Create Account

Or log in with Facebook


Log in

Or log in with Facebook

NFL: The League of Hypocrisy

By Category

NFL: The League of Hypocrisy

The NFL is one of the most successful, profitable, and enjoyable professional sports leagues.

Fan involvement is at an all-time high, the on-field product has never been better, tv viewing is on the rise, and profits set new records with each passing year.

Heck, even their draft process is garnering attention, excitement, and produces entertaining moments.

However, they are also hypocritical with respect to several key tenets they love to self-promote and selectively enforce.

While much lip service has been made to protect the "integrity of the game," improve player safety, campaign against domestic violence, and to produce the shiny appearance of a stout moral compass, their actions show there is much progress yet to be made.

Let's take a look at three of their most egregious acts of hypocrisy. 


1. The "No More" Anti-Domestic Violence Campaign

On the surface, this campaign is admirable. It's moves emotions. It spreads awareness and hopefully has saved lives. If it saved even one life or spared one beating, it would have been a successful campaign. Below is an ad from last year, and it's one of the most powerful we've seen in the entirety of the campaign.

The campaign returned this season when the NFL played a "No More" ad during the Sunday game between the Dallas Cowboys and the New York Giants.

However, that game featured recently suspended defensive end Greg Hardy, who was punished for a previous conviction of domestic violence. The conviction was overturned because his accuser failed to appear in court during an appeal. The airing may have been a coincidence. Or, it may have been on purpose because Hardy was specifically in the game.

"Hey, look at us, we care about domestic violence, and here's an ad to prove it. Pay no attention to the man behind the curtain."

Either way, I guess the conviction overturn makes it ok to prominently display Hardy on the field and discuss his return to the game, even after he continues to show his anger management issues with an altercation with coaches and players.

Clearly, Hardy has learned nothing. He certainly doesn't appreciate his second chance and isn't changing his behaviors. In other words, he's being enabled by the money-making machine.

To make matters worse, the Cowboys organization considers Hardy a leader and is now talking about extending Hardy's contract.

Let's also not forget that the NFL used Cris Carter in their "No More" campaign and ESPN continues to employ him after his infamous "fall guy" speech at the rookie symposium.

That's not a good look, NFL.

If the NFL was serious about domestic violence, they wouldn't pay millions of dollars to people implicated in it. There's a line that could be drawn, but they didn't. 


2. Player Safety

The NFL has spent considerable amounts of time attempting to improve player safety, mainly to prevent concussions and remove violent hits against defenseless players. This is to be commended.

Many of the rules aimed at improving player safety have been geared towards kickoff changes, concussion protocols, and strike zones when tackling.

But, recent changes to the game suggest that player safety isn't the priority. Money, "integrity of the game," and excitement take precedent. 

If player safety was truly a priority, the NFL wouldn't make teams play Thursday night games after only three days of rest.

Thursday night games appear to be nothing more than money grabs for the NFL. If that wasn't already bad enough, many feel the Thursday night games are subpar on-field products.

Furthermore, in order to "preserve" the game, the NFL spent exorbitant amounts of money over the "Deflategate" scandal with Tom Brady, the New England Patriots, and underinflated footballs, but doesn't seem to care much about field conditions.

Moreover, in an effort to increase excitement and make the game less predictable, the NFL changed their PAT rule from a 20-yard field goal to a 33-yard one. Once again, it appears that player safety is not truly a priority.

Speaking of concussions, I'm going to put a few thought-provoking tweets below and will rely on you to fall into the rabbit hole of that whole debacle of the NFL knowing, but suppressing, the dangers of concussions.

If those don't anger you enough, you can always watch this video from 2005, when the NFL clearly knew about concussions, but its affiliated networks still felt the need to promote and celebrate violent collisions.

Actions speak louder than words, and player safety appears to be merely lip service at this point.


3. Gambling Policies

The NFL has a long standing no-gambling policy associated with its games and players. This is the same policy that kicked Paul Horning and Alex Karras out of the league in 1963 for betting on games.

Using their anti-gambling stance, the NFL prevented Tony Romo from holding a fantasy camp in Las Vegas because "[p]layers and NFL personnel may not participate in promotional activities or other appearances at or in connection with events that are held at or sponsored by casinos."

But, what about this?


Yet, the NFL and its most prominent owners openly encourage fantasy football, including daily fantasy leagues. Pregame shows dedicate segments to optimizing fantasy lineups. 

I have no problem with fantasy football because I play it. I also have no problem with sports gambling and daily fantasy because I feel people can spend money any way they see fit. If these practices increase fan interest and excitement, the entire NFL wins.

My objection is with the NFL and its owners and their selective goggles as to what they consider gambling detrimental to their integrity and overall product.

How is betting on individual players that make up an imaginary team an acceptable activity, but betting on real teams, scores, and wins suddenly taboo? How is Tony Romo's fantasy camp a violation of league rules, but Jerry Jones' investment in DraftKings not?

I guess the NFL and its owners are only anti-gambling when they don't get a cut of the action or can't market the specific activities themselves. Their selective stance on gambling is troubling to say the least.


The Call to Action

Are you upset at this point, or is this something that doesn't bother you?

If not, I thank you for hearing my opinion and I look forward to your dissenting and defensible stance in the comments section.

If you are truly enraged by at least one of these hypocritical behaviors, the ball is now in your court. 

One option is to boycott the NFL. This seems to be a popular opinion and hashtag on Twitter, but I'm not suggesting that. You can boycott for personal reasons and satisfaction, but it will take more than a handful of people boycotting to institute any real effect or change. 

Boycotting isn't a voice the NFL can hear. A few people turning off their tvs and not buying jerseys won't affect the NFL's profits, and nothing will change in a silent vacuum as long as the money keeps rolling in.

The answer lies with education and communication.

For real change to be made, fans need to educate themselves about domestic violence, player safety, and the financial underpinnings of the NFL.  

Once educated on these topics, speak out. Jump on social media. Write blogs. Call into radio talk shows. Directly contact the league office.

Be heard.

In other words, use your voice to educate the NFL about the topics and your opinions. Insist they deliver transparency in all of their transactions.

The NFL has already showed us twice before in recent years that public outcry will affect their decisions.

In 2014, after Ray Rice was initially suspended for only two games, the massive public reaction put the NFL into immediate damage control mode. Eventually, Rice was indefinitely suspended. The public won.

Another example of the public demanding change was back in 2012 during the referee lockout. The replacement officials did the best they could, but were not up to the task. Coincidentally, not long after public outcry maxed out, a new bargaining agreement was reached. The public won again because the game they loved was restored to a higher standard.

When voices are loud enough, the league listens. 

Demand the higher standard and don't settle for anything less. 

NFL Categories: 
  • Like Like
  • 0 points

Fan friendly comments only: off Comments (50) This filter will hide comments which have ratio of 5 to 1 down-vote to up-vote.

Lphill's picture

I think the NFL should revoke HOF status in certain situations , Lawrence Taylor comes to mind, aside from that something had to be done at the college level as far as discipline goes because some of these players make it to the NFL when they should have been dismissed in college , so it's a very broad spectrum overall , not to mention Adrian Peterson too , Ray Rice struck his adult future wife which is awful but compared to what Peterson did it seems Peterson was forgiven and Rice is still paying the price, I think both of them should never play in the NFL again .

John Galt III's picture

Pete Rose is still not in the baseball HOF. Good, he's a great player and a piece of dirt as a person.

You used LT as an example and got a few negative votes. OK, say player X is in the HOF and commits mass murder by killing (4) with guns and knives and then burning a house with (5) children in it who die. Now, you want that guy in a HOF next to Bart Starr? In a game you love?

At what point do you say, the guy had 106 TD's receiving, was a great ILB or QB but he no longer represents our game and we are removing him from Canton.

toolkien's picture

The NFL does not own the HOF.

Could they put maximum pressure on them, remove ability to have licensed materials, etc. But the NFL has no power to "revoke" anything.

EdsLaces's picture

Greg Hardy is a total psychopath. In his interviews he is just so out there. Eventually he will be in prison for something awful I guarantee.

Evan's picture

"the on-field product has never been better..."

I know it's not the point of your article, but whaaaa? There is some truly awful football being played this year.

People might point to the unprecedented number of undefeated teams, but I think that's just further evidence of all the bad teams out there right now.

RCPackerFan's picture

Yeah, I have really only watched the Packers this year, but I have watched bits and pieces of games. Last weekend i sat down and watched some games, and I was amazed at how bad some of these teams look.
A lot of the stuff is stuff I take for granted with the Packers.

WKUPackFan's picture

There was an outstanding comment about this last week. If you branch out from the Packers and Patriots there is some awful football being played out there. Teams cannot execute the most basic concepts. It is truly brutal to watch.

In my opinion most of the reason for this is the reduced practice time under the new CBA.

RCPackerFan's picture

'In my opinion most of the reason for this is the reduced practice time under the new CBA.'

I agree.

There isn't enough practice time for teams to get into Rhythm. And it isn't allowing young players get the reps they need to get better.

That is another thing that hurts the league and players is that there is no developmental league. There are so many players that need time to be developed. If there was a development league that allowed players to get the practice and playing time they need, you would see a lot of those players contributing more in the NFL.

Tarynfor12's picture

"In my opinion most of the reason for this is the reduced practice time under the new CBA."

I may be wrong but the reduction in practice time and full contact sessions was a player and union demand and that would fall on them and not the NFL hypocrisy...yes/no.

I would also add that many teams now are drafting the more 'marketable player' as opposed to players,who by far are the ones who keep the play level high.

Dan Stodola's picture

Too a large degree you are absolutely correct Taryn. Nice to see you back.

WKUPackFan's picture

No - the reduced practice time was an owner issue also. They didn't want to expose their stars to being injured during practice. The issue is that Dee Smith is a terrible negotiator. He gave up something for an issue he could have gotten for free.

Tarynfor12's picture

"No - the reduced practice time was an owner issue also. They didn't want to expose their stars to being injured during practice."

That was a cover move to discredit the rumblings from players,of various lower tiers, that they weren't as important and their safety was of little consequence.The star player(s) can be protected by the red jersey as like the QB and limiting practice time for the any other position of skill or the more marketable player.A Politically Correct move by the Owners who are the NFL to induce from the PA the very judicial power to Goodell that the players accepted then and have since realized was bait and easily got their tails caught in the trap the moment they agreed.
The Owners saw this as a win-win since the fans demanded that football return asap regardless of which side got what and the fans are getting their deserves for it...sloppy football and their favorite criminal on the field all in the name of winning.Think how bad the on field play may be by the time the CBA needs to be done anew,as the talent that is assumed as NFL quality comes in and the restrictions take even more a toll as evidenced by the drop off of play after the last couple of years of filtering.

adamczech's picture

On the Hardy issue, the NFL suspended him 10 games and an arbitrator knocked it down to four. Tough to blame the league for Hardy being out there.

4thand1's picture

I think Jerry had a lot to do with getting the 10 games to 4. He is the worst owner in the league. If he purchased the Packers, I would quit watching football.

Bearmeat's picture

You point out all the problems well. I too am upset at it. And I am also upset that a bunch of CEOs are sitting smugly knowing they are being such hypocrites and will STILL rake in the dough. I love the Packers. But I have never hated the NFL more. I know that's not logical. But... just...ugh...

4thand1's picture

Money talks, bull shit walks, Bear.

Since '61's picture

Bearmeat - I know exactly how you feel. Thanks, Since '61

porupack's picture

Thanks for bringing up the "jacked up" bit. I hated it back then, and now it really looks ridiculous. Glad times have changed on some things.

I don't find much validity in claiming hypocrisy over Thursday games, nor the extra PAT. I don't think NFL says it will make a move in every decision-time to "reduce risk". Some things will by nature of the game add some risk, But overall, they have clearly reduced risks, some say to the detriment of quality Defense.
On domestic violence, I would like to see hard line, and better consistency/more rationality on the punishment. I don't want to cheer for that kind of human being, and I'll abandon the sport if they don't get a tough policy and get the Greg Hardys out of the league. Letroy Guion can be shown the door too, call me unfair, whatever.

4thand1's picture

Moving the extra point back penalizes a team for scoring a TD. IMO

Since '61's picture

The NFL should change its shield from NFL to $$$. That would be a much more accurate shield. Thursday night football is a sham and adds unnecessary risks for the players. Player discipline does not exist or at least not consistently. Some of that is due to the NFLPA and the CBA as well as Goodell who has been an ineffective and inconsistent commissioner at best. The owners are another major problem as many of them have little or no integrity at all. Kraft and Jones come come to mind first of course, but there are others. Like others who have commented here, unless it is a Packer's game, I only watch pieces of other teams' games any more. The quality of play combined with the declining reputation of the league is dampening my interest for the game. It's becoming more and more difficult to watch and enjoy many of the teams especially when we know that criminals are being allowed to become rich while they are playing in the NFL. Thanks, Since '61

phillythedane's picture

The NFL has gone to court and lobbied at the state and federal level, rather emphatically, that daily fantasy football is a game of skill, not chance. Hello? It's about the money. Always has been, always will be.

4thand1's picture

FF is an epidemic. They have f-ing channels devoted to it and shows on NFL network. All these experts telling people who to sit and who to play. A lot of fans could care less what team wins, as long as their fantasy players rack up points. How many fantasy points did Rodgers score in his 5 TD game against KC, and then got a PFF minus rating?

Tarynfor12's picture

The NFL fan or at least the vast majority of them are nothing but addicts who like the drug addict,the alcoholic,the compulsive gambler etc,will find an avenue of denial to maintain said addiction.

The hypocrisy of the fans themselves is what fuels the hypocrisy of the NFL which this article is about.

The moment any fan justifies a player to play in the NFL after a criminal act was committed,whether the player was able to plea down or pay off a victim as like Hardy,in the name of winning,the hypocrisy of the NFL will always have the scapegoat answer....We're giving the fans what they want.

Since '61's picture

Taryn - very well stated and sadly very accurate for too many NFL fans. Thanks, Since '61

John Galt III's picture

When you look in the stands at a Raiders game, I think of these clowns running a drug cartel or working in a concentration camp for kicks. They are sick. At least we wear cheese on our heads and they paly polkas at intermission.

Rustyweezee's picture

As far as taking action, I'd love it if we could make our voices be heard. Unfortunately, "our voices" are only really heard on the national media. That means an issue has to capture they eye of the ratings seekers. Ray Rice became a national story because the elevator video was on every TV news channel, over & over. Player safety & gambling aren't nearly as sexy for national news & not likely to get any serious coverage outside of social media.

In order for the NFL to do something about an issue, they first have to fear they'll lose profits if they don't. I thinks that's possible with these issues, but if something's going to get done, It's probably not going to be because we raised a stink, it may be more likely that lawsuits and attorneys threaten their profits.

Dan Stodola's picture

If all of you don't like the NFL then I suggest you quite watching and trying to cover the NFL. Every business has red tape and some degree of hypocrisy. I've never run across one that doesn't if you dig a little.

If you don't like it, DON'T WATCH. Its as simple as that! You keep watching and the NFL keeps laughing all the way to the bank.

What a pointless article. Put up or shut up.

jasonperone's picture

Your biggest load of crap comment yet Stroh. Haha you tell us not to watch the NFL if we don't like it yet you read at least enough (I'll assume the ENTIRE piece) and decide it was "pointless" enough to comment on. It's safe to assume you also didn't like it if it was pointless (and spare me the "I never said that" crap). Dude, go spit garbage somewhere else. We honestly and seriously don't need your readership nor "support". Get lost!

EdsLaces's picture

Whoa.. sh#t just got real.

Phillthy's picture

Fuck Thursday night football. It's so damn obvious it's a money grab. Oh let's pit two teams who got beat up 4 days ago against each other. In that time make them scheme, go over play tape, rest, and practice. Fucking bullshit I hate Thursday night football with a passion.

Thegreatreynoldo's picture

I like Thursday night and Monday night games. I am busy on weekends. I have to work just to find time to watch the Packers. I am the customer: if the NFL wants folks like me to watch multiple games, it must have them on other days. Jay complains about an inferior product on the Thursday night game, but I can live with that. The increased risk of injury gives me some pause, but OTOH, I can point to other occupations where the risk of injury increases during the coarse of the day and near the end of the week, and no one gives a rip about that.

Thegreatreynoldo's picture

With all due respect to Jay and Jason, I strongly disagree with most of this article. I only agree with the parts about gambling and field conditions.

A) The purpose of any business is to make money. As time goes on society denies this essential truth or it is qualified with more and more conditions. The only role of government should be to regulate and/or eliminate private gain that produces a public cost. All of the NFL's decisions and actions can and should be considered with this in mind.

B) Football is a violent sport. The violent aspects cannot be removed without changing the essence of the game. I suppose one could remove the OL and DL, outlaw running the ball, and just have QBs throwing to receivers with a 3 second time limit. The receivers would only have to be touched to be down, with only incidental contact on contested catches. It would look like that televised Friday practice with the QBs throwing to a choice of WRs instead of just one.

C.) Part of the attraction of football is the violence. Never doubt that the veneer of civilization is thin in both men and also in women. The hypocrisy reaches down to level of each and every fan. The NFL is simply trying to walk a tightrope balancing the fans' actual desire with what is socially acceptable. "Jacked Up" was cringe-worthy, but most of the hits would be legal today, and I bet it got good ratings.

D) Domestic Violence: "If it saves even one life, or injury, it would have been a successful campaign" in the context of running ads against domestic violence is probably true, but in general the premise if extended to the world at large is a load of crap based on lazy and intellectually dishonest thinking. I can make a car that is very safe, but no one could afford it: it would have a top speed of 2 MPH and it would look a lot like a tank. A 55 MPH speed limit instead of 65 MPH would save a life. Indeed, a 5 MPH speed limit instead of 55 MPH would also save a life. I could impose rules on construction sites, but if the standard is saving one life people would have a tough time building a doghouse, much less a home or a high rise, roads, factories, or engaging in farming.

The NFL has no more duty to run ads against domestic violence than any other company, and indeed the NFL has no more duty than each and every one of us has. It does so because it (wrongly imo) perceives it to be in its own interest to do so. That is because the NFL is in the entertainment business; indeed, if it weren't in the entertainment business, it arguably would be illegal for the NFL to discriminate against its players/employees just because the player was convicted (indeed, merely accused in the NFL's world) of DV, DUI, assault, fraud, since in general those crimes would not be related to football. There is a contradiction btw society's desire to rehabilitate criminals by making sure they have employment after serving their sentence and the demand that the NFL suspend players for their misdeeds.

This is a quagmire that the NFL should have avoided by letting the teams make these decisions. While the NFL has been terrible at imposing consistent sanctions, it is always going to be 2nd guessed, often enough in courts, requiring it to have highly paid folks administer the system and lawyers to defend their decisions. I would note that having villains in your business is also quite lucrative: just ask pro wrestling and some boxers.

Pink Campaign: There is a lot of hypocrisy here because the NFL, by stating that it donates the royalties from jersey sales to the cause, is misleading the public. It sounds like the NFL is donating all of its profits on jersey sales, when in fact royalties form only a part of their profit when the jersey is sold from NFL pro shops. With the deception noted, many think this campaign is loaded with hypocrisy. I don't. I don't think any for profit corporation should donate money to charities. If I am a shareholder, that money is mine: the CEO and Bd. of Directors can be generous with their own damn money, not mine. The only exception is if the donation to charity is part of a PR or marketing program that increases the corporation's profit. Clearly the NFL choose this pink campaign to improve ratings with women. As such, I have no problem with it other than the deception.

E) Player Safety: This has been answered conceptually above. The NFL is a business; its purpose is to make money. Its concern for player safety is conditioned on those two premises. A construction company might be concerned about employee safety while really being concerned only about their workers compensation rates, but it can't actually say that. Similarly, the NFL is concerned about player safety because it might get sued out of existence otherwise (a real concern) and because if there are enough incidents like Darryl Stingley or enough videos of retired and well known NFL players in their 50s who can't talk, or shake, etc., the public might turn away from the game. Returning to the construction company, it might even be that the construction company is genuinely concerned about its employees, but never forget that at some level there is a concern for the bottom line, and that there has to be. Even if the company thoroughly trains its employees on safety and all OSHA rules, it could hire someone to watch the employees to ensure compliance. Trotting out the "save even one life" argument, the company could hire one safety supervisor to watch one employee to ensure compliance. Heck, why not 2 inspectors for each person who is actually working. Why not a 5 to 1 ratio if studies show that doing so saves 1 life somewhere?

I do agree about field conditions as it relates to player safety. I'm not sure whether some objective tests can be codified to define what constitutes an acceptable playing surface. This comes down to money, since some teams play in stadiums that are used for many other purposes (see Soldiers Field) and the team is too cheap to pony up for its own stadium or otherwise ameliorate the problem.

F) Gambling. I can't get worked up about this issue too much, but I agree that the NFL is a hypocrite here. The integrity of the game is a good reason to prevent players from gambling with unsavory folks (shaving points scandals, for eg.), but the same argument applies to owners. Gambling is the easiest way to actually go broke fast while still being able to produce on the field, but there are other ways, like margin calls on the stock market. Being in debt isn't illegal, and practically all creditors aren't going to demand that a player shave points or throw the game. They will just sue in court. I don't really get the gambling stuff.

