or Connect
Styleforum › Forums › Culture › Entertainment, Culture, and Sports › NFL 2016-17 Thread
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

NFL 2016-17 Thread - Page 213

post #3181 of 4985
All Hail Roger!
post #3182 of 4985
Quote:
Originally Posted by diadem View Post

So hitting a woman carries the same penalty as deflating footballs. Nice. I'm no Pats fan, but even I can see how fucked up that is.


to be fair, the rules have changed now. 

post #3183 of 4985
Lawyerdad, wasn't the JPP thing a violation of his HIPAA rights?
post #3184 of 4985
Quote:
Originally Posted by Steve B. View Post

Lawyerdad, wasn't the JPP thing a violation of his HIPAA rights?


Potentially against the hospital/medical facility/personnel.

Not against the reporter/network.
post #3185 of 4985

News agencies are not bound by HIPAA

post #3186 of 4985
Quote:
Originally Posted by diadem View Post

So hitting a woman carries the same penalty as deflating footballs. Nice. I'm no Pats fan, but even I can see how fucked up that is.
Eh, I think that's a false comparison - albeit one invited by the NFL's PR-driven slippery slope of regulating off-field, non football related conduct. How do you compare the appropriate suspension for in-game cheating, which goes directly to the heart of the game but is obviously meaningless to society at large, the appropriate penalty for violent criminal conduct occurring in a non-NFL context?

Steve B: yes. While it's true that HIPPA regulates health care oroviders and not reporters per se, I'm not sure that there couldn't be a private right of action against a non-health care provider who induced a violation by, say, bribery or whatever. Not my area, though. Piobaire ot Hopkins might actually know better than me.
post #3187 of 4985
Quote:
Originally Posted by lawyerdad View Post

in-game cheating

I'm a Pats fan but... imma leave this here.
Our study, written with our colleague Joseph Sullivan, examines the evidence and methodology of the Wells report and concludes that it is deeply flawed. (We have no financial stake in the outcome of Deflategate.)

The Wells report’s main finding is that the Patriots balls declined in pressure more than the Colts balls did in the first half of their game, and that the decline is highly statistically significant. For the sake of argument, let’s grant this finding for now. Even still, it alone does not prove misconduct. There are, after all, two possibilities. The first is that the Patriots balls declined too much. The second — overlooked by the Wells report — is that the Colts balls declined too little.

The latter possibility appears to be more likely. The Wells report notes the expected pressure for the footballs at halftime in the Patriots-Colts game, factoring in the decline in pressure to be expected when a ball, inflated in a warm room, has been moved to a cold outdoor field. If the Patriots deflated their balls, their pressure levels at halftime should have fallen below the expected level, while the Colts balls at halftime should have hovered around that level.


But when we analyzed the data provided in the Wells report, we found that the Patriots balls declined by about the expected amount, while the Colts balls declined by less. In fact, the pressure of the Colts balls was statistically significantly higher than expected. Contrary to the report, the significant difference between the changes in pressure of the two teams’ balls was not because the pressure of the Patriots balls was too low, but because that of the Colts balls was too high.

How could this be? The report’s own findings suggest an explanation: At halftime, N.F.L. officials measured the pressure of “only a sample” of the Colts balls (four out of 12) before they ran out of time; the second half of the game was about to begin. This implies that the Colts balls sat in the warm room where they were to be measured — and thus increased in pressure — for almost the entirety of halftime before being measured.

All of the 11 available Patriots balls, by contrast, were measured at halftime, which suggests that they were measured earlier, when they were colder — and thus lower in pressure. Although this explanation contradicts the Wells report’s conclusions, it fits all the evidence.

There are other factors discussed in our study that undermine support for the Wells report’s conclusions. For example, there is considerable uncertainty concerning the actual pressure of the footballs. The N.F.L. official who checked the pressure before the game used some combination of two pressure gauges to measure the Patriots and Colts balls, but it is not known which particular combination.

One of the gauges, as the report notes, records pressures that are higher than the other. If the official used that gauge to measure the Patriots balls (but not the Colts balls) pregame, then those balls may well have started out with too little air, which could explain a later appearance of intentional deflation. The report, however, does not consider that possibility.

Our recommendation? When the N.F.L. hears Mr. Brady’s appeal of his suspension later this month, it should proceed with the knowledge that the Wells report is unreliable.

