Patriots being investigated after Colts game (1 Viewer)

[FreeBaGeL]

2 camps battling here

camp 1 - I want the pats to be cleared and found innocent no matter the findings

camp 2 - I want the pats found to be guilty cheaters no matter the findings

hard to have a normal conversation between 2 such camps ...its like watching verbal tennis ...back and forth each trying to beat the other ...but this match will never end ...ever

I agree, but at least camp 2 is willing to stick to their guns. Camp 1 just completely changes their stance every time they think they've found something that can help them.

IE, 30 pages back camp 1 was finding quotes from every scientist they could about the weather's affect on PSI. Now, when a scientist says something that doesn't befit them, they literally just said "the opinion of a scientist shouldn't matter".

Likewise, they went on for page after page driveling on about how no one should make any judgements until every last bit of hard evidence has been found and verified. Then Belichick comes on TV and claims to have done an experiment (oooh, an experiment controlled by the accused, as if that would ever fly) without any actual evidence as to that experiment and they immediately jump off the "we have to wait until all the facts are out" stance and into "case closed, and you're all complete idiots for even ever considering this".

 

[mbuehner]

Bill Nye is an ABC, er ESPN employee. Nuff said.

Bill Nye lives in the Seattle area, is a Seahawks fan, and ended the segment saying "Go Hawks". Nuff said.

Ahh, I see. So should we also disregard the opinions of any Patriot fans, in addition to those presented by actual scientists?

I think it's pretty obvious that Nye's segment was heavily edited by ESPN to cause a stir. Nowhere in that segment does NYe support or refute Belichik's main thesis (that is ow also supported by many others in the science community, including the Carnegie Mellon report we keep linking to in here) that atmospheric conditions alone could reduce the psi in a ball up to 1.9 psi.I have no problem with people having a predisposition, but at least address the facts.

1-the group you keep referring to isn't affiliated with Carnegie Mellon; they are a group of individuals (some of who are students or staff at CM), but they are not a part of the university.2-Why didn't the Colt's balls (or the NE balls) in the 2nd half experience the atmospheric induced changes?

We dont know where the colts balls were filled, indoors or outdoors. We dont know what their readings were, we dont know even know IF they were ever measured.

 

[Deamon]

It's strange that through all of this, I strongly believe that the public perception/liking of the Patriots has gone UP due to this situation. I really thought it would have a negative affect but reading some of the annoying and irrational posts from Johnny U and others in here, it's becoming more and more desirable to cheer for the pats this week. I think a lot of educated, unbiased fans are so annoyed with this and when they go to a SB party and some casual fan brings up deflategate, that's just going to cause them to kinda root for the pats even more.

 

[Wilbur Wood]

So BB and the gang went back to the scene of the crime to shift the perspective of the evidence. So basic. Not even believable in the best of Hollywood scripts.

Seriously though, they came off better when they were saying it's not a big deal. Now they just seem to be a little too defensive as if they are trying vehemently to end the conversation that is getting dangerously close to something really really bad.

There are many arguments against their pseudoscience.

Such as?

OK, I'll bite -

Where was the science? use of terms like atmospheric conditions and equilibrium?

He refers to an "internal study" but he has the luxury to hide behind the fact that he "is not a scientist" so he does not have to answer to the specific questions, and although he notes that they consulted with lots of people, he does not give the names (so no one can get more scientific information). Bottom line is that when running studies there are details that are critical to review and they need to be clearly and carefully clarified. For example:

(1) define the "process" the balls go through - he didn't come close other than referring to rub downs;

(2) define the timing of the "process" vs the timing of the game day process. He seems to suggest that on game day the rub down process continues to occur right up to the time in which the balls are handed to the officials. Really? This isn't something that is prepared ahead of time? something so important to every QB isn't settled until just before it is given to the officials? If it is done ahead of time then how far ahead? How long do they "process" the balls on game day? How long did you "process" the balls for the internal study? What is the change in psi from the last rub down to the handing off to the officials? For that matter how long does it take the officials to measure the psi after getting the balls from the team? Is this important? Well, that too is an empirical question - ie, if there is no change between the official hand off to the official measurement then it isn't important, but until that is demonstrated it would be a variable that needs to be considered and then compared between the internal study and the actual game day process.

(3) they used "multiple" balls in their internal study, "not just one." Well, how many? 2? 6? 12? 24? 48? Maybe it seems crazy to test 48 balls, but isn't that how many were included in the total set at game day? Heck Pats, at least tell us that you tested 12 balls just like the allegedly tampered set on game day. The sample size is a HUGE variable here (think about all the fantasy football stats issues here when we go into sample size - same variable here that needs to be defined). Based on his report, unless I missed something, they could have done this with 2.

(4) They put the balls through simulated game day situations -- this needs to be operationally defined. What do they think happens to the ball during a game? at what force? at what frequency? (cue the Gronk lovers here). How did they simulate that exactly?

(5) They refer to "controlled conditions" which seemed to imply at least the temperature of the rooms. Anything else effect the air pressure of a ball? If it was truly controlled then this would be one of the easiest points to define.

(6) BB notes a critical issue towards the end of his explanation in that he says that gauges vary in their measurements and no two footballs are exactly alike. The latter point is a big reason why they need to define their sample size (and it had better have been substantial). The measurement variance is huge. It would not be too difficult to determine the type of gauge used by officials at the stadium and then use the exact same type. The whole internal study can hinge on this point alone. They may have a gauge that is inconsistent with the officials measurements, making any comparison invalid. Heck their gauge may be inconsistent/unreliable thereby giving a different measurement post simulation simply because it gives a different reading each time. They need to define that too (getting tired of this yet?)

(7) The QB "feel test". OK, now we are going into some social psychology. BB explained that they had their QBs test the feel to see if they could differentiate between the balls based on psi. You really mean to tell me that rookie backup Garappollo is going to say that he can feel the difference when (a) the internal study may hinge on this AND (b) the great Tommy Boy already said that he couldn't do it? Right. The social pressure alone makes this an invalid "measurement". They need to test other QBs. Now keep in mind that many QBs have already said that they could do this but even those opinions should be tested for accuracy - that is IF you are trying to conduct some sort of internal scientific study.

(8) Finally, not really part of their study but he makes a big claim that they train in extreme conditions and they would never go the opposite route and train with weak equipment [my words, not his]. This is at best irrelevant and worse part of the point of advantage - what they do when they train isn't the issue, it's game day balls. That said, if they trained hard and had it easy on game day it boosts confidence if not performance (e.g., try running with ankle weights for 10-min and then run a sprint and tell me you don't feel faster).

Does some of this sound overly demanding? Well, that is the detail of science for you. Definition and replication within a scientific method is required.

If this was done to settle the masses it seemed to work a little bit, based on the reactions of so many of you. But, if this was meant to hold water as a scientific study ... sorry. The NFL could and should shoot this junk down pretty easily.

