playing NOT to win is legal.....

[BLZFAN4LIFE]

So they want to ban the long term strategy of keeping their players healthy for the playoffs? Absurd.

 

No doubt, it is absurd. It's absolutely ridiculous. The league has all of these rules to protect QB's from injury i.e. can't lead with the helmet, can't tackle above the shoulders, can't lunge at the knees, can't take them down hard, better not make contact after a step and a half after they release the ball, and they allow holding on almost every play YET the want teams to expose the same franchise QB's in meaningless games at the end of the season. That makes sense.

[SDS]

Actually, I like this. A lot.

 

Why are fans willingly accepting a crappy product for the purposes of a meaningless playoff system? Yes, it is meaningless. It's just a game. It means NOTHING to the real world except to give what is was intended for - ENTERTAINMENT.

 

Fans pay top dollar to see a quality product. When teams deliberately put out an inferior product - week 1 or week 17 - the fans should be upset. The players are paid by the game. We pay to see those games. Every single game. If that has playoff implications then so be it. I'll take a team busting its ass every week for an ENTIRE season over forfeiting games that people paid to see in order to reduce injuries.

 

If teams are allowed to lay down then the fans need to be compensated for it.

[BLZFAN4LIFE]

Actually, I like this. A lot.

 

Why are fans willingly accepting a crappy product for the purposes of a meaningless playoff system? Yes, it is meaningless. It's just a game. It means NOTHING to the real world except to give what is was intended for - ENTERTAINMENT.

 

Fans pay top dollar to see a quality product. When teams deliberately put out an inferior product - week 1 or week 17 - the fans should be upset. The players are paid by the game. We pay to see those games. Every single game. If that has playoff implications then so be it. I'll take a team busting its ass every week for an ENTIRE season over forfeiting games that people paid to see in order to reduce injuries.

 

If teams are allowed to lay down then the fans need to be compensated for it.

 

First, why does the NFL charge full price for preseason games then?

 

Second, you're looking at it from a fans perspective and I'm thinking of the team's right. The regular season is all about positioning yourself in the playoffs. I'm o.k. with a team packing it in once they gain the best playoff position possible. I don't think that 1 or 2 meaningless games at the end of the regular season is the end of the world.

[SwampD]

Instead of changing the rules to stop this, why not just add two more wild-card teams in each conference. Since the Colts have already had 2 bye weeks, why do they need another one once the playoffs begin. If they're not going to play in the regular season, make'em play in the postseason..

[Kipers Hair]

Change the last two weeks of the season to divisional games and modify the draft (by record until you hit playoff teams) to a "ping pong" ball lottery, incenting playoff teams will better records to up the probablility for a better selection in the coming draft. The divisional games might imply playoffs on the line and fuel the game because of rivalries and the better the draft selection = better player or more fuel to trade. Other than that - what can you do?

[SDS]

First, why does the NFL charge full price for preseason games then?

 

Second, you're looking at it from a fans perspective and I'm thinking of the team's right. The regular season is all about positioning yourself in the playoffs. I'm o.k. with a team packing it in once they gain the best playoff position possible. I don't think that 1 or 2 meaningless games at the end of the regular season is the end of the world.

 

Preseason ticket prices are also another issue that should be addressed. Adding MORE worthless games only adds insult to injury.

 

The team's perspective? WTH is that? Who cares?

 

They play a game for OUR amusement. They wouldn't play that game if no one was watching. Therefore, it is entertainment. The 1st order of entertainment is to entertain. Fans bought tickets, networks signed contracts, advertisers bought space under the premise that some sort of entertainment would be provided. It matters to them - especially the fans who went to see those games. They paid money for a regular season contest and deserve better.

[BuffaloBill]

First, why does the NFL charge full price for preseason games then?

 

Second, you're looking at it from a fans perspective and I'm thinking of the team's right. The regular season is all about positioning yourself in the playoffs. I'm o.k. with a team packing it in once they gain the best playoff position possible. I don't think that 1 or 2 meaningless games at the end of the regular season is the end of the world.

