Carson Will Hold Parcells' Feet To The Fire

[AbeBeta]

which is why it's pointless and makes it a game. if you were a black man who really wanted to be an NFL coach, would you want that position because were black, or qualified?

i understand it's intent is to increase the focus on the 'minority' candidate but why is it ok to solve a disparatity problem in the front office but NOT on the field?

how many white CBs are playing today? we lost our asian connection in Dat, who replaced him? how come we can fight for the rights of a misrepresented segment in one place but accept it in another?

i agree it's sad it has to come to this because *this* won't fix anything in the end and only aggrevates the problem in my eyes. forcing you to see color, not people.

I don't see it as pointless at all -- you give people an opportunity to show they have the stuff for the job -- pointless is requiring hiring. If it were pointless then there wouldn't have been such an increase in minority hiring occurring following the implementation of the rule. Without this rule, a guy like Mike Tomlin would have never gotten his job. He came in, impressed, and is now the Steelers' HC. Without a rule in place you could easily have seen the old boy's network lead to Russ Grimm getting that job and Tomlin not get an interview.

Again, you can't force people to see "people" -- that was essentially the attitude before this rule and there were very few minority coaches. You can say it "aggravates" the problem but others might suggest that arguing against the rule continues to allow institutionalized discrimination against minority applicants.

The front office situation should be addressed as well -- here is where you see the owners "true colors." Front offices remain mostly White -- why? Because owners are white and most people are more comfortable with people that are like them. Without a rule in place most front offices are going to remain homogeneous. Just as coaching positions would without a push to interview minority candidates.

 

[iceberg]

I don't see it as pointless at all -- you give people an opportunity to show they have the stuff for the job -- pointless is requiring hiring. If it were pointless then there wouldn't have been such an increase in minority hiring occurring following the implementation of the rule. Without this rule, a guy like Mike Tomlin would have never gotten his job. He came in, impressed, and is now the Steelers' HC. Without a rule in place you could easily have seen the old boy's network lead to Russ Grimm getting that job and Tomlin not get an interview.

Again, you can't force people to see "people" -- that was essentially the attitude before this rule and there were very few minority coaches. You can say it "aggravates" the problem but others might suggest that arguing against the rule continues to allow institutionalized discrimination against minority applicants.

The front office situation should be addressed as well -- here is where you see the owners "true colors." Front offices remain mostly White -- why? Because owners are white and most people are more comfortable with people that are like them. Without a rule in place most front offices are going to remain homogeneous. Just as coaching positions would without a push to interview minority candidates.

then how come they don't have mostly white people on the field? does the desire to win outweigh the desire to be racist?

you can't force them to hire black either, so the rule won't do that. in the end if the front office person is that ... um ... dense to only see white people capable of being around him, this rule won't change that. he'll lob out a few token interviews and be done with it and hire whitey.

there are also times i've seen white males told not to apply for a job they really wanted cause there was a racial quota to fill. is that fair?

it's not a fair world in the end and handicap systems to me *are* the handicap.

so again, if you see dominace of minorities on the field then it's because the owner wants to win. i don't see that changing in the front office. they want to win. i don't begrudge 99% of the CBs out there being black. if a white man wants to play that role, work harder.

 

[Hostile]

I don't think Bill can interview a coach who has an HC job.

They can if the club holding the rights gives permission. It is rare though. I think after this year Cleveland would not allow Crennel to leave. He performed a miracle IMO.

 

[AbeBeta]

then how come they don't have mostly white people on the field? does the desire to win outweigh the desire to be racist?

you can't force them to hire black either, so the rule won't do that. in the end if the front office person is that ... um ... dense to only see white people capable of being around him, this rule won't change that. he'll lob out a few token interviews and be done with it and hire whitey.

there are also times i've seen white males told not to apply for a job they really wanted cause there was a racial quota to fill. is that fair?

it's not a fair world in the end and handicap systems to me *are* the handicap.

so again, if you see dominace of minorities on the field then it's because the owner wants to win. i don't see that changing in the front office. they want to win. i don't begrudge 99% of the CBs out there being black. if a white man wants to play that role, work harder.

The white people on the field argument holds no weight - guys play in HS and College and the best players make it to the NFL - you show it on the field and you can get to the NFL. This is a very obvious situation where the best performers get the jobs.

Coaching positions are clearly different. Minority assistants like Tony Dungy showed it over and over again - he was an outstanding assistant coach for 15 years before he got his first HC job. Romeo Crennel? 19 years as an assistant. These guys showed it "on the field" came from top notch coaching trees and it took them forever to get jobs. Do you really think a White assistant with that background would have taken so long to get a HC position?

Racial quotas are illegal. Plain and simple. The idea that "quotas" equal affirmative action is a BS myth.

 

[heavyg]

then how come they don't have mostly white people on the field? does the desire to win outweigh the desire to be racist?

you can't force them to hire black either, so the rule won't do that. in the end if the front office person is that ... um ... dense to only see white people capable of being around him, this rule won't change that. he'll lob out a few token interviews and be done with it and hire whitey.

there are also times i've seen white males told not to apply for a job they really wanted cause there was a racial quota to fill. is that fair?

it's not a fair world in the end and handicap systems to me *are* the handicap.

so again, if you see dominace of minorities on the field then it's because the owner wants to win. i don't see that changing in the front office. they want to win. i don't begrudge 99% of the CBs out there being black. if a white man wants to play that role, work harder.

You bring up a very valid point regarding "quatas". California has a system in place for state and county testing. What it does is allow minorities to score lower on the entry exams. Is this a fair system? As a minority would you want to be hired when you scored below the normal on a test knowing you beat out a non-minority who had a much higher score than you?
This is a very touchy subject and can go south ver fast. Hopefully it can stay cival.

 

[burmafrd]

I really doubt the rule had anything to do with more minorities getting hired. Its that they finally got noticed on the job- not because of some affirmative action BS.

 

[kmd24]

then how come they don't have mostly white people on the field? does the desire to win outweigh the desire to be racist?

Performance on the field is often much easier to judge objectively than coaching performance or, even worse, front office performance.

so again, if you see dominace of minorities on the field then it's because the owner wants to win. i don't see that changing in the front office. they want to win. i don't begrudge 99% of the CBs out there being black. if a white man wants to play that role, work harder.

There's been an argument put forth by proponents of the rule that going through the process of interviewing is helpful for hopeful minority applicants. If this argument holds water (and I don't know that it does) then short-circuiting the selection process retards the growth of the pool of potential candidates. I suppose you could liken it to requiring literacy for voting while depriving a segment of the otherwise-eligible voting population the opportunity to learn to read. It's not exactly the same thing, but the logic is similar.

FWIW, I think that the intent of the Rooney rule is often misinterpreted. It's most common criticisms suggest that it is often seen as a form of affirmative action, when it's conception seems to be more about developing minority coaches so that they better understand the process and what is expected of them.

 

[justbob]

no. i just hate having to play games that have no effect on end results really. i think the best players play the position because the owners want to win. same for front office. i don't think they'll hire a "white" guy to win but rather someone they think will win.

i don't see us as a culture ever getting past racism as long as we have divided ourselves up racially and expect things accordingly upon that. if you have one race saying "give me this because i'm xyz" then the other races may resent that.

yes blacks are in a minority in the front office. so are chinese, russians, indians, and emperior penguins.

where are their committees to promote their own advancement in the league?

in my own humble opinion, you hire the best person for the job regardless of race, gender, pizza preferences, and so forth.

I think this is the 5th time this year (no last year - first this year)
i agree with you iceberg ...you create racism with rules to eliminate it

 

[AbeBeta]

You bring up a very valid point regarding "quatas". California has a system in place for state and county testing. What it does is allow minorities to score lower on the entry exams. Is this a fair system? As a minority would you want to be hired when you scored below the normal on a test knowing you beat out a non-minority who had a much higher score than you?
This is a very touchy subject and can go south ver fast. Hopefully it can stay cival.

That's not a quota -- it is what is called norming or banding (depending on how it is applied).

A couple of principles at play here. First scores on a test within various ranges are statistically indistinguishable -- that is I we took a test and you got a 92 and I got a 94, there really is not enough difference between those scores to matter -- and if we took the exam again, I might score higher since there are various elements of error whenever you measure ability or knowledge (e.g., guessing, etc.).

The idea that a lower score for one group is the bar for hiring is a controversial technique that involves statistical analysis of what sort of scores predict good on the job performance for each group. It could be that Whites who score 90 or above on the test are the most likely to do well in the job but that Minority applicants who score above 80 on the test are just as likely to do well than Whites who scored 90 or above.

 

[AbeBeta]

you create racism with rules to eliminate it

and you ignore racism without rules to eliminate it.

does anyone here really believe that there was no hiring problem at the HC level in the NFL in the past?

 

[heavyg]

That's not a quota -- it is what is called norming or banding (depending on how it is applied).

A couple of principles at play here. First scores on a test within various ranges are statistically indistinguishable -- that is I we took a test and you got a 92 and I got a 94, there really is not enough difference between those scores to matter -- and if we took the exam again, I might score higher since there are various elements of error whenever you measure ability or knowledge (e.g., guessing, etc.).

The idea that a lower score for one group is the bar for hiring is a controversial technique that involves statistical analysis of what sort of scores predict good on the job performance for each group. It could be that Whites who score 90 or above on the test are the most likely to do well in the job but that Minority applicants who score above 80 on the test are just as likely to do well than Whites who scored 90 or above.

Im not talking about hiring someone scoring 92 vs someone who scored 94. I talking about me as a white man needing to score say 80 to move on in the process and a minority only needing to score 70.