Hey Doc - did you watch the video two posts up from yours? Also, in this country you're presumed innocent until proven guilty. Which is kind of ironic, because thus far the evidence I have seen strongly suggests that atmospheric conditions alone can reduce the psi of a football up to and beyond 2.0 psi. This whole thing is a complete farce at this point. You gonna believe your precious science at this point? Or are you going to believe that the Pats got the balls 10 minutes before kickoff, then doctored the balls surreptitiously on the sidelines, in plain view of everyone, by taking out exactly 2 psi in every football? If so, I've got another great video to show you about how difficult it is to take 2 psi out of a football with a needle consistently. It's almost impossible to do without a gauge.

If it is this simple than why did 0 of 12 colt balls fail to lose > 0.5 PSI when exposed to the same "atmospheric conditions"??

 

[GroveDiesel]

After reading the Carnegie Mellon study, it's pretty clear that they did no such thing as replicate the game conditions. They wet rye balls and just let them sit therein a shelf in 50 degrees.

During the game, the balls were constantly dried off by both the refs and equipment managers. Only one ball at a time was exposed to the elements and it was constantly wiped down by the refs. The other 11 balls were kept nice and dry and warmer while that ball was on play. Further, the ball in play at any time was also constantly being handled by people gripping it, rubbing it, etc, so they would all have an effect on the external and internal temperature of the ball.

The way the balls were handled and treated during the game is so completely different than sitting wet on a shelf that their experiment is totally useless.

 

[Old Smiley]

What he said was that the Patriots heated the air in the ball immediately prior to giving them to the refs, such that the PSI were about a pound high at that point. Then they instructed the refs to inflate them to the minumum required (12.5 PSI). And afterward, when the footballs cooled from the stimulation the Pats applied, the balls lost a pound of PSI. And lost another .5 PSI when they were taken outside.

Even that doesn't account for the (reported) two pounds of lost PSI, though.

None of this is what he said. Also the accusation was that the balls were almost 2psi low, not 2psi. That could mean 1.6 or 1.99.

With a pressure gauge from Home Depot.

 

[12punch]

2 camps battling here

camp 1 - I want the pats to be cleared and found innocent no matter the findings

camp 2 - I want the pats found to be guilty cheaters no matter the findings

hard to have a normal conversation between 2 such camps ...its like watching verbal tennis ...back and forth each trying to beat the other ...but this match will never end ...ever

I agree, but at least camp 2 is willing to stick to their guns. Camp 1 just completely changes their stance every time they think they've found something that can help them.

IE, 30 pages back camp 1 was finding quotes from every scientist they could about the weather's affect on PSI. Now, when a scientist says something that doesn't befit them, they literally just said "the opinion of a scientist shouldn't matter".

Likewise, they went on for page after page driveling on about how no one should make any judgements until every last bit of hard evidence has been found and verified. Then Belichick comes on TV and claims to have done an experiment (oooh, an experiment controlled by the accused, as if that would ever fly) without any actual evidence as to that experiment and they immediately jump off the "we have to wait until all the facts are out" stance and into "case closed, and you're all complete idiots for even ever considering this".

I think camp 1 has been pretty consistent on that message

meanwhile, camp 2 hasn't changed their story every 6 hours after new info is tweeted and previous info discredited

ok

 

[General Tso]

Sure it's possible for the PSI of a football to change due to weather, but the fact that only the balls that the Pats used in the first half experienced this change is what still has not been explained.

Why do folks keep ignoring this?

Because it's not true.

Or at least, we don't know if it's true.

I don't believe I have seen any credible source definitively report that the Pats balls CHANGED by 2 psi. What I have seen reported is that the Pats balls, when measured at halftime, were under inflated. Big difference, and it gets to the central question that remains unresolved in here (unless you talk to moleculo or wdcrob) that the balls were gauge tested pregame.Furthermore, even if they were gauge tested pregame, we have already seen a scientific study by an independent college providing that the atmospheric conditions in play that night would have resulted in a psi reduction of 1.8 to 1.9 psi.

The Colts balls are only relevant as a control if they were psi tested along with the Pats balls both pregame and at halftime, and even then there are certain variables that would have to be considered before any definitive conclusions could be drawn.

 

[otello]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CxsXFX3tDpg&app=desktop

http://www.headsmartlabs.com/#in-the-news

This video from Carnegie Mellon scientists shows how they did their study. "The study indicated that the pressure in the footballs used in the AFC Championship game could have dropped 1.95 PSI from weather and field conditions alone."

If Bill Nye or some other people recreate the same experiment and get different results, I'd be interested in seeing that.

Where does it say that this was a Carnegie Mellon study?

http://www.headsmartlabs.com/#research-team

According to their website, the people there are from Carnegie Mellon and University of Pittsburgh Medical Center.

I see that. It looks to me like the experiment was done by a graduate student from CMU, I wouldn't call him a CMU scientist, or this a CMU study.

 

[Old Smiley]

When asked for a comment Jim Irsay stated, "Secrets an lies...." and then passed out in his linguini.

 

[mbuehner]

So BB and the gang went back to the scene of the crime to shift the perspective of the evidence. So basic. Not even believable in the best of Hollywood scripts.

Seriously though, they came off better when they were saying it's not a big deal. Now they just seem to be a little too defensive as if they are trying vehemently to end the conversation that is getting dangerously close to something really really bad.

There are many arguments against their pseudoscience.

Such as?

OK, I'll bite -

Where was the science? use of terms like atmospheric conditions and equilibrium?

He refers to an "internal study" but he has the luxury to hide behind the fact that he "is not a scientist" so he does not have to answer to the specific questions, and although he notes that they consulted with lots of people, he does not give the names (so no one can get more scientific information). Bottom line is that when running studies there are details that are critical to review and they need to be clearly and carefully clarified. For example:

(1) define the "process" the balls go through - he didn't come close other than referring to rub downs;

(2) define the timing of the "process" vs the timing of the game day process. He seems to suggest that on game day the rub down process continues to occur right up to the time in which the balls are handed to the officials. Really? This isn't something that is prepared ahead of time? something so important to every QB isn't settled until just before it is given to the officials? If it is done ahead of time then how far ahead? How long do they "process" the balls on game day? How long did you "process" the balls for the internal study? What is the change in psi from the last rub down to the handing off to the officials? For that matter how long does it take the officials to measure the psi after getting the balls from the team? Is this important? Well, that too is an empirical question - ie, if there is no change between the official hand off to the official measurement then it isn't important, but until that is demonstrated it would be a variable that needs to be considered and then compared between the internal study and the actual game day process.

