Ring 6
PatsFans.com Supporter
PatsFans.com Supporter
2021 Weekly Picks Winner
2022 Weekly Picks Winner
- Joined
- Sep 13, 2004
- Messages
- 63,761
- Reaction score
- 14,113
One of the frustrations with this issue is that the media is focussed on sound bites, and the answers in response to the soundbites (Balls were tamepered with, why didn't Brady turn over the phone, the texts prove it) all require more than a sound bite to answer. To me there are a few main talking points that are being butchered. The first is the science.
The science says:
1) WITHOUT ANY EFFECT OF RAIN, the laws of nature predict the footballs would have measured between 11.32 and 11.52.
22 measurements were taken. The average was 11.30.
The measurements of the Patriots footballs were under by 0.17% from what the laws of nature predict IF THEY WERE DRY.
Factors that could account for the 0.17% violation:
-Accuracy of gauges (2 gauges used had a margin of error of .35 to .40, or 3.1% to 3.5%)
-Rain
-Pressure lost from first measurement to second
-Human error
-Any difference in the assumptions used in the computation of temp in the room at either measurement or the exact original measurement
2) If we only use the gauge that Anderson says he used, then the average Patriot football measured 11.49, perfectly within the range and just 0.26% below the top of the range.
3) 3 of the balls were below the IGL prediction. It is more probable than not that the balls that measured the lowest were the ones that absorbed to most moisture (since that reduces psi) so that explains the fact that a few of the footballs measured a little bit low.
4) The 3 balls that were under the DRY IGL prediction were under by:
3.7%
2.8%
1.9%
Considering that the 2 approved gauges varied by somewhere between 3.1% and 3.5% from each other, these difference would be explained by tolerances the league considers acceptable in their own instruments,as well as pressure lost form first measurement to second, human error, any difference in the assumptions used in the computations before we even consider the effect of these balls more probably than not being the balls that were most wet and had the largest decrease in psi due to the wet weather.
The science says:
1) WITHOUT ANY EFFECT OF RAIN, the laws of nature predict the footballs would have measured between 11.32 and 11.52.
22 measurements were taken. The average was 11.30.
The measurements of the Patriots footballs were under by 0.17% from what the laws of nature predict IF THEY WERE DRY.
Factors that could account for the 0.17% violation:
-Accuracy of gauges (2 gauges used had a margin of error of .35 to .40, or 3.1% to 3.5%)
-Rain
-Pressure lost from first measurement to second
-Human error
-Any difference in the assumptions used in the computation of temp in the room at either measurement or the exact original measurement
2) If we only use the gauge that Anderson says he used, then the average Patriot football measured 11.49, perfectly within the range and just 0.26% below the top of the range.
3) 3 of the balls were below the IGL prediction. It is more probable than not that the balls that measured the lowest were the ones that absorbed to most moisture (since that reduces psi) so that explains the fact that a few of the footballs measured a little bit low.
4) The 3 balls that were under the DRY IGL prediction were under by:
3.7%
2.8%
1.9%
Considering that the 2 approved gauges varied by somewhere between 3.1% and 3.5% from each other, these difference would be explained by tolerances the league considers acceptable in their own instruments,as well as pressure lost form first measurement to second, human error, any difference in the assumptions used in the computations before we even consider the effect of these balls more probably than not being the balls that were most wet and had the largest decrease in psi due to the wet weather.