The Dolphins Make Me Cry.com - Forums

Racism in hiring:

I want to start by saying that I'm a white man, so my insight on systemic racism in the NFL probably isn't all that helpful.  That said, I think the Dolphins are clean here.  We had a black coach, a black GM, and I've never heard anything in regard to race with these players.  Ross was on the right side of the kneeling stuff.  He looks pretty clean, in that regard.  In regard to the NFL as a whole, I don't think that the racism stuff will stick there either.  With the Rooney Rule, there is a positive to it, but there's also a trade-off.  It's good to interview black coaches and GMs, even if they aren't to be hired.  It helps these guys get their names out there, it gets organizations used to the idea -- it just gets names on radars.  But sometimes you have your guy and you know who it is.  I have been a hirer before and often times, I'll have had one interview and known "well, that's our guy" and I'll still have 3 more interviews set up.  You go through the motions, because you never know, I guess -- things could fall through on the first hire, you want to give your interview team practice in evaluating, you want contacts for the future, etc.  But internally, it's super common to kinda know who you're gonna go with (or at least greatly suspect) before the interview process is over.  I also think that throwing Bellichek under the bus to accomplish this for Flores is a bad look.  The Rooney Rule is self-imposed by the NFL.  The optics are that they've tried, at least, and I think that any wrongdoing here will be hard to prove.

Tampering:

The story that Ross set up a bump-into meeting with Brady and Flores doesn't surprise me.  I think that all teams do this or some level of corporate espionage.  Pat Riley made a career of it.  But you have to be smart about it, it has to all be innocent on the surface, and you should have plausible deniability.  There's nothing wrong with Ross having relationships with Brady and Flores....or with Flores and Brady having a relationship with each other.  They're both pros in the same industry.  ...so if they meet and talk in a nebulous way about the future that turns into something later, I don't think we should be shocked by that.  But you have to be on the same page with your coaches and your team.  If you're Ross, you can't set that up in a way that makes Flores uncomfortable.  And if you're Flores, you can downplay it and just not break the rules if you meet Tom.  Flores coming out publicly about this makes him look unattractive to the rest of the league.  Again, as a hirer, whenever people are super critical of their old jobs publicly, it's kind of a red flag.  I sort of think of it like a break-up.  Things don't always work out, but there's a dirty laundry aspect here, that while probably true and we deserve to be held accountable for, is sour grapes on Flores' part.

Paying to lose:

This is the big one.  If it's true, or can be proved, this is a major scandal.  In terms of "everyone is doing it", yes -- everyone is doing it.  But there's a far cry between "we're not concerned about wins and losses now, at the expense of the future, so let's play younger guys to build them up faster, let's purge the roster of expensive contracts to make room for free agents" -- between that -- and "I'm going to pay you money to intentionally throw the games on Sundays."  I don't know the details of this yet.  But that plays into the integrity of the game.  It matters to the NFL as a whole -- gambling, fantasy sports, Draft Kings type of stuff.  There's big money and sponsors in that.  Plus, this gets into legality.  It's major.  Also, even if Ross were to try to get this idea to Flores, how does that even work?  Where does the money come from?  You can't just pay a million bucks to a guy off the books.  How was he supposed to get paid?  There's nothing wrong with Ross pulling Flores aside and assuring him that his job was safe and that he didn't have to worry about short-term results.  There are ways to get the point across without offering to directly pay the guy.  But Ross isn't dumb -- even if this happened, it's probably through other people where there's a line of deniability.  And the NFL likely won't concede this point, as the scandal would be enormous.  Even without anything, I wouldn't be surprised if the NFL had to respond by eliminating even suspicions of tanking -- implementing a lottery or something.

Trashing Flores in the media:

If this is true and manufactured, it's dumb on the Dolphins part.  Like Flores' trashing his former employer, it's bad form to trash an employee.  If you had to let someone go, wish them the best and it just didn't work out.  I suppose if the team did this, it was to turn the fanbase against Flores so the organization would maintain fan support.  That wasn't necessary (I thought Flores was a bum as a coach anyway), but either way, Ross miscalculated.  You can't help what people in your organization tell their friends in the media, off the record, though.  I have a feeling that Flores wasn't on the same page with most of the rest of the organization, justified or not, so that his peers were happy to see him go, and felt ok talking about it.  That speaks poorly of our organization's culture.  You'd like to think we'd be strong enough to let a guy go and not be afraid of losing fans over it, but we've been so sketchy over the past 20 years, that we've built this distrust.

