Re: Regional Attendance
I appreciate your thoughtfulness.
Same.
I should point out that I didn't say the man was a panhandler. Maybe he is. Maybe he's a thief. Maybe he's rich and just wants to see how much money he can get from you. Maybe he's your brother and he needs money.
That wasn't lost on me. I thought about commenting on multiple scenarios. But my posts run long as it is. Taking on multiple hypotheticals felt unmanageable. The panhandler just seemed like the most likely scenario.
My analogy was only supposed to cover the nature of compromise, not to reflect the relationship between the two parties.
Then we're conceptualizing this side issue in very different ways. To me, the relationship has everything to do with the "nature of compromise." It's not just a math problem. I don't understand how you can separate the two. In some relationships, compromise is unnecessary, even inappropriate. In other cases it's highly recommended, even ethically required.
More hypos, highly condensed version: I've spoken to the panhandler case. But suppose it was your brother, standing next to his disabled vehicle. Are you going to tell him: I'll pay for the tow, but you have to walk home? Of course not. Although it's the opposite result in comparison to the panhandler, it's another example of compromise making no sense, due to the relationship. Now, make it a stranger standing next to the disabled vehicle. Compromise is in play. Maybe you're uncomfortable with situation, and calling 911 from the safety of your car is the best you can do. Perfectly acceptable compromise, I'd argue. Or maybe you're comfortable giving the stranded motorist a ride, but paying for the tow is strictly his problem. Again, acceptable compromise. What am I missing? How is any of this off the mark?
Remember, my question was, "what incentive do the underdogs have to compromise?" If you're saying that the compromise would be better for college hockey *as a whole*, then that would qualify as an incentive.
Yes, that was my point.
But only if all parties agree that the compromise actually would make things better for college hockey as a whole. And that's precisely what we're debating. Some people would prefer the playing field to be as level as possible once we reach the national tournament. Others think an entertaining atmosphere is paramount. How can we resolve that dichotomy?
Again, we're conceptualizing the issue differently. But I think I understand the difference this time. You're arguing that neutrality must be optimized, regardless of the cost on other fronts. My argument is that when staging a tournament, there are several factors that need to be minimally satisfactory, even if compromise is necessary on some or even all of the factors. I specifically disagree that tournament atmosphere should be "paramount." It's an important factor, but just one of the several.
So in my view, the issue isn't a true dichotomy. I'm playing with multiple variables at the same time, trying to get the best mix. You see it as a zero sum game. I don't. My belief is that you can increase the value of whole such that everyone experiences a gain.
Granted, part of my optimism is based on the fact that I see so much room for improvement. Your take is the status quo is largely satisfactory, which of course creates a disconnect.
But I think a corollary question remains unanswered: if we're asking the "have-nots" to give something up (the leveler playing field afforded by neutral sites) in the name of compromise, what are we asking the "haves" to give up in exchange?
Well, what do you want?
As an aside, it's little bit funny being asked to represent the haves. In the world of college hockey, Ohio State competes as an underdog. Yes, our highly successful Football program has tons of advantages and some of that filters down to the other sports, at least in a financial sense. But we don't have a huge traveling fan base for hockey, a large recruiting base in our home state, and so on. For me to craft a real solution on this, I really need guidance from both "sides."
So again, what do you want? Our particular conversation on this subject has spanned at least two seasons, maybe more. I've long since lost count of the number of options I've put on the table. In general, you've just been playing defense. Ask, and perhaps you'll receive.
