Sounds about right... Tank seems to be truly sorry, or at least better at expressing that than the other mega-suspended players (whether he is or not).

Suspend him for more, and you're sending the message that showing contrition doesn't matter. Suspend him for less, and Pacman and Henry have a (more) legitimate appeal case.

I'm one of the few who seems to be in favor of all of the suspensions so far... but I'm curious about the new regime's policies about enforcement.

At what point will they actually ban a player for life?

For example, if Pacman Jones can't stay clean... if this October, say, he has another "wrong place wrong time" scenario and somebody else gets shot... would he be automatically banned? Would he be suspended another season or two? If the latter, would that effectively end his NFL career, relegating him to AFL, CFL, or the proposed UFL?

When's the last time someone was banned from football, and why?

Wasn't Art Schlister banned for life for gambling?

Maybe I don't have all the facts, but it seems a little odd to me that Tank Johnson's suspension would only be half as long Jones'. I thought of their transgressions as being roughly equivalent, but I might be missing something.

If (and it is a big if) Maurice Clarett were to get out of jail I think he would probably get a lifetime ban.

The last player I know of to have been banned "indefinitely" is defensive tackle Josh Evans, for violating the substance abuse policy too many times. Evans was reinstated after missing about ten games, so "indefinitely" ended up being shorter than "for a year." I think there have been others who reached the same stage as Evans, but can't recall any names off the top of my head.

I'm pretty sure Schlichter's the last guy banned for non-substance-related activity. I think the only non-drug lifetime bans handed out by the NFL have been for gambling on football.

Does anybody else see the Bears picking up Darwin Walker now that the Bills don't seem to want him?

#7

Tank Johnson getting suspended doesn't help the Bears depth at DT, but they still have players there. If they had been worried about the position they could have added a guy in the draft and yet chose not to, thye must have known that a suspension was coming.

They still have Harris, Dvoracek, Adams, Garay and Idonje to play in the inside rotation. That is a better group than most teams in the league and after six (to eight) games they get Johnson back and have one of the best defensive lines in the league again.

Re: 7

Doesn't he have to get picked up by the Browns first?

Re #1- I’m not sure how one can accurately measure one’s level of contrition (aka one’s ability to act), so IMO that shouldn’t be a factor.

Re #2- The overwhelming majority of sports fans seem to be embracing Goodell’s “shoot first, ask questions later, and make sure you spell my name right� stance.

Of course Goodell’s metering of punishment is inconsistent and indefensible. As I posted on the Pac Man thread when Jones’ suspension, if zero convictions gets a player a full year suspension, what does a conviction merit? Why is Jones’ suspension TWICE as long as Johnson’s? Is there any logic being applied here?

Instead of pouring water on a small fire, Goodell has poured gas on it. The NFL would not have lost a single fan had he simply stuck to the old “four games for a conviction� formula.

I am hopeful that Tank Johnson gets his personal issues resolved.

As for the Bears, Johnson was "just a guy" relative to other D-linemen on the roster. He would make a play ever so often but otherwise could be handled by a solid O-lineman.

The key to the Bears line is Harris. The Packer offensive linemen to a man declared Harris to be the best linemen they faced all season and it wasn't close. Packer center Scott Wells was interviewed on the radio and spoke openly about how Harris made him look ridiculous in the first matchup and how the GB line was "relieved" when the news came that Harris was going to miss the second game. Asked who on the Bears line was similar to Harris Wells laughed and said there wasn't anybody. He explained that while there are other good players some of them depend on speed and some on strength but nobody, and he emphasized NOBODY, had both like Harris. And then Wells laughed at himself by stating that if there many guys like Harris in the NFL he, WElls, wouldn't have a job.

Considering how much easier Tank looked to be blocked after the Harris injury I wonder if he wasn't benefitting from all the attention the opposition gave to Harris. I saw Johnson pretty much get rolled over in December and then again in the playoffs. Or maybe he was just distracted by the personal issues?

If I were one of the affected athletes, I'd be filing a lawsuit ASAP saying the commish is refusing to allow me to work and that what I do outside of my employment is none of his damn business. In fact, I'm amazed this hasn't happened already.

Can we have a little note attached to all postings regarding suspending players? Something to the extent of: "Adam Jones was suspended for one year, in large part because he failed to report an arrest, in violation of the CBA. He should not be used an example of a player who got suspended despite having no convictions."

#13- Oh, baloney.

How can anyone rationalize "failing to report an arrest" warranting such a severe punishment? Is that really twice as bad as Johnson's conviction? Four times as bad as a third failed drug test? Four times as bad as a failed steroid test? Puh-leeze.

That assertion is a con game in it's truest form, aimed at disguising a "suspend Jones now, figure out a way to rationalize it later" mentality.

I'm not, and I certainly don't think my people are, arguing Pacman should not have been suspended for failing to report an arrest. The argument is how long he should have been suspended for such an arrest. The reason it was for 16 games, instead of 2, 4, or even 8, is because Goodell thought suspending him for a long time would make the NFL look good.

8 games is more than Tank would've received if Tags were commish, but well in line with Goodell's harsher stance and his discretion under the terms of the CBA as I understand them.

#15- I understand that Goodell, under the CBA, has the right to be inconsistent. I have the right to wet my pants. I wonder which excercision of rights is more ridiculous.

If there's one thing above all that I'm sick of--I mean REALLY sick of--it's people fighting so vehemently and passionately for the rights of criminals and criminal behavior. As opposed to say, fighting vehemently and passionately against terrorism, hunger, cancer, AIDs, high gas prices, etc.

Seriously, when are people finally going to get that Pacman Jones and his ilk are not victims but the complete opposite? You want victims, I give you the security guard/bouncer who was paralyzed for life. Think he'd have been paralyzed that night--or at any point until today--had Jones not showed up? Me neither.

My main issue is with these guys recieving harsh penalties under the new policy, when their transgressions occurred under the old policy. Shouldn't some sort of grandfather clause be in effect?

No one is denying the scumbucket nature of Pacman Jones the person. The point is that AT HIS JOB he's done nothing wrong.

Now in most places/jobs, you can be fired for no reason at all. However, since the players involved have no chance to ply their trade elsewhere in the league (it's a league suspension not a team one) I can't see how a person would NOT fight this.

DolFan 316
I want criminals to have due process so that i know the innocent aren't convicted. I really wish the commish would at least appear to not be making it up as he goes along. As it is now, I believe these guys are being suspended based on public opinion.

#17- My take on this is simple. I ask myself what the individual did, and ask what should be done about it. I presume innocence until seeing evidence of guilt.

Your position starts with labeling Jones is a criminal, and vengefully speeding forward from there.

#20- You hit the Bulls Eye.

History teaches us that stoning / drowning / etc in order to curry public favor is rarely a wise or just course of action.

However, since the players involved have no chance to ply their trade elsewhere in the league

Well, see, that's the downside to negotiating a collective bargaining agreement between the league and the NFLPA.

And they can ply their trade elsewhere. Ask Ricky Williams, or Onterrio Smith. Yes, I am serious.

I can’t see how a person would NOT fight this.

Because they have no legal right to. They signed it away in the CBA, specifically. Their only legal right is through the NFLPA, and the NFLPA has no great desire to defend criminals.

Re: #23- Even Paul Tagliabue refused to defend the NFL’s monopoly by citing the CFL as competition. The whole “if they don’t like it, the CFL is a viable employment alternative� argument is laughable, and that’s known even by those who use it.

Does the NFLPA wish to defend “criminals�? We’ll see. If we define “criminal� as “one that has been convicted of a crime�, we have yet to see one of the two suspended by Goodell doing so. Chris Henry has deferred, and Tank Johnson’s suspension is only hours old.

#20: You'd have a bit more of a point if it wasn't blatantly obvious that Pacman did what he did, and his entourage did what *they* did. Unless you're willing to believe that guy paralyzed himself somehow.

The problem with the whole "due process" thing is that anyone with money always gets off no matter what. I'm convinced most judges simply refuse to punish people of a certain occupation/income level, and some refuse to convict anyone. Their minds are made up regarding this even before trial.

So where's the criticism for that, I wonder? Surely you'd have a problem with criminals roaming the streets who everyone knows will never be actually convicted of anything. Then again, maybe you either never leave your house or you've invested far more in bodyguards than I have.

Remember at the OJ trial when the incompetent prosecution had him try on gloves over ANOTHER pair he was already wearing? Of COURSE they didn't fit. Not that the judge wasn't ready to ask for his autograph at any second throughout that whole fiasco anyway.

If the justice system was actually fair then I'd agree with you. But it's not. And not the way you think either.

24: Early reports here in Chicago are that he won't challenge it, and will work to fulfill his end of the bargain so that it will be cut to 6 games. I think the assumption is that if he were to challenge it, they would be very unlikely to cut the suspension to 6 games after his challenge would almost inevitably fail, so he and the team are better off if he just abides by the terms of the suspension.

In reality, Tank's suspension is 9 games reducible to 7, because he was suspended for a game last year arising out of the exact same conduct as this suspension.

And realistically, if I was implicated in a Vegas strip club shooting incident, even if I didn't actually do the shooting, I would probably be fired and have a hell of a time getting another job in my field. Innocent until proven guilty only applies to sending you to jail. It has no application in the workplace setting.

And by the way, Pac Man has been sentenced more than once -- he's a criminal even under KevinEleven's definition. See the link from my name.

Even Paul Tagliabue refused to defend the NFL’s monopoly by citing the CFL as competition.

The CFL isn't a competitor in the places where the NFL has been found a monopoly - they were strictly US-only cases (US broadcasting rights, stadium rights).

It's a bit odd to say that a quarter-million dollar/year contract is "laughable" employment.

Once and for all, please, could we stop conflating the constitutional exercise of power by the state over a citizen accused of a criminal offense, with the statutory or contractually granted power of an employer or trade group to deem what it considers tolerable behavior by employees, or what sanctions are appropriate? The two are not the same.

Pacman Jones had a contractual obligation to report his arrests. The union to which Pacman Jones belongs negotiated that proviso, and specifically agreed to Roger Goodell having extremely wide latitude as to what the sanctions will be in terms of player misconduct. Pacman Jones is in violation of his contract. Period.

It does not matter a whit what really rests within Roger Goodell's heart. What matters, in fact all that matters, is that all parties contractually agreed to having such power vested in Goodell's office, and Pacman Jones made a willfull decision to violate the terms of the contract. People who willfully violate the terms of a contract they have with a contractual partner with extensive resources are ground into fine bits of dust with some frequency. Mr. Jones is in the process of becoming acquainted with this reality. This is how the world works.

Frankly, this is how the world should work, with the caveat that it is a shame that parties without the NFL's resources have far less opportunity to see that the clear provisions of contracts they enter into are enforced. The unfortunate fact that some entities have less ability to have their contracts enforced, however, does not argue for the NFL being less than ferocious in enforcing the contracts it is party to.

If you ask me--and even if you didn't--I don't think Goodell's being nearly tough ENOUGH.

Some of you really need to thank your lucky stars that *I'm* not the NFL commissioner.

Still, at least it's a start. Yes, a start.

25
I agree that the court system is flawed, but thats no excuse for the NFL's suspension policy to unfair. At least you have some idea what the penalty is for various crimes in the legal system, thats not the case with the personal conduct policy.

26
You're right, innocent until proven guilty has no legal application in a workplace setting. However as a consumer, i feel much more comfortable patronizing a company that is fair to its employees. And if the NFL continues with these unfair practices i might just take my money and time to some other entertainment venue

Just kidding I could never do that. I heart the NFL

What on earth is "unfair" about insisting that the provisions of a mutually agreed-upon contract will be adhered to?

26- Please do not define my definitions.

27- Everything is relevant. However, a U.S. employer saying “see what you’d make in Burkino Faso� is a bad argument.

29- We all agree that we’re lucky you fantasize about being in a position of power as opposed to being in one.

32- Will, you KNOW a contract can be thrown out of court if it’s deemed unfair (the exact wording escapes me at this late hour).

Why can’t we all just admit that Goodell suspending Johnson for eight games and Jones for twice that is FILTERed up?

Give it up, guys.

can we please grow up and dispense with this nonsense that convictions have anything to do with this policy?

this goodell matter is by and large a simple one - The NFL is a business, and is well within its rights to discipline any employee that engages in conduct that damages its brand. All NFL players, by virtue of their membership in the NFLPA and the CBA, have the right to due process (more than the vast vast majority of employees fwiw).

to imply that these suspicions are somehow capricious is ludicrous. what's more, it is only through the most fantastic suspension of reality can anyone insuate these suspended players are victims.

32- Will, you KNOW a contract can be thrown out of court if it’s deemed unfair (the exact wording escapes me at this late hour).

The CBA is an agreement between the NFLPA and the NFL. The policy is unfair to Pacman Jones. It is not necessarily unfair to the NFLPA. The players themselves have a serious interest in maintaining the NFL brand as well, considering their future after football is entirely tied to the NFL's future success.

Before the union could challenge Goodell's authority/ruling in court, they would have to agree that it's unfair to begin with. They've already stated that with Jones, although not with the authority you'd expect if they thought it strongly.

And enough with the random ad hominem attacks, okay? Just defend your position civilly. No one's trying to insult you personally.

Good. Eight games for gun boy.

Mulgrew likey.

Kevin, instead of telling me what I know, please provide examples of contracts being invalidated for unfairness when both parties to the contract had extremely proficient legal counsel. Why can't you just admit that Goodell is exercising discretion granted to him via a mutually agreed-upon collective bargaining agreement? I mean, what's the point of spending untold thousands, if not millions of dollars, and tremendous amounts of time, negotiating contracts if one is simply going to ignore the clearly written provisions because somebody doesn't like them at a later circumstance?

If this seems to be a hard line on my part, it may be because I've had way too many occasions in my professional life when I've had to have extremely annoying conversations wherein I've informed people that, yes, I was going to insist that the language of a contract was adhered to, and, no, I wasn't interested in any rationalizations as to why it should not be, and yes, I was willing to wage a scorched-earth campaign to see that the contract was fufilled. Actually, annoying doesn't even begin to describe it. Do not waste my time and money working out detailed agreements with me, and then expect me to ignote those details at a later date.

Pat, I've never seen a NFL player's contract. Do they not have standard language referencing the controlling nature of the CBA? I have a hard time saying that the CBA is unfair to Pacman Jones.

#38: I think you're misunderstanding me. Let me put it a different way: suppose the NFLPA held a vote, to decide whether to support Pacman's suspension or not. The majority would likely say "no" - they don't run afoul of the law. It doesn't hurt them.

In that sense, the entire idea of the NFLPA hurts Jones, specifically. But, of course, that's ignoring the benefits that he's already received from the CBA.

One other thing that's rarely mentioned: Jones didn't have to sign a contract pursuant to the CBA. NFL players don't have to agree to be a member of the NFLPA (they still have to pay dues, however - Article V, section 1).

This isn't Big Bad Mr. Goodell punishing poor little Pacman Jones. He agreed to have the NFLPA serve his interests in negotiating the CBA. The fact that the rest of the NFLPA doesn't think it's a huge imposition to be forced to not run afoul of the law is something he should've thought of before agreeing to join the NFLPA.

If not reporting an arrest is sixteen games, shouldn't Tank's firearm antics be good for at least thirty or forty games?

That's my biggest problem with this whole thing...there's no set standard, it's all contingent on the whims of one person in power. And if history is any indication, systems predicated on one individual's judgment rarely turn out well. There should be some sort of real checks and balances (not a happy-to-bend-over pseudo-union), or some written-in-stone guidelines for how to punish these infractions.

In the end, this is just PR--something to make a certain segment of the fanbase "feel better." "The real justice system may not get these guys, but our parallel, private-sector one will, because we've rigged it to do so!" They probably deserve it, but that doesn't make it fair.

6-8 games sounds about right, given that Tank Johnson was convicted of a fairly serious crime here. And while contrition is nice, it doesn't change what he did. He'd be wise to just take the suspension and stay far away from trouble, and hope to get back by game 7.

#32: "What on earth is “unfair� about insisting that the provisions of a mutually agreed-upon contract will be adhered to?"

What's unfair is that Jones' punishment was more severe than that of any other player who had committed similar violations of his contract (not reporting the two arrests). Goodell quite obviously imposed a more severe punishment in part because of other incidents Jones was involved in which were not themselves violations of his contract.

If he had reported the two arrests, then those other incidents would not have warranted any punishment from the league, at least until a conviction resulted from one of them. So Goodell has used a couple of relatively minor violations as an excuse to punish Jones for other things which aren't violations of his contract. That's my main problem with this.

If he's going to find ways to punish players for simply being arrested, regardless of whether they are convicted or not, then what's to stop him from punishing innocent players that really are just being falsely accused of crimes? The obvious answer would be: a sense of fairness and decency in dealing with his employees. The problem is that he doesn't seem to have any.

Of course Goodell can do all of this, legally anyway, but that doesn't mean he should. Using a loophole to put an excessive punishment on an employee isn't something I admire. I certainly don't think it counts as fair, regardless of whether or not it's legal.

And I don't buy for one minute that Jones' behavior was somehow a threat to the NFL's profits. Who really stops watching the NFL because one of its players is (allegedly) committing crimes frequently? And as bad as Jones has been, there have been far worse crimes committed by NFL players over the years, and yet the league remains very popular and profitable. Goodell wasn't looking out for the league's interests, he was on a power trip, plain and simple.

#40: "This isn’t Big Bad Mr. Goodell punishing poor little Pacman Jones. He agreed to have the NFLPA serve his interests in negotiating the CBA."

So, if I understand you correctly, he had a choice between an unsympathetic, ineffective union representing him, or he could face the wrath of an angry Goodell all alone? Yeah, that's a real win-win, right there.

Yeah, what 34 said.

41, so you're saying Goodell's judgement and decision-making are somehow worse than Pacman's decision to go into a strip club with 80 grand in ones or whatever it was, throw it on stage, beat the strippers for trying to pick it up, and have an entourage who shoots someone and paralyzes them for life? Or how Tank Johnson's decision to have his own personal armory? Um...no. Better he should lay down the hammer now before one of these guys randomly and arbitrarily decides to beat me up or shoot me.

42, somehow I don't think people are going to stop watching the NFL because poor lil' ol' helpless victim Pacman Jones gets suspended either. Well, maybe you might but that's not my problem.

As far as fairness goes, ask the paralyzed guy what's "fair". Until I actually see Goodell punish someone for doing nothing I just won't believe he will anymore than I'm willing to believe that the FBI's going to kick my door down one night when I haven't broken any laws.

Please explain, Alex, how the party which willfully violated clear language of a contract becomes the aggrieved party, while the party which adhered to the language of a mutually agreed upon contract becomes less admirable. Why on earth is there an inclination to infantalize Pacman Jones, and thus say it is unfair for contracts that he entered into (his personal contract along with the CBA he agreed to by joining the union), of his own free will, to be controlling as to what constitutes being fair?

If someone wants to refer to abstract principles of justice, let's be very, very, clear. The real injustice occurs when an individual agrees to a contract, and then willfully violates it, not when the other party responds to that violation with actions outlined in the contract.

I'm still very curious; why on earth should millions in legal fees be expended, along with countless hours and energy, to hammer out agreements in detail, if what constitutes "fairness" does not first and foremost mean adhering to the language that was mutually agreed upon? Was it all a charade?

#40:

What’s unfair is that Jones’ punishment was more severe than that of any other player who had committed similar violations of his contract (not reporting the two arrests). Goodell quite obviously imposed a more severe punishment in part because of other incidents Jones was involved in which were not themselves violations of his contract.

While I might be mistaken, although i doubt it, Jones's contract is with the TEAM and not the NFL. Jones's contract, ans whether or not he was in violation of any part of it, is essentially irrelevent.

Using a loophole to put an excessive punishment on an employee isn’t something I admire. I certainly don’t think it counts as fair, regardless of whether or not it’s legal.

What is unfair about this suspension? If Goodell is using this as a loophole, then Pac Man's extra-curricular activities more than justify a season-long suspension.

If he isn't using the unreported arrests as a loophole, then the commissioner once again is well within his rights to use his discretion when punishing Pac Man.

Either way, its disingenuous , to put it kindly, to characterize Pac Man's punishment as unfair, especially considering the fact that someone is now paralyzed from the neck down.

And I don’t buy for one minute that Jones’ behavior was somehow a threat to the NFL’s profits.

First off, you don't get to make that decision for the NFL. Second of all, if you don't think that incidents like these hurt the NFL brand, then you don't understand business.

Do a search in Google and you will find tht the latest Pac Man incident alone has generated close to 1 million documents discussing Pac Man and this incident with the stripper. How can that be good for any business?

More to the point, how can any business, any corporation, allow this kind of behavior to go unchecked?

As Commissioner, Gooddell is required to protect the NFL brand not only for team owners, but NFL employees as well. Chalk it up to a power trip all you want, but doing so is simple extremely naive.

Alex, if Jones thinks the union is a bad one, then he can help organize a new one. Happens all the time. What he can't do is agree to be part of the union, while saying it is unfair to demand that adhere to the language of the contract he agreed to. Pacman Jones is not a child.

Dolfan, perhaps not the FBI very frequently, but other law enforcement organizations kick in the doors of innocent people with some frequency, and kill them occasionally. A lovely byproduct of our idiotic War on Drugs.

Again, however, the criminal justice system is not a good analogy to what occurs when private entities enter into contracts, and it really clouds the issue to conflate the two.

Again, to any who doubt that behavior like Jones' can affect profits, examine what happened to Kobe Bryant merchandise revenues for a couple of years following his arrest, even though he was never convicted of anything. Getting arrested harms revenues. Period.

Will, I think maybe you're looking at this too much from a contract perspective. Yes Pacman and the others entered into these contracts and shouldn't whine that they have to adhere to them. And the league has every right to punish them as it sees fit. A players bad behavior can affect the leagues bottom line and the NFL should do what it can to protect it.

I called this situation unfair earlier in the thread, I think a better word might be inconsistent. As in the punishments seem inconsistent relative to the crimes committed. So let me ask you, if you don't mind, do you think the punishments for Pacman, Tank, and Henry fit their respective crimes? Do you see consistency in these punishments relative to one another? If so, how many games do you expect Vick to be suspended for? Do the punishments appear to be based more on appeasing public opinion than on the merit(demerit?) of the crime? Is it wise(/best for the league) for Goodall to continue handing out punishments in this manner? Why hasn't he just made a guideline saying something like violent felonies will get a year, felonies 8 games, misdemeanors 4 etc. with some sort of adjustment for repeat offenders? Should he? Are you concerned someone for you're favorite team will be arrested for something wrongfully, be portrayed poorly in the media and then be suspended for some of your teams games(think of the Duke lacrosse team)? Am I wrong in thinking that that could happen?

