Adrian Peterson's turn to get the boot from the NFL (1 Viewer)

[TobiasFunke]

Sunday's Chicago-San Francisco game drew an average of 22.2 million viewers, the most for a regular season prime time NFL Sunday game. Both teams featured two players involved in a domestic violence incident - Brandon Marshall, Santonio Holmes, Chris Cook and Ray McDonald.

Yeah, it is fake outrage.

Really? Because here's a regular season Sunday prime time NFL game that drew 30 million viewers that didn't feature teams from two of the six largest media markets. You should maybe find a new source of info. And I really don't get the obsession with telling people their outrage is fake. It's childish and arrogant to think you can tell other people how they feel about things.

Also, "featuring Santonio Holmes" is pushing it.

I forgot "game played on the West Coast" http://blog.sfgate.com/saracevic/2014/09/16/49ers-vs-bears-top-tv-ratings-ever-on-west-coast/

Why is Santonio Holmes pushing it? Because the mother of his children didn't want to lose her meal ticket?

Also, if you have ever cheered for a team that showcased a player involved in a violent altercation, your outrage is fake.

The Santonio Holmes thing was a joke about his irrelevance.

The bolded makes no sense at all. It's possible to be outraged at some aspect of a business's conduct and still patronize the business- in fact it's pretty common. I think George Will is a buffoon and Sally Jenkins is a two-faced hypocrite but I still read the Washington Post all the time.

Really? After Holmes was accused of choking the mother of his children and slamming her into a door, he went on to become a Super Bowl MVP. There must have been tens of fans who boycotted the Super Bowl in disgust.

A joke about his current football irrelevance, i.e. he wasn't really "featured."

Let it go. The Holmes thing isn't really the point here. The point is that you are using awful logic to tell everyone who claims they are outraged by domestic violence yet watches football that they're insincere. It makes zero sense and it's pretty arrogant.

 

[dparker713]

Look, with the NFL its about money and sponsors, sure, but that's not all it's about. These executives are like anybody else; they consider themselves good people and they want to be thought of that way. Don't you suppose they've been hearing from their wives all week about this: "Are you actually going to let him play after what he did to that child?" etc. And their friends? And their communities? Many of them are churchgoers, I'm sure. Do you think they want to go into church next week and face everyone after allowing Adrian Peterson to suit up?

Public pressure comes in many forms, and usually when it comes, it's irresistible. There was no way Peterson was going to take the field this Sunday, IMO.

Those executives are more likely to be sociopaths than church goers

 

[timschochet]

Look, with the NFL its about money and sponsors, sure, but that's not all it's about. These executives are like anybody else; they consider themselves good people and they want to be thought of that way. Don't you suppose they've been hearing from their wives all week about this: "Are you actually going to let him play after what he did to that child?" etc. And their friends? And their communities? Many of them are churchgoers, I'm sure. Do you think they want to go into church next week and face everyone after allowing Adrian Peterson to suit up?

Public pressure comes in many forms, and usually when it comes, it's irresistible. There was no way Peterson was going to take the field this Sunday, IMO.

Those executives are more likely to be sociopaths than church goers

Where do you come up with that? Sociopaths?

 

[dparker713]

NFL needs to be prepared to indefinitely suspend anyone accused of a crime going forward

Neat league

ADP owner or Vikings fan?

Dude has admitted to beating his kid with a stick to the point of bleeding and leaving significant residual marks. He's got slightly more important things to attend/answer to right now than the football field. #### that guy...

Peterson ownerDon't condone what he did but don't like the precedent NFL has set with these recent rulings and how they keep caving to public opinion

Yeah! How dare an employer cater to its customer base! The NFL should be ashamed!

I think it's a lot of faux outrage...I'm guessing the stadium still would have been full on Sunday and people would have tuned in to watch it on TV. You really think Joe Blow is switching to Miller Lite unless Budweiser pulls it's sponsorship?

Starting to get tired of this phrase. I don't understand why people don't think both can happen.

Why can't people be pissed about violence against kids and women and how the NFL handled the situation, but at the same time realize that it is more about a few people and not about a sport that most of us grew up loving and still love? Really silly to think that we are not truly mad about the situation unless we never watch a football game again and don't buy anything from another sponsor of the NFL.

Then why should the NFL be the ones to punish Peterson? If this is about Peterson as a person, we have a legal system to deal with him. If this is about Peterson as a player, then why shouldn't this effect your viewing habits?

He is an employee and a huge face of the league. They backed themselves into a corner and made league image a huge focus. Makes sense to me that the league would want to do something as well.

I don't think that one player reflects the rest of the players on that team, so why stop watching the rest of the team or the rest of the games. Maybe it might have a slight ding with some jersey sales as people might not want to give more money to a team they think messed up the situation as well. Not sure.

You don't think one player reflects the rest of the team, but he does reflect on the entire league?

 

[tjnc09]

Sunday's Chicago-San Francisco game drew an average of 22.2 million viewers, the most for a regular season prime time NFL Sunday game. Both teams featured two players involved in a domestic violence incident - Brandon Marshall, Santonio Holmes, Chris Cook and Ray McDonald.

Yeah, it is fake outrage.

What is your point. Still don't get what one has to do with the other.

Look, if I come on here talking about AP being a POS and I don't support him, and then go out and buy a AP jersey and show up to the game, you might have something. If I go to the game because the other 100 players on the field have nothing to do with it and I still like watching football, I don't see why that is fake outrage or being hypocritical.

I will say that I couldn't believe the USA today article I was reading where they were talking to survivors of domestic abuse wearing Rice's jersey to the game and supporting him. That seems a little wack to me, but saying that everybody who has a problem with AP or other players in similar situations and still watch football or go to the games is displaying fake outrage? come on.

http://www.usatoday.com/sports/nfl/arrests/?fullsite=trueChances are very high you have cheered for a team featuring one of these players involved in a violent altercation. Ray Rice and Adrian Peterson are not isolated incidents. Every team has a player involved in some kind of issue. It's hypocritical to still watch the NFL if you are truly outraged by any kind of violence.

That's a long list going all the way back to 2000. There is exactly one entry for child abuse.

Searching for "child" yields different results like Jeremiah Parker who shook his four year old to death.

 

[Cliff Clavin]

NFL needs to be prepared to indefinitely suspend anyone accused of a crime going forward

Neat league

ADP owner or Vikings fan?

Dude has admitted to beating his kid with a stick to the point of bleeding and leaving significant residual marks. He's got slightly more important things to attend/answer to right now than the football field. #### that guy...

Peterson ownerDon't condone what he did but don't like the precedent NFL has set with these recent rulings and how they keep caving to public opinion

Yeah! How dare an employer cater to its customer base! The NFL should be ashamed!

