Do you wonder if the league is fixed?

[Mr. WEO]

35 minutes ago, Bill from NYC said:

Even if it does not matter immediately, how can increased, and new and different viewers NOT effect profits down the road? Do you think that the cameras are showing TS and Kelce with the band aid for no reason, or to turn a profit?

 

I hope that you don't sense any hostility in my responses. It's an interesting topic imo and we can certainly agree to disagree afaic.

 

No it's all good.

 

Maybe showing Taylor Swift a lot this season will bring in Taylor Swift viewers for this one time SB that they otherwise would not watch.  But then what?  When Swift and Kelce are not a couple next year? 

 

Again, if zero people viewed this SB or if all 7+ billion earthlings tuned in--it matters not to the NFL.  They sold this SB to CBS 2 years ago.  They can't get more money for the broadcast after it's already paid for---no matter how many watch it.   

 

10 years from now, when the network/streaming contracts are up for renewal, we will know the effect of Kelce/Swift from 10 years prior.  My guess is that it will not have an impact 10 years from now on the pricing/bids.

[BillsMontreal]

If it is, we dont know and i'm not sure if we will ever know.

 

Then, with all the money involded there, i would be really naive to say i'm sure it is not rigged.

 

When we can do this kind of math: mans + a lot of money+ bet and Vegas...nothing can really surprise me.

 

At the end, we dont know and there's nothing we can do. The day i would not have fun by watching the NFL, i will simply stop.  

 

To say the truth, all those sideshow  like this love story between this singer and the player, begins to bother me the most.

I so dont watch a football game for those sideshows.

 

But rigged or not? We just cant know.

[Westside]

13 hours ago, Mr. WEO said:

 

they were done in 2021----unless you are imagining that this Taylor Swift--Kelce frenzy will still be white hot when these contracts are negotiated again 10 years from now? 

 

200 million viewers as a one time SB bump does nothing for the owners or the networks.  It's all been paid for up front. Not sure what you are talking about...

Every dollar they make each year has to keep increasing. So I expect more of this silly WWE antics to continue every year to keep the record profits coming every year. 

[Mr. WEO]

Just now, Westside said:

Every dollar they make each year has to keep increasing. So I expect more of this silly WWE antics to continue every year to keep the record profits coming every year. 

 

The NFL dominates all other sports leagues because it craves (and gets) attention that guarantees that it is top of the sports news cycle year round---good press or bad (anyone remember "CTE"?), doesn't matter.

 

And.....one more time: the broadcast revenue is fixed in the contracts that are locked for 10 more years.  Any extra revenue comes from merchandise, sponsorships (gambling, booze, tech--any number of "the Official (x) of the NFL" stuff) and of course, the team owners make extra money from tickets sales and merch.

 

Panning to Taylor Swift during 1 game a week for 1 season brings no extra revenue to the streams I listed. It's just another layer of pop culture dominance the NFL enjoys that NBA, MLB and NHL can only dream of.

 

Let it go, she can't hurt you...

[Drew21PA]

I think it changes so much that the doubters have a real argument

 

example Taylor swift

 

no one saw her and Travis relationship statting

 

nfl makes a ton of money - boom switch!!!!!

 

aaron Rodgers injury

boom switch!!!!!

[Lane Meyer K12]

Absolutely. 

[Unforgiven]

I think the league definately nudges outcomes in the direction they want.

Edited February 2 by Unforgiven

[DeltaDigital]

15 hours ago, Mr. WEO said:

 

 

You both seem to think that the NFL gets more money based on how many people will be watching this particular SB---or that they get money from"advertisements".  Neither is correct. 

 

CBS (along with Fox, ABC/ESPN, Amazon and NBC) just purchased the rights to b broadcast NFL games in 2021--these contracts are locked in until 2033.  CBS's contract is for 2.1 billion per year and includes 3 Super Bowls (2023, 2027 and 2031).  If ever Taylor Swift on earth tunes in----in fact  if 7 billion people watch this year's SB, the NFL won't make an extra penny because  it's already bought and paid for by CBS.

 

Obviously CBS makes that back by selling the ads for the game.  Those ads are bought by companies with goods and services to sell.  Theoretically, the Taylor Swift might have the potential for CBS to sell the ads for more and enhance THEIR bottom line (not the NFL's)....but CBS sold out its SB ads by Halloween--likely before the impact of this couple peaked.

 

None it will make a difference for the NFL's bottom line. 

Yet... if 7 BILLION people watched every year... the contracts AFTER 2033 are going to be 6 billion a year. Get how that works? 

[In Summary]

2 hours ago, Mr. WEO said:

Maybe showing Taylor Swift a lot this season will bring in Taylor Swift viewers for this one time SB that they otherwise would not watch.  But then what?  When Swift and Kelce are not a couple next year?

She would just date a different, younger player. 

[Westside]

1 hour ago, Mr. WEO said:

 

The NFL dominates all other sports leagues because it craves (and gets) attention that guarantees that it is top of the sports news cycle year round---good press or bad (anyone remember "CTE"?), doesn't matter.

 

And.....one more time: the broadcast revenue is fixed in the contracts that are locked for 10 more years.  Any extra revenue comes from merchandise, sponsorships (gambling, booze, tech--any number of "the Official (x) of the NFL" stuff) and of course, the team owners make extra money from tickets sales and merch.

 

Panning to Taylor Swift during 1 game a week for 1 season brings no extra revenue to the streams I listed. It's just another layer of pop culture dominance the NFL enjoys that NBA, MLB and NHL can only dream of.

 

Let it go, she can't hurt you...

Didn’t know you are a swiftie.

[mjt328]

2 hours ago, The Red King said:

One more time, for those in the back, 'scripted' and 'fixed' are different things.

 

The NFL can have interest in how a game plays out and use the refs to nudge it that way.  If it still doesn't go the way the want, oh well.  If there is fixing, it's more "We want <x> to win, see what you can do." rather then "<x> must win at all costs!!!".  That's why you hear the phrase "Yeah, we had to beat them and the refs!".  Look at the two key, blatent, PI non-calls in the AFCCG for a potential  example of the former.

 

Also, consider the league may have interests beyond win/lose, such as keeping games close to retain viewers, or covering a spread.

 

And yet again, since some people apparently can't read, I do not in any way, shape or form think the league is scripted.  That would be an untenable logistical nightmare.  But again, 'scripted' and 'fixed' are not the same thing.

 

I will never understand how people can live in this world, and not be the slightest bit skeptical about things around them.  All the greed, theft, cheating, stealing that goes on.  But if you aren't convinced that everything coming from a multi-billion dollar industry is 100% legit, then you are a crazy tinfoil hat conspiracy lunatic...

 

The NFL itself makes jokes about "the script" in their marketing.  But very few people are claiming the NFL is scripted (like WWE Wrestling for example).  Maybe a few on social media trying to gain clicks and attention.  That is a misdirection and misrepresentation of the argument.  The fear that MOST people have is that games/situations could sometimes be manipulated into favorable situations for the league.  And that unfortunately is very plausible.  Many players themselves believe the NFL helps push for certain outcomes using the refs.  The most recent example is DeSean Jackson, who just stated a few days ago that the NFL was trying to get the Chiefs into the Super Bowl because of Taylor Swift.

 

Thanks to Swift, the NFL has free marketing to a MASSIVE demographic that it had virtually zero representation in before late 2023.  Anyone who thinks that doesn't have value to a company is kidding themselves.  Even if 95% of young girls drop the NFL when Kelce retires or that relationship ends, the league still picked up a HUGE number of new viewers.

 

Some years back, it was revealed that Buffalo was trying to sign Michael Vick (after his stint in prison), and Roger Goodell got involved to help push him towards a more stable team (which ended up being Philadelphia).  Now what purpose could the league possibly have in doing such a thing?  Seems kind-of unfair to the Bills.  The NFL was already making billions.  But they realized that Vick was a PR nightmare waiting to happen, and they didn't want him being handled by a team with a messy front office.

 

And even if the NFL itself isn't involved in manipulating games, you still have to worry about refs being paid off (see the NBA), coaches/players doing the same (how many have been caught betting on the side already), and the billions upon billions that come from gambling/fantasy football.

 

[The Red King]

6 hours ago, Dr. K said:

If by "fixed" you mean the outcome of games is consciously determined by some conspiracy in the league offices, this is beyond idiotic. 

 

But the United States if full of people who believe idiotic conspiracy theories right now, so I guess believing this would just be more of the same brain-dead business as usual.  

 

 

 

That's...not what I meant by 'fixed' at all.  In fact my last reply (right above your quoted reply) pretty well explained what I meant by it.  In detail.

[Augie]

7 hours ago, The Red King said:

One more time, for those in the back, 'scripted' and 'fixed' are different things.

 

The NFL can have interest in how a game plays out and use the refs to nudge it that way.  If it still doesn't go the way the want, oh well.  If there is fixing, it's more "We want <x> to win, see what you can do." rather then "<x> must win at all costs!!!".  That's why you hear the phrase "Yeah, we had to beat them and the refs!".  Look at the two key, blatent, PI non-calls in the AFCCG for a potential  example of the former.

 

Also, consider the league may have interests beyond win/lose, such as keeping games close to retain viewers, or covering a spread.

 

And yet again, since some people apparently can't read, I do not in any way, shape or form think the league is scripted.  That would be an untenable logistical nightmare.  But again, 'scripted' and 'fixed' are not the same thing.

 

I’m sure a policy of nudging games one way or another would never leak out. Let’s think of how many different people will have to know about this arrangement, and how many people come and go every year, and how it has never come to light. Not one of those countless persons has ever spilled the beans after one drink too many. This is secret keeping in line with covering up the studio where they filmed the moon landings!   😋

 

 

.

Edited February 2 by Augie

[Mr. WEO]

5 hours ago, Westside said:

Didn’t know you are a swiftie.

 

 

I'm not.  Just trying to help you with this very simple concept.

5 hours ago, DeltaDigital said:

Yet... if 7 BILLION people watched every year... the contracts AFTER 2033 are going to be 6 billion a year. Get how that works? 

 

Contracts are currently worth 10 billion a year.  

 

[frostbitmic]

Nah, if the NFL were fixed we'd get the same QB , same team every year in the Super Bowl.

[LabattBlue]

The games aren’t scripted, fixed, nudged, favored, etc…

 

Just throw out the tinfoil and stop already.  

[Dr. K]

6 hours ago, The Red King said:

 

That's...not what I meant by 'fixed' at all.  In fact my last reply (right above your quoted reply) pretty well explained what I meant by it.  In detail.

What you said ["We want <x> to win, see what you can do."] amounts to a conspiracy in the league offices. 

 

Refs make lots of bad calls and miss lots of obvious penalties. It's the nature of the game and of their job. They can be influenced for and against a team by the crowd. Some refs are incompetent.The league should have full time professional refs. 

 

But the fact that some players and fans (including me) will say a team "had to beat both the opponent and the refs" is not evidence that games were fixed. 

 

I could more easily believe that some individual refs might be paid by gamblers or the mob to make or ignore particular calls (as has happened in pro basketball) than that the league would throw a game to Kansas City because of Taylor Swift. That is idiotic.

Edited February 3 by Dr. K

[BillMafia716ix]

If the league was fixed it definitely wouldn’t be KC and San Fran in the bowl. AGAIN. What a snoozer

[Neo]

I’ve been reading and reading, and I think I’ve been persuaded.  The league is definitely fixed.

 

That’s not to say it’s rigged, however, which would be all together different.

 

It’s clearly not scripted, which would be right out.

 

It’s not surprising that some are confusing this with influenced, even though the two words are different.

 

I have this gnawing sense that, from time to time, I’m watching something that’s engineered, of sorts.  Lacking a degree in the discipline, I offer no conclusion.

 

Concentrating greatly, I don’t confuse this with results that are derived, or falsified.

 

And jury-rigged is simply a subset of rigged, as a whole concept, and therefore not up for consideration.

 

You’ll never get me to agree, try as you might. that games are contrived.

 

I have no evidence of prepense despite years of watching players and referees.   I say this even though I saw a linesman fiddling with his back pocket flag before a snap in 1993.

 

I am happy with my personal growth and my willingness to confess to an error in my thinking.   I live.  I learn.

 

 

 

 

 

Edited February 3 by Neo

[Mikie2times]

12 minutes ago, Neo said:

I’ve been reading and reading, and I think I’ve been persuaded.  The league is definitely fixed.

 

That’s not to see its rigged, however, which would be all together different.

 

It’s clearly not scripted, which would be right out.

 

It’s not surprising that some are confusing this with influenced, even though the two words are different.

 

I have this gnawing sense that, from time to time, I’m watching something that’s engineered, of sorts.  Lacking a degree in the discipline, I offer no conclusion.

 

Concentrating greatly, I don’t confuse this with results that are derived, or falsified.

 

And jury-rigged is simply a subset of rigged, as a whole concept, and therefore not up for consideration.

 

You’ll never get me to agree, try as you might. that games are contrived.

 

I have no evidence of prepense despite years of watching players and referees.   I say this even though I saw a linesman fiddling with his back pocket flag before a snap in 1993.

 

I am happy with my personal growth and my willingness to confess to an error in my thinking.   I live.  I learn.

 

 

 

 

 

I found this funny but not humorous