First Openly Gay NFL player comes out

[intlzncster]

Are you refuting my point or agreeing with it? I never gave my opinion of the rule (good, bad or indifferent. I made mention to it in response that black coaches are not an issue anymore. If that is the case, then the Rooney Rule would not be necessary. The article indicates that it is not only necessary, but probably needs to be broadened and strengthened.

For the record, I happen to not agree with the premise of the rule, but I believe it is necessary. I think organizations do very well interview the token candidate without a single notion of hiring him. Think Steve Mariucci in Detroit all those many moons ago. Therefore I believe the rule needs to be adjusted.

BTW, Caldwell is only a one-time head coach, but probably deserves to be again. I don't believe he deserved to be fired, given the team with which he had to work.

Not to hijack (ok, but to hijack), but the Rooney Rule, while maybe well intentioned, is pretty crap on the face of it. If you want to increase the number of opportunities for black HCs, you've got to increase the number of quality candidates. That means focusing at the coordinator level (and below). New HCs are generally very successful O or D coordinators. Get more black O and D coordinators, and there you go.

On Sam, it's going to depend on the specific locker room, if the GM that picks him knows his team, he'll be all right.

 

[Husky25]

While I'd love to think that change in the social dynamic is more responsible, six hiring in 80 years vs. 14 since 2003 indicates otherwise.

 

[ZooCougar]

I doubt homophobes have much to fear about a homosexual in their locker rooms since they are ineligible receivers.

 

[sportsart]

JJ got it right. Who knew.... JJ went to Mizzo.....

http://www.courant.com/sports/football/hc-jacobs-column-0211-20140210,0,742645.column

 

[noeynox]

Getting back to my earlier post, ball busting in NFL locker room seems to have no boundries. Rookies are hazed mercilessly. In Sam's case will players hold back because of his sexuality? Will his sexuality be off limits to jokes? Why? Would a player who bangs fat chicks not get his stones busted over it? If he doesn't get drafted, was it because he came out and teams don't want to deal with the distractions that come with that? I don't know the answers, I also wonder how the NFL's bible thumping sector will react. You see a lot of players kneeling holding hands in prayers. Traditionally, people with deep religous views haven't been the most welcoming of gays. There will be some issues for sure, but not any that I don't think will be overcome with time. If it goes over well, I think you may see some established players feel comfortable enough to come out. Doubt there aren't some gay players in the NFL playing right now.

 

[BlueMAB]

While I'd love to think that change in the social dynamic is more responsible, six hiring in 80 years vs. 14 since 2003 indicates otherwise.

For argument's sake, what rule was instituted to get Obama elected in 2008 and 2012?

 

[BlueMAB]

 

[sportsart]

Getting back to my earlier post, ball busting in NFL locker room seems to have no boundries. Rookies are hazed mercilessly. In Sam's case will players hold back because of his s e xuality? Will his s e xuality be off limits to jokes? Why? Would a player who bangs fat chicks not get his stones busted over it? If he doesn't get drafted, was it because he came out and teams don't want to deal with the distractions that come with that? I don't know the answers, I also wonder how the NFL's bible thumping sector will react. You see a lot of players kneeling holding hands in prayers. Traditionally, people with deep religous views haven't been the most welcoming of gays. There will be some issues for sure, but not any that I don't think will be overcome with time. If it goes over well, I think you may see some established players feel comfortable enough to come out. Doubt there aren't some gay players in the NFL playing right now.

I hold out hope that there are more Donald Browns in the NFL than the people you described. I can picture Donald welcoming him to whatever locker room he ends up in, in 2014. All you need are few MEN to step forward, like Donald, and the children will shut up.

 

[Jimmy Serrano]

While I'd love to think that change in the social dynamic is more responsible, six hiring in 80 years vs. 14 since 2003 indicates otherwise.

Ok then, how many NFL HC jobs were there 80 years ago vs today? Heck how many black NFL players were there 80 years ago?

 

[Husky25]

For argument's sake, what rule was instituted to get Obama elected in 2008 and 2012?

If you can't see that is an apple/orange comparison, it's not worth dignifying it with a response. Not biting.

 

[BlueMAB]

If you can't see that is an apple/orange comparison, it's not worth dignifying it with a response. Not biting.

My only point is you are tremendously underselling the change in social dynamic.

It's not apples/oranges at all. We are talking about black men getting opportunities they previously couldn't.

 

[Husky25]

Ok then, how many NFL HC jobs were there 80 years ago vs today? Heck how many black NFL players were there 80 years ago?

Fine, don't go back 80 years. Go back 34. For the 24 years between 1979 to 2003, there were six minority head coaches. Since, there have been over a dozen.

Is the Rooney Rule perfect? Not by a long shot but it was instituted for a reason and it still exists, for better or worse. None of this was my reasoning in bringing it into the discussion, but if you need the play by play, it begins on page 1.

 

[Husky25]

My only point is you are tremendously underselling the change in social dynamic.

It's not apples/oranges at all. We are talking about black men getting opportunities they previously couldn't.

It is. In theory, millions of people have a vote in determining the president after months of vetting. A select few determine the fate of a football coach.

They only thing the two processes have in common is that they are both broken.

 

[BlueMAB]

I think a couple black coaches winning the Super Bowl and another losing (to another black coach) has a lot to do with the opportunities increasing.

 

[mattp]

I get that. I don't dispute it, but I doubt Caldwell gets a fair shake in Indy without the Rooney Rule. According to the article I linked earlier, There were 6 instances of a minority head coach in the 80 years prior to the implementation of the Rooney rule. There were 12 from 2003 up to the publishing of that article.

Correlation doesn't equal causation. The instances of black quarterbacks has probably increased by a similar percentage and there haven't been any rules requiring coaches consider black QBs. It's the changing times, not the rule. Eventually owners learn that if they want to win a championship they need to hire the best candidate regardless of color. I don't know if the Rooney rule is a good rule or a bad rule, but I think a team owner that only interviews a black candidate to fill a quota is probably not going to hire said candidate.

 

[ZooCougar]

Fine, don't go back 80 years. Go back 34. For the 24 years between 1979 to 2003, there were six minority head coaches. Since, there have been over a dozen.

Is the Rooney Rule perfect? Not by a long shot but it was instituted for a reason and it still exists, for better or worse. None of this was my reasoning in bringing it into the discussion, but if you need the play by play, it begins on page 1.

This is just ridiculous. This is the same mentality that believes that the govt should solve all of our problems. Congratulations, you just changed my position on the Rooney rule. It blows.

 

[Husky25]

Let me be very clear. I am neither a proponent for, nor detractor of the Rooney rule. It is one step removed from flat out Affirmative Action without the defacto hiring quota mandate. However, it was instituted by the 32 owners upon themselves by whatever mechanism they use. I think it is broke. I think it needs to be tweaked. At the same time, I think that that some people have certainly been helped by it. Fairly or unfairly is not for me to decide.

My point (which can me 're read on page one and has not changed) is that the NFL is basically a Good ol Boys club and set in their ways. Their ways currently do not include inviting additional baggage into their locker rooms. The issue at hand will only be an issue so far as Sam is good at his trade. Withou guaranteed contracts, the NFL is a meritocracy for its players, but if Sam is cut, some will certainly wonder why.

Oh and if a couple black coaches winning the Super Bowl or a Black man in the White House is enough evidence that racism has been substantively abated from our society, I refer you to the first three words of mattPs post.

 

[HuskyHawk]

Yep. Zoo and I are both northeastern bleeding heart liberals.

I wasn't targetting you two, just the overall perception on the thread that this will be just fine in the locker room and only an external distraction. I don't buy it.

 

[BNich]

ESPN will not let this fade for months.

He has the dreaded "tweener" tag, but damn the measurables. Kid was co-defensive player of the year in the SEC as a DE. I hope the Raiders grab him mid draft. 5th round would be great.

Alright another Raider fan! I think it is ridiculous that someone's sexual orientation would affect their draft status.

 

[Husky25]

Correlation doesn't equal causation. The instances of black quarterbacks has probably increased by a similar percentage and there haven't been any rules requiring coaches consider black QBs. It's the changing times, not the rule. Eventually owners learn that if they want to win a championship they need to hire the best candidate regardless of color. I don't know if the Rooney rule is a good rule or a bad rule, but I think a team owner that only interviews a black candidate to fill a quota is probably not going to hire said candidate.

No it doesn't (at least directly), but the numbers suggest that there could be a relationship. This is not an if/then hypothesis. More than one or two variables exist and a "flawed" argument one way, does not imply that the conclusion is false if tested from a different angle.

I never said the Rooney rule was the reason there are more NFL head coaches of minority decent. There is no hiring mandate, only to interview. Owners and GMs can just interview the token candidate to appease the rule and move on. I would not be surprised if that had occurred from time to time either. But these men also talk amongst themselves all the time. On the flip side, I can very easily see a GM mention that a coach did not fit with their philosophy or personnel, but may with another team and another GM should give them a shot. Ipso facto, I think the chances a minority being hired as a head coach increases.

 

[Husky25]

Alright another Raider fan! I think it is ridiculous that someone's s e xual orientation would affect their draft status.

You never know. It only take one team. Tim Tebow is a first rounder. Nothing can take that away from him, even if the other 31 teams may very well have rated him a 3rd rounder. By many of the accounts I've read, Sam is a late 3rd rounder at best ranging all the way to UDFA due to his 'tweener status and Senior Bowl performance. Had he been a sure fire 1st rounder, it'd be easier to tell.

Do I think there are environments where Sam would be in a better position to succeed than others? Absolutely.

 

[Waquoit]

I wasn't targetting you two, just the overall perception on the thread that this will be just fine in the locker room and only an external distraction. I don't buy it.

I think this will be much ado about nothing in the locker room. The only worry about "distraction" seems to come from anonymous front-office types.

 

[BlueMAB]

I'm not trying to change your mind @Husky25 but it is kind of hard to follow logic that begins "[the Rooney Rule] was instituted by the 32 owners upon themselves by whatever mechanism they use." and then concludes "the NFL is basically a Good ol Boys club and set in their ways."

Why would a "good ole boys club set in their ways" take it upon themselves to institute a new rule that forces them to consider changing their ways? If they weren't already open to the idea of hiring the best coach available, black or white? That's a rhetorical question, no need to attempt an answer.

The problem is you seem to be making generalizations about the owners as if they all think the same. What's apparent is that some owners wanted the rest of the owners to be more open to hiring black coaches, so they thought up this rule to get them to interview. The owners who opposed hiring black coaches are at least smart enough not to oppose this rule for fear of being outed and cast as a racist. Justly, or not.

Lastly,

"Oh and if a couple black coaches winning the Super Bowl or a Black man in the White House is enough evidence that racism has been substantively abated from our society..."

I'll give you the benefit of doubt and assume this was said out of frustration from debating with several different people at the same time, but you know I didn't say this. You're creating a strawman to debate a point nobody even argued.

A black man elected as President, not once but twice, proves a substantial shift in social values over the past 80 years. And a couple black coaches winning the Super Bowl gives an owner, who otherwise may have been hesitant to hire a black coach, far more incentive to hire one than a rule saying he must give out a token interview. Argue against that if you want, but don't create a strawman as if I pretended racism doesn't exist. I'm not white, I still deal with it from time to time.

 

[Husky25]

We're through the looking glass already. This thread should probably make its way toward the Cesspool.

I'm not trying to change your mind @Husky25 but it is kind of hard to follow logic that begins "[the Rooney Rule] was instituted by the 32 owners upon themselves by whatever mechanism they use." and then concludes "the NFL is basically a Good ol Boys club and set in their ways."

Why would a "good ole boys club set in their ways" take it upon themselves to institute a new rule that forces them to consider changing their ways? If they weren't already open to the idea of hiring the best coach available, black or white? That's a rhetorical question, no need to attempt an answer.

No Wing. In the context of my post, it goes the other way. The Good ol' Boys network was facing scrutiny from potential lawsuits and Congressional pressure (IIRC) about diversity in their GM and Coaching ranks. Ergo, the Rooney Rule is an attempt to appease that opposition short of outright affirmative action. Also, the two issues are mutually exclusive. Just because teams interview a more diverse candidate pool for does not also automatically a willingness to invite excess distraction into the locker room. I was using one to illustrate a point on the other. I don't understand why that is such a hard concept to grasp.

The problem is you seem to be making generalizations about the owners as if they all think the same. What's apparent is that some owners wanted the rest of the owners to be more open to hiring black coaches, so they thought up this rule to get them to interview. The owners who opposed hiring black coaches are at least smart enough not to oppose this rule for fear of being outed and cast as a racist. Justly, or not.

I am doing no such thing. My original point has nothing to do with the pros and cons of the fv<king Rooney Rule. It was used as an example of how the team needed to shift a cultural characteristic when it is typically not in their nature to deviate from their norm. Coaches and GMs want their teams to be focused on football all the time, 24/7/365. The Sam situation has the potential to invite additional baggage and/or distraction into the locker room, where it is typically not intentionally invited and can be avoided.

Lastly,

"Oh and if a couple black coaches winning the Super Bowl or a Black man in the White House is enough evidence that racism has been substantively abated from our society..."

I'll give you the benefit of doubt and assume this was said out of frustration from debating with several different people at the same time, but you know I didn't say this. You're creating a strawman to debate a point nobody even argued.

A black man elected as President, not once but twice, proves a substantial shift in social values over the past 80 years. And a couple black coaches winning the Super Bowl gives an owner, who otherwise may have been hesitant to hire a black coach, far more incentive to hire one than a rule saying he must give out a token interview. Argue against that if you want, but don't create a strawman as if I pretended racism doesn't exist. I'm not white, I still deal with it from time to time.

I appreciate that and you're right. I outright used the term, where I perceived others were merely dancing around it, but bringing up a minority in the White House is also a strawman argument. Way too many - and far more numerous - factors go into the Country selecting the President than a team picking a new coach or GM. Real quickly...with the state of the economy leading up to the '08 Presidential election, it is my firm belief that no one with an (R) after their name was going to win (Palin didn't help but that's beside the point). 2012 carried different dynamics than 2008, but there were just as many.

You state that, "[I am] tremendously underselling the change in social dynamic." Is it remotely possible that the change in social dynamic is being overstating here, given that the Rooney Rule was instituted way back in 2003? This isn't a civil rights era guideline. It's just over a decade old.

My summation vis a vie the Rooney Rule is this: Do I agree with it? No. I am generally against these types of policies. There is too much room for the interviewer to gloss over the token candidate (i.e. the Lions controversy). Do I think it is necessary? Yeah. In the current climate I think it still is necessary, but I hope the implications continue to be less and less as time goes on.

That is really all I have to say about this whole thing and I hope this subject can be put to rest.