Here is the link to the fall sports streaming schedule.

https://appstatesports.com/news/2023/8/ ... edule.aspx

Unretired?

User avatar
appst89
Site Admin
Posts: 9899
Joined: Mon Jun 26, 2000 3:26 am
School: Appalachian State
Has thanked: 330 times
Been thanked: 2185 times

Re: Unretired?

Unread post by appst89 » Tue Mar 15, 2022 3:35 pm

AppStateNews wrote:
Tue Mar 15, 2022 2:50 pm
appst89 wrote:
Tue Mar 15, 2022 2:35 pm
Apologies, I meant to say they weren’t logged not that they weren’t gauged. Without a log, there is no way to know for certain what those readings were.

The ball argument would be more compelling had they tested all of the balls. They did 12 for the Patriots and only 4 for the Colts. I read that all four of the Colts balls were under the acceptable level on one of the gauges. That alone is enough to make me question the whole process.

Do I think the balls could have been tampered with? Anything is possible, but there is a mountain of scientific evidence indicating it is less likely that they were.
While true we don't know what the pre-game ratings were, we do know they were at the approved levels or they wouldn't have been marked and in the game.

Only 4 of the Colts were tested because those 4 passed the first gauge. 3 of the 4 only failed the second gauge, but only passing one gauge is required to be approved. The failures were between .01 and .45 below on the second gauge only.

The reason more of the Patriots were tested is because the first one (the interception ball that seemingly caused the half time check) was 2+ PSI under. The next 9 were also under on the first gauge. The 11th passed. The 12th was also under. The same 11 that were under on the first gauge were also under on the second test. That is why they had to inflate the balls in order play the second half. All of the failures were between .7 and 2 PSI below.

The mountain of scientific evidence doesn't indicate they weren't tampered with. It only indicates its plausible the weather could have caused it -- not 100% did cause it.

But again, if it was 100% weather related, the Colts would have also had a similar number of balls at similar levels. They simply didn't.
A mark means nothing. Without a log it’s almost irrelevant whether they gauged them or not.

We don’t know if the Colts had a similar number or not because they weren’t tested.

My main point is that if you are going to level such a serious allegation then you’d better have a mountain of proof and you’d better be able to present it so that there is no doubt. The league failed miserably on both of those points. They not only had no proof, but the science was against them and they lied while presenting their evidence. Something could have happened, but based on what they presented I’d have to say it didn’t if I was on that jury.

User avatar
AppStateNews
Posts: 2736
Joined: Thu Aug 09, 2012 7:36 am
School: Appalachian State
Has thanked: 220 times
Been thanked: 2289 times

Re: Unretired?

Unread post by AppStateNews » Tue Mar 15, 2022 3:47 pm

appst89 wrote:
Tue Mar 15, 2022 3:35 pm
AppStateNews wrote:
Tue Mar 15, 2022 2:50 pm
appst89 wrote:
Tue Mar 15, 2022 2:35 pm
Apologies, I meant to say they weren’t logged not that they weren’t gauged. Without a log, there is no way to know for certain what those readings were.

The ball argument would be more compelling had they tested all of the balls. They did 12 for the Patriots and only 4 for the Colts. I read that all four of the Colts balls were under the acceptable level on one of the gauges. That alone is enough to make me question the whole process.

Do I think the balls could have been tampered with? Anything is possible, but there is a mountain of scientific evidence indicating it is less likely that they were.
While true we don't know what the pre-game ratings were, we do know they were at the approved levels or they wouldn't have been marked and in the game.

Only 4 of the Colts were tested because those 4 passed the first gauge. 3 of the 4 only failed the second gauge, but only passing one gauge is required to be approved. The failures were between .01 and .45 below on the second gauge only.

The reason more of the Patriots were tested is because the first one (the interception ball that seemingly caused the half time check) was 2+ PSI under. The next 9 were also under on the first gauge. The 11th passed. The 12th was also under. The same 11 that were under on the first gauge were also under on the second test. That is why they had to inflate the balls in order play the second half. All of the failures were between .7 and 2 PSI below.

