#DFG: Canceling the Noise
- Thread starter nattysez
- Start date
If you had to guess, what would you say was the probability of BB being suspended for the Super Bowl before Kraft's press conference, versus after? Just a percentage guesstimate of how much he influenced that particular likelihood...?dcmissle said:
NortheasternPJ said:
Historically, the Pats have had celebrations at Kraft's house to present the rings. Did you just start following the team this year?
It's more likely than not that I am generally aware that this possibility exists . . .soxin6 said:
PedroKsBambino said:
And its usually during training camp I believe so Revis won't likely be there. They will either give it to him when he returns to New England or FedEx to him at Florham Park.
jsinger121 said:
No, they did it during June in 2004 and 2005, so it might fall during OTAs or mini camp; unlikely Jets and Pats dates conflict this year: http://espn.go.com/blog/nflnation/post/_/id/165635/2015-nfl-minicamp-and-ota-schedules
I'm not a fan of this idea that Kraft should have played it cool and diplomatic before the SB. Are we forgetting how this all came down? His irate comments were directed not simply at the accusation of guilt and its merits, but at the way Goodell & Co. had slowly leaked it out, not to mention the strong possibility that it stemmed from a sting operation. Had the league played this in straightforward fashion, sure, I'd expect Kraft to respond in kind, with cooperative tones and actions. But that's not how they played it at all. They subjected a team in the midst of SB preparation to leaked insinuations, on the basis of half-baked inferences, about a violation of (at best) minor consequence. There was absolutely no suggestion at that point that the league was playing by the book or without malice, much less attempting to prevent the raising of pitchforks across the nation, so Kraft's indignant push-back at that point was entirely appropriate, as well as a powerful statement of support for his coach and QB on the eve of the Big Game.
Don't forget that Revis' uncle was running for NFLPA president and lost. Not surprised Darelle would throw the NFLPA's management under the bus (see his remarks about the CBA and Goodell's ability to hear appeals).pappymojo said:
BoneForYourJar said:
I'm totally 100% ready to agree with this. But here's the thing: Which Kraft was the smart one, the wise one, and the one acting in the team's best interests?
- The defiant Kraft who was ready to go to the mat for his guys and his team, and to put the whole system on trial, who called out the league and the accusers, who insisted on the Pats complete and total innocence and readiness to cooperate, and who demanded an apology from the league once their name was cleared? or;
- The contrite, diplomatic, deferential Kraft, whose first priority is the welfare and workings of the league and the "32", who wants to move forward with a mealy-mouthed non-apology?
Because they can't both be right, on this issue.
Don't be so sure. You're ignoring Vincent's statements that this would be resolved in a matter of days. And there were somewhat credible rumors that Goodell wanted to suspend both Brady and Belichick for the Super Bowl.yep said:
Remember that we've since learned that noone, as in nobody, in the NFL's office knew anything about an ideal gas law.
Kraft doubled down based on the information that was available to him at the time in order to put the team in the best position to win the Game. It's safe to assume that he never heard any of his employees calling himself The Deflator at that time. The idea that Goodell would have docked the Pats a mid-round pick had Kraft said nothing that week is utterly laughable.
Yes, they can. For the simple reason that there was no reason to expect Kraft to have had knowledge of those texts between Rosencrantz and Guildenstern. And he probably had the same opinion of Wells and Paul Weiss that the SoSH lawyers had. It was an opinion that turned out to be wildly incorrect, but I'm not sure that's Kraft's fault (given that PW and Wells still seem to have defenders on this board).
I can tell you only that the League appeared to be on a runaway train. It's an historical fact that Troy Vincent said the matter would be wrapped up "in a few days." BB then went on a science tirade during his press conference, his second public statement on the matter within a few days, much more expansive than the first. Shortly thereafter the hiring of Ted Wells was announced, and the Report did not issue for more than 3 months. "A few days " > 3 months. Something must have given them pause unless one assumes that Vincent was being deliberately inaccurate.yep said:
I'm in the disappointed camp because, but looking at the releases I really shouldn't be. From the Wells Report response:
What's interesting here is what Kraft didn't say. Nothing about appealing. Nothing about fighting. Just that we think it's unreasonable and we support Tom Brady. It's possible to believe that this statement implies challenging the punishment (I did), but it's far from clear that this was the organizations intention. He said there was no real recourse from the beginning, so I feel that fans, myself included, were projecting our outrage / frustration with Goodell / desire to see a fight on to the statement.
