82SiouxGuy Posted May 8, 2015 Posted May 8, 2015 Of course it can't be proven that the deflated balls affected the outcome of the game, but it can't be proven that they didn't either. Seemingly small changes in initial conditions can have a surprisingly large effect on results. Ask yourself this: if deflating the footballs is/was an insignificant factor in the outcome of the game why would anyone do it? The case of the Vikings game you mention is different because there was no intent to benefit either team at the expense of the other. Both teams wanted the footballs heated and were apparently unaware of the rules. IMO, there's no way to restore integrity to the outcome of the AFC championship game, and the Super Bowl, other than vacating the Patriot's championship. It's tainted forever. And IMO, changing results after the fact, especially when you can't prove that the grievance changed the results in any measurable way, would be a gross overreaction to the problem. As to your question about why, people cheat all of the time to try and get an advantage. Sometimes that advantage is only in their minds. If they can't prove that the team got an advantage from the deflated footballs, then it is possible that the advantage was only in their minds. Again, taking away a Super Bowl title for an advantage that was only in the team's mind would be a gross overreaction. Quote
MafiaMan Posted May 8, 2015 Author Posted May 8, 2015 As to your question about why, people cheat all of the time to try and get an advantage. Sometimes that advantage is only in their minds. Woukd you feel any differently had every Patriot tested positive for anabolic steroids or HGH? Quote
82SiouxGuy Posted May 8, 2015 Posted May 8, 2015 Woukd you feel any differently had every Patriot tested positive for anabolic steroids or HGH? Have they taken away any titles because of players testing positive for anabolic steroids or HGH? In any sport? Have they proven how many points advantage those PEDs provided in a specific game? If they have proof that every Patriot tested positive for PEDs I would have no problem suspending them, or even throwing them out of the league. Take away every 1st round pick for the next 10 years. But you can't take away a title unless you can prove exactly the effects on that specific game, like players cheating to let the other team win. You would need a major offense to result in taking away the title. Having underinflated footballs is not a major offense. Your example may come close, but because it is so hard to quantify I don't think you could do it in that case either. If they haven't taken away home run titles and records, I don't think they can take away titles. Quote
nosidel Posted May 8, 2015 Posted May 8, 2015 Have they taken away any titles because of players testing positive for anabolic steroids or HGH? In any sport? Have they proven how many points advantage those PEDs provided in a specific game? If they have proof that every Patriot tested positive for PEDs I would have no problem suspending them, or even throwing them out of the league. Take away every 1st round pick for the next 10 years. But you can't take away a title unless you can prove exactly the effects on that specific game, like players cheating to let the other team win. You would need a major offense to result in taking away the title. Having underinflated footballs is not a major offense. Your example may come close, but because it is so hard to quantify I don't think you could do it in that case either. If they haven't taken away home run titles and records, I don't think they can take away titles. HGH and steroid use is a player health issue. Obviously, underinflated footballs are not. Treating the two forms of "cheating" differently is entirely appropriate. Quote
UND-RedSox fan Posted May 8, 2015 Posted May 8, 2015 I admit that I'm biased in this, but I don't see how anyone can make the argument that the deflated balls had an impact on the outcome of that game. According to everything I have seen, the balls were inflated back up to acceptable levels for the second half of the AFC CG and then the Patriots went on to outscore the Colts 28-0 in the second half. And at the end of the day we are discussing a game that was 45-7. If this was a one or two or even three score game, then I could maybe entertain the fact that the footballs may have made a difference. The Pats beat the crap out of a team that they were much better than and then went on to beat a really good team in a much better game with properly inflated balls. Quote
darell1976 Posted May 8, 2015 Posted May 8, 2015 I admit that I'm biased in this, but I don't see how anyone can make the argument that the deflated balls had an impact on the outcome of that game. According to everything I have seen, the balls were inflated back up to acceptable levels for the second half of the AFC CG and then the Patriots went on to outscore the Colts 28-0 in the second half. And at the end of the day we are discussing a game that was 45-7. If this was a one or two or even three score game, then I could maybe entertain the fact that the footballs may have made a difference. The Pats beat the crap out of a team that they were much better than and then went on to beat a really good team in a much better game with properly inflated balls. Point being the Pats (especially Brady) cheated, whether it was the first half or first quarter they or he cheated and he needs to be missing some games this season for doing it. Quote
nosidel Posted May 8, 2015 Posted May 8, 2015 I admit that I'm biased in this, but I don't see how anyone can make the argument that the deflated balls had an impact on the outcome of that game. According to everything I have seen, the balls were inflated back up to acceptable levels for the second half of the AFC CG and then the Patriots went on to outscore the Colts 28-0 in the second half. And at the end of the day we are discussing a game that was 45-7. If this was a one or two or even three score game, then I could maybe entertain the fact that the footballs may have made a difference. The Pats beat the crap out of a team that they were much better than and then went on to beat a really good team in a much better game with properly inflated balls. You are engaging in the "Predetermined Outcome Fallacy." With hindsight, you know what happened in the game as it was played, and are expecting that a small change in the conditions under which the game was played would not have significantly affected the result. That reasoning is fallacious. For instance, let say that the underinflated footballs really do help Brady, if even just psychologically, and that with a properly inflated ball he throws a 1st half interception, or maybe has a drive-killing incompletion. Everything that happened in the game after that point would then change with unpredictable results. Perhaps that one play causes the Pats to call plays differently for the rest of the game, or maybe it inspires the Colts to greater efforts. The bottom line is that it's simply not possible to say that that change would not have affected the result of the game. Quote
