(11-30-2017, 02:48 PM)THE PISTONS Wrote: Which is organizational culture. They believe they will win and make it so.

People think we made dramatic changes to run the ball against the Browns because they have a generally good defense. I'd argue that we succeeded because we had confidence and blocked harder. Having confidence against an 0-10 thing is one thing. Having it against an 8-2 team is another.

(11-30-2017, 03:34 PM)bengalguy71 Wrote: Still missed the point, it's not a game against the Steelers that's an excuse.  It's just a little help for the NFL darlings BY the NFL at the time.

Mike Brown is the only one responsible and accountable for the last 26 years because he is the ONLY one who has control of every staff member beneath him.

Paul Brown's reign was not failure with 2 SB appearances.  I truly believe if MB had the same personality and football mind his dad had, this team would be close to the Broncos journey.  Losing the first 2 SBs then getting a few rings down the road.

Look at the Bills, many say they are failures because they lost 4 SBs, but many forget that they went to 4 SBs in a row!  That feat will probably NEVER happen again!!

(11-30-2017, 03:59 PM)ochocincos Wrote: Which is why watching the game on TV is far better than watching the game at the stadium (unless you are pretty close up).
And don't give me the "atmosphere" crap because the atmosphere at PBS is not good at all. The best part of going to a game IMO is the tailgating before the game, which isn't the stadium atmosphere itself.

(11-29-2017, 08:07 PM)THE PISTONS Wrote: Yeah I don't think they determine the outcome. I think they may make favorable calls for popular teams to get ratings up.

I don't think the Bengals haven't won a playoff game in 26+ years because of a conspiracy. We're just poorly managed.

(11-30-2017, 05:39 PM)Wyche Wrote: Agreed. A lot of Paul Brown's "failures" were during a different era.  There were A LOT fewer playoff eligible teams in those days, and he started from scratch.  I'm going off memory, but it seems I recall a few ten win teams under his watch that missed the playoffs back then.

(12-01-2017, 12:29 AM)MaineBengal Wrote: Interesting thread. Kudos to those who brought up the comparison of strong NFL markets to strong NCAA markets, that's interesting stuff.

Bottom line is, the NFL doesn't have to be fixed in the Montreal-Screwjob sense. It nearly always comes down to a handful of plays that are the difference in the game, so if one team tends to get the calls over another that's enough. They don't care if the darling teams are 16-0 or 10-6, as long as they get into the playoffs most of the time. So more subtle nudges a few times per game is enough on average to get the outcomes they wish. Like loaded dice in a casino, sometimes the house still loses....

(12-01-2017, 12:29 AM)MaineBengal Wrote: Interesting thread. Kudos to those who brought up the comparison of strong NFL markets to strong NCAA markets, that's interesting stuff.

Bottom line is, the NFL doesn't have to be fixed in the Montreal-Screwjob sense. It nearly always comes down to a handful of plays that are the difference in the game, so if one team tends to get the calls over another that's enough. They don't care if the darling teams are 16-0 or 10-6, as long as they get into the playoffs most of the time. So more subtle nudges a few times per game is enough on average to get the outcomes they wish. Like loaded dice in a casino, sometimes the house still loses....

(12-01-2017, 02:11 PM)THE PISTONS Wrote: The Bengals have been such an outlier since MB's tenure for lack of playoff success...that there HAS to be some explanation, right? Unfortunately, that explanation is just poor ownership and not conspiracy.

It's hard for fans to admit that they own Enron stock and are following it closely hoping for it to turn around.

(11-29-2017, 04:52 PM)Devils Advocate Wrote: I don’t know man. If they were trying to give the Steelers an advantage by suspending Burfict, wouldn’t they’ve suspended him for the upcoming game too?