#DFG: Canceling the Noise

[lambeau]

I agree. Isn't the big picture that the owners support Roger because disciplinary matters quickly become NFL vs NFLPA? Brady has been a little  defiant, but I see that as consistent with lending his name to the seriously defiant antitrust suit as a union leader.

 

[Harry Hooper]

 
EDIT: Also, Exponent and Wells both admit that the difference in Standard Deviations is not statistically significant ... which doesn't stop them from mentioning it like six times.

 
 
 
New study reveals: wearing blue t-shirts causes cancer!
 
 
 
 
 
 
Actually, the authors of this study could not detect any statistically significant link between propensity to wear blue t-shirts and cancer rates.

 

[Mugsy's Walk-Off Bunt]

Crystalline, I think you are giving even the most respectable, grown up owners a massive benefit of the doubt. At this point I don't believe many, if any, of them will go through either the Wells Report or the Patriots rebuttal with anything like a fine tooth comb. Even the wildly successful will be willfully lazy on this, and assume the worst of the Patriots, IMO.

 

[OCST]

Your legal comments are insightful, your political trash talking less so.

Seems to me that any trash talking in what dcm said is self-directed/tongue in cheek.

Carry on.

 

[J.McG]

I thought Teresa Wells was married to Wells' son. He's the real Jets fan. Do I have that wrong?

 

That's actually more in line with the tweets themselves...which made it sound like her fiance at the time (current husband?) was in a pissy mood because the Jets lost.

 
From a 2008 NJ Monthly profile on Ted & Nina Wells:
"The couple has two grown children, both of whom followed in the family footsteps. Son Phillip, 28, is a lawyer. Daughter Teresa, 30, also a lawyer, is chief media strategist at the Rockefeller Foundation. She came to the job after working on Senator John Edwards's presidential campaign. She also worked as Governor Jon Corzine’s traveling press secretary."
http://njmonthly.com/articles/jersey-living/power-issue-ted-and-nina-wells/  
 
Between the Jets, Corzine, and Edwards, Teresa sure knows how to pick 'em.

 

[nighthob]

Another  circumstance I overlooked previously was that the Patriots balls  and the Colts balls were different in preparation due to the  Pats having done all their prep on Saturday at the request of Brady. Whereas the Colts balls had been used in practice and exposed to sweat and sunlight which was the preferred prep method of the Colts  equipment manager.

The fun part? It's illegal to prepare your footballs by using them in practice.

 

[Devizier]

Seriously, though, it's not hard to see why the Globe is going to take an unsympathetic view to the Patriots position in this mess:

1) Taking a contrary position has been profitable for them in the past (Shaughnessy).
2) The Globe has been a springboard to national (ESPN) spotlight for more than a few reporters. Toeing the party line, with the added benefit of giving opponents the "Even the Boston Globe's .... says the Patriots are guilty"
3) Aside from ESPN, some of these guys are just wannabe NYT writers.

As for the Herald, well, they're just trollin'.

 

[epraz]

It's just an enormously Patriot-centric viewpoint to believe this (and not the Rice debacle, where pretty much every human being who was not a Ravens fan was calling for Roger's head) would be the tipping point for Goodell. On this one almost everyone not a Pats fan thinks he got it right.

 
It's early.  No one was calling for Goodell to resign until the video came out.

 

[nighthob]

Well, I hope I'm wrong and you guys are right. Goodell bungled the Rice situation about as badly as you could have ever imagined. And that involved a subject matter that actually could have resulted in fans deciding they don't want to watch anymore. And Kraft stood up and defended him at his worst moment.

I fail to see why this incident changes any owners opinion (other than Bob Kraft) who didn't already want him gone.

It didn't change any owners minds about Goodell except Kraft's. Meaning the opposition has just gained a valuable ally and the Artless Roger lost the support of the guy that's put his neck out twice to save him. As some writer noted months ago, Goodell willingly cut himself off from his supply lines here. His next fuck up will be his last because there won't be anyone going to bat for him.

 

[Harry Hooper]

The fun part? It's illegal to prepare your footballs by using them in practice.

 
I want you to be right, but the NYT 2013 piece on ball prep for Eli Manning reads:
 

About five days after it was removed from its box, the ball might go into the rotation of footballs used in a Giants practice. The goal is to get the new balls banged around, thrown and dropped in the grass and dirt. The players rough up the ball and sweat on it, which helps the aging.
 

