Patriots being investigated after Colts game (3 Viewers)

[Tool]

I have to admit....

I had bought into the science defense.

I was also sold on the footballs submitted underinflated and "refs never checked the balls" defense.

... but if there is video and a time frame of the ball attendant taking the balls in question on a detour into a single stall bathroom (no chance of a witness and no cameras).... 90 seconds is plenty of time for someone with the right tool and a seasons worth of experience.

I gotta say, likely did it..

if you say so.

 

[bostonfred]

This is so NOT sarcasm. Could I be wrong? Sure. But it's what I believe 100% to be happening.

I think we can all agree you're 100% wrong, at least about what it means to believe something 100%.

 

[T J]

This is so NOT sarcasm. Could I be wrong? Sure. But it's what I believe 100% to be happening.

I think we can all agree you're 100% wrong, at least about what it means to believe something 100%.

Uh....no. No we can't BOSTONfred. I can only guess what side you come down on.

Look, I think it's no big deal personally in that it didn't make a difference and I hope the Pats win the SB so I'm not looking for an axe to grind, but the sheer multitude of scientific theories means they all come across as BS to me - because if any one of them was truly THE answer, this whole thing would be done and over with.

If I'm wrong, I'll own it, but for now they're guilty until proven innocent in my book.

 

[bostonfred]

This is so NOT sarcasm. Could I be wrong? Sure. But it's what I believe 100% to be happening.

I think we can all agree you're 100% wrong, at least about what it means to believe something 100%.

Uh....no. No we can't BOSTONfred. I can only guess what side you come down on.Look, I think it's no big deal personally in that it didn't make a difference and I hope the Pats win the SB so I'm not looking for an axe to grind, but the sheer multitude of scientific theories means they all come across as BS to me - because if any one of them was truly THE answer, this whole thing would be done and over with.

If I'm wrong, I'll own it, but for now they're guilty until proven innocent in my book.

I'm still not getting a smart vibe here. Although you did decode my user name pretty quickly. Try reading it again.

 

[T J]

This is so NOT sarcasm. Could I be wrong? Sure. But it's what I believe 100% to be happening.

I think we can all agree you're 100% wrong, at least about what it means to believe something 100%.

Uh....no. No we can't BOSTONfred. I can only guess what side you come down on.Look, I think it's no big deal personally in that it didn't make a difference and I hope the Pats win the SB so I'm not looking for an axe to grind, but the sheer multitude of scientific theories means they all come across as BS to me - because if any one of them was truly THE answer, this whole thing would be done and over with.

If I'm wrong, I'll own it, but for now they're guilty until proven innocent in my book.

I'm still not getting a smart vibe here. Although you did decode my user name pretty quickly. Try reading it again.

No worries. We all have our own take. If making assumptions about me helps you out, go for it. I believe what I believe until proven wrong. What can I tell ya?

 

[Dr. Octopus]

This is so NOT sarcasm. Could I be wrong? Sure. But it's what I believe 100% to be happening.

I think we can all agree you're 100% wrong, at least about what it means to believe something 100%.

Uh....no. No we can't BOSTONfred. I can only guess what side you come down on.Look, I think it's no big deal personally in that it didn't make a difference and I hope the Pats win the SB so I'm not looking for an axe to grind, but the sheer multitude of scientific theories means they all come across as BS to me - because if any one of them was truly THE answer, this whole thing would be done and over with.

If I'm wrong, I'll own it, but for now they're guilty until proven innocent in my book.

I'm still not getting a smart vibe here. Although you did decode my user name pretty quickly. Try reading it again.

No worries. We all have our own take. If making assumptions about me helps you out, go for it. I believe what I believe until proven wrong. What can I tell ya?

I believe his point is that even the most salty hater would have to have some small percentage of doubt.

 

[T J]

This is so NOT sarcasm. Could I be wrong? Sure. But it's what I believe 100% to be happening.

I think we can all agree you're 100% wrong, at least about what it means to believe something 100%.

Uh....no. No we can't BOSTONfred. I can only guess what side you come down on.Look, I think it's no big deal personally in that it didn't make a difference and I hope the Pats win the SB so I'm not looking for an axe to grind, but the sheer multitude of scientific theories means they all come across as BS to me - because if any one of them was truly THE answer, this whole thing would be done and over with.

If I'm wrong, I'll own it, but for now they're guilty until proven innocent in my book.

I'm still not getting a smart vibe here. Although you did decode my user name pretty quickly. Try reading it again.

No worries. We all have our own take. If making assumptions about me helps you out, go for it. I believe what I believe until proven wrong. What can I tell ya?

I believe his point is that even the most salty hater would have to have some small percentage of doubt.

Ahh.... Do I acknowledge I could be wrong? Yes, I do. Does that equal doubt?

 

[AhrnCityPahnder]

This is so NOT sarcasm. Could I be wrong? Sure. But it's what I believe 100% to be happening.

I think we can all agree you're 100% wrong, at least about what it means to believe something 100%.

Uh....no. No we can't BOSTONfred. I can only guess what side you come down on.Look, I think it's no big deal personally in that it didn't make a difference and I hope the Pats win the SB so I'm not looking for an axe to grind, but the sheer multitude of scientific theories means they all come across as BS to me - because if any one of them was truly THE answer, this whole thing would be done and over with.

If I'm wrong, I'll own it, but for now they're guilty until proven innocent in my book.

I'm still not getting a smart vibe here. Although you did decode my user name pretty quickly. Try reading it again.

No worries. We all have our own take. If making assumptions about me helps you out, go for it. I believe what I believe until proven wrong. What can I tell ya?

I believe his point is that even the most salty hater would have to have some small percentage of doubt.

You underestimate the power of the salt side.

I'm still at 100% guilty (although likely will not have enough evidence to be proven).

 

[Workhorse]

I have to admit....

I had bought into the science defense.

I was also sold on the footballs submitted underinflated and "refs never checked the balls" defense.

... but if there is video and a time frame of the ball attendant taking the balls in question on a detour into a single stall bathroom (no chance of a witness and no cameras).... 90 seconds is plenty of time for someone with the right tool and a seasons worth of experience.

I gotta say, likely did it..

Whenever numbers have been thrown around in this situation, they are later reported to be inaccurate. We don't know if they balls were 2 psi low or less, we also don't know how long this ball boy may have been in the bathroom. It's pretty clear that the league office is a leaky ship of "sources" that frequently contradict each other based on the agendas of the leakers themselves.

 

[Godsbrother]

This is so NOT sarcasm. Could I be wrong? Sure. But it's what I believe 100% to be happening.

I think we can all agree you're 100% wrong, at least about what it means to believe something 100%.

Uh....no. No we can't BOSTONfred. I can only guess what side you come down on.Look, I think it's no big deal personally in that it didn't make a difference and I hope the Pats win the SB so I'm not looking for an axe to grind, but the sheer multitude of scientific theories means they all come across as BS to me - because if any one of them was truly THE answer, this whole thing would be done and over with.

If I'm wrong, I'll own it, but for now they're guilty until proven innocent in my book.

I'm still not getting a smart vibe here. Although you did decode my user name pretty quickly. Try reading it again.

No worries. We all have our own take. If making assumptions about me helps you out, go for it. I believe what I believe until proven wrong. What can I tell ya?

I believe his point is that even the most salty hater would have to have some small percentage of doubt.

You underestimate the power of the salt side.

I'm still at 100% guilty (although likely will not have enough evidence to be proven).

Me too.

This whole thing will be swept under the rug, just like Spygate.

 

[Devine Intervention]

I'm assuming all the people who thought OJ was guilty were just salty haters too. Must have been jealous at how good he was.

Because even though the scientific evidence showed the glove didn't fit, those salty haters still assumed and forever thinks he is guilty.

That's how the pats fan are being. It's clear that they are guilty. Everyone assumes it. But since the evidence can't prove it with no reason of doubt they are going to boast their innocence.

Sure, brag that they are smart enough not to have evidence against them to say for sure they are guilty. But don't act like you honestly think they're innocent and it must be a series of environmental events that effected the ball. It's not helping your cause.

If I were a pats fan, I would just say "prove it". But don't act like we don't all know what happened.

 

[Freelove]

This is so NOT sarcasm. Could I be wrong? Sure. But it's what I believe 100% to be happening.

I think we can all agree you're 100% wrong, at least about what it means to believe something 100%.

Uh....no. No we can't BOSTONfred. I can only guess what side you come down on.Look, I think it's no big deal personally in that it didn't make a difference and I hope the Pats win the SB so I'm not looking for an axe to grind, but the sheer multitude of scientific theories means they all come across as BS to me - because if any one of them was truly THE answer, this whole thing would be done and over with.

If I'm wrong, I'll own it, but for now they're guilty until proven innocent in my book.

I'm still not getting a smart vibe here. Although you did decode my user name pretty quickly. Try reading it again.

No worries. We all have our own take. If making assumptions about me helps you out, go for it. I believe what I believe until proven wrong. What can I tell ya?

I believe his point is that even the most salty hater would have to have some small percentage of doubt.

Ahh.... Do I acknowledge I could be wrong? Yes, I do. Does that equal doubt?

That may even be the dictionary definition of it.

 

[the moops]

I'm assuming all the people who thought OJ was guilty were just salty haters too. Must have been jealous at how good he was.

Because even though the scientific evidence showed the glove didn't fit, those salty haters still assumed and forever thinks he is guilty.

That's how the pats fan are being. It's clear that they are guilty. Everyone assumes it. But since the evidence can't prove it with no reason of doubt they are going to boast their innocence.

Sure, brag that they are smart enough not to have evidence against them to say for sure they are guilty. But don't act like you honestly think they're innocent and it must be a series of environmental events that effected the ball. It's not helping your cause.

If I were a pats fan, I would just say "prove it". But don't act like we don't all know what happened.

What do you think happens to footballs that go from a warm environment to a colder one?

 

[KarmaPolice]

Yeah, well he contradicted himself on that point within the press conference itself but no one seems to have noticed. I am a pats supporter but an equal opportunity bs detector so here it is...he said they try to stay as far away from the line as possible, but also said that with nfl psi specs between 12.5 and 13.5 he has them set the psi at 12.5! Uh bill, I think that is the definition of ON the line.

 

[Baloney Sandwich]

I'm assuming all the people who thought OJ was guilty were just salty haters too. Must have been jealous at how good he was.

Because even though the scientific evidence showed the glove didn't fit, those salty haters still assumed and forever thinks he is guilty.

That's how the pats fan are being. It's clear that they are guilty. Everyone assumes it. But since the evidence can't prove it with no reason of doubt they are going to boast their innocence.

Sure, brag that they are smart enough not to have evidence against them to say for sure they are guilty. But don't act like you honestly think they're innocent and it must be a series of environmental events that effected the ball. It's not helping your cause.

If I were a pats fan, I would just say "prove it". But don't act like we don't all know what happened.

Read up on it, OJ was innocent. His son is the real killer.

 

[TobiasFunke]

The balls were tampered with, both sets measured in fine at pregame and at halftime the colts footballs were still fine but the pats were not, no science or napkin math needed. Haters and apologists arguing over professionally made official nfl footballs possibly losing all their air pressure over a course of a game... and some of you sound like you actually believe that. Dont road trip in the winter or your car will be running on rims before you need to stop for gas. smh.

Oh, cool, you cracked the case. Please show us the link to where the NFL measured all the ball pregame and what their values were. Thanks in advance.

It's been reported several times that the balls fell within the acceptable range in pregame testing and then lost "at least 2 psi." This isn't a criminal investigation, the rules of evidence and the "beyond a reasonable doubt" standard don't apply here. Reasonable people are free to believe the reports of objective journalists who are correct 99% of the time over players and coaches who are otherwise meticulous in their preparation but whose stories require us to assume otherwise, who have an obvious interest to protect; and who have been caught cheating in the recent past.

Tobias coming late to the party. Must not have seen the Florio report from Saturday, corroborated by others, that completely debunked the original Mort report you are citing that the balls were off by at least 2 psi. It's more like 1 psi - oh, except for the all that was in the Colts possession - that one mysteriously was the only one greater than 2 psi. Hmmm, investigation coming on that? Wonder if the NFL is looking at videos of the Colts ball boys on their sidelines...Might want to catch up... http://profootballtalk.nbcsports.com/2015/01/25/nfl-bears-plenty-of-blame-for-deflategate/

Thanks. I addressed every word in my other posts above ... including the distinction many including you seem to be missing between losing at least 2 psi and being "closer to 1 psi" under the minimum. Both could technically be true (1.4 is "closer to 1," and 11.1 could easily be a loss of "at least 2 psi" from whatever the baseline). And even if not, we're talking about very small discrepancies. Everyone seems to agree that the Pats balls lost significant pressure and came in well under the minimum at halftime. Also, nobody has disputed the account that the Colts' balls were fine pregame, at halftime and after the game, which seems to invalidate the possibility that the Pats balls lost pressure due to the weather, leaving us with no other reasonable explanation that I've heard for the discrepancy.

For me that's enough to cast quite a bit of suspicion on the Pats. I'm not certain they cheated, but it seems the most likely explanation, and that's really all I care about. I'm sure Pats fans disagree, but I'm not sure why, and I don't know how many non-Pats fans disagree.

I know your not really here for anything resembling reasonable debate, and most of this has already been addressed, but its a snow day so what the heck.

The pats have stated they inflated there balls to 12.5 so if there were balls found to be 11.1 that would be 1.4.

I don't think everyone agrees that NEs balls were significantly under unless you consider 1.0 psi all that significant and completely discount NEs explanation (prep, weather etc) for why their balls were 1-1.5 psi under. The beauty of it is they told the NFL how they prep the balls and how they feel weather effected them. Now if the NFL repeats the process and gets pretty much the same results, NE will get its apology (likely imho) and we are done here. If the NFL gets significantly different results then that's another story.

Many are disputing the assumption that the colts balls did not lose psi because the nfl nor any credible reporting source has reported what the colts psi was before the game. It has been "reported" (not by the nfl afaik) that the colts balls were within range, but we (you) do not know what the psi was to begin with which very well could have been 13.5 or more; no one really knows and we simply have to wait.

You are certainly entitled to your opinion, but do you have anything factual that disputes what I wrote above?

Nobody actually has any confirmed facts from the league itself, so everything is based on media reports. I'm looking at the King and Mortenson reports. You're looking at others that you classify as "disputing" those reports. When you say "many are disputing" portions of the King and Mortenson reports, keep in mind that you're not providing facts to the contrary, either. In other words, while I don't have anything factual that disputes what you wrote, you also don't have anything factual that disputes the initial reporting.

I will admit I had not considered the possibility that the Colts re-inflated their balls to explain the discrepancy, but that's only because you'd that would have been reported if it had happened. It's easy enough to investigate. I also know that I've seen several people, including the manufacturer, say the Pats' explanation for the pressure loss is BS. Maybe there are others who give it credence, but I haven't seen them.

All that leads me to my best guess as to what happened- not a certainty, but my own conclusion based on what's been reported by people I trust and the rest of what I said above. You're a Pats fan, you have no choice but to reach a different conclusion.

 

[bostonfred]

This is so NOT sarcasm. Could I be wrong? Sure. But it's what I believe 100% to be happening.

I think we can all agree you're 100% wrong, at least about what it means to believe something 100%.

Uh....no. No we can't BOSTONfred. I can only guess what side you come down on.Look, I think it's no big deal personally in that it didn't make a difference and I hope the Pats win the SB so I'm not looking for an axe to grind, but the sheer multitude of scientific theories means they all come across as BS to me - because if any one of them was truly THE answer, this whole thing would be done and over with.

If I'm wrong, I'll own it, but for now they're guilty until proven innocent in my book.

I'm still not getting a smart vibe here. Although you did decode my user name pretty quickly. Try reading it again.

No worries. We all have our own take. If making assumptions about me helps you out, go for it. I believe what I believe until proven wrong. What can I tell ya?

I believe his point is that even the most salty hater would have to have some small percentage of doubt.

really haa nothing to do with my opinions or his. He literally said he was 100% certain in the same post that he said he could be wrong.

 

[shader]

The balls were tampered with, both sets measured in fine at pregame and at halftime the colts footballs were still fine but the pats were not, no science or napkin math needed. Haters and apologists arguing over professionally made official nfl footballs possibly losing all their air pressure over a course of a game... and some of you sound like you actually believe that. Dont road trip in the winter or your car will be running on rims before you need to stop for gas. smh.

Oh, cool, you cracked the case. Please show us the link to where the NFL measured all the ball pregame and what their values were. Thanks in advance.

It's been reported several times that the balls fell within the acceptable range in pregame testing and then lost "at least 2 psi." This isn't a criminal investigation, the rules of evidence and the "beyond a reasonable doubt" standard don't apply here. Reasonable people are free to believe the reports of objective journalists who are correct 99% of the time over players and coaches who are otherwise meticulous in their preparation but whose stories require us to assume otherwise, who have an obvious interest to protect; and who have been caught cheating in the recent past.

Tobias coming late to the party. Must not have seen the Florio report from Saturday, corroborated by others, that completely debunked the original Mort report you are citing that the balls were off by at least 2 psi. It's more like 1 psi - oh, except for the all that was in the Colts possession - that one mysteriously was the only one greater than 2 psi. Hmmm, investigation coming on that? Wonder if the NFL is looking at videos of the Colts ball boys on their sidelines...Might want to catch up... http://profootballtalk.nbcsports.com/2015/01/25/nfl-bears-plenty-of-blame-for-deflategate/

Thanks. I addressed every word in my other posts above ... including the distinction many including you seem to be missing between losing at least 2 psi and being "closer to 1 psi" under the minimum. Both could technically be true (1.4 is "closer to 1," and 11.1 could easily be a loss of "at least 2 psi" from whatever the baseline). And even if not, we're talking about very small discrepancies. Everyone seems to agree that the Pats balls lost significant pressure and came in well under the minimum at halftime. Also, nobody has disputed the account that the Colts' balls were fine pregame, at halftime and after the game, which seems to invalidate the possibility that the Pats balls lost pressure due to the weather, leaving us with no other reasonable explanation that I've heard for the discrepancy.

For me that's enough to cast quite a bit of suspicion on the Pats. I'm not certain they cheated, but it seems the most likely explanation, and that's really all I care about. I'm sure Pats fans disagree, but I'm not sure why, and I don't know how many non-Pats fans disagree.

I know your not really here for anything resembling reasonable debate, and most of this has already been addressed, but its a snow day so what the heck.

The pats have stated they inflated there balls to 12.5 so if there were balls found to be 11.1 that would be 1.4.

I don't think everyone agrees that NEs balls were significantly under unless you consider 1.0 psi all that significant and completely discount NEs explanation (prep, weather etc) for why their balls were 1-1.5 psi under. The beauty of it is they told the NFL how they prep the balls and how they feel weather effected them. Now if the NFL repeats the process and gets pretty much the same results, NE will get its apology (likely imho) and we are done here. If the NFL gets significantly different results then that's another story.

Many are disputing the assumption that the colts balls did not lose psi because the nfl nor any credible reporting source has reported what the colts psi was before the game. It has been "reported" (not by the nfl afaik) that the colts balls were within range, but we (you) do not know what the psi was to begin with which very well could have been 13.5 or more; no one really knows and we simply have to wait.

You are certainly entitled to your opinion, but do you have anything factual that disputes what I wrote above?

Nobody actually has any confirmed facts from the league itself, so everything is based on media reports. I'm looking at the King and Mortenson reports. You're looking at others that you classify as "disputing" those reports. When you say "many are disputing" portions of the King and Mortenson reports, keep in mind that you're not providing facts to the contrary, either. In other words, while I don't have anything factual that disputes what you wrote, you also don't have anything factual that disputes the initial reporting.

I will admit I had not considered the possibility that the Colts re-inflated their balls to explain the discrepancy, but that's only because you'd that would have been reported if it had happened. It's easy enough to investigate. I also know that I've seen several people, including the manufacturer, say the Pats' explanation for the pressure loss is BS. Maybe there are others who give it credence, but I haven't seen them.

All that leads me to my best guess as to what happened- not a certainty, but my own conclusion based on what's been reported by people I trust and the rest of what I said above. You're a Pats fan, you have no choice but to reach a different conclusion.

If Florio and Peter King's articles were swapped, you'd be telling us why Florio is more legit than PK.

 

[T J]

This is so NOT sarcasm. Could I be wrong? Sure. But it's what I believe 100% to be happening.

I think we can all agree you're 100% wrong, at least about what it means to believe something 100%.

Uh....no. No we can't BOSTONfred. I can only guess what side you come down on.Look, I think it's no big deal personally in that it didn't make a difference and I hope the Pats win the SB so I'm not looking for an axe to grind, but the sheer multitude of scientific theories means they all come across as BS to me - because if any one of them was truly THE answer, this whole thing would be done and over with.

If I'm wrong, I'll own it, but for now they're guilty until proven innocent in my book.

I'm still not getting a smart vibe here. Although you did decode my user name pretty quickly. Try reading it again.

