Has the Rooney rule helped or hurt minorities?

[tyke1doe]

Just testing your consistency, tyke.



The counter argument is that rather than have the NFL fix the problem, the individuals should set out to perform so well (as their age advances), that the owners cannot possibly exclude them simply because of age.

But how do you do that when, as history has shown, being a great defensive or offensive coordinator doesn't necessarily ensure you're going to be a great coach? Norv, cough, Turner.

Second, how do you perform so well if you're not given the opportunity to perform?

In order to perform as a head coach, you have to be a head coach.

Plenty of successful defensive and offensive coordinator don't get the chance to become head coaches.

 

[tyke1doe]

It is called sarcasm.

Oh, that's what it is?

How many minority coaches are worthy of interviews? (really)

I have no idea. But I would argue that we have/had several successful offensive and defensive coordinators. Don't they deserve a chance at becoming head coaches?

Why should a qualified (non-minority) coach miss out because of a B.S. rule?

Please show me where the Rooney Rule puts a limit on the number of coaching candidates who can be interviewed for a position?

With all due respect, your question is B.S. An owner is not restricted to the amount of candidates he can interview. He just has to make sure one of them is minority. And the minority doesn't even have to be African American.

I do not endorse affirmative action, it allows for the possibility of the unqualified to be hired first.

First, affirmative action is another argument. I merely gave it as an example.

Second, affirmative action didn't allow for the possibility of an unqualified person to be hired. Rather, it allowed a person to be hired based on potential.

Don't think for a moment that whites simply got hired because they were more qualified. As is the case with many jobs, people are hired based on their potential and their ability to be trained on-the-job.

We're not talking about jobs where a precise technical expertise is required like commercial airline pilot, brain surgeon or dentist. No one, not even blacks, would argue that an unskilled, unqualified person be hired as a pilot.

We're talking about jobs where qualifications are subjective and can be acquired on the job, a process that many whites have benefited from throughout the history of America.

Look how some owners bypass the one minority to hire who they feel the best coach may be.

Is that effective?

Huh?

You have a league made up of predominantly black players and racism is questioned when a black coach is not hired.

You had a nation that benefited from black slavery yet a black man was not allowed to occupy elected office at one time.

You do understand the incongruity of your statement don't you?

Media loves to play the race card, because the public is a sucker everytime.

Count yourself as being sucked.

No, count myself well-informed and a student of history.

 

[heavyg]

Of course not, I was just hinting at how much further minorities probably need to go besides just being the majority of players. I am sure it will happen someday. For those with a problem with the current Rooney rule, please ask yourself how you will cope when the Dallas Cowboys are owned by a black person

I could care less if the owner, coach, QB or anyone else is yellow, black, purple or gren as long as we are winning. I realize there are still some ignorant people in this world. There will always be. But the vast majority of people now do not use race as a reason no to hire someone......At least from what I have seen in my small part of the world...

 

[tyke1doe]

Now we are into semantics. Black coaches are allowed to interview for any head coaching job, just like white guys are allowed to try out for teams.

No, it's not semantics. It's more an accurate understanding of the process and the difference between an interview and an open try out.

A person can only be interviewed for a job if the employer consents to the interview.

But teams generally hold open try outs during training camp where blacks, whites, Latinos or whoever else thinks they can play can try to make a team.

This is fairly simple.

I appreciate the open and frank discussion. But let's not try to manipulate the process to make unequal comparisons.

Everyone knows the difference.

The difference between interview and try out is the difference between being selected prom king/queen and being invited to the prom. One is by selection, the other is an open invitation.

That, my friend, is NOT semantics.

The issue is indeed whether the candidate (player or coach, white or black) has demonstrated the talent and ability to merit an opportunity for the interview/tryout.

Unfortunately, that hasn't always been the case. Why did Marvin Lewis, Sherman Lewis, Emmitt Thomas, Tony Dungy and a host of other black position coaches have to wait so long for a coaching opportunity (and some never getting that chance at all) while Dave Wannstedts, Norv Turners, Wade Phillips not only get coaching jobs but after proving that they CAN'T take a team to another level get three or four more opportunities?

Second, how do you measure merit in a field that is subjective?
As I've stated before, coaching isn't like raw ability. It can't be measured quantitatively. It is measure more subjectively.

