Jump to content


Senate committee to investigate NFL bounties


  • Please log in to reply
45 replies to this topic

#26 Clubfoothead

Clubfoothead

    Huddler Hall Of Fame

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 24,806 posts
  • Location:Dallas, Texas
  • Interests:Day to Day
  • Fan of the:Cowboys

Posted 23 March 2012 - 11:02 AM

The NFL relies on the protection of too much federal regulation for it to expect Congress to stay out of its business.

#27 delusions of grandeur

delusions of grandeur

    Huddler

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 5,628 posts
  • Location:ATLien
  • Fan of the:Falcons

Posted 23 March 2012 - 11:03 AM

View PostBearBroncos, on 23 March 2012 - 10:54 AM, said:

Holy cow man, you need to get up from underneath that rock from occassion.

http://sports.yahoo....benefits_081611

The system is similar to the one reputed fan of the program Campbell was alleged to be running in the 1980s, in which he reportedly paid athletes for big plays. That activity came under NCAA scrutiny during a Pell Grant scandal revealed in a federal investigation in 1994. Fifty-seven Hurricanes football players were named in that scandal.
Three sources, including two former Miami football players, confirmed that Shaprio offered bounties.

The booster told Yahoo! Sports he had a number of individual payouts for “hit of the game” and “big plays.” He also put bounties on specific players, including Florida Gators quarterback Tim Tebow and a three-year standing bounty on Seminoles quarterback Chris Rix from 2002 to 2004, offering $5,000 to any player who knocked him out of a game.

Well, the biggest issue there is paying college athletes for performance, which you clearly can't do, but the Saints deal goes beyond that:

1) It wasn't just for "big plays", there were bounties for injuring/knocking a guy out of a game. Quite a difference there.

2) what got them in trouble, is that they were told to stop and continued to do it.

I think it's really a stretch to compare this to what used to happen in football. The NFL is trying to get past an intentionally violent image.

#28 Bronco Billy

Bronco Billy

    Huddler All-Pro

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 19,724 posts
  • Location:Under the rainbow
  • Fan of the:No Team Selected

Posted 23 March 2012 - 11:04 AM

View PostClubfoothead, on 23 March 2012 - 11:02 AM, said:

The NFL relies on the protection of too much federal regulation for it to expect Congress to stay out of its business.

I'd guess most people would say that it would be the taxpayers that have the expectation.

#29 Clubfoothead

Clubfoothead

    Huddler Hall Of Fame

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 24,806 posts
  • Location:Dallas, Texas
  • Interests:Day to Day
  • Fan of the:Cowboys

Posted 23 March 2012 - 11:09 AM

View PostBronco Billy, on 23 March 2012 - 11:04 AM, said:

I'd guess most people would say that it would be the taxpayers that have the expectation.

Who gives a crap what the taxpayers expect?

#30 delusions of grandeur

delusions of grandeur

    Huddler

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 5,628 posts
  • Location:ATLien
  • Fan of the:Falcons

Posted 23 March 2012 - 11:11 AM

View PostClubfoothead, on 23 March 2012 - 11:02 AM, said:

The NFL relies on the protection of too much federal regulation for it to expect Congress to stay out of its business.
They rely on federal regulation because they have a quasi-legal cartel that relies on a labor union to even be legal. Correct me if I'm wrong, but I don't think these regulations have anything to do with the violent nature of the game.

Further, as has been mentioned throughout this thread, there clearly are exceptions made for voluntary (key word) participation in a violent-natured game. Only federal agency I see that should be getting involved is the IRS for tax evasion (not that I agree with that either).

#31 Clubfoothead

Clubfoothead

    Huddler Hall Of Fame

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 24,806 posts
  • Location:Dallas, Texas
  • Interests:Day to Day
  • Fan of the:Cowboys

Posted 23 March 2012 - 11:19 AM

View Postdelusions of granduer, on 23 March 2012 - 11:11 AM, said:

They rely on federal regulation because they have a quasi-legal cartel that relies on a labor union to even be legal. Correct me if I'm wrong, but I don't think these regulations have anything to do with the violent nature of the game.


You aren't wrong. Seems more like being intentionally obtuse.


My point was the NFL relies on all sorts of federal protections for this that and the other - labor, brodcasting anti-trust, blackouts.  You seem to agree with that.

The owners cannot expect the federal government to afford them all sorts of protections but then expect the federal government to stay out of their business when convenient to the owners. The NFL is Congress's business because the NFL wants it that way most of the time. Bronco and I don't have to like the fact that the NFL is Congress's business, that doesn't change the fact it is. People don't like all sorts of things.

#32 detlef

detlef

    Huddler Hall Of Fame

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 20,091 posts
  • Location:Durham, NC
  • Fan of the:49ers

Posted 23 March 2012 - 11:24 AM

View PostBearBroncos, on 23 March 2012 - 10:40 AM, said:

I was unware that every player ended up crippled.  Seems strange that everyone becoming crippled from playing such a rough sport, yet kids try and try and try to become NFL players.  Strange days I tell yah!
Yep, each and every one. :rolleyes:

My point is this:  You keep bringing up the good old days where this sort of thing happened all the time as if that's supposed to make it OK now.  And, of all ironies, you mentioned Alzado when you did so in the other thread.  Like we should be looking at Lyle Alzado as an example of something that's fine because "everyone used to do it".

