Raiderstation

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?

Sir Raider Duck, OMS wrote: Sat Feb 14, 2026 8:20 am There's also the chance that even a "Rooney Rule" interview will just blow the team out of the water and lead to a job offer. Many moons ago, Mike Tomlin was a Rooney Rule interview for the Steelers (who IIRC were deciding between Ken Whisenhunt and Russ Grimm) and ended up as their head coach for almost two decades.

More recently, Ejiro Evero was a Rooney Rule interview for us and ended up our second choice after Kubiak.

The commissioner stepped in and urged them to hire him. On a separate note, if he had landed with say, the browns or here would the end result be the same? Way to many variables...

Corleone wrote: Sat Feb 14, 2026 7:57 am NFL guys will always hire the guy they think will help them win. Shedueur Sanders didn't slide to the 5th round because of racism, he slid to the 5th round because he sucks ass. White cornerbacks aren't bypassed because of racism, they're bypassed because they suck at playing cornerback.

The NFL needs to just stick to football. No more end zone messages, leaked emails and flamboyant halftime shows, get rid of the personal fouls for tapping a QB on a helmet or landing at his feet trying to tackle him. Roll back the clock 30 years on what the NFL used to be and the game would be much better off.

IMHO with the exception of two things...

1.) They have absolutely no business whatsoever running the officiating. It's been awful for decades on end and has only gotten worse. It also has the look of impropriety. A separate company from the NFL should run it and an independent 3rd party should oversee it. Fans deserve so much better than that shit product they trot out onto the field year after year. See my avatar as one example in one very long line of examples. That freaking ref was given the SB that year to "officiate".

2.) Same for the scheduling. It's outrageous the league office is in control of it. Again even if (and that is one BIG IF) everything is on the up and up it still has the look of impropriety. With all the money involved that fans fork over they deserve much better.

Cruisin with Tooz wrote: Sat Feb 14, 2026 12:56 pm If the NFL wants to increase diversity, there should be more white players.

Blowing off some steam after your Senate confirmation hearing, Mr. Carl?

As Morgan Freeman once said. Racism will end once we stop talking about it. Sensible people have no use for it.

I agree. The NFL needs to concentrate on the game and making the game better. It's not a social experiment.

Attyla wrote: Sat Feb 14, 2026 8:34 am maybe not, how about a blind person? A white male blind person?

I think this one is too deep into the weeds. In my opinion, it’s fair to assume you need eyesight to evaluate talent, what needs fixing in a player.
I wouldn’t expect to be considered for a piano instructor if I were missing most of my fingers.
The obvious in both instances is there for all to see. It’s just not realistic and shouldn’t be equated to what color my skin is.

Danchinho wrote: Sat Feb 14, 2026 4:26 am 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?

Does being a good player translate into being a good coach? They are two different skill sets.

Trainnvain wrote: Sat Feb 14, 2026 8:32 pm Blowing off some steam after your Senate confirmation hearing, Mr. Carl?

Long time no see, Jussie!! I didnt know you had been released from jail.

Danchinho wrote: Sat Feb 14, 2026 12:00 pm First, I hope you all stay safe, happy and healthy too.

U.K. is vanilla country tbh. It’s not particularly dangerous for anyone except those with vitamin D deficiencies

That's easy to manage, you just need to pick up one of these units:

The Rooney rule was an effective rule and appropriate at it's outset, and it made the league more competitive. There are reasonable arguments on both sides regarding whether it is still warranted. For me, the best argument to keep it would be the growing numbers of nepo-coaches in the league. Does anyone think that the hiring of two of PC's sons to our staff last year was based on merit?

Our current coach fits that category, too. That's not to say he only got the job because of his family connections - he didn't, he got the job because he is highly qualified. But, there is no doubt that the connections that he came up with certainly were a huge factor in him developing his skills and finding opportunities to prove himself on NFL staffs.

The Rooney Rule gives minority coaches opportunities to build those same kinds of connections and elevate their profile in the absence of nepotism. I think nearly all coaching decisions are made based on merit, regardless of the race of the candidate, so it's hard for me to think of any drawbacks that are strong enough to advocate for getting rid of the rule right now.

srv5490 wrote: Fri Feb 20, 2026 3:40 pm The Rooney rule was an effective rule and appropriate at it's outset, and it made the league more competitive. There are reasonable arguments on both sides regarding whether it is still warranted. For me, the best argument to keep it would be the growing numbers of nepo-coaches in the league. Does anyone think that the hiring of two of PC's sons to our staff last year was based on merit?

