Race, the Rooney Rule and the Saints coaching search

[cajuncocoa]

Bill Parcells and the Saints' mutual interest in one another is, by now, no secret.

Coach Sean Payton's suspension for his role in a pay-for-pain bounty program begins Sunday, and the team must soon fill the vacated position. The Rooney Rule, adopted in 2003, requires that a team interview at least one minority candidate for coaching and front office jobs.

Now that New Orleans' courtship of Parcells has become so public, former NFL head coach Herm Edwards says the Saints are out of line with the spirit of the rule if they go ahead and hire Parcells."They're making a mockery of the rule right now," Edwards said.More: http://content.usatoday.com/communities/thehuddle/post/2012/03/race-the-rooney-rule-and-the-saints-coaching-search/1#.T3YC_tUxnjU

[basstapp]

I think the rule is ridiculous, but that just my opinion. The reason the saints are interested in hiring him is because their is a previous relationship. If I were a minority I would want to be interviewed for my skill set and resume, not because they have to fill a token interview.

[cajuncocoa]

I think the rule is ridiculous, but that just my opinion. The reason the saints are interested in hiring him is because their is a previous relationship. If I were a minority I would want to be interviewed for my skill set and resume, not because they have to fill a token interview.
My feelings exactly.

[Hoofbite]

I think this situation is a little bit different than most.

We're talking about a vacancy for a year. How many guys even want to take a job that they will lose no matter how successful they are?

I have mixed opinions on the Rooney Rule.

I think it's generally all for show in practice but provides the opportunity for guys to get league-wide exposure that they otherwise would not get.

Even if a guy is a compliance interview, if he impresses a specific team his name will get out. Teams talk and if a guy comes in and blows the doors off the interview, word will get around.

I've also always thought that tenured, successful coaches should be allowed to be hired without complying.

Superbowl winning coaches aren't flooding the market every year. If you have success and have some trophies to back you up, who is anyone to argue that you are not the best candidate regardless of race?


I think it's kind of ridiculous for Herm to openly call it a "sham" like that.

It's not his call to make regarding if it's a "sham" or not.

Even if he knows he won't get the job, maybe the minority interviewee views it as an opportunity to meet people, get his name out and experience the process.

Whether or not it's a "sham" should be up to the guy being interviewed. I don't think it's fair for anyone in the media to call it a "sham" because maybe some guys would love to take what they can from it and try to use it to their advantage in the future. Now that you've called it a "sham", you've essentially said the guy is wasting his time and may have swayed him from wanting to go.

[DBOY3141]

The rule is a joke anyway.

Most of the time they just go through the motions.

Did anyone have a chance to replace Wade except Garrett?? Hell no.

Did SF want anyone besides Harbaugh??

Enough with political correctness.

[basstapp]

I can understand this rule 20 - 50 years ago, but racism is all quite equal these days. Not saiyng there, are not racists around but the majority of people have no issue with minority coaches or players

[burmafrd]

the Rooney rule was PC PR BS.

And it was too late to mean anything anyway by about 10 years.

So what if a minority gets a interview and is impressive.

Singletary got his HC job basically because he blew the doors off in his interview. And how good a coach was he?

That has happened more than a few times with coaches of all colors.

And this is truly a unique situation. and those whining that there should not be exceptions are morons. There are ALWAYS exceptions to every rule.

And this rule is a joke anyway since the owners almost always know exactly who they want.

[John813]

Rooney rule is BS and should be abolished. Teams will hire the best qualified person to coach their team, no matter of race.

I wonder how Bowles felt going to multiple Head Coaching vacanies just because of this rule?

[Rogah]

I can't stand the Rooney Rule because I think it is a slap in the face to bring in someone for what is clearly nothing more than a complete sham interview.

[Hoofbite]

I can understand this rule 20 - 50 years ago, but racism is all quite equal these days. Not saiyng there, are not racists around but the majority of people have no issue with minority coaches or players

I don't think the issue is about racism per se. I think it's about underrepresentation as a result of inertia from a time when people did consider race.

[AbeBeta]

I don't think the issue is about racism per se. I think it's about underrepresentation as a result of inertia from a time when people did consider race.

Finally, someone bringing intelligent analysis to this thread

[koolaid]

The rooney rule is a joke. Its embarrassing and the NFL should just do away with it.

[The30YardSlant]

I don't think the issue is about racism per se. I think it's about underrepresentation as a result of inertia from a time when people did consider race.

The rule implies that black coaches are less able to get jobs on their own merit and thus require this rule to "even the playing field". It's not only a slap in the face but it is incredibly condescending as most of the minority interviews are done JUST to appeal to this rule and the organization has no intention of ever hiring anyone but their first choice.

Also, this coming season 5 of 32 NFL head coaches will be black (almost 16%). 28% of assistant coaches will be black. African-Americans as a whole make up 12% of the US population. Black coaches are actually overrespresented in the NFL coaching ranks. And spare me the "They make up the majority of players" nonsense. Paying and coaching are completely independent, a good player does not necessarily make a good coach and vice-versa.

[Hoofbite]

The rule implies that black coaches are less able to get jobs on their own merit and thus require this rule to "even the playing field". It's not only a slap in the face but it is incredibly condescending as most of the minority interviews are done JUST to appeal to this rule and the organization has no intention of ever hiring anyone but their first choice.

I've seen this take on it before I think it it's a mischaracterization of the situation.

It's not so much about the black coach being less worthy of a position but about ownership being unwilling to hire a black coach regardless of merit.

That's why the rule exists because there was a time when that was absolutely true.

I think people try to spin the intent of the rule so that the rule appears to be something its not. It isn't about lifting the unqualified black coach to a position he could otherwise not achieve on his own. It's about giving a black coach an opportunity that he otherwise would not have gotten no matter how qualified he was.

