It comes down to this, no one likes a dynasty except for the fans of the team that has one. Consider the animosity of fans from other teams whose own dynasties the Pats were threatening. Fans of the Steelers and Cowboys were coming here regularly when there was the possibility of a three-peat, to defend their own dynasty's relative positions in history. We would feel that way too if, say the Colts were to win a couple more SBs in the next 2-3 years. I don't really have a problem with that, it's what competition is all about.
Everyone was quick to congratulate the Pats for slaying the giant in SB XXXVI. We were everyone's darling at that point. Now, we are seen as winning too much and getting more than our fair share. This is the era of parity and no one is supposed to be able to dominate like the Pats have. They have done it in their own way and in the process have made the prognosticators look foolish. There has been a lot of comments on this site and others about the almost open hostility towards the Pats as their triumphs mounted, and to the cheerleading on sites such as ESPN to see the Colts win it. "Everyone wants to see Peyton Manning win a ring" they said, "It's the Colts time" they said. Conversely that means that "No one wants to see the Pats win again" and "They've already won their share, it's time for someone else."
A couple of times the Colts ran roughshod over Denver and KC in the playoffs and were looking like an unstoppable juggernaut, and "those damned Patriots had to up and win and just ruin it for everyone, who do they think they are?"
Where did the idea come from that victories were supposed to be distributed fairly and not earned? Where did the idea come from that Peyton Manning deserved a ring? We follow sports in general because we enjoy the thrill of the competition, and if it gets to the point where there is a hint that the contests are not being determined fairly on the field than that sport will quickly lose it's appeal.
I'm not referring to any "cheating" by the Pats. Roger Goodell himself said that the Pats did not cheat in the game with the Jets, and BB said "As the Commissioner acknowledged, our use of sideline video had no impact on the outcome of last week’s game. We have never used sideline video to obtain a competitive advantage while the game was in progress."
I AM referring to the fact that the league ruled that stealing signs is okay, as the Broncos have admitted to, and buying a tape of audibles is also allowed per the NFL, although if the Pats had been the ones purchasing tapes of the Dolphins I suspect the ruling may be different. I guess it's okay if the underdog gains an advantage this way, but not when the bully does it to keep himself on top.
I AM referring to instances of highly suspect refereeing in the playoffs two years ago when many voices were calling for investigation. The Pats were one of the teams to suffer the most from the bad calls, but that's okay, they've already won their share.
I DO have a problem, with teams having influential members of committees being able to get rule changes and "re-emphases" passed that particularly help their own teams.
I DO have a problem with a team manipulating sound levels in their stadiums and turning off the A/C when it helps their own teams, but publicly decrying actions taken by other home teams to enhance their own chances.
The Pats have made the media look foolish on several occasions and now that there was an opportunity, the media exploited it and stirred the issue up in to a frenzy. The constant media speculation of the possible penalty put pressure on the commissioner to hand out a harsh penalty and that is what he did. It's kind of like when a referee or umpire has to make a controversial call in a critical game against the home team. Sometimes it's just easier to be gutless.
People like Johns Clayton were speculating on penalties based on the number of draft picks they had as if the Pats' superior abilities to amass draft picks should have any bearing on the penalty. A couple of years ago I believe the Redskins had only a #1 and a #5 pick, what would their penalty have been? We don't know, but I'll bet it would have been much less than what the Pats were given.
Now the Pats have been caught, not cheating, but violating a league directive about filming on the sidelines, and this has given the enemies of the Pats their opportunity to come after the Pats and take a pound of flesh. Even THIS penalty is not enough for some people, I read an opinion from a reader on ESPN that the Pats should be forced to give the #1 pick back to the 49ers.
This has become like a public lynching for jaywalking. I agree with the premise of this thread that the media reaction to all of this makes it impossible to ever look at them the same way again.
Know this though, Goodall could strip the Pats of all of their picks for the next three years and order the Pats to disband their roster, but as long as we get to keep BB, SP, and Bob Kraft, we would win the SB again in five years.
Screw the media and the rest of the league and their fans.
We are the Pats, and that is the best there is!
