This is how the NFL rigs games

[rabblerouser]

The refs really showed out for the Bungles today.

**** the NFL.

[Spott]

Originally Posted by Dartgod

Are you ever going to answer my question about why the NFL needed the Bengals to score a FG and not a TD, so that they would cover the spread, when they were 3 point underdogs?

In case you need a reminder.

If the game went to OT, KC could have won by 6 like they did 2 weeks ago.

[Barret]

Question, Wouldn't a Cincinnati loss been better for the TV ratings? Meaning the Monday night football game last night with Pittsburg and Cleveland would have had more meaning to it. I mean flip the Chiefs and Bengals score and there is still "Those scrappy Bengals almost pulled it out" talk happening. This would have kept people interested in the AFC North for the last weekend of the year. Also isn't the Pittsburgh fan base probably larger and more money in it then Cincinnati?

Or am I being short sighted and need to look at the Playoff money and not the regular season money now?

[crayzkirk]

There's always a conspiracy if you look hard enough for it and line up the information the way you want to see it.

There were other plays in the game where it was pretty clear that Fenton/Ward made a lot of contact before the ball got there and there was no call. The really bad call on Sneed and the 3rd and 27 play are what sealed the game. I would need to watch the all-22 to see if the Chiefs were consistently holding/interfering all game and only some were called. I'm not going to re-watch the game so forget that...

The Bengals were making plays and taking chances in the second half. The Chiefs were playing it rather safe, the Bengals were rewarded for that play.

In close games, there's always a few plays that if they went the other way, it would have changed the outcome. The Chiefs defense gave up a rookie record in passing yards. Refusal/unable to adjust to the Bengals offense is what cost the Chiefs the game.

[Dartgod]

Originally Posted by Spott

If the game went to OT, KC could have won by 6 like they did 2 weeks ago.

But what if they kicked a FG and left time on the clock? A TD by us plus the EP would have us up by 4, thus covering the spread.

What he said makes no sense, but he won't address it for some reason.

[Dartgod]

Originally Posted by Barret

Question, Wouldn't a Cincinnati loss been better for the TV ratings? Meaning the Monday night football game last night with Pittsburg and Cleveland would have had more meaning to it. I mean flip the Chiefs and Bengals score and there is still "Those scrappy Bengals almost pulled it out" talk happening. This would have kept people interested in the AFC North for the last weekend of the year. Also isn't the Pittsburgh fan base probably larger and more money in it then Cincinnati?

Or am I being short sighted and need to look at the Playoff money and not the regular season money now?

Nobody knows what makes sense until your favorite team gets jobbed by shitty refs and then it all becomes crystal clear.

[OnTheWarpath15]

*checks calendar, it's Tuesday*

Oh, this thread is still going, eh?

[rabblerouser]

Originally Posted by Dartgod

Are you ever going to answer my question about why the NFL needed the Bengals to score a FG and not a TD, so that they would cover the spread, when they were 3 point underdogs?

In case you need a reminder.

Not unless you stop being a ridiculous twat.

Idk, maybe they did that for funsies. Maybe the NFL wanted Cincy to win the North. Maybe it had something to do with Vegas.

I don't know and honestly the "why" doesn't matter to me so much as the reality that it's happening. I doubt you'll understand that train of thought, either.

[ClevelandBronco]

Originally Posted by rabblerouser

Not unless you stop being a ridiculous twat.

Idk, maybe they did that for funsies. Maybe the NFL wanted Cincy to win the North. Maybe it had something to do with Vegas.

I don't know and honestly the "why" doesn't matter to me so much as the reality that it's happening. I doubt you'll understand that train of thought, either.

That’s not an embarrassing answer at all to you, is it?

[rabblerouser]

Originally Posted by Spott

If the game went to OT, KC could have won by 6 like they did 2 weeks ago.

He doesn't get it. Fartgod is being intentionally obtuse.

He's trolling.

[rabblerouser]

Originally Posted by ClevelandBronco

That’s not an embarrassing answer at all to you, is it?

The fact that this has to be explained to adults is the embarrassing part.

I don't give a **** about what Fartgod wants to know. He didn't even know that the line had changed when the refs got changed.

He didn't even know that THE LINE HAD CHANGED WHEN THE REFS GOT CHANGED.

[Dartgod]

Originally Posted by rabblerouser

Not unless you stop being a ridiculous twat.

Idk, maybe they did that for funsies. Maybe the NFL wanted Cincy to win the North. Maybe it had something to do with Vegas.

I don't know and honestly the "why" doesn't matter to me so much as the reality that it's happening. I doubt you'll understand that train of thought, either.

Originally Posted by rabblerouser

He doesn't get it. Fartgod is being intentionally obtuse.

He's trolling.

Originally Posted by rabblerouser

The fact that this has to be explained to adults is the embarrassing part.

I don't give a **** about what Fartgod wants to know. He didn't even know that the line had changed when the refs got changed.

He didn't even know that THE LINE HAD CHANGED WHEN THE REFS GOT CHANGED.

I'm actually trying to discuss this rationally. Just because you don't agree with me doesn't mean I'm being obtuse. You were the one who refused to answer my question about something that YOU were offering as proof that the game was rigged. And then you finally explain it away that the NFL was doing it for kicks.

Why would I know that the line had changed? I don't bet on the games. I referred to the lines I posted on Friday in my gambling thread. I'm pretty sure that I admitted my mistake, something you are incapable of doing. "Idk, maybe they did that for funsies". Give me a ****ing break.

Look, I've purposely tried to have a civil discussion about this with you because in the past you got butt hurt and put me on ignore for the way I addressed you. That ends now. Go ahead and put me on ignore again you ****ing loon.

[Wisconsin_Chief]

Originally Posted by rabblerouser

I don't know and honestly the "why" doesn't matter to me so much as the reality that it's happening.

Exactly right. I'm not some grand NFL conspiracy believer and I certainly couldn't tell you what their reasoning was for wanting KC to lose that game. My guess would be they want a Mahomes/Herbert matchup in the first round instead of suckbag Tannehill vs the Bolts. It's actually pretty simple if you think about it. Again, it's not conspiracy. Just follow the money. They also now have Mahomes for 3 playoff games potentially instead of 2, and if you don't think that matters you should ask yourself why almost every single KC game this year was on the national broadcast. He's a ratings machine. The only thing the owners of this league care about is making money. That's really all there is to it.

Whatever their reason was, I'm simply not naive enough to watch a game be completely orchestrated and chalk it up to 'bad calls.' I've seen games like that, too. That's not what this was.

[rabblerouser]

Originally Posted by Dartgod

I'm actually trying to discuss this rationally. Just because you don't agree with me doesn't mean I'm being obtuse. You were the one who refused to answer my question about something that YOU were offering as proof that the game was rigged. And then you finally explain it away that the NFL was doing it for kicks.

Why would I know that the line had changed? I don't bet on the games. I referred to the lines I posted on Friday in my gambling thread. I'm pretty sure that I admitted my mistake, something you are incapable of doing. "Idk, maybe they did that for funsies". Give me a ****ing break.

Look, I've purposely tried to have a civil discussion about this with you because in the past you got butt hurt and put me on ignore for the way I addressed you. That ends now. Go ahead and put me on ignore again you ****ing loon.

Try not being a condescending prick when you want to discuss something rationally.

You'll get a whole different kind of response. Promise.

[Bearcat]

My 2¢ is if I believed in a grand conspiracy, I wouldn't necessarily know the why, as we all know potential reasons include money, Vegas, TV ratings, etc.

The repeated questions that are widely ignored by the most convinced though is how it's rigged... and that's where these discussions always fall apart.

One week the NFL is rigging a game with bad calls by long time officials, which apparently means long time officials are in on it... and another week they have to make last minute changes to the officials, because I guess the original crew wasn't privy to rigging the games like other crews? So, they needed to ensure incompetence over rigging?

But then other weeks entire games are rigged or "performed", like the week the Bills lost to Jacksonville and all of the other upsets happens.

So, it's actually WWF and it's all just a performance and the players and coaches are in on it, except when the refs are involved to rig games, or substitute refs are brought in become the original crew wasn't riggy enough or something.

So.... deciding what the hell you all believe would be a nice start, since it changes so dramatically depending on the outcome of the games and what can be cherry picked as sus.

[rabblerouser]

Originally Posted by Wisconsin_Chief

Exactly right. I'm not some grand NFL conspiracy believer and I certainly couldn't tell you what their reasoning was for wanting KC to lose that game. My guess would be they want a Mahomes/Herbert matchup in the first round instead of suckbag Tannehill vs the Bolts. It's actually pretty simple if you think about it. Again, it's not conspiracy. Just follow the money. They also now have Mahomes for 3 playoff games potentially instead of 2, and if you don't think that matters you should ask yourself why almost every single KC game this year was on the national broadcast. He's a ratings machine. The only thing the owners of this league care about is making money. That's really all there is to it.

Whatever their reason was, I'm simply not naive enough to watch a game be completely orchestrated and chalk it up to 'bad calls.' I've seen games like that, too. That's not what this was.

Thank you.

Logic.

It's not a "conspiracy" - the Supreme Court ruled in 2010 that the NFL is allowed to manipulate aspects of their onfield product "for entertainment purposes."

That means that they're admitting that's what they do.

My guess would be they want a Mahomes/Herbert matchup in the first round instead of suckbag Tannehill vs the Bolts because the general consensus is that Mahomes and Herbert on a Monday Night playoff is "more entertaining" than suckbag Tanny vs Bolts. Because, let's face it...Bolts fans aren't going to tune in en masse. Do they even have even fans yet?

Mahomes/Herbert will get WAY better ratings than Tanny/Herbert.

I mean, if you could prove that's not what they're doing, I'll listen. But no one can prove that's not what they're doing.

In fact...they've admitted in court that they can and do, they're allowed to, and that fans will keep watching anyway.

And they're right.

That's the opposite of a conspiracy. At this point, the NFL calls it their modus operandi.

Follow the money, indeed.