This Old Neon Forum

Slurmee wrote:Tom Brady suspended four games, Pats lose 1st round pick in 2016 and a 4th in 2017, and team fined $1 million.

Wow just wow that seems like an overkill for deflating footballs.

I thought they got off pretty lightly, considering they stole the league's championship by cheating.

Kong Wen wrote:

Slurmee wrote:Tom Brady suspended four games, Pats lose 1st round pick in 2016 and a 4th in 2017, and team fined $1 million.

Wow just wow that seems like an overkill for deflating footballs.

I thought they got off pretty lightly, considering they stole the league's championship by cheating.

How much of a deference does deflating the footballs really make?

Also they won the AFC final easily and the fact the Colts only scored 7 points wasn't effected by the deflated football so the pats were the better team and in the superbowl the balls weren't touched by the pats staff and they won that game without cheating.

I guess the big question is would the Pats have gotten past the Wild Card and Divisional rounds without the deflated footballs. I can't imagine the patriots not making the post season even without cheating maybe they would have lost to the ravens.

What I'm more pissed off is that Ray Rice only got 2 fucking games for assaulting his wife but Brady has deflated balls and it's 4 games and 2 draft pick and $1 million in my opinion what Rice did was worse.

I think they're punishing them more for lying about it then the actual offense.

Also the media overhyped this way to much.

Also do you think the punishment would be as harsh if they had lost the superbowl.

People are also saying that Brady can challenge the suspension and make it less what's the dealio with that?

Slurmee wrote:How much of a deference does deflating the footballs really make?

Hard to say. But past Quarterbacks like Mark Brunnel and Dan Marino have stated they think a deflated ball is an advantage because a deflated ball is easier to grip, especially in cold and rainy games where the ball would be harder than usual to grip.

Slurmee wrote:Also they won the AFC final easily and the fact the Colts only scored 7 points wasn't effected by the deflated football so the pats were the better team and in the superbowl the balls weren't touched by the pats staff and they won that game without cheating.

I guess the big question is would the Pats have gotten past the Wild Card and Divisional rounds without the deflated footballs. I can't imagine the patriots not making the post season even without cheating maybe they would have lost to the ravens.

Whether or not it made a big difference, I think it's more the principle of the thing. It could have made a difference, and the NFL doesn't want to allow that to happen.

Slurmee wrote:What I'm more pissed off is that Ray Rice only got 2 fucking games for assaulting his wife but Brady has deflated balls and it's 4 games and 2 draft pick and $1 million in my opinion what Rice did was worse.

Ray Rice was not punished seriously enough(if it were me I would have him permanently banned from the league), but I don't think it's a good principle to use an example of a player being insufficiently punished as a precedent for subsequent actions.

Slurmee wrote:Also do you think the punishment would be as harsh if they had lost the superbowl.

I think the more interesting question is if the punishment would have been this harsh for another team who did not have the same prominent recent history of the Patriots in terms of various cheating incidents. Personally I'm glad cheating of this sort is being punished.

Slurmee wrote:People are also saying that Brady can challenge the suspension and make it less what's the dealio with that?

The NFL has some sort of legal appeals process. I don't know the details.

The funny thing about the deflated balls business is all the side stories that have come from it. Like some official was selling game balls that were supposed to be for charity on the side for example. I bet there's a lot of nonsense like that in the NFL.

I agree with Rice getting a lifetime ban what he did was unforgivable.

What Rice did is worse, but it's outside of the context of the game. The league has to police the integrity of their own rules and rely on an external justice system to deal with people who engage in criminal activity like Rice.

Kong Wen wrote:What Rice did is worse, but it's outside of the context of the game. The league has to police the integrity of their own rules and rely on an external justice system to deal with people who engage in criminal activity like Rice.

It's still relevant to them - I'm sure they have a formal code of conduct not to mention organizational ethical standards. Such an egregious violation of acceptable behavior absolutely should warrant a lifetime ban. It's never okay and it's perfectly reasonable for his penalties and loss of privileges to exceed whatever the judicial system may have dealt him on the criminal side.

Sharecrow wrote:

Kong Wen wrote:What Rice did is worse, but it's outside of the context of the game. The league has to police the integrity of their own rules and rely on an external justice system to deal with people who engage in criminal activity like Rice.

It's still relevant to them - I'm sure they have a formal code of conduct not to mention organizational ethical standards. Such an egregious violation of acceptable behavior absolutely should warrant a lifetime ban. It's never okay and it's perfectly reasonable for his penalties and loss of privileges to exceed whatever the judicial system may have dealt him on the criminal side.

I'm not saying he shouldn't be banned. I'm just providing some context for why the organization would already have a more serious punitive apparatus in place for violations of their own internal rules. Cheating violates the core principle and raison d'être of this particular organization, whose entire business is built around competition. This is the same reason there are stiff punishments for plagiarism in academia, for example.

Apparently my home town is getting a college bowl game in 2016.

Link

^That's pretty interesting. Australia has a curious relationship with American football, being the source of a decent amount of punters. There have been a handful of NFL games in London, but a college game in Australia is a new one. It says in the article that they're negotiating a multi-year contract for this, so it wouldn't be a one off thing either.

I also like how the article brings up the logistics of this event, something I've never even thought about.

TheGreatNads wrote:^That's pretty interesting. Australia has a curious relationship with American football, being the source of a decent amount of punters. There have been a handful of NFL games in London, but a college game in Australia is a new one. It says in the article that they're negotiating a multi-year contract for this, so it wouldn't be a one off thing either.

I also like how the article brings up the logistics of this event, something I've never even thought about.

Yeah 4 years at least which would be crazy awesome.

I'm gonna go to the first one for sure I just want to go for the experience. Marching Bands, Cheerleaders, Crowds and all the other crazy stuff that you just dont see in Australian sports. Not to mention I haven't been to Etihad Stadium in years.