I don't know why I find the NFL's personal conduct policy–and lack of outstanding personal conduct–so fascinating. Maybe I view it as a problem that needs to be solved. Maybe it just happens to be what the sports guys are talking about on ESPN Radio. Whatever the reason, I've spent more than a little time pondering how they can fix the problem that they've made for themselves.
One of the challenges they are facing currently is that it appears they have no clearly spelled out guidelines for dealing with players who have been charged with a crime. Drug policy? Fine. But criminal policy? It doesn't look like it. Consequently, they are all over the map when it comes to handing out punishments. Some players can play through the trial until they are convicted. Others, like Adrian Peterson, has to sit down while the trial pans out. And then, even when an official punishment is given from the NFL, they have been wildly inconsistent.
So let me make a few points to help out the NFL, even though no one is asking.
First, focus on crime, not specific crime. Domestic abuse is wrong, and while it's terrible that the NFL had to deal with a couple of players who got caught, it's great that they've funded the PR campaign to end it. It would have been much more effective and genuine had they done it before their players got caught, but hey, you take what you can get.
Here's a better option, though. It's not just domestic abuse. It's all crime. Let's stop picking and choosing which crimes are bad enough to get suspended for and maybe just put a general, "here's what happens if you break the law" clause in their contracts or in the NFL, generally. Let's not wait until there is a public outcry before we do anything about it. Decide that you aren't going to employ criminals, and start from there.
I understand that not all crimes are equal. Take that into consideration. But be clear about what you are really looking for: players who model good citizenship by following the law.
Second, clearly draw the boundaries. Who gets suspended, and when? Is it when they are accused of a crime? Or when they are indicted for a crime? When they are formally convicted? When does the NFL suspension and personal conduct policy kick in?
It certainly needs to be more formal than a simple accusation. Otherwise, you'd have people start making accusations just because they held a grudge. How about a formal, legal indictment? Now maybe we're on to something.
I think the conduct policy should kick in the moment they are formally charged with a crime. We need to respect the legal process and surely we don't want to go beyond it by assuming guilt when there may not be any. On the other hand, I'm perfectly comfortable telling a football player that if they are charged with a crime, they can't come in to work. The commissioners list seems like a reasonable option. The player gets paid, but they are not allowed to play. It is paid leave. The company is asking you not to show up for work while the criminal charges get worked out.
Third, put more pressure on the teams. Make the crime policy so stringent that teams will second guess drafting or signing a player who might potentially break the law. Obviously, you can't always predict when someone will break the law, but knowing that the policy is tight and strict means that, if I know that one of my guys could be ineligible to play football because of his off-the-field activities, I'm either not going to sign that guy, or I'm going to provide him with some life-training while he's a part of my organization so that he doesn't ever get taken off the field because of a stupid decision.
Yes, players need to take responsibility for their own actions and choices, and it's not fair to blame someone else for decisions that they made. But as long as they think that they can get away with it, or that teams will help them cover it up rather than deal with the root of the problem, they are going to keep misbehaving. If you make it so that a football player can't get a deal with a team unless he's living by the rules, you might find that the player in question starts to shape up.
Fourth, be consistent. When you don't have a policy clearly spelled out, you're liable to operate out of fear or popular opinion. Roger Goodell seems to be doing both. After screwing up the Ray Rice punishment by giving him only a two game suspension, he evoked such outrage among the general populous that he went in the extreme opposite direction in the suspension that followed, and then did the same with the suspension of Adrian Peterson. In the case of the latter, he had theoretically already put in place the personal conduct policy which said that the first offense of domestic violence was a six week suspension. Apparently there was some wiggle room in there, but in general, six weeks was what was articulated. Peterson has already functionally served an 8 or 9 week suspension (with pay), and yet, he was further suspended for the rest of the season. (For the record, even if he got "time served" for those 8 or 9 weeks on the commissioners list, he still should have had to pay back a majority of the money that he earned during that time, since he would not have gotten paid the full amount had it been an official suspension.) My issue isn't that the suspensions are or aren't justified, good, bad, or whatever. It's just that they are inconsistent. If a first offense is six weeks, then make it six weeks every time. And if six weeks isn't enough, then change the policy. But don't arbitrarily hand out punishments without the ability to be consistent across the board.
The last thing I'll say is that playing football is a job for these players. As such, they should have very similar workplace employment policies that every other company does. But it's also more than a job. It's a privilege. These guys get to play the game that they love, and get paid a ton of money to do it. Good for them. For me, that sets the bar higher. If you really love this game, and you want the privilege to get paid to do it, that ought to be motivation enough to act like a normal person and not break the law.