Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

The biggest thing to remember is that people HATE winners as much as People LOVE winners. When a sports team or city is excessively good at a sport or sports they immediately draw two crowds. Band wagoners, people who literally change parts of their wardrobes to acquire a teams jersey's and clothing, also known as fair weather fans. And you get the haters. Case and point would be Boston. No city in America or Canada has as much success in sports as Boston. Red Soxs have won the world series in 2013, 2007 and 2004, The Boston Bruins won the Stanley Cup in 2011 and finished with the presidents trophy and made another appearance to the Stanley Cup playoffs in 2014. The Boston Celtics literally own about 25% of all NBA titles. So now with the patriots who won the super bowl in 2001, 2003, 2004 and 2014 and lost in the super bowl in 2007 and 2011, you have a team that literally draws the ire of all other sports fans. So realistically the report could have said donkeys were to blame but the hatred felt towards the patriots would not have diminished.

Chancetragedy wrote:
What the NFL needs to do is just let teams do whatever the hell they want with the ball. Why does it even matter what PSI or preparation process a team uses if they are the only ones using that ball?

Agreed.

But then again I don't care if NFL players roid up, either. But then again, I prescribe to the Daniel Tosh school of thought:

Hahaha I forgot about that bit, really funny.

SNL beat him to it!

All Drugs Olympics Sketch

I miss Phil Hartman...

They are not the only ones using the ball though, with every play the opponent has the opportunity to intercept and play the ball. Which, of course, is how this whole thing came to the forefront.

Chancetragedy wrote:
And @Gorgon there is a 0.0% chance the patriots shut up and take the punishment because there is 0.0% evidence that they actually cheated. Everybody just keeps ignoring the fact the wells report PROVES THEY DIDNT CHEAT! But it's convenient for their hot sport takes so I don't blame them.

So then you really think that they'll be vindicated by litigation, and that will change hearts and minds?

I think most people know on some level that the actual "cheat" committed here is a minor thing. And if the Pats had treated it like a minor thing, it probably would have disappeared from public consciousness quickly.

Being obstructive, defiant and litigious is the opposite of treating it like a minor thing, and just ensures that it'll remain in the public consciousness. The Pats can't win this, and fighting it brings additional risks. What if Goodell and the NFL start talking more about Spygate and a possible pattern of behavior by the Pats? The Pats' name can turn to mud here if they aren't careful. Letting it go, and letting it go away is the best course of action, and the one I think they'll end up following.

 Ghazkuul wrote:
The biggest thing to remember is that people HATE winners as much as People LOVE winners. When a sports team or city is excessively good at a sport or sports they immediately draw two crowds. Band wagoners, people who literally change parts of their wardrobes to acquire a teams jersey's and clothing, also known as fair weather fans. And you get the haters. Case and point would be Boston. No city in America or Canada has as much success in sports as Boston. Red Soxs have won the world series in 2013, 2007 and 2004, The Boston Bruins won the Stanley Cup in 2011 and finished with the presidents trophy and made another appearance to the Stanley Cup playoffs in 2014. The Boston Celtics literally own about 25% of all NBA titles. So now with the patriots who won the super bowl in 2001, 2003, 2004 and 2014 and lost in the super bowl in 2007 and 2011, you have a team that literally draws the ire of all other sports fans. So realistically the report could have said donkeys were to blame but the hatred felt towards the patriots would not have diminished.

No city has had as much recent success as Boston. But then, not all cities have as much interest in all the major sports as Boston does...
The Habs have the most Cups in NHL history, and have made the play-offs all but a couple times across the past 10 years. Yet the only other pro team the city has are the Al's of the CFL. (who btw, until recently have been the CFL's version of the Patriots!)


But then, on the opposite end of the spectrum, no city has been as lamentable in all sports as Toronto... The Leafs suck. The Blue Jays suck. The Raptors suck. TFC has never once even made the play-offs. The Argos suck.
Yet for some reason, Toronto stadiums are always sold out crowds?

So I guess while half of people love to hate on winners, everyone must apparently love a loser?!

 gorgon wrote:

Chancetragedy wrote:
And @Gorgon there is a 0.0% chance the patriots shut up and take the punishment because there is 0.0% evidence that they actually cheated. Everybody just keeps ignoring the fact the wells report PROVES THEY DIDNT CHEAT! But it's convenient for their hot sport takes so I don't blame them.

So then you really think that they'll be vindicated by litigation, and that will change hearts and minds?

I think most people know on some level that the actual "cheat" committed here is a minor thing. And if the Pats had treated it like a minor thing, it probably would have disappeared from public consciousness quickly.

Being obstructive, defiant and litigious is the opposite of treating it like a minor thing, and just ensures that it'll remain in the public consciousness. The Pats can't win this, and fighting it brings additional risks. What if Goodell and the NFL start talking more about Spygate and a possible pattern of behavior by the Pats? The Pats' name can turn to mud here if they aren't careful. Letting it go, and letting it go away is the best course of action, and the one I think they'll end up following.

The patriots name is already mud in the public consciousness. I do however think they will be vindicated in litigation if the punishment is reduced/overturned. I doubt it will change public perception but the NFL has already assured that won't happen with the fines/punishment/leaks/PRcampaign levied in their handling of this issue and previous ones.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 d-usa wrote:
They are not the only ones using the ball though, with every play the opponent has the opportunity to intercept and play the ball. Which, of course, is how this whole thing came to the forefront.

Not true read the wells report. There was suspicions before the game and they were already planning on taking actions to check the balls and keep an eye on the patriots(which the refs failed MISERABLY at).

The 'heavy' penalty was made with the assumption that it would be appealed down to something more like 1 or 2 game suspension, $500K fine and a 4th round pick.

IF it doesn't get appealed down to that, then it will go to court.

As far as the Pat's 'name' and 'rep'?

That's already been settled for most everyone outside of the New England States - it is time for the Patriots and their fans to Embrace the Hate!

 Alpharius wrote:
The 'heavy' penalty was made with the assumption that it would be appealed down to something more like 1 or 2 game suspension, $500K fine and a 4th round pick.

Which is wrong on its face. The penalty should be appropriate at the outset.

Fuggin Roger Goddell. Dude makes $40MM a year and I'm not sure he'd be able to lead an elementary school line correctly.

 cincydooley wrote:

 Alpharius wrote:
The 'heavy' penalty was made with the assumption that it would be appealed down to something more like 1 or 2 game suspension, $500K fine and a 4th round pick.

Which is wrong on its face. The penalty should be appropriate at the outset.

Fuggin Roger Goddell. Dude makes $40MM a year and I'm not sure he'd be able to lead an elementary school line correctly.

Eh...Goodell overreacted based on his handling of previous cases that unleashed a torrent of media criticisms. By overreaching here, Goodell will also be criticized. Mr. $40million/yr will be aight.

I don't think this one gets negotiated down.

Chancetragedy wrote:
What the NFL needs to do is just let teams do whatever the hell they want with the ball. Why does it even matter what PSI or preparation process a team uses if they are the only ones using that ball?

The thing is it isn't just the team providing the ball that is using it. The ball is an active element of all phases of the game, which means that its characteristics impact the opposing team as well; as such there needs to be some standard.

Experiment 626 wrote:


So I guess while half of people love to hate on winners, everyone must apparently love a loser?!

How else would you explain how Wrigley field is sold out, or nearly sold out day in and day out?


But then, if I stay with baseball... Tropicana field, where the TB Rays play is in a VERY unfortunate spot and so for much of the regular season the stadium isn't very full... until the team got good and suddenly it was a packed house in the playoffs.


The only teams I can think of that consistently fill their parks in any sport are the teams with the history. Joe Louis is almost always full, even if the Red Wings "suck", Lambeau Field is always packed. Centurylink field is packed (and the Kingdome before that) Oakland Coliseum is always full when the Raiders are playing, a bit less so when the As are playing. Dodger stadium draws people out, the SF Baseball Giants regularly fill out, etc.

 Ensis Ferrae wrote:


The only teams I can think of that consistently fill their parks in any sport are the teams with the history. Joe Louis is almost always full, even if the Red Wings "suck", Lambeau Field is always packed. Centurylink field is packed (and the Kingdome before that) Oakland Coliseum is always full when the Raiders are playing, a bit less so when the As are playing. Dodger stadium draws people out, the SF Baseball Giants regularly fill out, etc.

The Raiders? The Raiders have literally the lowest attendance% per game of all of the NFL teams.

