Welcome to Turf Wars Battle #2- fresh off a week two bye, Ross and Jason are back to battle it out.

Ross was a winner by a margin of 57% to 43% during week one in their debate whether or not Mike Vick should be reinstated by the NFL.

Today's topic up for debate: Should Bill Belichick be suspended?

Jason believes that Bill Belichick should be suspended.
Ross is arguing that he should not.

OPENING STATEMENTS

JASON: Bill Belichick cheated, plain and simple. He hasn't denied it, nor has he even attempted to pretend that any of this "scandal" was false or misleading. When it comes down to it, Belichick was behind the taping of sideline signal-calling one way or another. Just because he wasn't actually holding the camera doesn't mean he wasn't part of it. And because of that, he cheated. Furthermore, if taking an illegal substance to help you gain a physical advantage in the game of football warrants a minimum four-game suspension, why is this any different? If gaining an unfair advantage physically is considered cheating, then so is spying on the opposition's play callers and their signals. If you get caught taking steroids, it costs you a quarter of a season. So why shouldn't Belichick be punished via suspension just like the players he coaches? Is a coach above the system? If he is, then Commissioner Goodell needs to make a change, and fast. If Belichick orchestrated the spying, as it seems he did, fining him $500k isn't enough. Taking away draft picks hurts the team, not Belichick. As a coach and employee of the NFL, he needs to be punished more than the Patriots' franchise itself.

ROSS: First of all, I'll agree: Belichick and the Pats ARE guilty of cheating. No one, including Belichick, disagrees with that. But I'll tell you how it's different from steroids -- videotaping isn't against the LAW. That being said, clearly breaking the rules deserves punishment, and financially, Goodell fined him the limit -- half a million dollars. In addition to that, he is docking the Pats at least one draft pick, more than likely a 1st-rounder. Since the game wasn't affected by this videotaping, Goodell decided a suspension wasn't warranted. As for your statement that taking the picks away doesn't hurt Belichick -- that's simply not true: he will be the coach there for a long time, having just signed an extension! I think that losing a pick equal to Laurence Maroney, or whomever they'd take late in round one hurts the team MORE than the coach missing a couple of games. Furthermore, how can you not blame the TEAM for its coach's actions when you're blaming the COACH for an assistant's videotaping? The coach is responsible for his staff the same way the ownership is responsible for its staff, which includes the head coach.

REBUTTALS

JASON: Unfortunately, this is the only time where there's been physical evidence of the video taping. No one knows how long this has been going on for, but many teams around the NFL have been outspoken about it. Franchises like the Pittsburgh Steelers and Indianapolis Colts have had members of their teams come out in public saying they heard Patriots' players repeatedly calling out the plays from the sideline before the ball was even snapped. Just last week, former New England tight end Christian Fauria spoke with members of the media and said he "never saw any cheating," in a sarcastic tone while laughing, according to reporters. It is very possible that this has been going on longer than just week one of 2007, and in order to sustain its absence from the game, a more severe punishment needs to be handed down rather than this slap on the wrist. $500k doesn't mean too much to a guy who's been making millions for a few years now, and draft picks aren't going to hurt -- all that badly -- to a team that's a perennial Super Bowl contender with a core group of veterans.

ROSS: More severe? The fine was the largest EVER for a coach. How much more severe than that can you get? Not surprisingly, the media and others in the NFL have eagerly piled on Belichick -- they can't stand his attitude and elusiveness and his winning, respectively. The Steelers and Colts are whining -- too bad. Where were their complaints when it happened? Were they too meek to make noise that was loud enough to get the media's attention? That's hard to believe. So now, when there's evidence of a transgression, everyone piles on. Piling on is America's pastime now. Mike Shanahan said, "Our guy keeps a pair of binoculars on their signal-callers every game . . . With any luck, we have their defensive signals figured out by halftime. Sometimes, by the end of the first quarter." So what does that tell you? That New England deserves to have its coach suspended because they used a camera to do it? Come on. They're being docked draft picks -- that's a big deal. The commissioner thinks the "maximum fine and forfeiture of a first-round draft choice, or multiple draft choices, is in fact more significant and long-lasting, and therefore more effective, than a suspension.” I agree.

CLOSING ARGUMENTS

JASON: It's pretty clear that with the talent New England has this year and with the performances they've put on in the opening weeks of the season, they're headed to the playoffs. That means they'll lose their first-round pick, which will be somewhere in the high 20s to low 30s. Obviously that is punishment...to the team. You mentioned an extension for Belichick. What if he decided after this season to hang it up? Then the Patriots' franchise is getting shafted, not Bill Belichick, for the actions he was involved in and allegedly organizing. Suspending the coach during the season for one game or more, in which all 16 games count, would be a crushing blow to any team, especially one that has relied so heavily on its "genius" play caller during it's run of Super Bowl championships and post season appearances. You think Belichick was given a harsh punishment? How about forcing him to sit home, without pay, while his staff is forced to call the plays -- that they want to call -- as he sits and watches.

ROSS: So if Belichick remains the coach for 8 more seasons, then the punishment is OK with you? You're saying that the level of justice the punishment serves is dependent on how much time Belichick spends there? That makes no sense. So what if he DOESN'T retire after this season? Are you then on MY side? As for his coaches calling their own plays -- are you joking? Do you think those assistants got to be his assistants by blowing off Belichick's game plan? They would make the same calls during the games as he would. Do the Yankees fall apart when Torre gets suspended? No, because Mattingly, or whomever the shill is knows what the top man expects. Suspending Belichick would accomplish nothing more than satisfying people's desire to pile on and receive their pound of flesh. That's not what justice is about. The tape was seized before the end of the first quarter. It didn't affect the game. That fact matters. Justice is served by the discipline handed down by the commissioner -- just because everyone hates the Patriots doesn't mean they should receive extra punishment.

