New York Post: Make teams pay

[THUMPER]

I don't understand why people are so irrational about this. For some reason people feel the need to put restrictions on playes that they would never tolerate for themselves, even if they were in the same situation.

I'm not sure what restrictions you are referring to. Do you mean that I would resent being disciplined by my company if I were arrested numerous times?

I worked for IBM for many years and saw a number of guys fired for downloading porn at work. I don't see a difference between their policy and that of the NFL except that it was stricter at IBM than in the league.

 

[Vintage]

I don't understand why people are so irrational about this. For some reason people feel the need to put restrictions on playes that they would never tolerate for themselves, even if they were in the same situation.

If Goodell wants to be serious about cleaning up the league, then doing something like this makes sense.

If teams wont bring in these players, Goodell doesn't have to suspend players and the league will be cleaned up because no team will risk it. If teams continue to do so, they risk losing picks.

 

[WoodysGirl]

I'm not sure if holding a team accountable for the actions of their players off the field is completely legal.

The league and the players agreed to it, though. While no team has been disciplined for their player's actions, it can be done. And as with the discipline of the players, it's completely within Goodell's authority to impose.

 

[Vintage]

The league and the players agreed to it, though. While no team has been disciplined for their player's actions, it can be done. And as with the discipline of the players, it's completely within Goodell's authority to impose.

Exactly.

Nothing will put an end to questionable characters being a part of the league quicker than teams losing draft picks.

So....Goodell, why not do it? I mean, if you really want to clean up the league and its image problems in a hurry, this will do it.

 

[Crown Royal]

I'm not sure what restrictions you are referring to. Do you mean that I would resent being disciplined by my company if I were arrested numerous times?

I worked for IBM for many years and saw a number of guys fired for downloading porn at work. I don't see a difference between their policy and that of the NFL except that it was stricter at IBM than in the league.

You really don't see the difference between a guy downloading porn onto a company computer being fired and a guy doing something illegal outside of working hours?

Really?

 

[Hostile]

I don't understand why people are so irrational about this. For some reason people feel the need to put restrictions on playes that they would never tolerate for themselves, even if they were in the same situation.

Uh, I have never met anyone who thinks they themself should be restricted.

My brother dropped dirty for cocaine at work. Same day in discussing it with the GM he said it was because he was frustrated at how many hours he worked (salary) versus how much he was being paid. So he asked for a raise. When he didn't get it, he quit.

People are blind about themselves more often than not.

There is nothing at all wrong with putting restrictions on others.

 

[THUMPER]

Fining really isn't too big of a deal to some owners. A cap hit? How's that any different than just releasing a guy. If he wasn't worth the trouble, you'd release him anyway. And if your team has plenty of cap room anyway, whats a little hit on it?

If you want to make it hurt, fine them picks and money. The only reason for the money is to donate it to charities, etc....to give the NFL good publicity.

I mean if Goodell is serious about all of this....time to make it really inconvenient for teams to gamble on someone....draft picks do that.

I don't think you understand just how big a cap hit would ensue if the player's entire contract, including incentives (both "likely to be attained" and "unlikely to be attained") are included. Contracts are designed to be voided or re-worked and are backloaded accordingly so that the signing bonus can be justified.

A 5-year, $40 million contract isn't likely to be paid in its entirety over the course of 5 years but will likely be voided or reworked before year-5. It usually includes some "unlikely to be attained" incentives and the actual value of the deal, or what is actually paid to the player is much less than that. Most players are released before they reach that $12M final year of their contract.

A cap hit for every released player under the system I propose would be huge for some teams and prohibitive for a team like the Bengals. They might wind up with half of their cap taken up by players who are not with the team for a couple of years! That would reduce their ability to sign FAs or even retain their own players. They might be forced to trade away high draft picks because they can't afford to play them.

Fining the owners personally, would merely hit their own pockets, which they don't like. I seriously doubt the owners would go for that one though (they are the ones who would have to vote on any change like this).

 

[GimmeTheBall!]

