What motivates ‘the fix’?

[JS-Steelerfan]

So, it’s been made clear by many Bengals fans that they believe the league favors the Steelers.  

But why?

The conventional wisdom is that the Steelers are popular and having them in the playoffs and in particular the Super Bowl increases ratings and therefore means more money for the league.  

But is that actually true?  Check out this list of the 13 highest rated Super Bowls.

The Steelers, despite having appeared in 8 Super Bowls, are listed only twice in that list, and both of those games occurred during the 70s.  None of their three appearances from this century even cracked the top 13.  Denver actually appeared in more of them than the Steelers, with their game against Carolina (!) actually making an appearance.  Even Seattle, with only 3 total appearances, made the list as many times as the Steelers.  And get this - one of the Cincy-SF tussles actually got much higher ratings than ANY of the Steelers Super Bowls.  

Recent Super Bowls that got higher ratings than any Steeler Super Bowl this century:
Pats-Seahawks
Pats-Giants
Broncos-Panthers (!)
Seahawks-Broncos (!)

It’s difficult to say what effect popularity of teams has on the Super Bowl ratings, but what is clear is that having the Steelers involved does not automatically guarantee ratings dominance.  So why would the NFL risk getting caught at what amounts to fraud for such a dubious ratings ‘advantage’?

Have at it, conspiracy theorists! What else ya got?

[*rfaulk34*]

(12-12-2017, 12:29 PM)JS-Steelerfan Wrote: So, it’s been made clear by many Bengals fans that they believe the league favors the Steelers.  

But why?

The conventional wisdom is that the Steelers are popular and having them in the playoffs and in particular the Super Bowl increases ratings and therefore means more money for the league.  

But is that actually true?  Check out this list of the 13 highest rated Super Bowls.

The Steelers, despite having appeared in 8 Super Bowls, are listed only twice in that list, and both of those games occurred during the 70s.  None of their three appearances from this century even cracked the top 13.  Denver actually appeared in more of them than the Steelers, with their game against Carolina (!) actually making an appearance.  Even Seattle, with only 3 total appearances, made the list as many times as the Steelers.  And get this - one of the Cincy-SF tussles actually got much higher ratings than ANY of the Steelers Super Bowls.  

Recent Super Bowls that got higher ratings than any Steeler Super Bowl this century:
Pats-Seahawks
Pats-Giants
Broncos-Panthers (!)
Seahawks-Broncos (!)

It’s difficult to say what effect popularity of teams has on the Super Bowl ratings, but what is clear is that having the Steelers involved does not automatically guarantee ratings dominance.  So why would the NFL risk getting caught at what amounts to fraud for such a dubious ratings ‘advantage’?

Have at it, conspiracy theorists!  What else ya got?

I'm not on board the conspiracy train. Though, i do believe that teams that win consistently are given 'the benefit of the doubt' when it comes to officials and how they call games. I'd chalk it up more to human nature than anything--more sub-conscious than conscious. And i wouldn't say it's just the Steelers either. Across the board, more often than not and especially in high-profile games, the more consistently good teams get the positive side of the call over the mediocre to bad teams. 

Recent Bengals/Steelers game examples; Martavus Bryant supposed TD catch in the playoff game. Uzomah non-TD catch in the game last year(?), the Boyd fumble in the same game. If there's a close call that can't really be conclusively overturned on replay, the initial call will usually favor the better team. 

One thing that goes along with that though is, the better teams are usually better for a reason. They're more tested in tight situations and they have better players that perform better in crucial situations. 

It's a combination of those two things.

[JS-Steelerfan]

(12-12-2017, 04:43 PM)rfaulk34 Wrote: I'm not on board the conspiracy train. Though, i do believe that teams that win consistently are given 'the benefit of the doubt' when it comes to officials and how they call games. I'd chalk it up more to human nature than anything--more sub-conscious than conscious. And i wouldn't say it's just the Steelers either. Across the board, more often than not and especially in high-profile games, the more consistently good teams get the positive side of the call over the mediocre to bad teams. 

Recent Bengals/Steelers game examples; Martavus Bryant supposed TD catch in the playoff game. Uzomah non-TD catch in the game last year(?), the Boyd fumble in the same game. If there's a close call that can't really be conclusively overturned on replay, the initial call will usually favor the better team. 

One thing that goes along with that though is, the better teams are usually better for a reason. They're more tested in tight situations and they have better players that perform better in crucial situations. 

It's a combination of those two things.

Totally agree with your last two paragraphs.  

And I agree that the reputation of a team can have a psychological effect on refs, but I also think that it can have a psychological effect on fans' perceptions.  Good teams are simply in position to win more often, whether they get breaks or not.  But when they do get those breaks and still do what's necessary to win (which they do more often than bad teams because they're good) it seems like favoritism (intended or otherwise).  But when a bad team gets a break and still loses (which they do more often than good teams because they're bad), no one remembers the break.  

Case in point - you all are (rightly) pissed off over the iffy holding call that brought back one of your TDs in the last CIN-PIT game.  But most of you have already forgotten the Steeler TD return called back on a similarly ticky-tack call. You got almost exactly the same break as we did, but because your team lost (which they do more often than the Steelers this year), the memory of the bad break is far more prominent than the memory of the good one, thus creating the overall perception that the refs favor the Steelers, when an objective view tells a different story.   

Like you said though, it's not one or the other.  Both dynamics are at play most of the time.

[ballsofsteel]

Good morning. No doubt over the last few years Bengal fans could point out many questionable calls by the officials, but Steeler fan's could no doubt do the same. In the end it probably all evens out. Officials have it tough making calls on bang bang plays. As a rule the better team usually overcomes these mistakes.

For instance, I think "Inflategate" with Brady was a big waste of time and a non issue. Both teams used the same balls. A couple of ounces of air out of some balls isn't why you got beat by 40 points.

On the other hand, If your filming an opponents practice before a playoff game, now that is plain cheating that will effect the outcome of a game!

Merry Christmas!

[BMK]

(12-13-2017, 07:54 AM)ballsofsteel Wrote: Good morning. No doubt over the last few years Bengal fans could point out many questionable calls by the officials, but Steeler fan's could no doubt do the same. In the end it probably all evens out. Officials have it tough making calls on bang bang plays. As a rule the better team usually overcomes these mistakes.

For instance, I think "Inflategate" with Brady was a big waste of time and a non issue. Both teams used the same balls. A couple of ounces of air out of some balls isn't why you got beat by 40 points.

On the other hand, If your filming an opponents practice before a playoff game, now that is plain cheating that will effect the outcome of a game!

Merry Christmas!

No time (or inclination) to check, but I don't believe that statement is true. I think each team uses their own ball.

If I'm right, what happens if say a Bengals safety picks off a Steeler pass and returns it for a TD (Ok, it's hypothetical). The DB understandably wants to keep the ball as a memento.  Does later in the week, some intern from the Steelers knock on the DB's door and asks if they can please have their ball back? 

[SteelCitySouth]

(12-13-2017, 02:21 PM)BMK Wrote: No time (or inclination) to check, but I don't believe that statement is true. I think each team uses their own ball.

If I'm right, what happens if say a Bengals safety picks off a Steeler pass and returns it for a TD (Ok, it's hypothetical). The DB understandably wants to keep the ball as a memento.  Does later in the week, some intern from the Steelers knock on the DB's door and asks if they can please have their ball back? 

Each team uses their own.  Which is why the questions began.


Section 2 BALL SUPPLY Each team will make 12 primary balls available for testing by the Referee two hours and 15 minutes prior to the starting time of the game to meet League requirements. The home team will also make 12 backup balls available for testing in all stadiums. In addition, the visitors, at their discretion, may bring 12 backup balls to be tested by the Referee for games held in outdoor stadiums. For games in outdoor stadiums, eight new footballs, sealed in a special box and shipped by the manufacturer to the Referee, will be opened in the officials’ locker room two hours and 15 minutes prior to the starting time of the game. These balls are to be specially marked by the Referee and used exclusively for the kicking game. For games in indoor stadiums, six new footballs will be shipped. In the event a home team ball does not conform to specifications, or its supply is exhausted, the Referee shall secure a proper ball from the visitors and, failing that, use the best available ball. Any such circumstances must be reported to the Commissioner. In case of rain or a wet, muddy, or slippery field, a playable ball shall be used at the request of the offensive team’s center. The Game Clock shall not stop for such action (unless undue delay occurs). Note: It is the responsibility of the home team to furnish playable balls at all times by attendants from either side of the playing field. 

[StrictlyBiz]

(12-13-2017, 02:46 AM)JS-Steelerfan Wrote: Totally agree with your last two paragraphs.  

I also agree that the reputation of a team can have a psychological effect on refs, but I also think that it can have a psychological effect on fans' perceptions.  Good teams are simply in position to win more often, whether they get breaks or not.  But when they do get those breaks and still do what's necessary to win (which they do more often than bad teams because they're good) it seems like favoritism (intended or otherwise).  But when a bad team gets a break and still loses (which they do more often than good teams because they're bad), no one remembers the break.  

Case in point - you all are (rightly) pissed off over the iffy holding call that brought back one of your TDs in the last CIN-PIT game.  But most of you have already forgotten the Steeler TD return called back on a similarly ticky-tack call. You got almost exactly the same break as we did, but because your team lost (which they do more often than the Steelers this year), the memory of the bad break is far more prominent than the memory of the good one, thus creating the overall perception that the refs favor the Steelers, when an objective view tells a different story.   

Like you said though, it's not one or the other.  Both dynamics are at play most of the time.

Exactly. I wanted to type something along these lines yesterday but didn't get around to it. 

I'd also add that when a series is as lopsided as it had been over the past several years, the attitude going into the game is that "we're going to get screwed" and people look for things that sometimes aren't there.

Example...this thread.

My link is cue'd up to the play in question. It's simply not true, the Steelers were not offsides. But there are Bengals fans that believe so and would probably argue even after seeing the video that they were. 

[*Wyche'sWarrior*]

(12-13-2017, 04:03 PM)StrictlyBiz Wrote: Exactly. I wanted to type something along these lines yesterday but didn't get around to it. 

I'd also add that when a series is as lopsided as it had been over the past several years, the attitude going into the game is that "we're going to get screwed" and people look for things that sometimes aren't there.

Example...this thread.

My link is cue'd up to the play in question. It's simply not true, the Steelers were not offsides. But there are Bengals fans that believe so and would probably argue even after seeing the video that they were. 

That wasn't offsides, but twice, the officials missed obvious delay of game penalties on the Steeler's O.  That's pretty inexcusable.

FWIW, I agree with faulk, and stated something very similar in another one of these threads on here.

[*Wyche'sWarrior*]

http://thebengalsboard.com/Thread-Sean-Payton-Call-Proves-The-NFL-Is-Biased?pid=484477#pid484477

Quote:Officiating is a league wide concern.....and inexcusable to me when you have all of this technology to get it right with replay only to.....still botch it.


I think it does happen to everyone, but I also believe that teams not historically known as winners get shafted a bit more.....it's human nature, if you will. The only way to change the narrative is to win more than you lose.  I DON'T think games are fixed.  

As I hinted at earlier, the thing with the different set of rules comes into play with recent rulings AFTER the acts on the league's part, James Harrison, notwithstanding.

[JS-Steelerfan]

(12-13-2017, 04:25 PM)WychesWarrior Wrote: http://thebengalsboard.com/Thread-Sean-Payton-Call-Proves-The-NFL-Is-Biased?pid=484477#pid484477

Clearly my thread was not directed at you. ;-)

[*Wyche'sWarrior*]

(12-13-2017, 05:18 PM)JS-Steelerfan Wrote: Clearly my thread was not directed at you.  ;-)

Oh, I know man..... I just wanted to add to what faulk had to say about it.  I think that's the reality of the situation.

[Vlad]

(12-12-2017, 12:29 PM)JS-Steelerfan Wrote: So, it’s been made clear by many Bengals fans that they believe the league favors the Steelers.  

But why?

The conventional wisdom is that the Steelers are popular and having them in the playoffs and in particular the Super Bowl increases ratings and therefore means more money for the league.  

But is that actually true?  Check out this list of the 13 highest rated Super Bowls.

The Steelers, despite having appeared in 8 Super Bowls, are listed only twice in that list, and both of those games occurred during the 70s.  None of their three appearances from this century even cracked the top 13.  Denver actually appeared in more of them than the Steelers, with their game against Carolina (!) actually making an appearance.  Even Seattle, with only 3 total appearances, made the list as many times as the Steelers.  And get this - one of the Cincy-SF tussles actually got much higher ratings than ANY of the Steelers Super Bowls.  

Recent Super Bowls that got higher ratings than any Steeler Super Bowl this century:
Pats-Seahawks
Pats-Giants
Broncos-Panthers (!)
Seahawks-Broncos (!)

It’s difficult to say what effect popularity of teams has on the Super Bowl ratings, but what is clear is that having the Steelers involved does not automatically guarantee ratings dominance.  So why would the NFL risk getting caught at what amounts to fraud for such a dubious ratings ‘advantage’?

Have at it, conspiracy theorists!  What else ya got?

That cant be right. I expected the Steelers Cowboys SB in '95 to be on that list ...I recall it made history by being the most watched sporting event ever.
Sure enough:

The NBC television broadcast averaged 95.13 million people in the United States, breaking the then-record for most watched sporting event ever on American television, and the second-most watched program of all, trailing only the final episode of M*A*S*H.[6]
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Super_Bowl_XXX

[JS-Steelerfan]

(12-14-2017, 10:52 AM)Vlad Wrote: That cant be right. I expected the Steelers Cowboys SB in '95 to be on that list ...I recall it made history by being the most watched sporting event ever.
Sure enough:

The NBC television broadcast averaged 95.13 million people in the United States, breaking the then-record for most watched sporting event ever on American television, and the second-most watched program of all, trailing only the final episode of M*A*S*H.[6]
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Super_Bowl_XXX

Super Bowl XXX ranks 12th in total viewers and 15th in overall rating (which takes into account population at the time).  

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Super_Bowl_TV_ratings

When determining the impact of a particular matchup on viewing numbers, ratings are more reliable, because total viewership is partly a function of population, which varies over the years.