New NFL team THE CHEATRIOTS.

Per our past banter, I appreciate, as always, your insight and points made, pyramider.

Looking back, I should have been a bit more thorough while making my comments per stats; I assumed too much. The stats I was referring to were not Brady's passing numbers.....I was referring to the well-documented fumble-ratio numbers per the Pats by comparison to the rest of the league.

Not going to to state these numbers / graphs / charts, etc here because that's just pure over-kill for a hooker website. That said, there's tons of info available detailing advanced analytics and metrics per these numbers.

Check out Warren Sharp's recent work; sharpfootballanalysis.com

His numbers, by the way, are backed up by Gregory J. Matthews, asst professor of statistics at Loyola University Chicago (he actively blogs at statsinthewild. com)

Both of these men show New England's (passes+rushes+sacks)/per fumble ratio has clearly been off the chart since 2006; coincidentally the same year Brady and Manning convinced the league office to allow teams to select their own game balls vs the previous way: the home team selected game balls for both teams). Advantage? Well, let's see:

Quick snippet: per the aforementioned ratio, since 2010 the league (the "other 31 teams") have averaged a fumble per every 105 plays. And all teams in that median are within 21 of that number, either way. Sharp shows a graph chart indicating the majority of the 31 teams all clumped together. Then you see the Pats numbers and.....uh oh.

New England boasts a league-leading (and it's not even close) ratio of a fumble per every 187 plays. By the way, the Pats became only the 3rd team in the NFL the past 25 years to NOT LOSE A FUMBLE at home in 2014 (they had 6 total and recovered all of them). Remarkably, New England ran the ball 150-200 times more than the other two making that stat all the more unique.

The old axiom of you can make stats / numbers make a case for anything you're attempting to prove is an old one. But the one stat that stands out more than any other------turnovers (in most cases) will determine the final outcome of the game. Since 2000, teams that win the turnover battle, win the game 79.8% of the time. I'm sure that's a stat both Brady and Belichick have been well aware of since day one of their union. Is it as easy as Bill standing up in front of the team prior to game time and suggesting, "Hey, guys....it's cold...it's wet....it's windy today. But let's try to not fumble the ball while we're out there, 'kay?"

I don't think so........

Is an under-inflated football easier to grip onto for a running back...a wide receiver....a tight end? I'd have to say it is.....especially when playing in rainy or sub-freezing weather. Heck, even easier for a qb to grip and retain if he's being sacked (and Brady's own fumbles per sacks dropped in half post-2006. Coincidence?)

I'm not a Brady / Belichick hater by any means......but these numbers are too compelling for me or anyone else to ignore. Goodell's hands may be tied as to administering a harsher penalty.....I still think a year out of the league would serve as a deterent to others thinking this is the way to collecting Lombardi Trophies..... Originally Posted by Chateau Becot

Or maybe the evidence you presented suggests that Belichick just doesn't put up with fumblers. Or maybe that they work harder on ball security than anyone else.
I agree that the evidence suggests that they may have done something but it is in no way conclusive.
By setting this standard of evidence Goodell is going down a very slippery slope.

Or maybe the evidence you presented suggests that Belichick just doesn't put up with fumblers. Originally Posted by boardman

I was about to say it's time to find some tin foil in cat sizes

Or maybe that they work harder on ball security than anyone else... Originally Posted by boardman

false. or maybe they do but I'ma go with the odds on this one. and even in with the slight possibility they do work harder than ANYONE else they wouldn't start defying odd of the previous years. I also seriously doubt they work harder than some of the great teams of the past of which I could start typing a drawn out list here.

which could further be argued by the fact they found a way to work less hard. i.e. cheating. though I guess you could argue they worked harder than ANYONE at finding a shortcut they could impliment by getting procedures changed. to think Lombardi, Walsh, Reeves, and all those others coaches doing things the hard way. or who knows, maybe they had their own cheats and were just better at keeping them covered up. if that's the case then we're back to a false at the patriots working harder than anyone.

I agree that the evidence suggests that they may have done something but it is in no way conclusive.
By setting this standard of evidence Goodell is going down a very slippery slope. Originally Posted by boardman

is it really? if it was that inconclusive I don't think someone or anyone would be getting a 4 game suspension, a million dollar fine, or losing any draft pick. something is there. pretty sure most of America and many others know this by now. the only thing not conclusive is what was actually found and proven and why it wasn't exposed and paraded around in front of the rest of us. that's the part to speculate on. does someone not want to be in the spotlight? does someone have enough pull to keep things quiet and/or lessen the penalty received in return for something?

eh, perhaps the usual path will present itself and be followed. someone wants attention and/or needs money so they write/type a book.

More probable than not is equal to a preponderance of the evidence. It's the burden of proof required in Civil court, as opposed to "Beyond a reasonable doubt" which is the burden of proof in Criminal court. It is,therefore, a perfectly fine standard of proof for the NFL's purposes. The issue of what qualifies as "evidence" is a possible issue to me but not the burden of proof required.

No matter what the Patriots try to claim, there's just no getting around the incriminating text messages. I laughed my ass off at them trying to claim in their rebuttal that the term "deflater" was being used by the ball guy because he's a big dude trying to lose weight and that's what he goes by. Please....

Jails are full of people incarcerated on circumstantial evidence. Rarely is there a smoking gun. We'll see how far the NFL wants to take it but it looks like Brady is prepared to go to court over it if it doesn't get reduced or eliminated. He won't be able to hide his cellphone then, but evidentiary rules may be in his favor in court as opposed to the commission where they can consider anything as "evidence" that they like.

