Goodell is the most charismatic arms dealer I've heard (1 Viewer)

[Team ROFLCOPTERS]

Rodger Goodell is a master salesman. He annoys you, but by the time he's done you are opening up lines of credit to buy a time share. He's the neighbor that kicks your dog, so you go to beat him up and he greets you with lemonaid and cookies. I want to dislike the guy because he has skirted up my favorite game, but the way he talks makes me actually feel sorry for him.

I was thinking about this all day after hearing his interview on ESPN's Mike and Mike. I was grumpy at the fact that Goodell is making smut up as he goes with this Pryor and Tressel issues. I was mad that he is enforcing rules that were not in place. I mean, are we going to go back and suspend all of the Miami players who took benefits in college? Are we going to suspend Bush? I was wanting Mike and Mike to call him on it. They didn't. In fact, Goodell didn't say anything to win me over. His arguments were arrogant. But the tone and modulation, the lawyer accurate wording by the end of the interview defused me. I didn't agree with what he had to say but I came off refreshed.... even felt like he was getting a bad shake. EVERY TIME.

Does anyone else get this vibe. He's a smooth customer without being smooth. He's an arrogant SOB in his words and actions but comes off mild and humble. How does he do it?

 

[Da Guru]

I like Goodell. More important the NFL needs a strong leader as Goodell or it would quickly turn into a WWF and out of control. Do I like all the rules? No, but when you look at all the potential player problems they are needed.

The NFL is almost like MSNBCs lockdown..but they get paid better. Have to have a strong warden.

 

[Donnybrook]

I dislike him not because what he says but what he does. The chaotic way he hands on fines and suspensions makes them terribly unfair. He came into the league saying that he was protect the NFL sheild at all costs. He hands out a indefinate suspension to Ricky Williams for smoking pot. Suspends players before they are convicted of any crimes. Now, he giving everyone a free pass. WTF?

He needs to establish some rules for conduct and enforce them and stop making up things as he goes along.

 

[kupcho1]

Oh, you mean the $1 man (you can search czabe for the original, I'll just paste the "clean" version here)

Wednesday, January 26, 2011This guy Goodell is un-#######-believable kids, isn't he? Just when you thought the barrell-chested, skull-inflated, red-headed spokesdummy for the NFL couldn't get or sound any stupider, he does. In an effort to show the entire football world what a swell guy he is, Goodell said on Wednesday that he would voluntarily reduce his "salary" to $1 if there is any stoppage in games due to the lockout. Well, la-dee-#######'-da, as the late Chris Farley might say. That's some real hardship, there, Roger. You gonna take a job at Kinko's to make ends meet? Seriously, though, where does this guy get his public relations instincts? Lindsay Lohan's mother? If I was him, the last thing in the world I would do - short of locking my office door from the outside while fining James Harrison and dropping a few n-bombs - is alert anybody who doesn't already know it, THAT I MAKE $10 ####### MILLION DOLLARS A YEAR! And I am sure that is without a bunch of "bonuses" for "performance" that are about as certain to happen with this money making machine called the NFL as the sun coming up on a cow's ### in the barnyard. "Congrats, Roger! The Super Bowl was a sellout. Again! You are a ####### genius! Here, have another million dollars!" Do most people know that this guy is a complete NOBODY?! Do they know? Do people know that if the owners woke up one day and said: "You know what, I bet a monkey could run this league" old Roger would be seriously ####-out-of-luck finding anything more than a managers job at Appleby's. Here's Goodell's extensive "business" resume, courtesy of the Wiki.From intern to COO Goodell's career in the NFL began in 1982 as an administrative intern in the league office in New York under then-Commissioner Pete Rozelle – a position secured through an extensive letter-writing campaign to the league office and each of its then 28 teams. In 1983, he joined the New York Jets as an intern, but returned to the league office in 1984 as an assistant in the public relations department. In 1987, Goodell was appointed assistant to the president of the American Football Conference (Lamar Hunt), and under the tutelage of Commissioner Paul Tagliabue filled a variety of football and business operations roles, culminating with his appointment as the NFL's Executive Vice President and Chief Operating Officer in December 2001.That's it, kids. You too can go from intern to COO, just write some letters to a big billion dollar conglomerate, be open to absorbing some "tutelage" and be ready to perform "a variety of roles." If Goodell gets ####canned tomorrow, I can assure you the collective boards of the Fortune 500 aren't going to be tripping on their ##### to get the phone to call this guy. He's done nothing. He knows nothing. And he makes $10 million a year. If you want to know why players hate this guy's guts, just look up how many players in this league make more than $10 million a year. In 2009-10, a total of two running backs made more than 10 mil. (MJD and Brandon Jacobs, oddly enough). Running backs! You know, the psychopaths who endure the equivalent of 20 or more violent car crashes every week until their knees give out in a quivering pile of twisted tendons and cartilage. Goodell makes more than almost all of them, just sitting on his ### in New York firing off memos about how much the league cares about player safety. #### him. You tell me the league can't get a really great CEO from another company, with a real resume, who would gladly take this CEO job for just $1 million per year, if for nothing else the ####-sweet sideline access 24/7? Of course you could! You could have a parade of successful CEO's who just want to ease into retirement with a little 4 year term standing at the wheelhouse of this league that CANNOT BE ####### SUNK, waving at the pretty girls in bikinis floating by. And I bet you, those CEO's would tell these dip#### owners - especially the old farts who won their team in a factory game of poker sometime around WWII and are now sitting on literally, Fort ####### Knox! - "Hey fellas. You're printing money. Don't make any sharp moves here, and let's just figure out how we can charge an extra $50 a year on Sunday Ticket and call it a day!" But no. The owners have their monkey, and they are telling him to dance! God, now I am almost wishing for this all to go horribly, horribly wrong for the owners. I'd even take a whole year off, with no Super Bowl, to watch Goodell's idiocy end up burning down a huge chunk of the owner's financial house. "Ooops. Didn't think the players could stick together like that. Sorry. We'll get 'em next year!" Of course, I'm dreaming here. Antonio Cromartie reminded me that even if the NFLPA has a full 85% of its members stocked up on bottled water and driving reasonable family vehicles for a long labor showdown, all it takes is the Albert Haynesworth led 15% to #### it all up for everybody. A $1 salary, eh boss? I think you finally found your true market value.

 

[fatness]

Oh, you mean the $1 man (you can search czabe for the original, I'll just paste the "clean" version here)

I hadn't seen that before. Thank you.

 

[jonessed]

I like him.

 

[Casting Couch]

I like him.

this.He's 10 times the commissioner that Paul Tagliabue was.

 

[coolnerd]

The one thing that has always seemed strange to me is that every year at the draft, there are a good amount of players who hug that guy like he was the long lost uncle who left a couple of million to each. Now those guys are getting millions, but Papa Tags barely got a handshake while this guy gets the full non-man hug. Have no idea what he is saying to dudes during the draft process. Always amazed me.

