Patriots being investigated after Colts game (5 Viewers)

[Dr. Octopus]

The Pats cheated by submitting balls to the refs that were under inflated. It doesn't matter if the refs checked them and inflated them, the intent to cheat was there. Just another in the long list of Patriots underhanded moves. BB should be banned for life Brady suspended for four years and they should lose all their draft picks for the next ten years along with a 10 million $ fine.

Also they should be made to apologize to the other coaches and owners

could you gives examples of this "long list of underhanded moves" please?

well they could say the time the pats used a snow plow to clear a spot for the kicker...but it wasnt against the rules at the time .

spygate...ill give them that one .

what else ?

Patriot fans are now getting trolled by other Patriot fans. It's time to blow this thing up.

 

[moleculo]

If all this cold weather makes the balls flat theory was true, how come when games are played in way colder temps has this never been brought up? At some point in time wouldn't someone involved in a 0 degree game at green bay say, those balls were really getting flat by halftime? All I ever hear is how the balls are really hard from the cold.

because the cold would effect both teams balls equally. neither team gains a competitive advantage.

 

[mbuehner]

If all this cold weather makes the balls flat theory was true, how come when games are played in way colder temps has this never been brought up? At some point in time wouldn't someone involved in a 0 degree game at green bay say, those balls were really getting flat by halftime? All I ever hear is how the balls are really hard from the cold.

This is a perfect argument for why a 2psi drop in pressure is not nearly as noticeable as people are so certain of.

 

[mbuehner]

If all this cold weather makes the balls flat theory was true, how come when games are played in way colder temps has this never been brought up? At some point in time wouldn't someone involved in a 0 degree game at green bay say, those balls were really getting flat by halftime? All I ever hear is how the balls are really hard from the cold.

because it's an incredibly minor detail and nobody in the history of the nfl gives a ####

oh, sry -- I mean other than homeless people ranting about it --- I meant actual normal adults

a couple psi does not make a ####### football ####### flat, unless you're some kind of mental patient

ps

and apparently those balls in green bay you mentioned are pumped way the #### over the limit to begin with , so 0 degrees probably just brings them back down to barely legal (sorry, googlers)

Pretty much. I'm still waiting for the tin foil Fumble hatters to show evidence that teams fumble an order of magnitude less is below zero games.

 

[12punch]

HEY GUISE WHY HAS NOBODY MENTIONED THAT THE COLTS BALLZ WERENT DEFLATED??!

 

[mbuehner]

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

The science is what it is. Dismissing it doesn't mean it is not true.

Again, this isn't actually "science." These individuals don't show how they dropped the temperature (how fast/slow), and soaking footballs in water isn't the same as having them get rained on and dried off (and repeating the process, over and over). This is a youtube video that may/may not be based on a legitimate scientific test, but this video, in and of itself, isn't science. Saying it is doesn't make it so.

I think I read somewhere that it takes about 30 minutes for a room temperature football to cool down to 50 degrees or so (reach equilibrium). If the football was wet (and it was), it should reach equilibrium faster because water conducts heat faster than air. Like how 72 degree air feels comfortable, but 72 degree water feels cold.

The HeadSmart experiment isn't exactly like the game conditions, but it is fairly close. At this point, we are arguing over minor differences. For example, I could easily argue that every measurement of PSI by the refs drops the PSI: each time you stick in the gauge, the football lets out air and makes a brief whooshing noise. How many times did the refs check the PSI of Patriots balls? That could make the PSI lower than what the HeadSmart video shows.

Not arguing over minor differences, as I previously noted, that video may be based on a legitimate scientific experiment. The video itself, however, isn't "science," and as such the post/argument that "the science is what it is. Dismissing it doesn't make it true" is flawed at it's very concept. I've seen numerous people trying to use science to prove their point on BOTH sides of this debate. Your statement that "arguing with my science doesn't make it true" could be made by people on the other side of the debate who have "science" that they believes supports their position. As far as I've seen, there isn't any "science" that seems to be totally conclusive.

One of the purposes of a scientific experiment is to be open about your methodology, so other people can test and refine the experiment.

I agree that the HeadSmart experiment does not perfectly reflect game conditions. But can you point to any experiment that improves on the flaws, and does not create other flaws? Just saying that an experiment is not perfect, does not mean you have disproved the underlying conclusion.

Bill Nye and Neil Tyson are scientists, but they did not run their own experiments disproving the HeadSmart video, so they have no basis to dispute it. Actually, they've made factually incorrect statements about temperature not affecting PSI and the 15% PSI difference.

I never said I disproved the underlying conclusion. I said that video isn't any kind of "science" that can't be argued with. In fact, I specifically said the video may be based on a perfectly legitimate experiment.

In my opinion, a legitimate experiment would have had a control group.

*wanders off*

You want a football sitting on a shelf not undergoing any changes whatsoever to prove the Ideal Gas Law works? Allrrrright.

 

[Morton Muffley]

If all this cold weather makes the balls flat theory was true, how come when games are played in way colder temps has this never been brought up? At some point in time wouldn't someone involved in a 0 degree game at green bay say, those balls were really getting flat by halftime? All I ever hear is how the balls are really hard from the cold.

Maybe it's because people (QBs, referees, centers, etc) can't tell the difference of 2-3 psi when they aren't actually looking for it?

Or maybe it's because Wilson has created a magic ball that is immune to the laws of nature?

I guess this is one of those mysteries we'll never solve.

 

[Bayhawks]

RE: Ideal Gas Law

This has been thrown about in this thread numerous times, and I'm not sure if this website is correctly calculating things or not, but I decided to try to apply the Ideal Gas Law to this situation.

The Ideal Gas Law equation is pV = nRT, where P=pressure, V=volume, n=number of moles, R=the gas constant, and T=temperature

To use the Ideal Gas Law to determine air pressure, it seems you need to know the temperature, volume of an object & moles of the gas being used.

An NFL football is 4237 cm3 link

Assuming oxygen was used to fill the footballs, according to the calculator on the website I linked, there would be .149252 moles of oxygen in an NFL football, inflated to 12.5 PSI, at 70% degrees.

If you use the same calculator, using 50 degrees (F) as the temperature, .149252 as the moles, and 4237cm3 as the volume of the football, the PSI of the football would be 12.028. If these calculations are correct, then the temperature couldn't have caused the footballs to drop by 2 PSI (although these calculations don't factor in moisture). If the reports of only a drop of 1 PSI are accurate, though, this would explain it.

Can someone with more knowledge of how to use this equation check my work?

What's with the lmao emoticon? Since there are people arguing that the Ideal Gas Law is proof for one side or the other, why is it so funny to actually examine that concept?

maybe because people who actually know wtf they are doing have been examining it for a week and posted 100+ pages that you just tacked your post it on the end of.

if you don't know the difference between air and oxygen I'd suggest leaving science to people who do.

NO ONE in this thread has actually tried to apply the Ideal Gas Law; many people have referred to it, many people have tried to claim it proves their view right, but no one has tried to actually use it.

I used the word oxygen, to specify that no other type of gas was being used. I clarified this already. Don't be a richard.

Please feel free to correctly apply the Ideal Gas Law equation, but since you haven't, I'm going to guess that you don't know how.

 

[mbuehner]

If all this cold weather makes the balls flat theory was true, how come when games are played in way colder temps has this never been brought up? At some point in time wouldn't someone involved in a 0 degree game at green bay say, those balls were really getting flat by halftime? All I ever hear is how the balls are really hard from the cold.

because the cold would effect both teams balls equally. neither team gains a competitive advantage.

