Video: NBC Sports-Will Ekekiel Elliott be suspended for incident at festival-Pro Football Talk

[Diehardblues]

No it isn't. How has the league suffered from it? They lose advertising? Revenue? That term is always used to justify punishment but it's never really shown to be true. The irony is the only thing in recent memory that comes close to that definition was the anthem stuff- which the league itself endorsed.

That’s why they haven’t suffered is because they take action. They aren’t willing to wait and see what the consequences would be. I applaud them for policing themselves. And I think most do. Their ratings certainly reflect as such despite the criticism from some fans.

Most of which are fans of those players who are being disciplined or the teams which suffer as a result. But mainstream as Coach referred to prefer not supporting a league with this type of behavior relying on the Justice system to sort it out.

 

[G2]

But regarding your point about the criminal justice system-

Not everyone idolizes celebrity. In fact, most people don't. Either way, I'm more comfortable with the legal system doling out punishment than an organization ill-equipped to perform fair investigations.

For some reason, some fans think that celebrities are required to be awesome role models. While I think having more money offers more opportunities to get out of trouble, it's because they can afford the best counsel. I don't think the NFL should be involved, they're not equipped, not consistent and it's always after the legal system has made a decision.

 

[Diehardblues]

The legal system doesn’t always get it right. The league doesn’t want a negative reaction publicly from players getting away with behavior which is unbecoming of the image they are attempting to portray regardless if it’s not illegal.

Policing yourself with stricter company policies is a mechanism to place more control and consequences if the league deems it could be damaging to their Image.

It’s not unusual for there to be backlash if you don’t like or agree with the company policy. You don’t have to work for them. The NFL is a privilege not a right.

 

[Diehardblues]

We don’t expect all celebrities to be role models but they do have an influence on modern culture especially our younger population.

As mature adults their conduct and personalities probably have little effect on us but as a young adolescent growing up they did. You mimic what you see. I know I certainly did.

It’s why Network TV has certain controls in place to monitor and police themselves with certain guidelines which are acceptable to broadcast in prime time. There are alternative means available on cable networks and paid subscribers but their viewership isn’t as large.

It all goes back to the revenue. The league feels it’s protecting their revenue. And remaining on Network TV is a huge part of that. And as long as the players share is dependent on TV revenue it’s going to be part of the collective bargaining agreement.

 

[CouchCoach]

For some reason, some fans think that celebrities are required to be awesome role models. While I think having more money offers more opportunities to get out of trouble, it's because they can afford the best counsel. I don't think the NFL should be involved, they're not equipped, not consistent and it's always after the legal system has made a decision.

The problem is once they started down this road, there was no turning back. It's like testing for pot, if they hadn't started that, they wouldn't draw attention to it by wanting to back off on it.

If the NFL did not police itself, and I have to believe that loss of pay is a detriment to bad decisions for most, what would it look like with the media's love of negative news? Isn't that video of Crawford indicative of what the general public thinks football players are like? Big dumb jocks using their brawn. That's why the NFL is so twitchy on the intimidation factor.

The undeniable truth to me is that if we didn't have so many of these cases, no one here would give a damn about the policy but we want our players on the field. When our players break the rules, we want the rules abolished. That's Booger's thinking on it because he has more time out players than anyone and refuses to do anything about it.

You want to know why the NFL polices their own? Because with owners like Booger, they cannot depend on them to protect the image. They are actually protecting him from himself and his enabling because how many players getting in the news for the wrong reasons do we think it would take before his sponsors stared catching some heat? Social media has empowered people to have effect and there are enough just in the Metroplex alone that don't like him to get that started.

 

[Haimerej]

That’s why they haven’t suffered is because they take action. They aren’t willing to wait and see what the consequences would be. I applaud them for policing themselves. And I think most do. Their ratings certainly reflect as such despite the criticism from some fans.

Most of which are fans of those players who are being disciplined or the teams which suffer as a result. But mainstream as Coach referred to prefer not supporting a league with this type of behavior relying on the Justice system to sort it out.

I disagree. Most of the growth of the fanbase came prior to these kinds of measures. You're also avoiding the point that these bad apples are still in the league and the NFL hasn't suffered. Clearly fans don't care that much.

