The Rooney Rule? Worthwhile, or Cumbersome and Unnecessary?
by MichaelProcton on Jun 15, 2009 2:47 PM EDT
Email
Print
As reported today by ProFootballTalk (who recently joined up with NBC), the NFL's "Rooney Rule"--which has required NFL teams with a head coaching opening to interview at least one minority candidate--has now been expanded to include all openings for senior football operations positions. This will apply regardless of the official title of that position, the two most common of which are probably General Manager and Executive Vice President of Football Operations. Below, I'll give my thoughts on this rule and its place in today's NFL and give you the chance to weigh in yourself.
Of the 32 NFL teams, there are ten minorities serving in the positions to which this rule applies (five head coaches and five GMs.) In terms of percentage, that is a rate of 15.6%. All are African-American, a group with a population of 13.4% as of 2006, although the ratio of NFL players and position coaches is obviously higher than the general population. In the most recent offseason coaching carousel, two of the ten available positions went to minorities (Jim Caldwell in Indianapolis and Raheem Morris in Tampa.)
Frankly, I think the most important qualifications someone can have for any position are their experience and ability. In this day and age, where we've seen a biracial man elected to the highest office in the country, and where we saw a pair of African-American coaches square off in football's championship game, I feel that any business, NFL teams included, should have the capacity to conduct their hiring procedures in any way they see fit. Any team that would place a more talented candidate on the shelf because of his ethnicity, age, or any other non-ability-based factor will get what they deserve: a lesser-performing team. One argument that proponents of this rule make is that it gives minorites who would otherwise not get a shot a chance to experience and better understand the interview process. To these people, I say let these minorities earn it, just as any Caucasian must do. Further, is the experience of being granted a token interview with no chance to actually win a job truly a rewarding opportunity?
In an interesting case, Rooney Rule procedures could have cost Jim Haslett the Rams' head coaching job this past year. When he was named interim coach, a clause was inserted into his contract where he was to be granted the permanent position if the team were to have won six games under his direction. However, because this would have bypassed an interview process which would have included a minority, the NFL nullfied this clause. As we now know, the Rams won only two games under Haslett and ultimately decided to go a different direction, ultimately naming Steve Spagnuolo head coach this offseason. However, that's not the point. In the name of "fairness to minorities," the NFL essentially voided a very reasonable performance clause in a contract. With the talent assembled in St. Louis, their ownership decided that six wins under Haslett would have been a benchmark to establish competency and deservedness for their head coaching job, a standard that, in my mind, outweighs any competency that could be displayed in an interview room or teleconference session. However, had Haslett been a minority, this would have been an acceptable practice.
In essence, I feel like the "racial fairness" demanded by this NFL policy is something NFL teams today willingly grant, as it is in their own best interest. If a man is best for the job, he will have every opportunity to earn it. However, there are certainly voices on the other side of the issue, and I put it to you: what do you think? Does the Rooney Rule serve a valuable purpose? Could it be modified to better serve the needs of all NFL head coaching and front office candidates? Or is it simply something that, in 2009, doesn't belong in the league's byrules? I'll eagerly await your responses.
The content of these posts are those of the user/fan making the post only
60 comments
|
1 recs |
Do you like this story?
Comments
Can of worms: Open.
I get very worked up about this issue, so if I go off the rails please feel free to let me know and I’ll try to get back on the rails (the train metaphor is stretched here, I know).
One of the most interesting things I’ve noticed among people who are in a situation of privilege is their desire to see the world on a very narrow timeline. White Americans tend to look at the racial situation, a situation which they are supremely unqualified to pass judgement upon, and use phrases like “In this day and age when X has happened” and then dismiss what are legitimate and necessary tools whose goal is to balance centuries-old racial inequalities. I’ve heard the “in this day and age” argument for the past 20+ years, and no matter what year it is nor what you fill in for ‘X’, I continue to encounter racism in the hushed whisperings of white people who assume because of my light complexion that I’m going to be sympathetic to their disparaging comments. Racism is alive and well throughout America, my friends, and there’s no sense in denying that.
