There are 113 users in the forums

Remember
Not a member? Register Now!

NFL against the quest for 6?

  • kush
  • Veteran
  • Posts: 2,660
Originally posted by kush:
I already conceded that we had a clear opportunity to win this game. We blew it. Nowhere in my post did I say that the NFL made us lose. I don't think there's a conspiracy against us. I think that the NFL wants close games. I laid out why I feel that way.

Good day to you two.


Originally posted by cciowa:
so when do these decisions to f**k the niners in the ass in each one of the losses we had this year get made? do they happen before the game with the refs together in a dark room with the shades drawn? are they on skype with roger g before the game. since the entire nfl is behind this then i would assume x niners who now work for the nfl like gene washington and merton hanks are in on it to. who is in the this inner circle that has decided the niners simply can not win a sixth super bowl? when are the meetings, what is said? do you think its interesting? does it happen before the season or is it weekly? sheesh
Did you even read my post, lol, who are you talking to CC? I felt like you were responding to me but I don't know how, rationally, your post could follow mine.
i think its pretty foolish to say the nfl is against our quest for 6. some calls that get made are missed calls, some go in your fav and other dont. if you dont execute after the fact it makes that blown call look bigger than it should be. it will always be a game about execution, and the team who does it less will always have fans searching the games with a fine tooth comb looking for plays where the refs "cost them the game". if that throw to crabs isnt tipped and he catches it, then this thread doesnt exist. thats how fine of a line it is.
Look, I am the first to say that the refs hurt us badly with several calls. And I'm still very angry about that, and it may have cost us the game. We'll never know how different the play calling would have been, what would have happened on the drive that should have been extended for roughing Lee, and how that would have affected Seattle's strategy on their next drive etc. Obviously the running into the kicker was huge, but the Carlos Rogers BOGUS personal foul may have really hurt us too. The ball should have been at the 35 yard line with 20 seconds left in the 1st half and we had all 3 of our timeouts. We have a clutch kicker, and any defense has no choice but to play it soft to make sure they don't give up a TD, so there is very little chance we kneel if we're 15 yards closer as we should have been. We had a great chance at getting into FG range taken away by the refs, and the score could have easily been 13-3. The way the game played out we could have really used that opportunity.

But those of you who truly think that the NFL wanted Seattle in the SB need to think about 2 things that nearly 100% squash this. The first is that the Niners win if Kaep throws the ball 3-4 higher or farther on the tip. Why does that matter? Because Seattle simply wouldn't have had enough time (without a huge play that the refs could not manufacture for them) to get into position for a game winning FG. There was less than 30 seconds left and Seattle had one timeout. Yes, they would have a 10 or 15% chance to win, but why would the NFL allow the game to even be winnable for the Niners if there was truly a conspiracy? If you want to say the game was fixed to be close, I don't buy it, but you can believe that if you want to. Just don't say they didn't want us to win, because they aren't in control of that if Kaep makes a better throw, or better yet decides not to attack the best corner in the league with the game on the line. Again, the refs hurt us (by random chance IMO) with more bad calls in Seattle's favor than ours, but they did NOT do it just to sabotage us. To think that they did ignores reality. The second reason that the fix is not in is that it doesn't need to be. What happens if the one of the refs goes to the media with proof that the NFL is the WWE? Do you know how much a media outlet would pay for that story if the ref had proof? And more importantly, how entirely DEAD the league would be if it was thought to be fixing games? Why would the NFL, in an effort to make the SB 10-20% more watched risk 100% of the billions and billions they have with a legit product? If you were Bill Gates, would you bet your life savings on a hand of Blackjack if the payout for winning was far less than you were betting?

So yes, those of you saying that it's a multi-billionaire league that would clearly prefer that certain teams win (generally bigger market teams like say NY or SF) are correct. But again, if anything the league would want us in, not out. Bad calls are a part of the game even with replay, we got screwed on Sunday and we'll be screwed again. But so will our opponents, and every other team in the league from time to time. And it will be coincidence and not malice when it does happen.
Originally posted by DelCed2486:
Awesome retort, so chock-full of facts and analysis to support your "argument".


Just as the "chock" full of evidence you provided for your short sighted point?
Originally posted by bpg4980:
Look, I am the first to say that the refs hurt us badly with several calls. And I'm still very angry about that, and it may have cost us the game. We'll never know how different the play calling would have been, what would have happened on the drive that should have been extended for roughing Lee, and how that would have affected Seattle's strategy on their next drive etc. Obviously the running into the kicker was huge, but the Carlos Rogers BOGUS personal foul may have really hurt us too. The ball should have been at the 35 yard line with 20 seconds left in the 1st half and we had all 3 of our timeouts. We have a clutch kicker, and any defense has no choice but to play it soft to make sure they don't give up a TD, so there is very little chance we kneel if we're 15 yards closer as we should have been. We had a great chance at getting into FG range taken away by the refs, and the score could have easily been 13-3. The way the game played out we could have really used that opportunity.

But those of you who truly think that the NFL wanted Seattle in the SB need to think about 2 things that nearly 100% squash this. The first is that the Niners win if Kaep throws the ball 3-4 higher or farther on the tip. Why does that matter? Because Seattle simply wouldn't have had enough time (without a huge play that the refs could not manufacture for them) to get into position for a game winning FG. There was less than 30 seconds left and Seattle had one timeout. Yes, they would have a 10 or 15% chance to win, but why would the NFL allow the game to even be winnable for the Niners if there was truly a conspiracy? If you want to say the game was fixed to be close, I don't buy it, but you can believe that if you want to. Just don't say they didn't want us to win, because they aren't in control of that if Kaep makes a better throw, or better yet decides not to attack the best corner in the league with the game on the line. Again, the refs hurt us (by random chance IMO) with more bad calls in Seattle's favor than ours, but they did NOT do it just to sabotage us. To think that they did ignores reality. The second reason that the fix is not in is that it doesn't need to be. What happens if the one of the refs goes to the media with proof that the NFL is the WWE? Do you know how much a media outlet would pay for that story if the ref had proof? And more importantly, how entirely DEAD the league would be if it was thought to be fixing games? Why would the NFL, in an effort to make the SB 10-20% more watched risk 100% of the billions and billions they have with a legit product? If you were Bill Gates, would you bet your life savings on a hand of Blackjack if the payout for winning was far less than you were betting?

So yes, those of you saying that it's a multi-billionaire league that would clearly prefer that certain teams win (generally bigger market teams like say NY or SF) are correct. But again, if anything the league would want us in, not out. Bad calls are a part of the game even with replay, we got screwed on Sunday and we'll be screwed again. But so will our opponents, and every other team in the league from time to time. And it will be coincidence and not malice when it does happen.


Again, the worst thing you can do when critically thinking is cancel out possibilities due to a speculative assumption or outcome. In every one of the "the NFL cannot possibly have it out against us" responses, the posters reasoning begins with this one mistake. The Seahawks are a good team. In this game of inches, opportunity, evenly matched teams, and momentum it does not take sabotaging the game up until the last second to reach a desired outcome. Now how do you know that had Crabs caught the ball some last second flag would not have been thrown? Or some blatant hold not get called on the return? Sherman made a good play, and so did Bow, Whitner, Rogers, but somehow our good plays did not translate to a win or even be acknowledged.

Not allowing the game to be a blowout gives a false sense of competition and adds a dramatic effect in football WHICH HAPPENS TO BE THE MOST PROFITABLE GENRE OF TELEVISION.
Originally posted by cciowa:
it is all about how you choose to connect dots. to think the nfl has a conspiracy against us is just laughable no matter the grassy knoll evidence you trot out. now if you can show my the roger g's palm print on the yellow flags thrown at the niners then you may have something, until then how about if we just take responsibility for mistakes made, bad play calls, missed tackles, brain farts and just errors we make that lead to a loss. i also have no idea what your statement about being part of a script means and I really do not want to know either


Really? So basically you are giving the benefit of the doubt to a particular party meaning you are NOT impartial in the matter. Ok.... gotcha.
Originally posted by kush:
1. Yes, people do actually believe this and not every one who believes it is f**king stupid or some junky fan who's in denial and can't stand his or her team losing.

2. Kap had three chances to win this game, even with the s**tty calls from the referees, and blew it. Our team lost this game. Thinking the refs kept Seattle in the game with b******t calls is not the same as thinking SF had no chance because the refs stole the game. This game was certainly winnable.

3. Go around to other forums and you'll see a ton of people (with no affiliation to the 49ers) saying the league gave the game to Seattle. Saints fans, Cardinals fans, Rams fans, Falcons fans, Cowboys fans, Jets fans, have at it. Are they whiners too?

I don't see this as black and white, like you do. In my head, it's not so obvious that, if someone doesn't think the refs are impacting the game, I think they're a retard and will let them know it. I, and I'm sure others who feel the way I do have an open mind and am willing to consider all possibilities.

Can you at least admit this: The NFL makes a LOT more $ when a game is close. We're talking A LOT MORE $. There is, at the very least, motivation for the league to keep games close.

Exactly. Some fans of other teams are screaming red flag.
Wilson got away with way too many intentional groundings with only one called
Originally posted by Puckdaddy:
Originally posted by DelCed2486:
Awesome retort, so chock-full of facts and analysis to support your "argument".


Just as the "chock" full of evidence you provided for your short sighted point?


You keep blabbing on about NFL having billions at stake, so I called your BS and said that if that were truly the case, they would be much more inclined to have two large-market teams in the 49ers and Pats in the SB, a matchup which brings with it some intriguing story lines. You had no coherent response to that, not a single thing that could even accidentally be construed as a fact, salient point, or sound reasoning.

Then along those same lines, someone else countered you by saying how the NFL would actually lose revenue with the current matchup, and gave his reasons why. Your reply? "You're wrong on so many levels". Um, okay, I guess if you say so.
Originally posted by Puckdaddy:
Originally posted by bpg4980:
Look, I am the first to say that the refs hurt us badly with several calls. And I'm still very angry about that, and it may have cost us the game. We'll never know how different the play calling would have been, what would have happened on the drive that should have been extended for roughing Lee, and how that would have affected Seattle's strategy on their next drive etc. Obviously the running into the kicker was huge, but the Carlos Rogers BOGUS personal foul may have really hurt us too. The ball should have been at the 35 yard line with 20 seconds left in the 1st half and we had all 3 of our timeouts. We have a clutch kicker, and any defense has no choice but to play it soft to make sure they don't give up a TD, so there is very little chance we kneel if we're 15 yards closer as we should have been. We had a great chance at getting into FG range taken away by the refs, and the score could have easily been 13-3. The way the game played out we could have really used that opportunity.

But those of you who truly think that the NFL wanted Seattle in the SB need to think about 2 things that nearly 100% squash this. The first is that the Niners win if Kaep throws the ball 3-4 higher or farther on the tip. Why does that matter? Because Seattle simply wouldn't have had enough time (without a huge play that the refs could not manufacture for them) to get into position for a game winning FG. There was less than 30 seconds left and Seattle had one timeout. Yes, they would have a 10 or 15% chance to win, but why would the NFL allow the game to even be winnable for the Niners if there was truly a conspiracy? If you want to say the game was fixed to be close, I don't buy it, but you can believe that if you want to. Just don't say they didn't want us to win, because they aren't in control of that if Kaep makes a better throw, or better yet decides not to attack the best corner in the league with the game on the line. Again, the refs hurt us (by random chance IMO) with more bad calls in Seattle's favor than ours, but they did NOT do it just to sabotage us. To think that they did ignores reality. The second reason that the fix is not in is that it doesn't need to be. What happens if the one of the refs goes to the media with proof that the NFL is the WWE? Do you know how much a media outlet would pay for that story if the ref had proof? And more importantly, how entirely DEAD the league would be if it was thought to be fixing games? Why would the NFL, in an effort to make the SB 10-20% more watched risk 100% of the billions and billions they have with a legit product? If you were Bill Gates, would you bet your life savings on a hand of Blackjack if the payout for winning was far less than you were betting?

So yes, those of you saying that it's a multi-billionaire league that would clearly prefer that certain teams win (generally bigger market teams like say NY or SF) are correct. But again, if anything the league would want us in, not out. Bad calls are a part of the game even with replay, we got screwed on Sunday and we'll be screwed again. But so will our opponents, and every other team in the league from time to time. And it will be coincidence and not malice when it does happen.


