Jump to content
LJpalmbeacher2

Concerning Super Bowl

Recommended Posts

On ‎1‎/‎21‎/‎2019 at 12:55 PM, GoPats said:

If there's something you want to say to me you should say it... I'm a big boy, I can handle it Gramz. I consider us pals but I also found a way to be happy for you every time the Colts or Broncos beat the Patriots. 

 

 

I think I addressed this earlier, but I have been thinking about it a little more,  and yes,  you were very gracious Peyton's final year when the Broncos beat the Pats and he and the Broncos went on  and he got his 2nd SB :lombardi:.    

 

Aside from a select group,   I think the majority of NFL fans, and fellow athletes and players were also very happy for him.      It's a little different scenario. than watching Tom and the Pats in practically every  AFC game and several Super Bowls for the better part of the past two decades.

 

 Years earlier it appeared that Peyton may have be done for good...   after his surgery he could barely toss the football to his wife Ashley, let alone step foot on the field and be competitive.   He worked Hard to get back to where he was.   It was impressive, it was admirable, and pretty spectacular that he accomplished that.   I still get emotional when I think of how hard he worked.

You knew how much that SB win meant to me, and you did reach out with very kind comments.  I remember well.

 

If I said something this week that you thought was harsh,   I meant no offense to you personally,  and if I said something that gave you that impression, I apologize.

 

I know you are happy to see your team return to the big stage once again.   As a friend,  I am happy for you,  just not happy about the overall situation.     The outcome of the Saints/Rams game and the drama involved with the non-call  had left a sour taste with me regarding the NFL before the Pats/Chiefs game even started.    At this point I have no interest in watching the game.   That is in no way meant to be offensive to you.   I understand your excitement.  I've been there several times myself.  

 

Enjoy the game!

 

 

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

:flyingelvis:Super Bowl jerseys available

FB_IMG_1548208246836.jpg

 

/ meant as fun, folks.  haha

  • Haha 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, Narcosys said:

 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.

 

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".

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Narcosys said:

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.

 

I do not believe it is happening and since I am only a fan I don't have a reason to spend the necessary time to research it.  But, I am sure plenty of other people do and have researched it.

 

1 hour ago, Narcosys said:

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.

 

Because many in the sports media don't just report on football, a story like this would make a journalist's career.  They would question it because not every journalist (even sports journalists) is beholden to the NFL.

 

1 hour ago, Narcosys said:

Plus, this isn't common knowledge.

 

If it's not common knowledge how are you privy to it.  It's a conspiracy theory

 

1 hour ago, Narcosys said:

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.

 

A law doesn't have to specifically say "NFL you are not allowed to do X" for it to be illegal.  There are plenty of laws covering all aspects of business, sports, etc ... which could apply.  There is no law on the books that specifically says "esmort you are prohibited from hitting people in the head with rocks", but there are dozens if not hundreds of laws that will cover that situation.

 

I am not even going to go into the mess of laws and regulations that come into play with sports betting (especially with its expansion), and fantasy being allowed online because it is a "game of skill".  I am sure there are many laws in this area that prohibit fixing NFL games (even if they don't mention the NFL specifically).

 

1 hour ago, Narcosys said:

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.

 

It's not a fallacy ... it's naive to think fixing a multi-billion dollar industry only takes a few refs. First - who is driving the ship ... Goodell? The owners of the teams aren't that stupid ... So all the owners must be in it on it right?  Except a lot of the owners are worth far more than their team and aren't in it for the money. So Billionaires like Jerry Jones, Paul Allen, etc ... are all good with the Patriots narrative? I think not (too many big egos being just one of many issues). 

 

So now on top of all that you got the refs you have paid off and any other organizational people who might have been brought in, found out, etc ... and not one has gotten greedy and demanded more money and went public when they didn't get it (or decided to leak it to TMZ for a nice payday)? Come on now!!!

 

Like I said in an earlier post I am sure there have been isolated instances of paid refs shaving points etc... throughout the years, but this idea that the entire league is rigged is a ridiculous conspiracy theory.  There's too much to lose; and if they have been "rigging the narrative" they haven't been doing a very good job because there are tons of games and championships that they could have "arranged" that would be far more profitable for both viewership numbers and growing the brand than what "they set up"!

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
17 hours ago, Gramz said:

I think I addressed this earlier, but I have been thinking about it a little more,  and yes,  you were very gracious Peyton's final year when the Broncos beat the Pats and he and the Broncos went on  and he got his 2nd SB :lombardi:.    

 

Aside from a select group,   I think the majority of NFL fans, and fellow athletes and players were also very happy for him.      It's a little different scenario. than watching Tom and the Pats in practically every  AFC game and several Super Bowls for the better part of the past two decades.

 

 Years earlier it appeared that Peyton may have be done for good...   after his surgery he could barely toss the football to his wife Ashley, let alone step foot on the field and be competitive.   He worked Hard to get back to where he was.   It was impressive, it was admirable, and pretty spectacular that he accomplished that.   I still get emotional when I think of how hard he worked.

