Is the NFL rigged??

[Mr. WEO]

While I don't believe this myself, the obvious answer to that question is that it's more profitable to have either bigger market teams (Giants, Pats*, 9ers, Bears) or teams with national fanbases (Steelers, Packers, Cowboys) win than perennial small market loser franchises like Buffalo, Jacksonville or Cleveland. More fans to do the buying, often in richer demographic cities, combined with higher Nielsen ratings. Fairly simple answer.

 

As I said, I don't myself buy that--too big a conspiracy required to do that effectively. If there is crooked officiating going on, it is much more likely to be done on a smaller scale--to help gamblers in particular games or to help a particular team which is paying the refs for such privilege....

 

The Packers do not have a national fan base--not like the Cowboys or Steelers.

 

Some of the highest Nielson rated viewing is in small markets such as GB, Kansas City, Indy, New Orleans---even Buffalo was ranked #11 in ratings in 2013. Rating overall have gone up every year.

 

The NFL doesn't "make billions". It's owners, collectively receive billions from TV contracts and merchandise sales. The NFL doesn't make this money.

 

The NFL Tv contracts are locked in for 8 more years, so tossing a few calls to one team or another has no effect on the money coming into the league.

 

If only big market and/or "national teams" were being favored by the refs at the command of the NFL itself, a team like Seattle would never succeed, nor would NO, or Indy, etc...

 

It should be obvious that any owner not being "favored" by the NFL would not just sit back and accept it.

 

This stuff is always good for a laugh, but now it seems just sad...

[DC Tom]

Lets try this for the THIRD time now since you can't answer a single question or post anything of any kind of relevance to the question at hand.

 

How does the NFL profit from the Bills losing? What is it in for the NFL to conspire against them?

 

Fact: Winning teams sell more tickets.

Fact: Winning teams sell more merchandise.

Fact: Winning teams pull more ratings.

Fact: NFL profits from all of the above.

 

So, since you are completely inept at answering this question, I will ask it a second time in this post. How does the NFL profit or benefit by manipulating or rigging Bills games? And don't say to help the Pats because you and all the other tin foil theorists complain about rigging against any team in the NFL we don't get a call against or lose to.

 

In case you missed the direct question again...how does the NFL benefit from plotting against the Bills? I will bet money you don't answer this question with anything other than a blanket statement with no substance that just states "Its all about money". You don't have an answer to this question that makes any logical sense or you would have answered it already.

 

I always figured it simply came down to the "Just Give It To 'Em" game: the refs !@#$ed up, Wilson went off on them, the league fined him, and Wilson went off on THEM, and somebody said "Fine...we're going to !@#$ with your team as much as we can."

[Alphadawg7]

While I don't believe this myself, the obvious answer to that question is that it's more profitable to have either bigger market teams (Giants, Pats*, 9ers, Bears) or teams with national fanbases (Steelers, Packers, Cowboys) win than perennial small market loser franchises like Buffalo, Jacksonville or Cleveland. More fans to do the buying, often in richer demographic cities, combined with higher Nielsen ratings. Fairly simple answer.

 

As I said, I don't myself buy that--too big a conspiracy required to do that effectively. If there is crooked officiating going on, it is much more likely to be done on a smaller scale--to help gamblers in particular games or to help a particular team which is paying the refs for such privilege....

 

Except the games in question are the KC game and Mia game...which are not big teams for the NFL and haven't been nationally relevant for a long time in comparison to the teams you mentioned. These conspiracy theories come up against every team we play where we lose, get a bad call against us, or don't get a certain call.

[Bill Brasky]

Maybe focus on having your team be better on a consistent basis.

[enlightener]

why would you thumbs up this? So if im poor and get mugged should i be ok with it because i need to make more money and buy a better house anyways? The point is unrelated. we arent being distracted, and our team is just fine. Getting bias refs is a real problem and it has ruined this season and others. We may fix our problems on O and win out but it wont matter if refs stole 2 games from us already this year.

 

Maybe focus on having your team be better on a consistent basis.

maybe dont post here anymore. Also i cant change anything no matter how hard i "focus" So if refs cheat and act bias I should ignore it because my team isnt better? So how good do they need to be where i accept bogus calls? Idiotic.

[MattM]

 

 

Except the games in question are the KC game and Mia game...which are not big teams for the NFL and haven't been nationally relevant for a long time in comparison to the teams you mentioned. These conspiracy theories come up against every team we play where we lose, get a bad call against us, or don't get a certain call.

 

Except I said I don't believe in a League-wide conspiracy against small market teams. One off cheating for gamblers or a particular team/outcome may be a different story--easier to pull off. New England* comes to mind, lots of data points point in their direction...,

[enlightener]

The Packers do not have a national fan base--not like the Cowboys or Steelers.

