A Great Way For The Colts to Earn Future Draft Picks and Enrich Our Team!

[philba101]

I don't know if the Colts are attempting this, if not, they should be. It is a worthy endeavor which can benefit the team in a variety of ways. The overall success of your team also helps increase the chances of it being successful as other teams raid your team for the talent you have developed.

 

The policy enacted by the NFL in 2020 states: "Clubs that develop a diverse employee who is hired in the position of Primary Football Executive or Head Coach at another club, will receive a draft choice compensation in the form of a compensatory draft pick in the third round in each of the next two drafts. If a club has two employees hired for either a head coach or GM position, then that club will receive third-round compensatory pick in the next three drafts." The 49ers have already received five 3rd-round compensatory picks as a result of this program.

 

Developing these candidates allowed the 49ers to accumulate extra draft picks. The team traded a 2023 second-round pick, 2023 third-round pick, 2023 fourth-round pick and 2024 fifth-round pick to Carolina in October for star running back Christian McCaffrey. "We're fortunate that some different avenues, minority coaches that brought us some picks. I think that empowers you to do something like this because you have a couple of comp threes, and you'll get more in the future with things of that nature," Niners GM John Lynch said.

 

According to the article. Only five teams besides the 49ers have earned compensation for a total of 10 compensatory picks. The Chiefs, Eagles, Browns, Rams and Saints have all developed diverse executives and earned two picks. 

 

https://www.nfl.com/news/niners-lead-way-in-comp-picks-for-diverse-rewards-policy

[Indeee]

Based on our coaches and their ability to develop players we would have to give the other teams draft picks just to consider them... 

[DougDew]

What a bunch of nonsense.   "Organizations" don't develop.  GMs and HCs do.

[Fluke_33]

31 minutes ago, Indeee said:

Based on our coaches and their ability to develop players we would have to give the other teams draft picks just to consider them... 

What coaches?  - this is sarcastic as we don't have any coaches.  lol

[philba101]

7 minutes ago, DougDew said:

What a bunch of nonsense.   "Organizations" don't develop.  GMs and HCs do.

Not true, organizations can certainly develop. They develop higher executives, GM's, coaches and players.

[DougDew]

1 minute ago, philba101 said:

Not true, organizations can certainly develop. They develop higher executives, GM's, coaches and players.

My point is that there are only so many people higher up in the org than the people who will get hired as GMs or HCs elsewhere.  The janitor who works for the "organization" doesn't develop anybody.

 

As soon as those smart guys at the top retire or move on, then the "organization" changes.   Unless the Owner is the constant cultural force.  Which in the case of the Colts, Irsay ain't ever developed nobody.

 

The whole concept of "the organization" is a way to accredit or blame "the environment" for things that happen in a football team rather than blaming or accrediting the specific individuals who made the decisions.  Its a weird usage of the term, that's all I'm saying.

[philba101]

1 minute ago, DougDew said:

My point is that there are only so many people higher up in the org than the people who will get hired as GMs or HCs elsewhere.  The janitor who works for the "organization" doesn't develop anybody.

 

As soon as those smart guys at the top retire or move on, then the "organization" changes.   Unless the Owner is the constant cultural force.  Which in the case of the Colts, Irsay ain't ever developed nobody.

 

The whole concept of "the organization" is a way to accredit or blame "the environment" for things that happen in a football team rather than blaming or accrediting the specific individuals who made the decisions.  Its a weird usage of the term, that's all I'm saying.

Like in any organization, the Owner can set the tone for what he/she wants developed. We see this all the time as teams want to be known as a defensive or offensive club. Or teams want to be known as a well-run organization. For example the Colts always say they want high-character guys who fit our culture. That idea has to come from somewhere within the organization. I think the league may see owners who have not developed anything and want to provide incentives for teams to do so. Organizations like San Francisco have made a conscious decision on an organizational level to develop diverse candidates in this way. I have no idea where Mr. Irsay stands on any of this which is why I am suggesting it should be an option for the Colts moving forward if it is not already. 

[DougDew]

Just now, philba101 said:

Like in any organization, the Owner can set the tone for what he/she wants developed. We see this all the time as teams want to be known as a defensive or offensive club. Or teams want to be known as a well-run organization. For example the Colts always say they want high-character guys who fit our culture. That idea has to come from somewhere within the organization. I think the league may see owners who have not developed anything and want to provide incentives for teams to do so. Organizations like San Francisco have made a conscious decision on an organizational level to develop diverse candidates in this way. I have no idea where Mr. Irsay stands on any of this which is why I am suggesting it should be an option for the Colts moving forward if it is not already. 

