When does chasing the almighty $$$ overcome the sanctity of the sport???

[Ethan in Cleveland]

We need to make a separate board for the conspiracy nuts  

It really takes away from the experience of this board.  You can't escape it.  There should be two game day threads.  Just choose the one if you think the games are fixed, come up with any crazy theory you want,  and don't bother the rest of us

[Warcodered]

5 hours ago, Gen2 said:

A guest made an off hand comment that a Tampa/New England Super Bowl would break all existing viewership totals.

I think they might be severely overestimating how much the general public wants to watch either of those teams win a Super Bowl.

[UConn James]

I’m more worried about the influence of gambling and the NFL’s investment / partnership with Draft Kings and stuff. Marginal increases in viewership ain’t nothing compared to legalization of online betting wrt outside influences in game outcomes.

[LABILLBACKER]

7 hours ago, Kwai San said:

Agree and IMO of course there is some subtle manipulation going on.

How adorable,  you actually think it's subtle. They should just start promoting it now because it's a done deal.

[MJS]

7 hours ago, fridge said:

 

I don't think there's anything fishy going on, but why would the other teams need to be in on a fix?

"The league" is 32 owners. 30 owners would have to sign off on their team having no shot to make the Superbowl. The commissioner works for the owners. That's why fixing games on a widespread level is not a thing.

2 hours ago, Warcodered said:

I think they might be severely overestimating how much the general public wants to watch either of those teams win a Super Bowl.

I watch every Superbowl, but there is no additional draw for me to watch those two teams. It's a detraction for me, honestly. And I'm certain that there are tons of people who are sick of seeing both Tom Brady and the Patriots in the superbowl.

[ProcessTruster]

"Maybe I've turned into a cynical grumpy man in my old age,"

 

exactly.  you're chasing a bogeyman IMO.   

 

but it is true that the $$$ in this league is outrageous (but we fans are the ones driving it, so shame on us for spending our free time on it.   in contrast, MLS is sport played in big stadiums in big cities but relatively few US sports fans care about it enough to make it a big money attraction.  

 

 

[May Day 10]

I would think cowboys and raiders or something like that would give a bigger bump to be honest

[JoPoy88]

8 hours ago, Ethan in Portland said:

We need to make a separate board for the conspiracy nuts  

It really takes away from the experience of this board.  You can't escape it.  There should be two game day threads.  Just choose the one if you think the games are fixed, come up with any crazy theory you want,  and don't bother the rest of us

💯 

agreed. This cringey BS is polluting this place.

[Mynamemike]

13 hours ago, Ya Digg? said:

In terms of changing the rules to make the game more offensive, the league is never been shy in admitting that they want to see more points scored.
 

If you think the league is trying to manipulate games so that it’s the Pats vs the Bucs in the Super Bowl, not even close. You would need 30 other organizations to sign off on the fact that they are fine with not going to the super bowl (and the revenue that comes directly to those teams because of going) and also making sure that everyone who knows about said manipulation will never tell anyone

They do share the revenue, and it wouldn’t be that hard to keep people quiet especially if you’re paying those people very well.

[Mickey]

Awesome! I've never had the chance to watch a tin-foil hat conspiracy theory actually hatched in real time.  Proof? Who needs proof when there are all these simultaneous events occurring that the OP doesn't like? They must be related! And how satisfying it must be to conjure up an explanation that links them all on so many levels.  How much smarter is the OP than the rest of us that they could find the clues we all missed and piece them together so masterfully? How comforting it must be to find an explanation for the random, unpredictable and uncertain events that surround us. Suddenly, it all makes sense, 

[Billy Claude]

19 minutes ago, Mynamemike said:

They do share the revenue, and it wouldn’t be that hard to keep people quiet especially if you’re paying those people very well.

 

Not all revenue is shared. About 40% of it is not (based on the Packer's report from 2019).  A winning teams makes more money than a losing team -- certainly much more than a change in a few percentage points in the Super Bowl ratings.

 

Most of the owners have their wealth coming from other sources and I would guess most would gladly take $10M off their huge profits (note they would still be making a lot of money) to be able to lord it over everyone else at the owners' meeting. 

