#DFG: Canceling the Noise

[EL Jeffe]

No, I'm saying the league decided to convict the moment Kensil got the 11.5 reading. How they decided to ultimately render the verdict was always going to be secondary. As someone aptly said above: ready, fire, aim. The league was always going to work backwards from a conclusion.

But I suppose this whole saga has rendered me too cynical and I could be wrong.

 

[Mugsy's Jock]

Whether Brady should accept the penalty or not depends on what the penalty is.  At one game or less, I'd hope he'd figure out a way to accept it while remaining strongly defensive of his innocence.  At three games or more, he should definitely take it to the next level.
 
To me, the tough call is at 2 games.  I kind of hope he presses his case there.

 

[tims4wins]

Why on Earth should he drop it if it is just 1 game? There is literally no downside to him taking it to court and fighting to get it dropped to 0 games.

 

[ivanvamp]

 
If you are looking for one simple point that proves the whole thing is a sham: when the Colts tested the Pats ball on the sideline, the average of the 3 measurements was 11.5, which was exactly what the ideal gas law said it should have been. Case closed.

 
This is a great point.  I hadn't really thought about this, but yeah.  It supports the same interpretation of the halftime measurements.

 

[tims4wins]

 
This is a great point.  I hadn't really thought about this, but yeah.  It supports the same interpretation of the halftime measurements.

 
If the NFL officials had any understanding of the ideal gas law, Kensil would never have been saying "you're fucked" to JJ or JM (forget who he said it to). So obvious.

 

[lambeau]

This is right--Kensil immediately made up his mind. 
 
The Science News article is poorly presented, but the picture caption is really the point: "NFL ...dismissed science. Will the suspension hearing...acknowledge it?"

 

[( . ) ( . ) and (_!_)]

I'm curious how serious this appeal proceedings are actually going to be.  If Goodell is pre-disposed to hold firm to four games (I actually think this is likely) and the Brady team is determined to accept no penalty or take it to court (which the Sal Pal report suggests) then wouldn't Goodell be better served by keeping this as short as possible?  If the NFL knows that Brady is going to court, unless he gets zero penalty, and the NFL doesn't want to budge then wouldn't the NFL want to walk the line between being a complete Kangaroo Court and giving the NFLPA as little as possible to use for appeal? I'm not one of those law talking guys so I don't know how fine that line actually is or is not.  This thing could just be a check the box type of hearing if both sides know they are going to court no matter what.

 

[simplyeric]

I think he might reduce it to one game, not because of any innocence/guilt thing, but only because of 'scale of the penalty' for Brady (who otherwise has a clean record). He might convert the other games into some sort of fine.

And Brady takes it to court regardless.

 

[lambeau]

BTW, MacKinnon was stronger than reported. His final conclusion is: "For the above reasons, the Wells' Report conclusion that physical law cannot explain the pressures is wrong." Pretty decisive.
 
If I'm a lawyer with duelling expert witnesses, I think I  prefer the Nobel Laureate be on my side. 
 
Since he works a short cab ride from NFL HQ, I hope he's there, and I hope Roger argues with him. LOL.

 

[McDrew]

I think Goodell will reduce it to 1 to save face.  Anything above 0, should be taken it to court.  The Wells report is bullshit, relying on bullshit science, and done by a bullshit cronie of the NFL.  It has no factual basis in reality, and court is a great place to remind the NFL of that. 

 

[ivanvamp]

 
If the NFL officials had any understanding of the ideal gas law, Kensil would never have been saying "you're fucked" to JJ or JM (forget who he said it to). So obvious.

 
Another great point.  Clearly, they assumed guilt right from the get-go.  I mean, think about it.  No clue about the ideal gas law (let's face it, most of us aren't familiar with it technically, though we who live in cold climates understand it in practice).  They are warned ahead of time that the Pats might try to deflate footballs.  There is scuttlebutt going around about that.  So they're on the watch for it.
 
And voila - what happens?  They find a deflated football - the one the Pats were using (that got intercepted)!!!  Of *COURSE* they are going to presume guilt.  And then this narrative is confirmed by halftime measurements - still not understanding the ideal gas law, of course.  And away we go.

 

[Ed Hillel]

I think Goodell will reduce it to 1 to save face.  Anything above 0, should be taken it to court.  The Wells report is bullshit, relying on bullshit science, and done by a bullshit cronie of the NFL.  It has no factual basis in reality, and court is a great place to remind the NFL of that. 

 
Save face with who? Patriots fans make up like 5% of total NFL fans.
 
I think he keeps it the same, because if he reduces it, he's going to have to give a reason. Whatever reason he gives is going to harm him in the court appeal. Actually, my big hope is that Roger plays dumb and says something like, "while science may establish the Ideal Gas Law can explain what happened....WHAT ABOUT THE TEXTS??? Suspension reduced to 2 games." He would get obliterated in court.

 

[lambeau]

Further amusement: The D'Qwell Jackson interception ball was felt suspiciously squishy by two equipment guys on the Colts--in fact, it felt suspiciously like two interceptions Mike Adams made at Indianapolis which got them suspicious in the first place! They
went to Blakeman on the field, who told them them to get lost. So they called Kensil, who said their suspicions were good enough for him--test all the balls. At halftime, waiting officials first tested the intercepted ball, using Jastremski's gauge (with which he initially set the ball at 12.5), and three tests clustered around and averaged 11.5--exactly what the Ideal Gas Law would presict at 50 degrees! They nodded sagely, agreed there was a problem, and nine supervisors and officials proceeded to test the balls in blissful ignorance of the fact there was no reason for suspicion! One of Anderson's gauges read even lower, so the Keystone Kops routine continued, culminating in Kensil's "You're fucked!" to Jastremski on his way back upstairs--expurgated by Wells.

 

[riveraulwick]

I'm not sure how Brady doesn't appeal anything over 0 games.  In addition to his legacy, I think he is fighting in part for the NFLPA and the greater good of fellow players.
 
Besides, I think in many ways Roger reducing the suspension casts (even further) doubt on the basis of the initial suspension to begin with.  What valid reason does Roger reduce the suspension?  He cannot acknowledge flaws in the investigation, the scientific evidence of apparent causes of deflation discovered or even the reasoning used by Vincent in the sentencing.
 
Roger cannot reduce the suspension and say the remaining suspension is based soley on Tom's failure to turn over the cell phone, etc.  If he does that, then Roger is basically acknowledging there is isn't a sufficient basis for showing deflation actually occurred.  If that's the case, then what the hell is the draft pick punishment based on?
 
 I guess I'm just struggling to come up with any scenario where Roger reducing the suspension does not strengthen the positions that either 1) the NFL acknowledges flaws in the Wells Report, 2) the science does not support a finding that the balls were tampered with, or, 3) that the NFL overstepped it's authority in coming up with 4 games as the suspension amount.  Any of these choices result in Roger's position as all-ruling master being reduced going forward and when has he EVER gone down that route? 

 

[tims4wins]

I'm expecting nothing more than a token 1 game reduction in the suspension. Neither party really has much incentive to budge.

 
With what rationale? In other words, how would Rog explain the reduction - on what basis is he reducing it?
 
Edit: I should mention that I screwed up my vote. I voted a reduction to 2 games, but thinking on it more, I would say it stays at 4 games.

 

[drbretto]

There's precisely one way Goodell gets out of this looking like he's in charge of anything and that's to drop all the penalties and call it "new evidence". Literally every other outcome leads to this being out of his hands. I think he wants to appear to be in control more than anything else, so I will be in the very, very small minority and say that Goodell will vacate the penalty on Brady (leaving the rest and not even acknowledging that in the press conference).
 