]
My lingering questions are:
What's interesting here is what Kraft didn't say. Nothing about appealing. Nothing about fighting. Just that we think it's unreasonable and we support Tom Brady. It's possible to believe that this statement implies challenging the punishment (I did), but it's far from clear that this was the organizations intention. He said there was no real recourse from the beginning, so I feel that fans, myself included, were projecting our outrage / frustration with Goodell / desire to see a fight on to the statement.
]
My lingering questions are:
- Did we misread the intent of the Wells Report Context document? Was it just a last shot across the bow before Kraft accepted punishment?
- Was Kraft gearing up for a challenge before he found he did not have the support of this fellow owners?
- If he found himself lacking support at the owners meeting, why did it he not reach out to other owners, particularly close friends, sooner to gage their feelings on the punishment before releasing WRC
- Was any of the organization's actions (press release re: the punishment, Well Report Context) just a show for the fans to make it appear like the organization was going to do "something," even if Kraft's Tuesday press conference was part of the plan all along?
The interesting thing about Rodgers' comments is that it portrays the pregame ball check as less than rigorous. It suggests that either the refs don't check every ball, or they use inaccurate gauges, or both.PC Drunken Friar said:
Exponent's experiments on standard deviation of gauges, and therefore the conclusion that the Pats' ball pressure variability is an indicator of guilt, is based on the assumption that the balls were all at the exact same pressure pregame. In their experiments, they used balls inflated to specific psi in order to determine variability.
Rodgers' coments, along with the texts in the Wells report itself, seem to indicate that the balls are not set to some specific pressure before the game. In fact, it suggests that balls are set not only to a pressure anywhere between 12.5 and 13.5, but also sometimes outside that range. Further, the rulebook doesn't state that all balls have to be at the exact same pressure. The refs do not use a highly precise and accurate "master gauge" before games like the one used by Exponent, and there is no evidence, anecdotal or otherwise, to suggest such a process has ever been followed prior to an NFL game.
I think that if the Patriots had factually proven their innocence, they wouldn't have been punished. Failing that, I think Goodell has show that he's not at all arbitrary in how he punishes things: he generally punishes them in a pretty close proximity with the public demand for blood.yep said:
Everyone but Deadspin loves Brett Favre and his Wranglers? Give him a pittance of a fine.
Concussions are a hot topic, nail the Saints.
Bullying is a hot topic, nail the Dolphins.
Domestic violence is that national sport, meh, give Rice two games.
Holy shit, the public saw the video? Nail Rice with an indefinite suspension and lie and say the fucker lied to me.
We're still dealing with the Rice fallout? Have Vincent lie to Peterson to get him to come in by saying he's not subject to the new conduct policy and then punish him under the new conduct policy.
Teams nobody gives a shit about were breaking the rules by heating the balls on the sideline? Give them a fine.
Rice was respectful and deferential. Peterson pretty much was, too. Favre didn't cooperate. None of that mattered: public pressure and Goodell looking tough in response did.
Since we're speaking historically and all, those are the fish I'm choosing from the slab.
The surest antidote to Deflategate-it is, I have found, is recalling the playoffs, right up until the final play. Nothing will erase those final two drives from the books or from my memory. Nothing will diminish the unbridled joy and almost psychedelic sense of amazement when Butler intercepts the throw. I don't give a shit about asterisks at this point. Let the rest of the world comfort themselves in the notion that the Pats' success is the result of sideline videos, bathroom breaks, and, oh yeah, "illegal formations." Ultimately, it's their loss if that's the conclusion they draw. We (along with clear-minded fans of rival teams) will continue to be inspired by the way Brady, Belichick & Co. set themselves up to win, through preparation, research, attention to detail, and devotion to task rather than ego or star-power.
If we win another one in the B&B era, I'm now prepared for the scandal that will accompany it. I expect it. Bring it on.
If we win another one in the B&B era, I'm now prepared for the scandal that will accompany it. I expect it. Bring it on.
