MattM

Thanks to gerrymandering, in some cases, yes....

Found this while pondering something another poster wrote on penalties and thought that some of the more numerically inclined may find it of interest (even though it doesn't give context to a call, which can be all-important): http://www.nflpenalties.com/index.php?&year=2014 Enjoy!

Good for Hughes for calling out Coleman. Old Walt is brutally bad, and seems to have it in for both us and for any Patriot* opponent (a la the Tuck Rule and the 2004 AFC CG vs the Colts, in addition to "just give it to them" and this year's Cheats* game)--a deadly combo....

Here's a link to SB ratings--folks can draw their own conclusions: http://tvbythenumbers.zap2it.com/2014/02/01/will-super-bowl-xlviii-tv-viewership-set-a-new-record-poll-ratings-history/233590/ Looks to me like whenever the 'Boys played the ratings went way up, particularly vs the Steelers, but even against us. The Pack also seems to be a consistent draw (but why would that be, since they're not so popular, right?) Just because the ratings are always high doesn't mean they aren't higher some years (and when some teams play) than others. I stand by my earlier statement that the League makes more $ (and due to revenue sharing, it is indeed the League as a whole making more $) when certain teams are popular--bigger market teams in richer demographic areas are a marketer's dream. And for the millionth time, I personally don't believe the NFL fixes games for said teams. It would be waaayyy too difficult to maintain silence on, as by definition it would need to involve tons and tons of people....

What do you know, miracles do occur. What happened, did Kraft stop payment on this year's check?

For the 12th time, I personally don't believe that there's a League conspiracy against small mkt teams--it would be too hard to keep quiet. That said, I'm simply answering questions of people denying that it would be in the League's best money-making interest for big market teams to dominate. Of course it would make more $ for the League if bigger market teams/teams with national fan bases were perennial winners. That's just common sense. The League will do relatively well no matter who is winning, it's so popular, but it will do better if certain teams in bigger cities (with richer citizens) or with already established fan bases are winners. On the Packer piece, you're just plain wrong--here's the proof: http://www.harrisinteractive.com/NewsRoom/HarrisPolls/tabid/447/ctl/ReadCustom%20Default/mid/1508/ArticleId/1506/Default.aspx Third most popular team in 2014 and perennial top ten in the last 20 years or so and top 3 most of the last decade. And from looking back at SB ratings history over the last 20 years or so, I'd say that it is in fact generally worth more to the League to have said major teams in the game--especially the Cowboys--vs upstart winners in smaller cities.

Wow--this could be fun. Wonder if that's all they're looking for, or if they also suspect them of holding other worse/illegal drugs?

Eli heaved one up in the Giants game while facing backwards and being driven to the turf--no flag. Gimme a *%#*}{ng break....

For the 3rd time now--I don't buy the big market, League-wide conspiracy theory. Too hard to pull off. That said, a few points on your post: Green Bay does indeed have a national following, not as big as the two biggest you mentioned, but bigger than the avg team. I meet Packer fans everywhere I go. Combination of older guys loving the 60's teams and younger folk loving the Favre teams. From a revenue/ratings standpoint, the League would make more $ if bigger market (which also generally coincides with richer per capita incomes) teams were winning/popular. More people watching in Buffalo is nowhere near the same as more people watching in NY, DC or SF. You talk about the TV deals being fixed, but (a) do they have any ratings based variability? and (b) even if not, the League and networks are always looking to build mkt share for the next deal. The networks' wet dream matchup is a Cowboys/49ers/Giants vs Pats*/Steelers/Broncos-type matchup. A Jags/Browns/Bills vs Vikes/Lions/Cardinals type matchup would make them cry.....

Except I said I don't believe in a League-wide conspiracy against small market teams. One off cheating for gamblers or a particular team/outcome may be a different story--easier to pull off. New England* comes to mind, lots of data points point in their direction...,

Keep Whaley--other than no answer at a QB and OG, he's done pretty well in FA and the draft. Keep Shwartz at DC (if possible). Everyone else is playing for their jobs between now and season's end....

While I don't believe this myself, the obvious answer to that question is that it's more profitable to have either bigger market teams (Giants, Pats*, 9ers, Bears) or teams with national fanbases (Steelers, Packers, Cowboys) win than perennial small market loser franchises like Buffalo, Jacksonville or Cleveland. More fans to do the buying, often in richer demographic cities, combined with higher Nielsen ratings. Fairly simple answer. As I said, I don't myself buy that--too big a conspiracy required to do that effectively. If there is crooked officiating going on, it is much more likely to be done on a smaller scale--to help gamblers in particular games or to help a particular team which is paying the refs for such privilege....

I did just that about the Walt Coleman crew in this year's annual Pats* game multiple BS calls going one way thread. On an IPad here, so will only summarize. If you look at his Wikipedia page's list of controversial calls you'll see they list like 7 calls, including the Tuck Rule and the Colts-Pats* AFC CG in 2004 when the Cheats* DB's were given free reign to mug Colt receivers. Add to that the "just give it to them game" against us in 1998 that he also called (which quite oddly did not make the WP list--very odd since it was so bad that Ralph Wilson and Andre Reed were fined for comments about the replay-obviously bad, possibly to the point of crooked obviously bad, reffing), and you have 3 of 8 controversially bad calls by that crew in favor of one team, a team with a proven history of cheating, and suspicions by other League folks of worse behavior (headsets going out at Gillette, extra frequencies on their headsets, etc). The odds of that happening naturally since there are 32 teams to be in favor of are on the order of 1% if you do the math. I'm not surprised that things like this don't get media coverage since where the NFL is concerned there's really no such thing as independent media--they ALL have their hands in the cookie jar that is the NFL money making machine, either directly (like all the major networks) or indirectly, like the media outlets that generate clicks by NFL stories. Oddly, if a story like that were to be broken, I'd expect it to be TMZ or their ilk for just that reason. For ex., I'd just love to know how Matt Walsh is doing 5 plus years out. If he's living in a $2m house out in Hawaii on a $60k a year golf pro salary, that would tell me something......

They were all close enough to go either way, so it's kind of tough to get worked up to say we wuz robbed. Blame Brown and McKelvin for their fumbles and some poor coaching decisions for this loss....

This^^^^

This one made me spit up my breakfast--well done, sir!

Not following you at all here--using the numbers you used (46-23), looks like you're using aggregate records against playoff opponents during the regular season over a number of years (since 69 is multiples of the 8 times they were one and done). That doesn't make sense to me--for example, a team could be 4-12 one year that the Colts beat them in the regular season, but then 3 years later they beat the Colts in the playoffs when said team was 12-4 that year. Of course they were a tougher out that playoff season and thus you'd expect the Colts to have a worse record against playoff teams than regular season teams. On folks above on Brady's dominance over Manning, how much of that was home field advantage, as they also played twice as often at Foxboro? I thought I read this week that neither has beaten the other on the road since 2006. That's all without mentioning the Spygate asterisk that Belichick firmly planted next to all his teams' records--even more so in this case where Brady would have been a direct beneficiary of said cheating.

Have to point out again that by definition one plays better teams in the playoffs, so one would expect to lose more playoff games as a % than regular season games. Personally, anything at 60% or better in playoff games is pretty good to me, even if Manning has not hit that. Brady is money in the playoffs, but has issues (a cheating scandal that specifically benefitted his side of the ball) of his own that Manning doesn't have. On the J'ville point, some of those mid-aughts Del Rio teams were chic SB picks those years and were almost always playoff spot contenders.

So, there's no difference between the quality of regular season opponents and post-season opponents then? That's the division NOW--remember that most of the time Manning was playing in Indy either Tennessee or Jacksonville were decent teams.

While these are two of the best to ever play the position and we're lucky to get to see them head to head like this for so long, I wonder how much of Brady's success against Manning depends on home field advantage, as they seem to play the annual game in Foxboro nearly every year, both now vs Denver and previously vs the Colts. It's currently the 3rd year in a row it's been played in New England, for ex. A Pats* fan explained why to me yesterday (3 years in a row for head to heads of division winners), but that system seems asinine to me. Why not alternate those games?

What's called and when is of course important--big difference between a 5 yard procedural penalty in the 4th when the game is over vs. a key drive killer or (allower, like the block in the back that wasn't called on the TD) early in the game. At one point early on they flashed the penalties as something like 6 for the Broncos to 1 for the Pats*, IIRC yesterday, for ex.

Interesting factoid on this ref crew--it's headed by Walt Anderson, who was the ref in both the 2007 Cheats*-Ravens Monday Nighter that got some Ravens D players fined as well as last year's Pats*-Dolphins game that also featured a controversial key pro-Pats* call. Go figure.... http://blog.masslive.com/patriots/2013/10/yes_the_patriots-dolphins_game.html

Looking at this on Wikipedia, that seems correct, but how asinine that is as a general rule. It also means that the Cheats* have gotten Manning at home three years in a row with the Broncos and 5 or 6 out of the last 8 or 9 against the Colts....

Why does it feel like the regular season meetings between these two are always in Foxboro--anyone have any insight into that? They typically play each other (here and in Indy when Manning played for them) as first place teams playing first place teams in the conference, so you'd think that Manning would get Brady at home every now and then, but to my recollection at least (too lazy to google it) it always seems like they're playing at New England*.....

Sammy cost my fantasy team 7 points yesterday, so I need Alfred Morris to run for a TD and 70 yards tonight without fumbling....