The Colts did the right thing. The other teams who missed out on the playoffs should've taken care of their own business and gotten in just like we should've in 2007.

@dencyguy said:

Dennis

That's pretty much right. When you go 14-0, you've pretty much earned the right to do just about anything you want. Want to manipulate the teams? Why not? Want to rest some guys? Why not?

As for us season ticket buyers, we never know what we're going to get when we cut those checks in the spring. We didn't know that we'd see the team go 7-1 at home in 2007. Nor did we expect to see one of the most inept teams in our history just one season later. This year i got a nice dose of both extremes.

Again, the Colts worked their hearts out in order to put themselves in the position where they could decide whether they want to coast to the finish line.You may agree with it or not agree. It doesn't really matter. For those that are hot happy, feel free to send your TS card in to me, and i'll stamp it for you.

@dencyguy said:

The real loser in all of this is me. This is my third year in UT's grad school, and even if Dooley does a great job the team will be rounding into form right after I leave. Screw you, Kiffin.

Since we're talking college here. Let me help. Dennis, when I went to college far too many moons ago we had this miserable guy named Andy that lived in the basement of our fraternity house. ANY time I had a bad day - I'd go see him to hear how much worse his day was. Then my day didn't seem so bad afterall. That was about as therapeutic as it gets. Worked everytime.

So how is this relevant to your situation today? Your buddy Flugel has season tickets to Vanderbilt Football Games where they went O-for-SEC in 2009. It could always be worse.

FWIW, I HOPE Dooley does a nice job there for yuz.

- Tom F.

@riffer-x said:

Has Tenn found their new savior yet? Oh yeah, Vince's son. Tenny and hiring known sons, kinda weird.

What can I say--I like my dashes--which are, oddly enough, pretty close to the way I talk--I've been told not to use them as much, but identity is important--they are who I am--love me, love my dashes.

As for Tennessee, I'm torn. On the one hand, Dooley carries himself like a responsible adult, with a minimum of douchebaggery. In othetr words, he's the opposite of Lane Kiffin. And he has the kind of assistant coaching pedigree that might translate into him doing a good job at Tennessee. The players seem to like him, and he's done a good job of at least stabilizing UT's recruiting class as well as could be expected.

That said, you're right about the big question about him. Another guy with a losing record as a head coach but with a famous name. Kiffin had Monte and a short career assisting Pete Carroll; Dooley has Vince and a short career assisting Nick Saban.

At the same time, it's hard to imagine anyone better ditching their school at the end of January. Part of is that Tennessee isn't the football mecca that people here think it is, even though it's still a really good job. Another part of it is just the timing. Had Carroll left USC at the end of the college football season, we would have had a better shot at getting a more appealing candidate.

Dennis

The real loser in all of this is me. This is my third year in UT's grad school, and even if Dooley does a great job the team will be rounding into form right after I leave. Screw you, Kiffin.

@hoorta said:

So I finally came up with a solution- probably not a very workable one-if you're so great & you want to sit your starters in week 17, go ahead- it will cost you your 7th round draft pick. Start in week 16, it goes up to a 6th. Hey Billy Boy got docked a 1st rounder for spygate, depends what you consider cheating. And as a season ticket holder, I think I have the right to ask my team to at least try and win- and not with the scrubs.

Personally- if a team is so worried about injuries, I'd much rather see the NFL let them flat out forfeit a game (never happen) than see this travesty.

Forfeiting would mean they couldn't sell you $8 watered down beers.

@dencyguy said:

I've always said that when I buy a ticket, the only thing I'm entitled to is the use of the chair that I sit on during the game. The team doesn't owe me--or their competitors--anythign else, nor do I owe them anything.

Dennis

And maybe that is one of the reasons I am not inclined to buy tickets. The last two times I went to a game it was freebies.

Call me a cheap SOB if you want. Or prefereably say that I want the teams I pay good money to go see put on an honest performance, and right now, I am concerned whether or not that will happen.

@dencyguy said:

Dennis

I've said this before Dennis- I respect your opinion (it's a minority one- based on talking to other fans), and I totally disagree. The NFL is all about competitive balance- and a team not giving 100% effort in the regular season DOES skew the balance- for other teams in the playoff hunt.

So I finally came up with a solution- probably not a very workable one-if you're so great & you want to sit your starters in week 17, go ahead- it will cost you your 7th round draft pick. Start in week 16, it goes up to a 6th. Hey Billy Boy got docked a 1st rounder for spygate, depends what you consider cheating. And as a season ticket holder, I think I have the right to ask my team to at least try and win- and not with the scrubs.

Personally- if a team is so worried about injuries, I'd much rather see the NFL let them flat out forfeit a game (never happen) than see this travesty.

@dencyguy said:

I've always said that when I buy a ticket, the only thing I'm entitled to is the use of the chair that I sit on during the game. The team doesn't owe me--or their competitors--anythign else, nor do I owe them anything.

Dennis

Too many hyphens Dencys, let's clean it up a bit you're lacking flow.

Has Tenn found their new savior yet? Oh yeah, Vince's son. Tenny and hiring known sons, kinda weird.

@kshutchins said:

That's a fair point. I suppose I would argue--and I know that this is an unpopular argument, but it's one that I believe in--that buying a ticket doesn't entitle you to see your team's starters, or the people that fans think should be playing. To put it another way: let's say the Browns are having a terrible season and Eric Mangini keeps throwing Derek Anderson out there as a starter despite a lousy QB rating (granted, that's a bit unrealistic, but it could happen). Most fans think that putting Brady Quinn out there either gives the Browns a better chance to win now or at the very least would allow him to develop as a starter so that the team can do better in the future. Are the Browns cheating their fans? Are they being unethical? One could argue that they're making a tactical error, but that doesn't rise to the level of cheating anyone out of anything.

I've always said that when I buy a ticket, the only thing I'm entitled to is the use of the chair that I sit on during the game. The team doesn't owe me--or their competitors--anythign else, nor do I owe them anything.

Dennis

@the-gipper said:

Recall that the Colts and Jets played in like the next to last game of the season and the Colts were winning I believe in the second half when they "called off the dogs" and put in their scrub players to finish up against the Jets in that game. Recall that the Jets, whose playoff lives were on the line, came back to win that game by a slim margin.

The Colts, by choking it back, in essence manipulated the playoff scenario by allowing the Jets to win that game. If the Jets lose that game, their playoff dreams would have been over. If the Colts play that game with integrity, the Jets are likely sitting home. As it is, because they surrendered their integrity, the Jets, who would have been out had the the Colts won, are now one of the hottest teams in the playoffs and are vying against the Colts for the AFC title.

The move by the Colts could come back and bit them in the A$$. And I, for one, hope it does. I recall how the Colts did this a few years ago when the Browns playoff chances were on the line. If they beat the Titans, the Browns make the playoffs. But no, the Colts played their scrubs that whole game. It was still a close game, but the Tits won. If the Colts played THAT game with integrity, the Browns, not the Tits would have been in the playoffs.

So, here is hoping the Jets beat the Colts, and it would only be a fate which they deserve, because they manipulated the playoff by putting the Jets in there.

And also, personally, I don't see how that is any different than the Black Sox throwing games for money.

Fair to say?

Peyton girl will find a way to blow it. He'll probably throw 3 picks in a 17-14 loss to the Jets.

@dencyguy said:

Dennis

This argument has merit but it doesn't address the question of fans who have paid for tickets to enjoy watching their team play.

@the-gipper said:

Someone suggested giving a team that has wrapped up a playoff spot extra draft picks for playing their starters. That is totally bogus to me.

I mean, I would hope that most teams who have wrapped up a playoff spot would do the right thing and say "we want to beat these guys here and send them home for the playoffs".

don't forget the crying babies

@dj_illness said:

Nothing will ever fix this from happening. Coaches will always rest their starters if they have the postseason locked up. It's a way of life. The only thing that could help is scheduling the last 6 games of the season as divisional games, but even that will only do so much. Today, in class, I was giving the matter some thought, and I came up with a quirk to the scheduling that might help.

Say they do schedule the last 6 games of the season as divisional games. Within the divisional schedule, if they were to cycle the schedule based on standings instead of randomization, it could help. Almost like creating a bracket, to some extent. Look at it this way.

Say, in 2009, the AFC North looked like this:

1. Cleveland

2. Cincinatti

3. Baltimore

4. Pittsburgh

In 2010, then, the divisional schedule for us would be as follows (based solely on the previous year's rankings):

Week 12: Cincinatti

Week 13: Baltimore

Week 14: Pittsburgh

Week 15: Pittsburgh

Week 16: Baltimore

Week 17: Cincinatti

Say we were beaten by Cincinatti in Week 12, but finished out the rest of our divisional schedule strong. Then the last game would actually mean something, I would assume. I'm not sure how tiebreakers and stuff actually work in divisional play, there's too many differences between high school, college and the NFL for me to keep track.

The only problem with this is that we would play a team in back-to-back weeks, which 90% of all fans would disagree with. Especially if the aforementioned team is your rival. Also, this would probably have a tremendous impact on primetime scheduling. Furthermore, the power rankings of the previous year really have no merit in the following season.

Another thing that could possibly work is reserving the last game of the season for rivalry games. It would be a great end to the regular season for teams that normally finish in the cellar, and nobody wants to lose to their rival. Plus, it would make the last weekend of regular season football something that fans could really get into, whether their team has secured a playoff spot or not.

Looking back on it, my first idea was pretty terrible.

Dennis

@dj_illness said:

It is a vexed question. The proposal that the last 3 games of the season all be scheduled as division games could make a little sense. I doubt that anything would be foolproof.

Someone suggested giving a team that has wrapped up a playoff spot extra draft picks for playing their starters. That is totally bogus to me.

I mean, I would hope that most teams who have wrapped up a playoff spot would do the right thing and say "we want to beat these guys here and send them home for the playoffs".

@the-gipper said:

what do you realistically propose to fix this from happening?

@yosemitejam said:

I don't think so. I see myself as more the "line setter". 🥷

@floridabrownsfan said:

Playing your second and third stringers against another team sure as hell does give the opponent a competitive advantage- Pretty extreme example- Let's say the Colts were playing the Cardinals this year (who needed a win to get in) instead of the Jets. Manning- Warner even match. Warner - Curtis Painter? Big joke. This isn't the preseason (which is fully deserving of another rant- why do season ticket holders have to pay full freight to watch the 4th preseason joke where the starters play one series and sit?)

You can spin it anyway you want to, but the Jets were gifted a spot in the playoffs and were given an unfair advantage when the Colts & Bengals rolled over and played dead.

This doesn't change the playoff landscape? Say the Steelers and Houston had their divisions wrapped up and rested their starters instead- Miami makes the playoffs. Ditto that with the Patriots and Browns resting their starters- the Jaguars get in.

I thought the object of the game was to win, not to see if you could avoid getting people hurt. FWIW, if the Colts are up two scores with 5 minutes left in the game, by all means pull Manning, not at the end of the second quarter. And this is for the guy who holds the record for least sacks per pass attempt in the history of the NFL. Pu**ies- if I didn't hate Brayoln in particular and NY frontrunner Yankee fans in general, I'd be rooting like mad for the Colts to get it handed to them by a team they let sneak into the playoffs.

Let's turn this 180 while were at it. did the Saints and Vikings pull Brees or Farve while they were kicking the ever loving s**t out of the Cowboys and Cardinals? Don't think so. Gee, they might have gotten HURT.

This is a pro sport, with pro ticket prices, parking fees, concession stand items, etc. The Colts' fans deserved better when Indy gave the game to the Jets, no ifs, ands or buts.

@the-gipper said:

If the Jags had played 2 games against teams that quit, they may have ended up 9-7 instead of 7-9 and have been in the playoffs.

Did any of these other teams have the benefit of playing against 2 teams that quit? The Steelers are sitting at home because the Browns didn't quit.

Perhaps next year the Browns can play a whole schedule of 16 games against teams that say "this game doesn't count much for us, we'll just play our scrubeenies". I guess I would like that, but would it be fair?

That's just how the games go. I mean that's like saying the Cardinals got into the playoffs unfairly because they got to play st. louis and detroit in 2 of the last 3 weeks of the season. Teams that are hungry enough should be able to beat whoever they need to to guarantee a playoff spot. Jax had their chances, as did every other team in the playoff hunt. But only the teams that took advantage of those opportunities made it. Besides just because you are playing 2nd and 3rd string players doesn't guarantee a win for the other team. On any given sunday, my friend.

@tempest25 said:

I, as a browns fan I would rather see the steelers win it all again, than see the colts win.

You know man, you really shouldn't smoke crack. Makes you say silly things like this

@tempest25 said:

Huh?? I must be drunk and seeing things!

@the-gipper said:

And also, personally, I don't see how that is any different than the Black Sox throwing games for money.

Fair to say?

not in a million years....you've crossed the line this time Gipper