Do Not Sell My Personal Information

PFT: Having 3 NFL African American coaches is shameful

Discuss any and all NFL-related topics. Ex-Seahawks fall into NFL topics. LANGUAGE: PG-13
  • https://profootballtalk.nbcsports.com/2 ... -shameful/

    First, I absoutely support the Rooney Rule. Old-boy networks are pervasive and often subconscious, with the white "good-ol-boy" network the most powerful amongst them. Today, I saw part of the Rhule and McCarthy intro interviews. The McCarthy one with him sandwiched between Stephen and Jerrah, pure white good-ol-boyism. But Martin Lewis got at least a chance to interview there. It may have been just to check the box, but he got his face out there.

    However, stating that black coaches are being shut out is an overreach. Three of 32 HCs is just under 10 percent. The black US population is 14.8 percent. Relative to population size, they are underrepresented, but by far less than Latinos, Asians and Pacific Islanders. The article implies that there are few black candidates in the pipeline. I have yet to find racial demographics of college/coordinators/position coaches/available legacy coaches, but my eye test puts it at around 10-15 percent.

    With the sample size being so small, swings between parity and nonparity can depend on one individual. What 3 in 32 tells me, plus these men's history, is that in fact progress is being made toward proportional hiring wrt black candidates. The trend of bringing recently retired players up through the pipeline will surely continue, and with players being 70 percent black, you'd expect to see more blacks in the pipeline that way.

    Some would argue the coaching jobs should reflect player population, but that leads to why there's disproportional overrepresentation of black men among NFL players. Are we implying that blacks tend to be better athletes, better at football, better at certain positions? That there's a racially based reason there are no white CBs, why there are few if any black punters or placekickers? And if so, is this something that anyone believes should be acted upon?
    SantaClaraHawk
    NET Veteran
     
    Posts: 2689
    Joined: Fri Sep 18, 2015 11:17 am


  • This discussion is so old. If we want "equal rights" as it's most commonly defined nowadays, then NFL teams need to be comprised of 61.3% (or whatever the current national number is for non-Hispanic white people in the U.S.) white players.

    Even just saying what I said sounds ridiculous...which is also why it's equally ridiculous when talking about percentages for non-whites.

    Personally, I don't give a crap what the racial/ethnic breakdowns of NFL teams are. I want the best possible players at every position, even if that means half of them are blue, green, or polka dot.
    RolandDeschain
    * Spelling High Lord *
     
    Posts: 31602
    Joined: Fri May 01, 2009 9:39 am
    Location: Phoenix, AZ


  • RolandDeschain wrote:This discussion is so old. If we want "equal rights" as it's most commonly defined nowadays, then NFL teams need to be comprised of 61.3% (or whatever the current national number is for non-Hispanic white people in the U.S.) white players.

    Even just saying what I said sounds ridiculous...which is also why it's equally ridiculous when talking about percentages for non-whites.

    Personally, I don't give a crap what the racial/ethnic breakdowns of NFL teams are. I want the best possible players at every position, even if that means half of them are blue, green, or polka dot.


    Misses the points, no?
    HawkStrong
    NET Starter
     
    Posts: 424
    Joined: Fri Jul 12, 2019 5:23 pm


  • Hire the best fit for the job...regardless of skin tone. Who is out there that should be hired? Marvin Lewis?
    Cyrus12
    Silver Supporter
    Silver Supporter
     
    Posts: 9097
    Joined: Fri Aug 16, 2013 11:20 am
    Location: BC Canada


  • RolandDeschain wrote:This discussion is so old. If we want "equal rights" as it's most commonly defined nowadays, then NFL teams need to be comprised of 61.3% (or whatever the current national number is for non-Hispanic white people in the U.S.) white players.

    Even just saying what I said sounds ridiculous...which is also why it's equally ridiculous when talking about percentages for non-whites.

    Personally, I don't give a crap what the racial/ethnic breakdowns of NFL teams are. I want the best possible players at every position, even if that means half of them are blue, green, or polka dot.


    The thing with this argument is that the perception of "the best:" sometimes includes race, often on a subconscious and very subtle level.

    That's why the Rooney Rule is needed. However, I'm not convinced by the PFT article that it has failed.
    SantaClaraHawk
    NET Veteran
     
    Posts: 2689
    Joined: Fri Sep 18, 2015 11:17 am


  • Cyrus12 wrote:Hire the best fit for the job...regardless of skin tone. Who is out there that should be hired? Marvin Lewis?

    A lot of people think Eric Bienemy is getting short changed. Hard to say if it's true cuz he works under Andy Reid who has control over the offense in KC. That's not say Bienemy hasn't learned plenty about being a HC from him though.
    hawksfansinceday1
    Silver Supporter
    Silver Supporter
     
    Posts: 24503
    Joined: Sat Mar 03, 2007 11:38 am
    Location: Vancouver, WA


  • The Rooney Rule is stupid in my opinion. Now you have guys like Marvin Lewis that have zero shot of getting a job being brought in just to check off a box. To me it's almost more disrespectful then not getting an interview to begin with. Jerry Jones is going to make Dak Prescott one of the highest paid players and the face of the franchise but racist? Maybe these guys are racist but at the same time if anyone of them beleived Bienemy give them a better shot at a title then a white coach i think there hiring Bienemy.
    Last edited by getnasty on Wed Jan 08, 2020 7:46 pm, edited 1 time in total.
    getnasty
    NET Veteran
     
    Posts: 4306
    Joined: Sun Nov 07, 2010 9:22 pm


  • I've heard this about Bienemy too.

    But what I haven't heard is how much Bienemy wants to leave this year. Same with Saleh. I actually think Saleh would rather go later than sooner, build on another year with the 49ers, and build his rep.

    With the three recent hires (Judge, McCarthy, Rhule), I wouldn't say those were color blind but more what people wanted.

    McCarthy spent a year designing a whole analytics department. It's something Jerrah didn't have and is prioritizing this year. But does McCarthy fit in with the white good-ol-boy that Stephen/Jerrah represent? Very much so

    Judge oversaw special teams, thus working with offensive and defensive players he couldn't choose. The Giants clearly don't want power fights with their GM. Does Judge fit in with the white good-ol-boy network, hell yes.

    Rhule (I saw his presser) is Mr. Toastmaster. He comes off very charismatic, very team-building, very apt to have a team rally around him. The fact that the locker room was lost was why Rivera had to go. Does he fit into the white good-old-boys, again yes.

    I'd say each of these teams chose the candidates they felt would help them with their needs best individually. But was race at least a subconscious factor? It's definitely a possibility.
    SantaClaraHawk
    NET Veteran
     
    Posts: 2689
    Joined: Fri Sep 18, 2015 11:17 am


  • You just want the coach who will help you win and who the owner most trusts. We should not be hiring people based on race for anything. Best person gets the job period. Race not a factor at all. That's what it should be.

    3/32 = 9%. African Americans are 13% of the US population so it's not as far off as you would suggest here. BTW 4/32 teams = 13%. So there you go 1 more hire and it's right on par with the US population as a whole. It's not really as bad as suggested here.

    Are 65% of the NFL players white? Do we want affirmative action to even that out? Or are the best players simply chosen and picked? What's your argument here?

    Are 65% of the NBA players white? Why not? Do we want affirmative action here to even things out? Or do you just want the best available players on your team?
    SanDiego49er
    NET Veteran
     
    Posts: 565
    Joined: Sat Sep 21, 2013 4:21 am


  • SanDiego49er wrote:Are 65% of the NFL players white? Do we want affirmative action to even that out? Or are the best players simply chosen and picked? What's your argument here?

    Are 65% of the NBA players white? Why not? Do we want affirmative action here to even things out? Or do you just want the best available players on your team?

    Racism can only happen against minorities; duh.
    RolandDeschain
    * Spelling High Lord *
     
    Posts: 31602
    Joined: Fri May 01, 2009 9:39 am
    Location: Phoenix, AZ


  • SanDiego49er wrote:Are 65% of the NFL players white? Do we want affirmative action to even that out? Or are the best players simply chosen and picked? What's your argument here?


