Rooney Rule: Minority Coaches getting shut out yet again.

[BrickzNY]

9 minutes ago, jetstream23 said:

I think this is an important point.  The idea that because more than 50% of the NFL is comprised of black players doesn't necessarily mean a similar number should be Head Coaches.  Just like the fact that more than 80% of the coaches and GMs are white doesn't mean that 80% of the players in the League should be white.  The best players should play, the best coaches should coach.  Just because you can play doesn't mean you can coach, and it has nothing to do with race or even the sport they play.....look at Wayne Gretzky for crying out loud.  Best hockey player ever, horrible coach.  He was given a coaching opportunity because he was a great player, just like Mike Singletary was given a HC opportunity in San Francisco.

Numbers and averages are also a little bit tough to play with when there are only 32 of these jobs and only 5 opened this year.  I understand that no new minority candidates have been hired this year for HC jobs (Ron Rivera lost a job and then got one) but we also had no minority coaches fired this year.  While Jay Gruden, Pat Shurmur, Freddie Kitchens and Jason Garrett were all terminated (and rightfully so) a guy like Anthony Lynn was retained despite a 5 win season (again, I think keeping him was smart).  All this is to say that it's difficult to draw conclusions from small data sets, but I still believe that owners want to win and won't pass on the best coaching candidates simply because of race.

I don’t think this has anything to do with passing on anyone because of their race. It’s getting more opportunities than one should because of relationships that will always equate to race. Like I said earlier, zero reason for Gase to have gotten a job over Bieniemy/Richard/Caldwell. Vance Joseph proved just as much as Gase and he went to a coordinators position after getting fired, Gase went right back to a head coach. But it probably boils down to what someone else said in this thread, it boils down to stupidity. 

[JTJet]

2 minutes ago, King P said:

Problem with that is Latino is in it's own separate category because,  Latino is an ethnicity and not a race. Latinos can be Black, White, Brown, etc.

Ie. Brian Flores

Flores Panamanian so he technically is Latino. But just by looking at him, he's obviously Black. So he covers both

Only stated it that way for simplicity. Latino demographics on the Census are further broken down to get numbers from as well. I just didnt have time to do the math for each one. 

[JetsFanatic]

2 hours ago, prime21 said:

I've always been 50/50 on the Rooney Rule.

Its great because it opens the door for opportunities for some coaches but on the other hand it can lead to these token interviews. 

If Dallas was hell bent on hiring McCarthy, then in my opinion it doesn't seem right that they would have to identify a qualified minority and bring him in just to comply with a rule.   

 

I agree with you. Sometimes though even a “token” interview can open the door for other positions in the organization if the candidate performs well and impresses. 

[pdxgreen]

How many black GM's are there?  I was reading on the Oregon boards that Cleveland assistant GM  Alonzo Highsmith was in talks to join UO Football.  (prrobably for a key job in the Athletic Department) 

But I thought he was tabbed by league insiders to be a GM a few years ago.  So I was like "hunh?"  I figured his aspirations were toward the head pro job.

[DonCorleone]

1 hour ago, Jetsfan80 said:

LOL what?

Compare the pool of talent at the HS/Collegiate Levels to what we see in the NFL, and the ratio stays about intact.  That's not discrimination.  If, say, 75 % of the talent at HS/College levels are minority players, and 75 % are minority players in the NFL, that's not discrimination.  

Meanwhile, in a league with so many minority players, why are there so few minority coaches?  Does it not stand to reason that most coaches are former players?

So you are saying that it is colleges who discriminate. Good point.

[GreenFish]

Wasn’t Kris Richards also the passing game coordinator? 
 

He seems like a very qualified candidate since he has experience coaching both sides. By all accounts, he’s also a good leader.

A lot of the times it’s not the most qualified person that gets the job. Personality matters. If you can’t see yourself working with a person, you are likely not going to hire them. This is why who you know goes a long way across all industries.  Also, not everyone is good at interviewing. So that plays a role. 
 

