NFL: The Not Fair League? James Harrison Suspended, Richard Seymour Is Not

At the end of last season, I predicted Steelers LB James Harrison, who was suspended one game by the NFL today for a hit on Browns QB Colt McCoy, would retire. Not because he was done playing the game, but because he was being targeted with fines and suspensions.

I realize the NFL has set rules and issues of safety into place for obvious reasons. That is understood.

What I do not understand is the picking and choosing of who gets suspended and fined and who does not. I will place two examples into debate; you tell me if I am out of line.

First scenario, I believe that the higher ranked teams as well as the higher paid players are more apt to receive punishment than those who are not. Ndamukong Suh and James Harrison are obviously more recognized players. How many of you know about Seattle's Kam Chancellor? I am deafened by the telepathic "who?" that just went out.

My point is this: If the NFL is going to suspend players, then suspend players across the board for their behavior or style of play. A hit to the helmet is just that. If it is a repeated penalty, then by all means, reprimand them. If you are a repeat offender, then a player should not get a leniency no matter if his team is 2-10 and not on the ESPN's Top 100 Players list or not.

Where is Richard Seymour's suspension? Seriously, where is the equality in punishment for a player who is ejected for the third time with no suspension? As if ejection is not discipline enough, then you get rewarded by being allowed to play the next week.

As Sports Illustrated's Jim Trotter tweeted, right after the news of James Harrison's suspension, "Rodney Harrison was fined more than $200k in his career for flagrant hits. Said suspension was only thing that got him to change his game."

Does Rodney Harrison have a take on Seymour and Chancellor? Where is the push (and media frenzy) for their suspensions?

Secondly, I think the NFL needs a reform. I am all for safety, please know this, but I am not for favoritism and inequality. The NFL has blatantly exhibited the "pick and choose" campaign for marketing and commercial reasons. If this was about safety, then punishment for flagrant hits should be across the board. Period.

Unless of course, the NFL wants to keep the proverbial wheel of discontent going amongst the fans and let them duke out the decisions made. That certainly would keep the civil discourse in play. I can see Seattle fans crying out for James Harrison's suspension, yet Kam Chancellor keeps getting a slide. Chancellor has had $60,000 in fines this year for bad hits. Repeatedly, mind you, and no suspensions. I find that odd.

Bottom line is that the NFL seems to not be concerned about safety as a whole. They have fed into the marketing feeding pits of television and decide which player is marketable and which is not. From there they decide which player to suspend. Anybody seen Richard Seymour trending lately? No? Well, then they won't suspend him.

How is a player perceived when a flagrant hit is made on Michael Vick versus Tom Brady? This is the kind of perception that is made from fans that watch the game. Often times I hear, "If that would have been Tom Brady they would have called a roughing the passer." Ben Roethlisberger and Jay Cutler have taken serious hits and who it is that hits them, is what draws the noise. If London Fletcher puts a flagrant hit on Big Ben, you hear nothing. If Suh does it to Cutler it's national news within seconds of the play.

I honestly feel that some have fed into the marketing of the NFL and that the level of principle has been lost. If they break the rules, discipline them. Do not discipline only the ones who have a $60 million contract and 100,000 more "reads" on a sports page.

You must also enforce the ruling for a less salary, less popular player as well.

I recognize that the NFL is a business and that it is comprised as such. My point is about equality within the business.

Am I wrong here?