actually Joe, it's likely a high percentage of those convinced The Pats and/or Brady did something against the rules formed that opinion based on one of two reasons:
they already hated Brady/The Pats and wished it were so (when a youngster, I would have wished evil like that be true if it was, say, the Yankees accused. But certainly not as a mature being). They need to grow up, if only so one can enjoy having enjoyable sports debates with them.
or
what you imply...they formed an immediate opinion when Mortenson's inaccurate report was released and never felt the need to know more.
If only the NFL had swiftly denied what Mortenson said they had discovered (11 of 12 balls were 2 full lbs below lower legal limit!) which turned out to be incredibly damaging and off the charts false. Makes me wonder if it was purposely planted and Mortenson was played by the league.
In the long run, what may end up having a far bigger impact on the NFL than if Brady is ever punished or not (and why I thought they would settle with TB) is the ripple effect this may have on how the CBA is interpreted in the future...not so much the black on white printed words (yes, black on white is the correct expression) that seem to allow the Commish crazy power, but whether or not even granting him said power allows him to abandon "normal" convention leading to potential abuses, as we have seen with his mockery of Brady's appeal process.
That seems to be what the judge decided, helped along by the inability of the now admitted non-independent Wells Investigation to prove a crime at all, never mind Brady's role. Innocence is not what was decided today, but lack of proving a crime even occurred played a huge role in Berman's decision.
frankj1 wrote:
