We will see, but if necessary the NFL will flush Ross to shield royalty (Mara).If there is substantial evidence (multiple credible witnesses) it will lead to Ross losing the team and Miami getting hammered.
We will see, but if necessary the NFL will flush Ross to shield royalty (Mara).If there is substantial evidence (multiple credible witnesses) it will lead to Ross losing the team and Miami getting hammered.
Getting a little down in the weeds on the law of inchoate crimes here but generally speaking, no. It's rarely a crime to do nothing, unless there's a duty to do something and that's pretty unusual. If there was a crime here it was solicitation to commit a crime by Ross and there is no conspiracy unless Flores actually agreed and then took a substantial step toward furthering the conspiracy.Couldn't Flores not reporting Ross's scheme to manipulate the outcome of a sporting event (hello Arnold Rothstein) be considered part of a conspiracy to defraud the public? Whether the tanking can be proved is one thing, but I'm pretty sure its a crime.
The statute @Ed Hillel cited earlier in this thread has language that criminalizes “attempts” in the same way as it criminalizes actually carrying out a bribery scheme to influence a sporting event:I am less certain. Flores by his own admission did not comply with Ross’s request. He did not accept payment for losing games. Miami did not get the first overall pick.
This might fall under a gray area such as soliciting or intent, but the foul was never actually committed. He didn’t intentionally lose any games despite Ross’s proposal.
There are far better legal experts than me here, obviously, but talking about breaking the rules (if there are even any written rules about intentionally losing) is different than actually going out and doing it and providing bank statements with 100K deposits after losses.
So it’s possible the offer to Flores, by itself, could be considered an attempt at a bribery scheme by Ross, if proven, but I defer to those who know this area of the law.Whoever carries into effect, attempts to carry into effect, or conspires with any other person to carry into effect any scheme in commerce to influence, in any way, by bribery any sporting contest, with knowledge that the purpose of such scheme is to influence by bribery that contest, shall be fined under this title, or imprisoned not more than 5 years, or both.
If you think his appeal to Miami, beyond his evident talent, was his performance in the Denver interview rather than the association with/seal of approval from BB, then I guess we’re just going to have to disagree.But it did create a favorable opportunity for Flores in the future.
His interview with the Broncos may have been a sham, but it got his name in the head coaching conversation, he continued to grind, and he was later hired by the Dolphins as a head coach at a time when he wasn’t a household name as a candidate.
I agree it's a problem, but man, if an owner isn't going to give full personnel control to the new Head Coach, having a strong relationship between the HC and GM can be really important for the franchise. Seems like a legit consideration.Daboll simply has the trust of the new GM because they worked together previously. And that is the crux of the problem in the NFL -- the good ol' boy network persists (as it does in most industries) and black coaches, GMs, front office personnel and owners are under-represted in that network.
Gash Prex said "IF there was substantial evidence". The fact that Flores wanted no part of the scheme doesn't lessen what Ross proposed. IF this went down as Flores suggests, Ross' intent can't be ignored or excused because he didn't have a willing accomplice.I am less certain. Flores by his own admission did not comply with Ross’s request. He did not accept payment for losing games. Miami did not get the first overall pick.
This might fall under a gray area such as soliciting or intent, but the foul was never actually committed. He didn’t intentionally lose any games despite Ross’s proposal.
There are far better legal experts than me here, obviously, but talking about breaking the rules (if there are even any written rules about intentionally losing) is different than actually going out and doing it and providing bank statements with 100K deposits after losses.
Just like using DFG to distract from DV, except this time there is a legit “integrity of the game” issue at stake.Remember yesterday, when the NFL said that Flores's suit was completely without merit?
View: https://twitter.com/mortreport/status/1489024914296389638?s=20&t=bwH3US-7dqzl91sq63DKMA
As some here have suggested, looks like the league will at least hold Ross's feet to the fire as the shiny object to draw attention away from the lack of non-white coaching hires
And they're still using Mortensen as their mouthpieceJust like using DFG to distract from DV, except this time there is a legit “integrity of the game” issue at stake.
Grier being black does not change anything about the accusations against Ross asking Flores to tank games and tamper with whoever that QB was. And if Ross was the decision maker on Flores getting canned, and if it turns out Ross was out there with his fellow owners painting Flores as “difficult” it doesn’t matter that Grier was black. And it certainly doesn’t make a difference in terms of the allegations of sham interviews with the Broncos and Giants.The thing that hurts here for Flores that isn’t the GM Black as well? He very well may have a case but in his situation I think that the simple answer is probably true, it’s just a shitty owner and a shitty situation. The bigger issue is obviously different, but for him I’m not completely seeing this as a binary situation given what’s in front of us.
I followed the Miami thread here closely this year (I have a soft spot for Tua, and soden is one of my favorite posters to read) and it’s not like the denizens there were in love with him. I was surprised me that he was fired but I was not shocked.
one of 16 in history?But it did create a favorable opportunity for Flores in the future.
His interview with the Broncos may have been a sham, but it got his name in the head coaching conversation, he continued to grind, and he was later hired by the Dolphins as a head coach at a time when he wasn’t a household name as a candidate.
According to league sources, 11 out of 12 Black coaching interviews were shams.And they're still using Mortensen as their mouthpiece
According to league sources, 11 out of 12 Black coaching interviews were shams.
Just kidding – all of them were shams.
I assume all they’ll find is more Gruden emails.Remember yesterday, when the NFL said that Flores's suit was completely without merit?
View: https://twitter.com/mortreport/status/1489024914296389638?s=20&t=bwH3US-7dqzl91sq63DKMA
As some here have suggested, looks like the league will at least hold Ross's feet to the fire as the shiny object to draw attention away from the lack of non-white coaching hires
We will see, but if necessary the NFL will flush Ross to shield royalty (Mara).
Like 10 posts apart.Remember yesterday, when the NFL said that Flores's suit was completely without merit?
View: https://twitter.com/mortreport/status/1489024914296389638?s=20&t=bwH3US-7dqzl91sq63DKMA
As some here have suggested, looks like the league will at least hold Ross's feet to the fire as the shiny object to draw attention away from the lack of non-white coaching hires
I am less certain. Flores by his own admission did not comply with Ross’s request. He did not accept payment for losing games. Miami did not get the first overall pick.
This might fall under a gray area such as soliciting or intent, but the foul was never actually committed. He didn’t intentionally lose any games despite Ross’s proposal.
There are far better legal experts than me here, obviously, but talking about breaking the rules (if there are even any written rules about intentionally losing) is different than actually going out and doing it and providing bank statements with 100K deposits after losses.
Racism is bad, but fucking with gamblers is like real bad.Remember yesterday, when the NFL said that Flores's suit was completely without merit?
View: https://twitter.com/mortreport/status/1489024914296389638?s=20&t=bwH3US-7dqzl91sq63DKMA
As some here have suggested, looks like the league will at least hold Ross's feet to the fire as the shiny object to draw attention away from the lack of non-white coaching hires
Don’t be so cynical, I’m sure there’s a ribbon.The should paint “Hire More Black Coaches” in the endzones next year.
Yes and no.If you think his appeal to Miami, beyond his evident talent, was his performance in the Denver interview rather than the association with/seal of approval from BB, then I guess we’re just going to have to disagree.
Race issues aside, isn't the bolded how a LOT of people get hired in any industry? I mean, if I am a hiring manager, and I know and trust one of the candidates, why wouldn't I hire that person? It's got nothing to do with a "good ol' boy network", more to do with being familiar with others. For example, I am in the pharma industry, and it is a very small world. If a former colleague that I know and trust reaches out regarding an open position, I am going to give them serious consideration. This happens frequently, like I said, this industry is a small world. And the NFL is an even smaller world.Daboll simply has the trust of the new GM because they worked together previously. And that is the crux of the problem in the NFL -- the good ol' boy network persists (as it does in most industries) and black coaches, GMs, front office personnel and owners are under-represted in that network.
This is what Miami did essentially with Thomas Brown this cycle.Yes and no.
When a guy gets coaching interviews, there’s a perception that other teams want him, which makes other teams more comfortable hiring him and selling him to their fans as the solution to the team’s problems. Not related to diversity, but there are reports that the Texans want to hire Josh McCown as their head coach right now but are reluctant to do so when no one else will even give him an interview. It’s a real thing. And while the primary purpose of the Rooney Rule is to increase hiring of people of color by ensuring diverse candidate slates, one of its intended incidental benefits is to increase the pipeline of diverse benefits by putting guys on the radar when they otherwise might not be. Flores in 2019 probably isn’t a good example of this, but it is a real thing.
Diverse slates are a powerful tool to drive increased minority representation in organizations where people are generally acting with positive intent but are falling prey to unconscious biases during the screening process. The Rooney Rule isn’t working because the NFL’s problems at the ownership level are more deep-seated than that.
This absolutely happens all of the time in many industries. The argument isn’t whether or not you should hire a former colleague, it’s “is that person the best applicant for the job?” Are you overlooking a potentially more qualified candidate to hire someone with familiarity.Race issues aside, isn't the bolded how a LOT of people get hired in any industry? I mean, if I am a hiring manager, and I know and trust one of the candidates, why wouldn't I hire that person? It's got nothing to do with a "good ol' boy network", more to do with being familiar with others. For example, I am in the pharma industry, and it is a very small world. If a former colleague that I know and trust reaches out regarding an open position, I am going to give them serious consideration. This happens frequently, like I said, this industry is a small world. And the NFL is an even smaller world.
Your general point is indisputable. The problem is that the NFL, in trying to solve a problem with the Rooney rule, has created new ones.Yes and no.
When a guy gets coaching interviews, there’s a perception that other teams want him, which makes other teams more comfortable hiring him and selling him to their fans as the solution to the team’s problems. Not related to diversity, but there are reports that the Texans want to hire Josh McCown as their head coach right now but are reluctant to do so when no one else will even give him an interview. It’s a real thing. And while the primary purpose of the Rooney Rule is to increase hiring of people of color by ensuring diverse candidate slates, one of its intended incidental benefits is to increase the pipeline of diverse benefits by putting guys on the radar when they otherwise might not be. Flores in 2019 probably isn’t a good example of this, but it is a real thing.
Diverse slates are a powerful tool to drive increased minority representation in organizations where people are generally acting with positive intent but are falling prey to unconscious biases during the screening process. The Rooney Rule isn’t working because the NFL’s problems at the ownership level are more deep-seated than that.
Yes, that is what we call “the good old boy network.“ Its why women are excluded as well.Race issues aside, isn't the bolded how a LOT of people get hired in any industry? I mean, if I am a hiring manager, and I know and trust one of the candidates, why wouldn't I hire that person? It's got nothing to do with a "good ol' boy network", more to do with being familiar with others. For example, I am in the pharma industry, and it is a very small world. If a former colleague that I know and trust reaches out regarding an open position, I am going to give them serious consideration. This happens frequently, like I said, this industry is a small world. And the NFL is an even smaller world.
Seems like this is more than debatable at this point.And while the primary purpose of the Rooney Rule is to increase hiring of people of color by ensuring diverse candidate slates, one of its intended incidental benefits is to increase the pipeline of diverse benefits by putting guys on the radar when they otherwise might not be. Flores in 2019 probably isn’t a good example of this, but it is a real thing.
Wait a second, where in my post did I specify gender?Yes, that is what we call “the good old boy network.“ Its why women are excluded as well.
Rooney owns the Steelers. He isn’t the problem.Seems like this is more than debatable at this point.
Because we know, because these things have been studied, that when hiring happens based on networks rather than an open process with a diverse slate of candidates, that this tends to benefit white men over other candidates. It is hard for women and minorities to break into those networks, therefore they aren't even being considered for jobs where in fact they might be the better candidate.Wait a second, where in my post did I specify gender?
It’s perfect. They even named the rule after him! And it’s been lolz ever since.Rooney owns the Steelers. He isn’t the problem.
He proposed a rule that assumed the positive intent of his fellow owners. I think that was fair at the time. Two decades on, however, I think it’s clear the underlying assumption was flawed.
Excellent point.The fact that two Black coaches out there we know of—Flores and Jackson—are on the record as being told and incentivized by ownership to lose games actually makes this whole thing worse, because it suggests that owners are using Black coaching hires to improve their draft slot before bringing in the White Savior to lead that generational talent to glory.
I agree with this, but to me this makes the Giants' flawed process this year even worse. They didn't interview up-and-coming coaches whose reputations would be burnished by getting an interview; they interviewed two dudes (Flores and Frazier) who have already been head coaches, plus they threw a bone to a guy already in the organization (Graham).Yes and no.
When a guy gets coaching interviews, there’s a perception that other teams want him, which makes other teams more comfortable hiring him and selling him to their fans as the solution to the team’s problems. Not related to diversity, but there are reports that the Texans want to hire Josh McCown as their head coach right now but are reluctant to do so when no one else will even give him an interview. It’s a real thing. And while the primary purpose of the Rooney Rule is to increase hiring of people of color by ensuring diverse candidate slates, one of its intended incidental benefits is to increase the pipeline of diverse benefits by putting guys on the radar when they otherwise might not be. Flores in 2019 probably isn’t a good example of this, but it is a real thing.
