I have no problem with the Millen being fined. What I have a problem with is that the NFL didnt fine other teams for doing worse. The Cowboys hired Parcells ok but they set up a phony interview with Dennis Green. The 49ers did the same thing and didnt get fined. Millen tried to interview black coaches but they wouldnt agree to offical interviews because of the NAACP and the rainbow colition. If the NFL wants things to change they must have a zero tollerence policy and not just fine the week team.
I don't think the NFL calling African-American assistant coach X (Malcolm's cousin) and saying "Hey, Coach X, we understand Matt Millen up in Detroit wanted to interview you for the head coaching job even though it's more or less a formality since he's 99% sure he's hiring Steve Mariucci. In spite of that, we'd STRONGLY suggest you go to Detroit for the interview anyway. Think of it this way: not only will you be referred to as a guy who was a candidate for the Lions' job when future jobs open up, you will have a chance to make a favorable impression on the Lions' brass, and who knows when THAT job might become available in the future? All in all, there is absolutely no downside for you personally to go up there and spend a few hours with Matt, so enjoy yourself." is THAT far-fetched a scenario. It's something Major League Baseball could never do, but somehow I think Tags could pull it off. After all, he's got the stroke to have the silly rule in there in the first place, for better or worse.
If the NFL is apparently willing to accept phone interviews in the case of Jones and Green, then have Coach X drop a dime to Millen and have them chat about the weather for a few minutes instead of having this guy fly all the way up to Detroit for a meeting of "So, uh, you like...stuff?" "Yes, stuff is good."
Then again, if I were a black assistant head coach in this situation, I would take it as a slap in the face. The whole world would know that I was just a token candidate anyway, so I doubt if my profile would be raised.
I'd be interested in seeing a stat about how many black head coaches are given a second chance to coach. Tony Dungy and Ray Rhodes are the only names that leap to mind when I think about black head coaches with more than one team.
And why the hell doesn't Ted Cottrell have a head coaching job yet?? What more does this man have to do?
All right, I'm enjoying Rhyno's "man-beast" gimmick: He keeps his hair long, wears full-body wrestling tights with a big "R" on the back and uses the "Rhino Gore" as his finishing move. Can't you imagine him watching the Discovery Channel one day while tossing around possible gimmicks and having one of those "Hey, wait a second!" epiphanies during a rhino segment?
To spruce things up, the WWF should give Undertaker and Kane last names -- like Undertaker and Kane O'Brien, the O'Brien Brothers -- just for comedy's sake. Hopefully the door's still open.
RVD is approaching the always-exciting "The crowd loves him, but he's not getting a major push yet" phase which helps makes wrestling so much fun. It only happens once every few years -- Stone Cold in '96, The Rock in '98, Shawn Michaels in '93 and so on. -- ESPN's Bill Simmons back in 2001
Originally posted by Big BadThen again, if I were a black assistant head coach in this situation, I would take it as a slap in the face. The whole world would know that I was just a token candidate anyway, so I doubt if my profile would be raised.
I don't understand that line of thought. I do if it were a Marvin Lewis or someone who has put the time in and by all rights should be a head coach, but if it's a guy who is the secondary coach for the Kansas City Chiefs and is, realistically 6 or 7 years away from actually becoming a head coach, why wouldn't he want to take the opportunity to go through the interview? I know if I was interested in a job that I couldn't get but had a chance to interview for it anyway I would LEAP at the chance to find out what the interview would entail. What better way to get a feel for what people are looking for in an interview than to GO THROUGH AN INTERVIEW?
Rick Neuheisel (RIP your Husky-coaching career) interviewed for the 49ers job and the buzz is that he did HORRIBLE and that five minutes into the meeting the Niners' brass knew he wouldn't be pro head coaching material right now. What if he had REALLY wanted that job? I would rather have had a "warm-up" interview beforehand, formality or not, if the chance was offered to me.
Washington Huskies, 2003 Pac-10 football champs. Coming soon.
But JayJay, would it really be a real interview if all parties involved knew this person was never going to have a chance of being hired? The interview would be perfunctory, as no one would want to spend a day or two grilling some guy over everything imaginable to see if he has the chops for a job he won't get, and he won't be prepared properly knowing he won't be hired.
What they needed to do, which would have been shady but gotten them through, was find an assistant they liked, ask him to come interview, tell him "we aren't hiring you for this, but we'll bump you up in our coaching staff" so if the guy was a QB coach, well now he's Off. Coordinator or something. Then everyone wins.
This whole situation is retarded, but one thing I have noticed is that no one who approves of the Lion's fine has said that hiring the Mooch was a bad idea.
The fact is that he IS the best guy for the job. No one is arguing that point. He wanted the job, and it was available, so only a complete idiot would not hire him. All of the potential black canditates knew this, and wisely decided not to waste their time.
So exactly what were the Lions supposed to do? The fine is nothing more than pandering to people like Jesse Jackson, and I hope they fight it tooth and nail. The intent of the policy is all well and good, but when it comes down to it, it is racist at its very core, and helps nothing.
Only in America is it racist to hire the best man for the job....
Originally posted by spf2119But JayJay, would it really be a real interview if all parties involved knew this person was never going to have a chance of being hired? The interview would be perfunctory, as no one would want to spend a day or two grilling some guy over everything imaginable to see if he has the chops for a job he won't get, and he won't be prepared properly knowing he won't be hired.
It would only be perfunctory if the guy being interviewed looked at it as some pain-in-the-ass chore that he *had* to do, in which case the guy in question would be, in my opinion, shooting himself in the foot big-time.
If I can make an analogy, think of the NFL as a big company, and "head coach" as an executive position, with the assistants as lower-level managers, some of whom are ambitious and some of whom really are happy where they are at. If an executive spot opened up and you worked in the lowest management-level, but you were invited to interview for an "executive" position with a group of other, mostly obviously more-qualified candidates due to the existence of a quota of interviews that needs to be reached, is there ANY reason, if you were interested at moving up there sometime in your life, not to accept the invite and take the interview? I would view the interview as a chance to familiarize myself with the interview process and get a knowledge of what is expected of an interviewee, and especially view it as a chance to have a leg up for that time in the future when I would be qualified for the promotion, to insure that I the best chance possible to achieve my goal.
If your choice would to be to refuse the interview on the basis of "I would have only been there due to the quota", I, as the evaluator/interviewer would be extremely turned off that you would turn down the opportunity to learn about what it takes to get to where you ultimately want to go with your career, and I would be more skeptical of your ability and qualifications during a future interview knowing you had been closed-minded about accepting my earlier invitation. Most people don't change mid-stream in life and suddenly decide they want to try to advance in their careers, they are either aggressive and ambitious by nature or they aren't.
I only see good things by accepting the interview and bad things by refusing it on the basis of not wanting to be a "token". If the rules are there and you get a chance to advance or learn how to advance due to the presence of the rules, why not take advantage of it?
Washington Huskies, 2003 Pac-10 football champs. Coming soon.
I listened to Tony Dungy today on ESPN radio, and he made a lot of sense. People told him not to interview with Tampa Bay, that the job was going to Jimmy Johnson and then Steve Spurrier, and he was just a token. But he ignored them and interviewed anyway, and he ended up getting the job. He suggested that these others should have taken the interview, assuming that there was no done deal with Mariucchi.
The thing is, you take the interview and you never know what may happen. Mariucchi may have changed his mind and not taken the job. Maybe one of the other candidates could have blown the owner away with his vision and changed his mind. A leading candidate doesn't necessarily mean only candidate. At any rate, it would have been a good learning experience, regardless of what happened.
And if you don't take the interview, then you do know exactly what will happen. You won't get the job!
Everything that is wrong in this world can be blamed on Freddie Prinze Jr.
So, has anyone found out or said why Todd Collins (he of the 10 years between starts) was higher on the depth chart than Mark Brunell (he of the 2006 Opening Week starter)? As far as I can tell Brunell isn't hurt and is still on the Redskins roster.