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

[neuronet]

"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.

No, you did not say that in the post to which I responded. You (ironically) said people are stupid for bringing up Tomlin, and sarcastically said "It's not like they knew they wanted him", suggesting he was high on the list. Both false. He was not high on the list, he on paper didn't look like a great fit because he was used to 4-3 and they wanted 3-4 (I said this not you, please try to keep up with me these are simpleton-level ideas I'm throwing at you). But because of the Rooney rule, they had a list of a dozen minorities that they were vetting, he was on that list, that's how he ended up on the list.

I'm on your ignore list? Right. I wish, but you can't resist trying to get the last word. Please, stop embarassing yourself with your attempts to outwit me ya' anencephalic redneck.

 

[Ring 6]

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.

Yeah whatever.

 

[convertedpatsfan]

Just to oversimplify things (since this is such a simple subject!), prior to the Rooney Rule, 6% of coaches were minorities. After the Rooney Rule, 22% were.

Does that mean we hired 16% more minorities even if they were inferior candidates? No, it just means the mandatory additional exposure opened up some new candidates for owners to decide upon.

And for those who think the Rooney Rule is no longer necessary, only 6% of college coaches are minorities. If you don't think race is still very much an issue, just look at all the articles on Peyton Hillis being the first "white" back to run for 1,000 yards in a while

 

[Snake Eyes]

Just to oversimplify things (since this is such a simple subject!), prior to the Rooney Rule, 6% of coaches were minorities. After the Rooney Rule, 22% were.

Does that mean we hired 16% more minorities even if they were inferior candidates? No, it just means the mandatory additional exposure opened up some new candidates for owners to decide upon.

And for those who think the Rooney Rule is no longer necessary, only 6% of college coaches are minorities. If you don't think race is still very much an issue, just look at all the articles on Peyton Hillis being the first "white" back to run for 1,000 yards in a while

While there has been an increase you cannot say for sure that it has been due to the Ronney rule unless you have a time machine and can obersve an alternate reality. I wouldnt be surprised if it had an effect but it's a trap to confuse correlation with causation.

 

[convertedpatsfan]

While there has been an increase you cannot say for sure that it has been due to the Ronney rule unless you have a time machine and can obersve an alternate reality. I wouldnt be surprised if it had an effect but it's a trap to confuse correlation with causation.

I agree, it's virtually impossible to make any type of conclusion, especially with the small sample sizes available.

Having said that much, 6% of NFL head coaches were minorities before the rule, 22% after. 6% of college head coaches are minorities, which corresponds with the NFL number, except there is no similar type of rule.

No matter what we try to conclude from the numbers, surely the 6% in college is glaring in many, many ways and cannot be explained as easily as the best college coaches just aren't minorities.

And again, those who complain about the rule cannot claim that the rule causes lots of problems or damage or anything like that. At the worst-case scenario, it's a bit of an inconvenience for some owners. Compared to the potential benefits, it's amazing we're still discussing it. I unfortunately see dozens of worse cases of prejudice every year and nobody gets as outraged about those as the venom directed towards the Rooney Rule by some.

 

[mgteich]

Isn't the "real" question whether folks here want the nfl to encourage more black participation in management as coaches, coordinators, position coaches, assistants, and various staff positions?

Many here just don't believe that the nfl should have any such rules and that the owners should not be pushed in any way to be different from the NCAA where 6% of the coaches are black. Looking the other way to the effects of racism is NOT good business for the nfl. It is not good business for the entire nfl when any team excludes black participation or discriminates against blacks. For me, it is that simple.

The Rooney Rule does little. That IS NOT a reason to get rid of it. The rule stands as a statement of nfl policy and nfl intent. Overt racism will not be tolerated by the nfl. The effects of racist behavior will be limited to the degree possible. The nfl has DONE relatively little except make the point many times in different ways. Their agenda is full black participation in coaching and management to the degree possible. I suspect many folks here simply don't share the nfl's agenda. But, then, many fans are from Boston where racism and the effects of racism have been acceptable for many generations.

 

[neuronet]

Isn't the "real" question whether folks here want the nfl to encourage more black participation in management as coaches, coordinators, position coaches, assistants, and various staff positions?

