Is the NFL rigged?

[codered]

Originally Posted by fabiani12333

Okay, so you are one those people who believes in conspiracy theories that spread on the internet?

What is the evidence to support the claim that the Chiefs have received favorable treatment by the NFL?

In 11 playoff games leading up to the buffalo game

Unsportsmanlike calls:
Opponents 11 - Chiefs 1 and then in the buffalo game Kelce acts like an asshat after the score and is taunting clear as day. Should have been a flag for taunting. No unsportsmanlike call but don’t worry he got fined later for the missed call

In those 11 games, how many times have the Chiefs had more penalties than their opponents?

Zero.

In those 11 games, how many times have the Chiefs opponents had more penalty yards than the Chiefs?

Ten.

That’s not including the missed calls/calls that go there way. There were multiple plays throughout the buffalo game that were questionable. Worthy didn’t catch the ball. Allen cleared the first down marker by about half a football and it shouldn’t have even been 4th and 1 as Kincaid clearly had the first and the refs spotted him a yard back.

After the brutal bad calls in the Texans game (though I think the chiefs win that game even without those calls) you would think the NFL would have made a ridiculously huge effort to not have bad calls in the chief’s favour for the buffalo game.

I don’t think there is a grand conspiracy to get the chiefs to win but you have to be dense not to see how they have benefited from so questionable officiating

[88horsepower]

Originally Posted by fabiani12333

It's hard to understand how flamethrowing conspiracy theorists in this thread are so sensitive, but here we are.

The irony.

[Ninotores]

Originally Posted by 88horsepower

The irony.

I laughed

[fabiani12333]

Originally Posted by codered

In 11 playoff games leading up to the buffalo game

Unsportsmanlike calls:
Opponents 11 - Chiefs 1 and then in the buffalo game Kelce acts like an asshat after the score and is taunting clear as day. Should have been a flag for taunting. No unsportsmanlike call but don’t worry he got fined later for the missed call

In those 11 games, how many times have the Chiefs had more penalties than their opponents?

Zero.

In those 11 games, how many times have the Chiefs opponents had more penalty yards than the Chiefs?

Ten.

That’s not including the missed calls/calls that go there way. There were multiple plays throughout the buffalo game that were questionable. Worthy didn’t catch the ball. Allen cleared the first down marker by about half a football and it shouldn’t have even been 4th and 1 as Kincaid clearly had the first and the refs spotted him a yard back.

After the brutal bad calls in the Texans game (though I think the chiefs win that game even without those calls) you would think the NFL would have made a ridiculously huge effort to not have bad calls in the chief’s favour for the buffalo game.

I don’t think there is a grand conspiracy to get the chiefs to win but you have to be dense not to see how they have benefited from so questionable officiating

Okay, I agree the Chiefs have gotten fewer penalties than their opponents during the playoffs in recent years -- that is a fact. I don't totally agree with your characterizations and conclusions of the calls in the Bills game, but the overall numbers are clear.

But the Chiefs' recent luck of postseason penalties is not unique in the NFL:

The Chiefs’ postseason penalty numbers must also be put into context. They are not extreme outliers in recent NFL history, as plenty of teams simply have a stretch of years in which calls go their way.

From 2011 to 2015, the Denver Broncos’ postseason opponents drew 16 more penalties for 122 more yards across 10 games. From 2013 to 2017, the New England Patriots got even more lopsided treatment than the current Chiefs, getting called for 22 fewer flags for 276 fewer yards than their foes.

You might notice that both of those teams featured Hall-of-Fame quarterbacks whose advancement in the playoffs might be a desired outcome for the league. Indeed, there may be a slight league-wide bias towards giving superstar quarterbacks the benefit of the doubt. But consider the 2015 to 2019 Minnesota Vikings (15 fewer penalties for 171 fewer yards), helmed by a potpourri of second and third-tier QBs, or the Andy Dalton-led Cincinnati Bengals from 2011 to 2015 (10 fewer penalties for 140 fewer yards), who went 0-5 despite advantageous officiating.

And while the similar penalty advantages for Peyton Manning’s Broncos, Tom Brady’s Pats and Mahomes’ Chiefs may appear suspicious, it is also possible that the causality works in the opposite direction. Perhaps those teams were dominant and successful precisely because they executed well and did not commit penalties.

Furthermore, the win probability methodology makes Mahomes’ Chiefs look like even less of an anomaly. Their +45% total has been topped by several franchises over a five-year stretch at some point during the past 20 seasons, including the aforementioned Patriots and Broncos runs, along with periods for the Philadelphia Eagles, Pittsburgh Steelers and Baltimore Ravens.

Sportico found that just one of the 12 “high-impact penalties” (+5% change in win probability) during the 2024 postseason was against a Chiefs opponent (Anderson’s roughing on Mahomes). In the 2023 playoffs, three of the eight such flags by the officials benefited Kansas City, but two others went against them.

In fact, the single highest-impact penalty on win probability over the past 10 postseasons—a defensive holding on cornerback Trent McDuffie that extended a 49ers field-goal drive in overtime of Super Bowl LVIII—went against Kansas City. It’s hard to argue the fix is in when a single subjective call issued by the refs made the Chiefs 20% less likely to win the Super Bowl.

https://www.sportico.com/leagues/foo...fs-1234826911/

[rdaveigajr]

I wouldn't same games are Rigged because players still have to execute. Definitely seems results are swayed.

[JRX]

The took a page from wrestling, its football entertainment!

[hairysasquatch]

First questionable call favors Chiefs.

[Stifle]

Ref said “I’ma gonna knock the Eagles out”.

[Stifle]

That penalty was roughly a 50 yard flip of the field, the 10 of the Chiefs to the Eagles 40.

[Lonewolf]

Refs already proved how rigged this SB is...Offensive PI on 4th down against the Eagles? What a joke.

[jdandns]

It's not rigged, but humans make mistakes, so it can seem that way.
They need robots to call the penalties.
And also robots should play the game.
And there should be robot cheerleaders.

[kyle1707]

Will find out if it is really soon

[bojesphob]

I still lurk around here, and thought I'd weigh in a little. I remember the response I got when I was saying a few years back that I felt that the NFL directed the outcome of games.... Let's just say I find it interesting that this conversation is as big as it is now considering what the response was to those who questioned things years ago.

While I do not think that the NFL actively fixes games, it does push outcomes. What I mean by that is that they want to make sure that the teams that get people to watch are the teams that get preferential treatment. They also get players directed to those teams in the draft and free agency that would help that team win. Since they have the salary cap, they can't do what baseball does, which is funnel money to the teams that they want to win (like the Yankees or Red Sox), which is the easiest way to influence who wins year in and year out. A team like the Reds or Rockies are just never going to be able to stay competitive enough to win when their entire roster isn't being paid as much as single players on teams like LA and NYY. So, the NFL needs to do things differently to keep the product exciting and make it sell, which is what they are in business for (and not in business for making fair games with unbiased outcomes).

I've seen some estimates that put Taylor Swift's appearances in the games (including last year's Super Bowl) as a windfall for the NFL to the tune of at least 1 billion dollars. Why would they not push the Chiefs if there is an additional billion dollars to split out between the teams? If I were an NFL owner, and they told me I could make 2 billion dollars trying to be competitive, or 13 billion dollars (the Jaguars' owner's net worth) to be just competitive enough to look like I'm not just phoning it it so that the popular teams win, why would I take only the 2 billion? How many owners do we know that take the money and just squeak by? Jerry Jones, the guy that owns the Browns, Mike Brown, the Ford family in Detroit (until this year oddly enough).... I mean, more than half the league is just happy to exist for most years. This means most games don't need to be "fixed", in that the talent on the field just isn't even close in most games between the teams. For those games that are competitive, a little bit of analytics to tell you which call by the refs would have the most affect on the outcome in certain situations (especially towards the end of the game), it wouldn't take much to ensure that certain teams do well. And, it wouldn't take more than the owners and refs to truly be involved. Then, on occasion, despite any push they do, things don't go as planned and they roll with it, since sometimes players just get outplayed. Think the Packers in 2010, or the Giants the one year they were second to last seed and won the Super Bowl.

That said, the question I have pop up in my head about this is this: Are 31 billionaires above deciding as a committee who is going to be successful in the league, when letting the popular teams and drama stories win means they all make more money? My answer to that is no, when they can all swim in their money like Scrooge McDuck when they buy those 130 million dollar yachts, they'll do what's best for their wallets. I mean, why else would they partner with Vegas and sports betting? It sure wasn't to give the illusion that they were above reproach when it comes to affecting outcomes, it was all about the money.

My thoughts before last night's game was that the NFL actually didn't want the Chiefs to win, although they did want them to be in the Super Bowl. Why? Drama. This sets up the drama for next year already: the talk for this next year is going to be whether Mahomes can overcome the nightmare of this Super Bowl and lead the Chiefs to the second time ever 4 Super Bowl appearances in a row. This would mirror the "3 peat" talk that started at the beginning of this season, and would keep people talking about Mahomes and the Chiefs until next season. Just like the talk when Brady was suspended for deflategate and how he was going to "stick it to Goodell" and win the Super Bowl despite the suspension.... which he did.

[JRX]

Nothing was more blatant than when they changed the rules after the Pats beat the Colts.

[JeremyNick]

At least we know what a playoff game looks like now when the Chiefs aren’t horribly favored in calls.

[Bosoxfan5990]

Originally Posted by JRX

Nothing was more blatant than when they changed the rules after the Pats beat the Colts.

What about when they changed the rules in the middle of the Pats/Eagles Super Bowl?

[88horsepower]

Originally Posted by kyle1707

Will find out if it is really soon

No. The NFL already got what it wanted. The outcome of the game didn't matter. As long as the Chiefs got the Super Bowl, as far as the NFL is concerned, mission accomplished.

[ssbledsoe]

[bmf]

Originally Posted by JeremyNick

At least we know what a playoff game looks like now when the Chiefs aren’t horribly favored in calls.

Nailed it.

[88horsepower]

Originally Posted by Bosoxfan5990

What about when they changed the rules in the middle of the Pats/Eagles Super Bowl?

Do tell.

[JRX]

Mahomes feels like what the league always wanted Peyton to be. They did as much as they could rules wise to make it easier to get him to the sb, but Brady and Bill got in the way a lot.

[Bosoxfan5990]

Originally Posted by 88horsepower

Do tell.

Zach Ertz touchdown "catch."

[88horsepower]

Originally Posted by Bosoxfan5990

Zach Ertz touchdown "catch."

You mean the one where he secured the ball, took three steps, crosses the plane, and recovers his own fumble that wasn't even a fumble?

You're reaching, big time on that play. Ertz scored cleanly.

[Fenway55]

Originally Posted by 88horsepower

You mean the one where he secured the ball, took three steps, crosses the plane, and recovers his own fumble that wasn't even a fumble?

You're reaching, big time on that play. Ertz scored cleanly.

I am long past thinking much about SB52 but since this subject has arisen, I would like to please clarify what happened.

Ertz only took 2 steps before getting hit and diving for the end zone, but that is still enough. Clear touchdown for Ertz.

However, Corey Clement still hasn't gained in-bounds possession of his TD in the 3rd quarter. That was the "new rule" play where the NFL adjusted the rules on the fly regarding the degree to which a ball can "move" without being considered loss of control on the part of the receiver.

The NFL's Senior VP of Officiating confirmed to ESPN the new rule was applied in the Super Bowl.... despite the League not.... you know.... ever actually telling anyone in advance....

https://www.nbcsports.com/nfl/profoo...play-decisions

[Fenway55]

For those of you who think the League is rigged, the conspiracy theorists have already weighed in on the SB60 logo. The heavy purple and light blue element means we are getting Baltimore v. Detroit. Of course, like this year's logo, pretty much every major color appears on the logo somewhere so no matter who goes to the Super Bowl, you will be able to find their primary of secondary color on it.

A cool logo, IMHO.