I haven't written an article in a while -- months -- but with this National Anthem "Protesting" having legs, I thought it was time to chime in, put my cards on the table, and explain my position...about as non-politically myself as possible, but politics are at the heart of the matter, so I'll do my best. I typically pen lengthy articles, and this subject has many facets, so strap yourself in. Here goes:
The Players have No "Right to Protest"
This much is 100% dead-on accurate, and absolutely zero "wiggle-room" exists on this one.
First, let me back up for a little bit of context. The VAST majority of "NFL protesters" are very young men. The axiom about football is "Football is a young man's game." It's true for a number of reasons, but mainly, you need athletes at peak condition, and the Human body physically "peaks" somewhere in your early 20's, normally, and begins a slow but steady, irreparable march downhill starting at about age 30. Maybe a little earlier for some or a little later for others, but being 50 myself, I can say it does happen. My 20/6 eyesight in my teens, while still decent, isn't anything like that anymore and, of course, I hit 47 -- the age at which nearly everyone needs reading glasses due to the hardening over time of the lens of the eye...the 4 strong muscles that surround the tissue can no longer force the lens into the precise shape it needs to be in to focus light at short distances.
Therefore, it stands to reason that NFL PLAYERS are going to have to be quite young. Younger people heal faster, for another thing, and the NFL is a collision sport. This isn't MLB where you sometimes see fellas play into their 40's. In the NFL, you've got Tom Brady and...perhaps a kicker like Adam Vinatieri but that's really about it for the elder statesmen.
So, we have a ton of 20-somethings (mostly - a few in their early 30's) who are "the kneelers." Given the circumstances and my benefit of being twice their ages and have much more life experience, I'm probably "wiser" than most of these kids. With age cometh wisdom. Okay, so I'm no Biblical Solomon, but you don't have to be to see these kids are wrong on some basic things...such as "rights."
No "Right to Free Speech" Exists at Work
That's where I was going when I had to back up for context above. The First Amendment (and ALL Amendments, for that matter) protects the individual's rights from GOVERNMENT interference - not your employer's. NO rights are 100% absolute. If you doubt me, show up at work tomorrow packing heat (2nd Amendment "rights") and see how your boss reacts. Go ahead. You'll have plennnnnnnttyyy of time to leave a comment below as to the outcome of THAT deal, so DO let us know.
Same for the First Amendment. These players are not on their own time, but engaged in business and compensated for their time QUITE WELL. For a little more context, I have an undergraduate degree from Auburn University in International Business and have held a job or five over my life, so I do know a few facts here.
For instance, I learned (in school) something that should be obvious. The Chevy Nova was once a popular car in the USA, but it just would not sell in Mexico. Why? Here's where the "International" part of my business education comes in: "Nova" in Spanish means "no go." Why on God's Green Earth would ANYBODY buy a car that's labeled "no go?" It'd be akin to buying a Tesla "Electrocuter" or Ford "StrandsU." Hardly "catchy names," and labels matter.
What people don't seem to understand, and what's completely lost on the players (understandable) and Commissioner Roger Goodell (baffling that HE doesn't know - I think he does, however), is that, when you are being compensated to do a job for a third party, there are annoying things like contracts involved that outline your job duties...not only what you can do and what's expected of you to do, but things you're banned from doing. I've had to sign pre-employment papers in the past saying I would not bring a firearm to work; if I do so, it's grounds for immediate termination.
So much for "rights," eh? And I've never worked for the government, just to be clear...at least not directly. I did pay my taxes, so we ALL work for the government INdirectly.
I'm pretty sure no player has a contract that tells them to defile the flag, nation, or national anthem in it.
Now...if someone from the GOVERNMENT came in while you're working, demanding info or whatnot taking away from your job's duties, there's the 5th Amendment -- the right NOT to exercise your 1st Amendment rights -- to fall back on. No government can punish you for that and that, alone, period. Ask former IRS employee Lois Lerner about that one. All she could do was delete emails. You can file that away for another female former government official's situation we're all aware of.
Your boss can fire you anytime they want, however, and for any reason. Players in the NFL get cut all the time. It's certainly no secret. At work, and indeed in all of life, words have consequences. All the First Amendment does is, with very few restrictions, keep the government off your back for opening your mouth. That's really all it is. Your rights end where they begin to infringe on the rights of someone else, so nothing is absolute there, either.
