Discussion in 'NFL Zone' started by CanadianCowboysFan, Jan 5, 2013.
The rule's impact is deeper than what some posters understand.
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.
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.
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.
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".
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.
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.
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...
I had to :laugh2: 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.
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.
And this is supposed to prove what? Wouldn't you expect the man for whom the Rooney Rule is named to lead by example?
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.
its a fine rule for those that believe in lying and discrimination. That is what the rule promoted.
And frankly anyone claiming that you should not feel bad when you are 'interviewing' for a job you have no shot at is full of crap.
have to laugh at those that cannot see that 'for show' interviews are just total BS. Yes that is lying- when the person sets up an interview that has no chance of being hired that is a LIE. Frankly its FRAUD.
those that cannot figure that out are those that are oblivious to reality.
Laugh all you want. But a rule based on race is racist. In addition, forcing an organization to interview someone who they intend not to hire just because of his skin color is a slap in the face to black people. Only those who don't respect themselves look for the victim leverage. It reeks of Sharpton type of mentality. I hire who I want regardless of color. I'm not going to say there is no racism in the NFL but I would bet it's much smaller than the PC police would care top admit.
The only purpose this rule serves is to make a mockery of the hiring process as well as the people who are used to fulfill the stupid rule.
And again, no explaining it away will ever make it any less racist.
Coaches are free to decline interviews. Any idea as to why minorities coaches haven't been declining in mass?
If you as a fan know it's a fraud, don't you think the coaches do as well?
Why haven't they been turning all these fraudulent interviews down?
The problem is people believe the rooney rule = affirmative action, and as you pointed, it's not. Half of the arguments people use really don't apply, but you hear the same BS every time from almost the same people.
I don't think, nor do i believe it's a prevelant thought that there is a bunch of racism in the NFL, as much as coaches getting opportunities through connections that Blacks didn't have.
Did Jimmy Johnson get hired because he was the best canidate out there? Probably not, it was in large part because he was a successfull college coach who just happened to play at Arkansas with the owner of the Dallas Cowboys.
And how many of his friends followed him from Miami?
It's human nature to hire people you are comfortable, and let's be honest it was rare for African American's to be in the same position as their white counter parts. And hiring a white coach who may who you had a working relationship with doesn't make you racist, but it is an obstacle that the majority of african americans faced when trying to break into the coaching ranks.
The connection this is insane since most of these coaches have been around for some time and have access to the same people. You think these owners or GMS don't know who Ray Horton is? Or anyone else? The thoroughness of the front office today is much more complete than ever before. The need for this silly kowtowing rule is non existent. These owners want to win and they want to make money. They will interview and hire the best person for the job regardless of color.
It is a pandering position to force such a thing onto someone who owns a business and more egregious to those being used based on their skin color.
Exactly, Reid was going to be hired if he wanted the job, the other interviews were just for show. We do that and Jones is crucified.
No, it's not. Besides, who supports that definition of racism other than Internet posters ranting about political correctness? Racism is deeper than that simplistic definition.
So basically you're saying that Affirmative Action policies enacted after the Civil Rights Bill was passed were a slap in the face to black people?
So NFL owners, who had to approve the policy, don't respect themselves? They reek of the Sharpton mentality?
First, you acknowledge there is racism in the NFL and then in the same breath you say you bet it's small by comparison.
And yet, the owners and NFL felt it necessary to have a Rooney Rule. Hhhhmmm.
As has been pointed out, the Rooney Rule doesn't require teams to hire a minority, only to interview one. News flash: everyone who is interviewed doesn't get the job. Are those who don't get the job being mocked also?
With all due respect, I don't think you even know what racism is.
So tell me. Is the Rooney Rule creating animosity toward whites? Towards Hispanics? Is the Rooney Rule saying that blacks are superior to whites that's why they must be given an interview? What white person is being hurt by this? A team can interview as many people it wants even with the Rooney Rule. Adding a minority to the mix isn't denying other races the right to compete for these jobs.
No, the Rooney Rule is not racist. Well, it's not if you're following established definitions of racism and racist rather than making up your own.
The funny part that everyone ignores, is that after the Rooney Rule, more white coaches are getting interviewed as well.
Good point. I guess these would-be coaches are in on the fraud. :laugh2:
In addition, why would the owners approve the policy? They didn't have to institute the Rooney Rule, yet they did. And lest one argue that the owners were pressured to adop the rule, these owners are practically isolated from society. They live in their own world. They don't have to enact this policy if they believe they're sufficiently addressing the issue of diversity in the coaching ranks. And apparently they felt they had a blind spot and needed to correct that.
Hence, their adoption of the Rooney Rule.