GG Posted August 7, 2015 Posted August 7, 2015 This is simple. The balls measured at halftime weren't subjected to the exact same conditions during the first half. Especially not when it came to wetness just before halftime ...... Pats balls were soaked and being used in cold and rainy conditions whereas the Colts balls were being kept in garbage bags. And, while on this thought, why were the Colts balls used as the control group? Are you telling me that ball control freak Brady is ok with having game balls sitting out in freezing rain, so they get nice & wet & slippery? What's wrong with using the Colts balls as control? Same game, same field, same conditions, yet more than 100% disparity in deflation rate.
Pneumonic Posted August 7, 2015 Posted August 7, 2015 His report does not state the timing. He states only that the NE* footballs were tested first. Also--and I'm curious as to why this hasn't come up before--let's assume that temperature drop were responsible for the deflation. Those same footballs were filled in a room-temperature area at halftime, to a directed pressure of 13 psi. These footballs were then exposed to similar 51-degree conditions for the 2nd half, yet when tested after the game, were all within 0.15 psi of 13 psi (or 13.5 psi, depending upon the gauge). Why no drop that time? Furthermore, why didn't the Colts' footballs, which you're saying that you presume gained pressure due to sitting for a longer period of time in the warmth, drop below their halftime measurements when no pressure was added? Every one of them was at (or above) 12.5 psi, just as they were at halftime. The inconsistencies strongly support some reason other than temperature. Exponent, correctly, found that wetness of a football was a significant factor in both the drop in PSI as well as making it much slower for the pressure to restore once the football is moved to a warmer location. IOW, dryer footballs, such as the Colts that were measured, regain their PSI fairly quickly once in a warmer condition. The Pats balls were measured first and the Colts measured much later, so late that they wee unable to measure but 4 of them.
Kirby Jackson Posted August 7, 2015 Posted August 7, 2015 Exponent, correctly, found that wetness of a football was a significant factor in both the drop in PSI as well as making it much slower for the pressure to restore once the football is moved to a warmer location. IOW, dryer footballs, such as the Colts that were measured, regain their PSI fairly quickly once in a warmer condition. The Pats balls were measured first and the Colts measured much later, so late that they wee unable to measure but 4 of them. How many hours have you spent on your defense for the Pats? Are the Pats paying you by the hour or do you think that it is your civic duty as a card carrying member of "Patriots Nation" (est. 2002) to defend their cheating ways? As Bills fans we can kind of relate. We had people act like OJ was innocent. You probably think that Hernandez is innocent as well because they never found the murder weapon. Brady OBVIOUSLY instructed tweedle dee and tweedle dumb to let some air out. I don't think that his intention was to go below the legal limit. It wasn't malicious. By the same token I don't think that he was too wise to not cooperate. If he was receiving good advice on day one he would have said something like this, "I like to throw a little softer ball. I asked them to let a little air out. I did not intend for it to go below the legal limit and apologize if it did." That way he could have tossed the ball boy under the bus for stealing the footballs. He could have saved the embarrassment of the ridiculous lies. He could have spared the wrath of Goodell for not cooperating and the league probably wouldn't have hit the Pats nearly as harshly (look at textgate penalty).
thebandit27 Posted August 7, 2015 Posted August 7, 2015 (edited) Exponent, correctly, found that wetness of a football was a significant factor in both the drop in PSI as well as making it much slower for the pressure to restore once the football is moved to a warmer location. IOW, dryer footballs, such as the Colts that were measured, regain their PSI fairly quickly once in a warmer condition. The Pats balls were measured first and the Colts measured much later, so late that they wee unable to measure but 4 of them. Actually, Exponent's report says that wetness would only contribute to the perfect storm of factors if the balls were "waterlogged" (page XIII of their report) and tested immediately upon entering the room at halftime. Both Exponent and the Wells report--citing Alberto Riveron and other witnesses--indicates that the testing took place no sooner than 2-4 minutes after the footballs entered the room, and that they were damp, not waterlogged. Edited August 7, 2015 by thebandit27
A Dog Named Kelso Posted August 7, 2015 Posted August 7, 2015 Exponent, correctly, found that wetness of a football was a significant factor in both the drop in PSI as well as making it much slower for the pressure to restore once the football is moved to a warmer location. IOW, dryer footballs, such as the Colts that were measured, regain their PSI fairly quickly once in a warmer condition. The Pats balls were measured first and the Colts measured much later, so late that they wee unable to measure but 4 of them. Isn't half time at most 15 minutes? I don't understand how it could be much later? From what I can gather from your reasoning, you are basically allowing for every circumstance to allow for the deflation of the Pat* equipment while stating that Colts equipment could not possible fall into such a state.
