If there's one thing sports writers and analysts can agree upon when it comes to the NFL's punishment of the New England Patriots and Tom Brady, it's that they can't agree. I've heard opinions range from, "Tom Brady should be suspended for the entire season" to "Tom Brady should just receive a fine without any suspension." I've heard anything from, "The New England Patriots should receive a minimal fine and not lose any draft picks" to "The Patriots should be fined the maximum amount and lose multiple draft picks." I've read headlines which said, "Tom Brady and the New England Patriots got what they deserved," and yet others that said, "The NFL was flat out wrong with their punishment of Tom Brady and the Patriots." Like I said, one thing these writers and analysts could probably agree on is that they can't agree with one another regarding the matter.
As for me, I'm torn on what the NFL should have done and whether or not their punishment was too harsh, too light, or somewhere in the middle, and I think that's a big reason why most sports writers and analysts can't seem to agree with one another on this issue - they're ultimately uncertain.
Up until Spygate, the New England Patriots reminded me of the Duke Blue Devils basketball team, as they were easy to hate, yet also easy to respect. That very respect began to diminish with the onset of Spygate and took another hit with Deflategate. Spygate was actually a reason why the team was fined $1 million and lost two future draft picks (a 1st round pick in 2016 and a 2nd round pick in 2017). If the team had not been involved in Spygate, it's my estimation they would have lost just one of the two draft picks and been fined a maximum of $500,000. But like with the legal system, with added convictions come added penalties and that was no different in this case. Whether the team's penalties were too harsh or not is still up for debate, but when engaging in that debate, we can't dismiss the fact this was the team's second such run-in with the law (the NFL version of it at least). Also, in the grand scope of things, we can't look at the loss of $1 million as being ultimately significant for the New England Patriots, as their team is worth a reported $2.6 billion. What's of greater significance is the loss of two early round draft picks. That will have a far greater impact than the team's fine.
While some have certainly criticized the league's punishment of the New England Patriots, the even more controversial punishment was the 4-game suspension of quarterback Tom Brady, whom wasn't involved in the before-mentioned Spygate, and I think this is largely due to the uncertainty of how significant an impact a deflated football can have in a game. Some have claimed that deflated footballs are no big deal, that a lot of quarterbacks tamper with footballs, that athletes have always tried to gain a little edge through such actions, and this was nothing new. On the other side of the argument, some have said matter-of-factly that Tom Brady cheated, that his reputation shall forever be tarnished by this, and even gone so far as to compare his tampering with footballs to using steroids in baseball. The thing about it is most of us, unless we played NFL football with under-inflated and regularly-inflated footballs, could know just how significant or insignificant these deflated footballs were. With this uncertainty comes further questioning: How long had Brady and the Patriots being using deflated footballs? Did it play a significant role in them winning a Super Bowl last year? Should that Super Bowl title be stripped from them if that was the case? Did it play a role in prior Super Bowl titles? How many other teams did this throughout the course of the season? What were Brady and the Patriots' offensive stats with under-inflated versus regularly-inflated footballs?
One reason I think some sports writers and analysts have agreed with the NFL's punishment of the Patriots and their quarterback is due to their dishonesty. When asked about the matter, Brady in particular, said there was no wrong-doing and he was confident about the matter. From Lance Armstrong to Alex Rodriguez to countless other athletes, sports writers and analysts have tended to hold a grudge, not for these athletes attempting to garner an edge through the use of banned substances, but for lying to them about it.
Overall, I can see both sides of this argument. According to league rules, the New England Patriots and Tom Brady cheated, the Patriots for the second time. However, it is also true that since the dawn of time, professional athletes have tried to gain an advantage through legal and/or illegal means in order to come out on top. The central problem to this issue is the uncertainty in just how significant an impact the deflated footballs played in the New England Patriots' Super Bowl run(s) and how long they did this. With steroids, it was easy for the eyes to see grown men bulking up a bit too much, which provided them an advantage of hitting for power. With deflated footballs, it's much less easy for the eyes to see just how significant an impact they can make in games. Due to this, we're going to continue to hear polar opposite opinions on the matter from sports writers and analysts.
http://www.forbes.com/teams/new-england-patriots/
As for me, I'm torn on what the NFL should have done and whether or not their punishment was too harsh, too light, or somewhere in the middle, and I think that's a big reason why most sports writers and analysts can't seem to agree with one another on this issue - they're ultimately uncertain.
Up until Spygate, the New England Patriots reminded me of the Duke Blue Devils basketball team, as they were easy to hate, yet also easy to respect. That very respect began to diminish with the onset of Spygate and took another hit with Deflategate. Spygate was actually a reason why the team was fined $1 million and lost two future draft picks (a 1st round pick in 2016 and a 2nd round pick in 2017). If the team had not been involved in Spygate, it's my estimation they would have lost just one of the two draft picks and been fined a maximum of $500,000. But like with the legal system, with added convictions come added penalties and that was no different in this case. Whether the team's penalties were too harsh or not is still up for debate, but when engaging in that debate, we can't dismiss the fact this was the team's second such run-in with the law (the NFL version of it at least). Also, in the grand scope of things, we can't look at the loss of $1 million as being ultimately significant for the New England Patriots, as their team is worth a reported $2.6 billion. What's of greater significance is the loss of two early round draft picks. That will have a far greater impact than the team's fine.
While some have certainly criticized the league's punishment of the New England Patriots, the even more controversial punishment was the 4-game suspension of quarterback Tom Brady, whom wasn't involved in the before-mentioned Spygate, and I think this is largely due to the uncertainty of how significant an impact a deflated football can have in a game. Some have claimed that deflated footballs are no big deal, that a lot of quarterbacks tamper with footballs, that athletes have always tried to gain a little edge through such actions, and this was nothing new. On the other side of the argument, some have said matter-of-factly that Tom Brady cheated, that his reputation shall forever be tarnished by this, and even gone so far as to compare his tampering with footballs to using steroids in baseball. The thing about it is most of us, unless we played NFL football with under-inflated and regularly-inflated footballs, could know just how significant or insignificant these deflated footballs were. With this uncertainty comes further questioning: How long had Brady and the Patriots being using deflated footballs? Did it play a significant role in them winning a Super Bowl last year? Should that Super Bowl title be stripped from them if that was the case? Did it play a role in prior Super Bowl titles? How many other teams did this throughout the course of the season? What were Brady and the Patriots' offensive stats with under-inflated versus regularly-inflated footballs?
One reason I think some sports writers and analysts have agreed with the NFL's punishment of the Patriots and their quarterback is due to their dishonesty. When asked about the matter, Brady in particular, said there was no wrong-doing and he was confident about the matter. From Lance Armstrong to Alex Rodriguez to countless other athletes, sports writers and analysts have tended to hold a grudge, not for these athletes attempting to garner an edge through the use of banned substances, but for lying to them about it.
Overall, I can see both sides of this argument. According to league rules, the New England Patriots and Tom Brady cheated, the Patriots for the second time. However, it is also true that since the dawn of time, professional athletes have tried to gain an advantage through legal and/or illegal means in order to come out on top. The central problem to this issue is the uncertainty in just how significant an impact the deflated footballs played in the New England Patriots' Super Bowl run(s) and how long they did this. With steroids, it was easy for the eyes to see grown men bulking up a bit too much, which provided them an advantage of hitting for power. With deflated footballs, it's much less easy for the eyes to see just how significant an impact they can make in games. Due to this, we're going to continue to hear polar opposite opinions on the matter from sports writers and analysts.
http://www.forbes.com/teams/new-england-patriots/
Comments
Post a Comment