bobobonators

I'm not assuming anything - the conspiracy theorists are the ones that are making all of the assumptions. Claim: The NFL wants the Pats to win. Well, the NFL consists of 31 other owners. Why do the 31 other owners want the Pats to win? And why have the Pats only won once in the last 9 years if that was the case? And what exactly is the reasoning/motivation behind the NFL wanting the Pats - specifically the Pats - to win? Why wouldn't the NFL want the Chicago Bears to win? The NY Jets to win? The Dallas Cowboys to win? All larger markets than NE. How many super bowls have those teams won in the last 20yrs? Is it a coincidence that all of the Pats' success in the last 15 years has to do with a guy named Brady being the QB and BB being the head coach? It's not rocket science. There is no conspiracy. Brady & BB are the greatest QB/HC combo in the history of the NFL. Their time will soon come to an end, but lets not lose our minds with these silly conspiracy theories in the meantime.

what the heck is it with people lately going off the deep end and thinking the NFL is rigged? rigged by who? Kraft? Goodell? Are all owners "in on it"? the notion is ridiculous. Rewarded by who???? The NFL is a business, you're right. And that business consists of 32 owners. So are the other 31 owners in on the patriots "cheating"? How do the Jaguars benefit from this "cheating"? And why the Pats? Why wouldn't the Titans owner want the Dallas cowboys to "cheat" and win the super bowl? After all, the Dallas market is bigger than NE. Why don't the owners just fix it so the NY Jets win it every single season. Or you know what, what about Goodell making the Bears win it every year. You guys see ghosts. It's sad. Since Goodell has been in office, the patriots have won ONE super bowl in 9 years. With Tagliabu in office, the Patriots won THREE super bowls (in three out of four years in early/mid 2000s). Was Tagliabu "in on it" too? Critical thinking in this country has been flushed down the toilet along with a lot of other things.

I think the reason skill is such a key word is bc its specifically mentioned in the online gambling act. As for some people stating that the online gambling act not being written for what fantasy sports has become: who cares. The only thing that fanduel does differently than traditional fantasy leagues is the duration of the league. Oliver's video is funny and all, but it demonizes DFS by comparing it to a hard illegal drug. Really? So 1/2 a fantasy baseball season is OK to join and win and get $. But a week long fantasy league is so mind-blowing that it has to be illegal. All this is much to do about nothing. If fanduel or draftkings are doing something illegal by having insider information on players, etc that the avg joe doesnt have than penalize them appropirately. But to say that DFS should be illegal while season-long fantasy leagues are perfectly legal is a waste of our society's time. Christ. Before you know it we cant join pick em leagues either: they dont require "skill" to win. Its all luck; chance. ILLEGAL!!!

I get what you're saying but thats a completely different argument for another day. What we're arguing here is strictly DFS and how they compare to regular fantasy leagues. Not to poker. So back at it: The true only difference between DFS and traditional fantasy is the duration of the league. So if fanduel did month-long leagues would people be ok with that? And why? And who determines exactly how long fantasy leagues should be in order for them to be "legal". To further undermine everyones complaints about fanduel: Espn and cbs and yahoo all allow you to create pick 'em leagues on their websites where you and your friends can PAY to join. These leagues all have season ending payouts. Furthermore, many of these leagues have WEEKLY payouts for the person who wins that week. (My cbs league is $50 to the weekly winner). How is that any worse than fanduel? Its not season-long. And you're technically still gambling. The truth is - its no different at all. So lets get down the REAL reason many people have an issue with fanduel/draftkings: 1. They cant STAND the commercials/marketing 2. They suck at DFS compared to their traditional fantasy leagues and it therefore offends them. And your post kinda addressed ur annoyance with DFS right off the bat with ur "red carpet" comment. It becomes a personal isssue for many bc for whatever reason they cant stand DFS and all of the attention that surrounds it.