So bringing this around to the current discussion, when the Rooney Rule was instituted in 2003, 94% of head coaches were white. That’s not “back in 1973, 94% of head coaches were white”. No, that’s “six years ago, in John Fox’s second season as head coach, the year we drafted Jordan Gross whose rookie contract just expired, 94% of head coaches were white”. I haven’t researched what the percentage of front office personnel was in 2003, but I’m guessing it was Ozzie Newsome and no one else.
If you want to have the discussion about whether or not race SHOULD matter, well there’s no arguments to be had there. Plainly, it should not. But the reality is that, over the course of the past 100 years, there has been no ladder up which talented and competent minority coaches could climb. The most a black coach could hope for was to get the head coaching job at a traditionally black university. They had zero shot at a major university, and even to this day, there are only four black head coaches in major college football. The playing field is simply not level.
The other point I want to reject is the notion that a team will “get what it deserves” for not selecting the most qualified candidate. When you’re talking about an NFL head coaching position, you’re talking about candidates who are all qualified, and it’s more a match of coaching acumen, charisma and chemistry; hiring a coach who espouses a philosophy you believe in, who will motivate the players you have, and who will work well with the front office. Teams ought to bring in 50 qualified people to interview for that job, but they don’t; they bring in 4 or 5. If minorities are excluded, you can still end up with a great coach. But maybe the minority candidate could have brought your team three Super Bowls instead of two, and your GM could have gotten along with him better. But you couldn’t know they’d click because you never brought him in for a face-to-face.
Well, there is nothing mandating a hiring quota, there is no rule forcing anyone to hire under-qualified candidates for any position at all. The Rooney Rule is perfect because it mandates only that the interview process include someone, anyone, who is not white. That’s it.
And in this day and age, that shouldn’t be too high a bar to clear.
The NCAA has no Rooney Rule...
And yet there has been an uptick in minority coaching hires in college.
Remember, kids...don't ever let facts get in the way of your argument.
by MichaelProcton on Jun 15, 2009 5:07 PM EDT up reply actions
No. No, there has not.
The evidence does not support your claim. The evidence supports my position.
For a man who is so thoroughly respected on this blog for his ability to conjure obscure and meaningful statistics and has a seemingly photographic memory of players and events both significant and otherwise, this has got to be the most poorly-supported argument you’ve ever presented. Your knowledge of this topic is not rooted in facts as much as knee-jerk reactions, and your memory seems to extend about 12 months and no further.
I am, frankly, baffled.
by r3 on Jun 15, 2009 5:21 PM EDT up reply actions
And what of the four D-IA schools that hired minority coaches just this season?
Ron English – Eastern Michigan
Michael Haywood – Ball State
Mike Locksley – New Mexico
DeWayne Walker – New Mexico State
Or the 500% increase in a few short years cited by none other than yourself in terms of NFL front-office executives despite no “Rooney Rule” being in position for those jobs?
Remember, kids...don't ever let facts get in the way of your argument.
by MichaelProcton on Jun 15, 2009 5:31 PM EDT up reply actions
Oh, and for the sake of reference...
Those four hires represented 18% of the 22 total openings.
Remember, kids...don't ever let facts get in the way of your argument.
by MichaelProcton on Jun 15, 2009 5:35 PM EDT up reply actions
And to expand below DI-A
Earnest Collins, Jr. – Alcorn St.*
Donovan Rhoads – Hampton*
George Ragsdale/Alonzo Lee – NC A&T*
Tom Williams- Yale
*=HBCU
So that’s 44% of the 9 listed jobs I found going to minorities. Also, you might or might not know that 7 of 16 head basketball and football coaches in the Ivy are minorities, a percentage that FAR exceeds that of their student populations. Is there a secret Rooney Rule in place there, or just equal opportunity rearing its ugly head?
Remember, kids...don't ever let facts get in the way of your argument.
by MichaelProcton on Jun 15, 2009 5:50 PM EDT up reply actions
One season does not make a trend. It's one season.
Let’s look back beyond this very offseason (again, 12 months). Since 1996, there have been 195 vacancies in the FBS (or D-1A), 12 of which were filled by minorities. That’s 6%.
Now we add in this season. We’re up to 16 hires out of 217 vacancies, or 7%.
* claps hands * Problem solved! That’s it, it’s over! We’ve broken the 7% barrier! Game, set and match!
