Mike & Mike's Interesting Question

[LUVTHESHOE]

Did anybody here Mike & Mike on the the suck for Luck every bad teams fans are talking

about. They raised an interesting question. Asking what the difference would be as far as

integrity of the game between a team maybe not fielding a solid team in the last couple of

weeks to win the the Luck sweepstakes and greenburg said he felt there was little difference

between that and the what the colts did by pulling its starters and basically losing on purpose.

Citing that hed had a effect on the teams that made the playoffs. So what say you is there a

difference.

[oldunclemark]

LUV MAN...

..the real question is: What the difference between either of the above scenarios and throwing the game for gambling purposes.?.

....all cut directly to the integrity of the game.....and all are similarly criminal in lack of character and honor

[Balzer40]

There's a huge difference IMO. The Colts did not pull starters for the intentional purpose of losing games, they did it to save injuries from key personel. BIG BIG difference IMO. I really wish people (including the media) would move on from 2 yrs. ago. It happened, I didn't like it either, but its long over with and not relevant anymore.

[Geekyone]

There's a huge difference IMO. The Colts did not pull starters for the intentional purpose of losing games, they did it to save injuries from key personel. BIG BIG difference IMO. I really wish people (including the media) would move on from 2 yrs. ago. It happened, I didn't like it either, but its long over with and not relevant anymore.

Agreeeeed!!!

[gspdx]

There's a huge difference IMO. The Colts did not pull starters for the intentional purpose of losing games, they did it to save injuries from key personel. BIG BIG difference IMO. I really wish people (including the media) would move on from 2 yrs. ago. It happened, I didn't like it either, but its long over with and not relevant anymore.

But that would mean we would have to quit bringing up the Patriots! How could we live without having that crutch to fall back on </sarcasm>

This is really interesting. I was trying to refer to the Patriots filming other teams (cheating) and tried calling them the cheating patriots - all pushed togheter - and it automatically changed it to patriots - twice!

big brother is watching.

Edited October 21, 2011 by gspdx

[FireJimCaldwell]

I don't see a big difference. Obviously we haven't been on a "Suck for Luck" campaign, we have just lost every game we've played.

Either way you are altering the outcome of the game for one benefit or another.

I'm sure that Caldwell,Polian and Irsay would have preferred for Painter and Company to hold on vs the Jets and beat the Bills and every other game that Sorgi replaced Manning for the same purpose of resting (rusting in some cases) the starters but rarely has that happened. I think that Sorig was able to beat the Cardinals one year in one of those games. So to me there isn't much difference in altering the game by removing starters as opposed to putting a weaker brand on the field to start with. No matter the intent you are likely altering the game.

Edited October 21, 2011 by FIreJimmy

[Smitto]

And i believe the Commish said there will either be a reward or penalty for not playing all your starters the whole season even if you have everything clinched... so yes it does hurt the integrity of the game... fans did not pay to watch their teams lose, and for ppl to accept that its ok for the teams to lose then i seriously think the fans that are being raised up now have totally forgot what the love of football is all about.

[NM_Colts]

And i believe the Commish said there will either be a reward or penalty for not playing all your starters the whole season even if you have everything clinched... so yes it does hurt the integrity of the game... fans did not pay to watch their teams lose, and for ppl to accept that its ok for the teams to lose then i seriously think the fans that are being raised up now have totally forgot what the love of football is all about.

+1 Smitto; good post.

[joo 2h]

And i believe the Commish said there will either be a reward or penalty for not playing all your starters the whole season even if you have everything clinched... so yes it does hurt the integrity of the game... fans did not pay to watch their teams lose, and for ppl to accept that its ok for the teams to lose then i seriously think the fans that are being raised up now have totally forgot what the love of football is all about.

Smitto is right, people are forgetting what real football is about.

[everybodysgotone]

There's a huge difference IMO. The Colts did not pull starters for the intentional purpose of losing games, they did it to save injuries from key personel. BIG BIG difference IMO. I really wish people (including the media) would move on from 2 yrs. ago. It happened, I didn't like it either, but its long over with and not relevant anymore.

It's completely relevant. Check the schedules this year and you'll see division matchups at the end of the season to help ensure competitive games for the full 16. The Colts helped put that on the map.

As for the "intentional loss" part of it - the outcome speaks and at the very least the probability of losing those games dramatically increased regardless of what the team's intent was. So, the term "intentional loss" is fitting and correct as framed.

[chad72]

One thing I like about the NFL is they adapt quicker than most leagues. The Colts rest the starters, they move the division games more towards the end. The OT rule for the postseason, not leading with the helmet etc.

It is impossible for the NFL to keep all teams and fans happy but they have tried their best so far to preserve the integrity of the game while making it safe and I am sure that is why people will keep coming back to football, regardless of what teams do from season to season.

[Drew Breeess]

d I really wish people (including the media) would move on from 2 yrs. ago. It happened, I didn't like it either, but its long over with and not relevant anymore.

I'll never move on from 2 years ago.Colts are my 2nd favorite team.I hope they win almost all their remaining games.

[ruksak]

Smitto is right, people are forgetting what real football is about.

Its about three and a half hours of being bummed out.

[WoolMagnet]

Oh come on, people. Use your brains. You know, that stuff between your ears.

The two are COMPLETELY different.

Trying to lose to get a better pick is one thing.

RESTING players in a game that means absolutely nothing, as far as the playoffs, so you can get your players healed and/or rested for the playoffs that you have ALREADY won enough games to be in is TOTALLY different. There are 16 games. If your team is good enough to win games early and you make the playoffs, It's YOUR team's option to rest. Maybe the NFL should fine the Colts for resting Freeney and Wayne during the week of practices too. This is just *ic talk. The teams should do what THEY feel is best for their TEAM. Which the Colts did. The team is more responsible to itself than it is to the league and fans. If another team is upset because it costs them from making the playoffs then they should have won more games THEMSELVES!

Did the Patriots look smart or stupid when Wes Welker was lost in a MEANINGLESS game just so they could rack up stats for Tommy boy? IMO, that is a bigger crime to your players, team, league, and fans.

The only reason the NFL cares is that it costs THEM ratings and $$$$$. I

If my team wins 12, 13, 14, etc games and wraps up home field and can't move any higher than I don't care what they do the last games. NO ONE else should either.

Who's running the team, anyway?

Now, you could argue resting can get you out of the "groove" but that is not the issue being discussed here and STILL it is the TEAM's decision. PERIOD.

Its no different than a baseball team "resting" or saving its best pitchers for the post season when they are more needed.

Or how about a Nascar driver who just needs to finish to win the points race. Should HE risk that just to win one measly race?

Look at the BIGGER picture here folks.

It has nothing to do with the "integrity" of the game , it has to do with $$$$$$ and Goodell's power trip.

I find it embarrassing that the league was seemingly more disturbed by the Colts resting their players than it was by the Patriots blatantly cheating.

Goodell needs to get a clue.

Edited October 22, 2011 by WoolMagnet

[BIGugly]

Oh come on, people. Use your brains. You know, that stuff between your ears.

The two are COMPLETELY different.

Trying to lose to get a better pick is one thing.

RESTING players in a game that means absolutely nothing, as far as the playoffs, so you can get your players healed and/or rested for the playoffs that you have ALREADY won enough games to be in is TOTALLY different. There are 16 games. If your team is good enough to win games early and you make the playoffs, It's YOUR team's option to rest. Maybe the NFL should fine the Colts for resting Freeney and Wayne during the week of practices too. This is just *ic talk. The teams should do what THEY feel is best for their TEAM. Which the Colts did. The team is more responsible to itself than it is to the league and fans. If another team is upset because it costs them from making the playoffs then they should have won more games THEMSELVES!

Did the Patriots look smart or stupid when Wes Welker was lost in a MEANINGLESS game just so they could rack up stats for Tommy boy? IMO, that is a bigger crime to your players, team, league, and fans.

The only reason the NFL cares is that it costs THEM ratings and $$$$$. I

If my team wins 12, 13, 14, etc games and wraps up home field and can't move any higher than I don't care what they do the last games. NO ONE else should either.

Who's running the team, anyway?

Now, you could argue resting can get you out of the "groove" but that is not the issue being discussed here and STILL it is the TEAM's decision. PERIOD.

Its no different than a baseball team "resting" or saving its best pitchers for the post season when they are more needed.

Or how about a Nascar driver who just needs to finish to win the points race. Should HE risk that just to win one measly race?

Look at the BIGGER picture here folks.

It has nothing to do with the "integrity" of the game , it has to do with $$$$$$ and Goodell's power trip.

I find it embarrassing that the league was seemingly more disturbed by the Colts resting their players than it was by the Patriots blatantly cheating.

Goodell needs to get a clue.

Altering the outcome is unethical.

[Blue Horseshoe]

Personally, I think being so gutless that you are too afraid to take a perfect record into the playoffs because you are afraid of being embarrassed by losing (the real reason that Polian threw the Jet game) is much worse.

However, both scenarios are completely inexcusable. Fans are paying their hard earned money to see a football game and showing them some kind of mediocre effort for whatever reason is unfair to those paying customers.

Edited October 22, 2011 by Blue Horseshoe

[doogansquest]

@BlueHorshoe: He wasn't afraid of losing. That's about the weakest reply to the whole scenario I've ever heard. He was afraid of injuring players when the status of the Colts entering the playoffs (ie: #1 seed) was not going to be affected by the outcome of the game.

There may not be a big difference between the two, in terms of integrity at the macro level. But, on the micro level, they are entirely different. The Colts weren't trying to suck on purpose, just to improve draft position for an off-season that didn't exist yet. The Colts weren't refusing to give two bits about the NFL and their fans, or the existing veteran players, by purposely throwing games in the hopes that some college kid would save the day. They had the #1 position all locked up, and that wasn't going to change no matter what they did the rest of the season. What could have been affected, however, was the health of key players. Playing them, in essentially meaningless games, could have lead to injuries that prevented us from even making the Super Bowl.

Now, that doesn't mean that I was on board with the decision, but it was a safe, prudent choice. For those who have a huge problem with it: cram it with walnuts. You can't change what happened, and it makes far more sense than intentionally tanking a season for an unproven college kid.

The "Suck for Luck" campaign is far more damaging to the integrity of the game, because a franchise has to give it's existing players, and their fan-base, a big middle finger while doing everything in their power to lose games on purpose. This also occurs for a much longer stretch of time than just 1 or 2 games, and multiple teams are doing it.

While Mike & Mike can have witty quips about the subject, they are not the same thing. In fact, I'd argue that they aren't even similar. Both are lame, for lack of a better term, but not parallel.

Besides, the NFL has done what they can to remedy the situation by packing more division games towards the end of everyone's season. This will, theoretically, ensure that fewer things are wrapped up at such an early stage of the season.

[FireJimCaldwell]

Robbing a bank to head off to Vegas to put a 100k on the Saints -14 is one thing.

Robbing a bank to help someone one in need, is another.

You are still robbing the bank which is still against the law.

Resting players, vs. honestly tanking a game for a draft pick is no different in the end. The teams does it for a benefit. (Healthy players vs. better draft pick.) While one is far more valuable, the result on the field of said game(s) is the same.

[Blue Horseshoe]

@BlueHorshoe: He wasn't afraid of losing. That's about the weakest reply to the whole scenario I've ever heard. He was afraid of injuring players when the status of the Colts entering the playoffs (ie: #1 seed) was not going to be affected by the outcome of the game.

I can't see how it could be more obvious.

In his press conference he talked about what a great achievement 23 straight wins was but downplayed 16 in a season saying "we didn't focus on 16-0 and it was never a goal".

He talked since about the Patriots 18-1 and said they didn't want that.

He has also spoken several times of the pressure of being undefeated.

I can't think of a more apparent case of someone who was afraid to take a chance at greatness for fear of failure.

Edited October 22, 2011 by Blue Horseshoe

[BIGugly]

Personally, I think being so gutless that you are too afraid to take a perfect record into the playoffs because you are afraid of being embarrassed by losing (the real reason that Polian threw the Jet game) is much worse.

However, both scenarios are completely inexcusable. Fans are paying their hard earned money to see a football game and showing them some kind of mediocre effort for whatever reason is unfair to those paying customers.

I don't think I have ever done this, and may never do it again. But I really do know "people in the building" on 56th street. One of the considerations talked about was, in fact, could they win out, and should they attempt it? Apparently the NFL had already alerted the teams that if the Colts were 15-0, the last game would be rescheduled to a late night game, which means it would have been played under conditions even worse than what existed in the afternoon game as it was played.

Also the referee and his crew was going to be have to be changed because of that reschedule, one that the Colts had a terrible time winning with. Can't remember his name, but it was the same one the the rules committee had to reemphasise defensive holding and pass interference with after the horrible calls vs the Patriots. Can still pictrure Marvin coming back to the line of scrimmage with his jersey half off his pads, and the ball was not even thrown to him.

Anyway, that, coupled with the terrible conditions that were likely to exist in Buffalo in January at night, brought potential injuries to forefront as a primary consideration for a run at an undefeated season vs a serious run at a Super Bowl win.

Tough call, and one I thoroughly disagree with, but I think "gutless" is a bit strong.

