Quote:
Originally Posted by MrForbes
What was there to lose? for either side?
|
The side that lost in the finals would have had a
better chance of winning if they
also played defense. Defending the other team from scoring would
help prevent them from winning. Therefore, the losing alliance would have had a
better chance of winning the event.
^I wrote everything above simply and obviously stated on purpose, because I felt the question asked had a simple and obvious answer.
Imagine being a student, or sponsor, or parent of a student on the losing alliance. Try explaining to them that is was in their
best interest to let the other team score
unabated. Does that make them look like they were acting in their teams and team's sponsors
best interests?
Furthermore, I assume most of the people in the discussions were drive coaches and drive teams. I highly doubt even a
majority of the team members were asked if they really felt that was the
best thing to do in the finals of a regional they were trying to win.
I would be embarrassed to be on a team that lost the event because some members decided it would be fun to spend some time of the match not playing defense and instead
sitting still. If I was on the winning side? I would feel like I didn't achieve a true and satisfying win.
I am sorry for all involved, mainly the quiet students and families/sponsors who were not part of the discussions, or don't want to voice their differing opinions and feel alienated by their team mentors and leaders. You will never hear from those people on CD, only the loud ones.
-Paul Ventimiglia