 

[krsone21]

I like him.

this.He's 10 times the commissioner that Paul Tagliabue was.

 

[Casting Couch]

The one thing that has always seemed strange to me is that every year at the draft, there are a good amount of players who hug that guy like he was the long lost uncle who left a couple of million to each. Now those guys are getting millions, but Papa Tags barely got a handshake while this guy gets the full non-man hug. Have no idea what he is saying to dudes during the draft process. Always amazed me.

I think the man-hug started during Goodell's 1st year as commissioner. Some big D-Lineman was drafted and gave Goodell a big hug when he stepped onto the podium, and it seems to have taken on a life of it's own ever since.

 

[Doug B]

I like Goodell. More important the NFL needs a strong leader as Goodell or it would quickly turn into a WWF and out of control. Do I like all the rules? No, but when you look at all the porential player problems they are needed.The NFL is almost like MSNBCs lockdown..but they get paid better. Have to have a strong warden.

Players today are too powerful -- and, collectively, reckless -- to ever have a popular, well-liked NFL comissioner again. Every good commissioner from now on will have to continually oppose the baser instincts of the players.

 

[Doug B]

He needs to establish some rules for conduct and enforce them and stop making up things as he goes along.

Impossible to have a cover-every-scenario set of rules. Might seem unfair to the players, but stop and think: if they walk the straight-and-narrow, they never get the hammer. I like that knuckleheads have to look over their shoulder, and, when punished, can't cry and say "but that other guy didn't get in trouble!"Athletes don't have to skirt rules all the time. They can make the decision to rein things in ... so it's more on them then on Goodell, IMHO.

 

[Clifford]

Tell me again how making rules up as you go along is being a good commissioner of anything?

 

[Mello]

I hate men who are complete BS and that's what Goodell is. A smooth talker with no substance or at least he refuses to address the substance in earshot of the public. The fact that he's quickly ruining the game at the behest of ownership doesn't help.

 

[GregR]

It seems to me that many of the complaints about Goodell display a lack of understanding of the NFL's position and why they are doing what they are doing. A few examples.

Legal Issues:

"Goodell suspended <player> when he wasn't even convicted!" or "The NFL shouldn't try to be the judicial branch!" These are contradictory complaints but both suggest the person uttering them is missing the point of why discipline was given. The NFL doesn't try to be the judicial branch. Their discipline is not based on deterring acts for the good of society. The NFL hands out fines and suspensions to stop their employees from behaving in ways that create a poor public perception of their company.

Getting convicted of something can obviously create bad press for the company, so yes they may discipline for it. But a conviction isn't necessary for the bad press to happen. In Roethlisberger's case, getting drunk and having sex with a woman in a public bathroom is obviously something that can create such bad press... whether or not it was found to be rape. Pacman showed a repeated lack of judgment when he's putting himself in situations where he's getting questioned a half dozen times about crimes.

Players agree to contracts that say they won't commit actions that put the league in such a situation and are paid more than enough to make it worth their while to adhere to it. I have no problem with most of the punishments given in this regard. The only place I think the NFL needs to be really careful is when there might be a case of false accusation but the player was not otherwise showing bad judgment for having been in the situation he was in the first place.



Player safety:

For all that people like to complaina bout the #####-ification of the league, the NFL has been pretty consistent in the thought behind the rules they've added, and when there have been issues they have tended to make changes to improve them.

What are the two items in common behind most every one of the new player safety rules? They try to limit aiming at the head as the point of contact... and they try to limit the contact in situations when one player is able to accelerate to full sprint before making contact. A QB in the at of passing, a defenseless receiver, a running back who has been stood up, the wedge on a kick off, all of these are situations where the hitter often has a chance to come in at full speed and that is when people get injured. The bigger issue in the NFL is that the mentality went from a hard tackle where the goal was to stop the ball carrier and get him on the ground, to a kill shot where the goal was to do as much damage as possible. It's very clear from many comments from players and former players (like Bruschi saying how he'd use the knowledge of Arian Foster's MRI to target the injured spot) that some defensive players are not out to make a tackle, but are out to hurt the other player if they can.

Where I think the NFL deserves some fault is that it took them a couple of iterations to get the rules right. Incidental contact to the QB's helmet should never have been a penalty, they finally fixed that this year. Teams should have shared in the team fines and had the possibility of loss of draft picks for repeat offenses from the get go... because the teams encouraging such hits was a part of the problem.

Overall I don't think that Goodell has done a bad job. He's fighting a battle though in having to change people's perceptions of what the issues are and what behavior won't be tolerated. He could use some more consistency in the size of fines, and I think there should be someone other than the commissioner who handles discipline, with the commissioner getting involved for appeals. I do think that the animosity the players feel towards him may still come back to bite the league down the road. Though if they made it through the lockout ok, maybe not.

 

[Clifford]

It seems to me that many of the complaints about Goodell display a lack of understanding of the NFL's position and why they are doing what they are doing. A few examples.

Legal Issues:

"Goodell suspended <player> when he wasn't even convicted!" or "The NFL shouldn't try to be the judicial branch!" These are contradictory complaints but both suggest the person uttering them is missing the point of why discipline was given. The NFL doesn't try to be the judicial branch. Their discipline is not based on deterring acts for the good of society. The NFL hands out fines and suspensions to stop their employees from behaving in ways that create a poor public perception of their company.

Getting convicted of something can obviously create bad press for the company, so yes they may discipline for it. But a conviction isn't necessary for the bad press to happen. In Roethlisberger's case, getting drunk and having sex with a woman in a public bathroom is obviously something that can create such bad press... whether or not it was found to be rape. Pacman showed a repeated lack of judgment when he's putting himself in situations where he's getting questioned a half dozen times about crimes.

Players agree to contracts that say they won't commit actions that put the league in such a situation and are paid more than enough to make it worth their while to adhere to it. I have no problem with most of the punishments given in this regard. The only place I think the NFL needs to be really careful is when there might be a case of false accusation but the player was not otherwise showing bad judgment for having been in the situation he was in the first place.



Player safety:

For all that people like to complaina bout the #####-ification of the league, the NFL has been pretty consistent in the thought behind the rules they've added, and when there have been issues they have tended to make changes to improve them.

What are the two items in common behind most every one of the new player safety rules? They try to limit aiming at the head as the point of contact... and they try to limit the contact in situations when one player is able to accelerate to full sprint before making contact. A QB in the at of passing, a defenseless receiver, a running back who has been stood up, the wedge on a kick off, all of these are situations where the hitter often has a chance to come in at full speed and that is when people get injured. The bigger issue in the NFL is that the mentality went from a hard tackle where the goal was to stop the ball carrier and get him on the ground, to a kill shot where the goal was to do as much damage as possible. It's very clear from many comments from players and former players (like Bruschi saying how he'd use the knowledge of Arian Foster's MRI to target the injured spot) that some defensive players are not out to make a tackle, but are out to hurt the other player if they can.

