TOD 7/15: Should player off the field conduct matter?

[PromoTheRobot]

Only if owner behavior is kept to the same standard.

[KD in CA]

So the real issue is the publicity. How many wife beaters make the front page? Sadly, the wife beating part happens all the time the publicity happens rarely. Therefore, the reality is that from an employment standpoint the vast majority of wife beaters act with impunity.

 

Yes, of course the real issue is publicity. These are extremely highly visible people being paid millions of dollars representing a multi-billion dollar industry. If you are the CEO of a billion dollar public company and you beat your wife, you are going on the front page too.

 

That's part of the deal when you have that extra zero or two on the end of your paycheck.

Only if owner behavior is kept to the same standard.

 

Wasn't the owner of the LA Clippers forced to sell his team despite not breaking any laws?

[FireChan]

Yes.

[3rdand12]

I would like to think so.

But i only have a little job...

Edited July 16, 2016 by 3rdand12

[Saxum]

Hypothetically, if most of us get a DUI, beat our spouse or act like an idiot outside of our workplace we likely do not face fines, suspensions or terminations. Should the off the field conduct of football players matter?

 

Well if you deal with a job with a security clearance or work for the US government (not including civil service or politicians) you are subject to suspensions, revoking of security clearance (when convicted in court or not) or termination (often "with cause" meaning company can deny paying unemployment) so why not? They have a lot more guarantees than working stiffs.

So the real issue is the publicity. How many wife beaters make the front page? Sadly, the wife beating part happens all the time the publicity happens rarely. Therefore, the reality is that from an employment standpoint the vast majority of wife beaters act with impunity.

 

No the real issue is NOT always the publicity.

[Augie]

It's not ONLY about the perception, but it is MOSTLY about the perception. It was important enough for the owners to bargain punishment into the CBA. So they gave up in other ways to get this in. Most jobs will have some repercussions for illegal (or even just sordid) behavior, and you don't have to be a big wig. I was forced to fire bank tellers and other positions for repeatedly bouncing checks. You have to properly represent your employer, in almost all situations.

[Rocky Landing]

It would seem that people on this thread are responding to this thread from the employer's standpoint-- Can (or should) the team hold their players responsible for their off-field conduct?

 

When I read the title of this thread, I immediately thought of it from the fan standpoint-- Does the player's off-field conduct matter to me?

 

Certainly, there are fans who couldn't care less what the players do on their own time, as long as they perform on the field. Such fans bemoan the "reality show" element to the NFL, and just want to get down to game day. (Perhaps, it is this perspective that has little appreciation for preseason games?)

 

I find myself tending towards the other side of the spectrum. I really enjoy rooting for a team I can be proud of. That's why I was a big supporter of Hogan, and MarQueis Grey. And, of course, when a player can put it all together, make themselves a positive influence in their community, and be a stud on the field, that's just fandom gold, to me. I love rooting for guys with compelling stories.

[/dev/null]

Only if owner behavior is kept to the same standard.

And how would you enforce this? Forfeiture of a billion dollar personal asset? Forced sale of ones business? Forced turnover of daily operations of a billion dollar asset over to somebody who does not have the same billion dollar stake?

 

Owners and players are held to a different standard because owners and players have a different stake in the game

 

 

It's not ONLY about the perception, but it is MOSTLY about the perception. It was important enough for the owners to bargain punishment into the CBA. So they gave up in other ways to get this in. Most jobs will have some repercussions for illegal (or even just sordid) behavior, and you don't have to be a big wig. I was forced to fire bank tellers and other positions for repeatedly bouncing checks. You have to properly represent your employer, in almost all situations.

^ftw

[BarleyNY]

It's not ONLY about the perception, but it is MOSTLY about the perception. It was important enough for the owners to bargain punishment into the CBA. So they gave up in other ways to get this in. Most jobs will have some repercussions for illegal (or even just sordid) behavior, and you don't have to be a big wig. I was forced to fire bank tellers and other positions for repeatedly bouncing checks. You have to properly represent your employer, in almost all situations.

Certain transgressions - bouncing checks, drug or gambling habits, etc. - are risk indicators for fraudulent behaviors too. Anyone with the ability to steal directly or indirectly from a company or who opens him/herself up to blackmail with their actions has to be let go in many circumstances. It's not always fair, but there can be a lot of exposure for a company.

 

As for NFL players, certain behaviors are locker room poison. There's an excellent LT playing in Canada right now. He is plenty good enough to be a top NFL LT, but he'll never play in it because no team will have him. His transgression? A consensual sexual relationship with his sister when he was younger. I won't give his name, but you can google it. I'm curious to see how the Browns players respond to Crowell after his resent tweet. My guess is that he will have a lot of repair work to do before training camp or he is in deep trouble. He's started that with an apology and statement that he's donating his first game check to the Dallas Police Officer's Fund, but he probably still has a long way to go.

[hondo in seattle]

I do think off-the-field behavior should matter.

From a business perspective, the knuckleheads doing drugs and beating their wives unarguably damage the image of the NFL. The leaders of the NFL have an obligation to protect that image. And, in fact, arrests of NFL players has declined since the NFL starting getting tough with off the field behavior.

 

From a societal perspective, these young men are role models whether they wish to be or not. Kids look up to them. I'd like the children of America to have good role models. Asking NFL players to all be choir boys is too much. But it is reasonable to ask them not to break the law, at a minimum.

