I can confidently say that about 90%+ of the average fan has no idea of the actual "truths" of what happened with Cameragate.
For one thing, it was mainly geared towards the NFC opponents as they felt that they could help to bridge the gap of less scouting/intel.
I have never, ever seen anything at all to support this claim. Can you please show me where you got this from.
My understanding is that they did it every game for many years.
It was also done in response to many other teams (reportedly also the NYJ) doing it too.
Again, this appears to be a new claim. Almost every team taped signals, BB did not do it to get back at someone, he did it because it is/was a common practice. It is still very likely being done.
Belichick claims that he misunderstood the memo.
I say he correctly understood the memo, specifically the 'for use in that game' portion, but was penalized for the spirit of the memo even though the content conflicted with that.
Whether that is true or not, I have no idea. I can guarantee you that there's no way in the world that he could have ever guessed that it'd have become what it did though. I also believe that it didn't have nearly the kind of positive effect for us that so many seem to think, judging by our better record overall since--especially our scoring output on offense.
There was absolutely zero positive effect. Not breaking the rules would have simply meant the filming was done from a different spot.
While people make the silly argument that if I tape, study and figure out your signals in an NFL game that you will not change them for the next game we play, that is again irrelevant because taping, studying and trying to figure out signals is not a violation of the rules.
The only way they gained an advantage was if the spot they filmed from gave them an advantage, which is ridiculous.
The Patriots were penalized because it created the perception of cheating. Frankly, the NFL was probably right to do so, because the perception of cheating is as damaging to the shield as cheating in many ways. Without a severe penalty the league would have come off not as endorsing what really happened, but as endorsing the perception that was created. Even today, 6 years later most people speaking about the topic are misinformed, and even an informed person like you just put a couple unsubstantiated 'fact' into this post.
See if your facts were correct, only doing it against NFC opponents WOULD taint the SBs and doing it because someone else did it to you would also make it seem like a desperate practice rather than the routine one it was.
I'm fine with a punishment if he broke a rule in the big picture. What I'm not fine with is Goodell throwing fuel on the fire, and failing to stop what quickly (within 72 hrs) became a plethora of mis-information and poorly guided misconception by the media and average fan
.
Again, he had to deal with perception, and whatever he said wouldnt have mattered because 6 years later no one has listened to the facts anyway.
For any purpose other than BBs reputation, Goodell was correct to overreact to the perception not the reality because his concern was the public perception of the league, fair competition, and its response to violations. Softening the blow to the rule breaker who created the misperception about the league was rightly his last concern.
As a Patsfan I realize BB and the team were railroaded but taking off the fan hat, its pretty easy to see the issue and dangers Goodell were dealing with went well beyond what was fair to the Patriots and his job is to protect the shield, even if an unfair punishment falls in the wake. Overpenalizing a violator is a lesser concern than damaging the reputation of the league. We are seeing that every week now with penalties and fines for hits. Fining a player may be unfair to him on a lot of the hits we see getting tagged, but leaving no question that the league is perceived to be about safety first is a more important consideration to them.
The game has been set back in the last few years by egregious rules regarding high hits, essentially eliminating the KO return, and creating a stupid OT rule to assuage complaining fans. None were the best solutions, but all were the best way to enhance the public perception of the league offices.
Throw the Saints issue into that, and the Tomlin one once they moronically take a draft pick away. (Ever wonder why a draft pick? The draft gets more overall attention and coverage than the SB)
Of course we all wish that Belichick himself would have helped his case a bit by explaining things a bit more, but that's just not the way he is. He couldn't care less what others think.
I think it would have been disingenuous for the man who never speaks about anything interal to choose the time he is punished to do so. There is zero chance is would have been perceived by anyone as anything but a cheater lying to cover his cheating ass. Those that care about the facts, don't need the explanation, those that don't would have dismissed it or even added it to their 'evidence' (proof: cheaters lie and liars cheat)