NFL to propose to improve a team's draft position if it hires a person of color as HC or GM

[Triumph]

There’s that annoying little thing called the constitution and the fact that we are a republic and the UNITED STATES of America getting in the way of your beliefs.

Thank you.

He and his own can pack up and move. Canada and Mexico have roads.

 

[Ring 6]

My Ding-A-Ring My Ding-A-Ring I want you to play with My Ding-A-Ring

Very mod-like of you.

 

[lancerman]

There’s that annoying little thing called the constitution and the fact that we are a republic and the UNITED STATES of America getting in the way of your beliefs.

Which has nothing to do with anything. Nobody is arguing that we aren’t a Republic. However we are a Republic that doesn’t have proportional representation due to issues like gerrymandering

I know these concepts are difficult for you to understand because they are inconvenient for your world view and your brain which has long since rotted no longer has the capacity to keep two separate concepts apart. So you have my sympathy. However, I implore you to seek help and check yourself into the nearest retirement home where you can be taken care of so you don’t have to trip all over yourself here.

 

[Ring 6]

Which has nothing to do with anything. Nobody is arguing that we aren’t a Republic. However we are a Republic that doesn’t have proportional representation due to issues like gerrymandering

A) of course we have proportionate representation. It’s just in the proportion the founding fathers called for rather than you.
B) You clearly have no idea what gerrymandering is.

I know these concepts are difficult for you to understand because they are inconvenient for your world view and your brain which has long since rotted no longer has the capacity to keep two separate concepts apart. So you have my sympathy. However, I implore you to seek help and check yourself into the nearest retirement home where you can be taken care of so you don’t have to trip all over yourself here.

The typical response of someone who has no clue what they are talking about is to make an ad hominem attack on the person who knows more because they can’t argue honestly. Congrats you aced that one.

For fun please explain
1) What you think it means that we are a republic of the UNITED STATES vis-a-vis proportionate representation
2) why you think gerrymandering would affect proportional representation in the UNITED STATES

this should be entertaining.

 

[TB_Helmet]

A) of course we have proportionate representation. It’s just in the proportion the founding fathers called for rather than you.
B) You clearly have no idea what gerrymandering is.

The typical response of someone who has no clue what they are talking about is to make an ad hominem attack on the person who knows more because they can’t argue honestly. Congrats you aced that one.

For fun please explain
1) What you think it means that we are a republic of the UNITED STATES vis-a-vis proportionate representation
2) why you think gerrymandering would affect proportional representation in the UNITED STATES

this should be entertaining.

@Wordsmyth see

 

[lancerman]

A) of course we have proportionate representation. It’s just in the proportion the founding fathers called for rather than you.
B) You clearly have no idea what gerrymandering is.

The typical response of someone who has no clue what they are talking about is to make an ad hominem attack on the person who knows more because they can’t argue honestly. Congrats you aced that one.

For fun please explain
1) What you think it means that we are a republic of the UNITED STATES vis-a-vis proportionate representation
2) why you think gerrymandering would affect proportional representation in the UNITED STATES

this should be entertaining.

1. The founding fathers did not envision a scenario where a state like Wisconsin which was practically empty existed alongside a massively populated New York and each voter would count nearly 300x more than a New Yorker went it came to proportional weight in representation in Congress and Presidential elections. Nothing close to that scenario existed.

2. the founding fathers didn’t envision a scenario where a state would draw up a congressional district like this....



or this



To ensure certain parties would win.

A Republic is meant to be representative. Both those concepts undermine representation

3. Your ignorance of basic civics is only outdone by your horrendous misunderstanding of football

 

[PatsFanSince74]

i'm one of the few who supported this. Here's why.

First, there's no direct penalty for not doing it.

Second, if you make a bad choice, it's going to hurt your franchise. That means it just encourages a team to look really hard at minority HC or GM candidates in a league with a high percentage of players who are minorities. I don't have a problem with that.

Third. Except in very rare cases, moving up a few slots in the draft isn't going to make or break a franchise...Ryan Leaf or Andrew Luck anyone? But picking a bad HC or GM...could set a team back for years.

 

[Ring 6]

1. The founding fathers did not envision a scenario where a state like Wisconsin which was practically empty existed alongside a massively populated New York and each voter would count nearly 300x more than a New Yorker went it came to proportional weight in representation in Congress and Presidential elections. Nothing close to that scenario existed.

