Page 4 of 4 FirstFirst ... 234
Results 61 to 75 of 75

Thread: Reasons Why The NFL Is Fixed For Profit

  1. #61
    Rookie
    Join Date
    Sep 2011
    Posts
    529
    Post Thanks / Like
    Ok, I read it! Whew! Interesting, but I don't think the games are fixed. Too many players have come and gone in this league. More people would of fessed up!

  2. #62
    Practice Squad
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Location
    Oswego County, Upstate NY, USA with my wife and family.
    Posts
    360
    Post Thanks / Like
    I am absolutely convinced that all major sports are fixed. They do NOT fix EVERY game. But they do fix marquee games, and games that alter the playoff contention and Super Bowl winners.

    The NBA is far more obvious. Anybody who watches it sober knows how they manipulate games, especially come playoff time. With less players on the smaller court, you can see more stuff. And, you can clearly see it... They tend to favor the teams with the most superstars, and want them on prime time. Playoff time, a good team without superstars will be beat by a lesser team with superstars. Certain teams always get the calls. It's all in the subtle manipulations of calls, one sided calls that change a play here or there, make or break runs, when a team gets hot, break up that momentum, get the fans in or out of the game. Easiest on scoring plays (phantom calls or no-calls... especially in crucial periods of games in marquee games, are the most blantant points). Watching the NBA for 22 years now - and that is EVERY SINGLE GAME of my favorite team and countless more of the rest of the league - it is painfully obvious to me, the evidence provided to me by my own eyes with far too many coincidences going one way or another far too many times. They don't fix the champion EVERY year, but they fix a lot of the time, and every two or three years they really get obvious until fan stink boils up, then they let them play for a year or two, then they go back to fixing. When they don't fix, teams that don't get good TV ratings win. They lose money. They fix it when... yep.. look at those ratings! Far too obvious in the NBA. Iíve sworn off the NBA so many times, it isnít even funny. But they pull me back in every year. I guess I just change my expectations now. Knowing itís rigged... when is MY teamís turn, right?

    I have always thought the NFL is fixed, but, IMO, its fixed better than the NBA. They hide it better. But it is easier to hide... as there are more players, bigger field, and HALF OF THE FIELD IS UNSEEN DURING PASSING PLAYS. Why don't they show Madden-esque camera views more often? They show more of the story. Nope, that side angle view shown since the early days of football television hides a lot of warts.

    The easiest way is holding. If the refs allow your team to hold, you can defeat ANYBODY. Offensive holding and defensive holding can swing one play, one game, one season... itís that close in the NFL. Even with todayís 16:9 HDTVs, its still hard to see, but a lot easier than our old fashioned 4:3 standard-def televisions could see. If your teams call holding on you, you can LOSE to anybody. Period. All NFL teams have entire rosters filled with players who played the game through high school and college good enough to get to the pros. So, while yes, overall talent and coaching can get you wins, the ultimate champions are likely 90% pre-determined. Sure, even the fix can be beat. In the NBA, outstanding outside shooting can effectively end the fix as you donít have a lot of contact shooting threeís (at least not compared to closer to the hoop... but you better not go cold, though). In the NFL, there is no really good way to beat the fix. If the refs want to call holding on one team and not the other... they can. And that is the biggest way they fix NFL games.

    Comparison to the WWE and MMA or boxing or NFL/NBA/NHL/etc. isnít correct. WWE is known 100% by every wrestler (and most fans) as ďsports entertainment.Ē They are all friends, they tell stories and most moves are choreographed and EVERY outcome is predetermined Ė or should I say ďbooked.Ē They train for hundreds of hours on how to do the moves to make them look punishing but in reality, making them as safe and painless as humanly possible. Like a martial arts match or a stunt in a movie, it is choreographed to look real, but in reality, itís close to a movie or a ballet. The wrestlers know its fake, as they are highly paid stuntmen/actors. Not so in the pro sports. Most (if not 98-99%) of the players in pro sports think it is real, and are playing for real. The players are doing it for real. As are the coaches. But the refs determine to subtlety skew plays here and there to alter the outcome, NOT the players.

