Rooney Rule Requirements

[purple haze]

5 hours ago, reddogblitz said:

The Rooney Rule I assume was started with good intentions.

 

But I hate to see now that whenever a minority coach is interviewed the assumption is he was interviewed to check the rooney box.  See above.

 

Look at our DC. He gets interviewed ever year but hasn't landed a job in 15 years.  We even interviewed him when we hired Coach Gailey for that purpose.  We travelled to him and talked about 15 minutes so we could say we did.  It was obvious.

 

I'm sure some good has come out of it but it seems to me minority coaches are being used in the process.

Who is making that assumption and why?  

[Brand J]

3 minutes ago, reddogblitz said:

 

Of course they do and of course they are.

 

My question is why is it somehow OK to to have racial equity out of whack in one area (players) of the organization and not in another (coaching)?  

I’ll comment on this and then I’m out so I don’t cuss some of y’all out 😂

 

Do you believe non-minorities aren’t given a chance to play because of their color? If two players who aren’t the same skin tone are running backs and similar in skill/athleticism, do you think the white player would be discriminated against simply because he’s white? Athletic performance isn’t about racial equity - the best athlete wins - and as we’ve seen in football, basketball, track and field, etc, the athletes with the faster twitch fibers are usually darker. Genetics, that’s all it is. Are there owners in the NFL actively discriminating against minorities or refusing to hire people of color? Who knows, but coaching and coordinating isnt about genetics, unless you believe people of color aren’t as intelligent as their counterparts. That’s why. 

[reddogblitz]

19 minutes ago, purple haze said:

Who is making that assumption and why?  

 

Here's one for example:

 

7 hours ago, Albany,n.y. said:

The Bills are interviewing Tee Martin to comply with the Rooney rule.  I'd ask him "Why were you drafted before Tom Brady?" and see how he responds under pressure.  

 

But is it really a racist thing?  Teams are required by rule to do so.

24 minutes ago, purple haze said:

Who is making that assumption and why?  

 

Here's a few more from the Tee thread first page:

 

8 hours ago, Nextmanup said:

Rooney Rule candidate?

 

Please hire someone with lots of NFL play calling experience.

 

We are not the drought era Bills anymore!

 

 

 

8 hours ago, Allen2Diggs said:

Considering he only coached in the NFL for one year as a wr coach and he was never an offensive coordinator for a college team, I don't believe he is being seriously considered and he may have been brought in to satisfy the Rooney rule:

 

The rule has been expanded to require teams to interview at least two external minority candidates for general manager/executive of football operations positions and all coordinator roles

 

8 hours ago, jkeerie said:

They are obligated to interview at least one minority before making a decision on a candidate.  This fills that requirement.

 

8 hours ago, hondo in seattle said:

My first thought was, "Oh, frig!   Dorsey turned us down!"

Then I remembered the new, modified Rooney rule.

 

[jkeerie]

8 minutes ago, reddogblitz said:

 

Here's one for example:

 

 

But is it really a racist thing?  Teams are required by rule to do so.

 

Here's a few more from the Tee thread first page:

 

 

 

 

 

I posted my initial impression based on knowing very little about Tee Martin as a coach other than his short time at Baltimore.   From what I've read about him he has a much more extensive background than I realized and is a solid candidate.

[purple haze]

2 minutes ago, reddogblitz said:

 

Here's one for example:

 

 

But is it really a racist thing?  Teams are required by rule to do so.

Again who is making the assumption and why?   In a general sense.  Say the Bills interview several non-white candidates; which one is the Rooney rule candidate in that case?

 

Two points:

 

One, the hierarchies in the NFL aren’t the most open minded, so while the Rooney rule might not be optimal it’s not a bad thing to make the powers that be talk to coaches they previously would have overlooked, for no other reason than they aren’t used to hiring people who look like them for certain positions.  
 

Two, the subtext of the assumption is the candidates interviewed under the Rooney rule are not qualified.  Not true.  They are men who have worked their way up in the profession like any other coach.  Most of this board wants Dorsey to be the OC; because Allen likes him for the position and continuity.  
 

Dorsey has never called a play as an OC in college or the NFL.  Yet in another thread some folks are losing their minds that the Bills would interview Tee Martin for the job; a coach who has called plays as an OC in a Power 5 conference.  He might not be ready for the job or he might be ready, but he has more experience at calling plays than Dorsey.  

So, who is doing the assuming and why?

