TOO FEW BLACK COACHES ....

[Orton's Arm]

I'm not sure Dick Jauron won't be the next Vince Lombardi.  Their recent track records don't warrant confidence. I can't imagine you'd be hearing much about Herm Edwards or Tony Dungy or Marv Lewis or Lovey Smith if they had Mularkey's or Jauron's HC record.  Exactly the kind of thing that resulted in the Rooney rule.  The Rule has been remarkably successful.

600175[/snapback]

Occassionally, a head coach that was fired from one place gets a second chance someplace else. This is especially true when those doing the hiring want someone experienced for the job. Is it racist to value experience at the head coaching level more than excellence at the coordinator level? Of course not. It may not make for a well-coached football team, but it isn't racist.

 

Nor has this practice resulted in an outcome systemically unfair to blacks. On the contrary, the proportion of black NFL coaches already exceeds the proportion of blacks in the general population.

[tennesseeboy]

occassionallly a (white) head coach....

[Orton's Arm]

occassionallly a (white) head coach....

600184[/snapback]

Let's make a list of black coaches who have been the head coach for more than one team: Herm Edwards, Denny Green, Ray Rhodes, Tony Dungy, and maybe a few others I'm forgetting.

[tennesseeboy]

and look at their coaching records when they were fired. Take Herm Edwards vs. Dick Jauron for example...

He arrives in Kansas City after a five-year stint as the head coach of the N.Y. Jets (2001-05). He concluded his tenure with the Jets with 39 regular season wins, the third-highest victory total in franchise history behind only Pro Football Hall of Fame inductee Weeb Ewbank (71) and Joe Walton (53). Edwards was on the sideline for five postseason contests with the Jets, the best total of any field general in Jets annals. He registered 35 victories as New York’s head coach from 2001-04, tying Walton (’83-86) for the most regular season wins by any coach in his initial four years with the franchise.

 

In total, Edwards compiled a 39-41 regular season record in five seasons as the head coach of the Jets. Including a 2-3 postseason mark, he owns an overall 41-44 record as an NFL head coach. He was the first coach in Jets history to lead the franchise to the postseason on three different occasions, winning the AFC East title in 2002, while earning Wild Card berths with 10-6 marks in both 2001 and 2004. During the 2002 campaign, the Jets bounced back from a 2-5 start to finish the year at 9-7 and went on to register the first postseason shutout in franchise history with a 41-0 victory in the AFC Wild Card Game vs. Indianapolis (1/4/03). In 2004, Edwards guided New York to its first road playoff win since the ‘82 season with a dramatic 20-17 OT victory at San Diego (1/8/05).

[Orton's Arm]

In total, Edwards compiled a 39-41 regular season record in five seasons as the head coach of the Jets.

600213[/snapback]

Good for him. But Mike Sherman also did quite well for the Packers for a number of years, only to have a bad (injury-laden) season this year. Edwards also had a bad (injury-laden) year this past year. But while Edwards will be coaching the Chiefs next season, Sherman will be staying home. If Edwards was white and Sherman was black, you guys would be citing these parallel cases as a clear example of racial discrimination.

 

But I don't see things that way. Sometimes, life isn't fair, and it's not always about race. Take Marvin Lewis, for example. After his Ravens defense had one of the best years in NFL history, he received only one head coaching interview. Was this about race? No. It was because most teams had filled their head coaching vacancies before the Super Bowl; and weren't allowed to interview candidates from teams still in contention.

 

Personally, I think the present system is unfair. Nobody should be allowed to hire a head coach, coordinator, or assistant coach until a week after the Super Bowl. That way, guys like Marvin Lewis and John Fox won't be punished for their teams' success.

[Orton's Arm]

rooney rule history

600162[/snapback]

I went to this website. It was entirely dedicated to the ideological goal of increasing the percentage of blacks in coaching ranks. Some justification for the goal was provided by saying that, on average, black coaches had higher winning percentage than white coaches. But even if this had not been the case, one still gets the feeling this group would still be saying the same things.

 

The real meat, however, was contained in a linked page Black Coaches: superior performance, inferior opportunities.