True but the point is (as far as I know) no QB in history has noted how different a ball feels when the temp is zero degrees. If its such an obvious difference than every QB would instantly feel the difference, it would be a known thing.

And if 2psi is the reason the Pats are so good at not losing fumbles, you would think the outdoor games in the winter would have a lot less fumbles. A lot less.

 

[espnespn]

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

The science is what it is. Dismissing it doesn't mean it is not true.

Again, this isn't actually "science." These individuals don't show how they dropped the temperature (how fast/slow), and soaking footballs in water isn't the same as having them get rained on and dried off (and repeating the process, over and over). This is a youtube video that may/may not be based on a legitimate scientific test, but this video, in and of itself, isn't science. Saying it is doesn't make it so.

I think I read somewhere that it takes about 30 minutes for a room temperature football to cool down to 50 degrees or so (reach equilibrium). If the football was wet (and it was), it should reach equilibrium faster because water conducts heat faster than air. Like how 72 degree air feels comfortable, but 72 degree water feels cold.

The HeadSmart experiment isn't exactly like the game conditions, but it is fairly close. At this point, we are arguing over minor differences. For example, I could easily argue that every measurement of PSI by the refs drops the PSI: each time you stick in the gauge, the football lets out air and makes a brief whooshing noise. How many times did the refs check the PSI of Patriots balls? That could make the PSI lower than what the HeadSmart video shows.

Not arguing over minor differences, as I previously noted, that video may be based on a legitimate scientific experiment. The video itself, however, isn't "science," and as such the post/argument that "the science is what it is. Dismissing it doesn't make it true" is flawed at it's very concept. I've seen numerous people trying to use science to prove their point on BOTH sides of this debate. Your statement that "arguing with my science doesn't make it true" could be made by people on the other side of the debate who have "science" that they believes supports their position. As far as I've seen, there isn't any "science" that seems to be totally conclusive.

One of the purposes of a scientific experiment is to be open about your methodology, so other people can test and refine the experiment.

I agree that the HeadSmart experiment does not perfectly reflect game conditions. But can you point to any experiment that improves on the flaws, and does not create other flaws? Just saying that an experiment is not perfect, does not mean you have disproved the underlying conclusion.

Bill Nye and Neil Tyson are scientists, but they did not run their own experiments disproving the HeadSmart video, so they have no basis to dispute it. Actually, they've made factually incorrect statements about temperature not affecting PSI and the 15% PSI difference.

I never said I disproved the underlying conclusion. I said that video isn't any kind of "science" that can't be argued with. In fact, I specifically said the video may be based on a perfectly legitimate experiment.

Generally, if someone wants to argue science, I hope they have competing evidence to argue with. Otherwise, what's their point?

Btw, when I said in Post #5227: "The science is what it is. Dismissing it doesn't mean it is not true." that was in response to someone who said: "I think the whole thing is silly but don't blame the weather."

Someone who says the weather didn't affect PSI is factually incorrect. Because the science shows that weather does affect PSI. I don't think there is any legitimate argument about that.

 

[CapnJB]

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

The science is what it is. Dismissing it doesn't mean it is not true.

Again, this isn't actually "science." These individuals don't show how they dropped the temperature (how fast/slow), and soaking footballs in water isn't the same as having them get rained on and dried off (and repeating the process, over and over). This is a youtube video that may/may not be based on a legitimate scientific test, but this video, in and of itself, isn't science. Saying it is doesn't make it so.

I think I read somewhere that it takes about 30 minutes for a room temperature football to cool down to 50 degrees or so (reach equilibrium). If the football was wet (and it was), it should reach equilibrium faster because water conducts heat faster than air. Like how 72 degree air feels comfortable, but 72 degree water feels cold.

The HeadSmart experiment isn't exactly like the game conditions, but it is fairly close. At this point, we are arguing over minor differences. For example, I could easily argue that every measurement of PSI by the refs drops the PSI: each time you stick in the gauge, the football lets out air and makes a brief whooshing noise. How many times did the refs check the PSI of Patriots balls? That could make the PSI lower than what the HeadSmart video shows.

Not arguing over minor differences, as I previously noted, that video may be based on a legitimate scientific experiment. The video itself, however, isn't "science," and as such the post/argument that "the science is what it is. Dismissing it doesn't make it true" is flawed at it's very concept. I've seen numerous people trying to use science to prove their point on BOTH sides of this debate. Your statement that "arguing with my science doesn't make it true" could be made by people on the other side of the debate who have "science" that they believes supports their position. As far as I've seen, there isn't any "science" that seems to be totally conclusive.

One of the purposes of a scientific experiment is to be open about your methodology, so other people can test and refine the experiment.

I agree that the HeadSmart experiment does not perfectly reflect game conditions. But can you point to any experiment that improves on the flaws, and does not create other flaws? Just saying that an experiment is not perfect, does not mean you have disproved the underlying conclusion.

Bill Nye and Neil Tyson are scientists, but they did not run their own experiments disproving the HeadSmart video, so they have no basis to dispute it. Actually, they've made factually incorrect statements about temperature not affecting PSI and the 15% PSI difference.

I never said I disproved the underlying conclusion. I said that video isn't any kind of "science" that can't be argued with. In fact, I specifically said the video may be based on a perfectly legitimate experiment.

In my opinion, a legitimate experiment would have had a control group.

*wanders off*

You want a football sitting on a shelf not undergoing any changes whatsoever to prove the Ideal Gas Law works? Allrrrright.

Or to alleviate the assumption that the balls were depressurizing regardless of the temperature. I work in a GLP environment. My brain makes me think these things.

 

[mbuehner]

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

The science is what it is. Dismissing it doesn't mean it is not true.

Again, this isn't actually "science." These individuals don't show how they dropped the temperature (how fast/slow), and soaking footballs in water isn't the same as having them get rained on and dried off (and repeating the process, over and over). This is a youtube video that may/may not be based on a legitimate scientific test, but this video, in and of itself, isn't science. Saying it is doesn't make it so.

I think I read somewhere that it takes about 30 minutes for a room temperature football to cool down to 50 degrees or so (reach equilibrium). If the football was wet (and it was), it should reach equilibrium faster because water conducts heat faster than air. Like how 72 degree air feels comfortable, but 72 degree water feels cold.

The HeadSmart experiment isn't exactly like the game conditions, but it is fairly close. At this point, we are arguing over minor differences. For example, I could easily argue that every measurement of PSI by the refs drops the PSI: each time you stick in the gauge, the football lets out air and makes a brief whooshing noise. How many times did the refs check the PSI of Patriots balls? That could make the PSI lower than what the HeadSmart video shows.

Not arguing over minor differences, as I previously noted, that video may be based on a legitimate scientific experiment. The video itself, however, isn't "science," and as such the post/argument that "the science is what it is. Dismissing it doesn't make it true" is flawed at it's very concept. I've seen numerous people trying to use science to prove their point on BOTH sides of this debate. Your statement that "arguing with my science doesn't make it true" could be made by people on the other side of the debate who have "science" that they believes supports their position. As far as I've seen, there isn't any "science" that seems to be totally conclusive.

One of the purposes of a scientific experiment is to be open about your methodology, so other people can test and refine the experiment.

I agree that the HeadSmart experiment does not perfectly reflect game conditions. But can you point to any experiment that improves on the flaws, and does not create other flaws? Just saying that an experiment is not perfect, does not mean you have disproved the underlying conclusion.

Bill Nye and Neil Tyson are scientists, but they did not run their own experiments disproving the HeadSmart video, so they have no basis to dispute it. Actually, they've made factually incorrect statements about temperature not affecting PSI and the 15% PSI difference.

I never said I disproved the underlying conclusion. I said that video isn't any kind of "science" that can't be argued with. In fact, I specifically said the video may be based on a perfectly legitimate experiment.

In my opinion, a legitimate experiment would have had a control group.

*wanders off*

You want a football sitting on a shelf not undergoing any changes whatsoever to prove the Ideal Gas Law works? Allrrrright.

Or to alleviate the assumption that the balls were depressurizing regardless of the temperature. I work in a GLP environment. My brain makes me think these things.

Fair enough. Of course if footballs were bleeding 2 psi an hour you couldnt get through a game and there would be a lot of flat footballs sitting in Walmarts.

 

[moleculo]

If all this cold weather makes the balls flat theory was true, how come when games are played in way colder temps has this never been brought up? At some point in time wouldn't someone involved in a 0 degree game at green bay say, those balls were really getting flat by halftime? All I ever hear is how the balls are really hard from the cold.

because the cold would effect both teams balls equally. neither team gains a competitive advantage.

True but the point is (as far as I know) no QB in history has noted how different a ball feels when the temp is zero degrees. If its such an obvious difference that every QB would instantly feel the difference, it would be a known thing.

And if 2psi is the reason the Pats are so good at not losing fumbles, you would think the outdoor games in the winter would have a lot less fumbles. A lot less.

I saw a stat somewhere that mentioned the fumble rate went up 35% in cold weather games (can't find it)...probably an effect of cold leather and numb fingers more than anything else.

Really, that makes the Pats tiny fumble rate even more odd... playing outside, in the cold, and fumbling waay less than the rest of the league?

standard disclaimer: correlation <> causation.

 

[James Daulton]

Why'd the guy from Wilson say the weather couldn't have done it?

 

[Bayhawks]

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

The science is what it is. Dismissing it doesn't mean it is not true.

Again, this isn't actually "science." These individuals don't show how they dropped the temperature (how fast/slow), and soaking footballs in water isn't the same as having them get rained on and dried off (and repeating the process, over and over). This is a youtube video that may/may not be based on a legitimate scientific test, but this video, in and of itself, isn't science. Saying it is doesn't make it so.

I think I read somewhere that it takes about 30 minutes for a room temperature football to cool down to 50 degrees or so (reach equilibrium). If the football was wet (and it was), it should reach equilibrium faster because water conducts heat faster than air. Like how 72 degree air feels comfortable, but 72 degree water feels cold.

The HeadSmart experiment isn't exactly like the game conditions, but it is fairly close. At this point, we are arguing over minor differences. For example, I could easily argue that every measurement of PSI by the refs drops the PSI: each time you stick in the gauge, the football lets out air and makes a brief whooshing noise. How many times did the refs check the PSI of Patriots balls? That could make the PSI lower than what the HeadSmart video shows.

Not arguing over minor differences, as I previously noted, that video may be based on a legitimate scientific experiment. The video itself, however, isn't "science," and as such the post/argument that "the science is what it is. Dismissing it doesn't make it true" is flawed at it's very concept. I've seen numerous people trying to use science to prove their point on BOTH sides of this debate. Your statement that "arguing with my science doesn't make it true" could be made by people on the other side of the debate who have "science" that they believes supports their position. As far as I've seen, there isn't any "science" that seems to be totally conclusive.

One of the purposes of a scientific experiment is to be open about your methodology, so other people can test and refine the experiment.

I agree that the HeadSmart experiment does not perfectly reflect game conditions. But can you point to any experiment that improves on the flaws, and does not create other flaws? Just saying that an experiment is not perfect, does not mean you have disproved the underlying conclusion.

Bill Nye and Neil Tyson are scientists, but they did not run their own experiments disproving the HeadSmart video, so they have no basis to dispute it. Actually, they've made factually incorrect statements about temperature not affecting PSI and the 15% PSI difference.

I never said I disproved the underlying conclusion. I said that video isn't any kind of "science" that can't be argued with. In fact, I specifically said the video may be based on a perfectly legitimate experiment.

Generally, if someone wants to argue science, I hope they have competing evidence to argue with. Otherwise, what's their point?

Btw, when I said in Post #5227: "The science is what it is. Dismissing it doesn't mean it is not true." that was in response to someone who said: "I think the whole thing is silly but don't blame the weather."

Someone who says the weather didn't affect PSI is factually incorrect. Because the science shows that weather does affect PSI. I don't think that is any legitimate argument about that.

But you then linked the youtube video. I assumed that you meant that link was the "science" you were referring to.

You are correct that there is not legitimate argument that weather does affect PSI. I am trying to figure out how much the weather (specifically at the AFCC) affected the PSI. The youtube video doesn't (IMO) prove that, and people who cite the "Ideal Gas Law" without showing how it proves anything (1 way or the other) don't either.

 

[mbuehner]

If all this cold weather makes the balls flat theory was true, how come when games are played in way colder temps has this never been brought up? At some point in time wouldn't someone involved in a 0 degree game at green bay say, those balls were really getting flat by halftime? All I ever hear is how the balls are really hard from the cold.

because the cold would effect both teams balls equally. neither team gains a competitive advantage.

True but the point is (as far as I know) no QB in history has noted how different a ball feels when the temp is zero degrees. If its such an obvious difference that every QB would instantly feel the difference, it would be a known thing.

And if 2psi is the reason the Pats are so good at not losing fumbles, you would think the outdoor games in the winter would have a lot less fumbles. A lot less.

I saw a stat somewhere that mentioned the fumble rate went up 35% in cold weather games (can't find it)...probably an effect of cold leather and numb fingers more than anything else.

Really, that makes the Pats tiny fumble rate even more odd... playing outside, in the cold, and fumbling waay less than the rest of the league?

standard disclaimer: correlation <> causation.

Not fumbling way less- losing way less fumbles. Their fumbling overall is not extraordinary, the Falcons actually fumbled less per play run in that time period. Theyre really, really good at recovering them.

 

[Bayhawks]

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

The science is what it is. Dismissing it doesn't mean it is not true.

Again, this isn't actually "science." These individuals don't show how they dropped the temperature (how fast/slow), and soaking footballs in water isn't the same as having them get rained on and dried off (and repeating the process, over and over). This is a youtube video that may/may not be based on a legitimate scientific test, but this video, in and of itself, isn't science. Saying it is doesn't make it so.

I think I read somewhere that it takes about 30 minutes for a room temperature football to cool down to 50 degrees or so (reach equilibrium). If the football was wet (and it was), it should reach equilibrium faster because water conducts heat faster than air. Like how 72 degree air feels comfortable, but 72 degree water feels cold.

The HeadSmart experiment isn't exactly like the game conditions, but it is fairly close. At this point, we are arguing over minor differences. For example, I could easily argue that every measurement of PSI by the refs drops the PSI: each time you stick in the gauge, the football lets out air and makes a brief whooshing noise. How many times did the refs check the PSI of Patriots balls? That could make the PSI lower than what the HeadSmart video shows.

Not arguing over minor differences, as I previously noted, that video may be based on a legitimate scientific experiment. The video itself, however, isn't "science," and as such the post/argument that "the science is what it is. Dismissing it doesn't make it true" is flawed at it's very concept. I've seen numerous people trying to use science to prove their point on BOTH sides of this debate. Your statement that "arguing with my science doesn't make it true" could be made by people on the other side of the debate who have "science" that they believes supports their position. As far as I've seen, there isn't any "science" that seems to be totally conclusive.

