Matthew Yglesias (September 13, 2007)

"more loathsome Indianapolis Colts." And I'd be astonished if this wasn't widespread practice in the NFL.

Posted by SomeCallMeTim | September 13, 2007 11:57 AM

the revelation that Bill Belichick's defensive schemes seem to involve cheating.

The infraction committed involved videotaping defensive signals, which I would imagine would be more helpful to the Patriots offense than it's defense.

Posted by Dave White | September 13, 2007 12:01 PM

I think you have to factor in WHERE the two (or more) dynasties are located. The Lakers and Celts dynasties in the 80s seemed to be pretty good for everyone, because each conference had their own Big Dog to go after. The problem with the Pats and Colts is they're both in the same conference. Strangely, when dynasties get even closer to each other (Celts/Sixers, RSox/Yanks) it seems to work pretty well. So I guess the rule is competing dynasties need to either be far away from or really close to each other.

Mike

Posted by MBunge | September 13, 2007 12:03 PM

The Chargers bandwagon is welcoming all who wish to belatedly join. We only have to deal with steroids, arrests, and the fading memories of Ryan Leaf and Babe Laufenberg, not allegations of videotaping someone giving signs out in the open in front of tens of thousands of onlookers.

Seriously, I don't get this "controversy" at all. I don't like the Pats, obviously, but c'mon. Do you really think there aren't people planted in the stands doing this, and have been for decades? What if someone just takes notes on paper on what plays follow what signs? Is that cheating? Someone please explain this to me.

Go Chargers!

Posted by xjerryx | September 13, 2007 12:03 PM

"The infraction committed involved videotaping defensive signals, which I would imagine would be more helpful to the Patriots offense than it's defense."

Exactly. Matt seems to be on firmer footing blogging about the simpler game of basketball.

Posted by Fred | September 13, 2007 12:08 PM

one hates to be late to the party and all (and, as it happens, coach belichik was a year behind me at wesleyan, so even though i'm an NFC guy i've rooted for his team), but exactly why is this illegal? NFL folks spend an enormous amount of time studying tendencies and looking for tips, etc.: what makes this particular scrutiny against the rules?

Posted by howard | September 13, 2007 12:11 PM

You're all just a bunch of haters.

Posted by Reality Man | September 13, 2007 12:13 PM

Someone please explain to me the moral distinction between Belichick's belief that cheating is fine because winning is everything and George Bush's, cause I listened to a politically right wing sports talk host in DC yesterday (Czaban) scream outrage - OUTRAGE! - at the moral failures, and their significance, of Belichick's philosophy without realizing his own (Czaban's) disconnected logic.

Posted by bdr | September 13, 2007 12:18 PM

I'm not so sure that there is really a case of two dynasties going head to head here. This is the first recent year in which the Colts have managed anything in the playoffs. The Steelers have probably been a more serious foe to the Patriots considering the multiple AFC Championship games and the same number of recent Super Bowls as the Colts. So, if you need an AFC team to root for against the detestable New England and Indianapolis teams, root for Pittsburgh. They are generally competitive and have fewer irritating personalities. Big Ben is a true everyman compared to his pretty-boy rivals.

Posted by ol'jb | September 13, 2007 12:18 PM

So, if you need an AFC team to root for against the detestable New England and Indianapolis teams, root for Pittsburgh.

I think the widespread interest in Fantasy Football has somewhat reduced the need for people to find secondary teams to root for; whereas before most people only really cared about games involving their home team, now just about every game has some element of excitement.

I'm sure anyone outside of New England with Tom Brady as their fantasy QB will be finding some new reasons not to hate on the Pats this year.

Posted by Dave White | September 13, 2007 12:28 PM

Since the Pats and Colts have both come up, this is as good a time as any for me to pass along Ken Levine's underappreciated remark that in a just world, Bridget Moynihan would have named Tom Brady's son Peyton.

Posted by alkali | September 13, 2007 12:32 PM

How does winning one Superbowl make the Colts a dynasty?

Posted by Ron | September 13, 2007 12:33 PM

Pfaw - dynasties. Come back to me when you're willing to root for a team that has zero potential to win, year after year, no matter how much they suck.

In other words, come back when you're a Cleveland Browns fan. They suck, we all know it, and we watch it anyway. And we get the schadenfreude of Belichick's little drama without caring at all about who else it's going to help - if it makes Belichick look bad, it's all for the good.

Posted by NonyNony | September 13, 2007 12:46 PM

I'd like to see some more commentary on the importance of teams to hate. When I was a lad -- back in the single-wing, leather helmet days -- all right-thinking people hated the Cowboys and everyone else hated the Raiders. When your team wasn't in it, you could root for whoever was playing the team you hated. I haven't had a team to hate since the Cowboys got rid of the Schram-Landry-Staubach core that made me ill. When they became pathetic, I couldn't hate them any more, and while I feared and respected the Jones-Johnson-Aikman Cowboys, they weren't as smarmy as the old crowd, and I couldn't actually hate them. I'm taking nominations for a team to hate.

Posted by CJColucci | September 13, 2007 12:57 PM

but exactly why is this illegal? NFL folks spend an enormous amount of time studying tendencies and looking for tips, etc.: what makes this particular scrutiny against the rules?

I believe that there is some particular subsection of the rules that specifically prohibits the use of video recording devices on the sidelines.

Now, why that particular rule should be in the rulebooks escapes me, but apparently it's there.

Posted by Al | September 13, 2007 12:57 PM

This is one of those controversies that might have some real legs...or it might fade away after the season. It all depends on how they do. If the Pats win the Super Bowl this season, the controversy will be a silly little foot note. If they get eliminated early, however, it will fuel the conspiracy theory that the Pats won "because of cheating" in the past.

The Pats will be under the microscope to the degree that stealing signals through special technology will be impossible for the rest of this season. So nobody will be able to accuse them of cheating this season. If they go 14-2 and win the Super Bowl, most reasonable people will probably agree that the signal stealing was pretty small potatoes, even if it gave everyone another reason to hate them.

If they go 11-5 and lose in the second round? Well, then the "they won by cheating" theory becomes a little more credible.

Posted by owenz | September 13, 2007 12:57 PM

Yeah, those Colts are a loathsome bunch. Drug addicts, gangstas, wife beating misogynists, malcontents, contract wrangling publicity hogs, suspensions left and right, commissioner on their asses all the time to clean up their act. And that coach! Damn what a narcissistic creep! A real domineering blowhard, hated and feared by his players, dismissive and resentful of the press. Yech! Too bad someone more deserving of respect and admiration for winning the right way can't come along. Oh well........

Posted by steve duncan | September 13, 2007 12:58 PM

Pfaw - dynasties. Come back to me when you're willing to root for a team that has zero potential to win, year after year, no matter how much they suck.

Isn't Matt a Redskins fan, at least by convenience?

Posted by Aaron S. Veenstra | September 13, 2007 1:01 PM

Now, why that particular rule should be in the rulebooks escapes me, but apparently it's there.

Well...what if the Pats had a live feed of the camera going up to the coaches box? And in the coaches box sits Ernie Adams, the football genius and Belichek sidekick described in David Halberstam's book. From there, Adams decyphers the opponent's defensive signals and feeds them to the speaker in Tom Brady's helmet, to assist Brady with the reads he makes before every play at the line. Brady's pre-snap reads identify the receiver's patterns and blocking schemes, based on the info provided by Adams. If Brady's ordinary reads don't cut it, he calls a full audible.

Anyway, this was the theory suggested in Bill Simmons recent column (he didn't flesh it all the way out). I suspect this is exactly what happened. And I'm a diehard Pats fan.

Posted by owenz | September 13, 2007 1:05 PM

I agree with xjerryx even though Al clarified to a degree:

How is this any different from anything anyone has ever done ever? It reminds me of those baseball scandals where a runner on second "steals" the catcher's signals and everyone gets all bent out of shape that someone broke an unwritten rule that everyone breaks all the time and dishonored the spirit of the game.

Total non-controversy, but we'll see whether the NFL rules committee over-reacts to protect the sanctity of the game this off season.

Posted by A different Matt | September 13, 2007 1:09 PM

... loathsome Colts ...

