Narcosys
-
Posts
6,792 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Gallery
Events
Blogs
Posts posted by Narcosys
-
-
7 minutes ago, Superman said:
Didn't both teams fail to win in regulation? Both teams are in OT. Acting like the team that doesn't get possession deserved to lose anymore than the team that did get possession is absurd.
Here's the gist: If OT was new to the NFL, if we were formulating OT for the first time right now, there's absolutely no argument supporting a format that doesn't give both teams possession.
Yes it is. Anything that basically amounts to 'this is how we've always done it' is lazy reasoning.
The "slippery slope" fallacy rears its ugly head.
When OT starts, the game is tied. Once the ball is kicked off, the receiving team's win probability typically increases by 5-10 percentage points, depending on where their starting field position is. And all they've done is win the coin toss. They're in OT just like the kicking team, but now they have a greater probability of winning, for no reason other than the result of a coin toss. It's not based on merit, it's not based on the outcome in regulation, yet the receiving team gets an advantage and the kicking team gets a disadvantage.
And all your argument says is either 'this is how we've always done it,' or 'we can't have unlimited overtimes.' Or -- the worst argument I've ever heard on this topic -- 'both teams deserve to lose.'
Maybe let somebody else take a stab at this one. You're not providing any legitimate argument for why both teams shouldn't get a possession, you're just offering senseless platitudes.
Does anyone really have a problem with how college ball does it?
-
1
-
-
5 hours ago, esmort said:
I do not believe you are interpreting the laws correctly and/or not taking into account other laws that would cover fixing games. I am not a lawyer, and I am not going to devote the time to do the legal research it would take to list the laws and cases; but I know there are a couple posters who are lawyers that could probably weigh in.
I am not going to say a referee has never been paid off, but in the big picture it would be nearly impossible to fix games on the level many here are suggesting (too many moving parts, too many people who would have to stay quiet, etc ....). If the NFL was legally allowed to fix games there would be multiple discussions of it in sports media. There would be entire sections in sports law classes devoted to it, I know many people who have taken those classes and never was it ever even mentioned.
The main proof ... why risk killing the golden goose. They are going to make their money without fixing games; and IF they were doing it there would be so many MUCH more profitable "storylines".
The reason you are not going to devote time is the same reason nobody else really does. Thus nothing ever really gets proven or scrutinized. People will continue to believe what they want because they don't want to question it.
Why would the sports media call out something they are making money from? Would you really delegitimize the very thing your making your livelihood from? I think not, therefore why even attempt to question it. Plus, this isn't common knowledge. Nobody in the sports media cares to research the laws because they do not see it as real. Once you look into it, it could very well be a possibility, but you don't know what it is that you don't know. There is nothing to discuss because they are legally allowed to do it only by what they are told they cannot do. Nothing explicitly states it, but therein lies the reason they can do it, because nothing explicitly says they cannot either.
The go to argument against saying there are to many moving parts is a fallacy. You only need the refs for the most part. That is not a lot. The refs are not permitted to talk to the media, and guaranteed they are under non-disclosure agreements about anything the NFL does or does not do. So long as the games go as they want, there is nothing to be done, but if not the refs can help. It does not need to be all 256 games, only select few to ensure certain teams are in the playoffs and certain teams make it to the championships.
-
1
-
-
45 minutes ago, jskinnz said:
To the bolded - please cite the court case where fixing an NFL has been made legal.
The 2010 spygate case. The ruling provided does not explicitly state they can, yet the ruling contends the NFL is only an entertainment event as argued by the NFL. The wording of the ruling allows for wiggle room. There are also currently no laws on the books that prevent a sports organization from influencing the outcome of their own events (look to WWE as example). The quiz show act only applies to contests of intellectual skills and knowledge. Nor does the sports bribery act apply because it applies to those outside of an organization from influencing the events within.
-
1 hour ago, GoPats said:
I respect your opinion but personally I think you're taking human error and turning it into something it's not.
Fair enough, but at some point there's some things that cannot be chalked up to human error, that rams game and the video I posted previously. Those are just far too blatant. At what point do these coincidences become more than that?
-
1
-
-
2 hours ago, Jared Cisneros said:
Honestly, what is Peyton better than Brady in? Strictly as a QB, Brady and Peyton are equals in the regular season, record-wise and stats-wise for the most part. In the postseason, Brady crushes Peyton and is clutch, while Peyton chokes. You can give the credit to Belichick all you want, but Manning had Dungy with him for a lot of his career. If Brady was a "system" qb as a lot of people say, than a "system" qb was putting up similar stats to Peyton Manning with a worse offense. Again, you are using excuses like Belichick as a last line of defense. You take the hand you are given. If Brady was on the Colts, you'd be saying he was no1. It's team bias, and most people have it. Enough is enough though, it's his 9th SB. Quit being so petty.
Devils advocate, does it really matter or can argue he is if it's scripted?
-
5 minutes ago, King Colt said:
It can't be said in the media for fear of the impact but to miss that PI call smells real, real bad to the point I don't believe the play was missed but ignored.
Two refs were there with two drastically different angles. It was ignored
-
This should not have become a brady vs manning debate. Its old news and no-one agrees.
-
2 minutes ago, Jared Cisneros said:
I know, and that's why I believe games are rigged. I don't expect robot refs, but until you offer the option to challenge their penalty flags, I will always be of the opinion that these games are an inside job. The more and more this type of thing keeps happening, the more the public will wise up to it, and the more likely there is some type of leak by a retired ref on the process in the future. The only reason I believe it hasn't been leaked already is that there would be a hit on any ref who revealed details on what's going on, so they keep quiet.
Powerful NDAs are all you need. Who would want to be on the hook to repay the NFL for billions?
-
12 hours ago, rock8591 said:
Overtime is the price you pay for not winning in regulation.
Especially for allowing a TD (not a FG) on the first drive in OT; Chiefs deserved to lose.
The offensive side deserved to lose because their D didn't get a stop?
Logic lacking.
-
14 minutes ago, Jared Cisneros said:
I would say one per half, and they can automatically review any penalty in the last 2 minutes of each half. That would effectively eliminate the refs power to change games with poor penalties.
Won't happen.
-
9 hours ago, BOTT said:
They should allow each team one challenge per half and that's it. No more automatic reviews or any of that crap. Games are long enough as it is.
It won't increase the time. Three challenges are still three challenges, regardless of what you're challenging. There's more commercial timeouts than anything.
-
13 minutes ago, GoPats said:
No disrespect here, but I'm not quite following you.
I disagree with the notion that games are "fixed" because, with a football game, that's virtually impossible.
I also don't see how you guys would think the NFL really WANTS the Patriots to keep winning. If they're "fixing" games for New England, they sure have a funny way of going about that. Unless you count taking draft picks away (and suspending Brady) as part of it...
I may be completely misreading you here though. If I am, my apologies.
Impossible?
Do you not see the refs on the field? Did you not see the PI that wasn't called that allowed the Rams to win? Numerous other games with no calls or phantom calls like the roughing the passer that saved the patriots drive and game. Draft picks and four games is not enough to prevent the games from being scripted.
How about this
Or just this fun fact:
The NFL argued in court that it is not a competitive sport, rather sports entertainment. They won and are LEGALLY allowed to fix games for the best entertainment, that which gives them the best profits and ratings.
Only other "sports entertainment" is WWE and roller derby.
They are not obligated to ensure fair games, as made evident in the Chiefs Colts game. When Chris Collinsworth says that its bad when talking about the Colts, that says something lol.
Kraft got Goodell the job and has kept him in power. Repayment is championships. It is also grand entertainment when Brady overcomes these 'setbacks' and still manages to win. Even players have hinted at it in the past.
Refs have huge sway over the outcome of the game. And if the league understands it is about entertainment, then they will comply. When the league shares revenue as they do, then it is in the leagues best interest to ensure the storyline that will generate the most revenue, not the actual best teams. That's just one example of how the league is set up to benefit from entertainment and not competition.
Would a colts and cowboys game really generate as much ratings and revenue as the patriots and rams? Not saying they aren't the best teams, just giving example.
There's tons of shady things when you go looking. The most famous argument is SB III, without it, the league would not be what it is today.
I'm just saying look into it.
-
3 hours ago, GoPats said:
Here's a link where you can find movie times in the Indy region on 2/3/19:
https://www.fandango.com/indianapolis_+in_movietimes?date=2019-02-03
(Seriously, you guys are bitter, lol...)
Not bitter, just foresaw the trend and storylines. There has been a team to win at least 3 SBs every decade since 1970, patriots were the only ones to do it this decade. They had the storyline for brady and belichik already before the confetti even finished falling. Evidence of other games that fit scripts and rectified outcomes during the season (I.e. browns redskins game was terribly blatant). Im over getting mad at games now that I see it. Mahomes will most likely be the next Brady for the AFC honestly (unless pats draft some 'all time great' again).
Brady retires this year or next if he doesn't win, but guaranteed one when he announces retirement, just like every other great has. People were calling patriots to win this year, not because they were good, but because it makes a nice story and fits the script.
Unless you research yourself, can you really mock?
-
-
6 hours ago, Lucky Colts Fan said:
Shoulda kept my big stupid mouth shut...
Called it weeks ago, and they were pushing "Brady's first SB" narrative immediately.
-
1
-
-
-
2 hours ago, Lucky Colts Fan said:
What if your theory on storylines is true?
A Pats/Rams SB would be a fitting end to Bradys' career.
Brady started his career with a SB win against the Rams - aka "the greatest show on turf". What if he capped his career with a SB win against a Rams team with McVay the prodigy HC and arguably the most talented team in the NFL?
There's evidence of rigging already. Browns redskins game had a fumble by the browns RB, before the ref even got there to rule the browns rb was standing up away from the pile with the ball...The ref ruled the redskins had it and nobody but a couple of browns players acknowledged the fact they had the ball before the pile even began.
-
2 minutes ago, Jared Cisneros said:
I agree. I believe if he beats the Chiefs, he will announce he will retire after the AFC Championship heading into the SB. That is of course, good and bad for Colts fans should it happen.
Ya, they already are setting up the defense of the patriots and the fact brady has already beaten the Chiefs, that weather isn't a factor. We'll see.
-
1
-
-
Just now, Jared Cisneros said:
At this point, the options are waning. They could do a rematch of the Pats/Rams SB where the Rams get their revenge in LA. I think the Pats will only win another one when Brady officially announces he will retire if it goes by storyline. We'll see.
His contract is up after next season. He could call it after this one. Where championships count, nobody will ever get 6 again.
-
1
-
-
5 hours ago, Jared Cisneros said:
I'm doing the "jinx" on the Pats by betting on them to win against the Chiefs. If they win, I make $20. If they lose, they are eliminated and I'm still happy. If the Pats beat the Chiefs, I will bet on them to win the SB as well and try to jinx them. It's the only way to make the game fun and try to profit in some way out of it.
Do what do you think? Pats win it all, Brady and belichick get their 6 in the same stadium as saban. Belichick and saban would be the same age when they get their 6th, 66 years old. This year or next (brady last year) they are going to win.
-
It really was amazing to see all these accounts that are 3+ years old but only have less than 200 posts. Some hadn't even signed in since 2016.
-
20 hours ago, Lucky Colts Fan said:
We definitely have the "Reich" guy as HC.
-
1 hour ago, chad72 said:
Is that what you meant to say?
Brady's 6 will have a new meaning if he does. Like Phil Jackson, like Michael Jordan, having that many rings in a team sport in the current era will put you on a different level.
Yes go look. Each decade since 1970 a team has won at least 3: the steelers, 49ers, cowboys, patriots, and patriots again for 2010s if they win.
-
Patriots are winning it this year, if not this year then guaranteed next year. Belichick gets his 6th in the same stadium and same age that Saban got his. Brady will get one before he retires, his contract is up next year and will be the oldest winning SB QB. Since the 1970's, one team has won three SBs each season. Pats are the only ones capable.
Yet Another Reason To Change The OT Rule
in NFL General
Posted
In basketball, is it the first to make a basket? How about soccer or hockey?
NFL is the only one that is that first one to score wins (FGs excluded for those that want to be petty).