So as a Pats fan............
When the whole thing began I figured there was a technical explanation.
But, between the texts and the odd pattern of Brady all of a sudden communicating with the equipment guys he hasn't called for months and calling one into what's essentially his office which hadn't happened since before Brady - something like 20 years.
That to me looks very much like something was up.
Enough that there should probably be some punishment.
The guesses on the radio station I listen to - Rock, not sports, was that it would be one game for Brady, he'd appeal until after the season opener, then take his one game off. The rumor was that a "source" in the league office said 4 games for Brady. All with the team and Coach in the clear since there was no evidence they knew about it (Since the NFL spent big bucks checking I'll go with that even though I don't believe it) And I think either would be entirely appropriate.
-------------------
The other side of how I feel about it.
The rule isn't well written, either from a technical standpoint or from a clarity standpoint. It doesn't actually say the balls have to remain inflated - except the home team has a responsibility to provide "playable" balls at all times. 12 primary ones and 12 backups which apparently weren't used and possibly weren't deflated. And it mentions no penalty. Except in a totally different section where the commissioner can investigate and punish "extraordinarily unfair acts" - To me also vague. What's extraordinarily unfair as opposed to just unfair or sort of unfair? Could I put together a team of lazy guys and then say it's extraordinarily unfair they have to play a team that practices?
Yeah, a bit over the top but it makes the point.
From everything I've read it seems the handling of the balls is very lax, and even the refs might push the limits. The one text complaining about the refs making some of the balls more like 16 psi is interesting. Did they just pump them up by feel, or did they know some would be let out and cover for it by deliberately overinflating? And if that's the case that crew should get the same suspension.
-----------------
In a more general sense-
I've never bought the NCAA style stripping of titles for a team sport. It makes some sense with individual sports where it's more clear the winner wouldn't have won without cheating. Lance should have been stripped of his 7 wins. without doping he probably wouldn't have won all of them. He might have won a couple, but not all 7. Oddly, a few of those years there isn't a clean rider for several positions. If you figure they were always on something you'd have to remove a few riders. I also think there were people at the top of the UCI that should have also been banned. The one statement another rider made that someone came in and said "the test was positive but Nike took care of it" to me is very telling.
But for a team sport? Nonsense. Stripping a college team of a title because one really good player gets some cash from a booster, or a job, or someone does a bit of recruiting at the wrong time very much does a disservice the rest of the team, especially the second stringers who worked just as hard sometimes knowing that the only way they'd see the inside of a pro stadium was as a spectator. And all at the same time they're making millions from the kids who aren't allowed to make anything if there's any connection to the team at all.
Steve B