{"id":6490,"date":"2019-07-11T06:30:37","date_gmt":"2019-07-11T11:30:37","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/thesportjournal.org\/?p=6490"},"modified":"2019-07-11T08:17:48","modified_gmt":"2019-07-11T13:17:48","slug":"deflategate-the-patriots-use-of-image-repair","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/thesportjournal.org\/article\/deflategate-the-patriots-use-of-image-repair\/","title":{"rendered":"Deflategate: The Patriots\u2019 Use of Image Repair"},"content":{"rendered":"\n

Authors:<\/strong> Greg G. Armfield, John McGuire, William Hoffman, Yejin Shin, Nickolas Eckhart, Bridget Acquah-Baidoo, and Josele Diaz<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Corresponding Author:<\/strong> <\/em>
John McGuire, PhD
310 Paul Miller, Oklahoma State University
Stillwater, OK 74075
john.mcguire@okstate.edu
405-744-8279<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Greg G. Armfield<\/strong> (PhD, University of Missouri-Columbia) is an Associate Professor and basic course director in the Department of Communication Studies at New Mexico State University. John McGuire<\/strong> (PhD, University of Missouri-Columbia) is a Professor in the School of Media and Strategic Communications at Oklahoma State University. William Hoffman, Yejin Shin, Nickolas Eckhart, Bridget Acquah-Baidoo, and Josele Diaz <\/strong>are graduate students at New Mexico State University. <\/p>\n\n\n\n

Deflategate: The Patriots\u2019 Use of Image Repair <\/h2>\n\n\n\n

ABSTRACT<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n

This study examined the image repair strategies of key\npublic figures involved in the National Football League\u2019s (NFL) Deflategate\nscandal involving the New England Patriots leading up to Super Bowl XLIX, the\nsport\u2019s most prestigious event. Researchers examined separate image repair\nefforts from the New England Patriots owner and head coach for the two weeks\nleading up to Super Bowl XLIX, which the New England Patriots won. Results show\nthe New England Patriots favored denial tactics including simple and shifting\nblame, along with reducing offensiveness tactics of bolstering and\ntranscendence. Findings and future extensions of Image Repair Theory are discussed.<\/p>\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n

Keywords:<\/strong> Image repair, Deflategate, NFL, athletes, Super Bowl XLIX<\/p>\n\n\n\n

INTRODUCTION<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n

There is no greater American sports spectacle than the\nNational Football League\u2019s (NFL) championship game, the Super Bowl. Seen by\nhundreds of millions of fans around the world each February, some view the day\nas an unofficial American holiday. Teams that reach the Super Bowl are showered\nwith constant attention by the media for the two weeks leading up to the\ngame.  <\/p>\n\n\n\n

Few teams during the 2000s have received more attention\nthan the New England Patriots. The franchise has won six Super Bowls since 2001\nwith Head Coach Bill Belichick and quarterback Tom Brady. However, the lead up\nto Super Bowl XLIX was unlike any other because of what happened in the\nAmerican Football Conference\u2019s (AFC) title game between the New England Patriots\nand Indianapolis Colts. After New England routed Indianapolis 45-7, word spread\nthat the NFL had confiscated many of the footballs that had been used in the\ngame. The NFL later confirmed initial reports that many of the footballs used\nwere underinflated or under the standard air pressure required by NFL league\nrule 2-1. The Patriots\u2019 franchise, which had been involved in controversy\nbefore during the so-called Spygate episode, was now faced with a new scandal at\na time when media scrutiny would be at its highest level. This paper, utilizing\nBenoit\u2019s image repair theory (IRT) (4,7), examines how Belichick and New\nEngland owner Robert Kraft responded to allegations that the Patriots\norganization, or at least one organizational member, had tampered with the ball\npressure; after NFL league officials had verified improper air inflation of the\nfootballs used. <\/p>\n\n\n\n

The Deflategate scandal offered a unique empirical\nresearch opportunity to examine major sports organizations in crisis. Sports\nscholars have long identified crisis communication in sports \u201cas a legitimate\narea of inquiry\u201d although the focus has been primarily on individual athletes\nand events (50). Most image repair research have dealt with corporations, such\nas Union Carbide\u2019s response to the Bhopal disaster in 1984 (4), Firestone tire\nfailure in 1992 (14), or British Petroleum\u2019s 2010 Gulf Coast oil spill (35). Research\non sporting organizations is relatively new and is limited to studies of sports\nleagues (37; 43, 42) or university athletic departments (23, 30).<\/p>\n\n\n\n

The Patriots\u2019 franchise represents big business for its\nowner and investors, with a valuation of $3.7 billion in 2017 and annual\nrevenue of $575 million (2). But unlike other corporations where businesses are\njudged by profit sheets and dividends, the Patriots are judged each day in\nnewspapers and on cable sports television shows by wins and losses. This study will\nexpand our understanding of how coaches like Belichick become the face of such\norganizations in these crises and how they deploy image repair strategies. First,\nwe provide a brief historical context to Deflategate. Second, we discuss the\nstandards of image repair (56) and Benoit\u2019s (4,7) typology of image\nrestoration\/repair and provide an overview of the image repair scholarship\nrespective to athletes and sporting organizations. <\/p>\n\n\n\n

Historical\nContext<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n

While New England has had more on-field success in the\n21st century than any other NFL team, that record of excellence has been\ntarnished by two major controversies. In 2007, the NFL penalized the\norganization for videotaping defensive signals of New York Jets coaches during\nan early season game. Belichick was fined $500,000 and the team was fined\n$250,000 and forfeited a first-round draft pick (3). The history of this\nincident may have had a role in influencing public and league reaction to word\nthat there may have been something wrong with the footballs used in the AFC championship\ngame more than seven years later.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

On Monday January 19, 2015, after New England had\ncrushed Indianapolis 45-to-7 to advance to the Super Bowl, multiple media\noutlets were breaking stories that the Patriots were being investigated for\nusing underinflated balls. Tom Brady, making an early morning appearance by\nphone on a Boston sports radio show, laughed off the accusations (21). Later that\nday, Belichick acknowledged the NFL was looking into the footballs provided by\nthe Patriots. <\/p>\n\n\n\n

Multiple media outlets (e.g., ESPN, CNN) reported 11 of\n12 game balls provided by the Patriots were as much as two pounds underinflated\n(33). NFL rules stated specific guidelines of inflation (12.5 to 13.5 psi) and\nmeasureable guidelines for short and long ball circumferences (44). Because the\nweather was cold and wet for the AFC title game, it was suspected that the\nballs were under-inflated as to give the Patriot quarterback a better grip on\nthe football. <\/p>\n\n\n\n

As the investigation continued, both Belichick and\nBrady held news conferences on Thursday January 22, 2015. Belichick addressed\nthe media with a prepared statement, Brady took questions from reporters. After\ntheir news conferences, several analysts began publically questioning the\nhonesty of both men. Retired players Mark Brunell and Jerome Bettis most\nnotably challenged Brady\u2019s veracity (31). Belichick talked again with reporters\nbefore the team headed to the Phoenix area to begin final preparations for the\nSuper Bowl. During the initial media sessions at the Super Bowl site, both\nBelichick and Brady began to beg off answering questions about Deflategate,\nsaying their concentration had to be on the game. There was also an unusual\ninterview session conducted by Patriots\u2019 principal owner Robert Kraft, who\ndefended his organization. The refusal of the Patriot players to discuss\nDeflategate led to the assembled media to focus instead on the upcoming\nmatch-up with the Seahawks.  <\/p>\n\n\n\n

The saga of Deflategate dragged into 2015, months after New England\u2019s fourth Super Bowl title. The league\u2019s investigation into the matter took more than three months. Although that investigation absolved the Patriots\u2019 organization executives of any wrongdoing, Commissioner Roger Goodell fined the organization $1 million in May 2015 and stripped the team of two future draft choices for the actions of two team employees suspected of direct involvement in the matter. Both employees were fired by the Patriots and the league suspended Brady for four games, citing a lack of cooperation in the league investigation. The league could offer no direct proof of Brady\u2019s involvement in deflating the footballs (36). After an appeal to the league failed, Brady went to federal court to overturn of his suspension. <\/p>\n\n\n\n

In September 2015, days before the start of the 2015-2016\nseason, Judge Richard Berman ruled in Brady\u2019s favor and ordered the suspension\nvacated, finding that the league had failed to follow its own guidelines about\npenalizing players and did not make evidence and witnesses available to Brady\u2019s\nside during the controversy. Brady and the NFL Players Association welcomed the\nruling while the NFL said it would appeal the decision (27). As the 2015-2016\nseason began with Brady playing for the Patriots, the NFL league office was preparing\nan appeal. Long after the end of the 2015-2016 season and Super Bowl 50 on\nApril 25, 2016 the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit in New\nYork, overturned the decision reinstating Brady\u2019s four game suspension (20). Close\nto 500 days after Deflategate started, Brady filed a second appeal for a second\nhearing by the Second Circuit of the U.S. Court of Appeals, which was denied on\nJuly 13, 2016, effectively reinstating Brady\u2019s initial four game suspension (20).\nFive hundred and forty-four days after Deflategate began, Brady announced on\nJuly 15, 2016 he would not appeal to the U.S. Supreme Court (20). Brady served\nhis suspension missing the first four games of the 2016 NFL season. The\nPatriots went 3 and 1, despite playing two different quarterbacks while Brady\nserved his suspension. Brady returned from his suspension, leading the Patriots\nto a 34-28 win over the Atlanta Falcons in Super Bowl LI. With Deflategate\nstill on the consciousness of NFL fans, Kraft accepted the Lombardi Trophy from\nRoger Goodell, stating this Super Bowl win was unequivocally the sweetest (34).\n  <\/p>\n\n\n\n

Use of Image\nRepair <\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n

Current approaches in communicative apologia provide\nmany useful approaches for understanding choices individuals and organizations\nmake when performing verbal self-defense. Burke (18), Fisher (22), Huxman and\nBruce (24), Ryan (45), Scott and Lyman (48), and Ware and Linkugel (56) have\nestablished a variety of verbal self-defense strategies, but each of these\ntheories offers options overlooked by the others. Several authors have adapted\nWare and Linkugel’s (56) work to organizational crisis communication (e.g., 9, 11,\n16, 47, 49). In fact, Benoit (4,7) offers the most comprehensive and widely\napplied typology that extends the work of Ware and Linkugel. While Benoit’s\ntypology is fitting for both individuals and organizations, his development of\nimage repair strategies is most relevant to our present analysis that the New\nEngland Patriots engaged in Image Repair with the goal to rehabilitate its\nreputation within the NFL and among the fans of the NFL.  <\/p>\n\n\n\n

Benoit Theory\nof Image Repair <\/em><\/p>\n\n\n\n

The primary purpose of the rhetor is to restore or\nprotect the rhetor (Benoit, 4, 7). Benoit\u2019s IRT has been applied widely to analyze\nimage repair attempts of organizations (9, 16, 17), celebrities (5, 8, 10), governmental\ndiscourse (58), political discourse (12, 28), and athletes (15, 57).<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Benoit (4, 7) developed his theory of image repair\nbased on the assumption that such utterances are goal-oriented, seeking\nrehabilitation of the communicator\u2019s image or reputation. Researchers use the\ntheory to: (a) establish the communicator\u2019s goals, (b) identify methods of\nimage repair, and (c) evaluate how effective the communicator was in the effort\n(4, 7). Five major strategies are associated with Benoit\u2019s IRT, including: (a)\ndenial, (b) evading responsibility, (c) reducing offensiveness, (d) corrective\naction, and (e) mortification (4; 7). First, Denial <\/em>is described as a communicator\u2019s rejection of the claims\nbeing made. Second, Evading\nResponsibility<\/em> is the communicator offering alternative explanations as to\nwhy something has happened. Examples of this include: (a) provocation, (b)\ndefeasibility, (c) accident, or (d) good intentions. Third, Reducing Offensiveness <\/em>suggests the\ncommunicator accepts some measure of responsibility, but offers reasons that\nwould lessen the impact on their reputation. Examples of this strategy include:\n(a) bolstering the image of the communicator to lessen the impact of the\nharmful action; (b) minimization of the incident; (c) differentiation to\ncontrast the specific act with even more serious transgressions; (d)\ntranscendence, in which the specific act is placed in a separate light; (e)\nattacking the accuser; and (f) offering some form of compensation for the\nperceived harm caused by the communicator\u2019s actions. Fourth, Corrective Action <\/em>can be described as\nthe communicator promising steps that will correct the problem. Fifth, Mortification <\/em>is where the communicator\nexpresses disappointment in his or her own actions or thoughts and seeks\nforgiveness (4, 7). <\/p>\n\n\n\n

Development of image repair research has resulted in\nthe development of the following areas. Sanderson (46) identified self-presentation\nstrategy used by Curt Schilling on his blog 38pitches.com. Value-differentiation\nhas also been used as an organizational rhetorical device as an attempt to\nrestore organizational value violated by a crisis (26). A final tactic, stonewalling,\nis argued to involve withholding information, differentiated from silence and\npassiveness, without denial by managing the information released to internal\nand external publics (52). In essence, the public figure who practices\nstonewalling can control the communication environment and stalls any\nadditional questioning by external publics. <\/p>\n\n\n\n

Image Repair\nin the Sports Domain<\/em><\/p>\n\n\n\n

Benoit\u2019s typology has been gaining in greater\napplication to sports organizations and athletes. One of the earliest\nexaminations of an athlete\u2019s image repair efforts was Benoit and Hanczor\u2019s (10)\nexamination of Tonya Harding\u2019s appearance on 60 Minutes<\/em>, defending herself after the attack on fellow figure\nskater Nancy Kerrigan at the United States figure skating championships earlier\nthat year. The researchers found Harding engaged in several image repair\ntactics, including: (a) denial, (b) attacking one\u2019s accusers, and (c)\nbolstering her own image. The researchers found Harding chose not to utilize\nmortification to any significant extent. Benoit and Hanczor (10) evaluated Harding\u2019s\nimage repair efforts as ineffective because of the lack of mortification or\ncorrective actions expressed. Benoit\u2019s theory has been used to analyze image\nrepair situations for other athletes such as Tiger Woods (6), Lance Armstrong (7)\nand Mark McGwire (32). <\/p>\n\n\n\n

Image repair for non-team sport athletes functions\nslightly differently than when organizations of sporting teams are accused,\neven if the accusations end up focusing on one specific team player, like that\nof the media spotlight on Brady. Kruse (29) argued, \u201cin defending their\ncharacters, sport figures use the same strategies other apologists employ. However,\nit is incumbent upon those who have violated the sport ethic to assure the fans\nthat equilibrium has been restored, and a stable relationship exists between\nthe team and the fates\u201d (p. 283). <\/p>\n\n\n\n

Fortunato (23) analyzed Duke University\u2019s lacrosse scandal\nwhere three players were alleged to have sexually assaulted a female dancer\nhired for a party that several team members attended. He argued the university\nemployed mortification, bolstering (of the university), and corrective action.\nSimilar findings were found by Len-R\u00edos\u2019\n(30) content analysis of university statements published in newspapers.  <\/p>\n\n\n\n

Benoit (7) examined the \u201cBountygate\u201d scandal that\nengulfed the NFL\u2019s New Orleans Saints in 2012, when members of the Saints\u2019\ncoaching staff offered cash incentives for knocking opposing players out of the\ngame. Benoit\u2019s examination of the organization\u2019s image repair effort found that\nCoach Sean Payton and General Manager Mickey Loomis expressed mortification at\nthe behavior that had taken place, promised corrective action by no longer\nallowing such bounties on opposing players, and denial, expressing that owner\nTom Benson was in no way involved in offering cash incentives. Benoit\u2019s\nevaluation was that these image repair efforts went lacking, particularly\nbecause of the offense involved. It could also be noted that the owner of the\nNew Orleans Saints (Tom Benson) never directly participated in the image repair\neffort (7).  <\/p>\n\n\n\n

While existing IRT literature has typically focused on\nthe individual, organizations in team sports are more and more becoming\nembroiled in controversies such as fair play, both on and off the field. The\ncase of the New Orleans Saints demonstrated that individuals other than the\nowner at the top of the organization chart (including the head coach) become\nthe spokespersons at times of organizational crises. The current study of the\nNew England Patriots handling of Deflategate will add to that body of\nresearch.    <\/p>\n\n\n\n

Research\nQuestions<\/em><\/p>\n\n\n\n

The discussion above demonstrates that IRT is an important area of research and details all levels of the New England Patriots\u2019 organization trying to address the Deflategate controversy in their own ways. Benoit\u2019s IRT is an appropriate method for identifying the strategies of Head Coach Belichick and Team Owner Kraft (the main figures in the Patriots organization responding to the controversy). Therefore, we posit the following research questions: <\/p>\n\n\n\n

RQ1:   What image repair strategies were employed by New England Patriots head coach Bill Belichick leading up to Super Bowl XLIX? <\/p>\n\n\n\n

RQ2:    What image repair strategies were employed by New England Patriots owner Robert Kraft leading up to Super Bowl XLIX?<\/p>\n\n\n\n

RQ3:   How effective was the New England Patriots communication strategies in the short-term?<\/p>\n\n\n\n

METHODS<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n

To answer the first two research questions, a\nmulti-step approach for rhetorical analysis was used focusing on the typology\nof image repair (7). The first step involved gathering and understanding all\nrelevant background information and the context in which the statements were\nmade. The second step involved choosing an artifact for analysis. Full\ntranscripts of all the New England Patriots press conferences were available\nfrom the team website. Only statements and answers that were relevant to\nDeflategate were analyzed. Questions about what players ate for breakfast or\ngame plans for Super Bowl XLIX against the Seattle Seahawks were discarded.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Benoit (4, 7) explained text(s) should be divided into\ndefensive utterances using the typology of image repair strategies. The critic\nthen categorizes defensive utterances and evaluates them in terms of\nappropriateness in countering the attack or reducing the guilt. Critics should\nconsider the appropriateness given the apparent audience, its perceptions, and\nlikely reactions. <\/p>\n\n\n\n

To answer research question three, secondary data was used from a national random sample survey conducted by Public Policy Polling (N=612). The poll was conducted from January 22nd to 25th<\/sup>, 2015 via telephone and over the Internet (20% of respondents who didn\u2019t have a landline). <\/p>\n\n\n\n

RESULTS<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n

Image\nRepair Strategies of Patriots Head Coach Bill Belichick<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n

The week after the AFC Championship victory by the New England Patriots, Belichick made four media appearances leading up to the team leaving for Phoenix and Super Bowl XLIX. Belichick addressed Deflategate one time after arriving in Phoenix on Monday January 26 in Phoenix, Arizona. His tone and image repair strategies changed during each of these media interactions (See Table 1).<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Table 1:<\/strong> Image Repair Strategies Employed by Representatives of the New England Patriots<\/em><\/p>\n\n\n\n\n\n \n \n \n \n \n
Date<\/th>\n Patriots Head Coach
\n Bill Belichick<\/th>\n 		Patriots Owner
\n Robert Kraft<\/th>\n <\/tr>\n
Monday 1\/19\/15<\/td>\n Simple Denial, Corrective Action<\/td>\n NoMedia Availability<\/td>\n <\/tr>\n
Tuesday 1\/20\/15<\/td>\n Defeasibility<\/td>\n No Media Availability<\/td>\n <\/tr>\n
Thursday 1\/22\/15<\/td>\n Simple Denial, Shifting the Blame, Corrective Action, Bolstering<\/td>\n No Media Availability<\/td>\n <\/tr>\n
Saturday 1\/24\/15<\/td>\n Simple Denial, Defeasibility, Bolstering, Transcendence<\/td>\n No Media Availability<\/td>\n <\/tr>\n
Monday 1\/26\/15
\n (SuperBowl Media Appearance)<\/td>\n 		Bolstering,Transcendence<\/td>\n Simple Denial, Good Intentions, Bolstering, Attacking the Accuser<\/td>\n <\/tr>\n<\/table>\n\n\n\n

Monday January 19, 2015<\/em> <\/p>\n\n\n\n

During Coach Belichick\u2019s scheduled\nconference call with the media, reporters asked four questions regarding the\nbreaking story not yet labeled by media as Deflategate. Belichick stated what could\nbe described as corrective actions, stating, \u201cwe\u2019ll cooperate fully with\nwhatever the league wants,\u201d and \u201cwhatever questions they have for us, whatever\nthey want us to do\u201d (38, para. 3). The only other use of image repair was when\na reporter asked if the Patriots knew of the issue with the game balls during\nthe contest. Belichick responded using simple denial stating \u201cI didn\u2019t know\nanything about it until this morning\u201d (38, para. 5). <\/p>\n\n\n\n

Tuesday January 20, 2015<\/em><\/p>\n\n\n\n

Coach Belichick faced only one question\nregarding deflated footballs. Belichick\u2019s response was \u201cany questions on that\nyou should talk to them [the NFL] about\u201d (13, para. 2). This demonstrated the\nuse of defeasibility by Belichick to redirect media questioning to the NFL and\nis an avoidance technique that Belichick used successfully to redirect the\nmedia questioning for the day. <\/p>\n\n\n\n

Thursday January 22, 2015<\/em><\/p>\n\n\n\n

 <\/strong>This was the next media availability to question Patriot coaches\nand players. Belichick employed several techniques of image repair as national\nattention to the Patriots\u2019 alleged use of underinflated footballs had turned\ninto a media frenzy. It was the top story on all three national evening\ntelecasts in the United States and major cable news networks, not just ESPN and\nFox Sports (51). <\/p>\n\n\n\n

Belichick addressed the media with a prepared statement using denial and attempts to reduce the offensiveness of those media allegations. Belichick\u2019s strategy of simple denial was directed at not knowing how the game balls were prepared:<\/p>\n\n\n\n

I had no knowledge of the various steps involved in the game balls and the process that happened between when they were prepared and went to the officials and went to the game. So, I\u2019ve learned a lot about that. I obviously understand that each team has the opportunity to prepare the balls the way they want, give them to the officials and the game officials either approve or disapprove the balls. That really was the end of it for me until I learned a little bit more about this the last couple days. (39, para. 1)<\/p><\/blockquote>\n\n\n\n

Later during his prepared statement,\nBelichick reasserted his initial denial from January 19, avowing \u201cAgain, I was\ncompletely and totally unaware of any of this that we’re talking about in the\nlast couple days until Monday morning\u201d (39, para. 7). Belichick\u2019s use of denial revolved around\nrestating that he did not know about any issue with ball inflation until the Monday\nafter the AFC championship game and denying the fact that he knew about or had\nany knowledge of the ball preparation process prior to games or on game day. <\/p>\n\n\n\n

Belichick also sought to shift blame (a form of denial) on to players in the organization and game officials, claiming:<\/p>\n\n\n\n

I think we all know that quarterbacks, kickers, specialists have certain preferences on footballs. They know a lot more about it than I do. They\u2019re a lot more sensitive to it than I am. I hear them comment on it from time to time, but I can tell you and they will tell you that there is never any sympathy whatsoever from me on that subject. Zero. Tom’s [Brady] personal preferences on his footballs are something he can talk about in much better detail and information than I could possibly provide. I could tell you that in my entire coaching career I have never talked to any player, staff member about football air pressure. That is not a subject that I have ever brought up. To me the footballs are approved by the league and game officials pregame and we play with what’s out there. (39, para. 3)<\/p><\/blockquote>\n\n\n\n

Strategically, Belichick identified kickers in this statement,\nbut most football fans that follow the NFL with some knowledge of league rules\nwill immediately know that the ongoing investigation had nothing to do with the\nspecial \u201cK\u201d balls used for kicking which the NFL provides. The only balls under\ninvestigation were those prepared by the Patriots\u2019 staff, which most\nquarterbacks, retired or actives, will explain that the staff prepares game\nballs according to the starting quarterbacks preferences or in this case Brady.\nWhile Belichick does shift blame to his quarterback, he minimizes blame by\ntrying to bring attention to NFL referees and other specialists like kickers. <\/p>\n\n\n\n

 Belichick also attempted to reduce the offensiveness of the alleged acts by bolstering when he states: <\/p>\n\n\n\n

Let me just say that my personal coaching philosophy, my mentality has always been to make things as difficult as possible for players in practice. So, with regard to footballs, I\u2019m sure that any current or past player of mine would tell you that the balls we practice with are as bad as they can be: wet, sticky, cold, slippery. However bad we can make them, I make them. Any time that players complain about the quality of the footballs, I make them worse and that stops the complaining. We never use the condition of the footballs as an excuse . . . That has never been a priority for me and I want the players to deal with a harder situation in practice than they\u2019ll ever have to deal with in the game. (39, para. 2)<\/p><\/blockquote>\n\n\n\n

Belichick, long known for not being very forthcoming to the\nmedia, seemed to be very open and forthcoming. He provided insight into his\ncoaching philosophy by bolstering his use of balls that were in poor condition\nduring practice and claiming that he is intentional about using practice balls\nthat are wet or worn. For this reason, he argued the Patriots rarely turned the\nball over. <\/p>\n\n\n\n

The last image repair technique Belichick\nemployed was corrective action. While not admitting that the balls were or\nmight have been underinflated, he stated: \n<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Obviously with our footballs being inflated to the 12.5-pound range, any deflation would then take us under that specification limit. Knowing that now, in the future we will certainly inflate the footballs above that low level to account for any possible change during the game. (39, para. 3)<\/p><\/blockquote>\n\n\n\n

Later, Belichick twice restated that,\n\u201cWe will take steps in the future to make sure that we don’t put ourselves in\nthat type of potential situation again\u201d (39, para. 3); and \u201cI told you the one change we would\nmake in the initial start level of the football pressure, but that’s really\nabout it\u201d (39, para. 6).  <\/p>\n\n\n\n

Belichick returned to his opening approach of simple denial when pressed by reporters after his statement repeating, \u201cI\u2019ve told you everything I know,\u201d \u201cI don\u2019t have an explanation,\u201d and \u201cThere\u2019s nothing else I can add to it\u201d (39, para. 11, 13, & 19). <\/p>\n\n\n\n

Saturday January 24, 2015<\/em><\/p>\n\n\n\n

 Belichick, not known for making extra media\nappearances, held what could be called a surreal news conference to discuss the\nscience behind football deflation (54). During this news conference, Belichick\nstated, \u201cI believe now 100\npercent that I have personally, and we as an organization, have absolutely\nfollowed every rule to the letter\u201d (40, para. 2). Belichick\u2019s primary approach\nduring this was to demonstrate defeasibility in attempting to prove the balls\nwere inflated to 12.5 PSI by the officials \u201cin a controlled climate\u201d (40, para.\n7). Belichick continued: <\/p>\n\n\n\n

We found that once the footballs were on the field over an extended period of time, in other words, they were adjusted to the climatic conditions and also the fact that the footballs reached an equilibrium without the rubbing process, that after that had run its course and the footballs had reached an equilibrium, that they were down approximately one-and-a-half pounds per square inch. When we brought the footballs back in after that process and re-tested them in a controlled environment as we have here, then those measurements rose approximately one-half pound per square inch. So, the net of one and a half, back to a half, is approximately one pound per square inch, to one and a half. (40, para. 8)<\/p><\/blockquote>\n\n\n\n

Belichick\u2019s explanations can all be viewed as\na function of evading responsibility by arguing for defeasibility, noting the\nprocess to change ball pressure. Toward the end of Belichick\u2019s prepared\nstatement, he used bolstering to argue how the team was dominant and deserves\nto be playing in the Super Bowl by stating: <\/p>\n\n\n\n

This team was the best team in the AFC in the regular season. We won two games in the playoffs against two good football teams. The best team in the postseason, that\u2019s what this team is. I know that because I’ve been with them every day and I\u2019m proud of this team. (40, para. 15)<\/p><\/blockquote>\n\n\n\n

Belichick returned to his use of simple denial after\nbolstering the team\u2019s success on the field stating, \u201cAt no time was there any\nintent whatsoever to try to compromise the integrity of the game or to gain an\nadvantage\u201d (40, para. 17). Belichick concluded his statement by stating that it\nwas time to focus on the Super Bowl game, \u201cThis is the end of this subject for\nme for a long time, OK? We have a huge game, a huge challenge for our football\nteam and that’s where that focus is going to go\u201d (40, para. 18). Strategically,\nBelichick utilized transcendence here to shift the media spotlight away from\nthe discussion of Deflategate toward the Super Bowl game in this last media\nappearance prior to arriving at the site of the Super Bowl. This attempt was\nlogical and well-crafted as the team, along with owner Kraft as we discuss below,\nwanted to change the media\u2019s focus and spotlight of the NFL\u2019s investigation\ninto the Patriots\u2019 alleged use of deflated footballs. <\/p>\n\n\n\n

Monday January 26, 2015<\/em><\/p>\n\n\n\n

After arriving at the site of the Super Bowl, Belichick relied on two separate image repair tactics including bolstering, stating, \u201cOur team has worked very hard all through the year going all the way back to the spring workouts\u201d (41, para. 32).<\/p>\n\n\n\n

In addition to bolstering, Belichick used transcendence several times when responding to questions, stating: “I appreciate the question . . . My attention is totally turned now and focused on the Seattle Seahawks and our game Sunday\u201d and “Right now, the only thing I’m focused on is the Seattle Seahawks. That’s what we’re going to talk about (41, para. 33, 35).<\/p>\n\n\n\n

From that day on at every press conference held for Super Bowl Sunday, if a reporter asked a question about Deflategate, they would receive the same generic use of transcendence. Belichick would simply claim that his focus was on the game or on the Seahawks. This approach seemed to be very successful as the week after the game, sports reporters rarely if ever referenced Deflategate and ESPN reporting live from the Super Bowl did not report on the issue on either of its NFL focused shows (NFL Live <\/em>or NFL Insiders<\/em>). This strategy mimicked Belichick\u2019s initial meeting with the media in Phoenix but stood in opposition of the fiery defense presented by Kraft as discussed below. <\/p>\n\n\n\n

Image\nRepair Strategies of Patriots Owner Robert Kraft<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n

