The Rooney Rule

OT...The Rooney Rule


Hey guys and gals.

Here in England, due to what some are saying is under-representation of ethnic minorities at management level in soccer, there is talk of us getting a 'Rooney Rule' brought in.

I just have a few questions on how this thing works in reality.

Has it really helped bring black coaches through or was that happening anyway? Are you stuck in a situation where you have to call up a black guy to interview for no reason, even when you know your white guy is getting the job? Are you stuck with some black coaches bleating they never get the job, and that is racism? Do clubs feel the need to employ black coaches to stop that accusation, even when there is a better white guy left on the shelf?

This is a huge debate in England, and these questions are continually getting raised when discussing the issue.

Cheers

When a no-chancer black guy gets an interview, he might benefit from that practice at later interviews, when he really does have a chance. That is said to have happened, although I couldn't name a specific example.

More generally, we're seeing some incompetent black head coaches get hired, and that's a GOOD thing. Why? Because if black guys have to be better than white guys to get hired, we don't have equal treatment.

Given how few data points there are, it's tough to say whether the possibly equal, possibly near-equal, but in any case more equal than before treatment of black candidates has the Rooney Rule as a partial cause, or merely shares a cause (general trend to more equality) with the Rooney Rule. There's also the middle possibility that the Rooney Rule does good, merely as pure theater to remind people of the need for equal treatment.

Romeo Crennel, Pepper Johnson, Ivan Fears....

NFL Hall of Famer JimBrown has dedicated most of his life to helping the dispossessed, including inmates, gang members, and needy children. He said two men have distinguished themselves with their shared commitment to humanitarianism: Belichick and Boston Celtics great Bill Russell.

Belichick has visited prisons and gangs with Brown and has financially backed his Amer-I-Can program. In 2006, Belichick surprised Brown at his 70th birthday party in Los Angeles. And when Brown least expected it, he received a gift from Belichick last Christmas.

“I respect Bill, I trust him, and I love him,” Brown said. “There are very few people I can say those things about.”

http://patsfans.com/new-england-patriots/messageboard/threads/jim-brown-on-bill-belichick.64810/

The political forum would have a pretty good debate on if Jim Brown is a race baiter or not so when a guy like him says Bill has done more for black people than Michael Jordan and Tiger Woods put together I'm pretty sure there isn't any racism going on.

As for Kraft he'd kiss Vince's and others sweaty bald heads as often as some people kiss their own children.

The only thing that goes into the hiring process and then the promote from within process is can you do your job.

I think the people who hate the Rooney Rule will point out the imperfections in it, but quite frankly, there are imperfections in pretty much every rule everywhere, from football rules to tax law to legal trials to work policies to every area of life. Sometimes the spirit of a rule gets violated by the technicality of the rule, and it doesn't work as perfectly as we all hope. But it doesn't make it bad.

The Rooney Rule is really really simple. There's no quota in place, there's no preferential treatment for hiring. Basically, all you have to do is bring in a guy you may not have considered, which quite frankly, you should be doing anyways. Spend a few hours with him. That's it. It's not that complicated.

The downside is that you force ownership to lose a few hours interviewing a candidate they weren't considering. But the fact ownership is changing coaches means maybe they should be looking at different candidates.

The potential upsides are numerous, from expanding the search pool for teams to getting exposure to qualified coaches who are flying under the radar for whatever reason to helping prepare minority coaches for future interviews.

Does it work? Well, the Rooney Rule was named after Steelers owner Dan Rooney, so it was fitting that the Steelers made one of the most successful unexpected hires after interviewing Mike Tomlin. Most assumed the job would go to one of the internal candidates, Ken Whisenhunt and Russ Grimm, and even Art Rooney III admits Tomlin was pretty far down on their list when the search began.

As for whether it can prepare candidates even if they don't get the job, we'll see a great example of this twice next year when we face the Jets. Todd Bowles had at least 6 head coaching interviews over the previous 5 seasons before finally landing the Jets job.

So it isn't perfect, but the downside is pretty minimal, while the upside is pretty significant.

I don't know what they're proposing in the UK, so can't really comment on that. But I don't think there's any real harm in bringing in candidates you wouldn't normally consider for a position. That's what should be happening anyways.

