Rooney rule to change

I like it. I don't care what anyone says about whaa whaa they didn't play football. Good for making a positive change. Breaking down barriers is good. 

Whatever happened to just hiring the best person for the job (regardless of anything) without having to worry about being branded as a racist or bigot? The NFL is now telling teams they MUST hire a female or minority candidate to work a coaching position that works closely with the head coach. I'm sure that will go over great in the coaching community. 

@"supafreak84" said: Whatever happened to just hiring the best person for the job (regardless of anything) without having to worry about being branded as a racist or bigot? The NFL is now telling teams they MUST hire a female or minority candidate to work a coaching position that works closely with the head coach. I'm sure that will go over great in the coaching community. 

Because you can't trust corporations/teams to do that. You act like its common sense and is happening. It isn't. Bias comes into play. So you have horseshit rules like this one. Yes, I don't agree with forcing anyone to do anything like this in principle. But its been proven time and again certain peoples will be prejudiced against time and again if you don't enact these kinds of rules. How do you explain women doing exactly the same job as men and getting paid less? The explanation is because there is inherent bias. And who gives a shit what the coaching community thinks? They'll adapt. 

Again, I don't like rules like this. Because IMO for sure some women that don't necessarily deserve it will get hired to fill the quota. But if you don't think that some white men that get these opportunities also don't deserve it over black candidates, you're fooling yourself. So now they enact rules that I hate because of this. Give them a shot. 

So women are equal to men,  and should be given equal opportunity and treatment, (as they should)  but when a man competes as a woman and dominates, the affected women cry foul. ( as they should)  crazy world we live in now.

Curios though,  where are these women getting their coaching experience?  If they don't play the game, or grow up in the game,   where are they going to get the working experience ( not just knowledge) to actually be the equal to somebody who has that experience?  How do you hire a candidate with little to no working experience in a sport to fill a high level position?  I am not saying women don't know the game,  I am saying that there are almost no women out there with experience coaching football at any level, let alone the top level.

There's no requirement to interview women.  They have to hire from the pool of minorities, of which women are now included.  So in practicality, there's probably not going to be much difference given the small pool of women coaches, but if you do interview a woman, you just have to interview one less person based on race or skin color.

@"StickyBun" said:

@"supafreak84" said: Whatever happened to just hiring the best person for the job (regardless of anything) without having to worry about being branded as a racist or bigot? The NFL is now telling teams they MUST hire a female or minority candidate to work a coaching position that works closely with the head coach. I'm sure that will go over great in the coaching community. 

Because you can't trust corporations/teams to do that. You act like its common sense and is happening. It isn't. Bias comes into play. So you have horseshit rules like this one. Yes, I don't agree with forcing anyone to do anything like this in principle. But its been proven time and again certain peoples will be prejudiced against time and again if you don't enact these kinds of rules. How do you explain women doing exactly the same job as men and getting paid less? The explanation is because there is inherent bias. And who gives a shit what the coaching community thinks? They'll adapt. 

Again, I don't like rules like this. Because IMO for sure some women that don't necessarily deserve it will get hired to fill the quota. But if you don't think that some white men that get these opportunities also don't deserve it over black candidates, you're fooling yourself. So now they enact rules that I hate because of this. Give them a shot. 

@"medaille" said: There's no requirement to interview women.  They have to hire from the pool of minorities, of which women are now included.  So in practicality, there's probably not going to be much difference given the small pool of women coaches, but if you do interview a woman, you just have to interview one less person based on race or skin color.

Forgive me for not reading the article lol......teams are "forced" to hire from the pool of minorities?
Isn't that the definition of the token black guy?

edit....no shit.  They have to hire someone for the color of their skin.  So in the 2040's when white people are no longer the majority, do we qualify for all these minority programs?

Yes, us poor white males. We've got it rough. And have historically. When will it be our turn?

@"StickyBun" said: Yes, us poor white males. We've got it rough. And have historically. When will it be our turn?

Hell, there's already more women then men.  We are already a minority. 

Dominique Clare had a pretty good response to this on Twitter yesterday. He said "What a weird job this would be to have. I like the gesture but being the known designated diverse person would be worse than not getting the actual job in my opinion".

I think there is some truth to this and while not all black men or women feel this way, it just seems like a way the NFL is trying to save face. There is an obvious minority problem in the league when it comes to Head Coaches and I think this rule to them trying to make up for whatever actually happened with Brian Flores. 

Is it the right answer? I have no idea, but at least it's something.

It's about opportunity. Black ownership would be a good start toward achieving the diversity the NFL desires.
Affirmative action rules don't seem to be very effective but you have to start someplace. Like it or not, it's the right thing to do.

@"StickyBun" said: Yes, us poor white males. We've got it rough. And have historically. When will it be our turn?

And in rolls the critical race theory crap....

Every race and gender has had it rough at different points throughout history. Again, this isn't 1962 and oppression is almost non existent as being labeled racist or sexist (valid or not, it doesn't matter) is essentially a career death sentence that nobody is going to risk. Cancel culture is a real thing. Goodell would not hesitate to pull a Donald Sterling and force ownership to sell a franchise if he deemed their hiring practices as "racist." That's why I find them trying to cover their asses with this new rule extremely comical and reeks of politically correct garbage that does nothing to solve the issue at hand. Right up there with them allowing players to post the names of criminals on their helmets for fear of being branded racist or attaching their names to advertisements with a black man stating he makes, "8k less a year then a white man with the same credentials." It's garbage, it's all garbage, and I'm incredibly disappointed in some of this rhetoric the NFL is promoting out of no more then cancel culture fear. 

@"StickyBun" said: Yes, us poor white males. We've got it rough. And have historically. When will it be our turn?

i see above you refused to capitalize Black in your first post. fix your racist white priveleged mistake and use all the approved buzzwords, slogans, and Daily Show snark or you risk being thrown to the dustbin of history like the rest of us white males. Hero. 

@"jargomcfargo" said: It's about opportunity. Black ownership would be a good start toward achieving the diversity the NFL desires. Affirmative action rules don't seem to be very effective but you have to start someplace. Like it or not, it's the right thing to do.

Source??

@"Vikeking2" said:

@"StickyBun" said: Yes, us poor white males. We've got it rough. And have historically. When will it be our turn?

i see above you refused to capitalize Black in your first post. fix your racist white priveleged mistake and use all the approved buzzwords, slogans, and Daily Show snark or you risk being thrown to the dustbin of history like the rest of us white males. Hero. 

@"Waterboy" said:

@"jargomcfargo" said: It's about opportunity. Black ownership would be a good start toward achieving the diversity the NFL desires. Affirmative action rules don't seem to be very effective but you have to start someplace. Like it or not, it's the right thing to do.

Source??

@"AGRforever" said:

@"Vikeking2" said:

We're supposed to be capitalizing black? Serious question

@"jargomcfargo" said:

@"Waterboy" said:

@"jargomcfargo" said: It's about opportunity. Black ownership would be a good start toward achieving the diversity the NFL desires. Affirmative action rules don't seem to be very effective but you have to start someplace. Like it or not, it's the right thing to do.

Source??

History.

@"AGRforever" said:

@"medaille" said: There's no requirement to interview women.  They have to hire from the pool of minorities, of which women are now included.  So in practicality, there's probably not going to be much difference given the small pool of women coaches, but if you do interview a woman, you just have to interview one less person based on race or skin color.

Forgive me for not reading the article lol......teams are "forced" to hire from the pool of minorities?
Isn't that the definition of the token black guy?

edit....no shit.  They have to hire someone for the color of their skin.  So in the 2040's when white people are no longer the majority, do we qualify for all these minority programs?

@"jargomcfargo" said:

@"Waterboy" said:

@"jargomcfargo" said: It's about opportunity. Black ownership would be a good start toward achieving the diversity the NFL desires. Affirmative action rules don't seem to be very effective but you have to start someplace. Like it or not, it's the right thing to do.

Source??

History.