 

[Greenbloodblitz]

8 minutes ago, jetstream23 said:

I think this is an important point.  The idea that because more than 50% of the NFL is comprised of black players doesn't necessarily mean a similar number should be Head Coaches.  Just like the fact that more than 80% of the coaches and GMs are white doesn't mean that 80% of the players in the League should be white.  The best players should play, the best coaches should coach.  Just because you can play doesn't mean you can coach, and it has nothing to do with race or even the sport they play.....look at Wayne Gretzky for crying out loud.  Best hockey player ever, horrible coach.  He was given a coaching opportunity because he was a great player, just like Mike Singletary was given a HC opportunity in San Francisco.

Numbers and averages are also a little bit tough to play with when there are only 32 of these jobs and only 5 opened this year.  I understand that no new minority candidates have been hired this year for HC jobs (Ron Rivera lost a job and then got one) but we also had no minority coaches fired this year.  While Jay Gruden, Pat Shurmur, Freddie Kitchens and Jason Garrett were all terminated (and rightfully so) a guy like Anthony Lynn was retained despite a 5 win season (again, I think keeping him was smart).  All this is to say that it's difficult to draw conclusions from small data sets, but I still believe that owners want to win and won't pass on the best coaching candidates simply because of race.

I agree with this wholeheartedly and I would like to add that the Rooney Rule is actually an insult to dignified black people who have worked their asses off to get where they are.

May the best man win plain and simple that's how it is and how it always should be. Nobody wants to work their entire life to create a legacy and get where they want to be by chance, lottery, or handicap. The entire rule is a disgrace and makes everyone involved uncomfortable.

That being said I happen to be a white guy who sings like a black girl. No kidding. I play five instruments and I've been writing songs for 30 something years. Nothing is more insulting than when a person suggests that I go on The Voice or America's Got Talent. I'm very comfortable with who I am and my personal accomplishments. I'm now 45 not 25 and I made it onto regular radio rotation and MTV and sold my albums and CDs in stores.

I can't see any person black or white, Asian Or Hispanic or Other having a feeling of dignity after all the hard work put in, simply because they caught a break due to the color of their skin. It's demeaning and insulting. Like we all know you're not good enough but will let you have a shot anyway?

It's like when you let a six-year-old play ball with the big kids. It's ridiculous. I'm very sure that every black coach in the NFL and any other color coach that has ever made anything of themselves on any level is very proud of the hard work they put in and what they have accomplished.

Leaders of men do not need any handouts.

[ZachEY]

Just now, Greenbloodblitz said:

Nobody wants to work their entire life to create a legacy and get where they want to be by chance, lottery, or handicap.

Isn't being born wealthy a lottery?

[JTJet]

6 minutes ago, TeddEY said:

 

 

When you look at it this way, it's of course easy to dismiss racism in the hiring process.  But, if you're interested in another way of thinking about it, I'd urge you to consider that no one is suggesting that an NFL owner, or, any company owner, evaluates the prospects, and then determines that the minority candidate, real, or fictionalized in NYM's example, is the best candidate, and then doesn't hire them because of their minority status.  The suggestion of racial discrimination in the hiring process, again, NFL or otherwise, is that the hire-ers, have inherent biases for certain jobs.  In the NFL, the "thinking" jobs, that prevent them from viewing the minority candidate as the top candidate in the first place.  Institutional racism and this type of racial bias isn't overt - it's not the KKK, it's not lynching, and it's not conscious most of the time.  Additionally, it doesn't preclude anyone from having minority friends, loved ones, colleagues, or employees.  However, inherent biases do exist, and there's a mountain of actual research to back this up, to suggest that someone is not deciding against a candidate because of their minority status, but that their minority status is making it less likely to see the person as a viable candidate in the first place.

Nobody said it's easy to dismiss racism in these scenarios.

But, I would say this is based off your personal experiences/education more than anything. 

Saying that there are mountains of "actual" research on institutional racism and inherent bias and such is completely subjective to what research you choose to subscribe to. 

