#DFG: Canceling the Noise
- Thread starter nattysez
- Start date
You're right. I forgot about that aspect. I suppose he could say that he was convinced that based on examples of past practice provided by the union he changed his mind.Ed Hillel said:
In any event, I don't think he'll reduce it unless--as DC says-Brady kowtows.
I was referring to the second question not the first.bankshot1 said:
I think if Brady comes out with just a fine for non-cooperation he should accept and move on.
Anything that has him missing games he should appeal.
The second question doesn't leave room for the various possible outcomes.
But according to him he didn't make the original ruling - Vincent did, and Rog just approved. Does that matter?Ed Hillel said:
God, this whole thing is so dumb
According to the CBA, Goodell has to make the original ruling. They pulled a 2-step, trying to fool the public by making it look like Vincent, while making the legal argument that it was Goodell who actually made the ruling. In court, he will have to say it was his decision.tims4wins said:
Got it. And therefore he won't reduce the suspension unless there is introduction of "new information". Which there won't be any, unless he considers the AEI report and completely exonerates Brady.Ed Hillel said:
Goodell bases his decisions on public perception. In spite of the fact that the scientific evidence shows there was no improper deflation of footballs, 95% of the public is still under the impression that the Patriots did something nefarious and were punished appropriately. If Goodell overturns the suspension, he will get destroyed in the court of public opinion for showing leniency on the Patriots. If he sticks to his guns, the punishment is likely to be overturned by the legal system, but the ire of the public won't be directed at him when it happens. Ultimately, I think he reduces the suspension to 2 games in an attempt to avoid court, but Brady won't settle for less than full exoneration.
Goodell reduces the suspension down to 2 games, emphasizing non-cooperation as his rational, and walking back from the steaming pile of shit that is the Wells report. Brady then takes it to court, and ultimately his legal team wipes the floor with Goodell. In earlier posts I advocated Brady not pursuing this beyond the appeal hearing, in order to not risk missing playoff games. But the AEI report, the recent growing support from high profile national media outlets(NYT, Jenkins great columns in the WP), and the smart legal minds here pointing out that due to injunctions, and the strength of Brady's case, missed late season/playoff games are a pretty remote possibility, I'm all in on Brady taking it to the mattresses. It won't do a thing to change the minds of people who have already declared him guilty, but this disgraceful clown of a commissioner needs yet another comeuppance. As others have pointed out, anything that puts another brick in the wall of his ultimate removal is worth it.
I was vacillating between it staying at 4 and it being reduced to 2--ultimately I decided it stays at 4 because theres just no good justification Goodell can use that doesn't weaken his position when it goes to court, and also open him up to ridicule.
Actually, even though I'm pretty sure this isn't going to happen, I think it's more likely Goodell *raises* the penalty (say, to 6 games) than eliminates it entirely. Just because he's done that before. And it would allow him to get one more smear in on Brady--"I didn't sense that Tom was being completely truthful with me, and so I've made a determination that additional punishment is warranted for disrepecting the process, blah, blah, blah".
What a blowhard suit Roger has turned out to be.
Actually, even though I'm pretty sure this isn't going to happen, I think it's more likely Goodell *raises* the penalty (say, to 6 games) than eliminates it entirely. Just because he's done that before. And it would allow him to get one more smear in on Brady--"I didn't sense that Tom was being completely truthful with me, and so I've made a determination that additional punishment is warranted for disrepecting the process, blah, blah, blah".
What a blowhard suit Roger has turned out to be.
No one is going to throw Exponent under the bus. They are a litigation consulting firm that lives and dies on their reputation. If Goodell tries to blame them they will do whatever they can to defend themselves. I suppose that could end with a public shaming and termination of the partner there that wrote the report-- but in any case Goodell risks waking sleeping dogs if he attacks Exponent.tims4wins said:
If both sides are smart this whole procedure will be choreographed by lawyers with the upcomong lawsuit in mind. We know Brady is smart and Kessler is running things. I wonder whether Goodell is smart enough to hire lawyers and listen to them. It sounds like the NFLPA is trying to make this a test case on discipline. If so, its no longer really about what Brady will accept, its also about what the NFLPA thinks is best.
Edit: I guess I don't understand why Goodell's personality factors in. Goodell is trying to head off a defeat in court. Don't you think his ruling on the appeal will be completely dictated by lawyers trying to put the league in the best legal position possible?
I voted no reduction and go to court.
I'm surprised by the number of votes for a 2 game reduction.
Reducing the suspension would require Goodell to use a reasoned thoughtful approach to this appeal combined with an ability to admit he was wrong.
I just don't see any evidence that those traits are a part of his personality.
I'm surprised by the number of votes for a 2 game reduction.
Reducing the suspension would require Goodell to use a reasoned thoughtful approach to this appeal combined with an ability to admit he was wrong.
I just don't see any evidence that those traits are a part of his personality.
crystalline said:
What, exactly, about his previous track record of vacated discipline makes you think that this is his objective? There's no evidence, none, that the League considers a judicial overturn to be a negative outcome. Hell, with the result of the MO ruling, it's hard to tell if they consider a judicial overturn valid.
This is a mistake I made. There were two measurements of the intercepted ball. One was by a Colts intern on the sidelines (p. 63 of the Wells report). The ball was "approximately 11 psi". The second set of 3 measurements was done by NFL official James Daniel after bringing the ball inside (p. 64, 65). This is the one where the average was 11.5. I conflated the Colt's measurement with Daniel's measurements.tims4wins said:
The Colt's measurement of "approximately 11 psi" is still consistent with the ideal gas law when you add the effect of wet balls to the numbers Wells used.
https://www.nflpa.com/news/all-news/notice-of-arbitration-appeal-of-tom-brady
It's not quite clear if TB and the NFLPA will raise the issue of the junk science at the appeal hearing; their appeal letter doesn't mention it, raising only procedural issues plus the speculative nature of the texting interpretations. But as AEI's Stan Veuger
told Doug Kyed, "If there's no deflation to begin with, then none of the circumstantial evidence matters." Why would TB not raise the issue of the science? It should destroy the whole case without any need for further review.
Veuger told Kyed maybe it was timing that the NFLPA had't yet involved him: "There just isn't that much time between when our report came out and the hearing." There were previous analyses, but maybe from less established authors. While the Nobel would seem to lend credibility to MacKinnon, could he be dismissed as Kraft's guy? Is the real science, despite an increasing number of debunkers, not convincing enough to TB's lawyers? Are they planning to surprise Roger? Is there a legal reason?
I would think not raising the science issue with Roger would make it harder to raise later in court.
http://nesn.com/2015/06/aeis-stan-veuger-no-contact-from-nfl-nflpa-on-wells-report-criticism/
It's not quite clear if TB and the NFLPA will raise the issue of the junk science at the appeal hearing; their appeal letter doesn't mention it, raising only procedural issues plus the speculative nature of the texting interpretations. But as AEI's Stan Veuger
told Doug Kyed, "If there's no deflation to begin with, then none of the circumstantial evidence matters." Why would TB not raise the issue of the science? It should destroy the whole case without any need for further review.
Veuger told Kyed maybe it was timing that the NFLPA had't yet involved him: "There just isn't that much time between when our report came out and the hearing." There were previous analyses, but maybe from less established authors. While the Nobel would seem to lend credibility to MacKinnon, could he be dismissed as Kraft's guy? Is the real science, despite an increasing number of debunkers, not convincing enough to TB's lawyers? Are they planning to surprise Roger? Is there a legal reason?
I would think not raising the science issue with Roger would make it harder to raise later in court.
http://nesn.com/2015/06/aeis-stan-veuger-no-contact-from-nfl-nflpa-on-wells-report-criticism/
This letter is from May 14, days after Wells was released. IANAL but I wouldn't read into it too much in terms of what they will cover at the hearing regarding the science. They clearly don't limit their case to what is in this letter.lambeau said:
The NFLPA appeal letter to Vincent specifically attacks the Wells Report, (but not specifically the "science") stating its conclusions were based on "speculative possibilities piled on top of speculative possibilities-and a disregard of contrary evidence" so I think it fair to say that the questionable science of the Wells Report and the contrary evidence will probably discussed at the appeal.
There is going to be a lot of misinformation about this because the law is a notoriously difficult area for reporters to understand and then convey at a level of simplicity the readership demands.
Yes, junk science will be a big piece of this for one very simple reason -- it colors and frames the entire case. Judges in the main want to do justice as well as what the law requires. So your job as an advocate is to make them feel good about the preferred outcome -- it's not only legally correct, but also fair given the facts of a particular case.
We have already addressed the main legal weaknesses of the discipline imposed. It is much easier to get the discipline overturned when the judge is persuaded that the foundation of the entire case is fatally flawed. It is then not a case of TB getting off on a technicality. It is also a case of him and his team getting screwed.
The judge does not have to write that the science is junk; he or she just has to believe it.
Yes, junk science will be a big piece of this for one very simple reason -- it colors and frames the entire case. Judges in the main want to do justice as well as what the law requires. So your job as an advocate is to make them feel good about the preferred outcome -- it's not only legally correct, but also fair given the facts of a particular case.
We have already addressed the main legal weaknesses of the discipline imposed. It is much easier to get the discipline overturned when the judge is persuaded that the foundation of the entire case is fatally flawed. It is then not a case of TB getting off on a technicality. It is also a case of him and his team getting screwed.
The judge does not have to write that the science is junk; he or she just has to believe it.
dcmissle said:
This is all about PR. You're right that if TB genuflected to the league's power, that'd be his best shot at a reduction to 2 games or even 1 game. That ain't gonna happen, as you say. Given that it is all about optics, though, I do wish the TB camp had kep quiet about their intentions to appeal unless they get vindication. I think that increases the chances that RG keeps the penalty as is, not wanting to concede any sense that they might feel weak in their position before a looming court challenge. I'd rather there first be a reduction in the penalty by RG (in case the subsequent court appeal is denied). Of course, either way the aim is NFL humiliation by a blanket court overturn.
Van Everyman said:
So if I'm reading that correctly, even assuming Anderson used the opposite gauge from what he recalled using, there is still no statistically significant evidence that the Pats balls differed more than the Colt balls?
garzooma said:
Hate to be a broken record, but that whole chapter boils down to two critical things:
1. "...According to Seabrooks, he believed that the ball felt similar to the footballs intercepted by Mike Adams during the Colts game against the Patriots earlier in the season..."
As stated above, it felt similar to footballs (presumably in week 11) that were managed by Colts' and NFL personnel after being checked pregame. Therefore, the implication is that the footballs were deflated by the Patriots on the sideline after delivery, but Wells doesn't choose to go that far (for obvious reasons).
2. Around 13 minutes after the interception, the ball was delivered to the locker room. Several minutes later (not recorded) the ball was tested with the same gauge three times (asserted as the gauge that the Pats had originally used, with no proof). The test readings were: 11.45, 11.35 and 11.75 - a spread of 0.40 psi for readings presumably done within seconds of each other! I'll let the statisticians explain the margin for error demonstrated by that gauge. I'm guessing something like +/- 3.5%. Gauge errors need to be incorporated into any analysis.
3. After re-inflating the footballs to 13.0 psi at halftime, 4 of them were re-measured after the game (using 2 gauges). 6 of the 8 reading were above 13.0 psi! The other 2 were 12.95. Wells has some splainin to do.
geoduck no quahog said:
It is kind of comical that Wells felt shortly after the report was released that he needed to call a news conference and defend it, but given more time and his report being shredded to shit, has completely gone underground. Wish someone could get some comments from him with regards to the glaring flaws.
Nice job of cutting thru the statistical BS ("rat’s nest of unknown assumptions") to focus on the salient point: Wells, in his statement on p. 114 that "there is only a 0.4% likelihood—a fraction of one percent—that the difference in average pressure drops between the teams occurred by chance" isVan Everyman said:
Per my friendly and charitable wager with Mentaldisabldlst, I am sticking to my external optimist guns. Roger vacates the suspension entirely.
Reiss makes a pretty logical suggestion: postpone the appeal, punishment, everything until after the 2015 season when the NFL can use a full season of ball pressure testing to help with the scientific analysis.
It is logical so it will never happen.
It is logical so it will never happen.
crystalline said:
It's at least possible that this line of reasoning stretches back to the smart phone issue. It seems like a lot of this mess could have been avoided if TB had provided a scrubbed version of cell phone contents. As an isolated issue, he probably was best off doing so.For the NFLPA, though, having Brady refuse was a much better outcome - it gave them a chance to set a precedent on an important issue in a case that didn't involve any criminal actions, and with a defendant who won't have to worry about job security regardless of the outcome.
For the Pats and for TB, the consequences of the cell phone thing have been really bad, but for the union, they're just a step in a longer process...
Re the italic part: the fact that this is illogical behaviour for a highly-paid CEO doesn't make it inconceivable, and like many other execs who like to be seen as "tough", RG seems more intent on posturing than on being guided by the best overall outcome for the enterprise. btw, that might be one of the reasons why Kraft seems so clueless about how to deal with him...
That entire premise (that some players thought the balls were soft, triggering the whole thing) is almost surely complete bullshit that was made up to cover for the fact that the Colts were going to pull this shit no matter what.JeffLedbetter said:
You also have to consider the possibility that a) something Brady provided would seem incriminating, even if he's innocent, b) Wells would not be satisfied with what Brady provided and demand additional texts and / or access to the phone and still end up dinging Brady for non-cooperation. I don't think he could have helped himself by turning anything over - and that seems obviously true in light of what the Wells report ended up being.mwonow said:
Reiss also linked another good take down of the scientific analysis in the quite credible periodical Science News: https://www.sciencenews.org/blog/culture-beaker/deflategate-favored-foul-play-over-science I've pasted one of the nice quotes below.tims4wins said:
Meanwhile, Volin continues this morning to question the integrity and significance of the AEI report,
What Volin has not yet acknowledged, at least that I've seen, is that AEI showed Wells/Exponent manipulated the statistical analysis, by using an ad hoc analysis rather than the "orthodox" analytical method they said they used. That is a cardinal sin, and the one smoking gun I've seen in the entire affair, though it's not about deflation of footballs.
So here we are, 48 hours from the Roger Goodell Shitshow and NFL HQ Kangaroo Court.
What do you think will happen on Tuesday?
What do you think will happen on Tuesday?
drleather2001 said:
That's the most frustrating part of all of this. The preposterously false justification tossed out to provide cover for a planned sting that no one is questioning.
The premise of a Colts player intercepting a ball, thinking it was soft and evoking memories of a game in November is utterly and completely false on it's face. I mean, the refs handle all of the balls all game long and none of them felt anything, but somehow this one player gets his hands on a ball and he is immediately reminded of the feel of a ball from November ...
The idea that the media never questioned this when it's such an obvious fabrication (for any number of reasons) is breathtaking. Hell, it sounds ludicrous even to type.
How do you think the owners feel about Goodell? He's managed to keep their business in the headlines throughout the entire offseason and attracting more eyes to their product. If you're an owner watching your revenues increase due to this charade aren't you supportive and happy with the job he is doing? Remember his $25b revenue goal.....Goodell all but admitted he was hired to be the Vince McMahon of the sport with that statement.tims4wins said:
I think he lowers it to 2 games, Brady laughs in his face, and we go to court. His argument will only be that the punishment was initially too severe considering previous punishments.
He could vacate the suspension and "only" fine Brady $25 and this is going to court.
He could vacate the suspension and "only" fine Brady $25 and this is going to court.
Well I think the suggestion is actually that they picked off a couple passes in the November game and thought they were soft, thus setting up their questioning the pressure of the balls prior to the AFCCG.
Also, when it comes to league bias / how they handled the entire affair, I simply can't get past Kensil's "you guys are fucked" comment. Doesn't that single point, by itself, show bias by league personnel? Why would a league official use this kind of language unless they a) were happy about it and b) already implying guilt.
Edit: also this
Also, when it comes to league bias / how they handled the entire affair, I simply can't get past Kensil's "you guys are fucked" comment. Doesn't that single point, by itself, show bias by league personnel? Why would a league official use this kind of language unless they a) were happy about it and b) already implying guilt.
Edit: also this
I understand that this is what they are saying. And I am saying that it is outlandishly false on its face.
You have highlighted a few of the logical inconsistencies. There are dozens more. Yet no one is following up on any of it.
My firm belief is that this is why the NFL ordered the outcome of the Wells Report. To cover up their own Keystone Cops operation and the near-constant stream of ass-covering lies intended to obscure what really happened. To a great extent, it has worked.
You have highlighted a few of the logical inconsistencies. There are dozens more. Yet no one is following up on any of it.
My firm belief is that this is why the NFL ordered the outcome of the Wells Report. To cover up their own Keystone Cops operation and the near-constant stream of ass-covering lies intended to obscure what really happened. To a great extent, it has worked.
Keystone Cops is an understatement
Tack on the stolen ball meant for charity and the attempt to swap in a non-approved ball in its place, and we get a pretty good idea about the importance of ball integrity to the NFL.
