[BostonCard]

P.S.  I wonder if the sole ball that was not under inflated was the ball used for place kicking?

No, there are twelve special "K" balls for kicking.

http://www.footballbabble.com/football/terms/k-ball/

K-balls are footballs used by the NFL for kicking plays. Shipped in directly from the Wilson factory, these balls are generally considered to be slicker and harder than the average football. They are kept separated from the rest of the balls, and a special ball boy watches over them.

BC

[BostonCard]

P.S.  I wonder if the sole ball that was not under inflated was the ball used for place kicking?

No, there are twelve special "K" balls for kicking.

http://www.footballbabble.com/football/terms/k-ball/

K-balls are footballs used by the NFL for kicking plays. Shipped in directly from the Wilson factory, these balls are generally considered to be slicker and harder than the average football. They are kept separated from the rest of the balls, and a special ball boy watches over them.

BC

[BostonCard]

Grantland on spygate:

A nice FAQ:

http://grantland.com/the-triangle/the-be...flategate/

BC

[BostonCard]

Grantland on spygate:

A nice FAQ:

http://grantland.com/the-triangle/the-be...flategate/

BC

[stupac2]

Grantland on spygate:

A nice FAQ:

http://grantland.com/the-triangle/the-be...flategate/

BC

You mean Deflategate or Ballghazi, right?

[stupac2]

Grantland on spygate:

A nice FAQ:

http://grantland.com/the-triangle/the-be...flategate/

BC

You mean Deflategate or Ballghazi, right?

[BostonCard]

[quote author=Boston Card link=topic=11574.msg111388#msg111388 date=1421883531]
Grantland on spygate:

A nice FAQ:

http://grantland.com/the-triangle/the-be...flategate/

BC

Yes.  All the Bill Belichick cheating scandals are blurring together.

BC
You mean Deflategate or Ballghazi, right?
[/quote]

[BostonCard]

[quote author=Boston Card link=topic=11574.msg111388#msg111388 date=1421883531]
Grantland on spygate:

A nice FAQ:

http://grantland.com/the-triangle/the-be...flategate/

BC

Yes.  All the Bill Belichick cheating scandals are blurring together.

BC
You mean Deflategate or Ballghazi, right?
[/quote]

[Bruce Wang]

You do remember who is coaching the Seahawks, don't you?  Belicheat versus cheaty petey.  Yuck.

BC

Pete the Cheat was good for us.  He validated our beliefs about that evil program.  He garnered sanctions that weakened $outhernCal as we resurged.  He also provided the opportunity for the greatest upset in college regular season history, which served as a springboard for our program.

Sherman + Baldwin - Pete the Cheat > Fleming - Brady - Belicheat

Seems to me, the two cheats cancel each other out.  Starting to realize the real cheater is that Skunkbear QB of theirs.  Belicheat threw him under the bus.

[Bruce Wang]

You do remember who is coaching the Seahawks, don't you?  Belicheat versus cheaty petey.  Yuck.

BC

Pete the Cheat was good for us.  He validated our beliefs about that evil program.  He garnered sanctions that weakened $outhernCal as we resurged.  He also provided the opportunity for the greatest upset in college regular season history, which served as a springboard for our program.

Sherman + Baldwin - Pete the Cheat > Fleming - Brady - Belicheat

Seems to me, the two cheats cancel each other out.  Starting to realize the real cheater is that Skunkbear QB of theirs.  Belicheat threw him under the bus.

[stupac2]

Seems to me, the two cheats cancel each other out.  Starting to realize the real cheater is that Skunkbear QB of theirs.  Belicheat threw him under the bus.

I don't know about that, Brady has a press conference in a couple hours where we'll hear more. He's already called it "ridiculous" in an interview earlier this week, so it didn't really sound like he had any knowledge of it.

[stupac2]

Seems to me, the two cheats cancel each other out.  Starting to realize the real cheater is that Skunkbear QB of theirs.  Belicheat threw him under the bus.

I don't know about that, Brady has a press conference in a couple hours where we'll hear more. He's already called it "ridiculous" in an interview earlier this week, so it didn't really sound like he had any knowledge of it.

[dabigv13]

Well he may claim he doesn't have knowledge of that. But come on, it's the QB. I could maybe buy that Belichick didn't know the details but there's no way a rogue ballboy did this without Brady knowing. He's already publicly professed to preferring underinflated balls publicly..

[dabigv13]

Well he may claim he doesn't have knowledge of that. But come on, it's the QB. I could maybe buy that Belichick didn't know the details but there's no way a rogue ballboy did this without Brady knowing. He's already publicly professed to preferring underinflated balls publicly..

[stupac2]

Well he may claim he doesn't have knowledge of that. But come on, it's the QB. I could maybe buy that Belichick didn't know the details but there's no way a rogue ballboy did this without Brady knowing. He's already publicly professed to preferring underinflated balls publicly..

He said during his press conference that he didn't know anything about it. I've yet to see a good writeup or transcript so I don't know if he addressed that part of it.

At this point I really don't know what to believe here. Whatever your thoughts about Belichick, he's always been straight about the events behind spygate, so I don't see why he'd lie here. Brady may be lying, but, again, why? If he is all it would take is one lower-level guy selling him up the river to unleash a crapstorm, so that seems riskier than saying "Yeah I told them to prep balls at 11 PSI" or something. But then what happened? It's unlikely any equipment guy was just going rogue, and the temperature difference doesn't explain it (especially since the balls were likely re-tested at about the same temp they were filled at). Supposedly the refs tested them and they were within spec at the beginning of the game, but I keep reading things about them "weighing" the balls, and we're talking about a difference in weight (~1g) that's within the margin of error for almost any scale they'd use, let alone the balls themselves. Plus we haven't heard any corroboration of any of this. Also, if it was intentional, why do 11/12? That seems strange to me too.

Anyway, none of this makes sense to me still.

[stupac2]

Well he may claim he doesn't have knowledge of that. But come on, it's the QB. I could maybe buy that Belichick didn't know the details but there's no way a rogue ballboy did this without Brady knowing. He's already publicly professed to preferring underinflated balls publicly..

He said during his press conference that he didn't know anything about it. I've yet to see a good writeup or transcript so I don't know if he addressed that part of it.

At this point I really don't know what to believe here. Whatever your thoughts about Belichick, he's always been straight about the events behind spygate, so I don't see why he'd lie here. Brady may be lying, but, again, why? If he is all it would take is one lower-level guy selling him up the river to unleash a crapstorm, so that seems riskier than saying "Yeah I told them to prep balls at 11 PSI" or something. But then what happened? It's unlikely any equipment guy was just going rogue, and the temperature difference doesn't explain it (especially since the balls were likely re-tested at about the same temp they were filled at). Supposedly the refs tested them and they were within spec at the beginning of the game, but I keep reading things about them "weighing" the balls, and we're talking about a difference in weight (~1g) that's within the margin of error for almost any scale they'd use, let alone the balls themselves. Plus we haven't heard any corroboration of any of this. Also, if it was intentional, why do 11/12? That seems strange to me too.

Anyway, none of this makes sense to me still.

[SeattleTree]

[quote author=Publius link=topic=11574.msg111458#msg111458 date=1421951605]Seems to me, the two cheats cancel each other out.  Starting to realize the real cheater is that Skunkbear QB of theirs.  Belicheat threw him under the bus.

I don't know about that, Brady has a press conference in a couple hours where we'll hear more. He's already called it "ridiculous" in an interview earlier this week, so it didn't really sound like he had any knowledge of it.
[/quote]

Because, you know, if Brady did have anything to do with it, he'd call a press conference and admit he cheated. 

Riiiiight. 

[SeattleTree]

[quote author=Publius link=topic=11574.msg111458#msg111458 date=1421951605]Seems to me, the two cheats cancel each other out.  Starting to realize the real cheater is that Skunkbear QB of theirs.  Belicheat threw him under the bus.

I don't know about that, Brady has a press conference in a couple hours where we'll hear more. He's already called it "ridiculous" in an interview earlier this week, so it didn't really sound like he had any knowledge of it.
[/quote]

Because, you know, if Brady did have anything to do with it, he'd call a press conference and admit he cheated. 

Riiiiight. 

[stupac2]

Because, you know, if Brady did have anything to do with it, he'd call a press conference and admit he cheated. 

Riiiiight.

