SportsCenter & OTL Bringing Back Spygate (live, 9AM)

[nighthob]

One of the reasons that I've given Belichick a lot of deference on this is because the memo misquoted the rule at the time. The actual rule was "No video recording devices of any kind are permitted to be in use in the coaches’ booth, on the field, or in the locker room during the game.” Coming from a b/r article, I've always understood the field distinction to be important because it is defined elsewhere as being the area between the sidelines. It would serve to prohibit cameras actually placed on players themselves. The rule also doesn't have that final sentence about locations available to club staff members.
 
Since the rules can't be changed with just a memo I've always seen it as more of Belichick reading it, seeing that it didn't quote the rule correctly (or knowing the rule and glossing over the differences in the memo) and disregarding it. In hindsight you obviously follow-up and get an answer as to what is going on, but it's not something you expect to lose a first round pick over.

Yes, Belichick decided to be cute because the memo was badly worded, and went out of his way to be literal about it rather than getting official clarification or just acknowledging what they were trying to do. If he'd replied with a suggestion on re-wording we wouldn't be in this position today.

 

[jtn46]

What's funny with this is Belichick is entirely the opposite. He heaps praise upon those who beat him and has routinely always done so. This team both wins and loses the way you'd want to teach your kids, but because of this a dismissed memo regarding the rules 8 years ago, which lead entirely to the ballghazi nonsense, they'll be forever branded as the greatest cheaters in their era. An era that was littered with performance enhancing substances. We all know better, but the masses surely don't. 
 
The NFL really brings out the worst in everyone. 

Eh consider us lucky. Let the Harbaughs and Irsays of the league make excuses as to why their teams lose big games, if that's "those guys are cheating" so be it, our coach will say his team didn't execute and will motivate them to execute better next time and leave it at that.

 

[Ed Hillel]

Yes, Belichick decided to be cute because the memo was badly worded, and went out of his way to be literal about it rather than getting official clarification or just acknowledging what they were trying to do. If he'd replied with a suggestion on re-wording we wouldn't be in this position today.

With the paranoia and obsession made clear in the ESPN article, I have a feeling we still would. The road was always going to end here, it's just a matter of how.

 

[wiffleballhero]

If the Patriots lose a game, doesn't that basically guaranty the victorious team must have cheated? That would make for one heck of a BB press conference question.

I don't know that this makes for a good presser, but I would like someone from the Patriots to say, 'look, if we were cheating half as much as you think we were, we would have won twice as much as we did. Suck it, crybabies."
 
(Or something to that effect) 

 

[doc]

Can someone photoshop BB's face onto the Oswald picture with the rifle.

 

[wiffleballhero]

Can someone photoshop BB's face onto the Oswald picture with the rifle.

Actually, he was working in NY at the time. I am pretty sure he was pulling a string on that fucking ball going through Buckner's legs.

 

[Jimbodandy]

With the paranoia and obsession made clear in the ESPN article, I have a feeling we still would. The road was always going to end here, it's just a matter of how.

 
I agree with this.  And parallel to the hate from being beaten by the smug genius, I think that an underrated factor is the "HC of the NYJ" part.  Of course, it didn't help that he left his fly down.

 

[LuckyBen]

With the paranoia and obsession made clear in the ESPN article, I have a feeling we still would. The road was always going to end here, it's just a matter of how.

I remember walking down the hall in college after the pats beat the Rams in the Super Bowl. Someone was spouting about how the fix was in because the mascot was used as as a means of national pride after 9/11. Never mind the fact that there were two NY teams that would've made much more sense in this fantasy world. We were always going to be hated on and this path was most definitely a given.

 

[wiffleballhero]

I remember walking down the hall in college after the pats beat the Rams in the Super Bowl. Someone was spouting about how the fix was in because the mascot was used as as a means of national pride after 9/11. Never mind the fact that there were two NY teams that would've made much more sense in this fantasy world. We were always going to be hated on and this path was most definitely a given.

So you are saying that Belichick is responsible for 9/11?

 

[Jed Zeppelin]

I don't know that this makes for a good presser, but I would like someone from the Patriots to say, 'look, if we were cheating half as much as you think we were, we would have won twice as much as we did. Suck it, crybabies."
 
