....Indeed, if the player is constantly yammering about how he will only play if he agrees with the gameplan and so on, the team won't draft him or will look for the chance to cut him or will look for ways to replace him so they don't have to rely on an "unreliable" player...
I just want to make sure you did not misunderstand me, given my excellent English that is very possible -lol. You seem to have interpreted my comments as meaning "I," as in ONE PERSON ONLY, me.... "My beliefs, my feelings, etc," NOT AT ALL.
When I say "I," I mean "I" as part of a group... hopefully a group large enough to make a difference, such as the Evangelicals and others who share the same concerns although not necessarily religious people; like me:). In fact I would like to call it the Social-Conservative Party... (hmmm... has a nice ring to it doesn't it :)...
Ok, let's get serious: using you team analogy - although we are forcing the issue cause you get PAID for being a team member :), but let's try anyway, If "I" were the only idiot in the team causing trouble, I would not only be ignored but probably kicked out the team in no time. However, if 30% of the team, have the same strong feelings as I, and willing to take some kind of group action... THEN, they command attention.
If 30% of us - Huck's army for starters :) - abstain from voting for Macaca, we might make the difference and the message will be loud and clear.
I really appreciate your civil discussion and think it’s helpful to this debate.
As for the analogy, there are two different phases here, I think.
One is the immediate scenario that the game is coming up and WILL be played. This is what I focused on.
The second is post-season, when the staff and so-on is reviewed. This is what you focused on.
I think what happens in the “post-season review” (when, under your analogy, the impact of the “message” of players’ dissatisfaction will be evaluated) depends on what happens in the game (what I focused on)!
I think it is a big risk to bet on the fact that up to 30% of the players will be dissatisfied. Practically speaking, if there were that many people who felt that strongly about stopping candidate “x” (in this case, McCain), we wouldn’t be in this situation in the first place! There would have been enough votes and passion for candidate “y”-—but there wasn’t.
IOW, if what your analogy bets on is likely to occur, I think it would have occurred already. But it didn’t.
So now you are looking at a much smaller percentage (an unknown percentage) of players who are dissatisfied enough to quit. As you acknowledged, the smaller that percentage is, the more likely the only result of disrupting the game is that those players will get kicked off the team or at the least not relied upon in crucial games in the future.
And here’s the further risk: in the immediate scenario, the game WILL be played and the team has to find a way to win IMMEDIATELY. So, while it’s sorting out how to respond to its disgruntled players, it’s also out there actively looking for replacements-—replacements who, by definition, don’t have the same views of those who are disgruntled.
So, as those replacements come on board (in whatever numbers), they are still having the effect of consolidating the team around the very things that those who quit were upset about!
And if the team were to win without the quitters, or even come close-—BUH-BYE. Just like strikers take the risk that they will be replaced permanently, there’s a huge risk associated with trying to change the team’s direction by quitting the team.
My bottom line is this: It’s a BIG risk to try to win by losing.