The Lions Playing on Thanksgiving Debate… Turkey Without the Side of Losing Football, Please

November 22, 2010

Read the opposing argument from Optimist Prime.

There are many things in this great nation for which I’m thankful. But, the Detroit Lions? Not one of them.

The Lions are a loathsome and virtually unwatchable team. With the exception of perhaps Calvin Johnson and Matt Stafford, the Lions are a ragtag team of roster fillers. The team is in a constant state of rebuilding and new management and owns one of the most dubious losing streaks not just in football, but all of professional sports. Even while markedly improved from years past, the team is still not on par with the rest of the league and hasn’t been for quite some time, making them undeserving of the attention they receive each and every November. I don’t care what their purported legacy is or what their ticket sales look like. The Lions have been so bad for so long (having failed to post a winning season since 2000) that they should be banned from Thanksgiving football.

Thanksgiving is a special time that the NFL should use to highlight the very best it has to offer. As families throughout the nation converge for a large Thanksgiving meal, millions of Americans will choose to digest in front of their televisions, and millions of those televisions will be tuned to NFL football. This is a crucial opportunity for the league that should not be overlooked. Whole families – young and old, male and female, sports fan and non-sports fan alike – will be watching the NFL. This presents the NFL with an incredible opportunity not just to acquire new fans but to become a permanent tradition infused into the culture of families throughout the country. By providing heart pounding, nail-biting action the NFL can ensure families will tune in each year and carry the tradition on for generations to come.

Instead, however, Detroit maintains its stranglehold on the Lion’s share of the market (pun intended, thank you very much) and both the fans and the league suffer. For some unknown reason, America is forced to continue to suffer by watching the poor play of a team that is perennially out of contention for the playoffs flounder on a national stage. It is enough to make one mad enough that a guy would go all Dancing with the Stars and take a 12 gauge to their flat screen. The action is so bad at times that it simply does not warrant watching, not even for fantasy football purposes – because really, if you drafted several Detroit Lions players you probably don’t have a reason to keep up with your team anymore.

Despite my passion for the NFL, I cannot recall a Lions game that kept my attention in recent years. Instead I remember games that are so boring that I am forced to watch reruns of movies like a Charlie Brown Thanksgiving for the 22nd time because it is simply more painless than watching Detroit.

The only defense I can see for maintaining this pointless tradition is tradition itself. That is a poor defense to say the least, because as the old saying goes, “Traditions were meant to be broken.”

Roger Goodell should instead create a new tradition, a tradition of exciting and winning football. It is not as if America would not accept another team on Thanksgiving, and there are plenty of teams with a national following to choose from. The Patriots, Giants, Colts, and Saints immediately come to mind. Each of these teams has extended beyond a simple regional following and certainly has a potent offense capable of wowing dedicated NFL followers and potential fans alike. Honestly, who wouldn’t rather watch Tom Brady, Peyton Manning, or Drew Brees carve up an opposing defense like a delicious turkey, rather than choke down what feels like the stale leftovers of Lion’s play? It could even go with the first Thanksgiving theme by capitalizing on New England’s colonial and patriotic imagery. Even though the Patriots will be playing this Turkey Day, they shouldn’t be sharing the spotlight with Detroit.

It seems that the NFL think tank has really missed the boat on this one. Perhaps the NFL feels comfortable with the status quo because the league is currently riding a wave of high popularity, but with a work stoppage lurking in the wings the NFL needs all of the good attention it can get right now. For that to happen, the Lions must not get the Thanksgiving Day spotlight. Anything else is a tale of opportunity missed.

My Zimbio Blog Directory Sport Blogs - BlogCatalog Blog Directory
Add us to your technorati favorites Digg! Bookmark and Share

Leave a Comment » | The Lions Playing on Thanksgiving Debate | Tagged: , , , , , , , , , , , , , | Permalink
Posted by Babe Ruthless

The NFL What to Watch For in 2010 Debate… Blackouts Could Black Out NFL’s Popularity

September 13, 2010

Read the opposing arguments from Bleacher Fan and Babe Ruthless.

The NFL got off to a spectacular start in week one with thrilling finishes in several games. Surely you saw some of them. What has people talking this morning is the play at the end of the Bears-Lions game where Lions’ receiver Calvin Johnson had a touchdown catch taken away after not holding on to the ball throughout the entire “process of the catch.”

But there are storylines building out there that could drown out any “on the field” stories that may build over the course of the season. Unfortunately, I’m talking about that “B” word that neither the league nor the teams even likes to mention. I’m talking about blackouts.

You may recall that The Sports Debates had a debate on the NFL blackout policy last September. Having a game “blacked out” locally means a game cannot be televised locally if the game isn’t sold out. It’s an NFL policy that’s been in place for thirty-seven years, and one that I don’t agree with at all. But they didn’t ask me. It ended being a real problem last season as 22 games were blacked out in local markets. The blackouts came courtesy of five teams (Jaguars, Lions, Chiefs, Raiders, and Rams), including a disturbing seven blackouts in Jacksonville. This season, blackouts are possible in those cities and also in markets featuring three 2009 playoff teams (Arizona, Cincinnati, and San Diego). It will be a miracle to have fewer blackouts this season that last.

Yesterday, the home opener – yes, THE HOME OPENER – at Tampa was blacked out because the game wasn’t sold out. It really wasn’t close to sold out as only 41,554 walked through the turnstiles at Raymond James Stadium. It’s never a good thing when that’s the attendance at the first game. What’s the attendance going to be like when the Bucs host the Detroit Lions on December 19th? If there was ever a regular season game flagged for a blackout, that would have to be it.

Blackouts are such an issue that even a United States Senator is voicing his opinion. Ohio Senator Sherrod Brown recently wrote a letter to NFL commissioner Roger Goodell, asking for a change in the NFL’s blackout policy. He fights the good fights for his Ohio constituents, saying that “is deeply troubling that increasing blackouts could deprive families and friends the tradition of watching their beloved Cleveland Browns or Cincinnati Bengals on Sunday afternoons.”

As the season goes on and blackouts continue, fans are the ones that will continue to lose. Many of you may not live in a “local” market, so the blackout rules don’t apply to you. But to those of you that do live in the local market of your team, you obviously have a huge interest in how ticket sales go. If you live just outside of Kansas City, there’s a good chance you won’t be watching the Chiefs host the 49ers in week three because the game could be blacked out locally. It’s an ongoing problem the league is facing. And I don’t see it going away.

My Zimbio Blog Directory Sport Blogs - BlogCatalog Blog Directory
Add us to your technorati favorites Digg! Bookmark and Share

Leave a Comment » | The NFL What to Watch For in 2010 Debate | Tagged: , , , , , , , , , , , , , | Permalink
Posted by Babe Ruthless

The Extending the NFL Season Debate… Preseason is for Show, Regular Season is for Go

June 24, 2010

Read the opposing argument from Loyal Homer.

By now, even the most diehard NFL fans have come to the realization that the NFL preseason is too long. Fans are forced to endure four meaningless games – if you can even call them “games” – where the star players they paid regular season prices to see take the field for a few fleeting possessions. The preseason serves to dilute the top notch product that the NFL aims to put out.

“What’s the solution?” you may be asking. Why, expanding the regular season of course.

It finally seems that those with some actual football clout are coming around to the idea fans have held for quite some time. In reality, season expansion is actually just a little bit of history repeating itself, as Bleacher Fan wrote in his introduction. Today, owners and NFL personnel – most notably Commissioner Roger Goodell – are joining the ranks of fans who have grown increasingly dissatisfied with the poor quality product the NFL passes as preseason entertainment. Green Bay Packers President Mark Murphy said of the issue, “This is an idea [expanding the NFL regular season] that is really gaining momentum, particularly with the owner.

The only group that seems to oppose the idea of expanding the regular season thus far has been the players. But even they acknowledge that there is a growing dissatisfaction with the product. Baltimore Ravens linebacker Ray Lewis, who is an opponent of regular season expansion, states, “I know our fans may not like preseason games, and I don’t like all of them.” He goes on to voice his concerns that exchanging two preseason game for regular season games could further stress already worn down players. But this is a misconception.

