Roger Godell's Terrible No Good Bad (Infinity) - the whoopin

[A_B]

So, not one of these owners is going to say something other than the NFL line? None of them are at least somewhat concerned that continued association with Goodell is NOT in the best interest of the Shield?

Where's Mark Cuban when you need him. Meanwhile, the other loudmouth meddling Dallas owner is thrilled to death that this happened this week.

ETA: And how strange is it that we're now assuming Ray Rice was the only one in all of this who managed to tell the truth the whole time?

[mister d]

Oh...we're doing the "If you still watch the NFL then you don't care about domestic violence" thing?

You're caricaturing the comment on purpose. Its not "you love domestic violence if you watch", its "the only fan response that will effect change is not watching"

[degenerasian]

Most people are like "Fuck Goodell and the Ravens, what a bunch of fucking liars! Oh shit, I better eat something before the game starts!"

Oh...we're doing the "If you still watch the NFL then you don't care about domestic violence" thing? You really wanna climb up on that high horse, Degen?

Here's a question...what's the % of people who think they're morally superior because they're boycotting the NFL already didn't really care about the NFL? 99?

None. Not me im watching on Sunday. So the NFL is not hurt and doesnt really care. Thus the original 2 game suspension.

Sure the nfl is a bit embarrassed this week but it doesnt hurt the bottom line. As long Goodell doesnt make any black jokes he's ok.

[Jerloma]

Oh...we're doing the "If you still watch the NFL then you don't care about domestic violence" thing?

You're caricaturing the comment on purpose. Its not "you love domestic violence if you watch", its "the only fan response that will effect change is not watching"

How does that manifest itself on an individual level? "You have a chance to do something about domestic violence but you'd rather watch football."

It's wrong anyway. They need a new not so corrupt commissioner. If reasonable minds prevail, there'll be changes at the top and I'm sure the new guy will want to separate himself from Goodell as much as possible. The NFL does not need Goodell to make money.

[A_B]

Oh...we're doing the "If you still watch the NFL then you don't care about domestic violence" thing?

You're caricaturing the comment on purpose. Its not "you love domestic violence if you watch", its "the only fan response that will effect change is not watching"

How does that manifest itself on an individual level? "You have a chance to do something about domestic violence but you'd rather watch football."

It's wrong anyway. They need a new not so corrupt commissioner. If reasonable minds prevail, there'll be changes at the top and I'm sure the new guy will want to separate himself from Goodell as much as possible. The NFL does not need Goodell to make money.

This is why I am so shocked no owner has spoken up.

[mister d]

How does that manifest itself on an individual level? "You have a chance to do something about domestic violence but you'd rather watch football."

J-Lo, you know exactly what I'm saying. The NFL surely knows two things: (1) A lot of fans want Goodell out and (2) almost zero percent of fans are willing to change their NFL consumption one bit. Without (2), the likelihood of (1) is drastically lower.

[mister d]

Also, why is a boycott of any sorts framed as undoable versus undesirable? Because it truly can't be done or because the NFL's demand inelasticity is unmatched by just about everything short of Apple and online porn.

[Shirley]

How does that manifest itself on an individual level? "You have a chance to do something about domestic violence but you'd rather watch football."

J-Lo, you know exactly what I'm saying. The NFL surely knows two things: (1) A lot of fans want Goodell out and (2) almost zero percent of fans are willing to change their NFL consumption one bit. Without (2), the likelihood of (1) is drastically lower.

The flip side is that NFL machine is more than likely gonna chug along with or without Goodell. Surely these egotistical owners don't want to give the impression that Goodell is more important than them, right? Why put up with all of this negative attention when they could fire him (have him resign) and replace him with some other douche nozzle?

[Nonlinear FC]

We've already talked about what will pressure the NFL to dump Goodell: 1 owner that needs something moved through a public process and sees Goodell as a liability.

If this story doesn't die down soon, one of them is going to flinch.

The other thing to keep an eye on are sponsors. And, frankly, if people wanted to band together and put some pressure on the league, they'd organize some kind of letter writing campaign to a select group of sponsors. That's a realistic thing to ask fans to do.

Expecting fans not to watch, and judging them for lack of caring about domestic violence issues if they do watch, is a specious argument.

[Jerloma]

How does that manifest itself on an individual level? "You have a chance to do something about domestic violence but you'd rather watch football."

J-Lo, you know exactly what I'm saying. The NFL surely knows two things: (1) A lot of fans want Goodell out and (2) almost zero percent of fans are willing to change their NFL consumption one bit. Without (2), the likelihood of (1) is drastically lower.

PDX's question was "how many fans actually care about domestic violence?" I asked how being outraged over the cover-up means I don't care about domestic violence. Degen said that we're just going to watch football anyway.

What this all means in logical terms is that if you watch football then you don't care about domestic violence.

That's just super-duper high-horsey is all I'm saying.

[mister d]

Isn't expecting sponsors to pull out despite viewership remaining unchanged just shifting the burden?

[mister d]

That's just super-duper high-horsey is all I'm saying.

Fine, lets pretend I agree with that logic. Aren't there plenty of things you'd boycott over a similar offense by a CEO-type?

[Rex]

How does that manifest itself on an individual level? "You have a chance to do something about domestic violence but you'd rather watch football."

J-Lo, you know exactly what I'm saying. The NFL surely knows two things: (1) A lot of fans want Goodell out and (2) almost zero percent of fans are willing to change their NFL consumption one bit. Without (2), the likelihood of (1) is drastically lower.

The flip side is that NFL machine is more than likely gonna chug along with or without Goodell. Surely these egotistical owners don't want to give the impression that Goodell is more important than them, right? Why put up with all of this negative attention when they could fire him (have him resign) and replace him with some other douche nozzle?

That part does puzzle me. The owners have the means to send him packing with a sweet sweet golden parachute in exchange for confidentiality. And I don't know of any reason why any of the terms would have to be made public. I guess it is not in their DNA to admit a mistake.

[Jerloma]

That's just super-duper high-horsey is all I'm saying.

Fine, lets pretend I agree with that logic. Aren't there plenty of things you'd boycott over a similar offense by a CEO-type?

Nothing comes to mind.

[Nonlinear FC]

Isn't expecting sponsors to pull out despite viewership remaining unchanged just shifting the burden?

I don't understand what burden is being shifted. That's not being said in an argumentative way, I'm missing something.

[mister d]

So then why feign indigence and trot out the "what I can one man do" defense? You aren't tuning out because this scandal isn't enough to force you to tune out. You're hardly alone.

[tennbengal]

Here is where I miss Al Davis.

[mister d]

I don't understand what burden is being shifted. That's not being said in an argumentative way, I'm missing something.

Because it seems like the fans want anyone but them to have to take the stance here. Owners need to step up (despite me still paying). Sponsors need to pull out (despite me still watching).

[Rex]

Everyone has a line at which point they would stop watching NFL games. If they sacrificed a live human being as part of the halftime entertainment of every NFL game, I would stop watching. So my line is somewhere between that and the current state of affairs.

I sincerely doubt that anything that has happened here has been a line crossing moment for more than a handful of the millions of people who watch NFL games. It doesn't mean that we're bad or that we support violence against women--it's just that none of what happened is all that material to our enjoyment of the game. And the NFL knows that and that's why they can be so cynical I guess.

[Jerloma]

So then why feign indigence and trot out the "what I can one man do" defense? You aren't tuning out because this scandal isn't enough to force you to tune out. You're hardly alone.

I'm not. I think this is bad enough where changes are going to be made regardless of viewership.

[Nonlinear FC]

I don't understand what burden is being shifted. That's not being said in an argumentative way, I'm missing something.

Because it seems like the fans want anyone but them to have to take the stance here. Owners need to step up (despite me still paying). Sponsors need to pull out (despite me still watching).

Ah, gotcha. I was approaching this from a practical standpoint.

As was seen yesterday in Baltimore, the NFL fan base is full of fucking morons that will defend the actions of the players (and as a byproduct the league) to the point of absurdity. You aren't ever going to see a successful boycott of the NFL.

So the only realistic avenue for those who feel the need to take action would be best served by going after the sponsors.

Edit: #notallnflfans. I understand that not all fans of the NFL are fucking morons, quite the contrary. I'm just saying that you are contending with a fan base that includes a lot of fucking morons.

[rass]

i...like the...but t...need to...pay...or...need to pull out (despite me still watching)

[Ryan]

I literally cannot follow any of this discussion.

[P.D.X.]

PDX's question was "how many fans actually care about domestic violence?"

That wasn't the question though. I framed it as "what's the bigger concern to fans, that a woman got beat, or that they can use that beating for some other bigger-picture (somewhat self-serving) gripe about the NFL?"

It seems to me (as an outside observer), that a big part of it is the latter being cloaked in the former. Just an observation, not pointed at you.


But while we're playing, how is expressing concern on the internet and then consuming as normal any different than trying to cure cancer with a pink ribbon or supporting troops with a bumper sticker?

[Ryan]

It is damn near 100% the "Gotcha NFL" angle. That much I follow.

[mister d]

If you're lumping me in, I'm not disagreeing. Not that I wouldn't otherwise care, but I definitely do have an overall issue with the league and far too many of their fans.

[mister d]

(I'm also kinda dreading the NHL reaching the point where I either can't watch in good conscience or have to pull a J-Lo.)

[Jerloma]

PDX's question was "how many fans actually care about domestic violence?"

That wasn't the question though. I framed it as "what's the bigger concern to fans, that a woman got beat, or that they can use that beating for some other bigger-picture (somewhat self-serving) gripe about the NFL?"

While I do feel somewhat vindicated after all of the eyerolls I've gotten over the years for thinking that Goodell is the anti-christ, I still don't understand how you're separating the woman getting beat aspect with the cover up of the woman getting beat. If the judiciary system and the NFL are creating environments that protect people who commit DV, that's concerning for the sake of battered women. If this was j-walking cover up, I wouldn't be so indignant.

[Jerloma]

(I'm also kinda dreading the NHL reaching the point where I either can't watch in good conscience or have to pull a J-Lo.)

Seriously...go fuck yourself.

[Nonlinear FC]

PDX's question was "how many fans actually care about domestic violence?"

That wasn't the question though. I framed it as "what's the bigger concern to fans, that a woman got beat, or that they can use that beating for some other bigger-picture (somewhat self-serving) gripe about the NFL?"

It seems to me (as an outside observer), that a big part of it is the latter being cloaked in the former. Just an observation, not pointed at you.


But while we're playing, how is expressing concern on the internet and then consuming as normal any different than trying to cure cancer with a pink ribbon or supporting troops with a bumper sticker?

Since you're not just addressing/pointing at loma, I think you're not entirely wrong. Personally, I get pissed when people insult my intelligence this blatantly.

With that said, I wasn't really all that worked up by how they handled Spygate, the situation with the Saints, or the many inconsistencies with suspensions for both on and off the field stuff.

I'm pissed about this one because of what they attempted to cover up. It's sickening to me. So, yeah, I think a lot of people have built up a lot of animosity and this a factor. But it's just a multiplier to what my anger would be without the back story.

[howard]

Surely these egotistical owners don't want to give the impression that Goodell is more important than them, right? Why put up with all of this negative attention when they could fire him (have him resign) and replace him with some other douche nozzle?

That part does puzzle me. The owners have the means to send him packing with a sweet sweet golden parachute in exchange for confidentiality. And I don't know of any reason why any of the terms would have to be made public. I guess it is not in their DNA to admit a mistake.

I think a huge factor is these rich fucking assholes hate the idea of bending to public pressure. The hate the image of such bending even moreso. They really fucking hate being told what to do, especially when it is right, logical and in their own best interest.

Here is where I miss Al Davis.

Wordy word. Haven't missed him this much since Hue Jackson was fired.

I literally cannot follow any of this discussion.

lucky you.

[A_B]

Spygate and the Saints issues were 100% football-related. It's just that the league-office is now out of it's depth.

It shouldn't be, though. With this big of an organization, there should be lawyers on staff saying...wait wait wait. But no. Croneyist yesmen and yesmen cronies.

[A_B]

I think a huge factor is these rich fucking assholes hate the idea of bending to public pressure. The hate the image of such bending even moreso. They really fucking hate being told what to do, especially when it is right, logical and in their own best interest.

But in this instance, the owners can say they're just like us! Disgusted, and any potential harm for "bending to the public pressure" is negated by the goodwill that would inevitably result from sacking up.

