"The Fix Is In" - Book by Brian Tuohy Started by Marble_Eye
Posted: Sat Nov 08, 2014 8:38 pm
"The Fix Is In" - Book by Brian Tuohy
Started by Marble_Eye, Apr 22 2012 05:57 PM
NOTE: Because of the “missing” posts and other things that seem to have been done to this thread,
it is in the process of being re-edited and, hopefully, it will be completed by Thanksgiving.
The excessive spacing, etc. was created when posts were removed and was not noticed here.
NOTE: You will see some Posts “missing” but, as you already know, this is not unusual.
NOTE to BD Sullivan: Your clip of the Fryar play has “disappeared.”
NOTE: Post #28 is author’s comment. Evidence that some people do lurk here. Trolls?
Page 1 of 7
138 replies to this topic
#1 Marble_Eye
Forum Visitors
Posted 22 April 2012 - 05:57 PM
I dont recall ever seeing a discussion of this book in this Forum before, but in its chapter on gambling it discusses a 1943 investigation of Sammy Baugh for potential game fixing in a game lost against the Phil-Pitt "Steagles". It has lengthy discussions (a page and a half at least for both) of game fixing allegations against Len Dawson and Bobby Layne.
The one I want to primarily discuss here is Layne, as several different sources, former players Bernie Parrish and Paul Hornung (who also, naturally comes in for some discussion here) and gambler Donald "Dice" Dawson (no relation to Len, that I am aware of) make Layne sound like a routine & regular game fixer and gambler. Dawson claims he knows of many instances where Layne either outright threw games or at least shaved points. Hopalong Cassady (the Lions end of course, not the movie cowboy) allegedly told Bernie Parrish that Layne faked an injury against the Bears in a December 1956 game that meant the Division Title (which the Bears won.) Hornung mentions a 1958 Green Bay tie with Detroit where Layne had bet on Detroit to cover a 3-1/2 point spread. In FG range in a tie game very late, Layne waves the kicker off the field and proceeds to overthrow a reciever in the end zone, costing the Lions the win, and Layne his own bet. Thats not game fixing, but it IS playing to influence the outcome of a bet, not to win the game.
I guess what I am wondering what, if anything, was ever made public about Layne. How did he get in the HOF without any comment being made if so many people had such a perception of him. I do know when he retired he was the all time NFL leader in career TD passes. Was there a cover up? Was Pro Football still so far behind baseball in the sports hierarchy that no one really cared? What do any of the members - posters here know about Layne or any one else that isnt really "common" knowledge?
The book mentions many situations, some of which are fairly famous and well known to any fan with a historical bent. Some, like the Baugh investigation, were new, at least to me.
Anyone care to comment on anything they may know about any NFL game fixing situation, from any era? I can add any info anyone might be curious about from the book, if someone doesnt have a copy.
#2 Gabe
Forum Visitors
Posted 22 April 2012 - 08:41 PM
I have not read the book, but those two examples attributed to Layne are dubious. First off, the second-hand allegation made by Bernie Parrish about Layne faking an injury is actually in reference to the infamous "mugging" of Bobby Layne by the Chicago Bears' Ed Meadows in the final regular season game of the 1956 season (please the 1980 Coffin Corner article on the subject) in which a cheap shot taken by Meadows knocked Layne out of the game and cost the Lions the title. By all accounts, it was an ugly play and there was nothing faked about Layne's injury. The second incident from the 1958 game is also not supported by the facts. While Layne was intercepted in Packers' territory in the 4th quarter, that play did not in itself cost the Lions a victory in that game. After Layne threw the interception, the Lions drove twice more deep into Green Bay territory. In one instance Jim Martin missed a 15 yard field goal, and in another Gene Gedman fumled a pitchout at the 16. If stuff like this is the basis for alleging game-fixing and points-shaving in the book, then I'll take a pass on reading it.
#3 Marble_Eye
Forum Visitors
Posted 22 April 2012 - 09:53 PM
'Gabe', on 22 Apr 2012 - 8:41 PM, said:
I have not read the book, but those two examples attributed to Layne are dubious. First off, the second-hand allegation made by Bernie Parrish about Layne faking an injury is actually in reference to the infamous "mugging" of Bobby Layne by the Chicago Bears' Ed Meadows in the final regular season game of the 1956 season (please see the 1980 Coffin Corner article on) in which a cheap shot taken by Meadows knocked Layne out of the game and cost the Lions the title. By all accounts, it was an ugly play and there was nothing faked about Layne's injury. The second incident from the 1958 game is also not supported by the facts. While Layne was intercepted in Packers' territory in the 4th quarter, that play did not in itself cost the Lions a victory in that game. After Layne threw the interception, the Lions drove twice more deep into Green Bay territory. In one instance Jim Martin missed a 15 yard field goal, and in another Gene Gedman fumled a pitchout at the 16. If stuff is the basis for alleging game-fixing and points-shaving in the book, then I'll take a pass on reading it.
Fair enough. I didnt write the book, just read it and wondered what people may have known or thought. I knew about the Ed Meadows incident, but didn't recall in which of the 2 Bear-Lion matchups that season it occured. If you say it happened in the second game, I have no reason to doubt you. (I will go back and re-read the CC article.) The 1958 story re: the GB-Lions tie game was attributed to Paul Hornung in the book. Bad memory? Sour grapes or a desire to portray the league as having more gamblers than himself? I do not know. The gambler-bookmaker Don Dawson, who was later involved in the Len Dawson affair before Super Bowl IV, claimed that Layne fixed or shaved points in at least seven games that he personally knew of, in addition to betting on the whole schedule regularly. Credible, or not? I dont know either way so I wanted to see what folks here either know of, or think.
EDIT for content:
I re-read the 1980 CC article and this is all it says about the actual hit:
"What had happened was that 220 pounds of Bears defensive end, all of it named Ed Meadows, had blindsided Bobby with enough force to level any reasonably well-constructed brick building. Bobby was down and out of the count. They carried him off the field, through for the day with a concussion."
Take the adjectives out and it says: "What had happened was that Ed Meadows had blindsided Bobby with force. Bobby was down and out "of" (for) the count. They carried him off the field, through for the day with a concussion."
The rest of it is all about the aftermath, charges/counter charges and about Meadows' unsavory reputation. I dont see that this actually refutes the accusation. I am inclined to believe he really WAS knocked senseless, but he could have faked being dazed. COULD HAVE. Not saying he did. Meadows hit him with a blindside hit which at 220 lbs could have hurt him badly, but didnt necessarily have to. Our modern day QB's get blindsided too and usually by someone weighing a whole lot more than 220, (not to mention modern day steroids, weight and strength training) and they dont always wind up with a concussion or removed from the game. Has anyone ever seen film of the hit?
#4 Jagade
PFRA Member
Posted 22 April 2012 - 10:02 PM
'Gabe', on 22 Apr 2012 - 8:41 PM, said:
I have not read the book, but those two examples attributed to Layne are dubious. First off, the second-hand allegation made by Bernie Parrish about Layne faking an injury is actually in reference to the infamous "mugging" of Bobby Layne by the Chicago Bears' Ed Meadows in the final regular season game of the 1956 season (please the 1980 Coffin Corner article on the subject) in which a cheap shot taken by Meadows knocked Layne out of the game and cost the Lions the title. By all accounts, it was an ugly play and there was nothing faked about Layne's injury. The second incident from the 1958 game is also not supported by the facts. While Layne was intercepted in Packers' territory in the 4th quarter, that play did not in itself cost the Lions a victory in that game. After Layne threw the interception, the Lions drove twice more deep into Green Bay territory. In one instance Jim Martin missed a 15 yard field goal, and in another Gene Gedman fumled a pitchout at the 16. If stuff is the basis for alleging game-fixing and points-shaving in the book, then I'll take a pass on reading it.
I agree with everything here except that Layne's injury cost the Lions the game (and title) against the Bears in 1956. Chicago's running game was big that day, especially Rick Casares, and this was the main reason for Chicago's victory, IMO. Also, Harry Gilmer played well in relief of Layne, throwing 2 TD passes and completing another to the Bears 1 yard line which resulted in another Detroit TD a play or two later. Detroit always had a difficult time against the Bears in Wrigley in those days, and the Bears were up for that game.
I doubt that Detroit would have been able to beat the Bears that day, even with a healthy Layne, but I guess that anything is possible.
#5 Gabe
Forum Visitors
Posted 22 April 2012 - 10:44 PM
Point well taken and I don't disagree. My main contention was with the author's ill-founded allegation that Layne threw the game and the title by faking an injury.
'Jagade', on 22 Apr 2012 - 10:02 PM, said:
I agree with everything here except that Layne's injury cost the Lions the game (and title) against the Bears in 1956. Chicago's running game was big that day, especially Rick Casares, and this was the main reason for Chicago's victory, IMO. Also, Harry Gilmer played well in relief of Layne, throwing 2 TD passes and completing another to the Bears 1 yard line which resulted in another Detroit TD a play or two later. Detroit always had a difficult time against the Bears in Wrigley in those days, and the Bears were up for that game.
I doubt that Detroit would have been able to beat the Bears that day, even with a healthy Layne, but I guess that anything is possible.
#6 John Turney
PFRA Member
Posted 22 April 2012 - 11:27 PM
'Marble_Eye', on 22 Apr 2012 - 5:57 PM, said:
I dont recall ever seeing a discussion of this book in this Forum before, but in its chapter on gambling it discusses a 1943 investigation of Sammy Baugh for potential game fixing in a game lost against the Phil-Pitt "Steagles". It has lengthy discussions (a page and a half at least for both) of game fixing allegations against Len Dawson and Bobby Layne.
The one I want to primarily discuss here is Layne, as several different sources, former players Bernie Parrish and Paul Hornung (who also, naturally comes in for some discussion here) and gambler Donald "Dice" Dawson (no relation to Len, that I am aware of) make Layne sound like a routine & regular game fixer and gambler. Dawson claims he knows of many instances where Layne either outright threw games or at least shaved points. Hopalong Cassady (the Lions end of course, not the movie cowboy) allegedly told Bernie Parrish that Layne faked an injury against the Bears in a December 1956 game that meant the Division Title (which the Bears won.) Hornung mentions a 1958 Green Bay tie with Detroit where Layne had bet on Detroit to cover a 3-1/2 point spread. In FG range in a tie game very late, Layne waves the kicker off the field and proceeds to overthrow a reciever in the end zone, costing the Lions the win, and Layne his own bet. Thats not game fixing, but it IS playing to influence the outcome of a bet, not to win the game.
I guess what I am wondering what, if anything, was ever made public about Layne. How did he get in the HOF without any comment being made if so many people had such a perception of him. I do know when he retired he was the all time NFL leader in career TD passes. Was there a cover up? Was Pro Football still so far behind baseball in the sports hierarchy that no one really cared? What do any of the members - posters here know about Layne or any one else that isnt really "common" knowledge?
The book mentions many situations, some of which are fairly famous and well known to any fan with a historical bent. Some, like the Baugh investigation, were new, at least to me.
Anyone care to comment on anything they may know about any NFL game fixing situation, from any era? I can add any info anyone might be curious about from the book, if someone doesnt have a copy.
Dr. Z says he was doing research at the NFL offices and was left alone, overnight, they forgot he was there. He says he snooped around and found files on Layne and others. Says Layne would have been suspended al la Karras and Hornung had he not retired after the 1962 season, or in other words Layne retired rather than be suspended.
#7 Marble_Eye
Forum Visitors
Posted 22 April 2012 - 11:42 PM
'John Turney', on 22 Apr 2012 - 11:27 PM, said:
Dr. Z says he was doing research at the NFL offices and was left alone, overnight, they forgot he was there. He says he snooped around and found files on Layne and others. Says Layne would have been suspended ala' Karras and Hornung had he not retired after the 1962 season, or in other words Layne retired rather than be suspended.
So it could be then there was something to the total package of allegations, even if we discount the Meadows incident as not being legitmate. (Which it probably wasnt.) The above is sort of ironic and sad for Art Rooney who always maintained that had Layne played in 1963 the Steelers would have won the Division Title, which they almost did under Ed Brown at QB. Hornung made the HOF anyway, while Alex Karras never did. Wonder how Layne would have fared in HOF voting/selection, had he been suspended. Guess it would depend on both, what they had on him, and what they chose to make public in terms of charges.
#8 97Den98
Forum Visitors
Posted 23 April 2012 - 04:14 AM
I have heard of this Tuohy guy. He was on a sports radio show in Washington a few years ago.
He said something about how Peyton Manning had a frown on his face before SB 44, and that may have meant that he tried to throw the game (which basically is saying that he tried to throw to Tracy Porter).
Lorenzo Alexander, a Redskin LB, called up the show and yelled at him for accusing players of cheating.
#9 Dwarren
Forum Visitors
Posted 23 April 2012 - 02:38 PM
The Lions brass was very concerned about Layne in 1958. He played a terrible game against the College All Stars, throwing five interceptions in a 35-19 loss, a game that the Lions were 13 point favorites.
From what I have researched from s and my own interviews with former Lions players, coaches, local and national media and Detroit law enforcement, that performance sent up gambling red flags on Layne.
The Green Bay game was another bad outing. The following is from the Detroit News the day after the tie (10-6-58):
Quote
"It is well to take a look at Layne's record:
1. After Jim Doran's second-period touchdown on a 65-yard pass play with Tobin Rote, Layne flubbed the extra-point try.
2. With the score tied at 13-13 in the last seven minutes, Layne had a field goal in sight directly in front of the goal posts. On third down he slanted Gene Gedman away from the posts, leaving Jim Martin with a difficult angle on the kick from the 15, which he missed.
3. On third down behind his 37, Layne fell down with nobody near him. He didn't get up in time to pass or run.
4. Within range of another field goal in the final 70 seconds, Layne tried a pitchout to Gedman on third down at the 14. The toss was low. Gedman couldn't handle it and was charged with the fumble (recovered by Carleton Massey, of the Packers) that cast the die on the tie.
Later in the same article:
Quote
Before it is valid to ask what's wrong with the Lions, one must figure out what is wrong with Layne.
'I wish I knew,' said a member of the Lion staff, conceding that there is official worriment over Layne.
They were worried enough that they traded him the very next day to Pittsburgh.
Vincent Piersante, who at the time was still with the Detroit Police Department, but would later head up the Michigan Attorney General Frank Kelly's Organized Crime Division in the 1960s and 70s, said that "Detroit team management broke up the operation" when they traded Layne to Pittsburgh.
Was Layne a gambler on NFL games like Hornung and Karras? There has never been a smoking gun found yet, but the smoke from that rumored gun has never went away.
#10 John Turney
PFRA Member
Posted 23 April 2012 - 02:45 PM
'John Turney', on 22 Apr 2012 - 11:27 PM, said:
Dr. Z says he was doing research at the NFL offices and was left alone, overnight, they forgot he was there. He says he snooped around and found files on Layne and others. Says Layne would have been suspended al la Karras and Hornung had he not retired after the 1962 season, or in other words Layne retired rather than be suspended.
Well, that's what Zimmerman said. It may have been a lot of stuff, or a few things. But really, it is his word only that we have to go by. By going through those files and not making copies there is no printed evidence. And since that was 50 years ago, who knows if those files are even still around. If they've been d, etc. But even if Layne just hung out with gamblers, that may have been enough.
So, I don't have any knowledge other than what Z told me (and others). He suggested there were others that retired rather than be suspended. But I don't know if he meant one or two or 5 guys.
#11 bachslunch
Forum Visitors
Posted 23 April 2012 - 03:50 PM
'Marble_Eye', on 22 Apr 2012 - 5:57 PM, said:
It has lengthy discussions (a page and a half at least for both) of game fixing allegations against Len Dawson and Bobby Layne.
A Google search turned up what appears to be strong and repeated implications of Len Dawson for possible point-shaving funny business of some kind between 1966 and 1970 in the book "Betting the Line: Sports Wagering in American Life," by Richard O. Davies and Richard G. Abram (Ohio State Univ. Press, 2001), pages 112-114. It also involves Len's repeated involvement with Donald "Dice" Dawson, and mentions that Len met "Dice" through Layne. It does say that Len passed polygraph tests in connection with this issue, and that despite the allegations, Len's level of play supposedly belied point shaving. Unknown how accurate all this is.
This link to the book's pages in question may or may not work:
http://books.google.com/books?id=YR9eg_ ... ng&f=false
This blog article by Bill Dow says Layne was traded from the Lions because of gambling on games. It cites the book “Interference: How Organized Crime Influences Professional Football” by Dan Moldea and cites "Dice" as asserting Layne “had fixed games or shaved points in no fewer than seven games over a period of four years while Layne played with the Detroit Lions and later the Pittsburgh Steelers.” No idea how accurate all this may be:
http://blog.detroitathletic.com/2009/11 ... bby-layne/
#12 BD Sullivan
Forum Visitors
Posted 23 April 2012 - 08:46 PM
When Hornung and Karras were suspended in 1963, they both got the same length--one year. Not sure why Hornung got more, considering that he was "only" guilty of betting on games, and was apologetic about it. Karras, on the other hand, was hanging out with some sleazy characters, and was combative about his actions.
Five of Karras' teammates (John Gordy, Joe Schmidt, Wayne Walker, Gary Lowe and Sam Williams) were fined $2,000 each for betting (along with him) on the Packers in the 1962 title game. Karras bet $100, while the others bet $50. The Lions were fined $4,000 for not paying closer attention.
#13 Dwarren
Forum Visitors
Posted 23 April 2012 - 09:28 PM
'97Den98', on 23 Apr 2012 - 04:14 AM, said:
I have heard of this Tuohy guy. He was on a sports radio show in Washington a few years ago.
He said something about how Peyton Manning had a frown on his face before SB 44, and that may have meant that he tried to throw the game (which basically is saying that he tried to throw to Tracy Porter).
Lorenzo Alexander, a Redskin LB, called up the show and yelled at him for accusing players of cheating.
Tuohy does seem to make a stretch of logic from time to time in his book as well as in interviews. But there are times however when he does present some interesting stuff. According to his website, he is working on an updated edition of his book.
Quote
As I work on my next book about sports gambling and game fixing, I will periodically post actual quotes from the over 400 FBI files I have obtained through the Freedom of Information Act. It is shocking how much the FBI knew, but were unable to prove to the point of bringing charges against the athletes, coaches and officials involved in rigging games.
For you information and understanding, when you see [redacted] in one of these posts, it means a portion (usually a name, but sometimes more) that was blacked out by the FBI and cannot be read. A PCI is a Potential Criminal Informant. SA stands for Special Agent.
Here is an excerpt of an FBI document from Jan. 1963 he posted that may pertain to Layne.
Quote
From the Albuquerque Division. Dated January 2, 1963: The following comes from the same file as above. My first thought was that this described the actions of Hall of Fame QB Bobby Layne, who was a notorious gambler (and likely game fixer). But Layne died in the 1980s, and if this was about him, the name should not be redacted. So who is this describing?
“[redacted] also advised that the word is out among various gamblers that [redacted] of the Pittsburgh Steelers bets rather heavily on his own team on some of the Steeler games. He always bets on the Steelers to win and when gamblers received information that [redacted] is betting on his own team they bet everything with him.”
#14 rhickok1109
PFRA Member
Posted 23 April 2012 - 09:30 PM
'BD Sullivan', on 23 Apr 2012 - 8:46 PM, said:
When Hornung and Karras were suspended in 1963, they both got the same length--one year. Not sure why Hornung got more, considering that he was "only" guilty of betting on games, and was apologetic about it. Karras, on the other hand, was hanging out with some sleazy characters, and was combative about his actions.
Five of Karras' teammates (John Gordy, Joe Schmidt, Wayne Walker, Gary Lowe and Sam Williams) were fined $2,000 each for betting (along with him) on the Packers in the 1962 title game. Karras bet $100, while the others bet $50. The Lions were fined $4,000 for not paying closer attention.
Actually, Hornung and Karras were both suspended indefinitely, with the penalties to be reviewed by Rozelle after the 1963 season. As it turned out, of course, they were both one-year suspensions, although Karras might have been suspended for another season or more if he hadn't sold his interest in a bar that attracted shady characters.
The Lions were fined specifically for ignoring police reports on gambling activity by their players and for allowing suspected gamblers to sit on the team's bench during games.
#15 Jagade
PFRA Member
Posted 24 April 2012 - 01:20 PM
Regarding Bobby Layne's trade to Pittsburgh in 1958: Detroit also had Tobin Rote at quarterback, and Rote came up big in the 1957 championship game. Layne, coming back from an injury (broken leg), was not as sharp as usual in 1958. Evidently, Detroit's coaching staff decided to go with Rote at QB, especially after a bad day for Layne against Green Bay.
I don't doubt that Layne did some gambling, but I don't believe that he ever intentionally threw a game or shaved points. JMO.
#16 evan
PFRA Member
Posted 25 April 2012 - 09:50 AM
Among the gambling-related rumors I’ve read about:
• Bubba Smith accusing Earl Morrall of throwing Super Bowl III. It is hard to explain some of Morrall’s play (the Orr play in particular) in that game, but man, it’s hard to believe any one would really sell out their team in the Super Bowl.
• Late-game TDs that made the final score bump up against the point spread in Super Bowls 10, 13, and 14 (all Steelers wins). I forget what the spreads were in those games, but I remember reading that there was a big change in gambling fortunes late in those games.
• In the 1958 NFL Championship, Johnny Unitas going for the TD against the Giants in OT on account of the point spread. I discount this one for all the reasons we know (Myrha’s shaky kicking, Unitas’s bravado and confidence, the desire to end the game with a TD, etc.)
There have also been countless “easy” missed FGs we’ve all seen over the years, and strange interceptions thrown and fumbles lost that would be easy to raise an eyebrow of suspicion about. But the more likely explanation is “stuff happens”.
The only play I ever witnessed that I still feel uneasy about was actually in a college game, one of the greatest ever. The way that Irving Fryar dropped that TD pass in the 1983 Miami-Nebraska Orange Bowl looked so unnatural, so spastically clumsy, that I remember thinking at that moment “something is not right here.” Given Nebraska’s huge status as favorite in that game, I’ve always wondered a little bit about it. But it turned into such a great game to watch, I sincerely hope nothing insidious ever surfaces about it.
#17 BD Sullivan
Forum Visitors
Posted 25 April 2012 - 02:36 PM
'evan', on 25 Apr 2012 - 09:50 AM, said:
Among the gambling-related rumors I’ve read about:
• Bubba Smith accusing Earl Morrall of throwing Super Bowl III. It is hard to explain some of Morrall’s play (the Orr play in particular) in that game, but man, it’s hard to believe any one would really sell out their team in the Super Bowl.
• Late-game TDs that made the final score bump up against the point spread in Super Bowls 10, 13, and 14 (all Steelers wins). I forget what the spreads were in those games, but I remember reading that there was a big change in gambling fortunes late in those games.
• In the 1958 NFL Championship, Johnny Unitas going for the TD against the Giants in OT on account of the point spread. I discount this one for all the reasons we know (Myrha’s shaky kicking, Unitas’s bravado and confidence, the desire to end the game with a TD, etc.)
There have also been countless “easy” missed FGs we’ve all seen over the years, and strange interceptions thrown and fumbles lost that would be easy to raise an eyebrow of suspicion about. But the more likely explanation is “stuff happens”.
The only play I ever witnessed that I still feel uneasy about was actually in a college game, one of the greatest ever. The way that Irving Fryar dropped that TD pass in the 1983 Miami-Nebraska Orange Bowl looked so unnatural, so spastically clumsy, that I remember thinking at that moment “something is not right here.” Given Nebraska’s huge status as favorite in that game, I’ve always wondered a little bit about it. But it turned into such a great game to watch, I sincerely hope nothing insidious ever surfaces about it.
*Bubba was selling a book at the time and his accusation undoubtedly was the most controversial part of what was another ho-hum bio.
*In both Super Bowl 10 & 13, Dallas scored with about a minute left. I believe in the first one, the late score made it a push (i.e. no bet), while the second one depended on your bookie, since the spread was anywhere between 3.5 and 4.5--with the final margin four points. In 14, the Steelers were 11-point favorites, but the Rams led by two at the start of the fourth quarter. Pittsburgh tied it with 12 minutes left to go up by five, then scored on a Franco Harris plunge with 1:49 left. The Rams (Pat Thomas) had been flagged for pass interference just before the Harris score.
*In the '58 game, the rumors have generally been that Carroll Rosenbloom (whose name swirled around gambling allegations through much of his tenure as an NFL owner) wanted a touchdown because the spread was 3.5, and another Myrha field goal obviously wouldn't have covered.
#18 Rupert Patrick
PFRA Member
Posted 25 April 2012 - 10:10 PM
'evan', on 25 Apr 2012 - 09:50 AM, said:
The only play I ever witnessed that I still feel uneasy about was actually in a college game, one of the greatest ever. The way that Irving Fryar dropped that TD pass in the 1983 Miami-Nebraska Orange Bowl looked so unnatural, so spastically clumsy, that I remember thinking at that moment “something is not right here.” Given Nebraska’s huge status as favorite in that game, I’ve always wondered a little bit about it. But it turned into such a great game to watch, I sincerely hope nothing insidious ever surfaces about it.
A lot of Steelers fans I know swear that Neil O'Donnell threw the Super Bowl to Dallas, but I disagree.
The one sequence in a game I witnessed that seemed very suspicious was the Eagles play calling late in the fourth quarter of Super Bowl 39 against New England. It seemed the Eagles wasted several minutes when they were two scores behind and inexplicably did not go into a two minute offense and seemed to be taking their time going down the field.
As far as Super Bowl 13, the casinos lost huge taking bets on the game. Most of the Pittsburgh fans placed their bets when the Steelers were 3 1/2 point favorites, but the odds shifted and most of the big money that was bet on Dallas was giving the Cowboys 4 1/2 points, so most of the people who bet on the game won, and the casinos lost millions on the game.
#19 BD Sullivan
Forum Visitors
Posted 26 April 2012 - 12:22 AM
'Rupert Patrick', on 25 Apr 2012 - 10:10 PM, said:
A lot of Steelers fans I know swear that Neil O'Donnell threw the Super Bowl to Dallas, but I disagree.
At the time, I actually saw a local college newspaper where the student writer (an obvious Steeler fan with apparently limited knowledge of libel laws) flat out wrote that O'Donnell threw the game. I suppose the kid could have gotten in trouble if the circulation was higher than the 50 or so people who read it.
I've mentioned this anecdote on a few occasions, but given the topic, it's worth repeating: around the time of the Art Schlicter scandal in 1983, Art Modell recalled a tale from the mid 60's where he was at a Browns' practice when Gary Collins sprained his ankle. Modell left soon after to go back to his office, about a 10-15 minute drive. When he got to his desk, he almost immediately got a call from Pete Rozelle about why the Browns game was off the board.
#20 Rupert Patrick
PFRA Member
Posted 26 April 2012 - 06:48 AM
'BD Sullivan', on 26 Apr 2012 - 12:22 AM, said:
At the time, I actually saw a local college newspaper where the student writer (an obvious Steeler fan with apparently limited knowledge of libel laws) flat out wrote that O'Donnell threw the game. I suppose the kid could have gotten in trouble if the circulation was higher than the 50 or so people who read it.
A lot of people expected a Dallas blowout in the game, or something along the lines of the Chargers 49ers Super Bowl the previous year. It was 20-7 after three quarters when the Steelers came back with the FG and onside kick that the Steelers turned into a TD to pull within three. During that final drive where O'Donnell was picked with about three minutes to go, I remember when that drive started talking to the TV (as if Bill Cowher could somehow hear me) to put Kordell Stewart in at QB instead of O'Donnell; I thought O'Donnell was shaky but felt Kordell was a playmaker who would find a way to score the winning TD.
Page 1 of 7
"The Fix Is In" - Book by Brian Tuohy
Started by Marble_Eye, Apr 22 2012 05:57 PM
Page 2 of 7
138 replies to this topic
#21 evan
PFRA Member
Posted 26 April 2012 - 10:34 AM
Another question, is it considered throwing a game if you benefit from the loss? I'm not talking about teams that rest s because they don't care about the outcome of a late-season game, but I'm referring to teams who actually benefit in a meaningful way from a loss.
I'm talking about the 1977 Colts loss to Detroit, which has been written about in many places as to the circumstances whereby the Colts benefited from the loss. In this article (http://www.patsfans....s-Than-Now.html) the author credits this game with bringing the two wild cards into action the next year. I'm not sure about that, can anyone in the Forum corroborate this?
I don't think there's been any intimation that the Colts threw that game against the Lions, although apparently they had reason to, thanks to the NFL's tiebreaking procedures of the day. Any other circumstances one come to mind?
In 1976 there was a lot of talk that the Raiders would lay down against Cincinnati to eliminate Pittsburgh, but they showed on MNF that they had no reason to lay down against anyone that year.
#22 BD Sullivan
Forum Visitors
Posted 26 April 2012 - 10:58 AM
'evan', on 26 Apr 2012 - 10:34 AM, said:
Another question, is it considered throwing a game if you benefit from the loss? I'm not talking about teams that rest s because they don't care about the outcome of a late-season game, but I'm referring to teams who actually benefit in a meaningful way from a loss.
I'm talking about the 1977 Colts loss to Detroit, which has been written about in many places as to the circumstances whereby the Colts benefited from the loss. In this article (http://www.patsfans....s-Than-Now.html) the author credits this game with bringing the two wild cards into action the next year. I'm not sure about that, can anyone in the Forum corroborate this?
Doubtful, considering the Colts still needed to beat the Patriots at home the following week. If anything, fans in Miami probably thought the ref in the Colts-Pats game was on the take, since Bert Jones' late fumble deep in Patriot territory (with the Colts trailing by one) was blown dead by the infamous quick whistle:
(the play in question starts at about the 1:25 mark)
Six years earlier, another season-ending Colts-Patriots game was open for questions about intent. The 10-3 Colts were hosting the 5-8 Pats, with a win giving them the AFC East division title. It would also send them to Kansas City on Christmas Day against the still-formidable Chiefs. In an "upset," the Pats won 21-17, sending the wild card Colts to a much more beatable Cleveland (they won 20-3) and Miami to Kansas City for their classic battle.
#23 Jagade
PFRA Member
Posted 26 April 2012 - 01:38 PM
'evan', on 26 Apr 2012 - 10:34 AM, said:
Another question, is it considered throwing a game if you benefit from the loss? I'm not talking about teams that rest s because they don't care about the outcome of a late-season game, but I'm referring to teams who actually benefit in a meaningful way from a loss.
I'm talking about the 1977 Colts loss to Detroit, which has been written about in many places as to the circumstances whereby the Colts benefited from the loss. In this article (http://www.patsfans....s-Than-Now.html) the author credits this game with bringing the two wild cards into action the next year. I'm not sure about that, can anyone in the Forum corroborate this?
I don't think there's been any intimation that the Colts threw that game against the Lions, although apparently they had reason to, thanks to the NFL's tiebreaking procedures of the day. Any other circumstances one come to mind?
In 1976 there was a lot of talk that the Raiders would lay down against Cincinnati to eliminate Pittsburgh, but they showed on MNF that they had no reason to lay down against anyone that year.
