MLB wants Dodgers(Ohtani) vs Yankees(Judge) - NFL/Goodell helped the Chiefs

[Carter08]

Originally Posted by Aquarian Sports Cards

What billions, and to whom? How are the league as an entity (and again, in reality it's not even it's own entity, it's an extension of the owners) and the uninvolved owners in particular going to make more money off of one result than another? If you're claiming organized crime, that's a lot different than saying "the league." though I'm not sure I buy that either.

I don't buy legalized gambling as the villain because they don't make their money on outcomes they make it on the line. They're not trying to "score" they just want their juice. Lines don't change because the book decides that they suddenly like one team more, they change to try and get the money wagered even on both teams, because then the profit is assured.

It's the same question I ask for any conspiracy theory. How do the people you're accusing benefit? At least if you're saying crime you have an answer for me.

Mahomes is the face of the NFL. Good for the brand to keep him in. More importantly, the Chiefs bring with them an army of Swift fans that otherwise don’t care about football. They would not tune in for the Bills.

[jayshum]

Originally Posted by Carter08

Mahomes is the face of the NFL. Good for the brand to keep him in. More importantly, the Chiefs bring with them an army of Swift fans that otherwise don’t care about football. They would not tune in for the Bills.

The Super Bowl is the most watched broadcast on television every year regardless of who plays in it.

[Shoeless Moe]

Originally Posted by jayshum

The Super Bowl is the most watched broadcast on television every year regardless of who plays in it.

It is, but a lot more with the Swifties.

[D. Bergin]

Originally Posted by Carter08

Mahomes is the face of the NFL. Good for the brand to keep him in. More importantly, the Chiefs bring with them an army of Swift fans that otherwise don’t care about football. They would not tune in for the Bills.

Jeez.

#1. Don't you think the NFL would want another very marketable QB in the mix to generate excitement? Josh Allen ticks literally all the boxes, for who you want to represent the NFL from a marketing standpoint.

#2. You overestimate the influence Taylor Swift has on the economics of football, or anything else outside of loud internet chatter. Sure, they use her as a marketing tool, as they would any celebrity...but deciding games? C'mon!

[Aquarian Sports Cards]

Originally Posted by Carter08

Mahomes is the face of the NFL. Good for the brand to keep him in. More importantly, the Chiefs bring with them an army of Swift fans that otherwise don’t care about football. They would not tune in for the Bills.

This literally doesn't explain how anyone makes more money.

[Carter08]

Originally Posted by Aquarian Sports Cards

This literally doesn't explain how anyone makes more money.

Higher viewership, higher merchandise sales. Advertisers understand that the Chiefs bring with them an army. If you think Swift does not add hundreds of millions of dollars to the enterprise, you underestimate her global significance.

[Carter08]

In the last 11 playoff games the chiefs opponent has been flagged more 11 times. Better coaching I guess. Nothing to see. If you watched the Texans and Bills game it didn’t pass the eye test.

[Shoeless Moe]

Originally Posted by Carter08

In the last 11 playoff games the chiefs opponent has been flagged more 11 times. Better coaching I guess. Nothing to see. If you watched the Texans and Bills game it didn’t pass the eye test.

It happened last year too if you go back and watch those games.....the other times the Chiefs made it they made it there cleanly, but the last 2 Super Bowl visits are highly questionable.

[packs]

Originally Posted by Carter08

Higher viewership, higher merchandise sales. Advertisers understand that the Chiefs bring with them an army. If you think Swift does not add hundreds of millions of dollars to the enterprise, you underestimate her global significance.

How global is the Super Bowl?

The most watched Super Bowl in history (pre-streaming) was the 2015 Patriots / Seahawks Super Bowl. Katy Perry was the star of the halftime show. The quality of the game determined that more people tuned in as the game went on. Imagine that.

[G1911]

https://www.sportingnews.com/us/nfl/...bdc0a2930d6129

Pick your source, the media was running with this $331.5 million only from September 2023 to January 2024 alone. She brings a ton of eyes and money. There is a very long history of the biggest players and teams getting more lenient officiating in sports, leading to more wins and better outcomes for them. I would be quite surprised if the NFL right now is a sudden exception to that.

[Carter08]

When Greg and I agree on an issue that makes it an unassailable position, almost by definition!

[packs]

That ignores all other revenue generating story lines. If the Bills made it to the Super Bowl it would bring a ton of eyes. Who wouldn't want to see the Bills either finally win or pitifully lose a fifth Super Bowl?

I do agree that exceptional players get the benefit of a lot of doubts. An umpire might call a strike on a rookie they wouldn't call if Aaron Judge were at the plate, for example. But league-wide collusion to alter the outcomes of games at the executive level seems farfetched.

[G1911]

Originally Posted by Carter08

When Greg and I agree on an issue that makes it an unassailable position, almost by definition!

I laughed lol. This is the definition

[Shoeless Moe]

Originally Posted by G1911

https://www.sportingnews.com/us/nfl/...bdc0a2930d6129

Pick your source, the media was running with this $331.5 million only from September 2023 to January 2024 alone. She brings a ton of eyes and money. There is a very long history of the biggest players and teams getting more lenient officiating in sports, leading to more wins and better outcomes for them. I would be quite surprised if the NFL right now is a sudden exception to that.

I missed clicking the link but now have and here is a good factoid:


How much money has Taylor Swift made for the NFL?
Swift attended her first Chiefs game of 2023 on Sept. 24. Since then, she's attended 12 games total, including the AFC championship. The Super Bowl will be her 13th game, which, if you know the 14-time Grammy winner, couldn't be more fitting.

Ahead of the Chiefs' AFC title win over the Ravens on Jan. 28, Apex Marketing Group calculated how much brand value Swift has generated for the league and the Kansas City-based franchise. The revenue added by the singer came out to an estimated $331.5 million between print, digital, radio, TV, highlights and social media, according to Front Office Sports.

[Section103]

Originally Posted by Shoeless Moe

I missed clicking the link but now have and here is a good factoid:


How much money has Taylor Swift made for the NFL?
Swift attended her first Chiefs game of 2023 on Sept. 24. Since then, she's attended 12 games total, including the AFC championship. The Super Bowl will be her 13th game, which, if you know the 14-time Grammy winner, couldn't be more fitting.

Ahead of the Chiefs' AFC title win over the Ravens on Jan. 28, Apex Marketing Group calculated how much brand value Swift has generated for the league and the Kansas City-based franchise. The revenue added by the singer came out to an estimated $331.5 million between print, digital, radio, TV, highlights and social media, according to Front Office Sports.

Something seems fishy and frankly I doubt BOTH sets of numbers. Forbes says the Chiefs revenue was $591M for 2023. Even if you spread Swift's impact over 2 years......that's remarkably significant.

https://www.forbes.com/teams/kansas-city-chiefs/

[Balticfox]

Originally Posted by Shoeless Moe

Ok so he is like a GM to the owners, but as GM, or Well paid NFL Lackey, his job is about results and increased revenue. Owners are like YOU, make us money, we don't care how. You want to continue making $63 million a year, make us money or we'll replace you. All about the almighty dollar.

Well on those points we agree. When it comes to major league sports, sadly the business aspect has for a half a century anyway overshadowed the sports aspect.

There's nonetheless an enormous gulf between that position and your contention that the fix was in to enable the Chiefs to advance to the Super Bowl. Yes, there could well have been incompetence on the part of the officiating staff, but never assume malevolence when stupidity will suffice for an explanation. There's always certainly been enough of the latter in the world.

[Shoeless Moe]

Originally Posted by Balticfox

There's nonetheless an enormous gulf between that position and your contention that the fix was in to enable the Chiefs to advance to the Super Bowl. Yes, there could well have been incompetence on the part of the officiating staff, but never assume malevolence when stupidity will suffice for an explanation. There's always certainly been enough of the latter in the world.

I might agree with you if this was the only instance. It is not. It happened in the Playoffs multiple times last year, and now mulitple times this year. I don't watch Chiefs regular season games so can't comment there but guessing it has happened there as well. Bad flags, bad no calls, bad spots, bad replay booth reviews. Multiple games. Way too much to be a coincidence or incompetence. Not much else needs to be said on this, you either believe it or you don't.

[Balticfox]

Originally Posted by Shoeless Moe

I'll say this.

You've actually spouted more than enough nonsense in this thread already.

Originally Posted by Shoeless Moe

I was at one point a Steelers fan.

I was never a Steelers fan.

Originally Posted by Shoeless Moe

Until Roethlisburger raped a girl.

I am though a big fan of the presumption of innocence which is the fundamental cornerstone of our system of jurisprudence. The presumption of innocence provides us all with an absolutely essential bulwark against malicious prosecution by an otherwise essentially omnipotent State. A Soviet style legal system wherein charges equate to guilt would be a nightmare (except to those who'd usher our society toward totalitarianism). Therefore with no conviction, Ben Roethlisberger is innocent; case closed. And like I say, I've never liked the Steelers but that's irrelevant to the principle in question.

[Shoeless Moe]

Originally Posted by Balticfox

You've actually spouted more than enough nonsense in this thread already.



I was never a Steelers fan.



I am though a big fan of the presumption of innocence which is the fundamental cornerstone of our system of jurisprudence. The presumption of innocence provides us all with an absolutely essential bulwark against malicious prosecution by an otherwise essentially omnipotent State. A Soviet style legal system wherein charges equate to guilt would be a nightmare (except to those who'd usher our society toward totalitarianism). Therefore with no conviction, Ben Roethlisberger is innocent; case closed. And like I say, I've never liked the Steelers but that's irrelevant to the principle in question.

Innocent? Please. Did you follow this when it happened? It never went to trial so there is no "Innocent". He paid her off, FACT. Look it up. You don't pay someone off if you are innocent. He was suspended by the League for 4 games, another sign of "Innocence"?.....Not only was he GUILTY, or if you don't want to use the word Guilty, use the words HE DID IT, pretty sure he did it another time as well, it wasn't the only sexual assault claim against him. You can reply all you want I'm done speaking that dickwads name.

[Balticfox]

Originally Posted by Shoeless Moe

Innocent? Please. Did you follow this when it happened? It never went to trial so there is no "Innocent". He paid her off, FACT. Look it up. You don't pay someone off if you are innocent. He was suspended by the League for 4 games, another sign of "Innocence"?.....Not only was he GUILTY, or if you don't want to use the word Guilty, use the words HE DID IT, pretty sure he did it another time as well, it wasn't the only sexual assault claim against him. You can reply all you want I'm done speaking that dickwads name.

Irrelevant!!! A man IS innocent until proven guilty in a court of law. NO exceptions for any reason. Case closed.

Why are you so intent on undermining our (yours as well as mine) protection under the law? Do you not realize that failing to fully embrace this principle in all cases acts to undermine it? Do you want to empower the State to send you off to prison so easily? Is it 1984 which you'd like to see?

[D. Bergin]

Originally Posted by Balticfox

Irrelevant!!! A man IS innocent until proven guilty in a court of law. NO exceptions for any reason. Case closed.

Why are you so intent on undermining our (yours as well as mine) protection under the law? Do you not realize that failing to fully embrace this principle in all cases acts to undermine it? Do you want to empower the State to send you off to prison so easily? Is it 1984 which you'd like to see?

Some people, usually those with lots of money and power, have more protections then others.

Do you think everybody who's found innocent in the court of law is actually innocent, and everybody who's found guilty is actually guilty...regardless of the circumstances?

No exceptions?

Justice can be perverted, and is on a regular basis... and likely very few on here will even agree on the way it's been perverted, or who the alleged "perverts" actually are, given the individual circumstances, but most will agree... it's most definitely been perverted.

Extra points for me, for using a form of the word "pervert".....ummm, 5 times now, in a thread about the Dodgers and the Yankees and the Chiefs and Roger Goodell.

[Shoeless Moe]

Originally Posted by D. Bergin

Extra points for me, for using a form of the word "pervert".....ummm, 5 times now, in a thread about the Dodgers and the Yankees and the Chiefs and Roger Goodell.

hahahahahaha!!!!


......and T Swift.

[Balticfox]

Originally Posted by D. Bergin

Do you think everybody who's found innocent in the court of law is actually innocent....

Yes, clearly. The logic is inescapable. A man IS innocent until and unless convicted in an unbiased court of law.

Originally Posted by D. Bergin

No exceptions?

How can there be? The logic is inescapable.

Originally Posted by D. Bergin

...and everybody who's found guilty is actually guilty...regardless of the circumstances?

No I do not! And that's what frightens me and why I refuse to countenance any undermining of the principle. Despite the principle, there are far too many cases of the innocent being convicted and punished. I could name you several horrifying examples in relatively recent history in my own provincial jurisdiction alone.

[Peter_Spaeth]

We discussed this before. Your logic is circular because you are defining innocent as not found guilty in court. Using the term to mean, did he do it or not, obviously many guilty people go free. Now that may be a price worth paying for the type of justice system we want, but denying that it happens makes no sense.

[D. Bergin]

Originally Posted by Balticfox

Irrelevant!!! A man IS innocent until proven guilty in a court of law. NO exceptions for any reason. Case closed.

Why are you so intent on undermining our (yours as well as mine) protection under the law? Do you not realize that failing to fully embrace this principle in all cases acts to undermine it? Do you want to empower the State to send you off to prison so easily? Is it 1984 which you'd like to see?

Innocence is bought, every day of the week. So is guilt.

Agree with you on Taylor Swift though.

[Shoeless Moe]

Originally Posted by Balticfox

Irrelevant!!! A man IS innocent until proven guilty in a court of law. NO exceptions for any reason. Case closed.

Why are you so intent on undermining our (yours as well as mine) protection under the law? Do you not realize that failing to fully embrace this principle in all cases acts to undermine it? Do you want to empower the State to send you off to prison so easily? Is it 1984 which you'd like to see?

Lighten up Francis........go drink a Molson.

[Balticfox]

Originally Posted by Shoeless Moe

Innocent? ... He was suspended by the League for 4 games, another sign of "Innocence"?

You though were the one who highjacked a Yankees-Dodgers thread to argue that the NFL with its commissioner Roger Goodell is corrupt from the top down. So logically the NFL's take on any such matters wouldn't be one you'd trust. But intellectual consistency doesn't seem to be your strongpoint.

Originally Posted by Shoeless Moe

Lighten up Francis....

Sorry. I'm not much on Hollywood culture references. But you can of course go ahead and impress others with your "learned" comments.

Originally Posted by Shoeless Moe

go drink a Molson.

While I was born and raised in Labatt country where old union members such as my father quaffed full bodied ales:



I nonetheless have to give credit to Molson for not bastardizing their brews with the addition of rice and corn which is a common practice south of the border. All things considered, you're therefore well advised to steer clear of beer references.

[Shoeless Moe]

Originally Posted by Balticfox

You though were the one who highjacked a Yankees-Dodgers thread to argue that the NFL with its commissioner Roger Goodell is corrupt from the top down. So logically the NFL's take on any such matters wouldn't be one you'd trust. But intellectual consistency doesn't seem to be your strongpoint.

I hijacked a thread? How about you stop dumbing up threads by jumping in when you bring absolutely nothing to the discussion. 1. I started the thread, so I hijacked my own thread? 2. As I stated you jump into threads just to voice your opinion that nobody cares about because you like to try to sound knowledgeable but do the exact opposite. Go back and look at when I started this thread very early on I mentioned the Chiefs getting "preferrred treatment" in 2023. So try to read threads from the beginning so you don't out your own stupidity. It might save you from irrelevant comments just to be heard.

Now I know you'll come back with something you "think" is a brilliant comeback but it will fall well short of a 1st down and be a turnover on downs.

[Balticfox]

Originally Posted by Carter08

Part of the issue is Goodell’s fondness for the Chiefs is well known.

Oh?!!!

Originally Posted by Carter08

More importantly, the Chiefs bring with them an army of Swift fans that otherwise don’t care about football.

Claptrap! In my experience the two demographics are different, very different. Any overlap between the two is marginal. In other words your typical Taylor Swift fan doesn't know the difference between touching down and a touchdown while the typical Kansas City Chief fan would rather be swilling beer in a dingy bar listening to somebody like Jimmy the Greek exercising his vocal chords than watching a dance pop diva lip syncing to her auto-tuned recorded vocals.

[Carter08]

Originally Posted by Balticfox

Oh?!!!



Claptrap! In my experience the two demographics are different, very different. Any overlap between the two is marginal. In other words your typical Taylor Swift fan doesn't know the difference between touching down and a touchdown while the typical Kansas City Chief fan would rather be swilling beer in a dingy bar listening to somebody like Jimmy the Greek exercising his vocal chords than watching a dance pop diva lip syncing to her auto-tuned recorded vocals.

That’s exactly right, Swift fans would not care about football absent Swift. With Swift, very engaged.

[Balticfox]

Originally Posted by Carter08

That’s exactly right, Swift fans would not care about football absent Swift. With Swift, very engaged.

I find it difficult to believe that even NFL management can think that any person/life form otherwise disinterested in football is more likely to tune into watching the Super Bowl because of Taylor Swift's newfound preference for any single team.

[Peter_Spaeth]

Originally Posted by Balticfox

I find it difficult to believe that even NFL management can think that any person/life form otherwise disinterested in football is more likely to tune into watching the Super Bowl because of Taylor Swift's newfound preference for any single team.

They're probably tuning in not to see the game, but the 387 times during the game the camera switches to Tay Tay. See Taylor's outfit. Watch Taylor cheer. Watch Taylor frown.
Watch Taylor hug Travis' mom. Watch Taylor hug Caitlin Clark. It's endlessly fascinating.

[packs]

Do you think there are women otherwise totally uninterested in football independently tuning in to the Super Bowl who aren't otherwise at a party where the game is on? I'm curious if the idea of women otherwise uninterested in football are truly additional eyes on the game or just eyes in the room on the game who otherwise would be ignoring it.

[G1911]

Originally Posted by packs

Do you think there are women otherwise totally uninterested in football independently tuning in to the Super Bowl who aren't otherwise at a party where the game is on? I'm curious if the idea of women otherwise uninterested in football are truly additional eyes on the game or just eyes in the room on the game who otherwise would be ignoring it.

Impossible to really prove at a macro level, but it's both.

2023 Super Bowl - Just my friends, girlfriends friends couldn't give a darn.

2024 Super Bowl - Many of my girlfriends friends suddenly joined in for the first time and came with Chiefs merch.

2025 - Her friends are coming again.

I think it's silly, but her appeal and influence on the younger crowd is huge and definitely has steered many more eyes to the team. That's why the broadcasts won't shut up about her lol. I'm surprised some people want to pretend it's not a thing. It's easy to think/say the refs are being fair and impartial and the Chiefs are not advantaged, but admit that Taylor has brought many more new temporary fans/eyes to the team. It's not a bad thing, just slightly annoying when watching their games