    Knowing this... coming to terms with this - with all of the horrid things that went against us since the miraculous possible fix of our Super Bowl III win - I keep wondering... when is our turn here? Look for the narrative. When will the storyline look reeeaaallly good? Then, it may come our way. Until then... *sigh*

  3. #63
    Hall Of Fame
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Posts
    14,658
    Post Thanks / Like
    The more I read this thead...

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rbBX6aEzEz8

  4. #64
    Rookie
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Posts
    645
    Post Thanks / Like
    Idk man, money can buy a lot of things, but not pride.

    You can't tell me someone went up to Ray Lewis and was like "Throw this game" or "Play badly in this game".

    IDK I guess I just don't buy it.

  5. #65
    All League
    Join Date
    Dec 2004
    Location
    Boston area
    Posts
    4,471
    Post Thanks / Like
    Quote Originally Posted by Green Bandit View Post
    Idk man, money can buy a lot of things, but not pride.

    You can't tell me someone went up to Ray Lewis and was like "Throw this game" or "Play badly in this game".

    IDK I guess I just don't buy it.
    That's because you have the gift of a functioning brain and objective analysis.

  6. #66
    Schluberator & Gadfly ģ
    Join Date
    Mar 2005
    Location
    Virginia
    Posts
    26,042
    Post Thanks / Like
    Quote Originally Posted by Yankeejet22 View Post
    "It takes too many people to rig a game"

    "They make too much money, why would they jeopardize it?"

    ^^what he wrote... the truest words in the article.
    Because for some people, too much is never enough. Too many egos too.

  7. #67
    All League
    Join Date
    Dec 2004
    Posts
    3,244
    Post Thanks / Like
    The NFL is influenced, but you can't say it's rigged.

    The NBA on the other hand, the refs have direct control over the score via fouls.

    That league is rigged. It's the worst.

  8. #68
    All League
    Join Date
    Jun 2005
    Posts
    3,696
    Post Thanks / Like
    I don't doubt for a second that th league is fixed.

    But I highly doubt any players are involved, likely not even the coaches.

    Refs can very easily control the outcome of a game. As we hear on this board all the time. Holding or PI can be called on virtually every play - that amongst other penalties allows refs to control outcomes in a very competitive league where most games are decided by a few key plays and change of momentum.

    This solves the "there's too many people involved" argument.
    Last edited by fidelioion; 12-14-2012 at 04:35 PM.

  9. #69
    All League
    Join Date
    Jun 2005
    Posts
    3,696
    Post Thanks / Like
    Quote Originally Posted by Green Bandit View Post
    Idk man, money can buy a lot of things, but not pride.

    You can't tell me someone went up to Ray Lewis and was like "Throw this game" or "Play badly in this game".

    IDK I guess I just don't buy it.
    While I do not think the players are involved - its certainly not because of Pride.

    Does Tom Cruise have too much ego to get killed in a movie?

    If they understand it's a show and getting paid to be part of that show then it's not about ego but simply a high paying job in the entertainment industry.

  10. #70
    Waterboy
    Join Date
    Dec 2012
    Posts
    3
    Post Thanks / Like
    As an Actuary I conclude your findings are not statistically significant.

  11. #71
    All League
    Join Date
    Aug 2011
    Posts
    2,689
    Post Thanks / Like
    And yet, people are willing to believe the Pats had an intricate system of taping, analyzing, and decoding opponents' signals to significantly influence games for a decade, yet any player or coach who left to another team kept their mouths shut and just let the Pats run all over their new team while blatantly taking advantage of them. Makes perfect sense.

  12. #72
    Undrafted Free Agent
    Join Date
    Oct 2012
    Posts
    176
    Post Thanks / Like
    Of course there are fixed games. Anyone watch the GB game earlier this year? Or how about the Chiefs getting called for only 1 penalty against the Panthers after Belcher's death(despite them being at the bottom of the league in penalties), winning the game. It was the first game this season they managed to score 28 points in regular time. Likewise Cowboys beat the Bengals on an unlikely comeback after their recent tragedy....how nice.

    In all seriousness, let's talk about something that might hold some more water. I spent a lot of time a year ago, about a month, researching this topic myself but more about the big games than regular season games. I never posted the results because I understand the backlash to these types of accusations, and kept it for my own personal information but I figure I could at least share a summary of some of my findings. It's one thing to rig regular season games, but Superbowls? Mine is a more mathematical approach rather than in-game observations.

