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

[trogg78]

I'm hoping they are smart enough to draw the line at established evidence situations (ie Rice/ADP) otherwise this DOES open the door for accusations being thrown around to freeze out stud players. Otherwise implications within the gambling community are huge:

"Hey girl, we'll give you $150k to accuse Aaron Rodgers of rape while we load up on (opponent) in (game)"

See the 49ers.

 

[Doug B]

I've never heard the Exempt/Commissioner's Permission List before. Who else has been placed on it?

I had thought it was for unusual cases, such as when Pat Tillman was serving in the military overseas.

 

[RhymesMcJuice]

Any chance this gets MIN out of Peterson's terrible contract?

Or do they still not know it's a stupid contract yet?

They're willing to pay him not to play this year. I think that indicates they are willing to pay him a similar amount of money to play next year.

 

[SIDA!]

During the season that Kobe Bryant was charged with rape, he continued to play for the Lakers, and was even cheered in the playoffs at the same time as he was going to hearings! I remember that clearly. There didn't seem to be any question of whether or not he should be suspended as I recall.

But perhaps the difference is that Kobe denied raping the girl. Peterson doesn't deny disciplining his son, he even admits that he might have gone too far, though he denies that it was abuse. So perhaps the reaction is a little different for this reason.

I think the difference is that the Kobe incident didn't occur in 2014.

That's right. There are players in the news for things like this every year, but media and social media create instant tidal waves these days. I wonder if guys like Roethlisberger think man, I took a little heat but thank god I don't have to deal with ####-storms these guys gotta deal with.

Have things realty changed that much?

10 years ago, you weren't here posting at the FFA. Things can change a lot in 10 years.

damn you're obsessed.

Seriously? Well, as you said before, you do know more about me than I could ever possibly know about you (and your 100,000 opinions on EVERYTHING).

dude, I don't know and I really don't care. As I recall, you were a pretty intelligent poster in the past with strong views on a lot of subjects. In the last few days though you've made an awful lot of posts about me, all of them focusing on how often I post. You even started a thread about it. I have no freaking idea why you care so much. Get over it already.

In the last few days I have made a handful of posts about you not counting the recent back and forth we are having here.

My first post to you didn't even mention anything about your post count nor did I try to undermine/belittle you for your post count or opinion on everything. My first post was about your inability to read my previous posts and insinuation that I was somehow saying that Peterson shouldn't be punished. That was it.

Later in the thread, someone mentioned something about simply placing you on the ignore/ban list. I stated rather matter of factly that if one were to ban you they would basically have to ban themselves from the FFA because even if they banned you, they would still see people responding to your comments. Later, since we are all obviously into sports and stats and what not, I got curious and wondered where you ranked on the post count. I was shocked to find that you literally have more posts than any other member. People have been posting here for more than a decade and many of us from Old Yeller days. Not only did you have the most posts, it was coincidentally the day before your registration anniversary date so it was really easy to do simple math and figure out your annual and daily average. So, I threw the post up there and I didn't really say anything bad about you in that post although I have come to see you as being nearly insufferable.

At the end of the day, I don't really care about the number of your posts. I care about the fact that you are seemingly more interested in typing/hearing yourself talk and less interested in reading what others write, internalizing it and coming up with a response. Remember, I didn't criticize your first or even respond to anything that you wrote, IIRC. My agitation with you came about through your failure to actually read and understand my position before you popped off. Another example of your diarrhea of the mouth is your question about the NFL Exempt list. Instead of once again posting so we can see Tim...why don't you exit away from the FFA, go pound Google for a minute and then come back and tell us what it is. Why is that so difficult for you?

So, in summation, I am not obsessed with you nor do I spend my time posting an "awful lot" about you. WTF does that even mean coming from a guy who averages more than 30 posts a day? And no, not all of them focused on how often you post but more on how often you fail to read before posting. Finally, if you really think I am obsessed with you, then I propose the following: do not address me in any comments that you make and I will go about my business as I have done throughout the time you have been posting here.

 

[CletiusMaximus]

Sida - Interesting stuff. Can you flesh this out a bit more?