Typically, when someone brings up, "everyone used to do it", they follow that up with examples of how it all turned out fine.  So, again, I don't exactly see the logic in bringing up Alzado if your intention is diminish the badness of paying guys to injure others.  Alzado is not exactly an example of "it all turning out fine."

#33 BearBroncos

BearBroncos

    Huddler

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 6,320 posts
  • Location:Aurora, CO
  • Fan of the:Broncos

Posted 23 March 2012 - 11:43 AM

View Postdelusions of granduer, on 23 March 2012 - 11:03 AM, said:

Well, the biggest issue there is paying college athletes for performance, which you clearly can't do, but the Saints deal goes beyond that:

1) It wasn't just for "big plays", there were bounties for injuring/knocking a guy out of a game. Quite a difference there.

There were bounties for injury players.  Tim Tebow to be exact, where they paid Florida State players to injury Tebow.  They failed of course.

#34 Clubfoothead

Clubfoothead

    Huddler Hall Of Fame

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 24,806 posts
  • Location:Dallas, Texas
  • Interests:Day to Day
  • Fan of the:Cowboys

Posted 23 March 2012 - 11:45 AM

View PostClubfoothead, on 23 March 2012 - 11:19 AM, said:

You aren't wrong. Seems more like being intentionally obtuse.


My point was the NFL relies on all sorts of federal protections for this that and the other - labor, brodcasting anti-trust, blackouts.  You seem to agree with that.

The owners cannot expect the federal government to afford them all sorts of protections but then expect the federal government to stay out of their business when convenient to the owners. The NFL is Congress's business because the NFL wants it that way most of the time. Bronco and I don't have to like the fact that the NFL is Congress's business, that doesn't change the fact it is. People don't like all sorts of things.

Uncalled for.  My apologies.

#35 detlef

detlef

    Huddler Hall Of Fame

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 20,091 posts
  • Location:Durham, NC
  • Fan of the:49ers

Posted 23 March 2012 - 11:47 AM

View PostClubfoothead, on 23 March 2012 - 11:19 AM, said:

You aren't wrong. Seems more like being intentionally obtuse.


My point was the NFL relies on all sorts of federal protections for this that and the other - labor, brodcasting anti-trust, blackouts.  You seem to agree with that.

The owners cannot expect the federal government to afford them all sorts of protections but then expect the federal government to stay out of their business when convenient to the owners. The NFL is Congress's business because the NFL wants it that way most of the time. Bronco and I don't have to like the fact that the NFL is Congress's business, that doesn't change the fact it is. People don't like all sorts of things.
And, even though I said myself that I think they have more important things to do in this regard, especially since the NFL seems to be taking the issue very serious, the notion that congress has better things to do, in general, than butting into the NFL's business is nothing short of insane.

Why?  Because it's a game?  Well, it's a game that generates a crap-load of money.  It's a huge business and needs to be looked at in that light when we're deciding if it's beneath Congress to worry about.

If, for instance, the NFL was just blowing this off.  If they weren't taking care of the issue like they should be, then perhaps it was absolutely be something the government needed to get involved with.  Again, like Club says, the NFL isn't bashful about including congress when it comes to trade exemptions and such.  So, if they're condoning what is basically a criminal act, then I do think it's fair to have big brother come down and kick their ass about it.

#36 BearBroncos

BearBroncos

    Huddler

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 6,320 posts
  • Location:Aurora, CO
  • Fan of the:Broncos

Posted 23 March 2012 - 11:50 AM

View Postdetlef, on 23 March 2012 - 11:24 AM, said:

Yep, each and every one. :rolleyes:

My point is this:  You keep bringing up the good old days where this sort of thing happened all the time as if that's supposed to make it OK now.  And, of all ironies, you mentioned Alzado when you did so in the other thread.  Like we should be looking at Lyle Alzado as an example of something that's fine because "everyone used to do it".

Typically, when someone brings up, "everyone used to do it", they follow that up with examples of how it all turned out fine.  So, again, I don't exactly see the logic in bringing up Alzado if your intention is diminish the badness of paying guys to injure others.  Alzado is not exactly an example of "it all turning out fine."


I don't think I ever claimed that anything turned out fine.  My whole contention is/was that this was/is the norm in yesterday(s) and today(s) football.  And I understand they want to change that and have no real issue other than I don't think it's possible.  Teams will just find other ways to do it and/or call it something else, like what their contracts states… Incentives.

Heck, if the NFL didn't have such rigorous uniform standards, I'm sure.... No, POSSITIVE that players would have stickers all over their helmets, just like the collegiate players, to represent how much a bad a$$ they are.

Edited by BearBroncos, 23 March 2012 - 11:52 AM.


