So Tee Martin interviewed for the Raiders job?

#76
#76
TNnative said:
How the Hell does interviewing for a job you didn't get improve a resume? I applied to work at ORNL a few years ago, but didn't get hired. Should I put that on a resume? Or does including places that didn't hire me look effing stupid? Obviously, the answer is no.

The only thing NOT being hired by the Raiders proves, until Gruden turns it around, is you.......were lucky.
Click to expand...

And what would your position be if Gruden calls Tee and says hey, we liked your interview and want you to come be our QB coach?

My personal exp with this is that I interviewed in 2013 for a job that I wasn't really qualified for and the company created a position for me because they liked my qualifications.

No interview is a waste if it is a true interview. Treat it that way and both the employer will respect you and you will learn from it.

Get over the racist BS. They wanted Gruden and could have interviewed the black football Einstein and it wouldn't have made a bit of difference.
 
Last edited:
#77
#77
LordBolton said:
If I thought I was being interviewed to fulfill that, I would turn it down. That is insulting to Tee if that was the reason he got the interview, as he has the skills. Perhaps they are looking at him for OC?
Click to expand...

Or like I said, QB coach. He should have treated it like a real interview. NEVER turn down an interview unless you never want to be interviewed again with that organization or ANYONE that they will talk to. There is no way to win from telling an organization thanks but no thanks because I am not going to be a civil rights martyr.
 
#78
#78
jakez4ut said:
it does, and it doesn't.

for Tee, it at least puts your name out there, and gets you some experience at being prepared for a HC job interview.

the bad news...everybody knows it was to satisfy the rooney rule, so really, it doesn't improve his stock as a candidate.

and it surely won't improve anyone's chances that is used in this manner, if all they ever get is turned down.

at some point, if you interview for those jobs 3, 4, 5 times, and never get the job, at what point does it stop being because "we're satisfying the rule" and start being "maybe he's just not qualified"?

in that vein, the rule hurts. the merit behind it is sound. how it's executed...not so much in all cases.
Click to expand...

The rule is self defeating. You can't satisfy the rule without hiring a minority. EVERY single time that you have a target that isn't a minority and you interview to satisfy the rule, you have circumvented the purpose of the rule.
 
#79
#79
Everyone does realize the Raiders hired one of the first minority head coaches? This could have been an actual interview.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 2 people
#81
#81
TNnative said:
How the Hell does interviewing for a job you didn't get improve a resume? I applied to work at ORNL a few years ago, but didn't get hired. Should I put that on a resume? Or does including places that didn't hire me look effing stupid? Obviously, the answer is no.

The only thing NOT being hired by the Raiders proves, until Gruden turns it around, is you.......were lucky.
Click to expand...

I would say NEVER getting an interview doesn’t make you look awesome. There aren’t a world of HC jobs, so interviewing and not getting selected doesn’t hurt your career. There’s prolly a reason non-coaching resumes don’t list interviews whatsoever.
 
#82
#82
82_VOL_83 said:
The rule is self defeating. You can't satisfy the rule without hiring a minority. EVERY single time that you have a target that isn't a minority and you interview to satisfy the rule, you have circumvented the purpose of the rule.
Click to expand...

What is the “purpose” of the rule? If it’s to FORCE minority hires...that ain’t happening.
 
#83
#83
SandoVOL said:
yea keep making rules until the coaching room is 70% black that sounds diverse...just like the locker room right? The best players play and the best coaches coach how about that.
Click to expand...

I didn't say anything about more rules. I didn't say 70% - I didn't say exactly like - I didn't say black. All I said was more like. More like urban vs. sub-urban. More like blue collar vs. white collar. More like whatever vs. whatever. Point is - there is bias in the process and those setting up the interviews and making the decisions are more interested in hiring what they're comfortable with than trying something different. Point is - that if all the Rooney rule is doing is getting a few minorities a phone call they wouldn't have received otherwise so that someone can check a box - it is hurting more than it helps.
 