Obviously the NFL feels the hit it will take by diluting its talent pool is smaller than the hit it'll get from bad publicity, but as a fan do you care? wouldn't you rather see the best, most elite players in the world and risk a few people calling it a "thug league"? Shouldn't the product on the field be the NFL's chief concern?

I don't mean to single you out. I'm just curious. curious and tired.

#45: "Please explain, Alex, how the party which willfully violated clear language of a contract becomes the aggrieved party, while the party which adhered to the language of a mutually agreed upon contract becomes less admirable."

My point was not to say that somehow Pacman Jones was a victim here, or that he deserved our sympathy. I should have been much more clear about that, sorry. He clearly violated his contract by not reporting the two arrests, so he had a suspension coming his way, and it would've been unfair not to suspend him at all.

Still, I'm a big believer in being consistent with punishments. A 4 or 8 game suspension would have been reasonable, and in line with previous punishments given out for similar violations. But giving a player a 16 game suspension for failing to report two arrests is wildly inconsistent with previous, and for that matter, subsequent suspensions for similar violations.

Clearly, Goodell was operating under the assumption that Jones had committed the other crimes he was accused, but not convicted, of. And before you start, I am well aware that he is legally entitled to make that assumption. It just strikes me as wrong for him to do so, unless he has some proof that Jones is guilty.

I'm not even worried about Jones, though. He's done enough to screw up his own life that he can't really complain. I just don't like the idea of punishing anyone, regardless of how deserving of punishment they might be, for merely being accused of wrongdoing. It's too easy for that to happen to someone that did nothing wrong. I don't care about Jones, I care about the guy a few months from now that gets suspended for the season because of a false accusation. That's what I don't like, it sets a precedent.

This time, I'll agree that Jones almost certainly committed enough of the crimes he was accused of that he deserves far worse than anything Goodell can do to him. But what about next time, when some guy that didn't do anything wrong gets suspended anyway?

"What is unfair about this suspension? If Goodell is using this as a loophole, then Pac Man’s extra-curricular activities more than justify a season-long suspension."

That'd be fine, if he had proof that Jones really was guilty. If Jones really did all those things, and Goodell had more evidence than, "Where there's smoke, there's fire. He obviously committed at least some of those crimes." then it would be different. But he didn't have that evidence. He seemed to assume that Jones was guilty. In this particular case, maybe that's not such a big deal, because Jones probably is guilty, but what about the next time something like this happens? What if that guy is innocent? I'm not concerned with Jones, it's Goodell that I'm worried about.

#47: "Alex, if Jones thinks the union is a bad one, then he can help organize a new one. Happens all the time. What he can’t do is agree to be part of the union, while saying it is unfair to demand that adhere to the language of the contract he agreed to."

Actually, I was just joking there, I really don't care whether he's got a union helping him, or whether the NFLPA likes him. I was just going for a laugh with the whole "wrath of an angry Goodell" bit, to tell the truth.

"Pacman Jones is not a child."

Very true, although you have to admit, he does act like one. That's probably what confuses people.

44- This is the second time you've attempted to justify Jones' suspension by using the Las Vegas incident. Is there any evidence that Jones is responsible for the shooting?

Of course there isn't. If there were, he'd be charged.

To paraphrase the film "Reservoir Dogs", there are people that would believe that Jones started the Chicago Fire if someone accused him of it.

Also, the "poor little Pacman Jones" sarcasm is lame.

The NFLPA appealed Pacman's suspension because Pacman asked them to, and it is their job to represent him if he wants to appeal his punishment to the commissioner.

However, Upshaw has already said that should Jones lose the appeal, and wants to "go further", by attempting to go through the courts, they will join the NFL in fighting any lawsuit he files.

The NFLPA will do what it is required to do (represent him now), but they have no interest in taking a PR hit for joining Pacman's side in a lawsuit.

So, if I understand you correctly, he had a choice between an unsympathetic, ineffective union representing him, or he could face the wrath of an angry Goodell all alone?

Goodell only had absolute power because the union allows it. Had Jones not agreed to a standard NFL contract, he could've negotiated one that didn't give the commissioner absolute authority in terms of suspensions.

Whether he could've found a team willing to do that (and give him the money he wants) is another question.

Do the punishments appear to be based more on appeasing public opinion than on the merit(demerit?) of the crime?

Of course they're about appeasing public opinion. There's nothing wrong with that. The NFL isn't a justice system. It's a business, trying to maintain a public image. They're suspending people for making their job harder.

There are plenty of perfectly legal things that players do that could get them fined (which is all a suspension really is), for instance.

"Why can’t we all just admit that Goodell suspending Johnson for eight games and Jones for twice that is FILTERed up?"

BEcause a lot of us dont think it is. I, for one, wish they'd tell Pacman that he can never play again.

I dont see what the "inconsistency" you're whining about is. Yes, the punishments are tougher, but so far, they've been pretty consistent. I for one, welcome tougher penalties.

Not reporting an arrest, to say nothing of two arrests, is an extraordinarily serious breach of contract, and is fully deserving of a one year suspension, greater than what was handed out to Tank Johnson. Self-reporting is essential to the integrity of the CBA, and attempts to avoid disclosure undermine the fundamental integrity of the document. It is a fraud perpetrated on the NFL, and Roger Goodell is entirely correct to ruthlessly eliminate, by setting an extremely harsh precedent, any and all attempts by those who attempt to perpetrate a fraud on the organization that Goodell has a fiduciary duty to serve. Short of point shaving, I can't think of anything which would be a more grave offense for a player to engage in against the NFL.

Finally, I am always reluctant to conclude that I, a casual albeit enthusiastic observer, am better equipped to know the business interests of those who spend their entire professional lives, while investing vast sums of money, in any particular enterprise. No, Roger Goodell is not omnisciencient, but I really need a lot more than vague feelings about consistency or fairness before I can conclude that he has not accurately evaluated what best serves the NFL's interests.

I'm not omniscient enough to spell worth a damn.

"Clearly, Goodell was operating under the assumption that Jones had committed the other crimes he was accused, but not convicted, of. And before you start, I am well aware that he is legally entitled to make that assumption. It just strikes me as wrong for him to do so, unless he has some proof that Jones is guilty."

I think Jones going to a strip club the night before meeting with Goodell was a part of the large suspension.

I think it was so severe because Pacman doesnt seem to get that hes putting himself in these situations.

Chris (#19 and prior):

Conduct off the field reflects on the league's image, which directly effects its marketablity and thus its revenues. Therefore, employees of the league can and should be penalized for their conduct off the field.

Lou (#20): Due process only pertains to a court of law.

Kevin (#33): It's not [redacted] up, that's why we can't agree to that. Pac Man had a longer history, showed no contrition, etc. Each of these cases are different.

Will (#57): Exactly. A similar breach of contract in other circumstances would probably lead to voiding the contract, not just saying, "Hey, pal, take some time off".

It may make me a bad person, and it may be purely a sense of schadenfreude, but I smile every time that I think that Pacman went to his meeting with Goodell with an obviously-well-rehearsed speech about how he was going to clean up his life, avoid the club scene, stop hanging with the wrong crowd, saying all the right things, all the things Goodell would want to hear...only to have to sheepishly admit to the Commissioner - who already knew it anyway - that he had spent the night before the speech at a strip club.

#54: I see, that makes sense. btw, I was just joking about that.

#55: "Of course they’re about appeasing public opinion. There’s nothing wrong with that. The NFL isn’t a justice system. It’s a business, trying to maintain a public image. They’re suspending people for making their job harder."

True, but I just worry that they are going to start suspending people for things that they didn't even do, which would be a bit, unfair? Wrong? Something I don't like, anyway. That's the part that bothers me.

#57: "Not reporting an arrest, to say nothing of two arrests, is an extraordinarily serious breach of contract, and is fully deserving of a one year suspension"

It is a serious breach of contract, there I will agree. The problem is that players have done similar things before, and none of them has gotten even close to the penalty Jones got. If it were standard practice to give a 16 game suspension for such things, then I wouldn't have a problem with it. But it's not. And while Chris Henry and Tank Johnson were both given significant suspensions, neither of them was so far out of line with previous punishments for similar violations.

However, Jones' suspension wouldn't be out of line with previous punishments if he were being punished for not reporting the arrests and committing crimes such as the ones he allegedly committed. Admittedly, it's conjecture on my part, but I have a strong feeling that Goodell increased the severity of the punishment because of the other crimes Jones allegedly committed, far beyond what he would've if Jones had only failed to report the two arrests.

#59: "I think Jones going to a strip club the night before meeting with Goodell was a part of the large suspension.

I think it was so severe because Pacman doesnt seem to get that hes putting himself in these situations."

Maybe. I guess I can see that.

I there anything duller than NFL suspensions news?

Alex, I am unaware of another player failing to report two arrests (please inform me of when that has occurred previously), but even if such a precedent had been set, it is not unreasonable for a new commissioner to change the normal response to such acts, as long as the commissioner does not overstep his contractual bounds.

I will say this regarding the NFLPA, however. I am not one of those who has been very harshly critical of Upshaw. Getting guys with an average career length of about four years to focus on the long term process of building a union was a formidable task, and the players now are getting a pretty significant percentage of total revenues.

However, if what I read in PFT about Upshaw's comments directed at retired player and Hall of Famer Joe DeLamielleure is accurate, it is time for Upshaw to go. Ignoring the weakest part of Upshaw's performance, the health benefits due retired players (to be fair, getting guys in their 20s to think about health benefits when they are 60 ain't easy, either), a highly paid head of a large organization simply cannot make statements which threaten physical violence against critics, even if they weren't intended literally.

True, but I just worry that they are going to start suspending people for things that they didn’t even do, which would be a bit, unfair? Wrong? Something I don’t like, anyway. That’s the part that bothers me.

I don't think they would suspend people if they haven't done anything. Jones hasn't been convicted of a crime, but he's certainly done things.

I also agree that part of Jones's suspension - probably the major party - was because he clearly wasn't interested in changing his behavior, as evidenced by being at the night club the night before.

63 - UFL draft previews?

62: #55: “Of course they’re about appeasing public opinion. There’s nothing wrong with that. The NFL isn’t a justice system. It’s a business, trying to maintain a public image. They’re suspending people for making their job harder.�

True, but I just worry that they are going to start suspending people for things that they didn’t even do, which would be a bit, unfair? Wrong? Something I don’t like, anyway. That’s the part that bothers me.

Don't you think, however, that if they DO start to abuse the power of suspension, that the public opinion would turn on them? I certainly hope that it would, and I feel confident that it would.

Finally, I am always reluctant to conclude that I, a casual albeit enthusiastic observer, am better equipped to know the business interests of those who spend their entire professional lives, while investing vast sums of money, in any particular enterprise. No, Roger Goodell is not omnisciencient, but I really need a lot more than vague feelings about consistency or fairness before I can conclude that he has not accurately evaluated what best serves the NFL’s interests.

But, this is a sports discussion website. Has not having a fulness of information ever stopped you from critisizing a teams draft? Or a team's playcalling? Surely the NFL has its best interests at heart with their current overtime rules, have you supported a different possibility in one of those threads? Of course we need to at least hope the NFL has studied these issues more than we have, but its the offseason we need to discuss something.

wtf? i thought i posted that an hour ago. and it was meant to have a :) at the end.

