MattM

Not following you at all here--using the numbers you used (46-23), looks like you're using aggregate records against playoff opponents during the regular season over a number of years (since 69 is multiples of the 8 times they were one and done). That doesn't make sense to me--for example, a team could be 4-12 one year that the Colts beat them in the regular season, but then 3 years later they beat the Colts in the playoffs when said team was 12-4 that year. Of course they were a tougher out that playoff season and thus you'd expect the Colts to have a worse record against playoff teams than regular season teams. On folks above on Brady's dominance over Manning, how much of that was home field advantage, as they also played twice as often at Foxboro? I thought I read this week that neither has beaten the other on the road since 2006. That's all without mentioning the Spygate asterisk that Belichick firmly planted next to all his teams' records--even more so in this case where Brady would have been a direct beneficiary of said cheating.

Have to point out again that by definition one plays better teams in the playoffs, so one would expect to lose more playoff games as a % than regular season games. Personally, anything at 60% or better in playoff games is pretty good to me, even if Manning has not hit that. Brady is money in the playoffs, but has issues (a cheating scandal that specifically benefitted his side of the ball) of his own that Manning doesn't have. On the J'ville point, some of those mid-aughts Del Rio teams were chic SB picks those years and were almost always playoff spot contenders.

So, there's no difference between the quality of regular season opponents and post-season opponents then? That's the division NOW--remember that most of the time Manning was playing in Indy either Tennessee or Jacksonville were decent teams.

While these are two of the best to ever play the position and we're lucky to get to see them head to head like this for so long, I wonder how much of Brady's success against Manning depends on home field advantage, as they seem to play the annual game in Foxboro nearly every year, both now vs Denver and previously vs the Colts. It's currently the 3rd year in a row it's been played in New England, for ex. A Pats* fan explained why to me yesterday (3 years in a row for head to heads of division winners), but that system seems asinine to me. Why not alternate those games?

What's called and when is of course important--big difference between a 5 yard procedural penalty in the 4th when the game is over vs. a key drive killer or (allower, like the block in the back that wasn't called on the TD) early in the game. At one point early on they flashed the penalties as something like 6 for the Broncos to 1 for the Pats*, IIRC yesterday, for ex.

Interesting factoid on this ref crew--it's headed by Walt Anderson, who was the ref in both the 2007 Cheats*-Ravens Monday Nighter that got some Ravens D players fined as well as last year's Pats*-Dolphins game that also featured a controversial key pro-Pats* call. Go figure.... http://blog.masslive.com/patriots/2013/10/yes_the_patriots-dolphins_game.html

Looking at this on Wikipedia, that seems correct, but how asinine that is as a general rule. It also means that the Cheats* have gotten Manning at home three years in a row with the Broncos and 5 or 6 out of the last 8 or 9 against the Colts....

Why does it feel like the regular season meetings between these two are always in Foxboro--anyone have any insight into that? They typically play each other (here and in Indy when Manning played for them) as first place teams playing first place teams in the conference, so you'd think that Manning would get Brady at home every now and then, but to my recollection at least (too lazy to google it) it always seems like they're playing at New England*.....

Sammy cost my fantasy team 7 points yesterday, so I need Alfred Morris to run for a TD and 70 yards tonight without fumbling....

A few quick observations: I disagree that other owners would discuss officiating problems publicly, particularly since bias or worse would be difficult to prove and such criticism would damage their brand and potentially lead to something that might damage it beyond repair. Behind closed doors, however, they may air such suspicions. Recall the NYT article linked way above, where a couple of members of the NFL Competition Committee did in fact anonymously call out the Pats* as the team brought before them for suspected shenanigans over and over and over again, far more than any other. Such internal airings might even lead to things like the head of officiating "retiring", who knows (no inside knowledge on that, just an example of what a potential innocuous looking outcome (to outsiders) of such an internal process might look like)? To address WEO above on his point about it "all falling apart" if the Pats* can't also buy a SB, that's just not logical--as already noted, depending on the setup in question, even a scheduler may have little control in some cases over who refs where/when, particularly in the playoffs, where it's the best graded officials who get the starts presumably through a transparent (to insiders) grading system. Oddly, if someone was on the take, their bad calls during the regular season would likely work against them in qualifying for the postseason, for ex. Finally, on Dennard, I would think that with everything going on discipline-wise in the League, the NFL might be more prone to discipline someone who's reached the end of the appeal rope in court and/or pled already just to show that they mean business. That did not happen with Mr. Dennard, as I predicted in the spring. I'm sure we have different views as to the reason for this (although I'd wager that were he a Bill, he'd have served his 2-4 games off by now).....

