- Joined
- May 14, 2002
- Posts
- 87,700
- Reaction score
- 39,014
You're probably right, I should have used 'could' instead of 'would' I'll have to read the ESPN piece soon, but for some reason I just don't trust ESPN as a whole in regards to the NFL. Maybe i'm being irrational, but I don't feel like they're very credible. I'll give it a read though.
We'll never know the truth but it comes off as if Goodell and the NFL had so much evidence against the Pats he got stuck in a tough situation. They won Superbowls cheating, nobody has ever gone back and vacated a Super Bowl etc, how do you effectively punish a team that was cheating that much? The answer is you can't, so he apparently chose to punish them in a way that looked severe based on what we were told they did, and not ever reveal what they actually did.
I don't think it was just because he's friends with Kraft, I think it was because he realized the NFL was going to have a HUGE black eye if it came out the Pats had been cheating that much for that long, and the NFL took that long to catch them. It basically comes off as if Eric Mangini of the Jets hadn't done something, the NFL would have just kept warning the Pats and never thrown the book at them. After Mangini exposed it, and the NFL realized just how widespread their cheating had been, in effect Goodell helped cover it up so he didn't have to explain away multiple SB titles aided by systemic cheating.