GB-Det game brings up interesting ethical question

[CowboyStar88]

Collusion" happens when two or more teams in the league conspire together to effect some outcome in the league.

But does it apply to in-game or financially?

 

[CowboyStar88]

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

While I understand there are rules against collusion on the financial side of the business see the fine in the uncapped year, but if 2 teams agree to tie on the field is there a rule against it? I see people saying yes, but I've yet to see the rule itself.

 

[Sarge]

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

Detroit

 

[mrmojo]

So of Skins lose, GB and Lions only playing for a home game in playoffs?

 

[Idgit]

If I'm Detroit, I cut this deal and then try to score on the last possession of the game. Screw you, Packers.

 

[Echo9]

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.

You've actually hit on the NFL version of the Classic "Game Theory" puzzle The Prisoner's Dilemma, Interesting post. As for the answer, that'd be fixing a game so it's a major problem if revealed.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prisoner's_dilemma
Game theory is "the study of mathematical models of conflict and cooperation between intelligent rational decision-makers."

 

[Verdict]

Let me ask you this, would you ever agree to tie the Skins, Giants or Eagles so they could get in?

Thread/

Drop the mic and walk off stage Sarge. Well played, my friend, well played.

 

[Verdict]

Actually it would be a poor decision to collude because it would undermine the betting world which is what drives football anyway. Once instance of collusion would damage thse sport more than having a Hardy and a Rice on every team in the NFL and the NFL saying we really don't care about domestic violence, and by the way pass me some more of that black tar heroin because I need my fix.

What is more plausible is for a team to decide whether to kick a chip shot field goal for the tie rather than go one yard for the touchdown and the win in overtime knowing the tie gets you in the playoffs for sure. In that instance you kick the field goal take the tie and assure yourself of getting in the playoffs.

 

[Verdict]

That scenario would be collusion.

I guess what I am point to is I could see both team becoming unbelievably conservative in overtime if the outcome of a tie is both teams go the playoffs.

It isn't collusion because nether team discussed it with the other team and there is no agreement to collude. That is simply the results of conservative decision making, that is actually fairly sound football.

 

[Verdict]

It is not the same but is it ethical? People pay money to see star players not a pre season game. What you may think it unethical and what someone else views as unethical may be different. Is ethical for a team to tank a game to ensure they get the overall 1st rd pick? yet teams have done that because it was in their best interest not in the interest of the game

If you pay to see Kid Rock perform you pay the same price if he is on top of his game, if he has a bad cold and can't sing well, or is drunk off his ***. You are paying to see whatever product they put on the field that particular night.

 

[NorthTexan95]

While I understand there are rules against collusion on the financial side of the business see the fine in the uncapped year, but if 2 teams agree to tie on the field is there a rule against it? I see people saying yes, but I've yet to see the rule itself.

What's the role of the commissioner? To do what is in the best interest of the game. It may be hard for the officials to do something during the game but the fans and press would howl. The Commish would take drastic actions against both teams. If this actually happened I wouldn't be surprised if he kicked both teams out of the playoffs.

 

[Verdict]

What's the role of the commissioner? To do what is in the best interest of the game. It may be hard for the officials to do something during the game but the fans and press would howl. The Commish would take drastic actions against both teams. If this actually happened I wouldn't be surprised if he kicked both teams out of the playoffs.

This would be so bad that if they didn't think they could cover it up 100 percent that they might require ownership p of the offending teams to sell their team to a new owner. It is that big of a deal.

 

[Angus]

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.

An AGREEMENT to do it would be unethical because the two teams are not the only people with a stake in the outcome. That would be no different than an agreement between themselves that one or the other team would win and the other lose, throw the game. It would be unsporting and dishonorable, even without an agreement, if one of the coaches purposely caused his team to fail to win when it reasonably could, but not if merely settling for an advantageous tie when winning is not likely and it is in the best interests of the team and its fans to reach a tie rather than lose.

 

[Don Corleone]

The NFL is entertainment. They do have the right to shape outcomes as they wish. If you had billions of dollars at stake you would do the same.

 

[CWR]

But does it apply to in-game or financially?

Honestly dont know. I am almost certain there are some experts on here that can clarify. I think such an agreement would so egregiously affect the quality of the product on the field that the NFL would be forced to step in. Imagine it from the perspective of the fans that bought tickets and attended that game. Its an interesting discussion but at the end of the day I dont believe it could ever realistically happen.

 

[perrykemp]

Honestly dont know. I am almost certain there are some experts on here that can clarify. I think such an agreement would so egregiously affect the quality of the product on the field that the NFL would be forced to step in. Imagine it from the perspective of the fans that bought tickets and attended that game. Its an interesting discussion but at the end of the day I dont believe it could ever realistically happen.

A lots of player's escalator clauses in their contracts trigger on achieving certain statistical milestones -- many of which come down to the wire (last game or two of the season) to achieve.

I suspect you'd have a player rebellion in a scenario where both teams basically sat on the ball for 75 minutes

 

[Doomsday101]

If you pay to see Kid Rock perform you pay the same price if he is on top of his game, if he has a bad cold and can't sing well, or is drunk off his ***. You are paying to see whatever product they put on the field that particular night.

If I pay to see Kid rock and he does not show up then I was ripped off.

 

[Chuck 54]

Ridiculous premise. Can you imagine us colluding with one of our hated rivals for a tie game, which means we also have to play an entire overtime period to a tie? No way! Part of the thrill of winning is making the playoffs, but there's also part which is the joy of ending our rival's season.