spoiler alert: if you don’t want your super bowl spirit
crushed, don’t read this blog.
this year, the denver broncos will
face the seattle seahawks in the most worthless sporting event of the year.
the other day, i told panda, who is
barely if at all a sports fan, that i didn’t care about the super bowl. that is entirely too overrated. panda said, “come on! have some spirit. it’s
the super bowl.”
i said, “you’re telling me ‘come
on?’” i told her, “come on, this is the
NFL we’re talking about. i do have spirit…with EOU games.”
i have gone to every EOU
mountaineers home basketball game, and a majority of the football games, this
season and last. i am all about the
spirit there. NAIA sports mean way more
to me than any proessional sport. professional
sports are only about the money. and with that comes my apparrently far out
there claim that…
professional sports are rigged!
...maybe not every game, but most of the ones that matter. especially
the super bowl. the game that prides itself on selling multi-million dollar
30-second ad spots, over the top halftime shows, the promise for even more
rediculous player salaries and all of that, there is nothing legitamite about
the super bowl. it is an excuse to have
a blow-out, extravagant party. it’s a
monstrosity of a money maker. the game
is second to that, if it is even considered at all.
i realize this is a contentious
issue. and that people will refuse to
believe things they don’t want to be true.
as much as anyone wants to believe their team will win the super bowl,
they want to believe everything is on the straight and narrow. but the odds are factors too. and the odds stipulate that, at best, a good
team has a 10-1 chance of winning a super bowl from the outset, which is to say
that at the beginning of the season even the fans of the best team have only a
10% chance of being right that their team will win the super bowl. kansas city chiefs fans have, in any given
year, about a 1% chance of winning the super bowl, but that doesn’t stop
100,000 rabid fans from believing it anyway.
i maintain that the more adamanat someone is about something, the less
flexible they are in their thinking, the easier it is to fool them. so, refuse to believe all you want. from my
own persepctive, i simply don’t care enough to have the debates. i have watched a grand total of five NFL games
this season. it’s a meaningless league
to me. if i don’t want to watch, i
certainly don’t want to talk about it. pro
sports may bring in big money, but they are small change to me. there are much more meaningful things to discuss
and spend my time fighting in the world than some silly “non-profit” enterprise
like the NFL. so here is my experience
and what i believe. i leave it here, you can take it or leave it. believe what you want.
a relative of mine, fred, has a lot
of experience with professional sports gambling in vegas. one of his first experiences was a random
encounter on a casino floor when a veteran gambler told him, “i’m going to tell
you something you’ll never believe. but if you do, you will do very well here. these games are fixed. there has never been a super bowl played on
the level.”
fred said, “you’re right. i don’t
believe you. you’re crazy”
that old man had been in the
business of betting on sports as long as vegas had been taking money on it. and as time went on, fred lost money in vegas,
particularly on the super bowl. he then got
to thinking about what that old man told him and decided to bet opposite the
money. in turn, fred never lost a super
bowl bet for 26 straight years.
fred’s first trial in that system
sold him forever. in the 1987 super bowl,
the denver broncos were heavily favored over the washington redskins. the ‘skins had an unknown back up quarterback,
the broncos had john elway.
fred sent a bunch of money to a
friend in nevada, who went to place the bet.
she returned without making the bet, saying, “i’m sorry, i couldn’t let
you throw your money away. everyone i talked to said there is no chance
washington can win.”
fred reiterated his point, saying,
“i know what people are saying. that’s exactly why i want to bet on washington.
because everyone thinks they have no
chance.”
the theory was that so much money
poured in on the de facto home team (in lieu of vegas not having a pro team,
the denver broncos are extremely popular there) that vegas stood to lose too
much money if the broncos won the game. he
sent the friend back to the casino with even more money to bet on washington. again, she returned without making the bet
after talking to more people. again, he
sent her back with even more money. she
relented, made the bet, but vowed to never be apart of such an enterprise and
refused to even go on the vegas strip.
