New NFL personal contduct policy.

[Cards Czar]

Here is the link on the new personal contduct policy.

Look who is the committee chairman is.


http://www.cbssports.com/nfl/eye-on-football/24878783/nfl-unveils-new-personal-conduct-policy

 

[BigRedRage]

Noted that earlier that it is nice that the team we are fans of takes bad behavior seriously.

Also a side not, dwash will have 4-6 game suspension minimum next year.

 

[MadCardDisease]

Noted that earlier that it is nice that the team we are fans of takes bad behavior seriously.

Also a side not, dwash will have 4-6 game suspension minimum next year.

They were pretty specific on that:

A baseline suspension of six games without pay for violations involving assault, battery, domestic violence, dating violence, child abuse, other forms of family violence, or sexual assault, with consideration given to possible mitigating or aggravating circumstances.

 

[BigRedRage]

They were pretty specific on that:

Yes however his case is like two years old and happened before the policy came about. I expect a six game and then an appeal bringing it down to four games

 

[Zeno]

Part of the new policy should give teams some kind of cap relief when you have idiots like Washington on the team. When teams do the "right thing" and cut scum bags they get cap hits that effect the team for a couple of years.

The Ravens have a cap hit of over $6 million for Ray Rice this year and $9 million next! The Pats have over $7 million cap hit for Aaron Hernandez.

Those contracts should be voided and the teams should be allowed to invest that money in players they hope will conduct themselves properly.

 

[Chopper0080]

Part of the new policy should give teams some kind of cap relief when you have idiots like Washington on the team. When teams do the "right thing" and cut scum bags they get cap hits that effect the team for a couple of years.

The Ravens have a cap hit of over $6 million for Ray Rice this year and $9 million next! The Pats have over $7 million cap hit for Aaron Hernandez.

Those contracts should be voided and the teams should be allowed to invest that money in players they hope will conduct themselves properly.

It is the price of investing in players who have issues. Don't kid yourself, teams know about these issues heading in, and they decide to move forward anyway. Dez Bryant has a Cowboy issued security detail. And they still might make him one of the highest paid WRs in the NFL next year. The Cards paid Daryl Washington despite a first violation, and despite his teammates not supporting him as a team captain. Giving teams more reasons to take risks on players with issues defeats the overall purpose of the new conduct policy.

 

[Zeno]

It is the price of investing in players who have issues. Don't kid yourself, teams know about these issues heading in, and they decide to move forward anyway. Dez Bryant has a Cowboy issued security detail. And they still might make him one of the highest paid WRs in the NFL next year. The Cards paid Daryl Washington despite a first violation, and despite his teammates not supporting him as a team captain. Giving teams more reasons to take risks on players with issues defeats the overall purpose of the new conduct policy.

The thing is nothing about that hurts the players, it hurts the teams and effects the competitive balance. Having teams be accountable (against the cap at least) for players who violate this policy makes ZERO sense for the league. I don't see how the NFLPA would be opposed to it either as it wouldn't be taking money from the players themselves--so it should be an easy fix.

 

[crisper57]

The Chairman is a great choice!

 

[DeAnna]

Makes sense since Bidwill used to be federal prosecutor.

 

[Chopper0080]

The thing is nothing about that hurts the players, it hurts the teams and effects the competitive balance. Having teams be accountable (against the cap at least) for players who violate this policy makes ZERO sense for the league. I don't see how the NFLPA would be opposed to it either as it wouldn't be taking money from the players themselves--so it should be an easy fix.

The player isn't getting their game check. Look at the Aldon Smith article...he is essentially playing for free this season.

I understand what you are saying, but the team is the one who should be impacted because the player is their employee. Impacting teams keeps them from investing huge dollars in risk players which is where the financial hurt comes from. Washington being out isn't as big of a deal if we didn't give him a large contract. That is the Cardinals choice to make. They weigh the risk vs reward.

 

[Zeno]

The player isn't getting their game check. Look at the Aldon Smith article...he is essentially playing for free this season.

I understand what you are saying, but the team is the one who should be impacted because the player is their employee. Impacting teams keeps them from investing huge dollars in risk players which is where the financial hurt comes from. Washington being out isn't as big of a deal if we didn't give him a large contract. That is the Cardinals choice to make. They weigh the risk vs reward.

The player isn't giving back their signing bonus--which is what most of that cap hit is (guaranteed money of some sort--mostly bonuses).

The team is impacted because they are still paying up front money to players. Cap relief for suspensions doesn't change that financial impact, the team won't be released from the guarantees they have to pay out they would just be allowed to use that players cap space to try to remain competitive.

To me that is a huge flaw.

 

[Chopper0080]

The player isn't giving back their signing bonus--which is what most of that cap hit is (guaranteed money of some sort--mostly bonuses).

The team is impacted because they are still paying up front money to players. Cap relief for suspensions doesn't change that financial impact, the team won't be released from the guarantees they have to pay out they would just be allowed to use that players cap space to try to remain competitive.

To me that is a huge flaw.

Why is it flawed for teams who take risks to have to deal with the negative impact? If you invest your money, there is a chance you will lose it, regardless if it is your fault or not. Same goes here. If a team is going to invest in a player, they should be responsible for both the positive AND the negative.

 

[Zeno]

Why is it flawed for teams who take risks to have to deal with the negative impact? If you invest your money, there is a chance you will lose it, regardless if it is your fault or not. Same goes here. If a team is going to invest in a player, they should be responsible for both the positive AND the negative.

Because teams cannot control the conduct of their players and it not only effects individual teams (and not for just one season) but the entire balance of the NFL. Teams are feeling the impact by 1) not having a player available and 2) paying guaranteed money to a player who is giving no return on their investment--to compound that by not giving those teams the opportunity to use that dead cap space on replacements or spread it to players more deserving (extensions etc) is ridiculous.