Diverse slates are a powerful tool to drive increased minority representation in organizations where people are generally acting with positive intent but are falling prey to unconscious biases during the screening process. The Rooney Rule isn’t working because the NFL’s problems at the ownership level are more deep-seated than that.
It says a lot about the NFL that the most prominent initiative to get minority coaches hired is named after a white owner.It’s perfect. They even named the rule after him! And it’s been lolz ever since.
I can’t really disagree with anything you’ve said here. It is, for the most part, all true. What is also true, as you acknowledge, is that none of that has much to do with the circumstances of Flores’ hiring by the Dolphins, which is specifically what I was referencing in my post.Yes and no.
When a guy gets coaching interviews, there’s a perception that other teams want him, which makes other teams more comfortable hiring him and selling him to their fans as the solution to the team’s problems. Not related to diversity, but there are reports that the Texans want to hire Josh McCown as their head coach right now but are reluctant to do so when no one else will even give him an interview. It’s a real thing. And while the primary purpose of the Rooney Rule is to increase hiring of people of color by ensuring diverse candidate slates, one of its intended incidental benefits is to increase the pipeline of diverse benefits by putting guys on the radar when they otherwise might not be. Flores in 2019 probably isn’t a good example of this, but it is a real thing.
Diverse slates are a powerful tool to drive increased minority representation in organizations where people are generally acting with positive intent but are falling prey to unconscious biases during the screening process. The Rooney Rule isn’t working because the NFL’s problems at the ownership level are more deep-seated than that.
This is an excellent point.I agree with this, but to me this makes the Giants' flawed process this year even worse. They didn't interview up-and-coming coaches whose reputations would be burnished by getting an interview; they interviewed two dudes (Flores and Frazier) who have already been head coaches, plus they threw a bone to a guy already in the organization (Graham).
Well, this angle just got a lot less interesting. Everyone who follows the NFL knew Hue Jackson wasn’t given a chance to win.Anyway, in other news Hugh Jackson walked back his comments about Haslam paying him to lose. Basically what he meant was he had no chance to win with the roster assembled, and he knew there was no expectation around winning when he was there. So basically he was being paid to lose games but not in the same way that Ross allegedly tried to incentivize Flores to tank games.
View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HPjzsqVbYF8
I think it also does significant damage to Jackson’s credibility. I hope, by association, it doesn’t do the same to Flores and his suit. I think nothing could dilute a righteous cause more than piling on exaggerated, unsubstantiated , unrelated claims. It certainly seems there’s more meat on Flores’ assertions about Ross, with the witness being reported, and I hope his evidence is rock solid. It would be such a lost opportunity if the most important element of the suit, exposing the sham too many teams have made of the Rooney rule, got lost in the noise about tanking.Well, this angle just got a lot less interesting. Everyone who follows the NFL knew Hue Jackson wasn’t given a chance to win.
I never said that I wouldn't consider other applicants, nor did I say that I would absolutely hiring a former colleague. Giving them serious consideration, which is what I said, is not the same as not considering other applicants.Because we know, because these things have been studied, that when hiring happens based on networks rather than an open process with a diverse slate of candidates, that this tends to benefit white men over other candidates. It is hard for women and minorities to break into those networks, therefore they aren't even being considered for jobs where in fact they might be the better candidate.
And since the research tells us that diversity in your organization leads to better business results, a hiring process like the one you describe actually does not work the way you think it works. You are better off running a real process, committing to a diverse slate of candidates, and then hiring the person who comes through that process as the best fit/most qualified. Maybe it ends up being the person you thought at the outset, but maybe you find someone else who is better.
Ehh, if, say, a congressional investigator wanted to look into this, Jackson would 100% be on the witness list. As we've seen from previous professional sports inquiries by Congress, you always have one OTR witness who lays it all out there surrounded by others who are more wary of burning bridges. No one is going toWell, this angle just got a lot less interesting. Everyone who follows the NFL knew Hue Jackson wasn’t given a chance to win.
In another tweet, the executive director of Jackson’s foundation Kimberley Diemert said they had records that would support Flores’ case and wrote that Jackson and team executives Sashi Brown, Paul DePodesta, and Andrew Berry — who is now the team’s General Manager — were paid bonus money to tank in 2016 and 2017. Jackson replied by saying he “can back up every word I’m saying.”
