Realistic Look At the Bounty Situation

A few weeks back, we were presented with starting information. Led by Defensive Coordinator, Gregg Williams, the New Orleans Saints engaged in a 3-year bounty program where players were compensated by Williams and other teammates for knocking other players out of the game or forcing them to be taken off on a cart. These accusations were hard to handle for any football fan. It's difficult to accept the game that we're obsessed with has such a large black eye. As the shock set in, and we sobered up to the reality, we read that 22 to 27 players were accused of participating. The NFL has the right to punish the coaches pretty much as they see fit. General Manager Mickey Loomis, Head Coach Sean Payton, and Defensive Coordinator (now with the Rams) Gregg Williams, all were dealt suspensions. Williams' suspension was the worst with the length being, "indefinite." The coaches appealed and were largely denied by commissioner Roger Goodell. Gregg Williams promptly apologized for the bounty incident and admitted guilt for the whole situation. Why is the bounty system so bad, you may ask? It seems like something that would be the norm in football. It's an inherently violent sport and the whole goal of it is to knock the crap out of your opponent. You don't win by being reserved, you win by delivering big hits and intimidating the opponent. The bounty scandal, however, was wrong on a few different angles. First, intentionally injuring someone is against the rules. There is inherent violence incorporated into football and thus if you're a player, you accept those risks. Any injury sustained in the scope of the game is assumed by the player before stepping on the field. Intentionally injuring someone is grounds for both criminal and civil suits. There was a precedent set in the 1970s by the courts after a Denver Broncos player returned an interception for a touchdown and was struck by an opposing player after the play. The case was settled in court, but the courts made it a point to say that violence of that nature was not part of the game of football and therefore would be open to the legal system. The next angle is salary cap circumvention. This provides an unfair advantage for teams that participate in a bounty system. Untaxed, unaccounted for income is against the league rules. The salary cap was implemented in 1994 to bring about competitive fairness among all franchises. Without this fairness, the league produces lopsided results as seen in the era leading up to the salary cap. From Super Bowl I to XXVIII (28 years) the league had 12 different champions. Since the league implemented the salary cap, 12 different teams have won in a span of 18 years. The difference is clear. The cap has been proven to be beneficial to many teams as it prevents one team from buying their way to a championship. The NFL has an interest in protecting the integrity of the salary cap in order to ensure that fans have optimism before every season. Finally, the people involved have tarnished the shield. What I mean by that is, they gave the league a black eye. The league has been trying to combat stigmas of being a league full of thugs and cheaters. Under Goodell, this kind of conduct has been strictly prohibited. He has been extremely harsh in handing down punishment when players get out of line. The commissioner didn't hold back with these punishments. So now we have four guys being punished. The initial reaction was, "What? What happened to 22-27 players?" Many chalked this up to the league lying. Why is there an 18-23 player discrepancy from the initial report? Why were the four players, Jonathan Vilma (16 games), Anthony Hargrove (8 games), Will Smith (4 games), and Scott Fujita (3 games) the only guys punished? Why were they the only guys? Why did some get more than others? Skepticism started to grow strong among some fans. I'm going to try my best to answer these questions. I think the NFL is lying, they won't give out information to the public or the NFLPA. What does the NFL have to hide? It would be nice to see the information. The NFL claims to have 18,000 documents and lots of first-hand accounts of the Saints bounty system. The issue arises from the first-hand accounts of the bounty system. The NFL likely offered them anonymity in return for their testimony on the Saints bounty scandal. If that's the case, the NFL has a duty to keep the identities a secret. Guys like Mike Florio from ProFootballTalk.com INSIST that the identities be leaked by the NFL. That's wrong and unethical. I doubt Florio has ever been in a football locker room. The last thing you do is rat your fellow players out. Whoever ratted on the Saints has essentially ruined their season by depriving the team of top leaders and coaches. Goodell doesn't have the authority to do this. Why can he just suspend players with no evidence? Don't you have a right to face your accuser? Yes, in the court of law you do. This is the NFL, a privately owned non-profit. They're bound by the collective bargaining agreement between them and the NFLPA. In the CBA, off-the-field issues are handled exclusively by Goodell. Cap circumvention and conduct detrimental to the league are both off-the-field issues. Goodell asked for the NFLPA to assist in player punishments, they declined. The NFL asked for the players to meet with him to defend themselves. They declined. He then imposed punishments and the NFLPA is all up in arms. The fans are buying it. I understand it's a big deal especially for a guy like Vilma who is losing an entire season of his career. The players chose to ignore the commissioner and fight his decision in the public arena instead of privately defending themselves. This whole deal stinks of posturing. Anthony Hargrove also signed a paper for the NFLPA admitting guilt in the bounty situation. They're now saying that he was misquoted and his words were exaggerated by the NFL. Again, this doesn't sit well with me. More posting? Why only 4 players? There are likely plenty of reasonable scenarios for this outcome. The most likely is that most of those players either had such a small role that it didn't matter or they gave up information in exchange for no punishment. The other explanation is probably that the league felt that suspending 27 players would be too detrimental to the league to have so many players miss time. That kind of mass suspension is unprecedented. Why the different punishments? Simple. Degree. Vilma allegedly contributed $20,000 over 2 games, Hargrove allegedly lied, and Smith and Fujita contributed in other ways. The whole bounty scheme is a big black eye on the league which is why it's so perplexing to me that so many fans are quick to dismiss the league's story in favor of the NFLPA's. The league has legal and ethical reasons to police itself for things like the bounty system. They're obligated to take the accusations seriously and that's exactly what they did. The NFLPA has an interest in protecting its constituents. Who would be more likely to lie in this situation? The NFL stands to gain nothing by making things up while the NFLPA stands to gain everything.