The New Orleans Saints and the morality of the "bounty hunting" program.

[LSN80]

If it's good enough for CNN and ESPN, it's good enough for here, I figure. It seems we have worse villians in sports then Matt Cooke, James Harrison, and Ndamukong Suh. Enter Gregg Williams and the New Orleans Saints defense.

http://www.cnn.com/2012/03/02/sport/football/saints-bounty-program/index.html?hpt=us_c2

If you haven't heard, NFL investigators have discovered that New Orleans Saints defensive coordinator Gregg Williams ran a "bounty hunters" program, where his players were paid for interceptions, fumble recoveries, and..... injuring opponents. Williams ran the program, but Saints players contributed money to it, and were paid on a sliding scale of sorts. For example, if an opposing player was carted off the field, the player who caused the injury was paid a certain amount. A different value was attached to paying a player who caused an injury that resulted in a player not being able to return to the game. Certain values were attached to the "star value" of the injured player, and specific QB's were tagged with even higher values, such as Brett Favre and Tom Brady, amongst others.

This violates league rules on several levels, as the paying of players outside of their contracts through organized team activities is prohibited. And that doesn't even touch on the violations of league policy of coaches encouraging their players to injure others through a payment system, specifically one based upon intangibles. Williams, now the defensive coordinator for the New Orleans Saints, issued a statement on the allegations:

"It was a terrible mistake, and we knew it was wrong while we were doing it. Instead of getting caught up in it, I should have stopped it. I take full responsibility for my role. I am truly sorry. I have learned a hard lesson and I guarantee that I will never participate in or allow this kind of activity to happen again."

I don't think Mr. Williams could have been more cliched if he tried. It was a "terrible mistake". I "should have stopped it". "I have learned a hard lesson". I guarantee this will never happen again." On all of these, I cry B.S., and issue the equally cliched response of "He's sorry he got caught." Why?

Probes are now suggesting that Williams has a history of being involved in such activities. The NFL is now investigating the claims of five players who played in Washington under Williams while he was defensive coordinator there from 2004-2007 that Williams had a similar system in place. Going back further, former Buffalo Bills players noted that a similar program was in place when Williams and his time as head coach there from 2001-2003.

Returning to the New Orleans Saints, reports indicate that GM Mickey Loomis, and Head Coach Sean Peyton were both aware of the bounty system, although Peyton didn't participate in it in any way. Still, reports indicate that Peyton was ordered to put a stop to the program, but failed to intervene in any way. Discipline for Williams seems imminent, sure, but does Peyton warrant punishment as well for his failure to stop the program?
Owner Tom Benson issued the following statement:

"The results of this probe are troubling. I have offered and the NFL has received our full cooperation in their investigation. While the findings may be troubling, we look forward to putting this behind us and winning more championships in the future for our fans."

Unsurprisingly to me, current and former NFL players have come out in support of Williams, stating that these systems are the norm rather then the exception. I believe that, honestly. Said former NFL defensive end Trevor Pryce:

"It's pretty much standard operating procedure. It made our special teams better. I know dudes who doubled their salary from it. Trust me, it happens in some form in any locker room. It's like a democracy, the inmates governing themselves."

Not everyone holds to that theory, however, as evidenced by the statement issued by former NFL defensive tackle Kris Jenkins:

"Bounty systems being rampant in the league would be news to me. I must have been playing "my whole career with blinders on."

Personally, I understand the idea of trying to motivate one's players, but this goes beyind that. This is encouraging your players to not only play hard, but to do anything to win, even if it's wrong. I brought up players such as James Harrison and Ndamukong Suh in the opening, and it truly is apples and oranges between the two. With Harrison and Suh, you have players who refuse to change their style of play in order to adapt to league rules. They lost money out of their paychecks as a result of not doing so.

In the case of the Saints, their defensive players were essentially being taught to adapt their style of play to bridge outside of the league rules. If that's too harsh, they were being encouraged to play with wreckless abandon at best. And unlike the cases of Suh and Harrison, these players were being paid extra to do so, with an organized program run by their defensive coordinator, with their head coach having full knowledge of these actions all the while.

I want to talk about the ethics being taught here as well. At this point, I understand the argument that they're not high school or college students anymore, they're paid professionals, grown men. But in this case, the employer is essentially encouraging the corruption of its employees in the sense that they're paying them for doing things that are morally wrong. When you look at things in context, what you have are a bunch of (still) young men being encouraged to commit assault against other human beings. Don't believe me? Listen to defensive tackle Matt Bowen's comments on the situation. They're troublesome.

"You do what he (Williams) wants: play tough, push the envelope and carry a swagger that every opponent sees on tape. When you lined up against us, you knew we were coming after you. It was our gig, our plan, our way to motivate, to extra-motivate.

I wanted to be That Guy for him, playing the game with an attitude opposing players absolutely feared. If that meant playing through the whistle or going low on a tackle, I did it.

I don't regret any part of it. I can't. ... Your career exists in a short window, one that starts closing the moment it opens. If making a play to impress a coach or win a game pushes that window up an inch before it slams back down on your fingers, then you do what has to be done."

Again, it's not an employer's job to legislate morality amongst its employees in most cases, I believe, unless it's what they do when on the job. And the New Orleans Saints spent three years paying its players to commit assault. If you are to believe Trevor Pryce, this is simply a system that is rampant throughout the league, and the Saints are the ones who got caught. But Pryce discussed it as being an "inmates governing themselves" type system, where in the case of the Saints, it was employer paying employee to injure others. Those are two different animals in my eyes, with the latter being far more deplorable then the former.

I do understand sports are a dangerous game, especially a high contact one such as football. Every play one is going out there, they're putting their health on the line. And that's where my largest problem with this system lies. Without malicious intent, the sport is dangerous enough. Add malicious intent and some cash waved around, and it becomes criminal to me.

How rampant do you believe a "bounty hunter" system is in the NFL? How much of it do you believe is simply player driven as compared to employer driven?

