December 24, 2007

Eli will probably have given the Patriots a 14-0 lead before Brady even takes the field.

posted by PublicUrinal at 01:11 PM on December 24, 2007

perhaps we should put an asterisk * by their name in the record books after being caught cheating. who knows how long that went on before they got caught or if its still going on for that matter. once a cheat always a cheat.

posted by butterfingers at 05:02 PM on December 24, 2007

"perhaps we should put an asterisk * by their name in the record books after being caught cheating. who knows how long that went on before they got caught or if its still going on for that matter. once a cheat always a cheat. posted by butterfingers at 5:02 PM CST on December 24" Great point. But my opinion is that the Patriots would have to be nuts to try anything that come even close to the line separating cheating from doing something that is legal. I am sure that the NFL is watching them closely and probaly have people at games to perform solely that purpose. I am at the point where I have to give the Patriots their due, they are a dominant team. Are they the most dominant in history? Probaly not, but they are very good and seem to be able to make the right adjustments at halftime of tough games. To the person that started this thread. I feel that the Patriots let up on the Dolphins. Brady seemed to have been going for the record for Moss (I don' think he was going for his own record because if he was, he would have found other receivers that were surely open). I expect the Patriots to get both records out of the way early in the game against the Giants and play relaxed football as they go for the undefeated regular season.

posted by Cave_Man at 05:24 PM on December 24, 2007

Alright butterfingers, the Patriots got caught.But do you or anyone else really think that had anything to do with them winning that first game of the year?The camera man was removed from where he was within the first five minutes of the game.They got caught,Belichick paid his fine,the team paid theirs,and since then they have done nothing but run off 15 straight wins.No,the Patriots don't need to steal signals from teams to win games.I think that they have proven that.butterfingers,the Patriots aren't the only team to do this "spycam"sort of thing.It's been going on for years.THEY JUST GOT CAUGHT.Shame on them!!!Sure it gave the team a black eye.And yes it did cause alot of embarrasment for them here in New England.As for the so called asterisk being put next to their name if they do in fact set the record and go 19-0,c'mon now.Did the first 5 minutes of one game have any affect on what they've accomplished?Absolutely not!!

posted by Ghastly1 at 06:24 PM on December 24, 2007

Thanks lbb, I do feel better. That could also be the shots of Jameson I've been doing all day.

posted by GoBirds at 07:37 PM on December 24, 2007

To Ghastly1: ya they got caught and how does signal stealing affect a game. How about learning the other teams signals in the first half and then engineering a comeback from those signals that you know for a second half win. sound familar? Sounds like 75% of the patriots wins over the last 4 - 5 years? Stealing signals is like time travel, you already know whats going to happen. Dont get me wrong, the Pat's still gotta have the talent to stop it. But if you have one of the NFL's best teams then add signal stealing you have a Dynasty built on lies.

posted by butterfingers at 09:42 PM on December 24, 2007

I hope you and everyone else here on Spofi have a Merry Christmas!!

posted by Ghastly1 at 11:24 PM on December 24, 2007

their are smart football teams.and their are not so smart ones,baltimore is not a smart one.if you dont think the pats are the most dominate team in history,they surely are the smartest,and more than likely the most dominate of all dynasties.except our boston celtics of old.

posted by newenglander at 06:31 AM on December 25, 2007

As a Colts fan, I have always given the Pats their due. They were a good rival and while you root against them you have to respect them for what they have accomplished. They have had a great year and they deserve credit for it. Assuming (as we should) that they can complete the perfect season, do they really deserve the respect of a team that didn't cheat to achieve the same accomplishment? The Pats lost my respect when they got caught cheating. They lost it even more when they took the attitude of "how dare anyone question us" even though they were caught. It shows a lack of character when someone gets caught cheating and then takes a holier than thou attitude. How about showing SOME remorse for what you've done. This perfect record will be tainted in most peoples mind, like it or not. Now the truly perfect season will be the Pats getting run out of the playoffs in the first round because they're tanked from running up the scores all year against weaker opponents. I doubt it but I don't think they will walk through the playoffs just because of the perfect regular season record.

posted by Familyman at 06:46 AM on December 25, 2007

dream on familyman.

posted by newenglander at 07:00 AM on December 25, 2007

You're right, Footballcrew, Baltimore beat new England, which is, of course, why they are officially listed as 14-1 everywhere where records are official kept and reported. Furthermore, it is why Baltimore had such a huge boost in morale over the last few games, leading to their victories over Indianapolis, Seattle and, of course, Miami. I was especially glad they beat Miami and helped lead them to being 0-15 because it would have been humiliating for Baltimore to be the one team that a team with that sort of record beat during the regular season. Yes, the Baltimore victory of New England is one that will go down in the record books for all time as one of the great upsets of all time. Thank heavens that right thinking people everywhere can look past piddling matters like the actual score of the game to see who really won.

posted by Joey Michaels at 10:26 AM on December 25, 2007

Balitimore DID HAVE the Patriots beat,no doubt about it.But for the screwed up time out and the penalities hurt them.You can't make mental mistakes,or any mistakes against a team like the Pats. The Patriots took advantage of it.Give Tom Brady and the offense 2nd and 3rd chances and 9 out of ten times he's going to make that team pay for it ,in which he did.If in fact N.E.loses to the Giants,congrats to them.Like I said in an earlier comment,"spygate"and the first five minutes of that first game did not infact have anything to do with the outcome of that game ,or the next 14 they've won since.Last week they were held scoreless for the first time this year in the second half.They have to play better against the Giants,or they will be 15-1.If they do go 16-0,it'll be a great accomplishment.If they end up 15-1,oh well.They still had a great season.There's one thing that every team plays for and that is to win a Super Bowl.Undefeated would be nice,but another Super Bowl win would be a whole lot sweeter.

posted by Ghastly1 at 11:43 AM on December 25, 2007

Joey Michaels was being sarcastic.

posted by Ying Yang Mafia at 12:03 PM on December 25, 2007

i beleive mangini stole something when he left for the jets and the pats were tring to get it on film, Why didn't they just get OJ to steal it back? I don't wanna be responding to this on Christmas Day but it's just too ignorant to ignore. The Pats did something illegal which could have given them a competitive edge (see how circumspect I'm being, Pats fan? I didn't even say cheating. That's my Christmas gift to you.) It is Mangini's responsibility as HC of the Jets to stop this. If he doesn't stop it, he is betraying his responsibility to the Jets. I've said it before on spofi and I'll say it again. I don't believe that the Pats deserve an asterisk. They were caught. They were punished. End of story. But for the love of god, man, it's Christmas. Lay off Mangini. Even Belichick went 5-11 his second year of coaching at Cleveland. And have a great holiday.

posted by cjets at 12:33 PM on December 25, 2007

"Please stop? They always said the truth hurts. And the truth is, you guys got beat that day by a 4-11 team. A couple of weeks before that you got all you could handle from a 7-8 team. Answer this one question. If Baltimore doesn't call time out, would you be undefeated? The answer is no, and everyone in the football world knows it. BTW, I didn't start the what if game, your fellow Boston fan did. It's OK though, after all, NOBODY'S perfect. posted by Footballcrew at 9:40 AM CST on December 25" Losing teams are losing teams because they do stupid stuff at the wrong time, like call time outs or throw interceptions. The fact is, the better team took advantage of those mistakes (and one of it's own, like the illegal procedure that gave the Partiots a second chance against the Ravens). I remember watching a game between SF and Cinci the season just after the 49ers had their first Super Bowl. The Bengals had beaten the 49ers and you could see that the 49er players had accepted that ending. All the Bengals had to do was protect the ball and punt from deep in their own end. But the Bengals made an unwise choice and went for a first down on third down. The 49ers intercepted the pass, I remember watching the look on Joe Montana's face and Bill Walsh's face as the cameras panned them, it was like "ALRIGHT, WE ARE GOING TO WIN THIS GAME". And win they did, a couple of plays after the pick, Montana found one of his receivers in the Cincy endzone for the winning TD. The thing that stuck me most was the the 49ers had started off on a horrible season, they were something like 1-3 coming in the Cincy game, I don't think they lost but once again that season. The point that I am trying to make is that winning teams take advantage of unexpected good fortune, losing teams do not. The Patriots took advantage of handouts from two losing teams to preserve their undefeated season.

