Re: HOF Candidates
 

[quote=irish;567486]MLB wasnt ok with gambling because gambling almost brought down the game in 1919. I dont think MLB was ok with players doing it but like another post says, the players union has a say in how things happen.[/quote]

Great point.

[quote]I do think there is a double standard when it comes to baseball and roids. When a baseball player (especially a high profile one) uses roids its almost a national scandal where the public demands they be banned for like but when an NFL player is caught (I think it was Shawn Merriman but I know it was a charger a few years ago) they get 2 weeks off, are back in time for the playoffs, and there is almost no public outcry. Its like the public expects football players to use and so when they get caught its expected.[/quote]

It's not that people expect it in football, it's that if you had to name 1 sport that is sooo far into the PED's, which would it be? Of course it's baseball. Why? Because it's no longer about the 1 or 2 guys or even 4 or 5 guys that get caught like it is in football. It's about the hundreds of guys that have used and have tainted the game over it. If the public sees only one or 2 guys getting busted in football, they are not likely to throw a tantrum. But if you see a list (like that of the failed tests in 2003 that was leaked not too long ago that had 103 or 104 players on it) that speak volumes. When players like Palmiero wave that finger at congress and say "I never took steroids, period" then tests positive, are you expecting america to turn the other cheek? It's because baseball has abused the tolerance level of usage of PEDS while football probably does a better job of hiding it, or not seeing it, therefore people think it's not a problem. I guarentee you if football started seeing 50+ players test positive, there would be an outcry.

Re: HOF Candidates
 

I think it's more so because records and stats mean more in baseball than in football. So these players going after records in baseball are more scrutinized. I mean everyone knows Dimaggio's 56 game hit streak. But off the top of your head can you say who has the NFL record for consecutive games with a reception or what that record is?

Re: HOF Candidates
 

[quote=SmootSmack;567629]I think it's more so because records and stats mean more in baseball than in football. So these players going after records in baseball are more scrutinized. I mean everyone knows Dimaggio's 56 game hit streak. But off the top of your head can you say who has the NFL record for consecutive games with a reception or what that record is?[/quote]It's Rice, and I think the record is over 100 games.

But yeah, that's a good point, whatever number it is has no significant meaning in football without significant context.

Re: HOF Candidates
 

[quote=GTripp0012;567630]It's Rice, and I think the record is over 100 games.

But yeah, that's a good point, whatever number it is has no significant meaning in football without significant context.[/quote]

It's like 275, I'm not even sure. Smart move choosing Rice for a question about a receiving record. LOL

Re: HOF Candidates
 

[quote=SmootSmack;567631]It's like 275, I'm not even sure. Smart move choosing Rice for a question about a receiving record. LOL[/quote]Ha. I happened to watch the Raiders game in 2004 where Rice didn't catch a pass. Dude was pissed.

I'm also eating rice currently, so the memory didn't need much to be jogged.

Re: HOF Candidates
 

He didn't catch a pass in week four, 1985. The next time he didn't catch a pass was week two, 2004.

By my count, that's 284 consecutive games with a catch.

Re: HOF Candidates
 

[quote=GTripp0012;567635]He didn't catch a pass in week four, 1985. The next time he didn't catch a pass was week two, 2004.

By my count, that's 284 consecutive games with a catch.[/quote]

Are you factoring in games missed? I think he missed almost the entire 1996 or 1997 season

Re: HOF Candidates
 

[quote=SmootSmack;567636]Are you factoring in games missed? I think he missed almost the entire 1996 or 1997 season[/quote]I only counted games played. 303 total, 4 before the streak, 15 after.

So 284, unless I'm missing something.

[URL="http://www.pro-football-reference.com/players/R/RiceJe00_games.htm"]Jerry Rice Gamelogs and Game Logs - Pro-Football-Reference.com[/URL]

-EDIT- Yes, it was 16 games post streak. I was counting the game that broke the streak in that.

283, then.

Re: HOF Candidates
 

I think my struggles at math only prove your larger point.

Re: HOF Candidates
 

[quote=Mattyk72;567492]Show me a sport that hasn't been tainted by performance enhancing drugs at some point. Yet for some reason the purists act like baseball is supposed to be so above this.

I was at the baseball Hall of Fame over the weekend and overheard a guy talking to his son about how Rafael Palmeiro cheated and took steroids, and he was talking with such disgust. [B]It would be wise if the voters just accepted the steroid era and voted in the guys that were the best players during the time. To shut them all out when it was pretty obvious what was going on at the time is insane and hypocrisy at it's best.[/B][/quote]

I think we should put the responsibility on the players. These guys are grown men, they should know right and wrong and what is illegal and cheating. It doesn't matter if the people on top don't have strict testing policies. It's like if the teacher leaves the room are you going to cheat? It's not like you're gonna get caught, but you're giving yourself an unfair advantage against the people around you. It takes away from the other people that worked hard and it's selfish. Think if you were the best player or for the test example you knew the most about the material, then all these guys cheat and you get bumped down to an F or bumped out of the Hall of Fame because of it. I think it's never too late to do the right thing and not allow these guys to be rewarded for cheating.

Re: HOF Candidates
 

[quote=jsarno;567612]Great point.



It's not that people expect it in football, it's that if you had to name 1 sport that is sooo far into the PED's, which would it be? Of course it's baseball. Why? Because it's no longer about the 1 or 2 guys or even 4 or 5 guys that get caught like it is in football. It's about the hundreds of guys that have used and have tainted the game over it. If the public sees only one or 2 guys getting busted in football, they are not likely to throw a tantrum. But if you see a list (like that of the failed tests in 2003 that was leaked not too long ago that had 103 or 104 players on it) that speak volumes. When players like Palmiero wave that finger at congress and say "I never took steroids, period" then tests positive, are you expecting america to turn the other cheek? It's because baseball has abused the tolerance level of usage of PEDS while football probably does a better job of hiding it, or not seeing it, therefore people think it's not a problem. I guarentee you if football started seeing 50+ players test positive, there would be an outcry.[/quote]

I agree that baseball went beyond the public tolerance level but IMO if football did the same (I think they do but hide it better) there would be some yelling but not the outcry we saw with baseball. I think the public's underlying assumption is that football players are juicing so if they get caught its not such a big deal because everyone thinks they are doing it anyway.

I also agree with another poster that a large part of the outcry comes from how baseball is all about numbers and when someone cheated to get those numbers and break long standing records its a big deal. Football isnt as much about collecting numbers and the records arent as big a deal as baseball.

Re: HOF Candidates
 

[quote=irish;567682]I agree that baseball went beyond the public tolerance level but IMO if football did the same (I think they do but hide it better) there would be some yelling but not the outcry we saw with baseball. I think the public's underlying assumption is that football players are juicing so if they get caught its not such a big deal because everyone thinks they are doing it anyway.

I also agree with another poster that a large part of the outcry comes from how baseball is all about numbers and when someone cheated to get those numbers and break long standing records its a big deal. Football isnt as much about collecting numbers and the records arent as big a deal as baseball.[/quote]

There is no doubt that numbers have something to do with it. But I will say this, when the Patriots were trying to go 16-0 (well they did but lost in the super bowl) there were all sorts of outcrys about the "cheatriots" or "shady brady" etc. They cheated and it was national news...a huge scandal...even South Park did an episode on it cause they were going after hallowed ground in that 16-0 season. So I do see how stats can affect it, but I still think that's only a small part. That scenario provides 2 examples, we like our stats, and we don't stand for cheaters. We have no evidence of football players using PEDS and destroying the game from the inside out other than those few that get caught every year. I still think if all of sudden there are 50+ players on PEDS and more rumors about it, America would be PISSED that it's hurting the game.
Keep in mind, baseball hasn't lost a whole lot of revenue due to PEDS issues, in fact they were growing even after these issues if I recall correctly, so it's not like America is actually up in arms about this cause they are still opening their wallets. It's just verbally we are taking a stand to get integrity back into the game, and I'm sure the same would happen to football given it's dominance in popularity.