Because Gordon's is a set process that was collectively bargained. He tests positive for whatever he has to test for, he gets punished on whatever scale has been agreed upon. We can think that process is stupid (I do) and shouldn't be in there, but the league isn't making judgments and coming up with random numbers of games. It's set up based on the CBA. Watson doesn't fall into that purview and goes by a different process that doesn't really have much in the way of guidelines, which is I just don't see the point of comparing the two.
what a weird, Alito type of thinking..."jizzing on people isn't explicitly mentioned in the governing text therefore the league has no authority here"
Fair enough, I suppose. If that’s the case, how is anybody supposed to determine the length of any crime/activity not specifically bargained for in the CBA? Seems like some sort of comparison is necessary.
I never said it has no authority to do anything. I said it's not qualified to properly punish someone like Watson because it's not. It's a sports league. All it can do it come up with a number and duck in the hopes that it doesn't get run over by angry people.
I think comparing similar criminal offense types of suspensions to something like this makes sense. But if we're comparing all players like Watson who come down the punishment aisle to Gordon, we'd have to suspend them like 10 years to make the comparison work based on the offenses in question, right? Point being, I think there's a great argument to be made that Gordon's punishments have been stupid, over the top, and based on a draconian system that needs to be changed. If someone wants to argue Ridley was too harshly punished for his gambling, go for it. I just don't find their situations to Watson as comparable, so I don't see the point of trying to make a point about Watson's suspension by making the comparison. Clearly I'm in the minority here, so I'll probably just shut up and go on my way.
Roethlisberger has to be the closest thing and got 6 (arbitrator cut it to 4). Most of these are drug/substance abuse policy suspensions. I had forgotten Hardy's was reduced from 10 to 4, which kind of goes to show how the league is currently suffering in these issues from prior precedents they set years ago when you see how many of their later suspensions keep getting reduced like that. Rice ended up with 12 after originally 2. https://www.nytimes.com/article/nfl-suspensions.html
I'm fine with using those as a basis. Watson has 24+ women that the arbitrator found were credible and that Watson likely lied. I don't see how any rational argument can be made that 6 is a legitimate number of games.
Make him go play for the Texans, but the Browns still forfeit the picks. Texans lose the picks they got and an additional 3 firsts for being a safe haven for sex pests.
MG2 really out here being like Josh Gordon smoked weed multiple times, so nearly 5 years off is cool like Watson didn’t sexually assault people on 24(!) separate occasions. Jesus man. Let’s call it 4 games per, or 96 games.
Kind of a tangent but what gets me is how many women have come forward and Watson is obviously lying through his teeth and he'll miss maybe a few games
That’s not what he was like at all. I think his actual stance was bad and incorrect as well. But I at least gave enough effort to understand the point he was trying to make to know it wasn’t what you try to say it was above.
I think it's weird to say "No amount of games will be enough so why do anything at all?" If someone in my office was accused of sexual assault by 20+ women, my company would let them go bc they wouldn't want to be associated with that. It could be the top guy in the office, it wouldn't matter.
And don't give me the "They don't have the authority or ability." As a league, they literally blackballed a player for kneeling during the anthem. If the owners weren't ghouls, Watson would never player again bc no owner would want to be associated with him. But they are so he'll keep playing after the minimum is done to appease the public.
They absolutely have the authority. They just don’t want to do anything about it because players/employees would blow the whistle more often on all the harassment done by coaches and front offices. Daniel Snyder still being an owner is ghoulish.
It’s no coincidence that they leveled “penalties” at Stephen Ross as this is going on. Trying to pretend to be impartial and fair. If this leads to owners and front offices getting fucked for their crap, all the better.
Snyder being an owner after the cheerleading scandal is completely insane and now he got caught stealing from the league and there’s zero talk about replacing him. meanwhile in the nba an owner used a racial slur on tape and they immediately got his ass out the paint
I never said the league didn't have the authority or ability. They clearly have both. It's weird when people are trying to call you stupid based of things you never said because they either couldn't be bothered to read stuff or can't comprehend what was written. I said the league isn't qualified to suspend players because I just don't think it is. I think equating terrible behavior to a set number of sports games is a PR game that you're almost always going to lose at some point. That's why I don't get outraged when these suspensions aren't as long as people think they should be. It's a no-win situation for the leagues. The NFL has found this out over and over again under Goodell as they've tried to do that. That doesn't mean I get mad when Watson is suspended. I'm not saying "no one should want him to be suspended". I just don't get mad about it, and I don't think bringing up things like Gordon and Ridley are comparable. I personally get mad at the Browns for believing that people don't care enough about the things Watson did that they would trade for him and sign him to that contract. And I get mad that they're probably right. I choose not to get that mad that a sports league doesn't know how to properly punish Watson. Others clearly disagree and think I'm a moron. Such is life.
I don’t mean this to be snarky, but it depends on how you define a win. The NFL is merely trying to navigate how much to suspend Watson to cause the smallest ripple in player morale/anger and fan anger. Basically, the entire goal is to have suspensions that appease people into spending the same/more money on their product. The only reason they suspend anybody for off field issues is to appease the fans, which is why the vocal outrage is kind of a necessary part of all of this.
Why is an employer not qualified to choose who they want working for them? I'm not talking about the league ruling if he goes to jail, I'm just saying the league can choose who plays and who doesn't. They are definitely qualified to make that decision. Why does it have to be about PR, why can't fans just want more from a product they are giving billions of dollars to? I get that's it's not remotely close to realistic, but it'd be nice if the league/teams had some morals and walked away from players that were just shitty people and tainted their brand. That doesn't mean we as fans can't be disappointed in them for not doing it. If the Texans let him sit the bench until his contract expired and then no team signed him, who gets mad at that? It's not a no-win situation. They just put talent and wins over morals. I'm qualified to say they suck for that.
Yeah morality or ethics aren't even under consideration. It's all about maximizing earnings out of every situation
Pretty hilarious how hard the league owns the players union have a sham trial and if we don’t like the results we will just unilaterally decide what to do
Jameis got 3 games for allegedly touching the Uber driver or whatever it was. Ridiculous that Watson got 6 for those allegations.
The indefinite approach of noted shit bag, Coach K, when he suspended Grayson Allen for all of one game.
I just assumed Snyder getting forced out was only a matter of time, but maybe you're right and it's already blown over.
I started reading this as legit and was like “why the fuck is she releasing a statement on NFL letterhead” and then I got to the last section and felt dumb.
I think what MG2 is saying is the NFL isn't really in the business of applying football suspensions for actions outside of what was collectively bargained for, so they end up trying to do whatever gets them off the hook and it always ends up looking bad. In this case, Watson should be going to jail for however many years, but he's not, so the league is trying to win the press conference while letting him play eventually - they'll end up with somewhere between 10 games and a year most will still think that's too short. They are stuck, because their collectively bargained penalties are so harsh that to be commensurate with them Watson would need a lifetime ban. You guys all thinking he means the league shouldn't suspend Watson aren't reading so good.
That’s not how this works. Henceforth, MG2 shall be known as the robot who actively campaigned for Deshaun Watson to get 0 games because those ladies “were asking for it.”