Tack on the stolen ball meant for charity and the attempt to swap in a non-approved ball in its place, and we get a pretty good idea about the importance of ball integrity to the NFL.
Well this is interesting: ESPN just ran a fairly long segment on Brady's suspension and upcoming appeal on SportsCenter. The segment included both a report from SalPal, who was "on location" at the pro shop at Gillette, apparently to illustrate how prominently Brady merch is still displayed (shockingly, Pats fans still luv their QB!). While the segment of course did not mention AEI, it did openly question and implicitly criticize the four game suspension and effective $2 million fine levied on Brady, calling the punishment "unprecedented". They actually put a graphic on screen containing the text of the NFL operations manual rule that prescribes a team fine of $25K for ball manipulation, and questioned how you go from a $25K fine to 4 games/$2 million. After SalPal's piece, they had an analyst on who made the same point, and expressed that the severe nature of the punishment vs. prior precedent gave Kessler and the NFLPA a very good basis for their appeal. Even the anchor made a comment about how seemingly unfair it was.
Overall the segment had a definite pro-Brady slant, which I found surprising given ESPN prior reportage on this topic. It really painted Brady as a victim of overzealous prosecution. It's still outrageous that ESPN hasn't acknowledged the existence of the AEI report on their air. Their journalistic ethics are still a joke. But the fact that they are willing to express even a mild anti-NFL/anti-Goodell critique is somewhat encouraging. Maybe the suits at ESPN see that the worm has possibly turned, and are starting to shift their coverage a bit in response?
Overall the segment had a definite pro-Brady slant, which I found surprising given ESPN prior reportage on this topic. It really painted Brady as a victim of overzealous prosecution. It's still outrageous that ESPN hasn't acknowledged the existence of the AEI report on their air. Their journalistic ethics are still a joke. But the fact that they are willing to express even a mild anti-NFL/anti-Goodell critique is somewhat encouraging. Maybe the suits at ESPN see that the worm has possibly turned, and are starting to shift their coverage a bit in response?
Gorton Fisherman said:
I'm not getting my hopes up at all. It's at least as likely that ESPN suspects/knows that RG will use the hearing as a second opportunity to hammer TB/Pats, and wants to produce a veneer of balance before falling into line with "well, justice has been served."
ESPN refuses to acknowledge that the AEI report exists. They canned their #1 personality at least in part because he called bullshit on the Sheriff. There's no way they are going to backpedal now. Even if (when?) the NFL gets destroyed in court, ESPN will be talking about technicalities...
The NFL has been guilty of buffoonery throughout.
The whole thing probably stqrted with a random sideline pressure measurement (Ravens or Colts) that showed 11 psi in a cold, wet ball, and some guy who missed that chem class said, "Aha! Bill's crossed the line again! We've got 'em!"
All the supposedly soft intercepted balls were actually perfectly legal 12.5 balls when measured pregame indoors. Kensil ordered all the balls measured purely on the Colts' false contention that the balls were soft.He only confirmed there was a cold 11.5 ball!
After misinterpreting their halftime measurements, Gardi sent a letter flatly stating that "none of the Patriots' game balls were inflated to the specifications required...."--true, as long as you live in the pre-scientific world many thought ended in the 17th century.
The whole thing probably stqrted with a random sideline pressure measurement (Ravens or Colts) that showed 11 psi in a cold, wet ball, and some guy who missed that chem class said, "Aha! Bill's crossed the line again! We've got 'em!"
All the supposedly soft intercepted balls were actually perfectly legal 12.5 balls when measured pregame indoors. Kensil ordered all the balls measured purely on the Colts' false contention that the balls were soft.He only confirmed there was a cold 11.5 ball!
After misinterpreting their halftime measurements, Gardi sent a letter flatly stating that "none of the Patriots' game balls were inflated to the specifications required...."--true, as long as you live in the pre-scientific world many thought ended in the 17th century.
Don Buddin's GS said:
For one thing, it would be great to actually be able to read a transcript of whatever happens. Hell, go back to the original Wells report. I'd love to read the transcripts of all of the McNally interviews, the Brady interview. Brady was interviewed for 5 hours? Well, let's see what he said so we can test the validity of the NFL's notion that he interfered with its investigation.
