NFL: There's a New Sheriff in Town
Posted April 19th, 2007 by George Thomas
Anyone remember the bit that cemented actor-comedian Eddie Murphy's career on the silver screen?
It's the scene in 48 Hours when Reggie Hammond, the felon he portrayed, pretends to be a cop in a country-rock club. Oh to heck with being PC. It was a freakin' redneck bar. He rousts the natives, getting them all riled up, but he kept them in check and got the information he was looking for in the process.
The new NFL commish, Roger Goodell is in full Reggie Hammond mode, stirring up the locals - meaning players - and flaunting his authority. Is this a bad thing?
Not necessarily. In the case of his decision last week to suspend Tennessee Titans defensive back and Cincinnati Bengals wide receiver Chris Henry no.
However, in the case of Chicago Bears linebacker Brian Urlacher, can I get a huge PLEASE!!! Goodell issued a 100K fine for Urlacher wearing the baseball cap of an unauthorized sponsor during media day at the Super Bowl. Don't we think that's a wee bit excessive? Insulting even? Or just borderline ridiculous?
I vote for all of the above. I understand that Goodell is the new sheriff in town and he has to show that he means business. With the new player conduct policy adopted with the cooperation (or is that collusion) NFL Players Association, he took a step in the right direction in putting some shine back on the league's image. That policy now puts players on notice about what's expected with respect to individual behavior. In that regard it's about time.
With this latest move, however, Goodell reinforces a common belief that the NFL stands for No Fun League. It also displays just how petty the league can be.
Yes, there's a new sheriff in town and it looks, in this instance, that he's wearing a tin badge.
April 20th, 2007 at 8:46 am
It's about time that the NFL cracks down on these spoiled brats. Now if the same happened in college before coming into the NFL this would be a better sport. All sports have their malcontents and most are delt with accordingly but these past few years the players are starting to look like their pictures should be in the Post Office instead of Sports Illustrated.
April 20th, 2007 at 7:44 pm
Yes, you can equate wearing the hat of an unsanctioned sponsor with involvement in a shooting in a Las Vegas strip club. I see the logic completely…Ummm yeah.
April 25th, 2007 at 7:36 am
URLACHER'S CAP: DO YOUR HOMEWORK…THERE ARE SET FINES FOR WEAR OF NON- APPROVED CLOTHING SAME AS THERE IS FOR OFFSIDES. THE FINES ARE GREATER FOR PLAYOFFS AND SUPER BOWL. HE KNEW HE WAS GOING TO BE FINED. DID YOU FIND OUT WHAT HE WAS PAID TO WEAR THE CAP?
April 26th, 2007 at 10:51 am
Please. He knew he would be fined. And yes, the fine was "excessive."
But let's get real. Common sense says it was manufactured and contrived. The company asked him to wear the hat, the company knew he'd be fined, and the company is paying the fine for him. Worth every penny of the $100K in "free" publicity, and then some. Everybody wins.
There's no tin badges. Just smart businessmen.
April 28th, 2007 at 8:44 am
Ummm…Yes, I know there are fines, but Mr. Olson, you seem to have a completely cynical nature. Your prerogative, of course. It very well may have been inadvertent. As far as what he was paid, he, like many players with the league, have endorsement deals. It very well may have been a mistake. VitaminWater offered to pay Urlacher's fine, but he turned them down. The money was then donated to the United Way in Urlacher's name. So much for cynicism.