Matt I think you're a bit confused. It's the Pacers that are loathsome. The Colts really aren't that controversial of a bunch.

The worst thing about the Colts from my perspective is 1) Tony Dungy supports a right-wing gay-hating church and 2) The team sucked a half-billion dollars of public money to build their new stadium. Other than that they are just a bunch of guys who have made it to a grand-total of ONE super bowl and generally stay out of trouble. Hardly "loathsome" by NFL standards.

Posted by Curt M | September 13, 2007 1:22 PM

I believe that, yes, MY has decided to concede to the reality of life in DC and, instead of getting ticked off about the front-page Post stories about the Redskins, to instead read them with interest and actually root for the evil 'Skins.

Personally, even though I have lived in the DC area for 15 years I have remained a long-suffering Giants fan. I've been a fan since the early eighties when my mother and I first moved to upstate NY (seriously Giants country -- all "right-thinking people" hate the Jets, 'Skins, and Cowboys).

This makes it difficult to watch football on TV as I can't get but a few Giants games per season -- however, it provides for lively debate with my dad, a dyed-in-the-wool 'Skins fan (with, conveniently, a very large plasma tv).

I agree that MY is much better off blogging about basketball. Don't worry Matt, it starts very soon.

Posted by ajw_93 | September 13, 2007 1:26 PM

Yeah, I'm not seeing what's loathsome about the Colts, especially in comparison to the Pats. Anyone who's ever been in contact with a Boston sports fan knows exactly why we hate the Pats. Bill Simmons is a great example here: his last column was about nothing but how great the Patriots were this year... after one game.

Posted by eriks | September 13, 2007 1:31 PM

there's a global power/imperialist metaphor here somewhere.

Posted by yep | September 13, 2007 1:43 PM

"How is this any different from anything anyone has ever done ever? It reminds me of those baseball scandals where a runner on second "steals" the catcher's signals and everyone gets all bent out of shape that someone broke an unwritten rule that everyone breaks all the time and dishonored the spirit of the game."

It's just different. Sports have unwritten rules, and in baseball, the custom is, stealing signs is no huge deal. The catcher should protect them better. If a runner steals signs, he might get brushed back next time, but that's about it. I guess that's because there are only a few possible pitches that could be coming, so knowing in advance doesn't help the batter that much.

In football, teams spend a huge amount of effort designing plays and strategy. stealing those is like stealing a trade secret.

Posted by too many steves | September 13, 2007 2:03 PM

eriks, Simmons has a new piece up now about how Videogate means nothing and everyone's talking about it because they are so super-jealous of the Pats.

The main problem with the Colts is they represent a town that deserves nothing but condescension, scorn and ill fortune. Oh, and the bigot coach. Back before the Super Bowl, when he had the "can't win the big one" tag, Peyton Manning was an insufferable prick who threw his teammates under a bus on a daily basis. Losing the pressure seems to have loosened him up some and made him marginally tolerable.

Oh, and Roger Staubach was the greatest quarterback to play in the NFL.

Posted by Woody Bombay | September 13, 2007 2:06 PM

I'll stipulate that sign stealing isn't inherently bad. A little cloak and dagger stuff adds some spice to to the game. The problem I see is that the home team has a decided advantage. It takes some infrastructure to record, relay, and decode signals in real time. This is much easier for the permanent tenant of the stadium.

Posted by Matt B | September 13, 2007 2:11 PM

The main problem with the Colts is they represent a town that deserves nothing but condescension, scorn and ill fortune.

Indianapolis? Really?

Posted by Gabriel | September 13, 2007 2:12 PM

The Colts are loathsome. Yes, truly loathsome, and for the sole reason that they play in Indianapolis when they are supposed to be the Baltimore Colts. The idea of the blue and white being anywhere but Baltimore still 20 years later strikes me as one of the greatest insults to sports tradition of all time, even worse than the Dodgers playing in LA. The "St Louis" Rams are loathsome for the same reason. The Green Bay Packers, on the other hand, are clearly the good guys.

Posted by vanya | September 13, 2007 2:17 PM

Re Yglesias

"To me, the potentially excellent shadenfreude value here is diminished by the fact that the main alternative to the Patriots is the . . . also loathsome Indianapolis Colts."

