- 01/17/2011, 04:09PM ET
Bear likes this DEFENSE said 01/17, 04:09 PM
since sports have increasingly strict player conduct policies...SHOULDNT THE LEAGUES DO SOMETHING ABOUT ONE OF THE WORST EXAMPLES OF OFF THE FIELD CONDUCT????
how many kids nationwide have abandoned kids scattered coast to coast
Travis Henry- 11 kids
Cromartie- 9 kids
JUST THESE 2 IDIOTS ALONE HAVE 20 KIDS!!!
the nfl fines players for wearing the wrong color socks or criticizing a ref...........but its ok for a player to have kids scattered around who arent being supported?
even with a BASE LEAGUE SALARY these guys make 4-5x the median salary in any city where they live
THERE IS NO EXCUSE
if a player is behind on child support they should be SUSPENDED
that is the only way to prevent them from getting behind
with performance bonuses on the line these players will pony up the money
Mr. Jolly said 01/18, 09:59 AM
Let me start by saying that the situation is very sad and I feel for the children.
That said, I can't support what The Bear is calling for and I hope you allow me the 3 arguments to explain, because it's pretty complicated.
The NFL, like any kind of governing body, has to consider the ramifications of any law, rule, or punishment that it lays down.
In this case, the precedent of a suspension for failure to properly pay child support can create a firestorm for the league in the future.
* But these kids need their father's support Jolly! *
True, they do.
But the NFL can't begin legislating the employees of its franchises based on how they deal with their finances.
Let me propose a scenario:
Player X has 4 children with one woman, they're married and live together.
But Player X makes several bad investment decisions or blows a great deal of money on a variety of unessential things.
Now Player X can't make his mortgage payment and his kids now face homelessness (this can and has happened).
In a different way, this parent is now failing to financially support his children.
Should we suspend him now?
And would that be helping the situation?
Bear likes this DEFENSE said 01/18, 04:58 PM
1. in your scenario...PLAYER X just makes bad financial investments.
that has NOTHING to do with this situation
we are talking about ACTIVE PLAYERS...many of whom are MILLIONARIES....not paying child support
2. the player conduct policy can suspend a player EVEN IF that players wasnt convicted of a crime!
i think its a fair statement to say NOT PAYING CHILD SUPPORT OUT OF YOUR MILLIONS IS W_O_R_S_E THAN GETtING IN A FIGHT AT A CLUB.
3. this is a great deterrant
the prospect of not playing is HUGE, esp in an era when so much of a contract depends on performance bonuses, some of which require you to play a certain % of snaps
4. the goal is to get these guys to WRITE THE CHILD SUPPORT CHECK FIRST
i dont care if they choose to make poor investments with teh rest of that check...just make sure their FIRST check is to their kids
5. yes, some women will get "pregnant on purpose" w/ a rich guy...but that still doesnt absolve the player from financially supporting the kid
the worst part of this are the kids that never see or hear from their father.
AND THAT is worse than anything else
Mr. Jolly said 01/19, 02:09 PM
Let's address your points:
1) Right here is exactly where companies and governments get themselves in trouble.
They don't think "outside the box" when creating a solution.
Instead, they focus solely on the problem at hand with no thought as to the ramifications of those actions, or the doors those actions can/will open in the future.
If you can't understand how suspending a player for failing to meet a deadline of payment (which is exactly what child support is) leads to other suspensions for failures to comply with other financial deadlines...
Than I can't help you and good luck with that philosophy.
2) I'm aware of this, but the problems that can/will grow from making this decision, far outweigh the benefits. Especially to the NFL's business.
3-5) I can answer all of these by simply saying that suspending players for this action is not the best way to help solve the problem.
Which is what the goal is, right?
Channeling money through payroll GUARANTEES the $ (as long as the player still gets paid) and keeps the NFL from setting a precedent with suspensions.
Plus, not all states have the same laws...
More on that soon.
Bear likes this DEFENSE said 01/19, 06:00 PM
the NFL can enact player conduct rules that apply to all teams in all states.
just like Walmart or any other national company
so YES...they can expect more from a player
now...the slippery slope argument is weak
we have a 2nd amendment that has been interpreted to say all law abiding americans can own a gun
BUT....we can ban guns from felons...the insane....and we can say a citizen cant own a nuclear weapon
SO YES....we can suspend a player for not paying child support AND not go down the slope where we suspend them for bad investments
that is just plain ****.......
at some point the NFL will have to decide what its purpose is with player conduct
they suspend players who werent even CHARGED with crimes....much less convicted
donte stallworth and leonard little KILLED people and they still play
not paying child support SHOULD be a big no no in a player conduct policy like the NFLs
and you have to HURT the player. if i punish my son by taking away his calculator...he doenst care
but when i take away his Wii...he cares...and he changes his behavior
Mr. Jolly said 01/20, 11:34 AM
* The only thing Wal-Mart would do is garnish the wages.
That wouldn't be their decision.
It would be mandated by a court of law.
Which, by the way...
Who said the NFL has to have the power to garnish wages?
That's exactly why you should call your local politicians and lobby for the state to enforce the garnishment of wages in the NFL.
Now it's out of the hands of the NFL, they wouldn't need to worry about setting a precedent (b/c it's out of their hands), and most importantly...
We would have a solution that actually GUARANTEES the $ to the children.
You claim my precedent argument is weak and you call me mentally handicapped.
Obviously you've never spent a day in court or if you have, you don't seem capable of understanding it.
You've spent a great deal of time screaming about how the NFL has suspended players in the past for actions that either aren't illegal or the player was never found guilty.
Therefore, they should be able to do this.
That's a PRECEDENT!
Plus, please don't tell me how to raise children when you can't even stay away from derogatory terms about the mentally handicapped.
That's called hypocrisy.
|3||JimJ77 Can't make it up||130||53||26||68.4%|
- Fantasy baseball Roundtable: Is Cardinals' pitching slowing?
- Fantasy football focus: Impact of Michael Crabtree's injury
- Fantasy baseball Pitching Report: Odorizzi a worthy option
- Fantasy baseball Injury Report: Cueto returns, Price hits the DL
- Fantasy baseball Waiver Wire: Johnson still going strong
- Awful Announcing
- Free Darko
- Pro Football Talk
- The Big Lead
- Joe Posnanski
- The Sporting Blog
- Big League Stew
- Bugs and Cranks
- Every day Should Be Saturday
- Mr. Irrelevant
- With Leather
- The Sports Hernia