Is Roger Goodell Good For the NFL?

[rbanerjee23]

Originally Posted by sportscurmudgeon

A lot of really bad decisions? Really?

The players that you asert "really hate him" just signed on to a 10-year agreement leaving him - - or whomever is his successor - - in charge of the league and their punsihments.

The revenues have grown under Goodell from about $8B when he took over to approximately $9.2B (estimated for 2011). That is a 15% increase over a period of time when the economy has not been in great shape.

Whether or not the players "respect" Goodell is irrelevant. If I worked for WalMart and did not respect Sam Walton's descendants, it would not matter even a little bit.

Under his watch, revenues are up and there is a decade of labor peace. Explain to me how either of those things might be "bad for the league".

Then enumerate all of his really bad decisions and tell me how important they are for the NFL when compared to increased revenues and labor peace.

Woah...calm down man, I just said I don't remember as much vitriole towards Tagliabue as you see from some players towards Goodell. The players aren't idiots, they are well aware that the league has gotten more profitable (and thus player salaries have increased) under Goodell which explains their voting for him but I just commented that more players seem to dislike Goodell.

Where did I say Goodell was bad for the league or that every player hated him? Get your eyes checked or learn how to read.

[rbanerjee23]

And when I say bad decisions -- I mean things like handing down non-consistent fines, really redefining the whole "No Fun League", players saying he doesn't take the time to ask them questions (and yes I know Goodell is paid by the league owners) etc.

And you say that whether the fans like the commish is irrelevant to his job as a commisioner. Really? You don't think the fans of the nfl not liking the commissioner of the league is bad for the nfl?

[SmootSmack]

Unless the fans stop investing in the NFL because they don't like Goodell...their opinion of him really doesn't and shouldn't matter

[mlmpetert]

Roger Goodell may be “fabulous good” for the NFL as a profit seeking corporation, but I think skinsfan69, rabaner, myself and the OP redski1 are all asking is he good for the NFL as the emissary of professional football….. the sport. I guess in the current era of football you can say that hes not being true to the what the sport has/had evolved into through the last 30+ years, at least that’s the way I feel, the way many “knowledgeable fans” feel, and most importantly most former and current players feel. I got no problems with making the NFL safer, in fact I think it’s a great thing, however not at the expense of the underlying sport.

I think forcing players to wear certain types of helmets (even if they look stupid), forcing players to wear pads on things like their elbows and knes, having higher standards on injury reporting, using league doctors to evaluate players where the conflict of interest is lowered, enforcing higher standards on field grass and turf along with other off the field changes in regulation should be priorities before rules are altered in the name of entertainment, revenue and supposedly “player safety”. And don’t let Rog trick you into thinking its about player safety. Its player longevity. Like any business getting the most out of depreciating assets leads to greater profitability, something Rodger strives to be fabulously good at.

It just seems the NFL is/has become entertainment first sport second. As a entertainment comparison, when the WWE made John Cena the face of their sport they alienated many of their fans that built the industry because they went too “PG” in the name of mass appeal and sales. Im not saying the NFL is doing the same, but its understandable why many fans and former players think Rog has been bad for the NFL…. the sport. Perhaps SC the issue guys like me have with goodell’s rule changing in the name of business is more along the lines of a sport, rather than entrainment, conundrum.

[skinsfan69]

Originally Posted by Mattyk

It's not quite as simple as that. You don't have to lower your head to suffer the consequences from a high speed impact.

True. But the devestating injuries happen when a player lowers his head. One of the first things they teach you in football is see what you hit. Concussions happen in football. They're making way too big a deal over it cause a few players have had some issues later on in life. For every Ted Johnson there are hundreds of guys that have had concussions that have never had issues. They put that silly rule in for player safety. You mean to tell me that rule isn't ruining the game? Totally kills guys like Banks, Hester and Cribbs. Fans don't want to see touchbacks. So whoever was behind that rule (I'm sure Mr. Commish had some say so) shame on you.

[SmootSmack]

Originally Posted by mlmpetert

Roger Goodell may be “fabulous good” for the NFL as a profit seeking corporation, but I think skinsfan69, rabaner, myself and the OP redski1 are all asking is he good for the NFL as the emissary of professional football….. the sport. I guess in the current era of football you can say that hes not being true to the what the sport has/had evolved into through the last 30+ years, at least that’s the way I feel, the way many “knowledgeable fans” feel, and most importantly most former and current players feel. I got no problems with making the NFL safer, in fact I think it’s a great thing, however not at the expense of the underlying sport.

I think forcing players to wear certain types of helmets (even if they look stupid), forcing players to wear pads on things like their elbows and knes, having higher standards on injury reporting, using league doctors to evaluate players where the conflict of interest is lowered, enforcing higher standards on field grass and turf along with other off the field changes in regulation should be priorities before rules are altered in the name of entertainment, revenue and supposedly “player safety”. And don’t let Rog trick you into thinking its about player safety. Its player longevity. Like any business getting the most out of depreciating assets leads to greater profitability, something Rodger strives to be fabulously good at.

