#DeflateGate (Court of Appeals Reinstates Suspension)

[Boris Badenov]

It's funny that everyone who is trying to dismiss this story has made impassioned arguments about why "It's not even a big deal, guys!" which has the net effect of keeping the story alive. It's like watching a child try to take the baseball home after an out because "I don't want to play anymore," and drawing even more attention to the out in the process.

Anyway, via deadspin. I laughed:




http://deadspin.com/a-nation-divided-1681328140

So what you're saying is that sports fans are rational beings? 

No, he's saying all those small-time local bookies in Revere should fly to Seattle for a couple of days.

[Roy H.]

1. Its not a big deal because the supposed advantage gained is immaterial

I agree.  Theoretically, this could make a difference, but it clearly didn't in the Colts game.

2. the media is blowing it out of proportion

Agreed.  I think that's due to it being the lead up to the Super Bowl, along with the Patriots' history of cheating, but this isn't something that should be leading off the national evening news.

3. there is no evidence that the patriots did anything wrong

I disagree with you there.  Circumstantial evidence is evidence.  If only a couple of balls had been deflated, or if the Colts balls had been deflated, I'd agree.  Based on what we've heard so far, though, I think that it's not that hard to follow the logic chain.

4. the supposed whistleblower said he didn't notice anything wrong with the football and wasn't the whistleblower

I see this as irrelevant.  It's sloppy reporting by the media, but does it make a difference who pointed out the deflation?

5. Its annoying that the patriots get an extra level of scrutiny because they are good and consistently succeeding in a league that is designed to promote parody

Doesn't Spygate play a role here, along with some of the other unproven allegations (like the Patriots taping the Rams' practice, and knowing their calls put in place the week before the game)?

Roy, if you grant that the media got it wrong in point 4, then can't you also consider that the media got it wrong on point 3? We are still waiting on confirmation from the NFL about how many balls were deflated and by how much.

On that I agree.  If it turns out that 11 of the 12 balls were minorly non-conforming -- i.e., nowhere near the 2.0 psi that has been reported -- then I'll give the Pats the benefit of the doubt, and I think the league needs to, too.

I think that's unlikely -- this story has been out there for days, and the NFL has a vested interest in squashing the story if there's nothing to it -- but if it happens, then I'll concee the point.

[D.o.s.]

It's funny that everyone who is trying to dismiss this story has made impassioned arguments about why "It's not even a big deal, guys!" which has the net effect of keeping the story alive. It's like watching a child try to take the baseball home after an out because "I don't want to play anymore," and drawing even more attention to the out in the process.

To me, it seems that Pats haters and those insisting that this is a huge deal and worthy of the death penalty are the ones keeping it alive.

It's both sides, and it's awful. At least it's friday, so we can look forward to the issue going to bed as the actual analysis starts to get rolled out.

[Donoghus]

It's funny that everyone who is trying to dismiss this story has made impassioned arguments about why "It's not even a big deal, guys!" which has the net effect of keeping the story alive. It's like watching a child try to take the baseball home after an out because "I don't want to play anymore," and drawing even more attention to the out in the process.

To me, it seems that Pats haters and those insisting that this is a huge deal and worthy of the death penalty are the ones keeping it alive.

It's both sides, and it's awful. At least it's friday, so we can look forward to the issue going to bed as the actual analysis starts to get rolled out.

\

It's definitely both sides.   It's horrible.

Maybe the NFL will follow their M.O. and do a Friday 5pm news drop tonight.  Wouldn't put it past them.

[Cman]

Mike Reiss has a nice summary of things here: http://espn.go.com/blog/boston/new-england-patriots/post/_/id/4776939/piecing-it-all-together-on-deflated-footballs

I think his take is very reasonable. At this point, following the news conferences by TB and BB, its on the NFL to make a statement of some sort. BB, TB and the Patriots are having their reputations trashed by national media, all on a few tidbits of leaked but not verified information.

FOXBOROUGH, Mass. -- On Wednesday, we produced an "all thoughts in one place" entry on the topic of the New England Patriots and underinflated footballs. Two days later, after hearing from Bill Belichick and Tom Brady, let's do it again.

Still many unanswered questions. Despite a rush to judgment in some circles, there is incomplete information to analyze. This is the challenge of the 24/7 news cycle. Unfortunately, that hasn't stopped some from publicly questioning the integrity of Brady, which from this viewpoint, has crossed the line based on the credible information available.

Following up on Schefter's words. On Thursday morning, ESPN.com NFL Insider Adam Schefter said the following on "SportsCenter": "My understanding is that the league has had a tough time getting somebody to substantiate everything. Now, the footballs are the footballs. We have the evidence and they've found that some of the footballs were underinflated or deflated. But to figure out the process, who's responsible, why this happened, my understanding is that it's been difficult for the league to ascertain those facts so far. ... I think the feeling all week long has been that it may be until after the Super Bowl that we have any announcement of any discipline, if there is any that does come forward in this particular case."

