Bill Belicheat wins Coach of the Year

[VietCowboy]

I think we need to step back here and distinguish between wearing black -- a cultural sign that you are the 'bad' guy -- something that was particularly prevalent in movies etc. vs. "hype"

Why would someone be influenced by the pro-Pats hype anymore than negative hype from the spygate issue or the hype surrounding any other undefeated team? If the hype argument holds water, that would suggest that we would have seen far more unbeaten teams as their momentum would produce more and more hype and more and more perception of being the "best" -- any time a team hit 10-0 or so, they should start to get the benefit of all the calls -- why would it have taken this long for someone to go undefeated if "hype" is truly that big an influence?

i'm not saying every that at all. When you are perceived a certain way, it CAN not it WILL influence things. So, i'm saying that it can be feasible, NOT ABSOLUTE CERTAINTY, that refs be influenced by "hype."

People talk about good teams getting calls going their way all the time. I don't think that is entirely unreasonable because that could (not saying it is) be some factor (again, not 100%, but maybe a small factor) in how refs perceive calls.

I know fans and even maybe experts tend to ignore or down play bad calls that go their way and blow up bad calls/noncalls against them. That of course lends a big hand in why these fans believe refs tend to favor others. But, of course, it isn't on every play that a ref is asked to make a call that is ambiguous. It isn't on every play that requires a judgment call. Therefore, you can play at a level that no matter what the refs do/don't do, those close calls won't matter. But, when a game is close, or a judgment call is asked for in a clutch moment that could be a game changing call, they could be influenced by perceptions of both teams, and call in favor of the better team (and hope replay can conclusively sort it out...it doesn't always, of course, and you can't overturn one way or another)

So....Why is it hard then when all the media does is kiss Pats behind and calling them the best ever that the refs might not be unduly influenced in some small way? I don't think the game is in any way fixed, but I certainly do believe that refs can be (not ARE, but can be) influenced by the media, and we all know how the media perceives the Pats...and it ain't as cheaters.

 

[Doomsday101]

Yep, and if the Pats would have got the 1st Down on that play and the Ravens were not awarded the Timout, people would cry foul.

Exactly. Like you I'm no Pats fan but I get tired of hearing these lame claims about how the Refs are doing them favors. I hate it when fans of other teams have made those claims about the Cowboys. The refs have a hard job and will make mistakes but for the most part I think they do their job and do so unbiased. I doubt many fans can honestly say they are not being bias people want to see them lose and when they don’t hear come the calls of the refs playing favors.

 

[Maikeru-sama]

Sad, but some Cowboys fans are becoming like Commanders fans.

They are becoming more pre-occupied with the Patriots losing then the Cowboys winning. I have noticed this since we lost to them earlier in the year.

Again, this is not the BCS. If the Dallas Cowboys continue to win, they will eventually get the opportunity to possibly end the Patriots fantastic season.

All you have to do is win, period.

 

[AbeBeta]

i'm not saying every that at all. When you are perceived a certain way, it CAN not it WILL influence things. So, i'm saying that it can be feasible, NOT ABSOLUTE CERTAINTY, that refs be influenced by "hype."

People talk about good teams getting calls going their way all the time. I don't think that is entirely unreasonable because that could (not saying it is) be some factor (again, not 100%, but maybe a small factor) in how refs perceive calls.

I know fans and even maybe experts tend to ignore or down play bad calls that go their way and blow up bad calls/noncalls against them. That of course lends a big hand in why these fans believe refs tend to favor others. But, of course, it isn't on every play that a ref is asked to make a call that is ambiguous. It isn't on every play that requires a judgment call. Therefore, you can play at a level that no matter what the refs do/don't do, those close calls won't matter. But, when a game is close, or a judgment call is asked for in a clutch moment that could be a game changing call, they could be influenced by perceptions of both teams, and call in favor of the better team (and hope replay can conclusively sort it out...it doesn't always, of course, and you can't overturn one way or another)

So....Why is it hard then when all the media does is kiss Pats behind and calling them the best ever that the refs might not be unduly influenced in some small way? I don't think the game is in any way fixed, but I certainly do believe that refs can be (not ARE, but can be) influenced by the media, and we all know how the media perceives the Pats...and it ain't as cheaters.

The media kisses the butt of ANY team that is unbeaten late in the season --again, why would it have taken soooooo long for a team to go 16-0 if "hype" had such an influence on calls?

Early in the season, we heard about the Pats as cheaters. and we heard about them running up the score on teams and being poor sports. Why wouldn't these negative perceptions have influenced calls earlier in the season, possibly leading to Pats losses? Same principle at work here.

 

[khiladi]

Your right it was Billick DC was the one who did it and that is on the Ravens. There is no way the ref is going to know if that is the DC or the HC hollering for the TO. So no the Refs did not do the Pats a favor the Ravens screwed themselves and have no one to blame but themselves.

Yes there is. He can look at who is calling the time-out. What if the offense yells time-out behind the ref, and the ref calls time-out. The offensive player says that the DC behind him called time-out, not him. And the ref awards the time-out to the defense. According to your logic, the ref isn't to blame...

 

[Doomsday101]

Yes there is. He can look at who is calling the time-out. What if the offense yells time-out behind the ref, and the ref calls time-out. The offensive player says that the DC behind him called time-out, not him. And the ref awards the time-out to the defense.

A rule is a rule....

The refs are viewing the field not who is standing behind them. If the HC can't control his staff then that is on him. The ref has no way of know which coach is making the call for TO and if the ref fails to give it you same people would be hollering how the Ravens called a TO and the refs screwed them.

 

[khiladi]

The refs are viewing the field not who is standing behind them. If the HC can't control his staff then that is on him. The ref has no way of know which coach is making the call for TO and if the ref fails to give it you same people would be hollering how the Ravens called a TO and the refs screwed them.

Then how does a ref see the red flag that is thrown when a head coach challenges a play? There are plenty of referees involved in game that have certain responsibilities. Plenty of people on the sidelines can yell time out to the head coach, but it is the head coaches decision whether to call the TO or not. The ref is responsible for controlling this aspect of the game, jsut like they are responsible for other aspects of the game.

If the rule is that the head coach alone can call time-out from the sidelines, than it obviously entails that the refs have a certain reposnibility to make sure that when a time-out is called, it is the head coach that is doing it. Otherwise the rule is an absurdity.

Whether I would be hollering or not at the latter scenario, has absolutely no bearing on the fact that the refs screwed the incident up, liek they tend to do when the Patriots are playing, and there is a potential chance at a momentum swing.

 

[VietCowboy]

The media kisses the butt of ANY team that is unbeaten late in the season --again, why would it have taken soooooo long for a team to go 16-0 if "hype" had such an influence on calls?

Early in the season, we heard about the Pats as cheaters. and we heard about them running up the score on teams and being poor sports. Why wouldn't these negative perceptions have influenced calls earlier in the season, possibly leading to Pats losses? Same principle at work here.

this is why this is a hypothesis, and neither you nor I can prove it either way unless we are conducting an experimental research on this to prove it like those researchers proved that the color black can influence perceptions.

I am not trying to say that refs are influenced by "hype" but I'm saying that it is not impossible. I used that research to show how refs can be influenced by things, like color, so it isn't a far stretch to think they aren't influence by other things, like hype. can you show me research showing me refs aren't influenced by hype since you are convinced they are unequivocably not influenced by it? Thanks, I would love to read it and change my opinion.

I apologize in advance for all the double negatives.

 

[AbeBeta]

this is why this is a hypothesis, and neither you nor I can prove it either way unless we are conducting an experimental research on this to prove it like those researchers proved that the color black can influence perceptions.

I am not trying to say that refs are influenced by "hype" but I'm saying that it is not impossible. I used that research to show how refs can be influenced by things, like color, so it isn't a far stretch to think they aren't influence by other things, like hype. can you show me research showing me refs aren't influenced by hype since you are convinced they are unequivocably not influenced by it? Thanks, I would love to read it and change my opinion.

I apologize in advance for all the double negatives.

But your hypothesis has very little support retrospectively since you have only a single instance of an unbeaten season but many instances of growing hype around unbeaten teams.

Also, experiments "support" hypotheses but no scientist would ever use the word "proved" that is too strong a statement.

 

[VietCowboy]

But your hypothesis has very little support retrospectively since you have only a single instance of an unbeaten season but many instances of growing hype around unbeaten teams.

Also, experiments "support" hypotheses but no scientist would ever use the word "proved" that is too strong a statement.

true about proving, but you certainly can DISPROVE.

 

[Idgit]

Sad, but some Cowboys fans are becoming like Commanders fans.

They are becoming more pre-occupied with the Patriots losing then the Cowboys winning. I have noticed this since we lost to them earlier in the year.

Again, this is not the BCS. If the Dallas Cowboys continue to win, they will eventually get the opportunity to possibly end the Patriots fantastic season.

All you have to do is win, period.

There's a world of difference between disliking the Patriots and understanding that no coach should win a coach of the year award the year that he's personally reprimanded and fined, and his team penalized, for cheating. It's absurd, and he doesn't even have the good sense to be embarrassed.

 

[VietCowboy]

But your hypothesis has very little support retrospectively since you have only a single instance of an unbeaten season but many instances of growing hype around unbeaten teams.

Also, experiments "support" hypotheses but no scientist would ever use the word "proved" that is too strong a statement.

you know, i would love to see research on this. I truly do believe that refs can be duly (however minisculely, still significant w/ p<.05) by hype. you can't use "undefeated" as the ONLY hype which would lead to a VERY SMALL sample size, but we need to define hype first, then apply it to all previous teams that have been "hyped" and see their history and ref calls and see if refs do give the "hyped" team the benefit of the doubt.

 

[SweetDC]

I am in the minority but I think the guy deserved.

If your team goes undefeated, you should win COTY.

I disagree. If it was just about a coach's record, then why have voting in the first place? Just hand the award to the coach who has the best record at the end of the season. In the event of a tie, flip a coin.

However, the NFL has always purported to be about more than just the game and the record. That's why they have players participate in the United Way; that's why players and coaches are more accessible to the public than in any other sport; that's why off-the-field behavior can impact a player's eligibility regardless of how good he is on the field.

The NFL cares a lot about its image-always has and always will. Putting his record aside, Bellicheck cheated. In many minds, including my own, he has disgraced himself and the league. It's counterintuitive to honor a man who has behaved dishonorably.

 

[VietCowboy]

a lot of people would cheat if they could get away with it. Studies do show that if you know you can get away with something illegal, like stealing, you would do it (not everyone, but majority). getting caught is the sucky part, and people fear getting caught. that's why they don't do it.

obviously, billicheat doesn't fear cheating or getting caught. he is pretty much fearless and remorseless for cheating. maybe he is a sociopath. lol. i'll tell you in 5 years when I get my PhD in clinical psych.

 

[lcharles]

Twice in the cheaters last game against the giants, the play clock ran out on brady and he was awarded timeouts probably two seconds after the clock expired. I slow-mowed it on my tivo.

On the third down where brady was sacked, horrible call to keep the drive alive.


The long pass moss dropped, they came right back and he caught it the second time. (wink, wink)

Fixed.

 

[AbeBeta]

true about proving, but you certainly can DISPROVE.

no, all scientific conclusions are probabilistic -- likely / unlikely are the strongest terms you should feel comfortable with.

 

[AbeBeta]

you know, i would love to see research on this. I truly do believe that refs can be duly (however minisculely, still significant w/ p<.05) by hype. you can't use "undefeated" as the ONLY hype which would lead to a VERY SMALL sample size, but we need to define hype first, then apply it to all previous teams that have been "hyped" and see their history and ref calls and see if refs do give the "hyped" team the benefit of the doubt.

i think it would be impossible to operationally define "hype"

 

[Kilyin]

What a joke. All parties involved should be embarrassed.

 

[superpunk]

At least Bellichick doesn't do anything horrible, like smoke pot. Then the league would have had to come down on him hardcore.

 

[Chocolate Lab]

But your hypothesis has very little support retrospectively since you have only a single instance of an unbeaten season but many instances of growing hype around unbeaten teams.

Also, experiments "support" hypotheses but no scientist would ever use the word "proved" that is too strong a statement.

Maybe Goodell, who obviously just recently took over, tactitly decided that the NBA's "star system" of reffing would generate higher revenues.

I'm not saying games are fixed -- I've never, ever believed that. I'm not a conspiracy theorist. But I do wonder if the star team isn't getting some calls that the Cardinals or Rams wouldn't.

One thing I always loved about the NFL was that Sam Hurd had to get two feet in bounds just the same as Jerry Rice -- it made no difference who the player was. The NBA is not like that, as everyone knows. I pray that the NBA way of thinking has not infected the NFL.