I like the sentiment, but I do wish that either/both of them had been a little more articulate in explaining why they both agree that Spygate didn't give a competitive advantage. That's the perspective that nobody outside of New England understands/cares about.
I wish Bruschi had done something like that also, but, the more I think about it, it's almost not his role.
That sort of explanation should come from someone in the national media, TV, print or radio. It doesn't have to be anything complicated, just some bullet points like "Stealing signals is permitted in the NFL, All teams (including your favorite team) attempt to steal signals, All teams, knowing these first 2 facts, change their signals, and, lastly, the taping of the Rams walkthrough never happened."
Unfortunately, that person has not appeared over the last 5 years, so I doubt they ever will.
To touch on Harbaugh's original statement, he is right about people's perception of events. I thought it was interesting that, when the story about the Saints GM hacking into the opposing coaches conversations broke, the first reaction from people like Polian and Clayton was that information was helpful and there was no way you could use during a game. As a result, the subsequent coverage was along the lines of "Even if they did do it, it didn't help."
If anything comes from the "eavesdropping" investigation, people still won't think it's as bad as what the Patriots did because it was portrayed as basically harmless, even though it would be much, much worse.
