Posted:
#151
Ken & Hugh 
CD Super Bowl Newsletter
Posted:
#153
Quote Originally Posted by Biscuiteater1:
I'd be willing to bet that TANKING will be addressed, i see a lottery system or some form of deterent in the very near future.
IMO, if Flores was truly offered $ to lose, and that is proven, then a lottery system is possible simply to pacify the public.
If Flores claims are proven to be without merit, than the NFL will probably leave the draft process as it is because it works.
Teams have tanked for years. In the NBA it has been beyond blatant, so they went to a lottery system and teams are STILL tanking!
NFL teams have been tanking for a long time. The difference is that NBA teams intentionally lose games in the latter part of the season by sitting their better players, whereas NFL teams put an inferior product on the field at the start of the season by ridding themselves of quality players in the off-season.
Hue Jackson said that Clev had a written 4 year plan, and the first 2 years was to become the youngest team while stock piling draft picks. What is wrong with that? That is a great business plan and it worked! The Browns used the same approach to turning it around as countless teams before them.
bigreds daddy
Posted:
#157
Quote Originally Posted by 1129ken:
What I am trying to understand is why that corporate structure makes it less likely that team owners might object to something like tanking. If a team that is hurting, like the Colts, Dolphins, Browns, Bengals or others, decides it is in their best interests long-term to lose, would owners accuse other owners of wrong-doing ? Would fans object to "Suck for Luck" as the Colts go about their business of losing as a future-oriented business strategy to obtain Andrew Luck ? Why wouldn't the Bengals lose a few meaningless games to get Joe Burrow , particularly when winning an extra game or two means next to nothing in the short-term and is horrific strategy long-term ?
From there, I don't see it as an unrealistic stretch to suggest that the entertainment aspect of the business strategy might include using your employees (referees ?) to further a narrative like the post-Katrina Saints. Or to see good soldiers like the Rooney/Mara family prosper, meaning Ben, the Steelers, Eli and the Giants get their turn. Or to try to invigorate ratings in struggling markets like LA.
The corporate structure has no bearing on a teams ability or willingness to tank. Whether the NFL is a 501c, Corp, LLC, or registered as entertainment has no bearing on the legality of tanking and or fixing games.
Tanking for draft position has gone on for years, and is legal in the manner in which NFL teams have tanked in the past (see my previous post)
Fixing games is not legal, and IMO has not happened for any reason. At least not in the last 50 years. The risk far outweighs the rewards.
You make the argument that there are circumstances where a certain outcomes is desired, therefore manipulated through employees. Those circumstances will always exists in every sport.
Here are 2 arguments to counter that suggestion ...
1) Assuming that the NFL was fixing/manipulating outcomes, that would require the effort of a lot of people. In all these years not one of those involved has come forward? Not one?!?!? By coming forward, a retired ref would make countless millions and become famous for all eternity, not to mention clear his conscious before he dies. It doesn't seem feasible to me that it's possible that not a single person has blown the whistle.
2) By far the most popular team is the Cowboys. They are the most prominent, most valuable, most polarizing, get the most air time, and each and every year the TV ratings for Dallas games carry the entire league to larger TV contracts. To my dismay the Cowboys have not been in the SB in 26 years. That's not in the best financial interest of a single owner in the NFL. If the Cowboys were to remain relevant and get in the SB once every 5-10 years, each renewing TV contract, which is the leagues main source of revenue, would grow at an even greater rate than what it already is. If they are fixing outcomes to maximize story lines, exposure, popularity and profitability, then they would have America's Team win a little more often.
Sometimes I feel the only way the Cowboys will win another SB is if it is fixed 
bigreds daddy
Posted:
#158
Quote Originally Posted by undermysac:
@Hugh_Jorgan If you want to talk about tanking, the greatest time to take advantage is in the MLB. Especially when a club rids itself of good bullpen arms.
Tanking is real and happens in every sport.
You could say that tanking is the legal form of fixing an outcome, and theoretically you would not be wrong.
Here's the main difference, when a team tanks through roster depletion, everyone is aware of it before the contest starts.
If a contest is fixed, there is deception involved in an effort to take money from one hand and illegally put it in another hand.
