Oblivious Roger Goodell Has Idea For Improving NFL’s Discipline System: Roger Goodell Making Decisions
Roger Goodell disagrees with the assessment that the NFL hasn't had much success in the ol' litigation department. He also seems to be of the mind that he should continue to have a role in the NFL's disciplinary process, which is like saying Dick Cheney should be hired by The Pentagon as a war room consultant.
Either this guy doesn't understand his shortcomings or he's trying to justify his massive salary by giving himself a few more chances at redemption (which, if history is any indication, will ultimately piss everyone off with his patented arbitrary, ham-handed punishments).
Intrepid sports journalist Cris Carter (of all people) asked Goodell some hard-hitting questions Tuesday morning on "Mike & Mike," touching on Goodell's 0-for-6 performance career record when it comes to the litigation process.
The following words came out of Roger Goodell's mouth in response:
"Well, I would disagree with you on the success sometimes when you have success in litigation you lose on the first part of it but, in respect to an ineligibility rule regarding Maurice Clarett -- that we lost in the district court and we won on the appeals level -- because we believe the eligibility rules were important, and that was within the structure of our collective bargaining agreement. So you have to have a long-term view with litigation, and you also have to understand that you're not going to win them all."
(Or any of them, but go on, Rog.)
"From our standpoint, we want to get to a better discipline system. We're open to that and we have had several discussions with the union about how to do that. We have done that on the field over the last several years, and I think we have got a better system. We have done that in our drug and steroid program."
(Um, we're pretty sure no one's asking about your resume of fixing stuff "on the field." Way to spin this into a lecture on how you've cracked down on face-masking.)
"I think we have a better system than we did before those changes and I believe that we can do that [with the NFL's discipline system], where we can come with different changes, whether they are a designated discipline officer or panel could make that decision. Those things can help us get to a better place. Courts are not where we should be having these discussions...I'm very open to changing my role in that. It's become extremely time consuming."
Wait, you think the reason you should change your role in this process is because you're so good at doing other things, and punishing players has cut into that time?
"I think I have to be focused on a variety of other issues and that's what I have discussed with the owners over the years. We believe some type of panel that could make an initial decision and a designee of mine for the appeal would be a better system."
Ok, first off, things tend to become "time consuming" when your best idea after nearly a decade of failed disciplinary action is creating "some type of panel." What the hell does that even mean? Why won't this guy just say he's not doing a very good job at handing out punishments? Moreover, how does someone whose repeatedly made the wrong call at every turn -- and flunked all his attempts at arbitration -- think he's in any way qualified to designate a third-party/neutral arbitrator?
Just admit you're not good at this stuff and back out. Ugh.
Be the first to know
Want FREE Fantasy and Betting Advice and Savings Delivered to your Inbox? Sign up for our Newsletter.