Here’s a fictional scenario. It’s week 17 in the NFL and Team A has a 13-2 record and has the #1 seed secure. Team A’s losses were both to Team B, a divisional rival that seems to have their number. They were both ugly losses, not at all close. The last two years they lost to Team B in the playoffs and have a 1-7 record against them overall in the last three years. The other 13 wins were all easy victories. Team B has finished its season and is 9-7. Team C is 9-6 and is trying to pass Team B for the 6th seed. Team B has the tiebreaker over Team C if they both finish 9-7. Team A is playing team C in the last game of the season. Would it be acceptable for Team A to lose to Team C on purpose to deny Team B a playoff spot? I think it would be fine to throw the game, though I might try to at least not make it obvious. What do you all think?
On purpose? No. However, it is more than likely that Team A will rest its best players, as they have nothing to gain by playing them and everything to lose if the players get injured, while Team C, in a win-or-stay-home situation, will play its best players.
This is an accepted practice, and common enough that most fantasy football leagues have their championship games in Week 16.
Not to mention that it’s a good opportunity to give your second and third string some real-world experience.
“No.”
I hope that answer is succinct enough. 
In cricket in 1992 World Cup, the Kiwis (New Zealand) are supposed to have deliberately lost their final game to Pakstan, to ensure that Australia were knocked out and NZ would play the Semi Final at home.
So it happens in other sports, why not in Gridiron?
Sure it is OK. Maybe it gives you a better draft pick. Maybe it keeps a hated rival out of the playoffs, or keeps a team that is your Kryptonite, out of the playoffs.
I think this is poor sportsmanship, however I do understand that the Kiwis were simply playing the championship rather than the game. A good championship system would not put teams in positions where it is beneficial to lose a match. Still, poor sportsmanship, you should play to win, out of respect for the opposing side and the spectators.
I don’t know what obligation exists to win a particular game if it improves your chances of winning other more important games.
No. Even if a team wanted to ‘throw’ a game, there are too many players on an NFL team that are looking for work next season. They know that their performance will be evaluated and a good game at the end of the year might just help them secure a job.
The team has an obligation to the paying spectators to give an honest performance.
“It isn’t whether you win or lose but how you play the game.”
Intentionally losing to maximize your chance of winning is remarkably poor sportsmanship.
These posts are what true sport is about.
You might as well ask “Is it ever acceptable for an NFL team to throw a game … for a bribe?”
Poor sportsmanship to lose a game on purpose; not poor sportsmanship to play cautiously. I’d expect every player to make an effort on every play; but as the coach I would play the game straightforwardly without being too aggressive or making the same tactical decisions I would make in an important game.
Rest your key players in preparation for the playoffs. Run the ball on 3rd and long instead of going for a pass for first down. Let the clock run while you are behind in the score. Keep your trick plays in your pocket.
"What would you do for a Klondike bar?
Would you… THROW A GAME?"
By the way, this happened in the 2012 Olympics. The players were, in my view, rightfully disqualified.
Teams tank seasons on purpose all the time. It might not be the players, but the management may influence, for no other reason than to get a higher draft pick. They are thinking L O N G term.
It’s ok to play the 2nd string and maybe not try your absolute hardest to win the game.
I’ve had this conversation with a friend who, in all seriousness, would just forfeit the game. Why bother? Why risk injury even to backup players? Use the additional time to gameplan for the playoffs. After all, is the objective to go 14-2 or to win the Super Bowl? If the latter, why *wouldn’t *you just forfeit?
I could marginally accept a team choosing to forfeit, although I think it is a pretty crummy thing to do to the fans. But in my view if you show up on the field you should be showing up to play to win.
Why? The spectators know the long term stakes in certain scenarios. Why not rest a Michael Jordan or a Rob Gronkowski if you get the playoff seeding you want? If I am a Pats fan and I see Gronk get hit low and his knee ruined for the season in a meaningless game I’d be upset.
I wonder if this happens at the end of college football, especially with non-title bowl games.
Example:
If we win, we get the #5 bowl slot, which is in Boise
If we lose, we get the #6 bowl slot, which is in Miami