Gblock wrote: the reason there are more black people in the nba is not because genetics its because more black kids play basketball....it doesnt cost a lot of money to play. same reason most baseball players are white...many blacks cant afford to play baseball which travel ball can cost thousands, let alone there arent many fields in innercities to play on. however there are plenty of hoops. also many white players might play soccer or lacrosse or hockey that blacks dont have access to. you dont have to be tall to play hoop or jucmp high...ie steve nash....and argentina and greece can play with any nba team and they have no blacks.

Great post!

sleeper wrote:

derek bomar wrote:

Writerbuckeye wrote: I think they should require NBA teams to have at least 3 white players per team.

If they don't want to do it, they're racists. I mean, look at how few white players are in the league (compared to black). Racism HAS to be the reason.

Right?

Right?

umm...

this is going to sound 'racist' but by and large african americans are better at basketball than european americans at the highest levels...with some exceptions (like every rule there's an exception or two)... maybe its because of genetics or how they're brought up, but I don't think you'll find many people trying to argue the contrary...can you prove white coaches are better than black coaches? I don't think you can. I can line up Kevin Garnett vs. BJ Mullens, and who do you think is gonna win that battle? Just please name me one white guy you think should be on an NBA roster that isn't and whose spot on the team you think he should take.

Bill Walton, Larry Bird.

I said right now, and I also said there were exceptions. And Bill Walton and Larry Bird weren't denied entry into the NBA.

derek bomar wrote:

sleeper wrote:

derek bomar wrote:

Writerbuckeye wrote: I think they should require NBA teams to have at least 3 white players per team.

If they don't want to do it, they're racists. I mean, look at how few white players are in the league (compared to black). Racism HAS to be the reason.

Right?

Right?

umm...

this is going to sound 'racist' but by and large african americans are better at basketball than european americans at the highest levels...with some exceptions (like every rule there's an exception or two)... maybe its because of genetics or how they're brought up, but I don't think you'll find many people trying to argue the contrary...can you prove white coaches are better than black coaches? I don't think you can. I can line up Kevin Garnett vs. BJ Mullens, and who do you think is gonna win that battle? Just please name me one white guy you think should be on an NBA roster that isn't and whose spot on the team you think he should take.

Bill Walton, Larry Bird.

I said right now, and I also said there were exceptions. And Bill Walton and Larry Bird weren't denied entry into the NBA.

Right.

The point is, there should be NO RULE that states you HAVE to interview a minority candidate, period. Theoretically, a team could interview only minorities and ZERO white folk, and I ask how is that not discriminatory? Minorities get an extra advantage because of their race, and I ask once again, how is that not discriminatory?

The market will decide who gets the best job, whether it be coaching, athletics, politician, etc.. You don't need some bogus rule to get minorities out there, its called working hard to get noticed and then excelling in the interview.

Also, can you name any black coaches that have been DENIED entry to the NFL? No?

I think it's stupid also...at least in the NFL. Owners, GM's, and the rest of the organization have way too much on the line to worry about a canidate's race. They're going to hire the guy they feel best fits their needs and gives them the best chance to win. They don't care if Raheim Morris is black or if Pete Carroll is white....they want the one guy who is going to be good for their organization.

I can see it being a good thing at the college level though.

derek bomar wrote:

Writerbuckeye wrote: I think they should require NBA teams to have at least 3 white players per team.

If they don't want to do it, they're racists. I mean, look at how few white players are in the league (compared to black). Racism HAS to be the reason.

Right?

Right?

umm...

this is going to sound 'racist' but by and large african americans are better at basketball than european americans at the highest levels...with some exceptions (like every rule there's an exception or two)... maybe its because of genetics or how they're brought up, but I don't think you'll find many people trying to argue the contrary...can you prove white coaches are better than black coaches? I don't think you can. I can line up Kevin Garnett vs. BJ Mullens, and who do you think is gonna win that battle? Just please name me one white guy you think should be on an NBA roster that isn't and whose spot on the team you think he should take.

There is absolutely no proof that black coaches have been denied a chance to coach in the NFL because of their skin color -- just as there is no proof white guys are being denied places in the NBA for the same reason.

Clear enough?

sleeper wrote:

derek bomar wrote:

sleeper wrote:

derek bomar wrote:

Writerbuckeye wrote: I think they should require NBA teams to have at least 3 white players per team.

If they don't want to do it, they're racists. I mean, look at how few white players are in the league (compared to black). Racism HAS to be the reason.

Right?

Right?

umm...

this is going to sound 'racist' but by and large african americans are better at basketball than european americans at the highest levels...with some exceptions (like every rule there's an exception or two)... maybe its because of genetics or how they're brought up, but I don't think you'll find many people trying to argue the contrary...can you prove white coaches are better than black coaches? I don't think you can. I can line up Kevin Garnett vs. BJ Mullens, and who do you think is gonna win that battle? Just please name me one white guy you think should be on an NBA roster that isn't and whose spot on the team you think he should take.

Bill Walton, Larry Bird.

I said right now, and I also said there were exceptions. And Bill Walton and Larry Bird weren't denied entry into the NBA.

Right.

The point is, there should be NO RULE that states you HAVE to interview a minority candidate, period. Theoretically, a team could interview only minorities and ZERO white folk, and I ask how is that not discriminatory? Minorities get an extra advantage because of their race, and I ask once again, how is that not discriminatory?

The market will decide who gets the best job, whether it be coaching, athletics, politician, etc.. You don't need some bogus rule to get minorities out there, its called working hard to get noticed and then excelling in the interview.

Also, can you name any black coaches that have been DENIED entry to the NFL? No?

I'm not defending the Rooney Rule. I'm just here to point out you're an idiot. And your last point about naming Black Coaches who have been denied entry into the NFL...well how am I supposed to name them? Is there a list I can reference of black coaches who haven't been interviewed because they're black?

As for the market deciding...guess what man, if you're a team and you want someone with experience, the market is skewed in one direction (white coaches) because for X amount of years there weren't black coaches...so yea it's skewed. I still don't get how you can say with a straight face that blacks can't coach by and large as well as whites, when it's been shown they can. It's just a retarded thing to say.

Writerbuckeye wrote:

derek bomar wrote:

Writerbuckeye wrote: I think they should require NBA teams to have at least 3 white players per team.

If they don't want to do it, they're racists. I mean, look at how few white players are in the league (compared to black). Racism HAS to be the reason.

Right?

Right?

umm...

this is going to sound 'racist' but by and large african americans are better at basketball than european americans at the highest levels...with some exceptions (like every rule there's an exception or two)... maybe its because of genetics or how they're brought up, but I don't think you'll find many people trying to argue the contrary...can you prove white coaches are better than black coaches? I don't think you can. I can line up Kevin Garnett vs. BJ Mullens, and who do you think is gonna win that battle? Just please name me one white guy you think should be on an NBA roster that isn't and whose spot on the team you think he should take.

There is absolutely no proof that black coaches have been denied a chance to coach in the NFL because of their skin color -- just as there is no proof white guys are being denied places in the NBA for the same reason.

Clear enough?

White guys aren't in the NBA (at least American white guys) because they aren't good enough, and you can tell because they go up against the black players in high school, college, and in AAU ball. And they get weeded out. Some make it through. Where is the equal playing field where a black assistant coach can show he's better than the recycled white guy?

I'm not defending the Rooney Rule. I'm just here to point out you're an idiot. And your last point about naming Black Coaches who have been denied entry into the NFL...well how am I supposed to name them? Is there a list I can reference of black coaches who haven't been interviewed because they're black?

That's the point, no coach has been denied because of race. Period. There is no point to the Rooney rule other than to give minorities another entitlement that they do not deserve.

derek bomar wrote:

Writerbuckeye wrote:

derek bomar wrote:

Writerbuckeye wrote: I think they should require NBA teams to have at least 3 white players per team.

If they don't want to do it, they're racists. I mean, look at how few white players are in the league (compared to black). Racism HAS to be the reason.

Right?

Right?

umm...

this is going to sound 'racist' but by and large african americans are better at basketball than european americans at the highest levels...with some exceptions (like every rule there's an exception or two)... maybe its because of genetics or how they're brought up, but I don't think you'll find many people trying to argue the contrary...can you prove white coaches are better than black coaches? I don't think you can. I can line up Kevin Garnett vs. BJ Mullens, and who do you think is gonna win that battle? Just please name me one white guy you think should be on an NBA roster that isn't and whose spot on the team you think he should take.

There is absolutely no proof that black coaches have been denied a chance to coach in the NFL because of their skin color -- just as there is no proof white guys are being denied places in the NBA for the same reason.

Clear enough?

White guys aren't in the NBA (at least American white guys) because they aren't good enough, and you can tell because they go up against the black players in high school, college, and in AAU ball. And they get weeded out. Some make it through. Where is the equal playing field where a black assistant coach can show he's better than the recycled white guy?

Ridiculously flawed logic.

White assistant coaches get promoted and hired all the time over those "recycled" white guys. That same pool has black assistant coaches.

If you're good enough, you will get hired. NFL teams have one goal: win. They are going to find the best person to get them there and could care less what color that person is.

Honestly, if I were a black in this day and age, I'd be insulted by some of these rules. It's almost like saying: well, we don't think you're good enough to show us ON YOUR OWN that you can do the job, so we'll give you a little help.

You can't much more condescending.

sleeper wrote:

I'm not defending the Rooney Rule. I'm just here to point out you're an idiot. And your last point about naming Black Coaches who have been denied entry into the NFL...well how am I supposed to name them? Is there a list I can reference of black coaches who haven't been interviewed because they're black?

That's the point, no coach has been denied because of race. Period. There is no point to the Rooney rule other than to give minorities another entitlement that they do not deserve.

Sure dude. If you say its true it must be so. It must be because by a 5.4 x 1 ratio, whites are better coaches than blacks in the NFL and 28.25 x 1 ratio in Division 1 football. Never mind the fact that the majority of players in both are black. Wiki tells me around 63% of the people in the US are white. So about 1/3 of the rest of the population isn't. Starting from there, there should be roughly around a 1/3 % of coaches in both leagues who are not white, since coaching isn't some innate skill you're born with (whites are better because they're white argument you're so fond of). That's not the case though, because for years it's been a whites only club and just recently (in the last couple decades) has it began to shift.

The point is that teams and universities are risk averse...meaning when faced with the option of hiring/interviewing the safe white coach with HC experience vs. a non-white coordinator with no HC experience, they'll go with the guy with experience. They're not going to risk tons of $ over someone who they know nothing about.

Progress is slow, and although I don't think people should be given jobs or interviews just because they're a certain race, I think in this case you're a fool if you think whites are the majority of coaches because whites are better at it. So, in summation, you're a ratard.

Terrible rule.

Writerbuckeye wrote:

derek bomar wrote:

Writerbuckeye wrote:

derek bomar wrote:

Writerbuckeye wrote: I think they should require NBA teams to have at least 3 white players per team.

If they don't want to do it, they're racists. I mean, look at how few white players are in the league (compared to black). Racism HAS to be the reason.

Right?

Right?

umm...

this is going to sound 'racist' but by and large african americans are better at basketball than european americans at the highest levels...with some exceptions (like every rule there's an exception or two)... maybe its because of genetics or how they're brought up, but I don't think you'll find many people trying to argue the contrary...can you prove white coaches are better than black coaches? I don't think you can. I can line up Kevin Garnett vs. BJ Mullens, and who do you think is gonna win that battle? Just please name me one white guy you think should be on an NBA roster that isn't and whose spot on the team you think he should take.

There is absolutely no proof that black coaches have been denied a chance to coach in the NFL because of their skin color -- just as there is no proof white guys are being denied places in the NBA for the same reason.

Clear enough?

White guys aren't in the NBA (at least American white guys) because they aren't good enough, and you can tell because they go up against the black players in high school, college, and in AAU ball. And they get weeded out. Some make it through. Where is the equal playing field where a black assistant coach can show he's better than the recycled white guy?

Ridiculously flawed logic.

White assistant coaches get promoted and hired all the time over those "recycled" white guys. That same pool has black assistant coaches.

If you're good enough, you will get hired. NFL teams have one goal: win. They are going to find the best person to get them there and could care less what color that person is.

Honestly, if I were a black in this day and age, I'd be insulted by some of these rules. It's almost like saying: well, we don't think you're good enough to show us ON YOUR OWN that you can do the job, so we'll give you a little help.

You can't much more condescending.

dude, i'm not arguing that I want some race-based quota or some AA type thing. I'm just stating the obvious: blacks can coach and be successful, and that there aren't many black head coaches in the league or in the NCAA. If you can't even acknowledge that the playing field in terms of HC experience is skewed I'm not going to keep talking about it because there's no point.

Just to throw another comment out there, I'm opposed to affirmative action and support the Rooney Rule.

I think it would be a slap in the face for black coaches to be brought in for fake interviews.

NNN wrote: Just to throw another comment out there, I'm opposed to affirmative action and support the Rooney Rule.

well then you're a hypocrite because they are essentially the same thing

krazie45 wrote:

NNN wrote: Just to throw another comment out there, I'm opposed to affirmative action and support the Rooney Rule.

well then you're a hypocrite because they are essentially the same thing

The hell they are.

Affirmative action has been used to basically mandate actual hiring of personnel or admission of personnel.

The Rooney Rule mandates interviewing, NOT hiring. This isn't a case of "a less-qualified minority gets hired over a more-qualified white guy". It's about expanding a network of coaching contacts, which is basically how stuff gets done in football. Retreads keep going around on the cycle because they know people and thus get an automatic boost over someone the person in charge of hiring doesn't know.

So what you're saying is that an equally qualified WHITE assistant shouldn't get that right? If the rule was that teams had to interview an assistant coach in order to prevent the constant recycling of coaches then that'd be fine....but it is not, nor is that the purpose of the rule despite your beliefs. The rule is to make sure that minority candidates get interviewed regardless of whether they actually have a shot at the position.

I'm sure the Patriots are still happy with their "retread" Bill Belichick, as are the Chargers currently with "retread'' Norv Turner. If you want less of these recycled coaches then make the Rooney Rule for EVERYONE, not just one group based on nothing more than the color of their skin.

The NFL only reacted with the Rooney Rule to head off the threats of litigation.

You'd be surprised what you would do when you're held at gun point.

krazie45 wrote: So what you're saying is that an equally qualified WHITE assistant shouldn't get that right? If the rule was that teams had to interview an assistant coach in order to prevent the constant recycling of coaches then that'd be fine....but it is not, nor is that the purpose of the rule despite your beliefs. The rule is to make sure that minority candidates get interviewed regardless of whether they actually have a shot at the position.

I'm sure the Patriots are still happy with their "retread" Bill Belichick, as are the Chargers currently with "retread'' Norv Turner. If you want less of these recycled coaches then make the Rooney Rule for EVERYONE, not just one group based on nothing more than the color of their skin.

It's pretty much implied that white coaches, whether NFL assistants, NFL position coaches, or college coaches, are going to be interviewed when an opening comes available. I've yet to see a case where there's been an NFL opening and the team jumps immediately to a black candidate.

I had a nice conversation a few years back with someone who was put in charge of hiring a head man for a nationally-ranked college baseball program. When the opening was posted, he had to go through over 1,000 resumes and try to filter down to the actual interview candidates.

During that filtering process, he got a call from a person who he had played under in college. Basically, it was, "There's a guy who put in for the job who you're probably going to reject completely because he's been out of baseball for a few years. But here's why you should bring him in for an interview." So this guy ends up being added to the "interview" list, and he ends up getting the job. He never would have gotten past that first spot if not for the phone call from someone who the AD had a personal connection to.

This goes on every day. I've coached a few years of high school football, yet I recognize (and have been told by plenty of people) that I'll have to dramatically expand my contact list if I ever want to break into college coaching. I actually got a high school position a few years ago because the head coach was told "you HAVE to interview everyone who puts in for the job"; he had a personal connection to every other person who put in for it, yet I got the job. I got a foot in the door because of that order, otherwise I never would have interviewed at all.

ytownfootball wrote: Where do you draw the line ewok?

Based on cencus?

Based on player demographics?

I agree the number in the NCAA is low, but addressing apparent discrimination with more of the same doesn't seem right to me either. Two wrongs don't make a right.

I understand what you're saying and I'm not saying that the Rooney Rule is perfect....but it's something to help level the playing field. Tweak it a bit and I think it would be great. There's no way that there are that few qualified minorities to be head coaches. The lack of minority head college football coaches is startling. The NFL has made strides in this area while college football appears to be stuck in the dark ages.

sleeper wrote:

derek bomar wrote:

sleeper wrote: I'll say the truth. Just as white people don't make good basketball players, for the most part, black people do not make great head coaches. Sorry, but that's just the truth.

Tony Dungy and Omar Epps twin beg to differ.

Exceptions to the rule. If AA's were good coaches, there'd be more in the NFL/NCAA, simple as that.

"There's no way those "boys" for Western Kentucky can beat us."

Hmmm, maybe they just need more opportunities to show what they can do first......

I think teams should have to try-out a white running back and corner at the begining of each training camp....

Strapping Young Lad wrote: I think teams should have to try-out a white running back and corner at the begining of each training camp....

Most teams do, and the vast majority don't make the final roster.

So basically white running backs and defensive backs are given a greater opportunity to make an NFL team that a black assistant to be named head coach in the absence of the Rooney Rule.

NNN wrote:It's pretty much implied that white coaches, whether NFL assistants, NFL position coaches, or college coaches, are going to be interviewed when an opening comes available I've yet to see a case where there's been an NFL opening and the team jumps immediately to a black candidate.

I had a nice conversation a few years back with someone who was put in charge of hiring a head man for a nationally-ranked college baseball program. When the opening was posted, he had to go through over 1,000 resumes and try to filter down to the actual interview candidates.

During that filtering process, he got a call from a person who he had played under in college. Basically, it was, "There's a guy who put in for the job who you're probably going to reject completely because he's been out of baseball for a few years. But here's why you should bring him in for an interview." So this guy ends up being added to the "interview" list, and he ends up getting the job. He never would have gotten past that first spot if not for the phone call from someone who the AD had a personal connection to.

This goes on every day. I've coached a few years of high school football, yet I recognize (and have been told by plenty of people) that I'll have to dramatically expand my contact list if I ever want to break into college coaching. I actually got a high school position a few years ago because the head coach was told "you HAVE to interview everyone who puts in for the job"; he had a personal connection to every other person who put in for it, yet I got the job. I got a foot in the door because of that order, otherwise I never would have interviewed at all.

Again, your example has nothing to do with race and therefore is not applicable to this situation. As for your comment about not seeing a team immediately jump on hiring a black candidate. The San Francisco 49ers "jumped on" Mike Singletary pretty quickly. Singletary was made interim coach first (without any help, and with white coaches on the staff) and immediately hired as head coach after the season. Let me point out that the 49ers then were NOT required to interview any assistant coaches from any other team that maybe wanted to get their foot in the door.....the reason for this was nothing other than the fact that Singletary is black.

Tony Dungy was hired pretty quickly with the Colts after being "recycled" from the Buccaneers. Again, I have no problem with giving opportunities to assistants to prevent the constant recycling of coaches, even doing this on the basis of something like years coached. But to have race be the sole deciding factor on who gets a guaranteed interview is plain bullshit and textbook racism. Your notion that "It's pretty much implied that white coaches, whether NFL assistants, NFL position coaches, or college coaches, are going to be interviewed when an opening comes available" is both assinine and poorly supported. If there are so many more white coaches in the league, wouldn't it be easier for some of the lesser-known assistants to go unnoticed? How will the NFL help them get their foot in the door? You CAN'T use race as a deciding factor in this as it is something that people DON'T control and is a poor indicator of a person's coaching ability.

Was this necessary 20-30 years ago? Probably. Is it necessary in 2010? absolutely not

What the hell NFL teams try-out white running backs ??? I'd like some sources here or that's bullshit. White running backs are discriminated against coming out of high school. They are rarely given opportunity to play that position in college, are usually switched to safety or LB, let alone get a shot at the pros as RB's.

krazie45 wrote: Again, your example has nothing to do with race and therefore is not applicable to this situation. As for your comment about not seeing a team immediately jump on hiring a black candidate. The San Francisco 49ers "jumped on" Mike Singletary pretty quickly. Singletary was made interim coach first (without any help, and with white coaches on the staff) and immediately hired as head coach after the season. Let me point out that the 49ers then were NOT required to interview any assistant coaches from any other team that maybe wanted to get their foot in the door.....the reason for this was nothing other than the fact that Singletary is black.

Singletary was elevated to interim coach in part because San Francisco knew that if they kept him as a position coach, he'd be immediately hired as a DC or head coach by another team.

The team was also not required to interview anyone else because he was elevated to interim coach from an in-house position. Singletary's race has nothing to do with it.

Tony Dungy was hired pretty quickly with the Colts after being "recycled" from the Buccaneers. Again, I have no problem with giving opportunities to assistants to prevent the constant recycling of coaches, even doing this on the basis of something like years coached. But to have race be the sole deciding factor on who gets a guaranteed interview is plain bullshit and textbook racism. Your notion that "It's pretty much implied that white coaches, whether NFL assistants, NFL position coaches, or college coaches, are going to be interviewed when an opening comes available" is both assinine and poorly supported. If there are so many more white coaches in the league, wouldn't it be easier for some of the lesser-known assistants to go unnoticed? How will the NFL help them get their foot in the door? You CAN'T use race as a deciding factor in this as it is something that people DON'T control and is a poor indicator of a person's coaching ability.

Funny that you refer to "textbook racism" when you quite clearly have no idea what racism is. Consult a textbook first, then get back to me on that.

Was this necessary 20-30 years ago? Probably. Is it necessary in 2010? absolutely not

The NFL is extremely image-conscious, which is a huge part of why they've overtaken baseball as the most popular sport in this country. Five years ago, MLB was dragged in front of Congress kicking and screaming to be chewed out for not having a performance-enhancing drug policy. The NFL went in willingly and said, "These are the steps that have been taken since the mid-1980s to eliminate steroid use, this is how we conduct testing to eliminate submission of fraudulent samples, and these are the players that we have suspended for failing tests".

The NFL began flagging orchestrated and choreographed celebrations for a reason. They banned the throat-slashing gesture for a reason. They severely fine players for conduct that is detrimental to the image of the NFL. They suspend players for off-the-field issues that tarnish the image of the league.

The NFL isn't dumb. The team owners are all men who know a thing or two about hiring practices, law, and public image. The simple fact is that the NFL has been perceived as a place where institutional racism has existed for a number of years. Consider the following.
- George Preston Marshall, late owner of the Redskins, was dragged before Pete Rozelle and ordered to integrate his team in the 1960s since he wouldn't do it willingly
- The abominable history of black quarterbacks
- The history of black head coaches

The former two have been pretty much eradicated. The latter is less of an issue than it has been previously, but the issue still remains. To fully eradicate it would require overhauls in corporate interviewing and hiring practices; that's the only way that the Rooney Rule could be excised as being obsolete.