Keith, I agree that what leads to our dilema is that we couldn't
perfect, say, a PWR so it does precisely what we want it to in all
situations.  Where we're successful in doing that, the conflicting goals
disappear because the same strategy furthers both goals.

But till then, the question is whether, faced with the reality of an
imperfect system designed by someone else, is it immoral to opt for the
season goal rather than the single-game goal?  Does the team that's
penalized by the imperfection of the system have to volunteer to be the
victim?  I still think not.

A further thought:  Let's assume we have a perfectly designed system.
Do those who say it's immoral not to play to the max in every game think
it's immoral to rest your best players for the tournament after you've
secured the regular season championship if that makes it likely you'll
lose that final regular-season game?  Should the coach be fired if he
does?  Is this the Wolverines' bona fide argument for getting rid of Ron
Mason?

boB


Keith Kannenberg wrote:

> I don't think a team should ever intentionally lose a game to better
> their position for championship play. The reason is this: if the ratings
> ever reward a team for losing then the rating system is flawed. A win
> should always be more beneficial than a loss (or a win and loss). Good
> sportsmanship and honesty (IMO) require that a team try to win and
> not try to exploit flaws in the system. This is especially the case
> for college hockey (as opposed to professional) where teaching the
> right values should be important.
>
> Just my 2 cents.
>
> Keith