That’s why Ohio State skipped the Big Ten title game. They’ll still go to the playoffs, so why not send Penn State to play Wisconsin, where OSU could rest its players.
Good strategy!
This is my thought. Look at the 49ers. They are the Browns’ biggest fans these days.
A few years ago that was the conventional wisdom. Instead Tom Coughlin had his 1st team play hard against the undefeated Patriots. Nearly beat them. The coach felt he needed the team in the proper state of mind and ready to play going into the playoffs. It worked out pretty well.
I have no issue with not fielding the best players you’ve got. Players need a rest and can’t play every game, but the players who are on the field should be doing their best to win.
If it is ok for a team to intentionally lose a game, what happens when it is in BOTH teams interests to lose the game? It would be farcical. The object of a game is to win it, so the players should be trying to win, or at the very least, trying NOT to lose. If a championship is setup in such a way that it is desirable to lose games then the championship needs to be revamped.
The classic example of “playing cautiously rather than playing to win” was the 1982 World Cup match between West Germany and Austria. The way the tournament was set up back then, if West Germany won by 2 goals or more, West Germany and Algeria would advance to the next round; if Austria won or it was a draw, Austria and Algeria would advance; if West Germany won by one goal, West Germany and Austria would advance. West Germany scored after 10 minutes, and the next 80 consisted mainly of defensive soccer, as both teams realized that any attempt at serious offense might result in the other team controlling the ball and scoring the goal that knocked the other team out of the World Cup. You could say that Austria “threw the match”; almost needless to say, some changes were made for 1986 (for example, all of the final matches in a group now have to start at the same time, so no team will know any other team’s final group standing in advance).
ETA: Never mind, I completely messed up my analysis.
There was a situation in 1977 where the Baltimore Colts pretty much lost on purpose (having a punt blocked late in the game) to the lowly Detroit Lions. It pretty much eliminated the Patriots (who needed an unlikely set of circumstances the next week to make the playoffs) and gave the Colts control of the tie breaker with Miami. The NFL and Pete Rozelle did their usual Sgt Schultz imitation.
That 2nd story is absolutely hilarious. A girl’s basketball team’s attempt to score in their own basket was thwarted by a 10 second violation. Props to the officials for calling out the coaches on their shenanigans. I don’t know how I’d put up with that if I were officiating.
In the NFL the winning team is credited with a 2-0 victory in case of a forfeit. I remember one time a few decades ago when the Redskins would make the playoffs if they won their final season game or, due to a tiebreaker based on points scored, lost by a small margin, but would be eliminated if they lost by a large margin. At the time there was some fan speculation that it might be a good idea to just forfeit to assure a playoff spot, but the NFL head office let it be know that there would be Very Serious Consequences (never specified) were the team to actually do this. If I remember correctly, the Redskins went on to win the game.
Unfortunately for you the edits aren’t invisible to me. 
As mentioned above, the NFL would likely take measures to discourage that. Also, it’s possible that doing so could put the team involved in violation of its players" contracts. Depending on contract wording, intentionally forfeiting could be seen as a attempt to deny players their per game pay.
There is scoring, then the game, then the championship. It is okay to give up scoring to win the game, but it isn’t okay to give up the game to win the championship. We all agree that it is okay to give up some points if it means you’ll win the game. But yet, teams aren’t allowed to give up a game to win a championship. Why? If the ultimate goal is to win the championship, then if dropping a game is the best chance of doing that, why isn’t it okay?
IMHO because modern-day mass-consumed sports is more about entertainment and marketing that the sport itself - it is about making money under the illusion of “sport”. If people knew teams were throwing games on purpose, for any reason, they would stop watching, and the NFL and advertisers would not make as much money.
The Barbados-Grenada match in 1994 probably should be mentioned here too. The wiki explains it well: basically, Barbados needed to win the match by 2 goals to advance, and OT goals counted double for goal differential. Barbados had a two goal lead until late, and then…
IMHO, snowthx has the right answer for why we don’t see overt tanking more often in professional sports. It’s not entertaining.
EDIT: Oh, and since the Dallas Cowboys can seem to beat everyone in the NFL other than the Giants, could we see some chicanery so the Cowboys could get out of having to play them a third time in the playoffs? Not sure how that would work out, and I think the psychological damage from their coach lacking faith in their team would be a bad thing, but it’s something to idly keep in mind.
…where on earth did you get that from? I remember this match well, and it most certainly wasn’t one that NZ went in to loose.
Here are some of the team talking about the next game they played, the semi-final.
[QUOTE=Warren Lees]
The feeling, I think, was that we were still rolling along. That may have been more the senior players saying, ‘No, we’re okay.’ But I do think there was a lot of, ‘We’ve lost one, shivers,’ from the younger players.
[/QUOTE]
I’ve never seen anything to suggest the Kiwi’s deliberately lost that game. We had just won seven in a row, which for us was pretty much unprecedented. They most certainly didn’t want to break their winning streak. What makes you think that they did?
I’ve never quite understood this, either. Players are ‘rested’ during a long season, so that they are fit for the playoffs. Usain Bolt will jog in 3rd in the heats of the 100m, so as not to risk injury. Bigger goal - title race.
In games, teams will give up a small score rather than risk the chance of a big score (we’ve all seen deliberate safeties occur now and then in the NFL). Bigger goal - win the game.
If there is an ultimate prize - an overall title which you are trying to win - you do whatever you can to ensure you win. I thought the Chinese Badminton players should NOT have been disqualified.
Yeah, I was worried about that. So… what will it take for this issue to go away? I’ve heard mods are not above a little bribery. “little” as in you can be bought cheap.
This works well to explain NFL games, but it doesn’t help with high school level stuff. In the second link by Skammer it was two high school basketball teams both trying to lose. The refs told the coaches to quit making a mockery of the game. The NFL and big sports leagues have a vested interest in making sure all games are played to win. It is why Pete Rose isn’t in the hall of fame. But for other stuff? I don’t see the problem with teams tossing games if they think that is the best way to win the championship. If some other team loses out, tough. Even in the NFL teams will pass up opportunities for an outright win in favor of taking their chances in overtime. How many times do you see teams kicking the PAT and going to overtime instead of going for 2 and winning outright? Happens all the time.