Ted=Steadfast
Prior to signing his papers, his view matures. That’s all I meant. He digs his heels in, in a positive way.
Rebecca deals with her heartache by picking up on the waiter. Being humiliated has nothing to do with her domain, since that’s dictated by how she solves problems. Plus, isn’t being know as “old” Rebecca a status thing?
I think Tartt is an OS player in Mind.
I tried something different. Think only of the Consequence, Cost & Dividend and tell me what you get.
Hmmm … I think I might be biased to my own view at this point. I was already looping back to either an OS Concern of Learning and a Consequence of Conceiving or vice versa. Keeping Failure/Good (maybe that’s not right, not sure). Using a subjective premise of Potential, filled in with random illustrations I get:
Virtuous are those who keep focusing on having great potential for a group even if it means being inspired by someone.
That doesn’t sound exactly right – but I feel like it’s close-ish.
Maybe better has the OS in Psychology and makes the story a Success – something like:
Keep moving toward seeing potential and you can inspire a group.
Consequence of Learning: Everyone would suffer the consequences of being taught a lesson.
Cost of the Present: The characters become better people, but for the moment they suffer relegation
Dividend of the Conscious: Everyone becomes more conscious of how they are hurting each other and themselves.
Not sure if this anything close to what you were seeing 
I think it’s a failure because the Antagonist gets what she wants: relegation.
That said, do you think everyone suffers the consequences of being taught a lesson?
Hiya! Thanks!
Ted actually explicitly tells the Trent Crim (reporter guy) that he’s not concerned with winning or losing.
Yeah, definitely. His view of what “a successful team” is differs from everyone else’s.
I’m not an expert in Dramatica, but isn’t story goal an offshoot of OS, rather than MC? If I think about all the side characters (the people at the bar, the random people who call Ted names in the street, the teammates we barely get to know), I feel like they’re all invested in how the football team is doing, so I lean towards that for OS.
Something potentially tricky – I think this is one of those stories where a Steadfast MC “teaches” and the IC perspective is represented by multiple characters who change. So it may be hard to separate various IC scenes from the OS.
I absolutely agree.
As for the current discussion re: failure/success, I saw Jamie’s pass as an indicator of ‘good’, rather than ‘success’.
To me, Ted is so very steadfast. Rebecca is the primary change IC, with Jaimie being an important secondary change IC.
Perhaps Roy and Keelie have their own mini-story?
Yes, though I’m going to hold off on what Jaimie’s role is just yet.
I was thinking this too. It’s hard not to see their relationship developing. Plus him>mind (he’s a prick), her>situation (ex-girlfriend). But I couldn’t tease out an MC just yet (him??).
Interestlingly, she is also the one who pushes Rebecca over the hump, so maybe her own sunny outlook is more like support for the coach?
Yes. MC should have nothing to do with it.
Rebecca, as antagonist, wants the team relegated and so it would seem that the Protagonist wants them “not relegated”. Who is doing this?
Unless, it’s that the antagonist wants them “ruined” and the new coach wants them “to play as a team”, and what everyone else wants is pride in their team.
…
Going back to my approach about Cost Consequence and Dividend, this is what I see:
Consequence: The Future – by not playing as a team or winning enough, they get relegated
Cost: Obtaining – the price of having an owner who is against you and a coach who doesn’t aim to win is LOSSES
Dividend: Becoming – by going through this exercise with a foreign optimistic coach, they all become better people (Tartt passes, Rebecca apologizes, Roy Kent can retire, Nathan becomes a coach, Keely becomes part of the management sort of)
I can kind of see all this for the OS. But in that case:
I guess you could make a case that the RS is between Ted and his wife, who are separated by an ocean (Universe) and that Ted’s personal Concern is the dissolution of his marriage (Becoming).
But if Ted is a Be-er, then Rebecca is in Physics/Obtaining, which I just don’t see.
I can’t figure that out, but I like an Issue of Openness between them since there is a complete lack of honesty is the beginning. I’m not sure I like an OS Issue>Closure though.
This is what I was going to say anyway.
But how is he a do-er?
Let’s tackle it this way: when he plays darts in her defense… what is that? RS Physics?
Maybe?
But this is why I was bouncing back and forth on the RS/OS Domains and thinking that my first idea (OS Physics/Learning) might be right – thinking of scene where Ted says (paraphrase) “you might think that you’re the only one who can see who he [Rupert] is, but you’re not.” In other words, you and I share an idea of who he is (Conceiving … though I guess that could also be Conceptualizing).