I think it's a lot of faux outrage...I'm guessing the stadium still would have been full on Sunday and people would have tuned in to watch it on TV. You really think Joe Blow is switching to Miller Lite unless Budweiser pulls it's sponsorship?

Maybe

If Joe Blow buys both beers maybe he stops Budweiser if it is important enough to him. Maybe some of the millions of victims of child abuse will stop drinking Budweiser. Maybe their is zero change and they just don't want their name attached to it or they're just using it to get their name in the headline in a positive light.

Not directed at you but how many people that tweet or Facebook about how outraged they are are doing something about it? You think they're donating time and money to the cause they're trumpeting or really boycotting a product they've used for years? I'm sure some are, but I'd venture the vast majority are doing nothing more than a bunch of LOOK AT ME posting but the NFL is caving in anyway

I really don't care to argue anymore about it...I have my viewpoint and others have theirs so I'll go back to doing more important things and tune in on Sunday to watch these guys, criminals or not

Isn't tweeting/Facebooking about it doing something? They were going to let him play but the public was vocal enough, primarily through social media, that he is now 'suspended'.

All people have their causes. I think child abuse is disgusting but it isn't one of the causes that I give my time and money to. Does that mean I can't speak out about it?

 

[pollardsvision]

Sunday's Chicago-San Francisco game drew an average of 22.2 million viewers, the most for a regular season prime time NFL Sunday game. Both teams featured two players involved in a domestic violence incident - Brandon Marshall, Santonio Holmes, Chris Cook and Ray McDonald.

Yeah, it is fake outrage.

Really? Because here's a regular season Sunday prime time NFL game that drew 30 million viewers that didn't feature teams from two of the six largest media markets. You should maybe find a new source of info. And I really don't get the obsession with telling people their outrage is fake. It's childish and arrogant to think you can tell other people how they feel about things.

Also, "featuring Santonio Holmes" is pushing it.

I forgot "game played on the West Coast" http://blog.sfgate.com/saracevic/2014/09/16/49ers-vs-bears-top-tv-ratings-ever-on-west-coast/

Why is Santonio Holmes pushing it? Because the mother of his children didn't want to lose her meal ticket?

Also, if you have ever cheered for a team that showcased a player involved in a violent altercation, your outrage is fake.

The Santonio Holmes thing was a joke about his irrelevance.

The bolded makes no sense at all. It's possible to be outraged at some aspect of a business's conduct and still patronize the business- in fact it's pretty common. I think George Will is a buffoon and Sally Jenkins is a two-faced hypocrite but I still read the Washington Post all the time.

Really? After Holmes was accused of choking the mother of his children and slamming her into a door, he went on to become a Super Bowl MVP. There must have been tens of fans who boycotted the Super Bowl in disgust.

You bring up a good point, but it seems like there are a few things you are forgetting...

Virtually everyone agrees that this won't affect ratings in the short-term, and I don't see many calls to boycott the NFL/Vikings/Ravens if these guys play.

Things change, and things that used to be acceptable often become unacceptable. Some call it hypocrisy, others call it progress.

In the case of Rice and ADP, we have video evidence that we don't normally have in domestic violence situation. Most domestic "incidents" are fairly ambiguous and it's often hard to know what to believe. There was no ambiguity about the Rice/ADP situations, leading to quite a bit of outrage from fans and giving the NFL cause to take swift action.

I think there's a great discussion to be had about what fans will and won't accept and how that might be changing, but I think you are taking the wrong angle here.

 

[dparker713]

NFL needs to be prepared to indefinitely suspend anyone accused of a crime going forward

Neat league

ADP owner or Vikings fan?

Dude has admitted to beating his kid with a stick to the point of bleeding and leaving significant residual marks. He's got slightly more important things to attend/answer to right now than the football field. #### that guy...

Peterson ownerDon't condone what he did but don't like the precedent NFL has set with these recent rulings and how they keep caving to public opinion

Yeah! How dare an employer cater to its customer base! The NFL should be ashamed!

I think it's a lot of faux outrage...I'm guessing the stadium still would have been full on Sunday and people would have tuned in to watch it on TV. You really think Joe Blow is switching to Miller Lite unless Budweiser pulls it's sponsorship?

Maybe

If Joe Blow buys both beers maybe he stops Budweiser if it is important enough to him. Maybe some of the millions of victims of child abuse will stop drinking Budweiser. Maybe their is zero change and they just don't want their name attached to it or they're just using it to get their name in the headline in a positive light.

Not directed at you but how many people that tweet or Facebook about how outraged they are are doing something about it? You think they're donating time and money to the cause they're trumpeting or really boycotting a product they've used for years? I'm sure some are, but I'd venture the vast majority are doing nothing more than a bunch of LOOK AT ME posting but the NFL is caving in anyway

I really don't care to argue anymore about it...I have my viewpoint and others have theirs so I'll go back to doing more important things and tune in on Sunday to watch these guys, criminals or not

Isn't tweeting/Facebooking about it doing something? They were going to let him play but the public was vocal enough, primarily through social media, that he is now 'suspended'.

All people have their causes. I think child abuse is disgusting but it isn't one of the causes that I give my time and money to. Does that mean I can't speak out about it?

The public is not accurately reflected through social media. It is both whiter and richer than the public at large.

 

[Henry Ford]

Sunday's Chicago-San Francisco game drew an average of 22.2 million viewers, the most for a regular season prime time NFL Sunday game. Both teams featured two players involved in a domestic violence incident - Brandon Marshall, Santonio Holmes, Chris Cook and Ray McDonald.

Yeah, it is fake outrage.

What is your point. Still don't get what one has to do with the other.

Look, if I come on here talking about AP being a POS and I don't support him, and then go out and buy a AP jersey and show up to the game, you might have something. If I go to the game because the other 100 players on the field have nothing to do with it and I still like watching football, I don't see why that is fake outrage or being hypocritical.

I will say that I couldn't believe the USA today article I was reading where they were talking to survivors of domestic abuse wearing Rice's jersey to the game and supporting him. That seems a little wack to me, but saying that everybody who has a problem with AP or other players in similar situations and still watch football or go to the games is displaying fake outrage? come on.

http://www.usatoday.com/sports/nfl/arrests/?fullsite=trueChances are very high you have cheered for a team featuring one of these players involved in a violent altercation. Ray Rice and Adrian Peterson are not isolated incidents. Every team has a player involved in some kind of issue. It's hypocritical to still watch the NFL if you are truly outraged by any kind of violence.

That's a long list going all the way back to 2000. There is exactly one entry for child abuse.

Searching for "child" yields different results like Jeremiah Parker who shook his four year old to death.

It wasn't his four year old.