How many fans would be cheering to see the Dallas Cowboys wearing actual, real, loaded six-guns on their hips for games? "It's their RIGHT!" No. It is not. I'm a 2nd Amendment enthusiast myself, and even I know where the lines are...generally speaking. I'm not an attorney, but I don't need to be one to know some basic facts. Neither do you.
If I were attacked and shot (again, I mean), and if I had a firearm and fought back, it doesn't matter if the people attacking me are members of ISIS -- I'm still 100% responsible for each and every round I send downrange. If I miss, and hit someone innocent, I'm responsible for it and would almost certainly face prosecution for it, even if it might be something as small as "3rd-degree assault" or something. I fired the round; I'm responsible for my own actions.
"Freedom of Speech" does not mean "Freedom from Consequences"
I touched on this above, but need to expand on the concept a bit more. Let's just say the ignorant ones among us were right and the players DO have the "Right to Free Speech" at work. Any "Player conduct policies" are being held in abeyance whether league-wide or per player contract -- whatever the individual case may be.
The fact remains that you cannot dictate the reactions of other people to whatever it is you're saying or doing. It's THEIR right to disagree with your OPINION...and that's all the kneelers are doing...expressing their OPINIONS, albeit in an almost comically clueless fashion as I can think of. The rest of this article should shed some light on what I'm talking about.
You see, most people tune in to the NFL to *GASP!* watch a ball game! Imagine the concept! They get hit with politics day and night, on the news all the time, and even at their OWN workplaces with employer mandates that they might not agree with. I've been there, done that, and quietly gone looking to change employers while holding down jobs that morphed into something I didn't enjoy.
The consequences of the kneelers' actions are, thus far, to further divide the nation and more to the point, the NFL's fan base to the point that about a third have abandoned the game.
Players will Eventually Pay for their Deeds -- Literally
Let's face it. We've all seen the pictures on the internet of the half-empty stands at NFL games, and each empty seat represents more than just lost ticket revenue. It means no vendor sales, no merchandise sales, no money exchanging hands at the stadium at ALL -- you can't if you're not there!
Factor in the poor souls who pre-purchased season tickets, and the stands would be even emptier -- a sure sign to look at for 2018 for sure. I'll bet NFL season ticket sales NEXT season will decline sharply...making the NFL's financial and optical problems even deeper.
So, as I indicated, "business is down," it's down sharply, and players and owners are almost at each other's throats. Any sense of "league unity" went out the window with Colin Kaepernick last season and has been further rammed home by the growing numbers of "protesters" this year. In short, whatever "side" you're on, you have to admit the NFL looks like a train wreck right now, and that's precisely because, these days, that's exactly what it is.
I don't blame the players, ironically, at least not much because of their youth and ignorance of the "ways of the world." You see, NFL fans are as diverse as America's people, because that's who 95% of the fan base IS. One could argue that the NFL's fan base is even MORE diverse than America itself, because of the small but slowly-growing contingent of foreign fans. Add in the factor that many NFL athletes, while working hard at their craft growing up, I'm sure, have been coddled and protected by a lot of people and their life experiences differ from those of average people...even other people of their own skin color, in many ways.
Out of the fan-base, there is obviously a large subset who both watch the NFL to "get away from politics" (like me) and who put their country above some silly game (like me). These are the fans who feel ripped off, angry, and are "protesting" in our own way -- by not watching live games or buying any merchandise.
And the blame lies squarely at the feet of Roger Goodell and his continued "support" of nonexistent "rights."
Roger Goodell is not a Businessman but Another Politician that needs to be Replaced
It's funny...it wasn't all that long ago when I saw an interview with Goodell about his job:
Question: "Mr. Commissioner, what's your number one priority?"
Goodell's answer: "To protect the [NFL] shield."
Need I continue? He's blown it right there, and he's confessed his sins.
Uh-oh...that interview was before all this "protesting."
Goodell's job, frankly, is to "be the adult in the room" and to "save the players from themselves," where possible. Yet, his own history with the NFL is replete with examples of him getting things wrong the first time...and sometimes the second or third as well.
Does the name Ray Rice ring a bell? His fist sure did -- on his spouse's jaw in the elevator. It wasn't until the video was made PUBLIC that Goodell reversed course. Really makes one wonder if he knew about it beforehand. Wouldn't surprise me if he did, frankly, and it doesn't exactly elevate (no pun intended) my own opinion of him or his honesty.
