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?

[raiders72]

You know what I say,

It ain’t the early 1900’s anymore or the 60’s and 70’s, MLB NHL NCAA NBA doesn’t mandate anything like this..
Get rid of this god forsaken rule, it’s disrespectful to all walks of life in today’s age, we’re all Americans !
How bout we start and end with that…

[srv5490]

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.

Nope. The source material for the 1990-2002 data was Madden 2004, and does not mention the phrase "sample size" or "outlier". Here is what that article actually does state about the sample size;

12. The small number of African American coaches hired by NFL teams makes it difficult to conduct more extensive statistical analyses of racial differences; that is, analyses including or controlling for more variables. Although most of the racial differences reported here are strong enough that a statistical test dismisses chance as the reason for racial differences, in the end, there are simply too few African American coaches for more detailed statistical analyses to be powerful.

Translated, that says that the differences in Black/WHite HC performance (ie win record) are statistically significant, but more detailed analyses would not be fully reliable. My statements were limited to performance, so therefore valid.

Let's just cut to the chase, though. You keep stating that an outlier could affect the data. Here is the actual data for Black HCs from 1990-2002, tell me if there is an outlier.

Coach WIns Losses Pct
Art Shell 49 33 0.598
Dennis Green 117 102 0.534
Ray Rhoades 38 44 0.463
Tony Dungee 66 53 0.555
Herm Edwards 20 15 0.571

Total 290 247 0.540


I just did your homework for you. Either point to the outlier in this data, or copy/paste the purported outlier statement from one of the papers, or admit that there are no outliers.

Here is the original Madden paper:

https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Ja ... t-Fire.pdf

ETA: I included data from the 1990 and 2002 seasons. From the language of the article, I'm not entirely sure if the authors included either, or both, of those seasons. It doesn't make a difference for the point at hand, though. The higher than average winning percentage, and lack of outliers remains.

[Xramfan]

You know what I say,

It ain’t the early 1900’s anymore or the 60’s and 70’s, MLB NHL NCAA NBA doesn’t mandate anything like this..
Get rid of this god forsaken rule, it’s disrespectful to all walks of life in today’s age, we’re all Americans !
How bout we start and end with that…

Agree but as mentioned there are politicians and community influencers who profit and/or gain power by fanning the flames of the masses whether it be race, class warfare, gender, conservative/liberal/left/right........etc etc........rotten bastards

[raiders93]

You know what I say,

It ain’t the early 1900’s anymore or the 60’s and 70’s, MLB NHL NCAA NBA doesn’t mandate anything like this..
Get rid of this god forsaken rule, it’s disrespectful to all walks of life in today’s age, we’re all Americans !
How bout we start and end with that…

Man it’s hard not to get political on this topic. What I will say is I don’t believe in corporate morality at all. The only value is shareholder value. These policies exist solely because they’re good for the brand image and good for business as a result.

You can make a case that minorities are under-represented in head coaching positions. The problem is that it’s too complicated to be solved with mandatory interviews for minority candidates. And doing much more than that starts to move too far in the direction of incentivizing teams to hire a minority candidate… because they’re a minority candidate .

All this to say, the rooney rule is mostly just a marketing campaign so the NFL can advertise that they’re an inclusive employer. I don’t think it’s influencing outcomes in either direction.

[Attyla]

Nope. The source material for the 1990-2002 data was Madden 2004, and does not mention the phrase "sample size" or "outlier". Here is what that article actually does state about the sample size;

12. The small number of African American coaches hired by NFL teams makes it difficult to conduct more extensive statistical analyses of racial differences; that is, analyses including or controlling for more variables. Although most of the racial differences reported here are strong enough that a statistical test dismisses chance as the reason for racial differences, in the end, there are simply too few African American coaches for more detailed statistical analyses to be powerful.

Translated, that says that the differences in Black/WHite HC performance (ie win record) are statistically significant, but more detailed analyses would not be fully reliable. My statements were limited to performance, so therefore valid.

Let's just cut to the chase, though. You keep stating that an outlier could affect the data. Here is the actual data for Black HCs from 1990-2002, tell me if there is an outlier.

Coach WIns Losses Pct
Art Shell 49 33 0.598
Dennis Green 117 102 0.534
Ray Rhoades 38 44 0.463
Tony Dungee 66 53 0.555
Herm Edwards 20 15 0.571

Total 290 247 0.540


I just did your homework for you. Either point to the outlier in this data, or copy/paste the purported outlier statement from one of the papers, or admit that there are no outliers.

Here is the original Madden paper:

https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Ja ... t-Fire.pdf

ETA: I included data from the 1990 and 2002 seasons. From the language of the article, I'm not entirely sure if the authors included either, or both, of those seasons. It doesn't make a difference for the point at hand, though. The higher than average winning percentage, and lack of outliers remains.

You are wrong, but I am not going to bother linking you to the source data since you are bent on being wrong and lazy

[srv5490]

LOL

Once again, here is your statement:

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.

Chucker, raider_kin, BoKnows81, c'mon gentlemen, help Attyla out. You thumbs-upped this comment, so I assume you agree with, and I'm sure you wouldn't do that if you didn't see this statement in either of the papers. Let's go - it's four against one, and apparently I'm a lazy ass, this should be an easy win for you guys. Surely one of you can copy and paste where the authors say that the 1990-2002 data is not conclusive because of the sample size and the possibility of an outlier.

Hell, I will take this - simply quote my post that provides the Black coaches' records and just delete everything but the name and record of the outlier(s). 15 seconds of work and you get the W.

[Attyla]

LOL

Once again, here is your statement:



Chucker, raider_kin, BoKnows81, c'mon gentlemen, help Attyla out. You thumbs-upped this comment, so I assume you agree with, and I'm sure you wouldn't do that if you didn't see this statement in either of the papers. Let's go - it's four against one, and apparently I'm a lazy ass, this should be an easy win for you guys. Surely one of you can copy and paste where the authors say that the 1990-2002 data is not conclusive because of the sample size and the possibility of an outlier.

Hell, I will take this - simply quote my post that provides the Black coaches' records and just delete everything but the name and record of the outlier(s). 15 seconds of work and you get the W.

poor guy

[srv5490]

Five days, and not a single honest rebuttal of my OP. If this was a legit debate, it would be a shutout. If it was a scientific meeting, you guys would have been laughed out of the room. I'll give you guys the win on the internet-rando approval contest, but I have no interest in that.

I'm not celebrating my win, though - it's actually really disappointing and a little depressing. I came to the thread to participate in a discussion, not try to "win" an argument. It's an important topic, and I was hoping for an honest discussion. This wasn't it. Most disappointing to me are those who know the rules for honest debate, call out others for violating them, and then resort to utilizing them all when you can't defend your arguments otherwise. You know who you are, and I honestly thought you were better than that.

I'll dip, so feel free to call me more names Atilla, it honestly doesn't bother me one bit. I'm smart enough to know what it means when someone's argument is reduced to deflection and ad hominem attacks.

[Willmark]

I’m confused.

It stops and starts with this: in a small sample size of data any one factor can move the data wildly in one direction or another.

In this case, the researchers knew this and attempted to compensate, but removing the highest performers and then claimed the data was normalized? They knew people would pick up on this and attempted to shut down that line of argument with their first footnote which is doing a lot of heavy lifting as I noted prior.

Any attempt to do so in an admittedly small sample size isn’t doing what they think it is.

I have no idea what they were attempting to do. But from the look of their methods? It’s reasonable to ask did they have a conclusion and work backwards to reach that conclusion?

Ultimately, it’s an attempt to justify a rule that has a lot of potential for people to take bad faith interpretations of anything posted. Only answering for myself I know that’s why I avoided initially and am questioning why I’m even responding now.