I know what you're saying, but the reality is, is that guys like Demeco Ryans make several stops though many organizations...so which Org is responsible for his development, his latest pit-stop?

 

If he comes to a new team as a HC and does well, then credit should be given to the specific HCs he worked under, or the GM.  "The organization" is a way to explain something that happens when their is no attempt to know where to affix credit or blame....because its usually impossible. 

 

Personally, I think credit should be given to Ryans himself, and not some undefined role an "organization" played.

 

Conversely, if Ryans sucks as a HC, should SF be required to give the pick back?   Or did the new "organization" fail Ryan, and not himself?

 

I agree with the topic of your thread though, if that's the way the incentives work.  

[philba101]

11 minutes ago, DougDew said:

I know what you're saying, but the reality is, is that guys like Demeco Ryans make several stops though many organizations...so which Org is responsible for his development, his latest pit-stop?

 

If he comes to a new team as a HC and does well, then credit should be given to the specific HCs he worked under, or the GM.  "The organization" is a way to explain something that happens when their is no attempt to know where to affix credit or blame....because its usually impossible. 

 

Personally, I think credit should be given to Ryans himself, and not some undefined role an "organization" played.

 

Conversely, if Ryans sucks as a HC, should SF be required to give the pick back?   Or did the new "organization" fail Ryan, and not himself?

 

I agree with the topic of your thread though, if that's the way the incentives work.  

I guess I get your points, it just seems strange to make a point about the semantics of organizational development and who should get credit. It seems like that is missing the point of why the incentives were created by the league in the first place. I am not saying that you are suggesting this, but I can see an owner taking the same approach that this idea of organizational development is "nonsense"  as a concept, and therefore dismiss the incentives offered by the league and miss an opportunity to enrich his/her team at the same time. The danger with that approach is that it risks appearing like an excuse from the owner for not wanting to foster changes in those areas. I am going to assume that you were not saying that and that you were just trying to make a deeper point about the merits of organizational development.

[Virtuoso80]

I wonder how this works for coaches that were previously head coaches, and then later fired, then became coordinators, and also hired as a head coach later down the road?

[NewColtsFan]

3 hours ago, philba101 said:

I don't know if the Colts are attempting this, if not, they should be. It is a worthy endeavor which can benefit the team in a variety of ways. The overall success of your team also helps increase the chances of it being successful as other teams raid your team for the talent you have developed.

 

The policy enacted by the NFL in 2020 states: "Clubs that develop a diverse employee who is hired in the position of Primary Football Executive or Head Coach at another club, will receive a draft choice compensation in the form of a compensatory draft pick in the third round in each of the next two drafts. If a club has two employees hired for either a head coach or GM position, then that club will receive third-round compensatory pick in the next three drafts." The 49ers have already received five 3rd-round compensatory picks as a result of this program.

 

Developing these candidates allowed the 49ers to accumulate extra draft picks. The team traded a 2023 second-round pick, 2023 third-round pick, 2023 fourth-round pick and 2024 fifth-round pick to Carolina in October for star running back Christian McCaffrey. "We're fortunate that some different avenues, minority coaches that brought us some picks. I think that empowers you to do something like this because you have a couple of comp threes, and you'll get more in the future with things of that nature," Niners GM John Lynch said.

 

According to the article. Only five teams besides the 49ers have earned compensation for a total of 10 compensatory picks. The Chiefs, Eagles, Browns, Rams and Saints have all developed diverse executives and earned two picks. 

 

https://www.nfl.com/news/niners-lead-way-in-comp-picks-for-diverse-rewards-policy

The Colts will get compensation if/when Morocco Brown gets a GM job.  He has interviewed tge previous two off-seasons.  None this year that I know of.  But it’s hard to hire someone for a high profile job when the franchise he worked for laud a 4-12-1 sized egg.   Can’t sell that.  If the Colts turn things around, then I’d expect Brown to interview. 
 

As you noted, this was only recently started.  I suspect more and more teams will be doing things like this.  

[philba101]

1 hour ago, Virtuoso80 said:

I wonder how this works for coaches that were previously head coaches, and then later fired, then became coordinators, and also hired as a head coach later down the road?

I wondered that as well.

[DougDew]

3 hours ago, philba101 said:

I guess I get your points, it just seems strange to make a point about the semantics of organizational development and who should get credit. It seems like that is missing the point of why the incentives were created by the league in the first place. I am not saying that you are suggesting this, but I can see an owner taking the same approach that this idea of organizational development is "nonsense"  as a concept, and therefore dismiss the incentives offered by the league and miss an opportunity to enrich his/her team at the same time. The danger with that approach is that it risks appearing like an excuse from the owner for not wanting to foster changes in those areas. I am going to assume that you were not saying that and that you were just trying to make a deeper point about the merits of organizational development.

IMO, the direction of incentive should be towards punishing clubs that discriminate against minorities, like the law says.  Instead of the way we all have been taught how to think about it, that clubs should be praised/rewarded for hiring minorities.  That is a fundamentally backwards solution to the problem that creates a weird process and weird results. 

[OLD FAN MAN]

10 hours ago, Indeee said:

Based on our coaches and their ability to develop players we would have to give the other teams draft picks just to consider them... 

what about flus?

[VikingsFanInChennai]

11 hours ago, DougDew said:

What a bunch of nonsense.   "Organizations" don't develop.  GMs and HCs do.

If SF has got 5 comp picks in 3 years and 5 other franchises have received a couple of picks each, it means the process is working. 

 

The franchises do not "develop" those candidates as you implicit, but the important point about the incentive is that the franchises give the diverse employees "Chances" to various positions in Front Office, Executive and Coaching Hierarchy and that helps these candidates to succeed becoming a GM or HC one day in another organization, thus the league compensates the organization that gave them opportunities via draft picks. It's not that "undefined" role as you seem to make of it.

 

If a candidate makes several stops, as they usually do in stepping up the coaching or executive hierarchy, the organization that hired them before they make the final leap to the upper most echelon of the hierarchy in his or her profession should get the compensation because the latest position or the job that they did well would've got them the chances to be interviewed for HC or GM position. 

 

If a previously fired HC becomes a coordinator and then gets to be a HC again, that's a success story too, like for Raheem Morris. 

 

It feels like, for some reason, you wanna oppose or don't understand all this and want to live out on this hill. 

[VikingsFanInChennai]

7 hours ago, DougDew said:

IMO, the direction of incentive should be towards punishing clubs that discriminate against minorities, like the law says.  Instead of the way we all have been taught how to think about it, that clubs should be praised/rewarded for hiring minorities.  That is a fundamentally backwards solution to the problem that creates a weird process and weird results. 

How would you define and perfectly qualify "discrimination"? 

 

If you were to enact NFL rules in the forward type of solution that you suggest, how would you define the breaches and the punishment? 

[NewColtsFan]

14 hours ago, DougDew said:

What a bunch of nonsense.   "Organizations" don't develop.  GMs and HCs do.

Doug….

I’m sorry, I’m not stalking you.   I saw this post earlier and didn’t have a chance to respond.   I’ve been looking for it for some time.   As I found other posts of yours I responded to them.   But this is the one I’ve been looking for. 

That said, I don’t understand your post.   “Organizations don’t develop”. ???  Huh?

 

Organizations are made of people and good people develop.   Owners, GMs and HCs are the key people in any team.  And those people develop other good people.

Good execs,  Good front office people, scouts and personnel.  And good coaches.  They all develop and they’re all part of any good organization.  
 

I don’t know why you felt the need to create and issue when there isn’t one?  
 

Organizations are people and good ones develop. 
 

Again, sorry for responding to so many of your posts.  Wasn’t trying to stalk you even if it looked like it.  

[DougDew]

6 hours ago, NewColtsFan said:

Organizations are people and good ones develop. 

That's my point.  IOW, praise the teacher, not the school.  More importantly, praise the kid for succeeding.  Blame the kid for failing.  Praise the coach who got promoted.  Don't praise the organization.  Praise the individual, don't praise the collective. 

 

The NFL comment just comes from a backwards way of thinking about how success, or failure, is achieved and who is responsible for it.  JMO.

 

[jvan1973]

20 hours ago, DougDew said:

I know what you're saying, but the reality is, is that guys like Demeco Ryans make several stops though many organizations...so which Org is responsible for his development, his latest pit-stop?

 

If he comes to a new team as a HC and does well, then credit should be given to the specific HCs he worked under, or the GM.  "The organization" is a way to explain something that happens when their is no attempt to know where to affix credit or blame....because its usually impossible. 