Could there be anything more loathsome then the Washington Deadskins with their born again coach and their asshole owner. A friend of mine told me a story he heard from a surgeon who operated on his knee who was also a Deadskin team physician. According to this source, asshole Snyder addressed the employees in the front office shortly after his purchase of the Deadskins and told them that he didn't get to be worth 2 billion dollars by being a nice guy. The next day, he fired everyone in the front office. Yes indeed, not a nice guy. He and born again schmuck Gibbs deserve each other.

Posted by SLC | September 13, 2007 2:18 PM

Matt I think you're a bit confused. It's the Pacers that are loathsome. The Colts really aren't that controversial of a bunch.

You've got to be kidding. The Colts are the vilest francise in the NFL and I hope that drunken, viscious, bastard, Bob Irsay is roasting hell as I type this.

My Baltimore Ravens, behind the foot of offensive powerhouse Matt Stover will crush everyone this year.

Right after we get that little probelm with penalties ironed out.

Mark my words, Ravens will rule!

Posted by Sharon | September 13, 2007 2:20 PM

I was going to comment something snarky like "maybe Matthew should be commenting on that big Reggie Evans - Steven Hunter trade". But now we actually have big NBA news: Greg Oden lost for the season with microfracture surgery. Yikes.

Posted by Al | September 13, 2007 3:06 PM

Whoops, forgot to say that the above was in response to the suggestion that Matthew stick to the NBA.

Posted by Al | September 13, 2007 3:07 PM

Hmmm...Sharon, a Ravens fan, calls the Colts an evil franchise. Seems to me to be a case of pot meets kettle.

Posted by DMonteith | September 13, 2007 3:21 PM

Greg Oden lost for the season with microfracture surgery.

And as we all know, it takes two years to fully recover from knee surgery, so you might as well write off next year too.

Posted by Antid Oto | September 13, 2007 3:35 PM

Hmmm...Sharon, a Ravens fan, calls the Colts an evil franchise. Seems to me to be a case of pot meets kettle.

Umm, nope. Cleveland got team relatively quickly after the Browns left and they got to keep...

The Name.

The Colors.

and The Team Stats.

Baltimore got hosed

Posted by Sharon | September 13, 2007 3:37 PM

The Colts are the vilest franchise in the NFL

Uh-huh. Meanwhile, the Ravens, in their fairly short existence, have already had one star player involved in a double homicide, another star go to prison for drug trafficking, and a third player is running for office as a Republican. And worse yet, Brian Billick.

Posted by Gabriel | September 13, 2007 3:46 PM

the fading memories of Ryan Leaf

I was going to post something really nasty in response to that mention, but as a lifetime Giants fan, I can sum up an unconscionable period of our own in 2 words:

Dave Brown

(doh!)

Posted by jonathan | September 13, 2007 3:48 PM

I guess that's because there are only a few possible pitches that could be coming, so knowing in advance doesn't help the batter that much.

I disagree completely. It takes a fraction of a second for a 90 mph fastball to travel the 60 feet between the pitchers mound and the batters box. Recognizing whether a pitch is hittable or not, and doing it fast enough to swing is the hardest part of hitting. Why do you think so many professional hitters swing at balls that are bouncing in the dirt? Because they were thinking fastball, and when the bottom drops out of a curve they're left looking foolish.

Posted by Mike T | September 13, 2007 5:22 PM

It reminds me of those baseball scandals where a runner on second "steals" the catcher's signals

Then you are an idiot. Your example is of gamesmanship. An appropriate analogy for cheating would be a baseball team that plants a guy in the scoreboard with a pair of binoculars and a walkie-talkie to inform the dugout what the catcher is signaling. The information may not come in time to help the guy at the plate, but the guy on deck will have a big advantage.

Or take blackjack. It's the difference between counting cards in your head and bringing in a computer to count the cards. One is accepted and one is cheating.

Furthermore, the Pats got caught cheating this way LAST year. The NFL specifically warned them not to do it anymore. How arrogant do you have to be to simply ignore the commissioner?

Boston native Bill Simmons doesn't exactly convince me that this is a trivial matter.

Finally, "everybody is doing it" is the most childish and ridiculous excuse ever.

Posted by Just Karl | September 13, 2007 8:02 PM

>An appropriate analogy for cheating would be a baseball team that plants a guy in the scoreboard with a pair of binoculars and a walkie-talkie to inform the dugout what the catcher is signaling. The information may not come in time to help the guy at the plate, but the guy on deck will have a big advantage.

Or the guy on deck can just watch the pitch. Why should he care to know in advance what's coming? He has no way to act on the information.

When the Giants stole Ralph Branca's signs (via telescope in the scoreboard), they signalled the bullpen in the outfield which relayed the info to the batter by throwing / not throwing a ball in the air.

Posted by Matt B | September 13, 2007 8:58 PM

It's the difference between counting cards in your head and bringing in a computer to count the cards. One is accepted and one is cheating.

Is that true? I thought that neither was "allowed," but that they couldn't enforce the former. Note that I'm relying on Rain Man for this, so my information may not be good.

Posted by SomeCallMeTim | September 13, 2007 9:14 PM

Re Just Karl

If they suspect that somebody is counting cards at blackjack, they will ask him/her very politely to leave and not to return. If they catch him/her returning, the next request to leave will be considerably less polite. A third incident may result in a visit from Vito and Carmine. Three strikes and you're out.

Posted by SLC | September 13, 2007 10:00 PM

i'm a seahawks fan and i just read that matt hasselbeck presented george bush with a team jersey. Sickening.

Posted by el feo | September 14, 2007 12:24 AM

As a longtime Patriots fan I can only say I could not care less about this story. Jack Del Rio, the Jacksonville coach, admitted that all teams engage in some variety of signal monitoring. The same thing happens all the time in baseball. Teams deal with it in both sports by changing and guarding their signs.

It's a sport with billions of dollars at stake where players suffer lifelong debilitation - and we're supposed to be surprised that teams are trying to gain every possible edge? That's simply stupid. Mangini's a wienie and I look forward to the rematch in Foxboro.

Posted by MoeLarryAndJesus | September 14, 2007 12:40 AM

As a long-suffering Eagles fan, I'm delighted to learn that my team actually won the Super Bowl in 2005. Philly finally got that championship monkey off our backs ... and we didn't even know it! Now if the Pats will just send us our rings and the Lombardi Trophy, Mayor Street can plan that championship parade down Broad Street. Better late than never!

Posted by Mike LePost | September 14, 2007 9:33 AM

A question to ponder:

Will Baltimore Colts fans EVER get over losing their team to Indianapolis?

Apparently the fact they received another team and even won a Super Bowl with that team wasn't enough to erase those bad feelings.

GET. OVER. IT!

Ya know, if you will refund Indianapolis the half billion the public just spent on a new stadium, plus send us the Ravens, I'd vote in favor of letting you have the team back.

Deal?

Posted by Curt M | September 14, 2007 9:43 AM

A few things to the commenters around here.

First, to those who seem to irrationally hate the city of Indianapolis. Wuh? Indy? Really? Indy has to be one of the most nonoffensive cities you could find. That's like hating vanilla ice cream. No one gets all excited about it but who hates vanilla ice cream with that sort of passion? Same thing with the Colts themselves. How can anyone really passionately hate them? No murderers, drug dealers, wife beaters etc. Yeah a few Republicans on the team but I don't let politics color my sports allegiances. (Not to mention that the owner, Jim Irsay, is a big time Democrat and has really made some great support for local and statewide Democrats)

Secondly, to the Bitter Baltimoreans
1) Maybe if you had showed up and supported your team in the 80's the franchise wouldn't have been a money pit and they wouldn't have left the city. Just an idea.
2) Then your city turns around and steals a team from Cleveland. I don't care if they got to keep the colors and the name. It's the same difference. So STFU. Seriously. It's getting kinda sad. You even won a Super Bowl with your team before we did with ours. (Yes. Ours. The Colts are OURS. Deal.)

Just had to get that out there. :) Go Colts!

Posted by Jason B | September 14, 2007 5:12 PM

Cameragate

Comments (48)

Search

Books by Matthew Yglesias

Recent Comments

Recent Posts

Weekly Archives

Categories