Help - Search - Members - Calendar
Full Version: The NFL is rigged. I've never been more convinced.
Eagles Forum > Philadelphia Eagles Message Board > Philadelphia Eagles or Football Related Discussion
Pages: 1, 2
mcnabbulous
The Eagles only being 3 point favorites today made no sense. I'm not a total degenerate, but it raised a red flag.

- Blatant uncalled holding on the first Detroit drive
- The bullshit chop block called on Sproles
- Mystery illegal man downfield called on a defensive number.

Something is up today.
mcnabbulous
Eagles: 8 penalties/76 yards
Lions: 1 penalty/5 yards
SAM I Am
QUOTE (mcnabbulous @ Oct 9 2016, 02:33 PM) *
Eagles: 8 penalties/76 yards
Lions: 1 penalty/5 yards

I don't want to go down the rigged road with you, but talk about phantom penalties...

This officiating crew has been bad, and I do mean rrrrrrrrrrreeeeeeeeeeeeaaaaaaaaaaaaaaallllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllyyyyyyyyyyyyyyy bad.
Pila
QUOTE (mcnabbulous @ Oct 9 2016, 07:33 PM) *
Eagles: 8 penalties/76 yards
Lions: 1 penalty/5 yards

It's been pretty blatant.

We'll have to chalk this one up a loss, there's one or two refs making sure of this.
mcnabbulous
QUOTE (SAM I Am @ Oct 9 2016, 01:38 PM) *
I don't want to go down the rigged road with you, but talk about phantom penalties...

This officiating crew has been bad, and I do mean rrrrrrrrrrreeeeeeeeeeeeaaaaaaaaaaaaaaallllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllyyyyyyyyyyyyyyy bad.

If it was just the phantom calls it would be one thing, but that Vegas line made no sense today.
Phits
QUOTE (mcnabbulous @ Oct 9 2016, 02:41 PM) *
that Vegas line made no sense today.

Rookie QB on the road doesn't usually get the benefit of the doubt from Vegas.

Plus this game has "trap" written all over it.
SAM I Am
QUOTE (Phits @ Oct 9 2016, 02:48 PM) *
Rookie QB on the road doesn't usually get the benefit of the doubt from Vegas.

I don't even think of Wentz as a rookie anymore.
mcnabbulous
QUOTE (SAM I Am @ Oct 9 2016, 01:51 PM) *
I don't even think of Wentz as a rookie anymore.

I've never seen anyone like him. He's perfect. I love him.

*I probably need to stop drinking but I blame the refs.
Phits
QUOTE (SAM I Am @ Oct 9 2016, 02:51 PM) *
I don't even think of Wentz as a rookie anymore.

That's because we're fans.
nephillymike
You forgot the stone cold lock jinx of Mikey Numbers taking the Eagles minus the points.
sad.gif

SAM I Am
QUOTE (SAM I Am @ Oct 9 2016, 02:38 PM) *
I don't want to go down the rigged road with you, but talk about phantom penalties...

On second thought, I think you are right.
Pila
QUOTE (SAM I Am @ Oct 9 2016, 07:58 PM) *
On second thought, I think you are right.

No. There's a ref here, maube two with an interest in the outcome.
mcnabbulous
I was going back and forth with a buddy about the line before the game. He's not an Eagles fan. We both agreed it didn't make sense. He forwarded me an email he got that declared "Detroit NFL upset of the year"

It fucking stinks I tell ya.
nephillymike
QUOTE (mcnabbulous @ Oct 9 2016, 02:07 PM) *
I was going back and forth with a buddy about the line before the game. He's not an Eagles fan. We both agreed it didn't make sense. He forwarded me an email he got that declared "Detroit NFL upset of the year"

It fucking stinks I tell ya.

If you look at what if sports, covers.com, 538, and Sagarin, the line wasn't out of whack.
Zero
QUOTE (mcnabbulous @ Oct 9 2016, 02:26 PM) *
The Eagles only being 3 point favorites today made no sense. I'm not a total degenerate, but it raised a red flag.

- Blatant uncalled holding on the first Detroit drive
- The bullshit chop block called on Sproles
- Mystery illegal man downfield called on a defensive number.

Something is up today.

That Sproles call was insane, he was almost upright when he blocked. They should have just flagged him for height interference.
mcnabbulous
Not sure if mentioned elsewhere, but the penalty count ended up being 14-2 today. Fucking bullshit.
Joegrane
I wonder if the NFL did not like that the Eagles were running up the score and decided to level the playing field a bit Advertisers don't like lopsided games.

