It's hard to believe a team that's 14-1 has an angry fan base. But that's what has happened in Indianapolis after the Colts pulled their starters late in the third quarter of Sunday's loss to the Jets despite clinging to a 15-10 lead. Even if it was the correct football move, it's become a PR disaster.
First, Colts fans didn't react well to the move. The Colts fans I know felt like the team suffered a playoff loss. And the Indianapolis Star has reaction from fans who feel betrayed that they paid regular season ticket prices for a game where they feel the team quit.
Next, team president Bill Polian basically told Colts fans the team doesn't take it's fans ... and their hard-earned money ... into consideration:
"The perfect season was never an issue with us. We've said it time and time and time again. It is somebody else's issue, not ours. That was of no concern," he told the Indianapolis Football Report "Well, I understand that, but it doesn't mean that it is ours."
That's not exactly the kind of reaction that makes fans happy. Hey, the team could care less you are upset!
To make matters worse, Polian reportedly quit his regular weekly radio show appearance on Tuesday after he couldn't take the flack from callers complaining about the move. Hank 97.1 FM, which runs the Bill Polian show, later said the show ended early due to sponsor obligations. But that seems like a weak excuse.
It's enough that a former Indianapolis city council member asked the council to demand that the NFL refund the money paid for tickets.
The Colts pulled their starters from the game because they feel it's more important to give players rest, and reduce the risk of injury ahead of the playoffs rather than try to go 16-0. Polian tells the story about 1999 when Cornelius Bennett was allowed to play in the final game for the Colts and hurt his knee and he was lost for the playoffs.
"That's a fact, and I can recite all of the facts surrounding that situation because I've never forgotten it. That is the price you pay for playing players in meaningless games. I can assure you that if a game is meaningful, every player on our team is going to be out there. We can also address the rust situation by practice. You don't get rusty missing a half of a ball game or three quarters of a ball game. That doesn't happen. That is fantasy. There is nothing to it. I don't believe in momentum," he told his weekly radio show.
So that's Polian's reasoning. And he's got his defendershere and there who think the same.
But you'd think the Colts could have handled the situation better from a public relations stand point. Shouldn't the team owner, Jim Irsay, try to get out in front of the situation? Wouldn't the Colts have been better off from a PR standpoint if they had come out and said before the game they'd rest starters?
Part of the problem is that there's a twisted logic and hypocrisy to when and why the Colts rested their starters. Among the issues:
Since 1999, the Polian era, the Colts are 0-3 when having a bye as the No. 1 or No. 2 seed.
Since 1990, NFL teams have a .710 winning percentage (44-22) as the No. 1 or No. 2 seed. Although No. 1 and No. 2 seeds are just .582 (21-15) since 2000.
Maybe it's a small sample, but the Colts obviously do much worse than average even with a week off and home-field advantage. The Colts have an offense that requires a lot of rhythm, and in those losses they've come out flat. But Polian sees it otherwise. He says those loses were close and the fact the Colts had time off didn't impact their play. The upside for Colts fans with the change to new head coach Jim Caldwell from Tony Dungy was that he may shift this philosophy and play his starters through the regular season - as the team did before it's 2006 Super Bowl win. However, that isn't the case with Polian calling the shots.
After the Colts clinched home-field advantage in the playoffs after going 13-0, why didn't they rest starters in Week 15? Bill Polian admitted that the Colts wanted to win that game because they'd have reached two milestones - just not 16-0:
"At that point in time, we began to focus on goals that might be reached in terms of history. Two that were very important were the most wins this decade, which I believe we have clinched, and 23 straight wins, which never had been done before. That broke an existing record. Those were two historical records that were important to us," Polian told his radio show on Tuesday.
If Polian and the Colts want to badmouth going 16-0, why is going for the most wins in the decade any different?
If you buy the theory that resting the starters ahead of the playoffs to avoid injury (never mind Peyton Manning has never missed a game), then why play the starters in Week 15? In Week 15, the Colts only had four days of rest before a Thursday game. It would seem the starters would be more prone to injury. Plus taking Week 15 off would allow the team to play starters more in Week 16 so they'd have two weeks off (not playing in Week 17) so that there wouldn't be more than a two-week gap between going all out.
Furthermore, why was five minutes left in the third quarter of a game the point to pull Manning? Why not let him play one more series? Or why let him go out after halftime? Or why not let him just play one series if the injury risk is really a big factor? There was just no rationale to when Manning was pulled, and it really doesn't add up if the overall idea is to limit injury risk ahead of the playoffs.
It's no wonder Indy fans are upset. They wanted the perfect season. They were not properly prepared to accept less. And the rationale for going 14-0 vs. 16-0 has too many holes.