Would you kneel it out?

[Spider-Dan]

Not so sure about all of this. Don't teams rest their starters the last week of the season essentially forfeiting the game? What if both teams just pulled all their starters off the field and agreed to NOT score?

And there's your problem.

You can play who you want to play.  And if one team decides not to score, oh well... thems the breaks.  But that's not collusion.   BOTH teams deciding not to score, in a situation where they both clearly benefit from working together, on a national prime-time broadcast?  There are definitely phones ringing after two series.

[Pappy13]

And there's your problem.

You can play who you want to play.  And if one team decides not to score, oh well... thems the breaks.  But that's not collusion.   BOTH teams deciding not to score, in a situation where they both clearly benefit from working together, on a national prime-time broadcast?  There are definitely phones ringing after two series.

So when 2 teams playing each other announce before the game that they are not playing their starters, that's NOT collusion? Sure it is, just the kind that the NFL agrees with. It's hypocritical.

Don't get me wrong, I'm NOT in favor of it happening, I'm just saying that it's not beyond the NFL to do this, it's already happening it's just that we accept it in the one situation and we don't in the other. Would the phones ring? You bet. To determine how they were going to assure everyone that neither team was trying to end in a tie.

[Dave Gray]

The scenario isn't the same.

When you don't start your players because it doesn't matter if you win or lose, that's a choice you make, to better yourself. 

But if you don't start your starters in a game you need to win, that's an issue.

In the scenario we listed, you need a win or a tie -- kneeling doesn't help improve those odds unless you can coordinate with your opponent.  That coordination is against the rules.

[Pappy13]

The scenario isn't the same.

When you don't start your players because it doesn't matter if you win or lose, that's a choice you make, to better yourself.  

But if you don't start your starters in a game you need to win, that's an issue.

In the scenario we listed, you need a win or a tie -- kneeling doesn't help improve those odds unless you can coordinate with your opponent.  That coordination is against the rules.

Or a tie. For that all you need to do is prevent the other team from scoring, you don't need to score for that to happen. The fact that it's true for both sides is irrelevant, they don't necessarily have to come to that agreement together, they could have each reached that determination seperately. There's no way to prove they coordinated anything.

And this isn't a choice to better yourself? Sure it is. The fact it's mutually beneficial is just a side benefit.

Again I'm not advocating this, I'm saying that it's hypocritical to say that teams can just pull all their starters in a game because they don't need to win but then say you can't pull just your offensive players in overtime of a game you only need to tie. Pulling your starters and not playing to win is wrong anyway you slice it, but if you are going to allow it in one situation, then you might get something that you really don't want. The NFL has already gone down that rabbit hole is all I'm saying.

[Spider-Dan]

Pappy, it's all well and good to say "How can anybody tell if you're colluding?" but when the announcers are absolutely laying into both teams for intentionally trying not to win over a 3-hour-long national broadcast, it will be obvious to everyone.

There is a huge difference between "getting young players some developmental experience" or even "trying to avoid injury to starters"... and "coordinating with your opponent to throw a game."  The NFL doesn't want to see that ever, but it ESPECIALLY doesn't want to see it on a national prime-time game.

If you and your opponent (<--- this part is important!) both decide that neither one of you want to try to win the game, but instead prefer a tie, it is textbook collusion.  You can't allow it.

Just for contrast: back in 2001, there was a situation where PHI and TB were scheduled to play the final game of the season, but both teams had already clinched their seeds and they would be meeting again the next week in the Wild Card round no matter what happened.  So they both played a bunch of backups because the game didn't matter.  This is not collusion, and no one cared (PHI won 17-13).

[Pappy13]

Pappy, it's all well and good to say "How can anybody tell if you're colluding?" but when the announcers are absolutely laying into both teams for intentionally trying not to win over a 3-hour-long national broadcast, it will be obvious to everyone.

There is a huge difference between "getting young players some developmental experience" or even "trying to avoid injury to starters"... and "coordinating with your opponent to throw a game."  The NFL doesn't want to see that ever, but it ESPECIALLY doesn't want to see it on a national prime-time game.

If you and your opponent (<--- this part is important!) both decide that neither one of you want to try to win the game, but instead prefer a tie, it is textbook collusion.  You can't have it.