    Sometimes when you leave the status quo, things don't get done under it. Very few people identify with racism, but when it comes down to soft nuances like "team fit," race often is a factor even though no one will admit it. The meritocracy argument has in the past resulted in zero to one black coaches over years, the NFL was facing litigation and bad pub over this, and the Rooney Rule was instituted not to force hires, but to put in a process ensuring that clubs talk to at least one person who's not a white guy.

    I remember when there were no black quarterbacks, and the same argument was put forth: It was all about team fit, communication and leadership, and the best guys would always just happen to be white. When the league formally started hewing to the Rooney Rule, this began to change league/societal perceptions so that guys who ended up being the best--Wilson, Watson, Jackson, Mahomes among them--got a chance to prove it. No one qualifies their ascent with that they were affirmative action hires, nor do people question Tomlin and Flores.
    SantaClaraHawk
    NET Veteran
     
    Posts: 2689
    Joined: Fri Sep 18, 2015 11:17 am


  • Affirmative action for NFL HCs ?? Quotas by race ?? STFU :pukeface:
    xray
    NET Veteran
     
    Posts: 1947
    Joined: Sun Aug 19, 2018 6:29 am
    Location: AZ


  • The mere existence of the Rooney Rule is racist itself, and undermines the legitimacy of ANY non-white coach hire. Quite frankly, it's insulting to minority coaching candidates.

    You're telling me that in this day and age, and with billions of dollars at stake, that coaching hires are overwhelmingly favoring "white" men because of racism? Then how do you explain the overwhelming percentage of black players, particularly in skill positions?

    GTFO with that crap!

    Those people who are keeping score based on skin color are the real racists, and THAT is what's shameful here.
    Mindsink
    NET Starter
     
    Posts: 437
    Joined: Fri Sep 13, 2013 12:29 pm


  • Just like everything else in life, the BEST qualified for the position should get it. I don't care if it's a woman, man, and they are black, white, purple or green, if your going to give my team or business an advantage you are hired.
    2_0_6
    NET Veteran
     
    Posts: 3441
    Joined: Sat Sep 21, 2013 12:40 am
    Location: South Seattle


  • Like the Rooney Rule, AA measures typically don't name a quota. Population metrics are but a metric, a soft guideline.

    I see 3 of 32 not as the same as 0/1 out of 32, particularly over several years' time. As more black coaches come up through the pipeline, the Rooney Rule--and the objections around it--will diminish as teams organically include more of them among HC candidates they'd be looking at anyway.

    I know diversity hires rankle some, but they can be a useful tool. Of over 1,000 people employed in NFL coaching, the 9ers have the only female coach. There is only one Latino HC, Rivera. Of over 2,000 players, only one is Asian (Yongbyon Koo, PK of the Falcons), and that didn't happen until midseason.

    I mean, without the Rooney Rule forcing things, maybe those people don't exist. Maybe people in general would continue thinking it was fine that there were no black quarterbacks--which was the case not long ago. Sometimes, what people think is "best" is colored by race even by the vast majority who are not racist.

    It's hard to explain to someone who hasn't experienced it, but you do feel more included when you see at least one person representing your race or gender.

    In some cases, it makes sense not to attempt or rush this. Take biologically female players. NFL (as well as MLB and NHL) rules allow women. However, the NFL is all about size and strength, and the physical aptitudes of men consistently outweigh that of women. Women weigh less. They are shorter. They have fewer fast-twitch muscle fibers, disadvantageous hip placement, less bone density and less lung capacity. Should there come a female candidate who is ridiculously on the edge of the bell curve able to compete in the combine, by all means, give her a chance. But it is fact that there will be very few if any contenders.

    The same physical limitations don't apply to coaching. Or to reffing for that matter. Being 200 pounds with 7 percent body fat and a 5.0 or less at the combine isn't a job requirement there. These are mental jobs over-represented by white men when clearly, no reasonable physical claim could be put forth that women or minorities cannot do such a job.
    Last edited by SantaClaraHawk on Thu Jan 09, 2020 8:53 am, edited 2 times in total.
    SantaClaraHawk
    NET Veteran
     
    Posts: 2689
    Joined: Fri Sep 18, 2015 11:17 am


  • Demographics of the entire country are kind of beside the point when we talk about something like NFL football coaches.

    Black people are 13% of the country, but they're 60% of college football players and 70% of NFL players.

    So, the question is, what % of NFL coaches at least played college football? For each that has played college football we'd expect .6 black coaches, and we simply don't have ANYWHERE close to that.

    Part of this is regular old (INCREDIBLY WELL DOCUMENTED THROUGH AUDIT STUDY AFTER AUDIT STUDY) discrimination in hiring in labor markets, but part of it is also ignorant sorting systems that start in high school or earlier.

    Just by way of example, in high school I was coached by a collection of guys who would end up climbing the coaching ranks through college and then to the NFL, and some former NFL players too (e.g Jack Tatum was our defensive coordinator).

    What happened starting the first day of my freshman year when we were all just lumps is that all the fat white kids got put on the offensive line (where you had to "think") and all the fat black kids got put on the defensive line (where you had to be a "good athlete") regardless of who was smart or dumb (they didn't even know any of us yet) or a good or bad athlete.

    The linebackers were both black and white, but the middle linebacker was ALWAYS white, because that's the "smart" linebacker position, as he's the guy who calls the plays and makes adjustments, and even when a black kid ended up on offensive line, the center was ALWAYS white, because again, that's the "smart" o-line position on the "smart" side of line play.

    It was, of course, the same deal at QB, where the blond white guy got put at QB, and the black really good QB got converted to RB in the first couple weeks of freshman ball. By SR. year on varsity the black really good QB was QB again (he really was that much better) but the white QB (who was our BACKUP QB) is the one who got the scholarship to play QB at the next level :lol: :lol: :lol:

    Basically what was happening is the few white kids (myself included) on my high school team for no discernible reason beyond race ended up getting mostly slotted into the "Coach on the Field" rolls on the team, and as shouldn't surprise anyone, those "Coach on the Field" guys ended up disproportionately even GOING INTO coaching after their playing careers were over too. From the first week freshman year we were unwittingly being groomed into that trajectory, into thinking of units and play calls and how they go together, rather than just playing.

    That all happens YEARS before you get to deciding which coach you're going to hire, but it's NOTHING BUT racial bias too.
    Popeyejones
    NET Veteran
     
    Posts: 5522
    Joined: Tue Aug 20, 2013 8:58 am


  • SantaClaraHawk wrote:Like the Rooney Rule, AA measures typically don't name a quota. Population metrics are but a metric, a soft guideline.

    I see 3 of 32 not as the same as 0/1 out of 32, particularly over several years' time. As more black coaches come up through the pipeline, the Rooney Rule--and the objections around it--will diminish as teams organically include more of them among HC candidates they'd be looking at anyway.

    I know diversity hires rankle some, but they can be a useful tool. Of over 1,000 people employed in NFL coaching, the 9ers have the only female coach. There is only one Latino HC, Rivera. Of over 2,000 players, only one is Asian (Yongbyon Koo, PK of the Falcons), and that didn't happen until midseason.

    I mean, without the Rooney Rule forcing things, maybe those people don't exist. Maybe people in general would continue thinking it was fine that there were no black quarterbacks--which was the case not long ago. Sometimes, what people think is "best" is colored by race even by the vast majority who are not racist.

    It's hard to explain to someone who hasn't experienced it, but you do feel more included when you see at least one person representing your race or gender.

    In some cases, it makes sense not to attempt or rush this. Take biologically female players. NFL (as well as MLB and NHL) rules allow women. However, the NFL is all about size and strength, and the physical aptitudes of men consistently outweigh that of women. Women weigh less. They are shorter. They have fewer fast-twitch muscle fibers, disadvantageous hip placement, less bone density and less lung capacity. Should there come a female candidate who is ridiculously on the edge of the bell curve able to compete in the combine, by all means, give her a chance. But it is fact that there will be very few if any contenders.


