Arash Madani sheds light on CFL cheating, but the prevalence of CFL and NFL cheating is a bad reason to ignore it; why Deflategate still matters
The NFL world has been consumed by "Deflategate" for the last couple of weeks, and some are starting to get sick of the endless discussion of if the New England Patriots intentionally deflated their game balls before the AFC championship game. One in that camp appears to be Sportsnet's Arash Madani, who filed an interesting column from the Super Bowl Monday, citing past examples of how frequently the rules are broken from his time working for CFL teams and his time reporting on the league. Many of the cases Madani discusses are quite remarkable, and they deserve further analysis. He's also correct that moves like changing air pressure or illegally taping practices (as the Patriots were caught doing in a previous scandal) do not make for a dynasty in their own right. However, his conclusion that Deflategate is all a bunch of hot air because all teams cheat seems flawed from this corner, especially as the CFL cases he discusses don't seem to provide as much of an unfair advantage as adjusting the balls could. (Also on that front, Dan Ralph's piece on how the CFL inflates and protects its game balls is a valuable read.) Thus, the Patriots' scandal shouldn't necessarily be written off this easily.
First, let's examine some of the CFL cases Madani discusses. There are seven main ones:
1. With Ottawa, he caught Montreal assistant Serge Brotherton videotaping Renegades' coaching signals during a 2004 game in Ottawa (while attempting to look inconspicuous in a newly-bought Renegades' shirt).
2. Also with Ottawa in 2004, the Renegades signed former Calgary linebacker Charles Assmann to ask about the Stampeders' schemes and signals.
3. With Ottawa in 2005, he noticed handwritten notes on a Ticats' practice faxed to the Renegades' office.
4. With Ottawa in 2005, he saw three Alouettes coaches come to a Renegades' game to take notes on the team's signals.
5. Toronto (at some undated, but recent point) had sheets for players on the sidelines with breakdowns of opponents' hand signals.
6. Edmonton (at some undated point) would grow the grass long and water it the night before a game, giving their prepared players a traction edge.
7. Winnipeg (in 2009) sent a scout to a Hamilton practice to take detailed notes on formations and personnel.
Yes, those examples demonstrate that most football teams are trying whatever they can for an edge. However, not everything in here is clearly illegal. #2 in particular (signing a player an opponent released and grilling him for information) is a long-standing practice, and it's hard to find much wrong with that; that's the cost of releasing a player (and conversely, if a team's willing to pay to bring a player in just to ask them about signals, it seems difficult to punish them for it). #6 (watering the field) also doesn't seem that bad; every stadium's different, and there's no indication the Eskimos were violating rules on the required condition of the grass. If this was so well-known, other teams should have countered by bringing long-grass cleats as well. Prepared teams (and those that can improvise) should be rewarded for that; there's a long CFL history of that, going back to Tony Proudfoot stapling his shoes in the Ice Bowl. #5 (presenting players with information on opposing strategies) doesn't seem too terrible in its own right either; the question's just how that information was obtained. That leaves us with #1, #3, #4 and #7, which are all about varying ways of stealing signals.
Stealing signals has long been a concern in all levels of football, and a preferred strategy for some teams. It was at the core of the Patriots' Spygate scandal, and it's obviously shown up many times in the CFL in some way or another. There's still a level of paranoia about this in the CFL, which is why many teams close some of their practices to the media and why there have been ongoing fights about what media can and cannot report at the practices they are allowed to attend. However, not all signal-stealing is equal. Case #4 above simply involves Montreal coaches attending an Ottawa game (which they were planning to do as paid customers) and take handwritten notes. That's something the average fan could do, or the coaches on the opposing sideline; hand signals coaches give during a game are essentially public information. Case #1, videotaping coaches' signals in a game, really isn't that much different; it's passing on information that everyone in the stadium (or watching on TV, if TV picked the right angle) could see. Yes, it's understandable why coaches wouldn't like their signals picked up by upcoming opponents, but there are ways to avoid this; use verbal playcalls (preferably with a playsheet in front of your mouth so lip-readers can't figure it out), use revolving signage boards the way NCAA no-huddle teams do, or simply change your calls a bit every week. Trying to limit access to what your coaches do on the sideline, something that can be seen by thousands of fans in attendance, seems problematic.
That leaves us with cases #3 and #7, which are the most problematic, and also the only variety here that's really been addressed by the CFL. Those involve detailed notes from opposing practices, and completely permitting that would dramatically reduce teams' ability to install different schemes, trick plays and so forth. That's the whole rationale behind closing some practices (or portions of practices) to the media. The vast majority of what happens in a practice isn't particularly notable to anyone, though, and thus, not all practices should be closed. When practices are closed, that should be respected, and if teams are trying to sneak staffers (or fans) into closed practices, that should be addressed. However, this is still a ways from Deflategate.
What differentiates Deflategate is that the allegations against the Patriots (namely, reducing the pressure in the balls they used on offence to make them easier to throw in difficult weather) would actually apply on the field, and would apply asymmetrically. Changing the grass (#6) is one thing, but it still winds up being the same field for both teams; both teams use different offensive balls, though, so if one team's balls are lighter, that's a notable advantage. Signing a recently-released player (#2) is perfectly legal, and if he has valuable information about an opponent's strategies, that's the opponent's fault for releasing him right then. The cases involving stealing signals are problematic, especially if from practice, but they all play into the mental chess match of football anyway, and there are ways to counter just about all of them (such as changing the signals frequently or calling one thing and running another). Having balls that work differently (and beyond the allowed range of differences) for each team is a much more fundamental change, and a problematic one.
Beyond that, "Everyone is cheating, so cheating doesn't matter" is a flawed assumption. Yes, you can't go around banning every player or coach who steps across the line briefly, but the whole premise of a sport (or a game, more broadly) is competing by a set of agreed-upon rules. Throw away those, and it becomes chaos, or Calvinball. Moreover, throwing up one's hands isn't always necessary, and even sports where cheating became endemic can be fixed. Consider Lance Armstrong's comments Monday that he would dope again if it was 1995, when he felt that was needed to win, but he wouldn't dope again if he was starting his career over in 2015, as tougher crackdowns have reduced the prevalence of drugs in the sport. If cycling can get to a point where most are competing by the agreed-upon rules, why can't football?
Yes, everyone will try to push the envelope, and there should be appropriate penalties in place to deter them from crossing the line and punish them when they do (see the salary-cap violation discussion). Yes, the Patriots' remarkable decade-plus of success wasn't primarily thanks to underinflated balls, and yes, talk of disqualifying them from the Super Bowl is ludicrous. Yes, there is a lot of hot air being spewed about Deflategate, and it isn't all meaningful. Downplaying that scandal because every team is looking for an edge seems like a step too far, though.
