Millions of football fans throughout the country are anxiously awaiting the decision on Tom Brady's four-game suspension. The real question at hand is, is four games too many? Some feel that it's not enough, particularly those outside of New England. Inside New England, almost everyone thinks it's too much, and most think he shouldn't be suspended at all. Of course, we all have our teams, and even Patriots fans would admit that New England outsiders are weary of the Patriots' 15-year dominance of the league with four Super Bowl wins and six total appearances — not too shabby. Jealousy must play a role in the opinions of Patriot-haters. Regardless of where you reside, four games is too many. Here's why: There's inconsistency given the precedents, the Well's report is inconclusive and the punishment doesn't fit the crime.
Roger Goodell is able to make sweeping decisions based on the power given to him by the Collective Bargaining Agreement (CBA) with the NFL Players Association (NFLPA). There is no precedent for his draconian Deflategate decisions, based on previous violations. In November 2014, the ball boys of the Minnesota Vikings and the Carolina Panthers used sideline heaters to warm footballs. This act, just like deflation, is illegal. But what happened to these two teams? They were told to stop. No fines. No loss of draft picks. No four-game suspension.
The Well's Report is controversial depending on your perspective. The report has a low burden of proof, only stating that more likely than not, Brady was generally aware of the situation. Moreover, the Patriots organization issued the Well's Report in context, which explains why the report is lacking, outright wrong, inaccurate, biased or all of these. In particular, the handling of the scientific evidence came from a third-party firm, Exponent. Exponent's work has been refuted by a Nobel laureate scientist. The Well's Report appears to be the NFL's attempt to find evidence to support their argument, while actually providing no smoking gun.
The most ridiculous part of this punishment is that it does not fit the crime. Players have been suspended fewer games for beating their wives or children, DUI, drug offenses, assault charges and even murder. By punishing Brady more than these felons, Goodell is creating a poor image of the National Football League. Whether or not Brady's suspension is overturned, Goodell needs to get his act together. Goodell realizes that he has made more than a handful of mistakes, which is why he is trying to compensate by being heavy-handed with Brady. Another theory is that he is trying to make it seem like his relationship with Patriots owner, Robert Kraft, isn't influencing his decision.
Goodell said he would be cracking down on player misconduct. There is currently an alleged rapist playing in the NFL, and an alleged murderer was honored for winning the Super Bowl two years ago. These players are supposed to be role models for the future generations of football players and are treated as though they are above the law. Though they were not found guilty in a court of law, if Goodell meant what he said about cracking down on player behavior, he would have taken more serious action. Brady never broke a law, nobody has even really proved that he's broken a rule.
Given the facts that there is an inconsistent application of precedent, an inconclusive report and a punishment that seems wildly inappropriate, four games is too many. No games seems appropriate from the New England perspective, but realistically, somewhere between two and the original four seems the most likely. Ultimately, whatever Goodell rules, Brady will disagree with it given it will tarnish his legacy. An appeal in a court of law is likely and in fact the NFLPA has already stated that if the suspension is two games or more, they will go to court.