#84
#84
82_VOL_83 said:
The rule is self defeating. You can't satisfy the rule without hiring a minority. EVERY single time that you have a target that isn't a minority and you interview to satisfy the rule, you have circumvented the purpose of the rule.
Click to expand...
the rule doesn't say you have to hire anybody.

just interview....an effort to ensure they provide equal opportunity. it is supposed to help make sure that qualified black candidates are sought out and interviewed, as any other qualified white candidate would be.

that's it.

all it is for many, as in this case, was a task that needed completed, a box needing to be checked off, so they could hire who the wanted in the first place.

and i doubt race had a thing to do with it....in this case anyway (the raiders have hired black head coaches in the past).



so like i said, i get the merit behind the rule, and don't disagree with it. but i don't know that it's actually achieved its intended purpose. the raiders didn't interview a qualified candidate. they interviewed a black candidate so they wouldn't get in trouble.

in that light, they "met the minimum requirement" of the rule.
 
#85
#85
Smokeyshowl66 said:
I didn't say anything about more rules. I didn't say 70% - I didn't say exactly like - I didn't say black. All I said was more like. More like urban vs. sub-urban. More like blue collar vs. white collar. More like whatever vs. whatever. Point is - there is bias in the process and those setting up the interviews and making the decisions are more interested in hiring what they're comfortable with than trying something different. Point is - that if all the Rooney rule is doing is getting a few minorities a phone call they wouldn't have received otherwise so that someone can check a box - it is hurting more than it helps.
Click to expand...

Confusing
 
#87
#87
82_VOL_83 said:
And what would your position be if Gruden calls Tee and says hey, we liked your interview and want you to come be our QB coach?

My personal exp with this is that I interviewed in 2013 for a job that I wasn't really qualified for and the company created a position for me because they liked my qualifications.

No interview is a waste if it is a true interview. Treat it that way and both the employer will respect you and you will learn from it.

Get over the racist BS. They wanted Gruden and could have interviewed the black football Einstein and it wouldn't have made a bit of difference.
Click to expand...

WTF was racist? Jackwagon.
 
#88
#88
butchna said:
I would say NEVER getting an interview doesn’t make you look awesome. There aren’t a world of HC jobs, so interviewing and not getting selected doesn’t hurt your career. There’s prolly a reason non-coaching resumes don’t list interviews whatsoever.
Click to expand...

I just don't think anybody's resume looks better, no matter the job, if it includes where you interviewed and didn't get hired. If the guy who interviewed you offers to be a reference, great. But if you pad it with that stuff, it can lead to falsifying something inadvertently. And once upon a time, that was something that was frown on.
 
#89
#89
TNnative said:
I just don't think anybody's resume looks better, no matter the job, if it includes where you interviewed and didn't get hired. If the guy who interviewed you offers to be a reference, great. But if you pad it with that stuff, it can lead to falsifying something inadvertently. And once upon a time, that was something that was frown on.
Click to expand...

And I don’t think you can equate a business where billionaires hire millionaires, with real world experience. Truth is you don’t get these jobs without interviews. In Tee’s SPECIFIC case, an interview with a NFL team is not going to hurt him in any way in getting a HC job in COLLEGE.
 
#90
#90
jakez4ut said:
it does, and it doesn't.

for Tee, it at least puts your name out there, and gets you some experience at being prepared for a HC job interview.

the bad news...everybody knows it was to satisfy the rooney rule, so really, it doesn't improve his stock as a candidate.

and it surely won't improve anyone's chances that is used in this manner, if all they ever get is turned down.

at some point, if you interview for those jobs 3, 4, 5 times, and never get the job, at what point does it stop being because "we're satisfying the rule" and start being "maybe he's just not qualified"?

in that vein, the rule hurts. the merit behind it is sound. how it's executed...not so much in all cases.
Click to expand...

Well said.
 
#91
#91
114VOL said:
NO ONE in the NFL is going to hire him anytime soon. They interviewed him to fulfill the Rooney rule. Gruden was always getting that job
Click to expand...

The Rooney Rule = pointless identity politics.

Interview who you like. It's your business and team. Hire who you think's your guy, who you feel will win, who care's what they look like...good lawwrrddd!
 
#92
#92
Tee is closer to getting fired at USC then he is ever being a head coach anywhere. He will always be a position type coach as the only thing he brings to the table is his ability to relate to kids and recruit. He is not a head coach type. Just not happening. Sorry.
 
New posts
You must log in or register to reply here.
Advertisement



Back
Top