Looks like it's for executives but I just don't get it.
What a weird way to belittle the accomplishments of a specific group of people.
I've said this from the beginning of the Rooney rule. NFL teams don't see race or gender. They see dollars. Nothing more and nothing less. If there was a rabbit who an owner thought could make them five million more dollars it would be hired.
If I were a women sports executive this would make me furious. Now my entire career would be viewed with a shroud of unwarranted entitlement.
What a world.
ESPN - (
New Window )
that's a bit hyperbolic...
How dare they discriminate.
What if you were right now a skilled women sports executive who was rising the ranks and you were contacted for a job interview. What is being said by the other candidates and some of the current staff behind close doors if you get the job?
It's a bullshit excuse to over-pc the game.
On the flipside, If I was in the running for a job and didn't get it because I wasn't selected or qualified for it so be it.
If I didn't get the job over someone less qualified because some braintrust decided that it would be a good idea to push an agenda that really isn't asking to be pushed, then I would be ticked off about it.
Yes I understand that owners don't care about this stuff, but they also can't interview everyone. Their interview pool is typically restricted to the same group of people from around the league. So this opens up the interview pool to a larger group.
Exactly. If it's a problem, it solves itself. If a franchise deliberately cuts out all minority candidates, they're putting themselves behind the 8 ball big time.
Quote:
Best candidates. If other firms were discriminating because of stupid factors it would only make it much more attractive to those that aren't sexist, racist, discriminatory idiots to hire these candidates that are great that no one else won't.
Exactly. If it's a problem, it solves itself. If a franchise deliberately cuts out all minority candidates, they're putting themselves behind the 8 ball big time.
Only if some teams act to take advantage of the opportunity. If the behavior is league-wide then there is no incentive relative to the competition to change. No individual or organization acts perfectly rationally and cultural biases and misconceptions can linger for a long, long time. I would imagine as far as women go, the first challenge is to enable more women to move up through the college coaching ranks to create a larger viable pool of candidates at the NFL level.
This guy gets it.
Quote:
In comment 12800864 Patrick77 said:
Quote:
Best candidates. If other firms were discriminating because of stupid factors it would only make it much more attractive to those that aren't sexist, racist, discriminatory idiots to hire these candidates that are great that no one else won't.
Exactly. If it's a problem, it solves itself. If a franchise deliberately cuts out all minority candidates, they're putting themselves behind the 8 ball big time.
Only if some teams act to take advantage of the opportunity. If the behavior is league-wide then there is no incentive relative to the competition to change. No individual or organization acts perfectly rationally and cultural biases and misconceptions can linger for a long, long time. I would imagine as far as women go, the first challenge is to enable more women to move up through the college coaching ranks to create a larger viable pool of candidates at the NFL level.
There is a huge incentive to buck trends. The evolution of any sport or any strategy has been through change and variation.
Martin Luther King, Jr.
100%. There were a ton of qualified black applicants not getting HC/exec jobs. People who had been in the game their whole life, many of whom had played in the league. It was somewhat of an embarrassment. Not that anyone was making race-based decisions. The Rooney Rule was a nice compromise -- make sure this arguably under-tapped pool at least gets to interview, and take it from there. It worked.
Women? Not nearly as ingrained in the game. Not ex-players, obviously. Very, very few women involved at the HS/college level. There isnt much reason to think there is a big pool of women out there not getting interview who are ripe for NFL jobs.
IMO, too soon. Way too soon.
Plenty of qualified women marketers
Plenty of qualified women marketers
Oh, my bad. I was thinking like GM type positions. Football positions.
Plenty of qualified women marketers
+1
You guys don't seem to understand what this is.
I think some news outlets arent understanding this either.
I think tying it to the Rooney rule is confusing people. This isn't the Rooney rule.
Or maybe I'm wrong...
Also a ploy to counter the backlash against the bad behavior many athletes exhibit toward women.
I thought this was re football/team positions, not league/business positions. They wouldnt need any FB experience to sell the game.
Quote:
In comment 12800871 widmerseyebrow said:
Quote:
In comment 12800864 Patrick77 said:
Quote:
Best candidates. If other firms were discriminating because of stupid factors it would only make it much more attractive to those that aren't sexist, racist, discriminatory idiots to hire these candidates that are great that no one else won't.
Exactly. If it's a problem, it solves itself. If a franchise deliberately cuts out all minority candidates, they're putting themselves behind the 8 ball big time.
Only if some teams act to take advantage of the opportunity. If the behavior is league-wide then there is no incentive relative to the competition to change. No individual or organization acts perfectly rationally and cultural biases and misconceptions can linger for a long, long time. I would imagine as far as women go, the first challenge is to enable more women to move up through the college coaching ranks to create a larger viable pool of candidates at the NFL level.
There is a huge incentive to buck trends. The evolution of any sport or any strategy has been through change and variation.
While I think The Rooney Rule has been, and this rule is likely to be, an ineffective response to hiring bias, in no way do I agree with Patrick and others that in a free market the best owners will buck trends.
How long did it take MLB before it was integrated? And there were tons of amazing athletes in the Negro leagues from which to choose. Same can be said for NFL coaching staffs...I think Rosey Brown and Emlen Tunnell were the first black assistant coaches in the NFL, both with the Giants. And how about black QBs? How long did it take to get colleges, and then the pros, to give black athletes a chance to even compete to play the position?
Because a team will only do XXX number of interviews.
Even if one more qualified person doesn't get an interview because of the application of some poorly thought out rule it becomes a disaster.
I remember reading a paper in a labor economics class about discrimination against French-Canadian defensemen in the NHL. It didnt seem to hurt teams.
The fact that it worked out poorly for the holdouts doesn't mean that owners typically buck the trend in a timely fashion. Given the history in sports, there clearly WASN'T a strong incentive for teams to buck trands. One man, Branch Rickey, and one ownership group (after years and years of discrimination) finally decided on moral grounds to buck the trend. And it sure did give them a competitive advantage. But it took years. That was in the late 40s.
Rosey Brown became a coach for the Giants in 1966. 1966! How long did it take the NFL to buck trends?
I imagine there's a lot of positions where football IQ is not necessary. Do you think Kevin Abrams needs to know football, or accounting as it pertains to a bargaining contract?
Quote:
The Rooney rule doesnt diminish or belittle anyone or put anything in a shroud of entitlement. the rule simply requires the interview. Teams still hire who they feel is the best qualified for the job . whats the problem with that?
Because a team will only do XXX number of interviews.
Even if one more qualified person doesn't get an interview because of the application of some poorly thought out rule it becomes a disaster.
lol a disaster?? really?? Even in the case where the woman causes the XXXth candidate to be left off how much do you think that changes anything? Since interviews are scheduled and ordered based on the strength of the candidate how many times do you think that XXXth candidate would have gotten the position? statistically prob less that 1%. sounds like a real disaster.
In a perfect world this shouldnt be needed but we are in a world where bias does exist and it gives opportunity to qualified people to be seen and heard even if they dont end up being the best candidate and getting the job. ideal? no but calling it a disaster is really over the top.
Tell the xxxth candidate who is looking to get a job that he can't get an interview because they have to spend some time interviewing some women just because.
Even better- tell his wife and kids.
Why can't we just hire people based on their skill set and value to an organization? No matter what anyone ever says I absolutely refuse to believe that any businessperson would not interview who they felt might be the best candidate because of their skin color or breasts. If they did then they are doing a disservice to themselves and not the candidates who they refuse to hire. The only thing that matters is $$$. Why can't some of you see this?
If you want to get a position then bust your ass for it. Work harder than the next guy and make it impossible for them to overlook you. At least that is what I was always taught.
This despite all evidence to the contrary? What an absurd comment given the history of discrimination in both this country and the world at large.
Just amazing that you can hold that position when evidence of the opposite is so readily available (some of which has been cited here).
Why cant we just hire simply based on skillset?? thats the million dollar question. The reality is that there is bias and people do tend to discriminate based on color, gender, class, religion, facial hair, and other whims. You may refuse to believe it but it has been proven time and time again to exist. Especially in a closed environment like the NFL where there are not many teams in comparison to a more traditional business evironment. People tend to rely on who they have worked with before or personal recommendations from people they have worked with before.
Using your same logic you can tell that XXXth candidate to work harder and be the 1st candidtate instead of the XXXth. Like i said this isnt an ideal situation and i dont know enough about the numbers behind females in executive positions to say that this is needed in this field but in general if the situation is the same as how it was with respect to african americans in coaching then its a good thing.
Tell the xxxth candidate who is looking to get a job that he can't get an interview because they have to spend some time interviewing some women just because.
Even better- tell his wife and kids.
Why can't we just hire people based on their skill set and value to an organization? No matter what anyone ever says I absolutely refuse to believe that any businessperson would not interview who they felt might be the best candidate because of their skin color or breasts. If they did then they are doing a disservice to themselves and not the candidates who they refuse to hire. The only thing that matters is $$$. Why can't some of you see this?
If you want to get a position then bust your ass for it. Work harder than the next guy and make it impossible for them to overlook you. At least that is what I was always taught.
Absolutely, they'll hire the person they think best qualified. but they won't even give a thought to a class of people they've already decided aren't worthy. The Rooney rule isn't going to change that way of thinking, but it's an attempt anyhow.
I suppose we can agree to disagree on this one.
I just get aggravated when society starts to give things to specific groups of people that otherwise might not be earned under the guise of creating some kind of appearance of equality. The world doesn't work that way. You wind up patronizing the allegedly aggrieved group and alienating those who are now being discriminated against.
Now if you said the NFL wanted to institute a training program for all executives, both men and women to increase those not currently in the NFL from breaking into the league I would support that 100%.
Anyway- good convo nice mental exercise for a thurs. afternoon.
Absolutely, they'll hire the person they think best qualified. but they won't even give a thought to a class of people they've already decided aren't worthy. The Rooney rule isn't going to change that way of thinking, but it's an attempt anyhow.
I don't believe that for a minute an NFL owner would think twice about hiring a women executive if he viewed the credentials and felt that she would put more money in his pocket but as I said in my response to Micky, maybe I'm wrong.
The whole era of the white male looking down and holding things back from racial and gender minorities is over and has been for some time. I get it- we needed the civil rights and gender equality movement to move forward as a society and put right some previous wrongs. But in 2016 as a society it's time to take off the training wheels a little bit and just let everyone race on the same track equally.
Interviewee: Thanks for having me, it's an honor and a pleasure
Team: Well, we appreciate you coming to see us but we were looking for "an honor and a treat." Good luck.
Such nonsense
But, implementing the same rule for women, in this instance, makes no sense. How are there tons of women candidates being overlooked if there are. A rely any women involved in football to begin with? If they want to make an impact, they need to be promoting the hiring of women in HS and college for coaching, training, Athletic Director etc. positions with the eye on an influx to the NFL down the road.
I agree with this. If a woman has football experience then she would be more likely to get an interview/job. It's not the same as what the Rooney Rule did for male minorities.
According to the NFL, 30 percent of the employees in the league's front office are women.
So are they looking to get the 30 up to 50? Or is it top executives? Again, if they have the relative experience, they will get interviews. Of course there are going to be some that will not hire someone because they are female. I've had that happen to me and it sucks. But I doubt this rule will do anything about it.