 

Personally, I think credit should be given to Ryans himself, and not some undefined role an "organization" played.

 

Conversely, if Ryans sucks as a HC, should SF be required to give the pick back?   Or did the new "organization" fail Ryan, and not himself?

 

I agree with the topic of your thread though, if that's the way the incentives work.  

Ryans has only coached in San Francisco 

[DougDew]

9 hours ago, VikingsFanInChennai said:

How would you define and perfectly qualify "discrimination"? 

 

If you were to enact NFL rules in the forward type of solution that you suggest, how would you define the breaches and the punishment? 

Beats me.   But generally speaking, I think having teams "prove their innocence" by measuring how many minorities are hired...and incentivizing it if the results aren't good enough.... is a method that creates weird processes that defy common sense, IMO, if not defying the spirit of rule making and enforcement.

 

LIke the rooney rule.  Requiring minorities to be "interviewed" means nothing when it comes to deciding who to hire from a pool of interviewed candidates.   Now, many people are seeing the flaws with the process, because the process is weird.  It lacked common sense the day it was passed.  And they admit it now because they are not getting the results they want.

Just backwards as *.  A rational process doesn't make decisions like that.  That's why I called it nonsense.

[VikingsFanInChennai]

10 minutes ago, DougDew said:

 

 

LIke the rooney rule.  And they admit it now because they are not getting the results they want.

 

 

What exactly are the results they were expecting and what they have admitted that they have not got? 

 

It becomes very subjective as to who responds. 

 

But, the minimum expectations were that the rule would give more opportunities to diverse and minority candidates and that has been working. 

 

No one expected diverse candidates to become majority because of the rule. I'm not sure what exactly you think isn't working. 

 

You can't force the franchises to hire diverse candidates and that could risk not always getting the best candidates, so how would the league penalize? 

 

Rooney Rule is in place to give more opportunities to diverse candidates, and the rule is working as expected. 

 

Expecting anything else wouldn't mean that the rule has not worked. 

[DougDew]

28 minutes ago, VikingsFanInChennai said:

 

What exactly are the results they were expecting and what they have admitted that they have not got? 

 

It becomes very subjective as to who responds. 

 

But, the minimum expectations were that the rule would give more opportunities to diverse and minority candidates and that has been working. 

 

No one expected diverse candidates to become majority because of the rule. I'm not sure what exactly you think isn't working. 

 

You can't force the franchises to hire diverse candidates and that could risk not always getting the best candidates, so how would the league penalize? 

 

Rooney Rule is in place to give more opportunities to diverse candidates, and the rule is working as expected. 

 

Expecting anything else wouldn't mean that the rule has not worked. 

The definition of an incentive is to encourage a certain performance.   In this NFL policy, the NFL specifically ties performance to hiring minorities....that is how they measure performance.    When you measure discrimination by counting faces instead of determining the hearts, that is a problem.

 

This policy came after the RR.  The first rule wasn't enough.  They added a second rule to expand it to executive hires.   The NFL wants more minorities as HCs and GMs than what there is now. 

 

I don't understand how you question that. 

 

When does it end?  Beats me.  Maybe when the NFL has one token white guy as a GM, HC, and each team has a white player, the face-counters will be satisfied?  Maybe sometime before that?  I don't know. It seems that it will lie in the subjectivity of the judging party.

 

Interviews do not provide an opportunity when a racist is simply forced to interview a candidate.  The candidate is already shut out before they even interview, that's what racism does.   A lot of people are now making the allegation that the simply "following the RR" is a sham.  They would not be making that if fewer minorities were being rejected.  That's basically what some are saying happened in CAR with hiring Frank over Wilks.  Wilks got the "opportunity" via interviewing and actually doing a good job for 9 weeks.      Big deal.      The results are still causing a problem for some. 

 

[VikingsFanInChennai]

4 minutes ago, DougDew said:

The definition of an incentive is to encourage a certain performance.   In this NFL policy, the NFL specifically ties performance to hiring minorities....that is how they measure performance.    When you measure discrimination by counting faces instead of determining the hearts, that is a problem.

 

This policy came after the RR.  The first rule wasn't enough.  They added a second rule to expand it to executive hires.   The NFL wants more minorities as HCs and GMs than what there is now. 

 

I don't understand how you question that. 

