K-9 Posted July 30, 2015 Posted July 30, 2015 the league has made it decades, and is at the height of its popularity without having had to make an example of this issue. i dont think brady being punished in line with previous offenses is suddenly the item that brings down this delicate house of cards you portray. You may think that. I suspect the commissioner of a sports league might see it differently. As Goodell obviously does. Is it really OK to establish a precedent where players can lie about involvement in cheating, refuse to cooperate with an investigation into that cheating, and know there is nothing more than a slap of the wrist for doing so? And the league didn't ask to make an example of this issue. The blame for that lies at the feet of Brady and Brady alone. His behavior caused everything that followed. Doesn't matter a bit to me that Brady happens to be the first one "in decades" to be punished for it, either. GO BILLS!!! That was a different policy and a different CBA. I don't even think the NFL had a written policy regarding the integrity of the game, and I know they didn't have the Personal Conduct Policy that was ratified at the end of last year. So again, where is the precedent for a player being suspended according to the current policy? Brady is the precedent. Nothing wrong with that. GO BILLS!!!
starrymessenger Posted July 30, 2015 Posted July 30, 2015 We will never have verifyably truthful answers to all of the questions we might want to ask. We can only use our reasonable judgement in deciding what we think is reasonably probable, bearing in mind that different people might come to different conclusions. IMO Tom Brady never instructed the assistants to deflate game balls. This accounts for the Kraft/Brady position that there is no direct evidence of Brady breaking the rules. What he probably did instead was give the assistants a hard time until the game balls were to his liking which just happened to be below regulation psi. This is consistent with the texting we have seen. Everybody knew and understood what the game was but it was important to not leave any crumbs on the table because, after all, deflating the game balls was an infraction. Brady and Manning successfully lobbied the league to allow QBs to doctor up game balls (but not psi) so that the grip etc... would be more to their liking. Air pressure probably affects grip more than weathering and it's hard to believe that a perfectionist control freak like Brady would be unaware of or indifferent to this. So Brady can claim that he has done nothing wrong but to me his position is actually more along the lines of "you can't prove it" -(because I have been careful to ensure that you can't prove it). In my view, his probable course of conduct likely provides as much evidence of his realized intention as would the spoken word. As for Kraft, he (like Brady and most of PatsNation) seems totally oblivious to their basic sleezyness, even when he unwittingly puts it on full display. So the team and organization took their punishment with the expectation that Brady would then only pay a fine and avoid a suspension. Talk about arrogance and a sense of entitlement! There was no such "deal" on the table with the League or anyone else to this effect. Brady's suspension had to do with his perceived wrongdoing and noncooperation, not the team's. Kraft probably concluded that losing a pick or two and paying the team fine was better (for him that is) than losing his QB for 25% of the season. So his magnanimous gesture actually reeks of self interest. Similarly, Brady and his agent have been brandishing a letter from his cell phone provider showing that they inquired about retrieving the messages on the phone that was destroyed. But before sourcing this document they probably knew and certainly could have easily found out what the relevant policy on retentions was. Mine is actually in the service agreement. If not, a phone call is all it takes to find out. The Patriots are (more likely than not) a morally imbecilic organization. I sure wouldn't buy a used car from either Kraft or Brady.
LeGOATski Posted July 30, 2015 Posted July 30, 2015 "cheaters weren't suspended before, so we can't suspend them now" is the worst line of logic here.
NoSaint Posted July 30, 2015 Posted July 30, 2015 You may think that. I suspect the commissioner of a sports league might see it differently. As Goodell obviously does. Is it really OK to establish a precedent where players can lie about involvement in cheating, refuse to cooperate with an investigation into that cheating, and know there is nothing more than a slap of the wrist for doing so? And the league didn't ask to make an example of this issue. The blame for that lies at the feet of Brady and Brady alone. His behavior caused everything that followed. Doesn't matter a bit to me that Brady happens to be the first one "in decades" to be punished for it, either. GO BILLS!!! Brady is the precedent. Nothing wrong with that. GO BILLS!!! which league has suffered from this problem? its happened in the nfl, and i dont see any of us upset by it. none of us even cared. society has plenty of examples of it without mass chaos and crumbling of integrity. i genuinely dont get, outside "it really annoyed me," why toms situation is suddenly the very core to all that is good and holy about the league.
