#DeflateGate (Court of Appeals Reinstates Suspension)

[rocknrollforyoursoul]

one involves the integrity of the game and wasn't awhile ago.

The problem is that "integrity of the game" is such a vague term.

I would definitely agree with this.  What does "integrity" real mean to the league?  It seems to contradict itself, in regards to the term, at every turn.

The NFL throws that term around a lot.  Goodell has stated repeatedly that Wells has impeccable integrity.  Is it even human to have "impeccable" integrity?

No, it is not.

[Donoghus]

one involves the integrity of the game and wasn't awhile ago.

The problem is that "integrity of the game" is such a vague term.

Arguably, the Patriots affected the integrity of the game a lot worse by fooling around with eligible receivers and catching the Ravens off guard in the Divisional Round.  Where's the punishment for that?

Yet, it's hard to even measure what effect, if any, the supposedly underinflated balls had on the game in question here.

The report does not come close to definitively proving that Tom didn't simply instruct his ball attendants to let air out of the footballs -- to a point within the range described by the rules -- after the refs had handled them, because the refs often give the Pats balls that are OVERinflated.

Exactly how does that affect the integrity of the game?


Meanwhile, you know what affects the integrity of the league, and the game the league provides to the public as entertainment? 

The behavior of its players, who all too often act as if they are gods among men off the field.  The NFL peddles a violent game that seems to frequently produce players who inflict violence on other people off of the field.  That's a much bigger deal, in my book.

It may very well be, but it doesn't actually have any outcome at all on the game.  That is the point I was making (it is also why I wouldn't suspend players for off the field conduct - though certainly as an owner of a team might very well release the player if the conduct started hurting my bottom line, which is why I had no problem with the Ravens releasing Rice, I just don't think he should have been suspended).  I have no idea if deflating footballs really affects the outcome of a game, but I suspect there is some benefit or it wouldn't have happened.  Now sure it didn't affect the outcome of the AFC Title game which was a blowout, but it certainly might have affected the outcome of the game against the Ravens the week before, which was a very close game.  And you are probably right the weird substitution thing probably had a greater affect on that game, but that was at the time legal (it isn't now).  Deflating footballs below the allowed limit is against the rules and needs to be punished.  I also get that it isn't clear the Patriots intentionally broke the rules, but it seems clear they wanted those footballs as low as possible, and when you constantly skate the line between legal and illegal and then aren't entirely forthcoming in the investigation, you are going to get hit hard.

The bolded parts relate to a point I've brought up before, but which no one on CB or elsewhere has addressed (to my knowledge): Why does the PSI rule even exist? And what is the science (if any) or other rationale behind it?

By saying that only certain PSI levels are acceptable, the NFL is also saying that "unacceptable" PSI levels convey an unfair advantage. But how did the league come to that conclusion? It's like the league is saying that footballs that are "too soft" or "too hard" are, what, too easy to catch? But is that true? And how would they know that? We all know that a football has to have a minimal amount of PSI, so it's not just a floppy piece of leather wobbling through the air; but beyond that, why does it matter what the PSI level is?

In other words, does it really have any measurable affect on the game? Judging by the fact that some QBs like soft footballs (Brady) and some like hard footballs (Rodgers), it seems that there's no "magic number," or else all QBs would use it. Given this, why doesn't the league just let each QB/team inflate the footballs to what's most comfortable for him/them? If every team is allowed to do that, then there's no unfairness or competitive disadvantage being conveyed to anyone.

It definitely has an impact on the game & its definitely true.  They need to have a minimum (I'd argue more so than a maximum).

Balls with less PSI inside are easier to grip so it makes throwing the ball & catching the ball easier.  Especially in inclement weather.

Shouldn't the NFL want its players to have an easier time throwing and catching the ball? They're selling an entertainment product, and it's not very entertaining to watch more instead of fewer incomplete passes.

I agree that there has to be a minimum to make a football usable (and that minimum is clearly below 12.5 PSI). So as long as a football is usable for the team using it, I don't think there should be any other rules or considerations regarding air pressure. It's silly and pointless and leads to useless $5 million investigations and a whole lot of handwringing over something that's pretty insignificant in the larger picture.

It already is.  Why do you need to drop it more?

[rocknrollforyoursoul]

one involves the integrity of the game and wasn't awhile ago.

The problem is that "integrity of the game" is such a vague term.

Arguably, the Patriots affected the integrity of the game a lot worse by fooling around with eligible receivers and catching the Ravens off guard in the Divisional Round.  Where's the punishment for that?

Yet, it's hard to even measure what effect, if any, the supposedly underinflated balls had on the game in question here.

The report does not come close to definitively proving that Tom didn't simply instruct his ball attendants to let air out of the footballs -- to a point within the range described by the rules -- after the refs had handled them, because the refs often give the Pats balls that are OVERinflated.

Exactly how does that affect the integrity of the game?


Meanwhile, you know what affects the integrity of the league, and the game the league provides to the public as entertainment? 

The behavior of its players, who all too often act as if they are gods among men off the field.  The NFL peddles a violent game that seems to frequently produce players who inflict violence on other people off of the field.  That's a much bigger deal, in my book.

It may very well be, but it doesn't actually have any outcome at all on the game.  That is the point I was making (it is also why I wouldn't suspend players for off the field conduct - though certainly as an owner of a team might very well release the player if the conduct started hurting my bottom line, which is why I had no problem with the Ravens releasing Rice, I just don't think he should have been suspended).  I have no idea if deflating footballs really affects the outcome of a game, but I suspect there is some benefit or it wouldn't have happened.  Now sure it didn't affect the outcome of the AFC Title game which was a blowout, but it certainly might have affected the outcome of the game against the Ravens the week before, which was a very close game.  And you are probably right the weird substitution thing probably had a greater affect on that game, but that was at the time legal (it isn't now).  Deflating footballs below the allowed limit is against the rules and needs to be punished.  I also get that it isn't clear the Patriots intentionally broke the rules, but it seems clear they wanted those footballs as low as possible, and when you constantly skate the line between legal and illegal and then aren't entirely forthcoming in the investigation, you are going to get hit hard.

The bolded parts relate to a point I've brought up before, but which no one on CB or elsewhere has addressed (to my knowledge): Why does the PSI rule even exist? And what is the science (if any) or other rationale behind it?

By saying that only certain PSI levels are acceptable, the NFL is also saying that "unacceptable" PSI levels convey an unfair advantage. But how did the league come to that conclusion? It's like the league is saying that footballs that are "too soft" or "too hard" are, what, too easy to catch? But is that true? And how would they know that? We all know that a football has to have a minimal amount of PSI, so it's not just a floppy piece of leather wobbling through the air; but beyond that, why does it matter what the PSI level is?

In other words, does it really have any measurable affect on the game? Judging by the fact that some QBs like soft footballs (Brady) and some like hard footballs (Rodgers), it seems that there's no "magic number," or else all QBs would use it. Given this, why doesn't the league just let each QB/team inflate the footballs to what's most comfortable for him/them? If every team is allowed to do that, then there's no unfairness or competitive disadvantage being conveyed to anyone.

It definitely has an impact on the game & its definitely true.  They need to have a minimum (I'd argue more so than a maximum).

Balls with less PSI inside are easier to grip so it makes throwing the ball & catching the ball easier.  Especially in inclement weather.

Shouldn't the NFL want its players to have an easier time throwing and catching the ball? They're selling an entertainment product, and it's not very entertaining to watch more instead of fewer incomplete passes.

I agree that there has to be a minimum to make a football usable (and that minimum is clearly below 12.5 PSI). So as long as a football is usable for the team using it, I don't think there should be any other rules or considerations regarding air pressure. It's silly and pointless and leads to useless $5 million investigations and a whole lot of handwringing over something that's pretty insignificant in the larger picture.

It already is.  Why do you need to drop it more?

If a QB is more comfortable with an even lower PSI, he should be able to have it at that level, so long as the football is usable. And if each team is allowed to do this, then no one has an unfair advantage.

[Donoghus]

one involves the integrity of the game and wasn't awhile ago.

The problem is that "integrity of the game" is such a vague term.

Arguably, the Patriots affected the integrity of the game a lot worse by fooling around with eligible receivers and catching the Ravens off guard in the Divisional Round.  Where's the punishment for that?

Yet, it's hard to even measure what effect, if any, the supposedly underinflated balls had on the game in question here.

The report does not come close to definitively proving that Tom didn't simply instruct his ball attendants to let air out of the footballs -- to a point within the range described by the rules -- after the refs had handled them, because the refs often give the Pats balls that are OVERinflated.

Exactly how does that affect the integrity of the game?


Meanwhile, you know what affects the integrity of the league, and the game the league provides to the public as entertainment? 

The behavior of its players, who all too often act as if they are gods among men off the field.  The NFL peddles a violent game that seems to frequently produce players who inflict violence on other people off of the field.  That's a much bigger deal, in my book.

It may very well be, but it doesn't actually have any outcome at all on the game.  That is the point I was making (it is also why I wouldn't suspend players for off the field conduct - though certainly as an owner of a team might very well release the player if the conduct started hurting my bottom line, which is why I had no problem with the Ravens releasing Rice, I just don't think he should have been suspended).  I have no idea if deflating footballs really affects the outcome of a game, but I suspect there is some benefit or it wouldn't have happened.  Now sure it didn't affect the outcome of the AFC Title game which was a blowout, but it certainly might have affected the outcome of the game against the Ravens the week before, which was a very close game.  And you are probably right the weird substitution thing probably had a greater affect on that game, but that was at the time legal (it isn't now).  Deflating footballs below the allowed limit is against the rules and needs to be punished.  I also get that it isn't clear the Patriots intentionally broke the rules, but it seems clear they wanted those footballs as low as possible, and when you constantly skate the line between legal and illegal and then aren't entirely forthcoming in the investigation, you are going to get hit hard.

The bolded parts relate to a point I've brought up before, but which no one on CB or elsewhere has addressed (to my knowledge): Why does the PSI rule even exist? And what is the science (if any) or other rationale behind it?

By saying that only certain PSI levels are acceptable, the NFL is also saying that "unacceptable" PSI levels convey an unfair advantage. But how did the league come to that conclusion? It's like the league is saying that footballs that are "too soft" or "too hard" are, what, too easy to catch? But is that true? And how would they know that? We all know that a football has to have a minimal amount of PSI, so it's not just a floppy piece of leather wobbling through the air; but beyond that, why does it matter what the PSI level is?

In other words, does it really have any measurable affect on the game? Judging by the fact that some QBs like soft footballs (Brady) and some like hard footballs (Rodgers), it seems that there's no "magic number," or else all QBs would use it. Given this, why doesn't the league just let each QB/team inflate the footballs to what's most comfortable for him/them? If every team is allowed to do that, then there's no unfairness or competitive disadvantage being conveyed to anyone.

It definitely has an impact on the game & its definitely true.  They need to have a minimum (I'd argue more so than a maximum).

Balls with less PSI inside are easier to grip so it makes throwing the ball & catching the ball easier.  Especially in inclement weather.

Shouldn't the NFL want its players to have an easier time throwing and catching the ball? They're selling an entertainment product, and it's not very entertaining to watch more instead of fewer incomplete passes.

I agree that there has to be a minimum to make a football usable (and that minimum is clearly below 12.5 PSI). So as long as a football is usable for the team using it, I don't think there should be any other rules or considerations regarding air pressure. It's silly and pointless and leads to useless $5 million investigations and a whole lot of handwringing over something that's pretty insignificant in the larger picture.

It already is.  Why do you need to drop it more?

If a QB is more comfortable with an even lower PSI, he should be able to have it at that level, so long as the football is usable. And if each team is allowed to do this, then no one has an unfair advantage.

Except you're missing the other effects this has.  This would totally change the complexion of the running game in football.   Keep lowering the PSI and you'll never see fumbles.  In a snow or rain storm, what would stop a team from basically just deflating it to nothing if there was no minimum?

It would dramatically alter the game. 

[rocknrollforyoursoul]

one involves the integrity of the game and wasn't awhile ago.

The problem is that "integrity of the game" is such a vague term.

