Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1  
Old 10-08-2017, 06:59 PM
nightshadea nightshadea is offline
Member
 
Join Date: May 2001
Location: a condo in hell 10th lvl
Posts: 2,359
nfl anthem solutions

here's a thought ... the nfl should make a rule saying because of all the distractions to the game of football they'll leave it up to every home team on whether to even play the anthem saying its fine if they do or its fine if they don't

Or just have a once and for all league vote of owners and players saying play it or don't and get on with football
Advertisements  
  #2  
Old 10-08-2017, 07:00 PM
Procrustus Procrustus is online now
Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Pacific NW. •
Posts: 9,545
Or leave it as it is. It’s hardly a crises.
  #3  
Old 10-08-2017, 11:16 PM
Munch Munch is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2000
Location: Parts Unknown
Posts: 21,899
Quote:
Originally Posted by nightshadea View Post
the nfl should make a rule
Before or after their next collective bargaining agreement?
Quote:
because of all the distractions to the game of football
Huh - I've watched a lot of football this season, I haven't seen any game that's been distracted by it.

Quote:
they'll leave it up to every home team on whether to even play the anthem saying its fine if they do or its fine if they don't
Gosh, I wonder how that vote would go... Especially since a rule by the league (i.e. the owners) would relegate that decision to management, most likely.
Quote:
and get on with football
The games remain 60 minutes long just like they've always been - watch it, or don't.
  #4  
Old 10-09-2017, 08:15 AM
Atamasama Atamasama is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2009
Posts: 1,553
If you stop playing the anthem altogether, those who are pissed about players sitting/kneeling are going to really flip out. Is your goal to make this 10 times worse?!
  #5  
Old 10-09-2017, 08:39 AM
JRDelirious JRDelirious is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Aug 1999
Location: Displaced
Posts: 14,557
My solution: Play it BEFORE the players make their entrance.
  #6  
Old 10-09-2017, 08:41 AM
ElvisL1ves ElvisL1ves is online now
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: The land of the mouse
Posts: 43,108
If the OP is going to propose a solution, it would help him immensely to first state the problem.
  #7  
Old 10-09-2017, 08:47 AM
elbows elbows is online now
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2000
Location: London, Ontario
Posts: 12,742
Not until someone can reconcile why kneeling is respectful when in church, but disrespectful on a football field.
  #8  
Old 10-09-2017, 09:23 AM
DigitalC DigitalC is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: Obamatopia
Posts: 9,877
Here is a better solution: stop letting police officers freely murder black people.
  #9  
Old 10-09-2017, 09:37 AM
BobLibDem BobLibDem is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: Home 07 NCAA HockeyChamps
Posts: 19,124
The Detroit Tigers had a somewhat similar thing when Lou Whitaker didn't stand for the anthem because of religious objection (I think a JW). As I recall, the team didn't take the field till after the anthem when he played. Seems simple enough to me, either :
1) address the issue of police violence toward minorities in a meaningful way
2) play the anthem before the players take the field
3) stop playing it altogether
  #10  
Old 10-09-2017, 11:08 AM
kenobi 65 kenobi 65 is online now
Member
 
Join Date: May 2000
Location: Brookfield, IL
Posts: 10,156
Quote:
Originally Posted by JRDelirious View Post
My solution: Play it BEFORE the players make their entrance.
Until a few years ago, they did exactly that. It's only since 2009 that the NFL changed the order of the pregame events to have the players on the field for the anthem, and it was, at least in part, the result of the Department of Defense paying NFL teams for "patriotic displays."

http://www.cnn.com/2017/09/25/us/nfl...rnd/index.html
  #11  
Old 10-09-2017, 02:11 PM
Chisquirrel Chisquirrel is online now
Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2016
Posts: 1,117
Quote:
Originally Posted by Atamasama View Post
If you stop playing the anthem altogether, those who are pissed about players sitting/kneeling are going to really flip out. Is your goal to make this 10 times worse?!
It's been awhile since I watched a baseball game on TV. Do they broadcast the national anthem there? FOX and ESPN have both started to not show the anthem at all, to avoid triggering snowflakes.

I realized I didn't care when the talking heads would continue discussing the upcoming game while the anthem was being performed, and half the stadium was sitting on their ass, talking to their neighbors, or getting beer and food. I'll still stand and put my hand over my heart, but I'm not going to force others to do the same.

