I think you missed the point...my comment was about the phone.That's not the logic of the majority opinion.
I think you missed the point...my comment was about the phone.That's not the logic of the majority opinion.
No, I got it (I was editing). My point is that when you're talking about the arbitrator, all points are about the arbitrator. Phones, science, communications. All about the arbitrator.I think you missed the point...my comment was about the phone.
To the extent that this was an overreaction due to a perceived pass on Spygate, you're absolutely right. If anything, their purported "relationship" and the "Kraft-as-vice-commissioner" illusion cut against them as Roger flexed.This myth is likely a motivating factor for this entire fucking mess. Kraft got used, got a big head, and then got taken down a peg.
That still doesn't relate to my point. I don't think I can get you there, unfortunately.No, I got it (I was editing). My point is that when you're talking about the arbitrator, all points are about the arbitrator. Phones, science, communications. All about the arbitrator.
Pretty sure this is the wrong authority to rely upon.Judge Parker saying that Brady destroying his phone "compromised the integrity of the proceeding"???
Yes, it does. Nothing requires every single corner of an arbitral process to be explicitly stated in the CBA. And even departing from arbitral processes by the arbitrator does not necessarily warrant reversal, given the deference owed the arbitrator. So, the point that you're complaining about (i.e. if the NFL wanted access to the phone, it should have bargained for it, therefore, it could not have reasonably formed the basis for any discipline) does not follow the same logic of the majority opinion (i.e. that if the NFLPA wanted an impartial arbitrator, they should have bargained for one). One isn't even a battle. The other is the whole war.That still doesn't relate to my point. I don't think I can get you there, unfortunately.
0.0000000000000000% chanceI think a lot of pats fans are enraged - a boycott of some kind seems plausible to me.
Edit: worth noting that the threat of a boycott is itself a weapon
If you follow that particular thread back, the poster was referring to boycotting NFL sponsors. Also not going to happen. Those who believe otherwise are underestimating the degree of organization required and overestimating the will of the people on this issue.Boycott what? People are giving up their season tix to a perennial winner? Turning the game off doesn't affect anything.
A boycott probably moves us closer to reopening the possibility of a move to St. Louis than it does any kind of desirable Deflategate outcome.
Yes, if you loved the 2011 lockout, because we're damn well headed for another one.The next round of CBA negotiations ought to be a hoot.
In a game of chess, $1.6m is a measly pawn. However, Brady is the kind of dude that just winning the chess match isn't enough. He's furious over each lost piece. So, he did what he could to save a pawn.I'm sure Brady isn't sweating 1.6 million at this point. Might take some of the sting out of it.
Yes, they were consistently told not to do specifically what they did. They were told that by the other owners, who were committing illegal collusion by saying that. The players had bargained for the uncapped year, expecting it to be truly uncapped. But the owners colluded to enforce an effective cap even in the uncapped year. Just because the owners were able to strongarm the players to avoid the players from bringing any actions on collusion doesn't mean that the Cowboys and Redskins were doing something wrong.Just a quick note: the league approval of the Skins/Cows contracts was as to form, not as to cap implications. They were consistently told not to do specifically what they did, and were never given any assurances there wouldn't be a penalty for those contracts. I think the penalty they got was too harsh, but they are on very different factual grounds than Brady is.
Right. I wish Kessler had been able to argueThe lesson: if your arbitration agreement gives the arbitrator God-like powers, it's very hard to argue that he abused them.
The only solution is to bargain the power away from Rog when the next CBA comes up. The league is more likely to go to the mat on this, so unless the union is willing to go all Norma Rae on this, and walk out, it's not changing.
Goodell is fattening up the disciplinary power card as much as he can, so he can dangle it to bargain for owners' interests in the upcoming CBA. Knowing the NFLPA, they'd fight hell and water over this and get raked over something else.The best one can really hope for is that a lot of players and player union reps are asking 'how the hell did we agree to this?' right now. Change requires the union really focusing on improving the discipline process and being willing to trade things they care about for it
I just love the thought and mention of boycotting sponsors, as if any fan of any other team but the Patriots could care give even a single eff about this suspension.
With the rumors that the NFL was looking to change this a few months ago, I bet this gets resolved well before the CBA expires. The NFL ownership will leverage this to get something substantial they want like and 18 game schedule.Yes, if you loved the 2011 lockout, because we're damn well headed for another one.
It's the Second Circuit court.No statement from Kessler anywhere (and should we expect one)?
Q for dcmissile: You noted that there have only been 10 en banc reviews in the last decade, an average of one per year. How many cases have there been before the 2nd district court in that time?
Thanks. I was asking to try to understand what % of cases get reviewed en banc. If there are thousands of cases heard in the time dcmissile was noting, then the likelihood of en banc review is less than 1%.It's the Second Circuit court.
And thousands.
People need to stop thinking of this case as something special beyond the fact that it gets a lot of press. It's just one of hundreds of cases that the court has in front of it this year; everything from criminal cases to civil cases to bankruptcy issues.
Hogwash, this is the only case of significance happening in America right now.It's the Second Circuit court.
And thousands.
People need to stop thinking of this case as something special beyond the fact that it gets a lot of press. It's just one of hundreds of cases that the court has in front of it this year; everything from criminal cases to civil cases to bankruptcy issues.
I think a sponsorship boycott is the only thing that would actually get the attention of the owners. From a practical standpoint it could be limited to the Boston/New England market and one company (Keep it simple). My suggestion would be to target Anheuser-Busch. Is there a more fungible product than light beers? And since Anheuser-Busch was bought by InBev, a multinational company headquartered in Belgium, the boycott could appeal to patriotism and the idea that the world economy is costing middle-class workers jobs. Seems like a great opportunity for Trump to be the voice of a movement to help out his buddy Tom.Maybe it's a bad idea, but no one is saying the whole country would get involved. Boston/New England market is pretty substantial.
