[97fan]

[quote author=97fan link=topic=12103.msg117859#msg117859 date=1431022192]
[quote author=OutsiderFan link=topic=12103.msg117851#msg117851 date=1431013901]
Did Brady cheat? Maybe by the letter of what cheating is, but did he gain a competitive advantage?  The evidence suggests not. 

What evidence are you referring to? [/quote]

Apparently, Brady performed better with the undefeated balls than the deflated ones.[/quote]

You seem to be suggesting that there's a way to identify all the specific games when the Patriots used deflated balls. I don't know how anyone (other than Brady and his two lackeys) would be able to do that.

[97fan]

[quote author=97fan link=topic=12103.msg117859#msg117859 date=1431022192]
[quote author=OutsiderFan link=topic=12103.msg117851#msg117851 date=1431013901]
Did Brady cheat? Maybe by the letter of what cheating is, but did he gain a competitive advantage?  The evidence suggests not. 

What evidence are you referring to? [/quote]

Apparently, Brady performed better with the undefeated balls than the deflated ones.[/quote]

You seem to be suggesting that there's a way to identify all the specific games when the Patriots used deflated balls. I don't know how anyone (other than Brady and his two lackeys) would be able to do that.

[CowboyIndian]

Has anyone called in Ben Bernanke to get his thoughts on inflation?

[CowboyIndian]

Has anyone called in Ben Bernanke to get his thoughts on inflation?

[CTcard]

re: whether rules governing inflation should be rules at all

It's a good point but irrelevant to the discussion. 

I suppose it depends what discussion you are having.
Though I understand that thread drift is verboten here.

[CTcard]

re: whether rules governing inflation should be rules at all

It's a good point but irrelevant to the discussion. 

I suppose it depends what discussion you are having.
Though I understand that thread drift is verboten here.

[Leftcoast]

I don't much care if the Patriots footballs were under inflated.  I also don't much care that one QB prefers his footballs over inflated and another under inflated nor where Tom Brady falls in that spectrum. 

What I DO care about is the lengths the Patriots went to to purposefully circumvent the equipment rules and the NFL's enforcement process. 

If a team conspires to modify footballs clandestinely after they have been certified game ready by the NFL then they deserve to be (and SHOULD BE) sanctioned.  We all know the Patriots push the rules as far as the NFL well let them to seek a competitive advantage.  The NFL needs to enforce its rules to communicate that they have pushed too far.

Hit Brady with a three week suspension and bar the involved equipment managers from participating in game day activities for the 2015 season and let's move on.  I doubt this will be more than an embarrassing side note to his legacy.

[Leftcoast]

I don't much care if the Patriots footballs were under inflated.  I also don't much care that one QB prefers his footballs over inflated and another under inflated nor where Tom Brady falls in that spectrum. 

What I DO care about is the lengths the Patriots went to to purposefully circumvent the equipment rules and the NFL's enforcement process. 

If a team conspires to modify footballs clandestinely after they have been certified game ready by the NFL then they deserve to be (and SHOULD BE) sanctioned.  We all know the Patriots push the rules as far as the NFL well let them to seek a competitive advantage.  The NFL needs to enforce its rules to communicate that they have pushed too far.

Hit Brady with a three week suspension and bar the involved equipment managers from participating in game day activities for the 2015 season and let's move on.  I doubt this will be more than an embarrassing side note to his legacy.

[Farm93]

Hit Brady with a three week suspension and bar the involved equipment managers from participating in game day activities for the 2015 season and let's move on.  I doubt this will be more than an embarrassing side note to his legacy.

3 game suspension might be enough to swing home field to a certain dome team with several Stanford alums.  The Colts play the Patriots at Lucas Oil in Week #7, game #6 for the Patriots.  Probably beyond the range of possible Brady suspensions.  My guess is NBC execs are thrilled they have that game on their Sunday Night schedule.

[Farm93]

Hit Brady with a three week suspension and bar the involved equipment managers from participating in game day activities for the 2015 season and let's move on.  I doubt this will be more than an embarrassing side note to his legacy.

