[aeneas1]

db and I were discussing the referee thing. He came up with reasoning and phrases for how outcomes could be perceived (and perhaps contrived).
'They' would be the league and their pet zebras .
Manipulation of outcomes would be perpetrated by them which would wreck it all for me if true. I am not (nor was db) expressing an opinion of whether or not that occurs, , , just how it could spin.

i read his post to mean that there's nothing particularly more compelling about a brady/brees sb matchup than a macthup between the rams/chiefs (or any other combo for that matter), and that even if one matchup seemed truly more compelling than the others but didn't play out, so what, because media outlets can make any scenario look interesting - but not because of unscrupulous motives, but because that's what the media typically does, tries to make storylines attractive... hell, if you believed the media, no playoff team wanted a piece of the cowboys or texans, and anyone facing them would be in for a helluva fight, ha ha.

re the rest of his post, i think he was just pointing out that conspiracy nut jobs will no doubt read something into any sb matchup, true to form they'll have no shortage of reasons why "they" ensured team x and y got to the big show.

[rather]

I don't understand this concept. Who wants to see 2 old guys go at it? And Brady? Other than Pats fans, who isn't sick of seeing the Pats and Brady in the SB??

I agree with you! A Rams-Chiefs Super Bowl would be far more exciting than Brees vs Brady.

You have to understand the mindset of a TV exec though. Brees vs Brady, that can only be done basically this year. Goff vs Mahomes, we can do that anytime in the 2020's.

Brees vs Brady is a known quantity in terms of TV draw. They are going to take the sure thing now.

The NFL's message to the Rams will be - your time will come - get the new stadium and rebrand and then we will talk. That was never going to happen in STL and with Kitty 'n Friends.

[rather]

i read his post to mean that there's nothing particularly more compelling about a brady/brees sb matchup than a macthup between the rams/chiefs (or any other combo for that matter), and that even if one matchup seemed truly more compelling than the others but didn't play out, so what, because media outlets can make any scenario look interesting - but not because of unscrupulous motives, but because that's what the media typically does, tries to make storylines attractive... hell, if you believed the media, no playoff team wanted a piece of the cowboys or texans, and anyone facing them would be in for a helluva fight, ha ha.

re the rest of his post, i think he was just pointing out that conspiracy nut jobs will no doubt read something into any sb matchup, true to form they'll have no shortage of reasons why "they" ensured team x and y got to the big show.

All respect, but I don't know how you can watch a game like Colts Steelers in the '05 AFC Divisional Playoff game (and then the Steelers vs Seahawks in the Super Bowl that followed) and not be convinced of the NFL clearly trying to script outcomes. And it is driven by their TV partners.

This is an Occam's Razor, follow the money thought process question. I hate it too but I think it is pretty clear.

[aeneas1]

All respect, but I don't know how you can watch a game like Colts Steelers in the '05 AFC Divisional Playoff game (and then the Steelers vs Seahawks in the Super Bowl that followed) and not be convinced of the NFL clearly trying to script outcomes. And it is driven by their TV partners.

This is an Occam's Razor, follow the money thought process question. I hate it too but I think it is pretty clear.

thing is, i do subscribe to occam's razor (the law of parsimony): one should not make more assumptions than the minimum needed, or simpler solutions are more likely to be correct than complex ones... this ref fixing stuff strikes me as the polar opposite of occam's razor, and much more akin to the belief in fake moon landings.

[rather]

The vast majority of the league's fans are pretty casual viewers who say "I will NOT watch if it's not my team playing and I definitely won't watch if they're bad."

Think about what final four back in '99 .. Jacksonville / Tennessee and St. Louis / Tampa. That was basically the full realization of the parity model. The TV people were making a lot of noise back in those days about how ratings were down, and I bet they were.

I think the league decided that full-on parity was a mistake - they said, we have massive numbers of fans who just aren't going to watch if the "right" teams aren't in it or at least consistently competitive.

I believe they moved to a model where they said - OK, some teams need to be competitive almost every year. These are the big markets or teams with huge installed fan bases - other teams, we will allow them to be competitive if they have a star, marketable player (think like Indy and Manning). Other teams will be the Washington Generals to the teams we want to promote.

The Rams were a Washington Generals team. They've been promoted out of that realm. They have yet to be promoted to a "we're actually going to help you" team. That will come after 2020.

Just my two cents..

[dieterbrock]

I agree with you! A Rams-Chiefs Super Bowl would be far more exciting than Brees vs Brady.

You have to understand the mindset of a TV exec though. Brees vs Brady, that can only be done basically this year. Goff vs Mahomes, we can do that anytime in the 2020's.

Brees vs Brady is a known quantity in terms of TV draw. They are going to take the sure thing now.

The NFL's message to the Rams will be - your time will come - get the new stadium and rebrand and then we will talk. That was never going to happen in STL and with Kitty 'n Friends.

Regardless of who plays who in the SB, it will be the highest viewed program all year. There is no combo that executives will prefer at this point.

[aeneas1]

The vast majority of the league's fans are pretty casual viewers who say "I will NOT watch if it's not my team playing and I definitely won't watch if they're bad."

Think about what final four back in '99 .. Jacksonville / Tennessee and St. Louis / Tampa. That was basically the full realization of the parity model. The TV people were making a lot of noise back in those days about how ratings were down, and I bet they were.

I think the league decided that full-on parity was a mistake - they said, we have massive numbers of fans who just aren't going to watch if the "right" teams aren't in it or at least consistently competitive.

I believe they moved to a model where they said - OK, some teams need to be competitive almost every year. These are the big markets or teams with huge installed fan bases - other teams, we will allow them to be competitive if they have a star, marketable player (think like Indy and Manning). Other teams will be the Washington Generals to the teams we want to promote.

The Rams were a Washington Generals team. They've been promoted out of that realm. They have yet to be promoted to a "we're actually going to help you" team. That will come after 2020.

Just my two cents..

no offense, and i really mean that, but everything in the above post strikes me as delusional paranoia, pure fantasy that's completely detached from fact and reality, again the complete opposite of occam's razor... that said, i do find the phenomenon, folks that believe as you, extremely interesting.

[Elmgrovegnome]

one specific ref?

the rams posted crappy records under the watch a lot of different zebra crews from 2004-forward, not just vinovich, i suppose they were all "in on it"? the rams sucked for a long time, and their record under different zebras reflected that.

01.png

With Vinovich there always was very bad game changing calls. Maybe he just sucks. Or like I said earlier, maybe he has a tendency to give the pre game report a bit too much weight.

[aeneas1]

With Vinovich there always was very bad game changing calls.

list them please.

[Gareth]

For those of you that think the games are scripted/fixed - Why do you follow the sport? How could you possibly enjoy it if you don’t think it’s on the up and up?