No worries. We all have our own take. If making assumptions about me helps you out, go for it. I believe what I believe until proven wrong. What can I tell ya?

I believe his point is that even the most salty hater would have to have some small percentage of doubt.

Ahh.... Do I acknowledge I could be wrong? Yes, I do. Does that equal doubt?

That may even be the dictionary definition of it.

Unlikely

 

[KarmaPolice]

I'm assuming all the people who thought OJ was guilty were just salty haters too. Must have been jealous at how good he was.

Because even though the scientific evidence showed the glove didn't fit, those salty haters still assumed and forever thinks he is guilty.

That's how the pats fan are being. It's clear that they are guilty. Everyone assumes it. But since the evidence can't prove it with no reason of doubt they are going to boast their innocence.

Sure, brag that they are smart enough not to have evidence against them to say for sure they are guilty. But don't act like you honestly think they're innocent and it must be a series of environmental events that effected the ball. It's not helping your cause.

If I were a pats fan, I would just say "prove it". But don't act like we don't all know what happened.

Is anybody saying that is the sole case?

This isn't hard, and can be summed up easily: different process of prepping balls + requesting balls at lower psi + probability of refs not taking the time to properly testing them to begin with + drop in temp taking balls outside = reason for deflated ball and differences between the team's balls. But feel free to cling to the Bill twisting his mustache while the ball boy and Brady let air out of the balls in 90secs in the bathroom version of the story.

 

[Old Smiley]

We have nothing to indicate that an under inflated ball is an advantage.

 

[T J]

This is so NOT sarcasm. Could I be wrong? Sure. But it's what I believe 100% to be happening.

I think we can all agree you're 100% wrong, at least about what it means to believe something 100%.

Uh....no. No we can't BOSTONfred. I can only guess what side you come down on.Look, I think it's no big deal personally in that it didn't make a difference and I hope the Pats win the SB so I'm not looking for an axe to grind, but the sheer multitude of scientific theories means they all come across as BS to me - because if any one of them was truly THE answer, this whole thing would be done and over with.

If I'm wrong, I'll own it, but for now they're guilty until proven innocent in my book.

I'm still not getting a smart vibe here. Although you did decode my user name pretty quickly. Try reading it again.

No worries. We all have our own take. If making assumptions about me helps you out, go for it. I believe what I believe until proven wrong. What can I tell ya?

I believe his point is that even the most salty hater would have to have some small percentage of doubt.

really haa nothing to do with my opinions or his. He literally said he was 100% certain in the same post that he said he could be wrong.

The two thought processes are not mutually exclusive.For a silly real world analogy, let's say someone tells me their office is in the Smith bldg. I'm 100% certain that the Smith bldg is on Main St. Turns out I'm wrong and it's on Jones St. (names have been changed to protect the innocent)

It happens all the time in every day life.

 

[the moops]

Nobody actually has any confirmed facts from I also know that I've seen several people, including the manufacturer, say the Pats' explanation for the pressure loss is BS. Maybe there are others who give it credence, but I haven't seen them.

You are better than this Tobias. You should know better than to cite a marketing guy from Wilson as to proof that physics doesn't apply to these footballs. There are a few sources out there who have done this experiment. Balls going from 75 degrees to 50 degrees lose at least 1 PSI. Add in rain and moisture and the drop can be at least 1.5 PSI.

I am sure most of this is just trolling Pats fans, but at least don't ignore the science

 

[Dinsy Ejotuz]

Florio has better connections to the player reps and union stuff and is generally hostile to the suits. King has better connections to the league office and is generally chummy with the NFL brass. Florio injects his opinion into his writing enough to undermine the reporting approximately 99.95% of time. King is typically pretty clear when he's reporting and when he's offering an opinion.

Both have their uses, but you'd be crazy not to consider the context and subject when reading either.

 

[Dr. Octopus]

The balls were tampered with, both sets measured in fine at pregame and at halftime the colts footballs were still fine but the pats were not, no science or napkin math needed. Haters and apologists arguing over professionally made official nfl footballs possibly losing all their air pressure over a course of a game... and some of you sound like you actually believe that. Dont road trip in the winter or your car will be running on rims before you need to stop for gas. smh.

Oh, cool, you cracked the case. Please show us the link to where the NFL measured all the ball pregame and what their values were. Thanks in advance.

It's been reported several times that the balls fell within the acceptable range in pregame testing and then lost "at least 2 psi." This isn't a criminal investigation, the rules of evidence and the "beyond a reasonable doubt" standard don't apply here. Reasonable people are free to believe the reports of objective journalists who are correct 99% of the time over players and coaches who are otherwise meticulous in their preparation but whose stories require us to assume otherwise, who have an obvious interest to protect; and who have been caught cheating in the recent past.

Tobias coming late to the party. Must not have seen the Florio report from Saturday, corroborated by others, that completely debunked the original Mort report you are citing that the balls were off by at least 2 psi. It's more like 1 psi - oh, except for the all that was in the Colts possession - that one mysteriously was the only one greater than 2 psi. Hmmm, investigation coming on that? Wonder if the NFL is looking at videos of the Colts ball boys on their sidelines...Might want to catch up... http://profootballtalk.nbcsports.com/2015/01/25/nfl-bears-plenty-of-blame-for-deflategate/

Thanks. I addressed every word in my other posts above ... including the distinction many including you seem to be missing between losing at least 2 psi and being "closer to 1 psi" under the minimum. Both could technically be true (1.4 is "closer to 1," and 11.1 could easily be a loss of "at least 2 psi" from whatever the baseline). And even if not, we're talking about very small discrepancies. Everyone seems to agree that the Pats balls lost significant pressure and came in well under the minimum at halftime. Also, nobody has disputed the account that the Colts' balls were fine pregame, at halftime and after the game, which seems to invalidate the possibility that the Pats balls lost pressure due to the weather, leaving us with no other reasonable explanation that I've heard for the discrepancy.

For me that's enough to cast quite a bit of suspicion on the Pats. I'm not certain they cheated, but it seems the most likely explanation, and that's really all I care about. I'm sure Pats fans disagree, but I'm not sure why, and I don't know how many non-Pats fans disagree.

I know your not really here for anything resembling reasonable debate, and most of this has already been addressed, but its a snow day so what the heck.

The pats have stated they inflated there balls to 12.5 so if there were balls found to be 11.1 that would be 1.4.

I don't think everyone agrees that NEs balls were significantly under unless you consider 1.0 psi all that significant and completely discount NEs explanation (prep, weather etc) for why their balls were 1-1.5 psi under. The beauty of it is they told the NFL how they prep the balls and how they feel weather effected them. Now if the NFL repeats the process and gets pretty much the same results, NE will get its apology (likely imho) and we are done here. If the NFL gets significantly different results then that's another story.

Many are disputing the assumption that the colts balls did not lose psi because the nfl nor any credible reporting source has reported what the colts psi was before the game. It has been "reported" (not by the nfl afaik) that the colts balls were within range, but we (you) do not know what the psi was to begin with which very well could have been 13.5 or more; no one really knows and we simply have to wait.

You are certainly entitled to your opinion, but do you have anything factual that disputes what I wrote above?

Nobody actually has any confirmed facts from the league itself, so everything is based on media reports. I'm looking at the King and Mortenson reports. You're looking at others that you classify as "disputing" those reports. When you say "many are disputing" portions of the King and Mortenson reports, keep in mind that you're not providing facts to the contrary, either. In other words, while I don't have anything factual that disputes what you wrote, you also don't have anything factual that disputes the initial reporting.

I will admit I had not considered the possibility that the Colts re-inflated their balls to explain the discrepancy, but that's only because you'd that would have been reported if it had happened. It's easy enough to investigate. I also know that I've seen several people, including the manufacturer, say the Pats' explanation for the pressure loss is BS. Maybe there are others who give it credence, but I haven't seen them.

All that leads me to my best guess as to what happened- not a certainty, but my own conclusion based on what's been reported by people I trust and the rest of what I said above. You're a Pats fan, you have no choice but to reach a different conclusion.

If Florio and Peter King's articles were swapped, you'd be telling us why Florio is more legit than PK.

Well Florio did break into the business by starting a website that just threw #### at the wall hoping something stuck. Their main page was even labled "Rumor Mill" (or something like that. He's since become much more reputable though (and actually works with King at NBC).

 

[JIslander]

We have nothing to indicate that an under inflated ball is an advantage.

Other than Brady saying that's how he liked them?

 

[Old Smiley]

We have nothing to indicate that an under inflated ball is an advantage.

Other than Brady saying that's how he liked them?

What's your point. That's what Brady likes. It's not a competitive advantage.

 

[JIslander]

We have nothing to indicate that an under inflated ball is an advantage.

Other than Brady saying that's how he liked them?

What's your point. That's what Brady likes. It's not a competitive advantage.

So the NFL should just throw out the required PSI range is what you are saying?

 

[12punch]

We have nothing to indicate that an under inflated ball is an advantage.

Other than Brady saying that's how he liked them?

He Likes Uggs + Goats, Too, Are Those Advantages?

 

[BustedKnuckles]

Nearly 6000 posts about this?

What the hell is wrong with you guys?

The salty haters are jealous of the Pats success, that's what it all comes down to. Grasping at straws!

All the salt in this thread is really bad for my hypertension

 

[randall146]

This would be similar to the OJ case if we had no evidence, other than contradicting rumors, that Ron and Nicole were dead

 

[T J]

We have nothing to indicate that an under inflated ball is an advantage.

Other than Brady saying that's how he liked them?

What's your point. That's what Brady likes. It's not a competitive advantage.

So the NFL should just throw out the required PSI range is what you are saying?

They were arguing this very point on Sirius NFL. Maybe they should. Either that or the counterpoint they argued is that if they intend to keep the psi range, the balls need to be within the control of the officials at all times and suggested that the alternate official who is on the sidelines at every game be the one who's responsible for this.

 

[shader]

The balls were tampered with, both sets measured in fine at pregame and at halftime the colts footballs were still fine but the pats were not, no science or napkin math needed. Haters and apologists arguing over professionally made official nfl footballs possibly losing all their air pressure over a course of a game... and some of you sound like you actually believe that. Dont road trip in the winter or your car will be running on rims before you need to stop for gas. smh.

Oh, cool, you cracked the case. Please show us the link to where the NFL measured all the ball pregame and what their values were. Thanks in advance.

It's been reported several times that the balls fell within the acceptable range in pregame testing and then lost "at least 2 psi." This isn't a criminal investigation, the rules of evidence and the "beyond a reasonable doubt" standard don't apply here. Reasonable people are free to believe the reports of objective journalists who are correct 99% of the time over players and coaches who are otherwise meticulous in their preparation but whose stories require us to assume otherwise, who have an obvious interest to protect; and who have been caught cheating in the recent past.

Tobias coming late to the party. Must not have seen the Florio report from Saturday, corroborated by others, that completely debunked the original Mort report you are citing that the balls were off by at least 2 psi. It's more like 1 psi - oh, except for the all that was in the Colts possession - that one mysteriously was the only one greater than 2 psi. Hmmm, investigation coming on that? Wonder if the NFL is looking at videos of the Colts ball boys on their sidelines...Might want to catch up... http://profootballtalk.nbcsports.com/2015/01/25/nfl-bears-plenty-of-blame-for-deflategate/

Thanks. I addressed every word in my other posts above ... including the distinction many including you seem to be missing between losing at least 2 psi and being "closer to 1 psi" under the minimum. Both could technically be true (1.4 is "closer to 1," and 11.1 could easily be a loss of "at least 2 psi" from whatever the baseline). And even if not, we're talking about very small discrepancies. Everyone seems to agree that the Pats balls lost significant pressure and came in well under the minimum at halftime. Also, nobody has disputed the account that the Colts' balls were fine pregame, at halftime and after the game, which seems to invalidate the possibility that the Pats balls lost pressure due to the weather, leaving us with no other reasonable explanation that I've heard for the discrepancy.

For me that's enough to cast quite a bit of suspicion on the Pats. I'm not certain they cheated, but it seems the most likely explanation, and that's really all I care about. I'm sure Pats fans disagree, but I'm not sure why, and I don't know how many non-Pats fans disagree.

I know your not really here for anything resembling reasonable debate, and most of this has already been addressed, but its a snow day so what the heck.

The pats have stated they inflated there balls to 12.5 so if there were balls found to be 11.1 that would be 1.4.

I don't think everyone agrees that NEs balls were significantly under unless you consider 1.0 psi all that significant and completely discount NEs explanation (prep, weather etc) for why their balls were 1-1.5 psi under. The beauty of it is they told the NFL how they prep the balls and how they feel weather effected them. Now if the NFL repeats the process and gets pretty much the same results, NE will get its apology (likely imho) and we are done here. If the NFL gets significantly different results then that's another story.

Many are disputing the assumption that the colts balls did not lose psi because the nfl nor any credible reporting source has reported what the colts psi was before the game. It has been "reported" (not by the nfl afaik) that the colts balls were within range, but we (you) do not know what the psi was to begin with which very well could have been 13.5 or more; no one really knows and we simply have to wait.

You are certainly entitled to your opinion, but do you have anything factual that disputes what I wrote above?

Nobody actually has any confirmed facts from the league itself, so everything is based on media reports. I'm looking at the King and Mortenson reports. You're looking at others that you classify as "disputing" those reports. When you say "many are disputing" portions of the King and Mortenson reports, keep in mind that you're not providing facts to the contrary, either. In other words, while I don't have anything factual that disputes what you wrote, you also don't have anything factual that disputes the initial reporting.

I will admit I had not considered the possibility that the Colts re-inflated their balls to explain the discrepancy, but that's only because you'd that would have been reported if it had happened. It's easy enough to investigate. I also know that I've seen several people, including the manufacturer, say the Pats' explanation for the pressure loss is BS. Maybe there are others who give it credence, but I haven't seen them.

All that leads me to my best guess as to what happened- not a certainty, but my own conclusion based on what's been reported by people I trust and the rest of what I said above. You're a Pats fan, you have no choice but to reach a different conclusion.

If Florio and Peter King's articles were swapped, you'd be telling us why Florio is more legit than PK.