This is my concern. I can't find it ATM, but IIRC, but didn't Jackson say he had proof that he was paid by Haslam to lose games?I think it also does significant damage to Jackson’s credibility. I hope, by association, it doesn’t do the same to Flores and his suit. I think nothing could dilute a righteous cause more than piling on exaggerated, unsubstantiated , unrelated claims. It certainly seems there’s more meat on Flores’ assertions about Ross, with the witness being reported, and I hope his evidence is rock solid. It would be such a lost opportunity if the most important element of the suit, exposing the sham too many teams have made of the Rooney rule, got lost in the noise about tanking.
I think part of why the assumption was flawed was because that was actually how it played out for Rooney and the Steelers: they interviewed Tomlin, who wasn’t the front runner, but were open minded and found Tomlin to be the best candidate. Sadly that’s not how it’s worked for other teamsRooney owns the Steelers. He isn’t the problem.
He proposed a rule that assumed the positive intent of his fellow owners. I think that was fair at the time. Two decades on, however, I think it’s clear the underlying assumption was flawed.
If we accept this as true, by my count, 3-4 of the 20-ish Black coaches were hired in hopeless/tanking circumstances:Flores may very well have been hired not to succeed, but to fail and then be discarded so that Miami could hire a "real" coach.
The PFT story that @Van Everyman posted above certainly suggests that. Which, to me, makes his walking it back a pretty bad look. Being saddled with a bad roster and shitty ownership is 1,000 miles away from being paid incentives to purposely lose gams. Unless he's now worried about the implications of having accepting those incentive payments, and that's the motivation for the walk back.This is my concern. I can't find it ATM, but IIRC, but didn't Jackson say he had proof that he was paid by Haslam to lose games?
Who has been paying money to Ben Roethlisberger for almost 2 decades.It says a lot about the NFL that the most prominent initiative to get minority coaches hired is named after a white owner.
Here's what you said:I never said that I wouldn't consider other applicants, nor did I say that I would absolutely hiring a former colleague. Giving them serious consideration, which is what I said, is not the same as not considering other applicants.
If what you meant is that prior experience with a candidate can or should be a consideration I wouldn't have responded (though I think how much of a consideration it should be is an interesting and different discussion). What you wrote is that you would hire the person. That's the kind of hiring practice that people are pushing back on, and precisely the problem with how the NFL works. Nobody is saying disregard your prior experiences with a particular candidate, just don't make it dispositive in the hiring process.Race issues aside, isn't the bolded how a LOT of people get hired in any industry? I mean, if I am a hiring manager, and I know and trust one of the candidates, why wouldn't I hire that person?
The incentive for the GM doing the hiring is always going to be to hire someone with whom you are familiar, because the personal stakes for the GM (or whomever is doing the hiring) are quite high. Get it wrong, and you are out. It is a totally rational and reasonable reaction to go with the "guy you know," which is what makes the problem so pernicious. A truly good GM would make a point to get to know more guys, of course, but that doesn't seem to happen without a firm shove.Here's what you said:
If what you meant is that prior experience with a candidate can or should be a consideration I wouldn't have responded (though I think how much of a consideration it should be is an interesting and different discussion). What you wrote is that you would hire the person. That's the kind of hiring practice that people are pushing back on, and precisely the problem with how the NFL works. Nobody is saying disregard your prior experiences with a particular candidate, just don't make it dispositive in the hiring process.
I agree in that I would like to hear more from established coaches on this. It's probably more likely from past coaches than current coaches, but different voices on this need to make their way into this conversation. As for the highlighted, I'm not sure what you're looking for here. White head coaches being hired isn't on them.What's really disappointing to me is the lack support Flores is getting from the white coaches. Have any come out in support of him? Or are they all playing "I'm not racist because I hired I blah blah assistant coach 10 years ago".
If the white head coaches are serious about the Rooney Rule a.k.a "I'm not taking this job unless you show me you've strongly considered a minority candidate" it might invigorate equitable hiring practices that are now just a checkbox away from hiring their white buddies.
It would also be a great help for Flores and systematic racism in general if a white coach came out and said, "Yeah the minority interviews were a sham, the hiring committee told me I had the gig before the other interviews". Someone needs to be brave on the white ally side and sadly I don't think it will be BB
You're right, I misspoke. Mea culpa.Here's what you said:
If what you meant is that prior experience with a candidate can or should be a consideration I wouldn't have responded (though I think how much of a consideration it should be is an interesting and different discussion). What you wrote is that you would hire the person. That's the kind of hiring practice that people are pushing back on, and precisely the problem with how the NFL works. Nobody is saying disregard your prior experiences with a particular candidate, just don't make it dispositive in the hiring process.