| Author |
 Topic  |
|
Downtown 
"Welcome back, Billy Buck"
|
 Posted - 08/21/2007 : 20:17:49
|
quote:
Originally posted by damalc
quote:
Originally posted by Downtown
I wouldn't ban him for life. He's going to prison...I don't think it's proper for a business to take it upon itself to further punish someone after they've paid their debt to society.
That doesn't mean any team is obligated to give him a shot, and considering the PR problems I wouldn't expect any to (except maybe the Raiders).
if the league doesn't ban him, somebody will give him a shot when the courts are done with him. winning, and by extension, money, is more important than character to these guys. and Vick can help a team win.
they keep giving dopes like Lawrence Phillips, Christian Peter, and Mike's little brother shots.
Then let someone do that. If an owner wants him on their team, who's place is it to stop them? Once he serves his time, whatever happens to him after that is not my concern. Personally, I'd become a Giants fan if the Patriots signed him...but I know the Patriots wouldn't. If another team is willing to risk alienating their fans, then Goodell should give them the opportunity.
You're aware that Marcus Vick's legal convictions are all misdemeanors, right? And you're also aware that he's currently unemployed, right? |
 |
|
|
TitanPa 
"Here four more"
|
Posted - 08/21/2007 : 21:15:43
|
quote:
Originally posted by Downtown
quote:
Originally posted by wildhartlivie
Won't cry 4 U
(No, really. I feel nothing even bordering on sympathy, yea, I may even feel great contempt, for this loser who squandered what could have been a huge and accoladed football career in order to abuse dogs to the point of being "good" fight dogs, conducting those fights and then taking it upon himself to "execute" the losers. This bum deserves more than he will get, and deserves to lose everything honorable. I actually wrote an email to the NFL encouraging them to ban him for life.)
((Eeps, do I sound opinionated???))
I wouldn't ban him for life. He's going to prison...I don't think it's proper for a business to take it upon itself to further punish someone after they've paid their debt to society.
That doesn't mean any team is obligated to give him a shot, and considering the PR problems I wouldn't expect any to (except maybe the Raiders). But to actually create a rule saying he CAN'T work for them after he's served his time...I can't agree with that, it just seems petty to me. I'm not defending him and I believe he deserves whatever the Judge gives him at sentencing, but sentencing is the Judge's job...not Roger Goodell's.
so whats your feeling about Pete Rose? Banned from MLB Hall Of Fame. |
Edited by - TitanPa on 08/21/2007 21:17:42 |
|
|
|
damalc 
"last watched: Sausage Party"
|
Posted - 08/21/2007 : 21:20:16
|
quote:
Originally posted by Downtown
quote:
Originally posted by damalc
quote:
Originally posted by Downtown
I wouldn't ban him for life. He's going to prison...I don't think it's proper for a business to take it upon itself to further punish someone after they've paid their debt to society.
That doesn't mean any team is obligated to give him a shot, and considering the PR problems I wouldn't expect any to (except maybe the Raiders).
if the league doesn't ban him, somebody will give him a shot when the courts are done with him. winning, and by extension, money, is more important than character to these guys. and Vick can help a team win.
they keep giving dopes like Lawrence Phillips, Christian Peter, and Mike's little brother shots.
Then let someone do that. If an owner wants him on their team, who's place is it to stop them? Once he serves his time, whatever happens to him after that is not my concern. Personally, I'd become a Giants fan if the Patriots signed him...but I know the Patriots wouldn't. If another team is willing to risk alienating their fans, then Goodell should give them the opportunity.
You're aware that Marcus Vick's legal convictions are all misdemeanors, right? And you're also aware that he's currently unemployed, right?
i'm not trying to start a fight. i just think a team will take a chance on Michael Vick later. i'm not up on the specifics of all Marcus Vick's boneheaded moves, but i do know that he was with the Dolphins for a little while.
and i think the difference with Pete Rose is Rose's actions throw the validity of games into question. if people can't be certain that the outcome of a contest is the result of honest competition, you get WWE, which actually hasn't done that badly for itself.
side note: i'm a bit of a casual wrestling fan but some of my buddies are hard core. during the last Wrestlemania, the announcers kept talking about the Undertaker's record of consecutive wins on Wrestlemania. gee, wierd how that works out when the result is planned. |
Edited by - damalc on 08/21/2007 21:27:59 |
|
|
|
Downtown
"Welcome back, Billy Buck"
|
Posted - 08/22/2007 : 01:36:15
|
quote:
and i think the difference with Pete Rose is Rose's actions throw the validity of games into question.
