Quote:
Originally Posted by DJ's left nut
That's what the lawyers call an 'efficient breach'.
When you have a pre-existing obligation to do a thing you no longer want to do and you determine that the costs of doing that thing are outweighed by the benefits of NOT doing that thing, you go ahead and accept the consequences of not doing it confident in the knowledge that you still come out ahead of where you'd be had you gone ahead and done it.
So if the Bills are content in the knowledge that NOT playing will them less than playing will, that's fine - don't play. But you're not absolved of the consequences of not playing.
So Buffalo can take the forfeit if they'd like, but it's asinine to hold the league up while we wait for them to 'get their minds right'. That's not the way this works.
|
Change my username to Callous if you want, but I don't think the teams should be consulted on this. What if McDermott would prefer the unexpected bye week and a road game over a 50 percent chance of winning a bye week? Competitive factors come into play.
And is it only the Bills' decision, or do the Bengals have input? What if one team wants to play and the other doesn't?
I get that a team could conceivably forfeit any game, but if the Texans decide to forfeit next week because the game is pointless and they want to save some game checks, the league would/should pull their franchise. An NFL team is obligated to play the games that the league tells them to play, and while this situation is unfortunate, it's below the line at which the league's authority extends.