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

[Section103]

Thank you both, gentlemen. For the record I wont be watching the SB either. Not because I think its fixed but because I dont care for either team. But my question was in the broader sense....I dont understand why you would watch any games at all. Just a hard habit to break?

[Shoeless Moe]

Originally Posted by Aquarian Sports Cards

Because Goodell is the owners' lackey, not the other way around. There is no all-powerful "League." This mysterious force that somehow makes more money if Taylor swift sells more Travis Kelce Jerseys. There is a group of owners who hire some dude to protect their interests.

Some lackey, he makes well over 63 million a year in salary (that was his 2019 salary), not mention anything he gets under the table. But that's pretty good money for a lackey.


EDIT TO ADD - shit he makes more than Mahomes

[Section103]

Originally Posted by Shoeless Moe

yah why believe Forbes, they've only been around since 1917.

Oh, I believe Forbes reported the number they were given. Im just not certain I believe in the number they were given. But if you believe Forbes, how in the heck did the Chiefs generate $590M and $3XX million was attributable to Taylor? And why do the Chiefs suck so bad as a revenue generating organization when all of the other NFL teams revenues have very comparable revenue numbers without a Taylor Swift impact?


Is the link to the article you posted completely wrong?

[Aquarian Sports Cards]

Originally Posted by Section103

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/

because those figures ad intangibles into the value. Like the claim that Tiger's chip in at the Masters where the Nike logo hung over the lip of the cup nad then fell in was worth 100 Million to Nike.

Nobody handed Nike $100 million in cash, and their sales didn't go up by that amount, but the amount of airplay that shot got in terms of advertising was worth that much.

So first off, $300 million is chicken feed compared to the revenue the NFL as a whole generates even if it was actual cash in someone's pocket; And again who's pocket??? It's not like Goodell gets to stuff it in his mattress, league revenues get shared so now you're dividing the spoils 32 ways. But wait that $300 million figure is largely intangibles like the Nike figure.

But yup, the other owners are all going to agree to not win Super Bowls because Taylor Swift blah, blah blah...

[Shoeless Moe]

Originally Posted by Section103

Thank you both, gentlemen. For the record I wont be watching the SB either. Not because I think its fixed but because I dont care for either team. But my question was in the broader sense....I dont understand why you would watch any games at all. Just a hard habit to break?

because 99% of the games are fine.

I'll say this. I was at one point a Steelers fan. Until Roethlisburger raped a girl. And the Steelers did nothing to punish him (the League suspended him 4 games). Should have be off the team. Would have if he wasn't the star, any other player would have been gone. Lost all respect for that franchise. Once a proud franchise, the almighty dollar guided their very POOR decision to do nothing.

So I've never watched another Steeler game, nor visited their stadium(s) again, no more merch, etc.


So to be determined if this gets me out of "PRO" football. It might, we'll see how my not watching the SB goes. Guessing quite smooth.

[Carter08]

Originally Posted by Section103

Thank you both, gentlemen. For the record I wont be watching the SB either. Not because I think its fixed but because I dont care for either team. But my question was in the broader sense....I dont understand why you would watch any games at all. Just a hard habit to break?

The hope that next year the script favors my team or my team is good enough to overcome the stacked deck. Hard habit to break is correct but it’s showing cracks.

[Aquarian Sports Cards]

Originally Posted by Shoeless Moe

Some lackey, he makes well over 63 million a year in salary (that was his 2019 salary), not mention anything he gets under the table. But that's pretty good money for a lackey.


EDIT TO ADD - shit he makes more than Mahomes

Never said he wasn't an obscenely well-paid lackey, but he has only the power the owners give him and he answers to them. He's a lackey.

When it came to getting rid of Dan Snyder the owners did it because Goodell doesn't have the power to oust one of his bosses.

[Shoeless Moe]

Originally Posted by Aquarian Sports Cards

Never said he wasn't an obscenely well-paid lackey, but he has only the power the owners give him and he answers to them. He's a lackey.

When it came to getting rid of Dan Snyder the owners did it because Goodell doesn't have the power to oust one of his bosses.

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.

[Carter08]

Part of the issue is Goodell’s fondness for the Chiefs is well known. If you’re a ref even getting the assignment for a playoff game is a big deal. They know what to do to keep the boss happy. The league office had an opportunity to address this after the Texans game with a statement that those calls against the Texans may not have been the best. Instead, they issued a statement (which is an odd thing to have to do in the first place) doubling down.

[Shoeless Moe]

Exactly!!!!


This guy also knows it....

https://russellstreetreport.com/2024...ell-is-a-liar/


and some good comments at the bottom of the article.

[Section103]

Moe - I understand where you're coming from with regards to watching games.

Carter - honest question - if "the script" favors your team next year, how much actual joy will it bring you given that "its scripted?" Seems exceptionally hollow.

Questions for both of you:

Is the SB fix set? Are the Chiefs guaranteed to win? Is it impossible for the Eagles to be so much better that they cant overcome the fix? (Here I admit I cant adequately size them up with precision).

[Carter08]

Originally Posted by Section103

Moe - I understand where you're coming from with regards to watching games.

Carter - honest question - if "the script" favors your team next year, how much actual joy will it bring you given that "its scripted?" Seems exceptionally hollow.

Questions for both of you:

Is the SB fix set? Are the Chiefs guaranteed to win? Is it impossible for the Eagles to be so much better that they cant overcome the fix? (Here I admit I cant adequately size them up with precision).

I don’t think the SB is fixed for the most part. It’s the teams that get there that matters most. Although I tend to think calls may favor Mahomes due to his status and due to the 3 peat storyline that is paraded around so much.

Fair question. What I’m really hoping is that if Kelce retires and the NFL realizes it is taking a bit of a beating for fixing from some pretty popular figures with huge followings (Jomboy, Portnoy, etc), those two things combine for a more even playing field next year. Here’s hoping.

[Balticfox]

Originally Posted by Shoeless Moe

Well the crook Goodell did it again. How bad were the Refs in that game.... the NFL is a joke!

Well on those two or three points anyway we're agreed.

Originally Posted by Shoeless Moe

Goodell gets his Chiefs in again.

The problem is that nobody can explain why the NFL would favour an anything but glamorous small market team (with a semi-politically incorrect Indian themed name and logo).

Originally Posted by Section103

For the record I wont be watching the SB either. Not because I think its fixed but because I dont care for either team. But my question was in the broader sense....I dont understand why you would watch any games at all. Just a hard habit to break?

I won't be watching the Super Bowl either. And when it comes to American football, I like both the Chiefs (a classic old AFL team as are the Bills) and the Eagles. But I'd had enough of the constant over-the-top hype surrounding the NFL and all this talk about the spread by the early 1980's. And I think it's bad form for a Canadian to care about American football anyway.

[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.

[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.

[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.

[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.

[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

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?

[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.

[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.

[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.

[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.

[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

[Carter08]

Taylor Swift is not a typical star. She is bigger than anything we’ve seen before in our lifetimes, save for those that may have been around for the Beatles early days perhaps (and even that I doubt). And her rabid fan base is generally an otherwise non-consumer of football. The NFL at large benefits huge from her presence and the endless shots of her during the broadcast.

[Snapolit1]

Makes perfect sense that the NFL is pulling out the stops to
rig the sport for a team in America’s #33 ranked top media market. In Missouri. And deny the NY Jets a playoff appearance for 55 years. Yep, makes perfect sense. Let me explain ….

[Balticfox]

Originally Posted by G1911

I'm surprised some people want to pretend it's not a thing.

Not being either any kind of fan of dance pop divas or a wild-eyed NFL fan, I didn't even realize it was a thing until this thread prompted me to do some "research" on the net.

Originally Posted by Carter08

The NFL at large benefits huge from her presence and the endless shots of her during the broadcast.

Originally Posted by G1911

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.... It's not a bad thing, just slightly annoying when watching their games

Maybe a rival network/production can carve out a market niche among traditional, hardcore NFL fans by billing itself as "Good hard nosed game coverage for those who like their football Swiftie free!"

[Peter_Spaeth]

2009 German "rookie" card of Tay Tay.

[jingram058]

I think the entire NFL season is fixed, but who really knows. And MLB, NBA and all the others as well.

Let's all tune in to this thread when the SB is over.

If the Eagles win, I for one will express profound shock.

[Carter08]

Originally Posted by Snapolit1

Makes perfect sense that the NFL is pulling out the stops to
rig the sport for a team in America’s #33 ranked top media market. In Missouri. And deny the NY Jets a playoff appearance for 55 years. Yep, makes perfect sense. Let me explain ….

No amount of rigging could help the Jets.

[BobbyStrawberry]

Originally Posted by Carter08

I won’t be watching the Super Bowl this year.

I quit watching NFL years ago. I highly recommend it

[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.

[Carter08]

https://x.com/_mlfootball/status/188...0277?s=42&mx=2

[Balticfox]

Originally Posted by Shoeless Moe

I hijacked a thread?

1. I started the thread, so I hijacked my own thread?

You went from one silly rant to an unrelated but equally silly rant in a different sport in the same thread. I suppose if you retitled this thread "My silly rants!" it might make sense but....

Originally Posted by Shoeless Moe

How about you stop dumbing up threads by jumping in when you bring absolutely nothing to the discussion.

Truthfully when it comes to dumbness nobody here can even come close to matching the conspiracy rants which you like to post.

Originally Posted by Shoeless Moe

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.... It might save you from irrelevant comments just to be heard.

Excuse me but I've contributed more to discussions on cards and collectibles in just one post than you've contributed since you've been here. Show me even one good post you've done!

[Shoeless Moe]

Originally Posted by Balticfox

You went from one silly rant to an unrelated but equally silly rant in a different sport in the same thread. I suppose if you retitled this thread "My silly rants!" it might make sense but....



Truthfully when it comes to dumbness nobody here can even come close to matching the conspiracy rants which you like to post.



Excuse me but I've contributed more to discussions on cards and collectibles in just one post than you've contributed since you've been here. Show me even one good post you've done.

I don't even know what to make your nonsense. Feel free to stay out of threeads I create. Go play elsewhere. You're just muddying up threads.

Focus on the Chiefs.

Very good video posted by Carter08 above the nonsense from BalticFox I suggest watching it. More evidence/proof.

...................................
Radically American!

[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.

[Balticfox]

Originally Posted by Shoeless Moe

I don't even know what to make your nonsense.

Speaking of nonsense, I don't even know what to make of your statement.

Originally Posted by Shoeless Moe

Feel free to stay out of threeads I create.

This is a public discussion forum. If you're unwilling or incapable of defending your opinions, feel free to refrain from posting.

Originally Posted by Shoeless Moe

You're just muddying up threads.

You seem to be afflicted with far too short a memory. You were the one who introduced the topic of the Kansas City Chiefs to a thread about the Dodgers and the Yankees, you were the one who then brought Ben Roethlisberger into the discussion and it was you yourself who brought Molson into the discussion way back last October. So now you want others to stay "on topic" which you've cavalierly changed at every turn? Sorry son. It's a bit late for that.

[Balticfox]

Originally Posted by Peter_Spaeth

We discussed this before. Your logic is circular because you are defining innocent as not found guilty in court.

Circular? No. Our legal system is founded on precisely that concept. I not only fully embrace the concept but I'm entirely consistent in its application. I would call that a virtue on my part (to offset some of my failings perhaps).

And I'm sure the Ohio Bar Association would be intrigued (and probably appalled) to learn that one of its members doesn't fully embrace the concept.

[packs]

A courtroom verdict is the opinion of the jury. It is true that a person found innocent or guilty was found innocent or guilty. It is also true that the jury's opinion does not establish fact or actual guilt or innocence.

[Peter_Spaeth]

Originally Posted by Balticfox

Circular? No. Our legal system is founded on precisely that concept. I not only fully embrace the concept but I'm entirely consistent in its application. I would call that a virtue on my part (to offset some of my failings perhaps).

And I'm sure the Ohio Bar Association would be intrigued (and probably appalled) to learn that one of its members doesn't fully embrace the concept.

I haven't set foot in Ohio in decades LOL. And you clearly do not understand the legal system. That the state may not be able to persuade a jury, beyond a reasonable doubt, with admissible evidence, that a defendant is guilty does not mean they did not commit the crime. Indeed, it is not unusual for a defendant to be found not guilty by a criminal jury but then to be found liable for the same act by a civil jury.

Again, if you DEFINE innocent as not found guilty, then sure you're right, but that is completely circular.

[jingram058]

Originally Posted by jingram058

i think the entire nfl season is fixed, but who really knows. And mlb, nba and all the others as well.

Let's all tune in to this thread when the sb is over.

If the eagles win, i for one will express profound shock.

bump!

[Shoeless Moe]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=K2Me1XD8hFI

[Balticfox]

I've always liked and sympathized with the Buffalo Bills who were the AFL champions in 1964 and 1965 the last two pre-Super Bowl years. And of course the Bills had the legendary Cookie Gilchrist at RB from 1962-64.

Of course there's a lot of good things that can be said about the Kansas City Chiefs as well, e.g. their bright and striking uniforms, their cool arrowhead logo, their participation in Super Bowl I and their subsequent victory in Super Bowl IV. Plus this video:

Snickers Chefs Commercial

[Peter_Spaeth]

Originally Posted by Balticfox

I've always liked and sympathized with the Buffalo Bills who were the AFL champions in 1964 and 1965 the last two pre-Super Bowl years. And of course the Bills had the legendary Cookie Gilchrist at RB from 1962-64.

Of course there's a lot of good things that can be said about the Kansas City Chiefs as well, e.g. their bright and striking uniforms, their cool arrowhead logo, their participation in Super Bowl I and their subsequent victory in Super Bowl IV. Plus this video:

Snickers Chefs Commercial

And who could forget Junious "Buck" Buchanan who you still see on some of the all time great lists including the NFL 100th Anniversary team.