The score was 45-7. I don’t think a few psi in a damn ball made a hell of a lot of difference.
To the ultimate outcome, perhaps not.
But I've seen enough sports, enough liberal politics, enough of life to see the slippery slope play itself out.
Let's review, for example, and say the lower psi impact ONLY one key play in the first half ... Brady's 30 yd completion to Vereen late in the first qtr that was THE key play of the Pats' 2nd TD.
I dont think the lower psi helped Brady per se; BUT it DID aid the Patriot receivers in the first half hold on to a slippery ball in pelting rain conditions.
But let's just say ... for argument's sake ... that the ONLY play it helped was the 30 yd catch by Vereen...and that the Pats wouldn't have scored minus their shenanigans.
How would that have impacted the game?
Well up until the 2nd Pat score, the Colts were running the ball 40 percent of the time & were averaging five yds per carry. Its no secret that in pelting rain conditions, a team's run game is vital.
Once down 14 to 0, the Colts abandoned their run game. They ran it only twice more in first half. Had the Colts been down 10 to 7 at half..they also wouldn't have been passing 10 of 11 times in 3rd qtr.
Bottom line: The Colts would have still been in the game early in the 3rd qtr.... and wouldn't have gone into desperation status where 87 percent of their calls from very late in first qtr to end of 3rd qtr were passes...which, of course, led to an interception like the one setting up a 13 yd Pat TD for its second to last score. Brady didn't pass on that 13 yd drive so whatever condition of the ball on that one didn't impact anything one way or the other.
Trying to recover virtually with the pass alone in pouring rain was football suicide.
(As to those who try to argue that the other 21 2nd half pts scored by the Pats somehow negates psi impact, well, theyve haven't really examined the reality that Brady only threw the ball "downfield" ONCE in the 2nd half...a 22 yarder to Edelman...He dinked & dunked the rest of the time...where psi won't matter on "grip"...and dinking & dunking was not only safe for pouring rain conditions, but hey, once the Pats began increasing their lead, they didn't need to toss it downfield)
So, in review...let's say the early 2nd half score by the PATS put them up 17 to 7 instead of 24 to 7, we might have seen more running plays by the Colts, which in the rain could have sustained some drives and which would have made the game more competitive later in the game...
Now at that point, it goes too far to say the Colts would have won minus the cheating. I don't argue that. I just say the Colts would have still been competitive well into the 3rd qtr as averting "football suicide" could have made their offense more potent than it was in the rain ... and would have relied on the pass less.
I really think in all of the analysis of this, people ignore the rainy conditions' aspect.
I don't think that in better weather conditions that psi makes all tOO MUCH of a difference...but when the weather is wet, and receivers have a tough time holding onto the ball...yes, can make a BIG difference.
I think one of my most disappointed observations in FREEPERs is this argument.
Why?
Well, we're supposedly "conservative" and oppose Democratic ballotbox shenanigans.
Yet what this argument also exposes is that if a Dem candidate "would have won anyway" minus the shenanigans, that we should somehow remain quiet about the dead voting, or people voting multiple times.
It's frankly a utilitarian ethic that is relativist, NOT Christian ... in fact is distinctly UN Christian...militates vs. the truth and elevates falsehood, deceitfulness, etc.
Anyway, those who make this argument should simply "shut up" about Democratic shenanigans from now on...IF that Dem "would have won anyway"...IF they are going to be "consistent" and not hypocritical, that is.
I expect LIBERALS and some LIBERTARIANS to argue that way...NOT conservatives...and NOT Christians.