Lakers cap comeback in 'amazing game 7'

[TheRaven]

Originally Posted by BaseballMan

I will have to disagree a little bit. Its a little bit strange that the Patriots went from laughingstocks to winners right after 9/11? Or that the Saints started winning after Katrina? Sure they had a bad season but im not sure the Saints would be in the SB if not for Katrina.

Im not saying those teams didnt become good but i do think they got a lot more favorable calls because of the sympathy factor. I still have a hard time beleiving the Pats 2001 season to be legit. I think the media picked up on the Patriotic notion of the team name and influenced some calls. No way would the tuck call have even been called. If it had been any other team besides the Patriots that day it would have been inconclusive evidence to overturn regardless if that team was on offense or defense during that play.

That is a bit ridiculous IMO. There is no where near enough information for those kind of accusations to be tossed out. As of now, what you claim is nothing better than any small time conspiracy theory I have ever heard. The Pats played great. Even with a few calls, it still would not discount their entire body of work.

Your assertion on the tuck rule as well carries no legs. There is no way for your claim to be proved, there is no evidence I have seen to suggest that to be true.

[TheRaven]

Originally Posted by damientheomen3

There are plenty of users on this board who are baseball fans but don't watch MLB baseball anymore because of what it's become, so they aren't huge fans?

If they do not watch anymore, than no, I would say there are no longer huge fans of baseball. They once were, but not any longer if they do not follow the sport. That isn't to say they may not have justifiable reasons for not following it, but one typically does turn in their 'fan' card once they turn their back on the sport.

Originally Posted by damientheomen3

And how can you automatically say they have no idea what they're talking about without even knowing them? They obviously do know what they're talking about if they can correctly predict the obvious, seeing as how ESPN makes it seem so difficult...

They have no idea what they are talking about if they are saying that the league is fixed. If that's not what they were insinuating, and it was just a prediction, then they got it right. Considering the flow of the conversation though, that is not how it read to me.

I wouldn't say anyone who makes a prediction on a sports event obviously knows what they are talking about though. People have made guesses, predictions and bets on sporting events since the beginning of sports itself. I don't think it has really proven anything to get one event right, much like winning a hand of blackjack does not equate to winning the next, and the one after.

[BaseballMan]

Originally Posted by TheRaven

That is a bit ridiculous IMO. There is no where near enough information for those kind of accusations to be tossed out. As of now, what you claim is nothing better than any small time conspiracy theory I have ever heard. The Pats played great. Even with a few calls, it still would not discount their entire body of work.

Your assertion on the tuck rule as well carries no legs. There is no way for your claim to be proved, there is no evidence I have seen to suggest that to be true.

So they just happened to become good after 9/11? I dont buy it. Theres always the game films. The tuck rule actually carrys a lot of weight. There was simply not enough conclusive evidence to overturn the call on the field.
No way any other team gets that call even looked at let alone reversed.
Again the call on the field was fumble and there should be conclusive evidence it wasnt a fumble. If the tuck rule would have been called on the field i would also agree that it should not be overruled as a fumble. To me there just wasnt enough conclusive evidence to support either side and therefore should have gone back to the call on the field.

No im not saying those teams didnt become good but i have to beleive they got some sympathy calls they should not have got or maybe a way with some that should have been called more than other teams.

Im willing to bet that if a tragedy were to strike Cleveland, the Browns would turn overnight into a SuperBowl contending team.
Or do you just buy the teams rallying and becoming great after a great tragedy? If so then i guess they might as well select Speilberg as the next commish.

[mlyons]

Originally Posted by BaseballMan

So they just happened to become good after 9/11? I dont buy it. Theres always the game films. The tuck rule actually carrys a lot of weight. There was simply not enough conclusive evidence to overturn the call on the field.
No way any other team gets that call even looked at let alone reversed.
Again the call on the field was fumble and there should be conclusive evidence it wasnt a fumble. If the tuck rule would have been called on the field i would also agree that it should not be overruled as a fumble. To me there just wasnt enough conclusive evidence to support either side and therefore should have gone back to the call on the field.

No im not saying those teams didnt become good but i have to beleive they got some sympathy calls they should not have got or maybe a way with some that should have been called more than other teams.

Im willing to bet that if a tragedy were to strike Cleveland, the Browns would turn overnight into a SuperBowl contending team.
Or do you just buy the teams rallying and becoming great after a great tragedy? If so then i guess they might as well select Speilberg as the next commish.

You don't make any sense at all. If the NFL had been trying to promote a team because of 9/11, shouldn't it have been the Giants, Jets, or Redskins? Do you really think they tried to make a team better because of a nickname?

[Tom the Fish]

Originally Posted by TheRaven

If they do not watch anymore, than no, I would say there are no longer huge fans of baseball. They once were, but not any longer if they do not follow the sport. That isn't to say they may not have justifiable reasons for not following it, but one typically does turn in their 'fan' card once they turn their back on the sport.

MLB ain't the only Baseball in the world, or even America. I turned my back on MLB 3 years ago but I'm still a HUGE baseball fan.

Tom

[TheRaven]

Originally Posted by BaseballMan

So they just happened to become good after 9/11? I dont buy it.

You should buy it. Tom Brady hasn't proved that he is an elite player since then? Their system hasn't proven to be successful, many years after the fact? Their defensive stars didn't prove that they were quality players? Cmon man. If it was all fixed, they would have fallen back to mediocrity afterwards, unless you are suggesting the fix is still in, almost ten years later.

Originally Posted by BaseballMan

Theres always the game films. The tuck rule actually carrys a lot of weight.

If the tuck rule is really your main accusation of prove that the fix was in, then that negates your argument that the Pats were not a good team. That call came in the playoffs. If the Pats were not any good, then how did they get that far? Where is your proof that all the games prior were fixed. I cannot even comprehend that you are seriously suggesting that their entire season was rigged.

Originally Posted by BaseballMan

No way any other team gets that call even looked at let alone reversed.

You have no proof that any other team would NOT have gotten that call reversed. You can't say 'no way' when you do not know what would have happened if it had been another team. You can suspect all you like, you can have your opinion, but even though you want to tell yourself you know, you do not know. It cannot be proved.

Originally Posted by BaseballMan

Again the call on the field was fumble and there should be conclusive evidence it wasnt a fumble. If the tuck rule would have been called on the field i would also agree that it should not be overruled as a fumble. To me there just wasnt enough conclusive evidence to support either side and therefore should have gone back to the call on the field.

I am not even debating whether the call was correct or not.

Originally Posted by BaseballMan

No im not saying those teams didnt become good but i have to beleive they got some sympathy calls they should not have got or maybe a way with some that should have been called more than other teams.

You are saying that the teams didn't become good on their own when you make some of the comments such as 'so they just happened to get good after 9/11?'

Originally Posted by BaseballMan

Im willing to bet that if a tragedy were to strike Cleveland, the Browns would turn overnight into a SuperBowl contending team.
Or do you just buy the teams rallying and becoming great after a great tragedy? If so then i guess they might as well select Speilberg as the next commish.

If the Browns developed a Tom Brady quality QB, developed a proven successful system such as NE has, drafted consistently well, managed the cap and made key trades and FA signings, sure, why not? They don't need a tragedy to occur for that to happen though. They need a miracle.

[Dbobola22]

Its funny that the so called whistle blowers in sports say things and everyone tells them what liars they are, etc. Jose Canseco blew open the baseball world with steroids, everyone went into denial and now the truth is coming out on all of them.

when NBA ref Donaghy got in trouble, he made some comments that i read in 2008, and just take a look for yourself. there is an example on team-x and team-y which they figured out as Lakers-Kings and the scenario is identical to what happened in these finals where Lakers 'beat' Celtics.

even free throws were pretty damn close from 2005 to this season. Lakers +20 and thats with 20 three point attempts. Also, Celts shot went like 7 quarters or something absurd with only 14 free throw attempts.

http://www.cbssports.com/nba/story/10860844

Bill Simmons did an article blowing the whistle on the NBA Refs as well and some of the biggest names were scott foster, crawford, etc. Crawford was also in game 7 of this final.... interesting.....

Thoughts..

[Skipaway]

Regardless how some people feel, the NBA playoffs this year is very popular and a big success overall.

Even if it's all scripted, it'd be considered a good script that increased the overall interest in NBA.

[damientheomen3]

Originally Posted by TheRaven

They have no idea what they are talking about if they are saying that the league is fixed. If that's not what they were insinuating, and it was just a prediction, then they got it right. Considering the flow of the conversation though, that is not how it read to me.

I wouldn't say anyone who makes a prediction on a sports event obviously knows what they are talking about though. People have made guesses, predictions and bets on sporting events since the beginning of sports itself. I don't think it has really proven anything to get one event right, much like winning a hand of blackjack does not equate to winning the next, and the one after.

I never said that they thought the league is fixed, but that it's predictable. I think it's fixed. And if thinking so means I know nothing about basketball, well... yeah.

[damientheomen3]

Originally Posted by TheRaven

If they do not watch anymore, than no, I would say there are no longer huge fans of baseball. They once were, but not any longer if they do not follow the sport. That isn't to say they may not have justifiable reasons for not following it, but one typically does turn in their 'fan' card once they turn their back on the sport.

Just because you don't like the direction of the league doesn't mean you don't love the game. Just because you don't love how it is right now doesn't mean you aren't a fan. They're BASEBALL fans, not MLB fans; they can be fans of whatever league they want or whatever era they want, but it doesn't mean they don't love the game.

[Left-handed Badger]

I'd be more inclined that the fix is in to keep the Pats going now, than in 2001.

Basketball? I dont know. Michael Jordan could have pulled a Gilbert Arenas and pulled out a gun on a defender in his prime and they'd still call a phantom defensive foul. And I am not sure why Jordan even bothered to ever dribble the ball. It wasnt like he would have got called for traveling....EVER.

The Jordan craze turned me off the NBA, for all time most likely.

[Left-handed Badger]

Originally Posted by damientheomen3

I never said that they thought the league is fixed, but that it's predictable. I think it's fixed. And if thinking so means I know nothing about basketball, well... yeah.

Well, if I am reading the threads right. It isnt a "fix", so much as a cherry-picking of officials to give the most chance for the desired results. So, it is one step lower than that.

But, Jordan turned me off of basketball like I said. So, I am not really gonna care too much.

[Dbobola22]

Originally Posted by Left-handed Badger

Well, if I am reading the threads right. It isnt a "fix", so much as a cherry-picking of officials to give the most chance for the desired results. So, it is one step lower than that.

But, Jordan turned me off of basketball like I said. So, I am not really gonna care too much.

Perfect description - hard to 'fix' results because teams still have to score, rebound, defend, other have to miss etc but 'cherry pick' is perfect.

i was trying to think of the best way to describe it, you nailed it i think.

[Slackker]

Instead of actually debating the aspects of conspiracy.. I'll just go with "This is why people should do a little research before spouting off conspiracy theories."

Originally Posted by BaseballMan

Its a little bit strange that the Patriots went from laughingstocks to winners right after 9/11?

They didn't. They made the playoffs in four of the previous seven years, and the Super Bowl in 1996. Only five years prior. Their only year under .500 between that Super Bowl appearance and the one after the 2001 season was the first year Belichek took over - and cleaned out what Pete Carroll left behind. Eight of their 11 losses that season were by 8 points (one score) or less. That team wasn't nearly as bad as their record would tell you. The next year they won six more games, their luck swinging a bit the other way. They won seven of 11 by less than 8 points. So really, it's not a huge logical jump to say it's completely legitimate. It isn't as if they suddenly started blowing out every single team by 30.

Or that the Saints started winning after Katrina? Sure they had a bad season but im not sure the Saints would be in the SB if not for Katrina.

I think a lot of it has to do with a guy by the name of Drew Brees who showed up in 2006 and took them to the playoffs. Why wouldn't they just put them in the Super Bowl that year, rather than waiting until 2009, and letting them languish around .500 (due to a terrible defense) for the two years in the middle?

It's funny you claim these teams were horrible before these events. Both found their franchise QB for the next decade, and in one case.. the team wasn't even close to being bad prior to their Super Bowl win.

[yankeesrule]

Originally Posted by Slackker

I think a lot of it has to do with a guy by the name of Drew Brees who showed up in 2006 and took them to the playoffs. Why wouldn't they just put them in the Super Bowl that year, rather than waiting until 2009, and letting them languish around .500 (due to a terrible defense) for the two years in the middle?

It's funny you claim these teams were horrible before these events. Both found their franchise QB for the next decade, and in one case.. the team wasn't even close to being bad prior to their Super Bowl win.

Throw in Sean Payton also for the Saints success. He built that offense into the beast it is today, drafting and signing receivers that fit his system. Was Marques Colston falling to them in the 7th round and then becoming possibly the best WR of that draft also part of the NFL's conspiracy? They also had great front office/personell management and getting a few lucky bounces with veterans coming in and helping out to rebuild their D. Also, was it the NFL's conspiracy to have Favre well, pull a Favre, and throw a game changing INT in overtime that otherwise could have lead to a vikings fg and W?

[Skipaway]

Originally Posted by Left-handed Badger

The Jordan craze turned me off the NBA, for all time most likely.

And that's exactly the same kind of complaint damientheomen3 is making about Kobe Bryant, with very similar results.

The making of Michael Jordan the big star was the driving force behind NBA's popularity not just in the US, but around the world. The whole world tuned in to watch the Bulls.

Same for Kobe Bryant. He has the top selling jersey not just in the US but also in China.

What turns you and damientheomen3 off is exactly what works for NBA. It's understandable, but NBA surely won't miss you guys.

[damientheomen3]

Originally Posted by Skipaway

NBA surely won't miss you guys.

How can it miss someone who never liked it in the first place?

[BaseballMan]

Originally Posted by mlyons

You don't make any sense at all. If the NFL had been trying to promote a team because of 9/11, shouldn't it have been the Giants, Jets, or Redskins? Do you really think they tried to make a team better because of a nickname?

The NFL doing it on purpose was never my point or even what i said. I said the Pats probably got more sympathetic calls regardless of whether the ref was doing it on purpose or not.

As for the name um PATRIOTS. Sorry but you lost me at how any other team could come across as being more patriotic than a team named after the american patriots.

[damientheomen3]

Originally Posted by BaseballMan

The NFL doing it on purpose was never my point or even what i said. I said the Pats probably got more sympathetic calls regardless of whether the ref was doing it on purpose or not.

As for the name um PATRIOTS. Sorry but you lost me at how any other team could come across as being more patriotic than a team named after the american patriots.

If anything, I'd say the Jets and Giants would get sympathetic calls before the Pats, considering location

[BaseballMan]

Originally Posted by damientheomen3

If anything, I'd say the Jets and Giants would get sympathetic calls before the Pats, considering location

Yeah if the refs did it on purpose and were thinking about it but thats not what im saying. I think the nickname Patriots may have triggered some favorable calls.
Besides no one has sympathy for New York teams anyway.