What's new
Fantasy Football - Footballguys Forums

Welcome to Our Forums. Once you've registered and logged in, you're primed to talk football, among other topics, with the sharpest and most experienced fantasy players on the internet.

Playoff Scenario - What would you do? (1 Viewer)

Gally said:
In this specific scenario I am torn.  I haven't really thought about it from all angles but I think in general under these circumstances it is so unique I think I might be fine with it.  

It is easily prevented by having the Colts and Raiders/Chargers play at the same time so there is a way to prevent the knowingly playing to a tie scenario.   I suppose that is the solution that should be implemented.  
Click to expand...
It was set up that way until they decided to flex it.....they created their own potential problem....they could have left it damn well alone but want to be greedy and try to make the SNF game relevant....

 
Last edited by a moderator:
Pretend you are at your job and your boss comes to you and one of your coworkers of equal status and says...hey if you guys work together on this report and turn it in, you both get a raise.....but if you work on it separately, the first one that turns it in gets a raise and the other doesn’t....what would you do....?

 
Last edited by a moderator:
As HCs how would you actually do this?

return each kick to the opp 48 and kneel all the way until the final whistle? Avoiding punts or parts of the field where a last min FG could be attempted 

 
Gally said:
In this specific scenario I am torn.  I haven't really thought about it from all angles but I think in general under these circumstances it is so unique I think I might be fine with it.  

It is easily prevented by having the Colts and Raiders/Chargers play at the same time so there is a way to prevent the knowingly playing to a tie scenario.   I suppose that is the solution that should be implemented.  
Click to expand...
If they think it through - and they don’t always- that would be the smartest thing to  do.

 
They either need to move this game back to where it was or do a SNF DH and also flex the Colts-Jax game...

 
Last edited by a moderator:
Thing is....it also may open up any questionable calls in the Indy-JAC game for debate....especially if it is close....you gotta think Rog and the crew want to make sure INDY wins....

 
Cjw_55106 said:
Yes, I realize fantasy football is not the same thing. That said, if a team in my league let another team win in week 14 to make the playoffs and said that it was mutually beneficial because he gets in the playoffs and I get a better draft pick, I would not stand for that for one second. I think as an organization, the NFL simply cannot let teams even begin to entertain a scenario like this. To be honest, I don’t either team has even considered it. 
Click to expand...
Not the same.

And to be honest, if WE are talking about it you better believe THEY have thought about it.

 
It would be a nice F All U to the rest of the league from the nixed Carson stadium deal for the LA Raiders n Chargers.

at least st Louis stung the Kringle/ the league a nice chunk of money 

 
Stinkin Ref said:
Guarantee you the NFL knew this cold happen when they decided to flex the game.....thats reality....so yeah they did put themselves in this position and “made” it happen....if they left things alone its not an issue....
Click to expand...
I don't think the NFL thought (rightfully so) there was any chance the Colts would lose to the Jags.

 
If Jax beats Indy, they should do a secret deal where they give every player on the winning Sunday Night team $10,000 or something.

 
Since they're division rivals, I'm picturing the clock winding down in OT and one team saying Eff It and throwing a bomb as time expires. 

 
  • Love
Reactions: Ned
Deamon said:
I don't think the NFL thought (rightfully so) there was any chance the Colts would lose to the Jags.
Click to expand...
it doesn't matter....you don't roll the dice....

but lets go with what you just said....and expand...the NFL prides itself and tries to sell itself on "competitive balance" and "any given Sunday"....and it actually plays out sometimes in the "upsets" we have seen this year and in the past.....heck they increase the number of playoff teams to try to double down on it....them putting themselves in this possible "predicament" ....is them now basically saying we are banking on the opposite of what we have taken pride in....

 
Stinkin Ref said:
it doesn't matter....you don't roll the dice....

but lets go with what you just said....and expand...the NFL prides itself and tries to sell itself on "competitive balance" and "any given Sunday"....and it actually plays out sometimes in the "upsets" we have seen this year and in the past.....heck they increase the number of playoff teams to try to double down on it....them putting themselves in this possible "predicament" ....is them now basically saying we are banking on the opposite of what we have taken pride in....
Click to expand...
I agree with you it could be an issue.  Likely not, but possible.