Ah, and here we have it. Kraft was right to be defiant when he thought his team and staff were innocent, and was right to be contrite when he later found out they might be guilty. Did I get that about right?lexrageorge said:
The problem is, the first Kraft, the one who went scorched-earth with declarations of innocence and demands for apology--that Kraft wasn't right, he was wrong, if there was actual guilt. If you're going to play the outraged victim of an unjust bag-job, you need to make sure that you are actually factually innocent first (or at least that nobody can prove guilt). Otherwise, you're not only guilty, but you're also stupid, plus you just insulted the people whose job it is to decide this stuff.
My problem with Kraft (contrary to popular belief) is not that he was defiant and throwing a fuck-you attitude (I loved every minute of that). It's also not that he was contrite and diplomatic and butt-licky with Goodell (that was probably the best overall use of resources for a mortal man with finite time in which to live). My problem is that doing both made things worse for the Patriots, the league, and the balance of power in the NFL, now and going forward.
Either one is defensible, one at a time. Both are not collectively defensible, as part of a strategy for overall best outcomes. One of the two was a mistake. I don't know enough of the underlying realities to know which Kraft was right and which was wrong, but one of them made a mistake that made things worse for the team and its future.
I want(ed) very much for innocent/"fuck you" Kraft to be right, and to count his piles of money less than his good name and the integrity of his guys. Sports is entertainment, and it would have been more fun for me to watch the Patriots organization go to war, than to watch this mealy-mouthed billionaire's club play-act an irrelevant process whose ultimate outcome is that they all get to keep getting richer with a minimum of disruption and inconvenience. But Kraft didn't get where is through sentiment nor romanticism, and he apparently either recognized some guilt, and/or decided to roll his eyes and pay an extra million in club dues, since his stadium and TV rights are going to be sold out for the next ten years either way, so who cares?
In any case, I rather suspect that you've hit the nail on the head. For Kraft, whether either decision was right or wrong, smart or stupid, is just not that big a deal. It seemed like a good idea at the time, pay the fine and move on.
You kinda suck at facts on this issue.yep said:
He didn't demand an apology. He said that if the Patriots were found to have done nothing wrong, he'd hope for an apology. And this was in the context of false reports coming out regarding balls being underinflated by 2 PSI.
And you can keep asserting that he changed the punishment because Kraft wasn't sufficiently contrite until you're blue in the face. The rest of us will just keep posting facts.
Myt1 said:
On a scale of 0-100, how important do you think it was for Goodell to personally "look tough" on the issue of deflated footballs prior to Kraft's press conference, vs after? If you had to guess, do you think Kraft's statements had a bigger influence on Goodell's personal desire to "look tough", or on The Patriots on-field super bowl performance?
troparra said:
Speaking of inaccuracies in the measurement process, has there been any analysis of the AFCCG postgame measurements? I was just checking the Wells report:
The post-game measurements were recorded as follows:
The post-game measurements were recorded as follows:
Patriots balls
Gauge 1 Gauge 2
1 13.50 13.15
2 13.35 12.95
3 13.35 12.95
4 13.65 13.25
Colts Ball
Gauge 1 Gauge 2
1 12.90 12.50
2 12.45 12.10
3 12.80 12.45
4 12.70 12.35
So according to Gauge 1, at least one of the Patriots balls was overinflated beyond the 13.5 maximum to 13.65 (maybe McNally sneakily inflated it). Or according to Gauge 2, the Colts balls all lost at least .5 PSI from the 13.0 they were originally set at.
99 and 99. The Patriots are cheaters. Any other league or any other commissioner of this one would have told the Patriots that the issue had been raised and that everyone needed to handle their shit accordingly and not bungled an attempted sting like a freshman fumbling at a bra strap. And probably bigger on the performance, but not massively so. It seemed to have been on the players' minds, if Brady's mic'ed up is any indication.
On a scale of 0-100, how much did Ray Rice's deference affect his punishment?
On a scale of 0-100, how much did Ray Rice's deference affect his punishment?
And what effect do you think that press conference had on the Super Bowl score, if you had to take a guess?Myt1 said:
Engineers crack me up. I'll bet, after reviewing the data available, you nearly raised an eyebrow. As has been said once or twice, this was never about facts or truth.troparra said:
To emphasize a point I brought up tens of pages ago, I would really like to see the same level of concern as has been shown on these boards the next time the asshole Goodell railroads a team as fully as he railroaded the Patriots. Well, unless it's the Colts. Fuck the Colts.
Maybe a billionth of a point.
