And publicly support McNair.Wonder if Trump is going to get in the middle of this one? He stoked the flames that lead to this. Sadly their are a lot of people in Houston that will privately support McNair.
When I heard it I didn't jump immediately to it being racist, but rather, we're the owners, the players need to sit down (or rather stand up) and shut up and be glad they have a job.The apology doesn't even make sense. "I would never characterize our players or league that way."
What way would you never characterize the players and the league? Do you mean that way that you characterized the players as inmates in a prison? You would never do what you just did?
Furthermore, forget about the obvious racial connotations of characterizing a mostly black player pool as prisoners (mostly black and mostly powerless). What about the implication that the numb-nut owners shouldn't work with the players to solve the NFL's current problems? Are you apologizing for that too?
Could've been worse, could've said plantation.And the expression is inmates running the asylum, not prison. You suck, Bob McNair.
Have you ever been about to use it in front of a group of mostly black men?Am I the only one thinking that this is being made to be more than it is or should be? Have we gotten to the point where every statement will now be questioned as to it's meaning or intent? There is plenty of room for discussion of racial concerns in this country and given the regression we seem to be seeing in these matters we need to have open and honest conversations, but I have to say that I have NEVER heard of or thought of "the inmates running the asylum (prison)" as a racist phrase.
I defer to the players to decide whether it was offensive or not.Am I the only one thinking that this is being made to be more than it is or should be? Have we gotten to the point where every statement will now be questioned as to it's meaning or intent? There is plenty of room for discussion of racial concerns in this country and given the regression we seem to be seeing in these matters we need to have open and honest conversations, but I have to say that I have NEVER heard of or thought of "the inmates running the asylum (prison)" as a racist phrase.
You are not alone. According to this ESPN account, which is lengthy, the statement was made, jarred people, but an apology quickly followed and was accepted.Am I the only one thinking that this is being made to be more than it is or should be? Have we gotten to the point where every statement will now be questioned as to it's meaning or intent? There is plenty of room for discussion of racial concerns in this country and given the regression we seem to be seeing in these matters we need to have open and honest conversations, but I have to say that I have NEVER heard of or thought of "the inmates running the asylum (prison)" as a racist phrase.
I don’t think he meant to put it forward to be racist, but “running the prison” is some Freudian racism. I have never heard it said like that before.I dont think he was saying it to be racist, but its a really, really stupid thing for a white owner to say that about a league of predominantly black players in the context of the current discussion and a good indication of how clueless the Jones/Synder/McNair wing of the owners are on this.
I don’t really think this is the kind of comment an apology covers because it demonstrates a state of mind. The cat’s out of the bag for McNair with black players now.You are not alone. According to this ESPN account, which is lengthy, the statement was made, jarred people, but an apology quickly followed and was accepted.
Yeah, and the worst way to address the crisisfor the owners is to have Bob McNair saying dumb things while Jerrah and less successful Washington Jerrrahh try and bully their way into some counterproductive "though shalt stand for 'Murica" mandate. Luckily for the owners, cooler heads seem to be prevailing right now and Jones' act seems to be wearing thin.You are not alone. According to this ESPN account, which is lengthy, the statement was made, jarred people, but an apology quickly followed and was accepted.
http://www.espn.com/espn/otl/story/_/id/21170410/gaffes-tv-ratings-concerns-dominated-nfl-players-forged-anthem-peace-league-meetings
According to the article, the owner/player meetings on this subject were head-and-shoulders better than any recent meetings.
Which is good because players and owners were facing a genuine crisis and needed to find a way out.
I dont think he was saying it to be racist, but its a really, really stupid thing for a white owner to say that about a league of predominantly black players in the context of the current discussion and a good indication of how clueless the Jones/Synder/McNair wing of the owners are on this.
Of course Synder, the permanent one man argument against the idea that America is a meritocracy, comes across as the biggest buffoon of all in the Deadspin article about the owners meeting.
The thing is that, even beyond the racist connotations, it is still incredibly disrespectful to the players. He's basically saying 'we, the owners of the league, can not allow the players any opportunity of leadership in how the league operates' - that's the most positive way to interpret what he said. I think players, black and white, have sufficient reason to push back on that line of thought.Am I the only one thinking that this is being made to be more than it is or should be? Have we gotten to the point where every statement will now be questioned as to it's meaning or intent? There is plenty of room for discussion of racial concerns in this country and given the regression we seem to be seeing in these matters we need to have open and honest conversations, but I have to say that I have NEVER heard of or thought of "the inmates running the asylum (prison)" as a racist phrase.
