Has the Rooney rule helped or hurt minorities?

[tunahelper]

Oh, that's what it is? Exactly...


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?
Exactly, you cannot give an answer?
How many minority coaches are being overlooked?
The rule was created for politically correctness reasons, not to really help anyone.
Why support a rule, when the stated purpose is not founded (ie: numerous qualified minority coaches missing oppurtunities)?



Please show me where the Rooney Rule puts a limit on the number of coaching candidates who can be interviewed for a position?
The pressure to interview one minority allows the processs to seat an unknown qualified candidate, this is the point.

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 was not referring to the number of total coaches interviewed. Rather, the media pressure everytime a non-minority, qualified candidate is hired.
Questions are raised as too his tenure,abilities, etc. and comparisons are made to the other minority candidates.
Is it fair to question these men and their abilities based on skin color?
Sounds like reverse racism to me.

First, affirmative action is another argument. I merely gave it as an example.
Not really? This is the samething, since minorities gain an advantage over non-minorities, based on skin color.

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.
This is speculation, since you have no way to prove this statement. What we do know is many minorities are given interview oppurtunities based on skin.
This in turn allows the chance for them to get the job.

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.
Another assumption!
Since we are assuming here, I wonder how many white, position coaches, with 4 years coaching, could make good HC?
Yet, Mike Singletary gets the chance to sit down with Jerry and apply for the HC position.
I think Mike might be a good choice for us, however it puts him in the front based on skin color.

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.
Expertise is not required to coach an NFL team? Wow! Sign me up!
I believe you are not informed. I have heard Sharpton, Jackson and Jim Brown state Racism prevents skilled and educated jobs from Blacks.
The funny thing is these men, rarely mention hispanics?

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.
Exactly, the owners should be subjective in their own process and not bound too meanlingless hiring rules.

Huh? I was referring to the stupid MINORITY HIRING process.



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?

Well, I was not a owner of any slaves, therefore do not owe anyone anything!
If you are to bring up the burden of slavery, maybe the plight of the Jews should also be discussed?
They were enslaved by Africans for thousands of years, yet no black leaders ever mention any apologies?

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

Another assumption, since many of your statements were not facts, simply conjecture and opinions!

 

[tyke1doe]

Another assumption, since many of your statements were not facts, simply conjecture and opinions!

You underlined two phrases in my rather lengthy post and you arrived at that conclusion?

If there is something specific you take issue with, please expound. But I have no idea what you're talking about.

 

[BulletBob]

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.

My original point is that an individual who performs so well in his job that the boss cannot help but to promote the individual into a more prominent position is perhaps the best and most rewarding route to success.

I'm not sure if I wasn't clear initially, or I do not understand your response.

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

Sorry, tyke. That makes me 0-3. I can usually understand your points.

Yes, I agree that plenty of successful defensive and offensive coordinators don't get the chance to become head coaches. Are you suggesting that there is a fix for this?

I don't think that there are enough Head Coaching positions in the NFL.

 

[tyke1doe]

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.

First, can you quantitatively measure the difference of 5 percent?

Second, you do understand that the history of education in this country is also laced with racial discrimination, right?

Affirmative actions also addresses this historical inaccuracies. And even so, please tell me the difference 5 percent made between one candidate and another?

 

[tyke1doe]

My original point is that an individual who performs so well in his job that the boss cannot help but to promote the individual into a more prominent position is perhaps the best and most rewarding route to success.

I'm not sure if I wasn't clear initially, or I do not understand your response.

First, I agree with you that that should be the case. But that's not always the case. How many black coordinators (Sherman Lewis for example) didn't get a chance to interview for a head coaching position even though they were successful as offensive and defensive coordinators? And how many blacks never got to those positions because of a historical pattern of discriminating against blacks with respect to coaching positions on a team?


Second, my point is that being a successful defensive/offensive coordinator doesn't necessarily mean becoming a successful head coach. We have plenty of examples of WHITE candidates (... cough, cough, Norv Turner, cough, cough Wade Phillips cough, cough ...) who disprove that.

You have to BECOME a head coach before you prove that you're a successful head coach. Hence, you have to have the opportunity to prove yourself in the position.

Sorry, tyke. That makes me 0-3. I can usually understand your points.

Yes, I agree that plenty of successful defensive and offensive coordinators don't get the chance to become head coaches. Are you suggesting that there is a fix for this?

I don't think that there are enough Head Coaching positions in the NFL.

I don't think it's a fix. It's just a way of thinking that excludes blacks. I wouldn't call this racist necessarily. It's just an oversight based on experience.

I've shared this with others but my wife works for a major insurance company and often trains new employees who are usually white men. She knows more than they, yet she's in the position of training them to become supervisors.

My wife sees a number of blacks performing the same role as she does and when one offers himself/herself up for promotion, the response sometimes is "Oh, I didn't know you wanted to become a supervisor." And then some other unknown "criterion" prevents them from taking the next step.

Meanwhile, the same white males are targeted for management without them having to express a desire for upper level positions.

Why is that?

I would argue it's because whites operate from a cultural experience that sees them in positions of authority. That's automatic to many of them. But it's not as automatic to see blacks in positions of authority, especially blacks over white employees.

It's a cultural mindset. I'm not saying it's racist because I don't think that prejudice necessarily translates into racism. But I do think it's a way we think of things and the way we perceive life and sometimes our way of thinking causes us to overlook things.

Second, I think you make a good point that there aren't enough head coaching positions in the NFL, which is the reason why I wouldn't be for mandating that a black or minority be hired simply because of race.

But there are no limitations on interviewing potential coaches. And I think that's important because it lets the league know who there might be among those position coaches/coordinators who want to be coaches.

Remember, too, not all position coaches or coordinators want to be coaches.

 

[BulletBob]

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.

Nice try, tyke. Unfortunately it is all in how you look at it. As much as you keep trying to hammer the point home that there is some sort of force holding certain types of individuals back from becoming head coaches, I will continue to point out that such a force is overblown. It may have been the case at one time, but you are twisting an analogy to make a point.

You persist in drawing the distinction between an open tryout for a player and the head coaching interview process. I would argue that the interview process is much more of an open tryout than you would have us believe.

If a Head Coaching vacancy opens up, any assistant coach in the league can contact the owner and express an interest. We saw a lot of that this week.

Nothing prevents an assistant from contacting a team for a HC interview.

Whether that assistant has demonstrated enough talent or skill to warrant such an interview is up to the owner.

It's the same with an "open tryout." When a team holds an open tryout (which very few do presently), do you think that everyone is invited? You don't think that there is a process to screen out, say an 85 year old man with a history of heart problems?

The open tryout process works the same way as a head coaching position.

Now if you want to argue that the numbers are different, then OK.

Just let me know when you want to make it a requirement that an owner has to interview everyone that expresses interest in the position.

We are back to semantics, my good man.

 

[ABQCOWBOY]

First, I agree with you that that should be the case. But that's not always the case. How many black coordinators (Sherman Lewis for example) didn't get a chance to interview for a head coaching position even though they were successful as offensive and defensive coordinators? And how many blacks never got to those positions because of a historical pattern of discriminating against blacks with respect to coaching positions on a team?

This is a fair point IMO.

You take Tony Dungy and Lovie Smith, for example:

13 years of very succesful coaching in the College ranks before he ever got a shot in the NFL. 13 YEARS. That's a very long time to wait. I think it's also worth mentioning that Tony Dungy gave him his shot. Are we to believe that nobody else new about Lovie Smith except Tony Dungy? 7 more years as an assistant coach before he got a shot as HC. Passed over several times along the way. That's 20 years of putting in time before he ever got his chance as HC and it's not because Smith wasn't good at what he did. He was very good at it.

