Deflation-gate

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

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

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.

It was today reported by the AP that the NFL plans to change how footballs are handled before games. This is a welcome move, but if it only deals with insuring that properly inflated footballs make it to the field then it is not enough. If proper football pressure is important then the NFL must also address the issue of temperature. We are now aware that a properly inflated football at 12.5 psi at 72°F will eventually drop to around 9 psi when delivered to field at 10°F on a cold Monday night in Foxboro in January. And that the same football will increase in pressure to around 14.5 psi when delivered to a field at 100°F on a hot Sunday afternoon in Miami in September.This means that the footballs cannot be inflated in the referees locker room as is the current practice. They must be inflated on the field at playing temperature.Extreme temperature changes can occur during games. It doesn't happen a lot, but it does happen, so I suggest that when the temperature changes by more than 20°F (should cause a change of around 1.1 psi) that the ball inflation routine be repeated.--Percy

All you succeeded in doing was avoiding the word - you still made the accusation.That you don't like my position is obvious, but the mere fact that I hold it seems to offend you in some way, so could I suggest that you just focus on the topic?--Percy

Yes, that's precisely the point, "we don't know," about too many things. And too many people are forgetting that. Actually, my position is not contrary to that. My position is that any tampering must be punished severely, but that tampering has not been established. This is the Wells report position. The Patriot response points out that McNally did what he always does before a game. On this particular day he picked up the balls in front of all the referees, then walked past them out into the hallway, just like always. There's no "transfer of possession" sheet to sign. There's never been any requirement for the attendant to say something like, "Requesting permission to remove footballs from locker room and transport them to the field." Everyone's doing the same things they always do on game day. It's plenty. It's the foundation. It's more than enough to know that tampering has not been established. Without that everything else falls apart. You're repeating your old argument as if it hadn't already been rebutted. You'd like it just to be black and white, yes and no, as if the particulars and quality of the evidence don't matter. But they do, even in civil court, which this isn't yet. The punishments are out of all proportion to the evidence.--Percy

Look, I don't know what put the bee in your bonnet, but stop getting personal and just focus on the topic, okay?--Percy

Whenever you're ready, focus on the topic.--Percy

Just so it's clear, I guess my high-level summary would go like this. I see two main factors. First, the Wells Report cites a great deal of smoke but didn't find a single fire. When I read it I expected to discover exactly how, where and by whom the footballs were deflated, and that accounted for the effects of temperature. Instead I found there were two different gauges that differed from each other by from .30 to .45 psi, that we don't know for sure which was used to check the original inflation pressure, that we don't know the temperature of the footballs when originally inflated, and that we don't know the temperature of the footballs when checked at halftime except that it must have been changing rapidly as the footballs warmed up, having just been moved from a 48°F to a 71°F environment.Second, the punishment seems to go far beyond the quality of the evidence.I grant that the Wells Report appears to paint a damning picture (I still haven't read the whole thing and am relying upon news reports for the parts not about football pressure), but they seem to have had a hypothesis in mind (that there was no doubt that there was tampering) that caused them to discount evidence inconsistent with it. Having accepted this hypothesis they never made any effort to disprove it, only to confirm it. We all know what happens to scientists who fall in love with a hypothesis.--Percy

Citing the best interests of the league, Robert Kraft yesterday announced that he would not appeal the Wells Report findings or the penalties handed down by NFL executive vice president of football operations Troy Vincent. Various news sources have speculated that his legacy and the lack of support from other owners were primary considerations.Was there a backroom deal involving a reduced penalty for Brady? We may never know, but for now the Brady appeal is going forward. Given the success of Brady's attorney Jeffrey Kessler in tangles with the NFL and other sports leagues it feels like the exceedingly tenuous evidence that Brady was involved will play a much more significant role than it did in the Wells Report. The hearing hasn't yet been scheduled.--Percy

I took a football, an electric air pump with gauge, and a ball inflating needle and after a few practice runs did the following ten times:

• Inflated the football to 20 psi.
• Deflated the ball using the needle for a quick 2 count: one-two.
• Checked the football pressure.