Lou, comment away. I not trying to silence anybody. My point is that if one wishes to assert that Roger Goodell has made an error in assessing what is in the best interest of the NFL, the more facts that can be brought to the table the better, as opposed to vague assertions that something is unfair or inconsistent.

Think of this analogy. It is one thing to say that drafting Tavaris Jackson in the second round last year was a bad move for the Vikings, because one feels that he won't be good, based upon seeing him for a couple of games. It is much more useful, however, to say that the draft was questionable because there is substantial statistical evidence form his college career to indicate that he wasn't worth such a high pick. Both arguments come to the same conclusion, but one argument is far superior to the other.

Re #67
I wish I shared your confidence. Hanging judges tend to be pretty popular, particularly when they go after unsympathetic defendants. Goodell is savvy enough to realize that.

And that's my biggest concern. Will Allen, your point about reporting arrests being important to enforcement under the CBA is well-taken, and I believe Pacman's failure to report his arrests was unprecedented. I do not believe, however, and I don't think anyone else believes, that such failure to report was the sole reason the suspension was for 16 games, rather than 2, 4, or 8. And the ability to exercise discretion does not imply that it will be exercised wisely, as Lord Acton reminds us.

As I wrote when the suspension was issued, I believe it's likely Pacman Jones has played his last NFL game. In a league where Leonard Little is still playing, that strikes me as a travesty of justice.

Well, NtT, as Tony Soprano might say, there's a new regime in power now, and under it, I think Mr. Little would have been treated much differently. When the desire for consistency becomes reactionary in nature, and little more than a defense of an inadequate status quo, it's time for Mr. Consistency to sleep with the fishes.

Having said that, I think a suspension board would be good thing to embrace in the next CBA. Membership could consist of two league officials, two union officials, and the fifth spot could alternate each year between the Commissioner and the NFLPA President. My guess would be that penalties would not fluctuate wildly from year to year, but rather the people involved would endeavor to reach a consensus that was fairly stable and useful.

Bottom line is Pacman is a thug. Go play in the NBA if you want to act like that.

I just want to chime in to agree with post 11. Harris is a really exceptional tackle, the rest of their interior line is just decent. Harris is the key to the whole defense: with him the Bears have a great pass rush out of their front four. This lets their fast athletic linebackers drop into coverage. This helps the dbs out with the underneath routes, so they can just sit in their zones and pick off passes. Without harris, this all suffers greatly, and then the dbs have troubles struggling to cover for so long. They are used to getting that pass rush.

Fine, Goodell's change in, essentially, his mode of corporate governance from Tagliabue's more reactive stance to a more proactive one is well within his discretion. What concerns me is the concurrent, or perhaps concomitant, change from Tags' law and proven facts-oriented decision-making to Goodell's exercise of personal discretion, based on whether or not he believes a player has been sufficiently remorseful, or says and done the right things. If it had been Johnson with a history of police involvement and had lied to Goodell about avoiding strip clubs, and Jones without that history and making comments about being the NFL's Man of the Year, then my best guess if the suspensions would have been, at closest, reversed, with Johnson getting a full year and Jones getting no more than 8 games. Frankly, that's not a result I can support. Players should be punished for their actions, not the newspaper articles written about them.

NtT, I think if Jones did not have a history of trying to conceal his arrests, thus perpetrating a fraud on the league, his subsequent actions would have been viewed more lieniently, and would have resulted in a shorter suspension, subsequent to more facts about the Las Vegas matter becoming known. However, when one starts from the undeniable fact that Pacman Jones has actively tried to perpetrate a fraud on the league, it becomes extremely hard to view the subsequent behavior and explanations for it in anything but the harshest possible light. At that point, things get real ugly, real fast, and rightly so.

I appreciate Will Allen's passion about contracts. In fact we were in a long protracted and often heated discussion last year concerning contracts. I appreciated the fact that we were able to overcome the heat of the discussion and through consistent and forceful argument come to a place where we agreed on facts and agreed to disagree on matters of opinion. Will is a very forceful,consistent and eloquent voice for contract law and enforcement.

I approach contracts from more of an eastern philosophy in which the business relationship and trust is more important than the contract. From this standpoint, Pacman Jones is in even worse shape. Expectations were set when he entered the league, and they were reinforced to him after he started getting in trouble. Instead of making even a token effort at abiding by the expectations of his business partners, the NFL and Titans, he continued to endanger the business of his employer through repeatedly getting arrested. He betrayed the trust put in him and essentially announced by going to the strip club the night before, that he had no intentions of meeting the expectations placed upon him. In China his actions would have been interpreted as a deliberate statement regarding his regard for the NFL's authority. From that standpoint what is fair is a lifetime ban with a chance for reinstatement IF all of the cases turned out in his favor, plus he avoided getting arrested in the interim on any felony charge. I think he got off very light and it disturbs me to think that he might play for the NFL again before he is found not guilty in all those cases, especially the shooting.

The problem is that the careers are so short and the judicial process so long that there can be no real punishment from the NFL for felony convictions. A good lawyer can delay these trials for the length of most of these guys careers. Then the NFL has the problem of numerous players on the field with cases against them in the court system and every time their name is announced from the booth, the association between the NFL and felonies gets ever more imprinted in their fan's minds.

What scares me is that the only way to stop this thread is to start an Asante Samuel thread.

Hey, I'll start early. Samuel is well within his rights to sit out until week 10, and if he thinks that is what serves his interests best, he oughta' go for it.

Odell Thurman to be a litmus test? If the current accusations are true (seems very likely) I fully expect Thurman to get a year.

78 - morganja
"In China his actions would have been interpreted as a deliberate statement regarding his regard for the NFL’s authority."

I think it's fair to say his actions can be interpreted as an FU here as well.

"The problem is that the careers are so short and the judicial process so long that their can be no real punishment from the NFL for felony convictions. A good lawyer can delay these trials for the length of most of these guys careers."

Perhaps, Goodell's actions w/ regard to Jones will prompt more lawyers to recommend there clients plead out as quickly as possible.

79 - MM
"What scares me is that the only way to stop this thread is to start an Asante Samuel thread."

Are you being forced to read the thread?

guns are bad, mmmmmmkkkkkkkkkkaaaaaaayyyyyyyyyyyyyyy?????

RE: 82

Of course I don't have to read it, and it was meant as a snarky remark. I see that the frustration of the offseason is getting to everyone here.

re:80

"#

Hey, I’ll start early. Samuel is well within his rights to sit out until week 10, and if he thinks that is what serves his interests best, he oughta’ go for it. "

Totally agree Will.

But what are the chances that when he comes back in week 10, he can beat Eugene Wilson/Ellis Hobbs out of a starting cornerback spot, not having practiced with the team in almost a year?

The patriots have done a very good job of making subpar cornerbacks work over the last couple years, and Hobbs and Wilson are by no means subpar.

Samuel potentially being labeled as a "system player" is gonna cost him a lot more money than the sitting out 10 games will. I feel the same way about Lance Briggs.

Remeber, the replacements dont have to play as well as the starters, just well enought that theres not a hole.

There has been much discussion here of how Pacman and others have hurt or endangered the business of the NFL - I'm not so sure that I believe that.

I think the publicity properly controlled (big suspensions, public outrage by league officials etc) helps to offset the obvious negatives while the league benefits from being in the news on yet another level.

#63: Yes, it's gotten old. REAL old. PAINFULLY old. Which I think is Goodell's whole point. As it should be.

86: There has been much discussion here of how Pacman and others have hurt or endangered the business of the NFL - I’m not so sure that I believe that.

I present is evidence that image is so important: Post #74.

Rich, if your estimate of Samuel and Briggs is correct (and for all I know it may be) than the Pats and the Bears are making a mistake by not trading them now, while they are still overvalued. As I've stated before, that mistake cuts in both directions.

Personally, I did think Deion Branch was overvalued by the rest of the league, and that the Pats did very well in trading him for what they received in return. Guess will find out whether they feel the same way about Samuel. If they don't trade him, however, that's a pretty good indication that their estimate of his value approximates what Samuel thinks his value is.

Folks, again, there is no legitimate argument that accusations of illegal activity by professional athletes fails to harm revenue streams. We can find several examples of where it can be empirically proven that such harm does occur. Kobe Bryant, the Portland Trailblazers, etc., provide examples of revenue streams being harmed by accusations of illegal activity. This is not debatable.

There was a report from Washington Post reporter that Chicago has lowered trade demands for Briggs and still wasn't getting any takers... even mentioned the c-word...

"If they don’t trade him, however, that’s a pretty good indication that their estimate of his value approximates what Samuel thinks his value is."

Why? Not trading him just assures hes going to NOT PLAY another year, and cost atleast 20% more.

Them not trading him may very well mean that nobody WANTS him for what they want for him. IE the Briggs thing... people keep saying a 1st roudner for Briggs would be a great deal... and yet teams would rather trade back a year than grab him.

Not trading him now only hurts them if they can't get him to sign for what they want him to sign for.. which seems to be the case at this point, because like Branch, his agent is refusing to talk to the patriots.

Trade value is often harmed by open and prolonged acrimiony between a player and a team, because other teams perceive that the well has been so poisoned that the player will never take the field for his present team again, no matter what, rendering a cut inevitable. If a team really believes that a player on it's roster, and at the end of his contract, is greatly overvalued by the rest of the league, it should avoid letting matters turn into a public spat, and execute a reasonable trade at first opportunity, instead of holding out for an ambitious price.

#80: "Hey, I’ll start early. Samuel is well within his rights to sit out until week 10, and if he thinks that is what serves his interests best, he oughta’ go for it."

Within his rights? Sure, nobody can force him to come to work. But that's the same for just about anyone. Would it be in his best interest? I highly doubt that. As I understand it, he would lose a significant portion of his salary if he held out that long, and for what? To get back at the Patriots? To avoid 10 games of injury risk? I don't see that as a smart idea.

If I'm his agent, I tell him to show up for the last week or two of training camp to make sure he doesn't lose his starting job or anything like that, and then play all 16 games like he's got something to prove, collect his ridiculously large amount of money from the Pats, and then parlay his excellent season into an even more ridiculously large amount of money from some other team.

90. Those are specific examples where an individual or individual team suffered, but the NFL has seen revenues grow and grow as the number of arrests climbs and media coverage of the same soars. You can't say you fully understand the relationship between the popularity of the NFL and the large amount of publicity it gains through the illegal activities of some of its players.

Certainly the NBA made an attempt to clean up it's image by making the players dress "white" and not hip hop in an effort many believe to distance the NBA image from a criminal element. League revenues aren't exactly sky rocketing subsequent to these efforts.

Rich, why would the Pats want to pay 20% more next year, over this year's franchise tag, for a guy they don't think is that good? If the player is confident in his value, then holding out until week 10 two years in a row, and thus avoiding 18 games of injury risk, is not an unreasonable strategy, especially coming off his rookie contract.

I've said this before as well, and I will repeat it. It would be logical for such a young player, in response to a team which aggressively used the franchise designation, to show up in week 10, "tweak a hamstring" in the first practice, and collect checks for several weeks, perhaps only returning to the field in week 16 or so. Based on what little price such bad actors as T.O. have paid, I don't think a young dominant player would pay much of a price in the open market for such behavior, especially if he had no prior instances of bad behavior. An agent could credibly inform teams that his client was never a problem until he was franchised, and never would be one again absent being franchised again.

The problem is that players have done similar things before, and none of them has gotten even close to the penalty Jones got. If it were standard practice to give a 16 game suspension for such things, then I wouldn’t have a problem with it.

How do you initiate change and force people to improve their behavior in public if you are forced to conform to standard practice?

"If you always do what you've always done, you'll always get what you've always gotten."

Jim, given the structure of the NFL, any reduction in merchandise sales harms the entire league, not just individual teams and players. The fact that overall revenues have grown is not indicative of anything. Opportunity cost exists.

Will Allen

Your point about sitting out and then 'tweaking a hamstring' is best demonstrated by Charles Woodson. He played two seasons under the fanchise tag and would play for six games or so and then basically sit out with leg injuries. He eventually got his pay day after receiving two years of franchise game cheques. If you are going to hold out, play the first six games not the last six.

Alex, look at Briggs' situation. If he accepts the franchise tag this year, avoids a hideous injury, plays well, and the Bears tag him again, he will earn just short of 16 million. In contrast, he can make it known to the Bears that he will be as poisonous and cancerous as possible to the rest of the organization, while never explicitly violating the terms of his contract, show up in week 10 in that poisonous, cancerous, state, and do so again next year if need be. He would thus earn about 7.5 million, and avoid about 18 games of injury risk. It's a credible threat, and puts in place a perverse incentive for Briggs to do everything he can to sabotage the Bears' efforts, while staying within the terms of his contract, in hopes of forcing a trade or being cut.

When the provision of a collective bargaining contract becomes a near-constant source of extreme acrimony between highly skilled workers and management, it is reasonable to conclude that the provision is unwise for all parties involved. I think it can be said that the franchise designation has reached that point.

Good point, james. The franchise tag poisons the well with far greater frequency than it is worth. The owners are making a mistake by insisting it remain in place.

Re #97
By making your expectations clear, making gradual rather than abrupt changes, and by making decisions on things other than what the decision-maker feels. As I've tried to make clear, my problem is not that Pacman Jones was suspended for a year, but that he was suspended for a year in part because he annoyed Roger Goodell.

I also believe Goodell acted the way he did because he was working from a false premise, namely that the actions of a relatively small number of players pose an important threat to the NFL as a whole. Fine, as Will Allen noted, maybe we give him the benefit of the doubt, since he's probably looked into the issue of just how big an issue player conduct is and how much impact it has on revenue. Remember, though, that Goodell's entire adult life has been working for the NFL (I don't think one season with the Jets counts as interestingly different). Insiders of that kind may have a different perspective from outsiders, leading to excess concentration on perceived slights and hyper-protectiveness towards what they value. This sort of zealousness may actually be counterproductive, resulting in a backlash that leads to precisely the result he doesn't want. And I believe Goodell's actions have had that effect, by keeping the names and deeds of the miscreant players in the news longer than they would otherwise have been. This may easily more than counterbalance the approving headlines the NFL gets from Goodell's actions.

Football's a great enough game, and the NFL is rich enough, they can withstand whatever obstacles Goodell's actions may bring about. But that doesn't mean either will be better or stronger than when Goodell took over, and I believe it's a much riskier strategy than Tags' "steady hand on the tiller" approach.

I don't get the "I must avoid injury risk!!" panic. Samuel, and Briggs, and Freeney, etc. - are all being offered roughly $8-9M/year.

Sign it, play under it happily, and use $1M of it to take out a $30-50M injury insurance policy. Problem solved, and they would almost definitely come out ahead monetarily.

#67: "Don’t you think, however, that if they DO start to abuse the power of suspension, that the public opinion would turn on them? I certainly hope that it would, and I feel confident that it would."

First, no, I don't think public opinion would turn on them.

Second, what if it's not so obvious that they're abusing their power? What about this scenario:

Player X gets accused of beating his wife. But in reality, he never laid a hand on her, and she just made the whole thing up for whatever reason. Maybe she wants a divorce, or maybe she's just crazy, who knows.

Now, how many people are going to turn on the news, see his photo with a caption saying that he'd been arrested for domestic abuse, listen to interviews with a sobbing woman telling of her husband's violence, and think, "You know, he might be innocent. The commissioner should probably wait until Player X is convicted in a court of law before he suspends him for a year/for life." A handful of people? None at all?

It's pretty easy to get people to believe someone is guilty without any evidence at all. All you need to do is accuse them of a serious, violent crime, especially if their "victim" is seen as helpless or vulnerable, and then get the media to tell everyone about it. Most people will probably just assume he did it, even if they don't see a scrap of evidence presented.

Oh, and denying it won't help the guy, either. People know that he's just lying through his teeth, the rotten, wife-beating, scum!

You see the problem?

In response to the whole Goodwell cracking down saga:

IMO the fact that we are even talking about this is disgusting. We have a criminal justice system for a reason. To punish criminals.

While the NFL is within it's rights to punish the players as it deems fit, it seems like a pathetic compromise to me.

The fact that the rich rarely get convicted of anything is the problem. It would have been much more beneficial to society as a whole if the NFL had said "Don't blame us, blame the people you elected who allow this to continue".

Instead our justice system remains disgustingly broken and unfair while idiots claim victory because the NFL is doing the job our country can't. It's not victory, it's a loss.

88 -

I think strictly from a business point of view these suspensions have mostly served to elevate Goodell's profile.

He took over for an almost universally well-liked, well-respected predecessor - no easy task in any line of work - and has used these suspensions to quickly establish himself as a strong executive. I think it's fair to say that most fans now see him as a worthy successor to Tags.

What if Jones and Henry and Johnson hadn't been suspended? Would it hurt attendance, ratings, or sponsorship one bit this season? My guess is no way. But would it lead to insinuations that Goodell isn't up to the job? Oh, I think absolutely.

Whether you support the suspensions or not I think you have to admit that Goodell's motivation is at least partly self-serving.

"Rich, why would the Pats want to pay 20% more next year, over this year’s franchise tag, for a guy they don’t think is that good? "

Will, thats not what I was insinuating. What I was trying to say is that not trading him only gives them two options: 1, lose him and get nothing. 2, franchise him again, and get another 6 games.

Whether or not hes that good, its in their best interest to trade him in every case except him signing to a long term deal that is at a favorable price to them.

91: I'm shocked that a paper in Washington, home of the Redskins who have shown great interest in Briggs, would print a story saying the value is declining and maybe the Bears would even cut Briggs. Shocked, I tell you!

That article is an obvious attempt at wishful thinking for the Redskins, who probably still want him. I think the Bears still think Briggs will play the whole season.

Mikey, NtT, I don't think Goodell is trying to generate favorable headlines in the short term. I think he is trying to modify the behavior of a small group of people, and thus maximize revenues.

Now, we can have suppose one of two things. Either the small group of people, on average, have the learning capacity of the typical single-celled animal, and thus they will not modify their behavior in response to negative outcomes, or they have, on average, the learning capacity of a typical human being, and thus many will modify their behavior. Which is more likely?

Oh, I agree, Rich. That was my point; that if a team thinks a guy is not actually worth what he would command on the free market, they should trade him shortly after the season ends, rather than franchise him. Let somebody else overpay him, get a good draft pick(s), in order to obtain more young talent you can get at below-market prices.

I think many teams overestimate the value of franchising players.

I think that franchising players with the intent of making them play the year under the franchise marker is counter-productive, especially if you take into account the effect it has on other players on the team. It is a poor system that has been abused to the point that it is harmful to all parties involved. Instead of allowing teams to retain the services of a player who is the heart and soul of the team, it is causing the fans to either hate the star player or hate the team. A perfect lose-lose situation from the NFL's perspective.

I like the idea of playing lights-out for the first six weeks, making yourself indispensable to the team, and then in week seven, taking a trip to Jerusalem to see the Holy Sights and then down to Africa for a safari, India, a tour of the Himalayas, maybe down to Australia for some beach lounging, a leisurely trip around the world with the entire family. As long as your team mates know that you would love to play with them, but it is a business decision forced onto you by the team management, than I think that all the pressure and blame is on management. You still get your season counted and have plenty of time to get ready for the next year.

I downloaded a standard residential lease for my tenant the other day and just happened to glance at section 280 or whatever it was and noted that it said that any illegal activity on the premises was ground for immediate eviction. It specifically went on to say that a conviction was not necessary, only a preponderance of the evidence.
It seems that this is the same case with Pacman Jones and Michael Vick. Between a conviction and arbitrary punishments based on personal opinion, there is the legal concept of preponderance of the evidence. Not enough to convict in a court of law, but certainly enough to fire someone, especially someone with a behavior code written into their contract.

Pacman Jones long ago passed the point of preponderance of evidence. It seems Vick has as well.

With harsh penalties handed down now, I think the result will be less arrests in the future, and less bad press for the NFL. While some will never learn, there is surely a segment of the at risk population that will think about their actions before they get themselves into trouble if they KNOW that the NFL will come down hard on them. An NFL football player is who a lot of these people are. Whatever else they do, many don't want to lose that.

#100: "If he accepts the franchise tag this year, avoids a hideous injury, plays well, and the Bears tag him again, he will earn just short of 16 million. In contrast, he can make it known to the Bears that he will be as poisonous and cancerous as possible to the rest of the organization, while never explicitly violating the terms of his contract, show up in week 10 in that poisonous, cancerous, state, and do so again next year if need be. He would thus earn about 7.5 million, and avoid about 18 games of injury risk."

So, wait, he's giving up 8.5 million over the next two years to avoid 18 games worth of injury risk. That's over $470,000 per game. There's no way injury risk is high enough that almost half a million dollars a game isn't enough. And let's not forget, while he's busy sitting at home being angry, he isn't getting any younger, and he can't get those two years back. So he's giving up 8.5 million, in exchange for what? Making the Bears miserable? I don't see that helping anyone that much.

What if he goes in, tells the Bears that if they agree not to franchise him again, he'll sign on for this year, play all 16 games, and then ride off into the sunset of free agency. He gets 7 million this year, then gets to go to the highest bidder next year, makes tons of money, and doesn't have to harbor bitterness and spite in the depths of his soul for all eternity. Call me crazy, but I don't think that's such a bad idea.

And if they won't agree not to franchise him again, then he just plays for two years, and then goes off into free agency after making 16 million, and no hard feelings. I just don't see why he would benefit from sitting at home in what would certainly be some of the most lucrative years of his career.

#104: "The fact that the rich rarely get convicted of anything is the problem."

Perhaps, but hey, look at Tank Johnson. I believe he's quite rich, and last I heard, he was quite convicted too.

Alex, you entirely understimate how much disruption a superstar can create, if he is highly motivated to do so. The point is to do everything, and I mean everything, contractually available to impede the team's success, while drawing a paycheck for seven weeks. That is the incentive the franchise designation creates, because a superstar must, if he is going to serve his best interests, be painful enough to deal with that the team doesn't want to franchise him two years in a row. Some players are successful in their efforts.

Re #108
C'mon, Will, there's no need to be so perjorative. The actions of Jones and Henry in particular appear to be part of a well-ingrained pattern of behavior from which they have seemingly been unwilling or unable to depart. Quite irrespective of, and prior to, any suspension levied by Goodell, their actions have jeopardized their relationship with their employers (their team) and their professional colleagues (teammates). In as small of a universe as the NFL, those negative effects will surely be noted by their prospective future employers and professional colleagues. Thus, their actions were the result of a cognition failure, which means that treating them as perfectly rational actors is not necessarily a good solution. In fact, the people you're most likely to persuade are those you're least likely to need to persuade.

#114: "Alex, you entirely understimate how much disruption a superstar can create, if he is highly motivated to do so."

I'm an Eagles fan, Will. Trust me, I know all too well just how much disruption a disgruntled "superstar" can create. In fact, I've been trying to forget. Thanks for bringing up all the happy memories, though.

"a superstar must, if he is going to serve his best interests, be painful enough to deal with that the team doesn’t want to franchise him two years in a row. Some players are successful in their efforts."

Why wouldn't he want to be franchised for two years in a row?! That would make him 16 million dollars! And you know how old Lance Briggs would be after making all that money in just two short years? Younger than Adalius Thomas is now! He would still get a ridiculously big contract in free agency, and he wouldn't have to become the most hated person in the NFL, or miss any games (and the paychecks that go with them).

It's in his best interest to play as many games as possible in the next few years, provided he is being well-paid for each of them. The best way for that to happen is for him to play 16 games for the Bears next season, and then, if they franchise him again, to play 16 more games for the Bears. Then, he can play as many games as he wants for someone else.

NtT, I wasn't trying to be pejorative; just a poor attempt at humor, I guess. Seriously, though, is it your position that such a huge percentage of the guys who are currently running afoul of the law are so immune to behavior modification via disincentives that it is useless to try? Whether Henry or Jones are or not is almost irrelevant. What matters is how many other guys are. A 20% reduction in arrests, and no repeats of guys concealing arrests is a reasonable goal, and well worth the effort. No, these guys aren't choirboys, but very, very, few of them are candidates for Pelican Bay or Attica, either. It is possible to modify their behavior.

Alex would you rather have 16 million over two years if you don't get injured severely prior to year two, or 22 million over two years, guaranteed? That's why you don't want to be franchised two years in a row.

Do you really think the guys who bitterly resent the franchise designation are just unenlightened? Guys go to war over being franchised because it is quite reasonable to do so.

(Didn't know where to post this, so this thread will have to do)

Any word on if we will be mentioned in the book? I asked this a couple months ago. I was thinking good ol' Mul Dawg could get a shot out in the Eagles or Alex Smith section. Throw a Bobman post in the Colts section, show Pacifist Viking a little love in the Vikings section. Mention Bronco Jeff and Raiderjoe in their team's sections.
Maybe you sprinkle Yaguar in the Colts section.

You know, something like, "The Eagles will be improved this year. The Mul Dawg and his Eagle brethren will be proud of their team in 2007."

Again, go look at what Adalius Thomas, a considerably older and thus less valuable player received, versus what Briggs is scheduled to get if he gets franchised two years in a row. It is not unreasonable for Briggs to decide to go nuclear on the Chicago Bears. This is why the franchise designation provision of the cba has become so counterproductive. It puts in place all manner of unhelpful incentives.

RE: Sitting out 10 games/Signing the franchise tag

I think we need to remember that Brigg's and Samuel's threats to sit out the first ten games are only negotiation tactics at this point. By signing the franchise offer now, Samuel and Briggs would lose leverage. Since any leverage is so hard to obtain for players under the current CBA, they would be fools to sign the franchise offers now. I would be just as surprised if they both signed their franchise offers right now as if either one were to sit out a full ten games next season. The agents and the general managers are just playing chicken right now.

#118: "Alex would you rather have 16 million over two years if you don’t get injured severely prior to year two, or 22 million over two years, guaranteed?"

I'd personally rather get 16 million over the first two years, and then get 22 million the next two years. I wouldn't want to get 3.5 million this year, only to get that same 22 million over the next two years. Even assuming I get another 11 million in the third year of my new contract, my four year earnings are 36.5 million, whereas if I'm franchised twice, I get 38 million over four years, and people don't hate me - additional non-monetary compensation. ;)

As for injury risk, they have insurance for that.

I think the Bears won't tag Briggs again if he plays the year. That's the sense I have of the comments made by Jerry Angelo. No hard proof, but thats what I think. Angelo doesn't like to use the franchise tag btu did because his is thinking, rightly, that the superbowl window for the Bears is closing rapidly. Get Briggs on teh field for one more year to try to maximise that and if it doesn't work, then let him go, because he's not the difference maker then.

Alex, by your reasoning, players should request to be franchised. Is the fact that they do not indicative that they do not know what is in their best interest? Do you truly believe that all those players who bitterly resent the franchise designation simply lack your insight as to what is best for themselves?

MM, Deion Branch and his agent weren't just playing chicken.

#118: or 22 million over two years, guaranteed?

It's not $22M over two years, guaranteed. It's $22M over two years as part of a multiyear contract. There's a big difference - in one case you get another big contract in year 3, in the other, you don't.

The injury risk you can calculate, and privately insure. A $6M policy won't cost more than ~$200K.

If you look at the players who actually played under a franchise contract, and add their franchise contract with the contract they get the next year (or whenever they hit free agency) and compare it to players who hit free agency that year, the franchise players are always ahead. Walter Jones being the prime example, but also Edgerrin James, plus others.

The holdout threat is smoke and mirrors unless the player hates the team. Come the beginning of the season, they'll play.

re:119

I am new to this site. Could you please explain what the heck you are talking about? What book do you want to be in?

Tell me, pat, what generates hate for the team? Also, if franchising is so advantageous, why don't they request it, instead of fighting it? Are they too ignorant to understand what is best for them?

#124: "Alex, by your reasoning, players should request to be franchised."

No, by my reasoning, they shouldn't fight a franchise tag if it is used on them, because they won't make as much money in the long run as they would if they just played all the games. Losing most of a season, and most of that season's salary, to a holdout hurts their earnings. That's something they should avoid.

Only, Alex, if you assume that a player can't cause so much pain that he forces his way out fairly quickly. We have enough cases to now see that there is no reason to make such an assumption. Deion Branch did well for himself by going nuclear. Of course, we'll never see a qb franchised, because qbs have unique ability to inflict pain on a team.

Look, we have already seen teams begin to see the downside of franchising. The Seahawks got jammed by the Steve Hutchinson poison pill because they didn't want to get into extended hostilities with him over being franchised eventually. The Ravens are showing a reluctance to go down that road. The players, of course, nearly universally despise the practice. When labor hates a practice, and significant elements of management begin to question it's usefulness, it's time to get rid of it.

Tell me, pat, what generates hate for the team?

The team telling them "we don't think you're worth the cost of a long-term contract to us."

Also, if franchising is so advantageous, why don’t they request it, instead of fighting it?

It's advantageous to the player, but it typically requires more than one team. You don't say "please franchise me" because you want someone to sign you to a long term contract, and the only team that has rights is the team you're on.

Hell, most of the time I think that the players - and management! - are completely blowing smoke. I think most of the time the franchise tag is just used to buy time for a contract negotiation.

Think about what a franchise tender says to a team. You've either got someone you want to hold onto long term, but will cost a lot, or someone you're not interested in keeping long term. If it's the latter, you'd entertain trade offers.

If it's the former, however, the franchise tag takes the immediate pressure off of the negotiations. You don't have to get a deal done - so when Samuel's agent comes and says "we want 8 years, $100M," you can say "yeah, whatever" and walk away from the table. There's no pressure on the negotiating team.

Threatening to hold out is the only pressure that a franchising player has left. They don't plan on doing it, just like the team doesn't plan on letting the player go. It's just a negotiating tactic.

Pat, a negotoiating tactic is only useful if it's credible. The minute something becomes "just a negotiating tactic", it's completely useless.

Pat, if a provision of a cba consistently generates ill-will, it is quite likely the provison has outlived it's usefulness. I predict it will be gone, or greatly truncated, in the next cba. The players hate it, and the more teams seems to be seeing the downside franchising as well. Again, the franchise designation puts in place very perverse incentives, and perverse incentives don't serve anybody well.

Pat, a negotoiating tactic is only useful if it’s credible. The minute something becomes “just a negotiating tactic�, it’s completely useless.

Why do you think they're so public about it? They need to make it appear credible. The appearance of credibility is typically enough. I can say "give me a break, it's just a negotiating tactic" - but I don't have any downside if I'm wrong. If you're the Patriots, do you really want to risk that?

Pat, if a provision of a cba consistently generates ill-will, it is quite likely the provison has outlived it’s usefulness.

You say it's generating ill will. Why? Because Briggs, Samuel, and a bajillion other people have threatened to hold out? So what? How many of them actually have?

Until Samuel/Briggs actually do hold out, I don't buy it. It's just players leveraging the only thing they can.

Pat, something can't appear credible unless it is occasionally followed through on, like Deon Branch did. The appearance of credibility is dependent on a hostage getting shot occasionally, to employ a somewhat grotesque analogy. That's a perverse incentive. You say that players only shoot the hostage when they hate the team, and they hate the team when they are prevented by the Franchise tag from getting the long term deal they want. That sounds like the creation of ill-will to me. What's it sound like to you?

Let me spell it out.

The only way a player would hold out through the actual season itself on a franchise tag is if he really disliked the team - dislike bordering on hate, even (Branch holding out is different, as the salary was paltry).

How many players have held out while under the franchise tag through the actual season?

Hence my belief that the hatred of the franchise tag is mostly for the media/negotiations.

Yes, Pat, and you stated that, "The team telling them “we don’t think you’re worth the cost of a long-term contract to us.�" generates hatred. Is not hatred a good synonym for ill-will?

If a negotiating tactic is going to appear to be credible, and not become completely uselss, occasionally the threat needs to be followed through on. This may be the year it happens.

I dont see why Branch keeps coming up.

He has NOTHING to do with the franchise tag. Theres a big difference between a guy making $400K a year talking about holding out because of injury risk, and a guy making $7m a year holding out.

#134: "Pat, something can’t appear credible unless it is occasionally followed through on, like Deon Branch did."

I'm with Rich on this one, Branch has nothing to do with this, he wasn't tagged. And he only missed two games, and he wouldn't have made that much money in either of them, anyway. Completely different from a franchise player.

#124: "Do you truly believe that all those players who bitterly resent the franchise designation simply lack your insight as to what is best for themselves?"

No, they lack Walter Jones' insight regarding the franchise tag.

Yes, Alex, eventually it worked out great for Jones. Of course, your link also said this....

"Jones told us on Friday that he hated being the franchise player at first, but then realized it was a favorable situation."

....and in the long run, putting highly paid, highly valued, employees in situations they hate, even if only initially, is not a wise management practice. There's a reason why the Seahawks went down the road they did with Hutchinson, rather than eventually franchising him.

Also note that he never went to training camp, that he plays LT, a position hardly anyone ever gets injured, compared to other positions, and for which the length of the career is one of the longest.

Not having players in training camp is certainly not in the best interest of the team, or we would be seeing a whole lot less training camps.

Most teams don't use it, especially not to try to get someone to play under it. I think it is just a matter of time before it is gone.

On a related note to the Tank Johnson suspension. The Surry, VA county Sheriff reported that people can place Vick at the property engaged in dog-fighting.

It sure looks as if Vick is going to be charged this summer. If he is, I think Goodell will give him a year's suspension. With a possible conviction next year, we could very well have seen the last of Vick playing football.

Not just that, morganja. Having one of, if not THE, highest paid guy skip training camp is especially problematic, particularly on a team without a lot of other players well-suited to provide leadership. Ask any coach about the value of having the highest paid guy visibly giving a top effort in practice every day.

I don't know how bad things are going to get for Vick, but he really is on the precipice of being considered for the list of all-time busts, considering how much cap space the guy has consumed, and for how long.

Will Allen

I am unsure why you bring Hutchinson up as an example of good use of tags by a team. The Seahawks wanted to keep Hutch and Holmgren was seriously pissed when they only used the transition tag to save $900k in cap room. The Hawks should have used the franchise tag, especially as Hutch was pissed that they hadn't looked after him earlier after promising to do so. That may be a difference between most situations and the one that Briggs is in, namely that Briggs and his people were warned nearly two years ago that the tag was coming and they did nothing to avoid it.

James C., Holmgren is on record as saying that they used the transition tag because they didn't want to go down the road they did with Jones, but instead wanted to give Hutchinson the opportunity to explore what his market value might be, and then sign the long term deal with the Seahawks. They just didn't anticipate a team deploying elements in their offer which were essentially unmatchable. The Seahawks had come to see the downside of franchising players.

#139: "….and in the long run, putting highly paid, highly valued, employees in situations they hate, even if only initially, is not a wise management practice."

I don't recall arguing that it was wise for a team to franchise a player. I'm arguing that it's wise for a player to play all 16 games if they are franchised. And I think Walter Jones is a good example of why it's a good idea to do that, and also why players might be upset about it despite that fact.

#140: "Not having players in training camp is certainly not in the best interest of the team, or we would be seeing a whole lot less training camps."

I don't think it matters all that much for an elite LT. He played very well during each of those three seasons under the tag (Pro Bowl each year), and the Seahawks had a good offense throughout (11th, 5th, and 12th by DVOA), so I don't see how it was such a big problem. Training camp is more important for the younger players that haven't learned the team's playbook, system, etc. He already knew the system and had experience in it, otherwise he would not have been franchised. Would it have been nice to have him in training camp? Sure, but I don't think he really needed to be there that much.

137- Branch was scheduled to make just over $1 M in 2006.

The franchise tag had everything to do with Branch;s situation, as he repeatedly stated that he'd come to camp and finish up his contract if the Patriots agreed not to franchise him after the 2006 season.

Also, in the various Branch threads here last summer, you had plenty of objections to his holdout.

Alex, only if you assume that a player is incapable of inflicting enough pain to get out of the Franchise designation quickly. The reason qbs don't get franchised is that they quite plainly are capable of this. It is a mistake to think that they are the only players who can do so, and as time goes on, if the franchise designation remains the way it is now, I think we will see proof of this.

Will

I have heard the exact opposite story about Holmgren's view on Hutchinson's tag. Without a post from Mr Holmgren we may have to agree to disagree on this one. Ho hum.

#148: "only if you assume that a player is incapable of inflicting enough pain to get out of the Franchise designation quickly."

Well, if they can get out of it before the season starts, or within a few games, that's one thing. But you suggested that it would be in their best interest to hold out until Week 10 for two years in a row. That's crazy. If a team is determined to keep them, then they might as well get paid.

My point is that they don't need to go around inflicting pain on people, or teams. It's not that they can't, but there's just no point. They're not likely to get out of their contract all that quickly, and even if they do manage to pull it off, they probably won't earn much more in the long run. They just need to make sure that they play as many games as they can, as long as they're getting well paid for them. Franchise players get paid very well, and they get to become free agents soon anyway, so they should play every game they can.

In the case of Lance Briggs, he could get franchised three times and still be younger than Joey Porter was when he got a contract with $20 million guaranteed. And in three years with the franchise tag, Briggs would get over $25 million, and then he'd probably get a long term contract with guaranteed money in the neighborhood of $20 million. I don't think he'd get more than $45 million over the next four years as a free agent.

If he's only franchised twice, he'd get $15 million in the first two years, and then probably more than $20 million guaranteed on a long term contract. So, unless he's going to get more than $35 million over the next three years as a free agent, I don't think he'd be any better off than he would with a couple franchise tags.

Yes, Alex, and that it is why it can serve Briggs' interests to do EVERYTHING he can to blow up the Bears as fast as possible, to get to be a free agent as fast as possible, in order to get to the free agent market once more, while he is still relatively young. Who knows what the cap will be in 2011? If Briggs can get to the free agent market again by then, he'll get to experence the results first hand. In order to do that, he must convince the Bears today that he will go nuclear. It is the madman theory of international diplomacy, transferred to the NFL. Kissinger formalized the theory (certainly others practiced it prior to then without stating it formally) in the late '50s at Harvard, at it really can be a useful way to conduct negotiations.

Re 148:

What about Drew Brees? Every position can be franchised. The reason you don't see many QBs get franchised is that either they aren't worth it, or they are the face of the franchise, and it would be unseemly to tag them.

Tom, I don't really know what you mean by "unseemly". Teams don't franchise guys that they don't think are worth it, no matter what position they play.

"It sure looks as if Vick is going to be charged this summer. If he is, I think Goodell will give him a year’s suspension. With a possible conviction next year, we could very well have seen the last of Vick playing football."

If he gets convicted and does time, maybe Vick can play for the Mean Machine in prison. Court TV could televise the games. And after he gets out, maybe he could play in the UFL if it's still around.

Teams don't franchise QBs because if a QB is worth franchising, what the freaking hell are you doing letting him go?

Hence the reason Brees was franchised, due to the dumb luck of having two franchise QBs on the roster.

Pat, if any player is worth franchising, what the freaking hell are you doing letting him go? A guy is either worth what he can command on the open market, or he is not. If he is, sign him to such a deal. If he's not, trade him before his contract expires, especially if other teams are overvaluing him by thinking he is worth that much.

Pat, if any player is worth franchising, what the freaking hell are you doing letting him go?

Because for players other than QBs, they're often past the point of diminishing returns. As in, they're worth, say, $7M/year on the open market, but they won't contribute enough to the team to justify that.

Quarterbacks always justify that cost.

Besides TO has any other player gone nuclear? Maybe I just can't remember any one else. I think that the risk of going nuclear is getting labeled as a high risk guy. Granted it worked for TO which is why I'm asking for any other names.

Papers in Chicago had stories about other GMs talking to Angelo and telling him to hold the line with Briggs and not give into the agent. Are we approaching a point where there is a shift coming (ie Briggs goes nuclear, but because he isn't seen as a must have talent, no one wants the problems he brings?) TO is a highly skilled offensive weapon (or was) where as Briggs benefits from being a Lovie-2 LB playing in the perfect scheme.

Will, can you look at the other side for a minute and give me any senarios where a player might hurt his position by going nuclear?

Brasilbear

The best known stories about a player taking the nuclear option to get himself traded would probably be Charles Haley. He was mad at the Niners management for letting Ronnie Lott go and demanded to be traded. The niners responded by signing Tim Harris as insurance against a hold-out and Haley took his disruption to a whole new level. The whole team was walking out of a team meeting one morning to find Haley urinating into Harris' convertible, and apparently there were other incidents in team meetings that I have only seen being reffered to as 'much worse' and 'disgusting'. I have no idea what the other behaviour was, only that it was sufficiently bad that he got his trade pretty quickly.

I have no idea if this stuff is in Rosenhaus' playbook.

Pat, if a player is worth a lot more on the open market than he is to you, logic dictates a trade.

Well, brasilbear, a player who overestimates the demand for his services would be the prime example.

If other GMs are communicating with Angelo in the manner you speak, boy, I'm no expert, but that sounds close to collusion to me.

WARNING: non-lawyer speaking

If all the teams communicated together that we will not sign player X because of y behavior, that collusion.

If teams decided internally that signing player x wasn't worth it because of the disruption he brings, is this still collusion?

Has there been a player who was shunned by the league because of his baggage not because of criminal matters? If so, can that player claim collusion, or did he bring his non-employment on himself through his behavior?

"The franchise tag had everything to do with Branch;s situation, as he repeatedly stated that he’d come to camp and finish up his contract if the Patriots agreed not to franchise him after the 2006 season."

Yes Kevin, but it has absolutely nothing to do with this situation, or the wiseness of holding out. He was making $62K per game. Briggs is making $480K per game. That makes the risk analysis completely different.

Branch wasnt going to lose a lot of money by holding out...briggs is.

brasilbear, it is the getting on the phone and talking to Angelo about it where the ol' collusionometer might start redlining. Internal decisions are great. Getting on the phone and encouraging another gm to make a certain sort of decision regarding a player's contract seems extremely suspect to me. Sort of like the CEO of United Airlines calling up the CEO of American Airlines, and encouraging him to stick with a certain pricing decision on the Chicago-Dallas route. I don't think the explanation of, "Well, we already had made our own inrernal decision." would fly.

In Brigg's favor is the fact that teams have the collective IQ of ..... (insert group here) and always seem to fall over themselves to pay over-rated players lots and lots of money.

Do you think that a player (non-prima-donna position) could ever go so nuclear that teams shy away based on past behavior?

159: Wow, I had never heard that story regarding Haley before.
It brings up some interesting thoughts...
1) I would think that if a player started vandalizing other players things, all it would do would ensure that both management and the players were against him. That doesn't exactly sound like tearing a team apart, but rather unifying it against one grade-A jerk.
2) If I were the 49ers management, I would have started pressing charges for every little thing Haley did. Force him to face the consequences for his actions.
3) Couldn't a franchise suspend a player like that and prevent him from showing up at the team's facilities? Didn't the Eagles do something similar with T.O., and the Buccaneers with Keyshawn?
Number 3 seems like the most logical action if a player "goes nuclear." If a player is angry enough to try and destroy the team, then all bridges have been burned. If you're management, why not just keep him away from the facilities? At least it would save the team.
And another thing: if a player is holding out, what is he doing on team propery at all? This seems like another thing that the team could press charges for.

Sure, if he wasn't good enough. If he was truly dominant, however, and only had any issues after he had been franchised, I think his agent could sell the notion that the guy simply won't tolerate being franchised, but as long that never occurred again, there wouldn't be any problems. I mean, look at Owens. He had a track record of being a disaster of an employee FOR YEARS, was well into his thirties, had an extensive injury history, and still got very large money. A guy shy of thirty, no previous behavior issues, and without a history of significant injuries, would find plenty of interest, even at positions, like maybe safety, which are commonly perceived to be less important. As long as he had performed at a high enough level.

#151: "Yes, Alex, and that it is why it can serve Briggs’ interests to do EVERYTHING he can to blow up the Bears as fast as possible, to get to be a free agent as fast as possible, in order to get to the free agent market once more, while he is still relatively young. Who knows what the cap will be in 2011? If Briggs can get to the free agent market again by then, he’ll get to experence the results first hand. In order to do that, he must convince the Bears today that he will go nuclear."

Couldn't he just ask for a slightly shorter contract in free agency after his one year under the franchise tag? That way, he'd get the 7 million from this year, big money in his first free agent contract, and then he'd be just as likely to get more big money in his second free agent contract. I don't see how he's really hurt by the franchise tag.

And btw, while I can understand your argument that he should be really ruthless in order to maximize his earnings, I'm of the opinion that there's more to life than just maximizing one's earnings. If I already had enough money to live a luxurious lifestyle off the interest it gained alone, then earning even more money would become a lot less important to me. Other things, like professional success (Super Bowl rings), or maybe the respect and admiration from fans, might be a little higher on my priority list than another million dollars that I might never even be able to spend.

TO might have more money now than he would've if he'd never gone nuclear (although that's not necessarily the case, I've read that Philadelphia was planning to pay him more before he publicly demanded it), but now basically everybody in Philadelphia (and many people elsewhere) hate his guts. Capitalist economy or not, money isn't the only thing that matters in life.

#165: "In Brigg’s favor is the fact that teams have the collective IQ of ….. (insert group here) and always seem to fall over themselves to pay over-rated players lots and lots of money."

True, but he would still be overrated, and get paid lots of money, after spending a year under the franchise tag. And he'd already have 7 million in the bank.

Eddo, I, too am surprised that the 49ers let Haley get away with all of that stuff, especially given the CBA of that era, which gave teams much more leeway in dealing with disruptive players. The CBA now is far more restricitve to teams, although I still think Haley's behavior could be dealt with. A well-lawyered player, however, could repeatedly walk right up to the line on repeated occasions, and cause a great deal of trouble.

This is why I think the next cba will truncate the frachise designation even more; the logic for a player to go to war with a team that franchises him is too compelling, and over time, I think we'll see more bitter disputes. If the franchise tag is not going to be discarded completely, which I think makes the most sense, I could see a franchised player being guaranteed to get 20% more than the highest paid player at that position in year one, and 40% more than the next highest paid guy in year two. That would likely cut down on the use of it a great deal, while still giving teams some leeway.

Alex, why is it you think it is wise for a player with a net worth in the low millions to adopt the "money isn't everything" approach to his professional career, but not an owner with a net worth north of a billion?

Yes, a player can ask for a shorter contract. The team may say "no", and we're right back to where we started. If the player is to maximize his career earnings, and minimize his injury risk, it serves his interests to obtain as many signing bonuses on the open market as possible while he is still performing at an elite level.

Gosh, now, that I've reflected on it a little, if Angelo or a Bears' employee has admitted that other GMs have called Angelo and encouraged him to deny Briggs' demands, Briggs and Rosenhaus really should strongly consider filing a grievance to be arbitrated on the issue of collusion.

In general, how do suspensions work for players holding out? If I recall, both T.O. and Keyshawn were suspended by their teams for behavior, so my theory is that should Briggs (or Samuel) choose to "go nuclear," could the Bears suspend him? And if so, could that suspension entail not being on team property?

Eddo, the current cba makes it much more difficult for a team to penalize a player than the last cba, which pertained to the Owens and Johnson situations. I don't remember the details, however. PFT archives probably is a decent place to look, although he is not always accurate. It's really hard for NFL fans to get detailed cba information.

With respect to Briggs and/or Samuel, neither of them are under contract, so the teams cannot fine or suspend them at all. They aren't under contract to the Bears or Patriots, respectively. They just aren't allowed to negotiate a contract with any other team.

tarrant, I think they can negotiate with other teams, but if another team signs one of them, and their current team doesn't match, the new team gives compensation in the form of two first round picks.

Now, once a signs the franchise tender, and then tries to blow his team up, that is when the disciplinary language of the cba comes into play.

174/175: I wonder if the lack of a current contract plays into the barring from team facilities bit I brought up. At the least, there might be a loophole the Bears or Patriots could find. I mean, I'm not under contract to any NFL team and the Bears can restrict my access.

Is collusion even against the rules in the NFL?

"Sort of like the CEO of United Airlines calling up the CEO of American Airlines, and encouraging him to stick with a certain pricing decision on the Chicago-Dallas route."

It's not really like that at all. It's more like if one called the other about a strike and told them not to give in. I also seriously doubt Angelo said anything about it. It was probably an "unnamed source."

The cba certainly has language prohibiting collusion among teams. Free agency would be worthless without it. I'm pretty sure the matter would arbitrated, rather than subject to a drawn-out trial.

Whether they could prove it sufficiently or not, Briggs and Rosenhaus may be wise to file a grievance if such conversations have been reported in the Chicago media. It is likely that other Bears would not appreciate that Angelo was actively colluding with othere GMs to lessen the competition for their services, and anything Briggs can do to harm the franchise, without explicitly violating any legal obligation he has, is something he should consider.

#170: "Alex, why is it you think it is wise for a player with a net worth in the low millions to adopt the “money isn’t everything� approach to his professional career, but not an owner with a net worth north of a billion?"

I never said the owner shouldn't adopt the money isn't everything approach. If an owner didn't want to pay Briggs more money simply because it would take money away from his personal fortune, then he'd be crazy. But that's not the main reason they aren't paying Briggs more. The main reason is that they have a salary cap.

Well, gosh, Alex, why don't the owners collectively adopt that decision, and get rid of the cap? The are all very wealthy people, and money isn't everything, right? I mean, there's a few guys who would have to tighten their belts in an uncapped salary environment, but the vast majority could live just great. Think about how much fun they could have by not having to work within a salary cap as they constructed their rosters.

#180: "Well, gosh, Alex, why don’t the owners collectively adopt that decision, and get rid of the cap? The are all very wealthy people, and money isn’t everything, right?"

I guess I'm in the minority here, but I think they should. The salary cap didn't really make the NFL much more competitive, and it made it more difficult for teams to keep their best players.

Additionally, it led to situations like TO going nuclear on my favorite team, the Ravens kicking out Steve McNair like a dog, and countless other times where everyone involved would be much happier if the player could just be paid more. The owners would do just fine, they'd still be very rich, and they'd still keep getting richer.

The MLB is plenty profitable despite having no salary cap. And for all the talk about the Yankees trying to buy titles, seven different teams have won the World Series in the last 10 years, so it's still a pretty competitive league. I think the NFL would also be competitive without a salary cap. So, yes, the owners should get rid of the cap. I think everyone would be better off if they did.

Always nice to get to a point of agreement. Revenue sharing, not the salary cap, is far more important to competitive balance. Even baseball's comparatively weak revenue sharing suffices; in football we likely wouldn't see any fall-off in competitive balance at all, given it's much stronger revenue sharing system.

Exactly, that's why I hate the salary cap. It doesn't make the league competitive, and it makes everyone unhappy. And really, what's the point in having lots of money if you're not going to be happy? :)

Always nice to get to a point of agreement. Revenue sharing, not the salary cap, is far more important to competitive balance.

The only way revenue sharing works is if you've got a salary cap and a salary floor. It's the only way to avoid the free-rider problem.

Baseball's problem is a salary cap (luxury tax) without a salary floor (poor man's tax).

and it makes everyone unhappy.

Ask the Vikings players, who would make far less if it wasn't for the salary floor. And there's no way you can get owners to agree to the floor without the cap.

Baseball's luxury tax can also be described as a form of revenue sharing. The luxury tax money just gets redistributed. I would prefer keeping the salary floor, and have a luxury tax, as opposed to a hard cap.

Baseball needs a soft salary floor, I think - they frequently run into situations where a large number of young rookies are on the team, and baseball's salary structure is much more geared towards older players, like football.

A hard salary floor plus a luxury tax would be fine, but practically, there's not much difference between that and the current system.

Any book news? Will the prominent posters be mentioned? I sure hope so.

Pat, I'd just like to give an owner who wanted to keep the window open a season or two longer the option to dig deep and pay a hefty luxury tax that would get distributed to other teams, rather than deal with the hard cap which exists now. On the other hand, teams really getting a lot better at managing the hard cap, so it may not make that big a difference.

RE: 171, 177-178

Here is he only bit I can find on Angelo/Briggs/Winter Meetings. I'll play around with the link and see if I can find it somewhere.

"Prospects for dealing Lance Briggs took a hit during the owners meetings when agent Drew Rosenhaus escorted him on a meet-and-greet tour of general managers and personnel heads. Several teams voiced displeasure at the spectacle and lost whatever slight interest they had in Briggs, who is demanding a long-term contract with guaranteed money in the range of $15 million to $20 million."

Links to an expired chicagotribune webpage.

Oh, in post #181, it should have been "the Titans kicking Steve McNair out like a dog." Not the Ravens.

#188: I don't really think it's a big deal. First off, the "break the bank to get one more year" is always a bad idea - you don't win championships with one desperation year. You win it with continued success and a bit of good fortune.

Second, the intrinsic constraints on the NFL market (lack of independent actors, for one, and also lack of information) means that realistically, one team sets the market for an entire class of players for years to come, and the teams know this. Breaking the bank one year seriously enough would begin to torch the entire league.

I mean, think about it. Right now, the salary cap is tied to the total gross revenues in the NFL. That's all a realistic employee of a company can ask for. If the league makes 10% more next year, the players make 10% more next year.

"The MLB is plenty profitable despite having no salary cap. And for all the talk about the Yankees trying to buy titles, seven different teams have won the World Series in the last 10 years,"

Who wins the world series is pretty random.

THeres a high degree of correlation in the MLB between total team salary and wins.

Brasilbear, based on that story, and what you said had been reported previously, I'd definitely be filing a collusion grievance.

The MLB is plenty profitable despite having no salary cap.

The MLB was losing money - fast - from about the late 1990s to 2002, when they implemented a luxury tax, which is a soft salary cap combined with revenue sharing. It's only recently that baseball has started to become profitable again.

Take a look at the franchise values from 1999-2006. Some franchises actually declined in value from 1999-2003.

193: Will, I have no legal background, but is "voicing displeasure" with a player's tactics and admitting you've lost interest really collusion? Do owners/GMs have to keep their opinions to themselves about everything?
I'm just saying, by that logic, you could make a case that all the teams who passed up on Brady Quinn were guilty of collusion by admitting they didn't want him. I know that's a stretch, but if filing a grievance in the Briggs case is "definite," then I would think some lawyer would be able to spin the hypothetical Quinn case.

It's not collusion. Briggs isn't under contract to any team.

The MLB was losing money - fast - from about the late 1990s to 2002

Oh, baloney. The owners constantly poor-mouthed in the media, but every year independent sources had the overwhelming majority of teams in the black.

Besides, how can "MLB" be making more money due to advanced revenue sharing when all revenue sharing does is shift money from one group of teams to another?

A player doesn't have to be under contract for collusion to occur. In fact, when MLB lost their collusion arbitration, it specifically pertained to free agents.

Eddo, it's one thing for a gm to voice displeasure with the a player's conduct. It's quite another for that to be done in conjunction with media reports that such gms have been in communication with the gm of the team which has tendered a franchise offer to that player, and have encouraged that gm to hold firm against the player's request for a trade or long term deal. What makes me suspect about the media reports, however, is that it is hard for me to imagine that such gms would be so stupid.

Again Eddo, the key would be if such gms called another gm, say, Phil Savage, and encouraged him to not take Quinn early in the first round.

Oh, baloney. The owners constantly poor-mouthed in the media, but every year independent sources had the overwhelming majority of teams in the black.

I wasn't talking about profitability, which is by-and-large unimportant for enterprises which appreciate as fast as sports franchises. The franchise values flatlined and in some cases declined over that time period.

It wasn't just media hype at all. They were still plenty profitable, but players' salaries were growing faster than revenue, and it's impossible to stay profitable if that's true.

A player doesn’t have to be under contract for collusion to occur. In fact, when MLB lost their collusion arbitration, it specifically pertained to free agents.

I meant in this specific situation. Briggs wasn't under contract. He was selling his services to all the teams at once at a location where they were already there. That's not collusion.

No, but in the context of gms calling Angelo and encouraging him to hold firm with the franchise tender to Briggs, if the same gms are denouncing Briggs' and Rosenhaus' efforts to market Briggs' services, that adds to the body of evidence that collusion is occurrring.