A) The refs robbed us by bad calls
B) The fix was in from the NFL
C) The refs were paid off so that the Steelers would win.
Now, my question:
If the fix was in, would it not have been in for the underdog? Who has ever heard of fixing a game so that the favored team would win?
Those complaining that the refs blew did not watch it with any objectivity.
In response, I don't know that the fix was in from the NFL, nor do I know that the refs were paid off...so your assumptions 2 and 3 are dubious...but as for your question...if there was a fix related to betting it does not follow that it'd be in favor of the underdog if the bettors were betting the Steelers to more than cover the line.
As for your last comment, I submit that it is you who is not viewing it with an objectivity. One one poll (of over 240,000 online, 58% said this super bowl would be remembered for the bad calls. You can assume that the only people responding to the poll are in WA state, but that'd be an unlikely assumption given all the sports reporters and fans of teams other than the Seahawks and Steelers that have stated the same thing.
The truth is, it's uncertain who would have won the game...but if the officiating hadn't been so atrocious it would have been an entertaining game watching who might have won. As it is, it was just an abomination of football.
Well, some who are compaining are certainly not from Seattle. They may think they are "objective", but objectivity is a myth. And even if they are trying to reach "objectivity", most of them are just relatively ignorant of the rules of the game.
Bummer.
;-)