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.

Story continues