Kraft only made one media appearance and released a one-paragraph statement on Saturday January 24, 2015, after Belichick\u2019s news conference. In the statement, Kraft emphasized good intentions on the part of the organization, stating:<\/p>\n\n\n\n

On Monday, I received a letter\nfrom the league office informing me that they would be conducting an\ninvestigation into the air pressure of the game balls. Immediately after\nreceiving the letter, I instructed our staff to be completely cooperative and\ntransparent with the league\u2019s investigators. During the three days they were\nhere, we provided access to every full- and part-time employee the league\u2019s\nrepresentatives requested to speak with and produced every communication device\nthat they requested to search. (53, para. 1)<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Kraft continued this track promising, \u201cOur organization will continue to\ncooperate throughout the league\u2019s investigation\u201d (53, para. 1). However, he\nstrategically changed to transcendence to prepare for the Super Bowl arguing a\nlarger and more important task was at hand: \u201cOur players, coaches and staff\nwill continue to focus on our preparations for Super Bowl XLIX and the many\nchallenges we face as we prepare for the Seattle Seahawks (53, para 1). <\/p>\n\n\n\n

Monday January 26, 2015.<\/em> Kraft read directly from a prepared statement to the media almost immediately after arriving at the team\u2019s Super Bowl hotel. Kraft used bolstering, referring to the hard work it takes to be the AFC representative in the Super Bowl at first then shifted to simple denial stating, \u201cI want to make it clear that I believe, unconditionally, that the New England Patriots have done nothing inappropriate in this process or in violation of NFL rules\u201d (41, para. 27). In the next paragraph, Kraft utilized a metaphor to describe his relationship with Belichick and quarterback Brady:<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Tom, Bill, and I have been together for 15 years. They are my guys, they are part of my family. And Bill, Tom, and I have had many difficult discussions over the years, and I have never known them to lie to me. That is why I am confident in saying what I just said. (41, para. 28)<\/p><\/blockquote>\n\n\n\n

Kraft also chose to preemptively attack the accuser, in this\ncase the NFL investigation into the deflated footballs on how the Wells investigation\nhad been handled to date:<\/p>\n\n\n\n

If the [Ted] Wells’ investigation is not able to definitively determine that our organization tampered with the air pressure in the footballs, I would expect and hope that the League would apologize to our entire team and in particular, Coach Belichick and Tom Brady for what they have had to endure this past week. I am disappointed in the way this entire matter has been handled and reported upon. We expect hard facts as opposed to circumstantial leaked evidence to drive the conclusion of this investigation. (41, para. 30)<\/p><\/blockquote>\n\n\n\n

Therefore, while Belichick used\ntranscendence to avoid talking about Deflategate, Kraft became the aggressor\nand attacked those suggesting his organization had done something wrong. <\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n

DISCUSSION<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n

RQ3 addressed the effectiveness of the New England Patriots\u2019 communication strategies in the short term. In assessing the success of such image repair efforts, it is necessary to consider public opinion of the individuals or organizations involved in an offensive event. It is not coincidence that the Patriots\u2019 30% favorability rating was the lowest of all NFL teams prior to Super Bowl XLIX, in part because of the franchise\u2019s nefarious past (25). Further, Coach Belichick garnered a 34% unfavorable rating (41% among NFL fans) while 45% of respondents (31% of NFL fans) answered not sure (25). After the Patriots beat the Seattle Seahawks in Super Bowl XLIX, ESPN\/ABC Sports contracted Langer Research Associates for a scientific survey that found 52% of all sports fans and 63% of avid NFL fans believed the Patriots cheated with only 10% of all sports fans and 3% of avid NFL fans holding no opinion. The same ESPN\/ABC News poll revealed that 85% of respondents believed the Patriots were not alone in cheating or bending the rules and that other teams engaged in activities \u201cpushing the envelope in some form\u201d (1, para. 6). <\/p>\n\n\n\n

A separate poll of sports fans (using convenience\nsampling) in 2015 by si.com found Belichick was the most hated coach in the NFL\nand the Patriots were the most hated franchise among the league\u2019s 32 teams (55).\nWhile some of this may be attributable to the Patriots\u2019 success over the years,\none would suspect at least some of the vitriol stemmed from the Deflategate\ncontroversy and that the Patriots were seen as trying to cheat their way\n(again) to victory. However, the previously mentioned ESPN\/ABC News poll found\nthat only 42% of avid sports fans and 46% of all fans believed the Patriots\u2019\nSuper Bowl victory was tainted due to the ongoing Deflategate controversy (1,\npara. 6). The significant drop in popularity, even after winning the Super\nBowl, by the New England Patriots causes us to judge the organizational image\nrepair efforts as a somewhat ineffective rhetorical strategy among the broad\npublic. However, popular press polls (si.com) have shown that a nonrandom\nsample of sports fans, the one that frequent si.com, don\u2019t view the Patriots\u2019\nvictory to be tainted leading us to conclude that while the Patriots eventually\nwere found guilty, the rhetorical strategy used was somewhat effective for\ntargeted sports fans. It should also be noted the rhetorical strategies were\nused to redirect attention on the Super Bowl.  <\/p>\n\n\n\n

Analysis of\nImage Repair Strategies<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n

When comparing Belichick (RQ1) and Kraft\u2019s (RQ2) image\nrepair efforts at the start of Deflategate, Belichick utilized the most\nstrategies, due in part to the numerous times he appeared before reporters.\nTypes of image repairs employed by Belichick evolved as the controversy\nreceived greater national attention. For example, Belichick only employed\nsimple denial and corrective action in the initial days after the AFC\nchampionship game. By Thursday, January 22, Belichick was forced to spend more\ntime discussing the controversy because of mounting national attention. While\nBelichick continued employing simple denial and corrective action, the coach shifted\nto evading responsibility. This is seen in Belichick\u2019s effort to shift blame\n(e.g., suggesting players know more than coaches concerning the pressure level\nin footballs), bolstering (e.g., his team was the best team, despite the\nquality of the footballs used), and transcendence (e.g., his team needed to\nstart focusing on playing Seattle in the Super Bowl). In\nBelichick\u2019s other meetings with the media on January 24 and 26, simple\ndenial, bolstering, and transcendence remained the primary tactics. Belichick\u2019s\nJanuary 24 meeting was notable, however, because it also featured use of\ndefeasibility. He attempted to explain that it was impossible for the balls to\nhave been deflated by anyone with the Patriots\u2019 organization. <\/p>\n\n\n\n

Patriots\u2019 owner Kraft addressed Deflategate only once,\non January 26, during Super Bowl week. Kraft was more aggressive in his\ncomments than Belichick choosing to attack the accuser (in this case, the\nallegations against his franchise). Kraft also employed simple denial,\nbolstering, and good intentions in addressing the controversy. <\/p>\n\n\n\n

When seeking commonalities in the various image repair\nattempts, we note Belichick and Kraft tried to end the story as the second week\nof Super Bowl preparations approached. Belichick used transcendence to\nemphasize the teams\u2019 focus on the game against Seattle. Belichick also spent\ntime bolstering his team\u2019s abilities and that the team\u2019s performance against\nIndianapolis should not be overshadowed by the Deflategate controversy. A final\nsimilarity is that both Belichick and Kraft declined to answer questions about\nDeflategate after the initial Monday media appearance when the team landed in Phoenix\nfor Super Bowl preparations. Belichick did address media questions and\neventually refused to address any questions. It can be suggested that as the\nSuper Bowl game drew closer, journalists covering the contest went along with\nthe Patriots\u2019 narrative and focused more on the contest, especially since the\nleague had announced that the investigation was likely to take weeks, if not\nmonths.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