(3) they used "multiple" balls in their internal study, "not just one." Well, how many? 2? 6? 12? 24? 48? Maybe it seems crazy to test 48 balls, but isn't that how many were included in the total set at game day? Heck Pats, at least tell us that you tested 12 balls just like the allegedly tampered set on game day. The sample size is a HUGE variable here (think about all the fantasy football stats issues here when we go into sample size - same variable here that needs to be defined). Based on his report, unless I missed something, they could have done this with 2.

(4) They put the balls through simulated game day situations -- this needs to be operationally defined. What do they think happens to the ball during a game? at what force? at what frequency? (cue the Gronk lovers here). How did they simulate that exactly?

(5) They refer to "controlled conditions" which seemed to imply at least the temperature of the rooms. Anything else effect the air pressure of a ball? If it was truly controlled then this would be one of the easiest points to define.

(6) BB notes a critical issue towards the end of his explanation in that he says that gauges vary in their measurements and no two footballs are exactly alike. The latter point is a big reason why they need to define their sample size (and it had better have been substantial). The measurement variance is huge. It would not be too difficult to determine the type of gauge used by officials at the stadium and then use the exact same type. The whole internal study can hinge on this point alone. They may have a gauge that is inconsistent with the officials measurements, making any comparison invalid. Heck their gauge may be inconsistent/unreliable thereby giving a different measurement post simulation simply because it gives a different reading each time. They need to define that too (getting tired of this yet?)

(7) The QB "feel test". OK, now we are going into some social psychology. BB explained that they had their QBs test the feel to see if they could differentiate between the balls based on psi. You really mean to tell me that rookie backup Garappollo is going to say that he can feel the difference when (a) the internal study may hinge on this AND (b) the great Tommy Boy already said that he couldn't do it? Right. The social pressure alone makes this an invalid "measurement". They need to test other QBs. Now keep in mind that many QBs have already said that they could do this but even those opinions should be tested for accuracy - that is IF you are trying to conduct some sort of internal scientific study.

(8) Finally, not really part of their study but he makes a big claim that they train in extreme conditions and they would never go the opposite route and train with weak equipment [my words, not his]. This is at best irrelevant and worse part of the point of advantage - what they do when they train isn't the issue, it's game day balls. That said, if they trained hard and had it easy on game day it boosts confidence if not performance (e.g., try running with ankle weights for 10-min and then run a sprint and tell me you don't feel faster).

Does some of this sound overly demanding? Well, that is the detail of science for you. Definition and replication within a scientific method is required.

If this was done to settle the masses it seemed to work a little bit, based on the reactions of so many of you. But, if this was meant to hold water as a scientific study ... sorry. The NFL could and should shoot this junk down pretty easily.

Hey Doc - did you watch the video two posts up from yours? Also, in this country you're presumed innocent until proven guilty. Which is kind of ironic, because thus far the evidence I have seen strongly suggests that atmospheric conditions alone can reduce the psi of a football up to and beyond 2.0 psi. This whole thing is a complete farce at this point. You gonna believe your precious science at this point? Or are you going to believe that the Pats got the balls 10 minutes before kickoff, then doctored the balls surreptitiously on the sidelines, in plain view of everyone, by taking out exactly 2 psi in every football? If so, I've got another great video to show you about how difficult it is to take 2 psi out of a football with a needle consistently. It's almost impossible to do without a gauge.

If it is this simple than why did 0 of 12 colt balls fail to lose > 0.5 PSI when exposed to the same "atmospheric conditions"??

Please point to the data that shows this.

 

[Deamon]

2 camps battling here

camp 1 - I want the pats to be cleared and found innocent no matter the findings

camp 2 - I want the pats found to be guilty cheaters no matter the findings

hard to have a normal conversation between 2 such camps ...its like watching verbal tennis ...back and forth each trying to beat the other ...but this match will never end ...ever

I agree, but at least camp 2 is willing to stick to their guns. Camp 1 just completely changes their stance every time they think they've found something that can help them.

IE, 30 pages back camp 1 was finding quotes from every scientist they could about the weather's affect on PSI. Now, when a scientist says something that doesn't befit them, they literally just said "the opinion of a scientist shouldn't matter".

Likewise, they went on for page after page driveling on about how no one should make any judgements until every last bit of hard evidence has been found and verified. Then Belichick comes on TV and claims to have done an experiment (oooh, an experiment controlled by the accused, as if that would ever fly) without any actual evidence as to that experiment and they immediately jump off the "we have to wait until all the facts are out" stance and into "case closed, and you're all complete idiots for even ever considering this".

haha what? "sticking to your guns" in this case is a bad thing. Camp 2 should be praised for sticking to their hatred even when new evidence comes up? It's strictly stubborn ignorance amongst camp 2.

Numerous times people have asked camp 2 "what would it take for you to admit you were wrong and that the pats didn't cheat?" . Of the dozens of camp 2'ers in here (yes, it seems like that number has dwindled down significantly), there's been almost no responses to that. Ignore facts (unless it supports them), Ignore science (unless it supports them), run from any possible notion that the pats are innocent.... that is camp 2's arrogant feelings.

 

[AB in DC]

If it is this simple than why did 0 of 12 colt balls fail to lose > 0.5 PSI when exposed to the same "atmospheric conditions"??

 

[Deamon]

After reading the Carnegie Mellon study, it's pretty clear that they did no such thing as replicate the game conditions. They wet rye balls and just let them sit therein a shelf in 50 degrees.

During the game, the balls were constantly dried off by both the refs and equipment managers. Only one ball at a time was exposed to the elements and it was constantly wiped down by the refs. The other 11 balls were kept nice and dry and warmer while that ball was on play. Further, the ball in play at any time was also constantly being handled by people gripping it, rubbing it, etc, so they would all have an effect on the external and internal temperature of the ball.

The way the balls were handled and treated during the game is so completely different than sitting wet on a shelf that their experiment is totally useless.

Did you like the pats before this?

 

[Deamon]

If it is this simple than why did 0 of 12 colt balls fail to lose > 0.5 PSI when exposed to the same "atmospheric conditions"??

There is no link. He made up that stat.

 

[bostonfred]

After reading the Carnegie Mellon study, it's pretty clear that they did no such thing as replicate the game conditions. They wet rye balls and just let them sit therein a shelf in 50 degrees.

During the game, the balls were constantly dried off by both the refs and equipment managers. Only one ball at a time was exposed to the elements and it was constantly wiped down by the refs. The other 11 balls were kept nice and dry and warmer while that ball was on play. Further, the ball in play at any time was also constantly being handled by people gripping it, rubbing it, etc, so they would all have an effect on the external and internal temperature of the ball.

The way the balls were handled and treated during the game is so completely different than sitting wet on a shelf that their experiment is totally useless.

saying that they were playing with warm dry footballs during the game doesn't bolster the argument that the patriots gained an in-game advantage. quite the opposite actually

 

[NE_REVIVAL]

I'm not reading through all of the posts since BB's presser, but I have 3 questions:

BB said that the Pats "prepare" the ball supposedly by roughing them up, to Brady's liking. Then they give them to the refs and have them adjust the ball to 12.5 PSI. Tom Brady has said he likes the ball at 12.5 PSI. If the balls are prepared to Brady's liking, that would imply that they are inflated to 12.5 PSI. Why the need to then ask the refs to inflate them to 12.5 PSI? Shouldn't that already be the case?

