Rooney Rule

[burmafrd]

Originally Posted by Yakuza Rich

I used to think the same thing as well. However, I had a person who works for the Jets explain to me the merits of the Rooney Rule.

The Rooney Rule doesn't force people to be hired.

The problem is that people expect to see instantaneous results. For those who are for more minority coaches being hired, they think it's worthless when guys are allowed interviews and don't get hired.

For those who hate the idea, they are afraid that a minority coach will be forced into being hired.

The idea of the Rooney Rule is that it accepts the fact that there is a discrepancy in black players vs. black head coaches. There's also a discrepancy in black assistants vs. black head coaches.

You can't force owners to hire somebody.

[View Full Quote]However, by getting minority candidates interviews it gets their name out. Maybe they don't get hired the first time with a team, but now the owner is familiar with the coach and maybe down the road they hire him. Or perhaps they will pass along to other owners something like 'hey, we didn't hire him but we were very impressed with him.' And maybe a different owner ends up hiring him based upon that. That is what happened to Tony Dungy and Marvin Lewis.

Lastly, it gives minority candidates the experience of doing these interviews, which are often hours upon hours long. I believe one team did a 9-hour interview with one candidate. The experience will allow the minority candidate the chance to better prepare for future interviews.

Thus, I think the Rooney Rule is valid. It's not perfect, but it's productive if it gets coaches like Marvin Lewis a HC job that they probably would never had received before the Rooney Rule.









YR

this all would have happened without the lying and hypocrisy that the Rooney Rule created. All it does is maintain the point of view that all rules can be manipulated and bypassed.

Anything that promotes lying and hypocrisy is WRONG and always will be.

[tyke1doe]

Originally Posted by burmafrd

The Rooney Rule was always a joke.

No, it wasn't and isn't.

[tyke1doe]

Originally Posted by Shunpike

Rooney Rule is an insult to the blacks.

No, it's not.

This is a multi billion dollar industry. If a club believes a black coach deserves to be the head coach, they will hire him no matter what his skin color is.

Unfortunately, that's not historically accurate. The NFL had to be pressured to hire black coaches in the first place.

The coaching fraternity is, in some respects, a closed circle, which is the reason why certain has-beens generally get hired over and over again.

Besides, the Rooney Rule doesn't mandate hiring. It merely asks teams to interview a minority candidate. There's really no harm in that given the historical circumstance from which this entire situation arose anyway.

[tyke1doe]

Originally Posted by burmafrd

this all would have happened without the lying and hypocrisy that the Rooney Rule created. All it does is maintain the point of view that all rules can be manipulated and bypassed.

Anything that promotes lying and hypocrisy is WRONG and always will be.

How does it promote lying and hypocrisy?

[Yakuza Rich]

Originally Posted by burmafrd

this all would have happened without the lying and hypocrisy that the Rooney Rule created. All it does is maintain the point of view that all rules can be manipulated and bypassed.

Anything that promotes lying and hypocrisy is WRONG and always will be.

It doesn't promote lying.

The idea is that the rule gives minority coaches a chance at getting an interview.

That's what it accomplishes.

It's not about automatically giving them a serious shot. It's about getting their foot in the door.







YR

[tyke1doe]

Originally Posted by Yakuza Rich

I used to think the same thing as well. However, I had a person who works for the Jets explain to me the merits of the Rooney Rule.

The Rooney Rule doesn't force people to be hired.

The problem is that people expect to see instantaneous results. For those who are for more minority coaches being hired, they think it's worthless when guys are allowed interviews and don't get hired.

For those who hate the idea, they are afraid that a minority coach will be forced into being hired.

The idea of the Rooney Rule is that it accepts the fact that there is a discrepancy in black players vs. black head coaches. There's also a discrepancy in black assistants vs. black head coaches.

You can't force owners to hire somebody.

[View Full Quote]However, by getting minority candidates interviews it gets their name out. Maybe they don't get hired the first time with a team, but now the owner is familiar with the coach and maybe down the road they hire him. Or perhaps they will pass along to other owners something like 'hey, we didn't hire him but we were very impressed with him.' And maybe a different owner ends up hiring him based upon that. That is what happened to Tony Dungy and Marvin Lewis.

Lastly, it gives minority candidates the experience of doing these interviews, which are often hours upon hours long. I believe one team did a 9-hour interview with one candidate. The experience will allow the minority candidate the chance to better prepare for future interviews.

Thus, I think the Rooney Rule is valid. It's not perfect, but it's productive if it gets coaches like Marvin Lewis a HC job that they probably would never had received before the Rooney Rule.

YR

The rule's impact is deeper than what some posters understand.

[tyke1doe]

Originally Posted by Yakuza Rich

It doesn't promote lying.

The idea is that the rule gives minority coaches a chance at getting an interview.

That's what it accomplishes.

It's not about automatically giving them a serious shot. It's about getting their foot in the door.


YR

Anyone who has sought jobs understands how important the interviewing process is.

Even when people have the necessary experience and qualifications, they either don't get interviews or when they get interviews they do so bad in them that they don't get the job.

Understanding the process and how to perform within that is a huge factor in landing a job or landing a job in the future.

[CanadianCowboysFan]

Oh I understand the entire, "gets them interview experience" argument and there is some merit to it but I remember when we hired Parcells. Not only did we have to interview Dennis Green, he had to advise the NFL it was a legitimate interview and that he believed he was given a real shot.

Interviewing someone for a job for which you have already decided to hire someone else is a slap in the face and a waste of everyone's time.

[Yakuza Rich]

Originally Posted by CanadianCowboysFan

Oh I understand the entire, "gets them interview experience" argument and there is some merit to it but I remember when we hired Parcells. Not only did we have to interview Dennis Green, he had to advise the NFL it was a legitimate interview and that he believed he was given a real shot.

Interviewing someone for a job for which you have already decided to hire someone else is a slap in the face and a waste of everyone's time.

I honestly don't believe the minority candidates look at it as a slap in the face. They'll gladly take the interview.

I'm a white guy. But, even I have experienced a situation where I was interviewed for a job that I was not going to get and the interviewer already had their mind made up.

In my situation, it was more of an HR thing for the interviewer. The company wanted him to interview at least 3 candidates. He could choose which one he wanted, but they wanted 3 candidates interviewed. For me, it was a much higher position than my position at the time. I was able to get a feel for what interviewers are going to ask at a job at that level.

The same is going to happen in the NFL. While you have the majority owner, you have a lot of minority owners that are going to demand that the majority owner at least interviews a few people, even if their mind is made up. It doesn't make a difference if it's all white guys, they want at least a few different people interviewed. And that's no different than the gripes against the Rooney Rule.

What I do not like is how the media always skewers the Cowboys about who Jerry interviews. I remember when Campo got fired they acted like Campo didn't get a fair chance. The guy went 15-33 in 3 seasons and they were seriously trying to tell us that Campo wasn't given a fair chance.

Then when Parcells retired, we interviewed plenty of minority candidates like Todd Bowles, Ron Rivera and others. And the media complained that these candidates were not 'serious.'

Yet, no complaints about KC having their minds made up on Andy Reid. And if no minority candidates are hired, I highly doubt the media will make a peep about it.

Again, I'm for the Rooney Rule. I just hate it when Dallas clearly abides by it and gets skewered for it. But, when the Bills hire Chan Gailey despite having had coaches like Perry Fewell (who coached for the Bills), we don't hear a peep.






YR

[Hoofbite]

Originally Posted by tyke1doe

Anyone who has sought jobs understands how important the interviewing process is.

Even when people have the necessary experience and qualifications, they either don't get interviews or when they get interviews they do so bad in them that they don't get the job.

Understanding the process and how to perform within that is a huge factor in landing a job or landing a job in the future.

Absolutely agree.

Also, we're talking about a close knit group of employers. 32 of them and that's it. These guys talk and a good first impression even in a procedural interview could get a guys name out there and open doors for him at a later date. The simple reporting of a candidate could be enough to draw interest from other teams.

For all the people who complain about how illegitimate the process is and how much of an insult it is to these guys, I can't recall masses of minority coaches coming forward and publicly declining interviews because of it.

[Hoofbite]

Originally Posted by Yakuza Rich

What I do not like is how the media always skewers the Cowboys about who Jerry interviews. I remember when Campo got fired they acted like Campo didn't get a fair chance. The guy went 15-33 in 3 seasons and they were seriously trying to tell us that Campo wasn't given a fair chance.

