Or they subjectively believe there is some advantage.
Where I'm saying that David Stern is talking out of his *** is when he qualifies that advantage as "huge." How does he know? Is there any way to say what the net effect of the advantage is either in this particular game or on average? If it turned out that the actual difference over the course of a full game of underinflated footballs was the equivalent of 1.3 points, or roughly the difference between kicking a field goal from the 15 yard line vs. going for it on fourth and one, then what are we really talking about? Is that a "huge" advantage?
The entire premise of this scandal is logically flawed as you have eluded to in your posts in this thread. The major contradiction is that the Patriots are generally considered to be somewhere on the spectrum between the football equivalent of Einstein and Darth Vader. One would expect at least a modest level of sophistication if they were to engage in an elaborate scheme to cheat. Furthermore, any rational cheating scheme would either be so deceptive as to never be detected or one that involved a huge aysemmetrical payout. The deflation of footballs fits neither. In fact, it is foolish in terms or controlling risk to engage in a cheating scheme that potentially has equal or greater value to your opponent.
With that said, being a Bills fan and loathing the Pats, I think there is a very low possibility that this was a concerted masterminded effort by the Pats organization. There are two likely explanations:
1. This is the work of one or two "Lone-Deflators." Perhaps two low level equipment and or general employees who decided to go rogue. I would guess this is the less likely of the two scenarios.
2. The more likely scenario is that the entire "air pressure measurement and chain of custody of game footballs" was botched in some fashion. If I had to make a bet, I would put a few bucks on the fact that the balls for both teams were never actually checked prior to the game despite claims by the league, otherwise.