 

[comfortably numb]

Sida - Interesting stuff. Can you flesh this out a bit more?

SIDA! is a timschochet alias

:mindblown:

 

[timschochet]

Took you 5 paragraphs to explain why you were not obsessed with me?

Like I wrote, whatever dude. This is like the 4th time now that you complained that've didn't read all of your posts yesterday before I responded to one- and you're right, but iPhones are to blame. I tend to skip posts with lots of back and forth when I'm on my iPhone, as well as pages that have gone by. I'd like to read every post but I don't. Mea culpa.

And yes sometimes I ask questions here instead of googling stuff- perhaps I prefer the conversation? These are odd things to criticize me about.

 

[Fennis]

Sida - Interesting stuff. Can you flesh this out a bit more?

SIDA! is a timschochet alias

:mindblown:

little known fact: timschochet spelled backwards is sida!

 

[Doug B]

little known fact: timschochet spelled backwards is sida!

Tangent: I have wondered whether or not SIDA! references the Spanish name for HIV/AIDS.

 

[SIDA!]

Sida - Interesting stuff. Can you flesh this out a bit more?

SIDA! is a timschochet alias

:mindblown:

 

[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 owner

Don'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!

Ratings were high this past week - fans are a fickle bunch. They yell, they scream, they gnash their test, but they can't turn away.

This isn't a short-term thing. Ratings for single weeks are notoriously fickle, they depend on all kinds of factors like matchups and weather and whatnot. If there's any impact it would be felt down the line due to slowly eroding passion for the league, and also with things like jersey sales and whatnot.

Ratings for the primetime games fluctuate a decent amount, the Sunday daytime games are fairly stable. And if this particular incident were going to effect ratings it would happen immediately. No one would think to themselves 2 years from now, you know what - now I'm going to stop watching football because Adrian Peterson beat his kid.

 

[timschochet]

I approve of the results of this decision, but the way it when down seems both wimpy and inexplicable. Minnesota deactivated Peterson, then announced he was returning to practice and that they supported him, and now this. Meanwhile Goodell and the NFL are silent. The whole thing, while not quite as embarrassing as the Rice situation which preceded it, has the feel of pro football acting like a deer caught in the headlights.

 

[SIDA!]

Took you 5 paragraphs to explain why you were not obsessed with me?

Like I wrote, whatever dude. This is like the 4th time now that you complained that've didn't read all of your posts yesterday before I responded to one- and you're right, but iPhones are to blame. I tend to skip posts with lots of back and forth when I'm on my iPhone, as well as pages that have gone by. I'd like to read every post but I don't. Mea culpa.

And yes sometimes I ask questions here instead of googling stuff- perhaps I prefer the conversation? These are odd things to criticize me about.

You ever seen movies or sitcoms where the bumbling idiot destroys in a few seconds what others took hours or days to build. Think Urkel from that one show from back in the day. You are kind of like that guy. The idiocy you convey in two sentences often requires paragraphs to mitigate.

Now you state that this is the "4th time" I've complained about your not reading posts before responding right before you admit that you don't read all the posts. You do realize that that was the 4th time stating such because up to that point you repeatedly stated that I was obsessing over you because of your post count.

So, in your warped mind, you distort the facts that transpire and then when I attempt to set the record straight (repeatedly) you bemoan my stating something for the 4th time. Well, yeah I guess it is kind of odd that I would not let you continue to spout your unchecked drivel. And yes, it is odd that I would criticize you about not reading what other people write. I mean, clearly this is not a message board where people communicate, exchange ideas and discuss topics. This is the Church of Tim where our beloved pastor simply needs to tell us what to think. The FFA is your own ####### Twitter feed. How fan####ingtastic! We should all feel so blessed.

Amen.

 

[timschochet]

Took you 5 paragraphs to explain why you were not obsessed with me?

Like I wrote, whatever dude. This is like the 4th time now that you complained that've didn't read all of your posts yesterday before I responded to one- and you're right, but iPhones are to blame. I tend to skip posts with lots of back and forth when I'm on my iPhone, as well as pages that have gone by. I'd like to read every post but I don't. Mea culpa.