Look, this isn’t a college football blog, there’s no sense trying to debate the vagaries of university hiring practices or the influence of trustees and high-dollar donors. The point to all of this was that, yes, historic racism is alive and well in the coaching ranks; coaching is seen largely as a sphere for white men only, and a minority is going to have a very hard time just getting his foot in the door. The Rooney Rule exists as a door stop to merely keep the door from being slammed shut. No more, no less.
And a 400% increase (not 500%) is an overly-flattering way of saying that there are now 4 more black guys in senior executive positions than there used to be. I think that’s a testament to the short-term effect of the Rooney Rule, introducing talented, qualified and capable men to their potential employers.
But I still cannot understand your position on this. Your position is that NFL teams should be perfectly comfortable creating candidate lists that are white-only?
by r3 on Jun 15, 2009 5:49 PM EDT up reply actions
They should be perfectly comfortable creating candidate lists of any demographic makeup they choose.
Its their money, both directly (the coach’s salary) and indirectly (success=attendance/merchandising/media appeal.)
Remember, kids...don't ever let facts get in the way of your argument.
by MichaelProcton on Jun 15, 2009 5:53 PM EDT up reply actions
Also...
The further back you go for your figures, the more you discount the possibility of any kind of progressive change. If we go back 25 years, I’m sure that number is down to something like 3%, and much farther back than that, I’m sure it will approach 0%.
Remember, kids...don't ever let facts get in the way of your argument.
by MichaelProcton on Jun 15, 2009 5:54 PM EDT up reply actions
You gotta start somewhere.
Perhaps a more meaningful year. You could start with the professional coaching career of Tony Dungy. In 1982, he was hired by Chuck Noll as a defensive backfield coach for the Steelers.
Since 1982, 488 openings in the FBS, 25 filled by black men. That’s 5%. But only one of those 25 were before 1990. So where you draw the line matters, but the facts are basically the same. It’s hard to get a top job if you’re not white. There are not many black head coaches who can act as mentors or show younger guys with promise how it’s supposed to be done because there’s just not that kind of history in place.
And I’m guessing it’s your sense of fairness which is violated by the mandates of the Rooney Rule; but that same sense of fairness takes no measure of historical inequities that exist at every level of coaching. How many black head coaches did you have in pee wee, in middle school, high school, college? I didn’t have a single one. I played on 8 different teams growing up in Charlotte, had lots of black position coaches, never had a black head coach at any level.
My whole point: things are better than when I was a kid. But they are not close to right. Your sense that team owners ought to be free to create all-white candidate lists without criticism only works in a world populated exclusively by rainbows and unicorns.
Race shouldn’t matter. But it does. It matters. I think a Colbert-ian worldview where “I don’t see race” is very much that of a hopeful idealist. I could be wrong, but you do not strike me as a hopeful idealist, rather a pragmatic realist.
Again, color me baffled.
by r3 on Jun 15, 2009 6:31 PM EDT up reply actions
When it comes to such philosophical matters...
I actually do tend to lean towards idealism and naivete. Probably has something to do with that “situation of privilege” you mentioned.
Remember, kids...don't ever let facts get in the way of your argument.
by MichaelProcton on Jun 15, 2009 6:43 PM EDT up reply actions
I don’t understand your issue with the Haslett contract. Even if he wins 6 games, his contract could have been extended anyway, after an interview process. If Haslett earned it, he would be the coach. Denying the “performance clause” didn’t change that.
My problem was that there was nothing at all wrong with the clause in the first place.
In my opinion, the NFL doesn’t need to be determining the business and hiring practices of its member teams. Was Haslett ultimately the right man for the job? No. However, had he met the standard the team had set to determine his status as its employee, it wouldn’t have mattered, because Big Brother Goodell said so.
Remember, kids...don't ever let facts get in the way of your argument.
by MichaelProcton on Jun 15, 2009 5:05 PM EDT up reply actions
But the Rooney Rule says that had he gotten it because of a previously-agreed to standard, it would have been because he was white...
Not because he was qualified. I suppose that’s what irks me the most.
Remember, kids...don't ever let facts get in the way of your argument.
by MichaelProcton on Jun 15, 2009 5:08 PM EDT up reply actions
Why would the Rooney Rule say that it was because “he was white”? Seems like that’s only speculation. As I understand it, it only mandates that the team interview minority candidates. If they do that and decided that Haslett was still the man for the job, then he gets the job. Am I missing something there?
