Jump to content
  • Welcome!

    Register and log in easily with Twitter or Google accounts!

    Or simply create a new Huddle account. 

    Members receive fewer ads , access our dark theme, and the ability to join the discussion!

     

NASCAR is officially the WWF...


Zod

Recommended Posts

I have the engineering degree and then went on to law school. You have to have an engineering degree to do patent law.

UNC Charlotte. Great facilities, great profs, and an ever growing reputation within the Engineering field. NCSU is the "better" school, but you can't go wrong with Charlotte's engineering program. Plus the ladies are so much finer at Charlotte than any of the other engineering programs in the state.

That's an oxymoron. Fine =/= girls in engineering

Link to comment
Share on other sites

That's an oxymoron. Fine =/= girls in engineering

Yeah after reading that it didn't come out the way I wanted it.

What I meant was, out of the 4 Engineering Schools in the state NCSU, NCA&T, Duke, and UNC-Charlotte, UNC-Charlotte as a whole has better looking girls than the other schools, regardless of the academic major. You still won't find many women in any of the engineering programs.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Me too. Heck, I have a degree in Motorsports Engineering and was set to work in NASCAR but the blatant cheating for JR drove me away from the sport.

Props again on the avatar. I think it is your best yet.

I am curious.....how is the blantant cheating accomplished and why are they so bad at it?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I am curious.....how is the blantant cheating accomplished and why are they so bad at it?

That's really my only question. NASCAR, in its history, has fixed only 47 races? All the Cup, NNS and non-points races Dale Jr. has ever won are the ONLY races that have ever been fixed, that's what I'm getting here, and other places, and in person.

Can anyone really say that adds up? 2000 DirecTV 500: "OK guys, today we're going to fix the race for Dale Jr. Just like we fixed only the races he won in the Busch Series."

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I am curious.....how is the blantant cheating accomplished and why are they so bad at it?

They don't "rig" races (as we incorrectly use the word due to the word's association with wrestling). They allow JR to go through tech in a different way than they do other drivers.

For example, at Daytona, they place templates over the car and the car is allowed so much deviation from that template. In some places on the car it is 1/8 of an inch, other places it is up to 1/2 of an inch. It is a very subjective inspection process before the race.

JR gets a little extra with all of his templates and at a place like Daytona where driver talent is significantly less important than the aerodynamics of a car, this "little extra" is worth 2-3 tenths on the track.

Plus NASCAR impounds all of the restrictor plates and doesn't allow independent verification of them after races. If NASCAR allowed a hundredth of an inch extra diameter on the restrictor plate, this would create a 5-10 HP advantage for the motor and also be worth a couple of tenths on the track.

The big restrictor plate tracks don't require much from the driver. You are basically a monkey sitting behind the steering wheel. Look at the list of drivers that have won at restrictor plate tracks that were marginal drivers at best: Derrike Cope, Sterling Marlin, Michael Waltrip, Ward Burton, Jimmy Spencer, the late Bobby Hamilton, and Ken Schrader to name a few.

So in that regard, NASCAR is better able to pull these races off for JR because his lack of talent isn't as apparent at the restrictor plate tracks where the car means everything. NASCAR pulls the same stunts at the other tracks, but JR's lack of talent is more evident as those tracks require more driver input.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

They don't "rig" races (as we incorrectly use the word due to the word's association with wrestling). They allow JR to go through tech in a different way than they do other drivers.

For example, at Daytona, they place templates over the car and the car is allowed so much deviation from that template. In some places on the car it is 1/8 of an inch, other places it is up to 1/2 of an inch. It is a very subjective inspection process before the race.

JR gets a little extra with all of his templates and at a place like Daytona where driver talent is significantly less important than the aerodynamics of a car, this "little extra" is worth 2-3 tenths on the track.

Plus NASCAR impounds all of the restrictor plates and doesn't allow independent verification of them after races. If NASCAR allowed a hundredth of an inch extra diameter on the restrictor plate, this would create a 5-10 HP advantage for the motor and also be worth a couple of tenths on the track.

The big restrictor plate tracks don't require much from the driver. You are basically a monkey sitting behind the steering wheel. Look at the list of drivers that have won at restrictor plate tracks that were marginal drivers at best: Derrike Cope, Sterling Marlin, Michael Waltrip, Ward Burton, Jimmy Spencer, the late Bobby Hamilton, and Ken Schrader to name a few.

So in that regard, NASCAR is better able to pull these races off for JR because his lack of talent isn't as apparent at the restrictor plate tracks where the car means everything. NASCAR pulls the same stunts at the other tracks, but JR's lack of talent is more evident as those tracks require more driver input.

1) Those drivers haven't won 7 Cup plate races, just one-three, and if the engine's better, he wouldn't need drafting help. Which he got from his good friend, the driver most likely to help him win, Kyle Busch, on Friday, for a chunk of the race. So of course that makes sense given how close they are.

2) Jeff Gordon somehow hasn't gotten them rigged for him but he's won more. I guess if he wins or JJ wins, it's talent, but if Junior wins, oh God, it CANNOT be talent. Alright. Now I see.

3) He has won eleven times at non-plate tracks, twelve counting the Winston. So was he just using special tires, or was there a trap door on the track where someone else was driving his car, and he's just the model who gets out in victory lane?

All of this makes perfect sense to me now.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

And while I hate to point out something after I've "given my response," considering that's usually how you and I debate, hell, Derrike Cope won at Dover too, does that also mean we must discount Dale Jr.'s success at Dover?

All I'm asking is, can you not admit that he's won some races fairly? Can you not at least admit that? He's won races where there should be no discussion about it being rigged. I don't believe NASCAR is rigged for anyone. But if you do, and it's just for him, enlighten me. Has he won some legit races or can you explain to me how each time, 47 times, he hasn't?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1) Those drivers haven't won 7 Cup plate races, just one-three, and if the engine's better, he wouldn't need drafting help.

You absolutely can't do anything on a plate track without a drafting partner.

2) Jeff Gordon somehow hasn't gotten them rigged for him but he's won more. I guess if he wins or JJ wins, it's talent, but if Junior wins, oh God, it CANNOT be talent. Alright. Now I see.

Jeff Gordon is a good driver. I don't know of anybody that would dispute that.

3) He has won eleven times at non-plate tracks, twelve counting the Winston. So was he just using special tires, or was there a trap door on the track where someone else was driving his car, and he's just the model who gets out in victory lane?

Yes, it is a special car with a trap door. He also has special tires and special fuel. :D

Like I said, JR gets this treatment at non-plate tracks, it just isn't near as obvious because the driver matters at those non-plate tracks, so the advantages given to him aren't resulting in wins. That might be the difference between JR not qualifying versus him having a top 20 run.

Also, the Winston is nothing but a cheaters race, so don't put much stock in it. Conveniently, the Winston (or whatever it is called now) is a race with very high viewership where NASCAR would stand to gain quite a bit if JR won.

All of this makes perfect sense to me now.

Glad to clear it up for you.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

All I'm asking is, can you not admit that he's won some races fairly? Can you not at least admit that? He's won races where there should be no discussion about it being rigged. I don't believe NASCAR is rigged for anyone. But if you do, and it's just for him, enlighten me. Has he won some legit races or can you explain to me how each time, 47 times, he hasn't?

Again, NASCAR doesn't "rig" races. We use that term, but it isn't a correct term.

Has he won some legit races? I don't know. I bailed on the sport in 2004 after noticing some things in the tech room involving JR's car for the Daytona 500. Conveniently, he won that race. So anything happening after 2004 is pure speculation on my part.

Could he win if he were in JG's car? Probably a win here or there. He would be tough at plate tracks because, again, the driver doesn't matter much. Would he have won 47 times like you keep pointing out? Not a chance.

The real question is, how many wins would he have if his last name were Smith or Moore? The answer is undoubtedly ZERO.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm sorry, most of your reasons in justifying how he's never won a race fair and square literally make me laugh. I can't fully take them seriously. Besides, I'm trying to convince you he's won races fairly and is a good driver. You're trying to convince me he's the worst driver who ever lived, and has never won a race. I don't see anything I'm saying having an affect on your opinions or your argument, and what you're saying to me only serves to amuse me.

However, I love the discussion.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.


  • PMH4OWPW7JD2TDGWZKTOYL2T3E.jpg

  • Topics

  • Posts

    • Like these podcasters   Start at min 19 for Bryce comments     Earlier mins are interesting too  8th time held under 20 points  moore greater than Canales        
    • The House Always Wins: The Financial Architecture of Managed Outcomes When you peel back the layers of the NFL's operations, the most compelling evidence for a "managed" game isn't just a blown call—it's the flow of money. The league has pivoted from prohibiting gambling to becoming a primary beneficiary of it. This shift has created a structural conflict of interest where the NFL is no longer just the sport regulator; it is the "House." By examining revenue streams, "integrity fees," and data monopolies, we can see how the financial incentives align perfectly with games that are nudged to maximize betting volume and protect the spread. I. The Billion-Dollar Conflict: Official Partners For decades, the NFL claimed gambling would destroy the sport's integrity. Today, it is a pillar of their revenue model. • The Big Three: The league signed five-year partnerships with DraftKings, FanDuel, and Caesars worth nearly $1 billion. This isn't just advertising; it's deep integration. • Revenue Growth: In 2024 alone, the NFL reportedly generated over $23 billion in total revenue. A significant and growing portion of this comes from gambling-related sponsorships and data licensing. • The Conflict: When the league's partners (the sportsbooks) lose money on a "bad outcome" (e.g., a massive public underdog winning), the league's partners suffer. It is in the NFL's best financial interest to ensure their partners remain profitable and stable, creating an inherent bias against outcomes that would bankrupt the books. II. The "Integrity Fee" & The Data Monopoly The most cynical mechanism in this relationship is the so-called "Integrity Fee" and the monopoly on "Official League Data." • The "Royalty" on Betting Volume: The NFL has lobbied states for an "integrity fee"—essentially a tax of roughly 0.25% to 1% on the total handle (amount bet) of NFL games. This means the NFL makes money based on volume, not just who wins. • The Incentive for Close Games: Betting volume is highest when games are close. Live betting (in-game wagering) evaporates during a blowout. Therefore, a referee "nudging" a game to keep it within one score doesn't just make for good TV; it literally generates millions in extra betting handle (and thus revenue) for the league and its partners. • Official Data Rights: The NFL mandates that sportsbooks use "Official League Data" to settle in-game bets. This means the NFL controls the very stream of information that determines if a prop bet (e.g., "Will the next play be a run or pass?") wins or loses. They own the game, the referees, and the data feed—a completely closed loop. III. Managing the Spread: The "Hook" and the "Backdoor Cover" The most precise tool for managing outcomes is the manipulation of the "spread" (the point margin). "Rigging" a win is clumsy; "managing" a cover is subtle. • The "Hook" (0.5 Points): Vegas often sets lines ending in a half-point (e.g., Chiefs -3.5) to ensure there is no tie (push). • The Scenario: The Chiefs are winning by 3 points with 2 minutes left. They are covering the win, but failing to cover the spread (-3.5). • The Nudge: A subjective "defensive holding" call gives the Chiefs a fresh set of downs, allowing them to score a meaningless late touchdown or field goal. Suddenly, they win by 6 or 10. The public (who mostly bet the favorite) wins, the books take a hit, but the engagement remains high. Alternatively, a phantom offensive holding call stalls the drive, forcing a punt, ensuring the underdog covers. • The "Middle": Referees can manipulate game flow to land the final score in a "middle" ground where the vast majority of bets lose or push, maximizing profit for the sportsbooks. IV. Case Study: The "Fix" Aligned with the Money Let's look at the 2022 AFC Championship (Chiefs vs. Bengals) through a betting lens. • The Line: The Chiefs were favored by -1.5 to -2.0 points at kickoff. • The "Do-Over" Play: Late in the 4th quarter, with the game tied 20-20, the Chiefs failed on a 3rd down. A punt would have given the Bengals the ball with a chance to win. The officials granted the unprecedented "do-over" play, citing a whistle no one heard. • The Result: The Chiefs eventually won by 3 points (23-20). • The Betting Alignment: • Moneyline: Chiefs bettors won. • Spread: Because the Chiefs won by 3, they covered the -1.5 spread. • The "Nudge": If the "do-over" hadn't happened, the Bengals likely get the ball back. Even if the Bengals just forced overtime or won, the millions of dollars on the Chiefs (the public favorite) would have been lost. The "do-over" saved the drive, the game, and the payout for the majority of the public bettors, keeping the "Golden Boy" (Mahomes) in the Super Bowl—the most profitable outcome for the league's narrative. Conclusion: The "Entertainment" Product The NFL's defense in court (that they are a "spectacle") combined with their financial partnerships creates a reality where competitive integrity is secondary to revenue optimization. • The Reality: They don't need to "fix" every game. They just need to ensure that primetime games remain competitive enough to drive live betting, and that the outcomes generally align with the long-term financial health of their partners. • The Verdict: When a referee throws a flag in the 4th quarter that seems to defy logic, look at the spread. You will often find that the flag didn't just change the down—it saved the House.
    • The Smoking Guns: Five Games That Define the "Rigged" Narrative If the NFL operates as "managed entertainment," certain games serve as the visible cracks in the façade. These are not merely games with bad calls; they are contests where the officiating decisions were so irregular, one-sided, or procedurally bizarre that they defy logical explanation. Below are the most glaring examples where the "human error" defense crumbles under scrutiny, suggesting a league prioritizing narrative and market size over competitive integrity. I. The Gold Standard: The "NOLA No-Call" (2018 NFC Championship) • The Game: New Orleans Saints vs. Los Angeles Rams  • The Incident: With under two minutes left in a tied game, Saints QB Drew Brees threw a pass to Tommylee Lewis inside the 10-yard line. Rams defender Nickell Robey-Coleman obliterated Lewis before the ball arrived—a textbook definition of pass interference and a helmet-to-helmet hit.  • The Irregularity: No flag was thrown. Had the penalty been called, the Saints could have run the clock down to seconds and kicked a game-winning field goal to go to the Super Bowl. instead, the Rams won in overtime.  • The "Fix" Angle: The lack of accountability was staggering. The NFL later privately admitted the error, but the outcome stood. Theories abound that the league preferred a Los Angeles team in the Super Bowl to boost the struggling L.A. market over a small-market New Orleans team. It remains the single most cited piece of evidence for game manipulation in the modern era.  II. The "Apology" Game: Super Bowl XL (2005) • The Game: Seattle Seahawks vs. Pittsburgh Steelers • The Incident: The Steelers won 21-10, but the game is infamous for a series of phantom calls against Seattle that killed their momentum and gifted points to Pittsburgh. This included a dubious holding call that negated a Seahawks drive to the 1-yard line and a low-block penalty on QB Matt Hasselbeck while he was making a tackle. • The Admission: Years later, head referee Bill Leavy publicly apologized to the Seahawks, stating, "I kicked two calls in the fourth quarter and I impacted the game... I'll go to my grave wishing that I'd been better."  • The "Fix" Angle: An apology does not return a Lombardi Trophy. The game reinforced the idea that "legacy" franchises (like the Steelers) get the benefit of the doubt over newer or less popular franchises (like the Seahawks). III. The "Phantom" Flag Pick-Up: Lions vs. Cowboys (2014 Wild Card) • The Game: Detroit Lions vs. Dallas Cowboys • The Incident: Detroit led late in the game. On a crucial 3rd down, Cowboys linebacker Anthony Hitchens ran through a Lions receiver without turning his head—clear pass interference. The official threw the flag, announced the penalty (Pass Interference, Defense), and spotted the ball. • The Irregularity: Minutes later, without review or clear explanation, the officials picked up the flag and waved off the penalty. The Lions were forced to punt; the Cowboys drove downfield to win. • The "Fix" Angle: It is procedurally almost unheard of for a penalty to be announced and then retracted after such a delay. The Cowboys, "America's Team," are the league's biggest revenue generator. The visual of officials seemingly changing their minds to aid a Cowboys comeback is often cited as a prime example of "managing" the winner. IV. The "Whistle" & The Stats: Jaguars vs. Patriots (2017 AFC Championship) • The Game: Jacksonville Jaguars vs. New England Patriots • The Incident: The Jaguars, a massive underdog, were leading the Patriots. In the 4th quarter, Jaguars linebacker Myles Jack stripped the ball, recovered it, and had a clear path to the end zone for a game-sealing touchdown. • The Irregularity: A referee blew the whistle dead immediately, claiming Jack had been touched down by contact (replays showed he had not). This erased the touchdown. Furthermore, the penalty disparity was statistically anomalous: The Jaguars were penalized 6 times for 98 yards, while the Patriots were penalized just 1 time for 10 yards.  • The "Fix" Angle: The Patriots were the league's dynasty; the Jaguars were a small-market anomaly. The premature whistle prevented an upset that the league's narrative machine likely did not want. V. The "Do-Over": Chiefs vs. Bengals (2022 AFC Championship) • The Game: Cincinnati Bengals vs. Kansas City Chiefs • The Incident: Late in the 4th quarter, the Chiefs failed to convert on a crucial 3rd down play. The drive—and the Chiefs' season—seemed to be in jeopardy. • The Irregularity: Officials intervened, claiming a whistle had blown before the play to reset the clock (a sound almost no one on the field or in the broadcast booth heard). They awarded the Chiefs a "do-over" 3rd down. On this second attempt (and subsequent extension via penalty), the Chiefs continued their drive.  • The "Fix" Angle: Giving the league's premier superstar (Patrick Mahomes) a second chance at a critical moment fueled accusations that the officials were instructed to ensure the Chiefs reached the Super Bowl. These examples highlight a consistent theme: when "errors" occur, they overwhelmingly favor the larger market, the bigger star, or the more profitable narrative.
×
×
  • Create New...