NFL changes rule to require minority coaching quota

[greg683x]

 I don’t think there’s racism going on when teams are hiring coaches, whether it be assistants or head coaches.  The biggest problem with hiring practices in the NFL if you ask me is nepotism.  These coaches have half their family working with the teams as assistants and front office personnel, the coordinators too.  I’d love to know how many current nfl coaches, especially ones who weren’t former players, have a dad or uncle that’s a former head coach

The Washington team, that I refuse to call commanders, has been an absolute dumper fire.  The team was a joke this year namely the defense which was a huge flop considering how many 1st round picks are on that d-line.  Ron Rivera, a head coach with a defensive background, and Jack Del Rio the defensive coordinator, not only got to keep their jobs but just about the only changes they made on the coaching staff was promoting their sons

[gouki88]

I am not big on Quotas either.  It never seems to be the right way to solve the problem.  Will this coach be treated like an outsider or really be a part of the inner circle coaching brain trust?  I guess if teams are smart, they will use this as a way to bring in a capable resource that they can use to help the team.  I assume the teams get to pick the person to fill the slot.

Right, but the idea of a quota is that underrepresented people are given a chance, and the hope is it will create new thinking and new opportunities to those that aren't traditionally hired. If all goes perfect and NFL owners start to re-think who they're hiring then the quota system wouldn't be needed any more.

Most NFL owners aren't hiring people because they're white. They're hiring from a pool they're most familiar with it, and it happens to be mostly white men. This forces teams to think about where they get candidates from, who they look at, etc, and hopefully adds new exposure to who is hired from where.

Why stop at coaching? Why can't we mandates quotas be had at every position? I don't see many white CB's.

Because there is zero evidence that white athletes are being denied equal opportunity, and a long history of the opposite in coaching. I don't know if quotas are the answer, but "both ways" arguments are usually based on defensiveness and emotion, not reality.

Do we know this to be true? 13.4% of America is black while 70% of NFL players are black. Blacks seem to be over represented as NFL players and not a minority. Meanwhile, a google search informed me that out of 32 head coaches there are 5 minority coaches, which is 15.6%. So coaches are represented at a percentage that mimics, and if actually sightly above, the American demographic.

With stats like that, 13% of the population but 70% of the player jobs, black athletes clearly have an advantage of some kind when it comes to playing NFL football.

Having an advantage is irrelevant, as there is equal opportunity for others to participate - equality of opportunity is all good in that instance.

In the case of coaching, there is no such equality to this day, so measures are being taken.

Angryguy probably thought his comment was very witty, but it’s just more nonsense.

First, requiring minority interviews would be equal opportunity, requiring hiring is equality of outcome. But if we want to stick with opportunity, a vast majority of NFL player's path, or opportunity, is via division 1 football. The majority (54%) of division 1 football scholarships are given to black athletes even though they are only 13% of the country. Non black athletes are for sure given less opportunities to succeed in this field. There are also blatant race based stereotypes about whites lack of athleticism like white men can't jump, whites are picked last in pick games, etc that could further impede opportunities for non-black athletes pursuing the NFL during the selection process.

A good real life comparison for this type of policy is  NYC recently ending their gifted and talented program because Asians who made up approx 12% of the student population was making up adjust 70% of the gifted program. Blacks are 70% of students but accounted for less than 15% of enrollment. All those kids are students so they all had equal opportunity. NYC schools decided that was not good enough and has decided to retool the admission process to gain the outcome they deem equitable. Why wouldn't the same be true for football!

Also, if the percentage of minority coaches matches the country's demographic can you demonstrate for me how there isn't equity?

Yeah, but it is a measure to counter a lack of equal opportunity - I never said that the quota itself was an example of equal opportunity. I also don't think anyone cares about the plight of the white athlete in a country with a history dominated by white supremacy - not sure how you can't see this whole discussion in that context.

Equity when there's a lack of equal opportunity, which is what is being claimed, isn't fair. It's tokenistic. I'm not sure that a quota will solve that, but given (from my understanding) that it's basically a free additional coach then I don't see the issue with trying to get some minorities a foot in the door.

[Kernewek]

 I don’t think there’s racism going on when teams are hiring coaches, whether it be assistants or head coaches.  The biggest problem with hiring practices in the NFL if you ask me is nepotism.  These coaches have half their family working with the teams as assistants and front office personnel, the coordinators too.  I’d love to know how many current nfl coaches, especially ones who weren’t former players, have a dad or uncle that’s a former head coach

The Washington team, that I refuse to call commanders, has been an absolute dumper fire.  The team was a joke this year namely the defense which was a huge flop considering how many 1st round picks are on that d-line.  Ron Rivera, a head coach with a defensive background, and Jack Del Rio the defensive coordinator, not only got to keep their jobs but just about the only changes they made on the coaching staff was promoting their sons

Here you go, from January:
https://defector.com/just-how-big-a-problem-is-nepotism-in-nfl-coaching/

After looking through every team’s coaching staff as of March 2021, I found that Adam and Mike and Nate and Pete are among 111 NFL coaches who are related biologically or through marriage to current or former NFL coaches, out of a total of 792 coaches employed by NFL teams. That’s 14 percent of all coaches. (I hand-counted this total based on my own research parameters: coaches listed on team website and anyone with the coaching assistant title. The NFL’s official coach count is 822: They count all coaching contracts submitted to the league office, which includes all interns who may not be listed on a staff website.) 

