Teams Los Angeles Rams - The Rammers

[sjsdu]

Re: St Louis Rams suing New England for $100M

I'd like to also emphasize that when somebody gets caught for something, you can't just 'excuse' or lessen the punishments or attitude towards the 'crime' by saying "but everyone else does it or tries to".

The fact is a team got caught and may have a skeleton's closet exposed as well. So they need to be punished hard for it. If you're going to slap wrists then nothing will ever stop. There has to be a threshold established. You cant eradicate teams looking for a competitive advantage is exactly why you need to establish a very secure and harsh threshold -- everything up to here we can't stop, but at this point, you dare not cross it. The competition committee's job is to establish that threshold. And the NFL is supposed to meter it, enforce it. But what's a $125,000 fine to a billionaire going to do? What's a $500,000 fine to a multi-millionaire coach going to do? What's a first round pick taken away going to do when they end up still having a first round pick at #7 overall?

If you're going to be serious...belichick should've been suspended for 1-2 years. New England's titles stripped, a reduction in their salary cap by some number like $20m for the term of their cheating (2000-2007) so a 7 year salary cap penalty, and them banned from having any 1st round picks for that same 7 year term. This would be considered excessive but imo the severe bad taste in the mouth to look back and feel cheated for the last 7 years. How Kraft/Belichick created this supposedly great franchise, a model of humility and teamwork, that could be a dynasty, was all a fraud. The punishment should be severe that the Patriots Belichick-era is wiped from the record books, from lore, the man Belichick casted away into the dungeon of ridicule and shame, and preventative measures put in place to ensure no team/owner ever tries to cross the thresholds.

It would be a major scandal that would rock the world of football, but if the NFL is serious they cannot dust things under the rug here. To do so imo is even worse than anything the Patriots did. Absolutely disgraceful. Goodell and the powers that be should be stripped of their power, a whole investigation run thru the place, removal of all the bullshit bias and corruption that goes on in there, including termination of men implicated.

GG...Way too harsh in my opinion. We don't know whether this cheating gave them an advantage. I guess it doesn't really matter, but what does matter is that many teams employ these tactics to gain that advantage and the league ought to have some deterents in place.

I do agree that a firm punishment draws the line in the sand and puts teams on notice...you cheat, you get hammered....but stripping them of their 3 titles? Can't be done.

Again, most all teams have used something to give them an advantage or done something that aided their pursuit of a title. Look at the 49ers of the 80's....the late Bobb McKittrick, their OL coach had the guys use the leg whip block which defensive lines claimed could cause serious injury. The team kept on using it. Now, was that unfair or just unseedy?

I guess the point here is the patriots haven't been harshly penalized. It has been a slap on the wrist and to properly ensure this doesn't happen again, it needs to sting.

 

[Exe Gesis]

Re: St Louis Rams suing New England for $100M

You guys should know that anything with me is all about breaking butterflies on the wheel. Ie, really hard penalties and measures to be enforced. Just in anything in life I'm always that way.

So my proposed penalties might be extreme to many, I dont doubt that. But that's what I would do. My opinion = zero tho, because i have no say in NFL matters. But i dont think we could argue that "just all the rumor and innuendo and muddied name is a big enough deterent" because people keep cheating while others have gotten caught cheating and being punished for it.

In life it's always like that......sharks are out there every day still trying to defraud companies, individuals. Govts are still out there trying to cheat taxpayers. Sports people and teams are still out there around the world trying to find ways to cheat the rules......no matter that others have all gotten caught.

The rewards are high for cheating and getting away with it. Greed and fame/notoriety is a big motivator that these people don't truly care about the consequences. For instance, look how the Pats kept cheating, never stopped, got more and more brazen about it. SEVEN YEARS of it. Not enough to tape the walkthru of SB XXXVI and get a SB. No, they want more, and continue to do it, trying to win 4 and 5 and 7 SBs etc.

Imo, cut their hands off.....massive fines, stripping of titles, banned from HOF (Brady/Belichick --- brady obviously knew and was involved, great player he is but still), strip them of their 1st rounders and reduce their salary cap for the term of their cheating. Punish so severely, that YES! You are writing that era off the record books and thereby 'destroying' that franchise to some extent for trying to defraud the NFL, the other teams and owners, and the fans. INTEGRITY is the most important thing in life, so **** anyone who tries to defraud it.

 

[crowman_23]

Re: St Louis Rams suing New England for $100M

I don't argue with integrity being incredibly important, but the punishment you are suggesting doesn't fit the crime. It can't even be proved that it gave the Pats a competitive advantage. Maybe the original penalty was too light, but I'm sure if more information comes to light then a more severe penalty will be handed down. But stripping us of our titles is ridiculous. Even IMO reducing our salary cap is ridiculous. I still see bigger fines and losing of draft picks as a big enough penalty. You only need to look at what has happened to Carlton after they were caught cheating and were penalise by losing draft picks to see how big a difference it can make. It would make a difference. Regardless of what you think gg, the Pats of the last decade have been an amazing team. You can have all the queries you want, and you can question all you like, but they were and are a GREAT team.

 

[Exe Gesis]

Re: St Louis Rams suing New England for $100M

crowman,

let's focus on the stripping of titles part. All the other stuff about appropriate fines etc is a wide disagreement.

But explain to me why titles/records shouldn't be stripped for cheating?

Imo, ben johnson gets his gold stripped. Barry Bonds should be stricken out of the records. If a cycler was caught cheating in a Tour De France, like steroids or say, hitched a taxi for a kilometer, etc, then the titles get stripped. If a team went over the salary cap and won a title, should be stripped (broncos), etc.

There are rules in place that define the boundaries within which teams should be classified as being legitimate title owners. Stepping outside them breaks that integrity....whether it's steroids, video-taping, bribing the NFL, using means as an owner to acquire talent etc that are outside of the rules, no matter what it is.

If the Rams were video-taped in the walk-thru that is a huge advantage in the game itself. If there wasn't such a huge advantage to knowing what teams are signalling for plays then coaches wouldn't cover their mouths. If you are able to get access somehow INTO the oppositions lockerroom, their playbook, their signals, their walkthrus, etc, then you're getting a major advantage. It's like how the Allies were able to decode the German's during WW2 and were able then to turn the war around and win it.

 

[Exe Gesis]

Re: St Louis Rams suing New England for $100M

The NFL stripped the Pottsville Maroons of their 1925 title for some dodgy reason. Pottsville were given the ok to play some exhibition match that in the end the NFL changed their mind after the game was played and said that they broke a rule in place at the time and so stripped their title. The Cardinals werent necessarily awarded the title, but in the end they have been recognized or make a claim to that 1925 title.

The Arizona Cardinals have two titles... 1921 (i think it is), and 1925 (the one they never got awarded but are said to have).

If it's found that Pats did tape the Rams walkthru, then that title should be stripped off them. Debatable whether Rams would be awarded it, but Pats stripped of it, yes.

Now, with Belichick ALSO admitting to Goodell that he has been taping since 2000 then that means he's been taping the playoff games and SBs against Panthers, and Eagles. Even if no video exists of those, that the Rams could be proven automatically (imo) means ALL their titles are tainted and should be stripped.

The NFL mentioned how some of those games taped were against the Steelers in regular season and then used against them in the AFC playoff games against the Steelers. There was a big turnaround in how Belichick was able to deconstruct the Steelers playoff games and Big Ben after Big Ben beat them well in the regular season. That is a great example of how that turnaround is apparent.

Sure, Rooney can come out and toe the line saying "it wouldnt affect anything, what Goodell did was right and no cover up was apparent, let me kiss the NFL's butt some more".....but that's just spin bullshit to toe the line. Many players and HCs have been far more vocal about much it does advantage a team to spy and have knowledge of a teams plays/signals etc.

 

[Sven]

Re: St Louis Rams suing New England for $100M

GG...Way too harsh in my opinion. We don't know whether this cheating gave them an advantage. I guess it doesn't really matter, but what does matter is that many teams employ these tactics to gain that advantage and the league ought to have some deterents in place.
...
...

