The Saints' Punishment Comes In

As a result of their three seasons of setting a "bounty pool" for opposing players, The New Orleans Saints will be fined $500,000 and two second-round draft picks. Head Coach Sean Payton will be suspended without pay for one year (irony: this means the Saints will save over $8 million), GM Mickey Loomis will be suspended for 8 games, and former defensive coordinator Gregg Williams will be suspended until Roger Goodell vomits.

I am...completely okay with this punishment. I think the "bounty pool" was a pretty egregious violation, and the punishment for that oughtta be harsh. I like that the punishment affects the management and front office, not just the players (I note that the further up the chain you go, the lighter your punishment is. That's weird, but given what we know about the situation, I do think it's fair to assume that culpability decreased further up the chain, too). I feel bad for Saints' fans for this upcoming season, but I don't know how you could have possibly structured a punishment without screwing them over, anyway. And hell, maybe this will inspire some more of us fans to think long and hard about how much violence we're willing to stand in the NFL, given that it now could have long-term consequences for our teams.

On the other hand, a lot of people I listen to are pretty apoplectic about this. I'm not sure I can follow them on this one. I understand that this punishment will not fix the problem of violence in football. I understand that it does nothing for players with concussions or long-term head injuries. But I don't know if anyone's saying it WILL, y'know? I mean, if this is the last thing that Goodell and the NFL do about violence, then yeah, it's not nearly enough. They can't clap their hands and say the problem is solved, like I said before. But I want to see if they do that before I condemn them for it.

I mean, the follow up is always important. But I don't see why this wasn't a good start.

Yes, More About the Saints

So, the qualified "defense" of the Saints, if it is even that, advanced by some people in the greater NFL media, is that football is a fundamentally violent game, and that we shouldn't act so shocked that players are specifically thinking of the violence. As he often does, Drew Magary of Deadspin/Kissing Suzy Kolber articulates this position the most effectively, because he uses naughty words.

Now, I really like Magary. And I really do hate Gregg Easterbrook, the target of his ire in this column. I think it's absolutely fair to note that Easterbrook has made a handsome living off of thinking long and hard about football, and for him to act like this is the first thing to tarnish the game is disingenuous bullshit. He knows better, and if he doesn't, he shouldn't have a column.

But still, this "defense" leaves me kind of cold. Because here's the thing, I kind of agree with Magary on this...

"anyone who watches it makes a pact with themselves that it's violent, but that's OK because it's grown men playing it and it's AWESOME to watch"


...but if the terms of the pact are that I can't be repulsed by stuff like what Gregg Williams pulled, i'm not sure I'm willing to keep making it on any given Sunday. Which is fine. The NFL will soldier on just fine without whatever meager support I gave it (I've never been the biggest football fan, anyway). I just wonder if these people who are trying to kind of...move on from the Saints' scandal realize that this "defense" may be doing as much harm as good. Because if you really convince me that this is all par for the course in football, and that this is something that's just going to happen in the game, well, I really can live without watching.


Fortunately, I still think that that mindset is wrong. Magary is right that the line between "I'm going to hit this guy really hard!" and "I'm going to cause long-term health risks to this guy!" is blurry, but I think there is an important, useful difference between the two. And I think that with training, rules, punishment, equipment- we can keep bringing that line into better focus, bit by bit.


But this is one of those few times where I'll admit that I might be wrong. And if I am, I'd rather just cut my losses in this case.

WIND SPRINTS 3/4/12

Today's collection of deep thinking and sports, gettin' all sexy together.

1) A heartwarming story of Matt Holliday and leadership. I think it's a mistake to say this kind of thing absolutely doesn't matter. I just think it matters in an entirely quantifiable, observable way. That is, if it's going to matter, it's going to be because Kelton Wong benefits from the workouts, and his numbers improve, leading to more wins for the Cardinals.

2) Michael McCann breaks down the legal consequences of the Saints' bounty pool. Some of these are stretches, but almost all of these will be filed.

3) Sticking with the Saints, check out Friend of the Blog Chip's response to yesterday's last Saints post. I don't agree with him that this isn't newsworthy, but it's a good perspective, and he's dead on right that this is just one facet of sports' problem with injuries.

4) Junior Hockey in North America is moving toward banning fighting. The argument against this appears to be that the players just won't be ready for fighting in the NHL if they don't fight at the junior levels. Okay, so, don't fight in the NHL.

5) I wish I had something interesting to say about baseball's new playoff system that 'Duk over at Big League Stew didn't already cover. I feel like we're going to have to see how it plays out in practice.

What do you guys have?

Some More on the Saints

I said in the previous post that just punishing the Saints won't be enough. We also have to reform the culture around the NFL, because sure, it's just that fucking easy, isn't it Colby?

The fact is, it's really fucking hard, and I'm not sure how to even begin. Roger Gooddell really has tried to rein in the most despicable, violent hits. But at some point, I fear he's trying to beat up the ocean. Not only has he been mocked for his efforts, but really, how do you play football without the hits? And if you have to allow the hits, where do you draw the line so that it's clear what's acceptable and what isn't? How do you craft a punishment that actually deters players, and doesn't just make them do a loss/benefit calculation?

And if you're part of the sports media, and hits are a legitimate part of the game, how do you report on them, how do you note who is good at them, without in some way condoning them? How do you stop the fans from getting excited about them? Jesus, I've spent two blog posts soul-searching about them, and I still get excited about them.

This is why I'm worried that Troy Aikman is right. It's hard to separate football from the violence, and it's hard to keep justifying the violence- especially when it comes time for us to start thinking about letting some of our kids play football. This isn't hockey, where there are major leagues and tournaments that really tone down on the violence. How do you have football without tackling?

This is one of those times where I hope I'm not nearly as smart as I think I am.

When the Saints Go Kicking Heads In

An official NFL investigation has reported that the New Orleans Saints maintained a "bounty pool" for the last three seasons, in which the defensive players were paid cash for injuring opposing players. The "pool" was maintained by defensive coordinator Gregg Williams, and head coach Sean Peyton knew about it (As did GM Mickey Loomis). Animaniac Blogger Mike got the ball rolling on this already, but this story is important enough to warrant a few posts. Don't be surprised if we return to it later this week.

Mike has admirably covered how horrible this is, and correctly noted that these players and coaches- in my mind, especially the coaches and GMs- need to be punished. My only addition is that that won't be enough.

The fact is, I'm barely surprised by this. I didn't predict it by any means, but there is an easy, logical progression from the general demeanor of the NFL and football media to actions just like this. It's not just that hits are a fundamental part of the game, and that the field of play creates several "blind spots" (such as the bottom of the pile) where the players can outright attack each other with impunity- though they are, and it does. It's not just that injuring a star player is an effective- though abhorrent- tactic. It's that we openly laud a lot of the violence in the NFL.

We count down the biggest hits on Tuesday morning, with Chris Berman and his crew hooting and hollaring all the way (Note: the NFL has asked that we stop doing this. It has also been mocked for doing so). Roger Gooddell's efforts to reign in the most violent excesses of the game are widely mocked by the media and harshly criticized by the players. "Bounties" have actually been openly talked about in fan circles for YEARS, and while nobody holds Kissing Suzy Kolber up as an authority, the language is still out there. And I'm as bad as anyone. I've gone into multiple games openly rooting for Brett Favre, Aaron RAHDJAHS! and Tim Tebow to break their collarbones (must be something about quarterbacks with ostentatious touchdown celebrations, I guess).

My point is, current NFL culture incentivizes a lot of violent behavior, and does not really explain where the line is. And as that's the case, of course some people are going to cross the line. I'm not saying we shouldn't punish the Saints players and coaches; the fact is, EVERY team was operating in the same culture, and the Saints are the only ones who did something so ridiculous (...I hope?). So, obviously, players, coaches, and teams still have a choice here. But when the entire defensive organization of a team is implicated, along with the head coach and GM, this clearly goes beyond the "few bad apples" defense. The NFL must punish the Saints for this, but if it doesn't also change the culture that allowed this, it won't be enough.

One more point on this. The Saints were ranked 24th in defense for 2011. 25th in '09, when the Saints won the Super Bowl. 2010 was obviously different, with the team coming in 4th, but still, the trend is clear: the "Bounty Pool" was not producing appreciably better defense. And if all the violence isn't producing better football, what's the point, exactly?