Welcome to Our Forums. Once you've registered and logged in, you're primed to talk football, among other topics, with the sharpest and most experienced fantasy players on the internet.
Ok. I'd argue that the $ amount is inconsequential in promoting/deterring behavior change, but as you aptly put it above, we'll get derailed here.Culture change is the thrust of this thread. OP doesn't like it. I do. Or, at least I like the direction the NFL is moving toward.
This has been my argument all along amongst my circle of friends. The money is secondary to the accolades from other players and from their coaches (who are father figures to a good number of these kids). Praise is an EXCEPTIONALLY strong motivator, especially in a close-knit social situation like a team lockerroom. Yes, the "illegal" aspect of the bounties (per the NFL rules) was the additional money, but Goodell is taking aim at the non-monetary motivators because he feels, as do many of us, that it doesn't belong in the arena of professional sports.
People collude in $50 leagues. People collude in free leagues. There are plenty of reported instances of wealthy athletes not wanting to pay paltry sums like the cost of a meal.Though really the dollar worth of the bounty is a minor issue. It completely neglects a much more major player motivation - pleasing the coach. The coach is the one who decides who gets playing time, who gets to keep their job, who gets cut, and how much a player is worth in his contract. There is great truth to the statement that athletes are conditioned to please their coach, especially in football, and an NFL player's financial livelihood is very tied to doing so.
Not really sure what Nowinski meant by the NFL fighting him tooth and nail. One of his first contributions as a commissioner, 6 months into his regime, was to push for the first ever concussion summit, requiring the medical staff from every NFL team to attend and made baseline neuropsychological testing a requirement. Since then, return to play guidelines have been established for the first time. Again, tags was agnostic to the whole concussion issue, and in fact resembled the tobacco industry in its head-in-the-sand approach to cigarettes and cancer. It's very difficult to make the same argument for Goodell. He gets it.
I thought about deleting my comment after reading Doug's response, thinking maybe he had a point and I did not want to step on the thread.But then I see the resposnse and I re-read MOP's post and so yes I am thinking about the culture conflict (or civil war) that may or may not be brewing.
Really glad you pointed out that Goodell did NOT go public with this before. Boy, it really slams home the point that Goodell has done everything in his power to keep this from the public. Goodell went public when he had to, after everyone involved with the Saints lied, and he was sure punishments were going to be handed out.
Exactly
That's my point. I'm not saying you proved my point SN, not at all. Sure, for the record I believe Goodell is trying to curb concussions and injuries within the game, almost no doubt about it. However I believe his reasons are very insincere.
Well-written hatchet job. LeBetard's theory that the NFL is somehow dragging this out to keep it in the news is funny, at best. His proof, that the NFL broke its own scandal, is a joke. He knows normally it is the media that breaks stories. No one had this scoop, the NFL couldn't keep it a secret ANY LONGER, as punishments were coming, and broke their own story. On a Friday, the best chance of a story dying, BTW. This was a massive story, the fact that it wasn't wrapped up quickly should have been expected. If LeBetard wants to compare of to past scandals, which he didn't I noticed, it may have lent some credence to his baseless speculation.
Thanks
You just unintentionally highlighted what the cultural battle is.The NFL does not pay players to cause or exacerbate injures. The NFL plays players to play hard and try to win their games cleanly.
You have no idea what you are talking about.
Well, ok, point understood.But if so this goes one way or the other: either MOP is right and there will now be a chilling effect in NFL lockers rooms and on the field where coaches and players will be too afraid to appear to be targeting other players, which will lead to a ping-pong like or Arena style of play, OR the players will still be just as incentivized as ever to take out other players.
I did?
Could you point me to where I said that? Or point to where anyone said it, for that matter.