3 game suspension might be enough to swing home field to a certain dome team with several Stanford alums.  The Colts play the Patriots at Lucas Oil in Week #7, game #6 for the Patriots.  Probably beyond the range of possible Brady suspensions.  My guess is NBC execs are thrilled they have that game on their Sunday Night schedule.

[CornFed]

One last point
The evidence in the report is not "beyond reasonable doubt".  In a court of law, it would certainly not be enough to convict Brady, and probably not be enough to convict McNally and Jastremski of anything beyond violating pre-game protocol.  The Wells report could not prove beyond a reasonable doubt than in the minute forty seconds that McNally was in the bathroom with the balls, that he took a needle and let some air out of them.  That being said, the NFL is not a court of law, and the term "more likely than not" carries a specific meaning in the NFL and is the standard used to apply sanctions.  What those sanctions will be, I don't know; for Brady it is possible that the loss of reputation is enough.  Part of me hopes the league brings down the hammer on Brady and the Pats because what they did, was so galling.  But it wasn't so material, so that's the balance that the league office will need to make.


While criminal trials require prosecutors to establish guilt "beyond a reasonable doubt", civil trials would be able to reach judgment against the Patriots on a "more likely than not" standard.  At least that is my understanding from watching Perry Mason.  That and I stayed at a Marriott last night (or whatever hotel chain that ad is from).  In any case, it seems more appropriate to apply the standard from a civil suit (or a War of Agression suit) rather than that of a criminal litigation.

[CornFed]

One last point
The evidence in the report is not "beyond reasonable doubt".  In a court of law, it would certainly not be enough to convict Brady, and probably not be enough to convict McNally and Jastremski of anything beyond violating pre-game protocol.  The Wells report could not prove beyond a reasonable doubt than in the minute forty seconds that McNally was in the bathroom with the balls, that he took a needle and let some air out of them.  That being said, the NFL is not a court of law, and the term "more likely than not" carries a specific meaning in the NFL and is the standard used to apply sanctions.  What those sanctions will be, I don't know; for Brady it is possible that the loss of reputation is enough.  Part of me hopes the league brings down the hammer on Brady and the Pats because what they did, was so galling.  But it wasn't so material, so that's the balance that the league office will need to make.


While criminal trials require prosecutors to establish guilt "beyond a reasonable doubt", civil trials would be able to reach judgment against the Patriots on a "more likely than not" standard.  At least that is my understanding from watching Perry Mason.  That and I stayed at a Marriott last night (or whatever hotel chain that ad is from).  In any case, it seems more appropriate to apply the standard from a civil suit (or a War of Agression suit) rather than that of a criminal litigation.

[BostonCard]

I think "preponderance of evidence" is the standard in most civil suits.

BC

[BostonCard]

I think "preponderance of evidence" is the standard in most civil suits.

BC

[Rally]

I think "preponderance of evidence" is the standard in most civil suits.

BC

That's what got The University of Broken Ankles Heroes' OJ in the war of northern aggression trial, isn't it?

[Rally]

I think "preponderance of evidence" is the standard in most civil suits.

BC

That's what got The University of Broken Ankles Heroes' OJ in the war of northern aggression trial, isn't it?

[CornFed]

I think "preponderance of evidence" is the standard in most civil suits.

BC

Probably that is the proper term of art in civil court.  When we discussed possible outcomes of hypothetical tax rulings that were likely to result if a structure were to be challenged, outcomes that were based on a standard of "more likely than not"were sufficient to attract penalties.  It equated to 51% probability.  That sounds comparable to the term "preponderance of the evidence", but probably relates more specifically to rulings related to tax issues.

[CornFed]

I think "preponderance of evidence" is the standard in most civil suits.

BC

Probably that is the proper term of art in civil court.  When we discussed possible outcomes of hypothetical tax rulings that were likely to result if a structure were to be challenged, outcomes that were based on a standard of "more likely than not"were sufficient to attract penalties.  It equated to 51% probability.  That sounds comparable to the term "preponderance of the evidence", but probably relates more specifically to rulings related to tax issues.

