Page 3 of 4 FirstFirst 1234 LastLast
Results 21 to 30 of 34

Thread: Unpatrioticness of sports Stars

  1. #21
    Senior Member Bos Mutus's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2015
    Posts
    1,562
    Mentioned
    11 Post(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by Mjölnir View Post
    It isn't that; I just don't think the protesting is the prime reason ... definitely a factor ... but not the prime reason.

    I fully support his right to protest, at the same time NFL teams have a certain amount of 'brand' to protect and I don't think they should be forced to sign anyone that the team feels would do more harm than good. I think they would be more than willing to deal with the issues if his performance had not been on the decline before he started protesting. If the guy was a superstar, he could run over a bag of kittens and a team would likely sign him and deal with the fallout.
    I think it is definitely a trade off of talent vs. ass pain. He is not good enough to overcome the grief.

    I agree that if it were a more solid superstar, then some team would sign him. I also think that he is being somewhat blackballed and disagree with your assertion that absent the protest, he would be only on a practice squad.

    Cant really say one of those factors is ‘primary’...it’s a trade off. I tend to think that the protest is why he is not even being considered, so that is probably primary. Absent the protest, he would undoubtedly be at least a backup on the active roster, maybe a starter for Bills, Redskins, a few other teams...but, I believe he is completely off the radar due to the politics.

    I agree that each team and the NFL have a right to protect their brand, and as I said, I totally understand why they don’t sign him. I think it’s just dishonest to deny the reason and say it’s a scheme issue or talent issue. This year has made that more than obvious.

    Thats not to say I like the guy or support his politics...but just be honest about it. Would probably gain respect on both sides. The NFL has fumbled this issue all around, make a stand one way or the other and be honest.

    The problem they have is it is probably illegal to force an employee to stand for the National Anthem.
    The Voice of Reason

  2. #22
    Administrator Mjölnir's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2000
    Location
    Norfolk, VA
    Posts
    2,965
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    I think it mostly boils down to as you said, talent vs. ass pain; CK isn't talented enough for anyone to want to deal with the pain. If he was more talented, he would be worth the amount of ass pain by signing him.

    I don't follow sports too much, I read a bit on the train this AM and read that the amount of money to pay him may also be an issue. The league minimum is far below what he likely should be making, but what he wants / has asked for isn't justified by a 2 season gap and declining performance before he left SF.

    What I do wonder is if he played up the protesting and political issue to stay 'relevant' despite the declining performance; if so ... it has worked.

    I don't think a team should be forced / pressured into signing someone if the team doesn't want to deal with 'off the field' issues (even though this is sorta on the field) ie. Ray Rice (who I think was a better performer for the Ravens until he went kinetic on his girlfriend).

    I agree, the NFL gooned this up. I don't think they can force players to stand or acknowledge the flag / anthem either, but again ... I don't know legally how the barrier between 1st Amendment rights and conduct while 'on the clock' would play out either.
    The most important six inches on the battlefield ... is between your ears.

  3. #23
    Senior Member Bos Mutus's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2015
    Posts
    1,562
    Mentioned
    11 Post(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by Mjölnir View Post
    I agree, the NFL gooned this up. I don't think they can force players to stand or acknowledge the flag / anthem either, but again ... I don't know legally how the barrier between 1st Amendment rights and conduct while 'on the clock' would play out either.
    The First Amendment is not really in play here. The govt. is not trying to stop anyone's speech.

    It is true that the league could limit a players' 'speech' while on the clock, in uniform, etc. They do this often with what can be worn on the uniform, or even in press conferences following the game, etc. The tricky thing is, although a silent protest is a form of 'speech'; he isn't really saying anything while one the clock, he is kneeling instead of standing. So, the only way to 'limit' that speech is require him to stand or face punishment/firing, which may not be legal in any workplace. Could they ban kneeling? Maybe, but then he might sit... Can any employer require and employee to stand during the National Anthem? I don't think so, and without looking it up, I believe there is a SCOTUS case on that.

    So, this year, the league started with trying to fine players that refused to stand. They could stand or stay in the locker room, but they couldn't kneel or they'd get a fine. It kind of bit them in that some players were like, 'ok, I'll pay the fine' and at least one team owner stated he'd pay any fine the players got. So, the league rescinded the policy, iirc. It is kind of odd how a team owner makes public statements like that to support the kneeling players, but then won't look at Kaepernick. Of course, he is more of a lightening rod than anyone.

