Too Inflated To Fail
How Media Awe of Bill Belichik Excused the Patriots' Cheating

The National Football League’s Roger Goodell announced that it has finally taken its lead from the media commentators and from Coach Bill Belichick’s science lesson.  The NFL will investigate (1) why were the New England Patriots footballs out of  compliance with League rules, and  (2) was the noncompliance due to deliberate action.  More importantly, Goodell ended the dwindling speculation that the NFL would restore the integrity of the contest leading to the Super Bowl, the Super Bowl, and thus, football itself.  Instead, despite Goodell’s claim that no conclusions have been reached, the NFL has apparently concluded that deflating their balls did not help the Patriots win and advance to the Super Bowl. 

Some commentators focused on the question of who deflated 11 of 12 Patriot footballs used in the first half.  But, these commentators are asking the wrong question.  It is not who did it (probably a ball boy at the behest of Tom Brady—Joe Montana and many other former NFL quarterbacks have expressed their disbelief that Brady did not know about the deflation) and it is not who is responsible (it must be the operational head of the Patriots, Coach Belichick—if as he said, he has not discussed ball pressure in his 40 years of professional football experience, then he was negligent).  

Coach Belichick has responded to this rather naïve question about who is responsible with a with a science lesson that would exonerate all.   Belichick claimed that atmospheric conditions could have accounted for the deflation of the Patriot footballs, but not those of the Colts.  As admirable as it for the NFL to foster learning how Boyle’s Law describes the relationships between temperature, pressure, and volume of a gas, it is unfortunate the League failed to foster an understanding of the scientific method, which would call for an explanation of why none of the Colt’s footballs deflated like the Patriot’s. 

A more appropriate question than who or what caused the violation is why some media commentators, including former football players, persist in trivializing the role of deflating the footballs in the first half These commentators stress that whatever happened in the first half, the Patriots outscored the Indianapolis Colts 28 to 0 in the second half.  John Riggins, former running back for Washington, diminished the deflation infraction by likening it to running a red light when a driver can see that no other cars are coming.  The implication of this argument seems to be that the first half is not related to the second half; an implication that the legends of sports fans celebrate disprove.  Other commentators have argued that the Patriots' victory was due to their running game, not Brady's passing.  The implication of this argument is that the running game is not helped when defenders have to worry about passing.  Indeed, when the Patriots were found guilty of taping their opponents signal calling (i.e, Spy-gate), it was precisely so that they would not have to defend against both the run and the pass.  The Patriots' cheating during Spy-gate did not  result directly in Patriot points that time either.  Why is a rule infraction in the first half important to the game’s outcome, if the balls were not deflated in the second half?  

Consider the legend of Willis Reed in game 7 of the 1970 NBA Finals between the New York Knicks and the Los Angeles Lakers.  The series was hard fought and tied 3 all.  The Knick center Reed had missed game 6 due to an injury in game 5 and the Lakers had dominated.  Clearly, if the Knicks were to win, they needed Reed, but it was not clear that he could play until just before tipoff.  The crowd exploded and players on both teams watched as Reed hobbled out.  Reed’s defense limited Wilt Chamberlain’s point production, although Reed scored 4 points and 3 rebounds.  Reed only played for the first half and did not make his usual contribution, but his presence spurred his team mates and curbed the Lakers.  Why would anyone steeped in the legend of sport doubt how much success in the first half can affect the second half?  In the Reed example, we see how heroic behavior can increase team confidence.   In contrast, the Patriots seem to get team confidence by running red lights when no one is noticing.

The lack of self-confidence detracts from any sports performance, and according to Terry Bradshaw, the worst thing that can happen to a quarterback is to lose his confidence.  Focusing on things that we cannot control drains our confidence.  One of the things that is most under the control of a quarterback is his ability to grasp and throw a football in all conditions.  As important as self-confidence is for a quarterback, it is also important for the rest of the team.  Confidence is contagious, as is the lack of confidence, according to Vince Lombardi.  In the words of Joe Paterno, “you need to play with supreme confidence, or else you’ll lose again, and then losing becomes a habit.”  Despite words of wisdom from many greats in sport about the importance of confidence and the obvious relationship of performance to confidence, the media seems to be reluctant to acknowledge that Tom Brady would be advantaged by getting off to good passing start. Cheating, if only to boost confidence, is still cheating.

So why is this story being down played? Is it because the Super Bowl and the Patriots are too big to fail?  Or is this rule “trivial” because all rules and trivial for “winners?”