Are you going to entertain us with some history now?
I'm not saying that the press conference had a huge effect on the Super Bowl. I'm not saying that Kraft did the right thing yesterday. I am saying that you're incorrect (and kinda silly) in trying to use the dissimilarities between the two courses of action as a logical proof that both could not have been the correct courses of action at the time they were taken.
Are you going to entertain us with some history now?
I'm not saying that the press conference had a huge effect on the Super Bowl. I'm not saying that Kraft did the right thing yesterday. I am saying that you're incorrect (and kinda silly) in trying to use the dissimilarities between the two courses of action as a logical proof that both could not have been the correct courses of action at the time they were taken.
Take the Pats' 13.65 ball. Given that the ideal gas law STILL, you know, actually works in the second half of football games just like it does in the first half, if that 13.65 number is right, that means it must have been pumped up at least a half pound or more above that.garzooma said:
So the officials themselves had to have made the Pats play with a ball that was probably at least 0.6-1.0 psi above the legal limit.
Or if we are going to argue that gauge 2 is the accurate one, it means that the Colts played the second half with deflated footballs while the Pata played with regulation balls.
Scandal!!!!
I fully admit to enjoying the smack down the saints got and the wringer the Dolphins were put through. But going forward I will absolutely look at any future discipline of any team (besides the colts and jets of course) through railroaded colored glasses. Fool me once, shame on...shame on you. Fool me....you can't get fooled again.ipol said:
Not quite a historical fact. The league announced Wells had been retained to investigate the day before the Mona Lisa Vito press conference.dcmissle said:
http://static.nfl.com/static/content/public/photo/2015/01/23/0ap3000000462480.pdf
Both Kraft's can be right, and they were. The circumstances the weekend before the Super Bowl, and the circumstances this week, were completely different.yep said:
The weekend before the Super Bowl, Kraft had every reason to believe his team, his coach, and his QB were innocent. In fact, we already know his coach is innocent, and it's more probable than not that Brady is innocent as well.
Kraft couldn't control, or even have reasonably forseen, the nature of the Wells report. I cannot blame Kraft for Wells using junk science to back up their accusations. There's also no reasonable way to blame Kraft for being unaware of the idiots' text messages. Once all that happened, the context was changed. The other owners felt the Wells report settled the issue and were ready to move on to more important matters.
After reading the arguments back and forth in this thread, I still can't understand why Kraft's statement shouldn't have been more along the lines of the one I proposed in this post from the other thread: http://sonsofsamhorn.net/topic/89451-home-of-the-resistance-the-north-remembers/?view=findpost&p=6050938. Not an angry, defiant, FU, burn-down-the-house type of response, but one that matter-of-factly states that while the Patriots have reluctantly decided to accept the punishment "in the interests of the 32", the team nevertheless 1) maintains their complete innocence 2) believes that the punishment levied was unfair and disproportionate 3) maintains that the Wells report was deeply flawed and incompetently executed, as explained in the context report, which the team stands by 4) reasserts that the team cooperated with the investigation fully and in good faith despite claims to contrary 5) expresses disappointment that some aspects of the process (damaging, false media leaks, possible misconduct by league personnel) were not adequately investigated or explained.
If Kraft had gone this route, the end result for the team would be the same, but I think the anger and bitter disappointment being felt and expressed by his own fanbase would have been greatly reduced. And I have a very hard time believing (despite Goodell's obvious megalomania) that the NFL would have had the balls to levy any additional punishment on the team for Kraft making such a statement, particularly since it really wouldn't have been saying anything that the team hadn't already said publicly.
I think Kraft blew his only opportunity to make one last, definitive statement of innocence, and one last unequivocal defense of the team's honor for the public record. This is very disappointing from my standpoint.
If Kraft had gone this route, the end result for the team would be the same, but I think the anger and bitter disappointment being felt and expressed by his own fanbase would have been greatly reduced. And I have a very hard time believing (despite Goodell's obvious megalomania) that the NFL would have had the balls to levy any additional punishment on the team for Kraft making such a statement, particularly since it really wouldn't have been saying anything that the team hadn't already said publicly.
I think Kraft blew his only opportunity to make one last, definitive statement of innocence, and one last unequivocal defense of the team's honor for the public record. This is very disappointing from my standpoint.
pappymojo said:
lexrageorge said:
This.
