#1 |
#2 |
#3 |
Paste this URL into an email or IM: |
Click here to send this debate via your default email application.
|
Click here to login and CreateDebate will send an email for you.
|
Should the Patriots/Brady be punished?
Here is the report on deflate-gate. Should the league punish the team/Brady? If so, how much?
Add New Argument |
2
points
Yes. The Wells report is said to meet the standard of proof required to find that a violation of the competitive rules has occurred. Some of the text exchanges between Jastremski and McNally seem to contradict Brady's own statements claiming he knew nothing the deflation of footballs. In addition, the Patriots and Brady were less than cooperative with the investigation. Furthermore, the Patriots are repeat offenders (of rule violations). I think the 4 game suspension of Brady are reasonable. The $1 million fine and loss of draft picks may be a little excessive. Still, the NFL wants the integrity of its sport maintained, so they needed to punish the Patriots too. Brady is such a great QB. Why would he take the risk of circumventing the rules is beyond me. I doubt he gained that much of a competitive edge. This report directly contradicts the previous report that said nothing was wrong with the footballs. Why should we believe this one? This report claims to have hard evidence that it itself claims doesn't exist and that was previously announced by the NFL a not existing, so where did it come from? 1
point
the previous report that said nothing was wrong with the footballs Which previous report? I only remember this story (though I haven't paid much attention). Why should we believe this one? Presumably because this one is the result of a fuller investigation than any previous report(s). This report claims to have hard evidence that it itself claims doesn't exist Like what? Which previous report? I only remember this story (though I haven't paid much attention). That is a news story that discusses the report I think. From what I remember the report said that 1 ball was under inflated and the others were right at minimum. Presumably because this one is the result of a fuller investigation than any previous report(s) It just looks like a guy who gets paid by the page. Like what? They say no one wrote down any of the pressures during the game, then the pulled out the list of air pressure measurements. 1
point
1
point
I think when they wrote the initial article all they knew was that they were underinflated, but not how much. From the full report: The regulation minimum is 12.5 psi At halftime 2 refs used different gauges to measure the balls. Here were the results: Ball Blakeman Prioleau 1 11.50 11.80 2 10.85 11.20 3 11.15 11.50 4 10.70 11.00 5 11.10 11.45 6 11.60 11.95 7 11.85 12.30 8 11.10 11.55 9 10.95 11.35 10 10.50 10.90 11 10.90 11.35 Even using the more favorable Prioleau measures (presumably he measured first and there could have been some pressure loss before Blakeman measured - along with any calibration difference), there was only one that measured over 12 and the average was over a full psi below the required minimum. 1
point
Except this is THE report. Earlier information was just partial leaks/tidbits. To say that it wasn't completely leaked in detail before now therefore it is automatically false is quite a stretch. Note also where the information came from: "The measurements were recorded in writing by Richard Farley, an NFL security official who has been assigned to the Patriots and Gillette Stadium for approximately twelve years." And, it was witnessed by several refs who would have been able to corroborate how many balls complied - pretty easy to remember 0. More importantly, the pressures aren't the only evidence in the report - the text messages (a guy literally calls himself "the deflator"), Brady's lack of cooperation, etc., etc. Except this is THE report. Earlier information was just partial leaks/tidbits. The track record of the NFL screwing this stuff up makes me disagree with whatever they put out. They couldn't even figure out how top handle a guy who punched his wife. To say that it wasn't completely leaked in detail before now therefore it is automatically false is quite a stretch. I am saying the fake data that should have been given earlier is suspect. More importantly, the pressures aren't the only evidence in the report - the text messages (a guy literally calls himself "the deflator"), Brady's lack of cooperation, etc., etc. If you go down to the scientific analysis it said that according to the ideal gas law the balls should have measured 11.52 to 11.32 at the time of those data points. All but 2 are at those numbers, so that data is actually worthless. And the deflator can be a nickname of the guy who deflated the balls from fully inflated to the minimum of 12.5. Brady spent an entire day meeting with the investigator to answer all of his questions, was that in the report? Brady has admitted that he prefers deflated balls (to the minimum), all we found out is that he doesn't like to deflate his own balls. 1
point
