View Full Version : Why Goodell should take away the Patsies titles but wont.
Provided Walsh or someone has the goods.
Can someone say conflict of interest?
http://www.patriots.com/news/index.c...=29519&pcid=47
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2007/1...tml?view=print
It's "I Love Lucy" meets Kobe beef burgers in a sleek restaurant just a few yards from Gillette Stadium.
That's the premise of a new concept, known as CBS Scene, being unveiled next fall as a joint partnership between New England Patriots owner Robert Kraft and CBS Corp. The 15,000-square-foot restaurant serving upscale grill fare will feature about 130 high-definition televisions, including table-side flat-screens programmed with CBS content ranging from "Late Night with David Letterman" to "The Honeymooners."
The restaurant will sit at the mouth of the stadium as part of the adjacent Patriot Place retail complex under development in Foxborough. Kraft said he initially considered the sports dining venue ESPN Zone for the site, but decided he wanted a fresh concept for the massive new shopping and entertainment center and approached a friend, CBS chief executive Leslie Moonves. ESPN Zone offers a similar set-up, serving grill food with big-screen televisions and nonstop sports coverage.
SonOfLe-loLang
04-30-2008, 07:43 PM
What would taking away a title do? Its the most retarded idea. What are you gonna erase the memory of millions of people?
What would taking away a title do? Its the most retarded idea. What are you gonna erase the memory of millions of people?
It would vacate the championship or make the runner ups default champions. Look at what the happened to the university of Michigan for their fab five yeas. And, btw, what youre calling retarded is really the only deterrent. The only thing that will truly make it not worth it for teams is forfeiture. If its draft picks or fines, that is a small price to pay for getting an edge in an AFC Ch. game or a Super Bowl.
Vegas_Bronco
04-30-2008, 08:40 PM
WAIT, what titles are you guys talking about??? The only title I remember is last years when they were maimed by the Giants.
Northman
04-30-2008, 08:44 PM
No, they shouldnt take their titles away. Its a ridiculous thought on any level.
chrisp
05-01-2008, 07:07 AM
Totally mad. Either a blank year where there's no winner, or a 'default champion'.
Much as every athelete and franchise wants the title, are any of them really going to want it that way? Particularly when its questionable how much benefit the Patsies actually got out of their cheating....
jmz313
05-01-2008, 07:48 AM
You don't take away the titles. Just the prestige of thier "dynasty". Not that matt walsh will actually have anything notable. At least, that we will see.
You don't take away the titles. Just the prestige of thier "dynasty". Not that matt walsh will actually have anything notable. At least, that we will see.
You pretty much have to. Its lucre.
DenverBrit
05-01-2008, 09:04 AM
Provided Walsh or someone has the goods.
Can someone say conflict of interest?
http://www.patriots.com/news/index.c...=29519&pcid=47
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2007/1...tml?view=print
What's the basis for your premise? That Craft opened a restaurant in conjunction with CBS instead of ESPN? ???
Bronco Jamus
05-01-2008, 09:12 AM
Everything they've accomplished has been soiled. It's pointless. Let it go.
What's the basis for your premise? That Craft opened a restaurant in conjunction with CBS instead of ESPN? ???
CBS is in bed with the Patriots. The NFLs largest revenue stream is from their contracts with the networks. The networks have significant influence over the decision making of the league. Why do you think the super bowl is so overdone now? Its because tv wants something on all the time where they can justify overcharging companies for ad spots. And so you get these overdone half-time shows. It wasnt always like what it is now...not to this degree. So I think its safe to say that the TV networks have influence over the league office. And when the CEO of a network is in bed with a specific team who is (or is likely) guilty of breaking the rules, and in big games no less, you automatically have a conflict where the Roger Goodells independence is concerned.
Its amazing to me that more people dont see this. Its a massive problem.
Everything they've accomplished has been soiled. It's pointless. Let it go.
If theyve cheated in order to beat the Rams and the Eagles, its an injustice to the fans of those teams to just look the other way and hope that shame does what the league itself should be doing. Its not like this Matt Walsh dude is the only instance where this happened. It was apparently happening in 2000/2001 and lead to teams complaining to the extent where the league sent out a memo about this and it was after this memo that the Patriots were busted...so its not as if the Patriots can blame footage on one renegade employee or claim they were unclear on the rule.
fontaine
05-01-2008, 09:41 AM
I think the Patriots got off the hook both times when they were caught.
At first when the league knew the Patriots were videotaping and the only punished handed out was a league wide memo which was nothing more than a slap on the wrist. The 2nd time when they were blatantly caught on camera against the Jets for what was a 2nd time offense which resulted in just a first round pick being forfeit and some cash that Kraft had to spare from this piggy bank.
Personally, I think taking away the titles is a step too far because whatever advantage they gained cannot be directly and only attributed to winning those championships. I think its enough that the Patri*ts dynasty is no longer without merit from most football fans.
I don't like the idea that Bellichick got away without a direct punishment to him though. When Players violate the league substance abuse policy twice, they get a one year suspension from the game with constant checks there after.
I think if that's good enough for the players then it should have been applied to Bellicheat as well.
I think the Patriots got off the hook both times when they were caught.
At first when the league knew the Patriots were videotaping and the only punished handed out was a league wide memo which was nothing more than a slap on the wrist. The 2nd time when they were blatantly caught on camera against the Jets for what was a 2nd time offense which resulted in just a first round pick being forfeit and some cash that Kraft had to spare from this piggy bank.
Personally, I think taking away the titles is a step too far because whatever advantage they gained cannot be directly and only attributed to winning those championships. I think its enough that the Patri*ts dynasty is no longer without merit from most football fans.
I don't like the idea that Bellichick got away without a direct punishment to him though. When Players violate the league substance abuse policy twice, they get a one year suspension from the game with constant checks there after.
I think if that's good enough for the players then it should have been applied to Bellicheat as well.
Actually, I dont see where people can honestly say they know to what degree it helped. It may have been small or it may have been a lot but since it may have been a lot, they should be punished as though it was a lot. Consider that the Eagles have observed that in a crucial moment of their SB with NE, every time they blitzed, NE called a screen pass. I know the talking heads try to downplay this but if theres no advantage to be had, why do it at all...even after they were rebuked via the league wide memo.
Crushaholic
05-01-2008, 10:19 AM
A conclusion of conflict of interest is a faulty one for this reason. American football, NFL included, has grown to be the biggest spectator sport in America today. CBS needs the NFL, but the NFL doesn't need CBS. Someone else would step in. Therefore, whatever influence CBS has on the NFL is minimal. The Super Bowl has become a huge event because the NFL wants it that way, not the TV networks.
Bronco Jamus
05-01-2008, 10:26 AM
I think the Patriots got off the hook both times when they were caught.
At first when the league knew the Patriots were videotaping and the only punished handed out was a league wide memo which was nothing more than a slap on the wrist. The 2nd time when they were blatantly caught on camera against the Jets for what was a 2nd time offense which resulted in just a first round pick being forfeit and some cash that Kraft had to spare from this piggy bank.
Personally, I think taking away the titles is a step too far because whatever advantage they gained cannot be directly and only attributed to winning those championships. I think its enough that the Patri*ts dynasty is no longer without merit from most football fans.
I don't like the idea that Bellichick got away without a direct punishment to him though. When Players violate the league substance abuse policy twice, they get a one year suspension from the game with constant checks there after.
I think if that's good enough for the players then it should have been applied to Bellicheat as well.
Bill was fined. I would have tossed him out of the league myself
fontaine
05-01-2008, 10:36 AM
Bill was fined. I would have tossed him out of the league myself
Yes you're right but I doubt he felt it. The royalties from his book deal about this whole thing will easily cover that and then some.
The problem with the whole thing is that there are precedents set for coaches. That coach from Dallas who was using viagra or something, wasn't he suspended for 8 games by the league?