QUOTE (mcnabbulous @ Oct 9 2016, 10:30 PM) *
Not sure if mentioned elsewhere, but the penalty count ended up being 14-2 today. Fucking bullshit.

mcnabbulous
QUOTE (Joegrane @ Oct 9 2016, 09:34 PM) *
I wonder if the NFL did not like that the Eagles were running up the score and decided to level the playing field a bit Advertisers don't like lopsided games.

I can't recall a stranger officiated game. Detroit had no holding penalties. No pass interference.

I wonder how often that happens. My guess would be rarely.
mcnabbulous
QUOTE (mcnabbulous @ Oct 9 2016, 09:30 PM) *
Not sure if mentioned elsewhere, but the penalty count ended up being 14-2 today. Fucking bullshit.

Per a random dude on Twitter (if his story checks out, he's a data scientist) --- of the 4000+ games between 2000-2015, only 20 (.5%) had a 12+ penalty differential.
Rick
QUOTE (mcnabbulous @ Oct 9 2016, 02:41 PM) *
If it was just the phantom calls it would be one thing, but that Vegas line made no sense today.

You do realize the lines have nothing to do with the teams and everything to do with how the game is being bet, right? They set the line based on how the teams are being bet so as to mitigate losses.

But the refs were horrible. We could see many holds not called on Detroit.

The one big running play where they called holding on the Eagles was also lame.

There is just no way one team has 14 penalties while the other only has 2. Ridiculous...
Zero
QUOTE (Rick @ Oct 10 2016, 06:45 AM) *
You do realize the lines have nothing to do with the teams and everything to do with how the game is being bet, right? They set the line based on how the teams are being bet so as to mitigate losses.

But the refs were horrible. We could see many holds not called on Detroit.

The one big running play where they called holding on the Eagles was also lame.

There is just no way one team has 14 penalties while the other only has 2. Ridiculous...

The two that jump out at me were the ineligible receiver that was probably DGB and the chop block on Sproles who was standing up during the block. These guys were either blind, high or just terrible.
mcnabbulous
QUOTE (Rick @ Oct 10 2016, 05:45 AM) *
You do realize the lines have nothing to do with the teams and everything to do with how the game is being bet, right? They set the line based on how the teams are being bet so as to mitigate losses.

But the refs were horrible. We could see many holds not called on Detroit.

The one big running play where they called holding on the Eagles was also lame.

There is just no way one team has 14 penalties while the other only has 2. Ridiculous...

I know exactly how the lines are set. And I find it alarming that people were betting enough on Detroit to justify a 3 point line.


Rick
QUOTE (mcnabbulous @ Oct 10 2016, 09:09 AM) *
I know exactly how the lines are set. And I find it alarming that people were betting enough on Detroit to justify a 3 point line.

Ok but that has nothing to do with the NFL being rigged. A LOT of people were saying Detroit would win this game. I said it was a potential trap game.

The calls, I'm with you, but saying there's some conspiracy theory because the line wasn't where you think it should have been makes no sense.
mcnabbulous
QUOTE (Rick @ Oct 10 2016, 09:36 AM) *
Ok but that has nothing to do with the NFL being rigged. A LOT of people were saying Detroit would win this game. I said it was a potential trap game.

The calls, I'm with you, but saying there's some conspiracy theory because the line wasn't where you think it should have been makes no sense.

If people are betting curiously on a game. And then the refs make several suspicious calls to support the strange betting, it raises eyebrows.

14-2 penalties. Against the heaviest penalized team in football.
Rick
QUOTE (mcnabbulous @ Oct 10 2016, 10:46 AM) *
If people are betting curiously on a game. And then the refs make several suspicious calls to support the strange betting, it raises eyebrows.

14-2 penalties. Against the heaviest penalized team in football.


People bet on games. That moves the line. A lot of people predicted Detroit would win the game. So how, exactly, was the betting curious?
mcnabbulous
QUOTE (Rick @ Oct 10 2016, 10:34 AM) *
People bet on games. That moves the line. A lot of people predicted Detroit would win the game. So how, exactly, was the betting curious?

Jesus dude I don't know how to spell it out more clearly. A team that had been dominating and coming off a bye was playing a bad, penalty prone team. Literally all signs point to the Eagles being the superior team.

Then the superior team loses the penalty battle by 12 (something that happens in .5% of all games) including a few phantom, unexplainable calls.

The Lions, the most penalized team in football, had zero holding penalties against one of the best defensive lines in the game? But yeah, just a normal day at the office.
Rick
QUOTE (mcnabbulous @ Oct 10 2016, 12:05 PM) *
Jesus dude I don't know how to spell it out more clearly. A team that had been dominating and coming off a bye was playing a bad, penalty prone team. Literally all signs point to the Eagles being the superior team.

Then the superior team loses the penalty battle by 12 (something that happens in .5% of all games) including a few phantom, unexplainable calls.

The Lions, the most penalized team in football, had zero holding penalties against one of the best defensive lines in the game? But yeah, just a normal day at the office.

I'm not sure how to spell it out to YOU. I'm not talking about penalties. Your insistence that the line somehow shows that the game was rigged is beyond ridiculous. And that's coming from someone who's had some of the most ridiculous arguments around here so that's saying something.

You just can NEVER admit you might be wrong about ANYTHING no matter how ridiculous your stance is or how many other people tell you you're crazy.
The Franchise
A rookie QB on the road in his 4th game is a 3 point favorite? That sounds pretty generous to me.

Lines are set, and they move during the days leading up to the game based on how people bet. You really have no clue what you're talking about, though that's in just about every thread.

The over/under for yesterday's game was 46 or 47, depending on where you went. The final point total was 47. The spread was Philly -3, and we ended up losing by 1. If we drove down the field and got that final field goal as I feel we should have, we would've won by 2. The crucial turnover by Matthews and that stupid penalty by Logan that led to a TD are all the difference in us beating the spread. Sure the officiating was bad, but to me this is Vegas at its finest. They know what they're doing, a hell of a lot more than you or I.
mcnabbulous
QUOTE (The Franchise @ Oct 10 2016, 01:43 PM) *
A rookie QB on the road in his 4th game is a 3 point favorite? That sounds pretty generous to me.

Lines are set, and they move during the days leading up to the game based on how people bet. You really have no clue what you're talking about, though that's in just about every thread.

The over/under for yesterday's game was 46 or 47, depending on where you went. The final point total was 47. The spread was Philly -3, and we ended up losing by 1. If we drove down the field and got that final field goal as I feel we should have, we would've won by 2. The crucial turnover by Matthews and that stupid penalty by Logan that led to a TD are all the difference in us beating the spread. Sure the officiating was bad, but to me this is Vegas at its finest. They know what they're doing, a hell of a lot more than you or I.

Yeah and I believe it's all too coincidental. There was no way we were covering yesterday. The refs wouldn't allow it. Whether it was the lack of holding calls on the Lions or not calling the pretty blatant PI on DGB.

I know how the spreads work. If people were trying to influence the outcome of a game, where would be the easiest way to do so? Certainly not by calling 12 more penalties against one team than the other. No sir.
The Franchise
QUOTE (mcnabbulous @ Oct 10 2016, 01:49 PM) *
Yeah and I believe it's all too coincidental. There was no way we were covering yesterday. The refs wouldn't allow it. Whether it was the lack of holding calls on the Lions or not calling the pretty blatant PI on DGB.

I know how the spreads work. If people were trying to influence the outcome of a game, where would be the easiest way to do so? Certainly not by calling 12 more penalties against one team than the other. No sir.


Yeah the officiating was shit overall. But what I'm saying is the stupid penalty where Cox ripped Stafford's helmet off on 3rd down, guess what? That's 4 points extra for them instead of the field goal they would've kicked. And we were up by 2 when Matthews fumbled, which pretty much shows that Vegas knows what they're doing.

Whatever. Bring on the Skins.

mcnabbulous
QUOTE (Rick @ Oct 10 2016, 01:18 PM) *
I'm not sure how to spell it out to YOU. I'm not talking about penalties. Your insistence that the line somehow shows that the game was rigged is beyond ridiculous. And that's coming from someone who's had some of the most ridiculous arguments around here so that's saying something.

You just can NEVER admit you might be wrong about ANYTHING no matter how ridiculous your stance is or how many other people tell you you're crazy.

What am I wrong about in this scenario? You know definitively that gambling has no influence on NFL outcomes?
mcnabbulous
QUOTE (The Franchise @ Oct 10 2016, 01:56 PM) *
Yeah the officiating was shit overall. But what I'm saying is the stupid penalty where Cox ripped Stafford's helmet off on 3rd down, guess what? That's 4 points extra for them instead of the field goal they would've kicked. And we were up by 2 when Matthews fumbled, which pretty much shows that Vegas knows what they're doing.

Whatever. Bring on the Skins.

Yeah I think Vegas knows exactly what they are doing. That's my point.
nephillymike
http://www.covers.com/odds/linehistory.asp...6&sport=NFL


Here's the line history.

Doesn't look out of whack.

If you look at the four sources I named, the line of 3.5 is about right.

However, the line did move down from a high of 4 to a game time line of 3 at around 11:00 AM.

Security cameras at the sports book show a guy resembling Abe Vigoda in a striped shirt making a huge bet on DET.

Just sayin. unsure.gif
Rick
QUOTE (mcnabbulous @ Oct 10 2016, 03:05 PM) *
What am I wrong about in this scenario? You know definitively that gambling has no influence on NFL outcomes?

As usual, you insist on being right even when everyone else is telling you you're crazy.

It's not a question of whether gambling has an influence on the NFL. The question is--in your warped reality anyway--whether a line of 3 points is an indication of the NFL fixing a game. Enough people have explained to you why that's a ridiculous concept--not surprising since it's your concept--but you can't seem to wrap your brain around this.
Zero
Here's an interesting review of the penalties.
QUOTE
I'm no statistic major, but if you have the second most flags (2 of 152 attempts) and the second fewest (2 of 152 attempts) in the same game, the statistical probability of that is astronomical. (Maybe someone can help me with the actual probability of this?) My calculations show .(.01315 * .01315)= .00018225 or 1.8 in 10000 chance of that outcome occurring.
Mikey Numbers?
mcnabbulous
That aligns with my thinking. The line was set incorrectly. The money flowed to Philly. The game was course corrected to benefit the house.
Rick
QUOTE (mcnabbulous @ Oct 13 2016, 09:12 AM) *
That aligns with my thinking. The line was set incorrectly. The money flowed to Philly. The game was course corrected to benefit the house.

Just can't ever admit you're wrong...about anything...
mcnabbulous
QUOTE (Rick @ Oct 13 2016, 08:49 AM) *
Just can't ever admit you're wrong...about anything...

Yes because I'm the only person that apparently thinks this.
The Franchise
QUOTE (mcnabbulous @ Oct 13 2016, 09:12 AM) *
The line was set incorrectly.


The line was set perfectly, as Vegas does an uncanny percent of the time, and as has been explained to you thoroughly several times. If you want to talk about a ref being on someone's payroll who bet on Detroit, that's fair. But the line was set just right.
Rick
QUOTE (The Franchise @ Oct 13 2016, 12:07 PM) *
The line was set perfectly, as Vegas does an uncanny percent of the time, and as has been explained to you thoroughly several times. If you want to talk about a ref being on someone's payroll who bet on Detroit, that's fair. But the line was set just right.

Thank you.

Of course, no matter what anyone shows him, he'll never admit he was wrong...
mcnabbulous
QUOTE (Rick @ Oct 13 2016, 11:33 AM) *
Thank you.

Of course, no matter what anyone shows him, he'll never admit he was wrong...

I still can't wait to hear what I am wrong about.

If ref intervention is required to support the outcome associated with the line, then it wasn't set perfectly.

A 14-2 penalty differential suggests there was ref intervention.
nephillymike
QUOTE (Zero @ Oct 13 2016, 06:30 AM) *
Here's an interesting review of the penalties.
Mikey Numbers?

How can the highest and lowest be the same 2 of 152?
Rick
QUOTE (mcnabbulous @ Oct 13 2016, 12:42 PM) *
I still can't wait to hear what I am wrong about.

If ref intervention is required to support the outcome associated with the line, then it wasn't set perfectly.

A 14-2 penalty differential suggests there was ref intervention.

:::sigh:::

You really need to take that aluminum foil off your head every so often. It's really affecting your reasoning abilities.

I don't think anyone will disagree that the penalty situation was ridiculous. However, as everyone except YOU has stated, the line was set just fine based on all of the available information BEFORE the game. So, for you to say AFTER the game, it was incorrect is a bit, well, let's just say it's CRAZY.

That would be what you're WRONG about. Then again, as I've said, you'll NEVER admit you were wrong about ANYTHING. So not sure why we're bothering....
mcnabbulous
QUOTE (Rick @ Oct 14 2016, 06:23 AM) *
:::sigh:::

You really need to take that aluminum foil off your head every so often. It's really affecting your reasoning abilities.

I don't think anyone will disagree that the penalty situation was ridiculous. However, as everyone except YOU has stated, the line was set just fine based on all of the available information BEFORE the game. So, for you to say AFTER the game, it was incorrect is a bit, well, let's just say it's CRAZY.

That would be what you're WRONG about. Then again, as I've said, you'll NEVER admit you were wrong about ANYTHING. So not sure why we're bothering....

If the line led to a tremendous amount of money being placed on one team over the other, then it wasn't set fine.
Pila
QUOTE (mcnabbulous @ Oct 14 2016, 12:53 PM) *
If the line led to a tremendous amount of money being placed on one team over the other, then it wasn't set fine.


I'm no gambling degenerate, but what's being said here is that odds makers don't really care how betting goes, they simply adjust the odds almost remarkably in real time by adjusting the odds directly in response to the direction of the bets.

They got this down to a science, free of conscious interfering. Algorithms, man. Algorithms.

It's the sane way the Vampire Squid take advantage of daytraders. There's just too much going on too quickly for Odds Makers to take personal resource investment on any one particular item.

That means the odds are set as they normally are.

Now, to say one of these refs, maybe even two, were unusually bad in a lopsided way can suggest that they had a conscious interest is not entirely unreasonable, although difficult to say.

But to suggest the odds were intentionally scripted to screw the Eagles... Thats a bit far fetched.
mcnabbulous
QUOTE (Pila @ Oct 14 2016, 12:14 PM) *
I'm no gambling degenerate, but what's being said here is that odds makers don't really care how betting goes, they simply adjust the odds almost remarkably in real time by adjusting the odds directly in response to the direction of the bets.


That's definitely not the case. They want people to lose. That's how Vegas makes their money. If a signficant amount of money was flowing to Philly, based on a line that was deemed to be favorable, it's in the interest of a lot of people to make sure that outcome doesn't take place. The odds will fluctuate based on the betting, but the starting point influences a lot.

QUOTE
They got this down to a science, free of conscious interfering. Algorithms, man. Algorithms.

It's definitely not a science. It's very data driven, but there is still a level of guesswork.

QUOTE
It's the sane way the Vampire Squid take advantage of daytraders. There's just too much going on too quickly for Odds Makers to take personal resource investment on any one particular item.

I don't believe the oddsmakers were in cahoots on this. What I believe happens is that when the house it at risk of taking a major loss, people have an interest in influencing the outcome to ensure that doesn't happen.
QUOTE
That means the odds are set as they normally are.

Now, to say one of these refs, maybe even two, were unusually bad in a lopsided way can suggest that they had a conscious interest is not entirely unreasonable, although difficult to say.

But to suggest the odds were intentionally scripted to screw the Eagles... Thats a bit far fetched.

Like I said, I don't believe the spread was scripted to do so. The betting trends, due to the spread, were potentially impacted. I think it's naive to believe this can't or doesn't take place. There are millions of dollars on the line each game. Refs could easily be influenced to manage a point spread.

As I said, 14-2 is a statistical anomaly beyond comprehension.
Pila
QUOTE (mcnabbulous @ Oct 14 2016, 06:05 PM) *
It's definitely not a science. It's very data driven, but there is still a level of guesswork.

It's completely and absolutely a science.

There's no guess work at all. There are margins of error because no model is free of outliers and black swans, and the algorithms are calibrated frequently, but if you aren't an independent bookie funding your own gambling ring, you don't leave any of this to guess work.
nephillymike
Did somebody call for a degenerative "sports investor" (gambler is politically incorrect)?

A bookies dream is to have even money on both sides and live off the vig.

They do this by placing bets on the other side of the action to achieve this.

People tend to bet the favorites more than the dogs. Sometimes a bookie is exposed if they can't get a partner to bet the other side. The vast majority of that time, that exposure occurs when the favorites cover the spread. Good bookies have contacts in opposing markets as an avenue to place bets on the other side.

We play Washington. The Philadelphia bookie has a net 10K on the Eagles, the Washington bookie has a net 10K on the Skins. They both make hedging bets to even it out and walk away with 500 to 1,000 vig profit each.
mcnabbulous
QUOTE (nephillymike @ Oct 14 2016, 06:45 PM) *
A bookies dream is to have even money on both sides and live off the vig.

This is the key point.

I would guess that a significant amount of the action was put on our birds last weekend. To be clear, I don't think the spread was set to cause that to happen. Had they covered, Vegas would have lost mightily.

It was pretty obvious watching the game that there was no way in hell we were covering.
Rick
QUOTE (mcnabbulous @ Oct 14 2016, 02:05 PM) *
I don't believe the oddsmakers were in cahoots on this.

Now you don't believe they were in on this? But that was your whole point (about the line) to begin with. You truly have no idea what you're talking about. Not that most of us ever had any doubt.
This is a "lo-fi" version of our main content. To view the full version with more information, formatting and images, please click here.
Invision Power Board © 2001-2017 Invision Power Services, Inc.