We also note the lack of mortification expressed by any\nof the two individuals studied for this research. Benoit (4, 7) has found\nmortification (expressing regret for what has happened) to be particularly\nuseful in image repair, especially for those who enjoyed prominence as\ncelebrities (such as professional athletes and coaches) (5). Yet, there was no\nuse of mortification in any of the media appearances by Belichick or Kraft.\nThis could be an error, particularly as people were already familiar with the\nPatriots\u2019 past transgressions during the Spygate affair in 2007. However, this\ncould be a strategic choice to shift blame of ball preparation unto Quarterback\nTom Brady and other team personal or NFL officials. Further, given the\ninvestigation (and proceeding legal battle) mortification could be an admission\nof guilt. However, it is the belief of the authors that one of the Patriots\u2019\nteam leaders (Belichick or Kraft) could have expressed mortification over the\nmatter and that this controversy was overshadowing the team\u2019s excellence on the\nplaying field or the NFL\u2019s largest event, the Super Bowl.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

CONCLUSIONS<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n

The Deflategate episode illustrates the importance of not just the team owner, but other figures at the top of the organizational chart in times of controversy. In this case, the most visible was Head Coach Bill Belichick. In comparing Belichick\u2019s strategies in Deflategate to New Orleans Coach Sean Payton in Bountygate, corrective action and simple denial are common between the two situations. However, while Payton (and the Saints\u2019 General Manager) pledged corrective action, Belichick sought to evade responsibility, using transcendence (e.g., the importance of the upcoming Super Bowl) and shifting blame (the team personnel seemingly involved). Another significant difference appears to be the role of the owners in these two cases. While Coach Payton and General Manager Mickey Loomis spoke for Owner Tom Benson, Patriots owner Robert Kraft was vocal, attacking the accusers of his team and denying the organization was involved with tampering with the footballs used in the AFC Championship game. The strategies employed by Belichick and Kraft were done to protect the organization, and more specifically, the team\u2019s players on the eve of their most important game of the season. As the Saints were dealing with Bountygate, there were no \u201cbig game\u201d distractions that the Coach or General Manager could use in their image repair. While we judged the image repair strategies of Belichick and Kraft to be generally ineffectual because of the long-term impact on the organization\u2019s image, it served the purpose of refocusing the team on the Super Bowl game before them. Our study also demonstrates the need to continue studying sports organizations (whether individual franchises or entire leagues), and not just individuals, when crises occur. <\/p>\n\n\n\n

APPLICATIONS IN SPORT <\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n

While the Patriots\u2019 overall effectiveness in image repair was considered only somewhat effective, we have noted the short-term nature of the strategies used: That the team\u2019s focus returned solely to preparation for the upcoming Super Bowl showdown with the Seahawks. In future situations where a team (or organization) is embroiled in controversy, finding ways to quickly return the public\u2019s attention to immediate team goals can prove beneficial (i.e., preparing for an important game). <\/p>\n\n\n\n

