NFL 2014

[Duchess]

BG, can you tell me where you saw Richard's interview? Was it on ESPN?

[Cutz]

I'd say there's 80% chance that Tommy Terrific engineered the deflated game balls and Belichick really did have no knowledge. But who cares about that right? Ban the coach first, then ban Tommy boy once the facts come out. Cause that's reasonable.

If it turns out that Belichick was responsible, sure suspend him. Entirely fair and justified. I'd even be comfortable making it immediate and affect the Superbowl... if that could be investigated that quickly. The other responses calling for him to be banned are simply persecuting the favored son. Maggot said it perfectly.

I think I'd even agree hypothetically with HOTD about replaying the game without cheating... if it weren't so ludicrous an idea. The Superbowl would never be delayed... it's practically a national holiday. They wouldn't postpone it for the second coming of Jesus Christ. Making the Patriots/Colts replay would give either team a week less preparation to play Seattle. TBH, right now this controversy is giving Seattle an edge in the SB.

[Midwest Spy]

And yet the NFL had zero problem crushing Adrian Peterson this year, a player who was without sin prior to this season.

Umm, I'm pretty sure Adrian Peterson wasn't "without sin" prior to this season. Anyway, sinfulness is irrelevant here, Christ Whisperer.

Alleged violation of off-field code of conduct (resulting in criminal charges) vs. alleged cheating during competition.

Apples to oranges, in my opinion.

Paying for an orgy is definately a "sin." If you have to pay for it, you're a "sinner."

Really BG, we're worried about hookers here?

Anyway, he bought the ladies for his homies.

I'd argue that trying to cheat and affect the outcome of a game should bring a harsher penalty than what Peterson did.

[Blindgreed1]

And yet the NFL had zero problem crushing Adrian Peterson this year, a player who was without sin prior to this season.

Umm, I'm pretty sure Adrian Peterson wasn't "without sin" prior to this season. Anyway, sinfulness is irrelevant here, Christ Whisperer.

Alleged violation of off-field code of conduct (resulting in criminal charges) vs. alleged cheating during competition.

Apples to oranges, in my opinion.

Paying for an orgy is definately a "sin." If you have to pay for it, you're a "sinner."

Really BG, we're worried about hookers here?

Anyway, he bought the ladies for his homies.

I'd argue that trying to cheat and affect the outcome of a game should bring a harsher penalty than what Peterson did.

You said "sin." I'm not a religious man, but as I understand it, that type of behavior is frowned upon by the christians. One guy cried and begged forgiveness for his "sins" on the TV about it once.

[HairOfTheDog]

I think I'd even agree hypothetically with HOTD about replaying the game without cheating... if it weren't so ludicrous an idea.

That was actually blueberryhill's suggestion, not mine. I was just summarizing what others had suggested in the thread. I didn't find those suggestions to be indicative of bloodthirstiness -- I found them rational options for consideration.

I don't think blueberry's replay idea was ludicrous in the least, but agree with you that due to logistics and finances, it's nearly impossible to imagine that the game will be replayed.

Anyway, I just read that the investigation isn't scheduled to be completed til after the Superbowl (probably by intent, in my opinion), so that takes some of the suggested options off the table. I don't think anything will happen before February. When the investigation is formally completed, whoever facilitated or ordered or knew about it should face appropriate penalties for cheating. If the coach didn't know and shouldn't have known, I wouldn't support action against him.

I don't think this controversy is giving Seattle an edge in the Superbowl. However, I do think it's giving Richard Sherman more ammunition to troll Tom Brady. I like Sherman, personally. And, there's no doubt that Brady's a fierce competitor --as such, the poking should only fire him up more, no matter what he did or didn't know about his balls being deflated during the championship game.

[HairOfTheDog]

You brought up sin, MS.

Last I checked, sex out of wedlock was a sin. So, fathering at least 5 children with different mothers out of wedlock might classify as a sin to many Christians. That's why I disputed your statement that Adrian Peterson was without sin until this season.

Anyway, you're arguing now that cheating should be penalized more harshly than child abuse. But, when the Peterson details and photos were released, I think you said he should never play again or something like that. Did you change your mind, or are you saying that anyone involved in deflating the Patriots' balls should never ever play again?

ETA: Sorry, MS. I checked my recollection. You said Peterson was an asshole and supported his suspension, and that most Minnesotans would never EVER accept him back. But, you also said that you think in time, if he does public service announcements against child abuse and such, that you would personally welcome him back. I stand corrected.

[Blindgreed1]

I think I'd even agree hypothetically with HOTD about replaying the game without cheating... if it weren't so ludicrous an idea.

That was actually blueberryhill's suggestion, not mine. I was just summarizing what others had suggested in the thread. I didn't find those suggestions to be indicative of bloodthirstiness -- I found them rational options for consideration.

I don't think blueberry's replay idea was ludicrous in the least, but agree with you that due to logistics and finances, it's nearly impossible to imagine that the game will be replayed.

Anyway, I just read that the investigation isn't scheduled to be completed til after the Superbowl (probably by intent, in my opinion), so that takes some of the suggested options off the table. I don't think anything will happen before February. When the investigation is formally completed, whoever facilitated or ordered or knew about it should face appropriate penalties for cheating. If the coach didn't know and shouldn't have known, I wouldn't support action against him.

I don't think this controversy is giving Seattle an edge in the Superbowl. However, I do think it's giving Richard Sherman more ammunition to troll Tom Brady. I like Sherman, personally. And, there's no doubt that Brady's a fierce competitor --as such, the poking should only fire him up more, no matter what he did or didn't know about his balls being deflated during the championship game.

They haven't even contacted Brady as of this morning. Don't want to upset the golden boy prior to the big game.

[Cutz]

I'm pretty sure MS's comment about Peterson being without sin was just an expression... for those who went on a two day rant about the word regardless and the bastardized versions of it. There's no need to harp on his semantics after that derailment.

[HairOfTheDog]

I'm pretty sure MS's comment about Peterson being without sin was just an expression... for those who went on a two day rant about the word regardless and the bastardized versions of it. There's no need to harp on his semantics after that derailment.

Thanks so much, Mr. Obvious. We were really confused about that figure of speech thing.

We do what we want here -- there's rarely a need to do anything.

It's not cheating, so you might not condone such mocking banter. You'll probably survive the derailment though.

[Midwest Spy]

I'm pretty sure MS's comment about Peterson being without sin was just an expression... for those who went on a two day rant about the word regardless and the bastardized versions of it. There's no need to harp on his semantics after that derailment.

Thank you Cutz.

I DID mean in the NFL's context as far as league violations, prior to this year, he was sin-free.

[HairOfTheDog]

Whew. So glad you two cleared that up for us.

So, MS, I just read that the big game is predicted to be a nail-biter. It's down to a 1.5 point spread in favor of Seattle.

Wanna bet? I like both teams and will take whichever team you don't.

[crash]

will take whichever team you don't.

Heh...pretty fucking safe bet that one.

[HairOfTheDog]

will take whichever team you don't.

Heh...pretty fucking safe bet that one.

You betchya.

[Cutz]

Thanks so much, Mr. Obvious. We were really confused about that figure of speech thing.

We do what we want here -- there's rarely a need to do anything.

It's not cheating, so you might not condone such mocking banter. You'll probably survive the derailment though.

I'm surprised you don't actually play in the NFL... considering how defensive you are.

[HairOfTheDog]

You should see my offensive game, Cutz.

Still, I'm not getting my hopes up that those ageist, sexist NFL heads are gonna open up the league to middle-aged female players anytime soon.

Bastards.

[Midwest Spy]

Whew. So glad you two cleared that up for us.

So, MS, I just read that the big game is predicted to be a nail-biter. It's down to a 1.5 point spread in favor of Seattle.

Wanna bet? I like both teams and will take whichever team you don't.

What's the wager, lassy?

[HairOfTheDog]

You can decide the wager, MS. Last time we bet, you couldn't come up with terms, so I did.

You won when the Thunder beat the Clippers, IIRC, and my posts were all 3 sentences or less (not including article snips) for a couple of days. Come up with something doable like that in a forum context and we're on.

Are you taking NE or Seattle?

[Midwest Spy]

You can decide the wager, MS. Last time we bet, you couldn't come up with terms, so I did.

You won when the Thunder beat the Clippers, IIRC, and my posts were all 3 sentences or less (not including article snips) for a couple of days. Come up with something doable like that in a forum context and we're on.

Are you taking NE or Seattle?

Seeing as I can't stand either team, I won't be betting with my heart, which should favor me.

I'm going with the Seahawks.

[username]

The non-dirty, bastard, lying, cheating team you mean?

I think the people that should be fined and slapped around is the NFL organization. It shouldn't be even remotely possible to play with under inflated balls. Stupid oversight.

In light of the fact that they clearly didn't have the appropriate procedures in place to check and secure the balls before play, THAT'S what needs to be acknowledged and fixed.

In the meantime, we'll see if anyone on the team (an equipment handler or someone) cracks.

[Cutz]

Well, the game balls are supposed to be available for check by a referee with a gauge 2 hours before gametime. So either the tampering happened between his checking and kickoff, or he didn't properly check. For what it's worth, when the difference was noted, it was fixed at halftime and remained correct through the second half. When they checked them at the end of the game, they were right.