thebandit27 Posted August 7, 2015 Posted August 7, 2015 Isn't half time at most 15 minutes? I don't understand how it could be much later? From what I can gather from your reasoning, you are basically allowing for every circumstance to allow for the deflation of the Pat* equipment while stating that Colts equipment could not possible fall into such a state. The timing is defined quite clearly in the Wells Report, and has never been debated by anyone that I've seen. It starts on page 66 and is very detailed.
What a Tuel Posted August 7, 2015 Posted August 7, 2015 Isn't half time at most 15 minutes? I don't understand how it could be much later? From what I can gather from your reasoning, you are basically allowing for every circumstance to allow for the deflation of the Pat* equipment while stating that Colts equipment could not possible fall into such a state. This is it exactly. It strikes me as ridiculous that every single reason can be explained away as coincidence, flawed science, or misinterpretations, and people are ok with that. Anyone know the odds of ten 1% chance variables all occurring? Not bloody likely, that's what.
Pneumonic Posted August 7, 2015 Posted August 7, 2015 (edited) Actually, Exponent's report says that wetness would only contribute to the perfect storm of factors if the balls were "waterlogged" (page XIII of their report) and tested immediately upon entering the room at halftime. Both Exponent and the Wells report--citing Alberto Riveron and other witnesses--indicates that the testing took place no sooner than 2-4 minutes after the footballs entered the room, and that they were damp, not waterlogged. I recall Exponent concluding that natural deflation could occur in the Pats balls were tested immediately upon arrival in the lockerroom and if completed within 4 minutes. I believe Exponenet also surmised, from info culled fr the league's executives , that testing "likely" did begin no sooner than a couple minutes after the balls arrived in the lockerrom and "likely" to have taken approximately 4 to 5 minutes to complete. From this, they concluded guilty. As far as wetness, all they did was a cursory spray test. Edited August 7, 2015 by Pneumonic
negativo Posted August 7, 2015 Posted August 7, 2015 That's all fine & dandy, except it doesn't answer my question. Why did Pats' balls deflate at more than twice the rate that the Colts balls in the same environment? You can go back in this thread to see my original question on this, before the Wells report came out, and now with better data from the report, there are now updated deviations, taking into account the separate officials' measurements. The average Pats* ball deflated by 9.62%, with a median deflation of 9.8%. The average Colts ball deflated by 3.61%, with a median deflation of 3.65%. But I know, there's no science about it, and Pats* didn't cheat. You didn't read what I posted. The error is in the 13.0 premise to begin with. The presumption the Colts balls were originally inflated to 13.0 was not verified or recorded by the referees despite their being notified of the Colts impending protest. The report just takes their word for it and leaves it at that. Without any documented verification of the starting point of 13.0 the entire comparison is invalid. Again. Please reread the first statement I quoted. "Wells admits that the NFL referees did not bother to document the pregame measurements despite the Colts tipping off the NFL to their suspicions and the NFL warning the referees to watch for ball pressure."
DC Tom Posted August 7, 2015 Posted August 7, 2015 Isn't half time at most 15 minutes? I don't understand how it could be much later? From what I can gather from your reasoning, you are basically allowing for every circumstance to allow for the deflation of the Pat* equipment while stating that Colts equipment could not possible fall into such a state. Are we to believe that footballs warm up slower in the Patriots locker room than on any place on the face of the earth? Well, perhaps the laws of physics cease to exist in the Patriots locker room. Were these magic footballs ? I mean, did Brady buy them from the same guy who sold Jack his beanstalk beans?
