Abuse of Women Must Stop

The NFL had a chance to do something wonderful, and show its female viewers just how seriously it takes abuse. Instead, it laid an egg.

Ray Rice, a running back for the Baltimore Ravens, was indicted for punching his wife (girlfriend at the time of the incident) so hard he knocked her unconscious. For this egregious behavior, Rice is suspended two games and docked a little over two paychecks (equally over $500,000).

When there was a hint of allegations (but no arrests, charges, or convictions) of Ben Roethlisberger sexually assaulting a woman at a party, he was given a six game ban that was reduced to four games. Rice, on the other hand, was indicted for his assault. This means that a person or group reviewed the evidence and found there was enough to warrant a criminal charge, arrest, and possibly a trial.

There are two videos of the Ray Rice incident. The first was released to the public and shows Rice dragging the already unconscious woman out of the elevator like a sack of potatoes. The second, which has not been released to the public (at least, officially), is from the interior of the elevator and shows what happened between them and his knocking her unconscious.

Ray Rice is listed as 5'8" and 206 lbs. Most of that is muscle and he is in peak conditioning. His wife is a little shorter and probably at least 50 lbs lighter than he is. I don't care if that elevator video shows her wailing away on him, the chances of her hurting him is slim while all it is claimed it took was one punch from him.

It's a simple fact of biology and evolution that the average man is physically more powerful than the average woman. Unless a woman is in great shape, has a weapon, or has specific training, the average man can overpower and do a great deal of damage to the average woman. When that man is a physical specimen and in great shape, the odds become even more lopsided.

In giving Rice a two game ban, the Commissioner Goodell cited Rice's stellar personal conduct record, and the fact that Rice's wife had forgiven him and lobbied Goodell for leniency. However, it must be noted that each time Rice's wife was with Rice during these conversations. So it is hard to know what her real thoughts on the matter might be, since her attacker was in the room and present.

It also seems telling how, at his press conference "apologizing" for his public humiliation, Rice apologized to just about everyone except his wife. She, once again, sat right next to her attacker, stone-faced, while he apologized to everyone but her.

If the Commissioner gave Roethlisberger six games with a chance to reduce it due to adherence to a program for the allegation of sexual assault, with no firm supporting evidence, then it seems consistent that Rice should get more games for being indicted of assault, with video corroboration. I think a minimum of eight games, possibly 10, with a chance to reduce it to 6-8 games by adhering to a strict code, entering rehab, and doing a bunch of community service would be fair.

Instead, Rice got a measly two games. Two games!

The NFL, and Commissioner Goodell in particular, dropped the ball on this one.

Concussion Conclusions

I'm torn on the recent spate of journalism on concussions in the NFL (and all football). After watching and reading a bunch about it, I'm left with two opinions:

1. Concussions are bad and it is a shame the NFL has obfuscated, ignored, and lied about it for so long, rather than just helping to fix it. They should get compensation from the NFL for this.
2. These people get paid hundreds of thousands to millions of dollars a year partially because of the danger inherent in the job. If the job is safer, they should be paid less.

I'm not sure which opinion, if either, is more important. But, if we are making the game of football less dangerous, than shouldn't we also lower the pay we provide to watch these players enjoy the game?

The average NFL career is three years. For 2013, the base NFL salary for a Rookie is $405,000. The average American yearly income is around $50,000 (it's hard to nail down a precise figure, as there are a lot of variables involved, especially as the wealth gets less evenly distributed. Most sites seem to agree on around $50,000). NFL rookies get paid eight times what the average adult income per year is -- and this is the amount given to the work-a-day rookies. It does not include signing and roster bonuses or various incentives. A third year player can earn a base salary of over $600,000 plus bonuses -- or 12 times the average American salary per year.

Part of this salary, and part for any sports league's high salaries, is based on the short career due to the high potential for injury and even death while playing. Part of the high salary is also simple economics; they can ask for it, due to the high revenues, so they get it.

These salaries have always assumed that NFL players will be somewhat broken down when they retire from the sport, and the high salary is partial compensation for that fact. After three years in the NFL, the average player will have somewhere north of $1.2 million in base salary. This same amount would take the average American salaried employee about 24 years to earn, in their (supposedly) less dangerous and more stable work environment.

The best I can determine is that the average career length for a police officer in America is around five years. The average salary is somewhere between $35,000 and about $50,000 per year, depending on where they are providing law enforcement. The police's job is at least as subject to injury and death as an NFL player's career, so why don't we pay our law enforcement personnel better?