If the cheating gave the Patriots no advantage, then why would they do it for such a long period of time?

Its time for people to start smelling the roses, the Patriots illegally taped the opposition for nothing other than to gain an advantage.

 

[greennick]

Re: St Louis Rams suing New England for $100M

I agree GG, knowingly breaking the rules is cheating. BB claiming he did not know it was a rule is obvious bs, otherwise it would not have been done in such a clandestine manner.

They need to make sure that cheaters never prosper. It is the same problem in the baseball where they just tried to sweep it under the carpet and now all these monstrous stars have been found to be cheats and the administrators have egg on their faces to say the least.

It does not make a difference whether an advantage was gained. Cheating is cheating and you should be punished accordingly. If I copied answers off a kid in school, but they were wrong, I would still be busted for cheating. It is no excuse that it was no advantage. It is the act of breaking the rules that gets the punishment, it is not punishment for the advantage gained.

Anyway, BB was renowned for focusing on what mattered, if the cheating gave the Pats no advantage, why would he do it for so long?

I am so glad that Bettis got his SB before he retired, I would have been disappointed if he was denied by the Pats after they cheated the Steelers as was found out by the NFL.

I have lost all respect for the club through all of this and hope they crumble over the next few years as they deserve to reap what they have sowed.

 

[JeffDunne]

Re: St Louis Rams suing New England for $100M

gg, just out of interest, what penalty would you give a team that rorted the salary cap alah Carlton?

Don't get me wrong, I'm a harsh critic of cheats and even more so those that condone it (ask any Carlton supporter around here ), but I simply don't see taping other team's signals in the same ball park as performance enhancing drug use or cap rorting (two reasons I've lost a lot of respect for the AFL).

If it was Miami being punished I'm sure people wouldn't consider it a slap on the wrist, so should the Patriots be punished more because they've been successful? Possibly. On the flip side, I've always argued the Carlton shouldn't have received a lesser penalty because they cheated and came last. IMO the punishment should fit the crime and in sport you still need to do a lot right to be successful regardless of advantages from your cheating (although I accept that depends on the seriousness of your cheating).

As for taking back past trophies, I don't think you can. History can't be re-written. If my team lost to the Pats in a Conference Championship and were denied a chance at the Superbowl - especially if you'd been favorites over some weak NFC opponent - then I'd be fuming if they awarded it to someone else. By all means give it a dirty big asterix, but I don't see how you over-turn a result. Like I said, you still need to do a lot right to win.

The penalty I can accept was light on, but I can't agree with overturning results once it's in the history books. I think at the very least they probably should have lost the W in games where it was proven they had film of the opponents. It may have resulted in a 0-16 season, but if they had that much film then it would have been easier to suspend them to the end of year. I can accept all these arguments but I don't agree with overturning past results.

 

[crowman_23]

Re: St Louis Rams suing New England for $100M

crowman,

let's focus on the stripping of titles part. All the other stuff about appropriate fines etc is a wide disagreement.

But explain to me why titles/records shouldn't be stripped for cheating?

Imo, ben johnson gets his gold stripped. Barry Bonds should be stricken out of the records. If a cycler was caught cheating in a Tour De France, like steroids or say, hitched a taxi for a kilometer, etc, then the titles get stripped. If a team went over the salary cap and won a title, should be stripped (broncos), etc.

There are rules in place that define the boundaries within which teams should be classified as being legitimate title owners. Stepping outside them breaks that integrity....whether it's steroids, video-taping, bribing the NFL, using means as an owner to acquire talent etc that are outside of the rules, no matter what it is.

If the Rams were video-taped in the walk-thru that is a huge advantage in the game itself. If there wasn't such a huge advantage to knowing what teams are signalling for plays then coaches wouldn't cover their mouths. If you are able to get access somehow INTO the oppositions lockerroom, their playbook, their signals, their walkthrus, etc, then you're getting a major advantage. It's like how the Allies were able to decode the German's during WW2 and were able then to turn the war around and win it.