 

[Haimerej]

The legal system doesn’t always get it right. The league doesn’t want a negative reaction publicly from players getting away with behavior which is unbecoming of the image they are attempting to portray regardless if it’s not illegal.

Policing yourself with stricter company policies is a mechanism to place more control and consequences if the league deems it could be damaging to their Image.

It’s not unusual for there to be backlash if you don’t like or agree with the company policy. You don’t have to work for them. The NFL is a privilege not a right.

You've definitely got the rhetoric down. But as far as consequences for the league, is there any actual evidence backing up your assertions?

 

[Haimerej]

Isn't that video of Crawford indicative of what the general public thinks football players are like?

Doesn't that undermine the idea that the policy keeps fans watching? The policy hasn't changed and never will change people's perception of the players. Yet fans keep watching.

Consider Hollywood. A majority of people have negative opinions about it, yet they still support it because it's entertainment.

 

[Haimerej]

The undeniable truth to me is that if we didn't have so many of these cases, no one here would give a damn about the policy but we want our players on the field. When our players break the rules, we want the rules abolished. That's Booger's thinking on it because he has more time out players than anyone and refuses to do anything about it.

You want to know why the NFL polices their own? Because with owners like Booger, they cannot depend on them to protect the image. They are actually protecting him from himself and his enabling because how many players getting in the news for the wrong reasons do we think it would take before his sponsors stared catching some heat? Social media has empowered people to have effect and there are enough just in the Metroplex alone that don't like him to get that started.

This, too, undermines the point you guys are trying to make. If all these bad apples affect fans, why is the team with, "more time out players than anyone," with an owner who, "refuses to do anything about it" literally the biggest franchise in sports?

 

[CouchCoach]

We don’t expect all celebrities to be role models but they do have an influence on modern culture especially our younger population.

As mature adults their conduct and personalities probably have little effect on us but as a young adolescent growing up they did. You mimic what you see. I know I certainly did.

It’s why Network TV has certain controls in place to monitor and police themselves with certain guidelines which are acceptable to broadcast in prime time. There are alternative means available on cable networks and paid subscribers but their viewership isn’t as large.

It all goes back to the revenue. The league feels it’s protecting their revenue. And remaining on Network TV is a huge part of that. And as long as the players share is dependent on TV revenue it’s going to be part of the collective bargaining agreement.

Network TV isn't just huge for the NFL, it is life sustaining because they would have a hard time existing without that, certainly wouldn't be a 14B industry. That's why they're willing to change to rules of the game to enable the TV nets to keep their numbers up.

If they hadn't changed the rules to increase scoring and didn't cultivate the fantasy players, where do you think this game would be now in regards to ratings? It pisses me off that they changed it but if I were an owner, I would have not only gone along with it but led the charge. It's not about football.

At some point, the NFL stopped being about football and was all about entertainment because that makes more money. And most forms of entertainment have clauses in their contracts that protect them from negative publicity. The NFL is not any different than TV dealing with Roseanne Barr or Paula Dean or all of the Hollywood people getting dumped like Spacey and Weinstein. Now, most of these people didn't break the law, they broke the laws of their employers and damaged the same thing the NFL is concerned about, their image.

Some look at this all wrong with the NFL. They look at it as the path to the money when they should start with the money and work their way back. They developed a code of conduct to protect their money. The TV nets are the paradox in all of this because they want the NFL to be as squeaky clean as they can be but when a player goes off the rails, they go overtime on the negative coverage. It's just human nature, we want our heroes but we want them to fall as well and if they can get back up like Tiger Woods, all the better.

 

[aria]

Nice. What's your favorite Pantera song? Gotta go with Walk for myself.



What's the difference? Laws don't apply when you're wearing pads?

Very, very tough question. Domination, 5 Minutes Alone, Cemetery Gates, Hollow, Cowboys...would have to narrow it down to those off the top of my head. I did use some lyrics from Psycho Holiday as part of my senior quote in the year book.

No, some laws don’t apply in sports otherwise MMA wouldn’t exist. Face masking, clipping, roughing the passer could all be considered assault. Move on to another debatable subject, this is going nowhere.

 

[Haimerej]

The NFL is not any different than TV dealing with Roseanne Barr

That was a mistake on ABC's part. They had a top rated show. How'd that show do without her? The virtue signalers still don't seem to, "get it," that all the PC nonsense has resulted in that guy they hate getting elected.

