phunkdaddy said:

RebirthOfCool said:

Of course not, they didn't sign up for it. In fact, if you can prove that NFL players sign up for professional sports to be disciplined, I'll pay your mortgage for 1 year. Deal?

And players have fought the league on a myriad of league matters, with discipline being one of those as well, it's called the players union. You obviously aren't into football.

Who said anything about being fired? Name a player GODell fired. We're talking suspensions.

Voice of reason here.

phunkdaddy said:

RebirthOfCool said:

Of course not, they didn't sign up for it. In fact, if you can prove that NFL players sign up for professional sports to be disciplined, I'll pay your mortgage for 1 year. Deal?

And players have fought the league om a myriad of league latters, with discipline being one of those as well, it's called the players union. You obviously aren't into football.

Who said anything about being fired? Name a player GODell fired. We're talking suspensions.

Voice of reason here.

I hope that's sarcasm.

SUPRMAN said:

phunkdaddy said:

Voice of reason here.

I hope that's sarcasm.

And if it isn't?

SUPRMAN said:

RebirthOfCool said:

Of course not, they didn't sign up for it. In fact, if you can prove that NFL players sign up for professional sports to be disciplined, I'll pay your mortgage for 1 year. Deal?

And players have fought the league om a myriad of league latters, with discipline being one of those as well, it's called the players union. You obviously aren't into football.

Who said anything about being fired? Name a player GODell fired. We're talking suspensions.

No one signs up to be disciplined.

But if you allow yourself to be disciplined when you sign up to play a sport, that is what these athletes have done.

It comes with the privilege of playing pro sports.

Yes, as a RAIDERS fan, I know something, including about being disciplined.

So why do players accept the discipline that they did not sign up for as part of the privilege of playing a sport?

Because it's contractual. They may fight over procedural issues, but why is Big Ben giving up six game checks because Goodell told him to?

Why not fight to keep that million+?

Then why'd you say 2 times they signd up to be disciplined?

And you must've just started watching football because players fight all the time, you just aren't privvied to it unless it's Pac Man Jones. Why do you think the players union even exists? Big ben could've fought it, but he realized he was a fuck-up and got lucky they decided not to pursue the case.

SUPRMAN said:

phunkdaddy said:

Voice of reason here.

I hope that's sarcasm.

I'll give you an example of sarcasm - "Pro players sign up to get disciplined"

phunkdaddy said:

SUPRMAN said:

I hope that's sarcasm.

And if it isn't?

So be it.

RebirthOfCool said:

SUPRMAN said:

No one signs up to be disciplined.

But if you allow yourself to be disciplined when you sign up to play a sport, that is what these athletes have done.

It comes with the privilege of playing pro sports.

Yes, as a RAIDERS fan, I know something, including about being disciplined.

So why do players accept the discipline that they did not sign up for as part of the privilege of playing a sport?

Because it's contractual. They may fight over procedural issues, but why is Big Ben giving up six game checks because Goodell told him to?

Why not fight to keep that million+?

Then why'd you say 2 times they signd up to be disciplined?

And you must've just started watching football because players fight all the time, you just aren't privvied to it unless it's Pac Man Jones. Why do you think the players union even exists? Big ben could've fought it, but he realized he was a fuck-up and got lucky they decided not to pursue the case.

Why would the NFL pursue a case? They have no standing to do so.

He's not a felon . . . .

He wasn't even tried, so why not keep his money too?

So he just decided he didn't really want all his money? YEAH RIGHT!

RebirthOfCool said:

SUPRMAN said:

I hope that's sarcasm.

I'll give you an example of sarcasm - "Pro players sign up to get disciplined"

Why even bother ROC?

SCNDLS said:

RebirthOfCool said:

He means being tough on players that fuck up off the field.

But the NBA has been doling out fines and suspensions for failing drug tests, that's not new. I don't see how this particular case is different or special. I guess, I don't get the correlation to the NFL.

I can't recall the NBA suspending players 4 bad behavior before.

All the players in all the major league sports have LENGTHY contracts that make quite clear what their professional repsonsibilities entail, as well as how they can be disciplined and who will be deciding their punishment. Beyond the league rules that the commissioners enforce, teams have another set of their own rules the players are required to follow. And although they have players unions to protect them and fight on their behalf, those unions can also impose sanctions upon their own players. All of these things are well known to all of these guys from the start. There really isn't any argument against it. They all know when they sign on the dotted line that they will be held accountable for their behavior on AND OFF the field, and that their commissioners will have a great deal of leeway in deciding what their punishment(s) will be. I'm not even sure I understand what the issue is here, or how we've gone so far into this. The thread didn't even start with a hypothetical, it started with three guys who are guilty. Period. They had to have been expecting repercussions from the commissioner at some point.

SUPRMAN said:

RebirthOfCool said:

Then why'd you say 2 times they signd up to be disciplined?

And you must've just started watching football because players fight all the time, you just aren't privvied to it unless it's Pac Man Jones. Why do you think the players union even exists? Big ben could've fought it, but he realized he was a fuck-up and got lucky they decided not to pursue the case.

Why would the NFL pursue a case? They have no standing to do so.

He's not a felon . . . .

He wasn't even tried, so why not keep his money too?

So he just decided he didn't really want all his money? YEAH RIGHT!

Not the NFL, the prosecutor. And he didn't decide it, the new conduct code that GODdell put in place. You better best believe that when the new CBA comes up, GODdell's power will be on the list of things to do.

phunkdaddy said:

RebirthOfCool said:

I'll give you an example of sarcasm - "Pro players sign up to get disciplined"

Why even bother ROC?

Bbecause it's fun.

Graycap23 said:

SCNDLS said:

But the NBA has been doling out fines and suspensions for failing drug tests, that's not new. I don't see how this particular case is different or special. I guess, I don't get the correlation to the NFL.

I can't recall the NBA suspending players 4 bad behavior before.

Ron Artest, Jermaine O'Neal, and Stephen Jackson.

RebirthOfCool said:

SUPRMAN said:

Why would the NFL pursue a case? They have no standing to do so.

He's not a felon . . . .

He wasn't even tried, so why not keep his money too?

So he just decided he didn't really want all his money? YEAH RIGHT!

Not the NFL, the prosecutor. And he didn't decide it, the new conduct code that GODdell put in place. You better best believe that when the new CBA comes up, GODdell's power will be on the list of things to do.

No it won't. Because the owners and players all want their league to have a good image. Good image brings more fans across the board. More fans brings more money. And money distribution is the only issue with the new CBA. Both sides have made that perfectly clear.

uPtoWnNY said:

RebirthOfCool said:

I think what he means is that Stern is coming out ahead of the judicial process and handing out punishments for just getting into trouble, regardless of is they're clear of all charges or not.

That's something I don't like. Punishing someone who hasn't been found guilty in a court of law.

Chances are if the average Joe gets a dirty UA at work there will be repercussions from the company even if the court of law is not involved. Why should these knuckleheads be exempt?

Graycap23 said:

SCNDLS said:

But the NBA has been doling out fines and suspensions for failing drug tests, that's not new. I don't see how this particular case is different or special. I guess, I don't get the correlation to the NFL.

I can't recall the NBA suspending players 4 bad behavior before.

For dirty UAs and other dumbassetry??? They most certainly have.

http://www.eskimo.com/~pb...fines.html

[Edited 8/27/10 21:01pm]

Cerebus said:

RebirthOfCool said:

Not the NFL, the prosecutor. And he didn't decide it, the new conduct code that GODdell put in place. You better best believe that when the new CBA comes up, GODdell's power will be on the list of things to do.

No it won't. Because the owners and players all want their league to have a good image. Good image brings more fans across the board. More fans brings more money. And money distribution is the only issue with the new CBA. Both sides have made that perfectly clear.

Naw, the players are gonna try and protect themselves a little better from this dude's wrath, trust me.

RebirthOfCool said:

Cerebus said:

No it won't. Because the owners and players all want their league to have a good image. Good image brings more fans across the board. More fans brings more money. And money distribution is the only issue with the new CBA. Both sides have made that perfectly clear.

Naw, the players are gonna try and protect themselves a little better from this dude's wrath, trust me.

I don't believe that. Because if you aren't having those issues, why would you care? League discipline in any professional sports league is a minority of the players in that league. So most professional athletes never have any reason to worry about league, team, or criminal discipline in or out of their sport. For most then, it's not a big issue or concern. And the , Plaxico Buress' and Maurice Clarett's do themselves in anyway, regardless of the consequences.

RebirthOfCool said:

Cerebus said:

No it won't. Because the owners and players all want their league to have a good image. Good image brings more fans across the board. More fans brings more money. And money distribution is the only issue with the new CBA. Both sides have made that perfectly clear.

Naw, the players are gonna try and protect themselves a little better from this dude's wrath, trust me.

Have you actually read anything about this? The ONLY ISSUE is the distribution of money. Both sides have been very open about it. The NFL is the richest sport in America, the players want more of the pot but most of the owners claim they aren't making enough to give any more. In some cases they're even claiming that they're losing money. The fight right now is the players side trying to get all the owners to give clear and easy access to their complete financials. It's something they're required to do, but a lot of them are hedging or only supplying partial books. This CBA negotiation is all about the money. How much the lower paid players will get, how much money should be directed towards helping retired players/healthcare and the structure of max contracts. Money, money, money.

SUPRMAN said:

RebirthOfCool said:

Naw, the players are gonna try and protect themselves a little better from this dude's wrath, trust me.

I don't believe that. Because if you aren't having those issues, why would you care? League discipline in any professional sports league is a minority of the players in that league. So most professional athletes never have any reason to worry about league, team, or criminal discipline in or out of their sport. For most then, it's not a big issue or concern. And the , Plaxico Buress' and Maurice Clarett's do themselves in anyway, regardless of the consequences.

Because it's not about ME it's a PLAYERS UNION, so it's a united front. So just because Tom Brady more than likely won't fuck up, he still realizes it's all about the players union. That's why it's called Players Union and not Individual Player Union.

Cerebus said:

RebirthOfCool said:

Naw, the players are gonna try and protect themselves a little better from this dude's wrath, trust me.

Have you actually read anything about this? The ONLY ISSUE is the distribution of money. Both sides have been very open about it. The NFL is the richest sport in America, the players want more of the pot but most of the owners claim they aren't making enough to give any more. In some cases they're even claiming that they're losing money. The fight right now is the players side trying to get all the owners to give clear and easy access to their complete financials. It's something they're required to do, but a lot of them are hedging or only supplying partial books. This CBA negotiation is all about the money. How much the lower paid players will get, how much money should be directed towards helping retired players/healthcare and the structure of max contracts. Money, money, money.

I got something MUCH better than "reading" about it, I have 2 buddies IN THE NFL and one buddy that's a sports agent and reps a few NFLers. Now, if you have any sources better than that, then I'm all open to it . So all 3 tell me that they want to limit GODdell's power, especially when it comes to delving out punishment without due process from the legal system. Now, what did YOU read?

RebirthOfCool said:

SUPRMAN said:

I don't believe that. Because if you aren't having those issues, why would you care? League discipline in any professional sports league is a minority of the players in that league. So most professional athletes never have any reason to worry about league, team, or criminal discipline in or out of their sport. For most then, it's not a big issue or concern. And the , Plaxico Buress' and Maurice Clarett's do themselves in anyway, regardless of the consequences.

Because it's not about ME it's a PLAYERS UNION, so it's a united front. So just because Tom Brady more than likely won't fuck up, he still realizes it's all about the players union. That's why it's called Players Union and not Individual Player Union.

Do you really see players acting for the greater good? Is that why Vincent Jackson is threatening to sit out the season or get $10 mill a year for 5 with $30 mill guaranteed?

So LeBron going to Miami, and Shaq going to Boston, were decisions not based on the players's perception of their own best interest but of the interest of their fellow union fellows?

No one believes Tom Brady acts in the Player's Union interest when he plays or negotiates his contract. That's not human behavior for the vast majority of people I would think. The Union has its own interests to look for aside from the players as well.

SUPRMAN said:

RebirthOfCool said:

Because it's not about ME it's a PLAYERS UNION, so it's a united front. So just because Tom Brady more than likely won't fuck up, he still realizes it's all about the players union. That's why it's called Players Union and not Individual Player Union.

Do you really see players acting for the greater good? Is that why Vincent Jackson is threatening to sit out the season or get $10 mill a year for 5 with $30 mill guaranteed?

So LeBron going to Miami, and Shaq going to Boston, were decisions not based on the players's perception of their own best interest but of the interest of their fellow union fellows?

No one believes Tom Brady acts in the Player's Union interest when he plays or negotiates his contract. That's not human behavior for the vast majority of people I would think. The Union has its own interests to look for aside from the players as well.

You need to learn the game and how the OVERALL game works. Vincent is sitting out FOR HIS OWN REASON - MONEY. That has nothing to do with solidarity. In fact, you'll only find players talking about other players' money is when it's the rookies, to which that will also be addressed in the new CBA.

RebirthOfCool said:

SUPRMAN said:

Do you really see players acting for the greater good? Is that why Vincent Jackson is threatening to sit out the season or get $10 mill a year for 5 with $30 mill guaranteed?

So LeBron going to Miami, and Shaq going to Boston, were decisions not based on the players's perception of their own best interest but of the interest of their fellow union fellows?

No one believes Tom Brady acts in the Player's Union interest when he plays or negotiates his contract. That's not human behavior for the vast majority of people I would think. The Union has its own interests to look for aside from the players as well.

You need to learn the game and how the OVERALL game works. Vincent is sitting out FOR HIS OWN REASON - MONEY. That has nothing to do with solidarity. In fact, you'll only find players talking about other players' money is when it's the rookies, to which that will also be addressed in the new CBA.

So much for your 'united front.'

SUPRMAN said:

RebirthOfCool said:

You need to learn the game and how the OVERALL game works. Vincent is sitting out FOR HIS OWN REASON - MONEY. That has nothing to do with solidarity. In fact, you'll only find players talking about other players' money is when it's the rookies, to which that will also be addressed in the new CBA.

So much for your 'united front.'

What the hell are you even talking about? He's supposed to sit out for SOMEONE ELSE'S CONTRACT to show unity? Explain how that makes ANY sense .

RebirthOfCool said:

Cerebus said:

Have you actually read anything about this? The ONLY ISSUE is the distribution of money. Both sides have been very open about it. The NFL is the richest sport in America, the players want more of the pot but most of the owners claim they aren't making enough to give any more. In some cases they're even claiming that they're losing money. The fight right now is the players side trying to get all the owners to give clear and easy access to their complete financials. It's something they're required to do, but a lot of them are hedging or only supplying partial books. This CBA negotiation is all about the money. How much the lower paid players will get, how much money should be directed towards helping retired players/healthcare and the structure of max contracts. Money, money, money.

I got something MUCH better than "reading" about it, I have 2 buddies IN THE NFL and one buddy that's a sports agent and reps a few NFLers. Now, if you have any sources better than that, then I'm all open to it . So all 3 tell me that they want to limit GODdell's power, especially when it comes to delving out punishment without due process from the legal system. Now, what did YOU read?

Why do they think due process from the legal system should be a factor?

RebirthOfCool said:

Cerebus said:

No it won't. Because the owners and players all want their league to have a good image. Good image brings more fans across the board. More fans brings more money. And money distribution is the only issue with the new CBA. Both sides have made that perfectly clear.

Naw, the players are gonna try and protect themselves a little better from this dude's wrath, trust me.

Isn't the best way to protect themselves is to seek Goodell's dismissal?

The player's can't persuade the owners to fire him?

SUPRMAN said:

RebirthOfCool said:

I got something MUCH better than "reading" about it, I have 2 buddies IN THE NFL and one buddy that's a sports agent and reps a few NFLers. Now, if you have any sources better than that, then I'm all open to it . So all 3 tell me that they want to limit GODdell's power, especially when it comes to delving out punishment without due process from the legal system. Now, what did YOU read?

Why do they think due process from the legal system should be a factor?

Because sometimes it could be a false arrest/false charges/false accusations or just a complete misunderstanding altogether, and GODdell will impose some sort of sanction before all that comes to light.

SUPRMAN said:

RebirthOfCool said:

Naw, the players are gonna try and protect themselves a little better from this dude's wrath, trust me.

Isn't the best way to protect themselves is to seek Goodell's dismissal?

The player's can't persuade the owners to fire him?

Depends on who all wants him out. Chances are, that's not gonna happen. Their best move is to try and limit his power through the new CBA.

RebirthOfCool said:

SUPRMAN said:

Why do they think due process from the legal system should be a factor?

Because sometimes it could be a false arrest/false charges/false accusations or just a complete misunderstanding altogether, and GODdell will impose some sort of sanction before all that comes to light.

Has he done that in the past?

That doesn't make sense, and when he meets with the player, don't they have an opportunity to be heard?