Why were all the Colts balls within the official range, if the weather actually caused the change in PSI of the Pat's footballs?

Why didn't the 2nd half balls deflate, since the same "science" that BB refers to should have applied to them?

I understand that scientific tests can be repeated, but in this case, the tests already were repeated, during the 2nd half, and the control group (Colts footballs) and the 2nd test (2nd half) don't support the idea of atmospheric changes. As for the "internal study" that BB mentions (in which he failed to specify exactly what they did) would seem to be coming from a biased group of "scientists" since they obviously had something to gain by producing the result that they are reporting.

Go ask the colts.

It really doesn't matter. The few remaining ones left who are still confused because they didn't follow yesterday's events are likely wondering what happened.

But it's simple. Psi changes. BB proved that. Who cares about what the psi is for this and the psi is for that. That really wasn't his point. His point is that psi isn't an exact science, it changes based in a variety of factors, and the NFL has no business investigating psi during a game, as in cold weather games psi is likely to be far lower than it was when the officials measured it.

Ask the Colts? It doesn't matter? PSI changes, BB proved that?

Seriously?

BB just said according to what we did (and I won't tell you exactly what we did), the PSI will change. But we should ignore the fact that the Colt's balls didn't change (at least, not by the same amount, as they remained in the legal range when re-inspected). We should also ignore the fact that when the balls were replaced in the 2nd half, the PSI didn't change (again, at least not enough to become "illegal").

So what did BB prove? That he could say (without actually showing any evidence) that the change in PSI in their 1st half footballs was due to the weather, but the PSI of the Colt's footballs and the Pats 2nd half footballs didn't have the same weather influences?

Sure it's possible for the PSI of a football to change due to weather, but the fact that only the balls that the Pats used in the first half experienced this change is what still has not been explained.

Why do folks keep ignoring this?

because it's irrelevant --- much like the entire subject and your repeated posting?

don't be a tool. Of course it's relevant to ask why the Colts balls were not deflated but the Pats were.

I'll take a shot at explaining for you.

No one, and certainly not you even know for sure if the Colts balls were measured with a gauge before the game and what the gauge measurements actually read post game.

We do not know for sure why the officials were alerted to check the psi, but there is a strong possibility it was the whiney lame ### colts. I don't know this, but if it is true then the whiney lame ### colts knew ahead of time to make sure they over inflated their footballs.

Did the lame ### colts alert the officials? Don't know, but if they did their balls were probably over inflated.

The truth will come out and I believe the truth is NE did nothing wrong and the colts are whiney tools...........

 

[12punch]

shouldn't this thread be moved to the tool shed?

 

[KarmaPolice]

What he said was that the Patriots heated the air in the ball immediately prior to giving them to the refs, such that the PSI were about a pound high at that point. Then they instructed the refs to inflate them to the minumum required (12.5 PSI). And afterward, when the footballs cooled from the stimulation the Pats applied, the balls lost a pound of PSI. And lost another .5 PSI when they were taken outside.

Even that doesn't account for the (reported) two pounds of lost PSI, though.

 

[Dinsy Ejotuz]

What he said was that the Patriots heated the air in the ball immediately prior to giving them to the refs, such that the PSI were about a pound high at that point. Then they instructed the refs to inflate them to the minumum required (12.5 PSI). And afterward, when the footballs cooled from the stimulation the Pats applied, the balls lost a pound of PSI. And lost another .5 PSI when they were taken outside.

Even that doesn't account for the (reported) two pounds of lost PSI, though.

I honestly have no idea what part of this people are taking issue with?

Is it the linkage between "stimulation" and "heating"?

 

[Workhorse]

Sure it's possible for the PSI of a football to change due to weather, but the fact that only the balls that the Pats used in the first half experienced this change is what still has not been explained.

Why do folks keep ignoring this?

It is the proverbial elephant in the room that people keep pointing to and the response is always "What elephant?" The stock answers seem to be along the lines "Ask the Colts" or "Who cares?" But, it is not irrelevant and a major question that has to be answered if people expect the public to move on from this.

The only thing we know about the Colts footballs is that they measured in the proper range at halftime. That's it. We don't know if/how they measured pre game at all.

 

[theplayer11]

Where's Belichick's evidence? I want to see his data. You guys claim that he did experiments and "science" and yet I see no data sets. Please provide, TIA

I don't want to do my own experiment. I want to replicate the Patriots'. As Bill told me I could do.

actually, horrible posting as the burden of proof is on the NFL to prove the Patriots deliberately did somethingf wrong..that's the word they used.

 

[General Tso]

Bill Nye is an ABC, er ESPN employee. Nuff said.

Bill Nye lives in the Seattle area, is a Seahawks fan, and ended the segment saying "Go Hawks". Nuff said.

Ahh, I see. So should we also disregard the opinions of any Patriot fans, in addition to those presented by actual scientists?

I think it's pretty obvious that Nye's segment was heavily edited by ESPN to cause a stir. Nowhere in that segment does NYe support or refute Belichik's main thesis (that is ow also supported by many others in the science community, including the Carnegie Mellon report we keep linking to in here) that atmospheric conditions alone could reduce the psi in a ball up to 1.9 psi.I have no problem with people having a predisposition, but at least address the facts.

1-the group you keep referring to isn't affiliated with Carnegie Mellon; they are a group of individuals (some of who are students or staff at CM), but they are not a part of the university.2-Why didn't the Colt's balls (or the NE balls) in the 2nd half experience the atmospheric induced changes?

The Colts balls most definitely experienced atmospheric changes in the 2nd half. Science doesn't just work when you want it to. It always works. When the temperature of the air inside the balls drops, the pressure goes down. It's a universally accepted fact.As to why the measurements didn't reflect that? I don't have enough facts (any actually) to draw any conclusions. The NFL hasn't said anything or released anything. For all we know the balls could have been inflated to 13.5 psi and a the end of the game they were all at 12.5. Maybe it has something to do with the way the balls are prepped pregame versus how they aren't prepped at halftime. Maybe the Pats run their pregame balls under a buffing machine before the game and creates some sort of internal temperature spike. I don't know and in my mind it's completely irrelevant. The charge levied against the, is that they illegally tampered with the balls after the refs delivered them to the team 10 minutes before kickoff.

 

[GroveDiesel]

After reading the Carnegie Mellon study, it's pretty clear that they did no such thing as replicate the game conditions. They wet rye balls and just let them sit therein a shelf in 50 degrees.

During the game, the balls were constantly dried off by both the refs and equipment managers. Only one ball at a time was exposed to the elements and it was constantly wiped down by the refs. The other 11 balls were kept nice and dry and warmer while that ball was on play. Further, the ball in play at any time was also constantly being handled by people gripping it, rubbing it, etc, so they would all have an effect on the external and internal temperature of the ball.

The way the balls were handled and treated during the game is so completely different than sitting wet on a shelf that their experiment is totally useless.

saying that they were playing with warm dry footballs during the game doesn't bolster the argument that the patriots gained an in-game advantage. quite the opposite actually

Huh? I didn't say the footballs magically repelled the water. Certainly the exteriors became wet and slippery when put into play. But having a layer of water on the outside of the football that is constantly wiped off is entirely different than being soaked in water and left to sit.

 

[Alkahsu]

Bill Nye is an ABC, er ESPN employee. Nuff said.

Bill Nye lives in the Seattle area, is a Seahawks fan, and ended the segment saying "Go Hawks". Nuff said.

Ahh, I see. So should we also disregard the opinions of any Patriot fans, in addition to those presented by actual scientists?

Let's test this, shall we? Here are some studies by Boston scientists who are Pats fans. If we should trust Bill "Go Hawks" Nye as being objective, do you also trust these guys? http://chronicle.com/blogs/ticker/physics-professors-tackle-the-nfls-ballghazi-scandal/92719?utm_source=social&utm_medium=twitter&utm_campaign=prbuexperts

Heres a quote from that article

" Last Sundays game was played in pouring rain at about 50F, so unless they did the pre-game testing of the balls in a sauna, or the post-game investigation in a meat locker, thermodynamics alone cant get the Patriots off the hook."

 

[theplayer11]

I'm not reading through all of the posts since BB's presser, but I have 3 questions:

BB said that the Pats "prepare" the ball supposedly by roughing them up, to Brady's liking. Then they give them to the refs and have them adjust the ball to 12.5 PSI. Tom Brady has said he likes the ball at 12.5 PSI. If the balls are prepared to Brady's liking, that would imply that they are inflated to 12.5 PSI. Why the need to then ask the refs to inflate them to 12.5 PSI? Shouldn't that already be the case?

Why were all the Colts balls within the official range, if the weather actually caused the change in PSI of the Pat's footballs?

Why didn't the 2nd half balls deflate, since the same "science" that BB refers to should have applied to them?

I understand that scientific tests can be repeated, but in this case, the tests already were repeated, during the 2nd half, and the control group (Colts footballs) and the 2nd test (2nd half) don't support the idea of atmospheric changes. As for the "internal study" that BB mentions (in which he failed to specify exactly what they did) would seem to be coming from a biased group of "scientists" since they obviously had something to gain by producing the result that they are reporting.

Go ask the colts.

It really doesn't matter. The few remaining ones left who are still confused because they didn't follow yesterday's events are likely wondering what happened.

But it's simple. Psi changes. BB proved that. Who cares about what the psi is for this and the psi is for that. That really wasn't his point. His point is that psi isn't an exact science, it changes based in a variety of factors, and the NFL has no business investigating psi during a game, as in cold weather games psi is likely to be far lower than it was when the officials measured it.

Go ask the Colts? Nice cop out.

BB kind of lost all credibility in the press conference when he said they don't do anything that would cross the line or even approach the line.

Link to anything that he has done since Spygate that has crossed the line?

So we are going to just ignore spygate when he claims they don't do anything that approaches the line? Didn't they get fined a small amount for that? He can claim he wasn't doing anything that anybody else wasn't doing. But that doesn't mean he wasn't crossing or approaching the line.

Were you listening to the presser? He said they got punished for that and have not done anything since then that crosses the line of the rules since that happened. Many people seem to think this is incorrect, but when asked, can't give any other times where they have crossed the lines. This "culture of cheating" crap is just ignorant.

wait..but they tried to deceive the Ravens by using legal formations that no one else has done..cheaters I tell you.

 

[Bojang0301]

85 pages of butt hurt. How sad. I haven't even seen a senior bowl or shrine bowl thread. What is going on around here? How much discussion can you have about PSI? I don't even think Ray Rice's video coming out caused this much madness. And I still say that Andy Dalton as a 7th alternate in the Pro Bowl is more pathetic.

 

[General Tso]

2 camps battling here

camp 1 - I want the pats to be cleared and found innocent no matter the findings

camp 2 - I want the pats found to be guilty cheaters no matter the findings

hard to have a normal conversation between 2 such camps ...its like watching verbal tennis ...back and forth each trying to beat the other ...but this match will never end ...ever

I agree, but at least camp 2 is willing to stick to their guns. Camp 1 just completely changes their stance every time they think they've found something that can help them.

IE, 30 pages back camp 1 was finding quotes from every scientist they could about the weather's affect on PSI. Now, when a scientist says something that doesn't befit them, they literally just said "the opinion of a scientist shouldn't matter".

Likewise, they went on for page after page driveling on about how no one should make any judgements until every last bit of hard evidence has been found and verified. Then Belichick comes on TV and claims to have done an experiment (oooh, an experiment controlled by the accused, as if that would ever fly) without any actual evidence as to that experiment and they immediately jump off the "we have to wait until all the facts are out" stance and into "case closed, and you're all complete idiots for even ever considering this".

What? You call the Bill Nye segment science? He may be a science guy, but that was not science. He said that what Belichik said about rubbing the balls didn't make sense. That's it. He didn't support it with facts. He made a one line statement, and now camp 2 is taking that as gospel that the entirety of what Belichik said is false. It's ridiculous.Bottom line, camp 2 is the guys running around with tin foil hats. Camp 1 is home to some of best colleges, research universities and high tech firms in the world. And I've seen several of these folks come out and provide ample scientific data proving that psi changes of as much as 2.0 can occur simply through a change in atmospheric conditions. I haven't seen one bit of scientific data or experiment from camp 1 to dispute this. Not one.

The NFL picked the wrong town to #### with. Boston is home to some of the smartest people in the world.

 

[General Tso]

If it is this simple than why did 0 of 12 colt balls fail to lose > 0.5 PSI when exposed to the same "atmospheric conditions"??

You won't find a link. He made it up.

 

[12punch]

salty trolls straight up embarrassing themselves in this thread

level of education in this country is shameful

 

[GoBirds]

There's really not enough evidence to conclude anything at this point. Just because the accused cheater has an excuse doesn't make this any closer to being resolved then it was a few days ago.

 

[squistion]

The NFL picked the wrong town to #### with. Boston is home to some of the smartest people in the world.

Seattle arguably is smarter, or at least beat out Boston in 2013

http://blogs.seattletimes.com/today/2013/11/seattle-named-smartest-city-in-north-america/

Seattle named smartest city in North America

Seattle is the continents smartest city, according to new rankings by the business magazine Fast Company. The Emerald City moved into the top spot from last years third-place showing. [...]