 

[timschochet]

Sunday's Chicago-San Francisco game drew an average of 22.2 million viewers, the most for a regular season prime time NFL Sunday game. Both teams featured two players involved in a domestic violence incident - Brandon Marshall, Santonio Holmes, Chris Cook and Ray McDonald.

Yeah, it is fake outrage.

Really? Because here's a regular season Sunday prime time NFL game that drew 30 million viewers that didn't feature teams from two of the six largest media markets. You should maybe find a new source of info. And I really don't get the obsession with telling people their outrage is fake. It's childish and arrogant to think you can tell other people how they feel about things.

Also, "featuring Santonio Holmes" is pushing it.

I forgot "game played on the West Coast" http://blog.sfgate.com/saracevic/2014/09/16/49ers-vs-bears-top-tv-ratings-ever-on-west-coast/

Why is Santonio Holmes pushing it? Because the mother of his children didn't want to lose her meal ticket?

Also, if you have ever cheered for a team that showcased a player involved in a violent altercation, your outrage is fake.

The Santonio Holmes thing was a joke about his irrelevance.

The bolded makes no sense at all. It's possible to be outraged at some aspect of a business's conduct and still patronize the business- in fact it's pretty common. I think George Will is a buffoon and Sally Jenkins is a two-faced hypocrite but I still read the Washington Post all the time.

Really? After Holmes was accused of choking the mother of his children and slamming her into a door, he went on to become a Super Bowl MVP. There must have been tens of fans who boycotted the Super Bowl in disgust.

You bring up a good point, but it seems like there are a few things you are forgetting...

Virtually everyone agrees that this won't affect ratings in the short-term, and I don't see many calls to boycott the NFL/Vikings/Ravens if these guys play.

Things change, and things that used to be acceptable often become unacceptable. Some call it hypocrisy, others call it progress.

In the case of Rice and ADP, we have video evidence that we don't normally have in domestic violence situation. Most domestic "incidents" are fairly ambiguous and it's often hard to know what to believe. There was no ambiguity about the Rice/ADP situations, leading to quite a bit of outrage from fans and giving the NFL cause to take swift action.

I think there's a great discussion to be had about what fans will and won't accept and how that might be changing, but I think you are taking the wrong angle here.

To be fair, in the case of Peterson we DON'T have video evidence, and there is certainly SOME ambiguity.

 

[TobiasFunke]

NFL needs to be prepared to indefinitely suspend anyone accused of a crime going forward

Neat league

ADP owner or Vikings fan?

Dude has admitted to beating his kid with a stick to the point of bleeding and leaving significant residual marks. He's got slightly more important things to attend/answer to right now than the football field. #### that guy...

Peterson ownerDon't condone what he did but don't like the precedent NFL has set with these recent rulings and how they keep caving to public opinion

Yeah! How dare an employer cater to its customer base! The NFL should be ashamed!

I think it's a lot of faux outrage...I'm guessing the stadium still would have been full on Sunday and people would have tuned in to watch it on TV. You really think Joe Blow is switching to Miller Lite unless Budweiser pulls it's sponsorship?

Maybe

If Joe Blow buys both beers maybe he stops Budweiser if it is important enough to him. Maybe some of the millions of victims of child abuse will stop drinking Budweiser. Maybe their is zero change and they just don't want their name attached to it or they're just using it to get their name in the headline in a positive light.

Not directed at you but how many people that tweet or Facebook about how outraged they are are doing something about it? You think they're donating time and money to the cause they're trumpeting or really boycotting a product they've used for years? I'm sure some are, but I'd venture the vast majority are doing nothing more than a bunch of LOOK AT ME posting but the NFL is caving in anyway

I really don't care to argue anymore about it...I have my viewpoint and others have theirs so I'll go back to doing more important things and tune in on Sunday to watch these guys, criminals or not

Isn't tweeting/Facebooking about it doing something? They were going to let him play but the public was vocal enough, primarily through social media, that he is now 'suspended'.

All people have their causes. I think child abuse is disgusting but it isn't one of the causes that I give my time and money to. Does that mean I can't speak out about it?

The public is not accurately reflected through social media. It is both whiter and richer than the public at large.

I'm guessing you don't spend a lot of time on Twitter.

This is outdated but the numbers are so overwhelming that I doubt it's reversed in four years.

 

[NCCommish]

Sunday's Chicago-San Francisco game drew an average of 22.2 million viewers, the most for a regular season prime time NFL Sunday game. Both teams featured two players involved in a domestic violence incident - Brandon Marshall, Santonio Holmes, Chris Cook and Ray McDonald.

Yeah, it is fake outrage.

Really? Because here's a regular season Sunday prime time NFL game that drew 30 million viewers that didn't feature teams from two of the six largest media markets. You should maybe find a new source of info. And I really don't get the obsession with telling people their outrage is fake. It's childish and arrogant to think you can tell other people how they feel about things.

Also, "featuring Santonio Holmes" is pushing it.

I forgot "game played on the West Coast" http://blog.sfgate.com/saracevic/2014/09/16/49ers-vs-bears-top-tv-ratings-ever-on-west-coast/

Why is Santonio Holmes pushing it? Because the mother of his children didn't want to lose her meal ticket?

Also, if you have ever cheered for a team that showcased a player involved in a violent altercation, your outrage is fake.

The Santonio Holmes thing was a joke about his irrelevance.

The bolded makes no sense at all. It's possible to be outraged at some aspect of a business's conduct and still patronize the business- in fact it's pretty common. I think George Will is a buffoon and Sally Jenkins is a two-faced hypocrite but I still read the Washington Post all the time.

Really? After Holmes was accused of choking the mother of his children and slamming her into a door, he went on to become a Super Bowl MVP. There must have been tens of fans who boycotted the Super Bowl in disgust.

You bring up a good point, but it seems like there are a few things you are forgetting...

Virtually everyone agrees that this won't affect ratings in the short-term, and I don't see many calls to boycott the NFL/Vikings/Ravens if these guys play.

Things change, and things that used to be acceptable often become unacceptable. Some call it hypocrisy, others call it progress.

In the case of Rice and ADP, we have video evidence that we don't normally have in domestic violence situation. Most domestic "incidents" are fairly ambiguous and it's often hard to know what to believe. There was no ambiguity about the Rice/ADP situations, leading to quite a bit of outrage from fans and giving the NFL cause to take swift action.

I think there's a great discussion to be had about what fans will and won't accept and how that might be changing, but I think you are taking the wrong angle here.

To be fair, in the case of Peterson we DON'T have video evidence, and there is certainly SOME ambiguity.

What? So what are those pictures featuring the open wounds on the four year old's legs? What about his twitter confession saying he did it? What ambiguity?

 

[Doug B]

Isn't tweeting/Facebooking about it doing something?

It absolutely is.

...

Just because it's easier in 2014 to get one's opinion into public discussion doesn't mean such opinions are illegitimate.

Can you imagine if Chappquidick had happen in 2014 instead of 1969? Ted Kennedy would have had to resign in the face of public condemnation -- and that condemnation wouldn't have been illegitimate..

 

[Doug B]

Santonio Holmes, like Kobe Bryant, was lucky enough to have committed his trangression before Twitter/Facebook/smartphones.

This stuff evolves ... the standards of even 2009 are out-of-touch today.

 

[BeaverCleaver]

Sunday's Chicago-San Francisco game drew an average of 22.2 million viewers, the most for a regular season prime time NFL Sunday game. Both teams featured two players involved in a domestic violence incident - Brandon Marshall, Santonio Holmes, Chris Cook and Ray McDonald.

Yeah, it is fake outrage.

Really? Because here's a regular season Sunday prime time NFL game that drew 30 million viewers that didn't feature teams from two of the six largest media markets. You should maybe find a new source of info. And I really don't get the obsession with telling people their outrage is fake. It's childish and arrogant to think you can tell other people how they feel about things.

Also, "featuring Santonio Holmes" is pushing it.

I forgot "game played on the West Coast" http://blog.sfgate.com/saracevic/2014/09/16/49ers-vs-bears-top-tv-ratings-ever-on-west-coast/

Why is Santonio Holmes pushing it? Because the mother of his children didn't want to lose her meal ticket?

Also, if you have ever cheered for a team that showcased a player involved in a violent altercation, your outrage is fake.

The Santonio Holmes thing was a joke about his irrelevance.

The bolded makes no sense at all. It's possible to be outraged at some aspect of a business's conduct and still patronize the business- in fact it's pretty common. I think George Will is a buffoon and Sally Jenkins is a two-faced hypocrite but I still read the Washington Post all the time.

Really? After Holmes was accused of choking the mother of his children and slamming her into a door, he went on to become a Super Bowl MVP. There must have been tens of fans who boycotted the Super Bowl in disgust.

You bring up a good point, but it seems like there are a few things you are forgetting...

Virtually everyone agrees that this won't affect ratings in the short-term, and I don't see many calls to boycott the NFL/Vikings/Ravens if these guys play.

Things change, and things that used to be acceptable often become unacceptable. Some call it hypocrisy, others call it progress.

In the case of Rice and ADP, we have video evidence that we don't normally have in domestic violence situation. Most domestic "incidents" are fairly ambiguous and it's often hard to know what to believe. There was no ambiguity about the Rice/ADP situations, leading to quite a bit of outrage from fans and giving the NFL cause to take swift action.

I think there's a great discussion to be had about what fans will and won't accept and how that might be changing, but I think you are taking the wrong angle here.

To be fair, in the case of Peterson we DON'T have video evidence, and there is certainly SOME ambiguity.

 

[timschochet]

Sunday's Chicago-San Francisco game drew an average of 22.2 million viewers, the most for a regular season prime time NFL Sunday game. Both teams featured two players involved in a domestic violence incident - Brandon Marshall, Santonio Holmes, Chris Cook and Ray McDonald.

Yeah, it is fake outrage.

Really? Because here's a regular season Sunday prime time NFL game that drew 30 million viewers that didn't feature teams from two of the six largest media markets. You should maybe find a new source of info. And I really don't get the obsession with telling people their outrage is fake. It's childish and arrogant to think you can tell other people how they feel about things.

Also, "featuring Santonio Holmes" is pushing it.

I forgot "game played on the West Coast" http://blog.sfgate.com/saracevic/2014/09/16/49ers-vs-bears-top-tv-ratings-ever-on-west-coast/

Why is Santonio Holmes pushing it? Because the mother of his children didn't want to lose her meal ticket?

Also, if you have ever cheered for a team that showcased a player involved in a violent altercation, your outrage is fake.

The Santonio Holmes thing was a joke about his irrelevance.

The bolded makes no sense at all. It's possible to be outraged at some aspect of a business's conduct and still patronize the business- in fact it's pretty common. I think George Will is a buffoon and Sally Jenkins is a two-faced hypocrite but I still read the Washington Post all the time.

Really? After Holmes was accused of choking the mother of his children and slamming her into a door, he went on to become a Super Bowl MVP. There must have been tens of fans who boycotted the Super Bowl in disgust.

You bring up a good point, but it seems like there are a few things you are forgetting...

Virtually everyone agrees that this won't affect ratings in the short-term, and I don't see many calls to boycott the NFL/Vikings/Ravens if these guys play.

Things change, and things that used to be acceptable often become unacceptable. Some call it hypocrisy, others call it progress.

In the case of Rice and ADP, we have video evidence that we don't normally have in domestic violence situation. Most domestic "incidents" are fairly ambiguous and it's often hard to know what to believe. There was no ambiguity about the Rice/ADP situations, leading to quite a bit of outrage from fans and giving the NFL cause to take swift action.

I think there's a great discussion to be had about what fans will and won't accept and how that might be changing, but I think you are taking the wrong angle here.

To be fair, in the case of Peterson we DON'T have video evidence, and there is certainly SOME ambiguity.

What? So what are those pictures featuring the open wounds on the four year old's legs? What about his twitter confession saying he did it? What ambiguity?

Woah, don't jump on me. All I'm saying is that there was no video of him doing the act, though there are photos taken afterwards. Regarding his confession, he admits that he was trying to discipline the child, and that he might have gone overboard, and there are many people who seem to want to give him the benefit of the doubt and argue that it was not child abuse, hence the ambiguity. I am NOT one of those people.

 

[Doug B]

The public is not accurately reflected through social media. It is both whiter and richer than the public at large.

The public was never tidly represented through any kind of traditional media, anyway. For right or wrong, social media has influence.

 

[NCCommish]

Sunday's Chicago-San Francisco game drew an average of 22.2 million viewers, the most for a regular season prime time NFL Sunday game. Both teams featured two players involved in a domestic violence incident - Brandon Marshall, Santonio Holmes, Chris Cook and Ray McDonald.

Yeah, it is fake outrage.

Really? Because here's a regular season Sunday prime time NFL game that drew 30 million viewers that didn't feature teams from two of the six largest media markets. You should maybe find a new source of info. And I really don't get the obsession with telling people their outrage is fake. It's childish and arrogant to think you can tell other people how they feel about things.

Also, "featuring Santonio Holmes" is pushing it.

I forgot "game played on the West Coast" http://blog.sfgate.com/saracevic/2014/09/16/49ers-vs-bears-top-tv-ratings-ever-on-west-coast/

Why is Santonio Holmes pushing it? Because the mother of his children didn't want to lose her meal ticket?

