Close open tourney

I am writing this letter in regard to the recent “open tournament” format proposed by the powers that be in local high school sports. Furthermore, to call it the “competitive model” is a misnomer.

This new proposal could eliminate some of these rivalries in the classes and create some severe mismatches in competition. Rival teams maa chance of drawing each other. Also, the level of competition would be decreased.

From your article on Sept. 28, some of the “commonly heard pros” of the situation were: more schools would have a chance to participate; there would be less pressure on a coach to win during the regular season; and the tournament would create easier scheduling.

As a local sports fan it is hard to consider these positive attributes. First, simply expanding the number of teams that make the postseason to create more opportunity sets up a potentially damaging situation. Teams would ultimately lower their goals, and be held to less of a standard as they don’t have to win as many games.

Teams currently establish their goals to make one of the top eight positions. They then scratch, claw, and dig to make it, in many cases waiting until the last day of the season to find out how they will fare. The lessons learned by this type of competition are far more important than those that would be learned by arbitrarily putting teams in a mediocre tournament.

Furthermore, the idea of decreasing the pressure on coaches to win during the regular season is absurd. The coaches are not coaching at a nationally ranked college where they need to answer to boosters and alumni.

Coaches should be prepared to face pressure as they lead their teams through the season. However, to arrange the entire playoff scheme based on coaching pressure is wrong.

Finally, scheduling considerations made easier? That is borderline ridiculous. How many times have we read or heard about someone driving across the state to come to a game or spending a week in Bangor to take in the flavor and excitement “their team” has created in the playoffs. Scheduling has worked itself out in the past and will continue to do so.

To conclude, the current format is celebrated throughout the state. To change it would take away from the lessons learned from being held to high standards, and by having to fight for everything you get. After all, isn’t that what high school athletics, and athletic competition is designed to promote?

High school athletics teach kids to be ready for their future where they will experience a huge amount of pressure, and be held to an even greater sense of responsibility. With that in mind, the “competitive model” is definitely misnamed. How about the `compromised model” – as the lessons learned by the kids, the same ones they will use for the rest of their life are exactly that – compromised. Dan O’Connell

Bangor

Don’t exclude women

As I looked at the picture of Kevin McHale and John Thompson, and read the headline above it (BDN, Oct. 2), I asked myself, “Who is that woman in the middle, one of their wives?”

I was appalled to find that she is Billie Moore, who was also being inducted into the Basketball Hall of Fame! The article goes on to extol McHale and Thompson, who I agree contributed greatly to the game.

It does not once mention Ms. Moore’s accomplishments, which also must be considerable, by virtue of the fact that she is being inducted as well. I felt this was a real slap in the face to women who play and otherwise enjoy the game.

The picture itself is also exclusionary, although I am sure those two fine gentlemen didn’t intend it to be. The U.S. women’s World Cup soccer championship did a great deal to bolster young girls dreams of being rewarded for their hard work. You printed an article that greatly diminishes those dreams. Marcia LaPlante

Bangor