In that game between the Chargers and the Raiders the announcers absolutely brought it up prior to the overtime. Luckily neither the Chargers nor the Raiders decided to play it that way, but if they would have, just the overtime not the whole game, what do you do? Can you blame either team for trying NOT to lose? Isn't that the VERY thing that many coaches already try to do, NOT lose the game.

Again I want to stress that I'm not FOR doing this, merely saying that I don't think there's much the NFL could have done afterwards other than assure the fans that neither team was playing for a tie.  I don't think anyone is getting fined or anything else because I think the NFL would try to play it off as both teams playing conservatively and trying NOT to lose which knocks them out of the playoffs. What's wrong with that?

You can NOT try to win if it doesn't matter but you can't try to NOT lose if it does?

Just for contrast: back in 2001, there was a situation where PHI and TB were scheduled to play the final game of the season, but both teams had already clinched their seeds and they would be meeting again the next week in the Wild Card round no matter what happened.  So they both played a bunch of backups because the game didn't matter.  This is not collusion, and no one cared (PHI won 17-13).

Oh, it's collusion alright, it was mutually beneficial to both teams to not play their starters and they both announced their intention prior to the game, just no one cared. That's the point I'm making. The only difference is that it didn't change who would make the playoffs, in this case it has implications to who makes the playoffs which doesn't just affect the 2 teams, but other teams as well (Steelers for instance) so we cared. We care about collusion in some cases, in other cases we really don't or at least we don't care if there is collusion if we don't perceive that someone is being hurt by it. What if in that game above it mattered to another team who won and lost for instance lets say Dallas needed TB to win to make the playoffs? Is it ok then for them to do what they did in that case? Do we care then? So then it's collusion?

I wouldn't be surprised to see a new rule next year that says that if 2 teams are tied in the last week of the regular season and both teams will make the playoffs if the game ends in a tie then in that case the game will be played till one team wins the game. Problem solved.

[fyo]

^ How would you go about trying not to lose without colluding with your opponent? If you just run the ball three times, not really trying to do anything and then punting, you are gambling that your opponent is going to do the same thing and not play to win. Take your starters out? What if the other team doesn't?

You can certainly play conservatively and that happens quite often in overtime, but without collusion there's a limit to what you can do without actually increasing your risk of losing.

[dolphins4life]

There was a sf sea game two years ago where sf tried to win.  I criticized their play calling.  I said they should have run the ball on first down, let the clock run, and then tried for the win.  I was criticized for this

[stinkfish]

I swear that the Raiders were going to sit on the ball at the very end of OT and take the tie. Then the Chargers called that timeout.

[Dave Gray]

I swear that the Raiders were going to sit on the ball at the very end of OT and take the tie. Then the Chargers called that timeout.

And had they done that, I think that's acceptable.  The Raiders controlled their own destiny at that point and not kicking puts their playoff chances at 100%.  Attempting the kick lowers it to 99.5% or whatever.

I equate it to a RB "trying not to score" late in a game so that his team can run out the clock, so he falls on the 1 yard line on purpose.

[Spider-Dan]

I don't think anyone is getting fined or anything else because I think the NFL would try to play it off as both teams playing conservatively and trying NOT to lose which knocks them out of the playoffs. What's wrong with that?

You can NOT try to win if it doesn't matter but you can't try to NOT lose if it does?

You're missing the rather significant and drastic difference.

If you don't play your starters (or you run the ball directly into the line over and over, etc.) because you are willing to accept a loss, then fine!  But a problem arises if you AREN'T willing to accept a loss, and you want to engineer a tie.  Because, in the scenario you provide, engineering a tie would involve the other team ALSO working towards the same game result.

In other words, the teams are working in concert to directly fix the outcome of the game (i.e. collusion).  Do you understand why this is a major problem in a professional sports league?

[Phishfan]

What kind of spineless coach kneels the ball to take a tie against a division rival rather than kick a field goal with time running out and eliminating them? I  hate this discussion.

[Downunder Dolphan]

I swear that the Raiders were going to sit on the ball at the very end of OT and take the tie. Then the Chargers called that timeout.

Got to love the way they seem to say "yeah, nah, fuck you" to the Chargers and then knocked them out of the playoffs...

Somewhere in the afterlife you just know Al Davis is smiling at this.

[stinkfish]

And Madden too.

[ArtieChokePhin]

Somewhere in the afterlife you just know Al Davis is smiling at this.

Just win baby