# NFL Week 10 **URL:** \ **Category:** Cafe Society\ **Created:** [November 7, 2007, 8:36am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/nfl-week-10/425526 "2007-11-07T08:36:08Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 18\ **Page:** 5
**Author:** ![EllisDee](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/ellisdee/32/4531_2.png) [@EllisDee](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/EllisDee)\ **Post date:** [November 15, 2007, 5:34am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/nfl-week-10/425526/81 "2007-11-15T05:34:21Z")
Here’s one [cite](http://www.sportingnews.com/yourturn/viewtopic.php?t=273719) mentioning the NBC interview, written September 16th: > [@](#): > > And, by the way, the sugar on the cherry on the top of the icing was an exclusive Sunday night sit-down with commissioner Roger Goodell regarding the Patriots’ cheating scandal. Also from that same article: > [@](#): > > As expected, the Patriots spy scandal was a hot topic during the various Week 2 pregame shows. And much of the discussion centered on the notion that cheating is part of the game. For example, FOX’s Jimmy Johnson admitted to videotaping coaching signals during his time with the Cowboys, and that he was told about the technique by a Chiefs scout 18 years ago. Johnson also confessed to having interns rifle through the press box trash in search of notes that might have been discarded by opposing coaches. Also, ESPN’s Mike Ditka spoke of George Halas bugging locker rooms and George Allen videotaping practices. Pressed by his colleagues on whether Ditka has proof that the late Redskins/Rams coach actually videotaped practices, Ditka quipped, “George can’t deny it. He’s not here.” > > So if cheating is as commonplace as guys like Johnson and Ditka believe, why didn’t any of them say something about it before cheating became such a hot topic? All of these talking heads now work for media companies with news divisions. So either the former coaches and players who know all about cheating in the NFL should have said something before the Patriots’ situation arose, or they should now be telling the Chris Mortensens and Jay Glazers of the world that it’s unfair to focus so much attention on the Patriots when every team is, to a certain extent, guilty of breaking the rules in order to secure an advantage. EVERYBODY “CHEATS”. Here’s a better [cite](http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/20891188/) for that interview, with video: > [@](#): > > He didn’t wait to communicate, he was proactive, and when he got the opportunity to speak with the media on a very big national stage on NBC’s Sunday Night Football, he took every question and challenge head on. > > Case in point is Goodell’s interview with NBC’s Bob Costas before last Sunday’s game between the Patriots and San Diego Chargers. It was 7 ½ minutes of compelling television. Costas was on his game, asking very tough questions of Goodell, who didn’t even flinch. I didn’t find a cite for his Inside the NFL interview, though I only made a cursory search mainly focused on its useless homepage. Oh yeah, as for your “evidence” of this being the stiffest penalty ever handed out to a coach, that may be the most disingenuous reasoning I’ve ever heard. Pacman Jones’ penalty was also the stiffest ever, considering he’d never been convicted of anything. Does that make him the worst? Of course not; [Ray Caruth](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rae_Carruth) still holds that title, and as I understand it he was never sanctioned by the NFL at all. Goodell is making a point to crack down on everything. _Of course_ his penalties are the stiffest ever. It really doesn’t matter what the infraction is; he’s making examples of everything that comes across his desk in order to set the tone for his tenure. ---
**Author:** ![SenorBeef](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/senorbeef/32/2220_2.png) [@SenorBeef](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/SenorBeef)\ **Post date:** [November 15, 2007, 9:30pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/nfl-week-10/425526/82 "2007-11-15T21:30:21Z")
[QUOTE=Ellis Dee] I’m not saying it didn’t happen. I’m saying it’s foolish to classify it as cheating. I tried to make that crystal clear with my “opening the doors at the Meadowlands” comparison. [/quote] You consider it foolish to call deliberate interference (if it exists) with the opponent’s communications system cheating? > [@](#): > > If this is true? What, you think I’m lying? No, I don’t think you’re lying.. we might just have different views on whether the explanations given were sufficient. The SNF week 2 interview didn’t address the issues of what all the evidence contained and why it was destroyed at all. > [@](#): > > Goodell went on the halftime show of NBC Sunday Night Football and did an interview with Bob Costas discussing the matter shortly after handing down the punishment. Shortly after that, he went on Inside the NFL and gave a lengthier, more extensive interview on the same subject to…Bob Costas again, actually. One of your links has a 7 minute interview from NBC, I think from SNF week 2, and the issue of destroying evidence and not disclosing the contents was not addressed. Is there an interview where he explains