#DFG: Canceling the Noise

Is there any level of suspension that you would advise Tom to accept?


  • Total voters
    208

TheoShmeo

Skrub's sympathy case
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Jul 19, 2005
12,890
Boston, NY
I think there is a good argument in that vein, Joe Dokes.
 
The only counter is that if I represented RG in court, I wouldn't mind the "all in" approach.
 
"Judge, we listened carefully to Mr. Brady's arguments, took it all into account, blah blah blah, and in the end we believe that the importance of the integrity of the game is such that the conclusions reached in the Wells Report demand these penalties, if not more severe ones."  Or something more elegant along those lines.
 
To be sure, being more statesmanlike and reducing the penalty carries some benefit in court, but I sort of like the idea of being fully "invested" in the position and not giving any quarter.
 
Off topic, slightly, I think the most fascinating development will be if the Sheriff goes all the way down to one game.  I totally get the argument to fight anyway.  No need to reply to this post on why Tom should do that.  But I do still think that a one game suspension forces Tom to think about ending the nonsense and going along.  Think.  Not do it per se.  But give it some thought.  (Or what DC just said while I was typing...)
 

joe dokes

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 18, 2005
30,244
Under the CBA, Goodell has to be the one to administer the original punishment. So what changed between the original punishment and any reduction in it, and what reasoning is Goodell going to give that isn't going to make the entire process look like a sham.
 
 
Presumably, Goodell the appellate would have to cite something at the hearing. Who knows --- Brady's answers; his lawyers' discussion of the science.  They were there all freakin day.  I'm sure there's a boatload of stuff that Goodell the appellate could say that caused him to revisit/reconsider the decision of Goodell the sentencer.
 

Ed Hillel

Wants to be startin somethin
SoSH Member
Dec 12, 2007
43,592
Here
joe dokes said:
 
Presumably, Goodell the appellate would have to cite something at the hearing. Who knows --- Brady's answers; his lawyers' discussion of the science.  They were there all freakin day.  I'm sure there's a boatload of stuff that Goodell the appellate could say that caused him to revisit/reconsider the decision of Goodell the sentencer.
 
Yes, and the Wells report cost $5 million dollars and took nearly 4 freaking months, not to mention that Brady was there all day for Wells in his original report, too. He's likely going to end up citing to something that was available the entire time, which is going to make the process look incredibly stupid. As far as I know, there were no relevant scientific principles discovered in the months between the Wells Report and the Appeals hearing. And if Goodell is going to cite faulty science in the Wells Report, why is Brady getting suspended at all? The texts? What does that change? Either you think he did it, or you don't, so it should be 4 games or zero. I think I've dealt with the lack of cooperation and why I don't think it would stand up in court. If Goodell actually does reduce Brady's suspension and state it's solely for lack of cooperation, I will do the Charlson in my living room our of pure excitement.
 
That's the whole point about having an appeals process. If the appeals process never causes a change in punishment, then that's even more of a sham than the original decision.
 
The point is that having one guy review his own rulings is a sham, especially when he can change his ruling based on information that was likely available the entire time. The original ruling took 4 months and there was millions spent in rendering it, and you can bet it was carefully thought out. It's not like he's reviewing a decision that was made on the fly.
 

joe dokes

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 18, 2005
30,244
He's likely going to end up citing to something that was available the entire time, which is going to make the process look incredibly stupid
What do you mean by "available the entire time"? We don't know what evidence Brady's side put in front of Goodell on appeal.

 
As far as I know, there were no relevant scientific principles discovered in the months between the Wells Report and the Appeals hearing
 
That's correct. But who explained those principles (or the Wells report's deficiencies with respect to them) to Goodell *before* the appeal hearing?  As far as I know, there was no "other side" of the science made part of the process that led to the suspension. And if you follow the fiction that the NFL hired Wells to provide an impartial report (yeah, I know), then the appeal is the first official time Goodell gets contrary science evidence.
 
Yes, the fact that Goodell serves both roles is a problem -- although it may be one the NFLPA bargained for.  But, IMO, it's highly improbable that Goodell can't find anything from 8 (10? 12?) hours that he can't describe as "information that puts things in a different light" or something similar.
 