And there are some who bring up the idea that ownership wouldn't currently turn down a more qualified black coach but that's not the point. Aside from the fact that nobody even knows for sure on that statement, that statement could be entirely true and that still doesn't qualify as a valid excuse to get rid of the rule.

If the system has been constructed over decades where white coaches hire white assistants who then become future white coaches, you can't just expect things to transform into some utopian situation the moment that hiring only white coaches becomes unacceptable.

Even if race bias was absolutely 100% out of the picture, it would still take years and years to get to a point where things would be as though they would have been had there never been race bias.

Go back however many years and look at the landscape of the NFL. All white coaches, all white coordinators, majority white positional coaches.

If the natural progression of coaching is assumed to run from positional coach > coordinator > head coach, where are the black head coaches going to come from?

If race is 100% out of the picture, black coaches would first have to gain equal footing at the positional level just to have an equal likelihood of moving to the coordinator level and then they would have to gain equal footing at the coordinator level before having an equal opportunity to move to the head coaching level.

How long would that take?


Also, this coming season 5 of 32 NFL head coaches will be black (almost 16%). 28% of assistant coaches will be black. African-Americans as a whole make up 12% of the US population. Black coaches are actually overrespresented in the NFL coaching ranks. And spare me the "They make up the majority of players" nonsense. Paying and coaching are completely independent, a good player does not necessarily make a good coach and vice-versa.

It doesn't have to. All playing has to do is increase probability to coach.

Good or bad coach doesn't matter. So long as playing opens the door to coach the percentage of players does matter.

Why is Ron Rivera the only Latino head coach? 1 guy to represent 16% of the population? I wonder why that is........

Why does the NBA have more black coaches than the NFL? Should be equal right?

[AbeBeta]

The rule implies that black coaches are less able to get jobs on their own merit and thus require this rule to "even the playing field". It's not only a slap in the face but it is incredibly condescending as most of the minority interviews are done JUST to appeal to this rule and the organization has no intention of ever hiring anyone but their first choice.

So before the rule was in place, Fritz Pollard, Art Shell, Dennis Green, Ray Rhodes, Tony Dungy, and Herm Edwards were the only African American coaches that were meritorious enough? In the entire history of the NFL?

That sure would be a nice explanation, but an unlikely one.

[Cajuncowboy]

Simply a stupid rule and it makes a mockery of what Black coaches have accomplished. To bring in a candidate based on race is racist in and of itself. Race should play ZERO part in the hiring process. Mike Tomlim once said that if it weren't for the Rooney rule, he wouldn't have gotten the job at Pittsburgh. Makes no sense since the rule was pushed by the team's president so hence it bears his name.

[AbeBeta]

Mike Tomlim once said that if it weren't for the Rooney rule, he wouldn't have gotten the job at Pittsburgh. Makes no sense since the rule was pushed by the team's president so hence it bears his name.

Actually, if you understand the context, it does make sense. Pittsburg had two outstanding internal candidates in Whisenhunt and Grimm. In most cases of that nature, the team is going to just promote one of them. Pitt was forced to conduct at least one additional interview with a minority applicant. That applicant impressed them and changed their thinking about who to hire.

See how things make sense if you actually give them though, rather than a knee jerk reaction?

[The30YardSlant]

So before the rule was in place, Fritz Pollard, Art Shell, Dennis Green, Ray Rhodes, Tony Dungy, and Herm Edwards were the only African American coaches that were meritorious enough? In the entire history of the NFL?

Nobody is naive enough to believe that, but racial bias was very prevalent over the NFL's first 60 years. It's intellectually dishonest to judge 1972 and 2012 on the same criteria.

[AbeBeta]

Nobody is naive enough to believe that, but racial bias was very prevalent over the NFL's first 60 years. It's intellectually dishonest to judge 1972 and 2012 on the same criteria.

It is intellectually dishonest to suggest that we are talking 1972. Up until 2003 those men I mentioned were the only African American coaches -- with Dungy being one of the glaring examples of a guy who was passed over again and again.

[arglebargle]

When I started watching football, there were NO black QBs in the NFL. There was actual, serious discussion as to whether blacks could play QB in the NFL. University of Alabama still had no black football players. Etc.

This didn't magickally disappear. The Rooney Rule is a reflection of this sort of historical fact. To keep it around a little after it's main intention is no longer needed is not that bad a thing. Whenever that is.

[burmafrd]

When I started watching football, there were NO black QBs in the NFL. There was actual, serious discussion as to whether blacks could play QB in the NFL. University of Alabama still had no black football players. Etc.

This didn't magickally disappear. The Rooney Rule is a reflection of this sort of historical fact. To keep it around a little after it's main intention is no longer needed is not that bad a thing. Whenever that is.

BS. Racist laws or rules should never be used ever.

So what if it takes longer to happen; at least no one would ever be able to say it was because of their color they got the job. Which happens a lot now. Lower qualified minorities are getting jobs everywhere due to racist BS like this.

[The30YardSlant]

It is intellectually dishonest to suggest that we are talking 1972. Up until 2003 those men I mentioned were the only African American coaches -- with Dungy being one of the glaring examples of a guy who was passed over again and again.

So Dungy was being passed over because he is black? Even on a subconcious level, it's difficult for me to buy that NFL franchises were passing incredibly qualified applicants over as late as the late-90s for no other reason than they were black. Winning is too high a priority in this league to let personal bias, if it exists, get in the way.

The number of black players in the league jumped dramatically through the 50s, 60s and 70s until it reached roughly the percentages that exist today in the mid to late 80s. Is it too much of a stretch to say that it wasnt until the 90s that enough former black players had reached the age and experience neccesary for HC gigs to make the comparison to whit coaches valid? For the majority of NFL history there were A LOT more former white players than black, thus meaning more white coaches with more experience.

The average NFL coaching hire is made at the age of 43. A 43 year old in 2003 would have been drafted into the NFL around 1981, when black players made up about 60% of the league. They make up over 75% now. I'd bet a good deal of money that you'll see the number of black head coaches hit double digits within 10 years...I'll also bet the same amount of money that that won't satisfy those who are for the Rooney Rule.

[Rogah]

Why does the NBA have more black coaches than the NFL? Should be equal right?Not necessarily. For whatever reason, the skill set that makes someone a successful NFL coach does not necessarily involve being a former player. While there are a few NBA coaches who never played professionally, there are clearly far fewer than in the NFL.

[Cajuncowboy]

Actually, if you understand the context, it does make sense. Pittsburg had two outstanding internal candidates in Whisenhunt and Grimm. In most cases of that nature, the team is going to just promote one of them. Pitt was forced to conduct at least one additional interview with a minority applicant. That applicant impressed them and changed their thinking about who to hire.

See how things make sense if you actually give them though, rather than a knee jerk reaction?

Actually it doesn't make sense. If They had thought he was qualified then why not interview him initially. You are saying that the Rooney rule (named for their own president) forced them to interview a minority candidate? In other words, it was a set up. They didn't think enough of the practice to do it proactively. That tells you all you need to know about the stupid rule.

We want this rule so we want to be the example.

Any black person worth their salt and self respect should be screaming for the elimination of this rule.

I don't know if you are a black person or not but suppose you are and the company you work for has an opening and it would be a promotion for you and a white candidate. But you are not their prime candidate, the white person is due to his tenure, credentials and experience. But they tell you they are going to interview you because you are Black. How does that make you feel going into the interview?

Obviously they won't tell you that but in the end that's the end result.

[Hoofbite]

Actually it doesn't make sense. If They had thought he was qualified then why not interview him initially. You are saying that the Rooney rule (named for their own president) forced them to interview a minority candidate? In other words, it was a set up. They didn't think enough of the practice to do it proactively. That tells you all you need to know about the stupid rule.

We want this rule so we want to be the example.

Any black person worth their salt and self respect should be screaming for the elimination of this rule.

I don't know if you are a black person or not but suppose you are and the company you work for has an opening and it would be a promotion for you and a white candidate. But you are not their prime candidate, the white person is due to his tenure, credentials and experience. But they tell you they are going to interview you because you are Black. How does that make you feel going into the interview?

Obviously they won't tell you that but in the end that's the end result.

Are you black?

[Cajuncowboy]

Are you black?

No but I have plenty of friends who are and most of them hate the policy.

BTW, the color of ones skin doesn't preclude them from knowing right from wrong.

[Hoofbite]

No but I have plenty of friends who are and most of them hate the policy.

BTW, the color of ones skin doesn't preclude them from knowing right from wrong.

I never even said anything close to it.

I was just pointing out that a white guy probably shouldn't assume that he can tell black people how to think or feel.

[arglebargle]

When the starting line is the same for all, it's a fair race....

[Manwiththeplan]

Black coaches are actually overrespresented in the NFL coaching ranks.

What a completely ridiculous statement. Because African American coaches represent 16% on the NFL coaches and only 12% of the general population, they are overrepresented? Using that logic, then I guess white head coaches are still overrepresented since they only make up 72% of the population, but 84% of NFL HCs

And spare me the "They make up the majority of players" nonsense. Paying and coaching are completely independent, a good player does not necessarily make a good coach and vice-versa.

They do make up the majority of the players and while playing and coaching are two different things and are completely independent, there is a problem. I'd assume most coaches have some kind of playing backround, most likely players who weren't good enough to get a shot at the NFL or played D I or II ball, so you still have to wonder why 1 group of players not good enough to play in the NFL is getting more opportunities to break into the coaching ranks, than another group that isn't good enough.

[Manwiththeplan]

Any black person worth their salt and self respect should be screaming for the elimination of this rule.

Not at all. Yes I'd rather get interviewed based on my own merits, but at the end of the day, I'll take a long shot over no shot at all.

IMO, I don't think NFL owners are racist, but it's all about relationships and who you know and I don't think it's a coincidence that there have been more black coaches since the rule. Owners haven't been forced to hire anyone of any color, yet they have so I can't see why anyone would complain.

[Manwiththeplan]

I don't know if you are a black person or not but suppose you are and the company you work for has an opening and it would be a promotion for you and a white candidate. But you are not their prime candidate, the white person is due to his tenure, credentials and experience. But they tell you they are going to interview you because you are Black. How does that make you feel going into the interview?

And whose to say I can't wow them and get the job? This isn't a scenario where "more qualified white people" are getting passed over for lesser qualified minorities, it's an interview.

And yes it would suck for the guy with the better credintials if he didn't get the promotion, even if the minority never would've gotten the interview, if they weren't a minority, but as long as you are hired based on merit, then you are just being sour.

Almost like Mike Tomlin getting the job over Wisenhut/Grimm, do you think he would care if they only interviewd him because he was Black? As long as he was hired because they believed he was the best candidate, I doubt it.

[Cajuncowboy]

I never even said anything close to it.

I was just pointing out that a white guy probably shouldn't assume that he can tell black people how to think or feel.

Why? A person is a person regardless of their race. Black men are no less of a man than a white man. I think it is the height of ignorance to suggest that in the year 2012 a Black man is incapable of achieving on his own.

[Cajuncowboy]

And whose to say I can't wow them and get the job? This isn't a scenario where "more qualified white people" are getting passed over for lesser qualified minorities, it's an interview.

And yes it would suck for the guy with the better credintials if he didn't get the promotion, even if the minority never would've gotten the interview, if they weren't a minority, but as long as you are hired based on merit, then you are just being sour.

Almost like Mike Tomlin getting the job over Wisenhut/Grimm, do you think he would care if they only interviewd him because he was Black? As long as he was hired because they believed he was the best candidate, I doubt it.

So the Steelers copped to being racist then. That without the "Rooney" rule, they would not have discussed him. What a load of bull crap. They knew they wanted him and were going to hire who they wanted anyway. If you are trying to tell me that they didn't know who they had in their organization and what his credentials were you are bat crap crazy. These people know exactly who they hire. I think it a slap in Tomlin's face to suggest that the only reason he was interviewed was because he was Black. What a freaking insult to Blacks everywhere.

[The30YardSlant]

What a completely ridiculous statement. Because African American coaches represent 16% on the NFL coaches and only 12% of the general population, they are overrepresented? Using that logic, then I guess white head coaches are still overrepresented since they only make up 72% of the population, but 84% of NFL HCs


They actually make up 81% (Ron Rivera is Latino) but yes, statistically white coaches are overrepresented. Asians and hispanics are really the ones who should be griping if we're talking about underrepresentation.


They do make up the majority of the players and while playing and coaching are two different things and are completely independent, there is a problem. I'd assume most coaches have some kind of playing backround, most likely players who weren't good enough to get a shot at the NFL or played D I or II ball, so you still have to wonder why 1 group of players not good enough to play in the NFL is getting more opportunities to break into the coaching ranks, than another group that isn't good enough.

So how many black coaches do there have to be before you're satisfied? 10? 15? 25? At what point do we decide that social justice has been served?

[Manwiththeplan]

So the Steelers copped to being racist then. That without the "Rooney" rule, they would not have discussed him. What a load of bull crap. They knew they wanted him and were going to hire who they wanted anyway. If you are trying to tell me that they didn't know who they had in their organization and what his credentials were you are bat crap crazy. These people know exactly who they hire.

I diagree that they knew all along that they wanted Tomlin, he wasn't in their organization like Wisenhut so there's no reason to think they wanted him all along.

I think it a slap in Tomlin's face to suggest that the only reason he was interviewed was because he was Black. What a freaking insult to Blacks everywhere.

At no point did I say I believed Tomlin was only interviwed because he was black. What I said was, if that were the case, I doubt it would bother him. I used Mike Tomlin as an example because I don't think he was the prime candidate going in, like in the example you used, but never was implying that was my belief.

[Hoofbite]

So the Steelers copped to being racist then. That without the "Rooney" rule, they would not have discussed him. What a load of bull crap. They knew they wanted him and were going to hire who they wanted anyway. If you are trying to tell me that they didn't know who they had in their organization and what his credentials were you are bat crap crazy. These people know exactly who they hire. I think it a slap in Tomlin's face to suggest that the only reason he was interviewed was because he was Black. What a freaking insult to Blacks everywhere.

So you disagree with Tomlin's take on it.

And Rooney's?

http://sports.espn.go.com/nfl/playoffs06/news/story?id=2750645

Said Rooney: "To be honest with you, before the interview he was just another guy who was an assistant coach. Once we interviewed him the first time, he just came through and we thought it was great. And we brought him back and talked to him on the phone and went through the process that we do, and he ended up winning the job.

Said Tomlin: "I think it's given me an opportunity to present myself maybe in some situations that I wouldn't have had."

[Manwiththeplan]

They actually make up 81% (Ron Rivera is Latino) but yes, statistically white coaches are overrepresented. Asians and hispanics are really the ones who should be griping if we're talking about underrepresentation.

and that's why I think that statement is ridiculous, because you have to consider the field to a certain extent. there aren't many asian or latino coaches because there aren't many asian or latino players. same goes for women, no women playing in the NFL so it's not sexist to not consider a woman for this job.

So how many black coaches do there have to be before you're satisfied? 10? 15? 25? At what point do we decide that social justice has been served?

I honestly can't answer that, I don't in any way think that since NFL players are like 80% (really don't know, just made up that number), that 80% of NFL coaches should be black, but what I do think is prior to the rule, minorities weren't getting an equal chance, and now, based on hiring numbers, it's closer to being equal.

Now let me ask you this, if no team is being forced to hire anyone, and it seems atleast that the inclusion of this rule is leading to more minorities getting jobs, why should this rule be eliminated?

[SkinsandTerps]

I am sure certain former players would take an appearance fee, to show up for an "interview".

The rule would change quickly then.

[Manwiththeplan]

I am sure certain former players would take an appearance fee, to show up for an "interview".

The rule would change quickly then.

no it wouldn't. once that became known, which ever team paid a minority to show up, would likely pay a record setting fine. maybe worse.

[rkell87]

So you disagree with Tomlin's take on it.

And Rooney's?

http://sports.espn.go.com/nfl/playoffs06/news/story?id=2750645

if you believe that load of bull the rooneys said then I've got a bridge to sell you. Of course they are going to say that is what happened, if it happens that way then the rule they created really works!

[Cajuncowboy]

So you disagree with Tomlin's take on it.

And Rooney's?

http://sports.espn.go.com/nfl/playoffs06/news/story?id=2750645

Yes I do. Considering it was Rooney who pushed the rule. Just PR for the rule named for him.

[Hoofbite]

if you believe that load of bull the rooneys said then I've got a bridge to sell you. Of course they are going to say that is what happened, if it happens that way then the rule they created really works!

What's not to believe.

He basically said the guy was indistinguishable from any other coordinator out there and it wasn't until they brought him in that he got to really like him.

He's basically saying he interviewed him because he was black.

And Tomlin said the same thing.

I know people like to use that as some sort of example of reverse racism where blacks are getting something they don't deserve but they're missing the entire point.

If you consider previous coaching experience as a qualification, you've essentially eliminated the vast majority of black candidates because there are hardly any out there who have past head coaching experience.

That's the entire point. If it was a "best man gets the job" situation, guys with previous head coaching experience would likely win out on that point alone over someone else who has none.

In a situation where years and years of biased hiring practices have created a discrepancy between one group and another in qualifications, you can't reasonably use qualifications as justification to interview or not to interview someone because you are doing nothing but propagating the discrepancy.

If the NFL came out tomorrow and said, "We're content with the current state of affairs and we're going to do away with the Rooney Rule. May the most qualified candidate win", do you think that black guys with previous head coaching experience would automatically appear on a scale large enough to compete with white guys who have previous head coaching experience?

The Rooney Rule isn't in place to give black candidates an opportunity that they don't deserve or couldn't possibly have earned.

It's in place so teams don't automatically discount them or scratch them off their list because they don't have qualifications such as previous head coaching experience when decades of prejudice hiring practices has prevented them from ever acquiring such qualifications.

[Hoofbite]

Yes I do. Considering it was Rooney who pushed the rule. Just PR for the rule named for him.

And Tomlin? Just playing the role of good employee, I suppose?

[burmafrd]

racist rules are bad. No matter what

[Joe Rod]

I wish they would establish a "No Business Being Interviewed Rule". I think it would really open some doors for me in the coaching ranks. :p:

[rkell87]

What's not to believe.

He basically said the guy was indistinguishable from any other coordinator out there and it wasn't until they brought him in that he got to really like him.

He's basically saying he interviewed him because he was black.

And Tomlin said the same thing.

I know people like to use that as some sort of example of reverse racism where blacks are getting something they don't deserve but they're missing the entire point.

If you consider previous coaching experience as a qualification, you've essentially eliminated the vast majority of black candidates because there are hardly any out there who have past head coaching experience.

That's the entire point. If it was a "best man gets the job" situation, guys with previous head coaching experience would likely win out on that point alone over someone else who has none.

In a situation where years and years of biased hiring practices have created a discrepancy between one group and another in qualifications, you can't reasonably use qualifications as justification to interview or not to interview someone because you are doing nothing but propagating the discrepancy.

If the NFL came out tomorrow and said, "We're content with the current state of affairs and we're going to do away with the Rooney Rule. May the most qualified candidate win", do you think that black guys with previous head coaching experience would automatically appear on a scale large enough to compete with white guys who have previous head coaching experience?

The Rooney Rule isn't in place to give black candidates an opportunity that they don't deserve or couldn't possibly have earned.

It's in place so teams don't automatically discount them or scratch them off their list because they don't have qualifications such as previous head coaching experience when decades of prejudice hiring practices has prevented them from ever acquiring such qualifications.
there is no such thing as reverse racism, racism is racism no matter which way it goes. Again, if you believe that they didn't really consider him until the compliance interview then you are being naive.

[Cajuncowboy]

And Tomlin? Just playing the role of good employee, I suppose?

Well some people don't have any self respect. So yeah.

[Cajuncowboy]

What's not to believe.

He basically said the guy was indistinguishable from any other coordinator out there and it wasn't until they brought him in that he got to really like him.

He's basically saying he interviewed him because he was black.



So let me understand this. You are saying that Tomlin's career was basically "Undistinguished" but there were two other candidate who were white who had outstanding career accomplishments, yet, because they interviewed a back man, he got the job over other well qualified candidates "Because he was black."

And you don't see the problem with this huh?

And ladies and gentlemen, THAT is the problem with the rule.

[Doomsday101]

I don't have anything aginst the Rooney Rule. If it can get minority coaches interviews then that is at the least a foot in the door for them. It gives owners and GM who may not know some of these men very well the oppertunity to speak with these coaches and get to know them.

The rule does not tell you who to hire and in the end GM will hire the people they believe in so while that interview under the rooney rule may not pay off today it does give GM more insight to those coaches

[Verdict]

The Rooney Rule is nothing but PURE RACISM, under the guise of creating a level playing field for minority players. It specifically MAKES race an issue when employers are supposed to be color blind.

Affirmative action has always been racism in action, or reverse discrimination. I understand the initial thought process was to right a wrong by getting minorities into a workplace that they had historically been excluded from. While it helped even out the distribution of workers into a ratio that more closely reflected the racial demographic, it basically had the affect of discriminating against non minorities because it "blessed" the actual use of race in the hiring decision.

Allowing the Rooney Rule a pass is much like mandating a rule that there are not enough white men in the NBA player ranks, and as such, each team must consider signing a white man before it signs Lebron, or Kobe to a contract. That would never withstand scrutiny from the public, or the courts, so the Rooney Rule should face similar scrutiny and should be abolished.

[Verdict]

What's not to believe.

He basically said the guy was indistinguishable from any other coordinator out there and it wasn't until they brought him in that he got to really like him.

He's basically saying he interviewed him because he was black.

And Tomlin said the same thing.

I know people like to use that as some sort of example of reverse racism where blacks are getting something they don't deserve but they're missing the entire point.

If you consider previous coaching experience as a qualification, you've essentially eliminated the vast majority of black candidates because there are hardly any out there who have past head coaching experience.

That's the entire point. If it was a "best man gets the job" situation, guys with previous head coaching experience would likely win out on that point alone over someone else who has none.

In a situation where years and years of biased hiring practices have created a discrepancy between one group and another in qualifications, you can't reasonably use qualifications as justification to interview or not to interview someone because you are doing nothing but propagating the discrepancy.

If the NFL came out tomorrow and said, "We're content with the current state of affairs and we're going to do away with the Rooney Rule. May the most qualified candidate win", do you think that black guys with previous head coaching experience would automatically appear on a scale large enough to compete with white guys who have previous head coaching experience?

The Rooney Rule isn't in place to give black candidates an opportunity that they don't deserve or couldn't possibly have earned.

It's in place so teams don't automatically discount them or scratch them off their list because they don't have qualifications such as previous head coaching experience when decades of prejudice hiring practices has prevented them from ever acquiring such qualifications.

Hoof, I respect your opinion, and I understand your thought process. I think you very succinctly stated the express purpose of the rule. But if the Rooney Rule were applied to PLAYERS in the same manner that it did to the selection of a coach (in reverse) the public outcry would be deafening. Players are employees in the same sense that coaches are and should not be analyzed under a different analysis.

The Rooney Rule specifically makes race a factor in the hiring process, when employers are supposed to be color blind in the hiring process. It is naive to believe that if the best coach in the world world was a multiracial minority woman midget with a beard and smelled like road kill on a hot day that she wouldn't be hired. There is too much at stake in the NFL for an owner not to hire the best man or woman for the job.

If the Rooney Rule can withstand scrutiny, there should ALSO be a rule that a woman should also be considered before a coaching hire is made, because there are less women NFL coaches (zero to my knowledge) than racial minority coaches.

[Cajuncowboy]

Hoof, I respect your opinion, and I understand your thought process. I think you very succinctly stated the express purpose of the rule. But if the Rooney Rule were applied to PLAYERS in the same manner that it did to the selection of a coach (in reverse) the public outcry would be deafening. Players are employees in the same sense that coaches are and should not be analyzed under a different analysis.

The Rooney Rule specifically makes race a factor in the hiring process, when employers are supposed to be color blind in the hiring process. It is naive to believe that if the best coach in the world world was a multiracial minority woman midget with a beard and smelled like road kill on a hot day that she wouldn't be hired. There is too much at stake in the NFL for an owner not to hire the best man or woman for the job.

If the Rooney Rule can withstand scrutiny, there should ALSO be a rule that a woman should also be considered before a coaching hire is made, because there are less women NFL coaches (zero to my knowledge) than racial minority coaches.

I think midgets should get interviews as well. And women with beards. Equality for ALL I say!

[AbeBeta]

Actually it doesn't make sense. If They had thought he was qualified then why not interview him initially. You are saying that the Rooney rule (named for their own president) forced them to interview a minority candidate? In other words, it was a set up. They didn't think enough of the practice to do it proactively. That tells you all you need to know about the stupid rule.

We want this rule so we want to be the example.

Any black person worth their salt and self respect should be screaming for the elimination of this rule.

I don't know if you are a black person or not but suppose you are and the company you work for has an opening and it would be a promotion for you and a white candidate. But you are not their prime candidate, the white person is due to his tenure, credentials and experience. But they tell you they are going to interview you because you are Black. How does that make you feel going into the interview?

Obviously they won't tell you that but in the end that's the end result.

Let me spell it out to you again.

This rule breaks down the influence of old boy networks -- the sort of network that provides a barrier for people who aren't already in a teams "inner circle" to get interviews. Especially in cases like the Steelers where the coach retired and left behind a staff of HC prospects. If you have a situation like that, your inclination is to simply choose the internal guy. This rule forces teams to at least consider someone from outside that circle.

Frankly, if someone gets an interview b/c they are a minority, they are being provided a valuable experience that will help in the next interview. You seem to discount the incredible value of sitting down and interviewing owners/GMs -- that is a rare opportunity. Frankly, it is incredible training for future interview and also a direct line into the ears of not only the team you interview with but other owners/GMs - they do talk, you know.

But it does not surprise me that you argue for maintenance of the old boy network. I also really like the "well, black people should be ashamed of having to take advantage of this rule" -- just another reason to criticize 'em, eh?

[The30YardSlant]

Let me spell it out to you again.

This rule breaks down the influence of old boy networks -- the sort of network that provides a barrier for people who aren't already in a teams "inner circle" to get interviews. Especially in cases like the Steelers where the coach retired and left behind a staff of HC prospects. If you have a situation like that, your inclination is to simply choose the internal guy. This rule forces teams to at least consider someone from outside that circle.

Frankly, if someone gets an interview b/c they are a minority, they are being provided a valuable experience that will help in the next interview. You seem to discount the incredible value of sitting down and interviewing owners/GMs -- that is a rare opportunity. Frankly, it is incredible training for future interview and also a direct line into the ears of not only the team you interview with but other owners/GMs - they do talk, you know.

But it does not surprise me that you argue for maintenance of the old boy network. I also really like the "well, black people should be ashamed of having to take advantage of this rule" -- just another reason to criticize 'em, eh?

A "good old boy" network excludes ALL prospective coaches who arent linked to a franchise in some way or in their inner circle, not just black coaches. If we carry this idea out to it's logical conclusion then someone must justify why ONLY black coaches are being helped break through this old boy network?

I honestly can't think of anything more condescending than patting a minority on the head and saying "good for you" with no intention of ever hiring them. Token interviews are insults disguised as equality but damn it if people don't buy into it.

[Cajuncowboy]

Let me spell it out to you again.

This rule breaks down the influence of old boy networks -- the sort of network that provides a barrier for people who aren't already in a teams "inner circle" to get interviews. Especially in cases like the Steelers where the coach retired and left behind a staff of HC prospects. If you have a situation like that, your inclination is to simply choose the internal guy. This rule forces teams to at least consider someone from outside that circle.

Frankly, if someone gets an interview b/c they are a minority, they are being provided a valuable experience that will help in the next interview. You seem to discount the incredible value of sitting down and interviewing owners/GMs -- that is a rare opportunity. Frankly, it is incredible training for future interview and also a direct line into the ears of not only the team you interview with but other owners/GMs - they do talk, you know.

But it does not surprise me that you argue for maintenance of the old boy network. I also really like the "well, black people should be ashamed of having to take advantage of this rule" -- just another reason to criticize 'em, eh?

Let me break it down for YOU.