Here is the complete list of top-10 cities:

1. Seattle

2. Boston (tie)

2. San Francisco (tie)

4. Washington D.C.

5. New York

6. Toronto

7. Vancouver

8. Portland

9. Chicago

10. Montreal

 

[moleculo]

What he said was that the Patriots heated the air in the ball immediately prior to giving them to the refs, such that the PSI were about a pound high at that point. Then they instructed the refs to inflate them to the minumum required (12.5 PSI). And afterward, when the footballs cooled from the stimulation the Pats applied, the balls lost a pound of PSI. And lost another .5 PSI when they were taken outside.

Even that doesn't account for the (reported) two pounds of lost PSI, though.

None of this is what he said. Also the accusation was that the balls were almost 2psi low, not 2psi. That could mean 1.6 or 1.99.

acually, the accusation was that 11 of 12 were at least 2 psi. That could mean up to 10 psi low.

 

[Chaz McNulty]

2 camps battling here

camp 1 - I want the pats to be cleared and found innocent no matter the findings

camp 2 - I want the pats found to be guilty cheaters no matter the findings

hard to have a normal conversation between 2 such camps ...its like watching verbal tennis ...back and forth each trying to beat the other ...but this match will never end ...ever

I agree, but at least camp 2 is willing to stick to their guns. Camp 1 just completely changes their stance every time they think they've found something that can help them.

IE, 30 pages back camp 1 was finding quotes from every scientist they could about the weather's affect on PSI. Now, when a scientist says something that doesn't befit them, they literally just said "the opinion of a scientist shouldn't matter".

Likewise, they went on for page after page driveling on about how no one should make any judgements until every last bit of hard evidence has been found and verified. Then Belichick comes on TV and claims to have done an experiment (oooh, an experiment controlled by the accused, as if that would ever fly) without any actual evidence as to that experiment and they immediately jump off the "we have to wait until all the facts are out" stance and into "case closed, and you're all complete idiots for even ever considering this".

What? You call the Bill Nye segment science? He may be a science guy, but that was not science. He said that what Belichik said about rubbing the balls didn't make sense. That's it. He didn't support it with facts. He made a one line statement, and now camp 2 is taking that as gospel that the entirety of what Belichik said is false. It's ridiculous.Bottom line, camp 2 is the guys running around with tin foil hats. Camp 1 is home to some of best colleges, research universities and high tech firms in the world. And I've seen several of these folks come out and provide ample scientific data proving that psi changes of as much as 2.0 can occur simply through a change in atmospheric conditions. I haven't seen one bit of scientific data or experiment from camp 1 to dispute this. Not one.

The NFL picked the wrong town to #### with. Boston is home to some of the smartest people in the world.

If it is this simple than why did 0 of 12 colt balls fail to lose > 0.5 PSI when exposed to the same "atmospheric conditions"??

You won't find a link. He made it up.

I wonder why the 12th Pat's ball defied science and didn't lose any PSI?

 

[General Tso]

There's really not enough evidence to conclude anything at this point. Just because the accused cheater has an excuse doesn't make this any closer to being resolved then it was a few days ago.

I think it's safe to say that the Pat's not tampering with the balls is just about as factual as the Eagles not making the playoffs this year.

 

[GoBirds]

There's really not enough evidence to conclude anything at this point. Just because the accused cheater has an excuse doesn't make this any closer to being resolved then it was a few days ago.

I think it's safe to say that the Pat's not tampering with the balls is just about as factual as the Eagles not making the playoffs this year.

Everyone knows not to take your biased views seriously after you murdered the Dez thread. Your 2 for 2 on looking like a complete clown. Actually probably many more that I fortunately haven't had to witness.

 

[NE_REVIVAL]

2 camps battling here

camp 1 - I want the pats to be cleared and found innocent no matter the findings

camp 2 - I want the pats found to be guilty cheaters no matter the findings

hard to have a normal conversation between 2 such camps ...its like watching verbal tennis ...back and forth each trying to beat the other ...but this match will never end ...ever

I agree, but at least camp 2 is willing to stick to their guns. Camp 1 just completely changes their stance every time they think they've found something that can help them.

IE, 30 pages back camp 1 was finding quotes from every scientist they could about the weather's affect on PSI. Now, when a scientist says something that doesn't befit them, they literally just said "the opinion of a scientist shouldn't matter".

Likewise, they went on for page after page driveling on about how no one should make any judgements until every last bit of hard evidence has been found and verified. Then Belichick comes on TV and claims to have done an experiment (oooh, an experiment controlled by the accused, as if that would ever fly) without any actual evidence as to that experiment and they immediately jump off the "we have to wait until all the facts are out" stance and into "case closed, and you're all complete idiots for even ever considering this".

What? You call the Bill Nye segment science? He may be a science guy, but that was not science. He said that what Belichik said about rubbing the balls didn't make sense. That's it. He didn't support it with facts. He made a one line statement, and now camp 2 is taking that as gospel that the entirety of what Belichik said is false. It's ridiculous.Bottom line, camp 2 is the guys running around with tin foil hats. Camp 1 is home to some of best colleges, research universities and high tech firms in the world. And I've seen several of these folks come out and provide ample scientific data proving that psi changes of as much as 2.0 can occur simply through a change in atmospheric conditions. I haven't seen one bit of scientific data or experiment from camp 1 to dispute this. Not one.

The NFL picked the wrong town to #### with. Boston is home to some of the smartest people in the world.

If it is this simple than why did 0 of 12 colt balls fail to lose > 0.5 PSI when exposed to the same "atmospheric conditions"??

You won't find a link. He made it up.

I wonder why the 12th Pat's ball defied science and didn't lose any PSI?

I wonder why you would embarrass yourself and say something that wasn't true?

 

[moleculo]

Sure it's possible for the PSI of a football to change due to weather, but the fact that only the balls that the Pats used in the first half experienced this change is what still has not been explained.

Why do folks keep ignoring this?

Because it's not true.

Or at least, we don't know if it's true.

I don't believe I have seen any credible source definitively report that the Pats balls CHANGED by 2 psi. What I have seen reported is that the Pats balls, when measured at halftime, were under inflated. Big difference, and it gets to the central question that remains unresolved in here (unless you talk to moleculo or wdcrob) that the balls were gauge tested pregame.Furthermore, even if they were gauge tested pregame, we have already seen a scientific study by an independent college providing that the atmospheric conditions in play that night would have resulted in a psi reduction of 1.8 to 1.9 psi.

The Colts balls are only relevant as a control if they were psi tested along with the Pats balls both pregame and at halftime, and even then there are certain variables that would have to be considered before any definitive conclusions could be drawn.

technically, we haven't seen any credible reports on ANYTHING. If you want do discredit the Boston Globe and ESPN, fine. I would also discredit Belichick as he has the most to lose here.

Secondly, we have not see na scientific study by an independent college. We saw a youtube video put together by some guys who went to college, who found a resonable explanation for ball deflation less than what was reported (last I checked, 1.9 is less than "at least 2").

Thirdly, it's very possible that the costs balls were tested as a control.

You are correct however when you say that "there are certain variables that would have to be considered before any definitive conclusions could be drawn," which includes the conclusion that the Patriots are in the clear. We (as in the general public) won't know all the facts until the NFL wraps up their investigation and releases their report.

 

[espnespn]

After reading the Carnegie Mellon study, it's pretty clear that they did no such thing as replicate the game conditions. They wet rye balls and just let them sit therein a shelf in 50 degrees.

During the game, the balls were constantly dried off by both the refs and equipment managers. Only one ball at a time was exposed to the elements and it was constantly wiped down by the refs. The other 11 balls were kept nice and dry and warmer while that ball was on play. Further, the ball in play at any time was also constantly being handled by people gripping it, rubbing it, etc, so they would all have an effect on the external and internal temperature of the ball.

The way the balls were handled and treated during the game is so completely different than sitting wet on a shelf that their experiment is totally useless.

saying that they were playing with warm dry footballs during the game doesn't bolster the argument that the patriots gained an in-game advantage. quite the opposite actually

Huh? I didn't say the footballs magically repelled the water. Certainly the exteriors became wet and slippery when put into play. But having a layer of water on the outside of the football that is constantly wiped off is entirely different than being soaked in water and left to sit.

The HeadSmart video explains that 2 factors can decrease football PSI.

1) Colder temperature: This is generally accepted as true by most rational scientists. If you have scientific proof that colder temperature does *not* decrease football PSI, please let everyone know at once. Your "discovery" could win you the Nobel Prize because it would overturn the Ideal Gas Law.

2) Water: Leather will absorb some of the water and expand, which increases the volume of the football, but decrease the football PSI. HeadSmart soaked the ball 1x and let it sit there -- but water beads, so some parts of the football lose contact with water very quickly. Someone could argue that game conditions are even worse because the football is soaked repeatedly. Sure it is wiped off, but that means it is dry for a few seconds before it is wet again by the rain. The only way to prove or disprove which is worse, is with an experiment.

In any event, saying their experiment is "totally useless" is inaccurate. It absolutely proves again that cold temperature decreases PSI. Reasonable people can argue over how much PSI is lost from wet leather. But none of that proves that the Patriots deflated any balls.

If you really dispute the HeadSmart video, why don't you post a video of your own experiment and let us know the results?

 

[General Tso]

2 camps battling here

camp 1 - I want the pats to be cleared and found innocent no matter the findings

camp 2 - I want the pats found to be guilty cheaters no matter the findings

hard to have a normal conversation between 2 such camps ...its like watching verbal tennis ...back and forth each trying to beat the other ...but this match will never end ...ever

I agree, but at least camp 2 is willing to stick to their guns. Camp 1 just completely changes their stance every time they think they've found something that can help them.

IE, 30 pages back camp 1 was finding quotes from every scientist they could about the weather's affect on PSI. Now, when a scientist says something that doesn't befit them, they literally just said "the opinion of a scientist shouldn't matter".

Likewise, they went on for page after page driveling on about how no one should make any judgements until every last bit of hard evidence has been found and verified. Then Belichick comes on TV and claims to have done an experiment (oooh, an experiment controlled by the accused, as if that would ever fly) without any actual evidence as to that experiment and they immediately jump off the "we have to wait until all the facts are out" stance and into "case closed, and you're all complete idiots for even ever considering this".

What? You call the Bill Nye segment science? He may be a science guy, but that was not science. He said that what Belichik said about rubbing the balls didn't make sense. That's it. He didn't support it with facts. He made a one line statement, and now camp 2 is taking that as gospel that the entirety of what Belichik said is false. It's ridiculous.Bottom line, camp 2 is the guys running around with tin foil hats. Camp 1 is home to some of best colleges, research universities and high tech firms in the world. And I've seen several of these folks come out and provide ample scientific data proving that psi changes of as much as 2.0 can occur simply through a change in atmospheric conditions. I haven't seen one bit of scientific data or experiment from camp 1 to dispute this. Not one.

The NFL picked the wrong town to #### with. Boston is home to some of the smartest people in the world.

If it is this simple than why did 0 of 12 colt balls fail to lose > 0.5 PSI when exposed to the same "atmospheric conditions"??

You won't find a link. He made it up.

I wonder why the 12th Pat's ball defied science and didn't lose any PSI?

Once again, there has been no credible report that a 12th ball "did not lose psi". Do some research please before posting such nonsense. We don't know even know for sure if any of the balls were even measured pregame. What we know is that 11 of the 12 balls were under inflated at halftime. We don't even know if they measured 12 balls. I have read some postings only in the Boston cites claiming that after his first touchdown run Blount gave the ball to someone in the stands.

 

[theplayer11]

Sure it's possible for the PSI of a football to change due to weather, but the fact that only the balls that the Pats used in the first half experienced this change is what still has not been explained.

Why do folks keep ignoring this?

It is the proverbial elephant in the room that people keep pointing to and the response is always "What elephant?" The stock answers seem to be along the lines "Ask the Colts" or "Who cares?" But, it is not irrelevant and a major question that has to be answered if people expect the public to move on from this.

not relevany at all. The NFL must prove the Patriots dekiberately did something wrong. Period end of story.

 

[Bossman]

That's not what Belichick said. You probably need to go back and read it again.

"I believe now 100% that I have personally, and we as an organization, have absolutely followed every rule to the letter." - Bill Belichick

That's all I need to hear.

No way he makes this statement if there was any chance someone manipulated the ball after they were approved for play by NFL officials.

The balls were likely slightly under inflated when they were approved for play. This would explain EVERYTHING.

Not Cheating.

 

[General Tso]

There's really not enough evidence to conclude anything at this point. Just because the accused cheater has an excuse doesn't make this any closer to being resolved then it was a few days ago.

I think it's safe to say that the Pat's not tampering with the balls is just about as factual as the Eagles not making the playoffs this year.

Everyone knows not to take your biased views seriously after you murdered the Dez thread. Your 2 for 2 on looking like a complete clown. Actually probably many more that I fortunately haven't had to witness.

Well, grammatical butchering aside, your threads are about as worthwhile as #### on a bull. I honestly don't mind people espousing their own views, hardened as they may be, if they are at least supported with some facts, information or links that bring some value to the intellectual discourse. I may disagree with guys like moleculo or wdcrob, but I respect what they bring to the discussion. You, not so much.Enjoy the Pro Bowl!

 

[moleculo]

After reading the Carnegie Mellon study, it's pretty clear that they did no such thing as replicate the game conditions. They wet rye balls and just let them sit therein a shelf in 50 degrees.