(Or something to that effect) 

 
Willie said something along those lines (much softer of course) last night on NFLN after America's Game. Basically "if we had all the answers to the test, we'd have won every game and we definitely would have won those Super Bowls by more than 3 points."

 

[Bergs]

4 + 1 = 6?

uhh.... Whoops. It was actually Rodgers I shorted in my brain. My bad.

 

[Norm Siebern]

Did anyone happen to see the last quarterly viewer ratings report, or the last quarterly financial report of ESPN? They are hemorrhaging money and viewers. Ratings are down, money earned in advertising is down, and those contracts they need to sign with leagues to broadcast them keep going up in cost.nthey are desperate.

This is all about ratings, click hits, and money. Want to gain click hits? Pair "Patriots" and "cheating." The masses will come running. ESPN needs money, and this is a sure way to get it. Suddenly ESPN is viable again, after a summer in which their number one NFL reporter was shown to be a boob and shill, and after they lost two notable young talents, Cowherd and Simmons. This has more to do with ESPN's utter lack of viability and the sheep like mentality of fans who hate the Patriots, and how it is all made better by combining those magic words, "Patriots" and "cheating."

 

[Stitch01]

ESPN is for sure not hemorrhaging money.

 

[WayBackVazquez]

ESPN is for sure not hemorrhaging money.

 
I don't know how you're defining hemorrhaging, but it has rapidly lost millions of subscribers, which translates into tens of millions of dollars of lost revenue each month.
 

ESPN Tightens Its Belt as Pressure on It Mounts.

 

[AB in DC]

Somewhat off-topic, but an ESPN ombudsman last year complained that in the conflict of interest between its sports "partnerships" and real sports journalism, it's "impossible to state what ESPN as a company actually stands for".  It's almost as if Bristol listened to this and decided to can the independent voices (Olbermann, Simmons, Cowherd) and focus solely on promoting their partnerships.

 

[djbayko]

Somewhat off-topic, but an ESPN ombudsman last year complained that in the conflict of interest between its sports "partnerships" and real sports journalism, it's "impossible to state what ESPN as a company actually stands for".  It's almost as if Bristol listened to this and decided to can the independent voices (Olbermann, Simmons, Cowherd) and focus solely on promoting their partnerships.

They also decided there is no longer a need for an ombudsman.

 

[luckiestman]

If all it takes to win 4 Super Bowls is a deflated football and a video camera 'm asking myself why the fuck my squad didn't do those moves. Hell, my squad actually had a coach trip an opposing player during live play and we couldn't get a ring.

 

[nighthob]

With the paranoia and obsession made clear in the ESPN article, I have a feeling we still would. The road was always going to end here, it's just a matter of how.

Not to this extent, no. Without that first conspiracy launching eight years of "The Cheaty Cheatriots are cheaters that totally cheat!" stories what this team would be is the late 90s early oughts Yankees.

 

[DavidTai]

They have edited out two of Reiss's comments about their article.
 
http://profootballtalk.nbcsports.com/2015/09/09/espn-gives-tighter-edit-to-column-criticizing-espns-patriots-opus/

 

[amarshal2]

I can't believe I'm the first to post this but Florio is reporting that ESPN has given a "tighter edit" to this story and has COMPLETELY REMOVED the accusation of stolen play sheets (which severely outlets were reporting as the biggest accusation) as well as the obviously flawed injury report thing.

http://profootballtalk.nbcsports.com/2015/09/09/espn-gives-tighter-edit-to-column-criticizing-espns-patriots-opus/

Unfuckingbelievable. You can't make this shit up! (Though apparently ESPN did just that.)

Edit: beaten by 57 seconds.

I'm not sure this leaves them with any new material at all in the entire piece. Of course the damage has been done.

 

[DavidTai]

I think you've misread the article. ESPN didn't fix their original OTL article at all.
 
They removed -two- of Reiss's points from -his- column.

 

[taoofoj]

Something I find curious that I haven't heard discussed much.  If all these other teams felt the Pats were a cheating organization of cheaters, why did so many of these same teams seek Pats talent to lead their organizations?
 