The one I was always suspicious of was the Detroit Lions/New York Giants game in 1958. Detroit, eliminated from contention in the NFL Western Conference, would eliminate the Giants and put the archrival Browns into the championship game against the Colts with a win over the Giants.
With 4th and about 19 with Detroit leading 17 to 12, Yale Lary ran in punt formation instead of punting resulting in the Giants stopping Lary and having good field position. Coach Wilson took responsibility for the apparent bonehead call. The Giants later scored a TD after completing a long pass to an end who didn't seem to be covered. There was also a game ending blocked field goal that would have won the game for Detroit.
Part of that game is on you tube starting with Lary's run in punt formation.
#24 SixtiesFan
Forum Visitors
Posted 26 April 2012 - 04:16 PM
'97Den98', on 23 Apr 2012 - 04:14 AM, said:
I have heard of this Tuohy guy. He was on a sports radio show in Washington a few years ago.
He said something about how Peyton Manning had a frown on his face before SB 44, and that may have meant that he tried to throw the game (which basically is saying that he tried to throw to Tracy Porter).
Lorenzo Alexander, a Redskin LB, called up the show and yelled at him for accusing players of cheating.
Some questions for Tuohy:
Who puts up the money for the fix? How much more was Peyton Manning's cut than what he would have made if he won?
#25 Rupert Patrick
PFRA Member
Posted 26 April 2012 - 04:40 PM
'SixtiesFan', on 26 Apr 2012 - 4:16 PM, said:
Some questions for Tuohy:
Who puts up the money for the fix? How much more was Peyton Manning's cut than what he would have made if he won?
And was it worth risking his career and reputation (not to mention his place in history) over? All professional athletes are well aware of what MLB did to Pete Rose, banned one of the greatest players from the game for life.
#26 paulksandiego
PFRA Member
Posted 26 April 2012 - 08:31 PM
'evan', on 25 Apr 2012 - 09:50 AM, said:
Among the gambling-related rumors I’ve read about:
• Bubba Smith accusing Earl Morrall of throwing Super Bowl III. It is hard to explain some of Morrall’s play (the Orr play in particular) in that game, but man, it’s hard to believe any one would really sell out their team in the Super Bowl.
Maybe that's why Shula put Griese in to start Super Bowl VII...
#27 IvanNYC
Forum Visitors
Posted 27 April 2012 - 12:35 PM
'evan', on 26 Apr 2012 - 10:34 AM, said:
Another question, is it considered throwing a game if you benefit from the loss? I'm not talking about teams that rest s because they don't care about the outcome of a late-season game, but I'm referring to teams who actually benefit in a meaningful way from a loss.
I'm talking about the 1977 Colts loss to Detroit, which has been written about in many places as to the circumstances whereby the Colts benefited from the loss. In this article (http://www.patsfans....s-Than-Now.html) the author credits this game with bringing the two wild cards into action the next year. I'm not sure about that, can anyone in the Forum corroborate this?
I don't think there's been any intimation that the Colts threw that game against the Lions, although apparently they had reason to, thanks to the NFL's tiebreaking procedures of the day. Any other circumstances one come to mind?
In 1976 there was a lot of talk that the Raiders would lay down against Cincinnati to eliminate Pittsburgh, but they showed on MNF that they had no reason to lay down against anyone that year.
If the Colts benefited in any way it's that by losing to Detroit, and with the Dolphins defeating 3-10 Buffalo on Saturday in Week 14, they would face a New England team that would be already eliminated prior to their showdown vs. the Patriots. The complaints on the Colts loss to the Lions really came from the Patriots and their fans since with that outcome, the Patriots lost control of their own destiny for the AFC East division title since a Baltimore win over Detroit would have eliminated the Dolphins and would have created a winner-take-all scenario between Baltimore and New England. (The Patriots would have won the two-way tiebreaker vs. the Colts based on H2H sweep or three-way tie with BAL and MIA based on better H2H record among the clubs, 3-1 to MIA 2-2 to BAL 1-3). With the Baltimore loss to Detroit, Miami stayed alive and New England now needed a MIA loss to Buffalo and then beat the Colts the next day because the Patriots would lose a two-way tiebreaker at 10-4 with Miami based on division record.
Also, that this scenario brought about a change to the playoff format in 1978 is simply not true. The owners had already approved the new 16-game schedule and the addition of two wildcards for 1978 at the owners meeting in March 1977.
As for 1976, just want to clarify that the Bengals loss to the Raiders did not eliminate Pittsburgh. But what it did is that the Bengals lost control of their own destiny since they needed to stay ahead of Pittsburgh since the Steelers had swept the Bengals. (The Steelers also held the potential three-way tiebreaker with CIN and CLE on better H2H record among the clubs). With Oakland defeating Cincinnati, Pittsburgh then only needed a win over Houston to win the AFC Central. The Bengals needed a win and a Pittsbugh loss. Had Cincinnati defeated the Raiders, they would have only needed to beat the Jets, while the Steelers would have needed a win and a Bengals loss in the final week.
#28 Brian2E
Forum Visitors
Posted 27 April 2012 - 01:14 PM
Greetings all! I am actually Brian Tuohy, the author of The Fix Is In. Someone gave me the heads up on this forum and I decided to join.
A couple of things to chew on: One, the NFL claims that no game in its history has even been fixed. The league goes one step further to say that only two attempts have even been made - the 1946 Championship Game and a 1971 Houston Oilers game. This is an absolute falsehood. I have interviewed several people in the casino bookmaking world as well as two former FBI agents for another book on game fixing, and all emphatically state NFL games have indeed been fixed. I also possess over 400 FBI files relating to investigations of the Sports Bribery Act, some of which detail fixed NFL games (as well as MLB, NBA, college football & basketball, boxing and more). I would reveal the names of the NFL Hall of Famers implicated by the FBI, but I won't do that until this next book is released.
I think many NFL (and sports fans in general) cannot believe that a professional athlete would shave points/fix a game. It's a extremely naive stance to take. Granted, as no player, mobster or gambler has ever been convicted of fixing an NFL game, the league is free to make the claims it does. That does not mean, however, that the sport has been and remains "pure." Dan Moldea in his overlooked book Interference: How Organized Crime Influences Professional Football has evidence of 70 NFL games being fixed (prior to 1989). I know, I know - evidence, not proof positive (unless you believe the confessions of Dice Dawson who fixed games in league with certain players). Well, if the FBI cannot prove these games were fixed, who can? There is little to no physical evidence for such an event. All one can do is watch for erratic movements in the point spread coupled with erratic play. Do both these equate to a fixed game? Not necessarily, but when you add in other surrounding circumstances then perhaps a better conclusion can be reached.
As for the aforementioned DC radio appearance - yes, I did anger Redskins LB Lorenzo Alexander so much that he had to call to argue with me. In the two minutes he talked, I got him to admit that 2-3 members of the Redskins as well as several other NFL players were actively taking illegal steroids. So while he may not have felt Peyton Manning would stoop so low as to throw the Super Bowl (which, I admit was not my strongest argument, though I do firmly believe the NFL manipulates its own games), Alexander had no issue with players cheating by using steroids.
Feel free to ask me any questions you have about this subject. I will answer any and all as best I can. Cheers!
#29 Brian2E
Forum Visitors
Posted 27 April 2012 - 02:29 PM
'Rupert Patrick', on 26 Apr 2012 - 4:40 PM, said:
And was it worth risking his career and reputation (not to mention his place in history) over? All professional athletes are well aware of what MLB did to Pete Rose, banned one of the greatest players from the game for life.
If Manning threw the Super Bowl vs. the Saints - and that is a big IF - I believe the NFL directed him to do so, therefore no ramifications would follow. Why? Because the Saints victory completed the storyline the NFl cultivated since Hurricane Katrina in which the NFL touted that the team rebuilt and revitalized the city. The NFC Championship game vs. the Vikings was also highly suspect in my opinion and might have been given to the Saints in a similar fashion. As for Peyton Manning, he had more connection to that city than Brees and most of the other Saints. His legacy is already assured: Super Bowl ring, multi-MVP and a bust in Canton awaiting him. His losing that game did not affect this legacy. Yet I believe his play was very suspect, including that game-sealing INT which was returned for a TD. I wish I could find video or a photo of him pre-game which showed Manning red-faced and clearly upset because it was a highly unusual look for the starting QB in the Super Bowl just minutes before kick off.
I admit this is more of a conspiracy theory than fact, but I don't believe a $10 billion industry like the NFL leaves everything up to random chance.
#30 evan
PFRA Member
Posted 27 April 2012 - 02:32 PM
'IvanNYC', on 27 Apr 2012 - 12:35 PM, said:
If the Colts benefited in any way it's that by losing to Detroit, and with the Dolphins defeating 3-10 Buffalo on Saturday in Week 14, they would face a New England team that would be already eliminated prior to their showdown vs. the Patriots. The complaints on the Colts loss to the Lions really came from the Patriots and their fans since with that outcome, the Patriots lost control of their own destiny for the AFC East division title since a Baltimore win over Detroit would have eliminated the Dolphins and would have created a winner-take-all scenario between Baltimore and New England. (The Patriots would have won the two-way tiebreaker vs. the Colts based on H2H sweep or three-way tie with BAL and MIA based on better H2H record among the clubs, 3-1 to MIA 2-2 to BAL 1-3). With the Baltimore loss to Detroit, Miami stayed alive and New England now needed a MIA loss to Buffalo and then beat the Colts the next day because the Patriots would lose a two-way tiebreaker at 10-4 with Miami based on division record.
Also, that this scenario brought about a change to the playoff format in 1978 is simply not true. The owners had already approved the new 16-game schedule and the addition of two wildcards for 1978 at the owners meeting in March 1977.
As for 1976, just want to clarify that the Bengals loss to the Raiders did not eliminate Pittsburgh. But what it did is that the Bengals lost control of their own destiny since they needed to stay ahead of Pittsburgh since the Steelers had swept the Bengals. (The Steelers also held the potential three-way tiebreaker with CIN and CLE on better H2H record among the clubs). With Oakland defeating Cincinnati, Pittsburgh then only needed a win over Houston to win the AFC Central. The Bengals needed a win and a Pittsbugh loss. Had Cincinnati defeated the Raiders, they would have only needed to beat the Jets, while the Steelers would have needed a win and a Bengals loss in the final week.
Thanks for the breakdown Ivan, good details there. I think although as you pointed out the Colts-Lions and Bengals-Raiders games were not necessarily deal finishers, part of the mystique of these circumstances was that the conventional thinking was there was just no conceivable way that the Bills would beat the Dolphins or the Jets would beat the Bengals in the games you mentioned, which made the Colts-Lions game and Bengals-Raiders games so paramount.
