Seeing two teams lay down (1 Viewer)

[Chase Stuart]

GB and Arizona are locked into playing each other next week, unless there's a tie. Now I don't think that's particularly interesting to either team, but it's not difficult to imagine a scenario where:

Team A gets a bye with a win/tie; the #3 seed with a loss

Team B gets in the playoffs with a win/tie; is out with a loss.

Could you ever see two teams play for a tie? Would the league allow it? Would it be enforceable (i.e., what would stop one team from throwing a 80 yard TD when they were pretending to do nothing)?

I doubt this will ever happen, but I suppose it's possible that a tie could end being beneficial to both teams during the last weekend of the season.

 

[dickey moe]

Sometimes I think stats are your crack cocaine.

 

[Islander]

Coaches colluding for this might be suspended for the rest of the year.

 

[SSOG]

GB and Arizona are locked into playing each other next week, unless there's a tie. Now I don't think that's particularly interesting to either team, but it's not difficult to imagine a scenario where:Team A gets a bye with a win/tie; the #3 seed with a lossTeam B gets in the playoffs with a win/tie; is out with a loss.Could you ever see two teams play for a tie? Would the league allow it? Would it be enforceable (i.e., what would stop one team from throwing a 80 yard TD when they were pretending to do nothing)?I doubt this will ever happen, but I suppose it's possible that a tie could end being beneficial to both teams during the last weekend of the season.

Personally, I think coaches are too paranoid a lot to ever do something like this. Both coaches would be too afraid that the other coach was going to try something. Plus, I don't know of a fool-proof way to ensure a tie other than calling nothing but kneel-downs, which might be a little bit suspicious.Also, don't forget about the NFL-as-a-business standpoint. As much as fans pay to go to games these days, a stunt like that would DESTROY all fan goodwill. I can't even imagine what kind of impact on the bottom line of the individual teams as well as the league as a whole.

 

[gianmarco]

Green Bay didn't get the memo.

 

[LadyBeBop]

Chase, such a scenerio in which a last-week-of-the-season tie would have benefited both teams has happened.

1982...the strike-affected year in which 8 teams from each conference made the playoffs. A tie between New England and Buffalo in the last game would have sent both teams to the playoffs.

Due to the strike, only nine games were played that season. Going into the last week of the season, New England, Cleveland and Buffalo were all 4-4 and battling for the last two playoff spots. Cleveland played an early game against Pittsburgh and lost (ending the regular season at 4-5). New England and Buffalo played a later game with the winner advancing to the playoffs and the loser going home (Cleveland had the tiebreaker advantage based on better conference record).

Unless NE and Buffalo tied. That would send both of them to the playoffs with a 4-4-1 record and sending Cleveland home.

IIRC, there was a tie in that game somewhere in the 3rd quarter. But there was a missed extra point somewhere, and a safety late in the game. Both teams played to win, and New England eventually won 30-19.

 

[Bri]

Sometimes I think stats are your crack cocaine.

 

[DropKick]

GB and Arizona are locked into playing each other next week, unless there's a tie. Now I don't think that's particularly interesting to either team, but it's not difficult to imagine a scenario where:Team A gets a bye with a win/tie; the #3 seed with a lossTeam B gets in the playoffs with a win/tie; is out with a loss.Could you ever see two teams play for a tie? Would the league allow it? Would it be enforceable (i.e., what would stop one team from throwing a 80 yard TD when they were pretending to do nothing)?I doubt this will ever happen, but I suppose it's possible that a tie could end being beneficial to both teams during the last weekend of the season.

Interesting to hear that this occurred in a strike shortened season.Plenty of precedent for teams going less than 100% during their last game. But to actually coordinate a tie would cross the line into obvious collusion. And we know what everyone thinks about collusion.

 

[Jimmy James]

I think there is only a danger of this in the event that there is a big disincentive to winning for both teams. For instance:

Houston and New England play in the last week

If New England wins or ties, they're in the playoffs. If they lose, they're out

If Houston ties, they're in the playoffs. They are out with either a win or a loss (is this even possible?)

If Houston does not get the last spot, the New York Jets get in the playoffs -- the Jets also really have the number of the Patriots this hypothetical season

In that sort of scenario, perhaps a tie is so palatable to both teams that they play a collaborative sort of football. They don't collude in that there is no contact between the teams or coaches, but it becomes obvious that each team is working toward the tie.

I see nothing wrong with that. I know there would be a lot of fan whining, but I think this would be every bit as valid a strategy as sitting your best players for a long term benefit. I think the league would tear the teams apart looking for evidence of collusion but would do nothing once collusion was eliminated as a possibility.

 

[SSOG]

I see nothing wrong with that. I know there would be a lot of fan whining, but I think this would be every bit as valid a strategy as sitting your best players for a long term benefit. I think the league would tear the teams apart looking for evidence of collusion but would do nothing once collusion was eliminated as a possibility.

It's a valid strategy from an Xs and Os, football as an abstract concept, purely game theory perspective. It's not at all a valid strategy from an "NFL as a business with billions of dollars a year in expenses" standpoint.Edit: To make myself more clear, whether the league punished the teams involved is irrelevant. The second that an owner realized his coach was intentionally playing for a tie, he'd call down to the sidelines, fire the coach, and promote the highest-ranking assistant willing to go for a win.

 

[PolishNorbi]

I see nothing wrong with that. I know there would be a lot of fan whining, but I think this would be every bit as valid a strategy as sitting your best players for a long term benefit. I think the league would tear the teams apart looking for evidence of collusion but would do nothing once collusion was eliminated as a possibility.

It's a valid strategy from an Xs and Os, football as an abstract concept, purely game theory perspective. It's not at all a valid strategy from an "NFL as a business with billions of dollars a year in expenses" standpoint.Edit: To make myself more clear, whether the league punished the teams involved is irrelevant. The second that an owner realized his coach was intentionally playing for a tie, he'd call down to the sidelines, fire the coach, and promote the highest-ranking assistant willing to go for a win.

So you are saying both owners would have to be in on it?In soccer, I had come close to trying to blow a game. This was true in our league:Team A (my team) beats B - 75% of the time. A beats C - 90% of the timeA beats D - 5% of the timeB beats D - 80% of the time.If we would have won the last game of the season, we would play D. If we lose, B plays D and we play C. So statistically our best option was to lose and let B beat D and then beat B.

 

[SSOG]

I see nothing wrong with that. I know there would be a lot of fan whining, but I think this would be every bit as valid a strategy as sitting your best players for a long term benefit. I think the league would tear the teams apart looking for evidence of collusion but would do nothing once collusion was eliminated as a possibility.

It's a valid strategy from an Xs and Os, football as an abstract concept, purely game theory perspective. It's not at all a valid strategy from an "NFL as a business with billions of dollars a year in expenses" standpoint.Edit: To make myself more clear, whether the league punished the teams involved is irrelevant. The second that an owner realized his coach was intentionally playing for a tie, he'd call down to the sidelines, fire the coach, and promote the highest-ranking assistant willing to go for a win.

So you are saying both owners would have to be in on it?In soccer, I had come close to trying to blow a game. This was true in our league:Team A (my team) beats B - 75% of the time. A beats C - 90% of the timeA beats D - 5% of the timeB beats D - 80% of the time.If we would have won the last game of the season, we would play D. If we lose, B plays D and we play C. So statistically our best option was to lose and let B beat D and then beat B.

Cool. Did the players on your soccer team make over a hundred million dollars that season in salary? Was that salary funded in large part by fans who shelled out anywhere from $50 to $300 a pop (plus parking and concessions) to see you "compete", or from networks and sponsors who paid billions of dollars in order to air quality competition? Did you care so much about advancing in the playoffs that you would have given up untold millions of dollars out of your own pocket in order to give yourself the best statistical likelihood of advancing? Would you make that same decision knowing that, in addition to the $100+ million you're already on the hook for next year and the uncertainty of your main revenue stream, you'd have to deal with the wrath of the league and other possible unforseen sanctions or consequences?No owner would ever allow his team to play an entire 60 minute game cooperating with the other team in order to ensure a tie. Now, if the score is tied with 2 minutes left in overtime he might look the other way if his team simply let the clock expire without trying to score, but to play a game from the very beginning without ever making any effort to win? That's the same thing as rigging a game. Fans pay what they pay under the assumption that they are getting a competition, not a scripted WWF-style farce.What do you think the fan reaction would be if an NFL game ever consisted of nothing but kneel-downs and punts (which were always fair caught)? Since it's part of the entertainment industry, the NFL is a slave to its fans.

 

[Jimmy James]

A tie of this sort would not have to be devoid of entertainment value. It wouldn't have to be kneel downs and punts (why even punt if you're just kneeling and so is the other team?).

You'd just need to make sure all the players knew they couldn't score in OT, lest some Donovan McNabb ruin it.

I really don't see how this would necessarily incur any more wrath than benching all the best players.

 

[SSOG]

A tie of this sort would not have to be devoid of entertainment value. It wouldn't have to be kneel downs and punts (why even punt if you're just kneeling and so is the other team?). You'd just need to make sure all the players knew they couldn't score in OT, lest some Donovan McNabb ruin it.I really don't see how this would necessarily incur any more wrath than benching all the best players.

If you bench all the best players, it's still football, just lower quality. An NFL game using nothing but backups is still higher-quality football than a college game (since those NFL backups are former college all-stars). It's still football- block, tackle, run, pass, touchdown, field goal, etc. On the other hand, intentionally playing for a tie would be the most boring thing ever. It's not a game, it's a scripted event. There's no sense of suspense or drama, there's nothing to anticipate. It'd be like watching a rigged NBA game, except knowing ahead of time (or, at least, within the first 2 minutes) that the game was rigged and what the outcome would be.

 

[FUBAR]

A tie of this sort would not have to be devoid of entertainment value. It wouldn't have to be kneel downs and punts (why even punt if you're just kneeling and so is the other team?). You'd just need to make sure all the players knew they couldn't score in OT, lest some Donovan McNabb ruin it.I really don't see how this would necessarily incur any more wrath than benching all the best players.

If you bench all the best players, it's still football, just lower quality. An NFL game using nothing but backups is still higher-quality football than a college game (since those NFL backups are former college all-stars). It's still football- block, tackle, run, pass, touchdown, field goal, etc. On the other hand, intentionally playing for a tie would be the most boring thing ever. It's not a game, it's a scripted event. There's no sense of suspense or drama, there's nothing to anticipate. It'd be like watching a rigged NBA game, except knowing ahead of time (or, at least, within the first 2 minutes) that the game was rigged and what the outcome would be.

Yet, Pro-wrestling is one of the highest grossing "sports".

 

[FUBAR]

GB and Arizona are locked into playing each other next week, unless there's a tie. Now I don't think that's particularly interesting to either team, but it's not difficult to imagine a scenario where:

Team A gets a bye with a win/tie; the #3 seed with a loss

Team B gets in the playoffs with a win/tie; is out with a loss.

Could you ever see two teams play for a tie? Would the league allow it? Would it be enforceable (i.e., what would stop one team from throwing a 80 yard TD when they were pretending to do nothing)?

I doubt this will ever happen, but I suppose it's possible that a tie could end being beneficial to both teams during the last weekend of the season.

How would you enforce it? Go to the commish and complain?

 

[Fallerjw]

You have to do what's best for your team, right? That's the argument I hear about benching your starters. If you can guarantee that you'll gain an advantage by agreeing to the tie, why wouldn't you do it?

 

[Fallerjw]

I see nothing wrong with that. I know there would be a lot of fan whining, but I think this would be every bit as valid a strategy as sitting your best players for a long term benefit. I think the league would tear the teams apart looking for evidence of collusion but would do nothing once collusion was eliminated as a possibility.

It's a valid strategy from an Xs and Os, football as an abstract concept, purely game theory perspective. It's not at all a valid strategy from an "NFL as a business with billions of dollars a year in expenses" standpoint.Edit: To make myself more clear, whether the league punished the teams involved is irrelevant. The second that an owner realized his coach was intentionally playing for a tie, he'd call down to the sidelines, fire the coach, and promote the highest-ranking assistant willing to go for a win.

So you are saying both owners would have to be in on it?In soccer, I had come close to trying to blow a game. This was true in our league:

Team A (my team) beats B - 75% of the time.

A beats C - 90% of the time

A beats D - 5% of the time

B beats D - 80% of the time.

If we would have won the last game of the season, we would play D. If we lose, B plays D and we play C. So statistically our best option was to lose and let B beat D and then beat B.

Cool. Did the players on your soccer team make over a hundred million dollars that season in salary? Was that salary funded in large part by fans who shelled out anywhere from $50 to $300 a pop (plus parking and concessions) to see you "compete", or from networks and sponsors who paid billions of dollars in order to air quality competition? Did you care so much about advancing in the playoffs that you would have given up untold millions of dollars out of your own pocket in order to give yourself the best statistical likelihood of advancing? Would you make that same decision knowing that, in addition to the $100+ million you're already on the hook for next year and the uncertainty of your main revenue stream, you'd have to deal with the wrath of the league and other possible unforseen sanctions or consequences?No owner would ever allow his team to play an entire 60 minute game cooperating with the other team in order to ensure a tie. Now, if the score is tied with 2 minutes left in overtime he might look the other way if his team simply let the clock expire without trying to score, but to play a game from the very beginning without ever making any effort to win? That's the same thing as rigging a game. Fans pay what they pay under the assumption that they are getting a competition, not a scripted WWF-style farce.

What do you think the fan reaction would be if an NFL game ever consisted of nothing but kneel-downs and punts (which were always fair caught)? Since it's part of the entertainment industry, the NFL is a slave to its fans.

I don't see how this is different than going to watch your home town 14-0 team try to accomplish a perfect regular season, and have to sit through the abomination they've sent on the field that past 2 weeks.

 

[SSOG]

A tie of this sort would not have to be devoid of entertainment value. It wouldn't have to be kneel downs and punts (why even punt if you're just kneeling and so is the other team?). You'd just need to make sure all the players knew they couldn't score in OT, lest some Donovan McNabb ruin it.I really don't see how this would necessarily incur any more wrath than benching all the best players.

If you bench all the best players, it's still football, just lower quality. An NFL game using nothing but backups is still higher-quality football than a college game (since those NFL backups are former college all-stars). It's still football- block, tackle, run, pass, touchdown, field goal, etc. On the other hand, intentionally playing for a tie would be the most boring thing ever. It's not a game, it's a scripted event. There's no sense of suspense or drama, there's nothing to anticipate. It'd be like watching a rigged NBA game, except knowing ahead of time (or, at least, within the first 2 minutes) that the game was rigged and what the outcome would be.

Yet, Pro-wrestling is one of the highest grossing "sports".

It's not a sport, it's a spectacle. It's a show. "CATS" grossed a ton of money, too, yet I think most football fans would be upset if they paid for a football game and were instead treated to CATS.

 

[SSOG]

I don't see how this is different than going to watch your home town 14-0 team try to accomplish a perfect regular season, and have to sit through the abomination they've sent on the field that past 2 weeks.

The difference is that one is a foregone conclusion, while the other is not. Yes, it sucks that Curtis Painter cost you a victory, but you didn't know 2 minutes into the game that he was going to do so. You didn't even know with 5 minutes left in the game whether they'd pull it out or not. Remember when Pittsburgh went 14-1 through 15 games, rested its starters in game 16, and still crushed a Buffalo team that needed a win to make the playoffs? Putting in the backups is still football, it's still a contest whose outcome is not yet decided. Intentionally playing for a tie is not football, it is a scripted dance between two teams whose outcome was decided long before the ball was ever kicked off.

 

[Jimmy James]

I don't see how this is different than going to watch your home town 14-0 team try to accomplish a perfect regular season, and have to sit through the abomination they've sent on the field that past 2 weeks.

The difference is that one is a foregone conclusion, while the other is not.

It's not a foregone conclusion. There would be excitement in seeing if two teams could actually execute it. It's not scripted. Scripted would equate to collusion.

 

[Fallerjw]

I don't see how this is different than going to watch your home town 14-0 team try to accomplish a perfect regular season, and have to sit through the abomination they've sent on the field that past 2 weeks.

The difference is that one is a foregone conclusion, while the other is not. Yes, it sucks that Curtis Painter cost you a victory, but you didn't know 2 minutes into the game that he was going to do so. You didn't even know with 5 minutes left in the game whether they'd pull it out or not. Remember when Pittsburgh went 14-1 through 15 games, rested its starters in game 16, and still crushed a Buffalo team that needed a win to make the playoffs? Putting in the backups is still football, it's still a contest whose outcome is not yet decided. Intentionally playing for a tie is not football, it is a scripted dance between two teams whose outcome was decided long before the ball was ever kicked off.

The players on the field might be trying to win the game, but the organization isn't doing what they need to do to win the game. Could Curtis Painter win a game? Sure Will he? It sure doesn't seem like it.

 

[Fallerjw]

I don't see how this is different than going to watch your home town 14-0 team try to accomplish a perfect regular season, and have to sit through the abomination they've sent on the field that past 2 weeks.

The difference is that one is a foregone conclusion, while the other is not.

It's not a foregone conclusion. There would be excitement in seeing if two teams could actually execute it. It's not scripted. Scripted would equate to collusion.

 

[DropKick]

Edit: To make myself more clear, whether the league punished the teams involved is irrelevant. The second that an owner realized his coach was intentionally playing for a tie, he'd call down to the sidelines, fire the coach, and promote the highest-ranking assistant willing to go for a win.

I think you're overlooking the fact that a tie is good for the team in question. Would the owner really react that way?Although not a perfect analogy, this thread is bringing back flashbacks of the college basketball days when they ran the four corner stall and simply tried to keep the ball away from the other team the whole game. I once saw a team keep the ball for more than 10 minutes. Hello Shot clock! Or the World Cup game when the team felt its best chance was to win in penalty kicks. They spent 90 minutes plus the OT playing for a zero-zero tie. Funny thing is the European fans didn't care - the end justified the means in their eyes.Just another reason soccer is what it is in the country.

 

[Sam Quentin]

something similar occirred to me during the MNF game with the Vikes and Bears.

Vikes only needed to tie to clinch the 2 seed. As the game went into OT, if the clock had started to wind down, I wondered if the Vikings might try to run the clock rather than scoring.

 

[Lord Lucan]

Here's perhaps the most infamous example in sporting history of two teams laying down in the same game:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/West_Germany_v_Austria_(1982)

 

[Lord Fantasy]

"Should I tackle you now or let you run for a few more yards?"

"Here's fine."

"Really? Because I could let you go for a few more yards to make it look good."

"Thanks, dude, but we're already kinda getting into field goal range."

"Your quarterback could throw the ball out of bounds a few times."

"I know, but I'd rather just take care of it now. Just tackle me now."

"You sure? The problem is that I really respect you as a player and a competitor and I don't want to make you look like a ##### or anything."

"I appreciate that. But this 0-0 tie is best for everyone so let's get it over with. Tackle me right here, right now."

"You absolutely 100% sure?"

"Just @#$% tackle me already."

"You're the boss."

[Tackles player.]

 

[Leroy Hoard]

I don't see how anything could go wrong.