"Moller, Edward N." wrote:

> I'll give it my best shot, Bob.

Thanks, Ed (and everyone else).  Your best shot may be more than enough
for everything but my thick skull.


> For better of for worse, in the realm of fair play, you win a championship
> on the playing field.  In the course of character development, the league
> standings do not constitute a playing field.

I don't see the basis for that assertion.  Are you saying that nobody
is, or perhaps nobody should be, aware that the national championship is
a goal?  Have we achieved the highest moral training when the athletes
are unaware that they're working for anything beyond the end of the next
game?  I see more than one valid goal and neither is being decided off
the playing field.


> IMHO, failure to do your best undermines character.

Agreed.


> What lesson have these children learned if during
> their 25th reunion they reflect on having won their championship by virtue
> of having lost "the right game."

Loaded question:  When you first "formed" the conclusions stated here,
did you (a) gather all the relevant considerations, ponder them, and
come to the unexpected conclusions you're stating here or (b) adopt the
conclusions imprinted by an elder and later put the arguments together
to support the conclusions you already held?  I surely came to the same
conclusions you state via "b".   I think most have.

Possibly, what these children will reflect on is pride in the fact that
they were among the few to question what is subscribed to by the 99.9%
(exaggerated for effect) of the population who merely mimic what they
see others doing.  Shouldn't it be a function of education to teach
people to think out the basis for their values?  Are you suggesting that
the exaggerated 99.9% should be proud that they went through the
educational process without ever asking whether and why the "moral
beliefs" they locked onto have any logical basis?  . . . or that the
99.9% should be proud that their value system works by mimicking the
conclusions of others and then building a foundation of rationalizations
to support them?  . . . or that they can't state a logical basis for
their beliefs while imposing the "immoral" tag on those who disagree.  I
don't think most of us understand our own beliefs.  That's why I'm
asking you for help.


> That's an investment strategy, not a character builder.

Investment strategies should at least be permissible for finance
majors.  Isn't it an investment strategy to sit your best goalie for a
rest at the risk of the immediate game in the hope of optimizing the
overall season record, the PWR and your tournament seeding?  How does
that second string goalie magically appear in the final season game
after you've just secured a first place finish if the current game is
the most important moral consideration?  I see gray areas ...

Ed and everyone, thanks for your thoughts.

boB