posted by Cave_Man at 01:13 PM on December 25, 2007

This perfect record will be tainted in most peoples mind (sic), like it or not. Well, change "most people" to "a small cadre of hardcore Patriots-haters," make the requisite grammatical changes, and, yeah, I'd say you've nailed it. Seriously, as has been pointed out ad infinitum here and elsewhere, the whole videotaping thing had no effect on the outcome of the Jets game or of any of the subsequent games, and the fact that there's been not a whiff of malfeasance since then--despite close scrutiny--is pretty convincing evidence that the Pats have kept their noses clean since. Was it illegal? Sure. A little slimy? Probably. But it doesn't make the season any more asterisk-worthy than if it were discovered that, say, Richard Seymour made a habit of parking his car in handicapped spots. P.S. Somebody please come up with a better name than "Spygate." I refuse to believe that this country is so intellectually lazy that every scandal has to be slapped with a name ending in "-gate." I'll brainstorm.

posted by keylimeguy at 01:41 PM on December 25, 2007

"P.S. Somebody please come up with a better name than 'Spygate.' I refuse to believe that this country is so intellectually lazy that every scandal has to be slapped with a name ending in '-gate.' I'll brainstorm." "peeping tom?" Or rather, "peeping bill?"

posted by Goyoucolts at 07:17 PM on December 25, 2007

So did you go with "footballcrew" because "footballtroll" was already taken? posted by Venicemenace at 1:32 PM CST on December 25 I'm not to sure how to respond to this 1. You have resorted to name calling? I guess I'll respond with - you're ugly. Now let's see how much these 2 posts further the discussion. What's next, will you say "Yo MaMa"?

posted by Footballcrew at 11:36 PM on December 25, 2007

I'm not to sure how to respond to this 1. You have resorted to name calling? But ya ARE, Blanche!

posted by lil_brown_bat at 08:42 AM on December 26, 2007

Personally I think it's cool to see history being made! After they beat the Giants and Brady beats Mannings record I for one am going to be pleased. I am not a Patriot fan but I must admit, being in Pittsburgh and cheering for Brady is great. These people HATE him. I have never seen anything like it and I love it! LOL Bottom line, the guy is probably going to have 4 rings in 8 seasons. Say what you want you want about him, the guys a winner!

posted by B10 at 11:02 AM on December 26, 2007

I have them down but I am more of a Tom Brady fan because he went to Mich.

posted by B10 at 11:21 AM on December 26, 2007

"This perfect record will be tainted in most peoples mind, like it or not." NO it won't. Nobody is going to care 2 or 3 years from now let alone 10 or 20. Bill Bel is not the first coach to tape signals. Guess what....he won't be the last. I am so tired of people crying about how they "cheated". Like every other coach and fan is "Holier Than Thou" and would never bring themselves to do such a scandolous and dreadful thing! Pathetic! None of this will matter in the big scheme of things anyway. Bill Bell and Brady will both be in the Hall of Fame with their rings and reputations in tact. There is really nothing that anyone can do or say about it, like it or not.

posted by B10 at 11:42 AM on December 26, 2007

Had the cheating not occurred in the same year as they set the record it would be forgotten. Unfortunately for the Pats, the record and the cheating will forever be linked in the minds of most football fans. The record is not deserving of an asterisk (whatever that is suppose to do anyway) nor will it have any big impact on Tom or Bill. People will remember the season as the one with the cheating and the record.

posted by Familyman at 05:13 PM on December 26, 2007

Familyman I disagree, I don't think spygate will be a black mark at all on this team. In the salary cap era where there is boring football and parody, there is actually a team that stands out and is fun to watch. Not just because people like them but also because people hate them. Like I said earlier, in the grand scheme of things the records, the rings and the reps will all be in tact. The crying about them cheating will only be remembered by the people who didn't want to see them win.

posted by B10 at 05:38 PM on December 26, 2007

Wild that NBC and CBS are simulcasting the game--presumably with the great NFLN announcing crew--but I guess neither was willing to let the other have it alone. Wonder how the ratings will be interpreted if either has a significantly larger number.

