havent you heard that he is looking into it..on how to prevent teams from doing what the Colts did, and other...he is looking at options such as awarding draft picks and other...but if you watched the game, then you would have saw the Colts hand the game to the Jets. it made most everyone just sick to their stomach.

 

-----signature-----

http://bleacherreport.com/articles/319960-the-two-hidden-messages-in-commissioner-goodells-anti-colts-statements


found this site that talks about the competition committee looking to review and maybe help prevent what the Colts did for the last 2 games of the season.

 

-----signature-----

Yeah, I hate the Colts with a passion but even seeing them lose that game made me sick. It was obvious they are throwing the game. I do not mind teams sitting their stars all that much, but if you are going to sit your stars do it the whole game, or 3/4 of the game. Any time you sit a star after half time is kind of extreme. You let him play the first half and some of hte second half, might as well finish the game.

 

-----signature-----

im not in this boat, but some have said that the decision was made because of the other scores around the league and how the Colts would be set up to play in the playoffs...if this is correct i find it criminal...and it should not have happened if true.


i also agree...that if you sit them then have them play a few series to keep them somewhat fresh, but not start the 3qtr. but in all honesty the bye week that they earned is when they should have rested...not during the reg. season unless it is injury related, and im not talking about a strained groin or hammy...

 

-----signature-----

That acticle is pretty spot on. This isn't simply a matter of resting stars anymore, it is a matter of tanking the game. They have a great idea in the article. If a coach wants to rest a star come out and say "Hey he will be sitting after one possesion following half time at the latest." There can be no doubt if you make it public your intention to sit a star. Does saying that give you opponet an competitive edge greater than sitting your best player? No, it does not.

 

-----signature-----

i like that idea rather then wanting to give draft picks or other incentive to keep the stars in. least that way you dont mess with the integrity of the game.

 

-----signature-----

For me the only reason this is an issue is because of how it affects ticket buyers. That's it. People who watch the game for free on TV should just be happy their team has the luxury of resting their starters. Teams like the Texans and the Steelers who didn't want to be on the downside of a tiebreaker should have won more of their own games. Fans paying to see the games I have some sympathy for, but: 1. teams already charge full price for the preseason, and a regular season tilt with backups is at least as entertaining as that, 2. knowing the status of when the starters would play and not play would actually give the opponent more of a chance to win, because it could be turned to a slight advantage, and 3. I assume most of the tickets for the game are bought long before anybody knows whether the game will be meaningless or not, and you can't expect teams to offer a refund when the buyer knew that late season games had the potential to be meaningless.

To me this is much ado about nothing. The only thing coaches being forced to reveal the status of their starters would really change is the appearance of integrity. To go back to the Indy/Jet game, the argument is it LOOKED bad to pull Manning et al at that point and "hand" the Jets the game. But wouldn't it have been handing them the game even more by playing the backups the whole way, and letting them know they don;t have to prepare for Peyton?

The problem I have with the arguement that the Texans and Steelers should have won more games approach is this: Those teams won 9 out of 16 games. The Jets effectively won 7 out of 14 games because the last two were freebee's. (Atleast that seems to be the consences). So now what you are trying to say is that winning 56% of you games compared to 50% of your games not enough, you have to win 62% of your games while the Jets only have to win 50%. I like to be old school and take the approach that you should of won more games, but that is unfair to say when the teams that didn't make the playoffs, had to effectively play two more games than the Jets did. What you are saying is that the Steelers and Texans have to win more games because the Colts and Bengals want to lay down for the Jets. That kind of thing needs to stop, and taking away draft picks would make it stop real fast.

 

-----signature-----

If you want to rest starters against teams not in the playoff race, then fine go ahead, that has no impact on the big picture. If I was commish I would take draft picks away from teams that lay down against playoff contenders.

 

-----signature-----

^toootally agree with amendial for the first time in a while

 

-----signature-----