How does indy's tank job go unanswered??

[disaacks3]

I do know one thing though. If I were an Indianapolis Colts fan who paid for tickets to that game I'd be asking for my money back. The Colts just gave away a game and that's fine if they've "earned the right to do that" but they don't have the right to sell me a ticket to a sporting event they intend to throw by sitting all of their best players. I'd be looking for a lawyer if the team refused my request for a refund.

Maybe they have some poster called "Coltsfight" who's working on the case right now.

I'm with your PoV on this 100%. I understand the "big picture" very clearly, but if you aren't informing the fans of your 'attitude' regarding this BEFORE they show up, then who is fooling whom? Gee, the Colts wouldn't intentionally NOT disclose that information to have a lesser showing at the game for all their vendors, etc. would they?

Yes, it's a minor thing to get knickers-in-a-twist about, but there is a HUGE gambling establishment that would have altered all the lines accordingly had they known in advance...or did they?

 

[Texecutioner]

I'm with your PoV on this 100%. I understand the "big picture" very clearly, but if you aren't informing the fans of your 'attitude' regarding this BEFORE they show up, then who is fooling whom? Gee, the Colts wouldn't intentionally NOT disclose that information to have a lesser showing at the game for all their vendors, etc. would they?

Yes, it's a minor thing to get knickers-in-a-twist about, but there is a HUGE gambling establishment that would have altered all the lines accordingly had they known in advance...or did they?

This is what I don't get from a lot of you. It was talked about all freaking weak long about how the COlts were most likely going to rest their starters at some point in the game. It was no secret what so ever. I was in the SB on my fantasy team and the guy that I was playing was mad at me because he has two Colts players and he knew that this was going to happen. Hell, he was picking up replacements on the waiver wire all week long and I ribbed him about it as well. He kept a close ear to this all week. It was talked about on ESPN, it was on many websites, it wasn't hard information to find or to be aware about. IT has been stated for weeks that having a perfect season was not that important to them.

 

[Double Barrel]

I'm with your PoV on this 100%. I understand the "big picture" very clearly, but if you aren't informing the fans of your 'attitude' regarding this BEFORE they show up, then who is fooling whom? Gee, the Colts wouldn't intentionally NOT disclose that information to have a lesser showing at the game for all their vendors, etc. would they?

Yes, it's a minor thing to get knickers-in-a-twist about, but there is a HUGE gambling establishment that would have altered all the lines accordingly had they known in advance...or did they?

"Going undefeated during the regular season has never been a goal. I don’t think it will be a goal. That was never a consideration.”
~ Tony Dungy, Night in America, Sunday, December 27, 2009

Source: Like It or Not, Caldwell Sticks to His Plan for Colts

This is what I don't get from a lot of you. It was talked about all freaking weak long about how the COlts were most likely going to rest their starters at some point in the game. It was no secret what so ever. I was in the SB on my fantasy team and the guy that I was playing was mad at me because he has two Colts players and he knew that this was going to happen. Hell, he was picking up replacements on the waiver wire all week long. He kept a close ear to this all week. It was talked about on ESPN, it was on many websites, it wasn't hard information to find or to be aware about. IT has been stated for weeks that having a perfect season was not that important to them.

I don't get it, either. I already knew last week that the Colts were not focusing on chasing history and that they pre-planned to treat the game like a week 3 pre-season game by playing their starters for 2 1/2 quarters. It is strategy that they have decided, and like it or not, they have earned that right.

I can't believe folks are accusing a Manning / Colts team for throwing a game to satisfy the gambling industry. Yeah, we never landed on the moon, either.

 

[Texecutioner]

I don't get it, either. I already knew last week that the Colts were not focusing on chasing history and that they pre-planned to treat the game like a week 3 pre-season game by playing their starters for 2 1/2 quarters. It is strategy that they have decided, and like it or not, they have earned that right.

I can't believe folks are accusing a Manning / Colts team for throwing a game to satisfy the gambling industry. Yeah, we never landed on the moon, either.

Hell they advertised it everywhere last week as to what their intentions were as we've both stated. It seems like no one wanted to listen. Lol!

Hell, at this point I'm mad that I didn't look at the bigger picture and place a bet on the Jets to win that game and cover the spread.

 

[disaacks3]

Sorry guys, but I was aware that it "might" happen, but not that it was pre-ordained to be that way. Judging by the reaction of the majority of the Colts fans at the game, I would say that it might not have been as "common knowledge" as you ascribe it to be.

I threw in the gambling angle for light consideration gents, I'm not part of the "everything is a conspiracy" crowd.

Many people don't like paying full price for Pre-Season games why? Because the team isn't always playing to win, rather than to assess their players. This was a regular-season game that (IMHO) the fans deserved to see their team TRY to win.

 

[Texecutioner]

Sorry guys, but I was aware that it "might" happen, but not that it was pre-ordained to be that way. Judging by the reaction of the majority of the Colts fans at the game, I would say that it might not have been as "common knowledge" as you ascribe it to be.

Well it was talked about all over the place. As I said before I made several moves in my fantasy league because of it so my opponent couldn't pick up certain players in case he wanted to bench his starters on the Colts and I was happy to face Dallas Clark last week because I "expected" him to get sat at some point after all of the information that I read and the sources that I acquired the information from. And any time that a team floats the notion that they "might" sit starters you should prepare for that to be a reality at some point in a game like that.

I threw in the gambling angle for light consideration gents, I'm not part of the "everything is a conspiracy" crowd.

Many people don't like paying full price for Pre-Season games why? Because the team isn't always playing to win, rather than to assess their players. This was a regular-season game that (IMHO) the fans deserved to see their team TRY to win.

Well if those fans are such die hard fans, they should have known this because I hate the Colts and don't try to follow them that much and I didn't have to go out of my way at all to be informed about this. It was common knowledge all around the NFL websites and the news.

 

[Porky]

I think I heard they might pull some starters IF the game was under control or (less likely) losing by a large margin. I never heard this was a no-brainer pre-ordained type situation. Can someone point me to an article from last week that says this?