    The big question is, why does there NEED to be diversity in every aspect of life? What I see as a push for diversity really seems to be all about having less "straight white men" around. Let me pose a 2 part question:

    1. Why is there no outrage or push to get more white players into the league?

    2. If the league's front office and coaching positions were predominantly black (or any other minority group you wish you compartmentalize), would there be push for diversity?
    Mindsink
    NET Starter
     
    Posts: 437
    Joined: Fri Sep 13, 2013 12:29 pm


  • SantaClaraHawk wrote:The same physical limitations don't apply to coaching. Or to reffing for that matter. Being 200 pounds with 7 percent body fat and a 5.0 or less at the combine isn't a job requirement there. These are mental jobs over-represented by white men when clearly, no reasonable physical claim could be put forth that women or minorities cannot do such a job.


    What makes you (and a lot of others) so certain of this? Why is it so easily assumed that all human beings posses the same level and type of mental ability, and that those differences cannot be grouped by gender, race, cultural background, etc?
    Mindsink
    NET Starter
     
    Posts: 437
    Joined: Fri Sep 13, 2013 12:29 pm


  • Mindsink wrote:
    The big question is, why does there NEED to be diversity in every aspect of life?


    There does not NEED to be diversity in every aspect of life.

    It's just that at the end of the day you live in a society in which EQUALITY OF OPPORTUNITY is a central if entirely unrealized stated value.

    So, if you want to argue that equality of opportunity is overrated and doesn't matter, by all means you just should just come out and say that, but if you do think it matters you're just muddying the waters.

    Re your question about players being majority black and if this is unfair to white people, no, as we have explanations for that.

    A lot of that is selection effects, in that historically that sports -- once you get over the hurdle of a racial group being ALLOWED to participate in the sport which has happened in many of our parents' and all of our grandparents' lifetimes -- has been *less* discriminatory in their hiring practices than other occupations, likely because unlike practically all other occupations ability is much more easily measurable. What this means is that those who face discrimination in the labor market self-sort into attempted career tracks in which they'll face less discrimination because they, like everyone else, behave somewhat rationally and aren't just dumb.

    Some recent research has even been showing that at the high school and college levels black athletes are even *trying harder* than there white counterparts (with the hypothesis being that they know they face greater discrimination on the labor market if they don't make it as athletes), which also explains why they're more likely to make it to the next level.
    Popeyejones
    NET Veteran
     
    Posts: 5522
    Joined: Tue Aug 20, 2013 8:58 am


  • Mindsink wrote:What makes you (and a lot of others) so certain of this? Why is it so easily assumed that all human beings posses the same level and type of mental ability, and that those differences cannot be grouped by gender, race, cultural background, etc?


    Because this hypothesis was studied to death for well over a half a century by the best and brightest minds across generations and has been thoroughly debunked every which way from Sunday by scholarship across both the natural and social sciences.

    TWO QUICK EXAMPLES:

    1) Many Western European white people are more genetically similar to African black people and Aboriginal Australian people than they are to Eastern European white people because of the relative absence of Neanderthal DNA across these three groups. Central American native people also end up oftentimes being more genetically similar to Scandinavians than they are to South and North American native populations for the same reason.

    It's but one small example of the general truth that there is more genetic variation within racial groups than between racial groups, meaning the genetic side of the Race/Genetics argument doesn't make a lick of sense.

    Long story short, genetic arguments about race and ability don't make any sense from the perspective of genetics.

    2) The racial classification system you'd use to even try to make the argument is both historically and geographically contingent on the time and place in which you're making the argument. If you happened to be living in Brazil all the people you think of as white people would not be a racial group, and all the people you think of as black people would be split across different racial groups too. In South Africa the majority of people that you think of as black people in the U.S. are not legally or socially classified as black people. That you even think Asian is a racial group is something that has happened in the last 50 years in the United States. It's the same deal with Hispanic which is still kind of a racial group but not really, and with Middle Eastern, which seems to have started to become a racial group in the United States in the last twenty years or so.

    This means that the race side of the Race/Genetics argument is also a hot ass mess.

    There's common agreement on the junk of this argument across both the natural and social sciences not because it's "impolite" to suggest that the argument is untrue, but because people HAVE ACTUALLY SPENT A LONG, LONG TIME STUDYING THIS and the argument is just gobbledygook junk nonsense that doesn't make any sense across every field of study that used to waste their time studying it.
    Last edited by Popeyejones on Thu Jan 09, 2020 9:47 am, edited 1 time in total.
    Popeyejones
    NET Veteran
     
    Posts: 5522
    Joined: Tue Aug 20, 2013 8:58 am


  • Mindsink wrote:What makes you (and a lot of others) so certain of this? Why is it so easily assumed that all human beings posses the same level and type of mental ability, and that those differences cannot be grouped by gender, race, cultural background, etc?


    Scientists can't isolate a gendered brain, or a black brain versus a white brain. So far, there is no proof of a concrete brain advantage based solely on genetic destiny. Many people in racial categories (especially blacks and Latinos, increasingly Asians) are in fact multiracial.

    Certainly, cultural background and expectations have something to do with it. And to an extent, that's to be expected. Fair, even, in some circumstances. NFL teams have trended toward seeing ex-player expertise as an advantage for coaching since even before Vrabel and Garrett, and that advantage isn't had unless you played. But in the coaching universe, there are plenty who don't have this advantage, and if there's room for them, there is room for women too.

    Curiously, in reffing, you don't generally see a lot of ex-players. These guys tend to be attorneys or actuaries, both fields well represented by women.
    SantaClaraHawk
    NET Veteran
     
    Posts: 2689
    Joined: Fri Sep 18, 2015 11:17 am


  • SantaClaraHawk wrote:
    Mindsink wrote:What makes you (and a lot of others) so certain of this? Why is it so easily assumed that all human beings posses the same level and type of mental ability, and that those differences cannot be grouped by gender, race, cultural background, etc?


    Scientists can't isolate a gendered brain, or a black brain versus a white brain. So far, there is no proof of a concrete brain advantage based solely on genetic destiny. Many people in racial categories (especially blacks and Latinos, increasingly Asians) are in fact multiracial.

    Certainly, cultural background and expectations have something to do with it. And to an extent, that's to be expected. Fair, even, in some circumstances. NFL teams have trended toward seeing ex-player expertise as an advantage for coaching since even before Vrabel and Garrett, and that advantage isn't had unless you played. But in the coaching universe, there are plenty who don't have this advantage, and if there's room for them, there is room for women too.

    Curiously, in reffing, you don't generally see a lot of ex-players. These guys tend to be attorneys or actuaries, both fields well represented by women.


    Agreed. I think with most things, there are reasons why certain people are better than others at any given profession, or activity. It can't be simplified as "well people of this race or from this country are smarter". There are more factors than raw intelligence, and intelligence itself is such a multi-faceted thing in of itself that cannot be easily quantified.
    Mindsink
    NET Starter
     
    Posts: 437
    Joined: Fri Sep 13, 2013 12:29 pm


  • SantaClaraHawk wrote:Curiously, in reffing, you don't generally see a lot of ex-players. These guys tend to be attorneys or actuaries, both fields well represented by women.


    Nice observation.

    IIRC for the most part gender sorting into occupations hasn't really changed much in the last 30 years, whereas it changed a lot in the 30 years before that.

    We're seeing some of it (IIRC in the medical field more men are going into nursing and more women are becoming doctors) but for the most part it's pretty stable.

    I'd guess a lot of that stability is just because people self-sort into occupations based on their gender impressions OF the occupation. That is, men don't become elementary school teachers because they don't see a lot of men as elementary school as teachers, so they assume it's not for them, and vice-versa for stuff like women electricians, and so on (just picking two good jobs that are gender segregated and maybe more or less pay around the same?)

    Another thing that happens though is that when occupations rise in pay women tend to start to get pushed out of them, which is definitely what happened in art and literature, partially explains what happened in computer science, and seems to explain some of what has been happening in nursing.

    I'm not sure how true it is or not, but some have argued that 15% representation is kind of a tipping point at which it's not a huge additional pain in the rear to be in an occupation (you're no longer tokenized), meaning that once you can get to over 15% female refs, the lack of female refs becomes less of a deterrent to women even considering becoming refs.
    Popeyejones
    NET Veteran
     
    Posts: 5522
    Joined: Tue Aug 20, 2013 8:58 am


  • Popeyejones wrote:
    Mindsink wrote:What makes you (and a lot of others) so certain of this? Why is it so easily assumed that all human beings posses the same level and type of mental ability, and that those differences cannot be grouped by gender, race, cultural background, etc?


    Because this hypothesis was studied to death for well over a half a century by the best and brightest minds across generations and has been thoroughly debunked every which way from Sunday by scholarship across both the natural and social sciences.

    TWO QUICK EXAMPLES:

    1) Many Western European white people are more genetically similar to African black people and Aboriginal Australian people than they are to Eastern European white people because of the relative absence of Neanderthal DNA across these three groups. Central American native people also end up oftentimes being more genetically similar to Scandinavians than they are to South and North American native populations for the same reason.

    It's but one small example of the general truth that there is more genetic variation within racial groups than between racial groups, meaning the genetic side of the Race/Genetics argument doesn't make a lick of sense.

    Long story short, genetic arguments about race and ability don't make any sense from the perspective of genetics.

    2) The racial classification system you'd use to even try to make the argument is both historically and geographically contingent on the time and place in which you're making the argument. If you happened to be living in Brazil all the people you think of as white people would not be a racial group, and all the people you think of as black people would be split across different racial groups too. In South Africa the majority of people that you think of as black people in the U.S. are not legally or socially classified as black people. That you even think Asian is a racial group is something that has happened in the last 50 years in the United States. It's the same deal with Hispanic which is still kind of a racial group but not really, and with Middle Eastern, which seems to have started to become a racial group in the United States in the last twenty years or so.

    This means that the race side of the Race/Genetics argument is also a hot ass mess.

    There's common agreement on the junk of this argument across both the natural and social sciences not because it's "impolite" to suggest that the argument is untrue, but because people HAVE ACTUALLY SPENT A LONG, LONG TIME STUDYING THIS and the argument is just gobbledygook junk nonsense that doesn't make any sense across every field of study that used to waste their time studying it.


    What's more probable...

    a. There are more white head coaches because they are incorrectly assumed to be smarter, wiser, or whatever positive non-physical attribute you wish to add; AND because owners/GMs are inherently racist and that supersedes their desire to win.

    b. There are more white head coaches because they are simply more qualified, not because they're white?

    And when it comes down to coaching, many more factors go into it aside from how smart you are. I wasn't trying to make a genetic argument for intelligence. I am simply saying that it is likely that there ARE differences in mental ability (not simply IQ) based on the evidence of our world demographics.

    Forcing black coaches into the league does no good for the coaches who are trying to get jobs, regardless of their skin color.
    Mindsink
    NET Starter
     
    Posts: 437
    Joined: Fri Sep 13, 2013 12:29 pm


  • Mindsink wrote:
    Agreed. I think with most things, there are reasons why certain people are better than others at any given profession, or activity. It can't be simplified as "well people of this race or from this country are smarter". There are more factors than raw intelligence, and intelligence itself is such a multi-faceted thing in of itself that cannot be easily quantified.


    Exactly. How you ascend in coaching is based largely on prior experience coaching or playing. People who played have a legit a leg up, but there's still a lot of room, and for the non-players, it starts with maybe youth football. When coaching PeeWee in Oakland, Marshawn was confronted by a mom upset that her son had been benched, and his response was to ask for the man with her. That is totally inappropriate.

    With refs, there is little expectation of either being much of a factor. Certainly not for physical strength past or present. What the league values is fast eye coordination, good communication, and the ability to judge plays much like a lawyer or an actuary might, which is why so many of them are in those professions. Which women are as well. There is no plausible reason given the skill set why this sector, even more than playing or coaching, is dominated by 55-70 yo white men.
    SantaClaraHawk
    NET Veteran
     
    Posts: 2689
    Joined: Fri Sep 18, 2015 11:17 am


  • SantaClaraHawk wrote:
    Mindsink wrote:
    Agreed. I think with most things, there are reasons why certain people are better than others at any given profession, or activity. It can't be simplified as "well people of this race or from this country are smarter". There are more factors than raw intelligence, and intelligence itself is such a multi-faceted thing in of itself that cannot be easily quantified.


    With refs, there is little expectation of either being much of a factor. Certainly not for physical strength past or present. What the league values is fast eye coordination, good communication, and the ability to judge plays much like a lawyer or an actuary might, which is why so many of them are in those professions. Which women are as well. There is no plausible reason given the skill set why this sector, even more than playing or coaching, is dominated by 55-70 yo white men.


    The plausible reason is that women generally do not aspire to have 2nd jobs refereeing sports. See Popeye's comment regarding gender impressions also.

    If we're talking about refs at the collegiate or professional level, don't they go through a test? I would naturally assume that the best performers get hired. Maybe the hiring pool is mostly made up of older white men, for whatever reason.
    Mindsink
    NET Starter
     
    Posts: 437
    Joined: Fri Sep 13, 2013 12:29 pm


  • Mindsink wrote:
    The plausible reason is that women generally do not aspire to have 2nd jobs refereeing sports. See Popeye's comment regarding gender impressions also.

    If we're talking about refs at the collegiate or professional level, don't they go through a test? I would naturally assume that the best performers get hired. Maybe the hiring pool is mostly made up of older white men, for whatever reason.



    Yeah, I'd also guess MOST of this is about selection effects (meaning the hiring pool to begin with).

    That said, I'd be suspicious of "best performance" as something that can actually be identified.

    For this I'm thinking of a now classic analysis in econometrics of the gender composition of symphony orchestras.

    The basic gist of the story is that about 5% of symphony musicians were women, and to help correct for what might potentially be gender bias in hiring musicians, the industry started having people audition behind a screen (you only need to HEAR them play, what they look like is beside the point), and the industry shifted from 5% women to 20% women. That one decision alone (to have people audition behind a screen) explains 25-50% of the rise of female musicans in orchestras.

    https://www.nber.org/papers/w5903
    Popeyejones
    NET Veteran
     
    Posts: 5522
    Joined: Tue Aug 20, 2013 8:58 am


  • Mindsink wrote:If we're talking about refs at the collegiate or professional level, don't they go through a test? I would naturally assume that the best performers get hired. Maybe the hiring pool is mostly made up of older white men, for whatever reason.


    I know NFL refs go through some sort of test and school. But here too, that doesn't explain the paucity of women beyond well, speculation that for some reason older white guys just seem to be more interested.

    A ref gets paid about $220K/year, which is about the best gig work ever that anyone could expect--and something that would be expected to interest those in the legal/actuarial fields, most of whose FT jobs don't equate that in a year. There really is not a solid ground to assume women would not be interested or would be less qualified just based on gender.

    You can even say this about the cheerleaders. Clearly, male cheerleaders were interested, they were then included, and the culture went so far as to change the name of the cheer squad to be gender-neutral (Seahawks Dancers). Whatever interest the team had in insisting that only pretty women with certain assets could join their squad as a business decision was seen as going out the window.

    What riles me is the example that I put in the other-topics forum, which was the seahawks.com pub pictures of all the dancers. The men uniformly are standing there, arms crossed, in what appear to be large and very comfortable oversize baseball-jersey style shirts. The women, meanwhile, are posed holding in their bare abs with their butt and breasts in view in bra tops and hot pants. That to me goes totally against the decision to allow males in the first place for equality when in fact what they're showing is the opposite.
    SantaClaraHawk
    NET Veteran
     
    Posts: 2689
    Joined: Fri Sep 18, 2015 11:17 am


  • Mindsink wrote:What's more probable...

    a. There are more white head coaches because they are incorrectly assumed to be smarter, wiser, or whatever positive non-physical attribute you wish to add; AND because owners/GMs are inherently racist and that supersedes their desire to win.


