Ndamukong Suh: To Suspend or Not to Suspend, That Is NFL's Question

In the wake of "Stomp-giving 2011" the NFL, and Roger Goodell, face a unique conundrum: To suspend Suh for yet another unnecessarily nasty act, or not suspend him because of future scheduling considerations.

You're probably thinking, "this guy let all that turkey and stuffing go to his head."

You might be right about that, but hear me out.

Suh's blatant stomp on the arm of Packer Evan Dietrich-Smith deserves a fine and suspension. I'll make no argument with that.

Despite Suh's incoherent explanation, this was not the action of someone simply removing himself from a situation.

It was done with vicious intent. The video is proof of that.

Detroit fans have long defended Suh from media attacks labeling him dirty. They have argued that Suh is rough and tough. A throwback player in the mold of Nitschke or Butkus.

But Suh's most recent act has embarrassed even his most ardent defenders. You cannot defend the indefensible.

That was dirty, man.

Goodell will get no argument if he decides to suspend Suh. It will happen.

Here is the NFL's dilemma.

Prior to the Thanksgiving game, the NFL announced they were moving the Lions' next football game, against the New Orleans Saints, to Sunday night.

A prime time, nationally televised event.

With all the attention on Suh and the Lions right now, The NFL is patting themselves on the back for changing the schedule. They are seeing visions of dollar signs and record setting TV ratings dancing in their heads.

So back to my question: Suspend or not suspend?

Without Suh in the lineup, will people still watch? He is the face of the “dirty Lions.“ Will the game garner as much attention?

It's not like the NFL hasn't capitalized on the Lions before.

Remember the Good vs. Evil game against Tebow and the Broncos. The NFL played up that angle to death.

I'm sure NFL advertising wizards are already hard at work constructing a new tag line for Lions vs. Saints. It shouldn't be hard.

As much as the NFL wants Suh to play in the game, Goodell has to suspend him. There is a precedent set.

Albert Haynesworth was suspended five games in 2006 for stomping on the head of a Dallas Cowboy player.

Suh did not stomp on a player's head, but given his reputation and prior fines for similar incidents, a two or three game suspension would fit.

So in some ways, Goodell's hands are tied. He really does have to act, and act harshly.

Fines are not changing Suh's behavior. Suspension is the next step.

However, there is no NFL established time frame for this to happen.

It would not surprise me if the NFL finds some way to postpone the suspension until after the Saints game.

That way, they maximize the benefit from Suh and the Lions on national TV. At the same time, they appear to maintain law and order.

I guess.

It would be obvious that revenue concerns came first and law and order was a distant second.

Hypocrisy is not a new idea in the NFL.

Suh did not hit a defenseless quarterback, he did not spear someone with his helmet and he did not give someone a concussion.

Those are the types of things the NFL really cares about, and are serious about eliminating.

Suh's act needs to be controlled, but in the big scheme of things it didn't really endanger anyone. The NFL could therefore rationalize a suspension that benefits all their interests.

I could be wrong. Trust me, it's happened before.

Goodell could come out tomorrow and announce Suh's suspension. Then my theory would go down the drain like yesterday's leftover gravy.

On the other hand, the NFL is not in the business of limiting the exposure of their newest and most popular talent. Nor are they in the business of limiting their profit potential.

"Evil" Suh playing against the Saints could be just that—profitable.