Someone who thinks the Patriots "cheated," please explain something to me.

[Dreamer Tatum]

Please explain how underinflated footballs provide a clear advantage to the team using them. Don't give "well, statistically..." or "it's probably the case that.." Instead, provide an argument that underinflated balls confer a definite, commonly-known advantage.

If you can't (and spoiler alert: you can't), then maybe we can draw a distinction between CHEATING and NONCOMPLIANCE. Cheating is too many men on the field, bribing refs, using unfairly gained knowledge of the other's teams plays, lying about injuries, abusing the salary cap, and other infractions that can be shown to directly cause an uneven playing field (pardon the metaphor). If underinflated footballs confer a decided advantage, it would be policed way more than it is. There would be metaphors and aphorisms concerning underinflated footballs. And had this not happened, and I posted a thread that read, "Say, what do you think would happen if the ball was surreptitiously underinflated" I will bet that exactly zero people would say, "Golly! That team would score BAZILLIONS of points!"

Tom Brady likes softer footballs. He almost certainly told equipment people to deflate them somewhat. I will bet the farm that he is guilty of not complying with the rules. He should be fined.

But CHEATING? No. They scored more points using legit balls. And the defense, which stifled Indy all day, does not make use of the footballs, and furthermore, Indy used their own "legit" footballs throughout the game.

[LittleBlue]

1. It makes the ball softer

Softer footballs are easier to catch and hold on to. Indy had to use balls that were harder to catch and hold on to. It destroys the level playing field when one team can catch and hold on to the ball more easily.

That's why the NFL has rules about the inflation level of every ball.

If underinflated footballs confer a decided advantage, it would be policed way more than it is.

That's not true. Before Spygate, how many teams were being investigated for spying? It resulted in the loss of their first round pick, so it was serious even though it had rarely, if ever, been policed in the past.

[Dreamer Tatum]

2. then kindly explain the second half. nt

[pnwmom]

5. They had been demoralized by their play of the second half. Lots of teams collapse

in the second for various reasons, so this isn't significant.

How can you know that the Patriot's low fumbling record isn't due at least in part to under inflated balls that are easier to catch?

[Dreamer Tatum]

9. that makes no sense.

They used legit footballs in the second half and played better. If you're introducing moral courage, the entire air pressure argument is weakened further.

Sorry. This is a non issue.

[brush]

46. All you're proving is that the Patriots didn't need to cheat . . .

but they thought under inflating the balls gave them an added advantage.

They got caught. Too bad.

I should say they got caught AGAIN.

[pipi_k]

49. The Colts were demoralized?

Really???

I can't even take that seriously, nor should anyone else.

Andrew Luck, for one, must have wanted to prove to his many supporters out in the football world (who were virtually calling him the best QB ever...I saw the bullshit ESPN articles by the "experts&quot that he was worthy.

The Colts were 0 - 3 at the time against NE.

They did not want to make it 0 - 4

Also, why would they be demoralized right after the Seahawks/Packers game when Seattle came roaring back in an almost improbable win in the final minutes of the game?


Andrew Luck will probably be a great player someday. He and his teammates are playing for their legacy, not to mention wanting to "win one for the Gipper"...Chuck Pagano, who was so very ill not all that long ago.

Demoralized?

No.

[LittleBlue]

32. The outcome is irrelevant

If Usain Bolt used steroids, he would still be the fastest man of all time. That doesn't mean he didn't cheat.

[Dreamer Tatum]

33. Which is why I said, once again, Brady should be fined. nt

[LittleBlue]

38. A fine of a few hundred thousand to such a wealthy man

is an invitation to cheat again. I would imagine a mix of fines, loss of draft picks and suspensions (next season) will be used to deter future rulebreaking

[Dreamer Tatum]

44. Can't say I disagree, although that seems excessive to me. nt

[LittleBlue]

58. Depends to what extent

I think the NFL is struggling with this. If they don't suspend Belichick, the Saints fans will be livid because their coach was suspended and they lost draft picks.