 

One of this report's authors was Johnny Cochran, the guy who used race baiting to keep OJ out of jail. The report begins with an executive summary that summarizes none of the report's findings. The next section is labeled "an unprecedented statistical analysis" despite the fact the sample size used was too small to conclude anything with statistical significance. A labor economist was used to do basic arithmetic, and these calculations form the heart of this report. An example is "the black coaches averaged 1.1 more wins per season than the white coaches." After several statements along those lines, the report stated that, "Statistical analysis thus demonstrates that by virtually every objective criteria [sic], black head coaches in the NFL have outperformed their white counterparts." Statistical analysis would involve using a t-distribution to see if the respective averages are statistically significant. The report didn't use a t-test (or any other valid statistical test) to show statistically significant results; so its use of the phrase "statistical analysis thus demonstrates" is incorrect.

 

The report goes on to suggest that teams be rewarded with draft picks for hiring minority candidates. It then concludes by praising the concept of a level playing field!

[buzzbait1965]

Ah, Hermmie wasn't fired was he. I think Herm asked out of his contract because he already had a gig lined up in KC.

[The Dean]

Let me get this straight: I'm an idiot, and JoeSixPack thinks in black and white. And you're tolerant of those who see the world differently than you. Gotcha.

600117[/snapback]

 

 

Finally got something right.

 

Took awhile though.

[Pine Barrens Mafia]

Finally got something right.

 

Took awhile though.

600295[/snapback]

 

Where's that :I starred in Brokeback Mountain: smilie?

[The Dean]

Where's that :I starred in Brokeback Mountain: smilie?

600326[/snapback]

 

 

 

There it is. It was hiding.

[Orton's Arm]

Finally got something right.

 

Took awhile though.

600295[/snapback]

I was wondering whether you'd manage to miss my post's sarcasm.

[Fake-Fat Sunny]

Let's look at numbers. The percentage of black NFL coaches is already higher than the percentage of blacks in the general population. So if we're talking about a broadly-defined applicant pool, and we're looking at numbers like that, it becomes very difficult to make a case that racial discrimination is a problem in the NFL.

 

You mention incompetent coaches being hired, and cite Miami's hiring of Mike Mularkey as an example. What makes you so sure Mike Mularkey won't be the next Gregg Williams? Which offensive coordinator candidates should Miami have chosen instead? I don't know they had a whole lot of proven options out there, and a younger coach like Saban might want some experience on his staff.

600164[/snapback]

 

Looking at the numbers is good (though as one who loves numbers and stats I am pretty aware of their limtations and that though looking at the numbers is good they generally are not conclusive or perfect).

 

However, when one looks at the numbers it is important to chose correctly the pools you are measuring by.

 

Using a broadly dwfined applicant pool based on the gneral population is simply a flat out incorrect stat to choose for measuring the intended goals, intended, probable or even possible outcomes of this program.

 

Among the several arguments which demonstrate use of this broadly defined general population stat produces results which make no sense:

 

1. If the goal of the Rooney Rule were actually to make the HC pool look like America, then a little over 50% of the HCs shoul be women. This obviously is not the goal or intent of the program so claims that it is are false. If you want to at least take a nod at reality (which the concept that the goal of the Rooney Rule is to make the HC ranks look like America is no where close to reality) one might claim that while it does not apply to women, the goal is to address past racial transgressions by society overall.

 

This is not the goal either. The NFL has been quite specific that interviewing Norm Chow does not count toward the Rooney Rule. This is because though there is an unfortunate history of US government approved discrimination aqainst orientals (exploiting Chinese labor to build the railroads, Japanese internment) bringing in more oriental HCs would be good for diversity in American society, but accomplshing this lofty task is not the goal of the Rooney Rule.

 

The Rooney Rule (and most importantly the programs of internships, education and outreach that surround it rather than the interview requirement) is designed to:

 

1. Redress a history and pattern of discrimination against A-A who today make up a majority of NFL players which was felt by many and demonstrated in the longtime refusal of NFL teams to hire A-As in NFL leadership positions like QB and HC.

 

2. Feed the pipeline of qualified and strong interviewing candidates by fostering more interviews of A-A HC candidates.

 

Measuring the Rooney Rule for success by comparing the number of people of color, A-As orsocietally discriminated against people like women is simply incorrect in terms of the intent behind it or how the NFL measures its success.

[Pine Barrens Mafia]

Looking at the numbers is good (though as one who loves numbers and stats I am pretty aware of their limtations and that though looking at the numbers is good they generally are not conclusive or perfect).