It's a racist policy. It is quite laughable considering my background that you think I support an old boy network and criticize blacks because they are black. You are a foolish individual who doesn't know who or what they are talking about. But rattle on with your race baiting. Not buying it. And with that, I am out of this stupid argument.

[AbeBeta]

Let me break it down for YOU.

It's a racist policy. It is quite laughable considering my background that you think I support an old boy network and criticize blacks because they are black. You are a foolish individual who doesn't know who or what they are talking about. But rattle on with your race baiting. Not buying it. And with that, I am out of this stupid argument.

Cajun, I know you are foolish. You ignorantly believe that merit is all you need to get by. It is sad that someone who is reasonably intelligent like yourself is so totally blind to reality.

[AbeBeta]

A "good old boy" network excludes ALL prospective coaches who arent linked to a franchise in some way or in their inner circle, not just black coaches. If we carry this idea out to it's logical conclusion then someone must justify why ONLY black coaches are being helped break through this old boy network?


The policy requires interview of a minority applicant. Not interview of a black applicant. But hey, don't let reality get in the way of your opinions.

[The30YardSlant]

Cajun, I know you are foolish. You ignorantly believe that merit is all you need to get by. It is sad that someone who is reasonably intelligent like yourself is so totally blind to reality.

It's part merit and part who know, and this applies to EVERYONE.

[bigE79]

So the Steelers copped to being racist then. That without the "Rooney" rule, they would not have discussed him. What a load of bull crap. They knew they wanted him and were going to hire who they wanted anyway. If you are trying to tell me that they didn't know who they had in their organization and what his credentials were you are bat crap crazy. These people know exactly who they hire. I think it a slap in Tomlin's face to suggest that the only reason he was interviewed was because he was Black. What a freaking insult to Blacks everywhere.If the steelers didn't hire a minority coach,they would have been viewed as hypocrites,since it was their owner that implemented the rule in the first place,imo.

[rkell87]

Let me spell it out to you again.

This rule breaks down the influence of old boy networks -- the sort of network that provides a barrier for people who aren't already in a teams "inner circle" to get interviews. Especially in cases like the Steelers where the coach retired and left behind a staff of HC prospects. If you have a situation like that, your inclination is to simply choose the internal guy. This rule forces teams to at least consider someone from outside that circle.

Frankly, if someone gets an interview b/c they are a minority,
here is the whole problem with your whole argument regardless of the merits of anything else you say, in this day and age when everybody is screaming for equality, getting special consideration based on anything other than avenues that are available to everybody(networking, experience, resume) has no place here.

http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-2TgyUEXUAME/T00XS-I_6RI/AAAAAAAAALU/kro4L1s3vd0/s1600/Morgan+Freeman+Racism.jpg

[Cajuncowboy]

here is the whole problem with your whole argument regardless of the merits of anything else you say, in this day and age when everybody is screaming for equality, getting special consideration based on anything other than avenues that are available to everybody(networking, experience, resume) has no place here.

http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-2TgyUEXUAME/T00XS-I_6RI/AAAAAAAAALU/kro4L1s3vd0/s1600/Morgan+Freeman+Racism.jpg

I said I was done with this topic but I gotta say...

My God this is spot freaking on! Bravo Morgan, bravo!

Found this...

P-sNL3-WZUU

[AbeBeta]

It's part merit and part who know, and this applies to EVERYONE.

It does apply to everyone. It does not apply to everyone equally as it is clear that "who you know" had a huge impact on hiring discrepancies pre 2003.

[Hoofbite]

So let me understand this. You are saying that Tomlin's career was basically "Undistinguished" but there were two other candidate who were white who had outstanding career accomplishments, yet, because they interviewed a back man, he got the job over other well qualified candidates "Because he was black."

And you don't see the problem with this huh?

And ladies and gentlemen, THAT is the problem with the rule.

Are you deliberately mischaracterizing things?

He got the interview to comply with the rule. That doesn't mean he got the job for the same reason.

He got the job because he had a phenomenal interview.

If you weren't too busy accusing everyone who doen't agree with you of being a liar (Rooney) or having zero self respect (Tomlin), you'd hopefully see that the two things are not one in the same.

[Cajuncowboy]

Are you deliberately mischaracterizing things?

He got the interview to comply with the rule. That doesn't mean he got the job for the same reason.

He got the job because he had a phenomenal interview.

If you weren't too busy accusing everyone who doen't agree with you of being a liar (Rooney) or having zero self respect (Tomlin), you'd hopefully see that the two things are not one in the same.

You said Rooney said he was indistinguishable, not me. I used your quote. So maybe you are calling him a liar. Maybe if you didn't paint yourself in a corner you wouldn't make stupid posts and have to kick and scratch to make stuff up.

[Hoofbite]

You said Rooney said he was indistinguishable, not me. I used your quote. So maybe you are calling him a liar. Maybe if you didn't paint yourself in a corner you wouldn't make stupid posts and have to kick and scratch to make stuff up.

Seriously, have you read Rooney's quote at all?

"To be honest with you, before the interview he was just another guy who was an assistant coach.

Just another guy. One of many.

Once we interviewed him the first time, he just came through and we thought it was great. And we brought him back and talked to him on the phone and went through the process that we do, and he ended up winning the job.

He was interviewed to comply with rules.

He blew the doors off the interview, earning him the job.

Honestly, do you really not see the chain of events?

[Cajuncowboy]

Seriously, have you read Rooney's quote at all?



Just another guy. One of many.



He was interviewed to comply with rules.

He blew the doors off the interview, earning him the job.

Honestly, do you really not see the chain of events?

Like I said, I am done talking about the rule itself. It's a racist rule supported only by those who think a black man is less qualified to achieve on his own.

It's your kind of mindset that belongs back in the late 50's and early 60's.

When YOU stop making race an issue, race will not be an issue. I'm out.

