I think there's a far bigger picture here especially given the relationship of the opposing coach and the player and their history. I just don't find it appalling or somehow cheapening the game. I see it as more selfless. Perhaps there's even a greater lesson for those not injured about how fragile each moment is. Maybe there was some real emotional involvement for the participants when they realized it could have easily been them. I just don't see how it could be seen as something negative, yet that's the world we live in.

 

Put me in the TAC and Clyde camp. There are things that just don't feel right.

 

I don't know if I care about the stats as much as I care about the integrity of a contest. I think starting a game by going through the motions of allowing one team to score 13 and then the other 13 and running down the clock is far different than letting a child with down syndrome have his moments of glory in a game that is already decided (I don't know the specific example that is being referred to, but I have seen it play out in this way).

Already did. In this case the kid's avg was 20. If I was the coach, I'd have been cool with that.

 

So if it was Pistol Pete you'd be cool with the first 44 being gimmes?

I think there's a far bigger picture here especially given the relationship of the opposing coach and the player and their history. I just don't find it appalling or somehow cheapening the game. I see it as more selfless. Perhaps there's even a greater lesson for those not injured about how fragile each moment is. Maybe there was some real emotional involvement for the participants when they realized it could have easily been them. I just don't see how it could be seen as something negative, yet that's the world we live in.

 

But it is cheapening game. A high school game is 32 minutes, but that game was less than 32 minutes.

So if it was Pistol Pete you'd be cool with the first 44 being gimmes?

 

Now that is funny. I don't care who you are. :jump:

Still screwed up the stats. yard/game, scoring avg., yards/pts given up. All still just stats. And in the end, both were yielded for the benefit of a kid who for whatever reason was disabled. One born with it, one temporarily. Seems a double standard and pokes holes in the argument that it skews the stats.

 

Sure the two are the same.

 

If you consider a kid who has been healthy all 18 years and had the chance to participate in sports and score 987 points prior to an untimely yet non-life-altering knee injury being the same as a kid whose whole life has been one big challenge and whose whole life will continue to be one big challenge.

 

I don't.

But it is cheapening game. A high school game is 32 minutes, but that game was less than 32 minutes.

They played 32 minutes. Can't use that one.

Sure the two are the same.

 

If you consider a kid who has been healthy all 18 years and had the chance to participate in sports and score 987 points prior to an untimely yet non-life-altering knee injury being the same as a kid whose whole life has been one big challenge and whose whole life will continue to be one big challenge.

 

I don't.

Statistically speaking on paper, no difference. An allowance was made in both cases.

They played 32 minutes. Can't use that one.

 

How did they play 32 and still let each team score 13 to start the game? Are they just making up their own rules as they go?

I honestly think its disrespectful to the game myself, but if all parties involved were ok with it, fine with me.

Statistically speaking on paper, no difference. An allowance was made in both cases.

 

A discerning mind can see the difference.

A discerning mind can see the difference.

 

Video Landing Page - wave3.com-Louisville News, Weather & Sports

 

Here's the video from WAVE3 out of Louisville.

So if it was Pistol Pete you'd be cool with the first 44 being gimmes?

You asked about this kid. I said 20 I'd be cool with. You can't compare a Downs kid and this kid, yet you want to compare this kid and Pistol. Makes perfect sense.

A discerning mind can see the difference.

Not on paper, which several anti's are clamoring over.

You asked about this kid. I said 20 I'd be cool with. You can't compare a Downs kid and this kid, yet you want to compare this kid and Pistol. Makes perfect sense.

 

Don't conflate arguments.

 

You said you would use the PPG as the number you would allow. I asked about 44 since Pistol Pete averaged that many. I'm still trying to discern what is too many? You gave a basis. I asked if you're consistent. Nothing more.

BTW the video makes it even worse than I imagined.