PDA

View Full Version : On Roger Goodell


Texans_Chick
04-01-2008, 04:06 PM
I thought y'all would be interested in this:

Is Roger Goodell an Unthinking Moralist? (http://sports.aol.com/fanhouse/2008/04/01/is-roger-goodell-an-unthinking-moralist/)

I think that there are a lot of players and fans that are less than impressed with his tenure as commish. I don't think this is something that is said much by the mainstream media because they don't want to make the NFL angry.

But it is strange. Very rarely do I ever write something semi-controversial that the commenters are all saying, yeah, thanks for saying that. I think it touches a nerve.

Polo
04-01-2008, 04:18 PM
I didn't realize the Bears got the 49ers pick...

That is the dumbest thing I ever heard of...

And thats a good read...

Specnatz
04-01-2008, 04:19 PM
I have heard this brought up before but not into such detail. There was a player who was suspended from the Bengals and at first Goodell denied him reinstatement then relented. Some were saying Goodell was being to heavy handed with the reinstatement. it was a player who was suspended prior to Goodell taking office.

I have to say I will need to read more, going through the links you provided. This could turn into a huge debate and battle in the NFL and here as well. I know have not voiced my opinion yet but I need to read more, first.

Polo
04-01-2008, 04:21 PM
From the article:

Whether or not Roger Goodell is guided by an inflated sense of morality is frankly secondary to the fact that , whatever is guiding him, it isn't consistent. For all anyone can tell, he's just making stuff up as he goes along.

That's what it seems like to me...

brakos82
04-01-2008, 04:25 PM
http://i206.photobucket.com/albums/bb23/brakos82/goodell3.jpg
http://i206.photobucket.com/albums/bb23/brakos82/goodell2.jpg
http://i206.photobucket.com/albums/bb23/brakos82/goodell.jpg

Fox
04-01-2008, 04:43 PM
Good read and for the most part I agree. Goodell seems to have the final say in all matters, he doesn't seem to have a uniform approach to them, and he's using his influence often. When you throw down these massive punishments, and do so arbitrarily with no explicit guidelines it just asks for people to question your decisions and get in a hissy. Just look at David Stern and the NBA. His decision to sit Amare Stoudamire of the Suns last year simply for standing too far from the bench quite possibly changed the course of the playoffs. That's bad for business when your league's games are decided by the old guys in offices and not the guys playing the game.

On the other hand, Pac Man is friggin ridiculous. I think he deserves the punishment he's received. And as for the 49er's, serves em right that they lost their pick. Just because a. everyone does it, and b. they didn't get the player doesn't mean they shouldn't be punished after being caught for something that is against the league's rules. It doesn't make sense to only punish someone for successfully cheating, ie. tampering and signing the player.

Lucky
04-01-2008, 05:06 PM
Roger Goodell doesn't operate in a vacuum. He's hired by the 32 NFL owners to a job. And that job description is basically to keep the brand name "National Football League" in good repute.

I don't think morality has anything to do with Goodell's actions. Pacman Jones and Bill Belichick's actions were counter productive to the long-term interests of the NFL. Goodell came down hard because he had the backing of the owners. Of course the players don't like it. At least not the ones who play fast and loose with the rules or the law. But what are they going to do? Quit and become professional dancers? If they wish to continue playing football and making millions, they need to realize they have a vested interest in the the business that is the NFL. Else, get pulled like a bad tooth. And Roger Goodell is cold blooded dentist who doesn't use Novocaine.

Texans_Chick
04-01-2008, 07:24 PM
Roger Goodell doesn't operate in a vacuum. He's hired by the 32 NFL owners to a job. And that job description is basically to keep the brand name "National Football League" in good repute.

I don't think morality has anything to do with Goodell's actions. Pacman Jones and Bill Belichick's actions were counter productive to the long-term interests of the NFL. Goodell came down hard because he had the backing of the owners. Of course the players don't like it. At least not the ones who play fast and loose with the rules or the law. But what are they going to do? Quit and become professional dancers? If they wish to continue playing football and making millions, they need to realize they have a vested interest in the the business that is the NFL. Else, get pulled like a bad tooth. And Roger Goodell is cold blooded dentist who doesn't use Novocaine.

I agree that he is supposed to maintain the name in good standing.

The problem, as I see it, is making league punishment all about Roger.

