As someone with somewhat of a scientific background, all of this nonsense is so infuriating to me, both the conspiracy theory mentality and the complete stupidity and/or non-objectivity as well as susceptibility to confirmation bias and journalistic narrative momentum.
1. Conspiracy Theory Mentality. If I tell you that A leads to Z, then it is essentially always possible to find a path, no matter how twisted or unlikely. Additionally, it is usually impossible to fully disprove such an unlikely path. Think about vaccines -> Autism. If you start with that conclusion, it is nearly impossible to disprove. "Well its the thimersol." Disproven. "well it's the xxxx." Disproven. "Well, they're still bad because..." Impossible to disprove. But very powerful, and much more psychologically permanent then an open question, such as "Do vaccines lead to autism?" Demonstrably, no association. For deflategate: instead of "Were the balls deflated?" and first establishing that, then IF the answer were "yes," figuring out "how, who and why" from there, the "investigation" started with the question "how did the patriots intentionally deflate these balls?" Completely different story, completely different narrative, and completely different mode of investigation. It's the classic "How often to you beat your wife" rather than "Have you ever beaten your wife" rhetorical trick.
Back to A to Z, what if I instead asked "Where does A lead?" then followed the most likely and best evidence, you'd never end up at the conspiracy conclusion.
So, "How did the Pats derail the headphones?" is a completely implausible but leading question. It would presuppose that the patriots, under intense scrutiny already, are figuring out ways to very blatantly mess with technology provided by the NFL. Remember that previously home teams provided the technology, but due to LEAGUE WIDE suspicions (not just patriots) of home teams causing "problems," the league took over. The question should be, "what happened to the communications technology during that game." The answer has already been published: Both teams' gear was provided by NFL. Both teams had intermittent difficulties with communication requiring switching headsets, etc. Then NFL released a rapid statement explaining how weather, etc, was interfering. The losing team complained. Fine.
2. The confirmation bias. It's so basic, but so insidious. Once you have a conclusion you only accept the supporting information and discard the rest. Even more, you actively seek out supporting information and actively ignore conflicting information. Spygate: Ubiquitous practice. But that doesn't fit. So that recent OTL article only looks at the Pats' practice, which was legitimately illegal for about a season. Prior to that, common practice attempted around the league. But when you only look at the one team, you falsely give the impression that there was increased illegality. Additionally, you gloss over the fact that the Jets blew the whistle in revenge for the Pats' security KICKING OUT A JETS EMPLOYEE FOR DOING THE SAME THING A COUPLE WEEKS BEFORE. But not investigated. Deflategate: Because they started with the assumption of illegality, they went fishing for remote, loosely connected evidence. And they IGNORED BLATANT evidence of LEGALITY. There was excellent evidence of Brady asking for LEGAL inflation levels. Somehow twisted to evidence of illegality. It's as if if I were to set my cruise control for 65, it would be evidence of illegal speeding, because by wanting to be at upper limit of legal, I REALLY wanted to break the law.
3. One sided reporting. It's super fun and very easy (and lazy) to just pile on one narrative. It's harder, less sexy, and less exciting to do objective research. So, the Pats got in trouble for spygate. Yes. True. Paid the greatest consequence in NFL history to that point. Fine. So then you just go around asking teams "what weird or mysterious has happened at Foxboro or with the Patriots?" If that's the question, you get a lot of clicks, a lot of readers, but it's not research. Of course you get confirmatory stories that seem like a pattern! The best, but more difficult and less likely to get you readers would be to take time to: 1. Define Cheating. 2. Categorize different kinds of cheating (equipment, stadium, bending rules, drugs/substances, salary cap violations, etc). Then go back and report on known violations for each team. Then slowly take time and interview players about suspicious stuff at other stadiums. But ask both open ended, such as "what's the weirdest most suspicous behavior you have noticed?" and record that. Then spend some time, equal amounts of time, asking about each specific team to help reduce reporting bias. No one cares about Jacksonville, so no one is going to really volunteer information. But if you asked 50 players "what weird stuff such as headset malfunctions, etc have occurred when playing against the jaguars" then did that for all 32 teams, you'd get a much more accurate and objective measure of what goes on.
4. The idea that "bending the rules" or "finding the edge of rules" is cheating. This is ridiculous. It's lazy, sour grapes, and trying to legislate to protect laziness and stupidity. And it's a new phenomenon in the NFL. If there was this much internet and the Pats were this good 20 years ago, then the Pats probably would have been the first to try the fleaflicker, halfback pass, or the lateral to WR who then passes type of play. Then they probably would have outlawed that play Pittsburgh tried with the long lateral to Brown who then attempted to throw, or the Edelman playoff pass last year, because the Pats would have won and the opponents would have said "sure it's technically legal, but it's against the spirit of the foreward pass rules!" If the Pats had invented the WildCat and won the SB, they probably would have found a way to make that illegal.
Creativity within the rules used to be celebrated. It's how we got the West Coast Offense ("but they're passing too much, it's against the spirit of football!"), Wildcat variations, WR passes, fake-out punt returns, flea flickers, crazy blitzes, etc. But you win too much with legal creativity, gotta take it away.
http://yourteamcheats.com/