Jump to content
Indianapolis Colts
Indianapolis Colts Fan Forum

Irsay expected to be suspended 6-8 weeks and fined $1M


Recommended Posts

So lets take this assumption and have it manifest into actions.

 

You think that the NFL thinks that the fans in Indy would stop buying tickets, stop buying jerseys, stop rooting for Luck, Wayne, and Mathis, in any appreciable way, if the NFL fails to punish Irsay for commiting 2 misdemeanor DWI's?

 

I think its more likely, that the NFL and advertisers are trying to INCREASE sales by trying to sell the public that they are upstanding organizations by using whatever opportunity they can to get on their soap box.

 

To convince me that they are as upstanding as they want us to think...the NFL, advertisers, and the sports media should demand the clause of the NFLPA contract be enforced as it relates to PED testing, not browbeat owners over their personal transgressions.

It is obvious to me, and anyone else reading this thread that you suspect Mr. Irsay will be punished unfairly.   Let's remember, No punishment has yet been handed to him by the NFL.   

 

 I think it is safe to say,  some punishment will more than likely be handed down, no matter what the punishment is.  As I said before,  I expect him to take whatever is handed to him,  pay his fine, serve whatever supspension,  and move on from it.

 

Having said that,  you certainly are entitled to your opinion, as are others, and that is the reason for these threads,  to discuss facts, opinions, and so on.    I enjoy most of the discussion, and bantering, but when it reaches the point that people are making it "personal"  and lashing out at each other,  I no longer enjoy.

 

If I had the power,  I'd close this thread, before we have 20+ pages of more of same.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Replies 96
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

It is obvious to me, and anyone else reading this thread that you suspect Mr. Irsay will be punished unfairly.   Let's remember, No punishment has yet been handed to him by the NFL.   

 

 I think it is safe to say,  some punishment will more than likely be handed down, no matter what the punishment is.  As I said before,  I expect him to take whatever is handed to him,  pay his fine, serve whatever supspension,  and move on from it.

 

Having said that,  you certainly are entitled to your opinion, as are others, and that is the reason for these threads,  to discuss facts, opinions, and so on.    I enjoy most of the discussion, and bantering, but when it reaches the point that people are making it "personal"  and lashing out at each other,  I no longer enjoy.

 

If I had the power,  I'd close this thread, before we have 20+ pages of more of same.

Well...I've made my point, so it won't be me dragging it out.

 

BTW...for anybody wondering....I don't drink and would never think of doing drugs.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Nothing matters to some people.......until it affects them. It's called apathy. Sadly, there is no cure for your condition.

And it's not that I like empathy for Irsay's problem. I have a problem with the holier than thou crowd who demand some kind of punishment.

Edited by Superman
Link to post
Share on other sites

Ok, just to say it a different way....

 

Considering that intoxication is the basis of their crimes, the first offense nature of them, the misdemeanor nature of them, and the inconsequentional damages involved (not what COULD have happened)....

 

To be fair....

 

I think Irsay's league punishment should be about the same as the league punishment against Pat McAfee, back when Patty got busted for PI.

Link to post
Share on other sites

So lets take this assumption and have it manifest into actions.

 

You think that the NFL thinks that the fans in Indy would stop buying tickets, stop buying jerseys, stop rooting for Luck, Wayne, and Mathis, in any appreciable way, if the NFL fails to punish Irsay for commiting 2 misdemeanor DWI's?

 

I think its more likely, that the NFL and advertisers are trying to INCREASE sales by trying to sell the public that they are upstanding organizations by using whatever opportunity they can to get on their soap box.

 

To convince me that they are as upstanding as they want us to think...the NFL, advertisers, and the sports media should demand the clause of the NFLPA contract be enforced as it relates to PED testing, not browbeat owners over their personal transgressions.

 

You're conflating several different issues, some more pertinent than others. I'm only speaking to the NFL's objective, which is specifically about their desire to protect their league's image.

 

The whole purpose of the NFL's personal conduct policy is to reduce the occurrence of headlines about NFL personnel being involved in legal misconduct. A one-off incident doesn't necessarily cost the league money, but the more it happens, the more damage is done to the league's brand. So while Irsay's situation might not directly cost the in the way of merchandise and sponsors and so on, the league will penalize him, partly as a deterrent to other NFL personnel.

 

I don't think it's about being upstanding. Your responses paint the picture of someone who doesn't care if people break the law, so long as no one gets hurt. But most people operate under the assumption that other people are going to respect the law, and there are disruptions when some people choose not to. You might not hurt anyone when you cross a double yellow, but that doesn't mean it's not dangerous. It impacts the way other people drive, and it could lead to an accident. Not that it necessarily will, and it's certainly not the worst thing in the world, but if other people expect you to respect that double yellow and you don't, things could get messy.

