Cheating Patriots coach faces more scrutiny

[Genco_Olive_Oil]

Fact: New England Patriots fans did not exist until 2004. Prior to that, they were called Red Sox fans.

Thanks for the brain power, Dangerous. I even think you may have gotten the order of the teams confused.

It was a joke, fanboi.

Oh, you crushed me with that one. But here's a serious question: Why is someone who argues the viewpoint that I have automatically a fanboi? Why should my argument be ignored or scoffed at because I may want the Patriots to win? Our personal preferences---and our personal distastes---almost singlehandedly determine which view we adopt.

If I recall correctly, Oz is a Colts fan. Can I refute his argument regarding this controversy by saying, "You're a Colts fanboi and so you want the Patriots to be punished!" Somehow that's not the way it works.

Just because you take a negative viewpoint does not mean you're objective. A lot of people here seem to be concerned with not being fanbois. If you're trying to prove you're not a fanboi, you're not objective---you're just as subjective as me. Except, for whatever reason, people think negativity equates to objectivity.

 

[Oz]

If I recall correctly, Oz is a Colts fan. Can I refute his argument regarding this controversy by saying, "You're a Colts fanboi and so you want the Patriots to be punished!" Somehow that's not the way it works.

Actually, I'm a Steelers fan. Born in Pittsburgh. (See the logo to the left.)

 

[Genco_Olive_Oil]

If I recall correctly, Oz is a Colts fan. Can I refute his argument regarding this controversy by saying, "You're a Colts fanboi and so you want the Patriots to be punished!" Somehow that's not the way it works.

Actually, I'm a Steelers fan. Born in Pittsburgh. (See the logo to the left.)

My apologies. But my point remains---and I hope you don't mind me using you as an example here, so that I can advance my point.

The Patriots defeated the Steelers in the 2002 AFC Championship in Pittsburgh. It was a big upset. If the Steelers had won, as expected, they would have played the Rams in that now-infamous Super Bowl 36. They could have won the Super Bowl.

And that's not to mention the second AFC Championship in 2004.

So couldn't your viewpoint be equally subjective as mine? Again no one is objective; it's an impossibility for us mere mortals. We just have to take arguments at their merit; not because I root for the Pats and Oz roots for the Steelers.

And to do otherwise, to throw out my argument simply because I have a rooting interest in the Pats, is actually doing the actual thing that I'm being ridiculed for: Catering to your own pre-conceived ideas and preferences rather than the substance of the discussion.

 

[Dangerous_K]

Fact: New England Patriots fans did not exist until 2004. Prior to that, they were called Red Sox fans.

Thanks for the brain power, Dangerous. I even think you may have gotten the order of the teams confused.

It was a joke, fanboi.

Oh, you crushed me with that one. But here's a serious question: Why is someone who argues the viewpoint that I have automatically a fanboi? Why should my argument be ignored or scoffed at because I may want the Patriots to win? Our personal preferences---and our personal distastes---almost singlehandedly determine which view we adopt.

If I recall correctly, Oz is a Colts fan. Can I refute his argument regarding this controversy by saying, "You're a Colts fanboi and so you want the Patriots to be punished!" Somehow that's not the way it works.

Just because you take a negative viewpoint does not mean you're objective. A lot of people here seem to be concerned with not being fanbois. If you're trying to prove you're not a fanboi, you're not objective---you're just as subjective as me. Except, for whatever reason, people think negativity equates to objectivity.

Decaf, man! Decaf. I wasn't trying to crush you, just like when I first posted in here I was making a goofy one-off joke that wasn't targeted at anyone. Personally, I'm tired of all this camera consternation and feel Arlen Specter is pandering to some of his dumber constituents.

 

[Oz]

My apologies. But my point remains---and I hope you don't mind me using you as an example here, so that I can advance my point.

Had the Steelers not won a Super Bowl between then and now, it might have been a sore subject with me.

As it is, I don't mind the example one bit.

