I understand your feelings on this but I assure you I'm not stretching the relationship between the two. And honestly, I also do not mean to be rude.
When you study law or even social behavior at an undergraduate and graduate level, one of the things you cover is the strong correlation between these similar versions of intimidation and coercion. It's now a given that most people have a post 911 view of terrorism, and the word terrorism has almost exclusively now been linked to political purposes, but as we all know and perhaps have tended to forget, terrorism itself -- by definition, is not limited to disgruntled shemagh wearing goat herders versus imperialist western governments. The fact is, that terrorism can consist of a myriad of differing scenarios. Bio-terrorism, cyber-terrorism, economical-terrorism etc. Bullying is a form of psychological-terrorism and although it is considered a lessor event, it is still in the family, as bullying often times may escalate into a terror event either as a result of, or as an expansion of. Think of many of the terrorists around the globe and what many of their complaints of injustices are against the U.S.; U.S. bullying their homelands is often on their lists even is the actual word 'bullying' isn't. So it's more than a reasonable inference to believe that an expertly schooled terrorism attorney, as a matter of training through their required curriculum, would have to have a deep understanding and thorough knowledge of bullying elements and the possible results of these events. You also have to take into account that even if Mom was the only expert in bullying, the odds of Mom acting unilaterally without consultation of her esteemed attorney / professor husband would be illogical.
I submit that the most probable explanation of the rush to get Cogs, the Dolphins and perhaps the NFL to it's knees regarding the "alleged" bullying of Ratfink was not the brain child of a sports agent, but the emotional over-reaction of a family who perceived a great insult and injustice. Understanding the potential of a huge payday, the sports agent simply took the ball and ran with it -- no pun intended.
Just my theory, as I know we may never know 100% what exactly went down, but as I said on another thread, circumstantial evidence in corroborating pieces have accumulated forming a distinctive tier of facts leading to the logical conclusion on the assertion of these facts.
Occam's razor... when among competing hypotheses, the hypothesis with the fewest assumptions should be selected.