CBAgate

[PatsFanInVa]

So let's pull way back from the usual talk of thisgate and thatgate. Here in Patsland, we tend to feel that the League* railroaded the Pats on at least the most recent occasion, and very selectively targeted the Pats on the first occasion. We know what "everybody else" thinks too. Okay set that aside.

It's now Zeke Eliot (sp?) in the barrel, and in the past we've seen a handful of others. In the last CBA negotiation, the players allowed the League* office to mete out "discipline" or whatever you want to call it. Suddenly the commish has become a prosecutor.

The simple explanation is a bunch of rubbish about integrity and "the shield" and blah blah blah. But it's missing something, the need for seemingly capricious punishments enabled by a low standard of proof. Okay, you CAN do that, because of the CBA... but WILL you? If so, why???

Looking back on the money side: the players caved for the "greater good" (money for all players, capricious punishment for a few... and they had not yet seen said capricious punishments executed).

So I'm sorry if this has been done and re-done... but...

Let's say you're about to renegotiate the CBA. In the last CBA, you have exacted from the players the right to decide "discipline" without any independent arbitration and with whatever standard of proof the League* uses.

So what happens at renegotiation, if the players (writ large) perceive the League* as a just arbiter? The default position would be to say "well, you're doing okay. Let's talk money and forget the whole arbitration thing, you're doing fine."

On the other hand, if the League's* responsibilities have been horribly mishandled, and any player can be targeted at any time without much proof, players perceive arbitration as an item worth monetary concessions to get out from under.

The issue of top-down "investigations" and the top cop commissioner model, in this admittedly tin-foil-helmet world, becomes something of value. You can therefore "sell" the right to capriciously punish and replace it with neutral arbitration.

But it'll cost ya, NFL*PA.

The part that I love is that the Top Cop Commissioner is only worth concessions to rein in, if he's really horrible at it.

I dunno, I'm up late tonight. Everybody tell me I'm a moron if you want.

 

[Joker]

This league started dying in 2006. No one realized it because of the "treasure bath" aspect the league owners were enjoying. As they sat at their owner's banquet table, corpulent yet unsatisfied, they continued to plunge their rapiers over and over into the carcass of honesty and rotting integrity.

"Article 46!" they bellowed..."Integrity!" they clamored, as Seau after Seau succumbed to the severely underreported concussion epidemic...all the while their snouts ensconced in the bloody entrails of a once vibrant, majestic sport.

The NFL as most of us have known it all our lives, is D-E-A-D defunct."yeah, Rog!! The suckers will never catch on!! We'll rob them blind for 4 preseason dog and pony extravaganzas then charge them full price for the first four "regular" pre-season games! It's genius!!! More pork, more snork, more "TREASURE BATH!!!!!!!!!!!!".

 

[Simpelton]

Article 46 is not new. All that is new is the commissioner having the unmitigated gall to use a part of the CBA that is supposed to be held back for a nuclear option, freely to justify any and all league punishment.

 

[XLIX]

So let's pull way back from the usual talk of thisgate and thatgate. Here in Patsland, we tend to feel that the League* railroaded the Pats on at least the most recent occasion, and very selectively targeted the Pats on the first occasion. We know what "everybody else" thinks too. Okay set that aside.

It's now Zeke Eliot (sp?) in the barrel, and in the past we've seen a handful of others. In the last CBA negotiation, the players allowed the League* office to mete out "discipline" or whatever you want to call it. Suddenly the commish has become a prosecutor.

The simple explanation is a bunch of rubbish about integrity and "the shield" and blah blah blah. But it's missing something, the need for seemingly capricious punishments enabled by a low standard of proof. Okay, you CAN do that, because of the CBA... but WILL you? If so, why???

Looking back on the money side: the players caved for the "greater good" (money for all players, capricious punishment for a few... and they had not yet seen said capricious punishments executed).

So I'm sorry if this has been done and re-done... but...