    Yeah, all of this, plus what I was trying to get at, which is that even down at the high school level on Day 1 of Freshman ball all the white kids got sorted into "coach on the field" rolls because of their race, myself included, and over time that got reinforced and reinforced and reinforced in a way it didn't for my black teammates who on Day 1 got sorted into non-"Coach on the field" rolls, which is one of the major reasons IMO that I don't find it surprising that me and my white teammates ended up going into coaching than my black teammates did (at least proportionally, the majority of our team was black so IIRC overall the number of people who went into coaching ended up roughly equal?)

    Mindsink wrote:b. There are more white head coaches because they are simply more qualified, not because they're white?


    We actually have good data to get at this, and it suggests this isn't the case. The clever strategy here is that you look to SECOND and THIRD head coaching opportunities, because then you can rely on record during first coaching opportunity (in addition to a bunch of other stuff) as an actual measure of quality.

    The story there, as we'd expect, is that even controlling for quality, is that after getting fired white head coaches are more likely to get second head coaching opportunities than non-white head coaches, and it's the same for third head coaching opportunities too.

    By way of example, what this suggests is that if Pete Carroll was exactly Pete Carroll but happened to be black, after failing as the Jets head coach he'd have been less likely to get a chance again as the Pats head coach, and after failing as the Pats head coach he'd again be less likely to get a third chance as the Seahawks head coach.

    The implication is that there is VERY LIKELY some pool of non-white head coaches who are just as good as Pete Carroll, but have never gotten second and third chances to show it.


    Mindsink wrote:And when it comes down to coaching, many more factors go into it aside from how smart you are. I wasn't trying to make a genetic argument for intelligence. I am simply saying that it is likely that there ARE differences in mental ability (not simply IQ) based on the evidence of our world demographics.


    Yeah, just to be clear, I'm unaware of anyone credible who would argue that there is no variation in mental ability across the human population.

    My point wasn't that, my point was that I'm unaware of anyone credible who has studied this stuff and believes this variation exists along (whatever) racial lines (you happen to be using right here right now) for genetic reasons.

    Mindsink wrote:Forcing black coaches into the league does no good for the coaches who are trying to get jobs, regardless of their skin color.


    Can you offer an example of a black coach who has been forced to coach football in the NFL? I'm not sure I follow what you're saying.
    Popeyejones
    NET Veteran
     
    Posts: 5522
    Joined: Tue Aug 20, 2013 8:58 am


  • Popeyejones wrote:
    Mindsink wrote:
    The plausible reason is that women generally do not aspire to have 2nd jobs refereeing sports. See Popeye's comment regarding gender impressions also.

    If we're talking about refs at the collegiate or professional level, don't they go through a test? I would naturally assume that the best performers get hired. Maybe the hiring pool is mostly made up of older white men, for whatever reason.



    Yeah, I'd also guess MOST of this is about selection effects (meaning the hiring pool to begin with).

    That said, I'd be suspicious of "best performance" as something that can actually be identified.

    For this I'm thinking of a now classic analysis in econometrics of the gender composition of symphony orchestras.

    The basic gist of the story is that about 5% of symphony musicians were women, and to help correct for what might potentially be gender bias in hiring musicians, the industry started having people audition behind a screen (you only need to HEAR them play, what they look like is beside the point), and the industry shifted from 5% women to 20% women. That one decision alone (to have people audition behind a screen) explains 25-50% of the rise of female musicans in orchestras.

    https://www.nber.org/papers/w5903


    Yep. I'm familiar with that study.

    So going back to the original topic then ... If we're assuming a racial bias in NFL hiring, then I don't think forcing minority interviews is the right way to address it.
    Mindsink
    NET Starter
     
    Posts: 437
    Joined: Fri Sep 13, 2013 12:29 pm


  • It is certainly a little disconcerting to be sure. But there may not be much you can do affect the biases, both implicit and explicit, of NFL owners. The Rooney Rule came about because of the threat of litigation from Johnny Cochrane, and NFL owners likely fearing what would come out during discovery if it did go to court.

    Frtiz Pollard was the first black coach, his last season was 1925; the next time a black Head Coach was hired was Art Shell in 1989! That's insane!

    Being the Offensive Coordinator for Andy Reid was a pipeline to being a Head Coach elsewhere (Pederson and Nagy); but not for Eric Bieniemy, not when it was the black guys' turn. Being the Defensive Coordinator for Pete Carroll was a pipeline to being a Head Coach elsewhere (Bradley & Quinn); but again, not for the black guys.

    Jim Caldwell had a winning record with Detroit! Detroit! That is so hard to do. But Matt Patricia keeps his job no matter how crappy he performs.

    It's all just so blatant and disheartening.
    kobebryant
    NET Veteran
     
    Posts: 2511
    Joined: Sat May 23, 2009 2:45 pm


  • Mindsink wrote:So going back to the original topic then ... If we're assuming a racial bias in NFL hiring, then I don't think forcing minority interviews is the right way to address it.



    Ah, okay, that was your "force" from your last post.


    Gonna post this and then edit beneath it in case you see it before responding to my prior one (know that I'm already responding and following you now). :2thumbs:

    EDIT: And I'm back. :lol:

    So on the topic of the Rooney Rule, we kinda got clear the decks first, because in me experience there tends to be three things swirling together, and what where people fall on these three different things tends to REALLY change what conversation you end up having.

    THING 1: Is there agreement that there is racial bias in NFL hiring for head coaches? AFAIK all the data suggests that there certainly seems to be, but not everyone agrees on this, so if both people don't agree on it there's not really any point in getting into the weeds on the Rooney Rule as a good or bad METHOD to address it. :lol:

    THING 2: If two people agree about Thing 1, do they ALSO agree that an intervention should be made to create equality of opportunity in this case? Some people might think Thing 1 is true, but they don't think this really matters that much and they don't think ANY intervention should be made to address it. If Thing 2 isn't true, again, there's no point in really talking about the Rooney Rule, as these people aren't opposed to rule itself, they're opposed to ANY intervention because they don't think there should be one.

    THING 3: The Rooney Rule. :lol:

    If we agree on Thing 1 (inequlaity in opportunity exists) and Thing 2 (it is worth doing something about) the Rooney Rule could be the right or wrong way to address it for sure.

    The idea behind the Rooney Rule is that (a) it guarantees that non-white head coaches will get the opportunity to hawk their wares, and (b) by increasing their network diversity across the league it can lead to longer-term change even if it doesn't work in the short term case of each hire (e.g. we're going with the white head coach but we're now going to consider you for a coordinator roll because we like you more than we knew we would).

    The other thing about the Rooney Rule is it's a little bit more of a politically palpable way to make this type of intervention, again, assuming we're on board about #1 and #2. It's why I got confused about your "force" langauge, in that (a) teams can interview as many people as they want (meaning nobody LOSES a chance because of the Rooney rule), and (b) it doesn't actually incentivize HIRING a black coach, it just requires considering one.

    By way of an example, an alternative method to the Rooney Rule to address this is to actively incentivize at the HIRING stage, not at the consideration stage. This is what happens in TV writers rooms for the major networks, for which there is a "diversity hire" slot in which the network pays for the hiring of one non-white staff writer and that one staff writer doesn't get charged to the show's budget (the method is that if you hire a non-white writer you get a non-white writer for free).

    This seems to be pretty effective, as a fair number of the VERY TALENTED now younger-middle aged non-white people we now know got there start through this program. Off the top of my head, Aziz Ansari, Donald Glover, Hannibal Burress, and Mindy Kaling all got their foot in the door through these diversity talent programs, and once they got their feet in the door, over time they had the opportunity to they likely wouldn't have otherwise gotten to show their wares.

