K-9 Posted June 24, 2015 Posted June 24, 2015 Oh, I don't know -- Hassett et al basically attacked their credibility. He's regarded as a serious person, as his organization (whether one likes it or not). Most people/organizations tend to respond at some point if their credibility is challenged. Maybe they have an agreement with the league to stay silent though. Dr. Marlow referred all requests for comment to the NFL. I would assume Exponent did the same. GO BILLS!!!
The Wiz Posted June 24, 2015 Posted June 24, 2015 Oh, I don't know -- Hassett et al basically attacked their credibility. He's regarded as a serious person, as his organization (whether one likes it or not). Most people/organizations tend to respond at some point if their credibility is challenged. Maybe they have an agreement with the league to stay silent though. I get the credibility side of it but the science side of it is what I was referring to. The credibility issue would be something that they would likely settle in court as slander/libel assuming, like you said, they don't have an agreement with the league.
dave mcbride Posted June 24, 2015 Posted June 24, 2015 I respect that he's a credentialed economist. I just don't happen to think that qualifies him to critique scientific studies with impunity nor make the assertion that Dr. Marlow, Chair of the Princeton Physics Dept., made a superficial reading of a scientific report he is more than qualified to assess. If I remember correctly, the Ideal Gas Law predicted the drop in pressure inside the balls should have been far less drastic given the conditions at Foxboro on game day (unseasonable air temp outside, air temp in the officials room, and time elapsed between measurements). If I am not recalling that correctly, I apologize. I'll try to dig up the reports from that time period. GO BILLS!!! They didn't challenge Marlow on the science at all - they challenged him/Exponent on the regressions. https://www.bostonglobe.com/sports/2015/06/20/why-did-aei-take-deflategate/suFH7g6jzdsBBUOW6e1mzM/story.html “I think he looked at the physics, but he certainly didn’t rerun their regression [model]. I think he did a superficial reading,” Veuger said of Marlow. “I think everything they write is true in a sense. I don’t think anything is made up. But things they should’ve questioned they didn’t question, and things they should’ve asked they didn’t ask.”
K-9 Posted June 24, 2015 Posted June 24, 2015 They didn't challenge Marlow on the science at all - they challenged him/Exponent on the regressions. https://www.bostonglobe.com/sports/2015/06/20/why-did-aei-take-deflategate/suFH7g6jzdsBBUOW6e1mzM/story.html “I think he looked at the physics, but he certainly didn’t rerun their regression [model]. I think he did a superficial reading,” Veuger said of Marlow. “I think everything they write is true in a sense. I don’t think anything is made up. But things they should’ve questioned they didn’t question, and things they should’ve asked they didn’t ask.” So that makes everything else Marlow reviewed a "superficial" review? As asserted by one who lacks the scientific credentials in the first place? He seems almost dismissive of the physics. Is it possible the physics inform Marlow on an entirely different level? GO BILLS!!!
Kelly the Dog Posted June 24, 2015 Posted June 24, 2015 AEI somehow gets credit by Patriot fans and other for getting the Bounty Gate suspensions overturned. That is total nonsense, too. What they did is conduct a study that showed that the Saints didn't injure more players than any other team so the bounty didn't really do much damage on the actual field. The reversal of the suspensions were not because of AEI doing some evaluation disproving an investigation like the Wells Report.
YoloinOhio Posted June 24, 2015 Author Posted June 24, 2015 @ProFootballTalk: League's reaction to Tom Brady's testimony not as glowing as his camp's reaction to Brady's testimony http://t.co/BHjUCD0Il3#asexpected
dave mcbride Posted June 24, 2015 Posted June 24, 2015 (edited) So that makes everything else Marlow reviewed a "superficial" review? As asserted by one who lacks the scientific credentials in the first place? He seems almost dismissive of the physics. Is it possible the physics inform Marlow on an entirely different level? GO BILLS!!! No - he's saying that Marlow didn't re-run the regressions, which makes his analysis by definition superficial (in the true meaning of the term) because the regressions are central to the argument. Also, economists are at least as qualified as physicists when it comes to regressions -- it's absolutely central to what they do. Nor are they dismissive of the physics, but they do state a truth: the ideal gas law is pretty simple science. It's hardly string theory. Edited June 24, 2015 by dave mcbride
Kelly the Dog Posted June 24, 2015 Posted June 24, 2015 (edited) No - he's saying that Marlow didn't re-run the regressions, which makes his analysis by definition superficial (in the true meaning of the term) because the regressions are central to the argument. Also, economists are at least as qualified as physicists when it comes to regressions -- it's absolutely central to what they do. Nor are they dismissive of the physics, but they do state a truth: the ideal gas law is pretty simple science. It's hardly string theory.Neither did he. Explain to me anything that truly gives you pause in the Aei report that debunks the Wells report. Edited June 24, 2015 by Kelly the Dog
thebandit27 Posted June 24, 2015 Posted June 24, 2015 I don't think Brady will sue...if he did, then the court can subpoena his cell phone records (texts, emails, etc.), and it'll all be out in the open. More likely, there's a wink-nod agreement between all parties to reduce the suspension with no lawsuit. JMO
K-9 Posted June 24, 2015 Posted June 24, 2015 No - he's saying that Marlow didn't re-run the regressions, which makes his analysis by definition superficial (in the true meaning of the term) because the regressions are central to the argument. Also, economists are at least as qualified as physicists when it comes to regressions -- it's absolutely central to what they do. Nor are they dismissive of the physics, but they do state a truth: the ideal gas law is pretty simple science. It's hardly string theory. I can buy that. Except for the ideal gas law which suggested that, given all the atmospheric conditions present on game day in Foxboro, the unseasonably warm temperature outside, temperature inside the officials room, and the time intervals between measurements, the variations in the PSI readings should have been far less drastic than they were. GO BILLS!!!
YoloinOhio Posted June 24, 2015 Author Posted June 24, 2015 @MikeGarafolo: Post-hearing briefs in Tom Brady appeal due late next week, sources say. Decision from Roger Goodell to follow at some point thereafter. So, 5pm July 3rd? Pre holiday news dump?
thebandit27 Posted June 24, 2015 Posted June 24, 2015 @MikeGarafolo: Post-hearing briefs in Tom Brady appeal due late next week, sources say. Decision from Roger Goodell to follow at some point thereafter. So, 5pm July 3rd? Pre holiday news dump? I would guess so, yeah.
Matt in KC Posted June 24, 2015 Posted June 24, 2015 So, 5pm July 3rd? Pre holiday news dump? Exactly what I was thinking: a quiet release at 5 pm that takes awhile to get picked up, and no one is paying attention. That's the best way to avoid "fireworks".
Doc Posted June 24, 2015 Posted June 24, 2015 @ProFootballTalk: League's reaction to Tom Brady's testimony not as glowing as his camp's reaction to Brady's testimony http://t.co/BHjUCD0Il3#asexpected Shocker.
Dorkington Posted June 24, 2015 Posted June 24, 2015 @ProFootballTalk: League's reaction to Tom Brady's testimony not as glowing as his camp's* reaction to Brady's testimony http://t.co/BHjUCD0Il3#asexpected * - ESPN
BillsFan-4-Ever Posted June 24, 2015 Posted June 24, 2015 @ProFootballTalk: League's reaction to Tom Brady's testimony not as glowing as his camp's reaction to Brady's testimony http://t.co/BHjUCD0Il3#asexpected that is sooo 1/2 hours late (when you posted) some old people will get upset you repeated a story. sorry the made me do it. yet if you read the Bahhhh stahn based media or Comcast Brady*** exonerated himself
B-Man Posted June 24, 2015 Posted June 24, 2015 @ProFootballTalk: League's reaction to Tom Brady's testimony not as glowing as his camp's reaction to Brady's testimony http://t.co/BHjUCD0Il3#asexpected What ? That A+ B.S. Tom's lawyers were feeding (the willing) wasn't true ?
The Wiz Posted June 24, 2015 Posted June 24, 2015 that is sooo 1/2 hours late (when you posted) some old people will get upset you repeated a story. sorry the made me do it. yet if you read the Bahhhh stahn based media or Comcast Brady*** exonerated himself Him showing up was enough for them to exonerate him. Whether it was the front door or back alley.
dave mcbride Posted June 24, 2015 Posted June 24, 2015 Neither did he. Explain to me anything that truly gives you pause in the Aei report that debunks the Wells report. I can't because I'm not capable of digesting pp. 3-6. My request for a credible critique is an honest one - I'd like to see it for my own edification.
The Wiz Posted June 24, 2015 Posted June 24, 2015 I can't because I'm not capable of digesting pp. 3-6. My request for a credible critique is an honest one - I'd like to see it for my own edification. Read the heading of each page that has the tables. They all say "Assumption". They are basing their information off of the Wells report but doing it in a way the discredits the Wells report. They are saying that they don't know but are using the same science to claim that the report is wrong.
Recommended Posts