[reddogblitz]

57 minutes ago, purple haze said:

Again who is making the assumption and why?   In a general sense.  Say the Bills interview several non-white candidates; which one is the Rooney rule candidate in that case?

 

Two points:

 

One, the hierarchies in the NFL aren’t the most open minded, so while the Rooney rule might not be optimal it’s not a bad thing to make the powers that be talk to coaches they previously would have overlooked, for no other reason than they aren’t used to hiring people who look like them for certain positions.  
 

Two, the subtext of the assumption is the candidates interviewed under the Rooney rule are not qualified.  Not true.  They are men who have worked their way up in the profession like any other coach.  Most of this board wants Dorsey to be the OC; because Allen likes him for the position and continuity.  
 

Dorsey has never called a play as an OC in college or the NFL.  Yet in another thread some folks are losing their minds that the Bills would interview Tee Martin for the job; a coach who has called plays as an OC in a Power 5 conference.  He might not be ready for the job or he might be ready, but he has more experience at calling plays than Dorsey.  

So, who is doing the assuming and why?

 

I posted 5 or 6 examples, one from this thread and 4 or 5 from the Tee thread.    You'll have to ask them why.

[HappyDays]

6 hours ago, Freak-O said:

You’d think that in a multi billion dollar industry like the NFL the most competent coaches would be hired

 

I'm gonna stop you there

[HappyDays]

2 hours ago, Chaos said:

What about the systemic racism leads to have a league that is 70% African American among players.  Such a wildly disproportionate outcome could not possibly be reflective of true merit. 

 

So the real answer is that players are always drafted on merit because teams can't afford to get them wrong. GMs that draft poorly will be out of a multimillion dollar job in no time. Whereas coaches and executives are often hired because of connections they have and people they know, and owners who make stupid hiring decisions don't ever feel the heat out of those decisions. They're billionaires whether they hire Sean Payton or Adam Gase. Also NFL owners have exactly zero qualifications for hiring NFL executives and coaches. Their only qualification is being a successful enough businessman that they have enough money to afford an NFL team. So naturally they default to people that they know or feel comfortable with when making those decisions. The whole point of the Rooney Rule isn't to force teams to hire minority coaches/executives, it's to get minority coaches/executives exposure to the sorts of people that make those decisions. The kind of exposure that people like Rex Ryan and Jeff Fisher and Pat Shurmur have always gotten for free.

[HappyDays]

2 hours ago, reddogblitz said:

 

Of course they do and of course they are.

 

My question is why is it somehow OK to to have racial equity out of whack in one area (players) of the organization and not in another (coaching)?  

 

It isn't about racial equity in the results. It's about racial equity in the process. Every single player that declares for the draft is given the same opportunity and evaluation, regardless of their race. If you have evidence against that, show it.

 

On the other hand it has not been the case that minority coaches are given the same opportunity when seeking promotions. Who was the last retread head coach that was a minority? I can name a bunch of retreads off the top of my head. Rex Ryan. Pat Shurmur. Jon Gruden. Bruce Arians. Adam Gase. Jeff Fisher. It took about 30 seconds to come up with this list. I mean there is something seriously wrong there. It is proof enough that NFL owners will make stupid hiring decisions as long as it makes them feel comfortable, and no one should blame the NFL for trying to force the issue a little.

 

The NFL is simply telling these teams "Please just get these people in the room that you never ever ever would have brought in on your own, and have a conversation with them. Also, please stop hiring the Jeff Fishers of the world. No, seriously, cut it out! Please make an effort to hire literally anybody else."

 

Edited February 1, 2022 by HappyDays

[reddogblitz]

34 minutes ago, HappyDays said:

 

It isn't about racial equity in the results. It's about racial equity in the process. Every single player that declares for the draft is given the same opportunity and evaluation, regardless of their race. If you have evidence against that, show it.

 

On the other hand it has not been the case that minority coaches are given the same opportunity when seeking promotions. Who was the last retread head coach that was a minority? I can name a bunch of retreads off the top of my head. Rex Ryan. Pat Shurmur. Jon Gruden. Bruce Arians. Adam Gase. Jeff Fisher. It took about 30 seconds to come up with this list. I mean there is something seriously wrong there. It is proof enough that NFL owners will make stupid hiring decisions as long as it makes them feel comfortable, and no one should blame the NFL for trying to force the issue a little.