I'm not saying that this is happening--as noted several times above, none of us can have any idea of that. All I've been saying is that were it to be the case, it wouldn't be as far-fetched as some of you (you in particular) may think, for the reasons laid out above, and, frankly, wouldn't surprise me. That's not the same thing as saying it's happening. A few specific points in rebuttal: 1. On small groups of refs being involved and able to wreak havoc, note that Walt Coleman, for ex., has presided over 4 controversial Pats* games--two involving us (including "Just Give it to Them" and last week), plus the Tuck Rule Game and the AFCCG in 2004. About a third of his Wikipedia-listed controversial calls are calls in favor of New England--again, considering there are 32 teams, what are the odds of that happening randomly? As noted above, were something like this to happen, it could be done with the help of the ref scheduler, as well as a number (could be a small number) of refs on different crews. Depending on the setup, one may or may not have total control over when an official on the take is involved in a game, that might be how sometimes it happens and sometimes it doesn't. How is that so difficult to understand? Again, speaking theoretically here; 2. According to another poster above, Donaghy did name names by singling out a crooked game in the NBA finals one year and I believe that he may have also given the feds other names as well. Wouldn't that be by definition naming names? Whether that was credible or not is up to the FBI--they apparently thought not, but as noted above, if done right, a crime like this may be difficult to prove; 3. I find it most interesting that you proffered one example each of Steeler and Giant wins on what you deem controversial calls (and single calls at that) vs. the plethora that I cited involving New England, many/most of which involved multiple bad calls all going one way. One each is much more likely to be random, than multiple in favor vs. very few (if any) against. That's probably why neither team is really known as one that benefits greatly from biased officiating, unlike our current subject, nor does either franchise boast the rap sheet that New England does outside the refereeing arena noted above. Also interesting that both of the single calls you cited were line calls (uncalled holds) and interior line calls at that which, by their nature, are much more tougher to see than things like PI (which seems to be a Pats* specialty) where the players are open to all on an island in front of the refs and spectators/viewers. As I've said before, I'm not saying this is going on, but merely putting forth a scenario as to how it could be done and coming away unsurprised if it was in fact really being done, based on what my eyes see in the games and the other factors laid out above. Why are you avoiding the Dennard topic--waiting anxiously by the mailbox waiting for that suspension notice to arrive any day now? Now you're onto my real plan--taking out the Smoking Man so my Bills can finally win the Super Bowl!

http://profootballtalk.nbcsports.com/2014/10/20/earl-thomas-refs-need-to-stay-out-of-it-and-let-us-dominate/ Earl, just tell them you're SB champs and a great team and so should get the benefit of the doubt on all calls, right WEO? Isn't that the way it works?

This--a thousand times this^^^^^

Nice recovery guys, let's keep this up!

Nice pick, Leo--and I love the fact that he was looking for Fred to give him the ball afterwards

