"Rooney Rule" in College Sports?

[48.7 is Approximately 49 Times Better Than You]

Oregon's Governor, Ted Kulongoski (who I, in the fourth grade, answered his question about the significance of his photo that showed Cal Ripken Jr. and Lou Gherig sitting together [photoshopped] correctly while in his "secret" office at the capitol), passed a bill today requiring all public universities in Oregon to interview a minority before hiring a coach or an athletic director (which is essentially a copy of the NFL's rule), which will take effect on the 27th, if I remember correctly. For those unfamiliar with the NFL's Rooney Rule, wikipedia will educate you.

The Rooney Rule, established in 2003, requires National Football League teams to interview minority candidates for head coaching and senior football operations opportunities. The rule is named for Dan Rooney, the owner of the Pittsburgh Steelers and the chairman of the league's diversity committee, and is often cited as an example of affirmative action.

Since the Rooney Rule was established, several NFL franchises have hired minority head coaches (including the Steelers themselves, who hired Mike Tomlin before their 2007 season, while Rooney himself contends that Tomlin's hiring did not result from the Rule). At the start of the 2006 season, the overall percentage of African American coaches had jumped to 22%, up from 6% prior to the Rooney Rule. Even so, the policy is still debated and no team has stated whether the Rooney Rule contributed to the hiring of a minority.

The rule does not apply if an assistant coach has language in his contract guaranteeing him the starting job in case of an opening. This was the case when Mike Martz took over as head coach of the St. Louis Rams before the 2000 season. Also, the rule does not apply if the assistant coach taking over the head position is a minority, as was the case with Mike Singletary and the San Francisco 49ers in late 2008.

In 2003, the NFL fined the Detroit Lions $200,000 for failure to interview minority candidates for the team's vacant head coaching job. After Marty Mornhinweg was fired, the Lions immediately hired former San Francisco 49ers head coach Steve Mariucci to replace him without interviewing any other candidates. The Lions claimed they attempted to interview other candidates but that the minority candidates withdrew from interviews, believing Mariucci's hiring was inevitable.

Recently, several legal scholars have advocated for extending the Rooney Rule to college football, where the number of minority head coaches hovers around 6%.

As of June 15, 2009, Rooney Rule requirements now apply to all searches for senior football operations positions within the NFL, regardless of a team's title for that position.

My question is: do you think that this rule is necessary, whether in college or higher levels? I don't. I honestly cannot wrap my mind around the idea that a team would forgo the best interest of the team so as to higher a white candidate for a job who is less qualified than a minority. These are not the 1960's. I'm all for equality and equal opportunity, but I don't see why this is necessary. If I am the athletic director at the University of Oregon, I shouldn't have to waste my time interviewing a black guy when I know Chip Kelly is who I'm hiring.

 

[BooCocky]

I don't know but I can see how this works. I remember when coach Cowher retired and the Steelers were in the process of finding a new coach and we were practically set on Whisenhunt or Russ Grimm, and at the last moment we brought in Mike Tomlin and he just lit up the room. He was a brilliant, well educated man, and he was young, just like our two previous coaches since 1970. I just think it's all about fairness and equality...

 

[ztwhite]

If it's all about fairness and equality, why aren't other minority races given consideration ?? There aren't any Chinese coaches in the NFL of NCAA. What about Korean head coaches ??

While this may sound stupid with only football in the discussion, why haven't these types of individuals been considered for other sports like baseball or basketball ??

There are more foreign born players in MLB than there are African-American players, yet every coach is either black or white, or better yet, been born in the US.

In basketball, every year, more and more foreign born players are being drafted and signed to lucrative contracts in the NBA, yet there are no predominantly foreign head coaches in either the NBA or NCAA.

Equality is defined as the quality or state of being equal. Our Constitution protects this definition to its very core, based on the premise of equal rights to all, regardless of color, race, sex or religion. Our Constitution doesn't stipulate that an independent employer, whether it's the University of Oregon or the Oregon Street McDonald's, has to interview and consider hiring anyone it doesn't want to.

