Rooney Rule - discussion, keep it respectful

[Danchinho]

Out of interest, why are so many posters upset with the Rooney rule?
A quick cursory search by me indicates only around 20-25% of players are white but around 75% of coaches are white and all the majority owners are white.
Those numbers don’t paint the prettiest of pictures tbh.

It does indicate a bias. By whom or for what reasons I couldn’t possibly say. Odd stats though.

Are the people on here or in general that are so upset by the rule people of colour or mostly/exclusively white?

[raidersince63]

There two wars happening, cultural and class.

Whenever the focus gets too much to the elite class they triple down on the airwaves with cultural war themes and racism is one of several.
So we can't stop talking about it, because it's forced upon us to keep focus off of them. Every single time.

Yup, and unfortunately, the media is controlled by the upper class.

[riseNraid09]

Yup, and unfortunately, everything is controlled by the upper class.

fixed it.

[Attyla]

Rooney rule is a touchy subject. There are no answers that will fix it 100%. Ideal world, we would be past this at this time, but we don't live in that world. It is easy to point to the greedy NFL or owners but that is the low hanging fruit that is a lazy view. The players that become coaches need to be dedicated to low paying jobs. But it is up to them to master their jobs so that they are more appealing to the next level jobs. And that is no easy ask. It is also up to the upper level coaches to ensure they are taught so that they become too valuable to keep. Again, not an easy ask. And finally, the job is also a salesman job. People who coach need to sell their players on the vision, they need to sell their upper level coaches that they are needed, and when the time comes to move to the next level, they got to sell the hiring managers on their vision and their value. So, the NFL mandates the interviews but they cannot ensure the candidates are right and the owners cannot ensure the candidates separate themselves from the others for a position

[NoClapsPlease]

I just get tired of seeing “Rooney candidate” when certain candidates are brought in for an interview. It just confirms why it’s needed in my opinion - that thought process in 2026.

[srv5490]

I'm going to work backwards, because I think that will be the most productive course of discussion.

My issue is not with the data itself. I am not saying the numbers are wrong. My issue is that this study is not the be all end all its being made out to be. With such a small sample, there are clear strain points in how the conclusions are supported. It is an interesting result, but it carries more uncertainty than the data suggests.

While I still think you are overemphasizing the impact of the small sample size, you are correct saying that this study is not the end all be all - no single paper on anything is. That's why I use the phrase "strongly indicates", not "proves". Someone could quibble with my choice of "strongly", but you can't really argue with the "indicates" without providing additional data to make that case.

As to my direct quote? You’ll note it’s a line of inquiry walking towards where that logically entails?

No, not the logical line of inquiry. Arguing for equal opportunity is not at all the same as arguing for equal representation. One is merit-based, the other is not. One is guaranteed in the constitution, the other is not.

Because the sample size is small and presumably coaches like Dungy, Green and Tomlin heavily favor the successful end you get a much larger bump on one end and a longer tail of data. While white coaches will look like a bell curve: some great, the majority in the middle, and some horrible.

Yes, this is exactly what the data would look like if the Black coaches were out perfoming the White coaches. That is what you would expect would happen if Black coaches faced a higher barrier to opportunity, so that is what this data indicates (not proves).

The authors knew the small sample size was the core weakness, but their fix makes it worse. Removing top performers shrinks the sample further, which increases variance and gives each remaining coach more influence, not less. The fact that the trimmed data still supported their conclusion does not make it more robust. With an already tiny sample, cutting observations adds volatility, not clarity.

We can agree to disagree on the statistical analysis. I worked most of my adult life in research, have read thousands of papers, written some myself, and while stats are not my specialty, I'm pretty comfortable interpreting them.

I think we agree that Black coaches face equal opportunity in today's NFL, and that most hires are done on the basis of merit, not race, and I'm sure that we both agree that is the way it should be. Whether, or not, the Rooney Rule is still required to maintain that, I don't know. As I originally said, there are rational arguments to be made on both sides.

[srv5490]

The data is flawed. The sample size prior to the Rooney rule is comparing 1/10th of the overall pool to the pool itself. You cannot even use an aggregate to come to a conclusion. The chance of an outlier skewing the data is sufficient to nullify any conclusion.

The data is not flawed in any way - the numbers are the numbers, and anyone can easily verify them. Stating that hypothetical outliers could skew the data means nothing. They either exist, or they don't. You have the power to examine the data yourself, it's an easy find on the internet. Who is an outlier from the 1990 - 2002 data set? That is the one that seems to be the controversial set.

[raider_kin]

Affirmative action doesn't work; never has, never will.

[Attyla]

The data is not flawed in any way - the numbers are the numbers, and anyone can easily verify them. Stating that hypothetical outliers could skew the data means nothing. They either exist, or they don't. You have the power to examine the data yourself, it's an easy find on the internet. Who is an outlier from the 1990 - 2002 data set? That is the one that seems to be the controversial set.

actually, if you had read the original report, you would know that the authors themselves said the data is not conclusive because of the sample size and the possibility of an outlier.

[srv5490]

actually, if you had read the original report, you would know that the authors themselves said the data is not conclusive because of the sample size and the possibility of an outlier.

What is the original report? The authors did not state this in the paper that I posted. Please provide the link if I'm referring to the wrong paper.

Here is what the author of the paper I posted said about the possibility of outliers in the Madden paper:

As Madden (2004) showed, however, there were no “outlier” performances, either at the high or low end, for African American coaches during the 1990–2002 period

[Attyla]

What is the original report? The authors did not state this in the paper that I posted. Please provide the link if I'm referring to the wrong paper.

Here is what the author of the paper I posted said about the possibility of outliers in the Madden paper:

As Madden (2004) showed, however, there were no “outlier” performances, either at the high or low end, for African American coaches during the 1990–2002 period

I am not going to do your homework for you. There is a link on that site that takes you to the original study and it states clearly that the sample size is flawed because of the limited data and the possibility of an outlier. You can do your own work

[srv5490]

I am not going to do your homework for you. There is a link on that site that takes you to the original study and it states clearly that the sample size is flawed because of the limited data and the possibility of an outlier. You can do your own work

Yes, I was the one that posted it, and the authors did not state what you said they did. That's why I asked. If you believe they did, copy and paste it here, like I just did.

ETA: It's pretty funny that you are indignant about doing my work for me, when it appears that you are referring to (and misquoting), the paper that I posted.

[srv5490]

Forget it Jake, it's Chinatown.
Translation: Forget it Attyla, its SRVwhatever, facts don't matter to him.

I'm the only one posting facts here bro. They are linked and quoted. Post a single verifiable fact that contradicts my statements. Nobody has, yet, and I suspect you won't either.

The truth is, that I doubt anyone would have issue with what I have actually said. They have issues what they think I said.

[SkullCrusher]

I really don't even care, but there weren't many minority coaches prior to the rule, there can't be a large example because there isn't enough minority coaches to pull prior from to really be conclusive.

Per wiki:
It was created as a reaction to the 2002 firings of head coaches Tony Dungy of the Tampa Bay Buccaneers and Dennis Green of the Minnesota Vikings, at a time when Dungy had a winning record and Green had just had his first losing season in ten years. Shortly afterwards, U.S. civil rights attorneys Cyrus Mehri and Johnnie Cochran released a study showing that black head coaches, despite winning a higher percentage of games, were less likely to be hired and more likely to be fired than their white counterparts.

Which all goes back to the same data, because that's the only data that has been complied it seems shared with the public.
There was plenty of talk around that time from sports hosts, so many minority players, so few minority coaches. Why? This needs to change!

Perhaps there wasn't enough data, but we were all around then, it became a thing, sort of like how concussions blew up.
So the league reacted. It wasn't unprecedented because a lot of companies already had minority policies in place.
One thing that the numbers do show goes back to a lots of minority players and less that expected minority coaches. That's true. Was it unfair? That's the debate I guess. I sleep the same Rooney rule or not.

[Xramfan]

Affirmative action doesn't work; never has, never will.

I don’t think the Rooney rule is any equivalent to affirmative action however AA was/is a racist policy that supposedly was the answer to racism. Possibly a well intentioned policy that actually made things worse.

[Attyla]

Yes, I was the one that posted it, and the authors did not state what you said they did. That's why I asked. If you believe they did, copy and paste it here, like I just did.

ETA: It's pretty funny that you are indignant about doing my work for me, when it appears that you are referring to (and misquoting), the paper that I posted.

Again, you copied the article, but you did not copy the source material. I am not going to do your homework for you, but the source material states that the sample size is very small and the chance of an outlier affecting the data is very possible.