posted by billsaysthis at 07:15 PM on December 26, 2007

As is spacing and paragraph breaks. :) Scorpia184, you kind of contradict yourself: you say the Patriots aren't as great as teams of past because the NFL today doesn't have competition like it used to... but then you go on to say that the Pats will have to resign themselves to the salary cap issues for next season, which the Dolphins and Steelers of the 70's didn't have to do. You can't have it both ways: yes, parity means there aren't mighty payroll teams that stomp everyone else, but it also means that only truly bad General Managers can't field a competitive team. Those 70's teams had the luxury of sorts that an imbalanced payroll meant you only had to really fear a handful of teams; in the 2000's, any team on "any given Sunday" has the same payroll to field a pretty talented team. There are no "gimme" weeks, not even against Miami (which sucked last year yet still beat the Patriots near the end of the season), which is why if the Patriots win the Superbowl as an undefeated team it's considerably more impressive than the '72 Dolphins. Granted, two data points is not conclusive, but look at the standings for the 1972 season, versus the 2007 season so far. What jumps out at me is that in 1972 the "haves" and the "have nots" were more clearly separated, whereas in 2007 there are 4 teams that stand out and the rest all fighting over variations of a 6-10 through 10-6 record. That, the "parity" word, is precisely why the Patriots deserve serious "Greatest of All Time" consideration. Where the 1972 Dolphins had a pretty weak schedule, the Patriots have a balanced schedule in which they've won, week after week. In a league with a salary cap, while it means every city's fans have a genuine feeling (ok, every city but Miami) they can have a good run next year and no team can build a "Yankees" style dynasty, a team like the Patriots putting together 3 Superbowl wins in 6 years, with a chance for a 19-0 record this year in getting their 4th in 7 years, is doing something truly extraordinary. That the Patriots can win having already faced salary cap issues, and let go good players only to win again, and again, and again, is a testament to them being arguably the greatest team of all time.

posted by hincandenza at 08:35 PM on December 26, 2007

...in the grand scheme of things the records, the rings and the reps will all be in tact. The crying about them cheating will only be remembered by the people who didn't want to see them win. Do you mean like how everyone forgot about the Black Sox scandal several years later? Or how about how Maris played more games? And everyone remembers Pete Rose as the guy with the most hits ever, right? What the Pats are doing is amazing, and I am glad I get a chance to see it, but they were caught cheating and most fans are going to remember that in conjuction with the possible perfect season.

posted by Steel_Town at 09:31 AM on December 27, 2007

Do you mean like how everyone forgot about the Black Sox scandal several years later? You honestly think people will be comparing breaking a league rule about where you can film from to throwing games in the World Series? Get a grip. Hate away, but do it sensibly or do it on some Yahoo/ESPN message board where that kind of nonsense has a home.

posted by yerfatma at 11:22 AM on December 27, 2007

Do you mean like how everyone forgot about the Black Sox scandal several years later? That is a very poor comparison. Stealing signals and throwing games is not even close to being the same. Seriously, even the Pete Rose comparison was not a good one. He bet on Baseball sure but he never bet on his team to lose. In my opinion he did nothing wrong but that's for another blog. Nakeman has a point, there not going to make a movie called "SPYGATE" like they did with "8 men Out". I know your a Steeler fan, that alone can tend to make you a little biased against the Patriots. I live in Pittsburgh and it's AMAZING the hatred for that team here.

posted by B10 at 11:54 AM on December 27, 2007

B10, I checked out your profile, you seem a bit biased yourself. The only thing I hate about Brady and the Pats, is that Brady is not a Steeler. If you don't like Pittsburgh so much then go back to Detroit, the crime rate alone probably has people waiting in line to get in. As for my comparison, you all can sit here and play semantics all you want. I think we are all smart enough to understand what I was saying. I showed a few sports scandals that have not been forgotten. It is my opinion that this years scandals will be no different. Bonds and Clemens will be tied to steroids and the Pats, more specifically BB, will be tied to (cringe) "Spygate".

posted by Steel_Town at 12:23 PM on December 27, 2007

I showed a few sports scandals that have not been forgotten. It is my opinion that this years scandals will be no different. Okay, so that's your opinion. Can you tell us why? Specifically, can you say why you believe that the Patriots' you-filmed-from-here-and-not-from-there "cheating" will be viewed as comparable with deliberately throwing championship games? Do you honestly see no difference?

posted by lil_brown_bat at 12:44 PM on December 27, 2007

I'm not sure where to begin with you lil brown.. . You seem to fit right in with what seems to be going on here. DC- Defensive coordinator, yes I'm sure my facts are straight. I wasn't discussing their current records. I was discussing calling them the greatest of all time if if if. Did you just call me stupid for participating in a discussion...while you're participating in the discussion? I meant suggesting they are the best of all time, before it's time was pretty much stupid if they in fact lose to NY. So you find it prudent to call me stupid for pointing this out? The definition of "manhandled" is subjective (and, I suppose, often based on personal experience), I suppose you must be an authority misster. Do you honestly see no difference? Do you honestly see A difference with someone saying "this team should be considered the greatest of all time IF", and someone saying this team should NOT be considered the greatest of all time IF?

posted by Footballcrew at 02:35 PM on December 27, 2007

This whole discussion is kind of silly actually. Does it really matter if the "spygate" tag sticks? (Which I don't think it will) If they go undefeated and win the superbowl is it going to matter? Are people atually going to cry about it for years to come? Was Bill Bell the first and only coach to steal signals? I don't think anyone is that gullable....do you?

posted by B10 at 02:45 PM on December 27, 2007

I'm not sure where to begin with you lil brown.. . You seem to fit right in with what seems to be going on here. Good for me! Since I've been "going on here" for a few years and you're still working on a few days, I guess that's to be expected. dc- defensive coordinator, yes i'm sure my facts are straight. Ah, I see -- two letters that also stand for a city that also has an NFL franchise. You had me wondering if you were forgetting who the opponent was in that game. I wasn't discussing their current records. I was discussing calling them the greatest of all time if if if. If if if what??? You're the one who keeps typing this "the greatest of all time if if if" nonsense; no one else has typed that collection of words. If you want to take issue with what someone is saying, you have to use their words, not make up some gibberish and then attack it as if they said it. Did you just call me stupid for participating in a discussion...while you're participating in the discussion? No, I think you called yourself that. That's pretty much implied by your participating in a thread that you yourself called stupid. I meant suggesting they are the best of all time, before it's time was pretty much stupid if they in fact lose to NY. So you find it prudent to call me stupid for pointing this out? "Prudent"? No. I find it accurate, however, to point out that no one has "suggest[ed] that they are the best of all time". If you disagree, provide a quote from this thread. I suppose you must be an authority misster. There are so many reasons to laugh at this feeble little jab, I just don't know where to begin. Do you honestly see A difference with someone saying "this team should be considered the greatest of all time IF", and someone saying this team should NOT be considered the greatest of all time IF? Can't answer my question, huh? that's okay, I'll answer yours. I don't see anyone saying "this team should be considered the greatest of all time IF". I do see a lot of people writing complete sentences, but you seem to keep losing the thread.

posted by lil_brown_bat at 02:57 PM on December 27, 2007

I guess we will just have to Disagree LBB. It really comes down to how severe the public thinks the cheating was. Personally I think it was more than just you can't film from here. The guy was on the opposing teams sidlines, mere feet from the defensive coaches. That is akin to sending a camera man into the other teams dugout. But, I guess only time will tell who is right. B10, though I tend to agree with you on the Pete Rose issue, I have learned that the public seems to be on another page. Apparently it is the "Cardinal rule" in baseball that you are not to gamble on baseball. If I was writing the rulebook, the cardinal rule would be: don't cheat, but, I did not write the book.

posted by Steel_Town at 03:11 PM on December 27, 2007

The reason gambling on your own team is frowned upon is because if you end up in debt the people you owe money to can use that debt to influence you. It might start with a small thing such as point shaving but the influence could lead to throwing games. posted by apoch at 4:08 PM CST on December 27 Agreed but that wasn't the case with Rose.

posted by B10 at 04:28 PM on December 27, 2007

B10, apparently you just don't get it. Gambling on baseball by people involved in baseball is forbidden and for good reasons. Rose gambled. Whether or not he got to the point where he could be pressured is irrelevant. Who he gambled on is irrelevant. The fact is he gambled. He has been banned. Rose and his apologists can try and justify it, but the justifications are irrelevant bullshit.

