#DFG: Canceling the Noise
- Thread starter nattysez
- Start date
I noticed that too. The answer is no one clicked on it. The average sports fan doesn't really care about infractions involving teams that aren't winning. If it was the Pats though, it would be a click party for sure.Ed Hillel said:
bradmahn said:
Ha possibly - I was going with Herm Edwards. I don't think it specified a current coach, just one who's faced Belichick.
If there is a penalty, I think the Patriots should counter it by offering up the fourth round draft pick in the 2010 draft.
Outside the Lines just had a segment. Pats' culpability was a given and speculation revolved around whether the recent disciplinary actions against the Browns and the Falcons were deliberately lighter in order for the Pats punishment to also be light.
It depresses me, but it seems very difficult to see how Goodell can exonerate the pats in this sort of climate.
It depresses me, but it seems very difficult to see how Goodell can exonerate the pats in this sort of climate.
Nick Kaufman said:
The Falcons guy was my favorite. Whined about the Falcons punishment being too harsh, but then talked about how Goodell mentioned that Belichick was let off so easy with Spygate because he wanted to set up a harsher penalty for future punishments (wut). He then said that the reason Deflategate is taking so long is because they are having a difficult time with the fact that they have to suspend Belichick most, if not all, of the season.
You're right, there's nothing about culpability, just "what will the punishment be?"
Ed Hillel said:
He then finished with the Falcons penalty not being harsh, since McKay is removed from day-to-day ops and a 2016 pick is basically nothing.
That's Terrence Moore, who has a history of being anti-Belichick
That dude was an extrarordinarily big idiot. Later he said that McKay doesn't really run the team and the fifth round pick is nothing.Ed Hillel said:
OTL is, of course, the entity that ran with the wildly incomplete (but researched for weeks!!!) McNally story only to be smacked down mid-segment by Schefter AKA the last man standing.
Freeman is tied into the NFL enough that it's possible he knows something, but this could also be rank speculation. Anyway...
Edit: I should add that if you subscribe to the theory that the NFL wants to dump this news at an opportune time before the draft, it's hard to beat Good Friday -- Passover starts the same day, writers will be long gone by Friday at 5, people will be focused on the Final Four on Saturday and Monday, Sunday is Easter, and MLB starts on Sunday night/Monday.
mike freemanEdit: I should add that if you subscribe to the theory that the NFL wants to dump this news at an opportune time before the draft, it's hard to beat Good Friday -- Passover starts the same day, writers will be long gone by Friday at 5, people will be focused on the Final Four on Saturday and Monday, Sunday is Easter, and MLB starts on Sunday night/Monday.
As regards the Wells report seeing daylight during the oncoming darkness of this Friday night, I have visions of a rare set of revisions being made to the Passover Haggadah:
A. "Why is this night different from all other nights? ...because after waiting 210 years to get out of Egypt, we have waited almost as long for the Wells report."
B. "There are four kinds of commissioners - the wise, the evil, the simple, and the Goodell, which is the wise-ass who is simply evil."
C. "If He would have taken us to the playoffs but not let us win the Ravens game, it would have been sufficient. If He had let us win the Ravens game, but would have disqualified us at halftime of the Colts game, it would have been sufficient. If He had let us win the Colts game, but didn't let us sign Malcolm Butler, it would have been sufficient. If He would have let us sign Malcolm Butler, but made Hightower knock the potential interception away, some of us would be going to mass on Sunday."
With best wishes to all for April Fools Day!
A. "Why is this night different from all other nights? ...because after waiting 210 years to get out of Egypt, we have waited almost as long for the Wells report."
B. "There are four kinds of commissioners - the wise, the evil, the simple, and the Goodell, which is the wise-ass who is simply evil."
C. "If He would have taken us to the playoffs but not let us win the Ravens game, it would have been sufficient. If He had let us win the Ravens game, but would have disqualified us at halftime of the Colts game, it would have been sufficient. If He had let us win the Colts game, but didn't let us sign Malcolm Butler, it would have been sufficient. If He would have let us sign Malcolm Butler, but made Hightower knock the potential interception away, some of us would be going to mass on Sunday."