Is this a great motivational tool, or is it the corruption of employees by employers?

How do you decide discipline in such matters, if you're the NFL? How do you punish Gregg Williams, Sean Peyton, and the New Orleans organization as a whole?

Am I going overboard on the morality issues of this case in calling them criminal?

The questions are just food for thought, feel free to comment on this however you wish. The ESPN story and discussion amongst experts is a good read/listen as well.

http://espn.go.com/nfl/story/_/id/7638603/new-orleans-saints-defense-had-bounty-program-nfl-says

 

[Champ1432]

How rampant do you believe a "bounty hunter" system is in the NFL? How much of it do you believe is simply player driven as compared to employer driven?

Although I would hope that it's not a widespread phenomenon, that's probably a little naive, and I would not be at all surprised if most teams didn't have similar systems in place. Perhaps on other teams, it is more of an "inmates governing themselves" system with little or no coach involvement, but the existence of such systems is probably pretty ubiquitous.

Is this a great motivational tool, or is it the corruption of employees by employers?
Both, really. One would like to think that coaches only try to inspire positive behavior from their players, even at the pro level. Even though that may be, again, a little naive. But if you're to believe Trevor Pryce, it obviously functioned as great motivation as well.

How do you decide discipline in such matters, if you're the NFL? How do you punish Gregg Williams, Sean Peyton, and the New Orleans organization as a whole?

Tough to say. The analysis I was watching said the NFL could levy large fines and possibly make the Saints forfeit draft picks. I have no doubt about the fines. Giving up draft picks we don't often see, but I also wouldn't doubt it in this case. You have to think the NFL is going to come down hard on them. I'm sure they don't want anyone even having a thought that these systems exist around the league. Any lingering perception that this kind of behavior goes on is going to hurt them in the sponsor area.

Am I going overboard on the morality issues of this case in calling them criminal?
Perhaps a little, but I'm there with you, honestly. I'm sure it's tough. I've played team sports but not football. (I mean, I've played with my friends, but never on an organized team.... you know what I mean.) So I know how it goes on a team, and how you try to motivate each other. And football is so much more violent than the other sports. It's got to be hard to keep that line of, "Go hit this guy as hard as you can, but now when the whistle blows, we're all civilized again". I'm sure it's tough to flip the switch like that, and that's what helps these kinds of programs exist. And the pressure to win at the highest level (the NFL) must be immense. Part of me understands that, but part of me also agrees with you that if these were things you and I did to each other or to other people, we would be arrested. So is it ok just because they're done in the context of a sporting event?

Either way, as I said, you have to think the NFL is going to come down pretty hard and do everyting they can to make people forget about this and not think that it's happening all over the league.

 

[PlayTheGame]

This is why I have a problem with people defending Williams' actions in terms of keeping his job. When I called for his firing, certain people lashed out and said "you can't cost the Rams a coach". I understand that argument, but I think this offense transcends those lines. If an NFL coach had been exposed as a Jerry Sandusky-like pedophile in the middle of the season, the NFL would step in and suspend said person from the league (probably forever) if the team didn't. These guys are NFL employees too, after all. Now, I'm not comparing Williams' actions to that of a pedophile, but I think his actions do deserve a similar punishment in that I believe the league should suspend him. Tough luck for the Rams, but that's bullshit to try defend Williams' job just because he's with a new team. Get a different coach, Williams spearheaded a very, very illegal (arguably cruel and heinous) undertaking that is embarrassing the league and drawing national attention. In fact, it seems to be getting bigger and bigger everyday. I'd be surprised if the NFL doesn't dole out a punishment for him, especially when you consider they've never been hesitant in the past to dole out punishment when necessary. He deserves to be fired, he can't just apologize this away like he's trying to.

 

[Mustang Sally]

I don't think Mr. Williams could have been more cliched if he tried. It was a "terrible mistake". I "should have stopped it".

This goes back to an old theme of mine; the definition of "mistake." The dictionary defines a mistake as ....1. an error or fault 2. a misconception or misunderstanding.

That definition implies taking a wrongful or incorrect action but not knowing it was wrongful or incorrect. Therefore, Gregg Williams didn't "make a mistake." He knew damn well what he was doing as he was doing it.....and his hope was that his actions would not be discovered.

It's easy to see why celebrities are always willing to go before the cameras and cop to a "mistake" after they've screwed up. They want the public to hear them and think: "Well, everyone makes mistakes, so how can we not forgive him for this one?"

But that's the rub; if you're willfully and knowingly doing wrong, it isn't a mistake, it's a blatant attempt to circumvent the rules (or laws) that have been set out for you.

When the manager of the Texas Rangers in baseball took cocaine and got caught, he went public with an apology for "making a mistake." But that's ridiculous; if you break the law by procuring an illegal drug, ingesting it and getting caught, you didn't make a mistake......you willfully did wrong and hoped no one would find out. However, this guy got off with a slap on the wrist because MLB apparently bought the notion that the guy had just made a mistake. Jeez.

If Gregg Williams and anyone else on the Saints who participated in this horrible "program" gets away easy because the public and legal community agree that the whole damn thing was a simple "mistake," they might as well allow football players do carry knives and guns onto the field and use them during the game.

If someone gets hurt or killed......well,after all, it was just a mistake.

 

[Davi323]

How rampant do you believe a "bounty hunter" system is in the NFL? How much of it do you believe is simply player driven as compared to employer driven?

I don't know how rampant it is, but I have a hard time believing that Gregg Williams invented the idea. I would hope that it's mostly player driven. However, with the Saints, it was clearly an organizational thing. Both the GM and head coach knew it was going on and did nothing to stop it, despite being told by the Saints owner to stop. That means that knowledge it was going on went all the way to the very top of the Saints organization, nobody can claim that they didn't know about it.

Is this a great motivational tool, or is it the corruption of employees by employers?

In the Saints case, it is clearly a corruption of employees by the employers, although they were 100% willing to be complicit in the corruption. Both sides share blame.

How do you decide discipline in such matters, if you're the NFL? How do you punish Gregg Williams, Sean Peyton, and the New Orleans organization as a whole?

Considering that since he took over as NFL commissioner, Roger Goodell has tried to create an image of clean, safe hitting, to reduce concussions, and generally taking a very hard stance on dirty play, I can't see how Goodell can do anything less than throw the book at them. He really has no choice. Not only were they actively/intentionally violating NFL rules, but the rules they were violating spit in the face of his efforts to clean up the league's image. Goodell is trying to convince everyone he is making the NFL safer, and these morons are intentionally trying to injure people. Even if you accept that this behavior goes on everywhere, nobody has gotten busted before. Goodell needs to set an example, and he is not known as being particularly lenient. The players involved will get heavy fines and suspensions, but I think the bulk of the punishment is going to come on Payton and Williams. As coaches, it's their job to ensure that the NFL's rules are being adhered to, and Payton knew there was an issue and did nothing to stop it. If this were the NCAA, this would be that dreaded "lack of institutional control" language that draws the stiffest penalties. As for Williams, I think he is in serious, serious trouble. Not only did he do nothing to stop it, he organized it. You simply cannot have coaches employed by NFL teams not only looking the other way, but actively participating in the violation of NFL rules. Williams could end up being suspended for the entire season, and if Goodell is in a really pissy mood, I wouldn't rule out a lifetime ban either. I don't think it will be as severe as that, but I wouldn't be shocked if it happened.

Am I going overboard on the morality issues of this case in calling them criminal?

Absolutely not. Even if you don't count the violation of NFL rules as criminal, it's possible that they broke state and federal laws by running these bounty pools as well. In fact, I wouldn't be shocked if the IRS is going to be curious as to whether they paid taxes on those bounties or not. It sounds absurd, but is it? They were getting paid under the table, and not paying taxes on that money. Regardless of how they got the money, it would legally be considered income, and as such, would be taxable. Wouldn't that make them guilty of tax evasion if they didn't report it? Further, couldn't setting up a pool like that be considered illegal gambling? Couldn't a case be made that intentionally trying to injure players beyond simply playing the game could be construed as assault and battery? Couldn't Williams be considered to have conspired to commit battery? Hell, considering he organized the pools, that would even make him like the Caporegime of a mob family, ordering hits on opposing family members with the consent of the Don. Opposing offensive players consent to getting hit within the rules of the game, even violent hits. It's a risk that they take, and accept. However, did they consent to being subject to hit-for pay type hits? If that is considered outside of the expected risk, then it was outside of the expected risk for offensive players, and they therefore did not consent to it. That makes it possibly assault, if a prosecutor wanted to push the issue. I am not saying it IS assault, just that it could be construed as such.

I know a lot of people think this is no big deal, that everyone does it. Well, a lot of players in MLB in the 90s took steroids too, does that make it okay? No, it doesn't.

 

[King Patrick Star]

First thing is first, morality?? Morality went out the window as soon as “Eve bit the apple.” The one thing “He” said not to do, she did it, and that’s that. With everything on TV these days, morality’s proverbial bar is at an all-time low. Let’s not talk about right and wrong here as far as morality goes.

To be honest, I like this incentive program and I can only wish that my Philadelphia Eagles have a system in place as well (at 8-8 this past season, I doubt it). Then again, I also feel that performance enhancing drugs shouldn’t be banned or illegal. This is how I feel about the “Wellness Policy” in the WWE. Let them do it, and then in turn, let them deal with it. By the year 2050, we could possibly have guys that are 10 feet tall, weighing 500 pounds of solid muscle. Are we going to be amazed or are we going to boycott the sports we love to watch?? I’m going to watch.

I think it should be the responsibility of the players themselves to know when they have reached their limit, and if they pass their limit to get that edge, let them suffer the consequences on their own. For those that are “clean”, well, good for them. More power to them, but they aren’t going to get as far as those with the advantage. These guys are making more money than our country’s President (exaggeration, I know). If they want to put their lives on the line, so be it. Who are we, as spectators, to say what is right and wrong?? If someone gets injured, get his @$$ off the field and put someone else in. Better yet, let’s just make them all robots like CyberBall.

The following goes for all sports, MLB, NBA, NFL, NHL, and ALL the others. It’s a sport. It’s entertainment. Let the Modern Day Gladiators fight. If they get hurt, or worst case scenario, “if they die, they die.” I thought this was American people. Bigger, Badder, Better. Think about it.

 

[Champ1432]

I think it should be the responsibility of the players themselves to know when they have reached their limit, and if they pass their limit to get that edge, let them suffer the consequences on their own. For those that are “clean”, well, good for them. More power to them, but they aren’t going to get as far as those with the advantage. These guys are making more money than our country’s President (exaggeration, I know). If they want to put their lives on the line, so be it. Who are we, as spectators, to say what is right and wrong?? If someone gets injured, get his @$$ off the field and put someone else in. Better yet, let’s just make them all robots like CyberBall.

The following goes for all sports, MLB, NBA, NFL, NHL, and ALL the others. It’s a sport. It’s entertainment. Let the Modern Day Gladiators fight. If they get hurt, or worst case scenario, “if they die, they die.” I thought this was American people. Bigger, Badder, Better. Think about it.

I really hope you're being sarcastic here. I honestly can't tell, so if you are, then I apologize. If you're not, this is quite troubling.

These guys are making more money than our country’s President (exaggeration, I know). If they want to put their lives on the line, so be it.

No, it's not exaggeration, many of them do make more than the President, but I fail to see what that has to do with this argument.

I think it should be the responsibility of the players themselves to know when they have reached their limit, and if they pass their limit to get that edge, let them suffer the consequences on their own. For those that are “clean”, well, good for them. More power to them, but they aren’t going to get as far as those with the advantage.

Therein lies the problem with your whole arguement. The players should not be governing themselves to that extent. What is the purpose of the league then? The league and its rules exist partly to ensure the safety of its players, hence all the new rules in the NFL regarding concussions. To simply take those away and let the players govern themselves completely would be wrong, and bad for business.

Why is it bad for business? It's counter-productive. Sure, at first, if everyone was roided up or on PEDs of some sort, it may lead to an increase in performance, but long term, the players bodies would break down from the constant drug use. There's no way they could sustain something like that long term, IMO.

Why is it wrong? Several reasons. First, as the overall employer of the players, it's the league's responsibility to ensure a reasonably safe (given the nature of the sport) working environment. Allowing rampant, unchecked drug use surely does not do that. Second, no one should be forced to take drugs just to compete. As you said yourself, any clean player isn't going to be able to hang if most players are on drugs. So the only way to compete would be to roid up yourself. That's utterly ridiculous. The playing field should be clean and level. If you win, it should be because you're more talented or trained harder (cleanly) than the next guy. You shouldn't have to destroy your body just to compete in sports.

You characterize pro sports players as Modern Day Gladiators. While this may be true in some loose sense, we shouldn't take the comparison too far. Gladiators and their sport were from a more barbaric era, which I would hope we have now moved past. To say, "If they die, they die" is incomprehensible to me. No one should risk death to hit a curveball or dunk a basketball or catch a pass.

Sports should be clean. I'm not unrealistic, I know we will never be able to get rid of PEDs completely, as technology continues to produce drugs that are harder to detect, but we should make every effort to ensure that sports at all levels (pro, collegiate, high school) are as clean as possible. Honestly, I don't think sports would be as popular with open, unadulterated drug use anyway. Sure, the players would be physical freaks, but what would the results mean if gotten with the help of substances? I for one would not be interested if that's how it was, and I love to watch and play sports.

Again, if your post was sarcastic and I typed all that in vain, then I'm sorry for misreading you. But if you actually meant it, I hope you really think what it would be like if your vision were reality.

 

[King Patrick Star]

I really hope you're being sarcastic here. I honestly can't tell, so if you are, then I apologize. If you're not, this is quite troubling.



No, it's not exaggeration, many of them do make more than the President, but I fail to see what that has to do with this argument.



Therein lies the problem with your whole arguement. The players should not be governing themselves to that extent. What is the purpose of the league then? The league and its rules exist partly to ensure the safety of its players, hence all the new rules in the NFL regarding concussions. To simply take those away and let the players govern themselves completely would be wrong, and bad for business.

Why is it bad for business? It's counter-productive. Sure, at first, if everyone was roided up or on PEDs of some sort, it may lead to an increase in performance, but long term, the players bodies would break down from the constant drug use. There's no way they could sustain something like that long term, IMO.

Why is it wrong? Several reasons. First, as the overall employer of the players, it's the league's responsibility to ensure a reasonably safe (given the nature of the sport) working environment. Allowing rampant, unchecked drug use surely does not do that. Second, no one should be forced to take drugs just to compete. As you said yourself, any clean player isn't going to be able to hang if most players are on drugs. So the only way to compete would be to roid up yourself. That's utterly ridiculous. The playing field should be clean and level. If you win, it should be because you're more talented or trained harder (cleanly) than the next guy. You shouldn't have to destroy your body just to compete in sports.

You characterize pro sports players as Modern Day Gladiators. While this may be true in some loose sense, we shouldn't take the comparison too far. Gladiators and their sport were from a more barbaric era, which I would hope we have now moved past. To say, "If they die, they die" is incomprehensible to me. No one should risk death to hit a curveball or dunk a basketball or catch a pass.

Sports should be clean. I'm not unrealistic, I know we will never be able to get rid of PEDs completely, as technology continues to produce drugs that are harder to detect, but we should make every effort to ensure that sports at all levels (pro, collegiate, high school) are as clean as possible. Honestly, I don't think sports would be as popular with open, unadulterated drug use anyway. Sure, the players would be physical freaks, but what would the results mean if gotten with the help of substances? I for one would not be interested if that's how it was, and I love to watch and play sports.

Again, if your post was sarcastic and I typed all that in vain, then I'm sorry for misreading you. But if you actually meant it, I hope you really think what it would be like if your vision were reality.

I may have thrown in a few jokes here and there, but I was not being sarcastic at all. I understand what you mean and why the rules are in place, but why should the league care?? Just follow the rules of the actual sport and move on with it. Concussion?? Take a week off. Still hurts?? Retire.

It’s all about ratings and more points on the board means more ratings. How exciting would it be if records were broken every year?? I know I would be excited to see the Phillies score 50 runs in one game. I know I would be excited to see the Flyers score 50 goals in one game. I know I would be excited to see the Eagles score 250 points in one game, where the kicker is kicking 100 yard field goals. I know I would be excited to see the Sixers score 500 points in one game (probably still lose by less than 10, but whatever). I know it’s currently physically impossible right now, but that’s right now. My point is, if they want to, let them. That would give a little more credit to those that don’t and can still hang with the “Big Boys”.

Would you criticize an actor who does roids to get a movie part?? As far as this “bounty” goes, I think all leagues should cut everybody’s salary in half and take that half and distribute it according to performance per game. People are starting to “PG” everything and baby these grown @$$ men. Let the tough guys play and let the “Sports Celebrities” (and Divas) dance with the Stars, or do a sports related movie, or marry a Hollywood B-Lister and get on a reality show.

This is why Vince McMahon should have not only kept the XFL, but he should have created the XLB (Xtreme League Baseball), XBA (Xtreme Basketball Association), XHL (Xtreme Hockey League). Take the sports world into the future!!

 

[Champ1432]

It’s all about ratings and more points on the board means more ratings. How exciting would it be if records were broken every year?? I know I would be excited to see the Phillies score 50 runs in one game. I know I would be excited to see the Flyers score 50 goals in one game. I know I would be excited to see the Eagles score 250 points in one game, where the kicker is kicking 100 yard field goals. I know I would be excited to see the Sixers score 500 points in one game (probably still lose by less than 10, but whatever).

It would be exciting once, twice or a few times. But if it happened constantly, it would become much less exciting because it would be commonplace and happen all the time. Right now it seems like a wonderful thing, because we never see it. But if it happened a lot, it wouldn't be that great. Think about the single-season home run record in baseball. Maris' record of 61 stood for how many years? About 40, just off the top of my head. Then there was the summer of McGwire-Sosa, and it was great to watch at the time, but look what has happened because of that.

1. Everyone discounts their records, and those of Barry Bonds as well, due to the fact that they used PEDs.

2. How many seasons of 61-plus home runs, and how many home runs in general happened during what's now known as the Steroid Era in baseball? After 30-40 seasons where hitting 40 home runs was a big deal, now all of a sudden there's this explosion of long balls. 50, 55 was no longer a big deal. So many more home runs were hit in general, it devalued them. People were seeing them so often, they weren't as special. You had guys like Brady Anderson(!) hitting 50 homers in a season. Sosa had multiple seasons of over 61 homers, and never even had the record. And now we know that it was all because of PEDs, it makes it tainted. Outrageous numbers won't mean anything if they happen all the time, because then they won't be outrageous, they'll be normal.

Also, there's no guarantee that offensive numbers would improve that much if all sports incorporated PEDs, since I'm assuming the defenses would be taking them, too.

As to why the leagues should care, their players are their payday. Why has the NFL instituted all the rule changes recently protecting QBs? Because they're the most recognizable players, the big stars. They bring in the money, not just in ticket sales, but in merchandise, advertising, etc. So they're protected. But the league has to protect all players to some degree, because without the players, there's no league, and no money. You act as if there is this constant mill where they could just go to get new players when the old ones burn out or are too injured to go on. Besides the obvious moral implications of this idea, you can't just go out and get some guy off the streets, shoot him full of PEDs and expect him to perform at the highest level in any given sport. While the PEDs help, there has to be natural talent there as well. So all the sports leagues have to do everything they can to protect their largest asset, the players.

 

[Champ1432]

I forgot about the actor question. Yes, I would criticize an actor who took steroids. Number one, it's not good for your health if they're not prescribed by a doctor, no matter who you are. Number two, if they need to put on weight or muscle, there are safe, legitimate ways to do it. Steroids are not necessary.

That said, I probably wouldn't criticize them to the extent I would a pro athlete. A pro athlete would be taking them to enhance his performance at his primary job. An actor would not act any better on them, he would just look bigger (which may fit the given part better, but it doesn't mean he's acting the part better). But yes, I would still criticize an actor for taking them.

 

[King Patrick Star]

It would be exciting once, twice or a few times. But if it happened constantly, it would become much less exciting because it would be commonplace and happen all the time. Right now it seems like a wonderful thing, because we never see it. But if it happened a lot, it wouldn't be that great. Think about the single-season home run record in baseball. Maris' record of 61 stood for how many years? About 40, just off the top of my head. Then there was the summer of McGwire-Sosa, and it was great to watch at the time, but look what has happened because of that.

1. Everyone discounts their records, and those of Barry Bonds as well, due to the fact that they used PEDs.

2. How many seasons of 61-plus home runs, and how many home runs in general happened during what's now known as the Steroid Era in baseball? After 30-40 seasons where hitting 40 home runs was a big deal, now all of a sudden there's this explosion of long balls. 50, 55 was no longer a big deal. So many more home runs were hit in general, it devalued them. People were seeing them so often, they weren't as special. You had guys like Brady Anderson(!) hitting 50 homers in a season. Sosa had multiple seasons of over 61 homers, and never even had the record. And now we know that it was all because of PEDs, it makes it tainted. Outrageous numbers won't mean anything if they happen all the time, because then they won't be outrageous, they'll be normal.

Also, there's no guarantee that offensive numbers would improve that much if all sports incorporated PEDs, since I'm assuming the defenses would be taking them, too.

As to why the leagues should care, their players are their payday. Why has the NFL instituted all the rule changes recently protecting QBs? Because they're the most recognizable players, the big stars. They bring in the money, not just in ticket sales, but in merchandise, advertising, etc. So they're protected. But the league has to protect all players to some degree, because without the players, there's no league, and no money. You act as if there is this constant mill where they could just go to get new players when the old ones burn out or are too injured to go on. Besides the obvious moral implications of this idea, you can't just go out and get some guy off the streets, shoot him full of PEDs and expect him to perform at the highest level in any given sport. While the PEDs help, there has to be natural talent there as well. So all the sports leagues have to do everything they can to protect their largest asset, the players.

I forgot about the actor question. Yes, I would criticize an actor who took steroids. Number one, it's not good for your health if they're not prescribed by a doctor, no matter who you are. Number two, if they need to put on weight or muscle, there are safe, legitimate ways to do it. Steroids are not necessary.

That said, I probably wouldn't criticize them to the extent I would a pro athlete. A pro athlete would be taking them to enhance his performance at his primary job. An actor would not act any better on them, he would just look bigger (which may fit the given part better, but it doesn't mean he's acting the part better). But yes, I would still criticize an actor for taking them.

Well, I understand most of your reply. I do have one thing to point out. The Professional leagues do in fact have a constant mill where they can just go and get new players. It’s called College. If that runs out, go to the HighSchools. Either way, we should embrace the future, not prevent it from evolving. There’s ways around current standards to make my idea come to fruition. For example, let’s make Baseball fields have a minimum of 487.50 feet to left and right field and make it 600 feet to center. Make Basketball rims 15 feet tall. Make Football fields 200 yards long. Make Hockey goals as wide as Soccer goals. Okay, too far, but you get what I’m saying. If the players exceed the challenge, then expand the challenge.

We are way off topic here now, so just to get back on track, I say put a “Bounty” on everything. Someone gets a “Player Of The Game” nod, give him a bonus during the post-game interview. Someone gets injured, “Hey Kid, you’re up.” This all goes back to my idea of having 3 month seasons, but instead of reiterating all of that...

http://forums.wrestlezone.com/showthread.php?t=192468

Oh, and the actor thing, that was just an example. Today, they can CGI anything anyway.

 

[Champ1432]

Well, I understand most of your reply. I do have one thing to point out. The Professional leagues do in fact have a constant mill where they can just go and get new players. It’s called College. If that runs out, go to the HighSchools. Either way, we should embrace the future, not prevent it from evolving.

I pretty much already stated this in my last post, but there are two problems with this:

1. The obvious moral issue of allowing (or even encouraging) someone to destroy their body and/or life for a sport, be it professional or otherwise.

2. Yeah, there are thousands of collegiate athletes today. But what percentage of those currently make it to the highest level of their sport? It's extremely small. That's not because they're not on PEDs, it's because they don't have the talent. Being on PEDs may make the difference for a handful, but for most, their lack of talent will still preclude them from being a legitimate professional. If something like that were to come about, the talent would be so watered down as to make it not worth seeing. I wish I could roid up and go play in the NBA, but I don't have the talent. I can drain my share of threes, but no amount of PEDs are going to change the fact that I'm not nearly good enough for that. And are you really suggesting we take high school kids, roid them up and throw them in the pro ranks?

For example, let’s make Baseball fields have a minimum of 487.50 feet to left and right field and make it 600 feet to center. Make Basketball rims 15 feet tall. Make Football fields 200 yards long. Make Hockey goals as wide as Soccer goals. Okay, too far, but you get what I’m saying. If the players exceed the challenge, then expand the challenge.

I get what you're saying, but this is all unnecessary, things are fine the way they are. The type of evolution you're talking about sounds a bit like de-evolution to me.

We are way off topic here now, so just to get back on track, I say put a “Bounty” on everything. Someone gets a “Player Of The Game” nod, give him a bonus during the post-game interview. Someone gets injured, “Hey Kid, you’re up.”

Yeah we definitely have stayed off the path. I'm with you here. If you want to give extra reward to players who perform well or come through in the clutch or whatever, that's fine. But that's not the same thing as explicitly encouraging them to go out and injure others. If you want to tell your players, "If you get MVP, you get a bonus", awesome. Do it all day. But that should not in any way include intentionally injuring someone else, in any sport. Any potential incentive should be for positive benchmarks.

Sports evolving doesn't simply mean bigger, stronger, meaner players. It means advancing the game to higher levels, making it more entertaining, but also advancing technology to keep players safer. Not exploiting their very bodies through bounties for blood or steroids run amuck.

 

[BaconBits]

I think the whole issue is so overblown it's ridiculous. I guarantee the bonuses existed in more than one place in the NFL. In fact, I would bet that just about every team has some sort of system in place to reward players for such behaviors. It's just that most teams aren't about to snitch each other out like a bunch of *****.

Football is an inherently dangerous game. The players know that every time they step on the field it could be the last. Trying to change that culture is literally the most ridiculous thing in the history of organized sports. Roger Goddell and his God complex are absolutely going to kill the game of football as the national pastime, because a large percentage of the fanbase watches out of bloodlust.

To act like this rewards system is so reprehensible now is so ridiculously hypocritical it's almost vomit inducing. Many high school and college teams give out little stickers on helmets for things like big hits and putting players out of games. I know when I played that I got a little skull and crossbones sticker on my helmet every time I laid somebody out (I was a free safety. I got a lot of 'em). At the pro level, apparently they get money.

It comes down to this: Most of the biggest critics wouldn't know the ins and outs of this kind of stuff because they were the nerdy little shits who were too much of a pussy to play. You can't be the judge of some shit you will never understand.

 

[Davi323]

If they are true men, why do they need an extra incentive to do their job? Aren't they already paid more than adequately?

The fact that the players need extra money outside of their contract suggests that they don't give 100% effort otherwise. If they aren't giving their team their best effort, that means the teams should reduce their contracts to a level more appropriate to their level of dedication. If the players can't be motivated to play at their hardest without a bounty, then the teams shouldn't have to pay them top dollar. They are paying those players to give 100% effort, and the players aren't providing it if they need bounties to be an incentive.

If you were a parent of a young boy playing pee-wee football, would you tolerate it if your son's coach told your son to deliberately try to hurt a boy on the other team? Would that be okay? Or would you consider that to be a display of poor sportsmanship, and chew the coach out? How about if your son was the player who was targeted? Would you be cool with that? Of course not. There is something inherently unsportsmanlike about the whole thing. Well, why is it unsportsmanlike for a coach of a pee-wee football team to do it, but not the coach of an NFL team?

 

[BaconBits]

If they are true men, why do they need an extra incentive to do their job? Aren't they already paid more than adequately?

Everybody likes more money. It's not rocket science.

The fact that the players need extra money outside of their contract suggests that they don't give 100% effort otherwise. If they aren't giving their team their best effort, that means the teams should reduce their contracts to a level more appropriate to their level of dedication. If the players can't be motivated to play at their hardest without a bounty, then the teams shouldn't have to pay them top dollar. They are paying those players to give 100% effort, and the players aren't providing it if they need bounties to be an incentive.

Your altruistic view of professional football is way, way too simple. NFL contracts are not guaranteed and often loaded with incentive bonuses for various stats and standards.

Not to mention one thing about football that people who have never played will never understand is that if you half ass it you will get hurt.

If you were a parent of a young boy playing pee-wee football, would you tolerate it if your son's coach told your son to deliberately try to hurt a boy on the other team? Would that be okay? Or would you consider that to be a display of poor sportsmanship, and chew the coach out? How about if your son was the player who was targeted? Would you be cool with that? Of course not. There is something inherently unsportsmanlike about the whole thing. Well, why is it unsportsmanlike for a coach of a pee-wee football team to do it, but not the coach of an NFL team?

I was told to make every hit count when I played pee-wees. If you think this sort of thing doesn't happen on even on the lowest levels of football your asshole is itchy. Like I said, the culture of football is an extremely nasty one, and isn't for the faint of heart. If I had a son that wanted to play football and this stuff was happening, the decision to continue playing/not playing would be entirely up to him.

 

[Davi323]

Except these are the exact same players that preach about the fraternity of the NFLPA. That they never go out there trying to hurt people, blahblahblah.

If I had a son who was instructed to deliberately injure another player, and he actually did it, that would be his last game of football. I would much rather my son learn the value of good sportsmanship than the value of playing dirty to increase your chances to win. Some things matter more than others.

 

[BaconBits]

Except these are the exact same players that preach about the fraternity of the NFLPA. That they never go out there trying to hurt people, blahblahblah.

Strictly PR stuff that they are told to say by the league. That happens in all professional sports.

If I had a son who was instructed to deliberately injure another player, and he actually did it, that would be his last game of football. I would much rather my son learn the value of good sportsmanship than the value of playing dirty to increase your chances to win. Some things matter more than others.

Okay, lets say you pull your son from football because it's so unsportsmanlike, but he wants to continue in sports. What do you have him play?

Soccer, where flopping and faking injury is encouraged to draw yellow and red cards?

Basketball, which also has a gigantic flopping problem? Not to mention players instructed to give fouls in games at certain times? How about when they're told to give a flagrant foul?

Baseball, where pitchers are routinely told to plunk a batter? How about when players slide into a base spikes up to break up double plays?

Hockey, which is the dirtiest game of all?

The whole concept of friendly sportsmanship is a dated one. Telling somebody it's okay to lose as long as you gave it your best is contributing to the *****fication/dysfunction of today's society.

 

[PlayTheGame]

The biggest reason why the NFL is cracking down on this issue/the Saints is due to the fact that the league is BURIED in lawsuits right now from former players with lingering effects from playing the game. Since all of these lawsuits have to come to light, the NFL has gone to great lengths to try to make the game safer, heighten concussion awareness, and prevent lingering injuries over the past couple of years. Like it or not, this "Saints Bounty" ordeal is the exact thing that can't be tolerated by the NFL right now, and they understandably need to squash it and dole out punishment immediately. Everyone here would agree that the NFL is a business before anything else. So, in this situation, the league is acting like a business- and this ordeal is BAD for business. They need to make an example out of the Saints and set a precedent. The Saints' actions were in the wrong place at the wrong time, sure, but their actions are also inexcusable by any means, and certainly can't be apologized away. The NFL has every right to dole out punishment to the Saints for their I-L-L-E-G-A-L actions, and they will, especially with all of the lawsuits going on.

One more point: I also find it funny that no one seemed to have a problem with thrashing the Patriots for Spygate (a far less worse offense than this) because they have "mean ol Belichick" and "supermodel" Tom Brady at the helm, whereas the Saints have likable Drew Brees and Sean Payton, and they "rebuilt" the city of New Orleans, so they have supporters in their corner. Ridiculous.

 

[Davi323]

Strictly PR stuff that they are told to say by the league. That happens in all professional sports.



Okay, lets say you pull your son from football because it's so unsportsmanlike, but he wants to continue in sports. What do you have him play?

Soccer, where flopping and faking injury is encouraged to draw yellow and red cards?

Basketball, which also has a gigantic flopping problem? Not to mention players instructed to give fouls in games at certain times? How about when they're told to give a flagrant foul?

Baseball, where pitchers are routinely told to plunk a batter? How about when players slide into a base spikes up to break up double plays?

Hockey, which is the dirtiest game of all?

The whole concept of friendly sportsmanship is a dated one. Telling somebody it's okay to lose as long as you gave it your best is contributing to the *****fication/dysfunction of today's society.

You missed the part where I said if he actually did it...if a coach instructed my son to deliberately injure another player, and my son told the coach no, then I would be extremely proud of him for making the right decision, and would let him continue to play football because I know that he understands what the boundaries between good and bad are. Teaching kids the difference between right and wrong is INFINITELY more important to me than winning at sports. I would rather my son have a strong character than strong arms. Clearly, you disagree, and would encourage your son to cheat if it meant winning. Okay, that's on your conscience, not mine.

 

[BaconBits]

The biggest reason why the NFL is cracking down on this issue/the Saints is due to the fact that the league is BURIED in lawsuits right now from former players with lingering effects from playing the game. Since all of these lawsuits have to come to light, the NFL has gone to great lengths to try to make the game safer, heighten concussion awareness, and prevent lingering injuries over the past couple of years. Like it or not, this "Saints Bounty" ordeal is the exact thing that can't be tolerated by the NFL right now, and they understandably need to squash it and dole out punishment immediately. Everyone here would agree that the NFL is a business before anything else. So, in this situation, the league is acting like a business- and this ordeal is BAD for business. They need to make an example out of the Saints and set a precedent. The Saints' actions were in the wrong place at the wrong time, sure, but their actions are also inexcusable by any means, and certainly can't be apologized away. The NFL has every right to dole out punishment to the Saints for their I-L-L-E-G-A-L actions, and they will, especially with all of the lawsuits going on.

One more point: I also find it funny that no one seemed to have a problem with thrashing the Patriots for Spygate (a far less worse offense than this) because they have "mean ol Belichick" and "supermodel" Tom Brady at the helm, whereas the Saints have likable Drew Brees and Sean Payton, and they "rebuilt" the city of New Orleans, so they have supporters in their corner. Ridiculous.

I have a problem with the league singling out Greg Williams like he was the only one who had/has something like this going on. It's been going on since professional football was organized.

Doesn't anybody remember a couple years back when Terrell Suggs came out and said that the Ravens had a bounty on Hines Ward? What about the time The Bears were encouraging their players to hit Michael Vick extra hard in an attempt to put him out of the game?

