Sean Payton suspended for 2012, Tebow a Jet

[WSU151]

Goodell's been very good, but Tags was good in his primary objective - maximizing revenues for the owners.

They don't agree.

Tagliabue negotiated a terrible labor deal on behalf of the owners. One they couldn't wait to opt out of.

True to an extent, and a good point. But if you look at the change in revenues from 1989 to 2006 and the increase in team values (adjusted for inflation), I think every owner should be pretty happy with Tagliabue's performance.

[Gothamite]

Perhaps, but I wouldn't put much stake in "team values"; they are only realized in the event of a sale, and as such are largely irrelevant to a group that as a whole has no real interest in selling. In fact, those increased values make it harder to pass teams to their families, and as such could be seen as a detriment if revenues don't keep pace.

Rightly or wrongly, as a group the owners didn't think that Tagliabue set the sport up for continued expansion of those revenues, which is why they opted out of his CBA the second they could.

1) They have Vilma on tape offering bounties.

2) Who really cares? It's not particularly relevant if the League is highlighting player safety for their own selfish reasons, only that they are.

1) Really? Where is this tape? While we're at it, where's any mention of bounties in Gregg Williams' tirade prior to the 49ers game? I'm not excusing what he DID say, which was unforgivable, but aside from the "I've got the first one" comment while supposedly making a money gesture (apparently referring to a fine), how is it that this damning tape has no mention of bounties at all?

2) Anyone who finds hypocrisy distasteful cares.

1) I stand corrected. I mis-read a report that suggested they had one. They well might - we don't know what's in the mountain of evidence - but we don't know that they do. We do know that players fingered him as one of the ringleaders of the bounty system.

2) It's not hyopcrisy. You can say it's "enlightened self-interest", but nobody seriously thinks that corporations are altruistic for altruism's sake (heck, many philosophers deny such a thing even exits at all). It is not hypocritical to simultaneously want more games and safer games, for example. The latter is an essential element in advocating for the former.

[NJTank]

Goodell needs to make this more fare for all sides. Get a three person pannell one the NFLPA chooses, one the owners choose, and and independant voice that both sides can agree. They can hear all appeals. Somewhat like baseball with Ryan Braun's steroids case.

[TheOldRoman]

He's the first Commissioner to realize that head trauma does indeed exist, and his fines and punishments have actual teeth to them.

I don't know why people keep saying that. The concussion issue popped up big time around 2006, right as Goddell took over. Before then, "shake it off" was everybody's response. The can of worms opened once Chris Nowinski started sniffing around and founded the Sports Legacy Institute for concussion research. Those were the people that revealed Andrew Waters had the brain of an 85 year-old. That was the stuff that made people start to realize that concussions were life-and-death stuff. After that, we got about three years of "nothing to see here" tap dancing from Goddell before the NFL realized that they had to do more to cover their asses from lawsuits. And even now, experts say that most head trauma comes not from huge hits a safety puts on a receiver, but from getting your head slapped dozens of times a day in practice. They have taken good steps in removing certain types of hits, but those hits were just the tip of the iceberg. Gooddell has pretty much Paterno'd to this point and done the minimum legal requirement. Whether he actually goes further to improve saftey remains to be seen. Still, he gets no credit from me for reluctantly giving in to concussion awareness.

[Gothamite]

Unlike That Scumbag Paterno, I give Goodell the benefit of the doubt. Yes, he needs to do more. But he's getting tremendous pushback from the players on even the small steps he's trying to implement.

Goodell needs to make this more fare for all sides. Get a three person pannell one the NFLPA chooses, one the owners choose, and and independant voice that both sides can agree. They can hear all appeals. Somewhat like baseball with Ryan Braun's steroids case.

For appeals of punishments relating to on-field actions, that's sort of what happens. Those appeals are made to a two-man committee, currently comprised of former coaches Art Shell and Ted Cottrell. Shell and Cottrell were appointed to this committee and are paid jointly by the NFL and NFLPA.

Off-field punishment appeals are still heard by the Commissioner, so that's where these guys are heading. But the union agreed to that in the last CBA.

