OT: NY Times Piece on Deflategate

[tzznandrew]

Given that the original thread went 24 pages, I thought this piece, which largely echoes what @upstater said, would be relevant.

One of its main conclusion:

But when we analyzed the data provided in the Wells report, we found that the Patriots balls declined by about the expected amount, while the Colts balls declined by less. In fact, the pressure of the Colts balls was statistically significantly higher than expected. Contrary to the report, the significant difference between the changes in pressure of the two teams’ balls was not because the pressure of the Patriots balls was too low, but because that of the Colts balls was too high.

I'm not Pats fan, but this whole Deflate-gate thing seemed nothing to me from the beginning but hot air. (Sorry, I'll leave now.)

 

[Dooley]

I wonder if there will be an investigation into Andrew Luck now for "the Colts balls were too high".

 

[donyell34]

It's been nothing but a whole lot of bullshit from the beginning and you patriot haters have totally been off the rails from the beginning a you know it. Get real for once; go analyze yourselves.

 

[UConnNick]

Roger Goodell isn't competent enough to manage a midget football league. In a battle of wits, both he and Mark Emmert would lose to Pee Wee Hermann.

 

[zyron]

It's been nothing but a whole lot of bull from the beginning and you patriot haters have totally been off the rails from the beginning a you know it. Get real for once; go analyze yourselves.

And the Pats accepted a loss of a first round pick, a fourth and a fine of one million dollars without a fight, because...

 

[Husky1964]

Cheaters cheat and get caught a 2nd time!!!!!

 

[Stainmaster]

Cheaters cheat and get caught a 2nd time!!!!!

You guys are like bulls. You hear the word "Patriots" and just whip yourselves up into a frenzy, regardless of the context.

 

[UConnDad]

And the Pats accepted a loss of a first round pick, a fourth and a fine of one million dollars without a fight, because...

They're guilty?

 

[Sportsman5]

And the Pats accepted a loss of a first round pick, a fourth and a fine of one million dollars without a fight, because...

it's against NFL ownership rules to fight against the league. an owner can potentially lose ownership of their team if that person trys to fight against the NFL. That is why it was shocking that the patriots released their rebuttle.

 

[zyron]

it's against NFL ownership rules to fight against the league. an owner can potentially lose ownership of their team if that person trys to fight against the NFL. That is why it was shocking that the patriots released their rebuttle.

Then Al Davis would have lost ownership of the Raiders 100 times. No way that's true.

 

[Palatine]

It's been nothing but a whole lot of bull from the beginning and you patriot haters have totally been off the rails from the beginning a you know it. Get real for once; go analyze yourselves.

The emails expose what happened and who ordered it to happen.

 

[Dynasty]

And the Pats accepted a loss of a first round pick, a fourth and a fine of one million dollars without a fight, because...

http://espn.go.com/boston/nfl/story...ngland-patriots-appeal-deflategate-punishment

 

[zyron]

http://espn.go.com/boston/nfl/story...ngland-patriots-appeal-deflategate-punishment

If anyone actually believes this:

Kraft said that he was putting the league before his franchise because "at no time should the agenda of one team outweigh the collective good of the 32."

Then you will believe anything. So, Kraft believes he could win this, but dropped his appeal out of the kindness of his heart

 

[Sportsman5]

Then Al Davis would have lost ownership of the Raiders 100 times. No way that's true.

it's not an automatic thing. It depends upon the situation. However, the patriots law suit against the nfl would undermine nfl authority. More importantly a court battle would force nfl executives to testify and A LOT of dirt would come out. it would be awful for the nfl overall. many people would end up looking bad an more importantly the nfl would look awful. No one associated with the nfl would want a lawsuit by the patriots against the nfl to happen.

 

[TasteofUConn]

Unlike 99.9% of people who have an opinion on this, I read the entire Wells report. My background is science (graduate degree) and I worked in labs, so I am familiar with the scientific method. Ted Wells has a B.A., and MBA and a law degree, but does not, at least based on his C.V., have any science background. My understanding is that Ted Wells has been paid by the NFL over the years for legal services, in an amount in excess of 45 million, but it is unknown how much bigger that number gets when you factor in concussion law suit defenses. Ted Wells was not independent at all, and it is beyond insulting that the NFL would even use that word.
I'd say the Wells report was an embarrassment to science, but that would not quite capture it. The Wells report, had it been submitted to a peer-review journal, would have been rejected as laughably unscientific.
Anyway, it doesn't matter. As much as Pats and Bray haters want to believe that this tarnishes the legacies, it doesn't. If it was important enough to matter, then they should strip the Pats of the SB.
Deflategate is like the time your girlfriend (haters) caught you (Brady/Pats) talking to another girl at a party off by yourselves - it doesn't matter to anybody but your girlfriend, and the only reason it exists is because your girlfriend is going to remind you of it once a month for the rest of your life because that's all she's got.

 

[zyron]

it's not an automatic thing. It depends upon the situation. However, the patriots law suit against the nfl would undermine nfl authority. More importantly a court battle would force nfl executives to testify and A LOT of dirt would come out. it would be awful for the nfl overall. many people would end up looking bad an more importantly the nfl would look awful. No one associated with the nfl would want a lawsuit by the patriots against the nfl to happen.

Yeah, I just looked it up, it's not true at all. They might have to pay the NFL's legal fees if they lose, but you can't lose your team by suing the NFL.

 

[upstater]

Given that the original thread went 24 pages, I thought this piece, which largely echoes what @upstater said, would be relevant.

One of its main conclusion:



I'm not Pats fan, but this whole Deflate-gate thing seemed nothing to me from the beginning but hot air. (Sorry, I'll leave now.)

No, it couldn't be, must have been written by a Patriots fan.

I totally get that people are not going to read the report, and therefore they don't get to laugh at how contradictory or flat out stupid that it was.

 

[upstater]

Yeah, I just looked it up, it's not true at all. They might have to pay the NFL's legal fees if they lose, but you can't lose your team by suing the NFL.

Surely you're not totally clueless about the changes in the NFL in 2012? Are you? The rules were changed so you can't sue the league. Al Davis is ancient history.

 

[zyron]

Surely you're not totally clueless about the changes in the NFL in 2012? Are you? The rules were changed so you can't sue the league. Al Davis is ancient history.

Why can't I find a single shred of info on this anywhere on the internet? Do you really think that a rule that says you can't sue (or your team gets taken away) for any reason would even be enforceable?

Davis was owner and GM in 2011, so ancient.

 

[Sportsman5]

Yeah, I just looked it up, it's not true at all. They might have to pay the NFL's legal fees if they lose, but you can't lose your team by suing the NFL.

It is part of the agreement when you become an owner that you will accept the punishments handed down by the league. Suing the NFL is out of the question. that is why kraft initially said he would accept the punishment before the wells report came out. However, the punishments were way beyond what was anticipated and the wells report was inaccurate based upon things like video footage. At that point kraft struck back. After this Goodell met with him and basically threatened him. then kraft went from attacking the NFL to accepting everything they said. That is the timeline.

 

[Sportsman5]

Yeah, I just looked it up, it's not true at all. They might have to pay the NFL's legal fees if they lose, but you can't lose your team by suing the NFL.

And in case you don't believe me the exact wording is on page 31 and 32 of the "constitution and bylaws of the national football league" under section B of the "disciplinary powers of the commissioner"

 

[zyron]

And in case you don't believe me the exact wording is on page 31 and 32 of the "constitution and bylaws of the national football league" under section B of the "disciplinary powers of the commissioner"

And I just read it. No where does it say that you can lose your franchise if you sue the NFL. The only thing it says about losing a franchise as an owner is if you do something so bad that the Commissioner doesn't have the power to punish you for it. Then he sends it to the Executive Committee to decide with his recommendation.

 

[CL82]

And the Pats accepted a loss of a first round pick, a fourth and a fine of one million dollars without a fight, because...

Because they are so much better than the rest of the league, it really doesn't matter?

 

[Bonehead]

Because they are so much better than the rest of the league, it really doesn't matter?

Cop out answer...!!

1st round picks don't mean much to the Pats - look at the history.

With that said, you don't need best players when you film illegally, listen in on opposing teams radio wave during playing calling, have visine added to visiting teams pre game meals and lastly the allure of the NE Patriots 'live like a AH for a day', where visiting teams player are treated to an evening at the club, doing PCP, bringing some strange back to an off the beaten path apartment building, smoke some weed to come down from the PCP - and before you know it it is game day.

 

[tzznandrew]

To be clear, this was an independent report by the people who blew up Bountygate:

BEFORE “Deflategate,” the National Football League’s most recent controversy, there was “Bountygate,” in which New Orleans Saints officials were accused of offering bonuses to Saints players who injured members of opposing teams — a policy alleged to have been in place from 2009 to 2011. Initially, several Saints officials and players were penalized by the N.F.L.

In 2012, however, we published an analysis of N.F.L. injury data that found that the Saints injured fewer opposing players than all but two teams did in 2009, and fewer than all but one team did from 2009 to 2011. Even if Saints officials offered “bounties,” there was no good evidence that Saints players were influenced by them.

We presented our findings at an N.F.L. hearing in November 2012. The next month, the N.F.L. vacated all the players’ suspensions.

These same people, who have literally no reason to lie, called Wells report unreliable and gave clear reasons why it was junk. That's what's important.

Logic should work from facts, not beliefs. I'm not sure why the Pats accepted the punishment, but that doesn't mean Wells isn't junk. Any conclusions about why the Pats accepted the punishment needs to be read in the light of these new facts.