The Memo

[BtownJay]

You can try to cover up your whining by calling it a metaphor all you want. But I guess you wanted that part to sail over our heads.

[Gunnerman]

Nicely said Jay. I suppose you could call it a whining metaphor or was it a sour grapes simile, not sure, curse my poor retention of basic grammar!

[Greg_Wyshynski]

Originally Posted by Ishkur

Some people need to go back and read the fucking article again before they fly off the handle in the thread.

I'll just repeat the finer points, in bold:

The Memo does not pick victors. It only picks sides.

In other words: It does not choose who wins. It only chooses who it WANTS to win.

Well, I'm sure you can understand the confusion as "picking sides" is in fact picking victors. It doesn't fix the game per se, but it's trying to bend it in the favor of the team that just so happens to win? Sounds like the same thing to me.

The Memo was all for The Patriots winning, but there's not much it can do when they turn over the ball five times.

So the Patriots are inept, but the Seahawks have a secret cabal plotting against them and trying to carry the Steelers to victory? Like I said, where does "the memo" mention the blown plays on the Parker touchdown, the defensive breakdown on the half-back option, and the fact that Seattle's offense lost its way after the first few series? You can point to three-four moments in the game and call them part of a plot to favor the Steelers; what about every play that wasn't the pass interference, the holding call, and the Roethlisberger TD?

Who writes The Memo? The largest money market in the contest aka the population base upon which the outcome could generate the most possible revenue from. The League and the officials are simply the messengers.

Explain that to Chicago Blackhawks fans. And New York Jets fans. And L.A. Kings fans. And...

This is such a fallacy. The money comes from getting the big-market team in the championship game/series. And it's better for the leagues if the big-market team loses in the big game, because then the hunger grows and you end up with a REAL windfall when teams like the Red Sox finally win.

From a larger perspective, what The Memo is predicating is that the rest of the big sports leagues are finally taking cues from professional wrestling on how to best orchestrate their championships for maximum entertainment value and earnings potential.

That must be why the White Sox's first World Series victory since 1917 had to go seven games.

Oh, wait a second, you mean it didn't? I guess I missed the memo...

[Rusty27]

Originally Posted by Ishkur

Jesus fucking christ, would you fucking READ THE FUCKING ARTICLE.

IT'S NOT AN ACTUAL PHYSICAL MEMO OR COMMANDMENT HANDED DOWN FROM ABOVE. IT'S NOT A CONSPIRACY, IT'S NOT A BRIBE, IT'S NOT A.....

fuck......forget it. I knew the overlying metaphor would sail right over your heads. Why do I bother.....

You said"The League and the officials are simply the messengers"
A metaphor makes them call penalties favoring the Steelers?

[Ishkur]

you set em up, I'll knock em down, Greg. Away we go:

Originally Posted by Greg_Wyshynski

* The NHL "wanted" Tampa to win the Cup, but it didn't "want" San Jose -- an American franchise in a non-hockey market -- to defeat Calgary in the WCF to face Tampa in the SCF?

What makes you think they didn't? The League doesn't always get what it wants. It habitually tried to stall Calgary on the road to the finals though.

Originally Posted by Greg_Wyshynski

Does the memo only apply to the finals?

The Memo applies to that which will give the league and the corporations running it the greatest return.

Originally Posted by Greg_Wyshynski

And if the memo calls for what's best for the NHL and its financial wellbeing, how the hell did my Devils skate away with three Cups that should have gone to Detroit, Dallas and Giguere?

Because there are 20 million more people living in the NY/NJ area. Densely populated markets are always given a free pass.

Originally Posted by Greg_Wyshynski

* Why did "the memo" allow a team with four Super Bowl titles to defeat a team with none?

Because they have a bigger fan base. Steeler Nation is exactly that: Nationwide. The Steelers had more fans in Washington (the state) than Seattle did. I'm in BC, and there were Steelers parties all over the place.

How many Seahawks fans do you suppose live in Pennsylvania? How many people in Pennsylvania even know where Seattle is?

Originally Posted by Greg_Wyshynski

Wouldn't it be in the NFL's best interest to establish an NFC championship franchise to act as a foil for Michael Vick, McNabb, Eli Manning, the Cowboys, the Bears and the Redskins?

Sure, so long as that NFC team comes from the east. Better market potential there. Start thinking business here.

Originally Posted by Greg_Wyshynski

The financial windfall of having a Super Bowl champion on TV against those teams would appear to be more beneficial than a few thousand T-shirts sold to Steelers fan.

How do you figger? The purpose of the game is to move product and sell advertising, not generate interesting football.

Originally Posted by Greg_Wyshynski

Yeah, Ish, turning Hasselbeck and Alexander into mega stars wouldn't be in the NFL's best interest, would it?

Steelers fans don't want Hasselbeck and Alexander being megastars, they want Bettis to get his god damn ring, which meant more to them than twenty Seattle Superbowl appearances.

Originally Posted by Greg_Wyshynski

A Seattle Super Bowl wouldn't sell too many jerseys...

Not as much as Steeler jerseys.

Originally Posted by Greg_Wyshynski

And that drive-killing holding call no one could find? Yeah, geez, wow, what a shock; it's not like that doesn't happen in every single NFL game from the preseason on.

The most pivotal moment of the game? .....strange it did not happen to the Steelers the other way. And how did Willie Parker get so open? ....could there have been a hold there? ....Would it have been more fair to call that one back? A referee can find an infraction on every play if he looks hard enough. Believe me; I've done it, just because a team was pissing me off.

Originally Posted by Greg_Wyshynski

But if the NFL was going to mandate that the Super Bowl be a close game with the Steelers winning, wouldn't it also mandate that the game be, you know, exciting?

Player performance is the one thing they have the least amount of control over.

That's why The Memo doesn't always work. It gives slight advantages. It doesn't guarantee victories.

[ssigman]

i found the article to be interesting if nothing else...he's able to state his opinions and fire up 3 people..so for that, well done....as for the content in the article..i think its the classic case of conspiracy...as much as you say its a metaphor...

we all know everything is about money and the leagues want to do whatever they can to make tons of it....but just because 90% of a crowd roots for one team, doesn't mean the refs call everything for them...i'm sick of hearing and watching everyone complain about the refs in the superbowl....they didn't call every play against you so in those plays, what did you do??? obviously not enough to win...deal with it and let the conspiracy theories fly

[Ishkur]

Originally Posted by Greg_Wyshynski

Well, I'm sure you can understand the confusion as "picking sides" is in fact picking victors. It doesn't fix the game per se, but it's trying to bend it in the favor of the team that just so happens to win? Sounds like the same thing to me.

No. A fix guarantees a win.

This does nothing of the sort.

Originally Posted by Greg_Wyshynski

So the Patriots are inept, but the Seahawks have a secret cabal plotting against them and trying to carry the Steelers to victory? Like I said, where does "the memo" mention the blown plays on the Parker touchdown, the defensive breakdown on the half-back option, and the fact that Seattle's offense lost its way after the first few series? You can point to three-four moments in the game and call them part of a plot to favor the Steelers; what about every play that wasn't the pass interference, the holding call, and the Roethlisberger TD?

Why would The Memo do anything about that? Seattle didn't lose its way, three drives (two touchdowns), and a punt return were stopped stone cold by penalties. Now, if you add those up and take away Roethlisberger's touchdown, you have a comfortable Seattle victory. Momentum is a funny thing like that.

What about every play? What about it? What about a Pittsburgh defense that went the entire game without so much as committing a single offside (much of it in abject frustration at being unable to stop a yard-chewing Seattle offense that could only be stopped by timely penalties)? When's the last time a team had no penalties in the entire game?

Originally Posted by Greg_Wyshynski

This is such a fallacy. The money comes from getting the big-market team in the championship game/series. And it's better for the leagues if the big-market team loses in the big game, because then the hunger grows and you end up with a REAL windfall when teams like the Red Sox finally win.

You don't see anything wrong with that? How insulting it is to have a 30-team league when 20 of them aren't meant to have any kind of memorable championship season?

I root for the Milwaukee Brewers now only because their sole existence is to serve as cannon fodder for the big market clubs. They will never make the postseason.

And that's not a fallacy, that's the disgusting truth. If you aren't allowed to win, what's the point of even playing? What's the point of rooting for a team destined to wallow forever in mediocrity?

Originally Posted by Greg_Wyshynski

Oh, wait a second, you mean it didn't? I guess I missed the memo...

you most certainly did.

[Greg_Wyshynski]

Originally Posted by Ishkur

you set em up, I'll knock em down, Greg. Away we go:

What makes you think they didn't? The League doesn't always get what it wants. It habitually tried to stall Calgary on the road to the finals though.

Hilarious. So the league has the power to shift a championship series away from the Flames, but not to keep them from reaching the final round, where Canadian viewers WILL NOT COUNT towards American TV ratings. This cripples viewership numbers and gives the hockey-hating media more fodder about the death of the sport.

I'd say your theory doesn't hold up to scrutiny, but why overstate the obvious?

The Memo applies to that which will give the league and the corporations running it the greatest return.

Again, the greatest return comes from the teams that are playing in the game, not the team that wins it. If this theory was true, then the Steelers would have defeated the Redskins in the Super Bowl, which would have drawn an audience of over 100 million fans.

Because there are 20 million more people living in the NY/NJ area. Densely populated markets are always given a free pass.

I'll give you a pass on this one because you don't live on the East Coast, but you seriously need to gain some perspective on the Devils' place in the NY sports market before making a comment like this.

And that theory might mean something the first or second time...but the third?

Because they have a bigger fan base. Steeler Nation is exactly that: Nationwide. The Steelers had more fans in Washington (the state) than Seattle did. I'm in BC, and there were Steelers parties all over the place.

How many Seahawks fans do you suppose live in Pennsylvania?

Should that matter? We're talking about what's good for the league and its financial partners. Building up a franchise that's already one of the most prestigeous in football doesn't help; building up a franchise that hasn't won, and that has two budding offensive stars, does.

Sure, so long as that NFC team comes from the east. Better market potential there. Start thinking business here.

Now it's an East Coast/West Coast bias. I see. Did the memo not exist when Montana and Young were grabbing rings like Frodo Baggins?

How do you figger? The purpose of the game is to move product and sell advertising, not generate interesting football.

So having the Super Bowl champion Seahawks against Dallas or Washington or New York or Chicago or Vick or McNabb wouldn't "move product"?

Steelers fans don't want Hasselbeck and Alexander being megastores, they want Bettis to get his god damn ring, which meant more to them than twenty Seattle Superbowl appearances.

Who cares about Steelers fans? Fans 18-24 would snatch up thousands of Hasselbeck or Alexander jerseys if either of those players had a star-making performance in the Super Bowl. You can't refute the fact that for the NFL, having either of those players become a marketable star is in its best interests (in the long run) more than the Steelers winning. With Favre near the end, Hasselbeck could have moved up as the heir apparent.

The most pivotal moment of the game? .....strange it did not happen to the Steelers the other way. And how did Willie Parker get so open? ....could there have been a hold there? ....Would it have been more fair to call that one back? A referee can find an infraction on every play if he looks hard enough. Believe me; I've done it, just because a team was pissing me off.

But what does this prove? Nothing. You just said it yourself -- there's an infaction on EVERY PLAY. Did the ref drop the flag AFTER the catch? Of course he didn't. He dropped it during the play, before the pass was completed. He had no idea what happened at the end of the play, because he was doing his job. Bad call? Maybe. But it's not like the refs conspired to overturn the play by dropping a flag after the whistle. That's the stuff of bad conspiracy theories.

And Willie Parker got so open because Seattle's defense couldn't tackle my grandmother on that play, and she died five years ago.

Player performance is the one thing they have the least amount of control over.

That's why The Memo doesn't always work. It gives slight advantages. It doesn't guarantee victories.

No, actually "the memo" doesn't always work because it's an asinine theory rooted in fantasy that doesn't hold up to the slightest application of fact.

[Greg_Wyshynski]

Originally Posted by Ishkur

What about every play? What about it? What about a Pittsburgh defense that went the entire game without so much as committing a single offside (much of it in abject frustration at being unable to stop a yard-chewing Seattle offense that could only be stopped by timely penalties)? When's the last time a team had no penalties in the entire game?

Not sure about that, but when exactly did discipline become someth