 

Some of the highest Nielson rated viewing is in small markets such as GB, Kansas City, Indy, New Orleans---even Buffalo was ranked #11 in ratings in 2013. Rating overall have gone up every year.

 

The NFL doesn't "make billions". It's owners, collectively receive billions from TV contracts and merchandise sales. The NFL doesn't make this money.

 

The NFL Tv contracts are locked in for 8 more years, so tossing a few calls to one team or another has no effect on the money coming into the league.

 

If only big market and/or "national teams" were being favored by the refs at the command of the NFL itself, a team like Seattle would never succeed, nor would NO, or Indy, etc...

 

It should be obvious that any owner not being "favored" by the NFL would not just sit back and accept it.

 

This stuff is always good for a laugh, but now it seems just sad...

its widely admitted that having a "winner" like the cowboys once were, the broncos w elway, niners w young etc. improved ratings. Having a few preselcted "winning teams" helps the nfl. Buffalo is like that guy off the bench getting called for a foul on a lebron james drive. It makes lebron look better and who cares about the backup shlub.. Buffalo is that back up schlub. Tom bradys team doesnt get those calls on them. When we were going to superbowls we got alot of calls then too and hardly any bad onnes. Now we get 2-3 a game.

[Mr. WEO]

its widely admitted that having a "winner" like the cowboys once were, the broncos w elway, niners w young etc. improved ratings. Having a few preselcted "winning teams" helps the nfl. Buffalo is like that guy off the bench getting called for a foul on a lebron james drive. It makes lebron look better and who cares about the backup shlub.. Buffalo is that back up schlub. Tom bradys team doesnt get those calls on them. When we were going to superbowls we got alot of calls then too and hardly any bad onnes. Now we get 2-3 a game.

 

Yes, winning teams get good ratings. What is your point? That they were "preselected"? Why? By whom?

 

If the "preselected" Cowboys are getting so many favorable calls, why haven't they won a playoff game in 7 years and only 2 in the past 18 years? Did Denver get "deselected" after Elway retired...and then "reselected" when Manning showed up (that clever NFL!!)? Why did the NFL wait until Brady became the starting QB to "select" the patriots (Kraft had owned them for years before that)? Why hasn't the NFL selected the Jets all these years? Why would they select the Colts--a team that moved in the middle of the night....to Indy, of all places?

[BillsInMaine]

So I finally bought Madden 15 the other day. I had played 5 games with no penalties called. On my 6th game online, against the Pats I start off by driving right down the field. On the Pats 25 yd line I throw a beautiful TD to Mike Williams. Out of no where a holding on Chandler. Next play I throw a pick that bounces of Sammys hands... Two plays later the guy scores on 3 broken tackles from 55 yds out. NFL is definitely rigged. Or I just suck at Madden. But the penalty just blew me away, all I could do was laugh.

[enlightener]

Yes, winning teams get good ratings. What is your point? That they were "preselected"? Why? By whom?

 

If the "preselected" Cowboys are getting so many favorable calls, why haven't they won a playoff game in 7 years and only 2 in the past 18 years? Did Denver get "deselected" after Elway retired...and then "reselected" when Manning showed up (that clever NFL!!)? Why did the NFL wait until Brady became the starting QB to "select" the patriots (Kraft had owned them for years before that)? Why hasn't the NFL selected the Jets all these years? Why would they select the Colts--a team that moved in the middle of the night....to Indy, of all places?

you answered it yourself...yes. When a team "becomes" good due to overwhelmingly good coaching/players/qb they become darlings of the nfl. Goodell probably upgrades or downgrades officiating crews who do or dont call penalties the way he wants. He wants denver/sf or pats/dallas in a superbowl. If the teams blow it then its on them but if theres a marginal call the refs will use opportunities where they can to screw the lesser team, especially if its close. it wouldnt be hard to have an unsaid rule among refs regarding this.

 

regardless,

 

Whatever you say doesnt support the FACT that we have ridiculous calls called on us every week. That it has cost us games and even playoff positioning/homefield back in the flutie days. Instead of making fun of a theory that you cant otherwise prove wrong...what is your reasoning for why there have been so many bad calls against us for the past 15 years?

[Mr. WEO]

you answered it yourself...yes. When a team "becomes" good due to overwhelmingly good coaching/players/qb they become darlings of the nfl. Goodell probably upgrades or downgrades officiating crews who do or dont call penalties the way he wants. He wants denver/sf or pats/dallas in a superbowl. If the teams blow it then its on them but if theres a marginal call the refs will use opportunities where they can to screw the lesser team, especially if its close. it wouldnt be hard to have an unsaid rule among refs regarding this.

 

regardless,

 

Whatever you say doesnt support the FACT that we have ridiculous calls called on us every week. That it has cost us games and even playoff positioning/homefield back in the flutie days. Instead of making fun of a theory that you cant otherwise prove wrong...what is your reasoning for why there have been so many bad calls against us for the past 15 years?

 

It is not for me to disprove. You put it out there, you have to bear the burden of proof.

 

Every team's fan base wants to know why refs have been making so many bad calls against them.

 

If "Goodell wants" Dallas in the Suer Bowl, he seems to be doing it wrong.

 

How does easily Goodell develop, disseminate and enforce an "unsaid rule" to all of the refs?

 

Why don't the owners of the non-"darling" teams complain to the others about this overt plan to screw them that you have uncovered?

[MattM]

 

 

The Packers do not have a national fan base--not like the Cowboys or Steelers.

 

Some of the highest Nielson rated viewing is in small markets such as GB, Kansas City, Indy, New Orleans---even Buffalo was ranked #11 in ratings in 2013. Rating overall have gone up every year.

 

The NFL doesn't "make billions". It's owners, collectively receive billions from TV contracts and merchandise sales. The NFL doesn't make this money.

 

The NFL Tv contracts are locked in for 8 more years, so tossing a few calls to one team or another has no effect on the money coming into the league.

 

If only big market and/or "national teams" were being favored by the refs at the command of the NFL itself, a team like Seattle would never succeed, nor would NO, or Indy, etc...

 

It should be obvious that any owner not being "favored" by the NFL would not just sit back and accept it.

 

This stuff is always good for a laugh, but now it seems just sad...

 

For the 3rd time now--I don't buy the big market, League-wide conspiracy theory. Too hard to pull off.

 

That said, a few points on your post:

 

Green Bay does indeed have a national following, not as big as the two biggest you mentioned, but bigger than the avg team. I meet Packer fans everywhere I go. Combination of older guys loving the 60's teams and younger folk loving the Favre teams.

 

From a revenue/ratings standpoint, the League would make more $ if bigger market (which also generally coincides with richer per capita incomes) teams were winning/popular. More people watching in Buffalo is nowhere near the same as more people watching in NY, DC or SF. You talk about the TV deals being fixed, but (a) do they have any ratings based variability? and (b) even if not, the League and networks are always looking to build mkt share for the next deal. The networks' wet dream matchup is a Cowboys/49ers/Giants vs Pats*/Steelers/Broncos-type matchup. A Jags/Browns/Bills vs Vikes/Lions/Cardinals type matchup would make them cry.....

Edited November 16, 2014 by MattM

[Mr. WEO]

For the 3rd time now--I don't buy the big market, League-wide conspiracy theory. Too hard to pull off.

 

That said, a few points on your post:

 

Green Bay does indeed have a national following, not as big as the two biggest you mentioned, but bigger than the avg team. I meet Packer fans everywhere I go. Combination of older guys loving the 60's teams and younger folk loving the Favre teams.

 

From a revenue/ratings standpoint, the League would make more $ if bigger market (which also generally coincides with richer per capita incomes) teams were winning/popular. More people watching in Buffalo is nowhere near the same as more people watching in NY, DC or SF. You talk about the TV deals being fixed, but (a) do they have any ratings based variability? and (b) even if not, the League and networks are always looking to build mkt share for the next deal. The networks' wet dream matchup is a Cowboys/49ers/Giants vs Pats*/Steelers/Broncos-type matchup. A Jags/Browns/Bills vs Vikes/Lions/Cardinals type matchup would make them cry.....

 

Every one of your denials that you believe that the refs are making calls in favor of big market teams is followed by another claim as to why they would be doing it.

 

Anyway....you running into some Packers fans here and there doesn't make them a national team. They are a successful team. People who are not fans like to watch their team (or any team) play against successful teams. They aren;t successful because they get a few calls their way by the refs.

 

The TV contracts are set--no variability due to increased viewership. It wouldn' make sense for either party to want that in the contracts. The networks do not want to pay more than they already are if ratings go up and the NFL doesn't want to get paid less is the ratings go down.

 

Unlike every other major pro sport in the US, pro football fans in this country will watch any nationally televised game. Every week, the Sunday Night Football game is the number 1 network broadcast for 18-49 year olds. MNF is the top cable broadcast every week. This is true no matter who is playing (crappy Cleveland vs Cincy pulled a 5.2 share and finished as the 3rd ranked cable broadcast that week).

 

Check out the teams in the top 10 markets. How's it going for the teams in NJ lately? Chicago? Atlanta? DC? Houston? Market size means little in the NFL. It's one giant pot of fans they are taking from. The SB get huge ratings no matter who plays--the NFL doens't care who's in there becasue they know it doens't matter. Smaller market Seattle versus medium market Denver was the most watched TV show of all time! Is that because of all of those Denver and Seahawks fans all over the country? Of course not! The year before it was large market SF vs small market Baltimore. Huge ratings-because people love football and the SB. Go back and pick any SB matchup: Rams/Tennessee?--a 43.3 rating. Carolina/NE?--41.4 rating. Atlanta/Denver?--40.2. Arizona/Steelers?--42. Even the Bills 4th loss in a row vs. Dallas--a whopping 45.5 (the highest rated of all the Bills SBs!). The NFL knows it doesn't matter who is int he SB--it's a massive money maker for everyone. They aren't going to mess with that.

 

 

There is nothing the networks can do to influence who plays in the SB. There is nothing the league can do either--unless you believe this conspiracy theory. But since you claim you do not believe it, just come out and say that there is no league-wide effort to influence which teams win games.

[Best Player Available]

I have met diehard Packers fans everywhere. Especially out West. They have a huge fanbase, Their storied history is just one of the reasons. Even Hans and Franz are fans. A small market team does not dictate national popularity.

[Justice]

The NFL is all about marketability. As of now we don't have anybody on our team or in our coaching staff that is marketable. We don't dominate nationwide television appearances, we don't even get MNF games. One might say they already know with certainty that we're gonna suck.

 

I'm a fantasy football nerd and watch 4 games at a time and I never see the league's darlings getting penalties called on them the way we do. We get the worst calls I've ever seen. The non-calls are just as big and back breaking, too.

 

Once we get a franchise QB or coach you'll see these types of calls subside. Until then the NFL will do what they can to keep teams like us down.

 

Like I've stated before. I'll believe the league isn't fixed as soon as teams can challenge calls and the rule book becomes more black and white.

Edited November 16, 2014 by Justice

[John in Jax]

Virtually everything is fixed.

 

What about yesterday in the Miss State vs. Alabama game? The critical fumble by Alabama at the goal line? Ruling on the field was a fumble. They went to replay, and ALTHOUGH THERE WAS NO CLEAR-CUT, DEFINITIVE, SIDE-ANGLE VIEW OF THE PLAY showing that the ball broke the plane, they still overturned the call on the field and gave the TD to Alabama! Just like politics though, if you keep saying & repeating it (that he was over the line, even though no clear-cut angle showed that)...I guess....most people will believe it. To wit: ESPN last night & tonight, repeatedley showing that high angle view, from a camera way above AND BEHIND the play, and stating that you can see the ball cross the plane.....Umm NO, YOU CAN'T from that camera angle. You can surmise that maybe it did, but to overturn a call on the field, I thought it had to be definitive. Of course unless "certain" teams get the calls over other teams....that would never happen, would it? LOL

Edited November 16, 2014 by John in Jax

[KD in CA]

Virtually everything is fixed.

 

What about yesterday in the Miss State vs. Alabama game? The critical fumble by Alabama at the goal line? Ruling on the field was a fumble. They went to replay, and ALTHOUGH THERE WAS NO CLEAR-CUT, DEFINITIVE, SIDE-ANGLE VIEW OF THE PLAY showing that the ball broke the plane, they still overturned the call on the field and gave the TD to Alabama! Just like politics though, if you keep saying & repeating it (that he was over the line, even though no clear-cut angle showed that)...I guess....most people will believe it. To wit: ESPN last night & tonight, repeatedley showing that high angle view, from a camera way above AND BEHIND the play, and stating that you can see the ball cross the plane.....Umm NO, YOU CAN'T from that camera angle. You can surmise that maybe it did, but to overturn a call on the field, I thought it had to be definitive. Of course unless "certain" teams get the calls over other teams....that would never happen, would it? LOL

 

Alabama is the New England Patriots of college football. I can't wait to see some of the calls in the playoff semi-finals as they ensure that at least one SEC team reaches the final.

[John in Jax]

Watching Colts vs Pats right now. Just saw a BLATANT PI by the Pats, in the end zone, and a ref was right there, looking right at it, and there was no call! The Pats DB actually used his right hand, stuck in the chest of the Colts WR, to impede him from going to make the catch.

 

Call me a conspiracy theorist, but if you don't see that there's definitely different rules for different teams, you're either blind or dead.

[Bill Brasky]

Arrington was both turned for the ball AND had position on Wayne.

 

Nice try

[John in Jax]

Arrington was both turned for the ball AND had position on Wayne. Nice try

 

Bill Brasky = Chris Collinsworth, apparently. I'm watching the game with the sound down, so I'm not hearing any of Al & CC's blather. But after your post, I just ran my DVR back and watched it again, and I turned on the sound. So now I see where YOU got your opinion from. LOL

 

Just because the DB "got his head around", that means NOTHING. He forcibly used his right arm to hold and/or impede the WR from getting to the ball. Defensive PI is called all day long for FAR LESS than what was done on this play.

 

Personally, the inconsistency of PI and Holding calls have bothered me for years, and I think it does give the NFL a WWF similarity. And the favortism given certain teams/players is very obvious...and it stinks.