As a politician, telling an organization or a company how to run their business affairs doesn't promote equality, it promotes a dictatorship and an abuse of power.

The same analogy could be surmised for NFL commissioner, Roger "Fidell" Goodell. Why does he believe he has the right to restrict an individual who's good at his job from making a paycheck ?? Michael Vick paid his debt to society, based on our government's standards, which are based on the Constitution, yet Goodell still believes he should not be allowed to return to his job and earn a living. What gives Goodell the right to suspend any player, without pay, as long as our country's legal system deals with that individual according to the law laid down by our governing fathers ??

The power of equality has been misinterpreted for many years and unfortunately, its definition doesn't seem to have changed.

 

[HBK-aholic]

Well, this is stupid. In theory it's all about the "Well we're not racist, we interviewed this guy". Why does colour come into it at all? If someone got an interview based solely on the fact they were white, there'd be uproar. Yet here they're actively looking for people who are a minority? It makes no sense. If a minority guy is good enough for the job, he should be given the job. If the person doing the hiring is racist, all he'll do is not offer him the job regardless of this rule.

 

[Stormtrooper]

If it's all about fairness and equality, why aren't other minority races given consideration ?? There aren't any Chinese coaches in the NFL of NCAA. What about Korean head coaches ??

The rule only states minorities, I believe. The only reason it is thought of as made for African-Americans is because African Americans are the only minority that plays football. You can count the number of Asian players in the NFL on 1 hand, and there are no qualified asian folks in the league for coaching opportunities.

While this may sound stupid with only football in the discussion, why haven't these types of individuals been considered for other sports like baseball or basketball ??

They are, actually. African Americans are considered for managerial jobs in baseball and basketball. The only sport that had a problem apparently with hiring minorities was the NFL.

There are more foreign born players in MLB than there are African-American players, yet every coach is either black or white, or better yet, been born in the US.

The Mariners, this past off season, became the first team to hire an Asian American manager (Don Wakamatsu). The reason no foreign-born people become managers in America is because of the Language barrier. That may sound bad, but remember that coaches need to talk to the players, and if they don't speak the same language, they have a hard time talking.

In basketball, every year, more and more foreign born players are being drafted and signed to lucrative contracts in the NBA, yet there are no predominantly foreign head coaches in either the NBA or NCAA.

See Above, the language barrier stops them from coaching in the States.

Equality is defined as the quality or state of being equal. Our Constitution protects this definition to its very core, based on the premise of equal rights to all, regardless of color, race, sex or religion. Our Constitution doesn't stipulate that an independent employer, whether it's the University of Oregon or the Oregon Street McDonald's, has to interview and consider hiring anyone it doesn't want to.

Thats right, but the NFL was not giving minorities equal rights, by not even allowing them to interview for a job, when they were more qualified then the people who get the jobs. that is where the Rooney Rule comes in.

As a politician, telling an organization or a company how to run their business affairs doesn't promote equality, it promotes a dictatorship and an abuse of power.

That's why the rule was established free of politicians. Politicians just made sure that a law was in place saying that a business (any business) can't exclude minorities from interviews. The Rooney Rule was named after Pittsburgh Steelers owner Dan Rooney (one of, if not the, most respected owners in the league), who pushed for this rule because he realized the problem wasn't going to be solved any other way. Unfortunately some teams still make a mockery of the process, and bring in people who qualify for the rule and setting them up to fail.

The same analogy could be surmised for NFL commissioner, Roger "Fidell" Goodell. Why does he believe he has the right to restrict an individual who's good at his job from making a paycheck ?? Michael Vick paid his debt to society, based on our government's standards, which are based on the Constitution, yet Goodell still believes he should not be allowed to return to his job and earn a living. What gives Goodell the right to suspend any player, without pay, as long as our country's legal system deals with that individual according to the law laid down by our governing fathers ??