I just don't see the issue as serious as the comparisons you are bringing up with drugs. It is not the same, cheating? Yes. Wrong? Yes. Gaining a serious competitive advantage? Probably not. You can't strip them of the titles IMO because it may not even have given them an advantage, unlike drugs, where we know it does. And people can say that it is the cheating that needs to be stamped down on, because it is wrong, well stamp down on it, but there are more appropriate penalties then stripping them of their titles. Fines and losing of draft picks IMO is appropriate, as IMO it fits the crime.

But this is all IMO, I'm a Pats fan. You clearly hate the Pats and I don't think we will ever agree on any punishment handed down, nor on the seriousness of the crime.

 

[Exe Gesis]

Re: St Louis Rams suing New England for $100M

gg, just out of interest, what penalty would you give a team that rorted the salary cap alah Carlton?

Don't get me wrong, I'm a harsh critic of cheats and even more so those that condone it (ask any Carlton supporter around here ), but I simply don't see taping other team's signals in the same ball park as performance enhancing drug use or cap rorting (two reasons I've lost a lot of respect for the AFL).

If it was Miami being punished I'm sure people wouldn't consider it a slap on the wrist, so should the Patriots be punished more because they've been successful? Possibly. On the flip side, I've always argued the Carlton shouldn't have received a lesser penalty because they cheated and came last. IMO the punishment should fit the crime and in sport you still need to do a lot right to be successful regardless of advantages from your cheating (although I accept that depends on the seriousness of your cheating).

As for taking back past trophies, I don't think you can. History can't be re-written. If my team lost to the Pats in a Conference Championship and were denied a chance at the Superbowl - especially if you'd been favorites over some weak NFC opponent - then I'd be fuming if they awarded it to someone else. By all means give it a dirty big asterix, but I don't see how you over-turn a result. Like I said, you still need to do a lot right to win.

The penalty I can accept was light on, but I can't agree with overturning results once it's in the history books. I think at the very least they probably should have lost the W in games where it was proven they had film of the opponents. It may have resulted in a 0-16 season, but if they had that much film then it would have been easier to suspend them to the end of year. I can accept all these arguments but I don't agree with overturning past results.

I dunno exactly what should've happened to Carlton, but if titles were won in a year where there was salary cap rorting then the title should be stripped. It's arguable whether you can award another team the title, but the stripping is fair. Not asterisked, but stripped off them. Patriots 0 NFL titles. It's hard to award the Rams the title because a) the Raiders themselves were rorted in the Snowjob game (the NFL cheating), so would the Raiders have beaten Steelers then Rams? Would the Steelers have beaten Rams? Would Rams have won? What about all the games during the year or playoffs that determined the outcome? Too hard to say. But Id probably award the title to the Rams, Panthers and Eagles anyway.

Carlton stripped of their salary cap title, Broncos too. Any other teams known to have done it, strip them and award the other team. I dont care if my team was one caught cheating. So be it. Truth and integrity above parochial support always.

Cantebury Bulldogs were found to be cheating and rorting the comp and the comp was like halfway thru the year, the NRL came down hard and stripped them of every single competition point at that stage. They went from minor premiers and certain title winners, to wooden spooners. That was for salary cap breaches. Why should it be different in hindsight? Looking back 5 or 10 years later? That's like saying if the police catch a guy for a murder 20 years ago then he should get off because everyone should just move on.

If a team like Miami goes 1-15 but was found to be cheating significantly, so what? They should be punished accordingly depending on what the cheating was exactly. Massive fines, lost draft picks, suspensions. If a team is in a position where they are playoff bound or have won a SB already, you punish on all the levels where that team benefited as a result of their cheating.

It could even just be an owner setting up some clever process off-field that benefited his team in some way somehow. As others have said so well before me, "why would anyone cheat unless they did so because there was some advantage to be gained from it."

Regardless whether an advantage was gained or not, the act of cheating and defrauding the competition/fans is vile.

 

[Exe Gesis]

Re: St Louis Rams suing New England for $100M

Not detailing the exact punishments, but the areas which they should be punished should be imo....

