Fixed Football?

[RC-1183]

Iv heard many things on this subject. Some say its fixed, some say its not. Lets hear what you have to say.

[urluckyday]

I've always worried about it. I'm not so much worried about them actually saying "this team is going to win no matter what," but I am worried that they give one team unfair advantages.

 

The thing that worries me the most is what happened in the NBA. The NBA would assign certain officiating crews to specific games, and they had outlined how "effective" these refs were. By effective I mean how likely they were to make/not make calls based on how they reacted to a hostile crowd. Some refs are more likely to make/not make calls based on the intimidation factor of the crowd. It doesn't necessarily mean the other team is for sure going to win, but it gives them plenty of help.

 

I sure hope it's not fixed...

[RC-1183]

yeh my step dad seems to think similar, he think that the reffs are paid to make certain calls to favor one team. you notice how close all the teams are this year in terms of wins? a bit suspisious to me. but i dont think its fixed, i love football Packers all the way. (and Longhorns too!!)

[urluckyday]

^I hate you for liking the packers

 

But for real, I can't think of one year where there were just a couple "dominant" teams and everyone else was bottom-feeding...the NFL is the only professional sports league in the US that I can still see actually parity between teams. It's just done correctly. They need to keep the salary cap and revenue-sharing to keep this fair for every team. It's no fun if there's a Yankees of football.

[Darth Avlectus]

I think a better thread title would be "sports rigging" or something like that.

 

Now when it comes to things like Pro Wrestling, of course it's supposed to be fixed. (Unless of course you're talking about Back Yard Wrestling or ECW in its earlier days where you had guys jumping out a 20 ft. high balcony to crash land on their opponent right through a table.) PRO Wrestling is more about entertainment and is all scripted.

 

When it comes to other sports...they're competitive and unscripted but I would not deny there is a lot of back office politics that goes down. Boxing, international football (soccer), Baseball, Hockey, American football, etc.

 

Even on local, regional, and even national levels as a soccer referee, I have gone through a lot of politics myself. This is not something I want to do or like to do. Also, you have players and coaches that play dirty.

 

I think it comes down to the fact that real life is just that way. There is no way around it, people are going to rig "the game" (any sport) one way or the other. Like it or not. It's wrong. To be realistic, it's going to happen no matter what. The best I can do is try to make it fair as possible despite people, and even despite weird rules. The best anyone can do, really.

 

If there is no 'clique' or 'machine' in any given establishment, it's either chaotic or unusually cohesive/cooperative (the latter of which is ideal). Everywhere I've been there is almost always someone who "runs it" be they officially in charge or someone looking to hold an edge over everyone else.

 

There are any number of reasons. Money usually when it comes to professional sports. Status otherwise. And of course benefits in any case like scholarships, or what have you. So I am not surprised it happens in American football. Just my thoughts on the matter.

 

Though one type of official position that especially needs scrutiny is a forum moderator--that *always* needs a little jab of scrutiny.

[GODKING]

Fixed football are you kidding? It no way fixed because then they would have a team that losses all the time and have them win so that the games always changing. and that doesnt happen. Football is an american pass time and it would be outragous if they tied to fix it. People would go nuts. And you have to take into consideration that the people who own this team want their teams to win so that they get more money. Do you think a team that losses all the time is happy? Heck no! So if it was fixed the teams that loss all the time all going to be pissed that they are getting the short end of the stick everytime.

[The Doctor]

Fixed football are you kidding? It no way fixed because then they would have a team that losses all the time and have them win so that the games always changing. and that doesnt happen. Football is an american pass time and it would be outragous if they tied to fix it. People would go nuts. And you have to take into consideration that the people who own this team want their teams to win so that they get more money. Do you think a team that losses all the time is happy? Heck no! So if it was fixed the teams that loss all the time all going to be pissed that they are getting the short end of the stick everytime.

 

You seem a bit naive to be 16. Here'a rundown of your major flaws in logic:

 

• If a sport is fixed, the idea of letting teams noticeably rise and fall would be detrimental to profits, and therefore defeat purpose of fixing anything in the first place. It ruins the façade of reality that keeps fans watching. Think about it: your team has been losing consistently for a few games after an amazing winning streak; then they start winning again; then they lose some more. It doesn't make sense; you have to keep the teams' performances relatively even, or you lose the believability, and therefore viewership.
  