after the big bet was in, fred
explained to me how the game would go. denver would score early, and then
washington would take control by halftime and the unknown quarterback would become
an overnight celebrity. the game played
out exactly according to his plan, and it was a huge money maker. every year for the next 25 years, he
predicteed the outcome exactly like that. until the 2013 super bowl. for some reason, he got that one completely
backwards and has given up on the headache of the entire system, but still had
a nice streak!
purists of the sports world, always
say “no! you don’t honestly believe
that!”
one common defense, “players can’t
be in on the fix? they put too much
effort into being the best. it means too much.”
it is a dangerous assumption that the athletes on the field are in on
the fix. i never imply that athletes are
part of the fix. it could be possible
and certainly has happened, but that is not where i would start if i were a
suit and tie guy trying to arrange the outcome of a game.
athletes are a weird sort to begin
with. they put their life into their
sport. they live and breathe the sport. football players are willing to risk
death from dementia at age forty-five to play the game. every ounce of their being is for the ability
to play one more play, one more game, one more season. the glory is worth everything, even if that
scenario sounds backwards to some. but
players have a sort of bi-polar issue. while
they may claim it’s about the love of the game, not the money, they have no
problem listening to the player’s union telling them when they should sit and
when they should play. they have no
problem signing with the hated rival for an extra million dollars per year. to that end i say, if a player is willing to
sign for an extra million dollars over the course of a season for the first
team to offer it, what would they do for an extra million in one game?
but no, the bigger problem with paying
off players is that there are so many of them that fixing a game through them
would be quite tedious, in addition to betraying the supposed integrity of the
system. it’s hard to keep people like
that quiet. when someone puts their life
on the line on the gridiron, what would stop them from putting their life on
the line off of it? many people go a
step further and think that if you are going to pay off a player, it has to be
the kicker. this is a stereotype with no
substantial basis. there is no reason
why the kicker is more likely to be paid off. that
point could be argued all day… for example, a pro-bowl linebacker, suddenly
neutralized by a rookie tackle and things of that sort. anyone could fake their way through a game
and chalk it up to a bad day. but all of that is a fruitless endeaver to look
into because players are minions in the grand scheme of things. as much as anyone wants to think that the
players on the field control the outcome of the game, it is not true.
players are getting paid to do a
job. just as anyone else gets paid to do
a job. our bosses have more control over
whether we keep our jobs and how we perform on our jobs than we do. that is true at every level in life. owners that pay the salaries dictate what
their players can do and say. coaches
dictate who is even on the field to begin with. equipment managers dictate whether the players
have the right equipment. so on and so forth, you get the point, the player is
continually at someone else’s mercy.
when someone wants to arrange the
outcome of a game, it only makes sense to start with people higher up the chain
of command. and believe now, or be
forever naïve, that the NFL is purely about the bottom dollar. if the super bowl were a legit game, one thing
that would happen is that it would be played on the home field of the team with
the best record or randomly shift between leagues, like every other sport does.
but that wouldn’t bring in the most
revenue for the league because it is much easier for teams, fans, broadcasters
and anyone to plan years in advance than to wait until two weeks before the
game. it is also easier for the
propaganda machine to advertise. it is
more profitable to have a game in a dome of a great tourist town than the
frozen tundra of lambeau field in northern wisconsin. even when john moffit walked away from the
NFL in november (ironic that both teams he played for this season are facing
off in the super bowl), he acknowledged that he is tired of playing for a
league that puts profits over people. i
don’t think i need to continue to beat home a point that the NFL is all about
money. take a look around your
supermarket today and see for yourself.
consider this, how much do referees
make in an entire season? if you could
offer a ref a check worth 10 times their annual salary to shave a few points
off of one game, how easy would that be?
how much control do refs
continually prove that they have over the outcome of a game? anyone
who has watched a game knows how much influence they have. likewise, could you give an equipment manager
some pocket to change to see that the star running back didn’t have his helmet
to get in for the first series of the game? or the stadium electrician could cause a
“power surge” during a critical juncture?
