To all those people saying that the Patriots have not won a Super Bowl since the "Spygate" controversy, you might be correct, but suggesting that is because they can no longer spy on their opponent is ludicrous. In the five years heading into Spygate, the Pats went 66-25 (including playoffs), since then they have gone 68-20 including an entire season without star QB Tom Brady. Their winning percentage was 72% in the 5 years prior when they were filming their opponents, and their win percent is 77% since the cameras have been taken away. They are a better team without them, which makes it ridiculous to say they only won those 3 Super Bowls because they cheated. Anyone making that claim either has an irrational hatred of the Pats or hasn't crunched the numbers. If Spygate made them champions, why'd they get better when the cameras were put away?
Also, don't think the Pats were the only team trying to pick signs. The Pats got caught because a jaded former employee ratted them out, but guaranteed other teams were doing that or something similar. Since putting the cameras away they have been a better team. Yes they were 3-0 in Super Bowls before and 0-2 after, but they were inches away from being 5-0 in those games. Saying they only won because of Spygate is on par with saying Brady only won because he was with Brigette Moynahan. That's as plausible a theory, that it's all Giselle's fault.