Also, if you have ever cheered for a team that showcased a player involved in a violent altercation, your outrage is fake.

The Santonio Holmes thing was a joke about his irrelevance.

The bolded makes no sense at all. It's possible to be outraged at some aspect of a business's conduct and still patronize the business- in fact it's pretty common. I think George Will is a buffoon and Sally Jenkins is a two-faced hypocrite but I still read the Washington Post all the time.

Really? After Holmes was accused of choking the mother of his children and slamming her into a door, he went on to become a Super Bowl MVP. There must have been tens of fans who boycotted the Super Bowl in disgust.

You bring up a good point, but it seems like there are a few things you are forgetting...

Virtually everyone agrees that this won't affect ratings in the short-term, and I don't see many calls to boycott the NFL/Vikings/Ravens if these guys play.

Things change, and things that used to be acceptable often become unacceptable. Some call it hypocrisy, others call it progress.

In the case of Rice and ADP, we have video evidence that we don't normally have in domestic violence situation. Most domestic "incidents" are fairly ambiguous and it's often hard to know what to believe. There was no ambiguity about the Rice/ADP situations, leading to quite a bit of outrage from fans and giving the NFL cause to take swift action.

I think there's a great discussion to be had about what fans will and won't accept and how that might be changing, but I think you are taking the wrong angle here.

To be fair, in the case of Peterson we DON'T have video evidence, and there is certainly SOME ambiguity.

What? So what are those pictures featuring the open wounds on the four year old's legs? What about his twitter confession saying he did it? What ambiguity?

Woah, don't jump on me. All I'm saying is that there was no video of him doing the act, though there are photos taken afterwards. Regarding his confession, he admits that he was trying to discipline the child, and that he might have gone overboard, and there are many people who seem to want to give him the benefit of the doubt and argue that it was not child abuse, hence the ambiguity. I am NOT one of those people.

Well those people should let me beat them with a switch until they have open bleeding wounds on their legs and scrotum and then see what they think. But I don't think that ridiculous opinion constitutes ambiguity as to what happened here personally.

 

[dparker713]

NFL needs to be prepared to indefinitely suspend anyone accused of a crime going forward

Neat league

ADP owner or Vikings fan?

Dude has admitted to beating his kid with a stick to the point of bleeding and leaving significant residual marks. He's got slightly more important things to attend/answer to right now than the football field. #### that guy...

Peterson ownerDon't condone what he did but don't like the precedent NFL has set with these recent rulings and how they keep caving to public opinion

Yeah! How dare an employer cater to its customer base! The NFL should be ashamed!

I think it's a lot of faux outrage...I'm guessing the stadium still would have been full on Sunday and people would have tuned in to watch it on TV. You really think Joe Blow is switching to Miller Lite unless Budweiser pulls it's sponsorship?

Maybe

If Joe Blow buys both beers maybe he stops Budweiser if it is important enough to him. Maybe some of the millions of victims of child abuse will stop drinking Budweiser. Maybe their is zero change and they just don't want their name attached to it or they're just using it to get their name in the headline in a positive light.

Not directed at you but how many people that tweet or Facebook about how outraged they are are doing something about it? You think they're donating time and money to the cause they're trumpeting or really boycotting a product they've used for years? I'm sure some are, but I'd venture the vast majority are doing nothing more than a bunch of LOOK AT ME posting but the NFL is caving in anyway

I really don't care to argue anymore about it...I have my viewpoint and others have theirs so I'll go back to doing more important things and tune in on Sunday to watch these guys, criminals or not

Isn't tweeting/Facebooking about it doing something? They were going to let him play but the public was vocal enough, primarily through social media, that he is now 'suspended'.

All people have their causes. I think child abuse is disgusting but it isn't one of the causes that I give my time and money to. Does that mean I can't speak out about it?

The public is not accurately reflected through social media. It is both whiter and richer than the public at large.

I'm guessing you don't spend a lot of time on Twitter.

This is outdated but the numbers are so overwhelming that I doubt it's reversed in four years.

Twitter is all of social media now? Good to know.

 

[timschochet]

Sunday's Chicago-San Francisco game drew an average of 22.2 million viewers, the most for a regular season prime time NFL Sunday game. Both teams featured two players involved in a domestic violence incident - Brandon Marshall, Santonio Holmes, Chris Cook and Ray McDonald.

Yeah, it is fake outrage.

Really? Because here's a regular season Sunday prime time NFL game that drew 30 million viewers that didn't feature teams from two of the six largest media markets. You should maybe find a new source of info. And I really don't get the obsession with telling people their outrage is fake. It's childish and arrogant to think you can tell other people how they feel about things.

Also, "featuring Santonio Holmes" is pushing it.

I forgot "game played on the West Coast" http://blog.sfgate.com/saracevic/2014/09/16/49ers-vs-bears-top-tv-ratings-ever-on-west-coast/

Why is Santonio Holmes pushing it? Because the mother of his children didn't want to lose her meal ticket?

Also, if you have ever cheered for a team that showcased a player involved in a violent altercation, your outrage is fake.

The Santonio Holmes thing was a joke about his irrelevance.

The bolded makes no sense at all. It's possible to be outraged at some aspect of a business's conduct and still patronize the business- in fact it's pretty common. I think George Will is a buffoon and Sally Jenkins is a two-faced hypocrite but I still read the Washington Post all the time.

Really? After Holmes was accused of choking the mother of his children and slamming her into a door, he went on to become a Super Bowl MVP. There must have been tens of fans who boycotted the Super Bowl in disgust.

You bring up a good point, but it seems like there are a few things you are forgetting...

Virtually everyone agrees that this won't affect ratings in the short-term, and I don't see many calls to boycott the NFL/Vikings/Ravens if these guys play.

Things change, and things that used to be acceptable often become unacceptable. Some call it hypocrisy, others call it progress.

In the case of Rice and ADP, we have video evidence that we don't normally have in domestic violence situation. Most domestic "incidents" are fairly ambiguous and it's often hard to know what to believe. There was no ambiguity about the Rice/ADP situations, leading to quite a bit of outrage from fans and giving the NFL cause to take swift action.

I think there's a great discussion to be had about what fans will and won't accept and how that might be changing, but I think you are taking the wrong angle here.

To be fair, in the case of Peterson we DON'T have video evidence, and there is certainly SOME ambiguity.

What? So what are those pictures featuring the open wounds on the four year old's legs? What about his twitter confession saying he did it? What ambiguity?

Woah, don't jump on me. All I'm saying is that there was no video of him doing the act, though there are photos taken afterwards. Regarding his confession, he admits that he was trying to discipline the child, and that he might have gone overboard, and there are many people who seem to want to give him the benefit of the doubt and argue that it was not child abuse, hence the ambiguity. I am NOT one of those people.

Well those people should let me beat them with a switch until they have open bleeding wounds on their legs and scrotum and then see what they think. But I don't think that ridiculous opinion constitutes ambiguity as to what happened here personally.

I agree. But I note that you used the word "personally." Which implies that there is a certain amount of subjectivity here.

Remember all that debate a few years back about whether water boarding was torture? Anybody who uses a shred of common sense, or who has watched it happen, knows that it's torture. And yet even in this forum there were some pretty smart people who refused to acknowledge the fact.

 

[TobiasFunke]

I'm guessing you don't spend a lot of time on Twitter.

This is outdated but the numbers are so overwhelming that I doubt it's reversed in four years.

Twitter is all of social media now? Good to know.

The post you responded to mentioned "tweeting/facebooking." So it's one of the two social media platforms you were discussing when you said they're whiter than the general public... and it actually appears to be less white than the general public.

It's OK to just admit you may have been wrong or that you didn't know something, you know. Maybe you've got more recent data showing that I was wrong, in which case I'd admit I may have been wrong and we'd move on. There's no rule that requires you to argue everything.

 

[Doug B]

Twitter is all of social media now? Good to know.

Seriously? You threw the following out with no back-up at all:

"The public is not accurately reflected through social media. It is both whiter and richer than the public at large."

One thing thing the smartphone has done is lower any ecnomic barriers to social-media access. I, personally, am inclined to doubt that the set of "social-media participants" demographically differs very much at all from the set of "Americans" except probably by age.

However, if you've got some recent stats (last 12-18 months), I'm open to revisit my doubts on the matter.

 

[Henry Ford]

Twitter is all of social media now? Good to know.

Facebook

Instagram

What social media were you referring to? Pinterest?

 

[Disco Stu]

http://www.usatoday.com/sports/nfl/arrests/?fullsite=true

Chances are very high you have cheered for a team featuring one of these players involved in a violent altercation. Ray Rice and Adrian Peterson are not isolated incidents. Every team has a player involved in some kind of issue. It's hypocritical to still watch the NFL if you are truly outraged by any kind of violence.

That's a long list going all the way back to 2000. There is exactly one entry for child abuse.

Searching for "child" yields different results like Jeremiah Parker who shook his four year old to death.

That's a good point. Parker never played another down after being accused of child abuse.

 

[TobiasFunke]

Twitter is all of social media now? Good to know.

Facebook

Instagram

What social media were you referring to? Pinterest?

Oops!

I wonder why the massive presence of minorities on social media didn't register with him.

 

[Doug B]

Facebook


Instagram

What social media were you referring to? Pinterest?

The Facebook info is five years old, but it's hard to imagine that balance has been reversed in the years since.

I like this section of your Instagram link:

Wayne Sutton, a social-media consultant and blogger at SocialWayne.com, says Twitter enables "a level playing field in getting (black Americans') voices heard.""With the history of our culture, we now have an equal channel like anyone else," he says.

Blacks' usage of Instagram (23%) also outnumbered Hispanics' (18%) and whites' (11%).

"African Americans and Hispanics are leading the way in terms of buying smartphones or tablets," Sutton says. He pointed to a March 2012 Nielsen study that says 54.4% of blacks and 57.3% of Hispanics own a smartphone vs. 44.7% of whites.

...

One thing I do believe was true, though -- back when home desktop computers were king and laptops were pricey luxuries -- minority participation on the general Internet (pre-YouTube/FB/Twitter) lagged behind their respective proportions of the general population.

 

[dparker713]

I'm guessing you don't spend a lot of time on Twitter.

This is outdated but the numbers are so overwhelming that I doubt it's reversed in four years.

Twitter is all of social media now? Good to know.

The post you responded to mentioned "tweeting/facebooking." So it's one of the two social media platforms you were discussing when you said they're whiter than the general public... and it actually appears to be less white than the general public.

It's OK to just admit you may have been wrong or that you didn't know something, you know. Maybe you've got more recent data showing that I was wrong, in which case I'd admit I may have been wrong and we'd move on. There's no rule that requires you to argue everything.

Facebook dwarfs Twitter in user base. That's like citing OSx sales as representative of all operating systems.

 

[Disco Stu]

I'm guessing you don't spend a lot of time on Twitter.

This is outdated but the numbers are so overwhelming that I doubt it's reversed in four years.

Twitter is all of social media now? Good to know.

The post you responded to mentioned "tweeting/facebooking." So it's one of the two social media platforms you were discussing when you said they're whiter than the general public... and it actually appears to be less white than the general public.

It's OK to just admit you may have been wrong or that you didn't know something, you know. Maybe you've got more recent data showing that I was wrong, in which case I'd admit I may have been wrong and we'd move on. There's no rule that requires you to argue everything.

Facebook dwarfs Twitter in user base. That's like citing OSx sales as representative of all operating systems.

Doing the Lord's work here dparker713.

 

[TobiasFunke]

I'm guessing you don't spend a lot of time on Twitter.

This is outdated but the numbers are so overwhelming that I doubt it's reversed in four years.

Twitter is all of social media now? Good to know.

The post you responded to mentioned "tweeting/facebooking." So it's one of the two social media platforms you were discussing when you said they're whiter than the general public... and it actually appears to be less white than the general public.

It's OK to just admit you may have been wrong or that you didn't know something, you know. Maybe you've got more recent data showing that I was wrong, in which case I'd admit I may have been wrong and we'd move on. There's no rule that requires you to argue everything.

Facebook dwarfs Twitter in user base. That's like citing OSx sales as representative of all operating systems.

Doing the Lord's work here dparker713.

I've never seen someone go through so much trouble to avoid having to admit that they don't many black friends.

 

[dparker713]

Twitter is all of social media now? Good to know.

Facebook

Instagram

What social media were you referring to? Pinterest?

And in the 5 years since facebook ran that guesswork where they concluded they were getting close to approximating the US averages, facebook's average user age and income level has increased significantly. As of 2012 46% were 45+ and 47% earned more than 100k. It's got 67% of all US internet users, so its going to fairly mirror the characteristics of all US internet users. But hey, Twitter, right?

 

[Doug B]

Facebook dwarfs Twitter in user base. That's like citing OSx sales as representative of all operating systems.

Is number of users the relevant metric?

According to their wikipedia entries, FB has roughly a five-to-one edge in number of users: 1.28 billion to 274 million for Twitter.

Probably can't be measured, but I don't think FB has five times the influence that Twitter does. Then again, influence is kind of an ethereal thing.

 

[Henry Ford]

Twitter is all of social media now? Good to know.

Facebook

Instagram

What social media were you referring to? Pinterest?