The conclusion here is that if there's proof for this to stick, especially the paying to lose -- that Ross is done.  Flores is done, regardless.  True or not, I wouldn't think any owner wants to touch a guy that they can't trust not to turn on them.  All these billionaire guys are levels of sketchy and you want a guy that, even if he's not going to go along with your plan, that he's not going to rat you out once he's gone.  I have a feeling that this will amount to nothing, though.  It's all hearsay, and even if it's true, I don't see how it would be provable.  Plus I personally think that Flores was a bad gameday coach, so him calling foul after the fact is a little late.

I wanna address the racism in hiring.   This is probably going to go against the mentality of all the liberals on this board (and I know I'm outnumbered here) but so be it.  

I disagree with this whole idea of equality, affirmative action, Rooney Rule, etc...   It doesn't matter what ethnic background you are, the fact is, LIFE ISN'T FAIR.    I know in this society, you have your haves and have nots.    That's just how it is.   I know some people have it way worse than others simply because of the neighborhood they live in, family history, etc...   I'm part Caucasian/part Hispanic and I grew up in the Westchester area of Miami which is working class.   I can remember my dad dragging me out of bed at 6 am on a Saturday saying I'm going with him to cut grass and blow leaves off driveways which he did on weekends to make extra money after working all week maintaining office buildings.   I can remember being sent to my grandparents for a holiday weekend so my parents could get out of town, and their vacation was a cheap mom and pop hotel near the beach because that's all they could afford.   I remember my junior and senior year of high school being coerced by my parents to do the "shared time" program with Robert Morgan Vocational Technical Institute so I could learn a trade because they told me they didn't have the money to put me through college and weren't taking out loans for me.   I ended up choosing HVAC (back then it was A/C).   I remember at the age of nineteen going to work in my uncle's HVAC business which he founded and my first day he looked me in the eye and said, "You will get no special treatment here but I will make sure you have what all my other employees have... the knowledge and the tools to put in top quality work."   And I remember the day my uncle called me into his office nearly twenty years later and told me I was his top field technician which is why he always sent me to the hardest jobs or to the "big fish" clients and that he was hanging up his tools for good and trusted me enough to take over.  

Now I own my own business.  I'm going to hire whom I feel is the most qualified person for the job, regardless of if they are black, white, yellow, red or blue.   For the life of me, I can't understand why I should be forced to interview someone who obviously isn't qualified just because they are a certain race.   But that is what the NFL is forcing owners to do with the Rooney Rule.   It's THEIR team which makes it THEIR business that they put THEIR time and money into.  Period and end of discussion.

That's "how it is" when it happens at random and not by systematic oppression.  You're talking about advantages people experience at random, over which no one has any control or influence.  By contrast, when you take a boat over to Africa and bring back people against their will and enslave them for hundreds of years, and then you segregate them in society, prevent them from voting, and prevent them from experiencing the advantages in life white people do, well then you're engaging in systematic oppression.  That's far from the random, "life isn't fair" sentiment above.  There is nothing random about systematically oppressing a group of people for hundreds of years.  That degree of "unfairness" isn't built into life by default, at random -- that level of unfairness was perpetrated on a group of people in a systematic manner, for hundreds of years.

Surely you don't figure the holocaust in Germany was a product of simply "life isn't fair"?  What's happened with African-Americans in America is about as bad.

But it isn't happening anymore and that's where I have an issue.   I didn't take part in that "systematic oppression" and never will.  Therefore, I shouldn't have to pay or be held responsible for the actions of people who died before I was born.    No one should be oppressed, but no one should get any special treatment either. 