You knew how much that SB win meant to me, and you did reach out with very kind comments.  I remember well.

 

If I said something this week that you thought was harsh,   I meant no offense to you personally,  and if I said something that gave you that impression, I apologize.

 

I know you are happy to see your team return to the big stage once again.   As a friend,  I am happy for you,  just not happy about the overall situation.     The outcome of the Saints/Rams game and the drama involved with the non-call  had left a sour taste with me regarding the NFL before the Pats/Chiefs game even started.    At this point I have no interest in watching the game.   That is in no way meant to be offensive to you.   I understand your excitement.  I've been there several times myself.  

 

Enjoy the game!

 

 

 

Thank you Gramz! My interactions with you over the years have definitely had an influence on how I felt about the rivalry, etc. There is always a silver lining and mine was folks like  you and Jaric getting to enjoy the thrills of watching your team win. I appreciate your response very much and my apologies as well if anything this week was over-the-line. :thanks:

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
23 minutes ago, GoPats said:

 

Thank you Gramz! My interactions with you over the years have definitely had an influence on how I felt about the rivalry, etc. There is always a silver lining and mine was folks like  you and Jaric getting to enjoy the thrills of watching your team win. I appreciate your response very much and my apologies as well if anything this week was over-the-line. :thanks:

Thanks!  Our conversation here could have and maybe should have been in the personal messenger, but I thought some of the newbies reading this should understand you're one of the good guys, 

 

A good poster who has in fact, been around here even longer than me. haha

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I may not be interested in the Super Bowl, but I must say it's been nice connecting with all of you again this season and chatting on here.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, esmort said:

 

I do not believe it is happening and since I am only a fan I don't have a reason to spend the necessary time to research it.  But, I am sure plenty of other people do and have researched it.

 

 

Because many in the sports media don't just report on football, a story like this would make a journalist's career.  They would question it because not every journalist (even sports journalists) is beholden to the NFL.

 

 

If it's not common knowledge how are you privy to it.  It's a conspiracy theory

 

 

A law doesn't have to specifically say "NFL you are not allowed to do X" for it to be illegal.  There are plenty of laws covering all aspects of business, sports, etc ... which could apply.  There is no law on the books that specifically says "esmort you are prohibited from hitting people in the head with rocks", but there are dozens if not hundreds of laws that will cover that situation.

 

I am not even going to go into the mess of laws and regulations that come into play with sports betting (especially with its expansion), and fantasy being allowed online because it is a "game of skill".  I am sure there are many laws in this area that prohibit fixing NFL games (even if they don't mention the NFL specifically).

 

 

It's not a fallacy ... it's naive to think fixing a multi-billion dollar industry only takes a few refs. First - who is driving the ship ... Goodell? The owners of the teams aren't that stupid ... So all the owners must be in it on it right?  Except a lot of the owners are worth far more than their team and aren't in it for the money. So Billionaires like Jerry Jones, Paul Allen, etc ... are all good with the Patriots narrative? I think not (too many big egos being just one of many issues). 

 

So now on top of all that you got the refs you have paid off and any other organizational people who might have been brought in, found out, etc ... and not one has gotten greedy and demanded more money and went public when they didn't get it (or decided to leak it to TMZ for a nice payday)? Come on now!!!

 

Like I said in an earlier post I am sure there have been isolated instances of paid refs shaving points etc... throughout the years, but this idea that the entire league is rigged is a ridiculous conspiracy theory.  There's too much to lose; and if they have been "rigging the narrative" they haven't been doing a very good job because there are tons of games and championships that they could have "arranged" that would be far more profitable for both viewership numbers and growing the brand than what "they set up"!

 

Decades ago a journalist, Jessica Savage, was given a new show called Frontline. I beleive it was on PBS.

 

I beleive near the end of the first season she did a piece if the NFL is Fixed? She said in the second season they will do a follow up with more information and assumption of fixing. 

 

Before the 2nd season came her car's brakes mysteriously malfunctioned and Jessica Savage Died in the car accident. The follow up story of if the NFL is Fixed never aired in Frontline's 2nd season or any others that followed.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

