The rooney rule is it fair< did the redskins follow the rules

[wolfeskins]

i don't like the rooney rule, it may be a well intended rule, but it's wrong to force employers to interview people that they have no intention of hireing, regardless of sex or race.

[Paintrain]

Originally Posted by wolfeskins

i don't like the rooney rule, it may be a well intended rule, but it's wrong to force employers to interview people that they have no intention of hireing, regardless of sex or race.

I respect (but strongly disagree with) this viewpoint but I'd counter with the Steelers had no 'intention' of hiring Mike Tomlin when they interviewed him. The NFL, like all major sports, is very much a good old boys club. When you don't have generations of being in the league it's hard to crack that rotation. Look at how long it took Dungy to get a job after being regarded as 'ready' for years. Same thing with Sherm Lewis, he never got his chance-partially because of the playoff/interview rules at the time-but the rule is primarily about exposing owners to coaches they may not have otherwise encountered.

Please don't buy into (or sell) the naive point of view that people see talent equally and 'other factors' have no bearing on their decisions.

[wolfeskins]

Originally Posted by Paintrain

I respect (but strongly disagree with) this viewpoint but I'd counter with the Steelers had no 'intention' of hiring Mike Tomlin when they interviewed him. The NFL, like all major sports, is very much a good old boys club. When you don't have generations of being in the league it's hard to crack that rotation. Look at how long it took Dungy to get a job after being regarded as 'ready' for years. Same thing with Sherm Lewis, he never got his chance-partially because of the playoff/interview rules at the time-but the rule is primarily about exposing owners to coaches they may not have otherwise encountered.

Please don't buy into (or sell) the naive point of view that people see talent equally and 'other factors' have no bearing on their decisions.

i agree with what your saying. i just don't like the idea of anyone telling another who to hire, who to interview, how to run your buisness etc..

as for the line i highlighted, i would say, it's not so much that way anymore. most teams want to be winners, they'll hire the best guy or girl for the job, but they don't need rules telling them who they need to interview. just my personal opinion.

[Kalisto2010]

Originally Posted by wolfeskins

i agree with what your saying. i just don't like the idea of anyone telling another who to hire, who to interview, how to run your buisness etc..

That's the same attitude that was perpetuated during the civil rights movement when the Government forced the schools to integrate. No one likes being told what to do, but fortunately we live in a country governed by laws where discrimination isn't tolerated. I don't understand why people exhibit resentment when we attempt to even the playing field. You should channel your disdain towards the fact that very few Black coaches were interviewed prior to the Rooney rule, not the NFL's attempt to rectify it.


I don't like Police officers telling me how fast I can drive, what substances I can smoke, or how loud I can play my music within the confines of my own vehicle. However, I understand that's it's necessary to have police officers to maintain social order. And you should understand that things like the Rooney rule are necessary to ensure equal opportunity.

[skinsfan69]

The bottom line is the owners have never really been around minorities and probably don't socialize with them. They didn't grow up with them. They're more comfortable with white people. In the end they're going to hire who they want to hire. If most of the owners were black you'd see a lot more black coaches. That's just how it is. I think it's a good rule cause Tomlin would've never got a job. It's the same thing in college and especially in the SEC. Why didn't Sly Croom get the Alabama job over Shula? He was better qualified but the Alabama alumni probably wouldn't be comfortable with a black man. Progress has been made but there is still a long way to go.

[CRedskinsRule]

I believe the owners voted the Rooney rule in so it's not the same as an outside government establishing it, it is just a self policing policy.

[BigHairedAristocrat]

Any respect I had for Greg Blache just went out the window.

Source: Blache already has interviewed for Redskins job | ProFootballTalk.com

Source: Blache already has interviewed for Redskins job
Posted by Mike Florio on December 19, 2009 10:21 AM ET

Unless they conducted a search even faster than they recruited Albert Haynesworth, the Redskins interviewed multiple candidates for General Manager at a time when they already had someone doing the job.

So it should come as no surprise that they're already interviewing candidates for the position of head coach, despite the fact that they already have one.

Per a league source, the Redskins have interviewed defensive coordinator Greg Blache for the position currently held by his boss, Jim Zorn.

It's unknown when the interview specifically occurred.

By interviewing Blache, the Redskins have complied in advance with the Rooney Rule, which requires at least one minority candidate to be interviewed for every head-coaching vacancy.

We recently speculated, based on the manner in which the Vinny Cerrato-Bruce Allen flip-flop was handled by the team, that the Redskins already have complied with the Rooney Rule as it relates to the head-coaching position.

So, basically, the Redskins are free -- at any time -- to announce that Zorn is out, and to announce that Mike Shanahan (or anyone else, for that matter) is in.

As we pointed out last night, Shanahan definitely is in play for the job. Though it's not a done deal, he has been talking to the powers-that-be for weeks, if not months.

Cue the denials from Blache and/or the Redskins and/or Shanahan and/or Shanahan's minions in the media.

Maybe, if I'm really lucky, Mike Wise will call me a "cretin" again, too.

Its well-known that Blache has no desire to be a head coach. The only reason he'd "interview" for the position is so the Redskins could satisfy the letter of the Rooney Rule while taking a dump on the "spirit" of the rule. I wonder what they bribed him with to sell out his integrity.

