ESPN suspended Bill Simmons

[JohnC]

 

 

You couldn't be more wrong here. He has done a great job for his bosses. This entire shift of focus from Rice to Goodell is the general public feeling good about itself. Everyone screaming about Goodell over this is a hypocrite, unless any of them can produce a prior post describing the exact same outrage at any other NFL domestic abuser's (Suggs, anyone?) suspension.

 

You should be kissing Goodell's pinky ring for all this blessed NFL football. Why concern yourself with all this peripheral nonsense/drama?

 

Your response is perplexing. He created an organizational structure where he was a one man disciplinary office, the veritable sheriff in town. He was not only the judge and jury but he was the person to whom a discipline appeal went to. It blew up in his face over the Rice fiasco. He was the person who made player conduct his signature issue. The domestic abuse issue certainly was not a new issue. Criminal and abusive player conduct relating to women have been been going on for a long time, before and during his watch. Goodell the sheriff would hammer players more severely over weed issues compared to behavior related to female abuse. His disciplinary office had a very distorted value system in handling various issues.

 

No one is disputing the fact that he did a terrific job in making a lot of money for his bosses. But that certainly doesn't mean that the manner in which he handled the Rice case and other similar cases that he conducted himself with a high moral and ethical standard. You may be singing his high praise but even he acknowledges that he has failed in properly fulfilling some of his important duties in his office.

Edited September 28, 2014 by JohnC

[Mr. WEO]

 

 

Your response is perplexing. He created an organizational structure where he was a one man disciplinary office, the veritable sheriff in town. He was not only the judge and jury but he was the person to whom a discipline appeal went to. It blew up in his face over the Rice fiasco. He was the person who made player conduct his signature issue. The domestic abuse issue certainly was not a new issue. Criminal and abusive player conduct relating to women have been been going on for a long time, before and during his watch. Goodell the sheriff would hammer players more severely over weed issues compared to behavior related to female abuse. His disciplinary office had a very distorted value system in handling various issues.

 

No one is disputing the fact that he did a terrific job in making a lot of money for his bosses. But that certainly doesn't mean that the manner in which he handled the Rice case and other similar cases that he conducted himself with a high moral and ethical standard. You may be singing his high praise but even he acknowledges that he has failed in properly fulfilling some of his important duties in his office.

 

It shouldn't be perplexing....because he did not create the system where he is the judge and jury--the players and their union gave him that power. He didn't decide what the suspensions for weed would be--the players and their union, along with the league in the CBA, decided that.

 

So you see, all of this anger at Goodell is misplaced. He is doing what all have agreed he is supposed to do. Yes, Goodell is regretful...I'm sure he's kicking himself for not doing what Robs House suggested in the post before yours.

 

Goodell should have given rice the six game suspension and then held his ground. He could have easily explained that his original 2 game suspension was in line with previous (uncontested by ANYONE in society at large) but that the NFL was going to get more "serious" with this type of offense and thus the new 6 game suspension. That 's all. He should have ignored the rest of the noise because we all know it is going to fade away (already is fading).

[JohnC]

It shouldn't be perplexing....because he did not create the system where he is the judge and jury--the players and their union gave him that power. He didn't decide what the suspensions for weed would be--the players and their union, along with the league in the CBA, decided that.

 

So you see, all of this anger at Goodell is misplaced. He is doing what all have agreed he is supposed to do. Yes, Goodell is regretful...I'm sure he's kicking himself for not doing what Robs House suggested in the post before yours.

 

Goodell should have given rice the six game suspension and then held his ground. He could have easily explained that his original 2 game suspension was in line with previous (uncontested by ANYONE in society at large) but that the NFL was going to get more "serious" with this type of offense and thus the new 6 game suspension. That 's all. He should have ignored the rest of the noise because we all know it is going to fade away (already is fading).

 

The notion that the players agreed with him having all the authority in disciplinary actions is not accurate. What choice did they have? Refuse to go along with that part of the negotiations and not have a deal? Tank the season for one aspect of the deal? The league had the muscle in the labor negotiation and they used it to their advantage. It was far from being a balanced labor/management deal. But that isn't the issue. The commissioner has the authority in these disciplinary proceedings and he's person most accountable when his judgment goes awry. When you sit in the big boss chair then you can't point your finger at the underlings when your judgment is flawed.

 

The domestic abuse issue was going on before he assumed his position and during. He certainly isn't responsible for what went on prior to asuming his position but he certainly has not done much to change the approach to the issue until the revolting Rice assault was seen by the public.

 

The anger toward Goodell is not misplaced because it is going directly toward the source of the authority who directly deals with the aftermath of an assult incident. Goodell is willing to admit from his podium that he did a poor job not only in dealing with this ugly assault but also to his handling the same persistent issue that has been going on during his tenure. Why do you think he is appointing so many people with impressive credentials to not only advise him but to deal with the issue for him? It isn't because he capably handled the problem since he assumed his well payed position.

Edited September 28, 2014 by JohnC

[Rob's House]

 

 

Your response is perplexing. He created an organizational structure where he was a one man disciplinary office, the veritable sheriff in town. He was not only the judge and jury but he was the person to whom a discipline appeal went to. It blew up in his face over the Rice fiasco. He was the person who made player conduct his signature issue. The domestic abuse issue certainly was not a new issue. Criminal and abusive player conduct relating to women have been been going on for a long time, before and during his watch. Goodell the sheriff would hammer players more severely over weed issues compared to behavior related to female abuse. His disciplinary office had a very distorted value system in handling various issues.

 

No one is disputing the fact that he did a terrific job in making a lot of money for his bosses. But that certainly doesn't mean that the manner in which he handled the Rice case and other similar cases that he conducted himself with a high moral and ethical standard. You may be singing his high praise but even he acknowledges that he has failed in properly fulfilling some of his important duties in his office.

 

It sounds like your real beef with him is the drug policy. I agree on that to Whatever extent it was his doing, but I don't know how much of that was his proposal or that of his employer.

[Mr. WEO]

 

 

The notion that the players agreed with him having all the authority in disciplinary actions is not accurate. What choice did they have? Refuse to go along with that part of the negotiations and not have a deal? Tank the season for one aspect of the deal? The league had the muscle in the labor negotiation and they used it to their advantage. It was far from being a balanced labor/management deal. But that isn't the issue. The commissioner has the authority in these disciplinary proceedings and he's person most accountable when his judgment goes awry. When you sit in the big boss chair then you can't point your finger at the underlings when your judgment is flawed.

 

The domestic abuse issue was going on before he assumed his position and during. He certainly isn't responsible for what went on prior to asuming his position but he certainly has not done much to change the approach to the issue until the revolting Rice assault was seen by the public.

 

The anger toward Goodell is not misplaced because it is going directly toward the source of the authority who directly deals with the aftermath of an assult incident. Goodell is willing to admit from his podium that he did a poor job not only in dealing with this ugly assault but also to his handling the same persistent issue that has been going on during his tenure. Why do you think he is appointing so many people with impressive credentials to not only advise him but to deal with the issue for him? It isn't because he capably handled the problem since he assumed his well payed position.

 

The players were fully represented throughout the CBA negotiations. Their position vs management is fundamentally the same as any nongovernmental union's. They can hold out against any significant issue that they feel negatively affects them. Therefore neither the players nor the public can fault him for exercising his duties exactly as he was empowered by all sides to do them.

 

He's a sports commissioner, it's not his job to deal with ugly assaults. And you are only upset over this case because you saw video display of what you already knew Rice did--you said no such thing about Goodell's handling of previous vicious attacks by NFL players on civilians. You are not alone in your new-found outrage in that regard, however.

 

Why did Goodell hire a bunch of people to do....whatever it is they will be doing? Because the public wanted him to--this is how the public is satisfied. They make a loud noise, demand something be done (an investigation, a blue ribbon panel, hearings), and then when it appears that the offender has bowed to their will, they forget about this issue and move on to the next manufactured outrage.

 

Goodell, by empaneling this gallery of "specialists" is simply playing his role in this silly public play. A little act of falling on the sword--that's what his bosses want him to do. for 40 million a year, he eats the sh*t sandwich and the league rolls on.

 

Everyone's covered. Next...

[zazie]

The players were fully represented throughout the CBA negotiations. Their position vs management is fundamentally the same as any nongovernmental union's. They can hold out against any significant issue that they feel negatively affects them. Therefore neither the players nor the public can fault him for exercising his duties exactly as he was empowered by all sides to do them.

 

He's a sports commissioner, it's not his job to deal with ugly assaults. And you are only upset over this case because you saw video display of what you already knew Rice did--you said no such thing about Goodell's handling of previous vicious attacks by NFL players on civilians. You are not alone in your new-found outrage in that regard, however.