 

[Flying Headbutt]

He certainly should. What can Specter do all by his lonesome? No one else in the senate thinks Specter is up to anything else but a wild goose chase of some stupid sort.

Yes, Roger Goodell should use his mighty power to shut down the government.
If he gets a subpoena, he goes to Washington, or he goes to jail.

The thing is, as you alluded, no way in heck does Goodell get a subpoena. Specter can't issue it himself, and Patrick Leahy doesn't give two shirts about this.

If one is issued, then sure, Mr. Goodell goes to Washington. But everyone knows it won't happen. So he can tell Specter to pound sand. He's not going to shut the government down. But I'm guessing that Goodell is far more worried about whether he's going to pour a bowl of Kix or a bowl of Rice Krispies for breakfast in the morning, than he is about whether he'll be subpoenaed before the SJC.

 

[Genco_Olive_Oil]

He certainly should. What can Specter do all by his lonesome? No one else in the senate thinks Specter is up to anything else but a wild goose chase of some stupid sort.

Yes, Roger Goodell should use his mighty power to shut down the government.
If he gets a subpoena, he goes to Washington, or he goes to jail.

The thing is, as you alluded, no way in heck does Goodell get a subpoena. Specter can't issue it himself, and Patrick Leahy doesn't give two shirts about this.

If one is issued, then sure, Mr. Goodell goes to Washington. But everyone knows it won't happen. So he can tell Specter to pound sand. He's not going to shut the government down. But I'm guessing that Goodell is far more worried about whether he's going to pour a bowl of Kix or a bowl of Rice Krispies for breakfast in the morning, than he is about whether he'll be subpoenaed before the SJC.

Given that he's Commissioner of the NFL, his wife is an anchor for FoxNews and Daddy was a Senator, I imagine Mr. Goodell ain't pouring shirt for himself.

 

[Fenian_Bastard]

All fanboishness aside, the Patriots paid the heaviest fine in NFL history because what they did was so egregious that the commissioner fel;t the fine was warranted. Occam's razor, folks.

 

[outofplace]

http://sports.yahoo.com/nfl/news;_ylt=AlrOT2zLzHsmQFS5RkPh5Z85nYcB?slug=ap-spygate-belichick&prov=ap&type=lgns

Clarification from Bill Belichick: Matt Walsh is not on his Christmas card list.

 

[Michael_ Gee]

Using the dangerous method of deductive reasoning, it is my belief that the Pats and Belichick were punished as severely as they were for flouting Goodell's memo more than for the actual crime. Scofflaws should not scoff in the presence of a cop.
Goodell should have said this. That would have ameliorated, although not stopped, the suspicions that the Pats had done far worse, and the league was covering it up or had moved into full Sgt. Schultz mode.

 

[Oz]

All fanboishness aside, the Patriots paid the heaviest fine in NFL history because what they did was so egregious that the commissioner felt the fine was warranted. Occam's razor, folks.

I would have maybe lessened the money and suspended Belichick. If Goodell said he never bought Belichick's explanation for the team's action, he probably should have suspended him for a week or two.

 

[Genco_Olive_Oil]

All fanboishness aside, the Patriots paid the heaviest fine in NFL history because what they did was so egregious that the commissioner fel;t the fine was warranted. Occam's razor, folks.

That's not even a reasonable point, though. Consider the punishments Goodell levied in his first year as Commish. From Pacman, Tank and the Patriots, Goodell was heavy with the hammer. Does that change the fact that the Pats broke the rules? No, but I think it lessens the validity your "Occam's razor" argument.

And I think Goodell realized how extreme he was in his punishments with his punishment of the 49ers in the Lance Briggs tampering case. The 49ers tampered with a star player from another franchise prior to the start of his free agency period---and they lose a 5th-rounder and swap 3rds.

So let's look at the Patriots' videotaping scandal with a little bit more nuance than what you're using to try and justify multiple investigations that have proved futile.