17 games for gambling while other plays gotten a lot less for a lot worse. Someone make this make sense.
Even though the NFL is in bed with betting services (to say nothing about a franchise in Las Vegas), it'll be problematic if players are betting on games because they (a) have privileged information about player availability, and (b) might use their connections to encourage other players to shave points or in a worst-case scenario, throw games. These risks become greater when organized criminals have information that can be used to compromise players who are betting with them. "It'd be a shame if you were to lose that $12 million contract because you decided not to work with us on a mutually beneficial wager. Just sayin', is all." At the point that the public accepts players betting on games, there'll be no credibility that the games are any more legit than professional wrestling, with the outcomes determined by something other than competition.
Betting in the sport you play is pretty egregious from a league perspective and ensuring the integrity of the game. There are already all kinds of rumors that the NFL is fixed, if players were allowed to bet on game outcomes, even if it wasn't their own teams... it's a wrap. I'd never watch the sport again. Additional Note: Gambling impacts the entire league. Mostly when players do dumb stuff they just impact themselves and their team.
ROSS SHOULD SELL THE TEAM HE BRIBED A COACH! A rostered NFL player bet on NFL games? Who cares, right?
If the NFL thinks Ross bribed a coach to lose football games, then this should give an indication of how the league will react. That's the one thing they cannot stand for- blemishing the integrity of the game.
I have some experience here with my current company. All sponsorship deals are run through a set department that's pretty independent of the rest of the club. The owner would have some influence there but a coach or a GM would not. Certainly not a player. The business of running a team is completely separate from the football being played on the field. Most executives don't talk football- they talk business and what's best for the club's bottom line. An example would be when you hear "The official <sports drink>, <travel agent>, <whatever> of the NFL." Those companies pay to have their name associated with the league or a team, and it could be low to mid 7 figures depending on the industry. They partner with who pays the most money, plain and simple, as long as it's something that passes legal and has a decent brand image.
Gambling has been a problem for years with the NFL. The whole reason for the injury report is to keep professional gamblers from having insider information that gives them an advantage over the public. The only reason those crooks had the information in the first place is because somebody on the inside gave it to them. That could be a trainer or grounds crew supervisor. Or a coach or player. It becomes a much bigger deal if a player or coach is compromised. And it's a huuuuuge deal if an owner is found to be putting his finger on the scales. It's one thing for Grier to gut the roster in order to accumulate assets. But it's something altogether worse if anybody directly involved with game day can be proven to actively affect the outcome.
After years of mediocrity, no playoff wins and a new coach every 2 years…. The fact that Ross still has supporters is baffling to me..
I think the years’ suspension is more about sending a message than anything else. PS. Not really believing the “it was only $1500” story. That would be like me betting $5 on a game
It won't seem excessive if the punishment for Ross is to sell the team (assuming he's found guilty). I wonder if the punishment for Ridley somehow forces the owners hand to kick Ross from the NFL.
I kind of thought that as well- it's like setting a precedent right before you have a much bigger conversation. The thing to keep in mind though is that Ross doesn't have to be found guilty of anything- this is a billionaire's club and they can vote members out at anytime. The perception of intentionally losing could be enough for them to call a vote based on integrity. Proof doesn't matter since they're voting on someone's character to represent the league. That's essentially what happened in Carolina with the sexual abuse rumors- it all happened quietly behind the scenes. But it also happened quickly as well.
I don't think he has supporters so much as 1) it could be worse and 2) barring death or an owner's vote, the ownership will not change.
For Ross it all comes down to proof. If Flores has something that clearly outlines a payment for losses scheme - like an email, recorded phone message, paper document, etc - that's probably the only case where the NFL/Owners have to act. A witness is a somewhat more interesting case, but it would have to be proven that the witness and Flores both have the same statement and recollection, that it was a very serious offer as opposed to an off-hand comment/joke and that Ross doesn't have a witness who could refute it. The likelihood is that Ross remains, though it certainly puts the onus on the NFL to make a clear judgement.
Given how inconsistent the NFL is when it comes how that organization deals out punishments, I highly doubt it.
For the next year, he's just some random fan like us. Maybe I'll Google him two seasons from now if he makes it back on the field.
In comparing those suspensions, it looks like Ridley was unfairly punished. I would argue that it highlights the NFL’s pathetic record on punishing violent offenders (especially when they are star players). It also shows the league’s main priority - protect the cash flow.
Given the garbage refereeing in the league for at least the last 10 years or so, I'm not convinced that the NFL is any different than WWE.