MassLive.com recently published a ranking of the top five Boston sports conspiracy theories, a list built to start arguments in a city that loves them. The version we can see only labels the entries as theories one through five, so we won't guess at which ones made the cut or in what order. Instead, here is something more useful: a five-step test you can run on any sports conspiracy theory, Boston's or otherwise, to decide how seriously to take it.
By the end, you'll be able to sort a theory into "plausible question," "fun folklore," or "pure noise" in about two minutes.
Why Boston Fans Argue About This Stuff
Per the MassLive piece's framing, Boston has one of the most passionate and argumentative sports cultures in the country, and old controversies tend to resurface online and spark fresh debate. Ranked nostalgia lists feed that cycle because everyone has a different order in mind.
That's the fun part. The skill is separating a debate that's enjoyable from a claim that's actually supported. The steps below do that.
Step 1: Separate the Event From the Explanation
Every theory has two parts. First, something verifiable happened: a controversial call, a surprising loss, a strange decision. Second, someone offers a hidden reason why.
Write them down separately. The event is usually documented in game footage, box scores, or news reports. The explanation is where theories live, and it needs its own evidence. If the only proof of the explanation is "how else could that have happened?", you have a feeling, not a finding.
Step 2: Ask Who Would Have to Keep the Secret
Count the people required. A single bad officiating call needs one person to be wrong. A coordinated scheme needs players, coaches, officials, executives, and staff to stay silent for years.
The more people involved, the less plausible the theory. Real wrongdoing in any field tends to leak. If a theory requires dozens of silent participants and nobody has ever credibly spoken up, treat that as a strike against it.
Step 3: Look for a Boring Explanation First
Football is chaotic. Fumbles bounce oddly, officials miss things, injuries change games, and good teams lose. Before accepting a hidden motive, ask whether ordinary randomness, human error, or a simple coaching mistake covers it.
The boring explanation wins more often than fans like to admit. That doesn't make the question silly. It just means the burden of proof sits with the dramatic version.
Step 4: Check What the Theory Predicts
A strong claim makes testable predictions. If a team was supposedly getting favors, you'd expect a pattern across many games, not a handful of memorable ones. Our brains hold onto the painful or thrilling moments and forget the thousands of ordinary plays.
That's called selective memory, and it powers a lot of fan folklore. Ask: if I looked at the full record, would this still stand out? If you can't check, hold the claim loosely.
Step 5: Label It Honestly
Once you've run the first four steps, sort the theory:
Plausible question
A real event with a gap in the public explanation and a limited number of people involved. Worth asking, worth reading about, not worth declaring settled.
Fun folklore
A story that's entertaining because it lets fans vent about a loss or a rival. No hard evidence, but also no real harm. Enjoy it as sports culture.
Pure noise
A claim that needs sweeping secrecy, ignores simpler explanations, and rests on a few vivid memories. Skip it, or at least don't repeat it as fact.
How to Use This in a Real Debate
When the group chat lights up with a ranking like MassLive's, try these moves:
- Ask which part is the event and which part is the explanation.
- Ask how many people would have had to be in on it.
- Offer the dullest possible explanation and see if anyone can knock it down.
- Rank the theories by believability, not by how much they annoy you. That's one of the angles the MassLive-style list invites, and it makes the argument better.
It also works across cities. Rival fans in New York or Philadelphia have their own lore, and the same five steps apply. Applying one standard to your own team's theories and your rival's is the quickest way to find out whether you're reasoning or just rooting.
A Note on Labels
Everything above is our framework, not reporting on any specific Boston theory. If you want the actual five entries and the order MassLive chose, read the original ranking on MassLive.com. Treat each claim in it the way you'd treat any fan theory: as a story to test, not a fact to repeat.
Next time a theory shows up in your feed, run the five steps before you share it. You'll still get the fun of the argument, and you'll win more of them.
