Potential conflicts of interest don’t undermine roles of Jon Runyan, Derrick Brooks in Mike Evans suspension

NFL: SEP 18 Buccaneers at Saints
Getty Images

It’s always important to be aware of the various relationships that can affect the independence of a given decision-maker. As it relates to the one-game suspension imposed on Buccaneers receiver Mike Evans, some have pointed to a pair of potential conflicts of interest.

First, some have suggested that Jon Runyan, the NFL’s V.P. of policy and rules administration, should have recused himself from deciding the issue because his son plays for the Packers, who are the next opponent of the Buccaneers. If the Bucs don’t have Evans, it obviously become easier for Green Bay to win.

This assumes that Runyan makes the call without input. Per the league, Runyan consults with others in the decision-making process. It also overlooks the fact that Runyan’s decision is subject to appeal.

The appeal is handled by a hearing officer jointly appointed and paid by the league and the NFL Players Association. Currently, the two options are Derrick Brooks and James Thrash.

That leads to the second point. Some claim that Brook has recused himself due to his longstanding relationship with the Buccaneers. According to the league, Brooks hasn’t recused himself — and he won’t. The assignment is based on a rotation. If Brooks gets the assignment, then Brooks will handle the appeal.

There will always be factors and circumstances that potentially will influence the various decision-makers. Runyan overlapped with Bucs quarterback Tom Brady at Michigan. Brooks played defense, making him better positioned relate to Saints cornerback Marshon Lattimore, who was wiped out when Evans came out of nowhere to blast Lattimore.

And Thrash was a receiver in the NFL, making him possibly relate to a player who feels compelled to protect his quarterback.

Right or wrong, it’s impossible to eliminate any and all tentacles that could influence a decision. At least the potential biases are open and obvious. The more dangerous biases are the ones that aren’t widely known.

9 responses to “Potential conflicts of interest don’t undermine roles of Jon Runyan, Derrick Brooks in Mike Evans suspension

  1. Take Runyan and Brooks out of the equation.

    Raise repeat offender Evans suspension to 4 games.

    / fin

  2. My understanding is a conflict of interest occurs when you have active financial ties to competing organizations. Former employmenet by a team or being the teammate to an active player is a history; not a conflict. Brooks and Runyan are fine.

  3. This is laughable at best. You think these former players,… now NFL execs will exhibit favoritism in dealing with the Brady Lattimore Evans brawl??? SMH.

  4. Yeah, and Gene Upshaw was a former player who as head of the NFLPA sold his players down the river years ago.
    So naw…they don’t worry about conflicts.

  5. Allowing former players to be judge jury executioner (so to speak) of on field infractions is the only the the thing the NFL does properly .

    This is an excellent model

  6. purplepridepolysemy says:
    September 20, 2022 at 3:27 pm
    Just simplify the entire process and let Tom Brady decide.

    Or just simplify the process and suspend the jerk that whined everyone into this.

Leave a Reply

You must be logged in to leave a comment. Not a member? Register now!

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.