Darelle was dissing everyone (TB12, NEP, League, and NFLPA), and his remarks were not surprising in the least to me. His MO has always been about 3 things: 1) Me, 2) Myself, and 3) I. Mehta spun the comments in his typically juvenile way.
Edit: Oh... and f*ck the Colts
Anyone who wants to be annoyed can tune in to Dennis & Callahan at 9 to hear Mehta speak on this.
I think the evidence points away from this but, sincerely, I prefer your line of thinking.troparra said:
Forgive me if this has been brought up before, but I can't recall a discussion on this (and please let me know if it has been discussed):
Per the NFL rules, the balls are supposed to be under the supervision of the ref, correct? And per the Wells report and context report, the balls not only went "missing" before the game, but again before the second half, right?
So would that not make Walt Anderson at least somewhat responsible here? If it is his job to supervise the balls, and he fails to do so, he is at fault, to a degree. But obviously no mention of this anywhere.
Just another sub-topic that burns.
Per the NFL rules, the balls are supposed to be under the supervision of the ref, correct? And per the Wells report and context report, the balls not only went "missing" before the game, but again before the second half, right?
So would that not make Walt Anderson at least somewhat responsible here? If it is his job to supervise the balls, and he fails to do so, he is at fault, to a degree. But obviously no mention of this anywhere.
Just another sub-topic that burns.
tims4wins said:
It's pretty simple. The scope of the Wells Report did not include investigating any improper actions by League employees. Additionally, the Wells Report has indisputably* cleared the League of all potential wrongdoing, so no further investigation is needed. Got it?
*and independently!
This is a combination of hilarious and terrifying. The NFL continues to troll the Patriots via official Twitter accounts. Integrity, baby!
https://mobile.twitter.com/nfl/status/601252348812468224
https://mobile.twitter.com/nfl/status/601252348812468224
Gorton Fisherman said:
Because the 17 fans whose tears would have magicallly dried up with "one last definitive statement" would have paled in comparison to what he perceived to be the greater good of THE TEAM and that the %99.99999 percent of Patriot fans who saw (and still see) anything other than Kraft shouting "FUCK YOU ROGER" (including your reasonable, nuanced re-jiggered stattement) into a hot mic as surrender.
This is probably how he saw it:
--He couldn't win against Goodell.
--He couldn't change the feelings of most of Patriot fans with anything other than a scorched earth approach.
--He will never change the minds of non-Patriot fans.
--The media is mostly a lost cause.
The people who post here are probably a bit more sane than the norm. Yet even here, there is a significant number of fans who think that *anything* other suing the league is unconscionable surrender. So with that in mind, Kraft took the *least* aggressive out, since going more aggressive -- but short of scorched earth -- would not, on balance, have helped.
I was with you until I heard this as an explanation for Kraft backing off --- Consider the source but Ron Borges (who has been more reasonable on this than ever expected and made the point that the report exonerated the team and Belichick then hammered the team w penalties) said on CSN NE last night that people close to Belichick told him that just in the past several days both Belichick and Kraft learned that Brady (implying Brady himself told them) wasn't being totally transparent and that "Belichick never really believed Brady from the get go". It's a sobering revelation if true but might explain (conveniently perhaps) why Kraft backed off, why he never mentioned Brady in his final statements (though there are other plausible explanations) and why the tone was so conciliatory. Also in retrospect looking back at Bill B's tour de force presser with that thought in mind he did go out of his way to say he has nothing to do with the balls and in fact makes them practice with less than ideal balls that are waterlogged or slick etc. I could see a scenario where Belichick indeed did have no clue but at the same time at least part of his annoyance at the time was because he had a least a sneaky suspicion Brady might have done something stupid.Dirty Sanchez Forever said:
I certainly hope this isn't the case but in retrospect it explains certain behaviors and reactions all along the way pretty well unfortunately. This still doesn't change how this became a violation of epic proportion right away (that's Kensil and others) and how it became totally overblown but if you look at it again in retrospect let's say there WAS some truth to it. I could see Brady having to choose between being totally transparent in the face of a complete circus and making it even worse or deciding it would be way too big a distraction to his team to do that - and to move the focus from anything but preparation for the SB would be in its own way selfish. Talk about a moral dilemma.
