The title of the story being "Ray Rice Gets A New Job" is misleading as hell and is obviously only there to bait people into clicking, which it worked on me, but he's coaching the 2016 collegiate bowl.

I don't see how anyone could have thought this was a good idea and the people who are in charge of the collegiate bowl should face all sorts of hell for allowing it.

I have to think that he went to them begging for the job, or maybe the NFL went to them and asked them to do it as a favor to Rice so teams would be less afraid to let him be on their team, but that seems doubtful to me.

On the other hand, another former Raven murdered two people and is still a face of ESPN TV, so who knows.

Gotta love an upstanding organization like the one Baltimore has! It's funny to me how they don't face more scrutiny, but I guess winning makes them above criticism.

Ray got a job!

Rice could make a good coach.

Part of coaching is preparing them for the next level, both in terms of skill but also in terms of maturity to handle the fame and money. Rice made a bad decision, one that a guy with a few million dollars in the bank and a career ahead of him shouldn't have made.

If he learned from that, he might be able to impart that on players.

So is anywhere that hires him in the wrong? Is the man supposed to not work again?

(01-26-2016, 12:32 PM)michaelsean Wrote: So is anywhere that hires him in the wrong?  Is the man supposed to not work again?

Honestly with Rice, Vick, whoever...if they are convicted of something heinous (and I know Rice pled and so have others to get a lesser sentence so there is a gray area) they should be banned from the NFL.

Get another job?  Sure!

I believe in second chances!  Go use that college degree and find a job to support your family / lifestyle.

But working/playing in the NFL is a privilege...not a right.



Just my opinion.

(01-26-2016, 12:48 PM)GMDino Wrote: Honestly with Rice, Vick, whoever...if they are convicted of something heinous (and I know Rice pled and so have others to get a lesser sentence so there is a gray area) they should be banned from the NFL.

Get another job?  Sure!

I believe in second chances!  Go use that college degree and find a job to support your family / lifestyle.

But working/playing in the NFL is a privilege...not a right.



Just my opinion.

So where does assault land on this scale?





And now queue the "that's different" narrative.

(01-26-2016, 12:48 PM)GMDino Wrote: Honestly with Rice, Vick, whoever...if they are convicted of something heinous (and I know Rice pled and so have others to get a lesser sentence so there is a gray area) they should be banned from the NFL.

Get another job?  Sure!

I believe in second chances!  Go use that college degree and find a job to support your family / lifestyle.

But working/playing in the NFL is a privilege...not a right.



Just my opinion.

I've never understood why it's considered a privilege.  They earn their way there and have to prove it every year. 

If no team wants to take on that burden, that's up to them, but what industry is it OK for him to work in?

(01-26-2016, 01:03 PM)michaelsean Wrote: I've never understood why it's considered a privilege.  They earn their way there and have to prove it every year. 

If no team wants to take on that burden, that's up to them, but what industry is it OK for him to work in?

Exactly because they "earned" their way there.  if they do something like run a dog fighting ring, or beat their wives and girlfriends they have "earned" their way out too.

Having great athletic ability isn't above criminal activity.

I know it won't happen because I can guarantee if Hernandez is freed someone will sign him within the month!  

As to his future employment?  Well, good luck with that.  Just like everyone else ever convicted of a crime.  

I wouldn't let someone convicted of child molesting work with kids...but they might be great at the parts factory in the next town.

(01-26-2016, 12:55 PM)The Real Deal Wrote: So where does assault land on this scale?





And now queue the "that's different" narrative.

And here we go with "Well...SQUEALLLERESSSSSS!!!?!11!!!"

I said what I said.

Quote:"and I know Rice pled and so have others to get a lesser sentence so there is a gray area"

(01-26-2016, 01:33 PM)GMDino Wrote: And here we go with "Well...SQUEALLLERESSSSSS!!!?!11!!!"

I said what I said.

So if you plead because you're  cornered by a damning surveillance video then that constitutes a "gray area" and thus maybe they shouldn't be banned from the nfl? 

And let's make something clear, the video, that player and you made this about the steelers. I simply presented something that was undeniably relevant to the discussion. Never once did I mention the Pittsburgh Steelers in the post. An unaware passerby would have never known what team he played for. But they absolutely would have understood the point I was making.

(01-26-2016, 01:54 PM)The Real Deal Wrote: So if you plead because you're  cornered by a damning surveillance video then that constitutes a "gray area" and thus maybe they shouldn't be banned from the nfl? 

And let's make something clear, the video, that player and you made this about the steelers. I simply presented something that was undeniably relevant to the discussion. Never once did I mention the Pittsburgh Steelers in the post. An unaware passerby would have never known what team he played for. But they absolutely would have understood the point I was making.

Should I reply with "Bungles" and links to criminal activity for Cincinnati players?

No.