    Last year it was brought to my attention in some article that 2 # 6 playoff seeds won the Superbowl in the past 7 years, which was a bit strange so I decided to start looking into it only to find more oddities.

    It turns out all 6 different seeds won a Superbowl in the past 6 years: 3, 5, 2, 1, 6, 4 in addition to another number 6 seed in 2005. I thought to myself, what are the chances? Especially when I considered 5 of the past 7 seeds didn't have a bye week, so they played 1 extra game just to get there.

    Turns out up until this past decade #6 seeds never even appeared in a Superbowl, let alone win 2. And we only had 1 #5 seed appear in a Superbowl prior to this past decade. Now all of a sudden not only do these seeds pop up in a Superbowl, but also win it all. Now there is nothing wrong with lower seeds winning superbowls, however, in order for lower seeds to start winning Superbowls, one would expect to see a more frequent appearance first. But oh no, today it seems that #5 and #6 seeds do not lose Superbowls.....they only win them.

    I decided to pull winning records and seeding of every single NFL team since the AFL-NFL merger, and match them up with playoff seeds, appearances and superbowl wins.

    By default the single elimination, bye-week tournament structure, gives a higher probability for the #1 and #2 seed to both appear and win a superbowl far more often than any other seed because they play 1 less game in the playoffs to qualify due to the bye week. All the other teams have to win 1 extra game. In addition top seeds are generally stronger teams. Each tournament structure gives a certain statistical probability, and over the long course, each seed would eventually even out so I wanted to see how expected probabilities matched up with reality.

    After plugging in all the numbers, I was pretty surprised to find out the huge spikes in statistical anomalies that have been taking place within the past decade. While prior to the 2000's the #1 and #2 seeds made frequent appearances and also won Superbowls on a regular basis, over the past decade the numbers were completely off the chart and over the past 7 years more than 80% of the time the #1 and #2 seed LOST the Superbowl. In fact more often, the higher seed lost.

    The amount of appearances of bottom seeds in the Superbowl increased, and generally, the lower seeds won at a higher percentage.

    In short, the odds were completely reversed. Top seeds which by default have a greater chance of appearing and winning due to playing 1 less game, were getting decimated in the big game and championship games by bottom seed underdogs to the point where it exceeded what one would normally accept as random variance.

    These anomalies started creeping up in the late 80's, early 90s where unusual things started popping up like for example the #5 seed showing up in a Superbowl the year after it was introduced. An immediate impact. Then never to be seen again until the past decade. But in general throughout the 90's #1 and #2 seeds dominated the appearances, as one would expect, with a few 3 and 4 scattered in. The #3 should be more rare than the #4 and for 20+ years, it was, but in the past decade once again we had an increase, appearing twice in the superbowl in a 3 year span. Now seeing the first, the Panthers in 2004 wasn't so bad, but when the 2nd one showed up 2 years later it raised some eyebrows especially when you consider it was Peyton Manning's team that held this #3 seed, and it was part of this consecutive 1-6 seed winning streak. When you start looking at who the #6 and #5 seed winners were(hint: Steelers vs Seattle) it just raises more eyebrows. In general these lower seeds that are popping up in superbowls and defining the odds....always seem to be the big market or popular teams. Steelers, Colts, Patriots, Giants, etc. I should also point out last year the NFL took a poll prior to the playoffs and asked the fans what their favorite superbowl rematch would be. Patriots vs Giants 2 was 1st by a significant number.

    Of course in the middle of this amazing streak, where all 6 seeds won a Superbowl and dominated by low seed underdogs, we still managed to have a #1 vs a #1 Superbowl matchup in that same 6 year span. So wonderful for us fans. Simply put, this was the most ideal parity and seeding match ups one could ever hope for and imagine, upsets galore and underdogs didn't just win, they have been regularly dominating the results. Too good to be true. Made me remember reading an article praising Roger Goodell on his work to achieve NFL's amazing parity where he himself point it out...it was pretty much perfect.