One of the purposes of a scientific experiment is to be open about your methodology, so other people can test and refine the experiment.

I agree that the HeadSmart experiment does not perfectly reflect game conditions. But can you point to any experiment that improves on the flaws, and does not create other flaws? Just saying that an experiment is not perfect, does not mean you have disproved the underlying conclusion.

Bill Nye and Neil Tyson are scientists, but they did not run their own experiments disproving the HeadSmart video, so they have no basis to dispute it. Actually, they've made factually incorrect statements about temperature not affecting PSI and the 15% PSI difference.

I never said I disproved the underlying conclusion. I said that video isn't any kind of "science" that can't be argued with. In fact, I specifically said the video may be based on a perfectly legitimate experiment.

Generally, if someone wants to argue science, I hope they have competing evidence to argue with. Otherwise, what's their point?

Btw, when I said in Post #5227: "The science is what it is. Dismissing it doesn't mean it is not true." that was in response to someone who said: "I think the whole thing is silly but don't blame the weather."

Someone who says the weather didn't affect PSI is factually incorrect. Because the science shows that weather does affect PSI. I don't think that is any legitimate argument about that.

But you then linked the youtube video. I assumed that you meant that link was the "science" you were referring to. If I read that wrong, my apologies.

You are correct that there is not legitimate argument that weather does affect PSI. I am trying to figure out how much the weather (specifically at the AFCC) affected the PSI. The youtube video doesn't (IMO) show how much, and people who cite the "Ideal Gas Law" without showing how it applies to this situation don't either.

 

[Morton Muffley]

RE: Ideal Gas Law

This has been thrown about in this thread numerous times, and I'm not sure if this website is correctly calculating things or not, but I decided to try to apply the Ideal Gas Law to this situation.

The Ideal Gas Law equation is pV = nRT, where P=pressure, V=volume, n=number of moles, R=the gas constant, and T=temperature

To use the Ideal Gas Law to determine air pressure, it seems you need to know the temperature, volume of an object & moles of the gas being used.

An NFL football is 4237 cm3 link

Assuming oxygen was used to fill the footballs, according to the calculator on the website I linked, there would be .149252 moles of oxygen in an NFL football, inflated to 12.5 PSI, at 70% degrees.

If you use the same calculator, using 50 degrees (F) as the temperature, .149252 as the moles, and 4237cm3 as the volume of the football, the PSI of the football would be 12.028. If these calculations are correct, then the temperature couldn't have caused the footballs to drop by 2 PSI (although these calculations don't factor in moisture). If the reports of only a drop of 1 PSI are accurate, though, this would explain it.

Can someone with more knowledge of how to use this equation check my work?

What's with the lmao emoticon? Since there are people arguing that the Ideal Gas Law is proof for one side or the other, why is it so funny to actually examine that concept?

maybe because people who actually know wtf they are doing have been examining it for a week and posted 100+ pages that you just tacked your post it on the end of.

if you don't know the difference between air and oxygen I'd suggest leaving science to people who do.

NO ONE in this thread has actually tried to apply the Ideal Gas Law; many people have referred to it, many people have tried to claim it proves their view right, but no one has tried to actually use it.I used the word oxygen, to specify that no other type of gas was being used. I clarified this already. Don't be a richard.

Please feel free to correctly apply the Ideal Gas Law equation, but since you haven't, I'm going to guess that you don't know how.

Wrong wrong wrong. I and several others have run these calculations and it looks like molecule and I independently came up with the same figure of for every 20 degrees Fahrenheit change in temp there is a 1psi change in pressure. And as another poster noted I am happy to report that I (unlike neil degrade Tyson) properly accounted for absolute pressure as opposed to gauge pressure.

So,, once again you are wrong but I sincerely appreciate the effort you are making...just wish you didn't dive bomb in and out of this thread as we are now covering well trodden ground and have been for the last 10 pages. We need a new nfl leak to shoot down it seems.

 

[Ditkaless Wonders]

Perhaps when it is zero degrees other factors, relatively insignificant at 50 degrees become more significant. The leather obviously would contract some, and the natural oils in it might freeze making the ball less pliable, the hard feeling often reported and often experienced by those kids who grew up in northern climes. Also, human hands tend to freeze (or nearly so) at such temperatures making tactile sensations seem quite different.

 

[Bayhawks]

RE: Ideal Gas Law

This has been thrown about in this thread numerous times, and I'm not sure if this website is correctly calculating things or not, but I decided to try to apply the Ideal Gas Law to this situation.

The Ideal Gas Law equation is pV = nRT, where P=pressure, V=volume, n=number of moles, R=the gas constant, and T=temperature

To use the Ideal Gas Law to determine air pressure, it seems you need to know the temperature, volume of an object & moles of the gas being used.

An NFL football is 4237 cm3 link

Assuming oxygen was used to fill the footballs, according to the calculator on the website I linked, there would be .149252 moles of oxygen in an NFL football, inflated to 12.5 PSI, at 70% degrees.

If you use the same calculator, using 50 degrees (F) as the temperature, .149252 as the moles, and 4237cm3 as the volume of the football, the PSI of the football would be 12.028. If these calculations are correct, then the temperature couldn't have caused the footballs to drop by 2 PSI (although these calculations don't factor in moisture). If the reports of only a drop of 1 PSI are accurate, though, this would explain it.

Can someone with more knowledge of how to use this equation check my work?

What's with the lmao emoticon? Since there are people arguing that the Ideal Gas Law is proof for one side or the other, why is it so funny to actually examine that concept?

maybe because people who actually know wtf they are doing have been examining it for a week and posted 100+ pages that you just tacked your post it on the end of.

if you don't know the difference between air and oxygen I'd suggest leaving science to people who do.

NO ONE in this thread has actually tried to apply the Ideal Gas Law; many people have referred to it, many people have tried to claim it proves their view right, but no one has tried to actually use it.I used the word oxygen, to specify that no other type of gas was being used. I clarified this already. Don't be a richard.

Please feel free to correctly apply the Ideal Gas Law equation, but since you haven't, I'm going to guess that you don't know how.

Wrong wrong wrong. I and several others have run these calculations and it looks like molecule and I independently came up with the same figure of for every 20 degrees Fahrenheit change in temp there is a 1psi change in pressure. And as another poster noted I am happy to report that I (unlike neil degrade Tyson) properly accounted for absolute pressure as opposed to gauge pressure.

So,, once again you are wrong but I sincerely appreciate the effort you are making...just wish you didn't dive bomb in and out of this thread as we are now covering well trodden ground and have been for the last 10 pages. We need a new nfl leak to shoot down it seems.

Wrong wrong wrong? Please link me to the earlier posts where you posted this. I didn't see them.

As far as dive-bombing in and out of this thread...I'm only allowed to post if I never leave the thread? I have to post incessantly, or I'm accused of "dive-bombing?" I didn't realize that was a forum rule.

ETA-If you ran the calculations correctly, and showed a drop of 1 PSI for 20 degrees temp, then obviously I did something wrong, can you show me my mistake, please?

 

[Morton Muffley]

Why'd the guy from Wilson say the weather couldn't have done it?

Because he is a moron who works at their traveling booth to show how the balls are made. Do you think that is where they send their scientists....do you think Wilson has scientists?

 

[Bucky86]

Why'd the guy from Wilson say the weather couldn't have done it?

HE'S A SALTY HATER COLTS FAN

 

[General Tso]

Each team is responsible for supplying footballs... who is responsible for inflating them properly? Has that been addressed?

I think the refs. The rule states:

"The Referee shall be the sole judge as to whether all balls offered for play comply with these specifications."

So hypothetically if a ball is under-inflated at inspection, it would seem that it is the refs judgement as to whether it complies and can be used.

But once again who knows... At this point it is just unconfirmed, unnamed sourced reports flying back and forth. I don't think any real info can be trusted as any sort of fact at this point. We have numbers like 2lbs from Mort, 1lb from Florio and everything else in between.

Well, it would seem to be perfectly legal then to present the refs with a bag full of balls inflated to 10.5psi and let the refs decide whether they are suitable or not. I agree with RKK the NFL owes the Patriots, BB, and Tom Brady an apology. And a SB win.

Yes perfectly legal BUT sleazy, deceitful, underhanded, (insert adjective here) and was still cheating. We know the Pats and their sketchy past so they would be the only team to even try something so low, liars, guilty etc. The NFL is just sweeping this under the rug because Goodell and Kraft are bro's.!I'm just trying to get everyone ready for the onslaught that is coming from the inbred masses. This will be their mantra.

So the same statements and indignation apply to Rodgers, correct? And any other QB or team that does the same thing, right? Be careful casting those stones my friend.The Pats have said that they give the balls to the refs and instruct them to inflate to 12.5 if any are found out of the range. The rule says clearly that it is the ref's responsibility, not the team, to inspect the balls pregame and approve them for use. It's ridiculous to now call the Patriots cheaters because the refs didn't do their job. And to do that selectively is even more bush league.

You realize I was only pointing out how this will be spun going forward by the haters? It's obvious that this will be their angle after the Pats are exonerated. Get ready for it after this is resolved.

Ah, sorry Rocket. Didn't know it was you. I was using my iPhone and my 47 year old vision is beyond bad, and getting worse.

 

[James Daulton]

Why'd the guy from Wilson say the weather couldn't have done it?

Because he is a moron who works at their traveling booth to show how the balls are made. Do you think that is where they send their scientists....do you think Wilson has scientists?

Why is he a moron? Wouldn't someone who sells their product know best how they react in various situations?

 

[Dr. Octopus]

Really, that makes the Pats tiny fumble rate even more odd... playing outside, in the cold, and fumbling waay less than the rest of the league?

How many games are actually played in extremely cold weather during an average season though? The four December games are the only real candidates (during the regular season) and two of those games are likely road games (and one of their division foes play in Miami). Sometimes we get some mild December games in the North East as well. So maybe two seriously cold weather games per season on average?

 

[FreeBaGeL]

If all this cold weather makes the balls flat theory was true, how come when games are played in way colder temps has this never been brought up? At some point in time wouldn't someone involved in a 0 degree game at green bay say, those balls were really getting flat by halftime? All I ever hear is how the balls are really hard from the cold.

Maybe it's because people (QBs, referees, centers, etc) can't tell the difference of 2-3 psi when they aren't actually looking for it?

Or maybe it's because Wilson has created a magic ball that is immune to the laws of nature?

I guess this is one of those mysteries we'll never solve.

If the ball can drop 2psi in 2 hours when the weather is in the mid 40's, how many PSI can it lose in 4 hours in -10 degree weather, which it has been for games before. Can one of our FBG science gurus do the math for us?

 

[BustedKnuckles]

RE: Ideal Gas Law

This has been thrown about in this thread numerous times, and I'm not sure if this website is correctly calculating things or not, but I decided to try to apply the Ideal Gas Law to this situation.

The Ideal Gas Law equation is pV = nRT, where P=pressure, V=volume, n=number of moles, R=the gas constant, and T=temperature

To use the Ideal Gas Law to determine air pressure, it seems you need to know the temperature, volume of an object & moles of the gas being used.

An NFL football is 4237 cm3 link

Assuming oxygen was used to fill the footballs, according to the calculator on the website I linked, there would be .149252 moles of oxygen in an NFL football, inflated to 12.5 PSI, at 70% degrees.

If you use the same calculator, using 50 degrees (F) as the temperature, .149252 as the moles, and 4237cm3 as the volume of the football, the PSI of the football would be 12.028. If these calculations are correct, then the temperature couldn't have caused the footballs to drop by 2 PSI (although these calculations don't factor in moisture). If the reports of only a drop of 1 PSI are accurate, though, this would explain it.

Can someone with more knowledge of how to use this equation check my work?

What's with the lmao emoticon? Since there are people arguing that the Ideal Gas Law is proof for one side or the other, why is it so funny to actually examine that concept?

maybe because people who actually know wtf they are doing have been examining it for a week and posted 100+ pages that you just tacked your post it on the end of.

if you don't know the difference between air and oxygen I'd suggest leaving science to people who do.

NO ONE in this thread has actually tried to apply the Ideal Gas Law; many people have referred to it, many people have tried to claim it proves their view right, but no one has tried to actually use it.I used the word oxygen, to specify that no other type of gas was being used. I clarified this already. Don't be a richard.

Please feel free to correctly apply the Ideal Gas Law equation, but since you haven't, I'm going to guess that you don't know how.

Wrong wrong wrong. I and several others have run these calculations and it looks like molecule and I independently came up with the same figure of for every 20 degrees Fahrenheit change in temp there is a 1psi change in pressure. And as another poster noted I am happy to report that I (unlike neil degrade Tyson) properly accounted for absolute pressure as opposed to gauge pressure.

So,, once again you are wrong but I sincerely appreciate the effort you are making...just wish you didn't dive bomb in and out of this thread as we are now covering well trodden ground and have been for the last 10 pages. We need a new nfl leak to shoot down it seems.

Wrong wrong wrong? Please link me to the earlier posts where you posted this. I didn't see them.

As far as dive-bombing in and out of this thread...I'm only allowed to post if I never leave the thread? I have to post incessantly, or I'm accused of "dive-bombing?" I didn't realize that was a forum rule.

ETA-If you ran the calculations correctly, and showed a drop of 1 PSI for 20 degrees temp, then obviously I did something wrong, can you show me my mistake, please?

could have something to do with your name ...bayHAWKS

 

[CapnJB]

Why'd the guy from Wilson say the weather couldn't have done it?

HE'S A SALTY HATER COLTS FAN

And salt lowers the freezing point of water. So..... science!

 

[Morton Muffley]

RE: Ideal Gas Law

This has been thrown about in this thread numerous times, and I'm not sure if this website is correctly calculating things or not, but I decided to try to apply the Ideal Gas Law to this situation.

The Ideal Gas Law equation is pV = nRT, where P=pressure, V=volume, n=number of moles, R=the gas constant, and T=temperature

To use the Ideal Gas Law to determine air pressure, it seems you need to know the temperature, volume of an object & moles of the gas being used.

An NFL football is 4237 cm3 link

Assuming oxygen was used to fill the footballs, according to the calculator on the website I linked, there would be .149252 moles of oxygen in an NFL football, inflated to 12.5 PSI, at 70% degrees.

If you use the same calculator, using 50 degrees (F) as the temperature, .149252 as the moles, and 4237cm3 as the volume of the football, the PSI of the football would be 12.028. If these calculations are correct, then the temperature couldn't have caused the footballs to drop by 2 PSI (although these calculations don't factor in moisture). If the reports of only a drop of 1 PSI are accurate, though, this would explain it.

Can someone with more knowledge of how to use this equation check my work?

What's with the lmao emoticon? Since there are people arguing that the Ideal Gas Law is proof for one side or the other, why is it so funny to actually examine that concept?

maybe because people who actually know wtf they are doing have been examining it for a week and posted 100+ pages that you just tacked your post it on the end of.

if you don't know the difference between air and oxygen I'd suggest leaving science to people who do.

NO ONE in this thread has actually tried to apply the Ideal Gas Law; many people have referred to it, many people have tried to claim it proves their view right, but no one has tried to actually use it.I used the word oxygen, to specify that no other type of gas was being used. I clarified this already. Don't be a richard.

Please feel free to correctly apply the Ideal Gas Law equation, but since you haven't, I'm going to guess that you don't know how.

Wrong wrong wrong. I and several others have run these calculations and it looks like molecule and I independently came up with the same figure of for every 20 degrees Fahrenheit change in temp there is a 1psi change in pressure. And as another poster noted I am happy to report that I (unlike neil degrade Tyson) properly accounted for absolute pressure as opposed to gauge pressure.

So,, once again you are wrong but I sincerely appreciate the effort you are making...just wish you didn't dive bomb in and out of this thread as we are now covering well trodden ground and have been for the last 10 pages. We need a new nfl leak to shoot down it seems.

Wrong wrong wrong? Please link me to the earlier posts where you posted this. I didn't see them.As far as dive-bombing in and out of this thread...I'm only allowed to post if I never leave the thread? I have to post incessantly, or I'm accused of "dive-bombing?" I didn't realize that was a forum rule.

It's all good. Of course you are allowed to leave the thread I am just telling you how I feel given that we have covered all this ground already and then someone else comes along with "what about the colts balls not deflating? Or "did you hear what bill bye said?" It's exhausting but it's my fault for being so ###### obsessed with this thread. Anyway, sorry I snapped.

As for a link, I will try to find my post but may take a minute as I am embarrassed with how many posts I have made in this thread

 

[General Tso]

actually, I like the Patriots. I just don't like most Patriot fans on this board.

I thought you were a Broncos guy. My mistake.

You helped me make the decision to buy Broncos season tickets a few years ago. Former ticket holder yourself

I am a broncos guy, but I like the pats too. In general, I like all AFC teams (except, of course, for oakland and KC). I like the pats more than lots of other teams because I respect the hell out of Belichick, i think he is bar none, the best coach of my generation. i think Brady is the best QB of our generation too. I have a lot of good friends who are died-in-the-wool Pats fans. We went to college together in the late 90's. We all rooted for NE in 1996, we all rooted for Den in 1997. There is no rivalry between us - a couple of humorous jokes here and there, but I will be wishing them a good superbowl this year, as they did for me last year.

Besides - as a Bronco fan, I have no animosity towards NE. The only time they have ever beaten the Broncos in the playoffs is when we had a TE playing QB, so nothing was really expected anyways.

Moleculo is alright in my book.

 

[General Tso]

If all this cold weather makes the balls flat theory was true, how come when games are played in way colder temps has this never been brought up? At some point in time wouldn't someone involved in a 0 degree game at green bay say, those balls were really getting flat by halftime? All I ever hear is how the balls are really hard from the cold.

The ball freezes and makes it harder to compress. But I can assure you the air pressure inside is less. My tire pressure light comes on every day when it's really cold out. But if I pressed the tire with my finger it would probably feel firmer than a much higher inflated tire in the summertime.

 

[Road Warriors]

Why'd the guy from Wilson say the weather couldn't have done it?

Because he is a moron who works at their traveling booth to show how the balls are made. Do you think that is where they send their scientists....do you think Wilson has scientists?

Why is he a moron? Wouldn't someone who sells their product know best how they react in various situations?

You don't talk to too many salesmen, do you?

 

[espnespn]

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

The science is what it is. Dismissing it doesn't mean it is not true.

Again, this isn't actually "science." These individuals don't show how they dropped the temperature (how fast/slow), and soaking footballs in water isn't the same as having them get rained on and dried off (and repeating the process, over and over). This is a youtube video that may/may not be based on a legitimate scientific test, but this video, in and of itself, isn't science. Saying it is doesn't make it so.

I think I read somewhere that it takes about 30 minutes for a room temperature football to cool down to 50 degrees or so (reach equilibrium). If the football was wet (and it was), it should reach equilibrium faster because water conducts heat faster than air. Like how 72 degree air feels comfortable, but 72 degree water feels cold.

The HeadSmart experiment isn't exactly like the game conditions, but it is fairly close. At this point, we are arguing over minor differences. For example, I could easily argue that every measurement of PSI by the refs drops the PSI: each time you stick in the gauge, the football lets out air and makes a brief whooshing noise. How many times did the refs check the PSI of Patriots balls? That could make the PSI lower than what the HeadSmart video shows.

Not arguing over minor differences, as I previously noted, that video may be based on a legitimate scientific experiment. The video itself, however, isn't "science," and as such the post/argument that "the science is what it is. Dismissing it doesn't make it true" is flawed at it's very concept. I've seen numerous people trying to use science to prove their point on BOTH sides of this debate. Your statement that "arguing with my science doesn't make it true" could be made by people on the other side of the debate who have "science" that they believes supports their position. As far as I've seen, there isn't any "science" that seems to be totally conclusive.

One of the purposes of a scientific experiment is to be open about your methodology, so other people can test and refine the experiment.

I agree that the HeadSmart experiment does not perfectly reflect game conditions. But can you point to any experiment that improves on the flaws, and does not create other flaws? Just saying that an experiment is not perfect, does not mean you have disproved the underlying conclusion.

Bill Nye and Neil Tyson are scientists, but they did not run their own experiments disproving the HeadSmart video, so they have no basis to dispute it. Actually, they've made factually incorrect statements about temperature not affecting PSI and the 15% PSI difference.

I never said I disproved the underlying conclusion. I said that video isn't any kind of "science" that can't be argued with. In fact, I specifically said the video may be based on a perfectly legitimate experiment.

Generally, if someone wants to argue science, I hope they have competing evidence to argue with. Otherwise, what's their point?

Btw, when I said in Post #5227: "The science is what it is. Dismissing it doesn't mean it is not true." that was in response to someone who said: "I think the whole thing is silly but don't blame the weather."

Someone who says the weather didn't affect PSI is factually incorrect. Because the science shows that weather does affect PSI. I don't think that is any legitimate argument about that.

But you then linked the youtube video. I assumed that you meant that link was the "science" you were referring to.

You are correct that there is not legitimate argument that weather does affect PSI. I am trying to figure out how much the weather (specifically at the AFCC) affected the PSI. The youtube video doesn't (IMO) prove that, and people who cite the "Ideal Gas Law" without showing how it proves anything (1 way or the other) don't either.

How do you define "science"? The HeadSmart video is certainly more scientific than plenty of other things thrown around in this thread. Please feel free to show me your "science" that disagrees with the HeadSmart video.

Btw, I've linked this several times, which shows the Ideal Gas calculations:

http://www.reddit.com/r/askscience/comments/2ts1o6/are_bill_nye_and_neil_degrasse_tyson_wrong_on/

27.2 * ((50+459.67)/(72+459.67)) = 26.07. Subtract 14.7 from 26.07 and you get 11.37 PSI.

So the Ideal Gas Law says that dropping from 72 degrees to 50 degrees, means PSI drops from 12.5 to 11.4. Proof that you lose 1 PSI about every 20 degrees F.

 

[General Tso]

The Pats cheated by submitting balls to the refs that were under inflated. It doesn't matter if the refs checked them and inflated them, the intent to cheat was there. Just another in the long list of Patriots underhanded moves. BB should be banned for life Brady suspended for four years and they should lose all their draft picks for the next ten years along with a 10 million $ fine.

Also they should be made to apologize to the other coaches and owners

could you gives examples of this "long list of underhanded moves" please?

well they could say the time the pats used a snow plow to clear a spot for the kicker...but it wasnt against the rules at the time .spygate...ill give them that one .

what else ?

Patriot fans are now getting trolled by other Patriot fans. It's time to blow this thing up.

LOL. Come on Pats fans - let's keep it together!I think we're all just over-tired from spending so much time on this ridiculous subject. Can you imagine the loss of productivity in the New England workforce the last week?

 

[FreeBaGeL]

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

The science is what it is. Dismissing it doesn't mean it is not true.

Again, this isn't actually "science." These individuals don't show how they dropped the temperature (how fast/slow), and soaking footballs in water isn't the same as having them get rained on and dried off (and repeating the process, over and over). This is a youtube video that may/may not be based on a legitimate scientific test, but this video, in and of itself, isn't science. Saying it is doesn't make it so.

I think I read somewhere that it takes about 30 minutes for a room temperature football to cool down to 50 degrees or so (reach equilibrium). If the football was wet (and it was), it should reach equilibrium faster because water conducts heat faster than air. Like how 72 degree air feels comfortable, but 72 degree water feels cold.

The HeadSmart experiment isn't exactly like the game conditions, but it is fairly close. At this point, we are arguing over minor differences. For example, I could easily argue that every measurement of PSI by the refs drops the PSI: each time you stick in the gauge, the football lets out air and makes a brief whooshing noise. How many times did the refs check the PSI of Patriots balls? That could make the PSI lower than what the HeadSmart video shows.

Not arguing over minor differences, as I previously noted, that video may be based on a legitimate scientific experiment. The video itself, however, isn't "science," and as such the post/argument that "the science is what it is. Dismissing it doesn't make it true" is flawed at it's very concept. I've seen numerous people trying to use science to prove their point on BOTH sides of this debate. Your statement that "arguing with my science doesn't make it true" could be made by people on the other side of the debate who have "science" that they believes supports their position. As far as I've seen, there isn't any "science" that seems to be totally conclusive.

One of the purposes of a scientific experiment is to be open about your methodology, so other people can test and refine the experiment.

I agree that the HeadSmart experiment does not perfectly reflect game conditions. But can you point to any experiment that improves on the flaws, and does not create other flaws? Just saying that an experiment is not perfect, does not mean you have disproved the underlying conclusion.

Bill Nye and Neil Tyson are scientists, but they did not run their own experiments disproving the HeadSmart video, so they have no basis to dispute it. Actually, they've made factually incorrect statements about temperature not affecting PSI and the 15% PSI difference.

I never said I disproved the underlying conclusion. I said that video isn't any kind of "science" that can't be argued with. In fact, I specifically said the video may be based on a perfectly legitimate experiment.

Generally, if someone wants to argue science, I hope they have competing evidence to argue with. Otherwise, what's their point?

Btw, when I said in Post #5227: "The science is what it is. Dismissing it doesn't mean it is not true." that was in response to someone who said: "I think the whole thing is silly but don't blame the weather."

Someone who says the weather didn't affect PSI is factually incorrect. Because the science shows that weather does affect PSI. I don't think that is any legitimate argument about that.

But you then linked the youtube video. I assumed that you meant that link was the "science" you were referring to.

You are correct that there is not legitimate argument that weather does affect PSI. I am trying to figure out how much the weather (specifically at the AFCC) affected the PSI. The youtube video doesn't (IMO) prove that, and people who cite the "Ideal Gas Law" without showing how it proves anything (1 way or the other) don't either.

How do you define "science"? The HeadSmart video is certainly more scientific than plenty of other things thrown around in this thread. Please feel free to show me your "science" that disagrees with the HeadSmart video.

Btw, I've linked this several times, which shows the Ideal Gas calculations:

http://www.reddit.com/r/askscience/comments/2ts1o6/are_bill_nye_and_neil_degrasse_tyson_wrong_on/

27.2 * ((50+459.67)/(72+459.67)) = 26.07. Subtract 14.7 from 26.07 and you get 11.37 PSI.

So the Ideal Gas Law says that dropping from 72 degrees to 50 degrees, means PSI drops from 12.5 to 11.4. Proof that you lose 1 PSI about every 20 degrees F.

So when games were played in -10 degree whether the PSI would have dropped to 8.5? And no one has ever noticed?

 

[Rimez]

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.

 

[KarmaPolice]

If all this cold weather makes the balls flat theory was true, how come when games are played in way colder temps has this never been brought up? At some point in time wouldn't someone involved in a 0 degree game at green bay say, those balls were really getting flat by halftime? All I ever hear is how the balls are really hard from the cold.

Because nobody in the league gives two ####s about the psi of the footballs? ?

 

[Ditkaless Wonders]

I'm here so I won't get fined.

 

[mbuehner]

If all this cold weather makes the balls flat theory was true, how come when games are played in way colder temps has this never been brought up? At some point in time wouldn't someone involved in a 0 degree game at green bay say, those balls were really getting flat by halftime? All I ever hear is how the balls are really hard from the cold.

Maybe it's because people (QBs, referees, centers, etc) can't tell the difference of 2-3 psi when they aren't actually looking for it?

Or maybe it's because Wilson has created a magic ball that is immune to the laws of nature?

I guess this is one of those mysteries we'll never solve.

If the ball can drop 2psi in 2 hours when the weather is in the mid 40's, how many PSI can it lose in 4 hours in -10 degree weather, which it has been for games before. Can one of our FBG science gurus do the math for us?

(13psi+14.7) /294K = P2 /250k

[convert gauge to absolute 70dF Final abs Pressure -10dF]

23.55psi absolute - 14.7=

8.9psi

Or the rule of thumb seems to be, every 20dF you lose 1psi, so an 80 degree swing would, 13-4=9psi

 

[parrot]

If all this cold weather makes the balls flat theory was true, how come when games are played in way colder temps has this never been brought up? At some point in time wouldn't someone involved in a 0 degree game at green bay say, those balls were really getting flat by halftime? All I ever hear is how the balls are really hard from the cold.

because the cold would effect both teams balls equally. neither team gains a competitive advantage.

True but the point is (as far as I know) no QB in history has noted how different a ball feels when the temp is zero degrees. If its such an obvious difference that every QB would instantly feel the difference, it would be a known thing.

And if 2psi is the reason the Pats are so good at not losing fumbles, you would think the outdoor games in the winter would have a lot less fumbles. A lot less.

I saw a stat somewhere that mentioned the fumble rate went up 35% in cold weather games (can't find it)...probably an effect of cold leather and numb fingers more than anything else.

Really, that makes the Pats tiny fumble rate even more odd... playing outside, in the cold, and fumbling waay less than the rest of the league?

standard disclaimer: correlation <> causation.

Not fumbling way less- losing way less fumbles. Their fumbling overall is not extraordinary, the Falcons actually fumbled less per play run in that time period. Theyre really, really good at recovering them.

Another problem with that study is including special teams fumbles, where kicking balls are used. Take Welker; he had 12 fumbles in 3 years with the Dolphins, 11 of them came on punt returns, and 1 on a kick return. So even though he NEVER fumbled on a rushing or receiving play, the study still dings him for those fumbles. Welker's fumble rate on punts for Miami was 1 fumble per every 11.5 returns. For New England it was 1 fumble per 22.8 returns. Is that attributable to the kicking balls? Welker had 6 non-special-team fumbles in 690 offensive touches for the Patriots, or one every 115 touches, he has 0 non-special-teams fumbles in 218 touches for the Dolphins and Broncos.

 

[mbuehner]

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.

