TOO FEW BLACK COACHES ....

[Fake-Fat Sunny]

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.

600557[/snapback]

 

The NFL mirrored the society which it existed with by practicing racial bias against men of A-A descent.

 

Jusy to clarify the points of debate:

 

1. Do you feel thst society did not engage in both societal and governmental practices during the time period since its founding to some undefined point in its future by this question (some would argue that racial bias is still widely practiced, some would argue that it still exists but is not widely or significantly practices. I;m not arguing whether its wide practice ended at some point, just asking whether you agree that society did widely or signficantly practice racial bias at the point of inception for the NFL and through spme part of its history)?

 

I feel that society did practice widespread or signficant racial bias against A-As which overlapped large portions of NFL history.

 

2. Do you feel that the NFL was separate from or immune from society's practices?

 

I do not. Just as society practticed widespread or significant bias against A-As, so too did the NFL thtough a significant portion of its history.

 

3. What is the status of the MFL's practice of racial bias against A-A?

 

I am not debating the status of US society's biased practices (some feel it still goes on, some feel their are mere pockets of occaisional bias against A-As, others feel that PC has run amuck and that the bias is now practiced against the majority US culture). Whatever, I'm saving that debate for PPP and I'm talking about racial bias against A-As in the NFL.

 

My feeling is that clearly society reflected racially biased treatment well through the government's admission that such a bias existed in landmark decisions and acts such as Brown v. Board and the Voting Rights Act of 64 I will reference as part of this point but pass on discussion which distracts from the NFL discussion that President Clinton issued an Executive Order and President Bush reissued this Executive Order and confirmed it that their is a racial and economic bias in the distribution of environmental degradation in this country even today).

 

My sense of the current status of racial bias against A-As is that in many ways it has lagged behind the recognitions of the broader society. This is not surprising since we are dealing with a relatively small number of incredibly wealthy owners and as a partnership has grown between the NFL and NFLPA since the union was beaten in the mid-80s and threatened to decertify itself.

 

Rather than compete for players in a free market, the NFL agreed to a partnership with the NFLPA to restrain trade through mechanisms like the draft, the ban on underage players and the complex CBA.

 

The development of this partnership paralleled events like the NFL finally showing a fuller commitment to winning teams by utilizing A-A athletes as QBs. Finally, at tje beginning of this season, the NFL and NFLPA reached consensus that the racist practices of the NFL against A-As which was reflected in the small number of A-A HCs needed to be changed.

 

The NFL made a great leap forward toward improving the quality of the HC pool by setting up a committee under Owner Art Rooney which drove a process which rather thn taking the simplistic and I think method of hiring quotas as a solution, instead set-up or expanded a number of programs (calling 'em affirmative actions if you must label them) such as a A-A coaching internship program, education programs which presented the advantages of diversity in the NFL, and general outreach designed to increase the pool of qualified A-A candidates.

 

Further, the NFL invoked the Rooney Rule which required by their agreement its member teams to interview at least 1 A-A candidate for HC.

 

Yhey stood up for this rule when Matt Millen and Detroit were flagrant about violating it because it was clear without any process Millen wamted Mooch. The actions of potential A-A candidate coaches was interesting. Virtually all the qualified candidates refused to interview for an HC job there was not even a pretense they would get.

 

They demonstrated to me that while many A-A candidates saw great value in even token interviews as it provided them with some training in going through the process, and introduced them into the good ol boy network in a job setting, there were some limitations to even taking the advantages given by token interviews.

 

The NFL demonstrated that they were serious about the Rooney Rule, not through the chump change (or the team owner Fords) but through the enbarassment of being singled out by their peers for not taking the rule seriously (even taking it laughingly as it would have not been hard to do actual token interview if that had been their strategy. Millen completed the Lions looking like fools as he had to fire his anointed savior that he wanted so bad with over $10 million left to pay Mooch for whatever he wants.

 

While this clusterthing was happening, the NFL saw an unprecedented hiring of A-A candidates for HC. While it is obvious that race is not a factor in the quality of HCs, it turned out that the men of A-A descent hired were quality coaches and men. The Rooney Rule at the very least coincided with outstanding performances getting Ws, making the playoffs and even winning divisions from folks like Lovie Smith and Marvin Lewis.

 

This year has seen the number of A-A HCs remain static (as the only A-A changes were Edwards quitting the Jets to go to KC). Yet, even strident advocates of the Rooney Rule have reacted to this statistical occurence with the reactions that it was a burp rather than a trend.

 

We'll see.

 

Yes Virginia, I can more than comfortably say that the NFL has acted with racial bias against men of A-A descent who were good enough players and coaches to help teams win.

 

Can I prove it in court? No, but it is because I or no one else has to because if the NFL had gone to court against Johnny Cochra, Jester Jackson and the often too loud or stupid voices fighting for a good fair thing (civil rights) suffice to say they were enough of a threat to win in court that the NFL made a deal which gave birth to the Rooney Rule some folks seem to hate or dislike.

 

If one refuses to argue they were simply forced to make changes it is fine with me, as the other alternative is that the powers that be in the NFL acknowledged the unfairness of past acts and created the Rooney Rule to make up for the racial bias practiced against A-A players who now make-up a majority of players.

 

The status ofthe NFL? Racist practices by intent of some and by effect but not intent of other.

 

However, the clear intent embodied in the Rooney Plan and Rooney Rule is to redress the actions of discrimination caused in the past and to do this by filling the pipeline with qualified A-A applicants to join the Tony Dugy's, Marvin Lewiss' Lovie Smiths and yes even Art Shells of HCs of A0A descent qualified to deliver Ws with their team.

 

These men, though shown to be more than qualified by the result accomplished with them as HC still had to fight through waits which seemed longer than someone of their skills should have gone through before getting hired (Dungy and Lewis) or not getting rehired even after posting a winning record and leading their team to multiple playoff berths (this fact is particularly interesting given the failure of Raider coaches generally except for Gruden to have much success with this team both immediately prior to and post Shell.

 

one cn certainly point to particular coaching circumstances or events, or one can demand a level of proof higher than that in most courts and certainly far higher than in the public eye to prove racially biased NFL practices (if one wants though it really says more about the poster than thei issue to see folks dance on the head of that pin).

 

Suffice to say that a level of proof at court levels while necessary in the heads of some people, it has not been necessary in reality as the NFL owners themselves created and have enforced the Rooney Rule and increas hiring of A-A HCs.

 

The burden of proof is not on those to prove NFL racially biased practices which disadvantaged A-As. Yhe NFL has invoked and enforced the Rooney Rule designed redress past discrimination against A-A men.

 

The burden of proof of reality is actually on those who dispute the reality of the NFL's ebrace of the Rooney Rule.

 

So you assert there has been no racial bias in US society since the time paralleling the existence of the NFL?

 

The NFL itself seems to think so and if you disagree with them then prove it.

 

So you concede that little things like Jim Crow Laws and the gerrymandering and disenfranchisement which led to the Voting Rights Act of 64 do show there was some pervasive racial bias in society, but now you argue that the NFL was immune to this and there was no racial bias against A-As by the NFL?

 

The NFL itselff seems to think so and if you disagree that the NFL has something to redress here then prove it.

 

Let's say you also concede that there has been a significant history of racials bias against A-As un US society and also are willing to concede (perhaps grudgingly but it is hard to resist reality (the NFL also pursued the foul practices of society and yes the occurence of few to none A-As in NFL leadership position was due in some part to racial bias.

 

However, you still reject the Rooney rule for some reason, even though the rule itself has only led to an extra interviewed requirement and the men who happened to be A-A hired as HCs inconjunction with this effort have virtually uniformly had above aveerage performance by their team.

 

If you oppose the Rooney Rule feel free to have this opinion even though it has on the face of it forced no hiring of A-As and not cost anyone a job or even an interview that an owner would have decided to give them.

