Deflategate results and outrage here

[Indoor66]

Mass has a history of dealing with issues of questionable history. I vote for Salem punishments.

[Pacer]

Yes.

What do you believe "the NFL" has to gain by a finding that its most successful (recent) franchise and most successful QB's are (most likely) cheaters?

What repeated events?

http://elitedaily.com/sports/history...eating/910436/

http://www.oregonlive.com/nfl/index..._contro.html#0 (although I don't agree that the "Tuck Rule" is in any way cheating and its inclusion in this link cheapens its credibility).

http://www.cbsnews.com/news/new-engl...-to-snowplows/

That sort of stuff... but mostly spygate, the pre-getting caught in spygate spying, the routine deception in injury reports. The fake out play against Baltimore wasn't cheating, but it was clearly underhanded and feeds to the rep.

[BD80]

... I acknowledge that the Patriots at one time had a murderer on the team. When the something I can't say on the DBR came down about Hernandez though, they released him immediately.

Well, the truth is that he had been linked to two separate shootings (one a double homicide for which he is to stand trial) prior to the murder for which he was convicted, and yet the pats had him on the team. So the pats have no moral high ground. They harbored a murderer; but hey, the guy scored touchdowns!

[SoCalDukeFan]

From the Boston Globe.

I agree thats its unfortunate that the employees should and probably will get fired. Of course, if Tom Brady was a truth teller and had said something like: 'Yes, I had the balls deflated. The guys did it for me, don't blame them. Its my responsibility." Then maybe I would think they could keep their jobs. But Brady was too weak to do that.

SoCal

[Bostondevil]

Jason - I've been thinking about your post more. Folks around here actually do need me. First of all, who would you release all of that pent up vitriol and self-righteousness on if you didn't have a Pats fan around here? You need somebody to challenge your beliefs. Everybody hates the Patriots. You suffer from confirmation bias in this case. It's true. Deal with it. Do I? Perhaps. But you need to hear the other side. I was once arguing with somebody about the issue of "Duke gets all the calls". I was arguing from a point of statistical analysis. This other person said, and I quote, "You Dukies are all alike, always supporting your arguments with facts. I know what I know and no facts are going to change my mind." Since I've been compared so many times to a Carolina fan around here, I feel it is only fair to point out that from where I'm sitting, you sound like that guy who doesn't want to listen to facts. You know what you know. Sure, you watched Brady's press conference so of course he's lying!! I know what I know!! (There are facts in this case and there are unsupported "more likely than not" beliefs. The facts are that balls used by the Patriots were under the allowable psi range in the AFC Championship Game. Colts too, as it turns out, but not underinflated by as much.)

Second of all, what may or may not have happened at Gillette in January is, in the grand scheme of things, minor. At some level, it does us good to get all worked up over something that does not matter. Yeah, yeah, "integrity", "ethics", how dare you! Exactly my point. It's football. People take football way too seriously. People take sports way too seriously. I take Duke Basketball way too seriously.

I do not take the NFL seriously at all. I think they are a deeply corrupt organization and Goodell has allowed the inmates to run the asylum. What benefit does the League get from leaving Tom Brady high and dry? We can look at him as the worst the League has to offer while Jamies Winston is the number 1 overall pick. He's facing a civil suit where he probably will have to testify in a court of law. Somehow I suspect the "more likely than not" in his case will not cause the same level of sturm and drung.

I went back and looked. Ben Rothlisberger got 4 games for his antics. 4 games. Granted it was reduced from 6 but still. You folks around here may disagree with me but there is no way that Brady should get a suspension equal to or longer than Rothlisberger.

Finally, Brady has been hung out to dry over an equipment violation. No NFL player has ever been suspended for an equipment violation. Would this case have been handled differently if it were Jay Cutler? Or Matt Ryan? Or Russell Wilson? Or Aaron Rogers? (Aaron Rogers admitted he tried to get overinflated balls past the inspection.) Of course it would have! People hate the Patriots not just because they win but because Belichick does not play the media game well. I don't think he plays the inter-personal relationship game well either. That's not a good enough reason for me to automatically believe guilt. You've got to prove it. And I would feel that way if I weren't a Pats fan. (Although, I will admit, it probably helps.) Put it this way, I don't think one accidental dose of Adderall makes Richard Sherman a cheat for life.


