Roger G's Wheel of Justice

Reverend

for king and country
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Jan 20, 2007
64,048
CantKeepmedown said:
If that's the case, Jesus. Goodell better hope that TMZ or Deadspin doesn't get their hands on that tape.
 
Indeed. But you know he destroyed the tape. :p
 
That letter is pretty interesting. I totally agree with Cellar-Door's assessment, but want to add that this is an unqualified surrender by the league. Bracketing the issue of whether or not the league playing government and the problems associated with them policing off-field behavior, this is one of those cases where I wonder if Goodell himself realizes how badly he whiffed and how insipid his approach was.
 
I mean, obviously he can tell he whiffed from the reaction--you can see you didn't hit the ball--but does he get how and why, or is he just reacting?
 
Given that the NFL has become so big that it's now a reflection of national conversations such as LGBT issues and domestic violence (Who saw this day coming?)... well, it's just a really bizarre vehicle for these kind of social conversations. But maybe for the same reasons it's a prime one, as it situates the conversation into something that people who may not otherwise think about these issues actively pay attention to.
 
I've always been fascinated in the unfortunate but inevitable violence against women thread in BbtLs... and now the league is finally catching up to us. ;)
 

dcmissle

Deflatigator
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Aug 4, 2005
28,269
Rev,

Thanks for deftly handling that devastating set up for us Pats fans.

And don't think Deadspin -- which is composed of professional heaters -- won't reach that angle:

Roger Goodell, the tape burner. Pat Buchanan has his ear.
 

j44thor

Member
SoSH Member
Aug 1, 2006
10,961
CaptainLaddie said:
 
My buddy is a corrections officer in New Jersey and he spoke with a prosecutor who has seen the full tape.
 
This is what he wrote to me:
 
 
I trust what he said, in that I believe that's what he was told.  He's not one to embellish.
If what is on the tape is true I blame the courts/laws a lot more than the NFL.

Please correct me if I am wrong but what I understand about the case is that as soon as they were married there was no legal recourse to pursue because she refused to testify or pursue charges.

If that isn't battered wife syndrome I don't know what is. Less focus on any suspension the nfl can impose and more focus on just how fucked up it is that this can't go to court should be the priority, this isn't an NFL issue, this is a society/legal issue.
 

NortheasternPJ

Member
SoSH Member
Nov 16, 2004
19,272
Stitch01 said:
Is Spygate really like a thing that still bothers Pats fans?
 
It still bothers many non-Pats fans. I'd guess 99% of Pats fans don't give a shit anymore. 
 
It's also the dumbest thing ever since they went 14-1 after Week 2 that year, so it clearly had no effect. BUT THEY DIDNT WIN THA SUPA BOWL! LOS3RZ!!!!!
 

Reverend

for king and country
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Jan 20, 2007
64,048
BannedbyNYYFans.com said:
 
It pains me to admit I laughed and enjoyed one of your posts.  If I were Peter King I'd give you a "Kudos"....then tell you I live in Manhattan.  
 
Weird.
 

CantKeepmedown

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 15, 2005
2,581
Portland, ME
NortheasternPJ said:
 
It still bothers many non-Pats fans. I'd guess 99% of Pats fans don't give a shit anymore. 
 
It's also the dumbest thing ever since they went 14-1 after Week 2 that year, so it clearly had no effect. BUT THEY DIDNT WIN THA SUPA BOWL! LOS3RZ!!!!!
 
I knew the joke was coming right after I hit submit. 
 
The biggest thing I hear from my non-Pat fans friends are, "you haven't won a super bowl in 10 years!"  They are not able to explain all the success that Pats have had since then.  Only, "you haven't won a SB!"   
 

CaptainLaddie

dj paul pfieffer
SoSH Member
Sep 6, 2004
36,692
where the darn libs live
NortheasternPJ said:
 
It still bothers many non-Pats fans. I'd guess 99% of Pats fans don't give a shit anymore. 
 
It's also the dumbest thing ever since they went 14-1 after Week 2 that year, so it clearly had no effect. BUT THEY DIDNT WIN THA SUPA BOWL! LOS3RZ!!!!!
Technically they went 16-1 after Week 2 that year.
 
:(
 

lman4201

New Member
Jul 31, 2006
22
Montana Fan said:
I'm pleased to see an official policy. Whatever the reasons Goodell had for making the change, it's a good change.
I'll call it even if he calls it "The Ray Rice Rule."
 

Euclis20

Member
SoSH Member
Aug 3, 2004
8,021
Imaginationland
CantKeepmedown said:
 
I knew the joke was coming right after I hit submit. 
 
The biggest thing I hear from my non-Pat fans friends are, "you haven't won a super bowl in 10 years!"  They are not able to explain all the success that Pats have had since then.  Only, "you haven't won a SB!"   
 
The best response is, "The Pats have been to (and won) exactly as many super bowls as Peyton Manning has since spygate."  If that doesn't drive the point home, nothing will.
 

dcmissle

Deflatigator
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Aug 4, 2005
28,269
Irsay has reportedly reached a plea deal, so we should soon have Ginger Justice as to him.

Bear in mind that this was Smith's second offense, plus he had two felony gun charges reduced to misdemeanors. On the positive side of the ledger, Smith voluntarily entered rehab last year. Which cost him 5 games and which Roger said he would credit.
 

soxfan121

JAG
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Dec 22, 2002
23,043
dcmissle said:
Irsay has reportedly reached a plea deal, so we should soon have Ginger Justice as to him.

Bear in mind that this was Smith's second offense, plus he had two felony gun charges reduced to misdemeanors. On the positive side of the ledger, Smith voluntarily entered rehab last year. Which cost him 5 games and which Roger said he would credit.
 
Which makes the "real" length of the suspension 14 games, if you just add the two together. And that's a strange number, really.
 
I am anxiously waiting for the Irsay punishment. 
 

dcmissle

Deflatigator
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Aug 4, 2005
28,269
soxfan121 said:
 
Which makes the "real" length of the suspension 14 games, if you just add the two together. And that's a strange number, really.
 
I am anxiously waiting for the Irsay punishment. 
I didn't mean to suggest that Roger meant credit in a technical sense, for those 5 games that he missed, just that Smith's proactive approach to rehab would be a mitigating circumstance.

Yes, the Irsay penalty will be interesting. Does anyone recall any benchmarks for owner misconduct?
 

Marciano490

Urological Expert
SoSH Member
Nov 4, 2007
62,312
Out of curiosity, what's in the NBA contracts that's not in the NFL ones that find Sterling and Irsaybso differently situated.
 

axx

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 16, 2005
8,126
Montana Fan said:
I'm pleased to see an official policy. Whatever the reasons Goodell had for making the change, it's a good change.
 
Honestly it seems like a kneejerk reaction to the mob. If it satisfies them ... well then it served it's purpose. TBH, the way the union contracts are written I was even surprised Goodell could even suspend Rice for something he didn't get arrested for, even if he should have been.
 

soxfan121

JAG
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Dec 22, 2002
23,043
Well, there are substantial differences between those two situations. 
 
But more importantly, Goodell has (vaguely) promised some kind of penalty for Irsay and I expect it will be more than four games because A.) suspending Irsay does nothing to affect the product on the field, B.) Irsay embarrassed the Shield, and C.) the NFLPA will (rightfully) throw an absolute hissy fit if an owner gets away with less time suspended than a player. 
 
Optics matter. 
 
Six to eight games of being banned from "all team activities" and attendance at games that will coincide with absolutely no league business (owner's meetings, etc.) or important local (Indy) business. And a fine...maybe one that eclipses the BB fine from 2008 (as I think the league wants that note to go away and Irsay deserves to be the object of some public ridicule). 
 
Still, Irsay is a billionaire (or close enough - the team is worth billions) and a $1M and one cent fine is pocket change. He doesn't need to be at the stadium and he won't be prevented from doing business. IOW, any penalty levied will not be proportional to a player penalty. 
 

soxfan121

JAG
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Dec 22, 2002
23,043
axx said:
 
Honestly it seems like a kneejerk reaction to the mob. If it satisfies them ... well then it served it's purpose. TBH, the way the union contracts are written I was even surprised Goodell could even suspend Rice for something he didn't get arrested for, even if he should have been.
 
This reads...not well. I think I understand your point but would you mind expanding on it a little? I think what you've written can easily be misinterpreted.
 

Reverend

for king and country
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Jan 20, 2007
64,048
axx said:
Honestly it seems like a kneejerk reaction to the mob. If it satisfies them ... well then it served it's purpose. TBH, the way the union contracts are written I was even surprised Goodell could even suspend Rice for something he didn't get arrested for, even if he should have been.
He was indicted by a grand jury.
 

singaporesoxfan

Well-Known Member
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Jul 21, 2004
11,882
Washington, DC
soxfan121 said:
Well, there are substantial differences between those two situations. 
 
