I have never said the Pats would, in the end, be found to have been breaking the rules. If you want to define finding a loophole as not cheating, I'm good with that. I'm good with them not even getting any kind of penalty. For all I know, the footballs might not even be one of the factors that led to their overnight improvement in ball security.

But, if the footballs were a contributing factor, I think the rules need to be changed in an appropriate way to even the playing field. I also think that *if* the Patriots really did knowingly break the rules for so many years resulting in them potentially making the playoffs or gaining home field advantage as a result, the penalties should be very stiff. (Of course, I don't think that will happen--because it isn't provable even if they did do all of that.)

Do you disagree with any of that?