The Best of Us

Joni and I recently lost two friends, each of whom we had known for many years and had been very important to us.  On the surface, they were very different: Dick Stroud was an African American artist, teacher, and Aikido master, while Betty Ann Miller was a Jewish philanthropist and spiritual leader.  But their similarities ran much deeper.

We met Dick Stroud in the mid-1990s when his son, Ben, joined our son’s class at the Charles River School.  I remember being immediately impressed by his intelligence, his genuine curiosity, and the calm demeanor with which he carried himself.  He taught me a great deal about striving for inner peace and seeing beauty in the smallest, seemingly insignificant things.  Dick passed away in June, and I will miss his humor, his generosity, and that warm, knowing smile with which he approached all things.

In 1997, when Gavin joined the Rashi Middle School, Betty Ann Miller was the first person to greet us and offer help in navigating this new experience.  Her commitment to Jewish education was palpable, and she seemingly always did the right thing, both big and small, for others.  Never wanting recognition nor accolades, she opened up her heart to us, as she had so often with so many others, and she persistently guided us by example.  She died yesterday, and I will miss her spirit, her generosity, and the twinkle in her eyes.

It’s interesting that Dick and Betty Ann were such big-hearted people, because it was their hearts that eventually gave way.  They strongly influenced my life and always conducted themselves with grace and dignity.  They were the best of us.

Whatever Happened to the "Do Not Call List?"

On June 27, 2003, the U.S. Federal Trade Commission (FTC) opened the National Do Not Call Registry in order to comply with the Do-Not-Call Implementation Act of 2003.  Within a short time, most of us had registered our phone numbers, and for a few years, it seemed to work.  I know that I received very few spam calls, and usually, if I threatened them with the "Do Not Call Registry," they hung up quickly and didn't call back.

All that seems to have changed to the point where I now get 5 to 10 calls per day from people trying to sell me something.  If I say I'm not interested or mention the list, they just call back another time.  I've tried sending the numbers to the Do Not Call Registry, but it doesn't seem to matter.

So what happened?  The best I can tell or garner from the internet is that the government just stopped enforcing the list, except for massively blatant offenders.

Why did this happen?  Well, it seems like the US and state governments just stopped funding the enforcement.  Maybe it happened during the recession of 2009-10, or maybe the companies that make the calls have been donating to the campaigns of enough congressmen to get them to cut the funding.  Whatever the case, I don't think I'm alone in receiving many more calls and/or being upset about this.  People are even getting junk calls on their mobile phones.

As usual, Congress will not act unless they hear from enough people.  So today, I'm going to shoot an email to my representatives in the US and state legislature asking them to push for the enforcement of the Do Not Call List.  You may want to do the same.

DeflateGate and Other Thursday Thoughts

A few Thursday Thoughts:

DeflateGate

Given that I posted my HateGate article last year, people have been asking me what I now think about DeflateGate.  I've deflected by saying, "What's the big deal?  My wife's been deflating my balls for years."  Even though its not true, it makes for a good chuckle...feel free to use it whenever you tell a Patriot hater you're from New England.

But the truth is that I don't know what to think.  As I wrote to my cousin, Dave, I don’t know what Brady knew, but the report saying that “it is likely” he was “generally aware of… inappropriate activities” is not exactly a smoking gun.  It seems that, and Ted Wells recent statements confirmed it, Brady is being punished more for his lack of cooperation with the investigation than for anything he might have done.  I don’t know how cooperative I’d be with someone who is questioning my integrity, but I do know that there have been times in my life when it was likely that I was generally aware of inappropriate activities, yet I didn’t feel like I had done anything wrong. So, let’s wait and see where it all ends up, after the appeal.

Lemons
If I ever want someone to do PR for something, I'm going to find the people who work for the citrus industry.  After all, those damned lemons are everywhere.  It started with fish and seafood, and then went to sparkling water, and now it's hard to get a plain old glass of water without a lemon in it.  Even when I order tea with milk, they still bring a lemon (do they bother to consider what lemon juice does to milk?).  I almost expect to walk into a men's room and find lemons in the urinal.  Hmmm...maybe that's what I should do with the lemons I'm not using.

"Safe" Drivers

Truthfully, I don't like driving behind minivans, Priuses (Prii?) and Subaru wagons.  They almost always drive slower than the situation calls for, in the mistaken impression that they're driving safely.  I guess they don't consider the lack of safety when the rest of us swerve around to try to pass them.

