Suggs acuses Goodell of Superbowl Blackout.

[MrNathanDrake]

This is why Belichick doesn't want most of his players to say anything, in general most football players aren't very bright.

I know we do things differently here in New England...


But I don't blame Suggs at all. I hate Roger Goodell. As do most others. Suggs is just one of the few who have the cojones to speak up about it.


$10 million salary. For what?! The Lingerie Football League referees he found last year?

Laughing on the Broncos sideline with Elway before their playoff game last year... That's bull**** and Suggs has a right to be mad about that. Like Suggs said (and many here have mentioned with the Jests) Goodell has his "favorites".

 

[PatsDeb]

People don't get bored during a Superbowl when there's a full half left to play. And ratings pretty much confirmed this.

Close games keep people glued. It's a known fact. Not sure why this is even a point of debate.

What Suggs is saying isn't even remotely close to crazy. They were on their way to dominating them and an outage buys time to plan an intervention.

They would have gotten bored if the Ravens would have continued scoring in that third quarter and put the 49ers away early.

Of course a "mysterious abnormality in the electrical system" is a much more plausible explanation though. Can't see why anyone would ever question it.

Really? Look, I hate Roger Goodell too and hope he retires tomorrow, but to claim that he can effect a power outage in New Orleans at exactly the right moment is a little tinfoil-hattish, no? I guess it's good he wasn't in office when the Patriots suffered a power outage in 1997 at the old Foxboro stadium during a playoff game with the Jaguars. I was at that game and it was mighty cold. I don't know if folks stopped watching, but people sure left their seats to try to warm up. I've also been to the Superdome and it is a dump, just like the old Fox. No surprise they could suffer an electrical overload during a big game. I think casual fans would switch the channel if the power outage went on too long, and I think Terrell Suggs and Ray Lewis have been watching too much TV.

 

[PatriotSeven]

Really? Look, I hate Roger Goodell too and hope he retires tomorrow, but to claim that he can effect a power outage in New Orleans at exactly the right moment is a little tinfoil-hattish, no? I guess it's good he wasn't in office when the Patriots suffered a power outage in 1997 at the old Foxboro stadium during a playoff game with the Jaguars. I was at that game and it was mighty cold. I don't know if folks stopped watching, but people sure left their seats to try to warm up. I've also been to the Superdome and it is a dump, just like the old Fox. No surprise they could suffer an electrical overload during a big game. I think casual fans would switch the channel if the power outage went on too long, and I think Terrell Suggs and Ray Lewis have been watching too much TV.

And why is that so ridiculous? How difficult is it to shut off a switch? Don't you think "mysterious abnormality" is in fact what sounds "tinfoil-hattish"?

No I don't think it's tinfoil-hattish at all. Just like the Candlestick park outtage was no accident either. The 49ers need a new stadium. Show the public. Two in one season huh!

Just like the fact millions of American bet on the Ravens to cover a 4 point spread, and they didn't at 31-29.

I don't believe in repeated coincidences. I don't believe in repeated statistical impossibilities. I don't believe in a tournament format that always gives out near perfect parity(doesn't exist, in any sport, and the one the NFL employees certainly isn't one). I just don't.

 

[DarrylStingley]

Something of this magnitude would require the involvement of lots of folks. As a result, word would leak out. It hasn't. Suggs is a blooming idiot. Ray Lewis kills people and is also a blooming idiot.

This theory is bunk.

And I don't like Goodell one little bit.

PS: Roger was talking to Elway? Wow, that's some big evidence. What a clown. Goodell talks to all of the owners and executives that he knows. Proves NOTHING.

 

[SB39]

This isn't an answer. If you believe games are fixed, why watch? I still haven't heard an answer. I have yet to hear someone who truly believes this give a good answer. If you believe this, you are wasting your time. Saying, "I try to put it out of my mind" is not an answer. Well, it's an answer, but what you're saying is: (1) I know it's fixed. (2) I am capable of self-delusion. (3) So, I pretend it's not fixed, and then I enjoy it.

I ask the conspiracy nutjobs this same question all the time - and they never answer.

5) Football is a multi-billion dollar industry, and there is no need to fix it. Of all the things that could destroy it, nothing would do so faster than a credible report that games are fixed. It would be the single most stupid thing to do in the history of sports.

+1. If It ever came out that the league itself was involved in some sort of scheme to rig games, it would destroy the NFL. Owners would lose BILLIONS. The risk/reward ratio simply does not even REMOTELY justify doing such a thing.

 

[PatsDeb]

And why is that so ridiculous? How difficult is it to shut off a switch? Don't you think "mysterious abnormality" is in fact what sounds "tinfoil-hattish"?