i am not setting out to say that there is a conspiracy behind every
weird thing that happens on a football field, but to show how easy it would be
to make the next weird thing happen. the
one thing that is undeniable, things that don’t make sense and never happen in
other football games always happen during the super bowl.
the NFL and its humble non-profit system continues to be
coddled by the football loving masculine government, which also has been
infiltrated by the mafia since before vegas ever existed. god forbid the governemnt have to give up love
of football or bow to the demands of people with money. when these organizations are so intertwined,
how should i expect things to be fair to anyone outside their interests?
here’s another line of defense naysayers give,
“it would be almost impossible to fix a game. and if you did, it would be so
obvious you’d have to be caught.” this
is a pretty narrow-minded, naïve way of thinking. the fact that so many people doubt it, and
would never believe it, is also what makes the prospect more likely. if you can sell a middle eastern war under
pretentious causes, then you can fix a football game that has hundreds of
puppet masters standing on the sidelines.
others say, people would find out
that the game was fixed! then i ask, how is that? what
about the saying that “dead men tell no tales?”
the mafia runs vegas. the mafia
kills anybody that comes between them and their business interests. when someone figures out what strings they
need to pull, they pull them. if that
means paying a ref a million dollars, the ref will take that money whether he
wants it or not. the mafia doesn’t
negotiate, anymore than the government doesn’t negotiate with activists. fred has also gotten his share of death
threats over the years. if someone
threatens to kill you if you don’t do what they say, you pretty much do what
they say, especially when you have no recourse.
maybe you could take the case to court, although it’s hard to sell
something to a disbeliever and we have already established that most people don’t
believe that this system is fake. it’s
also hard to win a court case when the courts are run by a system that coddles
the business world. even in a miracle
case that someone successfully could sue, winning a court case doesn’t do you a
lot of good if you and your family are dead.
and that’s how the mafia does business.
so, who would talk? and who would
tell the mafia no? that would be like
telling the government you aren’t going to pay taxes.
anyone who doesn’t believe this,
needs to take a trip to vegas and do some research about the seedy nature of it
all. look at the glitter and honestly
say that vegas is in the business of giving away money to gamblers. look at the casinos. billions of dollars are poured into these
gaudy places annually. look at the
amount of money vegas throws away on frivilous crap, look at all the people
blinded by the lights, tricked by the magician’s smoke and mirrors, look at how
many people come away from vegas losing everything. vegas doesn’t let these stories go too punlic
because it would be bad for business, just like vegas doesn’t let it be known
how many destitute gamblers jump from their hotel room windows. after the flash and bang effect wears off,
there is only the impression that vegas is quite obviously in the business
making money. they are not in the business
of losing money.
one final counter-argument is to
the claim that the point spreads shift so that the money comes in evenly. in legit business enterprises that are
providing a service first and make a little profit second, this is a fair way
of doing things. in the world of maximizing
profits, the point spread system and taking money on a small percentage of wins
and losses to the gambler is too slow.
the super bowl is by far the most
bet on game in the world every year. the
2013 super bowl had a total of $98.9 million bet on it, meaning we could easily
go over $100 million this year. at the
standard 5% take for the bookies, vegas could make a total of $5 million. first off, that’s chicken feed for
vegas. secondly, they take 5% from the
winner and loser, meaning they will make that $5 million no matter what happens
in the game.
now, we can get creative. if the
money does not come in at exactly 50-50, then we have a problem. if 75% of the people think denver will beat
seattle, and 75% of the money gets bet for denver that would be $75 million for
denver and $25 million for seattle. that
is a $50 million difference. for a town
that is not about losing money, i am just going to put a wild guess out there
that they would rather win the $50 million than pay out $50 million. suddenly, that 5% take at $5 million doesn’t
mean a whole lot and still leaves you with a $45 million deficit if seattle
wins.
