If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(ESPN)   Last night's big winner in MNF? Casinos. "At Mandalay Bay, the sportsbook took in about $500,000 in total bets, with about 85 percent of the money on the Packers." Replacement ref bribery claims in 3,2,1   (espn.go.com) divider line 64
    More: Followup, MNF, Mandalay Bay, Rick Reilly, Golden Tate, NFL MVP, Seahawks, Las Vegas Hotels, text replacement  
•       •       •

611 clicks; posted to Sports » on 25 Sep 2012 at 12:14 PM (1 year ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



64 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | » | Last | Show all
 
2012-09-25 12:22:04 PM
I have nothing to say about this

Thanks
 
2012-09-25 12:26:04 PM
Boy that gun is sure smoking.

God dammit.
 
2012-09-25 12:29:39 PM
I can understand the NFL wanting to switch over to 401ks. Pensions have proven to be a disaster. The rest of the League's demands are just petty.
 
2012-09-25 12:31:08 PM
Surely Las Vegas took in more than $500,000 in total bets, right?
 
2012-09-25 12:31:42 PM
It all makes sense now! Obviously an official was paid off to ensure the Seahawks covered the spread, and the most cunning, elaborate, foolproof, well-thought-out plan was to wait until the end of the game when surely there would be a play that was close enough to call either way that would lead to a shocking cover by the Seahawks, making some shady character millions upon millions of dollars. It's almost TOO easy to see!
 
2012-09-25 12:31:54 PM
I call bullshiat. No way the book would leave themselves that exposed. I'm sure they laid a lot of it off, but still
 
2012-09-25 12:37:46 PM
Which bookie caused those 8 sacks?
 
2012-09-25 12:39:34 PM

StRalphTheLiar: Surely Las Vegas took in more than $500,000 in total bets, right?


the 500k was just at Mandalay Bay.
 
2012-09-25 12:43:23 PM

HaywoodJablonski: I call bullshiat. No way the book would leave themselves that exposed. I'm sure they laid a lot of it off, but still


They would have lost 342,500 on the game. That's a bad night at the sports book or a bad hand of baccarrat. The casino wins $1.2 billion per year. I doubt they were even upset about the prospect of a .03% dip in profits.
 
2012-09-25 12:47:05 PM

scandalrag: HaywoodJablonski: I call bullshiat. No way the book would leave themselves that exposed. I'm sure they laid a lot of it off, but still

They would have lost 342,500 on the game. That's a bad night at the sports book or a bad hand of baccarrat. The casino wins $1.2 billion per year. I doubt they were even upset about the prospect of a .03% dip in profits.


Yeah, the potential fallout from getting caught rigging this seems worse than losing 6 figures. Although I could see some kind of smaller mom and pop operation trying to rig this. Offer some kind of really lucrative odds, pay the refs off, pocket 500k and think they took in big money. Then a week later the FBI kicks their door in because they were morons at covering it up.
 
2012-09-25 12:51:17 PM

StRalphTheLiar: Surely Las Vegas took in more than $500,000 in total bets, right?


espn is reporting $150-250M in bets shifted by the call.

of course there's always been the concern that so would pay off a replacement official. as shiatty as they have been no one would suspect bribery, just incompetence. you have officials who know in a few weeks they will be back to being the assistant manager at home depot, taking an extra 100K to throw a game might seem really tempting.

1) pay official $50-100K to influence a game.
2) spread $2-3M in bets (money line to increase the payout?) across 15-20 casinos
3) profit.
 
2012-09-25 12:54:45 PM
the sportsbook took in about $500,000 in total bets, with about 85 percent of the money on the Packers

It's my understanding that the Vegas books want (and balance the line to ensure) dollar-for-dollar matches of money on each side of the bet. The losers' money pays off the winners' money, and the sports book has no major exposure and just lives off the vig.

If they had 85% of the money on the Packers, they had $175,000 in uncovered bets. That's bad bookmaking.
 
2012-09-25 12:55:32 PM

ha-ha-guy: scandalrag: HaywoodJablonski: I call bullshiat. No way the book would leave themselves that exposed. I'm sure they laid a lot of it off, but still

They would have lost 342,500 on the game. That's a bad night at the sports book or a bad hand of baccarrat. The casino wins $1.2 billion per year. I doubt they were even upset about the prospect of a .03% dip in profits.

Yeah, the potential fallout from getting caught rigging this seems worse than losing 6 figures. Although I could see some kind of smaller mom and pop operation trying to rig this. Offer some kind of really lucrative odds, pay the refs off, pocket 500k and think they took in big money. Then a week later the FBI kicks their door in because they were morons at covering it up.


the casinos aren't the ones that are going to rig the games. they're happy making their vig. the concern is gamblers paying the officials.
 
2012-09-25 12:56:50 PM

beta_plus: I can understand the NFL wanting to switch over to 401ks


Is that what this is about? Defined contribution vs. defined benefit? Geez. I'm with the NFL on this one. DBs are not for the private sector anymore.
 
2012-09-25 01:06:40 PM

rotsky: beta_plus: I can understand the NFL wanting to switch over to 401ks

Is that what this is about? Defined contribution vs. defined benefit? Geez. I'm with the NFL on this one. DBs are not for the private sector anymore.


Partly. The refs are also demanding raises. Maybe the refs are overpaid, but looking at the last few weeks I'm beginning to think the owners don't realize how hard it is to get good refs. If I was the NFL, I would give them everything except let them continue with pensions.

/not to mention why does a ref need a pension? I'm pretty sure the players don't get them
 
2012-09-25 01:07:28 PM
I'm not buying conspiracy for a second. Gerry Austin (former long-time NFL ref) made a salient point about the bad call, and one I haven't seen anywhere else: the back judge, who usually is the one who makes the call on these kinds of plays, was out of position. As in several yards away from the play when the ball came down. Now of course no ref is ever going to be in the right position for every call--but this play took ages to develop, and the pass was in the air for a long time. In the replay you can see the back judge slowly jogging towards the pileup like he's crossing the street. If he'd run towards that corner of the end zone he would have seen the play closeup. As it was he was trying to make the call from about ten yards or so away--of course he was going to be unsighted. He didn't get to see who had the ball until the players were on the ground, and by that time Tate and Jennings both had hands on the ball. As Austin noted, ties go to the passing team. Problem was, because he was out of position the back judge never saw that Jennings had possession first, which means that the call should have gone to Jennings.

Ironically the back judge almost got the call right. You could see him start to wave his hands over his head. My guess he was meaning to make the signal for change of possession (opposing team first down) after that--but you don't do that when the change of possession occurs in the end zone, you either signal touchback or touchdown as the case may be. But then he saw the other ref signal touchdown and he changed his mind. I figure he thought "well it looked like an interception to me but I didn't get a good look at the play so I'm going to defer to the other ref." Gerry Austin was saying, he SHOULD have had a good look at the play.
 
2012-09-25 01:09:22 PM

Uncle Pooky: StRalphTheLiar: Surely Las Vegas took in more than $500,000 in total bets, right?

the 500k was just at Mandalay Bay.


Yeah, reading fail on my part. For some reason I thought that was the number for all the casinos.
 
2012-09-25 01:11:11 PM

rotsky: beta_plus: I can understand the NFL wanting to switch over to 401ks

Is that what this is about? Defined contribution vs. defined benefit? Geez. I'm with the NFL on this one. DBs are not for the private sector anymore.


The refs have apparently agreed to phase them out for newer refs. Just not the ones already expecting/worked into a pension. The other real sticking point is that Comish wants a decent number of full time backups so refs can be demoted to not reffing at his leisure. Refs want more protection from Comish's whims and a neutral arbiter. (which proves to me they ARE smarter than be players)
 
2012-09-25 01:12:33 PM
The referees are so bad, and the calls SO arbitrary that you could honestly do this and it wouldn't be obvious as more than incompetence.
 
2012-09-25 01:15:20 PM
I'm going with the ref had Russell Wilson on his fantasy team
 
2012-09-25 01:15:41 PM

beta_plus: rotsky: beta_plus: I can understand the NFL wanting to switch over to 401ks

Is that what this is about? Defined contribution vs. defined benefit? Geez. I'm with the NFL on this one. DBs are not for the private sector anymore.

