Afraid to say it but you can't really trust the search engines here. sometimes they are dead on and others they do exactly what you just said.

I don't know the in's and out's of the rule, but if a team can demonstrate that it made an effort to schedule interviews with a minority candidate, I would think the NFL would waive the rule. I mean, what would Pioli have to do, put an ad in the Classifieds of the KC Star asking for the first minority to show up at Arrowhead for a Head Coaching interview?

Here's another thought. If current demographic trends continue and we eventually have more people of Hispanic descent, would Mike Shanahan count as a minority candidate?

The rule may have outlived its usefulness, but I don't think it's a coincidence that the NFL has improved markedly with black head coach hires and yet the NCAA has such a low representation of black coaches for major D-1 teams.
If black coaches are becoming so successful in the NFL, then why aren't we seeing more of them on the college level?

I don't think it's a bad rule. It forced teams to at least become aware of the diversity problem, and it was a very big problem previously. The reason the Rooney rule existed was because black assistants in the 70's, 80's, and early 90's were not given jobs they deserved because of racially prejudiced owners and GMs. The problem doesn't exist today and I think that's largely due to the Rooney rule.

The NCAA, on the other hand, is still a huge step behind.

I'm not for affirmative action, but if we are going to have it, it makes more sense to have it in the pros. That Gunther could get another job after his disgraceful performance with us show to me the level of cronyism in the NFL. I don't think that's the case in college.

What's interesting is how much power the fans ("boosters") have in college football. No way Herm could have lasted as long as he did if "boosters" controlled the Chiefs.