It is up to society to decide what societal norms are. I am fine with Jay's suggestion that people should call radio stations, contact their team, etc., to the extent that this activity is an attempt to educate and persuade, as opposed to the attempt by vocal handfuls of people trying to pretend that they are the majority in order to set societal norms.

WKUPackFan's picture

TGR, thanks for being a realist. Strongly agree with your point A.

Regarding domestic violence: Not only is it a product of a lot of players environments (all races included) it is almost completely overlooked with respect to high school and college players. Again, the U of L basketball situation is a good example. Nothing will change until the general degradation of women is no longer tolerated.

Pink campaign: It's simply an attempt to gain female viewers. It's hypocritical because no owner (except Kraft maybe) gives a damn about breast cancer. No one in the league office cares if a half million people a year die of breast cancer. Perhaps that's the way it should be (see A above), but that doesn't wash away the hypocracy once the campaign is embarked upon.

marpag1's picture

"Pink campaign ... It's hypocritical because no owner (except Kraft maybe) gives a damn about breast cancer. No one in the league office cares if a half million people a year die of breast cancer."

How do you know this?

WKUPackFan's picture

Besides being a little cynical, I would think it's common knowledge. Not that I'm into class warfare, but we're dealing with the uber wealthy here. Like it or not, they're operating in a different world.

Stephen Ross? Jeff Luria(sp?)?, Spanos?, etc.? Sure, they probably attend charity galas and contribute money. That doesn't mean they give a "darn" about any particular cause or individual. They have other reasons (social, business, tax shelters) for doing those things.

murphy's picture

Cancer doesn't affect the wealthy? Interesting.

Have you ever claimed charitable donations on your taxes?

WKUPackFan's picture

TGR, thanks for being a realist. Strongly agree with your point A.

Regarding domestic violence: Not only is it a product of a lot of players environments (all races included) it is almost completely overlooked with respect to high school and college players. Again, the U of L basketball situation is a good example. Nothing will change until the general degradation of women is no longer tolerated.

Pink campaign: It's simply an attempt to gain female viewers. It's hypocritical because no owner (except Kraft maybe) gives a damn about breast cancer. No one in the league office cares if a half million people a year die of breast cancer. Perhaps that's the way it should be (see A above), but that doesn't wash away the hypocracy once the campaign is embarked upon.

WKUPackFan's picture

If a double post gets two dislikes on one and a like on the other does that equal one dislike? Normally I wouldn't care, but it's difficult to see how anyone could disagree, unless you believe the NFL owners/league office are really concerned about about breast cancer or any other worthy cause. Here's a clue - they're not.

Crackerpacker's picture

The only betting i do is £5 a year on the Grand National, I have no interest in fantasy Football, Its just a bunch of sad people who think they own there very own Football team.My advice to them is become a Packers fan buy some shares and become a team owner for real.
As the C.I.A. come to the Packers for advice on keeping things secret, The only good thing that comes from gambling is the Packers have to give out information like injury reports.

WKUPackFan's picture

Please excuse the double post, stupid slow browser.

marpag1's picture

1. Domestic Violence

Last I heard, we have an American criminal justice system that has been given the authority and responsibility of upholding the laws with regard to domestic violence. If anyone - with or without a straight face - honestly suggests that they want Rodger Goodell, Jerry Jones and their NFL frat house buddies to step up and play a role in adjudicating crime in the USA, you are out of your mind, bat-shit crazy.

2. Gambling

The NFL does not outlaw gambling on games, or fantasy leagues or whatever. It bans NFL players and officials from participating in such gambling. I support this 100%, since the ability to bet on a game in which you play presents a clear and self-evident conflict of interest. If the NFL wants to keep players away from public appearances that come uncomfortably close to a gambling environment or that might portray the league in a bad light, I have no problem with it.

(Also, if they could somehow wipe fantasy football off the face of the earth, I would have no problem with that either. In fact, I'm hoping they can).

3. Player Safety

If you really want to do everything possible to make the game safe, you need to stop playing it. If that is your suggestion raise your hand. And if YOU are willing to tolerate some danger in order to watch a game, how are you less of a hypocrite than the NFL is?

