First off, please do not take this as a racially bias thread because its not. It is in just as much defense of minorities as it is in defense of the owners in the NFL. Apparently, the NFL requires owners who are interviewing candidates for head coaching positions to interview minority candidates. The above quote is from an article about the Cowboys situation. 1) I think its absolutely absurd that the league requires owners to do this. What ever happened to the theory of hiring the best man for the job ? If Jerry Jones wants to hire Bill Clinton to coach the Cowboys, and he wants the job, then Jones should not have to interview anyone else...period! 2) Now, as ridiculous as this policy is from an owners standpoint, it is even more ridiculous from a minority interviewee's standpoint. I mean, the league is practically (as i see it) making the owners interview "token" candidates ("token" can be used to describe whites and jews so please dont think i was trying to start a riot). Look at the Cowboys situation in particular. Apparently Dennis Green is coming in for an interview because the league is mandating that Jones interview a minority. How can Green even WANT to go in for this "formality"? Look at this quote... That is from the Cowboy article as well. The league doesn't want minority candidates to agree to "fill a quota" but, in reality, filling quotas is EXACTLY what the league is making owners do. Bottom line, if a minority (african american, jew, arab, hispanic etc) is ther best man for the job, then they should get the job based on their merits. What will happen if the NFL decides that there aren't enough minority head coaches? Will they make the next team that has a coaching vacancy hire a minority? This is ABSURD!!!!!!!!
What I meant was, will they MAKE the next team that needs a head coach hire a minority....(the forrest thing was funny though)
This just seems like Affirmative Action for the NFL. I don't agree with it in any shape or form. It makes everyone look bad forcing owners to interview candidates that have no shot at the job. It is almost like a pity interview, nobody wants that, just like your quote says. Coaches are hired because of their skill, not the color of their skin. Check out this article. Johnnie Cochran's "Black Coaches in the NFL - Superior Performace, Inferior Opportunities I say hire the best man for the job. Maybe some of these older owners do need a good kick in the a$$ to get them to interview every qualified candidate though.
Absolutely. "The best man for the job" is a concept that has no place in today's America. You know what, I think there's too many African Americans in the NBA. I think we need to institute regulations that will place more white, Hispanic, and Asian players into the ranks. Who cares if African Americans are putting up the best candidates? We need parity. Freedom needs to be regulated before it gets out of hand.
Timing is touchy about these things - refer to Jeff's comments here. Nice one Pole. White Men Can Jump!
The league can't force a team to hire someone. They're only making sure that minority candidates are getting a look even if it's just a courtesy. When Art Shell can't get a head coaching job then something is screwed up. If the best candidates were getting hired then there wouldn't be such a disparity in head coaching. Duh...
How do you judge "the best man for the job" in head coaching? Was Dave Campo the best man to coach the Cowboys with Art Shell available? Hell no. Play on the field isn't nearly as subjective as something like a coaching position. Goodness... wake up.
Sonny...thanks for the links....I found this excerpt to be laughable...does this mean that if you hire a white head coach you are being penalized by not being given a draft pick? What a joke.
Coaches are hired because of their skill, not the color of their skin. The problem is that many people feel that this isn't happening right now. The purpose of this new regulation is to at least help black coaches get their foot in the door. They still won't get hired unless they convince the owners during the interviews that they are the best person for the job. So long as the league doesn't try to regulate who actually gets hired, I don't have a particular problem with this type of thing. (I'm generally against aff action)
Timing... Art Shell works for the NFL...I'm sure if he was interested in coaching, he or his agent would be throwing his hat into the ring given that there are several coaching vacancies.
If it's all about skill then why are there 3 black head coaches out of 117 division one college football programs and 2 black head coach in the NFL? Skill? That's 5 positions out of 149 however on the field it's probably a pretty even 50/50 split in player race.
Just because someone can play a sport, doesn't mean that they can coach it so the whole player to coach race ratio means nothing to me. I wouldn't want Barkley or Deion coaching my team. I have no problem with a resume pool or something that would get the owners to interview all qualified candidates. I'll say it again.
You just said it your self....the best man for the job is SUBJECTIVE. It's in the opinion of the owner. If I'm paying that kind of cash for a franchise, you better have a DAMN good reason to think you can regulate who I hire to run the show. There's only 32 head coaches in the league. That's an AWFUL small sample size relative to the overall population to think you can derive any useful statistics out of. Personally, I can think of several people I would have thought of before Dave Campo...and they ain't all white. But I'm not the dip**** owner. This is nothing more than media driven race card to benefit blacks (despite the occasional slip up with the use of the word "minority"). If anyone was actually getting screwed here, it would be Hispanics, but this story has "African American" pasted all over it wherever you see it. This is a really stupid battle to be fighting too. A totally high profile position that has such a high rate of failure. If this actually pushed some owner into selecting a minority head coach (against his first choice), and the coach failed.....or even possibly....set up for failure, it would be a huge blow to your interests. Maybe you need to wake up, Bubba.
I didn't know he interviewed for that...regardless, you think he wasn;t hired because he is black? Geez
That's the problem, that ratio means nothing to you. The fact that there are 5 black head coaches out of a possible 149 spots is just because the best candidates are being hired. You wouldn't want Barkley or Sanders but Bird and Ditka are just fine because they're qualified, whatever that means.
The NFL is about WINNING. There is an awful lot of money at stake, all of it tied to winning. That being said, I think that an owner will hire the individual that owner believes will give them the best chance at winning...regardless of that person's race.
Shell was interviewed http://espn.go.com/nfl/news/2001/0116/1019284.html He was having problems as the offensive line coach with Atlanta, that doesn't give owners a lot a faith in his ability to run a team.
Bird/Ditka had results didn't they? Look at the personalities and tell me who you would pick as an owner for your coach? Bird or Barkley? It is clear that you won't be happy until everything is equal based upon race, regardless of skill/ability aka "The most qualified Man for the job." So we should do a census every year for all sporting leagues and anytime a racial makeup changes then coaches should be hired/fired accordingly. Right?