If there is even a $1 fine, Brady should take it to the bitter end. Not for his legacy, but just as a pawn for the NFLPA to publicly shame Goodell in court, hopefully being at least a step in the direction towards ousting him has commissioner. Not saying that his job is on the line today or anything crazy like that, just that this will be another black mark that ultimately leads to his vacation from office.

 

[tims4wins]

There's precisely one way Goodell gets out of this looking like he's in charge of anything and that's to drop all the penalties and call it "new evidence". Literally every other outcome leads to this being out of his hands. I think he wants to appear to be in control more than anything else, so I will be in the very, very small minority and say that Goodell will vacate the penalty on Brady (leaving the rest and not even acknowledging that in the press conference).
 
If there is even a $1 fine, Brady should take it to the bitter end. Not for his legacy, but just as a pawn for the NFLPA to publicly shame Goodell in court, hopefully being at least a step in the direction towards ousting him has commissioner. Not saying that his job is on the line today or anything crazy like that, just that this will be another black mark that ultimately leads to his vacation from office.

 
But if Goodell drops it based on new evidence, then he will be asked "what the hell did you spend $5M on? Shouldn't that investigation have included the correct science"? It will make him look even more incompetent, IMO.

 

[snowmanny]

Side point but just occurred to me regarding the incredibly idiotic points that some have made regarding fumble rates. There are five halves of football that the Pats played where we know the footballs were at 12.5 or higher:  The 16 psi Jets game, the second half of the AFCCC, and the Super Bowl.  They had zero fumbles during those 150 minutes of play.  The league averaged 1.3 fumbles per team per game so the average number of fumbles for an average team during 2.5 games is 3.25.  Zero is less than 3.25.
 
The only explanation is that there is some other shenanigan that is yet to be uncovered.

 

[Ed Hillel]

 
But if Goodell drops it based on new evidence, then he will be asked "what the hell did you spend $5M on? Shouldn't that investigation have included the correct science"? It will make him look even more incompetent, IMO.

 
Yep. Even if he doesn't get a friendly court, all we hope for happens, and a judge completely elminates any penalties to Brady, he'll still be able to argue that the Pats "got off on a technicality," which people wil lbe happy to buy, since nobody will actually read the ruling. Then he can also keep the Pats team penalties in place, I guess. That's a point where I'd really hope Kraft would pivot and ramp up some pressure to get them thrown out or heavily reduced.

 

[Tim Salmon]

 
But if Goodell drops it based on new evidence, then he will be asked "what the hell did you spend $5M on? Shouldn't that investigation have included the correct science"? It will make him look even more incompetent, IMO.

In that scenario, wouldn't the rational inference be that Ted Wells screwed up, and that the NFL's only mistake was throwing its faith and money at a highly-respected investigator who happened to produce a shoddy product?

 

[riveraulwick]

Absolutely agree tims.  Roger can't do anything that casts doubts on the validity of the Wells Report or it reflects poorly on him and the NFL. 
 
Also, he can't drop Tom's suspension on "new evidence" and not address the draft pick/team fine.  He just can't.  That is to say, he can, but he will ultimately be called upon to address it

 

[drbretto]

 
But if Goodell drops it based on new evidence, then he will be asked "what the hell did you spend $5M on? Shouldn't that investigation have included the correct science"? It will make him look even more incompetent, IMO.

 
I don't think it does. I think he can easily say that everything looked on the surface like there was definitely enough smoke for an investigation and that he spent money on what he thought would be the most thorough and independent method of being absolutely sure. When the report came back looking like he was still guilty (in the heart and eyes of Mr. Wells), he issued the harsh penalty because they made him go that far to get to the truth. Now that it appears that Wells made an honest mistake with his conclusions (say what you want, you can't say it wasn't an honest mistake, or at least can't prove otherwise), he can show just how partial and fair he can be by vacating the punishment altogether, avoiding a trip to court and appearing even more in control than before.
 
The part about leaving the team punishments was half a joke.

 

[tims4wins]

In that scenario, wouldn't the rational inference be that Ted Wells screwed up, and that the NFL's only mistake was throwing its faith and money at a highly-respected investigator who happened to produce a shoddy product?

 
But Goodell chose Ted Wells, and the NFL uses his firm for a ton of different things. Would make the league look pretty bad IMO, but I guess maybe it would absolve Goodell of some blame in the public's eyes. Maybe.

 

[Ed Hillel]

 
But Goodell chose Ted Wells, and the NFL uses his firm for a ton of different things. Would make the league look pretty bad IMO, but I guess maybe it would absolve Goodell of some blame in the public's eyes. Maybe.

 
Again, what public? Most people blame the Patriots for cheating again, not Goodell.

 

[tims4wins]

 
I don't think it does. I think he can easily say that everything looked on the surface like there was definitely enough smoke for an investigation and that he spent money on what he thought would be the most thorough and independent method of being absolutely sure. When the report came back looking like he was still guilty (in the heart and eyes of Mr. Wells), he issued the harsh penalty because they made him go that far to get to the truth. Now that it appears that Wells made an honest mistake with his conclusions (say what you want, you can't say it wasn't an honest mistake, or at least can't prove otherwise), he can show just how partial and fair he can be by vacating the punishment altogether, avoiding a trip to court and appearing even more in control than before.
 
The part about leaving the team punishments was half a joke.

 
This is where your argument falls apart in my view. Ted Wells wouldn't admit to just making an honest mistake and still charging the NFL $5M. He will defend himself and his firm.

 

[drbretto]

I think a lot of you genuinely believe this to be some kind of conspiracy here. I do believe Wells, exponent and Goodell genuinely thought Brady was guilty and genuinely confused themselves on the science, then just kind of tweaked some words because they "knew damn well" Brady had been lying this whole time. If, and that is a huge if, Goodell can actually be convinced that the crime did not actually take place, I believe it would be his best move to drop all punishments and apologize. I think that's also the only way he still has that job in 3 or 4 years.

 

[tims4wins]

 
Again, what public? Most people blame the Patriots for cheating again, not Goodell.

 
I am saying that in a scenario where Goodell drops the suspensions in lieu of new evidence, he is going to look even more incompetent. Maybe I should have used the word owners instead of public. If he admits to having paid $5M for a shoddy report, I don't think the owners will like that much. You are right, the public's opinion doesn't matter.

 

[drbretto]

 
This is where your argument falls apart in my view. Ted Wells wouldn't admit to just making an honest mistake and still charging the NFL $5M. He will defend himself and his firm.

 
Ted Wells doesn't have to admit anything. His job is done here. All Goodell has to say is that he now believes the Wells report to be faulty (like the rest of the world does).

 

[tims4wins]

I think a lot of you genuinely believe this to be some kind of conspiracy here. I do believe Wells, exponent and Goodell genuinely thought Brady was guilty and genuinely confused themselves on the science, then just kind of tweaked some words because they "knew damn well" Brady had been lying this whole time. If, and that is a huge if, Goodell can actually be convinced that the crime did not actually take place, I believe it would be his best move to drop all punishments and apologize. I think that's also the only way he still has that job in 3 or 4 years.

 
Not so much a conspiracy, as much as a CYA operation as soon as they realized that they had no clue what the ideal gas law was but had already proclaimed the Pats guilty.
 
Also, you say "if Goodell can be convinced the crime did not actually take place"... again, if that happens, then why wasn't Ted Wells and his $5M report able to do this?

 

[tims4wins]

 
Ted Wells doesn't have to admit anything. His job is done here. All Goodell has to say is that he now believes the Wells report to be faulty (like the rest of the world does).

 
Fine, so owners, media, public will all say, how could you spend $5M on a shoddy report?
 
And you really think in that scenario Ted Wells will just sit back and take it? He won't defend himself, his work, his firm??

