3 strikes you're out rule (1 Viewer)

[Bri]

A group of NFL players is suggesting a "three strikes, you're out" policy toward off-field problems, ESPN reported.

Gene Upshaw, head of the NFL players association, said Monday on ESPN Radio that he and commissioner Roger Goodell had considered such a policy, but they wanted player input. So they met with the NFL's league conduct advisory committee, a group of players, ESPN reported.

"That surprised me," Upshaw said, ESPN reported. "But there was a feeling in the room that the same guy can't be in the wrong place at the wrong time three or four times."

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/17344633/

 

[David Yudkin]

They talked about this all morning on Mike & Mike. I suspect they will have a tough time ironing out the language and the particulars as to what a strike is.

 

[massraider]

Who on earth ever decreed that these guys have to be nice people in order to make a living? I don't get it.

 

[Couch Potato]

Who on earth ever decreed that these guys have to be nice people in order to make a living? I don't get it.

But these NFL players are my role models.

 

[fridayfrenzy]

Who on earth ever decreed that these guys have to be nice people in order to make a living? I don't get it.

Ummm, probably the people paying them. When these players look bad, the NFL looks bad.

 

[Chase Stuart]

Who on earth ever decreed that these guys have to be nice people in order to make a living? I don't get it.

I've always thought this way. If anything, I've always assumed that these sorts of measures would decrease the quality of on-field play, which is a terrible thing. If Carson Palmer gets three strikes, the NFL fan suffers through decreased QB play. If we lose a few stars a year to this rule, that would make the league less talented, overall.I just started thinking about this in another way, though, in a way that might increase the quality of on-field play. Presumably there are some NFL talents that are upset with the image that all NFL players are thugs. While most people with the ability to play in the NFL most likely will do so no matter what, some players can do other things (like play another sport). An increased reputation for the NFL league wide might attract more of the game's best players, especially in a sport where intelligence and work ethic is highly valued.

 

[stbugs]

Who on earth ever decreed that these guys have to be nice people in order to make a living? I don't get it.

I think the smart NFL players who realize that they don't want to be like MLB or NHL and cancel seasons/playoffs and screw themselves over with the fans and the smart NFL players who realize that they don't want to end up like the NBA and start jumping into the stands to fight with fans.Maybe the NFL players realize that they are the #1 sport in the US and they don't want a handful of screwups to ruin the sport that makes them millions. Not sure about you, but if I realized that I had some bad apples in my company, I would rather them not be there as well.If you don't realize that the news feeds on the one bad apple instead of looking at the 100 just fine apples, then that is why you don't understand that the NFL and people that work for them, like most players, want to make sure that they look as good as possible so fans, i.e. $$$$, don't go elsewhere.

 

[BigSteelThrill]

Who on earth ever decreed that these guys have to be nice people in order to make a living? I don't get it.

Its a business. And you are a representative of that business all the time.And in this business nothing happens "quietly" so you have to make sure your representation meets your boss's standards.

 

[massraider]

Who on earth ever decreed that these guys have to be nice people in order to make a living? I don't get it.

Ummm, probably the people paying them. When these players look bad, the NFL looks bad.

Ummm, then they shouldn't need rules, should they?If the guys signing the checks are that upset, then I am sure Pac-man Jones will have a hard time finding a job. Or Chris Henry. Or Tank Johnson. Or Corey Dillon.Or Michael Irvin.Or Cris Carter.

 

[stbugs]

Who on earth ever decreed that these guys have to be nice people in order to make a living? I don't get it.

I've always thought this way. If anything, I've always assumed that these sorts of measures would decrease the quality of on-field play, which is a terrible thing. If Carson Palmer gets three strikes, the NFL fan suffers through decreased QB play. If we lose a few stars a year to this rule, that would make the league less talented, overall.I just started thinking about this in another way, though, in a way that might increase the quality of on-field play. Presumably there are some NFL talents that are upset with the image that all NFL players are thugs. While most people with the ability to play in the NFL most likely will do so no matter what, some players can do other things (like play another sport). An increased reputation for the NFL league wide might attract more of the game's best players, especially in a sport where intelligence and work ethic is highly valued.

