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

    You have got to explain the ESPN reported 2 psi change rather than some anonymous 1 psi change. By no means is it clear there was a 1 psi change.
    Last edited by speakout4; 01-28-2015, 01:37 PM.

    Comment


    • Re: Colts vs Pats AFC Title Game

      Originally posted by Since86 View Post

      Your source said they recreated the pressure drop, finding a 1.8psi AVERAGE drop. 13.5-1.8=11.7
      That is what they saw at Carnegie Mellon University (head smart labs) when they dunked new, unprepped footballs in a vat of water before cooling them.

      When they omitted the dunking the footballs in water step, they found instead an AVERAGE drop of about 1 psi. The average that they posted is 1.1, but there are going to be error bars with any such measurement. They also assumed that room temperature was 75 degrees. If it was instead the normally used 72 degrees, the average of a 1.1 psi drop would go down a little anyway.

      Is dunking a footballs completely in a tub of water analogous to a heavy rain, or would it be overkill? I think it would be overkill. Only one football is getting rained on at any one time. When it gets switched out, it gets towel-dried and placed back into a water-proof bag. Thus the completely waterlogged football proposal doesn't make as much sense as they claim that it does. Their dry football results (which are not shown in their video but is described in a pdf document in their web site) seem more in line with the real-world situation.
      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 khaos01207 View Post
        I would like to first thing that Murder and deflating footballs is not a similar concept in your mind, for that means that you either hold football in a strangely high regard or hold human life in too low a regard.
        .
        Compare the media attention on this to the media attention on the acts of Adrian Peterson, Ray Rice, and Aaron Hernandez COMBINED.

        You are right, is is crazy on behalf of the media. That is exactly what I am saying.
        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 speakout4 View Post
          You have got to explain the reported 2 psi change rather than some anonymous 1 psi change. By no means is it clear there was a 1 psi change.
          Indeed, early unsourced rumors said that the Patriots footballs had lost 2 psi in pressure.

          Then, as we have seen often in this story, another report emerged on Monday from yet another “unnamed source”. This particular report claimed that only one of the Patriots footballs lost 2 psi of pressure, namely the football that had been intercepted late in the half. One Patriots football had also been judged to be “passing” at halftime. The other 10 Patriots footballs, the source claimed, dropped much less in pressure. In fact it was proposed that they dropped closer to 1 psi than 2 psi. So we had two outliers, or two odd Patriot footballs, one that was on the high side and one that was on the low side. The rest of them dropped closer to 1 psi in pressure, apparently, and thus the average drop would have been closer to 1 psi.

          This report that a pressure drop closer to 1 psi than to 2 psi, on average, may have occurred is what makes it entirely plausible that science explains the drop, completely.
          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 Slick Pinkham View Post
            That is what they saw at Carnegie Mellon University (head smart labs) when they dunked new, unprepped footballs in a vat of water before cooling them.
            They weren't dunked, they were dampened. They tried to recreate the conditions seen on the field. 1.1 was just from temperature change.
            https://uploads.strikinglycdn.com/fi...eflateGate.pdf

            So unless you're thinking that the Colts footballs somehow stayed dry while the Pats were wet, it still doesn't add up. The conditions were the same, so air pressure lost should be somwhat equal between both sides.
            Last edited by Since86; 01-28-2015, 01:43 PM.
            Just because you're offended, doesn't mean you're right.” ― Ricky Gervais.

            Comment


            • Re: Colts vs Pats AFC Title Game

              Originally posted by Slick Pinkham View Post
              Indeed, early unsourced rumors said that the Patriots footballs had lost 2 psi in pressure.

              Then, as we have seen often in this story, another report emerged on Monday from yet another “unnamed source”. This particular report claimed that only one of the Patriots footballs lost 2 psi of pressure, namely the football that had been intercepted late in the half. One Patriots football had also been judged to be “passing” at halftime. The other 10 Patriots footballs, the source claimed, dropped much less in pressure. In fact it was proposed that they dropped closer to 1 psi than 2 psi. So we had two outliers, or two odd Patriot footballs, one that was on the high side and one that was on the low side. The rest of them dropped closer to 1 psi in pressure, apparently, and thus the average drop would have been closer to 1 psi.