    For the NFL what this would mean is that for coordinator and head coach positions, instead of the Rooney Rule the NFL would offer to pay (say) 20% of the median coaches salary for teams when they hire non-white coaches and coordinators. It's a direct incentive to do so.

    It's an alternative METHOD (as in Thing #3) to try to achieve the same result, so if we really agree on #1 and #2, we kind of have to evaluate the Rooney Rule against alternative methods like this, not just in a vacuum. As I kind of hinted at above one of the reasons I think we have the Rooney Rule and not something like this is that Rooney Rule -- although likely less effective -- is also more politically palpable than this alternative and likely more effective method (one of the reasons diversity hires were for writers rooms and not actors is that nobody gives a crap about writers rooms, so nobody protested that the networks did it -- unlike staff writers head coaches are public-facing and high profile, and ALL the people who disagree on #1, disagree on #2, AND disagree #3 would disagree with the method even more strongly than they disagree with the Rooney Rule method).
    Last edited by Popeyejones on Thu Jan 09, 2020 11:56 am, edited 1 time in total.
    Popeyejones
    NET Veteran
     
    Posts: 5522
    Joined: Tue Aug 20, 2013 8:58 am


  • Pete Carroll is an interesting example, and I see your point. But for the Seattle hire specifically, I think it had more to do with his USC career than anything he's done in the NFL prior.
    Mindsink
    NET Starter
     
    Posts: 437
    Joined: Fri Sep 13, 2013 12:29 pm


  • I'm really glad to see this conversation discussed in a calm, and mature way. It's refreshing.

    I'm for the Rooney Rule as i think it might get someone in front of an owner that just blows them away. That someone will never be Marvin Lewis, and IMHO, anyone that interviews him, already has the coach in mind that they want. They just want to fulfill the Roonery Rule as no one's going to hire Marvin Lewis.

    I always wondered if the Rooney's were thinking of handing the HC job to Ken Whisenhunt, but were blown away by Mike Tomlin, and hired him instead. Whiz was so pissed when they hired Tomlin over him, and maybe he was told that he was pretty much a shoe in? I dunno, but I can't really see him getting that mad if he thought ahead of time that he was just another candidate.

    I imagine African American players are glad to see a Black coach on their team, but none of them want to see someone like Marvin Lewis, or Leslie Frazier as their head coach. They want to win, and IMHO, those 2 have shown that they aren't cut out to be head coaches.

    I think that owner's don't research coaches enough ahead of time, then start to panic once they fire their HC at the end of the season with the draft coming up. Then they talk themselves in to retreads, thinking "I can get him to be an elite head coach with my business acumen."

    I also wonder if there's enough African American coaches in the "pipeline," in order for them to get experience, and show what they're capable of.

    It's a difficult proposition, but I think saying that "it's shameful," is over the top. They can't force feed African American head coaches in to the position if they don't have anyone with enough history to decide whether or not they're good coach.
    ivotuk
    * NET Staff Alumni *
     
    Posts: 19800
    Joined: Sat Mar 03, 2007 8:29 pm
    Location: North Pole, Alaska


  • Mindsink wrote:Pete Carroll is an interesting example, and I see your point. But for the Seattle hire specifically, I think it had more to do with his USC career than anything he's done in the NFL prior.


    Yeah, I hear you.

    If someone was so inclined they could spend the six months to collect and clean all the data and do the predicted probabilities of next move for each move across Pete Carroll's coaching career as based on race, but that DEFINITELY ain't me. :lol: :lol: :irishdrinkers:

    TBF I have no idea if people looking at this stuff incorporate something like going down a level as HC and then back up a level as HC into their models (I'd guess not?) but I'd also be fairly surprised if it wasn't the same predicted pattern ("fairly surprised" NOT meaning "true/untrue" AT ALL, just meaning what it says, how I'd guess based on what we know).
    Popeyejones
    NET Veteran
     
    Posts: 5522
    Joined: Tue Aug 20, 2013 8:58 am


  • ivotuk wrote:I also wonder if there's enough African American coaches in the "pipeline," in order for them to get experience, and show what they're capable of.



    Yeah, my guess is there's probably somewhat of a pipeline problem swirling around in this too.

    Not to self-reference, but if you see my "diversity hires" thing above, I'm realizing I've missed an obvious way that the NFL could implement that, and in a way that actually mirrors what the TV networks do.

    Basically, the NFL agrees to pony up the 50K or whatever for a non-white (or female) assistant position coaches for every team every year, and just like the diversity writers program, that inches us closer to diversifying the pipeline.

    And unlike I was suggesting above, I don't think 95% of NFL fans even know or care who assistant position coaches on their teams are, meaning there wouldn't be much blowback on that from those who are so inclined to blowback.

    Something like that + the Rooney Rule would have more long term effect, I'd imagine, although it's the NFL, and unlike the Rooney Rule, they NFL would have to actually put its money where its mouth is for that one, which c'mon. :lol: :roll:
    Popeyejones
    NET Veteran
     
    Posts: 5522
    Joined: Tue Aug 20, 2013 8:58 am


  • The problem with obsessing over % of XYZ is what I like to call chasing indicators (and ignoring results).

    Having been in various corporate leadership roles for decades, I've seen numerous examples of losing focus on the end goal by over focusing on something that's considered a KPI. I've lived through 'The Year of Growth' followed by 'The Year of Profitability' to be followed again by another 'Year of Growth'. Each year perverse incentives were created on one KPI that worked to the detriment of overall corporate health.

    For those non business oriented, picture that guy in the gym who obsesses over his glorious pecs and skips leg days.
    Image

    The NFL is a pretty simple equation of wins uber alles (with the possible exception of the Brown family in Cincinnati). If an advantage can be gained by hiring a trans gender Inuit vegan, it will happen.

    I see the argument about development bias factors having some validity. However, even if that was 100% of the problem it has to be addressed at the beginning of the cycle, not the end. I'm all for the NFL taking some of those SJW dollars they set aside to establish mentoring programs, etc. Simply forcing candidates into the Head Coach role that are unprepared / qualified will only create the perception of lack of ability in XYZ group.
    Osprey
    Silver Supporter
    Silver Supporter
     
    Posts: 1388
    Joined: Thu Apr 22, 2010 5:06 pm
    Location: Camas, WA


  • Osprey wrote:The problem with obsessing over % of XYZ is what I like to call chasing indicators (and ignoring results).

    Having been in various corporate leadership roles for decades, I've seen numerous examples of losing focus on the end goal by over focusing on something that's considered a KPI. I've lived through 'The Year of Growth' followed by 'The Year of Profitability' to be followed again by another 'Year of Growth'. Each year perverse incentives were created on one KPI that worked to the detriment of overall corporate health.


    Yep, although I think the major perverse incentive when it comes to diversifying ranks is that the incentive is in GIVING THE IMPRESSION of doing something rather than actually doing something. :lol:

    It takes a lot less work to pretend to be doing something than to actually do something, and it's the non-white employees who end up getting tasked with this impression management work.

    Heck, even as a college student (I went to a small very white college) I remember my non-white friends complaining about being called in to pose for pictures for various campus and departmental catalogs all the time :lol: :lol: (it created resentments and did nothing, but the whole point was to do nothing while giving the public impression of there not even being a problem at all :lol: )

    Osprey wrote:The NFL is a pretty simple equation of wins uber alles (with the possible exception of the Brown family in Cincinnati). If an advantage can be gained by hiring a trans gender Inuit vegan, it will happen.


    If that's true how do we explain fired white coaches getting second and third chances at higher rates than do non-white fired head coaches? This was in the most recent report, but IIRC it has also been modeled by academics outside of that report too (and IIRC again even across different sports at the college level; a lot of these studies happen at the college level just because the N is bigger).


    Osprey wrote:Simply forcing candidates into the Head Coach role


    Addressed this above, but I'm strongly opposed to this claim, as it is simply untrue.