And yes sometimes I ask questions here instead of googling stuff- perhaps I prefer the conversation? These are odd things to criticize me about.

You ever seen movies or sitcoms where the bumbling idiot destroys in a few seconds what others took hours or days to build. Think Urkel from that one show from back in the day. You are kind of like that guy. The idiocy you convey in two sentences often requires paragraphs to mitigate.Now you state that this is the "4th time" I've complained about your not reading posts before responding right before you admit that you don't read all the posts. You do realize that that was the 4th time stating such because up to that point you repeatedly stated that I was obsessing over you because of your post count.

So, in your warped mind, you distort the facts that transpire and then when I attempt to set the record straight (repeatedly) you bemoan my stating something for the 4th time. Well, yeah I guess it is kind of odd that I would not let you continue to spout your unchecked drivel. And yes, it is odd that I would criticize you about not reading what other people write. I mean, clearly this is not a message board where people communicate, exchange ideas and discuss topics. This is the Church of Tim where our beloved pastor simply needs to tell us what to think. The FFA is your own ####### Twitter feed. How fan####ingtastic! We should all feel so blessed.

Amen.

OK

 

[Joseph]

So, how does the ignore user function work?

 

[Limp Ditka]

I approve of the results of this decision

And that's what's important.

 

[LarryAllen'sJockstrap]

I like how someone brought up guys like Jeramy Stevens, Leonard Little, Lawrence Phillips and the like... These guys were committing at least, if not far more egregious acts than what we're seeing with ADP and Rice. I don't believe one of the those three players I mentioned was suspended a single game. Was there a public outcry; nope. Back then, the bigger issues the league was facing in the public eye were the welfare and support of former players with medical problems and ensuring the competitive integrity of the game regarding incidents like spygate...

Since then, a lot of work has been put in and those particular issues, and for at least some part, they have been handled/contained. The NFL has instituted compensation for former players with lingering physical/mental issues and the league began to crack down on cheating.

Today's hot button topic in the media regarding the NFL is player conduct off the field, and cracking down on offenders, especially cases of domestic violence. This has been bubbling for a while, but when you have multiple high profile players getting busted for DV all within a small window of time, it's going to magnify the issue even more. I am against what AP and Rice did, but I'm not going to kid myself and pretend like the reaction would have been the same 15 years ago. These things would have worked their way through the courts, and that would likely be the end. IMO, AP and Rice will be the two primary players to fall on the NFL sword and "show" the league's serious about correcting this problem. New policies will be put in place, and over time, folks will remember this as just another obstacle the league overcame.

To throw out my own conspiracy theory, I don't why the NFL has any interest in HGH testing. Fans like the players bigger, meaner, faster and stronger. If players start getting busted and dropping like flies for doping (I'd be shocked if they didn't), the league's next major problem will be the integrity of the game based on PEDs. We all know they're being used and choose to turn a blind eye. What happens when that bubble bursts? Will 1995-2015 be remembered as the steroid era of the NFL?

Look at the MLB. The majority of fans turned a blind eye and were riveted by the home run chases, records falling and slugfests during the steroid era. Now, we look back at that time and those players as a black eye on the sport. I hope the NFL doesn't go the same way, but I'm afraid it could.

 

[timschochet]

Larry, I want to understand: are you saying that those guys you mentioned should have faced similar treatment, and therefore what is happening right now is good and long overdue, or are you saying that because those guys weren't punished, Peterson shouldn't be punished either (by the NFL I mean)?

 

[Limp Ditka]

I like how someone brought up guys like Jeramy Stevens, Leonard Little, Lawrence Phillips and the like... These guys were committing at least, if not far more egregious acts than what we're seeing with ADP and Rice. I don't believe one of the those three players I mentioned was suspended a single game. Was there a public outcry; nope. Back then, the bigger issues the league was facing in the public eye were the welfare and support of former players with medical problems and ensuring the competitive integrity of the game regarding incidents like spygate...

