Congressional Action is Happening! (1 Viewer)

[Outbackjack]

This is all my opinion, but sort of makes sense if you think of it from the gambling angle...

In the NFC Championship game, there was a very high chance that the Saints would have scored a TD if that call had been made. If they score a TD it would have covered the 3.5 point spread and Vegas would have lost millions. The refs knew that they couldn’t let the Saints score a TD at the point in the game. It would be awesome to have the referees appear before congress as well. I don’t think it’s so much about which team wins, but more about the point spread.

There was ZERO chance the Saints score a TD.

First and goal, with the ability to run the clock to :05 by taking 3 knee-downs....and kick a game winning FG from the old PAT distance.

A TD would have played right into the Rams hands.

Now down 7, they get the ball with a shot to tie.

As a Saint, NO WAY do you do anything but kneel down and walk off a winner (by 3) with a last second FG.

Why would you give the Rams a chance?

 

[ilvdsnts]

@BoNcHiE

???

 

[SystemShock]

There was ZERO chance the Saints score a TD.

First and goal, with the ability to run the clock to :05 by taking 3 knee-downs....and kick a game winning FG from the old PAT distance.

A TD would have played right into the Rams hands.

Now down 7, they get the ball with a shot to tie.

As a Saint, NO WAY do you do anything but kneel down and walk off a winner (by 3) with a last second FG.

Why would you give the Rams a chance?

That sounds good, but Payton himself said on the sideline "I don't wan't to kneel down and kick a field goal. I want to score a TD".

 

[SystemShock]

???

He's SR's resident gambling encyclopedia.

 

[Wiggoes]

That sounds good, but Payton himself said on the sideline "I don't wan't to kneel down and kick a field goal. I want to score a TD".

This is true. But, that was before he had the ability to run the clock down to essentially 0:00. If he had gotten a first down, his thought process would have almost certainly changed.

 

[dutar76]

This is true. But, that was before he had the ability to run the clock down to essentially 0:00. If he had gotten a first down, his thought process would have almost certainly changed.

Yes, Payton was talking about the 3 downs prior to the no-call, IIRC.
Still... Scoring a TD with 45 seconds left on the clock would have almost sealed the deal. Of course the refs could have marched the Rams down the field in half that. A lot faster than than Goff could have.

 

[guidomerkinsrules]

There was ZERO chance the Saints score a TD.

First and goal, with the ability to run the clock to :05 by taking 3 knee-downs....and kick a game winning FG from the old PAT distance.

A TD would have played right into the Rams hands.

Now down 7, they get the ball with a shot to tie.

As a Saint, NO WAY do you do anything but kneel down and walk off a winner (by 3) with a last second FG.

Why would you give the Rams a chance?

If I remember correctly, they could have brought their clock down to about :20
Not saying that’s not the prudent play (it is) but with Minny and SF playoff memories, no lead is safe until u reads :00

 

[SystemShock]

This is true. But, that was before he had the ability to run the clock down to essentially 0:00. If he had gotten a first down, his thought process would have almost certainly changed.

That we don't know. We are talking about Sean Payton after all.

However, to stir the pot - hey, it is the offseason - and push the gambling connection angle, what if Cavaletto heard Payton said that, and he had a vested interested in keeping the score within a certain range, or even outcome?

 

[diehardfan]

This is all my opinion, but sort of makes sense if you think of it from the gambling angle...

In the NFC Championship game, there was a very high chance that the Saints would have scored a TD if that call had been made. If they score a TD it would have covered the 3.5 point spread and Vegas would have lost millions. The refs knew that they couldn’t let the Saints score a TD at the point in the game. It would be awesome to have the referees appear before congress as well. I don’t think it’s so much about which team wins, but more about the point spread.

I disagree. There would be no reason to give the ball back to LA. You run the clock down to 1 or 2 seconds, kick a FG and walk off with a win. Simple.

The gambling angle is a waste of time. The conspiracy lies with wanting to get LA into the SuperBowl. There are people who spent a ton of money on that new stadium and they want to get the most return on their investment as possible. Nothing would help increase their ROI like LA in the SuperBowl. The media coverage alone is worth millions and millions of dollars. They want arses in the seats (season ticket sales) and in the luxury boxes and nothing would generate interests like a SuperBowl appearance. This is about money and it's a lot more than just some bets on the NFC Championship. It's bigger than just gambling and these people don't give a sheeet about the fans or football.

All Sportsbooks try and get the same amount of money on both sides of the bet so there is virtually no risk and they make 10%. That's why the line moves up and down to try and achieve that equilibrium. Sportsbooks aren't trying to win or lose big, they are trying to generate action and control their risk.

 

[schlodc]

What is Goodell going to testify about though? The call? I'm trying to understand the end game with this?

One good end game is to get Roger to testify to congress and later prove he lied. Example, get him to say "we did not say anything to the refs to interfere with their decision to make calls. We did not tell the to 'let them play'". Later when congress subpena's their emails and finds out he really did say that (which is highly likely), he goes to jail. They can also ask him about Bountygate and if his plan was to make an example of the Saints to give the impression that the NFL is all about player safety. get him to deny that and find proof that was the plan = jail time for Goodell.

 

[chank]

I disagree. There would be no reason to give the ball back to LA. You run the clock down to 1 or 2 seconds, kick a FG and walk off with a win. Simple.

The gambling angle is a waste of time. The conspiracy lies with wanting to get LA into the SuperBowl. There are people who spent a ton of money on that new stadium and they want to get the most return on their investment as possible. Nothing would help increase their ROI like LA in the SuperBowl. The media coverage alone is worth millions and millions of dollars. They want arses in the seats (season ticket sales) and in the luxury boxes and nothing would generate interests like a SuperBowl appearance. This is about money and it's a lot more than just some bets on the NFC Championship. It's bigger than just gambling and these people don't give a sheeet about the fans or football.

All Sportsbooks try and get the same amount of money on both sides of the bet so there is virtually no risk and they make 10%. That's why the line moves up and down to try and achieve that equilibrium. Sportsbooks aren't trying to win or lose big, they are trying to generate action and control their risk.

Very good point. The more I read and think about it all, I believe you are absolutely correct.

 

[Day1]

Still waiting to hear who said "let 'em play". Does the post-season propensity to not enforce published rules emanate from the top? Head of officiating? Individual crew chiefs? Network partners?