I think there are other ways he could have handled the punishment without increasing the attention to the badness.Leagues have done it for years.

Creating uncertainty and debate over league discipline is not healthy and is horrible for planning and can possibly be franchise killing.

The PacMan rule is an illustration of how hard cases make bad law. Once you make up stuff to throw the book at PacMan and the Patriots, you have set a standard that you might feel uncomfortable with for other situations.

You might not be concerned with it now, but maybe more when Goodell does something that screws over your favorite team and/or creates uncertainty and looks like a rip (flipping 49ers pick with the Chicago huh?).

The drug policy is good. You violate it, you generally know what happens if everybody followed procedures. You might love it or hate it but you know what will happen.

"Whatever Rog Feels" is the sort of standard that can make people feel like he might be biased for or against their team even if he doesn't intend to.

Trap_Star
04-01-2008, 07:35 PM
im curious to see if he re-instates PacMan before he does Odell Thurman.

infantrycak
04-01-2008, 07:59 PM
I agree that he is supposed to maintain the name in good standing.

The problem, as I see it, is making league punishment all about Roger.

So if the league set up a commission of three owners or whatever, you think it would appear or in fact be any less arbitrary or have substantially different results?

I think there are other ways he could have handled the punishment without increasing the attention to the badness.Leagues have done it for years.

How?

Creating uncertainty and debate over league discipline is not healthy and is horrible for planning and can possibly be franchise killing.

The PacMan rule is an illustration of how hard cases make bad law. Once you make up stuff to throw the book at PacMan and the Patriots, you have set a standard that you might feel uncomfortable with for other situations.

Bad facts can make bad law, but disparate facts can make disparate results which are totally justified and yet appear arbitrary.

"Whatever Rog Feels" is the sort of standard that can make people feel like he might be biased for or against their team even if he doesn't intend to.

How can you possibly write a rule for the NFL which basically encompasses all human indiscretion and criminal conduct and reduce it to a predictable standard? I get the concern, but don't see how it translates into a solution without more.

hollywood_texan
04-01-2008, 08:13 PM
When you throw down these massive punishments, and do so arbitrarily with no explicit guidelines it just asks for people to question your decisions and get in a hissy. Just look at David Stern and the NBA. His decision to sit Amare Stoudamire of the Suns last year simply for standing too far from the bench quite possibly changed the course of the playoffs. That's bad for business when your league's games are decided by the old guys in offices and not the guys playing the game.


There is a very clear rule in the NBA that if you leave the bench during an altercation, it's an automatic suspension.

The Stoudamire suspension was not an arbitrary ruling by Stern.

It's a very specific rule that came about due to the Palace Brawl a few years back.

Bad example to use.




On the Goodell subject, I haven't really kept up with it that much to really form an opinion. But, he does seem a little off.

Also, I don't understand the hair thing. But, I am a little biased since I have long hair myself.

Fox
04-01-2008, 08:21 PM
There is a very clear rule in the NBA that if you leave the bench during an altercation, it's an automatic suspension.

The Stoudamire suspension was not an arbitrary ruling by Stern.

It's a very specific rule that came about due to the Palace Brawl a few years back.

Bad example to use.


Yea, after looking back at it you're right, not a good example. Probably should've gone with him making them wear suits to the game or changing the ball or something of that nature.

ATXtexanfan
04-01-2008, 08:22 PM
he's got a tough job, pac man settled everthing out of court, goodell is trying to police multi-miliionares who are above the law ( oj ), he's working on the fly, no one had ever been caught with tapes such as spygate, how do you set up a punishment? you might as well set an example

Fox
04-01-2008, 11:03 PM
How can you possibly write a rule for the NFL which basically encompasses all human indiscretion and criminal conduct and reduce it to a predictable standard? I get the concern, but don't see how it translates into a solution without more.

Maybe they could set something up with mandatory suspensions based on the number of arrests, with exceptions for increased or permanent suspensions based on the severity of the crime. Aren't crimes already organized into some type of hierarchical scheme, ie. capital offenses, federal offenses etc?

I'm not as up to date as some of you may be but it seems to me like Pac man is basically at Goodell's mercy right now, and Goodell has taken a stance that he will end his suspension when he sees fit. I would feel better about it if he had given explicit instructions like meet these goals (like don't get arrested and do x hours of community service), for this long, and you're back in with the caveat that you are walking on thin ice from now until you retire. As it stands now it seems like he's given him goals, but is not saying he will be reinstated whether or not he achieves them.

Did any of the commissioner's before Goodell suspend players for conduct (other than drugs)? For some reason I thought in the past this was an issue that teams handled individually with their troubled players.

infantrycak
04-01-2008, 11:19 PM
Maybe they could set something up with mandatory suspensions based on the number of arrests, with exceptions for increased or permanent suspensions based on the severity of the crime. Aren't crimes already organized into some type of hierarchical scheme, ie. capital offenses, federal offenses etc?

You certainly could attempt to, but there would always be carping about whether the various crimes deserve the same punishment in a NFL perspective as a criminal one. What do you do about the Michael Vick scenario? He could have been charged with 50+ counts and ended up charged with 1 federal and 4 state counts. What does the NFL use?--are they bound by whatever deal gets worked out?

I'm not as up to date as some of you may be but it seems to me like Pac man is basically at Goodell's mercy right now, and Goodell has taken a stance that he will end his suspension when he sees fit. I would feel better about it if he had given explicit instructions like meet these goals (like don't get arrested and do x hours of community service), for this long, and you're back in with the caveat that you are walking on thin ice from now until you retire. As it stands now it seems like he's given him goals, but is not saying he will be reinstated whether or not he achieves them.

Here I totally agree. There should be a well defined path back provided. Don't know what Pacman was told

Blazing Arrow
04-02-2008, 12:09 AM
How can C Henry on the Bangles be playing in the league if Pacman is still out. He has been in a fair amount of trouble. If it is conduct unbecoming the league how does a convicted killer play and a player only put on probation out for a season?

Don't take this as a pro Pacman thing, the only thing I am looking for is resolution from the league to end this BS stand off. If he is suspended for life just say it. How are Goodell’s actions by keeping the team dangling fair in his mind?

The suspension was stated as a year. Not some arbitrary number floating around in Goodell's head. If he wants to review the situation then Pacman and his agent and his lawyer and the players union should all meet again review the case and he should make a ruling.

Specnatz
04-02-2008, 12:22 AM
How can C Henry on the Bangles be playing in the league if Pacman is still out. He has been in a fair amount of trouble. If it is conduct unbecoming the league how does a convicted killer play and a player only put on probation out for a season?

Don't take this as a pro Pacman thing, the only thing I am looking for is resolution from the league to end this BS stand off. If he is suspended for life just say it. How are Goodell’s actions by keeping the team dangling fair in his mind?

The suspension was stated as a year. Not some arbitrary number floating around in Goodell's head. If he wants to review the situation then Pacman and his agent and his lawyer and the players union should all meet again review the case and he should make a ruling.

