The Wonderlic Test to be Eliminated, New Fines, etc.

[MothersMilk]

https://apnews.com/article/nfl-sports-e786d7cb0c9903cd7936c1a2118b2f7b?utm_campaign=SocialFlow&utm_medium=AP_NFL&utm_source=Twitter

[B-Man]

 

1 hour ago, Ann said:

NFL teams could lose draft pick for interview violations

The NFL has issued a warning to teams that they could lose a draft pick and face significant fines if club representatives conduct themselves unprofessionally in interviews with draft prospects.
 

In a memo obtained by the AP that was sent to clubs on Wednesday, the league said a team would forfeit a draft pick between the first and fourth round and be fined a minimum of $150,000 if it’s determined a club representative displayed conduct that is “disrespectful, inappropriate, or unprofessional” during an interview. Fines and/or suspensions of individual club employees also could be imposed, according to the memo.
 

“We aim for dignity, respect and professionalism,” league executive Troy Vincent told the AP. “It’s that simple.”
 

The league also plans to eliminate the Wonderlic test for prospective players, and it is revising some of its scouting combine drills to better simulate game-related movement. Wide receivers and tight ends will run crossing routes instead of wheel routes, and running backs will run option routes instead of corner and post-corner routes.
 

</snip>

 

 

Well if I was an Owner/General Manager I would say "the NFL be damned" and find some way around these restrictions.

 

I am not investing millions in an employee who has low intelligence an cannot work as a team player.

 

 

 

 

[MothersMilk]

19 minutes ago, B-Man said:

 

 

 

Well if I was an Owner/General Manager I would say "the NFL be damned" and find some way around these restrictions.

 

I am not investing millions in an employee who has low intelligence an cannot work as a team player.

 

 

 

 

Or a snafu at a podium or interview... who knows what words will come out of someone else's mouth. Hell, they could fine Belichick every week for being unprofessional with his post game pressers lol.

 

Btw, I didn't know this was being discussed already so sorry for a repeat.

[B-Man]

5 minutes ago, MothersMilk said:

Or a snafu at a podium or interview... who knows what words will come out of someone else's mouth. Hell, they could fine Belichick every week for being unprofessional with his post game pressers lol.

 

Btw, I didn't know this was being discussed already so sorry for a repeat.

 

 

No problem MM. It could always use a separate thread. 👍

 

 

[Arm of Harm]

The only legitimate reason to get rid of the Wonderlic is if you’re replacing it with a better intelligence test. That does not appear to be what’s happening here. Easy to turn a blind eye to the NFL’s increasingly political and ideological agenda. To pretend it doesn’t affect the game. But here we have a purely political change which will make the game strictly worse. 

[KD in CA]

The dumbing down of America continues.  50 years people were famous and respected for being intelligent.  Today it’s ‘unfair’ or ‘racist’ or some other such bullish—.

 

Don’t need SATs to go to college anymore either.  Color of your skin is far more important than an objective test of what you’ve learned.

[Chandemonium]

1 hour ago, B-Man said:

 

 

 

Well if I was an Owner/General Manager I would say "the NFL be damned" and find some way around these restrictions.

 

I am not investing millions in an employee who has low intelligence an cannot work as a team player.

 

 

 

 

I don’t agree with this rule change, but I’m not following your logic either. Why does discerning if someone is a team player or not require being disrespectful to that person?

[B-Man]

 

17 minutes ago, Chandemonium said:

I don’t agree with this rule change, but I’m not following your logic either. Why does discerning if someone is a team player or not require being disrespectful to that person?

 

Perhaps I put it poorly. It doesn't "require" being disrespectful, but limiting questions because they are perceived as disrespectful is a problem

 

I mean that attempt by those who want to to do away with the interview process because some jerk asked an inappropriate question in 2010 and another in 2016 (their only examples given)

is the "problem" really that rampant then ??

 

 When I interviewed anyone for a position, you HAD to get by the standard answers to make sure that they were going to fit in as a productive member of the team. 

 

 

 

[snafu]

2 hours ago, B-Man said:

 

 

 

Well if I was an Owner/General Manager I would say "the NFL be damned" and find some way around these restrictions.

 

I am not investing millions in an employee who has low intelligence an cannot work as a team player.