Wayne Cubed Posted July 30, 2015 Posted July 30, 2015 (edited) and can you present the changes that specifically address this topic made in december? just that it was new doesnt mean you throw out 50 years of precedent and the league can suddenly do anything it wants with no regard to the "fair and consistent" punishment of players. if im missing specific changes to the investigative process or equipment tampering, im all ears, and like to think ive been receptive to feedback that cuts against it. heck, id much prefer brady sits a month, but will still argue what i think "fair" here. From the NFL Compliance plan: Investigation. Reports of suspected violations will be investigated under the supervision of a Compliance Officer utilizing other NFL resources, including Human Resources or the Security Department, when necessary. Employees are expected to cooperate in the investigation of reported violations and to provide all information and materials as requested. Edit: The Compliance plan was sent out July 2014 Edited July 30, 2015 by Wayne Cubed
thebandit27 Posted July 30, 2015 Posted July 30, 2015 and can you present the changes that specifically address this topic made in december? just that it was new doesnt mean you throw out 50 years of precedent and the league can suddenly do anything it wants with no regard to the "fair and consistent" punishment of players. if im missing specific changes to the investigative process or equipment tampering, im all ears, and like to think ive been receptive to feedback that cuts against it. heck, id much prefer brady sits a month, but will still argue what i think "fair" here. http://www.nfl.com/news/story/0ap3000000441758/article/nfl-owners-endorse-new-personal-conduct-policy http://static.nfl.com/static/content/public/photo/2014/12/15/0ap3000000444539.pdf
NoSaint Posted July 30, 2015 Posted July 30, 2015 "cheaters weren't suspended before, so we can't suspend them now" is the worst line of logic here. if you think thats the boiled down version of "the nfl hasnt granted itself the power to make this punishment, so they are acting recklessly until they do" then im not sure what to tell you. if you want to argue that theyve defined that ability, then great, lets go sit the first one down. but at this point it seems the loudest section is saying the act of cheating doesnt even matter and isnt why he was suspended.
dave mcbride Posted July 30, 2015 Posted July 30, 2015 (edited) I thought Goodell's appeal denial said specifically that 1st offenses for a substance not even proven to give an advantage (which seems appropriate since the accusation is a deliberate violation of the rules, but it's impact is debatable) is 4 games, and a masking agent bumps that to 6 games. That may be a new policy. If so, it just goes to show how the NFLPA, unlike other players associations, just continues to get rolled by the league in CBA negotiations. Comparing MLB and the NFL with regard to this issue is a very interesting exercise. I understand why it happens - shorter careers, far more players with shaky prospects, and very high turnover in the player population. But still ... The vagueness of the commissioner's powers in the NFL -- especially the elasticity of scope -- is problematic, irrespective of what's going on in this particular case. Edited July 30, 2015 by dave mcbride
YoloinOhio Posted July 30, 2015 Author Posted July 30, 2015 Our future QB, Connor Cook: @schadjoe: Michigan State QB Connor Cook says it is definitely an advantage to have an under-inflated football, especially in cold
NoSaint Posted July 30, 2015 Posted July 30, 2015 (edited) The vagueness of the commissioner's powers in the NFL -- especially the elasticity of scope -- is problematic, irrespective of what's going on in this particular case. and that, to a large degree, is why im apt to atleast voice the concern here, regardless of not liking brady. the specifics of this case aside ---- it blows my mind that the nflpa may have put itself in the position of the league having the commissioner hear an appeal of a ruling he himself made, while the commissioner is a witness called at the appeal in the material issues of the initial process. and the firm that produced the independent report about the players conduct being the firm that represents the nfl in the appeal. its just headspinning bad if the nflpa has left itself that unprotected. Edited July 30, 2015 by NoSaint
dave mcbride Posted July 30, 2015 Posted July 30, 2015 (edited) And in the lather rinse repeat department, why would the league intentionally sabotage its most successful franchise and one of its biggest stars? What's in it for NFL, Inc., NFL Enterprises, Inc., etc.? Is this a good thing or a bad thing for the league's public image, its business relations and future marketing opportunities? I think it's good for business. At the end of the day, it heightens the drama of the season, intensifies the rivalries, and angers the fans in monetarily productive ways. After all, the NFL ascended to full-spectrum dominance when the most colorful and combative outlaw organization - the Raiders - was in its prime. Crap -- just look at what it's done to us! Edited July 30, 2015 by dave mcbride
K-9 Posted July 30, 2015 Posted July 30, 2015 which league has suffered from this problem? its happened in the nfl, and i dont see any of us upset by it. none of us even cared. society has plenty of examples of it without mass chaos and crumbling of integrity. i genuinely dont get, outside "it really annoyed me," why toms situation is suddenly the very core to all that is good and holy about the league. We are at an impasse. It's not about what's good and holy about the league. I don't know how to respond to that. What the phuck does that even mean? The commissioner is establishing a precedent by serving notice that players who cheat, lie about it, and refuse to cooperate when investigated, can expect to be punished for those actions. Period. Perhaps Brady should have thought about the consequences before deciding to act the way he did. You seem to be OK with the idea that players should just get a slap on the wrist for cheating, lying about it, and refusing to cooperate. I am not. You seem to accept the idea that since no prior case like this existed before, it is wrong for the commissioner to punish a player for it now. This makes zero sense to me. I at the end here. We can discuss more when the ruling comes down. This is too exhausting. GO BILLS!!!
GG Posted July 30, 2015 Posted July 30, 2015 I think it's good for business. At the end of the day, it heightens the drama of the season, intensifies the rivalries, and angers the fans in monetarily productive ways. After all, the NFL ascended to full-spectrum dominance when the most colorful and combative outlaw organization - the Raiders - was in its prime. Crap -- just look at what it's done to us! And Raiders downfall started exactly at the point when Davis decided his franchise was bigger than the league.
Doc Posted July 30, 2015 Posted July 30, 2015 Our future QB, Connor Cook: @schadjoe: Michigan State QB Connor Cook says it is definitely an advantage to have an under-inflated football, especially in cold That was never in question. The analysis of the Pats' fumble rate pre- and post-2007 shows it and they wouldn't be doing it if it wasn't an advantage.
NoSaint Posted July 30, 2015 Posted July 30, 2015 You seem to accept the idea that since no prior case like this existed before, it is wrong for the commissioner to punish a player for it now. This makes zero sense to me. I at the end here. We can discuss more when the ruling comes down. This is too exhausting. GO BILLS!!! ultimately, my underlying point is there have been plenty of cases like this (perhaps not the media coverage), and its never caused the issues you are worried about.
dave mcbride Posted July 30, 2015 Posted July 30, 2015 We are at an impasse. It's not about what's good and holy about the league. I don't know how to respond to that. What the phuck does that even mean? The commissioner is establishing a precedent by serving notice that players who cheat, lie about it, and refuse to cooperate when investigated, can expect to be punished for those actions. Period. Perhaps Brady should have thought about the consequences before deciding to act the way he did. You seem to be OK with the idea that players should just get a slap on the wrist for cheating, lying about it, and refusing to cooperate. I am not. You seem to accept the idea that since no prior case like this existed before, it is wrong for the commissioner to punish a player for it now. This makes zero sense to me. I at the end here. We can discuss more when the ruling comes down. This is too exhausting. GO BILLS!!! I am 100 percent fine with the penalties levied in MLB for foreign substances used by pitchers. The game hasn't declined by one iota. MLB is phenomenal right now. Hockey's penalties are even lighter. These are small-potatoes violations at the end of the day. That shouldn't be forgotten.
3rdand12 Posted July 30, 2015 Posted July 30, 2015 And in the lather rinse repeat department, why would the league intentionally sabotage its most successful franchise and one of its biggest stars? What's in it for NFL, Inc., NFL Enterprises, Inc., etc.? Is this a good thing or a bad thing for the league's public image, its business relations and future marketing opportunities? ask the other 31 owners how they feel. Isnt that where the tone is set? its apples and oranges. and carrots, which are a similar color to Oranges. I am a Union member. and Past practice is a leverage point. But last month my company decided to lock the doors and use a bar coded badge to enter and now we must wear them. Sure its a new rule and takes some time to adjust, Regardless you cannot get into the building without it now. No matter what the previous regime thought or the rule was previous. They can do nearly anything they want and it does NOT need to be fair. When management gets sick and tired of employees pushing the envelope they find a way to punish. whether it be taking too long of a break, which everyone does from time to time or some other minor transgression. But its an accumulation of bullcrap and they just wait for a small crack to turn the screws. Brady is being less than forthcoming over an issue that should be no big deal. and management is sick of his, and the team's, malarkey. cant it be that simple?
K-9 Posted July 30, 2015 Posted July 30, 2015 if you think thats the boiled down version of "the nfl hasnt granted itself the power to make this punishment, so they are acting recklessly until they do" then im not sure what to tell you. if you want to argue that theyve defined that ability, then great, lets go sit the first one down. but at this point it seems the loudest section is saying the act of cheating doesnt even matter and isnt why he was suspended. Couldn't help to jump back in again. What does this mean? The cheating, lying about it, and not cooperating with the investigation into is is what it's all about. Who is arguing that cheating isn't why he was suspended. Is it because "cheating" has been replaced by "conduct detrimental?" GO BILLS!!!
Doc Posted July 30, 2015 Posted July 30, 2015 The act of cheating certainly matters. As does the lying and non-cooperation. Which is why he deserved 4 games and those should stand.
NoSaint Posted July 30, 2015 Posted July 30, 2015 Couldn't help to jump back in again. What does this mean? The cheating, lying about it, and not cooperating with the investigation into is is what it's all about. Who is arguing that cheating isn't why he was suspended. Is it because "cheating" has been replaced by "conduct detrimental?" GO BILLS!!! several today have said its not even about the cheating in response to dave or myself addressing the actual act of cheating.
Recommended Posts