Also interesting:

Buccaneers head coach Bruce Arians has spoken extensively about the importance of having different voices on a coaching staff. His staff in Tampa has four black coordinators, two women assistant coaches, and one coach who is related to a current or former coach (defensive/special teams assistant Cody Grimm). I asked Arians at a midweek press conference this season about whether he’d thought critically about the number of coaches who are related to other coaches around the league and if that is a hurdle to increasing diversity.

“I think those guys who grew up in the business, they fall in love with it early or they don’t,” Arians said. “If you work at a place where you don’t have a nepotism policy [against hiring relatives], yeah, it’s fun to have your son on your staff. I would love to have my daughter on my staff. But a couple places I worked, that wasn’t possible.”

In 2013, when he got his first NFL head coaching gig in Arizona, Arians wanted to hire his son Jake as a special teams coach, but the Cardinals have a policy that prevents that type of nepotism hiring. (The Cardinals confirmed they have a nepotism policy that extends to all positions in the organization, but didn’t provide specific details of the policy). Arians said he wasn’t sure if the Buccaneers had such a policy in place; the Buccaneers told Defector they do not discuss hiring policies publicly.

[BruceBanner18]

I am not big on Quotas either.  It never seems to be the right way to solve the problem.  Will this coach be treated like an outsider or really be a part of the inner circle coaching brain trust?  I guess if teams are smart, they will use this as a way to bring in a capable resource that they can use to help the team.  I assume the teams get to pick the person to fill the slot.

Right, but the idea of a quota is that underrepresented people are given a chance, and the hope is it will create new thinking and new opportunities to those that aren't traditionally hired. If all goes perfect and NFL owners start to re-think who they're hiring then the quota system wouldn't be needed any more.

Most NFL owners aren't hiring people because they're white. They're hiring from a pool they're most familiar with it, and it happens to be mostly white men. This forces teams to think about where they get candidates from, who they look at, etc, and hopefully adds new exposure to who is hired from where.

Why stop at coaching? Why can't we mandates quotas be had at every position? I don't see many white CB's.

Because there is zero evidence that white athletes are being denied equal opportunity, and a long history of the opposite in coaching. I don't know if quotas are the answer, but "both ways" arguments are usually based on defensiveness and emotion, not reality.

Do we know this to be true? 13.4% of America is black while 70% of NFL players are black. Blacks seem to be over represented as NFL players and not a minority. Meanwhile, a google search informed me that out of 32 head coaches there are 5 minority coaches, which is 15.6%. So coaches are represented at a percentage that mimics, and if actually sightly above, the American demographic.

With stats like that, 13% of the population but 70% of the player jobs, black athletes clearly have an advantage of some kind when it comes to playing NFL football.

Having an advantage is irrelevant, as there is equal opportunity for others to participate - equality of opportunity is all good in that instance.

In the case of coaching, there is no such equality to this day, so measures are being taken.

Angryguy probably thought his comment was very witty, but it’s just more nonsense.

First, requiring minority interviews would be equal opportunity, requiring hiring is equality of outcome. But if we want to stick with opportunity, a vast majority of NFL player's path, or opportunity, is via division 1 football. The majority (54%) of division 1 football scholarships are given to black athletes even though they are only 13% of the country. Non black athletes are for sure given less opportunities to succeed in this field. There are also blatant race based stereotypes about whites lack of athleticism like white men can't jump, whites are picked last in pick games, etc that could further impede opportunities for non-black athletes pursuing the NFL during the selection process.

A good real life comparison for this type of policy is  NYC recently ending their gifted and talented program because Asians who made up approx 12% of the student population was making up adjust 70% of the gifted program. Blacks are 70% of students but accounted for less than 15% of enrollment. All those kids are students so they all had equal opportunity. NYC schools decided that was not good enough and has decided to retool the admission process to gain the outcome they deem equitable. Why wouldn't the same be true for football!

Also, if the percentage of minority coaches matches the country's demographic can you demonstrate for me how there isn't equity?

Yeah, but it is a measure to counter a lack of equal opportunity - I never said that the quota itself was an example of equal opportunity. I also don't think anyone cares about the plight of the white athlete in a country with a history dominated by white supremacy - not sure how you can't see this whole discussion in that context.

Equity when there's a lack of equal opportunity, which is what is being claimed, isn't fair. It's tokenistic. I'm not sure that a quota will solve that, but given (from my understanding) that it's basically a free additional coach then I don't see the issue with trying to get some minorities a foot in the door.

You keep saying there's lack of opportunity but blacks make up 13% of society and 70% players and 15% coaches. Numbers don't lie. I'm not seeing the symptoms of inequity or lack of opportunity which would be lower involvement then the country's demo. You keep saying it exists, that it is claimed, etc. but don't have anything to back it up except the claim itself

[gouki88]

I am not big on Quotas either.  It never seems to be the right way to solve the problem.  Will this coach be treated like an outsider or really be a part of the inner circle coaching brain trust?  I guess if teams are smart, they will use this as a way to bring in a capable resource that they can use to help the team.  I assume the teams get to pick the person to fill the slot.

Right, but the idea of a quota is that underrepresented people are given a chance, and the hope is it will create new thinking and new opportunities to those that aren't traditionally hired. If all goes perfect and NFL owners start to re-think who they're hiring then the quota system wouldn't be needed any more.

Most NFL owners aren't hiring people because they're white. They're hiring from a pool they're most familiar with it, and it happens to be mostly white men. This forces teams to think about where they get candidates from, who they look at, etc, and hopefully adds new exposure to who is hired from where.

