Tom Brady, NFLPA Granted 14-Day Extension To File Motion For Rehearing By Second Circuit Court

[Pats2000]

I have seen the shorter version of this. It is a critique of some of the theory used in the exponent report. I fast forwarded through this version but didnt see any controlled experimentation going on. Is there any? That is what I would like to see, to refute figures 29 and 30 of the Exponent Report.

Any scientific report can be critiqued for methodology. While the narrative on this board is that all scientists agree that the Patriots didnt deflate the balls, there were many physicists who came out in support of the Exponent Report when the media was playing that angle. When the tide turned after the Berman decision, Leonard showed up and the media began actively seeking out scientists that were critical of the Exponent Report. That, I think, has given the false impression that there is a scientific consensus.

Headsmart Labs study

 

[realtime]

This may be true. Schmaltz of BU, Nathan of Illinois, Gay of Nebraska all came out supporting the Report initially. But a review of their statements indicates that they hadn't studied the Report closely. Of course, Dan Marlow is highly respected as well, although I think it is conceivable he was just a hired gun here. The one mention I have seen of experiments being conducted are the ones by the carnegie mellon guy. Anyone know anything about these. He is a self-admitted patriots fan, but I would be interested in seeing his results.

The Carnegie Mellon study (along with the 7th grader study that someone else posted) rebuts the straw man that Mortensen set up -- i.e. it shows that a drop of 2 psi is explainable by natural conditions alone. I don't think it is what you are looking for.

 

[letekro]

Headsmart Labs study

This is obviously woefully insufficient as a study and therefore doesn't really move the needle (pardon the pun).

It is distressing that the Patriots hired lawyers to do the Wells Report in Context but either didn't try or couldn't find an Exponent competitor to do a proper study. I'm sure a proper study could be conducted in such a way to show the Patriots' balls were in conformity with IGL predictions. Another ball dropped by the team in this sordid affair.

 

[JarOfMayo51]

I know this was posted earlier today and has been addressed, but holy hell. Did you seriously say that this science has never been presented? You can go plug in all the numbers into an Ideal Gas Law calculator online and see how PSI drops with temperature. There have been dozens of reports presenting the science including from renowned scientists across the country. A f*#@ing 7th grader won his high school science fair presenting the science that shows Brady is innocent. You can do it yourself with a football and a pressure gauge.

If you're trolling, well done, because I totally bit on it. But if you are serious with that comment then I have no idea how you have 5,000 posts on this forum (which means you're not a Jets fan) and can believe that the science has never been demonstrated.

EDIT: here's a link, since you asked. 13 year old outsmarts the NFL
Seventh grader may have proven Tom Brady innocent

Martin Schmaltz' pressure calculator

Here is a real simple one that doesn't account for water saturation or anything like that.. and what do you know, the expected PSI was right in line with where the Patriots balls were

This whole thing has been such a mind **** as to how we got to this point... Its a lesson on the power of media and the power of human stupidity and/or ignorance.

 

[JarOfMayo51]

many physicists who supported the Exponent report? like who? besides bill nye who only gave sound bites and did no calculations.

Yup, media sound bites and admitted the entire time he was a Seahawks fan.. hes more of a pretend scientist now, i don't know how much he actually practices anymore.. hes more into being a celebrity than being a scientist

 

[letekro]

Martin Schmaltz' pressure calculator

Here is a real simple one that doesn't account for water saturation or anything like that.. and what do you know, the expected PSI was right in line with where the Patriots balls were

This whole thing has been such a mind **** as to how we got to this point... Its a lesson on the power of media and the power of human stupidity and/or ignorance.

Shows an expected PSI of 11.62. Pats' balls averaged 11.21. He says effect of wetness is "negligble." Not only that, but it doesn't seem to take into account that the PSI would have increased during the time it took the officials to measure the 12 balls. Why is this a good study for the Patriots? What am I missing?

 

[NashuaPats]

This is obviously woefully insufficient as a study and therefore doesn't really move the needle (pardon the pun).

It is distressing that the Patriots hired lawyers to do the Wells Report in Context but either didn't try or couldn't find an Exponent competitor to do a proper study. I'm sure a proper study could be conducted in such a way to show the Patriots' balls were in conformity with IGL predictions. Another ball dropped by the team in this sordid affair.

For one, this is very simple science here. It's so simple that children have done experiments showing that the balls measured as expected. Second of all, they had a a Chemistry Nobel Leaureate and an Ivy League Dean explain it. But you obviously dismiss all information that hurts your argument.

What the Carnegie experiment shows is that rain has a meaningful effect on the balls which explains the few balls that messured below the IGL calculation. Exponent sprayed a ball with a spray bottle to simulate the effects of a ball being used in a football game played in the rain which rolls around in soaking wet grass with huge men landing on it. Exponent's version of the experiment is as disingenuous as you are.

 

[NashuaPats]

Shows an expected PSI of 11.62. Pats' balls averaged 11.21. He says effect of wetness is "negligble." Not only that, but it doesn't seem to take into account that the PSI would have increased during the time it took the officials to measure the 12 balls. Why is this a good study for the Patriots? What am I missing?

There you go messing with facts again. The Pats' balls averaged 11.49 per the gauge the ref said he used. You should watch Professor Leonard's video again.

 

[Froob]

Shows an expected PSI of 11.62. Pats' balls averaged 11.21. He says effect of wetness is "negligble." Not only that, but it doesn't seem to take into account that the PSI would have increased during the time it took the officials to measure the 12 balls. Why is this a good study for the Patriots? What am I missing?

Why are we even talking about the Patriots deflating the balls by decimals? If you believe in the ideal gas law then the entire story is absurd.

 

[XLIX]

Why are we even talking about the Patriots deflating the balls by decimals? If you believe in the ideal gas law then the entire story is absurd.

This this this. In order to believe the Patriots cheated, one has to believe:

1) They only deflated some of the balls, or
2) They deflated all of the balls, but by such a miniscule amount that the deflation still kept the balls within the confidence interval of what we would expect from Mother Nature.

All the self righteous ****-suckers on ESPN talked about how they could tell the difference between 12.5 and 10.5 by feeling it. OK, Trent Dilfer and Mark Brunell, you worthless jealous pieces of ****, how about you tell us if you can feel the difference between 11.25 and 11.08? By the way, do it in the 48 degree rain when you only have about 3 seconds to hold the ball before passing it (not that either one of you 2 turds can pass the ball worth ****).

 

[JarOfMayo51]

Shows an expected PSI of 11.62. Pats' balls averaged 11.21. He says effect of wetness is "negligble." Not only that, but it doesn't seem to take into account that the PSI would have increased during the time it took the officials to measure the 12 balls. Why is this a good study for the Patriots? What am I missing?

I never said it was a "good study", its a stupid little tool that can show even the most dumb neanderthal that there is such thing as the Ideal Gas Law... something that almost no one thought about or knew existed when the original numbers were released by Mortenson. The NFL's lawyers admitted to a federal judge that they had no idea about the Ideal Gas Law when they jumped to conclusions and levied an unprecedented punishment onto Brady and the team

 

[letekro]

I never said it was a "good study", its a stupid little tool that can show even the most dumb neanderthal that there is such thing as the Ideal Gas Law... something that almost no one thought about or knew existed when the original numbers were released by Mortenson. The NFL's lawyers admitted to a federal judge that they had no idea about the Ideal Gas Law when they jumped to conclusions and levied an unprecedented punishment onto Brady and the team

Let's not mix things up. Whether the NFL acted horribly is a given. We need not take any further evidence on that point. I'm asking for something very specific--a study that shows that the Patriots balls were where IGL predicts. Schmalz's calculator is not that study, because it doesn't seem to match the measurements of the Patriots' balls. The two minute silliness from the carnegie mellon undergrad/patriots fan was beyond useless.

 

[letekro]

There you go messing with facts again. The Pats' balls averaged 11.49 per the gauge the ref said he used. You should watch Professor Leonard's video again.

Before you talk to me about facts, show me where it says the ref "said he used" the logo gauge? According to Wells, he said, "best recollection", which in the world of eyewitness testimony can be roughly translated as "I have no farking idea."

I have explained many times why I believe it is slightly more likely that the non-logo gauge was used. In a nutshell, to believe that the logo gauge was used, you have to accept that the two gauges used by the Colts and Patriots were both off by an identical amount as the logo gauge. This is possible, but not more likely than not, IMO. Of course, we don't know whether the balls were originally at 12.5 and 13, respectively, but that is a fact in the record that isn't going to change.

 

[NashuaPats]

Let's not mix things up. Whether the NFL acted horribly is a given. We need not take any further evidence on that point. I'm asking for something very specific--a study that shows that the Patriots balls were where IGL predicts. Schmalz's calculator is not that study, because it doesn't seem to match the measurements of the Patriots' balls. The two minute silliness from the carnegie mellon undergrad/patriots fan was beyond useless.

You can pretty much eyeball it by using the Schmalz calculator and the Headsmart video.

The Schmalz calculator had pre-settings, but you can adjust them. The room temperature that the ref used before the game was about 70. The outdoor temp of the game was 48. Plug in 12.5 and that gets you an expected measurement of 11.37. Now the balls measured at 11.49, seemingly too high. We also know balls got wet which lowers the psi. Not all the balls would have been wet since it wasn't raining the whole half, but a few balls would be. How much would that lower the psi. Hard to say. The HeadSmart video showed 0.7, but realistically he wet the balls too much. Let's say a few balls would be 3-5 tenths lower, so overall the Pats' balls actually look a couple to a few tenths too high. Why is that? Because it took a couple minutes for the refs to set up while the balls were in a warm room and another minute or so to gauge them. That means, they would have risen a couple tenths. Wow! Guess what?! It all works out and we didn't have to do an experiment! The overall average is explained and the few lower reading are explained. This isn't difficult ****.

 

[letekro]

LOL

nahhh.....you're just trying to play naysayer but doing it rather poorly

"Trying to play naysayer" is often how problems are solved. Why don't you run back to the herd so you can live a life of happy ignorance?

 

[letekro]

You can pretty much eyeball it by using the Schmalz calculator and the Headsmart video.

The Schmalz calculator had pre-settings, but you can adjust them. The room temperature that the ref used before the game was about 70. The outdoor temp of the game was 48. Plug in 12.5 and that gets you an expected measurement of 11.37. Now the balls measured at 11.49, seemingly too high. We also know balls got wet which lowers the psi. Not all the balls would have been wet since it wasn't raining the whole half, but a few balls would be. How much would that lower the psi. Hard to say. The HeadSmart video showed 0.7, but realistically he wet the balls too much. Let's say a few balls would be 3-5 tenths lower, so overall the Pats' balls actually look a couple to a few tenths too high. Why is that? Because it took a couple minutes for the refs to set up while the balls were in a warm room and another minute or so to gauge them. That means, they would have risen a couple tenths. Wow! Guess what?! It all works out and we didn't have to do an experiment! The overall average is explained and the few lower reading are explained. This isn't difficult ****.

It works out when you assume facts not in evidence. The default was set at 51 for a reason--that was the widely reported temperature during the first half of the AFCCG. I have never seen 48 reported as the temperature (maybe that was the temp by the end of the game?). The locker room was reported to be between 68-70. Let's say 70--then you are still not matching up and we have a problem.

Then you assume something else without any evidence--wet balls would be .3-.5 lower. Why do you assume that? Schmaltz himself says effect would be "negligible."

Safe to say that the officials were mucking around for a little bit and didn't realize that the psi was time-dependent. So, it probably took them 10 minutes or more to measure all the Patriots balls (also supported by the fact that they only had remaining time to measure 4 Colts balls). So, the Pats balls could have risen more than the .2 you claim.

So, everything works out if you assume everything went the way you want. But, that seems unlikely.

 

[NashuaPats]

Before you talk to me about facts, show me where it says the ref "said he used" the logo gauge? According to Wells, he said, "best recollection", which in the world of eyewitness testimony can be roughly translated as "I have no farking idea."

