1. Welcome to SportsJournalists.com, a friendly forum for discussing all things sports and journalism.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register for a free account to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Access to private conversations with other members.
    • Fewer ads.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

Roger Goodell has had just about enough of Rachel Nichols

Discussion in 'Sports and News' started by LongTimeListener, Jan 30, 2015.

  1. LongTimeListener

    LongTimeListener Well-Known Member

    Roger Goodell’s worst moment of his NFL press conference was when he snapped at Rachel Nichols | For The Win

    She asks about all of the NFL's inherent conflicts of interest. He does what he always does, fumble around with some bullshit and talk about how "impeccable" the integrity of all the investigators is, and then says “Somebody has to pay them Rachel. Unless you’re volunteering, which I don’t think you are, we’ll do that.”

    Jane McManusVerified account‏@janesports
    Did Goodell just mansplain conflict of interest to Rachel Nichols?!
  2. Big Circus

    Big Circus Well-Known Member

    I can't believe I'm saying this (and I know he took a really nasty tone), but isn't he right? If the NFL doesn't pay for the internal investigation, who does?
  3. SnarkShark

    SnarkShark Well-Known Member

    He is, but that doesn't mean he had to hire someone with such close ties to the league in the past. It's skirting the issue.
  4. BitterYoungMatador2

    BitterYoungMatador2 Well-Known Member

    Conversely, I can never get enough of Rachel Nichols.
    JackReacher and EddieM like this.
  5. Big Circus

    Big Circus Well-Known Member

    Can't argue with that.
  6. Vombatus

    Vombatus Well-Known Member

    Skirting the issues with Rachel Nichols. I like it.
  7. Stoney

    Stoney Well-Known Member

    I don't think it is, because Nichols didn't present the question that way. Instead she focused on payment being the source of the conflict, and in that context, Goodell answered exactly right--you can't get good investigators without paying them, and nobody else is offering to foot the bill.

    If Nichols had phrased the question differently--by addressing the prior ties of those chosen--then you could fairly say he skirted the issue she presented. But she didn't.

    I don't really see much wrong with this response. Maybe his tone could've been a bit more respectful. But, content-wise, I think he basically gave the answer the question deserved.
    Last edited: Jan 30, 2015
  8. cranberry

    cranberry Well-Known Member

    Yep. The question was phrased poorly. It wasn't so much that the league hired Ted Wells and Robert Mueller for their investigations. You have to hire someone. It's that neither investigation was done at arm's length, so it's hard for anyone to believe they're independent.

    Wells has worked closely with the league in the past. Mueller's firm, WilmerHale, had also represented the NFL in its DirecTV negotiations and the league is littered with former WilmerHale lawyers. Baseball got similar criticism, deservedly, with the Mitchell Report. George Mitchell had very close ties to the baseball and had previously served on MLB's Blue Ribbon Economics panel.

    The integrity of the process is compromised from the get go.
  9. The Big Ragu

    The Big Ragu Moderator Staff Member

    This is nothing like the conflict of interest of hiring Robert Mueller to do the Ray Rice investigation. In the case of the Rice investigation, Goodell was essentially hiring someone to investigate himself -- that is why it was a conflict of interest. And then he chose someone whose law firm had done a lot of work for the NFL. That doesn't pass any sniff test. It was a total whitewash.

    In this case, you have to really be looking for reasons to criticize Goodell to equate it to that. He was annoyed, and he was maybe a little snippy in his answer, but he's right. SOMEONE has to pay the investigator. So no matter who he got to investigate -- the Pope, the ghost of Gandhi, King Solomon -- you could make that kind of criticism. And it's weak.

    The only reason it's a thing is because now Rachel Nichols has the "tough on Goodell" rep from what she did at the Ray Rice presser. If that had never happened, this wouldn't be getting "Rachel got Goodell again" stories like the one linked to. This is as much of an issue as any time a pro sports league has investigated something related to the sport. Was it an issue then -- for example when Adam Silver investigated Donald Sterling, even though Sterling pays Silver's salary? That kind of conflict is inherent in the job of being a commissioner.
  10. SnarkShark

    SnarkShark Well-Known Member

    Didn't hear the question. Only heard the response. What you said makes sense.
  11. The Big Ragu

    The Big Ragu Moderator Staff Member

    That isn't what she asked, though. She didn't criticize him for hiring Ted Wells. She criticized the fact that he is paying wells and he gets paid by Bob Kraft. To me that is a "well duh." If Goodell was more polished in front of a microphone, he wouldn't have fumbled around with the integrity BS. He'd have pivoted to something else and done it smoothly. The reason he came off the way he did was that he isn't that polished and it really was a "well duh" question. The problem with Mueller was that Goodell was hiring someone to investigate himself. That is not just a subtle difference.
  12. da man

    da man Well-Known Member

    I heard the exchange this afternoon and honestly thought Goodell came away from it far better than Nichols did.
Draft saved Draft deleted

Share This Page