The rivalry is back on

[Mel Kiper's Hair]

2 minutes ago, jskinnz said:

 

Here is my attempt to disagree without being disagreeable.

 

Do you honestly think the league should care enough to move this game to Indy just because of what happened in January?  As I said earlier, they have other infinitely more important things to worry about.

 

Do you honestly believe the ratings would be appreciably better because it is in Indy over Foxboro?  Does Joe the plumber in Sheybogan, WI not tune because this game is game is at New England where he would have if it was in Indy?  Do around the nation  really care enough to see John and Jane Doe in their McDaniels Sucks T-shirt?  Would that cause a ratings spike

 

I think the clear answer is it really doesn't matter where the game is played.

 

 

I hope you understand, I have no problem with someone disagreeing with me. We can disagree all day long. My only problem is when people disagree and say an idea is bad without giving any reason why they feel that way.

 

As to your points. Yes, I agree the league has a lot more important things to worry about than what happened in January. What happened in January really isn't that big of a deal I totally agree. However, because of what happened in January this game does have the potential to draw more fan interest than the typical NFL game. Granted, die hard NFL fans don't care where the game is played. They will watch no matter what. A casual fan who just watches their particular team might be more apt to watch if the game were in Indy because of the drama. Everything in the NFL is not just about TV ratings. You mentioned the nation caring about seeing John and Jane Doe in their McDaniels sucks TShirts. The nation may not care about seeing them in them, but they would sell a crap ton of them if there were a game in Indy. NFL ratings are down considerably over the last few seasons and like it or not "drama" sells. Would it be great if people watched just for their love of football? You bet it would, but we live in a reality tv age and the whole McDaniels spurning the Colts and having to come back to Indy would have been a great marketing opportunity for the league. Most of the people who come to the forum are football junkies who watch because they love football, but the NFL isn't really worried about getting you to watch. They already know you will. What they want, is to try and get the person who would rather watch sitcoms on Thursday than the NFL. That is where things like the McDaniels situation could be marketed to boost ratings. The NFL is always looking to bring in fans. You tend to think that this would mean nothing and I think it could be a potential help. As to your statement that it doesn't matter where the game is played I would agree from the NFL as a whole it doesn't matter. I do think that it would make a HUGE difference for the city of Indianapolis. I think the Colts would sell more merchandise for a game vs the Pats than they would against the Bills or Dolphins, the fans would also be rowdier and probably buy more beer and other refreshments than a typical game. The potential to make more money on tickets also would be there because of the added excitement for this game. Because of the above mentioned reasons, I still think the NFL missed a good opportunity.

 

 

[Crush22]

[jskinnz]

22 minutes ago, Mel Kiper's Hair said:

 

I hope you understand, I have no problem with someone disagreeing with me. We can disagree all day long. My only problem is when people disagree and say an idea is bad without giving any reason why they feel that way.

 

As to your points. Yes, I agree the league has a lot more important things to worry about than what happened in January. What happened in January really isn't that big of a deal I totally agree. However, because of what happened in January this game does have the potential to draw more fan interest than the typical NFL game. Granted, die hard NFL fans don't care where the game is played. They will watch no matter what. A casual fan who just watches their particular team might be more apt to watch if the game were in Indy because of the drama. Everything in the NFL is not just about TV ratings. You mentioned the nation caring about seeing John and Jane Doe in their McDaniels sucks TShirts. The nation may not care about seeing them in them, but they would sell a crap ton of them if there were a game in Indy. NFL ratings are down considerably over the last few seasons and like it or not "drama" sells. Would it be great if people watched just for their love of football? You bet it would, but we live in a reality tv age and the whole McDaniels spurning the Colts and having to come back to Indy would have been a great marketing opportunity for the league. Most of the people who come to the forum are football junkies who watch because they love football, but the NFL isn't really worried about getting you to watch. They already know you will. What they want, is to try and get the person who would rather watch sitcoms on Thursday than the NFL. That is where things like the McDaniels situation could be marketed to boost ratings. The NFL is always looking to bring in fans. You tend to think that this would mean nothing and I think it could be a potential help. As to your statement that it doesn't matter where the game is played I would agree from the NFL as a whole it doesn't matter. I do think that it would make a HUGE difference for the city of Indianapolis. I think the Colts would sell more merchandise for a game vs the Pats than they would against the Bills or Dolphins, the fans would also be rowdier and probably buy more beer and other refreshments than a typical game. The potential to make more money on tickets also would be there because of the added excitement for this game. Because of the above mentioned reasons, I still think the NFL missed a good opportunity.

 

 

 

To the bolded, the NFL is not going to create or profit of any McDaniels sucks t-shirts. 

 

The league and Fox will still market the game and the McDaniels will be the angle but the location of the game does not impact that.

 

The game in Indy would probably mean more to us but does not come close to enough reason for the league to do anything about it, nor should they.  Plus for every sign in Indy that calls for McDaniels' castration, there will be something in Foxboro taunting Indy over him backing down.  On top of that, this is the first game between these teams since deflategate - you think that won't draw some interest?   

 

ALL of your reasons for doing this are one big stretch.  

[Nesjan3]

Rivalry?? LOL, usually rivalrys are created when two teams continue to have competitive games with each other with the pendulum swinging both ways, back and forth. We have not played NE competitively since Peyton was on the team almost 10 years ago now. As someone posted above ill be happy just to not get completely blown out on national television. The Colts Pats rivalry is dead until we have a team that can compete .

[ThaCaliColt]

8 hours ago, Mel Kiper's Hair said:

I believe the game is in Foxboro so I doubt the boos from Colts fans will be that noticeable. The NFL missed a good opportunity by leaving this game in New England. 

I know, right? Bring that game to LOS. I got some words for that dirt bag. I would love to hear him just get dissed to hell at the LOS. Lol

[ThaCaliColt]

8 hours ago, ColtsGermany said:

By the way.... That sentence by CB is printed on my newest training shirt. 

Motivates me 

But why boo at him? We have to be glad that he backed out. He wasn't in to it with all of his heart. 

 

Lol we got lucky that kook backed out. Worthless punk born with a silver spoon in his mouth...Probably got beat up on the playground. Let him take over the Patriots franchise in 2-3 years Lol... They'll be on the downward trend anyways.

[shasta519]

9 hours ago, Mel Kiper's Hair said:

I believe the game is in Foxboro so I doubt the boos from Colts fans will be that noticeable. The NFL missed a good opportunity by leaving this game in New England. 

 

I think they knew exactly what they were doing when they scheduled this game in NE.

[ColtsGermany]

43 minutes ago, ThaCaliColt said:

 

Lol we got lucky that kook backed out. Worthless punk born with a silver spoon in his mouth...Probably got beat up on the playground. Let him take over the Patriots franchise in 2-3 years Lol... They'll be on the downward trend anyways.

That's what i hope, too. Brady will retire by no later than 2020 and so will Belichick.

[indyagent17]

Folks there is no rivalry until we finally beat them. let's get that straight! 

[2006Coltsbestever]

It really depends on how people define Rivalry? Almost every Packers fan will say the Bears are their biggest Rival because of their past history even. In the last 16 meetings, the Packers are 14-2 against the Bears though including an NFC Title Game win. So is that a Rivalry? Why do Pats fans consider the Jets a Rivalry but not us? Jets haven't won a SB since 1968 and never win that Division.

[Mel Kiper's Hair]

7 hours ago, jskinnz said:

 

To the bolded, the NFL is not going to create or profit of any McDaniels sucks t-shirts. 

 

The league and Fox will still market the game and the McDaniels will be the angle but the location of the game does not impact that.

 

The game in Indy would probably mean more to us but does not come close to enough reason for the league to do anything about it, nor should they.  Plus for every sign in Indy that calls for McDaniels' castration, there will be something in Foxboro taunting Indy over him backing down.  On top of that, this is the first game between these teams since deflategate - you think that won't draw some interest?   

 

ALL of your reasons for doing this are one big stretch.  

 

We will just have to agree to disagree on this. I never said that the game should be moved. I just said the league missed a good opportunity by not scheduling this game at Lucas Oil. I think my reasoning on why it would have been a good idea to schedule the game at Lucas Oil were valid and good from a marketing standpoint. I'm not going to convince you that it would have been a good idea to play this game in Indy and you aren't going to convince me that it will be just as profitable for the NFL to play the game in Foxboro.

[rock8591]

4 hours ago, indyagent17 said:

Folks there is no rivalry until we finally beat them. let's get that straight! 

 

Whether we win or not, we'll make em bleed, sweat, and give em hell before they win.

 

This won't be Peyton's Colts where they march 80+ rushing yards on each drive down the field, with Keyunta Dawson, Josh Williams, and Eric Foster at DT.

[TKnight24]

4 hours ago, 2006Coltsbestever said:

It really depends on how people define Rivalry? Almost every Packers fan will say the Bears are their biggest Rival because of their past history even. In the last 16 meetings, the Packers are 14-2 against the Bears though including an NFC Title Game win. So is that a Rivalry? Why do Pats fans consider the Jets a Rivalry but not us? Jets haven't won a SB since 1968 and never win that Division.

Since Andrew Luck has been in the league, the Jets probably have more wins against New England than the Colts do 

 

And then there’s the fact that they’re division rivals. So that’s that. If they’re in your division you’re rivals cause those are the only teams you’re guaranteed to play twice a year. 

[TKnight24]

3 minutes ago, rock8591 said:

 

Whether we win or not, we'll make em bleed, sweat, and give em hell before they win.

 

This won't be Peyton's Colts where they march 80+ rushing yards on each drive down the field, with Keyunta Dawson, Josh Williams, and Eric Foster at DT.

If we’re being honest, Peyton’s Colts played the Pats much better than Luck’s Colts

 

I don’t recall Peyton ever getting 59 put on them

[Fluke_33]

12 hours ago, Reality Check said:

Considering that he Pats yank season ticket holders' accounts for such actions, I think you will be fine.

I sit in the endzone and we always have lots of visiting fans around us.  The worse thing that will happen to you is that you will be forced to make "the walk of shame" if you do any trash-talking during the game.

I’ve been to a lot of games there and never had any real issues but I’m not a trash talker either.  I will have to yell at McDaniels though.  

[Dark Superman]

Wonder if anyone on the Patriots payroll has the testicles to call Ballard up on Draft day to propose a trade.

[Alex22]

15 hours ago, Mel Kiper's Hair said:

 

The only difficulty with switching from how the schedule is set up now to what I suggested would come from the games involving the NY Jets since they share a stadium with the Giants and it could happen with just tweaking the games on those 2 weekends. 

 

I agree the game will be a sellout in New England just like it would in Indy.

 

Apology accepted! I really do enjoy coming here and enjoy the discussion and debate.

 

The only games the Colts would lose would be the Bills and Dolphins and we would have the Jets and Patriots instead just like 2015.

 

Indy isn’t a big enough market to pull that kind of thing. In reality nobody outside of Indy even cares about the colts. They probably can’t even name more than 2 players...

[Narcosys]

13 hours ago, Nesjan3 said:

Rivalry?? LOL, usually rivalrys are created when two teams continue to have competitive games with each other with the pendulum swinging both ways, back and forth. We have not played NE competitively since Peyton was on the team almost 10 years ago now. As someone posted above ill be happy just to not get completely blown out on national television. The Colts Pats rivalry is dead until we have a team that can compete .

 

I disagree with your assessment of what makes a rivalry. Rivalry is not tied to what you have done recently. For instance, take a look at the Army vs Navy games; took nearly 13 years for Army to win again, but didn't lessen the fierce rivalry between the two.

 

Since 2010, the packers are 14-3 vs the bears. Do you think their rivalry is any less intense?

 

The Red Sox and Yankees have had a huge rivalry, but up until 2004 it was dominated exclusively by the Yankees. Did it make the rivalry any less significant?

 

Michigan hasn't beat Ohio State in 6 years, and has only won three since 2000. But their rivalry is just as bitter as ever.

 

A rivalry is not based solely on win/loss record of recent years. So the Colts-Patriots can still be a rivalry based on the emotions of those involved.

 

[JPFolks]

20 hours ago, Mel Kiper's Hair said:

 The NFL could have adjusted the schedule so that the game was in Indianapolis. A few changes could have put it where the game was played here. This would have created more "drama" with McDaniels having to come to Indianapolis. More drama would mean more opportunity to make $$$ through merchandise (t-shirts, visors, vodoo dolls, etc). It also would have drove ticket prices up. From about week 3 on last year you could get seats dirt cheap for the Colts. By the end of the year I believe I saw tickets as low as $5. That means more money for the NFL and one thing we know about the NFL is that they are all about making money.

I don't believe that is correct.  We simply flip back and forth every 3 years home/away.  The flexibility might be there if we were playing them as the same finishing place (think Oakland this year) but when it is division rotation it revolves home/away.  I could be wrong but I don't think I am in this case.

[deedub75]

18 hours ago, jskinnz said:

 

Here is my attempt to disagree without being disagreeable.

 

Do you honestly think the league should care enough to move this game to Indy just because of what happened in January?  As I said earlier, they have other infinitely more important things to worry about.

 

Do you honestly believe the ratings would be appreciably better because it is in Indy over Foxboro?  Does Joe the plumber in Sheybogan, WI not tune because this game is game is at New England where he would have if it was in Indy?  Do people around the nation really care enough to see John and Jane Doe in their McDaniels Sucks T-shirt?  Would that cause a ratings spike?

 

I think the clear answer is it really doesn't matter where the game is played.

 

 

My shirt would say “ THANK YOU JOSH!” because I am so glad he changed his mind. 

[deedub75]

18 hours ago, jskinnz said:

 

Here is my attempt to disagree without being disagreeable.

 

Do you honestly think the league should care enough to move this game to Indy just because of what happened in January?  As I said earlier, they have other infinitely more important things to worry about.

 

Do you honestly believe the ratings would be appreciably better because it is in Indy over Foxboro?  Does Joe the plumber in Sheybogan, WI not tune because this game is game is at New England where he would have if it was in Indy?  Do people around the nation really care enough to see John and Jane Doe in their McDaniels Sucks T-shirt?  Would that cause a ratings spike?

 

I think the clear answer is it really doesn't matter where the game is played.

 

 

My shirt would say “ THANK YOU JOSH!” because I am so glad he changed his mind. 

[NannyMcafee]

18 hours ago, Nesjan3 said:

Rivalry?? LOL, usually rivalrys are created when two teams continue to have competitive games with each other with the pendulum swinging both ways, back and forth. We have not played NE competitively since Peyton was on the team almost 10 years ago now. As someone posted above ill be happy just to not get completely blown out on national television. The Colts Pats rivalry is dead until we have a team that can compete .

 

Colts and Patriots used to be in the same division. They have had competitive games with them for a while. Long before Belichick became their head coach. Just because a handful of games are not competitive, doesn’t make it not a rivalry. And you have to consider those uncompetitive games came from one of the most predictable coaches of all time.  

 

Purdue and IU have been in a rivalry for years. They weren’t all competitive games. 

 

A rivalry isnt defined by wins and losses alone. 

[Lucky Colts Fan]

6 hours ago, DarkSuperman said:

Wonder if anyone on the Patriots payroll has the testicles to call Ballard up on Draft day to propose a trade.

 

[LJpalmbeacher2]

Yes, it's a intense rivalry.

One team is favorite to go to another super bowl. The other teams power rankings suggest it has the inside track for the 2019 #1 over draft pick.

[Lucky Colts Fan]

38 minutes ago, LJpalmbeacher2 said:

Yes, it's a intense rivalry.

One team is favorite to go to another super bowl. The other teams power rankings suggest it has the inside track for the 2019 #1 over draft pick.

 

So are you calling it a "fair-weather" rivalry?  It's only a rivalry when both teams are SB contenders? 

 

Because for me, the Pats became the Colts #1 rival on January 18, 2004.  And yes, it has been a very intense rivalry ever since (at least for me). 

[dodsworth]

The so called rivalry will heat up in the next couple of years when Brady

goes in decline and Ballard has time to get the players to fit both of

the new schemes on offense and defense. We get beat by 20 points

In NE this year.

[LJpalmbeacher2]

1 hour ago, Lucky Colts Fan said:

 

So are you calling it a "fair-weather" rivalry?  It's only a rivalry when both teams are SB contenders? 

 

Because for me, the Pats became the Colts #1 rival on January 18, 2004.  And yes, it has been a very intense rivalry ever since (at least for me). 

 

Here's the dictionary term for rivalry:

 

ri·val·ry

ˈrīvəlrē/

noun

competition for the same objective or for superiority in the same field.

 

We are not competitive with them for the same objective in any way.

 

Imo, what the colts & pats have is a Deep Hatred for each other.

Anyway, that's just my opinion.

[Lucky Colts Fan]

11 minutes ago, LJpalmbeacher2 said:

 

Here's the dictionary term for rivalry:

 

ri·val·ry

ˈrīvəlrē/

noun

competition for the same objective or for superiority in the same field.

