05-07-2015, 08:51 AM
The NFL is ultimately at fault. But, just because a party is at fault, it doesn't mean they are guilty of being negligent or deserve heavy criticism.
Last week I pulled into a gas station in Hartford seeking to clean a windshield. When I arrived, there were no squeegees. So I walked into the store and asked if they had any. The guy said there weren't because they get stolen. They replaced them a couple times but then just gave up on providing them because they were always stolen.Â
The owner of the place could have come down on the manager for wasting money on squeegees, but how on Earth was anyone to think that people would steal them with impunity? Until it happens, you don't know it could. Criticism by hindsight really bothers me. Sometimes things happen that can't predicted. And we can't protect ourselves from every freaking thing that might go awry.
If the NFL thinks football inflation is important, it should have a secure procedure and standards for making sure the balls are uniform in whatever aspects are important. This incident is the perfect opportunity for the NFL to say "we can't prove anything, but it is a distinct possibility the footballs were altered. We are taking steps to make sure it won't happen again."
To me, the NFL being lax about football attributes is something that could have been known about a lot more than soon to be stolen squeegees at a gas station. I mean I'm pretty sure everyone who has had their own footballs, basketballs, volleyballs, soccer or polo balls, have inflated them to where they were comfortable with them. So how important is it really, given how obvious this reality seems to be? Apparently the NFL officials knew about the balls and let the Patriots use them anyway. Would they have allowed it if this provided any sort of competitive advantage?
Did Brady cheat? Maybe by the letter of what cheating is, but did he gain a competitive advantage? The evidence suggests not. Colin Cowherd nailed it on why Brady might have not been fully open with what he knew: he didn't want to risk being suspended from the Super Bowl. To me, this is like if you have a winning lotto ticket, were asked if you broke the speed limit driving to get your check - in some manner that suggested you might not be given your winnings if you did - and saying you didn't, only to find someone had some data suggesting you did. Tempest, meet teapot. It just isn't that big of a deal, when weighing all the factors, IMO.
It becomes a big deal if it was found there was a consistent altering of balls over a long period of time, that enabled the Patriots to say fumble the ball at a much lower rate than the competition. Now, apparently there is a stat available that shows the Patriots have in fact fumbled the ball at a significantly lower rate than any other team that plays in temps below 40, but it is now impossible to assess what happened with the balls in these other games. There is blame to go around lots of places on this issue of deflated balls. So just fix the loophole and move on without trying to put a head on a pike.
Last week I pulled into a gas station in Hartford seeking to clean a windshield. When I arrived, there were no squeegees. So I walked into the store and asked if they had any. The guy said there weren't because they get stolen. They replaced them a couple times but then just gave up on providing them because they were always stolen.Â
The owner of the place could have come down on the manager for wasting money on squeegees, but how on Earth was anyone to think that people would steal them with impunity? Until it happens, you don't know it could. Criticism by hindsight really bothers me. Sometimes things happen that can't predicted. And we can't protect ourselves from every freaking thing that might go awry.
If the NFL thinks football inflation is important, it should have a secure procedure and standards for making sure the balls are uniform in whatever aspects are important. This incident is the perfect opportunity for the NFL to say "we can't prove anything, but it is a distinct possibility the footballs were altered. We are taking steps to make sure it won't happen again."
To me, the NFL being lax about football attributes is something that could have been known about a lot more than soon to be stolen squeegees at a gas station. I mean I'm pretty sure everyone who has had their own footballs, basketballs, volleyballs, soccer or polo balls, have inflated them to where they were comfortable with them. So how important is it really, given how obvious this reality seems to be? Apparently the NFL officials knew about the balls and let the Patriots use them anyway. Would they have allowed it if this provided any sort of competitive advantage?
Did Brady cheat? Maybe by the letter of what cheating is, but did he gain a competitive advantage? The evidence suggests not. Colin Cowherd nailed it on why Brady might have not been fully open with what he knew: he didn't want to risk being suspended from the Super Bowl. To me, this is like if you have a winning lotto ticket, were asked if you broke the speed limit driving to get your check - in some manner that suggested you might not be given your winnings if you did - and saying you didn't, only to find someone had some data suggesting you did. Tempest, meet teapot. It just isn't that big of a deal, when weighing all the factors, IMO.
It becomes a big deal if it was found there was a consistent altering of balls over a long period of time, that enabled the Patriots to say fumble the ball at a much lower rate than the competition. Now, apparently there is a stat available that shows the Patriots have in fact fumbled the ball at a significantly lower rate than any other team that plays in temps below 40, but it is now impossible to assess what happened with the balls in these other games. There is blame to go around lots of places on this issue of deflated balls. So just fix the loophole and move on without trying to put a head on a pike.