[Saintsfan]

It is a bit ironic when people whine about commissioners being all powerful. That was always kind of the point, going back to the initial appointments in baseball. Have one guy pushing a vision in order to bring clarity and vision to the job, over the heads of the owners, who sometimes had conflicting interests. That is still pretty much the job. I think the point about it being unfair that Goodell should be hearing appeals against decisions he has made is well made, but you then get into the question of what is the point of an appeal? To overturn a decision or because the punishment is unfair? If you've appointed a guy to be overlord of your game, surely he is the one to decide what punishment his league should hand out over something like this?

[WSU151]

Perhaps, but I wouldn't put much stake in "team values"; they are only realized in the event of a sale, and as such are largely irrelevant to a group that as a whole has no real interest in selling. In fact, those increased values make it harder to pass teams to their families, and as such could be seen as a detriment if revenues don't keep pace.

Rightly or wrongly, as a group the owners didn't think that Tagliabue set the sport up for continued expansion of those revenues, which is why they opted out of his CBA the second they could.

The values of a business are based upon future cash flows. With growing team values, the cash flows were expected to increase for the foreseeable future. They opted out of the CBA because of marginally lower profits (ie, they're still profitting, but yearly percentage change in profits was not as high), not because of revenue problems.

[BlueSky]

It is a bit ironic when people whine about commissioners being all powerful. That was always kind of the point, going back to the initial appointments in baseball. Have one guy pushing a vision in order to bring clarity and vision to the job, over the heads of the owners, who sometimes had conflicting interests. That is still pretty much the job. I think the point about it being unfair that Goodell should be hearing appeals against decisions he has made is well made, but you then get into the question of what is the point of an appeal? To overturn a decision or because the punishment is unfair? If you've appointed a guy to be overlord of your game, surely he is the one to decide what punishment his league should hand out over something like this?

Yes, there's a strategic element to the commissioner's office, but's he's not all-powerful in everything. The owners meet and vote on various issues, there's a competition committee to look at rule changes and so on. He's nore like a cowboy cracking the whip to keep the herd headed in the right direction.

Finding an example where it's a good idea to entrust an entire decision process to one person is pretty tough. Examples to the contrary abound, like the aviation regulation that mandates agreement on a certain set of safety-related factors (fuel load, etc.) between the captain of a commercial flight and the dispatcher responsible for that flight. It's recognized pretty much universally that two or more heads are, almost without exception, better than one.

I'm not even saying Goodell's wrong about the Saints. For all we know, the punishment may be on the lenient side. It's the NFL's refusal to produce any evidence, publicly or to the union, that causes problems. Would you want to tried, convicted, and sentenced - in the media no less - on nothing more than someone's assurances that there really was plenty of evidence against you?

Consider this: Vilma knows the truth, he knows this is very public, he knows what would happen to his reputation if he made such a blunt denial and then evidence came out proving him a liar. Just seems very strange (or maybe it's just stupid) to issue such a rabid denial if you know in your heart you're guilty.

@ Gothamite, I'm still just baffled at your more games = player safety equation. To quote a famous pointy-eared character: "Fascinating."

[Gothamite]

Don't know the man.

But I think you're misreading my post; I never said that x = y. I only said that in this case if you want to do x, then y is the first step. The NFL needs to get injuries under control if the owners want to consider adding games. There's no disconnect at all between the two goals; they work in harmony, so there's no hypocrisy in pursuing them both.

I'm not even saying Goodell's wrong about the Saints. For all we know, the punishment may be on the lenient side. It's the NFL's refusal to produce any evidence, publicly or to the union, that causes problems. Would you want to tried, convicted, and sentenced - in the media no less - on nothing more than someone's assurances that there really was plenty of evidence against you?

The players didn't have to agree to this in the CBA. Their union approved the arrangement and the players ratified it. The real hypocrisy is some Saints and their defenders on other teams now decrying as unfair and unacceptable a system that they themselves approved not one year ago.

[BlueSky]

Don't know the man.

But I think you're misreading my post; I never said that x = y. I only said that in this case if you want to do x, then y is the first step. The NFL needs to get injuries under control if the owners want to consider adding games. There's no disconnect at all between the two goals; they work in harmony, so there's no hypocrisy in pursuing them both.

