OnTheRocks Posted January 19, 2006 Share Posted January 19, 2006 Question #1. This one is a bit far fetched....but I will ask anyway. If the Oakland Raiders pick up the phone and call Marv and say, "hey Marv...we would like you to be the next Head Coach of the Oakland Raiders." Do you think he would resign immediately and take the job? Question #2 If the Buffalo Bills invite someone like...lets say, Art Shell in for an interview and he declines. Can that be counted toward interviewing a minority if the invitation was extended? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ans4e64 Posted January 19, 2006 Share Posted January 19, 2006 Question #1.This one is a bit far fetched....but I will ask anyway. If the Oakland Raiders pick up the phone and call Marv and say, "hey Marv...we would like you to be the next Head Coach of the Oakland Raiders." Do you think he would resign immediately and take the job? Question #2 If the Buffalo Bills invite someone like...lets say, Art Shell in for an interview and he declines. Can that be counted toward interviewing a minority if the invitation was extended? 573513[/snapback] not at all and i dont know Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JDG Posted January 19, 2006 Share Posted January 19, 2006 Question #1.This one is a bit far fetched....but I will ask anyway. If the Oakland Raiders pick up the phone and call Marv and say, "hey Marv...we would like you to be the next Head Coach of the Oakland Raiders." Do you think he would resign immediately and take the job? Question #2 If the Buffalo Bills invite someone like...lets say, Art Shell in for an interview and he declines. Can that be counted toward interviewing a minority if the invitation was extended? 573513[/snapback] No and No. Matt Millen ran into that problem with Mariucci - everyone knew he was going to hire Mariucci and so other candidates started declining token interviews. JDG Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
stuckincincy Posted January 19, 2006 Share Posted January 19, 2006 Question #1.This one is a bit far fetched....but I will ask anyway. If the Oakland Raiders pick up the phone and call Marv and say, "hey Marv...we would like you to be the next Head Coach of the Oakland Raiders." Do you think he would resign immediately and take the job? Question #2 If the Buffalo Bills invite someone like...lets say, Art Shell in for an interview and he declines. Can that be counted toward interviewing a minority if the invitation was extended? 573513[/snapback] #1: Assuming that contract messiness is resolvable, he would go in a hearbeat. He is a vainglorious man. #2 It's social pap. The very concept reeks of condensation. Clubs exist to make money and win prizes. An owner wouldn't care if you were purple and spoke Martian if you showed promise of wins, and packed the stands. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Dean Posted January 19, 2006 Share Posted January 19, 2006 #2 It's social pap. The very concept reeks of condensation. Clubs exist to make money and win prizes. An owner wouldn't care if you were purple and spoke Martian if you showed promise of wins, and packed the stands. 573554[/snapback] Apparently, given your assumption, Black ballplayers didn't get "good enough" to contribute to MLBN until in late 1950's. After all: "An owner wouldn't care if you were purple and spoke Martian if you showed promise of wins, and packed the stands." Perhaps the most ignorant and offensive comment EVER made on TSW. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MDH Posted January 19, 2006 Share Posted January 19, 2006 Perhaps the most ignorant and offensive comment EVER made on TSW. 573557[/snapback] I've seen way worse than that. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
stuckincincy Posted January 19, 2006 Share Posted January 19, 2006 Apparently, given your assumption, Black ballplayers didn't get "good enough" to contribute to MLBN until in late 1950's. After all: "An owner wouldn't care if you were purple and spoke Martian if you showed promise of wins, and packed the stands." Perhaps the most ignorant and offensive comment EVER made on TSW. 573557[/snapback] Don't try to stick onto me things that occured in the fifties, unless you believe I should have been some sort of child warrior. I merely tried to point out that money trumps all these days. Dear Mr. The Dean, please explain to me why my comment in response to a poster's query rises to your branding of it as possibly the most ignorant and offensive EVER. You might want to cite the 2nd and 3rd, so I can get a perspective. Gloves off, pal. Have at it... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DC Mom Posted January 19, 2006 Share Posted January 19, 2006 Apparently, given your assumption, Black ballplayers didn't get "good enough" to contribute to MLBN until in late 1950's. After all: "An owner wouldn't care if you were purple and spoke Martian if you showed promise of wins, and packed the stands." Perhaps the most ignorant and offensive comment EVER made on TSW. 573557[/snapback] That's a rather nasty attack. Besides, I think you could potentially reconcile both situations. In the 50s, owners felt that the backlash would hit him in the pocketbook. Now, fans have changed and would prefer to win regardless of the head coach. On the other hand, I wonder if owners were simply subconsciously not thinking of black candidates when they were envisioning the ideal coach. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Buftex Posted January 19, 2006 Share Posted January 19, 2006 #1: Assuming that contract messiness is resolvable, he would go in a hearbeat. He is a vainglorious man. #2 It's social pap. The very concept reeks of condensation. Clubs exist to make money and win prizes. An owner wouldn't care if you were purple and spoke Martian if you showed promise of wins, and packed the stands. 573554[/snapback] The Dean says comment #2 is one of the most offensive comments he has ever seen on the board, and I will say comment #1 is one of the most insightful, and funny! Great post! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Dean Posted January 19, 2006 Share Posted January 19, 2006 That's a rather nasty attack. Besides, I think you could potentially reconcile both situations. In the 50s, owners felt that the backlash would hit him in the pocketbook. Now, fans have changed and would prefer to win regardless of the head coach. On the other hand, I wonder if owners were simply subconsciously not thinking of black candidates when they were envisioning the ideal coach. 573644[/snapback] While I have to sign off in a few minutes, I'll attemp to answer yours and Cincy's posts with a short response. While your "possible defense" (my words) of the owners in the 50's is perhaps plausable, is it acceptable? Would a policy demanding they sign black players be as offensive then as some feel the NFL policy toward minority interviewing is now? Are their business concerns a justifiable defensive for blatant racism? Some would say "yes" I believe. i believe that justice sometimes has to be FORCED on society...the way the injustice was FORCED in the past. It's not always pretty, i understand. To Cincy, I'm not accusing of engaging in any racist practices now or in the 50's. For the record, i don't think you are responsible...I hope that's clear. But your suggestion seems to discount the existance of racism, and trhe implication that the playing field is level, by suggesting that qualifications are all that are considered and that blacks have not faced an uphill battle to make it into the coaching ranks. Whether or not you want to believe it, or acknowledge it, racism is still very much alive and well and people of color are still fighting an uphill battle to compete on equal footing with whites. Sometimes the racism is blatant: When Ty Winningham was named HC of Notre Dame, many (more than 10) ND fans told me they were pissed that ND gave the job to a "black gentleman" (not the words they used. They weren't concerned that he wasn't qualified or would do a poor job. they might have not liked Davey...but they never were pissed that a "cracker" got the job. These were everyday guys that seemed like normal people who I'd never heard be racist. But...when it came to Notre Dame...well, that was another story. More often the racism is the racism inherent in the system (cliche, I know, but I'm operating on about 3 hours of sleep and need to hit the hay...sorry). Often in business, Harvard guys want to hire Harvard guys. CEO's want to hire/get to know/are comfortable with people they know from their inner-circle...their golf club...etc. if you think that doesn't occur then we live in two very different worlds. An owner may very well feel like Hank Bullough is "more capable" than Art Shell...for reasons other than their football knowledge or management abilities. He may honestly believe that he'd be a better manager of people NOT because he is blatantly racist, but because he sees the world through an old white guy's eyes. The NFL has been built by the understanding that league is more important than any individual team (freakin' socialists ). Obviously, the league understands what some of the owners do not (did not?)...black men are every bit as able to do the job as white men. The league leaders also saw that some (many) owners were NOT hiring based simply on qualification...and black men were not getting a fair shake in the hiring process. Is that changing? You betcha! Why? I'd argue, it is due to the relatively recent sucess of some black coaches. Is the playing field now equal? Is racism a thing of the past? Is the "old boy" (read: "white boy") system totally dead? Not by a long shot, I'd argue. I think the league leaders feel the same way. Well...I have to sleep. Some of my sentences are not structured as well as i would like, but if i change them I'll make them worse...i think you can get my point. Have a good night fellas. i'll try to check in tomorrow. Oh...one more thing: Go Bills! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
stuckincincy Posted January 19, 2006 Share Posted January 19, 2006 While I have to sign off in a few minutes, I'll attemp to answer yours and Cincy's posts with a short response. While your "possible defense" (my words) of the owners in the 50's is perhaps plausable, is it acceptable? Would a policy demanding they sign black players be as offensive then as some feel the NFL policy toward minority interviewing is now? Are their business concerns a justifiable defensive for blatant racism? Some would say "yes" I believe. i believe that justice sometimes has to be FORCED on society...the way the injustice was FORCED in the past. It's not always pretty, i understand. To Cincy, I'm not accusing of engaging in any racist practices now or in the 50's. For the record, i don't think you are responsible...I hope that's clear. But your suggestion seems to discount the existance of racism, and trhe implication that the playing field is level, by suggesting that qualifications are all that are considered and that blacks have not faced an uphill battle to make it into the coaching ranks. Whether or not you want to believe it, or acknowledge it, racism is still very much alive and well and people of color are still fighting an uphill battle to compete on equal footing with whites. Sometimes the racism is blatant: When Ty Winningham was named HC of Notre Dame, many (more than 10) ND fans told me they were pissed that ND gave the job to a "black gentleman" (not the words they used. They weren't concerned that he wasn't qualified or would do a poor job. they might have not liked Davey...but they never were pissed that a "cracker" got the job. These were everyday guys that seemed like normal people who I'd never heard be racist. But...when it came to Notre Dame...well, that was another story. More often the racism is the racism inherent in the system (cliche, I know, but I'm operating on about 3 hours of sleep and need to hit the hay...sorry). Often in business, Harvard guys want to hire Harvard guys. CEO's want to hire/get to know/are comfortable with people they know from their inner-circle...their golf club...etc. if you think that doesn't occur then we live in two very different worlds. An owner may very well feel like Hank Bullough is "more capable" than Art Shell...for reasons other than their football knowledge or management abilities. He may honestly believe that he'd be a better manager of people NOT because he is blatantly racist, but because he sees the world through an old white guy's eyes. The NFL has been built by the understanding that league is more important than any individual team (freakin' socialists ). Obviously, the league understands what some of the owners do not (did not?)...black men are every bit as able to do the job as white men. The league leaders also saw that some (many) owners were NOT hiring based simply on qualification...and black men were not getting a fair shake in the hiring process. Is that changing? You betcha! Why? I'd argue, it is due to the relatively recent sucess of some black coaches. Is the playing field now equal? Is racism a thing of the past? Is the "old boy" (read: "white boy") system totally dead? Not by a long shot, I'd argue. I think the league leaders feel the same way. Well...I have to sleep. Some of my sentences are not structured as well as i would like, but if i change them I'll make them worse...i think you can get my point. Have a good night fellas. i'll try to check in tomorrow. Oh...one more thing: Go Bills! 573672[/snapback] Hatchets are buried. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts