[Leftcoast]

Gotta disagree with you there, DaBigV.  Using the "reaction of the media" to gauge meaningfulness is akin to seeing kids swarm to cotton candy and deducing it must be nutritious. 

[Leftcoast]

Gotta disagree with you there, DaBigV.  Using the "reaction of the media" to gauge meaningfulness is akin to seeing kids swarm to cotton candy and deducing it must be nutritious. 

[stupac2]

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.

The problem is that right now we just don't know enough to make any real judgments. It's entirely within the realm of possibility that the balls were actually inflated correctly at the ref inspection, but if they weren't and the refs didn't say anything then I don't get why anyone cares. Like I said, Aaron Rodgers has also admitted to trying to sneak over-inflated balls past the refs, and literally no one cared. Why isn't that being investigated? Why isn't he being called a cheater? Why wasn't there a firestorm over it? Because it's not important!

I also find it weird that there's still this idea that the Patriots are known to play fast and loose with the rules. There was ONE case of it happening, and what they did was actually totally benign (filming something from the wrong location). But because of that they're known cheaters? Pretty much every team in the league has been punished for things that are just as bad or worse at some point. Hell, the Broncos won two super bowls by illegally screwing with the cap, AND they did basically the same thing that the Patriots did during "Spygate". Are they known cheaters too? It's all ridiculous.

And leftcoast is right, the media reaction has nothing to do with anything. If you read people who actually understand football, instead of Rosie O'Donnell, none of them care. The only people who are acting like this matters are the ones whose salaries depend on the views/clicks. Definitely reliable there.

But, seriously, even if the ballboys were underinflating the balls, which the refs then approved, how is it cheating? The refs approved the balls! It's no more cheating than saying "only hold the jersey inside the shoulders because refs don't call it", something that is, at this point, basically a rule of the game despite being nominally illegal.

[stupac2]

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.

The problem is that right now we just don't know enough to make any real judgments. It's entirely within the realm of possibility that the balls were actually inflated correctly at the ref inspection, but if they weren't and the refs didn't say anything then I don't get why anyone cares. Like I said, Aaron Rodgers has also admitted to trying to sneak over-inflated balls past the refs, and literally no one cared. Why isn't that being investigated? Why isn't he being called a cheater? Why wasn't there a firestorm over it? Because it's not important!

I also find it weird that there's still this idea that the Patriots are known to play fast and loose with the rules. There was ONE case of it happening, and what they did was actually totally benign (filming something from the wrong location). But because of that they're known cheaters? Pretty much every team in the league has been punished for things that are just as bad or worse at some point. Hell, the Broncos won two super bowls by illegally screwing with the cap, AND they did basically the same thing that the Patriots did during "Spygate". Are they known cheaters too? It's all ridiculous.

And leftcoast is right, the media reaction has nothing to do with anything. If you read people who actually understand football, instead of Rosie O'Donnell, none of them care. The only people who are acting like this matters are the ones whose salaries depend on the views/clicks. Definitely reliable there.

But, seriously, even if the ballboys were underinflating the balls, which the refs then approved, how is it cheating? The refs approved the balls! It's no more cheating than saying "only hold the jersey inside the shoulders because refs don't call it", something that is, at this point, basically a rule of the game despite being nominally illegal.

[dabigv13]

Perhaps I should have said "public reaction", because the media talking heads aren't necessarily who I was talking about. A lot of former players have chimed in as well airing their dissapointment. Maybe it's sour grapes, maybe not.

The Colts apparently knew to look for it, so I guess they knew the Patriots play fast and loose.

If it comes out that every team is doing this, then I suppose who cares. Sure every team is trying to find an advantage. But to have balls approved by the refs, and then purposefully and covertly alter the balls afterwards to gain an advantage is pretty damn low and unseemly, much worse than holding and trying not to get called for it.

Interested to see what comes out. But hard to imagine this wasn't a deliberate act when the Patriots balls were the only ones deflated, and all of them (if sources are to be believed all of them were underinflated, but one ball was not as deflated as the others) were. And also pretty absurd for Brady to say he didn't notice. I throw a football around a few times a year, and I can tell when a ball is underinflated versus properly inflated.

[dabigv13]

Perhaps I should have said "public reaction", because the media talking heads aren't necessarily who I was talking about. A lot of former players have chimed in as well airing their dissapointment. Maybe it's sour grapes, maybe not.

The Colts apparently knew to look for it, so I guess they knew the Patriots play fast and loose.

If it comes out that every team is doing this, then I suppose who cares. Sure every team is trying to find an advantage. But to have balls approved by the refs, and then purposefully and covertly alter the balls afterwards to gain an advantage is pretty damn low and unseemly, much worse than holding and trying not to get called for it.

Interested to see what comes out. But hard to imagine this wasn't a deliberate act when the Patriots balls were the only ones deflated, and all of them (if sources are to be believed all of them were underinflated, but one ball was not as deflated as the others) were. And also pretty absurd for Brady to say he didn't notice. I throw a football around a few times a year, and I can tell when a ball is underinflated versus properly inflated.

[FarmBoy]

Pats apologists are cracking me up on this issue. There's a reason the rules require the balls to be inflated to a certain level and the Pats/Brady are breaking the rule because it benefits their team. If the ball deflation didn't matter, then why are they doing it? That's right, because it gives them a benefit in their offense to have receivers catch, running backs carry, and QBs throw balls that are under-inflated. The Colts raised the issue when they played back in early November, so there's a pattern.

Did the deflation impact the binary outcome of the AFC championship? Probably not, but you can't say for certainty what the score at half time would have been had the Pats been following the rules and therefore, how the Colts might have played differently. And if the Pats were cheating the system against the Colts twice, then it's probable they cheated against the Ravens that they barely beat in a close game and in earlier games in the season that allowed them home field advantage.

I'm not one to beat on the "role models" issue, typically, but I do find it sad that a generation of kids in New England are parroting talk show host talking points that cheating doesn't matter if it didn't change the outcome or that cheating is okay when you think that everyone else does it. Sports are valuable for the life lessons taught by players overcoming adversity and playing with great sportsmanship. The Bill and Brady do a disservice by not admitting fault.

[FarmBoy]

Pats apologists are cracking me up on this issue. There's a reason the rules require the balls to be inflated to a certain level and the Pats/Brady are breaking the rule because it benefits their team. If the ball deflation didn't matter, then why are they doing it? That's right, because it gives them a benefit in their offense to have receivers catch, running backs carry, and QBs throw balls that are under-inflated. The Colts raised the issue when they played back in early November, so there's a pattern.

Did the deflation impact the binary outcome of the AFC championship? Probably not, but you can't say for certainty what the score at half time would have been had the Pats been following the rules and therefore, how the Colts might have played differently. And if the Pats were cheating the system against the Colts twice, then it's probable they cheated against the Ravens that they barely beat in a close game and in earlier games in the season that allowed them home field advantage.

I'm not one to beat on the "role models" issue, typically, but I do find it sad that a generation of kids in New England are parroting talk show host talking points that cheating doesn't matter if it didn't change the outcome or that cheating is okay when you think that everyone else does it. Sports are valuable for the life lessons taught by players overcoming adversity and playing with great sportsmanship. The Bill and Brady do a disservice by not admitting fault.

[Kathy]

Using the "reaction of the media" to gauge meaningfulness is akin to seeing kids swarm to cotton candy and deducing it must be nutritious.

I would deduce only that cotton candy is tasty.

[Kathy]

Using the "reaction of the media" to gauge meaningfulness is akin to seeing kids swarm to cotton candy and deducing it must be nutritious.

I would deduce only that cotton candy is tasty.

[stupac2]

Pats apologists are cracking me up on this issue. There's a reason the rules require the balls to be inflated to a certain level and the Pats/Brady are breaking the rule because it benefits their team. If the ball deflation didn't matter, then why are they doing it? That's right, because it gives them a benefit in their offense to have receivers catch, running backs carry, and QBs throw balls that are under-inflated. The Colts raised the issue when they played back in early November, so there's a pattern.

Did the deflation impact the binary outcome of the AFC championship? Probably not, but you can't say for certainty what the score at half time would have been had the Pats been following the rules and therefore, how the Colts might have played differently. And if the Pats were cheating the system against the Colts twice, then it's probable they cheated against the Ravens that they barely beat in a close game and in earlier games in the season that allowed them home field advantage.

I'm not one to beat on the "role models" issue, typically, but I do find it sad that a generation of kids in New England are parroting talk show host talking points that cheating doesn't matter if it didn't change the outcome or that cheating is okay when you think that everyone else does it. Sports are valuable for the life lessons taught by players overcoming adversity and playing with great sportsmanship. The Bill and Brady do a disservice by not admitting fault.

Belichick did a press conference earlier that explained it. In the process of roughing up/breaking in the ball, the ball gets heated up (he actually didn't say that, I just inferred it because that's the most logical explanation, but something happens to the ball to increase the pressure). They then ask the refs to set the pressure to 12.5 PSI, which the refs do. Then, because the ball is artificially warm from the roughing, it comes down like 1.5 PSI when you bring it out into the cold. The intent was never to have the balls be deflated, it's just a byproduct of the way they're worked.

Anyway, I'm not defending cheating per se, it's just that I don't think that, even if they were trying to sneak deflated balls past the refs (which they weren't), that that's actually cheating. I guess it depends on your definition of "cheating" so to some extent it's just semantics, but given that it didn't even happen that way it's all moot.

Of course, since the actual driver of this is just that a bunch of people really don't like the Patriots, I'm going to guess that basically no one will be mollified.

[stupac2]

Pats apologists are cracking me up on this issue. There's a reason the rules require the balls to be inflated to a certain level and the Pats/Brady are breaking the rule because it benefits their team. If the ball deflation didn't matter, then why are they doing it? That's right, because it gives them a benefit in their offense to have receivers catch, running backs carry, and QBs throw balls that are under-inflated. The Colts raised the issue when they played back in early November, so there's a pattern.

Did the deflation impact the binary outcome of the AFC championship? Probably not, but you can't say for certainty what the score at half time would have been had the Pats been following the rules and therefore, how the Colts might have played differently. And if the Pats were cheating the system against the Colts twice, then it's probable they cheated against the Ravens that they barely beat in a close game and in earlier games in the season that allowed them home field advantage.

I'm not one to beat on the "role models" issue, typically, but I do find it sad that a generation of kids in New England are parroting talk show host talking points that cheating doesn't matter if it didn't change the outcome or that cheating is okay when you think that everyone else does it. Sports are valuable for the life lessons taught by players overcoming adversity and playing with great sportsmanship. The Bill and Brady do a disservice by not admitting fault.

Belichick did a press conference earlier that explained it. In the process of roughing up/breaking in the ball, the ball gets heated up (he actually didn't say that, I just inferred it because that's the most logical explanation, but something happens to the ball to increase the pressure). They then ask the refs to set the pressure to 12.5 PSI, which the refs do. Then, because the ball is artificially warm from the roughing, it comes down like 1.5 PSI when you bring it out into the cold. The intent was never to have the balls be deflated, it's just a byproduct of the way they're worked.

Anyway, I'm not defending cheating per se, it's just that I don't think that, even if they were trying to sneak deflated balls past the refs (which they weren't), that that's actually cheating. I guess it depends on your definition of "cheating" so to some extent it's just semantics, but given that it didn't even happen that way it's all moot.

Of course, since the actual driver of this is just that a bunch of people really don't like the Patriots, I'm going to guess that basically no one will be mollified.

[dabigv13]

The twisted pretzels of logic Patriots fans get themselves into...

[dabigv13]

The twisted pretzels of logic Patriots fans get themselves into...

[CTcard]

There's a reason the rules require the balls to be inflated to a certain level  ...

I don't mean to take the Patriots', or anybody's, side on this, but I have been wondering if there really is such a reason.

Why not simply allow teams to inflate the ball to whatever level they want - and have each team supply the balls for when they are on offense? Wouldn't the game be the most watchable when the QB has the football they way he most likes it?

I suspect there is something I am missing. What is it?

[CTcard]

There's a reason the rules require the balls to be inflated to a certain level  ...

I don't mean to take the Patriots', or anybody's, side on this, but I have been wondering if there really is such a reason.

Why not simply allow teams to inflate the ball to whatever level they want - and have each team supply the balls for when they are on offense? Wouldn't the game be the most watchable when the QB has the football they way he most likes it?

I suspect there is something I am missing. What is it?

[stupac2]

I suspect there is something I am missing. What is it?

That there are a lot of people out there who really, really want to call the Patriots cheaters.

My guess is that the number was arbitrary. I mean, it needs to be something, right? But they can't care that much, because a ball that's inflated in a locker room then brought out onto a freezing field will very quickly be significantly below that pressure, and you're not allowed to heat them (and they'll go above on hot days too). So maintaining that internal pressure can't actually be very important to the NFL, it's more likely that they just picked some number that seemed reasonable.

[stupac2]

I suspect there is something I am missing. What is it?

That there are a lot of people out there who really, really want to call the Patriots cheaters.

My guess is that the number was arbitrary. I mean, it needs to be something, right? But they can't care that much, because a ball that's inflated in a locker room then brought out onto a freezing field will very quickly be significantly below that pressure, and you're not allowed to heat them (and they'll go above on hot days too). So maintaining that internal pressure can't actually be very important to the NFL, it's more likely that they just picked some number that seemed reasonable.

[CTcard]

[quote author=CTcard link=topic=11574.msg111666#msg111666 date=1422146381]I suspect there is something I am missing. What is it?

That there are a lot of people out there who really, really want to call the Patriots cheaters.
[/quote]

No.
The Pats are still cheaters. There is a rule, so they are required to follow the rule.
But that also doesn't mean this rule really should exist.

I mean, it needs to be something, right?

Why?

[CTcard]

[quote author=CTcard link=topic=11574.msg111666#msg111666 date=1422146381]I suspect there is something I am missing. What is it?

That there are a lot of people out there who really, really want to call the Patriots cheaters.
[/quote]

No.
The Pats are still cheaters. There is a rule, so they are required to follow the rule.
But that also doesn't mean this rule really should exist.

I mean, it needs to be something, right?

Why?

[CowboyIndian]

it comes down like 1.5 PSI when you bring it out into the cold.

It wasn't "cold" for that game....48-51 Fahrenheit.

[CowboyIndian]

it comes down like 1.5 PSI when you bring it out into the cold.

It wasn't "cold" for that game....48-51 Fahrenheit.

[CornFed]

And the Pats footballs were affected and the Colts balls mysteriously weren't?

[CornFed]

And the Pats footballs were affected and the Colts balls mysteriously weren't?

[stupac2]

[quote author=stupac2 link=topic=11574.msg111663#msg111663 date=1422144456]
it comes down like 1.5 PSI when you bring it out into the cold.

It wasn't "cold" for that game....48-51 Fahrenheit.
[/quote]

Colder than a locker room. An unaffiliated lab did an experiment that found that those conditions would cause an average of 1.8 PSI drop in the pressure: https://uploads.strikinglycdn.com/files/...teGate.pdf

And the Pats footballs were affected and the Colts balls mysteriously weren't?

There are two options there:

1) The Colts' balls were inflated higher to start with. If they were at 13.5 instead of 12.5 then any drops would leave them close to normal pressure.

2) No, they weren't, but their balls weren't tested. (I haven't heard anything about whether theirs were tested.)

No.
The Pats are still cheaters. There is a rule, so they are required to follow the rule.
But that also doesn't mean this rule really should exist.

...What? All the available evidence that we have right now says that no, they aren't. They did nothing wrong and this whole thing has been a bunch of hot air.

Why?

¯\_(ツ)_/¯

It's the NFL, they regulate what color cleats you can wear. It's not at all surprising that they'd feel the need to pick some reasonable pressure and make that the rule just so that there is a rule.

[stupac2]

[quote author=stupac2 link=topic=11574.msg111663#msg111663 date=1422144456]
it comes down like 1.5 PSI when you bring it out into the cold.

It wasn't "cold" for that game....48-51 Fahrenheit.
[/quote]

Colder than a locker room. An unaffiliated lab did an experiment that found that those conditions would cause an average of 1.8 PSI drop in the pressure: https://uploads.strikinglycdn.com/files/...teGate.pdf

And the Pats footballs were affected and the Colts balls mysteriously weren't?

There are two options there:

1) The Colts' balls were inflated higher to start with. If they were at 13.5 instead of 12.5 then any drops would leave them close to normal pressure.

2) No, they weren't, but their balls weren't tested. (I haven't heard anything about whether theirs were tested.)

No.
The Pats are still cheaters. There is a rule, so they are required to follow the rule.
But that also doesn't mean this rule really should exist.

...What? All the available evidence that we have right now says that no, they aren't. They did nothing wrong and this whole thing has been a bunch of hot air.

Why?

¯\_(ツ)_/¯

It's the NFL, they regulate what color cleats you can wear. It's not at all surprising that they'd feel the need to pick some reasonable pressure and make that the rule just so that there is a rule.

[dabigv13]

So it gets a little lower when you bring it out in the cold, but presumably they measured it again at room temp. I'm not a physicist but I have to believe when it warms up again the pressure comes back up.

[dabigv13]

So it gets a little lower when you bring it out in the cold, but presumably they measured it again at room temp. I'm not a physicist but I have to believe when it warms up again the pressure comes back up.

[stupac2]

So it gets a little lower when you bring it out in the cold, but presumably they measured it again at room temp. I'm not a physicist but I have to believe when it warms up again the pressure comes back up.

Depends when it was measured. They've said it was done during halftime, which is 15 minutes in the NFL. That's not very much time for equilibrium. They also may have been measured on the field, we just don't know right now.

[stupac2]

So it gets a little lower when you bring it out in the cold, but presumably they measured it again at room temp. I'm not a physicist but I have to believe when it warms up again the pressure comes back up.

Depends when it was measured. They've said it was done during halftime, which is 15 minutes in the NFL. That's not very much time for equilibrium. They also may have been measured on the field, we just don't know right now.

[BostonCard]

OK, let's do the math.  Here are the known facts:

Temperature at Gameday was 51 degrees F, which is 283.7 K

The pressure minimum is 12.5 psi (86 kPA)

The pressure in 11 of the 12 balls was found to be 2 PSI below the minimum pressure, which would be 10.5 psi (72.4 kPA)

Assuming that the volume of a football is fixed*, then we know that P/T must be a constant, which we know from the halftime measurement is  72.4 KPa/283.7 K = 0.255 KPa/degK.

If those balls were inspected 2 hrs before the game, and barely passed with 12.5 pSI (86 kPA), then the internal temperature must have been at least 86 kPa/0.255/degK = 336.5 K, which is 63 degrees C, which is 146 degrees F.

No amount of handling the football, unless they put it in an oven, would have gotten the internal temperature up to 146 degrees.

BC

* Note, the volume of the football is probably slightly dependent on the pressure, so the volume would have been lower at the lower pressure.  That means that the temperature would have had to be even higher than 146 F for the balls to pass the inspection.  Basically, I can see only a few possible ways that the observed facts could have happened.  The assumption of fixced volume, therefore, is conservative.

1) The balls were underpressured when they were inspected before the game, and the referees didn't really pay attention.

2) The balls were heated to 60+ degrees C right before the inspection so they could pass the inspection, and then naturally cooled and the pressure dropped.  60 degrees would have been noticeably hot, and this approach ran the risk that the balls cooled enough to drop below the minimum.  But if this is what happened, the Pats found a way to legally get around the letter of the law, if not the spirit.

3) At some point between inspection and halftime, air was let out of the balls.

I'm willing to entertain other explanations, but gameday temperature alone cannot explain the results.  Sorry.

BC

[BostonCard]

OK, let's do the math.  Here are the known facts:

Temperature at Gameday was 51 degrees F, which is 283.7 K

The pressure minimum is 12.5 psi (86 kPA)

The pressure in 11 of the 12 balls was found to be 2 PSI below the minimum pressure, which would be 10.5 psi (72.4 kPA)

Assuming that the volume of a football is fixed*, then we know that P/T must be a constant, which we know from the halftime measurement is  72.4 KPa/283.7 K = 0.255 KPa/degK.

If those balls were inspected 2 hrs before the game, and barely passed with 12.5 pSI (86 kPA), then the internal temperature must have been at least 86 kPa/0.255/degK = 336.5 K, which is 63 degrees C, which is 146 degrees F.

No amount of handling the football, unless they put it in an oven, would have gotten the internal temperature up to 146 degrees.

BC

* Note, the volume of the football is probably slightly dependent on the pressure, so the volume would have been lower at the lower pressure.  That means that the temperature would have had to be even higher than 146 F for the balls to pass the inspection.  Basically, I can see only a few possible ways that the observed facts could have happened.  The assumption of fixced volume, therefore, is conservative.

1) The balls were underpressured when they were inspected before the game, and the referees didn't really pay attention.

2) The balls were heated to 60+ degrees C right before the inspection so they could pass the inspection, and then naturally cooled and the pressure dropped.  60 degrees would have been noticeably hot, and this approach ran the risk that the balls cooled enough to drop below the minimum.  But if this is what happened, the Pats found a way to legally get around the letter of the law, if not the spirit.

3) At some point between inspection and halftime, air was let out of the balls.

I'm willing to entertain other explanations, but gameday temperature alone cannot explain the results.  Sorry.

BC

[VFRing98]

Thanks BC. This science stuff is hard for the rest of us.

It is amazing to see folks swallow whole the BS Belicheat and Brady are shoveling. Maybe not amazing, really - sports fans are almost by nature somewhat delusional. And I'm including myself in that category. But c'mon, people.

[VFRing98]

Thanks BC. This science stuff is hard for the rest of us.

It is amazing to see folks swallow whole the BS Belicheat and Brady are shoveling. Maybe not amazing, really - sports fans are almost by nature somewhat delusional. And I'm including myself in that category. But c'mon, people.

[SeattleTree]

An AFC defensive coach told SI.com the following, which perfectly captures my feelings on the matter:

An AFC defensive coach told me: “It pisses us off. We’re talking about the integrity of the game, respect for the game. That should mean something to you. You don’t have to look for every gray area to exploit. It’s like the ineligible player thing. [The Ravens complained that the Patriots were working too fast when players were reporting as ineligible and not allowing the defense time to change personnel, as is required.] That violates the spirit of the rule.

“[Belichick] is a great coach, and they are a great team. It’s just a shame that they feel the need to do these things. If you don’t respect the game, I lose respect for you.”

http://mmqb.si.com/2015/01/22/deflategat...onference/

Belichick and Brady can deny all they want -- and seriously, did you expect them to wink and say "You caught us!" -- but the air didn't let it itself out of the Patriots' footballs and the "scientific" explanation doesn't hold up to scrutiny.  Additionally, this behavior is completely consistent with prior actions of the Belichick-led Patriots.  Belichick is a great football tactician, but even if he didn't order it done, he created an atmosphere in the organization that allowed it to happen. 

[SeattleTree]

An AFC defensive coach told SI.com the following, which perfectly captures my feelings on the matter:

An AFC defensive coach told me: “It pisses us off. We’re talking about the integrity of the game, respect for the game. That should mean something to you. You don’t have to look for every gray area to exploit. It’s like the ineligible player thing. [The Ravens complained that the Patriots were working too fast when players were reporting as ineligible and not allowing the defense time to change personnel, as is required.] That violates the spirit of the rule.

“[Belichick] is a great coach, and they are a great team. It’s just a shame that they feel the need to do these things. If you don’t respect the game, I lose respect for you.”

http://mmqb.si.com/2015/01/22/deflategat...onference/

Belichick and Brady can deny all they want -- and seriously, did you expect them to wink and say "You caught us!" -- but the air didn't let it itself out of the Patriots' footballs and the "scientific" explanation doesn't hold up to scrutiny.  Additionally, this behavior is completely consistent with prior actions of the Belichick-led Patriots.  Belichick is a great football tactician, but even if he didn't order it done, he created an atmosphere in the organization that allowed it to happen. 

[stupac2]

OK, let's do the math.  Here are the known facts:

Temperature at Gameday was 51 degrees F, which is 283.7 K

The pressure minimum is 12.5 psi (86 kPA)

The pressure in 11 of the 12 balls was found to be 2 PSI below the minimum pressure, which would be 10.5 psi (72.4 kPA)

Assuming that the volume of a football is fixed*, then we know that P/T must be a constant, which we know from the halftime measurement is  72.4 KPa/283.7 K = 0.255 KPa/degK.

If those balls were inspected 2 hrs before the game, and barely passed with 12.5 pSI (86 kPA), then the internal temperature must have been at least 86 kPa/0.255/degK = 336.5 K, which is 63 degrees C, which is 146 degrees F.

No amount of handling the football, unless they put it in an oven, would have gotten the internal temperature up to 146 degrees.

BC

* Note, the volume of the football is probably slightly dependent on the pressure, so the volume would have been lower at the lower pressure.  That means that the temperature would have had to be even higher than 146 F for the balls to pass the inspection.  Basically, I can see only a few possible ways that the observed facts could have happened.  The assumption of fixced volume, therefore, is conservative.

1) The balls were underpressured when they were inspected before the game, and the referees didn't really pay attention.

2) The balls were heated to 60+ degrees C right before the inspection so they could pass the inspection, and then naturally cooled and the pressure dropped.  60 degrees would have been noticeably hot, and this approach ran the risk that the balls cooled enough to drop below the minimum.  But if this is what happened, the Pats found a way to legally get around the letter of the law, if not the spirit.

3) At some point between inspection and halftime, air was let out of the balls.

I'm willing to entertain other explanations, but gameday temperature alone cannot explain the results.  Sorry.

BC

This is wrong. You're measuring gauge pressure, when what you care about is absolute pressure.* You need to add in atmospheric pressure, for the same reason you can't use F in the calculations. Atmospheric pressure is around 14.5 PSI, meaning instead of 10.5/12.5 you're doing 25/27, which means the drop is more like 8%. The change in temperature is about 4% so it's still higher, but is it so hard to believe that you can get another 4% change out of rubbing/evaporative cooling/whatever else? Anyway, since an unaffiliated lab actually did the experiment and found the 2 PSI change, are you calling them incompetent or liars? I can get not trusting the Patriots staff, but seriously? Read that link.


*Incidentally, I wasn't able to convince myself of this until the morning, and my main mental block was that footballs (and tires, and basically everything you pressurize with a pump) is a bladder of some sort so it expands. Think instead of a completely sealed metal box, no expansion. You open it to the atmosphere, seal it, then put your pump on it. Does the pump read 14.5 PSI? No, it doesn't. But if you're doing the gas law calculations, that's the pressure in there, very clearly. I mean, it's not 0, there are atoms in there, but the gauge is reading 0! It's because the gauge is telling you what you normally care about, which is pressure relative to the outside environment, but what you actually care about here is the absolute pressure, which no gauge (unless you work with vacuum systems) will tell you.

[stupac2]

OK, let's do the math.  Here are the known facts:

Temperature at Gameday was 51 degrees F, which is 283.7 K

The pressure minimum is 12.5 psi (86 kPA)

The pressure in 11 of the 12 balls was found to be 2 PSI below the minimum pressure, which would be 10.5 psi (72.4 kPA)

Assuming that the volume of a football is fixed*, then we know that P/T must be a constant, which we know from the halftime measurement is  72.4 KPa/283.7 K = 0.255 KPa/degK.

If those balls were inspected 2 hrs before the game, and barely passed with 12.5 pSI (86 kPA), then the internal temperature must have been at least 86 kPa/0.255/degK = 336.5 K, which is 63 degrees C, which is 146 degrees F.

No amount of handling the football, unless they put it in an oven, would have gotten the internal temperature up to 146 degrees.

BC

* Note, the volume of the football is probably slightly dependent on the pressure, so the volume would have been lower at the lower pressure.  That means that the temperature would have had to be even higher than 146 F for the balls to pass the inspection.  Basically, I can see only a few possible ways that the observed facts could have happened.  The assumption of fixced volume, therefore, is conservative.

1) The balls were underpressured when they were inspected before the game, and the referees didn't really pay attention.

2) The balls were heated to 60+ degrees C right before the inspection so they could pass the inspection, and then naturally cooled and the pressure dropped.  60 degrees would have been noticeably hot, and this approach ran the risk that the balls cooled enough to drop below the minimum.  But if this is what happened, the Pats found a way to legally get around the letter of the law, if not the spirit.

3) At some point between inspection and halftime, air was let out of the balls.

I'm willing to entertain other explanations, but gameday temperature alone cannot explain the results.  Sorry.

BC

This is wrong. You're measuring gauge pressure, when what you care about is absolute pressure.* You need to add in atmospheric pressure, for the same reason you can't use F in the calculations. Atmospheric pressure is around 14.5 PSI, meaning instead of 10.5/12.5 you're doing 25/27, which means the drop is more like 8%. The change in temperature is about 4% so it's still higher, but is it so hard to believe that you can get another 4% change out of rubbing/evaporative cooling/whatever else? Anyway, since an unaffiliated lab actually did the experiment and found the 2 PSI change, are you calling them incompetent or liars? I can get not trusting the Patriots staff, but seriously? Read that link.


*Incidentally, I wasn't able to convince myself of this until the morning, and my main mental block was that footballs (and tires, and basically everything you pressurize with a pump) is a bladder of some sort so it expands. Think instead of a completely sealed metal box, no expansion. You open it to the atmosphere, seal it, then put your pump on it. Does the pump read 14.5 PSI? No, it doesn't. But if you're doing the gas law calculations, that's the pressure in there, very clearly. I mean, it's not 0, there are atoms in there, but the gauge is reading 0! It's because the gauge is telling you what you normally care about, which is pressure relative to the outside environment, but what you actually care about here is the absolute pressure, which no gauge (unless you work with vacuum systems) will tell you.

[dabigv13]

Stupac, honestly, you don't see any intent here by the Patriots to skirt the rules?

[dabigv13]

Stupac, honestly, you don't see any intent here by the Patriots to skirt the rules?