Here at Small.to, some of us love a good conspiracy theory, so much so that we actively try to build them.

(Ok, maybe it's just me.)

That said, I have to tell you about one I spun, regarding the Giants/Packers game, before the game, that's seemed somewhat prescient.

I said, "hey, the betting is all awry on that game.  2/3 of the bets are being placed on the Giants, despite the fact that the Packers are favored by >7 points."

Now, I'm the first to admit that betting numbers often baffle me. So go ahead and correct me if I'm misinterpreting that page.

But here's the thing, for the Packers (who lost one game all season, and who played at thome) to lose, I added "the only way for the bettors to be that confident would be if they could guarantee the game...like, what did they do, pay off Aaron Rodgers?"

Aaron Rodgers completed 56.5% of his passes, through 1 INT, and was sacked 4 times, for a passer rating of 78.5 in that game.  He also fumbled once.

Put that in perspective:  In 2009, he completed 64.7% of his passes.  In 2010, he completed 65.7% (and won the Super Bowl).  In 2011's regular season, he completed 68.3%.  His career average is 65.4.  The only game in recent memory as low as this was against KC (which was their 1 loss).

On Green Bay, Ryan Grant and John Kuhn also fumbled twice, each.  (Prior to that, Grant had only fumbled twice in the last 3 seasons, combined.  Kuhn had only fumbled once in the last 3 seasons.)

Now, one could explain this with---"Those G-Men sure do play good defense."  But the significantly worse-than-normal play by 3 key GB players, combined with the abnormal betting, does support my conspiracy theory.  Did organized crime fix that game?