    But I didn't look just at seeding, I also did it with regular season win-loss records, and once again prior to this past decade, the teams with the best winning records, generally got the better seeds, appeared in and won more Superbowls. Winning % was a pretty good indicator before. Not so anymore. I also looked at the championship games, and found the same oddities where recently, the teams with the better records and better seeding were getting knocked out early or losing the championship games.

    I actually had to go back to the 1970's when there was a different tournament playoff structure to actually find a time period where seed appearance and winners matched up with the statistical probabilities dictated by the tournament structure.

    Draw your own conclusion but personally when seeing so many anomalies, the data pointed to the conclusion that this variance wasn't random. There just was no mathematical, statistical and probability explanation for it to change so drastically(even with the re-arranging of divisions) and go against what the tournament structure was designed to churn out. It was manipulated.
    Last edited by ytfootballfan; 12-15-2012 at 06:43 AM.

  13. #73
    Veteran
    Join Date
    Aug 2012
    Posts
    1,013
    Post Thanks / Like
    Quote Originally Posted by CleatMarks View Post
    The funny thing about the tuck rule is that nobody paid attention to it before that playoff game.


    It was actually called in 2001 in the Jets favor during the NE vs Jets game in week 2 of that same season. Nobody remembered it though or even thought about it until that playoff game.
    I remember that play. I jumped up and yelled "that's a fumble, that's a fumble" when Testaverde lost it. It always looks like a fumble because the QB clearly isn't attempting to throw the ball.

    After hearing the rule explained by Mike Periera it makes sense. There's no way for the ref to know if the QB is about to throw it or not, so once the arm starts forward it will be interpreted as an incomplete pass even if he puts it away.

    I think the uproar was caused by the crying of Jim Nantz after the game. I can't blame him though, he knew that the flock would follow his lead, and they have.

  14. #74
    All Pro
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Posts
    6,012
    Post Thanks / Like
    For many decades now...the fix in boxing has been accepted as a fact by our mainstream culture. Fighters taking a dive. Boxers being robbed of the decision by crooked judges. An underdog about to fight a champion on his home turf. He'll tell you..."I can't let it go the distance...I can't put this fight into the hands of the judges...I gotta knock this guy out." We know what he means.

    Here's Brando...at his best...as an ex boxer years later...after the fix killed his dreams of being a champion...

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wz6YMrJt7xk

    For most individuals involved in professional sports...they want the dream. They want to be a champion. And in the NFL...that means a Super Bowl ring on their fingers...and the experience of hoisting the Lombardi Trophy over their heads.

    But for a handful of individuals...well...I had a friend that was a computer science professor. One time...when we were visiting Mary Jane...he told me that he put together the computer program, and was in charge of it, for a sports betting syndicate. Knowing how much I was into football...he told me of the bets being placed with this syndicate on NFL games. Sometimes by NFL officials...players...refs...etc.

    I didn't doubt him...but I disrespected him...for involving himself in something like this. Guess its because I was still one of those
    dreamers...even though I was never going to have it fulfilled at the NFL level. But this guy obviously wasn't one. In fact...in his own professional way...he was the Iceman that cometh...the poisoner of your drink...that kills your dreams. That was the last time I ever saw him.

    I know there's always a possibility that a crooked individual coach on the sideline...a player or ref on the field...that can effect the score of the game. Succeeding in beating the give or take odds. But they can't necessarily guarantee that. Or assure victory for one team over the other. It can happen. But they can't guarantee it.

    Why do I feel that way? Cause IMO...there's way too many dreamers/believers among coaches and players...and not that many Judases among these ranks.

    Sure...I'm projecting on how I fell about the game of football. Am I somewhat delusional...maybe...but I think I know who I am.
    Last edited by GreenReaper; 12-15-2012 at 01:10 PM.

  15. #75
    Practice Squad
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Posts
    456
    Post Thanks / Like
    Quote Originally Posted by ASG0531 View Post
    And yet, people are willing to believe the Pats had an intricate system of taping, analyzing, and decoding opponents' signals to significantly influence games for a decade, yet any player or coach who left to another team kept their mouths shut and just let the Pats run all over their new team while blatantly taking advantage of them. Makes perfect sense.
    Um... I think one former Pats coach didn't keep his mouth shut when the Pats tried to do it to his new team

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  

Follow Us