Welcome to PatsFans.com

Making sense of Goodell

Discussion in 'PatsFans.com - Patriots Fan Forum' started by lillloyd, May 7, 2012.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. lillloyd

    lillloyd Rookie

    Joined:
    Apr 12, 2010
    Messages:
    255
    Likes Received:
    0
    Ratings:
    +0 / 0 / -0

    I was going to post this in another forum as a response to a Saints poster re/ the severity of the bountygate punishment, relative to Goodell's handling of spygate...but the response grew so long I figured what the hell, I'll post it as a new thread. You guys are a thoughtful bunch and I'm curious to see what you think of my position on all of this.

    Personally I think there are really two things to understand about the league and Goodell, and how they currently hand out punishments.

    • Number 1, they're a multi-billion dollar business, so their overriding priority is to protect their brand. There's particularly nothing noteworthy or sinister about this--large businesses will act to protect themselves--but it goes a long way towards explaining the seeming arbitrariness of their penalties. Simply put, Goodell and the league are less concerned with the underlying transgression, than the degree to which the NFL 'shield" has been tarnished...so in fact the actual violation matters less than the amount of negative attention and media coverage that violation focuses on the league.
    • Number 2--and this is a corollary to number 1--the NFL is now dealing with the specter of waves of litigation from former players regarding safety issues. So violations that have any relationship to player safety are essentially opportunities for Goodell and the league to publicly and forcefully demonstrate its "commitment" to player safety--not so much to current players, as to courts and potential future claimants in lawsuits against the league.
    The various penalties assigned under Goodell's reign over the past few years start to make a lot more sense when viewed from this context. There's a reason the Saints' penalties were so severe, just like there was a reason why the fine and suspension structure abruptly exploded in 2010 for hits that only a few years before would have drawn only modest punishments (if any). Punishments are now assigned for public posturing reasons as much as for actual "fairness".

    This probably sounds very cynical and negative but I honestly mean this only descriptively (and actually not necessarily disparagingly): the NFL is a big business, and it acts like one. It has a questionable record on player safety over the years, and currently has a potentially serious legal vulnerability in this area. So the league and Goodell are acting accordingly.

    I'm sure there are well-meaning people (perhaps, Goodell among them) in the league that honestly care and want to improve player safety. But the sudden *severity* of the penalties has less to do with good intentions, and more to do with the league desperately trying to promote itself as safety-conscious in an uncertain climate. The NFL has spent several decades tolerating, celebrating, and frankly marketing/promoting the very violence it suddenly deems appalling. The penalties are draconian now because while they may or may not have truly cared about player safety over the decades, they certainly care about *lawsuits*.

    Personally I wish that Goodell could just stand up without all the sanctimony and outrage (which is unfortunately all too easy for media types to parrot, and pile on to), call a spade a spade, and just be honest about why he's become more of a sheriff than a commissioner. For example, he could say:

    "Starting now, we're going to hand out massive penalties for crap we know has probably been going on forever in this league. This is partly because we do actually care somewhat about the players and their safety (our pursuit of an 18 game schedule notwithstanding). But mostly it's because we have an endless parade of lawsuits from players staring us in the face, all related to our possibly negligent stance on safety over the years.

    We know it's not exactly consistent or fair. And we recognize it's actually a bit hypocritical because we've sort of looked the other way on these issues for a long time, and frankly may have been beneficiaries--both in a promotional, and an actual *monetary* sense--from a lot of this stuff. But any hypocrisy and unfairness aside, we still HAVE to make this change, because these lawsuits represent a legitimate threat to the long-term viability of the NFL as we know it."

    While this statement would never actually happen, it would certainly make the NFL's somewhat inconsistent handling of player violations over recent years easier to understand.
  2. Gronkandez

    Gronkandez Rookie

    Joined:
    Jan 23, 2012
    Messages:
    1,381
    Likes Received:
    0
    Ratings:
    +0 / 0 / -0

    I've been thinking this for a while and have wondered why media guys haven't said the same thing. To me that's clearly what's going on.

    It's all about dollars and cents, and not that much about player safety. Now about that 18 game season.....
    Last edited: May 7, 2012
  3. ausbacker

    ausbacker Brady > Manning. PatsFans.com Supporter

    Joined:
    Apr 23, 2008
    Messages:
    12,963
    Likes Received:
    17
    Ratings:
    +22 / 0 / -0

    #51 Jersey

    When rules are altered to outlaw particular types of contact, if you think that's about financial issues you're sadly mistaken.

    The NFL does not benefit from seeing players knocked out, concussed and dying early. That's not a financial standpoint, that's brand management and quite simply looking after the interests of those who comprise their core product; football.

    Big business isn't dumb. They work all angles. That's why they're big business.
    Last edited: May 7, 2012
  4. Gronkandez

    Gronkandez Rookie

    Joined:
    Jan 23, 2012
    Messages:
    1,381
    Likes Received:
    0
    Ratings:
    +0 / 0 / -0

    Why didn't they change the rules 20 years ago? Is it because the Legaue didn't know knocking people out cold was dangerous back then? IMO it's because the threat of litigation wasn't strong until recently.

    The League has always benefitted from knock out hits. How many times are these types of hits shown on replays? Fans watch partially for the big punishing hits.
  5. ausbacker

    ausbacker Brady > Manning. PatsFans.com Supporter

    Joined:
    Apr 23, 2008
    Messages:
    12,963
    Likes Received:
    17
    Ratings:
    +22 / 0 / -0

    #51 Jersey

    The league has changed because the world has changed. It's not an issue confined to just the NFL.
    Last edited: May 7, 2012
  6. Gronkandez

    Gronkandez Rookie

    Joined:
    Jan 23, 2012
    Messages:
    1,381
    Likes Received:
    0
    Ratings:
    +0 / 0 / -0

    Fair enough but how do you explain how the 18-game season? Clearly this puts the players more at risk for further injury.
  7. ausbacker

    ausbacker Brady > Manning. PatsFans.com Supporter

    Joined:
    Apr 23, 2008
    Messages:
    12,963
    Likes Received:
    17
    Ratings:
    +22 / 0 / -0

    #51 Jersey

    I have no doubt the potential expansion of the regular season is a money making venture. There's no other reason for it.
  8. RelocatedPatFan

    RelocatedPatFan Rookie

    Joined:
    Dec 13, 2009
    Messages:
    2,236
    Likes Received:
    0
    Ratings:
    +0 / 0 / -0

    You know, even as a kid I knew somking had to be bad for your health. So, when my 3 pack-a-day parents told me, they had no idea smoking was bad for you, I had to laugh at them.

    Same thing here in football, nobody here knew that getting knocked around for 10 years could lead to long term issues? Then, I'd say they refused to look at the bigger picture and it's hard to believe the thoughts never came intro their heads. It's mostly taking the glory and the $$$ that come with it as most of them probably have no other opportunity to earn that degree of "lifetime" earnings.

    I am in favor of lifetime medical for these guys, but it has to dawn on them some time tht they may have long term issues. it's like a pitcher who you know is throwing at a batter after he hit a grand slam the last time he was up. Even if the pitcher says he's trying to establish the inside of the plate, you know it's not true.
  9. Steve:Section 102

    Steve:Section 102 Rookie

    Joined:
    May 16, 2008
    Messages:
    1,135
    Likes Received:
    0
    Ratings:
    +0 / 0 / -0

    I wrote a post on this in Nov '10, tying the NFL's labor issues to player safety in an effort to "impose" an 18 game schedule. Certainly, protecting the shield against a class action lawsuit would be a larger priority for the league.
  10. Patriot_in_NY

    Patriot_in_NY Rookie

    Joined:
    Jan 1, 2007
    Messages:
    8,521
    Likes Received:
    10
    Ratings:
    +10 / 0 / -0

    Well, I don't think it's all that much of a revelation to say that "it's about the money". I mean, it's always about the money in business and football is no different.

    With that said, I think there is another escalator in there that jacks up the severity of the penalty as well, and that is lying or deliberately continuing activities after the league (or Goodell himself) says to stop.

    Both in Bountygate and Spygate, the fines and penalties were very steep and what many would consider excessive. I think that in large measure was due to the fact that both the Saints, and BB were previously told to cease and desist the activities prior to getting caught (either in person, or memo). I think that that factor often outweighs the actual infractions themselves.

    I think that that, coupled with the "big business" money angle combines to raise the penalties, at least in those two cases.
  11. Blizzzard

    Blizzzard Rookie

    Joined:
    Apr 16, 2008
    Messages:
    653
    Likes Received:
    0
    Ratings:
    +0 / 0 / -0

    #54 Jersey

    So what you're saying is....... Its about money.
    Perhaps you meant its less about the cost of the lawsuits, and more about revenue lost by damaging the product ie., looking bad to the public or being without marquee names due to injury?
    I believe the OP touched on that as well though
  12. peterforpats

    peterforpats Rookie

    Joined:
    Mar 2, 2007
    Messages:
    122
    Likes Received:
    0
    Ratings:
    +0 / 0 / -0

    concussion research is very new and no, i don't think they understood the long term effects of "getting your bell rung". i think they know now and have to walk i fine line between safety and changing the game so drastically it becomes another sport entirely. personally, i know goodell catches a lot of flak here and elsewhere, but i think he is doing a fair job with the right balance- there is a reason pro football is the #1 sport in the USA. he is by far the best commisioner right now and faces much tougher issues any other commisioner has /will deal with.
  13. PatsDeb

    PatsDeb PatsFans.com Supporter PatsFans.com Supporter

    Joined:
    Mar 3, 2005
    Messages:
    4,987
    Likes Received:
    11
    Ratings:
    +16 / 0 / -1

    Goodell is a little NY Napolean. Plain and simple. No big explanations needed. Can't believe the Krafts actually seem to like him and didn't oust him when they had the chance. Must be the "devil you know is better than the one you don't" mentality.
  14. JoeSixPat

    JoeSixPat Rookie

    Joined:
    Nov 8, 2004
    Messages:
    9,800
    Likes Received:
    21
    Ratings:
    +24 / 0 / -0

    My assessment of Goodell is that public perception = reality in his mind, and he will hand out punishments and/or set rules based on public perception

    Spygate is an excellent example. Even though signal stealing had been the norm, with NFL rules actually allowing the filming of signal calls, with a 2006 memo clarifying that to prohibit sideline filming "for use on game day" when the story broke the vast majoriy of the public and even football fans expressed shock and dismay that anything of that nature would be happening in the NFL

    Forget the reality of documented actual "spying" going back to the 1950s with George Halas, Lamar Hunt and George Allen and others - or the reality that the NFL rules still allowed filming of signal calling from the stands...

    Goodell's reaction was to treat the Patriots as if they were the exception and not the rule when it came to such things - and he was more than pleased to ultimately have helped create an environment where even today, most football fans bask in their ignorant belief that the Patriots were the lone team engaged in this practice (despite numerous coaches who made clear they were not), not questioning why coordinators continue to cover their mouths when calling in plays.

    Bountygate was similar - as Rex Ryan admitted he routinely would tell which players to target and as much as I'd like to jump all over Rex, I get the feeling that's been the norm (though paying incentives to players puts it in a whole different realm)

    Of course in this case I think Goodell himself should be on the hot seat for fostering an injury reporting policy that only serves the interests of legal and illegal gambling, putting those interests higher than that of player safety, and actively fining coaches who fail to comply with a policy that puts their own players at risk.
  15. PrairiePat

    PrairiePat Rookie

    Joined:
    Aug 6, 2006
    Messages:
    792
    Likes Received:
    1
    Ratings:
    +1 / 0 / -0

    #32 Jersey

    Hrmmm, ummmm, no. This is a commissioner who forever tainted the legacy of the Pats with his heavy-handed penalties in 2007. He is reactionary to the point of absurdity on punishments, while campaigning for things like an 18 game season and international expansion which will add risk to the players and dilute the product. He appears to be motivated strictly by the bottom line, listening only to lawyers ('We're going to get sued!!") or marketers ("We need more exposure!!").

    A 'good' commissioner would have called BB to a private meeting in 2007 and blasted him behind closed doors, if he felt BB was pushing the boundaries of the rules. A 'good' commissioner would have gradually ramped up penalties for head-hunting players, understanding that it may take time for the culture of the NFL to change and adapt to the times. A 'good' commissioner would have scrapped the Pro Bowl years ago, would have limited commercials during TV broadcasts, would have replays managed by off-field personnel, would have ditched the 'throwback uniform' idea, and so on.

