Congressional Action is Happening! (1 Viewer)

God I hate it when congress gets involved in sports...except this time I don't.
I agree with you.

Nothing will change the outcome of the game but I want to hurt the NFL, cause embarrassment and taint this SB. I want this talked about through the SB and after until a very embarrassing statement of admission is made by RG about how the refs were instructed to "let them play" or they wanted that BIG market in LA in the SB.
 
Ok, so here's the basics of antitrust. A collection of state and federal laws make it illegal for competitors to collude to restrain trade. The general idea is to prevent collusion, and encourage competition.

Essentially, we don't want competitors within a market all agreeing on a price for a good, and then holding that good hostage for people to pay it.

On their face, professional sports are illegal under antitrust. They're separate businesses (the franchises) that collude to sign TV contracts, set prices, agree on rules, etc.

It's a bit of a catch-22, because the sports leagues as we know them wouldn't exist without the antitrust exemption.

Congress passed the Sports Broadcasting Act in 1961 to essentially make professional football what we know it as today: one league, one brand, etc. What Congress gives, it can take away.

Right now, the NFL is free to operate exempt from antitrust, and without any federal oversight. And that federal oversight is key. What other billion dollar business operates without any federal regulation? Airlines, banks, and healthcare all act under considerable rules and regulations.

The NFL (and I'm not sure to what extent, but MLB, NBA, and NHL) operates without any federal regulation. That's why Goodell is the end-all, be-all of discipline, reversing games, etc. Once he makes a decision, courts are unlikely to upset them because Congress hasn't given them the authority to intervene.

What the NFL does not want, under any circumstances, is that federal oversight.

If Congress were to step in, for instance, and say "Hey, this is getting out of hand, you're screwing over the American people, you need to be regulated," the NFL is going to listen to that. They don't want that.

I'm not sure Cedric actually has the sway to get it that far, but you never know. Especially if he starts digging and finds something.
 
The sense that I have is the national outrage is fading.

Unfortunately, the Saints organization and its fan base have to live forever with the memory of what would have happened had the referees simply done their jobs. It's a huge burden to bear and you had no choice in the matter.

In a similar fashion, my fellow Seahawks fans and I have had to bear the burden of that bonehead decision by Darrell Bevel and Pete Carroll to pass the ball from the 1-yard line in the closing minutes of SB 49.

That memory, and yours of the no-call in last week's game will forever be part of us. The only thing we control is how long we allow it to be our master. I truly feel your pain.

I feel you but at least the Seahawks actually lost the game because of a decision made by coaches and players. At least it was decided by a great play by the defender. That's a bad beat no doubt but it really doesn't compare to this debacle at all.

Now had Wilson thrown the pass and a ref made the interception and then lateraled it back to Malcolm Butler, then it would be comparing apples to apples.
 
I want this to force the NFL to make penalties challengeable. They need to give every team one challenge per game with no repercussions. So even if you lose the challenge you are not charged a time out. If you win the challenge you get another challenge but no more after that.
 
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.
 
The sense that I have is the national outrage is fading.

Unfortunately, the Saints organization and its fan base have to live forever with the memory of what would have happened had the referees simply done their jobs. It's a huge burden to bear and you had no choice in the matter.

In a similar fashion, my fellow Seahawks fans and I have had to bear the burden of that bonehead decision by Darrell Bevel and Pete Carroll to pass the ball from the 1-yard line in the closing minutes of SB 49.

That memory, and yours of the no-call in last week's game will forever be part of us. The only thing we control is how long we allow it to be our master. I truly feel your pain.
the holmgren Superbowl wasn't on level, I really do think you feel it and it is a pathetic replay for you. Stick around I think the real rocking is almost nigh.
 
the holmgren Superbowl wasn't on level, I really do think you feel it and it is a pathetic replay for you. Stick around I think the real rocking is almost nigh.
Many here likely have forgotten that Bill Leavy made a public apology to Seattle for his crew's poor officiating in Super Bowl XL... howbeit some four years after the fact... from Wikipedia...

On August 6, 2010, while visiting the Seahawks' preseason training camp for an annual rules interpretation session with the Seattle media, Leavy brought up Super Bowl XL without being asked, and said:

It was a tough thing for me. I kicked two calls in the fourth quarter and I impacted the game, and as an official you never want to do that. It left me with a lot of sleepless nights, and I think about it constantly. I'll go to my grave wishing that I'd been better ... I know that I did my best at that time, but it wasn't good enough ... When we make mistakes, you got to step up and own them. It's something that all officials have to deal with, but unfortunately when you have to deal with it in the Super Bowl it's difficult.​
Perhaps Vinovich will do something similar... ?
 
It would be interesting to know how many times the point spreads were covered in the last 2 minutes of games for the entire season and the calls that affected them. That would be telling.
 
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 asked this question once before and got a dead falcon for asking but i really would like an explanation. Can you explain to me why would vegas lose millions if the saints cover the spread? Its my understanding that points spreads are set and then moved to keep an equal number of bets on each team so whether the spread is covered or not an approximate equal number of bettors win and lose so as to have the losing bettors pay the winning bettors and vegas takes their cut no matter what. So why would vegas lose any more if the spread is covered by the saints rather than the rams?
 
I asked this question once before and got a dead falcon for asking but i really would like an explanation. Can you explain to me why would vegas lose millions if the saints cover the spread? Its my understanding that points spreads are set and then moved to keep an equal number of bets on each team so whether the spread is covered or not an approximate equal number of bettors win and lose so as to have the losing bettors pay the winning bettors and vegas takes their cut no matter what. So why would vegas lose any more if the spread is covered by the saints rather than the rams?

@BoNcHiE
 
I asked this question once before and got a dead falcon for asking but i really would like an explanation. Can you explain to me why would vegas lose millions if the saints cover the spread? Its my understanding that points spreads are set and then moved to keep an equal number of bets on each team so whether the spread is covered or not an approximate equal number of bettors win and lose so as to have the losing bettors pay the winning bettors and vegas takes their cut no matter what. So why would vegas lose any more if the spread is covered by the saints rather than the rams?

Very simple. The Saints had the larger amount of money bet on them to cover, in this particular game. There are rare exceptions, where the books have money bet evenly on both sides. The best situation for the books, is high volume of bets, bet on both sides. They make the vig and have no way to lose. 10/11 money. If they have say 11 dollars bet on both teams, they make .05% of the total amount of money wagered on the game. BUT, like I mentioned, they very rarely have money evenly bet on both teams in any one game. And in the NFCCG, and aside from the fact the Saints were heavily bet in the game, they were also bet heavily in the futures to win the Superbowl.
 
And in the NFCCG, and aside from the fact the Saints were heavily bet in the game, they were also bet heavily in the futures to win the Superbowl.

And depending on when the futures tickets were bought, many would have had very large payouts.
 
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 thought the same thing weeks ago. I remember several sports books not honoring the rams win out of "good karma" I didn't think bookies were in business of giving mulligans unless they don't want more "oversight" which is latin for shake down. I want an investigation into whether the refs or their families bet on the game. whenever there is an obvious screw up there is always smoke and now we have to find the fire.
 

Create an account or login to comment

You must be a member in order to leave a comment

Create account

Create an account on our community. It's easy!

Log in

Already have an account? Log in here.

Users who are viewing this thread

    Back
    Top Bottom