[Reginald Rutledge]

Dre,

At least for me, I could care less whether it's looked at as respected. I look at whether I am happy. If I am not happy, no needs to be a part of a league. Innovations that you try to bring to the game, most roll their eyes because their interest is just simply to play. I've got no problem in that. But by the same token, they ask you "How do you grow the hobby or the league?" not understanding that your league was created on the back of innovations like the stadium and the hype around what you did to put the league on a national platform.

I had a coach try to throw that argument of "You play alone because you can't compete with the best". Does it really matter? Am I happy? I think there is great aspects to both methods. In leagues, you do have fellowship. There's camaraderie in that but if you like the solitude of not being bothered with issues, the solitaire method works too. I just tell people, "Don't knock it til you try it".

Then he ask me to consider getting back in the league. My thoughts were were simply "I have the BMW and the Porshe so it's not like they would be doing me any favors".

There is something to be said for "Intellectual stimulation". Matching wits with others can be fun at times but the "win at all cost" attitude and the "put a notch in my holster" attitude totally makes me lose all interest. Yeah, I want to win just like anyone else but for where I want to go in the game, competitive/traditional leagues can't fathom.

When the conversation ended, the coach understood what you are asking, at least about me, "Did I really need a league or other guys to do what I was doing?" I had always told them, "I just wanted them to experience what I knew I could experience anytime".

I will take the Solitaire play ANYDAY but if I could get the kind of guys I like to be a part of a traditional league, I would always be open to that as well.

Reg