Goodell sets up VP of "social responsibility"...

luuked said:

So we don't need a way to make sure that discipline among teams is also done consistently ? Or would this be the task of the NFLPA ? Would there even be a NFLPA in your world ?

Click to expand...

The role of the NFLPA is to advocate for its members not police them....

How about an NFL Director of Criminal Investigation along the lines of what the US military does when active duty personnel get arrested? Put someone with a law enforcement background and a law degree in charge, whose job is to look out for the team, the league, the victims and the player - in that order. If the player hasn't so blatantly violated his contract (like Aaron Hernandez) and is deemed eligible to return, the player's contract can be amended to include whatever is stipulated by the court and agreed to by his lawyers.

There are all sorts of former FBI agents who would do a superb job. They know how to investigate crime, they know the law, and they've seen enough mayhem to understand where the balance lies between a sociopath like Hernandez and guys who can learn from their mistakes.

Take it out of the Commissioner's hands altogether. Let him focus on the business of the NFL and the labor agreement.

This is about violent crime, not "social responsibility."

How about the NFL just tell the players that if they are arrested for felonies they will be suspended without pay until their case is settled, or until the court makes participation in NFL activities part of an agreement that works for the legal system, the NFL and the player. Just like what the Patriots did with Dennard and his DUI/police assault case. Everybody got on the same page, he did some time, and he must meet other stipulations. Dennard didn't lose his job, and hopefully he comes out of the experience a more mature and responsible person.

Breaking: Goodell Appoints New Reich Minister of Propaganda (aka VP of Social Responsibility)

DarrylS said:

The role of the NFLPA is to advocate for its members not police them....

Click to expand...

Well, if there would be no guidelines from the league and it were up to every owner to set discipline however they want then making sure that there is fairness in sanctions would be about protecting its members.

I don't think the NFLPA wants to have player A getting cut, player B being suspended for a year and player C just keep on playing if all three broke the same law.

luuked said:

Well, if there would be no guidelines from the league and it were up to every owner to set discipline however they want then making sure that there is fairness in sanctions would be about protecting its members.

I don't think the NFLPA wants to have player A getting cut, player B being suspended for a year and player C just keep on playing if all three broke the same law.

Click to expand...

NLFPA is set up to advocate for their players and to negotiate rules of order, not police them.. they probably suggest how a player should act, but other than that there is no further role for them.

As is the case in most unions 90% of the time is spent with about 5% of a select few...

Deus Irae said:

The NFL does not put "the general population" in jail. The police/justice system is responsible for that.

You seem to be missing that most obvious of realities.

Click to expand...

Deus Irae said:

The NFL does not put "the general population" in jail. The police/justice system is responsible for that.

You seem to be missing that most obvious of realities.

Click to expand...

Obviously, the NFL's purview is not the same as that of the criminal justice system, so it can't put people "in jail." But it is responsible for setting and enforcing standards and discipline consistent with its role in society as a mass marketing enterprise attempting to market itself to the public in a protected manner.

Deus Irae said:

Now we're getting into complete nonsense. Holy cow, for your own sake as a thinking human being, I hope you don't really believe that idiocy.

Click to expand...

Yes, I do, Deus.

And, I am quite comfortable with my status as "a thinking human being."

Operating under privileged circumstances from a regulatory perspective while marketing its products and services to a large audience that it is regularly trying to make even larger, including and especially to minors, brings with it a set of obligations.

This is what Goodell and his Capo's have been devising since the NFL went silent?

Coming up with a fake authority position and a group of female advisers so he can pass the buck when stuff like this happens again?

And why the hell does he need advisers on future domestic violence cases? How about having a backbone and going zero tolerance. Charged with domestic violence you get suspended indefinitely until the case is adjudicated. Found innocent you are reinstated. Found guilty or there is a plea deal then a panel determines when you come back if you come back.

Don't like it? Don't put yourself in a position for it to happen.

DarrylS said:

Now Anna Isaacson can suspend Peterson and Goodell can say he had nothing to do with the suspension and collect a bunch of money for passing the buck... this is laughable.

She sounds like a porn star or Saturday Night Live Character, but looks like a lawyer...

Click to expand...

I don't know about either porn star or lawyer, ....

first thing I thought of after seeing her name-picture was 'I wonder which owner or nfl exec she is the daughter of?'

Second: 'I wonder how many $100Ks she gets for the extra title?'

The running joke that is Go-to-Hell goes unmercifully on n on.

PatsFanSince74 said:

Obviously, the NFL's purview is not the same as that of the criminal justice system, so it can't put people "in jail." But it is responsible for setting and enforcing standards and discipline consistent with its role in society as a mass marketing enterprise attempting to market itself to the public in a protected manner.

Click to expand...