1. Suspension of those involved - players, coaches, adminstrators.
2. Banning from HOF for those involved.
3. Fines given to all those involved - players, coaches, owners, etc.
4. Lost draft picks.
5. Stripping of titles won during that cheating period (especially a consistent straight 7 year period).
6. And, depending on how extreme the cheating was, banning the owner from owning another NFL franchise. Therefore, owner must sell the team and have no future part of financial/ownership interest in any NFL team again.

 

[Exe Gesis]

Re: St Louis Rams suing New England for $100M

Gaining a serious competitive advantage? Probably not.

This is the area where you are unwilling to accept or struggling to accept.
Spying and collecting a database of signals, plays, is a serious competitive advantage.

Let's look at a few examples...
1. Bugging a lockerroom: The opposition can listen in and know what the HC is planning to do in the second half or before the first half. Which players are going to be targeted. Which players on your own team are going to be targeted. Etc.

2. Stealing a playbook: You have full access to a team's plays, and therefore the specific calls and signals used for every single play in that playbook. If you've ever seen a playbook, you'll know that it details everything -- the signals, the audibles, the plays, etc, for everything. If you have that playbook at hand, you would always be 100% aware of everything that the team was going to do and what plays were going to be run based on the information in there.

3. Lip-reading or taping the coach's mouth as he communicates to his OC and his QB: You would know exactly what play they were going to run etc.

4. Video-taping a team's SB walk-through: You would have on file all the plays that the opposition was going to run during that SB game. See, a team has a playbook of thousands of plays, and signals. But for any given game, the coaching staff and players during the week of practice go thru reps all week in practice for those plays they're going to run for that game, tactics etc. So a walk-through is like an extra final preparation before the SB that is essentially another practice day. If you have that taped, then you know exactly what the opposition is going to throw at you, and the signals and calls they will use for those plays and audibles.

Of course there's a serious advantage/benefit gained. That's why the rules are in place to stop teams from cheating! Not everyone acts in the spirit of the game. But the Raiders using stick'em before it was illegal is different than BB video-taping for 7 straight years and storing a database of info on teams fully aware it's all against rules put in place BEFORE he started doing it.

 

[Dagless]

Re: St Louis Rams suing New England for $100M

I think depth of cheating must be looked into, and whilst I would not strip the Pats of their titles because IMO the cheating was not damaging enough to the other team. Its not a case of 'had it not happened, then the Rams would have won'. The Rams signed their own fate by having such a mediocre gameplan. Knowing signals CAN be overcome. On the other hand, cheating such as the Snowjob game (Which was a loophole and not really defined as cheating at the time) should have the results reversed. But thats my opinion...

And Belichick should not get into the HOF... Thats a pretty simple result that would make a lot of people happy I guess... He already has a gameplan in there, he should be content with that.

Back to my first point, depth of deception has to be taken into account. This was a fairly concise case of the coaches being virtually the only people involved, and they were dealt with harshly (Well, thats up to opinion)

At the start of this year I thought the Pats shouldn't have had a win registered but that again is my opinion. UNLESS Walsh testifies, nothing else should come of this, other than having the NFL crack down on it if they are serious about it.

 

[Dagless]

Re: St Louis Rams suing New England for $100M

This is the area where you are unwilling to accept or struggling to accept.
Spying and collecting a database of signals, plays, is a serious competitive advantage.

Let's look at a few examples...
1. Bugging a lockerroom: The opposition can listen in and know what the HC is planning to do in the second half or before the first half. Which players are going to be targeted. Which players on your own team are going to be targeted. Etc.

2. Stealing a playbook: You have full access to a team's plays, and therefore the specific calls and signals used for every single play in that playbook. If you've ever seen a playbook, you'll know that it details everything -- the signals, the audibles, the plays, etc, for everything. If you have that playbook at hand, you would always be 100% aware of everything that the team was going to do and what plays were going to be run based on the information in there.

3. Lip-reading or taping the coach's mouth as he communicates to his OC and his QB: You would know exactly what play they were going to run etc.

