NFL Point Shaving? (1 Viewer)

[zed2283]

Sorry if this is a topic for the FFA but I thought it was more a discussion for people who follow the NFL.  I know there's been some talk about the NFL "nudging" games, which I unfortunately don't find very hard to believe.  I do find it a little harder to believe that there's some vast conspiracy involving betting lines, but I also can't ignore 1. how good odds makers are at setting the lines (I don't care how smart you are, when the randomness of sports is in play you CAN'T be right that often, as all of us who enjoy ff know) and 2. how often and how significantly things change at the end of games with regards to the spread.  The last two games of this past weekend stood out to me:

1. The Chiefs are up 45-10.  The over/under is 56.5 and with 4 minutes or so to go in the game, the Chiefs go for it on 4th and goal instead of kicking the FG.  Not wanting to run up the score doesn't seem plausible when you've had your entire offense out there all game "just running the offense" all the way to 45 points.

2. Falcons are up 14 and the spread is -6.  Giants score a TD but instead of making it a 7-point game by kicking the PAT, they go for two, which would cover.  Falcons get a FG and we all think that's the end, but the Giants go right down the field and score a "meaningless" TD as time runs out.  Even SVP noted the impact of the score on SportsCenter following the game.  Many teams would have kicked the FG in that situation to save time and kick the onsides kick, but then a FG wouldn't have covered.

Thoughts?  Am I way off on this?

 

[rockaction]

I don't think the coaches would do that; I think these guys have more integrity than that,. But I think the NFL, through its assignment of officials and their spotty officiating are nudging games, yes.  

Much like the NBA almost clearly did under Stern.  

 

[-fish-]

Yes, I believe the NFL is rigged.

 

[Long Ball Larry]

Sorry if this is a topic for the FFA but I thought it was more a discussion for people who follow the NFL.  I know there's been some talk about the NFL "nudging" games, which I unfortunately don't find very hard to believe.  I do find it a little harder to believe that there's some vast conspiracy involving betting lines, but I also can't ignore 1. how good odds makers are at setting the lines (I don't care how smart you are, when the randomness of sports is in play you CAN'T be right that often, as all of us who enjoy ff know) and 2. how often and how significantly things change at the end of games with regards to the spread.  The last two games of this past weekend stood out to me:

1. The Chiefs are up 45-10.  The over/under is 56.5 and with 4 minutes or so to go in the game, the Chiefs go for it on 4th and goal instead of kicking the FG.  Not wanting to run up the score doesn't seem plausible when you've had your entire offense out there all game "just running the offense" all the way to 45 points.

2. Falcons are up 14 and the spread is -6.  Giants score a TD but instead of making it a 7-point game by kicking the PAT, they go for two, which would cover.  Falcons get a FG and we all think that's the end, but the Giants go right down the field and score a "meaningless" TD as time runs out.  Even SVP noted the impact of the score on SportsCenter following the game.  Many teams would have kicked the FG in that situation to save time and kick the onsides kick, but then a FG wouldn't have covered.

Thoughts?  Am I way off on this?

there is an entire thread about why number 2 is the right decision.

 

[SaintsInDome2006]

I wouldn’t say that. Not really. I mean there was what happened in the NBA, so there’s that. But really I think the refs try to keep the game close and relatively entertaining and the thing is if a ref *did rig a game it would be completely indistinguishable from what goes on already. 

 

[jwb]

Sorry if this is a topic for the FFA but I thought it was more a discussion for people who follow the NFL.  I know there's been some talk about the NFL "nudging" games, which I unfortunately don't find very hard to believe.  I do find it a little harder to believe that there's some vast conspiracy involving betting lines, but I also can't ignore 1. how good odds makers are at setting the lines (I don't care how smart you are, when the randomness of sports is in play you CAN'T be right that often, as all of us who enjoy ff know) and 2. how often and how significantly things change at the end of games with regards to the spread.  The last two games of this past weekend stood out to me:

1. The Chiefs are up 45-10.  The over/under is 56.5 and with 4 minutes or so to go in the game, the Chiefs go for it on 4th and goal instead of kicking the FG.  Not wanting to run up the score doesn't seem plausible when you've had your entire offense out there all game "just running the offense" all the way to 45 points.

