Dockside Chat - POLL is the NFL going overboard with it's Morality tangent?

Several recent events that cast NFL players into the limelight of questionable actions caused the NFL to levy fines on those players that had no bearing on the legal issues involved. The NFL's intent was to try to force it's roster players to be gentlemen 24/7.

Do you think that this is a good thing? Do you think it's intent will ever be realized?

Its a private enterprise...they can set whatever standards they wish. You and I are simply paying a license fee to view their product. So, if you disagree with the morality aspect of their product...dont watch it :)

As I see it, this is no different than my workplace requiring me to wear business casual to the office.

if you disagree with the morality aspect of their product...dont watch it :)

As I see it, this is no different than my workplace requiring me to wear business casual to the office.

You reference your employer requiring you to dress a certain way "to the office". Would you feel the same way if your employer told you what to wear while at home? ;?

The NFL is selling a product based to some degree on image. Player conduct away from the field will have an impact on image. Negative image might hit ad revenue first and then ticket sales. Long term it will impact broadcast revenue.

Concussions, and brain damage, are now a topic. So new rules are passed.

Harassing females has become another hot topic. So, the NFL is enforcing the rules put in place a long time. (there is also a matter of legal jurisdiction here)

If your job is to play football AND help sell tickets then the NFL can do whatever it wants to enforce "proper behavior." I'd guess the player contracts have something on this.....

It's a "private" business that operates in the public view. Without the public at large to support their enterprise, there would be no enterprise. Therefore, there is an implied responsibility on the owners to police their own ranks. This league is populated to a high degree, by individuals with underdeveloped sense of responsibility. Toss a few million at them and watch the fun. We've seen it over and over again enough to know that if you do not lean heavily on this bunch, other will follow by example. The "just turn it off" argument is specious and disingenuous.

This is eye candy for the public and the enterprise derives great financial gain from its operations. And for that they are held to the same standard as any community.

I think the questions in your poll are quite interesting.

You CLEARLY dont have a bias. LoL

Its a private enterprise...they can set whatever standards they wish. You and I are simply paying a license fee to view their product. So, if you disagree with the morality aspect of their product...dont watch it :)
:thumbsup::thumbsup::thumbsup:

When we leave work we are just a joe schmoe nobody. I act like an ass at the bar - no one knows who I am or who I work for. Rapistburger is known by a buttload of people. He's on duty everytime he's in public... he also gets paid 25m or so a year - he should be able to act like a human.

NFL players are the product of the business. They are on display 24-7 & need to act in the interest of the league.

When we leave work we are just a joe schmoe nobody. I act like an ass at the bar - no one knows who I am or who I work for. Rapistburger is known by a buttload of people. He's on duty everytime he's in public... he also gets paid 25m or so a year - he should be able to act like a human.

NFL players are the product of the business. They are on display 24-7 & need to act in the interest of the league.

Same reason Tiger Wood's sponsors dropped him.

The NFL has gone way down in the respect dept. as far as players and as far as quality of the game goes. It seems more like the WWE then what I remember of the older NFL. born in 62

I find it curious that the NFL "thinks" it has a "CODE OF CONDUCT" ;?

Which one:

A) For convicted felons ( killers, burglars, rapists, druggies, violent individuals, animal torturers, etc..) and other assorted riff - raff

B) For Illegal hits , holdouts, thugs, showoffs, etc..

C) For the Super Stars: who send illicit texts and pictures to fugly girls and are protected by the refs. QB's who can't be touched or discussed.

Or

D) A total and complete attempt at making us believe they really care. There are 61 cases of players with injuries related to playing NFL football, that have been denied medical benefits. :o

It's all "Smoke and Mirrors" Marketing

And they are doing a piss poor job of it.

Yet I still love the "GAME", but NOt as much as I once did.:banghead:

I find it curious that the NFL "thinks" it has a "CODE OF CONDUCT" ;?

Which one:

A) For convicted felons ( killers, burglars, rapists, druggies, violent individuals, animal torturers, etc..) and other assorted riff - raff

B) For Illegal hits , holdouts, thugs, showoffs, etc..

C) For the Super Stars: who send illicit texts and pictures to fugly girls and are protected by the refs. QB's who can't be touched or discussed.

Or

D) A total and complete attempt at making us believe they really care. There are 61 cases of players with injuries related to playing NFL football, that have been denied medical benefits. :o

It's all "Smoke and Mirrors" Marketing

And they are doing a piss poor job of it.

Yet I still love the "GAME", but NOt as much as I once did.:banghead:

Every rose has its thorn...

Same reason Tiger Wood's sponsors dropped him.

...but if we bring Tiger Woods into the question, did the PGA fine him $50,000 x 17 for what he did? Furthermore, if sending a text is worth $50K, then what would the PGA fine have been for completing the pass?

This is the question I have. Where else does the BOD of an organization by-pass the chain of command?

At the last owners meeting, a discussion was made about not allowing any current NFL player to appear in a commercial of any product that was not part of the NFL family of approved products, charities and non- profits.

The reason is was stated was to prevent the "Image" of the NFL being tarnished by any player promoting a product that is deemed unhealthy or not politically correct.


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qf3oOQq9KFU
I guess this famous ad by Joe Namath would not pass todays standards..

You reference your employer requiring you to dress a certain way "to the office". Would you feel the same way if your employer told you what to wear while at home? ;?

My employer has the ability and right to fire me if I do anything embarrassing off-hours. In fact, we've let go people for crap they put up on facebook all the time. At will employment...the nature of the beast.

Besides, what you're all not realizing is that these players SIGN A CONTRACT. My bottom dollar says that in EVERY NFL contract, there are code of conduct clauses that give wide latitude to the ownership to determine what is inappropriate behavior...with multiple layers of appeals due to the UNION collective bargaining contract that adds a layer on top of that.

Its no different than what executives negotiate at Fortune 500 firms...ala Mark Hurd @ HP. He wasn't guilty of anything, but sufficiently embarrassed the Board of Directors to get his ass canned.

When you get that much money, you give up some freedoms that us average schmoe's get to indulge in. My dad once told me my two best friends should be a lawyer and an accountant....I finally understand why.

...but if we bring Tiger Woods into the question, did the PGA fine him $50,000 x 17 for what he did? Furthermore, if sending a text is worth $50K, then what would the PGA fine have been for completing the pass?

This is the question I have. Where else does the BOD of an organization by-pass the chain of command?
To play on the Tour you have to qualify and follow the PGA's rules. The PGA runs tournaments but the touring golf pros do not have employment contracts with the PGA. The PGA could ban or suspend a golfer for actions on the golf course but how do they fine a golfer for actions off the golf course??

Tiger had contracts with his sponsors. They dropped him as fast as they could once the facts came out. I think you can say golf's sponsors protects golf's image by enforcing morality.

I guess you have never seen a pissed off BOD. When a Board is truly upset there is no chain of command, there may be people passing on the orders or there may be a direct call.

I find it curious that the NFL "thinks" it has a "CODE OF CONDUCT" ;?

Which one:

A) For convicted felons ( killers, burglars, rapists, druggies, violent individuals, animal torturers, etc..) and other assorted riff - raff

B) For Illegal hits , holdouts, thugs, showoffs, etc..

C) For the Super Stars: who send illicit texts and pictures to fugly girls and are protected by the refs. QB's who can't be touched or discussed.

Or

D) A total and complete attempt at making us believe they really care. There are 61 cases of players with injuries related to playing NFL football, that have been denied medical benefits. :o

It's all "Smoke and Mirrors" Marketing

And they are doing a piss poor job of it.

Yet I still love the "GAME", but NOt as much as I once did.:banghead:

Good point.

What's the big deal?

We had a President that did the nasty thing and was forgiven by the public and his significant other.

I don't care what a jock does in his spare time. His life has no bearing on mine.

I used to be a big fan of pro sports until I realized when Monday rolls around, several hours on the weekend was wasted watching others beat up on each other.

Its a private enterprise...they can set whatever standards they wish. You and I are simply paying a license fee to view their product. So, if you disagree with the morality aspect of their product...dont watch it :)

As I see it, this is no different than my workplace requiring me to wear business casual to the office.

This is the correct answer. If the players or fans don't like it they are free to do something else.

Certainly not a government problem.

;? where did you get that idea that this poll is about the government????


This poll asks whether THT members think that the Board of Directors of the NFL (or any organization) are overstepping their bounds by arbitrarily punishing certain members.

It's like the Screen Artists' Guild fining Lindsey Lohan for drugs, etc. Do we think it's OK for a board of directors to supercede the player's own team ownership?

Forget that it's Favre and whether you like or don't like what he did. It's the concept that we're voting on.

BTW, this is a blind poll, so vote and nobody will know what your vote was...

Funny that we can actually debate morality of a public/sports figure. Shows the direction of society doesnt it?

The poll is incomplete in that it lacks a response for "yes" becuase the players agreed to it. The players,by way of their union, agreed to abide by the conduct policy. If they don't want to abide by the policy,then quit and find different work.

I dn't seehow one can complain about rules they agreed to abide by in their contract. If the players have an issue with it, they are negotiating a new CBA right now, make it a negotiating point to do away with it. Otherwise, stop complaining and abide by the rules you signed on for, or find new work.

For the sake of discussion of the over-riding issue of whether these kinds of actions are carrying PC to the extreme...I'll take issue with the NFL fining a guy for, "...not being forthcoming", with his answers.

Scene One: Favre is 40 years old...if he was a perv, we'd all have known about it way long ago, so...

Scene Two: The girl sets him up by asking him for certain....pictures, so...

Scene Three: She gets fame

Sports figures are among the most intensely-competitive people on the planet. We all know that competition isn't something a person turns ON or OFF in their general nature.

We also know that the thrill of the hunt has cost more than one person their (fill in the blank)

Further, we all know that flirting is a universal process; practiced by all to varying degrees.

NO, let's not bring Favre and his dick into this thread...this isn't about him; it's about whether the NFL has gone too far with their governing function.


What if the NBA bans tattoos because they're gang related, and fines guys that get them? What if the NHL bans fighting, and fines the players that hit each other? What if the WWW bans trash-talking, and fines the guys?

What's the difference in this case? Worse, do you support those other leagues doing the same thing?

You mention the union contract....what is the wording exactly...did it include "being forthcoming"? Otherwise why bring it up??

What is your opinion about the other leagues doing what I outlined above? Why not?

I will only comment on the NHL because I am familiar with hockey and frankly, i have never watched a basketball game, so I have no clue as to what I would be commenting on.

If the NHL bans fighting, then so be it, it is their right to do so. personally, I rather they get rid of the instigator rule than fighting (if one understands the history of fighting in hockey they would understand why).

The league does fine and suspend players for illegal, and sometimes legal hits. Hit a player from behind and see what happens. Throw a sucker punch and see what happens. Target a players head and see what happens.

If the governing body and the players agree to a policy, then both sides have to live up to it. This is why I have no issue with what the nfl is doing,the players agreed to it. If they have an issue with it, then either change it through the cba, or don't play.

I think I'm shouting into the gale, but where does it end if our sports leagues decide that only choir boys will be allowed to play the game? Do we as a public REALLY want that?

It's easy to trash Favre for his actions, but nowhere have I heard anybody trash the girl. Why is that, because she's cute and therefore untouchable? I'm saddened by this PC state of affairs that emigrated from the government into our sports.

What's next? Who's next?