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?

Toast wrote: Sat Feb 14, 2026 8:32 pm 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.

Yup, get rid of the "labels", and you'll probably get rid of the problems, and the "media" doesn't help things.

raidersince63 wrote: Sat Feb 21, 2026 2:35 am Yup, get rid of the "labels", and you'll probably get rid of the problems, and the "media" doesn't help things.

X2

If it wasn’t for the media and politicians, racism would be a fringe issue fading in the rear view mirror.

Xramfan wrote: Sat Feb 21, 2026 8:39 am X2

If it wasn’t for the media and politicians, racism would be a fringe issue fading in the rear view mirror.

They are only a part of the grievance industrial complex.

srv5490 wrote: Fri Feb 20, 2026 8:36 pm

Prior to the Rooney Rule, Black HCs outperformed White HCs.

By what metric? Link?

srv5490 wrote: Fri Feb 20, 2026 8:36 pm 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.

So does this apply everywhere in the NFL or only selectively? Are you arguing for equal representation for say white cornerbacks?

And as a hint, if the above is your truly your stance about coaches, then it follows that you need to apply it elsewhere.

Lemme ask a serious and simple question...who, in their right mind, would purposely hire a Coach from only ONE race, even though others were clearly better prepared and more qualified and performed better during the interview process?

As I've said many times, in business, the secret is to surround yourself with people with talent, pay them well,...and sit back and let them do their job.

Cruisin with Tooz wrote: Sat Feb 21, 2026 9:33 am By what metric? Link?

"Extraordinary claims, require extraordinary evidence"
- Carl Sagan

Willmark wrote: Sat Feb 21, 2026 10:58 am "Extraordinary claims, require extraordinary evidence"
- Carl Sagan

It's a simple as typing it in and Al does the work for you: (I'm not saying this is all encompassing, but it might not be complete hogwash.

Yes, studies covering the era immediately preceding the 2002/2003 implementation of the Rooney Rule found that
Black head coaches in the NFL had a better winning percentage and greater success rate than their white counterparts, yet were still more likely to be fired. Data from 1990–2002 showed Black coaches performed better, suggesting they had to be exceptional to secure positions.
Key details regarding the pre-Rooney Rule era (roughly 1990–2002):

Performance Gap: Research, including studies by Madden and Ruther, indicated African American coaches out-performed white counterparts between 1990 and 2002.
Success Rate: A review of 1986–2001 data showed Black coaches often had higher win averages, and in some cases, were fired after seasons with better records than white counterparts.
Initial Conditions: In 2001, there were only three Black head coaches, and two were fired, triggering the push for the Rooney Rule.
Systemic Bias: Analysis indicated that despite better performance, Black coaches faced higher firing rates, often referred to as needing to be "twice as good" to keep their positions.

While the Rooney Rule was designed to increase diversity, studies suggest that during the pre-rule era, Black coaches were already demonstrating higher performance levels.

Toast wrote: Sat Feb 14, 2026 8:32 pm 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.

Honestly the rule is well-intentioned in theory… but basically a time consuming box-ticking exercise in practice. Half these teams already know who they want before they even hold interviews.

raiders93 wrote: Sat Feb 21, 2026 2:00 pm Honestly the rule is well-intentioned in theory… but basically a time consuming box-ticking exercise in practice. Half these teams already know who they want before they even hold interviews.

I am not 100% sure the intentions were there. There was increased heat on the league that they were not interviewing minority coaches and the heat sited the overwhelming number of black athletes vs the number of black coaches. I think, honestly, they were covering asses with at least a portion of the reason for the rule. It would make some sense given the other times the league has bowed to public pressure.

I know I m skirting a line that we were given to keep the conversation but at least that is a reasonable possibility.

Attyla wrote: Sat Feb 21, 2026 2:12 pm I am not 100% sure the intentions were there. There was increased heat on the league that they were not interviewing minority coaches and the heat sited the overwhelming number of black athletes vs the number of black coaches. I think, honestly, they were covering asses with at least a portion of the reason for the rule. It would make some sense given the other times the league has bowed to public pressure.

I know I m skirting a line that we were given to keep the conversation but at least that is a reasonable possibility.

i'd say you're right. we live in the pander-verse these days...

Attyla wrote: Sat Feb 21, 2026 2:12 pm I am not 100% sure the intentions were there. There was increased heat on the league that they were not interviewing minority coaches and the heat sited the overwhelming number of black athletes vs the number of black coaches. I think, honestly, they were covering asses with at least a portion of the reason for the rule. It would make some sense given the other times the league has bowed to public pressure.

I know I m skirting a line that we were given to keep the conversation but at least that is a reasonable possibility.

It definitely was a reactionary measure.

Cruisin with Tooz wrote: Sat Feb 21, 2026 9:33 am By what metric? Link?

https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC3092443/

Willmark wrote: Sat Feb 21, 2026 9:56 am So does this apply everywhere in the NFL or only selectively?

What I actually said (not what you misrepresented my statements/position to be) applies to every facet of employment in this country. It is clearly and explicitly addressed in the Constitution.

Willmark wrote: Sat Feb 21, 2026 9:56 amAre you arguing for equal representation for say white cornerbacks?

I didn't say a damn thing about equal representation. I didn't say anything that could be reasonably misinterpreted as advocating for equal representation. There is no reasonable interpretation of my statements as advocating for anything but merit-based hiring.

Willmark wrote: Sat Feb 21, 2026 9:56 amAnd as a hint, if the above is your truly your stance about coaches, then it follows that you need to apply it elsewhere.

I don't need a hint, and I have no interest in strawman arguments.

Willmark wrote: Sat Feb 21, 2026 10:58 am "Extraordinary claims, require extraordinary evidence"
- Carl Sagan

Interesting that of all the claims in this thread, you choose to call out the only one that was based on peer-reviewed, statistically significant data as being "extraordinary". And, you quoted a scientist to do it.

You seem to be really charged up about it and with such a topic, no long replies will serve the forum.

All I'll say? The sample size is small and Footnote 1 openly acknowledges that. That is not a minor technical note, it is central to the entire claim.