 

 

This whole issue comes down to two to four teams each year. If the league tries to come up with something think of the loopholes. Tom Brady is "injured (with a hangnail among many other ailments)" and doubtful from the start of OTA's every year. If the Dolts did not want to play manning yesterday under "new" rules that would either penalize or incent them to play the guy my guess is that they get a handy Dr's note that says the guy is "hurt" and ignore the stupidity anyway. I go back to teams play for championships not games at the end of the year that mean nothing to them.

 

Besides how many of us back in the day were happy to see Smith, Kelly, Thomas et al. sit and get healthy for the playoff run? That is what we really cared about back when we had the opportunity to do so.

[MRW]

Talk about opening a huge can of worms... are we going to see the NFL front office micromanaging teams' rosters to determine who plays and who sits? I can't blame fans for being unhappy that Manning and co. got pulled out of a game with a perfect record on the line, but I don't see a workable alternative. Is the league going to decide when a player is healthy enough to play and start fining teams that don't play guys?

[MattyT]

Draw up ridiculous rules to protect the team's best players, then draw up ridiculous rules/incentives to make them play in meaningless conditions.

 

Make up your mind NFL.

[SDS]

Draw up ridiculous rules to protect the team's best players, then draw up ridiculous rules/incentives to make them play in meaningless conditions.

 

Make up your mind NFL.

 

 

the problem is the attitude you just expressed and perpetuated by others.

 

Why do people consider playoff football the only meaningful football to be played? It's not meaningless to a family of four who shelled out $400+ to watch an NFL game. They paid for entertainment that day. If it is truly meaningless - then cancel the game and issue refunds. But don't tell me you are going to take all my money, and then tell me you decided not to perform today because it doesn't mean anything to the "team".

 

Anything that provides MORE entertainment to the fans is WIN for the fans. Why the hell is anyone arguing to protect bad football is beyond me.

[BuffaloBill]

the problem is the attitude you just expressed and perpetuated by others.

 

Why do people consider playoff football the only meaningful football to be played? It's not meaningless to a family of four who shelled out $400+ to watch an NFL game. They paid for entertainment that day. If it is truly meaningless - then cancel the game and issue refunds. But don't tell me you are going to take all my money, and then tell me you decided not to perform today because it doesn't mean anything to the "team".

 

Anything that provides MORE entertainment to the fans is WIN for the fans. Why the hell is anyone arguing to protect bad football is beyond me.

 

 

I do not think anyone is in favor of "bad" football. The concern is practical. It would be nearly impossible to set up rules or incentives that gave teams a meaningful way to force their "best players" on the field. If you want to get rid of "bad football" cut out preseason games.

[thebug]

the problem is the attitude you just expressed and perpetuated by others.

 

Why do people consider playoff football the only meaningful football to be played? It's not meaningless to a family of four who shelled out $400+ to watch an NFL game. They paid for entertainment that day. If it is truly meaningless - then cancel the game and issue refunds. But don't tell me you are going to take all my money, and then tell me you decided not to perform today because it doesn't mean anything to the "team".

 

Anything that provides MORE entertainment to the fans is WIN for the fans. Why the hell is anyone arguing to protect bad football is beyond me.

 

 

Exactly! What are they going to do if they switch to a 18 game schedule? Maybe take the last couple (or more) games off?

[SDS]

I do not think anyone is in favor of "bad" football. The concern is practical. It would be nearly impossible to set up rules or incentives that gave teams a meaningful way to force their "best players" on the field. If you want to get rid of "bad football" cut out preseason games.

 

There is no difference between what many teams did yesterday and a preseason game.

 

It is only "practical" because people have come to accept it and for whatever reason actually encourage it. It is borderline retarded.

 

NO! NO! We don't need to see Mr. $100 million man playing a game. Rest... We don't want to see you play today. In fact, we demand it!

 

If people started demanding more for their money. If the networks started demanding more for their money - the NFL would be incentivized to find a way.

 

Hat's off to Goodell for giving a rat's ass about the product on the field.