Because it WOULDN'T require a re-interview process if it were a minority already in place.
I.E. the minority’s qualifications would stand on their own merit without being subject to review. I feel that’s an unfair double standard which goes against the entire concept of equal opportunity.
Remember, kids...don't ever let facts get in the way of your argument.
by MichaelProcton on Jun 15, 2009 5:56 PM EDT up reply actions
Beyond just that...
If a company makes a promise to an employee, like someone in Haslett’s case, where they say “hey man, we’re giving you a trial run here, let’s see if you can win 6 games in this abyssmal situation we are in. If you can, you’ve got the job” how can you possibly make it fair and expand it to fit the Rooney rule? It then becomes…
“hey man, we’re giving you a trial run here, let’s see if you can win 6 games in this abyssmal situation we are in. If you can, you’ve got the job, that is of course after we interview some people who aren’t the same skin color as you and we don’t like them better.”
Sounds pretty crappy to me.
this
Remember, kids...don't ever let facts get in the way of your argument.
by MichaelProcton on Jun 15, 2009 8:24 PM EDT up reply actions
I apologize for my naivety
but I’ve seen you respond to posts saying nothing more than “this” on more than one occasion now… what exactly does that mean?
know what you believe in and why you believe in it
by MentallyMIA on Jun 15, 2009 11:53 PM EDT up reply actions
"I concur," or "I have similar thoughts on this matter"
Similar to +1
Remember, kids...don't ever let facts get in the way of your argument.
by MichaelProcton on Jun 16, 2009 12:31 AM EDT up reply actions
that's what I figured
I just didn’t want to assume, and then assume wrong
thanks
know what you believe in and why you believe in it
by MentallyMIA on Jun 16, 2009 12:41 AM EDT up reply actions
I see where you are coming from, but I don’t think that its necessarily a bad thing. I’m still convinced that no matter what interview process they went through, Haslett would have the job if he deserved it.
Something r3 mentioned I never considered...
is that is gives the minority candidates exposure to the hiring process. I bombed a number of interviews before finally getting it right so I think there is merit in that regard. If I never got the chance to interview in the first place I would have never improved my interviewing ability.
I blog the Carolina Panthers at www.catscratchreader.com
I actually mentioned that...
But again, how do you think it feels to come in and interview for a job you know you literally have no chance of winning? Frustrating at best, demeaning at worst.
Remember, kids...don't ever let facts get in the way of your argument.
by MichaelProcton on Jun 16, 2009 9:32 AM EDT up reply actions
I voted yes but I can see both sides of this issue
Is the ratio of 15% minority because of the Rooney rule or just the normal result of teams making good decisions? If the rule should now go away will that mean minority employment will now drop? If you think the rule works then there would seem to be no reason to get rid of it now. It only requires interviews and if the candidate wants to decline it they can.
I blog the Carolina Panthers at www.catscratchreader.com
Gotta say, Jax...
you’ve got a damn fine readership here. I was afraid of this post. This could have been a devolving whirlwind of ick and filth, but it’s actually a pretty interesting conversation between reasonable people, on a topic about which reasonable people can disagree.
by r3 on Jun 15, 2009 6:44 PM EDT up reply actions
Hooray!
Try putting something about this decision somewhere like the observer boards, and OH BOY!
I also wanted to mention that I think another sign of change is the type of minority candidates that are now getting hired. Guys like Raheem Brock, Martin Mayhew, and Rick Smith are not guys who had to slave away in position coaching or administrative front office roles for years before getting their shot. They’re the type of “fiery hotshot young guns” who made impressions quickly and had a chance to capitalize on their talent and ability.
Remember, kids...don't ever let facts get in the way of your argument.
by MichaelProcton on Jun 15, 2009 8:34 PM EDT up reply actions
Yes, I was apprehensive about it too
and thought about removing it. But as MP pointed out, that first guy was a troll. Its hard to avoid them completely.
I appreciate everyone being able to discuss this without getting personal.
I blog the Carolina Panthers at www.catscratchreader.com
only thing that bothers me about the rule
is that it takes something that shouldn’t be an issue and puts it on display (segregation)
know what you believe in and why you believe in it
This rule, and affirmative action in general, are outdated...