that? He did make mention of accusations of illegal micing and rumors of QB/Coach radio issues. [QUOTE=Ellis Dee] Oh yeah, as for your “evidence” of this being the stiffest penalty ever handed out to a coach, that may be the most disingenuous reasoning I’ve ever heard. Pacman Jones’ penalty was also the stiffest ever, considering he’d never been convicted of anything. Does that make him the worst? Of course not; [Ray Caruth](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rae_Carruth) still holds that title, and as I understand it he was never sanctioned by the NFL at all. Goodell is making a point to crack down on everything. _Of course_ his penalties are the stiffest ever. It really doesn’t matter what the infraction is; he’s making examples of everything that comes across his desk in order to set the tone for his tenure. [/QUOTE] I was actually referring to the first rounder - any financial penalty that doesn’t add up to millions isn’t that significant to people like this. I never said that the worst penalty necesarily made it the worst case of cheating of all time - but it does imply that there was serious cheating going on, and not the very minor thing that some people blow it off as. ---
**Author:** ![EllisDee](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/ellisdee/32/4531_2.png) [@EllisDee](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/EllisDee)\ **Post date:** [November 16, 2007, 5:49am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/nfl-week-10/425526/83 "2007-11-16T05:49:08Z")
[QUOTE=SenorBeef] One of your links has a 7 minute interview from NBC, I think from SNF week 2, and the issue of destroying evidence and not disclosing the contents was not addressed. Is there an interview where he explains that? [/QUOTE] Yes, on the Inside the NFL interview. ---
**Author:** ![VarlosZ](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/v/d78d45/32.png) [@VarlosZ](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/VarlosZ)\ **Post date:** [November 16, 2007, 6:25am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/nfl-week-10/425526/84 "2007-11-16T06:25:22Z")
> [@Ellis Dee](#): > > As for your ridiculous “the radio signals went out” “evidence”, next I suppose you’ll be coming after the Giants for opening the doors at the Meadowlands when the other team kicks field goals. Actually, they already did that. Several years ago the league told the Giants the door could be open or closed, but it had to stay that way the whole game. ---
**Author:** ![SenorBeef](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/senorbeef/32/2220_2.png) [@SenorBeef](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/SenorBeef)\ **Post date:** [November 16, 2007, 6:57am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/nfl-week-10/425526/85 "2007-11-16T06:57:07Z")
[QUOTE=Ellis Dee] Yes, on the Inside the NFL interview. [/QUOTE] I don’t know if I can find a way to view that. To restate a question I had earlier, because I wasn’t sure if I misinterpreted you - were you saying that if the Patriots did deliberately interfere with radio signals, it’s foolish to consider that cheating? ---
**Author:** ![EllisDee](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/ellisdee/32/4531_2.png) [@EllisDee](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/EllisDee)\ **Post date:** [November 16, 2007, 12:14pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/nfl-week-10/425526/86 "2007-11-16T12:14:08Z")
[QUOTE=SenorBeef] To restate a question I had earlier, because I wasn’t sure if I misinterpreted you - were you saying that if the Patriots did deliberately interfere with radio signals, it’s foolish to consider that cheating? [/QUOTE] I’m making a direct comparison between signal jamming and opening the doors at the Meadowlands. VarlosZ states that the NFL went to the trouble to tell them to knock that shit off. So were the Giants cheating? I’m trying to explain why it seems obvious to me that you have an axe to grind regarding the Patriots. You dismiss out of hand any examples of any other teams “cheating”, but everything the Patriots do is the worst thing ever. You claim multiple times that the league was silent about the swift penalties, despite the commissioner sitting down for a 7-minute long interview during the league’s premier weekly event immediately after it happened. I’m not sure what your motivation is; maybe it’s that Belichick did nothing for the Browns during his time in Cleveland but now all of a sudden he turned the Pitiful Pats into a dynasty. ---
**Author:** ![EllisDee](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/ellisdee/32/4531_2.png) [@EllisDee](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/EllisDee)\ **Post date:** [November 16, 2007, 1:04pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/nfl-week-10/425526/87 "2007-11-16T13:04:13Z")
Check [this](http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/2007/writers/dr_z/09/14/mailbag/index.html) out regarding signal jamming: > [@](#): > > Defensive radio communication was voted down at the league meetings. The Jets voted for it, the Patriots against. It would, of course, make sideline signaling meaningless. **And teams have been screwing up each other’s radio signals for years.** If the radio goes out, then the other team is supposed to disconnect its own setup. But sometimes, mysteriously, it only happens for a play or two. In google searches I see that the Browns are one of the teams whining about the Patriots jamming signals, so I guess that’s why you’re so obsessed with it as “cheating.” Unless you also go after the [Colts](http://www.bostonherald.com/sports/football/patriots/view.bg?articleid=1042882) and [Eagles](http://www.chicagotribune.com/sports/cs-071022bears,1,5619732.story) with the same fervor as you’re going after the Patriots, I’m going to chalk it up to sour grapes. As for [cheating in general](http://sports.espn.go.com/espn/page2/story?page=simmons/070912): > [@](#): > > Hey, remember a couple years ago when the Steelers accused the Colts of piping in crowd noise at the RCA Dome? > > Remember when the Broncos broke salary-cap rules in order to build the 1997-98 championship team? > > Remember when Jim Haslett said there was rampant steroid use by the Pittsburgh Steelers during their dynasty years of the '70s? > > Remember when Herm Edwards admitted to breaking NFL rules by using Stick-Um even after it was banned in 1980? > > And remember when Lawrence Taylor said he used to send hookers up to the hotel rooms of opposing running backs while he sat at home doing blow? I mean, are we taking away the ‘86 Giants’ Super Bowl championship too? Come on, already. This stuff happens. Note that the Broncose were docked two 3rd round draft picks for the cheating that helped them win one of their Lombardi trophies. OH NOES, IT’S TAINTED!!! ---
**Author:** ![SenorBeef](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/senorbeef/32/2220_2.png) [@SenorBeef](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/SenorBeef)\ **Post date:** [November 16, 2007, 7:52pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/nfl-week-10/425526/88 "2007-11-16T19:52:52Z")
[QUOTE=Ellis Dee] I’m making a direct comparison between signal jamming and opening the doors at the Meadowlands. VarlosZ states that the NFL went to the trouble to tell them to knock that shit off. So were the Giants cheating? [/quote] It’s something I personally would probably chalk up to part of home field advantage. Whether it’s cheating or not would come down to whether or not it violated a particular rule. If, after the NFL told them to stop it (presumably citing some rule), it would become cheating if they kept it up. It’s extremely minor, in my view, compared to something like deliberate radio jamming which would, to me, be a rather extreme form of cheating - worse than spygate, worse than using steroids, pretty bad in the grand scheme of things. For you to dismiss it as practically nothing is strange to me. > [@](#): > > You dismiss out of hand any examples of any other teams “cheating”, but everything the Patriots do is the worst thing ever. What other examples of cheating have I dismissed? You brought up quotes about everyone stealing signals, and my response was that stealing signals in some ways was legal. It’s my understanding that if you have a guy in the stands with binoculars and a notebook trying to figure out what he can, that’s fine. So when someone says “We had all their signals” it’s not necesarily cheating. Could be, of course, but not inherently. > [@](#): > > You claim multiple times that the league was silent about the swift penalties, despite the commissioner sitting down for a 7-minute long interview during the league’s premier weekly event immediately after it happened. I said they were silent (as far as I knew) about what was on the tapes and why they were destroyed. I still haven’t seen Goodell address that - the SNF interview didn’t cover it. > [@](#): > > I’m not sure what your motivation is; maybe it’s that Belichick did nothing for the Browns during his time in Cleveland but now all of a sudden he turned the Pitiful Pats into a dynasty. > > Check [this](http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/2007/writers/dr_z/09/14/mailbag/index.html) out regarding signal jamming:In google searches I see that the Browns are one of the teams whining about the Patriots jamming signals, so I guess that’s why you’re so obsessed with it as “cheating.” What am I, the team’s retarded lapdog? Are you capable of making an argument without being a dick? You’re calling me a liar, too, because I laid out my motivations earlier. I was 10-14 during Bill’s time with the Browns and not much of a football fan. I don’t carry some sort of grudge about that. That the Browns happen to be one of the teams that mentioned communication troubles doesn’t really matter to me. If you’d ask me a year ago who my favorite coach in the league was, I’d say Bellichick, for reasons I outlined [in this post](http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showpost.php?p=9164668&postcount=71). He’s on a different level than other coaches in terms of game planning and aggression/risk taking, and I appreciate that. I don’t have a long time grudge against Bellichick or the Pats. For that matter, my grudge isn’t even all that strong against them. I find it distasteful to root for them, but by week 16 if there’s still a chance for history to be made I may find myself grudgingly rooting for them. They’re nowhere near my most hated team. Do you remember how this discussion started? I wasn’t prosetylzing. I wasn’t foaming at the mouth trying to convince others that the Patriots were scum. We were discussing the Colts/Pats game and a Pats fan asked why, in general, there was so much hate of the Patriots. I hadn’t said anything negative about them at that point. He seemed genuinely perplexed as to why anyone outside of a rival fan wouldn’t like them. So I tried to offer an explanation as to why I, personally, would find it hard to root for them. My reasoning was attacked and so I’ve tried to defend it - and that’s what this discussion has been about. It’s not something I feel particularly strongly about. I certainly don’t have some long time axe to grind. You are absolutely, unambiguously wrong about my motivations, and since I’ve explained them previously, you’re accusing me of being a liar. Because of your feelings of my motivations, you’re attacking straw men - you’re attacking things you think I feel rather than things I’ve actually said, like when you accuse me of not caring about other teams cheating. > [@](#): > > Unless you also go after the [Colts](http://www.bostonherald.com/sports/football/patriots/view.bg?articleid=1042882) and [Eagles](http://www.chicagotribune.com/sports/cs-071022bears,1,5619732.story) with the same fervor as you’re going after the Patriots, I’m going to chalk it up to sour grapes. First, I’m not fervorous (is that a word?). You’ve shown much more fervor attacking me than I feel towards the Pats. I honestly don’t feel that strongly about the issue. I’m responding to defend what I’ve said, not because I want to spend all day talking about the Patriots. This all stems from someone essentially asking “why would anyone hate the Patriots?” as if there were no possible reasons. Secondly, single instances could be legitimate equipment failure. So could multiple instances, but it becomes less likely. If the Colts and Eagles were deliberately jamming signals, then of course they’re guilty of cheating. I’ve only, personally, seen a repeated accusation over several instances over the space of at least a year made against the Patriots. As far as your other examples - when did I ever say anything remotely like “The Patriots are the only team in NFL history to cheat”? Because that’s the argument you seem to be trying to disprove. > [@](#): > > Hey, remember a couple years ago when the Steelers accused the Colts of piping in crowd noise at the RCA Dome? If it’s true, I don’t know the exact rules but it seems sort of like gray area minor cheating home field advantage stuff, like the doors at the meadowlands. If there’s a rule against it, it’s cheating. I think it’s shameful, though, that they need to augment their fair weather fans. > [@](#): > > Remember when the Broncos broke salary-cap rules in order to build the 1997-98 championship team? Nope, don’t remember that, but if they clearly broke rules then it’s cheating. > [@](#): > > Remember when Jim Haslett said there was rampant steroid use by the Pittsburgh Steelers during their dynasty years of the '70s? Yes, and based on things others have said I’m inclined to believe it’s true. If so, cheating. > [@](#): > > Remember when Herm Edwards admitted to breaking NFL rules by using Stick-Um even after it was banned in 1980? I don’t remember that, but that’s cheating. > [@](#): > > And remember when Lawrence Taylor said he used to send hookers up to the hotel rooms of opposing running backs while he sat at home doing blow? I mean, are we taking away the ‘86 Giants’ Super Bowl championship too? Come on, already. This stuff happens. Kind of goofy. I wouldn’t call that cheating. ---
**Author:** ![EllisDee](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/ellisdee/32/4531_2.png) [@EllisDee](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/EllisDee)\ **Post date:** [November 17, 2007, 3:14pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/nfl-week-10/425526/89 "2007-11-17T15:14:35Z")
[QUOTE=SenorBeef] What am I, the team’s retarded lapdog? Are you capable of making an argument without being a dick? You’re calling me a liar, too, because I laid out my motivations earlier. […] Do you remember how this discussion started? I wasn’t prosetylzing. I wasn’t foaming at the mouth trying to convince others that the Patriots were scum. [/QUOTE] First off, this is the second disagreement we’ve had on the boards where you were the first one to start tossing insults around. Are you capable of making an argument without using personal attacks? And second, I do remember how this discussion started in this thread; it was when YOU brought it up out of the blue in response to nobody. It’s hard to believe your “I don’t really care” angle when you drag it into multiple threads. ---
**Author:** ![SenorBeef](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/senorbeef/32/2220_2.png) [@SenorBeef](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/SenorBeef)\ **Post date:** [November 17, 2007, 6:35pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/nfl-week-10/425526/90 "2007-11-17T18:35:45Z")
[QUOTE=Ellis Dee] First off, this is the second disagreement we’ve had on the boards where you were the first one to start tossing insults around. Are you capable of making an argument without using personal attacks? [/quote] Does something have to be quantified into a single word or phrase to be an insult? Your posts have been dripping with hostility and condescension. You imply that I’m a liar, and then invent some motivations for me that are so stupid that they’re insulting. > [@](#): > > And second, I do remember how this discussion started in this thread; it was when YOU brought it up out of the blue in response to nobody. It’s hard to believe your “I don’t really care” angle when you drag it into multiple threads. There was an earlier discussion on the subject. I think I said I’d try to find some more evidence about the claims, but didn’t end up doing that. I came across more info without looking for it, so I decided to post it in the thread that was a continuation of the previous thread. ---
**Author:** ![EllisDee](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/ellisdee/32/4531_2.png) [@EllisDee](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/EllisDee)\ **Post date:** [November 17, 2007, 6:52pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/nfl-week-10/425526/91 "2007-11-17T18:52:27Z")
[QUOTE=SenorBeef] You’re calling me a liar, too, because I laid out my motivations earlier. [/QUOTE] This seems to be another thing you just can’t let go, similar to the Patriots jamming signals. I call bullshit. Quote for me where you laid out your motivations. Don’t paraphrase or restate; I want an honest-to-god literal quote of what you said, and after the quote I want you to quote me implying you’re a liar. The less text in the quote boxes the more compelling the evidence will be. Put your money where you accusations are. ---
**Author:** ![SenorBeef](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/senorbeef/32/2220_2.png) [@SenorBeef](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/SenorBeef)\ **Post date:** [November 17, 2007, 8:28pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/nfl-week-10/425526/92 "2007-11-17T20:28:24Z")
[QUOTE=SenorBeef] You won’t believe me, but you totally have my motivations wrong. I want to root for the Patriots. There’s a lot that I like about them. Bellichick often does what NFL coaches should do because they’re too rigid, timid, and not creative enough - he plays every week a different way to exploit the other team. I love that. He’s aggressive in the right situations where NFL coaches far too often err on the side of caution, such as 4th and short situations. The Patriots for the most part have built a team around players that aren’t superstars, but that are savvy, smart, and have a high motor. The team is pretty classy off the field as far as I know. They’ve done amazing things in the salary cap era. I honestly want to root for them - I’d rather be cheering for them to go 16-0 than my current position. [/QUOTE] [QUOTE=Ellis Dee] I’m trying to explain why it seems obvious to me that you have an axe to grind regarding the Patriots. … I’m not sure what your motivation is; maybe it’s that Belichick did nothing for the Browns during his time in Cleveland but now all of a sudden he turned the Pitiful Pats into a dynasty. … In google searches I see that the Browns are one of the teams whining about the Patriots jamming signals, so I guess that’s why you’re so obsessed with it as “cheating.” [/QUOTE] You’ve essentially accused me of having an axe to grind, and therefore twisting evidence to support that. But that’s not true at all. The evidence has swayed my opinion on the issue. I had no previous axe to grind and even admired a lot of what they do. I’ve been extremely clear as to my motivations for what I said. You’ve repeatedly rejected that, throw your own condescending guesses as to my motivations, and attacked straw men, repeatedly. ---
**Author:** ![EllisDee](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/ellisdee/32/4531_2.png) [@EllisDee](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/EllisDee)\ **Post date:** [November 18, 2007, 11:22am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/nfl-week-10/425526/93 "2007-11-18T11:22:48Z")
[QUOTE=SenorBeef] You’ve essentially accused me of having an axe to grind, and therefore twisting evidence to support that. But that’s not true at all. The evidence has swayed my opinion on the issue. I had no previous axe to grind and even admired a lot of what they do. [/QUOTE] The quote you posted doesn’t explain in any way why you’re interpreting everything you hear in the worst possible light for the Patriots. The fact that you accept rumors and inuendo as “evidence” is mindboggling. I’m wondering about your motivations in doing _that_. Do you understand what I’m saying? Here’s how the conversation has gone: You: “I believe the rumors that say the Patriots jammed signals, despite the fact that there is no actual evidence, just accusations.” Me: “I wonder why you believe accusations in the absence of evidence. Maybe you have an axe to grind?” You: “Stop calling me a liar, dick. I already explained why I believe the accusations!” You get it now, or should I use smaller words? I did not call you a liar; you have never once explained why you seem so eager to believe the worst of the Patriots. Quite the contrary, you’ve written at length as to why you wouldn’t normally do such a thing. You even were kind enough to quote it for me in your last post. So what’s your deal? ---
**Author:** ![EllisDee](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/ellisdee/32/4531_2.png) [@EllisDee](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/EllisDee)\ **Post date:** [November 18, 2007, 11:28am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/nfl-week-10/425526/94 "2007-11-18T11:28:36Z")
Another point I have is that signal jamming is not considered to be anything more than a minor nuisance, and yet you characterize it as “extreme” cheating. Why you think that is beyond me, but it does reinforce the appearance that you have something against the Patriots specifically. And also, you’ve conceded (I believe multiple times) that signal stealing is perfectly fine. The only issue with the Patriots is the way they went about it. In short, your righteous indignation regarding that cheating is based _solely on a technicality_. (Stealing=fine. Stealing via camera=bad.) That’s not really the highest moral ground to be taking. ---
**Author:** ![RTFirefly](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/c77e96/32.png) [@RTFirefly](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/RTFirefly)\ **Post date:** [November 18, 2007, 2:51pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/nfl-week-10/425526/95 "2007-11-18T14:51:25Z")
[QUOTE=EsotericEnigma] We’re talking about statistical anomalies, which, I think we’re both in agreement, are bound to correct themselves over a larger sample size, given the defined probability. [/quote] No. Wrong. Uh-uh. If you flip an honest coin 300 times and get 300 heads (which won’t happen - the odds are upwards of a quintillion quintillion quintillion quintillion quintillion to one against: at an incredibly high level of statistical certainty, you’ve got a rigged coin), then after 100,000 flips total, your expected number of heads is 50,150, since you’d expect the next 99,700 flips to be 49,850 heads and 49,850 tails. IOW, you’d expect the results of the anomaly to be roughly preserved, but (as you said next) to become proportionally less noticeable over time. > [@](#): > > The problem is, and I think a far more effective argument against my position than the ones you’ve given, is that the larger the sample size, the more inconsequential, mathematically, the difference between heads and tails. I think what you mean is, more inconsequential as a proportion of the total number of flips, and you’d be right. Even more than you realize, actually. See below: > [@](#): > > A 52/48 split is absolutely plausible, and if we flipped a coin 100000 times, that would result in 52000 heads and 48000 tails. Which would _not_ be plausible, actually, for an honest coin. In binomial probabilities (i.e. in situations where one of only two results can occur), it works like this: let’s say the odds of a heads are _p_, the odds of tails are _q_ = 1-p, and _n_ is the number of flips. The mean of the distribution - the expected number of heads - is n_p, and the standard deviation is sqrt(n_p\*q). A 95% probability interval around the mean extends 1.96 standard deviations in either direction, and a 99% interval, 2.575 sd’s. So if the coin is honest (p=q=0.5), the 95% and 99% intervals extend .98_sqrt(n) and 1.238_sqrt(n) to either side of n/2. IOW, with n=100,000, there’s only one chance in 100 that you’ll have a number of heads outside the [49,609, 50,391] interval. > [@](#): > > That means that even if the first 200 were all heads, over the next flips you STILL flipped more heads than tails, and yet the trend reversed itself. I don’t know, did you say that? That’s an argument I absolutely can’t counter. End of fanciful, devil’s-advocate-style theory. I’m not sure what you’re saying here. The trend of getting more heads than tails didn’t reverse itself: you wouldn’t expect more tails than heads subsequently. The only trend that ended was that of the invariability of heads for the first X flips, and that simply ended; it didn’t reverse itself in the sense of producing a similar streak of consecutive tails. But the initial streak of heads is still so improbable, regardless of what happens afterward, that the only reasonable conclusion IRL is a rigged coin. Even if the coin behaves normally for the next million flips, a streak of even 50 consecutive heads, let alone 200 or 300, is astronomically improbable. For instance, the odds against a streak of 50 consecutive heads with an honest coin taking place anytime during a million consecutive flips, is still upwards of a billion to one against. > [@](#): > > in this [roulette] scenario, much like dice, you can be right and still lose. If I know 23 won’t come up as often and start betting around it, I may start betting on 12, which hasn’t come up at all, but still lose because 29 came up, which also hasn’t come up often. If someone rolls a die five times and gets 6, 6, 3, 6, 6, I may think 6 won’t likely come up as often anymore and bet on 2, but be wrong because 4 came up. Right, and yet I lose my money anyway. The reason I singled out coins is because if I’m right, I’m right. You are still saying that an honest coin/die/roulette wheel will ‘remember’ in some fashion its recent results, and any result that has recently come up unusually often will happen less often in the future than the straight odds dictate. This is false. > [@](#): > > I know how probability