In the eyes of most football-loving New Englanders, The Patriots used to be a symbol of class and quiet reserve.

When Robert Kraft hired his new coach and that coach selected his new quarterback (over an ailing and veteran presence), the Patriots stood rebranded. It was a quick media blitz. The players knew they were destined for greatness and the fans knew that they could now, finally, lift their heads in public and tell everyone that they were proudly from New England and loved their Patriots without getting a chuckle immediately following the last syllable.

I don’t need to name names these days. The coach of the New England Patriots and his staff, the fans of their franchise and basically anyone who’s ever heard of the NFL now knows that there has been a wrong and that it is just the surface of some other unsavory things done within the past few years that make victories speculative and taste like warm suds.

When a brand gets publicly called out and the defense is either lacking or non-existent, you know you’ve found some fodder for the national news circuit.

Fortunately, fans of any major sport are truly fanatic about their hometown team and will usually give the slightest amount of credit to the situation so that they can continue their Sunday rituals and not sweat it.

The question that keeps circulating in my mind is: How much damage can a large brand take without creating a long-term negative impact?

I’ve come up with a few huge brands that have, within the last ten years, taken national hits in the press:

• Enron
• Exxon
• Martha Stewart
• HP

Are there any differences in the loyalty consumers show in these brands? Are there financial implications that extend beyond governmental agency-inflicted fines and tariffs?

Have you ever been “hurt” by a brand and decided to go elsewhere?