Page 2 of 7
Started by Marble_Eye, Apr 22 2012 05:57 PM
NOTE: Because of the “missing” posts and other things that seem to have been done to this thread,
it is in the process of being re-edited and, hopefully, it will be completed by Thanksgiving.
The excessive spacing, etc. was created when posts were removed and was not noticed here.
NOTE: You will see some Posts “missing” but, as you already know, this is not unusual.
NOTE to BD Sullivan: Your clip of the Fryar play has “disappeared.”
NOTE: Post #28 is author’s comment. Evidence that some people do lurk here. Trolls?
Page 1 of 7
138 replies to this topic
#1 Marble_Eye
Forum Visitors
Posted 22 April 2012 - 05:57 PM
I dont recall ever seeing a discussion of this book in this Forum before, but in its chapter on gambling it discusses a 1943 investigation of Sammy Baugh for potential game fixing in a game lost against the Phil-Pitt "Steagles". It has lengthy discussions (a page and a half at least for both) of game fixing allegations against Len Dawson and Bobby Layne.
The one I want to primarily discuss here is Layne, as several different sources, former players Bernie Parrish and Paul Hornung (who also, naturally comes in for some discussion here) and gambler Donald "Dice" Dawson (no relation to Len, that I am aware of) make Layne sound like a routine & regular game fixer and gambler. Dawson claims he knows of many instances where Layne either outright threw games or at least shaved points. Hopalong Cassady (the Lions end of course, not the movie cowboy) allegedly told Bernie Parrish that Layne faked an injury against the Bears in a December 1956 game that meant the Division Title (which the Bears won.) Hornung mentions a 1958 Green Bay tie with Detroit where Layne had bet on Detroit to cover a 3-1/2 point spread. In FG range in a tie game very late, Layne waves the kicker off the field and proceeds to overthrow a reciever in the end zone, costing the Lions the win, and Layne his own bet. Thats not game fixing, but it IS playing to influence the outcome of a bet, not to win the game.
I guess what I am wondering what, if anything, was ever made public about Layne. How did he get in the HOF without any comment being made if so many people had such a perception of him. I do know when he retired he was the all time NFL leader in career TD passes. Was there a cover up? Was Pro Football still so far behind baseball in the sports hierarchy that no one really cared? What do any of the members - posters here know about Layne or any one else that isnt really "common" knowledge?
The book mentions many situations, some of which are fairly famous and well known to any fan with a historical bent. Some, like the Baugh investigation, were new, at least to me.
Anyone care to comment on anything they may know about any NFL game fixing situation, from any era? I can add any info anyone might be curious about from the book, if someone doesnt have a copy.
#2 Gabe
Forum Visitors
Posted 22 April 2012 - 08:41 PM
I have not read the book, but those two examples attributed to Layne are dubious. First off, the second-hand allegation made by Bernie Parrish about Layne faking an injury is actually in reference to the infamous "mugging" of Bobby Layne by the Chicago Bears' Ed Meadows in the final regular season game of the 1956 season (please the 1980 Coffin Corner article on the subject) in which a cheap shot taken by Meadows knocked Layne out of the game and cost the Lions the title. By all accounts, it was an ugly play and there was nothing faked about Layne's injury. The second incident from the 1958 game is also not supported by the facts. While Layne was intercepted in Packers' territory in the 4th quarter, that play did not in itself cost the Lions a victory in that game. After Layne threw the interception, the Lions drove twice more deep into Green Bay territory. In one instance Jim Martin missed a 15 yard field goal, and in another Gene Gedman fumled a pitchout at the 16. If stuff like this is the basis for alleging game-fixing and points-shaving in the book, then I'll take a pass on reading it.
#3 Marble_Eye
Forum Visitors
Posted 22 April 2012 - 09:53 PM
'Gabe', on 22 Apr 2012 - 8:41 PM, said:
I have not read the book, but those two examples attributed to Layne are dubious. First off, the second-hand allegation made by Bernie Parrish about Layne faking an injury is actually in reference to the infamous "mugging" of Bobby Layne by the Chicago Bears' Ed Meadows in the final regular season game of the 1956 season (please see the 1980 Coffin Corner article on) in which a cheap shot taken by Meadows knocked Layne out of the game and cost the Lions the title. By all accounts, it was an ugly play and there was nothing faked about Layne's injury. The second incident from the 1958 game is also not supported by the facts. While Layne was intercepted in Packers' territory in the 4th quarter, that play did not in itself cost the Lions a victory in that game. After Layne threw the interception, the Lions drove twice more deep into Green Bay territory. In one instance Jim Martin missed a 15 yard field goal, and in another Gene Gedman fumled a pitchout at the 16. If stuff is the basis for alleging game-fixing and points-shaving in the book, then I'll take a pass on reading it.
Fair enough. I didnt write the book, just read it and wondered what people may have known or thought. I knew about the Ed Meadows incident, but didn't recall in which of the 2 Bear-Lion matchups that season it occured. If you say it happened in the second game, I have no reason to doubt you. (I will go back and re-read the CC article.) The 1958 story re: the GB-Lions tie game was attributed to Paul Hornung in the book. Bad memory? Sour grapes or a desire to portray the league as having more gamblers than himself? I do not know. The gambler-bookmaker Don Dawson, who was later involved in the Len Dawson affair before Super Bowl IV, claimed that Layne fixed or shaved points in at least seven games that he personally knew of, in addition to betting on the whole schedule regularly. Credible, or not? I dont know either way so I wanted to see what folks here either know of, or think.
EDIT for content:
I re-read the 1980 CC article and this is all it says about the actual hit:
"What had happened was that 220 pounds of Bears defensive end, all of it named Ed Meadows, had blindsided Bobby with enough force to level any reasonably well-constructed brick building. Bobby was down and out of the count. They carried him off the field, through for the day with a concussion."
Take the adjectives out and it says: "What had happened was that Ed Meadows had blindsided Bobby with force. Bobby was down and out "of" (for) the count. They carried him off the field, through for the day with a concussion."
The rest of it is all about the aftermath, charges/counter charges and about Meadows' unsavory reputation. I dont see that this actually refutes the accusation. I am inclined to believe he really WAS knocked senseless, but he could have faked being dazed. COULD HAVE. Not saying he did. Meadows hit him with a blindside hit which at 220 lbs could have hurt him badly, but didnt necessarily have to. Our modern day QB's get blindsided too and usually by someone weighing a whole lot more than 220, (not to mention modern day steroids, weight and strength training) and they dont always wind up with a concussion or removed from the game. Has anyone ever seen film of the hit?
#4 Jagade
PFRA Member
Posted 22 April 2012 - 10:02 PM
'Gabe', on 22 Apr 2012 - 8:41 PM, said:
I have not read the book, but those two examples attributed to Layne are dubious. First off, the second-hand allegation made by Bernie Parrish about Layne faking an injury is actually in reference to the infamous "mugging" of Bobby Layne by the Chicago Bears' Ed Meadows in the final regular season game of the 1956 season (please the 1980 Coffin Corner article on the subject) in which a cheap shot taken by Meadows knocked Layne out of the game and cost the Lions the title. By all accounts, it was an ugly play and there was nothing faked about Layne's injury. The second incident from the 1958 game is also not supported by the facts. While Layne was intercepted in Packers' territory in the 4th quarter, that play did not in itself cost the Lions a victory in that game. After Layne threw the interception, the Lions drove twice more deep into Green Bay territory. In one instance Jim Martin missed a 15 yard field goal, and in another Gene Gedman fumled a pitchout at the 16. If stuff is the basis for alleging game-fixing and points-shaving in the book, then I'll take a pass on reading it.
I agree with everything here except that Layne's injury cost the Lions the game (and title) against the Bears in 1956. Chicago's running game was big that day, especially Rick Casares, and this was the main reason for Chicago's victory, IMO. Also, Harry Gilmer played well in relief of Layne, throwing 2 TD passes and completing another to the Bears 1 yard line which resulted in another Detroit TD a play or two later. Detroit always had a difficult time against the Bears in Wrigley in those days, and the Bears were up for that game.
I doubt that Detroit would have been able to beat the Bears that day, even with a healthy Layne, but I guess that anything is possible.
#5 Gabe
Forum Visitors
Posted 22 April 2012 - 10:44 PM
Point well taken and I don't disagree. My main contention was with the author's ill-founded allegation that Layne threw the game and the title by faking an injury.
'Jagade', on 22 Apr 2012 - 10:02 PM, said:
I agree with everything here except that Layne's injury cost the Lions the game (and title) against the Bears in 1956. Chicago's running game was big that day, especially Rick Casares, and this was the main reason for Chicago's victory, IMO. Also, Harry Gilmer played well in relief of Layne, throwing 2 TD passes and completing another to the Bears 1 yard line which resulted in another Detroit TD a play or two later. Detroit always had a difficult time against the Bears in Wrigley in those days, and the Bears were up for that game.
I doubt that Detroit would have been able to beat the Bears that day, even with a healthy Layne, but I guess that anything is possible.
#6 John Turney
PFRA Member
Posted 22 April 2012 - 11:27 PM
'Marble_Eye', on 22 Apr 2012 - 5:57 PM, said:
I dont recall ever seeing a discussion of this book in this Forum before, but in its chapter on gambling it discusses a 1943 investigation of Sammy Baugh for potential game fixing in a game lost against the Phil-Pitt "Steagles". It has lengthy discussions (a page and a half at least for both) of game fixing allegations against Len Dawson and Bobby Layne.
The one I want to primarily discuss here is Layne, as several different sources, former players Bernie Parrish and Paul Hornung (who also, naturally comes in for some discussion here) and gambler Donald "Dice" Dawson (no relation to Len, that I am aware of) make Layne sound like a routine & regular game fixer and gambler. Dawson claims he knows of many instances where Layne either outright threw games or at least shaved points. Hopalong Cassady (the Lions end of course, not the movie cowboy) allegedly told Bernie Parrish that Layne faked an injury against the Bears in a December 1956 game that meant the Division Title (which the Bears won.) Hornung mentions a 1958 Green Bay tie with Detroit where Layne had bet on Detroit to cover a 3-1/2 point spread. In FG range in a tie game very late, Layne waves the kicker off the field and proceeds to overthrow a reciever in the end zone, costing the Lions the win, and Layne his own bet. Thats not game fixing, but it IS playing to influence the outcome of a bet, not to win the game.
I guess what I am wondering what, if anything, was ever made public about Layne. How did he get in the HOF without any comment being made if so many people had such a perception of him. I do know when he retired he was the all time NFL leader in career TD passes. Was there a cover up? Was Pro Football still so far behind baseball in the sports hierarchy that no one really cared? What do any of the members - posters here know about Layne or any one else that isnt really "common" knowledge?
The book mentions many situations, some of which are fairly famous and well known to any fan with a historical bent. Some, like the Baugh investigation, were new, at least to me.
Anyone care to comment on anything they may know about any NFL game fixing situation, from any era? I can add any info anyone might be curious about from the book, if someone doesnt have a copy.
Dr. Z says he was doing research at the NFL offices and was left alone, overnight, they forgot he was there. He says he snooped around and found files on Layne and others. Says Layne would have been suspended al la Karras and Hornung had he not retired after the 1962 season, or in other words Layne retired rather than be suspended.
#7 Marble_Eye
Forum Visitors
Posted 22 April 2012 - 11:42 PM
'John Turney', on 22 Apr 2012 - 11:27 PM, said:
Dr. Z says he was doing research at the NFL offices and was left alone, overnight, they forgot he was there. He says he snooped around and found files on Layne and others. Says Layne would have been suspended ala' Karras and Hornung had he not retired after the 1962 season, or in other words Layne retired rather than be suspended.
So it could be then there was something to the total package of allegations, even if we discount the Meadows incident as not being legitmate. (Which it probably wasnt.) The above is sort of ironic and sad for Art Rooney who always maintained that had Layne played in 1963 the Steelers would have won the Division Title, which they almost did under Ed Brown at QB. Hornung made the HOF anyway, while Alex Karras never did. Wonder how Layne would have fared in HOF voting/selection, had he been suspended. Guess it would depend on both, what they had on him, and what they chose to make public in terms of charges.
#8 97Den98
Forum Visitors
Posted 23 April 2012 - 04:14 AM
I have heard of this Tuohy guy. He was on a sports radio show in Washington a few years ago.
He said something about how Peyton Manning had a frown on his face before SB 44, and that may have meant that he tried to throw the game (which basically is saying that he tried to throw to Tracy Porter).
Lorenzo Alexander, a Redskin LB, called up the show and yelled at him for accusing players of cheating.
#9 Dwarren
Forum Visitors
Posted 23 April 2012 - 02:38 PM
The Lions brass was very concerned about Layne in 1958. He played a terrible game against the College All Stars, throwing five interceptions in a 35-19 loss, a game that the Lions were 13 point favorites.
From what I have researched from s and my own interviews with former Lions players, coaches, local and national media and Detroit law enforcement, that performance sent up gambling red flags on Layne.
The Green Bay game was another bad outing. The following is from the Detroit News the day after the tie (10-6-58):
Quote
"It is well to take a look at Layne's record:
1. After Jim Doran's second-period touchdown on a 65-yard pass play with Tobin Rote, Layne flubbed the extra-point try.
2. With the score tied at 13-13 in the last seven minutes, Layne had a field goal in sight directly in front of the goal posts. On third down he slanted Gene Gedman away from the posts, leaving Jim Martin with a difficult angle on the kick from the 15, which he missed.
3. On third down behind his 37, Layne fell down with nobody near him. He didn't get up in time to pass or run.
4. Within range of another field goal in the final 70 seconds, Layne tried a pitchout to Gedman on third down at the 14. The toss was low. Gedman couldn't handle it and was charged with the fumble (recovered by Carleton Massey, of the Packers) that cast the die on the tie.
Later in the same article:
Quote
Before it is valid to ask what's wrong with the Lions, one must figure out what is wrong with Layne.
'I wish I knew,' said a member of the Lion staff, conceding that there is official worriment over Layne.
They were worried enough that they traded him the very next day to Pittsburgh.
Vincent Piersante, who at the time was still with the Detroit Police Department, but would later head up the Michigan Attorney General Frank Kelly's Organized Crime Division in the 1960s and 70s, said that "Detroit team management broke up the operation" when they traded Layne to Pittsburgh.
Was Layne a gambler on NFL games like Hornung and Karras? There has never been a smoking gun found yet, but the smoke from that rumored gun has never went away.
#10 John Turney
PFRA Member
Posted 23 April 2012 - 02:45 PM
'John Turney', on 22 Apr 2012 - 11:27 PM, said:
Dr. Z says he was doing research at the NFL offices and was left alone, overnight, they forgot he was there. He says he snooped around and found files on Layne and others. Says Layne would have been suspended al la Karras and Hornung had he not retired after the 1962 season, or in other words Layne retired rather than be suspended.
Well, that's what Zimmerman said. It may have been a lot of stuff, or a few things. But really, it is his word only that we have to go by. By going through those files and not making copies there is no printed evidence. And since that was 50 years ago, who knows if those files are even still around. If they've been d, etc. But even if Layne just hung out with gamblers, that may have been enough.
So, I don't have any knowledge other than what Z told me (and others). He suggested there were others that retired rather than be suspended. But I don't know if he meant one or two or 5 guys.
#11 bachslunch
Forum Visitors
Posted 23 April 2012 - 03:50 PM
'Marble_Eye', on 22 Apr 2012 - 5:57 PM, said:
It has lengthy discussions (a page and a half at least for both) of game fixing allegations against Len Dawson and Bobby Layne.
A Google search turned up what appears to be strong and repeated implications of Len Dawson for possible point-shaving funny business of some kind between 1966 and 1970 in the book "Betting the Line: Sports Wagering in American Life," by Richard O. Davies and Richard G. Abram (Ohio State Univ. Press, 2001), pages 112-114. It also involves Len's repeated involvement with Donald "Dice" Dawson, and mentions that Len met "Dice" through Layne. It does say that Len passed polygraph tests in connection with this issue, and that despite the allegations, Len's level of play supposedly belied point shaving. Unknown how accurate all this is.
This link to the book's pages in question may or may not work:
http://books.google.com/books?id=YR9eg_ ... ng&f=false
This blog article by Bill Dow says Layne was traded from the Lions because of gambling on games. It cites the book “Interference: How Organized Crime Influences Professional Football” by Dan Moldea and cites "Dice" as asserting Layne “had fixed games or shaved points in no fewer than seven games over a period of four years while Layne played with the Detroit Lions and later the Pittsburgh Steelers.” No idea how accurate all this may be:
http://blog.detroitathletic.com/2009/11 ... bby-layne/
#12 BD Sullivan
Forum Visitors
Posted 23 April 2012 - 08:46 PM
When Hornung and Karras were suspended in 1963, they both got the same length--one year. Not sure why Hornung got more, considering that he was "only" guilty of betting on games, and was apologetic about it. Karras, on the other hand, was hanging out with some sleazy characters, and was combative about his actions.
Five of Karras' teammates (John Gordy, Joe Schmidt, Wayne Walker, Gary Lowe and Sam Williams) were fined $2,000 each for betting (along with him) on the Packers in the 1962 title game. Karras bet $100, while the others bet $50. The Lions were fined $4,000 for not paying closer attention.
#13 Dwarren
Forum Visitors
Posted 23 April 2012 - 09:28 PM
'97Den98', on 23 Apr 2012 - 04:14 AM, said:
I have heard of this Tuohy guy. He was on a sports radio show in Washington a few years ago.
He said something about how Peyton Manning had a frown on his face before SB 44, and that may have meant that he tried to throw the game (which basically is saying that he tried to throw to Tracy Porter).
Lorenzo Alexander, a Redskin LB, called up the show and yelled at him for accusing players of cheating.
Tuohy does seem to make a stretch of logic from time to time in his book as well as in interviews. But there are times however when he does present some interesting stuff. According to his website, he is working on an updated edition of his book.
Quote
As I work on my next book about sports gambling and game fixing, I will periodically post actual quotes from the over 400 FBI files I have obtained through the Freedom of Information Act. It is shocking how much the FBI knew, but were unable to prove to the point of bringing charges against the athletes, coaches and officials involved in rigging games.
For you information and understanding, when you see [redacted] in one of these posts, it means a portion (usually a name, but sometimes more) that was blacked out by the FBI and cannot be read. A PCI is a Potential Criminal Informant. SA stands for Special Agent.
Here is an excerpt of an FBI document from Jan. 1963 he posted that may pertain to Layne.
Quote
From the Albuquerque Division. Dated January 2, 1963: The following comes from the same file as above. My first thought was that this described the actions of Hall of Fame QB Bobby Layne, who was a notorious gambler (and likely game fixer). But Layne died in the 1980s, and if this was about him, the name should not be redacted. So who is this describing?
“[redacted] also advised that the word is out among various gamblers that [redacted] of the Pittsburgh Steelers bets rather heavily on his own team on some of the Steeler games. He always bets on the Steelers to win and when gamblers received information that [redacted] is betting on his own team they bet everything with him.”
#14 rhickok1109
PFRA Member
Posted 23 April 2012 - 09:30 PM
'BD Sullivan', on 23 Apr 2012 - 8:46 PM, said:
When Hornung and Karras were suspended in 1963, they both got the same length--one year. Not sure why Hornung got more, considering that he was "only" guilty of betting on games, and was apologetic about it. Karras, on the other hand, was hanging out with some sleazy characters, and was combative about his actions.
Five of Karras' teammates (John Gordy, Joe Schmidt, Wayne Walker, Gary Lowe and Sam Williams) were fined $2,000 each for betting (along with him) on the Packers in the 1962 title game. Karras bet $100, while the others bet $50. The Lions were fined $4,000 for not paying closer attention.
Actually, Hornung and Karras were both suspended indefinitely, with the penalties to be reviewed by Rozelle after the 1963 season. As it turned out, of course, they were both one-year suspensions, although Karras might have been suspended for another season or more if he hadn't sold his interest in a bar that attracted shady characters.
The Lions were fined specifically for ignoring police reports on gambling activity by their players and for allowing suspected gamblers to sit on the team's bench during games.
#15 Jagade
PFRA Member
Posted 24 April 2012 - 01:20 PM
Regarding Bobby Layne's trade to Pittsburgh in 1958: Detroit also had Tobin Rote at quarterback, and Rote came up big in the 1957 championship game. Layne, coming back from an injury (broken leg), was not as sharp as usual in 1958. Evidently, Detroit's coaching staff decided to go with Rote at QB, especially after a bad day for Layne against Green Bay.
I don't doubt that Layne did some gambling, but I don't believe that he ever intentionally threw a game or shaved points. JMO.
#16 evan
PFRA Member
Posted 25 April 2012 - 09:50 AM
Among the gambling-related rumors I’ve read about:
• Bubba Smith accusing Earl Morrall of throwing Super Bowl III. It is hard to explain some of Morrall’s play (the Orr play in particular) in that game, but man, it’s hard to believe any one would really sell out their team in the Super Bowl.
