Lets Ponder the Patriots Deflationgate Issue

[Rogah]

I love Mahjong

I didn't realize we has 73 year old women on the forum here.

I kid... I kid.... actually my mom taught me how to play that game because they needed a 4th one time I visited them in Florida....

 

[Staubacher]

Indeed

No smoking gun midway during this investigation and a few here want to send the Patriots to Football Hell forever.

As much as a few post on this, they must not have a steady job. If I met one of them I suspect they might be as unstable as the potentially suicidal guy I encountered at the airport this week...they are oblivious to making fools out of themselves at this point.

A few intelligent posts, then wait until the results are in.

I could never insult some of the haters here like they are doing it to themselves.

And they tamper with facts a lot more than those footballs were - the irony!

Awww you got to say haters again. And threw in suicidal to boot. Well done. Way to lead by example with intelligent posts.

 

[BringBackThatOleTimeBoys]

^ guilty dogs yelp

Gotta run, have fun fighting

 

[Hoofbite]

 

[BoysFan4ever]

I didn't realize we has 73 year old women on the forum here.

I kid... I kid.... actually my mom taught me how to play that game because they needed a 4th one time I visited them in Florida....

I'm in my 20's! It's a fun game.

 

[MichaelValentino]

I have read, ad nauseum, comments regarding "deflategate," and some of the theories circulating in cyberspace are laughable.

Apparently, even people from prestigious engineering schools like Cornell and Carnegie-Mellon are weighing in on this. I thought I'd add my two cents to this lengthy thread (if anyone is inclined to read this). My comments will speak to practical matters concerning "inflation theories," my calculations using Gay-Lussac and the Ideal Gas Law (I went to engineering school, just not Carnegie-Mellon), and anecdotal comments.

Practical

People (most defending the Patriots) are asking, "What if the Pats inflated their balls in a room at 90F?" The argument goes that if the balls were inflated at a higher temperature the drop in ball pressure would be greater when the balls were later exposed to ambient temperatures. The theory, based on Gay-Lussac's Law, is true but the underlying basis is laughable. NFL teams do not inflate fully deflated balls to NFL specs. Wilson is the sole producer of NFL footballs, and has been for more than 70 years. From their facility in Ada, Ohio Wilson delivers 1000 footballs to each NFL team. For the Super Bowl Wilson will deliver 108 footballs 24 hours prior to game time. The balls are pressurized and then brought down to 13.0 psig. These are the balls you and I buy at Sports Authority or Sears or Target. These are the balls NFL teams receive, not empty bladders registering 0 psig. So, any hypotheses that state the Pats inflated their game balls in the team sauna or in a 90F locker room (90 degrees in a locker room?, seriously?) do not hold water. They, in fact, border on the nonsensical.

Bill Belichick addressed the media and mumbled something-something about rubbing balls vigorously to prepare them before games. I suppose we are to believe "vigorous rubbing" of the footballs raised their internal temperature resulting in a higher internal pressure (presumably, frictional forces raised the skin temperature of the footballs effecting radiant heat gains through the skin of the ball and urethane bladder, causing a rise in interal air temperature and increase in molecular movement/collisions and a resultant higher pressure exerted on the interior walls of the football). Whew. Not even sure where to begin sorting through that hubris. Bottom line: any delta T due to rubbing the balls would be negligible and short-lived, unless we are to believe 12 ball boys vigorously rubbed the footballs to the point where there was a noticeable difference to the touch and game officials measured the footballs one-by-one immediately after they were rubbed and the ball boys continued the rubbing process for each ball until such time as each ball was pressure-measured. It just all sounds too contrived.

Gas Laws

For me, the exercise in applying the Ideal Gas Law this past week was a lot of fun. But that's just me. Here is what I calculated, based on what is known, what can be reasonably presumed and what appears to be generally regarded as true (namely, Chris Mortensen reporting that 11 of 12 Pats balls were 2.0 psi below spec at halftime).

Known variables: Kick-off T = 52F; half-time T = 49F; barometric pressure 2 hr 15 min prior to kickoff = 29.84 inches Hg; barometric pressure at halftime = 29.75 inches Hg; volume of football = 4237 cc = 0.15 cu ft; molecular weight of dry air = 28.96 lb/lb-mole; molecular weight of air at 4% by volume water vapor (saturated air) = 28.52 lb/lb-mole; gas constant, R = 10.732 ft^3*psi/deg R*lb-mole.

Assume: Room temp inside stadium when balls were measured = 72F. All Pats balls were turned in at 12.5 psig.

Allow +/- tolerance of 0.1 psig on pressure gauge.

Total sytem pressure = absolute pressure (psia) = gauge pressure (psig) + atmospheric pressure

Conversions: 1 atm of pressure = 760 mm Hg = 29.92 in Hg = 14.696 lb/sq in at sea level
Absolute temperature scale: degrees Rankine = degrees Fahrenheit + 460

Absolute pressure of football at 72F and 29.84 in Hg = 12.5 psig + 14.657 psi = 27.157 psi

Game temp dropped to 49 F by halftime (delta T = -23F), barometric pressure dropped 0.09 in Hg to 14.613 psi.

Delta T during first half was -23F over approx. 120 minutes. Assume balls were inside stadium for 10 minutes before refs measured them, allowing for some slight equilibration of internal temperature of the footballs. Assume a gain in delta T from 49F to 51F, or 2 degrees.

Expected gauge pressure of balls at halftime:

[27.157 psia (511R/532R)] - 14.613 psi = 11.47 psig

12.5 - 11.47 = 1.03

That is, based on ambient temperature and pressure (atmospheric), the expected delta P would be approx. -1.0 psig.

If the balls were measured to be 10.5 psig (per Mortensen) then something must account for the remaining 1.0 psig (+/- 0.1 psig)

I have read where others have accounted for an additional delta P of -0.4 psig based on the vapor pressure of water at indoor conditions (70-90F) and at ambient conditions (49F) and assumptions that because it was raining during the game that the air inside the balls had to have been saturated (i.e., at or below its dew point) and as the temperature of the ball dropped, water vapor condensed to liquid droplets therefore lowering the internal (gas) pressure. This might carry more substance if the balls were inflated just prior to the game in ambient conditions. Certainly, ambient air did not pass across the football skin and bladder by osmosis and the air inside the ball became saturated with water vapor. What we need is a quantitative analysis of the air inside of the footballs. They were inflated in Ada, Ohio, NOT Foxboro, Mass on January 18, 2015. What were conditions inside the Wilson factory when that lot of balls was manufactured? Without knowing the percent water vapor inside the football we cannot accurately measure pressure losses due to a lowering of vapor pressure. But, even allowing the -0.4 psig from vapor pressure losses, there still remain 0.6 psig +/- 0.1 psig unaccounted for.

Others have said the balls were soaked with water and stretched. Or that the cold rain cooled the footballs even further. Or that the Pats' balls were in play longer due to longer first half time of possession (roughly 18 minutes to 12 for the Colts). (1) the balls were not immersed in water; they were rained on, but balls on the sidelines were kept dry and covered with towels, while balls coming in off the field were immediately towel-dried and put into the ball container - any stretching of the leather in 90 minutes of such conditions would have been negligible; (2) water has a much higher heat capacity than air, so rain would wick away heat from the surface of the football faster than would the ambient air surrounding the ball, but the rain would only reduce the temperature at a faster rate (this speaks more to enthalpy change and thermodynamic processes); the footballs would not drop to temperatures below 49F due to rainy conditions; (3) the Pats at no time during the first half played with 12 balls at a time - balls not on the field of play (11 of 12) were kept out of the elements.

Anecdotal

I have read where Tom Brady (a) likes his football at 12.5 psig and (b) cannot tell the difference in weight if the ball was 15% lighter.

I remember growing up, I had a good arm. I grew up in a cold, northern Midwestern town. I could throw a football 60 yards and drop in right in a friend's arms. We played a lot of tag and touch football from September to December and even into January. Without gloves. The nose of the ball would be hard and if it was a new ball it would hurt catching a bullet in the hands or into the chest.

I didn't have huge hands nor was I 6'4" and strong as a horse like Terry Bradshaw. I could tell right away if a ball was too filled with air which kept me from getting a good tight grip with three fingers on the laces. Ideally, I would like to be able to slightly squeeze and indent the ball under my thumb and index finger. Sometimes a new NFL ball or Duke right from the box was just slightly too plump for the size of my hand. A little tweak by inserting a pin in the valve meant the difference between throwing a tight spiral 60 yards or a bullet on a rope for 20-25 yards and throwing a ball with a lot of wobble in it. Wobbling footballs are not aerodynamic. Bradshaw threw wobbly balls 65-70 yards in the air. I was no Terry Bradshaw.

So, if I could tell the difference in just a very small release of air, how much more would an all-world QB like Tom Brady be able to?

Regarding the ball being "15% lighter" this too is simply nonsense. I assume the 15% figure comes from dropping the pressure from 12.5 psig to 10.5 psig (2.5/12.5 * 100% = 17.6%) and the figure was just rounded.

A football (not inflated) weighs around 14 ounces. Density of a gas based on the Ideal Gas Law is as follows:

PV = nRT

density (rho) = PM/RT

Density of air at 72F and 14.657 psi (above conditions before game), based on dry air is:

(14.657)(28.96)/(10.732)(532) = 0.0743 lb/ft^3

A football has a volume of 0.15 cubic feet.

The weight of the air inside a football is therefore:

0.0743 lb/ft^3 * 0.15 ft^3 = 0.011 lb = 5.1 grams

If the ball is deflated by 15% (for the sake of ease, I am assuming a direct correlation between psig and mass of air at constant T if air is released through the valve), then there would be a loss of 0.15 * 5.1 grams = about 750 mg of air.

14 ounces = 397 grams

Air inside a football accounts for only about 1.2% of the weight of the ball.

Taking a small amount of air out of the ball would be unnoticeable. Someone who is very familiar with the feel and squeezability of a ball can tell the difference easily. It is not a matter of weight. It is a matter of grip and feel.

A tighter grip means tighter spirals making the ball easier to catch.

If the ball can be squeezed a little more it makes it easier to catch, both away from the ball and into the body.

And it makes it a little easier to tuck into the inside of the elbow and against the biceps muscle to give an ever so slight edge against fumbling.

I've give my 0.02.

If the Pats apologists on this board would like to rebut I only ask you to be civil and cordial as I will treat you in such fashion. Thanks in advance.

 

[Rogah]

If the Pats apologists on this board would like to rebut I only ask you to be civil and cordial as I will treat you in such fashion. Thanks in advance.

Funny how you call others "apologists" while also asking them to be cordial. Setting your hypocrisy aside, there are 2 flaws I see in the above.

1) You're using one single property of physics, the Ideal Gas Law, to make your determination. That may work well in a physics classroom to give a textbook answer but it doesn't work so well in the real world.

For example, the acceleration of an object on Earth due to gravity is roughly 9.8 m/sec^2. So let's say I jump out of an airplane. How fast am I going after 10 seconds? The textbook answer is easy: 98 meters per second, right? But out in the real world, there are 1,000 other properties of physics at play. Out in the real world, I never get faster than ~56 m/s.

2) You are accepting the Mortensen report as fact when there are several contradictory reports, not to mention the league itself admitted they grade all balls as pass/fail without recording the actual measurement.

Suppose someone takes 2 tests graded on a scale of 0 to 100 where 70 or higher is passing and 69 or lower is failing. Suppose I told you they passed one test and failed the other and then asked "how many points lower on the failing test did they score than they did on the passing test?" Your immediate response would no doubt be that I haven't given enough information to answer the question. That's what happened here.

 

[Staubacher]

You need to look up the word apologist. It's a simple non-judgmental term the poster was using.

He was being generous in your case.

Funny also how when a report that indicts NE is mentioned it is "not fact" but you constantly refer to "latest reports are" "we're hearing now" etc in a feeble attempt to buttress your own weak points. Your hypocrisy knows no bounds.

Funny how you call others "apologists" while also asking them to be cordial. Setting your hypocrisy aside, there are 2 flaws I see in the above.

1) You're using one single property of physics, the Ideal Gas Law, to make your determination. That may work well in a physics classroom to give a textbook answer but it doesn't work so well in the real world.

For example, the acceleration of an object on Earth due to gravity is roughly 9.8 m/sec^2. So let's say I jump out of an airplane. How fast am I going after 10 seconds? The textbook answer is easy: 98 meters per second, right? But out in the real world, there are 1,000 other properties of physics at play. Out in the real world, I never get faster than ~56 m/s.

2) You are accepting the Mortensen report as fact when there are several contradictory reports, not to mention the league itself admitted they grade all balls as pass/fail without recording the actual measurement.

Suppose someone takes 2 tests graded on a scale of 0 to 100 where 70 or higher is passing and 69 or lower is failing. Suppose I told you they passed one test and failed the other and then asked "how many points lower on the failing test did they score than they did on the passing test?" Your immediate response would no doubt be that I haven't given enough information to answer the question. That's what happened here.

 

[Staubacher]

2) You are accepting the Mortensen report as fact when there are several contradictory reports, not to mention the league itself admitted they grade all balls as pass/fail without recording the actual measurement.

"NFL officiating chief Dean Blandino says the inspection of the footballs by referee Walt Anderson before the AFC championship game was handled properly.
Blandino also said Thursday the process of checking the footballs and security surrounding the inspections will be enhanced for Sunday’s Super Bowl.

As the league’s investigation into the Patriots’ use of under-inflated footballs moves along, Blandino made it clear the officiating crew for New England’s win over Indianapolis did its job.

“My major concern is did we follow proper protocol?” Blandino said. “Everything was properly tested and marked before the game. Walt gauged the footballs himself; it is something he has done throughout his career.

“Officiating is not part of the investigation.”"

 

[MichaelValentino]

Funny how you call others "apologists" while also asking them to be cordial. Setting your hypocrisy aside, there are 2 flaws I see in the above.

1) You're using one single property of physics, the Ideal Gas Law, to make your determination. That may work well in a physics classroom to give a textbook answer but it doesn't work so well in the real world.

For example, the acceleration of an object on Earth due to gravity is roughly 9.8 m/sec^2. So let's say I jump out of an airplane. How fast am I going after 10 seconds? The textbook answer is easy: 98 meters per second, right? But out in the real world, there are 1,000 other properties of physics at play. Out in the real world, I never get faster than ~56 m/s.

2) You are accepting the Mortensen report as fact when there are several contradictory reports, not to mention the league itself admitted they grade all balls as pass/fail without recording the actual measurement.

Suppose someone takes 2 tests graded on a scale of 0 to 100 where 70 or higher is passing and 69 or lower is failing. Suppose I told you they passed one test and failed the other and then asked "how many points lower on the failing test did they score than they did on the passing test?" Your immediate response would no doubt be that I haven't given enough information to answer the question. That's what happened here.

Rogah,

First of all, I can see how you took my use of "apologist" in a negative or derogatory way. I should know better that such a term can be taken both negatively and positively. For example, in the past I read many online debates on theological and ecclesiastical issues between lay Roman Catholic apologists and Evangelical-Protestant apologists. I know the heat generated from those debates would often cast a negative light on the term.

In truth, apologist is a good term as it indicates a person who is a capable defender or advocate of a position or cause, such as Origen or Augustine in the early history of the Christian Church.

But I think, in all honesty, my selection of the word was wrong here, since the deflategate controversy is such a heated one here on a Dallas Cowboys forum. I find you to be an excellent debater even though I don't agree with all you have to say. In fact, I'm blown away by the way some folks on this forum can argue so logically. There are very impressive people on this forum who know a lot more than X's and O's of football. I tend to be more of a numbers guy and am not so quick on my feet. My wife wins all the arguments in our home....just ask her, she'll tell you.

Anyway, all that said, if I am honest with myself, I was not cordial myself in my post. I should not have called people's theories "nonsense." I did not want to suggest those people are stupid or not up to snuff compared to a chemist or physicist or engineer (me). That would certainly be arrogant. I was frustrated with all of the excuses surrounding this news story.

So, I am sorry for starting out on such a bad note. I clearly can see why you took offense, and though I appreciate Staubacher defending me, I truly am sorry.

btw....with your avatar and sign-on, I can't hate you - Rodger the Dodger and Gale Sayers are my two all-time football heroes, and Staubach is 1A to Sayers' 1B.

Your comments:

(1) the Ideal Gas Law does approximate real gas behavior quite well for the temperature and pressure ranges we are asking. We are not working with superheated steam or highly pressurized gases or other variables which would wildly throw off the approximations deduced from the various gas laws - Charles Law, Boyle's Law, Gay-Lussac, the combined gas law, Ideal Gas Law.

(2) I admit - and said so in my post - that I made calculations based on the validity of Mortensen's report. Certainly, IF the Pats' balls were under the NFL spec (low end) but not by as much as 2.0 psig, the Ideal Gas Law approximations accounting for change in ambient temperature and barometric pressure would reduce the footballs by 1.0 psig, making legal balls illegal (12.5 psig to 11.5 psig). My point was that IF the reported delta P of -2.0 psig is correct - that the Pats' balls were at 10.5 psig - I haven't yet seen a rational and convincing argument for why.

Certainly, the answers given in the press conferences by B & B have me suspicious but that does NOT ensure guilt by any stretch.

Since I'm a little OCD with numbers, I do have one correction to make to my above post, re: weight of the ball and air inside the ball.

rho = PM/RT

I should have used the absolute value of P since the air inside an inflated football is pressurized above atmospheric pressure. Gauge pressure is the difference between absolute (actual pressure of the air inside the ball) and atmospheric pressure (which changes with altitude and relative humidity).

rho = (27.157)(28.96)/(10.732)(532) = 0.138 lb/ft^3

0.138 lb/ft^3 * 0.15 ft^3 = 0.021 lb = 9.43 grams

so, with dry air, the weight of air comprises about 2% of the weight of the football

For air saturated with 4% water vapor, replace 28.96 with 28.52 lb/lb-mole for the molecular weight to get
a density of 0.136 lb/ft^3 and weight of 9.23 grams. Not very much difference between dry, standard air and air with a high amount of humidity.

All this talk makes me want to put down the calculator and throw the ball around.

 

[MichaelValentino]

"NFL officiating chief Dean Blandino says the inspection of the footballs by referee Walt Anderson before the AFC championship game was handled properly.
Blandino also said Thursday the process of checking the footballs and security surrounding the inspections will be enhanced for Sunday’s Super Bowl.

As the league’s investigation into the Patriots’ use of under-inflated footballs moves along, Blandino made it clear the officiating crew for New England’s win over Indianapolis did its job.

“My major concern is did we follow proper protocol?” Blandino said. “Everything was properly tested and marked before the game. Walt gauged the footballs himself; it is something he has done throughout his career.

“Officiating is not part of the investigation.”"

Thanks Staubacher, I had not seen that. Eventually, I suppose, the actual numbers will come out. This could be much heartburn over nothing. Or it could be a cover-up to gain a clear advantage, albeit a subtle one.

I keep asking, "The Patriots are so good, so well coached, why would they tweak footballs?" I mean, did anyone outside of the State of Indiana think the Colts had a chance in Foxboro? NE could have been forced to throw rice cakes out there and they still would have crushed Indy.

 

[DFWJC]

So now it has been confirmed that the actual psi of the balls were not recorded by the officials before the game.
I assumed that already and I doubt that is in their job description. But it does show the obvious issue with saying psi dropped by 2.
2 psi below 13.5 or maybe the 13 average? How would they know if no measurements were made?
The refs were tasked to be sure the balls were within the rough range of 12.5 - 13.5..with no task to document where exactly the balls were within the range...which is understandable.

But now, all of a sudden, they have said in truth...a ball measured at 11.5 at halftime could have been described as a 2psi drop (13.5 - 2) when really it was roughly 1 psi (11.5 -1)

Right or wrong. This will be used to blur the accusations.

 

[WPBCowboysFan]

So now it has been confirmed that the actual psi of the balls were not recorded by the officials before the game.
I assumed that already and I doubt that is in their job description. But it does show the obvious issue with saying psi dropped by 2.
2 psi below 13.5 or maybe the 13 average? How would they know if no measurements were made?
The refs were tasked to be sure the balls were within the rough range of 12.5 - 13.5..with no task to document where exactly the balls were within the range...which is understandable.

But now, all of a sudden, they have said in truth...a ball measured at 11.5 at halftime could have been described as a 2psi drop (13.5 - 2) when really it was roughly 1 psi (11.5 -1)

Right or wrong. This will be used to blur the accusations.

Where did anybody say the balls were 2 psi below 13.5 psi? Why would we assume that 13.5 would be used as the standard? Why would anybody assume or even argue that when they said the 11 balls that were 2 psi below meant anything other than 2 psi below the acceptable range which is 12.5-13.5 psi? In other words, those 11 balls had to be at 10.5 psi or lower when checked at the half because that is what would be 2 psi below regulation.

Why do some of you guys try so hard to throw up smoke and crap hoping anything might stick? This stuff isnt rocket surgery. Its pretty simple really. 11 balls were 2 psi below what the rules allow and those balls were in the Pats possession which means somebody with the Pats let the air out.

There is no mystery really, other than the spin the homers are putting on things.

 

[DFWJC]

Where did anybody say the balls were 2 psi below 13.5 psi? Why would we assume that 13.5 would be used as the standard? .

You need to calm the hell down and stop accusing me personally of stuff.

Nobody is assuming ANYTHING and nobody said they were for sure saying 2 psi below 13.5.

ALL I was saying is that there is one more area that can be used to add vagueness...right or wrong.

I could give flying crap who is guilty or not here. I've just been pointing out the things that WILL be brought up--be it a smokescreen or not.

I have been right every single time so far that the topic has been brought up. If there's any place to raise a flag, they will.

I AM NOT TAKING SIDES. I'm 100% for not , nor ever have been! a Pats fan.
Stop making this personal

 

[DallasCowboys2080]

I keep asking, "The Patriots are so good, so well coached, why would they tweak footballs?" I mean, did anyone outside of the State of Indiana think the Colts had a chance in Foxboro? NE could have been forced to throw rice cakes out there and they still would have crushed Indy.

to think that the pats tampering with their balls only for the colts game would be naive. you think this is an isolated incident? more than likely this is business as usual for the pats. they've probably been doing it for a long time. brady was the one behind the rule change. The Patriots became nearly fumble-proof after a 2006 rule change backed by Tom Brady.

Brady was specifically behind the rule to allowing the offense to supply their own footballs.

 

[Staubacher]

So now it has been confirmed that the actual psi of the balls were not recorded by the officials before the game.
I assumed that already and I doubt that is in their job description. But it does show the obvious issue with saying psi dropped by 2.
2 psi below 13.5 or maybe the 13 average? How would they know if no measurements were made?
The refs were tasked to be sure the balls were within the rough range of 12.5 - 13.5..with no task to document where exactly the balls were within the range...which is understandable.

But now, all of a sudden, they have said in truth...a ball measured at 11.5 at halftime could have been described as a 2psi drop (13.5 - 2) when really it was roughly 1 psi (11.5 -1)

Right or wrong. This will be used to blur the accusations.

I think you are confusing "recording" with measurement.

It has been confirmed the Walt Anderson did "gauge" all of the footballs pre game. They then are marked if they passed without the psi listed (that is the recorded part you refer to). But they certainly were gauged and Anderson and the refs did know the exact psi in the balls.

People can cloud all they want, the Pats balls left the refs legal and became illegal. The Colts balls left legal and stayed legal. The reinflated footballs at halftime stayed legal also.

 

[Staubacher]

Where did anybody say the balls were 2 psi below 13.5 psi? Why would we assume that 13.5 would be used as the standard? Why would anybody assume or even argue that when they said the 11 balls that were 2 psi below meant anything other than 2 psi below the acceptable range which is 12.5-13.5 psi? In other words, those 11 balls had to be at 10.5 psi or lower when checked at the half because that is what would be 2 psi below regulation.

Why do some of you guys try so hard to throw up smoke and crap hoping anything might stick? This stuff isnt rocket surgery. Its pretty simple really. 11 balls were 2 psi below what the rules allow and those balls were in the Pats possession which means somebody with the Pats let the air out.

There is no mystery really, other than the spin the homers are putting on things.

Based on the Pats own statements and desires, they would have gave the footballs to the refs pregame at 12.5 psi, not 13.5. So anyone wishing to defend the Pats by saying they "could have been 13.5" is calling their own defendants liars.

 

[Staubacher]

http://www.amazon.com/The-Physics-Football-Bone-Crunching-Awe-Inspiring/dp/0060826347

The book above features a "Foreword" by Bill Belichick. You know, the guy who claimed to know nothing about footballs and physics until last week.

Some subjects in the book:

Football, Bouncing
Football, Holding on to
Football, prolate spheroid shape
Football, Weight

Belichick wrote a lengthy foreword in this book back in 2004, touting the importance and use of physics in every aspect of the game.

 

[MichaelValentino]

to think that the pats tampering with their balls only for the colts game would be naive. you think this is an isolated incident? more than likely this is business as usual for the pats. they've probably been doing it for a long time. brady was the one behind the rule change. The Patriots became nearly fumble-proof after a 2006 rule change backed by Tom Brady.

Brady was specifically behind the rule to allowing the offense to supply their own footballs.

Wow, I hadn't even considered that. I was pretty much laser-focused on the AFCCG. Food for thought.

 

[MichaelValentino]

http://www.amazon.com/The-Physics-Football-Bone-Crunching-Awe-Inspiring/dp/0060826347

The book above features a "Foreword" by Bill Belichick. You know, the guy who claimed to know nothing about footballs and physics until last week.

Some subjects in the book:

Football, Bouncing
Football, Holding on to
Football, prolate spheroid shape
Football, Weight

Belichick wrote a lengthy foreword in this book back in 2004, touting the importance and use of physics in every aspect of the game.

BB is one smart guy. If someone told me he had a doctorate from CalTech or MIT I would not bat an eye.