I don't think it so much that he isn't liked, it's because he's a cr*ppy ass baby. Cimini wept pissy hissy tears, too. Wah, wah, wah, this little piggy cried all the way home and all that.
The thing with Parcells was when he began coaching the Jets, he already had a reputation and the beat writers had found out from their Giants counterparts how difficult he was to deal with. Mangini is much younger than Parcells was, and has as little coaching experience as Herm had when he debuted here. The press will probably hate Mangini much, much more than they were allowed to with Parcells. We're in for a lot of Sportswriter Temper Tantrums, I think. It will be so much fun!
Rules are rules, and if I was a betting man, I would think that the whole Mickens-getting-fined thing could possibly be a closed-door agreement between Mangini and Ray for the purpose of proving to the media and the players on the team that they mean business with this rule that they have installed. Mickens was brought in as a leader, and if he is fined, I doubt he says another word on the subject... I think he will sit back and eat the fine like a field mentor should. To send the point home.
He was able to use his first amendment right to free speech, and the coach was able to use his first amendent right to free speech to tell him not to. Unfortunately for Mickens, the coach also has the contractual right to fine him for conduct detremental (sp) to the team. I am all for the first amendment. I'm also all for team rules and the coach being the authority. In all honesty, if the player wasn't Mickens who could be helpful helping the young guys, I would have cut him. I never ever said he could not speak. He can speak. However, Mangini also has the right to make the rules he wishes.
BTW, First Amendment Rights are one thing, but if you sign a contract with a corporation, you are subject to their rules of Public Relations. You are contractually obligated to adhere to these rules, or you are subject to fines in pay, termination of employment, probably much more. These guys have been speaking to the media concerning the state of a near-billion-dollar venture... and while public relations does affect the profitability of this kind of corporation, the success of the team comes first, and they are sending that message. Not to mention, there have been many occasions where reporters have gotten more of an emotional response than the player had expected and such a thing results in information spills.
First Amendment issues aside, if Mangini has a gag order in place and Mickens is in jeopardy of losing his job over it, who were those excellent impressionists who fooled me into thinking they were Chad Pennington and Patrick Ramsey talking about the first day of training camp to ESPN? If the print media was banned from talking to the Jets, why aren't the same rules in force for broadcast folks? No other NFL team bars players from talking to print reporters. Not one, including the New England Patriots and the Dallas Cowboys. Maybe Mangini just wanted to start the season with more focus, and will relax the rules as camp goes on. I certainly hope he doesn't take to cutting players for offering table scraps to old friends. His tenure won't be long if he does. I suspect when some of you get over your dislike for certain members of the print media, you'll be less impressed with a hard-line Mangini, especially if his team performs as expected this season.
Well, First Amendment issues WAAAAY aside, because it simply doesn't apply. The First Amendment has absolutely nothing to do with the operation of a private business. None whatsoever.
"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances." Unless Mangini got Congress to pass a bill prohibiting Jets players from speaking to the print media, I think you're right.
Sure it does. If Tannenbaum goes on Mike and the Mad Dog this afternoon and tells the listening audience that Justin McCareins was put on the Physically Unable to Perform list because of a lax work ethic (which he did), gag order or not, JMac has every right under the First Amendment to respond through the media if he feels his professionalism and dedication were maligned. If Mangini cuts Ray Mickens for talking to the press, thus ending his pro career, Mickens would have grounds for a civil suit under First Amendment law. A private enterprise has the burden of proof on them to show an employee's comments to the media were detrimental or injurious to that enterprise. Somehow, I don't think Ray Mickens's lunchtime banter qualifies.
You're dreadfully wrong. We ought not bog-down the board with a debate about what the First Amendment means, but you're mistaking some sort of generic "freedom of speech" for our First Amendment right. As statjeff pointed out, the First Amendment only applies to GOVERNMENTS restricting speech, not private entities. There is no private right for one person to sue another under the First Amendment. You can sue a GOVERNMENT under a civil rights claim, but Eric Mangini isn't the government.
If Eric Mangini was to cut a player for saying hello to the press, I'd rather be that player's lawyer than Mangini's.
Nor would THAT do you any good. NFL players are subject to a collective bargaining agreement. If some player has a problem with the way his coach is treating him, or if he's pissed off about not being able to speak to the press, his remedy is to file a formal grievance under the CBA. That's his ONLY remedy.
Well, I'm through playing lawyer about the First Amendment. Here's what the NFL itself said about media access as recently as last year: http://apse.dallasnews.com/news/2005/072205nflaccess.html Obviously the NFL sees the media as having a beneficial role to play in their private enterprise.
Of course. But that's entirely different from what you were saying. But I'm glad we can put an end to the incorrect portion of this debate.
Ouch! If you want to call official NFL media access policy "entirely different" from the conversation we've been having, there's no more I can say to you. There is such a thing in this country as Freedom Of Speech, first articulated in the First Amendment and elaborated upon with more than two centuries of case law. The NFL understands the press has a job to do, and apparently, so do at least 31 out of its 32 teams. I have nothing more to say about this. I will agree to disagree with you, leave you the last word, and all that. Unlike you and Eric Mangini, I respect your constitutional rights, even to the extent of your calling me an idiot or whatever. I just don't have to agree with what you say.
canizzarro is a pillar of lard. nothing he says is worth listening to and nothing he writes is worth reading. A Herm butt-boy
It's not about having the last word, it's about you continuing to inject Constitutional Law into a situation involving exclusively private rights. We've all explained how it works. There's little more for any of us to say. The League, for its part, has an obvious interest in mandating press access - publicity equates to money. That's why we have such a thing as the NFL Network. Within those mandates, Teams are free to set their own rules, much as the Jets did here. Likewise, I'm done.
What's next? I hope nobody drags out how TO's Constitutional Rights were violated when he got "fired" for running his yap. Yeah, I've actually HEARD that and SEEN that. Can you imagine? Holy Hell, HAH. :lol:
