2013 NFL Off-Season Thread

[FiddySicks]

Yeah, somehow I think that circumvented racism is even more insulting than straightforward brute force bigotry. At least bigots acknowledge their prejudices.

[Gothamite]

No, which is again why they need to rework it. Give the rule some teeth.

How many more "teeth" does this rule need to have? Keep revising this lame rule and we'll end up with racial hiring quotas down the road, a system just as inherently racist as refusing to hire minorities at all.

No.

Not for the first couple hundred years, it won't be.

And the problem is that we don't know if these black coaches are incompetent because owners are more likely to hire known losers who are white than take a chance on a guy who's not.

[Kramerica Industries]

What happened in the past may suck. No one will disagree with that. But the solution is not to "make up" for it, either. The Rooney Rule isn't supposed to be an NFL racial equivalent to feminism.

Racism is racism, regardless of how it is achieved.

[Gothamite]

Can't agree with you there.

Asking that owners give black people a fair shot at jobs hardly falls under the category of "racism". Especially in an industry that has a history of real racism in its employment.

[Kramerica Industries]

Fair shot is one thing, what the Rooney Rule was implemented to do.

What drew my ire in the first place was the NFL spokesman who lamented the non-hirings so far. If you want to try and force the issue, the only thing I can think of is having a mandate that requires more than one black candidate be interviewed, as to increase the chances of one being hired. But if a team decides that a white person is better suited for the head coaching or GM job, then there's nothing that can be done about it. At the end of the day, teams have to be allowed to hire candidates they feel are best suited for the job. And if they are white, then so be it.

If the successes of Dungy and Tomlin aren't enough to convince other teams about the capabilities of minority head coaches, then nothing will. That's just a lost cause, in that case.

[IceCap]

Asking that owners give black people a fair shot at jobs hardly falls under the category of "racism". Especially in an industry that has a history of real racism in its employment.

That is true, but it's a VERY fine line. If a team hires a white guy over a black guy because the white guy's truly the better option then that's just the way it is.

Certainly, there's a playing field to be leveled. Forcing teams to hire black coaches over more qualified white coaches, however, isn't an improvement. So I agree with yor sentiment Goth, but it's a very tricky issue to navigate.

How do you give qualified black coaching candidates more of a fair shot then they'll currently getting without forcing teams to hire under-qualified black coaching candidates in an effort to level the hiring process?

Ideally everyone should just not be sh***y and hire the best person for the job, regardless of race, but I realize that's asking way to much.

[Gothamite]

Ideally everyone should just not be sh***y and hire the best person for the job, regardless of race, but I realize that's asking way to much.

I agree, and I realize that it's hard to change these attitudes with a series of rules.

But the attitudes have to be changed somehow, and I'm at a loss to figure out how they can be without either incentives for doing so or penalties for teams that don't.

If not via a version of the Rooney Rule, then what? I really don't know. It's easy to say "leave the teams alone and they'll eventually do the right thing", but there's no evidence to suggest that will actually happen, nor is it fair to suggest that black coaches have to sit down and wait another couple generations so at least their kids (or their kids) get a fair shot at the top jobs.

[IceCap]

Ideally everyone should just not be sh***y and hire the best person for the job, regardless of race, but I realize that's asking way to much.

I agree, and I realize that it's hard to change these attitudes with a series of rules.

But the attitudes have to be changed somehow, and I'm at a loss to figure out how they can be without either incentives for doing so or penalties for teams that don't.

If not via a version of the Rooney Rule, then what? I really don't know. It's easy to say "leave the teams alone and they'll eventually do the right thing", but there's no evidence to suggest that will actually happen, nor is it fair to suggest that black coaches have to sit down and wait another couple generations so at least their kids (or their kids) get a fair shot at the top jobs.

Well like I've said regarding issues far more important then NFL coaching hires, I'm a believer in social justice. I just recognize it's inherent weakness. That being that at the end of the day you cannot legislate how a person feels. If you have owners out ther that are just pos racists then there's nothing the NFL can do to really change the attitudes they bring to their organizations.