OK, well first of all, horrible example. Is Palmer, Brady, McNabb, Manning, Harrison, Holt, LT, etc. the first set of guys that you think will be impacted?I understand you're backpeddling in the second paragraph, but let's be honest, which stud players are you really worried about losing? Oh, you mean Chris Henry, Koren Robinson, Onterrio Smith et al? I think even TO and Randy Moss are smart enough to know that they would lose their living.

The guys that would really be impacted by this are the guys that already lose time to suspensions and will play themselves out of the league anyway. If they aren't smart enough to realize they could lose their livelihood then they are probably the set of guys that aren't smart enough to not waste their talent already.

Personally, I don't think this will amount to anything more than the drug program already does, but it will give the perception that the NFL is tough on crime, so to speak and perception is really all that matters in their business.

 

[massraider]

Who on earth ever decreed that these guys have to be nice people in order to make a living? I don't get it.

Maybe the NFL players realize that they are the #1 sport in the US and they don't want a handful of screwups to ruin the sport that makes them millions. Not sure about you, but if I realized that I had some bad apples in my company, I would rather them not be there as well.If you don't realize that the news feeds on the one bad apple instead of looking at the 100 just fine apples, then that is why you don't understand that the NFL and people that work for them, like most players, want to make sure that they look as good as possible so fans, i.e. $$$$, don't go elsewhere.

The NFL and MLB are healthier than they've ever been, setting attendance records and expanding every chance they get.Bad apples have been around a long time, and have been covered with pretty much the same media attention the last 20 years.I won't buy this line of reasoning with no evidence to back it up. There is nothing to suggest that bad players hurt the bottom line. In fact, if said player is charismatic, and can turn it around, well, then he's Michael Irvin, Hall of Famer, and TV personality.I don't expect this to be a popular opinion, but fans have shown they want wins more than role models. And so have owners.

 

[fridayfrenzy]

I don't expect this to be a popular opinion, but fans have shown they want wins more than role models. And so have owners.

But whats so bad about trying to have both? How will this rule negatively affect the bottom line?? It won't. This move can only help the league have a more positive spin on its brand and thus help the bottom line.

 

[fridayfrenzy]

The NFL and MLB are healthier than they've ever been, setting attendance records and expanding every chance they get.

Just cause they are the healthest they have ever been, doesn't mean they should stop trying to improve their product. Thats a ridiculous argument. The reason they are as healthy is because of the changes they are making, this is just an example of one of those changes.

 

[phthalatemagic]

Who on earth ever decreed that these guys have to be nice people in order to make a living? I don't get it.

Because they've seen image issues hurt similar products, such as the NBA?What I'd like to know is why use another sport's cliche? Instead of three strikes and you're out, how about 4 downs and you start playing defense? I guess it's not as catchy

 

[stbugs]

I don't expect this to be a popular opinion, but fans have shown they want wins more than role models. And so have owners.

But whats so bad about trying to have both? How will this rule negatively affect the bottom line?? It won't. This move can only help the league have a more positive spin on its brand and thus help the bottom line.

Do you think it really helps the NFL image to have a handful of players, easily replaceable as well, in the headlines for being criminals?To think that losing Tank Johnson, Chris Henry and possibly Pac-man Jones will have any affect at all, compared to the positive press from taking a tough stance on them, is silly. Who cares? Maybe the rules in place would actually make a guy like Henry realize that he might want to be a responsible citizen to keep working and making $$$.

 

[phthalatemagic]

I guess it's naive for me to say that if the legal system worked correctly, the bad guys wouldn't have a chance to be playing in the NFL because they'd be busy serving time, but I guess that's another thread :(

 

[massraider]

The NFL and MLB are healthier than they've ever been, setting attendance records and expanding every chance they get.

Just cause they are the healthest they have ever been, doesn't mean they should stop trying to improve their product. Thats a ridiculous argument.

That would be a ridiculous argument, if I were making it.I'm not saying that the NFL shouldn't try and improve their product. But I don't think banning players from the league for being a jerk is going to improve on-field production, or off-field revenue.But if we are talking strictly dollars here, then there is no evidence, at all, that having a league full of swell guys is good for business.Are Mike Vick jerseys not selling in Atlanta? I'm willing to bet those #7 jerseys are one of the top sellers. In fact, how many people were trying to buy Ron Mexico jerseys?

 

[massraider]

Who on earth ever decreed that these guys have to be nice people in order to make a living? I don't get it.

