Rooney Rule Requirements

[Ramza86]

2 minutes ago, Hapless Bills Fan said:

 

Ha.  Well, yeah, actually - I do.

 

I think there was a bit too much "buzz" about Flores to the Giants for it to be without foundation.  I think someone in the Giants organization was impressed by what Flores did with the Dolphins despite the unsettled QB situation, and thought he would be a great HC hire (maybe Mara?)

 

I also think once they decided to hire the GM first, assuming the GM stipulated for reasonable GM things, it became a foregone conclusion that "Whoever Schoen wants, Schoen gets" and his first choice wasn't Flores.

 

I think one reason Flores is so very angry right now is that he feels bait-n-switched - he thought he was a serious candidate, and he was, until he wasn't.

 

Sure it could be a case where GM got the freedom to get his HC. So Schoen got the guy he wanted. 

 

This is where the Rooney rule makes minorities even more frustrated. The NFL forced the Giants to "check the box" for the rule.

 

The NFL needs to come up with something better than the current rule.

[Hapless Bills Fan]

12 minutes ago, Ramza86 said:

 

Sure it could be a case where GM got the freedom to get his HC. So Schoen got the guy he wanted. 

 

This is where the Rooney rule makes minorities even more frustrated. The NFL forced the Giants to "check the box" for the rule.

 

The NFL needs to come up with something better than the current rule.

 

On that last, I have no argument.  In fact, I tend to think all POV would probably agree.

[Albany,n.y.]

54 minutes ago, Hapless Bills Fan said:

 

Ha.  Well, yeah, actually - I do.

 

I think there was a bit too much "buzz" about Flores to the Giants for it to be without foundation.  I think someone in the Giants organization was impressed by what Flores did with the Dolphins despite the unsettled QB situation, and thought he would be a great HC hire (maybe Mara?)

 

I also think once they decided to hire the GM first, assuming the GM stipulated for reasonable GM things, it became a foregone conclusion that "Whoever Schoen wants, Schoen gets" and his first choice wasn't Flores.

 

I think one reason Flores is so very angry right now is that he feels bait-n-switched - he thought he was a serious candidate, and he was, until he wasn't.

From what I heard in the NY media, Flores was the top choice by one of the owners but once they hired Schoen he was free to hire who he wanted.  Considering where Schoen came from the logical conclusion was either Daboll or Frazier. 

Here's something to consider.  After Schoen was hired Dan Quinn, seeing the writing on the wall cancelled his interview with the Giants.  IMO, Flores could have came to the same conclusion & also cancelled his interview.  In fact, based on the Belichick texts, he could have easily reached the same conclusion as Quinn, but he went on with the interview & then went scorched earth when he didn't get the job.  

Edited February 2, 2022 by Albany,n.y.

[billsfan1959]

22 minutes ago, Hapless Bills Fan said:

Anyway, after I researched them a bit  both Tee Martin and Edgar Bennett sound like interesting candidates with a lot of relevant experience; I hope the fact that they were asked to interview by a winning organization with a top QB will lead to them being interviewed elsewhere.

 

 

I am not opposed to the Rooney Rule for this very reason. It simply requires that teams include minority candidates in their processes for hiring head coaches and and those in management positions. I would like to think that, more often than not, in today's NFL, minority candidates are going to get legitimate consideration for such positions and the Rooney Rule is needed far less than when it was first enacted. However, there are going to be times when the candidates being seriously considered as the best fit (philosophically and otherwise) are not minorities. There is nothing wrong or nefarious in most instances like that. While many look at the Rooney Rule in these instances as creating "sham" interviews, I look at it as giving young minority coaches valuable interview experience and exposure. 

[BullBuchanan]

1 hour ago, Magox said:

The Rooney Rule has been around for quite some time and we still only have 1 black head coach.  That's proof in itself.  

 

I mean that's extremely disingenuous. We currently have 1 black head coach, but we have at least 3 minority coaches who are part of the Rooney rule (Saleh, Rivera) and we've had 5x more black head coaches in the 20 years Since the Rooney rule than the 70 years that preceded it. It took until 1989 for Art Shell to be the first black coach - 33 years ago. That's insane. From then until the Rooney rule was enacted 13 years later there were a total of 3.

