Metaphors
In the Starting Line-Up
- Joined
- Oct 10, 2005
- Messages
- 3,670
- Reaction score
- 0
I don't expect a resolution until late Friday or on Saturday. Kraft and the Commissioner will come out on the same page, with regard to punishment, and with regard to steps going forward. Of course, sooner would be better.
I'm thinking differently (though with no more information or insight than your opinion). I think it is about news cycles and Kraft wants his team on the front page next week for their play, not this garbage. A decision late Friday/Saturday puts this into next week's news cycle. A decision today/early tomorrow lets this story run its course in this weeks news cycle. Both the commissioner and Kraft have to want this so if possible I think they will make it happen. Just a different perspective.
I do want the punishment to be severe. I want this to be behind us. This team is NOT a bunch of substance abusing rule-breakers!!!! Winning at all costs is NOT the motto of the patriots!!!! Given the last month, why should the casual public not believe such characterizations?
I want a reasonable punishment. The severity of the punishment will not change the public perception of this incident. People either get it or they don't. There is reportedly evidence the Pats broke the rules, but there is no evidence that they gained a competitive advantage by doing it. This is not an insignificant point. Did George Brett break the rules with the pinetar incident. He sure did. Did he cheat? Possibly, but without evidence to the contrary it is a reasonable assumption that it was a mistake. Taking away his homerun and ejecting him was appropriate based on the rules violation, but a reasonable punishment would be removal of the bat from play and a follow-up action on how the rule would be policed (letter vs. intent).
Not exactly the same case (don't think having the guy with a camera was a mistake), but the logic does follow. If BB said to the commissioner that he intentionally tried to gain a competitive advantage and got caught, the Pats are going to get slammed. If BB said to the commissioner that this was a mistake in procedures or communications between the front office and the scouting staff (or some other reasonable explanation), then you remove remove the camera guy from play (done) and have a follow-up action on how the rule will be policed.
Since the "Commissioner determines Pats broke rule" news item has been thrown into the public arena (by the commish's office, not the Jets), that reasoned approach is no longer an option. Now there has to be a stern punishment regardless of the Pats' side of things to avoid the stigma of Kraft/BB "owning" the commissioner. Keep this private and all the public has to go on is a general report of a camera on the field...filming who knows what. Any punishment would be explained simply by "we looked at the situation and felt this course of action appropriately dealt with the situation." Much like the Milloy/Redskins and Branch/Jets tampering incidents. Sure they tampered. Everyone does it. Was it worth putting this issue on the front page of the newspapers. Absolutely not...and the stories died a painless death. Turn the page.
Now that page weighs a ton and turning it will be an issue. Everybody loses. Didn't have to be this way.