4. What are "exuberant amounts of money?" LOL.

5. Tweets almost never prove anything.

Otto's picture

I disagree with #2. In fact, the violence of football is what attracted me to it when I was young. Football, like martial arts, gave me a disciplined channel for my aggressiveness to be released.
When I played my heroes were Nitschke, Butkus, Alzado, Lott and anyone else that would make devastating hits. I loved Jacked Up, Crunch Course and any other videos that showed big hits.

Can we drop the facade of Player Safety, please? You know full well, by the time you sign an NFL contract you are exchanging your physical well-being for money. You know after your 1st week of practice you are trading physical well-being for the chance to compete and the thrill of victory. It may not be that clearly stated, but you intrinsically know it.

A large part of my deep personal dislike for Rodger Goodell is his "sissifying" of the NFL. Watching the Packers D-backs tackle today is like watching a tutorial on how to play slap-n-tickle. God, I miss Chuck Cecil laying the wood to a WR crossing the middle.

Mike Tomlin said, "The more violent team wins." Not anymore, Mike.

Dan Stodola's picture

Damn right Otto. Love me the physicality of the game. I don't hate the current NFL, and in fact it was bound to happen. But to think player safety is the NFL's problem hypocritical in itself. The players play the game, they are the ones that have to live w/ the decision they made to play the game. Each and every one of them would probably make the same decision again, even if they knew the costs to their bodies and minds, which they do whether they admit it or not. Then they come back and file lawsuits saying the NFL somehow didn't warn them or tell them they might get hurt mentally of physically? Now that's hypocrisy!

Flow49's picture

If your looking for major corporations to be your moral compass get ready for lots of disappointment.

jasonperone's picture

To most of you, I just want to say that agree or disagree, you present your thoughts well and we have a good group here. I can't speak for the rest of the team here but I absolutely don't expect everyone to agree with my writings. The debates are healthy and fun, when done the right way. And I think we do it right way more often than not.

I meant no offense to any other readers than the subject of my last post. Our group here is a good example of why and how Packers fans are thought to be some of the smartest among NFL fan circles.

Carry on...

RCPackerFan's picture

no worries. Keep writing and doing a good job. Not everyone is going to agree with everything. But if it creates a good discussion that is what the goal should be.

There is a reason why this is one of my favorite Packers pages I come to and its because you writers do a great job and there usually is a lot of good fan interaction.

We could do with less hostility in comments however. Some days it honestly just gets annoying, and makes it hard to want to come here. There is nothing wrong with agreeing or disagreeing with people. It would just be nice if people were a little more respectful in doing so.

Keep up the good work.

Thegreatreynoldo's picture

RC, I completely agree. We commenters need to avoid using ¨sharp elbows¨ in our posts.

Jay Hodgson's picture

I would also like to chime in along with Jason and say this has been a good conversation. Of course not everyone is going to agree with me, or with everyone else. That wasn't the point.

I wrote this piece to get a discussion going, and that's exactly what happened. I didn't reply to individual comments or give thumbs or down because that would show favoritism and such.

I'm mass replying now to acknowledge that I've read each and every comment here and I appreciate the range of opinions as long as they were civil, polite, and defensible. Ad hominem comments were not taken seriously.

4thand1's picture

Just watched Dorsey Levens on Highly Questionable. He wrote a book too. The one thing that scared him the most was finding out about getting your "bell rung". He was told getting your bell rung was actually a concussion. He said he got his bell rung about 10 times a game. Football will NEVER be a safe game. We are watching players slowly beat themselves into oblivion and cheering all the way.

marpag1's picture

If we want to point out hypocrisy, how about those people who rail on the NFL for not doing enough for player safety, but those same people are all excited to watch boxing, MMA or professional "wrestling?"

Now THAT'S hypocrisy...

Log in to comment, upload your game day photos and more!

Not a member yet? Join free.

If you have already commented on Cheesehead TV in the past, we've created an account for you. Just verify your email, set a password and you're golden.

Or log in with Facebook

Packers Tickets, Ticket King


"The Bears still suck!"
"I firmly believe that any man’s finest hour, the greatest fulfillment of all that he holds dear, is that moment when he has worked his heart out in a good cause and lies exhausted on the field of battle – victorious."
"A school without football is in danger of deteriorating into a medieval study hall. "