Of course they did. They were verbose about the importance of states rights and not allowing large population centers to control the entire country.
It’s kinda like their main basic concept in fact.
NY has less than 4x the population of Wisconsin not 300 times. Ny had 27 reps in the house to 8 from Wisconsin
Now let’s test your theory that the founding fathers never envisioned this because nothing like it existed.
In the first house of reps Virginia had 10 delegates and Delaware and RI each had 1. So when they made the rules there were larger differences than what you cite, and guess what they created a senate with equal representation for each state. Enjoy your crow.

2. the founding fathers didn’t envision a scenario where a state would draw up a congressional district like this....

View attachment 27379

or this

View attachment 27380

To ensure certain parties would win.

You are claiming that gerrymandering causes disproportionate representation. This is mind numbingly wrong because no matter how you draw lines of districts every voter is represented.

A Republic is meant to be representative. Both those concepts undermine representation

The UNITED STATES of America is meant to have representation both by national
Populace and by states. This is why there is a senate and a house. Duh

3. Your ignorance of basic civics is only outdone by your horrendous misunderstanding of football

It’s funny but in one post I just made you look like an idiot because each factual item you posted is 100% wrong and you still throw insults. You literally just insulted yourself.

 

[BaconGrundleCandy]

Here's a radical proposal, how about putting the 32 best people in charge of franchises even in the (admittedly highly unlikely) circumstance that exactly 0 or them -- or exactly 32 of them -- are black.

Already black head coaches are facing some backlash that they are pity hires or affirmative action hires, even when they're very highly qualified. can we maybe not make that worse for them in a misguided effort to legislate opportunity by forcing outcomes?

The first part of your post is naive at best. When, in the history of civilization, have humans done the right thing? I'm sorry but that's a joke, no? Considering a sentence later you admitted how unlikely it is? More like impossible, esp when it's rich, ignorant billionaires making the decision.

Regarding your 2nd paragraph, maybe not as bad? I'd rather be hired and than not.

What's worse being hired and given a chance or not? Not a hard decision.

 

[Ring 6]

1. The founding fathers did not envision a scenario where a state like Wisconsin which was practically empty existed alongside a massively populated New York and each voter would count nearly 300x more than a New Yorker went it came to proportional weight in representation in Congress and Presidential elections. Nothing close to that scenario existed.

2. the founding fathers didn’t envision a scenario where a state would draw up a congressional district like this....

View attachment 27379

or this

View attachment 27380

To ensure certain parties would win.

A Republic is meant to be representative. Both those concepts undermine representation

3. Your ignorance of basic civics is only outdone by your horrendous misunderstanding of football

By the way it’s just fun to also point out that the Texas district 2 that you cite has cited the same way before and after redistricting so “to ensure certain parties win” is another case of you being WRONG.

 

[BaconGrundleCandy]

Of course they did. They were verbose about the importance of states rights and not allowing large population centers to control the entire country.
It’s kinda like their main basic concept in fact.
My has less than 4x the population of Wisconsin not 300 times. Ny had 27 reps in the house to 8 from Wisconsin
Now let’s test your theory that the founding fathers never envisioned this because nothing like it existed.
In the first house of reps Virginia had 10 delegates and Delaware and RI each had 1. So when they made the rules there were larger differences than what you cite, and guess what they created a senate with equal representation for each state. Enjoy your crow.

You are claiming that gerrymandering causes disproportionate representation. This is mind numbingly wrong because no matter how you draw lines of districts every voter is represented.



The UNITED STATES of America is meant to have representation both by national
Populace and by states. This is why there is a senate and a house. Duh


It’s funny but in one post I just made you look like an idiot because each factual item you posted is 100% wrong and you still throw insults. You literally just insulted yourself.

You have multiple accounts arguing both sides of the topic at hand.

 

[iapatsfan]

i'm one of the few who supported this. Here's why.

First, there's no direct penalty for not doing it.

Second, if you make a bad choice, it's going to hurt your franchise. That means it just encourages a team to look really hard at minority HC or GM candidates in a league with a high percentage of players who are minorities. I don't have a problem with that.

Third. Except in very rare cases, moving up a few slots in the draft isn't going to make or break a franchise...Ryan Leaf or Andrew Luck anyone? But picking a bad HC or GM...could set a team back for years.

Why should a team be "encouraged to look at minority candidates"? Why would race be a factor at all?

 

[PatsFanSince74]

1. The founding fathers did not envision a scenario where a state like Wisconsin which was practically empty existed alongside a massively populated New York and each voter would count nearly 300x more than a New Yorker went it came to proportional weight in representation in Congress and Presidential elections. Nothing close to that scenario existed.

2. the founding fathers didn’t envision a scenario where a state would draw up a congressional district like this....

