I like the rule, and if the owners resented it, they have the power to vote for its elimination. I do think it gives the folks who are interviewed an opportunity to get some notice around the league and to hone their skills for future opportunities.
I also think it's the right thing to do. There was a time when appallingly few minority candidates were taken seriously. I don't think it was as much racism as it was the "good ol' boy network" in play. But one might argue that a "good ol' boy network" is, on its face, racist.
In any event, more minority coaches have been hired, and that seems to me a good thing.
I will concede that some of the interviews seem pointless. Clearly, Jerry Jones planned to hire Bill Parcells last time out, and nothing was likely to change his mind. But it's a small inconvenience to ask an owner to make time to do something that might offer some value. And it should have some value to the owner. Say Mike Singletary blows Jones away with a great interview, but Norv Turner is already the choice... a couple of years down the road, Jones might need a new head coach or a new defensive coordinator. What he learned about Singletary might be valuable to him at that point.
Further, owners deal with many personalities, a high percent of which are minority members. It can't hurt to sit down with a serious coaching candidate and learn a bit more about his perception of the league and its players.
:laugh2: 