Dungy's road is a bit different but also alike. Interestingly enough, Tony Dungy graduated from Minnesota (Big 10) as a 4 year starter at QB. By the time he finished, he was there all time career leader in pass attempts, completions, yards and TDs. He was the 4th All time leader in total yardage in the history of the Big 10. He was named MVP twice at Minnesota. In 1977, Tony Dungy entered the NFL as a Free Agent Safety. Amazingly enough, nobody ever gave Dungy a chance to play QB in the NFL. In 1980, Dungy became a DB coach for Pittsburgh. He remained a defensive backs coach for 4 years and then became the DC for the Steelers in 84. In 89, Dungy left to become a DB coach, once again, in KC. It is interesting to note that Bill Cowher entered the NFL as a ST coach in 1985. In 87, he became there DB coach. In 89 he got the job of DC for the Kansas City Chiefs and in 92 became the HC of the Pittsburgh Steelers. In effect, Dungy worked for Cowher while at KC. In 1992, when Cowher got the job as HC in Pittsburgh, Dungy was not brought back to Pittsburgh. Instead, Dungy was hired by Dennis Green to be there DC. He enjoyed huge success in Minnesota, once again and was finally hired as HC by Tampa Bay in 1996. 12 years as a position coach or coordinator before he got his shot. Dungy wasn't just good. He was widely reconginzed as one of the best DCs in the NFL for a long time and got passed over continuosly. If not for Dennis Green, who knows?

 

[ABQCOWBOY]

Nice try, tyke. Unfortunately it is all in how you look at it. As much as you keep trying to hammer the point home that there is some sort of force holding certain types of individuals back from becoming head coaches, I will continue to point out that such a force is overblown. It may have been the case at one time, but you are twisting an analogy to make a point.

You persist in drawing the distinction between an open tryout for a player and the head coaching interview process. I would argue that the interview process is much more of an open tryout than you would have us believe.

If a Head Coaching vacancy opens up, any assistant coach in the league can contact the owner and express an interest. We saw a lot of that this week.

Nothing prevents an assistant from contacting a team for a HC interview.

Whether that assistant has demonstrated enough talent or skill to warrant such an interview is up to the owner.

It's the same with an "open tryout." When a team holds an open tryout (which very few do presently), do you think that everyone is invited? You don't think that there is a process to screen out, say an 85 year old man with a history of heart problems?

The open tryout process works the same way as a head coaching position.

Now if you want to argue that the numbers are different, then OK.

Just let me know when you want to make it a requirement that an owner has to interview everyone that expresses interest in the position.

We are back to semantics, my good man.

At what point did the change occure? You don't have to be exact. Just roughly, at what point did it change in the NFL where minorities gained even footing, as it were?

 

[WhizKid]

First, I agree with you that that should be the case. But that's not always the case. How many black coordinators (Sherman Lewis for example) didn't get a chance to interview for a head coaching position even though they were successful as offensive and defensive coordinators? And how many blacks never got to those positions because of a historical pattern of discriminating against blacks with respect to coaching positions on a team?


Second, my point is that being a successful defensive/offensive coordinator doesn't necessarily mean becoming a successful head coach. We have plenty of examples of WHITE candidates (... cough, cough, Norv Turner, cough, cough Wade Phillips cough, cough ...) who disprove that.

You have to BECOME a head coach before you prove that you're a successful head coach. Hence, you have to have the opportunity to prove yourself in the position.






I don't think it's a fix. It's just a way of thinking that excludes blacks. I wouldn't call this racist necessarily. It's just an oversight based on experience.

I've shared this with others but my wife works for a major insurance company and often trains new employees who are usually white men. She knows more than they, yet she's in the position of training them to become supervisors.

My wife sees a number of blacks performing the same role as she does and when one offers himself/herself up for promotion, the response sometimes is "Oh, I didn't know you wanted to become a supervisor." And then some other unknown "criterion" prevents them from taking the next step.

Meanwhile, the same white males are targeted for management without them having to express a desire for upper level positions.

Why is that?

I would argue it's because whites operate from a cultural experience that sees them in positions of authority. That's automatic to many of them. But it's not as automatic to see blacks in positions of authority, especially blacks over white employees.

It's a cultural mindset. I'm not saying it's racist because I don't think that prejudice necessarily translates into racism. But I do think it's a way we think of things and the way we perceive life and sometimes our way of thinking causes us to overlook things.

Second, I think you make a good point that there aren't enough head coaching positions in the NFL, which is the reason why I wouldn't be for mandating that a black or minority be hired simply because of race.

But there are no limitations on interviewing potential coaches. And I think that's important because it lets the league know who there might be among those position coaches/coordinators who want to be coaches.