And for a two time offender Bellicheat gets a fine. The two just don't add up.
jmz313
05-01-2008, 10:36 AM
Goodell will continue to do everything in his power to make it go away. It will never be wrapped up with a bow like we all want it to be.
How can this guy review then destroy evidence and not be the one in DC being examined.
A conclusion of conflict of interest is a faulty one for this reason. American football, NFL included, has grown to be the biggest spectator sport in America today. CBS needs the NFL, but the NFL doesn't need CBS. Someone else would step in. Therefore, whatever influence CBS has on the NFL is minimal. The Super Bowl has become a huge event because the NFL wants it that way, not the TV networks.
There has to be give and take for the networks continue to bid the way they have. If theres no give and take, the networks may be less likely or less willing to fork over as much money for the rights to broadcast their games. And the league knows this. Theres a partnership between the NFL and the networks. Make no mistake about it.
Dendave
05-01-2008, 10:54 AM
So anyone that cheats should forfiet games? So anyone caught using "illegal performance inhancing drugs", which is cheating, should forfiet a game the person played in? So when Romo played for the Broncos, you want those wins and Super Bowls taken away?
Just asking
snowtrx
05-01-2008, 10:59 AM
Everyone is in bed with someone! Is it a conflict of interest that Goodell is in bed with his former employer, the Jets? With the Jets, we actually have multiple game footage of their sideline camera man, but no fines. CBS is a part of the NFL, but owners like Pat Bowlen want to wipe them and the other networks out, with the NFL network taking everything. But you think theres colusion because one owner opens a resteraunt with them? Since its hard for you to connect dots, just enjoy the play on the field and not worry about the business side.
And people, get your facts straight. Every team in the league has known BB has been filming since he was in Cleveland, not 2000. The NFL took baby steps (memo) to inforcing this rule change for a reason. Come to your own conclussions as to why they would take such a long time, but whats the point of stopping there? Instead of making it clear that teams cannot use tapes of QB audibles obtained from d-lineman wearing mics (06 Dolphins), they simply imply that every team cheats by stating, "thats the NFL for you". WTF is the NFL trying to accomplish with Spygate? All we have is a half assed attempt to "clean" it up that only singles out one team, who happens to be the arch enemy of the commishs former employer?
Northman
05-01-2008, 11:03 AM
So anyone that cheats should forfiet games? So anyone caught using "illegal performance inhancing drugs", which is cheating, should forfiet a game the person played in? So when Romo played for the Broncos, you want those wins and Super Bowls taken away?
Just asking
Good point, how bout the vaseline that the Denver Oline was caught wearing in Kansas City in the playoffs? If your the mighty Lex at what point do you draw the line in the sand for cheating? There is nothing to support the accusation that those tapes helped them win those Super Bowls. If those tapes were really that damaging no team would be able to score on the Patriots because they would know every play that is being called. Its much ado about nothing at this point and the league has already handled it the way they thought it should be.
So anyone that cheats should forfiet games? So anyone caught using "illegal performance inhancing drugs", which is cheating, should forfiet a game the person played in? So when Romo played for the Broncos, you want those wins and Super Bowls taken away?
Just asking
Is an apple the same thing as an orange just because both are fruit? Do you believe in the concept of varying degrees? Are you able to make a distinction between a player cheating and cheating as a normal way that an organization conducts operations? Just asking.
DenverBrit
05-01-2008, 11:06 AM
CBS is in bed with the Patriots. The NFLs largest revenue stream is from their contracts with the networks. The networks have significant influence over the decision making of the league. Why do you think the super bowl is so overdone now? Its because tv wants something on all the time where they can justify overcharging companies for ad spots. And so you get these overdone half-time shows. It wasnt always like what it is now...not to this degree. So I think its safe to say that the TV networks have influence over the league office. And when the CEO of a network is in bed with a specific team who is (or is likely) guilty of breaking the rules, and in big games no less, you automatically have a conflict where the Roger Goodells independence is concerned.
Its amazing to me that more people dont see this. Its a massive problem.
Sports franchises and sports networks will always be in bed together, or at least have friendships that influence the future of the franchises.
Sponsorships are more insidious, they lead to 'censorship.' I'd rather see a team joint venture an ESPN zone than have Con-Agra or any multi-national decide what I am allowed to watch.
Why do you think the US networks are not allowed to show a naked breast, but can show a dozen murders in a half hour show?
It's the Corporate fear that the religious nuts will boycott their products, so we all get to see sanitized network TV.
Janet Jackson's nipple exposure apparently traumatized America so much it could never be shown, not even in a newspaper.
That's what you should be more concerned about.....censorship!!
We need more nipples and less violence. :thumbsup:
Everyone is in bed with someone! Is it a conflict of interest that Goodell is in bed with his former employer, the Jets? With the Jets, we actually have multiple game footage of their sideline camera man, but no fines. CBS is a part of the NFL, but owners like Pat Bowlen want to wipe them and the other networks out, with the NFL network taking everything. But you think theres colusion because one owner opens a resteraunt with them? Since its hard for you to connect dots, just enjoy the play on the field and not worry about the business side.
And people, get your facts straight. Every team in the league has known BB has been filming since he was in Cleveland, not 2000. The NFL took baby steps (memo) to inforcing this rule change for a reason. Come to your own conclussions as to why they would take such a long time, but whats the point of stopping there? Instead of making it clear that teams cannot use tapes of QB audibles obtained from d-lineman wearing mics (06 Dolphins), they simply imply that every team cheats by stating, "thats the NFL for you". WTF is the NFL trying to accomplish with Spygate? All we have is a half assed attempt to "clean" it up that only singles out one team, who happens to be the arch enemy of the commishs former employer?
Actually, Goodell is currently employed by the owners. And Im sure a lot of owners worry that a scandal like this will kill the goose that laid the golden egg and so it makes it more tolerable to sweep it under the rug. Even though what has been happening is wrong and everyone knows it, I think theres a perception that as the league prospers so too do the owners and along those lines, everyone is better off if there is no scandal or if it is downplayed.
HorseHead
05-01-2008, 11:10 AM
who cares, I just want to kick their a-s on Monday Night Football, can't wait, i'm going....
Sports franchises and sports networks will always be in bed together, or at least have friendships that influence the future of the franchises.
Sponsorships are more insidious, they lead to 'censorship.' I'd rather see a team joint venture an ESPN zone than have Con-Agra or any multi-national decide what I am allowed to watch.
Why do you think the US networks are not allowed to show a naked breast, but can show a dozen murders in a half hour show?
It's the Corporate fear that the religious nuts will boycott their products, so we all get to see sanitized network TV.
Janet Jackson's nipple exposure apparently traumatized America so much it could never be shown, not even in a newspaper.
That's what you should be more concerned about.....censorship!!
We need more nipples and less violence. :thumbsup:
Uh, what other team has such an arrangement headed by the CEO of a network? Its somewhat passable if circumstances dong give way to such scandal but here they have. And its in those situations where theres a problem. If Goodell is not in a position where he should render judgment against a particluar team, its less of an issue. But now he is in that situation and his independence has to be questioned. The Yankees used to be owned by CBS but there was never a scandal such as this and even if there were you can look at it as a matter of degree in that MLB still operates as a regional sport, whereas the NFL looked beyond that a long time ago. So the Yankess/CBS comparison isnt even valid. Goodell must be independent in both fact and appearance and he's not because of this arrangement. Caesars wife must be above suspicion.
Dendave
05-01-2008, 11:24 AM
Is an apple the same thing as an orange just because both are fruit? Do you believe in the concept of varying degrees? Are you able to make a distinction between a player cheating and cheating as a normal way that an organization conducts operations? Just asking.
So the Broncos, in the 90's, organizational conduct was spending over the salary cap and getting fined...was that cheating? Why were they fined than?
I think the point is, every organization to some degrees "cheats" whether it's from the player to the coaches or the salary cap manager, honestly as long as the Bronco win, I don't care how they do it. No one can ever take away the feeling I had when the Broncos won back to back championships, if they were to take those away from the Bronco, for whatever reason, I still have my memories, that's all I need, as all Patriot fans will have also
snowtrx
05-01-2008, 11:25 AM
Actually, Goodell is currently employed by the owners. And Im sure a lot of owners worry that a scandal like this will kill the goose that laid the golden egg and so it makes it more tolerable to sweep it under the rug. Even though what has been happening is wrong and everyone knows it, I think theres a perception that as the league prospers so too do the owners and along those lines, everyone is better off if there is no scandal or if it is downplayed.
But thats not what happened. Goodell didnt sweep it under the rug, he fined the Pats for filming on the sidelines, not for filming signals.
Either way, thats not sweeping it under the rug. Then a couple months later he not only kills the story about the Jets, but he actually lied on their behalf. The Jets never had the Pats permission.
So the Broncos, in the 90's, organizational conduct was spending over the salary cap and getting fined...was that cheating? Why were they fined than?
I think the point is, every organization to some degrees "cheats" whether it's from the player to the coaches or the salary cap manager, honestly as long as the Bronco win, I don't care how they do it. No one can ever take away the feeling I had when the Broncos won back to back championships, if they were to take those away from the Bronco, for whatever reason, I still have my memories, that's all I need, as all Patriot fans will have also
Theres a massive difference. Again, an apple and an orange are not the same thing because theyre both fruit. There are such concepts as "intent", which exist. You should acquaint yourself with such novel concepts. Nice try though.
But thats not what happened. Goodell didnt sweep it under the rug, he fined the Pats for filming on the sidelines, not for filming signals.
Either way, thats not sweeping it under the rug.
Wheres the evidence? Also, wheres the deterrance?
Then a couple months later he not only kills the story about the Jets, but he actually lied on their behalf. The Jets never had the Pats permission.
Please elaborate on what your referring to.
DenverBrit
05-01-2008, 11:31 AM
Uh, what other team has such an arrangement headed by the CEO of a network? Its somewhat passable if circumstances dong give way to such scandal but here they have. And its in those situations where theres a problem. If Goodell is not in a position where he should render judgment against a particluar team, its less of an issue. But now he is in that situation and his independence has to be questioned. The Yankees used to be owned by CBS but there was never a scandal such as this and even if there were you can look at it as a matter of degree in that MLB still operates as a regional sport, whereas the NFL looked beyond that a long time ago. So the Yankess/CBS comparison isnt even valid. Goodell must be independent in both fact and appearance and he's not because of this arrangement. Caesars wife must be above suspicion.
What exactly is your basis that justifies taking away SB trophies? Slow service in the restaurant? So far you've described an unremarkable business deal between friends. It happens every day.
Now, if their relationship leads to more network censorship, then I'm on board.
Dendave
05-01-2008, 11:31 AM
Theres a massive difference. Again, an apple and an orange are not the same thing because theyre both fruit. There are such concepts as "intent", which exist. You should acquaint yourself with such novel concepts. Nice try though.
So there's degrees of cheating, only if you "intend" to cheat? Apples and oranges are both fruit, correct, some people like apples, some people like oranges. If I intend to eat an apple but only have oranges to chose from, what do I do? I could cheat and have apple juice instead, but is that really cheating because it is juice from an apple?
So there's degrees of cheating, only if you "intend" to cheat? Apples and oranges are both fruit, correct, some people like apples, some people like oranges. If I intend to eat an apple but only have oranges to chose from, what do I do? I could cheat and have apple juice instead, but is that really cheating because it is juice from an apple?
You need help but you'll have to ask someone else for it.
What exactly is your basis that justifies taking away SB trophies? Slow service in the restaurant? So far you've described an unremarkable business deal between friends. It happens every day.