December 15, 2005 - Chris Henry was pulled over in Northern Kentucky for speeding and marijuana was found in his shoes. He was also driving without a valid driver's license, and without auto insurance. On January 30, 2006, he was arrested in Orlando for multiple gun charges including concealment and aggravated assault with a firearm[10]. He was reported to have been wearing his Number 15 Bengals jersey at the time of his arrest. Henry pleaded guilty in both cases and avoided jail time in both cases.
May 4, 2006 - Cincinnati media reported that Henry is being investigated by Covington police in connection with a sex crime, which allegedly occurred in a hotel room in Covington, Kentucky early on April 30, 2006. No charges have yet been filed, and on May 24, 2006, Covington police reported that there is no proof anything happened and that the alleged victim might now face charges for filing a false police report.
June 3, 2006 - Chris Henry was pulled over outside on Interstate 275 at 1:18 a.m by Ohio Highway Trooper Michael Shimko. At 2:06 a.m. Henry voluntarily submitted to a breathalyzer test at Milford Police Department and registered a .092 blood-alcohol level, .012 above the level permitted by Ohio law. [11] These charges have since been dismissed as it was proven that the breathalyzer used to test Henry at the scene was faulty. [12]
September 25, 2006 in the early morning, Bengals linebacker Odell Thurman was pulled over for a DUI. The truck Thurman was driving belonged to rookie Reggie McNeal. Neither McNeal nor Chris Henry were charged with any wrongdoing by authorities, however, Bengals Head Coach Marvin Lewis benched Henry for the Bengals loss against the New England Patriots.
October 6, 2006 - Henry was suspended by the NFL for two games for violating the league's personal conduct and substance abuse policies. NFL policies forbid Henry from taking part in practices, however, he was allowed to attend any team meetings. Henry missed the Bengals' October 15, 2006 game at Tampa Bay Buccaneers and their October 22, 2006 game against the Carolina Panthers. [13]
January 25, 2007 - Henry pleaded guilty to charges of providing alcohol to minors, an incident that occurred at a hotel in the spring on 2006. He was sentenced to 90 days in jail, with all but two of those days being suspended. [14]
April 10, 2007 - Henry was suspended for the first eight games of the 2007 NFL season for violations of the NFL's personal conduct policy[15]. His suspension comes with a stern warning that future misconduct may result in the end of his career with the NFL. Henry has since been allowed to begin practicing fully with the Cincinnati Bengals by NFL Commissioner, Roger Goodell. [16] His suspension was lifted and he played in the November 11, game versus the Baltimore Ravens, amassing 4 catches for 99 yards.
May 18, 2007 - Henry allegedly failed a court-mandated drug test, where a field tested resulted in a false positive for taking an opiate, according to the Cincinnati Enquirer. The failed drug test would have been the third violation of the NFL's substance abuse policy. A third violation, per league rules, results in a one-year suspension. In addition to having his suspension increased to 24 games, he would have had to serve an 88 day jail sentence.[17] As of May 23, 2007, the State of Kentucky has reported that Henry in fact did NOT fail a drug test, and that earlier reports to the contrary are erroneous.
June 12, 2007 - Henry allegedly assaulted a 16 year old boy with teammate Reggie McNeal. The claims were later reported to be unfounded [18] and Henry and McNeal have been exonerated.
November 6, 2007 - Henry allegedly assaulted a valet attendant at Newport on the Levee[19].

Please tell me where he was convicted of killing or murder? Now if you are referring another player please state the player who did anything wrong while Goodell has been commissioner? If it is a different commissioner, then just delete your account and stop posting here, because that would mean you do not have a clue and cant afford to buy one.

Blazing Arrow
04-02-2008, 12:54 AM
Tank Johnson ... I could have made that a little more clear.

But nice job of dodging the point of my post to make yourself feel better. I guess you just did not have an argument though so .... speaking of deleting account?

EDIT: :L Little

http://www.usatoday.com/sports/football/nfl/rams/2004-04-26-little-charged_x.htm

Specnatz
04-02-2008, 01:08 AM
Tank Johnson ... I could have made that a little more clear.

But nice job of dodging the point of my post to make yourself feel better. I guess you just did not have an argument though so .... speaking of deleting account?

Possession of unregistered firearms. No murder or deaths. Next! Not dodging anything. If you can not ask a question without giving false info, how in the world do expect anyone to give you an answer that is correct and well informed?

Second Honeymoon
04-02-2008, 01:16 AM
If PacMan comes to a civil settlement with the bouncer at the strip bar and pays his other restitutions in that particular case, I can not see any reason that Goodell can keep PacMan out of the league. I just think Goodell is letting him twist in the wind a little bit to further illustrate how serious Goodell is about cleaning the league up off-the-field.

I like Goodell although I feel he should have taken away the Patriots #7 pick, not their 31st for the Patriots being cheaters and especially the fact that team leadership was involved in attempting to cover up evidence.

Blazing Arrow
04-02-2008, 01:33 AM
He was suspended on April 10th of 2007 for one season. Even prisoners get to have a parole hearing. Give him his day in NFL court and let what ever happens happens.

http://nbcsports.msnbc.com/id/17949870/

BigBull17
04-02-2008, 08:38 AM
If PacMan comes to a civil settlement with the bouncer at the strip bar and pays his other restitutions in that particular case, I can not see any reason that Goodell can keep PacMan out of the league. I just think Goodell is letting him twist in the wind a little bit to further illustrate how serious Goodell is about cleaning the league up off-the-field.

I like Goodell although I feel he should have taken away the Patriots #7 pick, not their 31st for the Patriots being cheaters and especially the fact that team leadership was involved in attempting to cover up evidence.

Thats the thing that bugs me as well.

Texans_Chick
04-02-2008, 09:11 AM
So if the league set up a commission of three owners or whatever, you think it would appear or in fact be any less arbitrary or have substantially different results?



How?