No I don't think it's tinfoil-hattish at all. Just like the Candlestick park outtage was no accident either. The 49ers need a new stadium. Show the public. Two in one season huh!

Just like the fact millions of American bet on the Ravens to cover a 4 point spread, and they didn't at 31-29.

I don't believe in repeated coincidences. I don't believe in repeated statistical impossibilities. I don't believe in a tournament format that always gives out near perfect parity(doesn't exist, in any sport, and the one the NFL employees certainly isn't one). I just don't.

Just out of curiosity, how much did you lose?

I guess we are going to have to agree to disagree. Sometimes the power goes out because the stadium is old and dumpy and in fact (surprise!) needs to be replaced.

 

[SB39]

Just as I predicted the sucky ass Chiefs would whoop Carolina, after the unfortunate suicide of Jevone Belcher. 1 penalty called against the Chiefs vs how many for the Panthers, and Chiefs win easily. Like a freaking script.

This is another thing that cracks me up about the conspiracy theorists. They see conspiracies in everyday occurrences. The 3-9 Panthers played the 2-10 Chiefs in KC. KC won 27-21. I don't consider that the Chiefs "win easily" and I hardly see any sort of grand conspiracy in an emotionally charged 2-10 team at home beating a 3-9 team.

 

[SB39]

The conspiracy theorists are idiots for several reasons:

1) The NFL would cease to exist as we know it if the league engaged in fixing games. Owners would lose BILLIONS. The OWNERS THEMSELVES would go ballistic if they even so much as suspected such a thing. They would be risking the entire league with virtually nothing to gain. As someone else in here already pointed out, the commercials are all already sold beforehand.

2) The alleged conspiracies are the most ridiculous, far-fetched things imaginable. Let's pretend the moronic belief that Goodell wanted the 49ers to catch up. What makes more sense? A couple well-timed holding and pass interference penalties? Or causing the power to go out in the Superdome? I mean, really people.... if the league ever wanted to do such a thing (which in itself is absurd) they could find 1,000 easy ways to go about it.

 

[SB39]

And why is that so ridiculous? How difficult is it to shut off a switch? Don't you think "mysterious abnormality" is in fact what sounds "tinfoil-hattish"?

How difficult do you think it is for the biggest event to take place in New Orleans in about 10 years, taking place in a 40 year old facility, to cause a power outage?

Just like the fact millions of American bet on the Ravens to cover a 4 point spread, and they didn't at 31-29.

Are you still talking about the Super Bowl here? I can't tell because, if so, you have no clue what you are talking about.

Biggest myth running: That Vegas cares who wins the games. If "millions of Americans" bet on the Ravens, then that means "millions of Americans" bet on the other team.

I don't believe in repeated coincidences. I don't believe in repeated statistical impossibilities. I don't believe in a tournament format that always gives out near perfect parity(doesn't exist, in any sport, and the one the NFL employees certainly isn't one). I just don't.

If you honestly believe it's fixed, why do you follow the sport? By the way, please show me one single statistical impossibility. You claim there are "repeated" ones; please just provide 1.

 

[PatriotSeven]

This is another thing that cracks me up about the conspiracy theorists. They see conspiracies in everyday occurrences. The 3-9 Panthers played the 2-10 Chiefs in KC. KC won 27-21. I don't consider that the Chiefs "win easily" and I hardly see any sort of grand conspiracy in an emotionally charged 2-10 team at home beating a 3-9 team.

While you conveniently overlook the fact the Chiefs only got called for 1 penalty the entire game despite being an undisciplined team prior to that game and after that game.

Chiefs penalties for the 2012 season: 2, 4, 6, 9, 8, 7, 5, 5, 6, 5, 7, 1, 5, 7, 9, 5

Just another coincidence.

 

[PatriotSeven]

How difficult do you think it is for the biggest event to take place in New Orleans in about 10 years, taking place in a 40 year old facility, to cause a power outage?
Are you still talking about the Super Bowl here? I can't tell because, if so, you have no clue what you are talking about.

Biggest myth running: That Vegas cares who wins the games. If "millions of Americans" bet on the Ravens, then that means "millions of Americans" bet on the other team.
If you honestly believe it's fixed, why do you follow the sport? By the way, please show me one single statistical impossibility. You claim there are "repeated" ones; please just provide 1.

