I don't disagree, King. The only thing I would add is that the good-ol-boy network says as much about the conservatism of the NFL (and sports franchises in general) as it does the potential for racism. Play the odds, hire the known quantity, make the choice that no one (as you've pointed out) can blame you for later when it doesn't work out. I've never understood the annual musical chairs pageant, especially in baseball, where one retread after another fails one place, and is hailed as the savior in his next appointment.

I'm a Packers fan, and I though, "Oh no" when Mariucci was hired by Detroit. Fortunately, Matt Millen is in charge, so we didn't really have to worry (and obviously, the Packers have their own NFL-Europe house to attend to). Chicago, which has assembled a dominant defense to counterbalance its inability to find a good quarterback, is much more formidable. I think coaches are somewhat overrated. Basically, suck enough, long enough, get enough high draft picks, and you'll be back in the hunt. That's how the NFL is built, and success largely falls on the GM's acumen. The owners need to realize that there are a lot of talented qualified coaches (apparently Norm Chow was similarly rebuffed over the years because of his last name), and that going outside their comfort zones isn't going to be the make-or-break move they imagine. The real question for any coaching candidate is who will comprise his staff, and what do they see happening with the players on hand, and the system to be implemented.

Barry Switzer always said at Oklahoma (and at Dallas) that "there's no magic playbook. We just out-athlete people."

to take this one step further...what were Millen's qualifications when he was given keys to the Mustang? An opinionated color commentator/'analyst' and ex-lineman for a Superbowl winner? By those criteria, we should look for Tony Siragusa to assume the GM reins in Baltimore any time now...

The mandatory minority interview rule is intended to strike against systemic racism - a term that requires some explanation. There are lots of people who claim not to be racists: and maybe it's true - they wouldn't consciously discriminate. But when push comes to shove, these same people want to work with people they are comfortable with, and are familiar with. As a result, all other things being equal, a white guy will hire another white guy. The minority interview process compels exposure to people you wouldn't necessarily consider otherwise.

Someone explained to me when I was first applying for jobs in my profession: "anyone can do this job - it's just a question of who I want to have lunch with a couple times a week". That saying is probably true for most...Millen was sure he wanted to have lunch with Marriucci; but maybe if he'd kept an open mind, Lovie Smith might have wowed him, and he'd have found a new drinking buddy (of course there's not much Lovie Smith could have done with Joey Harrington).

Unfortunately, Detroit has had a spate of narrow-mindedness of late. First with Marriucci and the Lions, and recently with Jim Leyland and the Tigers - who went through a sham process of inviting non-similarly qualified minorities. I heard Leyland speaking at his press conference when he was hired, and was stunned. He basically admitted that he wasn't terribly familiar with the American League; that he didn't know much about the Tigers; and that he might be a bit rusty, since he'd been off for a few years. Did the Tigers even listen to what he said during that interview? Can you imagine anyone else in any other industry coming to an interview and saying: "I've been out of the loop for a few years, and I'm not terribly familiar with your company or your industry...but I'll sure try hard!"

Yup. It may not be overt racism, but it's hard to tell the difference.

Is that at least he's not a racist, just a bigot. (Called former Lion Johnny Morton "faggot" after a game in 2001. Morton was taunting him about the fact that he and his new team had just blown the Lions out. Said it was said in a moment of anger. So is still a bigot. I think KK wrote a column about it)

Oh, wait there's really not any upside to Matt Millen, except possibly mustache combing tips. He's an embarassment and he's incredibly bad at his job. Granted Millen is just a symptom of what happens when people who are rich because their granddaddy was rich own football teams.

A widely publicized look at the Ford family might rally public support for the estate tax.

I think that Matt Millen is proof that the minority interview rule should be extended to include top front office executives as well as head coaches. I am sure there are even fewer minority executives than there are coaches.

At least the football team is being run consistent with the hometown auto industry - the guys at the top (usually white) make the bad decisions like ignoring hybrids and linemen and get the golden handshakes, while the guys on the line making the product (heavily minority) get the door and a underfunded pension.

...even if it was wrong.

Take race out of it. Just how impressive does an assistant coach have to be to get that job back in 2003?

Can you imagine Matt Millen, or any NFL executive saying, "Yeah Steve Mariucci just took the San Fransisco 49ers to the playoffs, but we've decided to hire this assitant coach. You should have seen his interview!"

Riots in the street! There is no way you don't hire Mariucci then. Yes, the good old boys network may have gotten him to the 49ers job, but he was there. Lovie Smith wasn't.

The problem started way before that. In those two career tracks you detailed side-by-side. By the time the Lions job was open, it was a foregone conclusion.

I tend to think of the "old boy network" as the system that lets re-treads and hangers-on get one chance after another. Guys like Dave "82-87" Wannstedt, Norv "58-77" Turner, and Dom "47-76" Capers, who get several years and/or second opportunities with a sub-.500 resume.

Even if it was a wrong move, hiring a proven and succesful coach doesn't really speak to me as old-boyism. A bad choice? Maybe in hindsight. (And I mean "proven and succesful" in a real sense, not in the sense that owners/GMs often say when justifying hiring, say, Dennis Erickson when he had a 31-33 record).

I do think there is a problem with not conducting a full suite of interviews before a big hire. After all, why short yourself? And, since many coaches only last a couple years for one reason or another, it's a good idea to get to know the best candidates.

And I think the minority-interview policy is a good one. It seems to be working. Hopefully, one day it will be discarded as an antiquated solution to a problem that no longer exists, but for now, I'm all for it.

Still, I suspect that this was a case of eagerness with a particular candidate, and a defensible one at that. If Millen gets all wobbly at the knees for Dick "35-45" Jauron, then maybe I think you have something.