mdbruce3 Posted January 10, 2010 Posted January 10, 2010 Some teams are circumventing the Rooney Rule. Nothing worse then interviewing for a job later to learn they had their sights set on another person. I've even declined putting in applications in my orgainization when I find out the bosses want to hire one particular person. All the reports said it was Pete Carroll. I don't know anything about Frazier but did he want to go for the interview? Did he feel pressured to do it? (maybe? probably?) The Seahawks never wanted an open coaching search. They didn't want other whites or minorities, they wanted Pete Carroll. But before they could hire him they had (HAD!) to interview somebody they didn't want and no intention to hire. Gee... great system.
truth on hold Posted January 10, 2010 Posted January 10, 2010 i think the rule served its purpose and now its time to remove it.
youbotymyboty Posted January 10, 2010 Posted January 10, 2010 More whites should be playing wr, rb, and cb! The population ratio reflects discrimination! Our society has sacrificed accountability for accommodation. The Rooney Rule is a joke. Maybe Calvin Johnson is a better WR than Jordy Nelson. Maybe Pete Caroll has earned a spot at the front of line based on performance..
Simon Posted January 10, 2010 Posted January 10, 2010 i think the rule served its purpose and now its time to remove it. So you think the 32 white owners are now familiar enough with the hundreds of quality black coaches who don't move around within their network? I'm not a big affirmative action guy, but this procedure has had benefits in providing opportunities for deserving guys who otherwise may not have gotten them. Even if they're just opportunities to introduce themselves and get a chance to talk to the decision makers.
JinVA Posted January 10, 2010 Posted January 10, 2010 So you think the 32 white owners are now familiar enough with the hundreds of quality black coaches who don't move around within their network? I'm not a big affirmative action guy, but this procedure has had benefits in providing opportunities for deserving guys who otherwise may not have gotten them. Even if they're just opportunities to introduce themselves and get a chance to talk to the decision makers. Mike Tomlin
flomoe Posted January 10, 2010 Posted January 10, 2010 So you think the 32 white owners are now familiar enough with the hundreds of quality black coaches who don't move around within their network? I'm not a big affirmative action guy, but this procedure has had benefits in providing opportunities for deserving guys who otherwise may not have gotten them. Even if they're just opportunities to introduce themselves and get a chance to talk to the decision makers. Idiotic Tool Do you really think that the owners are sitting in their mens or country clubs thinking about ways to keep the brother down? They interview people that are qualified. PERIOD. Obviously there are people of color who aren't qualified but they get an interview now based on a system that doesn't give a fair shake to the people that actually deserve it. Affirmative action is and always has been a way to actually keep the race issue at the forefront. There is no need for it except to satisfy the moronic thinking of the libs.
JinVA Posted January 10, 2010 Posted January 10, 2010 Who hired him, eh? Yeah I know, but he was off the radar until the Steelers had their "mandatory" interview with him.
Ever Since '86 Posted January 10, 2010 Posted January 10, 2010 Thanks for the misleading thread title.
Simon Posted January 10, 2010 Posted January 10, 2010 Idiotic Tool Do you really think that the owners are sitting in their mens or country clubs thinking about ways to keep the brother down? They interview people that are qualified. PERIOD. Obviously there are people of color who aren't qualified but they get an interview now based on a system that doesn't give a fair shake to the people that actually deserve it. Affirmative action is and always has been a way to actually keep the race issue at the forefront. There is no need for it except to satisfy the moronic thinking of the libs. Yeah, that's exactly what I said. And that's really what the rule is about. And keep it up with the name calling and flaming. Please.
johnnychemo Posted January 10, 2010 Posted January 10, 2010 worked perfectly in that situation. Steelers identified a couple of in-house guys, who happened to be white. They brought in Tomlin, probably partially per the Rooney Rule, and he blew them away. HUGE assumption....how do you know he wasn't a legitimate candidate from the start?
apuszczalowski Posted January 10, 2010 Posted January 10, 2010 So you think the 32 white owners are now familiar enough with the hundreds of quality black coaches who don't move around within their network? I'm not a big affirmative action guy, but this procedure has had benefits in providing opportunities for deserving guys who otherwise may not have gotten them. Even if they're just opportunities to introduce themselves and get a chance to talk to the decision makers. So having a guy come in for a "no chance" interview just to fill a quota is helping minorities? It isn't like the CFL where they require that a % of players must be Canadian, saying that a % of your coaching staff must be a minority. All this rule does is wastes the time of a front office and a minority candidate having to come in for a "dummy" interview to fill the quota. I have my doubts that the "Rooney Rule" has actually helped a minority candidate get a job
Simon Posted January 10, 2010 Posted January 10, 2010 Yeah I know, but he was off the radar until the Steelers had their "mandatory" interview with him. He was off our radar. But he wasn't off Dan Rooney and Art Jr.'s radar.
truth on hold Posted January 10, 2010 Posted January 10, 2010 So you think the 32 white owners are now familiar enough with the hundreds of quality black coaches who don't move around within their network? I'm not a big affirmative action guy, but this procedure has had benefits in providing opportunities for deserving guys who otherwise may not have gotten them. Even if they're just opportunities to introduce themselves and get a chance to talk to the decision makers. yes i think now minority coaches are given as much chance as non-minority... names like lewis, dungy, tomlin, edwards, crennel, lovie smith, morris mean anything to you? i think the rule is now more a hindrance than a help to the process. i don't think minority coaches should be asked to waste time on a slot that's not open to them because the team already has their guy (whatever color he is.) like i said, i think the rule served it's purpose and now it's time to remove it.
Simon Posted January 10, 2010 Posted January 10, 2010 So having a guy come in for a "no chance" interview just to fill a quota is helping minorities? It isn't like the CFL where they require that a % of players must be Canadian, saying that a % of your coaching staff must be a minority. All this rule does is wastes the time of a front office and a minority candidate having to come in for a "dummy" interview to fill the quota. I have my doubts that the "Rooney Rule" has actually helped a minority candidate get a job It's not about getting jobs and it never was. A lot of black coaches run in their own circles with their own friends they're familiar with. Older white owners are not familiar with these circles simply because they've never been exposed to them, not out of any sense of keeping the brothers down or any bullspit like that. This requirement is nothing more than an attempt to get those two circles of people onto the same network. Nothing more, nothing less.
silvermike Posted January 10, 2010 Posted January 10, 2010 The thing about the Rooney Rule is that it's really so cheap, I don't get the pressure against it. It's a few hours, a plane ticket, and maybe a hotel room in a multibillion dollar business. It helps the perception of a problem the league has had, and it doesn't hurt anybody. I'd be interested in adding an exception if only one candidate is interviewed (for Carroll situations), since it gets silly at that point. But in any open search, why not?
mdbruce3 Posted January 10, 2010 Author Posted January 10, 2010 worked perfectly in that situation. Steelers identified a couple of in-house guys, who happened to be white. They brought in Tomlin, probably partially per the Rooney Rule, and he blew them away. Just a thought... Maybe Stealers heard from several guys (coaches, front office, etc.) around the league that this Tomlin guy is awesome. He deserves an intreview. The coaching cirlce is tight. Everybody knows everybody. If Tomlin wasn't qualified he wouldn't have gotten the call. Teams don't waste their time and money with even an interview if they don't think a guy is worthy of it. Well... except for Frazier. I'm pretty sure they don't pick the minority guys to interview from the "Black Coaches" catalog. Just a theory. I could be wrong.
Simon Posted January 10, 2010 Posted January 10, 2010 The coaching cirlce is tight. Everybody knows everybody. That's not true at all and is the reason the rule was put in place.
Recommended Posts