2007-2012

- ALL 6 seeds won a Superbowl in a time span of 6 years. Read that twice.
- underdog seeds near 80% favorites!
- 2 #6 seeds and 1 #5 seed won Superbowls in a span of 7 years despite neither ever happening before! I believe one #5 seed showed up in a Superbowl in the early 90s, conveniently 2 years after it was first introduced. Then it never happened again until this time period where they started popping up like popcorn.
-Multiple appearances by #3 seeds, including a win, since 2004, including Peyton Manning's Colts, (the other being Panthers against us) which is also one of the hardest of the 4 seed to make the Superbowl statistically and previous to this only happened once since 1990.

Go look up the probabilities please.

And plenty of others. I did a 2 month statistical research on this. It's pretty freaking hilarious once you look at the numbers. It's just not realistic or statistically probable and the playoff format just isn't designed to produce such results.

On an infinite timeline, sure it can happen. But it happened in the first decade after the divisions got reshuffled. Somebody's impatient.

 

[SB39]

While you conveniently overlook the fact the Chiefs only got called for 1 penalty the entire game despite being an undisciplined team prior to that game and after that game.

Chiefs penalties for the 2012 season: 2, 4, 6, 9, 8, 7, 5, 5, 6, 5, 7, 1, 5, 7, 9, 5

Just another coincidence.

Prior to the game you are talking about, they had 1 game with 2 penalties, 1 game with 4 penalties and 3 games with 5 penalties. If the fact that they only got called for 1 penalty against the Panthers is your rock solid proof of a statistical impossibility, then you just don't know what the phrase "statistical impossibility" means.

 

[SB39]

2007-2012

- ALL 6 seeds won a Superbowl in a time span of 6 years. Read that twice.

How is that a statistical impossibility? The chances of that happening during any 6 year timespan is 1.5%. Which means the chances of that happening at some point in time since the new playoff format began is roughly 27%. So how is something which has a 27% chance of happening a "statistical impossibility"?

The sports world is chock full of interesting little facts like that. My favorite one is this: The Red Sox and the White Sox won back to back World Series in 1917 and 1918. Then neither team won for 84 years before winning back to back World Series again in 2004 and 2005. Is that a "statistical impossibility"? Because the odds of that happening are in the MILLIONS. Is MLB fixed to have the White Sox and Red Sox win back to back every 8 decades or so? Should we place bets on them winning in 2091 and 2092?

- underdog seeds near 80% favorites!

Once again, in English, please.

- 2 #6 seeds and 1 #5 seed won Superbowls in a span of 7 years despite neither ever happening before! I believe one #5 seed showed up in a Superbowl in the early 90s, conveniently 2 years after it was first introduced. Then it never happened again until this time period where they started popping up like popcorn.

My friend, no one doubts that there is parity in the NFL these days unlike anything we saw prior to the salary cap being instituted in the 90's. The league wants every team to have a fair chance. They don't want dynasties. They don't want 1 team keeping the same core of players for 10 years.

So yes, these days, the lower seeds perform far, far better than they did in the "good ole' days." You won't get any argument from me on that point and that's how the system is designed.

-Multiple appearances by #3 seeds, including a win, since 2004, including Peyton Manning's Colts, (the other being Panthers against us) which is also one of the hardest of the 4 seed to make the Superbowl statistically and previous to this only happened once since 1990.

Go look up the probabilities please.

My friend, if you're the one that is trying to make a case for something, then you're the one who has to look up the probabilities. But as I said above, no one contests the notion that the NFL is different today than it was in the 70's, 80's and early 90's.

And plenty of others. I did a 2 month statistical research on this. It's pretty freaking hilarious once you look at the numbers. It's just not realistic or statistically probable and the playoff format just isn't designed to produce such results.

I would love to see your statistical evidence, so please feel free to post them here. But if all you do is say "X, Y and Z happened - go look up the probabilities please" then that is intellectually bankrupt. It does not fall upon me to research a point you are trying to make.

 

[Jackson 2]

I know we do things differently here in New England...


But I don't blame Suggs at all. I hate Roger Goodell. As do most others. Suggs is just one of the few who have the cojones to speak up about it.


$10 million salary. For what?! The Lingerie Football League referees he found last year?

Laughing on the Broncos sideline with Elway before their playoff game last year... That's bull**** and Suggs has a right to be mad about that. Like Suggs said (and many here have mentioned with the Jests) Goodell has his "favorites".

Many, many fans outside of NE believe that Bob a Kraft is one of those favorites.

 

[PatsFaninAZ]

If you honestly believe it's fixed, why do you follow the sport? By the way, please show me one single statistical impossibility. You claim there are "repeated" ones; please just provide 1.

No, no, he did "two months" of statistical "research." Clearly it's true.

This is all just so obvious. Can't you see how much it matters which seed number wins? The NFL would basically be reduced to rubble if they didn't let a 5 seed win every once in a while. Do you want the NFL to turn into the national lacrosse league? If the sport we love is to continue to make money, let Roger convince the refs to call the games so that a five seed makes the Super Bowl. The future of the nation depends on it.

 

[PatriotSeven]

How is that a statistical impossibility? The chances of that happening during any 6 year timespan is 1.5%. Which means the chances of that happening at some point in time since the new playoff format began is roughly 27%. So how is something which has a 27% chance of happening a "statistical impossibility"?

The sports world is chock full of interesting little facts like that. My favorite one is this: The Red Sox and the White Sox won back to back World Series in 1917 and 1918. Then neither team won for 84 years before winning back to back World Series again in 2004 and 2005. Is that a "statistical impossibility"? Because the odds of that happening are in the MILLIONS. Is MLB fixed to have the White Sox and Red Sox win back to back every 8 decades or so?
Once again, in English, please.
My friend, no one doubts that there is parity in the NFL these days unlike anything we saw prior to the salary cap being instituted in the 90's. The league wants every team to have a fair chance. They don't want dynasties. They don't want 1 team keeping the same core of players for 10 years.

So yes, these days, the lower seeds perform far, far better than they did in the "good ole' days." You won't get any argument from me on that point and that's hwo the system is designed.
My friend, if you're the one that is trying to make a case for something, then you're the one who has to look up the probabilities. But as I said above, no one contests the notion that the NFL is different today than it was in the 70's, 80's and early 90's.
I would love to see your statistical evidence, so please feel free to post them here. But if all you do is say "X, Y and Z happened - go look up the probabilities please" then that is intellectually bankrupt. It does not fall upon me to research a point you are trying to make.

1.5%! And it just so happens immediately within the first decade of the new division format being introduced. Factor that in as well. And also factor everything else into it as well. Because ALL of those other things happened within the same time span, including another #1 vs #1 match up in the middle of all this craziness. How lovely.


I have 4 spreadsheet documents but here's a recap of the most obvious difference, and a fact that Roger Goodell loves to talk about...the time when the NFL reached its amazing parity.

Even more impressive is the bad beats the top seeds repeatedly takes in big games, which as I said is roughly an 80% favorite to LOSE. As opposed to history and common sense which aligned more with what the system is supposed to produce.

And that's not even counting 2013, where once again, the top seed lost.

Hey I'm not trying to convince anyone of anything. I needed to do it for myself. That's all that matters. Believe what you want to believe and enjoy the game.

PS: That 1.5%, as if it wasn't enough to give you a red flag, is also only if you give each seed exact parity with each other. Meaning there is never any difference in the chance of winning a Superbowl between a top seed and a lower seed. And even if you assume that all seeds are equal in terms of team strength, the numbers still are not equal because the #1 and #2 seed have a bye week which gives them a serious advantage in terms of probabilities. Let alone homefield advantage. It's actually quite a bit lower than 1.5%. More in the 0.0...% range for this pattern to emerge. And for it to emerge so suddently in a time span of less than 15 years, drops that probability to as I said -nearly - impossible. At the very least, extremely unlikely. Yet the extremely unlikely happens so frequent in the NFL. As if with inexplicable regularity.

 

[YearbookCurfew]

 

[Froob]

"better to remain silent and be thought a fool than to speak and remove all doubt."

 

[Uncle Rico]

Sounds like Suggs was interviewed on ESPN tonight and of course the interviewer asked about Brady (Lord knows what he had to do with this). Of course Thuggs took the bait.

“I don’t like him. He don’t like me. I don’t like his hair. I don’t know. I don’t like his smug attitude. But then again he probably doesn’t like my a------ attitude. ... Everybody just seems to worship the guy, not me though.”

Terrell, don't be a douche. Oops, too late.

 

[LivinLovin&Breathin_Brady]

Suggs is right about the blackout. But Goodell didn't want the Ravens to lose. He wanted that murderer to retire with a ring, because it made for a great redemption story in the end. It also sends a message about the thug filled,thugs can change after winning a ring, that was until Hernandez allegedly ruined it. That's why the NFL is much more harsh on him than they were on old Ray Ray, Vick and hate to say it but, Stallworth.

Goodell turned the lights out during the SB. He knew nerves was killing Kaepernick more than those old slow sorry Ravens. After two hours of chilling out, Kaepernick return to normal. When Goodell realized the 49ers was going to pull off the victory, Goodell made a call to the refs.
Suggs is only bitter because most people's perception on the SB is, the 49ers were robbed by the refs. The accusation angers Suggs, in fact it makes him so angry that he's stupid enough to reveal the truth behind his playoff victories.