• This is more a nitpick from a non-American than a serious point, but I'm going to say it anyway: football is a worldwide past time. American football is an American past time. Tell someone in Western Europe, South America, Africa, Western Asia... hell, pretty much anyone in the rest of the world that "football is American" and see what they have to say to you. ;D
  
• Perhaps most importantly, the people who own the teams of rigged sporting events are paid big bucks to throw a game, for the exact reasons you seem to think they'd never agree: they want to win so they make money from sponsorships and the like; and the team members will be unhappy when they lose, especially if they had to let themselves lose because the boss said so. Therefore, if they're being asked to throw a game, they want to be paid well for it. Otherwise, you're right: they wouldn't do it. I'm sure you can think of a few sporting world scandals where an athlete accepted large sums of money to throw a game; don't think an entire team couldn't be bought for the right price, or you do yourself a disservice.

[GODKING]

You seem a bit naive to be 16. Here'a rundown of your major flaws in logic:

 

• If a sport is fixed, the idea of letting teams noticeably rise and fall would be detrimental to profits, and therefore defeat purpose of fixing anything in the first place. It ruins the façade of reality that keeps fans watching. Think about it: your team has been losing consistently for a few games after an amazing winning streak; then they start winning again; then they lose some more. It doesn't make sense; you have to keep the teams' performances relatively even, or you lose the believability, and therefore viewership.
  
• This is more a nitpick from a non-American than a serious point, but I'm going to say it anyway: football is a worldwide past time. American football is an American past time. Tell someone in Western Europe, South America, Africa, Western Asia... hell, pretty much anyone in the rest of the world that "football is American" and see what they have to say to you. ;D
  
• Perhaps most importantly, the people who own the teams of rigged sporting events are paid big bucks to throw a game, for the exact reasons you seem to think they'd never agree: they want to win so they make money from sponsorships and the like; and the team members will be unhappy when they lose, especially if they had to let themselves lose because the boss said so. Therefore, if they're being asked to throw a game, they want to be paid well for it. Otherwise, you're right: they wouldn't do it. I'm sure you can think of a few sporting world scandals where an athlete accepted large sums of money to throw a game; don't think an entire team couldn't be bought for the right price, or you do yourself a disservice.

 

Okay you say that a team will lose some and win some thats correct, right? They are plenty of teams in the NFL that just keep losing year after year for example the Bengals or the Bills and Texans. When is the last time you heard of them win? And a team like the Patriots they win and win their record is 12 and 2. They win a lot every year or lose every year because they have a good team. If you look at the players on some of these teams they dont need to be fixed because the teams that win alot have the best players in the league becuase they have the money to pay them. The teams that lose a lot dont have amazing players on their team. Look at the panthers a while back the panthers where in the Super Bowl. After they lossed the Super Bowl their fan base went down which means less money. So their money cap went down which meant they couldnt afford to hire the better players coming into the league so they started to lose more and more games. As the years went over they kept losing and losing. Just recently they had to get rid of their quarterback and their best defensive linemen because they couldn't afford to pay them the high amount of money that they used to.

So they are losing even more games. The year that they went to the Super Bowl was 2003 their record was 14-6 now their record is 2-12 do you see now the reason this could happen? And a good player don't want to be on a team that loses a lot because of that reason they wont be getting the money that they deserve so they get traded to teams that are winning so they get the cash they want. So to simplify this for you money=better players= wins=money do you see the cycle now?

 

And the only games that people would really want to rig would be the Super Bowl. If a team wins the Super Bowl they get more fans and it keeps the fans happy (fans=money remeber) so the owners of the teams get more money to get better players so they can keep winning and get more money because of winning . Example: Patriots won 2003 Super Bowl been winning ever since. So why would a owner want to get a lump sum of money once and then start loseing and lose more money over the years than they got for that one loss.

 

But a "niave" 16 year old like myself dont know what im talking about.