Firefighters get an average between $40,000 and $50,000 per year, depending on location. Their lives are at risk every single time they go to a fire, and yet they only earn up to the national salary average?

Many teachers work in sub-optimal conditions, where their lives are threatened on a weekly basis. Yet the national average for teacher salaries is at approximately $35,500 -- and is only that high because of higher base salaries in the worst areas, like New York, New Jersey, and California. Not only are teachers' lives threatened constantly, their careers are constantly under threat from politicians, funding, and vindictive students and parents. They have to constantly make do with less, and spend a disproportionate amount of their salary on at-work requirements that cannot be found in other professions -- meaning they make even less than the national average if you take into account all of the books, resources, "free" coaching/theater/tutoring/music/etc., and other services they provide out of their own pocket each year. And yet they have one of the most important jobs in the world -- educating the next generation of workers, politicians, and everything else.

It seems like NFL players should be able to put enough aside to take care of their ongoing medical needs after their career, even if that injury is CTE, Alzheimer's, or another head-related trauma. Or, the NFL or Players Association could put aside somewhere between 1/3 and 1/2 of that salary for medical expenses and retirement needs for the first three years in some fashion that the players cannot touch or get at until after retirement.

I continue to be torn over this issue. These athletes should be able to ensure they are well cared for almost regardless of what type of injury they incur, and that is one of the reasons why we pay them so much. Those who make it past three years are even richer and more capable of taking care of themselves. On the other hand, they were misled and outright lied to over the years by their employers as to just what level of risk the "silent killer" of head trauma could play in their lives. Yet other, even more important, high-risk careers don't get paid nearly what these athletes do in order to entertain us. The athletes are in a high-reward and very profitable business, and should get whatever they can from management. But, at the same time, they should think about the future and save some of that money for the problems 5, 10, 20 years down the line.

This one has me stumped.

Exciting Times

No time is better for a sports fan than pre-season. In pre-season, your team is undefeated, hope is rampant, and speculation is made with wild abandon.

I am a Detroit Lions fan. Have been since the late 1970s, when my father told me I had to pick a football team and root for them through thick and thin, good and bad. In that time, I have seen a lot of bad Lions teams and a few good ones. In that time, we have won only one playoff game. In that time, we had Barry Sanders to dazzle and an 0-16 season to shame us.

This pre-season, I'm trying to stay cautiously optimistic and not get too hopeful. I have been jilted before. But, for the first time in a long time, I can say that the Lions actually improved in pretty much every area that they needed to in order to become more successful. They picked up offensive line help, so maybe Stafford can stay on his feet and in the pocket long enough to connect on passes. They got what might be the perfect complimentary running back help so Stafford has someone to check down to and ease his record number of throwing attempts from last season in Reggie Bush. They solidified the DB position. The defensive line has come in hungry and angry -- just what you want from your D-line. Their linebackers look to be solid.

The Lions biggest issue has always been their division. Playing the Packers, Vikings, and Bears twice each means that each team beats up on the others. It is called the "black and blue" division for a reason as, even when one or more teams aren't very good, they play each other tough. It is relatively rare for a team to sweep the division. The Packers haven't always had great teams, but you always have to respect and fear their offense. The Bears haven't always had great teams, but you have to respect their defense. The Vikings haven't always had great teams, but they have alternated having strong offenses and defenses. The Lions haven't always had great teams, but they have usually had an offense you had to respect and a player you had to gameplan against.

This year's Lions team has a tough schedule. Most seasons they rank in the upper half or higher in Strength of Schedule (initial or adjusted). Not only do they play the Packers, Vikings, and Bears twice, but they get to play the AFC North this season, so get an always tough Steelers crew, the Super Bowl Champion Ravens, and much-improved Bengals and Browns teams. In addition, they compete against the NFC East this year, having to try to eke out wins against the Giants, Cowboys, Eagles, and Redskins. They round out their season playing the improved Cardinals and Buccaneers.

Trying to keep my fan hopes to a minimum, I can make an argument for somewhere between 7-9 and 9-7 this coming season. It is tough, because so many of the teams the Lions play are revamped; the Eagles have a new coach and a new system, the Cardinals have a new QB, the Steelers and Ravens have both had a lot of player turnover, the Redskins may or may not have their QB that early in the season, the Bucs made a huge pick-up (granting he is still the player he was prior to injury), and the Bengals have been making steady progress. Actually, many of those teams have new/young coaches -- will that bring turmoil or success?

