Sources: Camera confiscated after claims of Pats spying on Jets

[camisadelgolf]

Give him the Casino Royale treatment. Just tear out the bottom of a chair and let 'er rip.

Are you implying that Bill Belichik has an itch?

[MaineRed]

WVRed, you are making my point for me. Yes Pete Rose is not in the HOF but did the Reds have to give back the World Series trophies they won? Did Rose have to give back the hits? Is he still not the all time hits leader?

It blows me away that you are comparing stripping a team of very good football players of 3 Super Bowl wins over the actions of someone who doesn't wear a uniform to a single player not being in the HOF for his own actions. Pete was penalized for what Pete did. The Cincinnati Reds were not penalized for them. At least not anywhere near the level that you want the Pats punished.

You'd have a different opinon on the matter if the Reds were stripped of their 75 and 76 World Series wins because, "Pete Rose was banned for betting on baseball and we can safely assume he has been betting his entire career (despite very little evidence) and thus we have to go back and ban him from the start of said career. Congrats to the Red Sox and Yankees for their 75 and 76 World Series wins."

If Bud Selig made that announcement you'd be OK with it because that is what you want for the Pats?

Before YOU bring in the apples and asparagaus remember that you brought up Pete, not me.

[Roy Tucker]

It should be interesting to see how the NFL views this. Do they consider it a heinous crime or just a mild transgression? Don't know. I don't think there is any precedent. Just my gut feel, but I don't think the NFL wants to make a firestorm out of this.

Returning Super Bowl trophies is out of the question, I'd be hugely surprised if a game was forfeited. I'd be surprised if there were high draft picks taken away. I could see a 1 game suspension for Belichick or for some assistant coach the Pats throw under the bus. But I don't think that's likely either.

Two low draft picks and a stern warning from the NFL is what I see.

[Roy Tucker]

And actually, I've always wondered why offenses get to use a radio and QB headphones while the defenses have to hand-signal.

The days of QBs calling their own plays and middle linebackers calling the defense seem so antiquated now. Coaches control everything;

[bucksfan2]

There is a whole lot of backlash for this incident. I think mainly it has to deal with the arrogance of both the organization and its fans. However I think they should be delt with and delt with harshly. I dont know how each team signals its defensive signals to the field but I would assume there are multiple people giving the signal along with a trigger signal that alerts you when the real signal is coming. I would assume that they change signals from week to week but do not do so during the game. With the reciever in each qb's helmet I would assume it would take less that 10 seconds to radio the signal to Brady what defense is being called. The pats still had to execute the plays but the issue I have with this is it would be similar to a baseball team knowing every pitch that was being thrown. Every biltz that was called you would know where to go with the hot route. Every stunt that was called you would know how that was happening. Basically what the Pats have is they know what formation and what the defense is doing on most plays. Outside of an outstanding individual effort the Pats will be successful on most plays. If this isn't a serious issue I don't know what is. Goodell needs to come down harshly on this or he will lose some credability with everyone outside of NE. And to you NE fans, the NFL DOES exist in 30 more cities.

[Slyder]

Wow the Patriots are bigger frauds than what even the Raider Nation thought they were. I will never respect the franchise nor the coach. I hope the NFL makes an example out of them.

Forfeit the game, ban the man that was caught from ALL NFL facilities or from having contact with any NFL franchise, Fine the Patriot, suspend Belliache depending on how strongly tied he is to this, ban anyone from upstairs or within the organization that was involved from ALL NFL facilities, their 1st round pick next year, plus additional penalties and a warning get caught doing this again and were going to make you ineligible for the playoffs and look at old tapes/investigate previous "accusations" (IE Jags coach saying their radio frequency was jammed) to see just how often this could have occured in the past and further punishments could stem from this.

[camisadelgolf]

WVRed, you are making my point for me. Yes Pete Rose is not in the HOF but did the Reds have to give back the World Series trophies they won? Did Rose have to give back the hits? Is he still not the all time hits leader?

It blows me away that you are comparing stripping a team of very good football players of 3 Super Bowl wins over the actions of someone who doesn't wear a uniform to a single player not being in the HOF for his own actions. Pete was penalized for what Pete did. The Cincinnati Reds were not penalized for them. At least not anywhere near the level that you want the Pats punished.

You'd have a different opinon on the matter if the Reds were stripped of their 75 and 76 World Series wins because, "Pete Rose was banned for betting on baseball and we can safely assume he has been betting his entire career (despite very little evidence) and thus we have to go back and ban him from the start of said career. Congrats to the Red Sox and Yankees for their 75 and 76 World Series wins."

If Bud Selig made that announcement you'd be OK with it because that is what you want for the Pats?

Before YOU bring in the apples and asparagaus remember that you brought up Pete, not me.

Pete Rose's gambling was not considered cheating, am I right? Supposedly, he never bet on the Reds to lose.

[M2]

Wow, people really hate the Patriots. I had no idea (probably because I pay so little attention to football). I mean, take away their Super Bowl trophies for a little bit a cloak and dagger a few years later? Only sheer loathing can give rise to that kind of absurdity.

I've got to admit, I really like that they've offended the sensibilities of so many. I'm kind of hoping they go 16-0 and then win the Super Bowl just so I can watch a nation gnash its teeth.

[cincinnati chili]

The days of QBs calling their own plays and middle linebackers calling the defense seem so antiquated now. Coaches control everything;

Someone correct me if I'm wrong, but I think Tony Dungy gives Payton Manning carte blanche on controlling plays. Has this changed recently?

For the most part, I think you're correct.

[MaineRed]

Pete Rose's gambling was not considered cheating, am I right? Supposedly, he never bet on the Reds to lose.

I'm not going to argue about Pete Rose. As I said I wasn't the one who brought him into this. He is irrelevant to the conversation. The fact that he isn't allowed in the HOF is no comparison to taking away a 53 man teams Super Bowl wins.

If Goodell wants to ban Belichek then that is equal punishment. I don't understand how anyone with half a thought could compare banning one guy who played on a 25 man team that won championshisps to stripping a 53 man team that won championships of their titles.

Is it really THAT hard to see what an equal comparison would be to taking away the Pats 3 Super Bowl wins for the Reds during the Pete Rose era?

Banning a guy whose career is over to taking away 3 SB wins?

Calling it absurd is giving it WAY too much credit.

[cincy jacket]

Someone correct me if I'm wrong, but I think Tony Dungy gives Payton Manning carte blanche on controlling plays. Has this changed recently?

For the most part, I think you're correct.

One of their coaches was on ESPN radio the other day and they said they send in 4 plays to him, 2 runs and 2 passes. He then looks at the defense and chooses from that list. He can always audible to something different if he wants they said but most time he chooses a play from the 4 sent in.

[KronoRed]

Pete Rose's gambling was not considered cheating, am I right? Supposedly, he never bet on the Reds to lose.

Supposedly, but the games where he didn't bet on the Reds to win were really a nodnodwinkwink to his gambling buddys that he didn't think they were going to win.

[Caveat Emperor]

One of their coaches was on ESPN radio the other day and they said they send in 4 plays to him, 2 runs and 2 passes. He then looks at the defense and chooses from that list. He can always audible to something different if he wants they said but most time he chooses a play from the 4 sent in.

There was an interview in a magazine last year where they said that Manning gets 4 plays (2 runs, 2 passes) and calls one of those based on what he sees.

Then, he calls out specific protection orders for the line based on wherever he reads pressure as coming from. He also has the ability to, with hand signals and audible commands, alter the routes that each of his wideouts are running. I think they have 9 or 10 different "hot signals" that Manning can use to adjust a previously set route. He has the ability to adjust the route of each individual receiver prior to the snap.

So yeah -- they give him 4 plays, but they give him complete freedom to adjust and tweak those plays based on what he sees out there.

[WVRed]

I'm not going to argue about Pete Rose. As I said I wasn't the one who brought him into this. He is irrelevant to the conversation. The fact that he isn't allowed in the HOF is no comparison to taking away a 53 man teams Super Bowl wins.

If Goodell wants to ban Belichek then that is equal punishment. I don't understand how anyone with half a thought could compare banning one guy who played on a 25 man team that won championshisps to stripping a 53 man team that won championships of their titles.

Is it really THAT hard to see what an equal comparison would be to taking away the Pats 3 Super Bowl wins for the Reds during the Pete Rose era?

Banning a guy whose career is over to taking away 3 SB wins?

Calling it absurd is giving it WAY too much credit.

I'm assuming you are a Patriots fan?

I hit on this in the other post, but if any analogy works(even though comparing college and pro sports is apples and oranges), it would be the SMU Mustangs who received the "Death Penalty" during the 1980's for the boosters paying their players, or for that matter the Minnesota Timberwolves for the Joe Smith signing. With SMU, they were on probation SEVEN times before the penalty was levied, and the Patriots had been warned before.

Here is a list of what happened for those who either don't remember or aren't old enough:

SMU football had already been placed on three years' probation in 1985, but in 1986 faced allegations that players were being paid. The alleged violations were: 21 players allegedly received approximately $61,000 in cash payments, with the assistance of athletics department staff members, from funds provided by a booster. Payments ranged from $50 to $725 per month and occurred while SMU was on probation. Also, SMU officials lied to NCAA officials about when the payments stopped.

As a result:

The 1987 season was cancelled.
All home games in 1988 were cancelled, but SMU was allowed to play their seven regularly scheduled away games so that other institutions would not be financially affected.
SMU was banned from bowl games and television in 1988 and 1989.
The team's existing probation was extended two more years, to 1990.
SMU lost 55 new scholarship positions over 4 years.
The team was only allowed to hire five full-time assistant coaches, instead of the typical nine.
The infractions committee cited the need to "eliminate a program that was built on a legacy of wrongdoing, deceit and rule violations" as a factor in what is still the harshest penalty ever meted out to any major collegiate program. It also cited SMU's past history of violations; at the time SMU had been on probation seven times, more than any other school.

All recruits and players were allowed to transfer without losing eligibility, and most did so. New coach Forrest Gregg was left with an underweight lineup made up mostly of freshmen. As a result, SMU canceled the 1988 season as well, claiming it was unable to field a competitive team.





[edit] Fallout
Before the "death penalty" was instituted SMU was one of the most storied programs in college football, with a Heisman Trophy winner (Doak Walker in 1949), one national championship and 10 Southwest Conference titles. The Mustangs compiled 52-19-1 record from 1980 until 1986, including an undefeated season in 1982.

Afterwards, players were reluctant to attend a school with a history of such major recruiting violations. In addition, the loss of 55 scholarships meant that it would be 1992 before the Mustangs were able to field a team with a full complement of scholarship players; it would be another year before it fielded a team comprised entirely of players unaffected by the scandal.

Since 1989 SMU has only defeated 2 ranked teams, has only 1 winning season, and is 57-142-3.[1] The death penalty decimated the Southwest Conference's reputation and finances, contributing to the collapse of the entire conference in 1996. One of the most memorable quotes about the death penalty came from former University of Florida President John Lombardi, now president of the Louisiana State University System: "SMU taught the committee that the death penalty is too much like the atomic bomb. It's like what happened after we dropped the (atom) bomb in World War II. The results were so catastrophic that now we'll do anything to avoid dropping another one.”[2]

Author and columnist David Whitford wrote and published the book "A Payroll to Meet: Greed, Scandal, and Football at Southern Methodist University." It is an account of both the death penalty and SMU football in the 1980's. It chronicles Ron Meyer's and Bobby Collins' success at SMU in the early 80's and the scandals that brought about the NCAA punishment on February 27th, 1987.

I also never said that the Panthers, Rams, or Eagles should be awarded Super Bowl wins because of this. If anything, treat it as if there was never a winner. Also, I personally do not think the Jets would have won the game even if the Patriots were cheating, but the Patriots should get a loss, even though the Jets should not win.

This isn't about "hating the Patriots" as M2 put it. This is about a team that has blatantly broken NFL rules and has been warned about it in the past, and likely is going to get a slap on the wrist because the NFL does not want to alienate a major city. If a story broke tomorrow that Marvin Lewis had been doing this, I would also make the same comments, and I am a Bengals fan.

[M2]

WV, there's a difference between levying a penalty for a rules violation and handing down a death penalty. I find the calls for Roger Goodell to play the role of Hammurabi more than a little amusing.