Clay Travis criticizes Roger Goodell's new policy whereby he and he alone decides what activities by players merit punishment, and what that punishment should be. We agree. If Goodell wants to "clean up the league" and punish/discourage off-field indiscretions, he can do so. However, he's basically announced that he and he alone should arbitrarily decide what activities deserve punishment (regardless of legal convictions), and what that punishment should be. If you want to appeal, Goodell himself will listen to your appeal. This reminds me of an aristocratic landowner acting as judge to dole out patriarchal, paternalistic punishments to his lowly and unruly serfs. It's not that Goodell wants to punish misbehavior that bothers me; it is how he is going about doing it (via PFT, which, unsurprisingly, thinks Goodell should arbitrarily mete out punishment as he sees fit).
Viking Update gives a look at the Viking RB situation (via Kansas Viking).
Football Outsiders puts out its most recent "Four Downs: NFC North."
Pete Prisco writes a feature on Byron Leftwich, a QB we like for some reason (via Hashmarks).
Sports Illustrated has a big feature on the Vick-dog fighting story. There are a lot of details on what evidence was found at the property to suggest dog fighting (or training dogs for dog fighting) occurred (though still no direct link between this evidence and any individuals involved).
More evidence that Jason Kidd is the best point guard in the league? The Wages of Wins system finds that Kidd was the most productive player in the league at any position.
It's hard to believe San Antonio won't win this series, but have you noticed nobody on the Spurs seems capable of guarding Deron Williams?
I think you're missing a point that PFT has made and that I happen to agree with. The NFLPA gave Goodell all the power to be judge, jury, and executioner, if you see it as not being fair then its the NFLPA you should be mad at. They are the ones who have left the players, who they are supposed to be helping and protecting, out to dry. They are the ones who agreed to the new CBA. A couple of things to keep in mind...first, Clay is missing the point that the CBA gives him all of the power and the wording of it allows him to do as he sees fit even without any charges or conviction in a court of law (Clay also trys to compare Goodell to his predecessor which isnt a fair comparison since the new CBA wasn't in place). second, if any corporation in America can fire an employee for simply being accused of wrong doing then surely the NFL can as well and the players should count themselves lucky to even have the opportunity to make millions of dollars playing a game.ReplyDelete
Whether the NFLPA or Goodell himself is responsible, I still consider the principle bad: one man is subjectively deciding what behavior is worthy of punishment. There are too many unclarified variables involved when one man gets to make such a decision.ReplyDelete
Can any corporation fire anybody on mere accusations? Sometimes they can, but always? Aren't there sometimes lawsuits for wrongful termination when something like that occurs? I hear people say that, but I'd like to look into it to find out if it's true.
I agree its a bad system, I don't think Goodell should have all the power, I guess all I was trying to say is that it's something the NFLPA could (and should) have avoided. The CBA probably should have been worded differnetly because you're right its subjective, but it is what it is and the players and the NFLPA will have to live with it for now. (sorry I don't have a username otherwise I'd use it, keep up the good work here)ReplyDelete
Thanks for the clarification, though--it's good to be clear that Goodell isn't just making this up as he's going along, and that he's got legitimate authority to do it (even if it is a flawed way to do it).ReplyDelete