[BullBuchanan]

1 hour ago, billsfan1959 said:

 

Rules and legislation in important social issues are rarely the catalyst for change, but rather the culmination of, or enacted in concert with, social forces. Typically, those social forces are gradual, often growing over several generations or more, because, whether we like it or not, it often takes generations to change belief systems.

 

Trying to legislate social changes quickly, while done with the best intentions, often causes more social and psychological harm than good. I'm not arguing against them. I'm just saying any measures put in place from organizational rules to legislation should be thought through very carefully. Sometimes it is a good thing and sometimes it is not.

 

I would argue that Byron Leftwich holding the position he holds now has far less to do with the Rooney Rule (which I am not entirely against) than with gradual changes in belief structures within our society.

And what changes those belief structures?

Without legislation, Schools would have remained segregated (Brown vs The Board of Education), and  Rosa Parks would have been found guilty. Are we going to say that was result of society pushing for those changes? That same society that was part of the Little Rock 9 two years later, the assassinations of Martin Luther King and Malcolm X a few years later.

When Brown vs The Board of education was passed, 60% of those surveyed by Gallup supported the ruling - this is less than current support for universal healthcare, tuition-free college, and legalization of cannabis at the federal level. Maybe you can argue that counts as support by society, but when the opposition to support brings serious consequences to those that do, I'd argue it's legal structure that gives social movements the freedom to advance their cause further. Of course it takes two to tango. If you don't have some social support behind social policy, you'll have problems. I'm not suggesting that just because you make something a policy that everyone will subscribe to it immediately, but without that framework, it becomes much harder for progress to me made.

So, there is historical precedent and current statistics that support this. On the other side of the argument it seems that the thought is "well, people are just going to fake it anyway" (when the argument comes with the best of intentions - there are far worse).

[billsfan1959]

1 minute ago, BullBuchanan said:

And what changes those belief structures?

Without legislation, Schools would have remained segregated (Brown vs The Board of Education), and  Rosa Parks would have been found guilty. Are we going to say that was result of society pushing for those changes? That same society that was part of the Little Rock 9 two years later, the assassinations of Martin Luther King and Malcolm X a few years later.

When Brown vs The Board of education was passed, 60% of those surveyed by Gallup supported the ruling - this is less than current support for universal healthcare, tuition-free college, and legalization of cannabis at the federal level. Maybe you can argue that counts as support by society, but when the opposition to support brings serious consequences to those that do, I'd argue it's legal structure that gives social movements the freedom to advance their cause further. Of course it takes two to tango. If you don't have some social support behind social policy, you'll have problems. I'm not suggesting that just because you make something a policy that everyone will subscribe to it immediately, but without that framework, it becomes much harder for progress to me made.

So, there is historical precedent and current statistics that support this. On the other side of the argument it seems that the thought is "well, people are just going to fake it anyway" (when the argument comes with the best of intentions - there are far worse).

 

Don't misunderstand my stance. I am not opposed to legislation or organizational rules. What I was saying is that they rarely are the catalyst for change in belief systems or social change, but more often a result of social forces. Brown v Board of Education is actually a good example of what I mean. There was already changing belief systems in a large percentage of the population, resulting in a strong social movement against segregation (leading to open encouragement and attempts by black parents to enroll their children in all white schools) before lawsuit was ever filed and originally ruled on in District Court. If there had been no shift in belief systems there wouldn't have been support for what was taking place all over the south prior to the lawsuits, there wouldn't have been enough support in the judiciary and government bodies to support the movement with legal rulings and subsequent legislation, and the polls wouldn't have reflected 60%+ approval of the ruling. At some point they worked hand in hand; however, the swelling of a social movement and support for the movement came before any legal rulings and legislation. 

 

As I said, I am not opposed to legislation in the area of racism. There certainly is a history of legislation beneficial to civil rights and the fight against racism. There is also a history of well meaning legislation that has had disastrous effects primarily for the very people the legislation was intended to help.