From what I personally read, I dont agree that institutional racism even exists. I along with other mountains of research believe it's the equivalent of a fail safe or a safe word, to justify shortcomings or failures

(example: I'm not qualified/bombed my interview/there was a better candidate, and I didnt get hired at Officemax, I dont know why, I cant pinpoint it at all, I have no evidence of discrimination.... so naturally it MUST be institutional racism) 

Are there inevitably going to be a few people that are closet racist and make decisions that way, sure. I wouldn't argue that. But to think in the NFL of all places its systemic? That's just irresponsible. 

Owners dole out multi million dollar contracts to black athletes left and right, why? Because they want the best players, same with coaches. 

[GreenFish]

21 minutes ago, BrickzNY said:

I don’t think this has anything to do with passing on anyone because of their race. It’s getting more opportunities than one should because of relationships that will always equate to race. Like I said earlier, zero reason for Gase to have gotten a job over Bieniemy/Richard/Caldwell. Vance Joseph proved just as much as Gase and he went to a coordinators position after getting fired, Gase went right back to a head coach. But it probably boils down to what someone else said in this thread, it boils down to stupidity. 

On paper, you are probably right. But Gase and Manning were able to convince the Johnsons that Gase was the right guy. CJ made the decision he thought was right for his football team. However, the argument can be made that Kris Richards would have been a better hire. Unfortunately for Richards, nobody was vouching for him internally.  

[jetstream23]

25 minutes ago, BrickzNY said:

You can’t just name me the 1 or 2 times it happens with a black coach and just say it’s fine. Cause it happens hundreds of times for white coaches. This is what no one seems to understand. Minorities are just suppose to be satisfied with getting the opportunity once, while whites get the opportunities all the time. This has been an issue in America forever. Marvin Lewis showed YEARS of success yet he will probably never get another job again. Yet Gase showed complete failure and got a job the very moment he was fired. That’s a huge problem to me. 

Appreciate your perspective!  I don't disagree that the majority of opportunities (both interviews and ultimately jobs) are given to white guys.  It's a fact and the numbers bare that out.  And spending more than 10 minutes around here will tell you what people think of Gase (mixed opinions, mostly poor, he probably gets only gets 2020 to prove himself) but I will point out that Ron Rivera (minority) also got a job immediately after being fired in Carolina.  Question - do we think it's only race at play in these coaching decisions though?  I do think there are some other factors such as the trend of the league towards offensive-minded head coaches.  Marvin Lewis comes from the defensive side of the ball, Steve Wilks (fired last year for offensive-minded guy Kingsbury) was a D coordinator, Bowles (Defense) was replaced by Gase, Anthony Lynn is an offensive guy and is keeping his job despite a 5-win season.  Does it seem like there are fewer minority candidates coming from the offensive side of the ball?  I'm asking because I simply don't know but just started thinking about.  Flores and Tomlin, the other two current minority HCs in the League both come from Defense too.  It does seem like guys who ARE hired AND turn out to be good end up staying (Tomlin, Lewis for all those years before his last 3 bad years, etc.).  Guys who don't win (Bowles) or flounder quickly, regardless of race, like Steve Wilks and Freddie Kitchens, get shown the door.

Maybe I'm naive about this stuff, but I try to employ logic.  I simply think some rich owner hell bent on winning would prefer going 10-6 with a black coach rather than 8-8 with a white coach.  If the analysis, data, interviews, etc. are leading them to a coaching decision that they ultimately ignore because they want a guy of a different race then they won't succeed in this league.

[ZachEY]

Just now, JTJet said:

Nobody said it's easy to dismiss racism in these scenarios.

But, I would say this is based off your personal experiences/education more than anything. 

Saying that there are mountains of "actual" research on institutional racism and inherent bias and such is completely subjective to what research you choose to subscribe to. 

From what I personally read, I dont agree that institutional racism even exists. I along with other mountains of research believe it's the equivalent of a fail safe or a safe word, to justify shortcomings or failures

(example: I'm not qualified/bombed my interview/there was a better candidate, and I didnt get hired at Officemax, I dont know why, I cant pinpoint it at all, I have no evidence of discrimination.... so naturally it MUST be institutional racism) 

 Are there inevitably going to be a few people that are closet racist and make decisions that way, sure. I wouldn't argue that. But to think in the NFL of all places its systemic? That's just irresponsible. 

 Owners dole out multi million dollar contracts to black athletes left and right, why? Because they want the best players, same with coaches. 

There's no sense in going back and forth here... I'd be happy to read your mountains of reputable research that suggests institutional racism is a fail-safe.

[Biggs]

1 hour ago, Jetsfan80 said:

LOL what?

Compare the pool of talent at the HS/Collegiate Levels to what we see in the NFL, and the ratio stays about intact.  That's not discrimination.  If, say, 75 % of the talent at HS/College levels are minority players, and 75 % are minority players in the NFL, that's not discrimination.  

Meanwhile, in a league with so many minority players, why are there so few minority coaches?  Does it not stand to reason that most coaches are former players?

Most coaches were second rate players.  

[Greenbloodblitz]

2 minutes ago, TeddEY said:

Isn't being born wealthy a lottery?

No obviously that was the choice of one's parents. You can't get lucky if you don't exist right? But I think you missed my point. People have passion and work their asses off their whole life to achieve their goals. It actually means something to them. How do you think a white kid would feel in the locker room if he's on a football team cuz there's a mandate by the NFL that are there aren't enough white cornerbacks?  Congratulations buddy you made it?  No I don't think so.

[Warfish]

What % of Coaches should be of African descent?

What % of Coaches should be Asian descent?

What % of Coaches should be of European descent?

What % of Coaches should be of Native american or other indigenous descent?

How is Coaching different than playing (i.e. pure meritocracy as decided by management)? 

Why is "minority" used by the Rooney rule, when it's disproportionately African descent individuals that are afforded the opportunity, and not other racial minorities with less representation than African descent individuals but equal or larger populations within the U.S.?  

Does the NFL need advocacy, community outreach or other mandated quote-type policies or programs to encourage/require non-African descent players to play football, since the league is extremely disproportionately of African descent, or is that kind of disproportionate representation "ok" for some reason?  If so, what is that reason? 

Should NFL teams have minimum and maximum numbers of European, Asian, African and Native descent players per team, like Japan used to do for Gaijin players in their baseball leagues?  Why not?  Is racial diversity not of value on the NFL playing field, but is in Coaching?  

Should there also be racial background quotas in the NFL for Ownership?

These are the kinds of questions that starting down the road of quota-based rules raise.  The Rooney rule is well intentioned, but poorly executed, and always has been.  It's goal is noble and righteous, but it's too easily avoided, and the methodology is poorly designed.  Racism and passive racial bias ARE issues, but perhaps there are better ways to work against them than a pure quota.

 

 

[Biggs]

3 minutes ago, Warfish said:

What % of Coaches should be of African descent?

What % of Coaches should be Asian descent?

What % of Coaches should be of European descent?

What % of Coaches should be of Native american or other indigenous descent?

How is Coaching different than playing (i.e. pure meritocracy as decided by management)? 

Why is "minority" used by the Rooney rule, when it's disproportionately African descent individuals that are afforded the opportunity, and not other racial minorities with less representation than African descent individuals but equal or larger populations within the U.S.?  

Does the NFL need advocacy, community outreach or other mandated quote-type policies or programs to encourage/require non-African descent players to play football, since the league is extremely disproportionately of African descent, or is that kind of disproportionate representation "ok" for some reason?  If so, what is that reason? 

Should NFL teams have minimum and maximum numbers of European, Asian, African and Native descent players per team, like Japan used to do for Gaijin players in their baseball leagues?  Why not?  Is racial diversity not of value on the NFL playing field, but is in Coaching?  

Should there also be racial background quotas in the NFL for Ownership?

These are the kinds of questions that starting down the road of quota-based rules raise.  The Rooney rule is well intentioned, but poorly executed, and always has been.  It's goal is noble and righteous, but it's too easily avoided, and the methodology is poorly designed.

 

 

Since you asked good rhetorical questions Ill throw one back at you.  Should the NFL have an anti-trust exemption?

[jetstream23]

21 minutes ago, BrickzNY said:

I don’t think this has anything to do with passing on anyone because of their race. It’s getting more opportunities than one should because of relationships that will always equate to race. Like I said earlier, zero reason for Gase to have gotten a job over Bieniemy/Richard/Caldwell. Vance Joseph proved just as much as Gase and he went to a coordinators position after getting fired, Gase went right back to a head coach. But it probably boils down to what someone else said in this thread, it boils down to stupidity. 

Richard is the guy who should have been hired by the Jets.  Caldwell is mediocre in my opinion.  Good coach, but he's a safe choice like Mike McCarthy (another guy I didn't want).  Bieniemy has some challenges from my understanding.....there may be some background or off-the-field stuff preventing him from being given the keys to a team.  I don't know for sure but it was mentioned yesterday on NFL Radio that "there are some things that are scaring teams off from making him the face of the team at the podium."

Regarding Vance Joseph and Gase, I agree about their similar track records yet receiving different second chances, but I'll go back to something I just posted here earlier....do we think the offense/defense trend has anything to do with it?  The McVay aura that was red hot last year seemed to influence the hiring of "offensive-minded" HCs, especially for teams with young QBs (Arizona and Kingsbury, Cleveland and Kitchens, Jets and Gase, etc.).  I'm curious about the up-and-coming minority coaches from the offensive side of the ball....as I said, Richard certainly seems like one of the guys who will soon break through.

[SAM SAM HE'S OUR MAN]

[ZachEY]

6 minutes ago, Greenbloodblitz said:

No obviously that was the choice of one's parents. You can't get lucky if you don't exist right? But I think you missed my point. People have passion and work their asses off their whole life to achieve their goals. It actually means something to them. How do you think a white kid would feel in the locker room if he's on a football team cuz there's a mandate by the NFL that are there aren't enough white cornerbacks?  Congratulations buddy you made it?  No I don't think so.

I didn't miss your point, it's that your point misses an important one.  Perhaps not on an NFL field, where a true meritocracy takes place, because the evaluation is very black and white and on display and the results are simple, but in every level of the job market, there are people there because of things they did not earn all on their own.  And, it starts from birth.  Plenty of people who go to Harvard Law School get to do so because they were fortunate to be born to an alumni, because they can afford the astronomical tuition, or, because they can even afford to go.  I once worked with a guy who joined a gang and sold drugs and recently got out of prison.  He told me, "you know why I first sold drugs?  Because my sister needed school supplies and my mother couldn't buy them."  I'm not making excuses for him, I'm simply saying that this meritocracy narrative is a story we tell ourselves so we don't have to acknowledge that so much of what we have is the luck of who gave birth to us.  The data shows, frankly, that the overwhelming majority of people never meaningfully change their SES from childhood.  That's not because rich kids are harder workers or smarter, I assure you.  And, I assure you, as a former kid who came from a very solid financial background, I don't apologize for the advantages I've had, and while I work/worked very hard, I also don't pretend like those advantages are not the overwhelming majority of the reason I presently make orders of magnitudes more than the median household income.

[Warfish]

12 minutes ago, Biggs said:

Since you asked good rhetorical questions Ill throw one back at you.  Should the NFL have an anti-trust exemption?

Absolutely not.  No for-profit Sports league should have such an exemption.

[Fantasy Island]

[jetstream23]

26 minutes ago, Greenbloodblitz said:

I agree with this wholeheartedly and I would like to add that the Rooney Rule is actually an insult to dignified black people who have worked their asses off to get where they are.

Whether the Rooney Rule is insulting to minorities isn't for me to say.  There certainly seems to be both pros and cons to it.  My biggest concern is that of unintended consequences and whether pushing, accelerating someone into a role they're not ready for is a good idea.  But that's the case with anyone. 

[#27TheDominator]

1 hour ago, King P said:

Problem with that is Latino is in it's own separate category because,  Latino is an ethnicity and not a race. Latinos can be Black, White, Brown, etc.