Because they've seen image issues hurt similar products, such as the NBA?

4 out of 5 former NBA fans will tell you they no longer watch because the product on the court is crap to watch.

 

[massraider]

I guess it's naive for me to say that if the legal system worked correctly, the bad guys wouldn't have a chance to be playing in the NFL because they'd be busy serving time, but I guess that's another thread :(

I don't think anyone thinks it's a perfect system, but there is the novel idea of letting the legal system do its thing. It's so easy for a fan sitting at home to think it's a great idea to take away a million dollar living from a 20-something kid for doing something stupid. A bar fight, caught smoking weed, and an unregistered gun, let's say. For that, he loses his livelihood? Please.Don't get me wrong. I'm not going to feel bad if Pac-Man's career is over. Peter King said in his column that if a 3rd of what they say is true about Pac-Man is true, he should be gone. But that is an extreme case of a guy that should probably go to prison.The NFL is entertainment, these guys aren't doctors and lawyers.

 

[DropKick]

Who on earth ever decreed that these guys have to be nice people in order to make a living? I don't get it.

Ummm, probably the people paying them. When these players look bad, the NFL looks bad.

Ummm, then they shouldn't need rules, should they?If the guys signing the checks are that upset, then I am sure Pac-man Jones will have a hard time finding a job. Or Chris Henry. Or Tank Johnson. Or Corey Dillon.Or Michael Irvin.Or Cris Carter.

Corey Dillon may not be a choir boy, but what is the extent of his indiscretions in the NFL? Public run-ins with team management? Not even unusual for Cincy. I also take exception to mention of Cris Carter. His early drug problems pale to the commitment to the game and work ethic he demonstrated.Dillon and Carter don't belong in the same category as these other morons. What I find shocking is the extreme behavior on display; Booze, guns, drugs, violence, etc. past the point of unbelievable. This is a definite black eye for the league. And, IMO, should not be tolerated.

 

[Spartans Rule]

Who on earth ever decreed that these guys have to be nice people in order to make a living? I don't get it.

Ummm, probably the people paying them. When these players look bad, the NFL looks bad.

Ummm, then they shouldn't need rules, should they?If the guys signing the checks are that upset, then I am sure Pac-man Jones will have a hard time finding a job. Or Chris Henry. Or Tank Johnson. Or Corey Dillon.Or Michael Irvin.Or Cris Carter.

There's no need for a leaguewide rule here. Teams can police themselves. If they choose not to, then there's really no problem.

 

[Chase Stuart]

Who on earth ever decreed that these guys have to be nice people in order to make a living? I don't get it.

Ummm, probably the people paying them. When these players look bad, the NFL looks bad.

Ummm, then they shouldn't need rules, should they?If the guys signing the checks are that upset, then I am sure Pac-man Jones will have a hard time finding a job. Or Chris Henry. Or Tank Johnson. Or Corey Dillon.Or Michael Irvin.Or Cris Carter.

There's no need for a leaguewide rule here. Teams can police themselves. If they choose not to, then there's really no problem.

Yes, this has been my view for awhile. But to the extent that not having a leaguewide rule will dissuade future players from devoting their lives towards competing in the NFL, teams can't police themselves and we as fans of the sport should want a leaguewide rule. Obviously, in the short-term such a rule will only dilute the talent base. For anyone that cares only about the on-field product (that would be me), how much you weigh each scenario determines where you come out on this.

 

[Spartans Rule]

I also take exception to mention of Cris Carter. His early drug problems pale to the commitment to the game and work ethic he demonstrated.

Funny you mention Carter. Had this rule existed during his career, he might have "struck out" before he ever got his head on straight.

 

[Chase Stuart]

The NFL is entertainment, these guys aren't doctors and lawyers.

What difference does it make if a doctor in his spare time likes to pistol whip bouncers or shoot at people, as long as he's good at what he does?

 

[Bri]

Who on earth ever decreed that these guys have to be nice people in order to make a living? I don't get it.

you equating someone not being arrested 3 times as someone that's nice is a little disturbing

 

[Spartans Rule]

But to the extent that not having a leaguewide rule will dissuade future players from devoting their lives towards competing in the NFL, teams can't police themselves and we as fans of the sport should want a leaguewide rule.

That could also cut the other way though, no? A more lenient attitude towards player behavior like the NBA has may be more appealing to some potential players.

 

[phthalatemagic]

4 out of 5 former NBA fans will tell you they no longer watch because the product on the court is crap to watch.

Maybe, you'll have to get with some NBA marketing people to know if their image problem hurt them. I think it did. It's not the only factor, but just because it may not be the primary one doens't mean it cannot have a solution.

 

[Bri]

I've always thought this way. If anything, I've always assumed that these sorts of measures would decrease the quality of on-field play, which is a terrible thing. If Carson Palmer gets three strikes, the NFL fan suffers through decreased QB play. If we lose a few stars a year to this rule, that would make the league less talented, overall.

3 stars getting arrested for 3 "serious" infractions would not happen often enough to cause 3 to leave the league each year. Cmon. Ok well that's my opinion. If you think the game could evolve to that, maybe that says something right there.

I just started thinking about this in another way, though, in a way that might increase the quality of on-field play. Presumably there are some NFL talents that are upset with the image that all NFL players are thugs. While most people with the ability to play in the NFL most likely will do so no matter what, some players can do other things (like play another sport). An increased reputation for the NFL league wide might attract more of the game's best players, especially in a sport where intelligence and work ethic is highly valued.

There are probably plenty of NFL players that donate their time and money to charities and are upset that some dope's DUI is on the front page of the sports section and their good deed gets a little blurb. I see those United Way commercials or Habitat for Humanity with NFL players and ...it's a shame our society buys newspapers for the negative press moreso than for the positive. There really are some good eggs out there if Chris Henry would just stop getting arrested we might hear about em'.

 

[massraider]

The NFL is entertainment, these guys aren't doctors and lawyers.

What difference does it make if a doctor in his spare time likes to pistol whip bouncers or shoot at people, as long as he's good at what he does?

One could argue no difference at all.But nonetheless, I think people can be forgiven for holding the guy that cuts them open to a higher standard than the guy they root for on TV.

 

[Chase Stuart]

But to the extent that not having a leaguewide rule will dissuade future players from devoting their lives towards competing in the NFL, teams can't police themselves and we as fans of the sport should want a leaguewide rule.

That could also cut the other way though, no? A more lenient attitude towards player behavior like the NBA has may be more appealing to some potential players.

Certainly. We just need to determine if in the aggregate, the quality of play in the league will increase or decrease as a result.

 

[massraider]

Who on earth ever decreed that these guys have to be nice people in order to make a living? I don't get it.

you equating someone not being arrested 3 times as someone that's nice is a little disturbing

Point well taken. I have known several bonehead pro athletes, I don't think any of them had arrest records.

 

[Bri]

The NFL has been in front of Congress alot more recently than I can ever recall. If they don't create a rule, I wouldn't be surprised if "Washington" starts meddling if this continues. Unless the Chargers and Bengals "grow up" someone will get involved. It's at the forefront of the news too much. Eventually someone in Washington will be looking for a little TV time and chime in here.

 

[bostonfred]

I think the quality of the NFL would go up as a result of this. The purpose of this rule isn't to get the true bad people out. It's to kick the ones who make bad decisions in the butt and get them back on the right track. I didn't make the best decisions when I was in my early twenties, and if I'd had millions of dollars I'd probably have done some stupid things too.

I don't think you can have language that says that you can boot the guy after three strikes, but I do think you can have language that says that after two strikes, the team can put you on notice. You can then appeal your second strike with an arbitrator, but once you get that second strike, you're on probation, and it's going to be very difficult to appeal your third strike. I think most players would act a lot differently after that first and second strike, just like I think most players act a lot differently after their first or second strike with drugs.

 

[radballs]

I think the quality of the NFL would go up as a result of this. The purpose of this rule isn't to get the true bad people out. It's to kick the ones who make bad decisions in the butt and get them back on the right track. I didn't make the best decisions when I was in my early twenties, and if I'd had millions of dollars I'd probably have done some stupid things too. I don't think you can have language that says that you can boot the guy after three strikes, but I do think you can have language that says that after two strikes, the team can put you on notice. You can then appeal your second strike with an arbitrator, but once you get that second strike, you're on probation, and it's going to be very difficult to appeal your third strike. I think most players would act a lot differently after that first and second strike, just like I think most players act a lot differently after their first or second strike with drugs.

