May I be allowed one "I told you so?

Me, September 14, 2007, on the Patriots being stripped of a first-round draft pick for violating an NFL rule on camera position and usage:

There are a lot of people who are thrilled to have an opportunity to play whack-a-mole with [Bill Belichick]. So we are treated to the "Beli-cheat" headlines, and all of the people that he's beaten over the years revelling in the "well, of course he beat us - he was cheating!" after-the-fact rationalizations. This story is very different if it's the Houston Texans or Minnesota Vikings. And the punishment is, too. Why is the punishment different? Because you don't have the punishment issued by the commissioner after a week of every media member hammering on how tough the commissioner is, and how hard he's going to be on this transgression. The media spent the week ensuring that Goodell had to either hammer the Patriots or get hammered himself.

CNNSI.com, yesterday, after the Jets were fined for violating a rule on information disclosure:

The NFL assessed $125,000 in fines to the New York Jets and former coach Eric Mangini on Wednesday for violating the league's rules on injury reporting with former quarterback Brett Favre last season.

The Jets failed to place Favre, now with the Minnesota Vikings, on the injury report during the final month of last season even though he had a torn biceps tendon.

The league announced it had fined the Jets $75,000, and Mangini and Jets general manager Mike Tannenbaum $25,000 apiece. Mangini now coaches the Cleveland Browns.

I now allow myself one "I told you so!" Roger Goodell screwed up. What he did to New England was massively unfair, and it was clearly massively unfair. As I noted at the time, Denver's violation of the salary cap rules to keep John Elway cost them only a second round pick. Does anyone want to argue that New England's "crime" was somehow worse? Anyone?

I didn't think so.

There were those who said that the Patriots got no significant unfair advantage from their rule violation. To which the responses were, "well, it was against the rules anyway" and "if there was no advantage, why did they do it?" So to any who might say that the Jets got no significant unfair advantage from their rule violation, "well, it was against the rules anyway" and "if there was no advantage, why did they do it?" If there's a compelling case to be made that what New England did was somehow worse for the game, or competitive balance, or fairness, or anything else, I'd love to see that case. I don't buy it.

Some "news" stories aren't

Senator Specter appears to be shocked - shocked! - to discover that the Patriots started taping prior to the start of the 2006 season.

"Bill Belichick has been illegally taping opponents' defensive signals since he became the New England Patriots' coach in 2000, according to Sen. Arlen Specter, who said NFL commissioner Roger Goodell told him that during a meeting Wednesday ... Goodell said Belichick told him he believed the taping was legal..."

But he wouldn't be, if he'd been reading what I wrote about it. Like what I said on September 20:

of course New England has "stolen signals" in this manner for years. It should be obvious to the meannest intelligence that recording the defensive signal-calling has been standard operating procedure. It's part of their game-day activity. They've got video of all of the opposing coaches signals for the last 8 years...

As I said - obvious to anyone with the brains to fog a mirror...


The interesting question is this - was it actually illegal prior to the "clarification memo" prior to the 2006 season? I'd love to know the actual text of the rule governing taping over the 2000-2005 time period, because I think that there are/were readings of the text that I've seen which do, in fact, support Belichick's interpretation. Prior to the "clarification" memo, anyway. If the coaches didn't have access to any of the footage during the game, was it technically against the rules? I don't know the answer to that.

On the plus side, this is time spent not raising taxes...

Once again, we witness the full flowering of Washingtonitis from Senator Arlen Specter:

In a phone interview Thursday with The New York Times, Specter said the committee at some point will call on Goodell to discuss why the league destroyed the tapes that revealed the Patriots had been spying on the competition.

"That requires an explanation," Specter told The Times. "The NFL has a very preferred status in our country with their antitrust exemption. The American people are entitled to be sure about the integrity of the game. It's analogous to the CIA destruction of tapes, or any time you have records destroyed."

I said it before, I'll say it again. "Does anyone else ever hear the phrase "contempt of congress" and wonder where to volunteer?" Consider this to be yet another expression of my contempt for this congress.

More shocking football cheating!

Mike Francesa and Chris Russo talked with NFL Film's Steve Sabol on Thursday afternoon, and the topic of the Patriots' "spygate" game up. Sabol clearly didn't think it was a big deal, and shared a fantastic story about George Halas and the Bears.

For those who still want to maintain a state of high moral dudgeon that the Patriots would dare to film the opposing sideline, here's a transcript (the show can be heard here and the relevant section starts about 7 minutes in):

CR: Speaking of the espionage, was it possible to link up all the things that he was gonna do in that Jet game

SS: Nah...

CR: ...where he's gonna link up down and distance with formations...

SS: You know, that's a whole 'nother discussion, that this has been going on, this gaining an edge. If you give me a minute...

MF: Go ahead.

SS: George Halas, in the early 60's, the way you would study your opponent was exchanging game films, that's the way you would... So what Halas did, for two years, was that he would have two cameramen film the game. The way that I found out about this was when there was a fire in the Bears office, Halas called me up and said, "well, you guys save it, you can keep all this film." So we got buckets and baskets of this old film, we put it on - half of it was out of focus. What's going on here? How could you use this? It was all out of focus.

CR: That was his idea.

SS: Well, it laid there until finally Abe Gibron came by when he was scounting for the Seahawks. And we just go out to dinner and I said, "Abe, what about..." And he starts laughing. "Oh, you got the visitor's film."

So what Halas was doing, he'd hire two cameramen, one would shoot the game out of focus, and the other would shoot in focus, and he would send the out of focus to the next week's opponent. And Allie Sherman or someone would say, "hey, what's this, it's terrible." And Halas would say, "oh, yeah, that damn cameraman, I'm gonna fire the guy, he stinks."

And finally when Ken Cavanaugh went to the Giants and they played the Bears, it was in '61 or '62, Cavanaugh said, "I'm gonna talk to the old man and say, Hey George, knock off the crap with this out of focus - send us the real stuff." And that was the end of that.

But nobody made - I mean, here's the father of our game, purposely filming the game out of focus and sending it as the coaching tape to the other team.

It's a good listen (Sabol's always good, and he's been at every important NFL event since the Super Bowl era began), an amusing story, and, perhaps, a different perspective that some people might consider...

Cameras on the sideline

It was my contention, right from the start, that a) the Patriots weren't doing anything that was out of the ordinary for NFL teams in taping the Jets and b) the reaction and punishment were wildly out of proportion to the offense. Clearly, they broke the rules, and punishment was appropriate, but the punishment inflicted was, in my mind, excessive in the extreme.

And the evidence continues to support that position. Yesterday on WEEI Michael Holley spoke of, and today Newsday is printing, the story that the Jets were taping the Patriots illegally in Foxboro last year.

According to league sources familiar with the situation, the Jets were caught using a videotaping device during a game in Foxborough last season that resulted in the removal of a Jets employee. After Gillette Stadium officials saw him using the recorder early in the game, he was told to stop and leave the area. He had been filming from the mezzanine level between the scoreboard and a decorative lighthouse in an end zone. The camera was not confiscated by the Patriots or stadium security.

Why did the Patriots videotaping in week 1 become a huge story? Was it because they were doing something unbelievably corrupt that warranted the condemnation it received? No, it was because the Jets, rather than just removing the camera, chose to go the NFL with it, and the Commissioner, spurred on by the football media, over-reacted with that draconian punishment.

Kuechenberg on WEEI

A couple of interesting comments this morning from former Dolphin lineback Bob Kuechenberg on WEEI. I didn't have a recorder going, so can't provide a transcript right now, but hopefully they'll post the audio later.

- On the Patriots "spygate" issue, he thinks (as I do) that it was vastly overblown. "Why should it be illegal?"

- There's been a portrayal of the 1972 Dolphins as desperately protective of their "legacy."

Here they come again, the NFL's grumpy old men, tarnishing their legend a little more each time they grumble about another team's attempt to fashion a similar piece of history. The 1972 Miami Dolphins will forever be remembered as the first NFL team to achieve an undefeated season, but for some Dolphins it has always seemed that being the first is not enough. They desperately want to remain the "only."

And there's also been backlash against that portrayal. Former TE Jim Mandich says that they are not "pathetic losers down here clinking champagne glasses and desperately clinging to a record set 35 years ago."

Well, Kuechenberg said (and I'll have to get the exact wording later) that he's rooting as hard as he can for the Patriots to lose.

Colts cheating?

(Gathering into one post...)


Earlier I said that

There have been accusations for years that the Colts were "pumping in" crowd noise, accusations that were denied, of course, because that would be "cheating." Listen to this and tell me that isn't the sound of pumped in crowd noise. The "loud crowd" starts skipping, and then cuts off instantly. It will be interesting to see whether the people who started in on the Patriots the next day after the camera incident actually start on this.

I will make one comment here, though - if the Indianapolis Colts were artificially inflating the noise in that dome when the opposition had the ball, and turning it down when the Colts had the ball, that is far more of an advantage for them than anything that could possibly have accrued to the Patriots by videotaping opponents signals.

UPDATE: There have been a couple of reports that the sound does not appear on the radio broadcasts, which would implicate CBS and exonerate the Colts. Don't know, haven't heard them.

Presumably, if either of the radio broadcasts demonstrates that noise, we'll hear it at some point, and that would be conclusive, or close to it. Interestingly, no one is saying, "Gosh, the Colts would NEVER do that..." We are, in fact, seeing references to past accusations of the Colts...piping in crowd noise.

UPDATE: Initially, the allegations were based on the CBS broadcast with no on-site confirmation. Now, according to yahoo sport, "observers at the game said there seemed to be a "skip" in the sound during the game Sunday..." And apparently, the Patriots complained to the league before they left the stadium.

If the radio broadcasts could either confirm or refute, I would expect to have heard about it by now. Which makes me think that this story is going to last for a few days.

(How would you like to be the San Diego Chargers right now? They got the Patriots the week that everyone was piling on New England. Next week, they get the Colts, who could conceivable be operating in the same "us against the world," "everyone's running down our accomplishments" mode.)

Update: CBS checks in - "CBS has informed us that the unusual audio moment heard by fans during the Patriots-Colts telecast was the result of tape feedback in the CBS production truck and was isolated to the CBS broadcast. It was in no way related to any sound within the stadium and could not be heard in the stadium." So, whether they're doing it or not, they're apparently off the hook for this one. Which makes the previous San Diego Chargers comment inoperable.

C'est la vie.

Update: From Michael Felger in the Boston Herald - "One final note: We don’t believe CBS. It felt artificially loud at the RCA Dome."

WEEI has a sound byte from a cameraman who was at the game for one of Boston's local stations, who was told (don't know by whom) that the Colts were picking up the crowd noise and playing it back over the PA.

So, regardless of the CBS statement, it apparently has enough legs to start another day here in Boston.

Patriots 24, Colts 20

Thoughts on "Super Bowl XLI 1/2"...

• The New England Patriots are the best team in football right now. There are three NFL teams at 7-1 - two of the three losses that those teams have are to the Patriots. Despite the claims that "the Patriots haven't played anyone" or "the Colts have had a much tougher schedule," according to Jeff Sagarin's ratings, the Patriots are now 4-0 against the top 10 NFL teams. The Colts are now 1-1. The Patriots are the only team to have beaten either the 2nd or 3rd ranked team, and they beat both of them on their own home fields.



• The Colts played a tremendous game, got several gifts from the officials, had a fluke touchdown on a dump-off when three Patriots ran into each other, got the worst game that the Patriots have played this year, and still couldn't hold a 10-point lead with less than 10 minutes left. Now, the excuses from the Colts point of view are legitimate - Marvin Harrison didn't play, Gonzalez went out with a bad thumb early, the Colts were playing without wideouts. There's no question that that's true, and it affected their performance. And it is equally true that much of the Patriots poor performance was forced by the Colts. But there were advantages that offset at least some of that. And the Patriots helped them out for a while. As good a play as the 2nd quarter touchdown was for Joseph Addai, that was poorly played by 5 Patriot defenders who had him surrounded. The Brady interception that set that up was a great play by Bethea, but a great play on an underthrown ball - if that ball is thrown three feet further, it's a touchdown for the Patriots, because Stallworth was behind the defense.



• If the Colts had won, given the way New England played for 45 minutes, discussion of the the officials would be whining and off limits. Since the Patriots won, we can do this.
  
  The officials were awful. The first thing was the challenge required on Morehead's first quarter catch. He clearly came down on the sideline, there were two officials right there watching, and the Patriots had to burn one of their challenges in order for the officials to get the call right.
  
  And the Patriots were penalized 10 times for 146 yards. That set a new team record for penalty yardage. Many of those penalties were legitimate. But there were at least three that were questionable, or worse. I'm willing to give the officials the benefit of the doubt on the Assante Samuel pass interference call for 37 yards that set up the Colts first score. It looked like it might have been legitimate at game speed, though on replay it looked as if Samuel had good position on a ball that was overthrown. But the Ellis Hobbs call was absurd. Hobbs was in perfect position and Reggie Wayne pulled him down from behind. An awful, terrible, horrible, no-good, very bad call. As was the Randy Moss offensive pass interference in the fourth quarter.
  
  Oh, and I missed a blatant non-call. Gary Brackett hooked Kevin Faulk on a third-down throw, turning his body and preventing him from catching the pass. Faulk and Brady both went off at the officials on that, it was obvious, it was blatant, it was clear. And it wasn't called.
  
  This isn't just me, and it isn't just Patriot homerism. As the comments from Mike Sando's ESPN blog would attest.



• There have been accusations for years that the Colts were "pumping in" crowd noise, accusations that were denied, of course, because that would be "cheating." Listen to this and tell me that isn't the sound of pumped in crowd noise. The "loud crowd" starts skipping, and then cuts off instantly. It will be interesting to see whether the people who started in on the Patriots the next day after the camera incident actually start on this.
  
  I will make one comment here, though - if the Indianapolis Colts were artificially inflating the noise in that dome when the opposition had the ball, and turning it down when the Colts had the ball, that is far more of an advantage for them than anything that could possibly have accrued to the Patriots by videotaping opponents signals.
  
  UPDATE: There have been a couple of reports that the sound does not appear on the radio broadcasts, which would implicate CBS and exonerate the Colts. Don't know, haven't heard them.



• Right now, it's tough to picture a realistic scenario that doesn't involve a re-match in Foxborough for the AFC Championship Game.

Update: Welcome to yahoo and craigslist. I've gathered the "Colts cheating" updates into one post here. And for my thoughts on the Patriots "cameragate," as well, click here...

Patriots cheating, #12887 - Beating a dead horse

I am a big Peter King fan. One of the things that I look forward to every week is his Monday Morning Quarterback column. But I think that he (as well as most of the national media) have overstated the impact and "nefariousness" of the Patriots playing candid camera. A piece written yesterday includes the statement that:

It's widely believed that New England has stolen signals in this manner for years, but officials from various clubs acknowledge that the Pats are not the only team that does it. Last week's revelation doesn't mean the New England dynasty is a fraud, but it does take some shine off those three Super Bowl wins.

In the first place, of course New England has "stolen signals" in this manner for years. It should be obvious to the meannest intelligence that recording the defensive signal-calling has been standard operating procedure. It's part of their game-day activity. They've got video of all of the opposing coaches signals for the last 8 years - at least.

But leaving that alone for a minute, how can say simultaneously that "the Pats are not the only team that does it" and "it does take some shine off those three Super Bowl wins?" If they are breaking a rule which others are also breaking, and doing it to assist in an activity - "stealing" signals - that EVERYBODY else does, how does that taint the Super Bowl wins even a little bit? And if it does, how tainted are they, exactly? Are they more or less tainted than the Super Bowls that San Francisco and Denver won by cheating on the salary cap (which no one ever talks about as being tainted)? Are they more or less tainted than the Super Bowls of any teams (late 70s Steelers) who may have had players using illegal performance-enhancing drugs?

The Patriots won those Super Bowls. They earned them. To paraphrase their coach, they did business the way business was being done.

Period. End of discussion.

NFL week 2 wrapup

Eventually, they actually played football this weekend.

• The biggest shock of the weekend took place in Cleveland. If you'd asked me on Friday to order the teams in the NFL on the likeliness of them scoring 51 points, Cleveland would have been 32nd on that list. I didn't see much of the game, and don't know how, exactly, that happened, but given the chance of betting my house on Cleveland scoring over/under 50 this past weekend, I'd now be homeless.


• There's not much to add to my earlier comments about the Patriots/Chargers game. New England dominated from start to finish. San Diego is (probably) still one of the very good teams in the league, but they were absolutely not competitive in Foxboro.


• Did Donovan McNabb ever deserve his reputation and status? Does he give the Eagles the best chance to win now? How long will it be before they score a touchdown?


• Tom Coughlin came in as the disciplinarian to fix the Giants. To make the dumb penalties stop, to keep the players on the field, to run a tough defense. I have affection for Tom from his days at Boston College, but the kindest thing that you can say about his tenure in New York right now is that, on that list, he's 0-3. What's more clear is that the players have completely tuned him out. They're just waiting for him to get fired, and see what happens next. At least, that's how it looks to me.


• I'm developing a level of skepticism about the Baltimore defense. If they were what people think they are, they wouldn't have let the Jets drive down the field with a QB making his first NFL start and tie the game inside the last two minutes. What's that? They didn't? Well, yes, they did. The Jets just failed to score the points. McCareins dropped one touchdown, Clemens overthrew a second. No credit to the Baltimore defense.


• I think that the Saints are a) not as good as they were expected to be and b) better than they've played so far. I'd still bet them in that division.


• When looking at the schedule for week 3 before the season, Indianapolis at Houston would no have jumped out as a game of interest. And even after week 1, well, everyone understands that Kansas City's bad, so what did it mean that Houston started 1-0? But Carolina is still a hyped team, and Houston went in and beat them handily. Now, this game looks like a real measuring stick - what are the Texans? Are they real? Are they a threat?


• So the New York Jets cheated this week, breaking an NFL rule to gain a competitive advantage. When do we suppose that the $500,000 fine for Mangini and loss of a first-round draft pick will be announced? (I'm not holding my breath, but, for consistency...


• My best analysis of the week (tie):
  1. Houston (+7) at Carolina - AFC 98-pound weakling kicks sand in the face of NFC bully. Carolina played a good game in St. Louis last week - I'm betting that they can't do it two weeks in a row. Houston with the upset.
  
  
  2. San Diego at New England (-4) - ...let me keep this short and simple - the Patriots are a better team, they have better players, they have better coaching, and they'll win this one by a touchdown or more.


• My worst analysis of the week (again, there's an embarassment of riches here): The lock of the week. Cleveland spent 7 weeks of training camp choosing the quarterback who gave them the best chance to win. And then benched him after 1 half and traded him after one game. Cincinnati covers this if they score 8 or more. I vote "more." Instead, Cincinnati scored 45. And lost.


• For the week:
  7-8-1 against the spread
  9-7 on winners
  (No, I'm not giving up my day job and moving to Vegas any time soon...)

Patriots have to turn over tapes? Uh, OK...

From Peter King's Monday Morning Quarterback column (of which I am, as a general rule, a big fan):

If he thinks the Patriots are pulling some sort of Rose Mary Woods and erasing video or withholding the video he's asked New England to provide, he could easily increase the penalty on the hooded one. Goodell wants all coaching video made available to him, and if the Pats don't cooperate, he'll increase the penalty...This week, the Patriots will have to make available all the tape the NFL demands to see. How much tape is that? It could be boxes and boxes. I have no idea how Goodell can be sure he's getting it all, and I have no idea how he can figure out whether Belichick is hiding any illicit tape he's had his video guys shoot over the past seven years, if indeed there is some. I'm dubious about the chances of Goodell finding anything else wrong, but we'll see.

Let's get real for a minute. The Patriots may have "boxes and boxes" of tape, but that's not where their video is. (This is something that I know a little bit about.) They've got, somewhere on their premises, a video capture/editing/playback system. When their video comes in on Sunday, Monday, whenever, it is immediately loaded into the system. The files are chopped up, tagged with keywords, players, teams, coaches, down and distance, and the tape is maybe archived, and maybe used again. But the data is stored as computer files, in a system with a big database that allows them to pull out whatever they want based on specific criteria. Want to see every third down play that the Colts have run in the last five years from between their own 30 yard line and midfield? No problem.

And those files aren't just in the massive storage system on-site. They're certainly archived and backed up off-site, as well, with Iron Mountain or someone. In other words, all of that sideline footage (and it certainly exists, probably for every game that they've played since Belichick arrived) is going to be very hard to purge. This isn't a case of pulling the cardboard box out of the closet and hauling it away. This stuff is integrated, and if/when they delete it from the database, it will still exist in the archives.

In other words, erasing video is exactly what the NFL is going to want them to do. And it won't be easy, or quick. As to "withholding," what would they withhold? There's no question that they've been recording sideline signals, the NFL knows it, the Patriots know that the NFL knows it, hell, Belichick tried to justify it (reportedly) to the commissioner last week. What could possibly be gained by not just showing them all of the sideline video that everyone already knows they have?

Patriots "cheating" - punishment meted out, lynch mob dissatisfied

Full disclosure up front:
- I am a big fan of the New England Patriots.
- I am a big fan of Bill Belichick, as a coach.

That out of the way, my last comments on the mountain-out-of-molehill story of the week:

• The Patriots broke an NFL rule. They should be punished.


• The Patriots did not "cheat." At least, not that we know of. Had Matt Estrella been in the twelfth row, or the press box, or a private box with his video camera, it would not have violated the rules. There is no rule against looking at the opposing coaches signalling in plays, watching them with binoculars, having observers write them down. There is no expectation of privacy when signalling plays in, in full view of tens of thousands of people. Given that, I say again, the Patriots did not "cheat." They broke the rules. There's a difference.


• Would I feel the same way if the story were about, say, the Colts? Well, I'd have preferred that, obviously. This is not fun for a Patriots fan. But I don't think I'd be in the lynch mob in that case, either. They have violated a rule that I think is, frankly, silly. It's a rule for the sake of having a rule. I think that, to the extent that signs are stolen, everyone is doing it. I don't believe that I'd feel significantly different if it had been someone else caught with the camera.


• I do think, though, that the story, and probably the punishment, would have been significantly different. Bill Belichick is a person with tremendous skills, intelligence, and he's fascinating to listen to when talking football. He's well-read and interesting. He's also, apparently, a jerk, or has been on many occasions. There are a lot of people who are thrilled to have an opportunity to play whack-a-mole with him. So we are treated to the "Beli-cheat" headlines, and all of the people that he's beaten over the years revelling in the "well, of course he beat us - he was cheating!" after-the-fact rationalizations. This story is very different if it's the Houston Texans or Minnesota Vikings. And the punishment is, too.


• Why is the punishment different? Because you don't have the punishment issued by the commissioner after a week of every media member hammering on how tough the commissioner is, and how hard he's going to be on this transgression. The media spent the week ensuring that Goodell had to either hammer the Patriots or get hammered himself.


• One of the facts of life is that the media operates in both build-them-up and tear-them-down modes. Those are great storylines, and the media is all about the storyline. Starting in 2001, the Patriots were a classic build-them-up story. There was an absolute feeding-frenzy this week, as everyone who had (very understandably) gotten sick of the Patriots jumped on the bandwagon. There was a spiral of competition to see who could come up with the most vitriol, the highest state of moral dudgeon. It was more than a little bit sickening.


• Some of the people resenting that on WEEI have spent much of the last two years doing exactly the same thing with Barry Bonds. I'm not one of them, and have criticized that behavior. It was no more appropriate or enjoyable when aimed at Bonds than it is aimed at Belichick and the Patriots.

The football pundits are, as a group, enjoying their dudgeon, competing to see who can, most quickly and firmly bemoan the unbelievable leniency of the commissioner in this case.
SI's Don Banks:

...it sounds a little strange to claim that Bill Belichick got off lightly, in terms of the penalty he received from NFL commissioner Roger Goodell for his role in the Patriots' videotaping incident Sunday at Giants Stadium. And yet, I'm still left with the feeling Belichick dodged the worst-case scenario...

SI's Peter King:

I think the Patriots and Bill Belichick got off lucky.

ESPN.com's John Clayton:

The penalty was too light.

Pete Prisco:

This is the integrity of the game we're talking about. Goodell should have come down harder on the coach.

Mike Freeman:

Somewhere Bill Belichick is feeling a stinging sensation near his hand. It's due to the slap on the wrist.

USAToday's Jon Saraceno:

I would have preferred to see Belichick suspended for multiple games, without pay, and banned from headquarters, and for the team to lose a first-round pick

Poppycock. The Denver Broncos cheated when the went over the salary cap to sign John Elway's last contract. They gained an actual competitive advantage and won two Super Bowls. They lost one (1) second (2nd) round draft pick. The idea that what the Patriots have done warrants a worse punishment completely escapes me. This punishment is all out of proportion to the crime.

Rich Hofmann, of the Philadelphia News, on the other hand, gets it:

The embarrassment for Belichick and his owner, Robert Kraft, was already enormous. This set of punishments - especially the forfeiture of the first-round draft choice, just a gigantic penalty, way more than anyone had a right to expect - will assure that no one will ever use a camera again to do what an observant 12-year-old can do almost as well.

Patriots cheating?

Did I say, earlier today, that a) the Patriots were "violating both the spirit and the letter of the NFL rules" and b) they weren't "doing anything that every other NFL team doesn't do? " Yes, I did. And then Don Banks posted a link to an article that he wrote, back in July, in which he said, in part:

1. Pictures are worth a thousand words: The "stealing'' of signs -- both on offense and defense -- is the area that's most often cited as fertile ground for cheating. The most common practice is for a team to videotape an opponent's signal-givers on the sideline, and later marry up those indications to the game tape in order to identify tendencies or patterns.

Though no disciplinary action by the league ever resulted, the Patriots last year were reportedly the impetus of a sternly written letter from the league office to all teams, reminding them that it was illegal for an advance scout or personnel official to bring a video recording device of any kind into the press box for the purposes of taping a potential opponent's signals or play-calling gestures from the sideline.

Teams have also been chastised for having a second camera in the press box-area video box, with one camera shooting the game action and the other one being trained on the opposing team's signal-givers. On offense, that's why coaches have taken to holding their play-calling charts in front of their mouths when they're sending in the play to the quarterback via the radio headset system.

WEEI has been fulminating over this all day. I remain profoundly disinterested.

Update (9/14): I've written about this again...