Spygate continues to unfold

This thing just keeps getting bigger, and more amazing. And I will do my part not to let it get away. I'll start with this, from the Wisconsin State Journal. From the "hindsight is 20/20" department, here is the article's money shot: a quote from Packers' DB Al Harris, after the Pats beat the Pack 35-0 in in Green Bay, in 2006:

"It almost looked like they knew what we were doing, you know what I mean? They ran plays designed for us. They ran plays and made us check out some things. I don't know who calls their plays. (Belichick) is pretty good. Honestly. He's pretty good. There were things that they were doing that (got receivers open)."

Wow. Al, if only you knew. Though maybe you did have some idea. Steelers' receiver Hines Ward certainly did, after the 2002 AFC Championship game, according to this quote from a 2007 USA Today article:

"Oh, they knew. They were calling our stuff out. They knew, especially that first championship game here at Heinz Field. They knew a lot of our calls. There's no question some of their players were calling out some of our stuff."

Now, to the main monkey business - a compelling piece in today's New York Times, featuring an interview with Matt Walsh on the inner workings of the videotaping scheme. To me, here is the meat of the article:

The first time Walsh filmed an opponent’s signals was against the Tampa Bay Buccaneers in the 2000 preseason — Belichick’s first as the Patriots’ coach.

The Patriots then opened the regular season against the Buccaneers. Walsh said this was the first time he had seen quarterback Drew Bledsoe operate a no-huddle offense when not in a two-minute or hurry-up situation.

In the week after the game, Walsh said he asked a quarterback — again, he declined to name whom — how helpful the signals were. Walsh said the quarterback told him “probably about 75 percent of the time, Tampa Bay ran the defense we thought they were going to run — if not more.”

I can't imagine how much of an advantage that was! Well, Al Harris, Hines Ward, or anyone else who played the Patriots between 2000-2007 might. To me, it would be like sneaking a peak at my brother's controller and seeing 75% of the plays he chose in Tecmo Super Bowl. Something like that. Anyway...also in the article, there's this:

Belichick and Walsh never discussed the taping of opponents’ signals. That fell to Ernie Adams, Belichick’s right-hand man and mysterious assistant.

My reaction? Somebody should have a talk with this Ernie Adams.

Sports cliches not just lip service

Sports-related cliches: You hear them all the time, and dismiss them as worthless. But there is a reason athletes say them. They matter. Who would know better than the athletes themselves? It seems to me we should start taking their word for it, you know? Plus, these guys are well-educated and polite, so it's not like they would say something if it wasn't meaningful, or was misleading. So, let's look at a few, and examine why they are true...

We're just going to go out there and give 110%.

Think this one's unquantifiable? Not this time. In the 1988 World Series, Dennis Eckersely went to the mound, determined to only give 103% while facing Kirk Gibson. We all know what happened next.

Let the chips fall where they may.

This one seems stupid and nonsensical, right? Wrong. In fact, I personally overheard this conversation prior to game 7 of the 1994 NBA finals:
Anthony Mason: "All right, let's just play hard and let the chips fall where they may."
John Starks: "F*ck that, man. I'm tired of just letting the chips fall where they may. Not only will I question where the chips may fall, but I am going to do everything in my power to alter these locations."
The result? Starks goes 2-18 from the field, the Knicks lose..and chips of the Knicks' title hopes were strewn about.

We have to play hard, night in and night out.

Surely this statement is meaningless, isn't it? Not a chance. It's as crucial as anything in sports, to play hard, both night in, and night out. Doing just one, isn't good enough. Playing hard just night in, but mailing it in night out, is not going to get it done. Likewise, just hanging out night in, but going all-out night out, well that's simply too little, too late. I could try to provide an example of a big sports moment when someone did not play hard both night in and night out, and it led to their demise...but I tried pretty hard in the first portion of this blog entry, so I don't see why I should try hard at the end.

Triple Crown? In other news, Jimmy crack corn...

With the Kentucky Derby having taken place this past weekend, we were inundated with what I feel is another dumb sports cliche that people don't really think about. To me, it's just like the "Home runs and steroids saved baseball" argument - people hear others say it, so they say it too, and it becomes a generally accepted part of our collective sports consciousness. But it's never really examined.

This notion that "Everyone wants to see a triple crown winner," and that "People would care about horse racing if a horse won the triple crown." Really? Are you sure? The thought that I, as the sports layperson, would instantly become a horse racing fan because the same horse wins 3 races in a row, is woefully flawed. I don't care if one horse wins 3 consecutive races, just like I don't care if the same dude wins 3 consecutive Superbike races.

If you like horse racing, hey, that's awesome, and good for you. I'm sure seeing dominance in your sport is pretty cool for you, just like dynasties are pretty cool in other sports. (Real dyansties, of course - not when they're just cheaters.) But if you like horse racing, you'd probably still like it either way. Otherwise, you're probably not a "true" horse racing fan to begin with.

And on a much broader note, I am tired of being told what to care about in sports. I didn't care about Tiger Woods when he burst into the golf scene sometime in the late 1990s, I don't care now, and I never will.