 

[Ed Hillel]

Judge Florio rules Free Tom Brady....kinda:

At a time when many Patriots fans believe that Wells’ entire project was based on working backward to reach a conclusion someone in the league office wanted him to reach, the more plausible conclusion could be that Wells decided on his own that tampering must have occurred (possibly after reviewing the handful of key text messages between John Jastremski and Jim McNally), and that Wells then worked backed to reach the conclusion he personally believed the evidence should justify — regardless of whether the evidence justified that conclusion.

After spending much more time and effort studying this case in the last 11 days than I ever intended or desired, I believe the evidence is insufficient to prove that tampering happened on January 18, 2015. I believe that the evidence suggests something unusual was happening, but I believe that Wells and his team failed to uncover sufficient evidence to prove that it ever happened on any specific occasion.

I also believe that the Patriots didn’t fail to reasonably cooperate with the investigation in refusing to make McNally available for another face-to-face interview. Wells wanted to interview McNally based on information that already was in the possession of the investigation/prosecution when McNally was first interviewed. Wells could have — and should have — asked McNally those questions when Wells had the chance. In no legal proceeding does a lawyer ever get another shot at questioning at witness because the lawyer failed to exercise full diligence in reviewing the materials that were already available.

http://profootballtalk.nbcsports.com/2015/05/17/nfl-should-improve-its-in-house-system-of-justic/

 

[DJnVa]

That's nice and all, but tomorrow is Monday and the wind will blow from a different direction.

 

[soxhop411]

An NFL source close to the Wells investigation fired back late Sunday.

The investigators did not agree with Dans characterizations in his e-mails and made clear after hearing out all of Dans arguments that they considered the Patriots in violation of the duty to cooperate, the source said. This is not like a normal piece of litigation, and if an investigator misses a piece of evidence he has an absolute obligation to follow up on the evidence. The subject of the investigation cannot hide behind technical procedural arguments, especially when the investigators disagree that there ever was an agreement.

http://www.bostonglobe.com/sports/2015/05/17/ted-wells-needs-speak-again-why-said-patriots-didn-cooperate/2VSS1tDvCmsHjYmGfCK4zN/story.html#

 

[MarcSullivaFan]

Ha! Florio is reading my posts!

But seriously, as much as he can be a vicious troll at times, I respect the fact that he is actually making an effort to learn the facts and come to an objective conclusion.

And I don't disagree that there's some smoke here, but nothing that shows balls were tampered with at the AFCCG.

 

[MarcSullivaFan]

An NFL source close to the Wells investigation fired back late Sunday.

The investigators did not agree with Dans characterizations in his e-mails and made clear after hearing out all of Dans arguments that they considered the Patriots in violation of the duty to cooperate, the source said. This is not like a normal piece of litigation, and if an investigator misses a piece of evidence he has an absolute obligation to follow up on the evidence. The subject of the investigation cannot hide behind technical procedural arguments, especially when the investigators disagree that there ever was an agreement.

http://www.bostonglobe.com/sports/2015/05/17/ted-wells-needs-speak-again-why-said-patriots-didn-cooperate/2VSS1tDvCmsHjYmGfCK4zN/story.html#

When the investigators "disagree"? Was there an agreement or not?

Edit: I continue to be shocked by the willingness of the Wells team to engage with the Patriots. Amazing.

 

[jimbobim]

An NFL source close to the Wells investigation fired back late Sunday.

The investigators did not agree with Dans characterizations in his e-mails and made clear after hearing out all of Dans arguments that they considered the Patriots in violation of the duty to cooperate, the source said. This is not like a normal piece of litigation, and if an investigator misses a piece of evidence he has an absolute obligation to follow up on the evidence. The subject of the investigation cannot hide behind technical procedural arguments, especially when the investigators disagree that there ever was an agreement.

http://www.bostonglobe.com/sports/2015/05/17/ted-wells-needs-speak-again-why-said-patriots-didn-cooperate/2VSS1tDvCmsHjYmGfCK4zN/story.html#

 
Yeah this isn't like anything normal! The technical procedural arguments hiding line is an insult to any proceeding involving representation. The investigator can do whatever he wants. HAH.
 
 NFL should be embarrassed that Wells didn't fucking do his job.  

 

[NWsoxophile]

An NFL source close to the Wells investigation fired back late Sunday.

The investigators did not agree with Dans characterizations in his e-mails and made clear after hearing out all of Dans arguments that they considered the Patriots in violation of the duty to cooperate, the source said. This is not like a normal piece of litigation, and if an investigator misses a piece of evidence he has an absolute obligation to follow up on the evidence. The subject of the investigation cannot hide behind technical procedural arguments, especially when the investigators disagree that there ever was an agreement.

http://www.bostonglobe.com/sports/2015/05/17/ted-wells-needs-speak-again-why-said-patriots-didn-cooperate/2VSS1tDvCmsHjYmGfCK4zN/story.html#

Now it's Dan's turn to release the email showing they did have said agreement. Love me some tit for tat.

 

[lexrageorge]

 
So, genuinely curious: where in the NFL rulebook does it grant the commissioner the power to essentially invent new rules out of whole cloth simply by mentioning them in a memo, without any input from or approval by the teams?

This almost requires a separate thread, but bottom line is that no new rules were invented.  Direct from the NFL's Bylaws and Constitution, Article IX: Prohibited Conduct, you have:
 

No member.... shall... Use at any time, from the start to the finish of any game in which a club is a participant, any communications or information gathering equipment, other than Polaroid-type cameras or field telephones, including without limitation videotape machines, telephone tapping or bugging devices, or any other form of electronic device that might aid a team during the playing of a game.

 
The NFL also releases to its member clubs the Policy Manual for Member Clubs.  This document contains some detailed policies and procedures that are based on the Bylaws and the rule book.  Volume 2 of this Manual discusses game operations.  In the front of this manual, and in the memo released by the league office, there is a list of changes from previous versions.  An example to show the type of detail that would go into this manual, we see the following as a list of changes enacted prior to the 2007 season:
 

Game Clocks:  Added:  All clock operators are hired and supervised by the Officiating Department.  For playoff games, neutral clock operators will be assigned by the Officiating Department.  

 
These are details that are too fine grained to make it into the Rule Book (which primarily governs playing rules, equipment, etc.) or the Bylaws (which primarily dictates the high-level rules and principles upon which the league will operate).  
 
From the same set of policy changes enacted prior to 2007:
 

No video recording devices of any kind are permitted to be used in the coaches booth, on the field, or in the locker room during the game

 
This was the infamous rule clarification that gets everyone hung up when discussing Spygate.  While the original rule in the Bylaws does infer that it may be legal to use video recording devices as long as the tape is not used for the same game, the above policy change makes it clear that no video recording devices are allowed on the field, period.  
 
In case you're wondering why the Commissioner gets to make this policy change, consider the following from Article VIII of the NFL's Bylaws:
 

8.5:  The Commissioner shall interpret and from time to time establish policy and procedure in respect to the provisions of the Constitution and Bylaws and any enforcement thereof

 
TL;DR version:  Yes, the Commissioner does have the rights you are asking about.  And, no, Belichick did not have the right to ignore the memo from the Commissioner's office.  And, yes, Belichick did violate an actual NFL rule when he taped from the sidelines. 

 

[Ed Hillel]

Ah, the always fun "disagree" language. That's code for there was an agreement, but you either can't prove it or the language allows for even the tinniest bit of interpretation.

 

[MarcSullivaFan]

This almost requires a separate thread, but bottom line is that no new rules were invented.  Direct from the NFL's Bylaws and Constitution, Article IX: Prohibited Conduct, you have:
 
 
The NFL also releases to its member clubs the Policy Manual for Member Clubs.  This document contains some detailed policies and procedures that are based on the Bylaws and the rule book.  Volume 2 of this Manual discusses game operations.  In the front of this manual, and in the memo released by the league office, there is a list of changes from previous versions.  An example to show the type of detail that would go into this manual, we see the following as a list of changes enacted prior to the 2007 season:
 
 
These are details that are too fine grained to make it into the Rule Book (which primarily governs playing rules, equipment, etc.) or the Bylaws (which primarily dictates the high-level rules and principles upon which the league will operate).  
 
From the same set of policy changes enacted prior to 2007:
 
 
This was the infamous rule clarification that gets everyone hung up when discussing Spygate.  While the original rule in the Bylaws does infer that it may be legal to use video recording devices as long as the tape is not used for the same game, the above policy change makes it clear that no video recording devices are allowed on the field, period.  
 
In case you're wondering why the Commissioner gets to make this policy change, consider the following from Article VIII of the NFL's Bylaws:
 
 
TL;DR version:  Yes, the Commissioner does have the rights you are asking about.  And, no, Belichick did not have the right to ignore the memo from the Commissioner's office.  And, yes, Belichick did violate an actual NFL rule when he taped from the sidelines. 

Good post and thanks for the clarification. The reaction to, and framing of, the sideline taping issue was absurd, but BB (whom I love unconditionally) clearly fucked up.

 

[Section15Box113]

Ah, the always fun "disagree" language. That's code for there was an agreement, but you either can't prove it or the language allows for even the tinniest bit of interpretation.

 
Interesting that we only saw one side of the email exchange.  Wonder if we'll soon see the other.

 

[Doctor G]

They aren't. I know it makes for a better tale and a wider net of anger, but there's no evidence Harbaugh had any involvement in the Colts accusations, is there?

If the eventual arbiter for Brady's appeal were to takedown the actions of the NFL's "investigation" in their judgment, it is possible the failed sting could come to the forefront.

Between the ineligible receiver rule they passed this offseason to this entire farce, it is obvious the NFL is on the hunt for the Patriots. That, of course, makes their incompetence even more stark. I mean, how do you come up with no significant evidence of something so widely regarded as true by other teams? The Patriots and Bill Belichick have inserted themselves so far in the heads of their rivals.

Why  were two Ravens officials on the witness list for Wells, namely Dean Pees and the special teams coach. and yet when the report  mentions the claim of the Colts that it was common knowledge around the league that the Pats baaboys were deflating the balls, there is no mention of the Ravens coaches testimony in the report. To quote Bob dylan again "the executioner's  face is always well hidden. "

 

[In Vino Vinatieri]

The fun part? It's illegal to prepare your footballs by using them in practice.

I was confused by this in the report too. From page 35:
 

 
In addition, the 2006 guidelines reiterated the provisions of Rule 2 concerning the pre-game
testing and approval by the referee of game and kicking balls.*[11]
 
[11]: The guidelines stated that: “Prior to each game, a team's equipment manager will prepare 12 footballs to be used for non-kicking downs. The footballs will have the prior approval of the team's quarterback, who can briefly test them the preceding week, but the balls cannot be used during midweek or pregame practice sessions. These footballs will be delivered to the officials' locker room two hours and 15 minutes prior to game time. The Referee will insure that they are properly inflated and give final approval for their use. Game balls approved for a previous game can be submitted, provided they meet the standards of a new ball. The home team will prepare another 12 balls in the event of inclement weather or other reasons.” Under the current guidelines, a referee also may reject footballs in the course of a game if he determines that they are in “unsatisfactory condition.”

It says they can be used briefly, but then they go on to talk about both teams using them in practice and the Colts using them pretty extensively from the sound of it.
 
They also talk about breaking in the K balls, and an argument about who is breaking them in for each team. I had been under the impression were supposed to be brand new. Nobody seems to care in the slightest, and the K balls were agreed to have a guy from each team doing it after a request from the Colts.

 

[In Vino Vinatieri]

Why  were two Ravens officials on the witness list for Wells, namely Dean Pees and the special teams coach. and yet when the report  mentions the claim of the Colts that it was common knowledge around the league that the Pats baaboys were deflating the balls, there is no mention of the Ravens coaches testimony in the report. To quote Bob dylan again "the executioner's  face is always well hidden. "

The one thing I was really looking forward to in the Wells report was it being thorough. So much of it was left out, with hardly a word about the Ravens, or the Ravens game, and just about everything to do with the officials and the "sting operation"/investigation. I'm still hoping all of that comes out, and I think it's just about the only way the Pats can come out of this even PR-wise.
 
 

This is not like a normal piece of litigation, and if an investigator misses a piece of evidence he has an absolute obligation to follow up on the evidence. The subject of the investigation cannot hide behind technical procedural arguments, especially when the investigators disagree that there ever was an agreement.

A lawyer telling other people not to hide behind technical procedural arguments? Good joke.

 

[Harry Hooper]

 
I was confused by this in the report too. From page 35:
 
It says they can be used briefly, but then they go on to talk about both teams using them in practice and the Colts using them pretty extensively from the sound of it.
 
They also talk about breaking in the K balls, and an argument about who is breaking them in for each team. I had been under the impression were supposed to be brand new. Nobody seems to care in the slightest, and the K balls were agreed to have a guy from each team doing it after a request from the Colts.
 

 
So you can use the footballs extensively in practice, just not in the week prior to the game?

 

[Doctor G]

 
 
Wells Report, P. 23: The NFL did not impose any constraints on the investigation, and provided its full
cooperation. League employees, NFL game officials, and representatives of the Indianapolis
Colts, the Baltimore Ravens, Wilson Sporting Goods Company (“Wilson”) and the unions that
represent NFL players and NFL game officials also cooperated in the investigation. The NFL,
the Colts and Wilson provided access to various documents and materials.
 