2. Falcons are up 14 and the spread is -6.  Giants score a TD but instead of making it a 7-point game by kicking the PAT, they go for two, which would cover.  Falcons get a FG and we all think that's the end, but the Giants go right down the field and score a "meaningless" TD as time runs out.  Even SVP noted the impact of the score on SportsCenter following the game.  Many teams would have kicked the FG in that situation to save time and kick the onsides kick, but then a FG wouldn't have covered.

Thoughts?  Am I way off on this?

Maybe the coach wants to see if the new package / play / etc works here in game situations? Maybe he just wants more goal line film? I don't see this instance as being suspicious.

 

[zed2283]

Maybe the coach wants to see if the new package / play / etc works here in game situations? Maybe he just wants more goal line film? I don't see this instance as being suspicious.

Maybe not any one instance is suspicious in a vacuum, but these things happen all the time.

Maybe they told him to knock it off, but back in the old days Al Michaels would mention something at the end of every MNF broadcast that was affecting the spread or over/under.  He still does it a lot.

 

[Rubi]

Vegas is that good at setting lines. The books there have access to any and every piece of information you can think of. With the money floating around in the NFL to players,coaches and officials it would be very difficult for a "fixer" to come up with enough cash to entice someone to get "involved" in a fix and make his/her investment worthwhile. my 2 cents.

 

[Cjw_55106]

So you’re not saying there is no vast conspiracy....yet you seem to believe it. 

 

[zed2283]

So you’re not saying there is no vast conspiracy....yet you seem to believe it. 

Well... I guess I just find it curious how often these things happen.  Maybe most of the time it doesn't matter and I just remember the ones that stand out.

I do believe the NFL nudges games though.  That much is obvious at this point.

 

[Ignoratio Elenchi]

 I guess I just find it curious how often these things happen.  Maybe most of the time it doesn't matter and I just remember the ones that stand out.

Pretty sure the second sentence here is correct. But we don’t even have to leave it up to guesswork, you could pretty easily just check how often it actually happens (“it” being defined however you like, e.g. team covering the spread in the final minute or whatever you think is happening).  Either you’ll realize you really are just remembering the times “it” happens and ignoring the many times it doesn’t, or you’ll break a story about one of the biggest scandals in sports history. 

 

[Hot Sauce Guy]

Sorry if this is a topic for the FFA but I thought it was more a discussion for people who follow the NFL.  I know there's been some talk about the NFL "nudging" games, which I unfortunately don't find very hard to believe.  I do find it a little harder to believe that there's some vast conspiracy involving betting lines, but I also can't ignore 1. how good odds makers are at setting the lines (I don't care how smart you are, when the randomness of sports is in play you CAN'T be right that often, as all of us who enjoy ff know) and 2. how often and how significantly things change at the end of games with regards to the spread.  The last two games of this past weekend stood out to me:

1. The Chiefs are up 45-10.  The over/under is 56.5 and with 4 minutes or so to go in the game, the Chiefs go for it on 4th and goal instead of kicking the FG.  Not wanting to run up the score doesn't seem plausible when you've had your entire offense out there all game "just running the offense" all the way to 45 points.

2. Falcons are up 14 and the spread is -6.  Giants score a TD but instead of making it a 7-point game by kicking the PAT, they go for two, which would cover.  Falcons get a FG and we all think that's the end, but the Giants go right down the field and score a "meaningless" TD as time runs out.  Even SVP noted the impact of the score on SportsCenter following the game.  Many teams would have kicked the FG in that situation to save time and kick the onsides kick, but then a FG wouldn't have covered.

Thoughts?  Am I way off on this?

Not buyin the tinfoil hat stuff. 

Vegas oddsmakers really are that good. And you’re kind of fundamentally misunderstanding how a casino sports book makes money. 

First; It Bears repeating. They really are that good. But it kinda doesn’t really matter if they’re not that good, because the goal of setting a line is to attract betting. As the bets come in, the line moves - the casino is attracting bets to the other side, so even if they missed a bit initially they’re covered. 