    I frankly think Goodell has had the easiest job of all the commissioners - his league is king of the sports pyramid in the US, and even the spectre of head injury lawsuits won't really change that. It's a sport that's made for TV - fast, exciting, has lots of built-in breaks for advertisers, has fixed length games, etc. All he has to do is not mess that up too much. He has an easier job than the commish of a declining sport like baseball or basketball, or a niche sport like hockey.
  16. Deus Irae

    Deus Irae PatsFans.com Retired Jersey Club PatsFans.com Supporter

    Joined:
    Oct 10, 2006
    Messages:
    40,774
    Likes Received:
    64
    Ratings:
    +89 / 3 / -1

    Disable Jersey

    Thank you for your input, Mrs. Goodell.
  17. lillloyd

    lillloyd Rookie

    Joined:
    Apr 12, 2010
    Messages:
    255
    Likes Received:
    0
    Ratings:
    +0 / 0 / -0

    I agree re/ Spygate. My guess is that other teams did this; but the Pats were the only ones caught. Again, Goodell's penalty severity was assigned not based on the "merits" of the underlying infraction (Goodell's not stupid--I've got to believe that at a minimum, he had strong suspicions that the Pats weren't unique here, and I'm sure he believed that any advantage gleaned from the taping was marginal at best). Rather, the severity was assigned based on potential PR damage to the league.

    Goodell and the league may fully understand how misinformed and misguided mob/public perception can be, but they'll still go to great lengths to cater to it. With Spygate, they feared that the public perception of an uneven playing field and illegitimate championships would spread like wildfire. Their response was proportional to the threat of that public perception evolving, rather than the damage done by the actual underlying act. Ultimately I think that's the main reason you guys got the penalty you did.
  18. lillloyd

    lillloyd Rookie

    Joined:
    Apr 12, 2010
    Messages:
    255
    Likes Received:
    0
    Ratings:
    +0 / 0 / -0

    The initial, major escalation in the fine and suspension structure in 2010 wasn't based on actual rules changes; the league actually went out of its way to say that it was simply enforcing rules already in existence. Why the abrupt, dramatic emphasis? I believe (and as other posters have suggested on this thread) that this is because the league knew they had to shore up their position on player safety in a very public way, in order to their aggressive push for the 18 game season that year.

    BTW I'm not saying that Goodell or his NFL colleagues are terrible people, or that they're exclusively about dollars and cents. But the NFL is a big business, and IMHO it would be naive to think that financial considerations are n't always at or near the forefront of their minds. If the NFL were a publicly owned company, and I were a major shareholder, I would probably be pushing Goodell to take exactly the sort of actions he's been taking, because the player safety issue is a legitimate threat to the league.

    So I disagree with your point--I think the recent rules changes--and in particular, the *timing* of the recent rules changes--outlawing certain types of contact are absolutely and fundamentally about financial issues. That's not to say these changes shouldn't be made--no one wants players dying or suffering due to head trauma, including Goodell (who's not an ogre)--but the reality is that this sort of thing has been going on for a long, long time. One of our own all-time Steelers greats, Mike Webster, suffered dementia and depression, likely due to brain damage...and he played in the 70s. He's hardly the only example. It strains credulity to suggest that not a single member of the NFL business has been able to put 2 and 2 together until now.
  19. RelocatedPatFan

    RelocatedPatFan Rookie

    Joined:
    Dec 13, 2009
    Messages:
    2,236
    Likes Received:
    0
    Ratings:
    +0 / 0 / -0

    The owners wanted Goodell back so he seems to be doing something right by them (and the business in general).

    with all that being said, i still say "Burn the witch!" (fired would be good enough).
  20. AzPatsFan

    AzPatsFan Rookie

    Joined:
    Sep 15, 2004
    Messages:
    5,751
    Likes Received:
    10
    Ratings:
    +16 / 1 / -0

    I think that the NFL and Goodell are very afraid of the ever growing group of pirates and thieves setting their eyes on their industry.

    Sanctimonious phonies who have bankrupted many a business, throwing people out of work, and even destroying industries in search of their legalized thievery, are preparing to go after the NFL. Having destroyed ANY business who made, sold or even peripherally bought, products made of asbestos, tobacco, breast augmentation devices, chemicals or complex products like automobiles or power plants.

    At the same time the legal jackals have attacked the pharmaceutical industry for any imagined or dimly perceived lack of quality; or even the inevitable pernicious side effects, no matter how small, of their life giving products.

    The legal oafs have absolutely no sense of shame, and routinely steal 1/3 of the lifetime money they extort from poor unfortunates, for whom they theoretically represent. In most class action cases, they may have only had a secretary send a form letter, to participate in the eating of the carrion, and receiving 1/3 of the lifetime earnings of some unfortunate, hopeless, cripple. and yet they shed nary a tear.

    In a sane world, losers to this game of legal roulette would pay. But the legal phonies have rigged the game so they are safe on every side. At least until they devour themselves, or the the people wise up, as they have in Texas, under Governor Perry, and enact Tort Reform.