Why stop at coaching? Why can't we mandates quotas be had at every position? I don't see many white CB's.

Because there is zero evidence that white athletes are being denied equal opportunity, and a long history of the opposite in coaching. I don't know if quotas are the answer, but "both ways" arguments are usually based on defensiveness and emotion, not reality.

Do we know this to be true? 13.4% of America is black while 70% of NFL players are black. Blacks seem to be over represented as NFL players and not a minority. Meanwhile, a google search informed me that out of 32 head coaches there are 5 minority coaches, which is 15.6%. So coaches are represented at a percentage that mimics, and if actually sightly above, the American demographic.

With stats like that, 13% of the population but 70% of the player jobs, black athletes clearly have an advantage of some kind when it comes to playing NFL football.

Having an advantage is irrelevant, as there is equal opportunity for others to participate - equality of opportunity is all good in that instance.

In the case of coaching, there is no such equality to this day, so measures are being taken.

Angryguy probably thought his comment was very witty, but it’s just more nonsense.

First, requiring minority interviews would be equal opportunity, requiring hiring is equality of outcome. But if we want to stick with opportunity, a vast majority of NFL player's path, or opportunity, is via division 1 football. The majority (54%) of division 1 football scholarships are given to black athletes even though they are only 13% of the country. Non black athletes are for sure given less opportunities to succeed in this field. There are also blatant race based stereotypes about whites lack of athleticism like white men can't jump, whites are picked last in pick games, etc that could further impede opportunities for non-black athletes pursuing the NFL during the selection process.

A good real life comparison for this type of policy is  NYC recently ending their gifted and talented program because Asians who made up approx 12% of the student population was making up adjust 70% of the gifted program. Blacks are 70% of students but accounted for less than 15% of enrollment. All those kids are students so they all had equal opportunity. NYC schools decided that was not good enough and has decided to retool the admission process to gain the outcome they deem equitable. Why wouldn't the same be true for football!

Also, if the percentage of minority coaches matches the country's demographic can you demonstrate for me how there isn't equity?

Yeah, but it is a measure to counter a lack of equal opportunity - I never said that the quota itself was an example of equal opportunity. I also don't think anyone cares about the plight of the white athlete in a country with a history dominated by white supremacy - not sure how you can't see this whole discussion in that context.

Equity when there's a lack of equal opportunity, which is what is being claimed, isn't fair. It's tokenistic. I'm not sure that a quota will solve that, but given (from my understanding) that it's basically a free additional coach then I don't see the issue with trying to get some minorities a foot in the door.

You keep saying there's lack of opportunity but blacks make up 13% of society and 70% players and 15% coaches. Numbers don't lie. I'm not seeing the symptoms of inequity or lack of opportunity which would be lower involvement then the country's demo. You keep saying it exists, that it is claimed, etc. but don't have anything to back it up except the claim itself

I keep saying it because black coaches keep saying it.

[BruceBanner18]

I am not big on Quotas either.  It never seems to be the right way to solve the problem.  Will this coach be treated like an outsider or really be a part of the inner circle coaching brain trust?  I guess if teams are smart, they will use this as a way to bring in a capable resource that they can use to help the team.  I assume the teams get to pick the person to fill the slot.

Right, but the idea of a quota is that underrepresented people are given a chance, and the hope is it will create new thinking and new opportunities to those that aren't traditionally hired. If all goes perfect and NFL owners start to re-think who they're hiring then the quota system wouldn't be needed any more.

Most NFL owners aren't hiring people because they're white. They're hiring from a pool they're most familiar with it, and it happens to be mostly white men. This forces teams to think about where they get candidates from, who they look at, etc, and hopefully adds new exposure to who is hired from where.

Why stop at coaching? Why can't we mandates quotas be had at every position? I don't see many white CB's.

Because there is zero evidence that white athletes are being denied equal opportunity, and a long history of the opposite in coaching. I don't know if quotas are the answer, but "both ways" arguments are usually based on defensiveness and emotion, not reality.

Do we know this to be true? 13.4% of America is black while 70% of NFL players are black. Blacks seem to be over represented as NFL players and not a minority. Meanwhile, a google search informed me that out of 32 head coaches there are 5 minority coaches, which is 15.6%. So coaches are represented at a percentage that mimics, and if actually sightly above, the American demographic.

With stats like that, 13% of the population but 70% of the player jobs, black athletes clearly have an advantage of some kind when it comes to playing NFL football.

Having an advantage is irrelevant, as there is equal opportunity for others to participate - equality of opportunity is all good in that instance.

In the case of coaching, there is no such equality to this day, so measures are being taken.

Angryguy probably thought his comment was very witty, but it’s just more nonsense.

First, requiring minority interviews would be equal opportunity, requiring hiring is equality of outcome. But if we want to stick with opportunity, a vast majority of NFL player's path, or opportunity, is via division 1 football. The majority (54%) of division 1 football scholarships are given to black athletes even though they are only 13% of the country. Non black athletes are for sure given less opportunities to succeed in this field. There are also blatant race based stereotypes about whites lack of athleticism like white men can't jump, whites are picked last in pick games, etc that could further impede opportunities for non-black athletes pursuing the NFL during the selection process.

A good real life comparison for this type of policy is  NYC recently ending their gifted and talented program because Asians who made up approx 12% of the student population was making up adjust 70% of the gifted program. Blacks are 70% of students but accounted for less than 15% of enrollment. All those kids are students so they all had equal opportunity. NYC schools decided that was not good enough and has decided to retool the admission process to gain the outcome they deem equitable. Why wouldn't the same be true for football!

