OT: Jeopardy hates the Patriots Part 2

[BradfordPatsFan]

I missed Part 1, fill me in.

I don't recall the exact wording but the terms "cheat" and "spygate" were thrown around and the answer (or question) was Who are the New England Patriots.

 

[Clonamery]

What is all the sound a fury over this.

He is a great head coach. But indignation over calling BB a sore loser at the end of the SB is insane.

He was a sore loser at the end of the game and to pretend otherwise isn't just homerism it is utter blindness.

I'm blind then, utterly.....I've been aiming for homer for some time but I've been unequal to the task. Zooming right "utter blindness" is really cool and I feel honored.

Then again your "branding" is quite puzzling. I want a coach that is not happy with losing. Was he a sore loser? Not in my interpretation, and I've been one on many an occasion.

 

[jmt57]

For those that do feel this question and answer were out of line for being based more on opinion than fact, you can let the producers of the show know how you feel here:

This is JEOPARDY!

 

[TheGodInAGreyHoodie]

For those that do feel this question and answer were out of line for being based more on opinion than fact, you can let the producers of the show know how you feel here:

This is JEOPARDY!

Oh Great! Lets all fill out the form so next week Florio can have a posting on how Patriot fans are cry babies for sending complaints to the game show.

 

[N.Eman]

I wanted to blow up my tv

 

[ScottieC]

Bill hates to loose, hates it, Despises it, Can't stand it and does not deal with it well at all.

Anyone who wants anything less/more from Belichick or their Coach is either nuts or a member of the media.

 

[Leave No Doubt]

To be a "good loser" must take not only practice but a certain tolerance for being in that situation. BB doesn't fall into either category; thank you BB,thank you! :yeeha:

 

[FinNasty23]

YouTube - Jeopardy Sore Loser

 

[363839]

For Christ's sake, there was one freaking second left on the clock.
The game was freaking OVER. But no. Let's enjoy the look on BB's face a little longer as he seethes with defeat.
So with one second left on the clock BB starts removing his headphones and starts walking toward Coughlin to congratulate him.
No No Bill we gotta get this last second off the clock.
So stew baby stew.
BB wouldn't have it.
I don't blame him.

 

[JtudsJetsFan]

On a semi-related note, ABC briefly had a game show called Duel, hosted by noted JEST fan Mike Greenberg. The basic premise when it aired was, "Win five consecutive games, win $500,000."

I would have loved to be on the show, just so I could say this: "Mike, you're a fan of the New York Jets, right? . . . What do you know about winning f known they did it this yearive gaemes in a rowv?" [/Q now, he'd haUOTE]

If you asked him that know he'd know they did it this season

 

[upstater1]

For Christ's sake, there was one freaking second left on the clock.
The game was freaking OVER. But no. Let's enjoy the look on BB's face a little longer as he seethes with defeat.
So with one second left on the clock BB starts removing his headphones and starts walking toward Coughlin to congratulate him.
No No Bill we gotta get this last second off the clock.
So stew baby stew.
BB wouldn't have it.
I don't blame him.

Actually the clock ran down to zero and the ref blew the whistle GAME OVER.

It wasn't until Bill was already talking to Coughlin that a referee yanked on his sleeve.

Can you imagine if the ref blew the whistle, the clock read ZERO, and Belichick stayed on the sideline, refusing to shake Coughlin's hand, insisting there was a second still left, can you imagine the uproar if he had done that?

 

[upstater1]

Yes, but if there was time left on the clock (and there was plenty of discussion as to whether the clock hit zero and time was later added or the clock was at 1 - see post-Super Bowlk threads here), it is bad sportsmanship to call the game before it's over and deny the winning team the kneel down.

But it is only bad sportsmanship if he intended to do that. If Hoodie knows Belichick embellished at his press conference when he said he was following the crowd and thought it was over, he is right. If Belichick is telling the truth, Hoodie is wrong because you cannot unintentionally be a sore loser based on a mistaken understanding of the situation.

It is a debate with no end and not really worth rehashing. I tend to agree with Hoodie but cut Belichick some slack as no coach has ever dealt with the highs and lows that he had to deal with that season, including the constant media pressure directed at pursuit of an undefeated season, Spygate, relentless media attacking him and all his accomplishments, allegations, etc., so to end the season without a measure of redemption had to be particularly painful.

Coughlin was already closer to the Patriots' sideline than Belichick was to the Giants' sideline.

So whose victory was Belichick stepping on if Coughlin ran out to the middle of the field to greet BB?

 

[MassPats38]

Coughlin was already closer to the Patriots' sideline than Belichick was to the Giants' sideline.

So whose victory was Belichick stepping on if Coughlin ran out to the middle of the field to greet BB?

I wasn't looking to resurrect the debate. I was responding to PAPatsjunkie's question and Hoodie's response and attempting to point out the sides of the debate.

As stated, the basic premise applies to checkers as well as football - the game ends when it ends. If there is even a second left and you say "it's over" and don't let the winning side finish, you are considered a sore loser. That is not a debatable point. If the winning side forfeits his her right to finish the game and calls the game early wishing not to finish as a kind gesture, they have invoked a mercy rule and let you slide, which would be the winning's sides prerogative. As such nobody can object to anything the losing side does as it is merely going with the flow.

Most people judge what happened from various television camera angles and draw their own conclusion. There is no non-debatable "fact" that answers the question as no fan has 360 degree vision on the situation. It is virtually impossible to synch everything that went on on the field in 2 or 3 seconds as would be required to judge what happened. Add in the fact (1) did Belichick ever do this previously in his multi-decade career, (2) he stated in his press conference "there was not much game left to play," and (most relevant to your response) (3) he never said he saw his friend Tom walking over to him, and you have a pretty fair argument in support of the "sore loser" theory.

The bottom line to my read on this is I don't care one way or the other. Nobody knows what went through Belichick's head (maybe he thought the clock read zero, maybe he didn't), and anybody claiming they are absolutely certain could find many seven figure salaries applying their unique powers of ESP or omniscience. The true answer hinges on what Belichick actually was thinking at the time, and nobody other than Belichick truly knows that answer. My response is even if he did violate protocol, after the media slammed him all year long, weak allegations were floated right before the game, and accusations questioned his entire legacy as a coach, I would excuse him for that 1 second even if he would be considered a sore loser. When most of the nation is dumping on you, does it really matter what those clowns think of you after what would be considered a minor social faux pas? I think not.

 

[NEGoldenAge]

For those that do feel this question and answer were out of line for being based more on opinion than fact, you can let the producers of the show know how you feel here:

This is JEOPARDY!

Thanks for the link. I gave feedback stating the the comment was unprofessional, inacurate and offensive, and that I'd no longer watch the program until the writer of the comment is terminated and a public apology and correction are issued. I urge everyone else to do the same.

 

[upstater1]

I wasn't looking to resurrect the debate. I was responding to PAPatsjunkie's question and Hoodie's response and attempting to point out the sides of the debate.

As stated, the basic premise applies to checkers as well as football - the game ends when it ends. If there is even a second left and you say "it's over" and don't let the winning side finish, you are considered a sore loser. That is not a debatable point. If the winning side forfeits his her right to finish the game and calls the game early wishing not to finish as a kind gesture, they have invoked a mercy rule and let you slide, which would be the winning's sides prerogative. As such nobody can object to anything the losing side does as it is merely going with the flow.

Most people judge what happened from various television camera angles and draw their own conclusion. There is no non-debatable "fact" that answers the question as no fan has 360 degree vision on the situation. It is virtually impossible to synch everything that went on on the field in 2 or 3 seconds as would be required to judge what happened. Add in the fact (1) did Belichick ever do this previously in his multi-decade career, (2) he stated in his press conference "there was not much game left to play," and (most relevant to your response) (3) he never said he saw his friend Tom walking over to him, and you have a pretty fair argument in support of the "sore loser" theory.

The bottom line to my read on this is I don't care one way or the other. Nobody knows what went through Belichick's head (maybe he thought the clock read zero, maybe he didn't), and anybody claiming they are absolutely certain could find many seven figure salaries applying their unique powers of ESP or omniscience. The true answer hinges on what Belichick actually was thinking at the time, and nobody other than Belichick truly knows that answer. My response is even if he did violate protocol, after the media slammed him all year long, weak allegations were floated right before the game, and accusations questioned his entire legacy as a coach, I would excuse him for that 1 second even if he would be considered a sore loser. When most of the nation is dumping on you, does it really matter what those clowns think of you after what would be considered a minor social faux pas? I think not.

I saw it once. I saw the time go off the clock. I saw the ref standing right next to Belichick call it. Clock said zero, BB started coming on the field. Coughlin was there to greet him.

The second was put on after they had already shaken hands.

 

[mike_usagisan]

If there is even a second left and you say "it's over" and don't let the winning side finish, you are considered a sore loser. That is not a debatable point.