Remember, too, not all position coaches or coordinators want to be coaches.

Fact is the rule is as simple as this.....it requires that a minority be interviewed. The owner is not required that he hire the minority, just that he interviews him, so he is given a chance. I personally don't even think there is two sides to this discussion, the rule is needed.

 

[tyke1doe]

Nice try, tyke. Unfortunately it is all in how you look at it. As much as you keep trying to hammer the point home that there is some sort of force holding certain types of individuals back from becoming head coaches, I will continue to point out that such a force is overblown. It may have been the case at one time, but you are twisting an analogy to make a point.

You persist in drawing the distinction between an open tryout for a player and the head coaching interview process. I would argue that the interview process is much more of an open tryout than you would have us believe.

If a Head Coaching vacancy opens up, any assistant coach in the league can contact the owner and express an interest. We saw a lot of that this week.

But can any potential head coach get an INTERVIEW?

That's where your argument breaks down.

Showing interest is one thing. Heck, anybody can show interest in any job. But that doesn't mean you'll get a subsequent interview. And the interview is where you impress the employer.

A tryout is like the application process. Anyone can submit an application and based on what's on that application you may get an interview. But the interview is where you distinguish yourself for the job.

Nothing prevents an assistant from contacting a team for a HC interview.

Again, you're dividing the process to support your argument.

Contacting a team for an interview isn't the same as getting the INTERVIEW.

The Rooney Rule says that a team must INTERVIEW a minority candidate. It doesn't say that it has to listen to those who want the job. It MUST INTERVIEW the minority candidate.

Whether that assistant has demonstrated enough talent or skill to warrant such an interview is up to the owner.

Bingo. The owner doesn't have to interview the candidate. But that's not what the Rooney Rule says.

It's the same with an "open tryout." When a team holds an open tryout (which very few do presently), do you think that everyone is invited? You don't think that there is a process to screen out, say an 85 year old man with a history of heart problems?

First, you don't even know how the process goes.

Second, teams hold tryouts during the beginning of training camp. Of course there are limitations because 1,000 people can't try out for one team. But that limitation isn't based on race. It's based on NUMBERS. But the number is really irrelevant since you nor I know how many people are allowed to tryout at a team's camp.

We do know, however, that many do tryout and that tryout is open to all who believe they can play football. And they get to prove themselves.

But if there are two equally qualified candidates and one gets an interview and the other doesn't, there's no way the person who didn't get the interview can convince the owner because the owner has the sole power to grant the interview.

You can't compare a tryout (which is open) to an interview process which is selective in nature.


Any limitation would be on a first-come, first-served basis. So a white WR or a black QB or a Hispanic kicker would have the same opportunity to try out regardless of their race.

The open tryout process works the same way as a head coaching position.

No, it doesn't.

And I would argue you're being dishonest if you think that getting an interview is the same as trying out for a football team.

Just let me know when you want to make it a requirement that an owner has to interview everyone that expresses interest in the position.

And you let me know when an owner has to interview ANYONE who calls expressing interest in a position.

He doesn't.

And THAT is the heart of this argument. An owner can interview six candidates, two candidates, one candidate.

But with a try out, the only limitation is on the ability for the team to accommodate all those who try out.

We are back to semantics, my good man.

Correction, you're back to semantics. I'm focusing specifically on the process and most people being honest can see there's a difference in the processes.

But thank you for the good man comment.

 

[tunahelper]

You underlined two phrases in my rather lengthy post and you arrived at that conclusion?

If there is something specific you take issue with, please expound. But I have no idea what you're talking about.

7 Black coaches of 32 total.

That is about 21%
American population of African Americans is 12%
Sounds like this rule is really evening things out?

 

[AbeBeta]

7 Black coaches of 32 total.

That is about 21%
American population of African Americans is 12%
Sounds like this rule is really evening things out?

What % of NFL players are African Americans. That is the real comparison. By your same argument half the coaches should be women -- and we both know that isn't relevant.

 

[wahoofan22]

I'd say it has definitely made some great strides in the NFL, but the true proof of it's success will be when we can all stop talking about the race of the coaches, and judge them on the merits of their success in the league. Dungy and Smith are great men who have accomplished much on their ability, not the color of their skin.