But yeah, the Pats cheated.
post #3188 of 4985
Quote:
Originally Posted by edinatlanta View Post


I'm a Pats fan but... imma leave this here.
Our study, written with our colleague Joseph Sullivan, examines the evidence and methodology of the Wells report and concludes that it is deeply flawed. (We have no financial stake in the outcome of Deflategate.)

The Wells report’s main finding is that the Patriots balls declined in pressure more than the Colts balls did in the first half of their game, and that the decline is highly statistically significant. For the sake of argument, let’s grant this finding for now. Even still, it alone does not prove misconduct. There are, after all, two possibilities. The first is that the Patriots balls declined too much. The second — overlooked by the Wells report — is that the Colts balls declined too little.

The latter possibility appears to be more likely. The Wells report notes the expected pressure for the footballs at halftime in the Patriots-Colts game, factoring in the decline in pressure to be expected when a ball, inflated in a warm room, has been moved to a cold outdoor field. If the Patriots deflated their balls, their pressure levels at halftime should have fallen below the expected level, while the Colts balls at halftime should have hovered around that level.


But when we analyzed the data provided in the Wells report, we found that the Patriots balls declined by about the expected amount, while the Colts balls declined by less. In fact, the pressure of the Colts balls was statistically significantly higher than expected. Contrary to the report, the significant difference between the changes in pressure of the two teams’ balls was not because the pressure of the Patriots balls was too low, but because that of the Colts balls was too high.

How could this be? The report’s own findings suggest an explanation: At halftime, N.F.L. officials measured the pressure of “only a sample” of the Colts balls (four out of 12) before they ran out of time; the second half of the game was about to begin. This implies that the Colts balls sat in the warm room where they were to be measured — and thus increased in pressure — for almost the entirety of halftime before being measured.

All of the 11 available Patriots balls, by contrast, were measured at halftime, which suggests that they were measured earlier, when they were colder — and thus lower in pressure. Although this explanation contradicts the Wells report’s conclusions, it fits all the evidence.

There are other factors discussed in our study that undermine support for the Wells report’s conclusions. For example, there is considerable uncertainty concerning the actual pressure of the footballs. The N.F.L. official who checked the pressure before the game used some combination of two pressure gauges to measure the Patriots and Colts balls, but it is not known which particular combination.

One of the gauges, as the report notes, records pressures that are higher than the other. If the official used that gauge to measure the Patriots balls (but not the Colts balls) pregame, then those balls may well have started out with too little air, which could explain a later appearance of intentional deflation. The report, however, does not consider that possibility.

Our recommendation? When the N.F.L. hears Mr. Brady’s appeal of his suspension later this month, it should proceed with the knowledge that the Wells report is unreliable.


But yeah, the Pats cheated.
tl;dr
I was just responding the the comparative point, which was premised on the finding that there was cheating. I don't have strong feelings about the underlying issue either way.
post #3189 of 4985

Cheating or not Tom Brady is a bag of douche. 

post #3190 of 4985

I think it's funny how Brady and Gisele look like siblings. I can't remember the psychological term for that (not narcissism, although that's a fitting word as well).

post #3191 of 4985

Interesting that that study you linked hasn't gotten a lot of press (from what I've seen, I haven't seen it be mentioned on ESPN/FOX etc)

post #3192 of 4985
post #3193 of 4985
I hate football and their tradition of holdouts. (Not just this one)

Such BS. Guys hold out because they did really well over the past season (or maybe past two), and demand a raise. Have yet to see a player demand they be paid less after a shitty season though.
post #3194 of 4985
Quote:
Originally Posted by venividivicibj View Post

I hate football and their tradition of holdouts. (Not just this one)

Such BS. Guys hold out because they did really well over the past season (or maybe past two), and demand a raise. Have yet to see a player demand they be paid less after a shitty season though.

1. It's not really a holdout since he's not under contract. It's his right to not participate in any offseason OTA's to prevent injury while he's a free agent. The Cowboys franchise tagged him basically preventing him from negotiating with any other team.

2. That's because they just get cut or don't hit incentive bonuses so there's no need for a player to demand to be paid less when they under perform.
post #3195 of 4985
Yes, how dare people expect a raise after a few good seasons when their contract is up for renewal. They should just STFU and work for the same money. Oh and they absolutely get less money after bad seasons when their contract is up.
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
Styleforum › Forums › Culture › Entertainment, Culture, and Sports › NFL 2016-17 Thread