EvilEmpire said:
You've got that on its head. The implication of "distraught" was that one of the NFL premier franchises, bound for the SB no less, was caught doing something wrong.
#DFG: Canceling the Noise
- Thread starter nattysez
- Start date
You've got that on its head. The implication of "distraught" was that one of the NFL premier franchises, bound for the SB no less, was caught doing something wrong.
Remind me, for the two investigations just this off-season, was the discipline announced the same time the investigation conclusion was reached? What about the bullying investigation or Ray Rice? If so, that makes this extremely odd that it was not the case here, and to top it off, further leaks about what it may be.
Not even for money and publicity? I don't want to group all professors I've ever met into one bucket, but most of them have never objected to being in a spotlight or having a platform to speak from.crystalline said:
Thanks. I think you are right. It seems they assumed reading 3 for the Colts balls was written in the wrong column, so they switched it to the other column, and calculated SD in some way taking that into consideration.geoduck no quahog said:
I know sometimes outliers can be eliminated from an analysis, or they can be corrected. But this only happens when there is a reason. For example, let's say you recorded someone's age as 2,500 years. This would be wrong, so you'd either have to throw out the data point, or go back and get the correct age from that person, if possible.
That is not what Exponent did. What they did was see an age that was believable (I.e. age of 49 years), but problematic to the analysis, so they, after the fact, reallocated that data point to a place that made the result fit their preconceived notions.
This is a terrible mistake. It's well established that in scientific publications large differences can be observed between groups, even with high statistical significance, and these results are published in high impact journals only to be refuted later on. This happens all the time even without people switching data from one column to another because of what they think is the truth.
it's fun to think that some of Brady's infamous on-field and sideline body language over the last couple seasons may sometimes have not been anger at his receiving corp, but an annoyance that the balls felt over inflated. what if he really is insane about it to the point of really riding those guys? i'm not suggesting that means he did anything wrong, i just like the idea of him sitting on the sideline pissed and thinking about what he was going to say to jj the next time he saw him.
Shouldn't the whole conversation end when Walt Andersen can not remember which gauge he used before the game? If he used the one that read higher then they could have been 12.5, although they could have been 12-12.15 to start based on the range of gauge discrepancies. The report even says he believed he used the logo gauge but the investigators think it is more likely he used the non logo gauge. No discussion of what gauge the Patriots use to set the ball at 12.5. It's a huge factor that is just glossed over. The NFL doesn't even specify which gauge is required to be used to meet the 12.5 to 13.5 standard?
Edit: LOL at this footnote about the measurements after the game. The pre-game measurements they discuss as being reasonable is based on Andersens recollection and a disagreement over which gauge was used.
..............
Although these measurements were recorded in conditions similar to those present during halftime, information concerning the timing of these measurements, the pressure levels at which these eight footballs started the second half and the identity of the four Colts footballs tested after the game (specifically, whether they were the same footballs that had been tested at halftime) is significantly less certain than the information about similar issues concerning the pre-game or halftime periods. As a result, our experts concluded that that the post-game measurements did not provide a scientifically reasonable basis on which to conduct a comparative analysis similar to that performed using the pre-game and halftime measurements.
Edit: LOL at this footnote about the measurements after the game. The pre-game measurements they discuss as being reasonable is based on Andersens recollection and a disagreement over which gauge was used.
..............
Although these measurements were recorded in conditions similar to those present during halftime, information concerning the timing of these measurements, the pressure levels at which these eight footballs started the second half and the identity of the four Colts footballs tested after the game (specifically, whether they were the same footballs that had been tested at halftime) is significantly less certain than the information about similar issues concerning the pre-game or halftime periods. As a result, our experts concluded that that the post-game measurements did not provide a scientifically reasonable basis on which to conduct a comparative analysis similar to that performed using the pre-game and halftime measurements.
Gambler7 said:
It's be hilarious if it turned out Anderson used the high gauge for the Patriots balls and the low gauge for the Colts balls. The false precision throughout the report is absurd.
My apologies if this is too out there, but after following this thread in it's entirety and a ton of the coverage out there, I may be getting a bit crispy and seeing shadows...
With that said, is there any chance that this is now as much a shot at the union by the League as much as it is an inquisition against the Pats? I mean, either way on a Brady suspension at this point, but is there any doubt that the season opener is the highest viewed in history? What better way to demonstrate leverage before negotiating a new labor contract than showing how you can A) suspend one of the most popular players in the history of the league over circumstantial evidence and B) improve ratings as a result? For a league that's been notorious for its negotiations, this doesn't seem beyond the pale to me.
With that said, is there any chance that this is now as much a shot at the union by the League as much as it is an inquisition against the Pats? I mean, either way on a Brady suspension at this point, but is there any doubt that the season opener is the highest viewed in history? What better way to demonstrate leverage before negotiating a new labor contract than showing how you can A) suspend one of the most popular players in the history of the league over circumstantial evidence and B) improve ratings as a result? For a league that's been notorious for its negotiations, this doesn't seem beyond the pale to me.
Peyton Manning offers (tepid) support to Brady:
After reading the entire article, it seems likely that the NFLPA has asked current players to refrain from speaking about this. Manning's support reads like vetted lawyer speak.
http://espn.go.com/espn/print?id=12849546
After reading the entire article, it seems likely that the NFLPA has asked current players to refrain from speaking about this. Manning's support reads like vetted lawyer speak.
Right. But they're not exactly used to being in a client service business, they're not going to jump at a lawyer's emails on Friday night. And they have other commitments. You might get such a report in 2017. Plus its not exactly like practicing physicists do stuff like this, they are much more specialized. As yep said above- asking a physics professor to apply the ideal gas law and wet and dry bulb temperatures is like asking a law firm partner to diagram a sentence. They're all smart people and they probably learned that along the way, but they likely haven't thought about those concepts for two decades.( . ) ( . ) and (_!_) said:
I had a structural engineer pursue an entire alternate structural scheme for a building by using it as an exercise in one of the courses he was teaching he did this of his own accord, because he thought the alternate was more interesting than what was proposed by the design-build contruction manager.crystalline said:
The experiment in question is so simple that it's like a one day exercise, no?
This report is unbelievable. No matter where you look you find some crap reasoning, inappropriate assumption, flawed methodology, or bias. Attempting to figure out how the report addressed a particular issue is like a trip down the rabbit hole.Gambler7 said:
soxhop411 said:
PK to Charlie Rose - summary:
The balls were probably deflated and Brady probably knew about it, but to destroy the sport's greatest player's legacy based on "more probable than not" is a travesty. There is no proof that he knew, no smoking gun...
Also, used as an example the report's inference that Brady was paying for the deflation with autographed stuff as utter crap - that he signs stuff for people and charities all the time. Took offense at that implication.
@AdamSchefter: ESPNs Jeff Van Gundy on Wells Report: What kind of garbage language is that to assail a guys character. (So he agrees with Tedy Bruschi)
@AdamSchefter: Excuse me. Jeff Van Gundy said Ted Wells is trying to assassinate Tom Bradys character. Basically called the Wells report garbage.
@AdamSchefter: Excuse me. Jeff Van Gundy said Ted Wells is trying to assassinate Tom Bradys character. Basically called the Wells report garbage.
I kind of feel the same way as Rudy here.
I keep trying to imagine someone, any one of the media Roger makes himself available to everyday pressing him in a 1:1 over this – and him rolling out some pap about integrity and fair play. And I keep seeing the reporter unable to push him any further due to basic incompetence.
It's completely crazy and pretty depressing.
I keep trying to imagine someone, any one of the media Roger makes himself available to everyday pressing him in a 1:1 over this – and him rolling out some pap about integrity and fair play. And I keep seeing the reporter unable to push him any further due to basic incompetence.
It's completely crazy and pretty depressing.
I imagine that, as noted above, there are numerous pressures these guys have not to help. One, who knows what the NFLPA is saying. Two, they are probably very wary of this turning into a "So, do you have 50 year-old guys deflating your balls too?" probe. Three, some of them are probably also feeling some sense of resentment toward Brady – for his success and his arrogance (real or perceived).drleather2001 said:
Personally, I would like to see Aaron Rodgers come out and say a few words here. He has the least to lose as a perennial MVP candidate and Super Bowl winner and doesn't have a rivalry with Brady about whether he's "the greatest" (and probably doesn't have folks like Polian bellowing in his ear). Plus, he has made comments (to the NBC crew IIRC) about ball inflation in the past. It'll almost certainly never happen.
I use college professors and private engineering firms frequently in civil litigation cases. They come off as way more genuine in front of a jury than professional litigation consultants. They are also much more honest and will tell you when your case sucks. The professional firms will tell you anything you want once the check is cashed.crystalline said:
PW blew that here and the bias is obvious. By using Exponent versus a group of professors or private engineers, it's evident that the purpose of the report was to support their client's argument, not to conduct a fact finding mission.
Bongorific said:
Remember how Wells supposedly approached a University early on? I wonder if they tried a few schools but the schools kept giving them the wrong answers.