 

Why did Goodell hire a bunch of people to do....whatever it is they will be doing? Because the public wanted him to--this is how the public is satisfied. They make a loud noise, demand something be done (an investigation, a blue ribbon panel, hearings), and then when it appears that the offender has bowed to their will, they forget about this issue and move on to the next manufactured outrage.

 

Goodell, by empaneling this gallery of "specialists" is simply playing his role in this silly public play. A little act of falling on the sword--that's what his bosses want him to do. for 40 million a year, he eats the sh*t sandwich and the league rolls on.

 

Everyone's covered. Next...

 

Yup, this was not his anticipated role at all. He cannot be faulted for occasionally getting one wrong in an area that really should not even be his pervue. The Ray Rice assault was really a matter for the police....

[JohnC]

 

 

The players were fully represented throughout the CBA negotiations. Their position vs management is fundamentally the same as any nongovernmental union's. They can hold out against any significant issue that they feel negatively affects them. Therefore neither the players nor the public can fault him for exercising his duties exactly as he was empowered by all sides to do them.

 

You are creating a smokescreen that is immaterial. Yes, the players agreed to the structure for handling discipline? So what! Agreeing to the structure of an office does not mean that you agree with the performance.of the office.

 

He's a sports commissioner, it's not his job to deal with ugly assaults. And you are only upset over this case because you saw video display of what you already knew Rice did--you said no such thing about Goodell's handling of previous vicious attacks by NFL players on civilians. You are not alone in your new-found outrage in that regard, however.

 

Your position makes little sense. If it's not his job to deal with ugly assaults then whose job is it? The criminal cases involving players go directly to his office where he then rules on the punishment. He alone has the authority to rule and dispose of those cases. Again, if it is not his job then whose job is it? If it is not his job then why is he at the podium stating that he failed in his performance?

 

As far as the second video I don't understand why it is such an issue and why there is such a debate whether he saw the elevator video or not. Everyone knew what happened. The first video showing Rice dragging his wife out of the elevator like a sack of potatoes was more than enough to make a reasonable judgment call on the incident. Rice acknowledged to Goodell that he punched his wife in the elevator. So the discussion whether the commissioner saw that particular tape or not shouldn't be as big an issue as it is.

 

Why did Goodell hire a bunch of people to do....whatever it is they will be doing? Because the public wanted him to--this is how the public is satisfied. They make a loud noise, demand something be done (an investigation, a blue ribbon panel, hearings), and then when it appears that the offender has bowed to their will, they forget about this issue and move on to the next manufactured outrage.

 

Whether the public soon forgets about the issue doesn't matter much if the manner in which these type of cases are handled differently. You can fairly call it a public relations response but the end result is that his disciplinary approach is going to be dramatically changed.

 

Goodell, by empaneling this gallery of "specialists" is simply playing his role in this silly public play. A little act of falling on the sword--that's what his bosses want him to do. for 40 million a year, he eats the sh*t sandwich and the league rolls on.

 

Everyone's covered. Next...

 

Goodell is doing what he has to do to protect the product and his livelihood. Is he acting out of self-preservation? Of course. There is nothing unusually about that. He is smart enough to know that he has to do a better job in dealling with the thug element in his lucrative game in order to keep receiving the golden checks.

 

You might consider assaulting women a silly issue but it is not. It's a serious issue that has to be addressed not only in sports but also in society. It might be a frivolous issue to you but it isn't. On this issue our difference is over an attitude more than over an incident.

Edited September 28, 2014 by JohnC

[Mr. WEO]

You are creating a smokescreen that is immaterial. Yes, the players agreed to the structure for handling discipline? So what! Agreeing to the structure of an office does not mean that you agree with the performance.of the office.

 

 

 

Your position makes little sense. If it's not his job to deal with ugly assaults then whose job is it? The criminal cases involving players go directly to his office where he then rules on the punishment. He alone has the authority to rule and dispose of those cases. Again, if it is not his job then whose job is it? If it is not his job then why is he at the podium stating that he failed in his performance?

 

As far as the second video I don't understand why it is such an issue and why there is such a debate whether he saw the elevator video or not. Everyone knew what happened. The first video showing Rice dragging his wife out of the elevator like a sack of potatoes was more than enough to make a reasonable judgment call on the incident. Rice acknowledged to Goodell that he punched his wife in the elevator. So the discussion whether the commissioner saw that particular tape or not shouldn't be as big an issue as it is.