.. and the only thing they do is remind us of segregation and a time where other races did not have the same opportunities that whites have in the United States. As MichaelProcton said, in a day and age where a mixed race man can hold the most powerful office in the country, we should begin to look past the color of a man’s skin, and look at the man himself. I also think that as the post-segregation generations grow into leadership roles (as they are starting to now, I myself am 25) we will see less and less of a need for things like the Rooney Rule.
Now that my opinion is out of the way, here are some facts to toss out there. Also, I am not a “PC” person. Caucasians are whites, African Americans are blacks, etc. If you have a problem with that, obviously you need to loosen your pants a little. If such a small thing like that sets you off, you need to evaluate your ability to be fair and unbiased in these sorts of discussions.
is 15% a low ratio of minorities to whites?
Not by US census data it’s not. In the USA, by demographics, 74% of people are white (that includes people who are both white and those who claim a white/hispanic ancestry), 13.4% are black, and the rest are mostly of Hispanic or Asian descent. Now, as the blog claims, most of the minority jobs are indeed held by blacks, so that means against the overall ratio of whites to blacks in the country, 15.6% is right on. Maybe hispanics and asians have a reason to bitch a little, but the numbers hardly show me any disparity based on the US population. Also, let’s not forget how many PLAYERS in football are not white. I cannot find a reputable source for some hard numbers here, but I would guess that 80% of players are non-white. So based on this data… does it look like the NFL has a problem hiring minorities? Yeah… didn’t think so.
SO where is the justification for this rule? To me it seems like more unneeded paperwork and expense for the teams involved. Now you have to have someone appointed to oversee all these hirings and make sure it is all done according to the Rooney Rule. What a load of crap.
by Tater596 on Jun 15, 2009 6:44 PM EDT reply actions 1 recs
rec'd
that’s exactly what I said in the post above this… but in much less words.
Great research and well put.
know what you believe in and why you believe in it
by MentallyMIA on Jun 15, 2009 11:56 PM EDT up reply actions
Rodney rule? Meh.
It doesn’t force the teams to sign anyone against their will. All it does is make them interview at least one minority for every position. You could very well bring in someone with no experience, ask one question to them, and then dismiss them and call it an interview to get around the rule. That’s not the point though.
In the end, the rule solves nothing. Every team is going to sign the most experienced, talented coach that they can get their hands on and will be a good fit on their system. It doesn’t matter if they’re black, white, hispanic, or anyone.
Now, what it does do is give an unfair advantage to minorities. In a competitive market where interview time is limited, a minority will have a decided advantage because he knows that the Rodney Rule promises at least one interview to whomever is a minority and wants to get in the NFL. I believe that coaches like the Steelers Mike Tomlin would have still made it to the NFL irregardless of whether this rule was in effect or not. He just has talent, and it showed. However, this rule may keep up-and-coming majority coaches out of the league because the owner’s time was taken up with someone else. It wasn’t that bad with a Head Coach job and a General Manager job, but now that it’s affecting all others it’s a whole different ball game.
In the end, you are brought into the NFL to coach. Whether or not you are a minority should not have anything to do with it. If you can coach, you can coach. If you cannot, you cannot. That’s been the staplemark of NFL hiring, and it should be the staple of hiring for the market in general.
That’s just my two cents though, to steal a saying away from Neil.
"Once again the trowsers of evil are yanked down by the mocking hands of justice!"-Revshawn
Worthwhile
If you look at the rule from a Cost-Benefit perspective, I think it’s fairly certain that rule does little to no harm, but might do some good.
If the rule somehow put in place quotas, I would be firmly against it- but by just providing opportunities, I think the rule stays more with the spirit of what it truly stands for.
However, it must be tough walking out of that interview knowing that you might only be there as the result of league mandate.
The NCAA comparisons I don’t find very valid in regard to bolstering the argument for either side. The politics of college football are so unique that I think it must be considered its own beast.
Finally, r3 (maybe a Cornel West fan?) makes an excellent point, and one that tightly sums up the issue: Race in America still matters. We are not to a point where we are blind to ethnicity- but I can tell you one thing from my life abroad: we damn sure are on our way.
by the bomb dot com on Jun 15, 2009 7:58 PM EDT reply actions
Nice post MP.