UND-RedSox fan Posted May 8, 2015 Posted May 8, 2015 Point being the Pats (especially Brady) cheated, whether it was the first half or first quarter they or he cheated and he needs to be missing some games this season for doing it. I think he should get a game or two. He broke the rules. But wiping the super bowl out of the record books (like that would do anything) or many more games than a couple just seems like overkill. Rules are rules and he broke one stupidly. It was a high risk no reward thing to do. Quote
UND-RedSox fan Posted May 9, 2015 Posted May 9, 2015 You are engaging in the "Predetermined Outcome Fallacy." With hindsight, you know what happened in the game as it was played, and are expecting that a small change in the conditions under which the game was played would not have significantly affected the result. That reasoning is fallacious. For instance, let say that the underinflated footballs really do help Brady, if even just psychologically, and that with a properly inflated ball he throws a 1st half interception, or maybe has a drive-killing incompletion. Everything that happened in the game after that point would then change with unpredictable results. Perhaps that one play causes the Pats to call plays differently for the rest of the game, or maybe it inspires the Colts to greater efforts. The bottom line is that it's simply not possible to say that that change would not have affected the result of the game. Let's say he threw a first half interception, oh wait he did. My reasoning is that the Colts haven't even come close to the Patriots since Peyton Manning was their quarterback. Properly inflated balls wouldn't have changed the fact that the Patriots running game wasn't ever going to be slowed down by the Colts. It doesn't change the fact that the Colts were unable to do anything offensively. The Colts weren't going to be running the ball much no matter what the score was because their running game sucked. The Pats have repeatedly dominated Indy and that wasn't going to change. And as you said earlier, it can't be proven that the under inflated balls would have made a difference either direction in the game. Although it is a small sample size, the Patriots were able to run all over Indy multiple times and that is why they won the game. I guess I will stick with what I've seen the Patriots do to Indy multiple times and you can stick with thinking the title was tainted over hypotheticals. Quote
Oxbow6 Posted May 11, 2015 Posted May 11, 2015 I admit that I'm biased in this, but I don't see how anyone can make the argument that the deflated balls had an impact on the outcome of that game. According to everything I have seen, the balls were inflated back up to acceptable levels for the second half of the AFC CG and then the Patriots went on to outscore the Colts 28-0 in the second half. And at the end of the day we are discussing a game that was 45-7. If this was a one or two or even three score game, then I could maybe entertain the fact that the footballs may have made a difference. The Pats beat the crap out of a team that they were much better than and then went on to beat a really good team in a much better game with properly inflated balls.This...^^^ NE and Brady could have used Nerf FBs and still beat Indy by 4 TDs. That being said my guess is he misses 2 games to start next season. Quote
SWSiouxMN Posted May 11, 2015 Posted May 11, 2015 This...^^^ NE and Brady could have used Nerf FBs and still beat Indy by 4 TDs. Those nerf football's are too soaked! #absorbgate Quote
Oxbow6 Posted May 11, 2015 Posted May 11, 2015 Those nerf football's are too soaked! #absorbgate #soggyballs Quote
Oxbow6 Posted May 11, 2015 Posted May 11, 2015 Brady gone for first 4 games. Pats lose 1st round pick next year. Quote
darell1976 Posted May 11, 2015 Posted May 11, 2015 Brady gone for first 4 games. Pats lose 1st round pick next year. After the appeal the games will probably decrease. Quote
MafiaMan Posted May 11, 2015 Author Posted May 11, 2015 Brady gone for first 4 games. Pats lose 1st round pick next year. Ha ha! Cheaters never win! Oh yea. Nevermind. Quote
Shawn-O Posted May 11, 2015 Posted May 11, 2015 You could have picked a better photo...one where Giselle doesn't look like a dude from the neck up. Quote
bincitysioux Posted May 12, 2015 Posted May 12, 2015 As a dyed in the wool, life long New England fan, I am loving this. Well, now it isn't so funny.... 2 Quote
WiSioux Posted May 12, 2015 Posted May 12, 2015 Why don't both teams just use the same footballs??? Quote
Blackheart Posted May 12, 2015 Posted May 12, 2015 Looks like they found a replacement... Tim Brody? I loved him in Boogie Nights. Quote
jdub27 Posted May 12, 2015 Posted May 12, 2015 Assuming the suspension is held up and the Patriots don't convert Brady's salary to a roster bonus (neither likely), the NFL will actually save the Patriots almost $1.9 million by suspending Brady for 4 games, more than offsetting the $1 million fine. http://overthecap.com/brady-suspended-four-games/ Quote
Shawn-O Posted May 12, 2015 Posted May 12, 2015 So Sean Payton gets a season and loses $6M, nothing for Belichick. Quote
jdub27 Posted May 12, 2015 Posted May 12, 2015 So Sean Payton gets a season and loses $6M, nothing for Belichick. Only because they couldn't prove Belichek was "more probable than not generally aware". I still think that Brady had some knowledge but the Wells Report continues to prove to be a train wreck and the fact that it is the basis for the penalties is an absolute joke: http://profootballtalk.nbcsports.com/2015/05/10/pressure-gauge-discrepancies-undermine-wells-report/ Quote
cberkas Posted July 8, 2015 Posted July 8, 2015 So Giants defensive end Jason Pierre-Paul mishandles explosives (fireworks), and now has his right index finger amputated after reports said he wouldn't loose any fingers. Edit: Now Tampa Bay cornerback C.J. Wilson looses two fingers after mishandling explosives (fireworks). Quote
MafiaMan Posted July 10, 2015 Author Posted July 10, 2015 Rest in peace, Ken Stabler. It broke my heart when the Oilers traded Dan Pastorini for you, but that's water under the bridge now. Quote
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.