Let's say you're about to renegotiate the CBA. In the last CBA, you have exacted from the players the right to decide "discipline" without any independent arbitration and with whatever standard of proof the League* uses.

So what happens at renegotiation, if the players (writ large) perceive the League* as a just arbiter? The default position would be to say "well, you're doing okay. Let's talk money and forget the whole arbitration thing, you're doing fine."

On the other hand, if the League's* responsibilities have been horribly mishandled, and any player can be targeted at any time without much proof, players perceive arbitration as an item worth monetary concessions to get out from under.

The issue of top-down "investigations" and the top cop commissioner model, in this admittedly tin-foil-helmet world, becomes something of value. You can therefore "sell" the right to capriciously punish and replace it with neutral arbitration.

But it'll cost ya, NFL*PA.

The part that I love is that the Top Cop Commissioner is only worth concessions to rein in, if he's really horrible at it.

I dunno, I'm up late tonight. Everybody tell me I'm a moron if you want.

I agree with the above reasoning, with the caveat that Article 46 isn't something the players "caved" on in 2011, it has been in the NFL for roughly 50 years. The thing that changed is the corrupt manner in which the NFL applies it.

But yes, I see this as something the league has decided to monetize (or use in an attempt to gain some concessions of value later on). I doubt this is the last time we will see Article 46 applied to a prominent player. Someone else will need to get railroaded as the current CBA nears expiration.

 

[XLIX]

Article 46 is not new. All that is new is the commissioner having the unmitigated gall to use a part of the CBA that is supposed to be held back for a nuclear option, freely to justify any and all league punishment.

I believe it was originally inserted in the aftermath of 2 prominent players, Alex Karras and Paul Hornung, being caught in a gambling scandal. That's why the language of Article 46 talks about "conduct detrimental to the integrity of, or public confidence in, the game of professional football." They wanted to get it in black and white that the commissioner can/should slam any player doing something like that.

With regards to off field activity, it was clearly meant to deal with behavior such as players gambling on games and not miscellaneous, unrelated crimes. I am surprised the NFLPA did not use this in their arguments, although it would have been a longshot.

 

[ivanvamp]

Article 46 is not new. All that is new is the commissioner having the unmitigated gall to use a part of the CBA that is supposed to be held back for a nuclear option, freely to justify any and all league punishment.

What's new is that we have a commissioner who doesn't have any integrity. John Adams said, "Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other."

Similarly, Article 46 and the CBA was made for people assuming there was a sense of integrity, a sense of fair play. It didn't really account for a commissioner with zero integrity. When Article 46 was put in place, it never assumed that a commissioner would take an infraction that league rules state is a $25k fine (if it even happened) and turn it into two million dollars in fines, suspensions, and the loss of draft picks, just because the commissioner "could".

 

[patriot1136]

what the hell is "capricious"? haha

 

[Bill Lee]

Yes, we're following some of the same themes in This is so true...NBA vs NFL

I think the change won't come via collective bargaining.

The players have already shown they collectively value more money over more fairness and the owners have already shown they won't give an inch to the players on anything without getting something back in return, even if it would be in the best interests of both parties.

I think the only way it changes is if the league itself realizes it's ruining its future by putting so much emphasis on discipline and team culture and too little focus on individual performances on the field and the better side of player's personalities off the field.

The best part of the game is watching great players making great plays. Fans can instantly relate to that. Fans also get hooked by getting to know the players better as people. This preachy/judgy thing is not going over well.

NFL/player relations are poison. A great example is weed. The NBA owners and players quietly took it off the list of substances they test for. The NFL loses access to many good players a year just because they smoke some weed on their own time. It's so stupid!

 

[PatriotsReign]

This league started dying in 2006. No one realized it because of the "treasure bath" aspect the league owners were enjoying. As they sat at their owner's banquet table, corpulent yet unsatisfied, they continued to plunge their rapiers over and over into the carcass of honesty and rotting integrity.

"Article 46!" they bellowed..."Integrity!" they clamored, as Seau after Seau succumbed to the severely underreported concussion epidemic...all the while their snouts ensconced in the bloody entrails of a once vibrant, majestic sport.

The NFL as most of us have known it all our lives, is D-E-A-D defunct."yeah, Rog!! The suckers will never catch on!! We'll rob them blind for 4 preseason dog and pony extravaganzas then charge them full price for the first four "regular" pre-season games! It's genius!!! More pork, more snork, more "TREASURE BATH!!!!!!!!!!!!".

If the NFL tries to go global with OUR game, it's all over....talk about a way to ruin a sport

Besides, it's OUR game! Let's build a wall around the NFL!

 

[The Brandon Five]

Article 46 is not new. All that is new is the commissioner having the unmitigated gall to use a part of the CBA that is supposed to be held back for a nuclear option, freely to justify any and all league punishment.

What the OP is suggesting is that the league is doing that to create an incentive for the players to make other concessions during the next go-round.

 

[The Brandon Five]

This league started dying in 2006. No one realized it because of the "treasure bath" aspect the league owners were enjoying. As they sat at their owner's banquet table, corpulent yet unsatisfied, they continued to plunge their rapiers over and over into the carcass of honesty and rotting integrity.

"Article 46!" they bellowed..."Integrity!" they clamored, as Seau after Seau succumbed to the severely underreported concussion epidemic...all the while their snouts ensconced in the bloody entrails of a once vibrant, majestic sport.

The NFL as most of us have known it all our lives, is D-E-A-D defunct."yeah, Rog!! The suckers will never catch on!! We'll rob them blind for 4 preseason dog and pony extravaganzas then charge them full price for the first four "regular" pre-season games! It's genius!!! More pork, more snork, more "TREASURE BATH!!!!!!!!!!!!".

My nephew is coaching a freshman football team this fall. He says that there are only three (3!) in all of Western Mass. Things don't look good for the future of the game.

 

[borg]

It seems every week, owners and their proxy demonstrate an unwavering determination to maintain absolute power regardless of the noise....and I see no viable NFLPA strategy that will force owners to bend on anything. Why should they? The players have only one real form of leverage and the nature of the sport has created short term vision for many of the rank and file.

 

[borisman]

So let's pull way back from the usual talk of thisgate and thatgate. Here in Patsland, we tend to feel that the League* railroaded the Pats on at least the most recent occasion, and very selectively targeted the Pats on the first occasion. We know what "everybody else" thinks too. Okay set that aside.

It's now Zeke Eliot (sp?) in the barrel, and in the past we've seen a handful of others. In the last CBA negotiation, the players allowed the League* office to mete out "discipline" or whatever you want to call it. Suddenly the commish has become a prosecutor.

The simple explanation is a bunch of rubbish about integrity and "the shield" and blah blah blah. But it's missing something, the need for seemingly capricious punishments enabled by a low standard of proof. Okay, you CAN do that, because of the CBA... but WILL you? If so, why???

Looking back on the money side: the players caved for the "greater good" (money for all players, capricious punishment for a few... and they had not yet seen said capricious punishments executed).

So I'm sorry if this has been done and re-done... but...

Let's say you're about to renegotiate the CBA. In the last CBA, you have exacted from the players the right to decide "discipline" without any independent arbitration and with whatever standard of proof the League* uses.

So what happens at renegotiation, if the players (writ large) perceive the League* as a just arbiter? The default position would be to say "well, you're doing okay. Let's talk money and forget the whole arbitration thing, you're doing fine."

On the other hand, if the League's* responsibilities have been horribly mishandled, and any player can be targeted at any time without much proof, players perceive arbitration as an item worth monetary concessions to get out from under.

The issue of top-down "investigations" and the top cop commissioner model, in this admittedly tin-foil-helmet world, becomes something of value. You can therefore "sell" the right to capriciously punish and replace it with neutral arbitration.

But it'll cost ya, NFL*PA.

The part that I love is that the Top Cop Commissioner is only worth concessions to rein in, if he's really horrible at it.

I dunno, I'm up late tonight. Everybody tell me I'm a moron if you want.

