The Famous Jets Coach Was Wrong, Part Two: The only question left is how bad did it get...

It's always been kind of a not-well-kept secret that a number of teams in professional sports are what is referred to as "tanking" -- intentionally losing games because there's no chance, with current personnel, to contend for any championship (in the guise of gaining a better draft position).

It doesn't usually work in American professional sports parlance, at least as a means to actually get a team to prominence.  To just off the top of my head, only the Houston Trash-tros really have parlayed a long spell of tanking into championships in their sport, and we all know other illegal conduct was also involved in getting that scam over the line.

The only other one which I remember getting that close that Philadelphia's "The Process", but that has stalled out at mid-upper levels, largely due to the sham which is Ben Simmons, who still has not played a game for the team this season and probably will not.

(My anonymous baseball-historian friend also points to the 2016 Cubs as another example.)

The understanding that tanking is endemic to professional sports is one thing.  Hell, Mark Cuban was fined $600,000 for telling everyone the Dallas Mavericks were tanking in 2017 and 2018.  By 2017-18's All-Star break, seven teams were 20 games or more below .500.

Scott Boras, in talking about MLB before the lockout, says barely half the teams in the league are even trying to win at this point.

That's one thing.

To actually come out and now have open-faced discussion that coaches of at least two sorry NFL franchises (the three-wins-in-40 Browns and the "Tank For Tua" Dolphins) were offered healthy bonuses for each game they lost -- and, now, the concept that at least one of them was fired for refusing!! -- is quite another, and should be the end of this practice.

I have long said, to argument from readers of this blog, that long-standing losing franchises should be re-examined for the "going concern" going forward (their ability to remain in business) and eventually disbanded as poor business practices.

Situations like this are why.

I get the NFL is a printing press and every team is making beaucoup many millions, etc. and so forth and so on.

But, even beyond the farce which this makes of "You Play To Win The Game", why in the Hell would I want to buy a licensed (or any) piece of merchandise and remain a fan of a team which has found it in their best interests to lose and to pocket this printing press of money?

It's match-fixing.

It's match-THROWING.  On a league-wide epidemic scale.

There is no chance, especially in the NBA and MLB, that you can go to a game in many cities and not be witness to a fixed/thrown match.

I made a number of comments early in the "Tank For Tua" season that the NFL needed to jam in and get that situation in Miami under control, up to and including seizure of the franchise.

You now have the head coach of that team stating ownership was offering him $100,000 a loss to get Tua.

You have the former coach of the Browns saying the same, without giving a figure -- but he did say it was quite high, AND THAT HE ACCEPTED THE MONEY.  (Retracted 2/5/22, but Jackson still maintains he has proof the Browns intended to lose, and will produce it.)

I would hope some people would have the idea of just SOME of the problems surrounding all of this, far over and above simply "Why are people even fans of the functional equivalents of the Washington Generals?"

1) I've been told, for a very long time, that the main reason that I am so ridiculous with my claims about rigged games, especially in the NFL is that it would eventually get out because no one could hold this epidemic back forever.  We may be seeing that now, at least one manifestation of it.

2) But the real first question people should ask is:  Now that we have an NFL coach on the record, stating that he was offered money to lose games (and a second saying he actually TOOK THE DAMN MONEY) (and a second with alleged proof his team intended to lose),  how long is it going to be before we get NFL players admitting the same -- both in intent and in payment?

3) And then the real question from that:  We know it is legal for the NFL (or any sports league) to rig games (Mayer vs. Belichick, NE Patriots, and NFL).  We know it is ILLEGAL for a person to take money to shave points.  (Federal Sports Bribery Laws (18 USC 224)).

But, given a reading of 18 USC 224(a):

"Whoever carries into effect, attempts to carry into effect, or conspires with any other person to carry into effect any scheme in commerce to influence, in any way, by bribery any sporting contest, with knowledge that the purpose of such scheme is to influence by bribery that contest, shall be fined under this title, or imprisoned not more than 5 years, or both."  

... would this not imply a Federal criminal act by the owners of the Miami Dolphins, Cleveland Browns, Hue Jackson, and any other team so "tanking", IRRESPECTIVE OF Mayer?

(Brian Tuohy has already picked up on this...  He is claiming Flores, if he accepted, is guilty of a Federal crime as well.  I have noted to Brian that Flores has not.  Jackson, on the other hand...)

Brian Flores has stated, in court documents, he was offered a bribe of $100,000 per loss to lose games for the Miami Dolphins as it's head coach to gain Tua Tagovailoa, and that his firing was due to his refusal to do so, even though the team did get Tagovailoa because a late-season college injury.

Flores has admitted this probably is going to fuck any future coaching prospects in the NFL, including a current situation in which he is a finalist to be the new coach of the Houston Texans -- probably one of the major candidates to be the next major tanking situation.

Hue Jackson has stated on his Twitter since the Flores situation has gone public that he was GIVEN substantial money -- unlike Flores, he DID NOT refuse the offer! -- to lose games in Cleveland.  He did not give a figure.

So now the question for the NFL...  Do the owners have the same protection (under Mayer) the league itself has?  If so, how far does that protection eventually extend?  Mayer, if taken beyond simply the league itself, would actually make Sports Bribery legal -- with this as the main reason you could make that claim.  If all a fan is ever entitled to is a seat and a result -- if the game is no different than a Debbie Gibson performance in Funny Girl -- then why would it matter who's paying off the players?  Why would it functionally matter if the league or a bookie was paying off to rig the result?

Stay tuned, everybody:  This is about to get messy -- if Real Life doesn't make things a THOUSAND TIMES MESSIER...