NFL - Are You Ready For Some Football?!! - Post SuperBowl

[Imran Siddiqui]

Originally posted by Koyaanisqatsi
Actually, you didn't ask, I suggested you go look yourself before you asked. :biggrin:

Sorry, you be wrong:

if you want a cite on that, just go to a Pats message board.

And have it be an ethical act toward the person being punished? No...the very nature of 'being an example' precludes that because it implies that the example got a harsher punishment than they would have otherwise.

So, as a mode of detering others why is non ethical? If it works, it seems to be a very good idea.

Yes, though obviously the volume was cranked down a bit. Oh yeah, and don't just look for articles solely on the subject, either. Remember we're talking mindshare here. Include articles with snide little comments, what-if hypotheses, a general assumption of guilt greater than we have evidence for, etc.

Oh noes... throw away lines in articles indicate how the Patriots have been singled out! Because no one has made reference to other scandels when referring to other players or teams... like, say, Ray Lewis or anything (imagine what the throw away lines will be if Vick ever gets to play again).

Like, I said, oversensitive fanbase.

I suspect Brady doesn't know, since that would just seem to be a bad way to do business. Either way though, why Brady? Why not the people who broke down the tapes? Brady was mentioned because he's the guy half the country wants to see knocked down a few pegs.

I'd imagine that there may be some proof that Brady would be going over the tapes as well. There may be some statements indicating that he was breaking down defenses based on these tapes and they want to hear more about them.

The six tapes were the ones we already knew about that were destroyed...not new or 'more'. Jesus, if you're going to argue at least get some basic facts straight.

Why don't you start by having your story straight. Talking about six "recent tapes" and then turning around and saying, no they aren't new.

Why not? If that's what's going on, what's wrong with it? Somehow just because the Pats have been fortunate they should sit there and take it when their name is dragged through the mud and not point out the glaring inconsistencies in standards?

At least the Cowboy fans and Yankees fans had the decent to not whine like a stuck pig and claim everyone was against them and wanted them to lose. They didn't claim they were the victims and were being treated sooo unfairly.

Hell, the Yanks are still being treated the same way by, especially, NE fans. But then NE fans turn around and cry, cry, cry that people don't like them in the NFL. Classic case of can dish it, but can't take it.

I don't remember Derek Jeter ever being suspended for something, but still "Jeter the Cheater" gets thrown around for some reason.

[Arrian]

Jeter the cheater? Never heard that one. Is that some oddball Jeffrey Maier reference?

-Arrian

[Lord Avalon]

Jeter the tax cheater, at least according to state of NY.

[Arrian]

Ah, right, that. I thought it had a baseball context. Silly me.

-Arrian

[Will9]

As I expected, hardly anyone here could do anything but rub it in today

[Will9]

Originally posted by Will
As I expected, hardly anyone here could do anything but rub it in today

meant to say "couldn't do" instead of "could do"

[-Jrabbit]

Not really. It's mostly just Koy and Imran going at it over ancillary issues.

My pick on this game was dead wrong and I have no trouble admitting it.

Boston or New York -- tt was a Hobson's choice for me. I'm not a fan of either team personally, and both have fairly obnoxious fans to boot. A lifetime of "Manning QB Dynasty" talk is in all our futures, and that kind of sucks. Especially with the '72 Dolphins retaining their bragging rights. Dang!

[Will9]

By "here" I meant Indiana

[-Jrabbit]

'k...

[Koyaanisqatsi]

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui
Sorry, you be wrong:

if you want a cite on that, just go to a Pats message board.

Yeah, but that was volunteered. You requested other cites.

So, as a mode of detering others why is non ethical? If it works, it seems to be a very good idea.

Because it isn't fair to the target of the overreaction. Whether it works or not is irrelevant...you are punishing somebody in a manner disproportionate to their actual offense in order to have an effect on others who committed the same offense but are not punished at all.

Oh noes... throw away lines in articles indicate how the Patriots have been singled out! Because no one has made reference to other scandels when referring to other players or teams... like, say, Ray Lewis or anything (imagine what the throw away lines will be if Vick ever gets to play again).

Yeah, and what do you think creates that unbased reality I was talking about before. Stuff exactly like this...if you toss in a throwaway line then all the assumptions behind it are asserted with no discussion of the actual facts of the case. This is basic stuff, Imran. Just apply it to sports instead of politics.

I'd imagine that there may be some proof that Brady would be going over the tapes as well. There may be some statements indicating that he was breaking down defenses based on these tapes and they want to hear more about them.

Well, he's already denied all knowledge of them, so if that comes to be then that's another issue. Regardless, there's no reason to insert that idea now unless Specter is grandstanding.

Why don't you start by having your story straight. Talking about six "recent tapes" and then turning around and saying, no they aren't new.

Try to keep up:

- The Pats were caught with a tape in NY.
- They gave 6 tapes that were made recently (well, at the time) to the NFL.
- They were punished for those six tapes.

Therefore, those six tapes are no longer 'new' in the sense of some kind of additional offense we didn't know about.

I don't remember Derek Jeter ever being suspended for something, but still "Jeter the Cheater" gets thrown around for some reason.

Continuously, by the press and fans of nearly every other team in the league? Admittedly, I don't follow baseball much, but I hadn't heard it before...

[Imran Siddiqui]

Originally posted by Koyaanisqatsi
Because it isn't fair to the target of the overreaction. Whether it works or not is irrelevant...you are punishing somebody in a manner disproportionate to their actual offense in order to have an effect on others who committed the same offense but are not punished at all.

Or rather punish someone very severely who got caught to show others what will happen if they as well get caught for doing the same thing.

The Black Sox were banned from the game. Everyone knew that from then on, if you bet on baseball, you are done. It was effective.

Yeah, and what do you think creates that unbased reality I was talking about before. Stuff exactly like this...if you toss in a throwaway line then all the assumptions behind it are asserted with no discussion of the actual facts of the case. This is basic stuff, Imran. Just apply it to sports instead of politics.

Oh please .

Get the sand out of your vagina! A throwaway line can't mean that they are having a little fun or humor, noooo, its making an assertion with no discussion of the facts. C'mon!

Try to keep up:

- The Pats were caught with a tape in NY.
- They gave 6 tapes that were made recently (well, at the time) to the NFL.
- They were punished for those six tapes.

Therefore, those six tapes are no longer 'new' in the sense of some kind of additional offense we didn't know about.

So where are these rumors of new tapes, which you had said earlier? And if true, then don't you think that may merit additional investigation?

Furthermore, you know I follow football. So the fact that I'm not all familiar with all the spygate stuff and how many tapes seems to indicate to me that the media isn't exactly hammering the Pats unduly on this issue. They hit 'em for a month or so and seemed to move on.

Continuously, by the press and fans of nearly every other team in the league? Admittedly, I don't follow baseball much, but I hadn't heard it before...

Ask your Boston friends... and, of course, Belicheat actually did cheat on the game itself.

Its like Pats fans think they are the first team to get slammed all season long. Ask the Yankees fans... and they've been getting it for decades (especially for their payroll, interestingly enough, mostly from fans of a team that spends almost as much as them).

And, of course, we rightfully slam the Yanks fans who like to say its jealousy that makes the detractors act that way towards them.

[SlowwHand]

Brady and Moss, backing out of Pro Bowl. What babies.
I hate the Patriots.

[Koyaanisqatsi]

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui
Or rather punish someone very severely who got caught to show others what will happen if they as well get caught for doing the same thing.

The Black Sox were banned from the game. Everyone knew that from then on, if you bet on baseball, you are done. It was effective.

Effective is irrelevant when discussing fairness. If you're judging only on the punishment fitting the crime, this punishment was way overboard given the historical context of the league. However, as I already said, it can be justified on exactly the grounds you say...but a justified action is not an inherently ethical or fair one. Ethical and fair would be either punishing everybody in proportion to each of their violations or not punishing anybody. As is, it's the league just hanging one team out to dry.

Get the sand out of your vagina! A throwaway line can't mean that they are having a little fun or humor, noooo, its making an assertion with no discussion of the facts. C'mon!

One does not preclude the other.

So where are these rumors of new tapes, which you had said earlier? And if true, then don't you think that may merit additional investigation?

There are two 'new' (new in this context meaning six years old but dredged up two days before the superbowl) accusations, and I've already pointed out the source problems with both. (Well, one isn't even an accusation yet, just a presumption of guilt based on a guy who seems to want his 15 minutes but refuses to say anything of substance.) But the fact is that both 'new' claims have already been investigated by the league and shot down months ago. When they were brought up again, the league said as much. But the reporting and assumptions of guilt continued.

Furthermore, you know I follow football. So the fact that I'm not all familiar with all the spygate stuff and how many tapes seems to indicate to me that the media isn't exactly hammering the Pats unduly on this issue. They hit 'em for a month or so and seemed to move on.

Given how well as you've paid attention just in this discussion, I'm not going to draw a whole lot of conclusions based on your general state of awareness. I mean, the whole "Good vs. Evil" headline was more than a month after the week 1 game where this all started...that's not hammering the Pats unduly?

Its like Pats fans think they are the first team to get slammed all season long. Ask the Yankees fans... and they've been getting it for decades (especially for their payroll, interestingly enough, mostly from fans of a team that spends almost as much as them).

And, of course, we rightfully slam the Yanks fans who like to say its jealousy that makes the detractors act that way towards them.

So, to summarize: your argument of 'everybody else does it!' is valid when talking about tearing down years of the Pats accomplishments, but should not be considered in defending them against the allegations in question. I see.

[Koyaanisqatsi]

Originally posted by SlowwHand
Brady and Moss, backing out of Pro Bowl. What babies.
I hate the Patriots.

Pro bowl? Are they still playing that? For what possible reason?

[Imran Siddiqui]

Originally posted by Koyaanisqatsi
Effective is irrelevant when discussing fairness. If you're judging only on the punishment fitting the crime, this punishment was way overboard given the historical context of the league. However, as I already said, it can be justified on exactly the grounds you say...but a justified action is not an inherently ethical or fair one. Ethical and fair would be either punishing everybody in proportion to each of their violations or not punishing anybody. As is, it's the league just hanging one team out to dry.

That's ridiculous. A justified action can quite easily be an ethical or fair one. Don't try to impart your ideas of fairness on the rest of us.

Your view would mean that no one could increase penalties for things, like, say, if a new Commissioner came in, because people have done it before and they weren't punished in the same proportion.

There are two 'new' (new in this context meaning six years old but dredged up two days before the superbowl) accusations, and I've already pointed out the source problems with both. (Well, one isn't even an accusation yet, just a presumption of guilt based on a guy who seems to want his 15 minutes but refuses to say anything of substance.) But the fact is that both 'new' claims have already been investigated by the league and shot down months ago. When they were brought up again, the league said as much. But the reporting and assumptions of guilt continued.

You mean the Rams-Pats SB tapes? Everywhere I've heard people have been talking about about IF it was true, then X would happen.

Incredibly few people automatically believed them to be true. But I know, that doesn't fit the victim complex.

Given how well as you've paid attention just in this discussion, I'm not going to draw a whole lot of conclusions based on your general state of awareness. I mean, the whole "Good vs. Evil" headline was more than a month after the week 1 game where this all started...that's not hammering the Pats unduly?

The Pats coach is Bill Belichick. So I don't think referring to the Pats as "evil" is unduly hammering. Do you think calling the Yankees the "Evil Empire" is hammering them unduly? If so, you may want to inform the rest of New England... and then the rest of the freaking world!

So, to summarize: your argument of 'everybody else does it!' is valid when talking about tearing down years of the Pats accomplishments, but should not be considered in defending them against the allegations in question. I see.

Outside of Don Shula, a few journalists, and a handful of rabid fans, no one is tearing down anything. On the other hand, the vast majority saw the Pats violate a rule that the new Commish was cracking down tough on and they got slammed. For a while after, it was questioned what else they may have done. But that soon died down. Now some recent info has come out that may show that Belichick and co. lied to Goodell about the extent of the activities.

To certain Pats fans apparently that is "tearing down years of Pats accomplishments". This is why I call it a victim mentality and why we dislike you so.

And the Yankees are brought up to focus on New England hypocrisy.