The history of capital shows that it only fulfills a social obligation insofar as fulfilling a social obligation contributes to profit. When profit motive and social obligation are at odds, the social obligation invariably falls to the wayside. For example, the NFL didn't even bother to hire a new employee to fulfill its social obligation. Creating a new, feel-good title costs exactly $0, but may bring with it good PR. The "third way" liberal notion of "capitalism with a human face" is an absurdity.

I agree with DI here, even if I suspect we're attacking this tenet of liberalism from a different side (me from the left, him from the right).

SB39 said:

Comments like this baffle me. The league faced an unprecedented situation with the Ray Rice video and took a tremendous amount of heat for their poor handling - and they admitted the handled it poorly.

Now that they step up to do the right thing, people complain that they are just being "reactionary." So I guess you think they just shouldn't do anything then? After all, anything they do is "reactionary" so they should just continue as before?

Click to expand...

No, you're at least partly wrong. The video element of the situation may, or may not, have been unprecedented, but the domestic abuse element isn't. There have been domestic abuse violations for years in the NFL and now it just suddenly dawns on the Commissioner to take this step? His primary motivation is not to attempt to solve the abuse problem. It's to give the appearance of trying to solve it as a response to mucking this up as badly as it can be mucked up. Don't try to sell Goodell to me as some type of progressive solver of societal problems, ' cause I ain't buyin' it. And I don't think I'm alone.

This is a slippery slope that the NFL has been going down! They should have come up with some sort of policy, agreed on it with the NFLPA in arbitration. That way they can always just follow the policy and if they get any flack, say it is a collectively bargain policy and they are powerless to change it.

I guess if AH was playing with the 49ers, he would still be eligible to play.

Look, Ray Rice, provided he doesn't get in trouble for the next year, is going to have a clean record! No conviction, nothing, on his job application at McDonald's he can honestly answer "yes" to the question "Have you ever been convicted of a crime?". So waiting for the courts is useless. But let's say for instance Brady is charged with tax evasion next week. Does he get suspended? What felonies are acceptable and which ones are not? Taxes cases are very complicated and take years to adjudicate.

The NFL is in a real pickle here, a pickle of their own making. They have Ray Lewis, who killed a guy, talking like a preacher on ESPN, they have Michael Vick, who killed dogs, playing for the NY Jets. They have Ray Caruth, who had his pregnant girlfriend killed so he wouldn't have to pay the child support. I guess it all depends on what you get filmed doing. The Rice video was terrible and he was rightly released. But imagine if there was video of Vick throwing muts into the ring so his pit bulls could get used to killing. Or better yet, video of him electrocuting the weaker dogs. Imagine if there was video in that ally where Ray Lewis and his buddies killed that guy.

We live in a video age, most things going forward are going to be on video. Within 5 years, every cop on the street is going to be wearing a body camera. On a whole the NFL players are well below the national average for murders and wife beaters, but the problem with acting like you are morally superior is every now and then, people expect you to actually act like it!

The NFL would be better served dumping this whole personal conduct policy. Just suspending players for performance enhancing drugs, and let the teams deal with their own players. Kraft wanted no part of Hernandez once the charges were announced, on the other hand, the Ravens just erected a statue of their AH in front of their stadium.

primetime said:

The history of capital shows that it only fulfills a social obligation insofar as fulfilling a social obligation contributes to profit. When profit motive and social obligation are at odds, the social obligation invariably falls to the wayside. For example, the NFL didn't even bother to hire a new employee to fulfill its social obligation. Creating a new, feel-good title costs exactly $0, but may bring with it good PR. The "third way" liberal notion of "capitalism with a human face" is an absurdity.

I agree with DI here, even if I suspect we're attacking this tenet of liberalism from a different side (me from the left, him from the right).

Click to expand...

Social altruism was not behind my comment. In fact, the opposite.

A media enterprise like the NFL that wants to remain successful will discipline those who damage its face to the market to the extent that its consumers demand it. The NFL's marketing reach is now so broad that the NFL can't stray too far from the mean that is acceptable to society in this regard; that mean is not met when child, spouse or animal abuse even appears to be tolerated. In the recent cases, the NFL has failed to respond in a way that resonates with the market.

The market expects an entertainment vehicle to which it gives a disproportionate amount of its attention to behave in a way that is not satisfied with the fact that it's employee base doesn't commit more crimes than the rest of society.

There are and always will be fringes on the left and the right that have expectations that differ from those of the mainstream for reasons ranging from the libertine to the libertarian. The NFL cannot afford to play to either of those, but must act in a way that the middle of the distribution finds acceptable. It has missed the mark on that. Badly.

PatsFanSince74 said:

Obviously, the NFL's purview is not the same as that of the criminal justice system, so it can't put people "in jail."

