Tim McG Posted January 31, 2008 Report Share Posted January 31, 2008 Pats by 14. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dan Gould Posted January 31, 2008 Report Share Posted January 31, 2008 It seems to me that the odds of a Giants victory is about equal to the odds that the Pats, with history firmly in their sights, will show up with fire in their eyes and come up with a blow-out performance like they did in the early part of the season. Say 25% chance for either outcome ... otherwise I see a 50% chance that the Pats win, by between 6 and 14 points. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tim McG Posted January 31, 2008 Report Share Posted January 31, 2008 TO owes the Eagles $769K http://www.philly.com/philly/sports/200801...s__769_120.html Couldn't have happened to a nicer guy. What a loser. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GA Russell Posted January 31, 2008 Report Share Posted January 31, 2008 It seems to me that the odds of a Giants victory is about equal to the odds that the Pats, with history firmly in their sights, will show up with fire in their eyes and come up with a blow-out performance like they did in the early part of the season. Say 25% chance for either outcome ... otherwise I see a 50% chance that the Pats win, by between 6 and 14 points. I haven't seen a point spread for a few days. The last time I saw it, it was 13 I think. I believe that the New York City area has far more gamblers than any other metro. I have read that many of these gamblers will bet on the Giants regardless of what the point spread is. So when the Giants are the underdog, the point spread is lower than it otherwise would be. The smaller spread will then attract more bets against the Giants so that the bookmakers can balance the bets. That said, barring injury, I see the Patriots winning pretty big here. The Giants are on a streak all right, but as a team they were only good enough to be a wild card. I don't see them having the firepower to pull off the big upset. Has there ever been a big upset in the Super Bowl since the two AFL victories in III and IV? I can't think of one. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
T.D. Posted January 31, 2008 Report Share Posted January 31, 2008 (edited) Has there ever been a big upset in the Super Bowl since the two AFL victories in III and IV? I can't think of one. How big is "big"? Pats beat the Rams as 14-point dogs in 2002. Denver beat GB as 12-pt dogs in 1998. Edited January 31, 2008 by T.D. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
take5 Posted January 31, 2008 Report Share Posted January 31, 2008 Has there ever been a big upset in the Super Bowl since the two AFL victories in III and IV? I can't think of one. Patriots vs Rams, 2001 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GA Russell Posted January 31, 2008 Report Share Posted January 31, 2008 Has there ever been a big upset in the Super Bowl since the two AFL victories in III and IV? I can't think of one. How big is "big"? Pats beat the Rams as 14-point dogs in 2002. Denver beat GB as 12-pt dogs in 1998. I'd say those both qualify as big! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tim McG Posted February 1, 2008 Report Share Posted February 1, 2008 (edited) Has there ever been a big upset in the Super Bowl since the two AFL victories in III and IV? I can't think of one. Patriots vs Rams, 2001 The Rammies lost and rightly so. They didn't deserve to be there in the first place. Worst NFC representative beat down since Chicago pretended to be a Super Bowl caliber team in 2007. What an embarrassment that team was. Pats were far superior against the Rammies. Edited February 1, 2008 by GoodSpeak Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
T.D. Posted February 1, 2008 Report Share Posted February 1, 2008 Has there ever been a big upset in the Super Bowl since the two AFL victories in III and IV? I can't think of one. Patriots vs Rams, 2001 The Rammies lost and rightly so. They didn't deserve to be there in the first place. Pats were far superior against the Rammies. Please explain how the Rams didn't deserve to be there. 14-2 regular season record, #1-ranked offense, #7-ranked defense. Beat the Pack 45-17 in divisional playoffs, beat Philly 29-24 in divisional championship. Should Philly have been given a mulligan? Or should the Super Bowl have featured 2 AFC clubs? I don't dispute the statement that the Pats were better. Although better coaching/play-calling by the over-rated Martz could have made a big difference. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
connoisseur series500 Posted February 1, 2008 Author Report Share Posted February 1, 2008 Has there ever been a big upset in the Super Bowl since the two AFL victories in III and IV? I can't think of one. Patriots vs Rams, 2001 The Rammies lost and rightly so. They didn't deserve to be there in the first place. Worst NFC representative beat down since Chicago pretended to be a Super Bowl caliber team in 2007. What an embarrassment that team was. Pats were far superior against the Rammies. As a longtime Pats fan, I must say that I have to disagree here. The Rams were a superior team that year. The Patriots, however, played better than the Rams in that game. I think they underestimated the Pats, and Marshall Faulk somehow became a nonfactor in the game, owing to some strange game plans by Martz. Rams would have won the rematch had there been one. The Patriots were by far the best team in the league when they won back to back Super Bowls a couple years later. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
connoisseur series500 Posted February 1, 2008 Author Report Share Posted February 1, 2008 I love Emmitt Smith to death. He's so damned funny. Here's a little compilation made by Jimmy Kimmel. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Cy-Yx_yands Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Noj Posted February 1, 2008 Report Share Posted February 1, 2008 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Son-of-a-Weizen Posted February 1, 2008 Report Share Posted February 1, 2008 55 inches??? Get stuffed, NFL!!!! NFL Pulls Plug On Big-Screen Church Parties For Super Bowl By Jacqueline L. Salmon Washington Post Staff Writer Friday, February 1, 2008; Page A01 For years, as many as 200 members of Immanuel Bible Church and their friends have gathered in the church's fellowship hall to watch the Super Bowl on its six-foot screen. The party featured hard hitting on the TV, plenty of food -- and prayer. But this year, Immanuel's Super Bowl party is no more. After a crackdown by the National Football League on big-screen Super Bowl gatherings by churches, the Springfield church has sacked its event. Instead, church members will host parties in their homes. Immanuel is among a number of churches in the Washington area and elsewhere that have been forced to use a new playbook to satisfy the NFL, which said that airing games at churches on large-screen TV sets violates the NFL copyright. Ministers are not happy. "There is a part of me that says, 'Gee, doesn't the NFL have enough money already?'" said Steve Holley, Immanuel's executive pastor. He pointed out that bars are still allowed to air the game on big-screens TV sets. "It just doesn't make sense." The Super Bowl, the most secular of American holidays, has long been popular among churches. With parties, prayer and Christian DVDs replacing the occasionally racy halftime shows, churches use the event as a way to reach members, and potential new members, in a non-churchlike atmosphere. "It takes people who are not coming frequently, or who have fallen away, and shows them that the church can still have some fun," said the Rev. Thomas Omholt, senior pastor of St. Paul's Lutheran Church in the District. Omholt has hosted a Super Bowl party for young adults in his home for 20 years. "We can be a little less formal." The NFL said, however, that the copyright law on its games is long-standing and the language read at the end of each game is well known: "This telecast is copyrighted by the NFL for the private use of our audience. Any other use of this telecast or any pictures, descriptions, or accounts of the game without the NFL's consent is prohibited." The league bans public exhibitions of its games on TV sets or screens larger than 55 inches because smaller sets limit the audience size. The section of federal copyright law giving the NFL protection over the content of its programming exempts sports bars, NFL spokesman Brian McCarthy said. The issue came to a head last year after the NFL sent a letter to Fall Creek Baptist Church in Indianapolis, warning the church not show the Super Bowl on a giant video screen. For years, the church had held a Super Bowl party in its auditorium, attracting about 400 people and showing the game on a big screen usually reserved for hymn lyrics. The letter "was really a disturbing thing," said Marlene Broome, a spokeswoman for the church. The church canceled last year's party. This year, its adult Sunday school classes are having parties in homes, but Broome said church members miss the big gatherings. "Everybody really had a good time," she said. Large Super Bowl gatherings around big-screen sets outside of homes shrink TV ratings and can affect advertising revenue, McCarthy said. "We have no objection to churches and others hosting Super Bowl parties as long as they . . . show the game on a television of the type commonly used at home," he said. "It is a matter of copyright law." The same policy applies to all NFL games and to movie theaters, large halls and other venues with big-screen TVs, he said. The policy has prompted some drastic downscaling. Last year, Vienna Presbyterian Church planned a party in its fellowship hall for its middle school and high school students, airing the game on its 12-foot video screen. Church leaders had hoped to use the game to draw in the teenagers, often a tough crowd to get through church doors. "We thought we had found our magic bullet," said Barb Jones, the church's director of communication. The event was canceled, however, after the church heard about the Indianapolis case. This year, Vienna Presbyterian plans a party for teenagers in its basement, showing the game on smaller TV sets. Like other churches, Vienna Presbyterian will not charge admission to view the game, and it will not use the event as a fundraiser. In a testimony to the drawing power of the Super Bowl, churches do not use the Academy Awards or other high-rated televised events to evangelize. To avoid attracting the ire of the NFL, some churches are even giving Super Bowl parties a more generic name. Broadfording Bible Brethren Church in Hagerstown will call its annual event the "Big Game Party." The church still plans to show the game on its jumbo-size screen near the pulpit in its sanctuary. Pastor Bill Wyand said he has heard secondhand about the policy and is not sure whether screening the game via the church's video-projector system violates NFL policy. Still, he is looking nervously over his shoulder. On the legal flip side, the NFL's big-screen ban could end up landing the league in trouble. John Whitehead, president of the Rutherford Institute, a Charlottesville civil liberties group that focuses on religious freedom issues, is threatening to sue the NFL on behalf of an Alabama church that wants to host a big-screen Super Bowl party. He is also seeking sponsors for federal legislation to exempt churches from the ban. "It's ridiculous," Whitehead said. "You can go into these stores now and buy 100-inch screens. The law is just outdated." Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GA Russell Posted February 1, 2008 Report Share Posted February 1, 2008 There's a reason we have jury trials. If I were a pastor, I'd inform the NFL that I would demand a jury trial if they chose to sue. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Aggie87 Posted February 1, 2008 Report Share Posted February 1, 2008 Large Super Bowl gatherings around big-screen sets outside of homes shrink TV ratings and can affect advertising revenue, McCarthy said. "We have no objection to churches and others hosting Super Bowl parties as long as they . . . show the game on a television of the type commonly used at home," he said. "It is a matter of copyright law." This logic baffles me. If you have 400 people in a church wanting to watch a football game, it's ok for them to watch on 3 small tvs, but not one large tv? WHAT'S THE DIFFERENCE? You still have 400 people watching the game in the same location. How can that "shrink" tv ratings? You have the same number of viewers in either circumstance. Stoopid. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Van Basten II Posted February 2, 2008 Report Share Posted February 2, 2008 What's the relation between the copyright law and how wide your telly is ? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chalupa Posted February 2, 2008 Report Share Posted February 2, 2008 Sen. Specter Demands Answers from the NFL About Patriots' Signal-Stealing Scandal by KYW's Andrew Colton US senator Arlen Specter (R-Pa.) is calling on the NFL to tell him what happened to videotapes made by the New England Patriots -- tapes that were at the center of a controversy indicating that the Patriots were stealing sideline signals of the Philadelphia Eagles and others. With the Patriots playing in the Super Bowl this weekend, Sen. Specter says he's tired of non-answers he's received from NFL commissioner Roger Goodell (see related story). Specter says it started when he asked questions about the Patriots videotaping the Eagles' signals during the 2005 Super Bowl. He got no answer, he says, so he asked again after hearing that the Patriots were caught doing similar videotaping this season against the New York Jets. Then, Specter says, he learned that all the tapes were destroyed: "We've had a lot of history where it's not the underlying transaction that was so bad, but it was the coverup. Was there a coverup here? I don't know. But it's certainly a suspicious situation to destroy the tapes." Specter points out that the NFL has an antitrust exemption, and he says that means the league should be more forthcoming when asked questions by the leader of the Senate Judiciary Committee. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chalupa Posted February 2, 2008 Report Share Posted February 2, 2008 Related story.... Feb 1, 8:02 PM EST Commissioner Defends Destroying Tapes By BARRY WILNER PHOENIX (AP) -- Spygate won't go away. Roger Goodell defended his decision to destroy notes and videotapes linked to the New England Patriots' cheating scandal Friday, a day after Sen. Arlen Specter asked why the NFL commissioner trashed the evidence. "The action that we took was decisive and it was unprecedented," Goodell said during his State of the NFL address, an annual news conference at the Super Bowl. "I believe it was helpful in making sure our instructions were followed closely by not only the Patriots, but also by every other team. I think it was the appropriate thing to do. Our discipline sent a loud message ..." Specter, R-Pa., said Goodell's explanation, "didn't make any sense at all." "If they are under lock and key at the NFL headquarters, they aren't going to be available at all," he said in Philadelphia. But Goodell said a copy of one of six tapes made either in 2006 or during the 2007 preseason had, indeed, made its way to the media before all the tapes were destroyed. "They may have collected it within the rules, but we couldn't determine that. So we felt that it should be destroyed," he said. Goodell fined coach Bill Belichick $500,000 and docked the team $250,000 and a first-round draft pick. It was the biggest fine ever for a coach and the first time in NFL history a first-round draft pick has figured in a penalty. Specter also wondered just how much information the Patriots were collecting on those tapes. "They talked about defensive signals and don't say if there was any taping or stealing of offensive signals," he said. "The fine was for the totality of the circumstances, not just the taping. Well, wait a minute, what else is involved here?" Spygate has touched a nerve with nearly everyone who follows the NFL and easily was the most prominent topic during Goodell's address two days before the undefeated Patriots meet the New York Giants in the Super Bowl. He was asked about it a half-dozen times, from the first question until the last. "The actual effectiveness of taping and taking of signals from opponents - it is something done widely in many sports. I think it probably had limited, if any effect, on the outcome of games," he said. "That doesn't change my perspective on violating rules and the need to be punished." NFL security confiscated a video camera and tape from a Patriots employee during New England's 38-14 victory over the New York Jets in the season opener. The employee was accused of aiming his camera at the Jets' defensive coaches as they signaled to players on the field. Congress is interested because, according to Specter, the top Republican on the Senate Judiciary Committee, the issue could put the league's antitrust exemption at risk. "I do believe that it is a matter of importance," Specter said. "It's not going to displace the stimulus package or the Iraq war, but I think the integrity of football is very important, and I think the National Football League has a special duty to the American people - and further the Congress - because they have an antitrust exemption." Though Spygate was the main topic, Goodell also said: -The New Orleans Saints will host the San Diego Chargers at Wembley Stadium in London on Oct. 26 in the latest international game, part of a three-year commitment to play at least one game in the United Kingdom. He noted that many franchises were interested in playing in this year's game. "Maybe part of it was because the Giants went last year and now they're in the Super Bowl, so maybe they think there's a connection," Goodell said, prompting laughter. -The league approved the Buffalo Bills' plan to play a regular-season game in Toronto in each of the next five seasons, plus a preseason game in Canada every other year. -For the first time in years, the league is considering revamping seedings in the playoffs to assure that more late-season games are meaningful. That could lead to a wild-card team actually hosting a first-round game if it has a better record than the division winner it is meeting. Goodell admitted concern that some teams had virtually nothing to play for toward the end of the schedule. "The incentive should be for every team to win as many games as possible," he said. "We are going to look into the potential of seeding our teams differently after they qualify for the playoffs, so that you could potentially make more of the regular-season games have significance for the postseason." -There is no timetable for testing of human growth hormone in the NFL. The league has given anti-doping researcher Don Catlin $500,000 to look into an HGH urine test, and also invested $3 million with the USOC to be used for anti-doping research. "It's not at a point where there's a valid test that is widely distributed that we can use, that we can be comfortable with," Goodell said. "I don't think there's a significant amount of HGH use, but I have no factual basis for saying that." -He was confident owners and the NFL Players Association can make progress toward extending or revamping the collective bargaining agreement, which runs through 2010. Both sides can opt out of the deal in November, which would lead to no salary cap for the 2010 season. -Violations of the player conduct policy decreased by 20 percent, including a large reduction among rookies. He also emphasized that the league, in the wake of the death of Sean Taylor and three other 24-year-old players, is doing "everything we can to educate players on simple things they can do to protect themselves and their families. They are celebrities." --- Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Van Basten II Posted February 2, 2008 Report Share Posted February 2, 2008 Great to see politicians takin' care of the real problems their country is facing. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
T.D. Posted February 2, 2008 Report Share Posted February 2, 2008 Great to see politicians takin' care of the real problems their country is facing. Different sports have different "silly seasons". Formula 1's is in August, for instance. The NFL's is the two weeks (sometimes one) between the conference ch.s and the Super Bowl. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kevin Bresnahan Posted February 2, 2008 Report Share Posted February 2, 2008 Related story.... Feb 1, 8:02 PM EST Commissioner Defends Destroying Tapes By BARRY WILNER Specter also wondered just how much information the Patriots were collecting on those tapes. "They talked about defensive signals and don't say if there was any taping or stealing of offensive signals," he said. "The fine was for the totality of the circumstances, not just the taping. Well, wait a minute, what else is involved here?" While Specter was wondering this, the rest of world was wondering if Specter has been eating some lead paint. Um, Senator - the offense stopped using hand signals for the offense about 10 years ago. What's that? You haven't watched a game in 10 years? Oh well... GFY. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kevin Bresnahan Posted February 2, 2008 Report Share Posted February 2, 2008 Fitzy's Wicked Pissah Superbowl XLII Preview Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Son-of-a-Weizen Posted February 2, 2008 Report Share Posted February 2, 2008 F'n right!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chalupa Posted February 4, 2008 Report Share Posted February 4, 2008 YES!!!!!! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chalupa Posted February 4, 2008 Report Share Posted February 4, 2008 (edited) So happy New England lost. Edit: Actually not so happy that they lost. I am happy that they didn't win. Edited February 4, 2008 by J.H. Deeley Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
_forumlogo.png.a607ef20a6e0c299ab2aa6443aa1f32e.png)
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.