NFL - Are You Ready For Some Football?!! - Post SuperBowl

[Koyaanisqatsi]

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui
That's ridiculous. A justified action can quite easily be an ethical or fair one. Don't try to impart your ideas of fairness on the rest of us.

"is not inherently" is what I said and what I meant. A justified action can quite easily be an ethical or fair one...but it is not inherently one. In this case I don't believe it is, and since you're making the same argument I already stated at the beginning of this, you're not doing much to persuade me to change my mind.

Your view would mean that no one could increase penalties for things, like, say, if a new Commissioner came in, because people have done it before and they weren't punished in the same proportion.

Obviously time and changing standards are a factor. So it would be perfectly fine for Goodell to come in now and smack the Pats, as long as he did the same with everybody else. Which, since he chose to do so with the Pats, also includes going back and investigating historical allegations. As I've said all along--I don't think it's a big deal. But if you make a big deal out of it for one team, it should be the same for all the rest. How is that wrong?

You mean the Rams-Pats SB tapes? Everywhere I've heard people have been talking about about IF it was true, then X would happen.

Incredibly few people automatically believed them to be true. But I know, that doesn't fit the victim complex.

Like I said...troll around some different forums for a bit. You'll find this isn't the case.

The Pats coach is Bill Belichick. So I don't think referring to the Pats as "evil" is unduly hammering.

Well, that pretty much demonstrates how useless an attempt at rational discussion is, doesn't it?

Do you think calling the Yankees the "Evil Empire" is hammering them unduly? If so, you may want to inform the rest of New England... and then the rest of the freaking world!

If only I had that much influence.

Outside of Don Shula, a few journalists, and a handful of rabid fans, no one is tearing down anything. On the other hand, the vast majority saw the Pats violate a rule that the new Commish was cracking down tough on and they got slammed. For a while after, it was questioned what else they may have done. But that soon died down. Now some recent info has come out that may show that Belichick and co. lied to Goodell about the extent of the activities.

To certain Pats fans apparently that is "tearing down years of Pats accomplishments". This is why I call it a victim mentality and why we dislike you so.

Well, that had absolutely nothing to do with what I said, now did it? If you're equating Pats and Yankees, you can't claim one while denying the other.

Anyway, your count is a little off. Try a vast majority of journalists, many current and former NFL players and coaches, and enough fans to make any sort of rational discussion impossible (as you've demonstrated.)

[Will9]

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui

Outside of Don Shula, a few journalists, and a handful of rabid fans, no one is tearing down anything.

Maybe you should come up here so I can show you how many handfuls of those rabid fans there are just in this town. Let's not even get started with the whole state.

Originally posted by Koyaanisqatsi

Anyway, your count is a little off. Try a vast majority of journalists, many current and former NFL players and coaches, and enough fans to make any sort of rational discussion impossible (as you've demonstrated.)

I try to make a rational discussion with these people, but your trying to talk to 10+ Colts Fans/Pats Haters all slamming insults at the Patriots at once, it is hard to avoid a shouting match.

[SlowwHand]

Originally posted by Koyaanisqatsi


Pro bowl? Are they still playing that? For what possible reason?

Perfect Patriot thought. Maybe because their fans voted for them?

[Imran Siddiqui]

Originally posted by Koyaanisqatsi
Obviously time and changing standards are a factor. So it would be perfectly fine for Goodell to come in now and smack the Pats, as long as he did the same with everybody else. Which, since he chose to do so with the Pats, also includes going back and investigating historical allegations. As I've said all along--I don't think it's a big deal. But if you make a big deal out of it for one team, it should be the same for all the rest. How is that wrong?

Say what?!! So if any Commissioner wanted to enforce a rule more strongly, he'd have to go back 30+ years (the Johnson comments were about when he was scout with the Chiefs, btw)? Are you freaking kidding me?

Like I said...troll around some different forums for a bit. You'll find this isn't the case.

A few blowhards on internet forums said it, so it must be a widespread opinion held by all!!

Well, that pretty much demonstrates how useless an attempt at rational discussion is, doesn't it?

If you really don't think Belichick is the biggest ******* coaching in the NFL today (or at least in the Top 5), then I simply cannot take that person seriously at all.

Well, that had absolutely nothing to do with what I said, now did it? If you're equating Pats and Yankees, you can't claim one while denying the other.

Yankee fans don't whine about how everyone is ganging up on them and how overrated they are and how the league and media are all against them.

Anyway, your count is a little off. Try a vast majority of journalists, many current and former NFL players and coaches, and enough fans to make any sort of rational discussion impossible (as you've demonstrated.)

Now I know you are delusional. The vast majority of journalists covered the Spygate story, covered tangential leads for the first month or so, and moved on. They completely and utterly mocked Don Shula for saying there should be a asterisk when he brought it up... yeah, sounds like they were so ganging up on the Pats there.

Most fans have completely moved on. They hate Belichick and his disdain for other teams and the league but don't give the more fanciful allegations more than a second's thought if they've been discredited.

But since they've already been caught any somewhat plausible allegations are treated as a "wait and see" mode... as seems pretty "fair".

[Will9]

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui
Most fans have completely moved on.

So am I not getting a random sample or something?