 

[FunkyPlutos]

Anyone else click on this thread thinking it was a Matt Millen draft thread?

 

[Family Matters]

I thought this would become a hotly debated issue and it's clear that it has. What's also clear is that this is not a black and white issue. There's a lot of grey area that's comes with the phrase "behavior".

So are we as fans to expect that NFL or other pro athletes are to act better than we do? Are they to be held to a higher standard that we hold ourselves? Do we get fired from our jobs or suspended without pay if we do what we despise and criticize them for? I guess it depends. Some will say yes depending on where they work or the type of work they do and their employers rules.

Defining "3 strikes" may be a difficult challenge indeed. I know what they come up with will be debated hotly between the NFL and the union and between fans. But if they come up with anything that holds players accountable then that will be better than what they have today. I hope it's thorough enough to be effective because I think it will make a few important impacts:

1. Owners will do more diligence in their background checks and players acquisitions.

2. Players will become more motivated to make better decisions and perhaps be more discrete in what they do. After all, who knows what anyone does behind closed doors?

3. As fans we will appreciate the NFL for taking action to at least curtail bad behavior. Happy fans makes for a better NFL.

I don't know the answer but I know that I'm glad that the players themselves want to improve their behavior and I think that proves that the NFL and it's players want a better product and image for the their fans to be proud of. The fact that they are being proactive has already made an impact.

Finally, as a Bengals fan I find all the problems that we've had with our team to be a big disappointment and embarrassment. It's ironic however that it's a Bengal that has stepped up and demanded that something be done. As a Bengal fan and big fan of Carson Palmer, I couldn't be more proud.

 

[3nOut]

Who on earth ever decreed that these guys have to be nice people in order to make a living? I don't get it.

Noone is keeping them from making a living. I'm sure there are plenty of open positions available in the Canadian Football League, Arena League, or at McDonlad's. They just would lose their priveledge to work in the NFL.

 

[massraider]

Who on earth ever decreed that these guys have to be nice people in order to make a living? I don't get it.

Noone is keeping them from making a living. I'm sure there are plenty of open positions available in the Canadian Football League, Arena League, or at McDonlad's. They just would lose their priveledge to work in the NFL.

OK, I'll rephrase: Who decreed that these guys have to be nice people in order to make a living in the NFL?By the way, no one is stopping the owners from cutting them right now. They don't need to define a strike, the Titans can cut Pac Man right now.

So why don't they?

 

[Two Deep]

This should also apply to the general population if you are caught doing the same felonious act three times you should be found guilty as a habitual offender and executed. Now that is a law I can get behind.

 

[Family Matters]

Who on earth ever decreed that these guys have to be nice people in order to make a living? I don't get it.

Noone is keeping them from making a living. I'm sure there are plenty of open positions available in the Canadian Football League, Arena League, or at McDonlad's. They just would lose their priveledge to work in the NFL.

OK, I'll rephrase: Who decreed that these guys have to be nice people in order to make a living in the NFL?By the way, no one is stopping the owners from cutting them right now. They don't need to define a strike, the Titans can cut Pac Man right now.

So why don't they?

They could cut anyone but they'll pay a price to do so. First off they have to fight the union and they may or may not win because the CBA may not support their actions, I'm not sure how that would go. But it would be a fight and that's a shame if you ask me.Second, they would pay a price in their cap. Because of the way they designed the cap the price (while only on paper) would/might leave them in a position that they can't spend real dollars to replace him. Again, this need corrected.

 

[massraider]

Who on earth ever decreed that these guys have to be nice people in order to make a living? I don't get it.

Noone is keeping them from making a living. I'm sure there are plenty of open positions available in the Canadian Football League, Arena League, or at McDonlad's. They just would lose their priveledge to work in the NFL.

OK, I'll rephrase: Who decreed that these guys have to be nice people in order to make a living in the NFL?By the way, no one is stopping the owners from cutting them right now. They don't need to define a strike, the Titans can cut Pac Man right now.

So why don't they?

They could cut anyone but they'll pay a price to do so. First off they have to fight the union and they may or may not win because the CBA may not support their actions, I'm not sure how that would go. But it would be a fight and that's a shame if you ask me.Second, they would pay a price in their cap. Because of the way they designed the cap the price (while only on paper) would/might leave them in a position that they can't spend real dollars to replace him. Again, this need corrected.

Regarding the first reason, they they'll never have to fight the union to cut a player. They can cut anyone anytime they want. They'd fight the union if they want to fine a player or suspend him.The 2nd reason, yes, the cap implications are in issue for sure.

 

[Bri]

I thought this would become a hotly debated issue and it's clear that it has. What's also clear is that this is not a black and white issue. There's a lot of grey area that's comes with the phrase "behavior".So are we as fans to expect that NFL or other pro athletes are to act better than we do? Are they to be held to a higher standard that we hold ourselves? Do we get fired from our jobs or suspended without pay if we do what we despise and criticize them for? I guess it depends. Some will say yes depending on where they work or the type of work they do and their employers rules.Defining "3 strikes" may be a difficult challenge indeed. I know what they come up with will be debated hotly between the NFL and the union and between fans. But if they come up with anything that holds players accountable then that will be better than what they have today. I hope it's thorough enough to be effective because I think it will make a few important impacts:1. Owners will do more diligence in their background checks and players acquisitions.2. Players will become more motivated to make better decisions and perhaps be more discrete in what they do. After all, who knows what anyone does behind closed doors? 3. As fans we will appreciate the NFL for taking action to at least curtail bad behavior. Happy fans makes for a better NFL.I don't know the answer but I know that I'm glad that the players themselves want to improve their behavior and I think that proves that the NFL and it's players want a better product and image for the their fans to be proud of. The fact that they are being proactive has already made an impact. Finally, as a Bengals fan I find all the problems that we've had with our team to be a big disappointment and embarrassment. It's ironic however that it's a Bengal that has stepped up and demanded that something be done. As a Bengal fan and big fan of Carson Palmer, I couldn't be more proud.

The Bengals purposely draft those guys seeing them as value. They don't seem to care what happens off the field but that there's comraderie in the lockerroom/on the field. ESPN article not too long ago.Re behavior- No matter what is discussed by the NFL and NFLPA to be deemed a serious offense I think you can pretty much consider it a lock that any crime involving kids will be. One player recently got convicted(or maybe it was "just" charged?) of serving alcohol to minors. I'm confident that while that might be just a minor crime in society, the NFL +NFLPA will consider it a serious one.

 

[Bri]

Who on earth ever decreed that these guys have to be nice people in order to make a living? I don't get it.

Noone is keeping them from making a living. I'm sure there are plenty of open positions available in the Canadian Football League, Arena League, or at McDonlad's. They just would lose their priveledge to work in the NFL.

OK, I'll rephrase: Who decreed that these guys have to be nice people in order to make a living in the NFL?By the way, no one is stopping the owners from cutting them right now. They don't need to define a strike, the Titans can cut Pac Man right now.

So why don't they?

They could cut anyone but they'll pay a price to do so. First off they have to fight the union and they may or may not win because the CBA may not support their actions, I'm not sure how that would go. But it would be a fight and that's a shame if you ask me.Second, they would pay a price in their cap. Because of the way they designed the cap the price (while only on paper) would/might leave them in a position that they can't spend real dollars to replace him. Again, this need corrected.

Regarding the first reason, they they'll never have to fight the union to cut a player. They can cut anyone anytime they want. They'd fight the union if they want to fine a player or suspend him.The 2nd reason, yes, the cap implications are in issue for sure.

Mark Chmura was a good TE, he committed a crime, and his career was quickly over.Didn't Christian Peters stop playing because he couldn't find an employer shortly after the G-men?

 

[WhoDat]

Who on earth ever decreed that these guys have to be nice people in order to make a living? I don't get it.

Ummm, probably the people paying them. When these players look bad, the NFL looks bad.

Ummm, then they shouldn't need rules, should they?If the guys signing the checks are that upset, then I am sure Pac-man Jones will have a hard time finding a job. Or Chris Henry. Or Tank Johnson. Or Corey Dillon.Or Michael Irvin.Or Cris Carter.

Corey Dillon may not be a choir boy, but what is the extent of his indiscretions in the NFL? Public run-ins with team management? Not even unusual for Cincy. I also take exception to mention of Cris Carter. His early drug problems pale to the commitment to the game and work ethic he demonstrated.Dillon and Carter don't belong in the same category as these other morons. What I find shocking is the extreme behavior on display; Booze, guns, drugs, violence, etc. past the point of unbelievable. This is a definite black eye for the league. And, IMO, should not be tolerated.

Dillon had domesitc abuse charge in 2000, as well as legal issues while in high school and in college dated around 1996-1997. Any man that hits, shoves or assaults a female is a POS. Period. Dillon does deserve to be in the same category as Pac Man Jones. As far as the 3 strike policy, it is a great idea but I cannot see the NFL and NFLPA agreeing upon what constitutes a strike.

 

[massraider]

Who on earth ever decreed that these guys have to be nice people in order to make a living? I don't get it.

Noone is keeping them from making a living. I'm sure there are plenty of open positions available in the Canadian Football League, Arena League, or at McDonlad's. They just would lose their priveledge to work in the NFL.

OK, I'll rephrase: Who decreed that these guys have to be nice people in order to make a living in the NFL?By the way, no one is stopping the owners from cutting them right now. They don't need to define a strike, the Titans can cut Pac Man right now.

So why don't they?

They could cut anyone but they'll pay a price to do so. First off they have to fight the union and they may or may not win because the CBA may not support their actions, I'm not sure how that would go. But it would be a fight and that's a shame if you ask me.Second, they would pay a price in their cap. Because of the way they designed the cap the price (while only on paper) would/might leave them in a position that they can't spend real dollars to replace him. Again, this need corrected.

Regarding the first reason, they they'll never have to fight the union to cut a player. They can cut anyone anytime they want. They'd fight the union if they want to fine a player or suspend him.The 2nd reason, yes, the cap implications are in issue for sure.

Mark Chmura was a good TE, he committed a crime, and his career was quickly over.Didn't Christian Peters stop playing because he couldn't find an employer shortly after the G-men?

I do recall that Peter was drafted by the Pats, who then cut him. He got more than one chance I know. Chmura, I don't recall how old he was, but I know he wasn't young. But yeah, if an owner really wants to bounce a guy, they can.

 

[Dr. Evil]

The league and the union should agree to allow language to be inserted into the contracts of the players allowing teams to recover signing bonuses for bad behavior. Make it a clause that cannot be negotiated out of a contract. Also require that a player is not eligible to play until the money is repaid in-full, up-front, after an appropriate hearing.

 

[DropKick]

Who on earth ever decreed that these guys have to be nice people in order to make a living? I don't get it.

Ummm, probably the people paying them. When these players look bad, the NFL looks bad.

Ummm, then they shouldn't need rules, should they?If the guys signing the checks are that upset, then I am sure Pac-man Jones will have a hard time finding a job. Or Chris Henry. Or Tank Johnson. Or Corey Dillon.Or Michael Irvin.Or Cris Carter.

Corey Dillon may not be a choir boy, but what is the extent of his indiscretions in the NFL? Public run-ins with team management? Not even unusual for Cincy. I also take exception to mention of Cris Carter. His early drug problems pale to the commitment to the game and work ethic he demonstrated.Dillon and Carter don't belong in the same category as these other morons. What I find shocking is the extreme behavior on display; Booze, guns, drugs, violence, etc. past the point of unbelievable. This is a definite black eye for the league. And, IMO, should not be tolerated.

Dillon had domesitc abuse charge in 2000, as well as legal issues while in high school and in college dated around 1996-1997. Any man that hits, shoves or assaults a female is a POS. Period. Dillon does deserve to be in the same category as Pac Man Jones. As far as the 3 strike policy, it is a great idea but I cannot see the NFL and NFLPA agreeing upon what constitutes a strike.

I beg to differ with you but Dillon is not in the Pac Man category. Domestic abuse issues can get out of hand, real quickly, especially with hot headed individuals... and that includes the female. Comparing this to Pac Man's troubles is a joke.

 

[GregR_2]

The NFL is entertainment, these guys aren't doctors and lawyers.

What difference does it make if a doctor in his spare time likes to pistol whip bouncers or shoot at people, as long as he's good at what he does?

If this wasn't sarcasm you need to change your name back to Jets94.

 

[WileCoyote]

I think the 3 strike rule is a good idea,hopefully it should "cut-down" on some of the crap that has happened,also lets hope the bengals have there stuff together or half their team may be kicked out of the league if this ever is made into the league......