Carson Will Hold Parcells' Feet To The Fire

[AbeBeta]

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.

I do agree that a great coach will be hired regardless. However, when I see that it took someone 15 years to hire Tony Dungee - despite constant yearly media stories about him and how he couldn't even get an interview, then it becomes impossible to ignore the fact that some form of bias was at work.

However, this league has about 10 great coaches (or guys who are great for a stretch at least) and a bunch of guys who could be replaced by any one of 40 or so assistants and the team would have the same outcome. In the past those HC jobs have gone nearly exclusively to White dudes -- does that mean that minority assistants weren't working as hard? Or that there was some form of bias at work.

The Rooney rule has helped even things out -- we wouldn't be where we are with more minority coaches if that rule wasn't in place. You can ask folks to simply ignore race but that, on the whole, doesn't work for crap. You have to force their hand a bit.

 

[iceberg]

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

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.

i'll agree the player vs coach stance isn't perfect - only illustrates the ideea like your voting analogy.

i can better understand what you're saying about the rooney rule if applied in that manner. but the same thing could be had if owners opened themselves and staff up for "informational interviews" where they could go through the process and learn what would be expected of them but NOT when a job is on the line, but when they can really learn and take advantage of it when it counts.

 

[iceberg]

I do agree that a great coach will be hired regardless. However, when I see that it took someone 15 years to hire Tony Dungee - despite constant yearly media stories about him and how he couldn't even get an interview, then it becomes impossible to ignore the fact that some form of bias was at work.

However, this league has about 10 great coaches (or guys who are great for a stretch at least) and a bunch of guys who could be replaced by any one of 40 or so assistants and the team would have the same outcome. In the past those HC jobs have gone nearly exclusively to White dudes -- does that mean that minority assistants weren't working as hard? Or that there was some form of bias at work.

The Rooney rule has helped even things out -- we wouldn't be where we are with more minority coaches if that rule wasn't in place. You can ask folks to simply ignore race but that, on the whole, doesn't work for crap. You have to force their hand a bit.

but how does a rule that doesn't MAKE them hire a minority force their hand? if they're biased, the rule changes nothing.

fyi - thanks to all for their participation in this w/o taking it personal or too far.

 

[AbeBeta]

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.

I think the point here is that few people recognize their biases -- I doubt very strongly that any NFL owner is overtly racist. Overt racism is not the big problem in hiring -- it is the more subtle forms of racism that lead people to lean toward favoring people like them. This is exactly what made it so hard for minority assistants to get interviews. You make an interview list of guys you know or guys your friends recommend. You stay in your own circle and tend to favor people like you.

Once a guy get an interview, it is up to the interviewee to sell themselves - and clearly owners are getting sold. You can't sell though if you aren't allowed inside.

The Rooney Rule has clearly changed things. There are more minority hires now that the rule is in place.

 

[AbeBeta]

but how does a rule that doesn't MAKE them hire a minority force their hand? if they're biased, the rule changes nothing.

fyi - thanks to all for their participation in this w/o taking it personal or too far.

Because they aren't overt hate spitting racists. They don't need to be forced to make a hire -- in fact, they'd be resentful for it. They are being forced to allow a guy to come and give his pitch.

Again, it is hard to deny that the rule hasn't changed anything. What seems clear to me is that there were a ton of great minority coaches out there who just needed a shot to tell owners and GMs their ideas.

-- No reason to take this all personally -- I don't think either of us are going to have a say in NFL coaching decisions!

 

[iceberg]

I think the point here is that few people recognize their biases -- I doubt very strongly that any NFL owner is overtly racist. Overt racism is not the big problem in hiring -- it is the more subtle forms of racism that lead people to lean toward favoring people like them. This is exactly what made it so hard for minority assistants to get interviews. You make an interview list of guys you know or guys your friends recommend. You stay in your own circle and tend to favor people like you.

Once a guy get an interview, it is up to the interviewee to sell themselves - and clearly owners are getting sold. You can't sell though if you aren't allowed inside.

The Rooney Rule has clearly changed things. There are more minority hires now that the rule is in place.

that makes sense and i can see that logic trying to prevail. i don't agree with the method and think it's counter productive in the end, but maybe i'm not seeing the day to day as well as the long term. good points.