Then when Parcells retired, we interviewed plenty of minority candidates like Todd Bowles, Ron Rivera and others. And the media complained that these candidates were not 'serious.'

Yet, no complaints about KC having their minds made up on Andy Reid. And if no minority candidates are hired, I highly doubt the media will make a peep about it.

Again, I'm for the Rooney Rule. I just hate it when Dallas clearly abides by it and gets skewered for it. But, when the Bills hire Chan Gailey despite having had coaches like Perry Fewell (who coached for the Bills), we don't hear a peep.

YR

That's just the nature of the business. Dallas is a polarizing team. Either love them or hate them. Also, they are probably the highest profile team in the NFL and might be the highest profile team in all of sports. I don't follow basketball enough to know if there are teams in similar situations but maybe only the Redsox and Yankees would command the type of coverage that Dallas does even during seasons or spans of futility.

As a result, people will take any chance they can to either prop up (love) or knock down (hate) the Dallas Cowboys. When I was younger, I was at a family reunion and being that I was pretty much one of the younger kids that could be classified as the "older kids", all the small ones really couldn't get enough time with me. They were doing as kids do and competing with each other for my attention, yelling my name constantly. I looked to my aunt and she simply replied, "that's the price of popularity".

That's how I feel about Dallas and the media. Some people get worked up over media reports that are negative (I would say your situation above is far more reasonable than most) but what they don't realize is that Dallas likely receives more coverage than the performance of the team would deserve. What comes with that is both the good and bad. Not to mention Dallas is probably far more proactive from an organizational standpoint in getting it's name out there. You're not getting prized title fights at other stadiums. Least I haven't heard of any.

The team is popular, polarizing and proactive so they constantly stay in the news. Negative articles and bashing of the team is simply "the price of popularity".

[Cajuncowboy]

The Rooney rule is a joke and there is no explaining it away. Prior to the Rooney rule (2003) there had already been a history of black head coaches. There were six black head coaches before the rule and at the time of the implementation there were several black head coaches already coaching. So unless that all the black head coaches either before or at the time of the implementation were just real lucky or they are the greatest interviews in history I would imagine there were teams that interviewed Black candidates. You can't say they were the ONLY ones.

So the need for the Rooney rule was a figment of Rooney and the ever politically correct NFL imaginations.

Since the Rooney rule there have only been five more minority head coaches than before the rule. It would seem that the hiring practices in the NFL has followed the hiring practices in the general business climate.

In addition, the guy that proposed the rule, Dan Rooney stated the rule had no impact on him hiring Tomlin.

I think it is a shame that an organization is forced to interview someone that they have no intention in hiring. It gives the candidate a false sense of opportunity just to be disappointed, not to mention the aggravation of being used because of his skin color.

[tyke1doe]

Originally Posted by CanadianCowboysFan

Oh I understand the entire, "gets them interview experience" argument and there is some merit to it but I remember when we hired Parcells. Not only did we have to interview Dennis Green, he had to advise the NFL it was a legitimate interview and that he believed he was given a real shot.

Interviewing someone for a job for which you have already decided to hire someone else is a slap in the face and a waste of everyone's time.

No, it's not.

In every system, there's going to be abuse. But the system focuses more on the overall results of the process than the abuses. Many posters want to focus on abuses to toss the program. Others who support the RR focus the results of the process as that's, ultimately, what matters.

[Yakuza Rich]

Originally Posted by Hoofbite

That's just the nature of the business. Dallas is a polarizing team. Either love them or hate them. Also, they are probably the highest profile team in the NFL and might be the highest profile team in all of sports. I don't follow basketball enough to know if there are teams in similar situations but maybe only the Redsox and Yankees would command the type of coverage that Dallas does even during seasons or spans of futility.

As a result, people will take any chance they can to either prop up (love) or knock down (hate) the Dallas Cowboys. When I was younger, I was at a family reunion and being that I was pretty much one of the younger kids that could be classified as the "older kids", all the small ones really couldn't get enough time with me. They were doing as kids do and competing with each other for my attention, yelling my name constantly. I looked to my aunt and she simply replied, "that's the price of popularity".