But more importantly, Goodell has (vaguely) promised some kind of penalty for Irsay and I expect it will be more than four games because A.) suspending Irsay does nothing to affect the product on the field, B.) Irsay embarrassed the Shield, and C.) the NFLPA will (rightfully) throw an absolute hissy fit if an owner gets away with less time suspended than a player. 
 
Optics matter. 
I agree with all your points but the joke that was the Ray Rice suspension suggests to me that Goodell might not have the best sense of what matters even if optics is the only consideration.
 

soxfan121

JAG
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Dec 22, 2002
23,043
singaporesoxfan said:
I agree with all your points but the joke that was the Ray Rice suspension suggests to me that Goodell might not have the best sense of what matters even if optics is the only consideration.
 
Marciano490 never jokes. 
 
Dammit, I Roethlisbergered.
 

dcmissle

Deflatigator
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Aug 4, 2005
28,269
This is all about PR, which is to say it is all about marketing.

An historical perspective is revealing. Wiki has a list of players suspensions from the 1940s to date. Wiki's been known to have accuracy problems, but this list squares with memory so it's probably generally reliable

You can count on one hand the disciplinary actions from the 40s until relatively recently. Not surprisingly, these early ones bore directly on game integrity. Some lifetime bans for attempting to fix an NFL Championship game. Karas and Hornung lose one year for betting on games, and so forth. The pivot point appears to be Stanley Wilson and his cocaine use, and everything accelerates beginning around 2006 insofar as personal conduct is concerned.

Even when allowing for demographic changes in player composition, I'm not persuaded that the guys playing today are worse guys than the ones who played for most of this 70-year period. This is all about football growing into a billions dollar enterprise and the perceived need to protect it in an age of social media and $100 jersey sales. Before, players were generally treated like the rest of the workforce -- your out-of-workplace misconduct had workplace consequences only when when it threatened the very existence of the enterprise, or impaired your ability to show up for work (cause you were in prison, for example).

This change is fine, and players today know what they are signing up for. But everyone would benefit from consistency, clarity and fairness. Slow and thoughtful is better than fast and knee jerk
 

soxfan121

JAG
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Dec 22, 2002
23,043
Infield Infidel said:
 
The fact that he gets an "end date" on the random drug tests is really the bad part, IMO. The games and fines...whatever. When a player is caught on a failed test he is in the program FOREVER. That's why Browner is suspended; missed tests while he was in the CFL after failing one back when he was a rookie. 
 
That Irsay gets only a year of tests (because of his plea deal, not the NFL) is bullshit. He, like players, should be "in the program" for the rest of his career. 
 
EDIT: Everyone pissed off over the Gordon suspension ought be furious with this. It's a double standard. Gordon failed a test and was subject to nearly a hundred after that. Irsay is going to have this forgotten in time. That does not happen in the player program and it's fucked up.
 

Deathofthebambino

Drive Carefully
SoSH Member
Apr 12, 2005
41,948
I don't know.   I don't really have any feelings one way or the other about an owner not being required to take drug/alcohol tests until the end of time, so I'll play devil's advocate a bit.  In addition, he was fined $500,000, whereas the max fine  a player could receive for a first offense DUI would be $50,000.  He's also banned from a ton of shit that a player wouldn't be banned from, like owner's meetings and can't represent the team in any league affiliated event, etc. and those penalties really shouldn't be glossed over.  A lot of shit goes down at the owner's meetings and that could have a bigger effect on the Colts than even the loss of a draft pick.  Ultimately, there is no competitive advantage with respect to an owner hitting the bottle or taking drugs, which can't be said for players, at least in the case of PED's.  I also probably wouldn't characterize his ownership of the team as a "career" in the same way I would a player.  Guy could realistically own the team for 30-40 years.  I can't imagine anyone looks forward to hauling an 85 year old man in to take a piss test every now and again.  Maybe at that point, he could just hand them his Depends.
 
Like I said, wouldn't bother me one way or the other if the league did what it did, came down harsher or did less.  Jim Irsay isn't Andrew Luck and the league probably shouldn't view and treat them the same way when they fuck up in their personal lives.
 

soxfan121

JAG
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Dec 22, 2002
23,043
Deathofthebambino said:
I don't know.   I don't really have any feelings one way or the other about an owner not being required to take drug/alcohol tests until the end of time, so I'll play devil's advocate a bit.  In addition, he was fined $500,000, whereas the max fine  a player could receive for a first offense DUI would be $50,000.  He's also banned from a ton of shit that a player wouldn't be banned from, like owner's meetings and can't represent the team in any league affiliated event, etc. and those penalties really shouldn't be glossed over.  A lot of shit goes down at the owner's meetings and that could have a bigger effect on the Colts than even the loss of a draft pick.  Ultimately, there is no competitive advantage with respect to an owner hitting the bottle or taking drugs, which can't be said for players, at least in the case of PED's.  I also probably wouldn't characterize his ownership of the team as a "career" in the same way I would a player.  Guy could realistically own the team for 30-40 years.  I can't imagine anyone looks forward to hauling an 85 year old man in to take a piss test every now and again.  Maybe at that point, he could just hand them his Depends.
 
Like I said, wouldn't bother me one way or the other if the league did what it did, came down harsher or did less.  Jim Irsay isn't Andrew Luck and the league probably shouldn't view and treat them the same way when they fuck up in their personal lives.
 
1. There are no scheduled owners meetings during the window of Irsay's suspension. So while it's nice they announced it that way (to make it seem like more of a penalty) it is the functional equivalent of banning someone from base jumping off the International Space Station. 
 
2. Irsay could have killed someone. Think for just one moment about how big a problem a drunk-driving, pill-popping owner killing someone while DUI would be for the NFL. Irsay has for years exhibited the erratic behavior some could associate with RX drug abuse. Now, I'm glad he's gotten help - counseling and treatment can do wonders for people who commit to the process. But part of that process is accountability. One year is, IMO, not long enough. And further, that penalty is not being imposed by the NFL; it is part of his plea deal. So, from the NFL there is no testing. That is not how is for players; a player doing the same things, copping the same plea, is in the Program for the rest of his career. That's a double-standard. 
 
3. No, Jim Irsay is an equity stakeholder in a multi-billion dollar enterprise. He is so much MORE responsible than Andrew Luck for the future profitability and viability of the business it is like comparing apples and jackhammers. Again, if Luck drives under the influence and kills someone, it's a problem for Luck and the Colts and sort of the NFL. If one of the thirty-two "control" members of the NFL business does the same thing, the problem is several orders of magnitude larger. Especially if it happens AFTER this charade. 
 
BigSoxFan said:
I'm with soxfan on this one. I think Irsay is quite fortunate. 500k is chump change for an NFL owner and 6 weeks is nothing. Goodell is basically just making Irsay start the season on the PUP list.
And presumably Irsay still gets to collect revenue during his suspension, while a suspended player forfeits his paychecks.
 

Ralphwiggum

Member
SoSH Member
Jun 27, 2012
9,827
Needham, MA
NW Sox Fan said:
And presumably Irsay still gets to collect revenue during his suspension, while a suspended player forfeits his paychecks.
 
But, this is precisely why you cannot really compare owners to players in how you handle this stuff.  What would it mean for Irsay not to "collect revenue" during that time period?  Where would it go?  It's the reason why the fine is so much higher than it would be for a player, I guess.  But the guy owns the team even while he is suspended, so of course he's still going to get the financial benefit of that ownership during that time period, what's the other option?  There really isn't much that the commissioner can do to hurt the owners in the pocket book for this kind of stuff.
 
I don't mean to diminish the severity of a DUI, and I am glad Irsay got something in the way of a fine and suspension.  I actually suspect that for a guy who owns an NFL team and spends so much time in and around the team and the facilities, forcing him to stay away from the facilities for that long a period of time is a meaningful punishment.  But as much as I love to shit on Gooddell for being a jackass when it comes to discipline, I think it is pretty difficult to compare the penalties meted out against a player as a result of a collectively bargained drug policy, and what he can do to one of 32 owners who are really only accountable to themselves.
 

soxfan121

JAG
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Dec 22, 2002
23,043
BigSoxFan said:
Is there a reason why Goodell can't make the fine, say, $5 million or something that is more in line with the wealth of the owner? Ultimately, the owners pay his ridiculous salary so he's not going to punish them severely even if he has the power to do so. That's the big problem.
 NFL bylaws stipulate the maximum fine for an owner is $500K without having the other owners vote on it. So he could, but it would have been more involved. 
 

Deathofthebambino

Drive Carefully
SoSH Member
Apr 12, 2005
41,948
Soxfan, the owners are scheduled to meet October 7th-8th, and he is banned from participating in those meetings.  In addition, he's banned from attending any meetings for any committees that he's a member of, and those meet throughout the season.  Not to mention every single other league-affiliated event.  I think that's a bigger deal than you make it sound.
 
If I'm not mistaken, the maximum 500k fine was a result of what happened during Spygate, and is the same amount that BB was fined for that.  It's the fourth highest fine of anyone in NFL history, and reflects a tougher stance on DUI's than the NFL has taken in the past.  In 2010, Detroit Lions President Tom Lewand only got a 30 day suspension and a 100k fine for a DUI.
 
I'm not sure why it matters that he could have killed someone.  He didn't.  And punishments under the law or under NFL policy shouldn't be based on what might have happened.  First offense DUI's in this country are treated very differently than negligent vehicular homicide.  They are two completely different crimes, and should be.  I get the impression you think he should be punished as if he did kill someone and I can't go that far.  Frankly, I'm surprised he got the punishment he did.  In most cases, a first offense DUI is met with some probation, a couple of classes, the payment of court costs and the perpetrator's record is wiped clean after a period of time when they plead no contest.  The one year loss of license is far, far more than most folks get for a first offense DUI.  You write "Irsay has exhibited for years the erratic behavior some could associate with RX drug abuse."  Explain that to me, because I don't buy it at all unless you know something about Irsay that I don't.  As far as I know, this is a first offense, and the fact that he admitted to having issues with prescription drugs during his life is a good thing, and not something that should be retroactively punished, but I'd be curious to hear what "erratic behavior" you can pin on the drug usage.  I think we'll probably have very different opinions on that front.
 

soxfan121

JAG
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Dec 22, 2002
23,043
Deathofthebambino said:
Soxfan, the owners are scheduled to meet October 7th-8th, and he is banned from participating in those meetings.  In addition, he's banned from attending any meetings for any committees that he's a member of, and those meet throughout the season.  Not to mention every single other league-affiliated event.  I think that's a bigger deal than you make it sound.
 
If I'm not mistaken, the maximum 500k fine was a result of what happened during Spygate, and is the same amount that BB was fined for that.  It's the fourth highest fine of anyone in NFL history, and reflects a tougher stance on DUI's than the NFL has taken in the past.  In 2010, Detroit Lions President Tom Lewand only got a 30 day suspension and a 100k fine for a DUI.
 
I'm not sure why it matters that he could have killed someone.  He didn't.  And punishments under the law or under NFL policy shouldn't be based on what might have happened.  First offense DUI's in this country are treated very differently than negligent vehicular homicide.  They are two completely different crimes, and should be.  I get the impression you think he should be punished as if he did kill someone and I can't go that far.  Frankly, I'm surprised he got the punishment he did.  In most cases, a first offense DUI is met with some probation, a couple of classes, the payment of court costs and the perpetrator's record is wiped clean after a period of time when they plead no contest.  The one year loss of license is far, far more than most folks get for a first offense DUI.  You write "Irsay has exhibited for years the erratic behavior some could associate with RX drug abuse."  Explain that to me, because I don't buy it at all unless you know something about Irsay that I don't.  As far as I know, this is a first offense, and the fact that he admitted to having issues with prescription drugs during his life is a good thing, and not something that should be retroactively punished, but I'd be curious to hear what "erratic behavior" you can pin on the drug usage.  I think we'll probably have very different opinions on that front.
 
1. I should have checked the league calendar. Thanks for the correction. However, I highly doubt Irsay - though he cannot attend - will not have access to video of the proceedings, a team representative at the meetings and any league business or committees requiring his approval will take his "unavailability" into account. My point here is that it is not the same as a player suspension, like at all. 
 
2. Addressed up thread but yes, it's the maximum the Commissioner can unilaterally decide. There's a mechanism in the NFL owners by-laws that allows for the owners, collectively, to issue a larger fine. 
 
3a. I should have been more precise. "If" is a tiny word with big implications. If Irsay (or another owner) were to kill someone while drunk driving, it would not remind anyone of the Leonard Little affair. It would be a huge problem for the NFL and all 32 owners. Fiduciary responsibility and all that. 
 
3b. I think he should be punished in the same way a player would be. Negligent vehicular manslaughter earns a year suspension (or did for Donte Stallworth), drunk driving earns a different penalty (Aldon Smith and Odell Thurman being two extreme examples) and possession of controlled substances another. 
 
3c. Not a follower of Irsay's twitter feed? Suffice to say, it was not a surprise to find out he enjoys some recreational use of substances. 
 