And in the 5 years since facebook ran that guesswork where they concluded they were getting close to approximating the US averages, facebook's average user age and income level has increased significantly. As of 2012 46% were 45+ and 47% earned more than 100k. It's got 67% of all US internet users, so its going to fairly mirror the characteristics of all US internet users. But hey, Twitter, right?

Yeah. White, non-Hispanic users are WAY over the national numbers on facebook this year.

Wait, that's not what I meant. What did I mean?

The percentage of "white, non-Hispanic" users on both social networks [facebook and linkedin] was 66%, while "white, non-Hispanic" Americans make up 63% of the country's total population.

 

[dparker713]

Twitter is all of social media now? Good to know.

Facebook

Instagram

What social media were you referring to? Pinterest?

And in the 5 years since facebook ran that guesswork where they concluded they were getting close to approximating the US averages, facebook's average user age and income level has increased significantly. As of 2012 46% were 45+ and 47% earned more than 100k. It's got 67% of all US internet users, so its going to fairly mirror the characteristics of all US internet users. But hey, Twitter, right?

Yeah. White, non-Hispanic users are WAY over the national numbers on facebook this year.

Wait, that's not what I meant. What did I mean?

The percentage of "white, non-Hispanic" users on both social networks [facebook and linkedin] was 66%, while "white, non-Hispanic" Americans make up 63% of the country's total population.

Could have just said I was right.

 

[Henry Ford]

Twitter is all of social media now? Good to know.

Facebook

Instagram

What social media were you referring to? Pinterest?

And in the 5 years since facebook ran that guesswork where they concluded they were getting close to approximating the US averages, facebook's average user age and income level has increased significantly. As of 2012 46% were 45+ and 47% earned more than 100k. It's got 67% of all US internet users, so its going to fairly mirror the characteristics of all US internet users. But hey, Twitter, right?

Yeah. White, non-Hispanic users are WAY over the national numbers on facebook this year.

Wait, that's not what I meant. What did I mean?

The percentage of "white, non-Hispanic" users on both social networks [facebook and linkedin] was 66%, while "white, non-Hispanic" Americans make up 63% of the country's total population.

Could have just said I was right.

Except that a service that has 2/3 of internet users is 3% up in white non-Hispanic, while the remainder of the "big three" are substantially higher in minority populations than the country in general. So... telling you that you're right would have been a weird thing to do.

 

[dparker713]

Twitter is all of social media now? Good to know.

Facebook

Instagram

What social media were you referring to? Pinterest?

And in the 5 years since facebook ran that guesswork where they concluded they were getting close to approximating the US averages, facebook's average user age and income level has increased significantly. As of 2012 46% were 45+ and 47% earned more than 100k. It's got 67% of all US internet users, so its going to fairly mirror the characteristics of all US internet users. But hey, Twitter, right?

Yeah. White, non-Hispanic users are WAY over the national numbers on facebook this year.

Wait, that's not what I meant. What did I mean?

The percentage of "white, non-Hispanic" users on both social networks [facebook and linkedin] was 66%, while "white, non-Hispanic" Americans make up 63% of the country's total population.

Could have just said I was right.

Except that a service that has 2/3 of internet users is 3% up in white non-Hispanic, while the remainder of the "big three" are substantially higher in minority populations than the country in general. So... telling you that you're right would have been a weird thing to do.

There is no big three. There's facebook and everything else.

ETA: unless you're talking about porn, in which case instagram and twitter rule.

 

[Henry Ford]

Twitter is all of social media now? Good to know.

Facebook

Instagram

What social media were you referring to? Pinterest?

And in the 5 years since facebook ran that guesswork where they concluded they were getting close to approximating the US averages, facebook's average user age and income level has increased significantly. As of 2012 46% were 45+ and 47% earned more than 100k. It's got 67% of all US internet users, so its going to fairly mirror the characteristics of all US internet users. But hey, Twitter, right?

Yeah. White, non-Hispanic users are WAY over the national numbers on facebook this year.

Wait, that's not what I meant. What did I mean?

The percentage of "white, non-Hispanic" users on both social networks [facebook and linkedin] was 66%, while "white, non-Hispanic" Americans make up 63% of the country's total population.

Could have just said I was right.

Except that a service that has 2/3 of internet users is 3% up in white non-Hispanic, while the remainder of the "big three" are substantially higher in minority populations than the country in general. So... telling you that you're right would have been a weird thing to do.

There is no big three. There's facebook and everything else.

ETA: unless you're talking about porn, in which case instagram and twitter rule.

Social networking on mobile phones:

36% of whites use social networks on mobile phones.

Guess whether that's higher or lower than non-whites?

Young people, blacks, Hispanics, the highly educated and those with a higher annual household income are more likely to use SNS on their phones than other groups.

 

[Doug B]

What a weird digression.

Social media has influence regardless of its racial make-up. It doesn't have to justify itself to anyone.

 

[Zow]

So, how does the ignore user function work?

not well enough.

 

[timschochet]

In a year from now, will Adrian Peterson be a starting RB in the NFL?

 

[tjnc09]

Sunday's Chicago-San Francisco game drew an average of 22.2 million viewers, the most for a regular season prime time NFL Sunday game. Both teams featured two players involved in a domestic violence incident - Brandon Marshall, Santonio Holmes, Chris Cook and Ray McDonald.

Yeah, it is fake outrage.

Really? Because here's a regular season Sunday prime time NFL game that drew 30 million viewers that didn't feature teams from two of the six largest media markets. You should maybe find a new source of info. And I really don't get the obsession with telling people their outrage is fake. It's childish and arrogant to think you can tell other people how they feel about things.

Also, "featuring Santonio Holmes" is pushing it.

I forgot "game played on the West Coast" http://blog.sfgate.com/saracevic/2014/09/16/49ers-vs-bears-top-tv-ratings-ever-on-west-coast/

Why is Santonio Holmes pushing it? Because the mother of his children didn't want to lose her meal ticket?

Also, if you have ever cheered for a team that showcased a player involved in a violent altercation, your outrage is fake.

The Santonio Holmes thing was a joke about his irrelevance.

The bolded makes no sense at all. It's possible to be outraged at some aspect of a business's conduct and still patronize the business- in fact it's pretty common. I think George Will is a buffoon and Sally Jenkins is a two-faced hypocrite but I still read the Washington Post all the time.

Really? After Holmes was accused of choking the mother of his children and slamming her into a door, he went on to become a Super Bowl MVP. There must have been tens of fans who boycotted the Super Bowl in disgust.

You bring up a good point, but it seems like there are a few things you are forgetting...

Virtually everyone agrees that this won't affect ratings in the short-term, and I don't see many calls to boycott the NFL/Vikings/Ravens if these guys play.

Things change, and things that used to be acceptable often become unacceptable. Some call it hypocrisy, others call it progress.

In the case of Rice and ADP, we have video evidence that we don't normally have in domestic violence situation. Most domestic "incidents" are fairly ambiguous and it's often hard to know what to believe. There was no ambiguity about the Rice/ADP situations, leading to quite a bit of outrage from fans and giving the NFL cause to take swift action.

I think there's a great discussion to be had about what fans will and won't accept and how that might be changing, but I think you are taking the wrong angle here.

How exactly are wildly inconsistent suspension policies equating to "making progress"?

I don't believe the video evidence argument for a second. The NFL received the video and Goodell only suspended Rice for two games. The only reason Rice was suspended indefinitely was because the video was released publicly and Goodell was trying to save his own ###. If he truly was against domestic violence, there are dozens of players who wouldn't be in the league right now. But he doesn't. He cares about the NFL's bottom line because that means he gets paid.

Peterson was going to take the fall for the Rice debacle whether the pictures were released or not. Goodell is trying to save his job. Otherwise, Rice would be suiting up to play next week and Peterson probably would have played until court in the off season.

The whole situation is full of hypocrites. If the fans wanted to see changes, take all the thousand of dollars spent on NFL Sunday Ticket, fantasy football and NFL merchandise and donate it to a domestic abuse support group.

But no one is going to do that. Football brings people joy and there are only a handful of people in this world with the skill set to play in the NFL. They will sit behind their computer, scream against violence, then cheer Brandon Marshall when he scores a TD for their fantasy team despite being arrested or interviewed by police a dozen times for incidents with women and violence. Which brings us to the biggest hypocrite of them all - Goodell - who is only trying to save his job. Money will always pour into the NFL no matter what crimes the players commit, he just wants to take the biggest cut possible.

 

[shadyridr]

Would you let your elementary aged child wear a Peterson jersey to school right now? Just picked up ny son and was shocked to see what looked like a 4th or 5th grader wearing one. Overheard him talking to his dad who picked him up and apparently he was suspended for fighting today. He said another kid tried to rip off his jersey.

 

[msommer]

In a year from now, will Adrian Peterson be a starting RB in the NFL?

If he goes the public self abasement route he has a chance

 

[-fish-]

So, how does the ignore user function work?

not well enough.

I haven't had anyone on ignore for a while. I used to have fun with you on ignore, guessing what you were posting and replying to it blind.

 

[tjnc09]

Apparently Gloria Allred has come out of the woodwork to criticize Goodell on how he handled the Marshall abuse cases.

 

[Sinn Fein]

Apparently Gloria Allred has come out of the woodwork to criticize Goodell on how he handled the Marshall abuse cases.

I'm sorry, but #### Gloria Allred - one of the most vile people on earth.

 

[Christo]

NFL needs to be prepared to indefinitely suspend anyone accused of a crime going forward

Neat league

ADP owner or Vikings fan?

Dude has admitted to beating his kid with a stick to the point of bleeding and leaving significant residual marks. He's got slightly more important things to attend/answer to right now than the football field. #### that guy...

Peterson ownerDon't condone what he did but don't like the precedent NFL has set with these recent rulings and how they keep caving to public opinion

Yeah! How dare an employer cater to its customer base! The NFL should be ashamed!

I think it's a lot of faux outrage...I'm guessing the stadium still would have been full on Sunday and people would have tuned in to watch it on TV. You really think Joe Blow is switching to Miller Lite unless Budweiser pulls it's sponsorship?

You think people being upset by what AD did is faux outrage?

I lean towards a parent being able to discipline his child, even spanking. And I understand lots of people do what AD did. But knowing a lot of younger parents, they wouldn't consider doing what he did. They would honestly be appalled by what he did. Hell, my sister got mad at me for just raising my voice to my nephew. And he was being a little ####. The tide is shifting.

 

[Christo]

Sunday's Chicago-San Francisco game drew an average of 22.2 million viewers, the most for a regular season prime time NFL Sunday game. Both teams featured two players involved in a domestic violence incident - Brandon Marshall, Santonio Holmes, Chris Cook and Ray McDonald.

Yeah, it is fake outrage.

Really? Because here's a regular season Sunday prime time NFL game that drew 30 million viewers that didn't feature teams from two of the six largest media markets. You should maybe find a new source of info. And I really don't get the obsession with telling people their outrage is fake. It's childish and arrogant to think you can tell other people how they feel about things.

Also, "featuring Santonio Holmes" is pushing it.

I forgot "game played on the West Coast" http://blog.sfgate.com/saracevic/2014/09/16/49ers-vs-bears-top-tv-ratings-ever-on-west-coast/

Why is Santonio Holmes pushing it? Because the mother of his children didn't want to lose her meal ticket?

Also, if you have ever cheered for a team that showcased a player involved in a violent altercation, your outrage is fake.

The Santonio Holmes thing was a joke about his irrelevance.

The bolded makes no sense at all. It's possible to be outraged at some aspect of a business's conduct and still patronize the business- in fact it's pretty common. I think George Will is a buffoon and Sally Jenkins is a two-faced hypocrite but I still read the Washington Post all the time.

Really? After Holmes was accused of choking the mother of his children and slamming her into a door, he went on to become a Super Bowl MVP. There must have been tens of fans who boycotted the Super Bowl in disgust.

You bring up a good point, but it seems like there are a few things you are forgetting...

Virtually everyone agrees that this won't affect ratings in the short-term, and I don't see many calls to boycott the NFL/Vikings/Ravens if these guys play.

Things change, and things that used to be acceptable often become unacceptable. Some call it hypocrisy, others call it progress.

In the case of Rice and ADP, we have video evidence that we don't normally have in domestic violence situation. Most domestic "incidents" are fairly ambiguous and it's often hard to know what to believe. There was no ambiguity about the Rice/ADP situations, leading to quite a bit of outrage from fans and giving the NFL cause to take swift action.

I think there's a great discussion to be had about what fans will and won't accept and how that might be changing, but I think you are taking the wrong angle here.

To be fair, in the case of Peterson we DON'T have video evidence, and there is certainly SOME ambiguity.

No, we just have pictures of the results of AD's actions and AD's admission that he did it.

 

[Christo]

In a year from now, will Adrian Peterson be a starting RB in the NFL?

Probably

 

[-fish-]

In a year from now, will Adrian Peterson be a starting RB in the NFL?

Probably

-120

 

[bigbottom]

Apparently Gloria Allred has come out of the woodwork to criticize Goodell on how he handled the Marshall abuse cases.

I'm sorry, but #### Gloria Allred - one of the most vile people on earth.

Why is she one of the most vile people on earth?