That's crap. It's not debatable because you are 100% wrong.

If player A is kicking player B's butt at Monopoly and B says, "There's no way I can win - I concede to you," B isn't a sore loser for not playing long after the game is decided. If B then goes on to shake A's hand, congratulating him on the victory, B is considered a good sport.

It's the same in chess. When someone puts their king down conceding, they aren't a sore loser, they are acknowledging the prowess of the winner. Concession comes from the losing player, not the winner. If the winner asks for a concession, they are often the bad sport.

 

[T-ShirtDynasty]

Thanks for the link. I gave feedback stating the the comment was unprofessional, inacurate and offensive, and that I'd no longer watch the program until the writer of the comment is terminated and a public apology and correction are issued. I urge everyone else to do the same.

Some of us didn't even know Jeopardy was still on the air. :confused2::bye2:

That's crap. It's not debatable because you are 100% wrong.

If player A is kicking player B's butt at Monopoly and B says, "There's no way I can win - I concede to you," B isn't a sore loser for not playing long after the game is decided. If B then goes on to shake A's hand, congratulating him on the victory, B is considered a good sport.

It's the same in chess. When someone puts their king down conceding, they aren't a sore loser, they are acknowledging the prowess of the winner. Concession comes from the losing player, not the winner. If the winner asks for a concession, they are often the bad sport.

Excellent retort, even though moot point. The clock said 00:00 then a second was put back on the clock.

 

[FalconHeavy]

Thanks for the link. I gave feedback stating the the comment was unprofessional, inacurate and offensive, and that I'd no longer watch the program until the writer of the comment is terminated and a public apology and correction are issued. I urge everyone else to do the same.

I gave them an earful and told them that they lost one family viewership. Whats up with the 400 char limit ?? I wish I could have dished out even more

 

[mike_usagisan]

Excellent retort, even though moot point. The clock said 00:00 then a second was put back on the clock.

Agreed, but either way, I don't think being called a sore loser and throwing a hissy fit applies to BB in the Super Bowl. Either he thought the game was done, or if he didn't, he conceeded the second. Either way, the sore loser thing is being confused with a guy who doesn't like to lose - which is part of what I really like about him as a coach.

 

[MassPats38]

That's crap. It's not debatable because you are 100% wrong.

If player A is kicking player B's butt at Monopoly and B says, "There's no way I can win - I concede to you," B isn't a sore loser for not playing long after the game is decided. If B then goes on to shake A's hand, congratulating him on the victory, B is considered a good sport.

It's the same in chess. When someone puts their king down conceding, they aren't a sore loser, they are acknowledging the prowess of the winner. Concession comes from the losing player, not the winner. If the winner asks for a concession, they are often the bad sport.

In your Monopoly example, "I have lost, I concede" is the same as "I quit," and maybe you played in a different sandbox than I did as a kid but that actually is a perfect illustration of being a sore loser. Feel free to read the rules of that game if you are a little hazy. Maybe that is why you are so convinced you are right here. If the winning party says the game is over and does not want to play to the end, that is his or her right, not the loser's decision. Feel free to review some perspectives on that other than mine if you have any doubts on that example.

As for your chess example, that is an accepted rule in the game. If football has a rule for a losing team walking on the field after its last drive ends, feel free to look it up and provide that link. You can certainly forfeit the game when losing, but I suspect you will have a hard time claiming that is not being a sore loser if you have 22 players capable of finishing the game.

There is a difference between walking on the field when the clock is running down after a winning team's last kneel-down when the play clock is greater than the game clock (again, the winning team has chosen not to run another play) and the losing team unilaterally calling the game. That is the heart of this debate. Find an example of a losing team doing that without getting blasted, certainly in the NFL, and I will believe your "100% right" is not 100% ridiculous. I suspect I will be waiting a long time for a link to anything that resembles that answer.

As stated previously, unlike you apparently, I don't claim to take a real position in this debate, don't know the true answer and frankly I really don't care. I like Belichick, am glad he coaches the Patriots, and could care less what the media and rest of the NFL think of him. The reason I am giving you this long answer with lots of links is I suggest if you are going to call somebody 100% wrong on this board or a post "crap" you provide something other than your own opinion unsupported by any actual facts (things recorded, written in rules, etc.) or run the risk of looking 100% clueless in the face of actual facts and rules of the game. As the saying goes, "opinions are like a**holes - every has one," so try to add something in the way of a correct fact in support of yours if you want to challenge another opinion or post. You'll get taken a little more seriously.