I don't think the teams should be punished at all. Keep the punishment upon the individuals. teams are already basically punished by losing their services during suspensions and by the perception of their teams.

Keep the blame on the responsible party, don't transfer it.
.

After viewing the nutty idea of the day, some common sense.

:clap2:

 

[Alexander]

I disagree, that is an opinion based on the media's projection of the league but it is not based on reality IMO. 90+ % of the league's players have no serious character concerns. If you look at the Cowboys right now there are only 3-4 guys who have ever had any kind of problems with the law (Keith Davis and Canty are the only ones I can think of off hand).

The problem is that we only hear about the thugs and rarely hear about all the other players who are doing community service (voluntarily, not court-ordered) and raising their families without hanging out at strip clubs at 3:00 am.

Getting rid of 5-6% of the players in the league would make a dent but it would not seriously reduce the talent pool and I believe the game would be better for it.

I don't believe that the 5-6 % you speak of actually scratches the surface. Those are only the ones we hear about or can be verified.

What of those with no documented history? Say a team takes them and does not know. Do you punish them?

And what's to say those that are documented are worse than those who are not? They might be stupider because they were caught, but you cannot assign a value to character.

There are too many variables to simply impose sanctions across the board. A "warning" system or schedule of progression is about the only way to handle it.

 

[Zaxor]

I don't think the teams should be punished at all. Keep the punishment upon the individuals. teams are already basically punished by losing their services during suspensions and by the perception of their teams.

Keep the blame on the responsible party, don't transfer it.

A Canton, Ohio cop killed his pregnant girlfriend. Does that mean all cops in Canton, Ohio are tainted? I don't think so, but there will be a stigma from this incident to overcome.

A wrestler just killed his wife and child before killing himself. Does that mean all wrestlers are dangers to their families and themselves?

You can't force organizations to keep their players under lock and key. All you can do is offer them the best environment you can provide, make them want it more than they want the "high life" and pray they use good judgment.

Michael Irvin deserved to be punished for his misdeeds. I fail to see where the Cowboys forced him to do drugs and chase ******.

Keep the punishments focused on the guilty.

While I agree with this in principal... what about the Cinn's of the world.. I can't help but believe that the atmosphere(for some reason) is conducive to bad conduct.. making the team itself a culprit. Every team will probably have a player or two (so I also believe it should be confined to the player(s) but when it gets up to NINE well that seems to me to be the players but also an organizational thing.

 

[onetrickpony]

No loosing a pick means less people will be drafted. If a team trades a pick there are still the same amount of picks.

Maybe give the pick to another team? Maybe have a lottery among the teams that don't have player problems and give the picks to them?

Just brain storming, so don't slam me too hard!

 

[Vintage]

I don't get it.

I thought most here were in favor of Goodell's tough policy. Why not make it tougher? Suspending players isn't going to put an end to that. Look at how many continue to get in trouble despite the suspensions.

If teams don't have these players on their roster, this madness will get cleaned up quicker.

And what quicker way than to penalize picks....?

Put in a tier system...something like if its a player's first violation, the team is safe from losing a pick. But if the player continues to get in trouble and the team continues to have him on the roster, a pick can be taken away. No team would risk signing that guy afterwards because of the risk associated at that point.

 

[Vintage]

Maybe give the pick to another team? Maybe have a lottery among the teams that don't have player problems and give the picks to them?

Just brain storming, so don't slam me too hard!

No need to.

Who really cares if the 256th player in the draft is no longer drafted and Mr. Irrelevant ends up being #255.

It cost one guy who probably wouldn't have been drafted anyway if it wasn't for all those compensatory picks anyway....

 

[Crown Royal]

I don't get it.

I thought most here were in favor of Goodell's tough policy. Why not make it tougher? Suspending players isn't going to put an end to that. Look at how many continue to get in trouble despite the suspensions.

If teams don't have these players on their roster, this madness will get cleaned up quicker.

And what quicker way than to penalize picks....?

Put in a tier system...something like if its a player's first violation, the team is safe from losing a pick. But if the player continues to get in trouble and the team continues to have him on the roster, a pick can be taken away. No team would risk signing that guy afterwards because of the risk associated at that point.

In a nutshell, because I don't believe that the end would justify the means. Even if I granted that penalizing teams would help to cleanup player transgressions, my first concern is justice, and I don't see how penalizing a team for a player's action is just.

 

[Vintage]

In a nutshell, because I don't believe that the end would justify the means. Even if I granted that penalizing teams would help to cleanup player transgressions, my first concern is justice, and I don't see how penalizing a team for a player's action is just.

If a player keeps getting in trouble repeatedly and the team still keeps him on the roster....

Then they deserve to be punished, no?

I mean, if we are being serious about trying to clean up the league....why allow teams to keep such players without fear of reprimand?

 

[BouncingCheese]

If Goodell really wants to make this fair, as well as a reasonable option for a team to waive a player, then Goodell should let teams who let go of players who act up off the field have a lower cap hit.

 

[03EBZ06]

I don't know how much I agree with this. How accountable should a team be for one of it's players actions off the field? If I went to a strip club and got into the trouble Jones did, I highly doubt my company would do anything more than fire me.

I guess it would depend on severity of infraction/crime.

I work for a defense industry and if I committed an espionage or violated trade secret, I would be fired/charged and the company would be fined as well.

 

[Hostile]

While I agree with this in principal... what about the Cinn's of the world.. I can't help but believe that the atmosphere(for some reason) is conducive to bad conduct.. making the team itself a culprit. Every team will probably have a player or two (so I also believe it should be confined to the player(s) but when it gets up to NINE well that seems to me to be the players but also an organizational thing.

When the Cowboys were being mocked nightly on Leno and Letterman, when Jim Rome was calling us the Dallas Crackwagon, I never once believed it had anything to do with the Dallas Cowboys, or the DFW area.

I'd be a hypocrite if I held Cincinnati to a standard I won't hold my own team to.

Do I think teams should be more pro-active in disciplining their own players? You bet.

Do I think the teams should be disciplined for the actions of those players? No way. Not unless it is absolutely a chronic black eye on the team and the league and the team is refusing to handle it. The thing is though, with the new enforcement by the Commish and endorsment of the NFLPA I don't see that as ever being an issue.

In other words I don't believe the NFL needs to become Draconian in its measures and sanction the teams too. I can't see the Commish holding the Titans accountable for the actions of Pacman when he is already holding Pacman accountable for them himself.

Let me ask this, what would this accomplish? I'll answer it for you. A player gets an infraction and the team unwilling to risk losing draft picks will release him. You won't get more compliance by doing this. What you will get is more panic reactions by the teams wanting to avoid any possible sanction.

I think it's a horrible idea.

 

[Hostile]

I don't get it.

I thought most here were in favor of Goodell's tough policy. Why not make it tougher? Suspending players isn't going to put an end to that. Look at how many continue to get in trouble despite the suspensions.

If teams don't have these players on their roster, this madness will get cleaned up quicker.

And what quicker way than to penalize picks....?

Put in a tier system...something like if its a player's first violation, the team is safe from losing a pick. But if the player continues to get in trouble and the team continues to have him on the roster, a pick can be taken away. No team would risk signing that guy afterwards because of the risk associated at that point.

I don't mind it being tougher on the guilty, why make it tougher on the team which does not sanction the actions? That's my hangup.

 

[Vintage]

I don't mind it being tougher on the guilty, why make it tougher on the team which does not sanction the actions? That's my hangup.

If a team allows a player to continue with their team despite multiple off field trangressions (like Chris Henry, for example)...

Hold them accountable for keeping him on the roster.

Cinci would cut him, no team would sign him for risk of losing a pick, and he gets flushed out of the league....

One less turd in the league. I thought that was what some wanted. A quick cleanup. This is offereing that. If you want to protect the teams some, then fine. Make it so that someone like Chris Henry falls under this category, but someone with a one time offense doesn't penalize the team.