Saints Spygate: Latest Allegations Pale in Comparison to Severity of Bountygate

Spygate or Bountygate—which is worse?

The two biggest scandals currently making the rounds on the NFL newswire are vastly disparate in nature and scope, yet they're inextricably tied together by the fact that they were perpetrated by the New Orleans Saints and prominently involve GM Mickey Loomis.

So, again, which is worse? Which "gate" is the bigger blackeye for the Saints as well as the league as a whole?

Some, like ESPN's Mark Kreidler, have argued that Spygate: Part Deux is worse (if not far worse) because A) the use of electronic devices to secretly intercept the communications of others may violate state and federal law, and B) it suggests that teams cheat, that the game is rigged, etc. etc., and such a perception among fans is practically Kryptonite to the most profitable sports league in America, if not on the planet.

As far as the illegality of Loomis' alleged use of such a listening device, such charges may prove impossible to press at this point, what with the statute of limitations having expired on both levels since 2004. 

That's something that will ultimately be judged by bigger, more powerful forces.

Unlike, say, a system that encouraged members of a union to maim one another while on the job, with monetary rewards (albeit relatively meager ones) for those who did so successfully.

And, realistically, both scandals constitute a form of cheating.

Spygate may be seen as more egregious because it involves the impermissible use of outside technology—technology, by the way, that isn't exactly out of reach for any team to acquire and implement if it so chooses.

But instituting a bounty system and covering it up for as long as the Saints did, while presumably less unique, is nonetheless just as complex, if not more so.

Either way, cheating has been and likely always will be a part of football, as it is with any competitive endeavor. As the old aphorism goes, "If you're not cheatin', you're not tryin'."

The difference here is that one form of cheating involved inflicting harm on others above and beyond the usual bounds of the game, while the other didn't. Loomis' eavesdropping didn't directly lead to or condone bounties. Picking up signals couldn't have directly caused any ligaments to tear, any bones to break or any brains to concuss.

In other words, as your typical TV disclaimer might say: no human beings were harmed in the making of Spygate.

The same can't be said of Bountygate.

So while Loomis' latest (but older) scandal might seem more deleterious to fan support in the short term, his willful ignorance of the Gregg Williams' bounty system and the stain that it brought could be more damaging to the game of football itself.

But, really, we're talking about the physical well-being of people here. As far as anyone can tell, Spygate didn't likely impact that, while Bountygate probably did.

End of story. See if you can figure out which is worse...

Follow @J0shMart1n