Quote:
Originally Posted by CT1
This may come as a shock to you, Robert, but there's a great deal of money involved in HS football in some areas. Coaches are paid well (some as much as six figures), and football receipts help fund the non-revenue sports.
Any coach in our state who forfeits a game will have a bunch of 'splainin' to do.
|
What I meant was that they're not playing for stakes.
AFAIK neither the coaches nor anybody else puts up a stake to be taken by the winner. They may well have bets on the side, but that's not their chief source of remuneration.
When the coach throws in the towel in boxing, the only concern is whether they're paid off to throw the fight, and usually it's evident they're not. I would've thought the same to apply to football. If it's obvious which team has won, with or without a point spread, what's the concern? As I wrote above, the only concern I can see would be from players who didn't get into the game or didn't get as much playing time as they wished.
So I have to ask, what is
anyone's motiv'n for ending the game early -- or in some manner that would be considered "early" relative to some standard? Are the officials, the players, and their coaches working at cross purposes, or wouldn't they all have at least approximately the same motiv'ns? The only motiv'n that seems to be a good one is fear of injury -- physical, not psychic, injury. Is there evidence that lopsided games produce more than their share, playing time-wise, of injuries?