After 48 regular season games that nearly brought the National Football League to its knees and turned the league's officiating into a recurring national joke, the NFL and the referees union have reportedly agreed to a new eight-year deal and they'll be back on the job starting Thursday night.
There had been reports all day, first from ESPN's Chris Mortensen, that something was perhaps imminent. As Judy Battista of The New York Times indicated around 10 pm, the two sides were already close to a deal that would have the actual, locked-out NFL referees in place to work assignments for this weekend's slate of games. Now, it's a reality.
Gotta wonder whose complaints finally got the NFL to cave in: the fans, the presidential candidates (both of whom slammed the NFL this week), Vegas (who lost over $150M in voided bets from Monday), or a small group of owners that felt their playoff revenue could be threatened with one bad call?
Who cares? Now we can go back to complaining about the regular refs, just like old times!
Thank goodness, if only so we can stop Secwhatever and DMR to stop arguing about that MNF game. J/K
But, if the real refs want to go ahead and keep screwing the Patriots and "Hoodie", I'm all for that being the legacy of the scab refs.
(edited by Torchslasher on 26.9.12 2049)
(edited by Torchslasher on 26.9.12 2049) "Put on your helmets, we'll be reaching speeds of 3!" "It was nice of you to give that dead woman another chance." "All right, look alive everybody...oh sorry Susan."- MST3K: Space Mutiny Click Here (facebook.com)
Honestly, the past few games were some of the most excited ones I've seen. I'm not really fancying going back to the same old boring football games.
It's good that they got a deal worked out but you can't argue that the games weren't fun (and probably got more people talking and being interested in the NFL then would normally be).
Originally posted by It's FalseVegas (who lost over $150M in voided bets from Monday)
Pretty sure this isn't true. An estimated $150 million or more shifted as people who bet on the Packers suddenly lost and people who bet on the Seahawks suddenly won, but that doesn't mean Vegas lost that money. They didn't suddenly have to pay out to both groups of betters. It just means the casinos kept the money from those who bet on the Packers, instead of the other way around. It's possible slightly more people bet on the Seahawks, I have no idea, but generally the purpose of those betting lines is to find a medium where roughly the same amount of money is bet on both sides, so that the bookmakers can't lose regardless of the outcome.
Originally posted by It's FalseNow we can go back to complaining about the regular refs, just like old times!
I couldn't have put that any better myself. If anything, this whole situation showed the NFL that hey, if you're gonna come to a 10-year deal with your player's association, don't dick around the referees; they deserve their fair share, too.
It would've been nice if they could have gotten this mess sorted out before it had an impact on actual meaningful football games, but it's not as if anyone goes out of their way to watch preseason NFL football, which is second only to the Pro Bowl on the "Major Boring Shit-o-Meter".
"Don't do anything I wouldn't do." --Stone Cold Steve Austin
Certified RFMC Member-- Ask To See My Credentials!
Co-Winner of Time's Person of the Year Award, 2006
Originally posted by TheBucsFanIt's possible slightly more people bet on the Seahawks, I have no idea, but generally the purpose of those betting lines is to find a medium where roughly the same amount of money is bet on both sides, so that the bookmakers can't lose regardless of the outcome.
I think that's true for spread bets, but not for money line. Money line bets would be structured so that there is a similarly small chance of paying out the underdog as there is a chance that the underdog wins. Also, I think the amount of money bet on the underdog outright is usually beyond the proportional amount bet on the favorite outright. In the long run this works fine, but on a game-by-game basis underdogs winning can cost Vegas. I recall reading articles that said that Vegas lost money on the first Giants/Patriots Super Bowl because the payouts on the huge Giants money line wiped out all other profits on things such as the spread, the prop bets, and even their vig.
The Big Bossman raised the briefcase.
Go Pack Go! Owner of one (1) share. (1-2, T-3 NFC North) Let's Go Riders! Owner of one (1) share. (6-6, 3rd West Division.)
That's interesting and I didn't know that. But I don't think that's been reported as happening here (though that doesn't mean it didn't happen). The $150 million figure that is thrown around is simply the amount that was going to Packers bettors and instead went to Seahawks bettors.
What It's False was referring to is a report I also heard but can't find anywhere that some of the sports book in Vegas voided all bets on the Monday night game because of the controversy, so NO bets were paid, the customers were given their betting money back, and the books as a result lost an estimated $150 million in wagers.
It's not a matter of who won or lost, but that they just called the whole thing off.
Based on the number being the exact same, I'm guessing you're just confusing one thing for another. But I would be interested in seeing something supporting what you're saying.
Monday night's controversial touchdown call that gave the Seattle Seahawks a 14-12 victory over the Green Bay Packers had an immediate impact for gamblers.
If the Hail Mary pass by Seahawks quarterback Russell Wilson would have been ruled an interception by Packers safety M.D. Jennings, Green Bay -- 3½ point favorites -- would have won by five, covering the spread.
Instead, the replacement officials' call that Seahawks wide receiver Golden Tate had possession shifted all those who bet on the Packers to those who took the underdog Seahawks.
"Most of the customers in the sportsbook were not happy with the final call," said John Avello, director of the race and sportsbook at the Wynn in Las Vegas. "The shift was 100 percent. After the (Seahawks) score, all bets were reversed."
Avello's best guess as to how much money was shifted worldwide on the call? $150 million in total bets worldwide.
Jeff Sherman, assistant director of the race and sportsbook at the Las Vegas Hotel, says he estimates that the game shifted $15 million in Nevada alone and also concurs with Avello that the worldwide number, including offshore sportsbooks and in Europe, is worth about 10 times more.
Those who take bets online estimated the shift in money was even greater.
Mike Perry, spokesman for betting site Sportsbook.ag, told ESPN.com his estimate in the money swing on the call at the end of the game is closer to between $200 million and $250 million.
Perry said that 70 to 80 percent of the money on his site was put on the Packers, which is in line with the percentage bet in Vegas. At Mandalay Bay, the sportsbook took in about $500,000 in total bets, with about 85 percent of the money on the Packers.
Interestingly, the story here says 70 to 80 percent of bets were on the Packers, meaning this call MADE money for Vegas. I see no reason to believe Vegas would simply void a bet for a controversial call - seems like it would set a dangerous precedent.
Seems awfully stupid, what will that casino owner do next time a controversial call influences the outcome of a game but it is made by real refs? The answer, f course, is he will keep the money, which is why this decision seems kind of arbitrary and inconsistnt, to me.
Thanks for the link, I'm definitely surprised to learn this. But it's still a far cry from $150 million being returned, or suggesting Vegas issued some kind of pressure that may have influenced the NFL's willingness to compromise with the locked out officials.
Originally posted by TheBucsFanSeems awfully stupid, what will that casino owner do next time a controversial call influences the outcome of a game but it is made by real refs? The answer, f course, is he will keep the money, which is why this decision seems kind of arbitrary and inconsistnt, to me.
Thanks for the link, I'm definitely surprised to learn this. But it's still a far cry from $150 million being returned, or suggesting Vegas issued some kind of pressure that may have influenced the NFL's willingness to compromise with the locked out officials.
Feels like a loss leader to me.
The casino owner is giving people until Sunday to come to his sports book and redeem their tickets. He is probably figuring that he will get free publicity for doing so, pick up some extra business from Green Bay fans who hear about it even if they made bets at other sports books and the one who collect the refunds will probably make enough losing bets that he won't be out much.
Originally posted by TheBucsFanSeems awfully stupid, what will that casino owner do next time a controversial call influences the outcome of a game but it is made by real refs?
He will keep the money. It's not like this sets some legal precedent - it's clearly an at-will gesture, and one that, as Llakor points out, is likely being done simply to drum up more business in the long run. No reasonable casino owner would offer this if it put them in the red.
Main thing we learned from last night: the regulars are going to make their mistakes, but at least they're efficient. At least the game went less than 4 hours without any egregious 10 minute ref huddles.
Originally posted by It's FalseMain thing we learned from last night: the regulars are going to make their mistakes, but at least they're efficient. At least the game went less than 4 hours without any egregious 10 minute ref huddles.
During the Steelers/Raiders game, the CBS announcers said the scary Darrius Heyward-Bey injury was the fault of the replacement refs, too distracted and befuddled to control the game. When Browns punt returner Joshua Cribbs's helmet went flying and the teams knelt down, the NFL Network announcers did not suggest the returning refs were responsible.
The replacements made mistakes, but they caught flak for normal game activity.
"To be the man, you gotta beat demands." -- The Lovely Mrs. Tracker
Originally posted by Matt TrackerDuring the Steelers/Raiders game, the CBS announcers said the scary Darrius Heyward-Bey injury was the fault of the replacement refs, too distracted and befuddled to control the game. When Browns punt returner Joshua Cribbs's helmet went flying and the teams knelt down, the NFL Network announcers did not suggest the returning refs were responsible.
The replacements made mistakes, but they caught flak for normal game activity.
This has nothing to do with that, but "scary injuries" should not equate to "normal game activity."
Originally posted by Matt TrackerDuring the Steelers/Raiders game, the CBS announcers said the scary Darrius Heyward-Bey injury was the fault of the replacement refs, too distracted and befuddled to control the game. When Browns punt returner Joshua Cribbs's helmet went flying and the teams knelt down, the NFL Network announcers did not suggest the returning refs were responsible.
The replacements made mistakes, but they caught flak for normal game activity.
This has nothing to do with that, but "scary injuries" should not equate to "normal game activity."
Re: Darrius Heyward-Bey the problem wasn't that it happened, it was that the replacement killers didn't throw a flag over a clearly illegal hit.
There is an argument that the hit happened in the first place because similar (albeit less dangerous) illegal hits were also going uncalled. Defences were a lot more physical with the replacement killers officiating, because they knew they could get away with it.
(And THAT hit not getting called was only going to make matters worse.)
Thread ahead: Seahawks 14, Packers 13 (or: Scab Ref Apocalypse) Next thread: Last two playes of first half of ILL-PSU game Previous thread: The W Survival League: 2012.04
When your team is something like 8 or 10 million under the cap, and you dont upgrade your Offensive line KNOWING you are drafted a lefty QB and just spend an assload on a Pro Bowl RB, then you are not trying hard enough as an organization.
Thread rated: 6.65
#
#