 

When companies penalize their employees for breaking the law, it's not about being upstanding or taking advantage of a soapbox opportunity. Sure, it can be, but I think the disconnect here is that you don't think companies should concern themselves with whether their employees follow the law, unless it directly affects the employees ability to do their job. Most people disagree with you, on several levels. I definitely do.

 

Last thing: I actually think the attitude toward PEDs needs to change, as I think some of the restrictions are overboard. So we are kind of on opposite ends of the spectrum here.

Link to post
Share on other sites

That's fair. A big chunk of change. I'm not sure how you suspend an owner. His daughter can still consult with him during his suspension

What if he were to say: I'm gonna take my marbles and go home?  I guess an owner has the right to say that.  Right?

Link to post
Share on other sites

You're conflating several different issues, some more pertinent than others. I'm only speaking to the NFL's objective, which is specifically about their desire to protect their league's image.

 

The whole purpose of the NFL's personal conduct policy is to reduce the occurrence of headlines about NFL personnel being involved in legal misconduct. A one-off incident doesn't necessarily cost the league money, but the more it happens, the more damage is done to the league's brand. So while Irsay's situation might not directly cost the in the way of merchandise and sponsors and so on, the league will penalize him, partly as a deterrent to other NFL personnel.

 

I don't think it's about being upstanding. Your responses paint the picture of someone who doesn't care if people break the law, so long as no one gets hurt. But most people operate under the assumption that other people are going to respect the law, and there are disruptions when some people choose not to. You might not hurt anyone when you cross a double yellow, but that doesn't mean it's not dangerous. It impacts the way other people drive, and it could lead to an accident. Not that it necessarily will, and it's certainly not the worst thing in the world, but if other people expect you to respect that double yellow and you don't, things could get messy.

 

When companies penalize their employees for breaking the law, it's not about being upstanding or taking advantage of a soapbox opportunity. Sure, it can be, but I think the disconnect here is that you don't think companies should concern themselves with whether their employees follow the law, unless it directly affects the employees ability to do their job. Most people disagree with you, on several levels. I definitely do.

 

Last thing: I actually think the attitude toward PEDs needs to change, as I think some of the restrictions are overboard. So we are kind of on opposite ends of the spectrum here.

I simply do not believe that if owners, more than one, would be found guilty of misdemeanors, covering a variety of social issues, that fans would stop buying season tickets, jerseys, etc.....the NFL doesn't make jersey's with the name "Irsay" on the back for a reason...no one cares. 

 

The NFL can use social issues to proactively market its brand two ways....by getting behind a positive cause, like breast cancer awareness...or by quickly criticizing a negative action, like personal misconduct.  That is why companies have the policies...to have an opportunity to advertise their righteousness when an adverse headline gives them the opportunity....not because they seriously think that an employee screwing up his personal life will cause people to stop buying a good product. 

 

After all, exactly what type of poor personal conduct is serious enough to cause the consumer to not buy a good product...but not so serious as to allow the employee to still walk the street a free man?  For misconduct of a serious nature, a company doesn't have to say anything, because the employee is in jail and is no longer affiliated with the company anyway.

 

The policy and its champions are insincere, IMO.  Its not about conduct at all...its about seizing an opportunity for advertising a PC cause. 

 

My comments about driving are simply to have some fun in pointing out that circumstances and reactions determine safety.  Period. 

 

As far as PED's, I think the big hang up is a false positive test.  Now...I know nothing of the technology, but it seems to me that if someone got in shape by eating normal food and drink and working out, it would be difficult to ever get a false positive.  Its when a player is trying to use some sort of substance that is just below the banned line, that a false reading could occur.  Just eliminate all substances, all protein powders, whatever, and I'm sure the technology is accurate. 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Ok, just to say it a different way....

 

Considering that intoxication is the basis of their crimes, the first offense nature of them, the misdemeanor nature of them, and the inconsequentional damages involved (not what COULD have happened)....

 

To be fair....

 

I think Irsay's league punishment should be about the same as the league punishment against Pat McAfee, back when Patty got busted for PI.

 

In the food chain of football life......

 

A coach is higher than a player...

 

A head coach is higher than an assistant coach...

 

A GM is higher than a HC...

 

And an Owner is higher than ALL OF THEM!

 

Why you think the penalty for an owner should be the same as for a player is completely mystifying to me?!?

 

Goodell has been clear on this issue....   the higher you are in the NFL system,  the higher level of accountability you'll be held to.

 

So, since Irsay is at the top,  he gets held to a higher standard.    Why you think this is some PC nonsense makes no sense whatsoever.

 

I don't know if you've noticed this,  but this thread is roughly 90 posts long and you're all by yourself.   No one has supported your view that I've seen.    And people aren't just disagreeing with you,  we don't even think you've got an ounce of logic behind any of your arguments.    This thread is completely bizarre.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I simply do not believe that if owners, more than one, would be found guilty of misdemeanors, covering a variety of social issues, that fans would stop buying season tickets, jerseys, etc.....the NFL doesn't make jersey's with the name "Irsay" on the back for a reason...no one cares. 