So do you think this is just an oversight by the NFL?
Or is this them getting cocky that the Jags won't win?

 
I really hope the Jags see this as a slap in the face and win this game.....it will make the pregame lead up and Al and Chris's dodging of the issue leading up to kickoff something of epic proportions.....

NFL: hey Al and Chris....please dont mention what a tie does for these two teams tonight ok.....cool....

 
Deamon said:
I agree with you it could be an issue.  Likely not, but possible.

So do you think this is just an oversight by the NFL?
Or is this them getting cocky that the Jags won't win?
Click to expand...
basically follow the money.......period....and wanting a high stakes "must watch" SNF for them and their advertisers.....and this was the only option....(while at the same time saying JAC sucks and please forget for a moment about our pride in competitive balance and any given Sunday).....and why there should be a ton of eyes on the IND-JAC game and how that "plays out"....

I am normally one totally against conspiracy theories and the league dictating to officials how a game should play out.....but the league has now hightened the awareness of how things shake out in that IND-JAC should it end up being close.....

how would you feel if you were involved in any way with the JAC organization....owner, coach, player, etc....they are basically saying....we are 100% sure you aren't going to win this game....

 
Last edited by a moderator:
Stinkin Ref said:
basically follow the money.......period....and wanting a high stakes "must watch" SNF for them and their advertisers.....and this was the only option....(while at the same time saying JAC sucks and please forget for a moment about our pride in competitive balance and any given Sunday).....and why there should be a ton of eyes on the IND-JAC game and how that "plays out"....

I am normally one totally against conspiracy theories and the league dictating to officials how a game should play out.....but the league has now hightened the awareness of how things hake out in that IND-JAC should it end up being close.....

how would you feel if you were involved in any way with the JAC organization....owner, coach, player, etc....they are basically saying....we are 100% sure you aren't going to win this game....
Click to expand...
Ya I thought there was a "rule" that the last SNF game HAD to have playoff implications?

 
Deamon said:
Ya I thought there was a "rule" that the last SNF game HAD to have playoff implications?
Click to expand...
it actually used to be that there was no Sunday night game for this very reason....they played all the meaningful games at the same time on Sunday so all things were equal for everybody....

 
For $$$$$$$$......the NFL and NBC committed to a meaningful SNF game in week 18 a loooooong time ago....especially to their sponsors, etc.....they aren’t going to have a meaningless SNF game right?....but they were banking on having a “clean” matchup....there is a chance they get caught here if JAC wins...I honestly hope it happens...

 
A quick refresher on the history of the final-week SNF game:

Back in the '08-'09 range, the SNF matchup, which had been set at the beginning of the season, was Jets-Bengals. Jets needed to win to get in, Bengals were locked into their playoff spot (and also knew that if they lost they would play the Jets again in the first round). Cinci rested their starters, the game was a snoozefest, and Jets won to clinch (and then went on to beat them again the following week).

After that, the NFL revamped the Week 17 schedule where all games were divisional, and any game could be flexed to SNF. For the next decade or so, that seemed to work pretty well. There were some good showdowns, even if a couple of the games were situations where both teams had clinched a playoff spot and were playing for the divisional title.

Then a few years ago, there were no straightforward do-or-die matchups in Week 17, so the league just didn't have an SNF game. Maybe that lost them a lot of money or NBC told them it couldn't happen again, but for whatever reason, when there was a similar situation last year they scheduled WFT-Eagles even though Philly was already eliminated, with predictable results: Philly pulled Hurts in a competitive game and handed Washington the NFC East title.

My guess is that this year, they could have forgone the SNF game to avoid even the possibility of a snoozefest, but they gambled that the most likely scenario would be that it's a win-and-in game, and they'll be keeping their fingers crossed until the final whistle of Colts-Jags.

