05-07-2015, 02:29 PM
A couple of comments:
re: whether rules governing inflation should be rules at all
It's a good point but irrelevant to the discussion. There is a rule, and employees of the Patriots ("more likely than not") circumvented it. Rules for a game are arbitrary, and sometimes aspects of the game are standardized and sometimes not. For example, the outfield fences in a baseball stadium vary from park to park, and MLB teams set them based on a variety of reasons: historical, cartographical (for example, if there is a street behind one outfield and the fences cannot be made any longer), or competitive advantage (some teams want to have hitters parks, others want parks that favor left hand batters, etc.). Other aspects of the game, such as the distance between bases and the height of the mound are tightly regulated; there's no reason that MLB couldn't say that the height of the baseball mound could be set under the team's discretion between, say, 6 inches, and 18 inches (I think the standard is 10). The NFL has decided that it wants its footballs within a certain range, but the competition committee could change that. In any case, it is neither here nor there, the rule exists, and the Patriots didn't just run afoul of it, they went to some lengths to circumvent it.
Regarding Brady's role in the deal
While there is no absolute proof of it, the text messages are pretty damning. Brady was apparently giving the locker room attendant signed footballs and shoes, apparently in exchange for ensuring that the balls were underinflated. While it is possible that Brady was just doing it to help out the little guys who make sure everything runs smoothly, there definitely appeared to be a quid pro quo going on. If it was just to ensure that the balls were on the low side of the normal range, then there probably would have been no need for discussions about it, and the locker room attendant wouldn't have been a part of the discussion. It would have been as simple as Belicheck telling the equipment manager, "Make sure to inflate our balls to just above the lower limit", and there would have been no need to have a locker room attendant have anything to do with the balls other than watch over them.
Also damning but very circumstantial, the fact that Brady didn't make his text messages or phone records available to the NFL; when the records of the locker room attendant were analyzed there was a lot of contact in the immediate aftermath of the game.
Regarding the science of the report
Here's a good discussion (second half of the discussion):
http://fivethirtyeight.com/datalab/fivet...te-report/
The science was very thorough, the statistical analysis was very robust, and of all the things in the report, that the Patriots balls were substantially underinflated beyond what you would expect by normal atmospheric conditions, seems the most compelling part.
Regarding whether the NFL was at fault
By analogy, you are saying that the gas station was at fault because their squeege's were stolen. That seems wrong to me; it was wrong for the thiefs to lift them, and imperfect security does not justify their actions. Moreover, when I heard the protocols the NFL goes through to test the balls and ensure the inflation, and the risk McNally took to circumvent the rules (and the risk he knew he was taking, as evidenced by the "stress" it was causing), I actually thought the NFL was pretty anal retentive about its ball inflation. Could it have undertaken better security, like putting the balls under lock and key between when they are measured and when they are carted to the field? Sure. But it strikes me as a bit much to blame the NFL office for lax procedures.
Regarding whether the underinflated balls had an impact on the game
While you can come up with a hand waving argument to say it did, it's hard to believe it. In fact, Brady did better with the balls adequately inflated in the second half of the game. But again, that's not the point. Brady was trying to get a competitive advantage and McNally and Jastremski (more likely than not) circumvented the rules to get it for him (more likely than not) with his knowledge. If this had been an accidental thing or if they had done their best to take advantage of the rules for their benefit (see Belichick's substitution patterns in the game against the Ravens), I might not think it's the most sporty thing to do, but it's not illegal. But this was deliberate; McNally and Jastremski (and more likely than not) Brady knew what they were doing, knew it was against the rules, and did it anyways.
One last point
The evidence in the report is not "beyond reasonable doubt". In a court of law, it would certainly not be enough to convict Brady, and probably not be enough to convict McNally and Jastremski of anything beyond violating pre-game protocol. The Wells report could not prove beyond a reasonable doubt than in the minute forty seconds that McNally was in the bathroom with the balls, that he took a needle and let some air out of them. That being said, the NFL is not a court of law, and the term "more likely than not" carries a specific meaning in the NFL and is the standard used to apply sanctions. What those sanctions will be, I don't know; for Brady it is possible that the loss of reputation is enough. Part of me hopes the league brings down the hammer on Brady and the Pats because what they did, was so galling. But it wasn't so material, so that's the balance that the league office will need to make.