Admittedly, the biggest knock against expanding the regular season is that it could lead to an increase in player injuries. I will concede that two more regular season games, where starters see four quarters of playing time rather than just one or two, could lead to increased injuries among starters. Undoubtedly coaches, agents, and the players themselves, will push key players to tough through the war wounds, pains, and the general wear and tear that results from the grueling nature of the sport. But it is not as if they will not be justly compensated. It would be crazy to think that the players union would agree to such a change without negotiating extra payment and guarantees for the increased meaningful play. Still, it is important to not overlook the fact that the preseason offers its fair share of opportunity for injury already.

Preseason games are more than capable of ending a player or team’s season before it even starts. That was certainly the case for former Atlanta Falcons when their star quarterback Michael Vick went down for a large portion of the season because of a broken leg during a meaningless preseason game. Back in 2003 when Michael Vick was one of the most marketable faces in the NFL, long before his conduct and criminal activity sent him to the dog house (hey-oh!), a needless injury cost him and the Atlanta Falcons a season. The Falcons finished last in the NFC South that season with a record of 5-11, largely the result of an injury sustained during a game that was nothing more than a glorified scrimmage. There are lots of other injury stories like Vick’s. Some are not as serious, and others are far more severe. Consider the story of Harry Williams, who suffered a traumatic spinal injury during a preseason contest that would no doubt end his football career. Unfortunately injuries are a sad reality of professional football. It is a shame when they occur, but they somehow seem more of waste when they occur in a game that means nothing.

There are other solutions that have been suggested to preserve the health and wellbeing of the players while improving the quality of the NFL’s product. Packers’ President Mark Murphy, a vocal figure on regular season expansion, suggested larger rosters or a developmental league. Commissioner Goodell proposed creating guidelines and policies to ensure true downtime and rest for players during the offseason.

Expanding NFL rosters would accommodate more change-of-pace players to keep stud players fresh over the long haul of the season. Similarly, an expanded roster would provide for more backups should an untimely injury occur. Likewise a feeder league would more than make up for any lack of opportunities to bring rookie players up to speed, to say nothing about expanding pro-football to previously untapped markets. This all sounds like the first steps down a bright path for football, and it all starts with the expansion to 18 regular season games.

In the end, football is a business that succeeds because it pleases the fans. Right now the fans are making it abundantly clear that they are not happy with the length of the preseason, so why not give them what they want – more meaningful games. When the fans are happy, business should be booming.

My Zimbio Blog Directory Sport Blogs - BlogCatalog Blog Directory
Add us to your technorati favorites Digg! Bookmark and Share

1 Comment | The Extending the NFL Season Debate | Tagged: , , , , , , , , , , , , , | Permalink
Posted by Babe Ruthless

The 2010 Biggest Pre-Draft Move Debate… Spring Cleaning in the Steel City

April 23, 2010

Read the opposing arguments from Babe Ruthless and Sports Geek.

There have been some big moves in the weeks leading up to the 2010 NFL Draft.

Included within those moves are face lifts for two teams that have traded away the very people who for the last decade, in the San Diego Chargers (who released LaDanian Tomlinson) and the Philadelphia Eagles (who traded away Donovan McNabb).

In terms of blockbuster deals, no trade has been bigger than that of Brandon Marshall, who was sent to the Miami Dolphins after a season in Denver where his on-field success was unfortunately overshadowed by several issues that have somewhat diminished the perception of what this dangerous receiver can consistently do.

But with all of those transactions, where teams have put forth the off-season efforts they hope will improve their organization, the team facing the biggest changes to their team is doing so as a RE-active, rather than PRO-active, measure. The biggest pre-draft moves of the NFL 2010 season were the penalty-induced suspensions and transaction of Santonio Holmes and Ben Roethlisberger.

First comes the story of Santonio Holmes, who has been in legal trouble, it seems, since entering the league in 2006. He has admitted to having sold drugs prior to seriously pursuing football, and since 2006 has been hit with assault charges, domestic violence charges, drug charges, and is once again facing a lawsuit for allegedly throwing a glass at a woman in a bar.

And then there is Ben Roethlisberger, who recently was under investigation for the second time with regard to sexual assault allegations.

You know – Really CLASSY actions!

As a result of their respective misdeeds, both Holmes and Roethlisberger are facing suspensions for the first four to six weeks of the upcoming regular season. This presented a very big problem for the Steelers, because both Holmes and Roethlisberger were integral parts of the Pittsburgh offense.

Holmes, a former first-round draft pick (and the MVP of Super Bowl XLIII) was coming off of one of the best seasons in his career as a Wide Receiver. Meanwhile, Roethlisberger had been developing into one of the most successful quarterbacks in the game today. In fact, the Steelers saw fit to reward Roethlisberger’s success back in 2008 with an eight-year, $102M contract, making him one of the highest paid players in the entire league.

Despite that success from two of the Steelers’ most promising offensive stars, patience with the oft scandalized tandem has finally run out, prompting the team to retool their offense.

Two weeks ago, the Steelers dumped Santonio Holmes and all of his baggage in a trade with the New York Jets, where all they received in return was a fifth-round pick in this weekend’s draft. Clearly, Holmes’ stock had drastically plummeted in the eyes of Pittsburgh and its fans. To value a player with Holmes’ on-field credentials as only being worth a fifth-rounder speaks volumes with regard to their opinion of his character.

Following the announcement of Roethlisberger’s suspension, the Steelers began talks in trying to trade him away as well. To this point, they have not been able to find a suitable partner, but there is a long way to go before the season begins, and a lot of negotiation can take place in the meantime. Don’t forget, also, that even IF Roethlisberger remains on the team, he will not be available to suit up until week SEVEN. That is a lifetime when you consider that the NFL season is only 16 weeks long!

So much for the Steelers’ original plans.

The Rooney family has been very vocal in their displeasure of the situation that Holmes and Roethlisberger put them in, and has taken measures to demonstrate that there is no room within the Steelers organization for thoughtless and reckless behavior, no matter how successful those players may have been on the field. As a Cleveland native you won’t hear me say this often, but I must applaud the Pittsburgh Steelers for having taken such a strong stance in these matters!

The message that the Roger Goodell (now with the support of at least one well-respected owner) is sending is a simple one – being a part of the NFL is a privilege, and must be taken seriously. When a player puts their career at risk by participating in these foolish (and possibly criminal) activities, they put the whole organization at risk. These moves by the Steelers (which may not be over yet) have clearly made the most impact, not only in Pittsburgh, but to the entire NFL.

My Zimbio Blog Directory Sport Blogs - BlogCatalog Blog Directory
Add us to your technorati favorites Digg!
Bookmark and Share

Leave a Comment » | The 2010 Biggest Pre-Draft Move Debate | Tagged: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , | Permalink
Posted by Bleacher Fan

The NFL Rookie Pay Scale Debate – A Pay Scale in the NFL is Un-American

August 12, 2009

Read the debate intro, Loyal Homer’s argument in favor of a rookie pay scale in the NFL and Bleacher Fan’s argument against it.



The NFL is very conscious of their image. Several factors lead an analytical person like me to this conclusion. One, the commissioner, Roger Goodell, cut his teeth in the NFL in the public relations part of the business. Two, the league seems to care a great deal about making a public show of punishment for the players who fall outside of their new conduct policy. Three, they enforce community service (hey, it is not always BAD to be image conscious). Four, the players are (well mostly receivers).

It is that general self-awareness the league touts that makes this issue of a rookie pay scale so bizarre. If the league cares so much about their perception, why would they have a backwards system of rewarding unproven players with massive contracts? It defies logic because the players are being rewarded for what they hope are “future truths” or “trust me” contracts. Considering the value of the contracts, that is no small act of faith on the part of the organization. That is why the general manager gets fired so much. They simply cannot afford to be wrong more than once.

As for the debate, good points are made on both sides. Loyal Homer is correct in his fan-driven head-scratching when considering the backwards logic of professional contracts to rookies. But, the basis of Loyal Homer’s argument is that the players who enter the draft are unproven. While it may be true that the players are unproven at the professional level, the gap between high-quality college football and low quality professional football is not that wide. In fact, that is probably why so many college players are not judged on their talents in the collegiate ranks but on their potential in the pros (though that is likely a debate for another day).

Despite the reluctance on the part of fans to accept a holdout and sign a rookie to a huge future truth contract, it is a practice that works for both the players and the teams. As Bleacher Fan points out, the teams do a good job of evaluating talent in general and assume the risk if they misread a player. If a draft pick is a bust that is a responsibility of the organization, not the player. The organization assumes the draft rights and the burden of signing a player. It is well within the realm of reason to let the market dictate the value of a player – proven or not. It is the same principle as free agency, only with inexperience players at the professional level. Instituting a pay scale for rookies is a double standard in the league, and a double standard that penalizes the veterans – something the league is not likely to do.

Though I am awarding the debate win to Bleacher Fan, I feel like there is a compromise here. Bleacher Fan makes a very thorough, researched point about the relative success of player evaluations and contract value for picks inside the top ten of the draft (they cannot all be good picks… the league still has the Bungals in it). As the talent dwindles with each passing pick on draft day, it makes sense for a pay scale to kick in at some point. Does the 20th player selected really need to hold out for a few extra dollars of guaranteed money? No. If a pay scale does ever come to fruition, limiting it to the players who fall outside of the top ten in the draft makes sense. Market forces can play out with the cream of the crop, but with the remaining players, heavily incentive-laden deals under a predetermined structure could make sense for players and organizations alike.

On the surface it sure seems like any rookie hold out situation sucks, especially from the fans perspective (the most important perspective, by the way). But it is a reflection of the American economic principles of fair market value and the guidance of the invisible hand, and it is what is best for talented players and risk-taking teams.

My Zimbio Blog Directory Sport Blogs - BlogCatalog Blog Directory
Add us to your technorati favorites Digg!

Leave a Comment » | The NFL Rookie Pay Scale Debate | Tagged: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , | Permalink
Posted by Sports Geek

The NFL Rookie Pay Scale Debate – Does the NFL Need to Regulate Rookie Salaries?

August 11, 2009

Read Loyal Homer’s argument in favor of a rookie pay scale in the NFL and Bleacher Fan’s argument against it.



San Francisco 49ers first round draft pick, wide receiver Michael Crabtree, is making quite a fuss. Crabtree, drafted tenth overall in the 2009 NFL Draft, is seeking a rookie contract worth more than $23.5M in guaranteed money. When the Oakland Raiders took Maryland wide receiver Darius Heyward-Bey with the seventh overall pick, the 49ers undoubtedly believed they had the leverage they needed to get Crabtree into camp on time. Heyward-Bey would sign the first wide receiver contract, and the Crabtree’s would fall in line behind it.

But, that is not exactly how events are transpiring. Crabtree is apparently expecting a contract value higher than that of the seventh overall pick, given his (and his agent’s) belief that he was the best wide receiver in the draft. Does that logic make sense? Maybe only to an agent… and a cousin. Crabtree’s cousin/advisor, David Wells (no, not that one) has informed anyone within earshot that Crabtree is so put off by the 49ers inability to award him seventh overall-type money that the receiver is willing to sit out the entire 2009 season and re-enter the draft in 2010. Brilliant, right????

Sure, it is the age old problem with rookies and agents. They place their value higher than the league does AND they fail to understand that, on rare occasions, NFL teams draft according to NEED, not to the frustratingly subjective “talent.” But, I digress.

What Crabtree’s situation does put into perspective is the oft-discussed rookie pay scale in the NFL. This type of situation would not arise if rookies in the NFL were each paid according to the position they were drafted. The NFL would control the scale, and it would be increased year by year according to the changes in the salary cap, revenue sharing agreements, so on and so forth.

Crabtree’s situation is not unique, either. Number one overall pick Matthew Stafford is getting $41.7M in guaranteed money from the Detroit Lions. For perspective, that’s $0.7M more than proven, game-changing defensive tackle Albert Haynesworth is getting from the chronically overpaying Washington Redskins. Huge rookie salaries and rookie contract hold outs are as certain as an August gathering in Canton.

The NFL chief punisher/commissioner, Roger Goodell, assured college football players last December that a rookie pay scale would not be instituted until 2011, at the earliest. But, it appears it is an option on the table – at least in New York. Goodell “officially” favors a system that affords rookies all a predetermined contract level plus the opportunity to renegotiate their deal once they have proven themselves. Since team owners are known for their good natured benevolence, it seems certain this approach would work. (I sure hope you readers are picking up on this sarcasm.)

What our fearless debaters will address today is…

Does the NFL need a rookie pay scale?

Loyal Homer will argue in favor of a rookie pay scale regulating all NFL rookie salaries to a set level while Bleacher Fan will argue against the need for a rookie pay scale.

Gentlemen, you are on the clock.

My Zimbio Blog Directory Sport Blogs - BlogCatalog Blog Directory
Add us to your technorati favorites Digg!

Leave a Comment » | The NFL Rookie Pay Scale Debate, TSD | Tagged: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , | Permalink
Posted by Sports Geek

The NFL Suspension Debate – The Verdict

June 25, 2009

Read Bleacher Fan and Loyal Homer’s opinions.



The winner of the NFL Indefinite Suspension debate IS…

BLEACHER FAN!!!!!

Punishment is a tough task. Let’s use jury duty as an example. Jurists are unable to discuss the details of the case before the judge allows them to. Once the judge gives the okay, a jury room is a flurry of activity with everyone blurting out their feelings and reactions to various parts of a case in a raw and unformatted way… it’s almost exciting. As the room calms down, a leader usually steps up and begins going through the case in sequential order, breaking down evidence and highlighting the big points of a case where disagreement may become an issue. After all of that is discussed, a jury on the verge of convicting is stricken with the immense reality of what they are doing. If they vote to convict, a person will be punished – perhaps severely. Guilty or not, it’s 12 regular folks deciding to dramatically alter the course of another person’s life. It’s heavy.

So, I can understand, in part, how human nature plays a role in the decision making process for NFL commissioner Roger Goodell when he is deciding punishment for players in the NFL who commit crimes. It’s not an easy job to determine another human being’s fate – regardless of their guilt or innocence. It’s a big deal. But, it’s the nature of Goodell’s job – or at least it’s a task that he’s built into his own job description – to be the disciplinarian for a league with a history of off-field issues for their players. By handing down an indefinite suspension Goodell is skirting his self-appointed responsibility and perpetuating difficult circumstances for players who get themselves into legal trouble.

Bleacher Fan wins the debate because of a three key reasons. First, Bleacher Fan points out that Goodell’s indefinite suspension of Donte Stallworth – like all indefinite suspensions – turned a legal matter with limited impact on Stallworth’s team, the Cleveland Browns, into a huge roster issue. The Browns did nothing wrong in this case, but Goodell’s use of an ambiguous, open-ended punishment has a negative impact on one of the 30 teams in the league. Therefore, it’s understandable how the indefinite suspension is harmful to the league.

Second – and far more importantly – a punishment in our society is designed to rehabilitate the offender. Let’s use jail as an example. Jail is designed to rehabilitate criminals (whether it actually does that is another matter). There is a sense of structure inside and (some) criminals are given various responsibilities that give their existence a meaning and a purpose. Goodell has eliminated that basic rehabilitation function of punishment with an open-ended suspension. Like it or not, professional football provides a very structured, purposed environment. Removing Stallworth from that environment likely forces him to find another way to fill his time. This is unwise given his history with substance abuse and now a guilty plea to a felony. It is hard to image how Stallworth can return to the league at any point and be a productive member of the community – let alone a team – given his absence from a structured environment for an undetermined amount of time.

Third, in Stallworth’s case – and in all instances where an indefinite suspension is handed down because of a crime with a victim – the opportunity to make financial amends (whether that is wholly appropriate or not) is compromised. Goodell’s decision negatively impacts the victim’s family in Stallworth’s case, jeopardizing his ability to earn the income necessary to pay the financial agreement that was LEGALLY settled with the victim’s family.

Well argued, Bleacher Fan. Loyal Homer makes a good point about how the ambiguity of an open-ended suspension can drive a person crazy. Not knowing is tough. But that’s ultimately what swayed me to Bleacher Fan’s argument – it’s better for all parties involved to know and deal with the circumstances.

Leave a Comment » | The NFL Suspension Debate | Tagged: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , | Permalink
Posted by Sports Geek

The NFL Suspension Debate – What Does That Mean… Indefinite?

June 24, 2009

Read the debate intro and Loyal Homer’s opinions.



To paraphrase Ned Nederlander, IN-definite is when you’re MORE than definite. This man Roger Goodell is not just definite, he’s IN-definite!

I have SO many problems with indefinite suspensions:

1. What kind of a message does this send?

It’s the equivalent of a parent saying “Go to your room until I can think of a punishment.” Heard THAT a LOT while I was growing up!

This is what people do when they do not know what to do. That’s okay if you were surprised by what happened. But, in Donte Stallworth’s case, Goodell has already had three months to think about it. The message he sends is that he is afraid – or unwilling – to take a formal position, preferring to wait until the media frenzy dies down. It’s cowardly.

If that is not the case (and he truly does not know what to do), then he demonstrates incompetence as commissioner. Either way it diminishes his authority because he is intentionally avoiding the situation.

2. It excessively punishes the player.

I’m not talking about the moral aspects of right and wrong. That is handled in the courts. What I am referring to is the fact that the player under indefinite suspension is left with absolutely no definition of what to expect. He doesn’t know if or when he’ll ever be able to play again.

I’ll say it again – I am not advocating the rightness or wrongness of the offense. If what the person did was so heinous that he deserves a lifetime ban, then give him a lifetime ban. Don’t just make him sit and wait by the phone, hoping each day that he’ll get THE call that will finally provide him with closure.

An indefinite suspension is like being thrown in jail without ever knowing when you could be released (which is, by the way, unconstitutional). It is like your sentence ends based on the whim of a judge.

While under indefinite suspension, the player is both deprived of his established means for income and intentionally left in the dark on when that opportunity will return. He doesn’t want to give up training, because he might play again. On the flip side, if he never does get to play again, than he’s wasted precious time where he could have begun looking for livelihood outside of professional sports.

3. It punishes the athlete’s team.

Once again, using Stallworth as an example, the Cleveland Browns are now in a position where they have to decide between two evils. If they stick with Stallworth and the suspension runs longer than they anticipate, then they are wasting time and resources on an ineligible player when they could have replaced him with an eligible one. On the other hand, if they cut ties, they run the risk of it being a shorter than anticipated suspension, and he could wind up signing on elsewhere… and potentially coming back to hurt them.

The Cleveland Browns are being punished because they are forced to interpret a very non-descript and vague decision by a cowardly commissioner.

4. In Donte Stallworth’s case, this punishment hurts the victim’s family.

Part of Donte Stallworth’s sentence is to pay restitution to the Reyes family for what he did. While the stipulated amount is confidential, I assume that it is substantial. Assuming Stallworth doesn’t have millions of dollars stuffed under mattresses somewhere, he will have to continue earning money in order to make good on the payment.

By placing Stallworth on indefinite suspension, Goodell is actually preventing Stallworth from the means necessary to pay the Reyes family, and he is basically telling the Reyes family they, too, will have to wait until he feels like addressing the situation again.

Without a definitive ruling there can be no closure. It is unfair to the player, their team, and the victims to string them along while the commissioner grapples with his unwillingness, indecisiveness, incompetence, fear, and/or ignorance to address the situation.

If Goodell really is NOT comfortable making the decision just yet he should at least set a date for when he WILL decide. Rather than suspend the player indefinitely, suspend him until date mm/dd when he WILL make a decision about the player’s fate. It at least shows that he has some kind of a plan in place to actually resolve the matter!

Set a timeframe, and let the world move on.

Leave a Comment » | The NFL Suspension Debate | Tagged: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , | Permalink
Posted by Bleacher Fan

The NFL Suspension Debate – Indecisive Equals Effective

June 24, 2009

Read the debate intro and Bleacher Fan’s opinion.



I’m glad that we have decided to address this issue. It’s something that always leaves a lot of questions in Loyal Homer’s mind. Let’s break it down, shall we?

To be suspended indefinitely means, to put it quite simply, to be suspended for an indefinite amount of time. Now, before you accuse me of being a smarty, think about it! Being suspended for an indefinite amount of time puts absolutely no time frame on the suspension. It could be one game, it could be one week, it could be one month, or in the case of Michael Vick, it could be many, many months!

But… is there really anything wrong with that?

Perhaps the commissioner/president of each respective league – whether it’s MLB’s Bud Selig, the NFL’s Roger Goodell, the NBA’s David Stern, the NHL’s Gary Bettman, NASCAR’s Mike Helton or whoever – wants the guilty party to suffer for an UNKNOWN time period. Perhaps the guilty party will think about the violation or crime committed and worry about when they will be allowed to come back to “work.”