 
The other team this could affect is the Steelers.  If the Colts lose and the Raiders/Chargers finish in a non-tie then the Steelers are in.  So if the Colts lose the Steelers may try and pay off one of the SNF teams to make them try.  For that alone the Raiders/Chargers should agree to tie.  

 
ghostguy123 said:
Then their million page rule book should not allow for such a situation.  

If that is in fact a real situation, yes both teams should find out if there would be ramifications and absolutely do it if there is no penalty.
Click to expand...
I guarantee that if this occurred, Goodell would ban both teams from the post-season "for the integrity of the game"

 
nysfl2 said:
I guarantee that if this occurred, Goodell would ban both teams from the post-season "for the integrity of the game"
Click to expand...
I am still not sure that "integrity of the game"  is really the correct term.  Both teams would be doing what is guaranteeing them a playoff spot. That is in the best interest of their franchises to make the playoffs as a guarantee.  It's not the same as tanking for a better draft pick that may or may not really help them and is over the course of multiple games affecting the entirety of the league.   This helps them immediately and really only hurts the Colts (who by winning avoids this anyway) and the Steelers (only if they win and the Colts lose)

 
Gally said:
The other team this could affect is the Steelers.  If the Colts lose and the Raiders/Chargers finish in a non-tie then the Steelers are in.  So if the Colts lose the Steelers may try and pay off one of the SNF teams to make them try.  For that alone the Raiders/Chargers should agree to tie.  
Click to expand...
You think the Steelers would try and bribe one of the teams to play hard? 

 
Stinkin Ref is actually right here. The first thing I thought of was money and its role in this. Just follow where the money leads. 

Thing is, they had to know this was a possibility. Nobody falls asleep at the wheel that badly in the NFL. Or do they? My question sort of is: How did they think that Vegas and the sports betting public at large wouldn't figure this out?

To answer the question, though: If I'm the Raiders and the Chargers, I take the knee hoping that one team doesn't play a Prisoner's Dilemma-esque move and take shots during their last drive. 

 
ChiefD said:
It will never happen but I would love to see it.  

3 hours of Sunday Night Football where both teams kneel on the ball the whole time. Collinsworth might literally explode on live television.
Click to expand...
Or they decide to shatter single game stats records and run up the score 132-132.  All TDs, no PATs. 

 
Cjw_55106 said:
It’s called collusion. If you have no issues with it, good for you
Click to expand...


I totally don't see this as collusion. Collusion is by definition a secret agreement to break rules, etc. with an implied victim(s). This is not that. There would be no rules broken. There are no actual victims.

 
Gally said:
I am still not sure that "integrity of the game"  is really the correct term.  Both teams would be doing what is guaranteeing them a playoff spot. That is in the best interest of their franchises to make the playoffs as a guarantee. 
Click to expand...


Agreed. It's really not that different from a team resting their best players in the last week, essentially throwing that game, which obviously has repercussions for other teams.

 
Grigs Allmoon said:
I totally don't see this as collusion. Collusion is by definition a secret agreement to break rules, etc. with an implied victim(s). This is not that. There would be no rules broken. There are no actual victims.
Click to expand...
Wouldn't the team that gets left out of the playoffs due to the Raiders/Chargers agreeing to tie be a victim?

 
Dr. Octopus said:
Wouldn't the team that gets left out of the playoffs due to the Raiders/Chargers agreeing to tie be a victim?
Click to expand...


Of circumstance. The Chargers/Raiders wouldn't be doing this to spite the Steelers, just looking out for their own best interests. No different than a team that misses out due to another team resting starters, and giving away a win. JMO...

 
Last edited by a moderator:
Grigs Allmoon said:
Of circumstance. The Chargers/Raiders wouldn't be doing this to spite the Steelers, just looking out for their own best interests. No different than a team that misses out due to another team resting starters, and giving away a win. JMO...
Click to expand...
A team resting starters is still trying to win on the field (while protecting their best interest) - this would be an actual agreement between the two teams not to try and win (in essence taking advantage of the circumstances) - and the Steelers would be victims of this "collusion" whether they are the intended target or not. 