 

 

 

Whether the public soon forgets about the issue doesn't matter much if the manner in which these type of cases are handled differently. You can fairly call it a public relations response but the end result is that his disciplinary approach is going to be dramatically changed.

 

 

 

Goodell is doing what he has to do to protect the product and his livelihood. Is he acting out of self-preservation? Of course. There is nothing unusually about that. He is smart enough to know that he has to do a better job in dealling with the thug element in his lucrative game in order to keep receiving the golden checks.

 

You might consider assaulting women a silly issue but it is not. It's a serious issue that has to be addressed not only in sports but also in society. It might be a frivolous issue to you but it isn't. On this issue our difference is over an attitude more than over an incident.

 

Oh come on John! I never said that "assaulting women is a silly issue"! Talk about a smokescreen--I see your white flag in that whopper...

 

You surely understand that what I am calling silly is the bogus public "outrage" that ONLY came about, for real, AFTER the second video came out--well after everyone already knew what went on in that elevator. How can you say that the second video didn't matter? It's the ONLY reason the Commissh finds himself in this bind. He DID hand out punishment to Rice--2 games. The public never had an issue with that in the past.

 

And just as cynical as that fake public disapproval of the Commissioner is his bogus and predictable response of putting together a panel of the usual suspects to make this all right again.

 

It's all theater. Goodell punished Rice with the standard 2 games. Then upon further consideration, he upped it to an unprecedented 6 games. Then he suspended him indefinitely. Still, this was not enough for the mob--they wanted GOODELL's head. It's a crazy twist of the concept of "justice". So, in my estimation "silly".

 

And as for the PERFORMANCE of the office--you are right. The NFLPA thinks that Goodell was TOO HARSH with Rice! How do you square that with the Commissioner just doing his job with regard to eradicating domestic abuse in "his" league?

[JohnC]

 

 

Oh come on John! I never said that "assaulting women is a silly issue"! Talk about a smokescreen--I see your white flag in that whopper...

 

You surely understand that what I am calling silly is the bogus public "outrage" that ONLY came about, for real, AFTER the second video came out--well after everyone already knew what went on in that elevator. How can you say that the second video didn't matter? It's the ONLY reason the Commissh finds himself in this bind. He DID hand out punishment to Rice--2 games. The public never had an issue with that in the past.[

 

You are not correctly recollecting what happened when the public viewed the first video of the Rice dragging his unconscience wife out of the elevator. The combination of witnessing the first video and Goodell's subsequent lenient punishment was what sparked the outcry. The second vidoe of RR cold cocking his wife sent an additional torrent of outrage towards Goodell's judgment.

 

The commissioner didn't belatedly take to the podium to acknowledge that he miserably failed in executing his disciplinary duties because he believed that the public was being typically fickle. The Ray Rice incident was not a recent isolated incident. There were glaring incidents with a Carolina player and a San Francisco player that was highlighted at the same time of the RR assault.

 

And just as cynical as that fake public disapproval of the Commissioner is his bogus and predictable response of putting together a panel of the usual suspects to make this all right again.

 

It's all theater. Goodell punished Rice with the standard 2 games. Then upon further consideration, he upped it to an unprecedented 6 games. Then he suspended him indefinitely. Still, this was not enough for the mob--they wanted GOODELL's head. It's a crazy twist of the concept of "justice". So, in my estimation "silly".

 

Odds are that the panel is going to come up with a process that is clearer, more consistent and more transparent. This all knowing and powerful big sheriff in the room approach to discipline is going to go by the wayside. If you don't believe that what you call "fake public outrage" is the impetus for the change then we simply disagree as to why he is going through with what you believe to be an enormous charade. Whether the public outcry is sincere or not it is the reason why there will be upcoming changes on how the commissioner deals with these criminal acts.

 

 

 

And as for the PERFORMANCE of the office--you are right. The NFLPA thinks that Goodell was TOO HARSH with Rice! How do you square that with the Commissioner just doing his job with regard to eradicating domestic abuse in "his" league?

 

The NFLPA is absolutely right that the Sheriff in the office has been very erratic in his judgments regarding disciplinary actions. Actions that are not serious (weed consumption) are treated more harshly than actual serious criminal acts. The union wanting to bring some rationality and order to an erratic process is not an unreasonably stance to take.