K-Cups

I really like the convenience of a Keurig machine for making coffee (which Joni drinks) and tea (which I drink), but I've been told that the K-Cups are not recyclable because they combine plastic and foil.  Why can't someone make K-cups with plastic on top instead of foil?  In any event, here's what I do...I bought several EZ-Cups, which are reusable shells, and the paper filters that go into them.  I then fill them with my favorite tea in whatever strength I want (I generally prefer strong tea), and I brew a cup.  Sure, it takes a few more minutes, but it tastes better and helps stop the oceans from filling up with plastic.

AOL

My email account has been on AOL for 30 years, and the media routinely portrays that as out of touch with today's reality.  So, I was happy to read that Verizon purchased AOL recently for $4.4 billion.  I guess I feel suddenly relevant.

More thoughts to follow...

Reid's 2015 Oscar Preview

For the last few years, I've been writing an article similar to one in the Boston Globe in which critics preview the Academy Awards, using 4 categories:  “Will Win,” “Should Win,” “Shouldn’t Be Here,” and “Was Robbed.”  They follow each with a paragraph about the races.   I used the same format to preview eight categories of the 2015 Academy Awards (movies from 2014).

Best Picture

The Nominees: "American Sniper," "Birdman," "Boyhood," "The Grand Budapest Hotel," "The Imitation Game," "Selma," "The Theory of Everything," "Whiplash" 

Will Win: “Boyhood”

Should Win: “The Imitation Game”

Shouldn’t Be Here: “The Theory of Everything”

Was Robbed:  “Interstellar” 

"Boyhood" is an excellent movie, but it will win for the wrong reason...because of the way it was made, over the course of 12 years.  Granted, the results are unlike what most traditional movies can achieve, but the script and story line are not so interesting and innovative as to award it all the acclaim it is receiving.  If there was an award for "Most Committed Moviemaking Project," "Boyhood" should win hands down, but it is not as good a film as "The Imitation Game."

Best Actor

The Nominees:

• Steve Carell in "Foxcatcher"
• Bradley Cooper in "American Sniper"
• Benedict Cumberbatch in "The Imitation Game"
• Michael Keaton in "Birdman"
• Eddie Redmayne in "The Theory of Everything"

Will Win: Eddie Redmayne in "The Theory of Everything"

Should Win: Michael Keaton in "Birdman"

Shouldn’t Be Here: Steve Carell in "Foxcatcher"

Was Robbed:  Jake Gyllenhaal in "Nightcrawler"

It seems like almost every year, the Academy gives its best acting awards to actors who play characters who are either famous people or have some sort of affliction; these roles are designed for Oscar, and this year, two such performances will win--those of Eddie Redmayne (who plays a famous person with an affliction) and Julianne Moore.  Granted, they each did an outstanding job, but I wish the voters would be brave enough to give the awards to more nuanced performances, like the one given by Michael Keaton this year.  Otherwise, Steve Carell is nominated for his makeup, not for his painfully boring performance, especially when compared with Jake Gyllenhaal's amazing turn as a creepy newshound in "Nightcrawler."

Best Actress

The Nominees:

• Marion Cotillard in "Two Days, One Night"
• Felicity Jones in "The Theory of Everything"
• Julianne Moore in "Still Alice"
• Rosamund Pike in "Gone Girl"
• Reese Witherspoon in "Wild"

Will Win: Julianne Moore in "Still Alice"

Should Win: Reese Witherspoon in "Wild"

Shouldn’t Be Here: Rosamund Pike in "Gone Girl"

Was Robbed:  Agata Trzebuchowska in "Ida"

Ditto to my complaint regarding the Best Actor category.  Here, Julianne Moore will win because of the part, not because her acting was any better than that of Reese Witherspoon, who already won this award for her less interesting performance in 2005's "Walk the Line."  And how Rosamund Pike was nominated for her wooden performance in "Gone Girl" is a complete mystery.

Best Director

The Nominees:

• Alejandro Iñárritu for "Birdman"
• Richard Linklater for "Boyhood"
• Bennett Miller for "Foxcatcher"
• Wes Anderson for "The Grand Budapest Hotel"
• Morten Tyldum for "The Imitation Game"

Will Win: Richard Linklater for "Boyhood"

Should Win: Richard Linklater for "Boyhood"

Shouldn’t Be Here: Bennett Miller for "Foxcatcher"

Was Robbed:  Joon-ho Bong for "Snowpiercer"

This is where "Boyhood" should be most honored.  Richard Linklater's commitment to this excellent and difficult project deserves all the accolades it can get.  On the other hand, Bennett Miller's unfathomable lack of pacing should win for "Worst Director."  And Joon-ho Bong should be given some credit for making viewers suspend disbelief while creating multiple thrills in the absurd but highly watchable "Snowpiercer."

Best Supporting Actor

The Nominees:

• Robert Duvall in "The Judge"
• Ethan Hawke in "Boyhood"
• Edward Norton in "Birdman"
• Mark Ruffalo in "Foxcatcher"
• J.K. Simmons in "Whiplash"

Will Win: J.K. Simmons in "Whiplash"

Should Win: J.K. Simmons in "Whiplash"

Shouldn’t Be Here: none

Was Robbed:  Bill Nighy in "Pride"

This category got it right.  These were five very good performances, and I only wish there had been space for Nighy's excellently understated role in "Pride."  On any other year, Norton would likely win for his manically brilliant comedic performance in "Birdman," but this year's best performance in any role in any movie belonged to Simmons, as the manipulative bandleader in "Whiplash."  It will go down as one of the all-time great roles.

Best Supporting Actress

The Nominees:

• Patricia Arquette in "Boyhood"
• Laura Dern in "Wild"
• Keira Knightly in “The Imitation Game”
• Emma Stone in "Birdman"
• Meryl Streep in "Into the Woods"

Will Win: Patricia Arquette in "Boyhood"

Should Win: Patricia Arquette in "Boyhood"

Shouldn’t Be Here: Meryl Streep in "Into the Woods"

Was Robbed:  Minnie Driver in "Beyond the Lights"

I've always liked the acting of Patricia Arquette, but even I was surprised by the depth and breadth of this performance as the mom in "Boyhood."  And just because Meryl Streep is the best living movie actress should not guarantee her an annual Oscar nomination, certainly not over Minnie Driver's excellent role as a misguided stage mother in "Beyond the Lights."

Best Adapted Screenplay

The Nominees:

• Jason Hall for "American Sniper"
• Graham Moore for "The Imitation Game"
• Paul Thomas Anderson for "Inherent Vice"
• Anthony McCarten for "The Theory of Everything"
• Damien Chazelle for "Whiplash"

Will Win: Graham Moore for "The Imitation Game"

Should Win: Graham Moore for "The Imitation Game"

Shouldn’t Be Here: Jason Hall for "American Sniper"

Was Robbed:  Nick Hornby for "Wild"

"The Imitation Game" was the year's best film, but this is likely to be its only major award, which is unfortunate.  Otherwise, "American Sniper" is vastly overrated, while Nick Hornby's script for "Wild" really brought Cheryl Strayed's journey to life.

Best Original Screenplay

The Nominees:

• Alejandro G. Iñárritu, Nicolás Giacobone, Alexander Dinelaris, Jr. and Armando Bo for "Birdman"
• Richard Linklater for "Boyhood"
• E. Max Frye and Dan Futterman for "Foxcatcher"
• Wes Anderson for "The Grand Budapest Hotel"
• Dan Gilroy for "Nightcrawler"

Will Win: Wes Anderson for "The Grand Budapest Hotel"

Should Win: Wes Anderson for "The Grand Budapest Hotel"

Shouldn’t Be Here: E. Max Frye and Dan Futterman for "Foxcatcher"

Was Robbed: Jonathan and Christopher Nolan for "Interstellar"

This one is close between "Birdman" and "Budapest," with the nod going to Wes Anderson for the inventive weirdness for which he is known.  I'm not sure how they ignored the screenplay for "Interstellar," which successfully explored themes first described by Einstein and Hawking while making them accessible to the common moviegoer.

Rubbers, Cruise Control, and Dinosaurs

I was driving Joni to work this morning, and I turned to her and asked, "Do kids still wear rubbers?"  I thought it was an innocent question, but it garnered a look of disbelief.

Realizing she was envisioning something completely different, I refreshed her memory to when we were both young and most shoes were made from leather.  In order to protect them on snowy, slushy days like today, our parents would make us cover them with rubber sheathes in the shape of shoes...they were called "rubbers."  Fortunately, she remembered and told me they are now referred to as "galoshes," which I remembered as tall, uncomfortable, rubber boots with peculiar but effective metal clamps used to close them.  Joni said that they also still exist, but now all the footwear in that category is referred to as galoshes.  I looked online to learn that she is right.  Of course, I grew up long before Gore-Tex® or fashionable winter boots, which made me realize that at 61, I'm getting old.