Well Florio did break into the business by starting a website that just threw #### at the wall hoping something stuck. Their main page was even labled "Rumor Mill" (or something like that. He's since become much more reputable though (and actually works with King at NBC).

Trust me, I know all about florio. He's usually a jerk. Back in the day, (over a decade ago) when he was a nobody with a blog, I emailed him about some story about Eddie George because I felt he had some details wrong. He cussed me out and was quite rude. I know he's unprofessional.

BUT, as you said, he works with Peter King now and has a lot of sources. If all we have to go by are the latest media leaks, which is sad but true, I'll take the "latest" news by a reputable source. I'm not going to get into the silly game of "who has more legit info", because that's completely arbitrary and totally unprovable.

But there has been no media leak to contradict Florio's story that there was only 1 ball that was 2psi under the limit. So for now, i'll assume it's true. If it was blatantly false, I'm sure the NFL would have immediately sent another leak to a "more reputable" source.

 

[Old Smiley]

We have nothing to indicate that an under inflated ball is an advantage.

Other than Brady saying that's how he liked them?

What's your point. That's what Brady likes. It's not a competitive advantage.

So the NFL should just throw out the required PSI range is what you are saying?

Maybe. I don't know. I'm pretty sure there's a point where under inflation is a disadvantage, right? Pretty tough to handle/exchange/throw an empty ball.

 

[TobiasFunke]

Nobody actually has any confirmed facts from I also know that I've seen several people, including the manufacturer, say the Pats' explanation for the pressure loss is BS. Maybe there are others who give it credence, but I haven't seen them.

You are better than this Tobias. You should know better than to cite a marketing guy from Wilson as to proof that physics doesn't apply to these footballs.There are a few sources out there who have done this experiment. Balls going from 75 degrees to 50 degrees lose at least 1 PSI. Add in rain and moisture and the drop can be at least 1.5 PSI.

I am sure most of this is just trolling Pats fans, but at least don't ignore the science

I haven't seen any of the other sources, at least not any outside of Boston-based reporting. Can you give me a link?

 

[mbuehner]

here's a crazy unrealistic idea --- tell us what you think

pats have a bunch of nicely broken in footballs sitting around

they throw a bunch in a bag and give them to the refs a couple hours before the game

ref maybe grabs each ball, turns it over and tosses it back in

bag given to nfl employed ball transportation engineer who stops in at the toilet to take a piss on the way to the field

bag handed to refs who put a ball in play

after a bit the balls chill down and lose a psi like every cooler game in the history of football

and nobody notices because NOBODY IN THE HISTORY OF FOOTBALL GAF ABOUT A ####### PSI

now, I guess at halftime of this particular game they're measured with an electron microscope because some axe grinding **** can't beat the pats on the field, so he's determined to beat them off the field

I think this is more or less the most likely scenario.

Did the ball guy really work for the NFL? Thought he was a Pats employee.

 

[bostonfred]

This is so NOT sarcasm. Could I be wrong? Sure. But it's what I believe 100% to be happening.

I think we can all agree you're 100% wrong, at least about what it means to believe something 100%.

Uh....no. No we can't BOSTONfred. I can only guess what side you come down on.Look, I think it's no big deal personally in that it didn't make a difference and I hope the Pats win the SB so I'm not looking for an axe to grind, but the sheer multitude of scientific theories means they all come across as BS to me - because if any one of them was truly THE answer, this whole thing would be done and over with.

If I'm wrong, I'll own it, but for now they're guilty until proven innocent in my book.

I'm still not getting a smart vibe here. Although you did decode my user name pretty quickly. Try reading it again.

No worries. We all have our own take. If making assumptions about me helps you out, go for it. I believe what I believe until proven wrong. What can I tell ya?

I believe his point is that even the most salty hater would have to have some small percentage of doubt.

really haa nothing to do with my opinions or his. He literally said he was 100% certain in the same post that he said he could be wrong.

The two thought processes are not mutually exclusive.For a silly real world analogy, let's say someone tells me their office is in the Smith bldg. I'm 100% certain that the Smith bldg is on Main St. Turns out I'm wrong and it's on Jones St. (names have been changed to protect the innocent)

It happens all the time in every day life.

Yes. To people who don't know what 100% certainty is and are prone to hyperbole.

 

[T J]

This is so NOT sarcasm. Could I be wrong? Sure. But it's what I believe 100% to be happening.

I think we can all agree you're 100% wrong, at least about what it means to believe something 100%.

Uh....no. No we can't BOSTONfred. I can only guess what side you come down on.Look, I think it's no big deal personally in that it didn't make a difference and I hope the Pats win the SB so I'm not looking for an axe to grind, but the sheer multitude of scientific theories means they all come across as BS to me - because if any one of them was truly THE answer, this whole thing would be done and over with.

If I'm wrong, I'll own it, but for now they're guilty until proven innocent in my book.

I'm still not getting a smart vibe here. Although you did decode my user name pretty quickly. Try reading it again.

No worries. We all have our own take. If making assumptions about me helps you out, go for it. I believe what I believe until proven wrong. What can I tell ya?

I believe his point is that even the most salty hater would have to have some small percentage of doubt.

really haa nothing to do with my opinions or his. He literally said he was 100% certain in the same post that he said he could be wrong.

The two thought processes are not mutually exclusive.For a silly real world analogy, let's say someone tells me their office is in the Smith bldg. I'm 100% certain that the Smith bldg is on Main St. Turns out I'm wrong and it's on Jones St. (names have been changed to protect the innocent)

It happens all the time in every day life.

Yes. To people who don't know what 100% certainty is and are prone to hyperbole.

Nice try BOSTONfred. Swing and a miss.

 

[TobiasFunke]

The balls were tampered with, both sets measured in fine at pregame and at halftime the colts footballs were still fine but the pats were not, no science or napkin math needed. Haters and apologists arguing over professionally made official nfl footballs possibly losing all their air pressure over a course of a game... and some of you sound like you actually believe that. Dont road trip in the winter or your car will be running on rims before you need to stop for gas. smh.

Oh, cool, you cracked the case. Please show us the link to where the NFL measured all the ball pregame and what their values were. Thanks in advance.

It's been reported several times that the balls fell within the acceptable range in pregame testing and then lost "at least 2 psi." This isn't a criminal investigation, the rules of evidence and the "beyond a reasonable doubt" standard don't apply here. Reasonable people are free to believe the reports of objective journalists who are correct 99% of the time over players and coaches who are otherwise meticulous in their preparation but whose stories require us to assume otherwise, who have an obvious interest to protect; and who have been caught cheating in the recent past.

Tobias coming late to the party. Must not have seen the Florio report from Saturday, corroborated by others, that completely debunked the original Mort report you are citing that the balls were off by at least 2 psi. It's more like 1 psi - oh, except for the all that was in the Colts possession - that one mysteriously was the only one greater than 2 psi. Hmmm, investigation coming on that? Wonder if the NFL is looking at videos of the Colts ball boys on their sidelines...Might want to catch up... http://profootballtalk.nbcsports.com/2015/01/25/nfl-bears-plenty-of-blame-for-deflategate/

Thanks. I addressed every word in my other posts above ... including the distinction many including you seem to be missing between losing at least 2 psi and being "closer to 1 psi" under the minimum. Both could technically be true (1.4 is "closer to 1," and 11.1 could easily be a loss of "at least 2 psi" from whatever the baseline). And even if not, we're talking about very small discrepancies. Everyone seems to agree that the Pats balls lost significant pressure and came in well under the minimum at halftime. Also, nobody has disputed the account that the Colts' balls were fine pregame, at halftime and after the game, which seems to invalidate the possibility that the Pats balls lost pressure due to the weather, leaving us with no other reasonable explanation that I've heard for the discrepancy.

For me that's enough to cast quite a bit of suspicion on the Pats. I'm not certain they cheated, but it seems the most likely explanation, and that's really all I care about. I'm sure Pats fans disagree, but I'm not sure why, and I don't know how many non-Pats fans disagree.

I know your not really here for anything resembling reasonable debate, and most of this has already been addressed, but its a snow day so what the heck.

The pats have stated they inflated there balls to 12.5 so if there were balls found to be 11.1 that would be 1.4.

I don't think everyone agrees that NEs balls were significantly under unless you consider 1.0 psi all that significant and completely discount NEs explanation (prep, weather etc) for why their balls were 1-1.5 psi under. The beauty of it is they told the NFL how they prep the balls and how they feel weather effected them. Now if the NFL repeats the process and gets pretty much the same results, NE will get its apology (likely imho) and we are done here. If the NFL gets significantly different results then that's another story.

Many are disputing the assumption that the colts balls did not lose psi because the nfl nor any credible reporting source has reported what the colts psi was before the game. It has been "reported" (not by the nfl afaik) that the colts balls were within range, but we (you) do not know what the psi was to begin with which very well could have been 13.5 or more; no one really knows and we simply have to wait.

You are certainly entitled to your opinion, but do you have anything factual that disputes what I wrote above?

Nobody actually has any confirmed facts from the league itself, so everything is based on media reports. I'm looking at the King and Mortenson reports. You're looking at others that you classify as "disputing" those reports. When you say "many are disputing" portions of the King and Mortenson reports, keep in mind that you're not providing facts to the contrary, either. In other words, while I don't have anything factual that disputes what you wrote, you also don't have anything factual that disputes the initial reporting.

I will admit I had not considered the possibility that the Colts re-inflated their balls to explain the discrepancy, but that's only because you'd that would have been reported if it had happened. It's easy enough to investigate. I also know that I've seen several people, including the manufacturer, say the Pats' explanation for the pressure loss is BS. Maybe there are others who give it credence, but I haven't seen them.

All that leads me to my best guess as to what happened- not a certainty, but my own conclusion based on what's been reported by people I trust and the rest of what I said above. You're a Pats fan, you have no choice but to reach a different conclusion.

If Florio and Peter King's articles were swapped, you'd be telling us why Florio is more legit than PK.

Well Florio did break into the business by starting a website that just threw #### at the wall hoping something stuck. Their main page was even labled "Rumor Mill" (or something like that. He's since become much more reputable though (and actually works with King at NBC).

Although in this case just looking at the word choice shows which report is the stronger one. King talks about "reliable" sources regarding the loss of 2+ psi or significant loss of pressure (can't remember exactly, MMQB link not working for me at the moment), while Florio just speaks of a source giving him a very tentative statement that the loss of pressure "may have been closer to 1 psi," which is basically an empty statement.

 

[moleculo]

when we get to the point of arguing who's anonymous sources are more credible, we know it's gone too far. Time to shut it down.

 

[Road Warriors]

This is so NOT sarcasm. Could I be wrong? Sure. But it's what I believe 100% to be happening.

I think we can all agree you're 100% wrong, at least about what it means to believe something 100%.

Uh....no. No we can't BOSTONfred. I can only guess what side you come down on.

Look, I think it's no big deal personally in that it didn't make a difference and I hope the Pats win the SB so I'm not looking for an axe to grind, but the sheer multitude of scientific theories means they all come across as BS to me - because if any one of them was truly THE answer, this whole thing would be done and over with.

If I'm wrong, I'll own it, but for now they're guilty until proven innocent in my book.

As far as I can tell, there's only one scientific law in play ( not a theory, btw ). It's been used multiple times, often applied incorrectly getting different results, but the Ideal Gas Law is both directly related to the issue at hand, and accounts approximately 1 psi drop in gauge pressure based on the temperature drop from room temp ( approximately 70 ) to game temp ( reported at 51 at kickoff ).

 

[Jack White]

when we get to the point of arguing who's anonymous sources are more credible, we know it's gone too far. Time to shut it down.

In the future, judges who are sentencing violent criminals will have the options of prison, probation, community service, and reading this entire thread.

 

[Dinsy Ejotuz]

The communication by Reisner appears to show that the N.F.L. is taking seriously the question of whether physics could explain the deflation. Reisner’s call to the Columbia physics department first became known when Brian Metzger, a physicist at Columbia, mentioned it in a Facebook post.

In a bit of physics humor, Metzger then asked in the post whether Brian Greene of Columbia — one of the world’s best-known cosmologists — would “step up to the task.”

Reisner did not immediately respond late Tuesday night to email and voice mail messages requesting comment on his query to the physics department.

William Zajc, another Columbia physicist who was aware of the request by Reisner, said that he was tempted to field the questions because of all the flawed physics discussions he had seen in news media reports.

“I’m amused,” Zajc said of the query. But in the end, he said, “I didn’t do it.”

Zajc said he believed there was little chance that atmospheric effects alone could account for the discrepancies in the football pressure.

“I think it’s more likely than not that they were manipulated,” Zajc said.

 

[12punch]

here's a crazy unrealistic idea --- tell us what you think

pats have a bunch of nicely broken in footballs sitting around

they throw a bunch in a bag and give them to the refs a couple hours before the game

ref maybe grabs each ball, turns it over and tosses it back in

bag given to nfl employed ball transportation engineer who stops in at the toilet to take a piss on the way to the field

bag handed to refs who put a ball in play

after a bit the balls chill down and lose a psi like every cooler game in the history of football

and nobody notices because NOBODY IN THE HISTORY OF FOOTBALL GAF ABOUT A ####### PSI

now, I guess at halftime of this particular game they're measured with an electron microscope because some axe grinding **** can't beat the pats on the field, so he's determined to beat them off the field

I think this is more or less the most likely scenario.

Did the ball guy really work for the NFL? Thought he was a Pats employee.

Thought I Had Read That Ball Boys Were Nfl Employees, But I can't Say i'm Really On Top Of These details

 

[Old Smiley]

The communication by Reisner appears to show that the N.F.L. is taking seriously the question of whether physics could explain the deflation. Reisner’s call to the Columbia physics department first became known when Brian Metzger, a physicist at Columbia, mentioned it in a Facebook post.

In a bit of physics humor, Metzger then asked in the post whether Brian Greene of Columbia — one of the world’s best-known cosmologists — would “step up to the task.”

Reisner did not immediately respond late Tuesday night to email and voice mail messages requesting comment on his query to the physics department.

William Zajc, another Columbia physicist who was aware of the request by Reisner, said that he was tempted to field the questions because of all the flawed physics discussions he had seen in news media reports.

“I’m amused,” Zajc said of the query. But in the end, he said, “I didn’t do it.”

Zajc said he believed there was little chance that atmospheric effects alone could account for the discrepancies in the football pressure.

“I think it’s more likely than not that they were manipulated,” Zajc said.

Zajc is not an expert on whether or not the officials put a meter on the balls.

 

[bostonfred]

This is so NOT sarcasm. Could I be wrong? Sure. But it's what I believe 100% to be happening.

I think we can all agree you're 100% wrong, at least about what it means to believe something 100%.

Uh....no. No we can't BOSTONfred. I can only guess what side you come down on.Look, I think it's no big deal personally in that it didn't make a difference and I hope the Pats win the SB so I'm not looking for an axe to grind, but the sheer multitude of scientific theories means they all come across as BS to me - because if any one of them was truly THE answer, this whole thing would be done and over with.

If I'm wrong, I'll own it, but for now they're guilty until proven innocent in my book.

I'm still not getting a smart vibe here. Although you did decode my user name pretty quickly. Try reading it again.

No worries. We all have our own take. If making assumptions about me helps you out, go for it. I believe what I believe until proven wrong. What can I tell ya?

I believe his point is that even the most salty hater would have to have some small percentage of doubt.

really haa nothing to do with my opinions or his. He literally said he was 100% certain in the same post that he said he could be wrong.

The two thought processes are not mutually exclusive.For a silly real world analogy, let's say someone tells me their office is in the Smith bldg. I'm 100% certain that the Smith bldg is on Main St. Turns out I'm wrong and it's on Jones St. (names have been changed to protect the innocent)

It happens all the time in every day life.

Yes. To people who don't know what 100% certainty is and are prone to hyperbole.

Nice try BOSTONfred. Swing and a miss.

you are a dazzling display of the problem with democracy. I don't care what your opinion on the matter is, I'm just intellectually offended by your insistence that it's possible to be 100% certain of something while also saying you might be wrong. it's simply wrong.

 

[Freelove]

This is so NOT sarcasm. Could I be wrong? Sure. But it's what I believe 100% to be happening.

I think we can all agree you're 100% wrong, at least about what it means to believe something 100%.

Uh....no. No we can't BOSTONfred. I can only guess what side you come down on.Look, I think it's no big deal personally in that it didn't make a difference and I hope the Pats win the SB so I'm not looking for an axe to grind, but the sheer multitude of scientific theories means they all come across as BS to me - because if any one of them was truly THE answer, this whole thing would be done and over with.

If I'm wrong, I'll own it, but for now they're guilty until proven innocent in my book.

I'm still not getting a smart vibe here. Although you did decode my user name pretty quickly. Try reading it again.

No worries. We all have our own take. If making assumptions about me helps you out, go for it. I believe what I believe until proven wrong. What can I tell ya?

I believe his point is that even the most salty hater would have to have some small percentage of doubt.

really haa nothing to do with my opinions or his. He literally said he was 100% certain in the same post that he said he could be wrong.

The two thought processes are not mutually exclusive.For a silly real world analogy, let's say someone tells me their office is in the Smith bldg. I'm 100% certain that the Smith bldg is on Main St. Turns out I'm wrong and it's on Jones St. (names have been changed to protect the innocent)

It happens all the time in every day life.

Yes. To people who don't know what 100% certainty is and are prone to hyperbole.

Nice try BOSTONfred. Swing and a miss.

You can feel 100% certainty and still end up being wrong once that certainty is put to the test.

You do not feel 100% certainty if you accept there is a non-zero chance you will end up being wrong before that happens.

What you feel in that case is "pretty sure."

 

[Godsbrother]

The communication by Reisner appears to show that the N.F.L. is taking seriously the question of whether physics could explain the deflation. Reisner’s call to the Columbia physics department first became known when Brian Metzger, a physicist at Columbia, mentioned it in a Facebook post.

In a bit of physics humor, Metzger then asked in the post whether Brian Greene of Columbia — one of the world’s best-known cosmologists — would “step up to the task.”

Reisner did not immediately respond late Tuesday night to email and voice mail messages requesting comment on his query to the physics department.

William Zajc, another Columbia physicist who was aware of the request by Reisner, said that he was tempted to field the questions because of all the flawed physics discussions he had seen in news media reports.

“I’m amused,” Zajc said of the query. But in the end, he said, “I didn’t do it.”

Zajc said he believed there was little chance that atmospheric effects alone could account for the discrepancies in the football pressure.

“I think it’s more likely than not that they were manipulated,” Zajc said.

Why would they be consulting with a barber?

 

[Dinsy Ejotuz]

The communication by Reisner appears to show that the N.F.L. is taking seriously the question of whether physics could explain the deflation. Reisner’s call to the Columbia physics department first became known when Brian Metzger, a physicist at Columbia, mentioned it in a Facebook post.

In a bit of physics humor, Metzger then asked in the post whether Brian Greene of Columbia — one of the world’s best-known cosmologists — would “step up to the task.”

Reisner did not immediately respond late Tuesday night to email and voice mail messages requesting comment on his query to the physics department.

William Zajc, another Columbia physicist who was aware of the request by Reisner, said that he was tempted to field the questions because of all the flawed physics discussions he had seen in news media reports.

“I’m amused,” Zajc said of the query. But in the end, he said, “I didn’t do it.”

Zajc said he believed there was little chance that atmospheric effects alone could account for the discrepancies in the football pressure.

“I think it’s more likely than not that they were manipulated,” Zajc said.

Zajc is not an expert on whether or not the officials put a meter on the balls.

I agree there's a lot of stuff we don't know.

I find it exceedingly unlikely that the NFL was warned before the game and has gone to all the trouble it has after the game without putting a gauge to the balls, but for the time being that's not proven.

Having said, if my team had been the best in the NFL over a period of a decade yet was on the verge of only being remembered for:

--Spygate

--Eli to Plax, and

--An unequivocal cheating scandal

I might also lean more towards "we should all just wait until the evidence is presented." I get where you're coming from.

 

[parrot]

The communication by Reisner appears to show that the N.F.L. is taking seriously the question of whether physics could explain the deflation. Reisner’s call to the Columbia physics department first became known when Brian Metzger, a physicist at Columbia, mentioned it in a Facebook post.

In a bit of physics humor, Metzger then asked in the post whether Brian Greene of Columbia — one of the world’s best-known cosmologists — would “step up to the task.”

Reisner did not immediately respond late Tuesday night to email and voice mail messages requesting comment on his query to the physics department.

William Zajc, another Columbia physicist who was aware of the request by Reisner, said that he was tempted to field the questions because of all the flawed physics discussions he had seen in news media reports.

“I’m amused,” Zajc said of the query. But in the end, he said, “I didn’t do it.”

Zajc said he believed there was little chance that atmospheric effects alone could account for the discrepancies in the football pressure.

“I think it’s more likely than not that they were manipulated,” Zajc said.

Why would they be consulting with a barber?

Trying to figure how to shave a few psi?