The mountain of scientific evidence doesn't indicate they weren't tampered with. It only indicates its plausible the weather could have caused it -- not 100% did cause it.

But again, if it was 100% weather related, the Colts would have also had a similar number of balls at similar levels. They simply didn't.
A mark means nothing. Without a log it’s almost irrelevant whether they gauged them or not.

We don’t know if the Colts had a similar number or not because they weren’t tested.

My main point is that if you are going to level such a serious allegation then you’d better have a mountain of proof and you’d better be able to present it so that there is no doubt. The league failed miserably on both of those points. They not only had no proof, but the science was against them and they lied while presenting their evidence. Something could have happened, but based on what they presented I’d have to say it didn’t if I was on that jury.
Nobody logged the Astro's beating trash cans either... but, alas....
tAPPedInSports.net

Not affiliated with the above website

User avatar
WVAPPeer
Posts: 12237
Joined: Wed Aug 22, 2007 11:14 am
School: Other
Location: Born: Almost Heaven
Has thanked: 4594 times
Been thanked: 2512 times

Re: Unretired?

Unread post by WVAPPeer » Tue Mar 15, 2022 3:49 pm

postalapp90 wrote:
Tue Mar 15, 2022 3:34 pm
WVAPPeer wrote:
Tue Mar 15, 2022 2:59 pm
No - it's not your point at all
Wow you must be an Astros fan . Well we cheated but we would have won anyway.
Hey - I just asked him a question -
"Montani Semper Liberi"

The Dude Abides!!!

Cro-Magnon App
Posts: 936
Joined: Sat Nov 12, 2016 4:25 pm
School: Appalachian State
Location: Western South Carolina
Has thanked: 350 times
Been thanked: 358 times

Re: Unretired?

Unread post by Cro-Magnon App » Thu Mar 17, 2022 12:40 pm

I agree with appease on all points.

The thing about Brady is he doesn’t move as well now that he has aged. I remember Joe Theisman and hope Brady, or anybody else, don’t get nailed like that.

NewApp
Posts: 7491
Joined: Tue Mar 26, 2013 8:59 am
School: Appalachian State
Has thanked: 958 times
Been thanked: 900 times
Contact:

Re: Unretired?

Unread post by NewApp » Thu Mar 17, 2022 5:19 pm

Is there anyone else in the NFL who is younger than Brady who doesn't move well like him? Cam seemed to have gotten a bit like that. Wasn't as elusive as he once was.
NewApp formerly known as JCline
If you can't take it, don't dish it out.
Google SUX

User avatar
WVAPPeer
Posts: 12237
Joined: Wed Aug 22, 2007 11:14 am
School: Other
Location: Born: Almost Heaven
Has thanked: 4594 times
Been thanked: 2512 times

Re: Unretired?

Unread post by WVAPPeer » Thu Mar 17, 2022 6:27 pm

this past season Brady had the most rushing yards in a season since 2011 -
"Montani Semper Liberi"

The Dude Abides!!!

NewApp
Posts: 7491
Joined: Tue Mar 26, 2013 8:59 am
School: Appalachian State
Has thanked: 958 times
Been thanked: 900 times
Contact:

Re: Unretired?

Unread post by NewApp » Thu Mar 17, 2022 6:29 pm

WVAPPeer wrote:
Thu Mar 17, 2022 6:27 pm
this past season Brady had the most rushing yards in a season since 2011 -
Makes ya go "Hmmmmm."
NewApp formerly known as JCline
If you can't take it, don't dish it out.
Google SUX

Cro-Magnon App
Posts: 936
Joined: Sat Nov 12, 2016 4:25 pm
School: Appalachian State
Location: Western South Carolina
Has thanked: 350 times
Been thanked: 358 times

Re: Unretired?

Unread post by Cro-Magnon App » Tue Mar 22, 2022 11:14 pm

He is a slow runner but picks his spots well. I see LT coming up on the blindside ….

Post Reply Previous topicNext topic

Return to “Non-Appalachian General Discussion”