I wasn't suggesting you were comparing the two. I wanted to make the comparison myself because I don't see that much is happening to the Patriots here. People are talking about witch hunt, but it was the Colts who brought this thing up. I think the NFL just pretended to do a real investigation so as not to be accused of negligence.

The rambling of the report and the dismissal of everything as being circumstantial, along with the empty "more probable than not" line seems like their way of pretending to be impartial while not really doing anything to the Patriots. I'm not a conspiracy theorist, but the relationship between Goodell and Kraft is known, and I have never been given a reason to NOT question Roger's credibility... Just my opinion though.

Either way, I agree that he will screw it all up. That much is a given.

Yeah, I think we're basically on the same page and it's just semantics, . I just lose interest when I see statements like this coming from the NFL's "Investigative Report Concerning Footballs Used During the AFC Championship Game on January 18, 2015": "Based on the evidence, it also is our view that it is more probable than not that Tom Brady was at least generally aware of the inappropriate activities of [two New England employees] involving the release of air from Patriots game balls,". http://sports.yahoo.com/news/tom-bra...223250553.html .

I mean, huh? "More than probable"? "Generally aware"? IDK, I'm "generally aware" of about 50% of the inappropriate activities in my vicinity, does that make me guilty of something? If you're gonna' do an investigation, do it right, don't speculate, come to a conclusion, not a theory, . It seems to be a pattern with the NFL. The one similarity I do see with Bountygate/Spygate is that the actions in question are pretty common around the league but one party got caught & will be singled out. Will Roger be consistent when applying penalties? Probably not, he hasn't up to this point, why start now?

It's all very disappointing, IMO. .

... Anyone who's actually **played** football knows it's a lot easier to hold onto an under-inflated ball ...

NFL rules stipulate a game ball must be inflated to 12 ½ to 13 ½ pounds per square inch.

"I asked our equipment guy to pump one football up to 13 pounds per square inch and another to 11 psi," Theismann told USA TODAY Sports. "I wanted to physically handle the footballs and see if I could tell a difference in them. And I couldn't.

"If you just pick a football up that is 13 psi and another that's 11 psi, no one would know the difference. Because you don't grip a football tight anyway to throw it."

"Dan Marino made a great point -- that the last thing you're thinking about as a quarterback when you get to the line of scrimmage is, 'I wonder if this football is 1 to 2 psi lighter?'" Theismann said.

Hall-of-Fame quarterback Steve Young, who played most of his career with the San Francisco 49ers, didn't see the edge, either.

"I would say throwing a deflated football is of no advantage. Personally, I wouldn't want to throw a deflated football," said Young, now an analyst for ESPN. "But there's no advantage for me. If you look at a quarterback's performance, I struggle to see how underinflated footballs are changing the way you play."

I just lose interest when I see statements like this coming from the NFL's "Investigative Report Concerning Footballs Used During the AFC Championship Game on January 18, 2015": "Based on the evidence, it also is our view that it is more probable than not that Tom Brady was at least generally aware of the inappropriate activities of [two New England employees] involving the release of air from Patriots game balls,". http://sports.yahoo.com/news/tom-bra...223250553.html .

I mean, huh? "More than probable"? "Generally aware"?