 

[glimmerman]

Is he suspended yet.. lol. Actually has the NFL even said anything yet.

 

[CouchCoach]

Doesn't that undermine the idea that the policy keeps fans watching? The policy hasn't changed and never will change people's perception of the players. Yet fans keep watching.

Consider Hollywood. A majority of people have negative opinions about it, yet they still support it because it's entertainment.

Exactly but what's not as important as policing their own is the perception that they are doing that and not condoning that behavior. The NFL and Hollywood are very similar in the feeling it's not what it is, it is how it looks.

Just look at that Ray Rice mess, he catches some heat for punching his fiancée out but not as much as Goodell caught for just a 2 game suspension. All hell broke out and all of the pregame shows were doing social commentary instead of football and some, like me, were watching the moral compass of our lives, ESPN, led by Cris Carter tell us we should not hit our women. What a shining moment. I called my wife in and said "honey, the beatings will now stop and you can thank ESPN".

From a purely interest standpoint, more people would have tuned into see Paula Dean drop some N bombs and increased the ratings but they had to deal with perception. It's like Martha Stewart, just do your time honey and when you get back, we'll have a new show for you. Hell, we'll even add a pot smoking rap artist to appeal to the gangsta element.

I do not defend the NFL and their methods but I do understand the motives and when any league punishes the coaches and owners along with the players, they score big time in the credibility department.

 

[Haimerej]

Very, very tough question. Domination, 5 Minutes Alone, Cemetery Gates, Hollow, Cowboys...would have to narrow it down to those off the top of my head. I did use some lyrics from Psycho Holiday as part of my senior quote in the year book.

That's awesome.

No, some laws don’t apply in sports otherwise MMA wouldn’t exist. Face masking, clipping, roughing the passer could all be considered assault. Move on to another debatable subject, this is going nowhere.

MMA falls under mutual combat. The penalties you cited are mostly incidental and, "part of the game." However if it's egregious enough legal action could be taken. Do the players sign a waiver saying they can't sue another player for their actions on the field?

 

[CouchCoach]

Is he suspended yet.. lol. Actually has the NFL even said anything yet.

No, but do you think that's going to stop us???

 

[glimmerman]

No, but do you think that's going to stop us???

This is what the offseason is all about.

NFL will start “looking into it” around training camp. Maybe a announcement of punishment, if any right before season starts. Just enough to stress the player and team and staff and us before opening day. Lol

 

[Haimerej]

some, like me, were watching the moral compass of our lives, ESPN, led by Cris Carter tell us we should not hit our women. What a shining moment. I called my wife in and said "honey, the beatings will now stop and you can thank ESPN".

That's why you're the best.

I do not defend the NFL and their methods but I do understand the motives and when any league punishes the coaches and owners along with the players, they score big time in the credibility department.

Do they? You could argue that mindset led ESPN down the road of ratings hell. Pitaro had to come out and say they're getting away from that stuff because, "it's not [their] job."

 

[CouchCoach]

This, too, undermines the point you guys are trying to make. If all these bad apples affect fans, why is the team with, "more time out players than anyone," with an owner who, "refuses to do anything about it" literally the biggest franchise in sports?

Do you think they're watching for the bad apples? Is the league supposed to look the other way because it's the Cowboys or deal with it themselves because he doesn't? The Cowboys were ratings champs before he ever bought the team, the difference is when Landry was there, he would have taken actions with the bad apples. Booger or Johnson or Switzer? Not a chance. The Cowboys have had these guys for quite some time but the perception is that Booger wants them.

Jeremiah, where do you think Tyreek Hill would be right now if he were a Cowboy? What if Hardy had been a Cowboy when he had his trouble? What if a player got drunk and killed another player? Forget that one, we already know the answer to that. Of the 32 owners, I think Booger ranks 32nd in policing his own with the league office.

There are people that only care about what these players do on the field, of which I am one, but there are others, and they can affect revenue, that care about all of it. The NFL caters to the latter and if I were an owner, so would I. They are not losing money by doing something but can the same be said about doing nothing? What do you think would happen if they just 86'd the conduct policy?

 

[Haimerej]

Do you think they're watching for the bad apples?

I thought my point this whole time is they don't care.