NFL Approves Rule Changes for Hirings

[MJS]

22 minutes ago, GunnerBill said:

 

Nothing about these rule changes discriminate by race. Requiring them to interview an external minority candidate does not mean that someone else misses out on an interview. And you would have to prove that it does in order to prove unlawful discrimination.

Do you know what discriminate means? It means to recognize a distinction or to differentiate. That means by acknowledging that one candidate is a certain race during the hiring process, whether positively or negatively, that's discrimination.

 

I really don't care though. Practically every employer does it these days and many have quotas on hiring minorites. I think they need to update the laws to reflect that.

[LeGOATski]

35 minutes ago, Ed_Formerly_of_Roch said:

He suggested putting in a rule that requires all HC must first be a coordinator, his reasoning is many minorities get those jobs but never move any higher.  By requiring coordinator experience first would improve the chance for them.  He'd do a similar thing with front office positions too.  His argument is you can't go to college without first graduating HS.  For that matter for all practical purposes you can't play in the NFL without first playing college or being out of HS for three years.

Then expect to pay a boatload of money for your coordinator or you'll rarely, if ever, bring up someone from a legit college program.

[hjnick]

32 minutes ago, Ed_Formerly_of_Roch said:

Heard an interesting take from Stephen A the other day on this subject.  His big issue is people with no NFL experience getting HC jobs over people with many years NFL experience at lower levels.  (He singled out Kingsbury as an example on what's wrong  with the system in his eyes)   

 

He suggested putting in a rule that requires all HC must first be a coordinator, his reasoning is many minorities get those jobs but never move any higher.  By requiring coordinator experience first would improve the chance for them.  He'd do a similar thing with front office positions too.  His argument is you can't go to college without first graduating HS.  For that matter for all practical purposes you can't play in the NFL without first playing college or being out of HS for three years.

 

I kinda understand what Stephen A is trying to say, but I don't agree with him. 

 

I totally agree that I have no idea why Arizona hired Kingbury (dude is a tool), but at the same time I know why Carolina hired Rhule.  Rhule turned around Temple, then Baylor into good programs.  The dude can build good teams.

 

If this had always been the rule, Dallas never could have hired Jimmy Johnson or Barry Switzer... which both won Super Bowls.

[GunnerBill]

11 minutes ago, MJS said:

Do you know what discriminate means? It means to recognize a distinction or to differentiate. That means by acknowledging that one candidate is a certain race during the hiring process, whether positively or negatively, that's discrimination.

 

I really don't care though. Practically every employer does it these days and many have quotas on hiring minorites. I think they need to update the laws to reflect that.

 

Yes. I am a law graduate. In order to be unlawful discrimination you must be able to prove you are negatively impacting on someone. So you have to prove a white person hasn't got a job because of these rules and it would need a pretty incredible leap of logic to do that. 

[FLFan]

2 hours ago, DCOrange said:

That rule has been tabled for further discussion.

It was a good thought and would have been a radical step for the NFL.  I am not surprised it is tabled, but if the approved changes do not work to correct the joke the current policy has become, you can certainly expect that proposal or something like it even more aggressive will be brought up again.

[machine gun kelly]

Tons of corporate America mandates diversity interviewing.  I have said before in the medical device sales industry, which is cut throat mandates we interview diversity candidates.  I’m fine with it as long as they are sharp.  It’s a valuable use of my time.  I’ve never been forced to hire a diversity candidate if not better than another candidate.  That includes women.  I’ve had someone write to me women are not a minority, but what they didn’t know is in this industry if they are in the minority in the role, they are a minority.  It’s just a fact if you have 8% women in these roles, they are a minority.

 

mandating increased interviewing, but not mandating hiring is fine with me.  What I liked the most is extending to coordinators, or whatever if they did as well positions in the management development role makes a lot of sense.  Again, interviewing, not hiring is reasonable.

[Beast]

1 hour ago, Ed_Formerly_of_Roch said:

Heard an interesting take from Stephen A the other day on this subject.  His big issue is people with no NFL experience getting HC jobs over people with many years NFL experience at lower levels.  (He singled out Kingsbury as an example on what's wrong  with the system in his eyes)   

 

He suggested putting in a rule that requires all HC must first be a coordinator, his reasoning is many minorities get those jobs but never move any higher.  By requiring coordinator experience first would improve the chance for them.  He'd do a similar thing with front office positions too.  His argument is you can't go to college without first graduating HS.  For that matter for all practical purposes you can't play in the NFL without first playing college or being out of HS for three years.

 

Those suggestions Stephen A Smith made are stupid. 