              This report that a pressure drop closer to 1 psi than to 2 psi, on average, may have occurred is what makes it entirely plausible that science explains the drop, completely.
              I am sure that given the situation the refs found themselves in these nfl officials tabulated the psi of each ball. That table for each ball is critical to this discussion. Everything else is conjecture.

              Comment


              • Re: Colts vs Pats AFC Title Game

                Originally posted by Slick Pinkham View Post
                This report that a pressure drop closer to 1 psi than to 2 psi, on average, may have occurred is what makes it entirely plausible that science explains the drop, completely.
                Then why is the investigation still ongoing, now on Day 10? There's clearly more to it than that or this would be over already. Unless you don't think the NFL can calculate simple math.

                Comment


                • Re: Colts vs Pats AFC Title Game

                  Originally posted by Since86 View Post
                  They weren't dunked, they were dampened. They tried to recreate the conditions seen on the field. 1.1 was just from temperature change.
                  https://uploads.strikinglycdn.com/fi...eflateGate.pdf

                  So unless you're thinking that the Colts footballs somehow stayed dry while the Pats were wet, it still doesn't add up. The conditions were the same, so air pressure lost should be somwhat equal between both sides.
                  And even at only a 1.1 drop, the Colts' footballs would still fail inspection. And it would be higher than 1.1 anyway if the Colts' balls were inflated to the max.

                  Pats' balls: 12.5 to 11.4 (7.8% drop): PASS to FAIL
                  Colts' balls: 13.5 to 12.3 (7.8% drop): PASS to FAIL

                  And this is if the Colts' balls were pumped to the max, which is 100% speculation and an absolute best-case scenario for New England.

                  Comment


                  • Re: Colts vs Pats AFC Title Game

                    Originally posted by khaos01207 View Post
                    nothing the league has leaked has been false
                    The league leaked an >2 psi average drop for the Patriots footballs
                    The league leaked a ~1 psi average drop for the Patriots footballs
                    One of those is false

                    The league leaked that all of the Patriots footballs but one had at least a 2 psi drop
                    The league leaked that the intercepted football was the only one that had anywhere near a 2 psi pressure drop
                    One of those is false

                    The league leaked that the Baltimore Ravens tipped off the Colts or the NFL about concerns with regard to underinflated footballs.
                    The Baltimore Ravens coach Harbaugh says that the report that the ravens talked to anybody about underinflated footballs is false.
                    Unless the NFL knows more about Baltimore than Baltimore knows about itself, the NFL's leak was false.

                    The league leaked that they were working to wrap up the investigation in a few days.
                    The league hasn't interviewed players and coaches yet, 10 days later
                    the first leak was false

                    The league leaked that D'Quell Jackson had noticed that the ball he intercepted felt soft
                    D'Quell Jackson says that allegation is completely untrue.
                    The rumor was then revised that a Colts equipment guy noticed that the ball was soft
                    The first leak was false

                    There are more, but that gives you an idea.

                    We have a lot of anonymous source vs. anonymous source battles going on.
                    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

                      Slick, I think you're mixing up "league sources" with "anonymous sources."

                      It's all conjecture at this point, anyway. But again, if the explanation was as simple as you're claiming it is, this investigation would have been over by now.

                      Comment


                      • Re: Colts vs Pats AFC Title Game

                        Originally posted by Slick Pinkham View Post
                        what the science shows is clear.

                        How often do you hear as you tune into a cold weather game “Catching the football today is going to be like catching a rock”? Guess what: those rock-hard footballs have a low pressure, if they were pumped up to legal pressure at room temperature! How can cold footballs feel as hard as a rock despite having a low pressure? Because the leather gets much stiffer (inelastic) as it gets colder. The stiffness of the leather covering a cold football, in fact, apparently more than makes up for its low pressure and makes it harder for the quarterback to squeeze a cold football and harder for a receiver to catch a cold football.

                        And this is why the cold football game pressure issue has really never been important at all in the past: footballs just simply do not turn into mush when they get cold!

                        It only seems to be an issue because the NFL rules tell the referees to look at just one thing: the gauge pressure of the football, and further, they fail to clarify for the referees that what is REALLY important is the gauge pressure of the football at room temperature, since psi will go down as temperature goes down, about 1 psi for over a 20 degree drop, but it is irrelevant because overall the football does not become a nerf ball due to other factors besides psi, and the footballs are never checked after their temperature starts to drop.