    The statement "forcing teams to consider 1 non-white candidate of their choosing among all the candidates of their choosing" and "forcing candidates into the head coach role" are VERY VERY VERY different statements. :lol:

    The former is a statement of fact and the latter just ain't. :2thumbs:

    (I assume you meant the former and just wrote the latter, and I'm just being a prig about this, but still)
    Popeyejones
    NET Veteran
     
    Posts: 5522
    Joined: Tue Aug 20, 2013 8:58 am


  • Popeyejones wrote:If that's true how do we explain fired white coaches getting second and third chances at higher rates than do non-white fired head coaches? This was in the most recent report, but IIRC it has also been modeled by academics outside of that report too (and IIRC again even across different sports at the college level; a lot of these studies happen at the college level just because the N is bigger).

    Would have to dig into the internals to know for sure, but In the NFL I'd be worried about sample size creating a distortion.
    Just off the top of my head (added a couple from a quick Domehawk level of 'research')... recycled minority Head Coaches:
    Ron Rivera
    Hue Jackson
    Lovie Smith
    Tony Dungy
    Jim Caldwell
    Dennis Green
    Tom Flores
    Herm Edwards
    Ray Rhodes

    Is there any doubt Tomlin would be snatched up instantly if let go? Not going to be shocked to see Lewis resurface if he's actively interviewing and Flores is creating a name for himself with the Miami late season turn around.


    Osprey wrote:Simply forcing candidates into the Head Coach role

    Popeyejones wrote:Addressed this above, but I'm strongly opposed to this claim, as it is simply untrue.

    I wasn't referring to a current practice just advising against incrementalism i.e. We've had the Rooney Rule for X years and only Y results therefore we need to mandate Z minority hires.
    Last edited by Osprey on Thu Jan 09, 2020 1:49 pm, edited 1 time in total.
    Osprey
    Silver Supporter
    Silver Supporter
     
    Posts: 1388
    Joined: Thu Apr 22, 2010 5:06 pm
    Location: Camas, WA


  • I"m surprised frankly that there ISN'T a league-wide effort to fund a diversity scholarship/internship program or incentives for minorities and women, given that the league has implemented both the Rooney Rule (for minorities) and a "sister Rooney Rule" saying that at least one woman has to be interviewed for any executive position.

    These rules exist b/c participation in these ranks was seen as so low (Thing One) that something needed to be done about it (Thing Two) that wasn't happening at the organic level. The same occurs across industry; the sheetmetal and electricans' unions, for example, do similar things for women.

    So far, of course, the paucity in women/minority candidates can be partially explained by so few of them existing in the pipeline, which leads to arguments that there's no one really good to interview when the problem is scarcity. It is only when sufficient people are in the pipeline that we can then see whether there are discrepancies in how they as a class are treated on the field and how they advance. And the more of them that do, the more likely that they will be judged not as "minority hires" but based on their own individual record.

    Someone asked about "reverse racism." This can certainly occur--CMC admitted that in his combine days, he felt some skepticism from teams about playing RB as a white man. But in general, men and especially white men are more than others are apt to get a hearing, a foot into, any door they wish.

    Popeye talked about the ease with which men entered prior female-dominated fields as said fields became more lucrative or high-profile--telephone operators and punchcarders used to be women; now those who do the equivalent tech jobs are mostly men. You can't say men (especially white men) are excluded in the same way, as it's always been that when white men knock on doors, they've gotten at least an opportunity to compete, and often get treated in a more "dignified" matter when they do succeed.

    This is true even down to the cheerleader level, one in which jobs are incented almost totally based on pub rather than pay. They are barely compensated and certainly not enough to maintain the personal routines that are necessary for the job, but clearly, the PR exposure/fame/changing times has drawn some men, who have not only been accommodated but held to a different and easier standard as to how their body is expected to be displayed and judged.
    SantaClaraHawk
    NET Veteran
     
    Posts: 2689
    Joined: Fri Sep 18, 2015 11:17 am


  • Osprey wrote:
    Popeyejones wrote:If that's true how do we explain fired white coaches getting second and third chances at higher rates than do non-white fired head coaches? This was in the most recent report, but IIRC it has also been modeled by academics outside of that report too (and IIRC again even across different sports at the college level; a lot of these studies happen at the college level just because the N is bigger).

    Would have to dig into the internals to know for sure, but In the NFL I'd be worried about sample size creating a distortion.
    Just off the top of my head (added a couple from a quick Domehawk level of 'research')... recycled minority Head Coaches:
    Ron Rivera
    Hue Jackson
    Lovie Smith
    Tony Dungy
    Jim Caldwell
    Dennis Green
    Tom Flores
    Herm Edwards
    Ray Rhodes

    Is there any doubt Tomlin would be snatched up instantly if let go? Not going to be shocked to see Lewis resurface if he's actively interviewing and Flores is creating a name for himself with the Miami late season turn around.


    Osprey wrote:Simply forcing candidates into the Head Coach role

    Popeyejones wrote:Addressed this above, but I'm strongly opposed to this claim, as it is simply untrue.

    I wasn't referring to a current practice just advising against incrementalism i.e. We've had the Rooney Rule for X years and only Y results therefore we need to mandate Z minority hires.



    Yeah, would loooove to dig into the internals too, but there's no way they'd ever. :lol:

    It takes a lot of work but people have been able to get into the door and do process stuff for college admissions, university hiring and hiring in some elite occupations like law and finance, but no way the NFL would ever let someone IMO.

    And 100% agrees about the sample size problem of the NFL. Even if you find statistical significance the N is so small that I'd still have doubts (how psych has gotten themselves in so much trouble with all their statistically significant but not replicating small N studies that they love so much).

    It's why focusing on the college level makes more sense from a data perspective but less sense from a public interest perspective probably.
    Popeyejones
    NET Veteran
     
    Posts: 5522
    Joined: Tue Aug 20, 2013 8:58 am


  • SantaClaraHawk wrote:I"m surprised frankly that there ISN'T a league-wide effort to fund a diversity scholarship/internship program or incentives for minorities and women, given that the league has implemented both the Rooney Rule (for minorities) and a "sister Rooney Rule" saying that at least one woman has to be interviewed for any executive position.

    These rules exist b/c participation in these ranks was seen as so low (Thing One) that something needed to be done about it (Thing Two) that wasn't happening at the organic level. The same occurs across industry; the sheetmetal and electricans' unions, for example, do similar things for women.

    So far, of course, the paucity in women/minority candidates can be partially explained by so few of them existing in the pipeline, which leads to arguments that there's no one really good to interview when the problem is scarcity. It is only when sufficient people are in the pipeline that we can then see whether there are discrepancies in how they as a class are treated on the field and how they advance. And the more of them that do, the more likely that they will be judged not as "minority hires" but based on their own individual record.

    Someone asked about "reverse racism." This can certainly occur--CMC admitted that in his combine days, he felt some skepticism from teams about playing RB as a white man. But in general, men and especially white men are more than others are apt to get a hearing, a foot into, any door they wish.

    Popeye talked about the ease with which men entered prior female-dominated fields as said fields became more lucrative or high-profile--telephone operators and punchcarders used to be women; now those who do the equivalent tech jobs are mostly men. You can't say men (especially white men) are excluded in the same way, as it's always been that when white men knock on doors, they've gotten at least an opportunity to compete, and often get treated in a more "dignified" matter when they do succeed.

    This is true even down to the cheerleader level, one in which jobs are incented almost totally based on pub rather than pay. They are barely compensated and certainly not enough to maintain the personal routines that are necessary for the job, but clearly, the PR exposure/fame/changing times has drawn some men, who have not only been accommodated but held to a different and easier standard as to how their body is expected to be displayed and judged.



    :2thumbs: :2thumbs: :2thumbs: to every word of this.
    Popeyejones
    NET Veteran
     
    Posts: 5522
    Joined: Tue Aug 20, 2013 8:58 am


  • Winning is EVERYTHING in the NFL.

    Personally I don’t see any owner hiring anyone that isn’t what he sees as the best chance to win.

    Guess it’s possible that an owner would forgo a few wins just to hire a “white guy” be I’d be hard pressed to believe it.

