The Rooney Rule

[Ivan]

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.

Right on the money. The Rooney Rule is far from perfect but was needed to push owners to at least start considering coaching candidates who weren't getting any looks because they aren't on the inside. In another 10 years it may not be needed any more.

 

[Fencer]

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.

Newsome must surely also be one of the best former players in the role.

That's always how it starts. The first blacks in are disproportionately former players. I believe the first two black managers in baseball were Frank Robinson and Maury Wills, both of whom were good players. And the first Hispanic one was Davey Lopes. But if you look at the managers whose playing careers ended in college or the minors, I bet they'd still be overwhelmingly white.

And when was the ridiculous Al Campanis quote? Early 1980s? Amazing, given that he was a Dodger exec lifer, that Robinson and Wills both played for the Dodgers (Robinson only briefly), and that Jim Gilliam would have been Walter Alston's successor as Dodger manager rather than Tommy Lasorda if he hadn't died much too young.

 

[alamo]

As big (or more) an impact is the Minority Coaching Fellowship, which helps build a talent pool from HC candidates. It goes no good to interview someone who hasn't the credentials.

http://www.nfl.com/news/story/09000...-coaching-fellowship-attracts-83-participants

Otis Smith was in this program though it looks like he didn't go very far.

 

[convertedpatsfan]

Been away a few days but wanted to clarify a few things.

First, I mentioned Tomlin as a guy who benefited from the Rooney Rule. In fact, he was not, as the Steelers first interviewed Ron Rivera, thus satisfying the condition. However, this was one of the few instances I could find of any team interviewing more than one minority candidate.

For those who would argue it's not necessary, I would ask why so many job positions only do the bare minimum when interviewing minorities. Maybe there aren't enough minority candidates. Maybe the timing doesn't work for there to be more than one. But time after time, position after position, the bare minimum is met and nothing more. After a while, people ask questions.

Racism isn't the same as tampering, but they're similar in the sense that it's hard to detect, and only the most moronic individuals spout it out in public. It's hidden behind closed doors now, and sometimes people aren't even aware of any biases they may have. They may not even consider themselves racist, but their decisions prove a bias.

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.

Art Rooney III said Tomlin wasn't high on their radar. Maybe other teams had him as a hot candidate, but the Steelers didn't. The only other team to interview Tomlin that I could find was the Dophins, who chose Cam Cameron instead.

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.

I disagree. Guys get missed all the time. Think about the amount of time, energy, and money that goes into scouting players. And guys slip through the cracks all the time. A guy like Brady drops to the 6th. A guy like Jules goes to the 7th. A guy like Welker doesn't get drafted at all. Lots of players get missed despite all of the resources that go into finding them.

How much time, energy, and money goes into finding a coach compared to the draft? It's a fraction. It's miniscule. It's nothing. And you think teams are going to do a good job of rooting out the top prospects?

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

I hear that a lot. There's some evidence out there to suggest it has a profound effect on hiring, as minority hires went from 2 to 7 within 3 years of implementation. And then there's some evidence out there to suggest it has no effect, as recent hiring practices haven't shown a continued effect.

So there's a chance I'm wrong. There's also a chance you're wrong.

But what exactly is the harm?

Don't get me wrong, there are rule implementations that cause great harm, or huge change, and unintended consequences. Things like Affirmative Action are terrible because they can actually affect performance and work as racism by quota. They hurt qualified candidates for having a different specified skin colour.

But this? This is 3 hours in a day. This is nothing. The actual "harm" is so incredibly minimal, I don't understand why anyone would be so against it.

If you were going to interview 5 candidates, interview 6. If you were going to interview 2 candidates, interview 3. If you're the Cleveland Browns, history shows you don't know what the **** you're doing with hiring anyways so why not bring in someone you normally wouldn't?

There's just so little potential harm with the Rooney Rule that I find it amazing how spirited some of the arguments against it are.

I will concede that it may be pointless, but in the grand scheme of things, it really is very little to ask of teams and owners, and in fact, is something they should be doing anyways on their own.

 

[YOUGOTMOSSED]

I disagree. Guys get missed all the time. Think about the amount of time, energy, and money that goes into scouting players. And guys slip through the cracks all the time. A guy like Brady drops to the 6th. A guy like Jules goes to the 7th. A guy like Welker doesn't get drafted at all. Lots of players get missed despite all of the resources that go into finding them.

How much time, energy, and money goes into finding a coach compared to the draft? It's a fraction. It's miniscule. It's nothing. And you think teams are going to do a good job of rooting out the top prospects?

Sure, some guys get missed and perhaps don't get a fair opportunity but I question whether they get passed over due to race.
Patriots' success is probably largely attributable not only to Kraft being smart enough to hire a coach who was experienced and knows what's he's doing but also to Kraft having enough sense not to try to micromanage a coach like this.
Most owners are probably not real fans of the teams they own. They're mostly just bullsh*t businessmen with egos the size of Jupiter who would never consider hiring a coach who isn't 100% under their thumb. I don't think a "Rooney rule" will do owners like this any good.