[Rex]

PDX's question was "how many fans actually care about domestic violence?"

That wasn't the question though. I framed it as "what's the bigger concern to fans, that a woman got beat, or that they can use that beating for some other bigger-picture (somewhat self-serving) gripe about the NFL?"

It seems to me (as an outside observer), that a big part of it is the latter being cloaked in the former. Just an observation, not pointed at you.


But while we're playing, how is expressing concern on the internet and then consuming as normal any different than trying to cure cancer with a pink ribbon or supporting troops with a bumper sticker?

I read the question as asking whether the NFL's bigger sin here is (1) giving too light a punishment the first time around or (2) lying about why. My sense is that the vast majority of people care more about (2), because unlike in (1), they're the ones being lied to.

[howard]

I think a huge factor is these rich fucking assholes hate the idea of bending to public pressure. The hate the image of such bending even moreso. They really fucking hate being told what to do, especially when it is right, logical and in their own best interest.

But in this instance, the owners can say they're just like us! Disgusted, and any potential harm for "bending to the public pressure" is negated by the goodwill that would inevitably result from sacking up.

Too much logic. Try applying less common sense to understand these guys.

[mister d]

(I'm also kinda dreading the NHL reaching the point where I either can't watch in good conscience or have to pull a J-Lo.)

Seriously...go fuck yourself.

There are good priest and good catholics, J-Lo ; )

[mister d]

I think a huge factor is these rich fucking assholes hate the idea of bending to public pressure. The hate the image of such bending even moreso. They really fucking hate being told what to do, especially when it is right, logical and in their own best interest.

But in this instance, the owners can say they're just like us! Disgusted, and any potential harm for "bending to the public pressure" is negated by the goodwill that would inevitably result from sacking up.

Guarantee they see this as a slippery slope issue. If _______ can get us to push out an 8 year commish and NFL lifer, what else can they force?

[Nonlinear FC]

I think a huge factor is these rich fucking assholes hate the idea of bending to public pressure. The hate the image of such bending even moreso. They really fucking hate being told what to do, especially when it is right, logical and in their own best interest.

But in this instance, the owners can say they're just like us! Disgusted, and any potential harm for "bending to the public pressure" is negated by the goodwill that would inevitably result from sacking up.

Guarantee they see this as a slippery slope issue. If _______ can get us to push out an 8 year commish and NFL lifer, what else can they force?

But... I mean... If _________ is total incompetence in handling what should've been a slightly tricky disciplinary issue?

[degenerasian]

Everyone has a line at which point they would stop watching NFL games. If they sacrificed a live human being as part of the halftime entertainment of every NFL game, I would stop watching. So my line is somewhere between that and the current state of affairs.

I sincerely doubt that anything that has happened here has been a line crossing moment for more than a handful of the millions of people who watch NFL games. It doesn't mean that we're bad or that we support violence against women--it's just that none of what happened is all that material to our enjoyment of the game. And the NFL knows that and that's why they can be so cynical I guess.

You might be the minority cause that might be the best halftime show ever for some people.
If the 2nd video never came back, Ravens fans would have welcomed Rice back next week, they probably are pissed off he was suspended 2 games in the first place based on the first video.

It boggles my mind that female Ravens fans are out there on the news supporting Ray Rice. I do wonder what is that line. In the NBA the players stood up against Sterling but if they hadn't, the fans would have still shown up business as usual.

I don't think I'm high-horsey. I won't consume what I don't like. I think Thursday night football is the stupidest idea in the sporting world so I don't watch that game ever. That's all I can do to make it go away.

[DSafetyGuy]

The NFL is actually the 32 team owners. Goodell is performing them a terrific service by taking all these hits while the people in power are (mostly) in "head down, mouth closed" mode (I use "mostly" because, aside from Bisciotti's comments, the Bears' ownership issued a statement yesterday and I don't know if any other teams did). 32 very savvy businessmen who know that keeping their mouths as shut as possible is the best move for business (as illustrated by every time their public face opens his, he is shown to be ignorant, a liar, or the like).

The two owners who are supervising the "independent investigation"? Two of the most senior and most respected franchise owners in the sport. Don't tell me Mara and Rooney got their names drawn out of a hat.