“I'm not sure if I would have conceded if I were in the opposing coach's situation although I certainly can't fault him for it. On the one hand, he makes an excellent point, on the other hand I don't view a MNG for 1 of 2 big guys crippling to either the player or the team. It is an inconvenient delay in that player's development and a handicap for the team as a whole but not impossible to overcome. If it had been a niggle or a stat decrease of some kind or perhaps even if I was to be missing both big guys for the next game then I might have retired the team and perhaps even have conceded the match rather than continue with a futureless team.

I generally view player casualties as either insignificant or devestating. The more I coach, the greater the grey area in between becomes. I've gotten to the point where I regard a new team as a blank slate and any obstacles they overcome seem to add character and personality to the team and players alike. I generally appreciate the challenge of playing a game without my star/key player whether it be the big guy or the no-name sacrificial lamb I use to occupy the claw/rsc big guy on the other team. Of course, all of this goes out the window in the first game and I think it's a shame. Big guys, positional players, secret weapons, etc., are just too expensive and their stunty counterparts are just not very fun to play without them.

It's disappointing for me to watch a coach concede a match for this reason. Conceding to preserve your team to fight another day is a different matter altogether. In conclusion, you're right, I agree, I've been there, and it's a shame that the teams in this league are so fragile that way. Perhaps if less coaches felt that way, there might be some fair matches between stunty teams temporarily without their power players.”