No. It's obvious though you do. I don't think it cheapens it. I think that game will go down in the lore between the 2 schools as a classic, regardless of the outcome.

 

If I can't convince you that 31.1 is less than 32 then we will just have to disagree. :jump:

If I can't convince you that 31.1 is less than 32 then we will just have to disagree. :jump:

I suppose so. They played just with different parameters for the first 50 seconds. If it all doesn't equal 32 minutes, I guess we will disagree.

It might be a fair question, but in the whole scheme of things, who did it hurt? Sometimes people do the right thing rather than do things right. In this case I believe they did the right thing. So if you go against the written or unwritten rules in this case who cares, some might, but not me, no damage done and a lot of compassion. Showing some compassion and assistance in this case is something I frankly admire. It appears the kid didn't ask for it nor did his coach. A good will gesture that puts life in a better perspective for the kid and kids. Most of them when someone needs help, they will be more willing to understand and help others when tough times or unfortunate things happen. So is it a fair question, yes, but who cares

 

Does it help the kid though? Or, in this society where many (kids) feel entitled already, does it further hamper him and lead him to believe that in the future he should get something for nothing.

 

I dont necessarily disagree with the act, but I wonder how that will change the perception of the kid. Sometimes in life you fall short of your goals, but how you bounch back from them is the lesson learned.

 

Interesting topic Clyde...

I wouldn't be able to do that if I was the kid. I guess it depends on the person.

 

My brother hasn't even made up his mind if he wants to start his senior night and foul someone since he can't actually play.

I think it cheapens the purpose of having a 1000 point club. I don't know if it's a big deal at this school. I know it was a big deal at Brossart when Justin Saunders recently surpassed 1000. I was there and thought it was awesome having watched him grow up. I'm sure I would have cheered for this kid as well had I been there because I do love feel good stories. But Justin earned every one of those 1000 points while getting banged around in a real game.

How many points are they going to spot the next time this type of situation comes up?

So, you want a black and white line on where this can be done for what? So you and the others are ok with it? I said in this case I'd have been all for him scoring 20, his avg. You act as if we are gonna legislate a high water mark for these as if they are going to become commonplace. Absurdity that we can't accept a good will gesture and move on.

 

Your argument seems to be centered around the "good will gesture" aspect. That tells me that there is no limit as to how many points are gimmes and how long it takes as long as it's a good will gesture.

 

Correct?

I don't understand the gigantic significance of the 1,000 point club. If you're a player worth remembering, people are going to remember you regardless of if you hit quadruple digits.

 

As for letting the kid do it, I don't really have a problem with it. If I was a kid, I couldn't do it. I'd feel cheap and selfish. Same with if I was a coach, I'm not going to make the game about one kid. If I was an opposing coach, maybe. Depends what type of game it was. I'd be more inclined to do it as an opposing coach than a coach of the kid.

Your argument seems to be centered around the "good will gesture" aspect. That tells me that there is no limit as to how many points are gimmes and how long it takes as long as it's a good will gesture.

 

Correct?

Sort of I suppose. I don't think the kid should have been allowed to score an inordinate amount of points. I think 13 was really close and I thought it was good to put a kid before the game. I guess I'm naive enough to think it's about the kids anyway.

Sort of I suppose. I don't think the kid should have been allowed to score an inordinate amount of points. I think 13 was really close and I thought it was good to put a kid before the game. I guess I'm naive enough to think it's about the kids anyway.

 

You're making my point. There is a limit in your mind. However, if the key reason for doing it is that it's a nice gesture then there's either no limit as it's always a nice gesture OR there comes a point where it is crossing the line.

 

You and the other nice folks on BGP keep insisting it's right because of the gesture which , in principle, I do not argue with. However, as with many nice gestures there is probably a point where it crosses the line.

 

So we can't just keep insisting that it's the right thing to do without limits.

 

My limit would really be zero and maybe 2 even if it was my child.

You're making my point. There is a limit in your mind. However, if the key reason for doing it is that it's a nice gesture then there's either no limit as it's always a nice gesture OR there comes a point where it is crossing the line.

 

You and the other nice folks on BGP keep insisting it's right because of the gesture which , in principle, I do not argue with. However, as with many nice gestures there is probably a point where it crosses the line.

 

So we can't just keep insisting that it's the right thing to do without limits.

 

My limit would really be zero and maybe 2 even if it was my child.

 

Agreed.

You're making my point. There is a limit in your mind. However, if the key reason for doing it is that it's a nice gesture then there's either no limit as it's always a nice gesture OR there comes a point where it is crossing the line.

 

You and the other nice folks on BGP keep insisting it's right because of the gesture which , in principle, I do not argue with. However, as with many nice gestures there is probably a point where it crosses the line.

 

So we can't just keep insisting that it's the right thing to do without limits.

 

My limit would really be zero and maybe 2 even if it was my child.

It was still something that would be case to case. For you it would be 2. In this case it was the right thing to do. We overanalyze a nice deal with our own opinion and can't see past the forest for the trees.

It was still something that would be case to case. For you it would be 2. In this case it was the right thing to do. We overanalyze a nice deal with our own opinion and can't see past the forest for the trees.

 

Topical. Seems like a fair question to debate.

 

Case by case: what factors are you using to come up with acceptable vs unacceptable?

Topical. Seems like a fair question to debate.

 

Case by case: what factors are you using to come up with acceptable vs unacceptable?

I suppose I'd have to hear them to make that decision. Why does it have to be hard and fast?

This reminds me of the "zero tolerance" policy some schools and businesses have. It's absurd to me. Let's say you have a "Zero Tolerence" policy that a kid will get expelled from school if they possess an illegal drug. A 1st grader gets off the bus and sees a joint on the ground that some older student had dropped. So the first grader picks it up puts it in his pocket and has no idea where it came from or what it is. He takes it out in the classroom, the teacher sees it and takes him to the office. The principal at that point, must move to expel the kid from school because the policy says so and there is zero tolerance. If you do things right he gets expelled, if you do the right thing you understand this circumstance and, talk to the kid and his parents, then investigate to determine who really did bring it. You may or may determine that, but you cannot expel the kid in that situation. That is not the right thing to do. Although I bet there will be some on here that say he should have been expelled and that was just a tough break for the little fella'. Now this is not zero tolerance with the Carroll County kid, but it really is situational and is why I believe no harm no foul. That's the way I discern it.

I don't feel it cheapened the game. I would argue the exact opposite... that the game was greatly enriched by those 50 seconds.

I guess this is half full vs half empty situation. I'll stick with my own perspective. This was a nice move. Period.