posted by apoch at 05:40 PM on December 27, 2007

The Strong Nuclear Force is the greatest of all time! Nu uh! It's Gravity! No way man, it's the Weak Nuclear Force, it might not be the strongest but it is very important. Protons are the best subatomic particle! No way dude, it's quarks!

posted by apoch at 06:18 PM on December 27, 2007

GOAT arguments are simply that - arguments. No unanimous decisions can be reached. Thank you for at least conceding that this argument was/is going on. You might want to make your counterpart aware of it. He/she still thinks I'm making reference to the Redskins.( while accusing me of not typing complete sentences). Wow.

posted by Footballcrew at 08:43 PM on December 27, 2007

Footballcrew: Even if they do all of the above it still doesn't erase the fact that they were manhandled by 2 teams with losing records, with back up QB's.

Record	Opponent	Score	Score	Opponent record
1-0	@Kansas City Chiefs	20	10	8-6
2-0	Houston Oilers	34	13	1-13
3-0	@Minnesota Vikings	16	14	7-7
4-0	@New York Jets	27	17	7-7
5-0	San Diego Chargers	24	10	4-9
6-0	Buffalo Bills	24	23	4-9
7-0	@Baltimore Colts	23	0	5-9
8-0	@Buffalo Bills	30	16	4-9
9-0	New England Patriots	52	0	3-11
10-0	New York Jets	28	24	7-7
11-0	St. Louis Cardinals	31	10	4-9
12-0	@New England Patriots	37	21	3-11
13-0	@New York Giants	23	13	8-6
14-0	Baltimore Colts	16	0	5-9

posted by hincandenza at 10:30 PM on December 27, 2007

He bet on Baseball sure but he never bet on his team to lose. The reason gambling on your own team is frowned upon is because if you end up in debt the people you owe money to can use that debt to influence you. That's one good reason. Here's another. If Rose only bets on his team to win, what does it tell you if he doesn't bet on his team on a particular night? That he believes his team, the one he manages, is going to lose. In other words, when a manager of team consistently bets on his team to win, if he doesn't place a bet, it's as if he's betting on the team to lose. At least that's what his bookie will think, and he'll be sure to spread the word. A manager of a team that gambles on the team's outcome destroys the integrity of the game. On Preview: what Grum said

posted by cjets at 11:04 PM on December 27, 2007

but the justifications are irrelevant bullshit. LOL What is so hard about this guys. IN MY OPINION TO BET ON YOUR OWN TEAM IS O.K. The integrity of the game? LOLOLOLOL Baseball lost it's intergity years ago! I am not justifying anything, I am saying in my opinion he did nothing wrong. I am tired of old ass baseball purists trying to run this game like Joe Dimaggio's still playing. Baseball is about $$$$$$....PERIOD! It could be betting, steroids, crooked refs, whatever, baseball has lost everything pure it had. Get a grip guys, the old days of sports are done. Cash rules sports.

posted by B10 at 08:45 AM on December 28, 2007

Basically you have no interest in discussing a sporting issue on a sports discussion site. Interesting.

posted by yerfatma at 10:24 AM on December 28, 2007

B10, I'm not sure whether you're arguing that betting on your own team does not compromise your sport's integrity, or that baseball didn't have any integrity to lose. I think the first argument has been Yes, I guess my point is that at this point the so called integrity that baseball has isn't there anyway. It's a sports business. I think the first argument has been logically addressed and dismissed by several contributors, and simply repeating it will not make it valid. Therein lies the problem. It is valid, valid to me. Don't get me wrong, I have an open mind about things but on this issue i feel that i am right. Everyone else can "dismiss" it all they want. Also, please don't get riled, but could you maybe cease and desist with the "LOL"s? I guess i do use them a lot hugh? I'll take care of that....thanks.

posted by B10 at 10:39 AM on December 28, 2007

If you bet on your team to lose, you have an incentive to throw the game. Sure that's possible. That being said, do you know for sure that's what he did? If you bet on your team to win, unless you bet on every single game (which is practically impossible), and bet consistent amounts, you are giving information to a bookie about what you believe the outcome to be. No. Why is everybody including the bookies on this? The issue is ROSE. If Rose had a certain pitcher pitching that he felt could NOT win the game than why would he bet on them to win? i will give you it sent a message to vegas that Rose was not confident of a win but unless there is concrete proof that Rose somehow pulled a player that would had normally played or threw the game in some way there is no argument. If you incur gambling debts, you're subject to pressure from the bookie -- and they can't make you win, but they can make you lose. This point is also not a valid one in this situation. How many gambling debts did Rose incur? Do you know? Did he have any? Can you prove he or anyone else on that team EVER threw a game to satisfy a debt? I will say this I understand all of your points and with proof those things happened in the situation with Rose than i would say yes, you are right. To speculate what Rose was doing because he was gambling on his own team, to win most but not all of the time, that he was sending a message to bookies is irresponsible. Now in a situation other than Rose you would have to look at the facts presented. To just say that it's wrong because this could happen or that could take place or you're in forming this or that one of this or that is simple speculation. What can you prove? That is what it comes down to.

posted by B10 at 11:39 AM on December 28, 2007

"No. Why is everybody including the bookies on this? The issue is ROSE. If Rose had a certain pitcher pitching that he felt could NOT win the game than why would he bet on them to win? i will give you it sent a message to vegas that Rose was not confident of a win but unless there is concrete proof that Rose somehow pulled a player that would had normally played or threw the game in some way there is no argument." Exactly. Who cares what Rose's bookie knew or didn't know as long as Rose wasn't throwing games. As far as I know, the only evidence against Rose is his own shady confessions and the testimony of a shaky-at-best witness.

posted by Steel_Town at 11:52 AM on December 28, 2007

There isn't any "he" here; we're not talking about any specific case, but about how a policy serves to protect the game's integrity, and how abolishing it would create a situation where threats to that integrity would be impossible to check. You can't blanket integrity. Either a person has it or they don't. A game has it or it doesn't. To say it's illegal to bet on your own team to win is saying, "There is too much temtation for cheating, therefore you can't do it". Telling the player, "We don't trust you". You can't mandate integrity, either you have it or you don't. just like the NBA making them dress up before and after games, Why? Not only does it say, "We don't think you know how to dress", it says "Whether you fit the mold or not, you'll look like we want you too and to hell with individuality". Sports have lost a lot of integrity in general because the ruling bodies make too many rules to abide by. Not rules of the game but rules of conduct outside the game. I'm not talking about steroid use or anything like that either. There should be rules for that. In some sports you can not gamble on sports period. Not your own but others. Why? If I play one sport why can't I gamble on another? If I get in a fight with my wife and the cops come why am I punished by the league that I'm in? What? A few comments back, you were arguing against Rose's ban on the basis that the rule under which he was banned makes no sense. Now you're saying it's got nothing to do with the rule and only with Rose's specific actions. Which is it? You lost me on that one. I have no idea what you mean. I appreciate your point if view but I'm kind of tired out about the Rose and Integrity thing. have a great day.

posted by B10 at 12:19 PM on December 28, 2007

I guess i do use them a lot hugh? Why drag me into this? For what it's worth, I lament the loss of the subjunctive mood far more than I hate AOL-speak (which I do hate, by the way). Also, capitalization isn't just common courtesy, nor is inserting a space after a comma or two spaces after a period (though blog software seems to excise the second space far too often). These rules, seemingly arbitrary to the novice or the careless, aid in the reading and understanding of the writer's thoughts by marking where one ends and another begins. If you want to be misunderstood or ignored, keep messing with grammar, capitalization, and punctuation. If you have a point to make, make it as clear as possible; otherwise, even if your ideas are right, they will appear foolish and ill-considered. This is a general lament over bad writing; though it's aimed at specific posters, I mean it constructively. I'm not calling anyone out for ridicule. I'm just trying to explain why otherwise smart people might be considered dummies by their readers. There's plenty of willful misunderstanding and bad-faith arguing going on. Don't make it easier for the assholes to miss your point. Consider good writing a tool for delivering your ideas, and bad writing an obstacle to clarity. They're your ideas. Respect them, or nobody else will.

posted by Hugh Janus at 12:58 PM on December 28, 2007

As for the blanket comment, all I meant was that you can't make people have integrity. Well, yeah, but so what? The intent of the rule isn't to regulate character, it's to regulate behavior. If someone wants to gamble on whatever guess what, their going to. Why do you say this? I want a flat-screen television, and I don't want to shell out for it; does it therefore follow that I'm going to steal one? Not unless I'm stupid, because there are laws against such things, and there's a good chance I'll be caught and punished in ways that I really wouldn't like. That's called the deterrent effect of penalties. Now, you may argue that the deterrent won't work with a compulsive gambler, and I would agree with you -- but I'd also point out that such a person doesn't "want to gamble", they need to gamble. It becomes a case by case basis on the severity of the infraction. It becomes whatever the rules say it becomes -- rules that everybody in the game knows about. In the case of baseball and gambling, I don't know that there's much (if any) provision for "severity". What I am saying is that all gamblers do not cheat because their gambling or not gambling on their OWN team. And what I am saying is that that doesn't matter. It doesn't matter that somewhere out there, there's a hypothetical gambler who might be gambling on his/her own team and not turning around and trying to influence the outcome. What matters is that a powerful conflict of interest exists. The rule is there to prevent such a conflict of interest. It comes down to that I just don't agree with you. Why that won't sink in I personally don't understand. Everybody is entitled to their own opinion be it right or wrong or just plain ignorant or whatever. It "sinks in" just fine. Let me remind you that this is a discussion forum. You are free to post your opinions here, within the terms of use. You are not guaranteed some kind of special status where no one will question or comment on your opinions, ask you to clarify them, or challenge assertions that you have made. You are free to ignore said questions, comments, calls for clarification and challenges, but you are not granted some magic wand that will make people respect a response of, "I don't get why you keep going on and on about this. Why won't it sink in?" Personally I believe that you still think Baseball has integrity and that somehow its popularity can be saved. We'll see but don't hold your breath Thanks for your concern, but it's not necessary. Baseball's popularity is doing just fine, last I checked. Oh, a few people screamed, "I am shocked! Shocked!" after the Mitchell report came out, and I'm sure they'll take their balls and bats...err, remotes and bowls of Cheezy Poofs...and go home. but you know what? They won't even make a dent. That's my prediction.

posted by lil_brown_bat at 01:46 PM on December 28, 2007

Actually, B10, it's not like you've been backing down, either. Good rule of thumb for all of us: just because somebody makes a post doesn't mean you have to respond. Some arguments, like the one you two have going on, are never going to be resolved; you're not going to change each other's minds, and all you're doing is clogging up a football thread talking about Pete Rose, who hasn't played organized football since high school. Stop fueling the fire, and let this one die. Please.

posted by The_Black_Hand at 02:15 PM on December 28, 2007

I'm leaning toward italics.

posted by yerfatma at 04:19 PM on December 28, 2007

Hey, the Old Man is back!

posted by lil_brown_bat at 04:52 PM on December 28, 2007

B10: consider this scenario. Pete Rose looks at the pitching matchup for today's game. He sees that he is putting Crappy McHurler up against the #1 team in the NL. He's pretty sure that his team is going to lose, so he tells his bookie that he isn't going to put any money on today's game, thank you very much. Well, guess what? Crappy McHurler is throwing a gem. He's gone 8 innings and the Reds are ahead 1-0. Rose sees this and considers putting in Whizzer McFireball, the closer, in for the 9th inning. But wait! If he uses the closer tonight, he won't be available for tomorrow's game, which is one that Rose thinks they can win, so he'll be putting a bet on it for sure. So he leaves McHurler in the game, even though he is obviously running out of gas. Oops! The poor guy throws up some beachballs and the Reds are now behind 3-1 and Rose still hasn't done anything. After all, why bother? He doesn't have any money on this game. That's why only betting on your own team to win, but not on every game, can lead to a very serious problem. If you really feel that this isn't a big deal, then I recommend you quit watching organized sports at a professional level, and go enjoy some WWE "entertainment", or rollerderby.

posted by grum@work at 05:57 PM on December 28, 2007