Offhand Crennel (CLE), McDaniels (DEN), Mangini (NYJ), Pioli (KC), Dimitroff (ATL), O'Brien (HOU) - all HCs or GMs.  That's 20% of the league.  Bob McNair's recent comments seem particularly silly given his organization is overrun with former Pats all over the place.

 

[soxhop411]

I would just walk out and quit…

seriously.. How is ESPN allowed to do that?

Edit 2: I think that deserves its own thread

 

[Papelbon's Poutine]

Something I find curious that I haven't heard discussed much.  If all these other teams felt the Pats were a cheating organization of cheaters, why did so many of these same teams seek Pats talent to lead their organizations?
 
Offhand Crennel (CLE), McDaniels (DEN), Mangini (NYJ), Pioli (KC), Dimitroff (ATL), O'Brien (HOU) - all HCs or GMs.  That's 20% of the league.  Bob McNair's recent comments seem particularly silly given his organization is overrun with former Pats all over the place.

Because they wanted to learn how to cheat, dummy. [emoji39]

 

[amarshal2]

I think you've misread the article. ESPN didn't fix their original OTL article at all.
 
They removed -two- of Reiss's points from -his- column.

I see.
 
So while they didn't change their story, they did remove Mike Reiss' inarguable facts about the reporting of players who don't travel with the team on the road because they've been ruled out.  ESPN wouldn't want facts getting in the way of a good story.
 
I'd say he should quit but then there would be only Teddy.

 

[Ed Hillel]

This Reiss stuff infuriates me. Maybe it's because I have the image of little Mike Reiss getting tormented on the playground, but the NFL bullying a man of his integrity who has worked so dilligently for their benefit is just too much.

On the other hand, if he leaves, you just know they're tapping Borges to take his spot.

 

[soxhop411]

This Reiss stuff infuriates me. Maybe it's because I have the image of little Mike Reiss getting tormented on the playground, but the NFL bullying a man of his integrity who has worked so dilligently for their benefit is just too much.
On the other hand, if he leaves, you just know they're tapping Borges to take his spot.

Where the fuck was this ““tighter edit” with the Mort shit??? Oh thats right it fit the ESPN… I mean NFL narrative

 

[DavidTai]

So while they didn't change their story, they did remove Mike Reiss' inarguable facts about the reporting of players who don't travel with the team on the road because they've been ruled out.  ESPN wouldn't want facts getting in the way of a good story.
 
I'd say he should quit but then there would be only Teddy.

 
No... more... they left the criticism about SI up, but removed the criticism about their own article, AND removed the comment about Red Auerbach.

 

[Stitch01]

 
I don't know how you're defining hemorrhaging, but it has rapidly lost millions of subscribers, which translates into tens of millions of dollars of lost revenue each month.
  ESPN Tightens Its Belt as Pressure on It Mounts.

Yeah, that probably makes it worth less than the $50 billion it's been estimated at in recent years and there is clearly secular pressure, but it is a long way from hemorrhaging money.

 

[djbayko]

I see.
 
So while they didn't change their story, they did remove Mike Reiss' inarguable facts about the reporting of players who don't travel with the team on the road because they've been ruled out.  ESPN wouldn't want facts getting in the way of a good story.
 
I'd say he should quit but then there would be only Teddy.

Dude, this is the second time out of 2 that you got the same article completely wrong. Like...read and stuff. Leave the rapid fire to Soxhop, who at least doesn't usually add incorrect commentary.

 

[djbayko]

Yeah, that probably makes it worth less than the $50 billion it's been estimated at in recent years and there is clearly secular pressure, but it is a long way from hemorrhaging money.

ESPN may still be large, but the point is that the market expects successful companies to have upward trends in revenue and/or profit. Check out recent performance of DIS.

 

[Stitch01]

Yes that stock price certainly indicates ESPN is likely worth less than the $50 billion previously speculated. Still prints money.

 

[DennyDoyle'sBoil]

It feels like Pravda, I mean ESPN, is deliberately trying to run Reiss out. I guess actual reporters have no place there.

 

[edmunddantes]

It's really amazing.

Needed a tighter edit? Why? This isn't a newspaper where column inches matter. In fact longer article means more ads for you to potentially scroll pass.

