Deflategate merge -- pending appeal results

[Dustin]

They're [AEI] also far from angels, with a scrutinized history of bending their findings to support the views held by their donors.

 

whew

[Dustin]

.

[Yehoodi]

repeat offender (repeat offenders plural )A repeat offender is someone who commits the same sort of crime more than once. n-count

The same sort of crime being breaking league rules in order to gain an unfair advantage over the opponent. I can use "habitual offender" if that would make you feel better?

 

so then you would agree with me that the Seattle Seahawks are repeat offenders as they have multiple PEDs violations in the past few years.  How come their fines do not increase?

[HOZER]

so then you would agree with me that the Seattle Seahawks are repeat offenders as they have multiple PEDs violations in the past few years. How come their fines do not increase?

Was there non-cooperation by the players, staff, or organization? Did anyone lie about the test results? If so, then yes, fine thier pants off!

[amfootball]

I am going to agree here that Kraft though disagree's with the punishment and has voiced it, he has taken responsibility, and accepted the punishment.  And I have respect for that.

Also, yes i believe the past few years the Pats have owned the Colts, (deflategate or no) and have done so convincingly.  I am under the hopes this year will provide more of a game and I believe Indy has taken steps on both sides of the ball to do so. Week 6 is going to be a fun game to watch, because both teams have fire in them over it, and the entire world is going to tune into it.

I am looking forward to this season as well. I think the Pats and Colts will separate as the best two teams in the AFC and hopefully meet again with a chance at the SB on the line.

[amfootball]

Wow. Didn't expect this quote from Suggs:

 

Suggs: Brady's reputation unchanged

32m

Ravens LB Terrell Suggs, who has developed a fierce rivalry with Tom Brady, doesn't think the QB's rep is altered by Deflategate: “The guy is a winner. He’s won with whatever kind of personnel that he’s had. So, I don’t think it really tarnished it."

 

http://espn.go.com/nfl/

[Bad Morty]

 

 

They are essentially saying what you're saying: the time at which the Colts balls were measured may have resulted in a different measurement.  Their conclusion?

 

Based on the above conclusions, although the relative “explainability” of the results from Game Day are dependent on which gauge was used by Walt Anderson prior to the game, given the most likely timing of events during halftime, the Patriots halftime measurements do not appear to be explained by the environmental factors tested, regardless of the gauge used

 

Once again, you can't say things for certain.  But given their testing, it doesn't look like the environment (eg. temperature of the room, time it took to measure Colts balls, etc.) doesn't have a significant effect.

 

I've worked at trying to understand what the AEI report is saying...it's been a long time since I took a statistics class, but I'm starting to get it...

 

I think the main gist of the flaw AEI is finding is this (trying to put this in English as much as possible):

 

1) We know there were two gauges, and that that one (non logo) was around .4 psi lower than the other (logo).

2) We don't know what gauge was used to set the balls pregame...if the non-logo gauge was used to set the Pats balls to 12.5, then those balls would read at 12.9 if measured by the logo gauge

3) We DO have halftime readings off of each gauge for 11 Pats balls and 4 Colts balls

4) Predictably, the readings of the balls from the logo gauge are higher than the non-logo gauge

5) So the raw number for how much deflation occurred for each team's balls depends on which gauge was used to set the pre-game starting point

6) Example: Patriots Ball #1 measured 11.5 PSI on the low gauge, and 11.8 on the high gauge...how many PSI the ball actually deflated depends on which gauge we started with. So if the pre-game gauge was the low gauge, then the PSI drop on ball 1 was 1 lb and if it was the high gauge then the drop was only 0.7 PSI.

 

AEI's first contention is that if you aren't going to accept Anderson's recollection that the high gauge was used, then you have to account for all 4 permutations of pre-game gauge use when doing a comparison of pressure drops between the 2 teams balls...1) high gauge was used for both teams pre-game 2) low gauge was used pre-game for both teams 3) high gauge was used for Pats, Low gauge for Colts 4) Low gauge was used  for Pats, high gauge was used for Colts. There's no evidence that this analysis was done by Wells. That's a significant flaw in the data.

 

So what AEI did was to use Wells' own data to determine whether or not the Pats balls deflated on average by more than the lower range the ideal gas law would predict depending on the various combinations...and what that data shows is that in 3 of the 4 data combinations, the average deflation of the Pats balls was above the lower limit predicted by the ideal gas law (the only combo that showed an average drop below the lower limit was when you assume the high gauge was used to set the pregame 12.5 and you take the low gauge measurement at halftime).

 

Then they did the same analysis on the Colts balls and found that the change from pre-game to halftime was off the charts higher than the ideal gas law would predict in all 4 permutations of gauge use. That's the halftime warming effect.

 

I think ultimately he's saying that Wells is trying to use the comparative drops between the 2 teams to deflect from the fact that the raw readings on pressure drop isn't all that conclusive. I.e. "OK so depending on the assumption you choose on which gauge was used pre-game, the ideal gas law may or may not completely explain the halftime measurements...but the gauge assumptions fall apart when you consider that no matter what gauge you use the Pats balls dropped way more as a % than the Colts balls did"...AEI is saying "hold on a sec - the Pats balls fall within the ideal gas law prediction in 3 out of 4 assumptions on gauge use, but the Colts balls are way OVER what the ideal gas law would predict...that's because the Colts balls heated up all halftime"

 

Wells suggests in the appendix he considered this, but there's no data provided to show HOW he considered it...I think.

[ruksak]

"Research Institutes" are akin to expert witnesses in trials. They are paid to find a supporting opinion, period. They are paid liars and trained manipulators of fact. That goes for both the institute that questions the Wells report, as well as the one used by the Wells report. 

 

Everyone here would do well to consider this. 

[SilentHill]

Who is AEI and why should we care what they think? 

[Bad Morty]

"Research Institutes" are akin to expert witnesses in trials. They are paid to find a supporting opinion, period. They are paid liars and trained manipulators of fact. That goes for both the institute that questions the Wells report, as well as the one used by the Wells report. 

 

Everyone here would do well to consider this. 

No...no they are not...they are a non-profit organization and they don't do "contract research".

[ViriLudant]

Who is AEI and why should we care what they think?

Besides the fact that they have already been verified as a reliable outside source by the former NFL commissioner himself?

[ViriLudant]

"Research Institutes" are akin to expert witnesses in trials. They are paid to find a supporting opinion, period. They are paid liars and trained manipulators of fact. That goes for both the institute that questions the Wells report, as well as the one used by the Wells report.

Everyone here would do well to consider this.

False.

The research organization for the Wells Report was paid to slant their research, just as they did when they claimed that cigarettes do not contribute to lung cancer.

AEI was not paid by ANYONE.

[Cynjin]

The research organization for the Wells Report was paid to slant their research

And you know this how?

[Bad Morty]

And you know this how?

Do you think Goodell agreed to pay Wells $5M to come back and say "Nothing to see here. Can I have my check now?"

[Cynjin]

Do you think Goodell agreed to pay Wells $5M to come back and say "Nothing to see here. Can I have my check now?"

That is not answering the question I posed.

[ruksak]

False.

The research organization for the Wells Report was paid to slant their research, just as they did when they claimed that cigarettes do not contribute to lung cancer.

AEI was not paid by ANYONE.

Who got paid for exactly what, I'm not sure if any of this was mentioned. 

 

What I do know is that AEI has been caught trying to bribe "experts" to participate in certain studies in order to come to a desired conclusion. 

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_Enterprise_Institute#Controversies

 

"According to the Guardian article, the AEI received $1.6 million in funding from ExxonMobil. The article further notes that former ExxonMobil CEO Lee R. Raymond is the vice-chairman of AEI's board of trustees."

 

"AEI had sent letters to scientists offering $10,000 plus travel expenses and additional payments, asking them to critique the IPCC Fourth Assessment Report."

 

I stand by my earlier statement. Research institutes are always looking for donations and grants, often from highly contentious lobbyists looking to dump some money on "experts" in order to champion their cause. 

 

AEI is a well known conservative group often taking money from conservative lobbyists looking to support conservative platforms. In short; They operate with a political agenda and this is problematic toward their bona fides as objective in regard to any case. 

[Bad Morty]

Who got paid for exactly what, I'm not sure if any of this was mentioned. 

 

What I do know is that AEI has been caught trying to bribe "experts" to participate in certain studies in order to come to a desired conclusion. 

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_Enterprise_Institute#Controversies

 

"According to the Guardian article, the AEI received $1.6 million in funding from ExxonMobil. The article further notes that former ExxonMobil CEO Lee R. Raymond is the vice-chairman of AEI's board of trustees."

 

"AEI had sent letters to scientists offering $10,000 plus travel expenses and additional payments, asking them to critique the IPCC Fourth Assessment Report."

 

I stand by my earlier statement. Research institutes are always looking for donations and grants, often from highly contentious lobbyists looking to dump some money on "experts" in order to champion their cause. 

 

AEI is a well known conservative group often taking money from conservative lobbyists looking to support conservative platforms. In short; They operate with a political agenda and this is problematic toward their bona fides as objective in regard to any case. 

Lol...meanwhile, you fully accept the findings of Exponent, who ARE exactly the "research for hire" firm you claimed AEI was. Exponent, who gave us "Second Hand Smoke doesn't cause cancer!" - paid for by the tobacco companies...and now, "They cheated!!!" - paid for by the NFL.

[21isSuperman]

There is an inherent problem with your first paragraph.  It is my understanding that only Walt Anderson tested the balls at the start of the game, and therefore there is only one reading, specifically his readings.  As such, that gauge could be right on, off by a 1 psig in either direction and it does not matter what else was done later in the day or two months afterwards.  What his reading ended up as are what his readings ended up as when he tested the balls.  period.

 

If the balls were truly say 13.0 psig . . .

 

And his gauge was high by say .30, he would of say all the balls were 13.30 psig

If his gauge was low by say .4, he would of said that all of the balls were 12.6 psig

If his gauge was right on he would of said all of the balls were 13.0 psig

  

period.  Nothing done 2 minutes after his testing, two football quarters after his testing, or 4 months after his testing is going to change what gauge he used or what numbers he read, and most critically what the psig starting point was for all of the balls.  Once we find out which gauge he used, calibrate it to see how accurate it is and than take his readings, we can then get a starting point, which again, is NOT effected by anything that happened afterwards regardless of what someone wants to spin.  You can not change a starting point when it was actual act in history, and most specifically is an actual point in history - the amount of air in the balls in question at the start of the game.

 

We then take his recollections of the readings say 12.5 psig

 

If a gauge he used was right on then our starting point is 12.5 psig

If a gauge he used read low by say .3 then the starting point is 12.8 psig

if a gauge he used read high by 0.40 then the starting point is then 12.1 psig

 

We then do the same for the two refs at halftime, taking their readings and adjusting for gauge error, if any, for the gauges they used and we have the true reading of all of the balls.  So we end up with three sets of true readings, Anderson's, Blakeman's and Prioleau's, and those readings ONLY have to due with what numbers they can up with and which gauge they use and has nothing to with anything else.

 

Based on the Wells report numbers one would expect the pressure at 12.5 psig and 70 degrees to drop about 1.13 psig when the temp drops to 48 degrees.  If we start at 12.1 psig that number drops to about 1.09 psig.  So therefore if the pats balls were truly 12.1 psig (that is Walt used a gauge that read .4 high and he said he got 12.5) in the refs locker room pregame, then based on the Ideal Gas Law the pressure of those balls would be at around 11.01 psig. (12.1 - 1.09= 11.01) at 48 degrees game time temp.

 

Once we know that the 11.01 psig is the expected result we then look to the half time measurements and take into considerations the same adjustments, if any, for the gauges used by the respective refs.  If one of them used a gauge that read true then we can use what they record as being the true value of the psig of the balls.   With said if either of the ref at halftime used a true gauge then 10 of 11 Prioleau's readings are at or above this point (with one at 11.00) and 6 of 11 Blakeman's balls are above this point. 

 

And we can not change the above regardless of how one might want to spin it pro or anti patriot.

 

In the end of the day what gauges were used were the gauges used and what was in the balls for air was in the balls for air, and that does not change regardless of how you and I want to spin things.

Makes sense.  Let's see if the report takes that into consideration.

 

Page 56 of the URL from earlier:

NFL  game  officials  are  not  required  to,  and  do  not  as  a  matter  of  standard practice, record in writing the pressure measurements taken during their pre-game inspections of game balls.  We credit Anderson‟s recollection of the pre-game measurements taken on the day of  the AFC  Championship  Game based  on  both  the level  of  confidence  Anderson expressed in his recollection and the consistency of his recollection with information provided by each of the Patriots and Coltsregarding their target inflation levels

 

So, we don't have pre-game pressure numbers, but Anderson says the balls were inflated to 12.5 PSI.  This was after he arrived at 3:45 PM.  The pressures aren't taken immediately before the game, but it looks like they are taken several hours before.  The balls were measured at around 3:45 PM, then the balls disappeared in what several of the refs called an unusual situation.  At 6:30 PM, McNally removed 2 of the bag balls.  So, given my understanding, the referee checked the ball, then McNally took them away and deflated them right before kickoff.

 

 

I've worked at trying to understand what the AEI report is saying...it's been a long time since I took a statistics class, but I'm starting to get it...

 

I think the main gist of the flaw AEI is finding is this (trying to put this in English as much as possible):

 

1) We know there were two gauges, and that that one (non logo) was around .4 psi lower than the other (logo).

2) We don't know what gauge was used to set the balls pregame...if the non-logo gauge was used to set the Pats balls to 12.5, then those balls would read at 12.9 if measured by the logo gauge

From the Wells report: Although Anderson‟s best recollection is that he used the Logo Gauge, he said that it is certainly possible that he used the Non-Logo Gauge. 

Not only that, but the Exponent tests show that it's more likely he used a non-logo gauge.

 

3) We DO have halftime readings off of each gauge for 11 Pats balls and 4 Colts balls

4) Predictably, the readings of the balls from the logo gauge are higher than the non-logo gauge

5) So the raw number for how much deflation occurred for each team's balls depends on which gauge was used to set the pre-game starting point

Wells report: We found that regardless of which assumption is made about the gauges used to generate the Game Day data, there is a statistically significant difference between the average pressure drops exhibited by the two teams

 

6) Example: Patriots Ball #1 measured 11.5 PSI on the low gauge, and 11.8 on the high gauge...how many PSI the ball actually deflated depends on which gauge we started with. So if the pre-game gauge was the low gauge, then the PSI drop on ball 1 was 1 lb and if it was the high gauge then the drop was only 0.7 PSI.

 

AEI's first contention is that if you aren't going to accept Anderson's recollection that the high gauge was used, then you have to account for all 4 permutations of pre-game gauge use when doing a comparison of pressure drops between the 2 teams balls...1) high gauge was used for both teams pre-game 2) low gauge was used pre-game for both teams 3) high gauge was used for Pats, Low gauge for Colts 4) Low gauge was used  for Pats, high gauge was used for Colts. There's no evidence that this analysis was done by Wells. That's a significant flaw in the data.

 

So what AEI did was to use Wells' own data to determine whether or not the Pats balls deflated on average by more than the lower range the ideal gas law would predict depending on the various combinations...and what that data shows is that in 3 of the 4 data combinations, the average deflation of the Pats balls was above the lower limit predicted by the ideal gas law (the only combo that showed an average drop below the lower limit was when you assume the high gauge was used to set the pregame 12.5 and you take the low gauge measurement at halftime).

 

Then they did the same analysis on the Colts balls and found that the change from pre-game to halftime was off the charts higher than the ideal gas law would predict in all 4 permutations of gauge use. That's the halftime warming effect.

 

I think ultimately he's saying that Wells is trying to use the comparative drops between the 2 teams to deflect from the fact that the raw readings on pressure drop isn't all that conclusive. I.e. "OK so depending on the assumption you choose on which gauge was used pre-game, the ideal gas law may or may not completely explain the halftime measurements...but the gauge assumptions fall apart when you consider that no matter what gauge you use the Pats balls dropped way more as a % than the Colts balls did"...AEI is saying "hold on a sec - the Pats balls fall within the ideal gas law prediction in 3 out of 4 assumptions on gauge use, but the Colts balls are way OVER what the ideal gas law would predict...that's because the Colts balls heated up all halftime"

 

Wells suggests in the appendix he considered this, but there's no data provided to show HOW he considered it...I think.

I understand what you're saying, and it would make sense, but the Wells report and their methods took it into account.  As I've posted before, the Pats balls were below what would have been predicted for the Ideal Gas Law.  I don't see how they can disagree with that and say the science is wrong.  It's a pretty straightforward calculation that the Wells report puts forth quite nicely.  Not only that, but the Wells report takes the environmental and temporal factors into consideration.

 

Besides the fact that they have already been verified as a reliable outside source by the former NFL commissioner himself?

And the fact that they have a history of bending their findings to fit what their donors want to see.

[21isSuperman]

Lol...meanwhile, you fully accept the findings of Exponent, who ARE exactly the "research for hire" firm you claimed AEI was. Exponent, who gave us "Second Hand Smoke doesn't cause cancer!" - paid for by the tobacco companies...and now, "They cheated!!!" - paid for by the NFL.

I'm more interested in seeing what their methods are.  While past precedence is something notable to consider, I don't think you can ignore information just off the basis of who is saying it.  That is, we can't discount what AEI says or what Exponent says because Exponent has said incorrect things in the past or AEI has said incorrect things in the past.  If their methods are solid and their data is reproducible, or at least can be calculated by a 3rd party, then what they're saying has more merit.

 

I'm really interested in seeing the methods of the AEI report.  The Wells report appears, to me anyway, to have a pretty solid method for their testing.  I want to know how two groups testing the same thing using the same equation (Ideal Gas Law) can get opposing results.

[dynasty13]

I'm more interested in seeing what their methods are. While past precedence is something notable to consider, I don't think you can ignore information just off the basis of who is saying it. That is, we can't discount what AEI says or what Exponent says because Exponent has said incorrect things in the past or AEI has said incorrect things in the past. If their methods are solid and their data is reproducible, or at least can be calculated by a 3rd party, then what they're saying has more merit.

I'm really interested in seeing the methods of the AEI report. The Wells report appears, to me anyway, to have a pretty solid method for their testing. I want to know how two groups testing the same thing using the same equation (Ideal Gas Law) can get opposing results.

It has to do entirely with which gauge was used before the game. The Wells Report bases all their conclusions on the 'assumption' that Walt Anderson used the opposite gauge than he himself believed to have used simply because the results fit their narrative better.

[ruksak]

Lol...meanwhile, you fully accept the findings of Exponent, who ARE exactly the "research for hire" firm you claimed AEI was. Exponent, who gave us "Second Hand Smoke doesn't cause cancer!" - paid for by the tobacco companies...and now, "They cheated!!!" - paid for by the NFL.

I never espoused any support of Exponent. Quite the opposite, really. Did I not exclaim that BOTH institutes are subjective and paid to be biased? 

 

Pretty sure I did. 

 

Unlike some people, I don't need Wells, Exponent, or AEI to tell me what happened. I know a damn liar when I see one, and Tom Brady is a liar. 

[Gramz]

 

 

Unlike some people, I don't need Wells, Exponent, or AEI to tell me what happened. I know a damn liar when I see one, and Tom Brady is a liar. 

You know what Ruk,  I kinda feel the same way.     

[ViriLudant]

You know what Ruk, I kinda feel the same way.

Glad to see that neither one of you are judges.

Or lawyers.

Or any type of career where "innocent until proven guilty" is remotely part of your job description .

Pray tell, why did Brady go to such lengths to tell refs before games about what the proper pressure should be?

Why would he ever call attention to that?

[Gramz]

Glad to see that neither one of you are judges.

Or lawyers.

Or any type of career where "innocent until proven guilty" is remotely part of your job description .

Pray tell, why did Brady go to such lengths to tell refs before games about what the proper pressure should be?

Why would he ever call attention to that?

Relax....  no-one's dying here, and it isn't ISIS..

 

but we are entitled to our opinions, and I happen to think Tom's been less than truthful.  That's all.

 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MBdmxrDI5wI

[southwest1]

So what you're telling me is that I should ignore Brady's 15 years of being a stellar human being, a man who has always been completely honest with his peers and fans

Right.

Yep, I should believe that he lied, despite the ludicrous nature of the Wells Report.

When did a case about air pressure become about a QB's sainthood VL? That's a new one. "Brady are you a cheater? "I don't believe so/think so." He just doesn't sound all that convinced himself to me. It's a yes or no question. 

 

I just have a hard time understanding what's so darn hard about clearing the air & coming clean. Do you really think those ball personnel would have acted on their own & gone rogue without Tommy's permission? Come on now VL. I wasn't born yesterday & neither were you. 

 

So either Brady looks incompetent or he needs to just say "I like my footballs on the lower end of the PSI scale & my equipment guys misunderstood me & that's my fault for not clarifying what really happened." 

 

This case isn't about gauges, referee oversight, or the blame game VL. It's about taking responsibility for your actions, admitting a mistake, & not turning a minor infraction into a huge larger than it needs to be firestorm. Brady controls what happened here. No one else. 

 

Is there any circumstance ever where you might believe Brady might even commit a slight error in judgement VL? I'm curious. Singer Joe Cocker was right "Sorry Seems To Be The Hardest Word" for some people apparently. 

[21isSuperman]

It has to do entirely with which gauge was used before the game. The Wells Report bases all their conclusions on the 'assumption' that Walt Anderson used the opposite gauge than he himself believed to have used simply because the results fit their narrative better.

From the Wells report: Although Anderson‟s best recollection is that he used the Logo Gauge, he said that it is certainly possible that he used the Non-Logo Gauge. 

 

Not only that, but the Exponent tests show that it's more likely he used a non-logo gauge.

[southwest1]

Glad to see that neither one of you are judges.

Or lawyers.

Or any type of career where "innocent until proven guilty" is remotely part of your job description .

Pray tell, why did Brady go to such lengths to tell refs before games about what the proper pressure should be?

Why would he ever call attention to that?

Is this a capital murder case or an embezzlement scandal? Honestly VL, the lengths you will go to deflect any blemish on Brady's record or reputation is quite amusing. 20 years from now, no one will give a darn. 

 

Let me rephrase that: Citizens outside Boston's area code will go...Oh yeah, the fanbase who refused to accept that their field general could do anything wrong. Clearly, he is the 2nd coming of the messiah. 

 

"Why would he [brady or his enormous fanbase] ever call attention to" the fact that it's harder to perpetuate a lie & keep it alive then to just own it, just disclose everything, & put this self inflicted scandal behind your organization? I couldn't agree more VL. 

 

The issue here is not the presumption of innocence but who has the intestinal fortitude to do the right thing? Brady I'm talking directly to you sir. 

[Shane Bond]

Wow. Didn't expect this quote from Suggs:

 

Suggs: Brady's reputation unchanged

32m

Ravens LB Terrell Suggs, who has developed a fierce rivalry with Tom Brady, doesn't think the QB's rep is altered by Deflategate: “The guy is a winner. He’s won with whatever kind of personnel that he’s had. So, I don’t think it really tarnished it."

 

http://espn.go.com/nfl/

 

With all due respect to you AMF, Superman was referring posts like this which can tick off many here. This is a Wells report thread and you are posting something very specific to one player praising him.

[amfootball]

Delete. Double post.

[csmopar]

All I know is that I should have bought stock in Reynolds wrap....the amount of tinfoil hat wearing conspiracy theorists in here must surely have created a run on tin foil...at least in Boston....

[Bad Morty]

I'm more interested in seeing what their methods are.  While past precedence is something notable to consider, I don't think you can ignore information just off the basis of who is saying it.  That is, we can't discount what AEI says or what Exponent says because Exponent has said incorrect things in the past or AEI has said incorrect things in the past.  If their methods are solid and their data is reproducible, or at least can be calculated by a 3rd party, then what they're saying has more merit.

 

I'm really interested in seeing the methods of the AEI report.  The Wells report appears, to me anyway, to have a pretty solid method for their testing.  I want to know how two groups testing the same thing using the same equation (Ideal Gas Law) can get opposing results.

I think it's a misconception that AEI did their own testing. They didn't. They are using the data Wells provided via the Wells report and ripping apart their methodology, pointing out among other things that they reached a conclusion based on their calculation of the relative changes in pressure of both teams balls without testing all of the possible scenarios that might have taken place pre-game regarding gauge use and that they either overlooked or didn't properly account for the Colts ball re-pressurizing in the warm room at halftime. Now I'll admit, I'm having a hard time getting to the core of this as the Wells report does mention pretty clearly that they were aware of that issue, yet the AEI report is strong in its criticism of Wells on this. I don't believe that AEI just "missed" the Wells commentary on this given how thorough their study is...so clearly they know exactly what Wells is saying about the impact of the warm room on the Colts balls and they are adamant that they got it wrong. That's a nerd-fight and despite many readings it's over my head.

 

To reiterate what I said earlier...I think it's highly likely that we are all right here. I think "the deflator" did something he shouldn't have done pre-game, which is why he lied about what he was doing. I just think that what he was doing was more likely to have been something along the lines of gauging the balls to make sure they were 12.5 (given what apparently happened in that Jets game) and possibly releasing air in balls that read high on his gauge, but not deflating balls below the limit. That would explain the sketchy behavior AND it would explain why the science isn't coming out with any clear cut evidence of deflation. It would also explain Brady being adamant about liking the ball at 12.5...and that would be 12.5 on their gauge, since we now know that gauges themselves have a margin of error (logo gauge being nearly half a pound higher than the other gauge). So If all he did was set the balls to 12.5 on his gauge, then the balls were essentially where they should have been and that's why the readings at halftime don't show any crazy "2 lbs lower!!" measurements like we were originally led to believe.

[dynasty13]

From the Wells report: Although Anderson‟s best recollection is that he used the Logo Gauge, he said that it is certainly possible that he used the Non-Logo Gauge. 

 

Not only that, but the Exponent tests show that it's more likely he used a non-logo gauge.

 

Of course its certainly possible, it's just odd that the Wells Report takes every other piece of his recollection as credible fact and praises his memory then bases the rest of their findings on it, but then all of a sudden, when it comes to the gauge he used (which in the end is actually the most important detail), they base their findings and conclusion based on the opposite of his best recollection. 

[ViriLudant]

When did a case about air pressure become about a QB's sainthood VL? That's a new one. "Brady are you a cheater? "I don't believe so/think so." He just doesn't sound all that convinced himself to me. It's a yes or no question.

I just have a hard time understanding what's so darn hard about clearing the air & coming clean. Do you really think those ball personnel would have acted on their own & gone rogue without Tommy's permission? Come on now VL. I wasn't born yesterday & neither were you.

So either Brady looks incompetent or he needs to just say "I like my footballs on the lower end of the PSI scale & my equipment guys misunderstood me & that's my fault for not clarifying what really happened."

This case isn't about gauges, referee oversight, or the blame game VL. It's about taking responsibility for your actions, admitting a mistake, & not turning a minor infraction into a huge larger than it needs to be firestorm. Brady controls what happened here. No one else.

Is there any circumstance ever where you might believe Brady might even commit a slight error in judgement VL? I'm curious. Singer Joe Cocker was right "Sorry Seems To Be The Hardest Word" for some people apparently.

Again, your whole argument is based on a presumption of guilt.

Which has not been proven at all.

[BullsColtsFan1]

Glad to see that neither one of you are judges.

Or lawyers.

Or any type of career where "innocent until proven guilty" is remotely part of your job description .

Pray tell, why did Brady go to such lengths to tell refs before games about what the proper pressure should be?

Why would he ever call attention to that?

Since you know so much more than anyone else, then why don't you contact the Patriots and represent them in court?

[ruksak]

This is quickly becoming one of those issues I was really mad about, but I'm hearing about it so much for so long, I'm not even sure I give a darn anymore. I just want to kick the season off, see Luck play with his new toys, and laugh at a Brady-less Patriots team for a few weeks. 

[amfootball]

This is quickly becoming one of those issues I was really mad about, but I'm hearing about it so much for so long, I'm not even sure I give a darn anymore. I just want to kick the season off, see Luck play with his new toys, and laugh at a Brady-less Patriots team for a few weeks. 

I am with you ... on to 2015!  We gotta see if this Jimmy is the heir apparent or not. And most importantly we got a banner to raise.

[dw49]

Glad to see that neither one of you are judges.

Or lawyers.

Or any type of career where "innocent until proven guilty" is remotely part of your job description .

Pray tell, why did Brady go to such lengths to tell refs before games about what the proper pressure should be?

Why would he ever call attention to that?

 

 

Newsflash.... as to you saying "nothing has been proved." There are many cases that where the burden of proof is "being a reasonable doubt " that have been ruled guilty on almost entirely circumstantial evidence . That's the answer to you "not proven bunk.

 

As for the above ... newsflash #2. Many , many times the scales are tipped by how the jury views a witness or the accused . Haven't you ever seen a juror being interviewed and say "I just did not find that person to be credible."

[southwest1]

Again, your whole argument is based on a presumption of guilt.

Which has not been proven at all.

VL, 

 

In all honesty, let me ask you a question: At what point does arguing over a minor air pressure infraction rise to the level of high crimes & misdemeanors?

 

Here's my point: Is it really necessary to defend Tommy Brady so passionately that in all likelihood he will only end up missing only 2 games max? Do you honestly believe you are freeing a wrongly convicted man from death row? What's more wise? To ride thru hades to defend a beloved HOF QB or just go it's only 2 games & NE isn't going fall apart at the seams? The Matt Cassel experiment in 2008 proved that.  And why aren't any NE fans mad at Tom Brady for saying himself that he doesn't believe he's a cheater? Your fearless leader opened the door to question his ability to defend himself & his integrity no one else did that.

 

I believe Brady is a honorable guy, but who when asked about cheating directly says "I don't think so?" He's been in the spotlight for over a decade so you can't pass that response off as stage fright jitters. IS it possible he just didn't wanna throw the 2 NE equipment guys under the bus? Sure it is. Being asked if you are a cheater is in the same vein as did you inappropriately touch someone else. You pound your fist at the podium, don't smirk, & say with a hint of anger look this assumption that I might be a cheater is utterly ridiculous. I'm offended by the accusation. I understand why the question must be asked but I can tell you with absolute certainty that I love this game & would never under any circumstances compromise my good name, my integrity, or this franchises reputation in any way, shape, or form. You either dig your heels in like a general about to die but you go down swinging or you go I made a mistake, I need to clarify my position, & I can assure you this misunderstanding of the rules was my fault & will never happen under my watch ever again. 

 

This isn't about the Wells Report at all, but Tom's ability to engage in damage control by taking the brunt of the heat here. A 2 game suspension is not the last stand at the Alamo with Davy Crockett. Some Patriots fans seem to be acting like it is though which is crazy & yet sad to me. JMO. 

[amfootball]

Newsflash.... as to you saying "nothing has been proved." There are many cases that where the burden of proof is "being a reasonable doubt " that have been ruled guilty on almost entirely circumstantial evidence . That's the answer to you "not proven bunk.

 

As for the above ... newsflash #2. Many , many times the scales are tipped by how the jury views a witness or the accused . Haven't you ever seen a juror being interviewed and say "I just did not find that person to be credible."

Fair point but I think what VL is getting at is Brady's track record in terms of his character, integrity, being a good teammate have been impeccable for 15 years now. I am sorry but it is going to take a lot more than circumstantial what if's, maybes and generally aware for any of us to assume his guilt especially in a report that failed to even prove tampering occurred. That is the driving point here - Brady's supposed involvement that is the weakest part of this entire thing. Call us homers if you want but Brady has earned that reputation his whole career and far be it for any of us that have followed him to judge him a liar and a cheat based on something as flimsy as the Wells report. I certainly would give Peyton the same benefit of the doubt if it was him in this situation. Hopefully we will get more clarification with the appeal and potential court suit ...

[21isSuperman]

I think it's a misconception that AEI did their own testing. They didn't. They are using the data Wells provided via the Wells report and ripping apart their methodology, pointing out among other things that they reached a conclusion based on their calculation of the relative changes in pressure of both teams balls without testing all of the possible scenarios that might have taken place pre-game regarding gauge use and that they either overlooked or didn't properly account for the Colts ball re-pressurizing in the warm room at halftime. Now I'll admit, I'm having a hard time getting to the core of this as the Wells report does mention pretty clearly that they were aware of that issue, yet the AEI report is strong in its criticism of Wells on this. I don't believe that AEI just "missed" the Wells commentary on this given how thorough their study is...so clearly they know exactly what Wells is saying about the impact of the warm room on the Colts balls and they are adamant that they got it wrong. That's a nerd-fight and despite many readings it's over my head.

 

To reiterate what I said earlier...I think it's highly likely that we are all right here. I think "the deflator" did something he shouldn't have done pre-game, which is why he lied about what he was doing. I just think that what he was doing was more likely to have been something along the lines of gauging the balls to make sure they were 12.5 (given what apparently happened in that Jets game) and possibly releasing air in balls that read high on his gauge, but not deflating balls below the limit. That would explain the sketchy behavior AND it would explain why the science isn't coming out with any clear cut evidence of deflation. It would also explain Brady being adamant about liking the ball at 12.5...and that would be 12.5 on their gauge, since we now know that gauges themselves have a margin of error (logo gauge being nearly half a pound higher than the other gauge). So If all he did was set the balls to 12.5 on his gauge, then the balls were essentially where they should have been and that's why the readings at halftime don't show any crazy "2 lbs lower!!" measurements like we were originally led to believe.

I understand.  My reading and interpretation of the Wells report doesn't lead me to the same conclusion, though. 

 

When tested,  all of  the  Patriots  footballs — both  game  balls  and  back-up  balls — registered on the lower-end of the permissible inflation range.  Anderson recalls that most of the Patriots footballs measured 12.5 psi, though there may have been one or two that measured 12.6 psi. No air was added to or released from these balls because they were within the permissible range.  According to Anderson, two of the game balls provided by the Patriots measured below the 12.5 psi threshold. Yette used the air pump provided by the Patriots to inflate those footballs, explaining  that  he “purposefully  overshot” the  range (because it  is  hard  to  be  precise  when adding air), and then gave the footballs back to Anderson, who used the air release valve on his gauge to reduce the pressure down to 12.5 psi.

 

So the balls were already at 12.5 psi before McNally got to them.  However, since McNally/the Patriots/Brady have denied the whole thing, it's hard to know what gauge McNally used and how that ties in

 

Of course its certainly possible, it's just odd that the Wells Report takes every other piece of his recollection as credible fact and praises his memory then bases the rest of their findings on it, but then all of a sudden, when it comes to the gauge he used (which in the end is actually the most important detail), they base their findings and conclusion based on the opposite of his best recollection. 

I hear ya.  And if that were the case, it would really compromise their findings.  But for the other piece of information, it appears as though Anderson was more confident, so they took his word for it.  For example, when they describe what Anderson says happened on the day of the game, they write the following:

We credit Anderson‟s recollection of the pre-game measurements taken on the day of  the AFC  Championship  Game based  on  both  the level  of  confidence  Anderson expressed in his recollection and the consistency of his recollection with information provided by each of the Patriots and Colts regarding their target inflation levels

 

So he was very confident in remembering those details, but also explicitly stated that it's very possible he used the non-logo gauge.