That's a good way to put it. It's not pernicious or complicated.

 

[Ring 6]

Isn't the "real" question whether folks here want the nfl to encourage more black participation in management as coaches, coordinators, position coaches, assistants, and various staff positions?

Many here just don't believe that the nfl should have any such rules and that the owners should not be pushed in any way to be different from the NCAA where 6% of the coaches are black. Looking the other way to the effects of racism is NOT good business for the nfl. It is not good business for the entire nfl when any team excludes black participation or discriminates against blacks. For me, it is that simple.

The Rooney Rule does little. That IS NOT a reason to get rid of it. The rule stands as a statement of nfl policy and nfl intent. Overt racism will not be tolerated by the nfl. The effects of racist behavior will be limited to the degree possible. The nfl has DONE relatively little except make the point many times in different ways. Their agenda is full black participation in coaching and management to the degree possible. I suspect many folks here simply don't share the nfl's agenda. But, then, many fans are from Boston where racism and the effects of racism have been acceptable for many generations.

It would seem that the argument against the Rooney Rule is that 'token' interviews are meaningless and insulting. Whether that is true or not, many jobs are filled after interviewing a number of coordinators, so it at least as some effect in some hirings.
Is it perfect, of course not. Is it pointless and useless, of course not.

 

[Froob]

They should at least allowed a team to remove the interim title off a white head coach. Because it looks really dumb when cowboys have to interview someone else to make Garrett head coach because he's white, while the vikings don't have to for Frazier.

 

[DropKickFlutie]

This thread seems like a microcosm of the debate over general affirmative action policies in society for education or for employment.

I wouldn't be surprised if people's opinions here were consistent with what they felt about these bigger societal policies.

I think it's naive to claim that the United States is past race issues, and that without policies in place everything would be fine. There is deeply ingrained nepotism, or ethnocentrism, or whatever you want to call it, and it doesn't have to be overt to be discriminatory.

Even though it's impossible to prove it, I don't think it's a coincidence that since the Rooney Rule, minorities have had increased coaching opportunities in the NFL. The total list of Black coaches in the 1st post is really stretching it though, since it includes interim coaches and also coaches who aren't employed anymore. The argument about demographics is also weak, when you consider what % of NFL players are Black and compare that proportion to what they are in higher level positions in the sport.

Outside of the Rooney Rule for NFL coaches, look at how there are barely any minority GM's or front office officers in the NFL, and the college game is even worse all across athletic departments and coaching staffs.

The day we no longer need a Rooney Rule, or others like it that should be in the college game, are the day that hacks like Lane Kiffin (and hundreds others like him in the game) stop getting opportunities they never deserved in the first place.

 

[Snake Eyes]

Isn't the "real" question whether folks here want the nfl to encourage more black participation in management as coaches, coordinators, position coaches, assistants, and various staff positions?

Many here just don't believe that the nfl should have any such rules and that the owners should not be pushed in any way to be different from the NCAA where 6% of the coaches are black. Looking the other way to the effects of racism is NOT good business for the nfl. It is not good business for the entire nfl when any team excludes black participation or discriminates against blacks. For me, it is that simple.

The Rooney Rule does little. That IS NOT a reason to get rid of it. The rule stands as a statement of nfl policy and nfl intent. Overt racism will not be tolerated by the nfl. The effects of racist behavior will be limited to the degree possible. The nfl has DONE relatively little except make the point many times in different ways. Their agenda is full black participation in coaching and management to the degree possible. I suspect many folks here simply don't share the nfl's agenda. But, then, many fans are from Boston where racism and the effects of racism have been acceptable for many generations.

I think you need to distinguish between "encouraging more black participation" and tolerating racism, they're very different things.

 

[DropKickFlutie]

I think you need to distinguish between "encouraging more black participation" and tolerating racism, they're very different things.

At the same time, how about distinguishing between overt racism and underlying discrimination.

Tell me, why are there barely any college head coaches or administrative directors who are minorities in college football? This, despite the fact that the majority of college football players are African American.

 

[Snake Eyes]

At the same time, how about distinguishing between overt racism and underlying discrimination.

Tell me, why are there barely any college head coaches or administrative directors who are minorities in college football? This, despite the fact that the majority of college football players are African American.