 

[Mr teX]

We all know and understand the "injury" argument concerning pulling players, but I really do think it's hogwash. If that's their philosophy, then so be it. But I honestly wish someone would look up the all-time playoff records of teams that had a bye and rested their starters at least in the last week of the season (of course, Peyton will start the first series so that his "consecutive starts" streak stays alive...even though the Colts swear they don't care about streaks, right?).

My biggest gripe about pulling the starters is the situation itself. Had they just done it in Buffalo it would have been better understood. But to pull the starters in a situation in which you were barely winning anyways, a game in which Peyton and his receivers were off target quite a bit...I just don't understand.

If the goal is to better prepare your team for the playoffs (in this case "resting their starters"), why wouldn't you want them to to continue to compete against a team that's essentialy playing a playoff game itself? The Jets were desparate that game and wanted it bad. Isn't that how all teams are in the playoffs? Isn't that a great situation to prepare your team for the playoffs?

I just feel that the Colts would have been better prepared by finishing the game with the starters (regardless of whether they win or lose). I know presently that the Colts are 0-4 so far when they rest their starters before a bye week going into the playoffs. They won the Super Bowl fighting for their lives and playing through the Wild Card round. Memory tells me that that very thing is the definition of insanity: doing the same thing over and expecting different results. The one time they won it all they did something different. Why not go back to what worked?

What difference would it have made if they did it in the buffalo game & lost? If anything that would've made it worse b/c it was the last game of the season & you're THAT close.

the whole "taking away their edge" thing is ridiculous. The patriots went wire to wire when they went 16-0 & lost the superbowl so how did playing in meaningless games at the end of the regular season benefit them towards their ultimate goal? The answer is that it didn't.

& How is the injury thing hogwash? You guys are looking at the short term of the injury situation. Manning is your FRANCHISE guy. It's not even about someone intentionally hitting him. As the patriots saw last year and the bengals saw with palmer, all it takes is for someone (teammate or opponent) to fall on his leg accidentally (rex ryan kitchen sink blitz) as he's stepping into a throw and he's sidelined not only for the playoffs this year but probably most of the next year. Then it would take him another year after that just to get back into form.

Adding to all this, there was no surefire guarantee that the colts would've won the game anyway! You just said it yourself, the jets were in desperation mode & had played the colts pretty well up until that point despite being down. How does anyone even know that the colts would've won the game had they left their starters in?

Bottom line is that playing years & superbowl runs are too precious for a team to risk for a goal that pretty much amounts to nothing in the grand scheme of it all.

 

[Yankee_In_TX]

I think all of this dumping on the COlts is ridiculous.

I agree - no one in Houston will cry if Brady sits.

 

[infantrycak]

the whole "taking away their edge" thing is ridiculous. The patriots went wire to wire when they went 16-0 & lost the superbowl so how did playing in meaningless games at the end of the regular season benefit them towards their ultimate goal? The answer is that it didn't.

And the answer is you have no idea it hurt the Patriots when they went 18-0 nor do we know how it affected the Colts to lay off.

& How is the injury thing hogwash? You guys are looking at the short term of the injury situation. Manning is your FRANCHISE guy.

Has Manning ever been injured? The Colts were uniquely well placed to make this run. On the few occasions someone actually gets to him he knows it and drops like a sack of potatoes as demonstrated against the Texans.

Adding to all this, there was no surefire guarantee that the colts would've won the game anyway!

Oh come on. Manning leads that team and they win that game. I understand the counter position of not risking injury but they gave the game away.

 

[TheCD]

What difference would it have made if they did it in the buffalo game & lost? If anything that would've made it worse b/c it was the last game of the season & you're THAT close.

the whole "taking away their edge" thing is ridiculous. The patriots went wire to wire when they went 16-0 & lost the superbowl so how did playing in meaningless games at the end of the regular season benefit them towards their ultimate goal? The answer is that it didn't.

& How is the injury thing hogwash? You guys are looking at the short term of the injury situation. Manning is your FRANCHISE guy. It's not even about someone intentionally hitting him. As the patriots saw last year and the bengals saw with palmer, all it takes is for someone (teammate or opponent) to fall on his leg accidentally (rex ryan kitchen sink blitz) as he's stepping into a throw and he's sidelined not only for the playoffs this year but probably most of the next year. Then it would take him another year after that just to get back into form.

Adding to all this, there was no surefire guarantee that the colts would've won the game anyway! You just said it yourself, the jets were in desperation mode & had played the colts pretty well up until that point despite being down. How does anyone even know that the colts would've won the game had they left their starters in?

Bottom line is that playing years & superbowl runs are too precious for a team to risk for a goal that pretty much amounts to nothing in the grand scheme of it all.

We disagree, I guess. But to do it in the Buffalo game, as I have said, would have been different. The Jets were essentially playing a playoff game and to me that's a great test for your team. You mentioned there was no guaruntee they win anyways...so in my opinion that's a perfect test to see what your team can do in terms of stepping up to the plate in a playoff-like atmosphere. I think because of the situation with the Jets, the entire premise that the game was meaningless is incorrect.

In regards to the Patriots, I think you proved my point. Maybe they didn't win it all, but you can't tell me they weren't playing lights-out football. They didn't rest their starters, and that (in my opinion) is why they played so well. They never once that season took their foot off the pedal. At the very least you have to concede that aided them in getting into the Super Bowl. That's something the Colts have yet to do when they do rest their starters.

Look...I just feel the "injury factor" is a premise based on fear. You drafted Manning to play football. Let him play football and stop treating him like the mother who won't let her kids go out in the backyard without a helmet and 8 inches of bubble wrap surrounding them (Ralphie's little brother in the enormous winter coat from a Christmas Story comes to mind).

I just really get annoyed when Bill Polian comes out and says their goal wasn't to be undefeated, but it was to be the team of the decade. How can the Colts be the team of the decade by simply winning two Super Bowls.