The entire Ray Rice deal looked very similar to (pick a given disgraced politician) lying through his or her teeth while denying accusations of wrongdoing. Then, "irrefutable video evidence" (notice what I did here, with "instant replay" in mind?) points to the contrary. THEN and ONLY THEN, did Goodell come out with a "Mea Culpa" act of his own, FINALLY got things right due to public pressure alone, and showed he's no leader. I'm not lying when I say I could have easily handled that situation a lot better than ole Rodge did, and he's making upwards of $40 million a year -- or, about twice what the highest-paid NFL player makes in an average season....the Great Kirk Cousins being an exception who had immense leverage over his employer. So, Goodell's own money wasn't directly at risk for Doing the Right Thing and makes me wonder about the man's morals (or lack thereof).
Goodell made the Wrong Choice on a Yes or No Question
Here's the choice: One, let the protesting continue and potentially tear the league apart from within (sound familiar, anyone? Read Saul Alinsky. For the record, I have and it's eerily similar in tactics). Two, stamp out the "protesting" early, minimizing damage to "the shield" -- you know, that pesky thing whose JOB it is of Goodell's to PROTECT, by Goodell's own words -- and showing the fans that THEY come first.
In fact, it IS the fans that should come first. We pay the bills. Back in 1994 (I think was the exact year but not certain; someone can look it up I'm sure) when a player strike cancelled the World Series, I saw it as a fight between millionaires who are handsomely paid for playing a game and their billionaire owners, who took the risk and bought the team for more than any given single player will make in their lifetimes, but the owners had the money to PUT at risk. I had no sympathy for either "side," and with the fans losing out because of it, as well as owners' flippant "Oh, they'll (the fans) will be back" response, I said "The HELL with YOU! THIS fan won't!"
Since then, I've watched all of TWO MLB games (in 23 years, by my accounting), both World Series games, and only then because much of my family lives in Texas and the Texas Rangers were IN the World Series. I re-started watching MLB only with THIS year's World Series, which is already reaching top-ten, if not top-five in history for dramatic games in a World Series. Look at Games Two and Five in particular, but I digress.
My point here is that Goodell's correct choice was blatantly obvious and he got it wrong yet again. You're seeing the results of his decision with the empty seats, declining revenue, and the fact that the NFL's popularity ratings have taken quite a hit. The NFL's on-field play has taken a back seat in the headlines to their off-field antics. That's business suicide. Have a look at several links to drive the point home, and clicking on one will open the link in a new tab so you don't lose your place here:
It's harder to find crises that Goodell handled RIGHT than he has wrong for sure, but the protesting reaches much wider and further than ever, and is going to be the hardest one to reverse, correct, and recover from. So far, no signs of any of those things happening. If you're supposed to "never let a crisis go to waste," Goodell is certainly wasting the NFL's name with every crisis that comes up, and this one is the biggest one he has faced so far.
When the "protesting" began, Goodell basically had two choices: to let them continue or put an end to the (relatively small) fire that started when Colin Kaepernick started taking a knee in early 2016. I, for one, figured "Oh, it's San Francisco and they're weird," and let it slide at the time. Apologies to anyone in San Fran that I might have "offended," but I'm just stating what the majority of non-Californians think of when "San Francisco Politics" comes to mind. Nancy Pelosi. Your city, your choice of representation. Nobody has to like it but her constituents. Enough said there.
What he should have done, after the very first "protest," is issue a memo stating something like "As of the date on this memo, ALL uniformed players on the field WILL STAND for the national anthem or forfeit their game checks back to their team's owner, who can then use that money however he or she sees fit as you will be forfeiting it by your willful disregard for NFL policy. Kneeling or gesturing during the anthem will also result in an immediate one-game suspension starting the day the moment the kneeling takes place, and you will be escorted off the field by local law enforcement. These will be the consequences for non-compliance. This ruling is final."
That, very likely, would have been just that. Oh sure...there would have been some short-lived cry-babying from a few players and some players get big bonuses early on and while I won't delve into salary cap shenanigans here, I'll just mention that players still COULD kneel AND be paid -- from their bonus money -- but for most players, losing their game checks would put a stop to the idea and if that doesn't, being barred from playing would certainly do it as the player would then be an open liability to have on a crowded 53-man roster on "Any Given Sunday," not to mention being divisive in "team politics" and in the locker room as a result.