 

Otherwise why would the owners give such long guaranteed contracts to head coaches if it doesn't matter.   If it was primarily about profit everyone would behave like Ralph Wilson did in his last decade and just hire cheap assistants.  Nor do I think that that Chris and Woody Johnson enjoy the sell the team chants every time they stick theirs heads out at MetLife.

 

 

  

[Gen2]

28 minutes ago, Mickey said:

Awesome! I've never had the chance to watch a tin-foil hat conspiracy theory actually hatched in real time.  Proof? Who needs proof when there are all these simultaneous events occurring that the OP doesn't like? They must be related! And how satisfying it must be to conjure up an explanation that links them all on so many levels.  How much smarter is the OP than the rest of us that they could find the clues we all missed and piece them together so masterfully? How comforting it must be to find an explanation for the random, unpredictable and uncertain events that surround us. Suddenly, it all makes sense, 

 

First of all Mickey the original post never claims any conspiracy theory, it was about an off hand comment I heard on the radio that got me wondering how far the NFL would manipulate the game to chase TV viewership. In my humble opinion, the evolution of the offense friendly rules HAS manipulated the game in that the level of scoring in your typical NFL game is much higher than the 50's, 60's, and 70's and the main purpose was to increase viewership (for the most part I see that as a good thing).

 

As far as it being satisfying to conjure up an "explanation", I never intended to offer explanations, just voice a question that was raised in my mind after the radio segment. The question is in simple terms; at what point does the NFL turn into the WWE and if the league could or would go there to simply chase increased profits? Hopefully the league wouldn't go there because God knows I've spent more money, time and passion over the last 60 years being a fan.

 

You can take to the bank my final point, the OP (me) doesn't think that I'm smarter than the rest of the posters in this forum. I'd place myself somewhere in the middle, smarter than some but most assuredly a heck of a lot less intelligent than some. However I do consider myself less of a jerk than most.      

[LeGOATski]

The NFL isn't rigging its own games.

 

If you find any such manipulation in the league, it will be at the individual level.

 

I do think the officiating is a ***** show and that whole group is definitely vulnerable to gambling manipulation.

[Ya Digg?]

1 hour ago, Mynamemike said:

They do share the revenue, and it wouldn’t be that hard to keep people quiet especially if you’re paying those people very well.

If you honestly think the league could rig games and keep everyone who knows this is happening quiet just so they can get New England and Tampa to play against each other in a game that will already be seen by hundreds of millions of people, you have earned a very special tin foil hat 

[BarleyNY]

16 hours ago, Gen2 said:

I came to an epiphany this morning while listening to the NFL channel on the radio this morning. The hosts were discussing playoff chances of the teams currently "in the hunt". A guest made an off hand comment that a Tampa/New England Super Bowl would break all existing viewership totals.

 

This got me thinking would/could the league manipulate the outcome of the season to chase that Nielson rating? Before you dismiss the thought out of hand, think how the league has "manipulated" the game to increase viewership. The rules have evolved to favor the offense to the point that the defense can hardly defend on any given play, scores have skyrocketed and all of a sudden the "casual viewer" becomes the rabid fan. Now that they have run out of not so subtle rules to favor the offense, "points of emphasis" come into play ... what's pass interference this week may or not be pass interference next week, what was holding last week may or not be holding this week, don't even get me started on the rash of illegal formation penalties this year.

 

Don't get me wrong I enjoy a more offensive orientated game as much as the next person, and I understand the game NEEDS to experience a certain amount of evolution especially in the player safety areas, but it's getting to the point where the outcome of the game and even entire seasons can be influenced by a strict adherence to a rule, or simply overlooking that rule on any given play.

 

Maybe I've turned into a cynical grumpy man in my old age, but this season in particular seems to contain way too may head scratching upsets, close nail biting games between two teams who don't even belong on the field together in "prime time", and dramatic straight out of the movies comeback victories to not make me think there MAY be something rotten in Denmark.

 

Remembering the hype for the early season matchup between the Bucks and the Pats, just the thought of a Bucks/Pats Super Bowl makes me throw up a little bit in the back of my throat.

 

What does everyone think, would (or does) the league "manipulate" the games/season in the interest of increasing viewership???      

When this much money is on the line there is always (almost without exception) corruption.  Individual teams are guilty of it, the league is guilty of it, coaches are guilty of it and players are guilty of it.  Not all of them, but more than most people would think.  Mostly it amounts to things getting swept under the rug by the league in order to “protect the shield,” aka their reputation, aka their revenue streams.