works. False. > [@](#): > > I see myself arguing against a very simple and common mathematical truth and exploring some possible counter mechanism to probability. Where’s your mechanism? All you’ve got is a feeling, AFAICT: > [@](#): > > at some point, you have to step back and say, “Wow, he just flipped heads nine times in a row. It’s 1 in 1024 that someone flips a coin heads ten times in a row, pretty unlikely!” I think there might be something to that. Even if the next flip is still 50/50. And I think every single person here does this, whether they know it’s stupid or they don’t. If I’ve already flipped that coin several dozen times, getting nine heads in a row at some point won’t strike me as exceedingly anomalous, and I’ll even shrug my shoulders if the 10th heads comes up. (If I flip a coin 100 times, I’ve got a 1 in 11 chance of 10 consecutive heads somewhere along the way. Hardly astronomical.) But if the _first_ nine flips I see are all heads, I’ll assume a rigged coin until proven otherwise. ---
**Author:** ![SenorBeef](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/senorbeef/32/2220_2.png) [@SenorBeef](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/SenorBeef)\ **Post date:** [November 21, 2007, 8:58pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/nfl-week-10/425526/96 "2007-11-21T20:58:38Z")
Sorry for the late reply, been busy. [QUOTE=Ellis Dee] The quote you posted doesn’t explain in any way why you’re interpreting everything you hear in the worst possible light for the Patriots. The fact that you accept rumors and inuendo as “evidence” is mindboggling. I’m wondering about your motivations in doing _that_. Do you understand what I’m saying? Here’s how the conversation has gone: You: “I believe the rumors that say the Patriots jammed signals, despite the fact that there is no actual evidence, just accusations.” Me: “I wonder why you believe accusations in the absence of evidence. Maybe you have an axe to grind?” You: “Stop calling me a liar, dick. I already explained why I believe the accusations!” You get it now, or should I use smaller words? [/quote] I like how you’ll claim that you never insulted me, and that I started insulting you when I called you a dick. Because you don’t use a specific word or phrase that could be easily identified as an insult, I guess that means you’ve been nothing but civil and wonderful. > [@](#): > > I did not call you a liar; you have never once explained why you seem so eager to believe the worst of the Patriots. Quite the contrary, you’ve written at length as to why you wouldn’t normally do such a thing. You even were kind enough to quote it for me in your last post. > > So what’s your deal? We’re not talking about convicting the Patriots in a court of law. We’re talking about sports fandom… who you root for, who you root against. I don’t believe 100% that the accusations and rumors are true, I don’t have hard evidence of that. I believe that based on the circumstances - the win at all costs mentality they play with, Bellichick’s willingness to try to exploit every edge, cheap shots/deliberate attempts at inflicting injury, already convicted of deliberately breaking the rules - those things, by the way, are enough to justify not rooting for a team in itself - that there’s probably some truth behind the many more accusations/rumors I’ve heard about the Patriots (even going back before spygate). Given that, I have a hard time rooting for them. That’s all I said. This all fundamentally (originally) boils down to someone asking why other people dislike the Patriots and me attempting to offer some reasons. Again, this is sports fandom. I don’t like the cowboys for sillier reasons - the institutional arrogance and when the Browns and Dallas traded picks this year Dallas fans were total dicks talking about how they just secured next year’s #1 overall pick (HA! assholes). Do I have an axe to grind there? You did imply I’m a liar because I’ve laid out my motivations in their entirety, and you’re saying there’s something I’m hiding, that there’s some secret reason I’ve yet to lay out that’s motivating me. You’re still trying to figure out why I have an axe to grind, when I’ve repeatedly said that I really don’t. [QUOTE=Ellis Dee] Another point I have is that signal jamming is not considered to be anything more than a minor nuisance, and yet you characterize it as “extreme” cheating. Why you think that is beyond me, but it does reinforce the appearance that you have something against the Patriots specifically. [/quote] This is bizarre to me. I don’t really know how to explain to you why this seems like a big deal to me if you don’t already think it is. Radio communications are critical to the modern NFL. If one team has them while the other doesn’t, that’s a huge advantage. Having radio usage go out at critical points during a game could easily be the difference between a win or loss. It’s not a Patriots thing, I’d be sickened if my team were caught jamming radio signals. That you’re trying to turn my statement that radio jamming would be really severe cheating into evidence of my axe to grind against the Patriots seems like evidence that you have an axe to grind with me. > [@](#): > > And also, you’ve conceded (I believe multiple times) that signal stealing is perfectly fine. The only issue with the Patriots is the way they went about it. In short, your righteous indignation regarding that cheating is based _solely on a technicality_. (Stealing=fine. Stealing via camera=bad.) That’s not really the highest moral ground to be taking. It’s more like not breaking the rules=fine, breaking the rules=bad. The Patriots did it repeatedly. The NFL intervened and said that it’s against the rules, and to stop it. They didn’t stop. They kept knowingly breaking the rules. There’s not a much more clear definition of cheating. ---