[View Full Quote]That's how I feel about Dallas and the media. Some people get worked up over media reports that are negative (I would say your situation above is far more reasonable than most) but what they don't realize is that Dallas likely receives more coverage than the performance of the team would deserve. What comes with that is both the good and bad. Not to mention Dallas is probably far more proactive from an organizational standpoint in getting it's name out there. You're not getting prized title fights at other stadiums. Least I haven't heard of any.

The team is popular, polarizing and proactive so they constantly stay in the news. Negative articles and bashing of the team is simply "the price of popularity".

It's only the nature of the business because we lower our standards for what the media will present us. Integrity and truth gets neglected while 'scoops' are treated like the holy grail.

This week has been another frustrating week as a sports fan. We have heard so many coaches supposed to be hired. Andy Reid was a 'mortal lock' in Arizona....gets hired in Kansas City. Chip Kelly was supposed to be hired by the Browns by now and is interviewing with the Eagles.

It's much like the Newtown shootings. We couldn't get anything straight out of the media to the point we would have been better off turning off the news and waiting 3 days until they got their stories straight.

And so it goes...






YR

[tyke1doe]

Originally Posted by Cajuncowboy

The Rooney rule is a joke and there is no explaining it away. Prior to the Rooney rule (2003) there had already been a history of black head coaches. There were six black head coaches before the rule and at the time of the implementation there were several black head coaches already coaching. So unless that all the black head coaches either before or at the time of the implementation were just real lucky or they are the greatest interviews in history I would imagine there were teams that interviewed Black candidates. You can't say they were the ONLY ones.

I had to at the bold. I love how those who don't feel the impact of a particular policy tell others who are that it's a joke and there's no explaining it away.

But let's look at the numbers.

Prior to the 2003, there had been five black coaches in the modern era.
Art Shell was hired prior to the Rooney Rule primarily because of Al Davis, who also hired the first Hispanic coach in Tom Flores. Beyond that, there was no overall movement by the NFL to hire a black coach.

The other black coaches were Dennis Green, Ray Rhodes, Tony Dungy and Herman Edwards.

Dennis Green and Herman Edwards got jobs after the Rooney Rule. So an argument can be made that the Rooney Rule benefited them in that they were hired a second time. Ray Rhodes was also a "retread" but that was before the Rooney Rule. He didn't last long, though. He was one and done with Green Bay after a head coaching stint in Philadelphia. More on the retread concept later.

Since the Rooney rule there have only been five more minority head coaches than before the rule. It would seem that the hiring practices in the NFL has followed the hiring practices in the general business climate.

Really? Any figures to back this up?

Compared to before the Rooney Rule, hiring of black coaches increased 22 percent.
That says that more blacks are getting chances to become head coaches. You would say that followed natural hiring practices. But I would offer that there was a significant event that occurred (the Rooney Rule) that prompted the rise. It's hard to deny its impact when the increase was so drastic.
And what's interesting is that many owners were against the Rooney Rule prior to its ultimate adoption. So what would make one believe that these owners would have hired black coaches if the Rooney Rule ultimately was killed? There's nothing to lead me to believe they would have, not based on the numbers prior to the rule.

Furthermore, of the black coaches hired after the Rooney Rule, only one (Romeo Crennel) was a retread. Simply put, more candidates are being considered instead of the usual retreads being rehired.

In addition, the guy that proposed the rule, Dan Rooney stated the rule had no impact on him hiring Tomlin.

And this is supposed to prove what? Wouldn't you expect the man for whom the Rooney Rule is named to lead by example?

I think it is a shame that an organization is forced to interview someone that they have no intention in hiring. It gives the candidate a false sense of opportunity just to be disappointed, not to mention the aggravation of being used because of his skin color.

Pulease.

Do you know how hard it is to get in front of someone to convince them that you can do the job? Do you know how many unemployed citizens would love to be given the chance to be called in for an interview?

And so what if an organization is forced to interview someone whom they won't hire.

As with any policy, the goal is not always instant change across the board as it is institutionalizing a behavior and making it so commonplace that the policy morphs into a general societal practice.

I believe it's a good rule. It has a purpose, and, as the numbers reveal, it is accomplishing its goal in not only getting more minorities hired as coaches but also getting the word out about future head coaching prospects.