All I want to say on this Vick topic is Goodell met yesterday with him, and is likely to conditionally reinstate him. And I think Goodell has done a great job of repairing the image of the league (which was being tarnished by the thugs who were not being punished before he hot here).

 

[jokeboy624]

The same analogy could be surmised for NFL commissioner, Roger "Fidell" Goodell. Why does he believe he has the right to restrict an individual who's good at his job from making a paycheck ?? Michael Vick paid his debt to society, based on our government's standards, which are based on the Constitution, yet Goodell still believes he should not be allowed to return to his job and earn a living. What gives Goodell the right to suspend any player, without pay, as long as our country's legal system deals with that individual according to the law laid down by our governing fathers ??

The power of equality has been misinterpreted for many years and unfortunately, its definition doesn't seem to have changed.

This isn't the same thing. Roger Goodell was hired to govern the NFL and look out for it's best interests. Any company you go to has a set of rules and guidelines that are in place to make sure that the company is protected and is at its most efficient. The Constitution doesn't say that employees at the same company can't date, but some companies have that rule in place.

So if Goodell doesn't feel that allowing Vick to come back to the NFL is good for it, then that's his call, that's his job. It has nothing to do with the government or the Constitution, simply what is best for the NFL. Mind you, I think Goodell makes a good decision for every two bad ones so...

Onto the topic at hand, it is a stupid and pointless law. Companies will always have a first choice and more often than not hire their first choice. Requiring them to interview someone not based on qualifications is a waste of time and resources. I see the intent and I respect it, but the execution is flawed.

 

[Slyfox696]

I always find it humorous when those with legal power choose to fight racial discrimination with racial discrimination. How come there's no rule mandating that an NFL team draft at least two white people every draft? How come the Rooney Rule doesn't say that an NFL team MUST interview at least one white candidate? How come Oregon isn't instituting a rule that at least 30% of a football team's starters have to be white? Don't whites deserve the opportunity to play as well? I love when people use racism to fight racism.

If you can't tell, I'm completely against this token interview for minorities. It's completely racist, and I have no time for racism.


EDIT: I also find it appalling that schools like Oregon graduate half of the players that play for them, but the state is worried about being racist. Shame too, I thought collegiate sports were about doing the best things for kids. Obviously not. Nope, we're much more concerned with instituting a rule which is tantamount to adult racism. Good job Oregon.

 

[X]

I find it hilarious Sly that you guys seem to think that sports and the world in general holds every race on the same pedestal and judges them by the same set of criteria. Is the "Rooney Rule" technically a racist idea? Sure. But that doesn't change the fact that things like this and Affirmative Action are necessary to level out the playing field. Whether we like to admit it or not, African-Americans are still routinely the victims of prejudices, intentional or not. Not sure where this perfect world you guys live in where there's no racism and everyone is on equal footing, but I'd sure like to get some directions to that place. I'll continue to live in the REAL world, the one where just a few weeks ago in Philadelphia 65 black children weren't allowed entrance to a swimming pool because they were "too dark".

I see no problem with implementing the Rooney Rule. It's only an interview, they're not forcing you to hire someone based on the color of their skin. It's not like an interview costs a team a bunch of cash to set up or something. It's harmless.

 

[jokeboy624]

Does this law really change anything? I'd say it's more of a window dressing than anything else. Hey, look at me, I'm making a law that promotes equality, I'm very progressive, vote for me next term. This law does nothing to promote equality. Sure the Athletic Directors will schedule these interviews and they will conduct them, but that doesn't mean more minority coaches will be hired. It's show-boating on the part of the Governor. And it does cost these programs money. It costs them time to interview, it costs them time away from the field and costs time away from coaches getting to know their new team.

Plus, would you really want to get an interview because you were black? Or would you want to get an interview based on your merits, skills and achievements? Hell, a better system would be that every candidate for the job has to submit a resume without a name on it, but get a number. From there, the AD picks the 5 most qualified or that fit their criteria best, then the number is called by an outside party for an interview.