Ed Hillel

Wants to be startin somethin
SoSH Member
Dec 12, 2007
43,592
Here
Well, you've presented another issue that makes the process looks ridiculous. Why is the appeals hearing the first time a player can present exculpatory evidence? When I say something is not new, I mean that it was all available for Roger to have seen from the beginning. If he didn't let them present it, that's on him.
 

joe dokes

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 18, 2005
30,244
Well, you've presented another issue that makes the process looks ridiculous. Why is the appeals hearing the first time a player can present exculpatory evidence? When I say something is not new, I mean that it was all available for Roger to have seen from the beginning. If he didn't let them present it, that's on him.
 
 
My sense is that it goes like this: The NFL hires people to investigate. They investigate.  There were no inculpate/exculpate sides. Wells was supposed be impartial (again, I know).  It's not a trial.  The investigatee doesn't get a copy of the investigation and a chance to respond. It's not a trial. 
 
I think this is similar to workplace investigations that hire outside counsel to investigate.  They investigate and present their investigation to someone. Then something discipline-ish happens or doesn't (I know 25 people can tell me how its different than a workplace investigation and they'd be right. But the procedural structure is close enough for these purposes.)
 

Hendu for Kutch

Member
SoSH Member
Apr 7, 2006
6,920
Nashua, NH
I just don't understand what can be presented that doesn't exonerate Brady but gets the sentence reduced if there's any sort of consistency.  That's why a reduced sentence makes no sense.  Note, this is not the same as saying they won't do it.  This whole thing has made no sense.
 
You can't come out and say "Well, we've seen new scientific data, and now we're really not sure if the balls were deflated or not, so we'll give you a half-punishment".  That's not how it works, right?  Once you've dropped below that magic 51% threshold, it's not less punished, it's not guilty.  Right?  Am I missing something?  Lowering that bar to 26% isn't OK just because you've also lowered the suspension equally.
 
Arbitrarily deciding to uphold the guilt but lower the suspension doesn't make sense either, because that reveals the whole thing was a farce.  How can you justify the same person having the same opinion of the same event but then suddenly halving the punishment?  How does that not expose that its all completely arbitrary and made up as it goes?
 
Upholding part of the suspension based on lack of cooperation doesn't hold up either.  As has been pointed out, Gostkowski denied the exact same request in the exact same investigation and received absolutely no punishment.  Forget Favre, how can you possibly justify that?  Two people do the same thing at the same time and one gets nothing and the other gets a suspension costing them millions of dollars?
 
From a non-legal and strictly logical point of view, I don't see how he can do anything other than uphold or vacate without looking completely full of shit.  Sadly, that's never been much of a hindrance for the ol' Rog.
 

Super Nomario

Member
SoSH Member
Nov 5, 2000
14,012
Mansfield MA
Hendu for Kutch said:
I just don't understand what can be presented that doesn't exonerate Brady but gets the sentence reduced if there's any sort of consistency.  That's why a reduced sentence makes no sense.  Note, this is not the same as saying they won't do it.  This whole thing has made no sense.
 
You can't come out and say "Well, we've seen new scientific data, and now we're really not sure if the balls were deflated or not, so we'll give you a half-punishment".  That's not how it works, right?  Once you've dropped below that magic 51% threshold, it's not less punished, it's not guilty.  Right?  Am I missing something?  Lowering that bar to 26% isn't OK just because you've also lowered the suspension equally.
 
Arbitrarily deciding to uphold the guilt but lower the suspension doesn't make sense either, because that reveals the whole thing was a farce.  How can you justify the same person having the same opinion of the same event but then suddenly halving the punishment?  How does that not expose that its all completely arbitrary and made up as it goes?
 
Upholding part of the suspension based on lack of cooperation doesn't hold up either.  As has been pointed out, Gostkowski denied the exact same request in the exact same investigation and received absolutely no punishment.  Forget Favre, how can you possibly justify that?  Two people do the same thing at the same time and one gets nothing and the other gets a suspension costing them millions of dollars?
 
From a non-legal and strictly logical point of view, I don't see how he can do anything other than uphold or vacate without looking completely full of shit.  Sadly, that's never been much of a hindrance for the ol' Rog.
I mostly agree, but I wonder if Roger can hang his hat on the "generally aware" piece of things. The logic might be that Brady did not ask for nor did he explicitly know about tampering, but he was in a position to be "generally aware" and his lack of action / follow up constitutes negligence. That seems like a pretty good solution for the league: it sends a strong message that integrity of the game is important and players / leaders have an obligation to know what's going on, it provides logical justification for the team penalties to stand, it partially exonerates Brady while holding him to task, it doesn't contradict the Wells Report, it reduces Brady's penalty below Hardy's, and it shows Goodell as a tough but reasonable appellate court. Brady probably takes it to court anyway and maybe wins, but he probably wouldn't win in a way that would make Goodell look overly stupid.
 
I still think the most likely outcome is the four games stand, however.
 

Hoya81

Member
SoSH Member
Feb 3, 2010
8,458
Going under oath during the appeal has to be putting the NFL in a real bind, because it will be difficult to uphold suspending for more than non-cooperation. I doubt Goodell wants to publicly declare Brady a liar after the same tactic backfired during the Rice fiasco.
 

Hendu for Kutch

Member
SoSH Member
Apr 7, 2006
6,920
Nashua, NH
Super Nomario said:
I mostly agree, but I wonder if Roger can hang his hat on the "generally aware" piece of things. The logic might be that Brady did not ask for nor did he explicitly know about tampering, but he was in a position to be "generally aware" and his lack of action / follow up constitutes negligence. That seems like a pretty good solution for the league: it sends a strong message that integrity of the game is important and players / leaders have an obligation to know what's going on, it provides logical justification for the team penalties to stand, it partially exonerates Brady while holding him to task, it doesn't contradict the Wells Report, it reduces Brady's penalty below Hardy's, and it shows Goodell as a tough but reasonable appellate court. Brady probably takes it to court anyway and maybe wins, but he probably wouldn't win in a way that would make Goodell look overly stupid.
 
I still think the most likely outcome is the four games stand, however.
 
Wasn't that all they had on him originally though?  Being "generally aware" was all he was found "guilty" of in the first place, right?  That seems to fall under my scenario 2 of the same person reaching the same conclusion on the same event and then giving a different punishment for it.
 

bernardsamuel

Member
SoSH Member
Jan 4, 2006
195
Denver, only physically
Since we're all throwing our best shit against the wall and seeing what will stick (and nothing can stick perfectly, as there's far too much lack of logic in every component of this mess), I'll throw mine out there for the sheer fun of it.  If we go back to nearly the beginning of all this, we have Goodell's stated belief that the whole matter involves the integrity of the game.  If Goodell were now to say that a review of the entire body of evidence suggests that this is in fact not a matter of "integrity" after all, then he wouldn't need to cross the threshold to determine which penalties he should impose that are ones commonly utilized in integrity cases.  He would restrict himself to penalties used in non-integrity cases, such as Favre's 50K for non-cooperation. 
 
Goodell could reach the conclusion that it's not a matter of integrity by noting all the various inputs regarding how every quarterback does something or has something done to the ball (and if Brady's only sin were to have done whatever it was to the balls after the official inspection, then it's just a technical violation instead of an integrity violation - and by no means am I personally granting that Brady/Jas/McNally did anything at all),  If doing something to the ball has become an accepted, commonplace practice, then Goodell can let himself be convinced that this has little to do with integrity.  Again, this would take the Wells Report and the Context rebuttal out of the picture entirely as regards matter of science, though matters of cooperation, which fall into the Favre precedent as regards a player, would remain.  If Goodell would go in this direction as regards Brady, Goodell still could leave the team penalties in place because non-cooperation by an owner can be argued to be more serious than non-cooperation by a player.
 
Why would Goodell even think of going in this direction?  If he thinks he'll lose in court, if he feels bad for whatever reason for screwing over Robert Kraft, if he wants opening night of the upcoming season to be unblemished, or if he just wants justice to be served but doesn't have the balls to admit that Kensil and company set him up for this failure, this approach might serve him well.
 
I thank in advance anyone who'll respond to this post, as there is a good chance I'll learn lessons of law, reasoning, and ethics from any response.
 

tims4wins

PN23's replacement
SoSH Member
Jul 15, 2005
37,069
Hingham, MA
Super Nomario said:
I mostly agree, but I wonder if Roger can hang his hat on the "generally aware" piece of things. The logic might be that Brady did not ask for nor did he explicitly know about tampering, but he was in a position to be "generally aware" and his lack of action / follow up constitutes negligence. That seems like a pretty good solution for the league: it sends a strong message that integrity of the game is important and players / leaders have an obligation to know what's going on, it provides logical justification for the team penalties to stand, it partially exonerates Brady while holding him to task, it doesn't contradict the Wells Report, it reduces Brady's penalty below Hardy's, and it shows Goodell as a tough but reasonable appellate court. Brady probably takes it to court anyway and maybe wins, but he probably wouldn't win in a way that would make Goodell look overly stupid.
 
I still think the most likely outcome is the four games stand, however.
This is a good take SN, but what about the point that Brady would be getting punished in this scenario for being generally aware of a team violation? If Russ Wilson is generally aware that a player is on PEDs should he be suspended too? What about head coaches? Slippery slope IMO.
 

Super Nomario

Member
SoSH Member
Nov 5, 2000
14,012
Mansfield MA
Hendu for Kutch said:
 
Wasn't that all they had on him originally though?  Being "generally aware" was all he was found "guilty" of in the first place, right?  That seems to fall under my scenario 2 of the same person reaching the same conclusion on the same event and then giving a different punishment for it.
I think you're mostly right, but at the same time that's what might be appealing about the idea: it doesn't require Goodell to contradict anything Wells or the NFL said earlier. He just has to recognize that "generally aware" encompasses a wide range of possibilities, from mastermind a cheating scandal to one time seeing McNally with a needle, and choosing a more charitable interpretation that still makes Brady culpable in some way.
 
tims4wins said:
This is a good take SN, but what about the point that Brady would be getting punished in this scenario for being generally aware of a team violation? If Russ Wilson is generally aware that a player is on PEDs should he be suspended too? What about head coaches? Slippery slope IMO.
I'm sure the NFLPA would argue this in court, but the NFL could argue that quarterbacks oversee the ball preparation process - and they'd have plenty of evidence to support that. And IANAL, but that kind of football-specific argument seems like a good one for the NFL to get in, rather than the broader-based challenges of Goodell's authority that the NFLPA outlined in its letter.
 

tims4wins

PN23's replacement
SoSH Member
Jul 15, 2005
37,069
Hingham, MA
Excellent point re: ball prep. NFLPA could argue that the alleged violation was after ball prep was out of Brady's hands, but that may be a tougher argument for them.
 

ivanvamp

captain obvious
Jul 18, 2005
6,104
AB in DC said:
That's the whole point about having an appeals process.  If the appeals process never causes a change in punishment, then that's even more of a sham than the original decision.
The issue isn't having an appeals process. It's that Goodell is both prosecutor and judge in the same case. THAT is the sham.
 

BelichickFan

New Member
May 11, 2015
34
California
I would like to know what % is attached to "more probably than not".  IMO the NFL has a math issue with two "more probable than not"s.  They say it's more probably than not that something happened and (if something happened) it's more probably than not that Brady was generally aware.
 
Well, if each one (something happened and Brady knowing) is 50-50 then it's only 25% that something happened and Brady knew.
 
For the odds of two events to both have happened, each would need approximately a 70% chance individually.  So does "more probable than not" reach the 70% threshold ?  If it's below that, if "more probably than not" is in the 51%-65% range then "Something having been done and Brady knowing about it" falls below the 50% mark and becomes "less probably than not".
 
Of course, the NFL has no % attached to it so it can be whatever they want it to be.
 

tims4wins

PN23's replacement
SoSH Member
Jul 15, 2005
37,069
Hingham, MA
Eh I don't think it's an issue for the NFL. They are basically saying if something happened, Brady was likely generally aware, and since the Wells report says something happened, then it's a given that Brady was likely generally aware. The generally aware piece is a 100% truth in the NFL's eyes if something happened, which again, in their eyes, it did.

As kentremendous said a while back, you can't even attempt to try to talk about this rationally without sounding like an insane person.
 

BelichickFan

New Member
May 11, 2015
34
California
tims4wins said:
Eh I don't think it's an issue for the NFL. They are basically saying if something happened, Brady was likely generally aware, and since the Wells report says something happened, then it's a given that Brady was likely generally aware. The generally aware piece is a 100% truth in the NFL's eyes if something happened, which again, in their eyes, it did.
 
The wording for both is more probable than not.  You can't say "since the Wells report says something happened".  It doesn't.  It says it's more probable than not that something happened.  Same with Brady being generally aware.  It's two uncertainties, which ANDed together make a much bigger uncertainty.
 

Ed Hillel

Wants to be startin somethin
SoSH Member
Dec 12, 2007
43,592
Here
Super Nomario said:
I mostly agree, but I wonder if Roger can hang his hat on the "generally aware" piece of things. The logic might be that Brady did not ask for nor did he explicitly know about tampering, but he was in a position to be "generally aware" and his lack of action / follow up constitutes negligence. That seems like a pretty good solution for the league: it sends a strong message that integrity of the game is important and players / leaders have an obligation to know what's going on, it provides logical justification for the team penalties to stand, it partially exonerates Brady while holding him to task, it doesn't contradict the Wells Report, it reduces Brady's penalty below Hardy's, and it shows Goodell as a tough but reasonable appellate court. Brady probably takes it to court anyway and maybe wins, but he probably wouldn't win in a way that would make Goodell look overly stupid.
 
This may not contradict the very bottom line statement regarding Brady being "generally aware," but it would seem to contradict the way Wells sets up his argument. I think it's clear Wells is suggesting that Brady was asking McNally and Jastremski to act for him, or that Brady was "bribing" them with autographs/shoes. The missing information is whether he's asking them to deflate the footballs down to 12.5 or below it, and that's why Wells only goes so far as he does. Suggesting that Brady wasn't aware of their actions at all wouldn't really fit the general theme of the report, although you are correct that it would not contradict the very bottom line conclusion. Goodell would also have to do that thing where people are all "the science is confusing, let's just cross it out and ignore it." It wouldn't surprise me if he went that route. Rather than give credence to alternative scientific conclusions, pretend Wells and the others are zero sum and focus on the rest.
 

SoxinSeattle

Member
SoSH Member
Mar 6, 2003
2,369
Here
It's so disgusting that this has been bungled so amazingly bad that it is now all about the NFL saving face and simply ignoring the irreparable harm it has done to one of it's 32 and a future hall of fame player. It is one of the most surreal things I have ever witnessed.
 
http://www.usatoday.com/story/sports/nfl/patriots/2015/07/19/tom-brady-deflategate-appeal-ruling-roger-goodell-federal-court-lawsuit/30388007/?utm_source=feedblitz&utm_medium=FeedBlitzRss&utm_campaign=usatodaycomnfl-topstories
"I think if Roger Goodell doesn't appropriately reduce Brady's outrageous suspension, he runs the risk of — yet again — going to a neutral arbiter and losing," said Mark Schamel, a partner at Womble, Carlyle, Sandridge & Rice who has represented Richie Incognito and Von Miller.
"At some point, team owners have to ask themselves: 'Wait a second, what are we doing?' As far as all the internal communications that would be revealed in court, nobody in the NFL wants the world to see how the sausage is made."
 

PedroKsBambino

Well-Known Member
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Apr 17, 2003
31,212
Super Nomario said:
I mostly agree, but I wonder if Roger can hang his hat on the "generally aware" piece of things. The logic might be that Brady did not ask for nor did he explicitly know about tampering, but he was in a position to be "generally aware" and his lack of action / follow up constitutes negligence. That seems like a pretty good solution for the league: it sends a strong message that integrity of the game is important and players / leaders have an obligation to know what's going on, it provides logical justification for the team penalties to stand, it partially exonerates Brady while holding him to task, it doesn't contradict the Wells Report, it reduces Brady's penalty below Hardy's, and it shows Goodell as a tough but reasonable appellate court. Brady probably takes it to court anyway and maybe wins, but he probably wouldn't win in a way that would make Goodell look overly stupid.
 
I still think the most likely outcome is the four games stand, however.
 
Not at all sure the CBA would support that as a standard to be applied to player discipline...the only sort-of close 'should have known/acted' penalty I can think of is Payton, and that's someone who is NOT covered by the CBA.
 

tims4wins

PN23's replacement
SoSH Member
Jul 15, 2005
37,069
Hingham, MA
BelichickFan said:
 
The wording for both is more probable than not.  You can't say "since the Wells report says something happened".  It doesn't.  It says it's more probable than not that something happened.  Same with Brady being generally aware.  It's two uncertainties, which ANDed together make a much bigger uncertainty.
For some reason I had it in my head that the report didn't use the exact same language twice, but lo and behold, it did. On the second page it says it is more probable than not that the balls were deflated post inspection, and then more probable than not Brady knew about it.

Not that the NFL cares a lick.
 

( . ) ( . ) and (_!_)

T&A
SoSH Member
Feb 9, 2010
5,302
Providence, RI
dcmissle said:
The smart -- and Machiavellian -- move by RG here is pretty obvious:  Cut the suspension by half, or better, 3/4s.  Say that after looking in TB's eyes and hearing his words, you are persuaded that he had no role in deflating footballs.  But reiterate your belief that footballs were deflated.  Then say that you are enforcing some suspension because his refusal to turn over cell records impeded the investigation -- indeed, had he done so, maybe Vincent does not discipline him at all!
 
I think something along these lines makes life the most difficult for TB, and would stand a very good chance of surviving a federal court challenge.
I think the real Machiavellian thing to do here for Goodell would be to take it down to zero and put a hard line of emphasis on the team penalties still in place.

This is about Goodells power vs. The union. He has lost a lot in court and everyone says the NFLPA wants to curb his power from the CBA through the Brady case. But Goodell backing off this now would "demonstrate" that he can be a neutral and reasonable arbitrator. That would take the wind out of the unions sails and preserve his power/ability to not only retain his ultimate power but also have a feather in his hat to show during the next inevitable court showdown with the union. If the lawyers really think Brady's case is strong then Roger wins by staying out of court. Goodell can win here by "showing the process in the CBA works"

Now obviously there would be short term criticism thrown at him and a short lived outcry. But people move on and forget and he has the team penalties in his pocket to still show the hammer that was dropped.

I expect Rog to be too thin skinned to take this approach. But from a lose the battle win the war approach, this may be his best long term option.
 

wilked

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 17, 2005
4,046

JimBoSox9

will you be my friend?
SoSH Member
Nov 1, 2005
16,667
Mid-surburbia
wilked said:
 
 
I probably could have learned passable German with the time I have spent following deflated footballs at this point
 
dc's was a one-shot cannon, but this one I'm stealing.
 
 
I have to imagine (and keeping in spirit, I'm just pulling this out of my ass) that the purported 'whoops' was in the post right before the linked one.
 

One other nugget from Gronkowski's "Town Hall" appearance: When asked if it bothers him that Deflategate has diminished what the team accomplished in the eyes of some, he smiled and said, "Next question."
 
He then added, "It's just so ridiculous how long it's been dragging out. It's the most annoying thing ever, because wherever I go, no matter what, someone is bringing it up. If it's a fan, wherever you are -- on a plane, somebody is bringing it up. It might be the most annoying process I've ever seen. I don't even know what's going on with it, but it's just annoying and I can't wait for it to be over; Roger [Goodell] needs to wipe it out and put it in the past, that's what I just feel like."
 

Ed Hillel

Wants to be startin somethin
SoSH Member
Dec 12, 2007
43,592
Here
Maria also asked Gronk if playing with deflated footballs made a difference, and his response was, "I don't know, I've never done it." Pretty good.
 

BelichickFan

New Member
May 11, 2015
34
California
Ed Hillel said:
Maria also asked Gronk if playing with deflated footballs made a difference, and his response was, "I don't know, I've never done it." Pretty good.
 
That's one of the problems, the VAST majority of the American people think it's a given that the balls were artificially inflated.  Of course the reality is that no-one outside of the Patriots organization actually knows but everyone thinks it's certain.
 

simplyeric

Member
SoSH Member
Feb 14, 2006
14,037
Richmond, VA
BelichickFan said:
 
That's one of the problems, the VAST majority of the American people think it's a given that the balls were artificially inflated.  Of course the reality is that no-one outside of the Patriots organization actually knows but everyone thinks it's certain.
The reality is that everyone who's ever played in a particularly cold game-time environment probably has played with 'under inflated' balls. Or more specifically, balls below nominal specification for pressure.
The thing is, Brady isn't being punished for the pressure of the balls (or lack thereof) he's being punished for (being generally aware of) tampering with the balls after ref inspection.
It's all a fiasco.
 

simplyeric

Member
SoSH Member
Feb 14, 2006
14,037
Richmond, VA
( . ) ( . ) and (_!_) said:
I think the real Machiavellian thing to do here for Goodell would be to take it down to zero and put a hard line of emphasis on the team penalties still in place.

This is about Goodells power vs. The union. He has lost a lot in court and everyone says the NFLPA wants to curb his power from the CBA through the Brady case. But Goodell backing off this now would "demonstrate" that he can be a neutral and reasonable arbitrator. That would take the wind out of the unions sails and preserve his power/ability to not only retain his ultimate power but also have a feather in his hat to show during the next inevitable court showdown with the union. If the lawyers really think Brady's case is strong then Roger wins by staying out of court. Goodell can win here by "showing the process in the CBA works"

Now obviously there would be short term criticism thrown at him and a short lived outcry. But people move on and forget and he has the team penalties in his pocket to still show the hammer that was dropped.

I expect Rog to be too thin skinned to take this approach. But from a lose the battle win the war approach, this may be his best long term option.
Even more shrewd might be:
Take it down to two games because of the tampering, because Brady SHOULD have known about it.
BUT, cite Brady's 'honest and forthright testimony' at the appeal, where he looked him in the eye and really believes that Brady was NOT aware of the tampering.

