Because the people who bet on football games will be pissed as hell. Sports book is legal in several states, and it assumes the games will be played honestly. When I had a sports call-in show, I would get calls from people who would be irate over coaching decisions that kept the team from beating the spread, even though they were perfectly legitimate choices (and sports betting was illegal at that point). It’s a dirty secret that some of the NFL’s popularity comes from the betting line.
If you’re willing to give up a game, what’s to stop players to play less than their best in order to beat the point spread?
By that same logic teams need to be playing to win by as big a margin as possible. If it is okay for a team to give up points, why isn’t it okay for them to give up a game? As you indicated, they tip the betting either way.
The NFL will NEVER allow teams to play to lose. They can, however, not play to win. Meaning, they are allowed to not play their top talent, not run their best plays and not risk injuries to key players. Everyone agrees that players out there are playing their hardest and playing to win, but that if far different than the team as a whole playing to win.
From a consumer standpoint, this is like going to the movies, paying to see *Star Wars *Rogue 1 and seeing instead the Family Guy’s Star Wars parody, complete with commercial interruption.
The teams charge money, and in some cases a lot of money, for spectators to see the game. Most games are televised. A network(s) bargained for, and paid for, the rights to broadcast the game. If the game is not on the up and up, all these people were duped and deserve a refund.
There’s a tremendous difference in my mind between making a choice to go for a tie (with or without overtime) instead of a loss and intentionally losing a game. To me the key word is intentional. I’m not taking about playing it safe, or playing a defensive game, or whatever are valid tactical options on the field. I’m taking about taking a dive. So for football this would mean, intentionally throwing interceptions, intentionally throwing the ball away, intentionally mucking a kick, etc. This is, again in my mind, very poor sportsmanship.
This was what I was thinking about though I did exaggerate somewhat in the OP. If the Cowboys had won against the Giants on Sunday, that would have put the Giants in position to miss the playoffs. Throwing the upcoming game to Tampa and hoping that Washington also won out would have made Washington and Tampa the likely wildcards. At this point that no longer makes sense. As a longtime Cowboys fan, I have the perception, whether fair or not, that the Giants try harder against good teams, especially the Cowboys (when they’re good) and the Patriots. It’s why the Giants are my most hated team, even more than Washington, Philadelphia, and Pittsburgh.
Right, but the team itself does not have a stake in the betting, or at least shouldn’t. Once a victory is in hand, there is usually no reason to run-up the score, unless the team is concerned with a tie in the standings where number of points is called into play. I am not sure this would be a usual concern, tho.
And running up the score is considered poor sportsmanship - the team does not want some revenge thing happening next season if the shoe is on the other foot. Sure the winning team may rotate-in bench players to mitigate against additional scoring, but those players are going to try hard on their own. Second-string players giving-up a few points when a win is assured is quite different from losing the game on purpose.
But teams muck up on purpose all the time. Just a few weeks ago Pittsburgh let Dallas into the endzone because Pittsburgh wanted their offense to have as much time on the clock as possible to go score. The offense didn’t purposely muck up, but the defense did. Baltimore mucked up a kick to kill the clock, giving up points but still win the game. These are acceptable practices because the bigger goal is to win the game. And that is where everyone draws the line. You can muck up plays to win the game, but you aren’t allowed to muck up games to win the championship. And yet we all agree that if given a choice, lose a game and win a championship or win the game and lose the championship, just about everyone would say you should do the former. But no one is allowed to actually do it.
You can’t have it both ways. You can’t say that teams aren’t allowed to toss games because of Vegas interests and then say teams are allowed to not run up scores because they don’t have a stake in the betting. If betting is a reason for enforcing every team play to win, then betting is a reason for every team to score as much as possible.
But teams have been known to play second string players for AN ENTIRE GAME when there is nothing to be gained from winning the game. Look at what Cleveland (NBA) did last night. They all but tossed the game.
But your argument still boils down to saying that it is okay to give up points within a game if you are still going to win a game. I doubt most would argue against that thought. I sure wouldn’t. So why isn’t it okay to give up a game to win a championship?
Someone mentioned the influence of Vegas. So then why aren’t teams expected to score as much as possible? Vegas lines are based on score differential, not just who wins and loses. If Vegas is an influence, that has to be considered.
“Over/under” betting (betting on whether the combined score of both teams will be over or under a certain number) is a big thing in Vegas, especially in NFL betting.
There is “a line” between “not running up the score” and “point shaving” (where a team that is favored to win underperforms so that, while it still wins the game, it does not cover the point spread), but it’s hazy at best. Part of the 1994 Arizona State point-shaving scandal included a game against Washington where the rumors about point shaving were so rampant at Arizona State that quite a few students drove to Vegas to bet on Washington - but when ASU was behind by 2 at halftime, the team was visited in the locker room by FBI agents who actually accused them of point shaving, and ASU ended up winning easily.