 

[Slyfox696]

I find it hilarious Sly that you guys seem to think that sports and the world in general holds every race on the same pedestal and judges them by the same set of criteria. Is the "Rooney Rule" technically a racist idea? Sure. But that doesn't change the fact that things like this and Affirmative Action are necessary to level out the playing field. Whether we like to admit it or not, African-Americans are still routinely the victims of prejudices, intentional or not. Not sure where this perfect world you guys live in where there's no racism and everyone is on equal footing, but I'd sure like to get some directions to that place. I'll continue to live in the REAL world, the one where just a few weeks ago in Philadelphia 65 black children weren't allowed entrance to a swimming pool because they were "too dark".

I see no problem with implementing the Rooney Rule. It's only an interview, they're not forcing you to hire someone based on the color of their skin. It's not like an interview costs a team a bunch of cash to set up or something. It's harmless.

So, wait...you're saying an implemented rule that is inherently racist, which forces a token interview for a team who has no desire to interview a minority is now going "to level out the playing field"? Are you serious?

If anything, this rule is even more racist than NOT having the rule. It's like you're patting minorities on the head and saying "us big powerful white guys are going to put on a facade to try and make you poor minorities feel better". It's patronizing, in every sense of the word. And, when you figure in the fact that the rule itself is racist, how in the hell does this even begin to level out the playing field?

The fact is that this rule should be stricken, because it is a racist rule, in which the spirit of the law does not need to be enforced. Furthermore, as I said before, Oregon has around a 53% graduation rate for its football team, but we're worried about adults getting jobs?

I guess whatever will make the most money, right?

 

[X]

So, wait...you're saying an implemented rule that is inherently racist, which forces a token interview for a team who has no desire to interview a minority is now going "to level out the playing field"? Are you serious?

The majority of coaches are white. The majority of coaches interviewed are white. By definition, wouldn't including more black candidates "level the playing field" so to speak?

If anything, this rule is even more racist than NOT having the rule. It's like you're patting minorities on the head and saying "us big powerful white guys are going to put on a facade to try and make you poor minorities feel better". It's patronizing, in every sense of the word.

Than why do African American's overwhelming approve of it?

And, when you figure in the fact that the rule itself is racist, how in the hell does this even begin to level out the playing field?

See above for my explanation of how it levels the playing field. I mean, if you only want to interview 2 people for your job and you were originally going to choose two white people, and now you're forced to make one of those people a black person, by definition does that not "level the playing field"?

I agree with you though, the rule is racist. It has to be in order to give more opportunities to African Americans. You know who else is technically racist? The entire NAACP. Should we get rid of them as well? Shit, let's get rid of the Negro College Fund as well while we're at it, that's racist too isn't it?

 

[klunderbunker]

I see the point, but I don't think it's needed. I remember when the Lions hired Mariucchi or however you spell that, they made it clear that he was their guy, plain and simple. Instead of being able to hire him, they had to go through two weeks worth of interviews to satisfy the NFL. If the Lions already knew who they were going to pick, I'd think it's almost insulting to the other people that are brought in, regardless of skin color, to have to sit there, knowing that no matter what they say they're not going to get the job. Yes, the idea of leveling the playing field is certainly a good idea and something that should be done if the coaches with the talent of multiple races are out there, which I'm sure they are. However, I don't like the fact that teams are required to do this. If they know who they want to hire, then let them hire that person. If they're not sure and want to hold interviews, then maybe this rule would be fine. I just don't see the need if there's no point in the team officials' minds.

 

[Slyfox696]

The majority of coaches are white. The majority of coaches interviewed are white. By definition, wouldn't including more black candidates "level the playing field" so to speak?

Only if the interviews are legitimate, of which I would suspect most aren't.

Than why do African American's overwhelming approve of it?

For the same reason we re-elected George Bush in 2004. People are mindless drones who would rather follow with the opinion of the masses than think for themselves.