[Leftcoast]

Setting aside the Deflate Gate (which I believe exceeds 51%) how do people feel about handing out sanctions against a 51% probability standard?

That seems a low hurdle for taking away someone's livelihood.

[Leftcoast]

Setting aside the Deflate Gate (which I believe exceeds 51%) how do people feel about handing out sanctions against a 51% probability standard?

That seems a low hurdle for taking away someone's livelihood.

[BostonCard]

Setting aside the Deflate Gate (which I believe exceeds 51%) how do people feel about handing out sanctions against a 51% probability standard?

That seems a low hurdle for taking away someone's livelihood.

I don't think Brady's kids are going to go hungry if he's suspended for a couple of games on account of deflategate.

BC

[BostonCard]

Setting aside the Deflate Gate (which I believe exceeds 51%) how do people feel about handing out sanctions against a 51% probability standard?

That seems a low hurdle for taking away someone's livelihood.

I don't think Brady's kids are going to go hungry if he's suspended for a couple of games on account of deflategate.

BC

[ThePassionOfTheChryst]

According to a talking head on NFL AM this morning, "more probable than not" is where the NFL sets its bar for punishment.  So, Wells' use of "more probable than not" throughout the report does not mean he's being vague, it means he believes Brady is responsible.  He's simply using the NFL's preferred vernacular.

[ThePassionOfTheChryst]

According to a talking head on NFL AM this morning, "more probable than not" is where the NFL sets its bar for punishment.  So, Wells' use of "more probable than not" throughout the report does not mean he's being vague, it means he believes Brady is responsible.  He's simply using the NFL's preferred vernacular.

[Bruce Wang]

A guest on the Boston sports talk radio show made a good point this morning.  Suspending Brady actually affects the competitive balance of the season.  The teams that get to play the Pats without Brady get an unfair advantage.  Suspending him for the entire season solves that problem, but that seems extreme to me.  Suspending him against just Colts would seem to redress the team he got caught cheating against, except it would be naive to think he and his boys have not been doing this for a long time.  Also I think the Colts want a chance for retribution on the playing field.  A potential compromise would be to suspend Brady against his division opponents for one game each, three games total.  That limits the impact on competitive balance to one potential wild card spot for teams that are already at a competitive disadvantage from playing in the Patriots' division.

[Bruce Wang]

A guest on the Boston sports talk radio show made a good point this morning.  Suspending Brady actually affects the competitive balance of the season.  The teams that get to play the Pats without Brady get an unfair advantage.  Suspending him for the entire season solves that problem, but that seems extreme to me.  Suspending him against just Colts would seem to redress the team he got caught cheating against, except it would be naive to think he and his boys have not been doing this for a long time.  Also I think the Colts want a chance for retribution on the playing field.  A potential compromise would be to suspend Brady against his division opponents for one game each, three games total.  That limits the impact on competitive balance to one potential wild card spot for teams that are already at a competitive disadvantage from playing in the Patriots' division.

[ca245]

When a player who uses PEDs to gain a competitive advantage is caught and suspended, the opponents whose games he misses have the same kind of "competitive advantage." If that guest was using this reasoning to argue that Brady should not be suspended, he is forgetting a lot of NFL disciplinary history.

[ca245]

When a player who uses PEDs to gain a competitive advantage is caught and suspended, the opponents whose games he misses have the same kind of "competitive advantage." If that guest was using this reasoning to argue that Brady should not be suspended, he is forgetting a lot of NFL disciplinary history.

[terry]

I haven't read the report. Did they look at the question of whether balls were deflated at other games, or did they look just at the one game against the Colts?

[terry]

I haven't read the report. Did they look at the question of whether balls were deflated at other games, or did they look just at the one game against the Colts?

[Farm93]

I haven't read the report. Did they look at the question of whether balls were deflated at other games, or did they look just at the one game against the Colts?