 

[glennhoffmania]

The Grand inquisition is next week.
June 23 2015
345 Park Ave NYC
All the good seats are gone.
 
I'm not going to repeat the arguments for/against or the Wells versus AEI reports. Most of us know the issues, and given the time spent discussing this, probably better than most.
 
So arguments aside how does this shake out?
 
What does Roger do and how will Brady respond?
 
Time for SoSH to vote.
 
lets quantify the community
 
I'm going with reduced to  2 games, and Brady takes it to court.

 
In the poll you asked what Brady should do but here you ask what Brady will do.  I voted 4 games and he shouldn't take it to court because I'd be surprised if a court gets involved with a CBA issue.*  But I think Brady will go to court if it's not reduced to zero.
 
*Caveat- I haven't read all 500 pages of discussion on this issue so I accept the possibility that I have no idea what I'm talking about when it comes to the appeal of a decision in the context of a CBA.

 

[drbretto]

He can try to defend himself all he wants, but there's been a growing sentiment that the Wells report WAS shoddy. Goodell making a move like that lets him distance himself from wells as he tosses him under the bus. All he has to say is listen, Prior to this moment, Ted Wells had a great reputation for these kinds of things, whatever. 
 
Goodell can cover his ass even better by throwing Wells under the bus than he can by tossing Brady.
 
What's Wells going to do? Hold another presser? He's got nothing to do with this anymore.

 

[tims4wins]

He can try to defend himself all he wants, but there's been a growing sentiment that the Wells report WAS shoddy. Goodell making a move like that lets him distance himself from wells as he tosses him under the bus. All he has to say is listen, Prior to this moment, Ted Wells had a great reputation for these kinds of things, whatever. 
 
Goodell can cover his ass even better by throwing Wells under the bus than he can by tossing Brady.
 
What's Wells going to do? Hold another presser? He's got nothing to do with this anymore.

 
I guess. But the point stands that Wells' firm does a ton of work for the NFL. In this scenario wouldn't the owners say something like, "how long have we been using a shoddy firm, how much have we paid them, can we have faith in anything they have ever done for us".
 
At the end of the day, the most important thing to Goodell is keeping his good standing among the owners, not looking good / tough / whatever in front of the public. His actions will be influenced by this goal. Given that, I don't see how his best course of action is eliminating the suspension.
 
Edit: I should also say that I have been wrong at nearly every step of the way in this whole saga. Pretty much the opposite of everything I have thought would happen has happened, every single step. There has been no logic in this whole process, why should it start now. I pray that you are right and I am wrong here.

 

[drbretto]

 
I guess. But the point stands that Wells' firm does a ton of work for the NFL. In this scenario wouldn't the owners say something like, "how long have we been using a shoddy firm, how much have we paid them, can we have faith in anything they have ever done for us".
 
At the end of the day, the most important thing to Goodell is keeping his good standing among the owners, not looking good / tough / whatever in front of the public. His actions will be influenced by this goal. Given that, I don't see how his best course of action is eliminating the suspension.

 
He can stand by Wells, say his work has been exemplary and that they will continue to use them, that it looks like they just got beat by Science <insert better words here, but you get the idea>. Hell, even Neil Degrass Tyson and Bill Nye got it wrong at first.

 

[tims4wins]

 
He can stand by Wells, say his work has been exemplary and that they will continue to use them, that it looks like they just got beat by Science. Hell, even Neil Degrass Tyson and Bill Nye got it wrong at first.

 
So basically blame Exponent, and not Wells. Fair enough. Like I said in my edit to my previous post... I PRAY you are right on this.

 

[Tim Salmon]

 
Ted Wells doesn't have to admit anything. His job is done here. All Goodell has to say is that he now believes the Wells report to be faulty (like the rest of the world does).

This is what I was getting at. The embarrassment that comes with backpedaling from the Wells Report might be a better option than doubling down at this point.