Partly. The refs are also demanding raises. Maybe the refs are overpaid, but looking at the last few weeks I'm beginning to think the owners don't realize how hard it is to get good refs. If I was the NFL, I would give them everything except let them continue with pensions.

/not to mention why does a ref need a pension? I'm pretty sure the players don't get them


the players do get them. the nfl is just being dickish douchecanoes because that's what they do. the nfl is running a multibillion dollar industry and are locking out officials over an amount that's essentially a rounding error. fark the nfl. they should just pay them.
 
2012-09-25 01:18:42 PM
I heard on the radio that one of the online sports betting sites isn't taking your money if you bet on the Packers. Shockingly classy.
 
2012-09-25 01:22:25 PM
that doesn't sound right. 85%. the whole point of the spread is to get a 50/50 balance, and make the money on the juice. I guess it's possible but if the packers covered they would have lost their ass. It doesnt make sense.
 
2012-09-25 01:24:14 PM

Orgasmatron138: I heard on the radio that one of the online sports betting sites isn't taking your money if you bet on the Packers. Shockingly classy.


I'm just waiting to hear the news of Goodell or one of said refs being shot by a mobster at this point.
 
2012-09-25 01:27:31 PM
www.howtofixasoccergame.com

Every sports fan should read this book. It will make you very cynical about all major sports.

I don't think Vegas would take the risk of bribing a ref. But what about the Chinese or Russian mafia? What were the odds of the Seahawks winning the game outright? Was it the same offical who made the horrible pass interference call a couple of minutes earlier who signalled a touchdown on the last play?

I'm not implying anything, though, I'm just asking questions. :)
 
2012-09-25 01:30:34 PM

Orgasmatron138: I heard on the radio that one of the online sports betting sites isn't taking your money if you bet on the Packers. Shockingly classy.


cdn.fd.uproxx.com

Also, incredibly stupid.
 
2012-09-25 01:30:45 PM

Brother_Mouzone: that doesn't sound right. 85%. the whole point of the spread is to get a 50/50 balance, and make the money on the juice. I guess it's possible but if the packers covered they would have lost their ass. It doesnt make sense.


Could have been tons of late money, otherwise you are right.
 
2012-09-25 01:31:12 PM

A Fark Handle: ha-ha-guy: scandalrag: HaywoodJablonski: I call bullshiat. No way the book would leave themselves that exposed. I'm sure they laid a lot of it off, but still

They would have lost 342,500 on the game. That's a bad night at the sports book or a bad hand of baccarrat. The casino wins $1.2 billion per year. I doubt they were even upset about the prospect of a .03% dip in profits.

Yeah, the potential fallout from getting caught rigging this seems worse than losing 6 figures. Although I could see some kind of smaller mom and pop operation trying to rig this. Offer some kind of really lucrative odds, pay the refs off, pocket 500k and think they took in big money. Then a week later the FBI kicks their door in because they were morons at covering it up.

the casinos aren't the ones that are going to rig the games. they're happy making their vig. the concern is gamblers paying the officials.


Or officials themselves partaking of the gambling

/more likely IMO. But it would be more of a wash then, as each official wouldn't be telling the others he was betting, and therefore couldn't adequately influence a game in a lucrative direction.
 
2012-09-25 01:36:16 PM

FriarReb98: Orgasmatron138: I heard on the radio that one of the online sports betting sites isn't taking your money if you bet on the Packers. Shockingly classy.

I'm just waiting to hear the news of Goodell or one of said refs being shot by a mobster at this point.


no reason to shot either unless the refs were being paid to make green bay cover and they farked up. usually the mob doesn't care who wins, they are just looking for their vig. now if they were paying for a result...
 
2012-09-25 01:36:28 PM

Deneb81: rotsky: beta_plus: I can understand the NFL wanting to switch over to 401ks

Is that what this is about? Defined contribution vs. defined benefit? Geez. I'm with the NFL on this one. DBs are not for the private sector anymore.

The refs have apparently agreed to phase them out for newer refs. Just not the ones already expecting/worked into a pension. The other real sticking point is that Comish wants a decent number of full time backups so refs can be demoted to not reffing at his leisure. Refs want more protection from Comish's whims and a neutral arbiter. (which proves to me they ARE smarter than be players)


Yeah, they are expanding the roster of refs by 21 as well. So the pay structure would dictate every ref taking a paycut even if the league followed through on its increased pool-size. Meanwhile, they're saying, *right after everyone lost their farking shirt in '09* "hey, guys, can you eat that risk for us? kthxbye"

For the league, the debate amounts to less than one half of one percent of revenue. Who deserves that money more? The guy who had enough money to buy a team, or the guy who took the time to learn roughly 400 pages of rules inside out, and has spent over 100 hours on the field putting that research into practice under the scrutiny of millions of people?
 
2012-09-25 01:38:50 PM

BeesNuts: Who deserves that money more? The guy who had enough money to buy a team, or the guy who took the time to learn roughly 400 pages of rules inside out, and has spent over 100 hours on the field putting that research into practice under the scrutiny of millions of people?


the guy that bought the team! this is america. the rich are always right. those refs should just be happy to have a job. amiright?
 
2012-09-25 01:40:58 PM

A Fark Handle: StRalphTheLiar: Surely Las Vegas took in more than $500,000 in total bets, right?

espn is reporting $150-250M in bets shifted by the call.

of course there's always been the concern that so would pay off a replacement official. as shiatty as they have been no one would suspect bribery, just incompetence. you have officials who know in a few weeks they will be back to being the assistant manager at home depot, taking an extra 100K to throw a game might seem really tempting.

1) pay official $50-100K to influence a game.
2) spread $2-3M in bets (money line to increase the payout?) across 15-20 casinos
3) profit.


Ocean's 14 - coming in Summer 2014.
 
2012-09-25 01:41:16 PM

Brother_Mouzone: that doesn't sound right. 85%. the whole point of the spread is to get a 50/50 balance, and make the money on the juice. I guess it's possible but if the packers covered they would have lost their ass. It doesnt make sense.



I'm not getting it either.  Don't casinos just adjust odds/lines based on how people bet.  So its basically Sehawks bets 50/50 against Packers bets.  Or close enough.  Then they just take a percentage of all bets to make *their* money.
 
2012-09-25 01:46:49 PM
This is what sucks about most sports. The betting. I swear there is betting on high school games nationwide now. If ESPN covers the games, someone is betting on them.
 
2012-09-25 01:54:32 PM
There's too much money in professional sports for them all not to be crooked.
 
2012-09-25 01:56:27 PM
And the line dropped a point in Seattle's favor. Seattle was the right side, it just ended up happening weirdly because - before the Packers got farked on that last play - the refs were busy screwing the Seahawks up and down the field.
 
2012-09-25 02:00:52 PM
cdn2.maxim.com

Green Bay, be the boog. Be. The. Boog.
 
2012-09-25 02:22:11 PM
Ha.

I was saying in the thread that had the Packers not takent he field for the PAT, Vegas (read: the sportsbooks) would claim the game wasn't played by rule and no payouts would occur. The NFL did not want to go down that clusterfark so I think that was a factor in why the players were told to get their asses on the field.
 
2012-09-25 02:23:21 PM

Brokenseas: What were the odds of the Seahawks winning the game outright?


1.55 to 1, at least for me at 5:08pm Pacific yesterday.

clayparrot.smugmug.com
 
2012-09-25 02:34:06 PM
It is not so far fetched.


200 million dollars in legal bets changed hands last night when the replacement referees seemed to bend time and space to make multiple mistakes in officiating the last play of the game. These refs KNOW their gig is temporary. They would be the most corruptible of sports officials in sports history. The NFL today admitted that the call was blown but chose to do nothing about it. I get that they really cant after the fact, but the attitude of "our organization is right and stands by the officials no matter what" smacks of RICO. Yet no one is even THINKING about calling for a legal probe into this. I am not saying that they DID fix it, I am just saying it smells like a duck.
 
2012-09-25 03:23:09 PM
They moved the late games to 4:25 so people who lose big on the 1:00 games have time to place bets to make it up, but no, the NFL has no ties to gambling.
 
2012-09-25 03:28:22 PM
In all honesty, if you were a replacement ref why wouldn't you take a big payoff to throw the game one direction or the other?

You know that the lockout will almost certainly be settled eventually. You know that your involvement in this fiasco means that there's no chance you'll ever get another job reffing a football game above the peewee level. Given the amount of money at stake, I'm sure there are mobsters and shady bookies who would pay six figures to shift a game a few points.

