Bill writes:
>The decision to go forward with the Northeastern-Merrimack game was not a
>bad one either, except for one point:  the players should have been informed
>of the outbreak of war before the game started, especially since that news
>was made available to the fans.  The fact that prior knowledge of the
>bombing would likely have affected the players and made the game less enjoy-
>able is a moot point.  This may have been one of the most important and
>historic pieces of information that the players would ever hear (obviously
>far more significant than the game they were about to play), and thus they
>ought to have been told immediately.  If the game had then gone on as
>scheduled, fine; if it had been postponed or cancelled, fine.
 
    The information was not made available to the fans directly or
    intentionally by the school or the arena announcer. The fans that did find
    out, did so from other people who came in late or by sitting next to us
    as we listened to the radio (and it propagated through the crowd).  I
    don't see where anything would have been gained by telling the players.
    In fact, I don't believe that even the coaches knew, and they were
    of course busy trying to prepare their teams for the game.  Most coaches
    would be pretty upset if someone burst into their locker rooms minutes
    before a game to say anything.
 
    I also don't see why the fact that this was an historic and important event
    warrants the players being told immediately.  It doesn't make it any less
    historic or important.  And, most important of all, there was nothing the
    players could have done anyway.  I would agree with you completely if the
    United States itself was being attacked or if this was a complete surprise.
    But it wasn't, and everyone knew for days that war was most likely going
    to happen.
 
>Historically in this country, sporting events have continued on schedule in
>time of war (as sort of an "escape"), and I think they should be allowed to
>do so here, unless those actually involved in the events feel strongly that
>it is inappropriate.
 
    I agree, but again, this was not a surprise, and to my knowledge none
    of the players had decided not to play if war did begin.  They had the
    time to think about it and discuss it with their coach, who could have
    made sure that he was informed if something happened.
 
    If I heard that any of the players said he was upset about not being
    told because he would have preferred not to play in that case, then
    I would immediately switch to your side, Bill.
 
>                      A war is not "business as usual", however (no matter
>what George Bush does or says), and maybe there should be some small gesture
>made at sporting events, like a moment of silence or a patch on the
>uniforms.  Just a thought...
 
    Well, I never said that the *war* was business as usual, just that the
    White House wanted to maintain some semblance of business as usual
    throughout the country - that's my opinion from what I have seen & heard
    out of Washington.  I extrapolated from that the idea that the government
    would not want sporting events (or art exhibits, movies, etc.) cancelled.
    I agree with your last sentence; in fact, Boston College, among other
    teams, is wearing a flag on the back of their helmets now.
 
 
    - mike