He wasnt directly quoted in the articles describing the most recent meeting, quite possibly for the reasons you mentioned, but his name popped into my head too as I was writing my post. For sure a likely candidate to throw a match onto gasoline.The guy you need to include in that list, because he is the HARDEST of hardo-liners, is Carolina owner Jerry Richardson. He spouted off right at the beginning of this and then he was muzzled by his fellow owners and Jerrah got promoted to Chief Spokesman. Richardson is easily the most likely owner to say something unambiguously, indisputably racist. The other owners want him nowhere near this thing.
This is what the article says:You are not alone. According to this ESPN account, which is lengthy, the statement was made, jarred people, but an apology quickly followed and was accepted.
So, sure, Vincent (who I would remind: works for the league, not the players anymore) accepted his apology, but this story came out today -- and it seems like other people (such as his own players) are not so forgiving. Which is also acceptable.After the owners finished, Troy Vincent stood up. He was offended by McNair's characterization of the players as "inmates." Vincent said that in all his years of playing in the NFL -- during which, he said, he had been called every name in the book, including the N-word -- he never felt like an "inmate."
It was starting to get nasty. Vincent and Jones had a sharp but quick back-and-forth, with Jones finally reminding the room that rather than league office vice presidents, it was he and fellow owners who had helped build the NFL's $15 billion-a-year business, and they would ultimately decide what to do. McNair later pulled Vincent aside and apologized, saying that he felt horrible and that his words weren't meant to be taken literally, which Vincent appreciated.
He also commented about Brady during deflategate and said something about how JJ Watt would have turned over his cellphone - which is why I am loving this.I don’t know that Richardson is a racist. Along with Jerry Jones he is probably the only guy of the 32 who has shared a locker room with black men.
Richardson is, however, a hardass asshole, who could be expected to contribute little constructive to something like this.
No, their feelings are their feelings, which I would not judge. McNair is their employer, not mine.This is what the article says:
So, sure, Vincent (who I would remind: works for the league, not the players anymore) accepted his apology, but this story came out today -- and it seems like other people (such as his own players) are not so forgiving. Which is also acceptable.
dcm, do you really think the Texans players are being oversensitive?
Especially Kraft. He's different from Jones and Richardson in degree, but not in kind. He's smart enough to know that anthem protests are immaterial to the owners' direct financial interests -- with no proof that they're impacting TV ratings or the league's popularity -- and that if the players are granted that one small allowance, he and his owner friends can continue to run the business of the league without much say from the players themselves.He also commented about Brady during deflategate and said something about how JJ Watt would have turned over his cellphone - which is why I am loving this.
But then again, fuck Troy Vincent too. While we are at it, fuck everyone who was at that meeting.
The ESPN article has some interesting information regarding the reaction of some of the largest sponsors — Papa Johns and USAA — to those protests, along with the reactions of the fan bases in Texas among other places.Especially Kraft. He's different from Jones and Richardson in degree, but not in kind. He's smart enough to know that anthem protests are immaterial to the owners' direct financial interests -- with no proof that they're impacting TV ratings or the league's popularity -- and that if the players are granted that one small allowance, he and his owner friends can continue to run the business of the league without much say from the players themselves.
Also, and maybe this goes without saying, but I think it's important to actually note -- he called them inmates specifically with respect to their desire to make a statement for racial equality.I don’t think he meant to put it forward to be racist, but “running the prison” is some Freudian racism. I have never heard it said like that before.
I don’t really think this is the kind of comment an apology covers because it demonstrates a state of mind. The cat’s out of the bag for McNair with black players now.
I can now better understand that, being that the smarter ones are more like politicians, the owners of teams in conservative-leaning states are more likely to need to show their fans that they're "with 'em" on the issue. The bigger business gets, the more amoral it trends, and the same is true here - just with more sanctimony. But ultimately, this is about money for the owners, whereas it's about social consciousness and moral crusade for the players, so they'll clearly have to work quite hard indeed to find some shared ground.Polls show that the protest issue has resonated with millions of fans who insist all players should stand for the national anthem; some are calling for an NFL boycott and vowing to never watch another NFL game. Owners are alarmed at how rapidly fans' outrage is eroding many of the league's key business metrics, and executives at some broadcast partners have complained to owners about how the NFL lurches from crisis to crisis. A recent Morning Consult poll revealed that the NFL's net favorability has dropped to 11 percent from a high of 56 percent in May. Jones was furious that local TV ratings in Dallas were down, especially a 19 percent drop for this year's game against Green Bay, compared with last year's. "There is no question the league is suffering negative effects from these protests," he would tell reporters after the Cowboys routed the 49ers. "All times, I want to do the right thing by [NFL sponsors] and their customers. I have a great responsibility to the people who support us. ... We all get great benefits from having a lot of us watching our games. All of us do."
