Rooney questions haslett contract

Quote:

---

ROONEY QUESTIONS HASLETT CONTRACT
Posted by Mike Florio on October 22, 2008, 10:04 p.m.
Steelers owner Dan Rooney said on Tuesday that he wants the league to take a look at whether the arrangement between the Rams and interim coach Jim Haslett undermines the rule that bears Rooney’s name.

Rooney’s comments come in response to reports that Haslett has a clause in his contract that guarantees him the head-coaching job in 2009 if he wins six games.

The Rooney Rule requires all teams with a coaching vacancy to interview at least one minority candidate. It does not apply to interim hires.

“I think they should be looked at,” Rooney said of the Rams’ situation with Haslett. “There’s no violation because there’s no fast rule. When you start putting things in there like if a coach wins six games he keeps the job, that starts skirting the rule, to me. If you make a [coaching] change during the season, it makes sense that you have to look within your organization. But then when you get to the end of the season, I think there should be an open search.”

Actually, Haslett’s contract guarantees him either the job or a seven-figure payment. So the contract doesn’t violate the Rooney Rule on its face. The Rooney Rule will be violated only if the Rams fail to interview a minority candidate after the season and before hiring a “permanent” coach.

The challenge the Rams could face in this regard is finding anyone (black, white, red, brown, purple, or yellow) who’ll interview for the job when it likely will be a no-brainer that the Rams will want Haslett to stay.

Then again, Haslett is emerging with each passing week as one of the hottest potential commodities on the head-coaching market. Does anyone think that Cowboys owner Jerry Jones will have forgotten how well Haslett prepared his team to beat Dallas if (when) Jones is digging through the rubble of another failed season and asking himself whether presumptive golden boy Jason Garrett truly has the chops to lead the locker room?

And so it might be easy for the Rams to find other candidates for the job, but only because Haslett might be a candidate for several others.

Still, the bigger question is whether the time has come to get rid of the Rooney Rule. At some point, the answer will be “yes.” At this moment, it seems fair to at least ask the question.

---

Hasn't this pot already been stirred?

I hate the rule. It is purely cosmetic and does nothing to actually promote diversity because its far too easy to circumvent anyway. Nothing like the era of political correctness in which we live. The owners each have around a 1 billion dollar business. They are HIGHLY incentivized to hire the best guy for the job, and i dont see why they arent entitled to be their own judge of who that person is, regardless of their race, creed or color.

Ramming speed to all

general counsel

This rule is stupid for this reason. Does a man of another race want to be a token interview? I mean if a team wants to hire a guy why should they interview a minority even though they know he isnt getting the job. It's really stupid in my opinion. Will the Niners have to interview a minority even though they have a minority interim coach? If the Rams want Haslett why would a minority want to interview anyway? Just doesnt make any sense to go through an interview knowing full well that you are not getting the job because the team is just interviewing you because they have to.

How can a Rooney be talking about anyone violating a league rule when 4 of the 5 Rooney's have been violating a league rule for over a year by owning dog tracks. And by some possibility Has takes this team to 9 - 12 wins there is absolutly no reason why he shouldnt get the job and it would be ludicris for the NFL to punish the Rams for hiring him befor another team does.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by general counsel

I hate the rule. It is purely cosmetic and does nothing to actually promote diversity because its far too easy to circumvent anyway. Nothing like the era of political correctness in which we live. The owners each have around a 1 billion dollar business. They are HIGHLY incentivized to hire the best guy for the job, and i dont see why they arent entitled to be their own judge of who that person is, regardless of their race, creed or color.

Ramming speed to all

general counsel

---

If I were an owner, I'd go out of my way to break this rule if I knew I had a man I wanted to see what the NFL can really do about it.

It's a long shot that if we wanted to keep Haslett THAT bad that he would coach somewere else..but just for arguments sake, how bad would it suck if he kept this up for the rest of the season and by some fluke (stupid rule) he ended up signing on with someone else while the Rams looked for a minority to interview for the "vacancy"???

Quote:

---

The Rooney Rule requires all teams with a coaching vacancy to interview at least one minority candidate. It does not apply to interim hires.

---

I am Ulster-Scots; and according to the 2000 census, my people only make up 1.5% of the U.S. population.

As a minority, I demand my interview, Chip!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by HUbison

I am Ulster-Scots; and according to the 2000 census, my people only make up 1.5% of the U.S. population.

As a minority, I demand my interview, Chip!

---

LOL, I was just wondering this morning if we could pay some executives son's 12yr old cousin $10 for an interview. Does anyone know if there are any other kind of requirements other than "must be a minority"?

Listen if the Rams pay me to interview I'll do it. The rule doesn't require a person to have NFL experience does it? It's the dumbest rule ever because of the lack of clarity. Now I'm black, and I don't think black people get their fair share of chances. But when you have a situation like this and a person performs, let him keep the job.

No the league does not clearly represent the ration of minority players and coaches, but asain people could argue Timmy Chang wasn't given a chance, to at least land a 3rd string QB role. Yes the system is flawed but this aint one of those cases.

Fact is, bottom line, whats the point of having a team interview others candidates, minority or not, when they are exactly sure who they want to hire ...

Seriously, if the Rams finish 9-7, persay, is there anybody else to consider for the job other than Has? Absolutely not, yet we will have to waste somebodies time anyway ...

Not to take a contrary view, but while it may be time NOW to abolish the rule, when it was instituted .. not matter how people screamed about hiring who they wanted .. there were tons of offensive and defensive coordinators who were minorities that were never even considered or interviewed. What the rule did initially was to break that barrier and make the old boy network justify the process - PLUS give minority candidates a chance to go through the interview process and gain experience so when true opening came up they were better prepared. Several minority head coaches have commented that going through the process before, even when they weren't hired, helped them when a 'real' job opened. So say what you will now, it has helped break ceiling for minority head coaches.

Percentage of black head coaches in the NFL - 22%
Percentage of black individuals in America - 13%

Do we still need this silly rule?

I agree with RamsInfiniti, if haslett finishes the year with a winning record, he's going to get the job. Why waste anyones time. Get rid of the stupid rule!

I do not dispute there was a need to equalize the systemic exclusion of black coaches in a league in which the majority of players are black, but what about the plight of my Irish?
http://img82.imageshack.us/img82/9082/noirish2zm5.gif
http://img82.imageshack.us/img82/2830/noirish1ns1.png