One comment on Carolina, btw. I am from North Carolina and even though I will always hate UNC sports teams, I've long been proud that the public university in my home state was highly respected. I am utterly dismayed by the scandal. I feel, deeply, for the athletes that were cheated out of an education and even more, for the young men and women who were legit when they majored in African-American studies. I don't much care what kind of sanctions UNC receives in terms of athletics, but I do hope they do something out of respect for all those students whose degrees were made into a joke.

And on that note - Lance Armstrong got a raw deal too.

[Duvall]

And on that note - Lance Armstrong got a raw deal too.

What? No.

[SoCalDukeFan]

Jason - I've been thinking about your post more. Folks around here actually do need me. First of all, who would you release all of that pent up vitriol and self-righteousness on if you didn't have a Pats fan around here? You need somebody to challenge your beliefs. Everybody hates the Patriots. You suffer from confirmation bias in this case. It's true. Deal with it. Do I? Perhaps. But you need to hear the other side. I was once arguing with somebody about the issue of "Duke gets all the calls". I was arguing from a point of statistical analysis. This other person said, and I quote, "You Dukies are all alike, always supporting your arguments with facts. I know what I know and no facts are going to change my mind." Since I've been compared so many times to a Carolina fan around here, I feel it is only fair to point out that from where I'm sitting, you sound like that guy who doesn't want to listen to facts. You know what you know. Sure, you watched Brady's press conference so of course he's lying!! I know what I know!! (There are facts in this case and there are unsupported "more likely than not" beliefs. The facts are that balls used by the Patriots were under the allowable psi range in the AFC Championship Game. Colts too, as it turns out, but not underinflated by as much.)

Second of all, what may or may not have happened at Gillette in January is, in the grand scheme of things, minor. At some level, it does us good to get all worked up over something that does not matter. Yeah, yeah, "integrity", "ethics", how dare you! Exactly my point. It's football. People take football way too seriously. People take sports way too seriously. I take Duke Basketball way too seriously.

I do not take the NFL seriously at all. I think they are a deeply corrupt organization and Goodell has allowed the inmates to run the asylum. What benefit does the League get from leaving Tom Brady high and dry? We can look at him as the worst the League has to offer while Jamies Winston is the number 1 overall pick. He's facing a civil suit where he probably will have to testify in a court of law. Somehow I suspect the "more likely than not" in his case will not cause the same level of sturm and drung.

I went back and looked. Ben Rothlisberger got 4 games for his antics. 4 games. Granted it was reduced from 6 but still. You folks around here may disagree with me but there is no way that Brady should get a suspension equal to or longer than Rothlisberger.

Finally, Brady has been hung out to dry over an equipment violation. No NFL player has ever been suspended for an equipment violation. Would this case have been handled differently if it were Jay Cutler? Or Matt Ryan? Or Russell Wilson? Or Aaron Rogers? (Aaron Rogers admitted he tried to get overinflated balls past the inspection.) Of course it would have! People hate the Patriots not just because they win but because Belichick does not play the media game well. I don't think he plays the inter-personal relationship game well either. That's not a good enough reason for me to automatically believe guilt. You've got to prove it. And I would feel that way if I weren't a Pats fan. (Although, I will admit, it probably helps.) Put it this way, I don't think one accidental dose of Adderall makes Richard Sherman a cheat for life.


One comment on Carolina, btw. I am from North Carolina and even though I will always hate UNC sports teams, I've long been proud that the public university in my home state was highly respected. I am utterly dismayed by the scandal. I feel, deeply, for the athletes that were cheated out of an education and even more, for the young men and women who were legit when they majored in African-American studies. I don't much care what kind of sanctions UNC receives in terms of athletics, but I do hope they do something out of respect for all those students whose degrees were made into a joke.

And on that note - Lance Armstrong got a raw deal too.

In your words : "Aaron Rogers admitted" which is far different from what Tom Brady did.

I am not from NC but I do agree completely with the sentiment about UNC mess.

Disagree completely about Lance Armstrong.

SoCal

[Bostondevil]

In your words : "Aaron Rogers admitted" which is far different from what Tom Brady did.

I am not from NC but I do agree completely with the sentiment about UNC mess.

Disagree completely about Lance Armstrong.

SoCal

Opinion, not fact.

I'm not saying I don't think Lance Armstrong cheated. He most certainly did. He still got a raw deal. The powers that be in the Tour de France aren't still chasing around after Jens Ullrich.

[BD80]

... "You Dukies are all alike, always supporting your arguments with facts. I know what I know and no facts are going to change my mind." ...