Well certainly you could easily make the argument that he should be banned for being part of a sport that revolves around illegal gambling. |
|
|
|
Downtown
"Welcome back, Billy Buck"
|
Posted - 08/22/2007 : 01:52:05
|
quote:
Originally posted by TitanPa
so whats your feeling about Pete Rose? Banned from MLB Hall Of Fame.
Good question. First of all, he SHOULD be banned for life from MLB...banned from playing (of course he's too old now), banned from coaching, banned from owning (even minority ownership).
But his being banned from the Hall of fame is different. I think it's wrong. I personally don't think he belongs in the HOF, but I think that's the whole reason why they have a voting process. Character is already one of the criteria the writers are supposed to use, so if they feel that committing the single worst transgression a sportsman can commit - associating it with gambling - outweighs being the all-time hits leader, they don't have to vote for him. I certainly feel that way.
But the HOF actually created a rule that specifically says you have to "eligible" for MLB to be eligible for the Hall. Pete Rose is the only person alive in the entire world that this rule applies to, and it didn't exist until he was banned from MLB. And it's so arbitrary...there are plenty of people in the HOF that were never a part of Major League Baseball, and are there for making other contributions to the sport (the Negro Leagues, to begin with). "Eligibility" for MLB shouldn't have anything to do with eligibility for the HOF, which created its selection process a long time ago and should stick to it, not create special rules to keep out certain people. |
|
|
|
w22dheartlivie
"Kitty Lover"
|
Posted - 08/22/2007 : 03:53:40
|
Wow, look at all the discussion!!! I do think a ban is appropriate for Vick, because of his deception to the league and because of what he was doing. I don't know what the contracts say, but there must be some sort of morals standards in there. I'm quite sure had Kobe been prosecuted, the NBA would have found a way to rid themselves of him.
As for Pete Rose and the HOF, I agree that he shouldn't be excluded. The rules were changed to arbitrarily exclude him. My aunt was never eligible for MLB, but she was a part of the Women's Baseball League.
Anyway, that's how I see it. |
|
|
|
w22dheartlivie
"Kitty Lover"
|
Posted - 08/22/2007 : 04:38:57
|
On a lighter note, in Dave Letterman's tribute to Leona Helmsley:
"Does this mean her dog's for sale?" - Michael Vick |
|
|
|
MguyX
"X marks the spot"
|
Posted - 08/22/2007 : 06:51:11
|
There's not much in the way of practice facilities in a federal correctional institute, so the jail time itself will weigh heavily against Vick in the way of his NFL future. The skills of incarcerated players often atrophy.
Consider as well that Vick is 27. He may be 30 by the time he gets out; while I don't want to criticize the aging process, I will note, as my Marine Corps platoon seargeant used to say, it doesn't get any easier when you reach your thirties. (Semper Fi! Do or die!) I think this is the death knell for Vick's career in the NFL.
The fact that he lied to the football commissioner is not the most egregious. The fact that he did what he did is the problem. We need to stop supporting such people, regardless of the entertainment value they represent.
Now is an excellent time for the NFL to take the lead in cracking down on player misconduct, and every other sports organization should follow suit. Too often players get rich quickly and begin to perceive themselves as above the law. We need to hold them, and the people who let them skate by, accountable. From parents, to schools, to colleges, to professional sports organizations -- we need to tell them that they owe us an obligation. I do not want my daughter being told that if she has a gift -- academic, artistic, or athletic -- she can ignore basic tenants of humaneness and decency.
What gets their attention is their pocketbooks. And the end of their careers (though Maurice Clarett didn't seem to get the point; his stint in prison will keep the issue in the forefront of his mind, however. Can you imagine what it must be like, to have a multimillion dollar career in front of you -- when you've never had much to begin with -- only to see it vanish because of your own stupidity?)
We as the public also need to exert influence on these egomaniacs. We need to let team management know that we do not want ne-er do wells being icons for our children. I say we need to boycott teams that let off offending players lightly. The hometown crowd may be reluctant, but the rest of the country would probably be eager to do so. Reign these egomaniacs in: if we don't give them money, they will listen more closely to our requests. |
Edited by - MguyX on 08/22/2007 10:25:46 |
|
|
|
Sal[Au]pian
"Four ever European"
|
Posted - 08/22/2007 : 10:58:58
|
quote:
Originally posted by Downtown
The maximum is five years. That's a LONG time.
For what he did? Yeah, right. |
|
|
|
Downtown
"Welcome back, Billy Buck"
|
Posted - 08/22/2007 : 14:12:45
|
quote:
Originally posted by wildhartlivie
As for Pete Rose and the HOF, I agree that he shouldn't be excluded. The rules were changed to arbitrarily exclude him. My aunt was never eligible for MLB, but she was a part of the Women's Baseball League.
Anyway, that's how I see it.
Actually, technically she IS eligible. Everyone is "eligible" for MLB until the Commissioner says they're not...which, of course, is exactly the point.
(I have to acknowledge the possibility that there's a rule barring women from MLB which really would make her ineligible, but that seems REALLY unlikely, because that's patently illegal and the normal selection process based on athleticism should have that affect already anyway) |
|
|
|
Downtown
"Welcome back, Billy Buck"
|
Posted - 08/22/2007 : 14:39:50
|
quote:
Originally posted by MguyX
Now is an excellent time for the NFL to take the lead in cracking down on player misconduct, and every other sports organization should follow suit.
They already are. That's basically how Goodell has defined his tenure since he became Commissioner last year.
quote:
Too often players get rich quickly and begin to perceive themselves as above the law. We need to hold them, and the people who let them skate by, accountable. From parents, to schools, to colleges, to professional sports organizations -- we need to tell them that they owe us an obligation.
Well do you want them held accountable for their actions, or do you think they actually owe us something? The former is easy to agree with, the latter is not. I think it's wonderful when someone gives back to the community, but this is America...nobody owes me or you anything.
quote:
What gets their attention is their pocketbooks. And the end of their careers (though Maurice Clarett didn't seem to get the point; his stint in prison will keep the issue in the forefront of his mind, however. Can you imagine what it must be like, to have a multimillion dollar career in front of you -- when you've never had much to begin with -- only to see it vanish because of your own stupidity?)
Personally, I don't think you should be bringing Maurice Clarett into this, because it's a very different case. Clarett got his career severely sidetracked, got out of shape and fell off the NFL radar screen entirely, then turned to crime because he had nothing else to do with his life (and according to his one-time agent had been exhibiting very erratic behavior indicative of severe depression). By the time he got into legal trouble, his NFL career was already ruined. No big woop that you brought it up, but I don't think it really belongs here.
quote:
I say we need to boycott teams that let off offending players lightly. The hometown crowd may be reluctant, but the rest of the country would probably be eager to do so. Reign these egomaniacs in: if we don't give them money, they will listen more closely to our requests.
In theory it's a nice idea but the primary source of revenue in the NFL are network television broadcast rights which are shared equally across the League. Even a sizable portion of "local" revenue like ticket sales is subject to revenue sharing. Last year, I think revenue sharing payments to each team were something like $85,000,000. If a particular team never sold another ticket or t-shirt again, they'd still make that much money, and it goes up every year. Otherwise, how could a town like Green Bay, WI, with a population of about 65,000 and no major metropolitan area within hours, support its own football team? So you could "boycott" the Cincinnati Bengals if you want, who's roster the last couple years looked like the resident list at a halfway house, but what difference would it make? They've been losing for so long that their "fans" are already boycotting them anyway...half their home games get blacked out, and the owner doesn't care. He's more than happy to rely strictly on revenue sharing and not develop any revenue streams of his own, he made that abundantly clear when he decided to name his stadium after his son instead of selling naming rights to a corporation (of course, he wants his share of the revenue from OTHER teams selling naming rights!)
It really is a good idea as a matter of principle, I more or less feel the same way and I meant it when I said I'd switch teams if the Patriots signed an ex-con like Vick. But believe me...it will make very little difference. Fortunately, there's already a growing number of NFL owners that believe "character counts" and are willing to let even a Pro Bowler go if he gets in trouble with the law, that's been Bob Kraft's policy since he first came to Foxborough. Football isn't like the NBA, with a chronic shortage of qualified players...after the NFL has chewed you up and spit you out, there's always someone on the practice squad or a free agent out there eager to put on the pads and take your place. |
|
|
|
damalc
"last watched: Sausage Party"
|
Posted - 08/22/2007 : 19:37:22
|
quote:
Originally posted by Downtown
quote:
and i think the difference with Pete Rose is Rose's actions throw the validity of games into question.
Well certainly you could easily make the argument that he should be banned for being part of a sport that revolves around illegal gambling.
very good point. it pisses me off that sports, especially the NCAA and NFL, profess to be so anti-gambling, when they know that so much interest in their games comes from gambling.
why do so many people become college basketball fans in March? betting on brackets.
the NFL's injury report is a gamblers's tool more than anything. |
|
|
|
MguyX
"X marks the spot"
|
Posted - 08/22/2007 : 22:56:58
|
Good points, DT, especially about the revenue sharing: I was unaware, thus my basic boycotting strategy would be useless. Back to the drawing board.
Yes, we do feel similarly, but I just want to make these further observations. I respect entirely what you had to say, as you are certainly both thoughtful and knowledgeable. 
However, I do believe each of the aforementioned entities owes the public many obligations, whether they be moral, spiritual or contractual. I believe parents OWE their children an obligation to care for them when they are unable to care for themselves; parents OWE their children an obligation to provide positive guideance, a base for morality, and role models for decency. Parents OWE the rest of us those same obligations by extension: I don't want my life and the lives of those I care about damaged by the failures of others to do right by their own children. None of us do. Wouldn't you agree that you are owed a measure of peace by your fellow man? It's enforceable too: if a person doesn't abide by his/her obligation not to disturb someone else's peace, believe me, there are plenty of people more than willing to enforce it accordingly.
Parental obligations are also enforceable, to a degree. Parents who fail to provide for their children in certain regards can be jailed, though, obviously, not for failing to provide moral guidance. And while it is late in the game, these failures are also enforceable through the children as they grow up. Gross misbehavior garners penalization.
Educational organizations OWE us obligations as well. They are generally a public trust, and I am unwilling to grant them immunity under the guise of capitalism. When I pay tax dollars, or private tuition, that goes to a school, I expect and have a right to expect that educators, counselors and coaches will perform at a certain level of competence and honor. Indeed and especially in the instance of private tuition -- involving a school that made promises to me about what they would provide in the educational experience of my child, that made promises to the State when it sought its charter -- I am owed a lot. Where my tax dollars are concerned, I am also owed the same, and especially because I don't get to choose directly where my tax dollars go (only indirectly, through voting).
Professional sports organizations OWE us obligations too. This system of government allows them to operate and make billions of dollars. In exchange for that privilege, we require them to operate in a lawful manner, which includes not aiding and abetting the unlawful behavior of others. This too is enforceable.
Of course, DT, I know that the level of enforceability gets tenuous at points, but I am unwilling to release the concept of moral obligation. Because this IS America, they DO owe us obligations. Because they enjoy measures of freedom not enjoyed all over the world, they DO owe our society respect and gratitutde, which I believe they are obliged to demonstrate by not shitting on core values of humanity, decency, and morality. We need not be victims: in fact, I believe we are obliged to speak out and to demand better.
And Maurice Clarett. I don't see how he does NOT fit into the discussion. His career got sidetracked in large part because he did not get the personal and professional guidance that he needed. I view this as a combination of failures in the several entities that owed him unfulfilled obligations. Clarett's situation is really no different than Vick's, except that one of them had a lot more money: nobody MADE Clarett become a criminal; he chose that route as a culmination of the various systemic failures that fostered what he was. The same is true for Vick. In fact, I am particularly critical of collegiate sports programs that routinely break the rules set out by the NCAA, because I believe they inherently contribute to the moral decay of these athletes in teaching them that they can get away with breaking the rules.
Which is all to say, I'm happy to see a shift toward counting on character in the administration of the NFL.
On to the White House! |
|
|
|
MguyX
"X marks the spot"
|
Posted - 08/23/2007 : 02:19:21
|
Oops! 
Michael, if you're reading this, here's a little advice you may want to consider.
Read this one too. |
|
|
|
Downtown
"Welcome back, Billy Buck"
|
Posted - 08/23/2007 : 03:39:28
|
quote:
Originally posted by damalc
it pisses me off that sports, especially the NCAA and NFL, profess to be so anti-gambling, when they know that so much interest in their games comes from gambling.
why do so many people become college basketball fans in March? betting on brackets.
the NFL's injury report is a gamblers's tool more than anything.
Hey, say what you want about organized (legal or illegal) bookmaking and sports, but leave my March Madness out of it, please. (Actually, in most states that's even legal because there's no bookmaker keeping a certain amount for himself)
That NFL injury reports are primarily a gambler's tool is no revelation. That's precisely why they were created. But it was the best way to manage an existing issue...without injury reports, certain people with insider access to the trainer's room might be induced to sell bits of information that only certain gamblers would then have. With injury reports, everybody knows the same.
Personally, I really don't have a problem with betting on pro sports, but I think it should be illegal to bet on college sports. Pro athletes are millionaires...you couldn't afford to pay them enough to throw a game or shave points. But college kids are poor (or more accurately, broke). It's just too easy to taint the game. |
|
|
|
Topic |
|
|
|
RIP - Michael Vick's Football Career