[mimartin]

Do you think a team that losses all the time is happy? Heck no!

Have you ever heard of the Washington Generals?

 

 

Or the Chicago Cubs

 

[Jae Onasi]

Have you ever heard of the Washington Generals?

 

 

Or the Chicago Cubs

*Jae makes a rude and socially unacceptable gesture at mimartin*

[urluckyday]

*Jae makes a rude and socially unacceptable gesture at mimartin*

 

lol, are you a cubs or generals fan?

[The Doctor]

Okay you say that a team will lose some and win some thats correct, right? They are plenty of teams in the NFL that just keep losing year after year for example the Bengals or the Bills and Texans. When is the last time you heard of them win?

I'm the first to admit that I haven't heard of any of them at all, much less of them winning. I don't follow American football. I'll also admit to misunderstanding your remark about fluctuation of team performances and such, for which I apologise.

 

And a team like the Patriots they win and win their record is 12 and 2. They win a lot every year or lose every year because they have a good team. If you look at the players on some of these teams they dont need to be fixed because the teams that win alot have the best players in the league becuase they have the money to pay them.

More naivety. Professional wrestling has the same idea: a good number of wrestlers who hardly ever win, and then a good few that are seen as 'the best'. But it's all fixed to be like that. The wrestlers are paid to win, or they're paid to lose. I can't fathom how someone could deny that it's possible for the same to be done in any other sporting competition, whether it be football, basketball, hockey, whatever.

 

And a good player don't want to be on a team that loses a lot because of that reason they wont be getting the money that they deserve so they get traded to teams that are winning so they get the cash they want. So to simplify this for you money=better players= wins=money do you see the cycle now?

A "good" player doesn't want to be on a team that can't pay him. That is not the same thing as a good player not wanting to be on a team that doesn't win. That's where I think you're being a little more naive than you could be: the idea that the losing team in a fixed game isn't paid well for their poor performance.

 

And the only games that people would really want to rig would be the Super Bowl. If a team wins the Super Bowl they get more fans and it keeps the fans happy (fans=money remeber) so the owners of the teams get more money to get better players so they can keep winning and get more money because of winning .

I'll have to take you at your word for that (re: the Super Bowl). I admit to not knowing the specific economics of American football. I'll just say again that a team paid to lose can quite often be paid just as much as they would have made in endorsements etc. had they won. Otherwise, why would they agree to let themselves lose? So someone else can make big money? Sports rigging can't be done that way; the chosen losers have to make money too, or they won't do it. Or even worse, they'll blow the whistle on the whole thing and get a lot of people in a **** ton of trouble.

 

But a "niave" "naive" 16 year old like myself dont doesn't know what im he's talking about.

Fixed.

[GODKING]

I'm the first to admit that I haven't heard of any of them at all, much less of them winning. I don't follow American football. I'll also admit to misunderstanding your remark about fluctuation of team performances and such, for which I apologise.

 

More naivety. Professional wrestling has the same idea: a good number of wrestlers who hardly ever win, and then a good few that are seen as 'the best'. But it's all fixed to be like that. The wrestlers are paid to win, or they're paid to lose. I can't fathom how someone could deny that it's possible for the same to be done in any other sporting competition, whether it be football, basketball, hockey, whatever.

 

A "good" player doesn't want to be on a team that can't pay him. That is not the same thing as a good player not wanting to be on a team that doesn't win. That's where I think you're being a little more naive than you could be: the idea that the losing team in a fixed game isn't paid well for their poor performance.

 

 

I'll have to take you at your word for that (re: the Super Bowl). I admit to not knowing the specific economics of American football. I'll just say again that a team paid to lose can quite often be paid just as much as they would have made in endorsements etc. had they won. Otherwise, why would they agree to let themselves lose? So someone else can make big money? Sports rigging can't be done that way; the chosen losers have to make money too, or they won't do it. Or even worse, they'll blow the whistle on the whole thing and get a lot of people in a **** ton of trouble.

 

Fixed.

 

First off Apology accepted. Whats sports do you follow?

