Hekker First Down

[Alaskan Ram]

I've seen fire and I've seen rain. I've seen bad calls that didn't go our way. I've seen lonely times when we did not get a win. But I'll always watch the Rams play again.

 

[OC_Ram]

Stan not only had capitol to finance the project he had the experience, brains, and connections to make it all work.

Big business leaves nothing to chance.

I believe when Stan bought his 30% it came with a clause to move Stl

Could this have been to depress the team value thus lowering the cost of the eventual buyout?

Do billionaires think this way?

 

[XXXIVwin]

Fixing certain games is how they can guarantee that it they continue to increase in value. It isn't 32 individuals. It is a conglomerate.

Again, I'm hoping Mac will answer this question, but I'd like to let you give it a shot too, Elmgrovegnome.

My two main questions-- WHO is doing this "fixing," and HOW are they doing it?

WHO is doing the fixing? Goodell? Jerry Jones? Some owners, but not all? Or all of them?

And HOW are they supposedly doing it? Bribing referees? If so, how many? Just the Head Refs, or the linesmen and the replay officials as well?

Fixing Pro Wrestling is easy-- just tell the wrestlers who is supposed to win, and they follow the script. But in the NFL, I assume you do not think the players are in on this grand conspiracy....right?

 

[kurtfaulk]

I believe when Stan bought his 30% it came with a clause to move Stl

Could this have been to depress the team value thus lowering the cost of the eventual buyout?

Do billionaires think this way?

i don't think so. there was alot of money flying around at the time and he wanted a piece of it from st louis.

.

 

[LesBaker]

I believe when Stan bought his 30% it came with a clause to move Stl

Could this have been to depress the team value thus lowering the cost of the eventual buyout?

Do billionaires think this way?

The stipulation for Kroenke buying his stake in the Rams was dependent on them moving to STL. Otherwise there was no deal. Keep in mind he was part of an effort to bring an expansion team to STL before the Rams venture.

Do you even know what he paid for the original stake, and then the final buyout??? Depressing the value is hilarious LOL. The vlue of the Rams went through the roof in the 21 years they were in STL versus what they were worth in LA before the move.

SK's own words.........here ya go.

"I've been around St. Louis and Missouri a major portion of my life," he said. "We worked hard to bring the (Rams) to St. Louis. We worked hard on the expansion process in 1993. We weren't successful but stayed in there and ultimately got an NFL team back into St. Louis.


"So it's not our desire to ever lead the charge out of St. Louis. So if that's sort of the implication, that's not why we're here. We're here to work hard and be very successful in St. Louis.

 

[Raptorman]

Had they called it the other way and saints challenged they wouldn't have overturned. It all went on how it was first called

 

[Mackeyser]

Thanks for the detailed and convincing response, Mac. I don’t have a dog in this fight, I just find it an interesting topic.

I think your point about the NFL legally classifying itself as “entertainment” is indeed valid and yes, potentially concerning.

I wish, though, that you would try to answer my questions— namely WHO exactly is setting the alleged “narrative,” and WHAT exactly are they doing to further this alleged narrative?

Let me put it this way— if the referees were collectively “reminded” on numerous occasions that close games are better than blowouts— well, that seems plausible. But pressuring refs to favor one team over another (to me) seems less plausible, since there is the risk of a referee refusing the bribe. Worse still, a tainted ref could become (ahem, ha ha) a whistleblower.

The incentive to push close games is obvious. The incentive to have compelling stories is obvious. What’s far less clear to me is WHO would establish the desired storyline and HOW they would accomplish pursuing it.

Nobody thinks coaches are pressured to forfeit games, right? Nobody thinks players are pressured to make mistakes on purpose, right? So the entire theory rests on corruptly influencing (multiple) referees— right??

Nobody who believes in this “narrative” theory seems willing or able to answer this question.

Specifically I think it’s the owners, not Goodell, who is more Director of Business Affairs for the NFL than Commissioner. I think Goodell has two jobs, make the owners money and steer the narrative. Seeing as Goodell is only good at the money part, it’s why the narrative part is so apparent.

How many times has someone likened the reffing of the NFL to the NBA in the 90s.

The owners know that the narratives bring them all more money and as anyone in sales knows, it takes $10 dollars to get new clients versus $1 to retain existing clients so retention is key. If the league is exciting, everyone wins even though only one team actually wins.

As for Dallas or GB or any popular team, there’s actually LESS incentive for them to be elevated because those fans watch win or lose.

As for the narrative, it’s not etched in stone so no one can scream fix like they could if some backup QB rolled the Patriots... that only happened because of that fluke play by the Vikes that knocked out the Saints.

Listen, I still watch because most football is still a contest as imperfect as it is. It’s only gets to feel bad if your team has had a great season only to not be part of the narrative. Well that and it feels like the NFL has started the whole narrative thing earlier every year...it’s getting as bad as the Christmas shopping season... pretty soon we’ll have July 4th Christmas sales...

 

[Mackeyser]

I believe when Stan bought his 30% it came with a clause to move Stl

Could this have been to depress the team value thus lowering the cost of the eventual buyout?

Do billionaires think this way?

No, I really think he wanted to do his home town a solid.

That said, it wasn’t long before the real estate developer inside saw the possiblities. And the NFL realized that Stan was maybe the only guy who could do it both as a billionaire and a real estate developer.

 

[XXXIVwin]

Specifically I think it’s the owners, not Goodell, who is more Director of Business Affairs for the NFL than Commissioner. I think Goodell has two jobs, make the owners money and steer the narrative. Seeing as Goodell is only good at the money part, it’s why the narrative part is so apparent.

How many times has someone likened the reffing of the NFL to the NBA in the 90s.

The owners know that the narratives bring them all more money and as anyone in sales knows, it takes $10 dollars to get new clients versus $1 to retain existing clients so retention is key. If the league is exciting, everyone wins even though only one team actually wins.

As for Dallas or GB or any popular team, there’s actually LESS incentive for them to be elevated because those fans watch win or lose.

As for the narrative, it’s not etched in stone so no one can scream fix like they could if some backup QB rolled the Patriots... that only happened because of that fluke play by the Vikes that knocked out the Saints.

Listen, I still watch because most football is still a contest as imperfect as it is. It’s only gets to feel bad if your team has had a great season only to not be part of the narrative. Well that and it feels like the NFL has started the whole narrative thing earlier every year...it’s getting as bad as the Christmas shopping season... pretty soon we’ll have July 4th Christmas sales...

Goodness, this is frustrating.

Mac, you’re one of my favorite posters, but I want to pull my hair out now.

I will now ask for a THIRD time that you (pretty please) try to answer my questions.

To repeat, for the third time: WHO (specifically) is behind the “narrative”? Are you saying that Goodell alone is doing it, and none of the owners are? And WHAT (specifically) is being done? Are refs being bribed with cold hard cash? If they’re only bribing a ref or two here and there, that would hardly constitute successful “narrative enforcement”. If you really want to ensure pre-determined matchups, you gotta bribe a whole slew of refs and linesmen and video review folks... right? If so, what’s to prevent one of the complicit refs from blackmailing the league and exposing the truth?

Look, one of my favorite movies is “Quiz Show,” about the rigged Game Shows in the 1950. So yeah, of course I believe that things can be corrupt. But rigging a Game Show is easy— not many people have to know about the scam, and if contestants know the answers ahead of time, you can guarantee a successful outcome.

But rigging multiple NFL games seems very, very difficult— at least without players being in on it. A LOT of people would have to be in on the scam, and faking calls—especially with the added layer of video review— would be hard to pull off without raising suspicion.

Anyway, as I say for the third time Mac, could you pretty please try to answer my questions? And BTW, even if I don’t agree with you on this one particular subject, I still appreciate your many posts and contributions to this board.

 

[dieterbrock]

But rigging multiple NFL games seems very, very difficult— at least without players being in on it. A LOT of people would have to be in on the scam, and faking calls—especially with the added layer of video review— would be hard to pull off without raising suspicion

Exactly.
The number of individuals who would be complicit in this venture would be astronomical.
No, at the end of the day it’s not sinister, it’s just human error that rears it’s head. These guys make good and bad calls.

 

[Ken]

I don't believe games are fixed or that there is some narrative the NFL is trying to get the refs behind. Mostly its just human error and inadequate refereeing of the game. But not calling the game straight up by the existing rules let's the referees have the ability to decide when to call a penalty in an effort to keep games 'competitive' as long as possible. When a sport has a rule(s) that is/are allowed to be broken without penalty 95%+ of the time, you have to question when it is called and why its called when the standard practice has changed to not call the penalty. The rules need to be enforced as written, or need to be rewritten. I do believe there is some level of 'parity policing', but not game or narrative fixing (with the probable exception of the 2001 playoffs). But who knows for sure. That's what happens when you don't bother to enforce the rules of your game adequately.

 

[dang]

For referees. I do believe that there is a conscious effort to balance things out in a game. By that I mean not letting one team benefit on 5 close calls with the opponent not benefiting on any. Perhaps the Woods reception that could have been ruled a non catch came into play when spotting Hekkers run. I also believe there is a conscious strategy on how a game will be officiated. So as a group the officiating crew may determine to allow a certain level of defensive holding on receivers or OL holding against DL. Just setting the level of tolerance before the game. I don’t think there is any instruction from the NFL to purposely assist one team or the other to influence who wins. That is crazy talk.

 

[FaulkSF]

Someone mentioned it earlier this year, if the spot is close refs are either going to rule 1st down or mark the ball well short (at least 1.5 feet or 0.5m for you imperialists).

There was an emphasis on speeding up the game to keep fans interested or increase fan viewership that they've lost over the last two years rather than addressing other issues.

Can't see i agree on either account, but as long as they spot consistently across the league it's not worth my time to complain about.

 

[OC_Ram]

The stipulation for Kroenke buying his stake in the Rams was dependent on them moving to STL. Otherwise there was no deal. Keep in mind he was part of an effort to bring an expansion team to STL before the Rams venture.

Do you even know what he paid for the original stake, and then the final buyout??? Depressing the value is hilarious LOL. The vlue of the Rams went through the roof in the 21 years they were in STL versus what they were worth in LA before the move.

SK's own words.........here ya go.

"I've been around St. Louis and Missouri a major portion of my life," he said. "We worked hard to bring the (Rams) to St. Louis. We worked hard on the expansion process in 1993. We weren't successful but stayed in there and ultimately got an NFL team back into St. Louis.


"So it's not our desire to ever lead the charge out of St. Louis. So if that's sort of the implication, that's not why we're here. We're here to work hard and be very successful in St. Louis.

30 mil I believe

Didn’t that 700 mil look cheap when compared to its LA value?

Here nor there, you can right if you wish, I don’t mind.

 

[LesBaker]

30 mil I believe

Didn’t that 700 mil look cheap when compared to its LA value?

Here nor there, you can right if you wish, I don’t mind.

I think I may be missing the point........

 

[Elmgrovegnome]

Well if they were following the script of the WWE, the Saints in your scenario would be the face (good guy) and the Rams would be the heel. (Bad guy). And the face always loses to the heel until they meet for the championship. So then Brees should have lost, so he could win in the playoffs...

I don't know the angle. Maybe there is no scripted final outcome this year. Maybe they are setting up some playoff storylines. My guess is that if they are then it will be about how the young team with the young coach was bested by the veteran QB and his long term Head coach. Can the Rams step up? Can Goff be the next Brees?

It could be a good lead in to the Rams winning it all.

 

[Elmgrovegnome]

Not one single thing you have mentioned is anything close to probable, in fact it's truly very nearly impossible to have this conspiracy you and others are claiming.

There is nothing to "believe", there is no evidence, and there is no manipulation.

People are just making this stuff up, plain and simple.



Then why did the Saints go 3-13 the season after Katrina hit? Why did they "make them wait" five years before "giving them a Super Bowl". It's an outrageous claim with nothing to back it up except you want it to be true.

The city was recovered within a couple of years. There was no "rising from the ashes". I have in-laws that live there some of whom had their life drastically altered. The rebuild was completed while they Saints were going 10-6, 7-9 then 8-8. There is no rising from the ashes 5 years later, that's just a weird thing to claim.

The Saints weren't good enough right after Katrina. I've said here that teams still have to do their part. They have to build a good roster with good coaches. They did reach with the Giants upsetting the Patriots but I don't think that they prefer it. It is too obvious.

It's a self governed sports entertainment business. They have no obligation to the fans. They can do what they want. They want to make money. So, how is it out of the realm of possibility that they wouldn't fix some outcomes? Do they do it every year? No, but they are doing it more and more. Evidence is how refs no longer call holding on the offensive line on pass plays. High scoring stat driven football is what we are being fed. Their own rules are being ignored, in the name dot money. That is enough for me to believe that the NFL fixes whatever it chooses.

 

[Elmgrovegnome]

I believe when Stan bought his 30% it came with a clause to move Stl

Could this have been to depress the team value thus lowering the cost of the eventual buyout?

Do billionaires think this way?

Yes. The NFL wasn't making the same money in St. Louis as they thought they could make in L.A.
So, they did whatever was necessary to facilitate the move. St. Louis didn't stand a chance of keeping the Rams.

 

[Elmgrovegnome]

Again, I'm hoping Mac will answer this question, but I'd like to let you give it a shot too, Elmgrovegnome.

My two main questions-- WHO is doing this "fixing," and HOW are they doing it?

WHO is doing the fixing? Goodell? Jerry Jones? Some owners, but not all? Or all of them?

And HOW are they supposedly doing it? Bribing referees? If so, how many? Just the Head Refs, or the linesmen and the replay officials as well?

Fixing Pro Wrestling is easy-- just tell the wrestlers who is supposed to win, and they follow the script. But in the NFL, I assume you do not think the players are in on this grand conspiracy....right?

The NFL owns the referees. They don't need to bribe them. I am sure the refs sign an agreement not to speak of what goes on. They wouldn't fight the NFL by coming out. They'd lose. Some refs are better at making the bad calls, some are less obvious about it. Vinovich is bad at it. I don't know who is deciding what. Is it the league president? The commisioner? A subcommittee? (The league has lots of them.) Or the owners themselves. If it meant getting richer, and increasing the value of their franchises, the owners would go along with anything.


And I don't think the teams aren't told. It only takes one call sometime to change a game, or to insure who wins in a close game. Think about earlier this year. I can remember the game but Saffold's block in the back. He was on an island. Everyone saw him block that guy in the back. It was obvious. But the flag was picked up. Refs aren't that dumb. One of them screwed up by not looking the other way. So they picked it up. That was a glaring incident. Most aren't that ridiculous. Hekker, not getting the first down was pretty bad.

 

[Mojo Ram]

They have enough money to have a few guys sitting in a room not watching anything and the send them the camera angles from the games.

I doubt it.