Was pun intended?

 

[primetime]

The players should insist on their ability to take cases to an administrative judge rather than have an arbitrator's decision be binding. I mean, this is the worst of every world, as the league decides on the arbitrator unilaterally under the current contract, but labor shouldn't be signing over its ability to go to court, either.

 

[DaBruinz]

So let's pull way back from the usual talk of thisgate and thatgate. Here in Patsland, we tend to feel that the League* railroaded the Pats on at least the most recent occasion, and very selectively targeted the Pats on the first occasion. We know what "everybody else" thinks too. Okay set that aside.

It's now Zeke Eliot (sp?) in the barrel, and in the past we've seen a handful of others. In the last CBA negotiation, the players allowed the League* office to mete out "discipline" or whatever you want to call it. Suddenly the commish has become a prosecutor.

Article 46 has been a part of the CBA for decades. This was NOT a change. It was only with Goodell that the league didn't use a neutral arbitrator. It has always been the Commish's decision as to who would be the arbitrator for discipline.

 

[XLIX]

The players should insist on their ability to take cases to an administrative judge rather than have an arbitrator's decision be binding. I mean, this is the worst of every world, as the league decides on the arbitrator unilaterally under the current contract, but labor shouldn't be signing over its ability to go to court, either.

Respectfully, I disagree. Binding arbitration is not the problem here. The problem is the Commissioner gets to unilaterally choose whom the arbitrator is - and he can choose himself if he wants.

Get a truly impartial arbitrator and this problem disappears.

 

[primetime]

Respectfully, I disagree. Binding arbitration is not the problem here. The problem is the Commissioner gets to unilaterally choose whom the arbitrator is - and he can choose himself if he wants.

Get a truly impartial arbitrator and this problem disappears.

It doesn't really matter, since you'd have to reverse SCOTUS decisions to make the courts an option here in any case. But you're right, an independent arbitrator is still better than this.

 

[BradyFTW!]

I think the big mistake is well articulated in the OP - it's abundantly clear that the NFL is essentially manufacturing wedge issues to use as currency in the next CBA. A league office operating in good faith would concede independent arbitration as a no-brainer solution that's better for everyone. Including, ironically, the league office, since it won't be solely responsible for finding the exact right number of games to punish a player for child abuse or domestic violence, etc. But the league office will demand a major concession, because it's not operating in good faith.

A league office operating in good faith would drop marijuana testing altogether, citing that it's now legal in a bunch of states (and yes, I realize that doesn't make it federally legal, but this is an issue with broad popular support and there's basically no downside to being on the right side of it). Numerous clinical studies have shown that it's an effective, non-addictive treatment for the kinds of chronic pain that basically all NFL players endure. It's not good, but it's a whole lot better than having the players taking painkillers like crazy, as some ****ed up extreme microcosm of our society that's in the midst of an opioid epidemic. But the league office isn't operating in good faith, so they'll make the players give up something major in order to 'win' the right to relieve their pain with relatively harmless, non-addictive substances.

Basically, the league sees CBA negotiation as a zero-sum game, and is manufacturing problems in order to win the next negotiation. It's a really ****ed up, disingenuous way to negotiate, and pretty much by its very definition it torches bridges with every other party to the negotiation. They've made an enemy of the NFLPA for overall pretty petty, short-term reasons.

 

[primetime]

In the end it's about money. The players will probably have to agree to a lower salary cap if they want looser drug testing and discipline out of the commissioner's hands. At some point they should just strike, but I'm not sure they have the infrastructure for it.

 

[rochrist]

The players should insist on their ability to take cases to an administrative judge rather than have an arbitrator's decision be binding. I mean, this is the worst of every world, as the league decides on the arbitrator unilaterally under the current contract, but labor shouldn't be signing over its ability to go to court, either.

The players won't be able to -successfully- insist on anything. Too many of them have such short, and not particularly well paid (and at the other end players numbers approaching or exceeding 1 million a game) for a walkout to work.