The Patriots got off easy???

So say John Clayton on ESPN.com and Don Banks on SI.com.

By now you've heard that a Patriots assistant was caught videotaping the New York Jets' defensive signals Sunday. And that's where it gets hazy, and also easy to rationalize. I could swear I just read somewhere (though I can't find it) that the cameraman was on the Patriots' sideline. Wait, a dude on the other side of the field can see all your signs? Why does it matter if he has a video camera?

However, more recent reports say that the assistant was on the Jets' sideline. That's even worse! If you let an opponent come over to your sideline...during a home game...with a video camera...and a clear view of whoever's signaling the defensive plays...perhaps you're not sharp enough to deserve to win.

How bad is this? I'm not sure. I imagine teams try to steal signals all the time, though most of them are probably a little less brazen about it. It seems like the major issue here, from the league's standpoint, is the use of a video camera. Why that's the issue is puzzling to me, but the Patriots had already been warned about it, just like every other team. (I'm impressed with the league's ability to foresee that one of its teams would cheat so blatantly.)

Off-topic, but predictably, some of the Philadelphia Eagles are taking advantage of this golden opportunity to whine about losing the Super Bowl a few years ago. Never mind their terrifying clock "manangement" or the quarterback dry-heaving during the closing moments. (In Donovan McNabb's defense, if I was trying to bring my team back at the end of the Super Bowl, and I looked up in the huddle and saw Freddie Mitchell, I'd feel like throwing up too.)

To be fair, I can't tell if the Eagles are really whining or if this article is just reaching. I will say that the reporter's main evidence of cheating—that the Patriots were countering almost every Eagles blitz with a screen—is tenuous at best. The Eagles used to blitz on like every freaking down. It wasn't a good surprise tactic to begin with.

Anyway, the punishment is a $500,000 fine for coach Bill Belichick (a lot of money), a $250,000 fine for the Patriots (chump change to them), and draft-based punishment; specifically, the loss of a first-rounder next year "if" New England makes the playoffs.

The Patriots obviously a) broke a rule and b) were dumb enough to get caught, so they deserve a punishment. I think the first-round pick is a really steep price. (I also think half a million is steep, but I'm not sure it hurts the team any, and could even help them, if it somehow motivates Belichick more.)

The Patriots already have the Niners' first pick next year, too, so they'll get a player from the opening round regardless. That does not render the punishment meaningless, especially because the Patriots have such a good track record in the draft. I mean, if you took a first-rounder away from a team like the Raiders you'd probably be doing them a favor, because it would give them fewer chances to screw up.

But the Patriots could take someone good. A lot of draft picks don't pan out, but there are always good players available at the end of the first round. In 1999, with the last pick of the first round, the Broncos chose Al Wilson. Can you imagine if the Broncos had broken some rule, and the punishment was that Al Wilson never played a down for us? You can't tell me that's not a huge loss.

I expected the league to suspend Belichick, but they really wanted to send a message.

As Giants owner John Mara told the New York Times, "“The loss of a No. 1 draft pick is about as serious a penalty as you could impose. You could survive your coach being suspended a couple of weeks. But losing a No. 1 pick is far more devastating.”