Bad facts can make bad law, but disparate facts can make disparate results which are totally justified and yet appear arbitrary.



How can you possibly write a rule for the NFL which basically encompasses all human indiscretion and criminal conduct and reduce it to a predictable standard? I get the concern, but don't see how it translates into a solution without more.

Don't have much time before I have to go but here goes it.

Basically, the reason why Rog has got more involved is because the individual teams were letting things slide. And the PacMan rule came about because the commish didn't like that the league was waiting for the legal process to take its course.

And at the owners meetings, Rog announced that he wants to make some players undraftable by putting greater penalties on teams that draft low character guys who do wrong. That the penalty for bad behavior in high school/college is that you don't just drop in the draft, you don't get drafted.

All this tough talking stuff might play well to some, but I bet in reality it is going to be a little more difficult to work out.

I'm not sure what the standard for low character guys will end up being.

Though I know that the league wants to clean its image up, but I feel uncomfortable with the high profile way it is being handled. I really do think it puts more attention on bad actors.

I think there has to be some sort of way of handling things between waiting for the legal system to shake out, and arbitrarily deciding what guys won't come back with little set standards or rules other than what Rog thinks. In some ways, relying on the legal system is better on the league because they could just blame the slow process. Now, as judge and arbiter of everything bad, the league puts more of the blame on itself if the way they end up handling suspensions ends up looking a little unpredictable and uncertain.

Lucky
04-02-2008, 09:24 AM
He was suspended on April 10th of 2007 for one season. Even prisoners get to have a parole hearing. Give him his day in NFL court and let what ever happens happens.

Playing in the NFL isn't a constitutionally protected right. As Goodell said, in the link you provided, it's a privilege. Goodell isn't a judge presiding over a court, he's a CEO who has to answer to stockholders. If and when Adam Jones' presence in the league is deemed a positive, and not a negative, he'll be allowed to continue his career.

“It is a privilege to represent the NFL, not a right,” Goodell said. “These players and all members of our league have to make the right choices and decisions in their conduct on a consistent basis.”I believe Roger Goodell has been good for the NFL.

HoustonFrog
04-02-2008, 09:32 AM
Roger Goodell doesn't operate in a vacuum. He's hired by the 32 NFL owners to a job. And that job description is basically to keep the brand name "National Football League" in good repute.

I don't think morality has anything to do with Goodell's actions. Pacman Jones and Bill Belichick's actions were counter productive to the long-term interests of the NFL. Goodell came down hard because he had the backing of the owners. Of course the players don't like it. At least not the ones who play fast and loose with the rules or the law. But what are they going to do? Quit and become professional dancers? If they wish to continue playing football and making millions, they need to realize they have a vested interest in the the business that is the NFL. Else, get pulled like a bad tooth. And Roger Goodell is cold blooded dentist who doesn't use Novocaine.

Well said. I like the guy. The league started to get out of hand...in my book..and it was more about the arrests and problems than the play at times. I was tired of hearing about it. The guy laid down the hammer on players. I do agree that he needs to put a time on his punishments so a standard can be set but overall if people do things to embarrass the league than they can deal with not getting the privileges of the league. They know where their money is coming from so in order to get paid for a kids job you must act like an adult. In the past PacMan would keep doing the same gig because he would have no fear. He tried it with the Commish and it didn't fly. Its why the Cowboys are willing to take a shot with him..they can try and get him on the cheap knowing he has one shot.

Kaiser Toro
04-02-2008, 09:35 AM
Goodell is needed at this time in the NFL to have the appearance of cleaning up the brand for a number of reasons:
- The employees, and future employees, needed to be reset on what the brand is about
- Other leagues were having image problems and action needed to be taken not to look soft
- The owners are fighting wars for market share, advertising dollars, rookie salaries and the CBA looming through the next decade (DirecTV/Cable, new stadiums, new franchises, etc) and need to have defined standards in place with executable justifiable punishment. I believe we are in the first phase of setting these standards and will adjust and/or be used as a bargaining chip for the next round of the CBA.

Goodell did not win a unanimous vote so there are "political factions" that will always nip at his heels. Goodell is a NFL guy having started as an intern, with his hands on most of the value added experience that we enjoy today, not to mention new revenue streams for NFL Pwners and players.

I see good business, which does come with pain at times, being the method of operation - clumsy and head scratching as it may be.