 

[moleculo]

If all this cold weather makes the balls flat theory was true, how come when games are played in way colder temps has this never been brought up? At some point in time wouldn't someone involved in a 0 degree game at green bay say, those balls were really getting flat by halftime? All I ever hear is how the balls are really hard from the cold.

because the cold would effect both teams balls equally. neither team gains a competitive advantage.

True but the point is (as far as I know) no QB in history has noted how different a ball feels when the temp is zero degrees. If its such an obvious difference that every QB would instantly feel the difference, it would be a known thing.

And if 2psi is the reason the Pats are so good at not losing fumbles, you would think the outdoor games in the winter would have a lot less fumbles. A lot less.

I saw a stat somewhere that mentioned the fumble rate went up 35% in cold weather games (can't find it)...probably an effect of cold leather and numb fingers more than anything else.

Really, that makes the Pats tiny fumble rate even more odd... playing outside, in the cold, and fumbling waay less than the rest of the league?

standard disclaimer: correlation <> causation.

Not fumbling way less- losing way less fumbles. Their fumbling overall is not extraordinary, the Falcons actually fumbled less per play run in that time period. Theyre really, really good at recovering them.

Another problem with that study is including special teams fumbles, where kicking balls are used. Take Welker; he had 12 fumbles in 3 years with the Dolphins, 11 of them came on punt returns, and 1 on a kick return. So even though he NEVER fumbled on a rushing or receiving play, the study still dings him for those fumbles. Welker's fumble rate on punts for Miami was 1 fumble per every 11.5 returns. For New England it was 1 fumble per 22.8 returns. Is that attributable to the kicking balls?

yeah, there are a lot of things I would have done differently if I was running the study.

 

[BustedKnuckles]

The Pats cheated by submitting balls to the refs that were under inflated. It doesn't matter if the refs checked them and inflated them, the intent to cheat was there. Just another in the long list of Patriots underhanded moves. BB should be banned for life Brady suspended for four years and they should lose all their draft picks for the next ten years along with a 10 million $ fine.

Also they should be made to apologize to the other coaches and owners

could you gives examples of this "long list of underhanded moves" please?

well they could say the time the pats used a snow plow to clear a spot for the kicker...but it wasnt against the rules at the time .spygate...ill give them that one .

what else ?

Patriot fans are now getting trolled by other Patriot fans. It's time to blow this thing up.

LOL. Come on Pats fans - let's keep it together!I think we're all just over-tired from spending so much time on this ridiculous subject. Can you imagine the loss of productivity in the New England workforce the last week?

BREAKING NEWS ...it was Prof. Plum in the mens room with a needle ****

 

[12punch]

If all this cold weather makes the balls flat theory was true, how come when games are played in way colder temps has this never been brought up? At some point in time wouldn't someone involved in a 0 degree game at green bay say, those balls were really getting flat by halftime? All I ever hear is how the balls are really hard from the cold.

because the cold would effect both teams balls equally. neither team gains a competitive advantage.

True but the point is (as far as I know) no QB in history has noted how different a ball feels when the temp is zero degrees. If its such an obvious difference that every QB would instantly feel the difference, it would be a known thing.

And if 2psi is the reason the Pats are so good at not losing fumbles, you would think the outdoor games in the winter would have a lot less fumbles. A lot less.

I saw a stat somewhere that mentioned the fumble rate went up 35% in cold weather games (can't find it)...probably an effect of cold leather and numb fingers more than anything else.

Really, that makes the Pats tiny fumble rate even more odd... playing outside, in the cold, and fumbling waay less than the rest of the league?

standard disclaimer: correlation <> causation.

people like to throw this stuff out there all the time, but how many more games do you feel the pats play below 32, or whatever, than league average?

I'm sure there's more than a single vector at work on fumbling.

the funny thing about it is the people spamming teh board about this are the same ones crying about what a ******* belichick was for benching ridley, and how nobody else in the league overreacts when their rb fumbles like that.

they were posting all these stats comparing ridley's fumble rate to other rb, etc

fbg trolls are ####### hilarious, and while I don't feel all that troled by the pats stuff, I'll admit I'm totally getting trolled on the apparent widespread ignorance of #### human civilization figured out a couple hundred years ago.

this whole thing is an embarrassment to our country

 

[espnespn]

If all this cold weather makes the balls flat theory was true, how come when games are played in way colder temps has this never been brought up? At some point in time wouldn't someone involved in a 0 degree game at green bay say, those balls were really getting flat by halftime? All I ever hear is how the balls are really hard from the cold.

Maybe it's because people (QBs, referees, centers, etc) can't tell the difference of 2-3 psi when they aren't actually looking for it?

Or maybe it's because Wilson has created a magic ball that is immune to the laws of nature?

I guess this is one of those mysteries we'll never solve.

If the ball can drop 2psi in 2 hours when the weather is in the mid 40's, how many PSI can it lose in 4 hours in -10 degree weather, which it has been for games before. Can one of our FBG science gurus do the math for us?

(13psi+14.7) /294K = P2 /250k

[convert gauge to absolute 70dF Final abs Pressure -10dF]

23.55psi absolute - 14.7=

8.9psi

Or the rule of thumb seems to be, every 20dF you lose 1psi, so an 80 degree swing would, 13-4=9psi

Hopefully, the ball boys are smart enough to fill the football outdoors, if they are playing a really cold game. A lower starting football temperature would mean less PSI loss obviously.

The Salty Haters think that ball boys can make a tiny James Bond-like device to perfectly deflate 2 PSI from 12 footballs in 90 seconds, so anything is possible.

 

[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.

 

[12punch]

If all this cold weather makes the balls flat theory was true, how come when games are played in way colder temps has this never been brought up? At some point in time wouldn't someone involved in a 0 degree game at green bay say, those balls were really getting flat by halftime? All I ever hear is how the balls are really hard from the cold.

Maybe it's because people (QBs, referees, centers, etc) can't tell the difference of 2-3 psi when they aren't actually looking for it?

Or maybe it's because Wilson has created a magic ball that is immune to the laws of nature?

I guess this is one of those mysteries we'll never solve.

If the ball can drop 2psi in 2 hours when the weather is in the mid 40's, how many PSI can it lose in 4 hours in -10 degree weather, which it has been for games before. Can one of our FBG science gurus do the math for us?

I ####### hate you

 

[KarmaPolice]

The Pats cheated by submitting balls to the refs that were under inflated. It doesn't matter if the refs checked them and inflated them, the intent to cheat was there. Just another in the long list of Patriots underhanded moves. BB should be banned for life Brady suspended for four years and they should lose all their draft picks for the next ten years along with a 10 million $ fine.

Also they should be made to apologize to the other coaches and owners

could you gives examples of this "long list of underhanded moves" please?

well they could say the time the pats used a snow plow to clear a spot for the kicker...but it wasnt against the rules at the time .spygate...ill give them that one .

what else ?

Patriot fans are now getting trolled by other Patriot fans. It's time to blow this thing up.

Maybe i need to update my salty hater/fanboy list i guess. Me gets super crabby at any "history of cheating" stuff.

 

[mbuehner]

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.

Everything you just said is factually incorrect. Aside from it not being a criminal case.

-The NFL reported the balls were 'inspected' pregame, not measured.

- The latest leak says the ball the Colts intercepted was 2 psi under, the others were closer to 1psi.

- We have no idea if the Colts balls were ever measured, pre game or halftime, or if they were filled indoors or outdoors, or if they were stored indoors or outdoors, or how long they sat indoors IF they were measured.

 

[12punch]

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.

do actually own a car?