Pneumonic

It's simple. 1. Find a HC who can beat the greatest HC of all time. 2. Find a QB who, if faced with a situation that finds his team down 10 pts with 7 minutes left, has the ability to go out and perform, on the grandest of sports stages, to the tune of 13 of 15 for 124 yards and two touchdowns on 2 final drives. If done, you can confidently book your super bowl tickets.

http://www.sbnation.com/nfl/2015/2/2/7962403/super-bowl-2015-patriots-interception-seahawks-play-call

Pats! They already have this one. They are the youngest team to win a SB, are loaded with talent and Brady and Belichick don't appear to be ready to call it a day.

Love to continue but it's party time.

King isn't an NFL official and his opinion is no more absolute than any number of others who say that NFL officials simply give the balls a "squeeze" test. Why would they if they don't have intentions of cheating?

And you know this, how exactly? Let's play along anyhow. If they league setup the Pats as you suggest, and the Pats did in fact cheat, then surely the league must have easily been able to prove it? Unless they botched a simple setup sting and are even more incompetent than they already appear to be.

Both of your points are presuming they did do something ahead of time. That's the entire problem in debating this topic. Many people are working from a presumed state of guilt mindset. The league has never stated that the Pats are guilty of anything. You may well be wrong in your presumptions.

Sorry, I am not following ..... the league was looking for what?

I may have missed it when I read it but I recall the league being very vague on the particulars of the PSI component of the official's part in OK'ing the balls.

Ummmm, the game happened BEFORE Belichick did the tests he just explained today.

People are assuming the refs measured and altered the PSI (to Pats requested 12.5 PSI) after being handed the balls by the Pats. That part is yet unknown and was actually referenced by BB in this presser when he said "You will have to ask the league as to what they did or DID NOT DO" in response to a question about if the officials measured the pressure with accurate gauges before signing off.

Translating what Belichick really said in the press conference:

The most likely guilty party in all of this is the guy handling the footballs; so Brady. Any smoking gun will, if it shows up, involve him. If it does show up, then the case is closed. If nothing shows up, the league is in a bind. Should they choose to employ the relaxed "burden of proof" that you speak of and cast blame on Brady, without full proof, the league had better prepare itself for a defamation suit. Brady has ample $ to afford hiring a who's who team of the hottest lawyers in existence to battle things out in court. Faced with the very real possibility of losing, I can't imagine the league would touch this with a 10 foot pole.

So, after reading the league's official statement, what has changed? Well, nothing! They are investigating under-inflated balls with no specific reference accusing the Patriots of wrongdoing nor of passing any judgement at this time. So, it's back to believing what social media says.

The blame will be placed on whoever did it ... IF someone did it.

Then such responsibility would have to be explicitly laid out in the rules. This isn't the case here nor would it ever be the case I imagine. Not when too many uncontrolled variables are intrinsically involved. I mean, how could a team be held responsible if the weather drops the PSI to below spec? Or, what if a slow leak developed during the game. Should that be the teams responsibility? Of course not.

In this case the law presumes that you are responsible for your vehicle (incl all of its contents) while you own/drive it. In the case of deflategate, the league doesn't mandate that the Pats exhibit responsibility for the footballs at any time. Maybe they should?

They both are infractions that doctor the ball from its intended spec. I don't see any difference in either infraction from this perspective. I suppose the Pats prior transgression might make it more likely the league would come down harder on them but, for such a menial transgression, I doubt it. Certainly, if the blame was pinned on Brady only, then I doubt he'd be viewed in a past transgression way like the team (ie Belichick) might.

I was presuming that Brady was the hypothetical culprit and not the team.

I'm sure if the league accused him of any wrongdoing, and he was steadfast that it wasn't the case, he'd be on the phone with Goodell in a millisecond.

But they aren't facts; they are rumours. But, I'll play along. "If" the Pats are shown to have doctored the balls to non spec after submission to the officials then I probably would view such cheating the same as I did Carolina when they cheated by heating football's on the field.

Your premise on relevancy (pts 1-6) is based entirely on presumed facts. Thus it's folly. EDIT. Points 2 and 3 are factual.

Well, glad someone in here has some basic reason on this manner. Now, about the claim that the NFL corroborated the media placed rumours that the Pats deflated 1, or more, balls .......

Not sure what PFT is but someone's spinning .....

Cmon, let's at least be sensible about this. Those making the claim need to provide proof of the claim. It's not up to anyone on the Pats to provide proof of their innocence. That's like asking someone to prove a negative.