 

However, when one looks at the numbers it is important to chose correctly the pools you are measuring by.

 

Using a broadly dwfined applicant pool based on the gneral population is simply a flat out incorrect stat to choose for measuring the intended goals, intended, probable or even possible outcomes of this program.

 

Among the several arguments which demonstrate use of this broadly defined general population stat produces results which make no sense:

 

1. If the goal of the Rooney Rule were actually to make the HC pool look like America, then a little over 50% of the HCs shoul be women. This obviously is not the goal or intent of the program so claims that it is are false.  If you want to at least take a nod at reality (which the concept that the goal of the Rooney Rule is to make the HC ranks look like America is no where close to reality) one might claim that while it does not apply to women, the goal is to address past racial transgressions by society overall.

 

This is not the goal either. The NFL has been quite specific that interviewing Norm Chow does not count toward the Rooney Rule.  This is because though there is an unfortunate history of US government approved discrimination aqainst orientals (exploiting Chinese labor to build the railroads, Japanese internment) bringing in more oriental HCs would be good for diversity in American society, but accomplshing this lofty task is not the goal of the Rooney Rule.

 

The Rooney Rule (and most importantly the programs of internships, education and outreach that surround it rather than the interview requirement) is designed to:

 

1. Redress a history and pattern of discrimination against A-A who today make up a majority of NFL players which was felt by many and demonstrated in the longtime refusal of NFL teams to hire A-As in NFL leadership positions like QB and HC.

 

2. Feed the pipeline of qualified and strong interviewing candidates by fostering more interviews of A-A HC candidates.

 

Measuring the Rooney Rule for success by comparing the number of people of color, A-As orsocietally discriminated against people like women is simply incorrect in terms of the intent behind it or how the NFL measures its success.

600493[/snapback]

 

Ah, so then you're saying there are minorities...and then there are MINORITIES.

 

Gotcha.

 

No double-standard there, nope.

[tennesseeboy]

Ah, so then you're saying there are minorities...and then there are MINORITIES.

 

Gotcha.

 

No double-standard there, nope.

600499[/snapback]

Root, thirteenth amendment, emancipation proclamation, plessy, brown, "I have a dream"...there are minorities and those who were slaves. My grandmother remembers NINA signs in places of employment in Buffalo (NO Irish Need Apply). Not the same as slavery or Jim Crow or Plessy.

[Pine Barrens Mafia]

Root, thirteenth amendment, emancipation proclamation, plessy, brown, "I have a dream"...there are minorities and those who were slaves. My grandmother remembers NINA signs in places of employment in Buffalo (NO Irish Need Apply).  Not the same as slavery or Jim Crow or Plessy.

600506[/snapback]

 

OK, it's now 2006. The last time a slave existed in the United States was 130+ years ago.

 

Which means a minimum of FOUR generations have passed since then.

 

And a full generation has passed since Jim Crow.

 

So...how long are those going to be excuses?

[Fake-Fat Sunny]

I went to this website. It was entirely dedicated to the ideological goal of increasing the percentage of blacks in coaching ranks. Some justification for the goal was provided by saying that, on average, black coaches had higher winning percentage than white coaches. But even if this had not been the case, one still gets the feeling this group would still be saying the same things.

 

The real meat, however, was contained in a linked page Black Coaches: superior performance, inferior opportunities.

 

One of this report's authors was Johnny Cochran, the guy who used race baiting to keep OJ out of jail. The report begins with an executive summary that summarizes none of the report's findings. The next section is labeled "an unprecedented statistical analysis" despite the fact the sample size used was too small to conclude anything with statistical significance. A labor economist was used to do basic arithmetic, and these calculations form the heart of this report. An example is "the black coaches averaged 1.1 more wins per season than the white coaches." After several statements along those lines, the report stated that, "Statistical analysis thus demonstrates that by virtually every objective criteria [sic], black head coaches in the NFL have outperformed their white counterparts." Statistical analysis would involve using a t-distribution to see if the respective averages are statistically significant. The report didn't use a t-test (or any other valid statistical test) to show statistically significant results; so its use of the phrase "statistical analysis thus demonstrates" is incorrect.

 

The report goes on to suggest that teams be rewarded with draft picks for hiring minority candidates. It then concludes by praising the concept of a level playing field!

600263[/snapback]

 

Its not surprising to me to find advocates such as Johnnie Cochran or yourself displeased with the outcomes to date of the Rooney Rule.

 

Though JC and his living allies might want a world in which the NFL HC pool looks like US society or the world it ain't gonna happen. Though he/they might have been miore satisfied with a quota system, (this likely would have brough incompetent HCs to the league (the NFL has already demonstrated that winning is not the only issue that drives HC hiring though their failure and slowness in hiring well qualified candidates who happen to be A-A so i am glad that the NFL has not taken the quota path) the NFL instead has pursued a system based on opportunity with the internships, education and outreach which are keys to the Rooney program and the interview requirement which is the Rooney Rule.

 

Likewise, in addition to extremist like the Cochran ilk not getting what they wanted, folks who hold the other extreme that things should be like they always were are obviously disatisfied.

 

This "soft" approach requiring interviews rather than mandating hires isstill too much for some, however the facts are that the partners of theNFL and NFLPA have reached aggreement and a bacic understanding that past NFL practices which produced a racially biased outcome cannot stand.

 

Old practices cannot stand because the NFL demonstrated itself in quite recent history to be unable to employ A-As in leadership positions like QB (though once this taboo was broken, it was quickly demonstrated that these A-A candidates were quite capable of playing winning QB) and still seem to be unable to employ A-As as HC despite the coincidence of outstanding success by the few A-A HCs.

 

Old practices cannot stand because the many A-A players have expressed frustration with a feeling and statistical showing that they are barred from HC positions due to a factor which has nothing to do with good coaching.

 

Old practices cannot stand because this product is best sold not only with a generally happy work force, but without the distraction that the lack of A-A HCs placed before the public.

 

Some do not like it because life changes and the privileged they benefitted from is going. Some do not like it because the changes are not coming fast enough for them.

 

I suspect most are pretty happy though to see a moderate approach like the Rooney Rule coincide with some positive changes in the HC pool (diversity + winning results by most of the new A-A hires) and present some real hope for the growing partnership between the NFL and NFLPA.

 

Its not perfect, but it clearly looks much better to me.

[Orton's Arm]

however the facts are that the partners of theNFL and NFLPA have reached aggreement and a bacic understanding that past NFL practices which produced a racially biased outcome cannot stand.

. . . Old practices cannot stand because the many A-A players have expressed frustration with a feeling and statistical showing that they are barred from HC positions due to a factor which has nothing to do with good coaching.

600523[/snapback]

Racially biased against whom? As has been discussed, many good coaches aren't former NFL players. Asking the NFL coaching pool to resemble the racial composition of NFL players is racially biased against whites and other non-blacks. Yet making NFL coaches have the same racial composition as NFL players is pretty much the intent of the Rooney Rule, as mild as the measure itself may be.

[don_of_manhattan]

So what's the solution in your mind? An all-black league with all-black coaches? Would that effectively remedy the sins of Plessy v. Ferguson in your mind?

 

Perhaps it's not about race. perhaps it's about qualification.

599479[/snapback]

It is not just about qualification - it is about interest, which leads to persons getting themselves qualified and it is also about the qualified persons have fair opportunity to compete. I don't think that qualified white men think they don't have a fair chance to compete for open slots - affirmative action came about because qualified people where consistently passed over for opportunities. It can get pretty complicated.

[don_of_manhattan]

I think for the most part you are right but I think we would also would be naive of us to believe there is NO racism amongst NFL owners and GM's.  Im sure there is, and you will never, ever have a perfect system, but as long as the situation improves little by little, its a start.

 

Im not sure what to think about this requirment that the NFL must interview a minority candidate...I think that might be having a negative effect on the hiring process versus a positive one. I bet it makes some of these guys like Cottrell feel like a piece of meat or something...and that is unfortunate

 

I mean if you are interviewing someone just based on race because you have to, isnt that racism in itself?

599535[/snapback]

NO, it's a response to racism....

[don_of_manhattan]

Oh brother.

 

Is there any reason that anything REALLY has to change? Is there some sort of irreperable harm being done to the black community in general or these MULTI-MILLIONAIRE players in particular?

 

I mean it's not like they're forced to use different bathrooms or attend separate practices.

599549[/snapback]

ANYWHERE racism rears its ugly head, it should be dealt with head-on. Let's give others a chance to LEAD - following gets old to ambitious people - black people too believe it or not....