Deflation-gate

This sounds skeptical to me.
On the front of it, I find it much more likely that the two guys who fooled with the pressure actually had very little "desire" to adjust the pressure.I find it much more likely that they're on the short end of the stick either doing what Bellicheck/Brady wanted... or losing their jobs.If there's going to be firings, I think it should be a little closer to the top, not the guys on the bottom. Unless there's a "large bonus check" in their accounts or something?Meh. Maybe it's just my conspiracy side coming out... but it just doesn't feel right to me that these guys would be the "masterminds" behind the whole ordeal. Seems a bit much to expect out of a couple of busy-workers.

Hello Stile, sounds a bit like the Nuremberg defense to me.
"I was only following orders."

I'm never going to find enough time to read everything, so I decided to look at just the parts of the Wells Report related to ball pressure. There were two known pressure gauges mentioned in the Wells Report, the Logo gauge (has the Wilson logo on it), and the Non-Logo gauge (no logo). The two gauges report pressures that are between .3-.5 psi different. On page 51 the Wells reports states that Anderson could not be certain which gauge he used: The report goes on to say that Anderson made sure the inflation pressure in all the balls was 12.5 to 12.6 psi.There was an interception of a Brady pass by the Colts in the 1st half, and it's pressure was tested with yet a third gauge, or possibly one of the two gauges mentioned previously: How much below 12.0 psi it doesn't say, but if the ball was originally inflated to 12.5 psi at 71°F, then when cooled to 48°F the pressure would have been 11.33 psi, or approximately 1.2 psi less.At halftime referees Blakeman and Prioleau used the Logo and Non-Logo gauges to measure the pressure of the remaining 11 Patriot footballs in the dressing area of the Officials Locker Room (the same room where they were originally inflated), obtaining these results. In parenthesis I've placed the change from 12.5 psi: They next tested 4 Colts footballs, which were originally inflated to 13.0 psi. In parenthesis I've placed the change from 13.0 psi: Obviously the Colt footballs could no longer have been at field temperature, because if they were then they would have tested 1.2 psi below 13.0 psi, or 11.8 psi and outside the valid range of 12.5-13.5 psi. But they were also not at room temperature, otherwise they would have tested right around their original inflation pressure of 13.0 psi.But the Patriot footballs were tested first and would have been closer to field temperature, and so would have measured at a lower pressure. If they had originally been inflated with the Logo gauge, then the average of the Logo gauge measurements at halftime is 11.49 psi, pretty much what you would expect for balls originally inflated to 12.5 psi at 71°F, cooled to 48°F, then returned to a 71°F environment and measured while they gradually warmed up.But there's more. If we designate the Logo gauge as the standard, and if the Patriot footballs were originally inflated using the Non-Logo gauge, then the Patriot footballs were actually originally inflated to around 12.15 psi, not 12.5 psi, and now the decrease in pressure at halftime becomes much closer to the Colts footballs. The decrease in pressure is still greater than the Colts footballs, but again, the Patriot footballs were measured first and would have been colder.Another factor to consider. If we assume tampering, then how much tampering was there. If we completely leave out of the equation the temperature of the balls to get an idea of the maximum amount of air that might have been removed from the balls, the answer is around .65 psi. Seems too small an amount to be worth worrying about.The standard the NFL uses is "a preponderance of the evidence," not "beyond a reasonable doubt". Do these factors tip the scales against a preponderance of the evidence? I don't know. I think that how everyone weighs the evidence in their minds will differ. But what *is* a fact is that reasonable scenarios exist that explain all the evidence and that don't involve tampering.--Percy

Preponderance of the evidence is the standard for a civil matter. Only criminal matters where the outcome can be life or imprisonment is the standard 'beyond a reasonable doubt.You can argue whether the pressures alone are enough. I've gone back and forth myself with whether the decision could be made on that basis alone. However the ball pressure is not the only evidence.Another way in which civil matters differ from criminal matters is that civil matters do not offer the defendant fifth amendment protection. It is entirely fair to draw inferences from lack of cooperation. But in this case, Brady has been caught making statements that are dissembling if not outright lies. Beyond that there are Brady's incriminating text messages to the equipment staff.I'm convinced that the ball pressure was tampered with after the referees checked the balls, and that alone is a breaking of the rules even if the balls were in spec after the tampering. Your question about re: 'how much tampering' is irrelevant. Even if the referees over-inflated the balls, the Patriots recourse would not be to take the balls into the bathroom afterwards and 'fix' them.

Only when not specified otherwise in a civil agreement. The Commissioner’s Policy on Integrity of the Game specifies "preponderance of the evidence" as its standard. It could have specified "beyond a reasonable doubt" as its standard, but it didn't, so I made that clear."Preponderance of the evidence" is a way of making decisions in the face of inconclusive data, making it mostly a matter of opinion. It turns out that hard evidence is absent and even the circumstantial evidence is slight, but many people have no problem drawing conclusions anyway.A lot of this feels eerily similar to what happened to the New Orleans Saints and Bountygate, or to Richie Incognito formerly of the Miami Dolphins. Text messages and emails communicate a great deal more than the words alone appear to say and often lend themselves to broad misinterpretation by those seeking data to draw a bullseye around.--Percy

Sorry about the second reply, but it suddenly struck me later why you said this: You thought I was saying that a small amount of tampering is okay, but I don't feel that way, and that's not what I meant. Apologies for the poor phrasing. When I said that adjusting ball-pressure by .65 psi hardly seems worth worrying about, I didn't mean that tampering wasn't worth worrying about.What I meant was that there seems no reason for anyone on the Patriots to go to the trouble to adjust the pressure of footballs by a mere 0.65 psi. And remember, .65 psi is the maximum average amount of deflation possible if you ignore temperature effects. I was making my point by showing that even the value least favorable to Patriotis makes no sense. And if you take temperature into effect then the average amount of deflation must have been less. Much less. And in that case you have to seriously ask why in the world anyone would care about taking, say, 0.3 psi out of the footballs.And another thing. Many of the Patriots footballs measured well within expectations for footballs just brought in from an outside temperature of 48°F. For example, football #6 measured at 11.95 psi. Adding 1.2 psi for the temperature drop yields 13.15. Assuming the original inflation pressure of 12.5 psi is accurate, that simply isn't possible. So let's assume the football has warmed up a little bit and only add .55 psi, yielding 12.5 psi, the original pressure. There's no room for any deflation, and that's true of most the footballs.The variation in pressure of the Patriot footballs is very suspicious, I grant that, but that doesn't mean one can ignore the Ideal Gas Law. I don't pretend to know what actually happened, but I do know that anyone who claims they do know is pretending.The main problem isn't the Wells Report, its the punishment. The standard is a preponderance of the evidence, and on that basis it found against the Patriots. Had the preponderance of the evidence standard yielded a slam dunk then fine, throw the book at them and give them the punishments I outlined in my first message about the Wells Report when I assumed the evidence must be strong.But the evidence is not strong. In fact, it is incredibly weak, and the punishment has to reflect that.--Percy

1. The evidence is not weak. Again the pressure measurement evidence is not all of the evidence. It is instead all of the evidence you seem willing to talk about. Yes, all of the evidence is circumstantial, but in my view the most likely explanation for all of that circumstantial evidence is cheating. All of the evidence for fusion in the sun is also circumstantial. 2. The reason why someone would reduce the pressure by less than one pound is because that results in the pressure they want and they cannot get what they want a legal manner. The refs might decide to set the pressure at something close to 13.0 despite what the ball dudes ask for because the refs expect conditions on the field to get colder during the first and second quarters of the game. The Patriots recourse in the face of such a decision is to suck it up until the temperature on the field gets colder. I don't find it impossible to believe that the someone would take steps to fix that even based on mere superstition on the possible advantages. 3. The way civil law works is that preponderance of the evidence is used to select winners and losers. Period. I'm sorry that you don't like that, but the Patriots are not kinda at fault. Most likely they cheated and the decision is that they did cheat. What you are saying here makes no sense. You are asking for a standard higher than preponderance of the evidence when you call for a 'slam dunk'. Most likely the Patriots cheated. And certainly they are going to be punished. You are entitled to that opinion. But I'm not aware of anyone using that principle in either an administrative or a civil criminal setting.

Why would or should the standard be different? The preponderance of the evidence standard is the standard generally employed with the exception of criminal matters where the constitution requires something a higher standard and provides the defendant with more protections.Nothing unusual about the standard applied in this case.

I see the evidence as both circumstantial and weak. You can drop the accusatory tone. It is the evidence I had time to review personally. I made that very clear. Plus ball pressure is the issue I've been consistently most interested in, so of course I sought that out first when I had the time.If you want to examine the other evidence in detail then it will have to wait until I have had a chance to look it over, and I don't have that kind of time right now. If you have specific things you want to look into in more detail then it would be helpful if you could tell me what they are, and when time becomes available I will look at those first. And weak. There isn't any direct evidence that tampering even happened. You have a plausible scenario. What you don't have is actual evidence, and there are other more plausible scenarios, ones that don't ignore the Ideal Gas Law. Keeping in mind that this is, so far, still within the confines of the NFL and not before a civil court, if you want to draw an analogy with what might happen in civil court then if the punishments correspond to damages then damages are determined by a variety of factors that include the evidence of damage done, and severity thereof, and plaintiff must demonstrate they've engaged in honest efforts to mitigate damages. One thing that happens in civil awards with regularity is an award of one cent, which can be for a variety of factors but which includes establishing the preponderance of evidence to only a negligible degree, lack of severity, lack of plaintiff attempts to mitigate, etc. Plus in this case most of the damage to the NFL appears to be self inflicted, something the NFL was guilty of over and over again last year, mostly due to Goodell's mismanagement. No, I'm not "asking for a standard higher than preponderance of the evidence." I'm saying that even though they haven't proved a thing, including that the tampering itself even happened, they're issuing punishments as severe as if they had. The analogy of something as inappropriate in the context of civil law would be punitive damages for sloppy bookkeeping and juvenile texting.--Percy

Yes you do. That's total BS. If you want to say that the evidence against is weak to punish, then you ought to be talking about all of it. If you don't want to do that, then you should not be surprised or angered when I bring that point up. If all you are ready to talk about is the ball pressure, then your conclusion about the evidence being weak is premature. Proof is not required and is generally impossible to achieve anyway.The NFL is never going to be able to 'prove' anything. Even an admission by Brady would fall short of proof. But the preponderance of the evidence is on the side of saying that the Patriots tampered with the ball. And a preponderance of the evidence is all that's required to punish Brady.Insisting on a 'slam dunk' is requiring a higher standard than a preponderance of the evidence.ABE: Sigh...The question here is whether there was any possible reason someone might reduce ball pressure by a fraction of a pound. You claimed not be able to think of one. A sufficient response to such a question is a plausible scenario.
Edited by NoNukes, : No reason given.Edited by NoNukes, : No reason given.

This statement of yours irked me a bit. Apparently I'm a stodgy old coot. But what you actually said was that even assuming tampering, 0.65 psi hardly seems worth worrying about. I don't find that to be similar at all to what you meant to say.If you misspoke or want to recant, that's fine. But what I thought you said is exactly what you did say. I reproduce your statement below. Edited by NoNukes, : No reason given.

NoNukes writes: Actually the preponderance of evidence suggests that Goodell is PISSED OFF that the bigger markets (NY, LA, CHI) aren't getting into the Stupor Bowl often enough to make the NFL richer, like he was hired to do. He hates that the smaller market of Patriots Nation keeps getting in the way of revenues. He will do anything to find fault.Why does a guy who beats up his wife in an elevator and drag her out unconscious only get 2 games? WTF? Hello? 55 cases and counting of abuse.But, no - Brady's little pissy-assed inflation descrepancies are FAR WORSE. Shame.Edited by xongsmith, : EmPHASis.Edited by xongsmith, : moreEdited by xongsmith, : more

Absolutely correct. And perhaps Brady's four game suspension is too long. But isn't the real problem that you are pointing out the fact that a piddly two game suspension for punching out your wife absurd?Ray Rice ended up getting an indefinite suspension that has since been overturned. He has not actually played any football since he was suspended.ABE:As for the big market theory. I don't know about that, but in this case I'd point out that Ray Rice plays for Baltimore. Not exactly a big market.Edited by NoNukes, : No reason given.

Ah, so now we come to the crux of the matter that is upsetting you and causing you to become personal. Well, in my view, first sufficient evidence of a violation is needed, and they don't have that. And then sufficient evidence of what someone did is needed, and they don't have that either. As I said earlier, the standard of "preponderance of the evidence" is just an excuse for forming an opinion based upon insufficient evidence. You agree with the Wells Report that it was more probable than not, I disagree. Had the punishments been appropriate to the evidence I think I would have felt okay with it, but they're not. It's a plausible scenario for motivation, but not one that is consistent with the Ideal Gas Law, which I did mention at the end of that paragraph. Balls don't warm up instantly. It needs to be explained how, for example, football #6 could have been deflated and cooled and yet still have a pressure of 11.95 psi. Or maybe footballs do warm up extremely quickly, but I think that would surprise most people, and in any case the Wells report doesn't include that possibility. About the variability of the pressure in the Patriot footballs it says, "Subject to the discovery of an as yet unidentified and unexamined factor,..." but one factor was staring it in the face, that footballs in an open bag are going to be variably exposed to the indoor temperature of the locker room.And the Wells report ignored another possible factor mentioned earlier in this thread. The Patriot footballs were delivered by McNally to the referees locker room from the back of the Patriots equipment room. How warm was it there on game day? In other words, were the referees inflating warm footballs that were in the process of gradually cooling to room temperature?The problem with the Wells report is that it comes across as advancing toward a forgone conclusion and not as a neutral investigation. They assumed a "crime" and then interpreted all the evidence in light of that "crime", even though there's no substantial evidence that a "crime" was even committed. It reminds me, as I said earlier, of what happened to the Saints with Bountygate and to Richie Incognito, events which I observed relatively disinterestedly from afar but which struck me at the time as making too much of way too little.The texts and other communications of these and of Deflategate also remind me of something from my own career. Occasionally engaging in dark humor is just something that almost all people do, and an occasional running joke in my group at work is the purposeful insertion of bugs for job security purposes. Imagine if that got out after some particularly egregious bug was discovered. Most people would understand how absurd that is, which is what makes it funny, but when big money is on the line jokes suddenly aren't jokes anymore.--PercyEdited by Percy, : Typo.

Good grief, now you're accusing me of lying about what I really meant? You think I belatedly realized I said something indefensible (and completely inconsistent with what I said earlier about how serious the punishments needed to be when I believed tampering had been proved) and so decided to claim I meant something else? Not the characterization I would have chosen.--PercyEdited by Percy, : Typo.