posted on Feb, 8 2012 @ 12:47 PM
reply to post by gimmefootball400
I think it is widely recognized (except by Pat fans) that the Giants have the better team. But, losing a game is not the only, or even the primary
way, to rig a sporting event. Remember that gamblers bet on things like what the score will be at halftime, who will score first, what he final score
will be, etc. My point is, the more unconventional the course of the game is, the harder it is to predict, and the more money it makes for bookies,
It's been a while since I've read up on the 1919 World Series; but as I remember, the players were not accused of "throwing" the series the way a
boxer would need to. Instead, they were accused of manipulating the kind of in-game events that people bet on (and the players and their families had
in fact placed major bets on.).
Pete Rose always claimed that he never bet against his team. Even if that is true, it is also true that he could impact the odds of various bets,
even while planning on an eventual win.
if a receiver in this super bowl let a pass "slide through his fingers," is it possible that some friend of his out in Vegas has staked millions on
just that event taking place? If a guy figures his team probably won't win the game anyway, I can imagine an athlete figuring he might as well
personally benefit to the tune of 5 or 10 million dollars, for "letting one go." Especially if he's being traded....