I would guess many players do follow that stuff, maybe some coaches but I doubt its as many as you are implying. There is just too much work to do to worry about that stuff. These guys work 80 hours a week and are to concerned with W's to worry about how much they win or lose by.
If they did care than all those teams that are favored by 3.5 - 4 - 6.5 kicking field goals to win games by 3?? Whats the reasoning for that ?
Not EVERY game has fixes in it. You should know this. Primetime games are famous for it imo. Look at this and tell me there's no tampering with games? This happened this yr!
http://www.cincyjungle.com/2013/12/...o-start-applying-more-technology-to-the-sport
You sit here and tell them they have the first down and then reverse and say nope we're takign it away lol.
I dont understand, you keep bringing up mistakes...It was clearly stated by the officials in the field that was a 3rd down play yet the 1st down markers were advanced by mistake.
I'm not going to believe that something was conspired too because a couple of 1st down marker guys thought it was a first and moved the chains without approval from the refs.
I don't think you and I are getting anywhere with this. You say fix, I say mistake, we could go back and forth all day about it.
You believe what you would like and I will do the same. cheers :toast:
I'm not going to believe that something was conspired too because a couple of 1st down marker guys thought it was a first and moved the chains without approval from the refs.
I don't think you and I are getting anywhere with this. You say fix, I say mistake, we could go back and forth all day about it.
You believe what you would like and I will do the same. cheers :toast:
We can agree there are mistakes in football or ANY other sport. But to say refs are NOT biased is totally BS. You could get someone from another country who doesnt understand english or has ever seen a football game and they would be biased just by the color of a certain teams outfit or logo they like.
I'm reluctant to add anymore to my thread because it seems like I'm doing what some recurring comments are saying and that's no.1 imply this thread is the result of me losing money and no. 2 that I'm convinced Decker was fixing the game. I have stated more than once that those things are not my motive. All I started out saying is when something looks so odd there should be questions. People who want to believe they know everything use the logic there's no proof so it can't be happening. Here's some information that addresses that logic.
The notion that these players make too much money to consider some kind of tampering doesn't address the fact that what the players make is relative. Many players spend the huge paychecks like they will never end. In addition when their careers do end more players than not have to find a new source of income. Who better than Peyton Manning shows how lots of money is never enough and that any player is open to extra money. Not many make more than him yet there he is adding to his worth making commercial after commercial. Every player isn't offered lucrative commercial opportunities. When I say what they make is relative how about police? They may not make a fortune but to them it's all they have. It's how they make a living and losing that living is just as important to them. Am I out of line if I say police and judges taking bribes isn't unusual? Take it a step further - Politicians and Lawyers. They make a lot of money. Are we willing to say none of them are on the take or are making back room deals? Do I have to say anything other than Wall Street when it comes to investment banking? Corruption is not uncommon in many walks of life yet for some reason people are reluctant to consider it a possibility when it comes to athletes. Someone mentioned that the use of performance enhancing drugs is to perform better as if that isn't cheating. Lance Armstrong ring a bell? The point is it's still cheating and once you accept the reality that an athlete has the mentality to cheat for money how do you qualify that saying they only cheat to win?
As far as how it could be done a player doesn't even have to be approached to have a motive. When you make lots of money like these athletes your friends and family often show up needing/wanting handouts. Players can't afford to help people endlessly but suppose just one or two out of the 1000's of players tells someone I'll see what I can do to keep the score down Sunday. No gangsters involved, no money changing hands easy for the player to think no one gets hurt, I can't get caught? No guarantees just the possibility that if the opportunity presents itself and the situations right a bounce may go your way. I could do better if I knew I had that advantage.
How about coaches? Who hasn't witnessed coaches intentionally running up scores to keep alumni and supporters happy? People can say that's not really cheating but when a person knows there's a concerted effort to cover a point spread they have an advantage. When only certain people have that advantage that is cheating. In other words if the motive is to effect the score thereby effecting wagers its tampering/cheating end of story.
I know I wrote a lot here but hey what else am I going to do here at work? Actually work? This isn't a big conspiracy layout it's just saying the chances that no player on every play in every game isn't doing something fishy is a concept that has doubt. Is it not possible that Eric Decker told his girlfriends Uncle Barney if I can I'll keep the score close?