Then you shouldn't need to post that
I think saying it's going to significantly change the physicality of the game towards ping pong or Arena is hyperbole.Institutionalized encouragement to injure from the teams may (should) go away. The same incentive (winning) is there as before, only now there is a big enough punishment most teams won't want to get caught at it. Teams will likely shy away from that, fearing a whistle blower. Individual players like a James Harrison who have done it whether on their own or under coach guidance, will continue to do it. Because it's not that hard to hide the intent to injure someone else in the violence of football as long as you aren't an idiot in how you go about it. Even if it looks like you're doing it, it's difficult to sufficiently prove that you did without someone supplying evidence. It took the Saints basically telling the Vikings they'd targeted Favre for an investigation to happen that didn't find proof, until the whistle blower. That's why it happens in football and not so much baseball or basketball. They have the same incentive (winning) in those sports, they just don't play in sports with enough contact to be able to hide it and get the benefit of the doubt.I'm sure there will be less head hunting, but it's silly to think it would go away when the people doing it before were already willing to break the rules to do it. It'll just come down to how likely they think they'll be caught. For an individual player acting on his own, that's not very likely.
100% agree with this. Players already were trying to make Goodell out to be a Shawshank Prison Warden and on some level they should take solace in the fact he was harsh to the coaches and those in charge...however when the player suspensions come I have a feeling there will be some fines handed out for tweets commenting on those suspensions.
For a guy still angling for a FBG gig, I would expect you to be rooted in facts. The criticism of Goodell is not in this regard.Then you shouldn't need to post that
I don't believe timchochet is interested in responding to in depth queries. He is a hit-and-run poster, at best; complexities like the ones you raised here fall outside the realm of his monologue shtick. Personally, it's hard for me to find fault with the way he dealt with the head injury issue (e.g. substantive rule changes, commission of concussions, engagement with the BU BU Brain Bank, etc.), Spygate (whacked the Pats pretty hard), Bountygate (whacked the Saints pretty hard), the lockout (no loss of a season, let alone meaningful games; better cap system, long-term deal), television contracts (even more money than before), and strong discipline for off-the-field mishaps (but always seems to give an opening for redemption).'Greg Russell said:
Hey MOP, you need to refresh your memory on the Bengals before Goodell. That's probably a good starting point.We don't have that jazz now.It does not matter whether he is solely responsible for things, he gets the credit and blame as is the way of society so he gets credit here. He did meet with them, he met with certain players there and in NYC.Oh here, good perspective point- Every now and then a radio announcer incorrectly states that Pac Man was drafted by the Bengals.We had Little getting convicted of manslaughter or vehicular manslaughter or some such.The Pacman stuff.Whizzinator was several years before but a point nonetheless.Henry committed suicide and while many people do in society, that's awful odd when you work a dream job and are a millionaire. If there was someone that friends, family, teammates, and psychologists could have helped (and thus save) I think it would have been Henry. Further before, Korey Stringer passed away and still to this day we have practice health discussions and procedures so it's relevant.BB and Eric Mangini were up to no good with video cameras to try and get an unfair advantage.Retirees were barking as they saw some of their buddies struggling to survive while "everyone" in the NFL is loaded.Fred Taylor supposedly lost money his first few years in the league because of a slimy shark that preyed on him and his own poor decision.Shanny and BB made us clueless to injuries and it was very frustrating for us and the reporters that covered games.I disagreed, but people had issues with kickoffs.Chop blocks was a topic here for like 3 months, even when it died, it would arise again after some questionable block.Some teams cried they didn't have money while others were making it hand over fist.Owners whined about their stadiums and there has never been so many new ones in NFL history.NFLE was struggling and had to be dealt with. He made a tough call to shut the league down and thus leave Germany with nothing. I believe this was a poor decision and yeah this sentence is way oversimplified.A senator got nosey and involved in the NFL and players were before Congress.Hurricane Katrina destroyed a team's home, yet somehow the stadium was also a saving grace for thousands of people to survive. This in and of itself is a great story.A strike was averted maybe a year after the NFLPA lost their chief.The internet and the NFL brings up thousands of issues he had to deal with.*********OK so there's plenty of things, far more than I mentioned, but for me it's all the "black eye on the NFL" stuff that he has gone after. I applaud him for that.I believed many teams videotaped improperly and just that the Pats got caught. OC were covering their mouths for a reason, Landry used to and...blah blah blah.I found your "following orders" bit to be a copout. The Saints did what they did, that's it. There have been so many stories of bounties to get Favre when he was in the league, that I'm going to believe one of them was true but just not proven. Biographies of former NFL players often speak of bounties. I think the Saints weren't the only ones, they just got caught.Whether it's a former boss you had or a viewpoint on our government, not every CEO addresses every problem. Goodell does and tries his best. God Bless him for that.I don't agree with the guy every time and he's surely raised an eyebrow or two, but it is extremely obvious how dedicated he is to the league and the game.
I don't think people have a problem with him cracking down on players who get in trouble. I think him being inconsistent is an issue. But no one wants people injured, people paying bounties, people cheating and filming other teams illegally. When people disagree with Goodell everyone always goes to the extremes and says its because we want violent football and have no concerns for the players. Get real. Goodell is like the Catholic church. Its all about having too much power and making too much money. Divorce is BAD, butttt you can get married again for a fee. Hitting a QB is bad butttt all you have to do is pay a fee. How about this, start suspending players for a quarter or a half. Maybe a game depending on the severity of the hit. But just charging the player $75,000 just looks like you just want the money. Its obviously not getting the point across, so if he REALLY cares about safety and not money then hit the players where it hurts, in game time. BUT that might hurt his "business" to have entertainers missing time. To add to that, players getting fined $5,000 for the wrong socks doesn't help the NFLs case of not seeming like a money hungry control freak. Secondly, concussions are part of the game and will be part of the game. The only thing you can do is teach player safety. Start having coaching clinics for highschools that teach coaches how to teach players proper safety. Put more money in to safer equipment, make players go to seminars about concussions so they are informed. Start increasing the length of time a player is out after a concussion. Why the hell was Williams, the SF WR, out on the field to be targeted in the first place???? Oh, cause we want our product to be on the field, and when injuries get worse we will just fine them, cause its all about the money. Football is a violent sport by nature, so is boxing, so is MMA, so is hockey. You don't go into any of those sports without knowing that the risk of getting long term injuries is very high. The players ALL know that, especially now in the wake of the concussion issue. And guess what.... they all still CHOSE to play. People who work with asbestos get paid good money, they know the risks and they willing chose the job because the reward of good pay.I'm not saying that they should just go out and kill each other. Dirty hits, late hit, cheap shots, bounties, face masks, etc have no place in this game. But hard hits, cleaning out a WR, actually being able to TACKLE a QB, putting a shoulder into a guy, these are all part of the game and what its made of. He's changing the game to save his own butt and to make more money and that's not ok. Yes, be aware of the risks and take steps to make things better but not at the risk of changing the game. There is so much money going around this league that there has to be more they can do besides taking away dangerous plays. MMA is a dangerous sport and people love the nature of the sport. You can't take kicking out because it does too much damage, or add more padding to the gloves, cause then its just boxing. You can't take checking out of hockey or not play on ice because of the injuries it creates. At this rate, what is going to be left in football that makes it football? What happens when it gets to the point where the QB is just two hand touch, or you can't lead with your shoulder pads either just arm tackles and hand blocks, lineman have to start in a standing position to remove risks of head collisions? I know these all seem silly but where does it stop? Concussions will still happen and if you keep trying to do whatever you can to get rid of them then there really isn't a stopping point.
Something's a`brewin' here, not sure what:>>>“The NFLPA was aware of the existence of the Gregg Williams audio prior to its release,” the statement read. “We learned of the tape as part of our effort to obtain any and all information related to an alleged pay-to-injure scheme. We had no control of the content and did not make a determination on the method of its release. To date, the NFL has not provided the NFLPA with detailed evidence of the existence of such a program.”<<<
You know all those fines go to charity right, not into Goodell's pocket?
