For the duration of the 2011 season, NFL teams knew who would be the first overall selection in the 2012 Draft. It was unanimous that Stanford quarterback Andrew Luck would be the choice for whichever team ended with the worst record. Luck, who was viewed as the best college quarterback prospect since 4-time league MVP Peyton Manning was drafted in 1999, was always going to be the eventual ‘prize’ for the biggest loser in the NFL. Luck’s talents were so highly valued that during the 2011 season, fans of teams with losing records started to support an idea against all principles of sportsmanship; to lose the remaining games in order to secure that first overall pick, to ‘Suck for Luck’.
Now the 2011 season has concluded and the 2012 draft has run its course, and top pick Andrew Luck is the Indianapolis Colts’ new franchise quarterback, the question can be asked: Would it have made football sense to intentionally lose games to secure the top draft choice? For four years in a row, the first pick in the draft has been a quarterback, with good results – the 2011 1st pick Cam Newton set rookie records in both running and passing, while 2008 1st pick Matthew Stafford last year became one of only four quarterbacks in history to throw for over 5000 yards in a season. The importance of having a franchise quarterback cannot be overlooked, as all the Superbowl champions for the past nine years have had one of the league’s top 10 quarterbacks.
This strategy logically eliminates teams which have already been blessed with franchise quarterbacks, or teams with a winning record. However, in 2011, three teams did not fit these provisos. The Cleveland Browns, Washington Redskins and Miami Dolphins were all respectively within two, three or four losses of the 1st overall pick, based on the tiebreakers the NFL uses to determine draft order. Imagine if the alternative to secure a surefire quarterback was presented to the general manager of each team: To lose a few games in an otherwise throwaway season, or give up a bounty of future draft picks (such as Washington’s trade with St Louis this year, giving up 3 first-round choices for the 2nd overall selection)?
The answer is simple, but there is far more involved in the question. With a run of losses (intended or otherwise) there is a cost of loss of morale amongst the players, coaches and fanbase. The franchise loses attractiveness to key free agents. There is a financial risk as season ticket holders may not renew, and merchandise sales will decline. Throwing games may even cause illegal gambling, or legal implications. One stratagem to disguise the intentional loss of games might be to simply take no action – if a team is performing poorly and no changes are made, no coaches are cut, no players are traded for and no shift in a bad offensive or defensive scheme is undertaken, the team’s fate most likely will be sealed.
One voice crying out against such a practice includes the NFL players themselves. When questioned, Miami Dolphins tight end Anthony Fasano stated his disgust. “It’s sick actually. I can’t even fathom those thoughts of those people that conjure up that stuff.” The sentiment was echoed around the league. “We’re professionals, we don’t go through training camp, minicamp, O.T.A.’s, off-season training, just to tank a year for a college player that’s unproven,” said Indianapolis Colts defensive end Robert Mathis. First overall pick Andrew Luck, the centre of the debate, did not welcome the notion. “I am aware of it… I think it’s stupid. Simply put.”
The competiveness of the NFL players and coaches cannot be questioned. Fans can rely on their teams to always put in maximum effort, because they’re getting paid to do so. Oliver Luck, father of Andrew Luck, does not question the integrity of the players. “I played for five years in the NFL, and I never have seen a player take a play off, because these guys are playing for their livelihoods. And the coaches are coaching for their livelihood.” This is certainly true, as both the general manager and the head coach of the Colts and St Louis Rams both lost their jobs after losing 14 of 16 games in 2011. Nonetheless, the decision to ‘Suck for Luck’ lies not with players and coaches but with general managers and owners.
There are historical precedents for intentionally losing. In his autobiography, former tennis player Andre Agassi admitted to losing an Australian Open semi-final to avoid a likely defeat to Boris Becker in the final. In 1988 the San Francisco 49ers were accused of “laying down like dogs” in their last regular season game (they had already qualified for playoffs) against the Rams in order to keep their rivals, the New York Giants, from reaching the playoffs.
The idea that started with the twitter handle ‘@suckforluck’ became a great point of debate over the 2011 season. The 2012 season might bring up the same argument for USC quarterback Matt Barkley. Players and coaches were abhorred by the concept, while the media speculated if the practice was going on behind the scenes. The theory itself, while repugnant to the ideals of sportsmanship and with high amounts of risk, is a worthy business proposition for the wealthy NFL owners. It’d be a hard task however to convince players like Green Bay Packers’ centre Jeff Saturday. “I ain’t sucking for anybody. That’s the reality of it.”
