revisiting (yawn) deflategate details--why did Wells not trust refs judgment of which gauge was used

I am having to explain to people once more why the Wells report is a crock, and as I have before, I'm focusing on the fact that the only thing that the Wells team did not accept as correct recollection is which gauge was used at the beginning of the game. If you recall, the Logo gauge measured .3-.45 PSI higher than the non Logo gauge--if it was assumed that the pre game ref measurements was with the Logo gauge, as the refs believe it was (but couldn;t say for certain), then if you do the math with the provided PSI charts, you'd see that only TWO of the 11 balls were beneath what the Exponent analysis showed they could be via natural deflation (without even getting into the controverted question of whether Exponent's use of the ideal gas law was correct, etc. etc.).
On the assumption that the refs were wrong about the gauge, it showed 8 of 11 were underinflated. But going back through Wells, it claims to say in section VIIIB (p. 117) why they decided that the other gauge was used--but the explanation they give is very vague and really doesn't explain anything, as far as I can tell. Does anyone here understand the Wells' explanation for why the non logo, rather than logo, gauge was used?

Incidentally, even the 2 balls below possible deflation can be accounted for if you look at the appendices, which say that under wet conditions, te PSI could reduce an additional .3. With this, all balls would be within calculable range.

In any case, I'd appreciate anyone who can understand the Wells explanation on the gauge used, as Id like to be able to address this specifically to the people at work I'm having to explain this to.

Thanks in advance.

It is clear that Exponent worked backwards and determined one gauge made the Pats looked guilty and the other one didn't and determined that Walt Coleman had to have used the gauge that made them look guilty. Then they did everything to make it look like it was easy for Coleman to make the mistake by doing tricks with the photographs of the two gauges to make them look almost identical.

And yes, the Exponent explanation to why they felt Coleman used the gauge that he didn't believe he used was purposely gobbley gook that they made to seem like a logical reason with nothing behind it because they had no logic reason to claim that Coleman used the non-logoed gauge other than that gauge fit the NFL's agenda to get the Patriots.

Because the NFL told him to.

If we gave Walt the balls at 12.5 and he checked them with his gauge to be 12.5 then both gauges used had similar readings thus disregarding the the gauge that was off a bit. Same goes for Colts balls...

I believe that was somewhat their logic correct me if I'm wrong.

robbomango said:

If we gave Walt the balls at 12.5 and he checked them with his gauge to be 12.5 then both gauges used had similar readings thus disregarding the the gauge that was off a bit. Same goes for Colts balls...

Click to expand...

Thanks, it's all clear now.

neuronet said:

Thanks, it's all clear now.

Click to expand...

It had to do with the idea that the pats, colts and ref all happened to be using Gauges That were off by .3-4 psi Was implausible to the mustache.

Well they must have done something even if no evidence suggest they did.

Part of the problem with that reasoning was that the intercepted ball measurements fell right inline thE faulty gauge but that was all disregarded of course..

The lower reading gauge (Non logo) was the more accurate of the two gauges. The logo gauge was reading higher than a perfectly calibrated gauge. The non logo was too low, but was closer. Since the Patriots set their balls to 12.5 and Anderson measured them at 12.5 and the Colts set theirs to 13 and Anderson measured them at 13, the theory is that the non logo gauge was likely used.

Without giving it much thought, this logic makes sense. But in reality, that logic is no better than a coin flip. If the Patriots and Colts were both using perfectly calibrated gauges and set the psi levels in a room that was just 2 degrees warmer than where Anderson tested them, the logo gauge would have been closer. Anderson tested them in a room that was set to 67-71F. Meanwhile the officials locker room where they tested them at half time was set to 71-74. That there is enough of a difference to swing the results showing how irrelevant their logic was. Also, if the teams had rubbed the balls down before setting the psi levels that too would have made a difference.

During his press conference Belichick mentioned that the room they prepared the balls in may have been warm which would artifically raise the psi. He also mentioned that the balls were probably rubbed down prior to psi levels being set which also would have artificially raised it. In the Wells report, it was explained that these factors were irrelevant to the starting psi levels because the balls were given to the ref an hour before he tested them and would have fallen into equilibrium. That is correct, but these factors are relevant to determining which gauge was used. And on that point, Wells and Exponent were silent. Incredibly disingenuous of them.

