Anybody who wants to prove the Patriots cheated is free to build a case.  So far, we've had plenty of hypotheses but none proven.  Even the few facts we're given are fuzzy.  First reports were that 11 of 12 footballs were 2 psi under at halftime.  Then we're told that only one ball was maybe 2 psi under and the other ten, only 1 psi under.  And for comparison?  Nothing.  According to the Google cached copy of the previous story, no measurement of the Colt's balls was taken synchronously with the halftime measurements of the Patriot footballs.

That said, Warren Sharp is seeking an explanation as to why the Patriots -- and only the Patriots -- have been consistently fumbling well below the league's average since 2007, when teams were first allowed to bring and play with their own footballs while on offense during game time.

Regarding your other point, it's been further noted that New England only scored 17 points on offense during the first half when the balls were underinflated, but then rang up 28 points in the second half once the officials had re-inflated them to regulation pressure.

Therefore, one could also argue -- and it has been argued -- that for the AFC championship game at least, whatever "advantage" an underinflated football might have offered the Patriots that day was due more to that team's own psychological perceptions, than any actual reality.

It lasted a day, maybe, because they tested both teams balls, only one's pressure decreased for 11 of 12 balls.  But seems like they are still pushing it, which to me is what the NFL wants, an excuse to take the investigation beyond Sunday.

At this point, as you mentioned, they have determined rules were broken, that link was more in tune with the information available 9 days ago.  Now they have guy on video taking the balls into the equipment room for 90 seconds.

Plus of course, it's the NFL, not court, they don't have to actually prove anything to discipline.

I've forwarded a couple of pieces of explanation.  In response, you've offered little but rote appeals to authority, the classic logical fallacy.

  One thing that would be interesting to test is how long it would take footballs that had stored in a relatively hot environment, prior to the inspection, to cool internally sufficiently to have the pressure drop below the acceptable minimum limit.

  For example, I inflate a football so it is below  the acceptable limit at "room temperature." I then put the balls in a very hot environment long enough that the internal temperature of the football increases enough that the pressure is within the acceptable limits.

  If I then removed the balls from the hot environment shortly prior to the inspection, could I "fool them?" You could do the math to an extent based on gas laws but without knowing the insulating properties of a football and the times involved  you don't have enough information for a complete answer. I also have no idea whether a quick cold rub of the balls would make the outer surface not feel suspiciously warm without reducing the inner temperature, etc.

   In short, is it possible the Pats could be both telling the truth (we didn't tamper with balls after they were inspected) and within the letter, if not spirit, of the rules (if there is no rule regulating the manner in which balls are to be stored prior to inspection?

I'm no fan of Reagan and never have been, but I thought his speech that day was fine, moving and honorable.

Unfortunately after a while the newness of it all started to wear off and on that day we didn't even stop school to watch we just went outside for recess.

Don't believe me take it up with the New York Times.

They seem to have a problem with wine bars.

This article makes my argument even stronger because not only are they wasting the extra money they're even borrowing more money and going into debt.

You are correct that reductions in state budgets have hurt students as well but no state is going to pay $27,000 for every student attend a State University.   Why is the University charging that much in the first place?

Slado: "This is a powerful political message that I think Republicans should jump on. Democrats have offered nothing in the way of an actual solution other than to bail out the massive debt that's been created. Really don't think that's going to fly with the American public after the housing crisis."

... then please, they should be my guest, not that I can stop them anyway. You're not even bothering to acknowledge the GOP's own substantive role in the creation of that housing crisis. And in that regard, at least you're entirely consistent with your political brethren.

Besides, that's all Republicans ever really do any more, jump on their own bandwagons. It's the ultimate chutzpah in cynical politics, attempting to capitalize upon public anger at various problems and crises -- problems and crises which Republicans themselves had a tremendous hand in fomenting in the first place!

That's because for Republicans, theirs is a government by gimmick, posture and sound bite. They endeavor to rule, and then disdain to actually govern once they gain control.

Instead, by repeatedly appealing to the lowest common denominator in voters, and by enacting taxpayer-funded giveaways to their political backers, the only thing Republicans have accomplished over and again of late is to create fiscal time bombs for their successors. Consider what happened in California, as an example.

In June 1978, California Republicans led by two ideologically-driven libertarians, Howard Jarvis and Paul Gann (both allies of then-former Gov. Ronald Reagan), shepherded the public passage of Proposition 13, which froze property tax rates at their then-present level for current homeowners. (Which was to the ultimate detriment of future homeowners in the state, but that's another discussion for another time.)

But, with its future implications almost wholly unrealized by many state voters at the time of Prop. 13's passage, Jarvis and Gann had also included a rider to that voter initiative which required:

• A two-thirds supermajority vote in both chambers of the California legislature to pass a state budget or approve any state tax increase;
  
• A two-thirds majority among state voters to approve any tax increases or bond issues not proposed by the legislature; and
  
• A two-thirds majority vote by municipal boards, city councils and the general public to approve increases in local taxes.
  

But what Jarvis and Gann actually succeeded in doing back in 1978 was engineer California's eventual fiscal train wreck a quarter century later, and conveniently, neither of them lived to see the inevitable result of their handiwork. Because as history has shown us repeatedly, it's extraordinarily difficult politically -- if not often impossible -- to garner two-thirds popular support for anything.

By convincing California's 1978 electorate to impose draconian limits upon the authorization of state spending and the raising of state and local revenues, Howard Jarvis and Paul Gann had in fact realized their ultimate goal. And that goal was to hamstring the future ability of state and local government to adequately fund those services upon which state residents not only depended, but further expected would continue to be provided at the same level and rate! Through that, they hoped that government would eventually be compelled to first default on its obligations, and then wither on the vine.

Fast forward to 2009-10, when the State of California was running upwards of $26 billion annual deficits in its operating budget, thanks to Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger's feckless posturing and a minority of 14 ornery Republicans in a 40-member State Senate, who had been repeatedly blocking passage of any state budget simply because they could. State government under Schwarzenegger was funded instead by continuing resolutions and by repeated bond issues from the legislature, a potent brew which served to nearly double the state's long-term debt in only six years. Meanwhile, local governments across the entire state were actively considering the possibility of bankruptcy and closing up shop.

That's why California voters, exhausted and exasperated by what was happening in their midst, turned once again to the venerable Jerry Brown. Since his return to the governor's office, Brown has worked mightily to straighten out the state's across-the-board fiscal mess with some serious cost-cutting and tough love policies, and by convincing the electorate to both reinstate simple majority rule for passage of state budgets in the legislature, and further approve a long-overdue tax increase on the state's wealthier residents.

Thanks in large part to Gov. Brown's experienced stewardship, the State of California is now back in the black, and he was easily re-elected to his record fourth term last November by a wide margin, without ever really having to campaign for the job.

Meanwhile, state Republicans have been so thoroughly discredited and marginalized that less than one in five California voters are now registered as Republican. Only 20 years ago, that number was 41%, and Republicans were riding high on the hog. How did the bottom drop out from beneath their feet so quickly, historically speaking?

Well, I'd offer that over the last three decades, Republicans have become so singularly intent and adept at seizing any immediate short-term political advantage by almost any means necessary, that for the most part they've collectively lost both the ability and perspective that's needed to anticipate the actual long-term impacts and potential consequences of those short-term policies for which they've repeatedly advocated.

Thus, what worked for the California GOP in 1994, when an otherwise unpopular Gov. Pete Wilson and state Republicans rode a short-term and self-manufactured wave of anti-immigrant hysteria (Proposition 187) to once again gin up the angry white vote that swept them back into power, also served to eventually undermine their own long-term political viability with almost everyone else.

In that election, state Republicans had so very much alarmed California's rapidly growing Hispanic population with their naked appeals to white bigotry, that the latter actively began to organize politically against them. They eventually increased their own share of the state electorate from 4% in 1994 to 21% in 2014, and it doesn't take a rocket scientist to figure out where an overwhelming majority of those votes went.

And when one considers what Republican policies such as Prop. 13 eventually wrought for California economically, it's not at all very surprising that when state voters really and truly became fed up with what had come to pass, they'd decide to shove the GOP aside.

I mean, have you looked at the GOP field?  I don't see any beauties there.

I hate to tell you, but Jeb's fat.  Huckabee's pudgy - he has jowls, for heaven's sake.  Scott Walker's got something weird going on with his eyes. Christie?  Still fat, still a bully.  Rand Paul?  Can't talk for more than 5 minutes before he takes a detour to Crazy Town.  Ben Carson?  On the same train with Rand Paul.  Ted Cruz?  Looks like Mr. Haney from Green Acres; sounds a little like him, too.  Mitt?  Think he paints in the gray on top of the hair dye for just the right touch of wise?

Seriously, this is the kind of stuff that matters to you?  

Jeb will be 64 in 2017 and Romney will be 70.  Carson will be 66, Rick Perry will be 67 and Donald Trump will be 71.  And age notwithstanding, I don't regard any of these men as being the sharpest knives in the drawer.

And it's not like this is a field stocked with paragons of male beauty, either.

No, I see all this talk about Clinton's age and weight as just more of the sexism that apparently still runs rampant through the GOP; sure as I'm sitting here, I know that if Clinton loses weight and starts to look "better," she will be the object of speculation about plastic surgery, Botox and fillers, the knock on her will be that her vanity is only exceeded by her ego, and it will be attributed in part to her desperate efforts to keep Bill from cheating.

Into thousand and eight Pres. Obama was a freaking rockstar. He was young, different, spoke eloquently, he was the total package.

Think about this for a minute: what if you couldn't speak, or read or write?  What if the only communication tools at your disposal were your facial expressions and your physicality?  And what if the people around you were in the same boat?  If you wanted to communicate, you wouldn't be able to hide your feelings - because they - and the ability to hug someone, or push them out of the way, or turn your back on them would be about all you'd have to get your meaning across.  

Would there be less misunderstanding?  I don't know - but it might not be as easy and simple as we'd like it to be, and it might not be all better with a special treat and a belly rub.  

It puts me in mind of babies.  They can't tell you the why of anything - crying could mean anything from "I'm hungry" to "I'm so tired crying is the only way I know how to bleed off enough energy so I can sleep" to "I don't want you to put me down - I like it here in your arms."

My take, the god reference didn't bother me in that he thanked god for giving him the skills to win, not for winning.  Not much of a differentiation, but it was there.