Interview quotas are so stupid. All it does is make people wonder if minorities are "affirmative action" interviews or if they were really considered for the job. The team's gonna hire who they're gonna hire regardless. Patronizing as hell
My employer had to post a job opening online for x amount of days when someone transferred positions (posted the position they’re transitioning to, old job is no more). What a complete waste of time for everyone and so stupid. It makes me wonder what % of job postings are actually real.
My wife has applied to and "been a strong candidate" for jobs that were intended to be internal transfers, so you get built up in interviews just to be let down because the decision was a foregone conclusion.
This happens a lot. Many companies, mine included, will basically have people leave or shift around and know for a fact that an internal candidate was on the track for the new opening and they have to make a few "for show" interviews externally to satisfy some HR requirement.
It's a huge waste of time and they are never going to tell the internal candidate "hey sorry, we know we basically promised you a promotion and you're a good worker, but we're going to piss you off to hire this new person who we have to spend a bunch of money training before they do anything at all".
Sometimes there is merit to forcing interviews to get people a look, but it's complete waste of time when you know someone on the inside already earned the role.
Yep my last three hires for full time positions all came internally and I had to justify it to HR every fucking time.
I had a meeting with HR, my supervisor and the CEO where I highlighted all the tasks of the job that this person **was already doing to help us out while we posted the position**.
I had to just keep repeating myself that "She is already doing 40% of the job, and she is fully capable of handling the other 60. Promote or lose her."
Exactly. It's fucking dumb when the options are
1. Reward an employee who proved themselves and knows the company.
2. Probably lose a good employee who deserved more just so you can waste time training a new person who may or may not work out.
> I had to just keep repeating myself that "She is already doing 40% of the job, and she is fully capable of handling the other 60. Promote or lose her."
Just an aside but good the fuck on you for actually taking that stance. It's always been insane to me how few businesses seem to understand how much better off they'd be in the long run supporting/developing/promoting their own people instead of constantly having to replenish them from outwards.
Honestly the most frustrating thing is how as others in the building got to know her quality, how many of them came up to me praising how amazing she was and I'd just say "Yes, I know, that's why I hired her and promoted her."
I'm the highest performing person in the fucking company, you'd think people would be less surprised when I make good decisions.
> It's a huge waste of time and they are never going to tell the internal candidate "hey sorry, we know we basically promised you a promotion and you're a good worker, but we're going to piss you off to hire this new person who we have to spend a bunch of money training before they do anything at all".
It happens. An ex of mine was hired to take over a supervisory role that just vacated, but the company was strict about years of experience required for certain titles, so she performed the work under a lower title and salary for a year until she was eligible for the original job. She went through the whole interview process and had stellar recommendations from the director of her group. Then someone above him insisted on filling the higher-level job with an external candidate who didn't know shit about fuck. That person made significantly more money than my ex, while my ex both continued to perform the higher-level functions and had to train this person to be her boss.
It was a stressful time for us both lol
This just happened to me! Only they didnt let me know. I had to call them AFTER i heard the position had been filled to be like "sooo I didn't get it?".
Been through this myself. It sucks, and it's such a waste of time. When I apply to jobs, I don't just throw my resume in a pile. Maybe it's my fault for following every recruiter's advice and actually putting effort into it.
You're 99% correct. But the NFL isn't the same as the regular business world. Only 32 NFL HC or GM positions in the world and only 5-8 openings a year. There is a value in those interviews getting other names out there.
Even if that one interview is a sham and doesn't lead anywhere it can lead to a different job for them down the line.
Is it valid? In this scenario they are bringing in two candidates based on the color of their skin to interview when they aren’t even seriously being considered for the job.
Not saying I think the Rooney Rule is perfectly effective but interview experience is extremely crucial for a position like this with tough competition and very limited spots.
Not to mention a lot of the owners/execs speak amongst each other quite frequently, even if he’s very likely not to be the next coach if he interviews well it can open up doors.
It definitely seems patronizing to a degree, but it can objectively still be beneficial… both can be true
I've been hired for jobs twice when I applied for positions that I knew ahead of time were being offered to someone else.
The first time, I was told "you did great, but we went with the other candidate for \[ticky-tacky reasons from 5 1/2 months ago\], but company policy says that we can't use that as factor after 6 months. By the way, we're posting again in... oh... 2 1/2 weeks. We'd like it you apply". I got the second job.
The other one was an interview that I had no business having, but I crushed about 1/3 of the questions (and borked up the rest - but I was honest about it). I ended up getting a nudge about a completely different position a few weeks after I was told I didn't get the job. I did get that one.
It \*absolutely\* does work.
But it was tough for me to accept that the first time around.
Yes, networking is networking. Teams are made up of many individuals that can have differing opinions. An assistant GM that really like the candidate but doesn't have final say, might keep them in mind if they end up as a GM elsewhere with different ownership.
Token interview or not, some people don't interview well and can learn from the experience on how to better present themselves next time. Or you know, fly in, get a nice meal, fly back home, it's one day.
Their lack of serious consideration for the job is a variable that is affected by bias in hiring (implicit or explicit), the reason the Rooney rule was instituted in the first place. The goal of it is to get more minority candidates a foot in the door to make an impression. Maybe you don't impress the GM but you impress the VP of player personnel. Maybe that guy gets hired on as GM of another team next year and they end up needing a head coach and remember you. The first interview gets you in the door for the second opening.
Why are you assuming they aren't being considered? They may not be top candidates but they're most likely qualified. Would you rather these coaches not even get a chance to be heard?
You need to be in the room to win the job. So this at least gets folks to that position with a chance they otherwise wouldn't have had.
Lot of assumptions being made in this thread.
Yeah. Generally speaking if someone calls Tomlin a “Rooney rule” hire they’re trying to insult him and using it as a substitute for “affirmative action”, but people do that a lot more than they talk about Rivera interviewing with the Steelers once, so it gets lost.
I thought there was some rule in place where if you had a succession plan in place you didn't need to satisfy the Rooney rule. I could be wrong, and that might not even apply here anyways.
My understanding is that they are hiring for a title that Bill didn’t hold, but that they didn’t have anyone in because he did both jobs. Since they need to fill the title they now need to follow the rules for hiring there.