Also, if the percentage of minority coaches matches the country's demographic can you demonstrate for me how there isn't equity?

Yeah, but it is a measure to counter a lack of equal opportunity - I never said that the quota itself was an example of equal opportunity. I also don't think anyone cares about the plight of the white athlete in a country with a history dominated by white supremacy - not sure how you can't see this whole discussion in that context.

Equity when there's a lack of equal opportunity, which is what is being claimed, isn't fair. It's tokenistic. I'm not sure that a quota will solve that, but given (from my understanding) that it's basically a free additional coach then I don't see the issue with trying to get some minorities a foot in the door.

You keep saying there's lack of opportunity but blacks make up 13% of society and 70% players and 15% coaches. Numbers don't lie. I'm not seeing the symptoms of inequity or lack of opportunity which would be lower involvement then the country's demo. You keep saying it exists, that it is claimed, etc. but don't have anything to back it up except the claim itself

I keep saying it because black coaches keep saying it.

Got it. I'll give you time to think about it then. Get back to me when you form a thought that is your own.

[greg683x]

 I don’t think there’s racism going on when teams are hiring coaches, whether it be assistants or head coaches.  The biggest problem with hiring practices in the NFL if you ask me is nepotism.  These coaches have half their family working with the teams as assistants and front office personnel, the coordinators too.  I’d love to know how many current nfl coaches, especially ones who weren’t former players, have a dad or uncle that’s a former head coach

The Washington team, that I refuse to call commanders, has been an absolute dumper fire.  The team was a joke this year namely the defense which was a huge flop considering how many 1st round picks are on that d-line.  Ron Rivera, a head coach with a defensive background, and Jack Del Rio the defensive coordinator, not only got to keep their jobs but just about the only changes they made on the coaching staff was promoting their sons

Here you go, from January:
https://defector.com/just-how-big-a-problem-is-nepotism-in-nfl-coaching/

After looking through every team’s coaching staff as of March 2021, I found that Adam and Mike and Nate and Pete are among 111 NFL coaches who are related biologically or through marriage to current or former NFL coaches, out of a total of 792 coaches employed by NFL teams. That’s 14 percent of all coaches. (I hand-counted this total based on my own research parameters: coaches listed on team website and anyone with the coaching assistant title. The NFL’s official coach count is 822: They count all coaching contracts submitted to the league office, which includes all interns who may not be listed on a staff website.) 

Also interesting:

Buccaneers head coach Bruce Arians has spoken extensively about the importance of having different voices on a coaching staff. His staff in Tampa has four black coordinators, two women assistant coaches, and one coach who is related to a current or former coach (defensive/special teams assistant Cody Grimm). I asked Arians at a midweek press conference this season about whether he’d thought critically about the number of coaches who are related to other coaches around the league and if that is a hurdle to increasing diversity.

“I think those guys who grew up in the business, they fall in love with it early or they don’t,” Arians said. “If you work at a place where you don’t have a nepotism policy [against hiring relatives], yeah, it’s fun to have your son on your staff. I would love to have my daughter on my staff. But a couple places I worked, that wasn’t possible.”

In 2013, when he got his first NFL head coaching gig in Arizona, Arians wanted to hire his son Jake as a special teams coach, but the Cardinals have a policy that prevents that type of nepotism hiring. (The Cardinals confirmed they have a nepotism policy that extends to all positions in the organization, but didn’t provide specific details of the policy). Arians said he wasn’t sure if the Buccaneers had such a policy in place; the Buccaneers told Defector they do not discuss hiring policies publicly.

TP for doing the digging.  It’d be nice to see the nfl start a league wide nepotism rule

[gouki88]

I am not big on Quotas either.  It never seems to be the right way to solve the problem.  Will this coach be treated like an outsider or really be a part of the inner circle coaching brain trust?  I guess if teams are smart, they will use this as a way to bring in a capable resource that they can use to help the team.  I assume the teams get to pick the person to fill the slot.

Right, but the idea of a quota is that underrepresented people are given a chance, and the hope is it will create new thinking and new opportunities to those that aren't traditionally hired. If all goes perfect and NFL owners start to re-think who they're hiring then the quota system wouldn't be needed any more.

Most NFL owners aren't hiring people because they're white. They're hiring from a pool they're most familiar with it, and it happens to be mostly white men. This forces teams to think about where they get candidates from, who they look at, etc, and hopefully adds new exposure to who is hired from where.

Why stop at coaching? Why can't we mandates quotas be had at every position? I don't see many white CB's.

Because there is zero evidence that white athletes are being denied equal opportunity, and a long history of the opposite in coaching. I don't know if quotas are the answer, but "both ways" arguments are usually based on defensiveness and emotion, not reality.

Do we know this to be true? 13.4% of America is black while 70% of NFL players are black. Blacks seem to be over represented as NFL players and not a minority. Meanwhile, a google search informed me that out of 32 head coaches there are 5 minority coaches, which is 15.6%. So coaches are represented at a percentage that mimics, and if actually sightly above, the American demographic.

With stats like that, 13% of the population but 70% of the player jobs, black athletes clearly have an advantage of some kind when it comes to playing NFL football.

Having an advantage is irrelevant, as there is equal opportunity for others to participate - equality of opportunity is all good in that instance.

In the case of coaching, there is no such equality to this day, so measures are being taken.

Angryguy probably thought his comment was very witty, but it’s just more nonsense.