4. Video-taping a team's SB walk-through: You would have on file all the plays that the opposition was going to run during that SB game. See, a team has a playbook of thousands of plays, and signals. But for any given game, the coaching staff and players during the week of practice go thru reps all week in practice for those plays they're going to run for that game, tactics etc. So a walk-through is like an extra final preparation before the SB that is essentially another practice day. If you have that taped, then you know exactly what the opposition is going to throw at you, and the signals and calls they will use for those plays and audibles.

Of course there's a serious advantage/benefit gained. That's why the rules are in place to stop teams from cheating! Not everyone acts in the spirit of the game. But the Raiders using stick'em before it was illegal is different than BB video-taping for 7 straight years and storing a database of info on teams fully aware it's all against rules put in place BEFORE he started doing it.

Thats the thing gg, the sport of NFL is not one that is cut in stone 9If that makes sense).
Things change quite dramatically quite quickly. Gameplans, signals, focus players. Whilst these things DO offer a competitive advantage, they are not always to the same extent. Some can be seriously damaging whilst others can offer little effect whatsoever. You can't just clump pall cases together and demand the same result. AS the saying goes, 'the World isn't black and white, but shades of gray'.

 

[crowman_23]

Re: St Louis Rams suing New England for $100M

This is the area where you are unwilling to accept or struggling to accept.
Spying and collecting a database of signals, plays, is a serious competitive advantage.

Let's look at a few examples...
1. Bugging a lockerroom: The opposition can listen in and know what the HC is planning to do in the second half or before the first half. Which players are going to be targeted. Which players on your own team are going to be targeted. Etc.

2. Stealing a playbook: You have full access to a team's plays, and therefore the specific calls and signals used for every single play in that playbook. If you've ever seen a playbook, you'll know that it details everything -- the signals, the audibles, the plays, etc, for everything. If you have that playbook at hand, you would always be 100% aware of everything that the team was going to do and what plays were going to be run based on the information in there.

3. Lip-reading or taping the coach's mouth as he communicates to his OC and his QB: You would know exactly what play they were going to run etc.

4. Video-taping a team's SB walk-through: You would have on file all the plays that the opposition was going to run during that SB game. See, a team has a playbook of thousands of plays, and signals. But for any given game, the coaching staff and players during the week of practice go thru reps all week in practice for those plays they're going to run for that game, tactics etc. So a walk-through is like an extra final preparation before the SB that is essentially another practice day. If you have that taped, then you know exactly what the opposition is going to throw at you, and the signals and calls they will use for those plays and audibles.

Of course there's a serious advantage/benefit gained. That's why the rules are in place to stop teams from cheating! Not everyone acts in the spirit of the game. But the Raiders using stick'em before it was illegal is different than BB video-taping for 7 straight years and storing a database of info on teams fully aware it's all against rules put in place BEFORE he started doing it.

I think we just disagree gg, which is no surprise considering what we are debating. I understand everything you are saying, I simply disagree. I can see the team did wrong, I personally don't think it is as bad as you make it out to be, but you do.

You give us four examples but what are the point of three of them? We weren't bugging locker rooms so in this situation it is not important. I can see where you come from though with the videoing oof the walk-through, I just geniunely don't think it has as much of an effect as you believe it does. I think we will just have to agree to disagree.

 

[Galactic]

Re: St Louis Rams suing New England for $100M

The great thing about this forum, after not posting for a while is I dont need to say anything on this matter, its already been said by others. IMHO, BB will be in the hall of fame with his GREY HOODIE, Patriots 3 SB's will be in the record books and all this talk in 100 years will be for 0. But Im sure it keeps GG entertained during the worst time of the NFL year.Somebody wake me when we start talking about real issues. EG- Next season and the draft. Now Im off to get back to watching Dexter, its part of my SB recovery process.

 

[greennick]

Re: St Louis Rams suing New England for $100M

It is a real surprise that all the Pats fans do not think this lead to a competitive advantage and constituted cheating.

 

[montybrasco]

Re: St Louis Rams suing New England for $100M

The several Spygate tapes are in and - surprise, surprise - no Rams walk-through. No new information came to light. Just the usual hand signals that have been a part of the sport for eons.