Many successful defensive and offensive coordinators don't get head coaching jobs because of factors not having to do with their abilities.

Are you going to tell me that Jason Garrett is a better head coaching candidate than many white and black coordinators in the league?

Why is he suddenly being "tabbed" as a head coaching candidate when many may not ever get that chance even though they've accomplished so much more?

His situation illustrates how subjective the process is. Yet he's being eyed as a potential coaching candidate based on how much of a coach he was to Troy Aikman while the two played together and based on his "bright" mind as if he's the only one with a bright mind.

Really, what has he done?

Now, you may argue that the Rooney Rule is necessary to ensure that black candidates continue to be considered, and you may be right.

But I will pose the same question to you as you did to me. Do you know of any black candidates this season who weren't allowed to interview for an NFL Head Coaching Position?

With all due respect, that's not the same question.

The more appropriate question would have been how many black coaching candidates would have received an interview without the Rooney Rule?

I don't know the answer to that. But the fact that we have the Rooney Rule suggests that they're part of the process. And that's really all I'm interested in.

They're a part of the process. Doesn't mean they have to be hired. But they have to be considered and with that consideration comes a knowledge and awareness that blacks too want to lead NFL teams and the process identifies those who do.

 

[Cajuncowboy]

No, you inferred that.

I implied burm is a republican, and appears very similar to the ones I work with.

So if that had nothing to do with it and it is an obvious falicy, why would you mention it? Wait, I'll answer it. Because you believe that Republicans are racist. Otherwise, it would have made no sense for you to add that.

 

[bbgun]

So if that had nothing to do with it and it is an obvious falicy, why would you mention it? Wait, I'll answer it. Because you believe that Republicans are racist. Otherwise, it would have made no sense for you to add that.

Indeed. Classic guilt by association, save for the fact that there's nothing to be guilty about. When the GOP initiates a "Republican White Caucus," get back to me.

 

[heavyg]

First, affirmative action is another argument. I merely gave it as an example.

Second, affirmative action didn't allow for the possibility of an unqualified person to be hired. Rather, it allowed a person to be hired based on potential.

Don't think for a moment that whites simply got hired because they were more qualified. As is the case with many jobs, people are hired based on their potential and their ability to be trained on-the-job.

I disagree with this. I know for a fact when I was working for the Dept of Corrections and we tested for new hires. Minorities had lower expected grade than whites. If a white needed a 75% on the written test the minority only needed a 70%. Is that fair?

The same was true in the Police and Fire Dept testing as well.

 

[Cajuncowboy]

Indeed. Classic guilt by association, save for the fact that there's nothing to be guilty about. When the GOP initiates a "Republican White Caucus," get back to me.

Absoultly, I think the whole race thing crazy to start with. Black, white, brown, red green, purple who gives a crap? What really matters is what MLK Jr said, "It's the content of their character, not the skin color." (paraphrased).

 

[Deep_Freeze]

God, I posted in the 2nd page of this thread like 18 hours ago, 9 pages?? Are you kidding me?!?!

Oh goodness does race cause a house fire. Suprised!?!?!

 

[UDcowboysfan]

I'm 20, so i believe my views are pretty youthful. The rule most likely helped minorities in the beginning but now i just see it as a slap in the face. I think Owners are going to bring in the best candidate every time.

 

[superpunk]

So if that had nothing to do with it and it is an obvious falicy, why would you mention it? Wait, I'll answer it. Because you believe that Republicans are racist. Otherwise, it would have made no sense for you to add that.

Do you want me to answer, or are you going to continue to tell me what I meant?

I ask, because I did a similar thing to what you're doing now to mickgreen a few weeks back, and felt like a complete arsehole afterwards, and felt obligated to tell him so once I realized that I flew off the handle, and acted like a complete arsehole.

If you do want an actual answer, I'll give it. It's pretty clear what I meant, if you're not looking for something that isn't there.

If you're not, and want to continue to "answer for me", and tell me what I believe, I won't waste my time.

 

[Cajuncowboy]

Do you want me to answer, or are you going to continue to tell me what I meant?

I ask, because I did a similar thing to what you're doing now to mickgreen a few weeks back, and felt like a complete arsehole afterwards, and felt obligated to tell him so once I realized that I flew off the handle, and acted like a complete arsehole.

