Bucks Cheerleader Sues the Bucks

[MerrittsMustache]

But it's not a personal message. It's a league requirement of all players. There's absolutely nothing personal about it.
And again, I find it highly unlikely the league would choose to address an issue regarding team colors under "personal messages" and not at all under "team colors."

Why do you care SO much that you feel it necessary to argue about the semantics of NFL teams wearing pink?

[Pakuni]

Why do you care SO much that you feel it necessary to argue about the semantics of NFL teams wearing pink?

Why do YOU care SO much that feel it necessary to argue about the semantics of NFL teams wearing pink? Need I remind you that it was you who responded to me in this thread with an argument, not vice-versa.
Why do any of us care about any of this?
It's all meaningless distraction.

[MerrittsMustache]

Why do YOU care SO much that feel it necessary to argue about the semantics of NFL teams wearing pink? Need I remind you that it was you who responded to me in this thread with an argument, not vice-versa.
Why do any of us care about any of this?
It's all meaningless distraction.

Good one 

You made a ridiculous comment about the NFL violating its own rule. I pointed out that you were wrong. You tried it again but were still wrong. I just don't understand what your point is...and I'm not sure you do either. Oh well.

Cheers.

[Pakuni]

Good one 

You made a ridiculous comment about the NFL violating its own rule. I pointed out that you were wrong. You tried it again but were still wrong. I just don't understand what your point is...and I'm not sure you do either. Oh well.

Cheers.

OK, fine. Your claim that the NFL is choosing to govern its team colors rules under "Personal messages" rather than under "Team colors" is the totally logical, credible claim here.
I mean, why would they include rules for team colors under the subsection entitled "Team colors." That would be silly. 

p.s. You saying I'm wrong does not, in fact, make me wrong.

[NavinRJohnson]

OK, fine. Your claim that the NFL is choosing to govern its team colors rules under "Personal messages" rather than under "Team colors" is the totally logical, credible claim here.
I mean, why would they include rules for team colors under the subsection entitled "Team colors." That would be silly. 

p.s. You saying I'm wrong does not, in fact, make me wrong.

So your conclusion is that the NFL is forcing players to violate ITS OWN uniform code, and has not addressed it in some way, perhaps outside of the specific code you cited. Ok, great. Let's assume you are correct and you have a better handle on NFL rules and uniform code, than the multi-billion dollar NFL themselves do. Congratulations. Big day for you. What's the point?

[Pakuni]

So your conclusion is that the NFL is forcing players to violate ITS OWN uniform code, and has not addressed it in some way, perhaps outside of the specific code you cited. Ok, great. Let's assume you are correct and you have a better handle on NFL rules and uniform code, than the multi-billion dollar NFL themselves do. Congratulations. Big day for you. What's the point?

No.
My conclusion is that the NFL enforces its uniform code in an inconsistent, hypocritical, unfair and cynical manner that needlessly punishes players for trying to use their standing to do good.
I find the response that you and others have offered, i.e. "The NFL can do whatever it wants" to be incurious, unnecessarily deferential and lacking. As is your appeal to authority above.
I'm not sure why you guys are searching for some larger point here. There is no larger point here. We're discussing a mostly trivial topic on an Internet message board filled with mostly trivial topics. If you're looking for a larger point and great meaning, you're in the wrong place.

[keefe]

Where's BMA, where's Brad Forester, etc.....I'll hang up and listen

Are those more of your alter egos?

[GGGG]

Except the marketing of the NFL is run by a woman, Dawn Hudson.  She knows her stuff.  As for the "conservative" old men.  Wow, could you paint things with a broader brush?  Some are quite liberal, some are not "old" but I guess that all depends on your definition of old.

At any rate, been in several conversations with Dawn, and she was quite concerned about the impact of these things on the NFL.  The numbers, have allayed her concerns.  Now, that doesn't mean the NFL is just saying no big deal, they certainly aren't.  They aren't stupid and will address them, but the predictions of doom and gloom about the NFL from concussions, to upsetting women (hey, let me try a broad statement here Sultan...most people "offended" by this are liberals, many of them liberal women who never watched the game to begin with), etc, and the numbers don't reflect it.  She's obviously keeping an eye on things as is the rest of the NFL office, but they are very happy campers right now.....which alienates a bunch of people

Even if I believe that you have had "several conversations" with the head of NFL marketing, none of what you are saying has anything to do with what I said.

So....thanks???

[ChicosBailBonds]

Are those more of your alter egos?

Alledgedly.  Some probably think I am Trekyfoil, too, but he's actually dead (RIP).  WW is a bit inconsistent on this, among other examples.

