Now I Think Just a Little Less of Robert Kraft

     That's the wrong way to put it: it's not that I think less of him, but I would have thought even more of him if he had stuck to his guns here on Brady. 

      But we don't know what happened except that on Saturday he and Roger Goodell had a hug and now Kraft has decided to 'move on for the good of football.'

      So what would have happened if he hadn't? I'd love to see that counterfactual gamed out:

     "Patriots owner Robert Kraft announced Tuesday at the Spring League Meeting that the team will not appeal its punishment, which includes a $1 million fine and the loss of a first-round pick in 2016 and a fourth-round selection in 2017."

     "Although I might disagree with what is decided, I do have respect for the commissioner and believe that he's doing what he perceives to be in the best interest of the full 32," Kraft said during a six-minute address to reporters. "So in that spirit I don't want to continue the rhetoric that's gone on for the past four months. I'm going to accept, reluctantly, what he has given to us and not continue this dialogue and rhetoric and we won't appeal."

      http://www.nfl.com/news/story/0ap3000000493270/article/new-england-patriots-will-not-appeal-nfl-decision

     So though he was upset, on second thought he's 'remembered that Goodell is God' at least in the NFL. I find this rather disappointing. I was set to nominate Kraft the greatest owner ever-in any of the 4 major team sports. I still think he might deserve this but for me he would have been a shoo in had he gone forward with it. 

     This talk of the 'good of the 32' suggests the other owners were pushing him hard to get back on the reservation. I was curious to see what might happen if an owner finally got tired of always having to take it on the chin for the other 32. 

     I was waiting for him to go rogue-or better yet go Al Davis. Don't get me wrong, if Kraft had done so it would have been more admirable than Davis who was just fighting for the right to play in Los Angeles rather than Oakland-he ended up returning to Oakland anyway. 

     He would have been fighting for the good name of his QB and franchise. Now he's just going to be another to bite the bullet. 

     At the end of the day when you hear the lectures about the 'good of football' or the 'good of baseball'-this is normally the commissioner trying to remind the owners not to fight among themselves but remember their real enemy-the players. 

     In baseball, Steinbrenner would let himself be browbeaten into this good of baseball claptrap when what was good for the New York Yankees was very different than what was good for Bud Selig and his Milwaukee Brewers. Selig's genius was always his ability to sublimate own interests into the 'interests of the game'-and get many to believe it. 

    Some day maybe an owner will have the balls to challenge this good of the sport stuff, but that won't be today. 

    You hear now people saying that Kraft has made things a little easier for Goodell. Exactly, and that's why I think a little less of Kraft now than I would have otherwise. Just a little bit. 

    P.S. A big part of the commissioner's job is to basically be God for their sport-judge, jury, and executioner. Just like in Zizek or Richard Rorty, something is true to the extent that society accepts it as true.. The commissioner is God assuming that the players, coaches'managers, and owners act like he is. 

   Those moments when certain players and owners have bucked the trend are for me the most interesting. 

   P.S.S. Rorty as I understand him says this. If a man declares he is Napoleon is this true or is he crazy? Now one might just try to argue empirically-'we know Napoleon was born in the late 18th century so what would he be doing in the middle of Central Park', 'we know he was French and short' and our guy calling himself Napoleon here in no way matches the profile....'

   Rorty's answer is more simple: it's not empirical. He asks only one question: what does society think of this guy. Does society agree or disagree with him?.Recall years ago Bertrand Russell's deep anxiety that there must be a way to show that a man is not a poached egg other than the government doesn't agree with him. Russell thought David Hume's skepticism left us in a world like that.

   http://www.szasz.com/freeinquiry.html

   As I understand it, this is basically Rorty's position; for instance, he argues that in Orwell's 1984 Winston has nowhere to turn; there is no Truth that will somehow rescue him from O'Brien's 1984 society. If society is gong to decree that 2+2=5, there's nothing that you as a dissident individual can do about it. 

   P.S.S.S. I'm not necessarily saying that I'm in principle opposed to the existence and authority of the commissioner. I do tend to think that there really is in some way a 'best interest of football' or the 'best interest of baseball.' After all, if fans lose interest then that's definitely not in the interest of the game.That is one thing that definitely does link the interests of management and labor. So even if there is antagnoism in the relationship there are some major common interests as well.