OT - Patriots Deflate Report

[Peter_Spaeth]

No money at the HS level which is why they are conscientious. Take it up to the next level and then the next, and money starts to trump morals.

[steve B]

Originally Posted by Peter_Spaeth

No money at the HS level which is why they are conscientious. Take it up to the next level and then the next, and money starts to trump morals.

Which brings us right to what I was going to post about the suspension being upheld. 4 weeks out - plus the bye in week 5 leaves Brady coming back in week 6 against? The Colts. And it's already scheduled as the primetime game.

There's the money right there.

The potential spectacle of a well rested Brady coming into the colts game having had 5+ weeks to do nothing but study film.....It'll either be an epic blowout or a rout of the current "bad guy" who comes back rusty. Figure a 50-50 split in the hopes of the fans, and a bit of premium pricing on the ads? That's a can't lose PR win for the NFL in general.


On the other points.

The NFL hasn't done enough about head injuries. Look at the helmet tech in motorsports especially the more expensive divisions like F1. The sort of stuff those guys walk away from (Sometimes literally ) Is far rougher than an NFL hit.

They're also very inconsistent in punishments. Ray Rice gets 2 games eventually a season, back to 2 games in court, Brady 4 One may have known someone else was playing with the footballs or even asked that they do that. The other committed an actual crime that was recorded on video. That's a mess. Adrian Peterson got essentially a full season suspension, which was appropriate. Both Came after the debacle with Ray Rice and it could be argued that their punishments were more severe because of that earlier controversy.

The person handing out the suspension also being the one to hear the appeal I hope needs no explanation as to why it's not appropriate.

Steve B

[nolemmings]

"The person handing out the suspension also being the one to hear the appeal I hope needs no explanation as to why it's not appropriate."

I’m one who doesn’t get a lot of heartburn over that. It is not that unusual for a judge who has made a ruling in a case to be presented with a motion for reconsideration, in which he or she is presented with (supposedly) new arguments or evidence that politely suggest the decision previously rendered should be overturned. One rationale for this is to allow the decision-maker who is alleged to have erred an opportunity to correct the mistake without the need to bother or provide additional work for the appellate forum up the chain. Although reconsideration motions seldom succeed, so long as there is available a further and reasonable avenue of appeal in front of someone else, in this case a Federal District Court, then I don’t consider it a big deal for Goodell to act as he did. Maybe it's not the best system, but I do not see it so fundamentally flawed as the NFLPA argues. This is particularly so when the “integrity of the game” is the issue, whether or not you think the rules for equipment violations rise to that level; in that event, the Commissioner is aptly suited and perhaps the best qualified to decide, and not some disinterested party who presumably is somewhat removed from the game and its industry.

I’ve stopped investing much time in this, so maybe others can research or remind me of what all happened earlier, but if I recall, the whole process was collectively bargained, so the union had an opportunity to negotiate a different disciplinary process and ultimately agreed to this one. I also thought when Goodell first looked into this he delegated the matter to Troy Vincent, to which the NFLPA objected also, saying Goodell himself should preside. Had they been granted their wish, there would be even less independence when he heard an appeal of his own, wholly-made initial decision. You may think he simply rubber-stamped his delegated representative’s recommendation or ruling, and/or that the law firm hired to investigate and report was biased, but at least in theory there were other sets of eyes and ears on these issues as part of the process. I am not convinced the union or its clients had the right to expect fully unassociated, agreed-upon arbiters and fact-finders appointed for this case, or that the failure to provide same results in a breach of either the collective bargaining agreement or fundamental fairness.

[Peter_Spaeth]

Big difference, Todd. A judge is a neutral with no stake in the outcome.

[nolemmings]

Then don't allow the Commissioner to be any part of the disciplinary process. Bargain and negotiate accordingly.

How is it apparently OK for the Commish to hear the initial matter so long as someone else hears the appeal-- is he not just as biased as a stakeholder in the first step as the second? So what's the difference if the aggrieved player get's "homered" in stage one or stage two, so long as there is a stage 3 before a neutral? Is justice really set on its ear? And if so, how did the union agree to such a fundamentally flawed arrangement?

[Peter_Spaeth]

Originally Posted by nolemmings

Then don't allow the Commissioner to be any part of the disciplinary process. Bargain and negotiate accordingly.

How is it apparently OK for the Commish to hear the initial matter so long as someone else hears the appeal-- is he not just as biased as a stakeholder in the first step as the second? So what's the difference if the aggrieved player get's "homered" in stage one or stage two, so long as there is a stage 3 before a neutral? Is justice really set on its ear? And if so, how did the union agree to such a fundamentally flawed arrangement?

The union got outmaneuvered obviously.

[nolemmings]

BTW, what is Goodell's stake in the outcome? He has an incentive to punish one of the most high-profile franchises in the league and its golden boy, do no wrong QB? He loves the negative publicity and acrimony that builds up from his decision? Who brought all of this on in the first place?

[Peter_Spaeth]

Originally Posted by nolemmings

BTW, what is Goodell's stake in the outcome? He has an incentive to punish one of the most high-profile franchises in the league and it's golden boy, do no wrong QB? He loves the negative publicity and acrimony that builds up from his decision? Who brought all of this on in the first place?

The backlash would have been enormous had he reduced the suspension. Can you imagine the accusations of giving in to pressure from Kraft, intimidation, weakness, favoritism for Brady and the Patriots, etc.?