spacecrime

Reporters have made fun of BB's statement (which they mistakenly call an apology), picking on his use of "my understanding of the rules" and BB's calling the incident an "episode." Reporters should be asking why BB would use these words. When has BB EVER said ANYTHING that was not thought out?

They also need to read the last sentence. BB says he will have more after the ruling. No reporter has mentioned this? Further, in BB's press conference he promised several times that he will have more after the ruling.

When BB doesn't want to talk about Stallworth's tweaked hammy, he just refuses to talk. He might say, "The injury report will be out on Wednesday," but he doesn't say, "I'll have more to say on Stallworth's tweaked hammy on Wednesday."

Reporters are all missing the fact that BB's "apology" in his STATEMENT (as he himself calls it) was only to the team. Felger last night on Fox Sports complained that BB should have read his apology to the press. Felger is a dolt of the tenth order. BB did not apologize to the press. That's why he didn't read his statement to them. BB does nothing by chance.

And BB's last sentence in the statement is not to reporters, as they seem to think. It is directed to Goodall. It is a subtle promise that he will explain things, things which Goodall might not want aired in public.

The key to this episode is Kraft. If he supports BB, Goodall needs to be careful, very careful. All this talk about Goodall needing to show his fairness by coming down harder on the Patriots is nonsense if Kraft is supporting BB. (And Kraft's only statement so far tends in that direction. He said that everyone wants to attack the man on top.)

Kraft is a powerful owner. He was instrumental in resolving the CAP issue. There we had 31 teams in favor of it, and the least powerful team owner (Ralph Wilson) opposed, and it took forever. If Kraft chooses to fight Goodall in the future (not overtly, just opposing something Goodall needs) on the CAP or any other major issue, it will cause Goodall innumerable headaches.

This is why powerful allies are appeased, not made an example of. Not as a favor for the issue at hand, but for future considerations. Goodall must look out for the good of the NFL, and that might not be coming down hard at this time, if BB and Kraft:

a) both intend to profess disappointment at the judgment of cheating because the Dolphins cheated against them last year and it was determined by Goodall to be okay, and

b) Kraft has warned Goodall in private that Goodall will lose his support if Goodall singles out the Patriots, comes down too hard, or does not at least censure the Dolphins and every other team that has been kn own to steal signals in any way.

It all depends on what Kraft is doing behind the scenes. If he is lobbying and firing warning shots in private, people calling for BB's head are going to be disappointed. Talking heads might yap for a while about Goodall kowtowing to the Patriots, but then they will be off chasing the next big story, perhaps TO calling out Romo or something, and the Patriots use of video will go to the reportial back burner. But Goodall not only will have maintained a powerful ally, this powerful ally now owes him a favor. Don't discount the importance of this.

We will never know what goes on behind the scenes, but those who say Goodall needs to be tougher on the Pats because Kraft is powerful simply do not understand politics. It is better to be perceived by some to favor a powerful ally, than to make a powerful enemy. Goodall needs something ONLY good enough to be able to say he was fair, that's all.

letekro

1. Lawyers write those statements. I wouldn't impute anything in the statement to BB.

2. It's Goodell, not Goodall, who knew a lot about gorillas, but little about football.

3. Goodell, as any good commissioner should, is concerned primarily with the perception of his league by its paying customers. Internal politics may be a peripheral issue, but it will not dictate his behavior.