I have not read the report either.  As I understand the report it is the text message history that ties the whole thing together.  After the AFC Game Brady texts the worker bees to hang in there, and they reply that it is stressful.  Innocent enough, could just be stuff from a QB that cares about the staff.  Though I believe a few texts imply he knows the deal.

However, those same worker bees text to each other for a longer stretch of the season.  With the guy deflating the balls noting that it is "stressful" to get all of the deflation work done quickly.  And those same worker bees have gifts from Brady over the season that suggests Brady was rewarding them for their efforts.

One needs to connect a few text dots and use some logic, but pretty easy to conclude that Brady knew about the process all along and rewarded the staff for their work.

Easy enough for Brady to just say he was giving out gifts as a nice guy, but I am sure those that work in the NFL (players, coaches, administrators) can make logical conclusions.  In the end, it was cheating, though in a league full of bigger cheating scandals, domestic violence, gun violence and even murders this can't be the biggest worry for the league. 

PED uses seems so much greater cheating infraction to me.  Those guys only get 4 game suspensions.  So that pretty much would be the ceiling for Brady if he can be linked sufficiently.

The organization, however, clearly was doing something and knew it was wrong.  So I expect the organizational penalties will be noteworthy.  And that might be a net good for the Indianapolis Colts in 2015!

[Farm93]

I haven't read the report. Did they look at the question of whether balls were deflated at other games, or did they look just at the one game against the Colts?

I have not read the report either.  As I understand the report it is the text message history that ties the whole thing together.  After the AFC Game Brady texts the worker bees to hang in there, and they reply that it is stressful.  Innocent enough, could just be stuff from a QB that cares about the staff.  Though I believe a few texts imply he knows the deal.

However, those same worker bees text to each other for a longer stretch of the season.  With the guy deflating the balls noting that it is "stressful" to get all of the deflation work done quickly.  And those same worker bees have gifts from Brady over the season that suggests Brady was rewarding them for their efforts.

One needs to connect a few text dots and use some logic, but pretty easy to conclude that Brady knew about the process all along and rewarded the staff for their work.

Easy enough for Brady to just say he was giving out gifts as a nice guy, but I am sure those that work in the NFL (players, coaches, administrators) can make logical conclusions.  In the end, it was cheating, though in a league full of bigger cheating scandals, domestic violence, gun violence and even murders this can't be the biggest worry for the league. 

PED uses seems so much greater cheating infraction to me.  Those guys only get 4 game suspensions.  So that pretty much would be the ceiling for Brady if he can be linked sufficiently.

The organization, however, clearly was doing something and knew it was wrong.  So I expect the organizational penalties will be noteworthy.  And that might be a net good for the Indianapolis Colts in 2015!

[Rally]

Now you know it's serious.

http://bleacherreport.com/articles/24582...g-national

[Rally]

Now you know it's serious.

http://bleacherreport.com/articles/24582...g-national

[BostonCard]

A guest on the Boston sports talk radio show made a good point this morning.  Suspending Brady actually affects the competitive balance of the season.  The teams that get to play the Pats without Brady get an unfair advantage.  Suspending him for the entire season solves that problem, but that seems extreme to me.  Suspending him against just Colts would seem to redress the team he got caught cheating against, except it would be naive to think he and his boys have not been doing this for a long time.  Also I think the Colts want a chance for retribution on the playing field.  A potential compromise would be to suspend Brady against his division opponents for one game each, three games total.  That limits the impact on competitive balance to one potential wild card spot for teams that are already at a competitive disadvantage from playing in the Patriots' division.

I don't think that's going to be much of a consideration.  First of all, competitive issues never factor into other punishment decisions.  When Ndomekung Suh gets suspended, that affects the competitive balance, but that doesn't become a consideration in the length of time or pattern of his suspension.

More importantly, the NFL doesn't have a balanced schedule anyways.  Different teams, even within the same division, don't all play the same schedule.  Yes, they get a double round robin (6 games within division), and play the same in conference and cross conference division, but they also get some games based on the prior year's results.

Bottom line, I don't think the nfl makes this a consideration.

BC

[BostonCard]

A guest on the Boston sports talk radio show made a good point this morning.  Suspending Brady actually affects the competitive balance of the season.  The teams that get to play the Pats without Brady get an unfair advantage.  Suspending him for the entire season solves that problem, but that seems extreme to me.  Suspending him against just Colts would seem to redress the team he got caught cheating against, except it would be naive to think he and his boys have not been doing this for a long time.  Also I think the Colts want a chance for retribution on the playing field.  A potential compromise would be to suspend Brady against his division opponents for one game each, three games total.  That limits the impact on competitive balance to one potential wild card spot for teams that are already at a competitive disadvantage from playing in the Patriots' division.

I don't think that's going to be much of a consideration.  First of all, competitive issues never factor into other punishment decisions.  When Ndomekung Suh gets suspended, that affects the competitive balance, but that doesn't become a consideration in the length of time or pattern of his suspension.

More importantly, the NFL doesn't have a balanced schedule anyways.  Different teams, even within the same division, don't all play the same schedule.  Yes, they get a double round robin (6 games within division), and play the same in conference and cross conference division, but they also get some games based on the prior year's results.

Bottom line, I don't think the nfl makes this a consideration.

BC

[jacketree]

[quote author=leftcoast link=topic=12103.msg117907#msg117907 date=1431051447]
Setting aside the Deflate Gate (which I believe exceeds 51%) how do people feel about handing out sanctions against a 51% probability standard?

That seems a low hurdle for taking away someone's livelihood.

I don't think Brady's kids are going to go hungry if he's suspended for a couple of games on account of deflategate.

BC
[/quote]

Lefty said "setting aside Deflategate", so I thought he meant generally what do we think about 50% plus one as a decision making standard.  That's used in Assessment District formation (Prop. 218) for property owners based on valuation, but not in passing a tax (2/3). Very interesting question.  I may have jury duty in Superior Court starting Monday, so it could be civil (preponderance) or criminal (unanimous). I have been very lucky in the past. Almost always on Friday and dismissed - only made it into the box once for a very ugly criminal case.  I was two chairs away when they seated the jury.  Given my current crushing workload and schedule chock full of meetings next week, I have a bad feeling about this.  Not that I am unwilling to perform my civic duty. The thought of working through the night in my day job just to keep everything from collapsing isn't all that appealing.

P.S.  Can you imagine a world in which the 1972 DNC was headquartered at a HoJo instead of the Watergate? What would we label every scandal?

[jacketree]

[quote author=leftcoast link=topic=12103.msg117907#msg117907 date=1431051447]
Setting aside the Deflate Gate (which I believe exceeds 51%) how do people feel about handing out sanctions against a 51% probability standard?

That seems a low hurdle for taking away someone's livelihood.

I don't think Brady's kids are going to go hungry if he's suspended for a couple of games on account of deflategate.

BC
[/quote]

Lefty said "setting aside Deflategate", so I thought he meant generally what do we think about 50% plus one as a decision making standard.  That's used in Assessment District formation (Prop. 218) for property owners based on valuation, but not in passing a tax (2/3). Very interesting question.  I may have jury duty in Superior Court starting Monday, so it could be civil (preponderance) or criminal (unanimous). I have been very lucky in the past. Almost always on Friday and dismissed - only made it into the box once for a very ugly criminal case.  I was two chairs away when they seated the jury.  Given my current crushing workload and schedule chock full of meetings next week, I have a bad feeling about this.  Not that I am unwilling to perform my civic duty. The thought of working through the night in my day job just to keep everything from collapsing isn't all that appealing.

P.S.  Can you imagine a world in which the 1972 DNC was headquartered at a HoJo instead of the Watergate? What would we label every scandal?

[CTcard]

P.S.  Can you imagine a world in which the 1972 DNC was headquartered at a HoJo instead of the Watergate? What would we label every scandal?

DeflHoJo??

[CTcard]

P.S.  Can you imagine a world in which the 1972 DNC was headquartered at a HoJo instead of the Watergate? What would we label every scandal?

DeflHoJo??