 

We are not competitive with them for the same objective in any way.

 

Imo, what the colts & pats have is a Deep Hatred for each other.

Anyway, that's just my opinion.

 

By that definition, every team has a rivalry with every team they play every week...

 

I just know I get a little more intense when we play the Pats.  More so than the Titans, Texans, Jags, Steelers, etc.

 

It's the most intense rivalry the Colts have, IMO.

[LJpalmbeacher2]

1 hour ago, Lucky Colts Fan said:

 

By that definition, every team has a rivalry with every team they play every week...

 

I just know I get a little more intense when we play the Pats.  More so than the Titans, Texans, Jags, Steelers, etc.

 

It's the most intense rivalry the Colts have, IMO.

I guess we can agree the meaning of the term 'rivalry' varies from one fan to another. 

I think both of us definitely share a deep Hatred for those arrogant cheaters. 

Lol.

[-JJ-]

21 hours ago, 2006Coltsbestever said:

It really depends on how people define Rivalry? Almost every Packers fan will say the Bears are their biggest Rival because of their past history even. In the last 16 meetings, the Packers are 14-2 against the Bears though including an NFC Title Game win. So is that a Rivalry? Why do Pats fans consider the Jets a Rivalry but not us? Jets haven't won a SB since 1968 and never win that Division.

100% correct.  I believe the Skins and cowboys are a long rivalry.

Miami and NE rivalry was 20 years and NE lost 18 times in a row at the old orange bowl.

NY-Boston- well that rivalry speaks for itself.

 

The Colts rivalry was mostly based on Manning vs Brady- and fueled by the 2003 playoff "mug" game. Not to mention the 2001 reg season game.

 

You don't make rivalries up- they happen on their own.

[crazycolt1]

It's hard to have a long term rivalry when the Colts have moved from conference and divisions three times.

[Narcosys]

7 hours ago, LJpalmbeacher2 said:

 

Here's the dictionary term for rivalry:

 

ri·val·ry

ˈrīvəlrē/

noun

competition for the same objective or for superiority in the same field.

 

We are not competitive with them for the same objective in any way.

 

Imo, what the colts & pats have is a Deep Hatred for each other.

Anyway, that's just my opinion.

You're confusing competitive with competition. Two different things.

[southwest1]

On April 20, 2018 at 11:40 AM, Mel Kiper's Hair said:

Why would it be dumb to make more money and make the game more interesting? And if you go back to my original post, I never said the NFL should switch the schedule. I just said they missed out on a good opportunity by leaving the game in New England. What is the big deal with keeping the system as is?

 

I really don't understand why people on this forum can't learn to disagree with others without saying that what someone else has said is "dumb". What is gained by that? If you disagree give your reasoning for why. My entire point was that the NFL missed an opportunity by leaving this game in New England instead of Indianapolis. For a league that has seen declining ratings over the last couple of seasons and a sport that is seeing declining participation nationwide, I would think it would be SMART to make each and every game as interesting as possible. I don't think anyone can deny that this game would have much more appeal to it if the Patriots and Josh McDaniels had to come here. At no point did I call for the schedule to be changed. I did offer a scenario on how it could be done by simply keeping the matchups that we played in 2015 when we played the AFC East. Times and ways of doing things change. From 1966 to 1990 the NFL didn't have bye weeks, the schedule used to be 10 games long, the league used to be smaller, and on and on. Change happens all the time that's why I don't see it as such a huge deal to do something different from the "norm".

 

Please don't think that I really care this much about one game on the NFL schedule. My point was and still is that the NFL missed out on a good opportunity by not having this particular game in Indy. I'm not trying to be argumentative I'm just giving my reasoning as to why I feel this way. I love debate and discussion and love coming here to the forum. I do think it would be great if we could learn to disagree without calling the ideas and thoughts of others "dumb". If you disagree with me that's fine but give me more than that's "dumb" or a "bad idea". My apologies for the manifesto.

It wasn't a true manifesto MKH because no ransom demands were issued or ultimatums bound by a time limit of some sort. Ergo, you're good. 

 

All kidding aside, I agree with you that explaining why somebody disagrees with you does indeed matter. If we played the Pats in INDY, it wouldn't matter unless we won the game to make a lasting impression & reinforce our disapproval as a fanbase over how JM conducted himself professionally when Jimmy offered him this gig. Pretty good after Josh's debacle in Denver...How he left Colorado & being offered such a nice opportunity in the Hoosier State recently. 

 

I agree with JJ. INDY vs NE isn't a renewed rivalry yet. But, we'll get there again in time. Pelt said it too so, I better give him credit as well--The not a real rivalry yet mantra in 2018 I mean. 

[southwest1]

10 hours ago, NannyMcafee said:

A rivalry isnt defined by wins and losses alone. 

True. That's technically correct NMFE. However, considering that college & professional football revolves around stats, record keeping, & division wins to get to the grand finale game for all the marbles...It's the only thing fans remember yrs or decades later--hardware & overall legacies. 

[southwest1]

8 hours ago, Lucky Colts Fan said:

 

By that definition, every team has a rivalry with every team they play every week...

 

I just know I get a little more intense when we play the Pats.  More so than the Titans, Texans, Jags, Steelers, etc.

 

It's the most intense rivalry the Colts have, IMO.

You know what LCF? You bring about a darn good point. Frequency of winning builds resentment in foe franchises which creates animosity toward a team that rarely loses like NE teeth because we wanna see some fresh blood in there. That's the reason so many people loved Philly kicking Boston's backside. It was time for NE to fall strictly because they win Lombardi trophies so often. 

 

I always remember David Letterman's NYG rant in 2007. "After awhile, everybody wanted to see NE get their caboose kicked." LOL! Priceless Dave. Priceless. 

 

It's the same reason the NFL media throws a parade when the Browns win a game because it's so rare & seldom happens--Frequency in reverse because the losing drought has subsided for a short while. 

[southwest1]

9 hours ago, dodsworth said:

The so called rivalry will heat up in the next couple of years when Brady

goes in decline and Ballard has time to get the players to fit both of

the new schemes on offense and defense. We get beat by 20 points

In NE this year.

For me, the score doesn't matter vs NE this yr. Just that INDY can hang with either NE or Pittsburgh for at least a quarter. I'm not asking for a miracle only a glimpse of hope that we can turn the tide in a few yrs.

 

Just give me flashes of respectable play. You know that INDY can move the ball on offense & make opposing secondaries work for their W in the end. 

[southwest1]

On April 20, 2018 at 5:59 PM, 2006Coltsbestever said:

It really depends on how people define Rivalry? Almost every Packers fan will say the Bears are their biggest Rival because of their past history even. In the last 16 meetings, the Packers are 14-2 against the Bears though including an NFC Title Game win. So is that a Rivalry? Why do Pats fans consider the Jets a Rivalry but not us? Jets haven't won a SB since 1968 and never win that Division.

Nice post as always buddy. Personally, I think the Bears /Packers thing is a rivalry strictly because of how old Soldier Field & Lambeau Field are. That & it's cool to see a person's breath at 30 below when a dude is drunk & refuses to wear a t-shirt let alone a jacket. 

 

The Jets. Jesus are they a bleeping train wreck. LOL! NE just views them as a light practice regimen. At least under Rex Ryan, he gave Brady fits until the 4th QTR. 

[southwest1]

13 hours ago, deedub75 said:

 

My shirt would say “ THANK YOU JOSH!” because I am so glad he changed his mind. 

McDaniels didn't change his mind. Emperor Palpatine/BB used the Dark Side to seduce him back. Bill's a very old Sith Lord man. Just messin' with ya D75! 

 

Seriously though, Bill Palpatine did something to the Atlanta Falcons man. There's no way they should have lost that SB man. I'm still shaking my head over that one. Bad voodoo went down there man. I still can't explain it. Crazy. 

[P'Son]

9 hours ago, LJpalmbeacher2 said:

 

Here's the dictionary term for rivalry:

 

ri·val·ry

ˈrīvəlrē/

noun

competition for the same objective or for superiority in the same field.

 

We are not competitive with them for the same objective in any way.

 

Imo, what the colts & pats have is a Deep Hatred for each other.

Anyway, that's just my opinion.

 

Well said, LJp.  This does not fit the definition of a rivalry.   We just hate the S h it out of them.  I expect the Colts to lose to the *s in a close one <8).  Give the Colts three years for the situation to flip.

[Flying Elvis]

Like "voluntary" has a different meaning in the NFL than in real life, so does rivalry.

 

Do the Colts have this game circled on their calendar? Do the Patriots?

 

I don't know the answers but if yes, then its a rivalry.