I also think that, as long as the NFL just distances itself from the Report (and doesn't directly attack Wells), then Wells has very little recourse publicly. If he holds a petulant "I just gave them what they wanted" press conference to turn the tables back on his client, he'll just look like an unprofessional hack.

All that said, I expect the NFL to ride that Report into Valhalla, shiny and chrome.

 

[drbretto]

I should note here that while I feel like that would be the BEST option, for Goodell and everyone else, and that is what I voted. I still understand it's more likely than not (that wasn't supposed to be a pun. I guess that line is ruined forever) that this ends up in court anyway.

 

[MarcSullivaFan]

The easiest thing to do is to conclude that the penalty was too harsh and cut it in half. The fact that this is a unique situation makes it easier for him to do that. And he can do so without undermining the Wells Report or the reasoning behind Vincent's decision to punish Brady. He could also cite Brady's previously clean record as a mitigating factor.

I don't think he'll reduce the penalty unless Brady is contrite, but if he does, I think this will be the rationale.

 

[MarcSullivaFan]

By the way, I don't buy the idea that Goodell is feeling any pressure here. The guy has no shame.

The only people who care about this are the Patriots, their fans, and a few egghead scientists and statisticians. The vast majority of NFL fans either don't give a shit or are happy with the result. Clearly, the other owners don't care either or Kraft wouldn't have had to take such a fucking.

All of us here think that the owners should be concerned with Goodell's bumbling of anything related to player discipline. But there's no evidence that they are. They've weathered the domestic violence issue, and they still have a disciplinary procedure that gives Goodell nearly unlimited discretion. There is no evidence that the Union will get up on its hind legs in the next negotiations. And, most importantly, they are still printing money. Things are going swimmingly.

 

[JeffLedbetter]

Further amusement: The D'Qwell Jackson interception ball was felt suspiciously squishy by two equipment guys on the Colts--in fact, it felt suspiciously like two interceptions Mike Adams made at Indianapolis which got them suspicious in the first place! They
went to Blakeman on the field, who told them them to get lost. So they called Kensil, who said their suspicions were good enough for him--test all the balls. At halftime, waiting officials first tested the intercepted ball, using Jastremski's gauge (with which he initially set the ball at 12.5), and three tests clustered around and averaged 11.5--exactly what the Ideal Gas Law would presict at 50 degrees! They nodded sagely, agreed there was a problem, and nine supervisors and officials proceeded to test the balls in blissful ignorance of the fact there was no reason for suspicion! One of Anderson's gauges read even lower, so the Keystone Kops routine continued, culminating in Kensil's "You're fucked!" to Jastremski on his way back upstairs--expurgated by Wells.

And the two balls that Mike Adams intercepted were in INDIANAPOLIS where McNally was not and the Colts' version of McNally was responsible for getting the balls to the field. Right?

 

[deanx0]

Roger can easily cut or eliminate the Brady penalty, but keep the team's punishment intact. He can play his "looked Tom in the eye" card and claim to believe Tom that he never asked McNally to illegally deflate the balls post referee inspection, only that Tom wanted McNally to ensure with the officials that the balls were at the lower end of the legal spectrum. However, Roger can then claim that the Pats employees did violate protocol--going into the bathroom was a violation even if nothing happened, and that, combined with McNally's refusal to come for another interview is enough to punish the team, which should have had better control of its employees. This doesn't undermine the Wells report but successfully gets out of the NFLPA battle and keeps the appearance that he's still dispensing justice on the Pats.
 
That being said, he will not do this. He will keep the suspension as is.

 

[Ed Hillel]

The easiest thing to do is to conclude that the penalty was too harsh and cut it in half. The fact that this is a unique situation makes it easier for him to do that. And he can do so without undermining the Wells Report or the reasoning behind Vincent's decision to punish Brady. He could also cite Brady's previously clean record as a mitigating factor.

I don't think he'll reduce the penalty unless Brady is contrite, but if he does, I think this will be the rationale.