The track record of the NFL The report is not done by the NFL. (Also, you seem to trust the early leaks more, yet those WERE by the NFL.) I am saying the fake data that should have been given earlier is suspect. A) Why? B) Wouldn't it be possible for the numbers to have been fabricated in either direction (e.g. that the pressures mentioned might be higher than the actual values rather than lower)? according to the ideal gas law Did you literally not read the rest of the paragraph you are referencing, or were you just hoping that I wouldn't? "Most of the individual Patriots measurements recorded at halftime, however, were lower than the range predicted by the Ideal Gas Law. Once the game day measurements are converted into their corresponding Master Gauge pressures (in order to provide for a direct comparison with the results predicted by the calculations), the measurements for all but three of the footballs, as measured by both gauges, were lower than the range predicted by the Ideal Gas Law." And the deflator can be a nickname People are free to delude themselves. was that in the report? Of course. They mentioned their interview with Brady many times. They mention that he showed up (with his counsel), denied everything, had a poor memory, and refused access to any electronic communications - not sure this really helps his case. "During his interview, Brady denied any knowledge of or involvement in any efforts to deflate game balls after the pre-game inspection by the game officials. He claimed that prior to the events surrounding the AFC Championship Game, he did not know McNally's name or anything about McNally's game-day responsibilities, including whether McNally had any role relating to game balls or the game officials. We found these claims not plausible and contradicted by other evidence. In fact, during his interview, Jastremski acknowledged that Brady knew McNally and McNally's role as Officials Locker Room attendant." "Similarly, although Tom Brady appeared for a requested interview and answered questions voluntarily, he declined to make available any documents or electronic information (including text messages and emails) that we requested, even though those requests were limited to the subject matter of our investigation (such as messages concerning the preparation of game balls, air pressure of balls, inflation of balls or deflation of balls) and we offered to allow Brady's counsel to screen and control the production so that it would be limited strictly to responsive materials and would not involve our taking possession of Brady's telephone or other electronic devices." "interviewed the following individuals":Tom Brady Quarterback, New England Patriots "No other witnesses were separately represented by counsel during their interviews, although agents and lawyers for Tom Brady attended his interview and a representative from the National Football League Players Association attended our interview of Stephen Gostkowski. No limits were placed on the questions that could be raised during the interviews." "When interviewed by our investigative team, Brady explained that he prefers footballs that are more broken in and that he is primarily focused on the “feel” of the ball, citing the texture, grip or tackiness of the ball's surface." "When interviewed, Brady claimed to have known nothing about the permissible inflation range set by the NFL Playing Rules or the inflation range targeted by the Patriots until after the Patriots game against the New York Jets on October 16, 2014." "According to Brady, at some point after the Jets game and before the game against the Chicago Bears the following weekend, he asked to see a copy of the applicable Playing Rule, learned for the first time that the permissible inflation range was 12.5 to 13.5 psi, and was told that the Patriots typically inflated game balls slightly above 12.5 psi. Brady also stated that, at some point, he felt a football that was inflated to 12.5 psi, and decided that should be the target for all future games because he did “not ever want to get near the upper range again.” In addition, Brady stated that he suggested that the Patriots give the game officials a copy of Rule 2 when they delivered game balls prior to each game, so that the officials would know that it was not necessary to inflate them further. He claimed that doing so would help ensure that the officials did not alter the footballs he had approved." "Brady explained that there is “kind of an art” to selecting balls, and that once he feels each football, he will “go for balls that feel the best on that particular day.”" "Brady told us that he asked to see a ball prepared this way because the weather forecast called for rain, and he knew from prior experiences using footballs treated with leather conditioner in “weather games” that they might become oily and hard to grip." "According to Brady, this created a set of game balls “where most of the tack on the ball ended up coming from the leather receiver gloves.”" "Based on information from Brady, Jastremski and contemporaneous text communications, it appears that Brady first came to review the footballs as Jastremski was finishing this process, at or around 12:00 or 12:30 p.m." "Brady stated that he had asked for the footballs to