Do player Bans create a league wide competitive disadvantage?

[Kinzu]

Just something that's been floating around in my head lately, but like the topic says do X amount game bans create a competitive disadvantage in the league?

I'm not talking about to the teams the banned players play for either. It's quite obvious it screws those teams over. I'm talking about the other teams that have to play them.

Let's say for instance it's Week 17 and Team A has to beat Team B to make the playoffs or hope Team C losses.

Team A has had no suspensions all year.
Team B had 2 Starters out for a combined 6 games
Team C beat Team B twice while both starters were out.

Team A now has to beat a Team B with their starters back or hope Team C loses because they got the easier matchup against Team B thanks to scheduling and bans that were outside of their control.

Is this really fair to Team A? Where in any of this did they do anything to deserve the harder matchup?

I know already some of you are thinking well what about injuries?
Injuries happen and really nothing can be done to prevent and predict those. Player bans can be predicted and controlled however.

I think the NFL should look into doing away with game bans. The NFL should simply dock guys X amount of paychecks and leave it up to the teams and players if they play or not. The only time the NFL should step in and ban players is for entire seasons. If the NFL hands out a ban the guy is gone for the year.

This would basically mean a guy like Aldon would either have been banned all season or pretty much lost half a years salary while being able to play. Either way honestly seems more fair to the teams on our schedule. They're either playing us with him or not at all providing he's healthy

Guys that screw up mid season? This is honestly where the full season bans start to not work out. These guys have already played several games, but if their actions warrant it you have to still take them out for the year. I'd say the cases for that happening though would be quite extreme, and for the most part you would just see hefty fines docking paychecks.

Biggest problem though is the NFLPA and the players themselves would likely never play under such a system. They can talk about that competitive drive and wanting to win all they want, but at the end of the day money is the biggest factor. If the NFL took away game checks it's very likely the guys wouldn't play anyway. After all why risk injury when you're not getting paid?

The other problem is for some reason the media thinks letting guys play is some type of reward.... personally I'd rather be Tom Brady sitting at home Sunday or at some Fashion Show Sunday night than having 300lb guys trying to take me out on a football field, but hey it's the media and the only world they know is filled with violence and slander so it make sense they would see playing football as a reward.

It's to bad though we can't have a better system. Game bans have always seemed to hurt teams and fans far more than the players. It would likely be a far better form of punishment to make them play for next to nothing. What can you do though? Clearly guys have to be disciplined, but is there a better way?

 

[jayviabay]

I couldn't agree with you more on the fact, that the media and those with envy in their hearts, think you should worship those who rewarded you the opportunity to play in the NFL. Most of the players have worked so hard at being the best since the 1st grade! They want players/society to believe its not the pay off of hard work but the reward of good fortune/luck.

As far as the topic goes, I think if a player actually does something so criminal, he should just be suspended for the year. If its just a minor violation, I think the team should handle it. If they are going to treat the league like a normal work place, who gets suspended that long at any other company?

 

[my2cents]

I think the league imposing punishments for the players' off the field criminal conduct is ridiculous. In no other facet of society do we expect one's employer to "punish" them for actions they commit while not at work, why do we (i.e. the media) expect it in professional sports. Leave it up to the courts (where due process actually exists and isn't some empty catch phrase) and if you don't like the punishment handed down, use the political process to vote our the prosecutors or the legislators who are responsible for the execution or passage of the laws.

 

[dkmightyhammer]

The obvious and simple reason you can't allow teams to mete out punishments is because there would be a huge disparity in punishment from player to player with similar offenses. If you have some shady owner who just wants wins and doesn't care what the public thinks do you really think he'd suspend one or two of his star players if he wasn't forced too? That is why you need an independent 3rd party like the commissioner to set the punishments. If the Seahawks needed two wins to make the playoffs with only 3 games left and let's say Russell Wilson and Bryan Walters both fail HGH tests do you really believe the owner or GM would give them the same penalty?




At the end of the day the only ones to blame are the players themselves anyway. Don't break the rules and the whole thing becomes moot.