Amarshal2, Smith can participate in settlement negotiations even if he is not listed as a co-counsel in the case.
Wouldn't the NFLPA head need to be there anyway as a principal? Can any members of Sam, Horn, & Sons LLP offer some illumination?amarshal2 said:My totally naive take is that this is related to settlement. If they're going to be coming to a compromise he wants to be involved in the discussions. If there's no settlement then there's no reason for him to be involved unless they need him for his legal mind.
44 Although these measurements were recorded in conditions similar to those present during halftime, information concerning the timing of these measurements, the pressure levels at which these eight footballs started the second half and the identity of the four Colts footballs tested after the game (specifically, whether they were the same footballs that had been tested at halftime) is significantly less certain than the information about similar issues concerning the pre-game or halftime periods. As a result, our experts concluded that that the post-game measurements did not provide a scientifically reasonable basis on which to conduct a comparative analysis similar to that performed using the pre-game and halftime measurements.
https://twitter.com/PatsPropaganda/status/629386039728058369/photo/1SeoulSoxFan said:@PatsPropaganda just tweeted out this lovely pic:
https://twitter.com/PatsPropaganda/status/629386039728058369/photo/1
The first comment at the bottom is a pretty nice takedown of the article:Don Buddin's GS said:Andrew Garda of Sports on Earth provides his Deflategate Liar power rankings. I'm not real quick on the uptake, so I had to read it twice before I figured out that down arrow = good; up arrow = bad:
http://www.sportsonearth.com/article/141507986/deflategate-liar-power-rankings-roger-goodell
Don Buddin's GS said:Andrew Garda of Sports on Earth provides his Deflategate Liar power rankings. I'm not real quick on the uptake, so I had to read it twice before I figured out that down arrow = good; up arrow = bad:
http://www.sportsonearth.com/article/141507986/deflategate-liar-power-rankings-roger-goodell
drbretto said:
It's nice to see more people calling out liars, but he's still rather sure of himself that "something" happened based on "deflator" texts. Baby steps, but I still find that infuriating.
Bleedred said:One side says the most outrageously inaccurate things, and all reporters can come up with is "a pox on both their houses". It is intellectually lazy, and morally pathetic.
drbretto said:
It's nice to see more people calling out liars, but he's still rather sure of himself that "something" happened based on "deflator" texts. Baby steps, but I still find that infuriating.
mwonow said:
Is it my limited comprehension, or...isn't the correct term "'deflator' text"? There was only one, right?
Two if memory serves me correctly. One during the Green Bay game where he said something to the effect of deflate and give the jacket. And the second one, where he commented that the only thing deflating was TB's passer rating.mwonow said:
Is it my limited comprehension, or...isn't the correct term "'deflator' text"? There was only one, right?
Even his daddy was lucky. Two political appointments (after the death of a sitting House Representative and Senator).crystalline said:
Edit: Remember, Goodell makes $40M per year. I'd argue that luck played a large role getting him in that position -- luck to be the son of a Senator, luck to be mentored by Tagliabue, luck to barely win the commissioner election over Levy. I think we'd all agree there are dozens if not hundreds of people that could do an equally good job - maybe less good on short-term outcome of contract negotiations, better on player discipline, but probably better on long-term stability of the sport. It makes me crazy when people say guys like Goodell deserve every penny because they work hard. He's in that position in part because of skill, but in part because of luck and circumstance.
troparra said:I personally love footnote #44, which deals with the post-game ball measurements. Lots of uncertainties with the data, they claimed, so no science could be done. Luckily they had rock solid data for pregame and halftime measurements (though it is odd that having no actual pregame measurements is not considered an uncertainty).
44A Although these measurements were recorded in conditions similar to those present during the start of the game, information concerning the timing of these measurements, the pressure levels at which these 15 footballs started the first half and the history of the footballs tested during halftime (specifically, whether they were actually gauged before the game, using which pressure gauge, and used under what conditions) is significantly less certain than the information about alleged issues concerning pre-game tampering would suggest. As a result, our experts concluded that that the half-time measurements did not provide a scientifically reasonable basis on which to conduct a comparative analysis, particularly when taking into account the Ideal Gas Law and transient effects.
