely ruin themselves in the process.

And strictly if your just trying to be fair then the Vikings shouldn't have to interview a white for that position. The rule was to get teams to interview more minorities, it wasn't written so that every group was accounted for in the teams hiring process ie. Quotas. The rule was to give an opportunity for minorities to be heard where the NFL didn't think they were given a fair shake. It's a stupid rule and this should be scrapped

 

[blackbird001]

The Rooney Rule (and affirmative action in general*) is silly in this day and age and should be dumped.If you want to put yourself at a competitive disadvantage by discriminating against qualified applicants based on the color of their skin (and risk decreased performance from other current employees), knock yourself out.*FFA here we come!

+1 Affirmative action is a fine idea in principal. The problem is, in application it winds up crippling the whole process. Way too easy to comply superficially (defeating it's intended purpose) and cripples teams like the Cowboys and Vikings whom both have early favored candidates for the job. I do believe Vikings should have to interview a minority and comply with the rule. The larger question is why aren't minorities as a whole offended by this? I can see unqualified candidates loving affirmative action and all derivatives, but why would any self-respecting candidate who's earned the privilege of interviewing for a head coach position want it tarnished over an obligation?You can't legislate morality.

 

[VaTerp]

Just wanted to get a feeling on peoples opinions.

Jerry Jones inquired about if he needed to follow the Rooney rule if he wanted to hire Jason Garrett permanetly. He was told he still has to interview a "minority". Many people say it's still a good experience for coaches to go through the process, even if they know they are not getting the job. I'm sure it can be.

However, Leslie Frazier is now an interim coach and Minnesota does not have to interview anyone else if they do not want too. Should they have to interview a "non minority"?

I believe the best person should get the job regardless and think it's a shame that a rule had to be put in place for doors to be opened. That being said.

Do you think it should be followed both ways?

No.The rule was put in place because historically, minorities had recieved disporportionately few opportunities to interview for head coaching vacancies. The same cannot be said for "non-minority" coaches so there is no need to require an interview for members of a group that has had no problems with underrepresentation in the profession.

That said, I agree with others that the application of the rule is less than ideal for a variety of reasons. But it is what it is.

Interesting question (hopefully)If the rule like this one is put in place because of clear discrimination (or laws like quotas for hiring, affirmative action etc.) when would these policies be repealed. If the conditions change and it can be demonstrated that discrimination does not exist in hiring/interviewing/entrance into schools, then would the laws or policies be taken off the books? How could you demonstrate that the conditions upon which the rules were based no longer exist?

ETA: Dufrense is prob. right. Time to move!

I think it depends on who you ask as to how interesting this question is but it's definitely a good one and a conversation worth having (albeit probably better suited for FFA as you said).I am a proponent of AA (though not of quotas) and think the Rooney rule was a good idea. When do these programs end? I think you have to comprehensively look at data and a number of factors in determining that. When the Rooney rule was put in place 6% of NFL coaches were racial minorities and there had been an embarrassingly low number of minority coaches in the league's history. Now, I believe 22% of the coaches are racial minorities.

In agreeing with some of the posts above, I think the rule was effective in creating opportunities and raising awareness. I would have no problems with the league ending the policy now for coaches. As for senior level management positions I would like to take a closer look at the numbers but think there is still some progress to be made there.

But I also agree with another above post that, at this point, if an owner or GM wants to put themselves at a competitive disadvantage by hiring ANYONE soley based on their race or excluding ANY qualified applicants solely based on race then let them suffer the consequences of their own actions. The goal of the Rooney rule was to create opportunities for people who had historically been denied those opportunities based on the color of their skin and to raise awareness about the lack of diversity in NFL coaching and front office positions. For the most part, those objectives have been met and the policy should be nearing it's end.