be set at 12.5 psi." "When interviewed, Brady claimed that, prior to the events surrounding the AFC Championship Game, he did not know McNally‟s name or anything about McNally‟s game-day responsibilities, including whether McNally had any responsibilities relating to game balls or the game officials. When asked specifically whether he had spoken with Jastremski about McNally on the night of the Jets game, he stated: “I didn‟t know who Jim McNally was so I find it hard to believe I could bring that up.” On this point, Brady‟s statement is inconsistent with Jastremski's statements that Brady knew McNally and made a comment about McNally during the Jets game when complaining about the game balls. With respect to his complaints about the footballs during the Jets game, Brady remembers being angry and expressing frustration about the balls. Brady recalls telling Jastremski that the game balls “f-ing suck” to express his unhappiness, although he also acknowledged that the game officials were the more appropriate target of his frustration." "Brady vaguely recalls sending Jastremski “in the right direction” through “a contact of a contact of a contact” for the Lakers tickets, and said that he may have been able to arrange for the tickets for free." "During his interview, Brady said that he did not recall whether he had signed a ball of significance for Jastremski following the game during which he reached the 50,000 yard milestone. Brady confirmed, however, that the signature, the number “12,” and the inscription “50,000 yards” depicted in the photograph of the ball (as reproduced above) appear to be written in his handwriting. Brady said that he had “no idea” if that football was the actual milestone football. Brady also said that he “absolutely” would write “50,000 yards” on a football “if someone asked me to do it,” even if it was not the football used to reach the milestone. According to Brady, he will generally include on an autographed item anything requested by the person seeking the autograph." "Brady recalls speaking with Jastremski on the morning of January 19, but did not remember “any specifics” of what was discussed beyond that they were trying to figure out the extent of the media coverage and the facts relating to the allegations against the Patriots. He does not recall what Jastremski told him about what he knew." "When interviewed, Brady recalled that Jastremski had been worried earlier that morning because he was responsible for the preparation of Patriots footballs. Brady stated that he believed at the time that Jastremski would be asked a lot of questions from within the organization, so he sent these messages to Jastremski to show his support." "Brady recalls requesting that Jastremski visit the “qb room” because he was busy preparing for the Super Bowl and wanted to discuss how the game balls would be prepared. He said that he “loved” the game balls Jastremski prepared for the AFC Championship Game, and that because he was aware that Jastremski would have to prepare many more footballs for the Super Bowl than usual, he wanted to give him sufficient lead time. He acknowledged that the deflation allegations may have come up during their meeting." "Brady does not recall what he discussed with Jastremski during these calls, but stated that he was in “Super Bowl mode” and wanted Jastremski to focus on the Super Bowl as well. Brady said that it was “possible” that they also discussed issues relating to the deflation allegations." "Brady did not remember the specifics of these calls, but similarly thought the first conversation may have concerned the preparation of Super Bowl footballs, including whether to incorporate those balls into practice the following day. He did not have a specific recollection of what was discussed during the second call." he report is not done by the NFL. (Also, you seem to trust the early leaks more, yet those WERE by the NFL.) Hiding data to present later is suspicious. Whenever the NFL holds back information it is bad. B) Wouldn't it be possible for the numbers to have been fabricated in either direction (e.g. that the pressures mentioned might be higher than the actual values rather than lower) Yes, the guy apparently doesn't like the Patriots. Did you literally not read the rest of the paragraph you are referencing, or were you just hoping that I wouldn't? Did you literally not read the rest of my argument? Regardless of what the rest of the paragraph said if you scroll back up to the actual numbers listed one of the refs actually had the expected numbers. 1
point