THE BIG QUESTION

MODERATOR: Jason, you can state a case that this is an intelligence-gathering type of incident, not an on-the-field performance enhancing advantage. When teams initiate early contact with college players, they lose draft picks (informational gathering). This penalty seems to be along the same type of lines. Why should this incident be treated any differently?

JASON: This incident isn't about Belichick trying to scout the best players or get information about what his team can be worth over the course of the next 2, 3, 4 years. The NFL is about winning now, and that's what Belichick was aiming for. The tape would've been used to the Patriots advantage in the second half of the game, but more importantly, during the second meeting of these two teams later in the season. I know Belichick and his staff weren't creating a physical advantage on the field, but were gathering information for a preparation advantage. Losing talent that may -- or may not -- help the team a few seasons down the road has no bearing on what the Patriots are trying to do this season. The NFL is a "what have you done for me lately" league, and winning is king. Suspending Belichick now, rather than possibly hurting the franchise seasons down the road doesn't make sense. The fine is hefty, obviously. But that doesn't matter, it doesn't send the signal to other coaches and their staffs that this kind of behavior won't be tolerated. Goodell needs to take Belicheck off the sideline for at least one week to make sure this doesn't happen again.

MODERATOR: Ross, you said that this incident did not impact this particular game, but one would think this has taken place in the past - possibly why Eric Mangini may have known about it. The Patriots were in clear violation of the new rules that Commissioner Goodell implemented during the off-season, much less, Belichick had the audacity to disobey the rules in week one, versus a former employee. How is there is not fault and responsibility that needs to be accounted for?

ROSS: There absolutely IS fault and responsibility -- Belichick has accepted the blame and apologized for his mistake. He is being held accountable for it to the tune of $500,000 and the loss of a 1st round pick! That's a punishment. That's being held accountable. Teams who have been found guilty of tampering --another serious transgression -- have been punished with the loss of draft picks. You bring up the "former employee," who is obviously Eric Mangini of the winless Jets...Do we really believe that he didn't know the Pats did this before, if they did? Where exactly was Mangini's outrage when he was on the other side of it? Please. He was a part of it, and now when his team gets the crap kicked out of it, he's pointing the finger across the sideline? Sure, Belichick did it, but then why shake his hand after the game in the center of the field? If Mangini was SO upset at the cheating, why congratulate Belichick at all? Because he didn't think it was such a big deal, that's why. If he actually thought his signals were being used against him, do you think he would have shaken Belichick's hand? I'd like to think not. Belichick WAS held accountable -- I only hope the piling on is the same when someone else gets busted for breaking the rules.

FINAL ARGUMENTS

JASON: It's clear that Belichick disobeyed, went around, broke the rules or however you want to say it. It's also pretty evident that it's happened in the past according to other players, teams, and former coaching staff members. It seems odd that it would take place against the Jets, a division rival, and their coach, Eric Mangini, a former Patriot coach, in week ONE. Mangini knew what he was doing. He, just like the rest of the league, saw the stock of talent on the New England sideline and just like Belichick, needed an advantage. Why not rat him out? He knew it was going down, so he did something about it. He shook Belichick's hand after the game just like the two embraced at midfield last year, probably because Belichick was so thankful that Mangini kept quiet. And if Belichick is such a "genius" then why did he even need to do this? He put his team at risk -- by losing draft picks -- and cast a shadow over the entire franchise. The only whiff of success the Patriots have ever had has been under the Belichick era, and now we know why. His legacy, much like so many others in sports accused of cheating, will be tainted, at least slightly, and he'll have to live with himself. Now, if Roger Goodell wants to continue to resurrect the image of the NFL, he needs to drop the hammer on Belichick and suspend him to send a message to the rest of the league. He cheated. End of story.

ROSS: LaDanian Tomlinson said that the Patriots "actually live by the saying, If you're not cheating, you're not tryin'." Is that right? Well, what words does Shawne Merriman live by, exactly? The fact that Tomlinson doesn't see the hypocrisy of his statement is further proof that people are blinded by success -- the success of others. If this was happening to Jeff Fisher, the justice handed down from Goodell would have been the same, but the media frenzy and public outrage wouldn't have been nearly the same. Belichick broke the rules. He was held accountable. I mean, if you want immediate "hurt" to be put on Belichick, why not suspend Tom Brady -- that would surely hurt them more than a Belichick suspension, wouldn't it? All people seem to care about is "what would hurt Belichick more?" when the real question is, "What is a fair punishment for this violation?" People don't like Belichick's arrogance, his ego, his success...that's fine, but to say he deserves a heavier punishment because of those things is laughable. Flip it around -- if he was a nice guy, beloved by all of the media, adored by fans of all teams as a great guy and a great coach, would people be clamoring for LESS of a punishment? If you say "yes" to that, then you're consistent in your belief that justice isn't blind -- that irrelevant personality flaws should affect the handing out of justice. If you think the punishment would be the same, even if Belichick was beloved by all, then ask yourself this: Why shouldn't it be the same if he's NOT beloved? Justice needs to be blind, and in this case -- it was.