What's ESPN trying to save? Some electrons?

Reiss has to be getting pissed.

Edit - damn auto correct

 

[djbayko]

It's really amazing.

Needed a tighter edit? Why? This isn't a newspaper where column inches matter. In fact longer article means more ads for you to potentially scroll pass.

What's ESPN trying to save? Some electrons?

Reid's has to be getting pissed.

Obviously they needed to cut out some points due to a lack of names sources.

 

[jimbobim]

Just for anyone who wants to puke in their mouth a bit.... 
 

1. 
   
   Don Van Natta Jr. ‏@DVNJr  2h2 hours ago
   What you all know about journalism isn't much.
    
   Don Van Natta Jr. ‏@DVNJr  2h2 hours ago
   
   
2. 
   
   
   A pal asks me tonight, "Why are you doing this?" ... "The truth," I say (reflexively). "Bust a move," he says.
   
   
   

 
I dropped this little turd in his celebration.
 
@DVNJr huh last I checked a journalist so confident in truth telling doesn't duck hard interviews like @DandCShow and get colleagues censored


 

 

[Devizier]

Yes that stock price certainly indicates ESPN is likely worth less than the $50 billion previously speculated. Still prints money.

if you're not growing, executives get fired.

 

[Stitch01]

Last post on this sidebar. ESPN still grew last quarter. Stock is off because people are worried long term that MVOD subs are in secular decline. The idea that ESPN is in financial distress or needs Pats stories because quarterly results are weak is misguided. They'd do this if the stock was up 20 percent this month.

 

[PedroKsBambino]

 
Just for anyone who wants to puke in their mouth a bit.... 
 

1. 
   
   Don Van Natta Jr. ‏@DVNJr  2h2 hours ago
   What you all know about journalism isn't much
   
   

 
If the point of this is to say that it is acceptable journalistic practice to run stories without factual proof or on-the-record sources, I suppose that it might be true we all don't know what journalism has become today.  But if you step back and think about it, that really is far more an indictment of journalism than a solution to the problem that there simply isn't any evidence to support the flashy headlines in Van Natta's story.

 

[jimbobim]

http://www.bostonsportsmedia.com/2015/09/corrupt-espn-censors-mikereiss-for-criticizing-patriots-hitjob?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=twitter&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+BostonSportsMediaWatch+%28Boston+Sports+Media+Watch%29
 
With all of this going on, it makes me wonder whether we’ll be seeing Reiss move on at some point in the not-to-distant future (pure speculation by me) and take his considerable audience with him.
Which would be a shame. ESPN would’ve driven off the man who essentially created the art of blogging the NFL beat, and who brought methods and post styles that have been imitated all across ESPN, not just in the NFL beat, but on others as well.
What’s worse is that ESPN is openly showing that it will not tolerate any criticism from within itself (there is no more ombudsman at the network) and is willing to do the bidding of the NFL.

 

[Leather]

 
If the point of this is to say that it is acceptable journalistic practice to run stories without factual proof or on-the-record sources, I suppose that it might be true we all don't know what journalism has become today.  But if you step back and think about it, that really is far more an indictment of journalism than a solution to the problem that there simply isn't any evidence to support the flashy headlines in Van Natta's story.

It's not journalism. It's entertainment masquerading as journalism. There's no accountability except $$. Saying he's reporting "the truth" and is "a journalist" is just him playing his part, because if he didn't the whole charade would come tumbling down.

 

[joe dokes]

I love how this alternate timeline has been created by the media in which the futures of organizations and individuals would have played out completely different had it not been for that one loss to New England. Oakland and San Diego get new stadiums approved, mediocre players and coaches go on to have Hall of Fame careers, baseball is still in Montreal.
 

 
With Develin out, the Patriots should sign John Conner to further fuck with the timeline.

 

[Mooch]

It's not journalism. It's entertainment masquerading as journalism. There's no accountability except $$. Saying he's reporting "the truth" and is "a journalist" is just him playing his part, because if he didn't the whole charade would come tumbling down.