Note that point shaving is specifically prohibited in the NCAA bylaws; it is considered the equivalent to throwing a game, and the player immediately loses all remaining college eligibility.
Yes, I’m familiar with all of that. But that makes my point about what is and isn’t acceptable. We accept that teams don’t run up scores and call that showing sportsmanship. We accept that teams will not win by as much as possible if it means a greater chance to win a game, or even give them a better chance to win a championship (resting starters). All of these things are allowed as long as it isn’t done with an eye towards Vegas. But when we start talking about purposely losing games in particular ways, Vegas is considered one reason teams aren’t allowed to do such a thing. Which brings us back to whether Vegas is a justification for teams being allowed to play one way or another. If yes, teams need to score as much as possible. If no, then don’t use it to justify why teams aren’t allowed to toss games.
With or without Vegas, players are not allowed to toss games (but coaches are allowed by playing backups?) even if it means a better chance of winning a championship. Players are allowed to give up points and not try their hardest, as long as they play to win the game. But when they do that to win a championship at the cost of a game, suddenly everyone is crying foul.
I have no objection to this. One play, even a couple of plays as part of a larger game where the team is trying to win make sense. This is not the same thing as intentionally losing. The main point is that if you show up on the field you should be showing up to win. If the league/sport allows forfeiting then forfeit if you want to intentionally lose, but don’t show up and intentionally lose. Now, I will go further and say that forfeiting should carry a heavy penalty so that teams are not encouraged to forfeit but that another discussion in my mind. It is disrespectful to the sport and to the spirit of sportsmanship to play in a fashion to intentionally lose a game.
Everyone seems to agree that teams can give up scoring if it leads to a win in the game, because the end of the game is important. If a championship is more important than a single game, why can’t teams give up a game in pursuit of that?
Look at what Cleveland did last night in the NBA. They didn’t show up to lose, but they didn’t show up to win. It is mostly acceptable because people agree that the starters need rest for the long haul. So again, some practices with a view towards the long haul, the championship, are okay, but others are not. Why?
Again, for some reason, there is a line drawn at the game level. Teams MUST play to win the game, or at least not purposely tank it. Even if that means a lesser chance for a greater goal.
Was Baltimore disrespectful when they purposely took a safety with a ton of holding penalties to win the game? Why not?
Because sportsmanship isn’t about winning the championship. Sportsmanship is about how you conduct yourself on the field of play. I.e. back to my original response “It isn’t whether you win or lose, but how you play the game.”
Missed the edit window. Please ignore the previous post.
Because sportsmanship isn’t about winning the championship. Sportsmanship is about how you conduct yourself on the field of play. I.e. back to my original response “It isn’t whether you win or lose, but how you play the game.”
Because there’s also the practical reality of humans playing high-level sport. We can acknowledge that sure, the top players just physically can’t play every single game. I would contend that within the tradition of the sport the team showed up to win. They put forth a set of players that they thought could win the game. I mean, I don’t know much about basketball so I’m making the assumption that they were playing a lesser team and so put out the B-string, knowing they might not win against their A-string but might stand a chance. This is not the same as intentionally losing, which would be, I don’t know, intentionally passing the ball to the other team’s players. Conducting no defense to allow them to score. Etc.
I don’t know anything about it, so I’ll say “Maybe”.
As things look right now, Baltimore absolutely needed that win to have even a chance to make the playoffs. Do you think anyone on the Baltimore team is thinking that it would have been better to show sportsmanship at the cost of a shot at the playoffs? I can’t imagine there would be.
I can throw out cliches, too, like “winning isn’t everything, it is the only thing.” Who cares? When athletes are judged on their qualifications for their sport’s hall of fame, one criteria that is used is number of championships. They also look at how often they won games and how many times they won playoff games. I never hear anyone talk about sportsmanship as a qualification for being one of the best. It may make them a popular and well liked player, but it doesn’t get them enshrined in the hall of fame or even on the all star team.
Personally, I think teams should be using every means within the rules to win a championship. That is the ultimate goal in every league. Dirty play and targeting type stuff cannot be condoned for any reason. But purposely losing? I don’t see the problem.
As a side note… the NBA game I referenced was Cleveland vs. Memphis. Memphis is 18-9 and clearly a contending team. Cleveland sat their two biggest players, who didn’t even make the trip, solely to rest them to increase their chances of winning the championship. Cleveland was NOT playing to win.
Back in 1974 the Atlanta Braves were scheduled to open the season with a three game series in Cincinnati before returning home for a 10 game home stand. With Hank Aaron one behind Babe Ruth’s home run record, the Braves announced he would not play in the first three games so he could break the record in front of the home runs, who did not turn out in great numbers in 1973 (home attendance was 800,655). Commissioner Bowie Kuhn put the kibbosh on that, telling the Braves that since Aaron played 120 games in 1973, that he should play in two games in Cincinnati to protect “the integrity of the game”.