The only reason the Patriots could be so successful in the rain and snow is because of cheating. The fact that they practice hard with wet balls for conditions like that has nothing to do with it. Any team that uses purposely deflated balls in the rain and snow would do as well as the Patriots.
2
I'd like to know whether there was a statistically significant difference in the Pats success in beating the odds between Home and Away games in the rain. If the 80% success rate is about the same Home and Away, that would indicate a Team-based problem; if the success rate is higher at Home than away, that might indicate a Stadium (local)- based problem.
I am thinking back to Mars Blackman and the Air Jordan/Nike commercials.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BhHONpmlxPc
How do these Patriots win? Must be the footballs.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BhHONpmlxPc
How do these Patriots win? Must be the footballs.
1
Must read: warren sharpe analysis: all teams, plays run and fumbles per plays run, basically a metric of of how successful a team over years hold on to the ball for all the plays run. Look I cannot do justice to warren sharpe here. It's a must read though. One little quote
"
Which in layman’s terms means that this result only being a coincidence, is like winning a raffle where you have a 0.0000616 probability to win. Which in other words, it’s very unlikely that it’s a coincidence."
The patriots are off the charts, they blew the curve, there has to be a reason. Forget cold or rain, the pats always grip the ball better than any other team and they grip the ball better way better, uncanny better, got to be a reason better. Now there may be reasons other than defatting footballs- warren lists some, but with all other analysis going on, you just owe it to your self to read warren sharpe. The man has his own blog. I found the analysis on Slate, I think the National Review picked it up too. I am a pats fan, but have they been doing a football version of corking the bat like Pete Rose. Will B+B's lock on the hall of fame turn into a lock out? All could get ugly for us pats fans.
"
Which in layman’s terms means that this result only being a coincidence, is like winning a raffle where you have a 0.0000616 probability to win. Which in other words, it’s very unlikely that it’s a coincidence."
The patriots are off the charts, they blew the curve, there has to be a reason. Forget cold or rain, the pats always grip the ball better than any other team and they grip the ball better way better, uncanny better, got to be a reason better. Now there may be reasons other than defatting footballs- warren lists some, but with all other analysis going on, you just owe it to your self to read warren sharpe. The man has his own blog. I found the analysis on Slate, I think the National Review picked it up too. I am a pats fan, but have they been doing a football version of corking the bat like Pete Rose. Will B+B's lock on the hall of fame turn into a lock out? All could get ugly for us pats fans.
How about we study the effects of Seattle's stadium, supposedly designed to amplify sound and give the team a competitive edge; or how their lack of a dome in rainy Seattle gives them an edgle over teams not playing in a rainforest week after week? I bet a good journalist could have a field day going through the league examining all the tricks and efforts made by teams to gain an edge, silly and otherwise. Let's get a little perspective.
1
This kind of data analysis is really just creative writing. It's interesting how no one is really looking at how little the PSI difference may actually matter. How each QB has a recipe for prepping 'his' balls, but it probably results in nothing more than their own psychological comfort. The news leaks from the NFL and the Fox News-like coverage from ex-jocks has created a one-sided media frenzy. What about a little focus on Goodell's possible over-reaction and how he's been played? The motives on the other side of the ball are compelling, and driving things. Even if this is a punishable offense — even ultimately without further evidence how or why it happened — it's a small infraction, a fine, and yet it's now been turned into something Goodall, for personal reasons, must treat like some monumental scandal.
1
I don't see the advantage to intentionally deflating game balls. If you've ever thrown a deflated football,(significantly off in it's mfg recommended PSI.) you soon learn it loses some of it's aerodynamic qualities and you lose the ability to have fingertip control. A throw is a combination of transferring energy from the legs, to the adding arm strength and hand to the fingers where the ball rolls off of your finger tips. If anything, deflated balls would be a disadvantage IMO.
Having said that, the solution is simple. Don't check game balls in a temp controlled environment, but rather in the temperature conditions they will be used in.
Having said that, the solution is simple. Don't check game balls in a temp controlled environment, but rather in the temperature conditions they will be used in.
4
I am a Pats fan. Wonder why they do so well in the cold,rain and snow? They practice in it! They have that advantage because they prepare plus they are good. Their weakness? They don't play well in the heat and humidity of Miami. Their record over the years there proves it.Many dome teams struggle on the road in cold weather over the years. Belicheck is a fanatic about ball security. Many players have had short stays in NE because they couldn't hold on to the ball.
The Colts, while improved, are not that good. The Pats destroyed them at Indy earlier this year . The Colts were embarrassed by Steelers and Cowboys this year. They played in a very weak division this year and were fortunate to play the Bengals and Denver with an injured Peyton Manning.
The Colts, while improved, are not that good. The Pats destroyed them at Indy earlier this year . The Colts were embarrassed by Steelers and Cowboys this year. They played in a very weak division this year and were fortunate to play the Bengals and Denver with an injured Peyton Manning.
10
The whole controversy is a product of media hype and in my view is way underblown!!!
8
This is a completely nutty article - more in line with UFOs and alien kidnappings!
4
Institutional cheating. If the Deflatriots win the Super Bowl the NFL should forgo the trophy presentation.
80% versus the spread over that length of time is unheard of. As someone who studies the football betting lie as a hobby, any better who can achieve 60% is essentially "killing it." It sounds pretty damning to me.
1
538 did the same analysis and came to the opposite conclusion.
2
While other teams are practicing under ideal conditions, Belichick is not. When it rains or snows in Foxboro they drill outside, not in the bubble. There is a reason they are always a the top of the league in fewest turnovers, and it not due to deflated balls. Belichick was the first to introduce large speakers with loud music into practices, not they all do it. Considering the Patriots have been on the field 43% of the time during the past 10 Super Bowls, there is plenty of hate to go around.
10
You are absolutely correct about practicing in bad weather. Explains why UMass, Harvard and BC are always at the top of the NCAA.
2
It's about beating the spread. Winning isn't enough. You have to satisfy the bookies.
Let’s expand on the teams and coaches in the background here. Harbaugh of the Ravens and the Indianapolis Colts. Both are known for being sore losers and cheating at the NFL home office level.
Harbaugh , whose defenses always seem to have players known for their almost criminal intent to maim or disable opposing players, plays the borderlines of fair play with their attempts to knockout opponents star players. I would call that cheating and far beyond the intent of rules about “ unsportsmanlike conduct.” Or fair play.
The Colts were known in the past to turn up the volume of their PA systems to confuse and make it almost impossible for opposing teams to hear their signals. I believe the Colt owners manipulated the NFL governing rules, ( in direct response to games where their receivers were aggressively grabbed and hit by the Pats during playoff games). I would call that executive cheating .
This all points to the fact that at the NFL office level , there is a huge lack of Fair play. Some would call it cheating.
Harbaugh , whose defenses always seem to have players known for their almost criminal intent to maim or disable opposing players, plays the borderlines of fair play with their attempts to knockout opponents star players. I would call that cheating and far beyond the intent of rules about “ unsportsmanlike conduct.” Or fair play.
The Colts were known in the past to turn up the volume of their PA systems to confuse and make it almost impossible for opposing teams to hear their signals. I believe the Colt owners manipulated the NFL governing rules, ( in direct response to games where their receivers were aggressively grabbed and hit by the Pats during playoff games). I would call that executive cheating .
This all points to the fact that at the NFL office level , there is a huge lack of Fair play. Some would call it cheating.
8
Who knew the Patriot fans were so creative?
Why are we not told what their record is in dry games and how often they beat the spread then? We all know the Patriots usually win, and often win big. So separating out just the wet games and say "Look, they won and they won big"
is just not at all convincing of any sort of anomaly. To keep things more even, since their home field is often wet, why not compare their home dry games to their home wet games? This article is very superficial.
is just not at all convincing of any sort of anomaly. To keep things more even, since their home field is often wet, why not compare their home dry games to their home wet games? This article is very superficial.
3
How do those masters of honesty, the gambling crowd, explain the lopsided Seahawk victory over the Broncos last Super Bowl? The Seahawks must have cheated, because you can't beat the spread that badly. The Vegas crowd is just smart to be fooled. How did Carroll do it? We know he was a cheater at USC. The question is, how did he do it?
The cracker jack print journalists and talking mouths on cable need to dig into this scandal. The Seahawks should be forced to give the big trophy to the Broncos, who obviously didn't cheat. Just like the Colts couldn't have been cheating last week, because you can't play as poorly as either the Broncos and Colts did unless you are playing according to the rules.
The cracker jack print journalists and talking mouths on cable need to dig into this scandal. The Seahawks should be forced to give the big trophy to the Broncos, who obviously didn't cheat. Just like the Colts couldn't have been cheating last week, because you can't play as poorly as either the Broncos and Colts did unless you are playing according to the rules.
5
As a long time Pats fan and football watcher, I find it ridiculous that the Patriots have been convicted in the court of public opinion without a shred of evidence that they deflated footballs. No one knows if the Colts were somehow warming their footballs on the sidelines, which is against NFL rules and would explain differences in the pressure of their footballs compared to the Pats. I was at that game and know how cold and wet it was. I also know how much my tire pressure varies depending on the ambient temperature. Let's wait for the NFL investigation before jumping to conclusions. I thought, like Tom Brady, that I had heard it all before a former NFL quarterback called for Bill Belichick to be suspended for one year. Now I have heard it all.
8
51° is cold?
Hmmm, the Patriots beat the Colts 42-20 at Indy. And the line for the game at NE was 7? Really? Why? Why would anyone think the Colts would be 15 points better on the road?
6
Statistics on Patriots plays per fumble may be revealing. http://goo.gl/vW3lxi
Could the Patriots be so good that they just defy the numbers? As my friend theorized: Perhaps they’ve invented a revolutionary in-house way to protect the ball, or perhaps they’ve intentionally stocked their skill positions with players who don’t have a propensity to fumble. Or perhaps, still, they call plays that intentionally result in a lower percentage of fumbles. Or maybe it’s just that they play with deflated footballs on offense. It could be any combination of the above.
Could the Patriots be so good that they just defy the numbers? As my friend theorized: Perhaps they’ve invented a revolutionary in-house way to protect the ball, or perhaps they’ve intentionally stocked their skill positions with players who don’t have a propensity to fumble. Or perhaps, still, they call plays that intentionally result in a lower percentage of fumbles. Or maybe it’s just that they play with deflated footballs on offense. It could be any combination of the above.
2
If you fumble the ball as a Patriot, you sit. Belichick is big on ball security. I don't know the ratio of pass to run the Pats use on a quarter by quarter basis, but that statistic would also matter. It matters because the PATs seem to run toward the end of the game when their backs are rested and more likely to hold onto the ball.
It's funny that the "smart money" in Vegas has no idea that the NFL has little idea what's going on with the game balls
2
Remember that the spread is largely a question of balancing a "banking book" of long and shorts with a sufficient locked in spread to provide a profit. The spread is really a measure of uncertainty, not the probability that the final point differential will equal the spread. In theory, the "book" should always cover the spread and there will always be outliers, but in the long-run, the book will win.
Lots pf people - especially TV journalists looking for a sensational story - conveniently confuse correlation with causation. Yes, those numbers may well be true, but there could be other reasons (causes) - perhaps - given the climate in Boston in the winter - and Belichick's policy of making things as hard as possible for his team during weekly practices - perhaps the Patriots are simply more adept in bad conditions - or perhaps the Patriot's short pass model works better in bad weather than their opponents - or . . , you get the point
3
Its a good bet if there is a way to cheat, the Patriots will find it. Sad that such a talented organization, talented QB has to cheat to win. Such a total lack of integrity from such a talented team, sad.
5
There is a difference between cheating and finding an edge. The initial response to the use of eligible/ineligible folks at the line was initially called cheating. "Spy gate" was a one game event at the start of the season, but the Patriots not only systematically crushed the rest of their opponents that year, their win percentage is actually higher than before the event. Let's face it, the Colts were humiliated and the final score, with more than half of the points scored after the half, is not indicative of ball tampering.
Could it be that "The Game of Throws" is going to become "The Game of Thrones"? You know, a bored game? Or that Brady will become the A-Rod of the NFL?
1
If enough evidence comes forth, Patriots should be given balls with 2 PSI greater than NFL guidelines for the Super Bowl. Sounds funny, but they should try it. That way, the group arguing it would not affect the outcome of the game can validate if they were correct or those arguing deflating balls is an advantage.
1
Why your post makes no sense: the impact is clearly not symmetric...Rodgers likes a more inflated ball and this would be a boost for him and he has stated that he and his organization has pushed that boundary; for Brady the reverse is true.
Each player treats the ball.
Each player has a preferred "optimum" for inflation. Moving the inflation level in just one direction will help some QBs and hurt others, so your "test" would have a predetermined outcome.
Each player treats the ball.
Each player has a preferred "optimum" for inflation. Moving the inflation level in just one direction will help some QBs and hurt others, so your "test" would have a predetermined outcome.
This whole issue is ridiculous. As a long time Pats fan and football watcher, the idea that the Pats would be convicted in the court of public opinion without a shred of evidence that anyone actually deflated the footballs runs contrary to our concepts of justice. The NFL appears to be doing the right thing to investigate what actually occurred. No one yet knows for certain what did occur. It may be that it will never be determined what actually transpired. In that case, it would only be fair that no penalty be assessed. Pressure inside an object like a football is extremely dependent on temperature. It is possible that the Colts footballs and the Pats footballs were stored at very different temperatures. I believe it is against NFL rules to heat footballs on the sidelines. Does anyone know for certain that the Colts footballs were not warmed? I was at the game and can tell you that my guests and I were cold and wet. All the rhetoric concerning this should be allowed to simmer down until cooler heads can make a rational decision. The idea that Bill Belichick should be suspended for a season is absurd. In Tom Brady's words "I thought I had heard it all."
13
Well after it's already 28-0 everything changes, no? The Colts are forced to be one dimensional, etc. No one is saying the Pats wouldn't have won with properly inflated balls. Just that they tried to gain an advantage in the cold and rain as this article seems to say just might be a regular practice of theirs.
I think that if you really analyze the Covers article it is obvious that the Patriots have been using deflated balls for many years. The proper punishment is to force Bob Kraft to sell his team (like Donald Sterling) along with a lifetime suspension for Brady and Belichick.
The so called court of public opinion is just that, opinion, therefore the decree 'innocent until proven guilty' doesn't hold water.
Having said that, Pats are one team which would push for the envelope every single time and then use the 'ignorance is bliss' to get out of the jam.
Having said that, Pats are one team which would push for the envelope every single time and then use the 'ignorance is bliss' to get out of the jam.
2
If the pressure in a football is as crucial as we are now being lead to believe, then why are the balls returned to the teams after the officials check them? Seems like it would make more sense for the league to maintain custody rather than let the teams tamper with them.
No one on the field handles the balls more frequently or for longer periods of time than the officials themselves. Why didn't they notice the under inflated balls?
Drue Bledsoe just told Anderson Cooper that he has very serious doubts that the officials actually test the pressure in every ball prior to the game, and he doesn't think anyone could tell if a ball was under inflated by a pound or two.
No one on the field handles the balls more frequently or for longer periods of time than the officials themselves. Why didn't they notice the under inflated balls?
Drue Bledsoe just told Anderson Cooper that he has very serious doubts that the officials actually test the pressure in every ball prior to the game, and he doesn't think anyone could tell if a ball was under inflated by a pound or two.
8
It would be interesting also to check the statistics for games played in very cold weather.
1
From what I have read, very approximately, the PATS are around 84% win rate under 33 degrees; and around 72% above 33 degrees. All of those figures are from memory, not contemporaneous research.
1
As usual, the NYTimes has its facts wrong. NFL rules did not change until 2006 so Brady and Pats would not have had a chance to manipulate the pigskin until then. But do not let that fact get in your way.
1
They should do well in wet weather if they are tossing softer Nerf balls.
One thing is certain: The New England Patriots have let the air out of this year's super bowl.
One thing is certain: The New England Patriots have let the air out of this year's super bowl.
3
That last sentence is PERFECT! You should get some kind of creative writing award........
2
They didn't win their way into the super bowl fair. They cheated. Period
charlotte shifflett
charlotte shifflett
This whole thing is ridiculous. The Pats scored 3 of their 5 touchdowns in the second half, when the game balls were not, I repeat, not, under inflated. If Brady was responsible for altering the pressure, wouldn't he do it for the second half game balls as well? And how do you explain that they scored the majority of their points in the second half with non-deflated balls? Also, if he deflated the balls, why would he leave one of the twelve ball at regulation pressure, and risk getting that ball thrown in to use during the game, thereby negating the advantage he was trying to have? If the games balls all started out at the lowest regulation pressure, 12.5 psi, then maybe a drop in atmospheric pressure due to the storm front that moved in, and a drop in temperature could have resulted in the pressure in the balls falling under the lower allowable pressure limit.
12
As has been stated endlessly, the footballs used by the Colts weren't adversely effected by the weather. New England's footballs were under-inflated because they were tampered with after they were inspected and deemed suitable for use. Someone cheated. You may think it's trivial, and many people would agree with that, but now they're lying, and lying is always problematic, ESPECIALLY in sports in general (which are meant to build character) and pro sports in particular (where enormous sums of money change hands).
Assume the balls were inflated indoor at 72 oF, the temperature in the stadium should have been -12 oF (i. e. 84 oF change) for a pressure drop of 2 psi from 12.5 psi (based on the ideal gas law). I read somewhere that the temperature was 50 oF on the game day.
2
A DROP in atmospheric pressure would cause the recorded pressure in the balls to RISE. This would be the same as taking the ball up to the top of a mountain where the ambient air pressure is lower. The pressure in the ball would rise.
It interesting that the most recent statement the NFL has made use the wording "slightly deflated footballs." Huge controversy indeed.
7
The Patriots and Tom Brady surprising do better than most team in all types of weather, on all types of surfaces, and in all types of stadiums.
11
Incidentally, the Patriots also do well playing in domes. They're 5-1 playing inside since 2009, and 18-7 playing inside since 2001. You could also look at what their record is outdoors in 70-75 degree weather or 25 degree weather or whatever. The Patriots have the best record in the entire NFL since 2001, 2003, 2004, or any date since Brady-Belichick era. One could ask whether "game" balls are the secret behind their success too.
9
But how are they versus the spread indoors? That's really the question.
1
Absolutely amazing that Belichick could not work his magic in Cleveland, isn't it?
Anyone who thinks that 1) anything happens "untoward" with the equipment of the Patriots that Bill Belichick doesn't approve of or want to happen, 2) that Tom Brady would admit, in a press conference, that he knowlingly used or asked for lower pressure in game balls obviously have no clue as to the zealous nature for winning that either man has.
As to how well athletes know their domains--
There is a story about the great Jerry Rick who was running routes on his home field after it had been restriped...He ran several sideline routes and was a step and half out of bounds on catches. He called the groundskeeper over and told him the field was too narrow. Of course, the man disagreed, said they had laid out the lines just like they were supposed to be...but lo and behold, when the tapes were brought and and used--the field was about 14" too narrow...
A master of his craft--Rice knew from years of practice what was "right."
And I guarantee you that Tom Brady did as well...
Could he throw as well with correct inflation??? Seems so--but maybe he feels more confident with the other, lesser-pressure footballs...
As to how well athletes know their domains--
There is a story about the great Jerry Rick who was running routes on his home field after it had been restriped...He ran several sideline routes and was a step and half out of bounds on catches. He called the groundskeeper over and told him the field was too narrow. Of course, the man disagreed, said they had laid out the lines just like they were supposed to be...but lo and behold, when the tapes were brought and and used--the field was about 14" too narrow...
A master of his craft--Rice knew from years of practice what was "right."
And I guarantee you that Tom Brady did as well...
Could he throw as well with correct inflation??? Seems so--but maybe he feels more confident with the other, lesser-pressure footballs...
2
Brady must be a very poor judge of football air pressure. The Pats scored more points in the second half with heavier balls. So much for craftsmanship.
1
For those who haven't followed this earth-shaking story quite as closely as us newly humbled Patriots fans, it's worth clarifying that after the footballs were inflated properly at halftime, the Patriots went on to outscore the Colts 28-0. And yet, cheating is cheating, if it occurred. Hope the NFL finds out the truth--and soon.
9
I would assume weather in New England would be worse than most other areas that the Patriots compete. Assuming a home court advantage why would they not play better in crappy weather?
8
Patriots are cheaters... class dismissed.
3
If anyone associated with the team tampered with the balls then the win should be vacated. You can't fine them enough to send the message the cheating will not be tolerated.
6
Correct me if I'm wrong, but from what I understand, the rule that allows each team to provide their own conditioned balls for each game is relatively recent. If so, it's pretty silly to bring this 'analysis' up in a way that is clearly meant to suggest a connection to the possibility that the Pats intentionally underinflated balls to gain an advantage in the poor conditions during the AFC championship game. Maybe the Patriots just have a good QB and a good coach and adjust better to poor conditions than other teams do. Or it could be magic. It's probably that.
24
I'm surprised no one has yet bothered to get 50 NFL regulation footballs, pump 10 of each with 10.5, 11.5, 12.5, 13.5, and 14.5 PSI and then have a handful of former and/or current NFL quarterbacks handle and throw them and do the equivalent of the Coke taste test. See if they can tell which are the more- and less-inflated ones.
I'd bet they'd be wrong far more than right. I'm guessing the PSI of a football is a negligible factor in performance, and a test like this might just prove this is much ado about nothing. Like driving 68mph in a 65 zone. Breaking the rules, but to no practical effect on anyone or anything.
I'd bet they'd be wrong far more than right. I'm guessing the PSI of a football is a negligible factor in performance, and a test like this might just prove this is much ado about nothing. Like driving 68mph in a 65 zone. Breaking the rules, but to no practical effect on anyone or anything.
18
Your perplexing hypothesis can only be explained by motivated reasoning. Ie, you must be a Pats fan. All current objective evidence points to the conclusion that there is indeed a significant difference.
2
ESPN did this with Mark Brunell and Jerome Bettis. They gave them 3 balls - one under-inflated, one standard and one over-inflated - and did not tell them which was which. Both Brunell and Bettis correctly identified the under/over balls.
1
Where is all this objective evidence?
1
In each and every game, rules are broken constantly and on purpose. How many illegal holds or blocks or contact do players get away with every game? If they are egregious and even if not caught by the refs, sometimes they are fined by the league. Yet, no one yells and screams about cheating. Talk about a double standard. If the league really wanted to rid itself of that ongoing intentional rule-breaking, they would level a heavy fine on player coach and team every time there was an infraction of any kind on the field. They don't and nobody cares. Every team breaks the rules every game, and if they get away with it, their fans rejoice. But you are going bananas on ball inflation? Get off your high horse and look at the facts from a real perspective.
32
False moral equivalence, in my opinion. Jaywalking and murder are both crimes, yet nobody would claim that since people get away with jaywalking, they should get away with murder. Also, I would respectfully argue with your assertion that a clipping penalty in a game is "cheating." And its certainly not programmatic, persistent cheating. Maybe an equivalence you are looking for is a steroid user, or a baseball player who corks his bat. Now imagine that being performed for all the bats on a team by management. Would that be acceptable? Not to me.
14
Semantics. A low blow resulting in "clipping" (or whatever they call it now) is sometimes just missing your aim and sometimes pushing the envelope of the rules with a willingness to cross over into illegal territory. In the latter case, many people would feel that is a form of cheating. And how would that behavior--those calls occur in every game--be less "persistent" than what the Patriots are being accused of here?
3
"Also, I would respectfully argue with your assertion that a clipping penalty in a game is "cheating."
<=== your reasoning has merit, but clipping is a lousy example: that rule exists to prevent catastrophic injury. While the penalty for violation is small, the consequences of a bad outcome can end a career. So the punishment doesn't really fit the potential outcome of the crime. To that extent, clipping is not a great example and calling it cheating is not that far away from reality.
<=== your reasoning has merit, but clipping is a lousy example: that rule exists to prevent catastrophic injury. While the penalty for violation is small, the consequences of a bad outcome can end a career. So the punishment doesn't really fit the potential outcome of the crime. To that extent, clipping is not a great example and calling it cheating is not that far away from reality.
So did Jack Nicklaus.
Do we now need to check his golf balls? Or his clubs' grooves? Maybe the length of his spikes?
Do we now need to check his golf balls? Or his clubs' grooves? Maybe the length of his spikes?
Couldn't be related to good coaching right? Good coaching that puts players in similar game and weather conditions (to the extent possible) that BB puts his players through?
Nah, couldn't be that.
Nah, couldn't be that.
29
Then he was a BAD coach in Cleveland?
A lot of the discussion concerning the Patriot's under inflated footballs has veered into "scientific" conjecture about weather, temperature effecting the balls, blah, blah, blah......but to me the Pats were caught red-handed. Just like when Sammy Sosa's bat broke and....lo and behold....there's cork in it! Whoops!!!
5
Red-handed?! Please explain the chain of custody fully--who decides what football to use in the game, at what time. I've sampled a good amount of the coverage of this "scandal," and no journalist has even attempted to answer this question. It's crucial--essential--to determining if deflating balls gives any material advantage to one side or the other. Until this question is addressed, this whole issue is just more hysterical "I hate the Patriots" theater. Everyone outside New England hates the Patriots, and all sports writers know that. Soon, hopefully, another execrable "-gate" word will exit the lexicon. But given the Glantz article here, I expect Belichick will be accused of manipulating the weather, and we'll have a new "-gate."
8
George: you are spot on...I've read a number of articles on this issue and the preponderance of what has been printed is pure conjecture, often treated as fact. The only facts really in hand are that some balls have low pressure with no factual basis for proving either human or natural (perfect gas law) agency. The rest reads like a plague of hysteria sweeping an 18th century convent.
1
The suggestion that the Patriots have consistently done well in wet weather due to chronically under-inflated footballs is ridiculous. Aside from the fact that the officials during a game would surely notice something once in a while, the Pats played much better in the second half of the AFC title game, scoring most of their points with the re-inflated footballs.
19
The NFL is too busy monitoring the players' clothing and celebrations to notice anything that might actually affect the outcome of a game.
8
Help a novice, please. Don't BOTH teams get their hands on the football? If there aren't MY footballs for MY team, THEIRS for THEM, why don't both teams benefit from this improvement in ball handling? Unless the Patriots practice so much with deflated footballs (and control-freak coaches aren't aware of this?) then how is one team favored by this deflated ball? And don't the refs handle the ball after each play, so they don't notice either? This begs for logic....
3
Each team uses its own set of footballs on offense, prepared according to the QB's preferences.
5
Each Quarterback chooses 12 footballs for their respective offense. Each offense does not use the same set of footballs. That is the normal set up as I understand it.
6
Each team has its own footballs for its offense.
2
Multiple referees touch, handle and place the ball before EVERY play.
This is de facto and explicit approval of ball by NFL officials assigned to work the game.
There is no appeal or penalty possible, unless the NFL wants to say the referees are not competent at their jobs.
This is de facto and explicit approval of ball by NFL officials assigned to work the game.
There is no appeal or penalty possible, unless the NFL wants to say the referees are not competent at their jobs.
18
NFL refs are basically once a week contributors, they don't test the ball with the hand strength or repetition of knowledge found with an NFL Quarterback.
Stephan: while what you are saying has merit, it is the referees which have the ultimate responsibility for quality control. The referees handle the balls many times per game, the onus is on them to rule on equipment, but most especially the ball which they handle every game. The QB may be the subject matter expert, but his "feel" for proper inflation can't be that much more precise than the referee. If only the QB can feel that difference, then is this really a difference which makes a difference?
How come no one is talking about how a slightly deflated ball is also easier to catch...especially when wet. Any one who has played catch would know this. The receivers must have noticed something as well.
5
The Patriots play in an unenclosed stadium in a climate that is often cold and rainy in the fall. That experience factor likely gives them an advantage. It is a logical conclusion that fans have heard for many years during football broadcasts. Many other teams, especially in colder climes, play in covered ones. Or, they play in temperate conditions. So what the "report" here means is there appears to be a correlation between wet weather and Pats' successes. Do we need another lecture that causation is not correlation? This article falls below NYT standards.
26
There are other teams in the same conditions-the Green Bay Packers, the New York Giants and Jersey Jets, the Buffalo Bills. Yet they didn't seem to get any similar advantage by being outdoor, cold-weather teams. And the NYT did not state causation; in fact, they were careful to avoid such statements. Its hard to argue with these numbers. That is a straw man argument.
6
"Do we need another lecture that causation is not correlation? "
You've reversed the arrow of implication on that argument.
You've reversed the arrow of implication on that argument.
@Scott W,
Which numbers are hard to argue with, the ones the Times stated for the Pats or the ones you didn't state (because you don't know them) for the teams you mentioned? Of the cold weather outdoor teams, which also include the Bears, Browns, Steelers and Eagles and Broncos, the Pats are the only team that's had the same coach and the same quarterback since 2001 making them one of the most stable franchises in the league. Might that explain something?
Which numbers are hard to argue with, the ones the Times stated for the Pats or the ones you didn't state (because you don't know them) for the teams you mentioned? Of the cold weather outdoor teams, which also include the Bears, Browns, Steelers and Eagles and Broncos, the Pats are the only team that's had the same coach and the same quarterback since 2001 making them one of the most stable franchises in the league. Might that explain something?
3
You would think that under-inflated footballs would be easier to hold onto than fully inflated balls. Hence, rain or shine, fumble statistics should be revealing. In fact, since 2007, no team has fumbled less than the Patriots. I'm a Patriots fan. But this statistic, over the last 8 seasons, suggests dirty pool to me.
12
"I'm a Patriots fan. But this statistic, over the last 8 seasons, suggests dirty pool to me."
Your statement is preposterously useless: you have an output with no inputs. The ball was fumbled less, but it might have also been handed off less due to, I don't know, maybe a superior aerial attack, maybe due to superior running backs. Maybe the teams that did fumble used exactly legal Upper-bound-less.01/lbs pressure and the Pats used a precisely legal lower bound minus .01 lbs. Maybe the Pats were at a legal lower bound indoors and the ideal gas law bumped the figure down. Maybe the balls started legal but ended illegal after having a series of 250lb guys land on the ball.
There is a lot of room for conjecture and very few facts and the press had run away with this one building multiple castles on/in the sand. It may come to pass that the "truth" is never found as to how the balls got to their end state.
What I do know is that the Colts were humiliated and embarrassed and I seriously and strenuously doubt that a few pounds of air pressure made that many points difference.
Your statement is preposterously useless: you have an output with no inputs. The ball was fumbled less, but it might have also been handed off less due to, I don't know, maybe a superior aerial attack, maybe due to superior running backs. Maybe the teams that did fumble used exactly legal Upper-bound-less.01/lbs pressure and the Pats used a precisely legal lower bound minus .01 lbs. Maybe the Pats were at a legal lower bound indoors and the ideal gas law bumped the figure down. Maybe the balls started legal but ended illegal after having a series of 250lb guys land on the ball.
There is a lot of room for conjecture and very few facts and the press had run away with this one building multiple castles on/in the sand. It may come to pass that the "truth" is never found as to how the balls got to their end state.
What I do know is that the Colts were humiliated and embarrassed and I seriously and strenuously doubt that a few pounds of air pressure made that many points difference.
"Patriarchal Patriots Sear Seahawks!" (in the desert)
The sun will shine at XLIX on the Patriots.
Any questions from the "Squawkers?"
"Bagged birds go to the taxidermist--grounded in Glendale!"
The sun will shine at XLIX on the Patriots.
Any questions from the "Squawkers?"
"Bagged birds go to the taxidermist--grounded in Glendale!"
5
11 of 12 on one side of the field were deflated and 12 of 12 on the other side were not. How can a cheater be a hall of fame coach or quarterback? Are we going to put an asterisk beside their names? If cheating makes no difference why did they do it? I wonder what the two would be like as professional golfers who self enforce the rules and turn themselves in, even for in consequential violations.
1
The Patriots footballs are inflated to the minimum - 12.5psi - to start with. Do we know what the Colts' footballs are inflated to in the locker room before the game? If it was 13.5psi (the max), then it would make sense that losing 1psi on both sides would result in non-compliant footballs on the Patriots side, and compliant ones on the Colts side.
Unfortunately, the league has not been very forthcoming as of yet with all the information.
Unfortunately, the league has not been very forthcoming as of yet with all the information.
5
Show me the link proving that the Colts had 12 of 12 over the lower limit. Rodgers has already stated that he used to go for over inflation. Where is the hue and cry about that? Is it possible that the Colts balls were actually illegal at the start of the game and legal at the end due to weather-induced pressure loss?
1
A very simple fix to this nonsense about the balls: Have the officials choose the balls from a mixed bag supplied by both teams. Why should the rules permit each time to play only with its own balls?
3
Ken you ask a great question and offer a great solution. The NFL has created this controversy by allowing QBs to "condition" the balls to their taste by stripping factory coatings and scuffing them up to improve grip. Giving a range for inflation with no mechanism to monitor that inflation is a recipe for controversy. It is hard to believe the hue and cry over this "controversy" but your solution makes a certain amount of sense. A better solution would be to allow the treatments and then to sequester/control the two separate ball bags after initial inflation check.
All this deflated balls business is a mere sideshow to the real atrocity: Belichick is without question having the clouds around Gillette seeded prior to game days.
This in turn is leading to the melting of the polar ice caps. Belichick is the cause of climate change. Why can't anyone SEE this?
This in turn is leading to the melting of the polar ice caps. Belichick is the cause of climate change. Why can't anyone SEE this?
57
You might want to rethink that. There is less hot air in Pats footballs than in all the others. Belichick is a climate change champion. If other teams followed his lead, you could skate on the ice caps again.
3
A review by Sharp Football Analysis has revealed that, since 2007, the Patriots fumble the ball at a preternaturally low rate of once every 187 offensive snaps, far below the league average of once every 105 snaps. They calculated the odds of this occuring naturally was 16,233 to one.
14
Is that analysis being weighted for quality of the people handling the ball, e.g., a probable Hall of Fame quarterback? Sports "statistics" like this give little insight unless they examine other factors, such as coaching, player ability, etc. Maybe the team fumbles less because they have better players? It is well known that some players are more fumble prone than others, and part of this is coaching proper ball handling technique.
5
Could be good coaching too, coaching that tries to simulate game and weather conditions constantly, but let's not let that get in the way of the same in depth analysis we've seen from commentators, professional or otherwise, regarding this latest issue.
14
To all the Patriot partisans below: yes, the analysis does take all your objections into consideration, and came up with the 16,233 to one odds against coaching, player skill and experience, environment, etc, being the reason for the Patriots' low fumble rate.
4
Maybe that afterthought of a graf that mentions the Patriots have faced a preponderance of less-than-stellar opponents in wet weather ought to be moved a bit closer to the top of the story? And has a similar "analysis" been made of other teams with Hall of Fame-caliber quarterbacks? It wouldn't shock me to find similar numbers. But then, stories like these are obligatory for fueling the "scandal" meme, right? If it bleeds, it leads.
36
"And has a similar "analysis" been made of other teams with Hall of Fame-caliber quarterbacks? "
I would be interested in a comparison of the Pats vs other teams w/ HOF QBs whose home games are in domes vs those whose home games are outdoors.
I would be interested in a comparison of the Pats vs other teams w/ HOF QBs whose home games are in domes vs those whose home games are outdoors.
I hope you understand what "against the spread" means. The quality of opponent is included in that element, and yet the Patriots exceeded the spread with staggering lopsidedness. I have never seen a team beat the spread in such a situation 80% of the time, although that doesn't mean it hasn't happened somewhere, at some time, in the past.
10
Which since Spy Gate hasn't translated into SB winds for the Patiots. Or, playoff wins for that matter. Since Spy Gate Brady is 0-2 in SB's and 6-5 in playoffs. And he's playing against a defense that's allowed 15.3 points a game over the last three seasons and allowed the fewest yards passing and rushing. By Feb 2nd, He'll be 0-3.
Pats fans are loathe to admit it, but their hubris conceals what they know. They're facing a near legendary defense in Seattle and defense wins championships.
Pats fans are loathe to admit it, but their hubris conceals what they know. They're facing a near legendary defense in Seattle and defense wins championships.
The data is interesting but not conclusive, of course. More convincing to me of the fire behind all this smoke are the contradictory defenses and excuses for the irrefutable fact that the two teams last weekend played with differently inflated footballs. Let's ignore for the moment that the attempt to misdirect attention from the cheating to the score of one playoff game is a red herring.
Here is what I find interesting. One defense of the practice (though not from the current Patriots hierarchy) was that "everyone does it." Yet QB Brady says he knows nothing about the subject at all (and neither does his detail oriented head coach Bill Belichick). Well, which is it?
Also Brady has been explicit about preferring footballs with less pressure to those with more pressure. This would put him in the company of most NFL QBs. But at the same time, he allows that he could not discern the under-inflated balls he was throwing last week in the first half from the legal ones used in the second half. Well, which is it?
ESPN reporting does not help. To offer a "scientific explanation" about pressure lessening in the cold (like our tires) ignores the fact that the footballs were different for each team last weekend (and presumably in other games). Is there an ESPN agenda that permits such shoddy journalism? (When did Rupert Murdoch buy ESPN?)
How long until some poor schmuck takes the fall? What we know is that footballs were under-inflated. And we think we know why. But who dunnit?
Here is what I find interesting. One defense of the practice (though not from the current Patriots hierarchy) was that "everyone does it." Yet QB Brady says he knows nothing about the subject at all (and neither does his detail oriented head coach Bill Belichick). Well, which is it?
Also Brady has been explicit about preferring footballs with less pressure to those with more pressure. This would put him in the company of most NFL QBs. But at the same time, he allows that he could not discern the under-inflated balls he was throwing last week in the first half from the legal ones used in the second half. Well, which is it?
ESPN reporting does not help. To offer a "scientific explanation" about pressure lessening in the cold (like our tires) ignores the fact that the footballs were different for each team last weekend (and presumably in other games). Is there an ESPN agenda that permits such shoddy journalism? (When did Rupert Murdoch buy ESPN?)
How long until some poor schmuck takes the fall? What we know is that footballs were under-inflated. And we think we know why. But who dunnit?
11
Your mistake was in turning to ESPN for a "scientific explanation".
As to whether or not Tom could tell the difference between the first half balls and the second half balls: a QB gets the ball hiked to him in a high pressure situation, and must get rid of it in quick time, all while the various parts of his body (brain, eyes, ears, feet and legs) are doing several things at once. It was cold, windy and rainy. If Tom says he didn't sense that the ball was a couple of psi points less (we're not talking pounds, people! We're talking about a minuscule measurement!), then I believe him.
As to whether or not Tom could tell the difference between the first half balls and the second half balls: a QB gets the ball hiked to him in a high pressure situation, and must get rid of it in quick time, all while the various parts of his body (brain, eyes, ears, feet and legs) are doing several things at once. It was cold, windy and rainy. If Tom says he didn't sense that the ball was a couple of psi points less (we're not talking pounds, people! We're talking about a minuscule measurement!), then I believe him.
6
A little math perspective is in order here: 2003 - 2015 around 200 games total; number of games on which the 80% is based: 20. there is nothing here in these stats folks.
13
Games only in wet weather counted. Math perspective is in order indeed!
4
Additional perspective: 20 games is a season and a quarter. Not sure why that is insignificant and doesn't suggest a pattern, especially when the team's performance is so much better than in non-weather-impacted games. Most likely means the Pats play well in harsh weather -- not that they are chronic cheaters. But the stat does mean something.
1
Yes, true, but I'd still consider the 80% clip significant. If we assume that the Patriots had a 50% chance of beating the spread in each of the 20 games, the probability of them going 16-4 or better would be roughly 0.6%, or 6 out of 1000.
http://stattrek.com/online-calculator/binomial.aspx
http://stattrek.com/online-calculator/binomial.aspx
2
Not sure how reliable the spread is if the Patriots were only favored by 7 against the Colts after winning the three previous games against them by about 20 point each. Presumably at least some of those games had similarly "deflated" spreads.
7
The 'spread' (also known as the 'line') is not in of itself indicative of the relative merits of the two teams but rather the number that will get an equal amount of money on each side of the bet. Bookmakers do not gamble; the odds on a 'spread' football bet are 11-10 (lay 11 to collect 10) all the bookmaker wants to do is get an equal amount on each side of the bet so he collects $11 for every $10 he pays out.