 

The NFL is simply telling these teams "Please just get these people in the room that you never ever ever would have brought in on your own, and have a conversation with them. Also, please stop hiring the Jeff Fishers of the world. No, seriously, cut it out! Please make an effort to hire literally anybody else."

 

 

Good point. Thanks.  I understand the opportunity aspect and support it.

 

But racial equity in the results is what the argument is about.  That's the whole reason this came up. Blacks are 14% of the population but only 3% of the NFL HCs are Black.

 

Jim Caldwell

Herm Edwards

Lovie Smith

Edited February 1, 2022 by reddogblitz

[purple haze]

3 hours ago, reddogblitz said:

 

I posted 5 or 6 examples, one from this thread and 4 or 5 from the Tee thread.    You'll have to ask them why.

I apologize for not being clear.  My question wasn’t meant to be literal.  It was a rhetorical question; I should just make my meaning plain:  the assumptions and angst about the rule, in many cases, not all, but many, isn’t righteous.

It’s a dismissive view of candidates no matter their qualifications and a concern that they might get something they haven’t earned, thus taking something away from others who are supposedly, “more qualified.”  

Tee Martin is the perfect illustration.   Many couldn’t believe he’s getting an interview.  Yet he has extensive experience Ken Dorsey doesn’t.  Many who complained about Martin want Dorsey to be the new OC while dismissing Martin down to Rooney rule as if he has less qualifications.   He’s been an OC before.  Dorsey hasn’t.  Martin has been a passing game coordinator at several stops as well.  Dorsey just earned that duty for the first time this past season.  And yet...

 

So, who’s assuming and why is about what’s in the hearts of those particular people.  

 

 

 

[Dan Darragh]

9 hours ago, Limeaid said:

 

Madden had even more experience playing than Levy didn't he?

How about Earl Weaver and Tom Lasorda?

 

(Some genius is going to point out that they coached baseball, which is different from football, as if that actually proves a point.)

[klos63]

11 hours ago, reddogblitz said:

 

Of course they do and of course they are.

 

My question is why is it somehow OK to to have racial equity out of whack in one area (players) of the organization and not in another (coaching)?  

Honest question here : Do you think white athletes are not given equal consideration to make it in the league. Do you think minority coaches are given equal consideration for coaching/admin jobs?

 

I honestly believe coaches/GM's choose players regardless of color. I have no idea what some owners think when they hire someone.

[papazoid]

the rooney rule hurts absolutely no one

 

it is not a final hiring mandate or quota. the best still get hired.

 

the Rooney Rule aims (not forces) to increase the number of minorities hired in head coach, general manager, and executive positions.

 

of course there can be some sham interviews, but good can still come out of them for most  parties

 

 

 

 

[Hapless Bills Fan]

7 hours ago, purple haze said:

I apologize for not being clear.  My question wasn’t meant to be literal.  It was a rhetorical question; I should just make my meaning plain:  the assumptions and angst about the rule, in many cases, not all, but many, isn’t righteous.

It’s a dismissive view of candidates no matter their qualifications and a concern that they might get something they haven’t earned, thus taking something away from others who are supposedly, “more qualified.”  

Tee Martin is the perfect illustration.   Many couldn’t believe he’s getting an interview.  Yet he has extensive experience Ken Dorsey doesn’t.  Many who complained about Martin want Dorsey to be the new OC while dismissing Martin down to Rooney rule as if he has less qualifications.   He’s been an OC before.  Dorsey hasn’t.  Martin has been a passing game coordinator at several stops as well.  Dorsey just earned that duty for the first time this past season.  And yet...

 

So, who’s assuming and why is about what’s in the hearts of those particular people. 

 

Great post

 

Coach A:

8 years as QB coach in the NFL

1 year as "passing game coordinator" in addition to QB coach

Has never been an OC or called plays at any level

Played QB (NFL and CFL) for 7 years
 

Coach B:

2 years as a HS coach (QB coach, passing game coordinator, OC) including 1 year as OC

7 years as college QB, WR, and passing game coordinator

2 years as OC for a major college program

2 years as assistant head coach for a different major college program

1 year as WR coach in the NFL

Played QB (NFL, Europe, CFL) for 5 years

 

Coach C :

5 years in the NFL as RB coach

8 years in the NFL as WR coach (2 different teams)

2 years in the NFL as OC

Played RB for 7 years in the NFL

 

When you write it out, it can be seen that all of these candidates have relevant experience.  All have both played in the NFL and coached in the NFL.

 

Candidate C is the only one who actually has OC experience in the NFL, and has the most experience coaching in the NFL, and at 2 positions, for 2 different teams.

 

Candidate B has the least coaching experience in the NFL, but counter balances that with more experience as OC and assistant HC at two different major college programs and with experience coaching 2 different positions.

 

Candidate A actually has the least coaching experience, and the least varied coaching experience - he has never played or coached any position but QB, and has never been an OC or called plays at any level of the sport.

 

Yet people are thumping the table for Candidate A and dismissing (what appear to be) highly qualified candidates B and C as "just being interviewed to check a box". 

 

The point is, these all seem to be qualified people, and the external candidates may be MORE qualified than the one in-house candidate - so it seems entirely appropriate to talk to them and find out what their experience at each level actually entailed and what they'd bring to the organization.

 

And that's really what the Rooney Rule is about: getting clubs to at least talk to qualified people they might not otherwise talk to, and open the door for the NFL to be something than the "I've worked with you" closed circle of coaching candidates that it's been. 

 

Of course, clubs can use it to check a box by bringing in someone they'd never hire vs. using it to seek out and talk to qualified people, but that's their loss if they do.

[T master]

I understand the rule but if in the Bills case they hired Dorsey from the get go with the thoughts of possibly taking Dabol's place in the event that he took another HC ing position why go through the motions if your not going to hire someone ?

 

That would be foolish to go through that just for window dressing . I mean if your not sure & would like to talk to others okay but if that isn't the fact then you could piss off Dorsey unless it was told to him hey this is the rule so we have to do this just sit tight but that would seem to be a waist of time & actually pretty demeaning to who ever they would interview just because ...

[JaCrispy]

13 hours ago, purple haze said:

Who is making that assumption and why?  

Whenever you base rules on identity politics, no matter how good the intentions, it is only inevitable that people will question whether a hire is because of race...(The road to ruin is paved with good intentions...?)

 

When identity politics are part of the rules, a minority coach will never get the benefit of doubt of being hired based on merit...It also teaches young people that they might not have to try as hard, because people are, already, actively looking to hire them, anyway, simply because of the color of their skin...

 

Now, it doesn’t mean that the minority coach isn’t, necessarily, qualified for a promotion- it’s just that people will never know for certain and will question the motives whenever race is pushed to the forefront...And there in lies the “catch-22” of identity politics...and in my humble opinion, it actually hurts minorities, in the long run, more than it helps, because of all these factors...

Edited February 1, 2022 by JaCrispy

[Brand J]

18 minutes ago, JaCrispy said:

Whenever you base rules on identity politics, no matter how good the intentions, it is only inevitable that people will question whether a hire is because of race...(The road to ruin is paved with good intentions...?)

 

When identity politics are part of the rules, a minority coach will never get the benefit of doubt of being hired based on merit...It also teaches young people that they might not have to try as hard, because people are, already, actively looking to hire them, anyway, simply because of the color of their skin...

 

Now, it doesn’t mean that the minority coach isn’t, necessarily, qualified for a promotion- it’s just that people will never know for certain and will question the motives...And there in lies the “catch-22” of identity politics...and in my humble opinion, it actually hurts minorities, in the long run, more than it helps, because of all these factors...

I’d argue minorities often work much harder for opportunities, regardless of the Rooney Rule or affirmative action. Allowing qualified candidates an interview slot - when they may have otherwise had no opportunity for one - helps further inclusion rather than harm it.

[Albany,n.y.]

57 minutes ago, Hapless Bills Fan said:

 

Great post

 

Coach A:

8 years as QB coach in the NFL

1 year as "passing game coordinator" in addition to QB coach

Has never been an OC or called plays at any level

Played QB (NFL and CFL) for 7 years
 

Coach B:

2 years as a HS coach (QB coach, passing game coordinator, OC) including 1 year as OC

7 years as college QB, WR, and passing game coordinator

2 years as OC for a major college program

2 years as assistant head coach for a different major college program

1 year as WR coach in the NFL

Played QB (NFL, Europe, CFL) for 5 years

 

Coach C :

5 years in the NFL as RB coach

8 years in the NFL as WR coach (2 different teams)

2 years in the NFL as OC

Played RB for 7 years in the NFL

 

When you write it out, it can be seen that all of these candidates have relevant experience.  All have both played in the NFL and coached in the NFL.

 

Candidate C is the only one who actually has OC experience in the NFL, and has the most experience coaching in the NFL, and at 2 positions, for 2 different teams.

 

Candidate B has the least coaching experience in the NFL, but counter balances that with more experience as OC and assistant HC at two different major college programs and with experience coaching 2 different positions.

 

Candidate A actually has the least coaching experience, and the least varied coaching experience - he has never played or coached any position but QB, and has never been an OC or called plays at any level of the sport.

 

Yet people are thumping the table for Candidate A and dismissing (what appear to be) highly qualified candidates B and C as "just being interviewed to check a box". 

 

The point is, these all seem to be qualified people, and the external candidates may be MORE qualified than the one in-house candidate - so it seems entirely appropriate to talk to them and find out what their experience at each level actually entailed and what they'd bring to the organization.

 

And that's really what the Rooney Rule is about: getting clubs to at least talk to qualified people they might not otherwise talk to, and open the door for the NFL to be something than the "I've worked with you" closed circle of coaching candidates that it's been. 

 

Of course, clubs can use it to check a box by bringing in someone they'd never hire vs. using it to seek out and talk to qualified people, but that's their loss if they do.

Here's my take:  While there may be better choices than Dorsey, based on experience, Dorsey is at the head of the list for 1 main reason-Josh Allen, the most important player on the team, already has a relationship with Dorsey and Dorsey is Josh's top choice.  So, whether you like it or not, a franchise QB has a lot of power in today's NFL.  Just look at the messes in Houston & Green Bay because management did something the QB didn't like.  

 

So, the key is, does Dorsey want to stay with the Bills, or is he closer with Daboll and wants to go to the NYG?  If he wants to be OC in Buffalo, the job is his.  Bringing in other candidates is just a charade to comply with a rule.  We've seen this before.  Daboll was going to be the Giants HC as soon as Schoen was hired.  The other candidates interviewed were never going to get the job.  

 

The rule would be better if it could be applied to teams that don't already have their guy picked out and are truly looking at all candidates fairly.  So, if a team has only 1 coach who is going to be their choice no matter what, let them hire him and not waste other people's time.  However, if a team feels the need to interview more than just their guy, then apply the Rooney Rule.  Here's an example from before the Rooney Rule existed:  From the time Bill Polian was named GM, one of his goals was to bring his mentor Marv Levy in to coach the Bills.  It didn't take very long, and he didn't have to conduct any other interviews.  In today's NFL Levy would have had to come in as only an interim coach during the season & then the Bills would have had to conduct some sham interviews before naming Marv the full time head coach.  In that case Levy would have been the 1 & only serious candidate due to the close relationship between Polian & Levy from past teams where they worked together.  The fact Marv was going to be Polian's coach ASAP can be seen in the 1986 Bills Media Guide under Polian's bio where there was an entire paragraph on the Levy/Polian football relationship while Hank Bullough was still the coach.  In fact, in the 1987 media guide, they only changed a few words in that paragraph to reflect that Marv was now the Bills HC.  

[Saxum]

1 hour ago, Hapless Bills Fan said:

Candidate A actually has the least coaching experience, and the least varied coaching experience - he has never played or coached any position but QB, and has never been an OC or called plays at any level of the sport.

 

Yet people are thumping the table for Candidate A and dismissing (what appear to be) highly qualified candidates B and C as "just being interviewed to check a box". 

 

Neglected to mention because it does not support candidate A:

 

Has three years experience in current offense system.

Has three years experience in working with current offense,

 

Specific experience is a factor which needs to be considered.

42 minutes ago, JaCrispy said:

Whenever you base rules on identity politics, no matter how good the intentions, it is only inevitable that people will question whether a hire is because of race...(The road to ruin is paved with good intentions...?)

 

When identity politics are part of the rules, a minority coach will never get the benefit of doubt of being hired based on merit...It also teaches young people that they might not have to try as hard, because people are, already, actively looking to hire them, anyway, simply because of the color of their skin...

 

Now, it doesn’t mean that the minority coach isn’t, necessarily, qualified for a promotion- it’s just that people will never know for certain and will question the motives whenever race is pushed to the forefront...And there in lies the “catch-22” of identity politics...and in my humble opinion, it actually hurts minorities, in the long run, more than it helps, because of all these factors...

 

It is like Billicheat and cheating.  Yes he is a good coach but is he good enough coach to get all those Superbowls WITHOUT cheating? 

Some will say he is but there will always be reasonable doubt.  

 

The biggest problem is internal minority candidates can bypass all of the required competition other internal candidates cannot and this is hypocritical.