 

 

 

 

 

Could always ask the school for a transcript of the kid's grades, BWAHAHAHAAA!

 

 

[Chandemonium]

38 minutes ago, B-Man said:

 

 

Perhaps I put it poorly. It doesn't "require" being disrespectful, but limiting questions because they are perceived as disrespectful is a problem

 

I mean that attempt by those who want to to do away with the interview process because some jerk asked an inappropriate question in 2010 and another in 2016 (their only examples given)

is the "problem" really that rampant then ??

 

 When I interviewed anyone for a position, you HAD to get by the standard answers to make sure that they were going to fit in as a productive member of the team. 

 

 

 

Thanks for clarifying, that makes sense. I definitely have a problem with the league appointing itself the thought police over what is considered a disrespectful interview question and think that rule change is a solution in search of a problem, I just thought the apparent association between disrespectful interviewer conduct and finding out if someone would be a team player was odd. 

[Ann]

1 hour ago, MothersMilk said:

Or a snafu at a podium or interview... who knows what words will come out of someone else's mouth. Hell, they could fine Belichick every week for being unprofessional with his post game pressers lol.

 

Btw, I didn't know this was being discussed already so sorry for a repeat.

Stuff gets lost in that NFL thread. It is good to have a stand alone on this subject.

[Fansince88]

Hey!!!! I qualify now!!!!

[Foxx]

2 hours ago, KD in CA said:

The dumbing down of America continues.  50 years people were famous and respected for being intelligent.  Today it’s ‘unfair’ or ‘racist’ or some other such bullish—.

 

Don’t need SATs to go to college anymore either.  Color of your skin is far more important than an objective test of what you’ve learned.

I guess we have reached the point where Martin Luther King is being canceled now. We can no longer consider intelligence as part of ones character. Who knew Idiocracy was a prophetic documentary.

 

As for college degrees, we have handed out participation trophies in youth sports for decades now. Is it any wonder that that mindset has worked it's way up the societal evolutionary chain?

 

 

[Crap Throwing Clavin]

1 hour ago, B-Man said:

 

 

Perhaps I put it poorly. It doesn't "require" being disrespectful, but limiting questions because they are perceived as disrespectful is a problem

 

I mean that attempt by those who want to to do away with the interview process because some jerk asked an inappropriate question in 2010 and another in 2016 (their only examples given)

is the "problem" really that rampant then ??

 

 When I interviewed anyone for a position, you HAD to get by the standard answers to make sure that they were going to fit in as a productive member of the team. 

 

 

 

 

And I'm guessing there's no objective definition of "disrespectful, inappropriate, or unprofessional,” and it's entirely at the discretion of the offended party and the league.

 

I have no problem enforcing standards of conduct.  But if prior history is any guide, this will be a complete lack of a standard of conduct, simply for being arbitrary.

[Core Four]

Good thing Jeff Ireland is no longer an NFL GM, looks like you can no longer ask the next Dez Bryant if his mom is a prostitute.

[3rdnlng]

What might seem disrespectful or inappropriate can include questions that give the interviewer answers that the interviewee doesn't even know they are giving. Back in the day I was given what they called  a Life Orientation Survey as part of the interview process for a management position. The survey targeted 4 different personality aspects under two different levels of pressure. The four different personality aspects were Leadership, Teamwork, Salesmanship and Attention to Detail. The same basic questions were asked in a relaxed way and also in a way that put the person being "tested" under pressure. The whole idea was to see if the tested would answer the same way under pressure as they would when they are relaxed. Let's say they asked if you were kind to your wife. The answer is pretty easy to come up with. Well, the corresponding question to that is to put you under pressure and ask if you beat your wife often. Not knowing what they were up to and that the questions were related placed you in a difficult position. Obviously the "right" answer to correspond with the answer that you were kind to your wife was to respond that you didn't beat your wife often. In affect though, my answers were consistent regardless of whether or not I was under pressure. 

 

After being hired I asked a few questions about the survey. I found out that I scored high and very consistent on three of the categories but scored low but still consistent in the Salesmanship category. When I stated that I thought I was pretty good in sales I was told that it was very possible, I just had to sell something I believed in. Well, the whole idea of asking the ridiculous questions was to ascertain if I would lie under pressure and they found a way to ask it that I had to answer truthfully.