And don’t forget that gamblers are inherently greedy. If you make all straight bets on the money line; over time you’ll be far more likely to eeek out a meager profit than playing against the spread (ATS), or (gulp) making parlays. Parlays are my weakness. I love parlays. And the house loves that I love parlays, because they’re considered sucker bets. It’s hard enough picking 1 game ATS, now throw in a couple O/U & multiple other bets ATS all on the same ticket - there’s a reason parlays pay out so handsomely. They’re really really hard to hit. I go to Reno once a year for a festival - make maybe 5-10 parlays. I just got a 4-team $30 parlay, but that’s the first one beyond 2-pick parlays I’ve hit in 5 years. 

So yeah - the house is covered. 

The two games listed are coincedentally problematic, but the Giants were absolutely trying to win that game by going for two. I don’t necessarily agree with the decision, but they were very much trying to win that game. 

I could see a situation where the fix is in, but when donning my tinfoil hat I lean towards the “refs are making bad calls to throw the game”. 

I don’t believe the coaches are doing anything other than trying to win. 

 

[zed2283]

Yeah, that's a good point.  The line moves so that they can get to 50-50.

I used to bet on games, and finally quit 15+ years ago after taking too many bad beats at the end of games on the stupidest crap you've ever seen.  I haven't paid much attention since then, apart from what Al Michaels would fill me in on.  But this year I got into a spread pick'em pool for the first time, and so I'm once again noticing all the junk that happens and I guess put on my tin foil colored glasses.

 

[Stompin' Tom Connors]

I wouldn’t say that. Not really. I mean there was what happened in the NBA, so there’s that. But really I think the refs try to keep the game close and relatively entertaining and the thing is if a ref *did rig a game it would be completely indistinguishable from what goes on already. 

Ah, nothing like the long con.

 

[Judge Smails]

there is an entire thread about why number 2 is the right decision.

All SVP does is talk about games where people get screwed on the spread. Gets boring 

 

[JetMaxx]

Millions/billions of $ to be made. Human greed and corruption are involved at every level of society. Please explain why the NFL is exempt

 

[DropKick]

Sorry if this is a topic for the FFA but I thought it was more a discussion for people who follow the NFL.  I know there's been some talk about the NFL "nudging" games, which I unfortunately don't find very hard to believe.  I do find it a little harder to believe that there's some vast conspiracy involving betting lines, but I also can't ignore 1. how good odds makers are at setting the lines (I don't care how smart you are, when the randomness of sports is in play you CAN'T be right that often, as all of us who enjoy ff know) and 2. how often and how significantly things change at the end of games with regards to the spread.  The last two games of this past weekend stood out to me:

1. The Chiefs are up 45-10.  The over/under is 56.5 and with 4 minutes or so to go in the game, the Chiefs go for it on 4th and goal instead of kicking the FG.  Not wanting to run up the score doesn't seem plausible when you've had your entire offense out there all game "just running the offense" all the way to 45 points.

2. Falcons are up 14 and the spread is -6.  Giants score a TD but instead of making it a 7-point game by kicking the PAT, they go for two, which would cover.  Falcons get a FG and we all think that's the end, but the Giants go right down the field and score a "meaningless" TD as time runs out.  Even SVP noted the impact of the score on SportsCenter following the game.  Many teams would have kicked the FG in that situation to save time and kick the onsides kick, but then a FG wouldn't have covered.

Thoughts?  Am I way off on this?

I think you're off....

Chiefs were displaying sportsmanship.  And, yes, it is just running the offense.  Keeping the ball is the best defense.

I don't think a team kicks a FG when they're as close to the goal line as the G-men.  Long FG?  Sure, but get the TD when you inside the 10.

 

[renesauz]

What an absurd concept. One or two players or coaches? Sure. The entire league...not a chance in the world. No conspiracy that large and that much in the publ;ic eye could possibly stay hidden. You'd need the top 3 or 4 coaches from every team, every official, every QB, and at least 3 or 4 other key players from every team...many of whom win contracts based on + production. Not to mention several key members from the league coordinating it. That's at LEAST 300 people.