 

It's fine for some folks to have opinions against the Rooney Approach and Rule, but the thing completely lacking in this thread are any arguments beyond opinion or over-hyoed hypotheticals against it.

 

If you think it is bad beyond individual opinion then prove it/

[Orton's Arm]

The NFL mirrored the society which it existed with by practicing racial bias against men of A-A descent.

600595[/snapback]

I appreciate the time you put into writing that lengthy post. However, I don't feel my main point was addressed. Because the applicant pool is broader than just NFL players, it stands to reason that the racial composition of NFL coaches should look like society at large, or at least like college football players.

 

The Rooney Rule is intended to make the NFL coaching ranks have the same racial composition as NFL players. This goal is inherently racist. The applicant pool has been defined too narrowly, because Johnny Cochran was advancing a particular racial agenda. The NFL caved into his pressure to avoid a public relations scandal. Nobody can fault Cochran for sticking up for his own race, but he took things too far. His interference in NFL hiring is one example, using race-baiting to defend a black celebrity guilty of murder is another.

 

You talk about injustices against blacks in the NFL. This is an odd point, considering how well NFL players are paid, and the fact most players are black. If anything, the NFL is an efficient means of redistributing wealth from a mostly white fan base, to a mostly black player base. But that's not enough for some.

 

You talk about how, historically, black people were discriminated against. Well guess what? Most white people weren't allowed into the upper echelons of society either. Born into a poor, unconnected white family? Too bad. Chances are you're not going anywhere. There were exceptions to this rule, especially during times when new industries were being created. But for the most part, the U.S. was much more of a caste system than people would like to admit. In many ways it still is.

 

To pretend blacks were the only ones being harmed by this caste system is to ignore the fate of the majority of whites. The solution to past discrimination (mostly caste-based) isn't to allow race to enter into employment decisions. It's to allow, even encourage, employers to establish more of a meritocracy. A merit-based suggestion like forbidding teams from hiring coaches until after the Super Bowl would have helped qualified candidates like Marvin Lewis and John Fox. Unfortunately, merit-based measures such as those have been put on the back burner, while the league pursues more politically oriented actions such as the Rooney Rule.

[swede316]

Why does 75% of the population have to cater to 13% of the population?

[bbh10128]

can't we all get along? those who voted for more white players, do you really want running backs that run 6.6 40's? those that voted for more black coaches, how can you possibly say the system is biased against blacks given the huge increase in black coaches and mandated interview of minority candidates?

[truth on hold]

can't we all get along? those who voted for more white players, do you really want running backs that run 6.6 40's?  those that voted for more black coaches, how can you possibly say the system is biased against blacks given the huge increase in black coaches and mandated interview of minority candidates?

600631[/snapback]

it used to be at least some backs were white like moose johnson and john riggins. but they were fullbacks and with the decline of that position i can't name a single white running back. not that i care either, just want to see the best players on the field coached by the best coaches.

[Fake-Fat Sunny]

can't we all get along? those who voted for more white players, do you really want running backs that run 6.6 40's?  those that voted for more black coaches, how can you possibly say the system is biased against blacks given the huge increase in black coaches and mandated interview of minority candidates?

600631[/snapback]

 

What some seem to be saying is that the Rooney Rule is unecesary even with the past results of there being few or no A-A coaches and even before the requirement to do at least one interview.

 

The argument for the Rooney rile is to redress past discriminatory practices by NFL teams in GC hiring that resulted in quauified candidates like Dungy and Lewis having to wait longer than appeared merited to get a shot, and the failure until today apparently for an HC like Art Shell who ousted a good record of Ws and several playoff appearances (and did far better than Raider HCs immediately before and after him except for Gruden.

 

I voted for neither options because rather than a quota of either white players or A-A coaches which the poll endorses, I prefer the opportunity driven system which the NFL has adopted.

[Fake-Fat Sunny]

Why does 75% of the population have to cater to 13% of the population?

600629[/snapback]

 

The Rooney Rule requires nothing of 75% of the population. 32 NFL owners have simply required of themselves that they move from their past practices which resulted in race biased decisions on HC hiring to instead invest in a system which makes an affirmative action and provides opportunity to those denied it under the old practices.

[Fake-Fat Sunny]

I appreciate the time you put into writing that lengthy post. However, I don't feel my main point was addressed. Because the applicant pool is broader than just NFL players, it stands to reason that the racial composition of NFL coaches should look like society at large, or at least like college football players.

 

Look at it this way, if you assign an applicant pool which looks like the general popilation of the country an arbitrary value of 100 and assign a population pool which looks like the demographics of MFL players an arbitrary value of 0, where do you think the pool of NFL coaches should be.

 

I think you start off figuring the pool of qualified NFL HCs you start off somewhere below 50 because half of the general population demographics consists of women who likely are not going to be qualified applicants in almost all cases.

 

Even when one adds in all the qualified applicants who were college football players, you certainly move the hiring pool off of 9. but quite frankly not by much imtil the other key parts of the Rooney Approach such as the A-A coaching internships, education efforts and outreach programs help those men who only know the college game have some experience in the pro game/

 

Of course all pro players do not have the desire or the ability to be good coaches, so former college players weigh more heavily into the qualified applicant pool than if more pro players were in, now that the welcome mat is out we see former players like Lofton or Singletary who did not seem to want to pursue a coaching career getting into the system.

 

Its really impossible to acurately pick a number between 1 and 100 for what the hiring pool should be, but my sense is that one certainly would choose a number far closer to O than 100 in describing the qualified applicants and actually it is probably no higher than 25 and actually closer to 10 (former pro players and former college player segments of society) in the final view.

 

The idea of declaring the goal of the Rooney Rule to be to produce an HC pool which looks like America is simply nuts.

 

 

 

 

 

The Rooney Rule is intended to make the NFL coaching ranks have the same racial composition as NFL players. This goal is inherently racist. The applicant pool has been defined too narrowly, because Johnny Cochran was advancing a particular racial agenda. The NFL caved into his pressure to avoid a public relations scandal. Nobody can fault Cochran for sticking up for his own race, but he took things too far. His interference in NFL hiring is one example, using race-baiting to defend a black celebrity guilty of murder is another.

 

 

The goal is not to make the HC ranks have the same compostion as the players at all. If that were in fact the goal the NFL would have chosen a quota with the resulting stupid results.  Instead by taking an approach such as the Rooney Ruke the NFL has adopted an opportunity based system which merely requires one interview and more importantly establishes programs which increase the qualifications of A-A applicants.

 

How has this system cost any qualified white applicants a job? How has it even cost any qualified white applicants an interview?  NFL can and clearly still do choose anyone they want and they can certainly interview anyone they want.

 

If this were a stupid quota approach then it would restrict the number of hires and likely the interviews but it isn't.  Perhaps, one could attempt to make the case that where they would have interviewed 6 white candidates before now they will onlu interview 5.  Yet even ths argument is stupid since there is nothing that restricts them from interviewing 7 people if they want.

 

I think if folks are going to get bent out of shape about this they should at least be able to even hint at some specfic cases where this has had any effect on qualified white HCs beyond some theoretical claim that the one A-A interview required will necessarily replace an interview of a qualified white applicant/

 

As far as the Johnny Cockroach (RIP) crew. They apparently advocate approaches like rewarding an extra draft choice for hiring an A-A HC and many would feel fine about quotas. I think Johnny Cochran's and the views you express are actually two incorrect extremes in viewing this problem and I think the moderation of the Rooney Rule works well and seems to be improving the game.

 

 

 

 

 

 

You talk about injustices against blacks in the NFL. This is an odd point, considering how well NFL players are paid, and the fact most players are black. If anything, the NFL is an efficient means of redistributing wealth from a mostly white fan base, to a mostly black player base. But that's not enough for some.