2
Excellent point, Len.
Let's move on. For such a major infringement of the rules, this team and the officials who were officiating on that day will hardly get a slap on the wrist. If the NFL is serious about any of its quirky rules, it would first admit the high risk of CTE (Chronic Traumatic Encephalopathy) from playing the game.
The NFL has lost its moral position to enforce its own rules.
The NFL has lost its moral position to enforce its own rules.
11
Why would the officials be penalized? You're not suggesting that they failed to do their jobs by not preventing someone from doctoring equipment? And don't be so sure that the penalty handed to the Pats, if a plot (unlikely) is uncovered, will be so light. It will cost them a first-round draft pick, at the least.
You can move on. I'm savoring every moment of critical examination of a sport that has become far too revered in American culture and a coach who is experiencing the instant karma that comes from treating the media like idiots and peasants for the past 20 years.
You can move on. I'm savoring every moment of critical examination of a sport that has become far too revered in American culture and a coach who is experiencing the instant karma that comes from treating the media like idiots and peasants for the past 20 years.
1
So Mr Holmes are you suggesting that there is a correlation between the Patriots' success in wet weather and under-inflated footballs? How does this data compare with that of other teams. Surely, it must rain during games that don't involve the Patriots?
7
Great question. I was wondering the same thing. Where is the stat that shows how the Patriot's rain-soaked performance compared to the other 32 teams? If they are first, that's something. If 10th, completely different takeaway.
2
Statistics will show that in ALL games played in wet conditions, one team lost and the other won, except for a rare situation in which there was a tie.
4
I'm pretty sure the balls all got wet, too.
1
The Patriots do well in all kinds of weather, hot , cold, rainy, snowy, whatever.
As their coach explained, they make their practices as difficult as possible so the players are conditioned to perform in whatever conditions or circumstances come their way during the game.
80% of NFL players never touch the football in practice or the games. Game are determined by blocking and tackling.
As their coach explained, they make their practices as difficult as possible so the players are conditioned to perform in whatever conditions or circumstances come their way during the game.
80% of NFL players never touch the football in practice or the games. Game are determined by blocking and tackling.
15
Wow! This is news to me. I hate Tosserball (American Football) because I see more commercials and replays than actual game.
If this is true - 80% of NFL players never touch the football in practice or the games - which with ball or ball(s) do the players come to play?
If this is true - 80% of NFL players never touch the football in practice or the games - which with ball or ball(s) do the players come to play?
According to the article, they do mediocre in non-rainy weather, when the beat the spread on 56% of the time.
I don't think you're quite clear on the concept. The Pats are a winning team in all weather. Beating the spread 56% of the time is hardly mediocre - in fact, it's good considering that their objective is to beat their opponents, not the spread.
4
This info is pertinent to the raging topic at hand, but the raking of the team over the coals is getting a bit excessive and obsessive.
The larger and more compelling story is the league's conduct, well before the game took place, during the game, and since the game ended.
Let's see the NYT's estimable reporting skills focus on how widespread the team practice of doctoring game balls was/is, discuss how much the league knows/knew about it (it was not a secret by any means), and ask why, when the NFL decided it needed to take control of the K balls due to excessive team tampering, it didn't simply take charge of all footballs rather than let teams continue to administer their own game balls.
Let's have a full and accurate account of how the NFL handled the issue of the Pats footballs from pre-game through the present moment. How were the footballs measured before, during, and after the game? How did the refs come to decide to remove the Pats' footballs from the game and who did they tell about it? Did the refs only use the Colts balls for both teams as has been reported elsewhere?
And most importantly, where is the NFL's investigation at this point, and where is it going? Complain about Belichick and Brady's lack of effusiveness all you want. It's the league that has been dead silent thus far and the league that has bigger questions to answer.
The larger and more compelling story is the league's conduct, well before the game took place, during the game, and since the game ended.
Let's see the NYT's estimable reporting skills focus on how widespread the team practice of doctoring game balls was/is, discuss how much the league knows/knew about it (it was not a secret by any means), and ask why, when the NFL decided it needed to take control of the K balls due to excessive team tampering, it didn't simply take charge of all footballs rather than let teams continue to administer their own game balls.
Let's have a full and accurate account of how the NFL handled the issue of the Pats footballs from pre-game through the present moment. How were the footballs measured before, during, and after the game? How did the refs come to decide to remove the Pats' footballs from the game and who did they tell about it? Did the refs only use the Colts balls for both teams as has been reported elsewhere?
And most importantly, where is the NFL's investigation at this point, and where is it going? Complain about Belichick and Brady's lack of effusiveness all you want. It's the league that has been dead silent thus far and the league that has bigger questions to answer.
27
Tom Brady directs how his balls are to be inflated, with precision, at least he admitted that yesterday.
Yes, and then the officials are responsible for testing them, and then they go to the ball-boy and are handled by the officials between every play.
And we're to believe that Brady directed some underling to let more air out of them? Even though Brady wouldn't have another chance to feel them before being expected to throw them? Sorry that's not plausible. He's demonstrated he is a great passer of properly inflated footballs. The last thing he needs or wants is some randomly deflated football.
And we're to believe that Brady directed some underling to let more air out of them? Even though Brady wouldn't have another chance to feel them before being expected to throw them? Sorry that's not plausible. He's demonstrated he is a great passer of properly inflated footballs. The last thing he needs or wants is some randomly deflated football.
10
and all rich people are thieves.... according to Joe down the street...
4
Seriously? Has it descended to this?
20
Why was there no comparable outcry when Aaron Rodgers stated that he preferred to play, and did play, with footballs that exceeded psi regulations of the NFL?
Other NFL quarterbacks will be very unhappy if their individualistic football preferences become too monitored in the future as a result of this trumped up "scandal." And they will blame Pagano and Harbough, not the Patriots.