#37 delusions of grandeur

delusions of grandeur

    Huddler

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 5,628 posts
  • Location:ATLien
  • Fan of the:Falcons

Posted 23 March 2012 - 11:53 AM

View Postdetlef, on 23 March 2012 - 11:47 AM, said:

If, for instance, the NFL was just blowing this off.  If they weren't taking care of the issue like they should be, then perhaps it was absolutely be something the government needed to get involved with.  Again, like Club says, the NFL isn't bashful about including congress when it comes to trade exemptions and such.  So, if they're condoning what is basically a criminal act, then I do think it's fair to have big brother come down and kick their ass about it.
Perhaps you guys are right that the NFL has helped make this Congress's business with how they use them to their benefit, I can buy that...

But your last paragraph here makes my point though. You said "if the NFL was jsut blowing this off", but they're not. They brought down the hammer, and IMO, are doing a much better job self-regulating than I expect Congress would/will, by hitting them in their pocketbooks... Why does additional action need to be taken here, when they've levied out extremely harsh and expensive penalties to those involved? Does this really need to become a criminal or federal manner?

That's all I'm saying, but I do concede that they've somewhat made it Congress's business unfortunately. I just think they've done enough on their own to show that they have things under control.

View PostClubfoothead, on 23 March 2012 - 11:45 AM, said:

Uncalled for.  My apologies.
No worries, no offense taken. It happens in debates with anonymous internet strangers.

Edited by delusions of granduer, 23 March 2012 - 11:55 AM.


#38 stevegrab

stevegrab

    Huddler

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 5,691 posts
  • Location:Akron Ohio
  • Fan of the:Browns

Posted 23 March 2012 - 12:12 PM

View PostBearBroncos, on 23 March 2012 - 10:21 AM, said:

Hey, just asking the question.  Remember, they can't offer money in college and yes, college players have been asked to hurt players in the past and if you don't think so, there's a bridge in Arizona named "London Bridge" that might be for sale.
:doh: :bash: :fishy:

#39 BearBroncos

BearBroncos

    Huddler

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 6,320 posts
  • Location:Aurora, CO
  • Fan of the:Broncos

Posted 23 March 2012 - 12:18 PM

View Poststevegrab, on 23 March 2012 - 12:12 PM, said:

:doh: :bash: :fishy:

Smiles

#40 stevegrab

stevegrab

    Huddler

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 5,691 posts
  • Location:Akron Ohio
  • Fan of the:Browns

Posted 23 March 2012 - 12:57 PM

View PostBearBroncos, on 23 March 2012 - 12:18 PM, said:


Meh, I've been there done that. If I had the money I'd rather buy lots of other stuff.

#41 godtomsatan

godtomsatan

    Huddler All-Pro

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 13,433 posts
  • Location:Seattle, WA
  • Interests:Candlelit dinners, walks on the beach.
  • Fan of the:Seahawks

Posted 23 March 2012 - 04:17 PM

I'd complain about this, but secretly, I only pretend there are more important things than football.

#42 BeeR

BeeR

    Huddler All-Pro

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 10,746 posts
  • Fan of the:Colts

Posted 23 March 2012 - 04:23 PM

View PostBronco Billy, on 23 March 2012 - 08:44 AM, said:

You can't make this stuff up

I guess Congress has nothing else important to work on.
First thing I thought of.  Stay tuned, next they'll start being the approval authorities for rule changes.

#43 Ditkaless Wonders

Ditkaless Wonders

    Huddler

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 3,773 posts
  • Location:Colorado
  • Interests:Life, the Universe, Everything

Posted 23 March 2012 - 05:05 PM

View PostBronco Billy, on 23 March 2012 - 09:33 AM, said:

No, it's not.  It is nothing short of idiocy that Congress is investigating this.  The NFL knows it is wrong and has taken drastic steps to deter future incidents.  There is absolutely no justifiable reason why taxpayer dollars need to go into the morans in Congress looking into this in any official capacity.

More laws = more lawyers.  I think most people would see this as a plague.  Me, I like it for my own selfish reasons.

#44 Ditkaless Wonders

Ditkaless Wonders

    Huddler

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 3,773 posts
  • Location:Colorado
  • Interests:Life, the Universe, Everything

Posted 23 March 2012 - 05:09 PM

View PostDitkaless Wonders, on 23 March 2012 - 05:05 PM, said:

More laws = more lawyers.  I think most people would see this as a plague.  Me, I like it for my own selfish reasons.

Perhaps Team Rosters will be expanded so they can each carry a litigator or two.  They could expand the draft a round or two to pick their guys.  That way Harvard could have more than one guy in the NFL.

Edited by Ditkaless Wonders, 23 March 2012 - 07:32 PM.


#45 SLAYER

SLAYER

    Huddler All-Pro

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 10,659 posts
  • Location:New Orleans
  • Interests:Watching Nuke's wife work out.
  • Fan of the:Saints

Posted 23 March 2012 - 06:40 PM

and we wonder why the world is going to shiat.

#46 Bronco Billy

Bronco Billy

    Huddler All-Pro

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 19,724 posts
  • Location:Under the rainbow
  • Fan of the:No Team Selected

Posted 24 March 2012 - 07:05 AM

View PostClubfoothead, on 23 March 2012 - 11:09 AM, said:

Who gives a crap what the taxpayers expect?

Senator Clubfoothead?




0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users