It's a ridiculous idea.

 

[BassNBrew]

Sorry if this is a topic for the FFA but I thought it was more a discussion for people who follow the NFL.  I know there's been some talk about the NFL "nudging" games, which I unfortunately don't find very hard to believe.  I do find it a little harder to believe that there's some vast conspiracy involving betting lines, but I also can't ignore 1. how good odds makers are at setting the lines (I don't care how smart you are, when the randomness of sports is in play you CAN'T be right that often, as all of us who enjoy ff know) and 2. how often and how significantly things change at the end of games with regards to the spread.  The last two games of this past weekend stood out to me:

1. The Chiefs are up 45-10.  The over/under is 56.5 and with 4 minutes or so to go in the game, the Chiefs go for it on 4th and goal instead of kicking the FG.  Not wanting to run up the score doesn't seem plausible when you've had your entire offense out there all game "just running the offense" all the way to 45 points.

2. Falcons are up 14 and the spread is -6.  Giants score a TD but instead of making it a 7-point game by kicking the PAT, they go for two, which would cover.  Falcons get a FG and we all think that's the end, but the Giants go right down the field and score a "meaningless" TD as time runs out.  Even SVP noted the impact of the score on SportsCenter following the game.  Many teams would have kicked the FG in that situation to save time and kick the onsides kick, but then a FG wouldn't have covered.

Thoughts?  Am I way off on this?

Here's why you are noticing it...

Sixty-nine percent of all games (64 of 93) have been within one score in the fourth quarter. A total of 54 games have been decided by one score — eight points or less. That’s tied for the most in league history at this point. There have been 28 games decided by three points or fewer, second-most at this point. At least one game has reached overtime the first six weeks for the first time since extra time was instituted in 1974.

In your first example it is quite common for a team not to kick a FG when up a bunch late in the game.

In the second, the Giants are trying to win the game, not cover.  When you say many teams would have kicked the FG, it rarely happens unless its fourth down.

 

[zftcg]

Maybe they told him to knock it off, but back in the old days Al Michaels would mention something at the end of every MNF broadcast that was affecting the spread or over/under.  He still does it a lot.

In fact, Michaels did it the other night in exactly that situation. When the Chiefs went for it, he (not-so) cryptically mentioned the number 56.5.

As for the OP, like most conspiracy theories, this one falls apart as soon as you start thinking through the logistics. The NFL goes to Andy Reid and says, "Hey, if you're in position late in the game to hit the over, dial it back a little." Reid says OK and then either tells his coaching staff about it or else overrules them with no explanation, yet nobody says anything about it and it never leaks out.  And then, as luck would have it, that exact situation presents itself in the game.

Or maybe the way it went down is there's a guy in New York sitting next to the replay official who can press a button Buffalo Wild Wings style and activate the electrodes attached to Reid's genitals (sorry for that image). Reid is about to send out the FG team and he feels a little "jolt" down below, so he changes his mind and sends the offense back out there.

I don't know if I buy that the NBA assigns certain officials to certain games when they want a specific result, but it's at least a coherent theory. But the notion that the NFL could affect coaches' in-game decision making is absurd on its face.

 

[zed2283]

Here's why you are noticing it...

Sixty-nine percent of all games (64 of 93) have been within one score in the fourth quarter. A total of 54 games have been decided by one score — eight points or less. That’s tied for the most in league history at this point. There have been 28 games decided by three points or fewer, second-most at this point. At least one game has reached overtime the first six weeks for the first time since extra time was instituted in 1974.

In your first example it is quite common for a team not to kick a FG when up a bunch late in the game.

In the second, the Giants are trying to win the game, not cover.  When you say many teams would have kicked the FG, it rarely happens unless its fourth down.

Well that's why I posted, to get everyone's thoughts.

I agree about the Giants once they got to the 1-yard line.  But I've seen many instances where the team kicks the FG once they get in range and have a minute or so remaining.  Then again, that may be about the time that the Giants got down there.