 

 

In America there is a general belief that one gets rewarded for your level of skils and activity and that while we are committed to  having a safety net for the old and infirmed there is guaranteed minimum salary or benefits for every person.

 

Thus discrimination is not an absolute issue but a relative issue. A-As deserve the same abilities as whites to be rewarded based on their skills and character.  The discrimination occured because NFL team for years operated a system which aw qualified men as athletes and leaders not get a shot at positions like QB or HC and of course to gain the wealth that came with achievement in these jobs.

 

The Rooney Ruke is a good approach IMHO because it does not adopt some stupid quota which likely would allow unqualified A-A applicants for HC to be chosen to get the financial benefits of this job when they really could not do it well or well enough. Instead, the Rooney Approach merely guarantees that NFL teams provide some opportunity to qualified A-A applicants, does not cost any qualified white applicants from getting their shot (unless one chooses to adopt some extreme hypothetical where teams decide to chop an interview of a qualified white in order to interview a qualified A-A). The Rooney Approach also seeks to redress the impacts of past or societal discrimination by its intern and educational efforts.

 

I'm not sure why you have any real=world problems with this Approach.

 

 

 

 

 

 

You talk about how, historically, black people were discriminated against

. Well guess what? Most white people weren't allowed into the upper echelons of society either. Born into a poor, unconnected white family? Too bad. Chances are you're not going anywhere. There were exceptions to this rule, especially during times when new industries were being created. But for the most part, the U.S. was much more of a caste system than people would like to admit. In many ways it still is.

 

Actually modt people are discriminated against in our society where a small percentage of the population holds a massive % of the wealth. In addition, as our society goes through the largest transfer of assets from one generation to another as the baby boomers die off and trust and estate law (even with the dreaded death tax in place) allows these assets to be transferred with minor taxation. actua;;y a great many people will do nothing to earn their initial wealth except choose the right parents.

 

I think it is simply false to claim that caste discrimination and racial discrimination are mutually exclusive.  On the question of whether there is an income impact or a racial impact regarding many important decisions in society, i say both.  Neither is for sure or true in all cases. In fact being born poor or being born a person of color may get someone a scholarship.

 

Yet, if given a choice between being born A-A or white, being born rich or poor, or even being born a man or a woman, if being advantaged in society is what you are after, then believe me if you can't choose your parents then you better hopr you are a male and you are white because if you are a A-A woman the odds are you are not going to be rich.

 

 

 

 

 

To pretend blacks were the only ones being harmed by this caste system is to ignore the fate of the majority of whites.

 

 

It wuld be stupid to pretend that A-As are the only ones who have ended up onthe short end of the discrimination stick in our society.  However, it would also be stupid not to recognize that A-As have been (and still are according to numerous studies which specifically compare demographic groups of similar incomes have been on the short-end of the discrimination stick in significant ways in our society.  The Rooney Rule is simply a free-market institution choosing to redress past discrimination against the racial group which composes a majority of its employees.  Afain if the Rooney Rule was designed to addess societal discrimination and make the NF: HC hiring pool look like America then it would work to bring the # of femaile HCs to 50+%. The general population numbers you site have little or nothing do with this program.

 

 

 

 

 

The solution to past discrimination (mostly caste-based) isn't to allow race to enter into employment decisions. It's to allow, even encourage, employers to establish more of a meritocracy. A merit-based suggestion like forbidding teams from hiring coaches until after the Super Bowl would have helped qualified candidates like Marvin Lewis and John Fox. Unfortunately, merit-based measures such as those have been put on the back burner, while the league pursues more politically oriented actions such as the Rooney Rule.

 

 

I would be quite happy to see the NFL wave a mafic wand and remove all racial considerations and impacts from NFL hiring/ However, do you really think this will happen on any timeline involving today;s players or even most folks alive today.  The Rooney Rule is a vountary partnership approach based on opportunity and qualifications which does not require that qualified white applicants not be hired or even require they not be interviewed.

 

Opinions can reasonably vary about how effective it is or whether it is working to accomplish particular goals, but the facts involved are fairly straightforward and oddities like the notion that the goal of this program or measires pf its success has anything to do with creating an HC pool which looks like America should be a solid hint that folks may not be thinking about the facts correctly.

600610[/snapback]

[krazykat]

THE ARGUMENT GOES THAT WITH SO MANY BLACK PLAYERS - A MAJORITY OF THE LEAGUE - THE PERCENT OF BLACK COACHES SHOULD BE ROUGHLY EQUAL VERUS CURRENT PERCENT OF ABOUT 20%.  BUT WHAT ABOUT THE ARGUMENT THAT SAYS SINCE SOCIETY AS A WHOLE IS MOSTLY WHITE, THEN HAVING ONLY A MINORITY OF WHITE PLAYERS POINTS TO A BIAS IN PLAYER SECLECTION THAT WORKS AGAINST WHITES?

 

YOU DECIDE.

599126[/snapback]

Why stop there. How 'bout NFL executives? How 'bout NLF offices floor sweepers and custodians?

 

It's a good question.

[kdharge]

People we know the difference from player and coaching are like night and day. On the field it will always be based on performance. If a white guy can move like B.Sanders,O.J.,Willis M. both White and Black would shower them with praise because he helps the bottom line getting to the Championship. But in coaching its still a good o boy network . Example : Manangi from N.Engalnd coordinator 1 year did he do anything to make him so hot after a year to hire him to run a team when his D.cordinator before him didnt get his 1st shot until 20 years and 3 super bowl victorys we are talking about Crennel. Why would it take someone so long to hire this man .......you know the answer. This in a nutshell is what people are talking about. The Mularkys, Jaurons of the world get more than their share of shots. We have a coach in Green Bay that was dead last in the league in Offense when he was a O.C. I guess thats will make you want hire him but would we still made that choice if that same person was ............. I say Hell no

[bbh10128]

ART SHELL IS GOING TO THE RAIDERS. THAT OUGHT TO MAKE YOU "MORE BLACK COACHES" RESPONDERS HAPPY.

 

FYI - IM SURPRISED THAT THE "MORE WHITE PLAYERS" RESPONDERS ARE WINNING SO HANDILY

[kdharge]

ART SHELL IS GOING TO THE RAIDERS.  THAT OUGHT TO MAKE YOU "MORE BLACK COACHES" RESPONDERS HAPPY. 

 

FYI - IM SURPRISED THAT THE "MORE WHITE PLAYERS" RESPONDERS ARE WINNING SO HANDILY

600778[/snapback]

See what the problem is.Do you think that he should taken this long to get a second chance? He had a winning record when he left working for Al Davis of all people he has success where as Green Bay pick a head coach with Zero experience and was dead last as a O.C or lets take Jauron to this day cant fill his staff

[bbh10128]

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).

600213[/snapback]

EDWARDS LEFT THE JETS A COMPLETE MESS. IT WAS EDWARDS WHO LED THE CHARGE TO BLOW $66MM ON THAT USELESS PENNINGTON, CREATING THEIR PROBLEMS AT QB AND WITH THE SALAR CAP. EDWARDS LOVED PENNINGTON SO MUCH I THOUGHT HE WAS QUEER FOR THE GUY. AND AFTER CREATING THIS MESS WHAT DOES EDWARDS DO: TURN HIS BACK ON THE TEAM AND ON WASH HIS HANDS OF PENNINGTON, HIGH-TAILING IT TO KANSAS. HE'S SUCH A FINK HE WON'T EVEN DISCUSS WHAT HAPPENED IN THE END WITH THE JETS -- DON'T WORRY !@#$, WE ALREADY KNOW.

[Orton's Arm]

Look at it this way, if you assign an applicant pool which looks like the general popilation of the country an arbitrary value of 100 and assign a population pool which looks like the demographics of MFL players an arbitrary value of 0, where do you think the pool of NFL coaches should be.