 

[Sweet Love]

Question for FBG's in larger companies (I run my own business so I don't know corporate culture well). If a mid-level manager has been groomed for several years for a higher-level position (director, VP etc.) and the person ahead of him/her retires or quits, do they open up a hiring process or does the one being groomed for the job step in? (assuming the one being groomed is ready and that's who they want to hire)

I am a headhunter and have seen it done both ways. Regardless of whether the person being groomed is a shoe-in, I often see where they open the role internally for a short period of time (anywhere from 3 days to two weeks) and go off of that pool. My wife, a few years back, had her job dissolved and they moved her into a different role (both were director roles, so I am not sure if that makes a difference) and it was offered to no one else, and she did not go through a formal interview process (they basically callled her, told her about the role and she accepted).It really depends on the organization and how they interpret the employment rules. The size of the company may also come into play (many rules that mid-to-larger companies have to follow do not impact companies with less than 50 employees).

 

[Andy Dufresne]

Leslie Frazier had the bait & switch pulled on him just last year. The Seahawks brought him in for an interview just to comply with the Rooney Rule knowing full well that they were going to hire Carrol.

I find that to be nearly as insulting as outright discrimination.

 

[coolnerd]

Just wanted to get a feeling on peoples opinions.Jerry Jones inquired about if he needed to follow the Rooney rule if he wanted to hire Jason Garrett permanetly. He was told he still has to interview a "minority". Many people say it's still a good experience for coaches to go through the process, even if they know they are not getting the job. I'm sure it can be.However, Leslie Frazier is now an interim coach and Minnesota does not have to interview anyone else if they do not want too. Should they have to interview a "non minority"?I believe the best person should get the job regardless and think it's a shame that a rule had to be put in place for doors to be opened. That being said.Do you think it should be followed both ways?

Short answer: no.Longer answer: maybe.In a perfect, free-market world, employers would hire the best guy for the job (or gal, not that that gonna happen).We do not live in that world. IF the successor is not already in the organization, then it's not a problem. But in the Fraizer/Garrett scenario, assuming they would both be hired next year by their respective teams, I think they should not have to interview anyone else. They have already been chosen within the organization for the job.Question for FBG's in larger companies (I run my own business so I don't know corporate culture well). If a mid-level manager has been groomed for several years for a higher-level position (director, VP etc.) and the person ahead of him/her retires or quits, do they open up a hiring process or does the one being groomed for the job step in? (assuming the one being groomed is ready and that's who they want to hire)

I am no longer in the corporate world, but can get give you a personal example that I don't believe is unusual.A promotion came open. Before the announcement was public made, management came to me and asked if I would "apply" for the position. Of course, they were offering me the job, which I "accepted," by saying I would post for it when it came open. The requirement handed down from corporate was that a job was posted on location and internet for two weeks and that all internal candidates were required to be interviewed. To keep applications down, the manager placed one or two requirements which I was the only known candidate in the location to have in terms of experience and education. Eventually, three people were interviewed from a very formal book of questions. Just reporting because on the nature of this thread ( I am AA, as was another candidate with the other being white). Everyone knew that the job was mine as long as something really wrong did happened in terms on money, etc. The posting and interviews were farces. I have had other people of various races tell me similiar stories about jobs and companies having to follow guidelines, but really hiring who they wanted all along.

 

[Ghost Rider]

Leslie Frazier had the bait & switch pulled on him just last year. The Seahawks brought him in for an interview just to comply with the Rooney Rule knowing full well that they were going to hire Carrol. I find that to be nearly as insulting as outright discrimination.

It sucks for the minority who is in that position, but that is what the rule has forced teams to do at times.

 

[VaTerp]

The Rooney Rule (and affirmative action in general*) is silly in this day and age and should be dumped.

If you want to put yourself at a competitive disadvantage by discriminating against qualified applicants based on the color of their skin (and risk decreased performance from other current employees), knock yourself out.

*FFA here we come!

+1 Affirmative action is a fine idea in principal. The problem is, in application it winds up crippling the whole process. Way too easy to comply superficially (defeating it's intended purpose) and cripples teams like the Cowboys and Vikings whom both have early favored candidates for the job. I do believe Vikings should have to interview a minority and comply with the rule.

The larger question is why aren't minorities as a whole offended by this? I can see unqualified candidates loving affirmative action and all derivatives, but why would any self-respecting candidate who's earned the privilege of interviewing for a head coach position want it tarnished over an obligation?You can't legislate morality.