[ChicosBailBonds]

Even if I believe that you have had "several conversations" with the head of NFL marketing, none of what you are saying has anything to do with what I said.

So....thanks???

Actually it does.  You said it is run by a bunch of old, conservative men.  You are not accurate.  Yes, Dawn is a great marketer and a woman, she knows what we is doing.  Yes, I have several connections to her.  She is not only not old, not a man, but also not conservative...neither are some of the owners.

My transition to "at any rate" was to address the perception that the NFL is losing favor with women.  That isn't true. 

And you are welcome.

[ChicosBailBonds]

OK, got it.  Good for them and it's good to know that the NFL doesn't really have a moral compass.  That isn't an indictment per ce, just a statement of fact that they really don't care as long as their numbers continue to stay the same or go up.  That's fine, that's their prerogative as a private organization just don't expect me to be thoroughly disappointed and to bring it up as much as I can.

If they are assuming they can shrug off these types of things continually I think they are setting themselves long term for failure.

Don't have a moral compass?  I think that's a reach.  Look, as we all know with sports and often with life, decisions are made for the more talented than the less talented.  I think it sucks, but it happens.  It happened at Marquette in basketball when I was there, it has happened in the last few years, it happens with the Rams, Cowboys, Lakers, Yankees, Louisville, IBM, Morgan Stanley, Dept of the Treasury, POTUS, etc, etc.   The more talent you have, the more crap you get away with.  That leads to teams bringing on players of questionable character, so on and so forth.

It sucks, it happens.  Not excusing it, just calling it what it is.

There are definitely people over there with a moral compass, at least with my dealings with them over the last 15 years.  That doesn't mean universally that is the case nor are their exceptions.  It's that type of business where the talent is often uneducated or undereducated, phyiscally gifted, have been coddled since they were 10 years old, have women throwing themselves at them at every turn and it does some really goof things to their heads.  And it isn't exclusive to just the NFL.

[ChicosBailBonds]

Once again you are arguing a different argument.  Shifting goalposts.

Stick to the topic at hand.  The question wasn't if the NFL shouldn't run itself how it wants to.  Of course it should.  The argument is *should* it run itself the way it does.  Navin seems to think that if you allow one personal statement, you wouldn't be able to figure out where to draw the line.  Yet I pointed out that another professional sports league doesn't have that problem.

And the popularity of the NFL v. the NBA has little to do with the personal messages the latter allows on its uniforms.  But you know this, but somehow think that popularity equals a trump card of some sort.  That just because it is more popular, it's judgement cannot be questioned.

The NFL is running their league the way they are running it, and with tremendous skill.  They make mistakes like anyone else, they also are the big dog and thus will take many arrows.  Sure, they could run it differently, and they certainly make modifications every year in all sorts of facets from rules, marketing, character development, etc, etc, but there are also realities involved with who some of the players are, their backgrounds, how they were brought up, etc that the NFL nor anyone is is going to change.

And I have news for you, this stuff is happening in spades with the NBA as well, it just doesn't get near the attention or coverage.

[ChicosBailBonds]

Ah, Chicos ... saying someone is wrong doesn't actually make them wrong, you know?
Read the uniform code that I previously linked. It clearly states teams are only allowed to wear their primary colors and white.
Here's the direct quote:
Pursuant to the official colors established for each NFL club in the League Constitution and Bylaws, playing  squads  are  permitted  to  wear  only  those  colors or  a  combination  of  those  colors  for  helmets, jerseys,  pants,  and  stockings;  provided  that  white  is  also  an  available  color  for  jerseys  and  mandatory color  for  the  lower  portion  of  stockings.

Nowhere in the code is there any mention of pink being part of the official uniform for the month of October.
By requiring players to wear pink, the NFL is violating its own code.

No Chuckles, you are just flat wrong on this.  Amazingly wrong, and I'm guessing you will double down on your wrongness all night on this one.

The NFL can also, at its discretion, provide a UNIFORM exception.  Which is what they did to allow pink into the games.  And when the did camo for the military, same thing.  See, the thing is they get to decide, and as long as the policy is UNIFORM (no pun intended) it fits within the guidelines of the league.

You may not like it, you may find it hypocritical, and that is fine.  Nevertheless, they are absolutely within the guidelines to dictate what the uniform policy is and what exceptions exist.   They control the enforcement, thus they control the rules.