With best wishes to all for April Fools Day!
E5 Yaz said:
Well, someone actually did something wrong in that case so there was a lot more to evaluate.
Noted Deflategate science denier strains credibility:
http://www.tvguide.com/news/neil-degrasse-tyson-defends-scientology-christianity-religion/
I have no clue how this ends but I've started to get this fear - maybe irrational - that it will go down like this: The Wells report will basically say that they have no idea how the footballs got deflated and that it could have been the weather or it could have been human intervention. Goodell will spin that report to say that the key fact is that they played with deflated footballs on the Patriots' watch which is an infringement of the rules. And he'll announce that - consistent with other disciplinary measures recently handed out - the league is suspending the GM of the Patriots for four games.Nick Kaufman said:
And, hey, if the GM of the Patriots also happens to be the coach, so the de facto punishment is much heavier than that handed out to other teams, then that's no fault of the league office. He's just trying to be consistent and fair.
Morgan's Magic Snowplow said:
For the 1,000 time in this thread, it is NOT THE PATRIOTS RESPONSIBILITY TO MAKE SURE THE BALLS ARE INFLATED TO THE PROPER PRESSURE. IT IS THE OFFICIAL'S RESPONSIBILITY.
Unless they can prove wrongdoing, as in the Patriots tampered with the balls after the inspection, there's no reasonable way (again this is the NFL so anything is possible) to penalize the Patriots and one of the league's most powerful owners.
Absolutely none of that matters. Like literally none.NortheasternPJ said:
The punishment or no punishment decision is going to be made based on whatever the NFL thinks is best for PR, exposure and public perception. This is not, has never been and will not be about right vs wrong, rules or not rules.
This is about spin, clicks and eyeballs. Nothing more. The pats, BB everyone else is just collateral damage.
You forgot one other factor: Goodell is employed by the owners. Kraft is an owner, and an owner with high levels of business and organizational savvy. And Kraft publicly warned Goodell not to be capricious.( . ) ( . ) and (_!_) said:
If Goodell lays down a punishment with no evidence, Kraft, given the history, is likely to retaliate. He may go after Goodell's job, via behind the scenes machinations.
Agreed that the NFL only cares about PR, and ultimately dollars. But I think Goodell has some personal risks to worry about here.
P.s. I said a few months ago that Goodell would never be fired by the owners given the incredible team value increases he has presided over. I think I was wrong. The PR is getting bad enough that the owners may decide to change commissioners. If I were an owner the press conferences would have made me realize Goodell is straight terrible with the PR side of the job. Still I think odds are better than 50/50 he survives say 3 years.
NortheasternPJ said:
Everybody realizes the bolded stuff. Just because you keep shouting it doesn't mean that the rest of your post automatically follows.
I haven't watched a minute of football in the last two years that did not involve the Patriots. Tom Brady and Bill Belichick are literally the only thing keeping my tied to the league.E5 Yaz said:
I am not the one who made the post you quoted, but I can say that, yes... if that is what happens, I am 100% done with the NFL.
crystalline said:
What worries me is that the owners have banded together to make Goodell punish other owners before - Washington and Dallas in the uncapped, but really capped year and Jerry Jones is about as powerful as there is an owner in the NFL and pro sports. I am aware that the Dallas and Washington punishments were really a case of the owners punishing other owners who broke with the collusion, so who knows, but I think there are definitely some owners who don't mind knocking other owners down a peg or two.
Edit - what I am trying to say is I have ZERO faith in any individual or group involved with the investigation and levying of punishment-the NFL executives, the media, the owners, etc-doing the right thing absent clear and incontrovertible evidence that the Pats DID NOT tamper with the balls. This is very much a guilty until proven innocent situation.
dcdrew10 said:
Maybe. It seems to me that Kraft has been building his capital with Goodell for a while, and decided to draw a line this time.
We'll see.
soxhop411 said:
It has been in that condition for years. If you do watch less of the NFL, it won't be because of the league's concern over PR ... it will be because they took it out on your favorite team.