See above for my explanation of how it levels the playing field. I mean, if you only want to interview 2 people for your job and you were originally going to choose two white people, and now you're forced to make one of those people a black person, by definition does that not "level the playing field"?

No, because you're still going to interview the 2 white people. And you only want one of the 2 white people. You only interview the black person to avoid penalties. It's asinine to think this has a positive effect.

I agree with you though, the rule is racist. It has to be in order to give more opportunities to African Americans.

Xfear, you above all others, I never would have expected this from. Since when has solving a problem consisted of exasperating that very problem? Do we solve world hunger by preventing more people from eating? It's silly.

You know who else is technically racist? The entire NAACP.

Agree whole-heartedly. But, they're not disguising their racism, everyone knows what they stand for. Furthermore, the NAACP isn't responsible for people's careers outside of their own entity. The NCAA, the NFL and the state of Oregon are. See the difference?

Should we get rid of them as well? Shit, let's get rid of the Negro College Fund as well while we're at it, that's racist too isn't it?

Not at all. Let's just open up so ALL races can receive that money. If we're going to do this equality thing, then let's do it right.

Again, I ask...how does being racist solve racism?

 

[Tenta]

I don't see the matter of it involving racism, or for that matter picking out someone to circumvent a rule. I may be naïve in saying such a thing, but I just don't see, in Oregon, a state that is deeply surrounded by racial turmoil and discrimination. Now, if we're discussing areas such as the SEC, or pehaps around the Sun Belt, I could see imposing such a rule, as such establishments are mainly ruled by white, well off men, who grew up in times either during or before the Civil Rights Movement. There, I suppose I could see such an issue with the matter of race being involved, and I see exactly where X is coming from. From a historical standpoint, Athletic Directors and other high establishment men at universities have always been white, older gentlemen whom may or may not agree with such actions of The Civil Rights movement. But I think the problem more lies in the establishment of said Athletic Directors, and positions circulating those men in power. I would be all for seeing more African American ADs around campuses, and feel that it would shake up the power struggle that has affected African Americans since public universities have opened their doors.

Now then, as it pertains to head coaches, I feel that this is backlash in regards to the lack of minority coaches within the NCAA football system. Consider the following fact, taken by the website Black Voices:

A recent study by The Institute for Diversity and Ethics in Sport at the University of Central Florida has shown that African-American head coaches in college football are the lowest it's been since 1993. With the recent firings of Ty Willingham at Washington and Ron Prince at Kansas State, out of the 119 NCAA football schools, there are only four Black coaches left: Miami's Randy Shannon, Mississippi State's Sylvester Croom, Buffalo's Turner Gill and Houston's Kevin Sumlin

Now, when you consider that this is out of 119 possible job openings, there does seem to be some type of issue in the manner. This, I feel, does have something to do with only a small fraction of college coaches being African American. Am I saying black people are being discriminated? I'm saying there's a possible chance, especially when one considers that a majority of the players that come through the NCAA streamline happen to be Black. As for Oregon... I can't detect any sense of racism in the matter. they like the guy, and apparently, they're set out to make him the coach of their program. If a school has a guy in line, then surely they could go at least through the typical hiring process, and see if they really feel the guy is completely qualified for the position. After all, what harm can it really do the NCAA?

 

[jokeboy624]

When was that article written? Because I can tell you at this point it is inaccurate because Ron English is the head football coach at Eastern Michigan University. Not a great football school, but he is African American and it is a NCAA football program. When it comes to special interest websites you have to make sure they haven't slanted the story or information for their own personal gains. I'm not saying that there shouldn't be more minority coaches in the NCAA or at any level for that matter, but I think this is the wrong approach. It is degrading to know that you only got an interview because you were black.

I like the program that the NCAA is running now. They invited potential coaches to a Coaches Academy to help train them to be better coaches. This helps to get their names out there and get them hired based on their skills and qualifications, and not some interview system that is complete bunk.