 

When does it end?  Beats me.  Maybe when the NFL has one token white guy as a GM, HC, and each team has a white player, the face-counters will be satisfied?  Maybe sometime before that?  I don't know. It seems that it will lie in the subjectivity of the judging party.

 

Interviews do not provide an opportunity when a racist is simply forced to interview a candidate.  The candidate is already shut out before they even interview, that's what racism does.   A lot of people are now making the allegation that the simply "following the RR" is a sham.  They would not be making that if fewer minorities were being rejected.  That's basically what some are saying happened in CAR with hiring Frank over Wilks.  Wilks got the "opportunity" via interviewing and actually doing a good job for 9 weeks.      Big deal.      The results are still causing a problem for some. 

 

You're not seeing the actual results and you're in your bubble and reason everything else based on that. 

 

As mentioned by the OP, San Francisco alone got 5 comp picks in 3 years and other 5 franchises got 2 comp picks each in 3 years, so organizations are hiring diverse candidates a lot more than what fans say that RR is not working. 

 

That doesn't mean there won't be Caucasian employees much as you stated, and doesn't mean organizations are not hiring more diverse candidates, whether that's because of RR or not. 

 

I think the situation is much better now, more opportunities are given to diverse candidates, more diverse candidates are working from top to bottom of the hierarchy and if it becomes much more fair to everyone to compete or get hired or promoted, RR may not be needed anymore down the road. 

[Myles]

I consider this policy to be racist.  Anything that rewards someone for doing something because of the color of their skin is racism.  

[DougDew]

40 minutes ago, VikingsFanInChennai said:

You're not seeing the actual results and you're in your bubble and reason everything else based on that. 

 

As mentioned by the OP, San Francisco alone got 5 comp picks in 3 years and other 5 franchises got 2 comp picks each in 3 years, so organizations are hiring diverse candidates a lot more than what fans say that RR is not working. 

 

That doesn't mean there won't be Caucasian employees much as you stated, and doesn't mean organizations are not hiring more diverse candidates, whether that's because of RR or not. 

 

I think the situation is much better now, more opportunities are given to diverse candidates, more diverse candidates are working from top to bottom of the hierarchy and if it becomes much more fair to everyone to compete or get hired or promoted, RR may not be needed anymore down the road. 

Your entire comment is in the bubble of using a face counting measure to determine if the policies provide the opportunity.    How many occupy positions now compared to then, and seem to praise the idea that more now is better than less then, simply because the numbers are bigger.   There could actually be gobs of unfairness built into a policy that counts faces as a measure of success.

 

It could be that there are simply more, better qualified minority candidates now than there were then, based upon some dynamic that has nothing to do with race, skin color, or alleged past discrimination by the NFL.

 

More minorities have college degrees? And as a group are inherently more qualified now compared to then.  Just one thing I can think of off the top.

 

Again, Wilks has had more opportunity than many candidates, yet some are still complaining about it because they don't like the results.    

[jvan1973]

20 minutes ago, DougDew said:

Your entire comment is in the bubble of using a face counting measure to determine if the policies provide the opportunity.    How many occupy positions now compared to then, and seem to praise the idea that more now is better than less then, simply because the numbers are bigger.   There could actually be gobs of unfairness built into a policy that counts faces as a measure of success.

 

It could be that there are simply more, better qualified minority candidates now than there were then, based upon some dynamic that has nothing to do with race, skin color, or alleged past discrimination by the NFL.

 

More minorities have college degrees? And as a group are inherently more qualified now compared to then.  Just one thing I can think of off the top.

 

Again, Wilks has had more opportunity than many candidates, yet some are still complaining about it because they don't like the results.    

You find weird hills to die on.    Why do you care about this?

[DougDew]

7 minutes ago, jvan1973 said:

You find weird hills to die on.    Why do you care about this?

Actually, its the other person who dies on the hill.  Some just don't see that.

 

I don't care.  Responding to quotes is called conversation.  Might even be called small talk.

 

Why do you think a person who responds to quotes cares more than the person who is quoting the other, like you just did me?  That's weird. 

[Mr.NotSoCreative]

If the rule isn't followed, I assume there is a stiff penalty, the pocket where it hurts most, as well as social outcry. That seems by force enactment of rules. But if you follow the rule, greatly rewarded for doing so. Just doesnt seem right. Affirmative action is bad, all discrimination is bad. One of the reasons I love our Colture here, it imphasizes the content of the people's character that walk through the doors to work every day. 