 

[Chopper0080]

Because teams cannot control the conduct of their players and it not only effects individual teams (and not for just one season) but the entire balance of the NFL. Teams are feeling the impact by 1) not having a player available and 2) paying guaranteed money to a player who is giving no return on their investment--to compound that by not giving those teams the opportunity to use that dead cap space on replacements or spread it to players more deserving (extensions etc) is ridiculous.

Teams control who they invest their money in. That is as fair as business gets. Actions have consequences. If you invest in a player who has character concerns, it may backfire. That is why the term is "Buyer Beware."

 

[Hollywood]

Because teams cannot control the conduct of their players and it not only effects individual teams (and not for just one season) but the entire balance of the NFL. Teams are feeling the impact by 1) not having a player available and 2) paying guaranteed money to a player who is giving no return on their investment--to compound that by not giving those teams the opportunity to use that dead cap space on replacements or spread it to players more deserving (extensions etc) is ridiculous.

Teams can't control the conduct of their players directly but when teams are telling players, "Yes, tallent wise you are worth 10 million but given your past infractions we dont want to risk being left holding the bag. 6 million is the best we can do." There is an element of indirect control.

I agree with Chopper. The Carda knew what they were getting with Wash. They felt the risk was worth it. I doubt they will feel that way in the future. Eliminating any liability from the team also eliminates the risk and indirectly encourages teams to sign players with off the field issues.

 

[BigRedRage]

Yes however his case is like two years old and happened before the policy came about. I expect a six game and then an appeal bringing it down to four games

say he does only get 4 games, that will be 24 games missed over 3 years. What a dummy. 26 games if he gets the 6.

 

[Zeno]

Teams can't control the conduct of their players directly but when teams are telling players, "Yes, tallent wise you are worth 10 million but given your past infractions we dont want to risk being left holding the bag. 6 million is the best we can do." There is an element of indirect control.

I agree with Chopper. The Carda knew what they were getting with Wash. They felt the risk was worth it. I doubt they will feel that way in the future. Eliminating any liability from the team also eliminates the risk and indirectly encourages teams to sign players with off the field issues.

Again it doesn't eliminate any liability. They aren't getting the guaranteed money back ($$) and they are losing a player. If you allow them to use that cap space it also makes the team spend MORE money ($$$)--so I don't see how anyone could possible think this would eliminate "any liability".

It allows the team to be more competitive and the league to remain more balanced.

Teams are going to have to be forced to hold on to players that because of the cap ramifications, where as with cap relief the team could cut these scum and let them be someone elses problem if they choose to sign them.

 

[Catfish]

I am ok with what the new conduct policy is going after. Making the team responsible might just go far toward curing the bulk of the problems. Those irresponsible players, (who willfully violate the rule of civility, and the law), are playing with more money then they ever dreamed they would have anyway. Most have enough money after their first year to never be wanting again.

The real impetus is on the owners to keep their investments solid and not at risk of great loss. These guys are VERY cognizant of the profit margin, and may be less willing to chance REAL LONG TERM INVESTMENTS, on players of questionable character if it may cost them huge profit losses long term. In fact, I don't see all the concern by the NFLPA about this new policy. It is the owners who are being held to suffer the greatest losses, not the players, (which in my opinion is exactly where the emphasis should be). The owners should be much more concerned about profit than the players will be, therefore there may be far less investment in 'questionable character' players in the future over the long term. That just might go far toward cleaning up the image of the league. Saddling the owners with the responsibility to clean up their act is far more likely to achieve positive results in my estimation.

 

[Zeno]

Teams control who they invest their money in. That is as fair as business gets. Actions have consequences. If you invest in a player who has character concerns, it may backfire. That is why the term is "Buyer Beware."

Again--it isn't like the team is not facing consequences they absolutely are, but that dead cap space serves nobody--not the league, not the team, not the fans and not other players in the league who are not violating the policy. It makes no sense.

If Washington was cut in the offseason with no cap implications--it doesn't remove the Cardinals financial obligation to him...it would however allow the Cardinals to move on and spend those cap dollars either on his replacement and/or to extend players on the team who are both good players and good citizens.

 

[Hollywood]

Again it doesn't eliminate any liability. They aren't getting the guaranteed money back ($$) and they are losing a player. If you allow them to use that cap space it also makes the team spend MORE money ($$$)--so I don't see how anyone could possible think this would eliminate "any liability".

It allows the team to be more competitive and the league to remain more balanced.

Teams are going to have to be forced to hold on to players that because of the cap ramifications, where as with cap relief the team could cut these scum and let them be someone elses problem if they choose to sign them.

Think about teams like the cowboys and redskins that dont care if they have to eat a players contract. Do you think snyder will hesitate to sign rice to a big contract if he thinks it will help his team...especially if he gets that cap space back to sign someone else if rice slips up?

The only real way to slow them down it by not letting them replace that player because they dont have the cap space. Now they are without the services of that player AND cant go find another. THAT might make them think twice before signing them in the first place.

 

[Zeno]

Think about teams like the cowboys and redskins that dont care if they have to eat a players contract. Do you think snyder will hesitate to sign rice to a big contract if he thinks it will help his team...especially if he gets that cap space back to sign someone else if rice slips up?

The only real way to slow them down it by not letting them replace that player because they dont have the cap space. Now they are without the services of that player AND cant go find another. THAT might make them think twice before signing them in the first place.

You make it sound like you can predict the conduct of every player. You can't. A player with no history can still slip up and not allowing the team to replace him does more harm than good.