Yes .And after that no one chimed in with their opinions ?Just heard on NFL talking with Ian. 12pm NFL channel.
1 was 2PSI under.
4 or 5 was 1-PSI under
the rest were a tick-or-very-close to 12.5 PSI.
SITE MENU
Registered Members experience this forum ad and noise-free.
CLICK HERE to Register for a free account and login for a smoother ad-free experience. It's easy, and only takes a few moments.Yes .And after that no one chimed in with their opinions ?Just heard on NFL talking with Ian. 12pm NFL channel.
1 was 2PSI under.
4 or 5 was 1-PSI under
the rest were a tick-or-very-close to 12.5 PSI.
http://www.nytimes.com/2015/02/01/s...-deflation-puzzle-mind-your-pv-nrts.html?_r=0
Firing is too good for Goodell.
Yes .And after that no one chimed in with their opinions ?
NFL got the whole country to bite on this and it worked. Instead of talking football the last 2 weeks we got this. Anyone who didn't give a rats zzz about the game got a juicy tmz,enquirer story to peak their interest. Very smart NFL and thanks for dragging our team through the mud in order to get publicity you really didn't need in the first place.
This whole thing stunk of suspicion from the get go and watching it unfold was pretty scary in a way. The media is very dangerous entity. Sad that this country is so quick to rush to judgement over a few sources without knowing the facts. Regardless if this report is true or not the damage has been done. Public opinion may deflate a little bit, but not the suspicion one iota. The haters need something to cling to and those few ticks aren't going to dissuade them.
For the life of me, if this latest report is true why on Gods green earth would they not squash it before it erupted into the firestorm it's become?
No kidding.
*whoosh*No kidding at all. Ian had to create an entire new forum just for the cry babies who couldn't stop obsessing over this topic.
But I'm the bad guy for dropping in and saying sack up. There wouldn't have been this much outrage had they lost that game.
The forum wasn't for crybabies, it was for those who could refute the crybabies.No kidding at all. Ian had to create an entire new forum just for the cry babies who couldn't stop obsessing over this topic.
But I'm the bad guy for dropping in and saying sack up. There wouldn't have been this much outrage had they lost that game.
wont be surprised if pats leaked this info. playing offense before some s*** hits the fan from the media
The ball attendant was an older man. Not a kid as we've speculated. To me, that means it's even more likely he had to pee.What's new of signigicance there?
No kidding at all. Ian had to create an entire new forum just for the cry babies who couldn't stop obsessing over this topic.
But I'm the bad guy for dropping in and saying sack up. There wouldn't have been this much outrage had they lost that game.
There have been no solid facts upon which to base any conclusions in this matter. Could hardly have been more poorly managed.Here's my problem. How can they run a scientific test when the starting PSI's weren't even recorded? All you can do is use a 12.5 assumption. That's hardly a scientific reproduction of the actual events.
They won't mention it.I refuse to check the pregame shows to see what they're saying about this because they will spin it, ignore it or just go back to wild speculation. I'm mad enough about this as it is.
Yes, that's why the time went from 90 to 98 seconds.The ball attendant was an older man. Not a kid as we've speculated. To me, that means it's even more likely he had to pee.