 

[Tass]

I think Parcells ought to satisfy the Rooney rule by interviewing Norm Chow. Irritate the proponents of the rule while still satisfying it.

 

[iceberg]

I think Parcells ought to satisfy the Rooney rule by interviewing Norm Chow. Irritate the proponents of the rule while still satisfying it.

that would be interesting to see if their focus was minority or black.

 

[Hostile]

I think Parcells ought to satisfy the Rooney rule by interviewing Norm Chow. Irritate the proponents of the rule while still satisfying it.

Jack Del Rio and Steve Marriuci did not satisfy the rule, why would Chow?

 

[big dog cowboy]

but how does a rule that doesn't MAKE them hire a minority force their hand? if they're biased, the rule changes nothing.

See that is what I have been saying for years. Maybe I'm missing something. But I just don't get it.

 

[Tass]

Jack Del Rio and Steve Marriuci did not satisfy the rule, why would Chow?

Those guys are caucasians. Chow is asian.

 

[iceberg]

Those guys are caucasians. Chow is asian.

so it is based on skin color alone then, or overall ethniticity? (is that a word?)

what if the interviewed an indian - satisfied?

 

[AbeBeta]

that would be interesting to see if their focus was minority or black.

I believe Asian and Hispanic are part of the rule -- Italian and German decent are not since they are well represented in coaching ranks and do not have as strong a history of being discriminated against in the U.S. It kind of boils down to the census categories. Italians and German etc. would be classified as White whereas Hispanic and Asian are placed in different categories.

 

[AbeBeta]

that makes sense and i can see that logic trying to prevail. i don't agree with the method and think it's counter productive in the end, but maybe i'm not seeing the day to day as well as the long term. good points.

I think either way there are going to be negative feelings -- it is all about picking your poison. You use the rule and some people feel it gives an unfair advantage. You don't use the rule and others feel they aren't getting fair opportunities. One thing is for sure -- fixing a problem with discrimination is extremely complex.

 

[Tass]

so it is based on skin color alone then, or overall ethniticity? (is that a word?)

what if the interviewed an indian - satisfied?

I'm assuming it is census-style. Caucasian, hispanic, black, asian, native american and pacific islander.

 

[iceberg]

I believe Asian and Hispanic are part of the rule -- Italian and German decent are not since they are well represented in coaching ranks and do not have as strong a history of being discriminated against in the U.S. It kind of boils down to the census categories. Italians and German etc. would be classified as White whereas Hispanic and Asian are placed in different categories.

see - selective enforcement of who should get the "benefit". all back to overall skin color.

we've had a strong contingent of german coaches? who are they?

 

[Doomsday101]

see - selective enforcement of who should get the "benefit". all back to overall skin color.

we've had a strong contingent of german coaches? who are they?

Coach Von Snapentheball.

 

[iceberg]

Coach Von Snapentheball.

well i could see some german women *playing* in the NFL, but i didn't know we had such a high amount of german coaches in our time.

unless you just count all the white males as "mutts" (here's proof, my nose is cold!) and somewhere back there is german, norweigan, sweedish, brittish, icelandic, and so forth.

 

[AbeBeta]

see - selective enforcement of who should get the "benefit". all back to overall skin color.

we've had a strong contingent of german coaches? who are they?

it is more about a history of discrimination. since you likely wouldn't even know someone had a german background it would be damn hard to discriminate against them.

 

[WoodysGirl]

i'll agree the player vs coach stance isn't perfect - only illustrates the ideea like your voting analogy.

i can better understand what you're saying about the rooney rule if applied in that manner. but the same thing could be had if owners opened themselves and staff up for "informational interviews" where they could go through the process and learn what would be expected of them but NOT when a job is on the line, but when they can really learn and take advantage of it when it counts.

I kinda think this is an unrealistic expectation. Staff, coaches, etc. spend way too much time on football matters, I don't know how much available time they would have to do "informational interviews." Considering owners are multimillionaires and billionaires, I would think they would rather spend their time doing whatever got them their bazillion dollars.

I do believe there are programs in place already to prepare coaches for the next step in hiring, similar to NFL Player Development programs. But, I think it's one thing to sit in a classroom and "pretend" you're in a job interview and it's another to go into an interview session with your livelihood on the line.

I've been on several job interviews through the years and I've found that I'm much better at it now than I was when I first started working. It took practice tho.