Add Scott Soshnick to the growing number of people who can see that the NFL has a vested interest in the Patriots still being perfect going into the Giants-Patriots game.</p> http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=206...&refer=home</p>
Just becaue the NFL can profit from this doesn't mean that they aim to. Thats a really big jump these people are making, and to so quickly accept the inherent corruption that it would take to make this claim of causality surely shows the signs of a parnoid, and delusional person.</p>
Even Senator Kerry sees the importance of the Giants-Patriots game in the war between the NFL Network and cable.</p> Unfortunately, this disagreement has led to the use of what could potentially be an historic football game as leverage in a negotiation. On Saturday, December 29th, the New England Patriots will play the New York Giants in a game that could determine whether the Patriots become the first NFL team in 35 years to finish the regular season with an undefeated record. Unfortunately, millions of fans outside of the local media markets - including fans living in Massachusetts and New York - will not have access to the network that will broadcast the game. </p> http://www.boston.com/sports/football/patr..._presses_t.html</p>
Again no one's doubting the significance. But to say the NFL is going to corrupt the game via officials is ridiculous, and more importantly, baseless.</p>
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (GMJigga)</div><div class='quotemain'></p> Just becaue the NFL can profit from this doesn't mean that they aim to. Thats a really big jump these people are making, and to so quickly accept the inherent corruption that it would take to make this claim of causality surely shows the signs of a parnoid, and delusional person.</p> </div></p> If you don't agree with me, that fine, but I'm starting to resent comments like I must be "bitchy" or "paranoid" or "delusional." If you want to call me names, then just come out and say it and quit beating around the bush to tryavoid breaking the rules around here. If your going to break the spirit of the rules, then get some guts and just do it. You guys want to talk about me being "paranoid" or "delusional" but you can't handle a simple dissenting opinion. No wonder the football forums are dead in mid-season. A lot of you don't have any debating skills or counter arguments of any substance, so you resort to personal attacks. Go ahead and call me names. I won't be joining you and those names will say more about you than they will about me.</p>
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (DolfanDale)</div><div class='quotemain'></p> <div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (GMJigga)</div><div class='quotemain'></p> Just becaue the NFL can profit from this doesn't mean that they aim to. Thats a really big jump these people are making, and to so quickly accept the inherent corruption that it would take to make this claim of causality surely shows the signs of a parnoid, and delusional person.</p> </div></p> If you don't agree with me, that fine, but I'm starting to resent comments like I must be "bitchy" or "paranoid" or "delusional." If you want to call me names, then just come out and say it and quit beating around the bush to tryavoid breaking the rules around here. If your going to break the spirit of the rules, then get some guts and just do it. You guys want to talk about me being "paranoid" or "delusional" but you can't handle a simple dissenting opinion. No wonder the football forums are dead in mid-season. A lot of you don't have any debating skills or counter arguments of any substance, so you resort to personal attacks. Go ahead and call me names. I won't be joining you and those names will say more about you than they will about me.</p> </div></p> You suck, you delusional bastard.</p> </p>
I was talking about the writers, not you. Sorry for the confusion! To be honest I didn't read your posts, just the title that an AP writer said this. No hard feelings.</p> edit: to your point on logic and valid argumenting, I think the writers who say this commit a pretty painful fallacy by making the jump I discussed just previously. There's no evidence to support that the NFL is going out of its way to achieve its favorable result. Any writer making that jump is doing so on pure speculation, or to write something interesting to gain attention; there's just no evidence whatsoever! These thoughts have no serious basis, but should be interpreted as shock-value; its entertainment, really; a ratings boost to their respective news publications.</p>
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (DolfanDale)</div><div class='quotemain'></p> Add Scott Soshnick to the growing number of people who can see that the NFL has a vested interest in the Patriots still being perfect going into the Giants-Patriots game.</p> http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=206...&refer=home</p> </div></p> Let me ask this. Why wouldn't the NFL want the Pats to be undefeated going into the last game? The game would be on the NFL Network, and put increasing pressure on cable providors to put this in the lineup, while having better ratings for a game where people are tuning in to see if a team can win thier last game to record history? It doesn't mean they are setting it up and helping the Pats.</p> </p>
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (GMJigga)</div><div class='quotemain'></p> Again no one's doubting the significance. But to say the NFL is going to corrupt the game via officials is ridiculous, and more importantly, baseless.</p> </div></p> It's not baseless. The NFL is using interest in the games that it is providing on the NFL Network to create customer dissatisfaction and provide leverage to get the deal that they want with large cable companies. If the Patriots are undefeated in the last game, the game is worth much more than if the Patriots lose before the game is played. There are millions of dollars at stake and the Patriots have won close games with dubious calls and accusations of inappropriate conduct by it's officials. There is a conflict of interests here and that makes this a subject worth discussion in my opinion. </p>
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (DolfanDale)</div><div class='quotemain'></p> It's not baseless.</div></p> Oh wow, ok then lets see the proof...</p> <div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (dolfandale)</div><div class='quotemain'></p> The NFL is using interest in the games that it is providing on the NFL Network to create customer dissatisfaction and provide leverage to get the deal that they want with large cable companies. If the Patriots are undefeated in the last game, the game is worth much more than if the Patriots lose before the game is played. There are millions of dollars at stake and the Patriots have won close games with dubious calls and accusations of inappropriate conduct by it's officials. There is a conflict of interests here and that makes this a subject worth discussion in my opinion. </p> </div></p> Well nope, thats just your speculation. Again, its a baseless complaint; theres absolutely no proof that this is going on.</p> </p>
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (GMJigga)</div><div class='quotemain'></p> I was talking about the writers, not you. Sorry for the confusion! To be honest I didn't read your posts, just the title that an AP writer said this. No hard feelings.</p> </div></p> That's cool. I'm just getting frustrated because I think that, agree or disagree, there isn't a baseless argument. I don't mind dissenting opinions, but I would like to see people write intelligent posts about the subject rather than just dismiss the issue with a wisecrack. The real issue here is the NFL having a vested interest in the win-loss records of teams because the NFL's own network is carrying the game at a time when it's bargaining with cable.</p> </p>
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (GMJigga)</div><div class='quotemain'></p> <div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (DolfanDale)</div><div class='quotemain'></p> It's not baseless.</div></p> Oh wow, ok then lets see the proof...</p> <div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (dolfandale)</div><div class='quotemain'></p> The NFL is using interest in the games that it is providing on the NFL Network to create customer dissatisfaction and provide leverage to get the deal that they want with large cable companies. If the Patriots are undefeated in the last game, the game is worth much more than if the Patriots lose before the game is played. There are millions of dollars at stake and the Patriots have won close games with dubious calls and accusations of inappropriate conduct by it's officials. There is a conflict of interests here and that makes this a subject worth discussion in my opinion. </p> </div></p> Well nope, thats just your speculation. Again, its a baseless complaint; theres absolutely no proof that this is going on.</p> </p> </div></p> The NFL wouldn't be stupid enough to provide proof that it's trying to get the Patriots to the last game undefeated. I don't think that they would do anything outrageous, but if a game is close enough, I think that there is enough truth here to make that assertion plausable. It's not speculationthat the NFL and major cable companies are at odds over the NFL Network. That's a fact. It's not speculation that the Patriots-Giants game is much more valuable if the Patriots are undefeated. That's a fact. It's not speculation that the NFL stands to gain millions of dollars based on the Patriots success. That's a fact AND what the business world calls a conflict of interests. That makes this subject worth discussing.</p> </p>
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (dolfandale)</div><div class='quotemain'></p> I think that there is enough truth here to make that assertion plausable</p> </div></p> Being?</p>
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (GMJigga)</div><div class='quotemain'></p> <div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (dolfandale)</div><div class='quotemain'></p> I think that there is enough truth here to make that assertion plausable</p> </div></p> Being?</p> </div></p> Being the massive history of the league rigging things in favor of its favored teams...oh wait, this is the NFL and the Patriots, not the Knicks or Lakers in the NBA. I guess one game where neither team was happy with the officiating is enough to prove a massive league conspiracy.</p> Again, if you want to bring up the timeout call, find me where the head coach is complaining about it. Tony Dungy has complained about it more than Billick has. This tells me one of two things. Either Billick took the signal from the coordinator and asked for the time out or Billick was going to call it anyway.</p> Tell me where the hold wasn't on Ben Watson.</p> Tell me where the offensive false start wasn't.</p> Tell me where the refs let Tom Brady run for a first down.</p> Tell me where the refs put two linebackers on the goalline to tackle the guy who caught the hail mary. And while you're there, tell me where the refs call the tackle on Derek Mason that made that catch so easy.</p> Show me indisputable video evidence that Gaffney didn't catch the ball. I haven't seen it and neither have the dozen or so Bills fans I have spoken to on the subject, include a very obvious Patriot-hater.</p> For the Eagles TD, its no longer worth talking about. Gaffney had two feet and a knee and clear, indisputable control in that one. Should it have been reviewed, sure. Would it have had even the slightest shot of being overturned, no.</p> As for me not assuming that the Patriots would have scored on the next play, I can't talk about things that haven't happened, but you can claim a massive NFL induced conspiracy for the Patriots based on what history of similar events happening?</p>
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (DolfanDale)</div><div class='quotemain'></p> 2. The Patriots didn't beat the Ravens.</p> </div></p> So who beat the Ravens? The Dolphins?</p> Check their record it says a LOSS to the Patriots, not to some other team, or the refs, or belichick, or aliens.</p> <div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (DolfanDale)</div><div class='quotemain'></p> The refs blatantly ignored the rule that said a head coach must call the timeout.</div></p> Not sure if you saw the interview after the game, billick said that they called the timeout and it was their mistake and didn't want to go down in history as the team that could have used a timeout but didn't. That was their mistake, not the refs.</p> </p> <div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (DolfanDale)</div><div class='quotemain'></p> If that's not good enough, Gaffney was GIVEN a touchdown reception. He was bobbling the ball in the endzone.</p> </div></p> That was a touchdown, he had the ball, and it doesn't matter what you saw, it matters that it was in his HANDS and it wasn't going away from his hands, he had complete control of the BALL and it was a touchdown, simple as that.</p> </p> Again the Ravens had a chance to win it but showed that they couldn't beat a better team. (and a better coach)</p> Now please give some credit to the Patriots for not giving up after trailing for most of the game and coming back to win it at the last 50 seconds of the game. Thats what we should talk about, not about who called the timeout.</p> GO PATRIOTSSSS!!!!!</p> </p>
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Kid Chocolate)</div><div class='quotemain'></p> DolfinDale is just upset his team hasn't won a game yet. He'll be a bit cranky till they win a game. Maybe next year he'll calm down.</p> </div></p> Wonder what will happen when we beat them by 70 pts. haha</p> <font size="1">(dolfandale, I don't think it'll be that high though) </font></p> </p>
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (CelticKing)</div><div class='quotemain'></p> <div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Kid Chocolate)</div><div class='quotemain'></p> DolfinDale is just upset his team hasn't won a game yet. He'll be a bit cranky till they win a game. Maybe next year he'll calm down.</p> </div></p> Wonder what will happen when we beat them by 70 pts. haha</p> <font size="1">(dolfandale, I don't think it'll be that high though) </font></p> </p> </div></p> That's fine. The Patriots should beat the Dolphins by record numbers. The Dolphins sucked before they lost Trent Green, Ronnie Brown, Zach Thomas and a half dozen safties, for the year, to injuries. You can only imagine how much more the Dolphins suck now. Oh wait, they just got whupped by the Jets. Go aheah and dismiss what I have said because I'm a Dolphins fan, but your wrong. I'm objective and can call the Dolphins what they are without losing sleep over it. The Dolphins are a bad team and I'm just going to wait until the offseason and see what is done about it and then hope they get better. That doesn't change the truth. The truth is that the NFL has a multimillion dollar interest in the success of one of their teams, which is a conflict of interests and unethical,and people are sticking their heads in the sand about it because the Patriots are a popular team.</p> </p>
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Kid Chocolate)</div><div class='quotemain'></p> DolfinDale is just upset his team hasn't won a game yet. He'll be a bit cranky till they win a game. Maybe next year he'll calm down.</p> </div></p> I doubt it. Though, he can wear his heart on his sleeve & still be objective quite an accomplishment.</p> Objectivity rarely exists anymoreand certainly not @ a site like this. Philosophy aside, I think it'd be quite funny to see the phins the only winless & perfect franchise in the NFL.</p>
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (DolfanDale)</div><div class='quotemain'></p> but I would like to see people write intelligent posts about the subject rather than just dismiss the issue with a wisecrack.</p> </div></p> Sarcastic observations are so much more fun. Though, I could be wrong. Nah!!</p> </p>
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (DolfanDale)</div><div class='quotemain'></p> The NFL wouldn't be stupid enough to provide proof that it's trying to get the Patriots to the last game undefeated. I don't think that they would do anything outrageous, but if a game is close enough, I think that there is enough truth here to make that assertion plausable. It's not speculationthat the NFL and major cable companies are at odds over the NFL Network. That's a fact. It's not speculation that the Patriots-Giants game is much more valuable if the Patriots are undefeated. That's a fact. It's not speculation that the NFL stands to gain millions of dollars based on the Patriots success. That's a fact AND what the business world calls a conflict of interests. That makes this subject worth discussing.</p> </div></p> </p> Dale, you have tied your points together very well here. All you really need is some common sense and to follow the trail of money.</p> If a spouse who has a million dollar life insurance policy gets murdered, who becomes the number one suspect? Forget having any shred of physical evidence, their spouse is suspect number one until proven innocent. If a home is insured with a million dollar insurance policy against fire, who becomes the number one suspect? The owner does, because he stands to gain the most from destroying it. Follow the money.</p> </p> These examples are not some elaborate, wacky, conspiracy. This is the way things are.</p> </p>
