The point I’m making is that you are taking one facet of the program as if it were the only point of the program.
I cannot find it now, but a few weeks ago there was a clip from an old NFL films segment making the internet rounds that showed Tagliabue with then-NFL stars while the stars were discussing pay-for-performance pools that rewarded players for the essentially the same things that the Saints were doing. Legal then, not bounties then. But now under Goodell they’re bounties?
One possible reason that Vilma is still going on with this suit, despite Hamlet’s able stating of all the reasons he’s likely to lose, is discovery. I think Vilma’s advisers believe that: [ul]
[li]The Saints weren’t the only team with this kind of incentive program (though maybe they were the only ones dumb enough to write it down); [/li][li]The NFL has correspondence and other evidence from those other teams; maybe telling them to knock it the hell off, maybe not[/li][li]The NFL doesn’t want any more dirty laundry about how widespread the bounty system may have been in the League; and [/li][li]Will pay Vilma a tidy sum to make sure they don’t have to reveal to Vilma’s attorneys—and thereby, everyone else—how much the League office knew that this sort of thing was going on with other teams. [/li][/ul]
Of course, Vilma could just be another crazy litigant, utterly convinced of the rightness of his cause, while still having enough resources to keep up the fight. Wouldn’t be the first time. Isn’t an old curse, “May you have a lawsuit in which you are justified.”
Another reason is that Vilma is backed into a corner with nowhere else to go: isn’t he old enough/injured enough that this season would basically have been his last? Ergo, suspending him from it is pretty much taking away his last big payday. Hammering Payton for a year is fine; Payton will be coaching in this League as long as he is one of the top 10 professional football coaches in the world. But a player has a much shorter career, and this suspension comes during the most lucrative time for the player. If Vilma got a similar penalty to what Roethlisburger got, I don’t think there’d be this much litigation.
I am indeed taking one facet of the program and ignoring the rest of it, because that particular facet is the reason the league punished the Saints as harshly as they did. The other incentives offered aren’t relevant.
Tagliabue took over as commissioner in 1989 - there was no issue with pay for performance then. When the salary cap was instituted in 1994, team-administered pay-for-performance systems were banned, because they offered teams the ability to increase a player’s compensation without it affecting the salary cap. Without knowing the clip you’re talking about, the specific answer to your question is “maybe.”
The broader answer is, “yeah - rules change.” Watch NFL Films clips of Deacon Jones doling out head slaps along the line, or Jack Tatum headhunting, or Lester Hayes and his stickum. Hell, just watch some NFL films highlights from as recently as five years ago, and you’ll see head-to-head hits trumpeted as “the way football should be played.” We know better now, and the rules have changed to reflect our understanding of the situation.
I think your first two points are good ones, and precedent is one reason Tagliabue cited for vacating the players’ suspensions. From his ruling: “… the League has not previously suspended or fined players for some of the activities in which these players participated and has in the recent past imposed only minimal fines on NFL Clubs - - not players - - of a mere $25,000 or less.” (p. 3).
Your third and fourth aren’t as convincing to me. The league isn’t going to look for any more dirty laundry, but I think they’re dug in deeply enough that they’re not going to budge on the lawsuit. They were in a similar spot with the replacement officials, and showed the same intransigence until the replacements’ bad calls resulted in the wrong team winning a game. There’s nothing on this issue that’s going to affect public opinion and put pressure on the league like that did (outside of New Orleans, at least).
Vilma’s suspension has been vacated, and he didn’t miss a single game check. That’s another issue with the defamation suit - I doubt he can show that he’s suffered any monetary damages as a result of Goodell’s comments. Has he lost endorsement deals as a result of the case? Ultimately, he wants an apology, and that’s something that not even the courts can get him.
Simple. ANY pay-for-performance outside of a contract is against NFL rules,
With all of the claims that have been made about the Saints, I can’t recall a single one claiming that the coaches or organization offered money, only players. And in 1994, when Tagliabue was commissioner, the NFL was fine with the Packers running a pay-for-performance system.
And you claim that it’s undisputed that there was a pay-for-injury system, and that’s not even remotely true. And there’s certainly evidence showing that the semantics, such as “cart off”, were pure hyperbole.
"…I know from reading each and every page of that transcript that what the National Football League said occurred never occurred.”
DeMaurice Smith
I am stunned, stunned I tell you, that the head of the NFLPA is saying the kind of thing he’s supposed to say about this.
I’m holding judgement until the unbiased Jonathan Vilma can concur.
“Vilma was never found to be completely innocent, either, by Tagliabue or Berrigan. However, Vilma’s actions were clearly never as sinister as Goodell portrayed them. And there was certainly no evidence of any wrongdoing on the field of play - which for some inexplicable reason, Goodell never took into account.”
Yeah, saw that the judge threw out Vilma’s lawsuit against Goodall.