Belichick8384
Third String But Playing on Special Teams
- Joined
- Feb 15, 2013
- Messages
- 673
- Reaction score
- 444
I want to explore the narritive of "the Rams are only good because the NFL has been helping them so they can get a fanbase in LA to pay for the new stadium." That was an awful lot for me to type. Seems like such a complex idea, the NFL standing behind a team and rigging games in plain sight for them so they can get a fanbase going in their new home. Is it really possible? Or more importantly, what is the point to watching if it really is rigged?
But is it really that odd that the Rams made it to the Super Bowl after moving? Do teams need game-time success to garner a fanbase?
On the surface, we can say its odd that in 4 years after moving to Baltimore the former Browns - who had never been to the Super Bowl - brought Baltimore its first Lombardi trophy in decades. But if that were true, wouldn't that mean the league was rigged all the way back in the mid 90s?
Well, it does seem odd that this very Rams team won a Super Bowl soon after moving from LA 2 decades ago, no? After all, it only took them about 4 years to get on the "greatest show on turf" status and steamroll their way right to a Super Bowl behind a grocery bagger. So maybe the league was rigged even then. Right?
But what about the Houston Oilers who moved in the mid 90s, began building a fanbase in Tennessee of all places, and made it to a Super Bowl? They didn't win, and worst of all they are nary often in the playoffs. But yet Tennessee loves their Titans. Some time before this, the St Louis Cardinals moved to Arizona. They had to build a fanbase way out there. They weren't even in the playoffs for a decade and it took 2 for them to make it to the Super Bowl only to lose. They still got a fanbase, and a nice new stadium, all without sudden success.
I feel like most of the people complaining about rigging and the league purposefully making teams lose games is just sour grapes from a sad sack of sore losers who take a simple game too seriously. Billion dollar corporation or not, they make their money from the way the game plays out not from the way they make games turn out. If the NFL honestly had that much power, the Patriots wouldn't have been in 4 of the last 5 super bowls. They'd have a different city win a title every year to make everything "fair and fun for all" to keep everyone interested.
Everyone wants "their team" to win the big game, some people seem to want it so badly they will cry "foul" or "fix" in public (or nowadays in social media) of all places, ultimately embarrassing themselves. But we love it, don't we? We love the narratives. We love the "Us against the world" thing. We love the whole "the league is against us because we're too good" schpeel. It makes it more entertaining. And that's what sports is, isn't it? Its entertainment. And nothing is more entertaining than an unpredictable outcome. Plus, don't you think a planned outcome would leak at some point, especially in this day-in-age of social media and network hacking? All the stuff wikileaks can get into, but they can't seem to get past a sport league's network security?
Yeah.... I'm not buying it.
Try this idea on for size........................................................................................................
Moving was a smart move and paid off for the organisation.
But is it really that odd that the Rams made it to the Super Bowl after moving? Do teams need game-time success to garner a fanbase?
On the surface, we can say its odd that in 4 years after moving to Baltimore the former Browns - who had never been to the Super Bowl - brought Baltimore its first Lombardi trophy in decades. But if that were true, wouldn't that mean the league was rigged all the way back in the mid 90s?
Well, it does seem odd that this very Rams team won a Super Bowl soon after moving from LA 2 decades ago, no? After all, it only took them about 4 years to get on the "greatest show on turf" status and steamroll their way right to a Super Bowl behind a grocery bagger. So maybe the league was rigged even then. Right?
But what about the Houston Oilers who moved in the mid 90s, began building a fanbase in Tennessee of all places, and made it to a Super Bowl? They didn't win, and worst of all they are nary often in the playoffs. But yet Tennessee loves their Titans. Some time before this, the St Louis Cardinals moved to Arizona. They had to build a fanbase way out there. They weren't even in the playoffs for a decade and it took 2 for them to make it to the Super Bowl only to lose. They still got a fanbase, and a nice new stadium, all without sudden success.
I feel like most of the people complaining about rigging and the league purposefully making teams lose games is just sour grapes from a sad sack of sore losers who take a simple game too seriously. Billion dollar corporation or not, they make their money from the way the game plays out not from the way they make games turn out. If the NFL honestly had that much power, the Patriots wouldn't have been in 4 of the last 5 super bowls. They'd have a different city win a title every year to make everything "fair and fun for all" to keep everyone interested.
Everyone wants "their team" to win the big game, some people seem to want it so badly they will cry "foul" or "fix" in public (or nowadays in social media) of all places, ultimately embarrassing themselves. But we love it, don't we? We love the narratives. We love the "Us against the world" thing. We love the whole "the league is against us because we're too good" schpeel. It makes it more entertaining. And that's what sports is, isn't it? Its entertainment. And nothing is more entertaining than an unpredictable outcome. Plus, don't you think a planned outcome would leak at some point, especially in this day-in-age of social media and network hacking? All the stuff wikileaks can get into, but they can't seem to get past a sport league's network security?
Yeah.... I'm not buying it.
Try this idea on for size........................................................................................................
Moving was a smart move and paid off for the organisation.