Well, this and the Oregon dudes saying that Oregon isn't part of the United States.Hogwash, this is the only case of significance happening in America right now.
Actually, we concluded there were 8. And according to a reputable source, 27,856 appeals were decided by the Second Circuit on the merits during that period. So en bancs dispositions accounted for less than 3/100 of 1% of the cases decided.No statement from Kessler anywhere (and should we expect one)?
Q for dcmissile: You noted that there have only been 10 en banc reviews in the last decade, an average of one per year. How many cases have there been before the 2nd district court in that time?
When the New England Patriots were penalized first- and fourth-round picks in May 2015 because of Deflategate, the reaction around the league could only be described as massive joy. Fist bumps and high-fives flew inside NFL front offices and locker rooms.
"When they were busted," one front-office executive said, "I thought, 'Good! The league finally caught those cheating douchebags.'"
Based on interviews then and now, this was the consensus sentiment among team executives, coaches and players at the time. The Patriots obviously cheated. Everyone knows they did, and the league got it right.
In the year since, something really strange and unexpected has happened.
I spoke to many of these same sources, 10 interviewed in total, and they now have completely the opposite view. They believe the NFL got the investigation wrong—or mostly wrong—and that the Patriots never cheated. They believe that's the new consensus around the league.
What they say next is even more staggering.
"I hate the Patriots. I despise them," said one NFC team executive, who like everyone else interviewed, asked to remain anonymous for fear of angering the league office. "But they really should get those picks back."
This is the part where you drop your glass of water in shock, and it falls in slow motion toward the floor, like in the movies.
This shift in perception of the Patriots and what they did to deserve the loss of these draft picks—in addition to a $1 million fine and a four-game suspension for Tom Brady, which has since been vacated on appeal and then reinstated upon further appeal—has become one of the biggest stories heading into this draft.
A significant portion of the league now believes the Patriots did not in fact deflate footballs in the 2015 AFC title game against theIndianapolis Colts. And begrudgingly, these people also believe the Patriots should get those picks back.
It seems unbelievable that any team would want the hated Patriots to have their draft picks returned. It's like Tokyo rooting for Godzilla.
The reason, though, is a selfish one. Players, coaches and executives have come to view the Patriots' situation as a referendum on commissioner power. Many of the sources I spoke to used the same word: "railroaded." As in, NFL Commissioner Roger Goodell railroadedthe Patriots. As in, the commissioner used his power unfairly and arbitrarily.
They think, in effect, that what happened to the Patriots could happen to any of them.
It's not that they have sympathy for the Patriots. It's about fear of Goodell's power. If Goodell can punish the most influential franchise in football so harshly based on questionable science and investigations, they wonder, then what does that mean for the rest of us?
Lost in the glee that other teams had seeing the Pats getting taken down after 15 years of kicking everyone's ass.According to this article today by Mike Freeman, teams within the league now believe the consensus throughout the NFL is that the Patriots didn't do anything wrong and that the NFL got the investigation all wrong. Where was this 15 months ago?
Some of us have been saying since DFG broke and even before that the bolded explains everything you need to know. The owners, executives and coaches of 31 teams are incentivized to tear the Pats down because they have won too damn much."A weakened Patriots team," said one general manager, "is good for us."
It's that they believe the Patriots should get them back. They like the idea of it because the Patriots getting their picks back would mean Goodell getting a thumb in his eye.
"The Patriots aren't victims," said another general manager, "but they are a cautionary tale for the rest of the league. They're a reminder the commissioner can do whatever he wants, and there isn't a damn thing any team can do about it."
Yup. Made sure to wait until too little too late. And, of course, it'll just be something new when the Pats go out and win 12 games this year anyway and make it at least to the AFCCG again.Fuck those owners.
They speak out AFTER the courts rule when pressure in the intervening 12 months could have actually made a difference?
Ha, guess we have to settle in and get comfortable while the search for that unicorn goes on.Andrew Perloff @andrewperloff 9m9 minutes ago
"We would need a level-headed and influential team owner to broker that deal." - NFLPA's @GeorgeAtallah on possibility of Brady settlement
I think that pisses me off more than the actual court ruling.Yup. Made sure to wait until too little too late. And, of course, it'll just be something new when the Pats go out and win 12 games this year anyway and make it at least to the AFCCG again.
Otherwise they'd have to explain to their own fans why they're demonstrably worse at running a football team than the Pats. Far easier to imply "Oh they won because they're cheating" instead of facing the fact that they're less competent at the core competition than the Pats.Fuck those owners.
They speak out AFTER the courts rule when pressure in the intervening 12 months could have actually made a difference?
Precisely. And it's not just owners' egos and wrath -- they get key buy in from the executives and coaches who are the objects of that wrath and have careers, long term contracts and millions of dollars to protect.Otherwise they'd have to explain to their own fans why they're demonstrably worse at running a football team than the Pats. Far easier to imply "Oh they won because they're cheating" instead of facing the fact that they're less competent at the core competition than the Pats.
It's not just DFG. Goodell's entire administration has seen some serious issues exposed in the relationships between the league office and the various owner factions.It's largely been mitigated by the leagues overall financial success, but the smart owners may finally be starting to realize that RG is not a wartime consigliere.Fuck those owners.
They speak out AFTER the courts rule when pressure in the intervening 12 months could have actually made a difference?
Well, to be fair, he did say "happening in America."Well, this and the Oregon dudes saying that Oregon isn't part of the United States.