"Hampton, Nathan E." wrote:

> It's not if you win or lose, but how you play the game.

That saying was developed before the concept of "tournament" was
invented. Are you a conservative?  Could someone not be justified in
expanding that to seasonal goals and looking at the broader picture
which brings scholarship athletes to our colleges and makes them
marketable for big NHL contracts and builds athletic programs in the
long run?  Did the kid come to the school because he thought the pro
scout would ask,  "How many national championship teams did you play
on?" or "Did you win that little series in your sophomore year in two
games or three games?"


> Playing the game to lose is what is wrong.

Why isn't playing to win a single game to the detriment of your chances
at the bigger prize "wrong"?


> And besides, it is bad coaching strategy.

Would the coach have a say in what constitutes good strategy for winning
the series and building an athletic program that will attract future
players or should he have no say in that?


> The effort to win is what is important -- and effort is not like water
> from
> a spigot. You cannot turn it on and off. To win WITH CERTAINTY the third
> game in Michigan's case or the game following the "meaningless" high
> school game is different that taking the risk that if you allow your
> players to take it easy one game, they will not also take it easy in the
> following game.

Is this philosophy to be applied on a period-by-period basis, a
game-by-game basis, a series-by-series basis or a season-by-season
basis?  Is a coach/team not jusified in pursuing an early game strategy
which is likely to have them behind in early scoring because they know
they can wear down the opposition over the course of the entire game?
If so, is there some intrinsic reason they can't elect to apply that
strategy to a series or seasonal goal rather than just a single game?


> The old saying "take one game at a time" applies to
> coaches as it does to players. You run the risk of losing the prize
> (championship) if you take the risk of losing a game.

Would it not be possible for a smart, savvy team to intelligently decide
to go after both a series and a championship?  Would they not have the
right to decide what their strategy may be?  Are they barred from
electing the strategy that increases their chances of having both the
series and the seasonal championship because it's morally unacceptable
to not settle for the bird in the hand?

Why couldn't, say, Red Berenson, smart enough to be an NHL Coach of the
Year in his rookie coaching season, a very knowledgeable person about
the odds in hockey, not decide that the chances of winning the
three-game series were practically assured if his strategy in the second
game was to push the opponent to the point where they'd have nothing
left to mount an offense in the third game?  And if the additional
consideration was that it would better the team's position with regard
to the grand prize, how could he be justified as a "winner" in not going
after both?

Should von Clausiwitz be discredited as a competent general because he'd
advocate a retreat strategy with regard to a single battle which
directly increased his chances of winning the war?  Was Eisenhower
morally wrong in letting troops die in interim battles in order to
conceal the fact that we'd cracked important Nazi codes, thereby helping
the Allies win the overall war?

I don't see why conventional wisdom about HAVING to win the immediate
game is the clear and only answer.

boB