    YMMV
    pmedic920
    * .NET Official Stache *
     
    Posts: 19892
    Joined: Fri Jul 12, 2013 9:37 am
    Location: On the lake, Livingston Texas


  • Just a couple years ago there were 8 minority HCs. Unfortunately 5 of them sucked and got fired.

    The big disparity is that while 70% of football players are black, only 9% of HCs are black. It's all about the pipeline. If most coaches are former football players, you would assume that coaching staffs would resemble the ethnicity of the players more. However, if more black players actually make an NFL roster, while more white players don't make the cut, more white players are going to go into coaching at a younger age. As the old saying goes, if you can't do, teach.

    However recently we are seeing more retired NFL players go into coaching, but they have to start there way from the bottom. You aren't just going to retire from playing and go directly to being an OC/DC.

    Bottom line is, it's not so much about racism when hiring a head coach, it's about there actually being viable candidates. When your pool of head coaching candidates is 90% white, you're probably going to hire a white guy. It starts from the bottom, more black players need to go into coaching at a younger age.
    XxXdragonXxX
    NET Veteran
     
    Posts: 2306
    Joined: Sat Mar 03, 2007 3:40 am
    Location: Enumclaw, WA


  • pmedic920 wrote:Winning is EVERYTHING in the NFL.

    Personally I don’t see any owner hiring anyone that isn’t what he sees as the best chance to win.

    Guess it’s possible that an owner would forgo a few wins just to hire a “white guy” be I’d be hard pressed to believe it.

    YMMV


    Martha Ford re: Caldwell (.563 win %) & Patricia (.297 win%)
    kobebryant
    NET Veteran
     
    Posts: 2511
    Joined: Sat May 23, 2009 2:45 pm


  • kobebryant wrote:
    pmedic920 wrote:Winning is EVERYTHING in the NFL.

    Personally I don’t see any owner hiring anyone that isn’t what he sees as the best chance to win.

    Guess it’s possible that an owner would forgo a few wins just to hire a “white guy” be I’d be hard pressed to believe it.

    YMMV


    Martha Ford re: Caldwell (.563 win %) & Patricia (.297 win%)


    Martha's probably wishing she waited for Grier/Flores instead of Quinn/Patricia.

    But even in this tight window of being interested only in the Patriots, there was the opportunity to talk to Grier/Flores too. I wouldn't be surprised if they did, and if the decision came down to rebuild strategy. Grier/Flores were for burning it to the ground, and Quinn/Patricia were for augmenting the pieces that they had.

    I was so down on Miami's strategy, but it appears to have worked brilliantly.
    SantaClaraHawk
    NET Veteran
     
    Posts: 2689
    Joined: Fri Sep 18, 2015 11:17 am


  • New PFT article: Judge not concerned with people questioning his hire

    https://profootballtalk.nbcsports.com/2 ... is-hiring/

    See, he's getting flack because everyone knows the Giants had to interview minority coaching candidates, and there's widespread perception that a lot of them are better than a ST-coach that no one knows.
    SantaClaraHawk
    NET Veteran
     
    Posts: 2689
    Joined: Fri Sep 18, 2015 11:17 am


  • :2thumbs: :2thumbs:
    Mindsink wrote:The mere existence of the Rooney Rule is racist itself, and undermines the legitimacy of ANY non-white coach hire. Quite frankly, it's insulting to minority coaching candidates.

    You're telling me that in this day and age, and with billions of dollars at stake, that coaching hires are overwhelmingly favoring "white" men because of racism? Then how do you explain the overwhelming percentage of black players, particularly in skill positions?

    GTFO with that crap!

    Those people who are keeping score based on skin color are the real racists, and THAT is what's shameful here.
    Bobblehead
    NET Veteran
     
    Posts: 2731
    Joined: Mon Dec 10, 2012 12:52 pm


  • https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles ... ad-coaches

    "The struggle doesn’t end with being hired. Nonwhite coaches tend to be hired for less successful teams than white coaches are. That leads to less job security and shorter stints, according to a 2019 data dive by the Undefeated. Minority coaches who are fired from a head coaching job are half as likely as white peers to be hired for another NFL head coaching position, according to the Arizona State study. Fired white head coaches also went on to offensive coordinator positions in the NFL at nearly three times the rate of coaches of color, according to the 10-year study."

    This experience is shared by a lot of minority hires, actually: There's resentment that the person came in with this "advantage," and once they've had their chance and "blown it," people are like, "Well, they had their chance." NEXT.

    This does not happen when people get the "chances" more frequently awarded to white coaches.

    Kyle Shanahan was assisted into his coaching career by being the son of Mike Shanahan, for whom he worked and failed at the Redskins, and after which he had two losing years before succeeding with the 49ers. No minority coach has the privilege of being a son of a coach, unlike the sons of Shanahan, Belichick and yes, Pete Carroll. Gruden meanwhile failed spectacularly with the Redskins, he got fired, and all indications are that he's not out of NFL coaching. After all, if nothing works, he has a brother who already is a HC and can just work for him.

    Even Jim Tomsula and Chip Kelly enjoyed success after their failures that happens far less with minorities. After SF, Tomsula went on to do his old job (DL coach) for the Redskins. He was just fired there, but guess what, he's on to Dallas in the same position. Kelly got fired from the Eagles before, got fired at SF, and now is HC with UCLA.

    Lewis? He's got an minor advisory position with the Sun Devils after working up with three NFL teams and then coaching 16 years with a fourth team. There will be no powerful white writer like Peter King showing up on his doorstep to chronicle the new innovative thoughts in his head; the sentiment is that despite taking the Bengals to the playoffs in 8 of 16 seasons, he should just be happy that he has a job in coaching at all. Jason Garrett did worse--but everyone expects Garrett to be back as a coordinator or at least a position coach with the NFL, and no one thinks Garrett should just be happy to be in the bowels of a mid-tier Pac 12 school coaching because of failure.

    So to those rehashing that the moral code should be "just the best, I don't care, black, white, polka dotted or yellow," this is not that Dr. Seuss book where the issue is just "stars upon thars." This involves powerful NFL coaches already promoting nepotism, which minority coaches have no access to. It is a blindness to see that really, we have less of an issue throwing over someone like Lewis or Hue Jackson while the propping up of retreads like Gruden won't be questioned, and when the privilege of even colossal flameouts like Tomsula or Kelly to have NFL/high level college employment is unquestioned, including by many who see no problem with this while insisting this is all part of a color-blind meritocracy.

    The data suggests otherwise.
    SantaClaraHawk
    NET Veteran
     
    Posts: 2689
    Joined: Fri Sep 18, 2015 11:17 am


  • SantaClaraHawk wrote:This experience is shared by a lot of minority hires, actually: There's resentment that the person came in with this "advantage," and once they've had their chance and "blown it," people are like, "Well, they had their chance." NEXT.

    This does not happen when people get the "chances" more frequently awarded to white coaches.


    Resentment. This is key. And this is why the Rooney Rule will never work in the long run.

    This is a no-win situation. How do you possibly expand or change the Rooney rule to get more black coaches hired, short of FORCING these hires?

    Bias (racial or otherwise) may be a dirty word but this is reality. You think Christian McCaffrey's success will create a flood of opportunities for white skill position players from the pee wee league up? No. He's an anomaly. Black kids will always be seen as better athletes, because on average, this is what's been proven for decades.

    White coaches will always be seen as better, for whatever reason(s), unless proven otherwise. Look at how long it took for even black QBs to break the stereotype. And even today, it's hard to look at a black QB and not assume his athleticism isn't the key to his success. And when a white QB has athleticism (e.g. Josh Allen), people are surprised.
    Mindsink
    NET Starter
     
    Posts: 437
    Joined: Fri Sep 13, 2013 12:29 pm


Next


It is currently Tue Mar 31, 2020 3:41 am

Please REGISTER to become a member

Return to [ NFL NATION ]




Information
  • Who is online
  • Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 55 guests