#DeflateGate (Court of Appeals Reinstates Suspension)

[BudweiserCeltic]

So... Roger Goodell just threw Ted Wells under the bus when asked why the NFL didn't bother to correct the initial false information that was leaked.

[Donoghus]

So... Roger Goodell just threw Ted Wells under the bus when asked why the NFL didn't bother to correct the initial false information that was leaked.

Saw that.  Even though the timeline doesn't exactly line up.  Mort's tweet came out on Jan 20th while Wells wasn't even named independent arbitrator until the 23rd.

Also, evidently Goodell flip flopped again on whether Wells was independent or not.  Going back to independent even though the NFL briefs filed last week said it didn't have to be.

What a joke

[kozlodoev]

So... Roger Goodell just threw Ted Wells under the bus when asked why the NFL didn't bother to correct the initial false information that was leaked.

Also, he once again called the investigation "independent"... even after the league conceded in court documents that it wasn't.

[Celtics4ever]

Flip or no flip he is the law.   I doubt he cares about if it was legal investigation or not.  He got the example he wanted and went through with the execution of his sentence.

Brady at this point is almost a distraction to the Pats.  He is not going to win this fight.

percent of all fans surveyed, and 76 percent of self-described "avid" fans, supported the NFL's decision to suspend Brady for four games, fine the Patriots $1 million and take away a first-round and fourth-round draft pick from the team for its involvement in the using underinflated footballs during a January playoff game. In addition, 54 percent of all fans and 69 percent of avid fans think Brady "cheated," while 52 percent overall and 63 percent of avid fans think, regardless of Brady's actions, that the Patriots cheated.
The poll also found that 85 percent of all fans, and 80 percent of avid fans, think that other teams do similar things. Only 6 percent of all fans, and 12 percent of avid fans, think it was limited to the Patriots.

While fans support the decision to suspend Brady, they also strongly support him as a Hall of Fame candidate -- 63 percent of all fans, and 73 percent of avid fans, say they support his eventual enshrinement in Canton. But only 52 percent overall see him as a good role model.

Per the report, the survey interviewed a random national sample of 504 adul

http://www.nj.com/giants/index.ssf/2015/05/what_percentage_of_football_fans_think_patriots_to.html

With support like that he is not going to change his mind.

[kozlodoev]

Flip or no flip he is the law.   I doubt he cares about if it was legal investigation or not.  He got the example he wanted and went through with the execution of his sentence.

This is all fine and dandy, but it's a labor dispute re: a collectively bargained contract. And the law is Judge Berman.

[Donoghus]

Flip or no flip he is the law.   I doubt he cares about if it was legal investigation or not.  He got the example he wanted and went through with the execution of his sentence.

Brady at this point is almost a distraction to the Pats.  He is not going to win this fight.

percent of all fans surveyed, and 76 percent of self-described "avid" fans, supported the NFL's decision to suspend Brady for four games, fine the Patriots $1 million and take away a first-round and fourth-round draft pick from the team for its involvement in the using underinflated footballs during a January playoff game. In addition, 54 percent of all fans and 69 percent of avid fans think Brady "cheated," while 52 percent overall and 63 percent of avid fans think, regardless of Brady's actions, that the Patriots cheated.
The poll also found that 85 percent of all fans, and 80 percent of avid fans, think that other teams do similar things. Only 6 percent of all fans, and 12 percent of avid fans, think it was limited to the Patriots.

While fans support the decision to suspend Brady, they also strongly support him as a Hall of Fame candidate -- 63 percent of all fans, and 73 percent of avid fans, say they support his eventual enshrinement in Canton. But only 52 percent overall see him as a good role model.

Per the report, the survey interviewed a random national sample of 504 adul

http://www.nj.com/giants/index.ssf/2015/05/what_percentage_of_football_fans_think_patriots_to.html

With support like that he is not going to change his mind.

What does a public opinion poll have to do about anything here?  It's irrelevant at the stage this thing is at.  At this point, it's in a federal court and questions the kind of law that Goodell may or may not have.

Also, that poll is three months old (not that I'd expect much change between then & now)

[D.o.s.]

Flip or no flip he is the law.

Hahahahahahahahahahahahaahahhaa.

I should explain:

Can't you just picture Goodell dressed up in a Judge Dredd Zentai saying "I am the Law" over and over again to a mirror?

Also:

http://twitter.com/BenVolin/status/631209304452898817/photo/1

[celticsclay]

Hard to keep up if someone posted this already

http://deadspin.com/roger-goodell-on-why-nfl-didnt-correct-espns-ballghazi-1723482608

At this point it is pretty funny to see the kind of coverage going on at sports illustrated, Deadspin, profootball talks and basically any sport website you can find compared to ESPN. Will ESPN ever get embarrassed?

[D Dub]

this has to be the dumbest scandal of all time. 

how much air was the ball?  really?  sigh

I have to say, my Sunday's are so much more pleasant without football in them, you guys should really try it this year.  So much advertising in NFL, don't know how people can sit on the couch that long.

[BballTim]

When the 2 pounds report, the deflator text and the ballboy in the bathroom were reported, I thought the pats did it.

Then two things happened. The actual measurements came out and the drop could be explained by the ideal gas law.

But the text and the bathroom visit still looms and the coincidence is tough to swallow.

So let's say that brady conspired in the scheme, that means that either:

A) the deflator takes the balls in the bathroom and decides that for some reason he's not going to take air out this time

B) the deflator takes maaaybe .01 out of the balls

If you believe in the ideal gas law AND you believe that brady is guilty then you must believe in A or B. So which is it?

Option B is ridiculous.

Option A means there is no violation, at least for this game.

Is there an option C? What am I missing?

That's only if you believe that the Wells report got it wrong regarding which gauge was used, and if you further assume that environmental factors led to over 25% of the balls still being outside the scientific range.

I've already explained the valid and expected reasons why some balls would fall below the range and that overall, or on average, the measurements of the balls fell within the expected range.

Exponent's logic to determine the gauge was totaly flawed.  They found that since the non logo gauge was closer to a master gauge that it was more likely the non logo gauge was used despite what Walt Anderson said.  They also bought a dozen or more store bought gauges which measured closer to the non logo gauge. Of course all the gauges they bought coincidentally was the exact same model as the non logo gauge. 

Here's why that logic is flawed.  They chose not to test either the Patriots or Colt's gauge and they don't know which gauge they were closer to.  Also, even if both the Colts' and the Pats' gauges were perfectly aligned with the master gauge, it still tells you nothing.  If it was just 3 degrees warmer in the rooms they set the balls, it would be more likely that the logo gauge was used.  Keep in mind that the room the ref measured the balls in pregame was set to 67-71 while the locker room they measured the balls at half time was 71-74. 

I find their logic extremely suspicious and here's why.  If you want to make your best estimation to which gauge was used, you would obtain the Colt's and the Pats gauge, talk to the equipment managers about their process of preparing the balls including rubbing them down which raises psi and when they set the psi level relative to that.  And as I already pointed out, check the thermostats of the rooms it was done in. 

Both Wells and Exponent pointed out that the process I mentioned was irrelevant to determine the starting psi level of the footballs because the ref did not measure them for an hour after the balls were delivered to him.  And that's correct.  But it is very relevant to determine which gauge was used which was imperative to the report.   Why or how did they overlook this?  Exponent is smart, so how could they overlook something so very obvious in replace of such a flawed methodology?  Because they were not interested in getting facts, but proving a certain narrative.  They made several mistakes, some obvious to any thinking non scientist and some less obvious that were caught by scientists and staticians.  What?? How could I make such an accusation?  Exponent is infamous for exactly this.  They are currently in contempt of court (maybe not the right terminology) for refusing to support their work which a judge thought was bunk.

If you want to understand the science and Exponent's biggest mistake in logic, watch this video.  (You can also read Steve McIntyre's blog.)

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=Cx0P3NErcNo


It breaks down the science very well and points out that the balls most likely weren't tampered with.  It also points out that the worst case scenario, only about 0.35 psi was removed which isn't enough for a human to notice, therefore is absurd.  Hmmm, that number sounds familiar (the calibration difference between the two gauges).  Especially when running such a risky scheme using a part time, minimum wage, obese employee who acts like a clown.

  That's a pretty weak ob of breaking down the science, and even at that he points out that the balls *most likely* weren't tampered with. You keep reading these questionable reports and deciding that "most likely" means "definitely". It doesn't.

What?  It's not weak.  First of all, I figured most of this out myself when I read the report.  Second of all, I can point you to many other scientific breakdowns.  Third, no one can say "definitely" about this as there are too many variables as the testing was done in an uncontrolled manner.  Fourth, the worst case, unlikely scenario, even according to Exponent, was that only a few tenths of a psi was removed and that is an irrelevant amount.  Fifth, the balls measured as they were expected as per the gauge the ref said he used and therefore there was no reason for any suspicion in the first place except for pure ignorance.

  Trust me, it's weak. And, for the record, "no one can say "definitely" about this as there are too many variables as the testing was done in an uncontrolled manner" is what I've been saying all along, which you've been disagreeing with.

Trust you?!  A week ago you had no clue about the science after more than six months of expressing your opinion about the subject and I had to correct you.  You incorrectly thought it was impossible that science could even explain a 1.1 psi drop.  I worked it out myself back in January. It's so easy to calculate and you still had it wrong.  So, no I do not trust you.

I'm supposed to trust a guy who failed at a middle school science problem who he had over six months to figure out over myself, Ivy league deans, physics professors, world renowned staticians, and chemistry Nobel Laureates?  Thanks for the laugh.

  I think we've already established that your trust on this issue is based on whether a claim supports the pats even half as much as you think it does. It's true that I didn't consider the effect of atmospheric pressure in my *initial* calculation, it's equally obvious that you don't know much about what you're discussing.

  To summarize that report, the guy claimed that the colts balls had higher PSIs that the pats balls because the air in them had warmed more, didn't offer any explanation whatsoever as to why that pattern wasn't apparent in the pats balls (the balls measured last had less pressure than most of the balls measured before them), and then simply declared the amount of under-inflation in the pats balls to be "statistically insignificant". This seems to have escaped your attention, apparently you didn't read that on the internet (oops, I mean work it out yourself).

It's true that after seven months of writing your opinions, you still had not considered atmospheric pressure?  Nothing after that is worth reading.  Sorry, but you do not match up with the people whose work your are criticizing, not even close.  You do not pass 8th grade science.

  When you get a chance, have someone explain what the word "initial" means. Hopefully someone from the pro-Brady camp, so you'll be more willing to listen to them. The only comment that I made before that was that the nfl would never be able to determine what happened based on their measurements, which has certainly the case.

And honestly, everything you wrote is wrong.  I don't mean to be a jerk, it just is.  The video I posted as well as they very many high end intellectuals who have written on the subject have adressed every thing you just questioned.  They did not just declare things to be scientifically insignificant, they used common practice standards as was explained in that video and by so many others.

  Ok, I'll bite. What was the explanation (from the video) for why the pats balls didn't follow the expected pattern of balls being measured later having higher psi than the pats balls measured earlier (when they were colder)?

Initial: existing or occurring at the beginning.  We are now six plus months into this and you have written your opionions many, many times before understanding your "initial" mistake.  We are well beyond "initial" and if I did not correct you, you would still be pushing your wrong "initial" "calculations".

  You stopped too early when you went to learn what initial means. It also means first, as in "the first time I calculated psi loss". I haven't spent the last  months writing my opinions on this, you're just making things up.

The video gave 4 scenarios for explanations for the ball pressures.  Obviously, you did not watch the whole video.  Two scenarios by two scenarios.  Order of measurements: Pats balls measured, Pats balls inflated, Colts balls measured; Pats balls measured, Colts balls measured, Pats balls inflated.  Calculated for both the logo and non logo gauge.  (You seriously did not watch the video you are criticizing.  Why I'm explaining this two you, I dont know since will just make something else up.)  The video created 4 quadrants for the 4 scenarios.  They found that under 3 of the scenarios, the balls measured within the range of statistical significance.  Only under the non logo gauge, Pats balls measured, Colts balls measured, Pats balls inflated scenario did the Pats ball fall outside of statistical significance.  And in that scenario, the Patriots balls fell 0.35 psi outside of range.  Of course this scenario means the ref was wrong about which gauge he used, the refs were misleading when they said they ran out of time measuring the Colts balls, and it doesn't make any sense since the 0.35psi is not noticeable to the human touch (and coincidentally the difference between the calibibration difference between the two gauges, hmmm).

  So in other words, no explanation at all about why the pats balls didn't follow the same pattern as the colts balls (the predicted pattern), just a claim that the under-inflation was statistically insignificant. Which is what I said, if you can remember that far back.

They did depending on the scenario.  I explained it. The video explained it.  Good God, man.  If only you spent as much time learning as you do writing.  Smh.

   If they'd been able to explain it, the explanation would have held for all the scenarios. You didn't explain it either.

 

? Impossible.  It depends on the timing of when the balls were measured.  The balls come to equilibrium quickly and that is important. This has been explained ad nauseam.  You are demanding something that is phsyically impossible. Based on the most obvious assumptions per what the refs said, they balls measured as expected.

  You're part way there. The balls come to equilibrium quickly, and that is important. The longer the balls are in the warmer room, the warmer they get (until they get to equilibrium). The warmer they get, the closer to the original psi they get. So the last balls they measure should be very close to the original psi levels. That clearly didn't happen with the pats balls. You don't explain that, and the video certainly doesn't.

You can't seriously be asking that question.  It has been explained.  It's accounted for in the transient curves.

  The curves in his chart don't answer the question, in fact they support the validity of the question. In no way does the video address the subject. If you can point me to the time in the video when they specifically talk about the discrepancy I pointed out, fine. If not, it's a fairly safe assumption that you don't really understand what we're discussing.

[BballTim]

So... Roger Goodell just threw Ted Wells under the bus when asked why the NFL didn't bother to correct the initial false information that was leaked.

  From the article linked in celticsclay's post, I'm not sure that he did. He seems to be saying that they were solely focused on getting the Wells investigation up and running and not on any public discussion of deflate-gate, not that it was up to Wells to correct the erroneous report. It's still obviously an absurd argument.

[knuckleballer]

When the 2 pounds report, the deflator text and the ballboy in the bathroom were reported, I thought the pats did it.

Then two things happened. The actual measurements came out and the drop could be explained by the ideal gas law.

But the text and the bathroom visit still looms and the coincidence is tough to swallow.

So let's say that brady conspired in the scheme, that means that either:

A) the deflator takes the balls in the bathroom and decides that for some reason he's not going to take air out this time

B) the deflator takes maaaybe .01 out of the balls

If you believe in the ideal gas law AND you believe that brady is guilty then you must believe in A or B. So which is it?

Option B is ridiculous.

Option A means there is no violation, at least for this game.

Is there an option C? What am I missing?

That's only if you believe that the Wells report got it wrong regarding which gauge was used, and if you further assume that environmental factors led to over 25% of the balls still being outside the scientific range.

I've already explained the valid and expected reasons why some balls would fall below the range and that overall, or on average, the measurements of the balls fell within the expected range.

Exponent's logic to determine the gauge was totaly flawed.  They found that since the non logo gauge was closer to a master gauge that it was more likely the non logo gauge was used despite what Walt Anderson said.  They also bought a dozen or more store bought gauges which measured closer to the non logo gauge. Of course all the gauges they bought coincidentally was the exact same model as the non logo gauge. 

Here's why that logic is flawed.  They chose not to test either the Patriots or Colt's gauge and they don't know which gauge they were closer to.  Also, even if both the Colts' and the Pats' gauges were perfectly aligned with the master gauge, it still tells you nothing.  If it was just 3 degrees warmer in the rooms they set the balls, it would be more likely that the logo gauge was used.  Keep in mind that the room the ref measured the balls in pregame was set to 67-71 while the locker room they measured the balls at half time was 71-74. 

I find their logic extremely suspicious and here's why.  If you want to make your best estimation to which gauge was used, you would obtain the Colt's and the Pats gauge, talk to the equipment managers about their process of preparing the balls including rubbing them down which raises psi and when they set the psi level relative to that.  And as I already pointed out, check the thermostats of the rooms it was done in. 

Both Wells and Exponent pointed out that the process I mentioned was irrelevant to determine the starting psi level of the footballs because the ref did not measure them for an hour after the balls were delivered to him.  And that's correct.  But it is very relevant to determine which gauge was used which was imperative to the report.   Why or how did they overlook this?  Exponent is smart, so how could they overlook something so very obvious in replace of such a flawed methodology?  Because they were not interested in getting facts, but proving a certain narrative.  They made several mistakes, some obvious to any thinking non scientist and some less obvious that were caught by scientists and staticians.  What?? How could I make such an accusation?  Exponent is infamous for exactly this.  They are currently in contempt of court (maybe not the right terminology) for refusing to support their work which a judge thought was bunk.

If you want to understand the science and Exponent's biggest mistake in logic, watch this video.  (You can also read Steve McIntyre's blog.)

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=Cx0P3NErcNo


It breaks down the science very well and points out that the balls most likely weren't tampered with.  It also points out that the worst case scenario, only about 0.35 psi was removed which isn't enough for a human to notice, therefore is absurd.  Hmmm, that number sounds familiar (the calibration difference between the two gauges).  Especially when running such a risky scheme using a part time, minimum wage, obese employee who acts like a clown.

  That's a pretty weak ob of breaking down the science, and even at that he points out that the balls *most likely* weren't tampered with. You keep reading these questionable reports and deciding that "most likely" means "definitely". It doesn't.

What?  It's not weak.  First of all, I figured most of this out myself when I read the report.  Second of all, I can point you to many other scientific breakdowns.  Third, no one can say "definitely" about this as there are too many variables as the testing was done in an uncontrolled manner.  Fourth, the worst case, unlikely scenario, even according to Exponent, was that only a few tenths of a psi was removed and that is an irrelevant amount.  Fifth, the balls measured as they were expected as per the gauge the ref said he used and therefore there was no reason for any suspicion in the first place except for pure ignorance.

  Trust me, it's weak. And, for the record, "no one can say "definitely" about this as there are too many variables as the testing was done in an uncontrolled manner" is what I've been saying all along, which you've been disagreeing with.

Trust you?!  A week ago you had no clue about the science after more than six months of expressing your opinion about the subject and I had to correct you.  You incorrectly thought it was impossible that science could even explain a 1.1 psi drop.  I worked it out myself back in January. It's so easy to calculate and you still had it wrong.  So, no I do not trust you.

I'm supposed to trust a guy who failed at a middle school science problem who he had over six months to figure out over myself, Ivy league deans, physics professors, world renowned staticians, and chemistry Nobel Laureates?  Thanks for the laugh.

  I think we've already established that your trust on this issue is based on whether a claim supports the pats even half as much as you think it does. It's true that I didn't consider the effect of atmospheric pressure in my *initial* calculation, it's equally obvious that you don't know much about what you're discussing.

  To summarize that report, the guy claimed that the colts balls had higher PSIs that the pats balls because the air in them had warmed more, didn't offer any explanation whatsoever as to why that pattern wasn't apparent in the pats balls (the balls measured last had less pressure than most of the balls measured before them), and then simply declared the amount of under-inflation in the pats balls to be "statistically insignificant". This seems to have escaped your attention, apparently you didn't read that on the internet (oops, I mean work it out yourself).

It's true that after seven months of writing your opinions, you still had not considered atmospheric pressure?  Nothing after that is worth reading.  Sorry, but you do not match up with the people whose work your are criticizing, not even close.  You do not pass 8th grade science.

  When you get a chance, have someone explain what the word "initial" means. Hopefully someone from the pro-Brady camp, so you'll be more willing to listen to them. The only comment that I made before that was that the nfl would never be able to determine what happened based on their measurements, which has certainly the case.

And honestly, everything you wrote is wrong.  I don't mean to be a jerk, it just is.  The video I posted as well as they very many high end intellectuals who have written on the subject have adressed every thing you just questioned.  They did not just declare things to be scientifically insignificant, they used common practice standards as was explained in that video and by so many others.

  Ok, I'll bite. What was the explanation (from the video) for why the pats balls didn't follow the expected pattern of balls being measured later having higher psi than the pats balls measured earlier (when they were colder)?

Initial: existing or occurring at the beginning.  We are now six plus months into this and you have written your opionions many, many times before understanding your "initial" mistake.  We are well beyond "initial" and if I did not correct you, you would still be pushing your wrong "initial" "calculations".

  You stopped too early when you went to learn what initial means. It also means first, as in "the first time I calculated psi loss". I haven't spent the last  months writing my opinions on this, you're just making things up.

The video gave 4 scenarios for explanations for the ball pressures.  Obviously, you did not watch the whole video.  Two scenarios by two scenarios.  Order of measurements: Pats balls measured, Pats balls inflated, Colts balls measured; Pats balls measured, Colts balls measured, Pats balls inflated.  Calculated for both the logo and non logo gauge.  (You seriously did not watch the video you are criticizing.  Why I'm explaining this two you, I dont know since will just make something else up.)  The video created 4 quadrants for the 4 scenarios.  They found that under 3 of the scenarios, the balls measured within the range of statistical significance.  Only under the non logo gauge, Pats balls measured, Colts balls measured, Pats balls inflated scenario did the Pats ball fall outside of statistical significance.  And in that scenario, the Patriots balls fell 0.35 psi outside of range.  Of course this scenario means the ref was wrong about which gauge he used, the refs were misleading when they said they ran out of time measuring the Colts balls, and it doesn't make any sense since the 0.35psi is not noticeable to the human touch (and coincidentally the difference between the calibibration difference between the two gauges, hmmm).

  So in other words, no explanation at all about why the pats balls didn't follow the same pattern as the colts balls (the predicted pattern), just a claim that the under-inflation was statistically insignificant. Which is what I said, if you can remember that far back.

They did depending on the scenario.  I explained it. The video explained it.  Good God, man.  If only you spent as much time learning as you do writing.  Smh.

   If they'd been able to explain it, the explanation would have held for all the scenarios. You didn't explain it either.

 

? Impossible.  It depends on the timing of when the balls were measured.  The balls come to equilibrium quickly and that is important. This has been explained ad nauseam.  You are demanding something that is phsyically impossible. Based on the most obvious assumptions per what the refs said, they balls measured as expected.

  You're part way there. The balls come to equilibrium quickly, and that is important. The longer the balls are in the warmer room, the warmer they get (until they get to equilibrium). The warmer they get, the closer to the original psi they get. So the last balls they measure should be very close to the original psi levels. That clearly didn't happen with the pats balls. You don't explain that, and the video certainly doesn't.

You can't seriously be asking that question.  It has been explained.  It's accounted for in the transient curves.

  The curves in his chart don't answer the question, in fact they support the validity of the question. In no way does the video address the subject. If you can point me to the time in the video when they specifically talk about the discrepancy I pointed out, fine. If not, it's a fairly safe assumption that you don't really understand what we're discussing.

The Patriots balls were measured first and therefore would not be close to their pre-game psi levels.  This was explained in the video.  It's even explained in Exponent's report.  It's not a point of contention.  The video walked through four scenarios and this was demonstrated, if not spelled out, in all four scenarios.

The point of the video was that if the Colts balls were measured late in the half and after the Patriots' balls were reinflated, which is consistent with statements by the refs that they ran out of time measuring the Colts balls, then the Colts balls would have lined up with the Pats balls along the transient curves.  Dean Snyder testified to this at the appeal and it was the main point of AEI's report.

[BballTim]

When the 2 pounds report, the deflator text and the ballboy in the bathroom were reported, I thought the pats did it.

Then two things happened. The actual measurements came out and the drop could be explained by the ideal gas law.

But the text and the bathroom visit still looms and the coincidence is tough to swallow.

So let's say that brady conspired in the scheme, that means that either:

A) the deflator takes the balls in the bathroom and decides that for some reason he's not going to take air out this time

B) the deflator takes maaaybe .01 out of the balls

If you believe in the ideal gas law AND you believe that brady is guilty then you must believe in A or B. So which is it?

Option B is ridiculous.

Option A means there is no violation, at least for this game.

Is there an option C? What am I missing?

That's only if you believe that the Wells report got it wrong regarding which gauge was used, and if you further assume that environmental factors led to over 25% of the balls still being outside the scientific range.

I've already explained the valid and expected reasons why some balls would fall below the range and that overall, or on average, the measurements of the balls fell within the expected range.

Exponent's logic to determine the gauge was totaly flawed.  They found that since the non logo gauge was closer to a master gauge that it was more likely the non logo gauge was used despite what Walt Anderson said.  They also bought a dozen or more store bought gauges which measured closer to the non logo gauge. Of course all the gauges they bought coincidentally was the exact same model as the non logo gauge. 

Here's why that logic is flawed.  They chose not to test either the Patriots or Colt's gauge and they don't know which gauge they were closer to.  Also, even if both the Colts' and the Pats' gauges were perfectly aligned with the master gauge, it still tells you nothing.  If it was just 3 degrees warmer in the rooms they set the balls, it would be more likely that the logo gauge was used.  Keep in mind that the room the ref measured the balls in pregame was set to 67-71 while the locker room they measured the balls at half time was 71-74. 

I find their logic extremely suspicious and here's why.  If you want to make your best estimation to which gauge was used, you would obtain the Colt's and the Pats gauge, talk to the equipment managers about their process of preparing the balls including rubbing them down which raises psi and when they set the psi level relative to that.  And as I already pointed out, check the thermostats of the rooms it was done in. 

Both Wells and Exponent pointed out that the process I mentioned was irrelevant to determine the starting psi level of the footballs because the ref did not measure them for an hour after the balls were delivered to him.  And that's correct.  But it is very relevant to determine which gauge was used which was imperative to the report.   Why or how did they overlook this?  Exponent is smart, so how could they overlook something so very obvious in replace of such a flawed methodology?  Because they were not interested in getting facts, but proving a certain narrative.  They made several mistakes, some obvious to any thinking non scientist and some less obvious that were caught by scientists and staticians.  What?? How could I make such an accusation?  Exponent is infamous for exactly this.  They are currently in contempt of court (maybe not the right terminology) for refusing to support their work which a judge thought was bunk.

If you want to understand the science and Exponent's biggest mistake in logic, watch this video.  (You can also read Steve McIntyre's blog.)

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=Cx0P3NErcNo


It breaks down the science very well and points out that the balls most likely weren't tampered with.  It also points out that the worst case scenario, only about 0.35 psi was removed which isn't enough for a human to notice, therefore is absurd.  Hmmm, that number sounds familiar (the calibration difference between the two gauges).  Especially when running such a risky scheme using a part time, minimum wage, obese employee who acts like a clown.

  That's a pretty weak ob of breaking down the science, and even at that he points out that the balls *most likely* weren't tampered with. You keep reading these questionable reports and deciding that "most likely" means "definitely". It doesn't.

What?  It's not weak.  First of all, I figured most of this out myself when I read the report.  Second of all, I can point you to many other scientific breakdowns.  Third, no one can say "definitely" about this as there are too many variables as the testing was done in an uncontrolled manner.  Fourth, the worst case, unlikely scenario, even according to Exponent, was that only a few tenths of a psi was removed and that is an irrelevant amount.  Fifth, the balls measured as they were expected as per the gauge the ref said he used and therefore there was no reason for any suspicion in the first place except for pure ignorance.

  Trust me, it's weak. And, for the record, "no one can say "definitely" about this as there are too many variables as the testing was done in an uncontrolled manner" is what I've been saying all along, which you've been disagreeing with.

Trust you?!  A week ago you had no clue about the science after more than six months of expressing your opinion about the subject and I had to correct you.  You incorrectly thought it was impossible that science could even explain a 1.1 psi drop.  I worked it out myself back in January. It's so easy to calculate and you still had it wrong.  So, no I do not trust you.

I'm supposed to trust a guy who failed at a middle school science problem who he had over six months to figure out over myself, Ivy league deans, physics professors, world renowned staticians, and chemistry Nobel Laureates?  Thanks for the laugh.

  I think we've already established that your trust on this issue is based on whether a claim supports the pats even half as much as you think it does. It's true that I didn't consider the effect of atmospheric pressure in my *initial* calculation, it's equally obvious that you don't know much about what you're discussing.

  To summarize that report, the guy claimed that the colts balls had higher PSIs that the pats balls because the air in them had warmed more, didn't offer any explanation whatsoever as to why that pattern wasn't apparent in the pats balls (the balls measured last had less pressure than most of the balls measured before them), and then simply declared the amount of under-inflation in the pats balls to be "statistically insignificant". This seems to have escaped your attention, apparently you didn't read that on the internet (oops, I mean work it out yourself).

It's true that after seven months of writing your opinions, you still had not considered atmospheric pressure?  Nothing after that is worth reading.  Sorry, but you do not match up with the people whose work your are criticizing, not even close.  You do not pass 8th grade science.

  When you get a chance, have someone explain what the word "initial" means. Hopefully someone from the pro-Brady camp, so you'll be more willing to listen to them. The only comment that I made before that was that the nfl would never be able to determine what happened based on their measurements, which has certainly the case.

And honestly, everything you wrote is wrong.  I don't mean to be a jerk, it just is.  The video I posted as well as they very many high end intellectuals who have written on the subject have adressed every thing you just questioned.  They did not just declare things to be scientifically insignificant, they used common practice standards as was explained in that video and by so many others.

  Ok, I'll bite. What was the explanation (from the video) for why the pats balls didn't follow the expected pattern of balls being measured later having higher psi than the pats balls measured earlier (when they were colder)?

Initial: existing or occurring at the beginning.  We are now six plus months into this and you have written your opionions many, many times before understanding your "initial" mistake.  We are well beyond "initial" and if I did not correct you, you would still be pushing your wrong "initial" "calculations".

  You stopped too early when you went to learn what initial means. It also means first, as in "the first time I calculated psi loss". I haven't spent the last  months writing my opinions on this, you're just making things up.

The video gave 4 scenarios for explanations for the ball pressures.  Obviously, you did not watch the whole video.  Two scenarios by two scenarios.  Order of measurements: Pats balls measured, Pats balls inflated, Colts balls measured; Pats balls measured, Colts balls measured, Pats balls inflated.  Calculated for both the logo and non logo gauge.  (You seriously did not watch the video you are criticizing.  Why I'm explaining this two you, I dont know since will just make something else up.)  The video created 4 quadrants for the 4 scenarios.  They found that under 3 of the scenarios, the balls measured within the range of statistical significance.  Only under the non logo gauge, Pats balls measured, Colts balls measured, Pats balls inflated scenario did the Pats ball fall outside of statistical significance.  And in that scenario, the Patriots balls fell 0.35 psi outside of range.  Of course this scenario means the ref was wrong about which gauge he used, the refs were misleading when they said they ran out of time measuring the Colts balls, and it doesn't make any sense since the 0.35psi is not noticeable to the human touch (and coincidentally the difference between the calibibration difference between the two gauges, hmmm).

  So in other words, no explanation at all about why the pats balls didn't follow the same pattern as the colts balls (the predicted pattern), just a claim that the under-inflation was statistically insignificant. Which is what I said, if you can remember that far back.

They did depending on the scenario.  I explained it. The video explained it.  Good God, man.  If only you spent as much time learning as you do writing.  Smh.

   If they'd been able to explain it, the explanation would have held for all the scenarios. You didn't explain it either.

 

? Impossible.  It depends on the timing of when the balls were measured.  The balls come to equilibrium quickly and that is important. This has been explained ad nauseam.  You are demanding something that is phsyically impossible. Based on the most obvious assumptions per what the refs said, they balls measured as expected.

  You're part way there. The balls come to equilibrium quickly, and that is important. The longer the balls are in the warmer room, the warmer they get (until they get to equilibrium). The warmer they get, the closer to the original psi they get. So the last balls they measure should be very close to the original psi levels. That clearly didn't happen with the pats balls. You don't explain that, and the video certainly doesn't.

You can't seriously be asking that question.  It has been explained.  It's accounted for in the transient curves.

  The curves in his chart don't answer the question, in fact they support the validity of the question. In no way does the video address the subject. If you can point me to the time in the video when they specifically talk about the discrepancy I pointed out, fine. If not, it's a fairly safe assumption that you don't really understand what we're discussing.

The Patriots balls were measured first and therefore would not be close to their pre-game psi levels.  This was explained in the video.  It's even explained in Exponent's report.  It's not a point of contention.  The video walked through four scenarios and this was demonstrated, if not spelled out, in all four scenarios.

The point of the video was that if the Colts balls were measured late in the half and after the Patriots' balls were reinflated, which is consistent with statements by the refs that they ran out of time measuring the Colts balls, then the Colts balls would have lined up with the Pats balls along the transient curves.  Dean Snyder testified to this at the appeal and it was the main point of AEI's report.

  That's nice, but the question that I was asking wasn't at all related to the Colts balls.

[Jon]

Apparently the NFL has slightly changed its tune and now is saying that it's willing to settle if Brady accepts the findings of the Wells Report.

Seems like a very empty offer given what an exercise in buffoonery the report was. 

http://abc13.com/sports/nfl-wont-settle-if-tom-brady-wont-accept-findings-of-wells-report/923910/

[Donoghus]

Apparently the NFL has slightly changed its tune and now is saying that it's willing to settle if Brady accepts the findings of the Wells Report.

Seems like a very empty offer given what an exercise in buffoonery the report was. 

http://abc13.com/sports/nfl-wont-settle-if-tom-brady-wont-accept-findings-of-wells-report/923910/

I wonder how many seconds it took for Brady's team to squash that settlement offer? 1-2?