Hiding data to present later Not leaking is different than hiding. It is also possible that the data was leaked, but that someone in the chain of reporting the story just summarized the data. Whenever the NFL holds back information it is bad. Again, this report/investigation wasn't done by the NFL. Yes, the guy apparently doesn't like the Patriots. Based on what? Maybe he likes the Patriots (since he has worked for them for 12 years), and made the numbers more favorable. If you don't believe the numbers (no reason not to), you still do not know which direction to believe they are skewed. Did you literally not read the rest of my argument So you think less information and context is better than more?? If the people presenting you the data say it doesn't mean what you think it means, should you believe experts in the field, or just go with your gut? "As a result, Exponent concluded that application of the Ideal Gas Law within the context of the most likely game day conditions cannot account entirely for the pressure drops observed in the Patriots halftime measurements." It also wouldn't explain the contrast between the Patriots and the Colts balls. "In contrast, if one were to use the most likely pressure and temperature values for the Colts game balls on the day of the AFC Championship Game (i.e., a starting pressure of 13.0 psi, a starting temperature of between 67 and 71 degrees and a final temperature of 48 degrees), the Ideal Gas Law predicts that the Colts balls should have measured between 12.00 and 11.80 psi at the end of the first half, just before they were brought back into the Officials Locker Room. All of the Colts measurements recorded at halftime were above this range, once converted into a corresponding “Master Gauge” pressure, and therefore can be explained by the applicable scientific principles." The NFL should have released the numbers then explained them. The guy who did the report hates the Patriots. If the people presenting you the data say it doesn't mean what you think it means, should you believe experts in the field, or just go with your gut? If the numbers in the report directly contradict what the "expert" says the numbers say then he must be wrong. 1
point
The NFL should have released the numbers then explained them. The NFL paid for an independent investigation which did just that. (the current report) The guy who did the report hates the Patriots. Based on?? If the numbers in the report directly contradict what the "expert" says the numbers say then he must be wrong. The experts based it on the same numbers. They just aren't basing it on partial numbers and one sentence out of context. 1
point
I ignored half the data because the one ref who contributed the data was way off for both the expected values for either team. I used the data from the one ref that actually had normal values. There is no indication the experts used the data I am talking about since the don't explain how the Patriots did hit those numbers. 1
point
I can't tell with you sometimes whether you are just intellectually lazy, just trying to say whatever to keep debating, or actually can't comprehend what you read. In this case I want to say lazy since it isn't a topic I care about enough to give much attention to (already far too much), but you seem to be trying to persuade me otherwise. the one ref who contributed the data was way off for both the expected values for either team blatant falsehood. The ref that had lower ratings for the Patriots balls had higher ratings for 3/4 of the Colts footballs. There is no indication the experts used the data I am talking about Of course they are using the data you are talking about (the half-time data from one ref) - they are just also using data for the other ref, and the data for the Colts footballs. "As part of its evaluation and assessment Exponent: (1) conducted a thorough statistical analysis of the data recorded at halftime of the AFC Championship Game; (2) conducted a comprehensive examination, both physical and statistical, of the gauges used to measure the air pressure of the footballs pre-game and at halftime and (3) evaluated the effects that various usage, physical and environmental factors present on game day would have had on the measured pressure of a football. According to Exponent, regardless of the assumptions made with respect to the gauges used pre-game and at halftime, the measurements recorded for the Patriots game balls at halftime cannot be entirely explained by the Ideal Gas Law (or variations thereof) when applied to the most likely game conditions and circumstances. Exponent also concluded that the difference in the magnitude of the reduction in air pressure between the Patriots and Colts footballs based on the halftime measurements is statistically significant. Dr. Marlow agreed with Exponent's conclusions." (And again, the report offers evidence besides the scientific data.) It's mostly just keeping the debate going, but the data is total BS. blatant falsehood. The ref that had lower ratings for the Patriots balls had higher ratings for 3/4 of the Colts footballs You are wrong. Part of the scientific analysis said that the numbers for the Colts were too high to be explained by the ideal gas law. That means that the one ref did such a terrible job that he was wrong in both directions. The other ref had numbers that agree with the ideal gas law and should be the only numbers used. The experts claimed they did a bunch of calculations that can't be verified so I am supposed to be expected to believe them? 1
point
