The Rooney Rule?

Tituscrow · #1 09-17-2011, 11:56 AM

Ok, I'm listening to a radio phone in after another day in the premier league. I'll spare you the details, but there was a conversation about a black manager in the championship (second tier). The host then starts talking about the 'Rooney Rule'. Now I like to think I know English football inside out and I've not heard of this, which has been introduced in the US. Is it a new thing? Is it controversial? Does it work?

Yes, I could do a wiki search etc, but I'd be far more interested to hear from the knowledgable TBOT's out there about it...

**cheezewiz** · #2 09-17-2011, 12:00 PM

It's a rule in the NFL which says teams must interview minority candidates for head coaching jobs. It's slightly controversial, because an otherwise qualified white candidate could feel shorted, but in practice, I think managers hire who they want to hire, regardless of race. There are black and white head coaches in the NFL.

Tituscrow · #3 09-17-2011, 12:05 PM

So who is it named after? How long has it been in force? Is it a legal obligation or an unwritten 'gentlemans agreement'?

KillianRussell · #4 09-17-2011, 12:08 PM

The rule is named for Dan Rooney, the owner of the Pittsburgh Steelers and the chairman of the league's diversity committee, and indirectly the Rooney family in general, due to the Steelers' long history of giving African Americans opportunities to serve in team leadership roles.

In 2003, the NFL fined the Detroit Lions $200,000 for failure to interview African American candidates for the team's vacant head coaching job.

Longhair · #5 09-17-2011, 12:09 PM

What ever happened to hiring the most qualified person for the job at hand? Now it is pass up the most qualified person because they don't have a specific skin color for the job at hand.

basstotheface · #6 09-17-2011, 01:23 PM

In theory the most qualified is hired. You just have to give coaches of minority a chance to interview.

Longhair · #7 09-17-2011, 01:30 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by basstotheface

In theory the most qualified is hired. You just have to give coaches of minority a chance to interview.

Wouldn't it be easier to remove the RACE portion of any and all applications for employment?

iamlowsound · #8 09-17-2011, 01:56 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by basstotheface

In theory the most qualified is hired. You just have to give coaches of minority a chance to interview.

What if you just plan on giving one of your other coaches the job and you aren't doing interviews?

lowsound

jive1 · #9 09-17-2011, 02:24 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by iamlowsound

What if you just plan on giving one of your other coaches the job and you aren't doing interviews?

lowsound

You still have to interviews, if I recall correctly.

basstotheface · #10 09-17-2011, 02:27 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by iamlowsound

What if you just plan on giving one of your other coaches the job and you aren't doing interviews?

lowsound

In some cases assistant coaches have it in their contract that they get the job if it is vacated. If this is the case no one is interviewed.

Sometimes coaches from within that are promoted are of minority. If this is the case no one is interviewed.

In all other cases you must interview a coach of minority.

jive1 · #11 09-17-2011, 02:27 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by KillianRussell

In 2003, the NFL fined the Detroit Lions $200,000 for failure to interview African American candidates for the team's vacant head coaching job.

IMO, that was total BS. The Lions want to hire Marriucci, and Mariucci wanted to work for the Lions. Mooch was from Michigan, he knew their system, and was the guy everyone in the organization wanted. There was no need to interview, because it would have been a waste of time, they were only going to hire Mooch.

I don't think it's doing much of a service to interview a candidate just to waste their time, just to follow some rule, when the organization has no intention to hire that person and already have someone in mind. For all you know, no-one wanted to interview with the Lions because everyone knew that Mariucci was going to be the coach there, and if they actually wanted a job, they should interview elsewhere.

Jeff K · #12 09-17-2011, 03:39 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by jive1

IMO, that was total BS. The Lions want to hire Marriucci, and Mariucci wanted to work for the Lions. Mooch was from Michigan, he knew their system, and was the guy everyone in the organization wanted. There was no need to interview, because it would have been a waste of time, they were only going to hire Mooch.

