12punch
Footballguy
no wonder rodgers likes them overinflated
edit
that's kind of an interesting observation, though
Last edited by a moderator:
Fantasy Football - Footballguys Forums
This is a sample guest message. Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!
Patriots being investigated after Colts game (4 Viewers)
- Thread starter HobbesAB
- Start date
edit
The General
Footballguy
This makes it sound even more likely that the deflators would let air out and not think anything of it.
12punch
Footballguy
ok, I finally read that thing --- it had some good color commentary, but on the whole was largely anticlimactic.
there were a couple interesting points I hadn't seen elsewhere or thought of myself, but the funny thing about it is that so much of the stuff it points out is just stuff that had already been posted by me and others around the net.
some of that stuff must just be glaringly obvious if multiple people all see the same things.
I think the people actually buying into the wells report must be the same ones sending their bank info to nigeria.
I really have no idea about labor law, or the various protocols this whole situation will be going through, but if kessler will be going up against that wells report with anybody even remotely impartial -- gl salty haters.
I see a lot more
in your future, and that's even besides the pats winning their division again.
G
General Tso
Guest
I believe the term is "benign neglect".
The General
Footballguy
Pretty interesting debate, let's be honest.
You've got the people saying there's no proof of any wrongdoing period... and they have a point.
You've got the people saying there's adequate proof some tomfoolery was afoot, but it didn't involve Tom... and they have a point.
You've got the people saying it's obvious the very worst implications of the Wells report are true, and the Pats deserve to be hung by their balls because they refused to cooperate... and they have a point.
You've got the people saying it's obvious the very worst implications of the Wells report are true, but come on! Deflated footballs, really? yourteamcheats.com! ... and they have a point.
In the end, I think we can all agree none of us finds basketball or hockey very interesting.
You've got the people saying there's no proof of any wrongdoing period... and they have a point.
You've got the people saying there's adequate proof some tomfoolery was afoot, but it didn't involve Tom... and they have a point.
You've got the people saying it's obvious the very worst implications of the Wells report are true, and the Pats deserve to be hung by their balls because they refused to cooperate... and they have a point.
You've got the people saying it's obvious the very worst implications of the Wells report are true, but come on! Deflated footballs, really? yourteamcheats.com! ... and they have a point.
In the end, I think we can all agree none of us finds basketball or hockey very interesting.
GoBirds
Footballguy
12punch
Footballguy
I'm liking this part of it ^^
btw, I asked this of a couple people so far and can never get a straight answer ---- apparently, if a particular gauge was used pregame there's no evidence anybody did anything, but we make the assumption some other gauge was used that reads 3/10ths of a psi different.
worst case, if we assume the 'guilty' gauge, what, very specifically, are the patriots guilty of doing?
G
General Tso
Guest
New information - emails from the Pats to Wells showing they agreed to one round of interviews at the outset. If anything, these emails show Wells and not the Patriots as looking uncooperative by not disclosing why they needed to interview McNally again. The more I read about this the more it looks like a total sham.
https://wellsreportcontext.files.wordpress.com/2015/05/nep_psi_excerpts-from-emails-5_15_15.pdf
https://wellsreportcontext.files.wordpress.com/2015/05/nep_psi_excerpts-from-emails-5_15_15.pdf
Last edited:
Old Smiley
Footballguy
Here's one other thing. And it's an ongoing beef for me. How much does Brady get a year, because I'm thinking he's being penalized more money than the team, at four games.
A lot of these issues would be helped a long if the league penalized the teams more than the players. PED's for one.
That's leaving aside what I think of this whole debacle.
edit: Yeah, looks like $7,000,000 / 16 * 4 = $1,750,000
A lot of these issues would be helped a long if the league penalized the teams more than the players. PED's for one.
That's leaving aside what I think of this whole debacle.
edit: Yeah, looks like $7,000,000 / 16 * 4 = $1,750,000
Last edited by a moderator:
Dinsy Ejotuz
Footballguy
Again... did David Carr or Jeff Blake or anyone else play for a team that used the exact letter of the rulebook as a weapon?
Did any of those guys play for a team where the QB #####ily told an opposing coach who didn't like the use of loopholes to "read the rulebook"?
If you're going to claim every little gray area in the rules to your advantage and get on your high horse when other teams don't like it you damn well better not be on the wrong side of any rules yourself.
No idea why anyone's engaging the apologists at this point. They've been 100% wrong at every stage and instead of having the decency to go away once it was proved they were completely in the wrong they've doubled down with "dog ate my homework" arguments.
Did any of those guys play for a team where the QB #####ily told an opposing coach who didn't like the use of loopholes to "read the rulebook"?
If you're going to claim every little gray area in the rules to your advantage and get on your high horse when other teams don't like it you damn well better not be on the wrong side of any rules yourself.
No idea why anyone's engaging the apologists at this point. They've been 100% wrong at every stage and instead of having the decency to go away once it was proved they were completely in the wrong they've doubled down with "dog ate my homework" arguments.
12punch
Footballguy
How many draft picks did they dock Brady, and what behavior do you imagine they'd be curbing by jacking up the fines?
Putting a stop to all these guys sneaking off to the bathroom to let 3/10ths of a pound of air out of the balls?
12punch
Footballguy
Kind of odd that a troll would want his victims to go away.
You know how trolling works, right?
Green and Gold
Footballguy
What the league should do is measure the footballs at the beginning, half, and end of every game this year, and the results should be recorded and made public so no one with an agenda can manipulate the situation. At the end of the season we will have a pretty good idea whether or not there was a violation of the rules in this case.
Old Smiley
Footballguy
It's more of a general comment on the league.
But, in theory, you incentivize the teams to be more diligent.
Also, I kind of think draft picks are more like monopoly money. I think a million to Kraft's organization, and a million to (even) Brady are different penalties.
I'm equally outraged.
I'll be starting a "go fund me" account for Tom Brady to compensate in some small way, his loss of income.
Just put your contributions into my gofundme account and I will be sure and get it to Tom, thanks all..
Run It Up
Footballguy
Considering they will likely handle balls differently this year, I doubt the data will be worth as much.
amnesiac
beer is good
you are correct, but they should still collect the data.
BustedKnuckles
Footballguy
This has to be one of the dumbest things to get upset about in the world of sports...its right up there with wearing the wrong socks...WHO CARES ????
“Why is this important?” she said.
“Because the NFL said it is.”
“Why does the NFL think it’s important?”
“Because it’s in the rule book.”
“What’s in the rule book?”
“The amount of pressure that has to be in the balls.”
“How did it get there?”
“Someone put it there.”
“Who?”
“The NFL.”
“When air is let out of the football, does it still look like a football?”
“Yes.”
“So why do they take air out of it?”
“Because that makes it easier for the quarterback to throw.”
“Isn’t that what the NFL wants?”
“Why is this important?” she said.
“Because the NFL said it is.”
“Why does the NFL think it’s important?”
“Because it’s in the rule book.”
“What’s in the rule book?”
“The amount of pressure that has to be in the balls.”
“How did it get there?”
“Someone put it there.”
“Who?”
“The NFL.”
“When air is let out of the football, does it still look like a football?”
“Yes.”
“So why do they take air out of it?”
“Because that makes it easier for the quarterback to throw.”
“Isn’t that what the NFL wants?”
Bossman
Footballguy
208 pages and counting! Whats the Shark Pool record and what was the topic?
Let me see if I can sum up where we are....
- footballs are soft / NFL investigates
- Belichick / Kraft plead innocent via media. One demanding an apology.
- Months of investigating.
- Wells report full of circumstantial evidence ... attendant in the bathroom with footballs & text messages that relate to said shenanigans.
"More likely than not" that footballs were deflated ... and with Bradys knowledge. But no hard evidence.
- Patriots respond but rather than saying "we didn't do it" ... they've rooted their defense with "there isn't enough evidence to prove that we did it".
Unfortunately, all of the evidence found can be disputed ... as laughable as the disputes may be. Unless there is a witness or a confession there will be reasonable doubt.
Problem for the Patriots is that the NFL doesn't need to prove their case beyond a reasonable doubt.
This is not a court of law ... it is the court of the NFL ... and Goodell is the judge and jury.
Let me see if I can sum up where we are....
- footballs are soft / NFL investigates
- Belichick / Kraft plead innocent via media. One demanding an apology.
- Months of investigating.
- Wells report full of circumstantial evidence ... attendant in the bathroom with footballs & text messages that relate to said shenanigans.
"More likely than not" that footballs were deflated ... and with Bradys knowledge. But no hard evidence.
- Patriots respond but rather than saying "we didn't do it" ... they've rooted their defense with "there isn't enough evidence to prove that we did it".
Unfortunately, all of the evidence found can be disputed ... as laughable as the disputes may be. Unless there is a witness or a confession there will be reasonable doubt.
Problem for the Patriots is that the NFL doesn't need to prove their case beyond a reasonable doubt.
This is not a court of law ... it is the court of the NFL ... and Goodell is the judge and jury.
Power Monster
The Midnight Stalker
Always a sad day when the shark pool gets overrun by the FFA clique but when it is overrun for a week it is tragic
Old Smiley
Footballguy
BustedKnuckles
Footballguy
12punch
Footballguy
12punch
Footballguy
I assume some of these idiots have bled over from the ffa subforum when their drama alert went off
G
General Tso
Guest
Or just do away with the silly 12.5 -13.5 range entirely. Seriously. If you deflate the ball, it helps with grip, but it also means you can't throw it as far. The intent of the changes made in 2006 was to let the QB's control the balls. Let them do it.
I thought I understood, but now I don't think I do.
Two gauges were used: one 'high' and one 'low'. Anderson says during the pregame inspection he found pressures consistent with how the respective teams like their balls: the Patriots around 12.5, the Colts around 13.
This is the big thing, and I'm genuinely receptive to an explanation if someone understands better than me: even though Anderson says he used the high gauge (but might have used the low one), the report says he must have used the low one (the 'non-logo' gauge).
Why? I honestly can't tell what their stated reason is.
My best guess: the 'low' gauge proved to be more accurate, and since Wells takes the Patriots at their word that they prepare the balls at 12.5, and Anderson said that's what the balls were, they figure he must have used the most accurate gauge. But that's quite a bit of conjecture when we're talking about fractions of psi's in a football.
Because even though both gauges at halftime had the Patriots balls low, only the 'low' gauge gave readings low enough to indicate a pressure drop outside of what the ideal gas law predicts. The entire conclusion that the balls were tampered with rests on the assumption that Anderson used the 'low' gauge in his pregame analysis, even though he says he used the 'high' gauge.
Last edited by a moderator:
Power Monster
The Midnight Stalker
Zzzzzzzz now we know that this thread needs to be taken behind the woodshed and put out of misery.
BustedKnuckles
Footballguy
Ditkaless Wonders
Footballguy
What happens if they convert his salary to a roster bonus? Would they be able to get away with that?
Ditkaless Wonders
Footballguy
Each of the 32 business partners who comprise the NFL want a level playing field and consistent standards so that they each will have a fair and even chance, such as those concepts are constructible by man, to achieve the rewards which come with victory. The Patriots like, through lack of good faith adherence to the rules, to attempt to cheat their business partners and to present a false front to the world, claiming achievement which was not fairly earned.
Is ball pressure alone a significant advantage, probably not, though likely it is some. Is taping of signals from a location other teams may not be guarding them securely a significant advantage, probably not, but it was one worth the risk and effort. Is manipulation of sideline communications an advantage, again, maybe some. How about the things of which we do not yet know, or which have not yet been discovered, but seem likely to be occurring since few are caught for all their wrongdoing, probably not.
The question is whether the sum total of the cheating of one's business partners out of equal opportunity for awards is significant. The answer is that it may well be. We will never know for an absolute certainty as apologists would demand, but to the standards of business folks, and all who value fair play, the behavior is intolerable. Basically the Patriots have taken the position that they will not operate in good faith, but rather that others are the fools if they do not remain constantly vigilant against their dishonorable behavior.
12punch
Footballguy
BustedKnuckles
Footballguy
it seems to me thats what the NFL has already done
12punch
Footballguy
well, I think technically goodell is supposed to be doing it, but he illegally delegated, so that sounds like a point of contention.
I think he got burned on one of thes eother cases and was trying to shake things up a little this time with a different approach that won't work
I think he got burned on one of thes eother cases and was trying to shake things up a little this time with a different approach that won't work
moleculo
Footballguy
MacKinnon states,:Run It Up said:
He is using variability of measurements of the intercepted ball as evidence of gauge variability, without noting that no temperatures were recorded with the pressure measurements. We have no idea whatsoever as to the state of that ball when measurements were recorded. As we know that pressure varies with temperature, and temperature can vary, it stands to reason that the pressure would vary.
Further, he notes that there is no general trend in the sequential pressures of the Patriots balls measured at halftime, and he is right. However, Exponent addressed this directly: (1) that's evidence that they did not begin with a uniform starting pressure (2) the balls had varying moisture levels. As Exponent (and the last New England professors article you linked) noted, evaporative cooling will have a downward effect on the temperature response over time, and that will depend on the moisture content of the ball. A completely soaking wet ball will be different than a moist ball and different than a bone dry ball. As ball moisture level has more of an effect than second-by-second temperature changes, and the football moisture level is random, one shouldn't expect an apparent pressure trend to be observed.
It's a bit silly for him to be making this claim anyways - Exponent spent a good amount of research on the precision and accuracy of the gauges. It's almost like MacKinnon didn't even read the report.
MacKinnon says, "In experimental science to reach a meaningful conclusion we make measurements multiple times under well-defined physical conditions. This is how we deal with the error or ‘spread’ of measured values." That's fine and dandy for a scientist to say, and it's what one would expect someone used to controlling all variables to think. In the real world, we have to make inferences from incomplete data. And again, we are not trying to convince someone here - "more likely than not" is good enough.
In short, I have my doubts that MacKinnon actually read the totality of the Exponent report.
Chicago Hooligan
Footballguy
Scientifically speaking, what ball moisture level qualifies as salty?
Run It Up
Footballguy
There's a combination of issues there. We do know the temperature outside and have a pretty good idea what the temperature inside was. We know that as the balls would have reached equilibrium, the pressure would have increased (going from a cold to warm atmosphere). We also know that when checking a ball, the act of checking it reduces the pressure slightly by incidentally releasing some of the air - I don't remember the amount, but its mentioned in the Exponent report.
There are also at least three major gripes with the Exponent's report that I've seen. 1. They didn't take some variables into consideration (evaporative cooling being one of them). 2. Assumptions are made to fit a conclusion. 3. The claim in the Well's report that is allegedly supported by the Exponent report that there are no combination of circumstances that would allow for the psi levels to naturally occurs is untrue, or at least is not factual - from what I've read they didn't satisfy anyone who should have been satisfied with their diligence.
I point back to my previous concern about exponents experiment, specifically their wet football tests. Rainwater is not ambient temperature, its much cooler. Spritzing a football with ambient temperature water and wiping it off immediately is not the same or close to game time conditions. Whether we can agree on what experiment is closer or not is one thing, but surely you can't believe it is close enough. Further, none of the balls were wet for an extended period (several minutes), while I agree some of the balls would have been wiped down, the efficacy of that is questionable and the idea that all the balls were remotely close is foolish I believe.
I believe the lower bound exponent used was too high, the balls would have been cooler and more wet. I think there are a lot of critics way more qualified than myself out there who are saying the same things. There are very few people to my knowledge defending Exponent's report.
There are also at least three major gripes with the Exponent's report that I've seen. 1. They didn't take some variables into consideration (evaporative cooling being one of them). 2. Assumptions are made to fit a conclusion. 3. The claim in the Well's report that is allegedly supported by the Exponent report that there are no combination of circumstances that would allow for the psi levels to naturally occurs is untrue, or at least is not factual - from what I've read they didn't satisfy anyone who should have been satisfied with their diligence.
I point back to my previous concern about exponents experiment, specifically their wet football tests. Rainwater is not ambient temperature, its much cooler. Spritzing a football with ambient temperature water and wiping it off immediately is not the same or close to game time conditions. Whether we can agree on what experiment is closer or not is one thing, but surely you can't believe it is close enough. Further, none of the balls were wet for an extended period (several minutes), while I agree some of the balls would have been wiped down, the efficacy of that is questionable and the idea that all the balls were remotely close is foolish I believe.
I believe the lower bound exponent used was too high, the balls would have been cooler and more wet. I think there are a lot of critics way more qualified than myself out there who are saying the same things. There are very few people to my knowledge defending Exponent's report.
Last edited by a moderator:
moleculo
Footballguy
There are certainly some things that can, and should, be questioned. Fortunately, Exponent described their test methods with fairly good detail. To date, I have not seen anyone replicate. Until someone does, all people can do is gripe. In my book, data is always better than no data.
The exponent report is the only set of data I have seen. It may or may not have flaws. Personally, I have no beef with anything they have done. Sure, rainwater is probably colder than air temp, but it will equalize and I don't think that effect will be great.
I know I'm whistling into the wind here, but I have been asking for replication for a full week now. Surely one of the wicked smart guys at MIT are on it.
I would say that one problem in how the NFL has prosecuted this - Ted Wells is lead detective, prosecutor, and judge. All Godell does is hand down a sentence. There really is no process in place, outside of appeals, for the Patriots to present their case. I suppose one could say that they had their chance, but by stonewalling the investigation, they abdicated that right.
Last edited by a moderator:
Run It Up
Footballguy
I'm not gonna dig it up, but I posted a different experiment that came to a different conclusion (basically that the range would be larger making it entirely plausible) but you found that their experiment (rolling a ball in a pan of water and letting it air dry) was not significantly different enough for you.
There were a lot of experiments done before March they all found that the psi readings that were leaked (worse than the real readings) were possible, but not many of them would hold up to scrutiny. Such as a ball submerged in 48-50 degree water very quickly dropped to the pressure levels suggested, but that is obviously not what took place.
There were a lot of experiments done before March they all found that the psi readings that were leaked (worse than the real readings) were possible, but not many of them would hold up to scrutiny. Such as a ball submerged in 48-50 degree water very quickly dropped to the pressure levels suggested, but that is obviously not what took place.
Last edited by a moderator:
amnesiac
beer is good
Molecule, in regards to your above post about data.
Last edited by a moderator:
12punch
Footballguy
stop trolling, troll
parroting this nonsense somebody spewed out their ### won't make it true
The General
Footballguy
Pretty much...unless an experiment supports your side of the argument and then you post it on the interwebs.
Run It Up
Footballguy
moleculo
Footballguy
no, I said that I think that rolling balls in pans of water was a worse simulation than spraying water and toweling them off. I think soaking wet balls would behave very differently than moist or dry balls.
Besides - the article linked was an article about an experiment...I want to see an experiment. I want to see procedure, parameters, what equipment was used, how reliable the equipment is, what kind of assumptions are involved, proper analysis of the data, all of that. Stuff that can be independently verified.
mr roboto
Footballguy
I think moleculo actually is.
