A Good Take On The NFL "Get Tough" Policy (1 Viewer)

[QuizGuy66]

From si.com's scorecard daily:

The Steelers are in favor of the NFL's proposed new get-tough policy on criminal players, provided it includes protections for the teams. If a bonus baby is to be barred from playing because of repeated criminal activity, the Steelers would like to see the clubs be able to recoup their up-front investment in him.-- Pittsburgh Post-Gazette

This is similar in spirit to what the Bengals organization feels regarding the NFL get-tough stance as well and gets to the heart of the difficulty that exists in disciplining problem players.From Bengals.com

Just how far the NFLPA plans to go on player conduct remains to be seen when executive director Gene Upshaw puts the players’ proposals in front of the owners in Arizona. Upshaw has been floating the idea of year-long suspensions for players with multiple offenses from a constituency sick and tired of the conduct of their peers. But Upshaw indicated last month after Goodell’s conduct seminar in Indianapolis that he would not be for giving full disciplinary powers back to the clubs and Brown says that’s what needed. For instance, Brown favors more immediate and more severe punishments handed out by teams before a player is convicted if the team decides that’s the right decision. He believes the current system of league guidelines determining punishment only after a case has been resolved in court doesn’t have enough teeth. “We think teams should have the right to fine and suspend players for misbehavior and we should be able to implement sanctions immediately,” Brown said. “If we’re aware of illicit behavior, I don’t know that we should have to wait for the judicial process to play itself out. Some times our judicial system is slow and some times, in all honesty, not even dead on. Let us handle our own employees because we know them. “The head coach on a football team who interfaces with them daily and is charged with maintaining the morale and discipline of the whole team ought to have the authority to say to a player, ‘You’ve gone too far. This is the sanction,’ ” he said. A club has the right to suspend a player up to four games for conduct detrimental, but everyone is seeking clarification in the wake of a virtual crime spree in which no team is immune.

When you look at a Henry, Thurman, Pac-Man, Tank, etc., the biggest problem teams have with even thinking about letting such a guy go is that it's a huge cap hit and financial penalty. Keeping the guy and hoping he stays clean is the lesser of two bad choices in most cases. Teams have very little tools at their own disposal to discipline players under the CBA. While I think Brown wants too much power to go to the club, there needs to be a fair way to give teams more say in discipline, especially when they take a black eye. There also needs to be a mechanism, even if it's just in terms of cap relief (and not actual $) to keep teams from having their hands tied in these cases as well. Holding teams accountable certainly seems reasonable, so long as they are given genuine tools to correct the problems.This is meant as a serious post and discussion on the right way discipline should be handled within the league within the framework of the CBA. I'd like to hear what folks think.-QG