1. #1

    *Sports* Resting Your Stars

    Today, the Kansas City Chiefs saw that winning or losing had no result on their playoff position so they decided to not play their star players. This is commonly done in many sports before playoffs. I am not a fan of it for a few reasons.

    1. I don't think it's effective. Every time I see the star players come back they need more time to adjust. If the team happens to have a bye they are going up to 3 weeks without playing. At least in football the playoffs seem to follow the momentum of the teams. Low seeds on a hot streak frequently bump off better teams. I'm sure there are examples of it but I really don't remember a team that has went on to win the Super Bowl after resting their starters.

    2. I don't think it's fair to the fans. If someone pays 120$ to see their team play they should see that team playing to the best of their abilities. They don't want to see a third string quarterback fumbling snaps.

    3. Gambling. It's a business and odds are given with the assumption both people will be trying. It's almost like throwing the game. I don't do it, but my coworkers are always gambling with each other. One of the guys had a hundred dollar bet with a coworker at 5 to 1 odds that the Steelers would get in the playoffs. With how the games fell today, all he needs is KC to win. I would feel bad for him if he loses out on 500$ because of players sitting on the bench instead of playing the game.

    The only advantage I really see is that football is very physical. Every play is one that you can become injured. However, I see that as a risk you take when you decide to play ball for a living.

    What are your thoughts on resting players?
    Is this where the header goes?

  2. #2
    I'm pretty sure I'm the man in this forum who suffered from Jamaal Charles not playing.

    /kill myself

    Sec, lemme form an opinion.

  3. #3
    If you can afford to sit players for a more "important" game, you would be stupid not to do it.
    Intel i5 2500K (4.5 GHz) | Asus Z77 Sabertooth | 8GB Corsair Vengeance LP 1600MHz | Gigabyte Windforcex3 HD 7950 | Crucial M4 128GB | Crucial M550 256GB | Asus Xonar DGX | Samson SR 850 | Zalman ZM-Mic1 | Western Digital Caviar Blue 500GB | Noctua NH-U12P SE2 | Fractal Design Arc Midi | Corsair HX650

    Tanking with the Blessing of Kings - The TankSpot Guide to the Protection Paladin - Updated for Patch 5.4!

  4. #4
    Okay here are my thoughts: It's perfectly fine to rest players. It's for the sake of the team.

    To respond to your points:

    1) That's an opinion that it's ineffective. Sure, momentum is lost, but you risk injuring the player or making him more tired by playing him.

    2) Yeah, it's not fair to fans who go in person. It sucks, I know. But there's no set amount of time the stars should be playing. I think that's a risk that comes with buying a ticket to a game. My philosophy is to go to see a good match between good teams, not to see one player. Of course, that's not how teams advertise...

    3) Lol gambling. Who cares about that? It's part of the risk of gambling to understand situations.

  5. #5
    Quote Originally Posted by Blueobelisk View Post

    2) Yeah, it's not fair to fans who go in person. It sucks, I know. But there's no set amount of time the stars should be playing. I think that's a risk that comes with buying a ticket to a game. My philosophy is to go to see a good match between good teams, not to see one player. Of course, that's not how teams advertise...
    My problem is I don't think this happens when you rest your players. There were a few different circumstances last year in the NBA but the Spurs were fined by the NBA for not playing their starters mid season against the Heat. It was a big game and they took all the star power out of it.

    I would hope that if I go to a game I would have the same chance of seeing the best players who are able to play regardless of records or point in the season. I can even understand nursing injuries but sitting healthy players is not fair to the fans.
    Is this where the header goes?

  6. #6
    That was a scheduling problem where the Spurs had 4 games in 5 nights. Even if you don't consider a player's injury status, players just don't play well if they're tired and it's detrimental to the team's winning.

    If I recall well (and I do (I -am- the NBA thread) the Spurs almost won that game, and I believe they were leading, so it's not like the game wasn't good just because some big name players weren't there.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •