Every day, in civil and criminal cases throughout the country, deals get made to resolve cases. That\u2019s what happened today in the NFL\u2019s in-house justice system.<\/p>\n
Chiefs receiver Rashee Rice faced a September 30 disciplinary hearing. He would have been available to play for at least four games, and possibly (given the appeal process) two or three beyond that. Eventually, he would have gotten a suspension that would have been served during the season.<\/p>\n
His alternative was to do a deal with the league, like former Ravens kicker Justin Tucker did. Resolve the case, accept a suspension, and avoid the uncertainty of an intenal system that the league ultimately controls.<\/p>\n
Why accept six games to start the season? Common sense points to one inescapable conclusion: Rice and his representatives believed that, if they had pushed the process through to a conclusion, he would have gotten more than six games.<\/p>\n
It\u2019s a reasonable conclusion. Even though Judge Sue L. Robinson would have had the first word on the matter, only her factual findings would have been final and binding. The punishment she decided would have been subject to appeal, by either Rice or the league. And the appeal would have gone to the Commissioner or his designee.<\/p>\n
If the message from the league to Rice\u2019s camp was, basically, \u201cIf he doesn\u2019t take six, it\u2019s going to be more than that,\u201d there was good reason to believe it. Because the same entity sending that message controls the process.<\/p>\n