A two-pound deflation (probably) isn't going to determine the outcome of a good.
But it's not just the one thing. Smart coaches, and Belichik is one of the smartest, squirrel away their little tactics, methods, and advantages like actuaries squirrel away statistical fluctuations. Because both of them know it isn't the single thing that matters. It's the accumulation of them, over time, over a range of incidence, that will have a cumulative effect that skew the results in a meaningful way to them. The thrower will keep throwing, the receiver will keep receiving, and through it all, in some game, there will be that 50-yard pass where the thrower needs that perfect touch, or whether the receiver hangs on is a matter of a few molecules, and it will be a factor in whether the team advances.
New England, a bona fide Superbowl quality team, didn't need this little advantage to show the Colts what a thrashing looks like. But the apparent fact that they did anyway is indicative of a philosophy that uses their little tactics as a given. It's not that we need to cheat to beat the Colts - it's that the tactic, whether ethical or not, is drummed in as part of the coaching philosophy. You don't bring out the little cheats or nudges only for games that you need them - using them is part of the ongoing culture, as much as the silly superstitions that players develop.
"They cheated? Even if they did, it made no difference." Well, I would argue that's not the standard. We shouldn't judge ethical standards by the game results. They're judged by those two words that come before the "Even."
But it's not just the one thing. Smart coaches, and Belichik is one of the smartest, squirrel away their little tactics, methods, and advantages like actuaries squirrel away statistical fluctuations. Because both of them know it isn't the single thing that matters. It's the accumulation of them, over time, over a range of incidence, that will have a cumulative effect that skew the results in a meaningful way to them. The thrower will keep throwing, the receiver will keep receiving, and through it all, in some game, there will be that 50-yard pass where the thrower needs that perfect touch, or whether the receiver hangs on is a matter of a few molecules, and it will be a factor in whether the team advances.
New England, a bona fide Superbowl quality team, didn't need this little advantage to show the Colts what a thrashing looks like. But the apparent fact that they did anyway is indicative of a philosophy that uses their little tactics as a given. It's not that we need to cheat to beat the Colts - it's that the tactic, whether ethical or not, is drummed in as part of the coaching philosophy. You don't bring out the little cheats or nudges only for games that you need them - using them is part of the ongoing culture, as much as the silly superstitions that players develop.
"They cheated? Even if they did, it made no difference." Well, I would argue that's not the standard. We shouldn't judge ethical standards by the game results. They're judged by those two words that come before the "Even."
