Going For 2

[Croak]

In this case, you are suggesting that the NFL/Vegas is committing a crime by fixing games. According to the law, you are the one who has to provide proof of this, no one has to provide proof that they don't. Back to innocent until proven guilty, not guilty until proven innocent.

This isn't a court of law. It is a discussion regarding whether game fixing is "plausible" in the NFL. If it is "plausible" then it must follow that any given play, ie. go for 2, can be suspect. This about possibilities, not about indicting any specific person. I'm throwing out the possibility that we shouldn't immediately assume the game is "unfixable" and pristine. There is a possibility for some skepticism at times.

 

[Daryl Muellenberg]

This isn't a court of law. It is a discussion regarding whether game fixing is "plausible" in the NFL. If it is "plausible" then it must follow that any given play, ie. go for 2, can be suspect. This about possibilities, not about indicting any specific person. I'm throwing out the possibility that we shouldn't immediately assume the game is "unfixable" and pristine. There is a possibility for some skepticism at times.

I don't have an issue with the "plausible" aspect. I have an issue when you say it's possible because there is no proof that they don't fix games. There doesn't need to be proof that they don't fix games. That is not a valid argument.

 

[Croak]

I don't have an issue with the "plausible" aspect. I have an issue when you say it's possible because there is no proof that they don't fix games. There doesn't need to be proof that they don't fix games. That is not a valid argument.

It is only valid to show that both sides must resort to an argument from silence. To say there doesn't need to be proof asserts that they don't fix games. It is fair then to expect that assertion to be proven as well. According to the "proof" argument, if one makes an assertion, the assertion must be provable. Thus I said we can't know if they do or don't unless something comes out or someone comes forward. Until then one must assume it's possible rather than impossible.

 

[TJV]

You see the problem here is that this is largely an argument from silence both ways.

No, that's BS. The problem here is the person who advances an idea has the burden of presenting evidence to support it. You proposed a conspiracy. You admit you have no evidence to back it up. Therefore you have failed to substantiate your opinion. And of course it's impossible to prove a negative, but you already knew that, right?

BTW, why not give us an explanation of how an outside influence contacted McCarthy and told him not to go for 2? Do you think McCarthy carries a secret cell phone? Was it someone in the booth? Telepathy? And how many people do you believe are involved in this conspiracy?

Croak, do you now understand why the NFL has to be a single entity and that it has nothing to do with fixing games? I’m just asking because you didn’t attempt to refute that part of my post after having used it to support your conspiracy theory.

 

[Half Empty]

Hey, Buggybill, we need a moderator to squash the off-topic discussion - this Croak guy?

 

[Croak]

No, that's BS. The problem here is the person who advances an idea has the burden of presenting evidence to support it. You proposed a conspiracy. You admit you have no evidence to back it up. Therefore you have failed to substantiate your opinion. And of course it's impossible to prove a negative, but you already knew that, right?

BTW, why not give us an explanation of how an outside influence contacted McCarthy and told him not to go for 2? Do you think McCarthy carries a secret cell phone? Was it someone in the booth? Telepathy? And how many people do you believe are involved in this conspiracy?

Croak, do you now understand why the NFL has to be a single entity and that it has nothing to do with fixing games? I’m just asking because you didn’t attempt to refute that part of my post after having used it to support your conspiracy theory.

I proposed the "possibility" of game fixing. I made no absolute assertion either way.

I didn't bother with the Anti-trust business because whether all 32 teams are one entity or not isn't what this is about. The Lawyers "could" have argued that the NFL was a single professional football entity, period. Instead, they specifically filed it as "entertainment". My point is that it leaves them plenty of "wiggle" room when problematic things happen. I understand why they want recognized as one entity. But I also understand there is a lot of play in the term "entertainment". That play leaves open many possibilities.

I didn't say an outside entity called Coach McCarthy at that moment. I only said that there is always the possibility of someone talking to any member of a team before a game to see that a spread is covered. Joe Namath said as much in the one link I posted.

Now if you were to agree that there is the possibility of game fixing, even though you don't believe any games have been fixed. I would have no problem with the statement. But to unequivocally state that no game fixing ever goes on in the NFL is an assertion that would have to be proven.

Do you see the difference? I can agree that possibly no game fixing goes on (or vise versa). But I can not agree that absolutely no game fixing goes on unless there is some way to verify such a statement.

 

[Poppa San]

OK, find one of the old conspiracy threads to continue this!

 

[Croak]

OK, find one of the old conspiracy threads to continue this!

Aye aye Cap'n.

 

[I asked LT to delete my acct]

Hey, Buggybill, we need a moderator to squash the off-topic discussion - this Croak guy?

There are two already involved in the conversation. Isn`t two enough for you ???

 

[Croak]

There are two already involved in the conversation. Isn`t two enough for you ???

If you're talking whisky, two isn't enough for me!