But NO.....Goodell is showing his true colors -- that of a politician, not a businessman once again -- by letting the players "exercise their rights." Goodell obviously doesn't even understand what "rights" mean, one would think, but I think he knows exactly what he's doing...as the CEO of a multi-billion dollar industry, he's enabling it to morph into political activism...not football. And it's definitely not what average fans PAY TO SEE!
My own little saying I came up with to make my point is this:
"I tune into the NFL to see players' political views every bit as much as I tune in to the Nightly News to see how fast Andrea Mitchell can run the 40-yard dash."
Okay, you got me. I'd probably tune in ONCE to see it...just for the spectacle. Or what happens when she breaks a heel when running. Or if she can crack the ten-second wall. But it isn't something I'd mark my calendar for or be interested in on any kind of sustained basis. Even Rich Eisen only does it once a year in public. I can't see him sprinting to catch the bus...not with the money HE makes, either.
You see, Goodell has made absolutely no secret about his political allegiances. While I wanted to "keep politics out" as much as possible, since it's a political discussion, some has to be inserted, again, for contextual purposes.
About 8-10 years ago, Right-Wing Mogul Rush Limbaugh wanted to purchase the Minnesota Vikings, but was "blackballed" by Goodell and the NFL. Oh, really? Yep. Why? The only reason I can see is...politics. Goodell spoke of Limbaugh in derogatory (if soft) language, openly joking about him saying things like "You really think we want a guy like HIM owning a team?" The insinuation the NFL only wanted Liberals as owners, but then again this was well after Jerry Jones bought the Cowboys circa 1989, but check me on that.
Hmm. What about Rush Limbaugh's "rights?" The great thing about rights is they apply equally to everyone, in theory, regardless of what's in their bank account or what their political views ARE, so long as you aren't advocating violence or for taking away the legal and legitimate rights of others, for example. To my knowledge, Limbaugh did none of any of that.
Like his politics or hate them, you have to admit Limbaugh has built himself a nice "empire" of his own, being the biggest talk radio draw in the nation and, quite possibly, on the planet. His career survived near-deafness and a resulting addiction to prescription drugs, which he was treated for and he thrives to this day. Limbaugh certainly isn't perfect; he's Human, but if Goodell's going to be consistent, he should "bar" any PLAYERS for life for having similar issues...but with them, he's "understanding."
It's a typical double-standard and none belong in the NFL.
Instead of being a leader, Goodell is a follower. At best, he's "leading from behind." He's allowing these "protests," that truly do offend millions of Americans who love football and country, to continue. Even as clueless as I've felt Goodell was/has been over the years, this astonished me...unless he knows exactly what he's doing; in that case, he's simply an evil man hell-bent on destroying the NFL from within. If that's his goal, well, then I'd say he knows EXACTLY what he's doing. A child could see it coming.
No, "Racism" isn't the Cause but a Trite Excuse Anymore
I've personally found it odd, but these days, not quite so odd that I've received open hatred from fans that still watch the games...and for exercising my OWN rights. Anyone arguing with THIS is really not thinking. I have the RIGHT to watch WHATEVER I WANT at any given time, or not watch TV at all. I have the RIGHT to attend a game or NOT attend a game. This SHOULD go without saying, but apparently, I'm a "racist for not watching the NFL anymore."
I further think it's odd that people like me weren't racists BEFORE we stopped watching, but since the NFL is 70% minorities, oh gosh then, I must BE a racist for putting my country above a small group of minorities OF minorities (the vast majority of "minorities" DO STILL STAND for the anthem, after all) who want to desecrate the flag of the only nation on Earth that makes their "jobs" (playing a game) even POSSIBLE...although there's always the CFL, where players could go play in the bitter cold for 5% of their current salaries. The Miami Dolphins seem to be one of maybe two or three "non-West Coast" teams that seem to have more "kneelers" than the others. I wonder how they'd feel about doing their jobs in Calgary, Alberta, for say $150,000 a year instead of $3,000,000 a year.
If I'm a "racist" now, it stands to reason I was a "racist" then, but why on Earth would a "racist" watch people they think were born inferior to Whites do ANYTHING, let alone spend any money on it? It's just hateful people spewing hate, and then projecting their own hatred onto the targets of their ire.
