All this talk about rookie hazing is rather stupid. Martin wasn’t a rookie, as has been pointed out multiple times.
I got the shit hazed out of me in my college fraternity. It’s all bullshit. All the talk about how it toughens you, makes you into a cohesive group - bullshit. There may be a small grain of truth to it, but it isn’t the real reaon people haze. Senior players/members haze for one primary reason: because they got hazed once, and it’s now their turn to be on the other side of it. That’s it.
I’m sick and tired of reading idiotic articles trotted out by the likes of Parcells and Williams, masquerading as some sort of deep thinking on the subject. They’re idiots, as far as I’m concerned.
I’m trying to imagine Martin talking to the coaches, telling them that he understands that they want Incognito to toughen him up but he went just a bit too far and asking them to discuss that with Incognito. Then the coaches tell Incognito that they appreciate what he’s doing for them but that it’s probably best if he stay a notch or two below threatening Martin’s family members and telling Martin he’ll shit in his mouth. That night, Incognito pulls out the journal where he plans out his hazing in just the right way so that the team functions optimally. He thoughtfully crosses out a couple things, makes a few notes, and closes the book with a smile.
I have not personally experienced how an NFL team functions. But I’m pretty sure that the above is unlikely to happen. It’s more likely that Martin would have been subjected to escalating “hazing” had he tried to voice his disapproval to anyone on the team. In fact, (and it doesn’t matter either way) I think it’s likely that at some point he did. That’s speculation, though. It’s also speculation to say that Martin never talked to the coaches.
It’s also, for me, beside the point. What I feel is important is this is just the latest piece of evidence that more football players than I am comfortable with are terrible people. It puts me on the train of thought expressed by the Pitt thread: the NFL is making it hard to be a fan.
I vaguely remember hearing in Psych 101 about some studies that show hazing works to an extent. I think the general rationale was that if people have to suffer to join a group, they convince themselves that they like the group more because they want the suffering to have been worth it. None of which makes this kind of thing any less moronic. Like I was just saying in the Game Room thread, the issue here wasn’t making Martin better or toughening him up for the NFL - most of us can put up with some friendly teasing if it’s actually friendly. This was popular guys (not just Incognito) targeting an unpopular guy because he didn’t fit it, and it was malicious.
You haven’t provided any justifiable reason. You’ve presented a tautology: players who can deal with hazing in the NFL continue to play in the NFL because they can deal with the hazing. This is the epitome of the self licking ice cream cone: a system that exists for no other reason than to perpetuate the system.
I defy you to explain what being extorted out of $15,000 for other players to travel to Las Vegas has to do with what goes on on the field. You can’t, because it’s only in the twisted, self-entitled mind of feeble minded jocks that someone’s willingness to pay for your trips to the casino and strip clubs has a damn lick of anything to do with that person’s ability to perform at their job.
And it’s only because these players make millions of dollars per year that some people are unwilling to give even the slightest bit of critical thought to the “we have to toughen them up” line of crap.
If “toughening people up” through abuse actually worked, you’d see it in every profession around the world, and it would be the accepted norm. You would also probably see coaches who didn’t tolerate hazing be resigned to failure in the NFL. The evidence suggests otherwise, as one of the greatest coaches in NFL history led his team to three Super Bowls with an anti-hazing policy.
I repeat: you haven’t justified hazing, because there is no possible justification for hazing.
Yes, that makes sense and is hanging out there as these stories unfold. But did anyone really believe this stuff wasn’t going on? With concussions, for instance - I recall being a kid and reading articles about how NFL players’ lives were well shorter vs. avg. It was discussed as the price of being a warrior.
To be clear, the approach today is better. But it is part of an evolving mindset - no different than the one whose positions have changed regarding women bosses, gay marriage, pot use, etc.
I am caring less about clutching my pearls than saying “Hey, you know what - things have changed; especially in this all-recorded, all-shared online world. Let’s be clear - you can’t do that anymore.”