I went back and looked. Ben Rothlisberger got 4 games for his antics. 4 games. Granted it was reduced from 6 but still. You folks around here may disagree with me but there is no way that Brady should get a suspension equal to or longer than Rothlisberger.

... Belichick does not play the media game well. I don't think he plays the inter-personal relationship game well either. That's not a good enough reason for me to automatically believe guilt. You've got to prove it. And I would feel that way if I weren't a Pats fan. ...

Rothlisberger was suspended for serving alcohol to a 20 y/o college student. There were no charges even filed for the "alleged" rape, which was disputed. For someone who does not automatically believe in guilt, you sure have a thing for Big Ben.

I know, I know. I keep bringing up facts.

[_Gary]

Wow. Just... wow! It's amazing how people can't see the forest for the trees when their own biases and sports hatred gets in the way.

Here are some of my problems with everyone's self-righteous indignation of Tom Brady and the Patriots:

1) Folks in this thread have made idiotic comments about Brady having some competitive advantage all year playing with under-inflated footballs, as if he couldn't play with ones that were inflated at the proper level. Of course these same people ignore the F-A-C-T-S right in front of them by conveniently forgetting that Brady absolutely killed it in the 2nd half of the Colts' game and the Super Bowl where we know for a fact the footballs were inflated properly. On top of that, his first 3 Super Bowl wins were in the era before the rule change allowing teams/QBs to have more say and control over the game balls they'd use. But no, let's not allow the facts to obscure our hatred for all things Patriots. Nope, Brady wouldn't have won one game this past year if he hadn't had those deflated footballs to throw around. Insert eye roll here.

2) If the League sees this issue as such a huge competitive advantage then why in the ______ did they ever allow the teams to have the control they have over the footballs? If it's so danged critical they shouldn't have ever allowed Manning, Brady and others to argue for the rule changes during the last decade. On top of that, if the PSI level were so critical that one pound of pressure one way or the other would make all the difference then why allow for a 12.5 to 13.5 variance? Why not insist that all the balls be right at 13.0 on the nose? I'll tell you why. Because the pound of pressure doesn't matter except to the individual QB and their preferences. It provides no competitive advantage. If it did, then the NFL and its Rules Committee are flaming idiots for allowing any variance at all. Utter bull is what this complaining about competitive advantage is as it pertains to this issue.

3) If we are going to go by text messages, why does the League not fine its own officials who clearly over-inflated footballs to 16.0 at one point in at least one Pat's game this year? I mean, that's in the text messages as well. And frankly, I don't doubt it a bit. I'm not convinced the officials ever paid that much attention to this issue before the Colts came a cryin'.

4) If we are going to crucify Brady, then let's make sure we also crucify Rodgers who clearly admitted to attempts to cheat by inflating footballs beyond their limit. Same thing. The fact is that every QB has a sweet spot in terms of how or where they want the PSI to be and they all attempt to manipulate the balls and get away with whatever they can. And it's never been a big deal until now because the inferiority complex Colts, along with all the former Jets in the League Office, saw an opportunity to try and stick it to the team they hate the most - the Patriots. Anyone who doesn't believe that's a part of this entire situation just doesn't understand it at all. It's a huge part of the equation.

5) On a final note, if the League was so concerned about the integrity of the game why the heck did they allow the Patriots to play with those footballs in the first half when it's clear they had been alerted to the issue way before the game by the Colts? Oh my goodness! This was such a huge competitive advantage the Patriots had, after all. So why allow the AFC championship game to be played with this type of situation when it could have been checked out one more time before kickoff? We all know why. Because it was more important that they catch New England in a sting than preserve the integrity of the AFC Championship game. The fact is the League knows good and well that under-inflated footballs don't make or break any team, nor does it give a team an unfair advantage. That's just garbage. And that's why they had no problem allowing the 1st half to be played with the footballs that were used. They knew it wasn't a big deal, except to catch NE in a sting they could then make hay with.

Anyone who doesn't understand why the NFL would want to embarrass or discredit one of it's star players doesn't understand the simple life truths of jealousy and power plays. The Colts and the Jet heavy League office do have something to gain by doing this. They can disgrace and hopefully dismantle one of the greatest dynasties NFL football has ever seen. A dynasty, by the way, that has certainly kept both the Colts and the Jets under its feet for almost 15 years now.

[gurufrisbee]

patsexcuses.jpg

and

bradyhernandez.jpg

[SoCalDukeFan]

Wow. Just... wow! It's amazing how people can't see the forest for the trees when their own biases and sports hatred gets in the way.

