Quote:
Originally Posted by Mr. Flopnuts
I've been pretty objective on this for the most part. I'd like your take on Shermans comments on this all being a conflict of interest. I agree with him wholeheartedly, and frankly my ax to grind is with Goodell far more than the Pats at this point. That's subject to change, but I'll need some hard evidence before I'm willing to convict anyone. What's your take on Goodell and the "mini commish's" relationship?
|
Goodell always has a conflict of interest, to some degree, when it comes with investigating or punishing a specific team.
The reality is that the NFL Commissioner (and the commissioner of the other sports leagues) is NOT any kind of independent person/agency. They are selected by the owners of their league, and serve at the behest of those owners. The NFL itself is a non-profit corporation, but it is in fact run by the 32 owners. Nor would the owners have it any other way.
And it's undoubtedly true that different owners have different degrees of influence with the Commissioner, based on their relationship with the Commissioner, and the power of the particular owner.
But yeah, NOBODY should think of the Commish as someone like a federal judge or an independent arbiter.
All that said, he hammered the Patriots pretty good with Spygate, when there is no doubt there were other teams doing the same thing (as BB mentioned), so if he is inclined to show favoritism to the Patriots, I haven't seen it. It's also worth noting that if this was a "sting" operation, then that REALLY isn't showing any favoritism to the Patriots.
The sting part is an embarrassment to the league. Not only does it not make sense to do it that way, they then **** it up to hell and gone. Makes me think it wasn't, it was such a cluster****...