Jump to content
Indianapolis Colts
Indianapolis Colts Fan Forum

Same old faces


YOUR GM

Recommended Posts

To all you anti-Rooney rule posters on here, I'd like to hear your opinions on why proven mediocre coaches are being recycled into head coaching positions not long after being fired?

Kubiak is a leading candidate for the Denver job (friend of the org), Jack "fricken" Del Rio just got a job in Oakland, for crying out loud. John Fox is fired by Denver and lands in Chicago. Rex Ryan to Buffalo, and the list goes on. So how exactly has the Rooney rule kept "more qualified" coaches from getting jobs? If anything, I see plenty of "good ole boy" connections being the main culprit in preventing up and coming coaches from getting their fair shot, yet I don't see near the same amount of outcry over it, despite the fact that many of the "old guard" are proven losers and keep getting 2nd, 3rd and 4th chances.

THAT, in my opinion, is why the Rooney rule, and others like it, still very much have their place in today's NFL. Just my two cents

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Kubiak, Del Rio and Fox have all had success in the NFL. Fox won four division titles in a row with Denver. Kubiak did win AFC coach of the year in 2011 and has 3 super bowl rings as a coach for the 49ers and the Broncos. So maybe your comment about the 'old guards' are proven losers is incorrect.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

...or you could look at it the other way, which is what some "Anti-Rooney rule posters" do, and look at your facts as a way of saying that it doesn't really help anything, none of those coaches are black. They chose those coaches because for whatever reason they seemed to believe they would help their franchise. Also, according to you Lovie Smith shouldn't have a job because he was a retread. Also all up-and-coming coaches aren't black, so you should have no reason to believe that a black coach would have or wouldn't have gotten a job should those other coaches decided not to coach any longer. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Its difficult for a coordinator to be more qualified than a former HC, especially when each coach mentioned has had some success.

A team has to have a compelling reason to objectively believe a coordinator will be better than a previous HC...and Ryan and Del Rio aren't retreads.

Fox might be, but he has a lot of wins under his belt.

Its unfair to look at all three teams together and cast some conspiracy. Each team acts independently when hiring and firing coaches. Its not coordinated by some invisible hand.

If people consider Fox to be a retread and is getting chosen over some coordinator, then look at the Bears specifically and see what the dynamics of the situation is, including the idea that they may be getting tired of hiring HCs that have no previous HC experience, which is their history.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You are arguing over nothing.

 

 

None of the men you named out have won a SB. Case closed. They're all mediocre coaches going in circles. I don't see the big deal whatsoever. Who cares? And you know very well none of them are going to win a SB either. 

 

The NFL is built off "good ole boy" connections and big names. That's essentially also how it works in Murica. Those with money are the influence. It's much easier to be born rich, and have life easier rather than be dirt poor and try to work your way up (this rarely ever happens) 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

To all you anti-Rooney rule posters on here, I'd like to hear your opinions on why proven mediocre coaches are being recycled into head coaching positions not long after being fired?

Kubiak is a leading candidate for the Denver job (friend of the org), Jack "fricken" Del Rio just got a job in Oakland, for crying out loud. John Fox is fired by Denver and lands in Chicago. Rex Ryan to Buffalo, and the list goes on. So how exactly has the Rooney rule kept "more qualified" coaches from getting jobs? If anything, I see plenty of "good ole boy" connections being the main culprit in preventing up and coming coaches from getting their fair shot, yet I don't see near the same amount of outcry over it, despite the fact that many of the "old guard" are proven losers and keep getting 2nd, 3rd and 4th chances.

THAT, in my opinion, is why the Rooney rule, and others like it, still very much have their place in today's NFL. Just my two cents

What about Todd Bowles?

 

I think this was a strange year in the NFL with so many coaches just moving around teams. I think once you are a proven HC, you get more chances as it is the toughest job in sports. To go with a new guy is a huge risk. It is not so much a race issue as the network issue. GMs and owners have their ties and trees and usually don't stray from them for good reason.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You are arguing over nothing.

 

 

None of the men you named out have won a SB. Case closed. They're all mediocre coaches going in circles. I don't see the big deal whatsoever. Who cares? And you know very well none of them are going to win a SB either. 

 

The NFL is built off "good ole boy" connections and big names. That's essentially also how it works in Murica. Those with money are the influence. It's much easier to be born rich, and have life easier rather than be dirt poor and try to work your way up (this rarely ever happens) 

I know Kubiak was not the head coach but he has 3 super bowl rings with the 49ers and Broncos. He also won coach of the year in 2011 with the Texans. So you think Fox is a mediocre? He did take the Panthers to the super bowl and lost on a last second field goal to Vinatieri. He won four straight division titles with Denver. Sorry, but that is not mediocre by any standards.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Todd Bowles is part of the "good ol boy network" too. He was hand picked by Arians to run the Cards D, if you can remember the controversy there was when the well respected Cards DC was fired at the time, in order to hire Bowles. I forget the DC's name. Bowles has the obvious respect of Arians, who has respect himself by the NFL, and who hired Bowles out of nowhere.

Networking > Interviewing

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Todd Bowles is part of the "good ol boy network" too. He was hand picked by Arians to run the Cards D, if you can remember the controversy there was when the well respected Cards DC was fired at the time, in order to hire Bowles. I forget the DC's name. Bowles has the obvious respect of Arians, who has respect himself by the NFL, and who hired Bowles out of nowhere.

Networking > Interviewing

I believe you're referring to Ray Horton

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Here's my question; How black does one have to be in order to be considered "African American"? 

 

I mean to say; My great-great Grandmother was a full blooded Wyandotte Native American. So can I call myself a Native American? If she was black, could I call myself African American? Would the Rooney rule apply to me? 

 

This is one of my issues with special benefits intended for minorities. At what point is one no longer a minority?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Here's my question; How black does one have to be in order to be considered "African American"? 

 

I mean to say; My great-great Grandmother was a full blooded Wyandotte Native American. So can I call myself a Native American? If she was black, could I call myself African American? Would the Rooney rule apply to me? 

 

This is one of my issues with special benefits intended for minorities. At what point is one no longer a minority?

The legal definition is 25% family heritage. One grandparent...then you can legally claim to be a minority and whatever benefits are afforded that status.

People don't realize this, but in many African American neighborhoods, Obama isn't really considered to be black because one grandmother was white. I'm not kidding. Its not legally acceptable to call him white because the definition only works in one direction, but the thinking is the same. Its rooted in the concept of "racial purity" where each holds the other "unpure" if it is tainted by another race. I hope I don't offend anyone by my words...its just the root of the legal definition and the mindset that formed it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The legal definition is 25% family heritage. One grandparent...then you can legally claim to be a minority and whatever benefits are afforded that status.

People don't realize this, but in many African American neighborhoods, Obama isn't really considered to be black because one grandmother was white. I'm not kidding. Its not legally acceptable to call him white because the definition only works in one direction, but the thinking is the same. Its rooted in the concept of "racial purity" where each holds the other "unpure" if it is tainted by another race. I hope I don't offend anyone by my words...its just the root of the legal definition and the mindset that formed it.

Actually, very well done. I've been meaning to look into this myself but I never have. Strange how our laws arbitrarily dictate racial purity, isn't it? Stranger yet, the need for such. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You are arguing over nothing.

None of the men you named out have won a SB. Case closed. They're all mediocre coaches going in circles. I don't see the big deal whatsoever. Who cares? And you know very well none of them are going to win a SB either.

The NFL is built off "good ole boy" connections and big names. That's essentially also how it works in Murica. Those with money are the influence. It's much easier to be born rich, and have life easier rather than be dirt poor and try to work your way up (this rarely ever happens)

Actually it happens quite often.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Todd Bowles is part of the "good ol boy network" too. He was hand picked by Arians to run the Cards D, if you can remember the controversy there was when the well respected Cards DC was fired at the time, in order to hire Bowles. I forget the DC's name. Bowles has the obvious respect of Arians, who has respect himself by the NFL, and who hired Bowles out of nowhere.

Networking > Interviewing

Ray Horton hasn't been anywhere very long. I'm guessing there is a reason

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Actually, very well done. I've been meaning to look into this myself but I never have. Strange how our laws arbitrarily dictate racial purity, isn't it? Stranger yet, the need for such.

The law had to define race..and it has to assign a percentage....how else can it decide cases?

I haven't read about it in quite some time...I asked your same question years ago...but I think scientifically and biologically, there are only three races of humans. Their scientific names are Caucasoid, Negroid, and Mongoloid (Mongolia...Asian). Each sort of lived in their separate areas of the world I guess. As they each got more mobile, that clear distinction sort of got "diluted" over the past thousands of years.

For centuries, everybody in the world has been pretty much a "mutt" of some sort, (although some like to think that they're not) but the legal definition is rooted in science I believe. Since the Caucasoid mutts are the majority of the people in the countries that have our western legal system, the other two races are considered minorities. The law had to draw an arbitrary line at some point, so 25% was the demarcation. The 25% probably has no significance other than convenience for the court. The courts probably found it too cumbersome to try to trace back farther then that, so they picked a percentage that a person could easily document.

Hispanics and (in your example) Native Americans aren't even races. They are cultures. They are generally of Mongoloid roots. They migrated from Asia over the Bering Straight long ago. But people don't think of them in terms of being similar to Asians. People look at the issue from an economic and oppression viewpoint (possibly for political agendas), so Asians are not really associated with being a minority in a discrimination sense, even though they are legally.

Our school systems do a very poor job of teaching this stuff. Too touchy of a subject I guess.

Again...don't be offended by my words.. everybody is a mutt. The line just had to be drawn somewhere for legal purposes.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Ray Horton hasn't been anywhere very long. I'm guessing there is a reason

yeah, I haven't heard his name much. I just remember at the time, Horton was considered to be a good DC because of what he did with AZ defense. Arians must have known Bowles from working with him over the years, because Bowles didn't have the resume at the time, being the DC for a rather mediocre eagles defense.

My point is that Bowles earned the respect of Arians, a coach who is very well thought of. Bowles experience and whatever else must have shown through to Arians. When a guy like Arians goes out on a limb to pick someone over an existing DC that had a good year, I would think others notice. That type of experience and recommendation by an established coach gave Bowles much more of a favorable chance to be a HC than did a 30-60 minute interview, IMO.

Not to mention the performance of AZ defense this year.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

To all you anti-Rooney rule posters on here, I'd like to hear your opinions on why proven mediocre coaches are being recycled into head coaching positions not long after being fired?

Kubiak is a leading candidate for the Denver job (friend of the org), Jack "fricken" Del Rio just got a job in Oakland, for crying out loud. John Fox is fired by Denver and lands in Chicago. Rex Ryan to Buffalo, and the list goes on. So how exactly has the Rooney rule kept "more qualified" coaches from getting jobs? If anything, I see plenty of "good ole boy" connections being the main culprit in preventing up and coming coaches from getting their fair shot, yet I don't see near the same amount of outcry over it, despite the fact that many of the "old guard" are proven losers and keep getting 2nd, 3rd and 4th chances.

THAT, in my opinion, is why the Rooney rule, and others like it, still very much have their place in today's NFL. Just my two cents

 

Some folks are obsessed with race. Many of them believe that "minorities" cannot make it on their own talent and achievements.

 

Race/ethnicity or whatever you want a call it should never be a factor in hiring....at all.  It is discriminatory and at the same time, patronizing to those who it is directed at-it leaves them in doubt about why they are being interviewed.  If it didn't exist and they were interviewed and hired, it is assured that it is based on their achievements and potential to lead a winning team.    

 

You brought up Del Rio-he built a stout Denver defense.  Plus, Oakland is more familiar with him after his time in Denver (AFC West).  

Fox built a winning program in Denver-the same is believed in Chicago.  He'll provide some stability there. 

Over all, Kubiak did a pretty good job in Houston.  His Achilles heel was Indianapolis.  He got Houston over the hump one time when Peyton was hurt.

Rex Ryan is what the Bills want.  He is a defensive mastermind and brought in Roman, who built the system in SF, to built an offensive The two worked together in Baltimore.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You all missed the point of my OP, entirely. I'm not arguing that race was the motivating factor behind the hires of the coaches I listed. I'm saying that the rationale that being required to interview black candidates is somehow causing more "qualified" candidates to miss out on coaching jobs because of the Rooney rule, is flawed. In fact, one can argue (which I am doing right now) that politics wins out in the end, and the Rooney rule isn't preventing any white candidates from coaching interviews at all. The same old coaches are being recycled, and the inner network of coaching trees/friends of "royalty" in football is still running strong.

It just annoys me that everytime Pep Hamilton's (or any other young black coach) name is brought up as a candidate for a head coaching position, people automatically resort to attacking the Rooney rule. The fact that some can't phathom a young black coach getting interviews on his own merit, is more telling of character of those that perpetuate that sentiment than it is of anything else

EDIT: And yes I realize that's what some of you think the Rooney Rule does itself. I strongly disagree, however. The Rooney doesn't s guarantee anyone anything. All it does is put someone different in a GM/owner's face for an interview that they might not have considered before, simply because they're not familiar with the guy (maybe) If a owner still wants a particular guy, the Rooney rule isn't stopping him from hiring that guy. The rule is not without flaw, but the spirit of it is very necessary, as the statistics throughout the history of the game (even still) show that not enough minorities are being looked at for those positions.

Also, racism still exists. Stop acting like it doesn't. Just look at the nonsense that's went on in the NBA with their owners in the last year. You're telling me that couldn't happen in the NFL?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You all missed the point of my OP, entirely. I'm not arguing that race was the motivating factor behind the hires of the coaches I listed. I'm saying that the rationale that being required to interview black candidates is somehow causing more "qualified" candidates to miss out on coaching jobs because of the Rooney rule, is flawed. In fact, one can argue (which I am doing right now) that politics wins out in the end, and the Rooney rule isn't preventing any white candidates from coaching interviews at all. The same old coaches are being recycled, and the inner network of coaching trees/friends of "royalty" in football is still running strong.

It just annoys me that everytime Pep Hamilton's (or any other young black coach) name is brought up as a candidate for a head coaching position, people automatically resort to attacking the Rooney rule. The fact that some can't phathom a young black coach getting interviews on his own merit, is more telling of character of those that perpetuate that sentiment than it is of anything else

EDIT: And yes I realize that's what some of you think the Rooney Rule does itself. I strongly disagree, however. The Rooney doesn't s guarantee anyone anything. All it does is put someone different in a GM/owner's face for an interview that they might not have considered before, simply because they're not familiar with the guy (maybe) If a owner still wants a particular guy, the Rooney rule isn't stopping him from hiring that guy. The rule is not without flaw, but the spirit of it is very necessary, as the statistics throughout the history of the game (even still) show that not enough minorities are being looked at for those positions.

Also, racism still exists. Stop acting like it doesn't. Just look at the nonsense that's went on in the NBA with their owners in the last year. You're telling me that couldn't happen in the NFL?

I think the point of the responses is that you can't draw any conclusions about the hiring practices of "the NFL" by observing the most recent round of hirings.

And to a broader point...each team acts independently. The owners don't meet in a room and decide as a collective who gets interviewed and who doesn't. For example, you can't assign a racist charge to the owners of the Bears for hiring Fox because the owners of the Raiders also hired Del Rio..or because that Pep didn't get hired by anybody. However, assumptions like that are very much commonplace in our society thanks, in part, to our education system and the personal opinions of journalists. Stop the slander please.

And to the other point about denials of opportunities....No company has sufficient time to interview everybody. If the last qualified white person on the list gets dropped off in favor of complying with a law that requires the company to interview a minority, then yes, that last qualified white guy got denied his opportunity to interview for that specific position offered by that specific company because of his race. That's racism.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think the point of the responses is that you can't draw any conclusions about the hiring practices of "the NFL" by observing the most recent round of hirings.

And to a broader point...each team acts independently. The owners don't meet in a room and decide as a collective who gets interviewed and who doesn't. For example, you can't assign a racist charge to the owners of the Bears for hiring Fox because the owners of the Raiders also hired Del Rio..or because that Pep didn't get hired by anybody. However, assumptions like that are very much commonplace in our society thanks, in part, to our education system and the personal opinions of journalists. Stop the slander please.

And to the other point about denials of opportunities....No company has sufficient time to interview everybody. If the last qualified white person on the list gets dropped off in favor of complying with a law that requires the company to interview a minority, then yes, that last qualified white guy got denied his opportunity to interview for that specific position offered by that specific company because of his race. That's racism.

You are adept at injecting political comments into threads without being called out for them. Unbelievable.

THE GM clarified that his point was that the Rooney Rule does not prevent a team from hiring the coach it wants. He is right -- just look at who has been hired. I have no problem with any of the hirings, including the new coach in SF. I thought SF should hire someone who was on Harbaugh's coaching staff.

The lone point you made in an earlier post that I agree with is that connections leads to interviews/hires. That is the case in SF, Chicago, Denver, and perhaps in NY (Jets) where Todd Bowles was an assistant coach years ago.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think the point of the responses is that you can't draw any conclusions about the hiring practices of "the NFL" by observing the most recent round of hirings.

And to a broader point...each team acts independently. The owners don't meet in a room and decide as a collective who gets interviewed and who doesn't. For example, you can't assign a racist charge to the owners of the Bears for hiring Fox because the owners of the Raiders also hired Del Rio..or because that Pep didn't get hired by anybody. However, assumptions like that are very much commonplace in our society thanks, in part, to our education system and the personal opinions of journalists. Stop the slander please.

And to the other point about denials of opportunities....No company has sufficient time to interview everybody. If the last qualified white person on the list gets dropped off in favor of complying with a law that requires the company to interview a minority, then yes, that last qualified white guy got denied his opportunity to interview for that specific position offered by that specific company because of his race. That's racism.

I never suggested that the NFL as a whole is in cahoots. You're in serious denial, however, if you don't believe there is a brotherhood within the NFL that looks out for their guys in particular. If you're wanting a level playing field, take all bias factors into consideration, not just the Rooney rule because the topic of inequality or racism is what makes you most uncomfortable

As to your point about companies not having enough time to interview everybody, what's different from a minority candidate getting the last interview because he's the most qualified minority in comparison to a less qualified white candidate who happens to be friends with the employer? Or worse, what if the employer just flat out hates minorities?

Unfortunately we can't read minds, so there has to be rules and mandates to keep employers somewhat honest. It's easy to criticize when you haven't experienced prejudice to that magnitude first-hand. And maybe you have experienced it, but in my experience with those who HAVE experienced discrimination in the work force at some point in their lives, they tend to show a little more empathy towards those victimized by that topic.

There seems to be this new-age sentiment going around now that we live in a Utopia where institutionalize racism no longer exists, all because Obama was elected president. I don't understand it

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I never suggested that the NFL as a whole is in cahoots. You're in serious denial, however, if you don't believe there is a brotherhood within the NFL that looks out for their guys in particular. If you're wanting a level playing field, take all bias factors into consideration, not just the Rooney rule because the topic of inequality or racism is what makes you most uncomfortable

As to your point about companies not having enough time to interview everybody, what's different from a minority candidate getting the last interview because he's the most qualified minority in comparison to a less qualified white candidate who happens to be friends with the employer? Or worse, what if the employer just flat out hates minorities?

Unfortunately we can't read minds, so there has to be rules and mandates to keep employers somewhat honest. It's easy to criticize when you haven't experienced prejudice to that magnitude first-hand. And maybe you have experienced it, but in my experience with those who HAVE experienced discrimination in the work force at some point in their lives, they tend to show a little more empathy towards those victimized by that topic.

There seems to be this new-age sentiment going around now that we live in a Utopia where institutionalize racism no longer exists, all because Obama was elected president. I don't understand it

Your first sentence is contradictory. You say that you do not believe that the owners are in cahoots, but that they are a brotherhood that looks out for their own. I don't see the difference.

I'm not going to get into a sociology debate with anyone on a football forum, but I'll just say that you should step back and realize what you are saying in the rest of your post. You are enabling the common thought process that allows people to make broad unsupported assumptions based upon the knowledge of specific incidences when they happen. The only possible conclusion anyone can reasonably make is that racism existed in those specific incidences. Using those incidents to cast a larger assumption of racism on the general body...who are not involved in the specific incidents..... is both incendiary and slanderous. Yet, that type of thinking is commonplace.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You are adept at injecting political comments into threads without being called out for them. Unbelievable.

The OP is making broad assumptions about the mindset of an entire body by choosing to look at the recent round of hirings.....whether it be race, or good ol boy network, or whatever. He is not considering the idea that each selection was based upon who the ownership thought would be the best hire at the time.

The entire premise of the thread is about the rooney rule and the need to counteract the mindest of the owners...as if they all think alike...as a brotherhood apparently when it comes to looking at the race of coaches.

My other posts were about answering a question about the legal definition of minority. I'm not interjecting any new concepts into the thread.

You are free to have the opinion as to whether or not that is political.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Your first sentence is contradictory. You say that you do not believe that the owners are in cahoots, but that they are a brotherhood that looks out for their own. I don't see the difference.

I'm not going to get into a sociology debate with anyone on a football forum, but I'll just say that you should step back and realize what you are saying in the rest of your post. You are enabling the common thought process that allows people to make broad unsupported assumptions based upon the knowledge of specific incidences when they happen. The only possible conclusion anyone can reasonably make is that racism existed in those specific incidences. Using those incidents to cast a larger assumption of racism on the general body...who are not involved in the specific incidents..... is both incendiary and slanderous. Yet, that type of thinking is commonplace.

You understood what I was saying in the first sentence. You're arguing semantics to deflect from addressing the actual point in the sentence. You accused me of saying all NFL teams are working together when hiring candidates. I never made that claim, and that's what the ''cahoots' comment was referring to. I do, however, believe that owners and GM's have friends whom they are more willing to hire than candidates that they don't know, regardless if that candidate is more or less qualified. Those are 2 independent thoughts, not meant to be lumped together. If they come across contradictory, it is because you're being willfully ignorant, as you don't want to acknowledge that networking is a greater factor in deciding whom hires who than the Rooney rule is.

The rest of your post is pure idealism, and not based in reality. This is the world we live in and there will always be those who feel the need to discriminate and have prejudices because they have to feel superior to someone else. I'm sorry that doesn't fit in with your view of the world, but it is true

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The OP is making broad assumptions about the mindset of an entire body by choosing to look at the recent round of hirings.....whether it be race, or good ol boy network, or whatever. He is not considering the idea that each selection was based upon who the ownership thought would be the best hire at the time.

The entire premise of the thread is about the rooney rule and the need to counteract the mindest of the owners...as if they all think alike...as a brotherhood apparently when it comes to looking at the race of coaches.

My other posts were about answering a question about the legal definition of minority. I'm not interjecting any new concepts into the thread.

You are free to have the opinion as to whether or not that is political.

I find that you post many political comments. If a thread is closed for political comments, you are usually one of the posters. It was not necessary to write about the so called "legal definition of minority" or about who is mongoloid, caucasoid, etc? That had nothing to do with the OP's point.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I find that you post many political comments. If a thread is closed for political comments, you are usually one of the posters. It was not necessary to write about the so called "legal definition of minority" or about who is mongoloid, caucasoid, etc? That had nothing to do with the OP's point.

The terms are factual..if people want to view those objective terms as offensive..that's their problem.

Yes, it had nothing to do with the OPs point. It had to do with another posters question about how much Native American heritage had to be part of his ancestory in order to claim minority status.

So....under the rooney rule, which is in THE FIRST sentence of the OPs point, who exactly is a legal minority would be relevant.

Its not my fault the NFL makes policy that's based on touchy social subjects...and not my fault that other people don't know how to discuss them objectively.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I do, however, believe that owners and GM's have friends whom they are more willing to hire than candidates that they don't know, regardless if that candidate is more or less qualified.

The rest of your post is pure idealism, and not based in reality. This is the world we live in and there will always be those who feel the need to discriminate and have prejudices because they have to feel superior to someone else. I'm sorry that doesn't fit in with your view of the world, but it is true

1. I agree with you about networking, except if I was starting a thread I wouldn't refer to the rooney rule in the first sentence unless I was thinking that the network had a racial element of exclusion.

2. Your perception of reality is based on assumptions. If prejudices exist (I'm not saying they don't) they cannot be assumed to be practiced by everyone in a group without exercising prejudicial thought to do it. That's unbelievably hypocritical.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The terms are factual..if people want to view those objective terms as offensive..that's their problem.

Yes, it had nothing to do with the OPs point. It had to do with another posters question about how much Native American heritage had to be part of his ancestory in order to claim minority status.

So....under the rooney rule, which is in THE FIRST sentence of the OPs point, who exactly is a legal minority would be relevant.

Its not my fault the NFL makes policy that's based on touchy social subjects...and not my fault that other people don't know how to discuss them objectively.

I am very familiar with those terms as are most people. However, most readers/posters realize that this has nothing to do with the OP and has no place on such a message board. What does Native Americans being Mongoloid (in your opinion) have to do with the OP or with football?

You are not alone in being opposed to the Rooney Rule. Writing about that is appropriate. But adding all those extraneous comments (with no citations/references) is inappropriate.

I better end here so that I can go enjoy the football games.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1. I agree with you about networking, except if I was starting a thread I wouldn't refer to the rooney rule in the first sentence unless I was thinking that the network had a racial element of exclusion.

2. Your perception of reality is based on assumptions. If prejudices exist (I'm not saying they don't) they cannot be assumed to be practiced by everyone in a group without exercising prejudicial thought to do it. That's unbelievably hypocritical.

Could you state your purpose in posting in this thread in one or two sentences?  Just want to clarify what point you are making

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...