Colts rant

[alpha]

Maybe there's no colts fans here, but it really ticked me off the way they pulled their starters out of the game to LET the Jets beat them last Sunday. Of course it stopped their undefeated season. They sure disappointed their loyal fans--as well as their players. Manning did not have to say a word, you could see it all over his face.

I was told that two season tickets will set you back 5 grand. I would never pay that much for tickets, but I sure don't blame those fans for booing the decision to put the subs in when the game was still competitive.

From what I have read, their President made this decision. This is another case where the management focuses on only one result (the super bowl) and they miss the bigger picture. How much loyality have they lost from fans, players, and coaches?

Rant over.

Bob

[catta12]

+1 to the rant.

I would have been very PO'ed if I had tickets to the Jets game and they pulled that. I have been a Colts fan (not die-hard though) since Jr. High. Peyton Manning and company are great, but upstairs lost my respect.

[tommyt654]

The Colts moved to Indiannapolis!

[BrazosJake]

Count your blessings, you could be a long-time Cowboys fan.

I suffer from multiple-personality disorder every time they play: as a long-time fan, I want them to win, but I despise the evil Boss Hog and what he's done to the team and can't stand seeing his mug in front of the mike gloating over a win (as if he deserves any credit for one).

Not only can real fans no longer afford to go attend a game, with the Jerry Bowl next door to the Ballpark, I have to check the schedule before going to a Rangers game to make sure we don't get swallowed up in traffic.

[phi1l]

Personally, I don't care one way or the other about the Colts, but how would you guys be feeling if Manning had played & broke a leg in a game that had no meaning for teh standings??

[LCHIEN]

Personally, I don't care one way or the other about the Colts, but how would you guys be feeling if Manning had played & broke a leg in a game that had no meaning for teh standings??

that's what i was thinking,
and also some playing time for the subs may pay off if they are required to step in during the playoffs, even for a few minutes.

[sweensdv]

I've always thought that the focus for the entire season was winning the Super Bowl. Just ask the Patriots what their undefeated regular season got them a few years back? One can only wonder how many of those upset Colts fans will still be upset if the Colts do in fact end up winning the Super Bowl?

[TB Roye]

The Baltimore Colts would never have done that. Neither would the LA Rams or LA Raiders


Tom

[herb fellows]

So I'm guessing you guys don't want to hear from a Jets fan?!

[germdoc]

This was always my favorite Colt player:

[sparkeyjames]

Count your blessings, you could be a long-time Cowboys fan.

If you think the Cowboys have problems try being any sort of a Lions fan I don't recall the Cowboys ever having finished 2 seasons in a row with only 2 wins. Oh and the Lions management has been abysmal for so long it's running joke that if it were a normal company (non entertainment based) they would have gone belly up back in the 70's. The Fords should stick to something they know like say building automobiles and trucks.

[Uncle Cracker]

I can understand the logic in reminding the team (and the fans) that the goal is to give the team the best possibility to win the Super Bowl. By refocusing on the big picture, and by resting the most critical personnel in the safety of the bench, I think the coaches have done that. Plus, they can get some valuable game experience to back-up players. There would be no end to the criticism that would ensue if a critical starter sustained a serious injury in a game that made no difference in the standings, especially if for no other reason than to satisfy a selfish goal of an undefeated season. The Colts have been in this position before, so it makes sense that they can decide what's best.

[leehljp]

I personally think any team that does not give its all and best every game in which winning in a civilized manner is not the goal - should be penalized a first round draft pick and maybe a second round.

Professional football is not an isolated "business", it exists because of the fans, is representative of a geographic area and culture. This cannot be separated. Take away the fan financial support base and there is no financial basis for the team to continue. The owners with all of their money cannot operate without the fan's monetary support. Sure the fans will support and be happy if they win the superbowl, but you better believe that the lost respect for the coaches and owners will play a HUGE part when the Colts (or similar teams) become mediocre.

Loyalty can be measured by how a team is supported when they are mediocre or at the bottom. The effects of the loss of the game will be felt when the Colts return to mediocrity. It will be in the form of loss of loyalty and vocal/written criticism at every turn by local sports writers, sports commentators, local fans and blogs. IF they have respect for a coach or management or owner, the fans/writers will tolerate some losses for a few "rebuilding" years. If the respect is lost, no tolerance even when winning in the form of a 9 - 7 or even a 10 - 6 season.

To top this, when fans feel betrayed by a business decision, the ones (fans) straddling a fence on team store items (shirts, mugs, etc,) you can bet that the negative nature will affect a percentage of sales. 1% & 2% sales differentiation is a big deal in todays world.

If someone is injured, they should not play to begin with, and that is the "luck of the draw" so to speak. I am for the "concussion" rule that has been in the news lately. As to playing and getting injured during a "no meaning game," that too is the "luck of the draw", and putting forth the best effort should be to the integrity of the team and community.

In general, "giving up" and "giving in" on purpose is the same to me as "throwing a fight". If they are going to "throw a fight", and coaches and management know that it is a possibility in the upcoming game - it should be announced before hand so that attendees can have the choice of whether they want to attend or not. Attendee fans are a part of that "business" and should have the right to support or reject it. IF it is not broadcast that they will throw the game, they (owners/coaches) should be held to the same standards applied to Pete Rose, only the owners/coaches know more of the probability of the outcome than PR did.

IF a game is out of reach and "time" is obviously on one side, then yes, it is OK to pull the main guys for the purpose of giving experience to the backups, not for the purpose of protecting the starters, IMO. Give your best.


I am not a "Belichick" fan, but I do admire him for going for it at the season's end. Contrary to what people say about "losing" the super bowl, When you have a perfect season and lose it, - it is remembered and will be for a long time. Had they lost a game or two at the end of the season, AND lost the super bowl too, it would be a forgotten memory already. Losing a game for the sake of saving the starters does not itself guarantee a win in the Superbowl.

[OpaDC]

+1 You play to win!

[scmhogg]

A client of mine is a bookie. He cleaned up on that game. If management decides not to play to win, they should announce it in advance for the gamblers.

Steve