Okay, this conversation is really headed for FFA status but I will offer my two cents here on AA in general.Human nature lends itself to people being more comfortable around people who look similar to ourselves. And there's really nothing wrong with that. The problem is that when since white men were originally the only one's who had any power in this country, they continually hired those who they felt most comfortable with.....other white men.

At the same time, blacks and other groups were blatantly and legally discriminated against. Even when laws made overt discrimination illegal you still had one group (white men) doing all of the hiring in this country. And even after the Civil Rights Act and other legislation of the 1960s, human nature still dictated that people hired people they were most comfortable with.

So even the most qualified non-white male candidates were not getting equal opportunities. What affirmative action did was say to the people doing the hiring "Hey, there are QUALIFIED applicants outside of the pool you are used to working and feel most comfortable with, and we are going to force you to look at them." For the record, I am not in favor of quotas and I am not in favor of hiring unqualified people simply as tokens. What I am in favor of is giving people more opportunities so that ultimately there is more diversity among people making hiring decisions and this is not as much of an issue moving forward.

Speaking to personal experience, I have no problem if AA helps me get an opportuntity because I know for a fact there have been times where I, and moreso those older than me, was denied opportunties because of my skin. It is then up to me what I do with that opportunity. Using my mother as an example, she is now a managing partner of a major accounting firm. Out of over 100 partners she is the ONLY black woman. Did AA help here get opportunities along the way? Almost assuredly so. However, it was up to her to make the most of those opportunities. To this day she is usually the first one in her office and the last one to leave. She's smart, hard-working, and compotent and capitalized on her opportunity. But it's an opportunity she may have never had, had some people not been compelled or mandated to give her equal consideration.

So to answer your question, no I would not and do not feel guilty in the least about any opportunities that I may get simply by being classified as a racial minority because

(1) Throughout history lesser qualified people have gotten jobs because of who they knew and what they looked like and

(2) It's about what you do with the opportunity once you get it.

 

[CletiusMaximus]

In a perfect, free-market world, employers would hire the best guy for the job (or gal, not that that gonna happen).We do not live in that world. IF the successor is not already in the organization, then it's not a problem. But in the Fraizer/Garrett scenario, assuming they would both be hired next year by their respective teams, I think they should not have to interview anyone else. They have already been chosen within the organization for the job.

Why do you believe the best guy for the job is not usually the one that is hired? Or that this only happens in a "perfect world"? I think the whole basis for complaints about the Rooney rule is that teams and candidates end up wasting their time, not that it causes bad hires or leads to lesser candidates getting jobs.

 

[blackbird001]

The Rooney Rule (and affirmative action in general*) is silly in this day and age and should be dumped.

If you want to put yourself at a competitive disadvantage by discriminating against qualified applicants based on the color of their skin (and risk decreased performance from other current employees), knock yourself out.

*FFA here we come!

+1 Affirmative action is a fine idea in principal. The problem is, in application it winds up crippling the whole process. Way too easy to comply superficially (defeating it's intended purpose) and cripples teams like the Cowboys and Vikings whom both have early favored candidates for the job. I do believe Vikings should have to interview a minority and comply with the rule.

The larger question is why aren't minorities as a whole offended by this? I can see unqualified candidates loving affirmative action and all derivatives, but why would any self-respecting candidate who's earned the privilege of interviewing for a head coach position want it tarnished over an obligation?You can't legislate morality.

Okay, this conversation is really headed for FFA status but I will offer my two cents here on AA in general.Human nature lends itself to people being more comfortable around people who look similar to ourselves. And there's really nothing wrong with that. The problem is that when since white men were originally the only one's who had any power in this country, they continually hired those who they felt most comfortable with.....other white men.

At the same time, blacks and other groups were blatantly and legally discriminated against. Even when laws made overt discrimination illegal you still had one group (white men) doing all of the hiring in this country. And even after the Civil Rights Act and other legislation of the 1960s, human nature still dictated that people hired people they were most comfortable with.

So even the most qualified non-white male candidates were not getting equal opportunities. What affirmative action did was say to the people doing the hiring "Hey, there are QUALIFIED applicants outside of the pool you are used to working and feel most comfortable with, and we are going to force you to look at them." For the record, I am not in favor of quotas and I am not in favor of hiring unqualified people simply as tokens. What I am in favor of is giving people more opportunities so that ultimately there is more diversity among people making hiring decisions and this is not as much of an issue moving forward.

Speaking to personal experience, I have no problem if AA helps me get an opportuntity because I know for a fact there have been times where I, and moreso those older than me, was denied opportunties because of my skin. It is then up to me what I do with that opportunity. Using my mother as an example, she is now a managing partner of a major accounting firm. Out of over 100 partners she is the ONLY black woman. Did AA help here get opportunities along the way? Almost assuredly so. However, it was up to her to make the most of those opportunities. To this day she is usually the first one in her office and the last one to leave. She's smart, hard-working, and compotent and capitalized on her opportunity. But it's an opportunity she may have never had, had some people not been compelled or mandated to give her equal consideration.

So to answer your question, no I would not and do not feel guilty in the least about any opportunities that I may get simply by being classified as a racial minority because

(1) Throughout history lesser qualified people have gotten jobs because of who they knew and what they looked like and

(2) It's about what you do with the opportunity once you get it.

Your response is genuine and I can't find fault with most of it. However, you mostly gloss over my point. The real issue is that AA and the Rooney rule in these times is largely broken and completely un-necessary. Qualified people (such as your mother) will rise out of any applicant pool and succeed based on their hard work and talents. We live in a more enlightened age than ever before and so people who should receive consideration generally do. Conversely, people who do not wish to consider minorities for any reason can easily skate by any AA policies in place.Racism is never going to go away as long as people focus on it.

 

[mr roboto]

In a perfect, free-market world, employers would hire the best guy for the job (or gal, not that that gonna happen).We do not live in that world. IF the successor is not already in the organization, then it's not a problem. But in the Fraizer/Garrett scenario, assuming they would both be hired next year by their respective teams, I think they should not have to interview anyone else. They have already been chosen within the organization for the job.

Why do you believe the best guy for the job is not usually the one that is hired? Or that this only happens in a "perfect world"? I think the whole basis for complaints about the Rooney rule is that teams and candidates end up wasting their time, not that it causes bad hires or leads to lesser candidates getting jobs.

I'm saying that, especially in times gone by, people who may have been the best for the job were not considered because of their race. I'm not saying Rooney rule causes bad hires. I'm saying it is an attempt to force teams who may have had a gold-ol-boy mentality to open up the interview process to minorities. I don't know if it helped but that's what I'm trying to say.

 

[Sam Quentin]

That's not the way the rule is defined

 

[IvanKaramazov]

The rule is a good idea in theory, but the way it is executed is stupid and discriminatory.

I think it was a bad idea in theory. The fact that it was imposed in a stupid way is nice because I like symmetry.

 

[Sabertooth]

Is Peyton Hillis a beneficiary of the Rooney rule?

 

[Bri]

When the NFL hires a Green person, with no coaching experience or football knowledge, just because he's green, then I'll worry.

Isn't this about one of each race being hired? slow news day

 

[Shutout]

Leslie Frazier had the bait & switch pulled on him just last year. The Seahawks brought him in for an interview just to comply with the Rooney Rule knowing full well that they were going to hire Carrol. I find that to be nearly as insulting as outright discrimination.

I agree that is exactly how it appeared (and may have been), but I also remember a case when Mike Tomlin interviewed with the Steelers and a lot of people wondered if it were just a token interview. Many people thought they would go for someone more established or perhaps hire Wisenhunt or LeBeau if he was interested. Point being, it gave a minority an opportunity to interview, get experience, and impress and in that sense, the rule worked exactly as intended.The key in this conversation is "minority". The nature of rules regarding minorities establish that, by definition, it can't be applied both ways. you are either the minority group or you are not and the rules are set to protect/promote the minorites (the "majority" can not be discriminated against, by definition). So, no, it can't/won't go both ways and while it may seem like semantics or fruitless, the fact that it opens up even a single door for a person directly or indirectly, is the progress that it is intended to achieve. I don't forsee culture shifting enough to eliminate prejudices and biases for a long time (if ever) so for that reason, I think its a good rule that needs to remain. If anything, I would like to see an additional layer added that protects "age minorities". So many older "name" coache are recycled through the league with little new blood introduced. That may be legit. I don't work in the NFL and don't know if the best qualified guy is getting the job all the time. But what I do see, as a fan each year, is the same old names bouncing from HC->OC/DC->HC->DC, etc, with a lot of the same names getting fired/rehired in various places and that makes me think that maybe if some new faces got chances to interview (like Tomlin did) that maybe we would be introduced to some new bright minds in the league.