The athletes who make themselves vulnerable to punishment need to think about the mistakes they have made and the rules they have broken. Like it or not, they are role models to today’s youth, and that is a responsibility that should not be taken lightly. As an athlete, you know when you play sports professionally that you will be judged differently than others. So, deal with it.

Let’s look at Donte Stallworth’s situation. He was responsible for the death of another human being. To his credit, he has been very cooperative with law enforcement. Yes, he will be serving a 30-day jail sentence, but who knows how long of a suspension he will face from the NFL.

If past history is an example, Stallworth will have to show sincere remorse to Roger Goodell before a reinstatement is even considered.

We all hope Stallworth has learned a valuable lesson. I think the ultimate goal of an indefinite suspension is to teach the guilty party a lesson and make sure the same mistakes aren’t repeated. Hopefully, these indefinite suspensions give food for thought to those who have been suspended indefinitely and when they come back, they will have paid their debt to society their league, and learned their lesson!

Leave a Comment » | The NFL Suspension Debate | Tagged: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , | Permalink
Posted by Loyal Homer

The Manny Ramirez All-Star Debate – Loyal Homer Fought the Law, and the Law Won!

June 2, 2009

(Site note: Look to the bottom of this post to find links to the other opinions and intro to this debate).

In direct response to Loyal Homer’s last argument…

I have to say, Loyal Homer, that I am amused by the irony of the position you have taken. On one hand, you attack Manny as a cheater because he broke the rules in order to gain advantage within baseball. Yet, on the other hand, you actually encourage Bud Selig to change the rules (and break the law) in order to exact even more punishment on Manny than he has already served… that’s cold!

Loyal Homer claims that you can’t compare the NFL (and Roger Goodell) to MLB (and Bud Selig) with regard to how Shawn Merriman’s Pro Bowl controversy was handled. I am not setting a comparison. I am simply establishing that Roger Goodell created a process which served as a strong and legal model for how to handle similar situations. I am only suggesting that Bud Selig follow the NFL’s example, because it worked without creating a legal controversy.

He then claims that there are extenuating circumstances which allow Bud Selig to change rules, such as during the 2002 All-Star Game, when it was called a tie game. He also states that the All-Star Game is just an exhibition. Those statements are only partly true. Making a change to prohibit Manny’s participation in the All-Star Game, whether exhibition or not, is a very different situation from the ’02 All-Star Game. The difference lies in the fact that Selig’s actions would be punitive, and would directly and negatively impact Manny Ramirez financially, who, by contract, is awarded $75,000 for an All-Star Selection, in addition to a salary for participating in the game. There is an issue with contract law in this case that must be addressed. We’re not just talking about Manny playing another game, there’s money that must be considered.

This is the point that I was making when I spoke about code-of-conduct violations. MLB rules explicitly state the negative consequences that come from violating the steroid policy. Nowhere in that policy does it state that other actions may be taken at the discretion of the commissioner. To intentionally go above and beyond that point in order to “send a message” is targeting Manny Ramirez after he has already fully and willingly complied with the contractually agreed upon punishment handed down, and could be considered a breach of contract on the part of MLB. It does not matter whether he “deserves” the extra money or not, he would be legally entitled to it. MLB would be violating employment and contract law by trying to prohibit it.

Last, Loyal Homer claims that the people will speak and not let Manny into the All-Star Game. He argues that many of the votes came before the suspension, and that his tallies will trail off, keeping him out of the game. That statement only validates my initial argument of this debate, that the fans will (and should) ultimately decide Manny’s fate. That is the only legitimate and legal way to keep Manny off the All-Star roster, by following the rules.

(Site note: to read the judge’s intro to this debate, click here. Read Bleacher Fan’s first argument in favor of Manny’s inclusion in the game here, the second argument here. To read Loyal Homer’s first argument about Manny being banned from the All-Star game should he be voted in, click here, to read Loyal Homer’s second argument, click here.)

Leave a Comment » | The Manny Ramirez All-Star Debate | Tagged: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , | Permalink
Posted by Bleacher Fan

« Previous Entries
Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.