 

I think you start off figuring the pool of qualified NFL HCs you start off somewhere below 50 because half of the general population demographics consists of women who likely are not going to be qualified applicants in almost all cases.

 

Even when one adds in all the qualified applicants who were college football players, you certainly move the hiring pool off of 9. but quite frankly not by much imtil the other key parts of the Rooney Approach such as the A-A coaching internships, education efforts and outreach programs help those men who only know the college game have some experience in the pro game/

 

Of course all pro players do not have the desire or the ability to be good coaches, so former college players weigh more heavily into the qualified applicant pool than if more pro players were in, now that the welcome mat is out we see former players like Lofton or Singletary who did not seem to want to pursue a coaching career getting into the system.

 

Its really impossible to acurately pick a number between 1 and 100 for what the hiring pool should be, but my sense is that one certainly would choose a number far closer to O than 100 in describing the qualified applicants and actually it is probably no higher than 25 and actually closer to 10 (former pro players and former college player segments of society) in the final view.

 

The idea of declaring the goal of the Rooney Rule to be to produce an HC pool which looks like America is simply nuts.

 

The goal is not to make the HC ranks have the same compostion as the players at all. If that were in fact the goal the NFL would have chosen a quota with the resulting stupid results.  Instead by taking an approach such as the Rooney Ruke the NFL has adopted an opportunity based system which merely requires one interview and more importantly establishes programs which increase the qualifications of A-A applicants.

 

How has this system cost any qualified white applicants a job? How has it even cost any qualified white applicants an interview?  NFL can and clearly still do choose anyone they want and they can certainly interview anyone they want.

 

If this were a stupid quota approach then it would restrict the number of hires and likely the interviews but it isn't.  Perhaps, one could attempt to make the case that where they would have interviewed 6 white candidates before now they will onlu interview 5.  Yet even ths argument is stupid since there is nothing that restricts them from interviewing 7 people if they want.

 

I think if folks are going to get bent out of shape about this they should at least be able to even hint at some specfic cases where this has had any effect on qualified white HCs beyond some theoretical claim that the one A-A interview required will necessarily replace an interview of a qualified white applicant/

 

As far as the Johnny Cockroach (RIP) crew. They apparently advocate approaches like rewarding an extra draft choice for hiring an A-A HC and many would feel fine about quotas. I think Johnny Cochran's and the views you express are actually two incorrect extremes in viewing this problem and I think the moderation of the Rooney Rule works well and seems to be improving the game.

 

In America there is a general belief that one gets rewarded for your level of skils and activity and that while we are committed to  having a safety net for the old and infirmed there is guaranteed minimum salary or benefits for every person.

 

Thus discrimination is not an absolute issue but a relative issue. A-As deserve the same abilities as whites to be rewarded based on their skills and character.  The discrimination occured because NFL team for years operated a system which aw qualified men as athletes and leaders not get a shot at positions like QB or HC and of course to gain the wealth that came with achievement in these jobs.

 

Actually modt people are discriminated against in our society where a small percentage of the population holds a massive % of the wealth. In addition, as our society goes through the largest transfer of assets from one generation to another as the baby boomers die off and trust and estate law (even with the dreaded death tax in place) allows these assets to be transferred with minor taxation. actua;;y a great many people will do nothing to earn their initial wealth except choose the right parents.

 

I think it is simply false to claim that caste discrimination and racial discrimination are mutually exclusive.  On the question of whether there is an income impact or a racial impact regarding many important decisions in society, i say both.  Neither is for sure or true in all cases. In fact being born poor or being born a person of color may get someone a scholarship.

 

Yet, if given a choice between being born A-A or white, being born rich or poor, or even being born a man or a woman, if being advantaged in society is what you are after, then believe me if you can't choose your parents then you better hopr you are a male and you are white because if you are a A-A woman the odds are you are not going to be rich.