3d. (the bold) This is my point, DotB. Players ARE "punished retroactively" and much more harshly under the NFL's policy. I cannot fathom why Jim Irsay - a person much more responsible for the NFL, its image and its revenue generation than any player - is being treated with such sensitivity and consideration. Wes Welker probably would wonder the same thing. 
 
The NFL "retroactively punishes" players all the time. One mistake - like the one Irsay committed - results in a lifetime subscription to "Piss Test Bingo" and the rules for how and when players must comply are onerous. Miss a test, for any reason, and you are suspended. 
 
Again, the NFL did not impose the drug testing penalty. The Court did. The NFL is allowing Irsay to flaunt their own written rules for "personnel" by not enrolling him the in Program and not monitoring him going forward. THAT is a double-standard. That is proof Irsay is being treated differently. And if the response is "well, he is different, he's an owner" then my contention is that Irsay can do more harm to the NFL Shield than any player ever has or can IF he were to repeat his behavior. 
 

Van Everyman

Member
SoSH Member
Apr 30, 2009
26,993
Newton
Well, that goes against pretty much all the "mitigating" evidence we heard about after Goodell handed out the 2-game suspension – that she bum-rushed him, that she was totally out of control, kind of implying Rice wasn't the aggressor here. About the only thing this video suggests is that she was possibly verbally abusing him so he punched the shit out of her once. Great.
 

PC Drunken Friar

Member
SoSH Member
Sep 12, 2003
14,542
South Boston
Man, I knew it was probably going to be bad, but watching that was friggin frighting. He does that on the street to a woman (or man) and he gets jail time, no doubt, right?
 

wutang112878

Member
SoSH Member
Nov 5, 2007
6,066
If I'm one of the NFL owners I'd want to know if Goodell saw that entire video before he decided to suspend him for just 2 games.  I think its safe to say that there was a decent chance this video got leaked somehow and if Goodell saw it I'd be pretty pissed.  When he first came in as comish his big thing was 'protecting the shield' but giving a guy 2 games but in this case 2 games doesnt do it.  After watching Rice's wife's head bounce off the elevator handle and look lifeless (I mean there was a chance for her to break her neck there), that just looks awful for the NFL.  Anyone who feels strongly about domestic violence is more upset about the 2 games after seeing that tape.  That was truly awful.
 

Luis Taint

Member
SoSH Member
Apr 7, 2012
5,883
The NFL is about to have itself a day. If I were Josh Gordon I would be livid. Lawyers, is there any lawsuit, that Gordon could file to have his suspension stayed, because in comparison this suspension seems excessive.
 

dcmissle

Deflatigator
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Aug 4, 2005
28,269
Luis Taint said:
The NFL is about to have itself a day. If I were Josh Gordon I would be livid. Lawyers, is there any lawsuit, that Gordon could file to have his suspension stayed, because in comparison this suspension seems excessive.
Based on that argument -- no.
 

PC Drunken Friar

Member
SoSH Member
Sep 12, 2003
14,542
South Boston
TheShynessClinic said:
Goodell has to resign with this coming out, right? There's no way he survives this.
No way he resigns.  He is making the owners millions, thats all they care about.  Lets see if people stop watching, going to games, if advertisers dont keep paying millions for 30 second ads.  Unfortunately, people wont really care about this, save for protesters (maybe) at Baltimore games and on message boards.
 

soxfan121

JAG
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Dec 22, 2002
23,043
Luis Taint said:
The NFL is about to have itself a day. If I were Josh Gordon I would be livid. Lawyers, is there any lawsuit, that Gordon could file to have his suspension stayed, because in comparison this suspension seems excessive.
 
I think you should read the whole thread, or the Josh Gordon thread, because Josh Gordon has no place in this conversation. 
 
I do agree that the NFL is "about to have a day". The Rice situation is a big problem. But Josh Gordon has nothing to do with it and you can find out clearly why by reading the referenced threads. 
 

SocrManiac

Tommy Seebach’s mustache
SoSH Member
Apr 15, 2006
8,634
Somers, CT
What, exactly, would it have taken for him to get a four game suspension?
 
That is brutal. The face smashing into the hand rail is icing on the cake.
 
It has to cross the mind of a halfway intelligent human being that there's a possibility she's dead, right? That was a marionette with the strings cut if I've ever seen one.
 

twibnotes

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 16, 2005
20,232
PC Drunken Friar said:
No way he resigns.  He is making the owners millions, thats all they care about.
They'd make piles of money with Bozo the clown as commish. Goodell is not the reason the money is big. He's replaceable, and this situation is about to get much worse.