 

[fatness]

I knew someone would start this topic as soon as Frazier got the job. Some things are so predictable.

A black head coach gets hired.

"Rooney Rule sucks!"

 

[CalBear]

Your response is genuine and I can't find fault with most of it. However, you mostly gloss over my point. The real issue is that AA and the Rooney rule in these times is largely broken and completely un-necessary. Qualified people (such as your mother) will rise out of any applicant pool and succeed based on their hard work and talents. We live in a more enlightened age than ever before and so people who should receive consideration generally do.

Yeah, that's why the NCAA coaching ranks look just like the NFL coaching ranks. Oh, wait, that's not true at all; the NFL has twice as high a percentage of black head coaches as the NCAA (outside of HBCU). Even that's a pretty big improvement for the NCAA; a few years ago there were only two black head coaches in Div-1. So while things are improving, it's clear that we're not in a world where the most qualified person always gets the job, and it's also clear that the Rooney Rule and the publicity around it has increased opportunities for blacks in the NFL.

 

[Andy Dufresne]

I knew someone would start this topic as soon as Frazier got the job. Some things are so predictable.

A black head coach gets hired.

"Rooney Rule sucks!"

I don't get it.

 

[Mikey16x]

I agree that it should be dumped. If your stupid enough to take a lesser coach based on race, that's your own stupidity, I'd take Mike Tomlin over a Brad Childress any day. If a teams owner is dumb enough to hire based on race, they'll team will be penalized enough by not having the most qualified guy. If your a good coach, you will have a job, I don't care what you are. This is the NFL, big money is spent and results are needed, if you produce, you'll be a coach... period.

 

[b_taco]

they still need to interview a minority

 

[road warrior]

I love how the context of the word 'minority' usually means 'black'. I guess they are the only minority.

 

[mr roboto]

I love how the context of the word 'minority' usually means 'black'. I guess they are the only minority.

Yes. Many minorities are overlooked.When was the last time you saw a transgender Philipino head coach? And what about all those coordinators who have been passed up for promotion because they are libertarian ex-Catholic ministers?The reason we are talking about black candidates is because, by-and-large, they are the largest 'minority' in the NFL. Use the brain.

 

[road warrior]

I love how the context of the word 'minority' usually means 'black'. I guess they are the only minority.

Yes. Many minorities are overlooked.When was the last time you saw a transgender Philipino head coach? And what about all those coordinators who have been passed up for promotion because they are libertarian ex-Catholic ministers?The reason we are talking about black candidates is because, by-and-large, they are the largest 'minority' in the NFL. Use the brain.

Oh, you're right. There are no hispanic coaches in the league. And if what you're saying is right, then just say you have to inverview a 'black' candidate.It's people like you who give boards like this a bad rep. Everything is so 'black and white' with you.

 

[az_prof]

Just wanted to get a feeling on peoples opinions.Jerry Jones inquired about if he needed to follow the Rooney rule if he wanted to hire Jason Garrett permanetly. He was told he still has to interview a "minority". Many people say it's still a good experience for coaches to go through the process, even if they know they are not getting the job. I'm sure it can be.However, Leslie Frazier is now an interim coach and Minnesota does not have to interview anyone else if they do not want too. Should they have to interview a "non minority"?I believe the best person should get the job regardless and think it's a shame that a rule had to be put in place for doors to be opened. That being said.Do you think it should be followed both ways?

No. What you "learn" from being interviewed is way overstated. On the other hand, feeling your time is being wasted when you interview for a job where someone else is a shoe-in is very frustrating. Also, the point of the rule is to ensure that teams at least consider a qualified minority applicant because you can't get a job if someone doesn't take the time to look at you and talk to you. And the goal is to try and get more minority coaches because the game has so many minority players and so few coaches (although that is changing). Since the team's interim is a minority, interviewing another really would serve no purpose unless they truly are looking and are not solid on Frazier.

 

[az_prof]

they still need to interview a minority

They will. His name is Leslie Frazier.

 

[Csonka4life]

I love how the context of the word 'minority' usually means 'black'. I guess they are the only minority.

Yes. Many minorities are overlooked.When was the last time you saw a transgender Philipino head coach? And what about all those coordinators who have been passed up for promotion because they are libertarian ex-Catholic ministers?The reason we are talking about black candidates is because, by-and-large, they are the largest 'minority' in the NFL. Use the brain.

They transgendered Filipino head coach is working in the Pacman camp.......

 

[Csonka4life]

I love how the context of the word 'minority' usually means 'black'. I guess they are the only minority.

Yes. Many minorities are overlooked.When was the last time you saw a transgender Philipino head coach? And what about all those coordinators who have been passed up for promotion because they are libertarian ex-Catholic ministers?The reason we are talking about Black candidates is because, by-and-large, they are the largest 'minority' in the NFL. Use the brain.

As players but in the general population they are 12 or 13 percent of the population. Last I checked some of the greatest coaches couldn't make an NFL squad. In the case of the "Hoody" couldn't even make a college team. So the minority search needs to be more encompassing. Aside from Ron Rivera and Norm Chow I can't recall any other minority coaching candidates that weren't Black.

 

[CalBear]

As players but in the general population they are 12 or 13 percent of the population. Last I checked some of the greatest coaches couldn't make an NFL squad. In the case of the "Hoody" couldn't even make a college team. So the minority search needs to be more encompassing. Aside from Ron Rivera and Norm Chow I can't recall any other minority coaching candidates that weren't Black.

The general population ratios aren't very interesting, unless you're suggesting that we should be drawing football coaches from the ranks of medical schools or engineering programs. Football coaches come from football backgrounds, and you'd like to see the proportions look vaguely similar to the population they come from. Latino and Asian players represented just 3% of the NFL in 2008. (And there has been a Super Bowl-winning Latino coach, Tom Flores).

 

[Kool-Aid Larry]

Just wanted to get a feeling on peoples opinions.

Jerry Jones inquired about if he needed to follow the Rooney rule if he wanted to hire Jason Garrett permanetly. He was told he still has to interview a "minority". Many people say it's still a good experience for coaches to go through the process, even if they know they are not getting the job. I'm sure it can be.

However, Leslie Frazier is now an interim coach and Minnesota does not have to interview anyone else if they do not want too. Should they have to interview a "non minority"?

I believe the best person should get the job regardless and think it's a shame that a rule had to be put in place for doors to be opened. That being said.

Do you think it should be followed both ways?

is this a serious post or a joke post?

 

[krsone21]

Just wanted to get a feeling on peoples opinions.Jerry Jones inquired about if he needed to follow the Rooney rule if he wanted to hire Jason Garrett permanetly. He was told he still has to interview a "minority". Many people say it's still a good experience for coaches to go through the process, even if they know they are not getting the job. I'm sure it can be.However, Leslie Frazier is now an interim coach and Minnesota does not have to interview anyone else if they do not want too. Should they have to interview a "non minority"?I believe the best person should get the job regardless and think it's a shame that a rule had to be put in place for doors to be opened. That being said.Do you think it should be followed both ways?

I think that a interim head coach should get the job if deserving and the organization in this scenario should not have to follow the rooney rule. Now for your question. I think it should have to go both ways. If Dallas has to interview a minority, then Minnesota should be forced as well to interview others. It's rediculous that one organanziation has to just because the person they want to hire is not a minority and the other organization doesn't have to go through it because they want to hire a minority. If the interim head coach is who you want then no organization should have to go through the whole interview and hiring process.

