We will see, but if necessary the NFL will flush Ross to shield royalty (Mara).
Brian Flores suing NFL, Giants over "sham" Rooney rule - "mistakenly" (?) sent Belichick text may be linchpin
- Thread starter bsj
- Start date
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.
If someone comes up to you and says "I'll pay you $20 to go into that store and steal a television for me," that person has committed a crime. If you say "no," or walk away, you haven't committed a crime and you have no obligation to do anything further. If you take the $20, you've committed a crime.
The only exceptions would be situations where you have a duty by virtue of your position or the law to protect someone. Like elder abuse if you work in a hospital. Stuff like that.
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:
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.
The NFL Network report mentioned earlier about there being a witness to the $100,000 offer has scant details attached, but it is fascinating. I mean, who would Ross trust to be present when making such an offer to Flores?
https://www.nfl.com/news/witness-says-he-heard-dolphins-owner-stephen-ross-offer-ex-head-coach-brian-flor
https://www.nfl.com/news/witness-says-he-heard-dolphins-owner-stephen-ross-offer-ex-head-coach-brian-flor
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.
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.
But yeah, it's hard for Flores to compete against that. On a semi-related note, and if earlier reports are true (may not be), a rift between Flores and his GM hurt him in Miami.
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.
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.
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.
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
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
Just 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.
It can be simultaneously true that (a) Flores lost your garden of the mill power struggle with the GM in Miami, (b) Ross asked him to do some shitty stuff, canned him for shady reasons and then shat all over him afterwards to cover his ass, and (c) the NFL as an enterprise has a serious issues with its hiring practices as they relate to minority coaches.
According to league sources, 11 out of 12 Black coaching interviews were shams.
Just kidding – all of them were shams.
edit - but seriously every 6 months or so someone gets nailed by that guy with the fake hitman website, and those people get charged and prosecuted even though there was never a chance a hitman was ever going to kill the person they wanted.
Racism is bad, but fucking with gamblers is like real bad.
Don’t be so cynical, I’m sure there’s a ribbon.
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.
Last edited:
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.
This is what Miami did essentially with Thomas Brown this cycle.
When his name popped up on their interview list, the initial reaction was, “who?”
Brown is a former
Georgia RB, he was an OC for the Miami Hurricanes, and he’s been on McVay’s staff the last few years.
What happens when Brown gets an interview request for a head coaching position? People notice. You get tweets. You get quotes from McVay. He gets put on the radar of people that may not have any clue who Thomas Brown was beforehand.
This is supposed to be one of the positive intentions of the Rooney Rule. Brown has now been on a head coaching interview. People this season may be watching him more closely. He may get an additional interview next year.
His Miami interview won’t be the reason he ultimately gets a job, it will be his own hard work and his connection to McVay, but he’s been put on the map as a candidate now.
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.
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.
For example, individuals who are suddenly getting lots of interviews do become desirable. However the NFL is a small community and people talk. Stories about an interview like the one Flores had with Denver get around the league. Regardless of whether Elway and Elis were disheveled/hungover, it seems clear that it wasn't a real interview; it was merely cover for the Rooney rule. Which makes it an open question as to whether Flores is considered a "real" candidate for a head coaching job or a "Ronney rule" candidate.
The fact that Flores got the job in Miami would seem to argue against this point, except that the underlying accusation against Ross (that he created an incentive to tank) indicates that 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.
As to McCown, I think the hesitancy there isn't the fact that no one else is interviewing him - it's that it would be an incredibly bad look to hire him at this moment in time. (We will likely never know.)
All of which is a long way of saying that I'm in violent agreement with the conclusion in your last sentence - the NFL's problems at the ownership level are much more deep-seated than just unconscious bias.
Yes, that is what we call “the good old boy network.“ Its why women are excluded as well.
It seems like one angle that’s being ignored in the coverage of this story is the linkage between the poor minority hiring practices nd the tanking.
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 mean, one clear precedent for Flores is Jim Caldwell who is a legit good coach but got stuck with having to Suck for Luck, got canned for it and then got the privilege of coaching the horrible Lions where he again was better than expected and got canned after a 9-7 season.
I get why he might want to stay out of it but hearing Caldwell on this subject … what Irsay did and didn’t say in 2011 and what Lions ownership was like … would be very interesting.
Paging congressional staffers …
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.
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.
I think Thomas Brown is more well known than is given credit. He's the assistant head coach on a Super Bowl team. Under a coach that has had several coaches hired away in the past few seasons. If he wasn't on people's radar than something is wrong. While there appears to be logic that interviews put candidates on the "radar" of other clubs, there doesn't seem to be much evidence that it is happening. The fact that there are so few minority coaches leads credence that it is not working.
As mentioned, the NFL is small. Everyone knows these coaches already. Organizations don't need other teams to interview someone to know who they are. It is a fallacy that allows the NFL and organizations to pat themselves on the back for these sham interviews.
As mentioned, the NFL is small. Everyone knows these coaches already. Organizations don't need other teams to interview someone to know who they are. It is a fallacy that allows the NFL and organizations to pat themselves on the back for these sham interviews.
Excellent point.
Last edited:
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
View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HPjzsqVbYF8
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).
It says a lot about the NFL that the most prominent initiative to get minority coaches hired is named after a white owner.
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.
Further, the post I was responding to was attempting to hold up Flores’ hiring by the Dolphins as an example for the system working, of the Rooney Rule leading directly to the raising of the profile of a talented but unheralded young coach who, a couple of years later was then able to land a head coaching job. That is a mischaracterization of how Flores got his job, and that view does a disservice to the cause of diversifying the NFL’s coaching ranks because it romanticizes the Rooney Rule and its effectiveness as a change agent.
The Rooney Rule has not worked. And it has not worked for the precise reason you identify. The Rooney Rule has not worked.
Flores did have his profile raised by what was maybe a token Rooney Rule interview, but it was with the Cardinals in 2018, not with the Broncos a year later.
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 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 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.
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 to
Also, there's this:
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 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 teams
If we accept this as true, by my count, 3-4 of the 20-ish Black coaches were hired in hopeless/tanking circumstances:
Flores
David Culley
Steve Wilks in AZ
Hue Jackson in CLE
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.
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.
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
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
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.
The Rooney Rule was, I suppose, was an attempt to shove the people doing the hiring into knowing more guys. It hasn't worked, and it appears to not have worked in part because the owners seem to have a far shorter leash for, ahem, certain kinds of HCs.
That is exactly what "systemic racism" is supposed to mean. The problem is that people understand the word "racism" to mean personal malice and malevolent intent, and therefore react to the phrase "racism" with defensiveness, and the phrase-- in football as everywhere else, produces more heat that light.
If Flores' allegations -- that the Dolphins hired Flores, garnered credit for the "progressive" hire, then pressured him to appear incompetent, then fired him for being "hard to work with" when he refused, and then smeared him among the other owners-- are true (I suspect that they are), it is truly apalling. I hope he can back it up, because if he can, that franchise should burn.
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.