Rigged Championships

[Sonny9]

The 1946 championship - Bert Bell took quite a bit of action before and after that game - including hiring former FBI agents to investigate possible incidents. Bell took that matter very seriously and as someone else said, the suspensions were basically for not reporting that they had been offered bribes. If someone has found corroborated concrete evidence of either of them accepting, that would be an important find. One person saying something - although that's interesting, drawing a conclusion as serious as a fix, IMHO there should be a higher standard to be met within a researching community. There would need to be multiple credible sources.

So don't believe the gamblers who were in on the fix??????? I'd call that a high standard. Maybe you can explain to the "researching community" why it isn't?

[GameBeforeTheMoney]

That is a fair question.

The group saying that they created the fix - again that's interesting that people would say that. However, in a historic context such as tainting the NFL Championship Game, I would want to see solid evidence outside of that group from sources that have nothing to gain (in this case notoriety) from saying they rigged it. I'm not saying there's no chance that it's impossible that they're telling the truth and like I said, it's a compelling thought, but nothing to my knowledge has surfaced such as photographs of these people with the players, transcripts from investigations that tied these people to the scheme, how many more people bet after the potential fix, contemporaneous news reports from journalists that provided solid connections. Those things might not exist - and to draw what to fans would be considered a very serious conclusion based on some people discussing it - I might be the only person in the community that would want to see more, but I would guess that there are a lot of others who would need quite a bit more to give it some real consideration.

But as you alluded to, I can't speak for the whole community.

And I want to be clear - I'm not dismissing you having your opinion about it based on what you've researched. I just would want to see a lot more to take the confessions seriously.

[Bryan]

So don't believe the gamblers who were in on the fix??????? I'd call that a high standard. Maybe you can explain to the "researching community" why it isn't?

What on earth are you talking about? Did you even read the Coffin Corner article that was linked in your previous comment?

[Sonny9]

So don't believe the gamblers who were in on the fix??????? I'd call that a high standard. Maybe you can explain to the "researching community" why it isn't?

What on earth are you talking about? Did you even read the Coffin Corner article that was linked in your previous comment?

lol Stop with the fake outrage. I explained in my post what the gamblers said. if you don't believe them, fine. But they, plural, are a source.
And as for your condescending comment asking if I read the article I linked, you don't understand that there are different articles with different views on this subject?
And you mind your manners when you are responding to my posts.

[Sonny9]

That is a fair question.

The group saying that they created the fix - again that's interesting that people would say that. However, in a historic context such as tainting the NFL Championship Game, I would want to see solid evidence outside of that group from sources that have nothing to gain (in this case notoriety) from saying they rigged it. I'm not saying there's no chance that it's impossible that they're telling the truth and like I said, it's a compelling thought, but nothing to my knowledge has surfaced such as photographs of these people with the players, transcripts from investigations that tied these people to the scheme, how many more people bet after the potential fix, contemporaneous news reports from journalists that provided solid connections. Those things might not exist - and to draw what to fans would be considered a very serious conclusion based on some people discussing it - I might be the only person in the community that would want to see more, but I would guess that there are a lot of others who would need quite a bit more to give it some real consideration.

But as you alluded to, I can't speak for the whole community.

And I want to be clear - I'm not dismissing you having your opinion about it based on what you've researched. I just would want to see a lot more to take the confessions seriously.

The gamblers, in testimonies, could have said both players were in on it as payback for not being in on it. On the other hand, the NFL would not want a scandal coming out and would want to down play it. Plus I don't think those involved, that weren't wired tapped, would want to get thrown in jail by confirming there was a fix

I'm focusing on the 6 interceptions vs what some have said that Filchock played hard so that's proof he didn't throw the game. I tend to look at the actions and results vs what people say.

[Sonny9]

1965 Playoff - NFL rules to this day state that if any part of the ball goes over the goalpost, the kick is good. I've talked to Mr. Tunney about this call in the past few years, and he stands by it. The kick went was way wide by the back of the end zone, but at the front of the end zone, it's possible that it barely went over the goal post. And like someone else pointed out, it was very late in the game. Highly unlikely that a fix would get pulled off in that fashion. Also, it's not too different than the Rich Karlis kick that won the 86 AFC Championship Game - at least from my vantage point. And, especially based on the Browns scoring a late TD with Dennis Smith slipping and falling on coverage, the Drive, and the fact the Browns were stopped by Karl Mecklenburg's great play on the first overtime drive, there isn't any evidence of that being a fix.

The 1946 championship - Bert Bell took quite a bit of action before and after that game - including hiring former FBI agents to investigate possible incidents. Bell took that matter very seriously and as someone else said, the suspensions were basically for not reporting that they had been offered bribes. If someone has found corroborated concrete evidence of either of them accepting, that would be an important find. One person saying something - although that's interesting, drawing a conclusion as serious as a fix, IMHO there should be a higher standard to be met within a researching community. There would need to be multiple credible sources.

I've heard that point about part of the ball going over the post. Where the ref was stationed, more so to the middle, balls will look more inside than what they are

Bell didn't have much time. Filchock said he didn't take it as a serious discussion but he knew. The wiretap said something like FF isn't going for it which is more proof he knew. If the gambler is to be believed that he wined and dined Hapes, then that is more proof this was a serious attempt that Filchock would know in that, I'd "think" Hapes would have said something to Filchock. I haven't heard anything brought up about if Filchock and Hapes discussed it between themselves. It would seem strange that Hapes and Filchock were both approached but neither knew the other was approached

Dunno the time line. But the wiretap that said FF isn't going for it. Was that said before the bets being placed in their names and the offer of off season jobs if they came through? The best thing that could have happened was the game hitting the spread right on the nose so no who got +10 or -10, won

What I gathered from what Filchock said was something like, "I didn't take it seriously therefore it wasn't a serious attempt".

[Bryan]

lol Stop with the fake outrage. I explained in my post what the gamblers said. if you don't believe them, fine. But they, plural, are a source.
And as for your condescending comment asking if I read the article I linked, you don't understand that there are different articles with different views on this subject?
And you mind your manners when you are responding to my posts.

What 'gamblers' (plural) implicated Hapes as accepting a bribe for throwing the 1946 championship game? And if Hapes did accept a bribe, and was suspended before the game, how could the game itself have been 'fixed'?

Also what did you mean when you said:

Forgot the "gangsters" name involved but his side was Hapes was bribed and took it while Filchock thought about over night and declined. After the game the "gangster" paid them both from bets he made on the game both took the money.

What bribe did Hapes take? After which game did the 'gangster' pay Hapes and Filchock money? You seem to be confusing different elements of your alleged story.

Again, did you read the CC article to which you provided the link? That would clear up a lot of your confusion on this issue.

[Bryan]

I'm focusing on the 6 interceptions vs what some have said that Filchock played hard so that's proof he didn't throw the game. I tend to look at the actions and results vs what people say.

So what you are saying is that despite meeting with police, NFL officials, etc. the day before the game to discuss the bribe attempts, Frank Filchock intentionally threw the game....but even with Filchock throwing the game the Giants still covered the spread so anyone placing a bet on the Bears would have lost....makes perfect sense to me!

[Sonny9]

What 'gamblers' (plural) implicated Hapes as accepting a bribe for throwing the 1946 championship game? And if Hapes did accept a bribe, and was suspended before the game, how could the game itself have been 'fixed'?

lol because Filchock would be the one to throw the game. You don't understand that throwing 6 interceptions doesn't help win games and looks bad? Go read the article I linked then you'd know about the gamblers.

Also what did you mean when you said:

Forgot the "gangsters" name involved but his side was Hapes was bribed and took it while Filchock thought about over night and declined. After the game the "gangster" paid them both from bets he made on the game both took the money.

What bribe did Hapes take? After which game did the 'gangster' pay Hapes and Filchock money? You seem to be confusing different elements of your alleged story.

No I'm not confusing anything. Obviously the money they received would be from bets placed in their names and off season jobs. I've already mentioned that before. The only one confused here is you and your gotcha game didn't work.

Again, did you read the CC article to which you provided the link? That would clear up a lot of your confusion on this issue.

Again stop with your condescending remarks. Why don't you read other articles and get out of the tunnel vision mode. That would clear up a lot of your misconceptions.

[Sonny9]

So what you are saying is that despite meeting with police, NFL officials, etc. the day before the game to discuss the bribe attempts, Frank Filchock intentionally threw the game....but even with Filchock throwing the game the Giants still covered the spread so anyone placing a bet on the Bears would have lost....makes perfect sense to me!

They didn't cover the spread it was 10, that is a push. It is in the article I linked. Go read it.
Your posts in this thread don't make much sense. The thought process to take it to the next level is missing. Plus trying so hard to be right makes it harder for you to see.
I'm focusing on the 6 interceptions vs what some have said that Filchock played hard so that's proof he didn't throw the game. I tend to look at the actions and results vs what people say. <<<< Keep ignoring this. Nothing to see here, right?