What's new
Fantasy Football - Footballguys Forums

This is a sample guest message. Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!

Warning: Conspiracy Theory Inside (1 Viewer)

B

boofatty

Footballguy
OK - I know what I'm writing is a total conspiracy theory. But these are thoughts I've had since last season and I just want to share and see if I'm alone. So don't read anymore if you're not interested.

1. I can't help but think that the NFL is selectively laying a "helping hand" on the outcome of some games or plays or calls, etc. The Steelers run last year is what started me thinking this. The Saints run this year has reinforced these thoughts. How hard would it really be to convincingly alter parts of the game?

2. I am NOT saying that the NFL is preselecting champs or game winners etc. Nor am I saying that they do this frequently or have a planned strategy.

3. I am only suggesting that when an intriguing (read: marketable) story arises, such as the Bettis retirement, Saints coming back from near total destruction to contenders, the NFL could help its cause by promoting these aspects of the game. Is it possible that the NFL can lend some assistance to expand the appeal of their product?

4. Correct me if I'm wrong, but don't the teams share league earnings to some extent? So, this collective earning capacity would mean that by "allowing" a team like the Saints to reach the top would benefit the whole league financially. Obviously the winning teams are better, but with shared earnings, a team doesn't necessarily have to win to profit - or do they?

5. I am NOT saying that if true, this is a bad thing. I think booming businesses are good for America. I just can't help to question this facet of the league after the last few years.

I'm probably alone on these thoughts. But the bottom line is that pro sports teams are in it to make money, as are the players. Sports media agencies need sports drama to make money. Cities need profitable industries to grow. I don't think it's totally out of line to think this way; I'm sure some marketing geniuses on the board can provide some insight. Is the NFL pulling some WWE tricks?

Overall, I liked the Bettis story (but feel Seattle was mistreated by the officials) and I am very proud of the Saints this year - I think it's great. But the :no: in me can't help but doubt some things.

 
You must not have watched the Steelers-Colts game last year.

I will go to my grave believing that the NBA rigged a number of Lakers playoff games, but I've never seen any evidence of this in the NFL.

 
boofatty said:
OK - I know what I'm writing is a total conspiracy theory. But these are thoughts I've had since last season and I just want to share and see if I'm alone. So don't read anymore if you're not interested.

1. I can't help but think that the NFL is selectively laying a "helping hand" on the outcome of some games or plays or calls, etc. The Steelers run last year is what started me thinking this. The Saints run this year has reinforced these thoughts. How hard would it really be to convincingly alter parts of the game?

2. I am NOT saying that the NFL is preselecting champs or game winners etc. Nor am I saying that they do this frequently or have a planned strategy.

3. I am only suggesting that when an intriguing (read: marketable) story arises, such as the Bettis retirement, Saints coming back from near total destruction to contenders, the NFL could help its cause by promoting these aspects of the game. Is it possible that the NFL can lend some assistance to expand the appeal of their product?

4. Correct me if I'm wrong, but don't the teams share league earnings to some extent? So, this collective earning capacity would mean that by "allowing" a team like the Saints to reach the top would benefit the whole league financially. Obviously the winning teams are better, but with shared earnings, a team doesn't necessarily have to win to profit - or do they?

5. I am NOT saying that if true, this is a bad thing. I think booming businesses are good for America. I just can't help to question this facet of the league after the last few years.

I'm probably alone on these thoughts. But the bottom line is that pro sports teams are in it to make money, as are the players. Sports media agencies need sports drama to make money. Cities need profitable industries to grow. I don't think it's totally out of line to think this way; I'm sure some marketing geniuses on the board can provide some insight. Is the NFL pulling some WWE tricks?

Overall, I liked the Bettis story (but feel Seattle was mistreated by the officials) and I am very proud of the Saints this year - I think it's great. But the :tinfoilhat: in me can't help but doubt some things.
Click to expand...
Do you think the NFL paid Vanderjat to choke that kick and ruin his career against the Steelers? How about Plummer the next week? Also in that Colts game, the refs tried to help Indy by overturning calls that would have won it for Pitt easier. So No is the answer.

 
The best arguement against this is always the sheer number of people that would have to be involved, yet no one has ever come forth.

Nope, it's just coincidence. There a huge amount of possible stories out there. Some manage to have things fall their way to happen. Lot's more don't that would be just as potentially big.

 
Hmm. I seem to remember Da Bears recieving a few calls by the refs that worked out to their favor in the playoff game against Carolina last season; and most recently the game against the Pats this season. These were games that I had this feeling that the officating was favoring the Bears.

Specifically, I'm refering to the phony pass interference calls against the Pats on those deep throws to Berrian which resulted in keeping Da Bears in that game when it was apparent that the Pats had shut Grossman down.

I dunno, something seemed fishy about the officiating that day, IMO.

 
I don't know if there is a "mandate" per se...but there does seem to be certain teams that get calls during certain seasons...and some teams that get calls no matter what season it is...

This season it appears to be the Saints getting calls no matter what...

Of late, Seattle has been a team that gets preferential treatment from time to time over the past few seasons.

For the past 5 years or more...Philly has been getting calls they shouldn't.

And forever and a day, Green Bay has gotten the benefit of the doubt year in and year out.

What coaches are part of the competition committee...that might have some to do with it as well.

 
Ummm......I'm kinda embarrassed to admit this but there have been a couple of games recently that had me wondering this same thing.

The week 15 match-up 2004 Colts vs Ravens, Sunday night prime time. Manning is looking to break Marino's TD mark. In the second half it's starting to look like it's not going to happen and the one drive in particular the ref's called pass interference penalties on I believe 3 consecutive plays, it was weird, after all the game play and way the game had been played to that point it just seemed fishy, anyway suddenly the Colts were inside the Ravens 20, and Manning is looking to tie Marino's mark, I dont have the scoring summary from that game but I think think the Colts came away with a field goal.

Same game, inside the last two minutes Boller throws an INT as it is being returned down the sideline it looks like the Colt player steps out of bounds around the 40 of Balt, this isnt called though and he runs to the endzone, the refs though mark him out inside the Baltimore 5. This play doesnt get a booth review. The Sunday Night ESPN crew are now falling all over themselves in anticipation of Manning tieing the record on their broadcast. Manning kneels down.

The other two are more familar the Colts-Steelers playoff game last season, Polamalu's INT, it came at a critical jucture in the game it was total bull####, and the Colt false start? when they replayed the down :shrug:

And then there was last years Super Bowl where the officiating was extremely questionable.

 
Perhaps it is just coincidence or some other phenomenon but I thought it was strange that the Patriots won the super bowl right after 911 happened. The Patriots were a 5-11 team the year before and a .500 team the 2 years prior to that.

 
Biabreakable said:
Perhaps it is just coincidence or some other phenomenon but I thought it was strange that the Patriots won the super bowl right after 911 happened. The Patriots were a 5-11 team the year before and a .500 team the 2 years prior to that.
Click to expand...
Agree. I cheered for the Rams that Super Bowl because I knew the fix was already in. What could be more patriotic than the Patriots winning?
 
This is stupid. All teams have tight calls go against them and all teams have tight calls go in their direction, the reason that people seem to think that officials "favor" one team is because those teams are always good, and thus are more in the limelight! I mean, I'm sure the Browns and Lions have had some games that they won which featured questionable calls. Do you hear anyone saying "Man, the Lions sure do catch all the breaks from the officials." NO.

Also, everybody assumes that reffing an NFL game is just as easy on the field as it is sitting on your couch, with an overhead view, commentators, and instant replay for every play. Does that make sense? Of course not. The refs make mistakes, but they do as good a job as they can.

 
Another thought... it's ridiculous to say that the NFL has some prethought-out plans for the seasons or that they help teams. Listen, the NFL and the media creates stories that go along with the events, they don't manipulate events to fit their stories.

Ex: The whole Bettis deal last year really didn't start picking up until the Steelers beat the Colts and were starting to be taken seriously as title contenders. Had the Colts won, the NFL's story would have been "Manning finally makes it to the big one... Manning wins it all... Peyton throws the monkey off his back. Dungy fights through emotional pain to claim victory." Had the Bengals gone farther, it would have been a story about a total team turnaround.

The Patriots got TONS of conpiracy theories after 2001, what with their story and because their were officiating questions in that game too about the Pats holding Rams WR's all game. But the Pats' play after 2001, which includes 2 more SB's, 4 playoff appearences and another possible title run now, proves that they were no fluke. Belichick and Brady really turned that team around.

Besides, look at some other Super Bowls.... Ravens vs Giants? What kind of story is that? Hugely boring matchup. Raiders lsoe to Bucs in '02? Who the hell cares about the Buccaneers? A Raiders title would have brought a LOT more money into the NFL. The Panthers in 2003?

About the Saints...people forget that they really weren't that bad. They were 4-12 (I think) in a terrible season filled with distractions, but before that they were 8-8. They had talent.

There's no game fixing. There's no team setups. There's only parity, teams fighting through adversity, and in some cases, referees trying their best but in hindsight not being 100% correct.

 
1. If the conspiracy theory is true, then the NFL would be pushing for major market teams to make it to the Superbowl. As good as a "feel good" story the Saints are, they don't draw ratings like the Giants, Cowboys, Bears, etc.

2. If anyone ever spilled the beans on the conspiracy the NFL's credibility would ruined for decades costing the owners billions in diminished franchise value.

3. Dozens of people would have to be complicit in the conspiracy. What are the odds that all of them could be prevented from writing a book on it and making a few million dollars?

4. The Bettis story was bogus. It made for a few interesting clips, but got quickly tiring. I doubt that's the best story the NFL could come up with. Seems like they could make more money from a Giants-Patriots Superbowl.

5. The Saints have been an 8-8 team for years and probably would have been 8-8 last year without Katrina. The added the #2 pick in the draft (Bush), a stand out WR in the 7th round (Colston) and upgraded from Brooks to Brees. It's easy to believe that those upgrades alone would be worth an extra 2 wins to put an average team at 10-6.

6. Like any sports league the major stars will get the benefit of any calls. It's not a conspiracy, it's human nature.

 
guderian said:
1. If the conspiracy theory is true, then the NFL would be pushing for major market teams to make it to the Superbowl. As good as a "feel good" story the Saints are, they don't draw ratings like the Giants, Cowboys, Bears, etc. 2. If anyone ever spilled the beans on the conspiracy the NFL's credibility would ruined for decades costing the owners billions in diminished franchise value. 3. Dozens of people would have to be complicit in the conspiracy. What are the odds that all of them could be prevented from writing a book on it and making a few million dollars?4. The Bettis story was bogus. It made for a few interesting clips, but got quickly tiring. I doubt that's the best story the NFL could come up with. Seems like they could make more money from a Giants-Patriots Superbowl. 5. The Saints have been an 8-8 team for years and probably would have been 8-8 last year without Katrina. The added the #2 pick in the draft (Bush), a stand out WR in the 7th round (Colston) and upgraded from Brooks to Brees. It's easy to believe that those upgrades alone would be worth an extra 2 wins to put an average team at 10-6.6. Like any sports league the major stars will get the benefit of any calls. It's not a conspiracy, it's human nature.
Click to expand...
:DSomeone with some sense...
 
boofatty said:
3. I am only suggesting that when an intriguing (read: marketable) story arises, such as the Bettis retirement , Saints coming back from near total destruction to contenders, the NFL could help its cause by promoting these aspects of the game. Is it possible that the NFL can lend some assistance to expand the appeal of their product?
Click to expand...
If this was the case, you'd think Tiki Barber and the Giants would have made it farther.
 
Jous said:
Another thought... it's ridiculous to say that the NFL has some prethought-out plans for the seasons or that they help teams. Listen, the NFL and the media creates stories that go along with the events, they don't manipulate events to fit their stories.Ex: The whole Bettis deal last year really didn't start picking up until the Steelers beat the Colts and were starting to be taken seriously as title contenders. Had the Colts won, the NFL's story would have been "Manning finally makes it to the big one... Manning wins it all... Peyton throws the monkey off his back. Dungy fights through emotional pain to claim victory." Had the Bengals gone farther, it would have been a story about a total team turnaround. The Patriots got TONS of conpiracy theories after 2001, what with their story and because their were officiating questions in that game too about the Pats holding Rams WR's all game. But the Pats' play after 2001, which includes 2 more SB's, 4 playoff appearences and another possible title run now, proves that they were no fluke. Belichick and Brady really turned that team around.Besides, look at some other Super Bowls.... Ravens vs Giants? What kind of story is that? Hugely boring matchup. Raiders lsoe to Bucs in '02? Who the hell cares about the Buccaneers? A Raiders title would have brought a LOT more money into the NFL. The Panthers in 2003?About the Saints...people forget that they really weren't that bad. They were 4-12 (I think) in a terrible season filled with distractions, but before that they were 8-8. They had talent.There's no game fixing. There's no team setups. There's only parity, teams fighting through adversity, and in some cases, referees trying their best but in hindsight not being 100% correct.
Click to expand...
Ray Lewis coming off a murder charge, NFL facing an image crisis. What better way to erase bad feelings than to make him the most dominant player in the game. America loves a winner.Patriots in 2001. Tuck Rule, Field Plowing, Manhandling Faulk. Patriots become team of destiny. Bucs vs Raiders. Gruden leaves, new team, old team in super bowl.Pitt last year. Bettis retires, Cowher gone now too?Saints this year. Payton won the coach of the year vote by a RIDICULOUS margin.
 
The Man Who Met Andy Griffith said:
You must not have watched the Steelers-Colts game last year.I will go to my grave believing that the NBA rigged a number of Lakers playoff games, but I've never seen any evidence of this in the NFL.
Click to expand...
I did, that's another perfect example. It seemed the refs were giving calls to the Colts. When the steelers beat the odds, the story of the moment seemed to shift to Bettis and finishing in Detroit.Therefore, they help out the hottest, most marketable story at the time.
 
guderian said:
5. The Saints have been an 8-8 team for years and probably would have been 8-8 last year without Katrina. The added the #2 pick in the draft (Bush), a stand out WR in the 7th round (Colston) and upgraded from Brooks to Brees. It's easy to believe that those upgrades alone would be worth an extra 2 wins to put an average team at 10-6.
Click to expand...
And don't forget addition by subtraction -- firing Jim Haslett was probably worth two wins by itself.
 
;) :devil:
guderian said:
1. If the conspiracy theory is true, then the NFL would be pushing for major market teams to make it to the Superbowl. As good as a "feel good" story the Saints are, they don't draw ratings like the Giants, Cowboys, Bears, etc. 2. If anyone ever spilled the beans on the conspiracy the NFL's credibility would ruined for decades costing the owners billions in diminished franchise value. 3. Dozens of people would have to be complicit in the conspiracy. What are the odds that all of them could be prevented from writing a book on it and making a few million dollars?4. The Bettis story was bogus. It made for a few interesting clips, but got quickly tiring. I doubt that's the best story the NFL could come up with. Seems like they could make more money from a Giants-Patriots Superbowl. 5. The Saints have been an 8-8 team for years and probably would have been 8-8 last year without Katrina. The added the #2 pick in the draft (Bush), a stand out WR in the 7th round (Colston) and upgraded from Brooks to Brees. It's easy to believe that those upgrades alone would be worth an extra 2 wins to put an average team at 10-6.6. Like any sports league the major stars will get the benefit of any calls. It's not a conspiracy, it's human nature.
Click to expand...
I can't disagree with any of that, in fact, I agree with most of it.But, to play devil's advocate:1. NO may not be a major market draw on regular yrs, but what kind of draw/hype do you think they'll get if they make it to the SB? That will probably be insane!2. That's why there could be limited involvement. It wouldn't be the first time (a conspiracy goes w/o recognition). Plus, you have to consider who profits from the NFL = everyone directly involved with the league. It would be a win win situation. If it were true, it would likely involve very few people.3. Right, although not likely, but what if it was true?4. Of the stories of the playoffs last year, what would have been a more wholesome, appealing story than a guy that ends his career in his hometown?5. I'm not taking anything away from the Saints. But again, as the :devil: , the guys got hot, things started happening for them. Remember the Monday night game vs. Atlanta? Atlanta was riding a hot streak against their division, then fell flat against the Saints on Mon. night?6. Can't deny it, but look at the Pats the last few years, the post season last yr was full of controversy. I'm just asking if it's possible. I think it is.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Rogi said:
boofatty said:
3. I am only suggesting that when an intriguing (read: marketable) story arises, such as the Bettis retirement , Saints coming back from near total destruction to contenders, the NFL could help its cause by promoting these aspects of the game. Is it possible that the NFL can lend some assistance to expand the appeal of their product?
Click to expand...
If this was the case, you'd think Tiki Barber and the Giants would have made it farther.
Click to expand...
I agree, probably would have but his team is awful when it really counts. Like I said, it's not the NFL rigging games, its the NFL giving an unobtrusive "helping hand" when it counts. The Giants were in the game, but Philly handled them on the final drive perfectly.
 
"And with the first pick in the draft, the Houston Texans select... Mario Williams."

Saints: "Oh what the heck, we'll take that Reggie Bush guy." :thumbup:

 
boofatty said:
Rogi said:
boofatty said:
3. I am only suggesting that when an intriguing (read: marketable) story arises, such as the Bettis retirement , Saints coming back from near total destruction to contenders, the NFL could help its cause by promoting these aspects of the game. Is it possible that the NFL can lend some assistance to expand the appeal of their product?
Click to expand...
If this was the case, you'd think Tiki Barber and the Giants would have made it farther.
Click to expand...
I agree, probably would have but his team is awful when it really counts. Like I said, it's not the NFL rigging games, its the NFL giving an unobtrusive "helping hand" when it counts. The Giants were in the game, but Philly handled them on the final drive perfectly.
Click to expand...
And you'd still be wrong. There's no "helping hands." Stories happen, and the NFL builds hype around it. I mean, no matter what teams are good or what SB matchups there are, there's always media hype, because the NFL will look at anything and everything to create a story about the games to make money.I don't understand the whole "helping hand for Bettis" thing. The Super Bowl was set to be in Detroit for a while before last year, and it's not like the Steelers were coming out of nowhere. The year before, they were 15-1. Last year, at 11-5, it was a fluke that they were even the #6 seed, because in most years 11-5 gets you at LEAST the #4 spot, and a couple of their losses were close ones that Tommy Maddox was at QB. 11-5 is a good record, but they were even better than their 11-5 record indicated, so they weren't a fluke of a story "created" for The Bus.

 
If you guys wanted real football, you should have supported the XFL!

Everyone knows Collinsworth, Theisman and Irvin wouldn't be annoucers if it was a legitiment sport.

 
If anybody doesn't think that there is some "fixing" in sports, open your eyes. I'm not saying that games or outcomes are fixed. However, there is an outside influence on some games. I think this is more prevalent in the NBA than in any other sport (mainly because it is much easier to add on a basket or two at the end of a game).

If you need "proof" (in quotes because you'll never prove it), then track the Vegas odds and watch the end of some games. Again, you will notice this in basketball (NBA or college) more than anywhere else.

Also, I think the over/under is usually influenced more than the actual outcome in most cases.

FWIW, I agree that accusing the NFL of influencing outcomes just to "have a story" is outrageous. However, when you consider that they are in the entertainment business, it doesn't seem that far fetched.

 
Since the Saints seem like a main topic in this thread, can someone tell me what "helping hand" they've received this year. I'm a fan and have watched every game this year, and the only really bad call I remember was a 4th down against the Panthers, a game they lost. If any team was having a good year, the NFL could come up with 10 great stories surrounding that team, it' what they do.

You thought the Saints would suck and they don't. No conspiracy needed, you were wrong.

 
The last thing the NFL/Media wants is the Seahawks (or other smaller markets) in the Superbowl, but that said theres no fixes, just horrible calls in favor of the 'stealers' during thier whole run last year.

 
jq_ballgame said:
If anybody doesn't think that there is some "fixing" in sports, open your eyes. I'm not saying that games or outcomes are fixed. However, there is an outside influence on some games. I think this is more prevalent in the NBA than in any other sport (mainly because it is much easier to add on a basket or two at the end of a game).

If you need "proof" (in quotes because you'll never prove it), then track the Vegas odds and watch the end of some games. Again, you will notice this in basketball (NBA or college) more than anywhere else.

Also, I think the over/under is usually influenced more than the actual outcome in most cases.

FWIW, I agree that accusing the NFL of influencing outcomes just to "have a story" is outrageous. However, when you consider that they are in the entertainment business, it doesn't seem that far fetched.
Click to expand...
I just thought of this this morning. A buddy and I were talking about how often the Vegas lines match the real outcomes. Many times, they're so close it's kind of scary.In a couple of responses, people have said that I'm accusing the NFL of influencing outcomes to "have a story". I guess I'm not being clear. What I mean is that when an interesting story presents itself naturally; and this story can lead to higher ratings which equals more profit and more benefit from media attention, do you feel that the NFL may lean the game through various tools to maximize this supposed potential?

After Katrina, the NFL was very persistant in their support for NO, as they should be. They made a point to not miss a home game this year. They made a point to have the first home game as a huge primetime event on par with a super bowl (attention, the bands, etc.). It was a big success. What if the Saints had lost? Probably wouldn't be such a feel good story the day after. Who benefits from this? Every owner in the NFL.

I know this is a bit far fetched, but couldn't it be possible, if not likely?

 
I think the NFL would have hitched their wagon to Brett Favre. He's been a cash cow for them for many many years. Maybe next year!

 
Sabertooth said:
I think the NFL would have hitched their wagon to Brett Favre. He's been a cash cow for them for many many years. Maybe next year!
Click to expand...
Absolutely. With flex scheduling this year, NBC did pick up the last game which was entirely meaningless. They picked up on the sole possibility that it was his last game. I bet if Favre would commit to staying or going ( I think he's back next year) the league would be all over it. Maybe he won't commit to allow time for his team to be a logical contender to improve the odds of him going out on or near the top. I don't know, just speculating. Maybe Favre is in on the whole thing. Maybe he knows where the WMDs are in Iraq ;) :penalty: Speaking of flex scheduling, could there be a better marketing tool for the NFL. The hottest flavor of the week gets moved to primetime unless secured by the other networks.
 
boofatty said:
jq_ballgame said:
If anybody doesn't think that there is some "fixing" in sports, open your eyes. I'm not saying that games or outcomes are fixed. However, there is an outside influence on some games. I think this is more prevalent in the NBA than in any other sport (mainly because it is much easier to add on a basket or two at the end of a game).

If you need "proof" (in quotes because you'll never prove it), then track the Vegas odds and watch the end of some games. Again, you will notice this in basketball (NBA or college) more than anywhere else.

Also, I think the over/under is usually influenced more than the actual outcome in most cases.

FWIW, I agree that accusing the NFL of influencing outcomes just to "have a story" is outrageous. However, when you consider that they are in the entertainment business, it doesn't seem that far fetched.
Click to expand...
I just thought of this this morning. A buddy and I were talking about how often the Vegas lines match the real outcomes. Many times, they're so close it's kind of scary.In a couple of responses, people have said that I'm accusing the NFL of influencing outcomes to "have a story". I guess I'm not being clear. What I mean is that when an interesting story presents itself naturally; and this story can lead to higher ratings which equals more profit and more benefit from media attention, do you feel that the NFL may lean the game through various tools to maximize this supposed potential?

After Katrina, the NFL was very persistant in their support for NO, as they should be. They made a point to not miss a home game this year. They made a point to have the first home game as a huge primetime event on par with a super bowl (attention, the bands, etc.). It was a big success. What if the Saints had lost? Probably wouldn't be such a feel good story the day after. Who benefits from this? Every owner in the NFL.

I know this is a bit far fetched, but couldn't it be possible, if not likely?
Click to expand...
Ok, take this to its logical conclusion. Think last year in the AFC. You have these story lines:1) Bettis goes out in Super Bowl in home town.

2) Manning finally gets monkey off his back; Dungy overcomes son's suicide to lead team to Super Bowl.

3) Bengals (finally) turn things around with their young stud QB, Palmer.

4) The consistently great team, the Broncos, finally win one without Elway.

5) The Patriots do the unthinkable and 3-peat in the modern salary cap era.

6) The darkhorse team, the Jaguars, who every underestimated makes the big dance.

