Bucks Cheerleader Sues the Bucks

[NavinRJohnson]

A common sense approach to this (instead of zero tolerance) would be easy.  Personal statements that don't stray into politics. 

According to whom? Who's definition of politics?

[Pakuni]

What is the purpose of the NFL?

When has the NFL ever violated its own uniform code?

Every time they tell players to wear pink socks.

[Pakuni]

That's cute and all, but the question remains, do you really want the NFL legislating acceptable uniform code violations on a case by case basis?

The rules already allow for this.
From the NFL Rule Book:

PERSONAL MESSAGES
Article 8

Throughout  the  period  on  game-day  that  a  player  is  vis ible  to  the  stadium  and  television  audience (including in pregame warm-ups, in the bench area, and during postgame interviews in the locker room or on  the  field), players  are prohibited  from  wearing,  displaying,  or  otherwise  conveying  personal  messages either in writing or illustration, unless such message has been approved in advance by the League office.

http://static.nfl.com/static/content/public/image/rulebook/pdfs/8_Rule5_Players_Subs_Equip_GeneralRules.pdf

The rules also specifically ban political messages.

[MerrittsMustache]

According to whom? Who's definition of politics?

Exactly.

What if a player writes "Pro Life" on his eye black. Is that his religious belief or is that political?

[NavinRJohnson]

Every time they tell players to wear pink socks.

Really? They're violating their own uniform code by telling the players to that. That might be one to look up.

[mu03eng]

Chico's did not claim he heard them say " just so I could sleep with their players"; he said they "want to catch a guy".  Huge difference.  Never specifically mentioned players, and "catching a guy" usually means "finding a serious relationship", not answering booty calls.  As a professional sports team cheerleader, I am sure you meet a lot of men you wouldn't normally meet, including those fans in the front rows.

"Catch a guy" in modern vernacular equates to a previous generations "baby momma".  Kayne even wrote a song about it and half of VH1s evening programming is dedicated to reality shows in which women from various pursuits in life had occasion to meet a rich athlete and "catch" them.  So if by serious relationship, you mean that, then yes "catch a guy" refers to a serious relationship.

[mu03eng]

The rules already allow for this.
From the NFL Rule Book:

PERSONAL MESSAGES
Article 8

Throughout  the  period  on  game-day  that  a  player  is  vis ible  to  the  stadium  and  television  audience (including in pregame warm-ups, in the bench area, and during postgame interviews in the locker room or on  the  field), players  are prohibited  from  wearing,  displaying,  or  otherwise  conveying  personal  messages either in writing or illustration, unless such message has been approved in advance by the League office.

http://static.nfl.com/static/content/public/image/rulebook/pdfs/8_Rule5_Players_Subs_Equip_GeneralRules.pdf

The rules also specifically ban political messages.

Here's the question, did these players seek permission before hand?  If they didn't, I get the NFL's position; still bad PR but I get what they are trying to do.  If the players didn't ask, the NFL can pretend they did and let it slide but make sure they do so in the future.

No matter what, the NFL looks dumb with this whole approach given the subject matter.

[NavinRJohnson]

The rules already allow for this.
From the NFL Rule Book:

PERSONAL MESSAGES
Article 8

Throughout  the  period  on  game-day  that  a  player  is  vis ible  to  the  stadium  and  television  audience (including in pregame warm-ups, in the bench area, and during postgame interviews in the locker room or on  the  field), players  are prohibited  from  wearing,  displaying,  or  otherwise  conveying  personal  messages either in writing or illustration, unless such message has been approved in advance by the League office.

http://static.nfl.com/static/content/public/image/rulebook/pdfs/8_Rule5_Players_Subs_Equip_GeneralRules.pdf

The rules also specifically ban political messages.

So what's the problem? Did Deangelo Williams seek pre-approval? I don't know? Do you?

Even if he did, what happens if they say yes to him, but no to someone else who wants to display some other message they think should be ok, even though you and the league may disagree?

I'll ask again, would you condemn the NFL in the same way if they fined Tebow for writing "Pro Life" on his eye black? You may consider it political while Tebow believes it's a deeply held religious sentiment. Is Williams' message more valid or important that Tim tebow's?

[GGGG]

According to whom? Who's definition of politics?

Really it's not that hard.  The NBA allows personal messages on shoes.  Even touts it online.  They don't seem to have a problem.

[MerrittsMustache]

The rules already allow for this.
From the NFL Rule Book:

PERSONAL MESSAGES
Article 8

Throughout  the  period  on  game-day  that  a  player  is  vis ible  to  the  stadium  and  television  audience (including in pregame warm-ups, in the bench area, and during postgame interviews in the locker room or on  the  field), players  are prohibited  from  wearing,  displaying,  or  otherwise  conveying  personal  messages either in writing or illustration, unless such message has been approved in advance by the League office.

http://static.nfl.com/static/content/public/image/rulebook/pdfs/8_Rule5_Players_Subs_Equip_GeneralRules.pdf

The rules also specifically ban political messages.

It's very possible that the league office just rejects all requests. Several years ago, Peyton Manning requested to wear black high tops to honor Johnny Unitas after he died, but the league rejected it. A franchise's greatest QB paying tribute to its second-greatest QB is about as non-controversial as it gets but the league still said no.

[NavinRJohnson]

Really it's not that hard.  The NBA allows personal messages on shoes.  Even touts it online.  They don't seem to have a problem.

That's great for the NBA. The NFL doesn't agree. They seem to be doing just fine.

To that point, there is a real easy solution for those folks who don't like the way the NFL conducts its business, or those who feel the for-profit business is too profit driven. Of course it's much easier and more fun on Sunday's to just bitch about it instead.

[mu03eng]

That's great for the NBA. The NFL doesn't agree. They seem to be doing just fine.

To that point, there is a real easy solution for those folks who don't like the way the NFL conducts its business, or those who feel the for-profit business is too profit driven. Of course it's much easier and more fun on Sunday's to just bitch about it instead.

Ah, I'm sorry, I had thought I was on an internet message board where things like poor PR management could be discussed.  I clearly stumbled into the part of the internet where pointing out poor decisions doesn't belong.

My apologizes good sir.

[Pakuni]

So what's the problem? Did Deangelo Williams seek pre-approval? I don't know? Do you?

Both Gay and Williams asked permission.

Even if he did, what happens if they say yes to him, but no to someone else who wants to display some other message they think should be ok, even though you and the league may disagree?

Not understanding your question.
Is it your contention that if the NFL allows Deangelo Williams to write a tribute to his deceased mother, it's then obligated to allow every player to write whatever they want?
That's silly and wrong. The league rule book clearly states it has discretion here.
My criticism here is of the NFL's stubborn refusal to take these matters on a case-by-case basis because they fear it might affect sponsorship revenues.
I'm OK if they deem some messages/displays inappropriate. My issue is with them deeming every message/display inappropriate, except the ones from which they profit.

I'll ask again, would you condemn the NFL in the same way if they fined Tebow for writing "Pro Life" on his eye black?

Pro Life is a political message and a political stance, and therefore I'd agree with it being barred. One may base their political stance regarding abortion ontheir religious beliefs, but that makes it no less of a political issue.
I suspect you already know this, though.

[GGGG]

That's great for the NBA. The NFL doesn't agree. They seem to be doing just fine.

To that point, there is a real easy solution for those folks who don't like the way the NFL conducts its business, or those who feel the for-profit business is too profit driven. Of course it's much easier and more fun on Sunday's to just bitch about it instead.

Clearly the NFL is doing fine.  That wasn't up for debate.

What we were talking about was exceptions to the uniform code and poor PR decisions that come from its enforcement.

[Pakuni]

It's very possible that the league office just rejects all requests. Several years ago, Peyton Manning requested to wear black high tops to honor Johnny Unitas after he died, but the league rejected it. A franchise's greatest QB paying tribute to its second-greatest QB is about as non-controversial as it gets but the league still said no.

No, they do grant requests.
Just rarely and haphazardly.

[warriorchick]

"Catch a guy" in modern vernacular equates to a previous generations "baby momma".  Kayne even wrote a song about it and half of VH1s evening programming is dedicated to reality shows in which women from various pursuits in life had occasion to meet a rich athlete and "catch" them.  So if by serious relationship, you mean that, then yes "catch a guy" refers to a serious relationship.

Well, if Chico's confirms that any of those women told him that she became an cheerleader to become a player's baby momma, I will withdraw my statement.

[MerrittsMustache]

No, they do grant requests.
Just rarely and haphazardly.

Who has been granted a request?

[Pakuni]

Who has been granted a request?

William Gay.
He was fined for his purple cleats last year. Allowed to wear them this year.

[MerrittsMustache]

William Gay.
He was fined for his purple cleats last year. Allowed to wear them this year.

Nope. He was just fined for them this week.

[Pakuni]

Nope. He was just fined for them this week.

Weird, in that they previously announced they would not fine him.

So, does this make sense to you? Does a league with serious issues regarding domestic violence really need to be seen as coming down hard on a guy who stands on the right side of the issue?

[NavinRJohnson]

Clearly the NFL is doing fine.  That wasn't up for debate.

What we were talking about was exceptions to the uniform code and poor PR decisions that come from its enforcement.

And aside from giving people something to complain about, what is the impact from those "poor PR decisions," financial or otherwise?

[GGGG]

And aside from giving people something to complain about, what is the impact from those "poor PR decisions," financial or otherwise?

Nothing substantial in the short run.  Perhaps in the long run, but who knows?

I think allowing some of the personal messages is a better PR move.

[NavinRJohnson]

Ah, I'm sorry, I had thought I was on an internet message board where things like poor PR management could be discussed.  I clearly stumbled into the part of the internet where pointing out poor decisions doesn't belong.

My apologizes good sir.

Discuss it all you want, but I wasn't aware I was in the section of the Internet, where  defending those same decisions and (likley) logical rationale behind them wasn't allowed.

My bigger question is why do you care about those poor decisions? Who has been negatively affected in any way by the deangleo Williams thing (remember, he made the choice to do it, knowing he would be fined)? What is the negative impact on you or anyone else, that makes you qualified to deem them poor decisions?

If the NFL feels they are avoiding future issues, and ultimately protecting their brand, their on-field product and their revenue streams, are they really poor decisions? You can certainly say you don't like it, and I might even agree with you. You can bitch about it,  but unless you can show me some sort of tangible negative impact on someone or some thing, the NFL's position on this is pretty easy to defend.

[mu03eng]

My bigger question is why do you care about those poor decisions? Who has been negatively affected in any way by the deangleo Williams thing (remember, he made the choice to do it, knowing he would be fined)? What is the negative impact on you or anyone else, that makes you qualified to deem them poor decisions?

If the NFL feels they are avoiding future issues, and ultimately protecting their brand, their on-field product and their revenue streams, are they really poor decisions? You can certainly say you don't like it, and I might even agree with you. You can bitch about it,  but unless you can show me some sort of tangible negative impact on someone or some thing, the NFL's position on this is pretty easy to defend.

I care, and the NFL should care, because they have an opportunity to try and reverse the trend of domestic violence within this country.  As you've pointed, the NFL is a huge revenue monster and very visible within communities and a lot of kids look up to/want to be in the NFL.

Imagine if the NFL really cracked down on domestic violence perpetrators within their control and made it a point of emphasis to eliminate it from their culture?  Do you think that trickles down to the rest of society, especially the next generation of NFL fans?  I do.  Whether that's fair to the NFL or not, I don't care, it's an opportunity for them to participate in society in a positive way.

Right now, on these issues, they continually operate in a negative way within society.

[NavinRJohnson]

Ummmm...we were discussing uniform code violations, not the domestic violence stuff. At least I was. The domestic violence stuff is an entirely different animal. Of course amidst all the feigned indignation, the money keeps flowing like water, so who is really the problem, the NFL, or those of us who fund it? I don't disagree with your assessment of the role they could play.

That said, I don't buy that we can file DV and deangleo Harris eye black both under the broad category of women's issues. Not saying you said that necessarily, I just don't believe one really has anything to do with the other.