- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Coaching Changes
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
re: The Rooney Rule
Posted on 1/2/11 at 8:41 pm to StrongSafety
Posted on 1/2/11 at 8:41 pm to StrongSafety
quote:
Theres representation, but no power.
What solution do you propose for this "problem"?
I guess if the league wanted to be consistent then they should require ownership be representative of the population too.
1
Posted on 1/2/11 at 8:43 pm to WikiTiger
Thats why the Rooney Rule is in place.
Posted on 1/2/11 at 9:01 pm to WikiTiger
Wiki, your position is based on the assumption that coaching hires are identical to player hires, which are based purely on merit (either you can play and/or have the measurable or you don't). More black players have the talent to play than white players for various reasons. However, coaching is and has been different. Like in other aspects of American culture, who you know is often more important than what you know, and you gain the former through networking and INTERVIEWS. Now, I fully agree that the real problem is a lack of black assistants on the college and pro levels, but that's been improving over the last couple decades as more enlightened people have made hiring decisions. As time goes on, the Rooney Rule won't be necessary, but right now, it is. As others have said, there is nothing wrong with helping people to network, etc.
Posted on 1/2/11 at 9:01 pm to WikiTiger
quote:
Like I said before, if they were really concerned with fairness then all areas of the organization should be representative of the population.
Blacks should be 12% of players and coaches. Whites about 65%. Hispanics about 15%, etc.
no because the rooney rule is not forcing anyone to be hired or a quota of a certain amount of minority people to have a job. it's just given a minority candidates a chance chance.
under your point you are forcing a number on people whether they are qualified or not. and by your number there are probably around 2540 players and coaches, so there would only be 305 black and 1651 white players and coaches in the league, hopefully you see your flawed logic. and i could be wrong but i dont think there 381 hispanics in the league, but hey under your rule they would have that amount, no matter qualifications.
Posted on 1/2/11 at 9:02 pm to WikiTiger
quote:
Like I said before, if they were really concerned with fairness then all areas of the organization should be representative of the population.
It's not about the population of the US or even the respective leagues. It's about the relevant population, which is the people who are lining up to be coaches in the NFL who are actually qualified.
What percentage of that pool do you think is black? you don't know. Neither do I. Presumably whoever made up the rule (someone in a better position than either of us) had a sense that the number of blacks in that pool was way higher than the number of blacks who were getting interviews.
If you look back at my first post, btw, I said the rule was horrible. I'm not a supporter of it, as you said.
I just don't like it when people post all cocksure like they know what they are talking about when they don't.
Posted on 1/2/11 at 9:06 pm to tigermike5
quote:
but hey under your rule they would have that amount, no matter qualifications.
which exposes the ridiculousness of affirmative action type policies
Posted on 1/2/11 at 9:08 pm to Sophandros
quote:
Wiki, your position is based on the assumption that coaching hires are identical to player hires, which are based purely on merit (either you can play and/or have the measurable or you don't). More black players have the talent to play than white players for various reasons. However, coaching is and has been different. Like in other aspects of American culture, who you know is often more important than what you know, and you gain the former through networking and INTERVIEWS. Now, I fully agree that the real problem is a lack of black assistants on the college and pro levels, but that's been improving over the last couple decades as more enlightened people have made hiring decisions. As time goes on, the Rooney Rule won't be necessary, but right now, it is. As others have said, there is nothing wrong with helping people to network, etc.
I'm just trying to point out the hypocrisy, I'm not actually advocating what I propose.
Posted on 1/2/11 at 9:09 pm to BilJ
Jerry should go play golf with kanye and interview him.
Posted on 1/2/11 at 9:09 pm to WikiTiger
the place where I think your argument falls flat is that this isn't a forced hire. It's literally just an interview. Whether or not it should go that far is debatable, but in the end, reflecting the population breakdown is pretty moot here.
Posted on 1/2/11 at 9:11 pm to WikiTiger
quote:
which exposes the ridiculousness of affirmative action type policies
but see the rooney rule is not affirmative action, per se, because it is not forcing a team to hire a coach. if they hire the coach he has fit their qualifications. it just forcing a team to interview a minority coach the team views as being qualified
This post was edited on 1/2/11 at 9:13 pm
Posted on 1/2/11 at 9:12 pm to tigermike5
quote:
under your point you are forcing a number on people whether they are qualified or not. and by your number there are probably around 2540 players and coaches, so there would only be 305 black and 1651 white players and coaches in the league, hopefully you see your flawed logic. and i could be wrong but i dont think there 381 hispanics in the league, but hey under your rule they would have that amount, no matter qualifications.