First, requiring minority interviews would be equal opportunity, requiring hiring is equality of outcome. But if we want to stick with opportunity, a vast majority of NFL player's path, or opportunity, is via division 1 football. The majority (54%) of division 1 football scholarships are given to black athletes even though they are only 13% of the country. Non black athletes are for sure given less opportunities to succeed in this field. There are also blatant race based stereotypes about whites lack of athleticism like white men can't jump, whites are picked last in pick games, etc that could further impede opportunities for non-black athletes pursuing the NFL during the selection process.

A good real life comparison for this type of policy is  NYC recently ending their gifted and talented program because Asians who made up approx 12% of the student population was making up adjust 70% of the gifted program. Blacks are 70% of students but accounted for less than 15% of enrollment. All those kids are students so they all had equal opportunity. NYC schools decided that was not good enough and has decided to retool the admission process to gain the outcome they deem equitable. Why wouldn't the same be true for football!

Also, if the percentage of minority coaches matches the country's demographic can you demonstrate for me how there isn't equity?

Yeah, but it is a measure to counter a lack of equal opportunity - I never said that the quota itself was an example of equal opportunity. I also don't think anyone cares about the plight of the white athlete in a country with a history dominated by white supremacy - not sure how you can't see this whole discussion in that context.

Equity when there's a lack of equal opportunity, which is what is being claimed, isn't fair. It's tokenistic. I'm not sure that a quota will solve that, but given (from my understanding) that it's basically a free additional coach then I don't see the issue with trying to get some minorities a foot in the door.

You keep saying there's lack of opportunity but blacks make up 13% of society and 70% players and 15% coaches. Numbers don't lie. I'm not seeing the symptoms of inequity or lack of opportunity which would be lower involvement then the country's demo. You keep saying it exists, that it is claimed, etc. but don't have anything to back it up except the claim itself

I keep saying it because black coaches keep saying it.

Got it. I'll give you time to think about it then. Get back to me when you form a thought that is your own.

I know, I know. It was rather outrageous of me to think that black people are actually capable of forming valid opinions on what it's like to live in America as a black American. I should not have done that.

[tazzmaniac]

I am not big on Quotas either.  It never seems to be the right way to solve the problem.  Will this coach be treated like an outsider or really be a part of the inner circle coaching brain trust?  I guess if teams are smart, they will use this as a way to bring in a capable resource that they can use to help the team.  I assume the teams get to pick the person to fill the slot.

Right, but the idea of a quota is that underrepresented people are given a chance, and the hope is it will create new thinking and new opportunities to those that aren't traditionally hired. If all goes perfect and NFL owners start to re-think who they're hiring then the quota system wouldn't be needed any more.

Most NFL owners aren't hiring people because they're white. They're hiring from a pool they're most familiar with it, and it happens to be mostly white men. This forces teams to think about where they get candidates from, who they look at, etc, and hopefully adds new exposure to who is hired from where.

Why stop at coaching? Why can't we mandates quotas be had at every position? I don't see many white CB's.

Because there is zero evidence that white athletes are being denied equal opportunity, and a long history of the opposite in coaching. I don't know if quotas are the answer, but "both ways" arguments are usually based on defensiveness and emotion, not reality.

Do we know this to be true? 13.4% of America is black while 70% of NFL players are black. Blacks seem to be over represented as NFL players and not a minority. Meanwhile, a google search informed me that out of 32 head coaches there are 5 minority coaches, which is 15.6%. So coaches are represented at a percentage that mimics, and if actually sightly above, the American demographic.

With stats like that, 13% of the population but 70% of the player jobs, black athletes clearly have an advantage of some kind when it comes to playing NFL football.

Having an advantage is irrelevant, as there is equal opportunity for others to participate - equality of opportunity is all good in that instance.

In the case of coaching, there is no such equality to this day, so measures are being taken.

Angryguy probably thought his comment was very witty, but it’s just more nonsense.

First, requiring minority interviews would be equal opportunity, requiring hiring is equality of outcome. But if we want to stick with opportunity, a vast majority of NFL player's path, or opportunity, is via division 1 football. The majority (54%) of division 1 football scholarships are given to black athletes even though they are only 13% of the country. Non black athletes are for sure given less opportunities to succeed in this field. There are also blatant race based stereotypes about whites lack of athleticism like white men can't jump, whites are picked last in pick games, etc that could further impede opportunities for non-black athletes pursuing the NFL during the selection process.

A good real life comparison for this type of policy is  NYC recently ending their gifted and talented program because Asians who made up approx 12% of the student population was making up adjust 70% of the gifted program. Blacks are 70% of students but accounted for less than 15% of enrollment. All those kids are students so they all had equal opportunity. NYC schools decided that was not good enough and has decided to retool the admission process to gain the outcome they deem equitable. Why wouldn't the same be true for football!

Also, if the percentage of minority coaches matches the country's demographic can you demonstrate for me how there isn't equity?

Yeah, but it is a measure to counter a lack of equal opportunity - I never said that the quota itself was an example of equal opportunity. I also don't think anyone cares about the plight of the white athlete in a country with a history dominated by white supremacy - not sure how you can't see this whole discussion in that context.

Equity when there's a lack of equal opportunity, which is what is being claimed, isn't fair. It's tokenistic. I'm not sure that a quota will solve that, but given (from my understanding) that it's basically a free additional coach then I don't see the issue with trying to get some minorities a foot in the door.

