STLPR0%

St. Louis Battlehawks head to the playoffs hoping to end postseason drought 25%

By Jonathan Ahl0%

6/5/2026, 3:00:00 AM

BS Summary: This article contains 22 faulty reasoning types, including Biased Writer Voice, Optimism Bias, and Indoctrination, with Halo Effect as the most egregious example at 30.5% saturation with 82 hits. Analysis detected 688 faulty-reasoning hits from 269 analyzed words, generating a BS Score of 37.4% and a BS Rank of 25% (16,470 of 21,887 articles). This article is better (less manipulative) than 75.20% of the article peer group.

The St. 
Louis Battlehawks have done well by most metrics in the five seasons they have played in spring football leagues, posting winning records and drawing the highest attendance counts. 
But a win in the playoffs has eluded the team. 
The Battlehawks have lost both of their postseason games at the Dome at America’s Center. 
They hope to buck that trend Sunday when they host the the Louisville Kings in a semifinal game. 
Kickoff is at 5 p.m. 
Head coach Ricky Proehl said the past is not on his mind when preparing the team. 
“If you want to talk about pressure, you are talking to the wrong guy,” Proehl said. 
“I want (the team) to be flying around and having fun playing football, and I don’t want them feeling pressure. 
I want them to do what they have been doing but do it at the highest level.” 
The Battlehawks again led the United Football League in attendance, averaging more than 23,000 fans this season, twice as many as the next-highest team. 
Punt returner Sean Fresch, one of seven Battlehawks named to the All-UFL team this year, said the dome is the loudest stadium in the league and will be an advantage. 
“It’s exciting for us, but not very exciting for the other team. 
So, we're just going to embrace it. 
It's our home field so we are going to protect it,” Fresch said. 
The winner of the Battlehawks-Kings game will advance to the UFL championship game - the United Bowl - in Washington, D.C., on June 8. 
Confirmation Bias
17.8%
Anchoring Bias
0%
Availability Heuristic
8.9%
Representativeness Heuristic
10.4%
Hindsight Bias
0%
Overconfidence Bias
6.3%
Framing Effect
11.2%
Loss Aversion
0%
Status Quo Bias
11.2%
Sunk Cost Effect
0%
Optimism Bias
20.8%
Pessimism Bias
3.7%
Negativity Bias
3.7%
Self-Serving Bias
16.7%
Fundamental Attribution Error
0%
Actor-Observer Bias
0%
In-Group Bias
4.5%
Out-Group Homogeneity Bias
0%
Halo Effect
30.5%
Horn Effect
0%
Dunning-Kruger Effect
0%
Recency Bias
5.6%
Primacy Effect
0%
Blind-Spot Bias
0%
Ad Hominem
5.9%
Straw Man
0%
Appeal to Authority
11.2%
False Dilemma
11.2%
Slippery Slope
0%
Circular Reasoning
0%
Hasty Generalization
5.6%
Red Herring
0%
Bandwagon
0%
Appeal to Emotion
0%
Begging the Question
0%
Post Hoc (False Cause)
0%
Tu Quoque
0%
Burden of Proof
0%
Appeal to Nature
0%
Composition/Division
4.8%
Anecdotal
0%
No True Scotsman
0%
Ambiguity (Equivocation)
11.2%
Gambler’s Fallacy
0%
Middle Ground
0%
Personal Incredulity
0%
Special Pleading
0%
Genetic Fallacy
0%
Unattributed Quote
0%
Quote-first Misdirection
5.9%
Biased Writer Voice
30.1%
Indoctrination
18.6%
Politically Left Leaning Bias
0%
Politically Right Leaning Bias
0%
Attempt to Sell a Product or Service
0%

269 words analyzed.

Analysis

Hover over highlighted words in the article to view the associated bias or fallacy analysis.