LMFAO, it's not the 1800s anymore. Or the 50s and 60s, it's 2022. The fact is that in 2022, the United States is the best country to live in for a minority. Is it perfect? Of course not. But slavery, segregation, and oppression don't happen in the US on a widespread basis like it does in many other parts of the world. If someone is so concerned with the issues that humans face with slavery, segregation, and oppression. Feel free to check out the list of other countries where that shit is widespread and legal. Then move there and go help fix it.

On another note. The word minority has a meaning and most societies are set up to benefit the majority in thousands of different categories. Do you think that a Caucasian person that goes to certain countries in Africa or other countries around the world will be treated differently in a negative context? You can bet your ass they would. Oh fucking well, life isn't fair.

So before we all cry for a black man that has a net worth that puts him in the top 1% worldwide. A black man that has been working in the NFL as a coach or scout for the past 18 years. A black man who reached the pinnacle of football coaching in the NFL. A black man who's ego was shattered because he didn't get the job that he thought he was entitled to. Let's all ask why he's doing this? And more specifically, if he's trying to fight "racism" like he says. Why are the Dolphins even mentioned in any of this? Are the Dolphins racist for hiring him? Flores is the epitome of entitlement and privilege.

There are people still alive today who lived under that system when it was still in full force of the law.

It's not enough to just stop the oppression; you need to make up for the literal centuries that one group of people were held down.  As an analogy, imagine a relay race-style marathon.  At the start of the race, one team of participants have shackles put on them.  The race starts, and goes on for a good while, with the unshackled runners building a huge lead over the shackled runners.  Now, at some point, the race organizers decide that it's unfair to shackle one group, so they take the shackles off... but they're miles behind in the race at that point!

To continue the analogy, you are in the position of a runner receiving the relay baton on one of the never-shackled teams.  From your perspective, everyone is unshackled, and has been for a long time... and you weren't even running when the shackles were in use!  But the truth of the matter is that you still have a huge advantage from all that time the other runners were shackled.  And so when people talk about making the contest fair by giving bicycles to the relay runners for the formerly-shackled team - even the ones who have only started running after the shackles were already gone! - until they catch up to the rest of the pack, it might feel unfair to you.  But it's an attempt to make up for the unfair treatment from earlier.

In summary: it's not enough to simply remove the shackles and say "OK, everything's fair now."  You have to account for all the time that one team was held back by being shackled during the race.

And those people now are living in a better society.


No we don't need to make up for anything.   


We don't have to account for anything.   Everyone is on equal footing.   For those of you who were oppressed (and especially those who weren't) want to continue bitching about how unfair life is and use the past as an excuse to act out and feel sorry for yourself, you will never be able to get ahead in life and take advantage of the opportunities this country offers.

You are, of course, correct to point out that we don't need to make up for or have to account for anything.  Hell, we didn't need to end Jim Crow!  Power is power; survival of the fittest is a perfectly consistent philosophy, even if I don't necessarily agree with it.

Those who do think that we need to make up for centuries of oppression are saying so from a position of fairness, but one can have the position that life isn't fair and doesn't need to be fair.

However:

This is where you lose me.  I can grudgingly respect the law of the jungle, you sink or you swim philosophy, but don't try to pretend like everything IS equal today to prop up some fake theater of meritocracy.

At least have the courage to say, "It's not fair and it doesn't need to be fair, deal with it."  That is an ethos, at least.

According to your crusade on making up for years of injustice, it seems you don't believe in this.   But it's the truth.  Another truth is that kids don't now and never will learn this in school.   

Everyone in this country now has the rights and opportunities that everyone else does.   While the years of injustice were bad, there really is no making up for them.   All we can and should do is avoid repeating history moving forward.

I have the courage to say it, but in a different context. Life isn't fair and it never will be, deal with it. Fairness isn't a need, it's a want. There is no fixing that aspect of life. Otherwise, all the social justice warriors would be trying to fix it in all the countries where slavery is still widespread and legal

Also, to address your previous post, life isn't a race. Flores seems to have been given plenty of opportunities and yet he's still crying racism. Is it because the Giants as an organization is racist? Or because he (in his own words) was "humiliated" by the Giants interview that the Giants were contractually bound to conduct, and his ego wouldn't just let him move on?

That's precisely what things like the Rooney Rule strive to do.

And things like the Rooney Rule and affirmative action mean well, I'll give them credit for that.  But they have failed to accomplish what they've set out to do and put a burden on certain entities of society as a result.

Then just say that, instead of trying to pretend that things have already been made equal!

I mean, if you don't even think things should be fair then own that position.  Whether or not we should TRY to make things fair is a discussion we can have on the merits.

But don't claim that we don't need to try to make things fair or equal because they already are.
They aren't.  Not even close.

Minorities move here al the time with nothing and succeed because of the opportunities. Many minorities (definitely not all) who are born here tend to want to play victim to things that happened before they were born. This is the land of opportunity and not the land that outcomes are equal regardless of effort. I agree agree some people suffer racism but it is far les common than is reported. Typically people are either generally good and the rest are assholes ... racists and all.

Funniest thing to me about Flores' speaking engagements is he mentioned several times how there should be more black coaches. He goes on to say there are plenty of qualified black coaches in the league but are being held back by racism. Well Mr Flores hired 5 coordinators in three years and non of them were black. Does that mean he is racist or he hired the people who he thought would help him win?  Mr Integrity seems to have no issues speaking out both sides of his mouth.

Yeah, you're right things aren't fair in life. Depending on who you are and where you live it affects you differently. And going with the thread topic. How has Flores not been treated fairly in his NFL career?

Someone please explain to me how and why there should be more black coaches. There were 3 black head coaches last year, that's about 10%. The 2020 census had black people at 12.4%. The amount of black head coaches is closely representative of the overall black population, it's simple math. Are we arguing that there should be a minimum of 4 head coaches at all times? Due to the nature of football some years it might dip, some years it might be higher. And it's only going to grow moving forward due to external pressure from people pushing an agenda.

So I'll ask again, someone please explain to me why there should be more black coaches when that group is already mathematically represented for their demographic. Obviously some people think the percentage should be higher. How many black head coaches should there be?  What about queer transgender head coaches in the NFL? How many are there? What about women head coaches in the NFL? How many are there?

Who can tell me how racism in the NFL has affected Flores recently? And how do the Dolphins fit into your answer?

This is a fair criticism.  I would, however, want to know the breakdown of the rest of his coaching staff, because otherwise it's just a game of moving goalposts: if he hires minority coordinators then what about the position coaches, if he hires minority position coaches then what about the strength and conditioning coaches, etc.  Having an overall diverse coaching staff does not necessarily mean that every single category of coach is itself diverse.

But again, if he didn't practice what he preaches, your point is very reasonable.

There are two separate issues at play: 1) Flores' personal experience, and 2) the NFL's hiring system itself.

1) The fact that someone at Buffalo (allegedly) felt comfortable enough talking to BB about Flores' interview as a formality, when the decision to hire Daboll was already made, is the problem.  One of the primary ways to combat racism in our society is to make it socially and professionally unacceptable.  So when you are in a front office and you're required to interview minority coaches as part of the Rooney Rule, you should be scared of anyone else finding out that you're only doing it for show.  In fact, you should be SO scared that you take every possible step to make it seem like you are ACTUALLY considering them for the job!  That's the point: if enough owners and GMs and team presidents feel pressure to simulate being anti-racist for long enough, and they are heavily punished every time they let the mask slip, eventually up-and-coming new owners and GMs and team presidents won't be able to tell that it's theater, so they'll actually believe it and act accordingly!  This is literally how overt racism was made unacceptable in our society, and why teams need to be punished when they get too comfortable treating the Rooney Rule like a joke.

2) 12.4% of Americans may be black, but 57% of NFL players are.  Consequently, one would expect that former NFL players would be some of the top candidates for NFL assistant coaches (which should eventually result in them being likely candidates for coordinators and later, head coaches), but for some reason, this does not seem to be the case in the NFL.

Now, you might be inclined to question the premise of whether former players should be top candidates for assistant coaching jobs in the first place... and that's a fair point!  So in response, I would simply ask: what percentage of NHL coaches and MLB managers/coaches are former NHL/MLB players?  (This is a genuine question.)  Because if former players are heavily recruited as coaches in NHL and MLB, but not in the NFL... we should probably ask why that is.