Our current coach fits that category, too. That's not to say he only got the job because of his family connections - he didn't, he got the job because he is highly qualified. But, there is no doubt that the connections that he came up with certainly were a huge factor in him developing his skills and finding opportunities to prove himself on NFL staffs.

The Rooney Rule gives minority coaches opportunities to build those same kinds of connections and elevate their profile in the absence of nepotism. I think nearly all coaching decisions are made based on merit, regardless of the race of the candidate, so it's hard for me to think of any drawbacks that are strong enough to advocate for getting rid of the rule right now.

Hmmm.... I feel the same way for getting rid of it.

The whole issue is somewhat moot. Not that a franchise would press the issue, but a white coach who was passed over might. How would a court rule? A legal precedent was set in the SC decision in Students for Fair Admissions v Harvard that considering race in admission decisions violated the equal protections clause of the Constitution. A lower court is obliged to follow this. Its hard to imagine how that ruling would be considered to not be directly on point. And if it is on point, how could the Rooney rule be deemed to pass constitutional muster?

Cruisin with Tooz wrote: Fri Feb 20, 2026 4:28 pm The whole issue is somewhat moot. Not that a franchise would press the issue, but a white coach who was passed over might. How would a court rule? A legal precedent was set in the SC decision in Students for Fair Admissions v Harvard that considering race in admission decisions violated the equal protections clause of the Constitution. A lower court is obliged to follow this. Its hard to imagine how that ruling would be considered to not be directly on point. And if it is on point, how could the Rooney rule be deemed to pass constitutional muster?

Not even close to being the same thing. There are no stipulations for preferential hiring in the Rooney Rule, only for inclusion in the process. That is entirely consistent with the equal protections clause and absolutely passes constitutional muster. To argue otherwise would be arguing that it is not fair to White coaches to be required to face competition from minority coaches.

The Rooney Rule has zero impact on what actually happens...it's a nothing burger that isn't even worth discussion in the grand scheme of things! It's like an irritating fly buzzing around a Billionaires head lol

srv5490 wrote: Fri Feb 20, 2026 5:09 pm Not even close to being the same thing. There are no stipulations for preferential hiring in the Rooney Rule, only for inclusion in the process. That is entirely consistent with the equal protections clause and absolutely passes constitutional muster. To argue otherwise would be arguing that it is not fair to White coaches to be required to face competition from minority coaches.

If a team decided to only interview black candidates for a vacancy, what would be the equal protection for whites, otherwise equally skilled, to not be excluded from the process? The Rooney rule makes the process by which people are hired race based at some level. I dont see how you can split that. The interview is the first step to getting the job. If you dont get an interview you have no shot at getting the job. Two candidates, exactly the same except one is black. The black candidate gets the interview and the white one doesnt. The process by which he got a foot through the door is race-based. If you mandate a race-based preference in the interview process, how does that not confer a race-based hiring advantage? That's a core question. And white coaches would have to face competition from minority candidates, but it would competition based solely on merit.

Cruisin with Tooz wrote: Fri Feb 20, 2026 6:54 pm If a team decided to only interview black candidates for a vacancy, what would be the equal protection for whites, otherwise equally skilled, to not be excluded from the process? The Rooney rule makes the process by which people are hired race based at some level. I dont see how you can split that. The interview is the first step to getting the job. If you dont get an interview you have no shot at getting the job. Two candidates, exactly the same except one is black. The black candidate gets the interview and the white one doesnt. The process by which he got a foot through the door is race-based. If you mandate a race-based preference in the interview process, how does that not confer a race-based hiring advantage? That's a core question. And white coaches would have to face competition from minority candidates, but it would competition based solely on merit.

There is no evidence that White coaches have ever been systemically excluded from the interview process. There is a shitload of evidence that Black coaches were excluded prior to the Rooney Rule.

Prior to the Rooney Rule, Black HCs outperformed White HCs. That strongly indicates that they were underrepresented.

Since the Rooney Rule, the percentage of Black HCs has doubled, and their performance has been identical to White HCs. That strongly indicates that they are now properly represented.

Until we reach a period in which White HCs consistently outperform Black HCs, your hypotheticals are merely hypotheticals.