And then he commutes the 2 game suspension into the cash equivalent in fines.

So, no suspension, only cash, what now Brady?
RG has set a new precedent for that sort of thing, while not actually costing Brady any games.
No one who's not a Patriots or TB fan will feel badly for Brady's monetary loss.
Brady and the union can bring it to court, but then it just feels a little hollow, whining about the money he doesn't even need (even though that's not really the issue).
So Brady continues to lose in the court of public opinion, and RG still gets some penalty.
 

Corsi

isn't shy about blowing his wad early
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Dec 3, 2010
12,955
Boston, MA
NFL commissioner Roger Goodell said on Tuesday that there is no timeline to render a decision on New England quarterback Tom Brady's appeal on his four-game suspension for his involvement in ‘Deflategate.”
 
“We are focused on it,” Goodell said. “We are obviously being very thorough and want to make sure we consider all aspects of his appeal. We will make a decision as quickly as possible.”
 
 

 
http://triblive.com/sports/steelers/8774345-74/goodell-appeal-brady#ixzz3gXmdiw1Z 
 

txexile

New Member
May 7, 2015
39
Texas (ex-Boston)
Corsi said:
 
From the Triblive.com article:
 
"Goodell also said that he isn't aware of Steelers running back Le'Veon Bell's appeal on a reported three-game suspension he received for marijuana possession and DUI during the preseason last year.
“That appeal is not heard by me, I would have to get somebody else to get a timeline on that,” Goodell said.
 
 
Hmmm, guess it is not mandated that the Commissioner hear appeals, as he chose to do in the Brady case. 
 
 

C4CRVT

Member
SoSH Member
Feb 29, 2008
3,076
Heart of the Green Mountains
Farce. "As quickly as possible"
 
Rog, let me introduce you to the dictionary...
 
This whole situation is surreal. I've enjoyed reading here every few days so thank you to all who post interesting opinions and thoughts.
 

j44thor

Member
SoSH Member
Aug 1, 2006
10,961
I wonder if they are delaying the ruling because they want Brady playing in the opener but can't admit it.  They realize the longer they wait to issue a verdict the closer they are to the start of camp and the longer the court process takes.  
 
Brady files and injunction and plays the home opener which almost certainly will be to a record viewing audience for a non-playoff game ultimately resulting in a huge win for the NFL.  If the off-chance he ends up losing the court case a few weeks later the NFL has now won 2X.
 

TomTerrific

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 15, 2005
2,702
Wayland, MA
j44thor said:
I wonder if they are delaying the ruling because they want Brady playing in the opener but can't admit it....
 
Brady files and injunction and plays the home opener which almost certainly will be to a record viewing audience for a non-playoff game ultimately resulting in a huge win for the NFL.  If the off-chance he ends up losing the court case a few weeks later the NFL has now won 2X.
That would be extra super duper devious by the standards RG has established. Meaning I could see them stumbling into this outcome but I sure as heck can't see them actually planning for and executing to achieve this outcome.

No, I think they're just dithering/bumbling/doing whatever, while trying to decide what will look best.
 

snowmanny

Member
SoSH Member
Dec 8, 2005
15,672
txexile said:
 
From the Triblive.com article:
 
"Goodell also said that he isn't aware of Steelers running back Le'Veon Bell's appeal on a reported three-game suspension he received for marijuana possession and DUI during the preseason last year.
“That appeal is not heard by me, I would have to get somebody else to get a timeline on that,” Goodell said.
 
 
Hmmm, guess it is not mandated that the Commissioner hear appeals, as he chose to do in the Brady case. 
 
Yes.  In discipline that falls under "integrity of the game" the Commissioner can elect to do the appeal himself instead of having a hearing officer agreed upon by him and the NFLPA Executive Director.
 
To me this has been one of Brady's big problems and falls on the NFLPA for allowing such language in the CBA.
 

AB in DC

OG Football Writing
SoSH Member
Jul 10, 2002
13,633
Springfield, VA
simplyeric said:
The reality is that everyone who's ever played in a particularly cold game-time environment probably has played with 'under inflated' balls. Or more specifically, balls below nominal specification for pressure.
The thing is, Brady isn't being punished for the pressure of the balls (or lack thereof) he's being punished for (being generally aware of) tampering with the balls after ref inspection.
 
 
Which is why the Patriots will never, ever be exonerated, no matter what the science says.  Even if the footbals were at the appropriate inflation level, the NFL can always say that the punishment was for the tampering, not for the deflation.
 

Hendu for Kutch

Member
SoSH Member
Apr 7, 2006
6,920
Nashua, NH
AB in DC said:
 
Which is why the Patriots will never, ever be exonerated, no matter what the science says.  Even if the footbals were at the appropriate inflation level, the NFL can always say that the punishment was for the tampering, not for the deflation.
 
??? 
 
The only evidence of tampering is the deflation.  Without deflation you've got a guy that went to the bathroom and someone who used the word "deflate" in a text in the offseason.  Without deflation all you're left with is evidence of non-tampering...the overinflated balls against the Jets and the properly inflated balls against the Colts.
 
I mean, I guess they can say that, but they might as well say they're punishing them for wearing white throwbacks after Labor Day at that point.
 

nighthob

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 15, 2005
12,680
Hendu for Kutch said:
The only evidence of tampering is the deflation.  Without deflation you've got a guy that went to the bathroom and someone who used the word "deflate" in a text in the offseason.  Without deflation all you're left with is evidence of non-tampering...the overinflated balls against the Jets and the properly inflated balls against the Colts.
 
I mean, I guess they can say that, but they might as well say they're punishing them for wearing white throwbacks after Labor Day at that point.
Please don't give the Artless Roger any ideas.
 

KingPK

New Member
Apr 13, 2006
116
Roger needs more time so it's now clear that the four months and $5 million was for Wells and Roger to play golf around the world and go on Asian sex tours (with resulting treatments) and they just had interns write up the report in a few days.

The facade is crumbling!
 

simplyeric

Member
SoSH Member
Feb 14, 2006
14,037
Richmond, VA
Hendu for Kutch said:
 
??? 
 
The only evidence of tampering is the deflation.  Without deflation you've got a guy that went to the bathroom and someone who used the word "deflate" in a text in the offseason.  Without deflation all you're left with is evidence of non-tampering...the overinflated balls against the Jets and the properly inflated balls against the Colts.
 
I mean, I guess they can say that, but they might as well say they're punishing them for wearing white throwbacks after Labor Day at that point.
Right.

'Not really evidence of tampering' + Roger = ???
 

Peak Oil Can Boyd

New Member
Sep 28, 2011
127
FL4WL3SS said:
They'll issue a ruling as soon as they destroy all of the email communications regarding deflategate.
This actually doesn't seem far-fetched to me. How quickly can discovery happen once a lawsuit is filed?
 

nighthob

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 15, 2005
12,680
Peak Oil Can Boyd said:
This actually doesn't seem far-fetched to me. How quickly can discovery happen once a lawsuit is filed?
If we're lucky the judge will toss the Commish and his Keystone Kops in the hoosegow for contempt.
 

AB in DC

OG Football Writing
SoSH Member
Jul 10, 2002
13,633
Springfield, VA
Hendu for Kutch said:
 
???
 
The only evidence of tampering is the deflation. Without deflation you've got a guy that went to the bathroom and someone who used the word "deflate" in a text in the offseason. Without deflation all you're left with is evidence of non-tampering...the overinflated balls against the Jets and the properly inflated balls against the Colts.
 
I mean, I guess they can say that, but they might as well say they're punishing them for wearing white throwbacks after Labor Day at that point.
 
You're thinking about this too logically. Perception is reality.
 
Remember what Goodell said about the 2007 case at the time. The punishment came because the Patriots "avoid long-standing rules designed to encourage fair play and promote honest competition". Not that the Patriots actually violated fair play or worked against honest competition, mind you -- just that the rules were there for that reason. How many people actually noticed that distinction? Basically no one. And to this day everyone says that the team illegally spied and cheated to help them win. Smoke and mirrors -- the rest of the sports world is happy that the Patriots got caught and punished, but the weasel words are written just carefully enough to avoid any real scrutiny.
 
So fast forward to 2015 and Goodell says that, because the Wells investigation dug up a lot of dirt that had nothing to do with the science itself. the NFl finds that Patriots did not adhere to rules about football preparation "designed" to protect the integrity of the game, yada yada yada. Regardless of where he ends up with Brady personally, would that surprise anyone? No matter what the science says, the rest of the world thinks that the Patriots cheated with deflated balls. It's a classic case of misdirection. The whole thing started off with accusions of deflated balls, and it's going end up with "well, we're not sure the balls were actually underinflated, but we found some other reason to punish the Patriots instead."
 
Yes, it's all nonsense, but that's the NFL's m.o. Bread and circuses all the time -- who cares about right and wrong when we're making a bazillion dollars every year!