In the end his reputation is sullied no matter what he did or didn't do or did or didn't know. When shit like this makes it onto Good morning America you can't unring that bell.

Preponderance of the Evidence
"A requirement that more then 50% of the evidence points to something. This is the burden of proof in a civil trial.

For example: At the end of civil case A v. B, 51% of the evidence favors A. Thus, A has a preponderance of the evidence, A has met their burden of proof, and A will win the case."

See also: preponderance of the evidence

More probable than not is equal to a preponderance of the evidence. It's the burden of proof required in Civil court, as opposed to "Beyond a reasonable doubt" which is the burden of proof in Criminal court. It is,therefore, a perfectly fine standard of proof for the NFL's purposes.
Preponderance of the Evidence
"A requirement that more then 50% of the evidence points to something. This is the burden of proof in a civil trial.

For example: At the end of civil case A v. B, 51% of the evidence favors A. Thus, A has a preponderance of the evidence, A has met their burden of proof, and A will win the case."

See also: preponderance of the evidence Originally Posted by SpiceItUp

+100

The issue of what qualifies as "evidence" is a possible issue to me but not the burden of proof required.
Originally Posted by SpiceItUp

And that is the slope. The quality of the evidence.

These conclusions were not based on sworn testimony. What's the possible penalty if these "witnesses" lied? They lose their job. We know who they are now based on some text messages. They're more connecte and have more fame than they ever had before and it's likely one or more will parlay it.
The accused has not been given the opportunity to cross examine the witnesses or vet the evidence. If you wanted it to hold up in civil court by the rule of preponderance of the evidence it would fall way short at this point.
I'm really neutral on the Patriots, I could care less if Brady gets suspended. Just as long as he's back in week five against the Colts I dont give as shit what happens to them before or after.
Again, I think there is something there. They probably did something wrong and Brady probably knew about it. .I also think there is quite a bit of supposition going on that hasn't been allowed to be challenged and I think it's a big reason Goodell is not allowing an independent third party to arbitrate. If he did he would come out with egg on his face once again. His knee jerk reactions and inconsistencies are becoming fodder for late night hosts and main stream press alike.
Issues in the league will likely occur more not less and be handled in a similar manner if this goes down the road it's headed now. No, it's not a court of law but there is way, way more money to be made by lawyers in this kangaroo court. Goodell is opening himself up to way more of this bullshit, not less. He has a ticket to do whatever he wants because the owners can't see what he's doing with all those dollar signs in their eyes right now. If he keeps making bad decisions, at some point, it will come back on the league.
On the other hand though. Maybe this whole thing is calculated. This is normally a dead time for the NFL and they are definitely in the spotlight.

Robert Kraft capitulates:

http://sports.yahoo.com/blogs/nfl-sh...QDBHNlYwNzcg--

That's not a message of resounding support for Goodell. More like a "fuck you, I'll get the last word and you're gonna be history". I've been saying since the Ray Rice debacle that Goodell's days are numbered. I think Kraft has the same feeling.

A year ago Kraft could have gotten the votes to oust Goodell. I do not thinck he could get the votes now. Most of those prima donna bitch owners want to see Kraft eat crow.

He won't be going out with a whimper when it happens. They're going to make him squirm.

No wonder Robert Kraft sold his "Wonder Boy QB" out at his press conference the other day

Deflating footballs is twice as bad as punching a woman .... Brady four games, Rice two games? Originally Posted by pyramider

Personally, I think the conduct policy for the NFL needs revision, badly.

Granted, the NFL *isn't* in charge of punishing criminals - the courts are - but I don't much care for the way that stuff turned out, even though it looks like Rice has received an unofficial lifetime ban anyway.

I don't like giving athletes special treatment: they are already being allowed to make hundreds of thousands of dollars, if not millions of dollars, playing a game for a living, allowing them to be piss-poor role models for kids is beyond the pale.

I feel like the policy on whether or not players be allowed to earn money in the NFL should be tied to the court system.

For example:

Let's say that a player has been charged with a first time offense misdemeanor, but hasn't been convicted. He can keep playing until he is convicted, at which time he serves a one-game suspension with no pay.

Second time offense charged with a misdemeanor? Suspension with pay, pending conviction. If convicted, additional 2 game suspension without pay.

Third time or more charged with a misdemeanor? suspended without pay until resolution of case. If convicted, suspended without pay the rest of the year.

Charged with a felony? Suspended without pay until resolution of case. If convicted, suspended a full league year without pay (start to finish), in addition to remainder of current year.

Charged with a second felony? Suspended without pay until resolution of case. If convicted, banned for life.

Settling a case or reaching a plea deal counts as half a conviction.

Counts of charges and convictions start when you first come into the league: if you have 12 speeding tickets in college, they don't count toward your misdemeanors in the NFL.

However, if a team hires a person with a felony conviction already on their record prior to becoming a member of the NFL, and they are convicted of a new felony, not only is the player banned for life, but the team forfeits their first, second and third round picks in the draft immediately following the current league year.

The Patriots? Just mandate a change in their logo to 'The Hamburglar" for the next two seasons, with all proceeds from the new logo being donated to charity (whichever one, doesn't really matter).

Deflating a football is worse than a DUI, a load of pharmaceuticals with other names on them, and a big bag of cash? Irsay, owner of the Colts was fined $500K, Brady will be out over $2M.

The silence from the NFL quarterback club in support of Brady is deafening.......ijs

Because they are all doing something ...

Remember if you ain't cheatin, you ain't Belicheck.

Brady has someone take out a pound of pressure from his footballs so he can be "more competitive" and the NFL goes berserk. The owners decide to move the ball back 15 yards on PATs so the game will be "more competitive" and pat themselves on the back.