Rooney Rule - discussion, keep it respectful

[Danchinho]

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]

While we are on the subject why did it take so long for Norm Chow to be given a head coaching position despite being generally accepted as one of the brightest offensive minds in the country?

[SkullCrusher]

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

Just the length of this thread has shown we have come a long way. Typically we skirt this here, but look it's been civil.

Hopefully I don't ruin it.

I stripped off a lot, it was too political I feel but here's why we can't stop talking about it.

There two wars happening, cultural and class.

Whenever the focus gets too much to the elite class they triple down on the airwaves with cultural war themes and racism is one of several.
So we can't stop talking about it, because it's forced upon us to keep focus off of them. Every single time.

[Toast]

Yeah but that's simply human nature. It will never be a perfect world because humans tend to f[raiders_icon]ck up everything they touch at some point or another.

[srv5490]

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.

C'mon bro, you attacked me and completely misrepresented my statements - don't tell me I'm "really charged" for clarifying.

As far as the small sample size goes, the authors clearly state that additional statistical analysis demonstrated that it does not change the findings of the study. You are correct, however, that the small sample size is central to claim. That's kind of the point, isn't it?

[srv5490]

While we are on the subject why did it take so long for Norm Chow to be given a head coaching position despite being generally accepted as one of the brightest offensive minds in the country?

Two different jobs with two different skillsets. Hard to argue that he was judged unfairly given his record as head coach. Here's hoping our new HC is one of those bright offensive minds who also has the skills to lead a team.

[Willmark]

C'mon bro, you attacked me and completely misrepresented my statements - don't tell me I'm "really charged" for clarifying.

As far as the small sample size goes, the authors clearly state that additional statistical analysis demonstrated that it does not change the findings of the study. You are correct, however, that the small sample size is central to claim. That's kind of the point, isn't it?

In order: you took it as an attack. The extraordinary claim nothing to do with you. As to my direct quote? You’ll note it’s a line of inquiry walking towards where that logically entails?

As far as the paper? They acknowledge the data set is small, but attempt to minimize it in footnote 1, that footnote is doing a fair amount of heavy lifting for their argument.

Because the sample size is small and presumably coaches like Dungy, Green and Tomlin heavily favor the successful end you get a much larger bump on one end and a longer tail of data. While white coaches will look like a bell curve: some great, the majority in the middle, and some horrible.

The authors knew the small sample size was the core weakness, but their fix makes it worse. Removing top performers shrinks the sample further, which increases variance and gives each remaining coach more influence, not less. The fact that the trimmed data still supported their conclusion does not make it more robust. With an already tiny sample, cutting observations adds volatility, not clarity.

My issue is not with the data itself. I am not saying the numbers are wrong. My issue is that this study is not the be all end all its being made out to be. With such a small sample, there are clear strain points in how the conclusions are supported. It is an interesting result, but it carries more uncertainty than the data suggests.

[Willmark]

To all- As far as the NFL? It’s a meritocracy and should remain one.

The Raiders are an example of not even needing the rule. And in our current situation of decades of utter futility? Answering for myself? At this stage I could not care less as long as we win. White, black, you name it. If the coach wins? That’s all that matters and one would think that everyone should be behind that.

[Attyla]

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

The data is flawed. The sample size prior to the Rooney rule is comparing 1/10th of the overall pool to the pool itself. You cannot even use an aggregate to come to a conclusion. The chance of an outlier skewing the data is sufficient to nullify any conclusion.

[Cruisin with Tooz]

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.

This wont do. It is uncontrolled. A team expected to go 12-4 goes 9-7 and the coach got fired. Another team expected to go 4-12 goes 7-9 and the coach is praised. The better coach, based on record, got fired.

[SkullCrusher]

This wont do. It is uncontrolled. A team expected to go 12-4 goes 9-7 and the coach got fired. Another team expected to go 4-12 goes 7-9 and the coach is praised. The better coach, based on record, got fired.

It's not really a topic I care a lot about, but when you ask for links, it's pretty easy to just type it in and let the AI do the work, this is more about what I care about, it's easy enough for us to just check ourselves. While AI isn't perfect, neither are humans and I find them both close enough with less bias (possibly a lot less if enough sources) with AI in subjects like this. There's more data to mine on this, perhaps there isn't enough data to make a completely honest conclusion, unsure.

[Cruisin with Tooz]

Attributing record solely to the efforts of the HC also seems far-fetched. Do the other coordinators, coaches and GM have anything to do with the record? What about injuries? How was that controlled for? There are so many confounding variables here, and such a small sample size, that drawing a conclusion -- either way -- seems somewhat dubious.

[SkullCrusher]

Attributing record solely to the efforts of the HC also seems far-fetched. Do the other coordinators, coaches and GM have anything to do with the record? What about injuries? How was that controlled for? There are so many confounding variables here, and such a small sample size, that drawing a conclusion -- either way -- seems somewhat dubious.

Right there are a ton of factors for sure that can skew it.

[Cruisin with Tooz]

It's not really a topic I care a lot about, but when you ask for links, it's pretty easy to just type it in and let the AI do the work, this is more about what I care about, it's easy enough for us to just check ourselves. While AI isn't perfect, neither are humans and I find them both close enough with less bias (possibly a lot less if enough sources) with AI in subjects like this. There's more data to mine on this, perhaps there isn't enough data to make a completely honest conclusion, unsure.

Thats the problem when you let AI do the work. Everyone just believes AI. And as you see here, its not as simple as you say to just leave it up to AI. And I asked for links from the original poster. It was the OP's thesis. It is customary for that person to provide the support of his thesis. It's not the audience's job to search for the data that supports someone else's thesis. It is perfectly reasonable for me to ask him to provide his source material. And, good for him, he did.

[Attyla]

Right there are a ton of factors for sure that can skew it.

Guys like Kotite were obviously the problem. But there are others where the visual are not as clear that they are the problem. With our own Shell? Was he the reason or did he just have a team that was a can't miss success story Hard to say, but once Bo went down it was obvious that the factors that went into his success were multi layered.

[SkullCrusher]

Thats the problem when you let AI do the work. Everyone just believes AI. And as you see here, its not as simple as you say to just leave it up to AI. And I asked for links from the original poster. It was the OP's thesis. It is customary for that person to provide the support of his thesis. It's not the audience's job to search for the data that supports someone else's thesis. It is perfectly reasonable for me to ask him to provide his source material. And, good for him, he did.

I don't think everyone just believes AI or people. Each can be wrong, AI tries to take more sources and to formulate from that. I think we're all learning what questions it's better at answering than others. People and AI can both be confidently incorrect. AI actually leads to the source they shared, correct or not.

Yeah if someone says something and then you ask for proof, sure it's nice for them to back it up. But in a lot of cases now we can do quick work ourselves to see if they are in the ballpark using AI and it is simple enough for us to do. I find that a pretty cool thing. This is our faster Dewey decimal system in action. Before we had to get in a car, go to the library...