 
Still, none of this is new information. Goodell is going to have to argue that he was the one who made the original decision in court, so basically he'd be reversing his decision for reasons he had available to him the time he made the original ruling.

 

[j44thor]

I voted other on should Brady take this to court only because there wasn't an option for eliminate the suspension but fine him $25-50k.
If TB12 is left with just a fine for not cooperating I think he should take that and focus on the Steelers.

 

[PedroKsBambino]

Were I Brady's lawyer and assuming he has the interest in his reputation that I expect he does, my settlement position would be "not one day, not one dollar" in terms of punishment, and I'd require a public exoneration and apology from the league, and $1 million and $1 dollar donation to Best Buddies in order to drop the appeal and waive right to file a defamation claim.
 
I'd probably settle without the $1 million and $1, though, if I had to.
 
Brady cares not at all about the money, and likely a bunch about the suspension...but nowhere near as much as his rep, I'd imagine.  If that's your primary interest, you need to not just win you need to destroy this thing.

 

[Cornboy14]

Side point but just occurred to me regarding the incredibly idiotic points that some have made regarding fumble rates. There are five halves of football that the Pats played where we know the footballs were at 12.5 or higher:  The 16 psi Jets game, the second half of the AFCCC, and the Super Bowl.  They had zero fumbles during those 150 minutes of play.  The league averaged 1.3 fumbles per team per game so the average number of fumbles for an average team during 2.5 games is 3.25.  Zero is less than 3.25.
 
The only explanation is that there is some other shenanigan that is yet to be uncovered.

All away games, too.

 

[snowmanny]

All away games, too.

Well the Colts thought something was up during the game at Indy.

 

[simplyeric]

All away games, too.

And the Super Bowl.

Which I suppose is contained in 'away games'.

But it's fun to point out.

'Oh and don't forget the Super Bowl. Which we won. Maybe you watched?'

 

[dcmissle]

I do not believe the suspension gets cut by RG unless TB goes to him on bended knee, with a quasi admission at least.  Which is not going to happen.
 
But even if the suspension is cut to a game, this fight goes on.

 

[drbretto]

And again, it's not just about Brady at this point. This is about the league being run by bafoons.

 

[simplyeric]

I'm not sure how Brady doesn't appeal anything over 0 games.  In addition to his legacy, I think he is fighting in part for the NFLPA and the greater good of fellow players.
 
Besides, I think in many ways Roger reducing the suspension casts (even further) doubt on the basis of the initial suspension to begin with.  What valid reason does Roger reduce the suspension?  He cannot acknowledge flaws in the investigation, the scientific evidence of apparent causes of deflation discovered or even the reasoning used by Vincent in the sentencing.
 
Roger cannot reduce the suspension and say the remaining suspension is based soley on Tom's failure to turn over the cell phone, etc.  If he does that, then Roger is basically acknowledging there is isn't a sufficient basis for showing deflation actually occurred.  If that's the case, then what the hell is the draft pick punishment based on?
 
 I guess I'm just struggling to come up with any scenario where Roger reducing the suspension does not strengthen the positions that either 1) the NFL acknowledges flaws in the Wells Report, 2) the science does not support a finding that the balls were tampered with, or, 3) that the NFL overstepped it's authority in coming up with 4 games as the suspension amount.  Any of these choices result in Roger's position as all-ruling master being reduced going forward and when has he EVER gone down that route? 

I think he reduces the suspension on a 'law of the shop' logic, where he sticks by every accusation he made, but suggests that the financial penalty to Brady is too high.

'While I firmly support the findings of the Wells report regarding more probable than not knowledge of wrongdoing, and subsequent lack of cooperation with the investigation, I have been convinced that the penalty is not in keeping with previous penalties. I thereby set the penalty at one game, with the understanding that this serves as a warning for more severe penalties to any parties to future infraction' or some other completely bullshit rationale.