Hurley: Peter King Propels DeflateGate Controversy Into Looney Tunes Land
BOSTON (CBS) -- The release of the Wells report came last Wednesday, and in the days that have followed, a number of folks have not presented themselves as being very sane. Some have called for Tom Brady to be suspended for the entire season. Some want the same punishment issued to Bill Belichick -- or even worse. Others have made calls for slightly less harsh but equally absurd levels of punishment.
These people, in general, have not read the full Wells report. And if they have, they digested it as fact -- which is strange, considering that even somebody who wants to see clear guilt has trouble finding it in that very flawed and highly suspicious report.
The result has been an entire nation screaming about cheating. It's a very fun time, in the sense that it is very terrible.
But on Monday, longtime NFL columnist Peter King wrote what I believe to be the perfect picture of just how stupid the entire "DeflateGate" situation has become.
(Important note: King has accomplished a lot in the world of football writing, more than what 99 percent of sports writers will ever do in their careers. Because of/despite that, he gets mocked quite a bit on the Internet. That's part of the gig these days, but PK seems to get hit with some of the Internet's angrier residents. I just want to distinguish that the following doesn't dismiss all of King's past, nor would I want it to pile on. It's merely an assessment of what was written today on a topic of national interest.)
King decided to lay out the pros and cons for potentially suspending Brady, something King calls "the toughest decision of Roger Goodell's nine years in office."
King, assuming his pal Rog could use the help, spent 492 words explaining why Goodell shouldn't drop a hammer on Brady and the Patriots. Later in the story, he wrote 547 words to detail the chain of events that took place with the footballs before the AFC Championship Game, in which he placed blame on referee Walt Anderson for not doing a very good job after being forewarned about potential funny business.
But to show his impartiality, King also laid out why Goodell should issue a serious punishment to Goodell.
He used 151 words to do so.
The argument against a punishment was thorough and clear.
Here's one of King's explanations:
"There have been two recent violations regarding fair play with footballs. One happened last November, when TV cameras at the Minnesota-Carolina game in frigid Minneapolis caught footballs being warmed up by sideline heaters. That's a rules violation, but the teams were simply warned not to do it again. In 2012, the Chargers were found to be using towels with stickum on the sidelines, presumably for players to be able to grip the footballs better. The team was fined $25,000. Is the presumption that Brady was using footballs about 1 pound per square inch under the minimum limit worth a multigame suspension compared to the other two violations? The other two violations were proven. This one is 'more probable than not,' according to the Wells report."
Good question, Pete.
Here's another of King's reasoning for why Goodell should not issue a severe punishment (I added the emphasis):
"Officials used two gauges at halftime of the AFC Championship Game to measure the air pressure in 11 New England footballs and four Indianapolis footballs. On page 113 of the Wells report, after a description of the scientific Ideal Gas Law (eyes glaze over), Wells says the Patriots footballs should have measured between 11.32 psi and 11.52 psi. The average of one gauge for the 11 balls was 11.49 psi, on the upper range of what the balls should measure. The average of the other gauge was 11.11 psi, clearly lower than what the balls should have measured. Average all 22 readings, and you get 11.30 … two-one-hundredths lower what the Ideal Gas Law would have allowed for balls that started the day at 12.5 psi. You're going to suspend someone—never mind a franchise quarterback, never mind without a smoking gun—for an air-pressure measurement of 11.30 when the allowable measurement would have been 11.32?"
Another good question.
This is all some smart analysis, something that has been sorely lacking in the national media on the topic. Good for you, Mr. King, for taking a minute to use your brain.
But then, other side of the coin ... this.
"Brady should have handed over his phone, with a Brady/Patriots lawyer on hand to figure which texts/emails/calls are applicable to this case. As Mike Florio of Pro Football Talk reported Sunday, high-level staffers in the NFL office—and presumably Goodell—handed over cell phones to be forensically examined during the Robert Mueller investigation into whether anyone in the league office saw the Ray Rice domestic violence video before it aired on TMZ."
Yes, Goodell and NFL execs handed over phones -- their company phones, not their personal phones. That's a significant distinction.
And then, this:
"I feel strongly that a suspension for Brady is coming this week, because of the time and energy and 'more probable than not' evidence in the Wells report. I keep coming back to the fact that there's just too much gray area here, and too much doubt. I'd slap the Patriots with something, but not a potential season-altering suspension for the franchise quarterback.
My call: I'd give Brady one game, two tops, for failing to turn over his cell phone and the evidence within. This is too important to rely on half-truths and maybes. Goodell, who I believe will come down harshly, can't listen to the noise. He has to listen to the truth, and the proof."
I've never made any demands to anyone who has ever been nice enough to read my stories, but today I'm making an exception. Go ahead and read that again:
"I feel strongly that a suspension for Brady is coming this week, because of the time and energy and 'more probable than not' evidence in the Wells report. I keep coming back to the fact that there's just too much gray area here, and too much doubt. I'd slap the Patriots with something, but not a potential season-altering suspension for the franchise quarterback.
My call: I'd give Brady one game, two tops, for failing to turn over his cell phone and the evidence within. This is too important to rely on half-truths and maybes (!!!!!!!!!). Goodell, who I believe will come down harshly, can't listen to the noise. He has to listen to the truth, and the proof."
Whoa, boy.
In what world are punishments handed out solely because the NFL spent a lot of time and energy on commissioning a report -- a report which, you'll note, concluded nothing beyond maybes and half-truths. And it is those maybes and half-truths that Goodell must ignore so that he can listen to "the truth and the proof" that ... just one paragraph earlier did not exist.
Essentially, Tom Brady should be suspended for one or two NFL games because ... he needs to rely on the proof ... even though there is no proof ... he must rely on it anyway ... because ... well ... because ... umm ... because ...
Because this entire situation is so far beyond ridiculous, that we can't make sense even when we try really, really hard. Up is down, left is right, time goes backwards.
We're through the looking glass, folks. And there's no way to ever get back.
Read more from Michael Hurley by clicking here. You can email him or find him on Twitter @michaelFhurley.
Zolak & Bertrand discussed Peter King's article on Monday's show:
