The kind of people who are at the intersection of both needing and being able to afford Ted Wells knew who he was well enough already.Infield Infidel said:
#DFG: Canceling the Noise
- Thread starter nattysez
- Start date
riboflav said:
He's Bill Nye the science guy, not Bill Nye the scientist.
Sort of like Lionel Hutz from the Simpsons "That's why you're the judge and I'm the law-talking guy."
Goodell is a complete asshole and I hate him a lot, but I don't see any "condescension" in his answer to Nichols. I think he was going for a laugh and bombed, and people seem to be blowing it way out of proportion. That said, fuck him in the ass with a garden gnome.
The conflict of interest issue is different for the Ray Rice elevator tape issue that for this under-inflated ball nonsense. For the elevator video, Mueller's investigation was into whether anyone at the NFL had seen the video, which the league's top executives had already denied. The conflict of interest regarding an investigation run by the NFL's top executives is clear there. For the ball investigation, there's barely a conflict. It's true that the teams ultimately own the NFL, but the league is set up to balance all the teams' interests, and I don't see a conflict with the league running the investigation.
This morning I emailed my 4th-grader's overzealous teacher a link to the NYT article in which the scientists backed the Pats. I wrote that, since he had broached the issue and shared his hasty conclusion with the kids last week, I assumed that he would now take this opportunity to talk about the dangers associated with rumors, bias, jumping to conclusions, and weighing facts vs. speculation. I took great pains to be respectful and friendly, despite my baser urges. His response was cordial enough, but included the requisite "I still have my doubts" qualifier. My son said that the teacher, who is normally a rabid sports fan, still doesn't plan to watch the game. I guess he'll have the mall to himself.Jed Zeppelin said:
epraz said:
The claim of a conflict is utterly preposterous. The NFL league office exists to investigate and decide issues like this. I mean, who else would do it?
The remarkable thing is that instead of calmly addressing the question and pointing out how ridiculous it was to assert there is a conflict-of-interest, Goodell completely blew the layup.
It doesn't matter if Goodell was trying to be funny in his answer or not, because he came off like a condescending ass putting little Miss Rachel in her place. And that's a disaster for this knucklehead.
Yup. This is where you sit your fourth grade kid down and tell him, "This guy, your teacher, he's an asshole. You know it. I know it. All of your classmates probably know it too. (1) he jumped to conclusions without any knowledge of the situation. (2) he took it upon himself to talk to his classroom about the issue and (3) he wasn't brave enough to admit that he was wrong. All of that being said, he is your teacher. Just because he is an asshole doesn't give you the right to treat him like an asshole. So you need to do your work and pay attention in class. We can egg his house in the summer."
If this had been the NBA and a team had been accused of setting the rim a half-inch off, it would have been looked into and dispatched by any of its commissioners as an in-house league matter in a matter of hours.
I don't know if I'd be quite that strident (and I recognize you wouldn't really be, either). My conversation with my kid would depend a lot on how the teacher was, otherwise, but assuming this is the first/only incident, I'd probably say something like:
"Look, Mr. Dickless is a good teacher, and I don't want you to change how you approach him or his class. But, realize that even people we look up to are sometimes wrong. This is one such case. Just know that you will be faced with situations in life where someone you respect, or someone with authority, is wrong, and how you handle it is an important skill to learn as you get older. You must always try to be the bigger person, and sometimes that means keeping your mouth shut, and sometimes it means taking a stand. What do you think you should do in this case?"
If the kid says "This is really important to me, teacher was wrong.", I'd say he could talk to the teacher after class and express his disappointment. If he says "it's just football, really, who cares" then you praise him for keeping correct perspective when his teacher clearly didn't.
Either way, it's a learning experience. I don't think I'd contact the teacher more than once (if at all) as a parent, though.
"Look, Mr. Dickless is a good teacher, and I don't want you to change how you approach him or his class. But, realize that even people we look up to are sometimes wrong. This is one such case. Just know that you will be faced with situations in life where someone you respect, or someone with authority, is wrong, and how you handle it is an important skill to learn as you get older. You must always try to be the bigger person, and sometimes that means keeping your mouth shut, and sometimes it means taking a stand. What do you think you should do in this case?"
If the kid says "This is really important to me, teacher was wrong.", I'd say he could talk to the teacher after class and express his disappointment. If he says "it's just football, really, who cares" then you praise him for keeping correct perspective when his teacher clearly didn't.
Either way, it's a learning experience. I don't think I'd contact the teacher more than once (if at all) as a parent, though.
epraz said:
Agreed. I didn't see the video, just read the log, but putting aside Goodell's response and its tone, her question was just foolish.
Average Reds said:
Well, there is a potential conflict of interest, but there's not much that can be done about it.
Think of it this way: instead of being about non-game player behavior (Ray Rice) or essentially irrelevant in-game issues (ball PSI), what if it was a case about gambling, fixing games, etc? And, what if it just so happened that that it was the NFL itself that was in on it?
Note that this is a hypothetical. But it's not an inconceivable situation. Why would they do this? hypothetically it could be about getting high-ratings matchups to increase ad revenue.
So, "oh we are self-policing and looking into it, we have an office specifically for this, and really, who else is going to pay for it" would be a bullshit answer.
And the answer is: If it got bad enough, the feds would get involved.
The issue is, for the ball inflation issue, the conflict of interest is fairly low, but it's not a non-issue. What if the truth is that it was either a "sting" by other owners, or just a massive fuckup by the officials? Sure it's unlikely, but again: not inconceivable. It's a lot more likely that we (the public) would hear a filtered version of the truth, rather than the full truth. Sure, this top-notch investigatory team isn't going to completely lie, but they might agree to some filtering, no?
This saga has actually been a great learning opportunity for kids. My kids are rabid Pats fans so over the past 2 weeks we've had some great conversations.
I've told them that just because we root for a team that doesn't mean we turn a blind eye to inappropriate things they do. Also told them that *if* it is proven that the Pats broke a rule then they should be punished and they need to accept that.
But also told them that this situation is an example of why you can't jump to conclusions from rumors that are spread, that you have to be patient and wait to learn facts before you judge anyone. And that you need to think for yourself and question everything, not ust accept things that might be biased or ultimately untrue.
Oh, and that the haterz can suck it. That too.
I've told them that just because we root for a team that doesn't mean we turn a blind eye to inappropriate things they do. Also told them that *if* it is proven that the Pats broke a rule then they should be punished and they need to accept that.
But also told them that this situation is an example of why you can't jump to conclusions from rumors that are spread, that you have to be patient and wait to learn facts before you judge anyone. And that you need to think for yourself and question everything, not ust accept things that might be biased or ultimately untrue.
Oh, and that the haterz can suck it. That too.
I think this hit it right on the head. And I don't plan to contact the teacher again, aside from more routine parent-teacher stuff.drleather2001 said:
This is almost exactly what I went with as well with my 7 y.o. (minus the haterz part).8slim said:
She's psyched to do a science experiment with our new football and the football pump with gauge that Amazon is delivering tonight.
Opportunity for a life lesson and encouraging a love of football, science, and math? I'll take it.
Average Reds said:
Harry is correct, and the reason Roger can't answer the question without looking like an ass is that the actual answer is so ridiculous. What's he supposed to say:Harry Hooper said:
"Well Rachel, the league office is supposed to act in the interest of the game as a whole and represents all 32 teams. We are expected to follow certain protocols and standards in a consistent manner. That's what other sports strive to do. But you know, we in leadership here at the NFL are completely incapable of logic and consistency. We are swayed by public pressure, by pressure from the media, by pressure from our owners, by petty jealousy and vengeance and by an insatiable desire to make money and an equally insatiable desire to um, you know, protect the shield. . As a result, even though you'd think that the league office could handle an investigation like this ---and you know this investigation starts by just looking at whatever data points we have available and determining if they make scientific sense, which should take about fifteen minutes --- but frankly, we are completely incapable of not having the potential to turn even the simplest inquiry into a total shitshow. So for that reason, I have determined that I can't do this, and my staff can't do this, so I hired some other guy to do this. It's really the best I can do."
At this point Ham may have more credibility than Nye does. I can't believe he doubled down on his error, especially when hundreds of scientists and physicists have proven him wrong. What an idiot.rodderick said:
I understand his job is to be the "bad guy", and to take the heat off the owners, but at this point, he is detrimental to the league. Right now, the NFL is going to make money no matter who is running it. And he is so bad for the brand, a change will get the league a bunch of goodwill from casual fans.
At this point, owners are dumb to hang onto him.
At this point, owners are dumb to hang onto him.
Everyone gets an entry song for Super Bowl week right?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ljnT49jU9vM
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ljnT49jU9vM
drleather2001 said:
Exactly. When I was a TA in grad school I took the exact opposite approach. E.g., if I noticed that I made an math error while showing how to solve a problem on the chalk board, instead of trying to subtly erase-and-correct, I'd point it out to the students. It served to show them where an easy place to make a mistake was, as well as showing that I was human and thus can err.
CR67dream said:
Careful now. Kids and switches are a touchy subject in the NFL right now.
Yeah, it was almost a softball, because it was so bad.Average Reds said:
Her question was actually a little different from whether the league has a conflict, even more preposterous, and actually quite anti-Patriots. Her question was, if Kraft is paying you, and you are paying Wells, how do we know Wells will be fair? I think that the answer he gave was right for the first 80 percent of it, or so, though it was inarticulate. His "somebody has to pay them" line is kind of correct, though kind of clumsy. What he really should have said is the league is there to protect the league, and all the owners, and to suggest that a guy like Wells is going to tank an investigation because indirectly the fee he charges will be paid about 3 percent by Robert Kraft is preposterous.
The part about "are you volunteering" was flippant, unnecessary, and belittling, and he should pick up the phone and tell her that personally.
I think part of where he got flummoxed was that with the Rice investigation, there were actually legitimate conflict of interest questions, given the close relationship of league officials, and especially Ravens officials, with Mueller's firm. Goddell thought she was asking "the same" question, when actually she was asking a very silly question, and he is not very good on his feet so he reacted in a poor way.
I kind if love that. It's so unBellichick. But you can't look away (from Brady, who is domineeringly handsome in a background role).
DennyDoyle'sBoil said:
Especially because the implication of her Kraft point actually extends out so that the other 97% is paid by people with a vested interest in their results stripping draft picks away from Kraft.
Scientists who are taking 10 minutes to do something. If someone has a question in V&N about the application of some law, none of the lawyers here have any issue writing about it.Infield Infidel said:
40-50 interviews, reviewing probably tens of thousands of pages of emails and other records and hours of video evidence is a different thing entirely. If there was some groundswell of talented free labor for this stuff, people wouldn't make money doing it.
Because the denizens of this board are going to hire him?Infield Infidel said:
People who are in the market for a Ted Wells know who he is. He doesn't need to be doing free work for billionaires to drum up business.
Leonard Cohen didn't offer to write the lyrics to the Sunday Night Football song for free because it would get him exposure, despite the vast majority of people not knowing who he is.
Apologies if this was posted elsewhere. Pretty good commentary on Goodell, the media covering the sport, and other things.
http://www.mrdestructo.com/2015/01/everything-stupid-is-alive-and.html
When actual news breaks, the integration of the NFL as entertainment with its own reporting wing becomes unmistakable. At this point, Sports Illustrated's Peter King can't speak when NFL Commissioner Roger Goodell is drinking a glass of water. ESPN's Adam Schefter initially responded to Goodell's preposterous two-game suspension of Ray Rice for knocking out his fiancée Janay by asking, "Was the Commissioner lenient enough?"
http://www.mrdestructo.com/2015/01/everything-stupid-is-alive-and.html
When actual news breaks, the integration of the NFL as entertainment with its own reporting wing becomes unmistakable. At this point, Sports Illustrated's Peter King can't speak when NFL Commissioner Roger Goodell is drinking a glass of water. ESPN's Adam Schefter initially responded to Goodell's preposterous two-game suspension of Ray Rice for knocking out his fiancée Janay by asking, "Was the Commissioner lenient enough?"