Since then, a lot of work has been put in and those particular issues, and for at least some part, they have been handled/contained. The NFL has instituted compensation for former players with lingering physical/mental issues and the league began to crack down on cheating.

Today's hot button topic in the media regarding the NFL is player conduct off the field, and cracking down on offenders, especially cases of domestic violence. This has been bubbling for a while, but when you have multiple high profile players getting busted for DV all within a small window of time, it's going to magnify the issue even more. I am against what AP and Rice did, but I'm not going to kid myself and pretend like the reaction would have been the same 15 years ago. These things would have worked their way through the courts, and that would likely be the end. IMO, AP and Rice will be the two primary players to fall on the NFL sword and "show" the league's serious about correcting this problem. New policies will be put in place, and over time, folks will remember this as just another obstacle the league overcame.

To throw out my own conspiracy theory, I don't why the NFL has any interest in HGH testing. Fans like the players bigger, meaner, faster and stronger. If players start getting busted and dropping like flies for doping (I'd be shocked if they didn't), the league's next major problem will be the integrity of the game based on PEDs. We all know they're being used and choose to turn a blind eye. What happens when that bubble bursts? Will 1995-2015 be remembered as the steroid era of the NFL?

Look at the MLB. The majority of fans turned a blind eye and were riveted by the home run chases, records falling and slugfests during the steroid era. Now, we look back at that time and those players as a black eye on the sport. I hope the NFL doesn't go the same way, but I'm afraid it could.

You can blame idiot politicians for the NFL wanting to go in this direction with HGH testing. Anti trust status is possibly the NFLs greatest asset and they want to give Capitol Hill no reason to dangle that over their heads.

 

[dparker713]

I like how someone brought up guys like Jeramy Stevens, Leonard Little, Lawrence Phillips and the like... These guys were committing at least, if not far more egregious acts than what we're seeing with ADP and Rice. I don't believe one of the those three players I mentioned was suspended a single game. Was there a public outcry; nope. Back then, the bigger issues the league was facing in the public eye were the welfare and support of former players with medical problems and ensuring the competitive integrity of the game regarding incidents like spygate...

Since then, a lot of work has been put in and those particular issues, and for at least some part, they have been handled/contained. The NFL has instituted compensation for former players with lingering physical/mental issues and the league began to crack down on cheating.

Today's hot button topic in the media regarding the NFL is player conduct off the field, and cracking down on offenders, especially cases of domestic violence. This has been bubbling for a while, but when you have multiple high profile players getting busted for DV all within a small window of time, it's going to magnify the issue even more. I am against what AP and Rice did, but I'm not going to kid myself and pretend like the reaction would have been the same 15 years ago. These things would have worked their way through the courts, and that would likely be the end. IMO, AP and Rice will be the two primary players to fall on the NFL sword and "show" the league's serious about correcting this problem. New policies will be put in place, and over time, folks will remember this as just another obstacle the league overcame.

To throw out my own conspiracy theory, I don't why the NFL has any interest in HGH testing. Fans like the players bigger, meaner, faster and stronger. If players start getting busted and dropping like flies for doping (I'd be shocked if they didn't), the league's next major problem will be the integrity of the game based on PEDs. We all know they're being used and choose to turn a blind eye. What happens when that bubble bursts? Will 1995-2015 be remembered as the steroid era of the NFL?

Look at the MLB. The majority of fans turned a blind eye and were riveted by the home run chases, records falling and slugfests during the steroid era. Now, we look back at that time and those players as a black eye on the sport. I hope the NFL doesn't go the same way, but I'm afraid it could.

The media didn't really ratchet up their coverage of off field incidents until Goodell decided to start stepping in for the justice system. You know how easy the PR for these arrests would be if Goodell hadn't become judge jury and executioner? Cite the CBA, make a statement about working on a new conduct policy in the next round of negotiations, rise, repeat.

 

[dparker713]

I like how someone brought up guys like Jeramy Stevens, Leonard Little, Lawrence Phillips and the like... These guys were committing at least, if not far more egregious acts than what we're seeing with ADP and Rice. I don't believe one of the those three players I mentioned was suspended a single game. Was there a public outcry; nope. Back then, the bigger issues the league was facing in the public eye were the welfare and support of former players with medical problems and ensuring the competitive integrity of the game regarding incidents like spygate...

Since then, a lot of work has been put in and those particular issues, and for at least some part, they have been handled/contained. The NFL has instituted compensation for former players with lingering physical/mental issues and the league began to crack down on cheating.

Today's hot button topic in the media regarding the NFL is player conduct off the field, and cracking down on offenders, especially cases of domestic violence. This has been bubbling for a while, but when you have multiple high profile players getting busted for DV all within a small window of time, it's going to magnify the issue even more. I am against what AP and Rice did, but I'm not going to kid myself and pretend like the reaction would have been the same 15 years ago. These things would have worked their way through the courts, and that would likely be the end. IMO, AP and Rice will be the two primary players to fall on the NFL sword and "show" the league's serious about correcting this problem. New policies will be put in place, and over time, folks will remember this as just another obstacle the league overcame.

To throw out my own conspiracy theory, I don't why the NFL has any interest in HGH testing. Fans like the players bigger, meaner, faster and stronger. If players start getting busted and dropping like flies for doping (I'd be shocked if they didn't), the league's next major problem will be the integrity of the game based on PEDs. We all know they're being used and choose to turn a blind eye. What happens when that bubble bursts? Will 1995-2015 be remembered as the steroid era of the NFL?

Look at the MLB. The majority of fans turned a blind eye and were riveted by the home run chases, records falling and slugfests during the steroid era. Now, we look back at that time and those players as a black eye on the sport. I hope the NFL doesn't go the same way, but I'm afraid it could.

You can blame idiot politicians for the NFL wanting to go in this direction with HGH testing. Anti trust status is possibly the NFLs greatest asset and they want to give Capitol Hill no reason to dangle that over their heads.

The NFL has a very limited anti-trust exemption to allow the league to negotiate TV deals as a collective. It isn't baseball.

 

[dparker713]

Larry, I want to understand: are you saying that those guys you mentioned should have faced similar treatment, and therefore what is happening right now is good and long overdue, or are you saying that because those guys weren't punished, Peterson shouldn't be punished either (by the NFL I mean)?

The NFL should never have tried to become the morality police.

 

[LarryAllen'sJockstrap]

Larry, I want to understand: are you saying that those guys you mentioned should have faced similar treatment, and therefore what is happening right now is good and long overdue, or are you saying that because those guys weren't punished, Peterson shouldn't be punished either (by the NFL I mean)?

I'm too lazy to dig it up, but I remember starting a thread years ago about Stevans having pics of Goodell, based on all the stuff he got away with and yet never was suspended. I do believe those players should have faced consequences. I believe the league partially ignored it, or took it lightly because it wasn't a hot button topic at the time.

Now that said behavior is a hot button topic, I think punishments are rightly being handed down, but to a certain degree, I believe the guys Rice/AP/Hardy that have "helped" raise awareness to the general public and media will pay the heaviest price as examples.

 

[the moops]

I approve of the results of this decision

And that's what's important.

Beat me to it.

 

[KarmaPolice]

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.

 

[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?

 

[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 owner

Don'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!

Ratings were high this past week - fans are a fickle bunch. They yell, they scream, they gnash their test, but they can't turn away.

This isn't a short-term thing. Ratings for single weeks are notoriously fickle, they depend on all kinds of factors like matchups and weather and whatnot. If there's any impact it would be felt down the line due to slowly eroding passion for the league, and also with things like jersey sales and whatnot.

Ratings for the primetime games fluctuate a decent amount, the Sunday daytime games are fairly stable. And if this particular incident were going to effect ratings it would happen immediately. No one would think to themselves 2 years from now, you know what - now I'm going to stop watching football because Adrian Peterson beat his kid.

Sure, of course not. Very few people will immediately change habits out of protest or something. It's more of an accumulated thing. For example every game used to be appointment viewing for me. For a variety of reasons (concussion stuff, general dislike of the way Goodell has run the league, less passion for the local franchise) it's not any more. I still turn on the games if I'm in front of a TV, but I don't necessarily stay with them, and i can foresee a day soon when I decide to spend a few Sundays doing something else.