Brit patriot said:

Has it really helped bring black coaches through or was that happening anyway? Are you stuck in a situation where you have to call up a black guy to interview for no reason, even when you know your white guy is getting the job? Are you stuck with some black coaches bleating they never get the job, and that is racism? Do clubs feel the need to employ black coaches to stop that accusation, even when there is a better white guy left on the shelf?

Cheers

Click to expand...

The second sentence above is really concerning/telling if people in the Uk are saying that. How would an owner know a white guy was getting the job no matter what? That's why the Rooney Rule was made. So many players and assistant coaches are black but so few are chosen to be head coaches because the same white guys (even those having done a bad job) keep getting rehired

It's a pointless rule. In an ultra competitive environment like the NFL, results matter above virtually everything. More than 2/3's of NFL rosters are made up of black players. I don't see any evidence of, and highly doubt, race is a motivating factor in any hiring decision made at any level by any team in the NFL.
If you're the next Belichick and you happen to be black, you shouldn't have any problem finding a team that will give you a chance.

DropKickFlutie said:

The second sentence above is really concerning/telling if people in the Uk are saying that. How would an owner know a white guy was getting the job no matter what? That's why the Rooney Rule was made. So many players and assistant coaches are black but so few are chosen to be head coaches because the same white guys (even those having done a bad job) keep getting rehired

Click to expand...

Some really interesting replies, but I need to clarify this point.

The way UK management is usually done is that the owners of many clubs know who is getting the job beforehand...hence appointments are made about three days after the last manager gets the chop. Let us say Pelligrini gets fired at Man City. The conversation will have already taken place that Brendan Rodgers (for example) is the man they fancy, and they will have earmarked him before they fire the old guy. Beats weeks of interviews and a club looking like it has no direction.

The arguments then is that they will meet Rodgers but have to think of a black guy to 'look at' to adhere to the rule.

The counterpoint is , as has been made here, it gives them a chance to look at him, and maybe think about him for the future, or a lesser role in the club

Fencer said:

When a no-chancer black guy gets an interview, he might benefit from that practice at later interviews, when he really does have a chance. That is said to have happened, although I couldn't name a specific example...

Click to expand...

Huh? are you indicting your memory? Practically yearly there is an "interim" coach that does good enough to fool a team into hiring him long term. Then if he is white they have to dig up a token black interviewee.

I agree I can't name them off the top of my head if that is what you were saying.

Oh, I've also heard their is a better chance for those tokens to wow in the interview and become assistant coaches and start ion the ladder.

I feel like it's not really needed in today's day and age(in this league). Seems like it's more insulting to be interviewed just to fill a quota. People claim Tomlin was hired this way but he really wasn't as far as I've read he was a hot candidate.

Normally, I'd prefer that the best person for the job get it, but the NFL is more of a good old boys network and needed some sort of push.

We wouldn't need this rule if the league wasn't so obsessed with hiring washed up coaches who had some moderate success somewhere at some point. Case in point Jack Del Rio has a head coaching job, its the raiders but still

Normally I don't like social engineering edicts but I think the R Rule is a decent rule. The NFL is a private club and has the right to set its own rules. I know they did this for show but the rule exposes candidates to ownership and their management that they would likely never have talked to because of the connected good ol boys club of insiders that was not not easily accessible by black coaches. Such interviews even if not resulting in an immediate hire lets many in the NFL get to know coaches that they otherwise would never have known. It could result in a hire later on as HCs tend to have short tenures.

In my opinion there was a time when the Rooney Rule was needed. Think back to the nineties and prior to the rule being enacted, for the racial mixture of players (about 75%) versus the racial mixture of head coaches. Same thing goes with black quarterbacks, especially prior to Doug Williams quarterbacking Washington to a Super Bowl victory in the late eighties.

Now there does not seem to be any of that type of ignorance that shut doors for qualified candidates, so the Rooney Rule accomplished its intended purpose - and as a result, has now outlived its usefulness. The exception may be in the front office; I can't think of any non-whites other than GM Ozzie Newsome in Baltimore and Director of Player Personnel Lionel Vital in Atlanta. Similarly there are plenty of women executives in the NFL, but virtually all are on the business side rather than on the football side of operations.

It's a terrible rule that should never have been implemented.

It's been extremely effective at giving middle class white folks a way to signal that they are members of the good thinkers to other middle class white folks. Not so effective at anything else.

