Jump to content

Appropriate Punishment?


DoubleDecker
 Share

Recommended Posts

4 minutes ago, Bronxville Jets Fan said:

I want to see draft picks forfeited and a draft lottery system implemented.  It’s the only way to truly an end to tanking.

Yeah cause the lottery has really ended tanking in the NBA LOL

Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 minutes ago, Bronxville Jets Fan said:

I want to see draft picks forfeited and a draft lottery system implemented.  It’s the only way to truly an end to tanking.

and you know what will happen? we will be the worst team one year and lose out on a great player by picking 2nd.

a draft lottery will hurt us.

  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 minutes ago, Rhg1084 said:

Yeah cause the lottery has really ended tanking in the NBA LOL

It will create some disincentive to tanking.  But I’m more interested in a lottery because I feel like it would create more intrigue by giving every non-playoff team a shot at the top pick instead of the same cast of characters that somehow never seems to include the Jets even though they’ve had the worst record over the past ten years.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Pats lost a first round pick for spy gate. If the Dolphins get proven guilty you have to figure more than 1 is fair game. Maybe lose both their firsts next year since this probably won’t  get resolved before this draft

  • Upvote 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

19 minutes ago, Rhg1084 said:

Yeah cause the lottery has really ended tanking in the NBA LOL

Yeah the thing is people are so worried about the bottom team (or bottom 2 teams) tanking they ignore the unintended consequence of the fix. Say the top 5 (or the top 10) teams get put into a lottery like the NBA, with the worst team getting the best chance of the top pick. Well now you’re going to get teams tanking to secure that last lottery slot.

So instead of the intent of preventing a 2-win team tanking a game they were probably going to lose anyway, now you may have almost-.500 teams tanking because they can finish 6-10 or even 7-9 and still have a chance at the #1 pick.

I don’t think it’s as commonplace as current news suggests anyway. Too often teams with an easy path to the #1 pick (or the top QB pick if not #1 overall) screwed that up - or came close to doing so - by winning late games in already-hopeless and failed seasons. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, Sperm Edwards said:

Too often teams with an easy path to the #1 pick (or the top QB pick if not #1 overall) screwed that up - or came close to doing so - by winning late games in already-hopeless and failed seasons. 

hmm,, i wonder who that sounds like LOL

  • Upvote 1
  • Haha 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 hours ago, jvill 51 said:

While I doubt there’s any cases that resolve it one way or another, I’m failing to see why there would or should be an exemption for the owner of the team. For one the statute is written broadly and makes no exceptions at all. And second what’s the practical or public policy reason for an exception? Should the head coach also be exempted if he offered the kicker 100 grand to miss a game winning kick? The GM? If the owners buddy put down 2 mill on the game the owner could offer the head coach cash to lose with no legal consequences? Or, like the exact situation here, where the owner also has a sizeable investment in a Sportsbook?

It's not bribery. It's the owner giving an employee a bonus for producing a result he sees as favorable to his franchise.

It would be a different story if it involved gambling. It doesn't do far as I know.

  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 hours ago, jvill 51 said:

 

And here’s the Florida law:

2DE30B68-DDF8-4A9B-A758-45A3D018BF1E.thumb.jpeg.1b0caf3daa1dacb894b5a6a508c79369.jpeg

Again, not seeing anything that would exempt Ross. Besides, ya know, billionaires going to prison not really being a thing we do too often.

Maybe I'm wrong. I think the purpose of the law was probably related to gambling but it doesn't mention it. 

edit: This section of law appears to be directed at public officials

https://www.flsenate.gov/Laws/Statutes/2018/Chapter838/All

I'd like to hear a lawyer break it down because I'm out of my element. My instinct is still that this is just the owner of a franchise giving a bonus to achieve what he feels is best for that franchise and not some kind of bribery.

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 hours ago, Bronxville Jets Fan said:

I want to see draft picks forfeited and a draft lottery system implemented.  It’s the only way to truly an end to tanking.

What happens when the HC of a better team, with a better chance of winning, tanks to secure a lottery spot, along with the crappiest of the crappy still tanking for a better lottery spot?

You could end up with more tanking than people worry about or imagine goes on today, which is surely overblown to begin with.

  • Upvote 1
  • Post of the Week 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 hours ago, doitny said:

so your saying calling someone a racist name is a much lesser allegation then offering to pay an employee to lose games. 

what world are you living in?

plus the NBA was going to have people refuse to play for him unless he sold it. i doubt that happens here.

and Lebron is a god in the NBA . what he says everyone follows. there is no such person in the NFL that can get all the players to refuse to play for Ross.

Uh yes. 

Sterling used a racial slur in his own home in private. I'm not condoning it, but it's much MUCH less of an issue than someone offering hundreds of thousands of dollars to throw football games, then firing the person for not doing so. What Sterling did also isnt illegal as much as it may rub people the wrong way, in fact its protected by something called the first amendment? 

What Ross did is about 1000x worse than that. It is also highly illegal.

How is that even up to debate? What world are YOU living in?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 minutes ago, Sperm Edwards said:

What happens when the HC of a better team, with a better chance of winning, tanks to secure a lottery spot, along with the crappiest of the crappy still tanking for a better lottery spot?

You could end up with more tanking than people worry about or imagine goes on today, which is surely overblown to begin with.

This.

Essentially the blueprint of the NBA. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

20 minutes ago, Sperm Edwards said:

What happens when the HC of a better team, with a better chance of winning, tanks to secure a lottery spot, along with the crappiest of the crappy still tanking for a better lottery spot?

You could end up with more tanking than people worry about or imagine goes on today, which is surely overblown to begin with.

You make it simple. Everyone who doesn't make the playoffs gets one lottery ticket. 

Is anyone tanking for anything in this scenario?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

13 minutes ago, JTJet said:

This.

Essentially the blueprint of the NBA. 

Too few look at the unintended consequences of only considering the desired outcome from those it’s designed to affect, by creating a fix that touches even more people. In this case, I can easily see a lottery making what’s probably an extremely rare problem worse.

A lottery not only adds to the number of teams with a tanking incentive, by adding better teams into that mix of those with tanking opportunities, but further creates the newly-created undesirable effect of lessening parity. If the lottery system works as desired, where the worst team often doesn’t get the best pick (or even a top 2-3 pick)? Now you’re often getting a not-as-terrible team (or perhaps even a not-so-terrible team who just had some key injuries derail an otherwise playoff season) securing the #1 or #2 pick without incurring the costly expense of a trade up, while the clearly-worst team picks after them and perhaps a couple others, too).

  • Post of the Week 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Barry McCockinner said:

It's not bribery. It's the owner giving an employee a bonus for producing a result he sees as favorable to his franchise.

It would be a different story if it involved gambling. It doesn't do far as I know.

 

1 hour ago, Barry McCockinner said:

It's not bribery. It's the owner giving an employee a bonus for producing a result he sees as favorable to his franchise.

It would be a different story if it involved gambling. It doesn't do far as I know.

 

1 hour ago, Barry McCockinner said:

Maybe I'm wrong. I think the purpose of the law was probably related to gambling but it doesn't mention it. 

 

 

That’s his best case if all this is true and he does get charged. I’m sure the main purpose was mob/organized crime/gambling related. But like you said neither statute mentions gambling or any motive at all, and I can think of a few examples where gambling wouldn’t have to come into play and they’d prosecute.

This isn’t an apples to apples to comparison to a typical commercial business, which have their own commercial bribery laws which do mention things like the employer/employee relationship. Sports, or more specifically sports events, are governed differently as it relates to bribery.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Warfish said:

Allegedly did.

Might want to keep that part in mind in your zeal.

Kraft didn't get a tug job from an underaged Asian slave because the tapes don't exist.  He did when they existed.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

15 hours ago, JTJet said:

Loss of entire next draft. 

Next 4 first round picks after. 

100 million dollar fine. 

Forced sale of team. 

Any records wiped from NFL hall of fame during Ross' tenure.

Lol, watch out everyone, tough guy coming thru!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Barry McCockinner said:

Maybe I'm wrong. I think the purpose of the law was probably related to gambling but it doesn't mention it. 

edit: This section of law appears to be directed at public officials

https://www.flsenate.gov/Laws/Statutes/2018/Chapter838/All

I'd like to hear a lawyer break it down because I'm out of my element. My instinct is still that this is just the owner of a franchise giving a bonus to achieve what he feels is best for that franchise and not some kind of bribery.

 

 

The chapter itself deals with the bribery crimes and the misuse of public office crimes, so it is directed at public officials only in the sense that most of the crimes listed relate to bribing a public official or policing public officials’ own behavior. It’s not directed at public officials in the sense that only public officials can commit these crimes, and the chapter also deals with crimes unrelated to public officials like bribery in athletic contests and commercial bribery.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You'd think there should be a federal investigation of this. If teams are tanking games that people are legally betting on. Again if they are willing to tank to get a better draft pick what other reasons would they be willing to tank a game for. It creates "a stench."

Link to comment
Share on other sites

34 minutes ago, JTJet said:

Yes big tough guy. That was the high end argument you realize right? 

Really? So your high end argument isn’t setting all of Miami ablaze and using the corpse ash to make bricks for the new “Tanking Memorial?” 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 minutes ago, Barry McCockinner said:

ok but the law you cited is from a section of Florida law directed at public/government officials. So - I don't know if it's even relevant.

I explained above. It is relevant and is not limited to government officials.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Please link to the rule.
Never doubt me ...

Nfl gambling doctrine ...

From section 2

3. Game Fixing: NFL Personnel shall not throw or fix any NFL game or in any way influence its
outcome, statistics, or score; or otherwise manipulate or attempt to manipulate any other aspect
of any NFL game for a gambling-related purpose. This includes accepting a bribe or otherwise
agreeing to throw, fix or influence a game, as well as failing to report any bribe, offer or attempt
to do so.

4. Best Effort: NFL Personnel must always give their best effort. Failing to give best effort in any
NFL game, or soliciting, encouraging or inducing anyone not to give best effort for a gambling-
related purpose is strictly prohibited.
  • Haha 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

13 minutes ago, Dunnie said:

Never doubt me ...

Nfl gambling doctrine ...

From section 2

3. Game Fixing: NFL Personnel shall not throw or fix any NFL game or in any way influence its
outcome, statistics, or score; or otherwise manipulate or attempt to manipulate any other aspect
of any NFL game for a gambling-related purpose. This includes accepting a bribe or otherwise
agreeing to throw, fix or influence a game, as well as failing to report any bribe, offer or attempt
to do so.

4. Best Effort: NFL Personnel must always give their best effort. Failing to give best effort in any
NFL game, or soliciting, encouraging or inducing anyone not to give best effort for a gambling-
related purpose
is strictly prohibited.

this is about gambling. so far as I know nothing about what has been accused has anything to do with gambling.

if anything - the fact that they specified "for a gambling-related purpose" makes it seem that other purposes could be OK.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

 Share

×
×
  • Create New...