Replacement refs for regular season?

[dead_poet]

Even after Monday debacle, NFL holding firm in referee negotiations

http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/2012/w ... index.html

[Hunter Morrow]

Do you think this is is any way accidental? NFL is worth 7 billion a year just on broadcast rights. There was a 300 million swing because the Packers didn't cover the spread, 150 lost by the public to politically connected casinos and world wide organized crime. There was a 20 million dollar swing in just one city in America, Vegas. Do you really think they play games and tiddly winks when half a billion could be on the line with every prime time game?

Don't be naive. This is all happening for a dirty financial interest.

[Cliff]

Do you think this is is any way accidental? NFL is worth 7 billion a year just on broadcast rights. There was a 300 million swing because the Packers didn't cover the spread, 150 lost by the public to politically connected casinos and world wide organized crime. There was a 20 million dollar swing in just one city in America, Vegas. Do you really think they play games and tiddly winks when half a billion could be on the line with every prime time game?

Don't be naive. This is all happening for a dirty financial interest.

You might be right ... but they don't need replacement refs to accomplish that end. In fact, having replacement refs is bringing more attention to bad/questionable calls.

[Hunter Morrow]

This also explains weekly Thursday games and the desire for an 18 game season.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RvK1F-Thrzk

[dead_poet]

As @mortreport is reporting, an agreement between NFL and NFLRA is at hand and both sides will work to have officials working this weekend.

Adam Schefter on Twitter

[S197]

Do you think this is is any way accidental? NFL is worth 7 billion a year just on broadcast rights. There was a 300 million swing because the Packers didn't cover the spread, 150 lost by the public to politically connected casinos and world wide organized crime. There was a 20 million dollar swing in just one city in America, Vegas. Do you really think they play games and tiddly winks when half a billion could be on the line with every prime time game?

Don't be naive. This is all happening for a dirty financial interest.

I don't think you have a clear understanding of how Vegas works. Their sole job is to try and break even on a bet and take in the rake. They would never have a heavily favored position on any particular bet, a casino would go out of business very quickly if that happened. This article explains it a lot better than I can:

Oddsmakers don't try to predict the outcome of the game when setting point spreads. If a team is favored by seven points, that doesn't mean that the oddsmaker necessarily thinks it will win by seven points. The oddsmaker's goal when setting the line is to keep an equal number of bets on both sides of the game. The betting public's perception of the game can be as important as the actual comparison of the two teams.

Why do oddsmakers try to keep the action even on both sides of a bet? A bookie's worst fear is being "sided." This happens when many bets come in on one side of a game. If that side turns out to be the winning side, the bookie will lose a lot of money. Ideally, half the bettors lose, and their money goes to pay off the other half, who won, with the bookie taking the vig.

Oddsmakers are so intent on keeping the action even that they actually move the line in response to betting patterns. If too many bets are coming in for the underdog, then that team might have been given too many points, so the line is moved. Bets made prior to the move are still counted at the old line. Some bettors will make additional bets after the line moves, on the opposite side of the game. This is known as middling. For example, let's say the opening line on a football game is Tampa Bay -7; SAN FRANCISCO. A lot of people might think Tampa Bay will beat San Francisco by more than seven points, so they all bet on Tampa. The oddsmaker sees this pattern and moves the line, giving Tampa -10. Now, Tampa has to win by more than ten points for bets placed on Tampa to win. A bettor can place another bet with the new line, this time on San Francisco. If Tampa wins the game by eight points, the bettor has middled -- he's won on both bets.

http://entertainment.howstuffworks.com/ ... tting2.htm

[Eli]

I wonder what kind of background checks were run on the replacements, given the NFL's desperation to field anyone who could walk, breath and wear stripes?

So far, I don't think I've read any suggestions that any of these refs might throw a game for financial gain. With everyone _expecting_ the crews to be horrible, think about how easy it would be to get away with a few calls to change the outcome of a game. All anyone would say is that the refs were incompetent. These guys know that in a couple of weeks they will all be back to wherever they came from and will be forgotten about. Their time to cash in would be now.

[Hunter Morrow]

I know EXACTLY how they worked this one. Packers favored by -6, more money goes to that than Seattle deliberately, game is fixed to screw the dummy public who took the Packers. They would either win by 5 points (oh, so close) or the bought, dirty refs would contrive a way for Seattle to outright win the game with bogus penalties like pass interference and roughing the passer and non calls that benefit Seattle.

Gee, how'd the last 10 minutes of that game shake out? Were there bogus penalties that gave Seattle the green light to win and then the whistle was swallowed on the last play to contrive a Seattle game winning touchdown?

Here's a real bargaining chip for you: Some of the striking refs knew and unless they got concessions they'd squeal like pigs.

[Cliff]

I know EXACTLY how they worked this one. Packers favored by -6, more money goes to that than Seattle deliberately, game is fixed to screw the dummy public who took the Packers. They would either win by 5 points (oh, so close) or the bought, dirty refs would contrive a way for Seattle to outright win the game with bogus penalties like pass interference and roughing the passer and non calls that benefit Seattle.

Gee, how'd the last 10 minutes of that game shake out? Were there bogus penalties that gave Seattle the green light to win and then the whistle was swallowed on the last play to contrive a Seattle game winning touchdown?

Here's a real bargaining chip for you: Some of the striking refs knew and unless they got concessions they'd squeal like pigs.

I don't understand this point.

When the Packers were winning by 5 points they still weren't covering the spread. In other words, had the Packers won 12-7 anybody who bet on the Packers would have still lost.

[CalVike]

I don't understand this point.

When the Packers were winning by 5 points they still weren't covering the spread. In other words, had the Packers won 12-7 anybody who bet on the Packers would have still lost.

Spread changes till game time. Packers were covering till the final play.

[Hunter Morrow]

Hmm, I thought it was 5.5 and 6 for the Packers so they'd get "so close." But if the spread really was 5 that just makes it all the more likely that a refs were purchased or had betting interest on the game.

You can bet on fantasy football per game you play and for the championship. Some of it gets really high stakes. There was one referee who said to a premier Fantasy Football player, LeSean McCoy "I need you to pick it up. I have you on 2 of my fantasy teams."

Could have easily been the gambling equivalent of "Pick it up, I have 2 grand on this game."

I am very suspicious of the way the replacement ref games were officiated and I am very suspicious at the vetting process.