The notion that these players make too much money to consider some kind of tampering doesn't address the fact that what the players make is relative. Many players spend the huge paychecks like they will never end. In addition when their careers do end more players than not have to find a new source of income. Who better than Peyton Manning shows how lots of money is never enough and that any player is open to extra money. Not many make more than him yet there he is adding to his worth making commercial after commercial. Every player isn't offered lucrative commercial opportunities. When I say what they make is relative how about police? They may not make a fortune but to them it's all they have. It's how they make a living and losing that living is just as important to them. Am I out of line if I say police and judges taking bribes isn't unusual? Take it a step further - Politicians and Lawyers. They make a lot of money. Are we willing to say none of them are on the take or are making back room deals? Do I have to say anything other than Wall Street when it comes to investment banking? Corruption is not uncommon in many walks of life yet for some reason people are reluctant to consider it a possibility when it comes to athletes. Someone mentioned that the use of performance enhancing drugs is to perform better as if that isn't cheating. Lance Armstrong ring a bell? The point is it's still cheating and once you accept the reality that an athlete has the mentality to cheat for money how do you qualify that saying they only cheat to win?
As far as how it could be done a player doesn't even have to be approached to have a motive. When you make lots of money like these athletes your friends and family often show up needing/wanting handouts. Players can't afford to help people endlessly but suppose just one or two out of the 1000's of players tells someone I'll see what I can do to keep the score down Sunday. No gangsters involved, no money changing hands easy for the player to think no one gets hurt, I can't get caught? No guarantees just the possibility that if the opportunity presents itself and the situations right a bounce may go your way. I could do better if I knew I had that advantage.
How about coaches? Who hasn't witnessed coaches intentionally running up scores to keep alumni and supporters happy? People can say that's not really cheating but when a person knows there's a concerted effort to cover a point spread they have an advantage. When only certain people have that advantage that is cheating. In other words if the motive is to effect the score thereby effecting wagers its tampering/cheating end of story.
I know I wrote a lot here but hey what else am I going to do here at work? Actually work? This isn't a big conspiracy layout it's just saying the chances that no player on every play in every game isn't doing something fishy is a concept that has doubt. Is it not possible that Eric Decker told his girlfriends Uncle Barney if I can I'll keep the score close?
I'm reluctant to add anymore to my thread because it seems like I'm doing what some recurring comments are saying and that's no.1 imply this thread is the result of me losing money and no. 2 that I'm convinced Decker was fixing the game. I have stated more than once that those things are not my motive. All I started out saying is when something looks so odd there should be questions.
If you had bet San Diego, you would not be "asking questions" and saying "something looks odd"
If you had bet San Diego, you would not be "asking questions" and saying "something looks odd"
But none of those mistakes could be made from a gambling perspective though right? This sport didn't get to be the largest gambling platform for nothing. The NFL didn't get big because of ppl just sitting back watching the game. Gambling made it what it is today. And if it did that? Then corruption is nearby.
The odds of all these "corruptions" kept silent for all these years are about the same odds as the Easter Bunny hopping up to the ticket window on Easter morning. There are too many people involved, and too much at stake, for fixes to be anything but a very rare event. We all need a lesson in probability here. It might help in your wagering success.
90%+ people watching NFL games do not gamble.
The suggestion that an NFL referee who makes ~$195,000 a year in a part time job would "fix" a game is utterly ridiculous. Because, what would be the cash amount needed for him to agree? $200,000? Where do you park that, in your basement and nobody ever finds out? Plus, all of these guys are pretty successful in other jobs, so why does a guy jeopardize a part-time job cash cow for $100,000 grand, anyway?
As has been pointed out by others, not only would the fixers need to keep quiet, but they'd have to have a ton of $ on the right side and find an outlet for it to make sense.
This is all added to the fact that the NFL has a security department staffed full of former FBI and Secret Service agents poking around at all of this, 24X7
There is a reason there has been no major pro-football gambling scandal in the last 30 years.
It has happened in college, both football and basketball, but the topic of this thread is the NFL.
hno: . ;+)-....... or if I didn't have eyes! 
