Announcement

Collapse

The Rules of Pacers Digest

Hello everyone,

Whether your are a long standing forum member or whether you have just registered today, it's a good idea to read and review the rules below so that you have a very good idea of what to expect when you come to Pacers Digest.

A quick note to new members: Your posts will not immediately show up when you make them. An administrator has to approve at least your first post before the forum software will later upgrade your account to the status of a fully-registered member. This usually happens within a couple of hours or so after your post(s) is/are approved, so you may need to be a little patient at first.

Why do we do this? So that it's more difficult for spammers (be they human or robot) to post, and so users who are banned cannot immediately re-register and start dousing people with verbal flames.

Below are the rules of Pacers Digest. After you have read them, you will have a very good sense of where we are coming from, what we expect, what we don't want to see, and how we react to things.

Rule #1

Pacers Digest is intended to be a place to discuss basketball without having to deal with the kinds of behaviors or attitudes that distract people from sticking with the discussion of the topics at hand. These unwanted distractions can come in many forms, and admittedly it can sometimes be tricky to pin down each and every kind that can rear its ugly head, but we feel that the following examples and explanations cover at least a good portion of that ground and should at least give people a pretty good idea of the kinds of things we actively discourage:

"Anyone who __________ is a liar / a fool / an idiot / a blind homer / has their head buried in the sand / a blind hater / doesn't know basketball / doesn't watch the games"

"People with intelligence will agree with me when I say that __________"

"Only stupid people think / believe / do ___________"

"I can't wait to hear something from PosterX when he/she sees that **insert a given incident or current event that will have probably upset or disappointed PosterX here**"

"He/she is just delusional"

"This thread is stupid / worthless / embarrassing"

"I'm going to take a moment to point and / laugh at PosterX / GroupOfPeopleY who thought / believed *insert though/belief here*"

"Remember when PosterX said OldCommentY that no longer looks good? "

In general, if a comment goes from purely on topic to something 'ad hominem' (personal jabs, personal shots, attacks, flames, however you want to call it, towards a person, or a group of people, or a given city/state/country of people), those are most likely going to be found intolerable.

We also dissuade passive aggressive behavior. This can be various things, but common examples include statements that are basically meant to imply someone is either stupid or otherwise incapable of holding a rational conversation. This can include (but is not limited to) laughing at someone's conclusions rather than offering an honest rebuttal, asking people what game they were watching, or another common problem is Poster X will say "that player isn't that bad" and then Poster Y will say something akin to "LOL you think that player is good". We're not going to tolerate those kinds of comments out of respect for the community at large and for the sake of trying to just have an honest conversation.

Now, does the above cover absolutely every single kind of distraction that is unwanted? Probably not, but you should by now have a good idea of the general types of things we will be discouraging. The above examples are meant to give you a good feel for / idea of what we're looking for. If something new or different than the above happens to come along and results in the same problem (that being, any other attitude or behavior that ultimately distracts from actually just discussing the topic at hand, or that is otherwise disrespectful to other posters), we can and we will take action to curb this as well, so please don't take this to mean that if you managed to technically avoid saying something exactly like one of the above examples that you are then somehow off the hook.

That all having been said, our goal is to do so in a generally kind and respectful way, and that doesn't mean the moment we see something we don't like that somebody is going to be suspended or banned, either. It just means that at the very least we will probably say something about it, quite possibly snipping out the distracting parts of the post in question while leaving alone the parts that are actually just discussing the topics, and in the event of a repeating or excessive problem, then we will start issuing infractions to try to further discourage further repeat problems, and if it just never seems to improve, then finally suspensions or bans will come into play. We would prefer it never went that far, and most of the time for most of our posters, it won't ever have to.

A slip up every once and a while is pretty normal, but, again, when it becomes repetitive or excessive, something will be done. Something occasional is probably going to be let go (within reason), but when it starts to become habitual or otherwise a pattern, odds are very good that we will step in.

There's always a small minority that like to push people's buttons and/or test their own boundaries with regards to the administrators, and in the case of someone acting like that, please be aware that this is not a court of law, but a private website run by people who are simply trying to do the right thing as they see it. If we feel that you are a special case that needs to be dealt with in an exceptional way because your behavior isn't explicitly mirroring one of our above examples of what we generally discourage, we can and we will take atypical action to prevent this from continuing if you are not cooperative with us.

Also please be aware that you will not be given a pass simply by claiming that you were 'only joking,' because quite honestly, when someone really is just joking, for one thing most people tend to pick up on the joke, including the person or group that is the target of the joke, and for another thing, in the event where an honest joke gets taken seriously and it upsets or angers someone, the person who is truly 'only joking' will quite commonly go out of his / her way to apologize and will try to mend fences. People who are dishonest about their statements being 'jokes' do not do so, and in turn that becomes a clear sign of what is really going on. It's nothing new.

In any case, quite frankly, the overall quality and health of the entire forum's community is more important than any one troublesome user will ever be, regardless of exactly how a problem is exhibiting itself, and if it comes down to us having to make a choice between you versus the greater health and happiness of the entire community, the community of this forum will win every time.

Lastly, there are also some posters, who are generally great contributors and do not otherwise cause any problems, who sometimes feel it's their place to provoke or to otherwise 'mess with' that small minority of people described in the last paragraph, and while we possibly might understand why you might feel you WANT to do something like that, the truth is we can't actually tolerate that kind of behavior from you any more than we can tolerate the behavior from them. So if we feel that you are trying to provoke those other posters into doing or saying something that will get themselves into trouble, then we will start to view you as a problem as well, because of the same reason as before: The overall health of the forum comes first, and trying to stir the pot with someone like that doesn't help, it just makes it worse. Some will simply disagree with this philosophy, but if so, then so be it because ultimately we have to do what we think is best so long as it's up to us.

If you see a problem that we haven't addressed, the best and most appropriate course for a forum member to take here is to look over to the left of the post in question. See underneath that poster's name, avatar, and other info, down where there's a little triangle with an exclamation point (!) in it? Click that. That allows you to report the post to the admins so we can definitely notice it and give it a look to see what we feel we should do about it. Beyond that, obviously it's human nature sometimes to want to speak up to the poster in question who has bothered you, but we would ask that you try to refrain from doing so because quite often what happens is two or more posters all start going back and forth about the original offending post, and suddenly the entire thread is off topic or otherwise derailed. So while the urge to police it yourself is understandable, it's best to just report it to us and let us handle it. Thank you!

All of the above is going to be subject to a case by case basis, but generally and broadly speaking, this should give everyone a pretty good idea of how things will typically / most often be handled.

Rule #2

If the actions of an administrator inspire you to make a comment, criticism, or express a concern about it, there is a wrong place and a couple of right places to do so.

The wrong place is to do so in the original thread in which the administrator took action. For example, if a post gets an infraction, or a post gets deleted, or a comment within a larger post gets clipped out, in a thread discussing Paul George, the wrong thing to do is to distract from the discussion of Paul George by adding your off topic thoughts on what the administrator did.

The right places to do so are:

A) Start a thread about the specific incident you want to talk about on the Feedback board. This way you are able to express yourself in an area that doesn't throw another thread off topic, and this way others can add their two cents as well if they wish, and additionally if there's something that needs to be said by the administrators, that is where they will respond to it.

B) Send a private message to the administrators, and they can respond to you that way.

If this is done the wrong way, those comments will be deleted, and if it's a repeating problem then it may also receive an infraction as well.

Rule #3

If a poster is bothering you, and an administrator has not or will not deal with that poster to the extent that you would prefer, you have a powerful tool at your disposal, one that has recently been upgraded and is now better than ever: The ability to ignore a user.

When you ignore a user, you will unfortunately still see some hints of their existence (nothing we can do about that), however, it does the following key things:

A) Any post they make will be completely invisible as you scroll through a thread.

B) The new addition to this feature: If someone QUOTES a user you are ignoring, you do not have to read who it was, or what that poster said, unless you go out of your way to click on a link to find out who it is and what they said.

To utilize this feature, from any page on Pacers Digest, scroll to the top of the page, look to the top right where it says 'Settings' and click that. From the settings page, look to the left side of the page where it says 'My Settings', and look down from there until you see 'Edit Ignore List' and click that. From here, it will say 'Add a Member to Your List...' Beneath that, click in the text box to the right of 'User Name', type in or copy & paste the username of the poster you are ignoring, and once their name is in the box, look over to the far right and click the 'Okay' button. All done!

Rule #4

Regarding infractions, currently they carry a value of one point each, and that point will expire in 31 days. If at any point a poster is carrying three points at the same time, that poster will be suspended until the oldest of the three points expires.

Rule #5

When you share or paste content or articles from another website, you must include the URL/link back to where you found it, who wrote it, and what website it's from. Said content will be removed if this doesn't happen.

An example:

If I copy and paste an article from the Indianapolis Star website, I would post something like this:

http://www.linktothearticlegoeshere.com/article
Title of the Article
Author's Name
Indianapolis Star

Rule #6

We cannot tolerate illegal videos on Pacers Digest. This means do not share any links to them, do not mention any websites that host them or link to them, do not describe how to find them in any way, and do not ask about them. Posts doing anything of the sort will be removed, the offenders will be contacted privately, and if the problem becomes habitual, you will be suspended, and if it still persists, you will probably be banned.

The legal means of watching or listening to NBA games are NBA League Pass Broadband (for US, or for International; both cost money) and NBA Audio League Pass (which is free). Look for them on NBA.com.

Rule #7

Provocative statements in a signature, or as an avatar, or as the 'tagline' beneath a poster's username (where it says 'Member' or 'Administrator' by default, if it is not altered) are an unwanted distraction that will more than likely be removed on sight. There can be shades of gray to this, but in general this could be something political or religious that is likely going to provoke or upset people, or otherwise something that is mean-spirited at the expense of a poster, a group of people, or a population.

It may or may not go without saying, but this goes for threads and posts as well, particularly when it's not made on the off-topic board (Market Square).

We do make exceptions if we feel the content is both innocuous and unlikely to cause social problems on the forum (such as wishing someone a Merry Christmas or a Happy Easter), and we also also make exceptions if such topics come up with regards to a sports figure (such as the Lance Stephenson situation bringing up discussions of domestic abuse and the law, or when Jason Collins came out as gay and how that lead to some discussion about gay rights).

However, once the discussion seems to be more/mostly about the political issues instead of the sports figure or his specific situation, the thread is usually closed.

Rule #8

We prefer self-restraint and/or modesty when making jokes or off topic comments in a sports discussion thread. They can be fun, but sometimes they derail or distract from a topic, and we don't want to see that happen. If we feel it is a problem, we will either delete or move those posts from the thread.

Rule #9

Generally speaking, we try to be a "PG-13" rated board, and we don't want to see sexual content or similarly suggestive content. Vulgarity is a more muddled issue, though again we prefer things to lean more towards "PG-13" than "R". If we feel things have gone too far, we will step in.

Rule #10

We like small signatures, not big signatures. The bigger the signature, the more likely it is an annoying or distracting signature.

Rule #11

Do not advertise anything without talking about it with the administrators first. This includes advertising with your signature, with your avatar, through private messaging, and/or by making a thread or post.
See more
See less

Colts vs Pats AFC Title Game (and Deflategate discussion)

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Re: Colts vs Pats AFC Title Game

    So say for example a punter takes PEDs before a game... His team wins 42-0, he never sees the field and he had testicular cancer so his balls are deflated... Does anyone argue that he shouldn't be suspended because he had minimal impact on the game?
    Originally posted by Natston;n3510291
    I want the people to know that they still have 2 out of the 3 T.J.s working for them, and that ain't bad...

    Comment


    • Re: Colts vs Pats AFC Title Game

      Originally posted by shags View Post
      And that's really the bottom line about discussing "Deflategate" here.

      There is not a single Colts fan who has a credible opinion on this. They are too blinded by their hate of the Patriots to have one.

      The Patriots deserve to get punished for risking something stupid like this playing a team they are so much superior too. It'd be the equivalent of the Colts deflating footballs to play the Jaguars or Titans.
      Yet Pats fans do? Neither is impartial but what about the NFL pundits that don't care about either team? Are they not credible either? Maybe.

      I personally think at this point this is some elaborate PR stunt because really how else would the NFL promote this game Seattle was in it last year their story was already told same with the Pats who've been to 5 other SBs.

      However "deflate gate" dare I say put some air into this SB coverage now they have gotten the interested of everyone with this story leading all the major news networks.

      Now more people will want to watch this game more than ever.

      Comment


      • Re: Colts vs Pats AFC Title Game

        Originally posted by Shade View Post

        And I take a bit of offense in you basically calling me a liar.
        Say what?

        I'm not saying that I know for a fact that you are lying and Theismann/Marino/Williams are telling the truth
        I'm not saying that I know for a fact that you are telling the truth and Theismann/Marino/Williams are lying.


        I'm saying that reasonable people can apparently very strongly disagree.
        You seem to be saying that you know for a fact that you are telling the truth and that Theismann/Marino/Williams are all dirty liars.