Plus like I said, even if they're still watching the games there's degrees of enthusiasm for it. This stuff might hinder what had been unstoppable growth, for example, and it could affect merch sales.

 

[Tom Servo]

I've never heard the Exempt/Commissioner's Permission List before. Who else has been placed on it?

http://www.ibtimes.com/what-exemptcommissioners-permission-list-adrian-peterson-banned-vikings-team-activities-1690450

In 2009, quarterback Michael Vick, then a member of the Philadelphia Eagles, was placed on the exempt list after serving a jail sentence and suspension for his participation in an illegal dogfighting ring. Similarly, former Tampa Bay Buccaneers safety Tanard Jackson was placed on the exempt list in 2011 after returning from a year-long ban for violating the NFL's substance abuse policy. Former New Orleans Saints linebacker Jonathan Vilma spent time on the list in 2012 after a suspension for his involve in that organization's "BountyGate" scandal, though his stay was health-related. However, both Vick and Jackson were allowed to practice while on the exempt list, which indicates that the Vikings made the decision to ban Peterson from practice.

The exempt/commissioner's permission list isn't necessarily reserved for troubled players. The Buccaneers placed running back Jeff Demps on the list in 2013 during his pursuit of an Olympic track career, Deadspin notes.

thanks.

If you were wondering when the exempt/commissioner's permission list is used, we found a few instances. The Tampa Bay Buccaneers placed running back Jeff Demps on it in 2013 while he was pursuing his track career. Linebacker Jonathan Vilma was placed on it in 2012 after serving his ban for Bountygate, since he wasn't ready to play yet, according to the Advocate. Bucs safety Tanard Jackson was on the list in 2011 after serving a substance abuse ban. (Vilma and Jackson were allowed to practice, so the decision to keep Peterson away from the team was up to the Vikings.) MMQB's Robert Klemko found that the Eagles used that option for Michael Vick at the end of his dogfighting ban. So, the designation looks to cover a variety of reasons.

 

[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 owner

Don'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!

Ratings were high this past week - fans are a fickle bunch. They yell, they scream, they gnash their test, but they can't turn away.

This isn't a short-term thing. Ratings for single weeks are notoriously fickle, they depend on all kinds of factors like matchups and weather and whatnot. If there's any impact it would be felt down the line due to slowly eroding passion for the league, and also with things like jersey sales and whatnot.

Ratings for the primetime games fluctuate a decent amount, the Sunday daytime games are fairly stable. And if this particular incident were going to effect ratings it would happen immediately. No one would think to themselves 2 years from now, you know what - now I'm going to stop watching football because Adrian Peterson beat his kid.

Sure, of course not. Very few people will immediately change habits out of protest or something. It's more of an accumulated thing. For example every game used to be appointment viewing for me. For a variety of reasons (concussion stuff, general dislike of the way Goodell has run the league, less passion for the local franchise) it's not any more. I still turn on the games if I'm in front of a TV, but I don't necessarily stay with them, and i can foresee a day soon when I decide to spend a few Sundays doing something else.

Plus like I said, even if they're still watching the games there's degrees of enthusiasm for it. This stuff might hinder what had been unstoppable growth, for example, and it could affect merch sales.

Well, you're also getting older. Generally people's passion as fans wanes with age.

 

[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 owner

Don'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!

Ratings were high this past week - fans are a fickle bunch. They yell, they scream, they gnash their test, but they can't turn away.

This isn't a short-term thing. Ratings for single weeks are notoriously fickle, they depend on all kinds of factors like matchups and weather and whatnot. If there's any impact it would be felt down the line due to slowly eroding passion for the league, and also with things like jersey sales and whatnot.

Ratings for the primetime games fluctuate a decent amount, the Sunday daytime games are fairly stable. And if this particular incident were going to effect ratings it would happen immediately. No one would think to themselves 2 years from now, you know what - now I'm going to stop watching football because Adrian Peterson beat his kid.

