Offical: Santonio Holmes to New York Jets

[joejlitz]

Economics and education have nothing to do with morals. It's perfectly common to learn good morals by the time you reach young adult hood regardless of how much money or how educated you are.

The Beverly Hillbillies can attest to that before Jed struck oil.

[joejlitz]

Economics and education have nothing to do with morals. It's perfectly common to learn good morals by the time you reach young adult hood regardless of how much money or how educated you are.

The Beverly Hillbillies can attest to that before Jed struck oil.

Tiger Woods and Kobe Bryant are two more converse examples of how education and economics have nothing to do with morals.

[steelerfan513]

Economics and education have nothing to do with morals. It's perfectly common to learn good morals by the time you reach young adult hood regardless of how much money or how educated you are.

The Beverly Hillbillies can attest to that before Jed struck oil.

Tiger Woods and Kobe Bryant are two more converse examples of how education and economics have nothing to do with morals.

Perhaps not, but parental upbringing certainly affects morals, and the education and economic situation of parents can seriously affect how their child is brought up. Look at Michael Vick, Michael Oher (for those who have read The Blind Side), James Harrison, Santonio Holmes, and Michael Irvin, to name a few players whose impoverished upbringing definitely impacted the people they became.

And I've never seen the Beverly Hillbillies, but I'm not going to buy a TV show family as an effective counterexample to an argument based in real life.

[joejlitz]

Economics and education have nothing to do with morals. It's perfectly common to learn good morals by the time you reach young adult hood regardless of how much money or how educated you are.

The Beverly Hillbillies can attest to that before Jed struck oil.

Tiger Woods and Kobe Bryant are two more converse examples of how education and economics have nothing to do with morals.

Perhaps not, but parental upbringing certainly affects morals, and the education and economic situation of parents can seriously affect how their child is brought up. Look at Michael Vick, Michael Oher (for those who have read The Blind Side), James Harrison, Santonio Holmes, and Michael Irvin, to name a few players whose impoverished upbringing definitely impacted the people they became.

And I've never seen the Beverly Hillbillies, but I'm not going to buy a TV show family as an effective counterexample to an argument based in real life.

The Hillbillies was a bit of a joke, but the sentiment is true.

More true is the statement I highlighted in RED. It's all about how you are brought up and the decisions YOU (the athlete) make with that experience.

[moochman]

Economics and education have nothing to do with morals. It's perfectly common to learn good morals by the time you reach young adult hood regardless of how much money or how educated you are.

The Beverly Hillbillies can attest to that before Jed struck oil.

Tiger Woods and Kobe Bryant are two more converse examples of how education and economics have nothing to do with morals.

Dude, you directly contradict yourself while illustrating a point you miss altogether. Economics and education have everything to do with societal morays. BTW, Tiger and Kobe are improper examples since they are loved by their corporate sponsors-for the most part-despite their indiscretions. And in part because they are more representative of ownership standards than others, think Kobe vs. Iverson. Who is better liked, the alleged rapist or that tatted AI? Why, do you suppose?
Tiger broke no laws, simply is a despicable husband/father and a sociopath. But still, he is much closer to corporate image than Big Ben or Asmokio Homes.

When I speak of the influence that education and economic status has on an individual, or group of individuals’ morays I speak to a generational effect. Yes an athlete may have gone to a great school and be in an unimaginable tax bracket, but that does not make him well bred. (For the purposes of this argument I will use well bred to mean behaviorally condition in a manner acceptable to ownership, or living a lifestyle morally similar or at least tolerable by ownership.) As a general rule of thumb, it takes generations of families living under conditions beneficial to promoting a way of living, or morays, before they will behave in accordance with established members of that society. It is unrealistic to think that you would be able to take an athlete, in his impulsive and exuberant zenith, from a background that has a different belief system, give him millions of dollars, even more adulation, and not witness a percentage of them to behave in a manner that would embarrass the ownership folk.
The Beverly Hillbillies is a very good analogy. Take their money away and they would be shut out of the society they moved to after Jed went out a’ hunting. The Drysdales (thanks to IMDB) would not have tolerated their backwoods behavior any more than Goodell & Co. tolerate what would be an expected behavior of young, culturally different, suddenly rich, athletes. If the Drysdales’ and Goodell’s didn’t need something for the Clampetts and the Roethlisbergers they would boot them out of their worlds faster than you can say sanctimonious.

[Munboy]

That's some of the best worded babble I've read in awhile...

[steelerfan513]

That's some of the best worded babble I've read in awhile...

Agreed. You're sounding a lot like my sociology professor mooch; your points may not be as well worded, but it's the same message.

Minor, nit-picky spelling point: "moray" is actually spelled "more" but pronounced "moray" if you're referring to the term I think you're referring to.

It's all about how you are brought up and the decisions YOU (the athlete) make with that experience.

True, but the athlete's past life is going to impact how he makes those decisions, especially if he suddenly transitions from one lifestyle to a completely different one, which is often the case for NFL players. A person's upbringing will teach him or her that certain things are okay and certain things aren't. We may have been brought up to think that selling cocaine isn't okay, but people like Santonio Holmes weren't. Even when they're brought into a new culture where it becomes obvious that some of their childhood activities (like dealing drugs) are highly frowned upon, it may not be clear right away that other activities seen as less harmful (such as recreational drug use) are also frowned upon. Those athletes may also have friends who are still living their previous lifestyle and may encourage them to return to it.

[aaawall91]

I believe money doesn't change you but makes you more of what you are.

[joejlitz]

Economics and education have nothing to do with morals. It's perfectly common to learn good morals by the time you reach young adult hood regardless of how much money or how educated you are.

The Beverly Hillbillies can attest to that before Jed struck oil.

Tiger Woods and Kobe Bryant are two more converse examples of how education and economics have nothing to do with morals.

Dude, you directly contradict yourself while illustrating a point you miss altogether. Economics and education have everything to do with societal morays. BTW, Tiger and Kobe are improper examples since they are loved by their corporate sponsors-for the most part-despite their indiscretions. And in part because they are more representative of ownership standards than others, think Kobe vs. Iverson. Who is better liked, the alleged rapist or that tatted AI? Why, do you suppose?
Tiger broke no laws, simply is a despicable husband/father and a sociopath. But still, he is much closer to corporate image than Big Ben or Asmokio Homes.

When I speak of the influence that education and economic status has on an individual, or group of individuals’ morays I speak to a generational effect. Yes an athlete may have gone to a great school and be in an unimaginable tax bracket, but that does not make him well bred. (For the purposes of this argument I will use well bred to mean behaviorally condition in a manner acceptable to ownership, or living a lifestyle morally similar or at least tolerable by ownership.) As a general rule of thumb, it takes generations of families living under conditions beneficial to promoting a way of living, or morays, before they will behave in accordance with established members of that society. It is unrealistic to think that you would be able to take an athlete, in his impulsive and exuberant zenith, from a background that has a different belief system, give him millions of dollars, even more adulation, and not witness a percentage of them to behave in a manner that would embarrass the ownership folk.
The Beverly Hillbillies is a very good analogy. Take their money away and they would be shut out of the society they moved to after Jed went out a’ hunting. The Drysdales (thanks to IMDB) would not have tolerated their backwoods behavior any more than Goodell & Co. tolerate what would be an expected behavior of young, culturally different, suddenly rich, athletes. If the Drysdales’ and Goodell’s didn’t need something for the Clampetts and the Roethlisbergers they would boot them out of their worlds faster than you can say sanctimonious.

How did I contradict myself? My point was that Kobe and Tiger were highly intelligent kids with a great education and they still ended up morally bankrupt. Ref: Ownership in RED. Dude - it ain't what ownership wants. Ownership wants money. To get that, they rely on advertising and public sales. To get that, advertisers and owners must conform to what society wants. If society wanted more drug dealers, spouse abusers, and QBs who stalked women with their manhood exposed, than those players would not be suspended. It is that simple.

The point being that you can't blame the owners and the commish for suspending players. Blame society because that is the standard to which players are being held. Oh - and the law, too.

And I think you guys are being way too easy on these coddled players. A statement like this:

We may have been brought up to think that selling cocaine isn't okay, but people like Santonio Holmes weren't.

just makes me laugh. People like Santonio Holmes? There's a generalization if I ever heard one. Black people? Wide receivers? Right-handed people? What do we know about Holmes background that we can say this? And who that went to high school and college in the 90's and 00's wasn't taught that drugs are bad for you, illegal, and selling them is also illegal? Heck - who without a TV doesn't know that? "People like Santonio Holmes" may have seen drugs sold around them, may have sold them themselves, or maybe their parents sold them out of the home; but don't say they didn't know any better.

As a general rule of thumb, it takes generations of families living under conditions beneficial to promoting a way of living, or morays, before they will behave in accordance with established members of that society.

C'mon Mooch. You just made that up.

[moochman]

Hey Joe, my apologies for mis-reading your intent.

Economics and education have nothing to do with morals. It's perfectly common to learn good morals by the time you reach young adult hood regardless of how much money or how educated you are.

You have to remember that the people we are talking about are not students who have fought to gain an education for the value of said education. Top end athletes are athletes first, student because they have to be. They don't change their behaviorisms as readily because that was not the intent of going to school. Taking it to the next level was. Many athletes come from far different environments, often those that placed little value on advanced education and living within the parameters of the NFL owners society. So it is rare the athlete that can suddenly find themselves surrounded by fame and fortune and keep their wits about them. I don't know that I would have been able to pull off the transition from poor to rich as well as most athletes. So it is no surprise that some fall from grace simply in behaving as they would have before they were wealthy.
But to punish them for this by removing them from the game that can save they and their families future seems too severe and morally wrong. Sure you clean up your league's image, but I feel the league misses on an opportunity to show how they can turn lives around through genuine nurturing of these young athletes instead of heavy hand bannishments that result in turning your back on your employees.

Steelerfan, I did not misspell. I meant that they act like Eels.
Spellin is my worsest. I spell phonicly with an F.