A rule was violated and protested. Would you take the same stance if the home team, down by 1 run with two outs in the bottom of the last inning, hit a walk-off home run only to have the lead runner miss a base before scoring?

Lock up the sharp objects.........
 

I refuse to reply to this.

What I will do however is just sit here, shake my head and ask myself, "Why me, Lord? Why me?"

That's a different situation than a team trying to lose so they can win. Hope they get smoked in the LLWS.

I never was a Nebraska football fan, but I gained a world of respect for Tom Osborne when he went for the two point conversion and the win. He could have easily settled for a tie and a national championship in the Orange Bowl years ago. I don't think anyone ever second guessed him for his decision. If you want to be number one, go in through the front door not the back.

Ummm, lots of people questioned his decision to do that.

I'll get on the VT coach for making a mockery of the game that lead to the NH coach doing the same. The VT coach started it by throwing wild pitches. He should have just let the game play out, not said anything, then the NH coach would have done the same. When the VT coach started telling kids to lose intentionally, the NH coach was well within his right to do the same, IMO.

Sorry. You couldn't say anything that would be more wrong.

The <i>Times</i> is the newspaper of record in the USA, and their stance on current issues is progressive, intelligent, and well-supported.

The only place they have lost credibilithy is where they never had it, with the right-wing, your protestation to the contrary notwithstanding, as the cliche goes.

Take a look even at the rags you're fond of. EVERYBODY quotes the <i>Times</i>.

BTW: Could you give a source for your figures on the decline of the Times?

Ah, "progressive," "intelligent"--the euphemisms of the uber-left. That doesn't surprise me, just as it doesn't surprise me that you'd lump me into the right-wing because I happen to agree with more and more Americans who see the NYT for what it is--a piece of rag that gets its jollies bashing anyone to the right of Ted Kennedy.

"Progressive," huh? Is that why the Times hasn't endorsed, for example, a Republican for president in 50 years? The only reason the Times is the newspaper of record is because it's in our largest city, and NY is the largest media outlet in the country.

More than one way to skin a rat......
 

Hate to break it to you, but you weren't even born when this took place. Some people said he could have taken the easy way out, but as I recall he was praised for being man enough to either win or lose the game.

I don't believe Herm Edwards said, "You play to tie the game." If there had been OT back then, of course go for the tie. He put the whole season and national championship on one play. It was do or die, not make an out so we can lose the game and advance.

I don't know if it is within the rules, but the VT coach might have possibly had the kid come down with a sudden injury or sickness to avoid having to bat the player. What about the squawking that the NH people would have raised then. I bet they would have been raising holy heck over something like that.

Progressive is just a fancy word for "really, really liberal." I live in the Berkeley of the Midwest and our afternoon paper is called "progressive." It editorializes on the front page without apology. I subscribe cause it only costs an extra $5 a month and it gives me a good laugh in the afternoon.

If the Times is the paper of record and their stance is "well-supported" why did the Republican win the 2004 presidential election? I mean, the Times endorsed Kerry.

Garth,

The NYT has increased circulation and revenues only by trying to sell more subscriptions outside of its home area.

"Falling home-market circulation. Circulation has fallen 16% in the NYT’s home market in this decade, from 665,000 to 556,000, but you can’t find the numbers in the Company’s 10K. Rather, you have to perform some arithmetic gymnastics on old and new 10K’s to uncover these figures about its poor performance in its 31-county home market. The Times has seen its comparable circulation decline by 27% since 1993 (the first year that such figures were available online), when it had a circulation of 758,000. Its current 556,000 circulation places it a dismal number three in its home market behind the Daily News (689,000) and the NY Post (663,000)."

--Rich