Click to expand...

Then don't make such a stupid comparison.

PatsFanSince74 said:

But it is responsible for setting and enforcing standards and discipline consistent with its role in society as a mass marketing enterprise attempting to market itself to the public in a protected manner.

Click to expand...

Here you're just talking out of your ass. In no way, shape, matter or form, other than through the CBA, is the NFL responsible for disciplining players in criminal situations.

PatsFanSince74 said:

There are and always will be fringes on the left and the right that have expectations that differ from those of the mainstream for reasons ranging from the libertine to the libertarian. The NFL cannot afford to play to either of those, but must act in a way that the middle of the distribution finds acceptable. It has missed the mark on that. Badly.

Click to expand...

I think we're in agreement regarding one part of your thesis, which is that capital's social obligation derives wholly from the profit motive. It's the entire basis of the public relations industry, which wouldn't exist if corporations didn't have to show a good public image in order to sell products. I just think that our takeaway from the situation is different; yours, one of the basic tenets of 20th and 21st century liberalism, is that the profit motive and social responsibility can co-exist comfortably and work out well for the good of all. I don't think that's so.

Deus Irae said:

The NFL has lower rates of criminality, and domestic violence, than the general population.

Click to expand...

@NFLmac, you're disagreeing with facts.

As you would expect from a much more affluent group (e.g. the poverty rate among NFL players is zero), NFL players have much lower arrest rates than average — basically across the board:

Click to expand...

http://fivethirtyeight.com/datalab/the-rate-of-domestic-violence-arrests-among-nfl-players/

Deus Irae said:

http://fivethirtyeight.com/datalab/the-rate-of-domestic-violence-arrests-among-nfl-players/

Click to expand...

To be fair, while I tend to agree with you, there's probably a selection bias here. The affluent - and famous - are also policed differently than the general population here as well.

Deus Irae said:

Then don't make such a stupid comparison.



Here you're just talking out of your ass. In no way, shape, matter or form, other than through the CBA, is the NFL responsible for disciplining players in criminal situations.

Click to expand...

I take your first comment in the context of its source.

As for your second comment, I have no idea what it is supposed to mean other than to distract from the point I was making. Of course, the NFL is not a law enforcement agency. That's a red herring. But the NFL is a mass marketing enterprise that has an extensive reach and even bigger ambitions, that is accountable to its audience, that reaches broadly into and across society, that markets itself directly to children and that is exempt from anti-trust regulations that would change its economics dramatically if altered. So, it is responsible in ways that even a laissez faire POV would encompass. And if it doesn't behave in a manner consistent with that responsibility, society has levers that it can employ; but we haven't gotten to that point yet, and hopefully we will not.

Deus Irae said:

@NFLmac, you're disagreeing with facts.



http://fivethirtyeight.com/datalab/the-rate-of-domestic-violence-arrests-among-nfl-players/

Click to expand...

another red herring, deus.

without reading the article, I would be willing to stipulate that the facts are along those lines; they were made in various media today. but that is not the point.

the point is as i made it in another post. as a mass entertainment enterprise, the nfl has to respond to circumstances of child, spouse or animal abuse in a way that the expectations of the mean of the population finds consistent with what it wants to see in an enterprise to which it commits a disproportionate amount of its free time, in return for which it endures endless hours of commercials over the course of a season. the fact that there are those on the left or the right who think either the standard should be higher or non-existent is interesting but inconsequential to this discussion. the nfl has failed to meet those expectations.

PatsFanSince74 said:

I take your first comment in the context of its source.

Click to expand...

Take it in whatever context you want. Your comparison was stupid. The fact that you had to acknowledge the galaxy sized hole in it should have gotten you to let it die. Instead you chose to be a passive aggressive ass about it. So the next time you want to consider a source, realize that you're probably the one who's got the issue.

PatsFanSince74 said:

As for your second comment, I have no idea what it is supposed to mean other than to distract from the point I was making. Of course, the NFL is not a law enforcement agency. That's a red herring.

Click to expand...

It's not a red herring at all

PatsFanSince74 said:

But the NFL is a mass marketing enterprise that has an extensive reach and even bigger ambitions, that is accountable to its audience, that reaches broadly into and across society, that markets itself directly to children and that is exempt from anti-trust regulations that would change its economics dramatically if altered. So, it is responsible in ways that even a laissez faire POV would encompass. And if it doesn't behave in a manner consistent with that responsibility, society has levers that it can employ; but we haven't gotten to that point yet, and hopefully we will not.

Click to expand...

Try to grasp the obvious, because it's factual: The NFL is not a police force. Outside of the framework of the CBA. the NFL has no business policing individuals (in this case the NFL players), which aren't even its employees, for criminal issues. This isn't opinion.