I don't think it's doing much of a service to interview a candidate just to waste their time, just to follow some rule, when the organization has no intention to hire that person and already have someone in mind. For all you know, no-one wanted to interview with the Lions because everyone knew that Mariucci was going to be the coach there, and if they actually wanted a job, they should interview elsewhere.

I agree with you regarding the Mariucci hiring. He is somebody that they knew they wanted, and he was available. But regarding the interview(s) being a waste of time, Rooney Rule advocates would counter that even if they don't get the job, they get valuable experience from the interview that they might never have gotten otherwise. Which hopefully would help their chances the next time they get an interview.

Plus, you never know when somebody unexpectedly might "wow" you. That's what happened with Tomlin. Most people expected Whisenhunt to get the Steelers job. But he took the sure thing and went to the Cardinals before the Steelers job came open. Then it was thought that Russ Grimm would get the Steelers job. Tomlin came in and interviewed under the Rooney Rule and just totally blew the Steelers brass away. They loved him, and he got the job. Soon thereafter, Russ Grimm joined Whisenhunt in Arizona...

Papa Dangerous · #13 09-17-2011, 03:46 PM

*grabs 100 foot pole and still won't touch this one*

Dr. Cheese · #14 09-17-2011, 09:07 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Longhair

What ever happened to hiring the most qualified person for the job at hand? Now it is pass up the most qualified person because they don't have a specific skin color for the job at hand.

Frankly, that has never existed. I would love for you to show where the Rooney rule says that a person much be passed over because of skin color.

Longhair · #15 09-18-2011, 04:27 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Dr. Cheese

Frankly, that has never existed. I would love for you to show where the Rooney rule says that a person much be passed over because of skin color.

Why must there is a Rooney rule in the first place?

Dr. Cheese · #16 09-18-2011, 06:13 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Longhair

Why must there is a Rooney rule in the first place?

People usually feel they are fair, but in reality they tend to hire those they know and associate with or those their friends know.

Longhair · #17 09-18-2011, 07:02 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Dr. Cheese

People usually feel they are fair, but in reality they tend to hire those they know and associate with or those their friends know.

That is true for any job in any field of employment however, that does not explain why there must be a Rooney rule in the first place.

Dr. Cheese · #18 09-18-2011, 08:06 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Longhair

That is true for any job in any field of employment however, that does not explain why there must be a Rooney rule in the first place.

The fact that it is true everywhere explains why there discrimination continues to be an issue because in one breath people say they want the most qualified person, but in the next, people like you admit that it's who you know.

If the who you know tends to exclude people in certain categories, then extra effot needs to be taken to make sure that everyone gets a real chance at a job.

That's a proposition you can accept or reject. The bottom line is that the Rooney rule insures that interviews take a real look at a racially diverse candidate pool. It does not insist that a person of any particular person be hired. To me, it is fair.

MJ5150 · #19 09-18-2011, 08:32 AM

Same here Dr. Cheese, I think it's fair. The NFL was a "good old boys club" among coaches. For years, we saw the same group of white so-so coaches being cycled around the league while minority assistants were doing great jobs. I am glad the NFL has in place a system where more options to at least be interviewed are in place.

I feel like progress is being made, but as is the case with race relations anywhere, these things take time.

-Mike

Dr. Cheese · #20 09-18-2011, 08:36 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by MJ5150

Same here Dr. Cheese, I think it's fair. The NFL was a "good old boys club" among coaches. For years, we saw the same group of white so-so coaches being cycled around the league while minority assistants were doing great jobs. I am glad the NFL has in place a system where more options to at least be interviewed are in place.

I feel like progress is being made, but as is the case with race relations anywhere, these things take time.

-Mike

I think it is much better now too. The key thing is that we seem to have reached a point when a black coach can be rehired after he loses a job, pretty much like white coaches. In the NBA, it has reached a point that I don't think anyone really keeps track of how many black and white coaches there are because it seems that they all get a genuine fair chance at a job.