Jump to content
Click here to get your free tickets for Colts Training Camp today!

Narcosys

Senior Member
  • Content Count

    6,073
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Posts posted by Narcosys


  1. 6 hours ago, jskinnz said:

     

    For the most part I believe this is the case.  I doubt it was league directed  but it seems clear to me that the officials decided to let the players decide the game and in doing so with the no PI call the officials actually decided it.

     

    There has been much talk about making PI a reviewable call in the last few days.  I don't think that is the answer because where does the line stop on judgment calls.  And it seems the game could really start to drag.  The solution for me is an emphasis on a penalty is a penalty regardless of the time of the game or the importance of a game.

     

     

    I don't get why people would say that t will drag. If you are limited on how many times you can challenge, then what is reviewable makes no difference. Three is three no matter what it is. 

    • Thanks 1

  2. 2 hours ago, JimJaime said:

    Not in that game, outside of the one bad Roughing the passer call they were allowing the Chiefs D get away with anything.. especially illegal contact and PI.. and they sure didn’t let the Pats get away with PI..  2 scores because of it and 1 TO negated by them.. if anything the refs were keeping the Chiefs in the game by calling it ONE WAY.. (not saying were bad calls just they missed just as blatant PI etc the other way)

    Hardly


  3. 12 minutes ago, Lucky Colts Fan said:

     

     

    What if they don't allow any kicking in OT?

     

    Both teams get at least one possession from their own 25.  You have to go for it on 4th down, have to try to get TDs, and have to try 2-pt conversions if you score.

     

    Nobody likes to see a game decided by a missed FG/XP anyway.  At least Bills, Bears, and Colts fans (among others) don't.  haha

    That's what were talking about, putting it on the 25 and 4 downs to score. Then keep pushing them back 5 yards if they are both successful. Only TDs, no 1st downs. I like the 2pt conversion requirement.


  4. 46 minutes ago, Superman said:

     

    It makes it easier for teams to score, making extra OTs more likely. Kicking isn't a factor, field position isn't a factor... It's a radical change that I don't think makes a lot of sense. 

    Forget timed OTs, just let them go at it and first to score after each get a possession wins.

     

    The only thing I can think is if they both score on the first possessions, then each get another set of possessions (maybe jest move the back 5 yards and 4 downs to score like before).

     

    If neither score on first possessions its first to score wins.


  5. 1 minute ago, Superman said:

     

    Yes. College completely changes the game in OT, and is more likely to result in a longer game.

     

    I don't understand what's wrong with simply giving both teams a possession. 

     

     

    I thought it was just me.

    But they do give a possession to both teams. It just makes it quicker to score. Put them on the 25 and say you've got 4 downs to score. Each get a turn and then first to score. Its the same way as you're suggesting except they don't have to go 80 yards.


  6. 4 minutes ago, Gramz said:

    In baseball, if it goes to extra innings, both teams get an at bat.  Fair.

     

    Why is it not the same in NFL..especially in A championship game?

    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).

    • Like 2
    • Thanks 1

  7. 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?

    • Thanks 1

  8. 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.

    • Like 1

  9. 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.


  10. 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? 

    • Like 1

  11. 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?


  12. 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?


  13. 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.

    • Haha 1

  14. 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.


  15. 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

     

    :thmup:

     

    (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?

×
×
  • Create New...