NFL voids stipulation in hasslett's contract

[hooskins]

Yeah the rule is fine, but more importantly it is wasting the time of the minority candidate interviewed. Obviously if haslett does a good job then he will be the coach and interviews will just be a formality.

[SmootSmack]

Originally Posted by hooskins

Yeah the rule is fine, but more importantly it is wasting the time of the minority candidate interviewed. Obviously if haslett does a good job then he will be the coach and interviews will just be a formality.

Might be a formality for the Rams job, but not for another job down the line perhaps. For example, suppose Stump Mitchell interviews but doesn't get the job because the owner (suppose the Rams have an owner in this instance) is set on Haslett. But then next year the Rams GM takes over in let's say Jacksonville and he's looking for a new head coach. And he says "Hey, you know I was really impressed with Stump Mitchell when he interviewed last year. I never really got the chance to know him or sit down and listen to his ideas until I interviewed him last year. I like this guy, he's who I want as my head coach"

[GMScud]

Originally Posted by SmootSmack

Might be a formality for the Rams job, but not for another job down the line perhaps. For example, suppose Stump Mitchell interviews but doesn't get the job because the owner (suppose the Rams have an owner in this instance) is set on Haslett. But then next year the Rams GM takes over in let's say Jacksonville and he's looking for a new head coach. And he says "Hey, you know I was really impressed with Stump Mitchell when he interviewed last year. I never really got the chance to know him or sit down and listen to his ideas until I interviewed him last year. I like this guy, he's who I want as my head coach"

I agree that those kind of scenarios are at least plausible, if not likely. But in my opinion that situation is also irrelevant as far as race is concerned. Hypothetically the Rams could miss out on Stump Mitchell by not interviewing him just as much as they could miss out on a non-minority candidate.

When deciding who to interview, teams should simply do their due diligence based on the candidate's past experience and reputation. And I believe they do. Skin color doesn't need to factor into it, and assuming it does is sort of a slap in the face to anyone who hires coaches.

[FRPLG]

Originally Posted by SmootSmack

Might be a formality for the Rams job, but not for another job down the line perhaps. For example, suppose Stump Mitchell interviews but doesn't get the job because the owner (suppose the Rams have an owner in this instance) is set on Haslett. But then next year the Rams GM takes over in let's say Jacksonville and he's looking for a new head coach. And he says "Hey, you know I was really impressed with Stump Mitchell when he interviewed last year. I never really got the chance to know him or sit down and listen to his ideas until I interviewed him last year. I like this guy, he's who I want as my head coach"

On the flip side how does the token interview go? Maybe it goes like a normal interview and maybe it is a 10 minute drive-by interview. Like I said I appreciate the goal. I think having more minority head coaches was inevitable so I don't see much need for a rule which seems awfully insulting to me. I think there have to be other less overt but still infact effective ways to achieve the noble goals. The road hell is paved with...
Maybe I am just cynical.