[Happy2BeHere]

19 hours ago, DougDew said:

IMO, the direction of incentive should be towards punishing clubs that discriminate against minorities, like the law says.  Instead of the way we all have been taught how to think about it, that clubs should be praised/rewarded for hiring minorities.  That is a fundamentally backwards solution to the problem that creates a weird process and weird results. 

Spot on in some aspects of your comment and truthfully there is no law/reward/punishment system that can fix such a problem. Where to fix it starts, begins, and ends in the homes of children. Until that is solved the problem will go on much like all the violence and other problems we have. 

[NewColtsFan]

1 hour ago, Myles said:

I consider this policy to be racist.  Anything that rewards someone for doing something because of the color of their skin is racism.  

The policy is there to deal with the racism that has kept qualified candidates from getting the job or even interviewing for jobs.     The policy does not force any team to hire a candidate of color.   It only forces teams to interview candidates of color  to give them more opportunities. 

[NewColtsFan]

Just now, NewColtsFan said:

The policy is there to deal with the racism that has kept qualified candidates from getting the job or even interviewing for jobs.    The policy doesn’t force anyone to hire these candidates.   All it does is force teams to interview for the job. 

 

[DougDew]

36 minutes ago, NewColtsFan said:

The policy is there to deal with the racism that has kept qualified candidates from getting the job or even interviewing for jobs.

Maybe there should be punishment for using outdated ways of measuring, a process that leads to erroneous opinions and defamatory public statements.

[NewColtsFan]

15 minutes ago, DougDew said:

Maybe there should be punishment for using outdated ways of measuring, a process that leads to erroneous opinions and defamatory public statements.

Sorry, but I have no idea what you’re trying to say? 

[NFLfan]

On 1/27/2023 at 11:03 AM, DougDew said:

the reality is, is that guys like Demeco Ryans make several stops though many organizations...so which Org is responsible for his development, his latest pit-stop?

 

That is not the reality. Ryans has coached only with the 49ers. He coached in another capacity before becoming the defensive coordinator.

[DougDew]

24 minutes ago, NewColtsFan said:

Sorry, but I have no idea what you’re trying to say? 

I think your use of the word "forces" them to interview minorities makes it sound like it wouldn't happen if not for a rule that forces them (to do something they don't want to do because they are racist)  

 

 

[DougDew]

3 minutes ago, NFLfan said:

 

That is not the reality. Ryans has coached only with the 49ers. He coached in another capacity before becoming the defensive coordinator.

"Guys like" means not specifically Ryans.  Most coaches circle around the NFL before getting promoted.  That was my point as to why its kinda unfair to reward the very last team..

[NFLfan]

On 1/27/2023 at 11:45 AM, Virtuoso80 said:

I wonder how this works for coaches that were previously head coaches, and then later fired, then became coordinators, and also hired as a head coach later down the road?

 

That is a really good question. Also, as others have asked here, who gets credit for "developing" someone who has been with multiple organizations. I have to read about that.

 

It looks like San Francisco may get more compensatory picks. A former Colts player who was in their front office was hired by the Titans to be their GM. D. Ryans should bring them another comp pick. 

[NewColtsFan]

8 minutes ago, DougDew said:

I think your use of the word "forces" them to interview minorities makes it sound like it wouldn't happen if not for a rule that forces them (to do something they don't want to do because they are racist)  

 

 

You’re right, a poor choice of words.  My bad. 
 

How about requires?   I think that’s neutral and more even handed.   Less judgmental. 

 

Fair enough? 
 

 

[NFLfan]

12 minutes ago, DougDew said:

"Guys like" means not specifically Ryans.  Most coaches circle around the NFL before getting promoted.  That was my point as to why its kinda unfair to reward the very last team..

 

It is Ryans that you mentioned, not someone who has actually coached with multiple organizations. Good try though.

[DougDew]

1 minute ago, NewColtsFan said:

You’re right, a poor choice of words.  My bad. 
 

How about requires?   I think that’s neutral and more even handed.   Less judge mental. 

 

Fair enough? 
 

 

I think its a better word.  But this is the issue I have with the policy.  Isn't a requirement to interview a minority come with an implication that it wouldn't happen if not for the rule.?  That white GMs, by their nature, are racist.

 

I doubt that fans think their own GM or owner are racists, but it seems easy to think that the other owner and GM of the other team is.    The solutions don't really seem to solve anything because they don't really divorce themselves from the kind of thinking that cause the problem in the first place.