We were talking about Ray Rice.  I made a general statement of criminals being allowed to play in the NFL and you turned into "Squealer fanz wont say Porter bad man!!!1!!1111!!!"

Stop.

I said my point of view was mine, that it won't happen because the league doesn't care and that a hard fast rule wouldn't work anyway becuase of all the gray area from pleas and other circumstances.

Its not a Steelers thing or a Bengals thing or even a Ravens thing...I responded to a question about if Rice should be allowed to have job.

(01-26-2016, 02:17 PM)GMDino Wrote: Should I reply with "Bungles" and links to criminal activity for Cincinnati players?

No.

We were talking about Ray Rice.  I made a general statement of criminals being allowed to play in the NFL and you turned into "Squealer fanz wont say Porter bad man!!!1!!1111!!!"

Stop.

I said my point of view was mine, that it won't happen because the league doesn't care and that a hard fast rule wouldn't work anyway becuase of all the gray area from pleas and other circumstances.

Its not a Steelers thing or a Bengals thing or even a Ravens thing...I responded to a question about if Rice should be allowed to have job.

I honestly think a hard fast rule would work. You either did it or you didn't. In my opinion There is no in between. There is no gray area. They could put together a list of crimes and stand by the punishment outlined. Found guilty you're gone. You plead and accept guilt, okay good for you, but you're gone, as you still committed the crime and thus forfeited your opportunity here.. Found innocent? Good for you, you keep your job.

The bottom line is the league can make any hard fast rules they'd like. They could make it one and done or they could make it a number of strikes policy. Either way it makes players think twice about their actions off the field. Even if it only stops one player from committing a crime, it could be deemed a success.

(01-26-2016, 02:26 PM)rfaulk34 Wrote:

There was no "question" just an attempt to say a Steelers should fall under the same rule.

(01-26-2016, 02:29 PM)The Real Deal Wrote: I honestly think a hard fast rule would work. You either did it or you didn't. In my opinion There  is no in between. There is no gray area. They could put together a list of crimes and stand by the punishment outlined. Found guilty you're gone. You plead and accept guilt, okay good for you, but you're gone, as you still committed the crime and thus forfeited your opportunity here.. Found innocent? Good for you, you keep your job.

The bottom line is the league can make any hard fast rules they'd like. They could make it one and done or they could make it a number of strikes policy. Either way it makes players think twice about their actions off the field. Even if it only stops one player from committing a crime, it could be deemed a success.

I wish there WAS a hard fast rule...I just realize that in today's legistic world it would never fly.  

(01-26-2016, 01:31 PM)GMDino Wrote: Exactly because they "earned" their way there.  if they do something like run a dog fighting ring, or beat their wives and girlfriends they have "earned" their way out too.

Having great athletic ability isn't above criminal activity.

I know it won't happen because I can guarantee if Hernandez is freed someone will sign him within the month!  

As to his future employment?  Well, good luck with that.  Just like everyone else ever convicted of a crime.  

I wouldn't let someone convicted of child molesting work with kids...but they might be great at the parts factory in the next town.

Typical teabagger neo-con.

(01-26-2016, 12:55 PM)The Real Deal Wrote: So where does assault land on this scale?





And now queue the "that's different" narrative.

(01-26-2016, 02:45 PM)GMDino Wrote: There was no "question" just an attempt to say a Steelers should fall under the same rule.

Hmmm. You're right... i don't see a question there anywhere...

(01-26-2016, 04:19 PM)rfaulk34 Wrote: Hmmm. You're right... i don't see a question there anywhere...

Whoa, whoa, whoa. Don't let the facts get in the way of a good story!

(01-26-2016, 12:55 PM)The Real Deal Wrote: So where does assault land on this scale?





And now queue the "that's different" narrative.

What a piece of shit...  At least his dogs didn't kill anybody's pets in the casino.

(01-26-2016, 02:26 PM)rfaulk34 Wrote:

All this time I thought steelers fans favorite thing to do was talk about their history? Tunes change when the light shines on the past in a negative way. Especially when the person in question currently is on their payroll. 

(01-26-2016, 04:19 PM)rfaulk34 Wrote: Hmmm. You're right... i don't see a question there anywhere...

Ok...there was a question mark at the end of a sentence.  But it wasn't really a question...it was a statement about what he hoped was a hypocritical steelers fan.

Cites:

(01-26-2016, 04:42 PM)The Real Deal Wrote: Whoa, whoa, whoa. Don't let the facts get in the way of a good story!

(01-26-2016, 05:01 PM)jason Wrote: What a piece of shit...  At least his dogs didn't kill anybody's pets in the casino.

(01-26-2016, 05:32 PM)The Real Deal Wrote: All this time I thought steelers fans favorite thing to do was talk about their history? Tunes change when the light shines on the past in a negative way. Especially when the person in question currently is on their payroll.