I know. We've lost our last 2 vs them after winning our previous 2 in dominating fashion. Of course, one of the games we recently lost was that Tuel debacle. I read that their RB, West went down with a hammy injury. That would be a huge loss for them b/c he's been playing really well replacing Charles.

I'd say we have to run considering two of our most explosive players on offense are RB's. Why shy away from that? I feel that a team should play to its strengths and not shy away from them b/c of who your opponent is. The NE Patriots don't give up a lot of rushing yards per game (2nd best in NFL), but that's partly b/c teams are normally playing catch up with the Pats and have to pass more (they give up 4.0yds/carry though which is 11th best in NFL). Hopefully b/c the Patriots are banged up, they won't be able to move the chains as easily as they normally do. If our defense can keep the pats at around 24-27 points, I feel we can pull out a victory focusing on what we do best: running the ball, and taking a handful of shots downfield to Sammy as opposed to changing our winning formula.

I thought he finished the game despite the injury. Maybe I misread. I was referring to how quickly the decision was made. A partial tear may not be season ending..but I guess they knew it was a full tear.

The Ravens season is about mathematically done. No point in even trying to rush Flacco back. Now the organization has a legitimate excuse ("sorry fans, we went 5-11 but we didn't have Flacco) to fans to tank the season and nab a top 3-5 pick. Smart move.

What exactly is it that we're arguing here? 1. Does anyone here have any problem whatsoever with someone playing fantasy baseball. If I pay $200 to join a 10 team 5x5 roto league with the ability to win XXX money at the end of the season, is that gambling? Technically it can be considered a form of gambling, though to this point has been perfectly legal pretty much across the board for decades. 2. Same scenario as #1, but instead I join the league 1 month into the season (b/c I was lazy to join opening day). Does someone have a problem with that? 3. I join a league on fanduel that functions exactly the same way as #1 or #2, with the exception that it ends after 1 week. People obviously have a problem with this. So everyone who's crying about fanduel/draftkings, you're telling me that #1 and #2 should be legal, but #3 should not? At what point is it "ok" in everyone's mind for a fantasy league to be considered legal and not "online gambling"? I can join a football league or baseball league on espn after the season has started and still play for winnings - and it's technically no longer "season-long". I can join a season-long fantasy league, and 5 of my top 7 draftees can all go down to season-long injuries and my team is pretty much done...that doesn't mean that there wasn't "skill" in my draft - it means, like ANYTHING ELSE IN LIFE, things can go array. You can be an expert financial analyst and still make some pretty $hitty stock selections that bomb. Difference between an expert financial analyst and the average Joe is that they'll be right 9 times out of 10 while the average Joe will be right once or twice. So everyone's panties are in a bunch b/c Fanduel/Draftkings are weekly leagues that don't require "skill"? Seems like there's a lot of people here who have tried fanduel/draftkings and have lost pretty consistently. Stop hating.

Whatever the reasoning may be is irrelevant; the fact is that the word "skill" is specifically mentioned in the Act.

LMAO..i hear ya. All I'm saying is that the federal government specifically carved out fantasy sports from the Act, partly b/c they viewed it as a game of skill...which goes directly against what this clown in NY is saying. I'd personally rather be on the side of the Feds when it comes to these kinds of matters. Now, I no longer live in NY so I don't care, but there are too many people in NY, and too many professional sports teams in NY and thus too much interest in fantasy sports in NY, for this clown to fight the "skill" argument when the federal government specifically states in the Act that fantasy leagues are not a problem. Maybe this would fly in Montana with a population of 20 people and no professional sports teams..but this guy is fighting an uphill battle in NY and will probably ultimately suffer for it.