 

[Kool-Aid Larry]

When the NFL hires a Green person, with no coaching experience or football knowledge, just because he's green, then I'll worry.

start worrying.

 

[nlgb1]

rooney rule is stupid... however hiring frazier is not. guys a great candidate for any gig, and hed get a job somewhere rooney rule or not. heres hoping he gets the vikes back on their feet so i can watch vikes pack every year with playoffs on the line

 

[ScottyDog]

Any of you guys familiar with the term Affirmative Action?

 

[nlgb1]

Any of you guys familiar with the term Affirmative Action?

what ya gettin at

 

[ScottyDog]

No Sarcasm here. It is a serious question. I work for a large fire department. We hire minorities in what is called "AFFIRMATIVE ACTION". It is a rule where basically there are quotas in hiring. You have to have say 2 women, 2 blacks, 1 hispanic in a recruit class of 30 where the other 24 are white. So basically in a job where you want to have the BEST firemen for YOU AS THE PUBLIC, you have the ones of politically correct ethnicity and gender. I am not saying the minorities are any less skilled as the white guys, but I am saying because of Affirmative Action some people that SHOULD NEVER HAVE BEEN HIRED, ARE HIRED.

Any of you guys familiar with the term Affirmative Action?

what ya gettin at

 

[nlgb1]

No Sarcasm here. It is a serious question. I work for a large fire department. We hire minorities in what is called "AFFIRMATIVE ACTION". It is a rule where basically there are quotas in hiring. You have to have say 2 women, 2 blacks, 1 hispanic in a recruit class of 30 where the other 24 are white. So basically in a job where you want to have the BEST firemen for YOU AS THE PUBLIC, you have the ones of politically correct ethnicity and gender. I am not saying the minorities are any less skilled as the white guys, but I am saying because of Affirmative Action some people that SHOULD NEVER HAVE BEEN HIRED, ARE HIRED.

Any of you guys familiar with the term Affirmative Action?

what ya gettin at

yup... affirmative action is bogus. and no... taking that stance is not racist

 

[delusional]

Minn will have to interview a black coaching canidate. You can't have it one way for one race/religion/sex then another way for everyone else. That would ust look like some white guilt ####.

Personally they need to do away with this crap. Its a waste of resources & time to have to interview someone you have zero intention of hiring.

 

[Alex P Keaton]

The rule is a good idea in theory, but the way it is executed is stupid and discriminatory.

I think it was a bad idea in theory. The fact that it was imposed in a stupid way is nice because I like symmetry.

 

[mr roboto]

I love how the context of the word 'minority' usually means 'black'. I guess they are the only minority.

Yes. Many minorities are overlooked.When was the last time you saw a transgender Philipino head coach? And what about all those coordinators who have been passed up for promotion because they are libertarian ex-Catholic ministers?

The reason we are talking about black candidates is because, by-and-large, they are the largest 'minority' in the NFL. Use the brain.

Oh, you're right. There are no hispanic coaches in the league. And if what you're saying is right, then just say you have to inverview a 'black' candidate.It's people like you who give boards like this a bad rep. Everything is so 'black and white' with you.

Read carefully. You're the one who started getting all offended here.Leslie Fraizer is black. A majority of the non-white coaches in the NFL are black. I never said 'minority = black'. I never denied that there were other races either. I never said they only have to interview a black candidate and can skip the other racial minorities.

I'm in favor of the rule to a certain degree. Take a breath and read. I was just having a little fun.

 

[CalBear]

No Sarcasm here. It is a serious question. I work for a large fire department. We hire minorities in what is called "AFFIRMATIVE ACTION". It is a rule where basically there are quotas in hiring. You have to have say 2 women, 2 blacks, 1 hispanic in a recruit class of 30 where the other 24 are white. So basically in a job where you want to have the BEST firemen for YOU AS THE PUBLIC, you have the ones of politically correct ethnicity and gender. I am not saying the minorities are any less skilled as the white guys, but I am saying because of Affirmative Action some people that SHOULD NEVER HAVE BEEN HIRED, ARE HIRED.

And because of racism, some people that should never have been hired, are hired, as should be obvious from the NFL coaching ranks.