It's not really a matter of theories.
Notice requires that the player be aware of the consequences of his actions in order to be disciplined.
The league is arguing he was, the NFLPA is saying he wasn't. Precedent is big here, since no player has even been suspended for being generally aware. Also very similar actions have resulted in lesser discipline (Jets, Panthers, Vikings, Chargers). Then on top of that Brady was officially disciplined based on the Game Operations rules, which do not apply to players.
It seems blatantly obvious that there are notice issues (meaning there no way you can say it is clear to Brady that if he knew--or even ordered,but thats another issue altogether--Dorito Dink and Deflator were sneaking around deflating balls that he would be subject to a suspension). In other words, if a union welder brings an Ipad to work and gets fired (or suspended, its all the same in this parallel) for having it, but there is no policy that references having electronics at work but one that says you can be docked an hours pay if caught not focussing on your work, yuo have notice issues. To stretch the analogy into this case, the welder appeals it is heard by the same person, who then says you do have notice because we can fire you for causing potential injury by acting wrecklessly and we conclude you were not alert enough to prevent a potential accident.
The fact that the NFL puts up a counter argument only makes this a court case. It doesn't mean the argument is good.
And again, Brady needs to only win on ONE POINT, it is not a matter of 'who has the better case' or 'who is more right'.
If notice was defective.
If Goodell was evidently impartial.
If Goodell abused his power.
If Bradys right to put on a case in his appeal was not given.
In any of those cases, the judge must rule for Brady. He doesn't need 2 out of 4 or 3 out of 4. Only 1.
It's hard to imagine to me that he doesn't have one, and if you look again at that list, the NFLs claim that Goodell has the right to make the decision and the court must hold it in deference is meaningless, because that is not what the NFLPA is arguing against.
