And just so people don't think I don't rail on a team I would like to see win a(nother) title...

I submit to you this video by Brian Tuohy (who lives in Wisconsin) about an incident where he now believes that the Packers won a fixed game (whether fixed to win or just to cover is not entirely clear) in week three, and covered a 4.5 point spread (with an over-under of 45.5, and remembering that 70-72% of the games in the first two weeks went "over" the number), largely due to a questionable holding call on what probably is one of the greatest special-teams plays in history.

Let me set it up:

Anyone who has seen the Bears in the last few years knows that their main threats are largely their defense and Devin Hester on the special-teams.

So what do the Bears do, down 10 in the 4th quarter on Sunday at Soldier Field?

The Packers punt and the Bears take advantage of the often-kamikaze nature of a special-teams cover team. In their haste to cream the guy who (they think) has the ball, no one bothers to look up and see that Devin Hester (who was acting as if he was returning the ball) was nowhere near the ball.

The real returner (all the way on the far side of the field, far away from Hester) scores a touchdown untouched. This would make the game 27-23 (and probably 27-24), and the Packers fail to cover the 4.5 and the game goes over.

BUT HOLD ON...

Holding on the return team negates the touchdown!

So, Brian asks, where is the holding??

The call, apparently, is on #21 of the Bears, Corey Graham.

A flag is already down as the returner with the ball is about at the Packer 45, with only a blocked punter to beat for the score. So it basically has to happen when the ball is in the air.

If you watch the clip at about 1:14-1:18, he shows two fuzzy, but still, shots of Graham with the guy he is trying to block in what would be about the closest possibility that he would be able to hold anybody on the play.

It's happening near the numbers on what would the side of the field at the top of the screen when the shot goes to the return.

At about 1:26 is about the closest evidence you have -- it appears as if Graham may be tugging on the Packer "gunner" to prevent him from getting to the (actual!) returner.

At 1:33, look VERY closely. The Packer "gunner" is down around the 5-yard line, completely out of the play -- and there is NO FLAG ON THE FIELD. The closest thing to a foul Graham would've committed would've had a flag on the field with the ball in the air (a "during the kick" foul), because it occurred (as Brian points out) at the 35 yard line!

There would've been a flag about where two Bears blockers are playing containment on the ruse as the true kick returner has fielded the punt and has nothing but green for about 90 yards for the covering and "over" touchdown!!

The flag comes out as the "gunner" heads to the end zone (about 30-35 yards from where the foul occurred) and the (actual) Bears returner receives the punt where it's going to be an abjectly clear touchdown. Anyone can see on that replay that he is effectively gone the moment he catches the ball.

The flag is thrown on about the 18 yard line, 15 yards from both where the supposed foul would've occurred (and about four seconds) and from where Graham and his "gunner" were. The returner is flat-out gone up the far sideline the moment he catches the ball.

The referee who calls the holding is the official who, as Brian again points out, is on the goal line -- 35 yards from the call, probably 40 or 45 when you figure in the angle, as the official has to watch for the touchback.

But the real damning evidence is that the flag doesn't come out until that official (and he's on the correct side of the field to have a real good look that the returner has paydirt all down the field) realizes that the Bears are going to score a touchdown on the play! There's one guy on a direct line between the returner and the end zone, and he's a Bear going to keep the last guy out (the punter!).

----------

There are two ways a game can be fixed: For outcome or for spread.

I'm not sure whether Brian is saying that the NFL wanted the Packers to win the game, but I think there is one clear thing about the implication here:

I usually talk about fixing for outcome -- let's talk about fixing for spread for a second.

Remember, Brian himself pointed out (and I updated) that the "over" bet on the line was going at better than a 70% clip (21-8-3 or 22-8-2, depending on how the week 2 Monday night line fell -- 43.5 would've gotten you to 22-8-2, 44 would be 21-8-3) this year in weeks one and two. If you had bet $1,000 on every game that it would go over in the first two weeks of the season, you would have made somewhere in the range of about $12,000 - $12,900 in just two weeks.

If you need to know where the NFL stands on official gambling and how married they are to Las Vegas:

• Pick up the book Interference by Dan Moldea
• and ask (as one example of this -- there are others!) the New York Jets, who failed to list Brett Favre on their injury report, even though he had a torn tendon in his bicep.

The result of the latter? ONE HUNDRED AND TWENTY-FIVE THOUSAND DOLLARS IN FINES. ($75,000 to the Jets, $25,000 to the GM, $25,000 to the coach at the time)

WHY? Absent one thing, there really makes no difference as to whether people know in advance who the quarterback of the Jets would be.

What's the one thing?

The Vegas lines. That team would've had every game "circled" (for lower limits on betting, if not taken off the board outright!) if Brett (or any prominent quarterback -- for example, some lines had tonight's game off the board for Tony Romo's ribs!) had been listed as injured.

But if the league were not married to Vegas, WHY WOULD THIS MATTER to the point of $125,000 in fines for non-disclosure.

BECAUSE THE LEAGUE IS MARRIED TO VEGAS.

Now, fast-forward to this year and keep in mind the gaudy record of the "over" in weeks one and two. Remember that the Vegas casinos only make their money on LOSING bets. They get the full amount of the losing bets and only pay off the winners at 10-11 odds unless a + or - number is involved. (That difference, which even exists in a +/- situation, is called the "juice".)

So if ANY bet is winning at a 70% clip, something is deathly wrong! And when you look at the scoring comparisons I've been doing, this has possibly led to Vegas casinos losing truckloads of money to bettors who correctly identified that offenses were going berserk, especially in week two.

So, what happens in week 3? (And this game was part of this trend...) (All information courtesy of vegasinsider.com:)

• SF-Cincinnati: Line was 38.5-39. Score: 13-8, in one of the worst games in recent NFL memory (and a unique final score). Under by 17.5-18 points.
• New England-Buffalo: Line was 54-54.5, with a 55 at the Peppermill! Score: 34-31. Over by the better part of 10 points. Over is 1-1.
• Houston-New Orleans: Line was 51, with one 51.5 -- and coming down over the week. Score: 40-33. Over by a ton! Over is 2-1 on this study.
• Giants-Philly: Line was 46.5-47. Score: 29-16. Under by a point or two. Over is 2-2. Probably also a marquee game for the week.
• Miami-Cleveland: Line was 42-42.5, with a significant upward tick of a point or a point and a half on some lines about 90 minutes before kickoff. Many lines had this game at 41, when all of a sudden, a number of these lines jumped the over/under by a point or a point and a half in one fell swoop at about 11:25 AM Eastern. This not only usually means big money is being bet on one side of the equation -- it usually means somebody has some information they think is a winner (a sure indication something might be up). The score? 17-16. Burn the big move, the game never got close to over. Over is 2-3.
• Denver-Tennessee: Line was 43.5-44, and more big money on the number going up (meaning money on the over) on Sunday morning -- not quite as pronounced as MIA-CLE, but it's still there. Score: 17-14. Burn that big move too, as that was even further away. Over is 2-4.
• Detroit-Minnesota: Line was 44.5-45, pretty consistent. Score: 26-23. Thank a couple late field goals, including an overtime game-winner for that over. Over is 3-4.
• Jacksonville-Carolina: Had to think the weather would be a factor here, though the Cam Newton love had the line at 42.5-43, pretty consistent. Score: 16-10. It rained all over the over bettors on that one. Under city in the monsoon. Over is 3-5 for the "early" games.
• Kansas City-San Diego: Line was 44.5-45 with the spread around 14. Score: 20-17. If that wasn't a couple of sucker plays, I don't know what was. A spread of 14 scares me, but I'd probably have lost some too taking it. Over is 3-6.
• Jets-Oakland: Line is 39.5-40, with big DOWNWARD movement 15 minutes before kickoff of about 1-1.5 points. Score: 34-24. Vegas burning the big movers on Sunday, that one goes over by several scores! Over is 4-6, identified big moves are losing all over the board!
• Baltimore-St. Louis: Would someone please tell me why Baltimore was only favored by 5.5 over St. Louis? That'd been big money for me if I had it and was in Vegas. Line was 42, with one 41.5, consistent across the board. Score: 37-7. A fourth-quarter defensive score, and the overs rejoice on one. Over is 5-6.
• Atlanta-Tampa: Most lines had it at 44.5 - 45. Caesar's and Harrah's had it at 46! (possible middle if you really wanted to take a chance at 45??) Score: 16-13. No middle, no over, bleh. Over is 5-7.
• Seattle-Arizona: Line was a consistent 42.5-43, though some lines started at 41 and got some big movement on the over side til it got to 42.5-43, where it settled quickly. Score: 13-10. Thanks for coming, suckers!! Over is 5-8, and that is about the fourth game where some big moves cost some big bettors, though this one was at opening, not on game day.
• Green Bay-Chicago: Line ended up a fairly consistent 45.5-46, with a BIG under move (but only to about 44.5)at some casinos as they opened on Sunday morning. Since this probably was the marquee "late" matchup, the move was matched by players who thought the game was pretty well marked on the previous number. You know what happened -- that's why I'm doing this. Over is 5-9 for the afternoon games.
  
• Sunday nighter: Pittsburgh-Indy: 39.5 - 40 pretty much across the board. One semi-move when the Atlantis broke upward to 41, but was brought back in line by bettors there. Score: 23-20. Over it went, even at 41. Over is 6-9.
• Monday nighter: Dallas-Washington: Game was pretty much off the Vegas boards, it looked like, until Romo was confirmed to play. Line ended up at 44.5-45, though the Atlantis had significant upward pressure to about 46 before the under bets put it back in line. Score: 18-16. Bleh, blat, and all the rest of it.

After two weeks in which the over was at about 70% of the games, the over goes only 6-10 this week. And, after viewing Brian's clip, do you REALLY think that was just a coincidence?

Remember: Dan Moldea has witnessed FBI proof that there were five games in one NFL Monday Night Football season which were PROVEN rigged, often for spread. I think it's on page 308 of the hardcover version if you can find it.