Kelly the Dog Posted August 7, 2015 Posted August 7, 2015 This is it exactly. It strikes me as ridiculous that every single reason can be explained away as coincidence, flawed science, or misinterpretations, and people are ok with that. Anyone know the odds of ten 1% chance variables all occurring? Not bloody likely, that's what. And there are way more than 10.
26CornerBlitz Posted August 7, 2015 Posted August 7, 2015 @WGR550 "Right now I would have to say if it goes to the judge he gets 4 games." - @ClaytonESPN on the Brady appeal process.
Kelly the Dog Posted August 7, 2015 Posted August 7, 2015 You didn't read what I posted. The error is in the 13.0 premise to begin with. The presumption the Colts balls were originally inflated to 13.0 was not verified or recorded by the referees despite their being notified of the Colts impending protest. The report just takes their word for it and leaves it at that. Without any documented verification of the starting point of 13.0 the entire comparison is invalid. Again. Please reread the first statement I quoted. "Wells admits that the NFL referees did not bother to document the pregame measurements despite the Colts tipping off the NFL to their suspicions and the NFL warning the referees to watch for ball pressure." There is zero reason to document what the balls were. They measured them and then added or subtracted air to get them all to 13.0 for the Colts balls. They knew they were 13.0. As far as the Patriots balls went, the Patriots measured their balls before the game at set them at precisely 12.5. Then handed them to Anderson who measured them all. 10 of the 12 were exactly 12.5 and two were slightly under so he added a little to make them all 12.5. That is indisputable unless you are saying that Anderson lied.
GG Posted August 7, 2015 Posted August 7, 2015 You didn't read what I posted. The error is in the 13.0 premise to begin with. The presumption the Colts balls were originally inflated to 13.0 was not verified or recorded by the referees despite their being notified of the Colts impending protest. The report just takes their word for it and leaves it at that. Without any documented verification of the starting point of 13.0 the entire comparison is invalid. Again. Please reread the first statement I quoted. "Wells admits that the NFL referees did not bother to document the pregame measurements despite the Colts tipping off the NFL to their suspicions and the NFL warning the referees to watch for ball pressure." And so we're back to the theory that the entire premise is invalidated because the referees didn't write down the measurements before the half. Which they never do. But they do ensure that the balls are set between 12.5 & 13.5 PSI. So let's do a little reverse calculation, and assume that the starting point for the Colts balls were ambiguous and not set at 13PSI which I assume. Let's then apply the * deflation rate to the Colts balls, shall we? And lookie here, if we use a 9.8% deflation rate, 7 of the 8 measurements would indicate that the Colts balls would have been OVERINFLATED at the start of the game, which the referees would obviously not allow. So, keep digging up more "scientific" proof at how * balls miraculously deflated at a far greater rate and surreptitiously ended up at the levels that the QB prefers. Kismet, I tell you.
NoSaint Posted August 7, 2015 Posted August 7, 2015 (edited) And there are way more than 10.im over arguing the science end as i generally do think the pats were doing it, but doesnt something as simple as the ref possibly being sloppy pulling the gauge out of the worst couple balls potentially explain it in 1 easy package? again, i generally agree (especially on the more likely than not scale) that the pats are guilty here, but in the fraction of a fraction of a fraction of a percent discussion, that couldnt be a big part of it? And so we're back to the theory that the entire premise is invalidated because the referees didn't write down the measurements before the half. Which they never do. But they do ensure that the balls are set between 12.5 & 13.5 PSI. So let's do a little reverse calculation, and assume that the starting point for the Colts balls were ambiguous and not set at 13PSI which I assume. Let's then apply the * deflation rate to the Colts balls, shall we? And lookie here, if we use a 9.8% deflation rate, 7 of the 8 measurements would indicate that the Colts balls would have been OVERINFLATED at the start of the game, which the referees would obviously not allow. So, keep digging up more "scientific" proof at how * balls miraculously deflated at a far greater rate and surreptitiously ended up at the levels that the QB prefers. Kismet, I tell you. well, i dont know that its obvious, but ill go with probably i suppose. arent we accepting in other arguments that the pats played with "watermelons" against the jets, and rodgers tries to slide them through for some reason. Edited August 7, 2015 by NoSaint
Mikie2times Posted August 7, 2015 Posted August 7, 2015 (edited) I don't understand the obsession over PSI levels. Even if that is the main arguing point, circumstantially based on the findings it would be more likely than not the balls were tampered. If you want to form a kitchen sink debate by saying because the balls did not get tested in a laboratory setting thus rendering all tests invalid so be it. Let me know how that logic works with the misses if you ever come home smelling like lotion because you were at the strip club. "Honey, it can't be proven beyond a scientific doubt that I smell like a stripper, you're using all of your senses, logic, and reason to form that conclusion but none of those things are infallible in science so why are we arguing?" This whole incident is circumstantial, but when you include the findings, the texts, and all the circumstantial evidence you would need to be bordering on completely incoherent to not reach the same conclusion as the Wells report and the exact language it used. At which point what is and isn't fair? We know a player pressured subordinates who likely would not have jobs had they not complied to push the limits of the PSI thresholds. We see texts joking about it, employees feeling pressured, abnormal interactions. Even if Brady never desired for the balls to go lower than the PSI threshold his actions are what created a situation in which that could occur and he is responsible for the repercussions.It's really that simple and if you want to make it more complex or scientific, I would absolutely love to hear the probability of the Patriots level of fumbles over the last 5-6 years being a just a statistical anomaly. I would bet my kidney the odds of that being an anomaly in data are infinitely more unlikely than the odds of PSI levels being grossly inaccurate. Maybe the Patriots just learned a new way to carry a football. Edited August 7, 2015 by KzooMike
section122 Posted August 7, 2015 Posted August 7, 2015 I don't understand the obsession over PSI levels. Even if that is the main arguing point, circumstantially based on the findings it would be more likely than not the balls were tampered. If you want to form a kitchen sink debate by saying because the balls did not get tested in a laboratory setting thus rendering all tests invalid so be it. Let me know how that logic works with the misses if you ever come home smelling like lotion because you were at the strip club. "Honey, it can't be proven beyond a scientific doubt that I smell like a stripper, you're using all of your senses, logic, and reason to form that conclusion but none of those things are infallible in science so why are we arguing?" It is the glitter that gets you every time. Stuff hangs around for days! I'm over deflategate and don't even really care what the punishment is. No amount of games is worse than his loss of reputation. If people didn't think he/they cheated before many more do now. That is good enough for me bc that has always been the biggest issue with them for me. That said... As a fan cheating and winning is totally worth it. NE fans don't care one bit that others are mad. They are the defending sb champs and have won 4 over the last so many years. The fans got to experience the joy of winning one and I'm sure that is all most of them care about.
negativo Posted August 7, 2015 Posted August 7, 2015 There is zero reason to document what the balls were. They measured them and then added or subtracted air to get them all to 13.0 for the Colts balls. They knew they were 13.0. As far as the Patriots balls went, the Patriots measured their balls before the game at set them at precisely 12.5. Then handed them to Anderson who measured them all. 10 of the 12 were exactly 12.5 and two were slightly under so he added a little to make them all 12.5. That is indisputable unless you are saying that Anderson lied. I can think of a good reason.
Kelly the Dog Posted August 7, 2015 Posted August 7, 2015 I can think of a good reason. "Just in case a team steals them all and alters them?"
negativo Posted August 7, 2015 Posted August 7, 2015 And so we're back to the theory that the entire premise is invalidated because the referees didn't write down the measurements before the half. No, they didn't document the PSI before the game started. That's the point. There is no credible baseline. Also, the stats don't add up that after the game the Colts footballs were substantially more deflated than the Patriots. The whole thing reeks.
Recommended Posts