I saw a report tonight that said those footballs were only used during the first half. Didn’t New England score MORE points in the second half?
Is your point that it doesn’t matter if you break the rules if it doesn’t appear to ultimately impact the outcome of the game?
Unfortunately, too many people have that view about elections.
#1 The 3rd TD in the 2nd half by NE was a mere 1-play 13-yd drive set up by an interception...where Brady didn't pass at all...so for proper "comparison" sake, we're looking here then at yes, 17 Pat pts in first half and really, 21 pts in 2nd half where Pats had passing plays leading to scores. Drives falter for all kinds of variable reasons besides "psi pressure"...so really when we're talking about this the Pats had 3 scores in the first half & 3 scores in the second half (where passing plays were done on the drives).
#2 New England had the ball one more time in the 2nd half than the first half, upping the odds it would score more. (Indy rec'd the opening kickoff) So the Pats were 3-of-5 (60%) in the first-half drives where they scored; and, since they didn't pass on that 1 13-yd "drive", they were 3-of-5 in the other second-half drives where they scored using passing plays. (the same)
#3 When you review the play-by-play, Brady only completed two "downfield" passes the entire game: A 30-yarder to Vereen late in the first quarter & a 22-yarder to Edelman in 2nd half. Everything else was pretty much dinks & dunks, and 3 other significant 2nd-half pass gains weren't Brady "push-outs" that would have really mattered psi-wise...a wide-out screen to Edelman for 23 yds; a 16-yd gain by Gronk -- a short pass with significant YAC (Yards After Catch); and a 16-yd td romp by an eligible lineman nobody covered...again, most of yardage coming after the catch. The rest of Brady's 2nd half passes were short passes averaging about 7 yds per gain.
#4 Really, the way to look at how this broke advantageously for the Pats is that Brady's 30-yard deep pass to Vereen late in the first quarter was a ball made more catchable by the lower psi. No catch, that drive would have likely faltered.
Therefore, had the Colts been down only 7-0 at that point -- vs. 14-0 -- they would not have abandoned their running game, which is vital to have in a wet, sloppy weathered game.
Up until that drive, the Colts were running the ball 40% of the time...with success...5 yards per run...considered above average in the NFL.
Once the Colts went down 14-0, it ran the ball only twice more the rest of the first half (passed it 10x).
If the Colts had been down only 10-7 entering the 3rd qtr (vs. 17-7), I don't think they would have passed the ball 10 of 11 times in the 3rd qtr.
Bottom line: Would the Colts have won without the cheating? (I'm not saying they would have). But I think they would have still been in the game early in the 3rd quarter and wouldn't have tried to pass the ball 87% of the time as they did in the 2nd & 3rd qtrs -- which, frankly, with pelting rain conditions, was offensive "suicide."
So, even one major play -- like Vereen's 30-yard catch -- if aided by "DeflateGate" -- led to a "domino effect" -- a "slippery slope" if you will, where it became impossible for Indy to even be in the game early in the 2nd half.