Brady's odds of success

I've read a variety of articles about Brady's chances of success, thought this one is probably the best source since it is published by a guy in Vegas who looks at odds. He says they are less than 20%.

http://www.reviewjournal.com/column...-brady-playing-nfl-opener-sports-books-adjust

It seems that most people believe his success rate is from 20% to 0%; one guy who was a former NFLPA lawyer says he has no chance. Almost everyone (besides him) agrees it is always unwise to speak in certainties with the legal system because attorneys are often very surprised about the outcome of judge's rulings. In that sense, I almost think Judge Berman is aware that this is somewhat of a random opinion, and that his own opinion will be subject to some randomness as well (that is, different judges will see it differently); that is why I think he is urging them to settle the case and believes it doesn't really belong in the courtroom, since judges will merely make a decision, which will be appealed, and there will still not be a real "perfect decision." For that reason, the only truly fair outcome is an agreement between the parties. That is how I read Berman's actions, anyway.

It seems that the NFLPA arguments are very compelling, but it's so hard to know the typical court rulings when different jurisdictions often have different views and even the judges within those jurisdictions are often swayed by certain details.

I've said in a few threads, Tom's best move is to move for a Defamation lawsuit immediately against the NFL. That will give him the leverage, as it empowers him to force Goodell and his evil followers to turn over all of their communications, something that would be extremely embarrassing and would give Brady a decisive victory in the court of public opinion. It isn't about winning the suit; it's about what the suit will force Goodell to do. Then he should use the threat or filing of his defamation lawsuit as a bargaining chip to settle the suspension as a four-game fine.

thought this thread was about superbowl 4th Q

Ice_Ice_Brady said:

I've read a variety of articles about Brady's chances of success, thought this one is probably the best source since it is published by a guy in Vegas who looks at odds.

Click to expand...

Is it . . . is it SharksOfVegas? I'm all leary now . . .

I'm just hoping common sense prevails. But this does temper expectations.

Given the rapid pace of developments over the past week, this is old. It would be interesting to see a trend line on the Pitts/NE game odds. Is that available online?

That was a poorly researched (there seems to have been none), and poorly written, article. Also, while Vegas makes a living out of handicapping non-random events, they do so by playing "odds" that are betting odds, not actual odds of winning.

Most of the statistics I have seen referenced are looking at the odds of your standard arbitrator being overruled by a federal judge.

There is a lot more information available to us to make a better odds estimate but nobody has used them.

former NFLPA lawyer

Click to expand...

Ya i'm sure there is no chance he has an axe to grind with the NFLPA

close this thread please...we got enough crap out there already.

Move on folks, there's nothing to see here.

I do not understand the logic of people who think Brady's chances are at best 20%. There are several previous rulings that would support Brady's position (Saints, Rice, etc, etc) where people actually DID something. I don't see how a judge could side with a defendant who has PROVEN that he:

1. Convicted someone WITHOUT reasonable evidence that he did anything wrong
2. Penalized that person FAR beyond any previous precedent or written law.
3. Then set out a well planned smear campaign based on nothing more than innuendo and supposition.
4. And finally maliciously withheld and or purposely hid exculpatory evidence for over 5 months in order to support the nefarious slander campaign.

By law, science and just plain common sense, there is no way the NFL can prevail on the merits of the case.

patfanken said:

I do not understand the logic of people who think Brady's chances are at best 20%. There are several previous rulings that would support Brady's position (Saints, Rice, etc, etc) where people actually DID something.

Click to expand...

They're taking basic facts "x out of y arbitration cases support the ruling", and ignoring the specifics and specific history. That's what I was referring to above.

Deus Irae said:

They're taking basic facts "x out of y arbitration cases support the ruling", and ignoring the specifics and specific history. That's what I was referring to above.

Click to expand...

I understand that the appeal to the court hasn't got anything to do with the actual events of the case, but more to do with the issue of "Did the NFL go beyond the scope of the CBA in the handling of this case". I think that precedence of many other cases that were far less clearly unjust is a factor,

Just on the penalty alone would be reason enough to rule in Brady's favor, even if there was a photo of him with a gauge stuck in a football with a time stamp. By rule and precedent the punishment for ball tampering is less than $10,000, not the millions it would cost Brady,

That being said, I'd be interested in hearing your case of why this is going to be that hard to win.

patfanken said:

I understand that the appeal to the court hasn't got anything to do with the actual events of the case, but more to do with the issue of "Did the NFL go beyond the scope of the CBA in the handling of this case". I think that precedence of many other cases that were far less clearly unjust is a factor,

Just on the penalty alone would be reason enough to rule in Brady's favor, even if there was a photo of him with a gauge stuck in a football with a time stamp. By rule and precedent the punishment for ball tampering is less than $10,000, not the millions it would cost Brady,

That being said, I'd be interested in hearing your case of why this is going to be that hard to win.

Click to expand...

First, let me make sure we're on the same page: My post was responding to your line of:

"I do not understand the logic of people who think Brady's chances are at best 20%."

and, basically, just explaining their logic while dismissing it.


Second, the general approach for the court is to make sure the 'due process' is sufficient, and was sufficiently followed, as opposed to getting to the heart of guilt/innocence, so your line:

"By law, science and just plain common sense, there is no way the NFL can prevail on the merits of the case."

doesn't really apply.

As for my take, I think the NFLPA did a very good job with their filing, but that's no guarantee of success.

Deus Irae said:

First, let me make sure we're on the same page: My post was responding to your line of:

"I do not understand the logic of people who think Brady's chances are at best 20%."

and, basically, just explaining their logic while dismissing it.


Second, the general approach for the court is to make sure the 'due process' is sufficient, and was sufficiently followed, as opposed to getting to the heart of guilt/innocence, so your line:

"By law, science and just plain common sense, there is no way the NFL can prevail on the merits of the case."

doesn't really apply.

As for my take, I think the NFLPA did a very good job with their filing.

Click to expand...

Thanks for the quick reply. I do understand what your saying. What I don't understand is what are circumstances that make this "hard" for the NFLPA to win. What is the league going to say to the court?????? that can make it rule in their favor? I haven't heard what that can be yet

I know we're all a little gun shy after the way this has played out but read Tags decision on Bountygate and read Stephanie Stradley, after reading both I'd say Brady's odds of getting 0 games or at least getting an independent arbiter at 80%

Bah. Bradys beaten a lot worse odds than that.

This case is so rediculously one sided. Any judge with half a brain and an unbiased, neutral outlook would see through this BS in a minute. I just hope the judge has the patience to hear all the facts and not just want a settlement so this will end. There is absolutely no evidence, other than conjecture, that Brady has done ANYTHING against the rules. A settlement would really piss me off.

patfanken said:

Thanks for the quick reply. I do understand what your saying. What I don't understand is what are circumstances that make this "hard" for the NFLPA to win. What is the league going to say to the court?????? that can make it rule in their favor? I haven't heard what that can be yet

Click to expand...

The CBA is slanted heavily in the league's favor. The judge needs to find that the NFL's actions were either clear and significant violations of that CBA, or are clear violations of minimal due process. Outside of that, the courts don't tend to get involved just bcause one side was stupid enough to agree to a lopsided CBA.

It's why you're hearing a lot of "I think Brady would win on the merits, but...". Those people are focusing on the process, and opinion that the NFL will be found to have followed the CBA closely enough, with the CBA due process being at least minimally acceptable.

Deus Irae said:

The CBA is slanted heavily in the league's favor. The judge needs to find that the NFL's actions were either clear and significant violations of that CBA, or are clear violations of minimal due process. Outside of that, the courts don't tend to get involved just bcause one side was stupid enough to agree to a lopsided CBA.

It's why you're hearing a lot of "I think Brady would win on the merits, but...". Those people are focusing on the process, and opinion that the NFL will be found to have followed the CBA closely enough, with the CBA due process being at least minimally acceptable.

Click to expand...

Right. But they didn't though. An equipment violation. A crime that didn't exist before and therefore no punishment was explained before hand. Many other failures to to follow rules, have rules or have punishments that were consistent and agreed upon.

I'm not a lawyer, but it seems there were a lot of those.