Is the National Football League becoming the Roger Goodell Football League?
With each passing day, I can’t help but continue to wonder how the hell this guy became NFL commissioner.
It took the NFL owners five ballots—count 'em: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5—before Roger Goodell acquired enough votes to become the new NFL Fuehrer.
Oops! Excuse the slip of the tongue. Of course, I meant to say "Commissioner," not "Fuehrer."
Or did I?
First there was the singling out of the New England Patriots for using a video camera to tape opposing teams' defensive signals.
Of course, most of the other NFL teams were doing the same thing, but what the hell—as a former Jets employee, Goodell had a chance to nail the Pats.
Then, after Goodell let the media have a field day with the story, he hit Bill Belichick with a half-million dollar fine—and followed that up with another quarter-million for the team.
- B/R Ticket Guide
That’ll teach those Patriots that I ain’t fooling around, thought Herr Goodell. Seig Heil, too.
Then, before he could even begin to collect the interest on three-quarters of a million ReichMarks, Der Fuehrer whacked Patriots defensive lineman Vince Wilfork and linebacker Mike Vrabel with more fines, for allegedly hitting opposing players below the knees.
However, in both instances the videotape—sorry, didn’t mean to mention an illegal piece of spying equipment—showed that neither Wilfork or Vrabel intended to do what Der Fuehrer accused them of...but rather were blocked into the opposing players.
We shall see if Der Fuehrer metes out the same punishment to Indianapolis Colts defensive lineman Ed Johnson for an almost identical hit on Jaguars quarterback David Garrard in Monday night's game.
And that wasn't all. Out of the clear blue, Vrabel and Patriots quarterback Tom Brady were fined—not once, but twice each—for having their chin straps unbuckled.
This was followed by Der Fuehrer coming forth with an absolutely insane—and moronic—suggestion of playing the Super Bowl somewhere out of the country, like London.
What’s next, Saudi Arabia?
And now he wants the Pro Bowl to be played before the Super Bowl.
Great idea, Adolf—oops, I mean, Roger. That way a half-dozen players scheduled to play the following week—in the league's most important event—can come down with injuries that will keep them out of uniform.
Goodell is running amok. This man is absolutely out of control. I can’t even imagine what will come out of his office next.
Now I understand why it took five ballots before Der Fuehrer garnered enough votes to become the NFL’s first fascist commissioner.
I've heard that there are already rumblings amongst the Players Association.
When is the lunacy going to stop? How much more are the owners going to take before they call Der Fuehrer onto the carpet for a public reprimand—or hopefully, a pink slip.
Tomorrow wouldn't be soon enough.
comments (10) write a comment »
write a new comment
about 1 year ago
I have to disagree with you on the Pro Bowl idea. Under that proposed solution, the players from the Super Bowl teams wouldn't play and risk injury, which is essentially what happens now, because the players want a break after playing in the Super Bowl.
Many players don't want to travel to Hawaii to play in a meaningless game, whereas they may travel domestically to play.
Furthermore, no one really cares about the game in Hawaii, so it isn't like it is going to cost them business.
As for the Super Bowl, they could play the game on the summit of Mount Everest and 70,000 people would show up, so who cares where it is played?
from about 1 year ago
Agree in part and dissent in part.
The pro bowl is a joke of a game literally nobody in their right mind watches, so I don't think it matters when they play it. If those who are elected to the pro bowl but also are playing in the Super Bowl want to sit out the all-star-game, I say go ahead.
The Super Bowl, however, is a different story entirely. It's the largest sporting event our country has. It's the ultimate American spectacle. While it surely would be good for publicity, I find the suggestion of playing it in another country quite offensive.
I mean, there is a lot of history behind the Super Bowl. Setting the precedent that it can be played in a foreign country seems to subtlety suggest that the traditions of the game no longer matter that change is good for football, no matter what the cost.
As a former employee of the Jets, you would think that Goodell would have enough respect for Joe Namath to keep the Super Bowl at home...
Think about it this way Jared: what would the Brits do if Wimbledon was played in New York?! They'd be up in arms, just like we should be.
from about 1 year ago
Zander,
After re-reading my comment, I realize what you are saying and understand where you are coming from.
For whatever reason, I don't view the Super Bowl in a patriotic sense like that. I understand that others do, and respect that opinion.
That said, I can understand why you would not want the game moved out of the states.
Curiously, how would you feel if there was a team from Canada or Mexico in the NFL and the game one year was played in that team's stadium, much like the World Series has been played in Canada?
from about 1 year ago
The World Series and Super Bowl are quite different in this sense. The Series is multiple games that are played at the stadiums of the contenders. The Super Bowl is held in a location that is determined by the league and therefore has nothing to do with where the two teams are from.
Thus, just because you have a team from Mexico or Canada doesn't mean you would automatically have a Super Bowl there one year. I see what you're saying though it makes the idea a lot more justifiable if there is an international team to begin with.
So my final answer is this: let's get an international team in the league first, and then see how we feel about having a Super Bowl played in a foreign country.
about 1 year ago
I sure hope that you intended to reference Dr. Strangelove... if so, congrats on weaving my two favorite things together: Kubrick and Football.
Goodell is a crazy one.
about 1 year ago
I have to disagree big time. Goodell has come in and said that they are not going to become the NBA. Which is a gansta league. Nobody really watches the NBA compared to the NFL. HE handled the Vick very well and has stepped up big on the the steriods thing so that congress (which has no buisness getting involved) stepping in.
from about 1 year ago
I have to disagree with your disagreement. I don't like the way David Stern is cracking down on the NBA, i.e. the dress code, eliminating the "gangsta" element, etc. I think Roger Goodell is trying to do the same thing with the NFL, and it's a load of misdirected crap.
Tons of people still watch the NBA. The people that Stern and Goodell are trying to appeal to with their crackdowns on "gangsta" culture are advertisers, not everyday fans. They're worried they'll lose sponsorship and money because rich heads of big companies will be offended by their players' antics.
You know what I say? Let players be themselves. The small minority of players that break laws? Deal with them. Don't punish a whole league, a whole culture of players because of the actions of a few.
I do think Goodell is out of control - just in more ways than the article suggests.
from about 1 year ago
I agree somewhat with CJ, somewhat with Mosang, somewhat with Mike. Here are my various points of agreement.
1) I agree with CJ that congress has absolutely no business getting involved in steroid prevention. I sometimes wonder if our politicians have ever read the constitution specifically the clause which specifies that powers not specifically granted to the federal government belong to the states. Nowhere is their anything about the federal government having the power to prevent professional athletes from using performance enhancing drugs. Hence this is not something they are legally allowed to do.
2) I agree with Mosang that "cracking down" on the way player's dress is a load of misdirected crap. Punish the players who break the law, rather than making stereotypes about a "gangsta" culture and trying to implement measures restricting their appearance and ability to express themselves. It doesn't do a damn bit of good and simply creates resentment between the league and the players.
3) I agree with Mike that Roger Goodell is in general trying to be too much of a revolutionary. Regardless of how he handles Michael Vick or Bell Belichick or whoever, the least he can do is respect the traditions of the game.
Goodell needs to remember that in addition to being a business, the NFL has control over a sport that means the world to millions of people in our country. Entertaining the idea of a London Super Bowl as a promotional tool is an example of Goodell putting his business interests above the traditions of the game.
about 1 year ago
Jared, the Pro Bowl idea isn't the writer's, it's Goodell's. Secondly, it is asinine to say that Vrabel was "blocked" into hitting a Brown's lineman below the knee. The play came in garbage time on a spike. A spike! He should be fined for stupidity. I don't buy those "he's just playing hard" excuses.
about 1 year ago
Other than his Democrat lineage and fueher, I disagree with your premise.
He's great for the NFL because he's taking steps to improve his product. Most namely players in the police blotters.
write a new comment