This is a sample guest message. Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!
Just curious . . . how much money do you feel the league would lose if Watson sits for a year or a year and a half? The games will still be sold out. The TV revenue and sponsorship deals are already set up. A case could be made that the league would not lose anything financially. As you said, viewership won't drop if he can't play.
Next to none.
Let's give Watson 6 games. Not saying this would happen, but let's say there is an outrage by women and regional and national sponsors. Suppose the local Cleveland car dealership doesn't want anything to do with the Browns. Or Budweiser cuts back on commercials because they themselves are getting heat from their customers. Or people get miffed and don't buy merchandise or go to the NFL merchandise website. Wouldn't the league by more likely to be in a situation where they could mess with the golden goose by going light on Watson? Sure, maybe none of that happens . . . but some of that happened with Peterson, Vick, and Kaep (to name a few).
The PCP is at: https://interactive.khou.com/pdfs/2020-Personal-Conduct-Policy-External.pdf
THIS
JJ-Dallas-Herschel Walker...it could make the ascent up to Mt Rushmore status.Capella said:
Silence is Violence or did you stop getting the memos?Stinkin Ref said:
IMHO "No suspension" has a chance to be minimally impactful to actual ratings. Between media coverage and individuals on social media, I think there's a few weeks of blowback that that by-and-large blows over before the regular season starts but then kicks back up whenever there's a big browns game.
“Any”? Yes, although you’re asking something immeasurable
No suspension may have a minimal effect with protests and women being “turned off”.
There is also the possibility that the league wants this to be done, that they see it as a short term annoyance that will eventually be in the rearview mirror, and are working to that end. I don't see it affecting TV contracts unless they get a reputation of shadiness leaguewide.
that, of course, presumes he actually committed any "sexual offenses"
IMO, I doubt they care too much. This isn’t Farve coming back to Lambeau to play the Packers for instance. Texans are a dumpster fire in a rebuild with a history of ineptitude and Watson’s circumstances are shameful and a black mark on the league. Certainly controversy = ratings, but the Texans will probably be at best 4-7 when Cleveland comes to town so outside of a few people looking to see if he trounces his former team, I doubt most will care about any kind of revenge game storyline.
And as far as I know, the revenue from broadcasts is fixed for the duration of the contract. So if tomorrow's game is high rated or low rated, the league makes just as much for now, the amount that the network broadcasting it contracted at.
If I understand correctly, the league must investigate and decide that they believe someone has violated the PCP. At that point, they go to the arbitrator, present their evidence, and ask for a penalty. The player also presents evidence and/or arguments. So, if they're presenting stuff, I think it means that the league is convinced that he violated the PCP. It also looks like there are guidelines within the policy for length of suspension. It seems that the league would be constrained to those terms.
Exactly - @Soulfly3 is inadvertently saying Watson could be suspended for 17 games (or forever, really) and the NFL wouldn't suffer for it at all.
Since I'm working the county fair, I am driving home at 11:00-ish every night, which affords me the opportunity to listen to Ben Mallar. He laid it out that arbitration is a potential step, only if team Watson disagrees with the penalty handed down by the NFL.
But they do effect the product, if they are in the news daily for skeezy things. It reflects on the product. Daily updates have an affect on the public interest. Failure for the NFL to take what is perceived as "decisive action" will reflect poorly on some fans, and can and will cost them business.
Probably so. America has a short attention span. This story has survived quite a few more news cycles than most though, and I expect it will continue to do so until the remaining civil suits are resolved.
if the reports are accurate that a full season suspension tolls his contract with no loss of money, there is 0 chance of full season suspension, unless they make 2021 time served.
Okay. That's not my understanding. Maybe the guy was talking about appealing the decision. The way I heard it was that the intention was to take it out of commish's hands and that's why it goes to arbitration. New in the CBA. I can see the possibility of the league and the player making a deal beforehand, though. In this case, it's already being presented.
I think that is what Maller was describing - the NFL is going to say to team Watson, "we were going to pursue an indefinite suspension, but we would accept a 1 year".
I have no idea what you're trying to say here. Your If/Then statement makes no sense. Why would one have any relation to the other? The NFL doesn't care if Watson suffers no financial damages, and if anything, if the Browns don't suffer a financial penalty, that's even more reason to give him a year.
I’ll go
What Ridley got is very much on the table for Watson, a year minimum with return labeled as indefinite.