**Author:** ![EllisDee](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/ellisdee/32/4531_2.png) [@EllisDee](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/EllisDee)\ **Post date:** [November 22, 2007, 8:21am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/nfl-week-10/425526/97 "2007-11-22T08:21:44Z")
[QUOTE=SenorBeef] This is bizarre to me. I don’t really know how to explain to you why this seems like a big deal to me if you don’t already think it is. Radio communications are critical to the modern NFL. If one team has them while the other doesn’t, that’s a huge advantage. Having radio usage go out at critical points during a game could easily be the difference between a win or loss. It’s not a Patriots thing, I’d be sickened if my team were caught jamming radio signals. [/QUOTE] Jamming radio signals is exactly analagous to crowd noise. All it does is make it marginally more difficult to get your plays called. That’s it. Every team practices working without the headsets every week, and every team is completely prepared to not use the headsets at any time. Look at the Colts / Patriots game; the Colts got to use their headsets all game, while the Patriots were unable to after the third play from scrimmage for the rest of the game. Or the Bears / Eagles game, where the headsets went out for the entire final 90-yard game-winning drive. If your assessment were correct, neither the Patriots nor the Bears would have had any chance to win those games. > [@](#): > > It’s more like not breaking the rules=fine, breaking the rules=bad. The Patriots did it repeatedly. The NFL intervened and said that it’s against the rules, and to stop it. They didn’t stop. They kept knowingly breaking the rules. There’s not a much more clear definition of cheating. This is the internet-egghead attitude that drives me crazy. It seems like more of a baseball attitude, though I give baseball stat-geeks more credit than that. It’s just so…weak. It’s the antithesis of what football is about, with its connotations of nerdy rules-lawyering. ---
**Author:** ![SenorBeef](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/senorbeef/32/2220_2.png) [@SenorBeef](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/SenorBeef)\ **Post date:** [November 22, 2007, 10:29am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/nfl-week-10/425526/98 "2007-11-22T10:29:08Z")
[QUOTE=Ellis Dee] Jamming radio signals is exactly analagous to crowd noise. All it does is make it marginally more difficult to get your plays called. That’s it. Every team practices working without the headsets every week, and every team is completely prepared to not use the headsets at any time. Look at the Colts / Patriots game; the Colts got to use their headsets all game, while the Patriots were unable to after the third play from scrimmage for the rest of the game. Or the Bears / Eagles game, where the headsets went out for the entire final 90-yard game-winning drive. If your assessment were correct, neither the Patriots nor the Bears would have had any chance to win those games. [/quote] I didn’t say it was impossible to win without radio communications, but it’s certainly harder. You can’t seriously say that one team having radio communications and the other not having them isn’t an advantage. It’s not analogous to crowd noise - that’s an open, encouraged part of football, whereas radio jamming is secretive, discouraged, and unfair. I can’t think of many things you could do in football that would be worse in terms of cheating. I wonder what a team could do to earn your disapproval - stomp orphans in the locker room as a pregame ritual? > [@](#): > > This is the internet-egghead attitude that drives me crazy. It seems like more of a baseball attitude, though I give baseball stat-geeks more credit than that. It’s just so…weak. It’s the antithesis of what football is about, with its connotations of nerdy rules-lawyering. I don’t really care about the spygate issue that much in and of itself, personally. But it does indicate an institutional willingness to exploit and break rules. You’re trying to make it out to be a technicality that’s not really cheating. It’s not as if the rules were vague, the Pats thought they were in the clear, and then got screwed on a technicality. The NFL approached them and said “what you’re doing is violating rule such and such. Stop it.” and they blatantly disregarded that. They knew the rule and they deliberately chose to break it - pretty much the definition of cheating. Combine that with the cheap shotting, rumors of further cheating, and all that, and is it such a crime that I, _gasp_, don’t feel all that good rooting for the Patriots? [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/nfl-week-10/425526.md?page=4)