The problem remains though that they are only touching on the punishment. They are assuming/confirming his guilt, and just discussing how the punishment is too severe. The narrative thus remains "Brady is a cheater", and while that will remain probably regardless of the outcome of the appeal and/or court case, it is still a continuation of extremely shitty reporting by the World Wide Leader.Gorton Fisherman said:
Coming from ESPN, it sounds like the NFL is preparing the public for a softening of the punishment and perhaps even the vacating of the suspension.Gorton Fisherman said:
Depending on how he words his decision, if Goodell does vacate the suspension it might remove grounds for a court appeal by aligning Brady's punishment to the levels established by Goodell with Favre for non-cooperation. This would ensure that the core issues related to the Wells Report (Was there a botched sting? Did anything actually happen with the footballs? Is the report itself a giant fraud?) are not addressed by a court. (Unless McNally and JJ take legal action.)
This would be an astonishingly smart move by Goodell, so there's almost no chance it will happen.
Reiss is going to be on ESPN Tuesday, so this could be Patriots' fans one chance for the WWL to have the record set straight. Obviously he isn't going to throw his employer or colleagues under the bus, but I'll be really disappointed if he doesn't make the following points:
• The footballs never measured 2 psi under. This was the original reporting and it framed the conversation in the days and weeks that followed.
• According to the Wells Report, the footballs should have been in the 11.3 - 11.5 range.
• The Patriots's footballs were exactly in that range based on the gauge Walt Anderson specifically remembered using.
• Even on the other gauge, the footballs on average were only 0.2 - 0.3 psi off the levels from where Wells said they should be.
• To believe Brady cheated, you'd have to accept that the team was systematically taking 12.5 footballs and then manipulating them down to 12.2 or 12.3 psi after the referees' inspections.
• 0.2 psi is so insignificant that this line of assumption doesn't pass the smell test.
• The independent scientific analysis casts significant doubt over the Wells Report. No one has been able to replicate Exponent's results.
• There is legitimate doubt as to whether Brady and the team did anything wrong here. Compare that to teams/players caught in the act and the minor punishments they received.
• Ask what's more likely: that a team would take a fraction of a per cent of air pressure out of a football, or that the league needed to justify a $5 million investigation to deflect a poorly executed sting because no one in the league was aware of basic science.
• The footballs never measured 2 psi under. This was the original reporting and it framed the conversation in the days and weeks that followed.
• According to the Wells Report, the footballs should have been in the 11.3 - 11.5 range.
• The Patriots's footballs were exactly in that range based on the gauge Walt Anderson specifically remembered using.
• Even on the other gauge, the footballs on average were only 0.2 - 0.3 psi off the levels from where Wells said they should be.
• To believe Brady cheated, you'd have to accept that the team was systematically taking 12.5 footballs and then manipulating them down to 12.2 or 12.3 psi after the referees' inspections.
• 0.2 psi is so insignificant that this line of assumption doesn't pass the smell test.
• The independent scientific analysis casts significant doubt over the Wells Report. No one has been able to replicate Exponent's results.
• There is legitimate doubt as to whether Brady and the team did anything wrong here. Compare that to teams/players caught in the act and the minor punishments they received.
• Ask what's more likely: that a team would take a fraction of a per cent of air pressure out of a football, or that the league needed to justify a $5 million investigation to deflect a poorly executed sting because no one in the league was aware of basic science.
It's hard to square that with Goodell saying (in his letter to the NFLPA): "I did not delegate my disciplinary authority to Mr. Vincent; I concurred in his recommendation and authorized him to communicate to Mr. Brady the discipline imposed under my authority as Commissioner." Goodell has been pretty clear that he will consider new evidence and speak to Brady. If he decides the initial punishment was too severe, that means that he didn't levy the initial punishment, which is a violation of the CBA. So I think he's sticking to his guns absent new evidence.RGREELEY33 said:
I assume Brady doesn't have anything new, which makes the real question whether Goodell will consider the analysis of AEI et al to be relevant. The smart money is on him doubling down on the Wells report, with something like, "We understand that the science is complex, which is why we hired others to analyze it. We stand by their conclusions, which match the other evidence (texts, etc.)" Why open the can of worms that suggests he should re-visit the team penalties?
I just don't understand what incentive Goodell has to compromise here. Public opinion is squarely against the Patriots, regardless of the occasional Sally Jenkins or science professor that comes out against the Wells report. He hasn't been afraid of going to court in the past; why would he be afraid now? Then again, nothing about this whole saga has made any sense.