If I'm right, the judge had all this information a few days before it was released. If that's true, he may have already come to the conclusions of many of the unaffiliated press -- Goodell is a snake. Does the timing offer the possibility that this is EXACTLY why he is pushing for a settlement? It makes sense that he says to Goodell "I've seen the evidence, and there is none. You railroaded this guy and the team. He's not guilty of anything, and you are guilty of being a snake. But you are allowed under the CBA to do what you did. Find a way to settle this, or my ruling will uphold your decision, while also highlighting with copious detail how wrong it is." And then says to Brady "I don't believe you did anything wrong. You're innocent of what you've been accused. But that's not the matter in front of me. In front of me is process, and what Goodell did is permissible under the CBA. If you want to be exonerated by this court, yet still suspended for four games, that's where we are heading. Reach a settlement."joe dokes said:The situation doesn't arise all that often, but within that limited context it's not *that* rare for a judge to say something like "I am constrained by precedent to find 'x'," or "If the court were writing on a clean slate, it might decide differently." That said, the mine run of judges would likely avoid it altogether and go with something like, "even if a review of the evidence shows that deflation is unlikely to have occurred; that Mr. Brady's involvement is even less likely; and that the League's refusal to control media leaks was a reprehensible lapse -- all subjects on which the court offers no opinion -- this court's review is limited to x, y, and z."
SoE has gone completely to shit since Pos left. They're articles are masturbatory drivel and I'm actually surprised hey let that comment through (though not surprised by the fact it had the author's bullshit rebuttal attached), as I've pointed out factual errors in many articles they've had and they never get "approved". A few weeks ago someone there stated that Nomar was originally going to Texas in the ARod trade and it took two days for it my comment simply citing the error to get approved, after the article had bumped off the front page and it was back dated. They are junk.Don Buddin's GS said:Andrew Garda of Sports on Earth provides his Deflategate Liar power rankings. I'm not real quick on the uptake, so I had to read it twice before I figured out that down arrow = good; up arrow = bad:
http://www.sportsonearth.com/article/141507986/deflategate-liar-power-rankings-roger-goodell
If the suspension is upheld, Goodell doesn't care why or what the judge says. If the suspension is overturned, Goodell doesn't particularly care why or what the judge says.twothousandone said:If I'm right, the judge had all this information a few days before it was released. If that's true, he may have already come to the conclusions of many of the unaffiliated press -- Goodell is a snake. Does the timing offer the possibility that this is EXACTLY why he is pushing for a settlement? It makes sense that he says to Goodell "I've seen the evidence, and there is none. You railroaded this guy and the team. He's not guilty of anything, and you are guilty of being a snake. But you are allowed under the CBA to do what you did. Find a way to settle this, or my ruling will uphold your decision, while also highlighting with copious detail how wrong it is." And then says to Brady "I don't believe you did anything wrong. You're innocent of what you've been accused. But that's not the matter in front of me. In front of me is process, and what Goodell did is permissible under the CBA. If you want to be exonerated by this court, yet still suspended for four games, that's where we are heading. Reach a settlement."
But, I really don't have a good understanding of the standards for "notice."
Van Everyman said:One thing has been bugging me in the wake of the transcript and what Troy Vincent testified to about not including the science...
I'm sure this point was made about a thousand posts back. But how is it remotely possible that no one in the League office seemed to understand that temperature could impact the inflation levels of the balls? Doesn't every asshole with a car know that you don't overinflate your tires in the summer? Isn't this something everyone is told during drivers Ed when they are like 16 years old? Did the League somehow not think this applied to footballs?
I feel like for all our bellyaching over League officials and the media being ignorant of the Ideal Gas Law, at the core of it, this isn't exactly rocket science. It's pretty basic physics that the vast majority of people have some basic understanding of.
Van Everyman said:One thing has been bugging me in the wake of the transcript and what Troy Vincent testified to about not including the science...
I'm sure this point was made about a thousand posts back. But how is it remotely possible that no one in the League office seemed to understand that temperature could impact the inflation levels of the balls? Doesn't every asshole with a car know that you don't overinflate your tires in the summer? Isn't this something everyone is told during drivers Ed when they are like 16 years old? Did the League somehow not think this applied to footballs?
I feel like for all our bellyaching over League officials and the media being ignorant of the Ideal Gas Law, at the core of it, this isn't exactly rocket science. It's pretty basic physics that the vast majority of people have some basic understanding of.
While I mostly agree, I would quibble that you can use a statistically rigorous (e.g. via sampling/resampling techniques) approach to test whether the data are interpretable or not. There are two questions one can answer with statistics, "Is there a significant difference of PSI differences between the colts and pats balls?", or "Do we have sufficient data to determine whether their is a significant difference of PSI differences between the colts and pats balls?".crystalline said:Totally agree with you.
But we should realize that this is what Exponent DOES. They get paid to take often flimsy facts and wrap them with in-depth statistics and science analysis, to produce a convincing argument for their client. The whole point of the report is to distract readers from the poor data with detailed statistics and costly experiments with engineering test rigs.