"As I write this twenty years later, I cannot stand and sing the anthem. I cannot salute the flag; I know that I am a black man in a white world."
  #12  
Old 10-09-2017, 03:00 PM
Little Nemo Little Nemo is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Dec 1999
Location: Western New York
Posts: 74,376
If you just treat the symptom, the disease won't be cured. If you reset the game schedule so that players can't make a protest during the national anthem, then those players will just seek another way to make their protest.

Maybe the powers that be should instead work on addressing the issue that's being protested. This protest isn't directed against soldiers or the flag or the national anthem. It's directed against racism and police brutality.
  #13  
Old 10-09-2017, 04:33 PM
SlackerInc SlackerInc is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Posts: 7,109
I'm confused by Jerry Jones (I guess not for the first time). He knelt with his players after Trump spouted off, but now he's talking tough? WTH
__________________
SlackerInc on Twitter: https://twitter.com/slackerinc
  #14  
Old 10-09-2017, 04:43 PM
enalzi enalzi is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: Chicago, IL
Posts: 6,411
Quote:
Originally Posted by SlackerInc View Post
I'm confused by Jerry Jones (I guess not for the first time). He knelt with his players after Trump spouted off, but now he's talking tough? WTH
That's because originally it was just a bullshit PR stunt to change the message to make it about "unity."
  #15  
Old 10-09-2017, 04:58 PM
SlackerInc SlackerInc is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Posts: 7,109
Quote:
Originally Posted by enalzi View Post
That's because originally it was just a bullshit PR stunt to change the message to make it about "unity."
Right, I can see that...but even if they were (perhaps purposely) muddling the message about police shootings, there's no way to take that except for a middle finger to Trump. Right? And Trump was the one who made it about the flag and pledge by not addressing the police issue. So it still looks like a big flip-flop to me.
__________________
SlackerInc on Twitter: https://twitter.com/slackerinc
  #16  
Old 10-09-2017, 09:09 PM
Munch Munch is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2000
Location: Parts Unknown
Posts: 21,899
Quote:
Originally Posted by SlackerInc View Post
I'm confused by Jerry Jones (I guess not for the first time). He knelt with his players after Trump spouted off, but now he's talking tough? WTH
He was a PR genius - he came out and knelt with his players before the anthem started, and then when it started up, he and all the players stood up and locked arms. So he's never "knelt during the anthem", per se.
  #17  
Old 10-09-2017, 09:27 PM
SlackerInc SlackerInc is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Posts: 7,109
Ahhh. Clever!
__________________
SlackerInc on Twitter: https://twitter.com/slackerinc
  #18  
Old 10-09-2017, 09:43 PM
asahi asahi is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 2015
Posts: 3,940
You could make an argument that the NFL had to do something coming into the 2017 season. A person could have made that argument that something needs to be done to prevent players, owners, and fans from taking sides -- I get that part of it. The NFL could have worked with the players association and implemented a rule or at least reached a gentleman's understanding.

The problem is, NFL owners blackballed Colin Kaepernick, who actually posted good numbers. So in doing that, the owners and the league allowed a controversy to fester. They hoped that by blackballing Kap, that it would shut players up. What the owners didn't anticipate -- especially the 7 FUCKING OWNERS WHO SUPPORTED TRUMP'S DIVISIVE CAMPAIGN OF DIVISION -- is that none other than the IDIOT in CHIEF they supported would take this relatively small and controllable controversy and use it to drive a wedge between people.

And now the problem for these owners is that this topic is so emotional, precisely because of the direct involvement of a presidential administration that is directly involved in rolling back the rights of minorities and protected classes that many of the athletes in the league -- oh by the way, the league is like 70 percent black, just thought I'd remind you fucking billionaire tards -- feel compelled to speak out even more strongly on a personal level.

Yeah, go ahead Jerruh Jones and keep twisting that knife and keep telling your team of mostly black athletes that they're nothing but rich slaves on your plantation. What if Dez Bryant decides he could just say "Fuck you" and retire? What if others do the same? What if black athletes decide to stage a mass boycott and kill every obese outta shape white man's fantasy football league? Not to mention teams Super Bowl chances? What then? Maybe that's what this could come to: athletes realizing that they're not just hollow entertainers but real people with a real platform, and that they have the opportunity to use it to demonstrate resistance.
  #19  
Old 10-09-2017, 09:53 PM
SlackerInc SlackerInc is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Posts: 7,109
Good points. I say, let the red state owners clamp down, while the blue state owners support players’ rights to protest, and then let’s see where the free agents go.
__________________
SlackerInc on Twitter: https://twitter.com/slackerinc
  #20  
Old 10-10-2017, 07:54 AM
Munch Munch is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2000
Location: Parts Unknown
Posts: 21,899
Quote:
Originally Posted by asahi View Post
The problem is, NFL owners blackballed Colin Kaepernick, who actually posted good numbers.
No, he did not. If you think so, head over to this thread to make your case.
  #21  
Old 10-10-2017, 10:42 AM
Atamasama Atamasama is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2009
Posts: 1,553
Quote:
Originally Posted by Munch View Post
No, he did not. If you think so, head over to this thread to make your case.
No he did have great numbers.

In the 2012-2013 seasons.

Oh wait, this is 2017 now? Oh never mind.
  #22  
Old 10-10-2017, 04:03 PM
SlackerInc SlackerInc is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Posts: 7,109
He had better numbers than some other QBs who got jobs as backups.
__________________
SlackerInc on Twitter: https://twitter.com/slackerinc
  #23  
Old 10-10-2017, 04:35 PM
Little Nemo Little Nemo is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Dec 1999
Location: Western New York
Posts: 74,376
Is Colin Kaepernick better than Tom Brady? No.

Is Colin Kaepernick better than C.J. Beathard or Christian Hackenberg or Cody Kessler or Matt Moore or Davis Webb? Of course he is. Anybody who claims otherwise is making up their facts.

But those guys all have jobs as quarterbacks in the NFL and Kaepernick doesn't.
  #24  
Old 10-10-2017, 04:41 PM
kanicbird kanicbird is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: May 1999
Posts: 18,285
Does anyone care anymore about american football, seems like something dyeing on the vine. This just an example, r do we need to still need to resort to the roman colosseum model to keep america (the united states of), together.
  #25  
Old 10-10-2017, 04:52 PM
Okrahoma Okrahoma is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Oct 2015
Posts: 2,694
Quote:
Originally Posted by Little Nemo View Post
Is Colin Kaepernick better than Tom Brady? No.

Is Colin Kaepernick better than C.J. Beathard or Christian Hackenberg or Cody Kessler or Matt Moore or Davis Webb? Of course he is. Anybody who claims otherwise is making up their facts.

But those guys all have jobs as quarterbacks in the NFL and Kaepernick doesn't.
Let's see - Christian Hackenberg gets about $1M/year. Cody Kessler about 850K/year. Kaepernic had a $18M/year contract with SF.

I am pretty sure teams would sign up Kaepernic for $1M/year. Do you think he'd agree?
  #26  
Old 10-10-2017, 04:59 PM
Do Not Taunt Do Not Taunt is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: Seattle
Posts: 2,006
According to Slate, the NFL is going to consider a change to its 'Operations Manual' to require players to stand for the anthem. If this goes through, and players go along with it, I'm just done. Bending over backwards to support the worst elements in our society is not the way the league should be going, even if Jerry Jones is one of them.

Cowboys, now is a good chance to show you have some backbone.
  #27  
Old 10-10-2017, 05:14 PM
Snowboarder Bo Snowboarder Bo is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: May 2005
Location: Las Vegas
Posts: 19,996
AP story about that, too, Do Not Taunt.
Quote:
“We would certainly support the NFL coming out and asking the players to stand, just as the president has done,” White House spokeswoman Sarah Huckabee Sanders said Tuesday. “We support the national anthem, the flag and the men and women who fought to defend it.”
"Ask"?

A request that cannot be freely denied is not a request; it's a demand. Trump didn't "request" that players stand, he demanded it. And I doubt that the NFL, if they revise or re-write their policy, will "ask" that players do something, either.

Last edited by Snowboarder Bo; 10-10-2017 at 05:14 PM. Reason: fixed coding
  #28  
Old 10-10-2017, 05:37 PM
Atamasama Atamasama is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2009
Posts: 1,553
Quote:
Originally Posted by Okrahoma View Post
Let's see - Christian Hackenberg gets about $1M/year. Cody Kessler about 850K/year. Kaepernic had a $18M/year contract with SF.

I am pretty sure teams would sign up Kaepernic for $1M/year. Do you think he'd agree?
As I said in the other thread the Seahawks really liked him but he cost too much. Austin Davis is their backup, and heís okay as a backup but Colin is overall better, has experience taking a team to the SB, and his running style is a good fit. But Austin took the veteran minimum which should be what Kessler is getting above.

Most teams donít want to waste cap space on a player that youíre expecting (and hoping!) to never see the field outside of garbage time.

Kaepernickís biggest problem is heís too good to be a backup but not good enough to be a starter so he doesnít really fit anywhere.
  #29  
Old 10-10-2017, 11:06 PM
SlackerInc SlackerInc is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Posts: 7,109
Quote:
Originally Posted by kanicbird View Post
Does anyone care anymore about american football, seems like something dyeing on the vine.
Four of the top ten most watched shows on TV last week were NFL games. Sunday Night Football was watched more than any TV show not featuring the character Sheldon Cooper.

I will not be happy if the NFL passes that new rule, but I will still watch.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Okrahoma View Post
Let's see - Christian Hackenberg gets about $1M/year. Cody Kessler about 850K/year. Kaepernic had a $18M/year contract with SF.

I am pretty sure teams would sign up Kaepernic for $1M/year. Do you think he'd agree?
This is an interesting point.
__________________
SlackerInc on Twitter: https://twitter.com/slackerinc
  #30  
Old 10-11-2017, 12:16 AM
dalej42 dalej42 is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: Chicago
Posts: 11,579
Of course, even standing for the anthem the players can still make gestures.

Heck, I even remember some standup comedian in the late 80s or early 90s that used to joke about baseball players spitting or adjusting their jock during the national anthem.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
  #31  
Old 10-11-2017, 12:59 AM
Little Nemo Little Nemo is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Dec 1999
Location: Western New York
Posts: 74,376
Quote:
Originally Posted by Okrahoma View Post
Let's see - Christian Hackenberg gets about $1M/year. Cody Kessler about 850K/year. Kaepernic had a $18M/year contract with SF.

I am pretty sure teams would sign up Kaepernic for $1M/year. Do you think he'd agree?
Of course he would. Why wouldn't he? It's a million dollars a year more than he's getting paid right now and it's a chance to do a job he's interested in doing.
  #32  
Old 10-11-2017, 02:23 AM
SlackerInc SlackerInc is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Posts: 7,109
I assume if the rule passes, they'll just switch to the fist in the air like the '68 Olympics (which some NFL players are already doing).

Quote:
Originally Posted by Little Nemo View Post
Of course he would. Why wouldn't he? It's a million dollars a year more than he's getting paid right now and it's a chance to do a job he's interested in doing.
I wouldn't be so sure. He might have too much pride to take so little.

Speaking of Kaepernick, I love this Eminem clip he just passed along on Twitter:

https://twitter.com/kaepernick7/stat...55545197314048
__________________
SlackerInc on Twitter: https://twitter.com/slackerinc
  #33  
Old 10-11-2017, 06:20 AM
asahi asahi is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 2015
Posts: 3,940
Re: new proposals by the league

The NFL owners assume that 45-65 year-old white males are their audience and that they'd be advised not to upset them. They're basing their decisions because apparently the advertisers are worried about declining ratings, though in reality ratings have plateaued since about 2015 and it has nothing to do with controversy in sports. Moreover, in the opening weeks of NFL it's competing with MLB playoffs, the start of the NHL and NBA seasons, and even college football for attention, even if they're not on the same days.

Just as their decision to collectively blackball Kaepernick backfired, this, too, will probably backfire. This is probably the most important time for black athletes in professional sports (and for black people in general) since the 1960s. This era - the Trump era - represents the greatest and most visible threat to their standing in society since the end of the civil rights era, and they know it. Some individual athletes might be bought off more easily than others, but my guess is that there are too many voices to try and shut down. Trying to shut them up is only going to make it more obvious that the threat to their standing in society is real - perhaps even more real than they initially imagined. The protests will continue one way or the other, and the more that owners, advertisers, and entitled fans try to shut them out, the stronger and more visible the resistance will become.

The owners made the right move when they pushed back against Trump's comments. They didn't necessarily have to push back against Trump or his presidency, but they needed to stand with their players' cause and their rights to protest, not because it's popular with advertisers or some of their audience, but because it's morally the right thing to do, and that was a lesson that the generations born in the 1960s and after were supposed to understand. They should continue to support basic civil rights - owners cannot tout their players' involvement in their communities on one hand and then discourage players from speaking out against racism and inequality in their communities on the other. The smart play would be to try to stay neutral with regard to individual political candidates and to try to stay neutral on the issues, and then have an open dialogue with players about the best way to compromise on some of these issues. But just shoving a rule down their throats is probably not the right approach, and we'll probably see that in time.

Going back to the economics of the sport, white men having a midlife crisis might be their target demographic now but it's changing. More women are following football - hell I know women with fantasy football leagues. People of color watch football. The NFL is presumably trying to market to Latinos and has games in Mexico City every summer. It would probably not be a smart move to side with Trumpism for short term game, and by trying to mute the protests that's what they're doing, whether it's intended or not. The NFL is saying, Trumpian fans are more valuable to us than the rest, and that's a message that could haunt them for decades. America will, I hope, eventually outgrow Trump. But they will also have long memories.

Last edited by asahi; 10-11-2017 at 06:24 AM.
  #34  
Old 10-11-2017, 07:52 AM
Atamasama Atamasama is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2009
Posts: 1,553
Quote:
Originally Posted by Little Nemo View Post
Of course he would. Why wouldn't he? It's a million dollars a year more than he's getting paid right now and it's a chance to do a job he's interested in doing.
Youíll need to ask him why he wouldnít, because he wouldnít.
http://www.thenewstribune.com/sports...154162614.html

Baltimore had concerns about controversy, rather than money.
https://www.usatoday.com/story/sport...iii/524036001/

Ray Lewis infamously claimed that a racist tweet from Colinís girlfriend was the decider, it was too much for the team. The team itself never officially confirmed or denied that from what I see.
https://www.si.com/nfl/2017/09/06/ra...rlfirend-tweet

Clearly the controversy surrounding him has hurt his chances, but heíd be signed to a team if he was willing to take the minimum.
  #35  
Old 10-11-2017, 09:02 AM
SlackerInc SlackerInc is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Posts: 7,109
That’s interesting. I am less convinced now that he has been blackballed.

I’m also unconvinced by the assertion that the protests are not hurting the league’s television audience. I think they probably are taking a hit. Particularly for games that do not feature people’s hometown team. That doesn’t mean I think the league should adopt this rule just to kowtow to a bunch of right wing whiners. But with billions of dollars on the line, it certainly heightens the pressure all around.

And I wouldn’t count on player solidarity lasting forever. There are a lot of black players who have never had any problem standing for the pledge, and if they see the salary cap fail to grow the way it has in recent years, they may get pissed off at the people who are kneeling, or at least quietly support a rule change.
__________________
SlackerInc on Twitter: https://twitter.com/slackerinc
  #36  
Old 10-11-2017, 09:45 AM
Little Nemo Little Nemo is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Dec 1999
Location: Western New York
Posts: 74,376
Quote:
Originally Posted by Atamasama View Post
Youíll need to ask him why he wouldnít, because he wouldnít.
http://www.thenewstribune.com/sports...154162614.html

Baltimore had concerns about controversy, rather than money.
https://www.usatoday.com/story/sport...iii/524036001/

Ray Lewis infamously claimed that a racist tweet from Colinís girlfriend was the decider, it was too much for the team. The team itself never officially confirmed or denied that from what I see.
https://www.si.com/nfl/2017/09/06/ra...rlfirend-tweet

Clearly the controversy surrounding him has hurt his chances, but heíd be signed to a team if he was willing to take the minimum.
You have an interesting interpretation of those reports. None of those reports say that teams offered Kaepernick a contract. And you see that as evidence that teams are offering Kaepernick contracts and he's turning them down. I, on the other hand, see them as evidence that teams aren't offering Kaepernick contracts.
  #37  
Old 10-11-2017, 09:50 AM
Chisquirrel Chisquirrel is online now
Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2016
Posts: 1,117
Quote:
Originally Posted by Do Not Taunt View Post
According to Slate, the NFL is going to consider a change to its 'Operations Manual' to require players to stand for the anthem. If this goes through, and players go along with it, I'm just done. Bending over backwards to support the worst elements in our society is not the way the league should be going, even if Jerry Jones is one of them.

Cowboys, now is a good chance to show you have some backbone.
What I would do to see Dak and Zeke kneel. The players that are currently kneeling or otherwise aren't going to stop. They knew there was a chance of not having a job when Kaepernick was still sitting at home at the start of the season. These aren't all rookies and nobodies that are kneeling, some of these are Pro Bowl caliber players. The NFL may change the rules, but they're going to have to enforce those. Given how the entire thing started with a government mandate that the players stand, I can't imagine the ACLU doesn't already have a brief outlined and ready to file the first time a player is punished under the new Operations Manual.
  #38  
Old 10-11-2017, 10:56 AM
Do Not Taunt Do Not Taunt is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: Seattle
Posts: 2,006
Quote:
Originally Posted by SlackerInc View Post
And I wouldnít count on player solidarity lasting forever. There are a lot of black players who have never had any problem standing for the pledge, and if they see the salary cap fail to grow the way it has in recent years, they may get pissed off at the people who are kneeling, or at least quietly support a rule change.
You might be right that the protests are having an effect on ratings, but I see two major problems with responding to it by rule change (not including the fact that it's a moral error): any effects the protests are having are tough to disentangle from other problems the NFL has (CTE scandal, perceived lower quality of product on field, lots of other entertainment options) and probably fairly marginal and two, the horse is somewhat out of the barn already on this. If you actively change the rule to forbid these protests, you're not only going to piss off the players who have a social conscience, but also fans on the other side. The NFL may think its fanbase is oafish, middle-aged white men, but my social circle has a lot of liberals and NFL fans. They're already feeling guilty enjoying the sport because of CTE - you really want to push them over the edge?
  #39  
Old 10-11-2017, 04:17 PM
SlackerInc SlackerInc is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Posts: 7,109
I hope the "you" wasn't directed at me, because I oppose the rule change. I was actually way ahead of my time, it seems, as I was the only student at my large high school who refused to stand for the Pledge at assemblies nearly 30 years ago--even though the nearest teacher got infuriated with me. (My reasoning was different: I would have stood had they removed the "Under God" part Ike added.)
__________________
SlackerInc on Twitter: https://twitter.com/slackerinc

Last edited by SlackerInc; 10-11-2017 at 04:18 PM.
  #40  
Old 10-11-2017, 04:32 PM
Do Not Taunt Do Not Taunt is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: Seattle
Posts: 2,006
Quote:
Originally Posted by SlackerInc View Post
I hope the "you" wasn't directed at me, because I oppose the rule change. I was actually way ahead of my time, it seems, as I was the only student at my large high school who refused to stand for the Pledge at assemblies nearly 30 years ago--even though the nearest teacher got infuriated with me. (My reasoning was different: I would have stood had they removed the "Under God" part Ike added.)
You mean in the sentence starting with, "You might be right that the protests are having an effect on ratings?" Because, yes, I meant you, SlackerInc, but I don't think I was suggesting that you supported the rule change. If you meant the sentence starting, "If you actively change the rule to forbid these protests," then, no, I meant 'you' as a generic 'you', not you specifically. Apologies for the non-clarity.
  #41  
Old 10-11-2017, 05:02 PM
SlackerInc SlackerInc is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Posts: 7,109
I did mean the latter; but no worries!
__________________
SlackerInc on Twitter: https://twitter.com/slackerinc
  #42  
Old 10-11-2017, 10:29 PM
Atamasama Atamasama is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2009
Posts: 1,553
Quote:
Originally Posted by Little Nemo View Post
You have an interesting interpretation of those reports. None of those reports say that teams offered Kaepernick a contract. And you see that as evidence that teams are offering Kaepernick contracts and he's turning them down. I, on the other hand, see them as evidence that teams aren't offering Kaepernick contracts.
Maybe itíll help to quote from the article rather than just link to it.

Carroll refused to comment on contract specifics the team discussed with Kaepernick, a starter the last five years for San Francisco.

He didnít have to comment. The inference was clear: Seattle was offering minimum, backup money for a 29-year-old veteran of the gameís biggest stage that thinks heís worthy of more starter-like money -- if not a starting job in the league.

There is, of course, more to it with Kaepernick.

Seattle is the only team known to be even remotely interested in signing him. So his desire to accept or reject whatever the Seahawks offered him in the lower range of QB salaries -- say, less than $3 million per year -- was always going to be the determinant as to whether he signed here. When he didnít, the Seahawks kept shopping for backups that would fit their price. They still are shopping.