The only argument I can see against it is that these refs are so bad that they couldn't effectively throw a game.
 
2012-09-25 03:32:55 PM
Wait till the casinos stop taking bets on the NFL. Then you'll see this lockout end.
 
2012-09-25 03:34:28 PM

A Fark Handle: beta_plus: rotsky: beta_plus: I can understand the NFL wanting to switch over to 401ks

Is that what this is about? Defined contribution vs. defined benefit? Geez. I'm with the NFL on this one. DBs are not for the private sector anymore.

Partly. The refs are also demanding raises. Maybe the refs are overpaid, but looking at the last few weeks I'm beginning to think the owners don't realize how hard it is to get good refs. If I was the NFL, I would give them everything except let them continue with pensions.

/not to mention why does a ref need a pension? I'm pretty sure the players don't get them

the players do get them. the nfl is just being dickish douchecanoes because that's what they do. the nfl is running a multibillion dollar industry and are locking out officials over an amount that's essentially a rounding error. fark the nfl. they should just pay them.


I can understand giving pensions to the guys in their 60s right now in bad shape, but today's players should be expected to get 401K style plans too. Employers cannot be expected to be on the hook forever.
 
2012-09-25 03:34:37 PM

Triumph: They moved the late games to 4:25 so people who lose big on the 1:00 games have time to place bets to make it up, but no, the NFL has no ties to gambling.


I thought the 4:25 starts (which are only on the doubleheader network) were to allow said network to show more completed early games?
 
2012-09-25 03:39:30 PM

UNAUTHORIZED FINGER: Wait till the casinos stop taking bets on the NFL. Then you'll see this lockout end.


this
 
2012-09-25 03:43:41 PM

Triumph: They moved the late games to 4:25 so people who lose big on the 1:00 games have time to place bets to make it up, but no, the NFL has no ties to gambling.


wjmorris3: Triumph: They moved the late games to 4:25 so people who lose big on the 1:00 games have time to place bets to make it up, but no, the NFL has no ties to gambling.

I thought the 4:25 starts (which are only on the doubleheader network) were to allow said network to show more completed early games?



yeah, it is a convenient conspiracy theory but the reason is that early games were running long and due to league broadcast rules, the last few years we had games in OT getting switched to, you know, 14:11 of the first quarter elsewhere. which sucked.

this past weekend was awesome as with the later start times, i got to see two games end whereas just a year ago, we would have switched the new game. i'd rather see the excisting finish to a game than the start of antoher.
 
2012-09-25 03:47:31 PM

UNAUTHORIZED FINGER: Wait till the casinos stop taking bets on the NFL. Then you'll see this lockout end.


Wait until suckers realize The Fix could be in for any individual game and quit betting 'cuz they don't know which way The Fix is set.

Then Congress gets involved.

Actually, I have odds that a Senate committee starts looking into this by Thursday afternoon, unless the deal with the refs is done.
 
2012-09-25 04:00:13 PM

rickythepenguin: this past weekend was awesome as with the later start times, i got to see two games end whereas just a year ago, we would have switched the new game. i'd rather see the excisting finish to a game than the start of antoher.


There've been a couple of games in the last couple of weeks where they didn't even bother switching over when they should have. Last week it was a game which I cared so much about that I don't remember who was playing, which they stayed on until it was done rather than start the Jets-Steelers game in the Boston television market, even though it's a divisional rival, which 99% of the time means they're leaving the other game.

Maybe the longer time will help bring down the refs. Sponsors start having to pay extra during games that go too long, and suddenly they decide to pull out, thus starting the money trail towards no more lockout.
 
2012-09-25 04:01:52 PM

rickythepenguin: yeah, it is a convenient conspiracy theory but the reason is that early games were running long and due to league broadcast rules, the last few years we had games in OT getting switched to, you know, 14:11 of the first quarter elsewhere. which sucked.

this past weekend was awesome as with the later start times, i got to see two games end whereas just a year ago, we would have switched the new game. i'd rather see the excisting finish to a game than the start of antoher.


You know - the stated reasons and unstated reasons don't have to contradict each other.
 
Displayed 50 of 64 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report