[Bob in STL]

15 hours ago, JoPoy88 said:

There is no sanctity of the sport because nothing about football (especially pro football) is sacred. It’s a kids game for f’s sakes. 
 

In all honesty if you take this **** that seriously, you have problems.

It a huge money sport. Probably the biggest.  That makes it serious to those closely involved. 
 

Fixing professional sports goes back to the early 1900’s.  It’s real. Nothing you can do about it either.  So I chose to ignore it, but it is real. 
 

[WhoTom]

15 hours ago, JoPoy88 said:

There is no sanctity of the sport because nothing about football (especially pro football) is sacred. It’s a kids game for f’s sakes.

 

When money is involved, there is no sanctity in anything. Profit overrules virtually everything else in society these days.

 

 

[klos63]

16 hours ago, JoPoy88 said:

There is no sanctity of the sport because nothing about football (especially pro football) is sacred. It’s a kids game for f’s sakes. 
 

In all honesty if you take this **** that seriously, you have problems.

Why do so many people say football(baseball, basketball...) is a kids game when it is played by so many adults and most of us only watch the adult versions unless we have a child participating?  It's a kids game at times, it's an adult game and it's one of the biggest businesses in the country.

17 hours ago, Gen2 said:

I came to an epiphany this morning while listening to the NFL channel on the radio this morning. The hosts were discussing playoff chances of the teams currently "in the hunt". A guest made an off hand comment that a Tampa/New England Super Bowl would break all existing viewership totals.

 

This got me thinking would/could the league manipulate the outcome of the season to chase that Nielson rating? Before you dismiss the thought out of hand, think how the league has "manipulated" the game to increase viewership. The rules have evolved to favor the offense to the point that the defense can hardly defend on any given play, scores have skyrocketed and all of a sudden the "casual viewer" becomes the rabid fan. Now that they have run out of not so subtle rules to favor the offense, "points of emphasis" come into play ... what's pass interference this week may or not be pass interference next week, what was holding last week may or not be holding this week, don't even get me started on the rash of illegal formation penalties this year.

 

Don't get me wrong I enjoy a more offensive orientated game as much as the next person, and I understand the game NEEDS to experience a certain amount of evolution especially in the player safety areas, but it's getting to the point where the outcome of the game and even entire seasons can be influenced by a strict adherence to a rule, or simply overlooking that rule on any given play.

 

Maybe I've turned into a cynical grumpy man in my old age, but this season in particular seems to contain way too may head scratching upsets, close nail biting games between two teams who don't even belong on the field together in "prime time", and dramatic straight out of the movies comeback victories to not make me think there MAY be something rotten in Denmark.

 

Remembering the hype for the early season matchup between the Bucks and the Pats, just the thought of a Bucks/Pats Super Bowl makes me throw up a little bit in the back of my throat.

 

What does everyone think, would (or does) the league "manipulate" the games/season in the interest of increasing viewership???      

Do you think there are really a significant number of people that wouldn't watch the Super Bowl unless the Bucs and Patriots were in it? Anyone here only watch the Super Bowl based on the participants?  And would it really matter to the NFL, advertising spots are sold out before the participants are determined I would guess.

[Gen2]

13 minutes ago, klos63 said:

Do you think there are really a significant number of people that wouldn't watch the Super Bowl unless the Bucs and Patriots were in it? Anyone here only watch the Super Bowl based on the participants?  And would it really matter to the NFL, advertising spots are sold out before the participants are determined I would guess.

 

https://variety.com/2021/tv/news/tom-brady-ratings-buccaneers-patriots-1235079974/

 

And that was for a week 4 matchup. 

 

No I don't think people who would normally watch the game would NOT watch depending on the teams playing, but IMHO a Bucks/Pats game would garner the people who wouldn't normally tune in, but want to follow the drama & hype of a Brady Belicheat showdown.

 

I agree that advertising spots are sold for this game wayyyyyy before the participants are determined, but what about future spots when the NFL can show an out of this world viewer rating?

[Sharky7337]

It was oddly coincidental that the year new Orleans gets hit by Katrina the saints win it all. The year of the twin towers, the patriots win it all.

 

.....