Holy crap...

[AUChizad]

The amount of the bounty makes no difference to the players.  There's a bottle of Maker's Mark at stake in the March Madness tourney.  Although my bracket couldn't win a 6 oz. bottle of delicious coke product, just the fact that there's something on the line makes me want to win.  First time I went to Victory Land years ago, I watched the puppies run and figured out how to pick a pup and place a bet.  The first couple of races I watched before I placed the bet, it looked pretty cool.  Hey, those dogs are fast.  I plunked down $2.00 on #6 to win.  I thought I was going to have a heart attack when the gates flew open and #6 came by me in the lead. He finished 148th.  Slow bastard.

By the way, after that I was let in on a foolproof way to pick a dog.  When they parade them in front of the fans prior to the race, pick the one that stops to take a piss or a mowanga dump in front of hundreds of people.  He's lighter and loose.  He ain't skeered.

Gets it.

That's actually the only part of Chizad's rant that has any merit.  You don't have to intend to injure someone to knock them out of a game, or have them carted off.   You can be carted off with no career threatening injury, and due to a completely legal hit.  Still, that argument is meaningless in the big picture.

Then what's your big beef? I'm genuinely wondering?

Most people that think this punishment is appropriate or even that it wasn't enough (which is patently absurd), are all acting like their poor sensibilities and their entire world view has been crushed by these mean old thugs that are intentionally causing injury to other players. Their whole point is there should be zero tolerance for these ruffians trying to end the careers of their peers. Everyone calling me naive is doing so because they "know" that these players were trying to injure other players.

So what exactly is your beef if you agree that this was not the case? Just that they had an "office pool" at all? That warrants the scorched earth penalty they just handed down? I get that that was against the rules, and I get that they probably should have been more forthcoming that it was going on. The only thing I've been saying is that A) Despite the manufactured outrage du jour that the media is perpetuating, you can't empirically prove they organized a system with intent to harm other players, and B) given A, the punishment was entirely too harsh for the crime.

[Godfather]

As I stated before I also think the lying played a HUGE part in the severeness of the punishment.

As Goodell said on NFL Network:

    Clearly, we were lied to. We investigated this back in 2010, we were told it was not happening, it continued for another two years until we got credible evidence late in the 2011 season and we were able to identify significant information that verified from multiple sources that this was going on for a three-year period.

Goodell also said in his official statement:

    A combination of elements made this matter particularly unusual and egregious. When there is targeting of players for injury and cash rewards over a three-year period, the involvement of the coaching staff, and three years of denials and willful disrespect of the rules, a strong and lasting message must be sent that such conduct is totally unacceptable and has no place in the game.

[Godfather]

The only thing I've been saying is that A) Despite the manufactured outrage du jour that the media is perpetuating, you can't empirically prove they organized a system with intent to harm other players, and B) given A, the punishment was entirely too harsh for the crime.

See above, I would pretty much say that Goodell's statement shoots a hole in the media blew this out of proportion argument.

[JR4AU]

So, they set up a bounty system with incentives for completing certain objectives, but no one goes out there with the intent to complete any of the objectives required for a bounty?

It would be different if the coaches came in the locker room after a game and retroactively gave rewards for actions that they deemed, in hindsight, to be worthy of recognition.  Still in violation of NFL rules, but different from the bounty system we have here.

The bounty objectives were known prior to the games; they were shown in pre-game slides.  If a player is not going to have the intent to complete a bounty objective, such as causing someone to be carted off the field, then what's the purpose of the bounty system?  Why risk your ass for an illegal bounty system that, according to you and Chad, doesn't actually motivate the players to do anything intentionally?

You really don't get the distinction?   I didn't say no intent to collect the bounty.  A DE can have a clear objective of knocking the QB out of the game (and I think most do, bounty or not), without having any intent to inflict a particular injury, or use an illegal tactic or hit. 

[AUChizad]

As I stated before I also think the lying played a HUGE part in the severeness of the punishment.

As Goodell said on NFL Network:
Goodell also said in his official statement:

These two motivations are diametrically opposed. "Oh, the humanity! We can't just let them run amok, leaving disfigured bodies in their wake! But if they would have just admitted it up front, it would have been NBD."

I totally agree that hurting Goodell's wittle ego is going to get you ten billion times the punishment as, say, blatantly cheating by videotaping other teams. Just don't lie to daddy, and all is forgiven.

That, and the fact that he's covering his ass from future litigation, as already discussed as well. This is Goodell's backdated dissociation letter. He wants to be able to say, "Look man, we're trying to protect these players. Look how I crippled this program because I thought there was a chance they might have been trying to hurt people."

[Godfather]

These two motivations are diametrically opposed. "Oh, the humanity! We can't just let them run amok, leaving disfigured bodies in their wake! But if they would have just admitted it up front, it would have been NBD."

I totally agree that hurting Goodell's wittle ego is going to get you ten billion times the punishment as, say, blatantly cheating by videotaping other teams. Just don't lie to daddy, and all is forgiven.

That, and the fact that he's covering his ass from future litigation, as already discussed as well. This is Goodell's backdated dissociation letter. He wants to be able to say, "Look man, we're trying to protect these players. Look how I crippled this program because I thought there was a chance they might have been trying to hurt people."

Jesus Christ, melodramatic much?  Crippled the program?!? Really, I didn't see Sean Payton making those throws to Meachem.  He hasn't crippled the program yet...   I would wait till he deals with the players involved, before you make that statement.

Bottom line you are upset because it happened to the du jour program you happen to be cheering for this year.  If it happened at Buffalo, or Dallas, or New England you would be on this side of the fence. 

Fuck I wish he had suspended the Dolphins GM.

[JR4AU]

Gets it.
Then what's your big beef? I'm genuinely wondering?

Most people that think this punishment is appropriate or even that it wasn't enough (which is patently absurd), are all acting like their poor sensibilities and their entire world view has been crushed by these mean old thugs that are intentionally causing injury to other players. Their whole point is there should be zero tolerance for these ruffians trying to end the careers of their peers. Everyone calling me naive is doing so because they "know" that these players were trying to injure other players.

So what exactly is your beef if you agree that this was not the case? Just that they had an "office pool" at all? That warrants the scorched earth penalty they just handed down? I get that that was against the rules, and I get that they probably should have been more forthcoming that it was going on. The only thing I've been saying is that A) Despite the manufactured outrage du jour that the media is perpetuating, you can't empirically prove they organized a system with intent to harm other players, and B) given A, the punishment was entirely too harsh for the crime.

My beef is that even though a "cart off hit" doesn't have to be caused by an illegal hit, or cause an "injury".  But it creates an incentive to do just that to get the "cart off hit" to collect the money.  And we've all been acting like none of these guys need the money.  I've heard many a tale of NFL players having to get loans to get through the off season because they piss away all their money.

[Vandy Vol]

You really don't get the distinction?   I didn't say no intent to collect the bounty.  A DE can have a clear objective of knocking the QB out of the game (and I think most do, bounty or not), without having any intent to inflict a particular injury, or use an illegal tactic or hit.

When the bounty objective is as specific as requiring that the player be carted off the field, then yes, you do require the intent to injure the player if you intend to collect the bounty.  Unless, of course, you're suggesting that there are circumstances in which an uninjured player gets carted off of the field.

Does that mean that the hit has to be illegal?  No, but if a player has the intent to injure a player to such a drastic degree that they can't walk off on their own accord, then they are more likely to resort to illegal hits.  Afterall, illegal hits have been made illegal due to the fact that they cause such drastic injuries.

Sure, you could attempt to argue that no player would ever attempt illegal hits, but that they'd only try to satisfy bounty objectives with legal hits.  Nonetheless, one bounty objective was to injure a player.  That's not part of the game and should not be acceptable.

Yes, injuries occur and are part of the game, but they should occur as a possible consequence of a full contact sport; they should not occur as the consequence of someone's bad intentions.  As Goodell said, intentional targeting of players for the purpose of injuring them should never occur.

[Godfather]

I will say it again....There is a world of difference between

Sacking a QB for a 20 yard loss = $5000 bounty

VS.

Hitting a QB with the intent of trying to take him out of the game = $5000 bounty

[AUChizad]

When the bounty objective is as specific as requiring that the player be carted off the field, then yes, you do require the intent to injure the player if you intend to collect the bounty.  Unless, of course, you're suggesting that there are circumstances in which an uninjured player gets carted off of the field.

Does that mean that the hit has to be illegal?  No, but if a player has the intent to injure a player to such a drastic degree that they can't walk off on their own accord, then they are more likely to resort to illegal hits.  Afterall, illegal hits have been made illegal due to the fact that they cause such drastic injuries.

Sure, you could attempt to argue that no player would ever attempt illegal hits, but that they'd only try to satisfy bounty objectives with legal hits.  Nonetheless, one bounty objective was to injure a player.  That's not part of the game and should not be acceptable.

Yes, injuries occur and are part of the game, but they should occur as a possible consequence of a full contact sport; they should not occur as the consequence of someone's bad intentions.  As Goodell said, intentional targeting of players for the purpose of injuring them should never occur.

You're thinking of the pool as it's own separate game. As the central driving force for their actions. I guaranfuckingtee you that they'd rather not get penalized for a late hit or a helmet to helmet than than to win the pot. Think of it more as fantasy football, or something. What's going to happen on the field is going to happen by the field. Afterwards, it's "Oh yeah, I intercepted that pass, that's $1,000 from the pot". He's not thinking as he's jumping through the air trying to get the football "Man, I'd better get this so I can get win that pot!" No, he's playing the game he's paid to play. Everything else is supplemental and passive.

[JR4AU]

When the bounty objective is as specific as requiring that the player be carted off the field, then yes, you do require the intent to injure the player if you intend to collect the bounty.  Unless, of course, you're suggesting that there are circumstances in which an uninjured player gets carted off of the field.

Does that mean that the hit has to be illegal?  No, but if a player has the intent to injure a player to such a drastic degree that they can't walk off on their own accord, then they are more likely to resort to illegal hits.  Afterall, illegal hits have been made illegal due to the fact that they cause such drastic injuries.

Sure, you could attempt to argue that no player would ever attempt illegal hits, but that they'd only try to satisfy bounty objectives with legal hits.  Nonetheless, one bounty objective was to injure a player.  That's not part of the game and should not be acceptable.

Yes, injuries occur and are part of the game, but they should occur as a possible consequence of a full contact sport; they should not occur as the consequence of someone's bad intentions.  As Goodell said, intentional targeting of players for the purpose of injuring them should never occur.

Never-mind, it's not worth the time, as I agree with the penalties. 

[Saniflush]

Cam did it.

[JR4AU]

I will say it again....There is a world of difference between

Sacking a QB for a 20 yard loss = $5000 bounty

VS.

Hitting a QB with the intent of trying to take him out of the game = $5000 bounty

Under the rules, both are equally illegal.

If no bounty is being paid, and Stud DE has the attitude and intent of "I want to hit the QB from the blind side with max force each and every opportunity I get" and plays 100% towards that goal every play acceptable?

[Vandy Vol]

You're thinking of the pool as it's own separate game. As the central driving force for their actions. I guaranfuckingtee you that they'd rather not get penalized for a late hit or a helmet to helmet than than to win the pot.

. . .

Afterwards, it's "Oh yeah, I intercepted that pass, that's $1,000 from the pot". He's not thinking as he's jumping through the air trying to get the football "Man, I'd better get this so I can get win that pot!" No, he's playing the game he's paid to play.

Then I ask, yet again, what was the purpose of creating the bounty system in the first place?

