I was replying to that...

In the courtroom when the concussion cases are being heard... No one will ever see evidence to anything but the NFL putting an end to systemic bounty programs...

Humiliation, public opinion, image, will play no part... Those are subjective terms and cant be used with out objections. For every subjective negative opinion someone else can give a subjective positive opinion. Damage to public opinion is not quantifiable.

The league will present evidence of ending systemic bounty programs.... which is what they set out to do.

I understand what you're saying, but you seem to be putting a great deal of emphasis on just the PR part of things. When I say that no one comes out of this believing in this moral face the NFL tried to put on, I'm not just talking about how people view their character.

The reason for all this crap was to make it look like they didn't know about this going on in the league for so long, and now they suddenly find out (supposedly) and they're pissed, and they won't stand for it. That's what they want the court to believe. But again, this whole saga has done nothing but expose their hypocrisy. Everyone can see that they were desperate and grasping for air.

Couple this with the the fact that Goodell had insisted a few years back that concussions were not linked to long term brain damage (I always knew they were linked, and I haven't spent a day in my life studying that crap) and the court will see that this guy has a pattern of lying, or ignoring the truth and then going on some campaign to try to cover his a**. Public perception is very bad for him, but I am well aware that it has no bearing on legal matters, which is why my point is about how the COURT will perceive him. I don't think he had a prayer of winning that case anyway, which is why he went crazy with this bounty crap, but now his odds are even lower.

The court is not going to fall for this idea of "well they stopped bounties". That has nothing to do with retired players. They will see this as a disingenuous tact to appear that they were/are concerned about player safety. You say the NFL's objective was to end systematic bounties, but I think we both know that's just a side effect. It was nothing but a facade. But by singling out one team, and having been proven to be loose with the facts to get said team, they did not accomplish a thing. They never proved that they stopped anything, by not proving it really existed in the Saints organization. All we have is hearsay, and that most assuredly will not fly in the court of law. That much has proven true, already.

PR means nothing to me, its all about showing evidence that a major step has been taken to eradicate bounty programs in court.

You have misunderstood all of my postings on this topic... The NFLs driver for all of this was to have evidence to present in court... Bounty's ending is just a side effect.

What i said was that the NFL will frame this in court as an effort to "end systemic bounty's".

When it comes to court rooms and this topic, all the NFL has to exhibit is a modicum of responsibility. Going above and beyond is not required. "Reasonable effort" is what helps.

Does this clear them of any culpability? Most certainly not... It does show a reasonable effort which MAY get them a reduced pay out.