Survey on Brady's Guilt - No Suprises

[Ice_Ice_Brady]

The actual theory pro-Brady theory suggested was that:

the N.F.L. tried to punish him to distract people from the league’s problems

I doubt many here support that particular theory. More plausible to my mind is that Goodell wanted to show he was tough and not in the pocket of Kraft, but there are many other possibilities, including some "nail-the-Pats-at-last" proponents among the League and some owners. I'm guessing that within the next few years there will be a tell-all book with leaks from within the League about what actually went down.

I certainly do agree the pro-Brady "conspiracy" theory is much more plausible than the one about the judge.

The Mueller report, a fairly scathing review of Goodell's handling of the Ry Rice situation, was released on January 8th, less than two weeks before Defamegate. I am sure Goodell reveled in the opportunity to become a hero again like with Spygate, turning the attention away from him and onto the real evil doers, the Patriots.

 

[1960Pats]

The owner of the team accepted the loss of 1st and 4th round picks and a million dollar fine (the most in NFL history). That alone makes Brady look as guilty as sin.

 

[PatsWickedPissah]

The owner of the team accepted the loss of 1st and 4th round picks and a million dollar fine (the most in NFL history). That alone makes Brady look as guilty as sin.

There you have it.
Pretty much everyone knows of Kraft's capitulation. Who can blame them from drawing the conclusion that Kraft felt it was better for a guilty Brady to end the issue?

Thanks, Bob!

 

[RobertWeathers]

The Mueller report, a fairly scathing review of Goodell's handling of the Ry Rice situation, was released on January 8th, less than two weeks before Defamegate. I am sure Goodell reveled in the opportunity to become a hero again like with Spygate, turning the attention away from him and onto the real evil doers, the Patriots.

I am one of those who believes just that.

Goodell's was an opportunist here. He took complete advantage of a situation and enabled his brownshirts and the leakers to do their job.

 

[PatsBoy12]

I am one of those who believes just that.

Goodell's was an opportunist here. He took complete advantage of a situation and enabled his brownshirts and the leakers to do their job.

And it worked to near perfection, except Goodell is a bumbling idiot who could (thankfully) never get out of his own way.

 

[RobertWeathers]

And it worked to near perfection, except Goodell is a bumbling idiot who could (thankfully) never get out of his own way.

I agree but the reality is that the NFL controlled the narrative and the information flow....until the transcripts were released to the public and Berman got a hold of them.

 

[PatsBoy12]

I agree but the reality is that the NFL controlled the narrative and the information flow....until the transcripts were released to the public and Berman got a hold of them.

Yes, the transcripts were in fact very crucial.

 

[RelocatedPatFan]

There's so much wrong with this that people should question their motive. They make it seem altruistic, but what was their end goal and how far did they go to separate their own bias (for or against) from the questions and digging for meaning.

It's another fluff piece that really offers little insight beyond a first pass/cursory insight into human beings. I'm curious, besides the NFL control of agenda and media, why people really don't try to take this to another level (might be too much work and the dollars flow in regardless of effort). Just the appearance of partiality and a different perspective is all they need. They go for minimum effort/maximum gain.

 

[Ring 6]

Read the article - the conspiracy theories relate to the judge and the league, not to Brady.

Wait this is an article about whether people think the judge was on the take? Glad I didn't waste a click.

 

[sambam94]

perhaps the laws of physics cease to exist with Brady's balls.

 

[SlowGettingUp]

Wait this is an article about whether people think the judge was on the take?

No - it's an article that suggests that people who believe in conspiracy theories like 9/11 truthers are more likely to believe the judge is on the take.

The article itself doesn't really have a viewpoint - it's just reporting what people say they believe. Getting upset with it is like getting upset with a pollster that reports Trump is in the lead.

I personally wish that someone like the Boston Globe or a local TV station would do a real ball measurement experiment (before the game and at half-time) in front of cameras at the stadium once it gets cold (and preferably rainy, although that could be simulated).

 

[Bobsyouruncle]

I did a class on statistics where we were supposed to find a public survey and calculate the confidence intervals for one assignment.

I found a survey that said it was a survey of the beliefs of scientists vs the public in general on several issues.

They did that by finding a public organization with science in its name. It was sort of like a professional association except membership was open to everyone who donated about $100.

So there's no way to know if the people who took the survey were truck drivers, politicians, or scientists. And only a very few people actually answered the survey, it's possible not a single scientist was surveyed. It's possible the control group of the public actually had more scientists.

So all they really proved was s group who takes public stances on issues, gets support from those that support those stances- obvious.

That survey was from Pew, who is considered a reputable service.

In theory surveys have no stance. In reality it's common for the surveyor to determine the outcome he or she wants and then design the questions and target the survey takers to get the desired result.

 

[TheBostonStraggler]

I did a class on statistics where we were supposed to find a public survey and calculate the confidence intervals for one assignment.

I found a survey that said it was a survey of the beliefs of scientists vs the public in general on several issues.

They did that by finding a public organization with science in its name. It was sort of like a professional association except membership was open to everyone who donated about $100.

So there's no way to know if the people who took the survey were truck drivers, politicians, or scientists. And only a very few people actually answered the survey, it's possible not a single scientist was surveyed. It's possible the control group of the public actually had more scientists.

So all they really proved was s group who takes public stances on issues, gets support from those that support those stances- obvious.

That survey was from Pew, who is considered a reputable service.

In theory surveys have no stance. In reality it's common for the surveyor to determine the outcome he or she wants and then design the questions and target the survey takers to get the desired result.

When you are about to have a discussion and either you or the opposing POV cites "a poll says" repeat the above post by Bob's Your Uncle. A "poll" to prove an argument lost its luster once the political machines, media, and ideologues figured out they could succeed by releasing "polling". The fact that Pew pulled that nonsense is disappointing but shouldn't be surprising.

While a few polls, I'm sure, look to maintain some integrity, so many are junk as to make disregard of polls the only honest approach.