And they've basically pulled many of us in -- arguing more about the statistics than about the data and the conclusions.
I'm not sure what's meant by this last comment and unfortunately, kessler didn't press him on it (perhaps out of professional respect). One interpetation is that Wells' team started the investigation by looking at the statistics, and then proceeded with collecting the non-science evidence (e.g. communications, interviews, etc.). However, this appears to be contradicted by the exponent report, which states that the assumptions underlying the tests were provided by Wells' team, and these assumptions were based on non-science evidence. The other interpretation is that Wells' was merely referring to whether Exponent would be retained for further testing.
You know, the first question we asked just
6 looking at the raw numbers, was whether or not there
7 was a difference. If you just looked at the
8 numbers, it looks like the Patriots' balls drop more
9 than the Colts.
10 And then the question is, is that drop as a
11 result of chance or something else? And so that was
12 the question about statistical significance, just
13 looking at the raw numbers. Because if they had
14 told us it's just chance, maybe it's not there and
15 you don't spend a lot more money.
You don't think, and you don't think Goodell thinks, a scathing statement from the judge,even while affirming the decision, marks the beginning of the end? You think the owners will be okay with that?Myt1 said:If the suspension is upheld, Goodell doesn't care why or what the judge says. If the suspension is overturned, Goodell doesn't particularly care why or what the judge says.
The guy who should know is Kensil. He apparently "randomly" goes around during games to make sure everything is in order. Apparently football deflation has never been an issue or something.riboflav said:
Or anyone who has left a football or basketball in a cold garage over the winter. That said, my guess is that no one really considered that a football could lose more than 1 psi in just a couple hours.
Already posted above, and not written by PK.jacklamabe65 said:A shocker - Peter King calls for the firing of Roger Goddell:
It would be a short term victory and a long term loss. But Goodell and the owners seem to be thinking short term these days.twothousandone said:You don't think, and you don't think Goodell thinks, a scathing statement from the judge,even while affirming the decision, marks the beginning of the end? You think the owners will be okay with that?
Absolutely not, and many owners won't care. Goddell and many of the owners appear to lack any sense of self.twothousandone said:You don't think, and you don't think Goodell thinks, a scathing statement from the judge,even while affirming the decision, marks the beginning of the end? You think the owners will be okay with that?
A "bland loss" would be far worse for the NFL than a victory where the Judge scolds them in his opinion.Tony C said:If they blandly lose, it'll pass just like all the previous overturns. But there's been so much attention on this and an increasing amount of attention on the NFL's lies and incompetence, that a scathing decision will be a huge blow to the golden boy's tenure. In other words: if there are soundbites from a judge that can be turned into TV fodder, then it'll matter.
twothousandone said:You don't think, and you don't think Goodell thinks, a scathing statement from the judge,even while affirming the decision, marks the beginning of the end? You think the owners will be okay with that?
EricFeczko said:Absolutely not, and many owners won't care. Goddell and many of the owners appear to lack any sense of self.
Average Reds said:A "bland loss" would be far worse for the NFL than a victory where the Judge scolds them in his opinion.
This is a power struggle against the players union and he owners are used to getting their way in these matters. Victory is all they care about.
He was overturned and basically called a liar by a federal judge already. And he made the league a national laughing stock with the Rice debacle. The notion that a win with some mean language but that generally affirms the power of the commissioner is the line that must not be passed sort of ignores the historical record on this.twothousandone said:You don't think, and you don't think Goodell thinks, a scathing statement from the judge,even while affirming the decision, marks the beginning of the end? You think the owners will be okay with that?
More probable than not, maybe?tims4wins said:If that were true, man alive
Means Anderson would have told a pretty big lie as a means of covering his own ass and would further mean he has no integrity to not stand up and say anything while watching TB and the Pats get railroaded, but crazier things have happened.Eddie Jurak said:More probable than not, maybe?
Yeah. But it might have seemed like an innocous one at the time. In the end, I'm going with "less probable than not", but I think it is at least plausible.tims4wins said:Means Anderson would have told a pretty big lie as a means of covering his own ass and would further mean he has no integrity to not stand up and say anything while watching TB and the Pats get railroaded, but crazier things have happened.
Eddie Jurak said:Yeah. But it might have seemed like an innocous one at the time. In the end, I'm going with "less probable than not", but I think it is at least plausible.
Having cameras in the locker room makes no sense. I'd assume the cameras are in the hallwaytims4wins said:There are cameras in the Refs locker room, right? Because they have footage of McNally leaving twice. And the Pats have saved that footage, right? Why couldn't they rewind it a bit and check to see whether Anderson measured all of the balls (and which friggin gauge he used)? Why haven't I thought of this before?