Sure, of course not. Very few people will immediately change habits out of protest or something. It's more of an accumulated thing. For example every game used to be appointment viewing for me. For a variety of reasons (concussion stuff, general dislike of the way Goodell has run the league, less passion for the local franchise) it's not any more. I still turn on the games if I'm in front of a TV, but I don't necessarily stay with them, and i can foresee a day soon when I decide to spend a few Sundays doing something else.

Plus like I said, even if they're still watching the games there's degrees of enthusiasm for it. This stuff might hinder what had been unstoppable growth, for example, and it could affect merch sales.

Well, you're also getting older. Generally people's passion as fans wanes with age.

Touche. Love my local baseball and basketball teams more than ever, though.

I don't think I'm alone in having this sentiment. There's been columns written about it, mostly about how the CTE stuff might impact viewers. Other people have mentioned it in this and the Rice thread. I don't think it's gonna drag down NFL viewership in the near term but I think they should be at least a little concerned about the long-term outlook.

 

[Dan Lambskin]

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.

I think people like to attach themselves to a cause and flaunt it on social media

I'm sure some really do care, but in sure a lot are doing it just because everyone else is

Maybe I'm just a cynical ####### though

 

[KarmaPolice]

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.

 

[jonessed]

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.

I think people like to attach themselves to a cause and flaunt it on social mediaI'm sure some really do care, but in sure a lot are doing it just because everyone else is

Maybe I'm just a cynical ####### though

There is a lot of that in social media.

 

[KarmaPolice]

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 owner

Don'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!

Ratings were high this past week - fans are a fickle bunch. They yell, they scream, they gnash their test, but they can't turn away.

This isn't a short-term thing. Ratings for single weeks are notoriously fickle, they depend on all kinds of factors like matchups and weather and whatnot. If there's any impact it would be felt down the line due to slowly eroding passion for the league, and also with things like jersey sales and whatnot.

Ratings for the primetime games fluctuate a decent amount, the Sunday daytime games are fairly stable. And if this particular incident were going to effect ratings it would happen immediately. No one would think to themselves 2 years from now, you know what - now I'm going to stop watching football because Adrian Peterson beat his kid.

Sure, of course not. Very few people will immediately change habits out of protest or something. It's more of an accumulated thing. For example every game used to be appointment viewing for me. For a variety of reasons (concussion stuff, general dislike of the way Goodell has run the league, less passion for the local franchise) it's not any more. I still turn on the games if I'm in front of a TV, but I don't necessarily stay with them, and i can foresee a day soon when I decide to spend a few Sundays doing something else.

Plus like I said, even if they're still watching the games there's degrees of enthusiasm for it. This stuff might hinder what had been unstoppable growth, for example, and it could affect merch sales.

This is about where I am. Used to watch all the games on Sundays, and now I maybe watch one game a month. Some of the reasons you give are reasons for me as well, but a main part is as I get older I can't stand watching 2 hours of commercials for maybe an hour of game. Got back into hockey more because of some of those reasons - more sustained pace, less breaks, quicker overall game times, etc..

 

[bigbottom]

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 owner

Don'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!

Ratings were high this past week - fans are a fickle bunch. They yell, they scream, they gnash their test, but they can't turn away.

This isn't a short-term thing. Ratings for single weeks are notoriously fickle, they depend on all kinds of factors like matchups and weather and whatnot. If there's any impact it would be felt down the line due to slowly eroding passion for the league, and also with things like jersey sales and whatnot.

Ratings for the primetime games fluctuate a decent amount, the Sunday daytime games are fairly stable. And if this particular incident were going to effect ratings it would happen immediately. No one would think to themselves 2 years from now, you know what - now I'm going to stop watching football because Adrian Peterson beat his kid.

Sure, of course not. Very few people will immediately change habits out of protest or something. It's more of an accumulated thing. For example every game used to be appointment viewing for me. For a variety of reasons (concussion stuff, general dislike of the way Goodell has run the league, less passion for the local franchise) it's not any more. I still turn on the games if I'm in front of a TV, but I don't necessarily stay with them, and i can foresee a day soon when I decide to spend a few Sundays doing something else.