Fair enough. But it obviously doesn't effect these players. They have enough money that they aren't worried about the fines. Taking away game play is the way to go if he wants to get serious.
7/5/12 NYT:"A lawsuit was filed against the N.F.L. by the players union on behalf of three suspended players ...""The lawsuit asserts Goodell violated the collective bargaining agreement by presiding over the appeal hearings and by denying the players access to “critical documents or witnesses.” ""“On some level, the case may turn on that: Did the N.F.L.P.A. concede absolute dictatorial power to the commissioner to do anything?” said Lee Adler, a professor at Cornell’s School of Industrial and Labor Relations, who has no connection to the bounty case but has been involved with labor litigation for more than 35 years. "http://www.nytimes.com/2012/07/06/sports/football/nfl-commissioner-goodell-showed-bias-in-bounty-scandal-union-asserts.htmlThat's kind of where I was going with that.Goodell met not only with Fujita and Brees but Union leaders generally. Brees has filed an affidavit in Vilma's case and Fujita (now of the Browns, with the Packers' Hargrove and Will Smith) has also filed suit.There are Union issues overlapping here.
Im pretty sure the 31 owners and TT of GB trust Roger, the players dont really matter in football, havent for a long time, its the logo on the side of the helmets and the NFL shield.
So because Brees says it...we should all dislike him?Aaron Rodgers disagreed with him...so should I not believe him?
Your logic and premise are horribly flawed but I'm glad to see someone point out the ridiculousness of the "protect the shield" mindset in here.
For the time being.
Why do people keep saying this? They were NOT overturned. The panel determined that the commisioner had authority over only half the stated reason the players were suspended. The commisioner still has the right to suspend for the half he had jurisdiction over...and ANOTHER ENTITY can suspend or take action for the other half.This was anything but a clean win for the players.'Ministry of Pain said:
That doesn't make any sense. Either you aren't really paying attention or you're deliberately being obtuse. Don't let your hate of the NFL interfere with understanding what's really going on.'cobalt_27 said:Down goes Tyson!
"For the time being."
Hey Rene that's cool and I appreciate you pointing this out. Drew Brees was pretty candid yesterday, I was happy the players are eligible for Sunday. Maybe things will turn bad for these folks anyways like you say but for today I think it was a big lift to a lot of players.
Wait, the players lost?
When all is said and done, the players could end up wishing they had "lost". Goodell can still suspend them for "Conduct detrimental" while another entity can suspend them for cap violations. It's possible (though admittedly highly unlikely) that the punishments could get worse for these players rather than better. The common perception seems to be that they got off...and that's extremely misleading. A more likely result is that they still receive significant suspensions (say 75% of the original)for conduct detrimental and a hand-slap fine (at the most) from the other entity for the relatively minor cap violations.
"NFL needs arbitrator working with Roger Goodell on discipline issues"http://sports.yahoo.com/news/nfl--nfl-needs-arbitrator-working-with-roger-goodell-on-discipline-issues.htmlThat was a great call MOP. Personally, I would have no problem with Goodell being a bad ### mother####er when it comes to discipline IF he were consistent about it. The only consistency I've seen so far is you can cheat by stealing plays or taking performance enhancing drugs, you can tarnish the image of the league by hitting your gf or driving drunk or running over a guy with your car for that matter and get a slap on the wrist. The one thing you don't ever, ever want to do is make Goodell look bad. Go to NY and lie to him(Vick) or fail to cooperate(Saints) and you get the death penalty. Maybe I'm alone on this but I think players/coaches should be disciplined based on their misconduct on and off the field, but bruising the ego of the commissioner shouldn't draw the biggest penalty of all. NOBODY should be more important than the league itself, not the players, coaches, and certainly not the commissioner. My $0.02.
Goodell has some fatal flaws -- the biggest being his inability to serve up appropriately measured responses to crises (perceived or real). Intransigence would be another -- sometimes you ARE wrong, Roger.
Can't they both suck equally?