 
Last edited by a moderator:
Dr. Octopus said:
Wouldn't the team that gets left out of the playoffs due to the Raiders/Chargers agreeing to tie be a victim?
Click to expand...
That team should have won more games (or not tied the Lions) and not put themselves in the position where other teams control their destiny...in no way are they a victim....the rules and tie breakers, etc are known before hand....you cant play the victim card....

 
Dr. Octopus said:
A team resting starters is still trying to win on the field (while protecting their best interest) - this would be an actual agreement between the two teams not to try and win (in essence taking advantage of the circumstances) - and the Steelers would be victims of this "collusion" whether they are the intended target or not. 
Click to expand...


Ok, what if both teams decided to not only rest their starters, but also preserve the health of their backups by only kneeling down.

Obviously this is a hair-splitting scenario, but like a lot of folks have said, if you make it this far, and are still in contention, you've earned the right to set your self up for the post season any way you see fit. IMO

 
Grigs Allmoon said:
Ok, what if both teams decided to not only rest their starters, but also preserve the health of their backups by only kneeling down.

Obviously this is a hair-splitting scenario, but like a lot of folks have said, if you make it this far, and are still in contention, you've earned the right to set your self up for the post season any way you see fit. IMO
Click to expand...
Its not splitting hairs. Its presenting one ridiculous argument and comparing it to a rational one. 

 
After thinking s little more....the only real leg the Steelers would have to stand on as far as being a “victim”....is that if the NFL didn’t flex this game, LAC-and LVR probably would have played full speed to win throughout the entirety of the game as they would be playing at the same time as the IND-JAC and wouldn’t necessarily “know” the outcome.....now the NFL brought this “option” into play for LVR and LAC should IND lose....I could see an argument to say thats not quite “fair” to the Steelers....

 
Last edited by a moderator:
Stinkin Ref said:
After thinking s little more....the only real leg the Steelers would have to stand on as far as being a “victim”....is that if the NFL didn’t flex this game......LAC-and LVR probably would have played full speed to win throughout the entirety of the game as they would be playing at the same time as the IND-JAC and wouldn’t necessarily “know” the outcome.....now the NFL brought this “option” into play for LVR and LAC should IND lose....I could see an argument to say thats not quite “fair” to the Steelers....
Click to expand...
I totally agree with that - 100%.

The bummer is that I can also see how it would be reasonably fair for them to not look into all the tie-breaker scenarios before deciding to chase the $$$ of an optimal prime-time game.

 
I love how people are upset with the NFL for trying to put the most meaningful games on prime time TV. You just can’t make this stuff up

 
Cjw_55106 said:
I love how people are upset with the NFL for trying to put the most meaningful games on prime time TV. You just can’t make this stuff up
Click to expand...
This thread really has nothing to do with that....everybody gets what they are trying to accomplish and it will in all likelihood work out for them.....the core of this thread is that the NFL potentially put two teams in a position where not winning or losing the game is beneficial to both teams.....and if IND loses and this game does happen to be close at the end of regulation, it could have an affect on how they play the game out....let alone if it goes into a 10 min overtime....the question is should the NFL have done this?.....IMO, no....this game should have been played at the same time as the JAC-IND game.....wonder what they wold have done if IND was playing what people consider a “tougher” game....I doubt they make this change....and thats also part of the issue...

 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

U
Cleveland Browns road to the number 1 seed!
Replies
8
Views
743
Gatorman
Gatorman
Ministry of Pain
Jim Harbaugh vs Patrick Mahomes or How the West was Won
Replies
0
Views
140
Ministry of Pain
Ministry of Pain
D
If you are eliminated from the playoffs with a regular season game to go, would you still pick up players?
2
Replies
71
Views
3K
Neil Beaufort Zod
Neil Beaufort Zod

Users who are viewing this thread

Total: 2 (members: 0, guests: 2)
Top