 

You can't use Professional wrestling as an example because everyone knows that Professional wrestling is a sport that is rig. Plus its a lot easier to rig a wrestling match because all you would have to do is pay off one person. To rig a football game you not only have to pay of the owner, but the all the coaches, then most of the starter players. Thats a lot more cash than just one person. And the reason they are a good number of wrestlers that never win is because no one wants to watch the same guys wrestling each other so they add people just to get they @$$$ kicked so they can excite the watch. Come on whats better than watching someone getting the $*** kicked out of them. (Thats not saying i'm a wrestling fan)

 

Ask yourself this, what teams wont have the money to pay "good" players? I'm pretty sure that a winning team will be able to because not only will their be more people watching their games to see how they are doing, but sponsors want to sponsor a team that is winning whats the point to sponsor a team that is losing. Now ask yourself this, if you were a "good" football player would you want to be on a team that is losing (which means they are losing money remeber and no endorsements) or a team that is winning? (which means endorsements, bonuses, more money when you renew your contract) So i think the choice is odvious... So the "good" players (plus their sports agents) look at when a team is losing and think are they going to have the money to give me when i ask for more, or are they going to say too bad. You got to realize that these player (well let me say most of these players) don't care about the sport itself anymore now since they made it to the big times; they only care which team will pay them the most money to help their team win. So indeed that a good player doesn't want to be on a team that can't pay him. Is the same thing as a player that doesn't want to be on a team that is losing.

 

"Tell me this who in their right mind would need to rig a football game and before you answer that who has the money to rig a football game?" Their is no logic behind it, no one needs to rig football games because their is so many other sports out there that are rigged for example: sumo wrestling and wrestling. Once again Why would someone rig a football game? Please tell me cause i defiently don't see the logic behind it

 

And I think you are just a bit hard headed and don't see the logic behind what I am saying.

[The Doctor]

First off Apology accepted. Whats sports do you follow?

I follow international Association Football (read: Soccer), but that's about it. I actually despise professional hockey, but don't let the news out: I'm Canadian, and I may just be lynched for saying it.

 

You can't use Professional wrestling as an example because everyone knows that Professional wrestling is a sport that is rig.

Even if that were true (which it's not - my future father-in-law is a firm believer in the realism of WWE wrestling), I don't see how it's at all relevant.

 

Plus its a lot easier to rig a wrestling match because all you would have to do is pay off one person. To rig a football game you not only have to pay of the owner, but the all the coaches, then most of the starter players. Thats a lot more cash than just one person.

While you're certainly not wrong, I don't see how that's relevant either. If I want to fix a game, I must have incentive to do so. Great sums of money is most likely (but granted, not necessarily definitely) that incentive. So sharing a fraction of that money with the people who helped me make it isn't really a huge deal. It's only fair - they did all the work. All I did was ask them to do it, and I made millions of dollars out of it. I'm willing to share some of it if it means avoiding losing all of it to an investigation that could land me in serious financial and legal trouble.

 

And the reason they are a good number of wrestlers that never win is because no one wants to watch the same guys wrestling each other so they add people just to get they @$$$ kicked so they can excite the watch.

I could say the same thing about any sport. I know I don't care to see the same ten/eleven/twelve/thirteen/etc. men play the same number of the same opponents they fought last year, especially if I've already seen them do it for a number of consecutive years already. That's part of the reason I only really follow international soccer, which really only becomes important enough for me to care every four years. A lot changes on a team in four years, so it's rarely (though admittedly not never) the same teams facing off.

 

Come on whats better than watching someone getting the $*** kicked out of them. (Thats not saying i'm a wrestling fan)

On television, just about anything.

 

Ask yourself this, what teams wont have the money to pay "good" players? I'm pretty sure that a winning team will be able to because not only will their be more people watching their games to see how they are doing, but sponsors want to sponsor a team that is winning whats the point to sponsor a team that is losing.

I don't want to keep repeating myself, but as you seem to have glanced over it previously I'll give it one more go...