And the fact they didn't even bother obtaining each team's gauges shows just how corrupt they were. Also when asked which gauge he used, Anderson said it was the logo gauge. Only after prompting from Wells did he say he could not be certain. I'm still so pissed over this.

Froob said:

Well they must have done something even if no evidence suggest they did.

Click to expand...

That's the Felger story, he actually got Michael Hurley to say the same thing one day, one of the biggest Pro Patriot writer out there, I think these writers with no math skills are confused by the data and can't comprehend it.

If it weren't for that stupid ass McNally tweet would there be a single piece of "evidence" that even insinuates that there was any wrong doing?

Rob0729 said:

It is clear that Exponent worked backwards and determined one gauge made the Pats looked guilty and the other one didn't and determined that Walt Coleman had to have used the gauge that made them look guilty. Then they did everything to make it look like it was easy for Coleman to make the mistake by doing tricks with the photographs of the two gauges to make them look almost identical.

And yes, the Exponent explanation to why they felt Coleman used the gauge that he didn't believe he used was purposely gobbley gook that they made to seem like a logical reason with nothing behind it because they had no logic reason to claim that Coleman used the non-logoed gauge other than that gauge fit the NFL's agenda to get the Patriots.

Click to expand...

That's pretty much it. Wells was given the direction: "We know the Patriots are guilty, find some evidence to back us up" rather than "Investigate everything that happened that day and report back."

The one item from Walt Coleman's account of that day that Wells didn't accept was which gauge he used. It's been shown here before, but the logo gauge and non-logo gauge have some significant differences, enough that it would stand out which one you used to check 48 footballs. If Well's felt Coleman's memory was shaky about which gauge he used, how could Wells accept Coleman's version of everything else that happened that day as being reliable?

The report was tailored to show that the non logo gauge was used (since that was the one that made the balls look more deflated and thus the Patriots more guilty) fits into the larger pattern of any activity that made the Patriots sound suspicious was highlighted, but any explanation that team personnel offered about these activities was rejected.

On the topic of the gauges, two facts to ponder:

- All of the gauges that the Colts, Patriots, and officials used during last year's AFCCG have disappeared. The teams no longer have them and Wells, Exponent and the NFL claim they don't know where they are. It's awfully convenient that the equipment that was used is no longer available for any sort subsequent testing or even just to do a side by side comparison.

- When Exponent did their testing, they said they used 40 gauges to run their experiments. Here's the catch: they were 40 models of the same gauge. How could they determine if it was possible to get different readings off of different gauges if all of them were the same? It would be like trying to compare the acceleration of a comparable model Ford with a Honda and running the tests using 10 of the same model Ford.

so...all this means is that somebody can walk up to Goodell on the street and smash him in the face with a 34 ounce Louisville Slugger...when the cops show up, this somebody can just claim that it was a NERF bat not a Louisville Slugger.

Seems reasonable to me...I mean , if we're going by the standards set by Goodell and the NFL.

wheresmosi said:

I am having to explain to people once more why the Wells report is a crock, and as I have before, I'm focusing on the fact that the only thing that the Wells team did not accept as correct recollection is which gauge was used at the beginning of the game. If you recall, the Logo gauge measured .3-.45 PSI higher than the non Logo gauge--if it was assumed that the pre game ref measurements was with the Logo gauge, as the refs believe it was (but couldn;t say for certain), then if you do the math with the provided PSI charts, you'd see that only TWO of the 11 balls were beneath what the Exponent analysis showed they could be via natural deflation (without even getting into the controverted question of whether Exponent's use of the ideal gas law was correct, etc. etc.).
On the assumption that the refs were wrong about the gauge, it showed 8 of 11 were underinflated. But going back through Wells, it claims to say in section VIIIB (p. 117) why they decided that the other gauge was used--but the explanation they give is very vague and really doesn't explain anything, as far as I can tell. Does anyone here understand the Wells' explanation for why the non logo, rather than logo, gauge was used?

Incidentally, even the 2 balls below possible deflation can be accounted for if you look at the appendices, which say that under wet conditions, te PSI could reduce an additional .3. With this, all balls would be within calculable range.

In any case, I'd appreciate anyone who can understand the Wells explanation on the gauge used, as Id like to be able to address this specifically to the people at work I'm having to explain this to.