He said he wasn't advocating that. He was making a point about how arbitrary the criteria for "fairness" is and that's is not always about "fairness" when it comes to civil rights groups, it's about maximizing opportunities for a certain group, although I'm not sure why he wanted to take the discussion in this direction on a discussion of a rule where nobody is forced to hire anyone.
Posted on 1/2/11 at 9:13 pm to WikiTiger
Problem is that there is no hypocrisy. Teams try out all players regardless of color at all positions. If you have the talent, they'll give you a look. However, there have been many minority assistants who didn't get interviews for a long time prior to the Rooney Rule because it's a networking thing.
So your calling it "hypocrisy" is comparing apples to oranges.
So your calling it "hypocrisy" is comparing apples to oranges.
Posted on 1/2/11 at 9:14 pm to LfcSU3520
quote:
the place where I think your argument falls flat is that this isn't a forced hire. It's literally just an interview. Whether or not it should go that far is debatable, but in the end, reflecting the population breakdown is pretty moot here.
That's a fair enough critique of my argument. I was merely extending the logic further. If they are truly concerned about fairness then surely they want the league to be fair to everyone.
Posted on 1/2/11 at 9:15 pm to Rocket
quote:
although I'm not sure why he wanted to take the discussion in this direction on a discussion of a rule where nobody is forced to hire anyone.
In retrospect I should have avoided going in this direction.
ETA:
quote:
He said he wasn't advocating that. He was making a point about how arbitrary the criteria for "fairness" is and that's is not always about "fairness" when it comes to civil rights groups, it's about maximizing opportunities for a certain group
And yes, that is spot on.
This post was edited on 1/2/11 at 9:17 pm
Posted on 1/2/11 at 9:15 pm to Sophandros
Can someone give me a tally of all the black people in the history of pro football who weren't given a chance at coaching, or moving up the coaching ladder, solely because they were black? Also, please provide proof that it was due to race (you can't just say, duh, they were black, the white man kept them down).
TIA
TIA
Posted on 1/2/11 at 9:16 pm to Sophandros
quote:
However, there have been many minority assistants who didn't get interviews for a long time prior to the Rooney Rule because it's a networking thing.
Please list these and show proof that they didn't get a chance because they weren't white.
TIA
Posted on 1/2/11 at 9:19 pm to hashtag
quote:
Please list these and show proof that they didn't get a chance because they weren't white.
don't hold your breath
Posted on 1/2/11 at 9:20 pm to WikiTiger
The league is fair to white players. If you're qualified, you make the team.
Now YOUR argument seems to be based on a very dangerous a priority assumption that often rears it's ugly head in these sorts of discussions: any minority that gets hired or gains admission to a school does so via affirmative action and that minority is assumed to be less qualified than all white applicants based on his minority status. I say that this assumption is a dangerous one because it assumes the superiority of whites over everyone else and sells all other groups short. Now, I don't think that you are a racist, but the necessary underlying assumption behind your argument relies on the belief of white supremacy.
Now YOUR argument seems to be based on a very dangerous a priority assumption that often rears it's ugly head in these sorts of discussions: any minority that gets hired or gains admission to a school does so via affirmative action and that minority is assumed to be less qualified than all white applicants based on his minority status. I say that this assumption is a dangerous one because it assumes the superiority of whites over everyone else and sells all other groups short. Now, I don't think that you are a racist, but the necessary underlying assumption behind your argument relies on the belief of white supremacy.
Posted on 1/2/11 at 9:22 pm to Sophandros
quote:
Now YOUR argument seems to be based on a very dangerous a priority assumption that often rears it's ugly head in these sorts of discussions: any minority that gets hired or gains admission to a school does so via affirmative action and that minority is assumed to be less qualified than all white applicants based on his minority status. I say that this assumption is a dangerous one because it assumes the superiority of whites over everyone else and sells all other groups short. Now, I don't think that you are a racist, but the necessary underlying assumption behind your argument relies on the belief of white supremacy.
For the millionth time, all I'm saying is that supporters of these kind of policies aren't really concerned about fairness, or equality, or anything like that....all they are concerned with is promoting some groups over others.
My stance has absolutely zero to do with perceived superiority.
This post was edited on 1/2/11 at 9:23 pm
Page 5 of 10
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News