As a side note: was visiting Vermont a couple of weeks ago as a fall outing, and was wearing a Colts cap, when a guy at the top of Mount Mansfield starts on my case really hard about being 0-4. Looked him right in the eye, and as pleasantly as possibe, well maybe not pleasantly, remarked to him "18 and 1". He absoulutely fumed, and just turned away and stomped off. Couldn't go too far, as he was one the workers on the cable car lift at the top of the mountain. Bet he was torgued-off the rest of the day.

[Blue Horseshoe]

He basically admitted my assertion that he was afraid of losing in his press conference - "New England did not win the Super Bowl, and they are not considered an undefeated team, and so it would not have been complete had we not gone all the way."

[BIGugly]

He basically admitted my assertion that he was afraid of losing in his press conference - "New England did not win the Super Bowl, and they are not considered an undefeated team, and so it would not have been complete had we not gone all the way."

Yeah, i agree. Going for history takes special people in special times. Men achieve greatnes by using those situations, and going for it. Lesser men don't even recognize the situation. But you can't be 19-0 without being 16-0. And you can't be 16-0 wihtout being 15-0.

Opportunity missed, and we lost anyway. Had we not rusted, we might have won. It happened before.

Edited October 22, 2011 by BIGugly

[WoolMagnet]

@BlueHorshoe: He wasn't afraid of losing. That's about the weakest reply to the whole scenario I've ever heard. He was afraid of injuring players when the status of the Colts entering the playoffs (ie: #1 seed) was not going to be affected by the outcome of the game.

There may not be a big difference between the two, in terms of integrity at the macro level. But, on the micro level, they are entirely different. The Colts weren't trying to suck on purpose, just to improve draft position for an off-season that didn't exist yet. The Colts weren't refusing to give two bits about the NFL and their fans, or the existing veteran players, by purposely throwing games in the hopes that some college kid would save the day. They had the #1 position all locked up, and that wasn't going to change no matter what they did the rest of the season. What could have been affected, however, was the health of key players. Playing them, in essentially meaningless games, could have lead to injuries that prevented us from even making the Super Bowl.

Now, that doesn't mean that I was on board with the decision, but it was a safe, prudent choice. For those who have a huge problem with it: cram it with walnuts. You can't change what happened, and it makes far more sense than intentionally tanking a season for an unproven college kid.

The "Suck for Luck" campaign is far more damaging to the integrity of the game, because a franchise has to give it's existing players, and their fan-base, a big middle finger while doing everything in their power to lose games on purpose. This also occurs for a much longer stretch of time than just 1 or 2 games, and multiple teams are doing it.

While Mike & Mike can have witty quips about the subject, they are not the same thing. In fact, I'd argue that they aren't even similar. Both are lame, for lack of a better term, but not parallel.

Besides, the NFL has done what they can to remedy the situation by packing more division games towards the end of everyone's season. This will, theoretically, ensure that fewer things are wrapped up at such an early stage of the season.

Thank God someone has common sense.

I knew i could count on you, Doogan.

[WoolMagnet]

Personally, I think being so gutless that you are too afraid to take a perfect record into the playoffs because you are afraid of being embarrassed by losing (the real reason that Polian threw the Jet game) is much worse.

However, both scenarios are completely inexcusable. Fans are paying their hard earned money to see a football game and showing them some kind of mediocre effort for whatever reason is unfair to those paying customers.

So now he was afraid of taking a perfect record into the playoffs?

You have quite an imagination.

I'm a fan and I'd rather have healthy rested players for the playoffs (if that is required).

I respect your opinion, I just don't think it makes sense to put your players out there in blizzard-like conditions in a game that MEANT NOTHING for improving play-off position.

NE proved that record means nothing.... winning the Super Bowl is the point.

Now, if you were arguing that sitting players affected the "roll" you are on, I can see your point. But you are saying something totally different.

Its in the past, and I choose to live in the present.

Edited October 22, 2011 by WoolMagnet

[JoKeR]

Its about three and a half hours of being bummed out.

Actually its 2-3 quarters of being excited then 1 quarter of being bummed out, the longest quarter.

[LUVTHESHOE]

I can't see how it could be more obvious.

In his press conference he talked about what a great achievement 23 straight wins was but downplayed 16 in a season saying "we didn't focus on 16-0 and it was never a goal".

He talked since about the Patriots 18-1 and said they didn't want that.

He has also spoken several times of the pressure of being undefeated.

I can't think of a more apparent case of someone who was afraid to take a chance at greatness for fear of failure.

Thank you!

[LUVTHESHOE]

So now he was afraid of taking a perfect record into the playoffs?

You have quite an imagination.

I'm a fan and I'd rather have healthy rested players for the playoffs (if that is required).

I respect your opinion, I just don't think it makes sense to put your players out there in blizzard-like conditions in a game that MEANT NOTHING for improving play-off position.

NE proved that record means nothing.... winning the Super Bowl is the point.

Now, if you were arguing that sitting players affected the "roll" you are on, I can see your point. But you are saying something totally different.

Its in the past, and I choose to live in the present.

as even the experts have stated if you were worried about the health of key players they dont have manning throw 10 straight passes to wayne in a blizzard to set a meaningless record.

[WoolMagnet]

as even the experts have stated if you were worried about the health of key players they dont have manning throw 10 straight passes to wayne in a blizzard to set a meaningless record.

Whats the deal with people that have the word "shoe" in their name?

BTW, nice "enough is enough" thread. You kinda took the words right out of my mouth.

[everybodysgotone]

Did anybody here Mike & Mike on the the suck for Luck every bad teams fans are talking

about. They raised an interesting question. Asking what the difference would be as far as

integrity of the game between a team maybe not fielding a solid team in the last couple of

weeks to win the the Luck sweepstakes and greenburg said he felt there was little difference

between that and the what the colts did by pulling its starters and basically losing on purpose.

Citing that hed had a effect on the teams that made the playoffs. So what say you is there a

difference.

The subject question is a good one regardless of source because it solicits more than opinion. Subparts have developed during the thread discussion.

As stated, the Colts did what amounted to throwing games away regardless of their intentions or what anyone believes they may have been. That's fact, and the terminology "pulling its starters and bascially losing on purpose" is one correct description. A more accurate one might be "pulling its starters thereby greatly increasing the probability of losing." The hair-splitters here are trying to find a point for justification but there isn't one because the team failed to win a title after they forfeited the remainder of that regular season. Two kinds of people: those who believe in the failed decision tree at the 14-0 point (then and now) and those who don't & never did. It's a philosophical question. In context, I'll take the play to win approach, regardless of outcome, any day of the week vs. laying up. I don't expect the failed decision tree supporters to understand for what are hopefully obvious reasons. There's no rationalizing it out.

From the OP - "had effect on the teams that made the playoffs." Do enough on your end (meaning any franchise) to remove make/break outside influence circumstances if you don't like someone else steering the ship. Simple. However, this is the point of the year end division matchup scheduling now in place to mitigate and minimize these counter-competitive situations = impropriety or even the possibility of it. Thanks in no small part to the Colts, this is how things are now.

The Colts' resignation at 14-0 might be something certain folks would like to forget and put in the past as fans, but the fact is the decision making then helped shape the fabric of things today. It's exactly like good case law - it may have been made years or even decades ago yet shapes how we presently live. Like it or not Colts doings are all over this one (which may be cited for years to come) and the league signed off on the correct response.

As far as comparison between the 14-0 resignation and hypothetically "throwing games" for a #1 draft pick is concerned, they would have impropriety in common regardless of how much one might reconcile weighting the issues. All that's happened so far this year is the Colts have been exposed in areas of weakness. We're bad alright.....don't need help losing. Certainly, we're in the running to be the worst team this year. Conversely, we were in the running to be the best team at 14-0. So, if the Colts pulled starters in an effort to lose for the sake of winning later (same as the 14-0 resignation) - "possibly even for the next 15 years" as some here have suggested, indeed what is the difference? That's for each of us to decide, but imagine how much we'd be hated if the court of public opinion was - we lost on purpose. Who knows, we could possibly be involved in another precedent setting season under this hypothetical.......maybe to the tune of draft re-ordering on the order of NBA lottery.

Edited October 23, 2011 by everybodysgotone

[smittywerb]

To keep it as simple as possible, both scenarios are about us doing something to "increase our chances of ________." (fill in the blank). No matter what it was for, we still took the gas off the pedal. Do I think tanking the season for the playoffs was wrong? No, therefore I can't have a problem with tanking the season for Luck or whoever if we have already lost the season.

My question to those who support tanking the season for health but disagree tanking the season for Luck, how can you do that? In both situations, the destiny for us is pretty much decided. In one we were headed to playoffs with a #1 seed and another we are headed to the NFL draft with a potential top 5 pick. Only difference between the situations is the different spectrum. On one side we were winning and on one side we are losing. And I have seen the "This is football, we should put the best product on the field" argument from people who supported giving up the 16-0. That's contradicting yourself.

PS: When I say tank, I don't mean go out and lose on purpose, use this as an experiment. Open the playbook up, try a new scheme, etc. But I can't really count on our coaching staff do such things except stick with the gameplan no matter the situation.

[The Fish]

The comparison that these are the same things is totally bogus and uneducated.