If you do want an actual answer, I'll give it. It's pretty clear what I meant, if you're not looking for something that isn't there.

If you're not, and want to continue to "answer for me", and tell me what I believe, I won't waste my time.

You don't owe me anything. Respond if you want to to clarify if it helps.
I just said I don't get why it was important for you to talk about them being Republicans

 

[superpunk]

You don't owe me anything. Respond if you want to to clarify if it helps.
I just said I don't get why it was important for you to talk about them being Republicans

No.

What you said was "you believe republicans are racist."

Here is what I believe (in actuality - not what you tell me I believe)

1. I believe burm is a stereotypical hardcore republican, from the conversations I've seen him in, and his views on thing. I'm talking way left (or right, whatever....I can never keep them straight)

2. I believe my coworkers are stereotypical good ole' boys (not racist - and I did mention that specifically) that don't like rap, and that I play it in the office to mess with them.

3. I believe that when I think of burm, I think of a guy like my coworkers. This has nothing to do with being racist, and I did not imply that ANYWHERE. It has to do with rap, more than anything - AND being republican.

4. Which is why I mentioned Republicans, and now regret it.

Hope you can take that at face value. It's no different than my original post - just outlined and explained more succintly. If you can't, oh well, I tried.

 

[Deep_Freeze]

Gowd, I want to respond to this trend, but I'm too drunk to do so. I ask you to stop trying to make yourself look good by posts, and really post in honestly and without vain.

 

[WhizKid]

Oh, that's what it is?



I have no idea. But I would argue that we have/had several successful offensive and defensive coordinators. Don't they deserve a chance at becoming head coaches?



Please show me where the Rooney Rule puts a limit on the number of coaching candidates who can be interviewed for a position?

With all due respect, your question is B.S. An owner is not restricted to the amount of candidates he can interview. He just has to make sure one of them is minority. And the minority doesn't even have to be African American.



First, affirmative action is another argument. I merely gave it as an example.

Second, affirmative action didn't allow for the possibility of an unqualified person to be hired. Rather, it allowed a person to be hired based on potential.

Don't think for a moment that whites simply got hired because they were more qualified. As is the case with many jobs, people are hired based on their potential and their ability to be trained on-the-job.

We're not talking about jobs where a precise technical expertise is required like commercial airline pilot, brain surgeon or dentist. No one, not even blacks, would argue that an unskilled, unqualified person be hired as a pilot.

We're talking about jobs where qualifications are subjective and can be acquired on the job, a process that many whites have benefited from throughout the history of America.



Huh?



You had a nation that benefited from black slavery yet a black man was not allowed to occupy elected office at one time.

You do understand the incongruity of your statement don't you?




No, count myself well-informed and a student of history.

I want to respond but we went thru a discussion this board like last week....

 

[WhizKid]

No, it's not semantics. It's more an accurate understanding of the process and the difference between an interview and an open try out.

A person can only be interviewed for a job if the employer consents to the interview.

But teams generally hold open try outs during training camp where blacks, whites, Latinos or whoever else thinks they can play can try to make a team.

This is fairly simple.

I appreciate the open and frank discussion. But let's not try to manipulate the process to make unequal comparisons.

Everyone knows the difference.

The difference between interview and try out is the difference between being selected prom king/queen and being invited to the prom. One is by selection, the other is an open invitation.

That, my friend, is NOT semantics.



Unfortunately, that hasn't always been the case. Why did Marvin Lewis, Sherman Lewis, Emmitt Thomas, Tony Dungy and a host of other black position coaches have to wait so long for a coaching opportunity (and some never getting that chance at all) while Dave Wannstedts, Norv Turners, Wade Phillips not only get coaching jobs but after proving that they CAN'T take a team to another level get three or four more opportunities?

Second, how do you measure merit in a field that is subjective?
As I've stated before, coaching isn't like raw ability. It can't be measured quantitatively. It is measure more subjectively.

Many successful defensive and offensive coordinators don't get head coaching jobs because of factors not having to do with their abilities.

Are you going to tell me that Jason Garrett is a better head coaching candidate than many white and black coordinators in the league?

Why is he suddenly being "tabbed" as a head coaching candidate when many may not ever get that chance even though they've accomplished so much more?

His situation illustrates how subjective the process is. Yet he's being eyed as a potential coaching candidate based on how much of a coach he was to Troy Aikman while the two played together and based on his "bright" mind as if he's the only one with a bright mind.

Really, what has he done?



With all due respect, that's not the same question.

The more appropriate question would have been how many black coaching candidates would have received an interview without the Rooney Rule?

I don't know the answer to that. But the fact that we have the Rooney Rule suggests that they're part of the process. And that's really all I'm interested in.

They're a part of the process. Doesn't mean they have to be hired. But they have to be considered and with that consideration comes a knowledge and awareness that blacks too want to lead NFL teams and the process identifies those who do.

 

[AbeBeta]

I'm 20, so i believe my views are pretty youthful. The rule most likely helped minorities in the beginning but now i just see it as a slap in the face. I think Owners are going to bring in the best candidate every time.

The idea that you can easily distinguish the "best" candidates is not realistic -- that is entirely subjective -- it isn't like we are talking about comparing players - there simply aren't stats to measure the quality of, say, a defensive coordinator. These are exactly the situations where biases promote employment discrimination (this is very much part of the winning argument in the Grutter v. Bolinger Affirmative Action case argued before the Supreme Court).

Overwhelmingly in the past, when owners looked to interview the "best" candidates, they turned out to also be the white guys. It is a simple psychological process -- under conditions of ambiguity, people favor those who are most like them. Five years of the Rooney Rule has helped but to believe it has fixed the problem just isn't realistic. The rule has improved the situation but we are talking about a league that hired its first black coach less than 20 years ago. There are something like fewer than 10 black head coaches in the history of the league. Yet if you look around the league, you'll see considerable #s of black assistants on most staffs. So there is clearly a pool of candidate, they just haven't gotten the jobs. That folks, is called discrimination.

 

[Maikeru-sama]

The idea that you can easily distinguish the "best" candidates is not realistic -- that is entirely subjective -- it isn't like we are talking about comparing players - there simply aren't stats to measure the quality of, say, a defensive coordinator. These are exactly the situations where biases promote employment discrimination (this is very much part of the winning argument in the Grutter v. Bolinger Affirmative Action case argued before the Supreme Court).

Overwhelmingly in the past, when owners looked to interview the "best" candidates, they turned out to also be the white guys. It is a simple psychological process -- under conditions of ambiguity, people favor those who are most like them. Five years of the Rooney Rule has helped but to believe it has fixed the problem just isn't realistic. The rule has improved the situation but we are talking about a league that hired its first black coach less than 20 years ago. There are something like fewer than 10 black head coaches in the history of the league. Yet if you look around the league, you'll see considerable #s of black assistants on most staffs. So there is clearly a pool of candidate, they just haven't gotten the jobs. That folks, is called discrimination.

There is so much truth in this statement.

Folks need to come to grips with this simple truth. Whether wrong or right, people feel comfortable being around those who look like them, talk like them and share their same values.

And yes, Racists come in many different forms, White, Black, Republican, Democrat, Poor, Rich.

I also love how you hear so many people say 'Color doesn't matter'. When that has been used to separate people and a tool for demagogues for so long, it becomes embedded in the culture. It kind of reminds me of citizens being polled to determine whether or not they would vote for a Woman and the results are like 90% would but when it comes time to cast a vote for one, it is a different story .

- Mike G.

 

[Established1971]

FIrst of all anyone named Nancy Gay from SF shouldn't be writting about football since they don't know what they are talking about.


Wow this quote is full of prejudices.

 

[AbeBeta]

I also love how you hear so many people say 'Color doesn't matter'. When that has been used to separate people and a tool for demagogues for so long, it becomes embedded in the culture. It kind of reminds me of citizens being polled to determine whether or not they would vote for a Woman and the results are like 90% would but when it comes time to cast a vote for one, it is a different story .

- Mike G.

The amazing part is that people actually think that we can simply slough off years of discrimination by pretending that we now have some sort of Utopian society where ethnic differences don't matter anymore. Ideally, these differences wouldn't matter -- but we aren't going to get there by simply ignoring our legacy of discrimination and not taking positive actions to create a level-playing field.

The voting for a woman example above really highlights how disconnected attitudes (what we say) and behaviors (what we do) can be.