Adrian Peterson suspended rest of season

[Ring 6]

I don't disagree, I just don't think that any code based on imagining every possible offense and categorizing them by victim, location, weapon, etc. is a workable solution. (6 games for Ms. Scarlet in the Library with the Candlestick?)

Maybe a more general set of tiers based on broad characterizations of how egregious the behavior is?

See this is where I think people are missing the boat.
The NFL isn't punishing the behavior. That is up to the court, and they have shown clearly that they do not care how the court handles it.
They are punishing the impact of the behavior on the image of the league.

Again, look at it this way. You own a car dealership. You have one employee on all of your TV ads. He gets arrested for beating his kid. It is the leading news story. You are asked by the media how you feel about the employee. You suspend them with pay to handle their legal issues. They plead guilty. They are reviled by society. Do you hire them back and put them in the ad? Its hard to argue that you need to give them more punishment than the court, so justice isn't what you are dealing with. You are dealing with the impact employing that person has on your company. I would assume everyone would fire them.

 

[Ring 6]

If you're worried about the motivations behind NFL decisions, you're barking up the wrong tree. The NFL is an organization that is 100% focused on increasing revenue. Whether their decisions are reactionary or not, the motivation never changes.

Which is what a business does.

 

[ctpatsfan77]

See this is where I think people are missing the boat.
The NFL isn't punishing the behavior. That is up to the court, and they have shown clearly that they do not care how the court handles it.
They are punishing the impact of the behavior on the image of the league.

Again, look at it this way. You own a car dealership. You have one employee on all of your TV ads. He gets arrested for beating his kid. It is the leading news story. You are asked by the media how you feel about the employee. You suspend them with pay to handle their legal issues. They plead guilty. They are reviled by society. Do you hire them back and put them in the ad? Its hard to argue that you need to give them more punishment than the court, so justice isn't what you are dealing with. You are dealing with the impact employing that person has on your company. I would assume everyone would fire them.

As an example, look at what happened with Stephen Collins. He was supposed to be on Scandal, but as soon as the news of his own personal scandal broke, he was dropped like a hot potato from that episode.

Moreover, the network that airs 7th Heaven reruns pulled it off the air immediately.

Odds are good Collins will never serve a day in jail, but businesses decided he's not worth the PR hit.

 

[Jack Handy]

I'm not sure the NFL does (or should) believe that there should be a set punishment for a laundry list of offenses. I'm not sure the goal you have of having an automatic predetermined punishment aligns with their goals.
Frankly, they are not punishing for the offense itself, they are punishing for the impact on the image of the league. A player less publicized than Roethlisberger would probably have gotten a lesser punishment, and definitely would not have had it reduced like he did, because the personal conduct policy is about the image of the league not the conduct.

Isn't that the problem? The players argue that punishments need to be clearly understood and agreed on. The league argues that it is up to them in their discretion to punish based on guidelines that are not the players concern. Congress says you get special tax treatment so we get to hold hearings on how this is managed.

What is the exit strategy for the league from the mess they created. The only way I see is to make everything extremely transparent using clear rules. Also these rules need to apply to the owners. Did the owner in Indy pay a multimillion $ fine?

 

[Jack Handy]

Also the NFL is not a private company but one that is unionized. In a union isn't one of the big things that the rules need to apply the same for all union members? I am not in a union.

 

[Ring 6]

As an example, look at what happened with Stephen Collins. He was supposed to be on Scandal, but as soon as the news of his own personal scandal broke, he was dropped like a hot potato from that episode.

Moreover, the network that airs 7th Heaven reruns pulled it off the air immediately.

Odds are good Collins will never serve a day in jail, but businesses decided he's not worth the PR hit.

Good example

 

[JPsPats]

Goodell should be fired, no consistency and Peterson should be playing football, as his charge was only a minor offence.

Goodell preached about second chances to save himself now when Peterson needs a second chance he looks the other way. Hypocrite.

 

[Ring 6]

Isn't that the problem? The players argue that punishments need to be clearly understood and agreed on. The league argues that it is up to them in their discretion to punish based on guidelines that are not the players concern.

You are missing the part where it is collectively bargained.

Its not in the league's best interest to have a punishment to fit each offense, because it isn't punishing the offense but the impact on it's image. You seem to be arguing they should do something that isn't in their best interest because the players disagree, even though they agreed to this system.

Congress says you get special tax treatment so we get to hold hearings on how this is managed.

We both know that isn't happening. The tax treatment is not a big deal anyway.

What is the exit strategy for the league from the mess they created.

I'm not sure the league feels it created a mess, other than the screw up with Rice.
They don't need an exit strategy, they (from their perspective) need to keep making statements about the character they expect from their players through these suspensions.
This isn't about what is fair to Adrian Peterson. This is about what message the league wants to send about how it feels about a man who beats his child this severely and shows no obvious remorse, and how that character fits in with their image.

The only way I see is to make everything extremely transparent using clear rules. Also these rules need to apply to the owners. Did the owner in Indy pay a multimillion $ fine?

You assume they want it to be transparent. I disagree.
Of course they apply to owners, because they are about image.
Pretty sure the owner of the Colts did pay a huge fine, but he didn't beat a child either.

 

[Galeb]

Which is what a business does.

I never claimed otherwise, but I will make a distinction. Most businesses are focused on on this quarter's stock price, and their decisions are based on that. There are a rare few that understand that focusing on making the best product possible, in a changing market, is the best long-term strategy for making a profit.

 

[Ring 6]

Goodell should be fired, no consistency and Peterson should be playing football, as his charge was only a minor offence.

Goodell preached about second chances to save himself now when Peterson needs a second chance he looks the other way. Hypocrite.

Goodells job isn't about consistency, its about the image of the league.
I'll ask you the same sceanario I posted before:

You own a car dealership. You have one employee on all of your TV ads. He gets arrested for beating his kid. It is the leading news story. You are asked by the media how you feel about the employee. You suspend them with pay to handle their legal issues. They plead guilty. They are reviled by society. Do you hire them back and put them in the ad? Its hard to argue that you need to give them more punishment than the court, so justice isn't what you are dealing with. You are dealing with the impact employing that person has on your company. I would assume everyone would fire them.

 

[ctpatsfan77]

We both know that isn't happening. The tax treatment is not a big deal anyway.

The potential leverage that Congress has is not the non-profit status of the NFL. It's actually the anti-trust exemption that the NFL needs in order to operate its current model.

 

[Ring 6]

I never claimed otherwise, but I will make a distinction. Most businesses are focused on on this quarter's stock price, and their decisions are based on that. There are a rare few that understand that focusing on making the best product possible, in a changing market, is the best long-term strategy for making a profit.

Oh, I disagree with that, but it depends on what type of business you are talking about.
Exxon doesn't limit its business plan to this quarter. Mom's Flower Shop may.
Verizon is thinking long term, the restaurant that just opened on a shoestring budget is not.
Those that do what you suggest fail.

In any event, they exist to make profit.

 

[Ring 6]

The potential leverage that Congress has is not the non-profit status of the NFL. It's actually the anti-trust exemption that the NFL needs in order to operate its current model.

Correct.

 

[Ring 6]

Also the NFL is not a private company but one that is unionized. In a union isn't one of the big things that the rules need to apply the same for all union members? I am not in a union.

No, in a union there are a set of rules that are collectively bargained, which in this case includes Goodell having the power to unilaterally determine punishment for violations of the personal conduct code.

 

[patchick]

See this is where I think people are missing the boat.
The NFL isn't punishing the behavior. That is up to the court, and they have shown clearly that they do not care how the court handles it.
They are punishing the impact of the behavior on the image of the league.

Andy, I think you're arguing with the wrong person on this one. We seem to agree on that principle:

the NFL isn't (and shouldn't be) in the position of determining an employee's offense against society. They're in the position of determining the employee's offense against the NFL and its image.

 

[Ring 6]

Andy, I think you're arguing with the wrong person on this one. We seem to agree on that principle:

I was speaking to the part about tiers of punishment based on how egregious it was.
I was just pointing out that the league isn't concerned with the crime, but the perception, so it wants freedom to have no set penalties.
Yes, we seem to agree.

 

[patchick]

I was speaking to the part about tiers of punishment based on how egregious it was.
I was just pointing out that the league isn't concerned with the crime, but the perception, so it wants freedom to have no set penalties.
Yes, we seem to agree.

Ah...I meant egregious by the league's standards, whatever they may be. (Though IMO the main lesson of the Rice and Peterson situations is that the league's definition of "egregious" is "took place in camera range." )

 

[Ring 6]

Ah...I meant egregious by the league's standards, whatever they may be. (Though IMO the main lesson of the Rice and Peterson situations is that the league's definition of "egregious" is "took place in camera range." )

Exactly.
It's funny to me that some people actually think that is wrong. Thats kind of my point. Its about image.
Rice is worse than Hardy because you can see it. McDonald isn't as bad because the charges were dropped.
Roethlisberger got what he got, but a backup OL would have gotten less. But then if he had gotten the same, no one would have cared, and they wouldn't have reduced it later.
Every case is different because its about image, not offense. That's why they put so much emphasis on remorse and 'learning from it'. It softens the scumbag view.

I've always thought that the reason Rice got off lightly was because he reallywas the face of the Ravens, and brushing it under the carpet was best for the image. Pretend it was a mistake that he regrets, it wasnt as bad as people think, and it might go away.