What's fascinating about this journalistic "gray area" is that Lipsyte wrote about ESPN's struggles with this blurred line between entertainment and journalism back in December: http://espn.go.com/blog/ombudsman/post/_/id/477/probing-the-gray-areas-of-espns-journalism

The key part of that piece was Lipsyte's conclusion:
 

As for ESPN, it needs to be clearer about which rules of journalism it is going to enforce and why they need to be enforced equally in print and on pod, Grantland, “SportsCenter,” “GameDay” and perhaps even on “partner projects.” ESPN needs to be more transparent about the role of journalism in its business model, the purpose behind it and how committed it is to supporting it.

There should be nothing gray about that.

Clearly, ESPN hasn't addressed this concern in 2015 at all and is relying on these "gray areas" to increase clicks/viewership/revenue at the expense of journalistic integrity. Lipsyte saw this trend nearly a year ago and called it out. And now he's gone.
 
EDIT:  Formatting

 

[yecul]

Willful ignorance (anonymous sources) lets them print that story. Journalistic integrity/proper procedure does not. The story was a pretty big deal.
 
The former beats the latter.

 

[AB in DC]

 
If the point of this is to say that it is acceptable journalistic practice to run stories without factual proof or on-the-record sources, I suppose that it might be true we all don't know what journalism has become today.  But if you step back and think about it, that really is far more an indictment of journalism than a solution to the problem that there simply isn't any evidence to support the flashy headlines in Van Natta's story.

Someone needs to tweet back at DVN the journalistic best practices on anonymous sources.  For example: http://ethics.npr.org/tag/anonymity/

While we recognize that some valuable information can only be obtained off the record, it is unfair to air a source’s opinion on a subject of coverage when the source’s identity and motives are shielded from scrutiny.

 

[Leather]

What's fascinating about this journalistic "gray area" is that Lipsyte wrote about ESPN's struggles with this blurred line between entertainment and journalism back in December: http://espn.go.com/blog/ombudsman/post/_/id/477/probing-the-gray-areas-of-espns-journalism

The key part of that piece was Lipsyte's conclusion:
 

Clearly, ESPN hasn't addressed this concern in 2015 at all and is relying on these "gray areas" to increase clicks/viewership/revenue at the expense of journalistic integrity. Lipsyte saw this trend nearly a year ago and called it out. And now he's gone.
 
EDIT:  Formatting

 
Interesting.
 
The sad thing is that this model (which is basically tabloid journalism in the vein of the New York Post or Fox News) is so, so, cynical.  Instead of educating its audience, it instead plays to the biases and latent ignorance of its followers and, in fact, reinforces their preconceived notions.   It creates a positive feedback cycle that only exists to feed itself.   
 
I mean, what is ESPN now, really?  It's sensationalist hot takes, love letters to the most marketable athletes, and fantasy football.  

 

[Silverdude2167]

But that is NPR they never have money, now we know why.

 

[AB in DC]

What's fascinating about this journalistic "gray area" is that Lipsyte wrote about ESPN's struggles with this blurred line between entertainment and journalism back in December: http://espn.go.com/blog/ombudsman/post/_/id/477/probing-the-gray-areas-of-espns-journalism
 
Clearly, ESPN hasn't addressed this concern in 2015 at all and is relying on these "gray areas" to increase clicks/viewership/revenue at the expense of journalistic integrity. Lipsyte saw this trend nearly a year ago and called it out. And now he's gone.
 

 
Yeah, this was the article i mentioned above.  In any case, I completely disagree with your conclusion.  ESPN has addressed this concern -- it's now 100% clear that entertainment always trumps journalism.  Even OTL has been corrupted -- it's been clearly carrying the NFL's water when it comes to investigations.  Basically, other than the Fainaru brothers and maybe Schefter, there are no real journalists or independent voices left.

 

[AB in DC]

But that is NPR they never have money, now we know why.

 
The NY Times and the Washington Post have similar policies.

 

[Leather]

 
The NY Times and the Washington Post have similar policies.

 
And those are actual news sources.  
 
The cable channel called the Entertainment and Sports Programming Network is not, nor is its website.
 
I agree it's bullshit and its annoying, but by continuing to cling to this belief that ESPN is reporting actual news, when it clearly is not, is only giving them more credit than they deserve in the first place.