Big difference.
bigreds daddy
Posted:
#160
@Hugh_Jorgan
1) Assuming that the NFL was fixing/manipulating outcomes, that would require the effort of a lot of people. In all these years not one of those involved has come forward? Not one?!?!? By coming forward, a retired ref would make countless millions and become famous for all eternity, not to mention clear his conscious before he dies. It doesn't seem feasible to me that it's possible that not a single person has blown the whistle.
This is the best argument one can make!
It's always hard for 2 people, to keep a secret between them, without one of them sharing it with another person. Imagine the level of coordination needed, in order to pull a fix in the NFL, where one of those involved doesn't feel the need to confess or share it with someone else, outside of those involved? That's really unlikely.
Also, how much can the prize be for a fix? I don't see the NFL even trying to do something like this, the risks overwhelmingly outweigh the benefits, because we are talking about billions of $ here. How much can one stake on a game to make it worth the fix, millions, at most? Any big payout would be immediately flagged and looked at, it wouldn't be worth the risk.
I agree refs can be biased, make mistakes, but this is a sport with a lot of variables involved, which entails a complex level of coordination. The more people you involve, the higher the risk everybody knows about it.
Accomplished time-waster
Posted:
#162
Quote Originally Posted by Hugh_Jorgan:
Quote Originally Posted by 1129ken: What I am trying to understand is why that corporate structure makes it less likely that team owners might object to something like tanking. If a team that is hurting, like the Colts, Dolphins, Browns, Bengals or others, decides it is in their best interests long-term to lose, would owners accuse other owners of wrong-doing ? Would fans object to "Suck for Luck" as the Colts go about their business of losing as a future-oriented business strategy to obtain Andrew Luck ? Why wouldn't the Bengals lose a few meaningless games to get Joe Burrow , particularly when winning an extra game or two means next to nothing in the short-term and is horrific strategy long-term ? From there, I don't see it as an unrealistic stretch to suggest that the entertainment aspect of the business strategy might include using your employees (referees ?) to further a narrative like the post-Katrina Saints. Or to see good soldiers like the Rooney/Mara family prosper, meaning Ben, the Steelers, Eli and the Giants get their turn. Or to try to invigorate ratings in struggling markets like LA. The corporate structure has no bearing on a teams ability or willingness to tank. Whether the NFL is a 501c, Corp, LLC, or registered as entertainment has no bearing on the legality of tanking and or fixing games. Tanking for draft position has gone on for years, and is legal in the manner in which NFL teams have tanked in the past (see my previous post) Fixing games is not legal, and IMO has not happened for any reason. At least not in the last 50 years. The risk far outweighs the rewards. You make the argument that there are circumstances where a certain outcomes is desired, therefore manipulated through employees. Those circumstances will always exists in every sport. Here are 2 arguments to counter that suggestion ... 1) Assuming that the NFL was fixing/manipulating outcomes, that would require the effort of a lot of people. In all these years not one of those involved has come forward? Not one?!?!? By coming forward, a retired ref would make countless millions and become famous for all eternity, not to mention clear his conscious before he dies. It doesn't seem feasible to me that it's possible that not a single person has blown the whistle. 2) By far the most popular team is the Cowboys. They are the most prominent, most valuable, most polarizing, get the most air time, and each and every year the TV ratings for Dallas games carry the entire league to larger TV contracts. To my dismay the Cowboys have not been in the SB in 26 years. That's not in the best financial interest of a single owner in the NFL. If the Cowboys were to remain relevant and get in the SB once every 5-10 years, each renewing TV contract, which is the leagues main source of revenue, would grow at an even greater rate than what it already is. If they are fixing outcomes to maximize story lines, exposure, popularity and profitability, then they would have America's Team win a little more often. Sometimes I feel the only way the Cowboys will win another SB is if it is fixed
Hugh, read this morning they are moving Super Bowl site to Dallas permanently. This is to stop a Super Bowl team from ever again having home field advantage.
Quote Originally Posted by 1129ken: What I am trying to understand is why that corporate structure makes it less likely that team owners might object to something like tanking. If a team that is hurting, like the Colts, Dolphins, Browns, Bengals or others, decides it is in their best interests long-term to lose, would owners accuse other owners of wrong-doing ? Would fans object to "Suck for Luck" as the Colts go about their business of losing as a future-oriented business strategy to obtain Andrew Luck ? Why wouldn't the Bengals lose a few meaningless games to get Joe Burrow , particularly when winning an extra game or two means next to nothing in the short-term and is horrific strategy long-term ? From there, I don't see it as an unrealistic stretch to suggest that the entertainment aspect of the business strategy might include using your employees (referees ?) to further a narrative like the post-Katrina Saints. Or to see good soldiers like the Rooney/Mara family prosper, meaning Ben, the Steelers, Eli and the Giants get their turn. Or to try to invigorate ratings in struggling markets like LA. The corporate structure has no bearing on a teams ability or willingness to tank. Whether the NFL is a 501c, Corp, LLC, or registered as entertainment has no bearing on the legality of tanking and or fixing games. Tanking for draft position has gone on for years, and is legal in the manner in which NFL teams have tanked in the past (see my previous post) Fixing games is not legal, and IMO has not happened for any reason. At least not in the last 50 years. The risk far outweighs the rewards. You make the argument that there are circumstances where a certain outcomes is desired, therefore manipulated through employees. Those circumstances will always exists in every sport. Here are 2 arguments to counter that suggestion ... 1) Assuming that the NFL was fixing/manipulating outcomes, that would require the effort of a lot of people. In all these years not one of those involved has come forward? Not one?!?!? By coming forward, a retired ref would make countless millions and become famous for all eternity, not to mention clear his conscious before he dies. It doesn't seem feasible to me that it's possible that not a single person has blown the whistle. 2) By far the most popular team is the Cowboys. They are the most prominent, most valuable, most polarizing, get the most air time, and each and every year the TV ratings for Dallas games carry the entire league to larger TV contracts. To my dismay the Cowboys have not been in the SB in 26 years. That's not in the best financial interest of a single owner in the NFL. If the Cowboys were to remain relevant and get in the SB once every 5-10 years, each renewing TV contract, which is the leagues main source of revenue, would grow at an even greater rate than what it already is. If they are fixing outcomes to maximize story lines, exposure, popularity and profitability, then they would have America's Team win a little more often. Sometimes I feel the only way the Cowboys will win another SB is if it is fixed
Posted:
#166
Quote Originally Posted by yaongingy:
I agree refs can be biased, make mistakes, but this is a sport with a lot of variables involved, which entails a complex level of coordination. The more people you involve, the higher the risk everybody knows about it.
To me, the biggest issue with officiating is referee bias.
Bias is inherent to human nature. Everyone has it, with nary an exception.
The problem with bias is that the person who is biased is not aware of it, therefore can not control it.
There was a very detailed paper written on this subject, which stated that bias amongst refs is very real ...
https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/joes.12106
Unfortunately, I refuse to pay the fee to read the entire article, but you can garner from the opening paragraph where the piece is headed.
bigreds daddy
to those who wager on pro bowl, ya gotta be nuts..kinda
Posted:
#171
@Hugh_Jorgan
Yeah it's well documented bias exists, because it's mostly unconscious and there have been a lot of studies, backing this up, studies done on a wide range of topics.
And there is another thing when it comes to bias, on the refs side, some plays can be borderline and bias can swing them, one way or another.
Accomplished time-waster
Posted:
#172
@Hugh_Jorgan
Very humorous comment. As I said yesterday, wit and wisdom.
Thanks for taking the time to delve into tanking, fixing and the accompanying rationales. Great information and opinions grounded in knowledge and logic.
I have a brother who believes that many games are fixed. His thinking is you just handicap the game and you'll be on the right side of the fix 50% of the time -------------------and, yes, he'll be betting the Pro Bowl once he figures out who the refs are.
Posted:
#174
They changed all the rules to enhance the chance of more points being scored, used to just be tackle football more or less. I do agree with defenseless receivers protections and head to head spearing calls and just old fashioned unsportsman like calls. If some of the 60 70's gb's enjoyed the rules of today their passing #'s would certainly been increased.
Posted:
#175
Quote Originally Posted by Biscuiteater1:
They changed all the rules to enhance the chance of more points being scored, used to just be tackle football more or less. I do agree with defenseless receivers protections and head to head spearing calls and just old fashioned unsportsman like calls. If some of the 60 70's gb's enjoyed the rules of today their passing #'s would certainly been increased.
And 80's They changed all the rules to enhance the chance of more points being scored, used to just be tackle football more or less. I do agree with defenseless receivers protections and head to head spearing calls and just old fashioned unsportsman like calls. If some of the 60 70's gb's enjoyed the rules of today their passing #'s would certainly been increased.
Hot Forum Topics
