MIT Professor explains how the NFL is a legalized and government sanctioned Cartel

[sunshynman]

If you really want to get under the skin of the people, start calling the NFL a cabal. 

[MJS]

1 hour ago, Búfalo Blanco said:

Makes some of us wonder even more about Vegas collusion and officiating, but nobody wants to talk about that.. 

I don't think we need to for a couple of reasons.

 

1) the NFL makes BILLIONS of dollars by providing a high quality, fair league. If fans get even a hint that things are fixed, they lose interest and that hurts profits. The NFL doss not need to fix games to make boat loads of money. They already do. Not even slightly worth the risk.

 

2) What NFL owner signs up to be less profitable losers while allowing other teams to be more profitable and perennial winners? You think the owner of the Browns and Jets wouldn't want a fair share of winning by fixing games in their favor? If games are fixed, some teams are getting a really short stick and they wouldn't stand for that.

 

3) This isn't boxing. You can't convince a single person to throw a game and have that be meaningful. You have a roster of 50+ players and an entire coaching staff. All of them are well paid and lose their jobs if they don't consistently win.

 

4) Teams or players caught cheating are always looking for s competitive edge to win more, not the other way around. If games were fixed, players, coaches, and owners would not be cheating to find a competitive edge to win.

[RoyBatty is alive]

6 hours ago, dave mcbride said:

MIT has the second ranked economics department in the country (after Harvard), and they’re great at both macro and micro.

Wow, are we to be impressed?

 

If this representative of what MIT has to offer in economics,  I am totally underwhelmed.

[Búfalo Blanco]

51 minutes ago, GoBills808 said:

that's why i'm asking you

 

like do you really believe multiple independent sportsbooks are colluding with the NFL to have officials generate certain outcomes

Here's my theory on it... and honestly, I'm a fan like you.. so who knows. Much of what the Patriots were doing was very hard to prove, as one example. But I believe there are certain games (not all, but some) that the NFL "nudges" to keep the game interesting, close, keep the parity, hold and increase the ratings, something to do with Vegas, whatever... particularly with important games, highly rated, playoff implications. I believe the officials are specifically trained, pressured, etc. to do this for the sake of "parity". The Bills were one of the biggest examples of this for years against New England... along with Pittsburgh and others. This is just one example... I don't believe there's some large "conspiracy" on this necessarily, but I do believe these biases and manipulations are baked into the current NFL structure to profit further. 

[Búfalo Blanco]

27 minutes ago, MJS said:

I don't think we need to for a couple of reasons.

 

1) the NFL makes BILLIONS of dollars by providing a high quality, fair league. If fans get even a hint that things are fixed, they lose interest and that hurts profits. The NFL doss not need to fix games to make boat loads of money. They already do. Not even slightly worth the risk.

 

2) What NFL owner signs up to be less profitable losers while allowing other teams to be more profitable and perennial winners? You think the owner of the Browns and Jets wouldn't want a fair share of winning by fixing games in their favor? If games are fixed, some teams are getting a really short stick and they wouldn't stand for that.

 

3) This isn't boxing. You can't convince a single person to throw a game and have that be meaningful. You have a roster of 50+ players and an entire coaching staff. All of them are well paid and lose their jobs if they don't consistently win.

 

4) Teams or players caught cheating are always looking for s competitive edge to win more, not the other way around. If games were fixed, players, coaches, and owners would not be cheating to find a competitive edge to win.

I think you misunderstand what I'm saying... and took it to such an exaggerated level... No, it can't be some full blown conspiracy. What I like to call game "nudging" is baked into the NFL rules and game officiating for the sake of parity. The collusion with Vegas, the cheating (which was proven in at least 2 ways with the Patriots) happens, I think.. but has more to do with teams or individuals. However, no one can tell me the NFL is not in bed with Vegas... they advertise it openly now. But there's no influence at all...?

[GoBills808]

23 minutes ago, Búfalo Blanco said:

Here's my theory on it... and honestly, I'm a fan like you.. so who knows. Much of what the Patriots were doing was very hard to prove, as one example. But I believe there are certain games (not all, but some) that the NFL "nudges" to keep the game interesting, close, keep the parity, hold and increase the ratings, something to do with Vegas, whatever... particularly with important games, highly rated, playoff implications. I believe the officials are specifically trained, pressured, etc. to do this for the sake of "parity". The Bills were one of the biggest examples of this for years against New England... along with Pittsburgh and others. This is just one example... I don't believe there's some large "conspiracy" on this necessarily, but I do believe these biases and manipulations are baked into the current NFL structure to profit further. 

ok but much like the professor here i think you miscalculate how the structure of the league fits into your theory

 

'the NFL' is an aggregation of 32 entities designed to further promote their collective interests, not reduce or influence competition between membership (it's the basis for their product)...similarly 'Vegas' is sort of ill defined as having a singular governing body that would direct (illegal) policy

 

now parity is absolutely baked into the NFL which helps make it a very attractive betting market but it's achieved through salary cap, draft order, and other collectively bargained framework as opposed to officials deliberately manipulating outcomes 

[MJS]

26 minutes ago, Búfalo Blanco said:

Here's my theory on it... and honestly, I'm a fan like you.. so who knows. Much of what the Patriots were doing was very hard to prove, as one example. But I believe there are certain games (not all, but some) that the NFL "nudges" to keep the game interesting, close, keep the parity, hold and increase the ratings, something to do with Vegas, whatever... particularly with important games, highly rated, playoff implications. I believe the officials are specifically trained, pressured, etc. to do this for the sake of "parity". The Bills were one of the biggest examples of this for years against New England... along with Pittsburgh and others. This is just one example... I don't believe there's some large "conspiracy" on this necessarily, but I do believe these biases and manipulations are baked into the current NFL structure to profit further. 

 

15 minutes ago, Búfalo Blanco said:

I think you misunderstand what I'm saying... and took it to such an exaggerated level... No, it can't be some full blown conspiracy. What I like to call game "nudging" is baked into the NFL rules and game officiating for the sake of parity. The collusion with Vegas, the cheating (which was proven in at least 2 ways with the Patriots) happens, I think.. but has more to do with teams or individuals. However, no one can tell me the NFL is not in bed with Vegas... they advertise it openly now. But there's no influence at all...?

I don't really get it. You are speaking in a lot of generalities. What specifically do you think could be going on here?

[dave mcbride]

1 hour ago, RoyBatty is alive said:

Wow, are we to be impressed?

 

If this representative of what MIT has to offer in economics,  I am totally underwhelmed.

It is in all likelihood a lecture about cartels/monopolies for undergrads by a professor simply trying to engage students with an easily recognizable example that many will have familiarity with. The person lecturing is Jonathan Gruber, who is head of MIT's econ dept and a genuinely accomplished economist: https://economics.mit.edu/people/faculty/jonathan-gruber. 

[That's No Moon]

31 minutes ago, dave mcbride said:

It is in all likelihood a lecture about cartels/monopolies for undergrads by a professor simply trying to engage students with an easily recognizable example that many will have familiarity with. The person lecturing is Jonathan Gruber, who is head of MIT's econ dept and a genuinely accomplished economist: https://economics.mit.edu/people/faculty/jonathan-gruber. 

Stop making sense. That's not what we do here.

[TableDestoyer69]

1 hour ago, RoyBatty is alive said:

Wow, are we to be impressed?

 

If this representative of what MIT has to offer in economics,  I am totally underwhelmed.

This isn't even representative of the professor's own work. It's an illustrative metaphor during an undergrad course to make the content more relatable, and he's clearly oversimplifying. This wasn't even intended to be widely shared by the professor. It's part of MIT's MOOC policy to make content accessible to anyone, and whoever manages the social was right that it would get engagement.

Here's his research, which is related to informing public health policy and has 55k citations https://scholar.google.com/citations?user=c4FeOJQAAAAJ.

[DaVinci]

[GoBills808]

33 minutes ago, TableDestoyer69 said:

This isn't even representative of the professor's own work. It's an illustrative metaphor during an undergrad course to make the content more relatable, and he's clearly oversimplifying. This wasn't even intended to be widely shared by the professor. It's part of MIT's MOOC policy to make content accessible to anyone, and whoever manages the social was right that it would get engagement.

Here's his research, which is related to informing public health policy and has 55k citations https://scholar.google.com/citations?user=c4FeOJQAAAAJ.

as opposed to a nonillustrative metaphor i suppose

[Delete_Delete_Delete]

1 hour ago, MJS said:

 

I don't really get it. You are speaking in a lot of generalities. What specifically do you think could be going on here?

I think the sentiment here, that some could make an argument for, I’m not saying I personally believe it, is just for general collusion amongst league owners because all that it’s important at the end of the day is the popularity of the league/cartel itself. 
 

However, I know somebody personally who works hands on, on a daily basis with an NFL team owner, and I can assure you they care very much about winning and losing. They’re definitely not part of some big collusion to try and steer games towards certain outcomes, if they could go 20-0 every year they would.

[MJS]

31 minutes ago, Delete_Delete_Delete said:

I think the sentiment here, that some could make an argument for, I’m not saying I personally believe it, is just for general collusion amongst league owners because all that it’s important at the end of the day is the popularity of the league/cartel itself. 
 

However, I know somebody personally who works hands on, on a daily basis with an NFL team owner, and I can assure you they care very much about winning and losing. They’re definitely not part of some big collusion to try and steer games towards certain outcomes, if they could go 20-0 every year they would.

I don't really know how you can have a league without a governing body to enforce rules, coordinate efforts, ensure quality, focus on generating profits, promote the league and sport, etc. People call that collusion, and I guess it is, but what is the alternative, really? That's what I don't get. How would they prefer it run? They aren't 32 individual entities. They are part of a league and depend on each other on a whole host of things.

[djp14150]

9 hours ago, Bleeding Bills Blue said:

 

Sort of - as a cleveland guardians fan, prior to last year i couldn't watch their games unless i had some bally sports package that was 49 dollars a month including a number of channels i didn't want.  After the bankruptcy, they wanted 29.99 per month for their games and their league wide package would have blacked-out guardians games.  

The team/ national packages are designed for out of market areas where home teams to the area are blacked out.

[Búfalo Blanco]

I don't see how anyone can look at the "cabal" and argue that the officiating is doing them any good, profit wise.. and let's be honest, we know that's what it's all about in 'Murica. I can argue with whoever about "nudging" for profit, overtime rules, parity, Vegas influence, whatever to a stalemate... 

 

You want to tell me there's no incentive to extend games, I tell you follow the money... After last weekend (among many others), the NFL has a massive problem with the refs, at least. Did you watch that BS they call officiating across the league in Week 5..? The technology is at such a point, they could easily fix it.. but won't. They can't even get the new AI ball placement correct. They get more media coverage off the "controversy", so why fix it..? But nah, they don't use it to their advantage... not the lily white National Football League... That's never happened in pro sports... 

 

I'm not saying it's "fixed".. far from it... but profit incentive to extend games that shouldn't be..? Yeah, it happens...