After all, I remember a time when Boston had only two TV stations (ABC had yet to expand here), before the AFL (now the AFC of the NFL) was founded,  before color TV, before plastic bags, and when gasoline was 30 cents a gallon and attendants would wash both windshields, check your oil, and give you Green Stamps (or sometimes actual gifts like dishes or glasses).

Of course, there were no computers, and electric typewriters were very expensive, so must of us used manual typewriters (the lower case "L" took the place of the number 1, which did not exist on the limited keyboard).  The closest most of us came to "technology" was drinking Tang, which, as everyone knew, was invented for the space program.

I've seen every Super Bowl (on TV of course), and I still use cruise control on the highway.  This last revelation might seem a bit odd, but I've noticed that with all the hybrids, most highway drivers these days try to save fuel by keeping their foot on the gas pedal at about the same level of depression, no matter what the incline.  This leads them to slow down as they drive uphill and speed up on the way downhill, which is very frustrating when you are trying to stick to a consistent speed (as when using cruise control).

If you're in my generation, you've likely seen the emails pointing out things that we remember that those young'uns don't.  You can reminisce about a time when plastic was rare, vinyl was used for records, and most things were made from metal, glass, or wood.  It saddens us that only two cast members from "Gilligan's Island" are still alive, and that if you were a boy back then, you likely had the hots for one of them--Tina Louise (Ginger) or Dawn Wells (Mary Ann).  It's further dismaying to know that Louise is now 79 and Wells is 75.  Fortunately, Betty and Veronica never aged.

But we are beginning to become dinosaurs, and the ice age approaches (if you look outside my window today, you might think it's already here).  We have moved into an era when our lives are digitized and online for all to see, and our identities are under a constant barrage of theft and hacking.  We can choose which aspects of modern culture we embrace...I'm writing a blog and posting on Facebook, but I refuse to "tweet" or engage in cyberspeak, and I don't trust the cloud.

You may be incensed at being referred to in this way, thinking that you are in your prime, but that's like saying that Nixon didn't know about Watergate.  If you're old enough to remember that reference, you're likely past your physical prime.  Personally, I take pride in knowing that I'm still standing and getting enjoyment from modern music, movies, and technology.  I wear my dinosaur badge proudly (sometimes keeping it in my wallet next to my AARP card).

In 30 years, Gavin may recall an era of VCRs, cars that ran on gasoline, and airports that didn't look like a scene from "Total Recall," where passengers were treated like people, rather than potential terrorists.  But for now, he has to yield the dinosaur throne, which I sit in proudly as I lean back and set the cruise control.
 

Patriots and Seahawks

Super Bowl 49 (Roman numerals aside) is in the books, and I am, of course, happy that the Patriots won.  I have watched every Super Bowl, and this was one of the best, with two, excellent teams slugging it out from the opening kickoff through the final seconds (and I'm not referring to the unfortunate fight that broke out near the end).  It's interesting that each of the Patriots' six Super Bowls in the Belichick/Brady era was decided by four points or fewer, but in this case, it speaks to the quality of play and each team's relentless determination.

The first half ended in a tie, and the second half was a seesaw, with the Seahawks seizing the initial momentum in the third quarter before yielding it to the Patriots in the fourth.  Seattle fans are surely upset this morning at the one-yard interception by Malcolm Butler that ended the game.  Had it ended differently, Patriots fans would have lamented the ball literally falling into Jerome Kearse's lap at the 5 yard line, just as we have forever lamented the David Tyree, helmet catch in the loss to the Giants after the perfect season.

All I can say to those in Seattle is that the Patriots rebounded from that loss, and there is little doubt that the Seahawks will rebound, likely into another Super Bowl in the next year or two...they are that good a team.  Tom Brady is 37 years old and nearing the end of his Hall of Fame career, whereas Russell Wilson is only 26 and just beginning his.  Wilson already has led his team to as many Super Bowl wins as Peyton Manning and Bret Favre, and he will doubtless learn from yesterday.

On the other side of that game-sealing, 1-yard interception is Malcolm Butler, a rookie whom the Patriots have raved about all year.  He did as he was taught and watched the formation and the eyes of the opposing quarterback, and came up with the improbable grab.