Ie. Brian Flores

Flores Panamanian so he technically is Latino. But just by looking at him, he's obviously Black. So he covers both

I remember reading a study years ago that there were hardly any blacks in baseball.  We couldn't figure it out, until we learned that they were listing all the players from Latin American countries as Latinos.  By that metric there were fairly low numbers of African American and white players.

1 hour ago, TeddEY said:

But, where do these coaches come from?  I don't have the data, but I imagine that most coaches come up from low level position coaches, and I imagine that low level position coaches are largely former players.  And former players, are largely black.  So, at some point there's a change in the data, the question becomes where that takes place.

I would be interested to know how many minority candidates had that crazy Mangini/Judge/Gase type of career trajectory where they start as graduate assistants or unpaid interns and work their way up the career ladder to NFL coordinators and head coaches.  Then it would be interesting to know if there are less if the reason is lack of interest, inability to be carried financially by family, or the lack of opportunities for even these low level jobs that are often snatched up by friends and other non-minority candidates based on bias, both conscious and unconscious. 

I suspect that it is a mix of all, but it is hard not to root for these guys that work their way up from nowhere.  That is particularly true when we are comparing them to minority candidates that were successful players like Bienemy, Staley or Leftwich, despite the fact that those guys had to fact their own sets of bias and difficulties in making their way up the ladder. 

1 hour ago, JetsFanatic said:

I agree with you. Sometimes though even a “token” interview can open the door for other positions in the organization if the candidate performs well and impresses. 

That was one of the purposes of the Rooney rule.  The thought was that it would get guys feet in the door, and get them experience interviewing.  No matter how good the candidate, you can't wow someone until they sit down and listen to you.  I am not sure how it has worked in practice, but I have heard minority candidates that said they appreciated just the opportunity for a "practice" interview.

[CTM]

35 minutes ago, TeddEY said:

Isn't being born wealthy a lottery?

Doesnt looking at it that way diminish the parents role in building a better life for thier kids? If I work hard with the explicit idea of better opportunities or my kids over instant gratification for myself that isnt luck at work 

I have no idea how this relates to op but I think parents should he focused on this and arent 

[DRJETS]

14 minutes ago, jetstream23 said:

Richard is the guy who should have been hired by the Jets.  Caldwell is mediocre in my opinion.  Good coach, but he's a safe choice like Mike McCarthy (another guy I didn't want).  Bieniemy has some challenges from my understanding.....there may be some background or off-the-field stuff preventing him from being given the keys to a team.  I don't know for sure but it was mentioned yesterday on NFL Radio that "there are some things that are scaring teams off from making him the face of the team at the podium."

Regarding Vance Joseph and Gase, I agree about their similar track records yet receiving different second chances, but I'll go back to something I just posted here earlier....do we think the offense/defense trend has anything to do with it?  The McVay aura that was red hot last year seemed to influence the hiring of "offensive-minded" HCs, especially for teams with young QBs (Arizona and Kingsbury, Cleveland and Kitchens, Jets and Gase, etc.).  I'm curious about the up-and-coming minority coaches from the offensive side of the ball....as I said, Richard certainly seems like one of the guys who will soon break through.

Better choice than MM, child please. Richard will need to reinvent himself after the Cowboys secondary implosion last year.  I saw two Dallas games this year the one against the Jets and the Bills.  Even mediocre passer Josh Allen completed 85% of his passes against his secondary.  

[Greenbloodblitz]

5 minutes ago, TeddEY said:

I didn't miss your point, it's that your point misses an important one.  Perhaps not on an NFL field, where a true meritocracy takes place, because the evaluation is very black and white and on display and the results are simple, but in every level of the job market, there are people there because of things they did not earn all on their own.  And, it starts from birth.  Plenty of people who go to Harvard Law School get to do so because they were fortunate to be born to an alumni, because they can afford the astronomical tuition, or, because they can even afford to go.  I once worked with a guy who joined a gang and sold drugs and recently got out of prison.  He told me, "you know why I first sold drugs?  Because my sister needed school supplies and my mother couldn't buy them."  I'm not making excuses for him, I'm simply saying that this meritocracy narrative is a story we tell ourselves so we don't have to acknowledge that so much of what we have is the luck of who gave birth to us.  The data shows, frankly, that the overwhelming majority of people never meaningfully change their SES from childhood.  That's not because rich kids are harder workers or smarter, I assure you.  And, I assure you, as a former kid who came from a very solid financial background, I don't apologize for the advantages I've had, but I also don't pretend like they're not the overwhelming majority of the reason I presently make orders of magnitudes more than the median household income.