I'm not against strengthening the Rooney Rule. I just don't want to see it devolve into forcing teams to hire minority coaches, even if those candidates simply aren't the best candidates for the job. That's not an improvement over the current setup.

Here's what I would do. Require more then one minority coach to be interviewed. Let's say two or three.

I'd also like to see a rule that establishes a more uniform interviewing process. There have been plenty of black coaching candidates who have said that it was very clear that they were being interviewed just so that the team could comply with the Rooney Rule. That's a problem. Make it so that teams are almost forced into giving these candidates honest to G-d interviews. Establish a uniform interview length so teams can't just talk to a black candidate for half an hour and claim that they gave him a real interview. Or maybe even send out league officials to monitor each interview. They wouldn't get involved, they'd just make sure that the minority candidates were afforded the same process that the white candidates were afforded.

That way you almost force teams to take minority candidates seriously by forcing them to give them actual interviews rather then token interviews. Teams are in a position to seriously consider these candidates (which, hypothetically, would lead to more hires), but you stop short of going mad by requiring hires based on race.

[Lights Out]

Can't agree with you there.

Asking that owners give black people a fair shot at jobs hardly falls under the category of "racism". Especially in an industry that has a history of real racism in its employment.

You can't ask owners to give minorities a fair shot at jobs while at the same time reducing them to a speedbump on the road to a team's first choice with the Rooney Rule.

No, which is again why they need to rework it. Give the rule some teeth.

How many more "teeth" does this rule need to have? Keep revising this lame rule and we'll end up with racial hiring quotas down the road, a system just as inherently racist as refusing to hire minorities at all.

No.

Not for the first couple hundred years, it won't be.

Ridiculous.

[Gothamite]

No, but pretending that there is some sort of moral equivalence between a history of institutional racism and now asking that black people be treated equally is.

you cannot legislate how a person feels. If you have owners out ther that are just pos racists then there's nothing the NFL can do to really change the attitudes they bring to their organizations.

You can't change attitudes, but you can change actions. Attitudes will follow.

You don't have to like black people, but you can't keep them out of your restaurant. You don't have to like gay people, but you can't keep them from being teachers at your kid's school. With time and that exposure, everybody sees how ludicrous the prejudice was. Or enough so that society changes for the better.

Used to be that teams wouldn't sign a black quarterback. There's still been a residual amount of that in recent years, but that's largely been eliminated. Teams aren't as likely to give black coaches a shot, but if helped along that too will eventually fall. The only question is how many good black coaches need to be kept from their careers before attitudes change.

You may be on to something with a uniform set of interview guidelines. Even coaches that aren't hired would at least get experience with interviewing, which doesn't always happen in a token situation.

[Saintsfan]

The issue is that the Rooney Rule was instituted to live minority coaches a shot at coaching jobs. Now that is not happening, every top coaching opportunity the same thing happens. A minority is interviewed, often in a cursory fashion, and then a white guy gets the job. The minority rarely seems to be getting a fair shot. It's become a bit like Jim Crow laws really, enough to have a fig leaf of openness without actually being fair.

I don't actually know what the league can do, other than reviewing every hiring process that happens in the league, to ensure the minority candidate has been given a fair shot, including assistant coach positions, and make sure new owners are committed to the rule.You can't insist an owner hires a guy they don't want.

[CS85]

The Rooney Rule defeats the very purpose of it's creation: instilling a lesson.

By inviting any arguably undeserving candidate for an interview merely to accommodate the rule, the league is making a mockery of the very process. Black candidates that should be head coaches are often taken less seriously as candidates because the owners didn't want to bring them in in the first place.

If you did away with the rule you'd have a much easier time assessing what teams are seriously considering black candidates and which are not. The numbers would expose the culprits and merit further action, yet the rule washes out that ability by counteracting it's own intention.

[Gothamite]

I don't think so - if "undeserving candidates" are being brought in just to satisfy the Rule, then it should still be obvious who's serious and who isn't.

