Bill Belicheat wins Coach of the Year

[VietCowboy]

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

you can disprove conclusively a hypothesis or theory.

for example...an object at rest will stay at rest unless acted upon.

when you find an example that shows that an object at rest on its own starts moving, you disprove it. (of course, you may think it trickery, but let's say you do find an example that naturally does this)


as for hype, we could come up with some semblance for it, but it assuredly isn't only going to include teams that are only undefeated at 10-0.

 

[Maikeru-sama]

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

you can disprove conclusively a hypothesis or theory.

for example...an object at rest will stay at rest unless acted upon.

when you find an example that shows that an object at rest on it owns starts moving, you disprove it.


as for hype, we could come up with some semblance for it, but it assuredly isn't only going to include teams that are only undefeated at 10-0.

All I want to know is is there going to be a Pop Quiz aftewards : .

 

[superpunk]

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.

I'm not sure what ya'll are talking about, but I checked on the Pats penalties for/against a couple weeks ago. The difference was negligible. That doesn't mean that the Pats aren't getting away with alot, but there it is.

 

[VietCowboy]

All I want to know is is there going to be a Pop Quiz aftewards : .

i'm just saying scientific research hinges on the fact that things should be falsifiable (can be disproved).

 

[theogt]

I'm not sure what ya'll are talking about, but I checked on the Pats penalties for/against a couple weeks ago. The difference was negligible. That doesn't mean that the Pats aren't getting away with alot, but there it is.

Ehh...for/against ratio wouldn't necessarily negate anything. I'm not saying they're getting favorable calls, just that the timing of getting certain calls is much more important than the for/against ratio. And we all know they've received some favorable calls at some pretty key moments to keep their undefeated streak alive.

 

[aikemirv]

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.

When did the whistle blow for the timeout. Was it after the play?

If it was he easily could have known who called the timeout.

If the whistle did not blow during the play then no timeout should have been awarded after the fact.

I don't remember the sequence - I really am asking.

 

[SultanOfSix]

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

We can all be glad he would never cheat on his wife either. I mean, how would that look?

"Coach of the Year"
"Cheater of the Year" both on and off the field.

 

[Boyzmamacita]

I just want to know how did filming the Jets in week 1 of the season help the Pats go 16-0. Did they gain that much of an advantage over the rest of the NFL because of the info they got off the Jets?

Are you naive enough to believe that they've stopped cheating just because they got caught?

 

[Doomsday101]

Are you naive enough to believe that they've stopped cheating just because they got caught?

Yes when the eyes of the league are now on you. When you say league the league is 32 owners including the owners in his own division I don't think he is so called cheating.

 

[Doomsday101]

When did the whistle blow for the timeout. Was it after the play?

If it was he easily could have known who called the timeout.

If the whistle did not blow during the play then no timeout should have been awarded after the fact.

I don't remember the sequence - I really am asking.

The play was stopped right before the snap of the ball. You get down to it when coaches are trying to get the attention of the ref many members of the coaching staff are hollering timeout that is the only way to get his attention in a stadium that is quite loud to begin with.

 

[khiladi]

The play was stopped right before the snap of the ball. You get down to it when coaches are trying to get the attention of the ref many members of the coaching staff are hollering timeout that is the only way to get his attention in a stadium that is quite loud to begin with.

Stadiums are always loud. This situation happens all the time. It isn't excusable.

 

[Doomsday101]

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.

So are we getting these calls as well? How about the Colts? or is it just the Pats?

 

[Doomsday101]

Stadiums are always loud. This situation happens all the time. It isn't excusable.

It was the DC he called it and the ref gave it to them as they asked. If the HC can't control his own staff then that is on him. The ref has his back to the sidelines he is not looking at them and when they come running down the sideline right behind him hollering TO they will give it to you. Even the head of officating made this remark. There is no way they can tell who exactly it was calling it. These are humans not machines you have the sideline hollering for TO they will give it to you. Sorry if you can't understand that. In the end the ref does would not know what the outcome of the play would have been to start with. Had the Pats scored a TD on the play or failed on the 4th the play was stopped.

 

[Boyzmamacita]

Yes when the eyes of the league are now on you. When you say league the league is 32 owners including the owners in his own division I don't think he is so called cheating.

They were caught last season (TWICE) - once against Detroit and I forget the other opponent. It was reported to the league, but that didn't stop their little cheat train. Yes, 16-0 is impressive, but it is tarnished by the cheating. He should not be coach of the year. Call him a genius. Annoint his arse if you want to, but do not reward him in the same season he was CAUGHT CHEATING.

 

[VietCowboy]

They were caught last season (TWICE) - once against Detroit and I forget the other opponent. It was reported to the league, but that didn't stop their little cheat train. Yes, 16-0 is impressive, but it is tarnished by the cheating. He should not be coach of the year. Call him a genius. Annoint his arse if you want to, but do not reward him in the same season he was CAUGHT CHEATING.

GB, but i'm guessing there were a lot more. as if it only happened 3 times! if BB was willing to steal signals from the lowly NYJ don't you think they'll try harder on a better team?

 

[LittleBoyBlue]

I just want to know how did filming the Jets in week 1 of the season help the Pats go 16-0. Did they gain that much of an advantage over the rest of the NFL because of the info they got off the Jets?

You know that you and I will go back and forth forever on this.

YOU - want to talk about the cheating and ask HOW? HOW? HOW? could they do this and how could they do that? Its defending something YOU CANNOT KNOW.

ME - They cheated. Were Caught. You dont know what they did after being caught. You dont know if they kept footage. You dont know if they are still cheating. You dont how much they cheated in the past.

They pressured Barry Bonds with Steroid "cheating" questions ever chance they got... and rightfully so.

They should be doing the same to the Patriots.
"We let 'em off the hook" Denny Green

And its Bull.

You know as well as I do.... IF it were the Dallas Cowboys THEY WOULD HAVE NEVER STOPPED TALKING ABOUT IT.

Dont let facts get in the way Doom..... or you could just... "spin them"

 

[LittleBoyBlue]

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.

That is laughable.

Because some dont agree with the Spygate issue... you post that nonsense.

I will just consider the source.

 

[Alexander]

He absolutely and completely deserves it.

 

[khiladi]

It was the DC he called it and the ref gave it to them as they asked. If the HC can't control his own staff then that is on him. The ref has his back to the sidelines he is not looking at them and when they come running down the sideline right behind him hollering TO they will give it to you.

Whether or not the HC can control his staff or not has absolutely no bearing on the rule. How hard is that to follow? Your logic is patently absurd.

If there is a rule that states that only the head coach can call the time-out, than this means it is the referees responsibility to enforce. If they have no ability to distinguish between the head-coach and others, than they wouldn't have made the rule in the first place. Anything other than that is just plain nonsense and gibberish.

Just because the head of officiating made this remark means absolutely nothing and he is obviously going to defend his refs in a situation such as this. Further, the situation was intensified, meaning that the play had way more bearing on the game. They needed to pay more attention, but they didn't. Convenient I might add...

 

[Boyzmamacita]

He absolutely and completely deserves it.

What do you know, Simon? You're mean.