[Hoofbite]

Like I said, I am done talking about the rule itself. It's a racist rule supported only by those who think a black man is less qualified to achieve on his own.

Except, that's not what people think. That's what you want to believe that they think so you can justify your "all is well" position despite the reality of the situation being the complete opposite.

I think the fact that the bolded part is your interpretation of reality says more about you than anything.

It's your kind of mindset that belongs back in the late 50's and early 60's.

My kind of mindset? Seriously? Take a look in the mirror and see who is unwilling to even discuss the possibility that minorities may be at a disadvantage in the workplace.

Not that they are less capable in any way mind you, just that over time the system itself has created barriers to success for certain groups and even when they obtain success they are generally paid less than their white counterparts.

When YOU stop making race an issue, race will not be an issue

Yeah, I'm sure.

I'm sure all the problems of the word are because people are willing to be honest and address them in an attempt to overcome them.

Gimme a break.

Your position on "it's only a problem because people make it a problem" completely ignores the fact that there is a real problem. You must think that racism begins and ends with overtly racist acts. You either have no perception of, or don't care to acknowledge, that society has been structured over time to a point where there is inherent inequality on a number of different levels.

Instead, you try to flip the argument as though willing to admit something exists is some sort of discriminatory act in and of itself. Instead of facing facts you throw out some accusatory BS about anyone who acknowledges the issues simply does so because they believe that minorities or less capable.

Like that even makes sense. Consider this analogous situation.


Bob: Joe, the house is on fire.

Joe: No it's not Bob, there is no fire.

Bob: Joe, I see smoke and I can feel the heat of the flames. The house is definitely on fire.

Joe: Bob, if the house is on fire it will put itself out when you quit talking about it.

Bob: I don't think that's how fires work, Joe.

Joe: That's exactly how fires work and if you don't quit talking about I'm going to believe that you started the fire yourself.

Bob: I didn't start the fire, Joe. I'm just saying maybe we should do something about it.

Joe: I told you to quit talking about it. Didn't you hear me? Why must you continue to talk about the fire? You know what you are? You're an arsonist son of a *****, Bob!


That is literally on the same wavelength as your argument on racism.

Completely irrational. Willfully ignorant.

Simply saying race will cease to be an issue when it's no longer included in discussion is only a step short of being accepting of the current state of affairs and it's a pretty small step at that.

I'm out.

One can only hope.

[Cajuncowboy]

unwilling to even discuss the possibility that minorities may be at a disadvantage in the workplace.



:lmao2:

There ya go!

[Hoofbite]

:lmao2:

There ya go!

Thought you were "out"?

[Cajuncowboy]

Thought you were "out"?

I must point out hypocrisy when I see it. Can't help it.

[Aikbach]

The rule is mockery, a wasted trip for a black candidate to come in knowing full well they have other intentions and he's a quota, when he should be there because he is a respected hiring option.

Where's the quota for Asian coaches, Indian coaches, Eskimo coaches and Latino coaches? They should have to bring in one ffor each before deciding they want to hire Bill parcells :rolleyes:

It's an insulting policy.

[The30YardSlant]

The policy requires interview of a minority applicant. Not interview of a black applicant. But hey, don't let reality get in the way of your opinions.

Considering the discussion at hand was relating almost entirely to black coaching opportunities versus those of white coaches I felt my point would be better understood than it apparenty was. I'll ammend the statement for clairty...

"If we carry this idea out to it's logical conclusion then someone must justify why ONLY bminority coaches are being helped break through this old boy network?"

There's a lot of white coaches being passed over due to a lack of a good old boy network to latch onto in your theory. What about them? As usual, I guess it's ok to forget the majority for the simple fact that they are the majority.

[The30YardSlant]

I said I was done with this topic but I gotta say...

My God this is spot freaking on! Bravo Morgan, bravo!

Found this...

P-sNL3-WZUU

Freeman was thrown into the "Uncle Tom" category along with Bill Cosby, Thomas Sowell, Alan Keyes, Herman Caine, Michael Steele, Clarence Thomas and Gary Franks among others because of these comments.

Black men who denounce the "race card" and speak out against various laws and social policies tend to receive the label of self-loathing in our society.

[The30YardSlant]

It does apply to everyone. It does not apply to everyone equally as it is clear that "who you know" had a huge impact on hiring discrepancies pre 2003.

Again, as exaplained in my post which nobody has addressed, a simple crunching of the numbers shows that statistically black coaches have increased at a similar rate to that of retired black players. Black coaches began picking up serious steam in the assistant ranks through the 90s and in the HC ranks over the past 10 years or so. Black involvement in the sport overall has gone up across the board over the years. You act as if there was a similar eligible field of black coaches to pick from as white coaches through the 80s and 90s and that simply wasnt the case. There simply were not as many qualified black candidates as there are today and far less than there will be ten years from now. Why? Because the increase in black participation in the sport is producing more black men in their 40s and 50s who are as qualified as white coaches.

[burmafrd]

the rule has made no difference at all. Except to accept hypocrisy officially since 90% of the time the interview is only because of the rule.

[WV Cowboy]

Last night at halftime of the NCAA basketball National Championship game, (a large stage on any level) Clark Kellogg (a black man) interviewed the President of the United States, Barack Obama (another black man).

After the prestigious time slot interview, they came back to the Network panel at the game, consisting of four black men and one white man.

Enough cutting corners, or making things easier or more accessable, or making provisions for the black man to get ahead.

The black man is doing just fine on his own.

When can we stop defining a man as black or white, and just speak to his qualities as a man?

The Rooney Rule may have had a place at one time, but it is just insulting now.

[DaBoyz73]

I think the rule is ridiculous, but that just my opinion. The reason the saints are interested in hiring him is because their is a previous relationship. If I were a minority I would want to be interviewed for my skill set and resume, not because they have to fill a token interview.

Bingo!