Here are some of my problems with everyone's self-righteous indignation of Tom Brady and the Patriots:

1) Folks in this thread have made idiotic comments about Brady having some competitive advantage all year playing with under-inflated footballs, as if he couldn't play with ones that were inflated at the proper level. Of course these same people ignore the F-A-C-T-S right in front of them by conveniently forgetting that Brady absolutely killed it in the 2nd half of the Colts' game and the Super Bowl where we know for a fact the footballs were inflated properly. On top of that, his first 3 Super Bowl wins were in the era before the rule change allowing teams/QBs to have more say and control over the game balls they'd use. But no, let's not allow the facts to obscure our hatred for all things Patriots. Nope, Brady wouldn't have won one game this past year if he hadn't had those deflated footballs to throw around. Insert eye roll here.

2) If the League sees this issue as such a huge competitive advantage then why in the ______ did they ever allow the teams to have the control they have over the footballs? If it's so danged critical they shouldn't have ever allowed Manning, Brady and others to argue for the rule changes during the last decade. On top of that, if the PSI level were so critical that one pound of pressure one way or the other would make all the difference then why allow for a 12.5 to 13.5 variance? Why not insist that all the balls be right at 13.0 on the nose? I'll tell you why. Because the pound of pressure doesn't matter except to the individual QB and their preferences. It provides no competitive advantage. If it did, then the NFL and its Rules Committee are flaming idiots for allowing any variance at all. Utter bull is what this complaining about competitive advantage is as it pertains to this issue.

3) If we are going to go by text messages, why does the League not fine its own officials who clearly over-inflated footballs to 16.0 at one point in at least one Pat's game this year? I mean, that's in the text messages as well. And frankly, I don't doubt it a bit. I'm not convinced the officials ever paid that much attention to this issue before the Colts came a cryin'.

4) If we are going to crucify Brady, then let's make sure we also crucify Rodgers who clearly admitted to attempts to cheat by inflating footballs beyond their limit. Same thing. The fact is that every QB has a sweet spot in terms of how or where they want the PSI to be and they all attempt to manipulate the balls and get away with whatever they can. And it's never been a big deal until now because the inferiority complex Colts, along with all the former Jets in the League Office, saw an opportunity to try and stick it to the team they hate the most - the Patriots. Anyone who doesn't believe that's a part of this entire situation just doesn't understand it at all. It's a huge part of the equation.

5) On a final note, if the League was so concerned about the integrity of the game why the heck did they allow the Patriots to play with those footballs in the first half when it's clear they had been alerted to the issue way before the game by the Colts? Oh my goodness! This was such a huge competitive advantage the Patriots had, after all. So why allow the AFC championship game to be played with this type of situation when it could have been checked out one more time before kickoff? We all know why. Because it was more important that they catch New England in a sting than preserve the integrity of the AFC Championship game. The fact is the League knows good and well that under-inflated footballs don't make or break any team, nor does it give a team an unfair advantage. That's just garbage. And that's why they had no problem allowing the 1st half to be played with the footballs that were used. They knew it wasn't a big deal, except to catch NE in a sting they could then make hay with.

Anyone who doesn't understand why the NFL would want to embarrass or discredit one of it's star players doesn't understand the simple life truths of jealousy and power plays. The Colts and the Jet heavy League office do have something to gain by doing this. They can disgrace and hopefully dismantle one of the greatest dynasties NFL football has ever seen. A dynasty, by the way, that has certainly kept both the Colts and the Jets under its feet for almost 15 years now.

Pats employees deflated the footballs, which is against the rules. All evidence shows that Tom Brady knew about it. He lied.

I really don't think that deflating created a huge advantage. (Of course, enough of an advantage for the employees to do it.) The Pats did much better in the 2nd half then the first. The main reason why they won is that the Seahawks screwed up. I get all that. But they broke the rules and lied about it.

In my opinion the NFL commissioner job is more than Roger G. can handle. The league apparently screwed up. However it does not change the fact that Pats employees broke the rules, Brady knew about it and lied.

SoCal

[_Gary]

Pats employees deflated the footballs, which is against the rules. All evidence shows that Tom Brady knew about it. He lied.

I really don't think that deflating created a huge advantage. (Of course, enough of an advantage for the employees to do it.) The Pats did much better in the 2nd half then the first. The main reason why they won is that the Seahawks screwed up. I get all that. But they broke the rules and lied about it.

Rodgers admitted he overinflated footballs, which is against the rules. Are you for making sure he, and any other QB who's done anything similar, also get punished? I have no problem with anything handed down to Brady or the Patriots as long as the same standard is applied to every other QB and team. And I can guarantee you the Patriots and Packers aren't the only teams with QBs that tried to circumvent the rules on this non-issue equipment issue.

[Bostondevil]

Rothlisberger was suspended for serving alcohol to a 20 y/o college student. There were no charges even filed for the "alleged" rape, which was disputed. For someone who does not automatically believe in guilt, you sure have a thing for Big Ben.

I know, I know. I keep bringing up facts.

So do I, and the fact is that the league standard for suspensions is not beyond a reasonable doubt, it's, as someone mentioned upthread, "more likely than not".

No charges were filed but it's still an alleged rape, no quotes. As for the guilt of Big Ben - I'm not calling for jail time. I suppose I'm not even asking that he be banned from the League. But his case remains my benchmark for hypocrisy in the NFL and I pretty much compare levels of wrongdoing to what Ben more likely than not did in that bathroom. Aaron Hernandez - worse. Brady - nowhere close. Ray Rice is the big problem for me. I actually think he got a raw deal. Oh, he should have been suspended but man, he got railroaded because Roger Goodell bungled the case. I would like to see large suspensions for all cases of domestic violence, but, I think Ray Rice has done his time. I'd like to see something like requiring anger management classes and community service as a condition of allowing him back, but I would allow him back. I think programs like that would do more to reduce the violence than just making an example of the one guy who happened to get caught on tape. Oh - and get rid of the steroids. I don't actually care about the PEDs in terms of playing, but I do think the reason football players have so much more domestic violence when compared to athletes in other sports is the steroids.

As for my having "a thing" for Big Ben. Could you please be more careful in your word choice next time?

[Bostondevil]

I just Googled Ray Rice and found this. http://bleacherreport.com/articles/2...estic-violence

Sigh.

OK, bright side to that article? The Patriots beat the Seahawks in the Super Bowl!!!!

[YmoBeThere]

I don't hate the Patriots.

[bjornolf]

1) Folks in this thread have made idiotic comments about Brady having some competitive advantage all year playing with under-inflated footballs, as if he couldn't play with ones that were inflated at the proper level. Of course these same people ignore the F-A-C-T-S right in front of them by conveniently forgetting that Brady absolutely killed it in the 2nd half of the Colts' game and the Super Bowl where we know for a fact the footballs were inflated properly. On top of that, his first 3 Super Bowl wins were in the era before the rule change allowing teams/QBs to have more say and control over the game balls they'd use. But no, let's not allow the facts to obscure our hatred for all things Patriots. Nope, Brady wouldn't have won one game this past year if he hadn't had those deflated footballs to throw around. Insert eye roll here.

Some might say it's also a fact that the Pats won the first three by illegally recording other teams.

[_Gary]

Some might say it's also a fact that the Pats won the first three by illegally recording other teams.

You mean like how some might say it's also a fact that the Pyramids were built by aliens? Sure. It's a fact.

[moonpie23]

without going into a point by point diatribe about how MUCH of advantage he derived from the balls being inflated, the issue is he cheated....whether it was more like pine tar than HGH, he cheated...he is, a CHEATER...

if lebron used a ball that was smaller in diameter, if tiger used a ball that had other characteristics, if a hockey player used a stick that was altered, a puck that was deemed "not to spec", everyone would be crying "foul"...... if you alter the equipment used for your own gains, you're a CHEATER.

with regard to the 3 OTHER titles marred by additional cheating by his coach and his organization, the asterisks are well deserved...

[_Gary]

if you alter the equipment used for your own gains, you're a CHEATER.

So then, I want to get you on the record: Rodgers is also a cheater, correct? Will you say that emphatically and for the record so as to be consistent with your stated views?

Also, doesn't this also mean that multiple Seahawks are cheaters because of taking PHDs (along with God knows how many other players from other teams)? You'll call them cheaters as well, right? I mean, you want to be consistent don't you? And what about all the teams that would play games with putting players on the IR when it wasn't necessary just so the team could benefit? That was cheating too, right?

Look, we could go on and on about "cheating" and the list would be longer than DBR's proverbial arm. And that's fine if you want to play that game. Just be consistent across the board. That's only fair, after all. We don't want to demonstrate selective outrage, do we?