Patriots being investigated after Colts game (3 Viewers)

[Godsbrother]

It would be interesting if they did suspend Brady and the NFL season opener would not include the Super Bowl MVP or LeVeon Bell.

More entertaining would be for them to drag this out into the season, Let him play against Pitt., then suspend him for 2 games vs Buffalo and the Jags. Or even better, at the end of the season after they have already clinched the division, a 3 game suspension vs the Texans, Titans and Jets.

Hey wait a minute here...

 

[mbuehner]

There are two factors here to consider with Brady, and they are being confused.

1) Character. He cheated, or at least encouraged cheating (if theres a difference). He lied about it.

2) The crime itself and its impact on the game.

People can argue about how much #1 affects Brady's legacy, and how much the deception etc should impact the punishment (if any). Thats totally reasonable and pretty much arbitrary. You could say he should be banned for life for being a bad representative of the game, or he should walk. EIther answer is defensible.

But point 2 is different. People are comparing slightly deflating a football to Lance Armstrong etc? Its simply apples and oranges. Ive argued Brady's actions are much closer to scuffing a baseball to put an extra quarter inch on your curve ball than to using PEDs that might be the only reason you can compete in your sport at all (much less excel). The NFL, traditionally, seems to view tampering with a football as about the same level of a crime, the fine in the rulebook is 25,000 (minimum grant you), only slightly more than spearing somebody. IE- If Brady had pulled a ball he brought from home out of his bag and used it, the NFL feels thats about a 25,000 crime (all things being equal).

This is just not THAT big a deal from the effect on the game perspective, and pretty much every QB interviewed has made that point. Brady, for instance, threw for 328 yards and 4 TDs in the SB against the best defense in the league with balls that you can be sure were absolutely 100% kosher. To argue 'well, we'll just never know if Brady was actually any good' is ludicrous.

If Brady is a scumbag, he's a scumbag for lying and covering up. Not for somehow 'fixing' that game by taking some major unfair advantage. At best its a marginal advantage and one that apparently is well known and common in the League and has been forever.

The fumble statistics completely disprove this line of argument. It had a HUGE impact.

The fumbling statistics were throughly and rigorously and famously debunked.

 

[hagmania]

Only slightly less funny than the Patriots getting destroyed in this thread are the implications from everyone else that their team isn't doing similar things.

I guess they'll all be caught as well then. Until then...

Only slightly less funny than the Patriots getting destroyed in this thread are the implications from everyone else that their team isn't doing similar things.

Let's stay focused on who is caught.

The Patriots are 4-time championships, none of those are tarnished in the slightest by this imo.

I'm just in it for the memes.

 

[mbuehner]

Yah, you don't get to say no to the investigator because your wife is famous. And if you do, you don't get to be above suspicion because your wife is famous.

This isn't Hollywood

Sure you can. He just did. The NFL isnt a court of law, they dont have subpoena powers.

 

[hagmania]

And yes, this is absolutely Hollywood.

 

[moleculo]

...

The NFL, traditionally, seems to view tampering with a football as about the same level of a crime, the fine in the rulebook is 25,000 (minimum grant you), only slightly more than spearing somebody. IE- If Brady had pulled a ball he brought from home out of his bag and used it, the NFL feels thats about a 25,000 crime (all things being equal).

...

I think it's $25k per ball. There were 12 Patriot balls in this game, or a $300k fine...per game.

Presumably, based on the texts, the Pats have been pulling this all season. That's 18 games counting playoffs, enough to justify a $3.6M fine.

 

[moleculo]

There are two factors here to consider with Brady, and they are being confused.

1) Character. He cheated, or at least encouraged cheating (if theres a difference). He lied about it.

2) The crime itself and its impact on the game.

People can argue about how much #1 affects Brady's legacy, and how much the deception etc should impact the punishment (if any). Thats totally reasonable and pretty much arbitrary. You could say he should be banned for life for being a bad representative of the game, or he should walk. EIther answer is defensible.

But point 2 is different. People are comparing slightly deflating a football to Lance Armstrong etc? Its simply apples and oranges. Ive argued Brady's actions are much closer to scuffing a baseball to put an extra quarter inch on your curve ball than to using PEDs that might be the only reason you can compete in your sport at all (much less excel). The NFL, traditionally, seems to view tampering with a football as about the same level of a crime, the fine in the rulebook is 25,000 (minimum grant you), only slightly more than spearing somebody. IE- If Brady had pulled a ball he brought from home out of his bag and used it, the NFL feels thats about a 25,000 crime (all things being equal).

This is just not THAT big a deal from the effect on the game perspective, and pretty much every QB interviewed has made that point. Brady, for instance, threw for 328 yards and 4 TDs in the SB against the best defense in the league with balls that you can be sure were absolutely 100% kosher. To argue 'well, we'll just never know if Brady was actually any good' is ludicrous.

If Brady is a scumbag, he's a scumbag for lying and covering up. Not for somehow 'fixing' that game by taking some major unfair advantage. At best its a marginal advantage and one that apparently is well known and common in the League and has been forever.

The fumble statistics completely disprove this line of argument. It had a HUGE impact.

The fumbling statistics were throughly and rigorously and famously debunked.

no they weren't. the guys at 538 still think there's merit and it's worth revisiting that.

 

[massraider]

Only slightly less funny than the Patriots getting destroyed in this thread are the implications from everyone else that their team isn't doing similar things.

I guess they'll all be caught as well then. Until then...

Only slightly less funny than the Patriots getting destroyed in this thread are the implications from everyone else that their team isn't doing similar things.

Let's stay focused on who is caught.

The Patriots are 4-time championships, none of those are tarnished in the slightest by this imo.

I'm just in it for the memes.

There are also people that believe the moon landing was faked.

 

[mbuehner]

There are two factors here to consider with Brady, and they are being confused.

1) Character. He cheated, or at least encouraged cheating (if theres a difference). He lied about it.

2) The crime itself and its impact on the game.

People can argue about how much #1 affects Brady's legacy, and how much the deception etc should impact the punishment (if any). Thats totally reasonable and pretty much arbitrary. You could say he should be banned for life for being a bad representative of the game, or he should walk. EIther answer is defensible.

But point 2 is different. People are comparing slightly deflating a football to Lance Armstrong etc? Its simply apples and oranges. Ive argued Brady's actions are much closer to scuffing a baseball to put an extra quarter inch on your curve ball than to using PEDs that might be the only reason you can compete in your sport at all (much less excel). The NFL, traditionally, seems to view tampering with a football as about the same level of a crime, the fine in the rulebook is 25,000 (minimum grant you), only slightly more than spearing somebody. IE- If Brady had pulled a ball he brought from home out of his bag and used it, the NFL feels thats about a 25,000 crime (all things being equal).

This is just not THAT big a deal from the effect on the game perspective, and pretty much every QB interviewed has made that point. Brady, for instance, threw for 328 yards and 4 TDs in the SB against the best defense in the league with balls that you can be sure were absolutely 100% kosher. To argue 'well, we'll just never know if Brady was actually any good' is ludicrous.

If Brady is a scumbag, he's a scumbag for lying and covering up. Not for somehow 'fixing' that game by taking some major unfair advantage. At best its a marginal advantage and one that apparently is well known and common in the League and has been forever.

The fumble statistics completely disprove this line of argument. It had a HUGE impact.

The fumbling statistics were throughly and rigorously and famously debunked.

no they weren't. the guys at 538 still think there's merit and it's worth revisiting that.

Well if the guy who posted the study thinks he isnt a moron...

 

[BroadwayG]

...

The NFL, traditionally, seems to view tampering with a football as about the same level of a crime, the fine in the rulebook is 25,000 (minimum grant you), only slightly more than spearing somebody. IE- If Brady had pulled a ball he brought from home out of his bag and used it, the NFL feels thats about a 25,000 crime (all things being equal).

...

I think it's $25k per ball. There were 12 Patriot balls in this game, or a $300k fine...per game.

Presumably, based on the texts, the Pats have been pulling this all season. That's 18 games counting playoffs, enough to justify a $3.6M fine.

Since 2007

 

[moleculo]

The only way they got the text messages was by McNally and Jasremski turning over their phones.

Brady refused to turn over emails and his phone. Makes me wonder what was on there. He'd rather face the backlash of refusing to cooperate in an NFL investigation (a major no-no) that let them see his emails or text messages.

McNally and Jasremski arent mega-celebrities with supermodel wives. If I was Brady there is no way i'd do it either. If Gisele (or somebody else...) sent him some hot text messages, you really gonna rely on that not to leak? No ####### way.

Now will that hurt Brady or help him? Will the league consider the refusal as guilty. Like when someone refuses to take the league's drug test.

I think in and of itself its not going to hurt him.. because he does have an excellent reason not to turn over his phone. I think all the other stuff is plenty to make a circumstantial case that he was in on this, so refusing to turn over the phone isnt really an issue- lying to the investigators and media is the sin.

Seeing this in the report, what excellent reason does he have?

Similarly, although Tom Brady appeared for a requested interview and answered questions voluntarily, he declined to make available any documents or electronic information (including text messages and emails) that we requested, even though those requests were limited to the subject matter of our investigation (such as messages concerning the preparation of game balls, air pressure of balls, inflation of balls or deflation of balls) and we offered to allow Brady‟s counsel to screen and control the production so that it would be limited strictly to responsive materials and would not involve our taking possession of Brady‟s telephone or other electronic devices. Our inability to review contemporaneous communications and other documents in Brady‟s possession and control related to the matters under review potentially limited the discovery of relevant evidence and was not helpful to the investigation.

I'm ok with the excellent reason of not turning over personal information to anyone without a warrant.

 

[IvanKaramazov]

Yah, you don't get to say no to the investigator because your wife is famous. And if you do, you don't get to be above suspicion because your wife is famous.

This isn't Hollywood

Sure you can. He just did. The NFL isnt a court of law, they dont have subpoena powers.

Agreed. Likewise, Brady doesn't enjoy any 5th amendment rights in this context -- we're completely free to draw logical conclusions from the fact that he refused to turn his phone over, as is the league office. And this is also why the league is free to impose punishment based on a "preponderance of the evidence" standard.

 

[Evilgrin 72]

I can't wait for the season opener.

Garoppolo ! DeAngelo ! It's the NFL on NBC !!!!

 

[GroveDiesel]

There are two factors here to consider with Brady, and they are being confused.

1) Character. He cheated, or at least encouraged cheating (if theres a difference). He lied about it.

2) The crime itself and its impact on the game.

People can argue about how much #1 affects Brady's legacy, and how much the deception etc should impact the punishment (if any). Thats totally reasonable and pretty much arbitrary. You could say he should be banned for life for being a bad representative of the game, or he should walk. EIther answer is defensible.

But point 2 is different. People are comparing slightly deflating a football to Lance Armstrong etc? Its simply apples and oranges. Ive argued Brady's actions are much closer to scuffing a baseball to put an extra quarter inch on your curve ball than to using PEDs that might be the only reason you can compete in your sport at all (much less excel). The NFL, traditionally, seems to view tampering with a football as about the same level of a crime, the fine in the rulebook is 25,000 (minimum grant you), only slightly more than spearing somebody. IE- If Brady had pulled a ball he brought from home out of his bag and used it, the NFL feels thats about a 25,000 crime (all things being equal).

This is just not THAT big a deal from the effect on the game perspective, and pretty much every QB interviewed has made that point. Brady, for instance, threw for 328 yards and 4 TDs in the SB against the best defense in the league with balls that you can be sure were absolutely 100% kosher. To argue 'well, we'll just never know if Brady was actually any good' is ludicrous.

If Brady is a scumbag, he's a scumbag for lying and covering up. Not for somehow 'fixing' that game by taking some major unfair advantage. At best its a marginal advantage and one that apparently is well known and common in the League and has been forever.

The fumble statistics completely disprove this line of argument. It had a HUGE impact.

The fumbling statistics were throughly and rigorously and famously debunked.

No, they weren't.

 

[mbuehner]

There are two factors here to consider with Brady, and they are being confused.

1) Character. He cheated, or at least encouraged cheating (if theres a difference). He lied about it.

2) The crime itself and its impact on the game.

People can argue about how much #1 affects Brady's legacy, and how much the deception etc should impact the punishment (if any). Thats totally reasonable and pretty much arbitrary. You could say he should be banned for life for being a bad representative of the game, or he should walk. EIther answer is defensible.

But point 2 is different. People are comparing slightly deflating a football to Lance Armstrong etc? Its simply apples and oranges. Ive argued Brady's actions are much closer to scuffing a baseball to put an extra quarter inch on your curve ball than to using PEDs that might be the only reason you can compete in your sport at all (much less excel). The NFL, traditionally, seems to view tampering with a football as about the same level of a crime, the fine in the rulebook is 25,000 (minimum grant you), only slightly more than spearing somebody. IE- If Brady had pulled a ball he brought from home out of his bag and used it, the NFL feels thats about a 25,000 crime (all things being equal).

This is just not THAT big a deal from the effect on the game perspective, and pretty much every QB interviewed has made that point. Brady, for instance, threw for 328 yards and 4 TDs in the SB against the best defense in the league with balls that you can be sure were absolutely 100% kosher. To argue 'well, we'll just never know if Brady was actually any good' is ludicrous.

If Brady is a scumbag, he's a scumbag for lying and covering up. Not for somehow 'fixing' that game by taking some major unfair advantage. At best its a marginal advantage and one that apparently is well known and common in the League and has been forever.

The fumble statistics completely disprove this line of argument. It had a HUGE impact.

The fumbling statistics were throughly and rigorously and famously debunked.

No, they weren't.

• http://fivethirtyeight.com/datalab/your-guide-to-deflate-gateballghazi-related-statistical-analyses/

• At Deadspin, statistics professors Gregory J. Matthews and (friend of FiveThirtyEight) Michael Lopez wrote a great,FireJoeMorgan-style, line-by-line takedown of Sharp’s most popular post. They refuted the 1-in-16,234 number (by Sharp’s own methodology it should be more like 1-in-297) and pointed out a massive data error in Sharp’s analysis of individual players (he mixed together some data that included special teams plays and some that excluded them). Matthews and Lopez also broke down team fumble rates by position, after which New England’s running backs and receivers don’t really look like major fumble-preventing outliers at all.
• SoSH Football Central’s Daryl Sng broke down Sharp’s aforementioned data errors in even greater detail. After excluding kick and punt returns (which make no sense to include because teams don’t have any access to “K balls”) and correcting for Sharp’s original mishmash of regular-season and playoff data, the players in Sharp’s sample fumbled only about 23 percent more as non-Patriots, not 88 percent as was originally stated.
• Political scholar Bill Herman also zeroed in on Sharp’s analysis of individual players’ fumble rates with the Patriots and other teams, identifying its aforementioned methodological errors. In addition, he looked at the six players featured in Michael Salfino’s Wall Street Journal article based on Sharp’s work, finding that their difference in fumbling was statistically significant. Of those six players (Danny Amendola, BenJarvus Green-Ellis, Danny Woodhead, Wes Welker, Brandon LaFell and LeGarrette Blount), four were common to Sng’s dataset, but both analyses found a 23 percent increase in fumbling while playing for teams other than New England.
• Like Matthews and Lopez, data analyst Tom Hayden repudiatedSharp’s assumption that his “plays per fumble” metric wasnormally distributed across NFL teams (a necessary condition for the 1-in-16,234 claim).
• The harshest counterargument belonged to data scientist Drew Fustin. Fustin challenged Sharp’s choice to exclude dome teams (Sharp’s own post says outdoor teams barely fumble more often than those based in domes), instead looking at fumble rates across all teams in outdoor games only — whereupon the Patriots don’t even rank first in the NFL at fumble avoidance over the 2010-2014 period. He also questions whether Sharp’s decision to use that 2010-14 period was a case of cherry-pickingthe timeframe that would make the Patriots look most like an extreme outlier.

doesnt get much more debunked than that.

 

[hagmania]

The Patriots are 4-time championships, none of those are tarnished in the slightest by this imo.

I'm just in it for the memes.

There are also people that believe the moon landing was faked.

Hey man, take this as seriously as you want.

I get what I want out of football as the most entertaining thing on television. All these off-the-field shenanigans just add to my enjoyment.

 

[massraider]

The Patriots are 4-time championships, none of those are tarnished in the slightest by this imo.

I'm just in it for the memes.

There are also people that believe the moon landing was faked.

Hey man, take this as seriously as you want.I get what I want out of football as the most entertaining thing on television. All these off-the-field shenanigans just add to my enjoyment.

Do you get the feeling I'm not enjoying this?

That's a shame. Need to up my emoji game.

 

[hagmania]

I'll call a truce.

 

[Bigboy10182000]

@adamlevitan: I have DefalteGate fatigue already. Brady used fully inflated balls in Super Bowl. Lit the No. 1 pass D for 37-of-50, 328 yds, 4 TD, 2 INT.

:Sidetrack:

Brady and Edelman kicked ### in the Super Bowl for sure.

That was not the number one pass D though. Sherman, Thomas, Kam dinged up, and Lane knocked out of game.

Back to cheater Brady.

And when the balls were properly inflated the second half of the Colts game? Or were people dinged there too? What % dinged?

 

[Bigboy10182000]

Some athletes think not changing their socks for a month helps them as well....

Can you prove it doesn't? And can you prove it not just with a "preponderance of evidence," but with "clear and convincing evidence?" Because unless you can, than that means not changing your socks does help, despite logic telling us otherwise.

I don't know when it all started with Brady and haven't followed it as close as some of you have. When I look at his second half numbers (legal ball) against the Colts and the SB (legal ball) that takes away from the general argument of how much he is being helped

 

[Bigboy10182000]

@adamlevitan: I have DefalteGate fatigue already. Brady used fully inflated balls in Super Bowl. Lit the No. 1 pass D for 37-of-50, 328 yds, 4 TD, 2 INT.

That's fine. It doesn't address the fumbling issue, nor the fact that he was likely using illegal balls when he beat the Ravens by four. Simply citing to one game isn't going to do it in this instance. There's a long pattern of cheating that might have influenced the path to even get to the Super Bowl.

ohh, come on. Let's not make this "the butterfly effect". If Ray Rice doesn't punch his fiancé, they keep him and he is less effective and the Ravens lose a game they otherwise won and never get matched up in the game in the first place...WHO CARES? It can't be changed and a trillion things going 6 inches to the left or right during the course of the year determines things. We move on. Its like Percy Harvin clearly stepping out of bounds but getting called a TD. Surely that had some snowballing effect that ends with the Packers in the Super Bowl somehow (or Dallas had the refs made the right call).

It's sports. It is ingrained with human error and it is ingrained with instances of cheating a thousand times over that we never hear about. No need to plant a stake in the ground on this.

They got caught cheating so that they would gain an advantage on other opponents. This should almost be tautological in its logical conclusion. There aren't many leaps to make.

Prove the advantage please. I have seen fumbles and that's a step in the right direction but how does he get better against the Colts after the balls are fixed? How does he put up those #'s in the SB?

The help seems marginal right now....Noisegate type of marginal.

 

[IvanKaramazov]

@adamlevitan: I have DefalteGate fatigue already. Brady used fully inflated balls in Super Bowl. Lit the No. 1 pass D for 37-of-50, 328 yds, 4 TD, 2 INT.

That's fine. It doesn't address the fumbling issue, nor the fact that he was likely using illegal balls when he beat the Ravens by four. Simply citing to one game isn't going to do it in this instance. There's a long pattern of cheating that might have influenced the path to even get to the Super Bowl.

ohh, come on. Let's not make this "the butterfly effect". If Ray Rice doesn't punch his fiancé, they keep him and he is less effective and the Ravens lose a game they otherwise won and never get matched up in the game in the first place...WHO CARES? It can't be changed and a trillion things going 6 inches to the left or right during the course of the year determines things. We move on. Its like Percy Harvin clearly stepping out of bounds but getting called a TD. Surely that had some snowballing effect that ends with the Packers in the Super Bowl somehow (or Dallas had the refs made the right call).

It's sports. It is ingrained with human error and it is ingrained with instances of cheating a thousand times over that we never hear about. No need to plant a stake in the ground on this.

They got caught cheating so that they would gain an advantage on other opponents. This should almost be tautological in its logical conclusion. There aren't many leaps to make.

Prove the advantage please. I have seen fumbles and that's a step in the right direction but how does he get better against the Colts after the balls are fixed? How does he put up those #'s in the SB?

The help seems marginal right now....Noisegate type of marginal.

You seem to have a much lower opinion of Brady than I do. I assume the guy knows what he's doing, and he's not cheating just for the heck of it. You seem to be questioning his knowledge of the position.

 

[The General]

@adamlevitan: I have DefalteGate fatigue already. Brady used fully inflated balls in Super Bowl. Lit the No. 1 pass D for 37-of-50, 328 yds, 4 TD, 2 INT.

:Sidetrack:Brady and Edelman kicked ### in the Super Bowl for sure.

That was not the number one pass D though. Sherman, Thomas, Kam dinged up, and Lane knocked out of game.

Back to cheater Brady.

And when the balls were properly inflated the second half of the Colts game? Or were people dinged there too? What % dinged?

Personally, I'm overlooking the ball pressure, however they kept the balls deflated or inflated whatever. Studies show that maybe they got an advantage, people who played in the NFL that said that it's easier to throw a softball, etc. I'd overlook all that.The issue here is knowingly breaking a rule, getting caught, lying about it trying to cover it up.

It's not defensible.

 

[moleculo]

I'm not 100% convinced the scientific data presented in this report is as bulletproof as assumed.

 

[GroveDiesel]

There are two factors here to consider with Brady, and they are being confused.

1) Character. He cheated, or at least encouraged cheating (if theres a difference). He lied about it.

2) The crime itself and its impact on the game.

People can argue about how much #1 affects Brady's legacy, and how much the deception etc should impact the punishment (if any). Thats totally reasonable and pretty much arbitrary. You could say he should be banned for life for being a bad representative of the game, or he should walk. EIther answer is defensible.

But point 2 is different. People are comparing slightly deflating a football to Lance Armstrong etc? Its simply apples and oranges. Ive argued Brady's actions are much closer to scuffing a baseball to put an extra quarter inch on your curve ball than to using PEDs that might be the only reason you can compete in your sport at all (much less excel). The NFL, traditionally, seems to view tampering with a football as about the same level of a crime, the fine in the rulebook is 25,000 (minimum grant you), only slightly more than spearing somebody. IE- If Brady had pulled a ball he brought from home out of his bag and used it, the NFL feels thats about a 25,000 crime (all things being equal).

This is just not THAT big a deal from the effect on the game perspective, and pretty much every QB interviewed has made that point. Brady, for instance, threw for 328 yards and 4 TDs in the SB against the best defense in the league with balls that you can be sure were absolutely 100% kosher. To argue 'well, we'll just never know if Brady was actually any good' is ludicrous.

If Brady is a scumbag, he's a scumbag for lying and covering up. Not for somehow 'fixing' that game by taking some major unfair advantage. At best its a marginal advantage and one that apparently is well known and common in the League and has been forever.

The fumble statistics completely disprove this line of argument. It had a HUGE impact.

The fumbling statistics were throughly and rigorously and famously debunked.

No, they weren't.

• http://fivethirtyeight.com/datalab/your-guide-to-deflate-gateballghazi-related-statistical-analyses/

• At Deadspin, statistics professors Gregory J. Matthews and (friend of FiveThirtyEight) Michael Lopez wrote a great,FireJoeMorgan-style, line-by-line takedown of Sharp’s most popular post. They refuted the 1-in-16,234 number (by Sharp’s own methodology it should be more like 1-in-297) and pointed out a massive data error in Sharp’s analysis of individual players (he mixed together some data that included special teams plays and some that excluded them). Matthews and Lopez also broke down team fumble rates by position, after which New England’s running backs and receivers don’t really look like major fumble-preventing outliers at all.
• SoSH Football Central’s Daryl Sng broke down Sharp’s aforementioned data errors in even greater detail. After excluding kick and punt returns (which make no sense to include because teams don’t have any access to “K balls”) and correcting for Sharp’s original mishmash of regular-season and playoff data, the players in Sharp’s sample fumbled only about 23 percent more as non-Patriots, not 88 percent as was originally stated.
• Political scholar Bill Herman also zeroed in on Sharp’s analysis of individual players’ fumble rates with the Patriots and other teams, identifying its aforementioned methodological errors. In addition, he looked at the six players featured in Michael Salfino’s Wall Street Journal article based on Sharp’s work, finding that their difference in fumbling was statistically significant. Of those six players (Danny Amendola, BenJarvus Green-Ellis, Danny Woodhead, Wes Welker, Brandon LaFell and LeGarrette Blount), four were common to Sng’s dataset, but both analyses found a 23 percent increase in fumbling while playing for teams other than New England.
• Like Matthews and Lopez, data analyst Tom Hayden repudiatedSharp’s assumption that his “plays per fumble” metric wasnormally distributed across NFL teams (a necessary condition for the 1-in-16,234 claim).
• The harshest counterargument belonged to data scientist Drew Fustin. Fustin challenged Sharp’s choice to exclude dome teams (Sharp’s own post says outdoor teams barely fumble more often than those based in domes), instead looking at fumble rates across all teams in outdoor games only — whereupon the Patriots don’t even rank first in the NFL at fumble avoidance over the 2010-2014 period. He also questions whether Sharp’s decision to use that 2010-14 period was a case of cherry-pickingthe timeframe that would make the Patriots look most like an extreme outlier.

doesnt get much more debunked than that.

Sharpp's followup articles take all of that into account, and even your own "debunking" states that there is a statistically significant difference that makes the Pats an outlier even when controlling for position, etc.

 

[Bigboy10182000]

@adamlevitan: I have DefalteGate fatigue already. Brady used fully inflated balls in Super Bowl. Lit the No. 1 pass D for 37-of-50, 328 yds, 4 TD, 2 INT.

That's fine. It doesn't address the fumbling issue, nor the fact that he was likely using illegal balls when he beat the Ravens by four. Simply citing to one game isn't going to do it in this instance. There's a long pattern of cheating that might have influenced the path to even get to the Super Bowl.

ohh, come on. Let's not make this "the butterfly effect". If Ray Rice doesn't punch his fiancé, they keep him and he is less effective and the Ravens lose a game they otherwise won and never get matched up in the game in the first place...WHO CARES? It can't be changed and a trillion things going 6 inches to the left or right during the course of the year determines things. We move on. Its like Percy Harvin clearly stepping out of bounds but getting called a TD. Surely that had some snowballing effect that ends with the Packers in the Super Bowl somehow (or Dallas had the refs made the right call).

It's sports. It is ingrained with human error and it is ingrained with instances of cheating a thousand times over that we never hear about. No need to plant a stake in the ground on this.

They got caught cheating so that they would gain an advantage on other opponents. This should almost be tautological in its logical conclusion. There aren't many leaps to make.

Prove the advantage please. I have seen fumbles and that's a step in the right direction but how does he get better against the Colts after the balls are fixed? How does he put up those #'s in the SB?

The help seems marginal right now....Noisegate type of marginal.

You seem to have a much lower opinion of Brady than I do. I assume the guy knows what he's doing, and he's not cheating just for the heck of it. You seem to be questioning his knowledge of the position.

I don't want you to misunderstand my position-- If this type of cheating provides an advantage than it will show. If Brady could get away with using broken in balls every game he (and many other would IMO). Players and coaches will look for any advantage...that's both large AND small.

 

[GroveDiesel]

Some athletes think not changing their socks for a month helps them as well....

Can you prove it doesn't? And can you prove it not just with a "preponderance of evidence," but with "clear and convincing evidence?" Because unless you can, than that means not changing your socks does help, despite logic telling us otherwise.

I don't know when it all started with Brady and haven't followed it as close as some of you have. When I look at his second half numbers (legal ball) against the Colts and the SB (legal ball) that takes away from the general argument of how much he is being helped

The problem is that 30 minutes of playing time is too small of a sample to show anything versus 8 years of data.

 

[IvanKaramazov]

I don't want you to misunderstand my position-- If this type of cheating provides an advantage than it will show. If Brady could get away with using broken in balls every game he (and many other would IMO). Players and coaches will look for any advantage...that's both large AND small.

That's fair. I don't think Tom Brady would have been Curtis Painter if only his footballs were properly inflated all along. I agree that the advantage is probably fairly small, although I've never very far into the fumble-statistics thing. I just think it's obvious that Brady himself thought that even if the advantage he gained from under-inflating the ball was small, it wasn't nothing either. He apparently thought it was enough to make it worthwhile.

 

[Bigboy10182000]

@adamlevitan: I have DefalteGate fatigue already. Brady used fully inflated balls in Super Bowl. Lit the No. 1 pass D for 37-of-50, 328 yds, 4 TD, 2 INT.

:Sidetrack:Brady and Edelman kicked ### in the Super Bowl for sure.

That was not the number one pass D though. Sherman, Thomas, Kam dinged up, and Lane knocked out of game.

Back to cheater Brady.

And when the balls were properly inflated the second half of the Colts game? Or were people dinged there too? What % dinged?

Personally, I'm overlooking the ball pressure, however they kept the balls deflated or inflated whatever. Studies show that maybe they got an advantage, people who played in the NFL that said that it's easier to throw a softball, etc. I'd overlook all that.The issue here is knowingly breaking a rule, getting caught, lying about it trying to cover it up.

It's not defensible.

You get caught doing 30mph in a 25 and you tell the cop you didn't realize when you did know just how fast you were going. You knew what you were doing, you got caught and you may make a little lie up just to avoid that punishment. None of those types in this thread I bet....How sever should that punishment be? What was gained by going 30? Arriving a few minutes early? In Brady's case what was gained? Throwing for 360 instead of 350? No, because he did better after the balls were fixed....

I'd be all for a suspension and asterisk and all types of stuff if there seemed to be a sizeable advantage but I haven't seen one yet.

 

[Bigboy10182000]

Some athletes think not changing their socks for a month helps them as well....

Can you prove it doesn't? And can you prove it not just with a "preponderance of evidence," but with "clear and convincing evidence?" Because unless you can, than that means not changing your socks does help, despite logic telling us otherwise.

I don't know when it all started with Brady and haven't followed it as close as some of you have. When I look at his second half numbers (legal ball) against the Colts and the SB (legal ball) that takes away from the general argument of how much he is being helped

The problem is that 30 minutes of playing time is too small of a sample to show anything versus 8 years of data.

Keep in mind I have not read his report...Im going mainly off of headlines. If they have 8 years worth of data for properly inflated balls versus ones that are light that would be the best place to start.

 

[JIslander]

@adamlevitan: I have DefalteGate fatigue already. Brady used fully inflated balls in Super Bowl. Lit the No. 1 pass D for 37-of-50, 328 yds, 4 TD, 2 INT.

:Sidetrack:Brady and Edelman kicked ### in the Super Bowl for sure.

That was not the number one pass D though. Sherman, Thomas, Kam dinged up, and Lane knocked out of game.

Back to cheater Brady.

And when the balls were properly inflated the second half of the Colts game? Or were people dinged there too? What % dinged?

Personally, I'm overlooking the ball pressure, however they kept the balls deflated or inflated whatever. Studies show that maybe they got an advantage, people who played in the NFL that said that it's easier to throw a softball, etc. I'd overlook all that.The issue here is knowingly breaking a rule, getting caught, lying about it trying to cover it up.

It's not defensible.

You get caught doing 30mph in a 25 and you tell the cop you didn't realize when you did know just how fast you were going. You knew what you were doing, you got caught and you may make a little lie up just to avoid that punishment. None of those types in this thread I bet....How sever should that punishment be? What was gained by going 30? Arriving a few minutes early? In Brady's case what was gained? Throwing for 360 instead of 350? No, because he did better after the balls were fixed....

I'd be all for a suspension and asterisk and all types of stuff if there seemed to be a sizeable advantage but I haven't seen one yet.

Oh, I don't know, after 8 years of getting pulled over ...

 

[Bigboy10182000]

@adamlevitan: I have DefalteGate fatigue already. Brady used fully inflated balls in Super Bowl. Lit the No. 1 pass D for 37-of-50, 328 yds, 4 TD, 2 INT.

:Sidetrack:Brady and Edelman kicked ### in the Super Bowl for sure.

That was not the number one pass D though. Sherman, Thomas, Kam dinged up, and Lane knocked out of game.

Back to cheater Brady.

And when the balls were properly inflated the second half of the Colts game? Or were people dinged there too? What % dinged?

Personally, I'm overlooking the ball pressure, however they kept the balls deflated or inflated whatever. Studies show that maybe they got an advantage, people who played in the NFL that said that it's easier to throw a softball, etc. I'd overlook all that.The issue here is knowingly breaking a rule, getting caught, lying about it trying to cover it up.

It's not defensible.

You get caught doing 30mph in a 25 and you tell the cop you didn't realize when you did know just how fast you were going. You knew what you were doing, you got caught and you may make a little lie up just to avoid that punishment. None of those types in this thread I bet....How sever should that punishment be? What was gained by going 30? Arriving a few minutes early? In Brady's case what was gained? Throwing for 360 instead of 350? No, because he did better after the balls were fixed....

I'd be all for a suspension and asterisk and all types of stuff if there seemed to be a sizeable advantage but I haven't seen one yet.

Oh, I don't know, after 8 years of getting pulled over ...

How many incidents in those 8 years? I agree Spygate was bad but Deflategate isn't even in the same world as it stands today...

 

[ROCKET]

So as predicted there is no damning evidence of any wrong doing by Brady or the Pats. That's all I really care about. "More likely than not to have done something" means nothing to me. We have the Pats fans who think it's a joke and the haters who had the noose hanging going in. Each side is going to believe what they want. It's like a bunch of liberals and conservatives arguing, there will be no common ground. It's over as far as I'm concerned. Carry on.

 

[randall146]

@adamlevitan: I have DefalteGate fatigue already. Brady used fully inflated balls in Super Bowl. Lit the No. 1 pass D for 37-of-50, 328 yds, 4 TD, 2 INT.

That's fine. It doesn't address the fumbling issue, nor the fact that he was likely using illegal balls when he beat the Ravens by four. Simply citing to one game isn't going to do it in this instance. There's a long pattern of cheating that might have influenced the path to even get to the Super Bowl.

What it does do is reinforce the point that the air pressure in teh footballs doesn't have a great impact on the game. Sure, it matters A LITTLE, but it's not a major point.

That just makes it even more asinine that Brady did it. He knowingly broke a rule that didn't need to be broken. He can't even claim that he didn't know (especially in light of his post-Baltimore diatribe suggesting the Ravens "read the rulebook").

It screams of hubris; "I don't need to follow this rule, because we're the Pats, and I'm Tom Brady!"

Just to address this point - and I don't mean it to say the Pats didn't cheat - I still believe everybody or most everybody in the league does what it takes to get the footballs the way they like them. Some like them below acceptable range, some within, and some above. And there's plenty of current and former QBs that think the issue is ridiculous because everybody knows that everybody did it.

Again, not meant as an excuse, but I think his feeling was more "I don't need to follow this rule because no one follows it, everybody knows no one follows it, and nobody cares."

 

[randall146]

@adamlevitan: I have DefalteGate fatigue already. Brady used fully inflated balls in Super Bowl. Lit the No. 1 pass D for 37-of-50, 328 yds, 4 TD, 2 INT.

That's fine. It doesn't address the fumbling issue, nor the fact that he was likely using illegal balls when he beat the Ravens by four. Simply citing to one game isn't going to do it in this instance. There's a long pattern of cheating that might have influenced the path to even get to the Super Bowl.

I agree...It might have...

No real way to tell what games he (or anyone) used legal or illegal balls in but it would appear he can play at a very high level with them being inflated to the proper size. IMHO, that lessons this issue a lot....

Nobody truly thinks that Brady sucks. He can play the QB position very well without cheating. Lance Armstrong was also unquestionably a very good cyclist even without the doping. Reasonable people can come to the conclusion that the athlete in question is really good, but should still have his accomplishments discounted because of cheating.

How so if you cant truly tell how much of an effect it had on the game?

Doping is different. Barry Bonds isn't performing at that level, at his age, without the juice. Tom did better against Indy with the balls inflated properly and had an awesome game against one of our generations best defenses, on the biggest stage. I don't see how you can discount his accomplishments in any meaningful way with that starring you in the face.

And there's certainly no way Armstrong could have competed without the doping, since every other riders was doping too. A clean rider simply didn't have a chance

 

[JIslander]

@adamlevitan: I have DefalteGate fatigue already. Brady used fully inflated balls in Super Bowl. Lit the No. 1 pass D for 37-of-50, 328 yds, 4 TD, 2 INT.

:Sidetrack:Brady and Edelman kicked ### in the Super Bowl for sure.

That was not the number one pass D though. Sherman, Thomas, Kam dinged up, and Lane knocked out of game.

Back to cheater Brady.

And when the balls were properly inflated the second half of the Colts game? Or were people dinged there too? What % dinged?

Personally, I'm overlooking the ball pressure, however they kept the balls deflated or inflated whatever. Studies show that maybe they got an advantage, people who played in the NFL that said that it's easier to throw a softball, etc. I'd overlook all that.The issue here is knowingly breaking a rule, getting caught, lying about it trying to cover it up.

It's not defensible.

You get caught doing 30mph in a 25 and you tell the cop you didn't realize when you did know just how fast you were going. You knew what you were doing, you got caught and you may make a little lie up just to avoid that punishment. None of those types in this thread I bet....How sever should that punishment be? What was gained by going 30? Arriving a few minutes early? In Brady's case what was gained? Throwing for 360 instead of 350? No, because he did better after the balls were fixed....

I'd be all for a suspension and asterisk and all types of stuff if there seemed to be a sizeable advantage but I haven't seen one yet.

Oh, I don't know, after 8 years of getting pulled over ...

How many incidents in those 8 years? I agree Spygate was bad but Deflategate isn't even in the same world as it stands today...

To your analogy, cop would have pulled Tom over approximately 128 times or as many games he used illegally deflated balls.

 

[mbuehner]

There are two factors here to consider with Brady, and they are being confused.

1) Character. He cheated, or at least encouraged cheating (if theres a difference). He lied about it.

2) The crime itself and its impact on the game.

People can argue about how much #1 affects Brady's legacy, and how much the deception etc should impact the punishment (if any). Thats totally reasonable and pretty much arbitrary. You could say he should be banned for life for being a bad representative of the game, or he should walk. EIther answer is defensible.

But point 2 is different. People are comparing slightly deflating a football to Lance Armstrong etc? Its simply apples and oranges. Ive argued Brady's actions are much closer to scuffing a baseball to put an extra quarter inch on your curve ball than to using PEDs that might be the only reason you can compete in your sport at all (much less excel). The NFL, traditionally, seems to view tampering with a football as about the same level of a crime, the fine in the rulebook is 25,000 (minimum grant you), only slightly more than spearing somebody. IE- If Brady had pulled a ball he brought from home out of his bag and used it, the NFL feels thats about a 25,000 crime (all things being equal).

This is just not THAT big a deal from the effect on the game perspective, and pretty much every QB interviewed has made that point. Brady, for instance, threw for 328 yards and 4 TDs in the SB against the best defense in the league with balls that you can be sure were absolutely 100% kosher. To argue 'well, we'll just never know if Brady was actually any good' is ludicrous.

If Brady is a scumbag, he's a scumbag for lying and covering up. Not for somehow 'fixing' that game by taking some major unfair advantage. At best its a marginal advantage and one that apparently is well known and common in the League and has been forever.

The fumble statistics completely disprove this line of argument. It had a HUGE impact.

The fumbling statistics were throughly and rigorously and famously debunked.

No, they weren't.

• http://fivethirtyeight.com/datalab/your-guide-to-deflate-gateballghazi-related-statistical-analyses/

• At Deadspin, statistics professors Gregory J. Matthews and (friend of FiveThirtyEight) Michael Lopez wrote a great,FireJoeMorgan-style, line-by-line takedown of Sharps most popular post. They refuted the 1-in-16,234 number (by Sharps own methodology it should be more like 1-in-297) and pointed out a massive data error in Sharps analysis of individual players (he mixed together some data that included special teams plays and some that excluded them). Matthews and Lopez also broke down team fumble rates by position, after which New Englands running backs and receivers dont really look like major fumble-preventing outliers at all.
• SoSH Football Centrals Daryl Sng broke down Sharps aforementioned data errors in even greater detail. After excluding kick and punt returns (which make no sense to include because teams dont have any access to K balls) and correcting for Sharps original mishmash of regular-season and playoff data, the players in Sharps sample fumbled only about 23 percent more as non-Patriots, not 88 percent as was originally stated.
• Political scholar Bill Herman also zeroed in on Sharps analysis of individual players fumble rates with the Patriots and other teams, identifying its aforementioned methodological errors. In addition, he looked at the six players featured in Michael Salfinos Wall Street Journal article based on Sharps work, finding that their difference in fumbling was statistically significant. Of those six players (Danny Amendola, BenJarvus Green-Ellis, Danny Woodhead, Wes Welker, Brandon LaFell and LeGarrette Blount), four were common to Sngs dataset, but both analyses found a 23 percent increase in fumbling while playing for teams other than New England.
• Like Matthews and Lopez, data analyst Tom Hayden repudiatedSharps assumption that his plays per fumble metric wasnormally distributed across NFL teams (a necessary condition for the 1-in-16,234 claim).
• The harshest counterargument belonged to data scientist Drew Fustin. Fustin challenged Sharps choice to exclude dome teams (Sharps own post says outdoor teams barely fumble more often than those based in domes), instead looking at fumble rates across all teams in outdoor games only whereupon the Patriots dont even rank first in the NFL at fumble avoidance over the 2010-2014 period. He also questions whether Sharps decision to use that 2010-14 period was a case of cherry-pickingthe timeframe that would make the Patriots look most like an extreme outlier.

doesnt get much more debunked than that.

Sharpp's followup articles take all of that into account, and even your own "debunking" states that there is a statistically significant difference that makes the Pats an outlier even when controlling for position, etc.

I should trust the word of the guy who got caught cherry picking data?

 

[Native]

There are two factors here to consider with Brady, and they are being confused.

1) Character. He cheated, or at least encouraged cheating (if theres a difference). He lied about it.

2) The crime itself and its impact on the game.

People can argue about how much #1 affects Brady's legacy, and how much the deception etc should impact the punishment (if any). Thats totally reasonable and pretty much arbitrary. You could say he should be banned for life for being a bad representative of the game, or he should walk. EIther answer is defensible.

But point 2 is different. People are comparing slightly deflating a football to Lance Armstrong etc? Its simply apples and oranges. Ive argued Brady's actions are much closer to scuffing a baseball to put an extra quarter inch on your curve ball than to using PEDs that might be the only reason you can compete in your sport at all (much less excel). The NFL, traditionally, seems to view tampering with a football as about the same level of a crime, the fine in the rulebook is 25,000 (minimum grant you), only slightly more than spearing somebody. IE- If Brady had pulled a ball he brought from home out of his bag and used it, the NFL feels thats about a 25,000 crime (all things being equal).

This is just not THAT big a deal from the effect on the game perspective, and pretty much every QB interviewed has made that point. Brady, for instance, threw for 328 yards and 4 TDs in the SB against the best defense in the league with balls that you can be sure were absolutely 100% kosher. To argue 'well, we'll just never know if Brady was actually any good' is ludicrous.

If Brady is a scumbag, he's a scumbag for lying and covering up. Not for somehow 'fixing' that game by taking some major unfair advantage. At best its a marginal advantage and one that apparently is well known and common in the League and has been forever.

Nice post. Quick question - if the crime itself was really not so egregious (as you state), why would the equipment manager go to such great lengths to deflate the balls? Stealing the game balls and doctoring them 15 minutes before the start of the AFC Championship? Seems like the risk would not be worth the reward and makes your comparison to a pitcher scoffing a baseball less credible. That he was willing to risk getting caught at such a high profile event makes me think that the air pressure of the ball is far more important you are stating.

 

[moleculo]

so here's the problem:

page 113 of the wells report:

According to Exponent, based on the most likely pressure and temperature values for the Patriots game balls on the day of the AFC Championship Game (i.e., a starting pressure of 12.5 psi, a starting temperature of between 67 and 71 degrees and a final temperature of 48 degrees),the Ideal Gas Law predicts that the Patriots balls should have measured between 11.52 and 11.32 psi at the end of the first half, just before they were brought back into the Officials Locker Room.

or, a pressure differential of 0.98 to 1.18.

The balls were measured at half time with two gauges - referred to as a "Logo" gauge and a "NonLogo" gauge. on page 116:

In addition, Exponent determined that when the Logo and Non-Logo Gauges measure an identical pressure, different readings are produced. According to Exponent, the Logo Gauge produced readings that were generally in the range of 0.3-0.4 psi higher than the NonLogo Gauge. However, for a given set of measurements, the differential between the gauges generally remained consistent when compared to a calibrated gauge. In other words, in the short term, both the Logo Gauge and Non-Logo Gauge read consistently, though differently from each other. Exponent‟s experimental results were aligned with the measurements recorded at halftime, which indicated a consistent gauge-to-gauge differential of 0.3-0.45 psi.

so lets look at the raw data (page 8):

ball blakeman piroleau diffpat1 11.5 11.8 -0.3pat2 10.85 11.2 -0.35pat3 11.15 11.5 -0.35pat4 10.7 11 -0.3pat5 11.1 11.45 -0.35pat6 11.6 11.95 -0.35pat7 11.85 12.3 -0.45pat8 11.1 11.55 -0.45pat9 10.95 11.35 -0.4pat10 10.5 10.9 -0.4pat11 10.9 11.35 -0.45 colt1 12.7 12.35 0.35colt2 12.75 12.3 0.45colt3 12.5 12.95 -0.45colt4 12.55 12.15 0.4you can see that gauge difference reflected in these measurements, and see that Prioleau must have used the Logo gauge. Note that it appears blakeman and Prioleau mixed up the gauges while measuring the Colts balls, as noted in the report: (pg 116)

Clete Blakeman most likely used the Non-Logo Gauge and Dyrol Prioleau most likely used the Logo Gauge to test the Patriots game balls at halftime, and that the game officials most likely switched gauges before measuring the Colts balls at halftime.

Here's my beef: which gauge was used for the pre-game inspection?

The Wells report concludes that "Anderson most likely used the NonLogo gauge to inspect the game balls prior to the game." I'm not clear on how that assumption can be made. Here's why it matters:

Assume the logo gauge was used pre-game to set the Pats balls to 12.5. if you were to check those same balls with the non-logo gauge, you could see measurements as low as 12.05 PSI, before you even take them outside. If you then apply the 1.18 PSI pressure drop, you would expect these perfectly legal, cold balls to have a pressure of no less than 10.87 when measured non-logo gauge.

looking at the data above, three out of the 11 measured balls fell below that threshhold, and two of those were really, really close to the edge. When you get down to it, there is only one ball out of spec here.

I'm curious to know why they assume Anderson used the non-logo gauge.

 

[mbuehner]

so here's the problem:

page 113 of the wells report:

According to Exponent, based on the most likely pressure and temperature values for the Patriots game balls on the day of the AFC Championship Game (i.e., a starting pressure of 12.5 psi, a starting temperature of between 67 and 71 degrees and a final temperature of 48 degrees),the Ideal Gas Law predicts that the Patriots balls should have measured between 11.52 and 11.32 psi at the end of the first half, just before they were brought back into the Officials Locker Room.

or, a pressure differential of 0.98 to 1.18.

The balls were measured at half time with two gauges - referred to as a "Logo" gauge and a "NonLogo" gauge. on page 116:

In addition, Exponent determined that when the Logo and Non-Logo Gauges measure an identical pressure, different readings are produced. According to Exponent, the Logo Gauge produced readings that were generally in the range of 0.3-0.4 psi higher than the NonLogo Gauge. However, for a given set of measurements, the differential between the gauges generally remained consistent when compared to a calibrated gauge. In other words, in the short term, both the Logo Gauge and Non-Logo Gauge read consistently, though differently from each other. Exponent‟s experimental results were aligned with the measurements recorded at halftime, which indicated a consistent gauge-to-gauge differential of 0.3-0.45 psi.

so lets look at the raw data (page 8):

ball blakeman piroleau diffpat1 11.5 11.8 -0.3pat2 10.85 11.2 -0.35pat3 11.15 11.5 -0.35pat4 10.7 11 -0.3pat5 11.1 11.45 -0.35pat6 11.6 11.95 -0.35pat7 11.85 12.3 -0.45pat8 11.1 11.55 -0.45pat9 10.95 11.35 -0.4pat10 10.5 10.9 -0.4pat11 10.9 11.35 -0.45 colt1 12.7 12.35 0.35colt2 12.75 12.3 0.45colt3 12.5 12.95 -0.45colt4 12.55 12.15 0.4you can see that gauge difference reflected in these measurements, and see that Prioleau must have used the Logo gauge. Note that it appears blakeman and Prioleau mixed up the gauges while measuring the Colts balls, as noted in the report:

Clete Blakeman most likely used the Non-Logo Gauge and Dyrol Prioleau most likely used the Logo Gauge to test the Patriots game balls at halftime, and that the game officials most likely switched gauges before measuring the Colts balls at halftime.

Here's my beef: which gauge was used for the pre-game inspection? The Wells report concludes that "Anderson most likely used the NonLogo gauge to inspect the game balls prior to the game." I'm not clear on how that assumption can be made. Here's why it matters:

Assume the logo gauge was used pre-game to set the Pats balls to 12.5. if you were to check those same balls with the non-logo gauge, you could see measurements as low as 12.05 PSI, before you even take them outside. If you then apply the 1.18 PSI pressure drop, you would expect these perfectly legal, cold balls to have a pressure of no less than 10.87 when measured non-logo gauge.

looking at the data above, three out of the 11 measured balls fell below that threshhold, and two of those were really, really close to the edge. When you get down to it, there is only one ball out of spec here.

I'm curious to know why they assume Anderson used the non-logo gauge.

*The ball handled by the Colts btw. I always found it fishy that the ball the Colts presented to the refs was significantly more deflated than the rest.

 

[12punch]

The only way they got the text messages was by McNally and Jasremski turning over their phones.

Brady refused to turn over emails and his phone. Makes me wonder what was on there. He'd rather face the backlash of refusing to cooperate in an NFL investigation (a major no-no) that let them see his emails or text messages.

I'm sure there's a million TMZ fans eager to get a peek at Brady's phone.

Probably his underwear drawer, too

 

[moleculo]

so here's the problem:

page 113 of the wells report:

According to Exponent, based on the most likely pressure and temperature values for the Patriots game balls on the day of the AFC Championship Game (i.e., a starting pressure of 12.5 psi, a starting temperature of between 67 and 71 degrees and a final temperature of 48 degrees),the Ideal Gas Law predicts that the Patriots balls should have measured between 11.52 and 11.32 psi at the end of the first half, just before they were brought back into the Officials Locker Room.

or, a pressure differential of 0.98 to 1.18.

The balls were measured at half time with two gauges - referred to as a "Logo" gauge and a "NonLogo" gauge. on page 116:

In addition, Exponent determined that when the Logo and Non-Logo Gauges measure an identical pressure, different readings are produced. According to Exponent, the Logo Gauge produced readings that were generally in the range of 0.3-0.4 psi higher than the NonLogo Gauge. However, for a given set of measurements, the differential between the gauges generally remained consistent when compared to a calibrated gauge. In other words, in the short term, both the Logo Gauge and Non-Logo Gauge read consistently, though differently from each other. Exponent‟s experimental results were aligned with the measurements recorded at halftime, which indicated a consistent gauge-to-gauge differential of 0.3-0.45 psi.

so lets look at the raw data (page 8):

ball blakeman piroleau diffpat1 11.5 11.8 -0.3pat2 10.85 11.2 -0.35pat3 11.15 11.5 -0.35pat4 10.7 11 -0.3pat5 11.1 11.45 -0.35pat6 11.6 11.95 -0.35pat7 11.85 12.3 -0.45pat8 11.1 11.55 -0.45pat9 10.95 11.35 -0.4pat10 10.5 10.9 -0.4pat11 10.9 11.35 -0.45 colt1 12.7 12.35 0.35colt2 12.75 12.3 0.45colt3 12.5 12.95 -0.45colt4 12.55 12.15 0.4you can see that gauge difference reflected in these measurements, and see that Prioleau must have used the Logo gauge. Note that it appears blakeman and Prioleau mixed up the gauges while measuring the Colts balls, as noted in the report:

Clete Blakeman most likely used the Non-Logo Gauge and Dyrol Prioleau most likely used the Logo Gauge to test the Patriots game balls at halftime, and that the game officials most likely switched gauges before measuring the Colts balls at halftime.

Here's my beef: which gauge was used for the pre-game inspection? The Wells report concludes that "Anderson most likely used the NonLogo gauge to inspect the game balls prior to the game." I'm not clear on how that assumption can be made. Here's why it matters:

Assume the logo gauge was used pre-game to set the Pats balls to 12.5. if you were to check those same balls with the non-logo gauge, you could see measurements as low as 12.05 PSI, before you even take them outside. If you then apply the 1.18 PSI pressure drop, you would expect these perfectly legal, cold balls to have a pressure of no less than 10.87 when measured non-logo gauge.

looking at the data above, three out of the 11 measured balls fell below that threshhold, and two of those were really, really close to the edge. When you get down to it, there is only one ball out of spec here.

I'm curious to know why they assume Anderson used the non-logo gauge.

*The ball handled by the Colts btw. I always found it fishy that the ball the Colts presented to the refs was significantly more deflated than the rest.

no, I don't think that ball was tested.

 

[Anarchy99]

The only way they got the text messages was by McNally and Jasremski turning over their phones.

Brady refused to turn over emails and his phone. Makes me wonder what was on there. He'd rather face the backlash of refusing to cooperate in an NFL investigation (a major no-no) that let them see his emails or text messages.

I'm sure there's a million TMZ fans eager to get a peek at Brady's phone.

Probably his underwear drawer, too

If there were risqué pics from other supermodels or celebrities (or other communications of an illicit nature to indicate an inappropriate relationship with someone not named Gisele), Brady would have been in far worse shape than he is in now.

 

[moleculo]

so here's the problem:

page 113 of the wells report:

According to Exponent, based on the most likely pressure and temperature values for the Patriots game balls on the day of the AFC Championship Game (i.e., a starting pressure of 12.5 psi, a starting temperature of between 67 and 71 degrees and a final temperature of 48 degrees),the Ideal Gas Law predicts that the Patriots balls should have measured between 11.52 and 11.32 psi at the end of the first half, just before they were brought back into the Officials Locker Room.

or, a pressure differential of 0.98 to 1.18.

The balls were measured at half time with two gauges - referred to as a "Logo" gauge and a "NonLogo" gauge. on page 116:

In addition, Exponent determined that when the Logo and Non-Logo Gauges measure an identical pressure, different readings are produced. According to Exponent, the Logo Gauge produced readings that were generally in the range of 0.3-0.4 psi higher than the NonLogo Gauge. However, for a given set of measurements, the differential between the gauges generally remained consistent when compared to a calibrated gauge. In other words, in the short term, both the Logo Gauge and Non-Logo Gauge read consistently, though differently from each other. Exponent‟s experimental results were aligned with the measurements recorded at halftime, which indicated a consistent gauge-to-gauge differential of 0.3-0.45 psi.

so lets look at the raw data (page 8):

ball blakeman piroleau diffpat1 11.5 11.8 -0.3pat2 10.85 11.2 -0.35pat3 11.15 11.5 -0.35pat4 10.7 11 -0.3pat5 11.1 11.45 -0.35pat6 11.6 11.95 -0.35pat7 11.85 12.3 -0.45pat8 11.1 11.55 -0.45pat9 10.95 11.35 -0.4pat10 10.5 10.9 -0.4pat11 10.9 11.35 -0.45 colt1 12.7 12.35 0.35colt2 12.75 12.3 0.45colt3 12.5 12.95 -0.45colt4 12.55 12.15 0.4you can see that gauge difference reflected in these measurements, and see that Prioleau must have used the Logo gauge. Note that it appears blakeman and Prioleau mixed up the gauges while measuring the Colts balls, as noted in the report: (pg 116)

Clete Blakeman most likely used the Non-Logo Gauge and Dyrol Prioleau most likely used the Logo Gauge to test the Patriots game balls at halftime, and that the game officials most likely switched gauges before measuring the Colts balls at halftime.

Here's my beef: which gauge was used for the pre-game inspection?

The Wells report concludes that "Anderson most likely used the NonLogo gauge to inspect the game balls prior to the game." I'm not clear on how that assumption can be made. Here's why it matters:

Assume the logo gauge was used pre-game to set the Pats balls to 12.5. if you were to check those same balls with the non-logo gauge, you could see measurements as low as 12.05 PSI, before you even take them outside. If you then apply the 1.18 PSI pressure drop, you would expect these perfectly legal, cold balls to have a pressure of no less than 10.87 when measured non-logo gauge.

looking at the data above, three out of the 11 measured balls fell below that threshhold, and two of those were really, really close to the edge. When you get down to it, there is only one ball out of spec here.

I'm curious to know why they assume Anderson used the non-logo gauge.

and, here it is - pg 44 of the appendix:

Walt Anderson recalled that according to the gauge he used (which is either the Logo or Non-Logo Gauge), all of the Patriots and Colts footballs measured at or near 12.5 psig and 13.0 psig, respectively, when he first tested them (with two Patriots balls slightly below 12.5 psig). This means that the gauges used by the Patriots and the Colts each read similarly to the gauge used by Walt Anderson during his pregame inspection.

It has been shown that the Logo Gauge consistently reads higher than all other gauges analyzed in this investigation. As a result, it is very unlikely that the Logo Gauge would have read similarly to the gauges used by each team. Therefore, it is most likely that the gauge used by Walt Anderson prior to the game was the Non-Logo Gauge, which read similarly to the Master Gauge and other gauges tested during the investigation.

 

[Bigboy10182000]

@adamlevitan: I have DefalteGate fatigue already. Brady used fully inflated balls in Super Bowl. Lit the No. 1 pass D for 37-of-50, 328 yds, 4 TD, 2 INT.

:Sidetrack:Brady and Edelman kicked ### in the Super Bowl for sure.

That was not the number one pass D though. Sherman, Thomas, Kam dinged up, and Lane knocked out of game.

Back to cheater Brady.

And when the balls were properly inflated the second half of the Colts game? Or were people dinged there too? What % dinged?

Personally, I'm overlooking the ball pressure, however they kept the balls deflated or inflated whatever. Studies show that maybe they got an advantage, people who played in the NFL that said that it's easier to throw a softball, etc. I'd overlook all that.The issue here is knowingly breaking a rule, getting caught, lying about it trying to cover it up.

It's not defensible.

You get caught doing 30mph in a 25 and you tell the cop you didn't realize when you did know just how fast you were going. You knew what you were doing, you got caught and you may make a little lie up just to avoid that punishment. None of those types in this thread I bet....How sever should that punishment be? What was gained by going 30? Arriving a few minutes early? In Brady's case what was gained? Throwing for 360 instead of 350? No, because he did better after the balls were fixed....

I'd be all for a suspension and asterisk and all types of stuff if there seemed to be a sizeable advantage but I haven't seen one yet.

Oh, I don't know, after 8 years of getting pulled over ...

How many incidents in those 8 years? I agree Spygate was bad but Deflategate isn't even in the same world as it stands today...

To your analogy, cop would have pulled Tom over approximately 128 times or as many games he used illegally deflated balls.

Link me to all the games they know he used illegal balls please. Like I said I didn't read the report so if all 128 games are listed there I apologize in advance

 

[hagmania]

So as predicted there is no damning evidence of any wrong doing by Brady or the Pats. That's all I really care about. "More likely than not to have done something" means nothing to me. We have the Pats fans who think it's a joke and the haters who had the noose hanging going in. Each side is going to believe what they want. It's like a bunch of liberals and conservatives arguing, there will be no common ground. It's over as far as I'm concerned. Carry on.

Did we already get a winner for the delusional fan post?

 

[RenegadeRoy]

So...

Bump Garoppolo?

 

[JIslander]

@adamlevitan: I have DefalteGate fatigue already. Brady used fully inflated balls in Super Bowl. Lit the No. 1 pass D for 37-of-50, 328 yds, 4 TD, 2 INT.

:Sidetrack:Brady and Edelman kicked ### in the Super Bowl for sure.

That was not the number one pass D though. Sherman, Thomas, Kam dinged up, and Lane knocked out of game.

Back to cheater Brady.

And when the balls were properly inflated the second half of the Colts game? Or were people dinged there too? What % dinged?

Personally, I'm overlooking the ball pressure, however they kept the balls deflated or inflated whatever. Studies show that maybe they got an advantage, people who played in the NFL that said that it's easier to throw a softball, etc. I'd overlook all that.The issue here is knowingly breaking a rule, getting caught, lying about it trying to cover it up.

It's not defensible.

You get caught doing 30mph in a 25 and you tell the cop you didn't realize when you did know just how fast you were going. You knew what you were doing, you got caught and you may make a little lie up just to avoid that punishment. None of those types in this thread I bet....How sever should that punishment be? What was gained by going 30? Arriving a few minutes early? In Brady's case what was gained? Throwing for 360 instead of 350? No, because he did better after the balls were fixed....

I'd be all for a suspension and asterisk and all types of stuff if there seemed to be a sizeable advantage but I haven't seen one yet.

Oh, I don't know, after 8 years of getting pulled over ...

How many incidents in those 8 years? I agree Spygate was bad but Deflategate isn't even in the same world as it stands today...

To your analogy, cop would have pulled Tom over approximately 128 times or as many games he used illegally deflated balls.

Link me to all the games they know he used illegal balls please. Like I said I didn't read the report so if all 128 games are listed there I apologize in advance

I think if you read the report you'll feel its a pretty safe postulation.

 

[The Duff Man]

The real problem with these arguments is that the Pats fans who still blindly believe Brady are incapable of understanding the concept of preponderance of evidence.....or even reading in most cases.

 

[moleculo]

Troy Aikmans comments:

"Sean Payton did not cheat," Aikman contended. "There was nothing that Sean Payton and the Saints did that was illegal. And they did not give themselves a competitive edge. I maintain, regardless of whatever was said in the locker room, and in that locker room, is not anything different than what's been said in any other locker room around the league. There's no proof on the field of what took place that guys were targeting players. You can always pull out a play here and there. They were one of the least penalized teams for unsportsmanlike conduct. So there was no evidence that anything translated to the field that they were trying to hurt players. And they did not give themselves a competitive advantage.

"Now twice, under Bill Belichick and possibly a third time, they've cheated and given themselves an advantage," Aikman said. "To me, the punishment for the Patriots and/or Bill Belichick has to be more severe than what the punishment was for the New Orleans Saints."

Aikman explained that the NFL can't hide from this at a time when New England is the focus.

"There's a great deal of pressure on Roger Goodell, in light of everything that's happened this year, and the way that he's handled all of these situations, and hasn't handled them particularly well by the way, and on this particular case, because there's a lot of coaches and a lot of people that look upon the Patriots as a team that's been favored in some of the things that have happened -- I thought the punishment he got for Spygate was a slap on the wrist, was next to nothing -- so we'll see."