You keep saying there's lack of opportunity but blacks make up 13% of society and 70% players and 15% coaches. Numbers don't lie. I'm not seeing the symptoms of inequity or lack of opportunity which would be lower involvement then the country's demo. You keep saying it exists, that it is claimed, etc. but don't have anything to back it up except the claim itself

I keep saying it because black coaches keep saying it.

Got it. I'll give you time to think about it then. Get back to me when you form a thought that is your own.

I know, I know. It was rather outrageous of me to think that black people are actually capable of forming valid opinions on what it's like to live in America as a black American. I should not have done that.

Black people are also full of crap sometimes and form invalid biased opinions just like everyone else.  To blindly accept what someone is saying because they are black is idiotic and racist. 

[gouki88]

I am not big on Quotas either.  It never seems to be the right way to solve the problem.  Will this coach be treated like an outsider or really be a part of the inner circle coaching brain trust?  I guess if teams are smart, they will use this as a way to bring in a capable resource that they can use to help the team.  I assume the teams get to pick the person to fill the slot.

Right, but the idea of a quota is that underrepresented people are given a chance, and the hope is it will create new thinking and new opportunities to those that aren't traditionally hired. If all goes perfect and NFL owners start to re-think who they're hiring then the quota system wouldn't be needed any more.

Most NFL owners aren't hiring people because they're white. They're hiring from a pool they're most familiar with it, and it happens to be mostly white men. This forces teams to think about where they get candidates from, who they look at, etc, and hopefully adds new exposure to who is hired from where.

Why stop at coaching? Why can't we mandates quotas be had at every position? I don't see many white CB's.

Because there is zero evidence that white athletes are being denied equal opportunity, and a long history of the opposite in coaching. I don't know if quotas are the answer, but "both ways" arguments are usually based on defensiveness and emotion, not reality.

Do we know this to be true? 13.4% of America is black while 70% of NFL players are black. Blacks seem to be over represented as NFL players and not a minority. Meanwhile, a google search informed me that out of 32 head coaches there are 5 minority coaches, which is 15.6%. So coaches are represented at a percentage that mimics, and if actually sightly above, the American demographic.

With stats like that, 13% of the population but 70% of the player jobs, black athletes clearly have an advantage of some kind when it comes to playing NFL football.

Having an advantage is irrelevant, as there is equal opportunity for others to participate - equality of opportunity is all good in that instance.

In the case of coaching, there is no such equality to this day, so measures are being taken.

Angryguy probably thought his comment was very witty, but it’s just more nonsense.

First, requiring minority interviews would be equal opportunity, requiring hiring is equality of outcome. But if we want to stick with opportunity, a vast majority of NFL player's path, or opportunity, is via division 1 football. The majority (54%) of division 1 football scholarships are given to black athletes even though they are only 13% of the country. Non black athletes are for sure given less opportunities to succeed in this field. There are also blatant race based stereotypes about whites lack of athleticism like white men can't jump, whites are picked last in pick games, etc that could further impede opportunities for non-black athletes pursuing the NFL during the selection process.

A good real life comparison for this type of policy is  NYC recently ending their gifted and talented program because Asians who made up approx 12% of the student population was making up adjust 70% of the gifted program. Blacks are 70% of students but accounted for less than 15% of enrollment. All those kids are students so they all had equal opportunity. NYC schools decided that was not good enough and has decided to retool the admission process to gain the outcome they deem equitable. Why wouldn't the same be true for football!

Also, if the percentage of minority coaches matches the country's demographic can you demonstrate for me how there isn't equity?

Yeah, but it is a measure to counter a lack of equal opportunity - I never said that the quota itself was an example of equal opportunity. I also don't think anyone cares about the plight of the white athlete in a country with a history dominated by white supremacy - not sure how you can't see this whole discussion in that context.

Equity when there's a lack of equal opportunity, which is what is being claimed, isn't fair. It's tokenistic. I'm not sure that a quota will solve that, but given (from my understanding) that it's basically a free additional coach then I don't see the issue with trying to get some minorities a foot in the door.

You keep saying there's lack of opportunity but blacks make up 13% of society and 70% players and 15% coaches. Numbers don't lie. I'm not seeing the symptoms of inequity or lack of opportunity which would be lower involvement then the country's demo. You keep saying it exists, that it is claimed, etc. but don't have anything to back it up except the claim itself

I keep saying it because black coaches keep saying it.

Got it. I'll give you time to think about it then. Get back to me when you form a thought that is your own.

I know, I know. It was rather outrageous of me to think that black people are actually capable of forming valid opinions on what it's like to live in America as a black American. I should not have done that.

Black people are also full of crap sometimes and form invalid biased opinions just like everyone else.  To blindly accept what someone is saying because they are black is idiotic and racist.

Which is not what I'm doing. I'm deferring to a movement of black coaches (and other minorities) who argue that there is systematic opposition to them being given equal opportunity. I'm not adopting one person's entire attitude because they're a minority, and to conclude that I am is idiotic in its own right.

[tazzmaniac]

I don't see how this stands up to a legal challenge.  Seems like clear discrimination against white males because of their race and gender.  I don't see how these minority coaches being paid at the NFL level makes a difference.  The NFL is probably hoping white male coaches won't make a legal challenge for fear of being blackballed.  And if there is a successful legal challenge the NFL at least has gotten good PR.   

The NFL's numbers show that minority representation is up.  What are they basing their decision on to justify the discrimination?  What is an acceptable number?  Going by general population women ought to be more than half the coaches.  Going by NFL football player population there shouldn't be any women coaches. 