It just seems the NFL is/has become entertainment first sport second. As a entertainment comparison, when the WWE made John Cena the face of their sport they alienated many of their fans that built the industry because they went too “PG” in the name of mass appeal and sales. Im not saying the NFL is doing the same, but its understandable why many fans and former players think Rog has been bad for the NFL…. the sport. Perhaps SC the issue guys like me have with goodell’s rule changing in the name of business is more along the lines of a sport, rather than entrainment, conundrum.

How is this a bad thing?

[mlmpetert]

I wouldnt say its a bad thing at all, depending on the purpose behind it. If the reason is to keep players on the field for 18 games albeit with the same amount of health issues, id prefer to keep the rules of the game unchanged and watch 16 more entertaining games then 18 diluted games.

[mlmpetert]

Originally Posted by SmootSmack

Unless the fans stop investing in the NFL because they don't like Goodell...their opinion of him really doesn't and shouldn't matter

I feel like thats true for every discussion on this board!

[rbanerjee23]

Originally Posted by SmootSmack

Unless the fans stop investing in the NFL because they don't like Goodell...their opinion of him really doesn't and shouldn't matter

In a purely quantitatively measurable world, the above is correct. There's something to be said of goodwill though -- I'm not saying you should like everything Goodell does. But suppose the following happens, we're in the middle of a playoff push, Dez Bryant is running for a game winning touchdown and gets badly horsecollared by Landry. The game is won but Landry is suspended for x games lasting into the playoffs -- yeah, the rule was implemented for player safety but what is Landry supposed to do, let him run for the TD? In effect he is punished for saving the game and the season -- you really don't think that Landry's suspension and his resulting (as well as the fans') ire towards Goodell is bad for the NFL? that's fine if you don't, I just think you're mistaken

[MTK]

Originally Posted by skinsfan69

True. But the devestating injuries happen when a player lowers his head. One of the first things they teach you in football is see what you hit. Concussions happen in football. They're making way too big a deal over it cause a few players have had some issues later on in life. For every Ted Johnson there are hundreds of guys that have had concussions that have never had issues. They put that silly rule in for player safety. You mean to tell me that rule isn't ruining the game? Totally kills guys like Banks, Hester and Cribbs. Fans don't want to see touchbacks. So whoever was behind that rule (I'm sure Mr. Commish had some say so) shame on you.

We're not talking about just the devestating injuries though. It's all the cumulative trauma that adds up over time, all the little hits take their toll. The more research that comes out about head injuries the scarier it gets. This problem is only getting worse.

[SmootSmack]

Originally Posted by rbanerjee23

In a purely quantitatively measurable world, the above is correct. There's something to be said of goodwill though -- I'm not saying you should like everything Goodell does. But suppose the following happens, we're in the middle of a playoff push, Dez Bryant is running for a game winning touchdown and gets badly horsecollared by Landry. The game is won but Landry is suspended for x games lasting into the playoffs -- yeah, the rule was implemented for player safety but what is Landry supposed to do, let him run for the TD? In effect he is punished for saving the game and the season -- you really don't think that Landry's suspension and his resulting (as well as the fans') ire towards Goodell is bad for the NFL? that's fine if you don't, I just think you're mistaken

That really doesn't make sense to me at all. Why would there be ire toward Goodell?

[rbanerjee23]

Because Goodell is the one handing out suspensions?

[SmootSmack]

So I take it you're saying the other suspensions have been bad for the NFL? And let's say Landry being suspended means the Eagles win the division and they get homefield advantage (you think Eagles' fans will be upset with Goodell?, and then w/o Landry we lose in the first round to the Falcons. You think Falcons fans will be upset?

[rbanerjee23]

Originally Posted by SmootSmack

So I take it you're saying the other suspensions have been bad for the NFL? And let's say Landry being suspended means the Eagles win the division and they get homefield advantage (you think Eagles' fans will be upset with Goodell?, and then w/o Landry we lose in the first round to the Falcons. You think Falcons fans will be upset?

I'm saying that its a lot more subjective than at first glance -- NFL fans are far from perfectly rational beings. Even if the suspensions and rules are good for the NFL in the bigger scheme of things, most negative feelings about rule changes, suspensions etc. are going to be directed towards Goodell who, for better or worse, is the face of the authoritative body of the league. When fans have a problem with a suspension, they are going to be mad at Goodell and feel that their team is being unfairly targeted, as would other fans in that situation. My personal belief is that increased negativity towards the commissioner is bad for the NFL. Do you honestly believe that fans feeling bad towards the commisioner is one city is perfectly balanced out by fans feeling good in another city?

[skinsfan69]

Originally Posted by Mattyk

We're not talking about just the devestating injuries though. It's all the cumulative trauma that adds up over time, all the little hits take their toll. The more research that comes out about head injuries the scarier it gets. This problem is only getting worse.

The head injuries are just part of the game. Like I said, for every guy that's had issues there are hundreds that don't have issues.