And when it comes to baseball, the Cardinals and Red Sox are the first two that come to mind.

The Pats were a doormat playing an absolute dump of a stadium for most of my lifetime. They're nouveau riche to me.

The Steelers have sold out every home game since 1972.

@ensis just a little nitpick even though I agree with your overall statement and sentiment. But the Rays never sell out anything. Check their playoff attendance scores they are abysmal lol.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
So is this just the new NFL thread by default now lol...

 gorgon wrote:
The Pats were a doormat playing an absolute dump of a stadium for most of my lifetime. They're nouveau riche to me.

The Steelers have sold out every home game since 1972.

Steelers fan then?


Hmmmm....


Goodell overreached here due to past bumblings in how The Shield has handled actual serious problems and issues of discipline.

He also overreached here to show that Bob Kraft being his 'friend' wasn't going to mean he was going to go easy on them - even though the Wells report said the head coach and the team weren't involved with the main issue here.

IF this goes to a truly 'Independent Arbitrator' it absolutely will result in reduced penalties.

IF it goes to Roger's usual 'go to guy', well, it might as well go right to court, because that's where it will end up.

 Ensis Ferrae wrote:

How else would you explain how Wrigley field is sold out, or nearly sold out day in and day out?

A hell of a bar scene, and the pretty girls that go with it.

 cincydooley wrote:


And when it comes to baseball, the Cardinals and Red Sox are the first two that come to mind.

Probably true, but I wasn't going to mention the Red team that isn't a bird But there does seem to be a correlation between the age of the team and the number of fans at the park.


@ the person who mentioned the Raiders... funny you mention poorest attendance, because every time I see them on a televised game the stadium looks quite full. It certainly appears more full than say... Jacksonville. Seriously, how does Jacksonville still have a team?

 kronk wrote:

 Ahtman wrote:

 curran12 wrote:
The lost earnings by Brady is closer to 2 million.

How will he eat the poor bastard?

By taking a break from body shots off of Gisele Bündchen and having body ham-on-rye off of Gisele Bündchen.

He truly has a hard life.

 cincydooley wrote:
@Sebster -- They didn't used to let the teams do anything with the balls, but the problem ended up being that they'd use fresh footballs on Sundays, and they 'play' differently than ones that have been used. So in 2007 (I think) at the strong urging of a one Peyton Manning (former Colt QB, btw), the NFL now allows teams to 'break in' their footballs for the game (think a baseball mitt). I don't think the "breaking in" is a real question, but as you said, its more the controls weren't in place for the officials to adequate track the footballs and their pressure.

Hang on, so the officials let the players take balls to 'break them in', and presumably let the players do that breaking in in changerooms, away from the view of the public and officials? And then people were surprised when at least one team started using that breaking in process to do stuff that wasn't legal? That's amazing.

I mean, if these guys manipulated the ball in some way that was outside the rules, by all means punish them. But how did no-one see this coming? I’m coming at this from the point of view of cricket, a sport where the condition of the ball really matters. That is, games are won pretty regularly based on whether a team can get the ball to spin or swing, which is based largely on the condition of the ball.

Because a team can get a massive advantage from manipulating the ball it is always in the hands of the umpire when there’s a break in play. Even with that players have been caught manipulating the ball - but they’re limited to whatever they can get away with on the field in open view. The idea of letting players take the ball away to ready it for play, and just expecting they won’t do anything they can to get an advantage seems like extraordinary naivety.

 sebster wrote:


Hang on, so the officials let the players take balls to 'break them in', and presumably let the players do that breaking in in changerooms, away from the view of the public and officials? And then people were surprised when at least one team started using that breaking in process to do stuff that wasn't legal? That's amazing.

Not exactly, I don't think.

Basically, the teams get to do whatever they want to the balls prior to the game. At game time, it appears the only thing the officials are checking the balls for is the air pressure, which they obviously aren't too concerned with because there was very little security/control around that process.

It's different than baseball or cricket, because the QB isn't throwing the ball to/at the other team like a pitcher/bowler does. So schmutz on the ball that gave it extra spin would matter less.

Again, I don't think most "football people" consider the pressure change that big a deal. It's mostly media and fan outrage, and IMO, it's nearly entirely because it's the patriots.

 cincydooley wrote:


It's different than baseball or cricket, because the QB isn't throwing the ball to/at the other team like a pitcher/bowler does. So schmutz on the ball that gave it extra spin would matter less.

And yet there are numerous baseball players in the hall of fame who were notorious for their doctoring of the ball, and at least one made an entire career of it.


Also, I am surprised that, with Wilson being the sole provider of NFL footballs in much the same way that in a given Rugby Union Gilbert is the sole provider of balls (Aviva Premiership, Super Rugby, International matches, etc) that the NFL hasn't gone to a central system the way that Baseball, Rugby and even basketball do (Yes, I have actually seen a basketball ref change out a ball mid-game) Though baseball is really what I would consider a "semi-central" system but still works for this example.

That way, it creates a situation where it is the referees who air up, or have aired up, the equipment used, they have control of it until it is placed within the field of play, and players and teams do not have access to them in order to doctor, deflate, or "game" them up in any way. Yeah, I know that kickers in the NFL, as well as QBs need a few balls to warm up with, practice with etc. so I should think the team would still have its own supply for those purposes, but the actual game used equipment needs to be "league provided"

 cincydooley wrote:
Basically, the teams get to do whatever they want to the balls prior to the game. At game time, it appears the only thing the officials are checking the balls for is the air pressure, which they obviously aren't too concerned with because there was very little security/control around that process.

It's different than baseball or cricket, because the QB isn't throwing the ball to/at the other team like a pitcher/bowler does. So schmutz on the ball that gave it extra spin would matter less.

Again, I don't think most "football people" consider the pressure change that big a deal. It's mostly media and fan outrage, and IMO, it's nearly entirely because it's the patriots.

No, I get how it's different, and less of a big deal that ball tampering in other sports.

But at the same time, when you say 'the teams get to do whatever they want to the balls'... that isn't true, because they weren't allowed to adjust the air pressure. And even if its only one thing that players can't do, and even if its a pretty minor thing, letting players head off with the footballs unsupervised and just expecting that they won't do that one thing is just weird, I think.

That said, I do get that it's a pretty minor breach (I mean, even as a non-football person it seems pretty minor), it's just interesting how stuff like this works in other sports.

 Alpharius wrote:
IF it doesn't get appealed down to that, then it will go to court.

So, what exactly is it going to go to court for? If the NFL has any sense at all they have a rule saying "if you want to participate in our league you have to follow our rules", so what are they going to argue in court? It makes about as much sense as suing the NFL to get them to pick up a penalty flag.

 sebster wrote:

Hang on, so the officials let the players take balls to 'break them in', and presumably let the players do that breaking in in changerooms, away from the view of the public and officials? And then people were surprised when at least one team started using that breaking in process to do stuff that wasn't legal? That's amazing.

It's also stupid because it takes about a week to properly "break in" a ball. When I was playing our offense would practice with the game balls for that very reason.

 Ensis Ferrae wrote:

And yet there are numerous baseball players in the hall of fame who were notorious for their doctoring of the ball, and at least one made an entire career of it.

In college our QB used to hide an inflation needle in his wrist band, and that was just D3.

 dogma wrote:

 Ensis Ferrae wrote:

How else would you explain how Wrigley field is sold out, or nearly sold out day in and day out?

A hell of a bar scene, and the pretty girls that go with it.

This. Unfortunately you also get a lot of d-bags in skinny jeans with questionable facial hair choices.

There is also the nostalgia factor of a 101 year old ball park (with half as many urinals as it needs). Also, they're on WGN nearly every night, so they have a lot of fans nationwide.

I'll just leave this here, launched by the patriots today.

http://wellsreportcontext.com


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Initial thoughts on that website. It's a horrendous misstep and a terrible terrible idea by the patriots.

Chancetragedy wrote:
I'll just leave this here, launched by the patriots today.

http://wellsreportcontext.com


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Initial thoughts on that website. It's a horrendous misstep and a terrible terrible idea by the patriots.

I disagree, I think the patriots are well within their rights to blast the hell out of that useless report and to paint both the wells report and Goodell as useless and biased. The fact that the report specifically fails to blame Brady or the Patriots is the reason I say this. How can you punish a team as harshly as Goodell did based on a report that specifically says they couldn't find hard evidence or proof.