Right. That’s why I said there was a grain of truth to it. But that really isn’t why the hazers do it. They have no idea where to draw the line or how much is necessary. They also have no idea to what extent people are going to react differently. There’s a very good chance that Martin would have excelled with his new team if he had been treated differently.
This whole “hazing is necessary to create a cohesive usit” thing totally falls apart when you look at the fact that new trade acquisitions aren’t hazed at all.
Rookies paying for a trip is done throughout the NFL. Know how it works? If you complain to your teammates about it like it happened to you because you’re a special little snowflake, it shows how self-centered and arrogant you are. It’s a shit test done by the vets.
Making other people pay for your trips and meals is more self-centered and arrogant than not wanting to pay for someone else’s trips and meals. ‘I’m doing this because I can’ is pretty much the definition of being arrogant.
I have NO dog in this hunt. But are you really surprised by how Jesse Pinkman is framing how a veteran NFL Player probably looks at it?
Again, I am not saying it is correct - and frankly, I don’t get the impression that Jesse is saying it is correct, either - but it does not surprise me that this mindset might be the thinking behind this hazing tradition of rookies paying bills…
This, ladies and gentlemen, is the mindset of bullies, criminals, mafioso, extortioners, certain NFL players, and their supporters. It’s completely devoid of reason or justification, other than “You’re a piece of shit if you don’t do everything I tell you to.”
It’s a shit test done by individuals with psychological disorders, not veterans.
I would believe it as an off the cuff rationalization when called out on the behavior but I doubt sincerely that anyone was looking at it from that point of view at the time.
Huh? He’s defending the behavior, as far as I can tell. What else would be the point of his reply? At this point, we already know how some NFL players look at it.
ESPN did a little unscientific survey of active players on the subject. Most said they hadn’t been hazed, although I can imagine some quibbling about definitions, and most said they didn’t have to provide money as a result of hazing. Of those who did have to pay veteran teammates, the payments were as low as $40 and as high as $18K, which is almost as much as Martin was asked to pay for the Vegas thing alone. According to some reports, that’s become a sore point among Dolphins players. Don’t forget that if you’re a rookie - unless you’re a really high draft pick - you probably don’t have a lot of money saved and older teammates who make more money are soaking you. And Jonathan Martin’s contract (four years, $5 million with $1.9 million guaranteed) is larger than most of those.
And given a choice of teammate, more players said they’d play with Martin than Incognito. In fact Incognito finished well behind “neither.”
This article from Bleacher Report (written by an ex-NFL player) illuminates the rookies paying for dinner/trip tradition. He also acknowledges that hazing has its uses, but it can be taken too far (the latter point I have never argued against, because again, Richie Incognito is a jerk who crossed the line).
Listening to an NFL player describe the benefits of hazing is like listening to a Scientologist explain the benefits of auditing.
There is literally nothing that makes the NFL (or any other pro sport where I assume this is just as common) so special a profession that justifies psychological abuse and extortion of individuals by a group of other people.
Sure, some psychologically damaged running back (Really? Ricky Williams? Does anyone take him seriously?) may say that football players are supposed to dominate their opponent, but that’s little different than, say, being a trial lawyer. You think Alan Dershowitz is leaving threatening text messages with racial slurs to his summer associates? Give me a break.
The fact remains that hazing is something that only works in that it successfully allows extortionists and abusers to feel good about themselves. It has no application on the field or anywhere else in life.
Okay, YMMV - I took it as more of explaining that POV. If it was just “this is a bunch of psycho bullies” then it would be addressable one way. But if this hazing approach is seen to have productive value - and there appear to be arguments that it does, even if I happen to disagree with them - then it is much more about the culture within the NFL overall, not simply “this bully crossed a line.”
Seen to have productive value and has productive value are two different things and an nfl player is most likely not qualified to accurate determine which it is. Especially not someone so involved in the actual hazing.
I agree - but if that culture/mindset, i.e., “belittle to remind rookies of their place, get them humble, build toughness and team spirit” is deeply ingrained, changing it is a big deal.
So - is this a one-off incident, or an indicator of a broader, cultural issue in a violent sport like the NFL?