So many things wrong with your e-mail, but I've got to get the kids to McDonalds and back in time for the kickoff: 1. Money is the motivator--doesn't matter who provides it, gamblers, owner, GM, some random guy. That should be pretty simple to understand; 2. I agree with you that the larger the conspiracy the less likely it is. That's why in my original post, I suggested that the most likely way it could be done would be to involve the scheduler of referees and then a select number of refs. Doesn't have to be a whole crew, BTW. This was actually done in the Serie A scandal; 3. Donaghy claimed that others were also on the take--the FBI did not believe him. Again, if done right, it's very hard to prove; 4. Let's take your proferred rationale for what we're all seeing (unless it's an NFL-wide mass hypnosis/hysteria situation and none of the millions of us are seeing our teams getting screwed repeatedly). There are many other similarly successful teams in the League--for ex., the Steelers, Packers, Giants, Colts, Broncos, Saints, to name just a few. Many of them are even more successful recently than the Pats*, who haven't won a SB in 10 years, while the Giants and Steelers have won two each since then. Why is it that none of those teams have anywhere near the rap sheet that the Pats* do in regard to seemingly benefit over and over and over again from bad reffing, not even close? Why don't they they get the repeated benefit of the doubt from the refs to the point that it's a scandal? Why is it to quote the NFL Competition Committee member in the NYT article I cited above "one team, over and over and over again." That same team also has a rap sheet in other sketchy areas that no one else can come close to matching, as also noted above. Even you should be able to put one and one together and realize what I noted originally above--there's enough smoke here that what I've posited as a possibility may not be all that surprising were it to turn out to be true. As also noted above, none of us on this board knows anything for certain--we're all merely conjecturing on what might be the cause of what we (and other fanbases around the League) are seeing here. PS Still no answer on the Dennard question, I see. For others reading this thread, I wagered WEO earlier this year that Dennard would not get suspended by the League despite pleading out to a DUI-related charge that got him a 60 day sentence (on top of his prior checkered history, which includes punching a cop). He said at the time there's still a long offseason, let's see what happens. Well, the offseason's long over and voila, no suspension. Maybe Alphonzo had a sit down with Roger and Kraft and brought along Bianca Wilfork, since that seemed to work for Ms. Wilfork's hubby back in 2007, when he was fined 4 times in one season and yet not suspended after having said sit down with Goodell. One of my all-time favorite Big Vince plays: This, too, was in front of a ref and drew no flag--go figure.... That Ravens Monday Nighter was one of the worst officiated games I've ever seen in 40 plus years of watching Pro Football. Multiple garbage calls late in the game in one direction (all the hallmarks of what you'd expect if the fix was in). My favorite was one that wasn't even needed--it was 4th and about 5 from the 15 or so and the ref threw a late flag away from the play on an alleged bump at the line (well within 5 yards replay showed), but what was funny about it was that the ref flew the flag NOT when the push he called happened, but well after that when it appeared that Brady would be sacked on the play (he later escaped and ran for the first, hence the refusal of the penalty). As you may recall, T. Suggs and some other Ravens spoke out about that game and were fined, I believe.

Asked and answered above--please keep up. Here's one of my favorites, right in front of a ref, too: https://www.google.com/?gws_rd=ssl#q=+holding+new+orleans+saints+new+england+patriots&facrc=_&imgrc=cduerwcKUsq7tM%253A%3Bundefined%3Bhttp%253A%252F%252Fcdn2.sbnation.com%252Fassets%252F3384441%252FSaintsPatriotsHolding.gif%3Bhttp%253A%252F%252Fwww.chatsports.com%252Fnew-orleans-saints%252Fa%252FSaints-vs-Patriots-2013-Referees-Missed-Holding-Call-on-Final-Tom-Brady-Play-2-8629614%3B450%3B298 How does that not get seen and flagged--ask yourself that.

While not broken down by situation, someone above researched number of PI's called (both offensive (against) and defensive) and found the Pats* were in the Top 3 for each for each of the last 3 years, I believe. What are the odds of that happening randomly (the key question in all of this)? I agree with you on the situational nature, too, but the League doesn't track that. It's almost like it's in their play book for third and long--"WR deep out to draw the PI".

They don't--the Pats* organization does, however.

If it was truly random it should even out, right? Name some games that the Pats* have lost on controversial calls or non-calls (controversial outside of Boston). Just off the top of my head I listed above a boatload of games the Pats* have won on iffy calls. Personally, I can only think of one--last year's Carolina game (and even that could have gone either way). Nothing in their history like the AFCCG vs the Colts or the inadvertent whistle game or "just give it to them"--not one close to those. All I know is what my eyes see. You're long on moralizing, short on examples. I gave examples. I've asked Pats* fans that question often over the years and have gotten bupkis for an answer. BTW, it's not just us here in Buffalo that are noticing this. Read the PFT comments sometime on this issue--it's pretty clear there's a growing consensus on this issue among NFL fans. I gave my Saints fan buddy example above and was approached today by a Jets fan's wife today who called me prescient for warning her hubby about the refs before Thursday's game. One of my wife's college roommates is a Browns fan from Canton--she was raving for a week last fall on Facebook about the garbage calls that cost them the Pats* game. The League needs to get out in front of this.

