The problem is that it's being reported without that context and knowledge of what's considered normal within the coaching fraternity and so it looks bad to outsiders.
This is EXACTLY correct, imho.
Look, before I say what I'm about to say, I want you guys to know that I'm not a hardcore Patriots fan. I consider myself an outsider (if anything, I'm a Nebraska fan, and in general more of a college football fan). I just like watching the team because of their on-field excellence, especially this year. I appreciate well-played football. A win tomorrow will be truly historic, and will prove to me in my opinion that they are the best team to ever take the football field anywhere.
I want to say that because feelthepain or whoever it was said that 90 percent of people outside New England don't like and don't trust the franchise (or whatever). I want you all to know that there are people out there who have little to do with the franchise - I've never attended a game, I've hardly been to New England in my life - who support you and your team with all of this.
As a former journalist, I'm a bit disgusted with the media's handling of the whole situation. Too often it seems their tone is accusatory without questions of real substance. As some of you may know, a few months ago, someone asked Sports Illustrated's Paul Zimmerman - supposedly one of the most respected sportswriters in the NFL - as to how using a video camera is different from using binoculars and pen and paper. Zimmerman answered by only saying that the two are different because using video equipment is illegal.
I found this answer completely unsatisfactory and unprofessional, and frankly I was appalled that someone of Zimmerman's reputation would dismiss a good question that raises a good point about the principle of the matter. Seriously, these people accuse the Patriots of dodging questions? How about members of the media doing their jobs and answering the public's questions? I've written lengthy letters to at least two nationally syndicated columnists with lots of questions about their stances on the matter ("Are the Patriots' past titles tainted? Is 2007 tainted?"), and have received absolutely no response. Must be busy trying to answer all the questions about this.
Frankly, I don't think the public is making as big of a deal out of all of this as some in the media seem to think it is. Sure, there are fans of other teams who are mad and jealous. But I want you guys to know, not everyone feels that way.
Personally, if the whole thing has to have a "gate" suffix, I don't understand why it's not called "videogate" rather than "spygate." As I understand the rules, you can use binoculars or even polaroid cameras to observe and watch signals. Besides, how do you "spy" - i.e., observe secretly - something that is in full public view? Have these people even been to football games? There are constantly signals going on all over the place that anyone can see. Recording them with video equipment is going to give one team an advantage down the road if they play again? Give me a f'n break. As I've told some columnists, part of the problem is, we live in an asterisk-happy age, thanks to the likes of Barry Bonds and McGwire, etc. A major breach of the rules occurs, so lets throw an asterisk at anyone who gets caught for a rules violation, no matter how major or minor.
And, yes, it's sad, but the better a team does on the field, the more people are going to try to take them down. Successful teams become a victim of their own success. As a Nebraska fan, I know, particularly after what our program did in the '90s. I'm not saying that situation was totally analogous to this one, but trust me, I do have some idea for what you guys are going through and you have my sympathy.
Personally, I hope the Pats win 56-0 and break the Super Bowl record for victory margin so they can claim that record, too.
End of rant.