If it were the Vikings or the Chiefs in this mess, you wouldn't be making any grand pronouncements about avoiding the NFL
I agree with this and I have the same fear as MMS. Goodell has previously stated that he reserves the right to apply a low standard of proof in deciding competitive balance issues. And his recent history demonstrates that he is more than willing to ignore the rules and precedent when it suits him. IMO, in the Rice and Peterson cases, he made a calculated decision to issue discipline that he knew would be overturned. In this case, depending on how concerned he is about Kraft's reaction (and that is clearly the X factor here), he might very well do the same sort of thing. I have zero faith that Roger will be bound by reason, facts or the letter of the rules in making this decision.dcdrew10 said:
"Too often, competitive violations have gone unpunished because conclusive proof of the violation was lacking," Goodell wrote. "I believe we should reconsider the standard of proof to be applied in such cases, and make it easier for a competitive violation to be established. And where a violation is shown, I intend to impose more stringent penalties on both the club and the responsible individual(s). I will also be prepared to make greater use of draft choice forfeiture in appropriate cases. I believe this will have the effect of deterring violations and making people more willing to report violations on a timely basis."
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/03/06/AR2008030603654.html
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/03/06/AR2008030603654.html
I get all the fear but the key words are "where a violation is shown." That means the Wells report needs to say something like, "we can't prove it but it's likely there was some foul play." For example, several of the balls could have been tested well below what we would expect given the actual conditions. This isn't conclusive but merely suggestive of foul play. Here I'd expect punishment.MarcSullivaFan said:
However, in the absence of any evidence whatsoever of foul play you don't have a lower standard of proof, you have no standard of proof. Then all it takes is a hunch and no evidence at all...that's absurd. In this world you can fine teams for merely fumbling less than others as apparently that's suspicious. Maybe we should suspend ODB Jr. For making an impossible catch.
I don't think they will be handing out punishment in the event Well finds no evidence that suggests foul play is more likely than any other explanation (eg physics and/or incompetence).
It will be interesting to see if Carrot-Top meets with/calls Kraft before releasing the Wells report to give him a sneak preview. I think it's much more likely if the report triggers punitive action. There's nothing to be gained if the report doesn't.
Reading the entrails, I do fear that recent comments suggest that Goodell will try to earn his bones by taking on a powerful owner if there is any factual basis for concern. We're not in 'substantial preponderance of the evidence' territory.
Reading the entrails, I do fear that recent comments suggest that Goodell will try to earn his bones by taking on a powerful owner if there is any factual basis for concern. We're not in 'substantial preponderance of the evidence' territory.
Otis Foster said:
I hope Kraft goes the Full Davis if that happens. Kraft's public statements basically put Goodell on notice not to punish the team without clear evidence. If Goodell does just that, I hope Kraft feels he has to take action to save face, and sues the league.
Better getcha popcorn....
I think Otis is right. I think Goodell had enough in his mind BEFORE the report was ordered and that the report, whatever it says, will simply inform the punishment and the narrative. But the Sheriff is coming and the lack of a smoking gun will not deter him.
loshjott said:
Even if we concede that Kraft is the most powerful owner in football, and a quasi "assistant commissioner", he's still only one owner, and the league is probably better off, frankly, if one owner doesn't wield as much power as you and some others seem to think he has.
In other words, Goodell may indeed "fear" Kraft (although I doubt the relationship, even now, is as strained as others seem to believe), but he also has every other owner and the fanbases of the rest of the football world encouraging him to put Kraft in his place.
If the roles were reversed, and Jim Irsay was the dick-swinging "most powerful owner in the NFL", everyone here would probably agree that he needed to be taken down a peg. Well, here's Goodell's chance.
And nobody's suing the NFL. First of all, I'd wager there's an arbitration requirement for disputes over this sort of thing, and second of all (and more importantly), going nuclear and dragging the NFL through a 2-year litigation process over...what? Belichick being suspended for a few games? A 3rd round draft pick? Would just be bad for business.