Why are there so few whites in the NBA? Look at the numbers, there's so few of them, their must be discrimination against them.

Yeah, when you think about it that's a pretty weak argument.

 

[DropKickFlutie]

Why are there so few whites in the NBA? Look at the numbers, there's so few of them, their must be discrimination against them.

Yeah, when you think about it that's a pretty weak argument.

In the NBA there is much more representation by minorities in head coaching and front office positions; it isn't as glaring as the NFL where aside from the Rooney Rule for head coaches, there are barely any minority NFL GM's or college head coaches or directors who aren't white.

 

[Snake Eyes]

In the NBA there is much more representation by minorities in head coaching and front office positions; it isn't as glaring as the NFL where aside from the Rooney Rule for head coaches, there are barely any minority NFL GM's or college head coaches or directors who aren't white.

Yeah, you dodged my point, there are very few white players in the NBA, so therefore they must be discriminated against, right?

Think about the great coaches in NFL history and then tell me how many of them were great or even good players. Are the skillsets required to be a great player the same as those needed to be a great coach? They are not, which is why someone like Singletary and Wayne Gretsky can be great at their sport yet ineffective as a coach.

So, the fact that there are a lot of black players yet not that mnay black coaches is not de facto proof of racism.

If you wanted to make the NFL less insular, as Patchick suggested is the case, I wouldnt have a problem with the Rooney rule if they simply removed the racial component and created a pool like I suggested.

 

[upstater1]

I think you need to distinguish between "encouraging more black participation" and tolerating racism, they're very different things.

Racism, eh?

And you totally cut the words from that definition of racism you provided earlier because you were wrong and realized that your definition of racism doesn't exist. Racism isn't a policy that involves races.

 

[DropKickFlutie]

There are definitely white players who are overlooked in the NBA or NFL, but pro athletes at least have measurables and many games of competition over time against other athletes to allow scouts to generally identify who the best players are.

Coaching and front office position selection is far more vague and imprecise, where there are so few chances to prove oneself compared to being a player that simply having an opportunity is important. Without the Rooney Rule how many Black NFL head coaches would have never even got a shot?

I point out how there are barely any minority college football coaches or directors, because it shows there is a disconnect between how many are in the pro game versus the college game for the same sport, how this is possibly related to the Rooney Rule, and why the Rooney Rule has had an effect on reversing underlying non-overt discrimination.

 

[Snake Eyes]

Coaching and front office position selection is far more vague and imprecise, where there are so few chances to prove oneself compared to being a player that simply having an opportunity is important. Without the Rooney Rule how many Black NFL head coaches would have never even got a shot?

I point out how there are barely any minority college football coaches or directors, because it shows there is a disconnect between how many are in the pro game versus the college game for the same sport, how this is possibly related to the Rooney Rule, and why the Rooney Rule has had an effect on reversing underlying non-overt discrimination.

I've already said, take out the bit about race, and allow coaches who want to interview to go into a pool and they'll have a chance to get interviews. Do that and many minorities will have a foot in the door and the chance to show what they've got, but so will white coaches that don't have the connections. At that point you can have a Mike Tomlin that wows the pants off of a team and gets a chance to rise up but so do other non-minorities. That kind of policy will result in the best talent having more of an opportunity to advance forward.

The funny thing is that my kind of policy ight actually work out better for minorities because they'd be selected at random, where right now only 1 minority candidate has to be interviewed where my random system might generate more than 1 minority.

 

[Snake Eyes]

Racism, eh?

And you totally cut the words from that definition of racism you provided earlier because you were wrong and realized that your definition of racism doesn't exist. Racism isn't a policy that involves races.

racism - Definition of racism at YourDictionary.com

Sorry pal, using race in your policy is racism.

 

[upstater1]

racism - Definition of racism at YourDictionary.com

Sorry pal, using race in your policy is racism.

The evidence is in this very thread that you're a liar. You took a definition and cut off the second half of it so that the part where it said the policy has to be BASED on a doctrine of one race being inferior to another.

In your mind, a bill targeting research on sickle cell anemia in blacks is racist because it's not for whites, for blacks only. Any mention of race in a policy is wrong.