Brady should respond--Ed Hillel said:
What it takes to be a franchise quarterback:
Commitment
Bravery
Ability
I think we can all agree that Brady has not been 100% transparent on this whole thing. He was asked if he ever said anything to the ball boys that could be construed as him wanting air out of the footballs, and he said no. But it is pretty obvious based on the circumstances of the Jets game that he was pissed about the ball being over inflated, and IMO it is "more probable than not" he told the ball boys something along the lines of, "make sure that it never happens again".
That being said, even with that assumption it doesn't mean that Brady wanted the balls below 12.5, and I highly doubt that he did. And again, even with that assumption, it doesn't mean that McNally did anything to the balls after they left the officials locker room during the AFCCG.
And finally, I am not saying Brady was wrong in how he handled it - if he had admitted that he was on the ball boys about the air pressure during his press conference mid week post AFCCG, the hammer might have come down.
That being said, even with that assumption it doesn't mean that Brady wanted the balls below 12.5, and I highly doubt that he did. And again, even with that assumption, it doesn't mean that McNally did anything to the balls after they left the officials locker room during the AFCCG.
And finally, I am not saying Brady was wrong in how he handled it - if he had admitted that he was on the ball boys about the air pressure during his press conference mid week post AFCCG, the hammer might have come down.
Ed Hillel said:
Agree and agree. My larger point was that clearly Brady has had previous communication with JJ regarding air pressure in the balls, but he didn't even admit that post AFCCG. And again, that may have been the correct strategy.
joe dokes said:
I think if Kraft (or anyone) thought that only a tiny minority of fans would have been satisfied with anything less than a full scorched-earth approach, then he was really, really off base. And I think that is borne out by the responses that I've observed from fans both here and elsewhere. I think a large proportion of Patriots fans, probably a majority in fact, remain rightfully pissed about the whole situation, but are pissed at Kraft not because he accepted the punishment, but rather the docile, namby-pamby tone of his acceptance speech. A lot of fans recognize that he did not have a lot of recourse available. But that being said, it was just so completely unnecessary for him to be so conciliatory, and to adopt a tone that was such a radical departure from his earlier statements. I think if Kraft had merely eliminated the obsequious namby-pambyness of his response, he wouldn't be getting nearly the amount of shit that he is getting now. Sure, there would still be a vocal group calling for full thermonuclear war, but I really think those people are in the minority.
NYG's owner Mara --
http://www.bostonherald.com/sports/patriots_nfl/the_blitz/2015/05/giants_john_mara_robert_kraft_gave_up_because_he_knew_he_didn
Kraft accepted the penalties cause he had no choice; RG had the overwhelming support of the owners.
No, "We're grateful to Bob for doing the right thing ... Bob's a great guy" or anything close to it.
So that would be Jerry Jones, Arthur Blank, Bob McNair and now a member of the owner aristocracy, Mara. Their statements were not compelled -- they were thrown out their by these owners with a purpose.
Kraft had no or almost no owner support. It could not be more clear.
http://www.bostonherald.com/sports/patriots_nfl/the_blitz/2015/05/giants_john_mara_robert_kraft_gave_up_because_he_knew_he_didn
Kraft accepted the penalties cause he had no choice; RG had the overwhelming support of the owners.
No, "We're grateful to Bob for doing the right thing ... Bob's a great guy" or anything close to it.
So that would be Jerry Jones, Arthur Blank, Bob McNair and now a member of the owner aristocracy, Mara. Their statements were not compelled -- they were thrown out their by these owners with a purpose.
Kraft had no or almost no owner support. It could not be more clear.
Goodell evades questions regarding NFL leaks during #DeflateGate http://t.co/ZDWkjhTyee
— ProFootballTalk (@ProFootballTalk) May 21, 2015
"On one hand, it’s important for a reporter to protect his sources. On the other hand, the rules should change when the reporter has been flat-out lied to. And if the NFL isn’t going to shed light on what actually happened back in January regarding the false PSI data, ESPN shouldn’t simply point out the NFL’s silence; ESPN should end its own."
— ProFootballTalk (@ProFootballTalk) May 21, 2015
"On one hand, it’s important for a reporter to protect his sources. On the other hand, the rules should change when the reporter has been flat-out lied to. And if the NFL isn’t going to shed light on what actually happened back in January regarding the false PSI data, ESPN shouldn’t simply point out the NFL’s silence; ESPN should end its own."