$, plain and simple. Very easy answer. Slightly more complex answer--$ and all it can buy (cachet, prestige, luxury goods, sex). Ask Tim Donaghy or the Serie A refs or any other cheating officials and odds are you'll get the same answer. As for the slightly more difficult question of why other owners might put up with it, first if done correctly it's very difficult to prove. Second, these are smart businessmen by and large, who don't want to damage their own investment, particularly if they're not certain that it's going on--see point one. Question for you, as we've had this discussion numerous times over the years. My worldview model would have predicted that we'd be here discussing this again and again and, well, here we are, twice in eleven days and one not involving the Bills even (like Cleveland and New Orleans last year.). What's your explanation for why the Pats* are accused over and over and over again for getting preferrential treatment from the refs? PS. From our discussion in the spring, I'm sure Demnard's suspension from the League's coming any day now, right?

I know what my eyes see--which is "inconsistent" officiating which seems to favor the Pats* far, far more than it hurts them. Often this is in clear view of an official and yet a bad call or no call gets made that benefits them. I've given my views above as to why this might happen. Can you honestly tell me that there's nothing at all fishy about a team consistently getting game changing calls in their favor (and often late in the game)? Have you watched their games? Why is it that there's really only one team in the League that this comes up about over and over? What are the odds of that happening randomly? This doesn't explain why the Bills might stink, but is a separate matter to that. Winning the occasional game against the Pats* won't turn us into winners. No one here is using this as an excuse for the Bills and their performance, merely stating potential reasons for what we've observed.

Thanks--just some observations from over the years. Unfortunately nearly all of the major media outlets have strong ties to the League so have little appetite to rock the boat. I, too, wish someone would bird dog this to its conclusion. I suspect Pats* fans would not be too happy with the results.... PS. Missed one way above, the Saints game last year when the LT had the DE in a headlock right in front of a ref on Brady's final GW TD. My college best friend (a Saints fan from Louisiana) said to me afterwards "now I know what you've been talking about!"