This is another area where I could see Pash exerting his influence as co-investigator. Wells initially suggests employing the Columbia physics department, but is overruled by Pash who instead elects to retain Exponent. Since the NFL is ultimately writing the check here, I assume they have final say when it comes to signing contracts with additional 3rd party consultants, no?MuppetAsteriskTalk said:
You can picture the early meeting with the prospective university expert: ""So ... there were not any actual baseline psi measurements written down? ... And how many minutes after coming back inside elapsed before the halftime ones were checked? ... And there were two different gauges but they don't know which ones were used which time ... Really? And what is it you want to know?MuppetAsteriskTalk said:
speedracer said:
In a report full of flaws, this is by far the worst. One of my biggest pet peeves is listening to others think they know the answer to a question, and then listen to them use inaccurate, imprecise, or debatable information as the foundation for their entire argument.
As others have already said more eloquently than I can, this report would be rejected immediately from any scientific journal. And in a court of law, its holes would be easily exposed. But when it's billed as the unbiased final statement of fact in this setting, there isn't much recourse.
Brady/Kraft should hire their own "independent" consultants to do an investigation to exonerate Brady, while also coming to a scientific conclusion that it is "more probable than not that Goodell is bumbling idiot".
I don't disagree but it is easier to call Exponent than to de novo find a good college professor, don't you think? We saw that in the Aaron Hernandez trial- the defense's expert, faculty at Tufts, was terrible.Bongorific said:
Re the bolded- sounds like your experience confirms what's been said. A history of arguing that tobacco doesn't cause smoking is pretty good evidence too I suppose.
Gambler7 said:
This is how the NFL works these days. They released the report and now they are gauging the public reaction deciding what the punishment will be. That's why you have so many HotTakez out there calling for season long suspensions: the talking heads with an axe to grind know that the NFL is actually listening to all this as they decide on the punishment.
Bill Simmons talked about it yesterday on the Dan Patrick show. Coincidently he was fired today by ESPN.
With all sincerity, I recommend everyone pissed off by this a little Aussie movie called "Breaker Morant". It's about real life scape goats and bureaucratic bullshit and rules nobody cares about until they do. It's a great film, and it serves to remind that this is just football.
This leads me to think academics may have just outright refused whatever offer may have been made, citing an unwillingness to draw conclusions under Wells stringent assumptions or use his flawed, incomplete data set. Unlike the hired guns at Exponent, I'm guessing most university physics departments would be hesitant to put their reputations on the line even for a high-profile, highly-paid NFL gig.tedseye said:
The science doesn't matter anyway. They never recorded their measurements and failed to measure 7 of 11 colts balls. They had two differently calibrated gauges used by two different refs. They could have assembled top faculty from MIT and Cal Tech and then for good measure invited in ten of NASA's best scientists. It's all pointless given the broken foundation on which the case is built.Bongorific said:
That's why you get an engineering professior, not physics. It's real-life applied science vs, theoretical; plenty of them have consulting experience and may even practice on the side; and you could find someone who specializes in heat transfer; maybe even wrote a few books on the subject.crystalline said:
I hope Yee is reviewing the resumes of the folks who have sent him those emails since the Wells report came out.
twibnotes said:
As the FBI once said, "We found the record to be unintelligible at any speed.”
But that's just it. Your job in this case is to say it's inconclusive and illustrate why with all of the different variables, citing examples, etc. Just because you can't arrive at an exact answer doesn't mean there isn't good science to be done...so, oh well, let's just call in the hired guns.J.McG said:
crystalline said:
What makes you think this? I disagree. (I'm an academic with a Ph.D. in physics and astronomy that has spent his entire career in academia.)
( . ) ( . ) and (_!_) said:
I don't think we do it "for money and publicity" at all. We like science and figuring things out.
crystalline said:
Again, on what basis do you make this claim?
Bongorific said:
Glad to hear that.
J.McG said:
Perhaps, but I think that most who would accept the request would do the work, and report their results/conclusions, most of which would include the appropriately-computed uncertainties.
twibnotes said:
This is probably true. They should have done it. That they didn't is suspicious. (Or is this too Wellsian?)
DrewDawg said:
Not exactly. The league determined Payton not only knew about the bounty program but he tried to cover it up by lying. Until now, it has not been determined BB knew or lied about deflategate. From an ESPN article:
"According to the league, Payton ignored instructions from the NFL and Saints ownership to make sure bounties weren't being paid. The league also chastised him for choosing to "falsely deny that the program existed," and for trying to "encourage the false denials by instructing assistants to 'make sure our ducks are in a row.' "
http://espn.go.com/nfl/story/_/id/7718136/sean-payton-new-orleans-saints-banned-one-year-bounties
RGREELEY33 said:
No doubt the Foxboro crowd will be expressing similar sentiments if Glampers is dumb enough to join the opening game festivities.