Wells Report, list of witnesses interviewed starting on p. 24: Dean Pees, Defensive Coordinator, Baltimore Ravens and Jerry Rosburg, Special Teams Coordinator/Assistant Head Coach, Baltimore Ravens
 
Wells Report, footnote #24 on p. 45: The message from Sullivan also included an express request that the Colts be permitted during the AFC
Championship Game to use kicking balls that Sullivan would break in. The email referenced as the basis for the
request information said to come from the Baltimore Ravens that Ravens players had not been provided with
Ravens-prepared kicking balls during the divisional playoff game. As discussed in Section IX, it was ultimately
agreed that the Patriots would use kicking balls prepared by Jastremski and the Colts would use kicking balls
prepared by Sullivan.

The  Ravens complaints about the kicking balls provided should have been directed to the NFL official who is the kivking ball coordinator in playoff games. to include this seems prejudicial as well as irrelevant, and what does this have to do with dean Pees who is the Defensive Coordinator. His input is never mentioned.

 

[In Vino Vinatieri]

Like I said, I don't understand it. The report says there is no limit to the number of times a ball can be reused in games "so long as the ball has the qualities of a new or nearly new ball."
 
Here's their description of the Colts preparation on page 41:

During our investigation, we also obtained information concerning the football preparation process used by the Colts. Colts personnel informed us that, like the Patriots, they take new footballs and rub them with a wet or warm towel to remove the outer preservative, followed by brushing with the same brushes provided by Wilson. Footballs are then used during practice, with the expectation that normal wear and tear on the footballs, and their interaction with players' sweat, will help break in the balls. Sean Sullivan, the Colts Equipment Manager, explained that, in his view, the best way to soften the leather is for the footballs to interact with sweat during practice and then get baked in the sun. The Colts repeat the brushing and baking process, and continue to practice with the footballs as they are broken in, until they reach a certain point, when they will be set aside for potential game use. The footballs will be inflated to a pressure between 12.9 and 13.05 psi prior to being inspected by Colts quarterback Andrew Luck, who typically selects his game balls two days before each game. The designated balls are placed into ball bags and kept locked in the Colts equipment room until their pressure is checked again shortly before being delivered to the game officials.

Seems at odds with the 2006 Manning/Brady guidelines.

 

[Bellhorn]

You can't compare the variance of four balls to the variance in 11, especially when one of the readings for the Colts' balls (#3) is clearly wrong. Moreover, tampering does not explain anything like the standard deviation seen in New England's footballs. Exponent ran three tests where people (after only one practice run) deflated 13 footballs in 90 seconds, and none of them had a SD worse than 0.1. To ascribe a 0.4 variance in the Patriots' footballs to tampering doesn't make any sense - clearly there are factors that Exponent does not understand driving that.
 
EDIT: Also, Exponent and Wells both admit that the difference in Standard Deviations is not statistically significant ... which doesn't stop them from mentioning it like six times.

Why not?  This is what an F-test is for.  (Granted, the assumption of a normal distribution may be problematic due to the changing temperature conditions, but that is a separate issue.)
 
And statistical significance is something of a red herring when the applicable standard is "more probable than not".
 

 
He should find a physicist who actually went to a four-year college and try again.  Without knowing the starting PSI, it's first-level wrong to suggest the above.

 
Strictly speaking, this is true, but it might not actually have much impact on the analysis.  One approach is to generate 11 random numbers with mean 12.5, and some given SD.  Then allow these 11 numbers in turn to vary randomly with the SD observed in the Colts' balls (make an adjustment to this figure if you're concerned that it might be understated due a SSS fluke).  I haven't pursued this in enough depth to offer any kind of precise conclusion, but it based on what I have tried thus far, it seems to take quite a large initial SD (around 0.25) in the Patriots' measurements, even if the Colts' observed SD is significantly inflated, before this process can generate the actual variances observed in the halftime measurements.
 
I'm mostly playing devil's advocate here, as I strongly agree with SN's overall point: even if you take Exponent's conclusions regarding the measurements at face value, none of this actually implies tampering.  But I would caution against trying to refute the statistical analysis on its own terms, as some here seem inclined to do.  

 

[Bongorific]

An NFL source close to the Wells investigation fired back late Sunday.

The investigators did not agree with Dans characterizations in his e-mails and made clear after hearing out all of Dans arguments that they considered the Patriots in violation of the duty to cooperate, the source said. This is not like a normal piece of litigation, and if an investigator misses a piece of evidence he has an absolute obligation to follow up on the evidence. The subject of the investigation cannot hide behind technical procedural arguments, especially when the investigators disagree that there ever was an agreement.

http://www.bostonglobe.com/sports/2015/05/17/ted-wells-needs-speak-again-why-said-patriots-didn-cooperate/2VSS1tDvCmsHjYmGfCK4zN/story.html#

So they admit they missed the largest piece of evidence in the entire investigation? That's rich.