Where I think the NFL deserves some fault is that it took them a couple of iterations to get the rules right. Incidental contact to the QB's helmet should never have been a penalty, they finally fixed that this year. Teams should have shared in the team fines and had the possibility of loss of draft picks for repeat offenses from the get go... because the teams encouraging such hits was a part of the problem.

Overall I don't think that Goodell has done a bad job. He's fighting a battle though in having to change people's perceptions of what the issues are and what behavior won't be tolerated. He could use some more consistency in the size of fines, and I think there should be someone other than the commissioner who handles discipline, with the commissioner getting involved for appeals. I do think that the animosity the players feel towards him may still come back to bite the league down the road. Though if they made it through the lockout ok, maybe not.

Where it the section on carrying over NCAA penalties to the NFL?

 

[Ksquared]

Classic anti-authority rants by many. Is Goodell the best Commissioner? Probably not, but many of the above posters were using him as the reason there was no off season and we were going to miss games. Last time I checked, he (since he was going to get most of the blame for missing games) must be given credit for us being able to watch NFL tomorrow night.

Now, do some/many of his decisions have unintended consequences? Yes I think they do, look at the Tressel situation. The reason Pryor was given the same suspension he would have gotten in college was because he did not follow the setup guidelines that would have allowed him to enter the supplemental draft. Goodell realizes he would probably lose a legal fight if they took it to court, so he used the lame suspension. But the valid concern that college players start hiring agents or doing things on purpose to lose their eligibility after the NFL draft to be able to enter a supplemental draft is a problem and likely to end the supplemental draft as we know it. The unintended consequences of this decision is Tressel getting hired suddenly seemed a possible double standard.

Now the real question is what happens when the next coach under suspension in college gets hired as an NFL head coach or lead coordinator? That will be interesting to see what the decision will be. Someone hires a new hot college coach as their head coach, but they are not able to coach the first ___ number of games.

 

[flapgreen]

He's the Obama of football.

 

[GregR]

It seems to me that many of the complaints about Goodell display a lack of understanding of the NFL's position and why they are doing what they are doing. A few examples.

Legal Issues:

"Goodell suspended <player> when he wasn't even convicted!" or "The NFL shouldn't try to be the judicial branch!" These are contradictory complaints but both suggest the person uttering them is missing the point of why discipline was given. The NFL doesn't try to be the judicial branch. Their discipline is not based on deterring acts for the good of society. The NFL hands out fines and suspensions to stop their employees from behaving in ways that create a poor public perception of their company.

Getting convicted of something can obviously create bad press for the company, so yes they may discipline for it. But a conviction isn't necessary for the bad press to happen. In Roethlisberger's case, getting drunk and having sex with a woman in a public bathroom is obviously something that can create such bad press... whether or not it was found to be rape. Pacman showed a repeated lack of judgment when he's putting himself in situations where he's getting questioned a half dozen times about crimes.

Players agree to contracts that say they won't commit actions that put the league in such a situation and are paid more than enough to make it worth their while to adhere to it. I have no problem with most of the punishments given in this regard. The only place I think the NFL needs to be really careful is when there might be a case of false accusation but the player was not otherwise showing bad judgment for having been in the situation he was in the first place.



Player safety:

For all that people like to complaina bout the #####-ification of the league, the NFL has been pretty consistent in the thought behind the rules they've added, and when there have been issues they have tended to make changes to improve them.

What are the two items in common behind most every one of the new player safety rules? They try to limit aiming at the head as the point of contact... and they try to limit the contact in situations when one player is able to accelerate to full sprint before making contact. A QB in the at of passing, a defenseless receiver, a running back who has been stood up, the wedge on a kick off, all of these are situations where the hitter often has a chance to come in at full speed and that is when people get injured. The bigger issue in the NFL is that the mentality went from a hard tackle where the goal was to stop the ball carrier and get him on the ground, to a kill shot where the goal was to do as much damage as possible. It's very clear from many comments from players and former players (like Bruschi saying how he'd use the knowledge of Arian Foster's MRI to target the injured spot) that some defensive players are not out to make a tackle, but are out to hurt the other player if they can.

Where I think the NFL deserves some fault is that it took them a couple of iterations to get the rules right. Incidental contact to the QB's helmet should never have been a penalty, they finally fixed that this year. Teams should have shared in the team fines and had the possibility of loss of draft picks for repeat offenses from the get go... because the teams encouraging such hits was a part of the problem.

Overall I don't think that Goodell has done a bad job. He's fighting a battle though in having to change people's perceptions of what the issues are and what behavior won't be tolerated. He could use some more consistency in the size of fines, and I think there should be someone other than the commissioner who handles discipline, with the commissioner getting involved for appeals. I do think that the animosity the players feel towards him may still come back to bite the league down the road. Though if they made it through the lockout ok, maybe not.

Where it the section on carrying over NCAA penalties to the NFL?

That is an area that I think the complaints are more justified. It's also much more recent and the complaints about Goodell have been going on for a couple of years before this.

 

[Dr. Awesome]

He's the Obama of football.

He's black?

 

[GroveDiesel]

It seems to me that many of the complaints about Goodell display a lack of understanding of the NFL's position and why they are doing what they are doing. A few examples.

Legal Issues:

"Goodell suspended <player> when he wasn't even convicted!" or "The NFL shouldn't try to be the judicial branch!" These are contradictory complaints but both suggest the person uttering them is missing the point of why discipline was given. The NFL doesn't try to be the judicial branch. Their discipline is not based on deterring acts for the good of society. The NFL hands out fines and suspensions to stop their employees from behaving in ways that create a poor public perception of their company.

Getting convicted of something can obviously create bad press for the company, so yes they may discipline for it. But a conviction isn't necessary for the bad press to happen. In Roethlisberger's case, getting drunk and having sex with a woman in a public bathroom is obviously something that can create such bad press... whether or not it was found to be rape. Pacman showed a repeated lack of judgment when he's putting himself in situations where he's getting questioned a half dozen times about crimes.

Players agree to contracts that say they won't commit actions that put the league in such a situation and are paid more than enough to make it worth their while to adhere to it. I have no problem with most of the punishments given in this regard. The only place I think the NFL needs to be really careful is when there might be a case of false accusation but the player was not otherwise showing bad judgment for having been in the situation he was in the first place.



Player safety:

For all that people like to complaina bout the #####-ification of the league, the NFL has been pretty consistent in the thought behind the rules they've added, and when there have been issues they have tended to make changes to improve them.

What are the two items in common behind most every one of the new player safety rules? They try to limit aiming at the head as the point of contact... and they try to limit the contact in situations when one player is able to accelerate to full sprint before making contact. A QB in the at of passing, a defenseless receiver, a running back who has been stood up, the wedge on a kick off, all of these are situations where the hitter often has a chance to come in at full speed and that is when people get injured. The bigger issue in the NFL is that the mentality went from a hard tackle where the goal was to stop the ball carrier and get him on the ground, to a kill shot where the goal was to do as much damage as possible. It's very clear from many comments from players and former players (like Bruschi saying how he'd use the knowledge of Arian Foster's MRI to target the injured spot) that some defensive players are not out to make a tackle, but are out to hurt the other player if they can.

Where I think the NFL deserves some fault is that it took them a couple of iterations to get the rules right. Incidental contact to the QB's helmet should never have been a penalty, they finally fixed that this year. Teams should have shared in the team fines and had the possibility of loss of draft picks for repeat offenses from the get go... because the teams encouraging such hits was a part of the problem.

Overall I don't think that Goodell has done a bad job. He's fighting a battle though in having to change people's perceptions of what the issues are and what behavior won't be tolerated. He could use some more consistency in the size of fines, and I think there should be someone other than the commissioner who handles discipline, with the commissioner getting involved for appeals. I do think that the animosity the players feel towards him may still come back to bite the league down the road. Though if they made it through the lockout ok, maybe not.

Where it the section on carrying over NCAA penalties to the NFL?

So you would rather Pryor have been ruled ineligible to be drafted at all?

 

[Class Dismissed]

Rodger Goodell is a master salesman. He annoys you, but by the time he's done you are opening up lines of credit to buy a time share. He's the neighbor that kicks your dog, so you go to beat him up and he greets you with lemonaid and cookies. I want to dislike the guy because he has skirted up my favorite game, but the way he talks makes me actually feel sorry for him.

I was thinking about this all day after hearing his interview on ESPN's Mike and Mike. I was grumpy at the fact that Goodell is making smut up as he goes with this Pryor and Tressel issues. I was mad that he is enforcing rules that were not in place. I mean, are we going to go back and suspend all of the Miami players who took benefits in college? Are we going to suspend Bush? I was wanting Mike and Mike to call him on it. They didn't. In fact, Goodell didn't say anything to win me over. His arguments were arrogant. But the tone and modulation, the lawyer accurate wording by the end of the interview defused me. I didn't agree with what he had to say but I came off refreshed.... even felt like he was getting a bad shake. EVERY TIME.

Does anyone else get this vibe. He's a smooth customer without being smooth. He's an arrogant SOB in his words and actions but comes off mild and humble. How does he do it?

How does he do it?Simple, Sports journalism is a joke and the network reporters charged with covering the NFL simply will not challenge him or the league for fear of retribution, you don't investigate your employers cash cow.

 

[Mello]

It seems to me that many of the complaints about Goodell display a lack of understanding of the NFL's position and why they are doing what they are doing. A few examples.

Legal Issues:

"Goodell suspended <player> when he wasn't even convicted!" or "The NFL shouldn't try to be the judicial branch!" These are contradictory complaints but both suggest the person uttering them is missing the point of why discipline was given. The NFL doesn't try to be the judicial branch. Their discipline is not based on deterring acts for the good of society. The NFL hands out fines and suspensions to stop their employees from behaving in ways that create a poor public perception of their company.

Getting convicted of something can obviously create bad press for the company, so yes they may discipline for it. But a conviction isn't necessary for the bad press to happen. In Roethlisberger's case, getting drunk and having sex with a woman in a public bathroom is obviously something that can create such bad press... whether or not it was found to be rape. Pacman showed a repeated lack of judgment when he's putting himself in situations where he's getting questioned a half dozen times about crimes.

Players agree to contracts that say they won't commit actions that put the league in such a situation and are paid more than enough to make it worth their while to adhere to it. I have no problem with most of the punishments given in this regard. The only place I think the NFL needs to be really careful is when there might be a case of false accusation but the player was not otherwise showing bad judgment for having been in the situation he was in the first place.



Player safety:

For all that people like to complaina bout the #####-ification of the league, the NFL has been pretty consistent in the thought behind the rules they've added, and when there have been issues they have tended to make changes to improve them.

What are the two items in common behind most every one of the new player safety rules? They try to limit aiming at the head as the point of contact... and they try to limit the contact in situations when one player is able to accelerate to full sprint before making contact. A QB in the at of passing, a defenseless receiver, a running back who has been stood up, the wedge on a kick off, all of these are situations where the hitter often has a chance to come in at full speed and that is when people get injured. The bigger issue in the NFL is that the mentality went from a hard tackle where the goal was to stop the ball carrier and get him on the ground, to a kill shot where the goal was to do as much damage as possible. It's very clear from many comments from players and former players (like Bruschi saying how he'd use the knowledge of Arian Foster's MRI to target the injured spot) that some defensive players are not out to make a tackle, but are out to hurt the other player if they can.

Where I think the NFL deserves some fault is that it took them a couple of iterations to get the rules right. Incidental contact to the QB's helmet should never have been a penalty, they finally fixed that this year. Teams should have shared in the team fines and had the possibility of loss of draft picks for repeat offenses from the get go... because the teams encouraging such hits was a part of the problem.

Overall I don't think that Goodell has done a bad job. He's fighting a battle though in having to change people's perceptions of what the issues are and what behavior won't be tolerated. He could use some more consistency in the size of fines, and I think there should be someone other than the commissioner who handles discipline, with the commissioner getting involved for appeals. I do think that the animosity the players feel towards him may still come back to bite the league down the road. Though if they made it through the lockout ok, maybe not.

Where it the section on carrying over NCAA penalties to the NFL?

So you would rather Pryor have been ruled ineligible to be drafted at all?

That would have been a much more consistent decision. I'd rather the NFL stop colluding with the NCAA's scam of a system though.

 

[Dexter Manley]

Tell me again how making rules up as you go along is being a good commissioner of anything?

In all seriousness, Goodell would not last longer than 1 year as commish before being fired in most FBG fantasy football leagues, due to his incompetence.

 

[Clifford]

It seems to me that many of the complaints about Goodell display a lack of understanding of the NFL's position and why they are doing what they are doing. A few examples.

Legal Issues:

"Goodell suspended <player> when he wasn't even convicted!" or "The NFL shouldn't try to be the judicial branch!" These are contradictory complaints but both suggest the person uttering them is missing the point of why discipline was given. The NFL doesn't try to be the judicial branch. Their discipline is not based on deterring acts for the good of society. The NFL hands out fines and suspensions to stop their employees from behaving in ways that create a poor public perception of their company.

Getting convicted of something can obviously create bad press for the company, so yes they may discipline for it. But a conviction isn't necessary for the bad press to happen. In Roethlisberger's case, getting drunk and having sex with a woman in a public bathroom is obviously something that can create such bad press... whether or not it was found to be rape. Pacman showed a repeated lack of judgment when he's putting himself in situations where he's getting questioned a half dozen times about crimes.

Players agree to contracts that say they won't commit actions that put the league in such a situation and are paid more than enough to make it worth their while to adhere to it. I have no problem with most of the punishments given in this regard. The only place I think the NFL needs to be really careful is when there might be a case of false accusation but the player was not otherwise showing bad judgment for having been in the situation he was in the first place.



Player safety:

For all that people like to complaina bout the #####-ification of the league, the NFL has been pretty consistent in the thought behind the rules they've added, and when there have been issues they have tended to make changes to improve them.

What are the two items in common behind most every one of the new player safety rules? They try to limit aiming at the head as the point of contact... and they try to limit the contact in situations when one player is able to accelerate to full sprint before making contact. A QB in the at of passing, a defenseless receiver, a running back who has been stood up, the wedge on a kick off, all of these are situations where the hitter often has a chance to come in at full speed and that is when people get injured. The bigger issue in the NFL is that the mentality went from a hard tackle where the goal was to stop the ball carrier and get him on the ground, to a kill shot where the goal was to do as much damage as possible. It's very clear from many comments from players and former players (like Bruschi saying how he'd use the knowledge of Arian Foster's MRI to target the injured spot) that some defensive players are not out to make a tackle, but are out to hurt the other player if they can.

Where I think the NFL deserves some fault is that it took them a couple of iterations to get the rules right. Incidental contact to the QB's helmet should never have been a penalty, they finally fixed that this year. Teams should have shared in the team fines and had the possibility of loss of draft picks for repeat offenses from the get go... because the teams encouraging such hits was a part of the problem.

Overall I don't think that Goodell has done a bad job. He's fighting a battle though in having to change people's perceptions of what the issues are and what behavior won't be tolerated. He could use some more consistency in the size of fines, and I think there should be someone other than the commissioner who handles discipline, with the commissioner getting involved for appeals. I do think that the animosity the players feel towards him may still come back to bite the league down the road. Though if they made it through the lockout ok, maybe not.

Where it the section on carrying over NCAA penalties to the NFL?

So you would rather Pryor have been ruled ineligible to be drafted at all?

So my choice is between holding a player out of the supplemental draft for no good reason and making up rules whenever one feels like it? This feels like a gubernatorial in Alabama.

 

[Dexter Manley]

It seems to me that many of the complaints about Goodell display a lack of understanding of the NFL's position and why they are doing what they are doing. A few examples.

Legal Issues:

"Goodell suspended <player> when he wasn't even convicted!" or "The NFL shouldn't try to be the judicial branch!" These are contradictory complaints but both suggest the person uttering them is missing the point of why discipline was given. The NFL doesn't try to be the judicial branch. Their discipline is not based on deterring acts for the good of society. The NFL hands out fines and suspensions to stop their employees from behaving in ways that create a poor public perception of their company.

Getting convicted of something can obviously create bad press for the company, so yes they may discipline for it. But a conviction isn't necessary for the bad press to happen. In Roethlisberger's case, getting drunk and having sex with a woman in a public bathroom is obviously something that can create such bad press... whether or not it was found to be rape. Pacman showed a repeated lack of judgment when he's putting himself in situations where he's getting questioned a half dozen times about crimes.

Players agree to contracts that say they won't commit actions that put the league in such a situation and are paid more than enough to make it worth their while to adhere to it. I have no problem with most of the punishments given in this regard. The only place I think the NFL needs to be really careful is when there might be a case of false accusation but the player was not otherwise showing bad judgment for having been in the situation he was in the first place.

What you're missing is that legal issues aren't primarily a nfl problem. They're primarily a team by team problem.You cite the Big Ben case. That was not primarily a nfl issue. It was primarily the Pittsburgh Steelers issue. The Steelers organization should of been responsible for how they wanted to discipline Big Ben, if they even wanted to discipline him at all. Not the nfl. Pittsburgh is paying his salary. Big Ben is the face of the Pittsburgh franchise. Judging by the reaction of most Steelers fans, the people running the Steelers would of given Big Ben a similar sort of punishment for his transgressions, in an effort to appease their fanbase.

And don't even get me started on the gross lack of consistency in punishments Goodell hands out for player "legal issues." Imagine if last year Goodell handed out a 1 game suspension, a 4 game suspension, and a 6 game suspension, to 3 different players who all tested postive for the same exact performance enhancing drug, despite it being a first time offense for each. Would you think that's ok? Because that's basically how consistent he is dishing out discipline to players with legal issues.

 

[GroveDiesel]

It seems to me that many of the complaints about Goodell display a lack of understanding of the NFL's position and why they are doing what they are doing. A few examples.

Legal Issues:

"Goodell suspended <player> when he wasn't even convicted!" or "The NFL shouldn't try to be the judicial branch!" These are contradictory complaints but both suggest the person uttering them is missing the point of why discipline was given. The NFL doesn't try to be the judicial branch. Their discipline is not based on deterring acts for the good of society. The NFL hands out fines and suspensions to stop their employees from behaving in ways that create a poor public perception of their company.

Getting convicted of something can obviously create bad press for the company, so yes they may discipline for it. But a conviction isn't necessary for the bad press to happen. In Roethlisberger's case, getting drunk and having sex with a woman in a public bathroom is obviously something that can create such bad press... whether or not it was found to be rape. Pacman showed a repeated lack of judgment when he's putting himself in situations where he's getting questioned a half dozen times about crimes.

Players agree to contracts that say they won't commit actions that put the league in such a situation and are paid more than enough to make it worth their while to adhere to it. I have no problem with most of the punishments given in this regard. The only place I think the NFL needs to be really careful is when there might be a case of false accusation but the player was not otherwise showing bad judgment for having been in the situation he was in the first place.



Player safety:

For all that people like to complaina bout the #####-ification of the league, the NFL has been pretty consistent in the thought behind the rules they've added, and when there have been issues they have tended to make changes to improve them.

What are the two items in common behind most every one of the new player safety rules? They try to limit aiming at the head as the point of contact... and they try to limit the contact in situations when one player is able to accelerate to full sprint before making contact. A QB in the at of passing, a defenseless receiver, a running back who has been stood up, the wedge on a kick off, all of these are situations where the hitter often has a chance to come in at full speed and that is when people get injured. The bigger issue in the NFL is that the mentality went from a hard tackle where the goal was to stop the ball carrier and get him on the ground, to a kill shot where the goal was to do as much damage as possible. It's very clear from many comments from players and former players (like Bruschi saying how he'd use the knowledge of Arian Foster's MRI to target the injured spot) that some defensive players are not out to make a tackle, but are out to hurt the other player if they can.

Where I think the NFL deserves some fault is that it took them a couple of iterations to get the rules right. Incidental contact to the QB's helmet should never have been a penalty, they finally fixed that this year. Teams should have shared in the team fines and had the possibility of loss of draft picks for repeat offenses from the get go... because the teams encouraging such hits was a part of the problem.

Overall I don't think that Goodell has done a bad job. He's fighting a battle though in having to change people's perceptions of what the issues are and what behavior won't be tolerated. He could use some more consistency in the size of fines, and I think there should be someone other than the commissioner who handles discipline, with the commissioner getting involved for appeals. I do think that the animosity the players feel towards him may still come back to bite the league down the road. Though if they made it through the lockout ok, maybe not.

Where it the section on carrying over NCAA penalties to the NFL?

So you would rather Pryor have been ruled ineligible to be drafted at all?

So my choice is between holding a player out of the supplemental draft for no good reason and making up rules whenever one feels like it? This feels like a gubernatorial in Alabama.

What do you mean by "no good reason"? The rule for the Supplemental Draft has always been that something has to have changed affecting a player's NCAA eligibility since the time of the draft for them to be eligible. And the only reason Pryor's eligibility changed was because he went and hired an agent. Goodell had every right to bar him from the Supplemental Draft under the longstading NFL rules.

 

[fatness]

Tell me again how making rules up as you go along is being a good commissioner of anything?

Goodell is an owners' hatchet man, not a commissioner with some independence like previous commissioners. Making up random rules concerning player discipline gives the image of "getting tough", and the owners and fans eat that stuff up even though it has had no effect at all on player behavior. If the owners want it, Roger's their boy.[QUOTE='Goodell]How high?
[/QUOTE]

 

[Truman]

It seems to me that many of the complaints about Goodell display a lack of understanding of the NFL's position and why they are doing what they are doing.

Either that or people don't want the league to be less entertaining so Goodell can impose his cockprint on the league. There's no need to suspend players, we have legal systems and the NCAA has its own hypocritical penalties to impose. None of it has made any impact on player behaviour. As for player safety, if he were serious about it he would require better helmets and limit the number of practice reps which cause the real damage.. Instead we see a focus on getting rid of big hits (which don't cause long term damage) in order to improve perceptions and an attempt to increase the number of games (to make more money). The NFL under Goodell is narcisstic.

 

[GregR]

It seems to me that many of the complaints about Goodell display a lack of understanding of the NFL's position and why they are doing what they are doing. A few examples.

Legal Issues:

"Goodell suspended <player> when he wasn't even convicted!" or "The NFL shouldn't try to be the judicial branch!" These are contradictory complaints but both suggest the person uttering them is missing the point of why discipline was given. The NFL doesn't try to be the judicial branch. Their discipline is not based on deterring acts for the good of society. The NFL hands out fines and suspensions to stop their employees from behaving in ways that create a poor public perception of their company.

Getting convicted of something can obviously create bad press for the company, so yes they may discipline for it. But a conviction isn't necessary for the bad press to happen. In Roethlisberger's case, getting drunk and having sex with a woman in a public bathroom is obviously something that can create such bad press... whether or not it was found to be rape. Pacman showed a repeated lack of judgment when he's putting himself in situations where he's getting questioned a half dozen times about crimes.

Players agree to contracts that say they won't commit actions that put the league in such a situation and are paid more than enough to make it worth their while to adhere to it. I have no problem with most of the punishments given in this regard. The only place I think the NFL needs to be really careful is when there might be a case of false accusation but the player was not otherwise showing bad judgment for having been in the situation he was in the first place.

What you're missing is that legal issues aren't primarily a nfl problem. They're primarily a team by team problem.You cite the Big Ben case. That was not primarily a nfl issue. It was primarily the Pittsburgh Steelers issue. The Steelers organization should of been responsible for how they wanted to discipline Big Ben, if they even wanted to discipline him at all. Not the nfl. Pittsburgh is paying his salary. Big Ben is the face of the Pittsburgh franchise. Judging by the reaction of most Steelers fans, the people running the Steelers would of given Big Ben a similar sort of punishment for his transgressions, in an effort to appease their fanbase.

And don't even get me started on the gross lack of consistency in punishments Goodell hands out for player "legal issues." Imagine if last year Goodell handed out a 1 game suspension, a 4 game suspension, and a 6 game suspension, to 3 different players who all tested postive for the same exact performance enhancing drug, despite it being a first time offense for each. Would you think that's ok? Because that's basically how consistent he is dishing out discipline to players with legal issues.

Since I criticized his consistency, you can assume I wouldn't be ok with that.

 

[GregR]

... There's no need to suspend players, we have legal systems ...

Your post is exactly what I was talking about as indicated by the bold sections.

It seems to me that many of the complaints about Goodell display a lack of understanding of the NFL's position and why they are doing what they are doing. A few examples.

Legal Issues:

"Goodell suspended <player> when he wasn't even convicted!" or "The NFL shouldn't try to be the judicial branch!" These are contradictory complaints but both suggest the person uttering them is missing the point of why discipline was given. The NFL doesn't try to be the judicial branch. Their discipline is not based on deterring acts for the good of society. The NFL hands out fines and suspensions to stop their employees from behaving in ways that create a poor public perception of their company.

...

...

As for player safety, if he were serious about it he would require better helmets and limit the number of practice reps which cause the real damage.. Instead we see a focus on getting rid of big hits (which don't cause long term damage) in order to improve perceptions and an attempt to increase the number of games (to make more money).

...

This is hard for me to find credible. Especially given the NFL is currently being sued over concussions that are ruining the long term health of former players.

 

[Truman]

... There's no need to suspend players, we have legal systems ...

Your post is exactly what I was talking about as indicated by the bold sections.

I read your post. You seem to think it's a great idea to make the game on the field less entertaining to improve the league's image. I disagree.

This is hard for me to find credible. Especially given the NFL is currently being sued over concussions that are ruining the long term health of former players.

This shows a lack of education. The NFL is not being sued over concussions. Former players are primarily interested in health benefits due to brain trauma and other issues.Every study released shows long term damage to the brain is caused by the accumulation of little hits to the head which are inherent to the game and occur on every possession and throughout every practice. Concussions occur so rarely and are now being treated seriously by teams, yet nothing is being done about what actually causes the brain injuries.

Uneducated fans (like yourself) see the league making moves to deal with big shots and eliminate kickoffs and assume this will improve player health. These changes will have a minor impact overall but are great for league image and perception of player safety amongst corporate sponsors.

The commissioner just tried to increase the length of the season which would mean another 2 weeks of practice and another couple of hundred hits to the head for linemen preparing for games. Had he succeeded he would have done more damage to the health of the players than any of his posturing has prevented.

 

[Daywalker]

It's preposterous that Goodel can suspend someone for actions in college.

Only reason he knows about any infractions is due to NCAA and media. He shouldn't know about these infractions. He's lucky to gleam this.

Taking money from an agent is not breaking NFL rules. NCAA yes. But completely different entities.

Suspending Pryor is a huge deal. How the union has not come back guns blazing is insane to me.

NFL is just trying to protect it's free minor league system. How the NFL union is allowing the league to infringe on incoming players' rights is shameful.

NFL is nuts to stick their toes in this. Hope they get screwed for their arrogance.

 

[GregR]

... There's no need to suspend players, we have legal systems ...

Your post is exactly what I was talking about as indicated by the bold sections.

I read your post. You seem to think it's a great idea to make the game on the field less entertaining to improve the league's image. I disagree.

This is hard for me to find credible. Especially given the NFL is currently being sued over concussions that are ruining the long term health of former players.

This shows a lack of education. The NFL is not being sued over concussions. Former players are primarily interested in health benefits due to brain trauma and other issues.Every study released shows long term damage to the brain is caused by the accumulation of little hits to the head which are inherent to the game and occur on every possession and throughout every practice. Concussions occur so rarely and are now being treated seriously by teams, yet nothing is being done about what actually causes the brain injuries.

Uneducated fans (like yourself) see the league making moves to deal with big shots and eliminate kickoffs and assume this will improve player health. These changes will have a minor impact overall but are great for league image and perception of player safety amongst corporate sponsors.

The commissioner just tried to increase the length of the season which would mean another 2 weeks of practice and another couple of hundred hits to the head for linemen preparing for games. Had he succeeded he would have done more damage to the health of the players than any of his posturing has prevented.

Thank you, but I'm quite adequately educated on the topic, enough to know that the "every study" statement is erroneous as is the description that concussions are not part of the suit. Yes there is an issue around the cumulative effects of minor collisions, and there is also an issue around full blown concussions, such as result from kill shots to the head. It's been found that having a concussion makes one more susceptible to future concussions, and that players who suffered 3 or more concussions are more likely to have clinical depression and cognitive impairment, which are precursors to Alzheimers. Not three or more times bumping helmets on the line. Three or more full blown concussions.I can believe that you or someone else enjoys seeing kill shots and don't want to see them done away with. But I have a hard time believing anyone who says that they don't have an impact on player health. Those plays were targeted by the league after examining where injuries most often occur, and I doubt it's a surprise to anyone in this forum that kickoffs are one of the places injuries most occur.

Further they were an injury situation that could be addressed in the rules, where things like a lineman rolling up on another guy's leg isn't really something anyone can do anything about.

Kill shots are a product of Sports Center, not a product of football. There was plenty of hard hitting going on when players actually knew how to wrap up a player and tackle him.. You can see still plenty of hard hitting in any game, without having needed to aim your helmet for the head of a player who can't defend himself at the moment.

 

[Truman]

... There's no need to suspend players, we have legal systems ...

Your post is exactly what I was talking about as indicated by the bold sections.

I read your post. You seem to think it's a great idea to make the game on the field less entertaining to improve the league's image. I disagree.

This is hard for me to find credible. Especially given the NFL is currently being sued over concussions that are ruining the long term health of former players.

This shows a lack of education. The NFL is not being sued over concussions. Former players are primarily interested in health benefits due to brain trauma and other issues.Every study released shows long term damage to the brain is caused by the accumulation of little hits to the head which are inherent to the game and occur on every possession and throughout every practice. Concussions occur so rarely and are now being treated seriously by teams, yet nothing is being done about what actually causes the brain injuries.

Uneducated fans (like yourself) see the league making moves to deal with big shots and eliminate kickoffs and assume this will improve player health. These changes will have a minor impact overall but are great for league image and perception of player safety amongst corporate sponsors.

The commissioner just tried to increase the length of the season which would mean another 2 weeks of practice and another couple of hundred hits to the head for linemen preparing for games. Had he succeeded he would have done more damage to the health of the players than any of his posturing has prevented.

Thank you, but I'm quite adequately educated on the topic, enough to know that the "every study" statement is erroneous as is the description that concussions are not part of the suit. Yes there is an issue around the cumulative effects of minor collisions, and there is also an issue around full blown concussions, such as result from kill shots to the head. It's been found that having a concussion makes one more susceptible to future concussions, and that players who suffered 3 or more concussions are more likely to have clinical depression and cognitive impairment, which are precursors to Alzheimers. Not three or more times bumping helmets on the line. Three or more full blown concussions.I can believe that you or someone else enjoys seeing kill shots and don't want to see them done away with.

Excellent. Hopefully you will also agree that recent efforts by the commissioner to extend the season would have been more damaging to player health than the plays he has tried to eliminate and the fines dished out. Treating concussions properly is a separate issue and something that should have been put in place 20 years ago.

 

[zed2283]

Rodger Goodell is a master salesman. He annoys you, but by the time he's done you are opening up lines of credit to buy a time share. He's the neighbor that kicks your dog, so you go to beat him up and he greets you with lemonaid and cookies. I want to dislike the guy because he has skirted up my favorite game, but the way he talks makes me actually feel sorry for him.I was thinking about this all day after hearing his interview on ESPN's Mike and Mike. I was grumpy at the fact that Goodell is making smut up as he goes with this Pryor and Tressel issues. I was mad that he is enforcing rules that were not in place. I mean, are we going to go back and suspend all of the Miami players who took benefits in college? Are we going to suspend Bush? I was wanting Mike and Mike to call him on it. They didn't. In fact, Goodell didn't say anything to win me over. His arguments were arrogant. But the tone and modulation, the lawyer accurate wording by the end of the interview defused me. I didn't agree with what he had to say but I came off refreshed.... even felt like he was getting a bad shake. EVERY TIME.Does anyone else get this vibe. He's a smooth customer without being smooth. He's an arrogant SOB in his words and actions but comes off mild and humble. How does he do it?

This is an excellent summary. I feel the same way.

 

[renesauz]

Rodger Goodell is a master salesman. He annoys you, but by the time he's done you are opening up lines of credit to buy a time share. He's the neighbor that kicks your dog, so you go to beat him up and he greets you with lemonaid and cookies. I want to dislike the guy because he has skirted up my favorite game, but the way he talks makes me actually feel sorry for him.I was thinking about this all day after hearing his interview on ESPN's Mike and Mike. I was grumpy at the fact that Goodell is making smut up as he goes with this Pryor and Tressel issues. I was mad that he is enforcing rules that were not in place. I mean, are we going to go back and suspend all of the Miami players who took benefits in college? Are we going to suspend Bush? I was wanting Mike and Mike to call him on it. They didn't. In fact, Goodell didn't say anything to win me over. His arguments were arrogant. But the tone and modulation, the lawyer accurate wording by the end of the interview defused me. I didn't agree with what he had to say but I came off refreshed.... even felt like he was getting a bad shake. EVERY TIME.Does anyone else get this vibe. He's a smooth customer without being smooth. He's an arrogant SOB in his words and actions but comes off mild and humble. How does he do it?

This is an excellent summary. I feel the same way.

The problem is that you REALLY don't like his decisions, and have decided that he must be arrogant. The truth is that he's not arrogant at all and that his decisions (right or wrong) are well-intentioned. Of course...that makes some folks hate him even more.I agree with GR. I don't like every decision either, and he's a bit inconsistant, but I understand where he's trying to go, and agree with it philosophically.

 

[roadkill1292]

Mr. Goodell is simply a weapon in the league's arsenal of maintaining control over its product. I don't like a lot of the things the league does but I don't hold him personally responsible; he's simply doing his bosses' bidding. He may be the face of the NFL's disciplinary approach but the league takes the line it does on player misbehavior mostly because of the reaction of the fans. So anyone who screams for a player's suspension every time he's pulled over at 3:30 in the morning is partially responsible for how the league currently reacts.