but now, let’s say you can play
with the lines to make sure the money doesn’t come in evenly and thereby create
this $50 million difference. there are
plenty of relatively poor people that have some influence over things, but
let’s take the most traveled road here. in 2012-13, the average NFL referee
made $149,000 for an annual salary. let’s
say you offer a referee ten times their annual salary for one game. you have thereby paid $1.5 million to
guarantee that you will win the $50 million, so you settle for $48.5 million.
that sounds a little better than losing the $45 million in the opposite
scenario. and given that the referee
wouldn’t have a choice, he’d take the money and stay quiet. even on his deathbed years later he wouldn’t
be likely to say anything.
the main point remains, look at all
the money that exchanges hands so freely in every nook and cranny of the united
states when it comes to the super bowl and tell me if anyone would even notice
a few million here and there anyway.
the last main question people ask
is “well then who is going to win?”
i don’t have all the answers, only an
approach that has a pretty good track record. like i said, i have to do a lot
of research, follow trends, spend all year betting on games, see what likely
outcomes are and that sort of thing. and
to me, the NFL is not worth spending all my time figuring out who is supposed
to win any given game. i don’t like any
of the teams or the people that participate in the system. but, i will say this much.
once the teams were set two weeks
ago, seattle was a -1.5 point underdog.
early talk shows indicated an overwhelming support for denver to
win. five days before the game, the line
had moved to +3 for denver. As of the day before the game, denver was +2.5
favorite. (for non gamblers this means denver must win by more than 2.5 points
for a point spread bet to pay off. of
course, professional gamblers play the “money line”, but that requires a deeper
education in this corrupt world).
if everything is on the level so
far, then it is an indication, in fact, that heavy money was bet on denver
early and the tide has shifted to seattle in the last few days slightly. that coincides with, the sudden media shift. over
this past weekend, the media has become more seattle friendly and people are
talking like the seahawks have a chance.
history will dicate that the team the experts pick early doesn’t usually
win, in the super bowl, in the presidential race, etc. these few signs seem to point to seattle
having the upper hand. plus, my own
gambling experience says to always bet on the underdog when the superior team
is the underdog. determing the superior
team here is a little harder to distinguish since they both ran the table in
their respective conferences, but the NFC is a stronger conference and
seattle’s defense is pretty stout. And the QB situation, let me get to that…
my biased opinion is that seattle
is the better team and that denver is getting favored because of one player:
peyton manning. peyton has won one super
bowl and lost two. granted all three
games were with indianapolis, who are in no way shape or form the denver
broncos. denver has been to six super
bowls. they have won two and lost
four. seattle lost the only super bowl
they ever played in. head-to-head
matchups from the former division rivals: denver has won 34 times, seattle has 18
times. in their only playoff matchup (1983) seattle won 31-7. in the past eleven years since seattle has
moved to the NFC, the two teams have played twice. seattle won in 2006, denver won in 2010. as should be the case for a super bowl (but
rarely is), this is a pretty intriguing matchup and what appears to be a pretty
even matchup. so, there isn’t much
reason that denver should be heavily favored.
in fact, maybe seattle is a
unsuspecting underdog. if the washington
redskins backup quarterback could beat (and by beat, i mean utterly humiliate)
the denver broncos in 1987 when john elway and the three amigos were at the
peak of their careers, then i have no reason to believe that in 2014, seattle,
with a second year quarterback (pro-bowler both years), can’t beat a denver
quarterback in the twilight of his career.
it is a little off to expect that denver is a better team. them being favored and heavily bet on doesn’t
make sense, other than in a popularity contest. however, being that i am not involved in the
game and have only about 10% of the information required to get the bet
correct, i wouldn’t be wise to bet on it. but the few things i do have to look at
indicate good fortune for the seahwaks tomorrow.
interact with other gamblers and
watch trends. you will start to get
where i am coming from and have an inside angle. or don’t.
sit at home and get drunk while your favorite team plays on TV, in which
case you will know as much as your TV wants you to know. enjoy the game and may your team win.
No comments:
Post a Comment