There isn't really a problem in Soccer, it's just the coaches who play the race card are ones that have failed multiple times in the past like Paul Ince and John Barnes.

Where as Chris Powell has learned in his craft, had some success and from there got himself a better job. Chris Houghton is decent and has had a few chances around the leagues and Jimmy Floyd Hasselbaink got a lower league job and is learning on the job.

What's needed is more people like Powell/Houghton/Hasselbaink and less like Ince & Barnes.

The Rooney rule isn't really needed in any sport this day in age - if someone is good enough then you'd expect them to get the job no matter what ethnic background they come from.

Brit patriot said:

Hey guys and gals.

Here in England, due to what some are saying is under-representation of ethnic minorities at management level in soccer, there is talk of us getting a 'Rooney Rule' brought in.

I just have a few questions on how this thing works in reality.

Has it really helped bring black coaches through or was that happening anyway? Are you stuck in a situation where you have to call up a black guy to interview for no reason, even when you know your white guy is getting the job? Are you stuck with some black coaches bleating they never get the job, and that is racism? Do clubs feel the need to employ black coaches to stop that accusation, even when there is a better white guy left on the shelf?

This is a huge debate in England, and these questions are continually getting raised when discussing the issue.

Cheers

Click to expand...

Once you get more representation from all walks of life into management, the easier it becomes to hire on merit.

It is pretty clear to me that a lot of talented administrators were locked out before because of the old man's network.

So, a generic discussion about race is clearly going to yield some hires who were underwhelming but who got the job because of certain hiring pressures. But the same can be said about any number of people hired elsewhere as well. I mean, why did Polian's son get a job? It goes both ways.

But at the end of the day, you're better for it because a diverse institution has more flexibility in hiring the right person.

I have no doubt in my mind that many strong candidates have been passed over in the recent past because of race.

I know that Europe doesn't look much at college basketball, but the numbers of white coaches to black coaches is astounding. And generally, the black coaches outperform the white median, as I see it. Meanwhile you see white coaches who failed spectacularly elsewhere get hired again and again and again. It makes you scratch your head. How soon before Steve Lavin of st. John's gets another job. Meanwhile, Tennessee's Cuonzo Martin was tossed after his second year. Yeah he landed on his feet, but now his team is outperforming his old employer.

I definitely think there is bias.

It's not just the NFL or soccer. The company I work for just implemented a "Rooney Rule" equivalent which requires a "diverse" candidate to be interviewed for all jobs openings which are externally posted.

By the way, an inbetween level of racial

lurker1965 said:

Huh? are you indicting your memory? Practically yearly there is an "interim" coach that does good enough to fool a team into hiring him long term. Then if he is white they have to dig up a token black interviewee.

I agree I can't name them off the top of my head if that is what you were saying.

Oh, I've also heard their is a better chance for those tokens to wow in the interview and become assistant coaches and start ion the ladder.

Click to expand...

I'm talking about cases in which it's credibly said that the practice interviews eventually made a difference in a hiring.

Actually, I think one of the examples may have been Romeo Crennel.

Of course, it's never certain what the difference-makers were or weren't; all we have are expressions of opinion. That's one reason I don't have them memorized.

upstater1 said:

Once you get more representation from all walks of life into management, the easier it becomes to hire on merit.

It is pretty clear to me that a lot of talented administrators were locked out before because of the old man's network.

So, a generic discussion about race is clearly going to yield some hires who were underwhelming but who got the job because of certain hiring pressures. But the same can be said about any number of people hired elsewhere as well. I mean, why did Polian's son get a job? It goes both ways.

But at the end of the day, you're better for it because a diverse institution has more flexibility in hiring the right person.

I have no doubt in my mind that many strong candidates have been passed over in the recent past because of race.

I know that Europe doesn't look much at college basketball, but the numbers of white coaches to black coaches is astounding. And generally, the black coaches outperform the white median, as I see it. Meanwhile you see white coaches who failed spectacularly elsewhere get hired again and again and again. It makes you scratch your head. How soon before Steve Lavin of st. John's gets another job. Meanwhile, Tennessee's Cuonzo Martin was tossed after his second year. Yeah he landed on his feet, but now his team is outperforming his old employer.

I definitely think there is bias.

Click to expand...

Many people think -- and I tend to fall into that camp -- that we're at the point as a society where unconscious is a bigger problem than conscious.