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n

None
<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n

REFERENCES\n<\/strong><\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n

  1. Americans think Pats cheated, rooting for Seahawks (2015, January 27). publicpolicypolling.<\/em>com. Available from http:\/\/www.publicpolicypolling.com\/main\/2015\/01\/ americans-think-pats-cheated-rooting-for-seahawks.html<\/li>
  2. Badenhausen, K. (2017, September 18). The Dallas Cowboys head the NFL\u2019s most valuable teams at $4.8 billion. Forbes<\/em>. Available from https:\/\/www.forbes.com\/sites\/kurtbadenhausen \/2017\/09\/18\/the-dallas-cowboys-head-the-nfls-most-valuable-teams-at-4-8-billion\/#93aaef3243f8<\/li>
  3. Belichick draws $500,000 fine, but avoids suspension (2007, September 14). espn.com<\/em>. Available from http:\/\/sports.espn.go.com\/nfl\/news\/story?id=3018338<\/li>
  4. Benoit, W. L. (1995). Accounts, excuses, and apologies: A theory of image restoration strategies. <\/em>Albany, NY: State University of New York Press. <\/li>
  5. Benoit, W. L. (1997). Hugh Grant\u2019s image restoration discourse: An actor apologizes. Communication Quarterly, 45<\/em>(3), 251-267. doi:10.1080\/01463379709370064.<\/li>
  6. Benoit, W. L. (2013). Tiger Woods\u2019 image repair: Could he hit one out of the rough. In J.R. Blaney, L.R. Lippert, & J.S. Smith (Eds.), Repairing the athlete\u2019s image: Studies in sports image restoration<\/em> (pp. 89-96). Lanham, MD: Lexington.<\/li>
  7. Benoit, W. L. (2015). Accounts, excuses, and apologies: Image repair theory and research <\/em>(2nd ed.). Albany, NY: State University of New York Press. <\/li>
  8. Benoit, W. L., & Anderson, K. K. (1996). Blending politics and entertainment: Dan Quayle versus Murphy Brown. Southern Communication Quarterly, 62,<\/em> 73-85. doi:10.1080\/10417949609373040<\/li>
  9. Benoit, W. L., & Czerwinski, A. (1997). A critical analysis of USAir\u2019s image repair discourse. Business Communication Quarterly, 60,<\/em> 38-57. doi: 10.1177\/108056999706000304<\/li>
  10. Benoit, W. L., & Hanczor, R. S. (1994). The Tonya Harding controversy: An analysis ofimage restoration strategies. Communication Quarterly, 42<\/em>(4), 416-433. doi:10.1080\/01463379409369947<\/li>
  11. Benoit, W. L., & Lindsey, J. J. (1987). Argument strategies: Antidote to Tylenol’s poisoned image. Journal of the American Forensic Association, 23, <\/em>136-146. doi:10.1080\/00028533.1987.11951338<\/li>
  12. Benoit, W. L., & Wells, W. T. (1998). An analysis of three image repair discourses on White-water. Journal of Public Advocacy, 3,<\/em> 21-37.<\/li>
  13. Bill Belichick Transcript \u2013 1\/20\/2015 (2015, January 20). Retrieved from http:\/\/www.patriots.com\/news\/2015\/01\/20\/bill-belichick-transcript-1202015Blaney, J. R., Benoit, W. L., & Brazeal, L. M. (2002). Blowout! Firestone\u2019s image restoration campaign. Public Relations Research, 28,<\/em> 379-392. doi:10.1016\/s0363-8111(02)00163-7 <\/li>
  14. Blaney, J. R., Lippert, L. R., & Smith, J. S. (2012). Repairing the Athlete\u2019s Image: Studies in Sports Image Restoration. <\/em>Lanham, MD: Lexington. <\/li>
  15. Brinson, S. L., & Benoit, W. L. (1996). Dow Corning\u2019s image repair strategies in the breast implant crisis. Communication Quarterly, 44,<\/em> 29-41. doi:10.1080\/01463379609369998<\/li>
  16. Brinson, S. L., & Benoit, W. L. (1999). The tarnished star: Restoring Texaco\u2019s damaged public image. Management Communication Quarterly, 12,<\/em> 483\u2013510. doi:10.1177\/089331899912401<\/li>
  17. Burke, K. (1970). Rhetoric of religion.<\/em> Berkeley, CA: University of California Press.<\/li>
  18. Creswell, J. W. (1997). Qualitative Inquiry and research design: Choosing among five traditions.<\/em> Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.<\/li>
  19. Deflategate timeline: After 544 days, Tom Brady gives in. (2016, July 15). Retrieved from http:\/\/www.espn.com\/blog\/new-england-patriots\/post\/_\/id\/4782561\/timeline-of-events-for-deflategate-tom-brady<\/li>
  20. Deflate-Gate: New England Patriots coach says team will cooperate with probers. (2015, January 19, 2015). Retrieved from http:\/\/abcnews.go.com\/Sports\/deflate-gate-engrland-patriots-coach-team-cooperate=probers\/story?id=28330108<\/li>
  21. Fisher, W. R. (1970). A motive view of communication. Quarterly Journal of Speech, 56,<\/em> 131-139. doi:10.1080\/00335637009382994<\/li>
  22. Fortunato, J. A. (2008). Restoring a reputation: The Duke University lacrosse scandal. Public Relations Review, 34<\/em>, 116-123. doi:10.1016\/j.pubrev.2008.03.006<\/li>
  23. Huxman, S. S., & Bruce, D. B., (1995). Toward a dynamic generic framework of apologia: A case study of Dow Chemical, Vietnam, and the Napalm controversy. Communication Studies, 46,<\/em> 57 – 72. doi:10.1080\/10510979509368439<\/li>
  24. Jenson, T. (2017). Americans Come Together On Hating The Patriots.<\/em> Available from: https:\/\/www.publicpolicypolling.com\/polls\/americans-come-together-on-hating-the-patriots\/<\/li>
  25. Jin, Y., Park, S-A, & Len-Rios, M. E. (2010). Strategic communication of hope and anger: A case of Duke University\u2019s conflict management with multiple publics. Public Relations Review, 36<\/em>, 63-65. doi:10.1016\/j.pubrev.2009.08.015<\/li>
  26. Judge rules in favor of Tom Brady in Deflategate; NFL appeals decision (2015, September 3). espn.com<\/em>. Available from http:\/\/espn.go.com\/nfl\/story\/_\/id\/13570716\/tom-brady-new-england-patriots-wins-appeal-nfl-deflategate<\/li>
  27. Kennedy, K. A., & Benoit, W. L. (1997). The Newt Gingrich book deal controversy: Self-defense rhetoric. Southern Communication Journal, 62,<\/em> 197-216. doi:10.1080\/10417949709373055<\/li>
  28. Kruse, N. W. (1981). Apologia in team sport. Quarterly Journal of Speech, 67<\/em>, 270-283. doi:10.1080\/00335638109383572<\/li>
  29. Len-R\u00edos, M. E. (2010). Image repair strategies, local news portrayals, and crisis stage: A case study of Duke University\u2019s lacrosse team crisis. International Journal of Strategic Communication, 4<\/em>(4), <\/em>267-287. <\/em>doi:10.1080\/1553118X.2010.515534<\/li>
  30. Mark Brunell on why he reacted so strongly to Brady\u2019s press conference. (2015, January 25). Retrieved from http:\/\/www.si.com\/nfl\/2015\/01\/25\/media-circus-mark-brunell-tom-brady-deflategate<\/li>
  31. McGuire, J., McKinnon, L., & Wanta, W. (2012). \u201cBig Mac\u201d with a side of steroids: Image restoration strategies of Mark McGwire. In J.R. Blaney, L.R. Lippert, & J.S. Smith (Eds.). Repairing the athlete\u2019s image: Studies in sports image restoration <\/em>(pp. 122-141). Lanham, MD: Lexington<\/li>
  32. McLaughlin, E. C. (2015, January 23). What the heck is Deflategate anyway<\/em>? Retrieved from http:\/\/www.cnn.com\/2015\/01\/22\/us\/nfl-patriots-deflategate-rules\/<\/li>
  33. Morton, V. (2017, February 5). Patriots owner disses Roger Goodell, NFL during trophy presentation.<\/em> Retrieved from http:\/\/m.washingtontimes.com\/news\/2017\/feb\/5\/robert-kraft-disses-roger-goodell-nfl-during-troph\/<\/li>
  34. Muralidharan, S., Dillistone, K., & Shin, J.-H. (2011). The Gulf Coast oil spill: Extending the theory of image restoration discourse to the realm of social media and beyond petroleum. Public Relations Review, 37,<\/em> 226-232. doi:10.1016\/j.pubrev.2011.04.006<\/li>
  35. NFL suspends Tom Brady for 4 games (12 May, 2015). espn.com<\/em>. Available from http:\/\/espn.go.com\/nfl\/story\/_\/id\/12867594\/punishments-handed-tom-brady-new-england-patriots-deflategate<\/li>
  36. Onwumechili, C., & Bedeau, K. (2017). Analysis of FIFA\u2019s attempt at image repair. Communication & Sport, 5<\/em>(4), 407-427.doi:10.1177\/2167479516633843<\/li>
  37. Patriot Quotes 1\/19: Bill Belichick, McDaniels, Patricia and more. (2015, January 19). Retrieved from http:\/\/www.patriots.com\/news\/2015\/01\/19\/patriots-quotes-119-bill-belichick-mcdaniels-patricia-and-more <\/li>
  38. Patriot Quotes 1\/22: Bill Belichick, Tom Brady and more. (2015, January 22). Retrieved from http:\/\/www.patriots.com\/news\/2015\/01\/22\/patriots-quotes-122-bill-belichick-tom-brady-and-more<\/li>
  39. Patriot Quotes 1\/24: Bill Belichick, Matthew Slater and more. (2015, January 24). Retrieved from http:\/\/www.patriots.com\/news\/2015\/01\/24\/patriots-quotes-124-bill-belichick-matthew-slater-and-more<\/li>
  40. Patriot Quotes 1\/26: Tom Brady and more. (2015, January 26). Retrieved from http:\/\/www.patriots.com\/news\/2015\/01\/26\/patriots-quotes-126-tom-brady-and-more<\/li>
  41. Pfahl, M. E., & Bates, B. R. (2008). This is not a race, this is a farce: Formula One and the Indianapolis Motor Speedway tire crisis. Public Relations Review, 34,<\/em> 135-144. doi:10.1016\/j.pubrev.2008.03.019<\/li>
  42. Richards Jr., O., Wilson, C., Boyle, K., & Mower, J. (2017). A knockout to the NFL\u2019s reputation? A case study of the NFL\u2019s crisis communications strategies in response to the Ray Rice scandal. Public Relations Review, 43,<\/em> 615-623. doi:10.1016\/j.pubrev.2017.02.015<\/li>
  43. Rule 2: The Ball, Section 1. (n.d.). Retrieved from http:\/\/static.nfl.com\/static\/content\/public\/image\/rulebook\/pdfs\/5_2013_Ball.pdf <\/li>
  44. Ryan, H. R. (1982). Kategoria and apologia: On their rhetorical criticism as a speech set. Quarterly Journal of Speech, 68,<\/em> 256-261.<\/li>
  45. Sanderson, J. (2008). The blog is serving its purpose: Self-presentation strategies on 38pitches.com. Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication, 13<\/em>(4), 912-936. doi:10.1111\/j.1083-6101.2008.00424.x<\/li>
  46. Schultz, P. D., & Seeger, M. W. (1991). Corporate centered apologia: Iacocca in defense of Chrysler. Speaker and Gavel, 28,<\/em> 50-60.<\/li>
  47. Scott, M. B., & Lyman, S. M. (1968). Accounts. American Sociological Review, 33<\/em>(1), 46-62.<\/li>
  48. Sellnow, T. L., & Ulmer, R. R. (1995). Ambiguous argument as advocacy in organizational crisis communication. Argumentation and Advocacy, 31,<\/em> 138-150. doi:10.1080\/00028533.1995.11951607<\/li>
  49. Smith, J. S. (in press). Adapting to the digital age: ESPN\u2019s crisis communication during the 2015 to 2017 layoffs. In G. G. Armfield, J. McGuire, & A. Earnheardt (Eds.). ESPN and the changing sports media landscape. <\/em>New York, NY: Peter Lang. <\/li>
  50. Smith, M. D. (2015, January 22). Deflategate leads all three network newscasts. Retrieved from http:\/\/profootballtalk.nbcsports.com\/2015\/01\/22\/deflategate-leads-all-three-network-newscasts\/<\/li>
  51. Smithson, J., & Venette, S. (2013). Stonewalling as an image-defense strategy: A critical examination of BP\u2019s response to the Deepwater Horizon explosion. Communication Studies, 64<\/em>(4), 395-410. doi:10.1080\/10510974.2013.770409<\/li>
  52. Statement from Patriots Chairman and CEO Robert Kraft. (2015, January 24). Retrieved from http:\/\/www.patriots.com\/news\/2015\/01\/24\/statement-patriots-chairman-and-ceo-robert-kraft<\/li>
  53. Stone, A. (2015, January 24). Bill Belichick dropped science knowledge in surreal press conference. Retrieved from http:\/\/ftw.usatoday.com\/2015\/01\/bill-belichick-dropped-physics-knowledge-in-surreal-press-conference<\/li>
  54. The most hated people, places and things in the NFL (July 23, 2015). SI.com<\/em>. Available from http:\/\/ftw.usatoday.com\/2015\/01\/bill-belichick-dropped-physics-knowledge-in-surreal-press-conference <\/li>
  55. Ware, B. L., & Linkugel, W. A. (1973).\nThey spoke in defense of themselves: On the generic criticism of apologia. Quarterly Journal of Speech, 59,<\/em>\n273-283. doi:10.1080\/00335637309383176<\/li>
  56. Wenner, L. A. (2013). Fallen sports heroes, media, & celebrity culture. <\/em>Peter Lang:\nNew York.<\/li>
  57. Zhang,\nW., & Benoit, W. L. (2009). Former Minister Zhang\u2019s discourse on SARS:\nGovernment\u2019s image restoration or destruction? Public Relations Review, 35<\/em>,\n240-246. DOI: 10.1016\/j.pubrev.2009.04.004. <\/li><\/ol>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

    Authors: Greg G. Armfield, John McGuire, William Hoffman, Yejin Shin, […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":3,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"closed","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"jetpack_post_was_ever_published":false,"jetpack_publicize_message":"","jetpack_is_tweetstorm":false,"jetpack_publicize_feature_enabled":true,"jetpack_social_options":[]},"categories":[994,296],"tags":[492,1491,1222,621,1492],"jetpack_publicize_connections":[],"jetpack_featured_media_url":"","jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"jetpack_shortlink":"https:\/\/wp.me\/p4btio-1GG","jetpack-related-posts":[{"id":5268,"url":"https:\/\/thesportjournal.org\/article\/peddling-the-truth-or-coasting-downhill-lance-armstrong-and-the-use-of-image-repair-strategies\/","url_meta":{"origin":6490,"position":0},"title":"Peddling the Truth or Coasting Downhill? Lance Armstrong and the Use of Image Repair Strategies","date":"September 14, 2017","format":false,"excerpt":"Author: Greg G. Armfield, Ph. D.* New Mexico State University John McGuire, Ph. D, Oklahoma State University * Please direct all correspondence to the first author Greg G. Armfield (Ph.D. University of Missouri) Associate Professor, New Mexico State University, Department of Communication Studies, MSC 3W, P.O. Box 30001, Las Cruces,\u2026","rel":"","context":"In "Sports Studies and Sports Psychology"","img":{"alt_text":"","src":"","width":0,"height":0},"classes":[]},{"id":5391,"url":"https:\/\/thesportjournal.org\/article\/academic-fraud-in-revenue-and-nonrevenue-sports\/","url_meta":{"origin":6490,"position":1},"title":"Academic Fraud in Revenue and Nonrevenue Sports","date":"November 23, 2017","format":false,"excerpt":"Authors: John Adamek Corresponding Author: John Adamek, CSCS 4 Truman Place Moonachie NJ, 07074 Jfadamek21@gmail.com 201-543-9142 John Adamek is a strength and conditioning coach owner of Sports Science Integration. He is also a graduate student at the United States Sports Academy. Academic Fraud in Revenue and Nonrevenue Sports ABSTRACT The\u2026","rel":"","context":"In "Research"","img":{"alt_text":"","src":"","width":0,"height":0},"classes":[]},{"id":189,"url":"https:\/\/thesportjournal.org\/article\/high-visibility-athletic-programs-and-the-prestige-of-public-universities\/","url_meta":{"origin":6490,"position":2},"title":"High-Visibility Athletic Programs and the Prestige of Public Universities","date":"January 5, 2005","format":false,"excerpt":"Submitted by: Michael J. Lovaglia & Jeffrey W. Lucas Introduction: Why are athletic programs such a prominent part of higher education in the United States? Lately, educators have been questioning the value of a connection between high-visibility athletic programs and the academic mission of higher education (Sperber 2003). Do high-visibility\u2026","rel":"","context":"In "Contemporary Sports Issues"","img":{"alt_text":"","src":"","width":0,"height":0},"classes":[]},{"id":5642,"url":"https:\/\/thesportjournal.org\/article\/concussion-video-education-program-for-high-school-football-players\/","url_meta":{"origin":6490,"position":3},"title":"Concussion: Video Education Program for High School Football Players","date":"April 17, 2018","format":false,"excerpt":"Authors: Gillian Hotz, Ph.D.; Raymond Crittenden, M.S.; Bryan Pomares, M.H.S.; Jonathan Siegel, B.S.; Kester Nedd, D.O.; Corresponding Author: Gillian Hotz, Ph.D. 1095 NW 14th Ter Miami, FL 33136 ghotz@med.miami.edu 302-243-4004 Gillian A. Hotz, PhD is a research professor at the University Of Miami Miller School Of Medicine and a nationally\u2026","rel":"","context":"In "Research"","img":{"alt_text":"Table 1","src":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/thesportjournal.org\/wp-content\/uploads\/2018\/04\/Table1.png?resize=350%2C200","width":350,"height":200},"classes":[]},{"id":292,"url":"https:\/\/thesportjournal.org\/article\/competitive-balance-in-mens-and-womens-basketball-the-cast-of-the-missouri-valley-conference\/","url_meta":{"origin":6490,"position":4},"title":"Competitive Balance in Men\u2019s and Women\u2019s Basketball: The Cast of the Missouri Valley Conference","date":"March 14, 2008","format":false,"excerpt":"Submitted by: Martin M. Perline, Ph.D. & G. Clayton Stoldt, Ed.D. Abstract: Competitive balance typically fosters fan interest. Since revenue associated with men\u2019s sports is typically greater than with women\u2019s, one might expect to find greater levels of competitive balance in men\u2019s sport than women\u2019s sport. The purpose of this\u2026","rel":"","context":"In "Sports Management"","img":{"alt_text":"","src":"","width":0,"height":0},"classes":[]},{"id":22,"url":"https:\/\/thesportjournal.org\/article\/links-2\/","url_meta":{"origin":6490,"position":5},"title":"Links","date":"January 7, 2008","format":false,"excerpt":"The Sport Supplement, A Supplement of the Sport Journal Athletic Insight - The Online Journal of Sport Psychology","rel":"","context":"In "General"","img":{"alt_text":"","src":"","width":0,"height":0},"classes":[]}],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/thesportjournal.org\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/6490"}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/thesportjournal.org\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/thesportjournal.org\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/thesportjournal.org\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/3"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/thesportjournal.org\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=6490"}],"version-history":[{"count":8,"href":"https:\/\/thesportjournal.org\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/6490\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":6501,"href":"https:\/\/thesportjournal.org\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/6490\/revisions\/6501"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/thesportjournal.org\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=6490"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/thesportjournal.org\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=6490"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/thesportjournal.org\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=6490"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}