ESPN SPIN: Given the ref scandal was this 22 year drought a good thing?

[wdleehi]

One more thing, why would ESPN protect the NBA and kill the NFL? 


I have no doubt Monday night football gets much better ratings then the NBA games.

[BuckeyeCelt]

I think you may be too close to the situation in Pat Land.  From an outsiders perspective (outside of New England and not a Pats fan) I'd have to say they have been given equal treatment.  Then again I don't have local channels talking about it which I am sure you do, and no radio station here would ever talk about the Pats. 

As far as ESPN goes, I will agree that they would be more likely to fear the NBA situation.  It brings into question an entire league (they only really have 4 leagues to report on) where as the Pats are just a team in question...no real threat to the NFL as a whole. 

Personally, I think the emotion of being a fan may cause the pats situation to seem more overblown to some pats fans.  I'd probably be the same way if it were the Buckeyes or Celts!

I'm not overestimating the exposure to this crap story. This is a video thats more in jest but look what Pats was will go through because of ESPN. "Cheating" that's crap

http://youtube.com/watch?v=Vq7rrQMgUGs

Thank you for supporting my point with this New England Media video.  This is my point you hear a lot more than anyone else...that video had NOTHING to do with ESPN and he would have gotten the same reaction on the streets of New York if he was talking about the red sox, Celtics, or just about any other non NY team; heck the NY fans would probably boo their own team too. 

On top of all that, half the people he talked to were fans of other AFC East teams...they hate the Pats anyways, of course they will jump on this.   

[JSD]

One more thing, why would ESPN protect the NBA and kill the NFL? 


I have no doubt Monday night football gets much better ratings then the NBA games.

You keep on going back to this NFL VS. NBA thing that is irrelevant. The ESPN picks and chooses what the major story.

[JSD]

I think you may be too close to the situation in Pat Land.  From an outsiders perspective (outside of New England and not a Pats fan) I'd have to say they have been given equal treatment.  Then again I don't have local channels talking about it which I am sure you do, and no radio station here would ever talk about the Pats. 

As far as ESPN goes, I will agree that they would be more likely to fear the NBA situation.  It brings into question an entire league (they only really have 4 leagues to report on) where as the Pats are just a team in question...no real threat to the NFL as a whole. 

Personally, I think the emotion of being a fan may cause the pats situation to seem more overblown to some pats fans.  I'd probably be the same way if it were the Buckeyes or Celts!

I'm not overestimating the exposure to this crap story. This is a video thats more in jest but look what Pats was will go through because of ESPN. "Cheating" that's crap

http://youtube.com/watch?v=Vq7rrQMgUGs

Thank you for supporting my point with this New England Media video.  This is my point you hear a lot more than anyone else...that video had NOTHING to do with ESPN and he would have gotten the same reaction on the streets of New York if he was talking about the red sox, Celtics, or just about any other non NY team; heck the NY fans would probably boo their own team too. 

On top of all that, half the people he talked to were fans of other AFC East teams...they hate the Pats anyways, of course they will jump on this.   

This video was meant to show the unwarranted amo toward Pats fans created by ESPN. I did not make your point.

[wdleehi]

One more thing, why would ESPN protect the NBA and kill the NFL? 


I have no doubt Monday night football gets much better ratings then the NBA games.

You keep on going back to this NFL VS. NBA thing that is irrelevant. The ESPN picks and chooses what the major story.

Really?

One story is about an NFL team.

One story is about an NBA officials.




Do you think the amount of people that watch those sports might have an effect on how much reporting is done on it?   

[JSD]

One more thing, why would ESPN protect the NBA and kill the NFL? 


I have no doubt Monday night football gets much better ratings then the NBA games.

You keep on going back to this NFL VS. NBA thing that is irrelevant. The ESPN picks and chooses what the major story.

Really?

One story is about an NFL team.

One story is about an NBA officials.




Do you think the amount of people that watch those sports might have an effect on how much reporting is done on it?   

Yes, In a lot of cases a stories fire will be fueled by what people want to talk about.

ESPN recreated angle after angle to keep in this story a hot topic instead of reporting accurately the non-story that it was.