BC
re: whether rules governing inflation should be rules at all
It's a good point but irrelevant to the discussion. There is a rule, and employees of the Patriots ("more likely than not") circumvented it. Rules for a game are arbitrary, and sometimes aspects of the game are standardized and sometimes not. For example, the outfield fences in a baseball stadium vary from park to park, and MLB teams set them based on a variety of reasons: historical, cartographical (for example, if there is a street behind one outfield and the fences cannot be made any longer), or competitive advantage (some teams want to have hitters parks, others want parks that favor left hand batters, etc.). Other aspects of the game, such as the distance between bases and the height of the mound are tightly regulated; there's no reason that MLB couldn't say that the height of the baseball mound could be set under the team's discretion between, say, 6 inches, and 18 inches (I think the standard is 10). The NFL has decided that it wants its footballs within a certain range, but the competition committee could change that. In any case, it is neither here nor there, the rule exists, and the Patriots didn't just run afoul of it, they went to some lengths to circumvent it.
Regarding Brady's role in the deal
While there is no absolute proof of it, the text messages are pretty damning. Brady was apparently giving the locker room attendant signed footballs and shoes, apparently in exchange for ensuring that the balls were underinflated. While it is possible that Brady was just doing it to help out the little guys who make sure everything runs smoothly, there definitely appeared to be a quid pro quo going on. If it was just to ensure that the balls were on the low side of the normal range, then there probably would have been no need for discussions about it, and the locker room attendant wouldn't have been a part of the discussion. It would have been as simple as Belicheck telling the equipment manager, "Make sure to inflate our balls to just above the lower limit", and there would have been no need to have a locker room attendant have anything to do with the balls other than watch over them.
Also damning but very circumstantial, the fact that Brady didn't make his text messages or phone records available to the NFL; when the records of the locker room attendant were analyzed there was a lot of contact in the immediate aftermath of the game.
Regarding the science of the report
Here's a good discussion (second half of the discussion):
http://fivethirtyeight.com/datalab/fivet...te-report/
The science was very thorough, the statistical analysis was very robust, and of all the things in the report, that the Patriots balls were substantially underinflated beyond what you would expect by normal atmospheric conditions, seems the most compelling part.
Quote:andrewflowers (Andrew Flowers, quantitative editor): The report especially the stat-sy appendix went to great lengths to show that the difference in pressure between the Pats and Colts footballs was not due to chance.
benm (Benjamin Morris, sportswriter): I would say that the report hammers home the stats and science sides of this extremely well so as to head off any skepticism on those fronts, but theyre relatively easy cases to make. You dont need a stats degree to look at that table and see that something is amiss.
Regarding whether the NFL was at fault
By analogy, you are saying that the gas station was at fault because their squeege's were stolen. That seems wrong to me; it was wrong for the thiefs to lift them, and imperfect security does not justify their actions. Moreover, when I heard the protocols the NFL goes through to test the balls and ensure the inflation, and the risk McNally took to circumvent the rules (and the risk he knew he was taking, as evidenced by the "stress" it was causing), I actually thought the NFL was pretty anal retentive about its ball inflation. Could it have undertaken better security, like putting the balls under lock and key between when they are measured and when they are carted to the field? Sure. But it strikes me as a bit much to blame the NFL office for lax procedures.
Regarding whether the underinflated balls had an impact on the game
While you can come up with a hand waving argument to say it did, it's hard to believe it. In fact, Brady did better with the balls adequately inflated in the second half of the game. But again, that's not the point. Brady was trying to get a competitive advantage and McNally and Jastremski (more likely than not) circumvented the rules to get it for him (more likely than not) with his knowledge. If this had been an accidental thing or if they had done their best to take advantage of the rules for their benefit (see Belichick's substitution patterns in the game against the Ravens), I might not think it's the most sporty thing to do, but it's not illegal. But this was deliberate; McNally and Jastremski (and more likely than not) Brady knew what they were doing, knew it was against the rules, and did it anyways.
One last point
The evidence in the report is not "beyond reasonable doubt". In a court of law, it would certainly not be enough to convict Brady, and probably not be enough to convict McNally and Jastremski of anything beyond violating pre-game protocol. The Wells report could not prove beyond a reasonable doubt than in the minute forty seconds that McNally was in the bathroom with the balls, that he took a needle and let some air out of them. That being said, the NFL is not a court of law, and the term "more likely than not" carries a specific meaning in the NFL and is the standard used to apply sanctions. What those sanctions will be, I don't know; for Brady it is possible that the loss of reputation is enough. Part of me hopes the league brings down the hammer on Brady and the Pats because what they did, was so galling. But it wasn't so material, so that's the balance that the league office will need to make.
BC