IMO they are trying to find a penalty that doesn't necessarily conform to justice, but one that pisses off the fewest while satisfying the greatest number of important people/fans.

[onenote]

6. then a ball inflated to 12.5 psi should be softer than a ball inflated to 13.5 psi

and a ball inflated to 14 psi should be even harder.

Yet both the 12.5 psi ball and the 13.5 psi ball are legal. And a ball that is 14 psi -- even harder -- would be non-compliant although there would seem to be no advantage.

The only reports that the degree of under-inflation was 2 psi -- quite a large amount relatively speaking -- are unconfirmed. Just as the reports that the defensive player that intercepted a Brady pass and noticed the ball was under-inflated were unconfirmed. Those latter reports turned out to be mistaken -- the Colts defensive player had nothing to do with the investigation.

I think the OP makes a valid point -- the league doesn't demand uniformity, except within a range and failure to comply is just that - non compliance. But one could have a full psi difference in the balls being used and be in compliance, and have only a .1 psi difference (12.4 v. 12.5 or 13.5 v. 13.6) and be in non compliance.

[Dreamer Tatum]

27. I have NO doubt that Brady ordered the balls underinflated, so he should be fined. nt

[AgingAmerican]

53. He should be suspended

For at least four games next season

[LittleBlue]

34. A few QBs like harder footballs for grip

The 1 psi is given as leeway for those and environmental problems. That is in the rules, everyone knows and agrees ahead of time. Everyone has the same opportunity to use those rules.

Going outside the range is cheating.

[big_dog]

18. Patriots haven't won the super bowl since they got busted for cheating last time

coincedence?

[Dreamer Tatum]

29. I can think of about 25 teams that would love to have the Pats record from 2005-2014. nt

[pipi_k]

51. You do realize...

that the year Spygate happened, it was only about the 3rd game or so into the season.

Cameras taken away.

No more "spying" on the opponents' defenses.


Yet they went 18 - 1 that year, only missing winning the Superbowl because of a lucky helmet bounce by David Tyree.

The second time, Wes Welker didn't come down with a Hail Mary catch in the end zone.

[onenote]

64. coincidence? No. Proof of the "on any given Sunday" adage? Yes

Last year the Tennessee Titans were one of, if not the worst team in the league. Yet they managed to defeat the Kansas City Chiefs (on the road) one week, and then turn around and lose to that same team at home three weeks later. The Chiefs lost to the Titans, but crushed the Patriots. THe DC football team also stunk up the league, but they managed to defeat the Cowboys -- one of the stronger teams in the league -- in Dallas. Does that mean DC cheated in Dallas, or that Dallas cheated most other games but not against Washington? Or does it mean that on any given Sunday, even the best teams can be defeated by a team that is very bad; over the course of entire season, the best teams will amass the best records, but focusing on what amounts to a one game season -- each playoff game represents the possibility of being a season ending game -- proves nothing. One could make the argument that the Giants surprising run through the playoffs in 2007-8 and 2011-12 must mean Tom Coughlin cheated (but didn't get caught) as it means anything about the Patriots. (And no, I don't think the Giants "cheated&quot .

Since last winning the Super Bowl, the Patriots have been knocked out the playoffs early and late. They've won at home and lost at home, won on the road and lost on the road. They lost two Super Bowls, one by 3 points and one by four points. It's the way it goes.

[Taitertots]

3. Intentional "Noncompliance" is cheating even when the advantage doesn't pan out

Tom Brady likes softer footballs.

And breaking the rules to get something that you want (perceived advantage) is generally called cheating.

It doesn't matter whether or not the intended advantage materialized.

[Dreamer Tatum]

4. So there isn't a clear benefit to softer footballs. nt

[pnwmom]

7. There is a clear benefit. Fewer fumbles.

Or do you really think it's just a coincidence that the Patriot's fumble record is off the chart?

http://pjmedia.com/lifestyle/2015/01/23/deflated-patriots-statistically-impossible-fumble-record/

Patriots partisans are deflating the deflation controversy by arguing that their impermissible deflation of the footballs wasn’t what allowed them to beat an overmatched Colts team. Perhaps. But a new statistical analysis reveals that if it weren’t for deflation of the footballs, the Patriots might not have even been playing a series of home playoff games as the top seed. Careful analytics reveal that suddenly in 2007, a strange and statistically impossible phenomena began to occur at Patriots games. (fumbles, fumbles lost, and more).

Sharp Football Analysis has a statistical analysis that backs up the conclusions of football legends Fran Tarkenton and Jerome Bettis: the Patriots’ success over the last decade is due in some (or large) part to cheating. This is bad news for the NFL and for fans of every team that has been on the losing end of Patriot schemes, particularly the Pittsburgh Steelers, who were denied multiple trips to the Super Bowl by the Patriots in AFC Championship games during the height of the first Patriot videotape cheating scandal.


Sharp Football Analysis analysis looked at the rate of fumbles by the Patriots offense over the last decade. The analysis had a number of shocking conclusions. First, the Patriots fumble only at a rate of once every 187 offensive snaps. As Sharp’s puts it, this is literally off the charts. It is a statistical outlier right from a statistics textbook.

SNIP

[Dreamer Tatum]

30. That study is a pile of horseshit.

Belichick is a known stickler for no fumbles. He benches and then cuts players who cannot hold onto the ball. In other words, that study has zero causal inference applied.

[pkdu]

45. I'll take Statistical analysis over your horseshit opinion...100 times out of 100.

They cheated...have been doing so for years .

"Non-Compliance" ? ...

[Dreamer Tatum]

47. Right back at you. nt

[pnwmom]

48. Oh, right. He can just crack the whip and keep people from fumbling in bad weather

and no other coach has managed anything even close.

[Are_grits_groceries]

67. Not to that extent.

Many coaches are sticklers about fumbling. You fumble too much and you are gone. I would believe them being on the low end of the number of fumbles. They are so far out of line that something is fishy.

[Taitertots]

10. There is an advantage. That advantage isn't going to cause a touchdown on every pass

It is still cheating even when the intended advantage doesn't materialize.

I copied someone's test but they failed, so I failed, so I wasn't cheating because I didn't get any benefit.

[GeorgeGist]

12. Easier to throw, catch and hold onto ...

but you knew that.

[Dreamer Tatum]

31. Aaron Rodgers claims the opposite.

But I guess he's just a scrub.

QBs like the ball the way they like it. Brady almost certainly ordered the balls underinflated. He overstepped. He should be fined.

[AgingAmerican]

55. So softer balls are...

Harder to throw, catch and hold onto?

Just isn't so. Also, Rogers preferred ball pressure is irrelevant; he isn't accused of cheating.

[jen1980]

77. That doesn't mean there's any science behind is opinion

Some of the middle school players on the team I help coach still use wooden bats because they believe they can hit farther with them. That doesn't make it true.

[tabasco]

17. Nobody expects fanbois to be rational

Have a great day.

[Dreamer Tatum]

25. I'm an adult, so I don't know what a "fanboi" is.

I did say that Brady should be fined, but then again I suspect you are not capable of reading that far.

[ProdigalJunkMail]

57. why should he be fined if it isn't cheating?

i mean, there was no advantage... also, why would he deflate the balls (or have them deflated) if there wasn't some advantage for him?

you throw out any evidence that you don't like simply because YOU can't understand what sort of advantage the deflated balls might have given. you're just trolling at this point.

sP

[neverforget]

8. They didn't follow the rules whereas the Colts did.

Did it make a difference in the game? No. But they didn't follow follow the rules that were in place when the game started and that's called cheating.

[Dreamer Tatum]

24. Can you link to the evidence that "they" knew?

By "they," I mean the whole team?

I'll wait patiently and will be entertained by the crickets.