Now, you're running the conspiracy. Which storyline would you choose to maximize revenue? Before the playoffs begin, how can you possibly know which "story" will have the most profit and media attention? I would argue that you can't. Every story can by hyped by the media, and any matchup will be milked and made as compelling as possible.

To attempt to answer my own question, I would argue that storyline #5 would be most compelling, but it's still just a guess. From a market perspective (large market team), historic (3-SB's in a row), and compelling (large swaths of fans would tune in to root against the Pats in this case).

I think it is much, much more likely that what we watch is just how it plays out and the media just hypes the storyline available. Is it possible what you are saying is true? Well, sure. Is it possible that I am not a person, but am just a bot instructed to scour the Internet looking for NFL conspiracy rumors and debunk them so that my makers, the NFL, will not lose out on their cash cow? Sure, it's possible. But certainly not likely.

 
if all this is true, then you would think "America's team" , the Dallas Cowboys would be back on top by now.

maybe next year when Parcells gives it one more shot.

 
The NFL has been overpenalizing the Raiders for years. Ask Jerry Rice. He's mentioned numerous times that while the Raiders were certainly an undiciplined team, they got called for penalties on plays that the Niners never would have.

Every year you see examples of the Raiders getting the short end of almost all calls that are in any way subjective. Tuck rule my ###. Forward pass by Vincent Jackson - um okay. How about the classic, "sacking while a Raider" call. I see examples of those every year.

The league office obviously hates Al Davis (which is probably deserved) and they are blatant with the one-sided officiating in Raider games.

My take is that if they can see fit to punish the old man this way, then they can certainly do the opposite to benefit a good marketing story like the 911 Patriots or the Katrina Saints. It wouldn't even shock me to find out that Brees, Bush and Colston were not random.

And as far as the Steelers/Colts game goes... I think they wanted Manning to get his title last year and did everything to help make it happen. When the Steelers won anyway, they decided to jump on that bandwagon and go with the scrappy storied franchise that kept winning on the road with their white jerseys and their lovable fat RB.

 
boofatty said:
jq_ballgame said:
If anybody doesn't think that there is some "fixing" in sports, open your eyes. I'm not saying that games or outcomes are fixed. However, there is an outside influence on some games. I think this is more prevalent in the NBA than in any other sport (mainly because it is much easier to add on a basket or two at the end of a game).

If you need "proof" (in quotes because you'll never prove it), then track the Vegas odds and watch the end of some games. Again, you will notice this in basketball (NBA or college) more than anywhere else.

Also, I think the over/under is usually influenced more than the actual outcome in most cases.

FWIW, I agree that accusing the NFL of influencing outcomes just to "have a story" is outrageous. However, when you consider that they are in the entertainment business, it doesn't seem that far fetched.
Click to expand...
I just thought of this this morning. A buddy and I were talking about how often the Vegas lines match the real outcomes. Many times, they're so close it's kind of scary.In a couple of responses, people have said that I'm accusing the NFL of influencing outcomes to "have a story". I guess I'm not being clear. What I mean is that when an interesting story presents itself naturally; and this story can lead to higher ratings which equals more profit and more benefit from media attention, do you feel that the NFL may lean the game through various tools to maximize this supposed potential?

After Katrina, the NFL was very persistant in their support for NO, as they should be. They made a point to not miss a home game this year. They made a point to have the first home game as a huge primetime event on par with a super bowl (attention, the bands, etc.). It was a big success. What if the Saints had lost? Probably wouldn't be such a feel good story the day after. Who benefits from this? Every owner in the NFL.

I know this is a bit far fetched, but couldn't it be possible, if not likely?
Click to expand...
No. Why did the Saints beat Atlanta by a similar margin in Atlanta without the glare of the national media?

Who conspired? Who was involved? What did they do to alter the outcome of the game? You keep arguing about a conspiracy without suggesting who specifically was involved and how specifically they altered the outcome of a game.