Why not? If he lies now and gets caught later it's certainly worse than if he's honest now.

[stupac2]

Because, you know, if Brady did have anything to do with it, he'd call a press conference and admit he cheated. 

Riiiiight.

Why not? If he lies now and gets caught later it's certainly worse than if he's honest now.

[Leftcoast]

If this was intentional then Brady knew.

What possible purpose could under-inflating the footballs serve if not to aid the QB who handles the ball every offensive play?  This wouldn't happen without Brady's prior buy in.

I see this issue fading when the season ends.  Nothing essential to the game was impacted by a 2 PSI pressure change.  Someone had to snap, throw and catch the ball.  Someone had to receive a hand-off and carry it.  I predict the news cycle will end with the Super Bowl but the perception that New England bends any and all rules to get an advantage will remain.

Here's my off-the-cuff list of other between the lines rule benders (no PEDs or off field scandals)- Know any others?

**  Gaylord Perry, Joe Niekro, Mike Scott, Kevin Gross - Spit Balls and/or Emory Boards
**  Ray Guy - Accused of kicking helium filled footballs
**  Sammy Sosa, Albert Belle, Greg Nettles, Billy Hatcher - Hitting with corked bats
**  Parcells/Giants - Opening domed stadium doors when opposing team had ball (wind effect)
**  Patrick Roy/Many NHL Goalies - Oversized pads, Padded jerseys, etc
**  Gene Bossard - Grounds keeper for Chicago White Sox famous for watering down first base line, cutting grass high, raising infield lines to keep foul balls in, etc.

[Leftcoast]

If this was intentional then Brady knew.

What possible purpose could under-inflating the footballs serve if not to aid the QB who handles the ball every offensive play?  This wouldn't happen without Brady's prior buy in.

I see this issue fading when the season ends.  Nothing essential to the game was impacted by a 2 PSI pressure change.  Someone had to snap, throw and catch the ball.  Someone had to receive a hand-off and carry it.  I predict the news cycle will end with the Super Bowl but the perception that New England bends any and all rules to get an advantage will remain.

Here's my off-the-cuff list of other between the lines rule benders (no PEDs or off field scandals)- Know any others?

**  Gaylord Perry, Joe Niekro, Mike Scott, Kevin Gross - Spit Balls and/or Emory Boards
**  Ray Guy - Accused of kicking helium filled footballs
**  Sammy Sosa, Albert Belle, Greg Nettles, Billy Hatcher - Hitting with corked bats
**  Parcells/Giants - Opening domed stadium doors when opposing team had ball (wind effect)
**  Patrick Roy/Many NHL Goalies - Oversized pads, Padded jerseys, etc
**  Gene Bossard - Grounds keeper for Chicago White Sox famous for watering down first base line, cutting grass high, raising infield lines to keep foul balls in, etc.

[FarmBoy]

It's called plausible deniability. Brady speaks loudly when the ball boy is near how great it would be if the balls would have a little less pressure. But too bad it's against the rules...

[FarmBoy]

It's called plausible deniability. Brady speaks loudly when the ball boy is near how great it would be if the balls would have a little less pressure. But too bad it's against the rules...

[97fan]

Well, at least we can count on the NFL to conduct a fair, thorough, and independent investigation. No one in the NFL office ever saw the video in which Ray Rice beat up his fiancee. Roger Goodell is an honorable man.

[97fan]

Well, at least we can count on the NFL to conduct a fair, thorough, and independent investigation. No one in the NFL office ever saw the video in which Ray Rice beat up his fiancee. Roger Goodell is an honorable man.

[jacketree]

Pats wearing their throwback jerseys before they were throwbacks against Garvin's Fins:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KAwOLaZUh-k

Video makes it look like this was in television's infancy, but it was 1982 and apparently not an illegal move until Don Shula pushed for a new rule shortly thereafter.

Jacketrette swears by Tom Brady, but I've never been a Pats fan. Plus I've accepted an invitation to watch the game at a bar with a group of fans who hate the Seahawks with the intensity of a thousand suns or something like that.  "But will they be serving pitchers of IPA?"  One of the teams will lose, so there's that.

[jacketree]

Pats wearing their throwback jerseys before they were throwbacks against Garvin's Fins:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KAwOLaZUh-k

Video makes it look like this was in television's infancy, but it was 1982 and apparently not an illegal move until Don Shula pushed for a new rule shortly thereafter.

Jacketrette swears by Tom Brady, but I've never been a Pats fan. Plus I've accepted an invitation to watch the game at a bar with a group of fans who hate the Seahawks with the intensity of a thousand suns or something like that.  "But will they be serving pitchers of IPA?"  One of the teams will lose, so there's that.

[BostonCard]

http://www.nytimes.com/2015/01/24/sports...nuing.html

Interesting that the NFl says they have interviewed nearly 40 people, but not, apparently Brady (at least as of his press conference yesterday).

“The balls were evaluated at halftime and the only reason you do that is there is some concern,” said Tim Hasselbeck, a former N.F.L. quarterback who was a ball boy for the Patriots during high school. “If the balls were O.K. before the game but not by halftime, and it was only New England’s balls that were suspect, then obviously something happened to the balls between the initial inspection and the second half.”

Because quarterbacks alone are responsible for choosing the game-day footballs, the N.F.L.’s inquiry will eventually center on Brady, Hasselbeck said, because the Patriots’ staff members would be unlikely to deflate game balls on their own.

“Unfortunately for New England, this is heading in a bad direction,” he said. “There’s no reason why a ball boy would take air out of a football unless the quarterback wanted it that way.”

Ironically, the Patriots did better with the properly inflated balls, after halftime.

BC

[BostonCard]

http://www.nytimes.com/2015/01/24/sports...nuing.html

Interesting that the NFl says they have interviewed nearly 40 people, but not, apparently Brady (at least as of his press conference yesterday).

“The balls were evaluated at halftime and the only reason you do that is there is some concern,” said Tim Hasselbeck, a former N.F.L. quarterback who was a ball boy for the Patriots during high school. “If the balls were O.K. before the game but not by halftime, and it was only New England’s balls that were suspect, then obviously something happened to the balls between the initial inspection and the second half.”

Because quarterbacks alone are responsible for choosing the game-day footballs, the N.F.L.’s inquiry will eventually center on Brady, Hasselbeck said, because the Patriots’ staff members would be unlikely to deflate game balls on their own.

“Unfortunately for New England, this is heading in a bad direction,” he said. “There’s no reason why a ball boy would take air out of a football unless the quarterback wanted it that way.”

Ironically, the Patriots did better with the properly inflated balls, after halftime.

BC

[VFRing98]

Interesting piece here about the Pats not fumbling at a statistically improbable rate:

http://www.slate.com/articles/sports/spo...mbles.html

If the correlation is due to inflategate, everybody knew and what a bunch of cheaters.

[VFRing98]

Interesting piece here about the Pats not fumbling at a statistically improbable rate:

http://www.slate.com/articles/sports/spo...mbles.html

If the correlation is due to inflategate, everybody knew and what a bunch of cheaters.

[dabigv13]

Interesting correlation, but reminds me of "lies, damn lies, and statistics."

The Patriots going 16-0 that year in the regular season was pretty damn statistically improbable too, but statistically improbable things happen all the time if you look for them. Maybe deflated footballs are part of the reason for this, but there's a host of other possible explanations as well.

[dabigv13]

Interesting correlation, but reminds me of "lies, damn lies, and statistics."

The Patriots going 16-0 that year in the regular season was pretty damn statistically improbable too, but statistically improbable things happen all the time if you look for them. Maybe deflated footballs are part of the reason for this, but there's a host of other possible explanations as well.

[VFRing98]

Of course. We'll never have "proof", if that's what you need. But I don't; seems pretty clear to me that last week could not have been an isolated incident and that the risk of bring caught would only be taken if there was some benefit. This analysis points to one possible benefit.

Also, Brady and Belicheat are sacks of $:/t.  :-*

[VFRing98]

Of course. We'll never have "proof", if that's what you need. But I don't; seems pretty clear to me that last week could not have been an isolated incident and that the risk of bring caught would only be taken if there was some benefit. This analysis points to one possible benefit.

Also, Brady and Belicheat are sacks of $:/t.  :-*

[stupac2]

Interesting piece here about the Pats not fumbling at a statistically improbable rate:

http://www.slate.com/articles/sports/spo...mbles.html

If the correlation is due to inflategate, everybody knew and what a bunch of cheaters.

Bill Barnwell (who, not to be confused with Bill Simmons, isn't actually a Pats fan) said that this was just an example of the Wyatt Earp Effect.

Anyway, after a few more days of this nonsense and reading about how the whole process actually works, the conclusion I've come to (which can still be modified, of course) is that this is what happened:

1) The balls were, for whatever reason, inflated to either <12.5 PSI or right about 12.5 PSI.
2) The refs OKed them because apparently the ref inspection is basically a rubber stamp. (Both a former Bears ballboy and Aaron Rodgers' comments about trying to slip over-inflated balls past refs indicate that this is not a thorough inspection.)
3) On the interception the equipment manager noticed, maybe informed by previous games, blah blah who cares.

The whole point is that if #2 is correct, then this is just a non-story. It's like saying that because the refs missed a holding call, or an illegal shift, or whatever on-the-field call you like, that the team "cheated". I mean, yes, maybe they did something that appears to be against the rules, but if the refs approve it, then it's by definition OK. It would be like calling the Seahawks of last year cheaters because they were clearly pushing the boundaries of DPI/illegal contact/defensive holding. But the refs weren't calling it so that's asinine.

I guess we'll see what happens as more info continues to come out, but unless someone from the organization is straight-up lying to us (which, whatever you think about Belichick and Brady, would actually be unprecedented) I don't think there was any deliberate, post-ref-approval tampering. And that's what would be a problem.

[stupac2]

Interesting piece here about the Pats not fumbling at a statistically improbable rate:

http://www.slate.com/articles/sports/spo...mbles.html

If the correlation is due to inflategate, everybody knew and what a bunch of cheaters.

Bill Barnwell (who, not to be confused with Bill Simmons, isn't actually a Pats fan) said that this was just an example of the Wyatt Earp Effect.

Anyway, after a few more days of this nonsense and reading about how the whole process actually works, the conclusion I've come to (which can still be modified, of course) is that this is what happened:

1) The balls were, for whatever reason, inflated to either <12.5 PSI or right about 12.5 PSI.
2) The refs OKed them because apparently the ref inspection is basically a rubber stamp. (Both a former Bears ballboy and Aaron Rodgers' comments about trying to slip over-inflated balls past refs indicate that this is not a thorough inspection.)
3) On the interception the equipment manager noticed, maybe informed by previous games, blah blah who cares.

The whole point is that if #2 is correct, then this is just a non-story. It's like saying that because the refs missed a holding call, or an illegal shift, or whatever on-the-field call you like, that the team "cheated". I mean, yes, maybe they did something that appears to be against the rules, but if the refs approve it, then it's by definition OK. It would be like calling the Seahawks of last year cheaters because they were clearly pushing the boundaries of DPI/illegal contact/defensive holding. But the refs weren't calling it so that's asinine.

I guess we'll see what happens as more info continues to come out, but unless someone from the organization is straight-up lying to us (which, whatever you think about Belichick and Brady, would actually be unprecedented) I don't think there was any deliberate, post-ref-approval tampering. And that's what would be a problem.

[dabigv13]

I gather you're a Patriots fan. None of your points contradicts the likelihood that the Patriots deliberately broke the rules to gain an advantage.

1) "Whatever reason" - because it gave them a perceived, if illegal, advantage
2) So the Patriots rightly counted on the incompetence of the referees in order to gain an advantage? I don't think this paints them in a better light.
3) ....not sure what you're saying except that the Patriots were known to play fast and loose with rules?

I think the reaction you're seeing in the media is clear evidence of why this is different than missed holding calls.

[dabigv13]

I gather you're a Patriots fan. None of your points contradicts the likelihood that the Patriots deliberately broke the rules to gain an advantage.

1) "Whatever reason" - because it gave them a perceived, if illegal, advantage
2) So the Patriots rightly counted on the incompetence of the referees in order to gain an advantage? I don't think this paints them in a better light.
3) ....not sure what you're saying except that the Patriots were known to play fast and loose with rules?

I think the reaction you're seeing in the media is clear evidence of why this is different than missed holding calls.