It's mostly just keeping the debate going Then just post anything - who cares if it's true. the data is total BS Not just because you say so. You are wrong. Part of the scientific analysis said that the numbers for the Colts were too high to be explained by the ideal gas law. Again, stop getting your reading lessons from Dana. "While measurements above the predicted levels can be accounted for by basic thermodynamics (because the halftime measurements were taken inside the Officials Locker Room at a temperature above the 48°F equilibrium temperature used for the calculations, and the pressure of each ball would have risen as the balls warmed up), those below the predicted levels cannot be explained by application of the Ideal Gas Law (assuming equilibrium conditions) alone. Accordingly, based on information regarding actual game day conditions, the application of the Ideal Gas Law cannot account entirely for the pressure drops observed in the Patriots halftime measurements." The other ref had numbers that agree with the ideal gas law and should be the only numbers used. Wrong again. Not all of Prioleau's measurements would comport with the ideal gas law either. a bunch of calculations that can't be verified You can verify the Ideal Gas Law anytime you like - if you've got the balls ;) Not just because you say so. Why not? You believe the report just because it says it. One part of the analysis says the values will be lower and one says the values will be higher. That's awesome. I am glad they know what they are looking for. Wrong again. Not all of Prioleau's measurements would comport with the ideal gas law either The report doesn't explain why only a couple balls are off instead of every ball. How can you tell they used Prioleau's numbers? You can verify the Ideal Gas Law anytime you like - if you've got the balls ;) That's nice, but I am talking about the calculations that were left out. How did the come up with the "Master Guage" value that they based everything off of? 1
point
You believe the report Do I believe independent investigators and scientific experts with access to the relevant information, equipment, personnel, etc. over you - a random dude on the internet with a persistent reading disability - um, yes. One part of the analysis says the values will be lower and one says the values will be higher. It says several times that it would not be lower (without a little help) - again, learn to read. How did the come up with the "Master Guage"[sic] value The master gauge is a known good calibrated gauge. Thus the part of the report that says: "Master Gauge - A calibrated pressure gauge." Do I literally have to paste every single word of the report here? How can you tell they used Prioleau's numbers? Seriously - you are just beyond the amount of remedial help I am willing to dedicate to this topic. It says several times that it would not be lower (without a little help) - again, learn to read. It has a part that says the values will be below 12.5. That is lower. You learn to read. Seriously - you are just beyond the amount of remedial help I am willing to dedicate to this topic. Because they aren't using his numbers. 1
point
It has a part that says the values will be below 12.5 Wow, you just have no idea what you are even reading. Below 12.5, but not below the minimum established by physics. You cited the predicted minimum earlier (11.52 to 11.32), now you don't even know what that is? And apparently I now have to paste everything twice: "While measurements above the predicted levels can be accounted for by basic thermodynamics (because the halftime measurements were taken inside the Officials Locker Room at a temperature above the 48°F equilibrium temperature used for the calculations, and the pressure of each ball would have risen as the balls warmed up), those below the predicted levels cannot be explained by application of the Ideal Gas Law (assuming equilibrium conditions) alone. Accordingly, based on information regarding actual game day conditions, the application of the Ideal Gas Law cannot account entirely for the pressure drops observed in the Patriots halftime measurements." Because they aren't using his numbers. Because - as demonstrated in post after post now - you just aren't up to the task. ---------------- "According to Mr. Prioleau’s halftime measurements, the average pressure drop in the Patriots balls was 0.45 psig more than that in the Colts balls." -pg 167 ---------------- Tested by Dyrol Prioleau Patriots 1 11.50 11.80 2 10.85 11.20 3 11.15 11.50 4 10.70 11.00 5 11.10 11.45 6 11.60 11.95 7 11.85 12.30 8 11.10 11.55 9 10.95 11.35 10 10.50 10.90 11 10.90 11.35 Colts 1 12.70 12.35 2 12.75 12.30 3 12.50 12.95 4 12.55 12.15 -pg 163 Table 1 ---------------- "The measurements were taken by Clete Blakeman and Dyrol Prioleau, and were recorded by Richard Farley" -pg 165 ---------------- "Mr. Blakeman was the first to gauge the balls in the above sequence, with Mr. Prioleau following for the second measurement. The measurements as recorded on Game Day and the computed average pressure measurements are shown in Table 2" -pg 166 ---------------- Blakeman 11.11 1.39 12.63 0.38 1.02 Prioleau 11.49 1.01 12.44 0.56 0.45 -pg 167 Table 3 ---------------- For much of the report they talk about which gauge (Logo/Non-Logo) was used, the more important information, rather than which person took the