#DFG: Canceling the Noise
- Thread starter nattysez
- Start date
Mugsy's Walk-Off Bunt said:
Great post and it's true. The Ravens lose and Harbaugh complains about "deception". The Colts lose and they let this story break in a major way. It's pretty pathetic. Nobody loses because they lost anymore. There is always something shady involved.
With the final selection of the NFL draft the New England Patriots select from the University of Rutgers Professor of Physics Yu Gotnothin.
I'm also rather surprised that the media insists on running with the 2 psi under 12.5 number. I believe I read somewhere that the NFL considers the target psi to be 13 with a +/-.5... Isn't it possible that the sources are leaking 2 psi under 13?DrewDawg said:
SumnerH said:
By evaoprative cooling you mean?
Once the internal temperature of the ball reached equilibrium with external temp, there really wouldn't be additional evaporation would there?
Any evaporative cooling would accelerate the rate at which the interior gas lost temperature (conducted through the membranes and abosrbed by the phase change of the evaproating moisture from the exterior surface of the ball).
But, once the interior air (and the solid material of the ball) reaches exterior temperature, evaporation would effectively cease. Sure there'd be some additional vapor pressure to the exteior air, but in rain, the humidity is effectively 100%, so basically there's be no impetus for the water to evaporate (no heat input, and no vapor pressure differential).
But, let's say there is some additional evaporative loss from wind or other air movement (passing). That would serve to cool the exterior surface and interior gas of the ball a little bit below "dry bulb" temp, but only just. If it started to get too low, then the ball would absorb heat from the ambient air. I'd think in a rainy situation you'd only get a tiny fraction of a degree difference. (in a dryer climate you could get a bigger difference, but you'd have to continually re-wet the ball).
The ball is a very small heat sink. Totally different than a human body (which never reaches even close to exterior temp unless you die) which will continue to loose significant energy to evaporation. And different than a building cooling load because of the reltaively massive volume of interior gas, and building mass itself.
(edit: basically in a humid situation you can utilize "evaporative cooling" to get below ambient air temp only if you have a compression cycle, which is obviously not the case here)
Florio's sources are seemingly operating under the opinion that they can control this story and not have it impact the Super Bowl and the league going forward. If the Pats win and the league comes down with a heavy fine/suspensions/sanctions, there will be a huge uproar, congressional hearings, pressure not to invite them to the WH to see the President, etc. We've already seen the building blocks of that uproar in the coverage over the last 2 weeks.jimbobim said:
lithos2003 said:
Florio said a few days ago that the ball the Colts had was 2 PSI under, while the others were closer to 1 PSI under. We've heard this was a sting, that it wasn't a sting, then it was a sting...Jackson noted the ball, then the equipment manager noted it, then the Colts noted in 2 months ago...King said he's sure the refs properly measure the footballs because they did so when they knew they were being taped and King was covering it, then yesterday on the radio he said we really don't know if it was measured. We really have no idea what's going on, outside of the fact that footballs stored in warmer temp and inflated to a certain PSI should drop when moved to colder temperatures.
Or just acknowledge that 2 PSI has negligible on field impact and that this whole situation is about following the letter of the law. Leave it up to the ref, who handles the ball before every play, to determine whether it needs to be removed from the game. This situation screams for relaxing the PSI procedures, not tightening them further thereby creating more potential for future fuckupery.Valek123 said:
All of this could explain why at least some owners would not be on the Pats side. However, how does any of this affect the random droids working in the league office? Unless these folks think they actually have a chance to become commissioner, the lowlifes pushing paper in league office should care less about the relationship between Goodell and Kraft.DrewDawg said:
I can see how Kensil may have decided to check the pressure on the Pats balls once the anonymous idiot on the Colts decided to raise a stink. I can see why Kensil may have decided to notify the league office once the balls were found to be out of spec. I never heard of Kensil before this, don't really know what his biases are towards Belichick or the Pats, but none of those actions by themselves indicate some sort of bias.
What's worrisome is the "entrenchment" in the absence of any evidence. That's a hallmark of an organization and an investigation destined to fail.
If the punishment is severe, I do hope Kraft goes nuclear and cause the league a ton of trouble.
The closest we can get to a perfect experiment would be simple and (relative to the investigation) inexpensive.
Step 1:
Before the Super Bowl, observe the Patriots preparing their balls pregame in the normal manner, and measure the air pressure inside the balls.
Step 2:
Recreate the exact weather conditions during the AFC championship game inside the University of Phoenix stadium.
Step 3:
Play Super Bowl.
Step 4:
Measure the balls after the game.
There's your control group. Am I missing something here?
Step 1:
Before the Super Bowl, observe the Patriots preparing their balls pregame in the normal manner, and measure the air pressure inside the balls.
Step 2:
Recreate the exact weather conditions during the AFC championship game inside the University of Phoenix stadium.
Step 3:
Play Super Bowl.
Step 4:
Measure the balls after the game.
There's your control group. Am I missing something here?
finnVT said:
Evaporation? Unless the rain that was falling was significantly colder than the outside air, all of these would end up at the same temperature:
exterior air
rain
moisture on the ball
ball material
contained gas (and any condensation)
They would end up there...the rate of change would vary based on some factors, but not the result.
Now, I know that the rain can at times be colder then the ambient air...so yeah, that could tend to lower the temperature of the interior air somewhat. That wouldn't be evaproative in that case, but yeah the colder-than-ambient-air rain would lower the internal ball temp as well. But that's a quibble on my part because that would be an additional effect under item (a).
I just don't think that it would be a particularly large effect (unless, say, it was an extended "sun shower" where solar heat gain would serve to evaporate additional moisture to the air...again, only if the overall relative humidity was low).
I think it's worse than that, it's not entrenchment in the absence of any evidence. It's entrenchment purposely ignoring hundreds of years of easily observable scientific evidence that proves them wrong.lexrageorge said:
All of these other factors being discussed needless complicate the issue as:
-They would have relatively small impact
-Most of them would cause more of a drop in pressure, if anything.
-They would have relatively small impact
-Most of them would cause more of a drop in pressure, if anything.
Talk about a guy who changes his tune depending on the Network he is on.
http://itiswhatitis.weei.com/sports/newengland/football/patriots/2015/01/28/kurt-warner-on-mfb-we-should-give-patriots-the-benefit-of-the-doubt/
http://itiswhatitis.weei.com/sports/newengland/football/patriots/2015/01/28/kurt-warner-on-mfb-we-should-give-patriots-the-benefit-of-the-doubt/
I said this a few thousand posts ago; others have said the same thing: If the NFL wanted this to go away, they could have quite easily. Even after the Kravitz tweet grew legs, the league could have come out, said the balls were found to be under, levied the $25,000 and a warning and moved on.
They didn't want to do that. You can say they didn't want to do that because of the hits they've taken this year on the Rice-Pederson-PEDs-concussion issues; or, as DeJesus and others have said, you can say they didn't want to nip it in the bud because they recognized a goldmine of buzz -- beyond even what the Super Bowl generates. Or, it could be both, plus lingering animosity in many quarters about the Patriots.
Doesn't matter at this point. The league wanted this story talked about, the media obliged and -- instead of talking about serious social issues facing the league -- the casual viewer and the non-NFL fan was given a villain, an easily understood issue (did they cheat?) and an easily followed storyline.
On the Vegas stage, it's what magicians call misdirection.
Look at the post-Kravitz leaks:
Mortensen says was told 11 of the 12 balls were under by 2 psi. Just enough detail to be damning, but not so much that all the questions are answered. The questions propelled the story. Then, Glazer and Florio get the video leak -- with a timeframe and a possible culprit, and the side benefit of toilet humor that the league doesn't even have to point out.
As much as Pats fans have appreciated the Belichick and Kraft statements, both played right into the hands of the established narrative -- enhancing the team's role as a villain in some eyes, while vigorously defended b y the home base. You wonder how much earlier the attention would have petered out had the Patriots stuck with the "We believe we did nothing wrong. We are cooperating." stance and not provided more targets to shoot at.
However this ends, the one thing to remember is that the NFL could have stopped it in its tracks and chose not to. To some degree, this is playing out exactly how they wanted it to enfold.
They didn't want to do that. You can say they didn't want to do that because of the hits they've taken this year on the Rice-Pederson-PEDs-concussion issues; or, as DeJesus and others have said, you can say they didn't want to nip it in the bud because they recognized a goldmine of buzz -- beyond even what the Super Bowl generates. Or, it could be both, plus lingering animosity in many quarters about the Patriots.
Doesn't matter at this point. The league wanted this story talked about, the media obliged and -- instead of talking about serious social issues facing the league -- the casual viewer and the non-NFL fan was given a villain, an easily understood issue (did they cheat?) and an easily followed storyline.
On the Vegas stage, it's what magicians call misdirection.
Look at the post-Kravitz leaks:
Mortensen says was told 11 of the 12 balls were under by 2 psi. Just enough detail to be damning, but not so much that all the questions are answered. The questions propelled the story. Then, Glazer and Florio get the video leak -- with a timeframe and a possible culprit, and the side benefit of toilet humor that the league doesn't even have to point out.
As much as Pats fans have appreciated the Belichick and Kraft statements, both played right into the hands of the established narrative -- enhancing the team's role as a villain in some eyes, while vigorously defended b y the home base. You wonder how much earlier the attention would have petered out had the Patriots stuck with the "We believe we did nothing wrong. We are cooperating." stance and not provided more targets to shoot at.
However this ends, the one thing to remember is that the NFL could have stopped it in its tracks and chose not to. To some degree, this is playing out exactly how they wanted it to enfold.
This is what makes me extremely nervous about the refs in the game. Have a very bad feeling we'll see some big call go against the Pats.Hoya81 said:
simplyeric said:
Here's my quibble with the experiments:
It's not so simple as to say "it was 51 degrees out at kickoff" and assume that each ball sat quietly in that atmosphere.
The balls were held by the ball attendants at times. They were thrown into the game and played with. They were wet. Then they were rubbed off by towels. They may have been near enough to space heaters to be in warmer air. They didn't just sit out in 51 degree air the whole time.
The shot I saw of one of the ball boys in the actual game had him holding a ball close to his torso underneath a towel. The air around that ball at that moment was definitely warmer than the air out in the open.
All of that stuff would impact the temperature of the ball.
i don't think anyone can definitely say what the actual air temperature around each ball was the whole time they were out.
The only way to ACTUALLY reproduce an experiment would be to get in a time machine and re-live that day.
Yeah there would (external humidity and wind matter, among other things). That's how swamp coolers and botijos work.simplyeric said:
Per Wiki (I know, I know) SB MVP are voted on by 16 sportscasters and the fans can vote American Idol Style online... my thoughts are who are the 16 and even if TB has a monster game.. will he get the votes from the "16" some of whom may be on record with pitchforks?
"The Super Bowl Most Valuable Player Award, or Super Bowl MVP, is presented annually to the most valuable player of the Super Bowl, the National Football League's (NFL) championship game. The winner is chosen by a fan vote during the game and by a panel of 16 American football writers and broadcasters who vote after the game. The media panel's ballots count for 80 percent of the vote tally, while the viewers' ballots make up the other 20 percent."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Super_Bowl_Most_Valuable_Player_Award
"The Super Bowl Most Valuable Player Award, or Super Bowl MVP, is presented annually to the most valuable player of the Super Bowl, the National Football League's (NFL) championship game. The winner is chosen by a fan vote during the game and by a panel of 16 American football writers and broadcasters who vote after the game. The media panel's ballots count for 80 percent of the vote tally, while the viewers' ballots make up the other 20 percent."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Super_Bowl_Most_Valuable_Player_Award
MillarTime said:
Think about this postseason:
The Lions loss to the Cowboys on the missed calls
The Cowboys loss to the Packers on the Bryant catch reversal
The substitution folderol in Pats-Ravens.
Peyton Manning's injury-aided flop
The blowout and the deflated balls.
The NFL office might secretly want the Seahawks to win, but the last thing they could possibly want to end this fubar season is one more thing that questions integrity
86spike said:
Oh sure. I'm not remotely proposing that I can calculate the actual temp of the ball. I'm just talking about "what I think the end result would be". Ball boy holding or rubbing his balls would heat them up...for a little while. Evaporation could cool them off, but only slightly. Solar gain could have a substantial impact, but that's not relevant here. Being exposed to another heat source (radiant or otherwise) would heat them, but only temporarily. Even in the Vikings game...those hot balls would cool right off after being handled by linesmen on the field. They'd only stay warm for a few minutes at best, I'd say. Maybe even 10, if they were thouroughly warmed.
Those effects would be either small or fleeting.
Water, handling, wear, etc. could change some of the dynamics (elasticity, shrinkage, or leakage) of the vessel, which is much more likely to have a permanent effect on the measures air pressure.
Let me add +1 to the appreciation of the Chris Long piece. I especially liked this line: "The Patriots are really good at two things: winning football games and not giving a shit what you think about them."
That in a nutshell describes why the Florios of the world are so anxious on this. Press guys don't make a lot of dough, but believe that they command respect by virtue of their platform. When they don't feel like they're getting respect, they get bitter instead. Overreaction to the point of vindictiveness not only isn't unheard of, it's not even uncommon.
That in a nutshell describes why the Florios of the world are so anxious on this. Press guys don't make a lot of dough, but believe that they command respect by virtue of their platform. When they don't feel like they're getting respect, they get bitter instead. Overreaction to the point of vindictiveness not only isn't unheard of, it's not even uncommon.
There is a smoking gun! No, not the non-existent one left in the bathroom stall by a rogue Patriots ball boy, one that's been buried by ESPN. Watch the following short clip reviewing a recent study on "Deflategate" done by ESPN's Sport Science group (apologies in advance if this was already posted):
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6F4ce1H2QJs
Underinflating a football to 10.5 PSI has a negligible impact on grip strength, and in fact causes a decrease to both velocity and accuracy when thrown. In other words, contrary to the piling on by the likes of Mark Brunell, Cris Carter, and virtually every ex-NFL player with an axe to grind, underinflating a ball has ZERO impact on the competitive balance of any given play, let alone an entire game, and is more of a DISADVANTAGE, if anything.
So ESPN has scientific evidence--not to mention the real-world example of Tom Brady's far superior second half using "properly" inflated balls--proving this supposed controversy is much ado about nothing, yet they continue to trot out an endless stream of talking heads screaming about how the "integrity of the game" is at stake? I'd love to know why this video, at least to my knowledge, has yet to be featured on an episode of Sportscenter or prominently displayed anywhere on the ESPN website.
It just goes to show that ESPN isn't at all concerned with providing the facts of a story when doing so deprives them of an opportunity to juice the ratings books, the reputations of those caught in the crosshairs be damned.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6F4ce1H2QJs
Underinflating a football to 10.5 PSI has a negligible impact on grip strength, and in fact causes a decrease to both velocity and accuracy when thrown. In other words, contrary to the piling on by the likes of Mark Brunell, Cris Carter, and virtually every ex-NFL player with an axe to grind, underinflating a ball has ZERO impact on the competitive balance of any given play, let alone an entire game, and is more of a DISADVANTAGE, if anything.
So ESPN has scientific evidence--not to mention the real-world example of Tom Brady's far superior second half using "properly" inflated balls--proving this supposed controversy is much ado about nothing, yet they continue to trot out an endless stream of talking heads screaming about how the "integrity of the game" is at stake? I'd love to know why this video, at least to my knowledge, has yet to be featured on an episode of Sportscenter or prominently displayed anywhere on the ESPN website.
It just goes to show that ESPN isn't at all concerned with providing the facts of a story when doing so deprives them of an opportunity to juice the ratings books, the reputations of those caught in the crosshairs be damned.
This is where I get lost, and apologies if it's been covered, but is there anything in the rules that says legal psi must be MAINTAINED by a team as the game wears on? If anything, the rules appear to prevent ball/psi maintenance as the game goes on. So even if the Pats noticed the balls were low during the game, there's not much of a process in place in writing to correct the deficiency. IIRC a team cant alter a ball after it's been approved by the refs pre-game. So is a team expected to or supposed to bring it to the ref's attention? Did I miss where this is addressed in the rules.....?Filet-O-Fisk said:
E5 Yaz said:
This whole season has been one PR disaster after another, starting this summer with the Ray Rice two games. And then the elevator video. And then the AP child beating thing. And then the stupid SpeakUp commercials.
Things quieted down a bit, but the dust never really settled and the first few weeks of the playoffs had their share of issues, as noted, and now the Super Bowl weeks have been infused with CONTROVERSY.
The NFL really is getting closer and closer to the WWE. Both professions are equally as risky.
At this point there are two possibilities, given that at least a 1.5 PSI drop is explainable by temperature:
-The .5 PSI difference is due to a combination of factors like imprecision of measurement, ref attention to detail, game use etc.,
-The Patriots so greatly valued a by all accounts imperceptable .5 PSI difference that they ran a covert operation to deflate 11 game balls by exactly .5 psi in bathroom in 90 seconds.
Patriots are the boogeyman, and the NFL, media and Patriot hater fans are little kids scared of the shadows in their bedroom.
-The .5 PSI difference is due to a combination of factors like imprecision of measurement, ref attention to detail, game use etc.,
-The Patriots so greatly valued a by all accounts imperceptable .5 PSI difference that they ran a covert operation to deflate 11 game balls by exactly .5 psi in bathroom in 90 seconds.
Patriots are the boogeyman, and the NFL, media and Patriot hater fans are little kids scared of the shadows in their bedroom.
SumnerH said:
a. swamp coolers are noticeabley ineffective in humid environments. Rainy day = 100% humidity. Where's the water going to evaporate to?
b. swamp coolers deal with a continuous heat source from building loads. There's always heat energy in the building that's being added to the water, being sucked in by the phase change. The ball, after a little while, has no more heat load.
So:
- the ball is not "forcing" additional evapration (in contrast to a living body or a building).
- there air is essentially saturated. The water isn't going to evaporate unless the surrounding air is heated (thus reducing the relative humidity)
Evaporative cooling would happen, for a while. But once the ball reached ambient outside temp, evaproative cooling would (effectively) cease, and what little there might be would be continuouisly re-equilibriated (?).
Think of it this way: is an empty metal bench getting continuously colder because it's in the rain? Not really. It's either reaching the temp of the air, or the falling rain, or in between depending on the balance between the two. But it's not going to continuously get colder than the water by means of evaporation unless the air is somehow really dry or it's subject to a radiant load that somehow excites the water to evaproate without also heating the metal.
edit: SumnerH I did mention possible effects of air movement and humidity in the post you replied to.
http://static.nfl.com/static/content/public/image/rulebook/pdfs/5_2013_Ball.pdfOmar's Wacky Neighbor said:
Referee is the sole judge if the balls offered for play conform to the specifications before the game. Nothing other than that.
(please let me know if people want me to drop the issue. It's one of minor technicalities, I think. Just, good to have all the bases covered)
Omar's Wacky Neighbor said:
Oh God, now you are giving the NFL more reasons for commercial breaks.
"4 minutes left in the quarter, it's time for the scheduled air pressure check inside this deluxe Dupont containment unit."
Rosey Ruzicka said:
Not only that, but if the Pats really did supposedly value a 2 psi deflation (and remember, Brady/Belichick's obsessiveness about details is often cited as "evidence" that they would have to notice/care about that), then any environmental factors that could deflate the balls on their own would actually hurt them. That is to say, if Brady likes his footballs at 10.5, and bad weather can further reduce them to 9.5...doesn't that screw the Patriots?
Sure. We know that some balls are actually over-inflated at the start of the game. Rodgers' comment gives us evidence of that.( . ) ( . ) and (_!_) said:
We have no evidence that any balls, anywhere, ever, entered a game under-inflated, but odds are it happens a lot, as does over-inflation.
We still have no reason to believe that anything out of the ordinary happened to either team's footballs in Sunday's game.
Has this already been posted? Sorry if I missed it. (Edit to give source: http://www.sportsonearth.com/article/107653202/deflategate-persons-of-interest)
E5 Yaz said:
There will be controversial calls and blown calls in the Super Bowl, because there are in every single NFL game. Refs miss calls all the time and the rule book invites controversies. That will happen. But when Patriots fans are irate about it when a bad call goes against them, it's not going to matter one bit to the NFL, because everyone who is not a Patriots fan will just say "Ha-ha, serves them right, the cheaters finally got what they deserved."
The only way the league would be under any pressure because of a controversial call in the Super Bowl is if one helps the Patriots win. That would be a big deal. Otherwise, not a problem for them.
Boomer & Carton wonder why the fact that the refs approved the balls by just handling them, not checking with a gauge, hasn't gotten more notice by the media. SOP. Aaron Rodgers gives them overinflated footballs and Brady gives them underinflated footballs, and since it really doesn't matter very much, they approve them all. In other words, much ado about nothing. http://www.cbssports.com/video/player/nfl/390155331706/0/boomer-carton-refs-allegedly-approved-deflategate-balls
ent5 said:
The 10-15 people actually commenting on it isn't enough? It needs your endorsement that we aren't loving it enough?
The cold call to a university looking to see if anyone there could handle it is a bit curious, though. More often, there would be a bunch of "ISO Physicist Expert Witness" emails throughout the firm and quiet checks with friends at other firms for a reliable recommendation with a little more circumspection.TheoShmeo said:
It's curious.
Edit: And this has been covered by lots of people.
With the due apology if repeated:
Hank Goldberg was on the Rich Eisen show, and it went something like this:
Hank Goldberg was on the Rich Eisen show, and it went something like this:
- Hank: This is ridiculous -- overblown. NE beat Colts 45-7
- Eisen: former Raiders exec Amy Trask says it's about more than just the AFCCG - it's a competitive balance issue
- Hank: I don't care what Amy Trask has to say
Pumpsie said:
I'm guessing it's because neither King, Mortreport, Schefter, Florio, nor Glazer tweeted about it.
Its beyond weird. Rather than seeking out an expert in a specific field, why not just call up a contact at Exponent and have them recommend a field and expert for you? Why limit yourself to a "physicist" who you don't know rather than a team of experts you do?Myt1 said:
Joshv02 said:
Completely off the wall, but maybe they already have and didn't like the answer, so they're trying to scramble to find some team of scientists somewhere who will go with their narrative.