In this most recent debate on "big market favoritism" as being the reason for what we've been seeing here, I'm oddly going to side with WEO on that one. The clear bias that we've been seeing over the years in favor of the Pats* is, in my opinion, more likely to come from a different source than said "big market favoritism" since I agree with WEO that a "vast conspiracy", like one it would take to favor big market teams, is much more likely to be exposed since it would take many more people knowing about it. Instead, I'll take the Occam's Razor approach and go with the more likely cause, namely, one or more members of the organization of one team working with the League's officiating office to influence Pats* games, most likely by having gotten to someone in the League officiating scheduling office and then individual refs/crews. That's a much more likely scenario to explain what we've all seen, as it's a much smaller group of people who'd need to be in on it and, in fact, is pretty much what happened in the Italian Serie A soccer scandal a few years back. While no one knows anything for sure here, and we're all simply conjecturing, here are some factors that support that potential possibility here: 1. the Pats* have already been caught cheating once, and the NFL Commissioner (who Kraft was instrumental in having appointed) destroyed the evidence of that cheating and then lied about it to the media (i.e., the Pats* only did it certain years and in certain games, which was shown to be a lie when the Matt Walsh videos later surfaced); 2. at the time Belicheat was fined, Kraft redid his contract--there was much speculation that he basically paid Belicheat's fine with the new deal rather than punishing him; 3. at that time many other allegations against them also surfaced, including things like being found to have an extra frequency on their QB headsets (Doug Flutie apparently said on a radio show he once picked one up on the sidelines and heard someone talking to the QB well after the 15 second cutoff--when he realized how serious that was (or someone talked to him) he has apparently since clammed up on the topic), opponents claiming that their headsets fizzled at suspicious and key points in games at Gillette (Del Rio and Marinelli), players being miked, a former Pats* player quoted by HBO as saying that the info from Spygate as saying that the defensive signals knowledge helped them immensely, etc. Source--Bill O'Brien's book on Spygate (which all should read) and the NYT story here-- http://www.nytimes.com/2008/05/11/sports/football/11nfl.html?module=Search&mabReward=relbias%3Ar%2C{%222%22%3A%22RI%3A15%22}&_r=0 My favorite quote in that article from a member of the NFL Competition Committee: “They were the only team, really,” the executive said. “Clearly, they were the team mentioned far more than anybody else.” We won't even talk about how the early aught's Pats* were a team of old vets who seemed to have regained a step when coming to New England, only to have Rodney Harrison get nailed a couple years later for HGH use. Since they didn't test for it then, the only way he was caught was being dumb enough to use his own name and address to have it shipped to and got picked up in a dragnet of steroid prescribing pharmacies. To my eyes, this seems like an organization willing to push the envelope where winning is concerned; 4. the Pats* are the main team in the NFL that allegations of unfair refereeing is made against--and it's not just Bills fans doing so. Look no further than the comments section in PFT and it's pretty clear that many NFL fans are starting to figure this out and it's no wonder why. Think back to the Tuck Rule, the 2004 AFC Championship Game when on successive plays, right in front of a ref in both cases Marcus Pollard bugged out after being clearly held in "fistful of jersey, head jerking" style and no flags on a key drive late in the game (personally, that was the eye opener to me), the Ravens Monday nighter in 2007 and the Jabbar Gaffney TD game a couple of years later, the Cleveland game last year, a Houston game about ten years ago (another personal favorite) in which Brady threw a game-ending pick only to have the play called back on a very late flag, well away from the play that the announcers themselves couldn't understand, among many others, just off the top of my head. That doesn't count the multiple times we've been screwed over the years, from "Just Give it To Them", to the awful game in about 2008 or so which included the "inadvertent whistle" that stopped another Brady pick 6 by Nate Clements (who replay showed was nowhere near to out of bounds) among many other shady calls (that one was so bad that TMQ wrote about it), to the never before seen again call about a receiver being out of bounds impacting the play on a key turnover, to this year's most recent debacle. Riddle me this, Pats* fans, if this were all truly random, wouldn't those awful calls even out over time? It's pretty clear that they haven't; 5. some of these have involved the same cast of ref characters, including Walt Coleman, who, if you look at his Wikipedia page and add in the "Just Give it Them" game, which he also reffed, has favored the Pats* in nearly half of the 8 or so controversial calls he's been associated with over the years. The odds of that happening randomly--less than 1.6% by my calculation. How is that guy (a) still in the League and (b) allowed to do Pats* games?; 6. The former head of officiating must have a need for cash and fame, since he (a) floated the singularly worst reffing idea in about 50 years of allowing retired refs to be employed by specific teams upon retirement--hello, way to legitimize payola for services rendered! and (b) once that idea was shot down did the next best thing and became a network talking head (likely for that payola and fame he was seeking). Personally, I'd prefer my refs to be something out of the old Oscars shot of their auditors each year--buttoned down guys with glasses who looked like they came out of central casting as office drone sticks in the mud rather than Vegas high rollers (those who remember some of the quite dapper Mr. Pereira's prior interviews while head of officiating will get my drift on that one); 7. The fact pointed out above that the Pats* have been among League leaders several years running in the key game-changing calls of PI on both sides of the ball. How likely is that to be random?; 8. The fact that the Pats* owner doesn't seem to recognize conflicts of interest in the way a normal person would, like sitting on Viacom's board (CBS's parent company) or going into business via Patriette* place with said network. This is also the same guy who within 4 months of the death of his saintly wife (I've got nothing bad to say about Myra Kraft, who by all accounts was a saintly woman and who also actually had the money in the family, since Bob married the boss's daughter to become a family member) was seen on video with a 25 year old blonde floozy young enough to be his granddaughter; and 9. The fact that the Pats* seem to have also been benificiaries of other League benificence over the years, such as playing only one team coming off a mini-bye in 2012 and 2013 combined, while the Bills, for ex., played nearly 10. They also seemed to get "high value" games (like divisional opponents or rivals) after a bye far more than the average team over the last 10 years or so. This seemed to get corrected this year, but only after Whaley aired this issue publicly. As noted above, none of us here knows for sure what's causing what we're, and increasingly, the rest of the League, are clearly seeing here with our own eyes, but all I can say is that if we were to find out in ten or twenty years that someone was paying refs here, I would really not be surprised at all. The League needs to get a handle on this before it really does become the WWE....

So, was that a legit PI call then? LMFAO--only one team* consistently gets garbage calls like that....