I am pretty sure I could quit football. I was a devout Bruins fan as a kid up until my middle 30's. When the Bruins started trading every player that asked for the going wage, I got pissed, lost interest and no longer follow hockey at all. I am sure the year off in 2004 sealed the deal. You can quit a sport.
TheoShmeo said:
This is the same Roger Goodell who stepped to the microphone before the Superbowl and announced they weren't even sure if the Patriots had done anything wrong, right? I think there's a disconnect between Goodell and the people in the league who were actually leaking information to the press about the issue. They may want to rail the Patriots regardless, but I think Goodell will base his decision largely on the Wells Report, and I don't foresee a significant punishment if the report indicates that science could explain everything. My guess is Wells has had scientists conduct significant testing here, too. If scientists replicated exactly the conditions within the Pats locker room and the conditions outside the stadium and the footballs fall within range of where the Pats apparently were, he won't punish them. My guess is that he'll have bigger problems on his hands, such as the employee stealing footballs, referees not following protocol, and Kensil acting as sheriff, but we'll see.
We have very sensible people here with very pessimistic outlooks.
If this unfolds, it's not a question of Kraft lining up the other owners to kick Goodell out. Nor is it a question of suing the League, which I suspect Kraft never would do.
He will have appeal rights before an arbitrator. If the case is as weak as most of us suspect, any significant sanction will be overturned. This just happened with Ray Rice, and the NFL's results the past year on discipline attacked, both in arbitration and court, have been very poor.
EDIT: Assume the four-game suspension of BB. There is just no way Kraft takes this lying down. It's not simply a question of losing a coach -- it would be fundamentally unfair. And this would not be a reflection of Kraft knee jerk supporting BB. On Spygate, Kraft apologized to the owners and told BB privately that he was a "schmuck" after BB acknowledged that the benefits gained rom the taping were 1 on a scale of 10.
If this unfolds, it's not a question of Kraft lining up the other owners to kick Goodell out. Nor is it a question of suing the League, which I suspect Kraft never would do.
He will have appeal rights before an arbitrator. If the case is as weak as most of us suspect, any significant sanction will be overturned. This just happened with Ray Rice, and the NFL's results the past year on discipline attacked, both in arbitration and court, have been very poor.
EDIT: Assume the four-game suspension of BB. There is just no way Kraft takes this lying down. It's not simply a question of losing a coach -- it would be fundamentally unfair. And this would not be a reflection of Kraft knee jerk supporting BB. On Spygate, Kraft apologized to the owners and told BB privately that he was a "schmuck" after BB acknowledged that the benefits gained rom the taping were 1 on a scale of 10.
There is also the possibility that, over time, a modicum of common sense has entered his thought process. He may have been inclined to be heavy-handed in response to what appeared at first to be tampering after the refs released the balls for play. But as analysis has shown that the change in pressure was most probably due to natural causes, why shouldn't Goodell change his view on what happened and what the consequences should be?
There is a voice in Goodell's head that is saying, "Something happened, therefore you have to do something to someone." Pete Rozell was a PR man before he was Commish; Tagliabue was a lawyer then the league's lawyer. Goodell has no non-NFL experience. IMO, he is in over his head and his only goal is not to be shit on anymore. The easiest path not not being shit on is to penalize the Patriots. Even a trivial punishment will suffice to divert the shit-hose pointed at him.
I agree with theo here:
EDIT: the appeal point is a good one if owners have that.
I agree with theo here:
EDIT: the appeal point is a good one if owners have that.
Hoya81 said:
I believe that's correct. There's an extensive discussion here:
http://scholarship.law.berkeley.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1041&context=bjesl
I don't have time to read it thoroughly. It does focus on player discipline under the CBA, but there are sections devoted to rules granting extensive authority to the Commissioner.
You may be right. I checked the NFL Constitution and Bylaws in search of owners' arbitration rights, and surprisingly to me found none. This is in contrast to the NBA's, which became relevant when the Sterling situation broke.Ed Hillel said:
If Kraft can do nothing but sue in court in the event the Pats get screwed, that maybe changes things considerably. Kraft clearly would be reluctant to do that.
Lesson -- never assume.