Any number of wins above four will be a victory for the Lions. Last season, out of 12 losses, the Lions lost nine of those by one score (<=8 pts) games and four of them were by three points or fewer. So they were right in most games. They were a play or a stop away in most games from being an 8-8 team or better. I'm hopeful that this year's team will be able to make those plays, offensively or defensively, and win those close ones like they did in 2011.

What can I say, I'm a fan... and hope springs eternal!

NFL Replacement Refs

I don't think the NFL actually cares about player safety. Exhibit A is the ongoing stalemate with the "real" NFL refs; what I have seen through the first three weeks of the NFL this season is a game that the replacement refs have little control over and games in which the players are hitting on many borderline to illegal shots to see if they can get away with it.

These replacement officials are doing, at best, and adequate job of officiating the game. However, they do not have the respect or control over the more abstract aspects of the game that the NFL referees have; you see them changing their mind after talking to coaches, you see them unsure about calls and being swayed by player emotion, you see them not making calls and assuming a replay will save their indecision, and, the worst, you see them unable to cope or deal with it when players get into a scrum on the field.

If the NFL truly cared about the player safety and putting the best product out there, they would get the NFL refs back on the field as quickly as possible. This would cause the players going for the borderline and illegal hits to step back, it would tell the players they cannot push the limits as far as they are trying to, and would increase player safety accordingly. All this for the sum total cost of approximately 1% of revenue being given to the refs. Seems like a win-win to me.

ADDENDUM
The replacement refs wound up affecting the outcome in a few different football games. The two most notable are the Detroit/Tennessee game and the Green Bay/Seattle game.

In the Lions/Titans game, the refs made the mistake of giving Tennessee a 27 yard penalty mark-off on what should have been a 15 yard penalty. This moved Tennessee well into easy field goal range and allowed Tennessee to make an easy chip shot for what became the game winner.

Even more directly, the refs missed an obvious offensive pass interference call on Golden Tate, and then ruled "simultaneous possession" on the final play of the game, giving Seattle the victory. Both the non-call of pass interference and the dubious call of simultaneous possession (sure looked like Green Bay caught the ball  and Tate barely had a hand on it) directly affected the outcome of the game, as that was the very last play of the game with no time left on the clock.

In addition, there should have been a replay at least of the final play in the Patriots/Ravens game, as that field goal looked awfully wide right to a lot of people (and also directly affected the final score in the game).

Along with mistakenly giving the 49ers not one but two extra replays, the horrible calls in the Washington game, the multiple game-impacting hits to the head (to the point of knocking the helmets off of some players, but still not called fouls), and the multitude of scrums that the refs didn't stop or call fouls on, and the NFL has a serious problem on their hands.

Have people stopped watching? No, or course not. It is like a car accident on the side of the road -- no matter how much you don't want to see what's there, people still slow down and rubberneck. We're all tuning in not only for the #1 sport in America but now also to see what new screw up the refs can get into.

Contract Negotiations

I have been reading many articles from the NBA and NFL about athletes who are asking for new contracts before the current contracts are done and saying they will not honor contracts to the new city if they are dealt by their existing teams.

I think all professional sports needs to have a standard, CBA-approved system by which a contract may be disputed. Outside of that system, a player should have to honor their contracts. These contracts are legally-binding agreements between the team and the player for services to be rendered by the player to the team.

Here are the steps I would institute in any professional sport in order to minimize this issue and (try to, at least) maximize the value that a player gets for the contract:

1. If a player decides to retire, hold out, or in any other way not play while under a current, valid contract, their contract terms are suspended until such time that they decide to play. At that point, the  original contract kicks back in and they either play for that team and that contract or they go through the CBA-approved dispute process (and are legally bound by the decision made during the process).
2. The dispute process will involve three arbiters who are hired by the sport's management, the sport's player's association, and one outside, neutral party. A majority agreement either positively or negatively will approve or deny the contract issue(s) in cases of a dispute. Once a ruling is made, the dispute is final and both sides agree to honor it.
3. Contracts will be for between one and four years, maximum. Rookie contracts will be for four years and veteran contracts (players who have been in the league a minimum of four seasons) can be as short as one.
• The younger the player, the longer the contract to help maximize the team's value for that player. The older the player the shorter the contract, so the player can try to get the maximum value for their play the longer they play (although both sides, if mutually agreed, can sign longer-term contracts if desired).
4. All contracts will have reasonable positive and negative incentives for both the team to play the player and for the player to play his best in order to maximize the value of the contract.
• I realize this is a tricky one, but I think "reasonable" is the key here. No incentives should be based on a snap count (too easy for the team/coach to decide to sit the player so they do not hit that incentive).
• Some incentives should be roughly equivalent to the "Franchise tag" in football; if you play equivalent to a top 5 player at your position, X incentive kicks in. If you play like a top 15 player at your position, Y incentive kicks in. If you are voted to the Pro Bowl (or equivalent, depending on sport), Z incentive kicks in. (Basically, you should get paid more if you play "above your contract," at least as an inherent increase to your following season's pay if not a bonus to that season.)
• Alternately, if you play in the bottom 5, 10, or 15 of your position, you should maybe be penalized (i.e., the team gets to keep a percentage of the pay for your position, or your salary for the following season goes down a tier, or similar).
5. Create a tiered veteran's minimum scale based on a block of years and/or a percentage increased based on quality of play.
• For example, the year blocks could be 5, 10, 15, and over 15 years. Five years is $250,000 minimum (this would be based partly on the sport, partly on the CBA for that sport, and partly on what the market can bear; consider all the numbers I put here as examples only), 10 is $350,000, 15 is $450,000, and over 15 is $550,000 minimum. However, if you are in the top 50% for you position, it is +10%. If you are top 25%, it is +20%. If you are top 10%, it is +35%. Top 5% would earn an additional +50% on that value (not including other performance incentives).
6. Some incentives could be based on aggregate goals for the position. For example, the sport could determine a baseline average for each position for things like offensive and defensive production and then base some bonuses and penalties on the player being a certain amount or percentage over or under those baseline statistics. Penalties can apply if the player is below those averages.

I'm sure others can come up with other, meaningful, and fair ways in which a team and a player can maximize profits and minimize disputes. It seems to me that highly incentivized contracts and a dispute resolution system that is binding are the first step.

Do you agree or disagree with my hypothesis and (generalized) plan to solve it? If not, how would you do it? Do you have any additions to these rules?

NFL Football; Injuries, Longer Season

I think there are two easy solutions that will help the NFL in two areas: injuries (especially concussions) and the fear of playing 17-18 games in a regular season.

1. Do away with the roster limit of 53 people. This is an anachronism from an earlier time when teams frequently had two-way players and special teams was primarily filled with generalist instead of specialists. Today's NFL needs more players on a team for a variety of reasons, but injuries are the primary one. As it is, coaches play fast and loose with the injured reserve list and practice squad in order to carry closer to 60 players on their roster than the 53 mandated by the NFL. I say, do away with the limit all together. If a Jerry Jones or a Dan Snyder wants to pay the luxury taxes involved and load up with 60, 70, 80 players, let them!

Many may say that the more income-rich teams could then buy the Super Bowl like the Yankees do in MLB. I don't think so. There are so many fewer games in which to shine, players are so much more egotistical, and everyone is vying for playing time so much that I don't think the stars and super stars of the NFL will be willing to sign with the team willing to pay the most if they are going to be the third, fourth, or fifth string option in case of injuries or special match ups.

I also feel that if a team is mismanaged or badly coached, throwing more players at it will not solve the inherent problem. Yes, the coach may have more talent to use, but if he fails to use the talent he's got, what will more do for him?

Lastly, with more players in any one position to choose from, a coach can have more player rotation during a game and that may minimize the injury and fatigue issues that players face today.

2. Do away with protection. I know this seems like an oxymoron, but by doing away with the huge pads and helmets that NFL players use, or at least curbing their size and protective capabilities, the NFL would actually help its players to play smarter, tackle better, and have fewer injuries. Look at any other sport in the world and compare it to the NFL; in nearly every case the players wear less gear to no gear and the rates of injuries are much, much lower. Take rugby, for instance. Nearly as violent and with as much potential for injury as American football, yet it has a microscopic injury problem in comparison.

Players in the NFL are either taught or come to simply play by lowering their head and hitting. Leaping into the air at full speed and ramming shoulders into shoulders, stomachs, and chests. They think little about the penalties for spearing and on nearly every play you can see someone on the field lower their helmet and leap head-first into another player. Do you think these players would do that if they had minimal head or body protection? Some few might, but the majority would switch to trying to make a classic, by the book tackle instead, as the classic tackle actually minimizes damage to either player and has the benefit of being a better, more sure way of actually stopping the player being tackled than simply hitting him and hoping he goes down. How often do you see these huge hits and the guy with the ball simply bounces off, pushes the hitter aside, and keeps going? I saw it on at least four plays in the three games I watched this last weekend alone -- and, in each case, a classic tackle would have been more effective at stopping the player's momentum, holding him long enough for help to arrive, and keeping him from gaining too many yards.

