Is it time for the NFL to dump the Rooney rule?

[lamafist]

Are you trying to say that Jewish people don't watch football? Seriously, what makes you think that?

We watch football, sure... but our mothers won't let us play it.

 

[Kontradiction]

We watch football, sure... but our mothers won't let us play it.

Thanks for that. Although, Ari Gold did say that he played some O-Line in his youth.

 

[lamafist]

Yes, that is exactly my point. The national demorgraphics are not irrelevant, as ultimately you would like the percentages to naturally balance out to those demographics. That being said, I think the current disparity is also relevant as it points out the problems with the system, although we can't tell how much of it is the residual effects of a previous era. Eventually there will be a time when it makes sense to do away with the Rooney Rule but I'll leave that up to those that are more intimate with the details of the NFL coaching ranks.

When you say "the problems with the system," are you talking about the NFL's hiring practices, or the system that results in black kids being 10 times more likely to be born into poverty than white kids?

 

[upstater1]

Are you trying to say that Jewish people don't watch football? Seriously, what makes you think that?

As for the baseball comparison, when was the last time you watched NCAA baseball game? How about an NCAA basketball or football game? The economics of the college sport and the baseball draft are exactly why there is a decline in the number of black players. It has nothing to do with culture.

I'm perplexed about your point about the NCAA. Pro ports are infinitely more popular in urban areas than college sports. I do think baseball becoming extinct in urban areas is cultural.

I read recently a study about American Jews and sports. Culturally, it was just not a high priority. Is it ethnic or socioeconomic. Jews as an ethnic group do better financially than others. But it really becomes an impossible question to study at that point because you'd have to compare a subset of white non-Jews to Jews with similar economic backgrounds to see if they treat sports differently, and obviously that's NEVER going to happen.

 

[BSR]

When you say "the problems with the system," are you talking about the NFL's hiring practices, or the system that results in black kids being 10 times more likely to be born into poverty than white kids?

All of the above really. Hard to pull them apart really.

 

[BSR]

I'm perplexed about your point about the NCAA. Pro ports are infinitely more popular in urban areas than college sports. I do think baseball becoming extinct in urban areas is cultural.

I read recently a study about American Jews and sports. Culturally, it was just not a high priority. Is it ethnic or socioeconomic. Jews as an ethnic group do better financially than others. But it really becomes an impossible question to study at that point because you'd have to compare a subset of white non-Jews to Jews with similar economic backgrounds to see if they treat sports differently, and obviously that's NEVER going to happen.

Here is an article that goes into the economics of it: Decline of black baseball players due to game's economics - Apr. 13, 2007

The long and the short of it is that baseball is becoming less popular to poor kids as there is less money being thrown around (scholarships) at the college level. So if you are a kid trying to make it to the pros or even just use your athleticism to get a full boat to college you are going to choose a sport that will allow you to do so. That sport isn't baseball. So with the best athletes funneling to Basketball and Football that popularity continues on down the line to younger kids, which explains why nobody wants to play baseball.

 

[Ring 6]

If you don't understand counterfactual reasoning, it's probably not even worth trying to dumb it down so you'll get it.

LMOA.
Dude, just use words properly and it may be possible to understand what you are trying to say.
Example:

helps highlight the logical geography of the situation.

 

[upstater1]

Here is an article that goes into the economics of it: Decline of black baseball players due to game's economics - Apr. 13, 2007

The long and the short of it is that baseball is becoming less popular to poor kids as there is less money being thrown around (scholarships) at the college level. So if you are a kid trying to make it to the pros or even just use your athleticism to get a full boat to college you are going to choose a sport that will allow you to do so. That sport isn't baseball. So with the best athletes funneling to Basketball and Football that popularity continues on down the line to younger kids, which explains why nobody wants to play baseball.

When you look at grad rates for basketball and football (sub 50%) it makes me really wonder how many of these kids are in it for the college scholarship.

This isn't a study though, it's one guy's conjecture. I would imagine that you'd need to look at basketball versus baseball full scholarship before coming to the conclusions he does. I don't know how many schools have baseball teams but I'd imagine it's about equal to basketball, about 300. Now, all of those D1 bball schools DO NOT give full scholarships. The Ivy League, the Colonial league and several others do not. So let's say 250 of the 300 do. I don't know how many do in baseball, but I do know that the top leagues all give full scholarships for every single player. And the top leagues are about 60 of the BCS schools. They are actually contractually bound to give full scholarships. So, you have 25 players on a baseball team, 13 on a basketball team. I have a hard time buying his argument about college, especially since it's so much harder to make money in the NBA than it is in baseball. If you check out average length of career versus employment opportunities in minor leagues, baseball has it over basketball.

I do buy his argument about there being more international competition. That's really why it's harder to make it in baseball. Football and basketball are still dominated by Americans, where as baseball is less dominated. Again, it's a cultural thing that baseball is the #2 sport in Central America. It could have been anything else.

 

[neuronet]

LMOA.
Dude, just use words properly and it may be possible to understand what you are trying to say.
Example:

helps highlight the logical geography of the situation.

So now you cannot understand metaphor either? Ok, so metaphors and counterfactual reasoning is out. I'll post the rest of my post phonetically so you don't have to reed tha inglush langwidg aneemoor.

 

[Fahrenhype]

Let's check the facts...

Ken Whisenhunt and Russ Grimm were frontrunners for the job originally, not Tomlin. Tomlin was one of an original pool of a dozen minority applicants that they would not have otherwise considered that were pointed out to Rooney as they prepared for the interview process. Tomlin was an unlikely candidate as he came from a 4-3 defense and Pitt wanted to stick with 3-4, so this was a serious concern.

Your comprehension skills are abysmal. What I said has nothing to do with Grimm or Whisenhunt's qualifications or lack thereof (notice that I didn't mention either of them at all?). The Steelers were never going to disrespect or skirt around a rule named after their founder by interviewing someone who didn't merit genuine consideration.

That is a stark contrast to the situation in Miami where any coach black or white not named "Jim Harbaugh" stood absolutely zero chance of replacing the current coach who had not even been fired yet. If the Dolphins didn't comply and have a monetary fine heading their way, than it is justified. But it is hilarious to think any interview they would have conducted would have been anything other than a sham. You'd think people would have more integrity than agreeing to be a puppet used to circumvent a rule designed to make sure qualified candidates get a shot at open positions. Then again, maybe not.

And you're being called stupid because of your lame attempts at race baiting using terms that you would flip out about if altered as needed and aimed in your direction. Sorry if people here aren't dumb enough to fall into the trap and get banned. Good luck trying to be a smart ass from the ignore list.

 

[neuronet]

Your comprehension skills are abysmal. ...

We were talking about the hiring of Tomlin, you sarcastically suggested he was their goal the whole time, which was simply false. As I pointed out they had two others in mind and a pool of about a dozen minority applicants they also put into consideration (Tomlin wasn't high on the list originally because he came from the 4-3 background, but he wowed them in the interview).

I called you out on your ignorance, and now you just repeat your original claim. Check your facts.

I don't mind a good argument, but please you should at least try to keep up I just became dumber having responded to you.

 

[lamafist]

Your comprehension skills are abysmal. What I said has nothing to do with Grimm or Whisenhunt's qualifications or lack thereof (notice that I didn't mention either of them at all?). The Steelers were never going to disrespect or skirt around a rule named after their founder by interviewing someone who didn't merit genuine consideration.

That is a stark contrast to the situation in Miami where any coach black or white not named "Jim Harbaugh" stood absolutely zero chance of replacing the current coach who had not even been fired yet. If the Dolphins didn't comply and have a monetary fine heading their way, than it is justified. But it is hilarious to think any interview they would have conducted would have been anything other than a sham. You'd think people would have more integrity than agreeing to be a puppet used to circumvent a rule designed to make sure qualified candidates get a shot at open positions. Then again, maybe not.

Uh, what?

Your position doesn't seem to make much sense. A sham job interview? The horror! How can we let this abomination stand!?
/sarcasm

Why are you getting so bent out of shape over the notion that someone might interview for a job he has very little chance of getting? As anyone who's ever job-hunted before knows, there's no such thing as a bad job interview.

So maybe he doesn't get the job. He does get his name put out there as a potential head coaching hire, which is a huge boost when there are more HC openings next season. Or maybe the dolphins like him, and want to pitch him to Harbaugh for an assistant HC/quality control position. Worst case, he meets an NFL owner, makes contacts out of a few NFL front-office execs, and gets valuable interview experience.

Refusing that opportunity isn't integrity, it's lunacy. Also, you seem to have an odd notion that the Dolphins would be 'circumventing' the Rooney rule somehow by adhering to it exactly.

What gets me, though, is that, in contrast to how apoplectic you are over the calamity that is a long-shot job interview, you don't seem at all bothered by the notion that for many years, the NFL has had a multitude of talented, qualified minority position coaches who weren't getting the opportunities to advance up the ladder that their white counterparts were.

That is the fact of reality we're talking about that was affecting the careers and lives of real, talented people. How about, after that travesty has been fixed, maybe we'll have time to worry about this confused idea you have about people losing integrity by going on job interviews.

 

[Fahrenhype]

We were talking about the hiring of Tomlin, you sarcastically suggested he was their goal the whole time, which was simply false.

"Genuine interest" and "goal the whole time" are not the same thing at all. You keep reading statements that are not there and launching into diatribes about defensive schemes I never mentioned. All I said was the Steelers were not going to disrespect their namesake rule like another team would. Now I gotta remember not to delete browser cookies so I don't stumble upon your ******ation by accident. Keep fighting the good fight against somebody dumb enough to fall for your trolling. Maybe you should try wasting the keystrokes on a Colts forum if you're looking for "ig'nant crackas" or whatever grammatical abomination you're searching for since you're not having a lot of success with it here.

 

[BSR]

When you look at grad rates for basketball and football (sub 50%) it makes me really wonder how many of these kids are in it for the college scholarship.

This isn't a study though, it's one guy's conjecture. I would imagine that you'd need to look at basketball versus baseball full scholarship before coming to the conclusions he does. I don't know how many schools have baseball teams but I'd imagine it's about equal to basketball, about 300. Now, all of those D1 bball schools DO NOT give full scholarships. The Ivy League, the Colonial league and several others do not. So let's say 250 of the 300 do. I don't know how many do in baseball, but I do know that the top leagues all give full scholarships for every single player. And the top leagues are about 60 of the BCS schools. They are actually contractually bound to give full scholarships. So, you have 25 players on a baseball team, 13 on a basketball team. I have a hard time buying his argument about college, especially since it's so much harder to make money in the NBA than it is in baseball. If you check out average length of career versus employment opportunities in minor leagues, baseball has it over basketball.

I do buy his argument about there being more international competition. That's really why it's harder to make it in baseball. Football and basketball are still dominated by Americans, where as baseball is less dominated. Again, it's a cultural thing that baseball is the #2 sport in Central America. It could have been anything else.

According to the NCAA D1 manual:

15.5.4 Baseball Limitations. There shall be an annual limit of 11.7 on the value of financial aid awards (equivalencies) to counters and an annual limit of 27 on the total number of counters in baseball at each institution.
(Adopted: 4/26/07 effective 8/1/08)

So it would seem impossible for colleges to be mandated to give everyone a full scholarship as you describe since they are limited to an equivalency of 11.7. The limitations on Basketball and Football are 13 and 85 respectively. The author's arguments therefore, in general seem to make sense.

As for these being cultural bias, I think that holds little meaning when you see how these "cultural" biases have changed dramatically over time.

 

[deroc5050]

Singletary was fired and I'm not sure about Studesville's future.

As for the policy, I'm on the fence. I don't know enough about the organizational culture of the NFL to comment on why the league thought this policy was necessary.

Well the league is mostly owned by rich white old people. And old white people tend to be a little more.. umm.. not known for there compassion towards blacks. Now most likely this is a non issue in reality.. but the NFL clearly has a huge vested belief that perception is 90% of reality.. Spy gate is a clear example of this.

 

[Snake Eyes]

No, I don't think the Rooney Rule will wipe away the effects of slavery. Know why? Because I don't believe that the effect of slavery on African Americans could possibly be wiped away in our lifetimes or the next.

First off, let's get one thing prefectly clear: the notion of a "color blind" society where everyone really gets treated equally is a fairy tale. Racism has existed in every civilization in which two races have coexisted. There are ethnic struggles still being fought a millennia after they were started. In areas that lack the genetic diversity for classic our-color-vs-their-color racism, people divide themselves into clans or other sub-groups of us and them for the sake of forming prejudices.

So I'm really not interested in hearing more of this nonsense about how the Rooney Rule perpetuates "racism" by operating on racial lines. Racism existed before the Rooney Rule, it exists now, and it will exist for the foreseeable future. Any argument that pretends otherwise doesn't interest me, because it doesn't have anything to do with the real world we live in.

Are you serious? Give people an incentive to categorize themselves differently and you'll find they do, it's not rocket science.

How much black/white tension do you think there is on the Patriots? BB doesnt treat players differently based on their race, their fate is in their own hands as players and that's what determines their success, not their ancestor's history, but if you make it about that then that's what you'll get.

It's also funny that you want to categorize people based on race because "it exists now, and it will exist for the foreseeable future", you do realize that you've essentially set an impossible standard, because as long as there's any racism anywhere in society we still have to have your race based programs, Obama presidency or not.

 

[PatsChamp88]

It's always time to dump a rule that should never have been there in the first place.

Agreed....

 

[Snake Eyes]

So if you really want the racial demographics of pro sports to resemble the nation's demographics, you're going to have to work to get the average black and latino kids the same level of opportunity enjoyed by the average white kid. Of course, for that to happen, you need to deal with the fact the grossly disparate ratio of minority children being born into poverty vs. white children.

1 - Why do the demographics across the nation need to be the same in a specific field? Indians own convenience stores and Subways at a high higher rate than their numbers in the population, Jews have a disproportionate representation as doctors, lawyers, and accountants, and Italians have a higher representation as auto mechanics, so what? It's called freedom, and there are no legal barriers preventing anyone to go into a field of their chosing, there is no problem in that area that needs fixing.

2 - If you want to lessen the numbers of minorites in poverty there are 2 places where change is needed, government and culture. Giving a welfare mother additional money if no father is at home simply creates a financial incentive for their father not to be there, children being raised on 1 parent households will do worse then those where both parent is present. So, if government policy stopped making things worse minorities would be better off. That's just 1 example.

Next, you can stop teaching them to be victims in public schools and teach them math and English. Ebonics doesnt help get you many jobs in the real world, it simply limits you, just as if one would be limited if one only spoke in an incredibly thick Southern drawl.

As far as culture goes, see Chris Rock for his criticisms of the black community, if a culture doesn't value academic advancement and the delay of one's gratification they will remain poor, I can't fix that.

So, we could go and on about things that will cause real and substantial change and will substantially improve the lives of minorities, unlike this Rooney nonsense, but if they're self-sufficient they wont need to vote for politicans in your party to provide for them. You need them to remain poor.

 

[upstater1]

1 - Why do the demographics across the nation need to be the same in a specific field? Indians own convenience stores and Subways at a high higher rate than their numbers in the population, Jews have a disproportionate representation as doctors, lawyers, and accountants, and Italians have a higher representation as auto mechanics, so what? It's called freedom, and there are no legal barriers preventing anyone to go into a field of their chosing, there is no problem in that area that needs fixing.

2 - If you want to lessen the numbers of minorites in poverty there are 2 places where change is needed, government and culture. Giving a welfare mother additional money if no father is at home simply creates a financial incentive for their father not to be there, children being raised on 1 parent households will do worse then those where both parent is present. So, if government policy stopped making things worse minorities would be better off. That's just 1 example.

Next, you can stop teaching them to be victims in public schools and teach them math and English. Ebonics doesnt help get you many jobs in the real world, it simply limits you, just as if one would be limited if one only spoke in an incredibly thick Southern drawl.

As far as culture goes, see Chris Rock for his criticisms of the black community, if a culture doesn't value academic advancement and the delay of one's gratification they will remain poor, I can't fix that.

So, we could go and on about things that will cause real and substantial change and will substantially improve the lives of minorities, unlike this Rooney nonsense, but if they're self-sufficient they wont need to vote for politicans in your party to provide for them. You need them to remain poor.

Aye yaye yaye senor!

 

[Brock Samson]

You can dump the rule when the number of black coaches correlates to the number of black players. But then what do you do when the number begins to decline? To be quite honest, I expect that it would, otherwise thise thread would never have been posted.