I'm not even saying Goodell's wrong about the Saints. For all we know, the punishment may be on the lenient side. It's the NFL's refusal to produce any evidence, publicly or to the union, that causes problems. Would you want to tried, convicted, and sentenced - in the media no less - on nothing more than someone's assurances that there really was plenty of evidence against you?

The players didn't have to agree to this in the CBA. Their union approved the arrangement and the players ratified it. The real hypocrisy is some Saints and their defenders on other teams now decrying as unfair and unacceptable a system that they themselves approved not one year ago.

Somehow I don't recall it being stated that way, but okay, that makes sense. Agreed about the CBA.

[Gothamite]

Then that's my mistake for not clarifying.

Goodell is obviously motivated by many things when it comes to preventing injuries, from setting up a defense against lawsuits to protecting his owners' "assets" to laying the foundation for additional games.

What's bizarre to me is that the union isn't cracking down on its players Tweeting about how much they hate his new safety measures. They're each taking themselves out of a future class action group, one player at a time.

[goalieboy82]

is it possible for nfl players to walk off in mass if they dont like what is going on, ie strike if they want to under the current cba. it will hit the fan sooner or later with the nfl with bounty gate and what the nfl knew about what was going on.

[rams80]

Goodell needs to make this more fare for all sides. Get a three person pannell one the NFLPA chooses, one the owners choose, and and independant voice that both sides can agree. They can hear all appeals. Somewhat like baseball with Ryan Braun's steroids case.

Funny you mention Braun, since I'm pretty sure that precedent is WHY the NFL DOESN'T want to set up such a body.

[rams80]

is it possible for nfl players to walk off in mass if they dont like what is going on, ie strike if they want to under the current cba. it will hit the fan sooner or later with the nfl with bounty gate and what the nfl knew about what was going on.

They could try. Granted the following image would likely depict the NLRB's response to their "complaint".

At which point the NLRB would tell those crazy loons to get back to work.

[Gothamite]

Goodell needs to make this more fare for all sides. Get a three person pannell one the NFLPA chooses, one the owners choose, and and independant voice that both sides can agree. They can hear all appeals. Somewhat like baseball with Ryan Braun's steroids case.

Funny you mention Braun, since I'm pretty sure that precedent is WHY the NFL DOESN'T want to set up such a body.

But, as stated above, they do have an independent board, paid and selected jointly by the league and the NFLPA.

These guys just don't qualify.

[NJTank]

Its good to have checks and balances and I think the NFL needs it.

[Gothamite]

Which is why, for all on-field disciplinary matters, the NFL does have them.

But there are times when a Commissioner needs to be given unilateral authority, and he has to use it. My biggest problem with Bud Selig is that he relies too much on building consensus. I wish that he would use Kennesaw Mountain Landis's unilateral, unchecked power once in a while.

For off-the-field matters, I'm perfectly happy with Goodell having and exercising vast power. And really, the Saints are in no position to complain about punishments; they were warned to stop the bounty system but didn't, and some of them later lied to the NFL investigators. This isn't some vague thing about the "culture" of the League, this is a series of rules they repeatedly broke, even in the face of specific warnings not to. When faced with such a culture of corruption, I want an autocrat capable of smashing it to pieces.

[NJTank]

This keeps looking worse and worse for the New Orleans Sinners.

http://espn.go.com/nfl/story/_/id/7901702/anthony-hargrove-says-joe-vitt-gregg-williams-told-play-dumb-bounties

Former Saints defensive lineman Anthony Hargove describes in a sworn statement how he was told by ex-defensive coordinator Gregg Williams and current New Orleans assistant head coach Joe Vitt to deny the existence of a bounty program to NFL investigators.

In a document obtained Monday by The Associated Press, Hargrove acknowledges that he acted on Williams' and Vitt's instructions to "play dumb" if asked whether he was aware of bounties being placed on former Minnesota quarterback Brett Favre or any other player.

I think the Saints may need to do another coach search because this may get Vitt more games. It is amazing how poor this organization has handled this from the jump. Didn't people learn from Watergate, the cover up is worse than the crime?

[Gothamite]

Nope. Amazing.

Looks like Williams's "indefinite" suspension just might turn out to be a lifetime ban...

[Mings]

Hell I figured when they announced it Williams wasn't going to coach another game in the NFL.

This whole thing really reminds me of Louisiana politics. Learn from whats around you I suppose.