[y2zipper]

Overwhelmingly, NFL head coaches come from one of these positions:

 

1. Been an NFL head coach before.

2. Offensive coordinator.

3. Defensive coordinator.

4. Special teams coordinator.

5. College head coach.

 

On just coordinators alone, you're looking at 60 people or so excluding special teams. If you just cut to successful units (let's say playoff experience), it's still 24 people plus college coaches and special teams coordinators for one job that most organizations want to get filled right away. "Hiring by merit" as also very subjective and the definition has moved in different directions over the years. This means NFL teams are dealing with something of an abundance in the pipeline, and this is the root cause what's being labeled as the "diversity problem." I'm not 100% sure that I agree that's in an issue considering the rarity of out-of-line hires, but I think these rule changes can't possibly hurt and that if anything, slowing down the process and having teams interview more people for more positions is mutually beneficial to teams and prospective hires.

 

In 2018 and 2019, we saw teams move in this weird direction where anybody who had a connection to the development of a young QB or a good QB tree got a head coaching job. Freddie Kitchens, Sean McVay, Kyle Shanahan, Kliff Kingsbury and Zac Taylor were able to get jobs of this trend, but the varying degrees to which these hires did and didn't work out moved teams in the other direction this offseason and we saw teams hire either successful coordinators (Stefanski and Judge), experienced coaches (McCarthy and Rivera), and experienced college coaches (Rhule). We also saw plenty of successful coordinators not get jobs (Kansas City and Baltimore come to mind here).

[RiotAct]

2 hours ago, soflabillsfan1 said:

Good to know they'll be wasting a couple more people's time.  So ridiculous.

What about Albino Tilt-a-Whirl operators?!?!?!?  

[reddogblitz]

I look forward to the day we can have a SB with 2 minority coaches go head to head.  Oh wait ...

 

https://www.workers.org/2007/us/super-bowl-0215/

Edited May 20, 2020 by reddogblitz

[Richard Noggin]

6 hours ago, MJS said:

Do you know what discriminate means? It means to recognize a distinction or to differentiate. That means by acknowledging that one candidate is a certain race during the hiring process, whether positively or negatively, that's discrimination.

You're conveniently only acknowledging the older, more etymologically-literal definition. There is another, official, completely legitimate and in fact more often used meaning of the term. Don't be dishonest (or oblivious). 

 

If teams were required to actually HIRE based on "race," rather than simply interview, then these new rules would be problematic. 

 

As someone else pointed out earlier in this thread, there is potentially some problematic territory with respect to what, exactly, constitutes a person's "race." If we're being annoying and technical, one could argue that many/most/all persons have some degree of "racial" diversity in their ancestries. Of course, that line of thinking tries to overtly sidestep the obvious and important social constructs and historical implications of race in the U.S. 

 

The NFL so often triggers anger from certain cultural tribes in our country, and maybe we should all just relax and realize no one is being harmed when the NFL strives to correct or at least recognize an institutional/cultural bias that continues to work against well-qualified "minority" candidates.

[MJS]

36 minutes ago, Richard Noggin said:

You're conveniently only acknowledging the older, more etymologically-literal definition. There is another, official, completely legitimate and in fact more often used meaning of the term. Don't be dishonest (or oblivious). 

 

If teams were required to actually HIRE based on "race," rather than simply interview, then these new rules would be problematic. 

 

As someone else pointed out earlier in this thread, there is potentially some problematic territory with respect to what, exactly, constitutes a person's "race." If we're being annoying and technical, one could argue that many/most/all persons have some degree of "racial" diversity in their ancestries. Of course, that line of thinking tries to overtly sidestep the obvious and important social constructs and historical implications of race in the U.S. 

 

The NFL so often triggers anger from certain cultural tribes in our country, and maybe we should all just relax and realize no one is being harmed when the NFL strives to correct or at least recognize an institutional/cultural bias that continues to work against well-qualified "minority" candidates.

As I said (which you conveniently deleted from my post when responding to me), I don't actually care if the NFL hires based on race or even if they have quotas. That's happening all across the country in a diversity of industries, especially in tech. I don't feel my ability to get a job is reduced by that.

 

But I do think the laws should change to allow for that if that's what's going on and the government and most citizens don't seem to have a problem with it.

 

Race is not supposed to be a factor in the hiring process. And it clearly is. I don't have a problem with that.

Edited May 20, 2020 by MJS

[vincec]

10 hours ago, GunnerBill said:

 

Yes. I am a law graduate. In order to be unlawful discrimination you must be able to prove you are negatively impacting on someone. So you have to prove a white person hasn't got a job because of these rules and it would need a pretty incredible leap of logic to do that. 

Look, I agree with this rule change but it's a zero sum game. There is one HC position available and if you institute a rule to improve the chances of one minority group to get the position then you reduce the chances for the others, by definition. And if this rule doesn't try to improve the chances of a minority to get the position then what's the point of it?