The NFL is expected to investigate the Miami tanking allegation brought up by Flores, which Ross has strongly denied.

https://www.cbssports.com/nfl/news/brian-flores-lawsuit-nfl-to-investigate-tanking-tampering-allegations-against-dolphins-owner-stephen-ross-speaks/
https://www.nfl.com/news/dolphins-owner-stephen-ross-responds-to-brian-flores-allegations-nfl-s-expected-

I disagree with this premise entirely. There is nothing racist doing an interview for show when the rules say that you have to do the interview. And if you're following the rules as written there should be nothing to be scared of.

If Ross decided the day the he fired Flores that he was going to 100% hire Harbaugh to replace him. Why should he have to interview anyone else? If the Rooney Rule is supposedly anti-racist. Then following the Rooney Rule as it's spelled out isn't racist. It's just a stupid rule plain and simple.

So for this theory of yours to be congruent, you're saying that we NEED to hire more white players. I mean if black people are under represented as coaches and we need to intervene to hire more black coaches. Then white people are under represented as players, so we need to intervene and hire more white players. Also, doing and teaching are two totally separate things. As a guitar player, I know this first hand.

If the Bills face any punishment in this case, it will be specifically for their refusal to take the rule seriously.  Even if the owner/GM/whoever had made up their mind before starting the search, the fact that you're going around telling other people (<- this part is important!) "Yeah, we already made up our mind before the interview, we're just doing the interview because we have to" means you aren't taking the rule seriously.

You can think of it like rules that prohibit nepotism.  Yes, we all realize in that in the real world, employers will hire their friends and family.  But if you're dumb enough to actually say your reasoning out loud?  Well, then you deserve to be punished for your stupidity.  You have to at least PRETEND to follow the rules.

This would only be true if you believe that the existing system for developing and promoting players systemically discriminates against white athletes.  If that's your argument, make your case.

My argument is that players are underrepresented in NFL head coaching positions.  Why?

In MLB, 24 of the 30 managers have MLB playing experience.
In the NHL, 21 of the 32 head coaches have NHL playing experience.
In the NBA, 14 of the 30 head coaches have NBA playing experience.
In the NFL, 4 of the 32 head coaches have NFL playing experience.  (5 head coach slots are currently vacant, but of the coaches who last held them, only one - Sean Payton - played in the NFL, and that was as a replacement player during the 1987 strike.)

So why are managerial/head coaching positions given to ex-players in baseball and hockey so much more frequently?  Why are players in those (majority white) sports more trusted to lead teams after their playing careers are over?

I'd love to see that happen in the NBA.   Let's make every team be forced to have at least one white player in the game at all times.   Then evaluate the product on the court.

He doesn't.  You can have a guy you want and hire him without interviewing others.  You just have to request an exemption, which will be granted.  I forget who it was but someone did that in recent years.  The Rooney Rule (no pun intended) isn't quite that black and white.  If you are trying to secure a high profile coach, they don't want you having to put a few black guys in there to appease a system.  They just want it to be on the up and up and transparent.

As far as I can tell, they didn't pretend to follow the rule, they actually followed the rule.  What else does the rule require them to do as written? The rule says that you have to interview a minority. Did they interview a minority? Yes or no?

I will add, I haven't read the rule itself. And if they somehow broke the rule as written, then fine. Take action against the Giants for breaking the rule. However, I don't see where this has anything to do with racism or the Dolphins. All of that is just hypocritical bullshit.

My case is that the system is fine the way it is. Playing and coaching are not remotely the same. Teams hire people with experience for the job they are applying for. Just because I eat steak at fancy restaurants doesn't mean that a fancy restaurant is going to hire me as a cook. Experience with fancy restaurants and eating steaks doesn't equate to cooking.

No, your argument is that black coaches are under represented in NFL head coaching positions. So I'm not sure how "players are underrepresented in NFL" has anything to do with Flores and racism. I've never really thought about "players being underrepresented" and don't really care. However, as noted earlier, there is a huge difference between doing something and teaching something. However, I'll ponder your question of "why" and let you know if I come up with anything.

