This is less about the allure of going undefeated and more about competitive balance. According to Chris Mortensen, the competition committee will look into ways to prevent mediocre teams like the Jets from strolling into the playoffs by facing the Colts' and Bengals' reserves in the final two weeks of the season. The Steelers, Texans, Ravens and anyone else in the AFC who are getting screwed by quirks of the Jets' schedule have every reason to bitch. I have no problem with this.

But I do have a problem with rewarding teams for doing what they should by playing to win. Do we really need to give teams who have clinched byes and division titles extra draft picks? Isn't the whole point of the draft system to increase parity by giving the losing teams a better chance?

This could all be solved by, instead of rewarding coaches who play the game the right way, penalizing those that don't. Got a starter that's not listed on the injury report but still manages to sit for three quarters? Lose a draft pick.

But even that doesn't solve the real issue of teams that are trying to lose, rather than just rest up. Steve Spagnuolo says he's "praying and hoping" for a win, even though a loss guarantees the Rams Ndamukong Suh. Does anyone actually believe this?

Teams like the Rams, Lions, Buccaneers and Chiefs are angling for top draft picks, and they can improve their position only by losing. As it happens, only the Chiefs have a game with playoff implications. But every year someone gets a crucial late-season win because they're up against a team that benefits from losing.

So shouldn't we be disciplining those teams as well? Instead the league is talking only about rewarding the top teams, and penalizing no one. It's a start, but still ass-backward.

NFL To Ask Group For Review [ESPN]
Spagnuolo "Praying And Hoping" For A Win, Not Suh [St. Louis Post-Dispatch]

•It's been a while since we've seen Bruce Pearl use a bit of the ol' magic on the fairer sex, but he more than makes up for it in this undated very old photo of him with his new divan.

•Sorry, golf fans. No refunds on tickets if Tiger doesn't show up for the event. As if Prayad Marksaeng wasn't enough of a draw for your $200.

•Mike Holmgren is reportedly in talks to take over the Browns' football operations. I'm sorry, did I say "take over?" This must be a newly created position, because the Browns don't have any football operations to speak of.

•In an SI poll, the majority of NFL players think Roger Goodell is doing a bang-up job. This means nothing if we're grading on a curve, given his commissioner counterparts.

•I take back everything I said about Tracy McGrady not being a worthy all-star. After three points in eight minutes in his season debut, I'm convinced he could take on the East 1v5 and take them easily.

•••••

That's it from me. The daywalkers will be with you presently.

Goodell, along with NFLPA leader DeMaurice Smith and other people in suits, was grilled by the House Judiciary Committee about all this stuff they've been hearing about "concussions" and "permanent brain damage." The Commish talked a great deal about all the many things the league is doing—rule changes, equipment, etc.—to protect players and that there is "no single issue to which I have devoted as much time and attention." Yet, when the question was put to him directly, Goodell refused to admit that there is a link between head injuries and brain diseases later in life.

That didn't make most of the Representatives happy, especially Maxine Waters, who even broke out the Damocles Sword of the league—threatening to revoke its anti-trust exemption. Even more damning, however, was the testimony of Gay Culverhouse, a former president of the Tampa Bay Buccaneers, who lambasted the league for letting team-employed doctors decide who plays and who doesn't. She called it "inhumane" and said that players are considered "a disposable commodity." That probably stings a bit.

Goodell was sneaky enough in the pocket to avoid getting caught in a moment like the famous shot of tobacco executives testifying that they didn't believe cigarettes cause cancer—but still probably not a great day for the league. Goodell can't admit what everyone already knows, but the time will probably come when he'll no longer have that option.

Goodell Defends NFL to Congress About Concussions [ABC News]
NFL Leaders Testify About Head Injuries [AP Video]

As reported on "NFL Live," the group, led by St. Louis Blues chairman (and ex-Knicks boss) Dave Checketts, has come to the not unreasonable conclusion that the NFL will never allow Limbaugh to buy into their league, even as a minority partner, so if they want to have a successful bid they will have to remove him from their plans. After Commissioner Roger Goodell's statements that he did "not want to see those [divisive] comments coming from people who are in a responsible position in the NFL" that pretty much sealed his fate.

Limbaugh has been fighting back against the "state-run media scum" who he claims are fabricating quotes to smear him and conservatism in general. Of course, as Limbaugh himself clearly understands, the truth of what he did or didn't say is irrelevant. He creates a giant PR headache that the NFL does not want and if Checketts wants to own the Rams, he knows what he has to do.