Bounty systems are illegal.  If the paltry amount of money that they were going to receive was not going to motivate them to achieve the specific bounty objectives that were created, then why have the bounty system?  Why inform players of the bounty objectives before the game if it wasn't going to affect their style of play or intentions during the game?  Why risk sanctions from the league for an activity that does absolutely nothing for the team?

You will recall that Williams created this bounty system upon Payton's request to make the defense nastier.  So he created a bounty system that was supposed to change the way that the defense played, but now you're telling me that this wasn't the intent of the bounty system?  That players weren't going into games with the intent to achieve specific bounty objectives?  That players went onto the field and played the same way that they did before the bounty system?  That the bounty system changed nothing and did nothing, so the team stupidly instituted an illegal activity for no reason, and with no resulting effect, whatsoever?  That the team's penalties per season skyrocketed during the existence of the bounty system due to sheer coincidence?

Bovine feces.

[AUChizad]

Under the rules, both are equally illegal.

If no bounty is being paid, and Stud DE has the attitude and intent of "I want to hit the QB from the blind side with max force each and every opportunity I get" and plays 100% towards that goal every play acceptable?

Gets it. (This aspect at least)

[Godfather]

Under the rules, both are equally illegal.

If no bounty is being paid, and Stud DE has the attitude and intent of "I want to hit the QB from the blind side with max force each and every opportunity I get" and plays 100% towards that goal every play acceptable?

Like I said before you don't talk about the code red. 

[Godfather]

Gets it. (This aspect at least)

Ok so you are agreeing that the bounty system is illegal.  Therefore there should have been a punishment?  What should it have been?

Again you only give a shit cause you like the team.

[Godfather]

Then I ask, yet again, what was the purpose of creating the bounty system in the first place?

Bounty systems are illegal.  If the paltry amount of money that they were going to receive was not going to motivate them to achieve the specific bounty objectives that were created, then why have the bounty system?  Why inform players of the bounty objectives before the game if it wasn't going to affect their style of play or intentions during the game?  Why risk sanctions from the league for an activity that does absolutely nothing for the team?

You will recall that Williams created this bounty system upon Payton's request to make the defense nastier.  So he created a bounty system that was supposed to change the way that the defense played, but now you're telling me that this wasn't the intent of the bounty system?  That players weren't going into games with the intent to achieve specific bounty objectives?  That players went onto the field and played the same way that they did before the bounty system?  That the bounty system changed nothing and did nothing, so the team stupidly instituted an illegal activity for no reason, and with no resulting effect, whatsoever?  That the team's penalties per season skyrocketed during the existence of the bounty system due to sheer coincidence?

Bovine feces.

The better question is when Chizad turned into a mind reader.

[Godfather]

Under the rules, both are equally illegal.

If no bounty is being paid, and Stud DE has the attitude and intent of "I want to hit the QB from the blind side with max force each and every opportunity I get" and plays 100% towards that goal every play acceptable?

Well technically they do get paid for the sack already its called their salary.  The problem I have with it becomes trying to intentionally harm another professional, which based on the severity could stop them from making their livelihood. 

I wasn't saying that I agreed with having a bounty either way, I was just saying there is a big difference. 

Having a bet with your friends to see who can get laid the most, vs using roofies to win said bet.

[AUChizad]

Ok so you are agreeing that the bounty system is illegal.  Therefore there should have been a punishment?  What should it have been?

Yes. I never denied that the "office pool" like system is against the NFL rules. I conceded as much multiple times in this thread. It also happens in literally every locker room in the NFL. I don't have to be a mind reader to know this. I believe the testament of the dozens and dozens of players from Seattle to Miami and everywhere in between, who have zero reason to defend New Orleans, who have said as much.

What should the punishment be? To you, apparently it's perfectly acceptable to issue a $5 ticket for jaywalking for everyone else in the free world, but if those motherfuckers in New Orleans do it, they'd better spend at least 10 years in the pen. You want to live in a vacuum where "Everyone else is doing is not an excuse". Fuck me for thinking equity should come into play at some point when you have something that goes on everywhere and you decide to single out one team and decapitate them for it.