measurement, but they also include this statement which facilitates a cross-reference of who took the measurement: "For the reasons stated in Section VII.B and described in detail in Appendix 1, based on Exponent's conclusion that the Logo Gauge generally reports a measurement that is approximately 0.3-0.45 psi higher than the measurement reported by the Non-Logo Gauge, we believe that Blakeman used the Non-Logo Gauge and Prioleau used the Logo Gauge to test the Patriots game balls at halftime." -pg 71, et al ---------------- Not sure why you feel no sense of shame in being so egregiously inept. Hopefully it just derives from the anonymity of being online, because it would be much sadder if you did this in real life. Wow, you just have no idea what you are even reading. Below 12.5, but not below the minimum established by physics. You cited the predicted minimum earlier (11.52 to 11.32), now you don't even know what that is? The balls hit the predicted number and you still agree with an analysis that says they don't. You don't even know what you read. those below the predicted levels cannot be explained Why can't they explain how the numbers are at the level they expect? There are numbers at the expected levels. Why is that? we believe that Blakeman used the Non-Logo Gauge and Prioleau used the Logo Gauge to test the Patriots game balls at halftime." They don't even know who used what guage and you still believe their analysis. Not sure why you feel no sense of shame in being so egregiously inept. I am sorry that you think not being a sheep makes you inept. If you ignore the conclusion part of the analysis and actually look at the expected values and compare to the actual values the analysis does not hold up. Hopefully it just derives from the anonymity of being online, because it would be much sadder if you did this in real life. I like how I am inept for not accepting their conclusion, but you are not inept for ignoring my counter reasoning and just reading their results. 1
point
The balls hit the predicted number and you still agree with an analysis that says they don't. You're taking all of the numbers out of context. The 11.52 - 11.32 expected minimum is for the master gauge, but you are comparing it to the logo gauge measurements which were at least .35psi more than the calibrated gauge (and even making that mistake there are 3 balls out of 11 that are out of compliance.) "we found the Logo Gauge to read at least 0.35 psig high in our experiments, while the Non-Logo Gauge reads closer to a calibrated gauge" You don't even know what you read pro tip: stupidity and arrogance aren't exactly a good combo. There are numbers at the expected levels. Only 3 "the measurements for all but three of the footballs, as measured by both gauges, were lower than the range predicted by the Ideal Gas Law." And, they already told you how it can go above the minimum, not below - they were moved to a warmer environment. "While measurements above the predicted levels can be accounted for by basic thermodynamics (because the halftime measurements were taken inside the Officials Locker Room at a temperature above the 48°F equilibrium temperature used for the calculations, and the pressure of each ball would have risen as the balls warmed up)" (Not to mention the impreciseness of just sticking a needle in a ball in the bathroom for a couple seconds while in a hurry.) They don't even know who used what guage[sic] and you still believe their analysis (At least they can spell gauge.) They tell you the scenario that matches best to the data, but they test other scenarios as well (maybe you'll eventually even read the report and know this for yourself) - none of the scenarios that match what happened on game day can explain the balls that were below the minimum without human intervention - nor the difference between the Colts ball measurements and the Patriots ball measurements. If you ignore the conclusion part of the analysis If you ignore most of the data, all of the context, all of the texts and other evidence, etc. etc. and take a only couple phrases out of context you can come to whatever conclusion you want - it doesn't really hold much weight though. Out of context the report also says: "C""art""man" "acts like a total ass". "This conclusion was consistent regardless of the ass…" ignoring my counter reasoning Just saying nuh-uh isn't reasoning. but you are comparing it to the logo gauge measurements He got both higher and lower values with the gauge that is supposed to be higher all the time. Where was the explanation for that? tell you the scenario that matches best to the data Matching the data to your results is not a good analysis yet you still go with it no matter what. 1
point
He got both higher and lower values with the gauge that is supposed to be higher all the time. Where was the explanation for that? In the report - try reading it. Matching the data to your results is not a good analysis yet you still go with it no matter what. Or, testing all scenarios and finding that no scenario matches the data without human intervention. What is you alternative scenario that actually comports with physics? 1
point
|