Certain transgressions - bouncing checks, drug or gambling habits, etc. - are risk indicators for fraudulent behaviors too. Anyone with the ability to steal directly or indirectly from a company or who opens him/herself up to blackmail with their actions has to be let go in many circumstances. It's not always fair, but there can be a lot of exposure for a company.

As for NFL players, certain behaviors are locker room poison. There's an excellent LT playing in Canada right now. He is plenty good enough to be a top NFL LT, but he'll never play in it because no team will have him. His transgression? A consensual sexual relationship with his sister when he was younger. I won't give his name, but you can google it. I'm curious to see how the Browns players respond to Crowell after his resent tweet. My guess is that he will have a lot of repair work to do before training camp or he is in deep trouble. He's started that with an apology and statement that he's donating his first game check to the Dallas Police Officer's Fund, but he probably still has a long way to go.

 

I read about him. His sister supports him. It seems like everyone who knows him, backs him. But what a huge PR challenge!

[3rdand12]

It would seem that people on this thread are responding to this thread from the employer's standpoint-- Can (or should) the team hold their players responsible for their off-field conduct?

 

When I read the title of this thread, I immediately thought of it from the fan standpoint-- Does the player's off-field conduct matter to me?

 

Certainly, there are fans who couldn't care less what the players do on their own time, as long as they perform on the field. Such fans bemoan the "reality show" element to the NFL, and just want to get down to game day. (Perhaps, it is this perspective that has little appreciation for preseason games?)

 

I find myself tending towards the other side of the spectrum. I really enjoy rooting for a team I can be proud of. That's why I was a big supporter of Hogan, and MarQueis Grey. And, of course, when a player can put it all together, make themselves a positive influence in their community, and be a stud on the field, that's just fandom gold, to me. I love rooting for guys with compelling stories.

I like this post .

I do think off-the-field behavior should matter.

From a business perspective, the knuckleheads doing drugs and beating their wives unarguably damage the image of the NFL. The leaders of the NFL have an obligation to protect that image. And, in fact, arrests of NFL players has declined since the NFL starting getting tough with off the field behavior.

 

From a societal perspective, these young men are role models whether they wish to be or not. Kids look up to them. I'd like the children of America to have good role models. Asking NFL players to all be choir boys is too much. But it is reasonable to ask them not to break the law, at a minimum.

 

I read about him. His sister supports him. It seems like everyone who knows him, backs him. But what a huge PR challenge!

I like this post too.

[/dev/null]

There's an excellent LT playing in Canada right now. He is plenty good enough to be a top NFL LT, but he'll never play in it because no team will have him. His transgression? A consensual sexual relationship with his sister when he was younger. I won't give his name, but you can google it.

Jamie Lannister?

[FireChan]

Jamie Lannister?

He's only good enough to go against JPP.

[CardinalScotts]

Seattle has had too many suspensions to count, but they win so the NFL Network, ESPN, FOX do no really talk about it. I should matter but in a league that is win or you don't matter I doesn't

[Blokestradamus]

There's an excellent LT playing in Canada right now. He is plenty good enough to be a top NFL LT, but he'll never play in it because no team will have him. His transgression? A consensual sexual relationship with his sister when he was younger. I won't give his name, but you can google it.

 

It was ancient history right up until the 2010 Combine. Really good prospect, genuinely attempted to rebuild his life, didn't shy away from it.

 

When you look at some of the scumbags playing in the NFL, it's hard to stomach that he never got a shot. Give me a guy that tries to make things right over a victim blaming maggot like Frank Clark any day.

[bills_fan_in_raleigh]

Most companies would fire you for use of illegal drugs, arrest for drug dealing and or possession, beating a wife, sexual molestation etc. some companies still require you sign documents stating you never have used illegal drugs. The higher profile the employee the requirements on staying out of the press are higher.

[Over 29 years of fanhood]

Hypothetically, if most of us get a DUI, beat our spouse or act like an idiot outside of our workplace we likely do not face fines, suspensions or terminations. Should the off the field conduct of football players matter?

Should it matter....? Maybe not. Does it matter? Absolutely. The NFL wants a brand image that squashes any notion there are a collection of bad actors, criminals, and the scourge of society on the field beating on each other. To that end, they have hard lines about personal conduct. And they can, because there are way more that want the jobs than there are jobs to have.

[BarleyNY]

It was ancient history right up until the 2010 Combine. Really good prospect, genuinely attempted to rebuild his life, didn't shy away from it.

 

When you look at some of the scumbags playing in the NFL, it's hard to stomach that he never got a shot. Give me a guy that tries to make things right over a victim blaming maggot like Frank Clark any day.

I totally agree.

Jamie Lannister?

He's only good enough to go against JPP.

LMAO

[Luxy312]

Hypothetically, if most of us get a DUI, beat our spouse or act like an idiot outside of our workplace we likely do not face fines, suspensions or terminations. Should the off the field conduct of football players matter?

 

Of course it should matter. The NFL and the NFLPA agreed on a conduct policy that every player has to follow. The design of the conduct policy is to protect a $9+ billion brand. When a player signs their contract, they're agreeing to those terms and conditions explicitly. When I signed my letter of intent with my employer, I explicitly agreed to my own company's conduct policy, which addresses everything from nondisclosure and noncompete, to drug and alcohol abuse and improper use of social media. It's nice to say that players should otherwise be above reproach, but that's just ignorance.