• Late-game TDs that made the final score bump up against the point spread in Super Bowls 10, 13, and 14 (all Steelers wins). I forget what the spreads were in those games, but I remember reading that there was a big change in gambling fortunes late in those games.
• In the 1958 NFL Championship, Johnny Unitas going for the TD against the Giants in OT on account of the point spread. I discount this one for all the reasons we know (Myrha’s shaky kicking, Unitas’s bravado and confidence, the desire to end the game with a TD, etc.)
There have also been countless “easy” missed FGs we’ve all seen over the years, and strange interceptions thrown and fumbles lost that would be easy to raise an eyebrow of suspicion about. But the more likely explanation is “stuff happens”.
The only play I ever witnessed that I still feel uneasy about was actually in a college game, one of the greatest ever. The way that Irving Fryar dropped that TD pass in the 1983 Miami-Nebraska Orange Bowl looked so unnatural, so spastically clumsy, that I remember thinking at that moment “something is not right here.” Given Nebraska’s huge status as favorite in that game, I’ve always wondered a little bit about it. But it turned into such a great game to watch, I sincerely hope nothing insidious ever surfaces about it.
#17 BD Sullivan
Forum Visitors
Posted 25 April 2012 - 02:36 PM
'evan', on 25 Apr 2012 - 09:50 AM, said:
Among the gambling-related rumors I’ve read about:
• Bubba Smith accusing Earl Morrall of throwing Super Bowl III. It is hard to explain some of Morrall’s play (the Orr play in particular) in that game, but man, it’s hard to believe any one would really sell out their team in the Super Bowl.
• Late-game TDs that made the final score bump up against the point spread in Super Bowls 10, 13, and 14 (all Steelers wins). I forget what the spreads were in those games, but I remember reading that there was a big change in gambling fortunes late in those games.
• In the 1958 NFL Championship, Johnny Unitas going for the TD against the Giants in OT on account of the point spread. I discount this one for all the reasons we know (Myrha’s shaky kicking, Unitas’s bravado and confidence, the desire to end the game with a TD, etc.)
There have also been countless “easy” missed FGs we’ve all seen over the years, and strange interceptions thrown and fumbles lost that would be easy to raise an eyebrow of suspicion about. But the more likely explanation is “stuff happens”.
The only play I ever witnessed that I still feel uneasy about was actually in a college game, one of the greatest ever. The way that Irving Fryar dropped that TD pass in the 1983 Miami-Nebraska Orange Bowl looked so unnatural, so spastically clumsy, that I remember thinking at that moment “something is not right here.” Given Nebraska’s huge status as favorite in that game, I’ve always wondered a little bit about it. But it turned into such a great game to watch, I sincerely hope nothing insidious ever surfaces about it.
*Bubba was selling a book at the time and his accusation undoubtedly was the most controversial part of what was another ho-hum bio.
*In both Super Bowl 10 & 13, Dallas scored with about a minute left. I believe in the first one, the late score made it a push (i.e. no bet), while the second one depended on your bookie, since the spread was anywhere between 3.5 and 4.5--with the final margin four points. In 14, the Steelers were 11-point favorites, but the Rams led by two at the start of the fourth quarter. Pittsburgh tied it with 12 minutes left to go up by five, then scored on a Franco Harris plunge with 1:49 left. The Rams (Pat Thomas) had been flagged for pass interference just before the Harris score.
*In the '58 game, the rumors have generally been that Carroll Rosenbloom (whose name swirled around gambling allegations through much of his tenure as an NFL owner) wanted a touchdown because the spread was 3.5, and another Myrha field goal obviously wouldn't have covered.
#18 Rupert Patrick
PFRA Member
Posted 25 April 2012 - 10:10 PM
'evan', on 25 Apr 2012 - 09:50 AM, said:
The only play I ever witnessed that I still feel uneasy about was actually in a college game, one of the greatest ever. The way that Irving Fryar dropped that TD pass in the 1983 Miami-Nebraska Orange Bowl looked so unnatural, so spastically clumsy, that I remember thinking at that moment “something is not right here.” Given Nebraska’s huge status as favorite in that game, I’ve always wondered a little bit about it. But it turned into such a great game to watch, I sincerely hope nothing insidious ever surfaces about it.
A lot of Steelers fans I know swear that Neil O'Donnell threw the Super Bowl to Dallas, but I disagree.
The one sequence in a game I witnessed that seemed very suspicious was the Eagles play calling late in the fourth quarter of Super Bowl 39 against New England. It seemed the Eagles wasted several minutes when they were two scores behind and inexplicably did not go into a two minute offense and seemed to be taking their time going down the field.
As far as Super Bowl 13, the casinos lost huge taking bets on the game. Most of the Pittsburgh fans placed their bets when the Steelers were 3 1/2 point favorites, but the odds shifted and most of the big money that was bet on Dallas was giving the Cowboys 4 1/2 points, so most of the people who bet on the game won, and the casinos lost millions on the game.
#19 BD Sullivan
Forum Visitors
Posted 26 April 2012 - 12:22 AM
'Rupert Patrick', on 25 Apr 2012 - 10:10 PM, said:
A lot of Steelers fans I know swear that Neil O'Donnell threw the Super Bowl to Dallas, but I disagree.
At the time, I actually saw a local college newspaper where the student writer (an obvious Steeler fan with apparently limited knowledge of libel laws) flat out wrote that O'Donnell threw the game. I suppose the kid could have gotten in trouble if the circulation was higher than the 50 or so people who read it.
I've mentioned this anecdote on a few occasions, but given the topic, it's worth repeating: around the time of the Art Schlicter scandal in 1983, Art Modell recalled a tale from the mid 60's where he was at a Browns' practice when Gary Collins sprained his ankle. Modell left soon after to go back to his office, about a 10-15 minute drive. When he got to his desk, he almost immediately got a call from Pete Rozelle about why the Browns game was off the board.
#20 Rupert Patrick
PFRA Member
Posted 26 April 2012 - 06:48 AM
'BD Sullivan', on 26 Apr 2012 - 12:22 AM, said:
At the time, I actually saw a local college newspaper where the student writer (an obvious Steeler fan with apparently limited knowledge of libel laws) flat out wrote that O'Donnell threw the game. I suppose the kid could have gotten in trouble if the circulation was higher than the 50 or so people who read it.
A lot of people expected a Dallas blowout in the game, or something along the lines of the Chargers 49ers Super Bowl the previous year. It was 20-7 after three quarters when the Steelers came back with the FG and onside kick that the Steelers turned into a TD to pull within three. During that final drive where O'Donnell was picked with about three minutes to go, I remember when that drive started talking to the TV (as if Bill Cowher could somehow hear me) to put Kordell Stewart in at QB instead of O'Donnell; I thought O'Donnell was shaky but felt Kordell was a playmaker who would find a way to score the winning TD.
Page 1 of 7
"The Fix Is In" - Book by Brian Tuohy
Started by Marble_Eye, Apr 22 2012 05:57 PM
Page 2 of 7
138 replies to this topic
#21 evan
PFRA Member
Posted 26 April 2012 - 10:34 AM
Another question, is it considered throwing a game if you benefit from the loss? I'm not talking about teams that rest s because they don't care about the outcome of a late-season game, but I'm referring to teams who actually benefit in a meaningful way from a loss.
I'm talking about the 1977 Colts loss to Detroit, which has been written about in many places as to the circumstances whereby the Colts benefited from the loss. In this article (http://www.patsfans....s-Than-Now.html) the author credits this game with bringing the two wild cards into action the next year. I'm not sure about that, can anyone in the Forum corroborate this?
I don't think there's been any intimation that the Colts threw that game against the Lions, although apparently they had reason to, thanks to the NFL's tiebreaking procedures of the day. Any other circumstances one come to mind?
In 1976 there was a lot of talk that the Raiders would lay down against Cincinnati to eliminate Pittsburgh, but they showed on MNF that they had no reason to lay down against anyone that year.
#22 BD Sullivan
Forum Visitors
Posted 26 April 2012 - 10:58 AM
'evan', on 26 Apr 2012 - 10:34 AM, said:
Another question, is it considered throwing a game if you benefit from the loss? I'm not talking about teams that rest s because they don't care about the outcome of a late-season game, but I'm referring to teams who actually benefit in a meaningful way from a loss.
I'm talking about the 1977 Colts loss to Detroit, which has been written about in many places as to the circumstances whereby the Colts benefited from the loss. In this article (http://www.patsfans....s-Than-Now.html) the author credits this game with bringing the two wild cards into action the next year. I'm not sure about that, can anyone in the Forum corroborate this?
Doubtful, considering the Colts still needed to beat the Patriots at home the following week. If anything, fans in Miami probably thought the ref in the Colts-Pats game was on the take, since Bert Jones' late fumble deep in Patriot territory (with the Colts trailing by one) was blown dead by the infamous quick whistle:
(the play in question starts at about the 1:25 mark)
Six years earlier, another season-ending Colts-Patriots game was open for questions about intent. The 10-3 Colts were hosting the 5-8 Pats, with a win giving them the AFC East division title. It would also send them to Kansas City on Christmas Day against the still-formidable Chiefs. In an "upset," the Pats won 21-17, sending the wild card Colts to a much more beatable Cleveland (they won 20-3) and Miami to Kansas City for their classic battle.
#23 Jagade
PFRA Member
Posted 26 April 2012 - 01:38 PM
'evan', on 26 Apr 2012 - 10:34 AM, said:
Another question, is it considered throwing a game if you benefit from the loss? I'm not talking about teams that rest s because they don't care about the outcome of a late-season game, but I'm referring to teams who actually benefit in a meaningful way from a loss.
I'm talking about the 1977 Colts loss to Detroit, which has been written about in many places as to the circumstances whereby the Colts benefited from the loss. In this article (http://www.patsfans....s-Than-Now.html) the author credits this game with bringing the two wild cards into action the next year. I'm not sure about that, can anyone in the Forum corroborate this?
I don't think there's been any intimation that the Colts threw that game against the Lions, although apparently they had reason to, thanks to the NFL's tiebreaking procedures of the day. Any other circumstances one come to mind?
In 1976 there was a lot of talk that the Raiders would lay down against Cincinnati to eliminate Pittsburgh, but they showed on MNF that they had no reason to lay down against anyone that year.
The one I was always suspicious of was the Detroit Lions/New York Giants game in 1958. Detroit, eliminated from contention in the NFL Western Conference, would eliminate the Giants and put the archrival Browns into the championship game against the Colts with a win over the Giants.
