The NFL still doesn't get it

[Mal]

Yea, that was my point. The big timers would be the ones who companies would be hard pressed to get rid of. And they're generally the most public and visible figures.

That was the double standard I was referring to...

I don't see a double standard at all. Law firms are in the service industry. Football teams are in the entertainment industry. An athlete's bad image directly impacts the company's ability to reach an audience for its entertainment product.

What's more, a big rainmaker at a large firm, who supplies enough work for a dozen or more individual attys, is actually more difficult to replace than a single football player, if they leave and the work leaves with them (which doesn't always occur, granted). No one builds up their importance to an athletic franchise over 20 years before they're indispensable. They're retired already by that point. Moreover, whatever performance AP might have given the Vikings this year, it has little to no impact on the enterprise value of the franchise ten years from now. Teams are constantly replacing and succession planning for everyone on the team because they turn over so quickly through aging, and a newly drafted rookie can be ready to take over for a veteran in two years. No third year associate, on the other hand, is in the most important 10% of lawyers at a large firm.

[bjornolf]

Moreover, whatever performance AP might have given the Vikings this year, it has little to no impact on the enterprise value of the franchise ten years from now.

Unless he wins them a Lombardi Trophy.

[Highlander]

http://abcnews.go.com/Sports/adrian-...ry?id=25610394

I think it is interesting that some people who would stand by while the Vikings were shamed into putting AP on the bench would keep him on their FF teams on the off chance that he is reinstated, because he will help them win. Others cut him because they didn't want to have to cheer for the guy, knowing that someone else may pick him up and use him to beat them later in the season.

I like his statement that ultimately FF is about fun, and if you're not having fun pulling for the guys on your team, then it's not worth it.

[alteran]

Gus I don't know you from Adam but I suggest that if you had witnessed what I witnessed with the knowledge (that I will not go into now) about the incident, you would have seen an honorable man treated like a criminal and humiliated for no good reason. I will tell you that the crazy wife confided to other ladies afterwards that she was just upset about something at work and was very emotional at the time.

Well, your friend should probably sue the lawyer for telling him to plead guilty, since your friend has all these witnesses to his wife confessing that she had him falsely arrested and the lawyer advised him to make a plea anyway. Seems like your mystery friend was getting out of this no matter what.

Either way, anonymous anecdotes are no way to set policy, procedures, and laws. I agree that police shouldn't just pick a member of one sex and place them into jail, but let's not forget there's an overwhelming arc to domestic abuse, and it doesn't look anything like this anecdote. Hopefully police will use their personal judgement sensibly, and generally make the right call.

[alteran]

http://abcnews.go.com/Sports/adrian-...ry?id=25610394

I think it is interesting that some people who would stand by while the Vikings were shamed into putting AP on the bench would keep him on their FF teams on the off chance that he is reinstated, because he will help them win. Others cut him because they didn't want to have to cheer for the guy, knowing that someone else may pick him up and use him to beat them later in the season.

I like his statement that ultimately FF is about fun, and if you're not having fun pulling for the guys on your team, then it's not worth it.

Had a friend who did exactly that. Said he didn't want to root for the guy or benefit if he succeeded. No regrets, even if someone picks him up and gains by it.

[allenmurray]

I'm not sure what there is to excuse about the act. Maybe my old school is showing, but a dad getting arrested for giving his son a good old fashioned whupping with a switch is ridiculous. Kids in this country are being raised to be disrespectful, spoiled, and ill-mannered, and the currently vogue parenting philosophy of redirecting, never saying no, counting to three, giving a time out, and never, ever whipping a butt, is why. I hear kids all the time yelling at their parents, pitching fits for not getting everything they want. I see kids hitting and punching their parents. And that's why they grow up to be spoiled and disrespectful. Most of these kids, in the long run, would be better off is their parents occasionally popped their butts. Although I personally feel a spanking is enough to get the lesson across, I'm not going to call Adrian Peterson, or my own grandparents, child abusers because they see fit to teach the lesson more sharply. Kids will recover from a bruised butt. They don't recover from never learning respect (and yes, even a little healthy fear) for authority.

The child was struck hard enough to split open his skin. He was struck with a tree branch on his bare genitals. And as a physician you don't understand what was wrong about that? Your response is more frightening than what Peterson did - he had ignorance as an excuse - you don't.

All three of my children are all well behaved - One a college graduate (attended on full scholarship), on in his third year (president of National Honor Society), one a sophomore and a candiate for a state-wide school for the gifted. All were/are varsity athletes, active in community service, and heavily involved in church youth groups. And none of them has ever been hit by an adult. Ever. Instead I took the time to actually teaching them, interact with them, and set high expectations for them. It is a myth that in order for children to be well behaved children adults must hit them. Beating your children, instead of raising your children is pure laziness, laziness that leads to abuse.

[davekay1971]

The child was struck hard enough to split open his skin. He was struck with a tree branch on his bare genitals. And as a physician you don't understand what was wrong about that? Your response is more frightening than what Peterson did - he had ignorance as an excuse - you don't.

All three of my children are all well behaved - One a college graduate (attended on full scholarship), on in his third year (president of National Honor Society), one a sophomore and a candiate for a state-wide school for the gifted. All were/are varsity athletes, active in community service, and heavily involved in church youth groups. And none of them has ever been hit by an adult. Ever. Instead I took the time to actually teaching them, interact with them, and set high expectations for them. It is a myth that in order for children to be well behaved children adults must hit them. Beating your children, instead of raising your children is pure laziness, laziness that leads to abuse.

Chill, Allen.

First of all, my response regarding Peterson, in particular, was that I wasn't sure if he had anything to be excused for. At that time, I wasn't aware of the degree to which he'd hurt the child. Clearly he "disciplined" with very excessive force for any offense a 4 year old might commit. Knowing more about the case, Peterson has plenty to be answer for.

My response was more to the general furor over switching as a form of punishment. While I don't use it and don't feel it's necessary, I also don't view it as an unforgivable parenting evil. Nor do I feel parents who use it are by definition abusers.

Abusive parenting occurs, whether physical force is used or not, when a parent assaults a child in anger. When a child misbehaves and a parent lashes out in anger, with cutting words, a hard hand, a belt, or a switch, acting to vent their own rage rather than to teach, that is abuse. When a parent calmly explains to the child what they did wrong, why it is wrong, why better is expected of them then it's not abuse. If the parent feels the need to reinforce that with punishment, whether that is grounding, taking away privileges, or reasonable corporal punishment, that is not abuse.

Beating a child of 4 hard enough to break their skin is abuse, whether intended to be or not. That's clear.

Is switching always abuse? I think not.

My mom talks about her upbringing. When she misbehaved and her father calmly told her that she had misbehaved, made sure she understood why, and had her go get a hickory switch and then proceeded to beat her with it, she does not remember that as abuse. She remembers it as a lesson harshly taught, and quite memorable.

When he would get drunk and speak to her cruelly and evilly, but not lay a hand on her, she remembers that as abuse.

Sorry I posted on the thread before I knew the full story on Peterson's specific case. Peterson certainly has some answering to do.

But I stand by my general statement that parenting in this country could stand a movement away from what I see as neglectful, lazy, and over-indulgent, with parents locked into their iPhones and warning little Connor again and again that his atrocious behavior will result in a time-out that never comes, and a little movement back toward kids learning that atrocious behavior is going to end up with a sore (but not lacerated) butt.

[wilson]

Bill Simmons has a great take on the Adrian Peterson situation, and the NFL's current PR plight in general, in his latest mailbag, which he dubs "The All-Outrage Mailbag." Specifically in regard to Peterson, he says, "if you’ve ever heard your own child scream in pain and terror, you never forget the sound...That Peterson can live with himself for causing that sound, with no apparent remorse, disturbs the [crap] out of me."
I'm not a parent, but that certainly sounds about right to me.

[sagegrouse]

An organization hires a CEO to provide, among other things, strategic leadership. A major part of that is anticipating problems and avoiding them (and, of course, taking advantage of opportunities). The CEO also has to be astute enough to make sure there is day-to-day leadership of the organization and that the organization, if a publicly visible body like the NFL, puts its best face to the public.

"Violence against women" is an absolutely predictable problem for a violent sport like professional football where the median career length is only about three years. There was no plan to anticipate such a problem blowing up and the responses to episodes as they occurred have been pitiful. Goodell should rightfully be fired.

Now, your view may be that the owners collectively are the CEO and that Goodell is just a yes-man, a messenger and the outside face of the league. If that's the way the owners want it, he should still be fired because he is an absolutely horrible public spokesman -- I mean, WTF wasn't his Dad a US Senator? Even if he's is just covering for crass and evil owners (the Ravens' group comes immediately to mind, since they apparently knew within 24 hours exactly what happened in AC), his cover has been blown and he is of no further use.

The NFL would do well to just hire Adam Silver away from the NBA.

Fervently, Sage
'BTW any parent who did what Peterson apparently did to his 4YO son would be remorseful immediately and feel horrible for years and years. Peterson apparently felt none of that'

[Olympic Fan]

An organization hires a CEO to provide, among other things, strategic leadership. A major part of that is anticipating problems and avoiding them (and, of course, taking advantage of opportunities). The CEO also has to be astute enough to make sure there is day-to-day leadership of the organization and that the organization, if a publicly visible body like the NFL, puts its best face to the public.

"Violence against women" is an absolutely predictable problem for a violent sport like professional football where the median career length is only about three years. There was no plan to anticipate such a problem blowing up and the responses to episodes as they occurred have been pitiful. Goodell should rightfully be fired.

Now, your view may be that the owners collectively are the CEO and that Goodell is just a yes-man, a messenger and the outside face of the league. If that's the way the owners want it, he should still be fired because he is an absolutely horrible public spokesman -- I mean, WTF wasn't his Dad a US Senator? Even if he's is just covering for crass and evil owners (the Ravens' group comes immediately to mind, since they apparently knew within 24 hours exactly what happened in AC), his cover has been blown and he is of no further use.

The NFL would do well to just hire Adam Silver away from the NBA.

Fervently, Sage
'BTW any parent who did what Peterson apparently did to his 4YO son would be remorseful immediately and feel horrible for years and years. Peterson apparently felt none of that'

Roger Goodell made $44.1 million last year (although to be fair, his salary was actually just $35 million -- the other 9.1 million was in deferred payment.

Is he worth it?

[bjornolf]

Wow, Clemson might actually have a chance of staying within 30 this time.

Apparently, Winston is now suspended for the whole game, according to ESPN.

[sagegrouse]

Apparently, Winston is now suspended for the whole game, according to ESPN.

I read the report on Deadspin. My 12YO grandson and his friends play a game called "Odds," where the loser has to do something dumb, like stand up and say something -- usually stupid. Even so, who are these supposed "friends" he is playing with, and why would he ever do something like that, no matter what kind of game was being played?

Given his past transgressions, wouldn't most Div I schools suspend him for the season?

Kindly, Sage

[lotusland]

I read the report on Deadspin. My 12YO grandson and his friends play a game called "Odds," where the loser has to do something dumb, like stand up and say something -- usually stupid. Even so, who are these supposed "friends" he is playing with, and why would he ever do something like that, no matter what kind of game was being played?

Given his past transgressions, wouldn't most Div I schools suspend him for the season?

Kindly, Sage

That's a good one!

[Tom B.]

Back to Ray Rice...

I never thought I'd actually feel sorry for Ray Rice, and none of this makes his actions any less reprehensible -- but if this article is accurate, it really sounds like he's been done wrong by both the Ravens organization and the league, which have been in full CYA mode since last February.

[weezie]

Given his past transgressions, wouldn't most Div I schools suspend him for the season?

Meh, probably not. But I would have thought he'd at least not been in a team jersey on the sidelines. He shouldn't have been in the stadium at all.

[Dukehky]

http://espn.go.com/espnw/news-commen...sa-immediately

[sagegrouse]

http://espn.go.com/espnw/news-commen...sa-immediately

espn-W calls for soccer goalie Hope Solo to be suspended because of charges of assault against her nephew and sister (17YO's Mom).

[Atlanta Duke]

Bill Simmons has a great take on the Adrian Peterson situation, and the NFL's current PR plight in general, in his latest mailbag, which he dubs "The All-Outrage Mailbag." Specifically in regard to Peterson, he says, "if you’ve ever heard your own child scream in pain and terror, you never forget the sound...That Peterson can live with himself for causing that sound, with no apparent remorse, disturbs the [crap] out of me."
I'm not a parent, but that certainly sounds about right to me.

It is one thing to criticize the players - but calling the commissioner a liar has consequences

ESPN suspends Bill Simmons for criticism of Roger Goodell
http://www.si.com/nfl/2014/09/24/esp...ell-suspension

Simmons is a major star at ESPN, particularly online - may be some serious drama unfolding here

[wilson]

Simmons is a major star at ESPN, particularly online - may be some serious drama unfolding here

Meh, I rather doubt it. ESPN still generates revenue from his controversial remarks (and FWIW, I happen to fully agree with Simmons). A dollar to Grantland is a dollar to ESPN. The Worldwide Leader is smart enough not to slaughter that cash cow. This is a face-saving move aimed at protecting ESPN's relationship with the NFL, and nothing more.

[tommy]

So for the crime of calling the commissioner out for lying about what he knew about the Rice assault, Simmons gets a longer suspension than Rice did (originally, before he got shamed/embarrassed into lengthening it) from the commissioner for the commission of the crime itself. Alice-in-Wonderland time here.

I think Simmons will reign in the f-bombs on his podcasts, but I'd expect him to take the position that "if I can't express my opinions, including those critical of the NFL or anyone associated with it, then I'm outta here." ESPN, recognizing what a cash cow he is -- as well as the fact that he's right in this particular instance -- will fold. They're not letting him get away.