Again, the worst thing you can do when critically thinking is cancel out possibilities due to a speculative assumption or outcome. In every one of the "the NFL cannot possibly have it out against us" responses, the posters reasoning begins with this one mistake. The Seahawks are a good team. In this game of inches, opportunity, evenly matched teams, and momentum it does not take sabotaging the game up until the last second to reach a desired outcome. Now how do you know that had Crabs caught the ball some last second flag would not have been thrown? Or some blatant hold not get called on the return? Sherman made a good play, and so did Bow, Whitner, Rogers, but somehow our good plays did not translate to a win or even be acknowledged.

Not allowing the game to be a blowout gives a false sense of competition and adds a dramatic effect in football WHICH HAPPENS TO BE THE MOST PROFITABLE GENRE OF TELEVISION.

This argument speculates more than I was by saying that they could have thrown a flag had the pass to Crabtree been complete. If you really think the refs waited to see the results and then would just call a phantom call on us after the play was over, then I'm going to go ahead and bow out of the discussion. What if we scored again after a phantom hold or offensive PI call? They'd throw another imaginary flag and continue doing so until Seattle won? Is that within the realm of possibilities? I guess. But you have zero proof that that would have happened, zero proof that the NFL benefits from Seattle in the SB instead of us (I'd guess we can prove the opposite), and more importantly the NFL would be risking far more in betting the already MASSIVE empire to simply get a couple of extra million viewers for a game for which the advertising spots have likely already been sold. Please lay out why the league would risk everything for so little benefit. Is betting your house on something (even if it's likely to be a winning bet) worth winning a tiny chunk of what your house is already worth? And if you do believe this is happening, why do you watch at all? If the Niners win, that would have been at least somewhat predetermined too, and therefore there is no substance to it. If you really believe your own argument, you simply have to stop watching these tainted, fictional events.

How easy it is for one team to get the benefit of 3 or 4 bad calls in a row? Remember, if a coin comes up heads 3 flips in a row, the chances that it's going to be heads again on the next flip are still exactly 50%. We got screwed on several calls, but there will be a team that will be on the wrong side of more calls in just about every game that is played from now until the end of time. We feel worse about this one and it feels less fair to fanatics like us because they happened in a huge game against our rival. Had this happened in a regular season game against the Browns, would you be saying the outcome was manipulated? I know, I know the NFL doesn't care as much about that game, but neither do the fans are therefore we are more likely to overreact to the NFC championship than a nondescript regular season game. Our bias is just as strong as the perceived bias that the NFL would have. We got screwed on some really bad calls, and the refs hurt our chance to win. But there is FAR more likelihood that was because of random officiating ineptitude rather than some conspiracy by the league. I will listen to the argument that the refs are a bit swayed by the home crowd, especially in a rabid environment like Seattle. They are human, after all. But to think the league is some kind of puppet master that never has never had a bad seed expose them for full fledged cheating is far fetched to put it kindly.
[ Edited by bpg4980 on Jan 22, 2014 at 3:19 PM ]
Originally posted by DelCed2486:
You keep blabbing on about NFL having billions at stake, so I called your BS and said that if that were truly the case, they would be much more inclined to have two large-market teams in the 49ers and Pats in the SB, a matchup which brings with it some intriguing story lines. You had no coherent response to that, not a single thing that could even accidentally be construed as a fact, salient point, or sound reasoning.

Then along those same lines, someone else countered you by saying how the NFL would actually lose revenue with the current matchup, and gave his reasons why. Your reply? "You're wrong on so many levels". Um, okay, I guess if you say so.


I like I told you after you made that short sided comment: because your ASSUMED conclusion of a manufactured outcome is not manifested, it does not subject foul play to YOUR idea of how it would look. I had a response to that which shows that you are typing more than you are reading. The NFL is a business and a smart one at that. So to expect the "Niners and Pats to make the super bowl every year, because of a high marketability", is intellectually lazy. Now if your logic was actually logical, you would have made a more business conscious comment and said that your expectations for foul play would a Cowboys vs. Pats super bowl because they are the two largest markets in the NFL. Anyhow, in business the object is not to focus on your products that have high margins regardless, but to focus on those that have a potential to raise its current margins and or value.

How do you do so? You select two teams that actually has a high potential to raise its marketability. The Seahawks are a trendy team, with the #1 defense, character, controversy, and crazed fans to match. The Broncos have a legendary QB, the #1 offense with god-like WR's, and a historic franchise to match. The Seattle Seahawks revenue has risen each year from 119 in 2002 to 290 in 2013. The Broncos went from 159 to 283. Both teams have a have potential as far a raising their margins due to their attributes.

Each question asked I answered. Maybe you need to calm down an read.
Originally posted by bpg4980:
This argument speculates more than I was by saying that they could have thrown a flag had the pass to Crabtree been complete. If you really think the refs waited to see the results and then would just call a phantom call on us after the play was over, then I'm going to go ahead and bow out of the discussion. What if we scored again after a phantom hold or offensive PI call? They'd throw another imaginary flag and continue doing so until Seattle won? Is that within the realm of possibilities? I guess. But you have zero proof that that would have happened, zero proof that the NFL benefits from Seattle in the SB instead of us (I'd guess we can prove the opposite), and more importantly the NFL would be risking far more in betting the already MASSIVE empire to simply get a couple of extra million viewers for a game for which the advertising spots have likely already been sold. Please lay out why the league would risk everything for so little benefit. Is betting your house on something (even if it's likely to be a winning bet) worth winning a tiny chunk of what your house is already worth? And if you do believe this is happening, why do you watch at all? If the Niners win, that would have been at least somewhat predetermined too, and therefore there is no substance to it. If you really believe your own argument, you simply have to stop watching these tainted, fictional events.

How easy it is for one team to get the benefit of 3 or 4 bad calls in a row? Remember, if a coin comes up heads 3 flips in a row, the chances that it's going to be heads again on the next flip are still exactly 50%. We got screwed on several calls, but there will be a team that will be on the wrong side of more calls in just about every game that is played from now until the end of time. We feel worse about this one and it feels less fair to fanatics like us because they happened in a huge game against our rival. Had this happened in a regular season game against the Browns, would you be saying the outcome was manipulated? I know, I know the NFL doesn't care as much about that game, but neither do the fans are therefore we are more likely to overreact to the NFC championship than a nondescript regular season game. Our bias is just as strong as the perceived bias that the NFL would have. We got screwed on some really bad calls, and the refs hurt our chance to win. But there is FAR more likelihood that was because of random officiating ineptitude rather than some conspiracy by the league. I will listen to the argument that the refs are a bit swayed by the home crowd, especially in a rabid environment like Seattle. They are human, after all. But to think the league is some kind of puppet master that never has never had a bad seed expose them for full fledged cheating is far fetched to put it kindly.


Keyword.........POSSIBILITY. What would make you think that the NFL would be at risk by manufacturing a win? Who's mediating them to put them at risk? Your entire stance is predicated upon a predetermined result of 'It either looks like this, that, or nothing at all'. Unless you have some behind the scenes information, everything on television is scripted as far as you and I know. You nor I know the script, therefore any outcome cannot be predicted beforehand by me. I watch Dexter, Walking Dead, and American Horror story often, but does that suggest that I not watch it because I know that's scripted? Its hard to appeal to your logic because you put so much into speculation and pre assumed outcomes when in actuality it is not up to you nor I. All we can do is compile our evidence and build an argument of off it.

By the way, trivializing the point does not strengthen your argument. It is more of a dismissal of the points given. Here's some homework for you, google Tim Donaghy. The worst thing you can to is put certain things pass men.
[ Edited by Puckdaddy on Jan 22, 2014 at 6:19 PM ]
Originally posted by Puckdaddy:
Originally posted by DelCed2486:
You keep blabbing on about NFL having billions at stake, so I called your BS and said that if that were truly the case, they would be much more inclined to have two large-market teams in the 49ers and Pats in the SB, a matchup which brings with it some intriguing story lines. You had no coherent response to that, not a single thing that could even accidentally be construed as a fact, salient point, or sound reasoning.

Then along those same lines, someone else countered you by saying how the NFL would actually lose revenue with the current matchup, and gave his reasons why. Your reply? "You're wrong on so many levels". Um, okay, I guess if you say so.


I like I told you after you made that short sided comment: because your ASSUMED conclusion of a manufactured outcome is not manifested, it does not subject foul play to YOUR idea of how it would look. I had a response to that which shows that you are typing more than you are reading. The NFL is a business and a smart one at that. So to expect the "Niners and Pats to make the super bowl every year, because of a high marketability", is intellectually lazy. Now if your logic was actually logical, you would have made a more business conscious comment and said that your expectations for foul play would a Cowboys vs. Pats super bowl because they are the two largest markets in the NFL. Anyhow, in business the object is not to focus on your products that have high margins regardless, but to focus on those that have a potential to raise its current margins and or value.

How do you do so? You select two teams that actually has a high potential to raise its marketability. The Seahawks are a trendy team, with the #1 defense, character, controversy, and crazed fans to match. The Broncos have a legendary QB, the #1 offense with god-like WR's, and a historic franchise to match. The Seattle Seahawks revenue has risen each year from 119 in 2002 to 290 in 2013. The Broncos went from 159 to 283. Both teams have a have potential as far a raising their margins due to their attributes.

Each question asked I answered. Maybe you need to calm down an read.

Good grief...I never said a word about nor implied "Niners and Pats to make the super bowl every year". It was strictly in the context of the four remaining teams, which of course renders your Cowboys "theory" as moot and pointless as the rest of your screed. Seattle is a friggin' outpost on the frontier as far as the NFL and networks are concerned, if they had their druthers and really were pulling strings, the Seahawks would not be in the SB. There is no script, no conspiracies, no puppet masters...it's a simple matter of a business entity (the NFL) being hyper-sensitive to litigation, combined with a Byzatine rule book and the referees who have to officiate according to it, and sometimes they just flat-out get it wrong.
Originally posted by Puckdaddy:
Keyword.........POSSIBILITY. What would make you think that the NFL would be at risk by manufacturing a win? Who's mediating them to put them at risk? Your entire stance is predicated upon a predetermined result of 'It either looks like this, that, or nothing at all'. Unless you have some behind the scenes information, everything on television is scripted as far as you and I know. You nor I know the script, therefore any outcome cannot be predicted beforehand by me. I watch Dexter, Walking Dead, and American Horror story often, but does that suggest that I not watch it because I know that's scripted? Its hard to appeal to your logic because you put so much into speculation and pre assumed outcomes when in actuality it is not up to you nor I. All we can do is compile our evidence and build an argument of off it.

By the way, trivializing the point does not strengthen your argument. It is more of a dismissal of the points given. Here's some homework for you, google Tim Donaghy. The worst thing you can to is put certain things pass men.
So you don't think it's WAY more likely that Seattle just got lucky and had the calls go their way? Or maybe the officials simply (without meaning to) gave the benefit of the doubt to the home team? If you really believe there is even a remote chance that the league and refs are predetermining outcomes then I don't believe I can talk you out of that. I just can't see how anyone can believe that, and if they did I can't understand why they'd watch. The point about enjoying scripted shows is moot b/c we watch scripted shows knowing full well they are 100% fantasy. We watch sports because it is NOT scripted in any way, and the outcome is therefore far less predictable I'm guessing ownership/league management knows this. They can simply let the games play out and have a very, very popular product, or they can risk their entire reputation trying to fix/script games. Some games end up exciting like the Niner/Hawk game, some are boring like the NE/Denver game. But most people only watch sports because they believe it is an authentic athletic competition. Otherwise they'd watch WWE. Just so you know, this isn't just my opinion, just about everyone in the world besides you seems to believe that. By all means, feel free keep believing whatever you want to believe, but there is a reason why you are a lone wolf here. It's going to be hard to convince football fans that what they are watching isn't authentic. If you say this kind of thing, people on message boards are going to tell you that you're nuts. You may be an exception who'd watch anyway, but I am very comfortable saying that the VAST majority of fans would not watch if we didn't believe what we were seeing was 100% legit. And that if it wasn't that a whistle blower wouldn't have come forward by now. Anyway I have made my points and you have made yours, we will just agree to disagree. You're right that I don't have any proof that the whole thing isn't a sham, just like you have none that it is. Nor do you or I have proof that what scientists tell us is legit, or the government, or our wives or our children for that matter. All I have is my common sense. I don't need "behind the scenes information" to be convinced of what basically everyone else accepts. And if I did how could I know my inside source wasn't lying to me? The fact that a lot of games between teams that are similarly talented end being close is simply logical, and in no way a reason to doubt the games validity, especially when there are still plenty of blowouts every week.
From what i've noticed.....Refs hate JH .......JH does his fair share of "bringing it on him/ourselves" .......But the refs should remain unbiased, some don't though......do you see that ?