Arguably, the Patriots affected the integrity of the game a lot worse by fooling around with eligible receivers and catching the Ravens off guard in the Divisional Round.  Where's the punishment for that?

Yet, it's hard to even measure what effect, if any, the supposedly underinflated balls had on the game in question here.

The report does not come close to definitively proving that Tom didn't simply instruct his ball attendants to let air out of the footballs -- to a point within the range described by the rules -- after the refs had handled them, because the refs often give the Pats balls that are OVERinflated.

Exactly how does that affect the integrity of the game?


Meanwhile, you know what affects the integrity of the league, and the game the league provides to the public as entertainment? 

The behavior of its players, who all too often act as if they are gods among men off the field.  The NFL peddles a violent game that seems to frequently produce players who inflict violence on other people off of the field.  That's a much bigger deal, in my book.

It may very well be, but it doesn't actually have any outcome at all on the game.  That is the point I was making (it is also why I wouldn't suspend players for off the field conduct - though certainly as an owner of a team might very well release the player if the conduct started hurting my bottom line, which is why I had no problem with the Ravens releasing Rice, I just don't think he should have been suspended).  I have no idea if deflating footballs really affects the outcome of a game, but I suspect there is some benefit or it wouldn't have happened.  Now sure it didn't affect the outcome of the AFC Title game which was a blowout, but it certainly might have affected the outcome of the game against the Ravens the week before, which was a very close game.  And you are probably right the weird substitution thing probably had a greater affect on that game, but that was at the time legal (it isn't now).  Deflating footballs below the allowed limit is against the rules and needs to be punished.  I also get that it isn't clear the Patriots intentionally broke the rules, but it seems clear they wanted those footballs as low as possible, and when you constantly skate the line between legal and illegal and then aren't entirely forthcoming in the investigation, you are going to get hit hard.

The bolded parts relate to a point I've brought up before, but which no one on CB or elsewhere has addressed (to my knowledge): Why does the PSI rule even exist? And what is the science (if any) or other rationale behind it?

By saying that only certain PSI levels are acceptable, the NFL is also saying that "unacceptable" PSI levels convey an unfair advantage. But how did the league come to that conclusion? It's like the league is saying that footballs that are "too soft" or "too hard" are, what, too easy to catch? But is that true? And how would they know that? We all know that a football has to have a minimal amount of PSI, so it's not just a floppy piece of leather wobbling through the air; but beyond that, why does it matter what the PSI level is?

In other words, does it really have any measurable affect on the game? Judging by the fact that some QBs like soft footballs (Brady) and some like hard footballs (Rodgers), it seems that there's no "magic number," or else all QBs would use it. Given this, why doesn't the league just let each QB/team inflate the footballs to what's most comfortable for him/them? If every team is allowed to do that, then there's no unfairness or competitive disadvantage being conveyed to anyone.

It definitely has an impact on the game & its definitely true.  They need to have a minimum (I'd argue more so than a maximum).

Balls with less PSI inside are easier to grip so it makes throwing the ball & catching the ball easier.  Especially in inclement weather.

Shouldn't the NFL want its players to have an easier time throwing and catching the ball? They're selling an entertainment product, and it's not very entertaining to watch more instead of fewer incomplete passes.

I agree that there has to be a minimum to make a football usable (and that minimum is clearly below 12.5 PSI). So as long as a football is usable for the team using it, I don't think there should be any other rules or considerations regarding air pressure. It's silly and pointless and leads to useless $5 million investigations and a whole lot of handwringing over something that's pretty insignificant in the larger picture.

It already is.  Why do you need to drop it more?

If a QB is more comfortable with an even lower PSI, he should be able to have it at that level, so long as the football is usable. And if each team is allowed to do this, then no one has an unfair advantage.

Except you're missing the other effects this has.  This would totally change the complexion of the running game in football.   Keep lowering the PSI and you'll never see fumbles.  In a snow or rain storm, what would stop a team from basically just deflating it to nothing if there was no minimum?

It would dramatically alter the game.

If a football has enough air to be usable in the passing game, it wouldn't be "deflated to nothing." Sure there might be fewer fumbles, but I don't have a problem with that. Does the NFL want more fumbles? If the NFL wants more turnovers, an improved grip could lead to more INTs. Who knows?

Besides, if relaxed PSI standards apply to everyone, then no one has an unfair advantage.

[Donoghus]

one involves the integrity of the game and wasn't awhile ago.

The problem is that "integrity of the game" is such a vague term.

Arguably, the Patriots affected the integrity of the game a lot worse by fooling around with eligible receivers and catching the Ravens off guard in the Divisional Round.  Where's the punishment for that?

Yet, it's hard to even measure what effect, if any, the supposedly underinflated balls had on the game in question here.

The report does not come close to definitively proving that Tom didn't simply instruct his ball attendants to let air out of the footballs -- to a point within the range described by the rules -- after the refs had handled them, because the refs often give the Pats balls that are OVERinflated.

Exactly how does that affect the integrity of the game?


Meanwhile, you know what affects the integrity of the league, and the game the league provides to the public as entertainment? 

The behavior of its players, who all too often act as if they are gods among men off the field.  The NFL peddles a violent game that seems to frequently produce players who inflict violence on other people off of the field.  That's a much bigger deal, in my book.

It may very well be, but it doesn't actually have any outcome at all on the game.  That is the point I was making (it is also why I wouldn't suspend players for off the field conduct - though certainly as an owner of a team might very well release the player if the conduct started hurting my bottom line, which is why I had no problem with the Ravens releasing Rice, I just don't think he should have been suspended).  I have no idea if deflating footballs really affects the outcome of a game, but I suspect there is some benefit or it wouldn't have happened.  Now sure it didn't affect the outcome of the AFC Title game which was a blowout, but it certainly might have affected the outcome of the game against the Ravens the week before, which was a very close game.  And you are probably right the weird substitution thing probably had a greater affect on that game, but that was at the time legal (it isn't now).  Deflating footballs below the allowed limit is against the rules and needs to be punished.  I also get that it isn't clear the Patriots intentionally broke the rules, but it seems clear they wanted those footballs as low as possible, and when you constantly skate the line between legal and illegal and then aren't entirely forthcoming in the investigation, you are going to get hit hard.

The bolded parts relate to a point I've brought up before, but which no one on CB or elsewhere has addressed (to my knowledge): Why does the PSI rule even exist? And what is the science (if any) or other rationale behind it?

By saying that only certain PSI levels are acceptable, the NFL is also saying that "unacceptable" PSI levels convey an unfair advantage. But how did the league come to that conclusion? It's like the league is saying that footballs that are "too soft" or "too hard" are, what, too easy to catch? But is that true? And how would they know that? We all know that a football has to have a minimal amount of PSI, so it's not just a floppy piece of leather wobbling through the air; but beyond that, why does it matter what the PSI level is?

In other words, does it really have any measurable affect on the game? Judging by the fact that some QBs like soft footballs (Brady) and some like hard footballs (Rodgers), it seems that there's no "magic number," or else all QBs would use it. Given this, why doesn't the league just let each QB/team inflate the footballs to what's most comfortable for him/them? If every team is allowed to do that, then there's no unfairness or competitive disadvantage being conveyed to anyone.

It definitely has an impact on the game & its definitely true.  They need to have a minimum (I'd argue more so than a maximum).

Balls with less PSI inside are easier to grip so it makes throwing the ball & catching the ball easier.  Especially in inclement weather.

Shouldn't the NFL want its players to have an easier time throwing and catching the ball? They're selling an entertainment product, and it's not very entertaining to watch more instead of fewer incomplete passes.

I agree that there has to be a minimum to make a football usable (and that minimum is clearly below 12.5 PSI). So as long as a football is usable for the team using it, I don't think there should be any other rules or considerations regarding air pressure. It's silly and pointless and leads to useless $5 million investigations and a whole lot of handwringing over something that's pretty insignificant in the larger picture.

It already is.  Why do you need to drop it more?

If a QB is more comfortable with an even lower PSI, he should be able to have it at that level, so long as the football is usable. And if each team is allowed to do this, then no one has an unfair advantage.

Except you're missing the other effects this has.  This would totally change the complexion of the running game in football.   Keep lowering the PSI and you'll never see fumbles.  In a snow or rain storm, what would stop a team from basically just deflating it to nothing if there was no minimum?

It would dramatically alter the game.

If a football has enough air to be usable in the passing game, it wouldn't be "deflated to nothing." Sure there might be fewer fumbles, but I don't have a problem with that. Does the NFL want more fumbles? If the NFL wants more turnovers, an improved grip could lead to more INTs. Who knows?

Besides, if relaxed PSI standards apply to everyone, then no one has an unfair advantage.

You're slanting the league more in the direction of offense than it is already.  Football has multi-phases.  It's just not about offense. Defense & kicking also make the game what it is.   If you keep making the game more & more one-sided, eventually it ruins the product.  The league has already been gearing towards the offensive side the past couple of decades with rule changes.  I don't see why it needs to be slanted there even more.  IMO, its already ridiculous how hamstrung defense has become in the game.  There's no need to make it worse.

But hey, why don't we just reinvent the game of football to appease the offensive loving crowd, huh? 

[heyvik]

quick question - not sure if this has been covered:

Can TB12 play in the pre-season games or is he suspended for those?

Also, is it wise to even play TB12 in these games, as Garapolo  needs as many snaps as possible.

[rocknrollforyoursoul]

one involves the integrity of the game and wasn't awhile ago.

The problem is that "integrity of the game" is such a vague term.

Arguably, the Patriots affected the integrity of the game a lot worse by fooling around with eligible receivers and catching the Ravens off guard in the Divisional Round.  Where's the punishment for that?

Yet, it's hard to even measure what effect, if any, the supposedly underinflated balls had on the game in question here.

The report does not come close to definitively proving that Tom didn't simply instruct his ball attendants to let air out of the footballs -- to a point within the range described by the rules -- after the refs had handled them, because the refs often give the Pats balls that are OVERinflated.

Exactly how does that affect the integrity of the game?


Meanwhile, you know what affects the integrity of the league, and the game the league provides to the public as entertainment? 

The behavior of its players, who all too often act as if they are gods among men off the field.  The NFL peddles a violent game that seems to frequently produce players who inflict violence on other people off of the field.  That's a much bigger deal, in my book.

It may very well be, but it doesn't actually have any outcome at all on the game.  That is the point I was making (it is also why I wouldn't suspend players for off the field conduct - though certainly as an owner of a team might very well release the player if the conduct started hurting my bottom line, which is why I had no problem with the Ravens releasing Rice, I just don't think he should have been suspended).  I have no idea if deflating footballs really affects the outcome of a game, but I suspect there is some benefit or it wouldn't have happened.  Now sure it didn't affect the outcome of the AFC Title game which was a blowout, but it certainly might have affected the outcome of the game against the Ravens the week before, which was a very close game.  And you are probably right the weird substitution thing probably had a greater affect on that game, but that was at the time legal (it isn't now).  Deflating footballs below the allowed limit is against the rules and needs to be punished.  I also get that it isn't clear the Patriots intentionally broke the rules, but it seems clear they wanted those footballs as low as possible, and when you constantly skate the line between legal and illegal and then aren't entirely forthcoming in the investigation, you are going to get hit hard.

The bolded parts relate to a point I've brought up before, but which no one on CB or elsewhere has addressed (to my knowledge): Why does the PSI rule even exist? And what is the science (if any) or other rationale behind it?

By saying that only certain PSI levels are acceptable, the NFL is also saying that "unacceptable" PSI levels convey an unfair advantage. But how did the league come to that conclusion? It's like the league is saying that footballs that are "too soft" or "too hard" are, what, too easy to catch? But is that true? And how would they know that? We all know that a football has to have a minimal amount of PSI, so it's not just a floppy piece of leather wobbling through the air; but beyond that, why does it matter what the PSI level is?

In other words, does it really have any measurable affect on the game? Judging by the fact that some QBs like soft footballs (Brady) and some like hard footballs (Rodgers), it seems that there's no "magic number," or else all QBs would use it. Given this, why doesn't the league just let each QB/team inflate the footballs to what's most comfortable for him/them? If every team is allowed to do that, then there's no unfairness or competitive disadvantage being conveyed to anyone.

It definitely has an impact on the game & its definitely true.  They need to have a minimum (I'd argue more so than a maximum).

Balls with less PSI inside are easier to grip so it makes throwing the ball & catching the ball easier.  Especially in inclement weather.

Shouldn't the NFL want its players to have an easier time throwing and catching the ball? They're selling an entertainment product, and it's not very entertaining to watch more instead of fewer incomplete passes.

I agree that there has to be a minimum to make a football usable (and that minimum is clearly below 12.5 PSI). So as long as a football is usable for the team using it, I don't think there should be any other rules or considerations regarding air pressure. It's silly and pointless and leads to useless $5 million investigations and a whole lot of handwringing over something that's pretty insignificant in the larger picture.

It already is.  Why do you need to drop it more?

If a QB is more comfortable with an even lower PSI, he should be able to have it at that level, so long as the football is usable. And if each team is allowed to do this, then no one has an unfair advantage.

Except you're missing the other effects this has.  This would totally change the complexion of the running game in football.   Keep lowering the PSI and you'll never see fumbles.  In a snow or rain storm, what would stop a team from basically just deflating it to nothing if there was no minimum?

It would dramatically alter the game.

If a football has enough air to be usable in the passing game, it wouldn't be "deflated to nothing." Sure there might be fewer fumbles, but I don't have a problem with that. Does the NFL want more fumbles? If the NFL wants more turnovers, an improved grip could lead to more INTs. Who knows?

Besides, if relaxed PSI standards apply to everyone, then no one has an unfair advantage.

You're slanting the league more in the direction of offense than it is already.  Football has multi-phases.  It's just not about offense. Defense & kicking also make the game what it is.   If you keep making the game more & more one-sided, eventually it ruins the product.  The league has already been gearing towards the offensive side the past couple of decades with rule changes.  I don't see why it needs to be slanted there even more.  IMO, its already ridiculous how hamstrung defense has become in the game.  There's no need to make it worse.

But hey, why don't we just reinvent the game of football to appease the offensive loving crowd, huh? 

No sarcasm needed. I see your point just fine. What can I say? I prefer good defense only when it's my team; and I much prefer a 35-24 game to a 14-10 game. But every person has his/her preference.

Defense, though, is about a lot more than just forced fumbles (many of which are due more to bad ball protection than to good defense). Fumbles and INTs are exciting and make for good highlight reels, but a good defense is one that keeps the opponent out of the end zone, period. The particular way(s) they do so are irrelevant. I agree that a lot of today's rules favor offense, with all the protections given to vulnerable receivers and such, but it could also be argued that a lot of the good defenses of the past had quite a lot to do with rules slanted in that direction, with defenders being able to get away with more holds and grabbing.

I think the solution is for players to become better true defenders and better true offensive players. On offense, that means learning the nuances of route running, or getting more creative with play calls. On defense, that means learning more about positioning, about funneling guys in the direction you want them to go, and not allowing them to go in the direction they want to go. Stuff like that.

[rocknrollforyoursoul]

quick question - not sure if this has been covered:

Can TB12 play in the pre-season games or is he suspended for those?

Also, is it wise to even play TB12 in these games, as Garapolo  needs as many snaps as possible.

He can play in preseason, but like you say, it might be best if he didn't play much then.

[danglertx]

Just a follow up on Exponent Inc. 

This is the first thing I found mentioning them; "The range of their work is impressive. They have on their payrolls (or
can bring in on a moment’s notice) toxicologists, epidemiologists, biostat-
isticians, risk assessors, and any other professionally  trained,  media-savvy
experts deemed necessary. They and the larger, wealthier industries for which
they work go through the motions we expect of the scientific enterprise,
salting  the  literature  with  their  questionable  reports  and  studies.  Never-
theless,  it  is  all  a  charade.  The  work  has  one  overriding  motivation:  ad-
vocacy for the sponsor’s position in civil court, the court of public opinion,
and  the  regulatory  arena.  Often  tailored  to  address  issues  that  arise  in
litigation, they are more like legal pleadings than scientific papers. "

Even Wells states; "In  reaching  the  conclusions  set  forth  in  this  Report,  we  are  mindful  that  the analyses  performed  by  our  scientific  consultants  necessarily  rely  on reasoned assumptions and that varying the applicable assumptions can have a material impact on the ultimate conclusions.  We  therefore  have  been  careful  not  to  give  undue  weight  to  the  experimental  results  and  have instead  relied  on  the  totality  of  the  evidence  developed  during  the  investigation."

That basically discounts the entire scientific analysis.  Well if we assume X, Y, and Z, then it looks like the ball were artificially deflated.  Well, to be fair, lets not assume anything and were the balls artificially deflated, were they consistent with scientific analysis, or can we not tell?

I know you can't make millions of dollars for an answer of "we can't tell" so... we'll just assume what we need to.

Oh how I wish I was Brady's lawyer for this.  I'd do it for free.

[D.o.s.]

What will almost certainly happen is that the NFLPA will argue it regardless of what the outcome actually is, and Brady will wind up missing an insignificant amount of time at most and, ultimately, no one will care. That is what I mean by "the outcome," not about whether Jim Rome is talking about it or not (because who actually cares about Jim Rome beyond morons and mouthbreathers and Mrs. Jim Rome?)

http://nesn.com/2015/05/adam-schefter-source-predicts-tom-bradys-suspension-will-be-overturned/

¯\_("o")_/¯

[rocknrollforyoursoul]

Just a follow up on Exponent Inc. 

This is the first thing I found mentioning them; "The range of their work is impressive. They have on their payrolls (or
can bring in on a moment’s notice) toxicologists, epidemiologists, biostat-
isticians, risk assessors, and any other professionally  trained,  media-savvy
experts deemed necessary. They and the larger, wealthier industries for which
they work go through the motions we expect of the scientific enterprise,
salting  the  literature  with  their  questionable  reports  and  studies.  Never-
theless,  it  is  all  a  charade.  The  work  has  one  overriding  motivation:  ad-
vocacy for the sponsor’s position in civil court, the court of public opinion,
and  the  regulatory  arena.  Often  tailored  to  address  issues  that  arise  in
litigation, they are more like legal pleadings than scientific papers. "

Even Wells states; "In  reaching  the  conclusions  set  forth  in  this  Report,  we  are  mindful  that  the analyses  performed  by  our  scientific  consultants  necessarily  rely  on reasoned assumptions and that varying the applicable assumptions can have a material impact on the ultimate conclusions.  We  therefore  have  been  careful  not  to  give  undue  weight  to  the  experimental  results  and  have instead  relied  on  the  totality  of  the  evidence  developed  during  the  investigation."

That basically discounts the entire scientific analysis.  Well if we assume X, Y, and Z, then it looks like the ball were artificially deflated.  Well, to be fair, lets not assume anything and were the balls artificially deflated, were they consistent with scientific analysis, or can we not tell?

I know you can't make millions of dollars for an answer of "we can't tell" so... we'll just assume what we need to.

Oh how I wish I was Brady's lawyer for this.  I'd do it for free.

So, basically, Exponent is a glorified lobbyist, crafting things to look the way their paying clients want them to look.

[kozlodoev]

So, basically, Exponent is a glorified lobbyist, crafting things to look the way their paying clients want them to look.

Not necessarily. You constantly make assumptions as a part of the scientific process -- that doesn't necessarily disqualify your conclusions. There are, however, other issues with the credibility of the contractor.

[rocknrollforyoursoul]

So, basically, Exponent is a glorified lobbyist, crafting things to look the way their paying clients want them to look.

Not necessarily. You constantly make assumptions as a part of the scientific process -- that doesn't necessarily disqualify your conclusions. There are, however, other issues with the credibility of the contractor.

I'd be careful about involving assumptions in the scientific process.

[kozlodoev]

So, basically, Exponent is a glorified lobbyist, crafting things to look the way their paying clients want them to look.

Not necessarily. You constantly make assumptions as a part of the scientific process -- that doesn't necessarily disqualify your conclusions. There are, however, other issues with the credibility of the contractor.

I'd be careful about involving assumptions in the scientific process.

The fact that you'd be careful doesn't change the necessity to assume.