During the game, the balls were constantly dried off by both the refs and equipment managers. Only one ball at a time was exposed to the elements and it was constantly wiped down by the refs. The other 11 balls were kept nice and dry and warmer while that ball was on play. Further, the ball in play at any time was also constantly being handled by people gripping it, rubbing it, etc, so they would all have an effect on the external and internal temperature of the ball.

The way the balls were handled and treated during the game is so completely different than sitting wet on a shelf that their experiment is totally useless.

saying that they were playing with warm dry footballs during the game doesn't bolster the argument that the patriots gained an in-game advantage. quite the opposite actually

Huh? I didn't say the footballs magically repelled the water. Certainly the exteriors became wet and slippery when put into play. But having a layer of water on the outside of the football that is constantly wiped off is entirely different than being soaked in water and left to sit.

The HeadSmart video explains that 2 factors can decrease football PSI.

1) Colder temperature: This is generally accepted as true by most rational scientists. If you have scientific proof that colder temperature does *not* decrease football PSI, please let everyone know at once. Your "discovery" could win you the Nobel Prize because it would overturn the Ideal Gas Law.

2) Water: Leather will absorb some of the water and expand, which increases the volume of the football, but decrease the football PSI. HeadSmart soaked the ball 1x and let it sit there -- but water beads, so some parts of the football lose contact with water very quickly. Someone could argue that game conditions are even worse because the football is soaked repeatedly. Sure it is wiped off, but that means it is dry for a few seconds before it is wet again by the rain. The only way to prove or disprove which is worse, is with an experiment.

In any event, saying their experiment is "totally useless" is inaccurate. It absolutely proves again that cold temperature decreases PSI. Reasonable people can argue over how much PSI is lost from wet leather. But none of that proves that the Patriots deflated any balls.

If you really dispute the HeadSmart video, why don't you post a video of your own experiment and let us know the results?

technically, the treatment that most NFL QB's put the balls through is to remove the waterproofing as a means to improve tackyness. HeadSmart folks did not do this, and therefore doctored balls would be more likely to absorb water.

 

[GoBirds]

There's really not enough evidence to conclude anything at this point. Just because the accused cheater has an excuse doesn't make this any closer to being resolved then it was a few days ago.

I think it's safe to say that the Pat's not tampering with the balls is just about as factual as the Eagles not making the playoffs this year.

Everyone knows not to take your biased views seriously after you murdered the Dez thread. Your 2 for 2 on looking like a complete clown. Actually probably many more that I fortunately haven't had to witness.

Well, grammatical butchering aside, your threads are about as worthwhile as #### on a bull. I honestly don't mind people espousing their own views, hardened as they may be, if they are at least supported with some facts, information or links that bring some value to the intellectual discourse. I may disagree with guys like moleculo or wdcrob, but I respect what they bring to the discussion. You, not so much.Enjoy the Pro Bowl!

Your ignorance doesn't justify it, just interesting to watch your need for attention and redundant BS.

 

[KarmaPolice]

What he said was that the Patriots heated the air in the ball immediately prior to giving them to the refs, such that the PSI were about a pound high at that point. Then they instructed the refs to inflate them to the minumum required (12.5 PSI). And afterward, when the footballs cooled from the stimulation the Pats applied, the balls lost a pound of PSI. And lost another .5 PSI when they were taken outside.

Even that doesn't account for the (reported) two pounds of lost PSI, though.

I honestly have no idea what part of this people are taking issue with?Is it the linkage between "stimulation" and "heating"?

No, it is that they are not paying attention. Bill explained how they came up with the "around 2psi" difference that was reported.

 

[TDorBust]

If it is this simple than why did 0 of 12 colt balls fail to lose > 0.5 PSI when exposed to the same "atmospheric conditions"??

Show me a link stating 1 failed? Since when is having legal equipment a story? Can you show me a link where Aaron Rodgers stripes on his pants were wide enough? Do you have reference to Russel Wilson wearing a legal face mask last Sunday?I think the non report of any Colts balls being reported as under inflated is enough to go to the assumption nothing was wrong with them. We potentially will never hear specifically from the NFL the results if any from tested Colts balls.

I know one thing about this thread without reading it all; Patriot fans are trying to come up with any excuse to show their team did nothing wrong when in reality they can not show once source from the NFL that states that fact at the current time. So man up be willing to understand the Patriots potentially did something wrong and wait for the NFL to come out with its findings.

 

[Run It Up]

The amount this gets repeated as fact is ridiculous.

We don't know where the Pats balls were measured period. We don't know where/when the Colts balls were measured.

The Pats balls were measured at half time, they had already reached an equilibrium with the elements, so when measured they would still have been underinflated.

All 24 balls were delivered to the officials and requested to be filled to 12.5 psi, the officials then chose 12 of the balls to be game balls and 12 to be back up balls. They were then supposed to inflate them to 12.5 psi, whether they did we still don't know. According to BB, the method used to prepare their balls produces a 1psi increase. When delivered to the official the balls would have been artificially (in contrast to the natural atmospheric conditions) inflated.

When and where they measured the Colts balls are just as if not more important to how their balls were prepared.

People running around screaming about the Colts balls have no idea what they are talking about cause that information hasn't been released other than "they were measured and found to be in line". Which, much like the rest of the information that has been parroted over and over this week, was either completely wrong or based entirely off someones assumption.

 

[General Tso]

That's not what Belichick said. You probably need to go back and read it again.

"I believe now 100% that I have personally, and we as an organization, have absolutely followed every rule to the letter." - Bill BelichickThat's all I need to hear.

Now way he makes this statement if there was any chance someone manipulated the ball after they were approved for play by NFL officials.

The balls were likely slightly under inflated when they were approved for play. This would explain EVERYTHING.

Not Cheating.

Great post. That was my main takeaway as well. There is no way in hell Bill would have put his career and his legacy on the line with such an emphatic statement like that unless he was 100% confident there was no wrongdoing. I've worked in public relations and it's very rare to see such a line drawn in the sand. You never see it done on something this controversial. It was an extraordinary denial, and in my opinion would not have been made until he grilled Brady and the equipment folks and was 100% certain that the balls weren't tampered with.

 

[cmv5]

It has been reported that the 12th ball was underinflated. http://www.sportingnews.com/nfl/story/2015-01-21/ex-nfl-referee-all-12-patriot-footballs-were-underinflated-new-england-tom-brady-bill-belichick This has been reported MULTIPLE times. Here's another http://www.si.com/nfl/2015/01/20/new-england-patriots-deflated-footballs-nfl-investigation

Please show me where it has been reported that the Colts balls stayed at exactly the same psi the entire game. All the Colts had to do was have footballs remain in the range of 11.5 to 12.5. Not hard to do. What is odd is for a football to lose 2 pounds in the course of a game. Just stop.