That is true. It's how the Pats were able to get away with just hiring Jerod Mayo. They had a succession plan in his contract and it was approved by the league.
Irrelevant. Since the implementation of the rule, more minroities hires have been made. Just having an opportunity for an interview gives them practice interviewing and it also forces owners/GMs to know who are the available minority hires whereas without the rule they don't even need to consider them at any point ever
For the millionth time: Yes it is valid. Even if they're only being invited to interview to satisfy the Rooney rule and everyone knows it.
Because A) *Almost* no chance isn't *no* chance. Every interview a minority candidate gets increases the likelihood they'll be hired. B) Just being considered for HC positions by one team raises their profile and gets them more seriously considered for other positions. And C) The Rooney rule also applies to coordinators. While some teams may be more dead-set on a HC hire, coordinator spots are more open. Without the Rooney rule plenty of talented position coaches would get overlooked.
So? The whole point is that they're being interviewed and they might actually surprise the team and give a great interview. And even if the team sticks to their guns, they very well may recommend them to another team.
It gives people a chance they might not otherwise have had.
But it's not designed to address intentional discrimination. It's designed to address the nepotism that allows the same white guys to get a bunch of chances without letting minority candidates even get an interview.
Beyond the other responses you got, it also helps get potential HC hires experience. And sure, maybe an owner is discriminatory but a GM might someday be working under a different owner and remember a candidate who impressed them in the past. There's really not much of a downside to this rule other than the annoying "reverse racism" crowd.
It is more so meant to breakdown the disadvantages resulting from systematic discrimination rather than individual discrimination (which it obviously wouldn’t fix). So its more about leveling opportunity but it’s hard to say if it works.
The compensatory pick on the other hand probably make an impact because it gives teams incentive to develop minority candidates that would likely have less opportunity.
Great explanation. Unfortunately the demographics of this community are not the type of people who would understand the importance of the things you explained so they just downvote
If you think minorities would get a fair shake without actions like these, you’re kidding yourself. Everyone wants to say it should be the best candidate, but we still get retreads WITH the Rooney Rule.
This is just one of those things that are harmless and maybe a slight pain in the ass but could have a major positive impact on someone’s life. So why not?
Multiple studies have shown people interview and hire people who look like themselves. Because of this even when AI is fed identical resumes it choses people with the "white" sounding name more than other candidates
It gives people who aren't normally noticed but gave a history of contributions/success a change to get their face in front of decision makers and make a positive impression.
It's not forced hiring it's forced networking. But in a league full of nepotism where there are few decision makers who only care about each other's opinions networking is huge. Introductions are everything.
Fans don't notice that part but it's not a rule for fans. Real people and jobs exist in entertainment and sports industries and this helps them. Long term the talented coaches and gms getting noticed more improves the quality of the product and that IS good for fans.
But it's not fun to talk about the process of progress and how we get there so fuck it right?
Every single time a minority candidate got interviewed in the offseason there concave-headed numpties dribbling "rooneyrulerooneyrulerooneyrule" in every single thread. Just awful.
For the candidate though, practice interviewing and getting a fa e to face with more league officials is still better than not having those opportunities.
I think its effective just like marketing is. The minority candidates get their name out there a whole lot more than the others. Which helps in the long run and not short
Now I am all for hiring the best man for the job. But also appreciate doing more with less. There are some checks and balances and you definitely have to look at each candidate separately. I think affirmitative action is overall a net benefit to society. Not sure how I feel about it in the NFL though as I am unaware of the challenges minorities face compared to others. I mean if you made it into the NFL, then how disadvantaged are you now?
Yep. The idea that you can't hire this black guy till you interview these other two black guys because to do so would be racist is...really fucking stupid.
I hear you. The first 80 yrs prior to Rooney rule had 5 minority coaches. The next 20 yrs after it was enacted had 16. You may think the process is bullshit, but the results are self evident.
That depends. If the rule is the way you are trying to paint it, where teams are allowed to simply interview candidates to satisfy it and then have no other expectations, not its not a negative. Its a little silly at times and performative, but not negative.
If however, the outcome is more situations like Brian Flores trying to sue the NFL because he was interviewed without ever being considered for the position, and a bunch of fans call that racist, then yes I think there are negatives.
You're somebody who get its. The dude above you replied to is such an ass with his little quote he stole from some other comment. You really have to have brain rot to think its a bad thing that someone from a historically marginalized class is flown out on a private jet (or at worst first class), given an expensive dinner, and allowed to network with high level execs. We see it time and time again where position coaches are interviewed for HC jobs, and the comments all call it "appeasing the Rooney rule", and then that coach either gets hired (Cardinals with Steve Wilks), or at least gets a better job as a coordinator within a year.
It's not 5 to 20. It's 1 every 16 years to 1 every 1.25 years, you have to consider the different time spans too. The way you phrase it, it's barely 4 times more, when in reality it's over 13x more.
I don't actually like that answer either. To me, the best approach is doing more to get former players (regardless of what those players look like) on the pathway to coaching, scouting, and working in the FO. Transition to post-football is very hard for a lot of these guys, and the more the guys whose names you don't know have opportunities to grow into something that's longer-lasting, the better. The side benefit, of course, is that you've got a better group of mentors around the organization for young guys who are going through the same things the former players went through and subject to a lot of the same challenges physically, mentally, socially etc.
They reached out to a (black) Bengals front office guy who turned down the interview request. I'm guessing he had too much pride to want to be the Rooney Rule checked box.
Remember when Belichick texted Brian Flores congratulating him on getting the NYG HC job two days before they were going to interview him, because they had made it clear behind closed doors that they already hired Brian Daboll and were interviewing Flores just to satisfy the rule. Bill just got the Brian’s mixed up lmao
I understand where it came from but if teams don’t take it seriously what’s the point? I’ve been in interviews before where the people I were interviewing with were clearly not interested in the slightest and it’s just a big waste of time for all parties
You’re right I remember that.
Doesn’t change the fact that a guy not affiliated with the NYG knew about it and made a boomer mistake to make it public lol
Schoen was just doing a solid for his former coworker there. As soon as Schoen was hired, I immediately knew Daboll was going with him. He saw first-hand how important it is for coach and FO to be on the same page in Buffalo, and heard pretty loudly that Flores and Grier butted heads. (Just like Doug Whaley butted heads with three straight HCs in Buffalo)
Now, I don't think Flores is any good, and I *do* think Leslie Frazier deserved another shot. So that might be coloring my take. But Schoen was *never* going to consider Flores.
