Is the NFL Fixed?

[dieterbrock]

I think the Buffalo Wild Wings comercials are all true. Clearly the officials are being influenced by bartenders keeping their patrons happy

 

[fearsomefour]

I voted "nay" and qualified my answer as "not fixed WWE style, but believe the NFL (or officials) put their thumb on the scale sometimes in an attempt to obtain a preferred outcome." And to answer your question, I watch a lot less NFL football these days. Still try to catch the Rams game if I can, but other than that, not so much. Haven't watched a non-Rams Thursday night game or a non-Rams Monday night game in years, and those were things I used to never miss.

Ok.
The question then becomes, if the product itself enjoys huge and (at least until recently) growing popularity and billions of dollars in revenue, why take a chance at throwing all of that away? A preferred outcome to what ends?
The Dallas Rams game for example. Neither team is a threat to be involved in a championship season, neither has made the playoffs for years. The TV money is already set and league knows what it is going to make.
Gambling? By whom and where? Off shore? Paying a ref $500,000 to throw a game to so you can make a couple of million? That could have legs, but, it would leave a money trail. These guys do have their finances looked at.
A family friend was a D1 college ref for years, working many big games and bowl games over the years, spending the last 10 years or so as a head official on his crew. It came to his attention that one of the guys on his crew bet college football, never the games he worked, but, would actively bet college games. He was suspended the next week, investigated and never worked another NCAA game.
The risk of gambling or other influence finding a ref or player to corrupt is never totally avoidable, but, it is a very good reason to keep pay high.
At any rate, I have never heard a reasonable argument to support the fix claim in the NFL.

 

[mr.stlouis]

There are those they help and those they don't.

 

[Prime Time]

I hope people here realize that the use of the word "conspiracy", which is never a word I use, is in fact it's own kind of social condemnation. Perhaps the worst thing someone can be labelled is a "conspiracy theorist", as it connotes crackpot, or one who shouldn't be listened to. It's the scarlet letter of credibility. But what does it really mean? It means a willingness to explore the undisclosed, the undiscussed, the socially uncomfortable. But we use it to squash conversation and exploration.

I've seen the term used regularly on this forum, especially as it pertains to my posts. Mostly because I'm frequently willing to step outside the traditional frames of socially acceptable conversation. It's a derogatory term, and I'm hopeful that the mods here see this and begin to temper its use as a conversational weapon.

You may not use the word but the implication is there nonetheless. For example in this very thread:

Why do soldiers die in war? Do you really think we went to Vietnam to stop Domino's from falling? People believe big lies. Joseph Goebbels understood this. So did Lenin, and others. It's not a big leap. The science is well developed.

Here you're bringing politics into an NFL thread implying that something other than what we're seeing is being done behind the scenes. Is that not a conspiracy theory?

Here's a thread you posted recently which btw I happen to agree with - Seven years later, Spygate continues to haunt Roger Goodell - this implys that the NFL and Goodell conspired to help out the Patriots. Is that not a conspiracy theory?

Here's a post by you - "What we're seeing now are the effects of biased referring.

And Ockham's razor reveals that this bias must be controlled by the NFL, as this is the explanation requiring the least number of assumptions."

What does this imply if not a conspiracy theory? I could go on and on but hopefully you get the point. You shouldn't be surprised if there are some members here who label you as a conspiracy theorist.

You may truly believe that you're one of the few who is "willing to step outside the traditional frames of socially acceptable conversation," and that you have "a willingness to explore the undisclosed, the undiscussed, the socially uncomfortable." Which implies that the rest of us are too dull and dim-witted to do that.

Remember that you challenged the mods here with your post so I am challenging you to take a closer look at how you put things, or at least not be offended by the way some here label you.

 

[LesBaker]

Nicely put and thank you PT.

 

[Stranger]

Except of course Stranger you refer to those who disagree as being "programmed" , which is no less a conversational "weapon"

You've made this point before and it's a good one. So, let me address it.

I agree that we are all programmed. What I have been hoping to highlight is ones self-awareness of this programming, and ones own ability to step outside of it, see it, and understand it.

What's really the issue is the breadth and width of ones ability to perceive reality. When I refer to being "programmed", I'm really trying to say that someone's perception of reality is narrowly defined, typically by the major media and institutionalized education. To step outside of that narrow field of programming takes work, openness and risk of social condemnation.

What's happening, especially with the use of loaded terms such as "Conspiracy Theorist", is that people who consistently step outside of narrow fields of agreed-upon perception are labelled. It's definitely a negative label, meant to shut down conversation & awareness of anything unsupported by the mainstream.

On the other hand, referring to someone as being programmed is an effort to initiate self-reflection and awareness... what does he mean by "programmed".... how am I programmed... where is the programming coming from... why am I being programmed? This is clearly not a mainstream term when it comes to describing how someone thinks, because it initiate a self awareness that is counter to the efforts of those that seek to program. In short, it's meant to be illuminating, rather than condemning.

WHEN you do use that it makes you look like you are locked into your "theories" of "conspiracy" ,which you have not proven to the satisfaction of the "programmed" .

One thing I can assure you of - I am not locked into any point of view. I can also assure you that I'm not going to accept the reality presented to me by a well polished Media & PR machine, which is expert in techniques of perception management.

As far as proof, well, that's always almost impossible to come by. The problem lies not only in the sophistication of the the perception management machine, but also in the institutionalized programming we've all been subjected to. One thing I've learned in my study of methods of perception management is that human belief systems are irrational & emotional, and therefore logic is not necessarily convincing. In fact, in a highly programmed brain, logic & evidence of a fact that is counter to this programming can create hostile emotional reactions in the subject.

Hence, proof and convincing one of that proof are almost irrelevant in the world of brain wiring & rewiring. It typically takes an emotional event to cause a brain to rewire, such as the Rams getting screwed out of SB36.

IOW FWIW ,you have no standing to complain about people being dismissive when you yourself are.

I think I do a pretty damn good job of being respectful here, even with points of view that are far from the norm. I really don't think I'm dismissive (Except in the case of one poster who I now have on ignore).

In the end even those who voted yes in this poll watch the games in hopes the Rams will win ,you yourself express your devotion to the Rams,devotion to a team that participates in lying to you? about the outcomes we so fervently wish for? devise draft strategies to enhance ,spend hours posting on this board about all the aspects of them down to whether the coach is responsible when we lose , who should be the quarterback ? I can't sell that contradiction to myself .

I don't root for people in soap operas, and if the league was fixed that's all it'd be a glorified soap opera ,so I doubt the complete acceptance of most of those yes votes , their actions as previously mentioned don't indicate a commitment to the conclusion, and neither do yours,you can't separate the Rams from the NFL,if we are being fooled the Rams are the entity we aught to be most upset with for toying with our emotions in the greatest measure ,about a lie.

I know what I'm watching. I think I have a very good understanding of what it is, why it exists, and why it's promoted, and why it is allowed to be manipulated as it is. But I still love the game, the players, the competition, eventhough it is performed within extremely tight constraints. Even within those contraints there are gaps for serendipity, unplanned events that create great excitement.

I also like the poeple here. I like the interchange. This is the only "entertainment" web site I visit. I don't watch TV, read newspapers, or visit facebook, so this is my social outlet.

Finally, I still watch a movie from time to time. So, yeah, it's fun, it's a release. But even with all of that, I probably only watch 1/4 of the games per season now. My attention for it has dropped considerably.

 

[Stranger]

Here you're bringing politics into an NFL thread implying that something other than what we're seeing is being done behind the scenes. Is that not a conspiracy theory?

No, I'd call that "Social Engineering"

You may not use the word but the implication is there nonetheless. For example in this very thread:

Why do soldiers die in war? Do you really think we went to Vietnam to stop Domino's from falling? People believe big lies. Joseph Goebbels understood this. So did Lenin, and others. It's not a big leap. The science is well developed.

Here you're bringing politics into an NFL thread implying that something other than what we're seeing is being done behind the scenes. Is that not a conspiracy theory?

Here's a thread you posted recently which btw I happen to agree with - Seven years later, Spygate continues to haunt Roger Goodell - this implys that the NFL and Goodell conspired to help out the Patriots. Is that not a conspiracy theory?

Here's a post by you - "What we're seeing now are the effects of biased referring.

And Ockham's razor reveals that this bias must be controlled by the NFL, as this is the explanation requiring the least number of assumptions."

What does this imply if not a conspiracy theory? I could go on and on but hopefully you get the point. You shouldn't be surprised if there are some members here who label you as a conspiracy theorist.

You may truly believe that you're one of the few who is "willing to step outside the traditional frames of socially acceptable conversation," and that you have "a willingness to explore the undisclosed, the undiscussed, the socially uncomfortable." Which implies that the rest of us are too dull and dim-witted to do that.

Remember that you challenged the mods here with your post so I am challenging you to take a closer look at how you put things, or at least not be offended by the way some here label you.

In order to continue the conversation further, I request that you please define "Conspiracy Theorist" for me.

 

[Thordaddy]

↑TD said:
IOW FWIW ,you have no standing to complain about people being dismissive when you yourself are.

Stranger replied:
I think I do a pretty damn good job of being respectful here, even with points of view that are far from the norm. I really don't think I'm dismissive (Except in the case of one poster who I now have on ignore)

TD then says:
Of course you think that ,but I'm telling you the way you describe your perceptions vs. those of others is as if you are enlightened and they are unwilling to become so,,it's insulting because it carries the exact same implications as just saying "oh yeah well your just dumb".
AND for the life of me I can't see how someone who claims all this extraordinary objectivity can't see it.

I don't disrespect your opinions nor perceptions ,what I have trouble with is your description of the thought processes of those you debate,it's just insulting to think you can conclude what information they've sought , been exposed to ,and arrive at an evaluation of their mind sets the way you are . EVEN IF you were right you'd be wrong to say so.
State your case leave the analysis of why someone disagrees to those who welcome it.

