Re: Ohio State's last-second OT loss
Bill Fenwick wrote:

> In March 1998, Cornell was tied with St. Lawrence late in OT when the Big Red
> was hit with a penalty.  St. Lawrence was looking to improve their PWR
> standing, and thanks to a HOCKEY-L regular (!) head coach Joe Marsh was aware
> that a win over Cornell would be crucial... so he pulled the goaltender and
> the Saints got the game-winner with 1 second left in OT.

OK, since the sweetsy, lovey-dovey comments of the part 24 hours have
raised my blood sugar level to the point where arrows will probably
bounce off anyway, let me offer myself on the sacrificial altar.
FLAMERS, HERE'S YOUR CHANCE TO GET IT ON! ! ! ! ! ! !

Bill's comments reminded me of the opposite circumstance which pertained
to the Michigan-Bowling Green series in the CCHA Tournament a couple
years ago.  In a best-of-three series to decide who would advance to the
semifinal, Michigan took the first game.  Astute statisticians realized
it would actually strengthen Michigan's PWR if they dropped the second
game and took the rubber match.  What to do?

I've scoured the Bible and the Koran on this one.  Both God and Muhammed
state it's the responsibility of a hockey team to win, but they and the
Supreme Court are silent on whether the overriding consideration is the
game, the series, or the national championship.  In Michigan's case,
they won the second game to the detriment of their PWR; can't remember
whether that was a year they also took the NCAA.

Last season, a high school coach in Texas was immediately fired when it
was disclosed that he had his team lose a meaningless game solely as a
strategy for strengthening their chances of winning the post season
tournament.  I was at a complete loss to produce reasoning which would
clearly explain to such a coach why it's morally corrupt to pursue a
strategy to win a bigger prize as opposed to winning the smaller,
meaningless prize.  My neighbor helped out by explaining, "BECAUSE YOU
JUST DON'T DO THAT, STUPID!"

I'm still at a loss and I'd still appreciate the thoughts of anyone
whose greater understanding of right and wrong explains why, when
conflicting winning objectives are involved, only one can be
justified,    . . . and which one.

boB