To be objective, there are 32 of these jobs in the world, and a lot of these coaches have spent most of their lives working towards an opportunity for one of these jobs. It’s competitive in its very nature.
Especially if that billionaire employer will turn around and leak to whoever is listening that you're "difficult" and "not a team player" for asking that question.
In fairness it feels (anecdotally) that both black and white coaches get the same amount of opportunities to return as coordinators. Romeo, Vance Joseph, Raheem Morris come to mind. Am I wrong on this point?
You say that like it's an excuse or justification. Maybe I'm misunderstanding you?
Not at all. I’m just saying it’s really common unfortunately. It’s not a good thing.
Based on your posting history I am close to 100% sure you ARE NOT posting this as kind of justification, but as @BroodsSexton alluded to, it comes across that way IMO
My reaction when someone calls something defamatory - well, when’s the lawsuit and the discovery my dude?
Are statements made in court filings subject to defamation suits? I thought there was a general immunity granted to statements made to the court during litigation (including pleadings, witness testimony, etc.) from being used as grounds for defamation, but I could be wrong/it may vary by state (and of course to the extent Flores is repeated that story outside of formal legal proceedings, that’s a different ballgame).
Seriously. "Hey John, um, I really want this job but I have to tell you you look disheveled and hungover. So, did I get it?"
The NFL’s 32 owners are not a monolith.
I am, and so is Flores who has a lot more to lose than I do. Until some prominent white people (Owners, GMs and HCs) in the "NFL system" and practically every other system step up and say "Yeah, Flores, Hue Jackson, Tony Dungy ... they're right" it will forever be the status quo.
It absolutely is. But, as my company has been educating our workforce on since the summer of last year, this practice is what leads to less diverse teams. It's natural for people to associate with those who are most "like them", and it feeds a loop where one knows a lot of similar people and then hire them for jobs. I realize 'good ol' boy network' is a loaded term. It takes a lot of work, and some bit of risk, to hire outside one's comfort zone.
No argument there. Problem is when it can be proven. If Flores et al. have proof that guys were promised jobs before other guys even interviewed, then the whole policy is shown to be a sham.
Yes, and it takes some influence and a concerted effort. I've been lucky enough to find some candidates like that and nudge them over the finish line.
Totally. I had an experience a few years ago where I was set to hire a woman who had been in a very different field than mine, but had great fundamental skills (it was a research job, and she was clearly excellent at the core aspects of that, she just needed to learn my industry). I was excited to bring in a different perspective, thought it would spark my team to reassess certain things we did. Well, the division leader I had her meet with as a sign-off didn't like that she had no experience in our industry, and sunk the whole thing. So you're point about influence is a good one.
Eh, much as I think Elway is covering his butt here this seems like a very lawyerly view in general. Defamation as a concept has existed long before the legal definition, and people can feel aggrieved that their reputation has been sullied and aim to change that perception in the court of public opinion, without having to file lawsuits.
Well this can definitely either be proven or disproven. Flight records and credit card statements can be subpoenaed. If they didn’t get in late, and there are charges to a local Providence restaurant the evening prior, Elway is fucked.
I mean, if you think Elway chomped down on a pen and wrote that statement on his own without a lawyer...
its all a rabbit hole, but just because he was traveling does not mean he wasn't hungover, too.
No he's not, he's not being charged with anything. The anecdote involving him is really just a blip it seems to me.
Well it's not like some footballs were missing air or anything.
Well, either they adjusted because of pr backlash or because they found out there was something there and they had to pivot.
Right, the intensifying media attention and, presumably, frantic calls from their trusted gambling partners (and perhaps even network execs) probably forced a pivot.
I was specifically not making a point about Elway; I was just saying generally it seems very lawyerly to assume that if someone claims that they've been defamed, they should sue or otherwise they're making an empty claim.
Why do the Rooney's need protection? It was they who initiated the rule in an attempt to address a problem-- hence the name "Rooney Rule." And, as much as it pains me to write it, and despite all of the "All 32 teams" comments in this thread, their organization not only initiated the rule, but backed it up where it counts, and stuck with their guy (who is very, very good) long term. Maybe you mean the Maras?
To be fair, the one of the Rooney's married to one of the Mara's. The fruit of said unholy alliance was two reasonably well-known actresses.
Interesting. Apparently Elway and Munchak had dinner the night before. https://www.denverpost.com/2019/01/08/broncos-coach-mike-munchak-vic-angio-analysis/.
Not sure how to answer other than saying that if someone is badly hung over, it’s really not hard to tell.
Am I wrong in saying this case is almost entirely going to hinge on BB's testimony? Who told him the Giants hiring plans, and when? We always assume he's playing 4D chess, all the time. But if someone who didn't really know WTF they were talking about reached out to him, and he jumped the gun in texting whichever Brian he was meaning to text, it falls apart, right? Doesn't seem like tanking and speculation about whether Elway was hungover 3 years ago will be enough to move the needle.
Speaking from a career of working through hangovers, I sure as shit hope that they can’t be proven in court three years after the fact.