View attachment 27379

or this

View attachment 27380

To ensure certain parties would win.

A Republic is meant to be representative. Both those concepts undermine representation

3. Your ignorance of basic civics is only outdone by your horrendous misunderstanding of football

1) That was the exact and expressed intent of the founders. The southern states were concerned that they would be overwhelmed by northern states with large cities like NY, Phila and Boston. So they conceived the idea of two senators from every state, no matter what it's size (and, btw, the senators were elected by the state legislatures, not the people for many, many years) and an electoral college which would give them more equal footing with their larger northern neighbors....kind of one of the reasons for the Civil War, actually. In fact, the founders didn't even want "ordinary people" voting for the President...only white, land owners. Read the Federalist Papers.

Gerrymandering is a separate issue. It is a matter of political "convenience" that has benefited the left and the right over the years, depending on the time and the location.

 

[Ring 6]

1. The founding fathers did not envision a scenario where a state like Wisconsin which was practically empty existed alongside a massively populated New York and each voter would count nearly 300x more than a New Yorker went it came to proportional weight in representation in Congress and Presidential elections. Nothing close to that scenario existed.

2. the founding fathers didn’t envision a scenario where a state would draw up a congressional district like this....

View attachment 27379

or this

View attachment 27380

To ensure certain parties would win.

A Republic is meant to be representative. Both those concepts undermine representation

3. Your ignorance of basic civics is only outdone by your horrendous misunderstanding of football

Free to read, will teach you a lot
The Complete Federalist Papers < 1786-1800 < Documents < American History From Revolution To Reconstruction and beyond

 

[Ring 6]

1) That was the exact and expressed intent of the founders. The southern states were concerned that they would be overwhelmed by northern states with large cities like NY, Phila and Boston. So they conceived the idea of two senators from every state, no matter what it's size (and, btw, the senators were elected by the state legislatures, not the people for many, many years) and an electoral college which would give them more equal footing with their larger northern neighbors....kind of one of the reasons for the Civil War, actually. In fact, the founders didn't even want "ordinary people" voting for the President...only white, land owners. Read the Federalist Papers.

Gerrymandering is a separate issue. It is a matter of political "convenience" that has benefited the left and the right over the years, depending on the time and the location.

But gerrymandering was listed as a method of disproportionate representation which regardless of your opinion about gerrymandering it’s certainly not that.

 

[PatsFanSince74]

Why should a team be "encouraged to look at minority candidates"? Why would race be a factor at all?

Because minorities are disproportionately represented in the HC and GM offices in relation to those playing the game. Worth taking a look to see if there isn't some systemic bias against them.

As I said in my post, the franchise can't afford to make a mistake in hiring at that level...so it just suggests that NFL teams look at the pipeline among Assistants, etc.

No one is making anyone do anything. There are no "quotas," just the idea that franchises should look at a broad universe of potential candidates. I really don't have an issue with encouraging that.

 

[iapatsfan]

Because minorities are disproportionately represented in the HC and GM offices in relation to those playing the game. Worth taking a look to see if there isn't some systemic bias against them.

As I said in my post, the franchise can't afford to make a mistake in hiring at that level...so it just suggests that NFL teams look at the pipeline among Assistants, etc.

No one is making anyone do anything. There are no "quotas," just the idea that franchises should look at a broad universe of potential candidates. I really don't have an issue with encouraging that.

"Looking at a broad universe of potential candidates" is not the same as being encouraged to look at minority candidates specifically.

 

[PatsFanSince74]

Free to read, will teach you a lot
The Complete Federalist Papers < 1786-1800 < Documents < American History From Revolution To Reconstruction and beyond

I didn't say there wasn't a vigorous debate. The Electoral College and a Senate selected by state legislatures was a compromise.

 

[Ring 6]

I didn't say there wasn't a vigorous debate. The Electoral College and a Senate selected by state legislatures was a compromise.

But it is what our system is based upon.

 

[BaconGrundleCandy]

Why should a team be "encouraged to look at minority candidates"? Why would race be a factor at all?

We wouldn't have seen so many unqualified white people get an interview, a job, a 2nd chance, a 3rd chance if race wasn't involved.

Of course race is factored in.

I'm sure Caldwell is fine being replaced by Patricia (who hasn't exactly looked good or average)
Caldwell btw has the highest winning % in Lions history I believe or is second all-time and came off back to back 9-7 seasons.

Jon Gruden has a 510 winning % for some context.

Race is overwhelmingly factored in and the results are a joke for a league overwhelmingly black.