In even FURTHER irony, the term "racist" is almost always misused. "Racism" refers to people who think a given "race" is BORN inferior; "prejudice" is akin to "not liking (insert minority label here) because of skin color or culture." It's simply hard to reason with people who literally do not know what they are talking about, so I rarely even try anymore when I hear the charge being levelled.
Seriously, why would anyone care WHAT I do when an NFL game is being played? Many of these same haters claim "You're not important." In the grand scheme of NFL revenue, that's 100% accurate, for once, but It's my life, my time, my money. So it's MY CHOICE! But it doesn't stop the haters from throwing their own hatred at others, labelling them, and being all-around jerks because others aren't doing what the haters want others to do. If I'm "not important," then why do they bother insulting me and people like me? Again...it makes absolutely zero rational sense.
Hey...welcome to life! Other people get to choose for themselves, just like you do! I personally have nothing against those who continue to watch the NFL games live, purchase gear, or whatever. Their life, their money, their time....THEIR CHOICE! Live and let live.
Folks, when you play the Race Card, it means you've already lost your argument. In doing so, you are admitting that you have nothing of substance to use, so you start slinging mud. REAL "adult," people! Makes you sound like a 4-yr-old throwing a tantrum. Stop it; you're only making yourself and, by extension your position on the matter, look even weaker than it already is, and frankly, that's difficult to do nowadays.
NFL Players are Hardly a Glowing Example of "Oppression"
Here's what's baffling me the most: Minorities are "protesting police brutality" I found out, but had to search at the time...for one thing, when you have to "explain what you're protesting," you probably need to re-think your message and the fashion in which you deliver it. People see you disrespecting the flag and the anthem and they're going to get the idea you hate your country. It's called Optics, and the optics here couldn't be worse.
In among all the irony in this is "police brutality focused on blacks" is factually incorrect, as well. It took a BLACK Harvard Professor to PROVE IT!
So, the "Narrative" is not only cloudy, but based in fantasy. And get this...we have Colin Kaepernick whining about "oppression." Okay, let's take a look at the guy:
He's actually bi-racial with a white mother and a black father, biologically speaking. His black father abandoned him and his birth mother before he was born, and his mother, living in penury, gave him up for adoption.
His adopted parents are both white, and by all accounts raised him with the love and care they'd give their own biological child. He likely got a football scholarship to UNLV, so his college was largely covered, although I'm sure his parents sent him money like normal parents of college kids do. While college scholarships pay for tuition and sometimes room and board, they don't pay a stipend: that's a huge no-no and will land a given institution of higher learning on probation for doing so.
Once in the NFL, Kaepernick was promoted to starting QB over a #1 overall draft pick, who happens to be white (Alex Smith), landed a contract worth over $100 million dollars (if all contract clauses were met), and led the team to a Super Bowl defeat in the "Harbaugh Bowl."
Okay, not bad, frankly, but could have been better (had they won). But what happened to Alex Smith? Oh, he went to Kansas City, still starts, and is the top name for NFL MVP halfway through the season.
Meanwhile, Kaepernick can't land a job these days...partly due to his "protesting" and political toxicity, but partly because he's just about as politically clueless himself as they come, bringing unwanted attention to the team that EMPLOYS him. With his track record, I think any sane owner that isn't completely, utterly, and immediately desperate WOULD stay away from him and "collusion" isn't needed with all the data out there for the entire world to see.
Remember his job interview in Miami, Florida? He wore a Fidel Castro T-Shirt there. To the press conference. For EVERYONE to see. He ultimately lost the job to a retired QB who never was "all that" in Jay Cutler, signed for $10 million. Why?
Well, if *I* were up for a gig that pays that kind of money, I'd not be wearing attire that is in any way controversial, for one. Should be a no-brainer, but with Kaepernick....well, he seems to specialize in that sort of thing.
You see, it all goes back to the Bay of Pigs, which happened before Kaepernick was born, true, but it also happened before I was born, and I'm aware of the big-picture issues peculiar to South Florida: Cubans there, even to this day, largely HATE the Democratic Party because of long memories over JFK's abandoning the counter-revolutionaries at....the Bay of Pigs. He did not support these people with promised air cover. Cuba did have some SAMs (Soviet-made Surface-to-Air Missiles), but Cuba certainly couldn't even BEGIN to counter U.S. air power....especially when the bases for these aircraft were a mere 100 miles away and had PLENTY of time and range to loiter, shoot/strafe/bomb, and return to base for another sortie.