    Probably, the best course of action at this point for the NFL is to just quit talking about it, let the players do their thing, and don't show it on TV. Kaepernick is suing the NFL for, as I understand, basically the owners colluding to not sign him...his allegations are not so much that each individual team doesn't want to sign him, but that there is an agreement among all the owners to not sign him.
    Last edited by Bos Mutus; 01-04-2019 at 02:06 PM.
    The Voice of Reason

  4. #24
    Administrator Mjölnir's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2000
    Location
    Norfolk, VA
    Posts
    2,965
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by Bos Mutus View Post
    The First Amendment is not really in play here. The govt. is not trying to stop anyone's speech.

    It is true that the league could limit a players' 'speech' while on the clock, in uniform, etc. They do this often with what can be worn on the uniform, or even in press conferences following the game, etc. The tricky thing is, although a silent protest is a form of 'speech'; he isn't really saying anything while one the clock, he is kneeling instead of standing. So, the only way to 'limit' that speech is require him to stand or face punishment/firing, which may not be legal in any workplace. Could they ban kneeling? Maybe, but then he might sit... Can any employer require and employee to stand during the National Anthem? I don't think so, and without looking it up, I believe there is a SCOTUS case on that.
    Freedom of expression via the the 1st Amendment is more what I meant.

    Quote Originally Posted by Bos Mutus View Post
    So, this year, the league started with trying to fine players that refused to stand. They could stand or stay in the locker room, but they couldn't kneel or they'd get a fine. It kind of bit them in that some players were like, 'ok, I'll pay the fine' and at least one team owner stated he'd pay any fine the players got. So, the league rescinded the policy, iirc. It is kind of odd how a team owner makes public statements like that to support the kneeling players, but then won't look at Kaepernick. Of course, he is more of a lightening rod than anyone.
    It is odd, do you think that owner should sign CK? Curious.

    Quote Originally Posted by Bos Mutus View Post
    Probably, the best course of action at this point for the NFL is to just quit talking about it, let the players do their thing, and don't show it on TV. Kaepernick is suing the NFL for, as I understand, basically the owners colluding to not sign him...his allegations are not so much that each individual team doesn't want to sign him, but that there is an agreement among all the owners to not sign him.
    Honestly, I don't rememeber seeing the anthem on TV games other than the Super Bowl ... so not showing it isn't much of a change. As far as collusion, I think that enters an area where owners have likely talked about the issues. In the course of those discussions, they likely have discussed ripple effects to the league / other teams if he is signed and continues his protests. I don't think an actual 'conspiracy' / agreement to bar him from the league has long legs, especially seeing how he has been interviewed by some teams
    The most important six inches on the battlefield ... is between your ears.

  5. #25
    Senior Member Bos Mutus's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2015
    Posts
    1,562
    Mentioned
    11 Post(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by Mjölnir View Post

    It is odd, do you think that owner should sign CK? Curious.
    It was the NY Jets, so from a football perspective it might make sense. They have a rookie QB that is supposed to be their future, so I dunno if they can afford it.

    Whether they 'should' from a PR perspective is debatable.

    Honestly, I don't rememeber seeing the anthem on TV games other than the Super Bowl ... so not showing it isn't much of a change. As far as collusion, I think that enters an area where owners have likely talked about the issues. In the course of those discussions, they likely have discussed ripple effects to the league / other teams if he is signed and continues his protests. I don't think an actual 'conspiracy' / agreement to bar him from the league has long legs, especially seeing how he has been interviewed by some teams
    They normally show the Anthem before every game. You know some folks would be irate if they stopped showing it altogether.I think they can still do that, just don't show the sidelines, focus on the flag, the singer, the military formation, etc.
    The Voice of Reason

  6. #26
    Administrator Mjölnir's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2000
    Location
    Norfolk, VA
    Posts
    2,965
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by Bos Mutus View Post
    It was the NY Jets, so from a football perspective it might make sense. They have a rookie QB that is supposed to be their future, so I dunno if they can afford it.
    Yeah ... I don't know. I read that CK offered to donate his contract money to a charity if a team would sign him. Its a nice gesture but that doesn't 'save' the team any money. As I understood the salary cap issue, and his free agency etc. the potential amount he really would pull in was beyond the reach of most teams without some reorganization of their existing rooster ... which is even more potential ass pain.

    Now, if the NFL wanted, they could find a way to continue ties with CK, like they have done (pseudo-quietly) with Ray Rice ... and Ray Rice was absolutely toxic for a while.
    The most important six inches on the battlefield ... is between your ears.

  7. #27
    Administrator Mjölnir's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2000
    Location
    Norfolk, VA
    Posts
    2,965
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by Bos Mutus View Post
    It was the NY Jets, so from a football perspective it might make sense. They have a rookie QB that is supposed to be their future, so I dunno if they can afford it.
    Yeah ... I don't know. I read that CK offered to donate his contract money to a charity if a team would sign him. Its a nice gesture but that doesn't 'save' the team any money. As I understood the salary cap issue, and his free agency etc. the potential amount he really would pull in was beyond the reach of most teams without some reorganization of their existing rooster ... which is even more potential ass pain.

    Now, if the NFL wanted, they could find a way to continue ties with CK, like they have done (pseudo-quietly) with Ray Rice ... and Ray Rice was absolutely toxic for a while.
    The most important six inches on the battlefield ... is between your ears.

  8. #28
    Senior Member Bos Mutus's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2015
    Posts
    1,562
    Mentioned
    11 Post(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by Mjölnir View Post
    Yeah ... I don't know. I read that CK offered to donate his contract money to a charity if a team would sign him. Its a nice gesture but that doesn't 'save' the team any money. As I understood the salary cap issue, and his free agency etc. the potential amount he really would pull in was beyond the reach of most teams without some reorganization of their existing rooster ... which is even more potential ass pain.

    Now, if the NFL wanted, they could find a way to continue ties with CK, like they have done (pseudo-quietly) with Ray Rice ... and Ray Rice was absolutely toxic for a while.
    The Rice video was brutal. He never played in the NFL again, although he was technically 'reinstated', it was by court order, but no one picked him up. Unless I missed something, how did the NFL quietly continue ties with him?

    The Kareem Hunt one is probably a guy that teams will determine is worth the ass pain. I expect someone will sign him for next year.

    Reuben Foster was released for domestic violence and the Redskins claimed him on waivers the very next day....he hasn't played yet, but his charges were just dropped, so that probably leaves an opening for next season.

    But, again, the NFL and the public forgive domestic violence a lot easier than disrespecting the flag. I never did see anyone burning their Rice or Hunt jerseys.
    The Voice of Reason

  9. #29
    Administrator Mjölnir's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2000
    Location
    Norfolk, VA
    Posts
    2,965
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by Bos Mutus View Post
    The Rice video was brutal. He never played in the NFL again, although he was technically 'reinstated', it was by court order, but no one picked him up. Unless I missed something, how did the NFL quietly continue ties with him?

    The Kareem Hunt one is probably a guy that teams will determine is worth the ass pain. I expect someone will sign him for next year.

    Reuben Foster was released for domestic violence and the Redskins claimed him on waivers the very next day....he hasn't played yet, but his charges were just dropped, so that probably leaves an opening for next season.

    But, again, the NFL and the public forgive domestic violence a lot easier than disrespecting the flag. I never did see anyone burning their Rice or Hunt jerseys.
    Ray Rice provides some sort of counseling / trianing to new NFL recruits via the NFL orientation (I saw it on the news up here).

    I didn't see anyone burning jerseys, but there was a jersey exchange at Ravens stadium where several hundred people brought in their Rice jerseys.
    The most important six inches on the battlefield ... is between your ears.

  10. #30
    Administrator Mjölnir's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2000
    Location
    Norfolk, VA
    Posts
    2,965
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by Bos Mutus View Post
    The Rice video was brutal. He never played in the NFL again, although he was technically 'reinstated', it was by court order, but no one picked him up. Unless I missed something, how did the NFL quietly continue ties with him?

    The Kareem Hunt one is probably a guy that teams will determine is worth the ass pain. I expect someone will sign him for next year.

    Reuben Foster was released for domestic violence and the Redskins claimed him on waivers the very next day....he hasn't played yet, but his charges were just dropped, so that probably leaves an opening for next season.

    But, again, the NFL and the public forgive domestic violence a lot easier than disrespecting the flag. I never did see anyone burning their Rice or Hunt jerseys.
    Ray Rice provides some sort of counseling / trianing to new NFL recruits via the NFL orientation (I saw it on the news up here).

    I didn't see anyone burning jerseys, but there was a jersey exchange at Ravens stadium where several hundred people brought in their Rice jerseys.
    The most important six inches on the battlefield ... is between your ears.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •