NFL probing Patriots' possible use of deflated balls during AFC Championship

Patriots still waiting for the NFL to apologize. :grin:

Statement from Robert Kraft: “Despite our conviction that there was no tampering with footballs, it was our intention to accept any discipline levied by the league. Today’s punishment, however, far exceeded any reasonable expectation. It was based completely on circumstantial rather than hard or conclusive evidence.

“We are humbled by the support the New England Patriots have received from our fans throughout the world. We recognize our fans’ concerns regarding the NFL’s penalties and share in their disappointment in how this one-sided investigation was handled, as well as the dismissal of the scientific evidence supported by the Ideal Gas Law in the final report.

“Tom Brady has our unconditional support. Our belief in him has not wavered.”​

 

4 games is lenient, but fair.

That's about what you'd get for any positive PED test.

 

ESPECIALLY considering the language in the Wells report. Since when do we convict people on "more likely than not"? Punishment for both the player and the team is ridiculous. But I'll take it .

 

YES! Kraft said Ideal Gas Law. This lets McNair off the hook for the time he went to the league office with a report on "overtraining".

 

At least there you have a positive test.

This is still under suspicion without anybody testifying, any hard evidence, or any admission of guilt... certainly I thought Brady would at least get a stiff fine or maybe at most 1 game due to him not cooperating with the league, but 4 games for that is pretty harsh.

 

This is not a criminal conviction

The standard of "more probable than not" was created by Wells, a lawyer. It's essentially a civil standard (preponderance). When Wells says it's more probable than not, he means that Brady was responsible. The league doesn't need to have overwhelming evidence to impose a punishment. That type of evidence isn't obtainable without being able to subpoena Brady's phone, etc. The circumstantial evidence, in my opinion, definitely implicates Brady here.

Regardless of whether or not he is guilty (which I think is clear) the punishment takes into consideration that he lied to the NFL. He claimed he did not know who the equipment managers for the team were. Turns out, they were communicating via cell phone about the footballs.

 

This is the most preposterous statement I've ever read! If Wells meant that Brady was absolutely responsible he should have stated in his report that Brady was responsible, not that he was "more probable than not" responsible. Based on your theory, Goodell can suspend a player for suspected HGH usage without having any actual evidence, if a lawyer deems it "more probably than not" that he was using.

I'm not a lawyer, so perhaps I'm not as well versed in the field as law as yourself, but I just think Goodell is setting an irresponsible, for lack of a better term, precedent. It's his NFL so he can do what he wants, but in a just world you can't just throw the book based upon hunches and maybe-so's.

As for the fine and the draft picks, how do you explain the reasoning? The damn report stated that the team was likely not involved, and had no knowledge of the "ball deflation," so why levy such a large penalty against the owner? It's because RG is mad with power and wants to show how big of a stick he wields.

Final note: domestic abuse gets you a 6 game suspension according to the CBA. Deflating a football 1 psi below regulation gets you 4? That hardly seems fair.

 

Things the NFL doesn't like

1. Messing with NFL's Policy on Integrity of the Game

2. "the failure of Tom Brady to produce any electronic evidence" ie lying to them.

 

I know people have gotten onto me about this, before "especially with serious crimes" involved, like murder, drug sales, and domestic violence. But the thing is those things are not related to anything that goes on in the confine of the game, itself.

Cheating and Crimes are two different categories of punishment that aren't related to one another.

Crimes are typically only punished, because the general public deems that players should be punished for their actions in society or it is a type of activity that the league doesn't want to associate itself with, for example, in the 1980s, many players were banned from the NFL and NBA for drug usage. Because, it was spiraling out of control and the leagues felt that they needed to do something about it to clean up their image.

Cheating actually has tangible or a possible effect on the game and the way it is played. You cannot deface or alter anything on the equipment or objects to try to gain an advantage on the field. People in baseball are often suspended for corking their bats, often times for several games. Moreover, it is irrelevant , if the routine works or not, you cannot do it, according to league rules.

Same goes for gambling and PEDs, because it is part of league's rules and policies.

People get fired or punished for committing felonies and misdemeanors, even if it is not related to their jobs. On the same token, people can get punished, fined, or fired for violating specific company policies (albeit often times for things that seem rather petty or insignificant).

 

<blockquote class="twitter-tweet" lang="en"><p lang="en" dir="ltr">Brady basically went from ~110th in fumble rate all time to about the 6th-best ever for a QB. <a href="http://t.co/pfJDbLfLFr">pic.twitter.com/pfJDbLfLFr</a></p>&mdash; Scott Kacsmar (@FO_ScottKacsmar) <a href="https://twitter.com/FO_ScottKacsmar/status/597938480090603521">May 12, 2015</a></blockquote>
<script async src="//platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script>

 

Point one: I think the standard of preponderance is what Wells was told to use in the report. He can't prove that Brady was absolutely responsible. That's not the standard for criminal convictions either.

Point two: he can throw the book however he pleases really. Greg Hardy's punishment is another example of this. The current precedent is that the NFL will punish infractions of whatever kind because they were so soft in the past. Collective bargaining needs to be used to set a standard.

Point three: As for the fine and draft picks, the organization hired all three employees and benefited from their cheating. You can't take away their title but you can punish this moving forward.

Point four: logical fallacy. Proof of domestic abuse gets you a greater suspension. Cheating deserves harsh penalties. I agree that domestic abusers should be punished more strictly. The two problems aren't related. I don't know really what is worse, but I'd say the NFL should have more motivation to punish cheaters than people with character issues. The NFL only cares about the character problems now because of the backlash. I support both punishments.

Edit--looks like Pluto made the same point

 

I never wanna hear shady brady and the cheatriots mentioned in the same breath as the san antonio spurs ever again

 

The conclusion was more likely than not, but theses were facts:

-Tom Brady didn't give up his cell phone
-Tom Brady lied to the investigator
-Patriots employees were required to give up the cell phone due to NFL rules and got caught in text with their interactions with Brady
-Employees lied about taking the balls to the bathroom then lied about using the urinals (there were no urinals)
-You can't prove it because there's no video showing it, but something happened to their balls and not the Colts
-They had all the science showing it wasn't something else natural that happened.

 

Fine points and fine recap/summary.

I guess I shouldn't be surprised so many people are ignoring the fact Tom Brady has been caught lying. He wouldn't even cooperate with his phone records because that would likely provide the "caught red-handed" evidence of tampering. At this point, they don't really need hard evidence to know what happened.

The Patriots can play the legal deniability game all they want. It just diminishes them in my view. That team is always looking for an edge and plays on the boundaries of what is legal in or in the spirit of the game. That the Patriots have again been caught crossing the line is no surprise.

The punishment is pretty much on point. This is about the integrity of the game on the field. Not "image" or off-field issues. This is a Superbowl championship team and Superbowl MVP caught in another cheating scandal.

 

These stats are just damning. Are there similar numbers showing how the rest of the offense benefited, such as pass catch rates and other players' fumble rates?

 

Multiple stats have been posted in here.

Some key stats that can be pointed to when you place the line following the 2006 season and before the 2007 season, when the new rules allowed the Patriots to control their own footballs:

1) The Patriots significantly outperformed the fumble rates of any other outside team.
2) The Patriots significantly outperformed the turnover margin of teams playing games in cold weather. This one was HUGE.
3) The Patriots from 2000-2006 (Starting with Bellicheck's first year) were a normal team statistically when it came to fumbles. From 2007 forward, they took a MASSIVE jump in fumble avoidance, becoming one of the greatest of all time and DRASTICALLY outperforming the league. It is such a huge statistical variance that it can't be a fluke. One quote was that it was like winning a raffle with odds against you in the millions. And winning it twice.
4) Tom Brady went from being a good quarterback to being greatest of all time. Key stats on this:
-Prior to 2007, Tom Brady career high in TD was 28. 2007 (year he controlled his own football) he through a league record 50.
-The full 6 seasons prior to 2007, Tom Brady threw 147 touchdowns. In the 6 full seasons (take out his injured year) following, Brady threw 212 touchdowns. This despite all of those years coming after age 30.
-Prior to 2007, Tom Brady's average QB rating was high 80s. After 2007, Tom Brady's average QB rating was was low 100s. LOL
-Prior to 2007, Tom Brady averaged 13 interceptions per year. From 2007 forward he has averaged 9.
-His TD/INT ratio has obviously exploded using numbers above.

 

Fumbles may be the only thing you can really look at closer... and even then, with Belicheck basically benching any RB that fumbles at all, that can sometimes skew results.

As far as the performances go, the league certainly has become more of a passing league since 2007, Brady got Randy Moss, and defenses were extremely limited in physical play/contact when it came to both QB's and WR's which undoubtedly could turn "above average" QB's into great QB's.

I don't think deflated balls can be the answer to everything...

 

Two things:

1) The "control your own footballs" thing was only new for visiting teams.

2) 2006 also brought about the 5-yard cushion and defensive-holding rules, which basically made it open season for the passing game.

Brady wasn't the only QB to see a significant rise in his performance post-2006, but he certainly benefited the most.

 

All the time dude... That's nothing new.

And the Patriots got off light considering they are habitual line steppers.