Idiot Troy Vincent Pulls an MCI and Gets CRUSHED on his Own Twitter Page!

[The Gr8est]

To the degree the media cares, it has. It's such a non-event, like 'deflategate' should have been if the NFL officials didn't have their heads up their asses and jump to conclusions. But just like the coverage they did on the context report, or the AEI analysis, etc, this is a 'non-story'.

The problem is the media just doesn't care, and won't look at the new rule with acritical eye like people here have. Why random testing? Are they recording other variables like wetness, indoor and outdoor temps, time acclimating to indoor temps, etc etc? Will they release ALL testing data or just select tests?

I have less than zero faith the NFL will use this as anything but a way to justify their absurd penalty against the Patriots. At the end of the year they'll release cherry-picked numbers from games that bear no resemblance to the AFFCG and say 'see, the Pats cheated and here's our proof'. Then they'll go back to measuring footballs at the start of the game and everyone will forget about how the Pats were once again railroaded by a corrupt regime.

This is why the Pats MUST take the bull by the horns and do something like has been suggested, having the Pats have their own balls, inflated to 12.5 psi, available to be viewed with real time psi readings displayed.

If the NFL* doesn't like it, too bleeping bad!

The Pats MUST do this to defend themselves and get ahead, and stay ahead, of public perception.

 

[hambone1818]

This is why the Pats MUST take the bull by the horns and do something like has been suggested, having the Pats have their own balls, inflated to 12.5 psi, available to be viewed with real time psi readings displayed.

If the NFL* doesn't like it, too bleeping bad!

The Pats MUST do this to defend themselves and get ahead, and stay ahead, of public perception.

No doubt. I'd love for the Pats to hire someone to handle four footballs a game: two starting at 12.5, two starting at 13.0. Have a notary public oversee the process every game of inflating footballs indoors, certifying the measurements, brought outdoors, measured throughout the first half, measured again indoors as halftime goes on, then have the data certified as accurate and the balls stored. Wash rinse repeat for every game.

God willing there'll be a game played at 47-48 degrees in the rain.

Then in the offseason hire multiple scientists with no connection to the team or Kraft to analyze the data, with multiple other scientist peer review the analysis. Finally, have them compare the 'known' with the variables from the AFCCG and re-analyze that data. Publish the findings and release to the media.

It'll never happen, but god what I wouldn't give to have this all thrown back in the NFL's face.

 

[trevrox]

And, will the results be made public?

And if they are, do we trust them?

 

[Bobsyouruncle]

This is why the Pats MUST take the bull by the horns and do something like has been suggested, having the Pats have their own balls, inflated to 12.5 psi, available to be viewed with real time psi readings displayed.

If the NFL* doesn't like it, too bleeping bad!

The Pats MUST do this to defend themselves and get ahead, and stay ahead, of public perception.

This is better than nothing but there's no substitute for real game balls. One of the things about the Patriots balls was that they had more variability. This could be because some balls saw the field more and have varied wetness, and also because it took more time between measuring the first to the last.

You can't recreate that by just sitting them in the cold. A true test of the NFL's test would have to try to replicate the NFLs idiotic method which isn't all that clear on how long it took to measure, and the temp in the room etc. It's just a **** show.

 

[Dr Pain]

This is better than nothing but there's no substitute for real game balls. One of the things about the Patriots balls was that they had more variability. This could be because some balls saw the field more and have varied wetness, and also because it took more time between measuring the first to the last.

You can't recreate that by just sitting them in the cold. A true test of the NFL's test would have to try to replicate the NFLs idiotic method which isn't all that clear on how long it took to measure, and the temp in the room etc. It's just a **** show.

Most of the variability was how wet and how long they were allowed to warm. Put them all out in a rain or snow game and show live feed on the scoreboard.

 

[Bobsyouruncle]

Most of the variability was how wet and how long they were allowed to warm. Put them all out in a rain or snow game and show live feed on the scoreboard.

But that wouldn't show variability. They would all be equally wet, which isn't what happened. The Pats balls differed by over 1psi from lowest to highest, the Colts .2psi (only 4 balls of course).

If you do an experiment showing all the balls dropping to 10.5 plus or minus .2psi (which that experiment will likely do) then they will argue that's not what the Patriots balls did therefore proof of cheating. At least that's what I would say if I was arguing their case.

And I don't think that variability is just in timing of measurements because some of the lowest balls were the last measured.

If I really wanted to get a good experiment I would get a HS or university to follow their team around. Use the same bag as the Patriots, then stick a gauge in them all after each game and build curves for each until they return to room temp. I suspect the variability is an artifact of some balls getting used that can't easily be calculated without an experiment.

 

[Dr Pain]

But that wouldn't show variability. They would all be equally wet, which isn't what happened. The Pats balls differed by over 1psi from lowest to highest, the Colts .2psi (only 4 balls of course).

If you do an experiment showing all the balls dropping to 10.5 plus or minus .2psi (which that experiment will likely do) then they will argue that's not what the Patriots balls did therefore proof of cheating. At least that's what I would say if I was arguing their case.

And I don't think that variability is just in timing of measurements because some of the lowest balls were the last measured.

If I really wanted to get a good experiment I would get a HS or university to follow their team around. Use the same bag as the Patriots, then stick a gauge in them all after each game and build curves for each until they return to room temp. I suspect the variability is an artifact of some balls getting used that can't easily be calculated without an experiment.

It is long past a good experiment, the headsmart guys had one the first week. It is about showing natural deflation in a very public setting.

 

[Koma]

Why hasn't this NFL ball testing procedure been picked up by the media?

For the same reason the lime green vest rule (Quietly enacted before the 2011 season. Basically, you can film whatever you want from the sideline as long as you're wearing a lime green vest) received very little attention: It doesn't fit the narrative and won't get clicks.

People really don't care about the PSI in footballs. They're not going to care if cold weather drops the PSI below 12.5 in Cincinnati, Chicago, or Buffalo. They only care if it's a really good team that they dislike getting scrutinized.

 

[Pyerardi]

Why hasn't this NFL ball testing procedure been picked up by the media?

I'm sure I read this earlier this month. I also remember reading that after the first week or two of preseason games, the NFL sent a letter to all teams asking for the balls to be brought to the officials 15 minutes sooner. So 2 hour and 30 minutes before kickoff

 

[Tony2046]

Good discussion. FWIW during the game the barometric pressure dropped significantly between ~4pm (the time of initial inspection) and 9pm (halftime). According to the following weather data it went from 29.89in – 29.61in. With the storm system starting to pass through during the first half.

http://www.wunderground.com/history...tml?req_city=NA&req_state=NA&req_statename=NA

That would have caused some (minimal) inflation.

 

[Tony2046]

But that wouldn't show variability. They would all be equally wet, which isn't what happened. The Pats balls differed by over 1psi from lowest to highest, the Colts .2psi (only 4 balls of course).

If you do an experiment showing all the balls dropping to 10.5 plus or minus .2psi (which that experiment will likely do) then they will argue that's not what the Patriots balls did therefore proof of cheating. At least that's what I would say if I was arguing their case.

And I don't think that variability is just in timing of measurements because some of the lowest balls were the last measured.

If I really wanted to get a good experiment I would get a HS or university to follow their team around. Use the same bag as the Patriots, then stick a gauge in them all after each game and build curves for each until they return to room temp. I suspect the variability is an artifact of some balls getting used that can't easily be calculated without an experiment.

Variability in deflategate was due to at least two factors. 1. The balls were in the bag and pulled out one by one to be tested at halftime. The balls in the center of the bag and surrounded by other "cold" balls would have taken longer to reach room temperature. 2. As you stated, the balls varied in wetness.

The longer the balls sat in the locker room prior to being tested the less variance between each ball would have been seen. The Colts footballs had the luxury of time while the Pat's did not.

 

[RobertWeathers]

That would have caused some (minimal) inflation.

So not significant?

I haven't done the math (plugging in numbers into the formula on-line is my capability) but the point is that a change in barometric pressure does have an impact on PSI measurement and since these jackasses got their panties in a bunch over 2/10s of a PSI, its worth thinking about.

 

[Bobsyouruncle]

Variability in deflategate was due to at least two factors. 1. The balls were in the bag and pulled out one by one to be tested at halftime. The balls in the center of the bag and surrounded by other "cold" balls would have taken longer to reach room temperature. 2. As you stated, the balls varied in wetness.

The longer the balls sat in the locker room prior to being tested the less variance between each ball would have been seen. The Colts footballs had the luxury of time while the Pat's did not.

I agree, but add that some balls were likely dry and some soaked so they probably varied even if checked on the field at the same time. The headsmart test showed something like .6 from wetness

All I'm saying is don't be surprised if it's argued the experiment above "proves" tampering because it is set up in a way that will not reproduce the Pats ball measurements, and may reproduce the Colts.

 

[Tony2046]

So not significant?

I haven't done the math (plugging in numbers into the formula on-line is my capability) but the point is that a change in barometric pressure does have an impact on PSI measurement and since these jackasses got their panties in a bunch over 2/10s of a PSI, its worth thinking about.

Not sure. I'll tweet mort a message and back to you.

 

[Tony2046]

So not significant?

I haven't done the math (plugging in numbers into the formula on-line is my capability) but the point is that a change in barometric pressure does have an impact on PSI measurement and since these jackasses got their panties in a bunch over 2/10s of a PSI, its worth thinking about.

Have you ever heard or seen what the rain temperature was during that game? Curious.

 

[Tony2046]

I agree, but add that some balls were likely dry and some soaked so they probably varied even if checked on the field at the same time. The headsmart test showed something like .6 from wetness

All I'm saying is don't be surprised if it's argued the experiment above "proves" tampering because it is set up in a way that will not reproduce the Pats ball measurements, and may reproduce the Colts.

I agree 100%. Nothing would surprise me when it comes to the NFL.

 

[RobertWeathers]

Have you ever heard or seen what the rain temperature was during that game? Curious.

Don't recall but do know that rain temp when it hits the ground is 2-3c colder than ambient air temp and is influenced from how high up in the atmosphere the rain in falling from. Also need to account for how wet the ball is, how much rain, etc.

9 months later and still talking about this.....Unf-ingbelievable.

 

[RobertWeathers]

Have you ever heard or seen what the rain temperature was during that game? Curious.

Note it was in the link i sent this AM

http://www.wunderground.com/history...tml?req_city=NA&req_state=NA&req_statename=NA

 

[The Gr8est]

I agree, but add that some balls were likely dry and some soaked so they probably varied even if checked on the field at the same time. The headsmart test showed something like .6 from wetness

All I'm saying is don't be surprised if it's argued the experiment above "proves" tampering because it is set up in a way that will not reproduce the Pats ball measurements, and may reproduce the Colts.

Whatever the drawbacks, it would still tend to support the Pats more than not when people can see the environmental factors affecting ball pressure, and it would also have the added benefit of keeping it in the public's consciousness and rubbing the NFL*'s noses in it every week.

 

[Seacoast Fan]

Seacoast...I wanna sue somebody...anybody...you know I'm just the guy to do it too...how about I sue Vincent for "Alienation Of Brain Cells"?....sure it'd get laughed out of court, but HE'D get laughed off the planet!

I'll take that case.