Well my friend then you're very fortunate to be in the 1%. I however grew up on the other side of the tracks. There are plenty of people who fully understand that you have to work twice as hard as the boss's son. For most people life is unfair and nothing is handed to you. That makes any accomplishments you have worked for even more rewarding and builds true character. 

If you just want to start handing out roles and awards to individuals just because of their race or gender or because they're handicapped, or considered minority in anyway ... you're completely diminishing everything the under-privileged person has fought for and against.

Some people persevere despite the uphill battle of the odds being against them. They are the truly deserved and real winners.

[jgb]

Here’s the problem with the old school NFL billionaires’ mindset:

Jim Fisher fails, he’s a bad coach.

Hue Jackson fails, “minority coaches just aren’t ready yet for the big jobs.” 

[ZachEY]

Just now, CTM said:

Doesnt looking at it that way diminish the parents role in building a better life for thier kids? If I work hard with the explicit idea of better opportunities or my kids over instant gratification for myself that isnt luck at work 

 I have no idea how this relates to op but I think parents should he focused on this and arent 

My point is that this stuff occurs within boundaries which are not impenetrable, but fairly fixed.  You are able to 'work hard' at the level you're at because of some advantages you had, that other's did not.  No need to apologize for those, but you didn't start from nothing.  You're not fully self-made, and so your ability to pass those advantages on to your children through hard work is not just because of hard work.

Yes, I agree, people should focus on that, it would help.  But, that doesn't diminish that meritocracy in most of life simply isn't true.

It relates because the poster I was responding to is suggesting that everyone is where they should be because of how hard they worked/no one should be promoted for any other reasons.

[jetstream23]

22 minutes ago, Warfish said:

What % of Coaches should be of African descent?

What % of Coaches should be Asian descent?

What % of Coaches should be of European descent?

What % of Coaches should be of Native american or other indigenous descent?

How is Coaching different than playing (i.e. pure meritocracy as decided by management)? 

Why is "minority" used by the Rooney rule, when it's disproportionately African descent individuals that are afforded the opportunity, and not other racial minorities with less representation than African descent individuals but equal or larger populations within the U.S.?  

Does the NFL need advocacy, community outreach or other mandated quote-type policies or programs to encourage/require non-African descent players to play football, since the league is extremely disproportionately of African descent, or is that kind of disproportionate representation "ok" for some reason?  If so, what is that reason? 

Should NFL teams have minimum and maximum numbers of European, Asian, African and Native descent players per team, like Japan used to do for Gaijin players in their baseball leagues?  Why not?  Is racial diversity not of value on the NFL playing field, but is in Coaching?  

Should there also be racial background quotas in the NFL for Ownership?

These are the kinds of questions that starting down the road of quota-based rules raise.  The Rooney rule is well intentioned, but poorly executed, and always has been.  It's goal is noble and righteous, but it's too easily avoided, and the methodology is poorly designed.  Racism and passive racial bias ARE issues, but perhaps there are better ways to work against them than a pure quota.

 

 

Lots of questions there.  How many black QBs should the NFL have?  How many white DEs should there be?  Why do mediocre white QBs continue to be rostered but a black QB needs to be even better to have a chance, even as a backup?  Does a white DE have to be elite like Bosa or JJ Watt in order to play while the league is full of average or below DEs who are black?  What about position coaches?  What about RBs? Why did we cut Danny Woodhead???? 

[pdxgreen]

6 hours ago, Fantasy Island said:

Please dont bring up that old hag.  The worst apologist for capitalistic excess.  Thousands of peoples' dreams have been destroyed by petty BS, racism, nepotism and a thousand other isms.  The world isn't some open field where your free to realize every dream you had just because you were good enough. More low born achievers probably realized their dreams from career guided "kindness" and acts of random charity... something that woman was completely against.

[Jetsfan80]

46 minutes ago, Biggs said:

Most coaches were second rate players.  

So among the 68 % of NFL players that are African American, there are only enough "second rate" players to eventually fill 12 % of the NFL Head Coaching gaps?

[ZachEY]

1 minute ago, Greenbloodblitz said:

Well my friend then you're very fortunate to be in the 1%. I however grew up on the other side of the tracks. There are plenty of people who fully understand that you have to work twice as hard as the boss's son. For most people life is unfair and nothing is handed to you. That makes any accomplishments you have worked for even more rewarding and builds true character. 

If you just want to start handing out roles and awards to individuals just because of their race or gender or because they're handicapped, or considered minority in anyway ... you're completely diminishing everything the under-privileged person has fought for and against.

Some people persevere despite the uphill battle of the odds being against them. They are the truly deserved and real winners.

Not quite a 1%er, but hopefully within a couple years.  But, my point isn't that hard work isn't valued or necessary and I do agree that for some people life isn't fair.  But, certain things are handed to us that we don't even look at as being handed to us.  Not having to sell drugs to get your school supplies is a privilege.  And, I agree, hard work, adversity, and the lot do build character.  I'm simply saying that even people on the "wrong side of the tracks" have some privileges that others don't.

No one is suggesting that we hand out roles based on race or gender, see my prior post about biases.  It's more so that people with certain statuses are not even given the same consideration.  There's actual evidence of instances were identical resumes were judged more favorably (granted interviews) based on having a likely white name on the top vs. a minority name on the top.  That's not about who deserves what.  That's about an advantage based on implicit biases.

[Jetsfan80]

1 hour ago, DonCorleone said:

So you are saying that it is colleges who discriminate. Good point.

No I am saying that if 75 % of the players are black at every level, there's no discrimination going on.  The best players are rising to the top. 

The only factor making this high % of black athletes in football happen are the socioeconomic influences that lead to a lot of black athletes flocking to the game of football.

[Warfish]

39 minutes ago, TeddEY said:

I'm simply saying that this meritocracy narrative is a story we tell ourselves so we don't have to acknowledge that so much of what we have is the luck of who gave birth to us.

Luck?

Or generational hard work and sacrifice so future generations within that family line could have better lives?

What I have today, as an immigrant here whose family came to America with literally nothing but me, is purely because of teh hard work of my parents to provide me with a better life than they had.  And I built (and sacrificed) upon what they did too, so future generations will have it better than I did.

In a few years will somebody be whining about my great grandkids having a leg up, and ignore four generations o blood, sweat and sacrifice that put them there?

I'll tell you this, there is a huge difference between how newly arrived immigrants act vs. how long established populations act, in broad general terms.

[GreenFish]

23 minutes ago, Greenbloodblitz said:

Well my friend then you're very fortunate to be in the 1%. I however grew up on the other side of the tracks. There are plenty of people who fully understand that you have to work twice as hard as the boss's son. For most people life is unfair and nothing is handed to you. That makes any accomplishments you have worked for even more rewarding and builds true character. 

If you just want to start handing out roles and awards to individuals just because of their race or gender or because they're handicapped, or considered minority in anyway ... you're completely diminishing everything the under-privileged person has fought for and against.

Some people persevere despite the uphill battle of the odds being against them. They are the truly deserved and real winners.

This is true. Every system has it’s negatives and positives. In the US, the cream mostly rises to the top. However, in our society, you still get a bunch of garbage at the top. 

China is trying to build a more merit based society with their citizen score system. We’ll see how that goes since their government is the one deciding how much a giving action is worth

Parents will almost always do what’s best for their kids. The more resources the parents have, the more resources the kids are going to have. That comes with advantages. Nothing to be a shamed of.