Limbaugh said this earlier today on his radio show:

"I'm not even thinking of exiting. I'm not even thinking of caving. I am not a caver. None of us are. We have been betrayed by too many who have caved. Pioneers take the arrows. We are pioneers. It's a sad thing but our country over 200 years old now needs pioneers all over again, but we do."

Luckily for Rush, someone else will do the caving for him.

Sources: Rush Limbaugh to be out of bid for St Louis Rams [ESPN]
State-Run Media Scum Smear Rush Using Fabricated Quotes [RushLimbaugh.com]

A brief summary, for those of you not up on your Pro Football Talk: A couple weeks ago, the New York Post spotted Vick nursing a Grey Goose and pineapple shortly after his first workout with the Eagles. Mike Florio pounced, noting that the terms of Vick's reinstatement prohibit the use of drugs and alcohol. This occasioned the Eagles' response yesterday in which they denied that Vick had violated his probation. No matter. People tsk-tsked anyway. "Michael, you can't do that," his mentor, Tony Dungy, told him. And here came Florio, waving around the royal "we" like some sort of sceptre:

Still, at a time when Vick is expected to be "proactive" in his off-field pursuits, we think Vick is taking a huge risk by drinking any alcohol — especially since Eagles owner Jeff Lurie has made it clear that the decision to give Vick a second chance could potentially be reversed at any time.

I don't know what Vick's reinstatement has to do with drinking alcohol, much less fruity adult beverages. Nor do I know what risk a fruity adult beverage might pose, except to Vick's reputation in some quarters as a man perhaps not given to fruity adult beverages. But this is Roger Goodell's NFL. And the fact that this rose to the level of a story in the first place is testimony to Goodell's influence on the culture of the league. This is the same NFL that once upon a time gave us Bachelors III, Raider "Camaraderie," Peter Gent, Semi-Tough and Michael Irvin snorting the Medellin cartel off a stripper's tits, but now is so fully imbued with the infantilizing spirit of its commissioner that a lone vodka and pineapple is deemed, even by normally sensible outsiders, a "huge risk." It's a league of narcs now.

Has Vick already violated the terms of his reinstatement? [PFT]
Eagles respond to Grey Goose report [PFT]
Eagles respond to Vick alcohol report [Philadelphia Inquirer]

This is the second time since Goodell instituted his new "Personal Conduct Policy" back in 2007, that the league has suspended a player for an entire season over a non-football issue. (Adam "Pacman" Jones got the first one.) He can be re-instated after the Super Bowl.

Many critics have complained about the leniency of Stallworth's legal punishment for DUI manslaughter in Florida, but now it's much harder for anyone to say that he got off "easy."

Stallworth suspended without pay for 2009 season [NFL.com]

After half-an-hour, they finally explained what the heck that means. Vick can sign with a team now, he can practice, he can play in preseason games, but he's suspended for the first five weeks of the regular season. He will be able to do everything but play in games. Then he will almost be a real boy again!

Except that Tony Dungy will serve as his personal babysitter, he can't buy an ice cream cone with telling Roger Goodell about it in writing first, and if he slips up even one time ... well, you don't want to know what happens then.

From the letter from Goodell to Vick:

"As I emphasized to you when we met, as I have said in other cases, it is actions that count. I accept that you are sincere when you say that you want to, and will, turn your life around and that you intend to be a positive role model for others. I am prepared to offer you that opportunity. Whether you succeed is entirely in your hands.

"Needless to say, your margin for error is extremely limited. I urge you to take full advantage of the resources available to support you and to dedicate yourself to rebuilding your life and your career. If you do this, the NFL will support you."

No more dog killings. Got it.

[NFL]

Why is that again? Just to be clear, here's a more official statement that ESPN gave to Pro Football Talk:

"At this point, we are not reporting the allegations against Ben Roethlisberger because no criminal complaint has been filed. As far as we know, this is a civil lawsuit that Roethlisberger has yet to address publicly."

The implication is that if there's no criminal action and the athlete himself (or herself) has not publicly commented on it, then ESPN considers it a private matter and not "news." Several readers have already called them on this point, mentioning the Shannon Brown case, the Tony Zendejas case (filed Monday), or the O.J. case, among others. However, in all those instances, ESPN could claim that there was a criminal complaint at least tangentially related to the story. But in all those instances, the story itself was about the civil case. They have also covered many, many purely civil cases like the NFL's current anti-trust fracas, the mess regarding the Dallas Cowboys practice bubble, and—the most glaring of all—the Roberto Alomar "AIDS rumors." It seems pretty clear that they're being selective with their enforcement.

