Not a Patriot fan, but what was thw difference in the second half again?
Patriots played with 11 (of 12) underinflated footballs in first half; referees caught it late in first half & corrected it for 2nd half.
So some Patriot apologists (apologists for cheating) are claiming that since the Pats scored more pts in 2nd half (when balls were properly inflated) vs. the first half (when they weren't), that no advantage was gained.
IoW, since they won by a large margin, 'twas somehow irrelevant.
I merely pointed out that...
(a) even had the Pats won anyway, tis no different than if a Dem candidate who won "anyway" still gained illegal votes from "dead voters" or "multiple voters."
(b) Upon closer look, people can claim the inflated ball issue may have been "was a wash" ... but not really that the Pats did better with inflated balls vs. uninflated.
The reason for that is that 7 pts in the 2nd half were tied to a Patriot interception whereby no Patriot passes were involved (IoW...no Brady passes were tied to that TD). Also, aside from that the Patriots scored 3-of-5 drives in the first half and 3-of-5 drives in the 2nd half.
(c) As for the apparent still "even" nature of (b), a case can still be made that that the underinflated balls helped the Patriots score at least 7 pts in the first half that they would not have gotten...and that had the Colts been down by fewer points late-late in the lst qtr -- all the way to some point in the third qtr -- they would not have abandoned their run game -- vitally important because of the rainy conditions.
"Everyone knows" how difficult it is to sustain an offense in such rain minus a run game. And the Colts, once down 14-0, went from running the ball 40% of the time to just 13% of the time...only running the ball 3 times in 2+ quarters.