Roger Goodell addressed the collection of PSI information this past year during his state of the league address Friday. (Matthew Emmons/USA TODAY Sports)
Speaking at his annual state of the league press conference in San Fransisco, a question about Deflategate was bound to be asked to Roger Goodell — and it was.
CSNNE’s Tom E. Curran asked the commissioner about what he said earlier in the week about the PSI information collected this year being part of spot checks and not a research project and also what constitutes a violation.
Goodell never directly answered Curran’s question, but did repeat what he said earlier in the week by saying the data collected was just to see if there was a violation committed.
“It’s also important that the data that was collected in that was not data for research,” Goodell told reporters. “It was data that collected just to see if there was a violation. Our people never found violations.”
Below is the complete exchange between Curran and Goodell:
Curran: “Earlier this week you said during your “spot checks” that no violations of the PSI rule were found. What actually constitutes a violation now? Did you find anything under 12.5? In the spirit of getting better, doesn’t this whole thing demand transparency in terms of what the numbers were and what the standards will be going forward?”
Goodell: “As you know, at the beginning of the season we made changes to our protocols of how we were going to manage the footballs. That is how they were going to be managed in the moment. They were taken into the stadium right after the game. We have implemented that. As part of that, and it happens in most of our game operations areas, we conduct random checks. We make sure the clubs understand that we will look at that type of procedure and make sure there were no violations of that. We did that, in a very limited basis. We don’t disclose all the specifics on that because it’s meant as a deterrent. If you tell everybody how many times you’re checking, which games you’re checking, it’s not much of a deterrent. It’s a deterrent when they think that game may be being checked.
“It’s also important that the data that was collected in that was not data for research. It was data that collected just to see if there was a violation. Our people never found violations. There was never an accusation of a violation by any other club. And so we’re comfortable that this policy, this rule was followed by our clubs. And we do this across the board on our game operations. There are many areas in our game operations that requires that type of thing.
“Second of all, we did a great deal of research, scientific analysis last year. That was part of the appeal hearing. There was Ted Wells’ report where [he wanted] independent people to study this type of issue. The intent of what we were doing was not a research project, it was to make sure that our policies were followed just like we do in other areas of our game operations.”