They’re already there, in larger numbers than they were before.
Many current minority HCs and coordinators started out at the bottom as grad assistants. They don’t just magically appear out of thin air. Adding a token minority grad assistant - when there are already tons and have been for a while - doesn’t solve anything. It’s a token solution aimed at appeasement.
The problem the Rooney Rule attempts to address is that the disparity becomes greater the higher up you go. You can’t lay all that on ability when there are greater percentages of minority coaches at lower ranks.
Glass ceilings and quotas, basically, is what the idea of starting at the bottom comes out to.
For what it’s worth, it seems to be trickling down to the college level. There are more minority head college D1 football coaches now than ever before, and the Rooney Rule is cited as a factor.
Why is this ALWAYS necessary? Let’s assume that Mike Tomlin has an assistant coach: Joe McWhitey White, a white guy. Joe is a hell of an assistant. He and Tomlin are almost like co-head coaches.
It’s announced that Tomlin will retire next year and the obvious choice for his replacement is Joe: he knows the system, knows the players, and will make a seamless transition.
What’s the point of wasting some black guy’s time by bringing him in for a token interview? In this hypo, the Steelers wouldn’t have a racist bone in their body. They have simply already selected the candidate.
Three quick reasons (already mentioned in this thread):
Bill McBlacky Black might just impress the shit out of the owners and get hired.
Bill gets experience in interviewing for HC jobs which makes him better prepared next time.
Most teams interview multiple candidates, even if they have somebody in mind. Might as well make one of them minority. The simple fact of having gotten interviewed for one HC spot can raise a guy’s stock for other HC jobs.
FWIW, your exact scenario has already popped up. It cost the Vikings $10K (IIRC) to hire the coach they wanted without satisfying the Rooney Rule.
It was the Lions (who knew they were going to hire Steve Mariucci), and it was $200,000. It’s easy to miss that little incident in the whole 8 year mess of Matt Millen mistakes, though.
Very doubtful. The owners have already made up their mind and already know about Bill from around the league. Unless he is a major league bullshitter, it’s not going to happen.
Why should the Steelers have to pay for a guy to get job interviewing skills?
Why should the Steelers have to pay to further a guy’s career?
For their own reasons, they believe the practice will produce a result and a culture that will enhance the value of the league as a whole - even if it may produce short term costs for individual teams. What’s good for the Saints in 2013 ain’t always good for the other 31 teams in 2040.
When you get your own football league, you can set the rules differently based on your own philosophy and long term financial goals.
I understand that. The NFL could mandate that coaches wear clown costumes during games. We are debating the wisdom of the policies that the NFL enacts.
The NFL instituted this policy because, as a business, they decided it was in their best interest. Unless you are invested in the NFL, why do you care?
The NFL DOES mandate that coaches wear official sponsor gear during games - up to the point Reebok designed one-off suits a few years back so a couple coaches would have them available. And the league mandates the wearing of certain pink items for Breast Cancer awareness. If they thought it would generate long term revenue, I’m sure they’d have no problem mandating clown costumes.
So that’s obviously a business decision, as ultimately this policy is. The league determined it’s in the best overall and longterm interests of the league - and hence all teams collectively - to enact the Rooney Rule.
That individual teams or persons don’t like it is immaterial to the larger organization, as is the short term cost considered against the longer term health of the NFL.
The fun part about that situation is that everybody knew it and so all the minority candidates declined the interview because they didn’t want to help Detroit avoid the fine by being the token.
While I think that compelling the teams to interview minority coaches is a great idea, the implication that not hiring a minority coach is racist is something I’m not even a little bit comfortable with. It’s the elephant in the room, and guys like Dungy and Edwards who are dancing all over the point without just coming out with it should either say it without any ambiguity or accept that things will sometimes work out that way.
I hope I don’t have to point out the absurdity of comparing minority men- who play football at all levels in large numbers and make up a decent chunk of coaching staffs but haven’t yet received a whole lot of head coaching and GM jobs - to women, who don’t play in the NFL, almost never play in college, and hold few or no coaching positions. Oops, I just did it. Sorry. But the NFL had its first female ref last season and I think you’ll see a female GM in baseball or basketball before too long.