Lame sports comparison

Don't know if you've heard by now, but former Miami Dolphins coach Don Shula has stated that if the 2007 New England Patriots go undefeated this season, there should be an asterisk next to their achievement because of their earlier "spygate" scandal. But Associated Press writer Jim Litke calls Shula "a hypocrite" for his remarks. Why?

He was still the coach of the Baltimore Colts at the end of the 1969 season, when then-Miami owner Joe Robbie approached him and signed Shula to a contract. The NFL charged the Dolphins with tampering and awarded their first-round pick to the Colts.

"Tampering"? How? Litke doesn't elaborate. And since he doesn't elaborate, how does he make the comparison between Shula's transgression and that of NE coach Bill Belichick? The former apparently bolts for a new team in apparent violation of league rules; the latter uses cameras to spy on other teams' defensive schemes also in [obvious] violation of league rules. Now -- which one of these violations greatly benefits a teams chances of winning games? Belichick was penalized heavily for his team's trangressions (as was Shula for his), but we don't know (and probably never will) the extent of the advantages the Pats got from their clandestine videotaping. What precisely were the "advantages" that Shula (and the Dolphins) garnered by Don scramming Baltimore and heading for Miami? How does that translate into a "needed asterisk" for his undefeated 1972 team?

If anything, if the Pats win out this season, it could -- could -- be argued their season is even "more perfect" than that of the '72 Dolphins because they'll have played two more total games (19 vs. 17). Litke also points out that the '72 Dolphins played an extremely weak schedule: their opponents' collective winning percentage was under .400. The Pats '07 schedule isn't exactly tough though; only two of the teams they've played thus far have a winning record (Cowboys and Colts) and the collective winning percentage of their opponents is currently a mere .413. In the second half, the Pats' only opponents with winning records (currently, that is) are the Steelers and Giants. I personally don't care about that though; you can't control how other teams get worse while your team gets a lot better. The two additional games makes much more of a difference to me.

But these are all only tangential to Litke's [supposed] main "argument." Comparing Shula's past "violation" to Belichick's current one is just plain absurd when you just look at the potential benefits from those violations. Shula was right -- maybe there should be an asterisk next to the Pats' perfect season should they actually attain such. 'Cause we'll never ever know just how far Belichick's cheating went, and how much it benefited him and his team. Enough to win three Super Bowls each by a mere three points? Might have been just enough of an edge.

Posted by Hube at November 7, 2007 03:19 PM | TrackBack