They later signed Austin Davis for the veteran minimum as the backup QB. This doesnít take much ďinterpretationĒ.
  #43  
Old 10-12-2017, 12:21 AM
cochrane cochrane is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: The Nekkid Pueblo
Posts: 18,600
Quote:
Originally Posted by Snowboarder Bo View Post
AP story about that, too, Do Not Taunt."Ask"?

A request that cannot be freely denied is not a request; it's a demand. Trump didn't "request" that players stand, he demanded it. And I doubt that the NFL, if they revise or re-write their policy, will "ask" that players do something, either.
Bad link. It doesn't lead anywhere. There's no URL.
  #44  
Old 10-12-2017, 10:38 AM
Damuri Ajashi Damuri Ajashi is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 18,751
Quote:
Originally Posted by asahi View Post
Just as their decision to collectively blackball Kaepernick
Cite?

Quote:
The owners made the right move when they pushed back against Trump's comments. They didn't necessarily have to push back against Trump or his presidency, but they needed to stand with their players' cause and their rights to protest, not because it's popular with advertisers or some of their audience, but because it's morally the right thing to do, and that was a lesson that the generations born in the 1960s and after were supposed to understand.
Yes they did but not for the reasons you state.

The owners were not taking a stand on police brutality, they were taking a stand on government censorship and incursion into first amendment rights.

Quote:
Going back to the economics of the sport, white men having a midlife crisis might be their target demographic now but it's changing. More women are following football - hell I know women with fantasy football leagues. People of color watch football. The NFL is presumably trying to market to Latinos and has games in Mexico City every summer. It would probably not be a smart move to side with Trumpism for short term game, and by trying to mute the protests that's what they're doing, whether it's intended or not. The NFL is saying, Trumpian fans are more valuable to us than the rest, and that's a message that could haunt them for decades. America will, I hope, eventually outgrow Trump. But they will also have long memories.
You are conflating anti-Trump and pro-BLM.
  #45  
Old 10-12-2017, 11:10 AM
Little Nemo Little Nemo is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Dec 1999
Location: Western New York
Posts: 74,376
Quote:
Originally Posted by Atamasama View Post
Maybe itíll help to quote from the article rather than just link to it.

Carroll refused to comment on contract specifics the team discussed with Kaepernick, a starter the last five years for San Francisco.

He didnít have to comment. The inference was clear: Seattle was offering minimum, backup money for a 29-year-old veteran of the gameís biggest stage that thinks heís worthy of more starter-like money -- if not a starting job in the league.

There is, of course, more to it with Kaepernick.

Seattle is the only team known to be even remotely interested in signing him. So his desire to accept or reject whatever the Seahawks offered him in the lower range of QB salaries -- say, less than $3 million per year -- was always going to be the determinant as to whether he signed here. When he didnít, the Seahawks kept shopping for backups that would fit their price. They still are shopping.


They later signed Austin Davis for the veteran minimum as the backup QB. This doesnít take much ďinterpretationĒ.
Pete Carroll "refused to comment". Gregg Bell, the guy who wrote the article, then "inferred" that there had been a contract offer. Unless Bell is claiming he was in the room, he's just guessing. You and I are as entitled to make guesses as Bell is.

Here's an article from somebody who's also relying on anonymous sources and his anonymous source is telling him there was no offer.
  #46  
Old 10-12-2017, 11:55 AM
astorian astorian is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Apr 1999
Location: austin tx usa
Posts: 33,968
Even Colin Kaepernick must realize now that he failed completely in what he was trying to accomplish.

If his goal was to raise awareness of police brutality, he failed. His issue has been lost. And he should have realized that was bound to happen. Disrespecting the flag and the anthem can't and won't win the sympathy of any white fans. All it can do is tick them off.

What MIGHT have worked better? Well, just to give one example... I teach at an affluent mostly white school. The kids are mostly great, but sheltered from a lot of life's realities. So,last Spring, during my Government class, I had our African-American principal talk for a bit about his personal experiences with the police. Understand that our principal is a very preppie, yuppie kind of man- there is NO way anyone could look at him and fear that he's a thug. And he got to talk to the kids about times he has been pulled over on the way to work for "driving While Black."

I got to tell the kids about my son's best friend, a black kid who just got "The Talk" from his Mom (not the Birds and the Bees talk, the one about how to act when a cop pulls you over).