 

You're on a football team. Whichever one you want, it doesn't really matter. You're a good player, maybe even the best. Let's say you're the star quarterback of the league, and every team desperately wanted you. You're a household name throughout the country and you make over $30 million a game (I don't know what the average football player makes these days, beyond "way more than I do", but let's just pretend for the sake of argument that this is a high rate of pay for the NFL).

 

Your coach approaches you and a few of the other players one night. He's been asked by someone (let's say the owner of the next game's opposing team) to help the opposing team land a big endorsement deal; to do so, you and your team mates will have to throw the game. The coach and owner have agreed, and all the backroom politics have been dealt with. The game is now fixed, whether you like it or not. Losing this game, which you and your team are expected to take unchallenged, could seriously damage your career for years to come. Your career and your name are at stake. Are you really going to agree to not only go along with it, but to keep it secret, if you're not making HUGE money in the process? Of course not.

 

Teams that are asked or forced to throw a game still make big money, regardless of what you seem to think. Sports rigging wouldn't exist otherwise, and we wouldn't be having this conversation.

 

Now ask yourself this, if you were a "good" football player would you want to be on a team that is losing (which means they are losing money remeber and no endorsements) or a team that is winning? (which means endorsements, bonuses, more money when you renew your contract)

This depends on what degree of rigging we're talking about. If we're talking about the odd game or series of games being fixed because of a deal reached in the boardrooms, then I have to say you're dead wrong; big money is handed over in such cases, more than enough to make up for a years' worth of lost endorsements.

 

If we're talking about entire seasons being rigged with even the final game being decided months or years in advance, then one would have to believe that the league is fixed to the point where teams are allowed to win or lose at a rate that guarantees more or less even, or at the very least believable, endorsements all around. I point you again towards wrestling: are not even the lowest-ranked wrestlers endorsed by big money corporations? Granted, they may not make as much money as the more "successful" wrestlers, but it may really be just as simple as them not caring, so long as they're more famous than the rest of us.

 

So i think the choice is odvious... So the "good" players (plus their sports agents) look at when a team is losing and think are they going to have the money to give me when i ask for more, or are they going to say too bad. You got to realize that these player (well let me say most of these players) don't care about the sport itself anymore now since they made it to the big times; they only care which team will pay them the most money to help their team win.

If the players only care about making money and not the game itself, then there is literally nothing stopping them from agreeing to throw a game if it means they'll still make money out of it. Which I've already pointed out they will.

 

So indeed that a good player doesn't want to be on a team that can't pay him. Is the same thing as a player that doesn't want to be on a team that is losing.

That depends entirely on the player, plain and simple. A team paid to lose can still pay the players just as easily as a team allowed to win.

 

"Tell me this who in their right mind would need to rig a football game and before you answer that who has the money to rig a football game?" Their is no logic behind it, no one needs to rig football games because their is so many other sports out there that are rigged for example: sumo wrestling and wrestling. Once again Why would someone rig a football game? Please tell me cause i defiently don't see the logic behind it

There are plenty of people out there with enough money to fix a football game. Pretty much any owner of any football team, for example. The logic is simple: they can make money out of it, just like how the people behind the inception and rigging of pro wrestling make money out of it.

 

As you said, there are plenty of sports out there to rig. And I'd bet any amount of money that all of them have been rigged, to varying degrees, at some point in their history. Thinking that football is unique in that it has never or could never be fixed really is terribly, painfully naive.

 

And I think you are just a bit hard headed and don't see the logic behind what I am saying.

And I think you simply enjoy watching football too much to want to believe it could ever be fixed.

[GODKING]

I follow international Association Football (read: Soccer), but that's about it. I actually despise professional hockey, but don't let the news out: I'm Canadian, and I may just be lynched for saying it.

 

 

Even if that were true (which it's not - my future father-in-law is a firm believer in the realism of WWE wrestling), I don't see how it's at all relevant.

 

 

While you're certainly not wrong, I don't see how that's relevant either. If I want to fix a game, I must have incentive to do so. Great sums of money is most likely (but granted, not necessarily definitely) that incentive. So sharing a fraction of that money with the people who helped me make it isn't really a huge deal. It's only fair - they did all the work. All I did was ask them to do it, and I made millions of dollars out of it. I'm willing to share some of it if it means avoiding losing all of it to an investigation that could land me in serious financial and legal trouble.

 

 

I could say the same thing about any sport. I know I don't care to see the same ten/eleven/twelve/thirteen/etc. men play the same number of the same opponents they fought last year, especially if I've already seen them do it for a number of consecutive years already. That's part of the reason I only really follow international soccer, which really only becomes important enough for me to care every four years. A lot changes on a team in four years, so it's rarely (though admittedly not never) the same teams facing off.

 

 

On television, just about anything.

 

 

I don't want to keep repeating myself, but as you seem to have glanced over it previously I'll give it one more go...

 

You're on a football team. Whichever one you want, it doesn't really matter. You're a good player, maybe even the best. Let's say you're the star quarterback of the league, and every team desperately wanted you. You're a household name throughout the country and you make over $30 million a game (I don't know what the average football player makes these days, beyond "way more than I do", but let's just pretend for the sake of argument that this is a high rate of pay for the NFL).

 

Your coach approaches you and a few of the other players one night. He's been asked by someone (let's say the owner of the next game's opposing team) to help the opposing team land a big endorsement deal; to do so, you and your team mates will have to throw the game. The coach and owner have agreed, and all the backroom politics have been dealt with. The game is now fixed, whether you like it or not. Losing this game, which you and your team are expected to take unchallenged, could seriously damage your career for years to come. Your career and your name are at stake. Are you really going to agree to not only go along with it, but to keep it secret, if you're not making HUGE money in the process? Of course not.

 

Teams that are asked or forced to throw a game still make big money, regardless of what you seem to think. Sports rigging wouldn't exist otherwise, and we wouldn't be having this conversation.

 

 

This depends on what degree of rigging we're talking about. If we're talking about the odd game or series of games being fixed because of a deal reached in the boardrooms, then I have to say you're dead wrong; big money is handed over in such cases, more than enough to make up for a years' worth of lost endorsements.

 

If we're talking about entire seasons being rigged with even the final game being decided months or years in advance, then one would have to believe that the league is fixed to the point where teams are allowed to win or lose at a rate that guarantees more or less even, or at the very least believable, endorsements all around. I point you again towards wrestling: are not even the lowest-ranked wrestlers endorsed by big money corporations? Granted, they may not make as much money as the more "successful" wrestlers, but it may really be just as simple as them not caring, so long as they're more famous than the rest of us.

 

 

If the players only care about making money and not the game itself, then there is literally nothing stopping them from agreeing to throw a game if it means they'll still make money out of it. Which I've already pointed out they will.

 

 

That depends entirely on the player, plain and simple. A team paid to lose can still pay the players just as easily as a team allowed to win.

 

 

There are plenty of people out there with enough money to fix a football game. Pretty much any owner of any football team, for example. The logic is simple: they can make money out of it, just like how the people behind the inception and rigging of pro wrestling make money out of it.

 

As you said, there are plenty of sports out there to rig. And I'd bet any amount of money that all of them have been rigged, to varying degrees, at some point in their history. Thinking that football is unique in that it has never or could never be fixed really is terribly, painfully naive.

 

 

And I think you simply enjoy watching football too much to want to believe it could ever be fixed.

 

First off I'm more of a soccer and basketball guy myself. I do watch football though, but not that often. Plus your taking to much knowledge from games that are rigged and trying to say its the same principle as in football. Plus you obvious don't watch football (and before you say something about it i meant American football) so your trying to talk about something that you know little about.

 

I don't know much about wrestling sooo you probably have more knowledge than me taking into consideration that your dad watches it. So my facts my be off. Well, what is their like 10-15 people in wrestling? Well its obvious that it will be easier for them to be endorse than over 1,696 individual football players (that was back in 2005 so it maybe more or less now not sure.) Thats why if your a "good" football player you want to be on a winning team so you have a higher chance of getting one.

 

Now, why would one of the better football player want to hurt his chances of getting a bonus and endorsements by hurting his teams score or hurting his own stats. You could easily tell if a team was throwning a game. And a team doesn't get an endorsement for winning one game (unless it is the Super Bowl in case you don't know what that is it is the World Cup of football) Which means they would have to bribe more than one team so that they could get a endorsement in line. Plus don't you think the team that was asked to throw the game so they could get the endorsements would think if they won the game they could get the endorsement.

 

The fact all the players from both teams would want a cut of the endorsement money which is logical like you said if you did the work you want the cash. So of course you like you said you would pay them. After paying 106 players (average amount of players per team is 53) and the coaches and the owners how much money do you think would be left?

It wouldn't be a sum of money anymore. (probably still more than what most people make)

 

So don't you think and owner of a team might just say if you guys win this game ill give you all a big bonus. And you guys get an endorsement contract which gives you are more money. Do you think a team will lose with that incentive? I think not.

 

And if he did this he would only have to pay his team and not two teams which means more money for the owner of the team and thats what he wants.

[urluckyday]

 

You can't use Professional wrestling as an example because everyone knows that Professional wrestling is a sport that is rig.

 

I wouldn't assume that right off the bat...

 

(This BBCode requires its accompanying plugin to work properly.)

[The Doctor]

You still seem to be either missing or ignoring my point that when a game is rigged the team being forced to lose is going to be paid as well. They're paid to lose, they don't do it out of the goodness of their hearts. I can't fathom how you don't grasp that concept, considering you seem hell-bent on bringing up their payment and endorsement income and such. If a player is paid to throw one game every other season or so, then he's really not going to be too choked up about it. Especially if, as you say, they care more about the money than the game itself. His endorsements and sponsors and the like aren't necessarily drastically affected if he and his team-mates throw a single game.

 

Your point only potentially holds any kind of validity if we're talking about the rigging of an entire season. If we're talking the scripting of an entire competitive sport, though, then the economics are distinctly different, and neither of our arguments make any real sense anymore.

[Qui-Gon Glenn]

@ urluckday video: LOL

 

Pro football could only be rigged on the ref side of things, in my opinion. There is too much accountability between players on an American football team - each player has very specific roles and tasks, often tailored to best use the strengths of that individual. If someone is "tanking it" it is apparent real quick, and teammates will NOT stand for it, to the point where you WILL get thrown out of a huddle. I have been kicked out of a huddle before, just for being too mouthy (hehehehehe).

 

It is beyond my ability to comprehend how a player could be involved in a points-shaving sort of deal in football, unless it was a team-wide thing like the Chicago Black Sox. In that case, you will always have the Shoeless Joe problem, so again, not likely from the player side, IMO.

 

@The Doctor: How do you explain the mentality of going out for sixty minutes on a hard field and sacrificing your body over and over, potentially injured at any moment, for an outcome that is known? For the love of money? After playing only meaningful football your entire life until you began a pro career? Hard to swallow.

[GODKING]

You still seem to be either missing or ignoring my point that when a game is rigged the team being forced to lose is going to be paid as well. They're paid to lose, they don't do it out of the goodness of their hearts. I can't fathom how you don't grasp that concept, considering you seem hell-bent on bringing up their payment and endorsement income and such. If a player is paid to throw one game every other season or so, then he's really not going to be too choked up about it. Especially if, as you say, they care more about the money than the game itself. His endorsements and sponsors and the like aren't necessarily drastically affected if he and his team-mates throw a single game.

 

Your point only potentially holds any kind of validity if we're talking about the rigging of an entire season. If we're talking the scripting of an entire competitive sport, though, then the economics are distinctly different, and neither of our arguments make any real sense anymore.

 

You still stuck on the point that the team is payed to lose, but the only circumstance in which you had a reason for a team to throw a game i threw out. By talking about how a team wouldn't need to get another team to throw the game so they can get this endorsement because if you give your team big enough incentives to win than they wont lose.

 

So if you can think of another circumstance that this is true than im open ears

[Darth Avlectus]

lol, are you a cubs or generals fan?

 

Well, she lives near enough to Chicago, if that's any hint.

 

Though I live in CA where I have my pick of 2 teams. IFF/when interested.

 

49'ers have seen better days. Raiders...bleh.