NFL: Why 'Suck for Luck' or Any Similar Campaign Is an Impossible Endeavor

It happens every year—a team or two is engaged in a battle for last place in the league and pundits, fans and media begin questioning whether a team should purposely lose games to earn the No. 1 pick in the year-end draft.

The Indianapolis Colts and St. Louis Rams are deadlocked at 2-13 entering the final week. With Andrew Luck, a quarterback who many have compared to John Elway, as the clear No. 1 pick, the argument is as pertinent as ever.

It's also as dumb as ever.

"Suck for Luck," or losing on purpose, never enters athletes minds. It just simply doesn't.

"Suck for Luck," or any similar campaign through the years, is a fabrication of the media and fans who have never played the game and don't understand why professional athletes are so successful.

The difference in attitudes and mindsets is what creates an ideology such as 'Suck for Luck' and the subsequent befuddling feelings when teams don't 'suck.'

Every year, there seems to be a team that has last place locked up. Then, they miraculously win.

This leads their fans to exclaim, "What are they doing winning? Now we have to lose next week!"

As a fan, the argument makes perfect sense. A Colts fan will be a Colts fan for the next season and for every season after that. They want Andrew Luck.

The 2011 season will be forgotten in fans' minds. But, they will still be fans in 2019, which could be a special year.

Players, on the other hand, have a more short-sighted mindset. Additionally, they don't really care about Andrew Luck. It's a simple reason as to why 'Suck for Luck' doesn't exist.

Players do not care about Andrew Luck and they don't care about their franchise 10 years down the road.

What do players care about?

Money and their own job security.

For starters, many players have clauses in their contract that state if they catch so many passes, record so many yards, tally so many sacks, whatever the case may be, they receive more money. So, are players supposed to ignore those clauses and give up because they can get Andrew Luck?

As far as job security goes, no player is guaranteed a spot on the roster the next season. Even if they don't end up playing for the team that is finishing in last place, they want to guarantee they play well enough so that some team picks them up.

Take the case of Colts QB Dan Orlovsky.

Orlovsky was the third-string quarterback entering the season and is currently starting. If the Colts were to pick Andrew Luck next year, then there would be a good chance that Orlovsky wouldn't be in a Colts uniform, although it could be argued that he would be in another uniform next year regardless of what the Colts do in the draft.

Since Orlovsky's job security, his career, and his life are constantly in jeopardy, it's safe to assume he doesn't give a flying you-know-what about the Colts ensuring a pick for Andrew Luck.

Orlovsky wants to do what every professional football player wants to do—play his best.

We so often vilify athletes for having their own personal interests in mind when their team is doing well.

Hypothetically, if Reggie Wayne we're to have complained two years ago during the Colts Super Bowl run that he wasn't getting enough passes thrown his way, everyone would jump on Wayne for being selfish, not-a-team-player, egotistical and for having his own interests in mind.

Now, we're expecting players to tank for a franchise that doesn't guarantee them anything just so the franchise can get a great prospect?

It's ridiculous.

Here's a quick fact of life that applies here—99.9 percent of the time, players don't care about the franchise they play for.

Fans are dedicated to the franchise. Players are as dedicated to the franchise as fans are to their work.

Therefore, as we've seen in the past, players will go to the team that offers them the most money. As fans, we're heartbroken when this happens. We will say that there is no loyalty in the sport. 

But, pretend for a second that you are a teacher.

You're a great teacher, you like your students, you like the parents, you like the curriculum, and you even like the faculty. The relationship with your boss is amicable. If a school in the next district 30 miles down the road offers you the same position with other great students, great faculty, great curriculum and a 20-percent pay increase, are you going to take it?

Or are you going to stay loyal to teaching math at the school you've been teaching at just because you've been there a little while?

I thought so; that's just a simple fact about professional sports.

How does it apply to the "Suck for Luck" campaign?

Easily.

If athletes aren't going to behave with loyalty when the team is successful, why would they when the team is crummy? And if they aren't going to behave with loyalty, how would you expect them to lay down and sacrifice everything they've worked for in their careers just so the franchise can draft a potential franchise quarterback?

A professional athlete has worked every day of his life for 28 years so he can play in the NFL, but now he is purposely supposed to lose so the franchise can take a potential great player, all the while his own job security isn't guaranteed?

Give me a break.

For fans, it can be frustrating to see a team struggle all season and then turn it on at the end of the year when the games are meaningless to you. As a fan, you would want Andrew Luck on your team for the next 15 years. Too bad you have no control over what happens.

The people who are in control—the players—have the opposite feelings.

They don't care about the franchise's long term goals and they want to win because it is their livelihoods. It is why a team will never "suck" for an incoming player and why fans will continue to be baffled by a poor team's late-season success.