5 replies to this topic

[SportsGuy]

https://theundefeate...=espn:frontpage

This is an interesting topic to me.

On one hand, I think this is a good rule and one that needed to be put into the game.

Otoh, I don’t see anything wrong with knowing who you want and saying, that’s our guy before doing any other official interviews.

Its such a slippery slope though. I don’t know what the real solution is and I definitely think token interviews are given...but is that really bad? When you have someone you want for a top job, do you mess around with other candidates? Is it unfair to take up someone’s time when you have zero intention of hiring them?

[Pedro Cerrano]

I think it's an incredibly dumb rule and black "candidates" have to feel patronized as hell when they're used as a token interview.

 

If a black candidate is the best coach, you hire him, plain and simple. 

[Mackus]

https://theundefeate...=espn:frontpage

This is an interesting topic to me.

On one hand, I think this is a good rule and one that needed to be put into the game.

Otoh, I don’t see anything wrong with knowing who you want and saying, that’s our guy before doing any other official interviews.

Its such a slippery slope though. I don’t know what the real solution is and I definitely think token interviews are given...but is that really bad? When you have someone you want for a top job, do you mess around with other candidates? Is it unfair to take up someone’s time when you have zero intention of hiring them?

 

Agree with your opinion that it is a good and necessary rule, but also that if a team has one guy in mind, that they shouldn't have to interview a second candidate. 

 

I would make the rule not apply if only one person is interviewed for the job.  Basically, if you interview multiple people, one of them has to be a minority coach.  And I'd extend the rule for all coaching positions, not just head coach and coordinators, and also front office and scouting type jobs.

 

I do think Pedro's point that a candidate interviewed solely to satisfy the Rooney Rule could feel patronized is a fair one.  Hopefully the "one candidate" part of the rule helps avoid that.  Iwould  suspect that the benefits of the rule leading to more minorities getting interviews and jobs outweigh the negative aspects of those token interviews, but I'm not black so not sure my opinion matters either way.

[The Epic]

If you're required to interview a POC, you might eff around and find someone who you weren't even thinking of. You just have to honor the rule in good faith. 

[DJ MC]

If you're required to interview a POC, you might eff around and find someone who you weren't even thinking of. You just have to honor the rule in good faith. 

 

Right. And even if the interview is "token" on the team's end, I would imagine that getting the experience from going through the process is still valuable. Plus, getting your name out there where it might come up in another team's search.

 

There are several good reasons for having the rule in place.

 

Honestly, I think about it like quarterbacking. Even if you know there is a favorable matchup out there, you don't just stare down your receiver, or try to force a play where there isn't one. You still go through your progressions, otherwise you start making bad decisions. And a lot of teams make bad decisions by focusing on "The Guy" and either ignoring better options or panicking when they don't get that guy.

[NewMarketSean]

I don't see any negatives to it honestly.