[BlueSky]

No, but pretending that there is some sort of moral equivalence between a history of institutional racism and now asking that black people be treated equally is.

you cannot legislate how a person feels. If you have owners out ther that are just pos racists then there's nothing the NFL can do to really change the attitudes they bring to their organizations.

You can't change attitudes, but you can change actions. Attitudes will follow.

You don't have to like black people, but you can't keep them out of your restaurant. You don't have to like gay people, but you can't keep them from being teachers at your kid's school. With time and that exposure, everybody sees how ludicrous the prejudice was. Or enough so that society changes for the better.

Used to be that teams wouldn't sign a black quarterback. There's still been a residual amount of that in recent years, but that's largely been eliminated. Teams aren't as likely to give black coaches a shot, but if helped along that too will eventually fall. The only question is how many good black coaches need to be kept from their careers before attitudes change.

You may be on to something with a uniform set of interview guidelines. Even coaches that aren't hired would at least get experience with interviewing, which doesn't always happen in a token situation.

How? Through a rule? No, because black QBs won and that's the name of the game in the NFL. Teams that don't give qualified minorities a chance are morons who deserve to lose. What's worse, not to get an interview at all or getting an interview that you know is nothing but window-dressing and the chance to tick the box to satisfy a rule? Sure, it's possible that the occasional forced interview might be so impressive that the candidate is hired, but that's the exception.

Can you guys really say that the most sought-after candidates in the coaching-go-round this or any other recent year would have been bypassed due to their race? I'm calling BS. Winners get hired.

The issue is that the Rooney Rule was instituted to live minority coaches a shot at coaching jobs. Now that is not happening, every top coaching opportunity the same thing happens. A minority is interviewed, often in a cursory fashion, and then a white guy gets the job. The minority rarely seems to be getting a fair shot. It's become a bit like Jim Crow laws really, enough to have a fig leaf of openness without actually being fair.

Yeah, like the Steelers, or the Bears when they hired Lovie, or the Colts when they brought in Tony Dungy then promoted Jim Caldwell when Dungy left. Or those racist bastards in Cincinnati or TB or Oakland or...well, you get the point, which is that your statement is flat wrong and utterly ridiculous to boot.

Hiring someone is a judgment call and anyone who lets race enter into it is an idiot. In business, sports, or life, you sink or swim with the people around you. Pick the best and you'll be good to go.

[Gothamite]

Plenty of teams do let race into it, though. That's widely acknowledged.

Are they idiots who deserve to lose? Yes. But does the league have a responsibility to step in and correct the problem? Also yes.

[BlueSky]

Plenty of teams do let race into it, though. That's widely acknowledged.

Are they idiots who deserve to lose? Yes. But does the league have a responsibility to step in and correct the problem? Also yes.

They can't get players to wear their pants properly but they're going to correct racism. This should be interesting to watch.

I don't disagree that the league has a responsibility here. But while they can make teams interview minorities, they can't make those same teams hire them. So what does the rule accomplish?

[Lights Out]

No, but pretending that there is some sort of moral equivalence between a history of institutional racism and now asking that black people be treated equally is.

If you read my post, you would see that the "equally racist" part is the racial hiring quotas that are inevitable if the Rooney Rule keeps getting more and more power. That isn't equality, it's just shifting discrimination.

[Gothamite]

No, but pretending that there is some sort of moral equivalence between a history of institutional racism and now asking that black people be treated equally is.

If you read my post, you would see that the "equally racist" part is the racial hiring quotas that are inevitable if the Rooney Rule keeps getting more and more power. That isn't equality, it's just shifting discrimination.

It still won't be in any way equivalent. Not for the next couple hundred years.

[The_Admiral]

Establishing a minimum interview time seems like the best way to improve the rule. Maybe send a transcript of the interview to the central office so interviewers can't just sit in silence and call it a day. That at least might develop a portfolio of sorts. But that's not a perfect solution, and there isn't one. And ultimately, it's a fool's errand to wring hands over the social justice of The Headbutt Each Other Until Your Brains Rot Out Game.

[Lights Out]

It still won't be in any way equivalent. Not for the next couple hundred years.

Two wrongs don't make a right.