 

[AbeBeta]

FWIW, I think that the intent of the Rooney rule is often misinterpreted. It's most common criticisms suggest that it is often seen as a form of affirmative action, when it's conception seems to be more about developing minority coaches so that they better understand the process and what is expected of them.

This is affirmative action. One thing that most people don't understand is that AA is USUALLY about monitoring, recruitment, and training programs -- that is getting qualified minority applicants into the pool.

Very very few AA programs have any sort of required hiring component. Very few.

 

[CowboyJeff]

in the meantime, where's the diversity in hiring CBs? RBs? WRs? hell, QBs while we're at it...

The Cowboys definitely need diversity when hiring DBs. It seems they put all their eggs into the baskets of talentless DBs like #35. They need to diversify and hire guys who can actually cover WRs.

 

[Doomsday101]

I have no problem with the Rooney rule because in the end no team is being forced to hire a coaching staff against their will. In the meantime it helps bring exposure and attention to other candidates which may help them down the road.

 

[AbeBeta]

Im not talking about hiring someone scoring 92 vs someone who scored 94. I talking about me as a white man needing to score say 80 to move on in the process and a minority only needing to score 70.

again if minority people who score 70 tend to perform very well in the position whereas whites who score 70-79 tend not to perform well, but whites who perform 80 and above do tend to perform well, then that is the important issue. Not how they compare score-wise - but what they score tends to mean for actual performance.

 

[heavyg]

again if minority people who score 70 tend to perform very well in the position whereas whites who score 70-79 tend not to perform well, but whites who perform 80 and above do tend to perform well, then that is the important issue. Not how they compare score-wise - but what they score tends to mean for actual performance.

Then we should just do away with the education portion of hiring and just do interviews.

 

[peplaw06]

He'll interview Mo Carthon. I thought he was already being mentioned as a possibility before all this Rooney Rule stuff came up?

 

[iceberg]

The white people on the field argument holds no weight - guys play in HS and College and the best players make it to the NFL - you show it on the field and you can get to the NFL. This is a very obvious situation where the best performers get the jobs.

Coaching positions are clearly different. Minority assistants like Tony Dungy showed it over and over again - he was an outstanding assistant coach for 15 years before he got his first HC job. Romeo Crennel? 19 years as an assistant. These guys showed it "on the field" came from top notch coaching trees and it took them forever to get jobs. Do you really think a White assistant with that background would have taken so long to get a HC position?

Racial quotas are illegal. Plain and simple. The idea that "quotas" equal affirmative action is a BS myth.

no, it has full merit unless you want one segment to have more "rights" than the other. i don't, so i see "inequality" as just that. inequality for all.

i do agree that the best CBs are on the field. period. why? an owner wants to win. why that suddenly goes away when it comes to front office, i don't understand.

if a black man establishes a history of finding and devoping talent and an ability to "out-chess" the other man, he'll be hired. no problem. so would a chinese man. that russian dude and maybe even an emperior penguin.

you state the players have to work hard to get on the field for an NFL team. i say a man (or woman) has to work just as hard to get there. you don't handicap one, don't handicap the other.

but since people pick and choose what they 'handicap', it keeps racism alive.

 

[iceberg]

The Cowboys definitely need diversity when hiring DBs. It seems they put all their eggs into the baskets of talentless DBs like #35. They need to diversify and hire guys who can actually cover WRs.

well they were trying to be diverse and give the non-talents a chance to play. we see how that worked out. : )

the hard part in talking about this is running the risk of being called racist. so far it's been an intelligent convo and i love these. it helps me better understand other views as well as my own. but in the end if you give one person an advantage because of XYZ reason, you hurt another. why we put such a focus on color i don't know other than differences can scare us. it's the differences in mindsets we can't see so easily that hurt us.

 

[iceberg]

I think this is the 5th time this year (no last year - first this year)
i agree with you iceberg ...you create racism with rules to eliminate it

then i'm on a roll and maybe i'll go for 6 this year alone! : )

and you ignore racism without rules to eliminate it.

does anyone here really believe that there was no hiring problem at the HC level in the NFL in the past?

sure there was. there used to be a problem with sharing restrooms, busses and so forth also. i'm not saying we as a culture have not had racial issues in the past, but no one *I* know ever owned or was a slave. will a black man get looked at funny if they're in a white neighborhood? probably. but will a white man get his tail kicked if he's in a black neighborhood after dark?

you already said the rooney rule WILL NOT force the hiring of a black man, so it can't eliminate it. so how is it effective?

the only benefit i see is you have to interview a black person (or other minority) and go on. this at least gives that person an option to talk about the job vs. possibly being looked over. but in the end if an owner is going to be racist, they will and this changes nothing.

it'd be foolish to say there were never issues in the past. there were and likely wil be for some time. but if we're to eventually come together we need to quit seperating ourselves apart. will there be short term pain? sure. but as long as you think it's ok to pass favor to one segment at the expense of another, there's a wall there so hard to get around.