JFK said no, and the counter-revolutionaries were slaughtered, sealing the dark fates of the Cuban people for at least the next half-Century and beyond. The Cuban Expatriates living in South Florida haven't forgotten nor forgiven JFK for it, and since children tend to take on the political views of their parents (at least until adulthood, when they still more often than not don't change significantly in the first place), well, Colin Kaepernick just INSULTED THEM ALL by his choice in attire.
Oopsie. Being completely clueless off the field certainly doesn't help your case as to being a leader on it.
Interestingly enough, he didn't start his "protesting" until he became romantically involved with one Nessa Diab, a so-called "SJW," which tells me Colin himself is rather easily manipulated and a follower, not a leader. BTW, she's the one who as recently as August of this year compared Baltimore Ravens' owner, Steve Bisciotti, to a SLAVE OWNER!
Yep, I recall my American History, all right. Black slaves were paid millions of dollars per slave per year for working four months out of the year, right?
I mention this because it HAD to enter into the discussion in Davie, FL (HQ of the Miami Dolphins) about whether or not to spend $10,000,000 on this guy. For one season. They HAD to be questioning his judgement and leadership qualities. Remember...this is the same team that had one Dan Marino for his entire career. All he did was wind up setting some 50+ career NFL records including all the major individual ones....attempts, completions, total yards passing, career TD passes, the list goes on. Marino and Kaepernick DO have ONE thing in common....a Super Bowl loss. That's pretty much where the comparisons end. And Marino could be considered a "minority" too; he's an Italian-American and they, until recent decades at least, were often wrongly lumped in with "The Mob." BTW, "The Mob" wasn't so much "Italian" but "Sicilian," at THAT!
Compare Marino to some kid who doesn't have the wherewithal to know that Fidel Castro isn't exactly looked up to (understatement) in the community, but wants to be paid bags and bags of money for those very leadership qualities ANY SUCCESSFUL NFL QB needs to have. Their answer was, undoubtedly, that his price tag (and likely at ANY price) was too steep and that he'd simply be a distraction that they could do without, themselves.
So the "racism" cries continue, and Kaepernick is suing the NFL's owners for "collusion" -- a case that he cannot possibly win. As I stated above, "collusion" isn't the problem. Kaepernick need look no further than the mirror.
What Remains is a Hot Mess without a Happy Ending in Sight
Goodell is and has been up for renewal of his OWN contract, ironically, and if not for Jerry Jones, Goodell would likely have already been re-signed without much of an issue. His disdain for Goodell's position on the anthem was certainly public, and recent reports are that Goodell's contract extension has already been completed.
So, the NFL will be stuck with Roger Goodell through 2024. It also means Goodell will have the HIGHLY unenviable job of explaining to the NFLPA as well as the future-current players, during the next Collective Bargaining Agreement, exactly why the NFL "pie has shrunk," why their salaries are going to all DECREASE in future years, and, if he's honest, that they've reaped what they've sown.
If he's BRUTALLY honest, he'll outline his own role in how and why this happened, but if what I see of people anymore is true, he'll try to place the blame anywhere and everywhere but upon himself.
^^^ MARK THOSE WORDS! ^^^
He could have stopped the madness, but refused to do so, offending at least a third of the fan base to the point that they've dropped the NFL almost if not entirely, that "gear" sales are down along with ticket sales, vendor receipts, and all that goes along with having stadia half-full instead of at or near-capacity.
ONE thing I WILL keep close tabs on when the time comes is all the wrangling and excuse-making that will inevitably come about during that next CBA. DO be sure you've got some popcorn around for that one. It'll be a doosie.
Fortunately, for the NFL, Game Six of the World Series won't be until tonight as Monday was a travel day back to Los Angeles. It also means the NFL has no excuses for possibly poor viewership for the MNF battle of Denver at Kansas City. Oh...except for "racism," I mean.
After all, FURTHER alienating fans HAS to be the best way to win them back...right?
That's apparently Roger Goodell's "first take," and if his history is any guide, he has stepped in it yet again. But can the NFL recover?
Possibly, but not for a very long, long time.
-- Ken Dye
The opinions expressed in this article are solely that of the author. CarolinaCatChronicles refrains from endorsing political positions as a website, but does support the open discussion of ideas and author's right to express their viewpoints accordingly.