        I would certainly agree that anyone could tell the difference between a inflated ball you are playing with now and a very flat, deflated ball that you played with 30 min ago.

        Of course, while it has the moniker "deflate-gate", the allegation is not that anyone played with a flat, or deflated ball. It is that a half was played with a ball that was perhaps 11 psi instead of 12.5 psi, in other words, a 12% under-inflated ball. Note: an 8% difference can be had in two fully legal balls (12.5 psi, raised 8%, is 13.5 psi).

        It would be interesting to do the double-blind experiment, not with 2 footballs side-by-side, but with a football in your hand now compared with a football in your hand 30 minutes ago.

        An Atlanta Yahoo writer did one study to see if the REFS should have noticed and this was one of his conclusions:


        Feel: Not as different as you'd think!

        You have no idea what a properly inflated football feels like. I guarantee it. If you grab a football, squeeze it, and think, hey, that could use a little air, chances are it's less than half its regulation pressure level. If you squeeze it and say, that's good, it's probably still three to four psi low. You cannot squeeze a football inflated to regulation pressure to any more than the tiniest degree, and some of that depends on the sponginess of the football's outer layer.

        Ah, but what about a under-inflated football? I started at 13 psi, midpoint of the NFL's legal pressure window, and deflated the ball to 11 psi. Here's the thing: football squeezeability (scientific term) doesn't descend in a straight line as psi drops. The difference between 13 psi and 11 psi is not nearly as sharp as, say, the difference between 7 psi (mushy but still fine for a backyard game) and 5 psi (lumpy in your hand).

        ...once you get into double-digit psi, you really have to squeeze the ball very hard to tell the difference. In other words, referees, particularly in a Gillette Stadium downpour, would have to be actively squeezing the balls, not just picking them up and tossing them to the sideline, to sense any pressure differential.

        ...Appearance: Also negligible
        It's a football. It looks exactly the same at 13 or 11 psi. Take two pounds out of a regulation-inflated ball and it doesn't suddenly become a Salvador Dali-esque melting chunk of leather

        http://sports.yahoo.com/blogs/nfl-sh...155529889.html[/quote]
        Last edited by Slick Pinkham; 01-24-2015, 12:00 AM.
        The poster "pacertom" since this forum began (and before!). I changed my name here to "Slick Pinkham" in honor of the imaginary player That Bobby "Slick" Leonard picked late in the 1971 ABA draft (true story!).

        Comment


        • Re: Colts vs Pats AFC Title Game

          Originally posted by travmil View Post
          So let me make sure I'm up to speed here...
          Here’s an executive summary (with some intended sarcasm that hopefully lightens the mood!)


          ----------------------------
          One view: It seems preferable, whenever possible, to rely on facts that can be independently and objectively verified to a greater extent than just relying on rumors and opinions from unnamed sources.

          Another view: Facts? Only one fact matters, the one self-evident truth: The Patriots are Earth’s manifestation of all that is evil in the galaxy…no… in the UNIVERSE. Well, 99% of it, with Dwyane Wade having the other 1%. BOSTON. You will never find a more wretched hive of scum and villany.

          ----------------------------

          One view: When an investigation is going on, and the people doing the investigating not announcing any of their preliminary conclusions, maybe the truth is not so easy to figure out and maybe what they eventually will find out is not crystal clear, at least right now.

          Another view: Even doing an investigation is a stupid waste of time. The truth is as clear as day, and you can’t handle the truth. My preconceived notions cannot be disproven! The Patriots are ALL a bunch of lying rotten pathological cheating scum. Belichick’s mother was a hamster and his father reeked of elderberries. Even Vinatieri, Butler, and Sergio Brown were at one point scumbags. But overnight, somehow, one day they sprouted angel’s wings!

          ----------------------------

          One view: I don’t know what a fair verdict would be based on what I know now for a fact. It really doesn’t seem so awful a deed to me, if it turns out that there is solid evidence that nobody actually took air out of any footballs after they passed inspection. A big fine… maybe a draft pick, though that seems harsh. And we have to play on. #1 vs. #1.

          Another view: Fair? You want fair? That is clear! I am done with the NFL unless Sunday we see Baltimore playing Indianapolis to decide the true AFC champion. Then they would play the winner of Dallas and Detroit, since: 1) both of them got royally screwed; and 2) I hate Seattle too, those ‘roided-up bragging mouthy tools. Yeah, the Indy-Baltimore winner vs. Cowboys-Lions winner. Preferably not Detroit, though, ‘cause KStat would be unbearable. Then Dallas would play Indy or Baltimore. Well, unless Baltimore wins. Yeah, it’s gotta be Indy-Dallas, come to think of it. For Solozzo.

          ----------------------------

          One view: I really don’t know what to think about the press conferences by Belichick and Brady. I have never seen Belichick say so much or appear to be so serious, clear-speaking, and non-combative. Brady? I didn’t notice any huge mis-statements. I admit, people can fool you though. I will withhold judgement for now, without any verifiable facts to compare to the things that they said.

          Another view: Are you kidding me? I’ve never seen such bad liars. Brady? Give me a break. Without the tuck rule he’d be bagging groceries at Sam’s Club, except that they wouldn’t hire such a lying scum. Then it is SOOOOO hard to believe that once, even for a brief time, Belichick was a Colts assistant under Ted Marchibroda. For awhile I could even feel the good in him!
          But then he killed the younglings!
          Last edited by Slick Pinkham; 01-24-2015, 01:14 AM.
          The poster "pacertom" since this forum began (and before!). I changed my name here to "Slick Pinkham" in honor of the imaginary player That Bobby "Slick" Leonard picked late in the 1971 ABA draft (true story!).

          Comment


          • Re: Colts vs Pats AFC Title Game

            Holy ****, Slick is right,

            Bill Belichick is Darth ****ing Vader.

            Mind. blown.
            "Nobody wants to play against Tyler Hansbrough NO BODY!" ~ Frank Vogel

            "And David put his hand in the bag and took out a stone and slung it. And it struck the Philistine on the head and he fell to the ground. Amen. "

            Comment


            • Re: Colts vs Pats AFC Title Game

              Bill Bellichek.... "Slick, I am your father"
              Nuntius was right for a while. I was wrong for a while. But ultimately I was right and Frank Vogel has been let go.

              ------

              "A player who makes a team great is more valuable than a great player. Losing yourself in the group, for the good of the group, that’s teamwork."

              -John Wooden

              Comment


              • Re: Colts vs Pats AFC Title Game

                Slick--What should the penalty be if the nfl shows that this was an ongoing process? Let me guess. The nfl would have to show that every other team didn't commit the same offense.

                Comment


                • Re: Colts vs Pats AFC Title Game

                  balls deflating in cold weather is INDEED an ongoing process.

                  Take it from world-renowned physicist & Bills fan Michael Naughton: http://nesn.com/2015/01/boston-colle...n-deflategate/

                  Lots of bogus analyses have been posted. One must take into account atmospheric pressure, a common mistake

                  correct calculations show that if the Patriots' balls were inflated to 12.5 PSI before the game at room temperature (around 70 degrees), then they would only be 11.1 PSI at 50 degrees Fahrenheit. That 1.4 PSI drop is pretty close to what the NFL found, and if it was colder than 50 degrees when it was measured it would have dropped even more.

                  Here's the math: Using PV=nrt to compare a system in two states, Gay-Lussac's Gas Law, will reduce to P1/T1 = P2/T2 Assuming the balls were inflated to 12.5 psi at room temperature (25C, 298K). That means the pressure in the ball starts at 12.5+14.7=27.2 PSI (it's 12.5 psi ABOVE atmospheric pressure of 14.7 psi). Temperature starts at 298 K. Temperature goes to 283 K (10 C, 50F), so: P2=(27.2) x 283K/298K = 25.8 PSI subtract out the 14.7 PSI at sea level again and the pressure of the ball should be: 11.1 PSI


                  Then when you consider touchdown spikes, piling on the ball, and other game abuse on the ball, it seems quite reasonable that more deflation can happen, upwards of a full 2 PSI.

                  http://www.rsvlts.com/2015/01/22/def...-football-law/
                  The poster "pacertom" since this forum began (and before!). I changed my name here to "Slick Pinkham" in honor of the imaginary player That Bobby "Slick" Leonard picked late in the 1971 ABA draft (true story!).

                  Comment


                  • Re: Colts vs Pats AFC Title Game

                    I just adore that PV=nrt is getting so much pub. I haven't used that in like 10 years, I'm frankly proud I still know what it is. The reaction from JoeBob in Southie when he sees an equation in a sports story has me cracking up.

                    Seriously, this is way over the theater of the absurd threshold.