Decent white kids don't hear or know about such stories, and it makes a difference when they hear them. If Colin Kaepernick had rallied some other popular black players and told them, "We need to start sharing our stories," they might have accomplished something.If DeShaun Watson could tell Dan Patrick about times he's been stopped and hassled needlessly by security guards at the mall... if Russell Wilson could tell Bob Costas about times cops have pulled him over for NO reason (and then begged for an autograph after seeing who he was), he might open some eyes and ears.

Bu disrespecting the flag DOESN'T make anyone listen. It just makes them mad. And why would that be surprising?

Last edited by astorian; 10-12-2017 at 11:58 AM.
  #47  
Old 10-12-2017, 11:59 AM
ElvisL1ves ElvisL1ves is online now
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: The land of the mouse
Posts: 43,108
You've unfortunately bought the reactive spin that kneelers are disrespecting the flag, rather than showing it more thoughtful respect than those who are merely going through the motions if at all. You might do better to ask your newly-woke students why they think kneelers are kneeling, and go on to tie that into the police (and other) daily racism they now know about.
  #48  
Old 10-12-2017, 02:12 PM
Atamasama Atamasama is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2009
Posts: 1,553
Quote:
Originally Posted by Little Nemo View Post
Pete Carroll "refused to comment". Gregg Bell, the guy who wrote the article, then "inferred" that there had been a contract offer. Unless Bell is claiming he was in the room, he's just guessing. You and I are as entitled to make guesses as Bell is.

Here's an article from somebody who's also relying on anonymous sources and his anonymous source is telling him there was no offer.
Carroll said that the issue was that Colin should be a starter and the Hawks donít need a starter. I donít see how that could mean anything but money. Any team would be happy to have a starter-quality player as a backup taking backup money because if your starter misses time you can play another starter. The only reason you wouldnít do that is if that backup doesnít want backup money.

So either he was too expensive or Carroll was lying. Iíll trust Carroll over an anonymous source. Iíll note that your article directly mentioned Carrollís comments to show how their source contradicts them.

If you insist that you donít believe an offer was ever made until someone comes out and says it... Okay. Believe what you want. Thereís a lot left unsaid in press conferences because there are political reasons to not be so direct, and if you never want to infer anything youíre going to have to ignore a lot of information coming out of them. Bottom line is that it clearly came down to money. Seattle would be the last team to care about Colinís controversy (which seems to be why they were the only team who would have taken him at the right price); they already have very outspoken players who stir controversy and they donít care much since it doesnít affect the game itself.
  #49  
Old 10-12-2017, 03:02 PM
ElvisL1ves ElvisL1ves is online now
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: The land of the mouse
Posts: 43,108
Quote:
Originally Posted by Atamasama View Post
Any team would be happy to have a starter-quality player as a backup taking backup money because if your starter misses time you can play another starter. The only reason you wouldnít do that is if that backup doesnít want backup money.
Or if he pouts so much about not starting or not getting a starter's contract that it just isn't worth the hit to team morale and management patience.

Maybe the Seahawks tried to convince him to do it and couldn't convince him he just isn't good enough to beat out Wilson, maybe that included an offer or not, it doesn't matter. If he wants to be given a starter's job with a contender, it isn't going to happen.
  #50  
Old 10-12-2017, 04:52 PM
Atamasama Atamasama is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2009
Posts: 1,553
Quote:
Originally Posted by ElvisL1ves View Post
Or if he pouts so much about not starting or not getting a starter's contract that it just isn't worth the hit to team morale and management patience.

Maybe the Seahawks tried to convince him to do it and couldn't convince him he just isn't good enough to beat out Wilson, maybe that included an offer or not, it doesn't matter. If he wants to be given a starter's job with a contender, it isn't going to happen.
Thatís possible but I donít think heís deluded enough to try out for Seattle with the idea that heís taking Russellís job. Maybe Iím wrong but Iíd give him that much credit.
Reply

Bookmarks

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is Off
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 03:17 PM.

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2017, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.

Send questions for Cecil Adams to: cecil@chicagoreader.com

Send comments about this website to: webmaster@straightdope.com

Terms of Use / Privacy Policy

Advertise on the Straight Dope!
(Your direct line to thousands of the smartest, hippest people on the planet, plus a few total dipsticks.)

Publishers - interested in subscribing to the Straight Dope?
Write to: sdsubscriptions@chicagoreader.com.

Copyright © 2017 Sun-Times Media, LLC.

 
Copyright © 2017