For 9/11, the NFL allowed red, white and blue apparel.  That is in their right to do so.  Same with pink, etc.   http://www.nfl.com/news/story/09000d5d8221586c/article/nfl-eases-rules-to-let-players-wear-gear-to-honor-sept-11

[ChicosBailBonds]

Cheerleaders aren't doing it for the money.....status, dating opportunities, better jobs, etc

http://www.bloombergview.com/articles/2014-04-25/nfl-cheerleaders-don-t-do-it-for-the-money

[wadesworld]

Alledgedly.  Some probably think I am Trekyfoil, too, but he's actually dead (RIP).  WW is a bit inconsistent on this, among other examples.

Inconsistent on...what, exactly?

[mu03eng]

Don't have a moral compass?  I think that's a reach.  Look, as we all know with sports and often with life, decisions are made for the more talented than the less talented.  I think it sucks, but it happens.  It happened at Marquette in basketball when I was there, it has happened in the last few years, it happens with the Rams, Cowboys, Lakers, Yankees, Louisville, IBM, Morgan Stanley, Dept of the Treasury, POTUS, etc, etc.   The more talent you have, the more crap you get away with.  That leads to teams bringing on players of questionable character, so on and so forth.

It sucks, it happens.  Not excusing it, just calling it what it is.

There are definitely people over there with a moral compass, at least with my dealings with them over the last 15 years.  That doesn't mean universally that is the case nor are their exceptions.  It's that type of business where the talent is often uneducated or undereducated, phyiscally gifted, have been coddled since they were 10 years old, have women throwing themselves at them at every turn and it does some really goof things to their heads.  And it isn't exclusive to just the NFL.

All the more reason for the NFL leadership to be the adults in the room and make decisions that do more than maximize profit. 

Again I get it, it's a business and they've made their decisions.  As a free marketer I support there ability to do so and face the repercussions(if any) of their decisions.  And as a free marketer I will continue express my displeasure at their decisions in this area.

[GGGG]

Actually it does.  You said it is run by a bunch of old, conservative men.  You are not accurate.  Yes, Dawn is a great marketer and a woman, she knows what we is doing.  Yes, I have several connections to her.  She is not only not old, not a man, but also not conservative...neither are some of the owners.

Hint:  She doesn't "run the NFL."

[warriorchick]

Cheerleaders aren't doing it for the money.....status, dating opportunities, better jobs, etc

http://www.bloombergview.com/articles/2014-04-25/nfl-cheerleaders-don-t-do-it-for-the-money

Doesn't matter.  It still has to pay minimum wage.

[Pakuni]

No Chuckles, you are just flat wrong on this.  Amazingly wrong, and I'm guessing you will double down on your wrongness all night on this one.

The NFL can also, at its discretion, provide a UNIFORM exception.  Which is what they did to allow pink into the games.  And when the did camo for the military, same thing.  See, the thing is they get to decide, and as long as the policy is UNIFORM (no pun intended) it fits within the guidelines of the league.

You may not like it, you may find it hypocritical, and that is fine.  Nevertheless, they are absolutely within the guidelines to dictate what the uniform policy is and what exceptions exist.   They control the enforcement, thus they control the rules.

For 9/11, the NFL allowed red, white and blue apparel.  That is in their right to do so.  Same with pink, etc.   http://www.nfl.com/news/story/09000d5d8221586c/article/nfl-eases-rules-to-let-players-wear-gear-to-honor-sept-11

1. Grow up.
2. Please point out where in the NFL uniform code it states that teams can wear something other than their official, approved colors or white.
3. Still waiting for your list of all the many cheerleader suits that have been lost. You know, since you assured us there were many such cases out there.
Thanks

[brandx]

Doesn't matter.  It still has to pay minimum wage.

If everyone read this the first time you said it, we could have eliminated about 3 pages in this thread.

[warriorchick]

If everyone read this the first time you said it, we could have eliminated about 3 pages in this thread.

Actually, I believe the majority of this thread has to do with whether it was okay to wear pink socks, along with a lot of wienie-waving about who said what.

[GGGG]

Actually, I believe the majority of this thread has to do with whether it was okay to wear pink socks, along with a lot of wienie-waving about who said what.

I take it you're impressed!

[StillAWarrior]

Actually, I believe the majority of this thread has to do with whether it was okay to wear pink socks[random off-topic rants], along with a lot of wienie-waving about who said what.

With this minor modification, you've managed to effectively summarize about 98% of Scoop threads.  The remaining 2% are in-season prediction threads.

[warriorchick]

I take it you're impressed!

What exactly gave you that impression?

[keefe]

What exactly gave you that impression?

The lash marks on my back from waving my Mk 1 Mod 1 4' cold-rolled steel weinie?