Bills have violated the integrity of the game

[jwise44]

At this point it's more fun to say stuff about the pats because of how their fans react than anything else

I actually like their team, other than bellichek

[jwise44]

^^by the way I didn't say that as a bad thing it's good to have a passionate fan base

[El Turco]

At this point it's more fun to say stuff about the pats because of how their fans react than anything else

[thomchatt3rton]

Some of the responses in this thread just boggle the mind. Like pumping in crowd noise is a tangible advantage clearly against the rules, not gamesmanship in grey areas that every team pulls. People need to read ElGee's post and/or yourteamcheats.com to get some real perspective, and not be stupid enough to buy into the modern day propaganda that the Pats dominate because they cheat gtfoh. They're just better because they prepare better and are smarter than you.

Oh well, society as a whole is pretty stupid and realgm is no different.

I've been trying to get people around here to read yourteamcheats.com but they refuse/ignore me for some reason.

There could be a reason why people aren't taking yourteamcheats.com seriously..

I'm not a Pats hater at all, and I agree that the average fan does need some perspective about cheating, but that website is hardly objective.

Take my Packers, who have a "cheating score" of 27, a full 7 points higher than the Pats. How? Here's how:

A.
--5 points for a scandal that happened in 1921 (!)
--3 points for a scandal that happened in 1963

That's 8 points for 2 scandals that happened, in football terms, squarely in the realm of ancient history. But OK. If the website only wants to show fans that, "hey your beloved team has cheated in its history too!", that's fair enough.
But let's be honest, the implicit point of this website is not historical, it's to make the BB-era Pats look better. Be honest Pats fans- this whole thing is driven by the BB-era scandals, it's not a dispassionate piece of historical analysis. After all, if it were purely an objective history lesson, then you'd think the website would at least adjust for number of years in the league.

By the website's own reckoning, the Packers have 27 points in 96 years of history. The Pats have 20 points in 55 years.
That's .28 cheat points per year of existence for the Pack compared to .36 CP per year for NE.
Not a big difference you say? Well reverse the roles: if the Pats were 96 years old, they could expect to have 35 points, conversely if GB were only 55 years old, they could expect to have 15 points. Quite a difference eh?
But whatever-- Maybe the site thinks it's reasonable to compare a 96-year-old history straight up with a 55-year-old history. (Or maybe the site's trying to make the Patriots look better?)

B.
--3 points for a White's cash-for-smash "scandal" in 1996.
Here's where the judgment of the authors gets dubious. Despite admitting that what White did was, according to the NFL, "within the rules", the website decides to give GB 3 points anyway- partly "justified" by a bogus attempt to link this with the Bountygate scandal of a different era ("sounds like Bountygate") and partly because of, well, their own speculation that cheating was "more probable than not".
Here it's informative to look at the cases where the Pats are accused of cheating and then exonerated by the website- the Pats are vigorously defended and never the victim of mere speculation. Look at IR-gate 13- the site gives the Pats 1 point for something that was only an allegation by ex-players. That seems fair, but not when you're giving GB 3 points for something was ruled fair by the NFL and is only an allegation by this website.

C.
--3 points for Rodger's "inflate" gate. This is absurd. If the Pats are innocent of deflating, the Packers are just as innocent. Can't have it both ways. Pats fans fume at unproven allegations- but here they're again willing to assess the Packers 3 points based on pure speculation-- cheating is "more probable than not".
Its again informative to look at the defense offered the Pats by the website- some 24 paragraphs (no less an authority than Skip Bayless is referenced) convinces the readers that the Pats are innocent of deflation. The evidence against the Pack: a couple of quotes from Rodgers in a pregame- which admit nothing more than inflating the balls up and then handing them over to the refs for inspection . Gasp! That, plus some wild-ass speculation about refs participating is enough to give GB 3 points. Cue the Weird Al tinfoil hat meme guys right?

D.
--5 points for 5 players busted for PEDs.
This is fair enough, I guess. But allow me to bring up again the point I made in "A"- that this whole thing isn't really about historical cheating- it's about making the BB-era Pats look less dubious. With that in mind, I point out that only 2 of the Packers 5 points occurred in the last 17 years, while all 4 of the points assessed the Pats for PEDs happened in the last 8 years. Plus, they have Bush listed as testing positive in 2015, but Bush is NOT on the 2015 Packers roster. Idk when Bush tested positive, but I'll give you that one. Still, 4 players in the BB-era vs 2 players (at most) in the MM/TT era for GB.

If you want to get down to brass-tacks, lets compare the BB-era Pats vs the MM-era Pack:

MM era Pack:
2 points for PED (again, i'm giving you Bush).
3 points for inflation (imo, this is BS. if the pats are innocent of this, so are the packers).
Total: 5 points, and that's me being plenty generous.
BB era Pats:
4 points for spygate
4 points for PED
1 point for IR gate
Total: 9 points and that's by a friendly websites math.

By the websites own reckoning, the Pats have out-cheated the Packers to the tune of: 9 points in 15 years vs 5 points in 9 years. Adjusting for "pace" that's .6 cheats per year for BB and .55 cheats per year for MM. But, the inflation nonsense alone amounts to a swing of anywhere from 0-6 points (0 points as-is, 3 points if you believe neither team cheated, and 6 points if you believe GB is innocent and NE is guilty).
So that means that at the worst reckoning of an unfriendly website, the MM Packers still cheat less than BB's Pats at their best. If neither team is guilty of inflation/deflation, then GB is at .22 cheats per year, and the Pats are STILL at .6 cheats per year. Project the MM pack at 15 years to match BBs tenure, and the Pack have 3 points at that rate, compared to BB's 9 points.

Look in your hearts, Patriots fans: do the Packers really deserve a cheating score this high? Your team may very well be unfairly maligned, but a website that unfairly maligns other teams really just undermines your argument...

EtA: and take this with a grain of salt as it IS speculation (see what I did, ytc.com, I admitted to speculation! ) but wouldn't you think that a team with a cheating score 7 points higher than the Pats would be the victim of at least 1 or 2 cheating accusations? Not to mention, a regular feature of yourteamcheats.com is the notion that the Pats are targets for cheating accusations simply based on their ability to consistently out-play regular rivals. I'd be the first to admit that the Packers haven't dominated regular rivals to the extent NE has-- not by far. But we also haven't been accused of cheating by said rivals, at all. You'd think that with all the jealousy-fueled cheating allegations leveled at the Pats, the Packers should have had at least one or two flimsy allegations leveled at them at some point during their modestly long run of success, right?

[El Turco]

website with an agenda is biased you say?

[Froob]

Sheldon Richardson not suspended for high speed car chase at 130 mph with weed and a gun with a kid in the car. Anyone want to tell me Goody doesn't have a soft spot for his former employer? Patriots and Saints would have been hit hard for repeat offender if they had tampered with Revis one year after tampering with DeSean Jackson.