                        If every football in every super-cold game played were tested after the balls became super-cold, every one of the footballs used would have failed the 12.5 psi specs. If every football in every super-cold game played were tested after the balls were then warmed back up, every one of the footballs used would have passed the 12.5 psi specs, assuming that the passed in pregame.

                        Any other result and you violate Amonton's law of 1702, described long before we knew for sure that atoms existed.
                        1 psi per 20 degree drop? So, going from 70 to 10 would take a ball from 12.5 to 9.5 psi, 25% reduction? Then factoring in wetness maybe down to 8 psi?????? 36% reduction?????

                        I, like Bill, am not a scientist, but empirically that just doesn't seem possible.

                        Can stiffer leather compensate for that?
                        Last edited by Speed; 01-28-2015, 02:06 PM.

                        Comment


                        • Re: Colts vs Pats AFC Title Game

                          Originally posted by Shade View Post
                          And even at only a 1.1 drop, the Colts' footballs would still fail inspection. And it would be higher than 1.1 anyway if the Colts' balls were inflated to the max.

                          Pats' balls: 12.5 to 11.4 (7.8% drop): PASS to FAIL
                          Colts' balls: 13.5 to 12.3 (7.8% drop): PASS to FAIL

                          75 degrees (in the experiment) differs from 72 degrees (room temperature)
                          50 degrees (in the experiment) differs from 51 degrees (game time temperature)

                          Thus a 25 degree drop (in the experiment) differs from a 21 degree drop (in reality)

                          temperature/psi drop is a linear phenomenon.

                          For the Patriots, (21/25) * 1.1 = 0.92
                          for the Colts, (21/25) * 1.1 * (13.5/12.5) = 0.98

                          Pats' balls: 12.50 to 11.58: PASS to FAIL (7.3%)
                          Colts' balls: 13.50 to 12.52: PASS to PASS (7.3%)
                          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 Slick Pinkham View Post
                            The league leaked an >2 psi average drop for the Patriots footballs
                            The league leaked a ~1 psi average drop for the Patriots footballs
                            One of those is false

                            The league leaked that all of the Patriots footballs but one had at least a 2 psi drop
                            The league leaked that the intercepted football was the only one that had anywhere near a 2 psi pressure drop
                            One of those is false

                            The league leaked that the Baltimore Ravens tipped off the Colts or the NFL about concerns with regard to underinflated footballs.
                            The Baltimore Ravens coach Harbaugh says that the report that the ravens talked to anybody about underinflated footballs is false.
                            Unless the NFL knows more about Baltimore than Baltimore knows about itself, the NFL's leak was false.

                            The league leaked that they were working to wrap up the investigation in a few days.
                            The league hasn't interviewed players and coaches yet, 10 days later
                            the first leak was false

                            The league leaked that D'Quell Jackson had noticed that the ball he intercepted felt soft
                            D'Quell Jackson says that allegation is completely untrue.
                            The rumor was then revised that a Colts equipment guy noticed that the ball was soft
                            The first leak was false

                            There are more, but that gives you an idea.

                            We have a lot of anonymous source vs. anonymous source battles going on.
                            It is not clear that all those leaks came from the nfl. Anonymous sources are not the league. I heard that ESPN reported the drop was 2 psi. Where ESPN got its info was not stated.

                            Comment


                            • Re: Colts vs Pats AFC Title Game

                              Originally posted by Since86 View Post
                              They weren't dunked, they were dampened.
                              describe for me what is happening at 1:43 to 1:45.
                              It looks to me like footballs are held and spun in a tub of standing water, before a brief towel-dry.
                              Does the tub not exist in your universe?

                              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

                                Did I miss the response to if both teams footballs were at 12.5 to begin with, and the Pats balls were significantly less at retest than the Colts..... does this prove that they were tampered iwth? To me, the science has to work both ways. If it shows proof of no tampering in the laws of physics being thrown around, doesn't it prove tampering in the aforementioned?

                                The science that the Pats fans are mainly standing behind right now, could actually be the physical proof that shows tampering. Crazy.

                                Please tell me if I'm missing something on this!! It's very possible

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X