Is it that diversity angers you? Why can't something new and neat be highlighted without a legion of people jumping in with snide commentary?
You might be right. You might be wrong. Either way, a thread touting diversity but not giving any qualifications of the people involved doesn't answer those questions. I'm glad in your mind it's a non sequitur. But for others, that's not the case. This is a message board. Topics are posted for commenting.
I have no issue with diversity. Hell, I was in the army for 20 years. You won’t find diversity anywhere like you find in the military but on that same token... I don’t care where you’re from, how smart you are, how dumb you are, what color you are, what sex you are...you BETTER do your job to the standard or your butt is mine. I’m not going to tolerate someone getting killed because you can’t do your job. Same premise here. I don’t care if you’re a male scout or a female scout. You had better be the best at what you do or your butt is gone. Now if you can agree with me on that premise then you can agree with me that if you’re (sportswriters) are shining a spotlight...looky looky we have diversity...then you’re trolling by focusing on the irrelevant, their gender and not the relevant, their qualifications. Don’t tell me how diverse we are. Tell me how we have the greatest staff that’s going to return the Dolphins to Super Bowl champion glory
Now you're bringing race into it totally unnecessarily. No need friend. Are you deliberately trying to get this thread closed down?
Here's an article today that is relevant. From PFT: In many respects, the “N” in “NFL” stands for “nepotism.” However, there’s something more to giving the sons of coaches jobs as coaches than simply exercising the privilege of hiring family members. As explained by Patriots coach Bill Belichick, young men who have spent years and years around the game as the son of a coach may end up having inherent qualifications that others simply won’t. For Stephen (pictured) and Brian Belichick, that definitely looks to be the case. “Both Stephen and Brian have grown up a lot and they’ve come a long way, especially when I’ve had a chance to see them their whole lives,” Belichick told reporters on Friday regarding the presence of two sons on the Patriots coaching staff. “But they’ve been around a lot of football, they’ve seen a lot of football. They’ve seen things done from a different perspective than other people. But in the end, I don’t know anybody that knows our football program better than Stephen, who’s been in it a little bit longer, but Brian as well. “They’ve just lived their whole life with this program. So all the things that we do, for all the different reasons and how it all ties together and so forth, they have a very good understanding of all the things that are involved and how it all is interwoven. And that’s valuable to me because they have a perspective of that. We have a lot of good coaches on our staff, I’m not saying that. Those guys are very, very good coaches and very proficient and they do a great job. But it’s a little different to see it from the perspective that Brian has seen it from, or Steve. They all help, they’re all valuable and I’m glad we have them.” That’s a dynamic that often gets overlooked when the issue of nepotism is debated. Yes, the best person should get the job. But the experience that a coach’s son or daughter may have from simply being around the game from the unique perspective of being the coach’s child potentially enhances the qualifications — especially when it comes to working for the head coach who also is the candidate’s father. Frankly, it’s one of the reasons why 49ers coach Kyle Shanahan is on track to become the next Bill Belichick. His time around his father, Mike, and the teams Mike coached helped Kyle’s preparation for his current career.
You are missing the point that more than one thing can be relevant. We can very well be opening a new frontier in the sport's history, a new era, while also having them be fully qualified and ready to fill the position as well as anyone else. It's fine to focus on firsts. You don't need to immediately jump in questioning it with no actual cause. Now, if you have dug into it and found significant evidence that these women are NOT qualified - then bring it up. Until that point, all you are doing is baselessly throwing shade on, and let's be real and honest, nothing more than gender. I'm asking the same question about all these silly "well IF she has qualifications" posts.