[Koyaanisqatsi]

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui
Say what?!! So if any Commissioner wanted to enforce a rule more strongly, he'd have to go back 30+ years (the Johnson comments were about when he was scout with the Chiefs, btw)? Are you freaking kidding me?

No, in fact, that's exactly what I didn't say. I said, if he chooses to enforce a rule differently he needed to do it the same way with each team. In this case, he's chosen to enforce a rule by starting an investigation that goes back years...and if he does that for a single team, he should do the same for others as well.

If you really don't think Belichick is the biggest ******* coaching in the NFL today (or at least in the Top 5), then I simply cannot take that person seriously at all.

I'll give you top five (publicly, at least...people who actually know him say he's completely different privately). But that's hardly enough to go with "Good vs. Evil"...

Well, that had absolutely nothing to do with what I said, now did it? If you're equating Pats and Yankees, you can't claim one while denying the other.

Yankee fans don't whine about how everyone is ganging up on them and how overrated they are and how the league and media are all against them.

Well, the underrated part I'll give you.

Most fans have completely moved on. They hate Belichick and his disdain for other teams and the league but don't give the more fanciful allegations more than a second's thought if they've been discredited.

But since they've already been caught any somewhat plausible allegations are treated as a "wait and see" mode... as seems pretty "fair".

Yeah, and I'm just telling you--that perception is somewhere between incomplete and wrong. But since you've already dismissed all the Internet blowhards, and I live deep in Pats territory, there's not much I can tell you.

[Koyaanisqatsi]

Originally posted by SlowwHand
Perfect Patriot thought. Maybe because their fans voted for them?

And here I thought it was because the union wanted to give some players a comp trip to Hawaii.

Well, either way, I'm sure the seventeen fans that tune in will be quite happy with whoever's replacing Moss and Brady anyway.

[Imran Siddiqui]

Originally posted by Koyaanisqatsi
No, in fact, that's exactly what I didn't say. I said, if he chooses to enforce a rule differently he needed to do it the same way with each team. In this case, he's chosen to enforce a rule by starting an investigation that goes back years...and if he does that for a single team, he should do the same for others as well.

No, that's what you did say. After all, you brought up the Johnson comments. You wouldn't be satisfied if Goodell heard Johnson saying that he did the same stuff in the 70s and didn't go back to investigate that.

And the single team has been shown to have violated the rule, and that's why he's going back to look at what else they may have done (and whether the coach of the team lied to him).

I'll give you top five (publicly, at least...people who actually know him say he's completely different privately). But that's hardly enough to go with "Good vs. Evil"...

Why, because it hurts your ears to hear "Good vs. Evil" applied to your favorite team?

Yeah, and I'm just telling you--that perception is somewhere between incomplete and wrong. But since you've already dismissed all the Internet blowhards, and I live deep in Pats territory, there's not much I can tell you.

The internet blowhards you claim to represent a majority? They don't even represent a majority of internet pundits for god's sake!

That perception is actually how it is in the outside world. Just because New Englanders want to keep stoking the flames so they can all mad with their "righteous" anger and fire up their team doesn't mean that its the same everywhere else.

[Tuberski]

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui


No, that's what you did say. After all, you brought up the Johnson comments. You wouldn't be satisfied if Goodell heard Johnson saying that he did the same stuff in the 70s and didn't go back to investigate that.

you guys are talking about Jimmy Johnson? He never scouted for the Chiefs.

ACK!

[Imran Siddiqui]

Sorry, he said he was told how to do it by a KC scout when he was talking about doing spying in the FOX show.

[Lord Avalon]

SUPER BOWL TICKER: TV ratings best ever for game

February 5, 2008

NEW YORK -- The 97.5 million viewers who saw the New York Giants' last-minute win over the New England Patriots made it the most-watched Super Bowl ever and second biggest event in American television history.

Only the "M*A*S*H" series finale in 1983, with 106 million viewers, was seen by more people, Nielsen Media Research said Monday. Sunday's game eclipsed the previous Super Bowl record of 94.08 million, set when Dallas defeated Pittsburgh in 1996.

This year's game had almost all the ingredients Fox could hope for: a tight contest with a thrilling finish involving a team that was attempting to make history as the NFL's first unbeaten team since 1972. But the Giants ended New England's bid for perfection, 17-14. Throughout the game, the teams were never separated by more than four points.

Giants quarterback Eli Manning won bragging rights over his brother: Last year's win by Peyton Manning's Indianapolis Colts was seen by 93.2 million people, now the third most-watched Super Bowl.

http://www.freep.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20080205/SPORTS01/802050388/1049

[snoopy369]

That's not that impressive... in 1983, 106 million viewers was more than a 100% share

[Lord Avalon]

According to wiki, the M*A*S*H series finale had a 77% share, compared to 65% for SB XLII.

[snoopy369]

See? Not nearly as impressive. They shouldn't compare viewers, but HH share... much more relevant data.

(I'm also very disbelieving of the 97m number/65% share, as I don't have much faith in the Nielsen system, but that's a different story.)

[-Jrabbit]

There weren't a whole lot of choices in 1983. Cable was in its infancy, and there basically was no online world for the general public.

Never again will you see viewership in such a high percent of households, and never again will you see any single channel achieve such a massive percentage of TV sets in use.