 

[Harry Hooper]

So they admit they missed the largest piece of evidence in the entire investigation? That's rich.

 
$2+ million just doesn't get you the same high-quality work as it used to.

 

[Hoya81]

The  Ravens complaints about the kicking balls provided should have been directed to the NFL official who is the kivking ball coordinator in playoff games. to include this seems prejudicial as well as irrelevant, and what does this have to do with dean Pees who is the Defensive Coordinator. His input is never mentioned.

I agree, the Pees interview is puzzling. Greg Manusky, the Colts coordinator, was not interviewed. Pees doesn't have a special teams background and as defensive coordinator he is probably more removed from the ball prep process as any coach could be. What do they need him for?

 

[Harry Hooper]

I agree, the Pees interview is puzzling. Greg Manusky, the Colts coordinator, was not interviewed. Pees doesn't have a special teams background and as defensive coordinator he is probably more removed from the ball prep process as any coach could be. What do they need him for?

 
 
He's an ex-Patriots coach.

 

[riboflav]

 
 
He's an ex-Patriots coach.

 
This. Come on, folks, This was a set up. Time to get on board.

 

[SeoulSoxFan]

An NFL source close to the Wells investigation fired back late Sunday.

The investigators did not agree with Dans characterizations in his e-mails and made clear after hearing out all of Dans arguments that they considered the Patriots in violation of the duty to cooperate, the source said. This is not like a normal piece of litigation, and if an investigator misses a piece of evidence he has an absolute obligation to follow up on the evidence. The subject of the investigation cannot hide behind technical procedural arguments, especially when the investigators disagree that there ever was an agreement.

http://www.bostonglobe.com/sports/2015/05/17/ted-wells-needs-speak-again-why-said-patriots-didn-cooperate/2VSS1tDvCmsHjYmGfCK4zN/story.html#

 
Oh, it matters. It matters because the Vincent & the NFL made it only THE CENTRAL PREMISE TO THE LARGEST PENALTY EVER.

Blood pressure, up.

 

[SeoulSoxFan]

Kraft on MMQB. Oh, yes he's still mad. Very, very mad: http://mmqb.si.com/2015/05/18/robert-kraft-patriots-owner-nfl-deflategate/
 

“I just get really worked up. To receive the harshest penalty in league history is just not fair. The anger and frustration with this process, to me, it wasn’t fair. If we’re giving all the power to the NFL and the office of the commissioner, this is something that can happen to all 32 teams. We need to have fair and balanced investigating and reporting. But in this report, every inference went against us … inferences from ambiguous, circumstantial evidence all went against us. That’s the thing that really bothers me.
 
“If they want to penalize us because there’s an aroma around this? That’s what this feels like. If you don’t have the so-called smoking gun, it really is frustrating. And they don’t have it. This thing never should have risen to this level.”

 
and this little nugget:
 

Asked about his current relationship with commissioner Roger Goodell (which was until two weeks ago warm and convivial), Kraft said: “You’ll have to ask him.” He wouldn’t answer further.

 

[grsharky7]

I'd love to be a fly on the wall at league meetings in San Francisco. Sounds like Kraft is leaving everything on the table as far this goes.

 

[Average Reds]

Why  were two Ravens officials on the witness list for Wells, namely Dean Pees and the special teams coach. and yet when the report  mentions the claim of the Colts that it was common knowledge around the league that the Pats baaboys were deflating the balls, there is no mention of the Ravens coaches testimony in the report. To quote Bob dylan again "the executioner's  face is always well hidden. "

 
You realize this is essentially an extension of the argument that Wells/the NFL uses to suspend Brady, right?
 
I mean, it's fine if you're comfortable with that, but logical coherence shouldn't be a one-sided phenomenon.

 

[Super Nomario]

Why not?  This is what an F-test is for.  (Granted, the assumption of a normal distribution may be problematic due to the changing temperature conditions, but that is a separate issue.)

It's been almost 15 years since I took college statistics, so I will take your word for it. For what it's worth, Exponent did do the math and determine that there is no significant difference between the Patriots' SD of 0.4 for 11 balls and the Colts' 0.1 for three or four balls.
 

Strictly speaking, this is true, but it might not actually have much impact on the analysis.  One approach is to generate 11 random numbers with mean 12.5, and some given SD.  Then allow these 11 numbers in turn to vary randomly with the SD observed in the Colts' balls (make an adjustment to this figure if you're concerned that it might be understated due a SSS fluke).  I haven't pursued this in enough depth to offer any kind of precise conclusion, but it based on what I have tried thus far, it seems to take quite a large initial SD (around 0.25) in the Patriots' measurements, even if the Colts' observed SD is significantly inflated, before this process can generate the actual variances observed in the halftime measurements.

So what? Do we have any reason to think a SD of 0.25 is unreasonable?
 

 I'm mostly playing devil's advocate here, as I strongly agree with SN's overall point: even if you take Exponent's conclusions regarding the measurements at face value, none of this actually implies tampering.  But I would caution against trying to refute the statistical analysis on its own terms, as some here seem inclined to do.

I'm not against statistical analysis, but it's kind of a GIGO operation. In this case, the "control group" has four measurements and one of them is obviously wrong. Any statistical analysis based on comparing the two sets of balls is of suspect validity.

 

[Gorton Fisherman]

This almost requires a separate thread, but bottom line is that no new rules were invented.  Direct from the NFL's Bylaws and Constitution, Article IX: Prohibited Conduct, you have:
 
No member.... shall... Use at any time, from the start to the finish of any game in which a club is a participant, any communications or information gathering equipment, other than Polaroid-type cameras or field telephones, including without limitation videotape machines, telephone tapping or bugging devices, or any other form of electronic device that might aid a team during the playing of a game.

 
Yep, have seen this one before.  My first point is, even here, there is no explicit prohibition against "taping defensive signals".  (In fact, interestingly, this rule would appear to explicitly authorize taking Polaroid photos of defensive signals.  But I digress.)  Again, though, there is nothing in this text to support Goodell's creation of a specific prohibition on taping defensive signals as was described in that Ray Anderson pre-season memo.
 
Secondly, as was pointed out in that Sheaffer piece from 2009, Article IX contradicts other well-established NFL rules and procedures that explicitly authorize videotaping/filming during a game.   As Sheaffer explains, the NFL reconciles the apparent contradiction by interpreting Article IX to mean that teams can film during games, but they can only use the recordings between games, not during them.  Belichick conducted his videotaping operations consistently with this interpretation.  I don't believe any evidence has ever been presented nor even any allegation made that Belichick was using the videotapes during the same game to gain an advantage.
 

From the same set of policy changes enacted prior to 2007:
 
No video recording devices of any kind are permitted to be used in the coaches booth, on the field, or in the locker room during the game.

 
Yep, this is the rule Belichick was (rightfullly) busted for.  No argument there.   However, I will re-emphasize: nothing in this policy makes any reference to "taping defensive signals", or creates any prohibiton or restriction on the content or subject of videotaping activities.  The only restrictions included here pertain to locations where video recording may be performed.
 

In case you're wondering why the Commissioner gets to make this policy change, consider the following from Article VIII of the NFL's Bylaws:
 
8.5:  The Commissioner shall interpret and from time to time establish policy and procedure in respect to the provisions of the Constitution and Bylaws and any enforcement thereof

 
This was what I was looking for, as it would appear to be the specific language that authorizes the Commissioner to make new stuff up ("establish policy and procedure").  I am curious, though, what sort of limitations or restrictions apply to this power.  What does "in respect to the provisions of the Constitution and Bylaws" actually mean?  When does a rule change cross the line from something the Commissioner can just arbitrarily decide, versus something that must be agreed to and voted on by member teams?

 

[Van Everyman]

Kraft on MMQB. Oh, yes he's still mad. Very, very mad: http://mmqb.si.com/2015/05/18/robert-kraft-patriots-owner-nfl-deflategate/
 
 
and this little nugget:
 

Juiciest info there AFAIAC:

[Asked about his current relationship with commissioner Roger Goodell (which was until two weeks ago warm and convivial), Kraft said: “You’ll have to ask him.” He wouldn’t answer further./quote]

Really? Even two weeks ago it was still warm? Was ROG telling Kraft that he would be balanced about all this once the facts were in and then pulled the rug out from under him once the "facts" came in?

As a power play amongst millionaires and billionaires, this whole thing is pretty amazing. The only thing j can think based on what we know is that the "assistant commissioner" thing in the GQ piece really rankled Roger and he, Al Gore-style, is out to prove that he's his own man by coming down hard. Which in its own way would go to show what a puppet of these owners the commissioner really is.

 

[Ed Hillel]

I think this is interesting:

Asked if Brady had told him he was innocent, Kraft said: “Yes. Because we had the discussion—if you did it, let’s just deal with it and take our hit and move on. I’ve known Tommy 16 years, almost half his life. He’s a man, and he’s always been honest with me, and I trust him. I believed what he told me. He has never lied to me, and I have found no hard or conclusive evidence to the contrary.”

I find it hard to believe Brady would lie to Kraft about this, but who knows.

 

[Jinhocho]

Sigh.  Made the mistake of listening to Mike and Mike this morning when dropping the kids off.  They had Herm Edwards on and you know what the conversation was about - how throughout this process the PAts keeps this in the news by talking and talking and talking. Prior the Wells report, it was the Pats who kept the story going by trying to defend themselves.  Also, the Pats were selfish and for a team that is quiet all the time, they sure squawked unlike the Falcons when they tarnished the shield.  Just infuriating.  

 

[Stitch01]

I'd say the Pats played full price for the airtime and the league can prepare to have this be the face of the league for a long time.

 

[Shelterdog]

I'd say the Pats played full price for the airtime and the league can prepare to have this be the face of the league for a long time.

 
This is also why I'd be pissed at Goodell if I'm some random owner like Shad Kahn-I have a license to print money that cost me a billion or two but my product has had a year of negative press because the league keeps fucking up investigations one way or another? 

 

[Koufax]

One of the biggest reasons that I believe that TB was not involved in any shenanigans (as opposed to whether the NFL proved that he was) is that it just seems out of character.  That said, I cringe a bit hearing Kraft say it while knowing that Kraft also bought Aaron Hernandez's story about being a reformed man worthy of a giant contract.  It seems that Kraft is a bit gullible when dealing with certain players, and for that reason his endorsement won't mean much to the other owners.

 

[Joshv02]

 
This is also why I'd be pissed at Goodell if I'm some random owner like Shad Kahn-I have a license to print money that cost me a billion or two but my product has had a year of negative press because the league keeps fucking up investigations one way or another? 

Right – the AP investigation was incredibly bungled.  It should have been relatively easy, and they could have handled it well, but they f’ed it up at every turn.  The easiest example is that Troy Vincent called AP and practically begged him to go to a meeting with the Commish, basically telling him that if he went he’d get no more than one more game at that point, and that the new disciplinary policy did not apply to AP.  Yes, he expressly told AP that the new policy would not apply to him.
 
He is the head of football operations and in charge of (for the Pats) disciplining a player, yet he takes a position as to if a policy does or does not apply to a player that is inconsistent with the position the league eventually takes.  And yet the league doesn’t simply say “opps, you are right, while we think the policy does apply, we should not have said otherwise, and we’ll stick to what we previously said.”
 
Personally, I think he was just lying to AP to get him to cooperate and make the episode go away, in the NFL’s mind.  When that didn’t work, they tried to shut him up.
 
We don’t really care because AP hits children.  But, we should care about the process because the process was moronic.
 
I think the league is filled with liars.  And as a business person, I’d care about that a good deal.

 

[DJnVa]

Sigh.  Made the mistake of listening to Mike and Mike this morning when dropping the kids off.  They had Herm Edwards on and you know what the conversation was about - how throughout this process the PAts keeps this in the news by talking and talking and talking. Prior the Wells report, it was the Pats who kept the story going by trying to defend themselves.  Also, the Pats were selfish and for a team that is quiet all the time, they sure squawked unlike the Falcons when they tarnished the shield.  Just infuriating.  

 
Yes. that almost made me drive off the road. The Patriots kept this in the news?
 
Not one mention that I heard about the Mortensen tweet that blew this all up. Completely disingenuous.
 
By the way, after their claim that they didn't keep this in the news, I turned the radio off. Fifteen minutes later I turned it back on and the first word I heard was "Patriots".
 

 

[DJnVa]

In that Kraft interview he also would not comment when asked if we would take the NFL to court over the fine and loss of draft picks.

 

[pappymojo]

Sigh.  Made the mistake of listening to Mike and Mike this morning when dropping the kids off.  They had Herm Edwards on and you know what the conversation was about - how throughout this process the PAts keeps this in the news by talking and talking and talking. Prior the Wells report, it was the Pats who kept the story going by trying to defend themselves.  Also, the Pats were selfish and for a team that is quiet all the time, they sure squawked unlike the Falcons when they tarnished the shield.  Just infuriating.  

It is funny that the media and ESPN while talking about this stupidity blames someone else for the fact that the media is talking about this stupidity.

 

[Hoya81]

I think this is interesting:


I find it hard to believe Brady would lie to Kraft about this, but who knows.

Especially after being given an opportunity to come clean. Brady has to have seen how much Braun/Armstrong/Rose permanently shredded their reputations by admitting wrong doing after long denials.