I have explained many times why I believe it is slightly more likely that the non-logo gauge was used. In a nutshell, to believe that the logo gauge was used, you have to accept that the two gauges used by the Colts and Patriots were both off by an identical amount as the logo gauge. This is possible, but not more likely than not, IMO. Of course, we don't know whether the balls were originally at 12.5 and 13, respectively, but that is a fact in the record that isn't going to change.

He measured 56 balls before the game, 12 game for each team, 11 backups for each team, and 10 kicking balls. He owns both gauges and this became a major issue just a couple hours later and the gauges look drastically different. He knew which gauge he used. He only said best recollection when he was challenged.

To accept that the logo gauge was used, you do not need to accept that both the Colts and the Pats gauges were off by identical amounts. That's a ridiculous statement. The logo was too high and the non logo to low, but closer. The amounts we are talking about are very small. If the rooms where the ball boys set the psi levels were just two degrees warmer, which is effing nothing, the logo gauge would have been more accurate never mind if they had rubbed the balls down beforehand. If Exponent was really determined to figureout which gauge was used, they would have gotten the teams' gauges, interviewed them about where the balls were stored and when, find out how the balls were handled before setting the psi's and gotten the thermostat settings of the rooms that this took place in. They chose to do none of that. Even if they had, the variables would be to large to have any confidence and the refs recollection would have geen better supporting evidence. The methodology that they chose was a joke and no better than a coin flip and yet that's what you cling to. Smh.

 

[SHOWTIME15]

The second circuit judges won't care about the ideal gas law.

 

[letekro]

He measured 56 balls before the game, 12 game for each team, 11 backups for each team, and 10 kicking balls. He owns both gauges and this became a major issue just a couple hours later and the gauges look drastically different. He knew which gauge he used. He only said best recollection when he was challenged.

To accept that the logo gauge was used, you do not need to accept that both the Colts and the Pats gauges were off by identical amounts. That's a ridiculous statement. The logo was too high and the non logo to low, but closer. The amounts we are talking about are very small. If the rooms where the ball boys set the psi levels were just two degrees warmer, which is effing nothing, the logo gauge would have been more accurate never mind if they had rubbed the balls down beforehand. If Exponent was really determined to figureout which gauge was used, they would have gotten the teams' gauges, interviewed them about where the balls were stored and when, find out how the balls were handled before setting the psi's and gotten the thermostat settings of the rooms that this took place in. They chose to do none of that. Even if they had, the variables would be to large to have any confidence and the refs recollection would have geen better supporting evidence. The methodology that they chose was a joke and no better than a coin flip and yet that's what you cling to. Smh.

Correct!! Dont get things confused. We agree that the Wells Report and the Exponent Report are hit pieces. I think the small point of disagreement is that you seem to think the Exponent Report PROVES that there was no deflation. I say it PROVES nothing at all. It is worthless. However it does have an experiment in there, represented at Figures 29 and 30, that I have not seen refuted. I find it slightly troubling that it seems that no real study exists that contradicts Figures 29 and 30. Why didn't Brady's lawyers commission their own study?? This is the first thing that litigators do when confronted with an expert report.

 

[juny]

It works out when you assume facts not in evidence. The default was set at 51 for a reason--that was the widely reported temperature during the first half of the AFCCG. I have never seen 48 reported as the temperature (maybe that was the temp by the end of the game?). The locker room was reported to be between 68-70. Let's say 70--then you are still not matching up and we have a problem.

Then you assume something else without any evidence--wet balls would be .3-.5 lower. Why do you assume that? Schmaltz himself says effect would be "negligible."

Safe to say that the officials were mucking around for a little bit and didn't realize that the psi was time-dependent. So, it probably took them 10 minutes or more to measure all the Patriots balls (also supported by the fact that they only had remaining time to measure 4 Colts balls). So, the Pats balls could have risen more than the .2 you claim.

So, everything works out if you assume everything went the way you want. But, that seems unlikely.

The freaking Wells Report said the footballs should be 11.32-11.52 due to IGL. The average due to one gauge was around 11.5 and the other gauge was around 11.2. I highly doubt a deflation "scheme" aimed to remove tenths of a PSI from every football