The only thing for sure is Matt Walsh has protected himself from being sued, which drew out the brouhaha for a few months.

Pats are now exonerated considering the tapes show nothing more than what every team has been doing, as the Patriots claimed.

Case closed.

 

[Galactic]

Re: St Louis Rams suing New England for $100M

Gees, where will we be without spygate to talk about

 

[Cousin Jed]

Re: St Louis Rams suing New England for $100M

Why so quiet in here?

 

[Exe Gesis]

Re: St Louis Rams suing New England for $100M

Why so quiet in here?

Because I haven't posted in here yet venting my 'jealousy'.

 

[Swan 4 life]

Re: St Louis Rams suing New England for $100M

someone asked what harm is there in tapping and if there was an advantage to it enough to matter? Of course there is. Im a 20 year vet of playing this game and having a tape of all the formations before you take the field is probably just as damaging if youd handed over your playbook. The would know what formations would need which defense when to blitz and and when to drop into coverage. Thats why Mangini did what he did. It isnt on the same footing if you tape the opposition warming up or going over play drills. Knowing what formations they use in 3rd and long and even 1st downs can tip a game precariously into an oppositions favor. If I were the NFL then I personally would have fined them huge cash and took a few draft picks.

Lets face it to alot of people cheating has become accepted. I mean Ben Cousins wins a brownlow and a GF and then nothing but suspension when they find out he was on drugs the whole time. That is a slap on the wrist.If they were serious about the message they send, they would strip his brownlow and make him ineligible for the HOF. Just like they did to OJ and to Pete Rose for gambling.

Either be serious about cheating and do something, or admit your spineless and dont do anything. The people who pay thier money to watch at least deserve that.

 

[Exe Gesis]

Re: St Louis Rams suing New England for $100M

someone asked what harm is there in tapping and if there was an advantage to it enough to matter? Of course there is. Im a 20 year vet of playing this game and having a tape of all the formations before you take the field is probably just as damaging if youd handed over your playbook. The would know what formations would need which defense when to blitz and and when to drop into coverage. Thats why Mangini did what he did. It isnt on the same footing if you tape the opposition warming up or going over play drills. Knowing what formations they use in 3rd and long and even 1st downs can tip a game precariously into an oppositions favor. If I were the NFL then I personally would have fined them huge cash and took a few draft picks.

Lets face it to alot of people cheating has become accepted. I mean Ben Cousins wins a brownlow and a GF and then nothing but suspension when they find out he was on drugs the whole time. That is a slap on the wrist.If they were serious about the message they send, they would strip his brownlow and make him ineligible for the HOF. Just like they did to OJ and to Pete Rose for gambling.

Either be serious about cheating and do something, or admit your spineless and dont do anything. The people who pay thier money to watch at least deserve that.

You're right about the advantage that would be had by a team cheating. But what's worse to me is when officiating bodies soft-c*ck the punishments out or sweep things under the carpet. This includes club officials when players get involved in 'secret' or public off-field situations (some criminal) and the league bodies over matters like cheating, drugs, rape, salary cap, etc....this goes on right around the world.

 

[JeffDunne]

http://sports.yahoo.com/nfl/news;_ylt=Ahew3rez54JZnxf1Pvf1qVVDubYF?slug=ms-trippintuesday052008

Though it hasn't been publicized in the wake of longtime owner Georgia Frontiere's death earlier this year, the St. Louis Rams are on the market, according to several NFL sources.
The possible sale of the franchise could have major ramifications, with a potential return of the team to Southern California hanging over any transaction. Adding intrigue to the situation: One of the prospective buyers who has had preliminary discussions with an intermediary about buying the Rams is Eddie DeBartolo, who owned the rival San Francisco 49ers from 1977 to '98.

"I know that they are definitely in play," DeBartolo told Yahoo! Sports last week. "Georgia's kids (son Chip Rosenbloom and daughter Lucia Rodriguez) have decided to sell the team. I've talked to some people who are brokering things, and they've told me about the price and what the deal might entail."