Edited May 20, 2020 by vincec

[GunnerBill]

28 minutes ago, vincec said:

Look, I agree with this rule change but it's a zero sum game. There is one HC position available and if you institute a rule to improve the chances of one minority group to get the position then you reduce the chances for the others, by definition. And if this rule doesn't try to improve the chances of a minority to get the position then what's the point of it?

 

How does increasing the interview pool do that? I just don't buy the argument. We all agree, presumably, that NFL teams will at the end of the interview process always hire the guy they think is best for the job?

 

So unless you are capping the number of people a team can interview then why does requiring them to interview a minority candidate from outside the organisation reduce someone else's chances? There is no way to my mind that an NFL team would decide not to interview someone they really thought was a credible candidate for the job purely because they had to interview an external minority candidate instead. They'd interview both. And in that scenario the non-minority candidate has no less of a chance of being the best guy at interview than he did before. 

[eball]

1 hour ago, vincec said:

Look, I agree with this rule change but it's a zero sum game. There is one HC position available and if you institute a rule to improve the chances of one minority group to get the position then you reduce the chances for the others, by definition. And if this rule doesn't try to improve the chances of a minority to get the position then what's the point of it?

The rule improves minorities’ exposure, it doesn’t improve their chances. In theory the best man/woman gets the job — the NFL is simply saying you need to interview a broader range of candidates when making your choice. 

[vincec]

1 hour ago, eball said:

The rule improves minorities’ exposure, it doesn’t improve their chances. In theory the best man/woman gets the job — the NFL is simply saying you need to interview a broader range of candidates when making your choice. 

So if the rule doesn't improve the chances that a minority gets the job then what's the point of it? Is it just for show? So that more minority candidates are interviewed but actually makes no difference at all to their job prospects? If the rule is designed to increase the chances of minorities getting hired then it reduces the chances of everyone else when there are a finite group of positions.

Edited May 20, 2020 by vincec

[eball]

2 minutes ago, vincec said:

So if the rule doesn't improve the chances that a minority gets the job then what's the point of it? Is it just for show? So that more minority candidates are interviewed but actually makes no difference at all to their job prospects? If the rule is designed to increase the chances of minorities getting hired then it reduces the chances of everyone else when there are a finite group of positions.

 

I don't know why this is so difficult.  By getting more exposure, yes, more minorities will have opportunities to show they are best suited for the job.  It's still up to them to prove they deserve being hired.

[GunnerBill]

9 minutes ago, vincec said:

So if the rule doesn't improve the chances that a minority gets the job then what's the point of it? Is it just for show? So that more minority candidates are interviewed but actually makes no difference at all to their job prospects? If the rule is designed to increase the chances of minorities getting hired then it reduces the chances of everyone else when there are a finite group of positions.

 

But it isn't a raffle..... it is a job selection process. So let's say previously Team X was interviewing 5 white men and an internal minority candidate. White man 1 is the best candidate he gets hired. Now with the rule change they interview 5 white men, an internal minority candidate and an external minority candidate. White man 1s chances are not reduced. It isn't before he had 1/6th of the chance of the job and now he has 1/7th of the chance. If he was the best candidate before he got hired and if he is the best candidate now, he gets hired. The only way in which he doesn't get hired is if the external minority outperforms him at interview and that is the absolute essence of merit based recruitment. If you were to try and argue that constituted discrimination the court would laugh you out of the building.

Edited May 20, 2020 by GunnerBill

[vincec]

Just now, GunnerBill said:

 

But it isn't a raffle..... it is a job selection process. So let's say previously Team X was interviewing 5 white men and an internal minority candidate. White man 1 is the best candidate he gets hired. Now with the rule change they interview 5 white men, an internal minority candidate and an external minority candidate. White man 1s chances are not reduced. It isn't before he had 1/6th of the chance of the job and now he has 1/7th of the chance. If he was the best candidate before he got hired and if he is the best candidate now, he gets hired. The only way in which he doesn't get hired is if the external minority outperforms him at interview and that is the absolute essence of merit based recruitment.

I don't want to go in circles here because as I said I agree with the rule for the reasons you an eball stated but the rule is in place to increase the representation of minorities in the coaching ranks, which is a quota based goal. People don't feel that there is enough minority representation coaching. It's not merit based. People weren't saying that coaches stink and if they open up the pool more when they hire then the standard will improve (although this may be the case.)

 

If you are applying for a job with 2 candidates, are your chances better to get it than if there are 10? What about 20? You can say that if you're the best then it doesn't matter but that's not reality because your skills are not measured in a vacuum they are measured against the other applicants. The "best" means better than the other applicants. So if there are lots of other applicants, it's harder to be the "best" (unless you're the best possible candidate in the world I guess.)

 

 

[4merper4mer]

Can you imagine if under the improved draft pick rule all 32 teams hired a minority candidate in the same year?  That upcoming draft would be epic because every team in the league would have better picks.

Edited May 20, 2020 by 4merper4mer