If the NFL can go back and change stats by some type of review panel, why the FU*K can't they go back and award us the win over seattle? The ref that made the bad call even admitted it was a bad call, all the analist say it was as well......official review panel or whatever they are should do that, us= win, seaCawks = loss....change the STATS...
Here's a piece of advice from an old-timer: Whenever contemplating the motivation behind human behavior and interactions the first line of inquiry should be, "follow the money". Money is not always the answer but it is frequently enough that it should be invested and dismissed before proceeding. To wit: Why doesn't the NFL go back and award the Packers that game? Because it would have caused havoc in Los Vegas and around the globe with sports-betting establishments. Sad but true: Whether it’s the regular season, playoffs, or even the Super Bowl when the final whistle blows and the final replay is reviewed and decided there has to be certainty about the final score, not only to determine the winner but also so stats like point spread are decided. Unfortunately, certainty is more important than accuracy. And few bettors have money on the over/under on sacks per players per games.I know stats get adjusted as the season goes along, we all know that. All I am saying is that there is a first time for everything.....why not?
Millions upon millions of dollars are bet each week on NFL games to win or lose. That is not the case with sacks or YAC or fumbles, etc. While wins/losses is a stat, it along with point spreads are the focus of gamblers.My main point was: A win is a stat, a lose is a stat. If stats can be changed for a sack or YAC, or fumbles etc.... it should be considered.
Millions upon millions of dollars are bet each week on NFL games to win or lose. That is not the case with sacks or YAC or fumbles, etc. While wins/losses is a stat, it along with point spreads are the focus of gamblers.
They comprise no where near the amount of money bet on wins/losses.Actually, there are numerous prop bets that are affected by such stat corrections.
What you and Oshkoshpackfan don't appear to understand is betting on NFL games adds greatly to it's viewership, popularity and a decline in it would lead to fewer viewers, less interest and revenue for the league. The league has to pretend to hold sports betting at arms' length but it understands how important it is to its popularity.As for the "Follow the Money" Vegas angle, I think this makes little sense from the standpoint that the NFL revenues have virtually nothing to do with sports betting. A reversal might lead to chaos for sportsbooks but the NFL can't be held liable for this. Nor will Vegas stop taking sports bets as a result of such a whopper of a reversal (which would cost them millions in bets that were already paid out). Sports betting is offered because there is such healthy demand for it; it's a relatively low revenue proposition for Vegas casinos (they finish remarkably close to even year in and year out). They're not doing it to make money, they're doing it to bring bodies into the casino.
What you and Oshkoshpackfan don't appear to understand is betting on NFL games adds greatly to it's viewership, popularity and a decline in it would lead to fewer viewers, less interest and revenue for the league. The league has to pretend to hold sports betting at arms' length but it understands how important it is to its popularity.
The issue isn't regarding one game - it's a policy of not reversing the decision who won a game after the game is over. And I never posted the NFL is popular because people bet on games. I posted betting on games adds to more viewers which lead to higher ratings which lead to higher revenues from TV deals. [quote="jaybadger82, post: 468804, member: 6211"]The NFL wouldn't reverse this one because it didn't want to establish a precedent that was bound to be problematic down the road and because doing so would force the league to correct its replacement officials in a very public manner during collective bargaining negotiations with its regular referees.[/quote]The NFL has never reversed the outcome of a game - this policy has been in place long before the replacement refs.The NFL's major revenue streams (i.e., tickets, merchandise, television contracts, endorsements/sponsorships) will not be threatened or diminished by a one-time disruption to the relatively small number of folks that placed money on the Green Bay/Seattle game.
The NFL has never reversed the outcome of a game - this policy has been in place long before the replacement refs.The issue isn't regarding one game - it's a policy of not reversing the decision who won a game after the game is over. And I never posted the NFL is popular because people bet on games. I posted betting on games adds to more viewers which lead to higher ratings which lead to higher revenues from TV deals. [quote="jaybadger82, post: 468804, member: 6211"]The NFL wouldn't reverse this one because it didn't want to establish a precedent that was bound to be problematic down the road and because doing so would force the league to correct its replacement officials in a very public manner during collective bargaining negotiations with its regular referees.
The issue isn't regarding one game - it's a policy of not reversing the decision who won a game after the game is over. And I never posted the NFL is popular because people bet on games. I posted betting on games adds to more viewers which lead to higher ratings which lead to higher revenues from TV deals.
The NFL has never reversed the outcome of a game - this policy has been in place long before the replacement refs.
The NFL is an entertainment business and the object of business is to make money. Protecting it's integrity, increasing its competitive balance, increasing interest and the number of viewers are all geared toward making money.
Here's a piece of advice from an old-timer: Whenever contemplating the motivation behind human behavior and interactions the first line of inquiry should be, "follow the money". Money is not always the answer but it is frequently enough that it should be invested and dismissed before proceeding. To wit: Why doesn't the NFL go back and award the Packers that game? Because it would have caused havoc in Los Vegas and around the globe with sports-betting establishments. Sad but true: Whether it’s the regular season, playoffs, or even the Super Bowl when the final whistle blows and the final replay is reviewed and decided there has to be certainty about the final score, not only to determine the winner but also so stats like point spread are decided. Unfortunately, certainty is more important than accuracy. And few bettors have money on the over/under on sacks per players per games.
Nice try but we don’t agree. You’re ignoring the major motivation of every business enterprise.Glad we could find agreement...
Nice try but we don’t agree. You’re ignoring the major motivation of every business enterprise.
If the sole concern of the NFL was the integrity of it’s product it would correct a situation which the vast majority of its customers viewed as lacking integrity. And here’s a way to avoid reading my “lectures”: Ignore my posts. After all complaining about reading lectures while continuing to do so would be stupid.I don't think I'm ignoring the league's underlying profit motive at all. I just think the "follow the money" lecture and pointing to concerns over chaos in Vegas as the reason the NFL wouldn't go back and award the Packers that game is rather stupid where the league was clearly taking steps to preserve the integrity of its product (even though that meant denying an obvious flub by the officials). I don't think gambling or Vegas were significant factors in the NFL's calculations...