As a rule, the Rooney rule itself is not fair, but it does a good job in creating fairness. Unlike affirmative action which forces institutions to hold a quota of minorities which can unfairly eliminate deserving white candidates, the Rooney rule does not force any organization to hire someone based on their skin color. Only interview them. In that respect I say there is nothing wrong with diversifying your candidacy search and then choosing the best candidate no matter his skin tone. As we can see from last year’s Super Bowl, a minority coach can very likely be the best person for the job. I think it’s a good rule that might need a bit of tweaking, but I do believe it is having a positive effect on the league’s front offices. And I agree, if an organization chooses a candidate based on the color of his skin, they will likely get what they deserve – a worse team. I believe the comparison of the percentage of black coaches to the black population makes a compelling argument that we’re close to where we need to be in terms of eliminating racial prejudice in front office vacancies.
There is a much larger discrepancy amongst minorites in NCAA head coaching positions especially in conferences like the SEC where AD’s fear facing a backlash from fans and boosters (which are primarily white) for hiring a minority head coach. I feel there is still work that needs to be done in these areas and instituting the Rooney Rule might be a good way to start. One thing many people do not take into account is that BECAUSE of the Rooney rule, due to their increased value, many deserving minority coaches are snatched up by NFL teams leaving less available for NCAA positions and therefore more white coaches.
However, the ruling from the NFL to nullify Jim Haslett’s contract clause IS a double standard and is absolutely ludicrous. The NFL should have NO right to void a contract agreed upon between an organization and their employee which could damage either the team’s or the employee’s financial security. It is the wrong ruling and is an overstepping of bounds by the NFL in it’s attempt to diversify the league. The fact that this ruling would not have occurred if Haslett were a minority makes it down right illegal. Luckily it was a non-issue because of Haslett only winning 2 games, but the NFL is lucky it didn’t have a lawsuit on its hands.
I don’t really understand the the problem here. This Rooney Rule would make a sport already dominated by African Americans EVEN more dominated by African Americans.
Now this data is a few years old but I doubt the numbers have changed: the ratio of black to white players in the NFL is 70-30 (source: http://www.buzzle.com/editorials/9-21-2000-600.asp). Now I am not advocating anything, I am simply saying that blacks already outnumber whites by a huge margin in terms of players in the NFL, so why do we need more minority coaches in the NFL? Are they shooting for a minority only sport here?
I believe that the person best qualified for any job SHOULD get that job. Always have and always will. I do not think anyone should be hired simply on the basis of their race or color of skin. Be it black, white, brown, yellow or whatever. But this Rooney Rule is basically affirmative action for the NFL, and I don’t think coaches need to be hired purely on the basis of them being a certain race.
Please correct me if I am wrong (just be civil about it). That is just my opinion on this. Merits should always count more than a demographic situation.
Member of Canes Country and the Cat Scratch Reader
That website is http://www.buzzle.com/editorials/9-21-2000-600.asp
the ) got caught at the end and messed it up. Like I said it is an old article (Art Shell is still the raiders HC???), but the data on # of players probably hasn’t changed much.
Member of Canes Country and the Cat Scratch Reader
I think Ivan brings up a good point here though, hes the first one to mention the ratio of actual players in the NFL. With african americans being the majority here, One could argue that NFL teams must workout at least X number of white players before the draft(don’t have to draft them though). I know it sounds crazy but is it so different?
Where does it stop? Should GM’s grant interviews to at least one minority from each race (asian, african american, etc etc)? Should GM’s grant an interview to at least one woman candidate? As the NFL goes international as they keep trying, will other nationality coaches/players demand the chance to be interviewed?
Also, if you want more info on affirmative action and its real results, look at the state of Michigan.
Maybe, just once, someone will call me "sir" without adding, "you're making a scene.
by HireMattMillen on Jun 18, 2009 2:09 PM EDT up reply actions
Yes...
It’s the first step down a dangerous path, in my opinion.