Plus like I said, even if they're still watching the games there's degrees of enthusiasm for it. This stuff might hinder what had been unstoppable growth, for example, and it could affect merch sales.

This is about where I am. Used to watch all the games on Sundays, and now I maybe watch one game a month. Some of the reasons you give are reasons for me as well, but a main part is as I get older I can't stand watching 2 hours of commercials for maybe an hour of game. Got back into hockey more because of some of those reasons - more sustained pace, less breaks, quicker overall game times, etc..

DirecTV - NFL Sunday Ticket Short Cuts!

 

[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.

 

[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.

 

[KarmaPolice]

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.

 

[KarmaPolice]

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 owner

Don'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!

Ratings were high this past week - fans are a fickle bunch. They yell, they scream, they gnash their test, but they can't turn away.

This isn't a short-term thing. Ratings for single weeks are notoriously fickle, they depend on all kinds of factors like matchups and weather and whatnot. If there's any impact it would be felt down the line due to slowly eroding passion for the league, and also with things like jersey sales and whatnot.

Ratings for the primetime games fluctuate a decent amount, the Sunday daytime games are fairly stable. And if this particular incident were going to effect ratings it would happen immediately. No one would think to themselves 2 years from now, you know what - now I'm going to stop watching football because Adrian Peterson beat his kid.

Sure, of course not. Very few people will immediately change habits out of protest or something. It's more of an accumulated thing. For example every game used to be appointment viewing for me. For a variety of reasons (concussion stuff, general dislike of the way Goodell has run the league, less passion for the local franchise) it's not any more. I still turn on the games if I'm in front of a TV, but I don't necessarily stay with them, and i can foresee a day soon when I decide to spend a few Sundays doing something else.

Plus like I said, even if they're still watching the games there's degrees of enthusiasm for it. This stuff might hinder what had been unstoppable growth, for example, and it could affect merch sales.

This is about where I am. Used to watch all the games on Sundays, and now I maybe watch one game a month. Some of the reasons you give are reasons for me as well, but a main part is as I get older I can't stand watching 2 hours of commercials for maybe an hour of game. Got back into hockey more because of some of those reasons - more sustained pace, less breaks, quicker overall game times, etc..

DirecTV - NFL Sunday Ticket Short Cuts!

Not for me. Tried that Red Zone channel, etc.. and have no interest. The game has changed a bit, but most is me. Just can't sit for a game very often for a variety of reasons.

 

[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.

 

[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=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.

 

[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.

 

[-fish-]

So, how does the ignore user function work?

not well enough.

 

[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.

 

[Hot Diggity Dog]

THE NFL loves the hyper media attention and the social media when it is favorable or based around a big game or the Super Bowl. When that beast you create turns around and bites you I'm not sure that is the beast's fault. If the NFL wants me to care about what these players say on media day during a Super Bowl, then it should expect that what I think about their behavior will become important.

The NFL wants us to think it cares about breast cancer and endless other charities that also raises expectations on what it's ethical level should be.

 

[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.

 

[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.

 

[Dan Lambskin]

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

 

[Disco Stu]

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=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.

 

[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.

History jumps on specific events that catch the public's attention. Oftentimes it's hard to know why that is, even in retrospect. The Peterson's story caught the public in a way that the Holmes story, and many others like it, never did. We know one of the reasons for this: because it came directly after the Ray Rice story. Other reasons are speculative.

At the risk of being accused of absurd analogies, let me offer an example WHICH IS IN NO WAY RELATED except that it illustrates how history seems to randomly focus on events: the My Lai massacre in Vietnam was preceded by far worse massacres on all sides of that war, yet My Lai captured the world's attention in a way that none of the others did. Why? People still debate the reasons. There are thousands of pop songs released each month, all with equally enticing melodic hooks designed to attract public attention. A small number become instant hits, while the rest are ignored. Why? People can speculate, but nobody really knows.

So your accusation of hypocrisy and fake outrage as the only reason is simplistic and probably has nothing to do with it.