Did Mora tank the game by calling a bad game? You don't think he'd be suing the s### out of the team for forcing him to lay down against the Saints and then firing him for missing the playoffs? You can't blame it on officiating because they won by 20 points and not even Falcons fans can come up with enough bad calls to justify that assertion. If the players were involved you think that all of them would keep it quiet? There aren't exactly any secrets in the NFL where every coaching change and player change is telegraphed to the media. Vick flipped off his own fans, you don't think he'd cry to the media if Arthur Blank told him to have a couple of bad games against the Saints and he's been taking the heat for it??? We all know that cornerbacks have mild egos and they would be perfectly willing to get beat and not mention it to anyone that they were told to get beat.

You say "the NFL may lean the game through various tools", well what are these tools?

 
kevjones22 said:
The last thing the NFL/Media wants is the Seahawks (or other smaller markets) in the Superbowl, but that said theres no fixes, just horrible calls in favor of the 'stealers' during thier whole run last year.
Click to expand...
bitter much? The game is over. Seattle lost.
 
Biabreakable said:
Perhaps it is just coincidence or some other phenomenon but I thought it was strange that the Patriots won the super bowl right after 911 happened. The Patriots were a 5-11 team the year before and a .500 team the 2 years prior to that.
Click to expand...
I am not big on conspiracy theories, but I remember watching that game and thinking that no matter what the Rams did, the Patriots were somehow going to win. The entire feel of the game was totally in NE's favor. And several crucial non-calls went against the Rams, too. I am not suggesting the game was fixed. Not by any means. I am just saying, it just looked fishy. It seems like fate does sometimes magically come into play (see the Broncos 3rd quarter against the Jets in the '98 AFC title game or the Warner to Bruce TD in the '99 SB).
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Again, the only thing that needs to be said about an NFL conspiracy is how would they keep it covered up? They have to know that they would lose countless amounts of money if it was ever discovered. And a person who has any evidence inside the NFL about one could write a book or speak about it to make millions of dollars.

People look for conspiracies when things don't go the way they want, or when they're just wrong with predictions. Sorry, but you're grabbing at thin air here.

 
Jous said:
Again, the only thing that needs to be said about an NFL conspiracy is how would they keep it covered up? They have to know that they would lose countless amounts of money if it was ever discovered. And a person who has any evidence inside the NFL about one could write a book or speak about it to make millions of dollars.People look for conspiracies when things don't go the way they want, or when they're just wrong with predictions. Sorry, but you're grabbing at thin air here.
Click to expand...
I hear you on this and I admit that a true conspiracy is far fetched. But other people have admitted they felt things were not right at times, so I'm not entirely alone on this.In regard to your comment on keeping things under wraps, consider this: The nfl is a multi billion dollar per year industry which is full of very wealthy people. Plus they are very actively working to expand their audience. Do you think that someone that would be tempted by a few million for a book would have that kind of access? I don't. I don't think players are necessarily in on anything, nor coaches or even refs as these guys are all the tools. The tools don't usually know what the overall goal is, they just do their jobs. There could be some exceptions, but I doubt we'll ever know.As far as looking for conspiracies goes, since getting involved with fantasy football yrs ago, I gave up my homerisms. I honestly don't have a favorite team or players to root for. I just enjoy the NFL for what it is. I only felt suspicious when these plays or calls were happening and they struck me as odd.
 
Of course calls will be odd or strike people as odd. Again, refereeing on the field is not as easy in real life as it is on your couch, with an overhead view and full replays. Wrong calls will be made, and sometimes, calls people THINK are wrong are actually right, because referees obviously know a lot more about the game than we do, and more than even a lot of sportswriters do.

 
boofatty said:
I just thought of this this morning. A buddy and I were talking about how often the Vegas lines match the real outcomes. Many times, they're so close it's kind of scary.
Click to expand...
They're supposed to match the real outcomes. If Team A is favored over Team B by 7, it's because the general consensus is that they're 7 points better. When they win by 7, that's not a conspiracy.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

On The Rocks
The Colts Backfield
Replies
6
Views
248
JohnnyU
JohnnyU
C
Super flex 1.02 rookie draft 2025
Replies
17
Views
883
FreeBaGeL
FreeBaGeL
Joe Bryant
NFL Camp Storylines 7/26/25
Replies
24
Views
731
Bri
B

Users who are viewing this thread

Total: 1 (members: 0, guests: 1)
Back
Top