I hit 18 psi every time but once when I hit 17.5. I used a higher pressure to make it more difficult to control the pressure for a timed release, since the air escapes faster at a higher pressure and inaccuracies in timing would show up more.Looking at the table of pressures of Patriot footballs from the Wells Report we can see that the footballs measured by Blakeman varied from a low of 10.5 to a high of 11.85 for a range of 1.35, those by Prioleau varied between 10.9 and 12.3 for a range of 1.4. If we assume tampering and ignore the ball with the highest pressure under the assumption that it was by accident not tampered with then the Blakeman pressures varied between 10.5 to 11.6 for a range of 1.1, and the Priloleau pressures varied between 10.9 and 11.95 for a range of 1.05. I'll be using these latter numbers.To believe that tampering took place requires one to believe that:

• If McNally used a pressure gauge to deflate the footballs then he is incompetent beyond belief.
  ​
• If McNally did not use a pressure gauge to deflate the footballs, then despite his understanding that Tom Brady is very demanding about the pressure in his footballs, he nonetheless believed that adjusting the pressure without a gauge was accurate enough.
  ​
• McNally, a far more experienced hand than myself at adjusting and measuring football pressure, couldn't time the release of pressure more accurately than a little over 1 psi, far worse than me using almost twice the pressure.
  ​
• Tom Brady cares a great deal about the pressure in his footballs but can't tell a difference of over 1 psi.
  ​
• Alternatively, Tom Brady *can* tell a difference of over 1 psi, but he prefers footballs whose pressures vary by over 1 psi to footballs at a little higher pressure but all equal.

I have to add that my gauge reads in 0.5 psi increments while the NFL gauges read in .05 psi increments. The order of 10 lower accuracy of my gauge means this is an imperfect comparison. Trying to compensate for the resolution factor was another reason I used a higher pressure, but to what degree that succeeded cannot be known.I did check my gauge for repeatability by inflating the football to 20 psi then measuring the pressure 5 times. It came out at 20 psi every time. The NFL gauges might have a scale that reads in .05 psi increments, but are they really accurate to that amount? Would an NFL gauge have measured my football at 20.00 psi (or whatever it was at the more accurate level) every time, or would it vary, and by how much? The Wells Report claims NFL gauges read consistently but provides no details (see page XI, point 4).--Percy

That seems rather hasty. You don't even believe the first point? By ear? I guess we could add another point to the list of things that have to be believed: "If McNally deflated the footballs 'by ear' then he is stupid beyond belief." Or more accurately, "If the balls were deflated, it was almost certainly done to match a *presumed* expectation of Brady's."--Percy

But we don't know the temperatures of the balls when measured. Balls just brought in from the field would have measured 1.2 psi below original inflation. Balls in the process of warming up would have measured less than 1.2 psi below original inflation, depending upon how much they'd warmed up. We can only *accept* the word of the referee that he inflated them properly. We can't *know* that. Did he use the Logo gauge? The Non-Logo gauge? Or something no one seems to be considering, a mix? The pressures vary so widely that a more likely explanation is he used both gauges. Then at halftime the temperature drop and variable amounts of warming up over the 10 minutes it took to measure all the balls accounts for the remaining drop and variation. Again, did the halftime measurement reflect deflation or temperature drop, and what was the impact of other factors? Leaving aside the punishments to the organization because Kraft has already accepted them, what is Brady being punished for?If he's being punished for holding back information then I think anyone who would like to discuss the history of organizations promising to keep information safe and confidential (the MLB's supposedly confidential drug testing scandal comes first, but not solely, to mind) should try to argue that multi-millionaire multi-megadeal Brady was not merely being justifiably prudent when he refused to turn over his phone, text and email messages to the Wells investigators.And if he's being punished for a suspicion that he might have been "generally aware" that deflation was going on then it must be noted that, as you say, there's no "smoking gun." A punishment that harsh has to have better evidence.Just to be clear, I'm not arguing there was no deflation. That can't possibly be known for sure. What I'm arguing is that it also can't be know for sure that there *was* deflation.--PercyEdited by Percy, : Add missing "below" to first para.

At halftime the Colts balls all sat for 10 minutes warming up while the Patriots balls were being measured, and then they only measured four Colts balls. The ones that were measured seemed fine. The temperature inside the facility was reported as 71°F, the temperature on the field at halftime as 48°F. Well, for an official with two different gauges who had no idea they measured 0.4 psi differently and who wasn't sure which one he used, that this might provide motivation to not provide other details that might make him look even less competent than he already did comes to mind. And the reason Patriot concern about ball pressure had reached such a high level is because the officials had inflated the balls to 16 psi for the Jets game. So while I have a great deal of respect generally for NFL officials, and while I generally feel that officials have "no reason to lie and could be trusted," I don't think we know that for sure in this case. If by "officials" you now mean representatives of the NFL front office like Roger Goodell and Troy Vincent (as opposed to the game refs), I don't know that I would characterize it as a witch hunt. I think they're just displaying the same level of competence consistent with what they've displayed over the past few years. Yes, which brings us back to the oft-repeated point about the punishment being out of all proportion to the evidence. Well, yes, I guess, if you ignore details. Let's say the question is a simple one, such as, "Since at halftime the balls were measured to be below their original pressure, isn't the simplest explanation that someone on the Pats staff deflated them?" In that case, sure, that's the simplest explanation.But if the question is one that includes all the issues I've raised then the simplest answer is, "The data doesn't allow conclusive answers."--Percy