Edit:  Also what constitutes an ethnic or racial minority?  If one of your 8 grandparents are say black or Pakistani, does that count?  Does your skin color have to have a certain non-white pigmentation level to count? 

[Kernewek]

You keep saying there's lack of opportunity but blacks make up 13% of society and 70% players and 15% coaches. Numbers don't lie. I'm not seeing the symptoms of inequity or lack of opportunity which would be lower involvement then the country's demo. You keep saying it exists, that it is claimed, etc. but don't have anything to back it up except the claim itself

Another way to think about it: if a group of people make up 70% of the player-base at the highest level you might expect that that they would be more represented in coaching than what these percentages are showing. Same numbers, different conclusion. I'd be careful about absolutist statements involving numbers like this.

The NFL publishes a Diversity & Inclusion report every year called the Occupational Mobility Report. Here's the one from 2021, if you care to look through it:
https://operations.nfl.com/media/4989/nfl-occupational-mobility-report-volume-x-february-2021.pdf

It can show you a lot about how the NFL itself sees this issue, which can help add some context to this thread (esp. in term's of Tazz's post above).

It also features some interesting data analysis that may be of interest to you, particularly given your stance that 'Numbers don't lie.' For example:

The offensive coordinator position is historically (but not always) the primary pipeline for aspiring first-time NFL head coaches, whereas defensive coordinator can be viewed as the next most viable pipeline for prospective first-time NFL head coaches. This data concerning common coaching mobility pathways
underscores the importance of men of color earning an opportunity to serve as an NFL offensive coordinator or defensive coordinator, as these two leadership positions function as viable springboards to NFL head coach opportunities. NFL coordinator experience is often viewed as essential with respect to NFL head coach prospects—especially for candidates of color. However, a primary occupational mobility access barrier for coaches of color exists at the coordinator level—only five of the 31 current NFL offensive coordinators are men of color, and currently 13 of the 32 current NFL defensive coordinators are men of color

A bit later, we see this:

Findings in this research report also indicate a prevalence of the reshuffling effect with respect to the same individuals repeatedly hired for NFL team coordinator positions, which prevents new talent from entering key head coach pipelines. For example, between the beginning of the 2012 NFL regular season (September 5, 2012) and Super Bowl LV (February 7, 2021), 104 White individuals have received at least a second opportunity to work as an offensive coordinator or defensive coordinator of an NFL team. Only 24 men of color have received a similar “second or greater” opportunity during the same time period; notably, 20 of these 24 “second or greater chances” have been for men of color hired as defensive coordinators with only four men of color receiving a “second or greater chance” to serve as an NFL offensive coordinator (see Figure 25).

[BruceBanner18]

I am not big on Quotas either.  It never seems to be the right way to solve the problem.  Will this coach be treated like an outsider or really be a part of the inner circle coaching brain trust?  I guess if teams are smart, they will use this as a way to bring in a capable resource that they can use to help the team.  I assume the teams get to pick the person to fill the slot.

Right, but the idea of a quota is that underrepresented people are given a chance, and the hope is it will create new thinking and new opportunities to those that aren't traditionally hired. If all goes perfect and NFL owners start to re-think who they're hiring then the quota system wouldn't be needed any more.

Most NFL owners aren't hiring people because they're white. They're hiring from a pool they're most familiar with it, and it happens to be mostly white men. This forces teams to think about where they get candidates from, who they look at, etc, and hopefully adds new exposure to who is hired from where.

Why stop at coaching? Why can't we mandates quotas be had at every position? I don't see many white CB's.

Because there is zero evidence that white athletes are being denied equal opportunity, and a long history of the opposite in coaching. I don't know if quotas are the answer, but "both ways" arguments are usually based on defensiveness and emotion, not reality.

Do we know this to be true? 13.4% of America is black while 70% of NFL players are black. Blacks seem to be over represented as NFL players and not a minority. Meanwhile, a google search informed me that out of 32 head coaches there are 5 minority coaches, which is 15.6%. So coaches are represented at a percentage that mimics, and if actually sightly above, the American demographic.

With stats like that, 13% of the population but 70% of the player jobs, black athletes clearly have an advantage of some kind when it comes to playing NFL football.

Having an advantage is irrelevant, as there is equal opportunity for others to participate - equality of opportunity is all good in that instance.

In the case of coaching, there is no such equality to this day, so measures are being taken.

Angryguy probably thought his comment was very witty, but it’s just more nonsense.

First, requiring minority interviews would be equal opportunity, requiring hiring is equality of outcome. But if we want to stick with opportunity, a vast majority of NFL player's path, or opportunity, is via division 1 football. The majority (54%) of division 1 football scholarships are given to black athletes even though they are only 13% of the country. Non black athletes are for sure given less opportunities to succeed in this field. There are also blatant race based stereotypes about whites lack of athleticism like white men can't jump, whites are picked last in pick games, etc that could further impede opportunities for non-black athletes pursuing the NFL during the selection process.

A good real life comparison for this type of policy is  NYC recently ending their gifted and talented program because Asians who made up approx 12% of the student population was making up adjust 70% of the gifted program. Blacks are 70% of students but accounted for less than 15% of enrollment. All those kids are students so they all had equal opportunity. NYC schools decided that was not good enough and has decided to retool the admission process to gain the outcome they deem equitable. Why wouldn't the same be true for football!

Also, if the percentage of minority coaches matches the country's demographic can you demonstrate for me how there isn't equity?

Yeah, but it is a measure to counter a lack of equal opportunity - I never said that the quota itself was an example of equal opportunity. I also don't think anyone cares about the plight of the white athlete in a country with a history dominated by white supremacy - not sure how you can't see this whole discussion in that context.

