Who Was Responsible For DeflateGate?

I don't think anyone on a team, including a coach and equipment manager, would tamper with a football their quarterback selected. Their success depends a lot on his professional judgement. There are roughly two hours between pre-game inspection and kickoff. In addition, there is no documented and tamper-proof "chain-of-custody" process whatsoever after official inspection.

I see it as one of two distinct possibilities...

1) The refs failed to properly check the footballs pre-game or used a gauge that was defective

2) Footballs were tampered with post-inspection either by or on the order of Brady

An NFL statistician has discovered an anomaly about the Patriots...

The New England Patriots’ prevention of fumbles is nearly impossible

It's all bull****, change the rule. Now the refs provide the balls, not the teams. End of story.

Don't know and don't pretty much care. Maybe the investigation will bring it to light but I doubt it had a lot of influence on the game.

I honestly am beyond the point of caring. I've long since given up on American Professional Sports.

The big problem with it all it that it's little more than politics, poor sportsmanship, and the all mighty dollar.

My opinion? Let the Pats play. Odds are that through the political dealings and owners giving other owners reach-arounds...the Patriots were likely destined to make it to the superbowl LONG before the season even started.

Now if you'll excuse me, I'll be watching the rugby matches. They may be trying to kill each other during the scrum but once it's over they help each other up, dust each other off and reset and go at it again.

It is really a testament to the overuse of prefixes when even the deflating of footballs can get its own "gate". I think Ballghazi is probably far more adequate as a name for this scandal. Mostly, because it will lead nowhere and it'll just be a waste of time and money to investigate it.

Unless the equipment manager or a ballboy fesses up, we'll never know. However, when one looks at the reasons why it may have been done, you'd have to conclude that both Brady and Belicheck knew for two simple reasons.

1. Belicheck's game plan called for the Patriots to run the ball a lot in the first half considering the weather and the perceived threats of the Colt offense. So keep the ball out of the hands of the Colts. To do that, Belicheck would have to find a way to ensure that the Patriots didn't cough the ball up, as they have been prone to do in key games in the past. Best way to do that is to deflate the ball to make it easier to grip and to hang onto.

2. Belicheck would not deflate the balls for 1. above unless it would not adversely affect Brady's passing game. Brady would have to know about it and agree. Considering that Brady has been quoted in the past as favouring a softer, deflated ball and considering that Brady and Manning lobbied the league to reduce the air pressure parameters several years ago, it seems likely that Brady would agree and be on board.

Hatuey said:

It is really a testament to the overuse of prefixes when even the deflating of footballs can get its own "gate". I think Ballghazi is probably far more adequate as a name for this scandal. Mostly, because it will lead nowhere and it'll just be a waste of time and money to investigate it.

Click to expand...

Two points:

1. It hasn't been a waste of time and money - the media has had a field day and TV ratings for the Brady/Belicheck pressers and other sports talk shows related to the controversy have been sky high. The public loves it and the media loves what the public loves so everyone seems happy. Besides, the two weeks before the Super Bowl have been giant borefests so this has been a great time filler leading up to the game.

2. If this is going to be called Ballghazi - I kind of like that term better - then the other Benghazi scandal should be called Vaginaghazi in honour of Clinton and Rice who had key roles in the mess.

CanadaJohn said:

Two points:

1. It hasn't been a waste of time and money

Click to expand...

Oh, after the 2nd or 3rd investigation, it became a waste of money and time. We're now on the 7th. Congress is on the verge of turning Benghazi into a 1980s horror franchise. The only difference is some of the franchises were actually entertaining. Issa continually embarrassing himself is sad just now.

2. If this is going to be called Ballghazi - I kind of like that term better - then the other Benghazi scandal should be called Vaginaghazi in honour of Clinton and Rice who had key roles in the mess.

Click to expand...

In either case, they perfectly describe the situation. A subjectively long hole with an dead end for any dick that wishes to investigate them.

Hatuey said:

In either case, they perfectly describe the situation. A subjectively long hole with an dead end for any dick that wishes to investigate them.

Click to expand...

A little early in the morning for American Horror Story, isn't it?

Hatuey said:

It is really a testament to the overuse of prefixes when even the deflating of footballs can get its own "gate". I think Ballghazi is probably far more adequate as a name for this scandal. Mostly, because it will lead nowhere and it'll just be a waste of time and money to investigate it.

Click to expand...

"gate" is a suffix.

Simpleχity;1064236301 said:

I don't think anyone on a team, including a coach and equipment manager, would tamper with a football their quarterback selected. Their success depends a lot on his professional judgement. There are roughly two hours between pre-game inspection and kickoff. In addition, there is no documented and tamper-proof "chain-of-custody" process whatsoever after official inspection.

I see it as one of two distinct possibilities...

1) The refs failed to properly check the footballs pre-game or used a gauge that was defective

2) Footballs were tampered with post-inspection either by or on the order of Brady

An NFL statistician has discovered an anomaly about the Patriots...

The New England Patriots’ prevention of fumbles is nearly impossible

Click to expand...

That's a brilliant analysis on the fumble aspect. And if the Pats figured out they would lose fewer fumbles by underinflating the ball, then Ive got to hand it to them.

But my question is: if a football with a pound or two less pressure is easier to throw, catch and hang on to, why doesn't the league recognize the value of the lower rate and change the pressure guidelines. Couldn't it be argued that footballs are currently over-inflated?

Fletch said:

That's a brilliant analysis on the fumble aspect. And if the Pats figured out they would lose fewer fumbles by underinflating the ball, then Ive got to hand it to them.

But my question is: if a football with a pound or two less pressure is easier to throw, catch and hang on to, why doesn't the league recognize the value of the lower rate and change the pressure guidelines. Couldn't it be argued that footballs are currently over-inflated?

Click to expand...

Sure. But not this week. :mrgreen: