Phrases like "most likely" and "should have" liter the science portion of the report. The Ideal Gas Law is extensively used even though it is, at best, a "good approximation" with "several limitations" of three components, pressure, volume and temperature. The relationship of these three is somewhat complex. For instance:
In Boyle’s law, Charles’s law, and the general gas law, the equations indicate the nature of the interrelationship of the pressure, the volume, and the temperature of any gas.There are many relational aspects of all three, but here are three that are the most common.
1. When TEMPERATURE is held constant, increasing the pressure on a gas causes a proportional decrease in volume. Decreasing the pressure causes a proportional increase in volume.
2. When PRESSURE is held constant, increasing the temperature of a gas causes a proportional increase in volume. Decreasing the temperature causes a proportional decrease in volume.
3. When the VOLUME is held constant, increasing the temperature of a gas causes a proportional increase in pressure. Decreasing the temperature causes a proportional decrease in pressure.
Another important point is that a temperature change normally occurs in a gas WHILE the pressure is being changed. Compressing a gas raises its temperature; allowing a gas to expand lowers its temperature.
These issues make this report sort of like jello when it comes to the issue: if you believe they cheated then it supports your belief, but if you believe they did not, then it also supports your belief. The report made multiple implications with little objective factual evidence to support any of its claims; it even implied that this issue has been used as an advantage for at least two years, with little to no evidence to support such a claim.
To me, the most ignored aspect of this whole issue is the performance factor; it was never addressed. For instance, if this issue of inflation is as the report says, a distinct competitive advantage, then the easiest way to prove this advantage would be to look at what happened to the performance of the culprit in question, Brady and the Patriots, after the advantage was clearly removed.
The only pure samples we have are the second half of the Colts game and the Super Bowl. Both performances, at first glance, do not contribute to any part of the theory. First, there is no drop off in the team's performance, which would question whether the practice has been going on for two years, as the report implies. Taking away a clear advantage that has been in use for an extended period of time would result in a drop off in performance, especially between two halves with no opportunity to compensate for what was taken away. The advantage of a less inflated football would be part of the normal performance matrix and result in a clear period of adjustment when removed. The first half of the Colts game was close, but the second half was not. Also, if this was a clear advantage then taking it away would prove the power of the advantage, and result in the Patriots performing at a level well below the level of performance with the advantage. The fact that there is no drop off in performance is problematic on both fronts.
Does Brady like his footballs on the lower end of the inflation index? Yes! Did he, with a sinister smile and malicious heart, seek to undermine the integrity of the game by gaining an advantage in making sure the footballs he throws are to his liking? I doubt it. Is it any different than wearing an extra set of pads that protect one's ribs? Is there a difference in swinging a lighter bat in baseball? What about wearing gloves in cold weather? Athletes are always looking for any advantage to keep their edge. I think that was his intent, but I also think it matters little in light of the big picture, which I believe the NFL is intentionally trying to get us to forget.
The issue is that the NFL has, once again, pulled one over on the general public. Most people are so busy hating on the Patriots or defending the Patriots that they have all but forgotten the real issues in the NFL. Steroids, concussions and domestic violence are all real issues that the NFL refuses to address. Retired players are dying earlier, concussions are still an issue that the NFL refuses to address and players with domestic issues continue to play. Does anyone doubt anymore that most NFL players are on steroids? In the last several years, there are have been many prominent retired players who have committed suicide who had known issues with concussions in the past. The Dallas Cowboys just signed a free agent with a past full of domestic violence issues and drafted another with the same issues, and the headline in the NFL right now is about the air in a ball. These are real issues worthy of attention, study and investigation, yet here we find ourselves... arguing over whether or not 1.5 psi matters in a ball used to play a game.
No comments:
Post a Comment