Minority Hiring Policy

The Hogster · Post by **The Hogster** » Fri Feb 10, 2006 5:36 pm

I am curious what you all think about the NFL's minority hiring policy that requires teams to at least interview one minority when hiring Head Coaches for the future?

Is this the best way to open up the opportunities for coaching positions?

I ask this question because the Raiders interview Art Shell everytime there is an opening and many people think that the team has no intention of hiring him and only use him to get around the rule. Well, now that the Raiders top two choices have declined the offer, if Shell is not offered the job, it will confirm that the did in fact use him to get around the rule.

What are your thoughts, and what should be done?

Redskin in Canada · Post by **Redskin in Canada** » Fri Feb 10, 2006 7:42 pm

I have been all my life for the BEST person for the job regardless of the nationality, religion, race, ethnic background or -any- other issue including gender.

HELL, I would support a woman as a head coach if she could take a football team to win!

Discrimination in various ways, not the open kind but the veiled one mainly, is still an issue today almost everywhere around the world.

To be fair, the rule should not even be in place because it is SO stupid not to interview people from all walks of life if they can fit the job.

Art Shell was kicked out of a job too quickly by Al Davis. he knows that and has admitted that stupid mistake.

The questions is not anymore who will Al Davis pick today to coach the Raiders but instead, who CAN pick the Raiders under Al Davis. It is too sad when the owner is the main part of the problem.

I guess not everybody is as lucky as Dan Snyder. :roll:

1niksder · Post by **1niksder** » Fri Feb 10, 2006 11:30 pm

I think the owner of a team should be able to hire anyone that they want. Who he interviews should also be his choice.
A man's ( or woman's) skin color will mean anything when it comes to wins and losses.

No one mentioned this last year when minorities filled many HC jobs. But because none have been hired this year it seemed to be a major story for ESPN and others for a good to weeks. Maybe all the good ones were taken.

With the youth movement taken by owners this year, maybe there should be a rule that at least one interviewee should be over the age of 40 :lol:

Here's one that would fix both Rules

tcwest10 · Post by **tcwest10** » Wed Feb 15, 2006 11:48 pm

Yeah, really. I'd have to see something tangible to show me that people were excluded from HC positions because somebody else didn't like the way they look.
I think that the whole idea is kinda ridiculous.

1niksder · Post by **1niksder** » Thu Feb 16, 2006 2:20 am

tcwest10 wrote:Yeah, really. I'd have to see something tangible to show me that people were excluded from HC positions because somebody else didn't like the way they look.
I think that the whole idea is kinda ridiculous.

It's BS, if the owner has it in his mind who he wants to hire he can just line up four or five guys and run them thruogh the process and then hire the guy he wanted in the 1st place.

But it fills space in the off-season

Irn-Bru · Post by **Irn-Bru** » Thu Feb 16, 2006 11:07 am

Like the best of rules and regulations, it has good intentions, it doesn't do its job, it creates needless contraversy at times, and it unecessarily burdens people. The fines are annoying, because they only fine managers that didn't hide their true intentions well enough. . .but I guess they've got enough money that this isn't the biggest tragedy in the world.

I'd say that the biggest problem right now isn't that owners are racists, but rather (as everyone's already pointed out) that owners already know who they are going to hire 4 months before they fire their own coach. But I'm not sure.

And I seem to agree with everyone in this thread so far. I'm sure a dissenting opinion or two is on the way.

JansenFan · Post by **JansenFan** » Thu Feb 16, 2006 12:01 pm

The problem with this rule was illustrated by the Detroit Lions. Everyone in the world knew they were hiring Mooch, including the minority candidates. When Millen called to set up interviews with minority candidates, they asked if he would consider them, or if they were to be interviewed because of the rule. He honestly answered that the team was going to hire Mooch, and that the interviews were a formality, and as a result, all of the minority candidates declined, yet the team was still fined $200,000.

If I was asked to a job interview, and I knew that it was only because a fat, white guy had to be interviewed, I think I would pass.

Skinsfan55 · Post by **Skinsfan55** » Thu Feb 16, 2006 3:18 pm

Yeah, I actually find the POLICY itself racist.

I think we're in a day and age now where if you're a good football coach, it doesn't matter what color you are, you'll get a shot.

When you force teams to interview minorities it's like you're saying these minority coaches couldn't make it without any help.

I say do away with those policies.

UK Skins Fan · Post by **UK Skins Fan** » Thu Feb 16, 2006 5:00 pm

I believe the policy is nonsense.

1niksder · Post by **1niksder** » Thu Feb 16, 2006 7:45 pm

Skinsfan55 wrote:Yeah, I actually find the POLICY itself racist.

I say do away with those policies.

I wouldn't call it racist but it's damn close. If they do away with it, the NFL will again be accused of doing nothing to promote the hiring of minorities. :idea:

It's a classic Catch 22.

After all was said and done almost one thrid of the NFL Head coaches were fired - 10% of that group was a minority. Now all of those postions have been filled - 20% of these guys are minorities. Seems to me that someone made a News story were there wasn't one.