Are you ready for some NFL Football? 2014 Edition.

[newtogolf]

OJ was innocent.

If the glove don't fit, you must acquit.

[Gunther]

SAY IT AINT SO!!! I thought it was only the Patriots who would do this. I mean they are consistent cheaters! It can only be them who cheated!  or not, Wait, maybe this whole uproar is because it is the Patriots and they have owned the NFL for the past decade.

Doesn't explain the extraordinary Pats numbers relative to fumbles. Maybe other teams drop it to 12 where the Pats drop it to 10. Bottom line, they did it and got caught. Blake didn't get caught, bully for him.

[Golfingdad]

If the glove don't fit, you must acquit.

RIP Johnnie Cochran.

Doesn't explain the extraordinary Pats numbers relative to fumbles.

That's because their numbers aren't nearly as extraordinary as that article lead you to believe: http://regressing.deadspin.com/why-those-statistics-about-the-patriots-fumbles-are-mos-1681805710

Add to that the common sense things like:  The Patriots are not a running team and frequently abandon the run, they are all about possession receivers with very little YAC, they have one of the best o-lines and one of the quickest and best QB's, and they're the best team of the last whatever years ... it stands to reason that they would turn the ball over less than most.  Duh.

[saevel25]

That's because their numbers aren't nearly as extraordinary as that article lead you to believe: http://regressing.deadspin.com/why-those-statistics-about-the-patriots-fumbles-are-mos-1681805710

1. 2010-2014 Patriots: 187 plays/fumble

2. 2009-2013 Patriots: 156 plays/fumble

3. 2006-2010 Colts: 156 plays/fumbe

4. 2005-2009 Colts: 153 plays/fumble

5. 2007-2011 Patriots: 149 plays/fumble

6. 2008-2012 Patriots: 148 plays/fumble

7. 2010-2014 Texans: 140 plays/fumble

8. 2004-2008 Colts: 139 plays/fumble

9. 2006-2010 Jets: 135 plays/fumble

10. 1999-2003 Chiefs: 134 plays/fumble

Here is the strange thing for me. They actually overlapped years. From 2010 to 2014 the Patriots had 187 plays per fumble. Yet from 2009 to 2013 they had 157. So in one year they gained an additional 31 plays per fumble. So basically I can basically conclude that that one year might actually be more of an outlier.

Also the fact the Colts who ran a similar offense to the Patriots had very similar number of fumbles per play.

[dfreuter415]

If the glove don't fit, you must acquit.

Any golfer knows that if you put a cabretta leather glove in your bag in October and then try to put it on the following spring that it just doesn't fit, (unless it is a Footjoy StaSof). Also, if you put a cheap golf glove away when it is wet, it is very hard to put on when dried out. Apparently the prosecution never realized these facts.

[dsc123]

Scares me a little that you didn't accompany that with an emoji of some type.

Lol, nah, that takes the fun out of it.  Even on a message board, you gotta go for the dry, deadpan, humor occasionally.

(Or, @dsc123 is cuckoo for cocoa puffs.  One or the other. )

If you look at the actual evidence, not just the media's reporting of the evidence...nevermind.

That's because their numbers aren't nearly as extraordinary as that article lead you to believe: http://regressing.deadspin.com/why-those-statistics-about-the-patriots-fumbles-are-mos-1681805710

Add to that the common sense things like:  The Patriots are not a running team and frequently abandon the run, they are all about possession receivers with very little YAC, they have one of the best o-lines and one of the quickest and best QB's, and they're the best team of the last whatever years ... it stands to reason that they would turn the ball over less than most.  Duh.

Must.....resist...urge....to...respond...

[Golfingdad]

If you look at the actual evidence, not just the media's reporting of the evidence...nevermind. Must.....resist...urge....to...respond...:-)

See, now you're being the strong one!

[teamroper60]

If you think the undisputed facts of this case at this point are as cut and dried as the facts pointing towards OJ's guilt, then ...

I don't really have a dog in this hunt since the Rams aren't in the Super Bowl but the only undisputed facts so far are that the balls were under specified pressure when tested with a gauge at half time. It has still not been established that they were tested with a gauge prior to the game.    The NFL statement says:  "Prior to the game, the game officials inspect the footballs to be used by each team and confirm that this standard is satisfied, which was done before last Sunday’s game."    Notice it does not say how the inspection was conducted (i.e.: with an air pressure gauge).  So at this point, we are expected to assume the pressure was actually tested with a gauge.  Proper wording can be very important since certain words may imply things which are not absolute facts.  Businesses use these tactics all the time when making press releases.   I would expect nothing less from the NFL and neither should anyone else.  In this case, the choice of words may mean nothing or they may be the difference in whether the refs actually tested the air pressure with a gauge or just gave the balls a squeeze.   At this point, we don't know for certain which is the truth (and given the way other investigations have been conducted, we may never know either).

Second, I have personally experienced instances where two different tire gauges gave me very different readings on the same tire, so it is possible the Patriots believed they gave the NFL properly inflated balls, the refs squeezed them and thought they were ok, passed them before the game and then found at half time they were not.

Finally, Aaron Rodgers has said the Packers try to get over-inflated balls past the refs (over-inflated balls would also be a violation/cheating) and lamented the many times it was unsuccessful.   Since it was clear from his statements that this has been done multiple times, the question becomes why try if you were caught every time?     The fact they have tried repeatedly suggests they have been successful at some point.

Now, I am not saying any of this is fact and it may well turn out the Patriots broke the rules.   If that is what the investigation finds, so be it.   Assess the prescribed penalty and move on.  Couldn't care less.   But I am unwilling to say they cheated as if it is a certainty when the actual facts (not supposed leaks) do not yet support that presumption.

[saevel25]

I love how science drops the hammer on all those former NFL players or analysts who think that a deflated ball actually helps a player. Here are the numbers.

[Jakester23]

I love how science drops the hammer on all those former NFL players or analysts who think that a deflated ball actually helps a player. Here are the numbers.

So is that similar to the tests where shaft flex doesn't actually help you hit the ball better?

[saevel25]

So is that similar to the tests where shaft flex doesn't actually help you hit the ball better?

[ghalfaire]

Wow I had not looked at this thread in a few days and I am surprised it is still so active.  Whoever said the cover up is worst than the crime is correct.  No one thinks on that Sunday the Colts could have won regardless of the pressure in the game balls.  The thing that galls me some is the NFL ought to just come clean and tell us their rule on pressure in the game ball in no way guarantees the balls will be properly inflated for play.  There are two major flaws in the NFL "pressure  specification".  First if you are going to specify the internal pressure of an inflatable device (a football for instance) you specify the environment in which it is to be inflated.  Things such as temperature are important.  Also the accuracy and precision (no those are not the same thing) of the equipment to measure the internal pressure should be specified.  None of this is specified in the NFL rule.

Secondly the NFL rule only requires the Referee to approve or not approve the game balls for use.  It does not require that this official do any measurements or checking at all.   So basically there is no quality assurance to ensure the balls are withing the specification.  In the extreme the Referee could just look at the balls and say "looks good to me" and the teams would have complied with the requirement.

So why doesn't the NFL just come clean and say "we have a rule that we didn't communicate in a way that will ensure compliance with the rule and we apologize to the fan base for our incompetence.  Further we are correcting this error on our part by contracting with a high school physics class to obtain a properly constructed rule that will ensure the proper pressure in game balls in the future".

[Golfingdad]

THIS POST IS NOT ABOUT PSI. ;)

Was listening to Bill Simmons podcast this morning and he was talking with an advanced metrics guy who said that this Super Bowl is the tightest matchup since as far back as they've calculated any advanced metrics ... basically, 1989.  He also said it's possible it's the tightest matchup since ... ever.

Should be a good one!

[Jakester23]

THIS POST IS NOT ABOUT PSI. ;) Was listening to Bill Simmons podcast this morning and he was talking with an advanced metrics guy who said that this Super Bowl is the tightest matchup since as far back as they've calculated any advanced metrics ... basically, 1989.  He also said it's possible it's the tightest matchup since ... ever. Should be a good one!

Who do ya got?

[dsc123]

THIS POST IS NOT ABOUT PSI. ;)

That's what you think...

Was listening to Bill Simmons podcast this morning and he was talking with an advanced metrics guy who said that this Super Bowl is the tightest matchup since as far back as they've calculated any advanced metrics ... basically, 1989.  He also said it's possible it's the tightest matchup since ... ever.

If that's the case, even the slightest edge--like 1 PSI--can make the difference.  The refs better be on their toes with these guys!

[Gunther]

NFC beats AFC. Brady better than Manning but that D will be tough to overcome. And, Brady will have to use full balls so there will be some Pats drops.

[Golfingdad]

Who do ya got?

They also pointed out how interesting the betting line is.  It's the Patriots by 1 or 1.5 right now and that's based almost entirely on the last round of games.  If they made the lines at any time before that, especially after the division round, it would be Seattle by 4-ish.

So, apparently, everybody has a really short term memory and is thinking that the "real" Seattle is the team that stunk for 55 minutes against the Packers, and not the team that manhandled the Panthers.

I'll still take New England though, and, for fun, let's guess .....

Patriots 27 , Seahawks 24

[Jakester23]

They also pointed out how interesting the betting line is.  It's the Patriots by 1 or 1.5 right now and that's based almost entirely on the last round of games.  If they made the lines at any time before that, especially after the division round, it would be Seattle by 4-ish. So, apparently, everybody has a really short term memory and is thinking that the "real" Seattle is the team that stunk for 55 minutes against the Packers, and not the team that manhandled the Panthers. I'll still take New England though, and, for fun, let's guess ..... [SIZE=16px][COLOR=0000CD]Patriots 27[/COLOR], Seahawks 24[/SIZE]

I'm leaning towards the pats also but they need at least 27 pts. Seattle is really hard to beat when they hold their opponents to 21 or under.