I hate this stupid "consecutive regular season games won" streak. How in the world do you string together two seasons worth of regular seasons and say they're connected? Doesn't EVERY coach say "last season doesn't matter" regardless of how they finished the season/postseason? The ONLY "consecutive regular season games won" can (in my opinion) be strung together in a SINGLE SEASON. So, therefore, you could only presently TIE the record of the '07 Patriots.

However...you COULD string together the most consecutive games won in a season, at 19.

It's out there. It's waiting to be had. THey could have had it. But they were too afraid that Peyton "I never get hurt" Manning was going to get hurt.

Fear. It's a powerful motivator. But in this case it most like has (as in years past) motivated them into sloppy playoff football. Maybe I'll be proven wrong, but history is on my side.

What was that saying about if you don't study history you are doomed to repeat it? Oh well...at least Herm Edwards agrees with me as to why you play the game.

 

[Double Barrel]

What was that saying about if you don't study history you are doomed to repeat it? Oh well...at least Herm Edwards agrees with me as to why you play the game.

You do realize that Herm's team was 2-5 when he said those infamous words?

 

[Corrosion]

I cant fault the Dolts for pulling their starters , they have nothing to play for , their playoff seeding is set. All they have left to accomplish is winning a superbowl.

As for how the Texans were affected by the Jets winning that game - The Texans played the Jets in week one - they could have taken care of their own business. They didnt. Its no one's fault but their own.


The Texans can sing a little Led Zeppelin if they fail to reach the playoffs - Nobody's Fault But Mine

 

[Giant Tiger]

IMO, Caldwell is on the hotseat here. Now the Colts have to win the Super Bowl or he'll be remembered as the coach who threw away a chance at a perfect season. I can't picture Cowher or Parcells caving in to the GM so easily. He better hope Manning plays another 10 years, or he won't be coaching much longer

 

[Blazing Arrow]

The Colts board I chat on now has this as it's main header picture:

If you read threads about the game it seems like they lost a shot at the playoffs. Amazing what one game can do to fans.

 

[WWJD]

Didn't the coach do what he was told by his boss? How exactly does that make him on the hotseat?

Would seem to me it would be the other way around..if he didn't do what he was told.

Lordy the guy is a first year head coach. To me he's done a better job than probably most thought he would do.

I'll take that one loss and all those victories and that home field advantage.

 

[Mr teX]

And the answer is you have no idea it hurt the Patriots when they went 18-0 nor do we know how it affected the Colts to lay off.



Has Manning ever been injured? The Colts were uniquely well placed to make this run. On the few occasions someone actually gets to him he knows it and drops like a sack of potatoes as demonstrated against the Texans.



Oh come on. Manning leads that team and they win that game. I understand the counter position of not risking injury but they gave the game away.

Yes he has been hurt (had his jaw wired shut for a few weeks a few years back) just not enough to sideline him......much like brady up until last year.

But that's beside the point. It wouldn't matter if a Jets player actually lays a finger on him. His own lineman could be the culprit in taking him out & in that regard, how stupid would Caldwell really look getting the guy most responsible for his teams success injured in a meaningless game? Then everyone would be saying the exact thing the colts organization is saying now "their goal shouldn't have been not to go 16-0 etc, etc"

 

[ObsiWan]

Has Manning ever been injured? The Colts were uniquely well placed to make this run. On the few occasions someone actually gets to him he knows it and drops like a sack of potatoes as demonstrated against the Texans.

Was it last year ('08) when Manning had surgery and didn't do T/C and couldn't play any preseason games..?? But I guess that's not like the Brady or Palmer injuries that cost them a season.

 

[Mr teX]

We disagree, I guess. But to do it in the Buffalo game, as I have said, would have been different. The Jets were essentially playing a playoff game and to me that's a great test for your team. You mentioned there was no guaruntee they win anyways...so in my opinion that's a perfect test to see what your team can do in terms of stepping up to the plate in a playoff-like atmosphere. I think because of the situation with the Jets, the entire premise that the game was meaningless is incorrect.

In regards to the Patriots, I think you proved my point. Maybe they didn't win it all, but you can't tell me they weren't playing lights-out football. They didn't rest their starters, and that (in my opinion) is why they played so well. They never once that season took their foot off the pedal. At the very least you have to concede that aided them in getting into the Super Bowl. That's something the Colts have yet to do when they do rest their starters.

Look...I just feel the "injury factor" is a premise based on fear. You drafted Manning to play football. Let him play football and stop treating him like the mother who won't let her kids go out in the backyard without a helmet and 8 inches of bubble wrap surrounding them (Ralphie's little brother in the enormous winter coat from a Christmas Story comes to mind).

I just really get annoyed when Bill Polian comes out and says their goal wasn't to be undefeated, but it was to be the team of the decade. How can the Colts be the team of the decade by simply winning two Super Bowls.

I hate this stupid "consecutive regular season games won" streak. How in the world do you string together two seasons worth of regular seasons and say they're connected? Doesn't EVERY coach say "last season doesn't matter" regardless of how they finished the season/postseason? The ONLY "consecutive regular season games won" can (in my opinion) be strung together in a SINGLE SEASON. So, therefore, you could only presently TIE the record of the '07 Patriots.

However...you COULD string together the most consecutive games won in a season, at 19.

It's out there. It's waiting to be had. THey could have had it. But they were too afraid that Peyton "I never get hurt" Manning was going to get hurt.

Fear. It's a powerful motivator. But in this case it most like has (as in years past) motivated them into sloppy playoff football. Maybe I'll be proven wrong, but history is on my side.

What was that saying about if you don't study history you are doomed to repeat it? Oh well...at least Herm Edwards agrees with me as to why you play the game.

Look, even if they go 16-0, they still have to go the distance in the playoffs to put the finishing touches on the perfect season & there was no guarantee that that was going to happen. Because for 1, most people can't even agree as to whether or not the colts are even be the best team in the AFC given that the chargers have been killing everyone lately & they've beaten the colts 4 out of the last 5 times- twice in the playoffs.