 

[Prime Time]

In order to continue the conversation further, I request that you please define "Conspiracy Theorist" for me.

First of all this is not a conversation that is to be continued on this thread. Secondly if you want to pm me to discuss it then that's fine. But remember that you brought this whole thing up in the first place so you have all the definition you need. "Perhaps the worst thing someone can be labelled is a "conspiracy theorist", as it connotes crackpot, or one who shouldn't be listened to."

 

[RaminExile]

The easiest way to push a conspiracy under the carpet is to call people conspiracy theorists precisely because the people covering the things up have managed to form an association between "conspiracy" and "crackpot" in peoples minds. Thus they are able to evade scrutiny by ridiculing the so called conspiracy theory and through mockery they are silenced. This is aided by planting friendly agent "crackpot" conspiracy theorists in order to further discredit the theory. It happens all the time in every walk of life.

Or you could just believe that everything is as we are shown it to be.

 

[Cardncub]

It's a simple, straight forward question. And you all know what I'm talking about. Please vote before you comment so that your opinion isn't influenced. I realize that by asking this question I am influencing your opinion. Sorry about that. But there is no way around it (ref: Goodell's Incompleteness Theorem).

Nice avatar!

 

[Stranger]

↑TD said:
IOW FWIW ,you have no standing to complain about people being dismissive when you yourself are.

Stranger replied:
I think I do a pretty damn good job of being respectful here, even with points of view that are far from the norm. I really don't think I'm dismissive (Except in the case of one poster who I now have on ignore)

TD then says:
Of course you think that ,but I'm telling you the way you describe your perceptions vs. those of others is as if you are enlightened and they are unwilling to become so,,it's insulting because it carries the exact same implications as just saying "oh yeah well your just dumb".
AND for the life of me I can't see how someone who claims all this extraordinary objectivity can't see it.

I don't disrespect your opinions nor perceptions ,what I have trouble with is your description of the thought processes of those you debate,it's just insulting to think you can conclude what information they've sought , been exposed to ,and arrive at an evaluation of their mind sets the way you are . EVEN IF you were right you'd be wrong to say so.
State your case leave the analysis of why someone disagrees to those who welcome it.

ok. I get it. That wasn't my intent.

 

[Stranger]

The easiest way to push a conspiracy under the carpet is to call people conspiracy theorists precisely because the people covering the things up have managed to form an association between "conspiracy" and "crackpot" in peoples minds. Thus they are able to evade scrutiny by ridiculing the so called conspiracy theory and through mockery they are silenced. This is aided by planting friendly agent "crackpot" conspiracy theorists in order to further discredit the theory. It happens all the time in every walk of life.

Or you could just believe that everything is as we are shown it to be.

+1

 

[Stranger]

First of all this is not a conversation that is to be continued on this thread. Secondly if you want to pm me to discuss it then that's fine. But remember that you brought this whole thing up in the first place so you have all the definition you need. "Perhaps the worst thing someone can be labelled is a "conspiracy theorist", as it connotes crackpot, or one who shouldn't be listened to."

ok.

Well, I'll leave it with what @RaminExile said and I quoted above. I think he addressed the issue quite nicely.

 

[blue4]

Easiest way for the NFL to make this go away is to allow review of judgment calls. What are they afraid will happen? That calls in big situations be correct? BS! Is it really so bad to have an extra guy up in the booth reviewing all judgment call? Maybe just on third down penalties or game altering penalties? To my mind it's far more damaging to the integrity of the game to get a blown PI call on 3 and 20 than to question the refs. All you would have is one more voice in the quick refs huddle who can say, "The hand never touched the helmet, just saw it on the film." The ref can then say there is no flag on the play. Literally 10 seconds at most to give a team a fair shake.

Only time I believe an actual attempt to decide a game in one teams favor was 2001. I know it sounds homer-ish, but the 9/11 factor, the Patriots name, and all the red, white and blue flag draping is too much to ignore or brush off. They get help to even get to the SB, then get a whole games worth of missed calls, spy missions and whatnot.

 

[CodeMonkey]

The game is probably too complicated for robots. But I do think every decision being reviewable (with the standard 2 challenges, but changed to unlimited if as long as you're correct) solves a lot of the problems.

Except how to review non-calls?

 

[CodeMonkey]

I would just like to point out that two NFL team owners have been convicted for fraud. And I'm comfortable in declaring that Goodell is a liar at best.

 

[CodeMonkey]

Games aren't fixed in the sense that the outcomes are predetermined. But I do know that players and officials can be bought.

This comment really has me thinking some unsavory thoughts right now... Especially the "players" portion of your comment. To me there really is no question that the officials are in the tank one way or another. Corrupt players, coaches or staff is something I hadn't really given much thought. But, it's true, many people who can affect things can be bought beyond the zebras. There's a lot of money and power at stake including gambling obviously.

 

[mr.stlouis]

I now accept the NFL is rigged and I love in vain. Dam that sucks...

 

[CodeMonkey]