With 4th and about 19 with Detroit leading 17 to 12, Yale Lary ran in punt formation instead of punting resulting in the Giants stopping Lary and having good field position. Coach Wilson took responsibility for the apparent bonehead call. The Giants later scored a TD after completing a long pass to an end who didn't seem to be covered. There was also a game ending blocked field goal that would have won the game for Detroit.
Part of that game is on you tube starting with Lary's run in punt formation.
#24 SixtiesFan
Forum Visitors
Posted 26 April 2012 - 04:16 PM
'97Den98', on 23 Apr 2012 - 04:14 AM, said:
I have heard of this Tuohy guy. He was on a sports radio show in Washington a few years ago.
He said something about how Peyton Manning had a frown on his face before SB 44, and that may have meant that he tried to throw the game (which basically is saying that he tried to throw to Tracy Porter).
Lorenzo Alexander, a Redskin LB, called up the show and yelled at him for accusing players of cheating.
Some questions for Tuohy:
Who puts up the money for the fix? How much more was Peyton Manning's cut than what he would have made if he won?
#25 Rupert Patrick
PFRA Member
Posted 26 April 2012 - 04:40 PM
'SixtiesFan', on 26 Apr 2012 - 4:16 PM, said:
Some questions for Tuohy:
Who puts up the money for the fix? How much more was Peyton Manning's cut than what he would have made if he won?
And was it worth risking his career and reputation (not to mention his place in history) over? All professional athletes are well aware of what MLB did to Pete Rose, banned one of the greatest players from the game for life.
#26 paulksandiego
PFRA Member
Posted 26 April 2012 - 08:31 PM
'evan', on 25 Apr 2012 - 09:50 AM, said:
Among the gambling-related rumors I’ve read about:
• Bubba Smith accusing Earl Morrall of throwing Super Bowl III. It is hard to explain some of Morrall’s play (the Orr play in particular) in that game, but man, it’s hard to believe any one would really sell out their team in the Super Bowl.
Maybe that's why Shula put Griese in to start Super Bowl VII...
#27 IvanNYC
Forum Visitors
Posted 27 April 2012 - 12:35 PM
'evan', on 26 Apr 2012 - 10:34 AM, said:
Another question, is it considered throwing a game if you benefit from the loss? I'm not talking about teams that rest s because they don't care about the outcome of a late-season game, but I'm referring to teams who actually benefit in a meaningful way from a loss.
I'm talking about the 1977 Colts loss to Detroit, which has been written about in many places as to the circumstances whereby the Colts benefited from the loss. In this article (http://www.patsfans....s-Than-Now.html) the author credits this game with bringing the two wild cards into action the next year. I'm not sure about that, can anyone in the Forum corroborate this?
I don't think there's been any intimation that the Colts threw that game against the Lions, although apparently they had reason to, thanks to the NFL's tiebreaking procedures of the day. Any other circumstances one come to mind?
In 1976 there was a lot of talk that the Raiders would lay down against Cincinnati to eliminate Pittsburgh, but they showed on MNF that they had no reason to lay down against anyone that year.
If the Colts benefited in any way it's that by losing to Detroit, and with the Dolphins defeating 3-10 Buffalo on Saturday in Week 14, they would face a New England team that would be already eliminated prior to their showdown vs. the Patriots. The complaints on the Colts loss to the Lions really came from the Patriots and their fans since with that outcome, the Patriots lost control of their own destiny for the AFC East division title since a Baltimore win over Detroit would have eliminated the Dolphins and would have created a winner-take-all scenario between Baltimore and New England. (The Patriots would have won the two-way tiebreaker vs. the Colts based on H2H sweep or three-way tie with BAL and MIA based on better H2H record among the clubs, 3-1 to MIA 2-2 to BAL 1-3). With the Baltimore loss to Detroit, Miami stayed alive and New England now needed a MIA loss to Buffalo and then beat the Colts the next day because the Patriots would lose a two-way tiebreaker at 10-4 with Miami based on division record.
Also, that this scenario brought about a change to the playoff format in 1978 is simply not true. The owners had already approved the new 16-game schedule and the addition of two wildcards for 1978 at the owners meeting in March 1977.
As for 1976, just want to clarify that the Bengals loss to the Raiders did not eliminate Pittsburgh. But what it did is that the Bengals lost control of their own destiny since they needed to stay ahead of Pittsburgh since the Steelers had swept the Bengals. (The Steelers also held the potential three-way tiebreaker with CIN and CLE on better H2H record among the clubs). With Oakland defeating Cincinnati, Pittsburgh then only needed a win over Houston to win the AFC Central. The Bengals needed a win and a Pittsbugh loss. Had Cincinnati defeated the Raiders, they would have only needed to beat the Jets, while the Steelers would have needed a win and a Bengals loss in the final week.
#28 Brian2E
Forum Visitors
Posted 27 April 2012 - 01:14 PM
Greetings all! I am actually Brian Tuohy, the author of The Fix Is In. Someone gave me the heads up on this forum and I decided to join.
A couple of things to chew on: One, the NFL claims that no game in its history has even been fixed. The league goes one step further to say that only two attempts have even been made - the 1946 Championship Game and a 1971 Houston Oilers game. This is an absolute falsehood. I have interviewed several people in the casino bookmaking world as well as two former FBI agents for another book on game fixing, and all emphatically state NFL games have indeed been fixed. I also possess over 400 FBI files relating to investigations of the Sports Bribery Act, some of which detail fixed NFL games (as well as MLB, NBA, college football & basketball, boxing and more). I would reveal the names of the NFL Hall of Famers implicated by the FBI, but I won't do that until this next book is released.
I think many NFL (and sports fans in general) cannot believe that a professional athlete would shave points/fix a game. It's a extremely naive stance to take. Granted, as no player, mobster or gambler has ever been convicted of fixing an NFL game, the league is free to make the claims it does. That does not mean, however, that the sport has been and remains "pure." Dan Moldea in his overlooked book Interference: How Organized Crime Influences Professional Football has evidence of 70 NFL games being fixed (prior to 1989). I know, I know - evidence, not proof positive (unless you believe the confessions of Dice Dawson who fixed games in league with certain players). Well, if the FBI cannot prove these games were fixed, who can? There is little to no physical evidence for such an event. All one can do is watch for erratic movements in the point spread coupled with erratic play. Do both these equate to a fixed game? Not necessarily, but when you add in other surrounding circumstances then perhaps a better conclusion can be reached.
As for the aforementioned DC radio appearance - yes, I did anger Redskins LB Lorenzo Alexander so much that he had to call to argue with me. In the two minutes he talked, I got him to admit that 2-3 members of the Redskins as well as several other NFL players were actively taking illegal steroids. So while he may not have felt Peyton Manning would stoop so low as to throw the Super Bowl (which, I admit was not my strongest argument, though I do firmly believe the NFL manipulates its own games), Alexander had no issue with players cheating by using steroids.
Feel free to ask me any questions you have about this subject. I will answer any and all as best I can. Cheers!
#29 Brian2E
Forum Visitors
Posted 27 April 2012 - 02:29 PM
'Rupert Patrick', on 26 Apr 2012 - 4:40 PM, said:
And was it worth risking his career and reputation (not to mention his place in history) over? All professional athletes are well aware of what MLB did to Pete Rose, banned one of the greatest players from the game for life.
If Manning threw the Super Bowl vs. the Saints - and that is a big IF - I believe the NFL directed him to do so, therefore no ramifications would follow. Why? Because the Saints victory completed the storyline the NFl cultivated since Hurricane Katrina in which the NFL touted that the team rebuilt and revitalized the city. The NFC Championship game vs. the Vikings was also highly suspect in my opinion and might have been given to the Saints in a similar fashion. As for Peyton Manning, he had more connection to that city than Brees and most of the other Saints. His legacy is already assured: Super Bowl ring, multi-MVP and a bust in Canton awaiting him. His losing that game did not affect this legacy. Yet I believe his play was very suspect, including that game-sealing INT which was returned for a TD. I wish I could find video or a photo of him pre-game which showed Manning red-faced and clearly upset because it was a highly unusual look for the starting QB in the Super Bowl just minutes before kick off.
I admit this is more of a conspiracy theory than fact, but I don't believe a $10 billion industry like the NFL leaves everything up to random chance.
#30 evan
PFRA Member
Posted 27 April 2012 - 02:32 PM
'IvanNYC', on 27 Apr 2012 - 12:35 PM, said:
If the Colts benefited in any way it's that by losing to Detroit, and with the Dolphins defeating 3-10 Buffalo on Saturday in Week 14, they would face a New England team that would be already eliminated prior to their showdown vs. the Patriots. The complaints on the Colts loss to the Lions really came from the Patriots and their fans since with that outcome, the Patriots lost control of their own destiny for the AFC East division title since a Baltimore win over Detroit would have eliminated the Dolphins and would have created a winner-take-all scenario between Baltimore and New England. (The Patriots would have won the two-way tiebreaker vs. the Colts based on H2H sweep or three-way tie with BAL and MIA based on better H2H record among the clubs, 3-1 to MIA 2-2 to BAL 1-3). With the Baltimore loss to Detroit, Miami stayed alive and New England now needed a MIA loss to Buffalo and then beat the Colts the next day because the Patriots would lose a two-way tiebreaker at 10-4 with Miami based on division record.
Also, that this scenario brought about a change to the playoff format in 1978 is simply not true. The owners had already approved the new 16-game schedule and the addition of two wildcards for 1978 at the owners meeting in March 1977.
As for 1976, just want to clarify that the Bengals loss to the Raiders did not eliminate Pittsburgh. But what it did is that the Bengals lost control of their own destiny since they needed to stay ahead of Pittsburgh since the Steelers had swept the Bengals. (The Steelers also held the potential three-way tiebreaker with CIN and CLE on better H2H record among the clubs). With Oakland defeating Cincinnati, Pittsburgh then only needed a win over Houston to win the AFC Central. The Bengals needed a win and a Pittsbugh loss. Had Cincinnati defeated the Raiders, they would have only needed to beat the Jets, while the Steelers would have needed a win and a Bengals loss in the final week.
Thanks for the breakdown Ivan, good details there. I think although as you pointed out the Colts-Lions and Bengals-Raiders games were not necessarily deal finishers, part of the mystique of these circumstances was that the conventional thinking was there was just no conceivable way that the Bills would beat the Dolphins or the Jets would beat the Bengals in the games you mentioned, which made the Colts-Lions game and Bengals-Raiders games so paramount.
Page 2 of 7