And to my knowledge, i dont think anyone in the colts organization has come out and said they were trying to be the team of the decade; that's all the talking heads at ESPN.

I know if we had a qb of peyton's caliber, i'd be leary of putting him out there in a game like that if there was a chance we could lose him for the stretch run; however small that chance might be.

 

[TheCD]

You do realize that Herm's team was 2-5 when he said those infamous words?

Heh...I never said that he was a spectacular coach. I just said that he gets it.

Look, even if they go 16-0, they still have to go the distance in the playoffs to put the finishing touches on the perfect season & there was no guarantee that that was going to happen. Because for 1, most people can't even agree as to whether or not the colts are even be the best team in the AFC given that the chargers have been killing everyone lately & they've beaten the colts 4 out of the last 5 times- twice in the playoffs.

And to my knowledge, i dont think anyone in the colts organization has come out and said they were trying to be the team of the decade; that's all the talking heads at ESPN.

I know if we had a qb of peyton's caliber, i'd be leary of putting him out there in a game like that if there was a chance we could lose him for the stretch run; however small that chance might be.

I'm a believer in momentum going into the playoffs. The 1st Steelers SB this decade is a good example. I wasn't saying that the Cotls would be guarunteed to win it all by going 16-0, but are you honestly saying you would think a 12-4 team would beat a 16-0 team regularly? I understand it's all speculation, but still.

I just feel that the Colts are in a lose-lose situation now. Had they gone for it and lost, oh well no harm no foul. Now...if they lose in the playoffs they'll be accused and losing steam from pulling their starters (as history has shown they will). If they win it all well that's nice...but they could have been undefeated and done something truly remarkable. Instead, they wanted to be just like everyone else. They wanted to be "normal". I think we'll all agree that with Peyton playing, that team certainly isn't "normal".


You're correct about the hype being put on them about being the team of the decade, I was wrong about that. What Polian did say, however, was:

What was important to us ... after we had wrapped-up the home field advantage was to set two records -- one for the most consecutive regular season games won. We were tied with New England (on 21 wins) and we now hold that record ourselves.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20091230/sp_nm/us_nfl_colts

Why exactly is it important to set a meaningless "consecutive regular season games won over a span of two seasons when coaches always say last season doesn't matter"?

Then there's this little nugget:

"And secondly, for the most games won in this decade. And I don't believe that anybody can catch us now, no matter what happens this week."

But there's only one problem...

Then again, the Colts really haven't won the most games of the decade, if the postseason is included. Sure, they've won 115 regular-season games, three more than the Patriots. But with playoff games included, the Pats have won 126 games, and the Colts have won 122.

Ironically, the Colts had a chance to catch the Patriots for most total wins in the decade by winning the last two games of the regular season and three playoff games, assuming the Pats lose in Week 17 and make a one-game exit from the playoffs. But, apparently, winning the most regular-season games from 2000 through 2009 was sufficiently important to put Peyton Manning at risk, but securing the more accurate barometer of total wins in a ten-year period wasn't.

http://profootballtalk.nbcsports.com/2009/12/30/polian-fails-to-make-the-case-for-not-trying-to-win-on-sunday/


Their comments make no sense. They're contradicting themselves left and right.

 

[GuerillaBlack]

It would only be rigged if some knew the outcome before hand or had inside knowledge that they were definitely going to pull starters from the game. Plus they would have have to have known that the Colts defense would crumble even though they still had starters on that side of the ball and that the Jets wouldn't fold.

It wasn't the Jets offense that killed the Colts though. Curtis Painter's fumble and the kick return did.

 

[Mr teX]

Heh...I never said that he was a spectacular coach. I just said that he gets it.



I'm a believer in momentum going into the playoffs. The 1st Steelers SB this decade is a good example. I wasn't saying that the Cotls would be guarunteed to win it all by going 16-0, but are you honestly saying you would think a 12-4 team would beat a 16-0 team regularly? I understand it's all speculation, but still.

I just feel that the Colts are in a lose-lose situation now. Had they gone for it and lost, oh well no harm no foul. Now...if they lose in the playoffs they'll be accused and losing steam from pulling their starters (as history has shown they will). If they win it all well that's nice...but they could have been undefeated and done something truly remarkable. Instead, they wanted to be just like everyone else. They wanted to be "normal". I think we'll all agree that with Peyton playing, that team certainly isn't "normal".


You're correct about the hype being put on them about being the team of the decade, I was wrong about that. What Polian did say, however, was:



http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20091230/sp_nm/us_nfl_colts

Why exactly is it important to set a meaningless "consecutive regular season games won over a span of two seasons when coaches always say last season doesn't matter"?

Then there's this little nugget:



But there's only one problem...



http://profootballtalk.nbcsports.com/2009/12/30/polian-fails-to-make-the-case-for-not-trying-to-win-on-sunday/


Their comments make no sense. They're contradicting themselves left and right.

& i think momentum plays less of a role than everyone thinks honestly. The Chargers have been one of the hotest teams going into the playoffs each of the last few years & each time they've lost to a team that either sat for 1 week (2007 pats) or they beat a team that was on a roll themselves (2008 colts 9 game winning streak into the playoffs). Those are just recent examples i could think of. Playoffs are a different animal all together, that's why most call it the second season.

Hey i get it, everyone's disappointed that they didn't try, but i just think that all the over the top outrage about them not trying for it is ridiculous. It's not like this is a new pattern for them.

 

[El Tejano]

A.) The fans have no say in what can be done about what team can start what player. Other than the ticket they purchased to see their favorite NFL team, the fans have no financial investment or any other investment to say who plays. The ticket you pay for is to have entry to the stadium to see what ever NFL team that is playing at that venue. It's ridiculous to let ticket sales determine who gets to play because that eliminates strategy in a competitive sport. If my team is playing your team and you say you paid to see Peyton Manning he has to play, I can turn around and say I DIDN'T pay to see Peyton Manning, I want him removed from the game. In short, your ticket doesn't give you the right to say who can play. It gives you the right to enter the stadium.

Secondly, last time I checked you still have the right to sell the ticket at a lesser, equal or greater value after you purchased your ticket.

B) Here is my solution and please tell me what yall think. If the NFL wants to improve the competiveness for the last remaining weeks of a season, why not make the last 3-4 weeks of the season all be division games league wide? Each division has 4 teams in it so the games would be spread out equally. Most teams playoff hopes are based on division wins so the elimination process could go well into the 16th game of the season. Perhaps homefield advantage wouldn't be wrapped up so soon by a team that is 12-0.

Case in point is our Texans. We played 3 division games in a row in November. Now say you take in to account all wins we've had so far and all losses except for those 3 division games in November, we would be 8-4 heading into December with perhaps one more out of divison game before heading into the last 3 divison games. Meanwhile Indy is 12-0 heading into December. The divison doesn't look so up for grabs anymore does it? A whole plethera of changes can happen. Of course in this scenario and the results we know of, we then go 8-7 and are fighting for our playoff lives but I think if you got 4 teams having to play division games in the last 3-4 weeks of the season, the results are way different.

 

[Beer and Metal]

A.) The fans have no say in what can be done about what team can start what player. Other than the ticket they purchased to see their favorite NFL team, the fans have no financial investment or any other investment to say who plays. The ticket you pay for is to have entry to the stadium to see what ever NFL team that is playing at that venue. It's ridiculous to let ticket sales determine who gets to play because that eliminates strategy in a competitive sport. If my team is playing your team and you say you paid to see Peyton Manning he has to play, I can turn around and say I DIDN'T pay to see Peyton Manning, I want him removed from the game. In short, your ticket doesn't give you the right to say who can play. It gives you the right to enter the stadium.

Secondly, last time I checked you still have the right to sell the ticket at a lesser, equal or greater value after you purchased your ticket.

B) Here is my solution and please tell me what yall think. If the NFL wants to improve the competiveness for the last remaining weeks of a season, why not make the last 3-4 weeks of the season all be division games league wide? Each division has 4 teams in it so the games would be spread out equally. Most teams playoff hopes are based on division wins so the elimination process could go well into the 16th game of the season. Perhaps homefield advantage wouldn't be wrapped up so soon by a team that is 12-0.

Case in point is our Texans. We played 3 division games in a row in November. Now say you take in to account all wins we've had so far and all losses except for those 3 division games in November, we would be 8-4 heading into December with perhaps one more out of divison game before heading into the last 3 divison games. Meanwhile Indy is 12-0 heading into December. The divison doesn't look so up for grabs anymore does it? A whole plethera of changes can happen. Of course in this scenario and the results we know of, we then go 8-7 and are fighting for our playoff lives but I think if you got 4 teams having to play division games in the last 3-4 weeks of the season, the results are way different.

That's a great idea! It would almost be like a mini-playoff before the playoffs.

 

[Double Barrel]

The Colts board I chat on now has this as it's main header picture:

If you read threads about the game it seems like they lost a shot at the playoffs. Amazing what one game can do to fans.

I'm losing respect for Colts fans by the day now. Not only does my previous rant in this thread still stand, after seeing this, I'm putting them at the top of the most arrogant fans pile. Now they are ahead of Yankees, Cowboys, and Longhorn fans in my head.

That's just pathetic. I'd be ashamed if that was my team's fanbase acting like a bunch of crybabies with a 14-1 team going to the playoffs with homefield advantage. I hope they get blown-out now.

Didn't the coach do what he was told by his boss? How exactly does that make him on the hotseat?

Would seem to me it would be the other way around..if he didn't do what he was told.

Lordy the guy is a first year head coach. To me he's done a better job than probably most thought he would do.

I'll take that one loss and all those victories and that home field advantage.

According to the owner, it was a FO decision that he was a part of:

Indianapolis Colts Owner Jim Irsay: Decision to remove QB Peyton Manning, others, v. Jets right move

And to my knowledge, i dont think anyone in the colts organization has come out and said they were trying to be the team of the decade; that's all the talking heads at ESPN.

Straight up. It's the media hype.

 

[TheCD]

A.) The fans have no say in what can be done about what team can start what player. Other than the ticket they purchased to see their favorite NFL team, the fans have no financial investment or any other investment to say who plays. The ticket you pay for is to have entry to the stadium to see what ever NFL team that is playing at that venue. It's ridiculous to let ticket sales determine who gets to play because that eliminates strategy in a competitive sport. If my team is playing your team and you say you paid to see Peyton Manning he has to play, I can turn around and say I DIDN'T pay to see Peyton Manning, I want him removed from the game. In short, your ticket doesn't give you the right to say who can play. It gives you the right to enter the stadium.

Sure, the ticket gives you the right to see the game. But the tickholders are generally the taxpayers who are paying for a nice, cushy, brand new stadium for that team. It's not wise to piss off the people who are essentially paying for most of the owner's bills.


As to B, it sounds like a great idea and would definitely increase hype for the fans at the end of the season. But you'll still have game like Indy pretty much handing Tenn. a playoff berth, or Jax resting their starters against us a few years ago. This is the reason (read excuse) the BCS justifies its existence. It stinks, but at least playoff football is more fun and unpredictable than bowl games (and 99% of the college football season)

 

[Cjeremy635]

A.) The fans have no say in what can be done about what team can start what player. Other than the ticket they purchased to see their favorite NFL team, the fans have no financial investment or any other investment to say who plays. The ticket you pay for is to have entry to the stadium to see what ever NFL team that is playing at that venue. It's ridiculous to let ticket sales determine who gets to play because that eliminates strategy in a competitive sport. If my team is playing your team and you say you paid to see Peyton Manning he has to play, I can turn around and say I DIDN'T pay to see Peyton Manning, I want him removed from the game. In short, your ticket doesn't give you the right to say who can play. It gives you the right to enter the stadium.

Secondly, last time I checked you still have the right to sell the ticket at a lesser, equal or greater value after you purchased your ticket.

B) Here is my solution and please tell me what yall think. If the NFL wants to improve the competiveness for the last remaining weeks of a season, why not make the last 3-4 weeks of the season all be division games league wide? Each division has 4 teams in it so the games would be spread out equally. Most teams playoff hopes are based on division wins so the elimination process could go well into the 16th game of the season. Perhaps homefield advantage wouldn't be wrapped up so soon by a team that is 12-0.

Case in point is our Texans. We played 3 division games in a row in November. Now say you take in to account all wins we've had so far and all losses except for those 3 division games in November, we would be 8-4 heading into December with perhaps one more out of divison game before heading into the last 3 divison games. Meanwhile Indy is 12-0 heading into December. The divison doesn't look so up for grabs anymore does it? A whole plethera of changes can happen. Of course in this scenario and the results we know of, we then go 8-7 and are fighting for our playoff lives but I think if you got 4 teams having to play division games in the last 3-4 weeks of the season, the results are way different.

Honestly, that's one of the greatest posts I've read about this topic or scheduling in general. I think it would be great for the NFL to consider something like that.

 

[infantrycak]

B) Here is my solution and please tell me what yall think. If the NFL wants to improve the competiveness for the last remaining weeks of a season, why not make the last 3-4 weeks of the season all be division games league wide? Each division has 4 teams in it so the games would be spread out equally. Most teams playoff hopes are based on division wins so the elimination process could go well into the 16th game of the season. Perhaps homefield advantage wouldn't be wrapped up so soon by a team that is 12-0.

Case in point is our Texans. We played 3 division games in a row in November.

I like the suggestion but it was 4 division games in a row if you count the first game in December against the Jags.

 

[El Tejano]

I like the suggestion but it was 4 division games in a row if you count the first game in December against the Jags.

Thanks for the correction. I did count Jville tho, my mistake that game was at the start of December. I'm not counting the first Indy game.

Here is how the divisions would look if the second half of the divison games weren't played until the last month of the season.

AFC EAST
New England 8-4
NYJ 7-5
Miami 5-7
Buffalo 4-8

That division could still be up for grabs, no Tom Brady resting there

AFC NORTH
Cincy 7-5
Pitt 7-5
Bmore 7-5
Browns 3-9

That division would still be up for grabs, even Cleveland could make a push

AFC SOUTH
Indy 12-0
Houston 8-4
Jville 6-6
Tenn 5-6
Indy wouldn't be able to sit their starters just yet. Someone said Indy would be handing Tenn a way into the playoffs. They better not, division is still close at this point. Houston would have to play real well to keep Jville and Tenn from getting 2nd in the division.

AFC WEST
SD 10-2
Den 8-5
Oak 4-8
KC 2-11
Pretty much the same as AFC SOUTH

**** I'd like to add that Houston would be tied with New England for 2nd best record in AFC, and up a half game on Denver at this point just because I LOVE THE TEXANS!!!

 

[El Tejano]

Here's what the NFC looks like:

NFC East
Philly 9-4
Dall 8-4
NYG 6-6
Wash 3-9

That would still be up for grabs in that division between 3 teams. Nobody's resting

NFC NORTH
Minn 9-3
GB 8-4
Chi 5-7
Det 2-10

Division STILL up for grabs between 3 teams

NFC SOUTH

NO 12-0
ATL 8-4
Car 7-5
Tampa 3-9
Pretty much like AFC South

NFC WEST
AZ 9-3
SF 6-7
Seattle 5-7
STL. 1-11
Division up for grabs going into division week between 3 teams. Nobodies resting

So as you can see it could change the season around in the last month of the season. It doesn't totally eliminate the possibility of someone being able to rest starters but for most divisions you can see that noone can really afford to do that. Plus even if someone wins the division the possibility of them having to play for home field advantage late in the season is highly likely.

 

[TheCD]

So as you can see it could change the season around in the last month of the season. It doesn't totally eliminate the possibility of someone being able to rest starters but for most divisions you can see that noone can really afford to do that. Plus even if someone wins the division the possibility of them having to play for home field advantage late in the season is highly likely.

Hey, at least it's better than the BCS. Somebody pay this man!

 

[El Tejano]

Hey, at least it's better than the BCS. Somebody pay this man!

Funny, because what inspired my thoughts was how the Conference Championships affect the BCS games.

Also, I've heard players say that division games are really worth two games each. Well this would add to the drama.

Honestly I have to believe that the NFL doesn't do this because they have to protect those teams that are winning big time and are a marketable team. You have to think the NFL would be pretty ticked off if Houston caught Indy in the last month of the season and somehow won the division. No playoffs with Manning vs. Brady? OMG!!!!!

 

[b0ng]

I cant fault the Dolts for pulling their starters , they have nothing to play for , their playoff seeding is set. All they have left to accomplish is winning a superbowl.

As for how the Texans were affected by the Jets winning that game - The Texans played the Jets in week one - they could have taken care of their own business. They didnt. Its no one's fault but their own.


The Texans can sing a little Led Zeppelin if they fail to reach the playoffs - Nobody's Fault But Mine

This is pretty much the long and short of it. Anybody wishing bad things on the Colts because they rested in wk 16 are just delusional. The Colts owe us nothing and we owe them nothing. Make Sanchez look like a rookie in week one and we probably aren't having this conversation right now because the Ind/Jets game would've been inconsequential.

Anybody who lost money gambling on that game is silly too, especially since the Colts were favored (I think). Anybody here betting on NE@HOU or CIN@NYJ? I would hope not unless they have a rock solid tip that those teams are sitting players.

 

[Giant Tiger]

Didn't the coach do what he was told by his boss? How exactly does that make him on the hotseat?

Would seem to me it would be the other way around..if he didn't do what he was told.

Lordy the guy is a first year head coach. To me he's done a better job than probably most thought he would do.

I'll take that one loss and all those victories and that home field advantage.

Okay, hotseat was probably not the right term. Let me rephrase that:
The fans are already ticked off, what about the players? I'm not just talking about this year. Best case scenario for him is to win the Super Bowl AND have a string of successful seasons where they're regularly contending for a championship. By then it'll probably be forgotten.

But what happens if they get off to a slow start next year? Like you said, he's a first year head coach; this isn't Belichek going 11-5 without Brady. So would they start to unravel? Will he have lost the players by then? Sure, it's all just speculation & I'll add that I'm probably not being fair to a rookie head coach. If they were 13-1, nobody would think twice about resting your starters; but you don't get many chances to make history...so don't just throw it away, especially if you were just following orders.

But I just get the feeling things will start to unfold quickly over there, especially if they lose to the Chargers in the playoffs.

 

[utahmark]

who remembers the 73 superbowl team? or the 71 team? everyone remembers the 72 dolphins. 10 years from now a lot of people wont remember who new england played the year they almost went undeafeted. they will just remember they went 18 and 0 and almost won every game that year.

my point is someone wins the superbowl every year and 10 years later most people don't even remember who it was. if you get a chance to go undeafeted and make history and you don't take?????? your thinking "small".

 

[WWJD]

Okay, hotseat was probably not the right term. Let me rephrase that:
The fans are already ticked off, what about the players? I'm not just talking about this year. Best case scenario for him is to win the Super Bowl AND have a string of successful seasons where they're regularly contending for a championship. By then it'll probably be forgotten.

But what happens if they get off to a slow start next year? Like you said, he's a first year head coach; this isn't Belichek going 11-5 without Brady. So would they start to unravel? Will he have lost the players by then? Sure, it's all just speculation & I'll add that I'm probably not being fair to a rookie head coach. If they were 13-1, nobody would think twice about resting your starters; but you don't get many chances to make history...so don't just throw it away, especially if you were just following orders.

But I just get the feeling things will start to unfold quickly over there, especially if they lose to the Chargers in the playoffs.

I understand what you are saying but that team is very well run and organized. Peyton is the guy that makes that engine run sure but they draft smart and Caldwell was obviously the right hire for that team.

I remember once I was at a Cowboys game and the very last play of the game the starting FB got hurt playing special teams. It was a meaningless game and he shouldn't have even been out there. Just remember sitting there going darn WHY was he even on the field? Sometimes playing the starters does bite one in the butt...

 

[ChrisG]

i'll be pissed if the Jets win Sunday and end up getting a playoff spot based on Indy handing them the win.

My only hope is, if that happens, the Jets meet Indy in the playoffs and beat them. So Indy will kno they should not have laid down and let the Jets in

 

[ObsiWan]

i'll be pissed if the Jets win Sunday and end up getting a playoff spot based on Indy handing them the win.

My only hope is, if that happens, the Jets meet Indy in the playoffs and beat them. So Indy will kno they should not have laid down and let the Jets in

oooh, that would be twisted poetic justice.
to use a line from Mr. & Mrs. Smith, "I like where your head's at".

 

[CloakNNNdagger]

ESPN reported that this resting of the starters with the changing of playoff outcomes would need to be addressed. He suggested that there could be established an "incentive system" to "encourage" the playing of the starters in the form of "draft picks." Exactly what he means, I do not know.

 

[Mr teX]

Well, i have to believe that if noone agrees with what Indy did, the pats do after today. Not only is welker gone for the rest of the season, but brady has something wrong with a finger on his throwing hand & a broken rib after today's game i believe. At least that's what i think Dan Patrick said on football night in america.

 

[The Pencil Neck]

If a team locks up their playoff spot early, then they've earned the right to rest anyone they want to rest as far as I'm concerned. While I wish the Colts would have taken out the Jets and went for the perfect season, I can respect the fact that they didn't.

 

[Speedy]

If a team locks up their playoff spot early, then they've earned the right to rest anyone they want to rest as far as I'm concerned. While I wish the Colts would have taken out the Jets and went for the perfect season, I can respect the fact that they didn't.

Agreed!!! Win football games and you don't have to worry about backing in. If the Texans had taken care of just ONE of those division games, they'd be in.

This stuff happens every year. That's just how it works. You play this game to win a ring. Making a team play balls to the wall in meaningless end of season games is not the way. See Wes Welker.

If a team, like the Texans, are in a position where they need a team, like the Jets, to lose to a team, like the Colts, who took care of their business and wrapped things up, then that's just too bad. Win your games Texans and take care of your own business.

 

[Texecutioner]

Well, i have to believe that if noone agrees with what Indy did, the pats do after today. Not only is welker gone for the rest of the season, but brady has something wrong with a finger on his throwing hand & a broken rib after today's game i believe. At least that's what i think Dan Patrick said on football night in america.

Exactly. I hated to see Welker go down. I was sort of laughing to myself though remembering how many people and Colts fans that bought into such pathetic logic about how teams are supposed to never rest their starters and criticized the Colts for being smart and intelligent and keeping their players healthy. NE is most likely screwed now by losing who is arguably their most important WR on their team and one of their most valuable players. Welker going down proved to all teams around the league why it's smart to rest your starters if you are in the position to do that. I'll be rooting for the Patriots in the post season so I wish Welker hadn't played in that game. Hopefully Brady cane perform some magic any way and make a nice run.

 

[Texecutioner]

ESPN reported that this resting of the starters with the changing of playoff outcomes would need to be addressed. He suggested that there could be established an "incentive system" to "encourage" the playing of the starters in the form of "draft picks." Exactly what he means, I do not know.

Yeah, I heard this as well. I have no idea how they are going to do something like that.

I think the best way to handle this is the idea someone came up with in here which is to have the divisional games at the end of the season. It wouldn't totally fix this or anything, but I do think that it would help and you would have a lot less situations like this at the end of the season.

 

[Beer and Metal]

Agreed!!! Win football games and you don't have to worry about backing in. If the Texans had taken care of just ONE of those division games, they'd be in.

This stuff happens every year. That's just how it works. You play this game to win a ring. Making a team play balls to the wall in meaningless end of season games is not the way. See Wes Welker.

If a team, like the Texans, are in a position where they need a team, like the Jets, to lose to a team, like the Colts, who took care of their business and wrapped things up, then that's just too bad. Win your games Texans and take care of your own business.

You know, early in the season, every team is in a position where they need someone to lose.

If the Colts had played the Jets six weeks ago, we might be planning our first playoff parties.

In addition to saving our division games to the end, I'd like to see us play our out-of-conference games first, conference second.

 

[Speedy]

Yeah, I heard this as well. I have no idea how they are going to do something like that.

I think the best way to handle this is the idea someone came up with in here which is to have the divisional games at the end of the season. It wouldn't totally fix this or anything, but I do think that it would help and you would have a lot less situations like this at the end of the season.

I don't see how division games at the end of the season changes anything. If you still start out 14-0 it won't make a difference and you're still going to have records and teams with playoffs spots wrapped up at the end like you do now. If a playoff spot is wrapped up it won't matter that your last 2 games are division games. It doesn't change anything.

There doesn't need to be anything changed. I don't know what the hell ESPN is talking about. This is the way it works. It's always been like that. You can't force teams to play players.

This happens all the time and always has. If you don't make the playoffs because you couldn't back in because a team like the Colts or Bengals rested some players for the playoffs, then you didn't take care of your own business and shouldn't be in the playoffs anyway.

The Jets were in a rare position where they had 2 teams at the end who had their business taken care of.

As much as I would have liked the Texans to back in that way last night, they didn't take care of their business, they stay home, as it should be.

If the Texans are ever in a position to rest players for the post-season, even if it means they get blown out of a game that I pay good money to see live, then so be it. I pay good money to see pre-season games too, where the starters may play just one series. The difference is, with the former, I know the Texans are in the Super Bowl tournament and that's what this game is all about.

 

[Double Barrel]

ESPN reported that this resting of the starters with the changing of playoff outcomes would need to be addressed. He suggested that there could be established an "incentive system" to "encourage" the playing of the starters in the form of "draft picks." Exactly what he means, I do not know.

It would not be hard to circumvent that rule. Most players are dinged up by the end of the season, so health reasons are always valid to sit players. If it happens to occur in 'meaningless' end of season games, then what a coincidence!

My solution? As a fan, go to game in the mid-season when you know starters will be playing.

Well, i have to believe that if noone agrees with what Indy did, the pats do after today. Not only is welker gone for the rest of the season, but brady has something wrong with a finger on his throwing hand & a broken rib after today's game i believe. At least that's what i think Dan Patrick said on football night in america.

I thought the same thing last night. People will reply that the difference is that the Colts were going for "history" and all that jazz, but if you get a player hurt chasing history it doesn't make it any easier to digest when you don't have that player for the playoffs.

If a team locks up their playoff spot early, then they've earned the right to rest anyone they want to rest as far as I'm concerned. While I wish the Colts would have taken out the Jets and went for the perfect season, I can respect the fact that they didn't.

Yep. EARNED being the key word in all of this.

 

[Texecutioner]

I don't see how division games at the end of the season changes anything. If you still start out 14-0 it won't make a difference and you're still going to have records and teams with playoffs spots wrapped up at the end like you do now. If a playoff spot is wrapped up it won't matter that your last 2 games are division games. It doesn't change anything.

There doesn't need to be anything changed. I don't know what the hell ESPN is talking about. This is the way it works. It's always been like that. You can't force teams to play players.

This happens all the time and always has. If you don't make the playoffs because you couldn't back in because a team like the Colts or Bengals rested some players for the playoffs, then you didn't take care of your own business and shouldn't be in the playoffs anyway.

The Jets were in a rare position where they had 2 teams at the end who had their business taken care of.

As much as I would have liked the Texans to back in that way last night, they didn't take care of their business, they stay home, as it should be.

If the Texans are ever in a position to rest players for the post-season, even if it means they get blown out of a game that I pay good money to see live, then so be it. I pay good money to see pre-season games too, where the starters may play just one series. The difference is, with the former, I know the Texans are in the Super Bowl tournament and that's what this game is all about.

It would make a bigger difference because more than likely those divisional games would affect who goes to the playoffs out of the divisions and where certain teams are seeded in the playoffs. If a team isn't fighting for their spot they might be fighting for their seeding. The match ups between divisional opponents affect their status more as far as the post season goes because there is a for sure winner and a loser in that division with the teams you're competing against to make the playoffs. If those match ups come at the end of the season rather than the beginning and the middle, more than likely those games determine team's outcomes. Again, I'm not saying that it would fix the problem all around, but it would most likely minimize situations where teams have nothing to play for and you would have less situations like what has happened this season.

 

[Speedy]

You know, early in the season, every team is in a position where they need someone to lose.

If the Colts had played the Jets six weeks ago, we might be planning our first playoff parties.

In addition to saving our division games to the end, I'd like to see us play our out-of-conference games first, conference second.

The Colts didn't play the Jets 6 weeks ago! If, if, if, if, if!!! You play your freaking schedule. The Colts went 6-0 in division, the Texans went 1-5. Doesn't matter when those games were played. Doesn't matter if they were all played the final 6 weeks of the season either. If you don't win you don't win.

If the Texans had beaten the Colts, or the Jags, or the Titans or the Colts again, or the Jags again, or Arizona, just win ONE of those, and the Texans are in and they don't have to worry about this or that team losing or whether this or that team rests players or not.

Play the schedule set before you and win football games like the Colts and Chargers and Patriots and Cowboys and Vikings and Cardinals and Saints and Bengals and Packers all did.

Why is this so hard for everybody?

 

[Beer and Metal]

I don't see how division games at the end of the season changes anything. If you still start out 14-0 it won't make a difference and you're still going to have records and teams with playoffs spots wrapped up at the end like you do now.
.

Think about this:

Game 10, every team is 0-0 in their division. Nobody could clinch their division until game 14 at the earliest. If every team goes 3-3, then those earlier games become important, but it may not be decided until game 16.