NFL owners pushing hard for changes after Kareem Hunt case

Numerous owners, league executives believe changes could be coming to how the NFL investigates and punishes players in the aftermath of the latest snafu.

Is the Kareem Hunt case the tipping point that may lead to change this week by the NFL?

There is a growing number of NFL owners and league executives who want to get out of the investigation business. At the league meetings in Irving, Texas, on Wednesday, those owners and executives are expected to discuss the Hunt case and league investigations into player misconduct more generally.

At least one owner said that if he doesn’t hear what he wants to hear, the situation could get very tense.

“We look like idiots because we can’t get it right consistently,” the owner said. “Yeah, some people think this is like Ray Rice because of the video and what happened. That’s BS. It’s not like Ray Rice. It’s worse than Ray Rice because we were supposed to get it right this time.”

The disruption of a season for a team and the tainted view of both the league and the players are byproducts of bad conduct the league knows it can never completely eradicate. Like any industry or institution, the NFL can’t prevent people from getting in trouble. The question is how the league deals with it.

The solution? What the league may advise is that it turn over the investigation process to a third party after reaching some type of agreement with the NFL Players Association on how to best handle the process. The union declined to comment, but has consistently said that it wants a collectively bargained solution to the issue of personal conduct, such as with Hunt.

Whatever is worked out, at least three owners said they want a solution once and for all.

Those owners put much of the blame on NFL Commissioner Roger Goodell and the league’s Vice President for Investigations, Lisa Friel. At the same time, there is an understanding that the league is simply too limited to do the job right.

Or as one league executive put it, the league doesn’t have the investigatory power of law enforcement. It never will. Additionally, the idea that the league should somehow get involved in the process of buying evidence, such as video recordings, is fraught with problems.

Perhaps the biggest is that the league would have no way to protect the sources it purchased evidence from if that evidence led to a lawsuit.

The Hunt case is a perfect example.

The NFL maintains that it followed procedure by reaching out to management of the Metropolitan at the 9 in Cleveland in the aftermath of reports about the February incident at the hotel in which Hunt assaulted a 19-year-old woman. Video shows Hunt shoving her once, pushing another man into her and knocking both her and the man over, and finally kicking the woman as she was on the floor of the hotel hallway.

Hotel management has confirmed that the league asked for the video and was denied the request because the hotel only turns over video to law enforcement in the investigation of a crime. The hotel puts a premium on protecting the confidentiality of its guests.

The NFL maintains that it also asked the Cleveland Police Department for the video, but it was never turned over and it appears the Cleveland police may have botched their own investigation. The department announced last week that it was conducting an internal investigation into the matter.

That put the NFL in a quandary. Media outlet TMZ was able to acquire the video by assuring the source anonymity both from an ethical and contractual standpoint. The NFL can’t offer that type of protection.

Ever. At least that’s the opinion of a league source.

So if the league was to purchase or otherwise get information from a source within a hotel or a police department, for instance, those entities could sue or compel the league to turn over the name of the source.

Along the same lines, the NFL says that it put in multiple requests to speak to the victim and her friend in the Hunt case. So far, both have declined to speak with the league.

That has led to perceptions of inconsistent investigation and, ultimately, punishment of players. Fans, players, coaches and owners have been publicly and privately critical of both how little punishment a player has received (Rice was initially suspended two games) and how much (Elliott served six games after a long court battle). Additionally, the inability to get in front of stories from a public relations standpoint may have hurt the ability of a player to return to the league, such as in Rice’s case.

Or as the owner witheringly admitted: “It’s great to sound like we’re going to do all this work, but then we have no real power … We can’t subpoena anybody and we’re not paying anybody. No way. I’m not going down that road.”

Thus, after nearly 12 years of trying to find solutions to situations like those involving players such as Rice, Hunt, Josh Brown, Ezekiel Elliott, Jameis Winston and Pacman Jones, the league is ready to rethink its position.

The league has come to understand that it garners more criticism for mistakes in this area than it receives credit for its successes. Additionally, the league understands that anything it does is perceived as biased by the public, regardless of the outcome.

Thus, working with the NFLPA to come up with a joint solution and putting a third-party investigator in charge might be the best path. It may be a difficult path because of the relationship between the league and the union. Unlike in 2007, when the late Gene Upshaw ran the NFLPA, the union does not trust the league and vice versa.

At the same time, the league and the union have a common interest to protect the reputation and brand of both the league and the players.

Or as one owner put it: “The league and the players want a solution. We should be able to do this. It’s ridiculous if we can’t.”