Where with the NBA they reported the facts and moved on...

Where were the experts talking of about asterisks and the years TD ref’d being tarnished?

You seem like you've written a few APA formatted papers. Do some researches on the opinion pieces on both topics and stack them up against one another. My guess is 3 to 1 is an understatement. It’s not close

Do you Work for ABC? Honestly?

[wdleehi]

One more thing, why would ESPN protect the NBA and kill the NFL? 


I have no doubt Monday night football gets much better ratings then the NBA games.

You keep on going back to this NFL VS. NBA thing that is irrelevant. The ESPN picks and chooses what the major story.

Really?

One story is about an NFL team.

One story is about an NBA officials.




Do you think the amount of people that watch those sports might have an effect on how much reporting is done on it?   

Yes, In a lot of cases a stories fire will be fueled by want to talk about.

ESPN recreated angle after angle to keep in this story a hot topic instead of reporting accurately the non-story that it was.

Where with the NBA they reported the facts and moved on

Where were the experts talking of about asterisks and the years TD reffed being tarnished?

You seem like you've written a few APA formatted papers. Do some research on the opinion pieces stack them up. My guess is 3 to 1 is an understatement.

What NBA team would deserve an asterisk?  What did they do that was wrong?  (Pat's don't deserve one either, but it is their fault for not listening to the NFL's warnings)


The NBA hasn't moved on.  There is still talk of other officials being accused. 

[Roy Hobbs]

The Commissioner sent out a league directive, warning teams they would be punished severely if they taped other team's signals.  The Pats received such memo.  The Pats violated such directive.  They lost a first round pick because of it.

I'm not sure why people insist that the Pats didn't do anything wrong.  It's understandable why this was a big story:  the undefeated team, led by a coach that has a tendency to be a bit of a jerk, directly and knowingly violates a directive from the new disciplinarian Commissioner.  The Commissioner thought it was a huge deal, by fining both the team and Belichek and taking away a #1.  I don't blame the media for their reaction (except for Tomase, if he really did print that story without a reliable source).

The Donaghy thing got huge attention at the time.  Since then, though, the FBI hasn't found any involvement from either other refs or the NBA itself.  When allegations have been made (against Bavetta, against Foster), the media has reported it, but without proof, and without NBA action, it's hard for them to justify spending weeks on the same non-story.

[KJ33]

Your characterization of spygate as overblown because ESPN had an axe to grind against Bill Belichick is a little over the top as conspiracy theories go. 

OK, What is your theory? You think the Patriots "cheated"?

Also, You think scouting signals is compared to a ref on the take?

Explain why the ref scandal hasn't gotten 1/3 they attention

Yes the Patriots cheated by the simple fact that members of the organization willingly and knowingly went against NFL regulations.  But I agree with you, the whole "Spygate" thing was blown way out of proportion by ESPN.  I can't believe that the media isn't all over the ref scandal.  In terms of effect... it's much worse.

Old story, but keeps getting perpetuated unfortunately.  Does every time someone "willingly and knowingly goes against regulations" constitute "cheating"?  Come on, you know that is not the case.  Borrowing from the world where the word cheating is most often used, school/the classroom, a teacher may have many rules, breaking any one of them is not necessarily "cheating" as would be stealing the answers to a test.  

You might come in late, a rule violation, but cheating? You might eat at your desk, a rule violation, but cheating?  You might speak out of turn to a classmate while the teacher is lecturing, a rule violation, but cheating?  You get the idea.  Breaking rules is an offense that has consequences, like losing a 1st round pick and getting fined, but not all rule breaking is cheating. Outside of this situation driven by people's vitriol for Belichick and the Pats, nobody would ever equate all rule breaking with cheating, it defies common sense.

[JSD]

One more thing, why would ESPN protect the NBA and kill the NFL? 


I have no doubt Monday night football gets much better ratings then the NBA games.

You keep on going back to this NFL VS. NBA thing that is irrelevant. The ESPN picks and chooses what the major story.

Really?

One story is about an NFL team.

One story is about an NBA officials.




Do you think the amount of people that watch those sports might have an effect on how much reporting is done on it?   

Yes, In a lot of cases a stories fire will be fueled by want to talk about.

ESPN recreated angle after angle to keep in this story a hot topic instead of reporting accurately the non-story that it was.

Where with the NBA they reported the facts and moved on

Where were the experts talking of about asterisks and the years TD reffed being tarnished?

You seem like you've written a few APA formatted papers. Do some research on the opinion pieces stack them up. My guess is 3 to 1 is an understatement.

What NBA team would deserve an asterisk?  What did they do that was wrong?  (Pat's don't deserve one either, but it is their fault for not listening to the NFL's warnings)


The NBA hasn't moved on.  There is still talk of other officials being accused. 

More facts are now coming out, hence this thread. TD made 130 calls to another ref ect...

For months there were no new facts with the Patriots. Joey Porter had opinion and ESPN through it on the Sportscenter loop for god sakes. 

Did you not see this kind of stuff? Good VS. Evil!?


Where are the negative opinion pieces about the NBA?

What NBA team deserves an *? None! But it wouldn't have stopped an ESPN writer from "throwing it out there" or at least having a “fire David Stern” article nothing! Because ESPN invested.

[Roy Hobbs]

Your characterization of spygate as overblown because ESPN had an axe to grind against Bill Belichick is a little over the top as conspiracy theories go. 

OK, What is your theory? You think the Patriots "cheated"?

Also, You think scouting signals is compared to a ref on the take?

Explain why the ref scandal hasn't gotten 1/3 they attention

Yes the Patriots cheated by the simple fact that members of the organization willingly and knowingly went against NFL regulations.  But I agree with you, the whole "Spygate" thing was blown way out of proportion by ESPN.  I can't believe that the media isn't all over the ref scandal.  In terms of effect... it's much worse.

Old story, but keeps getting perpetuated unfortunately.  Does every time someone "willingly and knowingly goes against regulations" constitute "cheating"?  Come on, you know that is not the case.  Borrowing from the world where the word cheating is most often used, school/the classroom, a teacher may have many rules, breaking any one of them is not necessarily "cheating" as would be stealing the answers to a test.  

You might come in late, a rule violation, but cheating? You might eat at your desk, a rule violation, but cheating?  You might speak out of turn to a classmate while the teacher is lecturing, a rule violation, but cheating?  You get the idea.  Breaking rules is an offense that has consequences, like losing a 1st round pick and getting fined, but not all rule breaking is cheating. Outside of this situation driven by people's vitriol for Belichick and the Pats, nobody would ever equate all rule breaking with cheating, it defies common sense.

The difference between the examples you give, and what the Pats did, is that in the Pats scenario they were attempting to gain a competitive advantage.  Breaking a rule to gain a competitive advantage = cheating.  It might not be the most egregious form of cheating, but it's still cheating.

[wdleehi]

More facts are now coming out, hence this thread. TD made 130 calls to another ref ect...

For months there were no new facts with the Patriots. Joey Porter had opinion and ESPN through it on the Sportscenter loop for god sakes. 

Did you not see this kind of stuff? Good VS. Evil!?


Where are the negative opinion pieces about the NBA?

What NBA team deserves an *? None! But it wouldn't have stopped an ESPN writer from "throwing it out there" or at least having a “fire David Stern” article nothing! Because ESPN invested.

You know about the calls because it was reported in places like ESPN.


But that is all the have.  Phone calls.  

What are they suppose to do?  Kill this official because of phone calls?  


There needs to be more to make it a bigger story.  

[JSD]

The Commissioner sent out a league directive, warning teams they would be punished severely if they taped other team's signals.  The Pats received such memo.  The Pats violated such directive.  They lost a first round pick because of it.

I'm not sure why people insist that the Pats didn't do anything wrong.  It's understandable why this was a big story:  the undefeated team, led by a coach that has a tendency to be a bit of a jerk, directly and knowingly violates a directive from the new disciplinarian Commissioner.  The Commissioner thought it was a huge deal, by fining both the team and Belichek and taking away a #1.  I don't blame the media for their reaction (except for Tomase, if he really did print that story without a reliable source).

The Donaghy thing got huge attention at the time.  Since then, though, the FBI hasn't found any involvement from either other refs or the NBA itself.  When allegations have been made (against Bavetta, against Foster), the media has reported it, but without proof, and without NBA action, it's hard for them to justify spending weeks on the same non-story.

The MEMO

"Videotaping of any type, including but not limited to taping of an opponent's offensive or defensive signals, is prohibited on the sidelines, in the coaches' booth, in the locker room, or at any other locations accessible to club staff members during the game. "

Why not just say:

"Videotaping of any type, including but not limited to taping of an opponent's offensive or defensive signals, is strictly prohibited"?

So the ACT is okay. the location wasn't!?

This is not a ""was spygate" cheating?" I already know that answer (absolutely not)

This is a thread about the malice from ESPN toward the Pats and the double standard it showed during the Ref scandal because of their stake.

[JSD]

Your characterization of spygate as overblown because ESPN had an axe to grind against Bill Belichick is a little over the top as conspiracy theories go. 

OK, What is your theory? You think the Patriots "cheated"?

Also, You think scouting signals is compared to a ref on the take?

Explain why the ref scandal hasn't gotten 1/3 they attention

Yes the Patriots cheated by the simple fact that members of the organization willingly and knowingly went against NFL regulations.  But I agree with you, the whole "Spygate" thing was blown way out of proportion by ESPN.  I can't believe that the media isn't all over the ref scandal.  In terms of effect... it's much worse.

Old story, but keeps getting perpetuated unfortunately.  Does every time someone "willingly and knowingly goes against regulations" constitute "cheating"?  Come on, you know that is not the case.  Borrowing from the world where the word cheating is most often used, school/the classroom, a teacher may have many rules, breaking any one of them is not necessarily "cheating" as would be stealing the answers to a test. 

You might come in late, a rule violation, but cheating? You might eat at your desk, a rule violation, but cheating?  You might speak out of turn to a classmate while the teacher is lecturing, a rule violation, but cheating?  You get the idea.  Breaking rules is an offense that has consequences, like losing a 1st round pick and getting fined, but not all rule breaking is cheating. Outside of this situation driven by people's vitriol for Belichick and the Pats, nobody would ever equate all rule breaking with cheating, it defies common sense.

Kudos! Great anology TP.

...but that isn't the topic at hand hear.

[JSD]

Your characterization of spygate as overblown because ESPN had an axe to grind against Bill Belichick is a little over the top as conspiracy theories go. 

OK, What is your theory? You think the Patriots "cheated"?

Also, You think scouting signals is compared to a ref on the take?

Explain why the ref scandal hasn't gotten 1/3 they attention

Yes the Patriots cheated by the simple fact that members of the organization willingly and knowingly went against NFL regulations.  But I agree with you, the whole "Spygate" thing was blown way out of proportion by ESPN.  I can't believe that the media isn't all over the ref scandal.  In terms of effect... it's much worse.

Old story, but keeps getting perpetuated unfortunately.  Does every time someone "willingly and knowingly goes against regulations" constitute "cheating"?  Come on, you know that is not the case.  Borrowing from the world where the word cheating is most often used, school/the classroom, a teacher may have many rules, breaking any one of them is not necessarily "cheating" as would be stealing the answers to a test. 

You might come in late, a rule violation, but cheating? You might eat at your desk, a rule violation, but cheating?  You might speak out of turn to a classmate while the teacher is lecturing, a rule violation, but cheating?  You get the idea.  Breaking rules is an offense that has consequences, like losing a 1st round pick and getting fined, but not all rule breaking is cheating. Outside of this situation driven by people's vitriol for Belichick and the Pats, nobody would ever equate all rule breaking with cheating, it defies common sense.

The difference between the examples you give, and what the Pats did, is that in the Pats scenario they were attempting to gain a competitive advantage.  Breaking a rule to gain a competitive advantage = cheating.  It might not be the most egregious form of cheating, but it's still cheating.

But there is no rule against scouting/filming signals...

A team could hire a scout to sit in the stands if they wanted or in a box which I'm sure they do now.

They filmed in a prohibited area.