                    Comment


                    • Re: Colts vs Pats AFC Title Game

                      So during the cold months of late November through the end of the season the balls in cold weather venues would all be under inflated and yet no one knew until this game. Somehow the colts and other teams all having physical chemists on payroll were able to circumvent this problem and stay LEGAL. We get it.

                      Comment


                      • Re: Colts vs Pats AFC Title Game

                        Originally posted by Slick Pinkham View Post
                        balls deflating in cold weather is INDEED an ongoing process.

                        Take it from world-renowned physicist & Bills fan Michael Naughton: http://nesn.com/2015/01/boston-colle...n-deflategate/

                        Lots of bogus analyses have been posted. One must take into account atmospheric pressure, a common mistake

                        correct calculations show that if the Patriots' balls were inflated to 12.5 PSI before the game at room temperature (around 70 degrees), then they would only be 11.1 PSI at 50 degrees Fahrenheit. That 1.4 PSI drop is pretty close to what the NFL found, and if it was colder than 50 degrees when it was measured it would have dropped even more.

                        Here's the math: Using PV=nrt to compare a system in two states, Gay-Lussac's Gas Law, will reduce to P1/T1 = P2/T2 Assuming the balls were inflated to 12.5 psi at room temperature (25C, 298K). That means the pressure in the ball starts at 12.5+14.7=27.2 PSI (it's 12.5 psi ABOVE atmospheric pressure of 14.7 psi). Temperature starts at 298 K. Temperature goes to 283 K (10 C, 50F), so: P2=(27.2) x 283K/298K = 25.8 PSI subtract out the 14.7 PSI at sea level again and the pressure of the ball should be: 11.1 PSI


                        Then when you consider touchdown spikes, piling on the ball, and other game abuse on the ball, it seems quite reasonable that more deflation can happen, upwards of a full 2 PSI.

                        http://www.rsvlts.com/2015/01/22/def...-football-law/
                        ...and the shark has officially been jumped.

                        Comment


                        • Re: Colts vs Pats AFC Title Game

                          Here's some simple math: 12/12 of the Colts' balls were properly inflated. 1/12 of the Pats' balls were properly inflated.

                          The temperature was not a significant factor.

                          Comment


                          • Re: Colts vs Pats AFC Title Game

                            Originally posted by Shade View Post
                            Here's some simple math: 12/12 of the Colts' balls were properly inflated. 1/12 of the Pats' balls were properly inflated.

                            The temperature was not a significant factor.
                            but dude, the Hoosier Dome got hot and loud

                            Comment


                            • Re: Colts vs Pats AFC Title Game

                              There is a very good reason why ball pressure dropping with temperature has never been a concern at all. There is another factor that compensates, even OVERCOMPENSATES, for it: the composition of the football itself.

                              Leather becomes must less elastic at lower temperatures. If you have a somewhat new ball with a thick, pebbled leather surface, those pebbles get much much harder in the cold temperatures. Everyone will tell you that COLD FOOTBALLS FEEL HARD.

                              The fact is, a somewhat new football at 20 degrees and at 11 psi has a harder surface than a somewhat new football at 80 degrees and at 13 psi because the elasticity factor overwhelms the pressure factor.

                              If you use an old, worn football with a thinner leather surface, it is softer at lower temps than the newer ball, because the lower amount of leather that is there, thus pressure is more important.

                              This is not made up and is not rocket science. You can choose to believe it or not, I guess.

                              The NFL memo yesterday mentioned the need to do "forensic studies" and I think that this alludes to scientific tests of the temperature/pressure issue.

                              That the Colts may have inflated balls outside seemed even to me like a weird idea at first, but it seems that in cold weather places, inflation outside is written down in standard operating procedures at the Universities of Maine, Minnesota, Boise St., and likely many other places where they have for decades noticed the temperature/pressure issue. It may be what the Colts always do at an outdoor venue. It is what those schools always do, and not for any devious reasons.
                              Last edited by Slick Pinkham; 01-24-2015, 10:40 AM.
                              The poster "pacertom" since this forum began (and before!). I changed my name here to "Slick Pinkham" in honor of the imaginary player That Bobby "Slick" Leonard picked late in the 1971 ABA draft (true story!).

                              Comment


                              • Re: Colts vs Pats AFC Title Game

                                And yet, the Colts' balls were magically unaffected. All 12 of them.

                                I guess physics hates the Patriots, too.

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X