 

It wuld be stupid to pretend that A-As are the only ones who have ended up onthe short end of the discrimination stick in our society.  However, it would also be stupid not to recognize that A-As have been (and still are according to numerous studies which specifically compare demographic groups of similar incomes have been on the short-end of the discrimination stick in significant ways in our society.  The Rooney Rule is simply a free-market institution choosing to redress past discrimination against the racial group which composes a majority of its employees.  Afain if the Rooney Rule was designed to addess societal discrimination and make the NF: HC hiring pool look like America then it would work to bring the # of femaile HCs to 50+%. The general population numbers you site have little or nothing do with this program.

 

 

I would be quite happy to see the NFL wave a mafic wand and remove all racial considerations and impacts from NFL hiring/ However, do you really think this will happen on any timeline involving today;s players or even most folks alive today.  The Rooney Rule is a vountary partnership approach based on opportunity and qualifications which does not require that qualified white applicants not be hired or even require they not be interviewed.

 

Opinions can reasonably vary about how effective it is or whether it is working to accomplish particular goals, but the facts involved are fairly straightforward and oddities like the notion that the goal of this program or measires pf its success has anything to do with creating an HC pool which looks like America should be a solid hint that folks may not be thinking about the facts correctly.

600762[/snapback]

Gender isn't really part of this discussion, so I'm not going to respond to the parts of your post that address the issue of women and coaching.

 

What we're really dealing with here are people who define "progress" as replacing whites with blacks. Some of this--especially from blacks--is based on a love for the black race. Many white people buy into this thinking because they've been taught the white race is uniquely guilty, and so should be made to sacrifice to atone for past sins.

 

Whatever people's motivations, their actions sometimes produce outcomes that are unfair. Did James Lofton--a position coach acquitted of rape--really deserve to be one of the candidates interviewed for the Bills' head coaching position? Was this really an example of the Rooney Rule forcing a GM to interview a highly qualified candidate he otherwise might have overlooked? Wasn't the whole Lofton circus degrading to the black candidates who really did deserve the head coaching interviews they received?

 

An illogical outcome--such as the Lofton situation--is evidence of a flawed thinking process. If you're feeling guilty about things your ancestors did to someone else's ancestors, it's going to be really tough to see things as they are today. James Lofton isn't a former slave. He isn't a pregnant black woman who was asked to give up her bus seat to a white man. He's a man who was paid millions to play a sport he loved, and who has now become the beneficiary of an affirmative action program designed to help the "underprivileged." The fact he was interviewed for a head coaching position doesn't indicate "progress" towards anything except a more racially charged, less merit-based NFL.

[thebug]

Hey why doesn't the league mandate that each team must interview a woman for every coaching position as well.......even if she doesn't qualify.....

[justnzane]

well, hey now there is art shell in oakland.

[pmoon]

Yes, let's get rid of the white guys...

[bbh10128]

Gender isn't really part of this discussion, so I'm not going to respond to the parts of your post that address the issue of women and coaching.

600832[/snapback]

YEAH LOOKS LIKE JILLS HAVE ONLY A FEW BLACK CHICKS. WHY NOT EXTEND THE RACIAL QUOTA TO THE JILLS AND MAKE THEM 75% BLACK TOO?

[Hawerchuk10]

THE ARGUMENT GOES THAT WITH SO MANY BLACK PLAYERS - A MAJORITY OF THE LEAGUE - THE PERCENT OF BLACK COACHES SHOULD BE ROUGHLY EQUAL VERUS CURRENT PERCENT OF ABOUT 20%.  BUT WHAT ABOUT THE ARGUMENT THAT SAYS SINCE SOCIETY AS A WHOLE IS MOSTLY WHITE, THEN HAVING ONLY A MINORITY OF WHITE PLAYERS POINTS TO A BIAS IN PLAYER SECLECTION THAT WORKS AGAINST WHITES?

 

YOU DECIDE.

599126[/snapback]

stupid

[Pine Barrens Mafia]

stupid

601328[/snapback]

 

Is it? If the league were to run player ethnicity as they've tried to run coaching ethnicity, that's a valid point. Rather than leaving race out of the equation, the Cochranites are injecting it right into the middle of the argument.