But what some are overlooking is the fact that Tom Brady took over the game in the fourth quarter, leading the team to two touchdowns.  Those two drives included only one running play for 3 yards.  People are saying the interception at the end was "lucky," but was it any more lucky than the 33-yard circus catch by Kearse after Butler had seemingly disrupted that pass?

In the end, great teams make their own luck, and they don't blame their misfortune on bad luck, just as three different members of the Seahawks organization (Wilson, Head Coach Pete Carroll, and Offensive Coordinator Darrell Bevell) took responsibility for the fateful interception.  It's that level of class and commitment, combined with extraordinary intelligence, talent, and determination, that will make the Seahawks winners for years to come, in much the same way the Patriots have had so much success over the last 15 years.

I'm already looking forward to next season.

Hategate

When it was first reported, more than a week ago, that my beloved Patriots could have been guilty of purposely using underinflated footballs in their win over the Colts in the AFC Championship game, I was dismayed.  I asked myself questions like, "How could they have been so stupid?" and "If this is true, can I still support them?"

Then, I started to follow the news coverage of what was quickly labeled "Deflategate" by people too young to remember Watergate, from which the suffix "gate" was determined to mean "scandal."  These people have no idea of the pattern of long-term, illegal activity in which the Nixon administration engaged, but that's a topic for another day.

Through watching and reading multiple sources, I learned that in cold, wet conditions, a football with reduced air pressure is easier to grip and throw (which I already had understood) and that the only people who are really affected by this are quarterbacks.  I also learned that any perceived issue related to underinflated footballs had been cleared up by halftime of that game.  Armed with this information, I have reviewed the box score, which shows that:

• In the first half, the Patriots offense struggled somewhat, putting up 17 points (helped by a Colts fumble), with Brady only throwing one touchdown pass (for 1 yard).
• In the second half, Brady was on fire, and the team scored 28 points.

One can only surmise that the first half footballs didn't help the Patriots (a fact which seems to be glossed over by most of the journalists covering this story).  So, let's examine the other aspects of this story.

Last Saturday, Patriots Head Coach Bill Belichick held a press conference in which he explained that the team had run some tests and determined the following:

1. The balls were rubbed for some time (yes, I know how that sounds) to scuff them up and provide a better grip.  This could also increase the psi (pounds per square inch) slightly.  The temperature in the locker room is generally between 72 and 75 degrees.
2. They were then measured to be at 12.5 psi.  The NFL allows them to be anywhere between 12.5 and 13.5 psi at game time.
3. The balls were given to the officials, who were supposed to validate the psi (at room temperature) before turning them over to the team's Equipment Manager.  (NOTE: The NFL Rulebook states, "The Referee shall be the sole judge as to whether all balls offered for play comply with these specifications. A pump is to be furnished by the home club, and the balls shall remain under the supervision of the Referee until they are delivered to the ball attendant just prior to the start of the game.")
4. They were then brought outside, where the temperature at game time was 51 degrees and the barometric pressure was very low due to a storm.  It should be noted that the game started in the evening, so the temperature continued to drop throughout the game.

Belichick pointed out that when the team replicated these conditions during the week, the pressure in the balls had dropped by between 1 and 2 psi.  He challenged the reporters to duplicate this experiment.  Of course, it's more fun to report about "cheating" than trying to prove it didn't happen, so most news outlets have not accepted Bill's challenge.  However, those that have tried the experiment have, for the most part, verified the Patriots' findings, including a Pittsburgh-based organization called Headsmart.  You can read about their findings at http://fansided.com/2015/01/25/headsmart-labs-backs-bill-belichick-video/, but in summary, they found that "testing footballs to ensure they are at 12½ PSI in a 75-degree room—akin to a locker room at a stadium—and then taking those footballs into 50-degree, rainy weather could have the effect of lowering the air pressure by up to 1.9 pounds per square inch."

Now, you might ask, "Why didn't the conditions affect the Colts' footballs in the same way?"  I don't know the answer to that--the NFL has not released any information about that.  But it may be that the Colts began by inflating their balls to 13.5 psi (which some quarterbacks prefer) or that they don't rub their balls so vigorously, or maybe they prepare their balls in cooler conditions.  We won't know the answer to that until the NFL issues its findings (or we may never know the answer).  What we do know is that this morning, NFL head of officiating Dean Blandino confirmed that the NFL officials did not log the exact PSI of each football, so you might say that the officials dropped the ball (so to speak), and it's unlikely that we'll ever know their exact psi at game time.