Remember, kids...don't ever let facts get in the way of your argument.
by MichaelProcton on Jun 18, 2009 2:36 PM EDT up reply actions
woah...
well put – never really looked at it that way. Like, I had my opinions about it making segregation a much bigger deal than it should… but in a sense, it allows people to utilize segregation and take advantage of the system.
know what you believe in and why you believe in it
I don't think that's fair...
If anything, the number of minority positions on the staff needs to come up to meet the number of minorities who are players. To suggest otherwise would simply be a furthering of plantation mentality. And, as others have mentioned, the Rooney Rule does not specifically encourage or require anyone to be hired “purely on the basis of them being a certain race,” just that they get an interview.
Remember, kids...don't ever let facts get in the way of your argument.
by MichaelProcton on Jun 16, 2009 12:34 AM EDT up reply actions
staff=coaching and front office positions
Remember, kids...don't ever let facts get in the way of your argument.
by MichaelProcton on Jun 16, 2009 12:34 AM EDT up reply actions
Yeah, to be honest I didn’t read the whole article and didn’t see that they have to only interview, not hire, so my fault on that. My issue is that teams will slowly start to hire under that pressure of minority groups just on the basis of what color skin they are. I hope it doesn’t come to that.
Like I said above, I just want to see the best qualified person to get the job.
Member of Canes Country and the Cat Scratch Reader
That doesn't make any sense. please tell me you misphrased this.
If anything, the number of minority positions on the staff needs to come up to meet the number of minorities who are players. To suggest otherwise would simply be a furthering of plantation mentality.
If taken literally, you are saying that not only should minorities be interviewed, they should be given a 70% greater chance of being hired over an equally qualified white candidate. That kind of thinking is absurd.
I think the point he is trying to make is that the percentage of minority coaches shouldn’t necessarily match the percentage of minorities in the American population. If there is a greater than average percentage of minoriites playing the sport itself, it makes sense that there should be a greater than average percentage of minorities coaching. Although just because you played the sport does not mean you are going to be a good coach.
Think about hockey. There is a far less than average percentage of minorities playing in the NHL. Would it make sense if 17% of hockey coaches were black even though only 2% of the players are black? No. Just like it doesn’t necessarily make sense that 17% of coaches in the NFL are black even though 70% of the players are black. I’m not saying that 70% of NFL coaches should be black, because again, just because you played does not mean you will make a good NFL coach. But one could argue that 17% of minority coaches is still too small.
This was along the lines of what I was going for.
I suppose I wasn’t demanding that the numbers be exactly equal, but a ratio of 17:70 is a huge disparity. The plantation mentality comment was about the misguided notion some backwards people have that while African-Americans can have all the physical talent and ability in the world, they do not possess the intellect or mental capacity to control them and must be guided by a white “master.”
Remember, kids...don't ever let facts get in the way of your argument.
by MichaelProcton on Jun 16, 2009 6:11 PM EDT up reply actions
I think he was furthering their logic
to show it didn’t make sense. I think.
I blog the Carolina Panthers at www.catscratchreader.com
This has been an interesting discussion.
I also am very happy that this topic has not severly deteriorated into an online attack on either side.
I personally think the Rooney Rule does way more good than harm.
Will Parker
@the first part:
me too.
Remember, kids...don't ever let facts get in the way of your argument.
by MichaelProcton on Jun 17, 2009 3:59 PM EDT up reply actions
yes, this is a very civilized community, couldn't agree with that point more
know what you believe in and why you believe in it
SCREW YOU!
WHO DO YOU THINK YOU ARE, PASSING JUDGEMENT LIKE THAT, YOU WHITE BREAD EATING, CHEVY DRIVING, WIFFLEBALL PLAYING…
er. I mean. Yeah. I agree. Too true. Good people all around. (Except that one guy. You know who I’m talking about.)
by r3 on Jun 18, 2009 7:36 PM EDT up reply actions
since you know me so well...
for your information, I don’t pass judgement, eat white bread or drive a chevy.
I rush judgement, eat wheat bread, and drive a Ford.
And I think you are lame for not playing wiffleball
know what you believe in and why you believe in it
Comments For This Post Are Closed
Secondary Sidebar
User Tools
FanPosts
Community blog posts and discussion.
Certain photos copyright © 2012 by Associated Press or Getty Images. Any commercial use or distribution without the express written consent of Associated Press and Getty Images is strictly prohibited.