The ESPN piece is your evidence?The ESPN article has some interesting information regarding the reaction of some of the largest sponsors — Papa Johns and USAA — to those protests, along with the reactions of the fan bases in Texas among other places.
If you don’t take the economic threat seriously ... well you wouldn’t own a team to begin with unless you inherited it.
Then the authors say business concerns are nuanced because in fact at least one major sponsor de facto supports the players' right to protest and will withdraw if they're interfered with:Snyder spoke first. He said that there were real business issues at stake, and he mentioned that in his market, the defense industry and other sponsors were angry about the protests. He didn't put any dollars on it.
EDIT: And then the passage you mention doesn't make clear how concerned sponsors like Papa John's and USAA are about the protests, if at all. It just says they're rattled by the array of challenges confronting the league.Like the numerous reasons behind the protests, the business concerns were nuanced -- one major sponsor had threatened to pull out if the NFL were to issue a mandate to stand.
There was the looming notion that sponsors would leave the NFL -- not just because of the protests but because of an array of challenges confronting the league, including the continuing decline in TV ratings. Nearly all of the league's longtime sponsors, from Papa John's to USAA, were rattled, and fissures within the league offices and teams, to say nothing of the players, were starting to expand.
Businesses really like it when analysts cut earnings estimates and price targets —The ESPN piece is your evidence?
Dan Snyder says real business is at stake but can't say how much it might cost the league:
Then the authors say business concerns are nuanced because in fact at least one major sponsor de facto supports the players' right to protest and will withdraw if they're interfered with:
EDIT: And then the passage you mention doesn't make clear how concerned sponsors like Papa John's and USAA are about the protests, if at all. It just says they're rattled by the array of challenges confronting the league.
This started with me saying there's no proof that the protests themselves are impacting TV ratings or the league's popularity and you've now cited two pieces that make no claim as to whether the protests themselves are impacting TV ratings or the league's popularity, as evidence that the protests themselves are impacting TV ratings and the league's popularity.Businesses really like it when analysts cut earnings estimates and price targets —
https://www.google.com/amp/www.marketwatch.com/amp/story/guid/C936FB44-BB34-11E7-BC0D-F21E2402CFE8
I think we’ll leave this right here.This started with me saying there's no proof that the protests themselves are impacting TV ratings or the league's popularity and you've now cited two pieces that make no claim as to whether the protests themselves are impacting TV ratings or the league's popularity, as evidence that the protests themselves are impacting TV ratings and the league's popularity.
The President tweets about it weekly and airdropped Pence in for a publicity stunt while forbidding the players from kneeling is an absolute non option. There are dollars and cents at stake, but this isn’t going to go away by itself or be solved quickly which is why Goodell and the smarter owners are working with players on a solution.It’s about money for the players too. The vast majority of them do not want to die on this hill. If the ranchers die, the cattle starve.
This will go away by itself unless stupidity triumphs. Protests and good deeds will find avenues with far fewer land mines than this one.
Here's the story from Mort and Schefter:Adam SchefterVerified account @AdamSchefter 18m18 minutes ago
A group of owners, including Jerry Jones, is trying to hijack Roger Goodell’s proposed extension, per @mortreport and me. More today on ESPN
Cowboys owner Jerry Jones was a leading voice among 17 owners on a conference call Thursday to discuss the possibility of further delaying commissioner Roger Goodell's pending contract extension, sources involved with the call told ESPN's Adam Schefter.
"You don't get to have this many messes over the years like Roger has had and survive it," said one owner on the call.
The NFL would need 24 owners to approve Goodell's ouster, and owners are skeptical that this can get accomplished. But one person involved in this week's conference call compared the NFL's current situation with Goodell to Major League Baseball's situation with Fay Vincent in September 1992, when baseball owners voted 18-9 to force him out, and replace him with Bud Selig.
Whether this group of 17 owners can stop Goodell's extension from being finalized, which many predicted would have been completed this summer, appears unlikely. But there are a group of owners on the call who were unhappy with a wide range of issues regarding the state of the league during Goodell's tenure.
"Maybe Arthur [Blank, the head of the Compensation Committee] and that committee think they're on track," an owner said about Goodell's proposed extension. "But they have a lot more resistance than they counted on -- and maybe they don't know how the resistance is growing as we speak."
"We just don't have enough problem solvers," said another NFL owner. "We gotta get it right or we're just going to let it burn. Last time I felt like this was before the 1993 CBA settlement. That was just depressing, and Paul Tagliabue and Gene [Upshaw] stepped up and saved it in a spectacular way. We don't have that feeling right now."
The owners' most recent meeting in New York, where much was discussed but little was decided, as Seth Wickersham and Don Van Natta reported in their ESPN The Magazine story, led owners to this past week's conference call that detailed some of the issues they have with the league and Goodell.
"That was our recurring theme, that there's no leadership," said another executive familiar with Thursday's conference call. "Everyone [in the league office] is trying to win the latest news cycle, and there's no long-term vision. It's just, 'How can we minimize the bad headlines, maximize the revenue, and move on to the next day?' And there's an increasing frustration to that approach."
Seems like these captains of industry are finally getting around to realizing what was pretty obvious to everyone else, that this commissioner and the league office are a bunch of Peter principle jokers with not strategic vision and no ability to innovate or grow the sport.Sources declined to identify the specific teams represented on the call, but pointed out that the number of 17 participants on Thursday was further proof of the growing unrest after the previous week's meetings in New York.
It would appear that the Texans players' feelings continue to be of the unpleasant variety:No, their feelings are their feelings, which I would not judge. McNair is their employer, not mine.
I have said things that I came to regret, and am thankful that no one whose judgment was important to me ever judged me on those things.
In solidarity with or about who or what, exactly?Almost all of the Texans took a knee during the anthem today.
Against their dickhead of an owner.In solidarity with or about who or what, exactly?
P.A.I.In solidarity with or about who or what, exactly?
You can't underestimate how galling it must be to the owners to be constantly questioned on this issue by their peer group (i.e. other super-rich dudes): "Why can't you get those [expletives] to stand up and honor the goddamn flag?!" I suspect that they're going to express the grievance in financial terms— even if there's no clear evidence of financial impact— b/c it's the only rational-sounding way of talking about it. But that their sense of outrage is going to be exponentially greater than it would be over Papa John's backing out, say, because they don't want to be associated with CTE, I'd wager.Dan Snyder says real business is at stake but can't say how much it might cost the league:
Then the authors say business concerns are nuanced because in fact at least one major sponsor de facto supports the players' right to protest and will withdraw if they're interfered with:
Well-put and I agree. My point was just that Kraft recognizes that his fellow owners are externalizing their feelings of embarrassment as legitimate business concerns -- not because he's smarter than they are, just because he runs in more liberal circles than the red state owners, so he has some distance from it -- and that he's saying what needs to be said to acknowledge their concerns while cautioning against any action that further inflames the protests, because a smattering of players taking a knee each week isn't impacting league revenues, and is probably the only "issue" -- unlike ratings and CTE -- that will go away over time if the owners and the league ignore it, and could get worse if they take a reactionary approach to stopping it.You can't underestimate how galling it must be to the owners to be constantly questioned on this issue by their peer group (i.e. other super-rich dudes): "Why can't you get those [expletives] to stand up and honor the goddamn flag?!" I suspect that they're going to express the grievance in financial terms— even if there's no clear evidence of financial impact— b/c it's the only rational-sounding way of talking about it. But that their sense of outrage is exponentially greater than it would be over Papa John's backing out, say, because they don't want to be associated with CTE. tldr; I'd speculate it's personal— cultural— with the owners as well.
https://www.cbssports.com/nfl/news/texans-owner-says-inmates-comment-was-about-league-office-in-new-statement/Sorry for the lack of a link, but I saw the explanation that the 'inmates running the prison' comment was about the league offices (versus the owners) and not about the players (versus the league/owners) which kind of makes sense in light of both Jerry Jones' comments to Troy Vincent and the pushback on extending Goodell's contract.
I'm skeptical, but there it is."As I said [Friday], I was not referring to our players when I made a very regretful comment during the owners meeting last week," McNair said in a statement. "I was referring to the relationship between the league office and team owners and how they have been making significant strategic decisions affecting our league without adequate input from ownership over the past few years."