The skill aspect is not flimsy at best b/c "skill" is specifically mentioned as one of the reasons why joining a fantasy prize league is legal under the Unlawful Internet Gambling Enforcement Act of 2006: "All winning outcomes reflect the relative knowledge and skill of the participants and are determined predominantly by accumulated statistical results of the performance of individuals (athletes in the case of sports events) in multiple real-world sporting or other events." Daily fantasy leagues comply with the Act's requirement that no winning outcome be based on: `(aa) on the score, point-spread, or any performance or performances of any single real-world team or any combination of such teams; or `(bb) solely on any single performance of an individual athlete in any single real-world sporting or other event. So federally they appear to be clear..the dog and pony show with NYS will eventually come to an end, considering the amount of professional sports teams that NY has and its high population.

A lot of things in life make zero sense. Write your congressman/woman

The Bills defense gets a lot of crap but the Jets have given up about 30pts a game the last 3 games. The Jets are banged up and we are finally getting healthy. The most explosive players in this game are on the Bills side. The Jets may also suffer from their kicker being injured. Bills 27. Jets 17.

They are gambling according to whom? Is season-long fantasy gambling? How about when CBS, espn, yahoo, etc allow you to join a fantasy league halfway through the season, so it's no longer 'season-long'; is that gambling?

Cbs, espn, yahoo and countless others have been making money on countless forms of fantasy sports over the years and those are legal and not regulated by a governing body. This is all a dog and pony show. Don't make it out to be about regulation.

I hear ya. Luck is required in any league - whether it be seasonal or daily - but at the end of the day, there's no doubt in my mind that over the long run, the cream rises to the top in terms of "talent" or "skill" when it comes to certain people playing fantasy leagues. When I was younger, I had my own formulas for selecting players in MLB roto 5x5 leagues and I'd finish top 3 in roughly 70% of the leagues I joined over the years. Without question, much of that success was also due to the time I dedicated towards those fantasy leagues and I simply stopped playing b/c as I got older I just couldn't dedicate that much time to playing fantasy baseball anymore. But in every fantasy league you always have three kinds of people: 1. those that are relatively clueless when it comes to strategy in fantasy sports but play b/c they still think it's fun 2. those that do know what they're doing and do have a gameplan but life gets in the way and they simply can't dedicate the needed time to dominate or win consistently 3. and those that have both the time and the strategy in place to win or place near the top of their leagues on a consistent basis In the end, all of these fantasy leagues will be legal folks - there's just too much demand and too much money involved for them not to be. But yeh, I hate the commercials.

I was a big Fitz supporter. This thread is not to belittle him..but he had the same players vs every other team he played, and his QBR was still substantially lower vs the Jets; not to mention that they were 2-5 vs. the Jets. The Jets weren't horrible, but they weren't the Pats either.

Perhaps. But Fitz/Bills didn't suck so bad vs. the Dolphins during the same period. His QBR was substantially lower vs. the Jets. It is what it is; just throwing it out there.

I was a big Fitzy supporter when he was here in Buffalo, but looking back at his performances vs. the Rex-led Jets, he really had some clunkers: Overall Fitz/Bills were 2-5 vs. Rex's Jets. Fitz had 11TD / 7 INT (which is pretty decent), but an avg QBR of 30.1 over those 7 games (his career avg QBR is about 48), so it's clear that he struggled a bit more facing Rex's system. Lets hope it's 2-6 after Thursday (vs Rex)!

what's up with Folk's injury? with the XP being what they are now, an injury to the Jets kicker may be a pretty big deal..

The biggest playmakers are on the Bills side: TT, shady, Watkins and Karlos.. The Jets D has not been as impressive the last few weeks. The Jets offense doesn't have the explosiveness to scare me despite our defense's "struggles". I just don't see the Jets being able to keep up with the Bills now that our offense is healthy (Shady's shoulder doesn't appear to be a big deal). Bills 27 Jets 17

LOVE IT!!!

I LOL'd so hard at this a little urine came out. Clearly you didn't think this through all the way.

Leodis is expendable. And hes often injured anyway Incognito shouldnt be a priority over Glenn imo KW may have to go too