Without any real proof, it appears that all of the accusations are being made regarding the Patriots because, as most people say, they cheated before.  So, let me take a minute to review their previous controversy, usually referred to as "Spygate."  I did my own research and asked several casual NFL observers to explain what happened during Spygate.  Most people whom I asked said that Spygate involved the Patriots illegally videotaping some activity of their opponents.  Some, with slightly more knowledge, said the Patriots illegally recorded the opposing teams' coaches sending in signals to the players.  They are wrong.  According to NFL rules, it's not illegal to record the opposing team's coaches during the game, and almost every team does it.  After all, in this age of smartphone cameras and mega-storage cards, how could they legitimately prevent that? 

Here's what happened in 2007 that resulted in the Patriots' fines and loss of a draft pick.  The NFL rules say that you can't record another team's coaches from a camera located along the sidelines.  Earlier that year, the NFL had sent out an email restating this rule.  Belichick ignored that email and kept his camera on the sideline.  Yes, it was breaking a rule, but it was done in plain view of everyone in the stadium. 

The seriousness of this offense is akin to driving through a red light just after it has changed from yellow.  If you're caught, you will pay a fine, but most people have done it (I confess), and some do it regularly.  Is one such infraction enough to be permanently labeled a criminal?  I think not.  Yet, people continue to mention Spygate when referring to Deflategate as a pattern of the Patriots cheating, although there is so far no evidence to support this latest accusation.

Even past quarterbacks like Troy Aikman and Joe Montana (Tom Brady's boyhood idol), have accused the Patriots, specifically Brady, of cheating.  Montana said, "There's only one guy that does it.  Nobody else cares what the ball feels like."  It's clear why Joe hasn't been asked to serve on any Washington think tanks.  Let's assume for a moment that the balls were intentionally deflated.  Who besides Brady might care about that?

I guess Joe didn't consider that it is estimated that more money is gambled on football games (college and professional) than all other sports combined.  Of course, there's no way to verify this because most gambling is illegal, but the American Gaming Association (yes, there is such a thing) estimated that "Americans were expected to make $3.8 billion worth of illegal bets on the 2015 Super Bowl."  Might one of those gamblers have enough motivation to have the footballs altered?  Could this gambler be willing to pay a million dollars to a ballboy or an NFL official?  Of course, this is all speculation, but it refutes Montana's preposterous innuendo that Brady is the only one who cares, and that he is sitting in a corner somewhere during the game letting air out of footballs.  It's more likely that Aikman and Montana (who played long before anyone paid much attention to psi) are sitting around watching their records fall to Tom Brady, so they have chosen to besmirch his reputation.  After all, if someone does something better than I do, they must be cheating.  Right?

This brings me to the sad point about human nature that people love to hate.  We hate anyone who is smarter, better looking, and/or more successful than we are.  Let's face it, Brady is better looking and more successful than just about anyone, and the Patriots are smarter than most other teams, as is evidenced by:

• Owner Robert Kraft has hired two coaches since he bought the team--Pete Carroll and Bill Belichick--the coaches of the two, Super Bowl teams.
• The Patriots lost the AFC Championship to Denver in 2014, primarily because of a weak secondary, so they obtained two of the NFL's top cornerbacks--Revis and Browner.
• When they started the season by trading away offensive lineman Logan Mankins, they were roundly criticized, yet Brady was sacked only 21 times this year, compared to 40 last year.  In addition, the team is going to the Super Bowl this week and will have a lot of money available  next year to obtain or retain players. 
• They are the most successful team in the NFL over the last 15 years.

Those who have known me a long time will attest that I grew up as a Dallas Cowboys fan...not because of the "America's team" crap, but because I liked how Tex Schramm and Tom Landry ran the team.  They evaluated their players based on intelligence and ability, and Landry used innovative formations like the shotgun offense and the flex defense long before they were staples of most NFL teams.  Yet, the Cowboys were hated by more fans in other cities than any other team of their era, and they were repeatedly accused of cheating.  In short, they were hated for being successful.

In the end, if it is proven that the Patriots organization somehow willfully manipulated the psi of its footballs, I will be the first one to advocate for stiff penalties and suspensions, but I'm fairly confident that won't happen.  However, I'm also confident that as long as they keep winning, the press and most of the American public will continue to hate them.  Maybe that's the real scandal; you can call it Hategate.