[SmootSmack]

I'm not sure what to think of this Blache news, as I think it's true but not entirely accurate. Blache and the Redskins definitely talked earlier this year about the possibility of Blache taking over as interim coach midseason. One of them, can't remember if it was Blache or the Redskins (think it may have been Blache) decided that Blache taking over wasn't the best idea. I don't know if that counts toward the Rooney Rule though

[BigHairedAristocrat]

Originally Posted by SmootSmack

I'm not sure what to think of this Blache news, as I think it's true but not entirely accurate. Blache and the Redskins definitely talked earlier this year about the possibility of Blache taking over as interim coach midseason. One of them, can't remember if it was Blache or the Redskins (think it may have been Blache) decided that Blache taking over wasn't the best idea. I don't know if that counts toward the Rooney Rule though

I suppose its possible the report could be referring to blache interviewing for the interim coach position; however, i didnt think that coaches usually "interview" for interim positions. in addition, don't minority candidates have to sign some form indicating they felt the interview was "legitimate" in order for the rooney rule to be satisfied? Don't get me wrong - i want Shanahan as our next coach, and I undertand that if Snyder wants Shanahan, he's got to move fast in order to secure him, but this whole thing just smells fishy to me.

I wonerer if Snyder promised to get Shanahan to retain the majority of the defensive coaching staff if Blache agreed to do a sham interview. Blache seems to be eyeing retirement, but maybe he did this to help Jerry Gray and the rest of his coaching staff. Either that or Snyder just bought him another fancy gun.

[Longtimefan]

Originally Posted by SmootSmack

I'm not sure what to think of this Blache news, as I think it's true but not entirely accurate. Blache and the Redskins definitely talked earlier this year about the possibility of Blache taking over as interim coach midseason. One of them, can't remember if it was Blache or the Redskins (think it may have been Blache) decided that Blache taking over wasn't the best idea. I don't know if that counts toward the Rooney Rule though

There's that issue of media relations as well. With his decision to stop talking to the media would not be a fit for HC.

[SBXVII]

Originally Posted by Longtimefan

There's that issue of media relations as well. With his decision to stop talking to the media would not be a fit for HC.

It's worked for Billacheat in N.E.

[SmootSmack]

Originally Posted by Longtimefan

There's that issue of media relations as well. With his decision to stop talking to the media would not be a fit for HC.

True. That was after the "interview" though, from what I recall

[warriorzpath]

Originally Posted by BigHairedAristocrat

I suppose its possible the report could be referring to blache interviewing for the interim coach position; however, i didnt think that coaches usually "interview" for interim positions. in addition, don't minority candidates have to sign some form indicating they felt the interview was "legitimate" in order for the rooney rule to be satisfied? Don't get me wrong - i want Shanahan as our next coach, and I undertand that if Snyder wants Shanahan, he's got to move fast in order to secure him, but this whole thing just smells fishy to me.

I wonerer if Snyder promised to get Shanahan to retain the majority of the defensive coaching staff if Blache agreed to do a sham interview. Blache seems to be eyeing retirement, but maybe he did this to help Jerry Gray and the rest of his coaching staff. Either that or Snyder just bought him another fancy gun.

Whether or not Blache's interview seems real or not, I'm satisfied with it. You can't force the owner to be serious about the interviews, you just hope they would. I think the Rooney Rule is there to give a chance for an opportunity and whether Blache and Snyder took it seriously or not is up to them.

If they found a way around the rule, then it is what it is - but I don't think they would go through this much trouble when they can actually just hold a legitimate interview with someone like Jerry Gray and meet the minority interview quota.

[wolfeskins]

Originally Posted by Kalisto2010

That's the same attitude that was perpetuated during the civil rights movement when the Government forced the schools to integrate. No one likes being told what to do, but fortunately we live in a country governed by laws where discrimination isn't tolerated. I don't understand why people exhibit resentment when we attempt to even the playing field. You should channel your disdain towards the fact that very few Black coaches were interviewed prior to the Rooney rule, not the NFL's attempt to rectify it.


I don't like Police officers telling me how fast I can drive, what substances I can smoke, or how loud I can play my music within the confines of my own vehicle. However, I understand that's it's necessary to have police officers to maintain social order. And you should understand that things like the Rooney rule are necessary to ensure equal opportunity.

well public schools should never be aloud to reject someone from going there based on their race or sex, but a private school should have every right to do so as long as they are not accepting any money from the state. i have no problem with an all white,black,male or female private school or buisness. if i'm the owner of a buisness and all i want working for me is russian females, then that should be my right.


all that other nonsense your talking about with the police telling you how fast to drive and whatnot really doesn't apply to this arguement.

[GMScud]

Originally Posted by Kalisto2010

I wish I lived in the world you lived in. Where institutional racism is non existent. However, in the real world where I reside it's still a pervasive problem, despite many falsely claiming that it's no longer a hinderance. Here's some facts to back up my thought processes, I'm getting tired of reading un-verifiable conjecture.

Devah Pager

Princeton University August 9, 2008

Is racial discrimination a thing of the past?

Debates about the relevance of discrimination in today's society have been difficult to resolve, in part because of the challenges in identifying, measuring, and documenting its presence or absence in all but extreme cases. Discrimination is rarely something that can be observed explicitly.

The results of these studies were startling. Among those with no criminal record, white applicants were more than twice as likely to receive a callback relative to equally qualified black applicants. Even more troubling, whites with a felony conviction fared just as well, if not better, than a black applicant with a clean background.

Racial disparities have been documented in many contexts, but here, comparing the two job applicants side by side, we are confronted with a troubling reality: Being black in America today is just about the same as having a felony conviction in terms of one’s chances of finding a job.

Anderson Cooper 360: Blog Archive - Study: Black man and white felon – same chances for hire « - Blogs from CNN.com

This is why we need the Rooney rule.

I gotta ask then, how do you feel about affirmative action in the schools/workplace? You think it's wrong (and I agree) that a white man with poor qualifications (i.e. felony conviction) is looked at on the same level as black man who is better qualified for a job. Ok.

So if affirmative action results in college admission to a black kid at the expense of a white kid who is slightly more qualified, is that wrong? Kind of a double standard, no?