I hate when teams do this. Injuries can happen at any time. If Peyton tears his ACL in the first quarter of the AFC title game how is that any better than if it happened in week 16?

Peyton hasn't missed a game in 12 years. The chances of him getting injured are almost nonexistent. Also why haven't the Colts learned? They win a ton of games every season, but the one time they won the Superbowl was when they couldn't rest players at the end.

 

-----signature-----

^^^

completely agree and its the general sentiment of the fans here in Indiana...the Colts/Polian had a lot of negative feedback on his weekly radio show.

what kills me is that he said that going 16-0 was never a goal, that he didnt think that was a great record! that winning the most games in the decade and winning the most regular season games in a row was as well...my thoughts are who in the hell remembers those flippin records? but i do know the one record that i can remember is who was the last team to go undefeated? the 72' Dolphins...tired of them every year popping the cork!

bottom line they should have played and took their rest in the bye week that they earned.

now we have the commish thinking about applying incentives for teams to play out the season...not sure how that will work or be enforced, but should be interesting.

 

-----signature-----

I think the incentives thing is ridiculous. First of all, you shouldn't be rewarded for not doing what you think is in the best interest of your team. Nor should you get extra draft picks for winning, as that goes against the very idea of the draft. If a coach or GM thinks that playing backups is for the best, they should be able to do it. If preseason games can be full price, then I don't see why these are any different. The fans should just shutup and be happy their team is doing well enough to rest their players.

The bigger issue is with the team they laid down for making the playoffs. That is why the commish needs to step in and stop this. If the Colts do not play back ups in the fourth quarter of the Jets game, the Jets lose, and fail to make the playoffs. The Houston Texans would then now be in the playoffs. That is very interesting, the Colts laid down and let the Jets win to prevent the Houston Texans from making the playoffs; a Texans team that almost beat Indy twice this year. Not saying they rested starters to do this on purpose, but people can and will make assumptions with what they see. The real problem with teams resting starters is that it does manipulate the playoff field. The Jets are in even though had all teams played 100% they would not have been. This needs to stop, the Jets should have had to play Indy at their best for 4 quarters just as the Texans had to do twice.

 

-----signature-----

Why is it incumbent upon the Colts to win a game for another team's playoff chances? I can't believe anyone would think that. It's more unfair to try to enforce how a franchise must run their team than to have a few games where teams play backups. Whether or not the Colts were "afraid" of the Texans, this is their philosophy. They rest starters and avoid injuries. If the Texans wanted to make the playoffs, they should have won more than 9 games. The Colts owe the Texans nothing. I am a liberal guy, but this is sports, for god's sake. If you don't earn your playoff spot yourself, you have nothing to cry about.

As an aside, the same thing happens in baseball. Two teams battling for a wildcard spot, one of them playing a team that already has their playoff spot wrapped up. The first place team plays minor leaguers from when the rosters expand, and rests their starters to set up their rotation for the playoffs. One of the wildcard contenders benefits, and the other has to play a more competitive series. It's just heightened in football because there's less games, but the principle is the same. Don't mess with teams doing what they think is best for their playoff run.

the Texans had 14 other games to make the playoffs with...cant put all the blame on the one game with the Jets...i am in agreement that they should have played...unless some players absolutely need the rest due to injury. but these teams that cry at the end of the year because some teams lay down is ridiculous...win more during the reg. season and you wont have to worry about the last game of the season.

 

-----signature-----

They thing that I am hearing people complaining about isnt that solely that they rested their stars, its that they played them 3/4 of the game and dominated the Jets and then just sat everyone and said here you go this one is free. I just heard some people this morning talking about how the Colts saw the scoreboard and how the playoff scenarios were playing out at that point and decided to "weaken the pool" of playoff teams. If that is truly what they did then from a compition stand point, good move. Who is to say that the Texans were not unlike the '06 Steelers, or the '08 Giants. By doing this the Colts might have won themselves the Superbowl. So from the Colts perspective this is the right move to make. From the leagues perspective though you do not want to have the playoffs lose their elite status. If teams continue to throw games like the Colts, Bengals, and several other teams did the past couple of weeks, being a wildcard team will become meaningless. Its the integrity of the playoffs that is at stake by this act. That is why I think the league should do something about teams intentionally losing games by resting starters, the status given to playoff teams and the integrity of the playoffs themselves are at stake.

 

-----signature-----

I don't think teams have a right to complain because they didn't make the playoffs... that's their own fault for not winning enough games to control that. Especially the Texans... they got some help from the Patriots in their last game anyway.

 

-----signature-----

So if the Colts had played backups from the beginning it would have been better? More fair? Had more integrity? That makes even less sense. That would have just made the game that much easier for the Jets to win.

But about the backups and competitive balance- they're still NFL players, and at least they're trying. If somebody intentionally throws an interception, or something, that might be a different thing. But if we have to worry about the integrity of the game when teams that have clinched play backups who are trying hard, but are just not as good as the other team, what about teams who have no playoff hopes? When they're playing their starters, but the starters don't give a damn and phone the game in, what then? Do we have to offer them incentives to not alligator arm a ball thrown over the middle? After all, their games can matter just as much to a team awaiting a particular outcome.

Taken from an Ask vic column today:


"How could the NFL possibly regulate something as gray as how hard a team tries to win a game? Could they make rules about how long starters would have to play and when they could or could not be subbed in or out?


Vic: Tanking a game is like pornography: You’ll know it when you see it and I think we all know what we saw a couple of weeks ago. As I said, I have no problem with a team resting its starters, but playing them for three quarters isn’t resting them. What the league has to avoid is the perception of an in-game manipulation of the playoff seeding. In other words, reacting to the scoreboard. How do you regulate that? By fining and taking away draft picks. Hit a team with a $2 million fine or take away a second-round pick and watch how fast it stops"


This is the kind of opinions I am hearing. The perception of some people is that Indy saw how the playoff teams were doing thus far, figured out the playing scenarios if they won and lost and decided to sit their starters to manipulate the playoff field. Not saying I agree with this, but it is very much a possiblity. If they did in fact do this, it should not be allowed.

 

-----signature-----