01-11-2017, 01:06 PM
(01-11-2017, 01:02 PM)WeezyBengal Wrote: You dont think that some teams are getting preferential treatment from the league?
In my opinion, I think its kind of hard to believe otherwise.
A game doesnt necessarily have to be "fixed" in order for someone to have their hand in the outcome of it. Look at the NBA from a few years ago. Some of those refs came out and whole heartedly admitted that they gave some teams (bigger markets) preferential treatment during games.
There is just too much money on the line and too much at stake to not believe that the results of these games are skewed in the direction of certain markets and teams.
If this was true LA would have won more game this year and the Jets wouldn't be irrelevant. Little old Green Bay Wisconsin has a tiny market yet they somehow win consistently. Dallas was irrelevant for almost 15 years, why would that be when that market is huge?
I think teams get preferential treatment in the way their players are fined/punished (although Brady got smakced), and in scheduling, and in new rule proposals. I do not however believe there is any organized directive from the league office to manipulate games. There is human bias in everything, so if a ref decides to do that on his own accord nothing you can do about it, but as I stated I do not believe there is a push from up top to change outcomes of games.
The money argument doesn't hold water. The revenue is driven by large national numbers across all markets. The guy in Iowa doesn't care that NE is winning. In fact one could argue they'd be better off making the big market teams that have had success lose in order to bring down a giant which the average man tends to eat up.