 

[tyke1doe]

What % of NFL players are African Americans. That is the real comparison. By your same argument half the coaches should be women -- and we both know that isn't relevant.

Bingo.

Why he would try to compare the population of America instead of the population of African Americans in the NFL is beyond me.

Well, it's not beyond me. I'm just trying to be nice.

 

[superpunk]

What % of NFL players are African Americans.

This suggests that only NFL players become head coaches. A more suitable outlook would be what % of coaching staffs are minorities, I think - otherwise, you're comparing apples to oranges. To get a good idea of whether or not minorities are really getting shafted, IMO you'd have to gauge the amount of interest shown by the minorities in comparison with whites. If you the job is opening, and there are 100 applicants, and 90 of them are white, it's just plain supply and demand - see what I'm saying? You can't just declare that there should be more minority coaches, without knowing beforehand what the ratio of available candidates is - if it's overwhelmingly white, it makes sense that the job pool is dominated by whites, no matter what the ratio among players is.

Either way, it looks for a quota, which is foolish in hiring situations, and only makes for sponsorship of incompetence to satisfy the quota. The rule is good, because it forces owners to expand the coaching search - and it now seems to be a more diligent process, and that expands beyond the minority portion of the process. Which makes for a better product - which is the important thing.

 

[Cajuncowboy]

Wow this quote is full of prejudices.

OH man, get a sense of humor. This is what's wrong with all of this. Hypersensitivity. Get a life!

 

[jay cee]

It's helped. I don't think there is any question. The numbers do not lie.

The Rooney Rule was passed and implimented for the 2001 Season?

In 2000, there were 2 coaches of color in the NFL. Last season, there were something like 7. You may not agree with the policy but I think that the facts are clear. More minorities are getting hired to coach in the NFL. At some point you have to look at cause and effect here. What has changed?

Thank you so much, for stating the obvious. I wouldn't think that should be so hard to see.

 

[AbeBeta]

Either way, it looks for a quota, which is foolish in hiring situations, and only makes for sponsorship of incompetence to satisfy the quota.

Hold on now - 1) hiring quotas are not part of any policy of affirmative action -- quotas are illegal. people associate "quota" with affirmative action because some clever politicians have portrayed it that way. 2) hiring incompetent or unqualified people is again, illegal under policies of affirmative action (i.e., a policy cannot force hiring on people who do not have qualifications). 3) the Rooney Rule is not a hiring rule -- it is a policy designed to enhance opportunity through increasing minority coaches access to owners and to build skills in interviewing. 4) This is a policy that addresses what AA policy makes call "proportionality" -- the proportion of potential applicants (i.e., the current pool of assistant coaches in the NFL) who are minorities should match the interview pool. Since we are talking about only a handful of HC positions available each year, one interview per position doesn't seem overly burdensome. It isn't a huge pool so you'll not likely match proportion exactly -- but you can't conduct .75 interviews, you know.

 

[jay cee]

Very good points. I'm still digesting ...

At least you're trying to digest it. It seems many here just spit it out, and continue to stick their heads in the sand.

 

[superpunk]

Hold on now - 1) hiring quotas are not part of any policy of affirmative action -- quotas are illegal. people associate "quota" with affirmative action because some clever politicians have portrayed it that way.

I wasn't talking about the rule - I was talking about the notion you put out there that a good measuring stick would be the amount of NFL players that are minorities. That seems illogical to me, because it's not like player to coach is the natural progression. You would have to go to the base - how many pee-wee minority coaches are there - how many want to go higher - are they restricted - what about the next level - does that make sense? It does in my head, I just dont know if I'm getting it out right.

I should have said that your scenario is "like" a quota. My mistake.

It isn't a huge pool so you'll not likely match proportion exactly -- but you can't conduct .75 interviews, you know.

That's what I'm talking about with the comment about what % of NFL players corresponding to coaches. If there's not a correspondingly large pool of minority candidates to choose from in the coaching ranks, you're never going to have any equilibrium between players and coaches.

It's a good rule, I just saw the % of NFL players thing and thought it was bizarre.