    They sue doctors, dentists, engineers, and other professionals, for unsuitable outcomes. They call "malpractice", when they have made themselves self-exempt. Have you ever even heard of a Malpractice case against an attorney? Even if there is an obvious prima facie case, that any attorney representing the losing side, should be subject to a malpractice case/review.

    Instead they reserve the review of their ethics to a self selected group of other attorneys to decide if they have gone too far, and "BAR" other legal redress. But these self-same crooks, never accept professional review panels of other professions as most suitable to discipline and maintain quality and punish the incompetents in their field. They want their emotional appeals, and very remunerative lawsuits, to serve instead.

    The legal profession now runs amok. It will eventually run out of other industries to extort from, and eventually turn and devour themselves. Shakespeare was right. "The first thing we have to do, is kill all the lawyers". As far as I am concerned the only good tort lawyer is a DEAD lawyer.

    Then we can call him a "Statesman" and erect statuary in his honor. Plus those statues serve a very useful purpose.

    Where else would the birds have to **** on, that actually improves the scenery?
  21. ivanvamp

    ivanvamp Rookie

    Joined:
    Mar 4, 2007
    Messages:
    2,670
    Likes Received:
    0
    Ratings:
    +0 / 0 / -0

    Spygate stinks because of how it continues to be perceived by the masses outside of Patriot Nation. We see it as something like this: we're all on a highway, and a lot of people are speeding - maybe not everyone, but a fair number. Another guy who is speeding calls 911 and a cop comes by and pulls us over - and only us. We are not merely handed a $100 ticket - we are fined $20,000 and spend a week in jail. And that goes on our permanent criminal record.

    That's how we feel. Like, geez, yes, ok, the Pats violated a minor rule. But a lot of other people (including the guy that ratted us out) were doing it too, so why are the Pats being singled out, and, moreover, why is everyone treating this like the Pats paid off officials or something? It's the knowledge that a lot of people feel that NE's championships are tainted that bothers us, because we know they aren't, and we don't want the accomplishments of our favorite team being stained.

    As far as Goodell is concerned, I think he's shown himself to be a serious hypocrite. Calling for all these changes for the sake of player safety, but then pushing for an 18-game season. It shows that he's all about the influx of more money for the NFL (which, as the commish, is probably his job). He may, or may not, care about safety. But what he really cares about is that the public believes that he is cleaning up the game - rooting out "cheating" (e.g., spygate), changing the rules on hard hits (helmet to helmet, launching yourself at a receiver, etc.), and coming down so severely on Bountygate (I hate the "gate" at the end of everything). He's trying to give the public the perception that the NFL takes all these things seriously, wanting to provide a great athletic contest and great entertainment free from the stain of corruption and, of course, free from the possible concussion-related lawsuits potentially staring the league in the face.

    Goodell knows that so much of this has been around long before he got involved in the league, but he's being the sherriff and is cleaning it up. That's the message he is trying to send, anyway.
  22. The Gr8est

    The Gr8est Rookie

    Joined:
    Sep 13, 2004
    Messages:
    2,770
    Likes Received:
    0
    Ratings:
    +0 / 0 / -0


    Fixed your analogy.
    Last edited: May 8, 2012
  23. ivanvamp

    ivanvamp Rookie

    Joined:
    Mar 4, 2007
    Messages:
    2,670
    Likes Received:
    0
    Ratings:
    +0 / 0 / -0

    Much obliged. :)
  24. Gumby

    Gumby Rookie

    Joined:
    Oct 4, 2004
    Messages:
    1,815
    Likes Received:
    1
    Ratings:
    +1 / 0 / -0


    too funny (the greatest humor is based 100% on truth) :D; if it weren't so sad too.


    Agree somewhat with this and the insulation from lawsuits argument by the OP. And those two arguments for WHY? are even more applicable to the dramatic increases in fines for bad hits etc.

