Legitimate analysis of "Videogate"

Normally I don't like adding analysis to topics that have already been overanalyzed, but this whole Patriots spying issue is becoming more intriguing the more I think or hear about it. More importantly, the wide world of sports media seems to be lacking logic and imagination in its analysis. So here I go continually oversaturating the world of sports commentary.

My main annoyance with most of the existing analysis is the "well let's not go that far" reaction to any suggestion that the Patriots' Super Bowls were ill-gotten. Everyone obligingly asks, "Does this tarnish their legacy?" pretending that they're asking the "tough" question, but of course the scripted answer is "No, no, of course not. Don't be ridiculous. They didn't win Super Bowls because of this."

Well of course they didn't win solely because they were spying, but it certainly gave them an advantage; perhaps it gave them a small advantage, perhaps it gave them a great advantage, but it most definitely gave them an advantage. Let's say I'm in a mile-long race and get a two-second jump on my opponent. I finish in 4:10, beating my opponent who finishes in 4:11. Now, I still ran a 4:12 mile, which is pretty damn good. So I would argue that the two-second jump was an insignificant advantage, and I was still awesome, but there's no way I could argue that I legitimately beat my opponent.

In a league with such parity as the NFL, and especially with the abundance of great teams in the AFC, the slightest edge could be enough to give the Patriots the winning edge. It's the same logic that turns a 379-foot Barry Bonds flyout into a 390-foot home run. Sure Barry Bonds would have been an all-time great player without steroids, and of course it takes a lot more than brute strength to hit a home run, but Bonds certainly would not have quite the numbers he has today without steroids.

Wait, what was I talking about again? Steroids...advantages...oh right, the cheating Patriots.

Consider this: of the nine playoff games the Patriots have won over the past four years, they outscored their opponent in the second half five times. All of those games were one-posession games at halftime (The Pats trailed once at halftime and were tied once). In three of their other four victories (in which they came out smoking in the first half), it was the second time they had seen that team that season, including the 2004 AFC Championship against Pittsburgh. Hines Ward said of that game, "It felt like they knew our playbook." (No homeristic whining here. Just presenting the facts and Ward's words)
The one exception to all of this? The 2003 Super Bowl against Carolina. And who's to say that Brady's methodic game-winning march down the field wasn't assisted by an advantage in reading the Panthers' defense. This, to me, is a perfect example of a game in which the outcome could have easily been affected by spying techniques.

I'm not going to say that the Patriots for sure would not have won particular games had they been playing fairly, and I'm certainly not going to start crying for them to be stripped of their Lombardi trophies. But too many people are dismissing the possibility of a tainted championship without a second thought. If we can accept that last year's Suns/Spurs playoff series was most likely won crookedly (which, obviously, would have given us a different champion), why can't we at least ponder the idea that the Patriots found a way to cheat themselves into a Super Bowl or two?

One final problem I have with the way this story is being analyzed is the idea that the Patriots' 2007-08 season will somehow prove one way or another if they really had an advantage. That's absurd. If the Patriots all of a sudden stink and Brady looks completely lost without his spy knowledge, that might prove something (and it would be hilarious), but that's not going to happen.

If the Patriots go 11-5 and lose to Denver in the first round of the playoffs, does that prove that they were undeserving Super Bowl Champions three, four and six years ago? No, it doesn't prove anything, other than that the AFC is stacked this year. The same goes if the Patriots go 14-2 and win the Super Bowl. That doesn't prove the legitimacy of their Super Bowls at all, because this is a different Patriots team (a very talented team) playing against different teams. How the Patriots do this season could certainly give further support to the legitimacy or illigitimacy of their championships, but to say that it proves anything is like saying that a USC/LSU National Championship this year would determine the legitimate champion of 2003. Sure it makes a nice storyline to run with, and gives television something to fill days of pre-game airtime, but it doesn't actually make sense. You know what, that last sentance pretty much describes 95% of ESPN's programming.

That's why we're here.