Rams president John Shaw, who has been the de facto leader of the franchise since Frontiere moved the Rams from Anaheim to St. Louis in 1995, declined to comment on the team's potential sale.

While DeBartolo said he has only a "slight" interest in purchasing the Rams, who sources say are being shopped in the $850 million to $900 million range, he conceded that part of the deal's allure would be the possibility of filling the void in the L.A. market that has existed since the Rams and Raiders left town before the '95 season.


"Their lease (at the Edward Jones Dome in St. Louis) is up in 2012, and they would be a natural for that to happen," DeBartolo said of the Rams' return to L.A. under new ownership. "It would be something to look at, and it's interesting to see the numbers and everything. But it wouldn't be my first choice of a franchise if I chose to get back in."

DeBartolo, who lives in Tampa, would prefer to purchase the Tampa Bay Buccaneers. He was part of a group that included Outback Steakhouse founder Chris Sullivan which approached Bucs owner Malcolm Glazer about buying the team seven years ago, but their interest was rebuffed.

Two years ago, in a story I wrote for Sports Illustrated, DeBartolo said he was intrigued by the prospect of purchasing the Raiders and relocating them to L.A. At the time two prominent NFL owners, including the Dallas Cowboys' Jerry Jones, said they believed DeBartolo would be approved should he attempt to return to the league – something that was in question after he became embroiled in a Louisiana gaming scandal a decade ago and ultimately pled guilty to a felony (not reporting an extortion attempt by the state's former governor, Edwin Edwards).

"I love the guy, and a lot of people in that room (at an NFL owners meeting) like him," one AFC owner said earlier this month. "I think he'd be approved."

Given the decline of the 49ers' fortunes since the popular and wildly successful owner's departure – and DeBartolo's acrimonious relationship with brother-in-law John York, who currently runs the franchise – the thought of him owning a reprised L.A. Rams ranks with the previously floated Raiders scenario as a 49ers fan's worst nightmare. But DeBartolo, who has worked hard to repair his once-bitter relationship with sister Denise DeBartolo York, insists he's not motivated by any sort of revenge fantasy.

"Oh, (expletive), I'm past that," DeBartolo insisted. "I would only do it for the right reasons – business reasons. I don't know, the Rams, they were always my arch enemy. (St. Louis is) a good city. And, you know, we took care of the Rams pretty good when we owned the 49ers."

DeBartolo, 61, also says he is not as high on the Los Angeles market as he was two years ago.

"First of all, who's proven in L.A. that a damn team even works?" DeBartolo asked. "It didn't work for Al Davis, and he won a Super Bowl there. I think L.A. has yet to prove it wants to support a pro football team. And unless somebody does an awfully damn good survey and market-research study indicating otherwise, I'll be skeptical."

One high-ranking league source says the Jacksonville Jaguars are another team that might be sold and relocated to L.A. and that owner Wayne Weaver has solicited potential buyers in recent months. But DeBartolo discounted the possibility of purchasing the Jags, saying, "I think (he'll sell) every year, but it doesn't happen. I get the feeling that Wayne really wants a Super Bowl, and every year he keeps thinking, 'It's gonna be the year,' and he decides to keep them."

As for the Rams, an NFL owner familiar with the situation says at least two groups not involving DeBartolo have had discussions with those brokering the sale about a possible purchase. The owner said it appears unlikely that Stan Kroenke, a Rams minority owner, will try to buy out Frontiere's heirs and assume control of the franchise. To gain NFL approval, Kroenke would have to divest himself of his ownership interests in the NBA's Denver Nuggets and NHL's Colorado Avalanche because failing to do so would violate the NFL's cross-ownership policy (which does not allow someone with controlling ownership in an NFL franchise to own major pro sports teams who play in a different NFL city).

"It'll be interesting to see what happens," DeBartolo said.

Interesting.

You'd think the Rams would be the 'easiest' of moves for the NFL back into LA.

No need to realign divisions, no extra franchise needed.

Better them than us.

 

[Dagless]

Re: Rams up for sale

Indeed JD...

Now which type of owner will grab the Rams? Snyder type? Davis type?