Focus shifts to the NFL. The league is not commenting on its "review" at this point. Brady said Thursday that the league has not contacted him, which is somewhat curious. From this viewpoint, that's the obvious place where the focus should now shift. By acknowledging their "review" and investigation in the first place, the NFL has given this story a tidal wave of momentum over the last five days. Some more information and transparency from the NFL on what they have, what they're looking for, and their process (pregame, during the game, postgame) would add critical context to the discussion at a time when personal reputations and the brand of one of its franchises are at stake. That is, unless the NFL likes the idea that talk of deflated footballs is leading national network newscasts and adds an element of drama in the build-up to Super Bowl XLIX.

Belichick's news conference. The way Belichick approached his Thursday news conference was a surprise. The feeling here was that he would open by talking about the Seahawks, the great challenge they present, and then mention something at the end of the opening statement about the deflated footballs and how he can't comment based on a league investigation. That would have been consistent with his approach in most situations like these. Instead, he was detailed and addressed the issue head-on. It felt like he put all his cards on the table.

Brady's news conference. The general sense from this viewpoint was that media members felt like Brady was going to "fall on the sword" during his news conference. When he didn't, that led to a negative backlash in some circles. While everyone is searching for answers, that doesn't seem fair. The first question asked to this reporter in a radio interview on Thursday night was, "Do you believe Brady?" The answer: In 15 years covering Brady, there has been no reason to question his integrity. We should wait for some more information, specifically from the NFL, before we jump to this level of discussion.

A big disappointment. That sums up any personal feelings here. Also, it's time for the NFL to step up. If the Patriots are found guilty of any wrongdoing, hold them accountable and let's move on to talk about the game. If there is no evidence of wrongdoing at this point, say it, mention that the review is ongoing, and let's move on to talk about the game.

[Rondo2287]

ESPN has taken down mortensen's initial report about this whole thing

[JSD]

ESPN has taken down mortensen's initial report about this whole thing

As in retracted or taken off their website. How did you gain this knowledge?

[Roy H.]

ESPN has taken down mortensen's initial report about this whole thing

How so?

http://espn.go.com/boston/story/_/id/12202450/nfl-says-new-england-patriots-had-inflated-footballs-afc-championship-game

[Rondo2287]

ESPN has taken down mortensen's initial report about this whole thing

As in retracted or taken off their website. How did you gain this knowledge?

Ahh never mind its just been archived so its not easy to find anymore.  some stuff floating around on twitter

[JSD]

Roy H. if ESPN did have to retract, like the Herald during Spygate, is there any type of civil litigation that the Patriots could pursue?

[D.o.s.]

ESPN has taken down mortensen's initial report about this whole thing

As in retracted or taken off their website. How did you gain this knowledge?

Ahh never mind its just been archived so its not easy to find anymore.  some stuff floating around on twitter

"Old News Story replaced by Newer News Stories" doesn't quite have the conspiratorial ring you're looking for?

[Rondo2287]

ESPN has taken down mortensen's initial report about this whole thing

As in retracted or taken off their website. How did you gain this knowledge?

Ahh never mind its just been archived so its not easy to find anymore.  some stuff floating around on twitter

"Old News Story replaced by Newer News Stories" doesn't quite have the conspiratorial ring you're looking for?

well too be fair, two separate people that I follow, one from 98.5 and one from a nfl draft site both said they couldn't find it anymore and said they thought it had been removed, one of those people then retweeted which I saw later a follower who pointed out it had been archived

[Roy H.]

Roy H. if ESPN did have to retract, like the Herald during Spygate, is there any type of civil litigation that the Patriots could pursue?

I don't practice defamation law, but it's my understanding that the Patriots and the members of the organization would be construed as public figures.  With public figures, a plaintiff generally needs to prove more than just negligence.  Rather, there needs to be proof that the publisher knew that the report it was making was false, or that the publisher recklessly regarded proper procedures in publishing the truth.

Publishing information from a reliable source that turns out to be false generally wouldn't be defamation.

[Roy H.]

ESPN has taken down mortensen's initial report about this whole thing

As in retracted or taken off their website. How did you gain this knowledge?

Ahh never mind its just been archived so its not easy to find anymore.  some stuff floating around on twitter

"Old News Story replaced by Newer News Stories" doesn't quite have the conspiratorial ring you're looking for?

well too be fair, two separate people that I follow, one from 98.5 and one from a nfl draft site both said they couldn't find it anymore and said they thought it had been removed, one of those people then retweeted which I saw later a follower who pointed out it had been archived

Maybe you should start being more skeptical of those guys. It literally took me less than 3 seconds to find the article on google.

God, I hate twitter. 

[Rondo2287]

ESPN has taken down mortensen's initial report about this whole thing

As in retracted or taken off their website. How did you gain this knowledge?

Ahh never mind its just been archived so its not easy to find anymore.  some stuff floating around on twitter

"Old News Story replaced by Newer News Stories" doesn't quite have the conspiratorial ring you're looking for?

well too be fair, two separate people that I follow, one from 98.5 and one from a nfl draft site both said they couldn't find it anymore and said they thought it had been removed, one of those people then retweeted which I saw later a follower who pointed out it had been archived

Maybe you should start being more skeptical of those guys. It literally took me less than 3 seconds to find the article on google.

God, I hate twitter.

I wanted it to be true Roy.  Im biased