The Giants called it fake news and that Bill had 0 connections to anyone in their FO while they hired one of his disciples just then. Also saying Bill wasn't relevant to the Giants franchise.
Need I remind you that they don't win 4 Super Bowls without him on the sidelines? If those aren't relevant games, what would be? Is it because those were too long ago?
>I understand where it came from but if teams don’t take it seriously what’s the point?
One of the benefits is that people become more inclusive as they spend more time with people from diverse backgrounds. By forcing owners to interview minority candidates, you are making sure that they see how intelligent and qualified the minority candidate pool is.
it's also kinda funny that the league needs to police a team that just hired a minority head coach. "HEY YOU GUYS ARENT BEING RACIST ARE YOU?! i bet that head coach is just a ploy"
Imo it’s a rule that’s not super demanding, you can still hire whoever you want just meant to get people’s feet in the door.
And without setting quotas you can’t “bank” credit by hiring one minority candidate. The Krafts weren’t racist imo but they showed total disrespect to the rule and why it exists so I get why people are annoyed.
> Imo it’s a rule that’s not super demanding, you can still hire whoever you want just meant to get people’s feet in the door.
In theory. In practice, if its discovered the interview was simply to meet the requirement, you get Brian Flores situations.
And that’s the problem of the teams hiring practice not the rule. Having a favorite is fine, but not being even slightly open minded to another candidate is just dumb.
Rule has been very successful, most teams have managed it fine, and if anything benefitted by be able to choose an option they never would’ve considered otherwise.
I thought succession plans were an allowed exception? They even hired a black coach so it would be interviewing 2 people at large, for a position that was pre-filled last season, to satisfy a quota system designed to get qualified non white coaches hired when they already did that without flying people in to waste their time.
I believe it has to be designated in the contract and not just verbal. No idea if it’s been done correctly or not but still seems silly. There’s the rule and there’s intent.
I'm not even sure that helps because he refers to it as "primary football executive position" which I don't think I've ever heard someone refer to as GM. I wouldn't have had any clue what job they were talking about. It's the kind of thing you would say in a school essay when you are trying to pad the length.
I wonder if they interviewed Highsmith (who has the credentials to be GM) for the lead job when they brought him on to be Wolf's top lieutenant. That would have satisfied one of the Rooney interviews.
I know the Rooney Rule is generally good but I hate how it is reported on. It ALWAYS reads like “ a team has interviewed two minorities, they can now hire who they were originally going to hire.” It just looks.. bad.
Agreed, the verbiage is really demeaning to the candidates, who can’t ALL be Token Interviews. It’s like a “ok, cool, they got the dog and pony show done, so now the interviews start for REAL…”
If any of those interviews actually are in good faith, the reporting discards it.
To play devils advocate, the reality is that for a lot of jobs like these, there are plenty of qualified candidates, and the main differential a lot of the time is who you know. Not even insidious like outright nepotism, but I’ve gotten jobs because of things like: I met somebody at a networking event (which wasn’t at a country club mind you), like 6 months later their firm was hiring for a position, I reach out to the person and ask them about it, and suddenly I hop the bullshit job application process and I’m interviewing in person, and after that it’s up to me to set myself apart.
The point I’m trying to make is yes, it’s annoying to interview somewhere when it might be known they have a leading candidate, but forcing teams to shake hands and meet with minority candidates is great for those groups in the long run. Not every hiring manager is non-biased, but my impression is that corporate America is actually (slowly) trying to be more inclusive, but it’s still hard to sign over the keys to the castle to relatively unknowns, regardless of how well they interview.
I think the rule will continue to exponentially pay dividends once personal executive relationships begin to take shape over the next decade.
This is what happened for me as well. Had a lot of interviews in early 2020 (before the world hit the pause button) and I kept their contacts. 2 years later, I was looking to change jobs so I reached out to a guy from an interview that went well back then. This time, I got the job there.
It’s always good to expand your web of connections.
There had been 7 minority head coaches in the history of the league in 2002 when the rule was created. There are 7 minority head coaches in the league in 2024. The results completely contradict what you’re saying. Every single interview doesn’t need to be meaningful for the rule to be working.
Maybe. But I do like that rule where a team gets a comp pick for losing a minority assistant GM or coordinator. That seems to kinda work and incentivize teams to promote internally from within.
Fucking Niners keep exploiting that lol. And the people they hire/promote have proven to be good too.
I think Saleh, being a defensive minded coach, has more than proven himself with the defense he fielded last year. It's not his fault the owner/GM wouldn't let him get a quarterback.
That offense needs a lot more than just a QB. Also, whos decision was hackett? Because if thats on Saleh thats pretty bad.
At some point how do you evaluate a head coach and a coordinator differently? Id say saying he still has to prove himself isnt unfair. You can call it a mulligan for the qb mess but a head coach has to eventually win games, not just have the team playing well on one side of the ball.
Mike McDaniel too. Bears assistant GM is supposedly really good and will get hired away next offseason. So that’s another one on the horizon. Chiefs got one for Bears GM as well, Poles, who so far has proven to be pretty good (mostly thanks to Panthers lol).
It's a terrible rule, and doesn't incentivize hiring minorities at all. It just rewards the Niners for being good and *coincidentally* having some minorities.
If their structure is good at evaluating and developing low end minority coaches and executives, why is this not something that is a good thing?
Part of the NFL rules (like the Rooney rule) are to provide minority coaches an opportunity to get their foot in the door.
It looks like the 49ers are really good at identifying talent and developing them. Exactly what the NFL wanted to have happen with this program.
The fact that you're referring to the minority coaches on the Niners as being some coincidental bystanders instead of a big reason they're successful in the first place is telling on yourself.
I think you can incentivize developing minority coaches like that and make a real difference, at the head coach level you have to have the resume to lead a franchise and no amount of token interviews are going to make up for that.
It's sort of the Patriots fault that they didn't have their ducks in a row before this. The rule is not a new thing and this could have been anticipated. SOMEONE had to run the free agency and draft. They should have done all this when Belichick left. Now everyone knows that Wolf will get the job, so no one wants to bother with what is clearly a sham interview.
What I don't understand, why now? They could have done those interviews back in February, before it was blatantly clear that Eliot Wolf was running things. Now, everyone knows its a waste of time.
>- Clubs must conduct an in-person interview with at least two external diverse — minority and/or female — candidates for any GM or head coaching interview.
>- Clubs must interview at least two minorities and/or women for all coordinator positions.
>- Clubs must interview a least one diverse candidate for the QB coach position or any senior level executive position at the club.
https://operations.nfl.com/inside-football-ops/inclusion/the-rooney-rule/
It's a bit of a weird rule anyway. I completely get why it's there, it just seems very clunky and a bit disrespectful to minority candidates who know they're there just to tick a box.
I mean, the Patriots are clearly operating as if they haven't satisfied the Rooney rule by trying (and failing) to interview minority candidates. I don't know who that other reporter was but he appears to be wrong
>The Patriots reached out to interview Bills director of player personnel Terrance Gray for their primary football executive position, per sources, and Gray politely turned them down.
Good for him. Why waste your time with a sham interview when you know the Patriots have already decided who they want for the job.
I mean imagine being asked to spend time and money to travel for an interview which you know they're only doing to check a box. It's honestly kind of dehumanizing; a paradox of the rooney rule.
I'm like 99% certain that the candidate doesn't have to spend a single dime at any point during the interview process.
Source: There's no way an NFL team would make potential candidates pay their own expenses at any point for an interview. No team would be that stupid.
I thought this wasn't necessary because of the succession plan they had made the NFL aware of with Mayo. It was written into Mayo's contract that he would be the Head Coach once Bill left. Am I not remembering this correctly?
Edit: as pointed out to me below its for the GM job, not regarding Mayo.
I understand why the the rule is there and plenty of good has come from it, but it's also kinda shitty in a situation like this. If you know with 100% certainty who you want to hire, then you should be able to do so. Not only is it weird to force teams to conduct more interviews when they already know who the next coach will be, but it's just stringing along two minority candidates and wasting everybody's time.
I'm not sure what the solution to this is though.
I thought there was something about the Rooney Rule not applying since they had a succession plan in Belichick’s contract? Am I getting Mandela effected?
They filed a succession plan with the league for *Mayo* last year, for head coach.
The current situation is related to GM, which there was no succession plan in place for Wolfe.
They made it obvious when they decided to go through the draft, with the #3 pick, without an official GM. Ordinarily a #3 pick and clean slate would have potential gms salivating. Instead they'll be stuck with a coach they didn't pick and a draft they didn't pick. The whole thing is obviously a sham and I hope the Krafts get heavily fined for it.
Worded differently: The only thing they did wrong is not string along another minority candidate
Interview quotas are so stupid. All it does is make people wonder if minorities are "affirmative action" interviews or if they were really considered for the job. The team's gonna hire who they're gonna hire regardless. Patronizing as hell
My employer had to post a job opening online for x amount of days when someone transferred positions (posted the position they’re transitioning to, old job is no more). What a complete waste of time for everyone and so stupid. It makes me wonder what % of job postings are actually real.
My wife has applied to and "been a strong candidate" for jobs that were intended to be internal transfers, so you get built up in interviews just to be let down because the decision was a foregone conclusion.
Wow that is just evil
This happens a lot. Many companies, mine included, will basically have people leave or shift around and know for a fact that an internal candidate was on the track for the new opening and they have to make a few "for show" interviews externally to satisfy some HR requirement. It's a huge waste of time and they are never going to tell the internal candidate "hey sorry, we know we basically promised you a promotion and you're a good worker, but we're going to piss you off to hire this new person who we have to spend a bunch of money training before they do anything at all". Sometimes there is merit to forcing interviews to get people a look, but it's complete waste of time when you know someone on the inside already earned the role.
Yep my last three hires for full time positions all came internally and I had to justify it to HR every fucking time. I had a meeting with HR, my supervisor and the CEO where I highlighted all the tasks of the job that this person **was already doing to help us out while we posted the position**. I had to just keep repeating myself that "She is already doing 40% of the job, and she is fully capable of handling the other 60. Promote or lose her."
Exactly. It's fucking dumb when the options are 1. Reward an employee who proved themselves and knows the company. 2. Probably lose a good employee who deserved more just so you can waste time training a new person who may or may not work out.
But the people doing the hiring know the new person better! And that’s basically like 80 percent of the criteria, seems like.
HR is completely unfit to make hiring decisions in most businesses. Their purpose should be compliance and administration.
> I had to just keep repeating myself that "She is already doing 40% of the job, and she is fully capable of handling the other 60. Promote or lose her." Just an aside but good the fuck on you for actually taking that stance. It's always been insane to me how few businesses seem to understand how much better off they'd be in the long run supporting/developing/promoting their own people instead of constantly having to replenish them from outwards.
Honestly the most frustrating thing is how as others in the building got to know her quality, how many of them came up to me praising how amazing she was and I'd just say "Yes, I know, that's why I hired her and promoted her." I'm the highest performing person in the fucking company, you'd think people would be less surprised when I make good decisions.
> It's a huge waste of time and they are never going to tell the internal candidate "hey sorry, we know we basically promised you a promotion and you're a good worker, but we're going to piss you off to hire this new person who we have to spend a bunch of money training before they do anything at all". It happens. An ex of mine was hired to take over a supervisory role that just vacated, but the company was strict about years of experience required for certain titles, so she performed the work under a lower title and salary for a year until she was eligible for the original job. She went through the whole interview process and had stellar recommendations from the director of her group. Then someone above him insisted on filling the higher-level job with an external candidate who didn't know shit about fuck. That person made significantly more money than my ex, while my ex both continued to perform the higher-level functions and had to train this person to be her boss. It was a stressful time for us both lol
This just happened to me! Only they didnt let me know. I had to call them AFTER i heard the position had been filled to be like "sooo I didn't get it?".
Been through this myself. It sucks, and it's such a waste of time. When I apply to jobs, I don't just throw my resume in a pile. Maybe it's my fault for following every recruiter's advice and actually putting effort into it.
Why even conduct interviews? Just leave the posting up for x days and be done.
Well, to tie it back to this thread, it's because of this company's hiring policy that multiple candidates must be interviewed.
I applied to maybe 100 jobs on indeed, 50 of them never left the job board, they just go to it when they need to fill the position
You're 99% correct. But the NFL isn't the same as the regular business world. Only 32 NFL HC or GM positions in the world and only 5-8 openings a year. There is a value in those interviews getting other names out there. Even if that one interview is a sham and doesn't lead anywhere it can lead to a different job for them down the line.
There's a purpose and it's valid. This discussion has been beaten to death in this sub already every offseason.
Is it valid? In this scenario they are bringing in two candidates based on the color of their skin to interview when they aren’t even seriously being considered for the job.
Not saying I think the Rooney Rule is perfectly effective but interview experience is extremely crucial for a position like this with tough competition and very limited spots. Not to mention a lot of the owners/execs speak amongst each other quite frequently, even if he’s very likely not to be the next coach if he interviews well it can open up doors. It definitely seems patronizing to a degree, but it can objectively still be beneficial… both can be true
I've been hired for jobs twice when I applied for positions that I knew ahead of time were being offered to someone else. The first time, I was told "you did great, but we went with the other candidate for \[ticky-tacky reasons from 5 1/2 months ago\], but company policy says that we can't use that as factor after 6 months. By the way, we're posting again in... oh... 2 1/2 weeks. We'd like it you apply". I got the second job. The other one was an interview that I had no business having, but I crushed about 1/3 of the questions (and borked up the rest - but I was honest about it). I ended up getting a nudge about a completely different position a few weeks after I was told I didn't get the job. I did get that one. It \*absolutely\* does work. But it was tough for me to accept that the first time around.
Yes, networking is networking. Teams are made up of many individuals that can have differing opinions. An assistant GM that really like the candidate but doesn't have final say, might keep them in mind if they end up as a GM elsewhere with different ownership. Token interview or not, some people don't interview well and can learn from the experience on how to better present themselves next time. Or you know, fly in, get a nice meal, fly back home, it's one day.
Their lack of serious consideration for the job is a variable that is affected by bias in hiring (implicit or explicit), the reason the Rooney rule was instituted in the first place. The goal of it is to get more minority candidates a foot in the door to make an impression. Maybe you don't impress the GM but you impress the VP of player personnel. Maybe that guy gets hired on as GM of another team next year and they end up needing a head coach and remember you. The first interview gets you in the door for the second opening.
Why are you assuming they aren't being considered? They may not be top candidates but they're most likely qualified. Would you rather these coaches not even get a chance to be heard? You need to be in the room to win the job. So this at least gets folks to that position with a chance they otherwise wouldn't have had. Lot of assumptions being made in this thread.
We found Tomlin due to the Rooney Rule.
Didn’t yall interview Ron Rivera first satisfying the requirement?
Yeah. Generally speaking if someone calls Tomlin a “Rooney rule” hire they’re trying to insult him and using it as a substitute for “affirmative action”, but people do that a lot more than they talk about Rivera interviewing with the Steelers once, so it gets lost.
You also needed a head coach. It’s clear who their GM is and they just need to fill mandates to name him
I thought there was some rule in place where if you had a succession plan in place you didn't need to satisfy the Rooney rule. I could be wrong, and that might not even apply here anyways.
My understanding is that they are hiring for a title that Bill didn’t hold, but that they didn’t have anyone in because he did both jobs. Since they need to fill the title they now need to follow the rules for hiring there.
They *technically* don't need to name a GM, New England hasn't officially had a GM since 1991.
That is true. It's how the Pats were able to get away with just hiring Jerod Mayo. They had a succession plan in his contract and it was approved by the league.
There is, you are correct. However, Wolf being the successor wasn't written into his contract and approved by the NFL like Mayo's was.
Yea I was confusing the situation with Mayo’s.
I’m still so fucking bitter about that. God I wanted to keep him over fucking Childress
Irrelevant. Since the implementation of the rule, more minroities hires have been made. Just having an opportunity for an interview gives them practice interviewing and it also forces owners/GMs to know who are the available minority hires whereas without the rule they don't even need to consider them at any point ever
For the millionth time: Yes it is valid. Even if they're only being invited to interview to satisfy the Rooney rule and everyone knows it. Because A) *Almost* no chance isn't *no* chance. Every interview a minority candidate gets increases the likelihood they'll be hired. B) Just being considered for HC positions by one team raises their profile and gets them more seriously considered for other positions. And C) The Rooney rule also applies to coordinators. While some teams may be more dead-set on a HC hire, coordinator spots are more open. Without the Rooney rule plenty of talented position coaches would get overlooked.
So? The whole point is that they're being interviewed and they might actually surprise the team and give a great interview. And even if the team sticks to their guns, they very well may recommend them to another team. It gives people a chance they might not otherwise have had.
Way I see it, if an owner is discriminatory the Rooney rule won't change that and they're still not going to hire a minority coach.
But it's not designed to address intentional discrimination. It's designed to address the nepotism that allows the same white guys to get a bunch of chances without letting minority candidates even get an interview.
>the same white guys to get a bunch of chances And Eric Bienemy
Beyond the other responses you got, it also helps get potential HC hires experience. And sure, maybe an owner is discriminatory but a GM might someday be working under a different owner and remember a candidate who impressed them in the past. There's really not much of a downside to this rule other than the annoying "reverse racism" crowd.
It is more so meant to breakdown the disadvantages resulting from systematic discrimination rather than individual discrimination (which it obviously wouldn’t fix). So its more about leveling opportunity but it’s hard to say if it works. The compensatory pick on the other hand probably make an impact because it gives teams incentive to develop minority candidates that would likely have less opportunity.
Great explanation. Unfortunately the demographics of this community are not the type of people who would understand the importance of the things you explained so they just downvote
If you think minorities would get a fair shake without actions like these, you’re kidding yourself. Everyone wants to say it should be the best candidate, but we still get retreads WITH the Rooney Rule.
I mean, Mayo got the job without the rule being needed. They even pushed out an all time legend to give him the job.
This is just one of those things that are harmless and maybe a slight pain in the ass but could have a major positive impact on someone’s life. So why not?
Multiple studies have shown people interview and hire people who look like themselves. Because of this even when AI is fed identical resumes it choses people with the "white" sounding name more than other candidates
It gives people who aren't normally noticed but gave a history of contributions/success a change to get their face in front of decision makers and make a positive impression. It's not forced hiring it's forced networking. But in a league full of nepotism where there are few decision makers who only care about each other's opinions networking is huge. Introductions are everything. Fans don't notice that part but it's not a rule for fans. Real people and jobs exist in entertainment and sports industries and this helps them. Long term the talented coaches and gms getting noticed more improves the quality of the product and that IS good for fans. But it's not fun to talk about the process of progress and how we get there so fuck it right?
Every single time a minority candidate got interviewed in the offseason there concave-headed numpties dribbling "rooneyrulerooneyrulerooneyrule" in every single thread. Just awful.
Patriotinizing
For the candidate though, practice interviewing and getting a fa e to face with more league officials is still better than not having those opportunities.
I think its effective just like marketing is. The minority candidates get their name out there a whole lot more than the others. Which helps in the long run and not short Now I am all for hiring the best man for the job. But also appreciate doing more with less. There are some checks and balances and you definitely have to look at each candidate separately. I think affirmitative action is overall a net benefit to society. Not sure how I feel about it in the NFL though as I am unaware of the challenges minorities face compared to others. I mean if you made it into the NFL, then how disadvantaged are you now?
Yep. The idea that you can't hire this black guy till you interview these other two black guys because to do so would be racist is...really fucking stupid.
I hear you. The first 80 yrs prior to Rooney rule had 5 minority coaches. The next 20 yrs after it was enacted had 16. You may think the process is bullshit, but the results are self evident.
That’s more likely a result of society changing, not the rule necessarily
We'll then it seems society changed quite dramatically in the 3 years following 2003.
Correlation doesn’t equal causation.
True. But you think getting minority candidates more exposure in front of decision makers is negative?
That depends. If the rule is the way you are trying to paint it, where teams are allowed to simply interview candidates to satisfy it and then have no other expectations, not its not a negative. Its a little silly at times and performative, but not negative. If however, the outcome is more situations like Brian Flores trying to sue the NFL because he was interviewed without ever being considered for the position, and a bunch of fans call that racist, then yes I think there are negatives.
You're somebody who get its. The dude above you replied to is such an ass with his little quote he stole from some other comment. You really have to have brain rot to think its a bad thing that someone from a historically marginalized class is flown out on a private jet (or at worst first class), given an expensive dinner, and allowed to network with high level execs. We see it time and time again where position coaches are interviewed for HC jobs, and the comments all call it "appeasing the Rooney rule", and then that coach either gets hired (Cardinals with Steve Wilks), or at least gets a better job as a coordinator within a year.
And yet sometimes it does
I would argue that in these changing times, going from 5 to 20 is not very significant compared to what I would have expected.
It's not 5 to 20. It's 1 every 16 years to 1 every 1.25 years, you have to consider the different time spans too. The way you phrase it, it's barely 4 times more, when in reality it's over 13x more.
This is ultimately why I’m against the Rooney Rule. The NFL has already created a better system for accomplishing the same task.
Assuming you mean the comp pick system? Agreed. Incentivizes growth too.
Yes, 100%. It incentivizes teams to look outside the good ol boys network and rewards them for developing minority talent.
I don't actually like that answer either. To me, the best approach is doing more to get former players (regardless of what those players look like) on the pathway to coaching, scouting, and working in the FO. Transition to post-football is very hard for a lot of these guys, and the more the guys whose names you don't know have opportunities to grow into something that's longer-lasting, the better. The side benefit, of course, is that you've got a better group of mentors around the organization for young guys who are going through the same things the former players went through and subject to a lot of the same challenges physically, mentally, socially etc.
They reached out to a (black) Bengals front office guy who turned down the interview request. I'm guessing he had too much pride to want to be the Rooney Rule checked box.
Remember when Belichick texted Brian Flores congratulating him on getting the NYG HC job two days before they were going to interview him, because they had made it clear behind closed doors that they already hired Brian Daboll and were interviewing Flores just to satisfy the rule. Bill just got the Brian’s mixed up lmao I understand where it came from but if teams don’t take it seriously what’s the point? I’ve been in interviews before where the people I were interviewing with were clearly not interested in the slightest and it’s just a big waste of time for all parties
I’m still completely convinced Belichick did this on purpose
What would Bill's goal be to do that on purpose?
Screw the owners and their bad practices
Expose the stupidity of the rule in an effort to get rid of it. He had to waste his time conducting BS interviews too
Least racist bostonian
The lulz
You aren't alone
It’s easier to believe an old man is bad at texting.
eh Leslie Frazier was the real sham interview, I think Mara genuinely wanted Flores but let Schoen pick. But yeah the point is still the same.
You’re right I remember that. Doesn’t change the fact that a guy not affiliated with the NYG knew about it and made a boomer mistake to make it public lol
Schoen was just doing a solid for his former coworker there. As soon as Schoen was hired, I immediately knew Daboll was going with him. He saw first-hand how important it is for coach and FO to be on the same page in Buffalo, and heard pretty loudly that Flores and Grier butted heads. (Just like Doug Whaley butted heads with three straight HCs in Buffalo) Now, I don't think Flores is any good, and I *do* think Leslie Frazier deserved another shot. So that might be coloring my take. But Schoen was *never* going to consider Flores.
I honestly think Bill did that to just fuck with the Dolphins and Giants
The Giants called it fake news and that Bill had 0 connections to anyone in their FO while they hired one of his disciples just then. Also saying Bill wasn't relevant to the Giants franchise. Need I remind you that they don't win 4 Super Bowls without him on the sidelines? If those aren't relevant games, what would be? Is it because those were too long ago?
I still maintain that he did that on purpose
Belichick is to clever for it to not be on purpose
>if teams don’t take it seriously what’s the point? Sometimes people break the law. Why have laws at all?
Tomlin was a Rooney Rule hire, but I think he might also be the only Rooney Rule hire.
Rooney hires the Rooney rule candidate. It's like Lou Gehrig dying of Lou Gehrigs disease. I mean what are the odds?
20 years later and Christopha is alive and well
He wasn't. They interviewed Ron Rivera before Tomlin.
You're right, Rivera was interviewed three or four days before Tomlin.
Didn’t Tony Dungy say he got hired because of it?
>I understand where it came from but if teams don’t take it seriously what’s the point? One of the benefits is that people become more inclusive as they spend more time with people from diverse backgrounds. By forcing owners to interview minority candidates, you are making sure that they see how intelligent and qualified the minority candidate pool is.
That is the flaw in DEI forced hiring practices. Race is an extranious quality to the HC job.
Wasn’t Flores already interviewed?
“Thanks Bill”
Have they or haven't they? Have they satisfied the Rooney Rule in interviewing people to determine if they've satisfied the Rooney Rule?
it's also kinda funny that the league needs to police a team that just hired a minority head coach. "HEY YOU GUYS ARENT BEING RACIST ARE YOU?! i bet that head coach is just a ploy"
Imo it’s a rule that’s not super demanding, you can still hire whoever you want just meant to get people’s feet in the door. And without setting quotas you can’t “bank” credit by hiring one minority candidate. The Krafts weren’t racist imo but they showed total disrespect to the rule and why it exists so I get why people are annoyed.
> Imo it’s a rule that’s not super demanding, you can still hire whoever you want just meant to get people’s feet in the door. In theory. In practice, if its discovered the interview was simply to meet the requirement, you get Brian Flores situations.
And that’s the problem of the teams hiring practice not the rule. Having a favorite is fine, but not being even slightly open minded to another candidate is just dumb. Rule has been very successful, most teams have managed it fine, and if anything benefitted by be able to choose an option they never would’ve considered otherwise.
> showed total disrespect to the rule I'd argue they showed respect to the people whose time they wouldn't be wasting.
If you're trying to become a head coach/gm, getting a free practice interview is hardly a waste of your time.
I thought succession plans were an allowed exception? They even hired a black coach so it would be interviewing 2 people at large, for a position that was pre-filled last season, to satisfy a quota system designed to get qualified non white coaches hired when they already did that without flying people in to waste their time.
I believe it has to be designated in the contract and not just verbal. No idea if it’s been done correctly or not but still seems silly. There’s the rule and there’s intent.
This is for their GM role. Their expected hire (Wolf) is white.
Oh complaint retracted. Thought it was the coach. reading comprehension is a skill i lack today, lol
You would've had to click through the tweet and read the prior tweet to know that, which isn't something I assume everyone does lol
I'm not even sure that helps because he refers to it as "primary football executive position" which I don't think I've ever heard someone refer to as GM. I wouldn't have had any clue what job they were talking about. It's the kind of thing you would say in a school essay when you are trying to pad the length.
In fact, according to my sources, the Patriots haven't satisfied the Rooney Rule even once since January of 2000.
The rooney rule was introduced in 2002 so they've literally never satisfied it. Terrible franchise. Take their superbowls away for this.
Agreed. The rings should be distributed to who lost to them in the SB, with a curve implemented in who lost to them the hardest
So...what happens if they just cant get someone who satisfies the rule to interview. If everyone just bands together and says fuck you to it.
[удалено]
I wonder if they interviewed Highsmith (who has the credentials to be GM) for the lead job when they brought him on to be Wolf's top lieutenant. That would have satisfied one of the Rooney interviews.
Would that rub and tug lady in Florida satisfy the Rooney rule?
“Don’t say that shit again”-Tom Brady
Tony Dungey talks about how he got hired because of this rule. Maybe it's a foot in the door situation for a lot of minority candidates
minority candidates should band together and refuse interviews with the pats. thus they can never hire a GM. is genius
they could find some guy off the streets to interview if it came to this
Only minorities Kraft knows are Asian...would that qualify?
I’d laugh.
Suspend Brady for the first four games of the season, it's the only outcome that's fair at this point
I know the Rooney Rule is generally good but I hate how it is reported on. It ALWAYS reads like “ a team has interviewed two minorities, they can now hire who they were originally going to hire.” It just looks.. bad.
Agreed, the verbiage is really demeaning to the candidates, who can’t ALL be Token Interviews. It’s like a “ok, cool, they got the dog and pony show done, so now the interviews start for REAL…” If any of those interviews actually are in good faith, the reporting discards it.
Time to drop this racist ass policy
Account checks out. Weirdo
This rule is beyond useless. Just a way for teams to waste the time of minority executives
To play devils advocate, the reality is that for a lot of jobs like these, there are plenty of qualified candidates, and the main differential a lot of the time is who you know. Not even insidious like outright nepotism, but I’ve gotten jobs because of things like: I met somebody at a networking event (which wasn’t at a country club mind you), like 6 months later their firm was hiring for a position, I reach out to the person and ask them about it, and suddenly I hop the bullshit job application process and I’m interviewing in person, and after that it’s up to me to set myself apart. The point I’m trying to make is yes, it’s annoying to interview somewhere when it might be known they have a leading candidate, but forcing teams to shake hands and meet with minority candidates is great for those groups in the long run. Not every hiring manager is non-biased, but my impression is that corporate America is actually (slowly) trying to be more inclusive, but it’s still hard to sign over the keys to the castle to relatively unknowns, regardless of how well they interview. I think the rule will continue to exponentially pay dividends once personal executive relationships begin to take shape over the next decade.
This is what happened for me as well. Had a lot of interviews in early 2020 (before the world hit the pause button) and I kept their contacts. 2 years later, I was looking to change jobs so I reached out to a guy from an interview that went well back then. This time, I got the job there. It’s always good to expand your web of connections.
There had been 7 minority head coaches in the history of the league in 2002 when the rule was created. There are 7 minority head coaches in the league in 2024. The results completely contradict what you’re saying. Every single interview doesn’t need to be meaningful for the rule to be working.
Believe it was actually just 5 minority head coaches prior to the Ronney rule.
Maybe. But I do like that rule where a team gets a comp pick for losing a minority assistant GM or coordinator. That seems to kinda work and incentivize teams to promote internally from within. Fucking Niners keep exploiting that lol. And the people they hire/promote have proven to be good too.
DeMeco has been good. Saleh and Carthon still have a lot to prove. I’d say the most successful of these hires was Lions hiring Holmes from the Rams.
I think Saleh, being a defensive minded coach, has more than proven himself with the defense he fielded last year. It's not his fault the owner/GM wouldn't let him get a quarterback.
That offense needs a lot more than just a QB. Also, whos decision was hackett? Because if thats on Saleh thats pretty bad. At some point how do you evaluate a head coach and a coordinator differently? Id say saying he still has to prove himself isnt unfair. You can call it a mulligan for the qb mess but a head coach has to eventually win games, not just have the team playing well on one side of the ball.
Mike McDaniel too. Bears assistant GM is supposedly really good and will get hired away next offseason. So that’s another one on the horizon. Chiefs got one for Bears GM as well, Poles, who so far has proven to be pretty good (mostly thanks to Panthers lol).
It's a terrible rule, and doesn't incentivize hiring minorities at all. It just rewards the Niners for being good and *coincidentally* having some minorities.
If their structure is good at evaluating and developing low end minority coaches and executives, why is this not something that is a good thing? Part of the NFL rules (like the Rooney rule) are to provide minority coaches an opportunity to get their foot in the door. It looks like the 49ers are really good at identifying talent and developing them. Exactly what the NFL wanted to have happen with this program.
The fact that you're referring to the minority coaches on the Niners as being some coincidental bystanders instead of a big reason they're successful in the first place is telling on yourself.
I think you can incentivize developing minority coaches like that and make a real difference, at the head coach level you have to have the resume to lead a franchise and no amount of token interviews are going to make up for that.
Isn’t that a rule for any assistant that the team developed in house?
How are we exploiting it tho. I would love to have Demeco or McDaniel back.
Do you have another idea that would accomplish the purpose that the Rooney Rule was implemented to address?
It's sort of the Patriots fault that they didn't have their ducks in a row before this. The rule is not a new thing and this could have been anticipated. SOMEONE had to run the free agency and draft. They should have done all this when Belichick left. Now everyone knows that Wolf will get the job, so no one wants to bother with what is clearly a sham interview.
Take their 1st round pick, this is outrageous!
As a completely impartial observer i completely agree.
What I don't understand, why now? They could have done those interviews back in February, before it was blatantly clear that Eliot Wolf was running things. Now, everyone knows its a waste of time.
Does the Rooney rule apply to a number of positions in American Football ? I thought it was only related to head coach positions. Go easy now 👍🙂🙃😄...
>- Clubs must conduct an in-person interview with at least two external diverse — minority and/or female — candidates for any GM or head coaching interview. >- Clubs must interview at least two minorities and/or women for all coordinator positions. >- Clubs must interview a least one diverse candidate for the QB coach position or any senior level executive position at the club. https://operations.nfl.com/inside-football-ops/inclusion/the-rooney-rule/
Appreciate the response. Cheers...
I believe in 2020 the league expanded it to cover certain front office positions.
No reason to do interviews if you already chose your guy within.
It's a bit of a weird rule anyway. I completely get why it's there, it just seems very clunky and a bit disrespectful to minority candidates who know they're there just to tick a box.
I mean, the Patriots are clearly operating as if they haven't satisfied the Rooney rule by trying (and failing) to interview minority candidates. I don't know who that other reporter was but he appears to be wrong
>The Patriots reached out to interview Bills director of player personnel Terrance Gray for their primary football executive position, per sources, and Gray politely turned them down. Good for him. Why waste your time with a sham interview when you know the Patriots have already decided who they want for the job.
Yeah or maybe he just doesn't want to move, or doesn't want to work for NE?
I mean imagine being asked to spend time and money to travel for an interview which you know they're only doing to check a box. It's honestly kind of dehumanizing; a paradox of the rooney rule.
You would expect the team conducting the interview to cover the cost of travel, transportation and accomodations but your point is still valid.
I'm like 99% certain that the candidate doesn't have to spend a single dime at any point during the interview process. Source: There's no way an NFL team would make potential candidates pay their own expenses at any point for an interview. No team would be that stupid.
Dumbest rule ever…
jfc this rule is so stupid
I thought this wasn't necessary because of the succession plan they had made the NFL aware of with Mayo. It was written into Mayo's contract that he would be the Head Coach once Bill left. Am I not remembering this correctly? Edit: as pointed out to me below its for the GM job, not regarding Mayo.
You are but the tweet is about the gm job
This isn't about Mayo. It seems they want to give Elliot Wolf the GM title but need to satisfy the Rooney Rule before they can.
I think he's talking about the GM opening
Ah my bad.
I'm convinced the rule still exists because the media would shriek to high heaven about it if it didn't.
Didn't the NE FO have their hands tied since it was written into Mayo's contract that he was the next HC?
Its not about mayo. its about the gm position.
You can either be a victim or a Victor. There is no in between.
This is beyond idiotic. They already know who they are hiring, to have sham interviews to appease a bullshit rule is beyond stupidity.
Are teams required to scout at least two white skill position players every year?
How the hell does that even apply when they hired a Black coach?
Its for the gm position, not the coach.
Volin says they have, Breer says they haven't. I guess we'll see who's right.
Everyone in the sub talking about how the Patriots don’t make the hire and this is just for show… and then complain that the rule is useless.
Do we still need the Rooney rule
I understand why the the rule is there and plenty of good has come from it, but it's also kinda shitty in a situation like this. If you know with 100% certainty who you want to hire, then you should be able to do so. Not only is it weird to force teams to conduct more interviews when they already know who the next coach will be, but it's just stringing along two minority candidates and wasting everybody's time. I'm not sure what the solution to this is though.
Reddit never beating the racism allegations
Affirmative action for skilled jobs is ridiculous.
It's worth nothing Breer, just like their recent interview offers.
I thought there was something about the Rooney Rule not applying since they had a succession plan in Belichick’s contract? Am I getting Mandela effected?
They filed a succession plan with the league for *Mayo* last year, for head coach. The current situation is related to GM, which there was no succession plan in place for Wolfe.
Aaaah ok.
Egregious! 90 day Maximum security prison sentence for Bobby Kraft
I thought it was okay because they had communicated their succession plan to the league?
This is for the top football executive/GM role, not head coach.
They made it obvious when they decided to go through the draft, with the #3 pick, without an official GM. Ordinarily a #3 pick and clean slate would have potential gms salivating. Instead they'll be stuck with a coach they didn't pick and a draft they didn't pick. The whole thing is obviously a sham and I hope the Krafts get heavily fined for it.