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.
I have enjoyed your posts, especially your analogy about how Obama beat the Democrat establishment and your phases we need to go through.
I can't find a thing to disagree with that you have said.
The above part that I quoted is especially true in my opinion and it's nice to have someone put it more eloquently than I can.
Again, not surprising, it all depends how you look at it. You are looking at the situation as if you were the owner of the team, or at least management or the captain of a sinking ship :)... Your interest is obviously for the "team." Let's just try to win the season and we'll discuss the situation later. My fear is, we if do and 'fall in line,' with the party, that will be the equivalent of submission... All bark and no bite... :) as I like to call it.
I am afraid at this point, many like me simply "had it." Just like it happens everyday... As it just did with the "writers strike in CA," there is a TIME when you have to take sides and hang tough or you will never get the things you want. Again, to my surprise, the writers (not people a like much), hung tough and got the concessions they wanted!... Although they could have been replaced by others and lose the whole thing... BUT THEY HUNG THOUGH and won!
The other side of coin is, I am a nobody! :)... I don't even who in heck runs the Republicans... But I know enough to finally realize, whoever these people are, their agenda is not the one of Social-Conservatives... THAT I KNOW!
But it is not difficult to imagine there must be a huge group of very powerful people, well connected, with lost of $ I am sure, who, very privately...quietly... can flex their muscle to make the GOP do what the party is known for... mainly to protect their interest... which really means, their $$$$$, that is the bottom line as I see it.... Hmmm, which by the way... I wonder, if I were one those rich guys, leaving in a mansion in a paradise in the middle of nowhere, where no peons can ever set foot miles from their homes... Would I be caring about SOCIAL-VALUES? - lol - probably not :)... $$$$ is what I would be after... lots of it and the hell with the rest.
What am I really saying? :)... That I am tired of the team's ownership and management and at this point I could care less what happens to it. I much would rather the season to be a disastrous one... so that CHANGES... will have to take place. Anything less, will simply prolong a painful death.. I'd rather just get it over with quickly and let the chips fall where they may.
One more thought... It will not be the END OF THE WORLD...We'll recover if we can get it together and perhaps we'll come back stronger, hungrier and better. And if we don't... Well... who knows...