I agree with Dexter that discipline should be a team issue, not a league issue. The shield doesn't need nearly the protection that some seem to think.

 

[DAMAC3]

He is a strong leader. That is what you need in a commish. I DO NOT like the way he lays down suspensions and fines. It is't consistent enough, and it is obviously geared more toward NFL image than fairness. Overall, I will take him over any recent commissioners of other sports leagues, including the NFL.

 

[Funkley]

It's about time the NFL and NCAA work together on cheating. Next it'll be head coaches who cant leave their programs in ruins to dash to the NFL before the hammer falls.

Pete Carroll>hi

 

[Topes]

Don't like the guy.

I didn't like Tagliabue, either. Guess I'm one of the few on that count, but always felt he got more credit than he deserved for football rightly growing in popularity, as the country gradually came to realize that baseball is just plain boring.

I'm just a hater today.

 

[Mello]

It's about time the NFL and NCAA work together on cheating. Next it'll be head coaches who cant leave their programs in ruins to dash to the NFL before the hammer falls.Pete Carroll>hi

I'm sure you'd be just as happy if the various companies in the industry you work in colluded to together to freeze you out.

 

[GregR]

It's about time the NFL and NCAA work together on cheating. Next it'll be head coaches who cant leave their programs in ruins to dash to the NFL before the hammer falls.Pete Carroll>hi

I'm sure you'd be just as happy if the various companies in the industry you work in colluded to together to freeze you out.

Don't companies in regular business do this already?If you act illegally and it becomes public, and your company faced negative ramifications on par in severity with what a college football team can face... don't you think you would be blackballed in your industry?

 

[roadkill1292]

It's about time the NFL and NCAA work together on cheating. Next it'll be head coaches who cant leave their programs in ruins to dash to the NFL before the hammer falls.Pete Carroll>hi

I'm sure you'd be just as happy if the various companies in the industry you work in colluded to together to freeze you out.

Don't companies in regular business do this already?If you act illegally and it becomes public, and your company faced negative ramifications on par in severity with what a college football team can face... don't you think you would be blackballed in your industry?

They're the same industry only by the loosest of definitions. Carroll and Tressel had not violated any NFL industry standards and had willing employers.I guess one could argue that the NFL is being consistent in its approach to employees when it comes to bad behavior outside the immediate sphere of football. But I've personally never been comfortable with the NFL's disciplinary policies in those areas.

 

[Donnybrook]

http://profootballtalk.nbcsports.com/2011/09/08/agent-questions-why-lockleys-fine-is-same-as-suhs/

How is this fair?

 

[Dr. Awesome]

http://profootballtalk.nbcsports.com/2011/09/08/agent-questions-why-lockleys-fine-is-same-as-suhs/

How is this fair?

I shouldn't have to pay as much as Bill Gates when we both get a speeding ticket?

 

[Saints-Man]

Tell me again how making rules up as you go along is being a good commissioner of anything?

In all seriousness, Goodell would not last longer than 1 year as commish before being fired in most FBG fantasy football leagues, due to his incompetence.

Oh hogwash. How exactly is he incompetent? Do the games get played? Do they start on time? That would define incompetent.

 

[treat88]

I think there are a couple of different paradigms that Goodell can be judged on that in some ways are mutually exclusive.

First, it's got to be understood that his only real interest and role is that of revenue generation. Once that is understood and accepted all the rest of his decisions fall in line and make sense. Player safety...litigation prevention. Off field suspensions....marketability of players and league. Obviously, it makes sense for him to have flexibility to act to contain potential situations that arise, but that containment is based on PR concerns not moral or safety concerns. He is not an arbiter that acts in the best interests of the sport, he is a businessman who's job is to increase profit and in that context he's done an amazing job.

Unfortunately, the consistency of discipline leaves a lot to be desired and the on-field product has suffered exactly because of this need to generate increasing monies. Again, as others have said, if you want to address player safety mandate the latest helmets, mouthguards, and drop the 18 game schedule. The fines are simply a PR tool to make it appear to the general public (and possible future judges/juries)that the league is "doing something". It would be simplicity to enact a system that is spelled out in terms of off-field behavior and the ramifications thereof, but the league will not do this because it wants to be able to respond proportionally to the negative media attention any potential incident generates without regard to moral equivalencies.

He has left defenses in a position where they are solely to blame for collisions that are largely unavoidable, unintentional, and usually happen due to many players on both sides of the ball. Worse, many defenders are not even sure how they are supposed to play within the new system and simply choose to accept whatever results are imposed from playing the game.

So, to me at least, if Goodell is to be judged primarily on his ability to grow the game and attract new money he's done a hell of a job.

If Goodell is to be judged on ability to improve the on-field product I think he's failed miserably.

 

[Funkley]

It's about time the NFL and NCAA work together on cheating. Next it'll be head coaches who cant leave their programs in ruins to dash to the NFL before the hammer falls.Pete Carroll>hi

I'm sure you'd be just as happy if the various companies in the industry you work in colluded to together to freeze you out.

Don't companies in regular business do this already?If you act illegally and it becomes public, and your company faced negative ramifications on par in severity with what a college football team can face... don't you think you would be blackballed in your industry?

They're the same industry only by the loosest of definitions. Carroll and Tressel had not violated any NFL industry standards and had willing employers.I guess one could argue that the NFL is being consistent in its approach to employees when it comes to bad behavior outside the immediate sphere of football. But I've personally never been comfortable with the NFL's disciplinary policies in those areas.

As long as the NFL continues to use the NCAA as its free minor league then they not only have an interest to cooperate but a responsibility.

 

[roadkill1292]

It's about time the NFL and NCAA work together on cheating. Next it'll be head coaches who cant leave their programs in ruins to dash to the NFL before the hammer falls.

Pete Carroll>hi

I'm sure you'd be just as happy if the various companies in the industry you work in colluded to together to freeze you out.

Don't companies in regular business do this already?If you act illegally and it becomes public, and your company faced negative ramifications on par in severity with what a college football team can face... don't you think you would be blackballed in your industry?

They're the same industry only by the loosest of definitions. Carroll and Tressel had not violated any NFL industry standards and had willing employers.I guess one could argue that the NFL is being consistent in its approach to employees when it comes to bad behavior outside the immediate sphere of football. But I've personally never been comfortable with the NFL's disciplinary policies in those areas.

As long as the NFL continues to use the NCAA as its free minor league then they not only have an interest to cooperate but a responsibility.

I don't understand. Are you saying that suspending Tressel was the responsible thing for the NFL to do? I think it was done for PR sake, as treat88 noted in the post prior to yours. Of course, I concede that there are gazillions of NFL fans who want the league to punish all off-the-field malfeasance so I guess that could be construed as being "responsible" to those legions of fans.