It's not if you win or lose, but how you play the game. Playing the game
to lose is what is wrong. And besides, it is bad coaching strategy. 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. 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.

Nathan Hampton

> ----------
> From:         Bob Griebel
> Reply To:     Bob Griebel
> Sent:         Thursday, December 6, 2001 2:09 PM
> To:   [log in to unmask]
> Subject:      Game vs championship
>
> 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
>
>