Thanks in advance.

Click to expand...

yeah, it's been pretty much covered -- the story being that the more 'accurate' gauge would be consistent with the 2 gauges being used by each team, unless you think each team's gauge was coincidentally off to a similar degree as the gauge wells dismissed.
there are a lot of problems with that, however, probably the most trivial being that even if we took any of this seriously, gauges will tend to drift over a period of time, and so if 3 gauges are 'old' they may show similar drift as compared with a newer gauge, which is why the recalibration process exists, and I guarantee you not 1 cheapass sports authority gauge used in pro sports has ever been recalibrated. -- but that's theatre of the imagination stuff, and pretty much irrelevant.

I think probably the central problem with all this is that the world is just basically full of liberal arts degrees and business majors.
as a pretty big pats fan I'd say maybe the more disturbing result out of all this has been the flat out ignorance of even the most basic high school level science on display by the general public.

I wrote a bunch about this when it was happening, so maybe I should just dig that up, but which gauge was used is entirely irrelevant.
they had that one ball and it was tested, like, 3x, right --- and were those readings all identical?
what is it that makes anybody think these are scientifically accurate tools + perfectly controlled experimental conditions, like they're in some MIT lab?

I would really like people to step back + seriously look at what we're talking about ---- if we proposed selling people on an alien invasion via radio broadcast I'm pretty sure people would be laughing about that, but this entire thing is even more ridiculous, yet so many just eat it up out of pure ignorance.

so, apparently one gauge exonerates the pats, which is why it's discarded ---- and even bearing in mind the entire nonsense wizard of oz math show exponent cooked up, the gauge that supposedly is the smoking gun in this reads......................THREE ****ING TENTHS OF A PSI DIFFERENT.
some guy got paid, like, 5 mil to make a case that some other guy was basically sneaking off to a bathroom to let exactly THREE ****ING TENTHS OF A PSI out of maybe a dozen footballs in one ****ing minute cuz brady's touch is just that sensitive, even though they were losing another ~1.5 psi as soon as you roll them out on the field.
I really have no idea what the exact conversion is, but when people are throwing these measurements around to a tenth of a psi do they have any idea what that translates to in temp?
I think probably something like 2 or 3 degrees.

oh yeah, and despite working with these guys in the same building every day, brady needs to text them instructions on doing all this from his phone, and wtf is going on with road games, I have no idea, and etc, etc, etc

if somebody had came to you with this story in december of 2014 you would have ridiculed them as a lunatic.

edit ps

I guess basically what I'm trying to say is that if you really have to explain any of this to somebody it's likely they're just a dumb person, and the conversation is kind of pointless.
there are some dumb people out there.

VectorPrime said:

If it weren't for that stupid ass McNally tweet would there be a single piece of "evidence" that even insinuates that there was any wrong doing?

Click to expand...

Aside from the trip to the bathroom with the balls, of course. I'm sure that would've been enough "evidence" for Goodell to have done everything the exact same way, even without the McNally text.

The answer to the OP's question, they didn't pay attention to Anderson's memory of which gauge he used simply because it didn't fit their agenda.

Had they gone with what he said, the IGL would've shown that nothing nefarious occurred, and as we know, that would've been a bad look for the NFL.

I will refer you to this

and this

also this

as well as this

and I just also wanted to make a note on my above explanation that one gauge would be more likely consistent with 2 different gauges used by the 2 teams ---- this is entirely reliant on the assumption that the refs are gauging every ball before every game.
is this what we're really believing?
because I think the aforementioned nonsense story about the guy in the bathroom is more plausible.

supafly said:

The answer to the OP's question is that they didn't pay attention to Coleman's memory of which gauge he used simply because it didn't fit their agenda.

Had they gone with what he said, the IGL would've shown that nothing nefarious occurred, and as we know, that would've been a bad look for the NFL.

Click to expand...

Walt Anderson, Supa...Coleman is the "tuck" ref.

Joker said:

Walt Anderson, Supa...Coleman is the "tuck" ref.

Click to expand...

LOL. Damn it! That's about the 10th time I've done this now.

It was a witch hunt and they always find a witch. Maybe if Bob had stood up to the POS instead of being his flunky in 2007 , the POS would have thought twice about sticking to the Pats again.