It's also extremely disingenuous to say that Roethlisberger has yet to address the case publicly when an official statement from his lawyer—who is presumably authorized to speak on his behalf—was the very first thing we read about the case. ESPN routinely considers lawyers, agents, and even family members to be valid spokespeople and this is no different.

Athletes, like other celebrities or wealthy individuals, face frivolous lawsuits all the time. So at first glance, a prohibition on covering every complaint that comes down the road would seem reasonable. It doesn't take much, however, for a lawsuit like this to rise above a personal squabble into the realm of real news. Ben Roethlisberger is a national celebrity and a civil lawsuit is a matter of public record. No news organization anywhere would ignore a legitimate story based on the standard ESPN has set for themselves.

Dan Le Batard defended ESPN by saying that it's not being reported by "credible" outlets, which is clearly nonsense. Both of Pittsburgh's major newspapers have covered it. The Associated Press, the wire service that ESPN makes frequent use of, is covering it. Even ABC News, ESPN's parent company, has mentioned it. Roger Goodell, the Commissioner of the damn NFL, has addressed it. If it wasn't a news story before, it is now. There is no journalistic or ethical excuse for ESPN to remain quiet.

So why aren't they covering it? Some have suggested that ESPN is deliberately protecting Roethlisberger to preserve their access—access that could benefit both parties financially. Even if they aren't doing it intentionally, their statement sends a clear signal that as long he personally keeps his mouth shut, this case will never reach the airwaves of the biggest sports network in the world.

Perhaps they know what unleashing the ESPN newshounds would mean—Rachel Nichols doing standups in Lake Tahoe, Ed Werder prowling the streets of Pittsburgh, Chris Mortensen on the phones, Roger Cossack's floating head, Outside The Lines, Sports Reporters, thousands of radio jockeys flooding airwaves—and they aren't prepared to do that yet. It's too bad that not covering a circus just because it's a circus is not an option.

Sooner or later, of course, they won't have any choice. Training camps open soon. What if a reporter asks Ben about it and he says, "No comment." Is that addressing the situation? What if there's a settlement? What if there's no settlement? Would they refuse to cover a civil trial?

ESPN's stance is ultimately untenable and they know it. Caution may have been in order when the story first broke, but we are way past the point when this became newsworthy. They are the only major media outlet not covering it and every minute that goes by where they don't address the issue makes them look increasingly foolish and petty. When they do start reporting on this case, perhaps they can begin by explaining their own silence.

Last word on ESPN's civil lawsuit policy [ProFootballTalk]
Full Complaint against Ben Roethlisberger (Opens in PDF)

Vick is still "indefinitely" suspended by the NFL and with training camps just a few short weeks from opening, no one knows if he'll ever be allowed to play again. Roger Goodell has yet to hook Vick up to his patented Remorse-O-Meter to see if his blood has appropriate levels of Lessons Learned. Then, and only then, will he be reinstated and then maybe some hapless team will give him a contract.

But will it even matter? In other words, after two years off, has football passed him by? There is "no timetable" for a league decision, but if Vick does come back and is just kind of mediocre will anyone remember how he played quarterback before he went to jail? (Hint: Not that amazing.) And will the world ever see another football column written as a fictional conversation between imaginary dogs? These are some remarkable times we live in.

NFL News Feed: Vick Released; NFL Decision Looms [Washington Post]
Mad as a dog about Vick's release? [Fox Sports]

Arizona's Adrian Wilson had a similar hit on Trent Edwards earlier in the year, with two differences—there was no penalty called and Edwards had to leave the game. Wilson got fined $25,000. Chad Greenway, Jared Allen and (more famously) Hines Ward are among those who have also been fined for hits that didn't draw penalties in the game. (Even if maybe they should have.) And now comes the tale of Cincinnati's Andrew Whitworth and Jacksonville’s John Henderson who were each given identical $10,000 fines for fighting, even though the fight started when Withworth was heading back to huddle after getting his helmet ripped off and Henderson attacked him from behind and started gouging his eyes.

The NFL is rightfully concerned about the safety of its players, but its system for dishing out punishment—when, to whom, and for how much money—is so secretive and confusing that players have no idea how to behave on the field anymore, which in some sense makes them less safe. (And pisses them off.) "Any conduct that unnecessarily risks the safety of other players has no role in the game of football and will be disciplined at increased levels," says Godell, except ... isn't simply playing football unsafe? And aren't those hard hits that make all the highlight packages part of what sells the game? Someone please provide a simple explanation of this bloodsport so that I know whether to cheer or shake my head in disapproval the next time a quarterback gets steamrolled after the whistle.

Big hits create bigger confusion these days in NFL [AP/Google]
John Henderson, Dirtiest Player in Football [Sporting News]
Whitworth blasts fine fairness [Cincy Inquirer]

Gangsta players beware: The NFL isn't going to tolerate your confusing finger gestures anymore. The league has stated they'll be cracking down on any "suspicious" hand gestures flashed by players during the game in an effort to eliminate the promotion of gang culture in the league.

Although the NFL has yet to determine what kind of punishment will be handed down to an overly excited wideout who decides to celebrate his touchdown by crooking his fingers to pay homage to the Black Gangster Disciples, league officials have said those individuals will be "dealt with harshly."

Roger Goodell, on to more pressing issues since reviewing the cheerleader footage of Patriots' sideline cameramen, has declared no tolerance for this type of behavior on the field and instituted a crackpot team to, once again, review game films for evidence.

In the LA Times piece, Jaguars receiver Dennis Northcutt brings up a great point — how can you distinguish between a gang sign and personal message to, say, your grandmother? Northcutt says he's never once seen a single gang sign in the NFL in his 9 seasons:

""People have got signs for their kids, signs for their fraternities. How do you differentiate who's really throwing up gang signs?"

"This is a gang sign," he said, touching his index finger to his thumb to form a squished OK sign. "But at the same time, it's a sign for a personnel group."

What's a "personnel group?" Like a temp agency?

This seems like it'll be something some players will have some fun with at the league's expense. Deaf players? Not so much.

Concerned about gang signs, NFL reviews tapes [LA Times]

In a recent interview with me, she was highly critical of the actions of the NFL because she believes it continues to bathe in the glory of her son's patriotic sacrifice while doing little to help the Tillman family find out how Pat died. "I think the [NFL] has not gone out of its way to help," she told me. The league has "exploited Pat, just like the military. ... [It has] a beautiful statue to him at the Cardinals' stadium. I don't know if that's more for us or the [NFL]. I feel like it's more for the league."

I'm not sure what active role the NFL could play in uncovering the truth about Tillman's death. I think we can all agree, however, that it's poor form for Roger Goodell to simply ignore Mary Tillman's letter to him. Come on Roger; if nothing else at least give the impression that you're not a manipulative corporate bastard.

"If this [a death of family member or friend under unclear circumstances] had happened to any one of us," said Mary Tillman, "Pat would have gone through a wall to find out the truth. So, it's the least I can do and the least any one of us can do [to find out how he died.]"

The NFL's Tillman Offense [Los Angeles Times]
'Like He Died Twice:' Mary Tillman's Lonesome Road [The Edge Of Sports]

At meetings schedule for tomorrow, commissioner Roger Goodell is expected to come under some fire from his "bosses" over the perceived failure of the network.

The discussion that could cause the most angst regards the league's cable network, which lost a court ruling in May that allowed Comcast to move the Network from popular programming packages to a less widely distributed tier of sports channels. In the words of one high-ranking team executive: "We're down from being in nine million homes on one network to about 750,000. Frankly, it's embarrassing."

That embarrassment may lead to changes. Chief among those changes could be that the NFL Network will lose the package of Thursday and Saturday games it started broadcasting last year. The network is scheduled to show eight games this season, starting with the Atlanta Falcons playing host to the Indianapolis Colts on Thanksgiving night.

Yeah, whatever, figure it out, people. Some of us out here — you know, the people who are paying for all this — would like to buy your product, if you and the millionaires you're fighting with could just figure out a way to lend us the opportunity. Thanks.

Network Problems [Yahoo! Sports]

After years of being rejected by the competition committee, the Put Radio Receivers In The Helmets To Offset Crowd Noise proposition is being seriously pushed by Goodell. As Foul Balls points out, it's something he has wanted since his very first press conference.

"That's what our game is about: our athletes and coaches playing at the highest possible level and being able to execute their game plans. To some extent right now, I think we are hindering that a little bit, because they come into an opposing stadium and they are not able to put the full offense in, they are not able to run plays in, they are not able to change the plays at the line of scrimmage."

We couldn't agree with Foul Balls more; uh, yeah, duh, Roger. We have very little effect on the games we watch anymore; let us have this one.

Hey, Goodell: BOOOOOOOOOOOOO!!!!!!! [Foul Balls]

Casserly's sound-bite:

No long will [the cheerleaders] be allowed to warm up in front of the visiting team lockerroom or do their stretching in front of the visiting team lockerroom or they can't go in the tunnel! The reason? Some players feel they were being a little distracted.

The Next NFL Scandal: Bootygate!!!! [Foul Balls]