    But as far as camera-gate and bounty-gate (I too dislike 'gate'); the dominant reason for the heavy hand is really the napoleonic, corporate-don attitude of Goodell. He feels his position is challenged by anyone who APPEARS TO DISREGARD HIM. So even though Pats weren't the only team disregarding the infamous 14 month old memo; Pats were the ones with the hand in the cookie jar when he walked in the door. So he threw the hammer down. Particularly because he was a new commish. he wanted to establish his legitamacy and make himself invulnerable to contradictary voices.
    At that point too, he knew that there was enough jealousy in the league that no one would step up to the plate for the pats. (kind of like a hitler strategy- pick on the most despised minorities first; gypsies, then go for the jews, then go for the political opponents and then the christians)

    With bounty-gate it seems like more info is coming out that brings the "fully orchestrated program" into question. But the punishment is really all about his order to stop. N.O. didnt stop it so he will hammer them too. More for blowing his authority off than for the act itself. And that is why he will NEVER investigate any other team for the offense (nor for cameras either) because he thinks he scared the heck out of everyone.

  25. Off The Grid

    Off The Grid Rookie

    Joined:
    Apr 20, 2010
    Messages:
    6,498
    Likes Received:
    4
    Ratings:
    +8 / 1 / -0

    #3 Jersey

    I think you give that Sewage FAR more credit than he deserves.

    It was only BECAUSE that vile, despicable SCUM imposed such a LUDICROUS penalty, that the vast majority of authority-figure-worshiping morons deduced that we MUST have done something awful, otherwise why would good old Roger the Sewage ~ GOD, I hope he DIAF's!! ~ impose such an harsh penalty??? :rolleyes:

    Had the penalty been FAIR ~ proportionate ~ it would've been a 3rd day Pick at MOST, seeing's how that's what teams get hit with when they're caught Tampering. [​IMG]

    What a lump of greasy SEWAGE Goodell is.

    Great Thread, by the way!! :)
  26. lillloyd

    lillloyd Rookie

    Joined:
    Apr 12, 2010
    Messages:
    255
    Likes Received:
    0
    Ratings:
    +0 / 0 / -0

    LOL, it's crazy to say this on a Pats board, but here goes: I think you could legitimately go out and share a beer with James Harrison on this issue. (Technically, Harrison never said he wanted Goodell to DIAF...but he is on record saying if Goodell were *already* on fire, that he wouldn't piss on him to put it out).

    In all seriousness though, you make a good point--but I would add that this isn't applicable only to Pats fans and Spygate. Basically, you can't simply look at fines and punishments levied by Goodell in today's NFL and determine the actual severity of the underlying crime, because the underlying act is only a modest part of the calculus used to determine the penalty.

    In the Pats' case, you got docked a bunch of money and were stripped of a high draft pick...so you must have done something *really* wrong (or so the non-Pats fans' logic goes). A non-Pats fan isn't going to dive into the details, and realize that something else (i.e. league agenda and PR, for lack of a better term) beyond the actual "crime" is factoring heavily into this punishment.

    Take Dunta Robinson's $40K fine in 2010. There was nothing particularly unique about Robinson's hit, that sets it apart from countless other ugly-looking hits in previous years and decades (most observers agreed that Robinson's hit was by far the least egregious of the infamous trio of penalized hits that day). Robinson simply picked the wrong time to do it, on a day when the NFL abruptly and dramatically changed the fine and suspension structure, and in the midst of a coordinated league push for an 18-game schedule. But if you were another team's fan looking only at the fine itself, you'd likely assume he'd made a *historically* vicious hit...and maybe was a historically dirty player to boot.

    That's just the way it is nowadays. You can't just look at a penalty, and accurately deduce the true severity of the underlying "crime". Nowadays, the league and Goodell inflate penalties (sometimes, dramatically so) by baking in their own message and agenda into every punishment. Worse still, since there's almost no transparency given to the reasoning behind their punishments, it's easy for a casual observer to completely miss what's been added by the league for its own purposes. This is a shame; in addition to doling out punishments, the league is effectively villainizing the parties it punishes. And while this is arguably deserved in some cases, in many cases it may not be...and it's almost never the black-and-white issue the league would have you believe.

    All of which of course leads back to the very problem you brought up in your post: i.e. a casual non-Pats fan saying, "the Pats got a big penalty; therefore Spygate must have been *really* bad...I'll bet that's the reason they won all those championships!"
  27. ausbacker

    ausbacker Brady > Manning. PatsFans.com Supporter

    Joined:
    Apr 23, 2008
    Messages:
    12,963
    Likes Received:
    17
    Ratings:
    +22 / 0 / -0

    #51 Jersey

    No, that's not what I said. I made it abundantly clear what my position was.

    The NFL starting handing out severe fines and punishment well before 2010. Conversely, Goodell's agenda items have taken place in conjunction with an escalation of punishments.

    In a sense of the manner, all you've done is repeat what I've said; the NFL moved (and moved publicly as you pointed out) to protect its brand.
  28. JoeSixPat

    JoeSixPat Rookie

    Joined:
    Nov 8, 2004
    Messages:
    9,800
    Likes Received:
    21
    Ratings:
    +24 / 0 / -0

    Actually what got Goodell really mad about Spygate was that Belichick tried to out lawyer the league's top lawyer - Goodell.

    Goodell's 2006 memo specifically stated that sideline taping was prohibited for the use "on gameday."

    Belichick never used tapes for gameday. He used them for post game analysis to get ready for the next matchup with that team to learn more about a team's play calling tendencies. It defies logic to think that he could film a signal, decipher it, determine how that deciphered code worked into game planning, adjust his play calling accordingly, all during halftime.

    So Belichick probably figured, that given all that, he could simply take Goodell at his badly worded rule and be relatively safe if and when he was called on it.

    Goodell, for his part, wasn't going to let a football coach out lawyer the league's top lawyer - him - and handed down a highly punitive decision to teach Belichick a lesson.

    Unfortunately he also didn't see the point of trying to convinced the "shocked" clueless fans and even more clueless non-football fan public that signal filming had been going on since the 1950s and was the norm. He much preferred to let clueless fans think that signal stealing was rare and uncommon because he felt admitting the truth would undermine perceptions of the game.

    So he just allowed the perception that Belichick was the exception and not the rule remain - and the high punishment he handed down to Belichick for mocking the commissioner exacerbated that perception.

    Goodell knew that most fans weren't smart enough to ask why coordinators routinely cover their mouths when calling in plays - as they continue to do today, raising the point that signal stealing and filming continues today, as it's still allowed under the rules.

    Was Belichick wrong to mock Goodell by taking his rule literally? Probably - but we have also seen Belichick continue to mock Goodell's injury reporting policy as it puts his players at risk and puts him at a strategic disadvantage by telling other teams where his players are weak and vulnerable. Belichick has been repeatedly reprimanded for that but hasn't really changed

    On that issue Belichick has been provien right and Goodell must be hoping that fans don't notice that his own injury reporting policies and fines for coaches who refuse to put their players at risk were a factor in Bountygate.

    My guess is that little nugget of info won't escape the lawyers considering a concussion lawsuit against the league though.
    Last edited: May 8, 2012
  29. Off The Grid

    Off The Grid Rookie

    Joined:
    Apr 20, 2010
    Messages:
    6,498
    Likes Received:
    4
    Ratings:
    +8 / 1 / -0

    #3 Jersey

    It doesn't really matter what Goodell's rationale is.

    Not to me.

    If it's not based on Justice ~ and Justice clearly had nothing to do with his motivations behind SpyGate, REGARDLESS of what those motivations were ~ then I don't give a rat's @$$ what his motivations were.

    He STOLE from us.

    And he stole such a big CHUNK from us that it probably cost us Championships.

    And he STOLE from us because we committed a MISDEMEANOR, one that MANY teams were committing, including the vile SCUM who ratted on us, even after we didn't rat on THEM.

    For what at MOST was a 7th Rounder level infraction, he stole a FIRST Rounder.

    I don't care if he did it because he had a tantrum, or because he's too stupid to realize that creating doubt about the legitimacy of our Championships in the minds of millions of morons actually HURT the brand, or simply because he's a Jets fan.

    He is SCUM.

    He is lying, cheating, sanctimonious, despicable, filthy, disgusting SCUM.

    Other'n that, I have no strong feelings on the subject.

    I just became an ENORMOUS James Harrison fan, by the way!! :D

    Seriously: I DO really enjoy reading your posts, Brother Lloyd. :cool:

    But I am incapable of Empathy or other considerations, where Goodell is concerned.
  30. ausbacker

    ausbacker Brady > Manning. PatsFans.com Supporter

    Joined:
    Apr 23, 2008
    Messages:
    12,963
    Likes Received:
    17
    Ratings:
    +22 / 0 / -0

    #51 Jersey

    OTG, I generally enjoy your special brand of posting but think from an administrator's position rather than a fan's perspective when evaluating the decisions Goodell and his cronies make. We don't have to agree (and I largely don't) with the changes in the game nor the punishments handed out (and yes Spygate was overblown) but there's generally obvious and not so obvious reasons to the decisions and actions taken by those at the top.
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.

Share This Page