Patriots being investigated after Colts game (4 Viewers)

[Stealthycat]

pfffff what's .4 or .6 or .8 PSI differences on gauges ?

Pats were going to be labeled cheaters and they knew it before they took those balls at halftime,

Only an idiot would see this for anything other than a witch hunt. Brady's lawyers will have a field day with this, and Kraft? What a great man to take such a huge hit for the game of football.

If I were Kraft, I'd demand ball testing at every halftime .... just to show how varied ball PSI is

 

[JIslander]

pfffff what's .4 or .6 or .8 PSI differences on gauges ?

Pats were going to be labeled cheaters and they knew it before they took those balls at halftime,

Only an idiot would see this for anything other than a witch hunt. Brady's lawyers will have a field day with this, and Kraft? What a great man to take such a huge hit for the game of football.

If I were Kraft, I'd demand ball testing at every halftime .... just to show how varied ball PSI is

I'm sure your Deflator knows...

 

[Bayhawks]

2 teams

both deflated balls were found at halftime

one team all balls were tested, the other team only 4

one team was investigated, the other wasn't

fair and logical

Christ man, get your facts straight. Stop repeating the same tired nonsense, over and over again.

Page 7 of the Wells Report-at halftime, 4 Colts footballs were tested; all 4 were WITHIN the legal range on one of the gauges. So, they stopped testing.

You want to argue that they used the wrong gauge, okay. You want to argue that the scientific data they used was wrong, okay. You want to argue that this was a "sting" operation, determined to find some dirt on the Pats, okay. (you'd still be wrong) But stop repeating something that isn't true, over and over again. It makes you look like an imbecile.

 

[Bayhawks]

pfffff what's .4 or .6 or .8 PSI differences on gauges ?

Pats were going to be labeled cheaters and they knew it before they took those balls at halftime,

Only an idiot would see this for anything other than a witch hunt. Brady's lawyers will have a field day with this, and Kraft? What a great man to take such a huge hit for the game of football.

If I were Kraft, I'd demand ball testing at every halftime .... just to show how varied ball PSI is

If you were Kraft, you'd have accepted the punishment handed down by the NFL, most likely because you know that you are guilty.

 

[DropKick]

Walt Anderson's task was to ensure the footballs were inflated to proper specs. He did that. There's neither a requirement, nor an expectation that he record the actual measurements in writing.

It's entirely plausible, and even the most likely event, that Anderson has a very clear recollection of the PSI's (as you mentioned, those PSI's were a point of emphasis), but little recollection of the actual gauge used to observe those PSIs.

Have you seen the two gauges? They look almost identical from the front. They're distinguishable from the back, where the logo is (or is not). The back would be facing Anderson's palm as he uses the gauge.

I know there's no requirement, it adds to my point: none of this was taken seriously at the time.

And since all of this hinges on fractions of psis up or down, I'd argue it's inappropriate to base significant conclusions on Anderson's vague recollection of 25+ different psis (especially when you've, at least presumably, found reason to doubt his recollection in other respects).

I reject the premise that not writing down PSIs on a piece of paper indicates "none of this was taken seriously". It's not only faulty, but is contradicted by the evidence.

And Anderson's recollection of the ball PSIs was not vague.

I agree that there is no reason to record air pressure...

But, to play devil's advocate for a minute, I could easily see inconsistency among officials with this (or any) process. And, of course, when they're questioned, everything was done to the letter of the law. I'm not taking a side, I've just seen audits and "reviews" in business situations and I think people are people and have a vested interest in claiming they did the right thing.

The conversations between the equipment guys were interesting. Do we believe the balls were 16 PSI the day after the October Jets game (played in New England)? How does that happen? Sounds like the officials aren't always precise. Maybe gauges vary even more than the two used by Andersen?

Personally, I'd rather not see a suspension. I think we're about to see a much more competitive AFC East. I'd like to see the Fins step up but suspect Bills and Jets fans are excited about their changes too. If we do win the division, I'd like to beat NE at full strength.

 

[LongDuckDong]

As a Patriots fan (I don't know if I am part of the 95% or 5% or what), I feel the following:

1. I should have been far more offended by the punishment the Saints got, because my issue with this punishment is its severity for the crime. Just as I feel the Saints got hosed. But it wasn't my team, so I didn't care much.

2. I think if you apply the Sean Payton theory, Bill Belichick could have been punished for this, and so it's hard for me to think Goodell (who by accounts I've read strongly dislikes BB) completely had it out to get the Patriots.

3. The league chose not to correct the erroneous Chris Mortenson text which led to all of the mess. The letter from the league to Kraft did not say what Mortenson reported, and the league could have cleaned it up, and the fact that they didn't does bring their objectivity into play.

4. The NFL thought they had the Pats hook line and sinker when they checked the balls at halftime. I think they were surprised by the reasonable doubt that the multiple gauges and measurements caused later. I understand those that believe the Patriots cheated don't think there is reasonable doubt, but if Anderson uses the other gauge instead of the one Ted Wells said he did (though Anderson doesn't remember), you have reasonable doubt.

5. There is no evidence I have read anywhere that anyone (any former teammate, coach, analyst, employee) can point out Tom Brady stating he liked the footballs at below 12.5. I have and had been waiting for someone somewhere to leak this, and it just hasn't ever come out. If the motive existed, I'd be more likely to conclusively feel that Tom Brady asked for something to be done.

6. Brady's actions don't feel like that of an innocent man (and I say that as someone who almost named his firstborn "Brady"). He did a terrible job in that first press conference.

 

[BigSteelThrill]

2. I think if you apply the Sean Payton theory, Bill Belichick could have been punished for this, and so it's hard for me to think Goodell (who by accounts I've read strongly dislikes BB) completely had it out to get the Patriots.

I thought for sure Belichick was going to get hit over the institutional control and being the man in-charge.

But after the hit came to Kraft (1 million and 2 high picks) I figured that Goodell listened to the report saying they found Belichick to be outside of the loop and ultimate buck-stops-here is upon Robert Kraft. So be it.

 

[Devine Intervention]

Stealthycat. What you just said is one of the most insanely idiotic things I have ever heard. At no point in your rambling, incoherent response were you even close to anything that could be considered a rational thought. Everyone in this room is now dumber for having listened to it. I award you no points and may God have mercy on your soul.

 

[DropKick]

As a Patriots fan (I don't know if I am part of the 95% or 5% or what), I feel the following:

1. I should have been far more offended by the punishment the Saints got, because my issue with this punishment is its severity for the crime. Just as I feel the Saints got hosed. But it wasn't my team, so I didn't care much.

2. I think if you apply the Sean Payton theory, Bill Belichick could have been punished for this, and so it's hard for me to think Goodell (who by accounts I've read strongly dislikes BB) completely had it out to get the Patriots.

3. The league chose not to correct the erroneous Chris Mortenson text which led to all of the mess. The letter from the league to Kraft did not say what Mortenson reported, and the league could have cleaned it up, and the fact that they didn't does bring their objectivity into play.

4. The NFL thought they had the Pats hook line and sinker when they checked the balls at halftime. I think they were surprised by the reasonable doubt that the multiple gauges and measurements caused later. I understand those that believe the Patriots cheated don't think there is reasonable doubt, but if Anderson uses the other gauge instead of the one Ted Wells said he did (though Anderson doesn't remember), you have reasonable doubt.

5. There is no evidence I have read anywhere that anyone (any former teammate, coach, analyst, employee) can point out Tom Brady stating he liked the footballs at below 12.5. I have and had been waiting for someone somewhere to leak this, and it just hasn't ever come out. If the motive existed, I'd be more likely to conclusively feel that Tom Brady asked for something to be done.

6. Brady's actions don't feel like that of an innocent man (and I say that as someone who almost named his firstborn "Brady"). He did a terrible job in that first press conference.

I had a statistical background in college and haven't used it much since so I was very interested in the analytical aspect of this... And, of course, we know how often the term small sample size gets used here.

A couple things stood out to me about reported PSIs.. We know there was a ~0.4 difference between the two gauges. The measurements attributed to one person were ~0.4 higher on one set of balls but ~0.4 lower on the other. This was explained as the two people switching gauges between sets of balls. That is a rational explanation but it does call into play some variability. The gauges were physically different (angled needle) and had a precision of only 0.05.

The 0.4 delta was pretty consistent - except for one of the Colt's balls. In this case the numbers appeared to be "flip-flopped" and this was explained in the report as a likely transcription error. I'd be more inclined to throw out the measurements since the "high" number was close to the pre-game PSI. It is just as likely a mistake as a transcription error.

So, with 11 Patriot balls and 3 Colt's balls tested, I came up with these numbers (input welcome; college is a distant memory)

The Colt's numbers are adjusted down by 0.5 to account for the higher pre-game PSI

Average: NE 11.109 Indy 11.767

Given NE the benefit of the doubt that the "high" gauge was used pre-game: 11.509

Stand Deviation NE 0.402 Indy 0.104 (more variation in NE's numbers suggest manual adjustment?)

90% Confidence Interval NE 10.91 - 11.31 Indy: 11.67 - 11.87

Given NE the benefit of the doubt that the "high" gauge was used pre-game:

90% Confidence Interval NE 11.31 - 11.71 Indy: 11.67 - 11.87

If it were numbers alone, Brady could beat the NFL over the head here...

 

[Jercules]

2 teams

both deflated balls were found at halftime

one team all balls were tested, the other team only 4

one team was investigated, the other wasn't

fair and logical

Christ man, get your facts straight. Stop repeating the same tired nonsense, over and over again.

Page 7 of the Wells Report-at halftime, 4 Colts footballs were tested; all 4 were WITHIN the legal range on one of the gauges. So, they stopped testing.

You want to argue that they used the wrong gauge, okay. You want to argue that the scientific data they used was wrong, okay. You want to argue that this was a "sting" operation, determined to find some dirt on the Pats, okay. (you'd still be wrong) But stop repeating something that isn't true, over and over again. It makes you look like an imbecile.

To be fair, the more accurate gauge had 3 of 4 Colts balls low at halftime. If we're going strictly by the letter of the law, they were using illegal footballs.

Makes you wonder if this rule was ever thought out. Footballs that were presumably mid-range to start the game naturally drop so much in pressure that they're illegal by half time. It's not as if it was the Ice Bowl out there.

 

[Jercules]

As a Patriots fan (I don't know if I am part of the 95% or 5% or what), I feel the following:

1. I should have been far more offended by the punishment the Saints got, because my issue with this punishment is its severity for the crime. Just as I feel the Saints got hosed. But it wasn't my team, so I didn't care much.

2. I think if you apply the Sean Payton theory, Bill Belichick could have been punished for this, and so it's hard for me to think Goodell (who by accounts I've read strongly dislikes BB) completely had it out to get the Patriots.

3. The league chose not to correct the erroneous Chris Mortenson text which led to all of the mess. The letter from the league to Kraft did not say what Mortenson reported, and the league could have cleaned it up, and the fact that they didn't does bring their objectivity into play.

4. The NFL thought they had the Pats hook line and sinker when they checked the balls at halftime. I think they were surprised by the reasonable doubt that the multiple gauges and measurements caused later. I understand those that believe the Patriots cheated don't think there is reasonable doubt, but if Anderson uses the other gauge instead of the one Ted Wells said he did (though Anderson doesn't remember), you have reasonable doubt.

5. There is no evidence I have read anywhere that anyone (any former teammate, coach, analyst, employee) can point out Tom Brady stating he liked the footballs at below 12.5. I have and had been waiting for someone somewhere to leak this, and it just hasn't ever come out. If the motive existed, I'd be more likely to conclusively feel that Tom Brady asked for something to be done.

6. Brady's actions don't feel like that of an innocent man (and I say that as someone who almost named his firstborn "Brady"). He did a terrible job in that first press conference.

I had a statistical background in college and haven't used it much since so I was very interested in the analytical aspect of this... And, of course, we know how often the term small sample size gets used here.

A couple things stood out to me about reported PSIs.. We know there was a ~0.4 difference between the two gauges. The measurements attributed to one person were ~0.4 higher on one set of balls but ~0.4 lower on the other. This was explained as the two people switching gauges between sets of balls. That is a rational explanation but it does call into play some variability. The gauges were physically different (angled needle) and had a precision of only 0.05.

The 0.4 delta was pretty consistent - except for one of the Colt's balls. In this case the numbers appeared to be "flip-flopped" and this was explained in the report as a likely transcription error. I'd be more inclined to throw out the measurements since the "high" number was close to the pre-game PSI. It is just as likely a mistake as a transcription error.

So, with 11 Patriot balls and 3 Colt's balls tested, I came up with these numbers (input welcome; college is a distant memory)

The Colt's numbers are adjusted down by 0.5 to account for the higher pre-game PSI

Average: NE 11.109 Indy 11.767

Given NE the benefit of the doubt that the "high" gauge was used pre-game: 11.509

Stand Deviation NE 0.402 Indy 0.104 (more variation in NE's numbers suggest manual adjustment?)

90% Confidence Interval NE 10.91 - 11.31 Indy: 11.67 - 11.87

Given NE the benefit of the doubt that the "high" gauge was used pre-game:

90% Confidence Interval NE 11.31 - 11.71 Indy: 11.67 - 11.87

If it were numbers alone, Brady could beat the NFL over the head here...

There's absolutely no question the Patriots had something going on in general with deflating balls, but I'm starting to wonder more and more if it actually happened for this specific game. Couldn't the variability be explained by in game use? Hutting, gripping, catching, spiking...

 

[The General]

As a Patriots fan (I don't know if I am part of the 95% or 5% or what), I feel the following:

1. I should have been far more offended by the punishment the Saints got, because my issue with this punishment is its severity for the crime. Just as I feel the Saints got hosed. But it wasn't my team, so I didn't care much.

2. I think if you apply the Sean Payton theory, Bill Belichick could have been punished for this, and so it's hard for me to think Goodell (who by accounts I've read strongly dislikes BB) completely had it out to get the Patriots.

3. The league chose not to correct the erroneous Chris Mortenson text which led to all of the mess. The letter from the league to Kraft did not say what Mortenson reported, and the league could have cleaned it up, and the fact that they didn't does bring their objectivity into play.

4. The NFL thought they had the Pats hook line and sinker when they checked the balls at halftime. I think they were surprised by the reasonable doubt that the multiple gauges and measurements caused later. I understand those that believe the Patriots cheated don't think there is reasonable doubt, but if Anderson uses the other gauge instead of the one Ted Wells said he did (though Anderson doesn't remember), you have reasonable doubt.

5. There is no evidence I have read anywhere that anyone (any former teammate, coach, analyst, employee) can point out Tom Brady stating he liked the footballs at below 12.5. I have and had been waiting for someone somewhere to leak this, and it just hasn't ever come out. If the motive existed, I'd be more likely to conclusively feel that Tom Brady asked for something to be done.

6. Brady's actions don't feel like that of an innocent man (and I say that as someone who almost named his firstborn "Brady"). He did a terrible job in that first press conference.

Pretty much can agree with a lot of this but am more of the thinking that Brady was on board with what the guys were doing. Am just going on common sense, the texts, that teams complained about this, and that the balls were lowered for this game. I can see an argument along the lines that Brady didn't tell the guys to do this but pressured them and that he just turned a blind eye but that's about as far as I can go.

Not a Pats fan and not a hater either. Tom Brady is a stud, as is Bill. Doesn't really change my opinion of them.

 

[Bayhawks]

2 teams

both deflated balls were found at halftime

one team all balls were tested, the other team only 4

one team was investigated, the other wasn't

fair and logical

Christ man, get your facts straight. Stop repeating the same tired nonsense, over and over again.

Page 7 of the Wells Report-at halftime, 4 Colts footballs were tested; all 4 were WITHIN the legal range on one of the gauges. So, they stopped testing.

You want to argue that they used the wrong gauge, okay. You want to argue that the scientific data they used was wrong, okay. You want to argue that this was a "sting" operation, determined to find some dirt on the Pats, okay. (you'd still be wrong) But stop repeating something that isn't true, over and over again. It makes you look like an imbecile.

To be fair, the more accurate gauge had 3 of 4 Colts balls low at halftime. If we're going strictly by the letter of the law, they were using illegal footballs.

Makes you wonder if this rule was ever thought out. Footballs that were presumably mid-range to start the game naturally drop so much in pressure that they're illegal by half time. It's not as if it was the Ice Bowl out there.

1-I'm not sure Stealthycat is concerned with "fair." He/she is just posting the same tired crap, repeatedly.

2-I didn't think this is correct. The 2 gauges had a difference in the PSI they recorded, but there's no definitive way of knowing which one was more "accurate." It's not like they were tested against a super-PSI gauge that is 100% accurate, without fail or question. That being said, from what I understand, the Colts and Pats both said that they submit their footballs at 13.0 and 12.5, respectively, and one gauge showed their pre-game measurements as being at 13.0 & 12.5 (or reasonably close to that). It would stand to reason that this gauge is the more accurate one. From what I understand, this is the gauge Wells chose to accept, even though Anderson said he thought he used the other one.

 

[General Tso]

I have two sets of wrenches in my tool box - one Craftsman, and one is cheap Chinese steel. Yesterday I was installing a light fixture. I know the nut was 9/16". I would place my hand on the Bible and swear that the nut was 9/16". I would tell you that I probably used the Craftsman wrench, but if you had evidence that I actually used the Chinese wrench, I wouldn't argue.

We're not talking about wrenches, were talking about gauges with a ~1psi margin of error and we're talking about half a psi worth of ####### air pressure.

We are talking about tools that are nearly identical in appearance, differing only by the presence of one logo. Both tools were tested and found to be repeatable within roughly +/-0.1 psi. One tool was out of calibration by roughly 0.4 psi, but beyond that, their performance is nearly indistinguishable.

moleculo - I respect most of your opinions on this issue, but I think you need to revisit the logos. Look at the pictures on pages 174-176. They are very different looking, particularly the needles. One is twice as long as the other and bent at a pretty severe angle. Very memorable in my opinion. Anderson's recollection of using the logo gauge pregame is the biggest hole in the report, and the one that continues to bother me.

 

[moleculo]

I had a statistical background in college and haven't used it much since so I was very interested in the analytical aspect of this... And, of course, we know how often the term small sample size gets used here.

A couple things stood out to me about reported PSIs.. We know there was a ~0.4 difference between the two gauges. The measurements attributed to one person were ~0.4 higher on one set of balls but ~0.4 lower on the other. This was explained as the two people switching gauges between sets of balls. That is a rational explanation but it does call into play some variability. The gauges were physically different (angled needle) and had a precision of only 0.05.

The 0.4 delta was pretty consistent - except for one of the Colt's balls. In this case the numbers appeared to be "flip-flopped" and this was explained in the report as a likely transcription error. I'd be more inclined to throw out the measurements since the "high" number was close to the pre-game PSI. It is just as likely a mistake as a transcription error.

So, with 11 Patriot balls and 3 Colt's balls tested, I came up with these numbers (input welcome; college is a distant memory)

The Colt's numbers are adjusted down by 0.5 to account for the higher pre-game PSI

Average: NE 11.109 Indy 11.767

Given NE the benefit of the doubt that the "high" gauge was used pre-game: 11.509

Stand Deviation NE 0.402 Indy 0.104 (more variation in NE's numbers suggest manual adjustment?)

90% Confidence Interval NE 10.91 - 11.31 Indy: 11.67 - 11.87

Given NE the benefit of the doubt that the "high" gauge was used pre-game:

90% Confidence Interval NE 11.31 - 11.71 Indy: 11.67 - 11.87

If it were numbers alone, Brady could beat the NFL over the head here...

Good stuff, and I appreciate you taking your own whack at the analysis. A couple of points:

1. You are correct that there was a transcription error in the colts balls - it was with ball #3, which coincidentally had the highest pressure. If you had included this pressure instead of simply tossing it, the Colts average would be 11.82, probably enough to make the 90% C.I's not overlap.

2. You are applying the "high gauge" assumption to the Colts balls and not the Patriots balls. I can tell this because the NE C.I. raised, while the IND C.I. did not. The implication here is that Anderson used a different gauge between measuring teams balls, contrary to what was reported: "Anderson is certain that he checked the footballs prior to the AFC Championship Game with one of the two gauges that he brought with him to Gillette Stadium" (pg 51).

3. this still relies on the Logo Gauge pre-game assumption, which both Wells and Exponent have ruled out. i have discussed this in the past and would be happy to do so again.

ETA: 4. I'm not sure two confidence intervals is the proper test for comparing if two sets of samples could be from the same population. Let me think about this one for a bit.

 

[LittlePhatty]

I've tried to find the report on the Colts cheating and why 75% of the balls they used were illegal

I can't find it - can ya'll point me to it please?

It only exists in your mind.

 

[sho nuff]

$25k per occurance. By my count, this occurred 12 times in the AFCCG alone, and we should probably assume it occurred 12x in every Patriots home game all season. Should have been a $3m fine. Patriots got off light.

So Colts would be looking at least at a $100,000 fine right ? Actually $300,000 because 3/4 of balls tested were under.

Colts got off with NOTHING

fair and logical isn't it ?

You are still trying this?

 

[moleculo]

I have two sets of wrenches in my tool box - one Craftsman, and one is cheap Chinese steel. Yesterday I was installing a light fixture. I know the nut was 9/16". I would place my hand on the Bible and swear that the nut was 9/16". I would tell you that I probably used the Craftsman wrench, but if you had evidence that I actually used the Chinese wrench, I wouldn't argue.

We're not talking about wrenches, were talking about gauges with a ~1psi margin of error and we're talking about half a psi worth of ####### air pressure.

We are talking about tools that are nearly identical in appearance, differing only by the presence of one logo. Both tools were tested and found to be repeatable within roughly +/-0.1 psi. One tool was out of calibration by roughly 0.4 psi, but beyond that, their performance is nearly indistinguishable.

moleculo - I respect most of your opinions on this issue, but I think you need to revisit the logos. Look at the pictures on pages 174-176. They are very different looking, particularly the needles. One is twice as long as the other and bent at a pretty severe angle. Very memorable in my opinion. Anderson's recollection of using the logo gauge pregame is the biggest hole in the report, and the one that continues to bother me.

I'm sorry. They are closer in appearance than they are different. You are nit-picking on the details. When viewed as a whole, they both have the same sized round black bodies with radial ridges around the perimeter. They both have a brass fitting with a conical end where the needle goes. They both have a grey front face with a visible LCD, surrounded by a blue trim and a red button below.

If you view these two tools as the Most Important Things in the World and the difference between the two means Tom Brady gets suspended for 4 games, your mind amplifies the differences and you see them as radically different. If you view them as simply a tool that the ref uses as part of his pre-game process, one of many activities that he does, well you would view them as the same.

I doubt we will come to an agreement on this, so I'll leave it at that.

 

[moleculo]

2 teams

both deflated balls were found at halftime

one team all balls were tested, the other team only 4

one team was investigated, the other wasn't

fair and logical

Christ man, get your facts straight. Stop repeating the same tired nonsense, over and over again.

Page 7 of the Wells Report-at halftime, 4 Colts footballs were tested; all 4 were WITHIN the legal range on one of the gauges. So, they stopped testing.

You want to argue that they used the wrong gauge, okay. You want to argue that the scientific data they used was wrong, okay. You want to argue that this was a "sting" operation, determined to find some dirt on the Pats, okay. (you'd still be wrong) But stop repeating something that isn't true, over and over again. It makes you look like an imbecile.

To be fair, the more accurate gauge had 3 of 4 Colts balls low at halftime. If we're going strictly by the letter of the law, they were using illegal footballs.

Makes you wonder if this rule was ever thought out. Footballs that were presumably mid-range to start the game naturally drop so much in pressure that they're illegal by half time. It's not as if it was the Ice Bowl out there.

1-I'm not sure Stealthycat is concerned with "fair." He/she is just posting the same tired crap, repeatedly.

2-I didn't think this is correct. The 2 gauges had a difference in the PSI they recorded, but there's no definitive way of knowing which one was more "accurate." It's not like they were tested against a super-PSI gauge that is 100% accurate, without fail or question. That being said, from what I understand, the Colts and Pats both said that they submit their footballs at 13.0 and 12.5, respectively, and one gauge showed their pre-game measurements as being at 13.0 & 12.5 (or reasonably close to that). It would stand to reason that this gauge is the more accurate one. From what I understand, this is the gauge Wells chose to accept, even though Anderson said he thought he used the other one.

Except they were. (pg 178)

To determine both the precision and accuracy of the gauges, a fixture with a common manifold was constructed that allowed for multiple Exemplar Gauges to simultaneously be exposed to common temperature and pressure conditions. A single high-accuracy gauge (Omega DPG4000- 30) with NIST (National Institute of Standards and Technology) traceable calibration was also connected to the manifold to record actual pressure data (for the remainder of this report, this will be referred to as the “Master Gauge”). The test fixture with Exemplar Gauges and the Master Gauge attached to the manifold is shown in Figure 5.

Results and Discussion (pg 179)

The data in Figure 6 show the results of the above experiments. The plot on the left shows the variation in average readings generated when the Exemplar Gauges were compared to the Master Gauge. On the right, the variation within a gauge (i.e., gauge repeatability) is shown. The data indicate that although the gauges tended to over- or underestimate the true pressure, the measurements recorded by an individual gauge were self-consistent. In other words, an individual gauge may read slightly incorrectly as compared to the Master Gauge, but that error is consistent for all readings taken by that particular gauge. This held true for the Game Day Gauges: the Logo Gauge generally overestimated the Master Gauge by ~0.3-0.4 psig and the Non-Logo Gauge generally read slightly below the Master Gauge by ~0.07 psig, but both gauges were self-consistent.

 

[BroadwayG]

I have two sets of wrenches in my tool box - one Craftsman, and one is cheap Chinese steel. Yesterday I was installing a light fixture. I know the nut was 9/16". I would place my hand on the Bible and swear that the nut was 9/16". I would tell you that I probably used the Craftsman wrench, but if you had evidence that I actually used the Chinese wrench, I wouldn't argue.

Now what if the Chinese wrench was bent at a 45 degree angle making it a slightly more awkward wrench to use. Would you be more likely to remember exactly which wrench you used?

 

[moleculo]

I have two sets of wrenches in my tool box - one Craftsman, and one is cheap Chinese steel. Yesterday I was installing a light fixture. I know the nut was 9/16". I would place my hand on the Bible and swear that the nut was 9/16". I would tell you that I probably used the Craftsman wrench, but if you had evidence that I actually used the Chinese wrench, I wouldn't argue.

Now what if the Chinese wrench was bent at a 45 degree angle making it a slightly more awkward wrench to use. Would you be more likely to remember exactly which wrench you used?

45 degree angle? come on now. The needle is off by about 10 degrees.

 

[BroadwayG]

I have two sets of wrenches in my tool box - one Craftsman, and one is cheap Chinese steel. Yesterday I was installing a light fixture. I know the nut was 9/16". I would place my hand on the Bible and swear that the nut was 9/16". I would tell you that I probably used the Craftsman wrench, but if you had evidence that I actually used the Chinese wrench, I wouldn't argue.

Now what if the Chinese wrench was bent at a 45 degree angle making it a slightly more awkward wrench to use. Would you be more likely to remember exactly which wrench you used?

45 degree angle? come on now. The needle is off by about 10 degrees.

I forgot 45 degree angle and half as long of a needle. So the Chinese wrench is also miniaturized.

 

[General Tso]

I have two sets of wrenches in my tool box - one Craftsman, and one is cheap Chinese steel. Yesterday I was installing a light fixture. I know the nut was 9/16". I would place my hand on the Bible and swear that the nut was 9/16". I would tell you that I probably used the Craftsman wrench, but if you had evidence that I actually used the Chinese wrench, I wouldn't argue.

We're not talking about wrenches, were talking about gauges with a ~1psi margin of error and we're talking about half a psi worth of ####### air pressure.

We are talking about tools that are nearly identical in appearance, differing only by the presence of one logo. Both tools were tested and found to be repeatable within roughly +/-0.1 psi. One tool was out of calibration by roughly 0.4 psi, but beyond that, their performance is nearly indistinguishable.

moleculo - I respect most of your opinions on this issue, but I think you need to revisit the logos. Look at the pictures on pages 174-176. They are very different looking, particularly the needles. One is twice as long as the other and bent at a pretty severe angle. Very memorable in my opinion. Anderson's recollection of using the logo gauge pregame is the biggest hole in the report, and the one that continues to bother me.

I'm sorry. They are closer in appearance than they are different. You are nit-picking on the details. When viewed as a whole, they both have the same sized round black bodies with radial ridges around the perimeter. They both have a brass fitting with a conical end where the needle goes. They both have a grey front face with a visible LCD, surrounded by a blue trim and a red button below.If you view these two tools as the Most Important Things in the World and the difference between the two means Tom Brady gets suspended for 4 games, your mind amplifies the differences and you see them as radically different. If you view them as simply a tool that the ref uses as part of his pre-game process, one of many activities that he does, well you would view them as the same.

I doubt we will come to an agreement on this, so I'll leave it at that.

Yeah but the fundamental difference between the two gauges is exactly where it is most memorable - the needle. You don't think you'd remember if the needle you stuck into 24 footballs was 7 millimeters and straight or 14 millimeters and noticeably bent? I mean, come on - it's a major difference. One needle is literally twice as long as the other, and bent to the point where you'd have to alter the angle you'd normally insert it at. Sorry, but the difference in needles is what makes these gauges so different, and memorable. If this aspect of the case were ever tried in a court of law the Wells Report would get torn to pieces. I'd even go so far as to say that the dismissal of Anderson's recollection of using the logo gauge is so unfairly biased against the Pats that it calls into question the whole validity of the Report. And this is coming from a guy who is convinced the Pats were cheating at some point during the year (based on the text messages).Also, for those of you fairly evaluating this Report, check out the measurement picture of the needles on page 175. Anything look strange to you?

 

[Bayhawks]

2 teams

both deflated balls were found at halftime

one team all balls were tested, the other team only 4

one team was investigated, the other wasn't

fair and logical

Christ man, get your facts straight. Stop repeating the same tired nonsense, over and over again.

Page 7 of the Wells Report-at halftime, 4 Colts footballs were tested; all 4 were WITHIN the legal range on one of the gauges. So, they stopped testing.

You want to argue that they used the wrong gauge, okay. You want to argue that the scientific data they used was wrong, okay. You want to argue that this was a "sting" operation, determined to find some dirt on the Pats, okay. (you'd still be wrong) But stop repeating something that isn't true, over and over again. It makes you look like an imbecile.

To be fair, the more accurate gauge had 3 of 4 Colts balls low at halftime. If we're going strictly by the letter of the law, they were using illegal footballs.

Makes you wonder if this rule was ever thought out. Footballs that were presumably mid-range to start the game naturally drop so much in pressure that they're illegal by half time. It's not as if it was the Ice Bowl out there.

1-I'm not sure Stealthycat is concerned with "fair." He/she is just posting the same tired crap, repeatedly.

2-I didn't think this is correct. The 2 gauges had a difference in the PSI they recorded, but there's no definitive way of knowing which one was more "accurate." It's not like they were tested against a super-PSI gauge that is 100% accurate, without fail or question. That being said, from what I understand, the Colts and Pats both said that they submit their footballs at 13.0 and 12.5, respectively, and one gauge showed their pre-game measurements as being at 13.0 & 12.5 (or reasonably close to that). It would stand to reason that this gauge is the more accurate one. From what I understand, this is the gauge Wells chose to accept, even though Anderson said he thought he used the other one.

Except they were. (pg 178)

To determine both the precision and accuracy of the gauges, a fixture with a common manifold was constructed that allowed for multiple Exemplar Gauges to simultaneously be exposed to common temperature and pressure conditions. A single high-accuracy gauge (Omega DPG4000- 30) with NIST (National Institute of Standards and Technology) traceable calibration was also connected to the manifold to record actual pressure data (for the remainder of this report, this will be referred to as the “Master Gauge”). The test fixture with Exemplar Gauges and the Master Gauge attached to the manifold is shown in Figure 5.

Results and Discussion (pg 179)

The data in Figure 6 show the results of the above experiments. The plot on the left shows the variation in average readings generated when the Exemplar Gauges were compared to the Master Gauge. On the right, the variation within a gauge (i.e., gauge repeatability) is shown. The data indicate that although the gauges tended to over- or underestimate the true pressure, the measurements recorded by an individual gauge were self-consistent. In other words, an individual gauge may read slightly incorrectly as compared to the Master Gauge, but that error is consistent for all readings taken by that particular gauge. This held true for the Game Day Gauges: the Logo Gauge generally overestimated the Master Gauge by ~0.3-0.4 psig and the Non-Logo Gauge generally read slightly below the Master Gauge by ~0.07 psig, but both gauges were self-consistent.

Can you unpack this a little for me?

It seems like they compared both gauges to a "control" gauge, and the logo gauge showed a higher PSI by between .3-.4 PSI, while the non-logo gauge was lower than the control gauge by about .07?

This would indicate that the non-logo gauge was the "more accurate" gauge, then, since it was closer to the "control" gauge, right?

And, if I'm not mistaken, the non-logo gauge showed the Pats balls at halftime being more deflated than the Ideal Gas Law would explain?

 

[moleculo]

2 teams

both deflated balls were found at halftime

one team all balls were tested, the other team only 4

one team was investigated, the other wasn't

fair and logical

Christ man, get your facts straight. Stop repeating the same tired nonsense, over and over again.

Page 7 of the Wells Report-at halftime, 4 Colts footballs were tested; all 4 were WITHIN the legal range on one of the gauges. So, they stopped testing.

You want to argue that they used the wrong gauge, okay. You want to argue that the scientific data they used was wrong, okay. You want to argue that this was a "sting" operation, determined to find some dirt on the Pats, okay. (you'd still be wrong) But stop repeating something that isn't true, over and over again. It makes you look like an imbecile.

To be fair, the more accurate gauge had 3 of 4 Colts balls low at halftime. If we're going strictly by the letter of the law, they were using illegal footballs.

Makes you wonder if this rule was ever thought out. Footballs that were presumably mid-range to start the game naturally drop so much in pressure that they're illegal by half time. It's not as if it was the Ice Bowl out there.

1-I'm not sure Stealthycat is concerned with "fair." He/she is just posting the same tired crap, repeatedly.

2-I didn't think this is correct. The 2 gauges had a difference in the PSI they recorded, but there's no definitive way of knowing which one was more "accurate." It's not like they were tested against a super-PSI gauge that is 100% accurate, without fail or question. That being said, from what I understand, the Colts and Pats both said that they submit their footballs at 13.0 and 12.5, respectively, and one gauge showed their pre-game measurements as being at 13.0 & 12.5 (or reasonably close to that). It would stand to reason that this gauge is the more accurate one. From what I understand, this is the gauge Wells chose to accept, even though Anderson said he thought he used the other one.

Except they were. (pg 178)

To determine both the precision and accuracy of the gauges, a fixture with a common manifold was constructed that allowed for multiple Exemplar Gauges to simultaneously be exposed to common temperature and pressure conditions. A single high-accuracy gauge (Omega DPG4000- 30) with NIST (National Institute of Standards and Technology) traceable calibration was also connected to the manifold to record actual pressure data (for the remainder of this report, this will be referred to as the “Master Gauge”). The test fixture with Exemplar Gauges and the Master Gauge attached to the manifold is shown in Figure 5.

Results and Discussion (pg 179)

The data in Figure 6 show the results of the above experiments. The plot on the left shows the variation in average readings generated when the Exemplar Gauges were compared to the Master Gauge. On the right, the variation within a gauge (i.e., gauge repeatability) is shown. The data indicate that although the gauges tended to over- or underestimate the true pressure, the measurements recorded by an individual gauge were self-consistent. In other words, an individual gauge may read slightly incorrectly as compared to the Master Gauge, but that error is consistent for all readings taken by that particular gauge. This held true for the Game Day Gauges: the Logo Gauge generally overestimated the Master Gauge by ~0.3-0.4 psig and the Non-Logo Gauge generally read slightly below the Master Gauge by ~0.07 psig, but both gauges were self-consistent.

Can you unpack this a little for me?

It seems like they compared both gauges to a "control" gauge, and the logo gauge showed a higher PSI by between .3-.4 PSI, while the non-logo gauge was lower than the control gauge by about .07?

This would indicate that the non-logo gauge was the "more accurate" gauge, then, since it was closer to the "control" gauge, right?

And, if I'm not mistaken, the non-logo gauge showed the Pats balls at halftime being more deflated than the Ideal Gas Law would explain?

you got it. Except, technically assuming either gauge demonstrates a level of deflation with the Patriots balls that the laws of physics can't explain, it's just more obvious with the non-logo gauge.

 

[moleculo]

I have two sets of wrenches in my tool box - one Craftsman, and one is cheap Chinese steel. Yesterday I was installing a light fixture. I know the nut was 9/16". I would place my hand on the Bible and swear that the nut was 9/16". I would tell you that I probably used the Craftsman wrench, but if you had evidence that I actually used the Chinese wrench, I wouldn't argue.

We're not talking about wrenches, were talking about gauges with a ~1psi margin of error and we're talking about half a psi worth of ####### air pressure.

We are talking about tools that are nearly identical in appearance, differing only by the presence of one logo. Both tools were tested and found to be repeatable within roughly +/-0.1 psi. One tool was out of calibration by roughly 0.4 psi, but beyond that, their performance is nearly indistinguishable.

moleculo - I respect most of your opinions on this issue, but I think you need to revisit the logos. Look at the pictures on pages 174-176. They are very different looking, particularly the needles. One is twice as long as the other and bent at a pretty severe angle. Very memorable in my opinion. Anderson's recollection of using the logo gauge pregame is the biggest hole in the report, and the one that continues to bother me.

I'm sorry. They are closer in appearance than they are different. You are nit-picking on the details. When viewed as a whole, they both have the same sized round black bodies with radial ridges around the perimeter. They both have a brass fitting with a conical end where the needle goes. They both have a grey front face with a visible LCD, surrounded by a blue trim and a red button below.If you view these two tools as the Most Important Things in the World and the difference between the two means Tom Brady gets suspended for 4 games, your mind amplifies the differences and you see them as radically different. If you view them as simply a tool that the ref uses as part of his pre-game process, one of many activities that he does, well you would view them as the same.

I doubt we will come to an agreement on this, so I'll leave it at that.

Yeah but the fundamental difference between the two gauges is exactly where it is most memorable - the needle. You don't think you'd remember if the needle you stuck into 24 footballs was 7 millimeters and straight or 14 millimeters and noticeably bent? I mean, come on - it's a major difference. One needle is literally twice as long as the other, and bent to the point where you'd have to alter the angle you'd normally insert it at. Sorry, but the difference in needles is what makes these gauges so different, and memorable.Also, for those of you fairly evaluating this report, check out the measurement picture of the needles on page 175. Anything look strange to you?

like I said - I don't think we are going to agree on this. To my eye, they are more similar than they are different.

Lets put this in perspective...here are a bunch of air pressure gauges. This is how much variety there is out there. When compared to the universe of air pressure gauges, the logo and non-logo are virtually identical.

 

[Bayhawks]

2 teams

both deflated balls were found at halftime

one team all balls were tested, the other team only 4

one team was investigated, the other wasn't

fair and logical

Christ man, get your facts straight. Stop repeating the same tired nonsense, over and over again.

Page 7 of the Wells Report-at halftime, 4 Colts footballs were tested; all 4 were WITHIN the legal range on one of the gauges. So, they stopped testing.

You want to argue that they used the wrong gauge, okay. You want to argue that the scientific data they used was wrong, okay. You want to argue that this was a "sting" operation, determined to find some dirt on the Pats, okay. (you'd still be wrong) But stop repeating something that isn't true, over and over again. It makes you look like an imbecile.

To be fair, the more accurate gauge had 3 of 4 Colts balls low at halftime. If we're going strictly by the letter of the law, they were using illegal footballs.

Makes you wonder if this rule was ever thought out. Footballs that were presumably mid-range to start the game naturally drop so much in pressure that they're illegal by half time. It's not as if it was the Ice Bowl out there.

1-I'm not sure Stealthycat is concerned with "fair." He/she is just posting the same tired crap, repeatedly.

2-I didn't think this is correct. The 2 gauges had a difference in the PSI they recorded, but there's no definitive way of knowing which one was more "accurate." It's not like they were tested against a super-PSI gauge that is 100% accurate, without fail or question. That being said, from what I understand, the Colts and Pats both said that they submit their footballs at 13.0 and 12.5, respectively, and one gauge showed their pre-game measurements as being at 13.0 & 12.5 (or reasonably close to that). It would stand to reason that this gauge is the more accurate one. From what I understand, this is the gauge Wells chose to accept, even though Anderson said he thought he used the other one.

Except they were. (pg 178)

To determine both the precision and accuracy of the gauges, a fixture with a common manifold was constructed that allowed for multiple Exemplar Gauges to simultaneously be exposed to common temperature and pressure conditions. A single high-accuracy gauge (Omega DPG4000- 30) with NIST (National Institute of Standards and Technology) traceable calibration was also connected to the manifold to record actual pressure data (for the remainder of this report, this will be referred to as the “Master Gauge”). The test fixture with Exemplar Gauges and the Master Gauge attached to the manifold is shown in Figure 5.

Results and Discussion (pg 179)

The data in Figure 6 show the results of the above experiments. The plot on the left shows the variation in average readings generated when the Exemplar Gauges were compared to the Master Gauge. On the right, the variation within a gauge (i.e., gauge repeatability) is shown. The data indicate that although the gauges tended to over- or underestimate the true pressure, the measurements recorded by an individual gauge were self-consistent. In other words, an individual gauge may read slightly incorrectly as compared to the Master Gauge, but that error is consistent for all readings taken by that particular gauge. This held true for the Game Day Gauges: the Logo Gauge generally overestimated the Master Gauge by ~0.3-0.4 psig and the Non-Logo Gauge generally read slightly below the Master Gauge by ~0.07 psig, but both gauges were self-consistent.

Can you unpack this a little for me?

It seems like they compared both gauges to a "control" gauge, and the logo gauge showed a higher PSI by between .3-.4 PSI, while the non-logo gauge was lower than the control gauge by about .07?

This would indicate that the non-logo gauge was the "more accurate" gauge, then, since it was closer to the "control" gauge, right?

And, if I'm not mistaken, the non-logo gauge showed the Pats balls at halftime being more deflated than the Ideal Gas Law would explain?

you got it. Except, technically assuming either gauge demonstrates a level of deflation with the Patriots balls that the laws of physics can't explain, it's just more obvious with the non-logo gauge.

And was it the non-logo gauge that showed the Pats balls at 12.5 PSI and the Colts balls at 13.0 PSI (or very close to both numbers) pre-game?

That's my understanding, and that's why, IMO, it makes sense to assume the non-logo gauge was the one used. If both teams say they submit their balls at a specific point, and one gauge shows that team's balls at (or very close) to that point, it stands to reason that this gauge was the one used.

 

[GregR]

To be fair, the more accurate gauge had 3 of 4 Colts balls low at halftime. If we're going strictly by the letter of the law, they were using illegal footballs.

Makes you wonder if this rule was ever thought out. Footballs that were presumably mid-range to start the game naturally drop so much in pressure that they're illegal by half time. It's not as if it was the Ice Bowl out there.

The rule says teams are supposed to submit the balls to the refs to be certified as game balls and they should fall in a certain pressure range.

It does not say the team is responsible for changing a ball's air pressure after certification. The opposite. Doing so without the ref's direction would be tampering with the balls and illegal.

So no, the letter of the law doesn't say the Colts were using illegal footballs.

The halftime measurements are only meaningful as evidence whether such tampering occurred.

 

[davearm]

2 teams

both deflated balls were found at halftime

one team all balls were tested, the other team only 4

one team was investigated, the other wasn't

fair and logical

Christ man, get your facts straight. Stop repeating the same tired nonsense, over and over again.

Page 7 of the Wells Report-at halftime, 4 Colts footballs were tested; all 4 were WITHIN the legal range on one of the gauges. So, they stopped testing.

You want to argue that they used the wrong gauge, okay. You want to argue that the scientific data they used was wrong, okay. You want to argue that this was a "sting" operation, determined to find some dirt on the Pats, okay. (you'd still be wrong) But stop repeating something that isn't true, over and over again. It makes you look like an imbecile.

To be fair, the more accurate gauge had 3 of 4 Colts balls low at halftime. If we're going strictly by the letter of the law, they were using illegal footballs.

Makes you wonder if this rule was ever thought out. Footballs that were presumably mid-range to start the game naturally drop so much in pressure that they're illegal by half time. It's not as if it was the Ice Bowl out there.

1-I'm not sure Stealthycat is concerned with "fair." He/she is just posting the same tired crap, repeatedly.

2-I didn't think this is correct. The 2 gauges had a difference in the PSI they recorded, but there's no definitive way of knowing which one was more "accurate." It's not like they were tested against a super-PSI gauge that is 100% accurate, without fail or question. That being said, from what I understand, the Colts and Pats both said that they submit their footballs at 13.0 and 12.5, respectively, and one gauge showed their pre-game measurements as being at 13.0 & 12.5 (or reasonably close to that). It would stand to reason that this gauge is the more accurate one. From what I understand, this is the gauge Wells chose to accept, even though Anderson said he thought he used the other one.

Except they were. (pg 178)

To determine both the precision and accuracy of the gauges, a fixture with a common manifold was constructed that allowed for multiple Exemplar Gauges to simultaneously be exposed to common temperature and pressure conditions. A single high-accuracy gauge (Omega DPG4000- 30) with NIST (National Institute of Standards and Technology) traceable calibration was also connected to the manifold to record actual pressure data (for the remainder of this report, this will be referred to as the “Master Gauge”). The test fixture with Exemplar Gauges and the Master Gauge attached to the manifold is shown in Figure 5.

Results and Discussion (pg 179)

The data in Figure 6 show the results of the above experiments. The plot on the left shows the variation in average readings generated when the Exemplar Gauges were compared to the Master Gauge. On the right, the variation within a gauge (i.e., gauge repeatability) is shown. The data indicate that although the gauges tended to over- or underestimate the true pressure, the measurements recorded by an individual gauge were self-consistent. In other words, an individual gauge may read slightly incorrectly as compared to the Master Gauge, but that error is consistent for all readings taken by that particular gauge. This held true for the Game Day Gauges: the Logo Gauge generally overestimated the Master Gauge by ~0.3-0.4 psig and the Non-Logo Gauge generally read slightly below the Master Gauge by ~0.07 psig, but both gauges were self-consistent.

Can you unpack this a little for me?

It seems like they compared both gauges to a "control" gauge, and the logo gauge showed a higher PSI by between .3-.4 PSI, while the non-logo gauge was lower than the control gauge by about .07?

This would indicate that the non-logo gauge was the "more accurate" gauge, then, since it was closer to the "control" gauge, right?

And, if I'm not mistaken, the non-logo gauge showed the Pats balls at halftime being more deflated than the Ideal Gas Law would explain?

you got it. Except, technically assuming either gauge demonstrates a level of deflation with the Patriots balls that the laws of physics can't explain, it's just more obvious with the non-logo gauge.

And was it the non-logo gauge that showed the Pats balls at 12.5 PSI and the Colts balls at 13.0 PSI (or very close to both numbers) pre-game?

That's my understanding, and that's why, IMO, it makes sense to assume the non-logo gauge was the one used. If both teams say they submit their balls at a specific point, and one gauge shows that team's balls at (or very close) to that point, it stands to reason that this gauge was the one used.

This is the reason why the Report assumes Anderson used the more accurate non-logo gauge in his pre-game inspection.

If Anderson's recollection of using the inaccurate Logo gauge is correct, then it leads to the following conclusions:

Since Anderson gauged the Patriots' balls at ~12.5 PSI, but the Logo gauge reads high by ~0.4 PSI, then the Patriots must have submitted balls that were actually ~12.1 PSI, despite a stated intention to submit balls @ 12.5 PSI.

And also...

Since Anderson gauged the Colts' balls at ~13.0 PSI, but the Logo gauge reads high by ~0.4 PSI, then the Colts must have submitted balls that were actually ~12.6 PSI, despite a stated intention to submit balls @ 13.0 PSI.

So unless you believe that both teams missed their target PSI, and both undershot the target, and both were off by the same ~0.4 PSI, then it's pretty apparent that it wasn't the Logo gauge that Anderson used.

 

[davearm]

We are talking about tools that are nearly identical in appearance, differing only by the presence of one logo. Both tools were tested and found to be repeatable within roughly +/-0.1 psi. One tool was out of calibration by roughly 0.4 psi, but beyond that, their performance is nearly indistinguishable.

moleculo - I respect most of your opinions on this issue, but I think you need to revisit the logos. Look at the pictures on pages 174-176. They are very different looking, particularly the needles. One is twice as long as the other and bent at a pretty severe angle. Very memorable in my opinion. Anderson's recollection of using the logo gauge pregame is the biggest hole in the report, and the one that continues to bother me.

Have a look at my last post.

Are you ready to jump through the hoops you have to jump through to conclude the Logo gauge was used pregame?

 

[General Tso]

We are talking about tools that are nearly identical in appearance, differing only by the presence of one logo. Both tools were tested and found to be repeatable within roughly +/-0.1 psi. One tool was out of calibration by roughly 0.4 psi, but beyond that, their performance is nearly indistinguishable.

moleculo - I respect most of your opinions on this issue, but I think you need to revisit the logos. Look at the pictures on pages 174-176. They are very different looking, particularly the needles. One is twice as long as the other and bent at a pretty severe angle. Very memorable in my opinion. Anderson's recollection of using the logo gauge pregame is the biggest hole in the report, and the one that continues to bother me.

Have a look at my last post.

Are you ready to jump through the hoops you have to jump through to conclude the Logo gauge was used pregame?

If you look purely at the Pats balls, the evidence in the Wells Report actually supports that the logo gauge was used during pregame inspection:- The Pats rubbing process before inspection is shown by Exponent to raise the psi by 0.7. (Page 34)

- The Pats calibrate the balls to 12.5 right after the rubbing process.

- The rubbing process psi increase wears off after 30 minutes and the psi drops 0.7.

- The balls are stored in the locker room for about an hour prior to pregame inspection by refs.

- Under this scenario of events, when using a proper gauge during pregame inspection the Pats balls should be anywhere between 0.3 to 0.6 off from the 12.5 the Pats calibrated to(if we assume that the time between rubbing and the Pats gauging is about 10 minutes). In other words, the Pats balls should measure about 12.1 during pregame inspection on a proper gauge.

- If the logo gauge was used pregame, it would show the Pats balls at about 12.5

- If the non-logo gauge was used pregame, it would show the Pats balls at 12.1.

The evidence contained within a Exponent's own report seems to prove the logo gauge was used.

Now as respects the Colts balls, I have no idea what process they use and when they calibrate their balls to 13.0.

 

[Burl]

Why has this thread run full circle and started back at page 1 again with the arguing of PSI once again. What stage of denial are Pats fans in again? I'm getting the feeling they are regressing to an earlier state.

 

[davearm]

We are talking about tools that are nearly identical in appearance, differing only by the presence of one logo. Both tools were tested and found to be repeatable within roughly +/-0.1 psi. One tool was out of calibration by roughly 0.4 psi, but beyond that, their performance is nearly indistinguishable.

moleculo - I respect most of your opinions on this issue, but I think you need to revisit the logos. Look at the pictures on pages 174-176. They are very different looking, particularly the needles. One is twice as long as the other and bent at a pretty severe angle. Very memorable in my opinion. Anderson's recollection of using the logo gauge pregame is the biggest hole in the report, and the one that continues to bother me.

Have a look at my last post.

Are you ready to jump through the hoops you have to jump through to conclude the Logo gauge was used pregame?

If you look purely at the Pats balls, the evidence in the Wells Report actually supports that the logo gauge was used during pregame inspection:- The Pats rubbing process before inspection is shown by Exponent to raise the psi by 0.7. (Page 34)

- The Pats calibrate the balls to 12.5 right after the rubbing process.

- The rubbing process psi increase wears off after 30 minutes and the psi drops 0.7.

- The balls are stored in the locker room for about an hour prior to pregame inspection by refs.

- Under this scenario of events, when using a proper gauge during pregame inspection the Pats balls should be anywhere between 0.3 to 0.6 off from the 12.5 the Pats calibrated to(if we assume that the time between rubbing and the Pats gauging is about 10 minutes). In other words, the Pats balls should measure about 12.1 during pregame inspection on a proper gauge.

- If the logo gauge was used pregame, it would show the Pats balls at about 12.5

- If the non-logo gauge was used pregame, it would show the Pats balls at 12.1.

The evidence contained within a Exponent's own report seems to prove the logo gauge was used.

Now as respects the Colts balls, I have no idea what process they use and when they calibrate their balls to 13.0.

I don't have time to pull up the report right now, but I'm pretty confident the rubbing and ball prep stuff all happens days/weeks before gameday.

On gameday, the equipment manager just makes final inflation adjustments to the balls, before laying them out for Brady to select from.

That's for the regular balls. The K-balls are first opened on gameday, and all the prep happens hours before kickoff.

 

[Stealthycat]

http://www.coldhardfootballfacts.com/content/wells-report-more-probable-than-not-colts-played-with-under-inflated-footballs/33495/

did YOU read the report ??

 

[Run It Up]

The ball prep was described as extensive and lasts up until they are submitted.

 

[Burl]

http://www.coldhardfootballfacts.com/content/wells-report-more-probable-than-not-colts-played-with-under-inflated-footballs/33495/

did YOU read the report ??

So your counter argument is to post an article that states in the very first sentence, that it agrees with the reports findings? Unbelievable...

We agree with the Wells Report on DeflateGate commissioned by the NFL after the AFC title game between the Colts and Patriots: it's "more probable than not" that Tom Brady was aware of inappropriate handling of Patriots footballs.

 

[Stealthycat]

sigh

what ABOUT THE COLTS ?

 

[Burl]

sigh

what ABOUT THE COLTS ?

What about them? I'm pretty sure this thread is about the Pats and their deflating of footballs after pregame inspection. The discrepancy in the PSI between the two teams footballs has been discussed in depth earlier in this thread. If you want to be educated on it, you'll need to read up. The fact the article you dug up is over three weeks old and hasn't been a "news" item yet should tell you all you need to know.

 

[General Tso]

We are talking about tools that are nearly identical in appearance, differing only by the presence of one logo. Both tools were tested and found to be repeatable within roughly +/-0.1 psi. One tool was out of calibration by roughly 0.4 psi, but beyond that, their performance is nearly indistinguishable.

moleculo - I respect most of your opinions on this issue, but I think you need to revisit the logos. Look at the pictures on pages 174-176. They are very different looking, particularly the needles. One is twice as long as the other and bent at a pretty severe angle. Very memorable in my opinion. Anderson's recollection of using the logo gauge pregame is the biggest hole in the report, and the one that continues to bother me.

Have a look at my last post.

Are you ready to jump through the hoops you have to jump through to conclude the Logo gauge was used pregame?

If you look purely at the Pats balls, the evidence in the Wells Report actually supports that the logo gauge was used during pregame inspection:- The Pats rubbing process before inspection is shown by Exponent to raise the psi by 0.7. (Page 34)

- The Pats calibrate the balls to 12.5 right after the rubbing process.

- The rubbing process psi increase wears off after 30 minutes and the psi drops 0.7.

- The balls are stored in the locker room for about an hour prior to pregame inspection by refs.

- Under this scenario of events, when using a proper gauge during pregame inspection the Pats balls should be anywhere between 0.3 to 0.6 off from the 12.5 the Pats calibrated to(if we assume that the time between rubbing and the Pats gauging is about 10 minutes). In other words, the Pats balls should measure about 12.1 during pregame inspection on a proper gauge.

- If the logo gauge was used pregame, it would show the Pats balls at about 12.5

- If the non-logo gauge was used pregame, it would show the Pats balls at 12.1.

The evidence contained within a Exponent's own report seems to prove the logo gauge was used.

Now as respects the Colts balls, I have no idea what process they use and when they calibrate their balls to 13.0.

I don't have time to pull up the report right now, but I'm pretty confident the rubbing and ball prep stuff all happens days/weeks before gameday.

On gameday, the equipment manager just makes final inflation adjustments to the balls, before laying them out for Brady to select from.

That's for the regular balls. The K-balls are first opened on gameday, and all the prep happens hours before kickoff.

Nope. The gloving process that Exponent says raises the psi level was all done on gameday. From page 49 and 50 of the Wells Report:

Jastremski told us that he decided to prepare another full set of game balls, and that, by mid-Sunday morning, he had removed the initial preservative from 24 new footballs, brushed them and treated them with dirt. He and other members of the equipment staff then gloved the footballs, spending between 7 and 15 minutes vigorously rubbing each ball. According to Brady, this created a set of game balls where most of the tack on the ball ended up coming from the leather receiver gloves. Jastremski told us that he set the pressure level to 12.6 psi after each ball was gloved and then placed the ball on a trunk in the equipment room for Brady to review.

Once again, this in my mind seems to prove that the logo gauge was used pregame. The Pats calibrated their ball to 12.6 right after doing the comprehensive rubbing and ball prep that the Exponent Report acknowledges raises the psi level by as much as 0.7. So if they were gauged by the Pats 5 to 10 minutes after the rubbing process the natural deflation would have been something slightly less than 0.7 - let's say 0.4. So when the pregame inspection was done by the refs the balls would have been at around 12.2. If Anderson uses the logo gauge the psi appears to be 12.5 or 12.6 because we know that gauge reads high by 0.3 to 0.4. Oh, and coincidentally, this is the gauge the ref remembers using.

So I think the evidence pretty clearly shows that the logo gauge was used pregame, and that the balls were at 12.5 as Anderson recollects. When the same logo gauge is used by Prioleau at halftime the average psi of the 11 Pats balls is 11.49. The Exponent Report predicts that a ball inflated to 12.5, with the exact atmospheric conditions as existed that night, would naturally deflate to a range of 11.32 - 11.52. And how about the 12th ball - the one intercepted by the Colts? That ball was measured 3 separate times on the sidelines and guess what the average was? 11.52 - almost identical to the 11.49 average of the 11 Pats balls measured at halftime using the logo gauge. And guess what gauge was used to measure the intercepted ball? It was the Patriot's gauge that was used to calibrate the balls pregame to 12.5!

The only fly in the ointment here is the Colts balls, and to be honest - I'm not sure they can ever serve as an effective control group because:

a) we don't know the details of the Colts ball prep and exactly at what point in the process they calibrated their balls to 13.0.

b) only 4 balls were measured at the half.

Sorry guys, but going off the evidence in the Wells Report I have to conclude that the logo gauge was used pregame, and if that assumption is made it is extremely hard to to prove that anything other than natural deflation occurred. The evidence proves it, and I'm looking at it objectively.

Once again, I do think the Pats were involved in a ball tampering program as evidenced by the text messages. And who knows, maybe McNally did deflate a few of those balls in the men's room. But there wasn't wholesale deflation going on, or if there was, it can't be proven. At least not in that game.

And this has always made sense to me. It always seemed a stretch to me that McNally would have had the opportunity and the balls (pun intended) to deflate footballs during an AFCCG when the refs were on notice and paying attention. I honestly don't think anything happened here, and if it did, it was probably a situation where McNally knew the heat was on, didn't have much time, and probably only deflated a few balls a little bit.

But it doesn't really matter in the sense that I still think the main crux of the Wells Report is that it effectively found evidence of a pattern of deflation dating back at least a year. The text messages for me are incontrovertible. It's just ironic how they were caught. It's a like a group of bank robbers get busted, but the actual bank robbery they get busted for wasn't one of the banks they robbed. Sometimes cops frame a guilty man. That's not precisely the right analogy, but it kind of gets to what happened here.

In the end, justice is served in my opinion. But everyone comes out of it looking dirty.

 

[LongDuckDong]

The problem with the text messages by themselves is that they don't implicate Brady as anything other than someone pissed if the balls were too inflated.

Again, I say this as someone who is a hardcore Pats fan but isn't remotely comfortable with them cheating. I thought Spygate was nonsense, and always will. I think the Saints bounty thing was ridiculous. I think the Dolphins investigation was ridiculous. I think Goodell's approach to discipline is incompetent. And I believe he does it that way because his 32 bosses tell him to.

Now back to the deflation issue:

I have a major issue with the league not retracting the info in the Chris Mortenson report, and it makes me believe the league wanted to control the dialogue on that issue.

I don't believe that the evidence of deflation based on the statistical data would hold up in a court of law because of the issues with the gauges.

I think if Wells had been told "I want the Patriots to come out of here clean" by Goodell, he would have issued a report that said no conclusive evidence exists that there was deflation in the Indy game, nor conclusive evidence that Brady, Belichick, or anyone besides McNally and Jastremski participated in anything resembling ball pressure manipulation.

Goodell could easily have swept it under the rug and said that he was tightening procedures so no one could question anything, but that there was no impact on game integrity. For reasons I legitimately don't understand, he never did.

I will say this, if evidence comes out that shows Brady, Belichick, or anyone else in power directed employees to mess with balls after approved, I will be mortified and have no use for it. I think it shows a blatant disrespect for fair play and I don't like it.

But as a Patriots fan, right now the evidence chain seems to be

• The balls may have been messed with based on statistical assumptions that assume certain things. If you make other assumptions, the statistical data supports the possibility that they weren't. Wells was paid to give his opinion on those assumptions, and his assumption was the one that theorized messing with the balls.
• The league never retracted a clearly inaccurate report which made the Patriots look FAR more guilty than they actually were, results which would leave no doubt as to their guilt. Which does bring question as what bias Wells had when he made the assumptions in point one.
• McNally went missing with the balls for enough time to perhaps mess with the balls.
• McNally and Jastremski joked often about messing with the balls because Brady had issue when they were too inflated.
• Most involved in football believe that if Brady didn't authorize it, there's no way a ballboy would have messed with the balls.

I can ABSOLUTELY see that if you look at it believing the Patriots did wrong, that you can fit the data to it. My issue is that if you want to believe that they didn't (or at least Brady, Belichick, etc didn't order anything), you have no direct evidence that they ordered anything, and the indirect evidence assumes that the balls were messed with, which is at least possibly untrue depending on assumptions you made.

So I leave it at this - if you believe because of Spygate or because Belichick is a meanie that the Patriots are guilty until proven innocent, the evidence does not support innocence. It just doesn't support absolute guilt. If you believe they are innocent until proven guilty, then it certainly doesn't get you all the way to guilt at least as far as Brady, Belichick, et al.

And so the league takes the easy way out under a half assed "more probable than not" threshold that I bet every single one of us who would be terrified to be judged under if we were defendants in court or our loved ones were, and punishes Brady.

If Goodell had docked the Patriots the picks and the fine and not touched Brady, it would have been very difficult for me to argue there wasn't an institutional control issue. You have McNally and the balls going missing right before the AFC championship game, balls that performed differently than the Colts balls, for reasons that we aren't 100% sure about (maybe 70-80% depending again on what standpoint you view it from).

But Brady...you screw with an all time great's reputation without any direct evidence of his guilt besides "well, we think it happened, even though we cant be sure, and if it did, it only would have if Brady knew, just because that's how it works, even though there's no evidence he actually did"...yeah, I think Patriots fans have the right to at least argue on Brady's behalf. I can understand why guys like Moleculo argue as they do because there's a path to his feelings that is "more probable".

 

[Old Smiley]

Careful. Saying stuff like that will get you labelled a crazy homer.

 

[Koya]

*

Every single accomplishment under this current regime is subject to LEGITIMATE doubt.

What could have been a dynasty of Winners is instead, a legacy of Cheaters.

And for those who pretend that Cheating is winning... there is no greater loser.

 

[Anarchy99]

*

Every single accomplishment under this current regime is subject to LEGITIMATE doubt.

What could have been a dynasty of Winners is instead, a legacy of Cheaters.

And for those who pretend that Cheating is winning... there is no greater loser.

So if it could be shown that other SB winning teams broke the rules at some point during their title winning seasons, then they all get asterisks in your mind?

 

[LongDuckDong]

*

Every single accomplishment under this current regime is subject to LEGITIMATE doubt.

What could have been a dynasty of Winners is instead, a legacy of Cheaters.

And for those who pretend that Cheating is winning... there is no greater loser.

I think this post pretty much shows that this poster would never have recognized a dynasty of winners. I suspect that Brady, his Supermodel wife, and Belichick and his championship rings sleep all right anyways.

 

[Bayhawks]

*

Every single accomplishment under this current regime is subject to LEGITIMATE doubt.

What could have been a dynasty of Winners is instead, a legacy of Cheaters.

And for those who pretend that Cheating is winning... there is no greater loser.

This kind of post is, IMO, as bad as the Patriot homers going to ridiculous lengths to "prove" their Pats are clean.

They cheated, but there is NO REASON to say it causes doubts to every single accomplishment. Hell, it doesn't even taint the AFCC where the cheating occurred. It was a stupid thing to do, probably didn't offer any advantage, except in Brady's mind.

Patriots fans with their head in the sand saying "you can't prove anything," and Patriots haters saying "all Pats SBs, accomplishments, records, victories, etc should be stripped" are two extremes & both are ridiculous.

 

[Bayhawks]

The problem with the text messages by themselves is that they don't implicate Brady as anything other than someone pissed if the balls were too inflated.

Again, I say this as someone who is a hardcore Pats fan but isn't remotely comfortable with them cheating. I thought Spygate was nonsense, and always will. I think the Saints bounty thing was ridiculous. I think the Dolphins investigation was ridiculous. I think Goodell's approach to discipline is incompetent. And I believe he does it that way because his 32 bosses tell him to.

Now back to the deflation issue:

I have a major issue with the league not retracting the info in the Chris Mortenson report, and it makes me believe the league wanted to control the dialogue on that issue.

I don't believe that the evidence of deflation based on the statistical data would hold up in a court of law because of the issues with the gauges.

I think if Wells had been told "I want the Patriots to come out of here clean" by Goodell, he would have issued a report that said no conclusive evidence exists that there was deflation in the Indy game, nor conclusive evidence that Brady, Belichick, or anyone besides McNally and Jastremski participated in anything resembling ball pressure manipulation.

Goodell could easily have swept it under the rug and said that he was tightening procedures so no one could question anything, but that there was no impact on game integrity. For reasons I legitimately don't understand, he never did.

I will say this, if evidence comes out that shows Brady, Belichick, or anyone else in power directed employees to mess with balls after approved, I will be mortified and have no use for it. I think it shows a blatant disrespect for fair play and I don't like it.

But as a Patriots fan, right now the evidence chain seems to be

• The balls may have been messed with based on statistical assumptions that assume certain things. If you make other assumptions, the statistical data supports the possibility that they weren't. Wells was paid to give his opinion on those assumptions, and his assumption was the one that theorized messing with the balls.
• The league never retracted a clearly inaccurate report which made the Patriots look FAR more guilty than they actually were, results which would leave no doubt as to their guilt. Which does bring question as what bias Wells had when he made the assumptions in point one.
• McNally went missing with the balls for enough time to perhaps mess with the balls.
• McNally and Jastremski joked often about messing with the balls because Brady had issue when they were too inflated.
• Most involved in football believe that if Brady didn't authorize it, there's no way a ballboy would have messed with the balls.

I can ABSOLUTELY see that if you look at it believing the Patriots did wrong, that you can fit the data to it. My issue is that if you want to believe that they didn't (or at least Brady, Belichick, etc didn't order anything), you have no direct evidence that they ordered anything, and the indirect evidence assumes that the balls were messed with, which is at least possibly untrue depending on assumptions you made.

So I leave it at this - if you believe because of Spygate or because Belichick is a meanie that the Patriots are guilty until proven innocent, the evidence does not support innocence. It just doesn't support absolute guilt. If you believe they are innocent until proven guilty, then it certainly doesn't get you all the way to guilt at least as far as Brady, Belichick, et al.

And so the league takes the easy way out under a half assed "more probable than not" threshold that I bet every single one of us who would be terrified to be judged under if we were defendants in court or our loved ones were, and punishes Brady.

If Goodell had docked the Patriots the picks and the fine and not touched Brady, it would have been very difficult for me to argue there wasn't an institutional control issue. You have McNally and the balls going missing right before the AFC championship game, balls that performed differently than the Colts balls, for reasons that we aren't 100% sure about (maybe 70-80% depending again on what standpoint you view it from).

But Brady...you screw with an all time great's reputation without any direct evidence of his guilt besides "well, we think it happened, even though we cant be sure, and if it did, it only would have if Brady knew, just because that's how it works, even though there's no evidence he actually did"...yeah, I think Patriots fans have the right to at least argue on Brady's behalf. I can understand why guys like Moleculo argue as they do because there's a path to his feelings that is "more probable".

Brady screwed with his own legacy. He had every opportunity to clear his name (if it could be done). If he had turned over the records of his text messages/phone calls AND there hadn't been anything "incriminating" there, he'd have gotten off. But he chose not to do so. Now, before we get all the "he didn't want the naked pics of his wife to get out," he didn't actually have to give the phone over, just the records.

The fact that he didn't give the phone records isn't proof of anything, but this isn't a court of law, it's a company, and Wells/Goodell are free to make assumptions in this situation that a jury/judge wouldn't be allowed to. So, when Brady chose not to cooperate, HE opened the door for the assumptions they made. Furthermore, in the court of public opinion, Brady choosing not to allow Wells to see his phone records is damning. It doesn't matter if you think it's fair, he did that to himself.

In a criminal case, a defendant is allowed to plead the 5th, and it can't be held against him/her, but you're incredibly naive if you think people don't see a person do that and think "what is he/she hiding?"

Brady chose to make himself look suspicious. If he had nothing to hide, he wouldn't have done that, IMO.

 

[LongDuckDong]

You can refer to my earlier post in which I said that Brady's performance in the first press conference was poor, at best.

But again, you are openly admitting that Wells got to make any assumption he wanted about Brady. He chose to choose the "Brady is protecting his guilt" angle.

Which again, to me comes in question because the league didn't refute the original Mortenson report that made the Patriots out to look like obvious tampering occurred.

Were Wells' conclusions meant to serve an agenda or were they legit based on the facts?

Hey, I'm a damn hypocrite - if the report came out clearing Brady I would be quoting the report as gospel. I am not trying to make myself sound like I am right and you're wrong, and I apologize if I am coming off that way. I am simply saying that the entirety of the exercise comes from whatever agenda you took into it.

Someone coming in totally neutral would probably say "this smells bad but I can't prove anything". Wells came in and said guilty. Pats fans come in and say not guilty.

 

[Koya]

I see that hit a nerve.

Interesting.

At least annoying Steeler nation fans have a history that is worthy of respect (coach on the field BS notwithstanding).

Pats fans, recognize reality: your "Dynasty" is an historical asterisk. MAYBE you COULD have POSSIBLY had all that same success without the proven trail of cheating.

'cept you didn't.

You cheated repeatedly and got caught - even filmed practices (honestly as shameful as it comes)

And still you got ### whooped by the New York Giants not once but twice. A cheater, yet still a ---- to New York. Oof.

So stop the posturing. History is what it is. From a Pats perspective that's not especially rosy. What success you had (a ton) is all suspect, and even so there's a team that stole your thunder in any case.

Call me shuked. :shuked:

 

[Koya]

WTF is :shuked: not a damn smiley?

 

[General Tso]

I see that hit a nerve.

Interesting.

At least annoying Steeler nation fans have a history that is worthy of respect (coach on the field BS notwithstanding).

Pats fans, recognize reality: your "Dynasty" is an historical asterisk. MAYBE you COULD have POSSIBLY had all that same success without the proven trail of cheating.

'cept you didn't.

You cheated repeatedly and got caught - even filmed practices (honestly as shameful as it comes)

And still you got ### whooped by the New York Giants not once but twice. A cheater, yet still a ---- to New York. Oof.

So stop the posturing. History is what it is. From a Pats perspective that's not especially rosy. What success you had (a ton) is all suspect, and even so there's a team that stole your thunder in any case.

Call me shuked. :shuked:

What are you, like 12?