Equity when there's a lack of equal opportunity, which is what is being claimed, isn't fair. It's tokenistic. I'm not sure that a quota will solve that, but given (from my understanding) that it's basically a free additional coach then I don't see the issue with trying to get some minorities a foot in the door.

You keep saying there's lack of opportunity but blacks make up 13% of society and 70% players and 15% coaches. Numbers don't lie. I'm not seeing the symptoms of inequity or lack of opportunity which would be lower involvement then the country's demo. You keep saying it exists, that it is claimed, etc. but don't have anything to back it up except the claim itself

I keep saying it because black coaches keep saying it.

Got it. I'll give you time to think about it then. Get back to me when you form a thought that is your own.

I know, I know. It was rather outrageous of me to think that black people are actually capable of forming valid opinions on what it's like to live in America as a black American. I should not have done that.

White people can be so pompous. What is the race of the man you're exchanging post with now genius? The one with opinions when you have none?

What you shouldn't do is assume to know my experience and discount my opinion because you think I'm white. Reading an ESPN article and regurgitation it doesn't make you a friend to the black community. You're just virtue signaling. SMH. Pompous.

[Roy H.]

Tone it down, please.

[gouki88]

I am not big on Quotas either.  It never seems to be the right way to solve the problem.  Will this coach be treated like an outsider or really be a part of the inner circle coaching brain trust?  I guess if teams are smart, they will use this as a way to bring in a capable resource that they can use to help the team.  I assume the teams get to pick the person to fill the slot.

Right, but the idea of a quota is that underrepresented people are given a chance, and the hope is it will create new thinking and new opportunities to those that aren't traditionally hired. If all goes perfect and NFL owners start to re-think who they're hiring then the quota system wouldn't be needed any more.

Most NFL owners aren't hiring people because they're white. They're hiring from a pool they're most familiar with it, and it happens to be mostly white men. This forces teams to think about where they get candidates from, who they look at, etc, and hopefully adds new exposure to who is hired from where.

Why stop at coaching? Why can't we mandates quotas be had at every position? I don't see many white CB's.

Because there is zero evidence that white athletes are being denied equal opportunity, and a long history of the opposite in coaching. I don't know if quotas are the answer, but "both ways" arguments are usually based on defensiveness and emotion, not reality.

Do we know this to be true? 13.4% of America is black while 70% of NFL players are black. Blacks seem to be over represented as NFL players and not a minority. Meanwhile, a google search informed me that out of 32 head coaches there are 5 minority coaches, which is 15.6%. So coaches are represented at a percentage that mimics, and if actually sightly above, the American demographic.

With stats like that, 13% of the population but 70% of the player jobs, black athletes clearly have an advantage of some kind when it comes to playing NFL football.

Having an advantage is irrelevant, as there is equal opportunity for others to participate - equality of opportunity is all good in that instance.

In the case of coaching, there is no such equality to this day, so measures are being taken.

Angryguy probably thought his comment was very witty, but it’s just more nonsense.

First, requiring minority interviews would be equal opportunity, requiring hiring is equality of outcome. But if we want to stick with opportunity, a vast majority of NFL player's path, or opportunity, is via division 1 football. The majority (54%) of division 1 football scholarships are given to black athletes even though they are only 13% of the country. Non black athletes are for sure given less opportunities to succeed in this field. There are also blatant race based stereotypes about whites lack of athleticism like white men can't jump, whites are picked last in pick games, etc that could further impede opportunities for non-black athletes pursuing the NFL during the selection process.

A good real life comparison for this type of policy is  NYC recently ending their gifted and talented program because Asians who made up approx 12% of the student population was making up adjust 70% of the gifted program. Blacks are 70% of students but accounted for less than 15% of enrollment. All those kids are students so they all had equal opportunity. NYC schools decided that was not good enough and has decided to retool the admission process to gain the outcome they deem equitable. Why wouldn't the same be true for football!

Also, if the percentage of minority coaches matches the country's demographic can you demonstrate for me how there isn't equity?

Yeah, but it is a measure to counter a lack of equal opportunity - I never said that the quota itself was an example of equal opportunity. I also don't think anyone cares about the plight of the white athlete in a country with a history dominated by white supremacy - not sure how you can't see this whole discussion in that context.

Equity when there's a lack of equal opportunity, which is what is being claimed, isn't fair. It's tokenistic. I'm not sure that a quota will solve that, but given (from my understanding) that it's basically a free additional coach then I don't see the issue with trying to get some minorities a foot in the door.

You keep saying there's lack of opportunity but blacks make up 13% of society and 70% players and 15% coaches. Numbers don't lie. I'm not seeing the symptoms of inequity or lack of opportunity which would be lower involvement then the country's demo. You keep saying it exists, that it is claimed, etc. but don't have anything to back it up except the claim itself

I keep saying it because black coaches keep saying it.

Got it. I'll give you time to think about it then. Get back to me when you form a thought that is your own.

I know, I know. It was rather outrageous of me to think that black people are actually capable of forming valid opinions on what it's like to live in America as a black American. I should not have done that.

White people can be so pompous. What is the race of the man you're exchanging post with now genius? The one with opinions when you have none?

What you shouldn't do is assume to know my experience and discount my opinion because you think I'm white. Reading an ESPN article and regurgitation it doesn't make you a friend to the black community. You're just virtue signaling. SMH. Pompous.

Got it Roy.