As a last, non-enumerated point: If the NFL is serious about going to a 17-18 regular season schedule, without doing anything to solve the injury issue, they will be forced to increase the roster size.

In the end, a longer season may help the NFL understand that it needs to increase or do away with the roster limits, allowing more players to play. More players may help keep existing players fresher, as coaches figure out new rotation schemes with the increase in players at any one position. And, if the NFL cuts back on the safety equipment that makes players feel invulnerable, the players will be forced to learn new techniques and styles of play that keep them from injuring themselves and others.

Banned?

Here is the thing I don't get: The NFL knew that a drug frequently used by players to make their team-dictated weights contained an ingredient that it a) had banned because it could be used to help mask steroid use and b) was not listed on the drug. They KNEW this, yet they did not issue any sort of directive to the Player's Association or the league doctors informing anyone of this fact.

Step in some players who, by all accounts, are pretty upstanding players. They have never tested positive for anything in the random and scheduled drug tests during their career to-date. By all accounts, they were simply trying to lose some water weight (the drug's primary use) and did everything right in doing so; they went to their team doctor and "verified" that the drug in question was okay to use. Since the ingredients list did not contain the banned drug and the NFL had not listed that drug on the suspect list, the team doctor said yes.

Those players then tested positive for that banned substance, can prove that they used it at the say-so of the league doctor as being okay, and, again, by all accounts, were only taking it to make their weight goals so they wouldn't be fined for being over weight (which is probably an entire other blog post). And the league wants to give them a four game automatic suspension for testing positive for a banned substance. The players, rightly so, have sued the league to clear their name and not be suspended (and lose four games worth of pay).

In my mind, this is an open and shut case in favor of the players. If the league knew something contained a banned substance and did nothing to alert players or league doctors (whom the players rely on for this sort of knowledge) to this substance, then the league is culpable for the misinformation. To me, this would be like if my company served poppy-seed muffins at a meeting, then made me take a urine test, which then tested positive for opiates, and then suspended me without pay. The business is definitely at fault for a) luring me into using/taking a banned substance, b) not taking that mitigating circumstance into account, and c) then compounding the issue by covering it up and suspending me without pay.

In this case, the NFL seems to be luring players into using a perfectly legitimate substance primarily used to lose water weight so players can make their team-designated weights so they don't get penalized/fined to catch the (hopefully) few who may be abusing steroids and are using the unmarked ingredient to mask that abuse. In essence, this is profiling; all those who want to lose weight are not necessarily steroid users. By not making any attempt to publish that this particular weight-loss drug has banned substances in it, they are catching the innocent along with the (potentially) guilty.

I'm not a big fan of the Minnesota Vikings, as they are in the same division as the Detroit Lions (my team). The Williams boys are also a big part of the Vikings front-line and, since the Lions play the Vikings within what would be the Williams boys four-game suspension, that loss would make it slightly more likely that Detroit would win that game. However, I think this case is unfair to the players (and one other whose name escapes me at the moment) who appear to be caught using a drug as intended and being duped by the league into testing positive for a banned substance. That is unfair to the players, is an unfair business practice, and we would not stand for this sort of behavior if it happened in any non-sports related business.

It is only because, at this point, all sports figures are presumed guilty until/unless proven innocent for steroid (and similar) abuse by most Americans that this case isn't getting a higher profile and greater outcry from the fan base. Again, how would you like if your boss/employer duped you into taking something that he/she knew would get you suspended or fired from your job?

The other question I have is why are they getting suspended for testing positive for a non-steroid/Performance Enhancing Drug (PED)? This drug is only used to mask potential use of PEDs, but has no performance enhancing abilities of its own. Shouldn't testing positive for a masking agent be a warning and immediate further tests, not a four-game suspension?

I'm all in favor of every league doing what it can to eliminate PED from sport. But, on the other hand, it must work WITH the players to educate them, provide all the data it can to the players, and should have various levels of response to alleged and confirmed abuse. This almost seems like if you are pulled over by the cops for erratic driving and they small Bubble Yum on your breath, they arrest you for drunk driving, because Bubble Yum is used to mask the smell of alcohol. Get real!

Hopefully, this case will make the NFL, and other sports league, reevaluate its PED policy and change it in ways that make sense. It can still be tough and no-nonsense about it, but not penalize players unduly. Common sense should always come into play in ruling on these matters.

We can hope.