GB-Det game brings up interesting ethical question

[YosemiteSam]

They play Sunday night so they will know whether the skins won or lost. If the skins win, then the loser is out of the playoffs. If that happens, it would be beneficial to both teams to agree beforehand to have a tie game so that both teams would ensure themselves of a playoff berth. Obviously that would raise ethical issues but how is it unethical to do what's in your best interest. So that's the question. Is it ethical to play for a tie if it ensures you make the playoffs. I suppose I come down on the side that it's unethical for teams to agree on anything beforehand but it certainly wouldn't be unethical for either of the teams to make decisions in the game or at the end that would lead to the tie. If it's tied with 2 minutes to go in overtime, a team could run out the clock instead of risking a turnover and losing. I would be fine with that.

No it wouldn't. That game becomes a playoff game. A win or go home game like all other playoff games. Why tie only to do it again? You go for the win.

 

[Blackspider214]

So you are going to have a team agree to not try and get a win and a home playoff game to start the playoffs?

This is silly. Why would the Lions or Packers care about the other one getting into the playoffs?

 

[Doomsday101]

So you are going to have a team agree to not try and get a win and a home playoff game to start the playoffs?

This is silly. Why would the Lions or Packers care about the other one getting into the playoffs?

The thought process is a tie ensures they both go a loss by either one means they are out. Road or home there are several teams who would love to be in post season period.

 

[texbumthelife]

They play Sunday night so they will know whether the skins won or lost. If the skins win, then the loser is out of the playoffs. If that happens, it would be beneficial to both teams to agree beforehand to have a tie game so that both teams would ensure themselves of a playoff berth. Obviously that would raise ethical issues but how is it unethical to do what's in your best interest. So that's the question. Is it ethical to play for a tie if it ensures you make the playoffs. I suppose I come down on the side that it's unethical for teams to agree on anything beforehand but it certainly wouldn't be unethical for either of the teams to make decisions in the game or at the end that would lead to the tie. If it's tied with 2 minutes to go in overtime, a team could run out the clock instead of risking a turnover and losing. I would be fine with that.

It's not just unethical, it's collusion and if it leaked, both teams would face very stiff consequences.

 

[DallasCowboys2080]

I guess next question would be who are you guys rooting for in this game? Green Bay of Detroit?

Curious about this too. I guess it would come down to who do we match up better with in a potential playoff game. That team. So probably the lions. But I'm eager to hear what everyone else thinks.

 

[Nightman]

In the World Cup and Olympics they schedule the games for the same time to protect against these types of problems

I think it is unethical and cowardly........ you play to win and having a Division Title means something more than just a Home game

 

[aikemirv]

They play Sunday night so they will know whether the skins won or lost. If the skins win, then the loser is out of the playoffs. If that happens, it would be beneficial to both teams to agree beforehand to have a tie game so that both teams would ensure themselves of a playoff berth. Obviously that would raise ethical issues but how is it unethical to do what's in your best interest. So that's the question. Is it ethical to play for a tie if it ensures you make the playoffs. I suppose I come down on the side that it's unethical for teams to agree on anything beforehand but it certainly wouldn't be unethical for either of the teams to make decisions in the game or at the end that would lead to the tie. If it's tied with 2 minutes to go in overtime, a team could run out the clock instead of risking a turnover and losing. I would be fine with that.

Seriously? You need to find a new definition of ethical!

 

[DallasCowboys2080]

Seriously? You need to find a new definition of ethical!

Ohhhh I like that u brought this up.

Ethics is subjective. It's a cultural thing. It's part of our consensual reality. It's agreed upon by a certain group. No where is it objective. It's a philosophical question/issue.

I agree it's unethical interms of the leaque and probably to the culture. But it isn't objective. The ethics can change and fluxuate.

 

[aikemirv]

Ethics is subjective. It's a cultural thing. It's part of our consensual reality. It's agreed upon by a certain group. No where is it objective. It's a philosophical question/issue.

I agree it's unethical interms of the leaque and probably to the culture. But it isn't objective. The ethics can change and fluxuate.

No they can't - too much gray area in your grey matter!

 

[DallasCowboys2080]

No they can't - too much gray area in your grey matter!

No they can't what?

Please don't be derogatory towards me I'm actually enjoying the discussion u brought up and I'm not trying to tear u down. Not sure if u are.

 

[Super_Kazuya]

If it goes to overtime, expect to see both teams start punting the ball back and forth to each other. Or maybe, you would see one team try to run the clock out, then punt and the other team try to run the clock out. The possibilities are endless...

 

[aikemirv]

SA

No they can't what?

Please don't be derogatory towards me I'm actually enjoying the discussion u brought up and I'm not trying to tear u down. Not sure if u are.

Sorry, gray area in your grey matter was not meant to be derogatory...My contention is that ethics don't change, people change, but the right and wrong don't just because society decides to accept it.

The statement he made was "how is it unethical to do whats in your best interest" which is absolutely why the question of ethics exist because it is not "ethical" to do things just because they are in your best interest - that is the exact reason for studying ethics!!!!

 

[texbumthelife]

If anyone thinks the Lions are going to be OK with a tie, after what we just did to them, you don't understand why they play or what pride is. GB may be ok with this, but there is no chance the Lions are doing anything except putting the pedal to the floor for four quarters.

 

[DallasCowboys2080]

SA



Sorry, gray area in your grey matter was not meant to be derogatory...My contention is that ethics don't change, people change, but the right and wrong don't just because society decides to accept it.

The statement he made was "how is it unethical to do whats in your best interest" which is absolutely why the question of ethics exist because it is not "ethical" to do things just because they are in your best interest - that is the exact reason for studying ethics!!!!

Cool. Ethics is subjective. Who decides upon a certain ethical code? It's dependant upon that... hence subject to whoever decides what is right and what is wrong.

Trying to pin down an ethics greater or more universal beyond us is controversial and contentious and is subject to our own belief system.

U found something objective beyond us name it? Love? While that sounds great it's still a feeling and subjective. It's Kant stuff. Aristotle and Plato stuff. Baudrillard and particularly Derrida would come and put a spoke in that wheel real quick.

 

[aikemirv]

It's not just unethical, it's collusion and if it leaked, both teams would face very stiff consequences.

Yep, I would think that doing this could have the effect of losing your franchise. I could see the NFL forcing a sale by the ownership if something like this ever occured.

 

[aikemirv]

Cool. Ethics is subjective. Who decides upon a certain ethical code? It's dependant upon that... hence subject to whoever decides what is right and what is wrong.

Trying to pin down an ethics greater or more universal beyond us is controversial and contentious and is subject to our own belief system.

U found something objective beyond us name it? Love? While that sounds great it's still a feeling and subjective. It's Kant stuff. Aristotle and Plato stuff. Baudrillard and particularly Derrida would come and put a spoke in that wheel real quick.

I could tell you but the post would get deleted!

 

[NorthTexan95]

I would ask this..

Is there a rule against it? Yes or No? If the answer is No, you make the deal and get into the dance. The Commanders offense can play ball so it might be in the interest of both parties to make a deal IMO.

At this point does a home playoff game mean more then missing the playoffs all together? I would think the answer is no. Just get into the dance

But I hate the skins and would love nothing more then to see both teams tie and knock them out

Yes, there is a rule against it. Yes, the league would come down very hard on both teams.

 

[DallasCowboys2080]

I could tell you but the post would get deleted!

It's classical philosophy vs post modern philosophy.

It's not objective. It's agreed upon and consensual reality. In one culture our pain isn't their pain. Our love isn't their love. Our ethics isn't their ethics. It changes dependent on agreed upon things and conditioning.

Yes in the NFL ethics this is wrong. But that's still subjective ethics. Subject to the culture of the NFL and I guess the wider American culture. Not some universal grand law.

 

[Doomsday101]

So let me ask if playing for a tie is unethical is holding out starters unethical? Cowboys have the #1 seed in hand but is sitting key players unethical if the object is to win

 

[JoeyBoy718]

Yeah because I'm sure either team would be thrilled with their division rival making it to the playoffs.