  • Thread of the Week

  • Topics

  • Posts

    • Remember,  we are not debating whether Spring is doable.   I've stated from the beginning that I agree.    It's not as bad as some here think it is.    It's doable,   No question.   We are debating whether Spring is preferable, or desireable.    So, when you write,  that you don't think you have to say more about an issue,  any issue,  I'm sorry,   but NO!     You DO have to say more.  A heckuva lot more.    Because YOU have the burden of proof.    My position is the Industry Standard.   Your's has, by comparison,  a handful of examples.   Some are recent.   That's great.   But I view that as a nod to the position that it's doable.    You view it as a possibility that it might soon become the norm.   I'm happy to wait until that actually happens.   As to your primary argument.....    that all the prep work has been done,  and if you make the changes in winter,  that the GM is not up to speed on what the current scouts and player personnel people have done.    Except there is this......   Your argument that you yourself use to others here who complain that changing in the spring is bad.   To quote you....   it's just one draft.    One free agency period.    And there will soon be another,  and then another....   and another.   One season is nothing in the grand scheme of things.   That is what you wrote (roughly) to posters who think making the GM change in the spring is outright terrible and stupid.    Which I strongly disagree with their positin.   Your argument makes my argument for me.    I want the new GM in the building ASAP.    So he can sooner evaluate his players.    His front office.    His scouts.    The entire program.   Waiting until May or June just delays that.    I want it to begin ASAP.   I'd expect that he can and would be able to make some level of difference in his first free agency and draft.    Plus,  I think you way, way over-dramatize the handicap the new GM has arriving in January.   He's the GM.    He's already got a ton of information in his head,  and in his notebooks, his binders.    He's not in as much of a bind as you like to portray.     So, with your desired scenario, this draft could be used for a system that the new GM doesn't even want to run.    Like Chuck running a 3-4,  when Ballard wants to run a 4-3.    Like Chuck wanted to run a power running game and a deep pattern passing game.    While Ballard favors a zone running game and a get rid of the ball quick, move the chains offense.     In your preferred scenario,  you're the one who is burning the first year the GM has,  not me.     I see little of the benefits and mostly an approach that screams....   "Gee,  I hope this works out."   By the way,  I didn't want this post to end without addressing one of your main points.   Your paragraph that starts with this:   My Point:  There are always good candidates...   same is true for head coaches and coordinators.    I'm sorry,  but I'm going to STRONGLY disagree with that argument.  And I think you'll retract that.    Every so often you'll see an article about how did the class of GM's from a previous year turn out?   Or head coach hires?    I used to tell posters here who hated Pagano that the class of head coaches that included Chuck,  that all of the other coaches got fired before Chuck.    That Chuck was the best of his class.   And that happens with GM's too.   A class gets hired,  and quite often most of them, sometimes all of them don't work out.   I believe my position has far more facts to back that up.    There isn't always a Sean McVey.  There isn't always a Kyle Shannahan.   There isn't always a Josh McDaniels.   There aren't 32 good GM's, or 32 good head coaches,  or 32 good offensive or defensive coordinators.   That's why so many teams struggle for years to get those spots right.   So, no, I absolutely reject the idea that there are always good candidates.    Sorry.   I know you believe what you're writing.   But honestly, this feels like one big thought experiment. Like you're trying to make a case for something you really don't believe,  but you're trying to see if you can make a good argument anyway.   And yet I know that's NOT the case.    That you really, honestly do believe this.    That's what I find so astonishing.    There's lots of opinion,  and not a lot of evidence to back this up.    As I've said from the get-go....   I think this is doable.    I just don't think it's desireable or preferable.  
    • To your last paragraph....   yes,  I agree that if a GM,  any GM, inherits a bad roster,  then no matter how OK his draft picks may be,   they will likely stick on the roster.   But if you're a GM inheriting a poor team,  and you draft players that are only somewhat better than what you originally had,  then the improvement in the team will only be so good.   Again,  from 4 wis,  to perhaps 6-7.    That wouldn't be bad.    That would be reasonable.   But when you suddenly pop to 10 wins,  including 9 of the last 10 in the regular season,  and you win on the road in the playoffs,   then there's got to be something more there than just the GM's new guys.    Those guys have got to be good.    You can't do that well simply because they're better than the previous guys.    They're much better.    Yes, the coaching staff is better and the systems the team is running are better,  but so are the players.    They have to execute.    And we did.   Better than we thought possible.    Certainly better than when we were 1-5 and looked like a candidate for a top-10 or even a top-5 draft pick.    The players are good.   They may not be great yet,  but they're really good and much better than what we had.    The results are all the proof you need.   Again,  thanks for the exchange....  
    • I missed the first couple innings, was keeping track on phone, didn’t realize things got chippy with the benches clearing after the Contreras HR! Seems the Cubs were playing with a little extra edge tonight, I love it!!! 
    • and then NE goes into KC and throws for 350 and Sony runs for 100+ on them. our O, and O game plan just sucked.   i get KC was good, but our O just sucked.
  • Members

    • Davvon2590

      Davvon2590 3

      New Member
      Joined:
      Last active:
    • ShakerColt

      ShakerColt 3

      Rookie
      Joined:
      Last active:
    • Introspect

      Introspect 179

      Member
      Joined:
      Last active:
    • Shadow_Creek

      Shadow_Creek 415

      Member
      Joined:
      Last active:
    • Kirie89

      Kirie89 22

      Member
      Joined:
      Last active:
    • luckyBatistuta

      luckyBatistuta 109

      Member
      Joined:
      Last active:
    • el duderino

      el duderino 61

      Member
      Joined:
      Last active:
×
×
  • Create New...