Where was the outrage there?

There wasn't. People weren't as hypersensitive about life in general even a handful of years ago. The world is populated by *****es who don't understand the game and how it works and the level of ignorance leading to an enormous amount of total hypocrisy is mind boggling.

Roger Goddell doing things for the greater good of the business? Right. He's an egomaniac too stupid to realize what he's doing to "the game". He's opened a Pandora's Box here very publicly and is doing more damage to the league than he even realizes.

You mention the lawsuits and how this is some kind of move to helps the NFL's cause. If anything, going about this in such a public manner gives the lawsuits even more teeth.

 

[Davi323]

Well, I suggest you take your resume up to the NFL main offices in New York and apply for his job, then. Clearly you know more about running a multi-billion dollar sports league than he does...

***end sarcasm***

 

[PlayTheGame]

I have a problem with the league singling out Greg Williams like he was the only one who had/has something like this going on. It's been going on since professional football was organized.

Doesn't anybody remember a couple years back when Terrell Suggs came out and said that the Ravens had a bounty on Hines Ward? What about the time The Bears were encouraging their players to hit Michael Vick extra hard in an attempt to put him out of the game?

Where was the outrage there?

There wasn't. People weren't as hypersensitive about life in general even a handful of years ago. The world is populated by *****es who don't understand the game and how it works and the level of ignorance leading to an enormous amount of total hypocrisy is mind boggling.

Roger Goddell doing things for the greater good of the business? Right. He's an egomaniac too stupid to realize what he's doing to "the game". He's opened a Pandora's Box here very publicly and is doing more damage to the league than he even realizes.

You mention the lawsuits and how this is some kind of move to helps the NFL's cause. If anything, going about this in such a public manner gives the lawsuits even more teeth.

The difference is that now a coach (Gregg Williams) was openly involved, and the story was confirmed, and money was placed on it. When you add that money was involved, and that a coach was spearheading it, along with the confirmation of it all, you can't get anymore red-handed than that. With the NFL at the height of dealing with all of the lawsuits, how would it look for them in court if their stance was "We really do appreciate what the players & the Players Association has to say, and we're trying our best to stop injuries (and save our own asses fiscally in the process), however, we're going to turn the other way on the Saints Bounty case." It would make no sense- how would downplaying it help them? Making an example out of the ordeal will prove to everyone, namely the courts, that the NFL is taking this shit seriously. If anything, that would help their cause. If the NFL swept this under the rug, lawsuit-involved players could claim that the NFL doesn't care about the injury issue or deal with red-handed, blatant offendors.

It's not the NFL's fault that this happened, although it makes them look horrible.

It would be the NFL's fault/it would make them look worse if they didn't handle this with an iron fist.

Just the reality of the situation.

 

[BaconBits]

You missed the part where I said if he actually did it...if a coach instructed my son to deliberately injure another player, and my son told the coach no, then I would be extremely proud of him for making the right decision, and would let him continue to play football because I know that he understands what the boundaries between good and bad are. Teaching kids the difference between right and wrong is INFINITELY more important to me than winning at sports. I would rather my son have a strong character than strong arms. Clearly, you disagree, and would encourage your son to cheat if it meant winning. Okay, that's on your conscience, not mine.

Way to put words in my mouth. I said I would let my son make his own decisions. And with those decisions, he would deal with the ramifications. That's a more valuable lesson than guiding his hand one way or the other.

Nowhere did I say I would encourage anybody to cheat.

 

[Davi323]

Way to put words in my mouth. I said I would let my son make his own decisions. And with those decisions, he would deal with the ramifications. That's a more valuable lesson than guiding his hand one way or the other.

Nowhere did I say I would encourage anybody to cheat.

How is that different than what I was saying? I was merely pointing out what the ramifications would be from me if he chose to do it, that I would no longer allow him to continue to play football...and then you decided to shoot your mouth off with a cocky response detailing problems with other sports.

 

[Champ1432]

There wasn't. People weren't as hypersensitive about life in general even a handful of years ago. The world is populated by *****es who don't understand the game and how it works and the level of ignorance leading to an enormous amount of total hypocrisy is mind boggling.

Roger Goddell doing things for the greater good of the business? Right. He's an egomaniac too stupid to realize what he's doing to "the game". He's opened a Pandora's Box here very publicly and is doing more damage to the league than he even realizes.

So because you played in high school or whatever, like literally thousands of other kids across the country, you have such a deep understanding that no one else has? You don't have to have played a sport in an organized manner to know the basic rules/principles of the game. I'm sure there are some small things that you would know, since you played, as opposed to someone who never played the sport for an organized team.

With all that said, I don't think anyone on here implied that the Saints were the only ones doing this. I myself said, and I'm pretty sure others did as well, that most teams probably had similar systems. The Saints just happened to be the ones who got caught. Tough luck for them. But even if these systems exist throughout the league, that doesn't make it right. The league still has to do everything it can to eradicate such systems, even if getting rid of them completely may be tough or near impossible. They have to put forth the effort.

It's also in the best interests of the NFLPA. As the union, they're tasked with representing the best interests of ALL players. Allowing half of your constituency to have bounties on the other half is not doing your job correctly. You mentioned the lawsuits; if the union wants to get on the league about player safety vis a vis concussions and injuries, they have to do their part as well, and police their membership to make sure one part isn't trying to injure the other part.

And what exactly is Goodell doing that's bad for the game? Giving the public the perception that they run a clean, drug free league with no dirty play and lacking intentions among players to injure one another? Yes, surely the public will hate that.

You also mentioned how it goes down to youth football, and I agree, it must begin there. You want to tell kids to go out and hit people as hard as they can? Great. As long as they are CLEAN hits. It is possible to have hits that are both clean and hard, despite what whining defensive players say. So if you want to coach young kids to hit hard, that's perfect. But it stays clean and ends at the whistle. If you coach them beyond that, then the line is crossed.