On Friday afternoon, NFL commissioner Roger Goodell tried -- and failed -- to defend the league's initial mishandling of the Ray Rice incident, its lack of transparency in the ensuing months and its ongoing inconsistency in penalizing players for various transgressions. The string of failures since February has resulted in the biggest crisis in NFL history.

The focus has been squarely on Goodell for weeks now. Ever since Rice's release from the Ravens and indefinite suspension by the league on Sept. 8, the story has been less about the troubled running back and more about institutional failure, within the team and the NFL overall. But while most are focusing on Goodell's job security and the future of the league, one must also wonder what's next for Rice.

Last Tuesday, the NFL Players Association filed an appeal on Rice's behalf, contending that the indefinite suspension, following his original two-game suspension, means he is being punished twice for the same offense, a violation of the collective bargaining agreement. Rice was cut by Baltimore, so even if he wins his appeal, he's not guaranteed a return to the league. In fact, it's hard to imagine that any team would be willing to take on the public relations disaster that would accompany signing him this season.

But what about next year? Or even 2016? At 27, the three-time Pro Bowler certainly has a few good years left in his legs. Does he deserve another chance to play in the NFL? Would the league send a more powerful message by banning him for life or by welcoming him back?

Leigh Goodmark, a professor at the University of Maryland School of Law, where she teaches a course called the Gender Violence Clinic, believes in the power of second chances.

"If Rice does the really hard work that's necessary to show that he understands why his behavior is wrong and he shows a real willingness to change, evidence of change and an engagement in the process, then why should we take away his livelihood for the rest of his life?" Goodmark said. "Depriving his wife and his child and him of his livelihood for the rest of his life seems a pretty severe penalty without giving any opportunity for redemption. It's a 'Hate the sin, at least have hope for the sinner' thing."

Goodmark strongly disagrees with the zero-tolerance "one-and-done" policy that a group of female senators has urged the NFL to adopt in cases of domestic violence.

"I think what that does is to create a complete disincentive for any player's wife or girlfriend who has been abused to come forward," she said. "Particularly if she's interested in continuing the relationship but trying to get help to stop the abuse. ... As a practical matter, it cuts off avenues for help for people who are willing to deal with their issues, and for the wives and girlfriends of players who might find that it's actually much more dangerous for them if they cut their partners off from any livelihood or opportunity to continue in the NFL.

"You have to see if at least there's a possibility for change," Goodmark said. "And people will disappoint you and then everyone will point fingers and say, 'See, you never should've given him a second chance,' but maybe some people won't [disappoint you]. Maybe they'll change and they'll become part of the community of accountability that spreads the message within the NFL that says this is not how we do business here."

"Maybe," Goodmark said, "they'll be like Brandon Marshall."