[neverforget]

40. Is it okay if only 1 person "knew" or does the whole team need to know

in order for it to be not okay? The Patriots are playing "I didn't know" in this whole incident. Who's lying? The ref that certified the ball or someone on the team?

[Dreamer Tatum]

42. Which is why I said Brady should be fined. nt

[AgingAmerican]

65. So if only the quarterback or the head coach cheat

It isn't cheating cuz the whole team isn't privy to it?

You are tying yourself in knots. You admit he cheated, and state he should be fined for doing so, all the while spinning yourself into the ground trying to minimize or rug sweep it? It seams you are taking both sides of the argument.

[GeorgeGist]

11. Ask tom Brady.

[Contrary1]

13. "...please explain something to me. If you can't (and spoiler alert: you can't)"

[neverforget]

15. nothing like listening with a closed mind

[Dreamer Tatum]

23. In my unedited OP is said Brady should be fined. nt

[truebluegreen]

14. So you're saying that

someone who flouts the rules by altering a football should be fined but is not a cheater.... So if someone attempts to cheat, but fails, he is not a cheater?

[Dreamer Tatum]

22. The offense performed better RUSHING the ball with NORMAL footballs.

Which the Patriots haters have yet to even acknowledge, let alone explain, so I assume most people are at a 6th grade level of discourse in this matter.

ps - I like the Niners. I also like fairness.

[truebluegreen]

36. So you're saying that

if a (say it again!*) hypothetical team attempts to gain an advantage (and please explain to me how using footballs inflated the way the QB likes them is not a plus for that QB) but said attempt is actually counter-productive / backfires / doesn't work, they are not cheaters. Only successful cheaters are cheaters; unsuccessful cheaters aren't cheaters.

So if kkKarl Rove and/or the Republicans and/or Diebold attempts to swing an election in Ohio, but does/do not actually succeed because the margin is too great to overcome, he/they are not cheaters.

Got it.





* don't give a fuck about the Patriots or, in fact, football.

[Dreamer Tatum]

41. Ignored the superfluous second paragraph, but here's my response:

The claim is that the Patriots are lifelong, known cheaters. My claim is no, Brady just likes the ball the way he likes it. There is scant evidence that anyone other than Brady benefited from the lower pressure, and in fact he may have told the guy to put it at the low end, not off the charts. For the offense to be called cheating, so far as I'm concerned, you have to prove that an underinflated football causes the ball to be moved more easily. No one has done that, other than "why, that's OBVIOUS," which, no it isn't.

And for the last time, I said in my OP that he should be fined.

[brush]

50. You must not have seen Brady's press conference

He pulled a Sargent Shutlz: "I know nothing."

He said he knew nothing about it, didn't tell anybody anything.

Somebody's lying.

Or maybe it was a leprechaun that wondered over from the Celtics and hid in the Patriot's ball bag that did the dirty deed.

[MohRokTah]

16. I see the PAtriots fans are approaching deflategate the same way they approached spygate.

"My team can do no wrong WE DID NOT CHEAT!!!"

[MohRokTah]

54. But you did say that cheating wasn't cheating by Tom Brady.

[mythology]

19. A baseball player with a corked bat doesn't always hit a home run

But using a corked bat is still cheating even if they break the bat on a ground out.

It's cheating because it's against the rules and Tom Brady has gone on record stating that he prefers the footballs to be underinflated, regardless of its actual impact. It's not relevant whether they scored more or less points in the second half. If nothing else, variance exists and you're using a very small sample size. As somebody else pointed out, the Patriots have by far the fewest number of fumbles over a long period. Could that be coaching and luck? Sure, but that's unlikely as no football coach wants their team to fumble. It indicates that there may be something amiss such as an unfair advantage. It's obviously not conclusive, but it's not nothing either.

Bill Belichick is said to have told the Patriots owner that the illegal taping they did earlier was a 1 on a scale of 1 to 100 in terms of impact. It's still cheating.

[Dreamer Tatum]

20. Using your analogy, Aaron Rodgers prefers a concrete bat.

So the corked bat analogy fails.

As I said, Brady should be fined for altering the balls to his personal preference, outside the normal limits.

[AgingAmerican]

56. Rogers isn't accused of cheating

Brady is, and Brady has previously stated a preference for softer footballs.

Brady should be fined and suspended AND the team should lose at least one draft pick.

[Dreamer Tatum]

66. sounds a little harsh but something should be done nt

[AgingAmerican]

68. The league needs to take a harsh stance

With extra penalties levied due to the fact this isn't the Patriots first rodeo.

[Dreamer Tatum]

69. the Seahawks are riddled with PEDs and nothing happened to the team

Just the players.

[AgingAmerican]

70. Two wrongs don't make a right

The players in question were suspended, BTW, so something DID happen to the team.

Since the Seahawk players received suspensions it only stands to reason that Rogers should, at a minimum, be suspended.

[Dreamer Tatum]

71. how many draft picks did the Roidhawks lose?

[AgingAmerican]

76. The Seahawks haven't lost any

....but then the Seahawks don't cheat, nor have they ever been accused of cheating.

New England, on the other hand apparently has adopted cheating as an integral part of its business model.

[sendero]

26. To even ask a question....

... like that is ludicrous. Anyone who has ever thrown a freaking football knows the answer.

[Dreamer Tatum]

28. Then please explain why Aaron Rodgers is on record as preferring the opposite.

And I think Aaron Rodgers is a decent quarterback.

[sendero]

39. People say shit all the time..

...and dumb people believe them.

[Dreamer Tatum]

43. So Rodgers is lying. And you know this. nt

[sendero]

74. I really don't know what...

... you are trying to do but it is a FACT that the first member of the other team to hold the ball knew it was underinflated.

ANY professional player, college player, high school player or schoolyard duffer would have noticed it was underinflated. Have you ever played football, any?

[AgingAmerican]

61. Rogers isn't accused of cheating

Rogers isn't Brady.

[MillennialDem]

35. By your logic, a student using notes that had the wrong answers on them on a test

was only non-complying and not cheating.

Dumb.

Breaking the rules is cheating, advantage or not.

And I have no dog in this fight as I have not even watched a football game in 10ish years.

Also your argument that they scored more points without the underinflated balls therefore they didn't give an advantage is ridiculous. An advantage is just that: an advantage that makes an outcome MORE LIKELY, it doesn't guarantee one.

[Dreamer Tatum]

37. Except the claim many make that an underinflated ball makes rushing easier

is DIRECTLY contradicted by the entire second half.

Once more, I hold Brady financially responsible for altering the balls to his

PERSONAL PREFERENCE.

[brush]

52. I think they thought a softer ball would . . .

make gripping the ball better and thus easier to THROW.

A by-product would be the softer ball would be easier to hold on to by the running backs, but the primary motive was for easier gripping when throwing.

[MillennialDem]

62. Again it has nothing to do with personal preference. Inflating the balls against the

regs is CHEATING. Period. Whether it confers an advantage or even a disadvantage.

[dsc]

59. So does a student who copies answers from someone

get absolved from cheating if those answers are wrong?

[Erich Bloodaxe BSN]

60. Waitasec, you won't take statistical evidence?

So are you looking for Biblical evidence instead?

[Dreamer Tatum]

73. i have statistical evidence that my dog predicted the last few elections.

Is that valid?

[Erich Bloodaxe BSN]

75. Probably not. 'Last few' is a pretty damn small statistical universe.

Your margin of error on your dog's predictions is going to be relatively huge.

[MannyGoldstein]

63. Then why have that rule?

Probably a reason for it.

[Yavin4]

72. Why did Dick Nixon break into Dem HQ in 1972 when he was going to win big?

Answer that and you have the answer to your post.

[Arkana]

78. Easier to grip, throw, and hold onto.

However, angry Pats haters have no evidence. Zero. Other than their own prejudices. Until I see a piece of concrete evidence that the Patriots deliberately underinflated the ball with the intent to cheat, y'all can shut up.