Now, if their relationship leads to more network censorship, then I'm on board.
The head of the network is involved financially with the Patriots. That network has influence over the league office. I thought I already explained this.
Dendave
05-01-2008, 11:34 AM
You need help but you'll have to ask someone else for it.
believe me, I don't need your help
belive me, I don't need your help
That works for me.
snowtrx
05-01-2008, 11:42 AM
Either way, what is the NFL trying to do with Spygate??? If they want to clean up the game, then give 100% in doing so. Fine the Jets the same way they fined the Pats. Investigate the RCA dome and their employees that have given reports of pumping up the crowed noise. Maybe no need to fine the Colts, but make damn sure their cheating doesnt continue in their new building. Shut down the avenue teams have to purchase QB audible tapes such as the Dolphins purchased in 06 and make it against the rules to spy on QB audibles. Definatly don't shrug your shoulders and say everyone does it, "thats the NFL for you", and then come out the very next regular season game by taking a stand against spying on each other!
snowtrx
05-01-2008, 11:47 AM
Wheres the evidence? Also, wheres the deterrance?
The evidence was destroyed, after it was exposed that the Pats where filming signals. If they wanted to sweep it under the rug, then they would of fined the Pats, for the same reason they did, but without exposing the scandel that the Pats where filming signals. The same way he handled the Jets situation would of been sweeping it under the rug. The deterrance is obviously exposing the scandle and the fines.
Kaylore
05-01-2008, 12:18 PM
So anyone that cheats should forfiet games? So anyone caught using "illegal performance inhancing drugs", which is cheating, should forfiet a game the person played in? So when Romo played for the Broncos, you want those wins and Super Bowls taken away?
Just asking
No, though Romo's steroid use didn't start until he played for Oakland.
You can't take the trophies away. I think it's enough that people look at them as cheaters now.
snowtrx
05-01-2008, 12:30 PM
Please elaborate on what your referring to.
http://www.nypost.com/seven/12132007/sports/jets/tape_that_pats__256096.htm
http://sports.espn.go.com/nfl/news/story?id=3156206
The NFL explains its legal if permission from the home team is given. NFL offices accepted and stood by the Jets statement that they recieved permission. Ignoring the fact that the Pats removed the camera man and the fact that the Pats denied ever giving permission. Hence, the NFL offices swept it under the rug.
DenverBrit
05-01-2008, 12:39 PM
The head of the network is involved financially with the Patriots. That network has influence over the league office. I thought I already explained this.
Unless the rest of the league, owners and other networks see some conflict, this is just stirring of a non-existent pot.
As for the head of a Network being involved with the Pats, that's just nonsense.
Kraft is a businessman doing business with someone he knows. If you think that it takes a business arrangement for owners and network execs to have an influence on each other, then you're being very naive.
These guys make more decisions that effect each other's finances over lunch than you can apparently imagine.
snowtrx
05-01-2008, 12:43 PM
Hey lex, what would you like to do about 2 of the SB trophys the Cowboys recieved in the 90's?
http://www.bostonherald.com/blogs/sports/patriots/?p=2202&srvc=home&position=recent
You taking those away also?
What about the history of the teams included here? Are the images of these teams tainted in your mind?
http://www.thesportgallery.com/sport-stories/1967aug-nflspy.html
snowtrx
05-01-2008, 01:13 PM
Information espionage is a part of the game. Always has, always will. Every team is on a level playing field when it comes to the issue of spying. The difference is simply some are better than others at the spying, http://sports.aol.com/fanhouse/2007/09/29/jimmy-johnson-howard-mudd-was-the-best-in-the-entire-league-at/ and that some are better than others at protecting their information, http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/2007/writers/don_banks/07/06/cheating.nfl/index.html The NFL endorses information espionage as part of the game, http://sports.espn.go.com/nfl/news/story?id=2696227, so why would they or the fans even think about taking trophies away?