Maithanet Posted May 11, 2015 Share Posted May 11, 2015 Could be, but if so they fucked up hiring him initially. He was the one coming down (overly) harshly on any team or player he felt was flaunting the rules. It was clear from the start he wanted to be an out front, activist commissioner in a way the shrewder, subtler Tagliabue did not. They all voted for this guy back in 2006, presumably because he presented a strong, competent face of the league. And they're all sticking with him even though he's the polar opposite of that now. But is he? I agree he looks weak on some issues, but from what I understand, Goodell has done what the owners really wanted. The league continues to grow into an entertainment juggernaut, and at the same time he has addressed the two largest challenges facing the league: the player lockout and the concussion settlement. In both cases the NFL claimed that they made generous concessions, but really it ended up being pocket change compared to what the league can really afford. Since those two big wins, there have been some setbacks, Ray Rice most notably. But Goodell is pushing through, and I'm not sure it'll make much difference in the long run so long as they don't continue to screw up their outreach to women. Yes, Goodell looks like a corporate stooge, but that's what he is. The NFL is the greediest of all professional sports leagues - it would be virtually impossible to hide. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sperry Posted May 11, 2015 Share Posted May 11, 2015 Any commissioner is going to do the owner's bidding, because he's their employee and representative. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Manhole Eunuchsbane Posted May 11, 2015 Share Posted May 11, 2015 Any commissioner is going to do the owner's bidding, because he's their employee and representative. Kind of a sign of the times though,don't ya think? Pauly Tags wasn't a stooge. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lancerman Posted May 11, 2015 Share Posted May 11, 2015 Honestly I wouldn't be surprised if the owners are pleased with Goodell. Think about it, despite Ray Rice, Adrian Peterson, and Greg Hardy, a number of commercials calling attention to domestic violence, at least Manziel being forced into rehab, the whole sound thing with the Falcons, text thing with the Browns, and deflategate with the Patriots they still had their most profitable year ever, best viewership, and their biggest financially successful Super Bowl game ever. It's too big to fail now. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sperry Posted May 11, 2015 Share Posted May 11, 2015 Honestly I wouldn't be surprised if the owners are pleased with Goodell. Think about it, despite Ray Rice, Adrian Peterson, and Greg Hardy, a number of commercials calling attention to domestic violence, at least Manziel being forced into rehab, the whole sound thing with the Falcons, text thing with the Browns, and deflategate with the Patriots they still had their most profitable year ever, best viewership, and their biggest financially successful Super Bowl game ever. It's too big to fail now. Why would they want an incompetent buffoon running the show though? You would think they'd want to protect their golden goose, and not let Goodell fuck up everything left and right. Owners are an arrogant bunch, but, at least the self-made ones, are shrewd business people. They have to know they'd be better served by someone who doesn't shit down his leg on a daily basis. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lancerman Posted May 11, 2015 Share Posted May 11, 2015 Why would they want an incompetent buffoon running the show though? You would think they'd want to protect their golden goose, and not let Goodell fuck up everything left and right. Owners are an arrogant bunch, but, at least the self-made ones, are shrewd business people. They have to know they'd be better served by someone who doesn't shit down his leg on a daily basis. Because there is a good argument to be made that under Goodell the league got so big that it could weather all those storms without missing a beat. He's a horrible public relations guy. But he's a hell of a "I'm going to make sure you all make as much money as possible guy". Would you rather have a billion dollar company and have it look shady or a million dollar company and have it look honorable? I guess that's the question. And they obviously want the money. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jaime L Posted May 11, 2015 Share Posted May 11, 2015 But is he? I agree he looks weak on some issues, but from what I understand, Goodell has done what the owners really wanted. The league continues to grow into an entertainment juggernaut, and at the same time he has addressed the two largest challenges facing the league: the player lockout and the concussion settlement. In both cases the NFL claimed that they made generous concessions, but really it ended up being pocket change compared to what the league can really afford. Since those two big wins, there have been some setbacks, Ray Rice most notably. But Goodell is pushing through, and I'm not sure it'll make much difference in the long run so long as they don't continue to screw up their outreach to women. Yes, Goodell looks like a corporate stooge, but that's what he is. The NFL is the greediest of all professional sports leagues - it would be virtually impossible to hide. I just think the optics are bad under Goodell. Every single decision the league makes with him at the helm is now colored as either evil or incompetent or both. And granted some of it would have been unavoidable like the concussion crisis. But the amount of self-inflicted harm is the issue. And as we've seen with Adam Silver, there's no requirement that commissioners fully embody the "soulless stooge" stereotype that they basically are. It hasn't hurt profits yet. But damage to the brand (or as Goodell knows it, "the shield") tend to be long term in nature and difficult to reverse. I suspect there will be at time in the future where the owners will be kicking themselves for the damage incurred during the Goodell era that could've been avoided with a defter hand at the wheel. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sperry Posted May 11, 2015 Share Posted May 11, 2015 Because there is a good argument to be made that under Goodell the league got so big that it could weather all those storms without missing a beat. He's a horrible public relations guy. But he's a hell of a "I'm going to make sure you all make as much money as possible guy". Would you rather have a billion dollar company and have it look shady or a million dollar company and have it look honorable? I guess that's the question. And they obviously want the money. No, that's not the question. The question is, is the NFL this big because of Roger Goodell, or is the NFL this big in spite of Roger Goodell? My answer is the former. And I think that Goodell has done severe damage to their brand. At this point, everyone loves the product so much that they buy it anyway, myself being among the biggest offenders. But they have to know that popularity and lack of competition aren't forever, and they need to place themselves well for when that time comes. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rhom Posted May 11, 2015 Share Posted May 11, 2015 Push notification from ESPN says Brady out four games. Longer than I thought, but unsurprising at this point. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Reny of Storms End Posted May 11, 2015 Share Posted May 11, 2015 Also saying the Pats give up a first rounder in 16, and a fourth rounder. Also fined the team a million bucks. For the evidence we have thats outrageous. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
trickster Posted May 11, 2015 Share Posted May 11, 2015 Also saying the Pats give up a first rounder in 16, and a fourth rounder. Also fined the team a million bucks. For the evidence we have thats outrageous. Yeah, this is too steep methinks. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sperry Posted May 11, 2015 Share Posted May 11, 2015 Wow, that's a very real punishment. Suspending Brady 4 games probably prevents them from getting home field throughout, and could even bump them out of a Bye if they go 1-3 or something. The draft picks don't make as much sense, as the report seemed to say the team didn't have knowledge. And the $1 million dollar fine, lol. It's like giving someone a 5 year prison sentence and tacking on a $75 fine. At the end of the day, this will almost assuredly be dramatiaclly reduced. I'm guessing Brady gets 2 games and maybe they make it one 2nd round pick gone or something. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
White Walker Texas Ranger Posted May 11, 2015 Share Posted May 11, 2015 That's a pretty harsh punishment for "More probably than not" Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lancerman Posted May 11, 2015 Share Posted May 11, 2015 Will probably get reduced. For the Colts sake, I hope it. Game 5 is against them. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bronn Stone Posted May 11, 2015 Share Posted May 11, 2015 Agreed. Too harsh. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jaime L Posted May 11, 2015 Share Posted May 11, 2015 Also saying the Pats give up a first rounder in 16, and a fourth rounder. Also fined the team a million bucks. For the evidence we have thats outrageous. Yeah, I don't get taking away draft picks. Suspend the player involved at worst. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fez Posted May 11, 2015 Share Posted May 11, 2015 Also saying the Pats give up a first rounder in 16, and a fourth rounder. Also fined the team a million bucks. For the evidence we have thats outrageous. Haha, wow. Boom goes the hammer. Even as a Jets fan though, I think the draft picks and fine are going too far. The report was pretty clear that the organization probably wasn't involved. I'm fine with the suspension because it'll get appealed and end up being two games, which seems about right. ETA: Just read the NFL's statement. It says that the team punishments are also for not cooperating with the investigation. Still seems harsh, but there's the reasoning. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Trebla Posted May 11, 2015 Author Share Posted May 11, 2015 *Braces for the RagnaROCK* Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MercenaryChef Posted May 11, 2015 Share Posted May 11, 2015 i just like the idea of tom brady letting the air out of balls while giggling. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Manhole Eunuchsbane Posted May 11, 2015 Share Posted May 11, 2015 Yeah, I don't get taking away draft picks. Suspend the player involved at worst. With you on that. I think the suspension is fair. Don't get the draft picks either. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.