Also, as far as I'm aware, it is not illegal if teams wanted to specifically "exclude" ex NFL players from coaching positions. It's not a protected class - race, color, religion, sex, national origin, age, disability and genetic information.

Again, I'm not sure how that has anything to do with Flores and racism. Are you saying that black people should be overrepresented as players and coaches? Would you agree that black people are already overrepresented in players?

Also, while you're at it please explain to me why and how 12.4% of the US population makes up 70% of the NFL players?

Interesting note that PFT brought up today. typical language in coaches contracts say this

Here’s the relevant language, directly from another head coach’s contract: “[Coach] agrees that . . . all matters in dispute between [Coach] and Club, including without limitation any dispute arising from the terms of this Agreement, shall be referred to the NFL Commissioner or a Commissioner-appointed representative for the NFL for binding arbitration, and the decision shall be accepted as final, conclusive and unappealable.”

This means this most likely will not go to trial, not be made public and not allow for the open discovery I'm sure his lawyers would want. THe NFL has stacked the deck in favor of the owners for situations just like this.  

That would not apply to the Rooney violations as by default that was not under contract.  As for the allegation of bribery to throw a game, courts rarely will uphold an aberration clause if the allegation include not just breach of contract but also criminal conduct.

I imagine the NFL will determine whether the Giants followed the rule.  As you describe it, John Mara publicly saying, "I'm going to hire Brian Daboll as my next coach, but I have to hold these Rooney Rule interviews first with coaches I don't want, so let me get that out of the way" would still qualify as following the rule as written.  I don't think that's how rules work.

I would have no problem with the argument that ex-players have no particularly unique insight when it comes to coaching... except that in the NHL, the majority of coaches are ex-players, and in MLB, nearly all the managers are ex-players.  So what's your explanation for why are baseball and hockey players are apparently so much more qualified to lead teams?

No, my argument is that 1) ex-players are underrepresented in NFL coaching ranks, likely because 2) most NFL players are black.

There's also no law that says teams must interview minority candidates for head coaching positions, nor is there a law requiring the NFL to print anti-racism messages on the field, or wear pink in October.  These are actions that the NFL voluntarily takes to improve its image as a socially responsible company.  I don't think Flores' allegations of racial bias are about breaking the law as much as they are about violating the NFL's own rules of conduct.

Probably for the same reason that 12.4% of the US population is ~4% of NHL players and ~8% of MLB players.  But you don't hear me calling for more black players in the NHL, because the system of player development in pro sports - from AAU to college, minor leagues, and the pros - is extensive enough to show merit-based advancement.  Coaches don't go through anywhere near the same vetting process.   It's the difference between Chris Long, Andrew Luck, or Christian McCaffery getting to the NFL after being elite players in high school and college, and Jim Mora Jr., Stephen Belichick, or Kyle Shanahan getting to the NFL a year after graduating from college just because their daddies were coaches.

Now, it is entirely possible that if the NFL had ex-players in the coaching ranks at a rate similar to MLB, that most of those coaches would still be white; after all, none of the current NFL coaches who are ex-players are black.  But I think if the NFL had more ex-players as coaches, those players would be more likely to recognize which of their former teammates would be a good fit for coaching... in a more unbiased manner than the current system of coaches recruited from the friends and family of existing coaches does.

Out of curiosity, what law was being broken when the owner of a team offers to compensate one of his employees for specific performance that's beneficial to the team long term?

 18 U.S.C. § 224

Re why AA are over represented in NFL and NBA (also boxing)and under represented in NHL (also PGA, tennis, and pro skiiing):   Socioeconomic.

Innercity aka poor aka minority high schools have basketball courts, they don’t have golf teams.  There dads played basketball (son followed in father’s footsteps) in white suburban towns dad took son golfing.     The underrepresentation of minorities in NHL isn’t an NHL problem as much as a still persistent aspect of the systemic racism caused by decades of redlining. 

NHL’s lack of diversity isn’t really a problem of the pro-sports engaging in segregation the way baseball did before Jackie Robinson or  Kenny Washington with the NFL it is more a matter of the high cost of playing youth hockey.