 

The NFL can use social issues to proactively market its brand two ways....by getting behind a positive cause, like breast cancer awareness...or by quickly criticizing a negative action, like personal misconduct.  That is why companies have the policies...to have an opportunity to advertise their righteousness when an adverse headline gives them the opportunity....not because they seriously think that an employee screwing up his personal life will cause people to stop buying a good product. 

 

After all, exactly what type of poor personal conduct is serious enough to cause the consumer to not buy a good product...but not so serious as to allow the employee to still walk the street a free man?  For misconduct of a serious nature, a company doesn't have to say anything, because the employee is in jail and is no longer affiliated with the company anyway.

 

The policy and its champions are insincere, IMO.  Its not about conduct at all...its about seizing an opportunity for advertising a PC cause. 

 

My comments about driving are simply to have some fun in pointing out that circumstances and reactions determine safety.  Period. 

 

As far as PED's, I think the big hang up is a false positive test.  Now...I know nothing of the technology, but it seems to me that if someone got in shape by eating normal food and drink and working out, it would be difficult to ever get a false positive.  Its when a player is trying to use some sort of substance that is just below the banned line, that a false reading could occur.  Just eliminate all substances, all protein powders, whatever, and I'm sure the technology is accurate. 

 

I disagree, as I'm sure you're aware.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.


  • Thread of the Week

  • Topics

  • Posts

    • Crap, sorry.   with the 129th pick, the Seahawks select:   Anthony Schwartz, WR, Auburn   If that doesn’t make Russell Wilson happy, then 7@€# him!   @crazycolt1and the Jags are aim the clock.
    • Watson started this recent public trade thing by stating that the organization has flawed hiring practices.  And I think he never debunked the idea that the current owner was a lot like his father, simply because he is his son.   Its not really about the next season or even the team's won loss record over the next three years.  Its bigger than that.  I think it would be smarter to not accommodate whiners, and in a legal manner, not set the precedent of accommodating someone who conducts detrimental actions that undermines the new coach and the authority structure of the organization.   If you accommodate Watson, you set the precedent that all whiners need to be accommodated or else you end up singling some out for disparate treatment.  This shows what a cancer players like Watson are to an entire organization.    And, I would think a player like that has limited trade value, despite the rumors.  I would  simply move on from him....forget he even exists...would be the less time consuming and smarter move.  If he wants to sit out, fine, but I'm drafting this spring with the idea that he's going to try to put me at a disadvantage and wait until after FA and the draft before he tells me he wont play next year.   There is some root of the problem that has yet to be revealed.   If its about making bad personnel decisions, resulting in a losing record, I get that....but the HC, OBrien who was responsible for those moves was fired months ago.  Seems like Watson and Watt are still holding some kind of grudge over something, or simply launching their marketing brand by grandstanding.   If I were the GM, I'd just ignore Watson until he apologized for those statements instead of honoring his wishes, and then if the team struggles, show to the whole world what people like that can do to a team, blame the teams failure's over a whiner sitting out the season too arrogant and stubborn to apologize for something he should not have said in the first place.       
    • The 2006 team was the greatest and it is not even a debate. They went 10-0 at home including the playoffs, 16-4 overall, and most importantly won the SB = they finished. The 2005 team during the regular season beat teams by a wider margin but lost in the divisional round. That team did not have Adam Vinatieri either, the 2006 team did. In 2006 we seen the best of Bob Sanders in the playoffs and we went through Ray Lewis/Ed Reed/Steve McNair at Baltimore, and beat Tom Brady and Bill Belichick in the AFC Title Game. Also in respect to the 2009 team, that team didn't have Vinatieri either, nor did it have Marvin Harrison or Bob Sanders, Dungy wasn't the Coach as well. It is 2006 hands down.
    • Probably 2005, that  team was loaded and then played a tragically bad game to the sixth seeded Steelers in the playoffs.    
  • Members

    • Defjamz26

      Defjamz26 2,031

      Senior Member
      Joined:
      Last active:
    • coltsfanmurf

      coltsfanmurf 51

      Member
      Joined:
      Last active:
    • buccolts

      buccolts 2,477

      Senior Member
      Joined:
      Last active:
    • Flash7

      Flash7 1,107

      Senior Member
      Joined:
      Last active:
    • jvan1973

      jvan1973 5,314

      Senior Member
      Joined:
      Last active:
    • tannurr

      tannurr 7

      New Member
      Joined:
      Last active:
    • Dogg63

      Dogg63 2,025

      Senior Member
      Joined:
      Last active:
    • DougDew

      DougDew 2,564

      Senior Member
      Joined:
      Last active:
    • FRW

      FRW 125

      Member
      Joined:
      Last active:
    • twfish

      twfish 1,089

      Senior Member
      Joined:
      Last active:
×
×
  • Create New...