Last week, my esteemed colleague Bob Stone took the Indianapolis Colts and their coach Jim Caldwell to task for choosing to protect the health of the Indispensable Man, Quarterback Peyton Manning, for the play-offs by resting him in the second half of a meaningless game against the Jets, rather than go all out for a record-setting defeat-free season. The Colts lost, fans booed, the season was marred, columnists howled, and according to reports, significant numbers of Colt fans tore up their season tickets in protest. Was Caldwell unethical, as Bob argued, violating the integrity of the game and cheating the fans who had paid good money to see their team strive for an undefeated season?
He was not. Caldwell faced what ethicists call an ethical conflict, a situation in which different ;ethical principles may be mutually exclusive; depending on your point of view, such problems pose “right vs, right” choices, or no-win ethical dead ends. The formula for navigating an ethical conflict is to decide on the hierarchy of the conflicting ethical values or duties, assess the effect of each option on the stakeholders likely to be affected by it, and then adopt the alternative that come out at the top of the list. Caldwell’s problem was that there is no agreed-upon priority among the duties that were in conflict last week. They included:
- His duty to his employer, the Colts, to do what was in the team’s best interests for the season. That would usually mean winning the N.F.L. Championship,and the Super Bowl.
- His duty to the Colts to do everything necessary to win the game.
- His duty to the paying fans to ensure that his team gave its best effort on the field.
- His duty to the N.F.L. and the game of football to maintain the integrity of the sport.
- His duty to the other play-off eligible teams not to give the Jets an unfair advantage by not making every effort to win the game,
- His duty to his players, to allow them to reach their potential of athletic achievement.
- His duty to his players to maximize their opportunity to advance to the Championship.
There was absolutely no way to meet all of these objectives, or at least to be certain that any of his options would do so. Whatever Caldwell chose, the eventual assessment of his wisdom would be dependent on moral luck. If he went for the perfect season, played Manning, and the New York defense broke his leg, he would be criticized for valuing a record over the chance of a championship. If he had rested Manning and the Colts won the game anyway, nobody would accuse him of violating the integrity of the game, no fans would jeer, and no season tickets would be burned in front of the Colt headquarters.
Mike Tanier of the New York Times suggests that Caldwell’s choice made sense, but may backfire anyway, by destroying his team’s “delicate team chemistry.” We shall see. Nevertheless, I cannot call an N.F.L. coach’s actions unethical when they met what I would call his highest ethical obligation, to do what was necessary to maximize the team’s chance at a title, even at the expense of a game or a record.
His was not the same problem facing other N.F.L. coaches today, however. Several teams will be watched because of the possibility that they may win by losing, gaining higher placement in the all-important N.F.L. draft by tanking, since the worst teams get the highest draft slots. This is an annual embarrassment in the N.F.L., as teams with losing records suddenly are playing third-string quarterbacks and taxi-squad players although there will be no play-off games to protect the first-string players for. Coaches facing this problem—win the game or get better players for next year—are not facing an ethical conflict, but rather an ethical dilemma, defined as when doing the right thing has negative, non-ethical consequences, and doing the wrong thing is beneficial in significant ways. Even though the action may be the same, Caldwell put inferior talent on the field last week to improve his chances at an ultimate victory, and was not trying to lose. If the Kansas City Chiefs (3-12) suddenly play the water-boy at halfback in today’s game against the Broncos to make sure the team isn’t matched in ineptitude by the Cleveland Browns (4-11), however, that’s unethical, because the team will be trying to lose—throwing the game. That is always wrong. If every team adopted that philosophy as acceptable strategy, the NFL would soon see a half-dozen teams throwing intentional interceptions late in the season, making a mockery of the sport.
Coach Caldwell did nothing wrong. It is just that he couldn’t do everything right.
Ethics Alarms 
As always Jack Marshall makes me rethink. Jack is right that Caldwell couldn’t get everything right, couldn’t do all the duties that Jack properly lists. But I believe that there’s a hierarchy of duties, and paramount is the integrity of the game. Because the game meant a great deal to the Jets it should have meant a great deal to the Colts. But Caldwell devalued it I still say he was wrong.
I was actually going to take a stab at prioritizing those considerations. I can’t disagree with the proposition that the integrity of the game is Number One, but like all rules, there will be times when an anomaly dictates otherwise. I have this question for you, Bob: would you feel the same if it was truly a meaningless game, and no record was involved?
I guess having a very good record means you can shape the playoffs to have the opponents you desire.
I would like to state for future references that the article mis-identifies Buffalo Bills as the team Indianapolis faced in week 16. Indy played the NY Jets, who would have missed the playoffs if Indy had played to their best ability and won the game. Houston Texans would have been in the playoffs if the Jets had lost to Indianapolis.
Indianapolis did end up playing Buffalo Bills yesterday in Week 17, in what looked like a blizzard game, and very dangerous conditions for injury.
Tim: Thanks for flagging the error—I fixed it. And it was a significant error, because the game did have importance for the Jets. That might tip my conclusions about Caldwell, in fact. I’m still not sure. Did he have an obligation to try to keep the Jets out of the play-offs if he could, even at the risk of losing his quarterback or another key player?
Well, Jack, your reasoning is sound, as usual.
I would point out that injuries are a part of football, and then there is that whole courage, valor, fortitude, and sacrifice thing to take into account when talking about making ethical decisions, and the question of fairness when it comes to your ethical duty to give your opponent your best.
I suppose one could plausibly argue that he showed courage in setting himself up for the criticism he received. I don’t think I’ll take that on, though.
Was this a an ethical conflict? I think you have argued persuasively that it was. But I’d be more concerned about his lack of courage, and his apparent nodding relationship with the history and integrity of game of football.
But I’m not comforted. Lack of courage in sports troubles me. It seems to place the act of professional sports in a strictly commercial context where almost anything can be justified under the rubric of a “duty to win.”
I think that I can add only one thing: Experience for the bench warmers. If your goal is to win the SuperBowl, and your 1st team is as complete and amazing as it can be, then perhaps you should play your 2nd team to get them some experience and comfort in case their services are needed when your 1st team suffers an injury in the playoffs.