Brady 4 Game Suspension Upheld

[Patler]

This is where the NFL gets tied up in its own laundry. Players are essentially employees at-will, albeit of the teams, not the league. But the teams have ceded certain disciplinary functions over to the league, and have complicated it further by addressing some disciplinary features in the CBA, which is league based and team applicable.

That said, this is not a criminal or civil action, and traditional burden of proof requirements should not be the standard. The league should be able to discipline without meeting prosecutorial standards for a criminal conviction. It happens all the time in the regular workplaces, or at least it did when I had reason to keep track of those types of situations.

I think the NFL was right to take a stance that if it looks like blatant cheating and smells like blatant cheating they will address it as blatant cheating; and anyone who does not cooperate completely will be caught up in it. The league has nothing if it loses it's integrity (not saying that they always address the issue correctly); so they had to take a stance that cheating will not be tolerated. In that regard, they win even if they lose the eventual lawsuit that comes from this. If a court decides there is insufficient evidence of cheating, the league has still stood tall in the eyes of those who think it was cheating, because the league tried. For those who think it wasn't cheating, what the league did might be an annoyance, but in the end it doesn't really matter.

[mraynrand]

[George Cumby]

I can't handle all of this.....

[pbmax]

The League has to have the CBA to avoid anti-monopoly regulations. In no sense are the players employed at-will. Other club employees, managers and administration are. Except for those high up who have individually negotiated contracts.

The League simply has to recognize when it doesn't have a case against the player. The fact that we are now on reason #3 for the player suspension tells you all you need to know about the strength of the case.

If Goodell had any idea how to do his job, he would have sanctioned player and team at the existing low end, thereby lowering the risk of the punishment being overturned or even appealed. He would them have the competition committee write up new rules regarding the balls. The League office would draw up new procedures over how to handle them on Game Day after they are inspected. He then issues an updated Policy on Game Integrity that includes the players and enhanced punishments for violations.

Problem solved. The game did not turn on ball inflation, punishments were applied, procedures and sanctions will be reviewed.

The only thing it doesn't do is let you look like a public Get Tough guy. It simply functions.

[Patler]

The players very much are employees at will. The team can fire a player at any time for any reason, or no reason. The player can quit at any time, even mid-season like the former Badger guard did a few years ago. Neither needs to develop justification. The players are more like employees at will than they are like any other employee type that I can think of.

[Patler]

The League simply has to recognize when it doesn't have a case against the player. The fact that we are now on reason #3 for the player suspension tells you all you need to know about the strength of the case.

If Goodell had any idea how to do his job, he would have sanctioned player and team at the existing low end, thereby lowering the risk of the punishment being overturned or even appealed. He would them have the competition committee write up new rules regarding the balls. The League office would draw up new procedures over how to handle them on Game Day after they are inspected. He then issues an updated Policy on Game Integrity that includes the players and enhanced punishments for violations.

Problem solved. The game did not turn on ball inflation, punishments were applied, procedures and sanctions will be reviewed.

The only thing it doesn't do is let you look like a public Get Tough guy. It simply functions.

Except I truly believe that would not have addressed the leagues goals in the situation.

[pbmax]

The players very much are employees at will. The team can fire a player at any time for any reason, or no reason. The player can quit at any time, even mid-season like the former Badger guard did a few years ago. Neither needs to develop justification. The players are more like employees at will than they are like any other employee type that I can think of.

Actually, the CBA speaks to each of these situations. That the owners value flexibility for controlling their roster is one of the negotiated areas in the CBA. The CBA speaks to discipline up to and including firing, retention of rights, bonus money owed and status on every team initiated waiver. Players who leave often are pressed to return bonus money, and that is governed by the contracts permissible under the CBA.

But even if the CBA said the players spot on team will be an at-will situation, the CBA still governs the entire process.

The League cannot avoid it. If they could, they would. But they need that exemption or, for instance, the League would lose the ability to control the TV contracts of teams. just as the SEC escaped out of the NCAA football contracts.

[Patler]

Actually, the CBA speaks to each of these situations. That the owners value flexibility for controlling their roster is one of the negotiated areas in the CBA. The CBA speaks to discipline up to and including firing, retention of rights, bonus money owed and status on every team initiated waiver. Players who leave often are pressed to return bonus money, and that is governed by the contracts permissible under the CBA.

But even if the CBA said the players spot on team will be an at-will situation, the CBA still governs the entire process.

The League cannot avoid it. If they could, they would. But they need that exemption or, for instance, the League would lose the ability to control the TV contracts of teams. just as the SEC escaped out of the NCAA football contracts.

Which is exactly why I wrote in my earlier post that the NFL gets tied up in its own laundry. The CBA is as much (or more) a laundry list of rules for the teams as it is rules for the relationship of players and teams.

[pbmax]

Which is exactly why I wrote in my earlier post that the NFL gets tied up in its own laundry. The CBA is as much (or more) a laundry list of rules for the teams as it is rules for the relationship of players and teams.

I just don't see the out strategy here for discipline. The League needs the CBA and collective bargaining to keep the limited exemption to anti-trust. The players aren't just going to agree to a CBA in name only that does not give them something in return. Or at least, they don't anymore, long ago, the PA and CBA were just a fig leaf.

The players want rules and for the rules to be uniformly enforced. That will impinge on the teams. The same teams that want the CBA to maintain the exemption.

I think you are saying the teams would be better off handling player discipline on their own, but the teams themselves have concluded its better to relinquish that control because negotiating as a League for business contracts is good for business.

[Patler]

I think you are saying the teams would be better off handling player discipline on their own, but the teams themselves have concluded its better to relinquish that control because negotiating as a League for business contracts is good for business.

No, that's not at all what I was saying. The players don't want that, the teams don't want that, the leagues doesn't want that. Player discipline in the hands of the league is fine. Shackling the league with the standards of the criminal justice system is ridiculous. But, that is likely what will result from this, when a player like Brady decides to fight.

[Guiness]

No, that's not at all what I was saying. The players don't want that, the teams don't want that, the leagues doesn't want that. Player discipline in the hands of the league is fine. Shackling the league with the standards of the criminal justice system is ridiculous. But, that is likely what will result from this, when a player like Brady decides to fight.

That's kind of what I've been driving at - regardless of Brady having done something or not, the league remotely prove it, even on the lower threshold of 'the preponderance of evidence'. They don't have one single shred of concrete evidence, everything is circumstantial and I don't see it holding water with a judge.

[mraynrand]

It gets kind of circular: Goodell should have had a toothless fine/punishment for Brady that Brady and team would accepts, so that he could retain the 'teeth' to fine in the future - but that teeth depends on being able to enact real fines and real punishments relying on less rigor than the criminal justice system which now looks to be less likely going forward. So, the league loses - if Brady is allowed to 'walk' in this case - even if, as PB argues, Brady is effectively 'totally clean' and nothing can be 'proven.'

[ThunderDan]

That's kind of what I've been driving at - regardless of Brady having done something or not, the league remotely prove it, even on the lower threshold of 'the preponderance of evidence'. They don't have one single shred of concrete evidence, everything is circumstantial and I don't see it holding water with a judge.

That is exactly how fraud cases in Wisconsin get tried. There is a statement made and then all of the horrible things that happened after the statement are piled on after the fact. Nothing is for sure or a fact. Both sides hire professionals to state how said "statement" caused damages or didn't. The judge rules on which side made the stronger argument.

[sharpe1027]

That's kind of what I've been driving at - regardless of Brady having done something or not, the league remotely prove it, even on the lower threshold of 'the preponderance of evidence'. They don't have one single shred of concrete evidence, everything is circumstantial and I don't see it holding water with a judge.

People have go to jail without any concrete evidence all the time. Saying that it is circumstantial does not prove your point.

[George Cumby]

It gets kind of circular.'

Soooooo...... Like PackerRats?