[Ramius]

Good idea in theory, but will never work out in practice. So maybe the commish makes the Colts play their starters. What happens then yesterday when after 2 drives, Peyton goes to the sideline with a "shoulder injury" and is "out" for the rest of the game?

[MattyT]

the problem is the attitude you just expressed and perpetuated by others.

 

Why do people consider playoff football the only meaningful football to be played? It's not meaningless to a family of four who shelled out $400+ to watch an NFL game. They paid for entertainment that day. If it is truly meaningless - then cancel the game and issue refunds. But don't tell me you are going to take all my money, and then tell me you decided not to perform today because it doesn't mean anything to the "team".

 

Anything that provides MORE entertainment to the fans is WIN for the fans. Why the hell is anyone arguing to protect bad football is beyond me.

It's not meaningless football...it's a game where one side (or both sides) have nothing to gain by putting its best assets at risk. The family of four will show up and a football game will take place...these are the goods that were provided in exchange for purchasing a ticket. Can I get a refund if the star QB gets hurt in the first minute or if the game is a one-sided blowout or I don't like the outcome? It's a slippery slope.

[SDS]

Good idea in theory, but will never work out in practice. So maybe the commish makes the Colts play their starters. What happens then yesterday when after 2 drives, Peyton goes to the sideline with a "shoulder injury" and is "out" for the rest of the game?

 

You'll never know unless you have the conversation.

 

There are people here actually arguing AGAINST the commissioner having a conversation about delivering more value to the fans. Just how retarded is that?

 

The NFL ultimately may not be able to guarantee that someone plays, but they can do their best to reduce the number of BS games that steal money out of fan's pockets.

[Astrobot]

Okay, how many returned to work today and "rested their starters"?

Or am I the only one that works?

[SDS]

It's not meaningless football...it's a game where one side (or both sides) have nothing to gain by putting its best assets at risk. The family of four will show up and a football game will take place...these are the goods that were provided in exchange for purchasing a ticket. Can I get a refund if the star QB gets hurt in the first minute or if the game is a one-sided blowout or I don't like the outcome? It's a slippery slope.

 

Again - attitude.

 

What they have to "gain" is doing what they are PAID to do. NFL football players are NOTHING w/o us. Their professions EXIST to entertain us. We are not "peering in" on some unstoppable ritual that just magically occurs week after week, year after year. They are their to play football for us and make tons of money doing it. That's the deal.

[SwampD]

You'll never know unless you have the conversation.

 

There are people here actually arguing AGAINST the commissioner having a conversation about delivering more value to the fans. Just how retarded is that?

 

The NFL ultimately may not be able to guarantee that someone plays, but they can do their best to reduce the number of BS games that steal money out of fan's pockets.

Ask the Jets fans if they care about teams resting their starters. Not everyone that disagrees with you is a retard, they just have a different opinion than you.

 

I already gave you the solution, add four more teams to the playoffs and don't give anyone a bye. With more spots available there would be more games that meant something.

[Lori]

Change the last two weeks of the season to divisional games and modify the draft (by record until you hit playoff teams) to a "ping pong" ball lottery, incenting playoff teams will better records to up the probablility for a better selection in the coming draft. The divisional games might imply playoffs on the line and fuel the game because of rivalries and the better the draft selection = better player or more fuel to trade. Other than that - what can you do?

It troubles me to think that Mike Greenberg (who proposed the same idea about divisional games this morning) might make sense for once, but IIRC, that's how last season played out. Fins-Jets and Bills-Pats in Week 17, and presuming they'd found some way to score a few points, the Bills could have actually had a say in the AFC East race. As it happened, a Jets victory would have cost Miami the division title.

 

Oh, wait -- now that I think about it, Greeny was merely reading an e-mail he'd received from a listener. THAT'S why it made sense.

 

Some other ESPN talking head was insane enough to suggest canceling meaningless games like yesterday's Colts-Bills matchup and offering refunds to ticketholders. NFL owner$ giving ca$h back to fan$? Yeah, like that'$ ever going to happen ...